PRICE TWO SHILLINGS AND SIXPENCE.

Ts

MAECK-LIST OF THE SLUGS.

BY

wee COCKERELL, F:2.55: FES.

tas

PROFESSOR OF ENTOMOLOGY AND ZooLtoGy, NEw Mexico AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE, U.S.A.

: LHI

WITH Bes, a,

fee ENDIX AND. NOTES

BY

Wee iER EF. COLLINGE,

DEMONSTRATOR OF BrioLocy, Mason CoLLEGE, BIRMINGHAM, ENGLAND.
Epitor oF ‘‘ THE JoURNAL OF MALACOLOGY.”’

(Reprinted from ‘* The Conchologist,’ 1893, vol. it., pts. 7-8, pp. 168-176, and 185-232.)

Aondon :
DW IAW &. CO.

1893,

PrInTED BY MCCorQguopaLe & Co, Limitrep, LEEDs.

SS

ve

yan

CHECK-LIST OF THE SLUGS.

BY

ipa COCKE RELES EZ S09. Ss

PROFESSOR OF ENTOMOLOGY AND ZooLocy, NEw Mexico AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE, U.S.A.

WITH

APPENDIX AND NOTES

BY Div:
S10
:

Of hin..,
WEITER ES C@RICING EB Mlect:,. ~

ry} r.y ~“USk-

ti 72 SS

DEMONSTRATOR OF BroLtoGcy, Mason CoLLeEGE, BirMINGHAM, ENGLAND

Epiror or *‘ THE JOURNAL OF MALACOLOGY.”

(Reprinted from ‘* The Conchologist,’ 1893, vol. tt., Pts. 7-8, pp. 168-176, and 185-232.)

4

London :
DULAU & €O:

1893.

PRINTED BY MCCorquopaLe & Co. Limitep, LEEpSs.

e © yl
ee a fas
7 t 9
7 4
dD.
_ a
,
1
i
4
‘
*
t.
H
= Y
'
a '
*
a)t
q
»
“ ‘
Aas
. :
i
(
> va
ar -
ort ¢
= _ , >
‘ —
en
eae
- ex 7 -
: ~
7 « =
a “sa .
a |

PAC CiGrHist-Or WHE SkwGs:

isp Gy 1D, Ns (COXCKIDINIDIUIU, WAS Wal Dasher

she

Professor of Entomology and Zoology, New Mexico Agricultural College.

WITH APPENDIX AND NOTES

By WALTER E. COLLINGE,

Demonstrator of Biology, Mason College, Birminghan.

THE present list is intended to include all the names, generic,
specific, or varietal, which have been proposed for slugs. ‘The writer
is responsible for the arrangement, which is in accordance with his
present views, but it is not supposed for a moment that it is in any
degree final, and there can be no doubt that the labour of students
in the near future will show many changes to be necessary. In
many instances it is impossible to make sure of the correct location
of a slug without such study of specimens and_ bibliographical
research as are quite beyond the power of the compiler, situated as
he is away from museums and malacological libraries. Those who
have the opportunity may do good service by critically examining
the doubtful names in this list, and determining their true value.
When the validity of a species or variety is doubtful, it is best in
a check-list to give it the benefit of the doubt. ‘Too great readiness
to reduce names to synonymy may lead to blunders which are after-
wards the source of much misunderstanding. For example, on
reading Mabille’s numerous descriptions, one is impressed by the
fact that the author did not distinguish between specific and varietal
characters, and the natural tendency is to assume that none of the
so-called species are valid. Yet subsequent research has shown
that some of them are perfectly distinct. Again, when false
synonymy has been proposed, it is often followed by author after
author, when a glance at the original description by any competent

4 COCKERELL AND COLLINGE: CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS.

person would set matters right. In this way Zimax filans, Hoy,
L. squammatinus, Morelet, &c., have for years been completely
misunderstood. Another difficulty relates to the limit of species.
In England we find comparatively few species, and these for the ©
most part very distinct from one another, so that we are hardly
prepared for the numerous closely allied forms of Southern Europe
and elsewhere. /2max maximus and L. flavus, for instance, are
subgenerically distinct; and English authors having in mind such
distinctions as they present, have at various times refused to
recognise species or subspecies differing in less degree. Thus Arion
hortensts and A. fasciatus, Testacella haliotidea and T. scutulum,' and
other valid species, have been long confounded. When we examine
the maximus group of Limax, the gagates group of Amalia, the levis
group of Agriolimax, &c., the sharp distinctions between species
seem to be altogether lost. In Central Europe the subspecies or
species allied to Zzmax maximus are numerous and polymorphic, so
that, despairing of finding good lines of separation, authors have
sometimes proposed to unite them under a single name. Yet to
thus confound maximus, cinereo-niger, and geographicus, &c., tends
rather to obscure facts of great interest, and in the present list all
such forms are given the rank of subspecies, which seems best to
express their true standing. This gradation of forms, though so
annoying to the pure systematist, is to the evolutionist full of
interest, and the more carefully the units (whether species,
subspecies, or varieties) are studied, the greater is the light thrown
on the making of species. The slugs are by no means exceptional
in furnishing such evidence of evolution, and it is very instructive to
notice the way in which the difficulties of classification have been
met in different groups of organisms. The student may be referred
to the writings of Allen and Merriam on North American Rodents,
of W. H. Edwards on Argynnis, of C. B. Adams on Jamaican Land
Shells, of Bebb and Buchanan White on willows, of Baker on roses,
&c., for similar instances.

Whereas formerly slugs were described only from external
characters, the tendency now is to have little regard for any but
anatomical. Here there is undoubtedly danger of error, since it
is difficult to find out in many cases what is the stability of the
apparent anatomical distinctions. There are plenty of ‘“ anatomical
species” now on the lists which may hereafter be abolished?; and

1The difference between these slugs is constant and well marked, and they were only

confounded so long as their structure was unknown.—W. E. C
For every so-called “ anatomical species” which say hereafter be abolished we may count
a dozen of the other species which most certainly will have to be placed as synonymns.—

WE. (GC:

COCKERELL AND COLLINGE : CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS. 5

it requires some amount of faith to believe in the distinctness of
slugs which outwardly seem exactly alike.* | While the value of
differences in the genitalia is undoubted, it does not seem proper to
assume that two forms are identical because the genitalia will not
serve to distinguish them. Among moths, it is known that in some
genera the species are easily separated by genitalia alone, while in
others undoubtedly distinct species have similar genital organs.
Nothing should be more strongly insisted upon than the impossibility
of applying the same tests of specific validity throughout series of
genera; for characters that are generic in one place may not be
specific in another.

All mutations are included, which will be contrary to the wish of
some malacologists. The writer has so often expressed his views
about varieties and mutations, that it would be superfluous to discuss
the subject here ; but it is represented that a check-list should above
all things be complete, and that it is better to include everything
than cripple the work by ignoring names at one’s discretion—or
indiscretion—as it may be. All species are numbered consecutively,
and varieties and mutations are lettered. Synonyms are without
numbers or letters. Synonyms and names representing probable
synonyms are in old style antique. Thus Zimax santorinus is given
a number because it cannot be definitely referred as a synonym, but
it is printed in italics because it is probably not a valid species.
A query (?) before a species or variety does not signify that it is
doubtful, but that its place in the classification is doubtful. Fossil
species are enclosed within square brackets [ ].

LIMACID, Leach, 1520; 1. L. maximus, L.
‘Turt. 133 it parma, Brard, 1815.

} antiquorum (pars), Fér.
LIMACINA,, W. G. Binn., 1864. cinereus (pars), Miill.
LIMAX, L., 1758. cyreneus, Comp., 1837 (err.?).
Limacias, Raf., 1815. a. czernevii, Kal.
Eulimax, Mog. vulgaris, Mog.
Stabilia, Pini. fasciatus, Pic., 1840 (nec

Limacella, Brard.

Limacellus, Brard, em Turt.

Plecticolimax (err. 2).

Raz.).
i. bifasciatus, D.& M.

ii. quadrifasciatus, D.& M.

Gestroa. iii. Continuatus, D.& M.
Chromolimax. 4. fasciatus, Raz., 1780.

Opilolimax. c. maculatus, Leach, 1820, ed.

Cryptopelta (err. ?).

Subg. HEYNEMANNIA, Malm.

Macroheynemannia,
Simr., 1891.

Gray, 1852.
krynickii, Kal., 1851.
johnstoni, Mogq., 1855.

i. lilacinus, Roeb., 1884.

* It requires still more faith to believe in the distinctness of two slugs which anatomically are
identical, because the one ts a different colour than the other —W. FE. C.

to

Ww

WM.

COCKERELL

. Marmoratus, Ckll., 1885.
. punctatus, Esmark, 1886.

i. maculatus, Picard (nec
Leach).

- cellarius, D’Arg., Mogq.

. ferussaci, Mogq., 1855.

. mulleri, Mog., 1855.

- serpentinus, Moq., 1855.

- aldrovandi, Mogq., 1855.

. limbatus, Mogq., 1855.

. pallido-dorsalis, Roeb. MS.,

Huds.
obscurus, Mogq., 1855.
subunicolor, Roeb.,
descr.
i. nebulosus, D.& M.

sine

. rufescens, Mogq., 1855.

. vinosus, Baud.

. cinereus, Roeb., ex err.

. megaspidus, Blainv., 1817.

candidus, L. & P.

-, strobeli, Pini.

gestroa, Pini.
i. cornaliz, Pini.

. concolor, Pini.

. sordidus, L.&P.

. bivone, L.& P.

. fuscatus, Raz. (err. ?).

. albus, Am Stein, 1890.

. calosoma, Eis. & Stuxb.
. giganteus, Baud.

*, unicolor, Heyn.

>. hareri, Heyn.

’. tschapecki, Simr., 1886.
. pardalis, Simr.

*. bocagei, Da Silva, 1875.
. bielzi, Simr.

”. subunicolor, Simr.

. nubigenus, Bgt., 1863.

abrostolus, Bgt., 1863.

. m. punctulatus, Sordelli.
. typus, L.& P.
», parumpunctatus, Pini.

c. prade, Pini.

pinianus, Less.

. m. psarus, Bet.

subzonatus, Poll., 1886.

.m. genei, L. & P.
»msater, Raz:

albipes, Stab., 1864.
engadinensis, Heyn.

b.
G:
a.

b.

ig)
rds aes

AND COLLINGE : CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS.

montanus, Leyd.
dubius, L. & P.
fasciatus, Raz.

é. pirone, Pini.
OnE:

m. polipunctatus, Poll.,
1888.

raripunctatus, Poll.

m. millipunctatus, Poll.,
1884.

m.Canapicianus, Poll.,1885.

ocellatus, Poll.

m. cinereoniger, Wolf in
Sturm, 1805.

bilobatus, J. Ray, 1851.

cinereus, (pars.) Miill., 1776.

claravallensis, Drouet in
Mogq., 1855.

pyrenceus, Comp.

razoumouskii, Kal.

antiquorum (pars. ), Fer.

maximus, Esmark. ex err.,
1886.

. luctuosus, Mog.

atratus, Pini.
typus, L. & P.

. maurus, Held.

niger, Mog.

. ferussackii, (sic) Kal.

cinereus, Moq.
renardii, Kal.
transsylvanicus, Heyn.
ornatus, Less.

. isseli, Pini.

. strobeli (Pini?), Less.
. pavesi, Pini.

. camerani, L. & P.

. stabilei, Less.

. leucogaster, Morch.
. albipes, D.& M.

. lineatus, Dum., 1849.

nigripes, Stab., 1864.

. malacologorum, Colb.

. flavescens, Wst.

-- fasciatus, Wst.

. Cinereonebulosus, Malm.

albus, Paasch.

.m. geographicus, Ken.

dacampi, Meneg., 1854.

. menegazzii, L.& P.
. amaliz, Bett.
* punctatus, Less.

(ii.)

COCKERELL

renieri, L. & P.
atratus, Bett.
elegans, Bett.
sordellii, Bett.

. nigricans, Less.

sulphureus, Less.
calderinii, Less.

. typus, Bett.

trilineolatus, Bett.

. monolineolatus, Bett.
2 pint; 2c Pe

doriz, Pini (nec Begt.).
fuscus, Bett.

. taccanil, Pini.

gualterii, Pini.

. maculatus, Less.

s. pallescens, Less.
7, rufescens, Less.

. monocromus, L.& P.

erytus, Pini.

. village, Pini.

turatii, Pini.

. lineatus, Strob.
.m. erythrus, Bgt., 1864.
. m. subalpinus, Less.

typus, L. & P.
garocelus, L.& P.

-. simplex, Less.

veronensis, L. & P.
eporediensis, Less.

. m. fungiworus, Poll.
. m. alpinus, Fér., 1822.

m. monticola, Bttg.

. modestus, Flor., 1889 (2? 1890).
. martinianus, Bgt., 1869.

. maurelianus, Bet.

. corsicus, Moq.

typus, Mog.

. fabrei, Mogq.

sienensis, L.& P.

. doriz, Bgt., 1861.

simplex, L.& P.
lineatus, L. & P.
rubrolineatus, L. & P.

. fuscus, L. & P.

brunneus, L. & P.

. pallescens, L. & P.
>, Sanguineus, L. & P.
. isselii, Less.

. seriatus, L. & P.
PeARtHUI des cone.

AND COLLINGE :

0.

(iv.) 2.

Cp, (ee

CHECK-LIST

OF SLUGS. 7

zonatus, L. & P.
callichrous, Bgt., 1861.

. versicolor, L. & P.
-- hybridus, L. & P.
. gestri, Less.

nigrozonatus, L. & I.

. pulcher, L. & P.

. bonellii, Less.

. aterrimus, L. & P.
. flavoniger, L. & P.
. citrinus, L. & P.

olivaceus, L. & P.
ciminensis, Poll., 1890.

- perosinii, L. & P.

callichrous, Less., 1880 (nec
Bgt.)

. typus, L. & P.
. cruentus, Less.
-. formosissimus, L. & P.

monregalensis, L. & P.

. venustissimus, L. & P.
2 es

carbonarius, Bttg., 1885.
grecus, Simr.
talyschanus, Bttg.
tigris, Bttg.

. conemenosi, Bitg.

multipunctatus, Bttg.

. moravicus, Ehrenb.

. sartorinus, Letourn., 1884.
. eustricius, Bet.

. pollonerae, Sacc.

. saxiformis, Sacc. ]

. albucianensis, Sacc. }

. plioligusticus, Sacc. }

. fossilis, Sacc., 1885. ]
MALACOLIMAX, Malm, 1868.

Malinastrum, Bet.

Mikroheynemannia, Simr.,
1891.

Ambigolimax, Poll., 1887.

31. L. tenellus, Nilss.

cereus, Held.
sylvaticus, D. & M.

cinctus, Heyn., 1861 (nee
Miill.)
serotinus, Sch., 1848.
. Or Usels.

-. xanthius, Bet.

clypeofasciatus, D. & M.
clypeoconcolor, |). & M.

> Immaculatus, D. & M.

33:
34.
35:
36.
37:

38.

| paaiel aig Ge! Gi Soe | Ka =

COCKERELL AND COLLINGE : CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS.

. subsaxanus, Bet.

. cephalonicus, Simr.
. raymondianus, Bgt.
. brondelianus, Bgt.
. nyctelius, bgt.

. valentianus, Fer.

. fulvus, Norm., 1852.

Sect. MELITOLIMAX, Poll.

py Le
VITRINOIDES, Simr., 1891.
E
LEHMANNIA, Heyn., 13863.

Subg.
40.

Subg.

Al.

melitensis, L. & P.
armeniacus, Simr.

marginatus, Miill., 1774.

? sylvestris, Scop., 1772.

filans, Hoy, 1789.
arboreus, F. & H., ex err.
sylvaticus, Goldf., 1856.
scandens, Norm., 1852.
scopulorum, Fb., 1779.
glaucus, Clk., 1853.

? salicium, Bouill., 1836, sine

descr.
limbatus, Held., 1837.
arborum, Bouch., 1838.
livonicus, Schr., 1848.

. typus, L.& P.
. nemorosus, Baud.

altilis, Fisch.

*. roseus, Brceck., 1870.
. coloratus, Broeck, 1870.
». helveticus, Bgt., 1862.

reticulatus, D.& M., 1852.

. diane, Kim.

», heynemanni, Bielz.

. bettonii, Sord.

. alpestris, L.& P., 1882.

. pallens, L.& P., 1882.

, rupicola, L.& P., 1882.

. maculatus, Roeb.

». decipiens, Ckll., 1886.

2, albomaculatus, Kregl., sine

descr.

. submaculatus, Ckll., 1890.
. Carpaticus, Haz., 1885.

. tigrinus, Weinl.

. flavus, Weinl., 1876.

. obscurus, Esmark., 1886.
iio, {

43. L.

m. mongianensis, Paul.
eubalius, Bgt., 1864.

Sect. LIMACUS, Lehm., 1864.

Plepticolimax, Malm., 1868.
Simrothia.

44. L. flavus, L.

45.
Subg.

46.

E

b

ce

5 Ie
Anse |e
49. L
op ve
Rita ZZ
ys SL
Beh Lb
54. L
bd.

55. L
Hoy 6
57. £
L

variegatus, Drp., 1801.
ehrenbergi, Bet.

? unguiculus, Brard, 1815.

LI

e

bicolor, Selenka.

chilensis, Gay, 1854.
megalodontes, Q.& G., 1824.
concavus, Turt., ex err.

. umbrosus, Phil., 1844.

breckworthianus, Lehm.

. antiquorum, Sby.
. maculatus, Kal., 18309.
: Campanyoni, Begt., 1863.

companoyi (Bgt.), Loc.

. boeticus, Mab.

. deshayesi, Bgt.

. flavescens, Fér., Mogq.
. rufescens, Mog.

. nigromaculatus, CkIl.,

1893.
maculatus, Mogq., 1856. (nec
Kal, ).

. tigrinus, Pini.

. colubrinus, Pini.
. virescens, Mog.

. suffusus, Roeb.

. griseus, Roeb.

. Zineolatus, Cilge.

r, canariensis, D’Orb.

antiguorum, Ledm., 1819.

. calendymus, Bgt.
f. ecarinatus, Bttg., 1881.
MACOPSIS, Simr., 1889.
Frauenfeldia, Hazay (nec.
Egg.)

. ccerulans, Bielz.
. incomptus, Kim.

interruptus, Kim., 1884.

. c. schwabi, Frauenf.
. montenegrinus, Bttg.
. creticus, Simr.

LIMAX, Subg. incert.

. versicolor, Haz., 1885.
. crispatus, Baud., 1871.
. btelziz, Seib., 1873.

cinereo-tmmaculatus, Olafs.

. gyratus, Wst.

bergensis, Wst.

. niger, Malz.

. taygetes, Desh.

. pheniciacus, Bet.
. keyserlinge?, Mts.

COCKERELL AND COLLINGE: C

. lineolatus, Risso.

1. collinus, Norm., 1852.

. memmnon, Theob., sine descr.,

1864.

. bengalensis, Theob., sine descr.

. equinoctialis, D’Orb.

. valdivianus, Phil.

. cobanensis, Cr. & F., 1872.

. lingulatus, Sandb.]

. modioliformis, Sandb. }

[68. L. latus, Edw. ]

LYTOPELTE, Bttg., 1886.
‘ Platytoxon, Simr., 1886.

69. L. maculatus, Koch & Heyn.,

1874.

70. L. longicollis, Bttg.
EUMILAX, Bttg., 1881.

71. E. brandti, Mts., 1880.

6. subunicolor, Ckll., 1893.
Sect. GIGANTOMILAX, Bttg., 1883.
72. E. lederi, Bttg., 1883.
Sect. PARALIMAX, Bttg., 1883.
73. E. varius, Bttg., 1884.
74. E. multirugatus,Bttg., 1888.
75. E. intermittens, Bttg.
76. E. reibischi, Simr., 1891.
277. E. armeniacus, Simr., 1886.

AMALIA, Mog., 1855.

? Aspidoporus, Fitz., 1833.
Milax, Gray, 1855.

Sect. LALLEMANTIA, Mab., 1868.
Clytropelta, Heyn., 1867.
Palizzolia, Bgt., 1876.
Pirainea, L. & P.

78. A. gagates, Drap., 1801.
carinata, D’Orb.
polyptyela, Bet.
drymonius, Bet.

carinata, Gray, 1855, ex err.
cinerea, Ledm.

atrata, Mab., 1868.

. typus, L. & P.

. typica, Poll., 189r.

olivacea, Mogq.

bedriage, L.& P.

benoiti, L. & P.

atlantica, Ckll., 1891.

. maderensis, CkIl.

raymondiana, Simr., ex err.,
1891.
h. ascensionis, Less.
i. helene, Ckll.

a
= Oo
NNN

BY)
oy’
nm

ie (me [peas lsi issn

MS Ros &

80.
81.

HECK-LIST OF SLUGS. 9

ii. tristensis, CkIl.
2. pallidissima, Poll., 1891.
. hewstoni, Cooper.
i. plumbea, CkIl.
. A. g. plumbea, Mog.
rava, Wllms.
A. g. ichnuse, L. & P., 1882.
A. g. mediterranea, CkIl.
. similis, CkIl.
. A. g. insularis, L.& P., 1882.
? scaptobia, Bgt., 1861.

J

>

>

a. typica, Poll., 1891.
4. algerica, Poll., 1891.
83. A. g. doderleini, L.& P., 1882.
84. A. g. sicula, L.& P., 1882.
? monterosati, Bet.
85. A. g. cabiliana, Poll., 1891.
86. A. g. eremiophila, Bgt., 1861.
87. A. g¢. nigricans, Schultz in Phil.
88. A. g. maura, Q.&G.
pectinata, Selenka, 1865.
olivacea, Gld.
89. A. g. nigricolus, Tate, 1881.

go.
Ol.

92.
93-

294

295.

Sect.

96

97-

nigricollus, Tate em Tryon
. g. tasmanica, Tate, 1881.
. g- antipodarum. Gray.
6. pallida, Ckll., 1891.
. emarginata, Hutt.
A. g. fuliginosa, Gld.
A. 9. sandwichiensis, Eyd.
. A. capensis, Krauss, 1848.
kraussii, Ads.
A. mouensis, Gass.
TANDONIA, L.& P.
. A. marginata, Drap.
marginalis, Schnur.
? cristata, Leibl., 1829, sine
descr.
a, typus, L. & P.
é. rustica, Mill.
affinis, Mill.
c. pyrrichus, Mab., 1870.
da. rufula, Mog.
A. sowerbii, Fér., 1823.
carinata, Leach, 1820, ed.
Gray, 1852.
argillacea, Gass., 1856.
unguicula, Turt., ex err.
4, rustica, Roeb., ex err.
c. nigrescens, Roeb. MS.,
CkIll., 1886.
d. fuscocarinata, Ckll., 1886.

>>

Ns

Io

098.

99.
100.
IOI.
102.
103.
104.
105.

106.

107.

Ga

I.

A.

DDPDDL

b.
A

A
b.

COCKERELL AND COLLINGE : CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS.

bicolor, Ckll.

pallida, B. Mus. MS., Ckll.
(sine descr.)

s. carinata, Risso, 1826.

fulva, Paul.

. typus, L.& P.

. pallidissima, L.& P.
- insolita, L.& P.

, oretea, L.& P.

casertana, L.& P.

4. s. etchwaldi, Kal.

. 5. pacomet, Flor., 1889 (? 1890).
s. tyrrena, L.& P., 1882.

s. etrusca, Issel., 1868.
s. hessei, Bttg.

s. kobelti, Hesse, 1882.
. gracilis, Leyd., 1876.
marginata, Kim.

gagates, Meneg.
cibienensis, Kim.
budapestensis, Haz., 1881.
. cristata, Kal., 1851.

? pallidula, Ckll.

. reuleauxi, Cless., 1887.
punctata, Cless., 1887.

108. A. barypus, Bet.
Sect. SUBAMALIA, Poll.

109.
110.
seit i
112.

PT.
[114.
[115.

[ 116.

[117

A.
A
A.
A
A
A.
A

Ss.
Ss.

Malinastrum, Simr., ex err.
hellenica, Simr., 1886.
. cretica, Simr., 1884.
kaleniczenkoi, Cless.
. robici, Simr., 1884.
Amalia, sect. incert.

. imax, Fitz., 1833.
eocenica, Sacc. |

. gracilior, Sandb. }
[SANSANIA, Bgt.
larteti, Dupuy, 1850. ]
crassitesta, Reuss. }

MESOLIMAX, Poll., 1888.

118. M. brauni, Poll., 1888.

119. M. reibischi, Simr., 1891.
AGRIOLIMAX, Morch in Malm.,

1868.

Limacellus, ‘‘Fér., 1821,”
Kreg.

Krynickia, (pars) Kal., 1839.

Krynickillus, (pars) Kal.,
1851.

Megapelta, Morch, 1857.
Megaspis, Kryn. MS., Gray.

120. A.

vw

SSN em Roa

Malino, Gray, 1855.

? Deroceras, Raf., 1820.

Hydrolimax, Malm., 1868.

agrestis, L.

hyalinus, L.

obliquus, Brard, 1815.

tunicatus, Gould, 1841.

niciensis, Bgt. MS., Nev.,
1880.

canariensis, E. A. Sm., ex
err.

. typus, L.& P.

albidus, Pini.

. flaviclypeus, D.& M., 1857.

filans, Gray ex Leach err.

. auratus, Less.

. tristis, Mog.

. lilacinus, Mogq.

. succineus, ‘‘ Miill.,” Wst.
. typicus, Ckll. ex Roeb. err.

niger, Morel.

. albidus, Pic.
. albus, Ckll.

albidus, Roeb., ex err.

. rufescens, L.& P.

. rufescens, D.& M.

. griseus, CkIl., 1889.
. cineraceus, Moq.

melanocephalus, Moq.

. xanthosoma, Fisch.
. ornatus, Paul (nec Moq.)

rufescens, Pini.

ry. bilobatus, Feér.
s. reticulatus, Miill.

legrandi, Tate, 1881.

. veranyanus, Begt., 1861.

. florentinus, L. & P.

. submaculatus, Wllms.

. obscurus, Moq.

. punctatus, Picard.

. nigricans, Wst.

. nigrescens, J. Colb.

. varians, Wst.

. sylvaticus, Moq. (nec Drap.)
’. etruscus, Issel.

. weinlandt, Heyn.

. molestus, Hutton.

. albitentaculatus, D.& M.
. atritentaculatus, D. & M.
. fasciatus, D. & M.

. nemorosus, Mab., 1870.

COCKERELL

j’. saxorum, Baud., 1862.

121. A. a. panormitanus, L. & P.,
1882.
? virescens, Schultz in Phil.
122. A. varians, A. Ad.
123. A. setchuanensis, Heude, 1885.
124. A. minutus, Kryn. MS., Kal.,
1851.
125. A. pallidus, Schr.
norvegicus, Wst.
agrestis, Lindstr., ex err.
filans, Sord., ex err.
6. immaculatus, L. & P.
c. fusconotatus, L. & P.
126. A. melanocephalus, Kal.,1839.
127. A. dymezeviczii, Kal., 1839.
128. A. immaculatus, Simr., 1891.
129. A. sardus, Simr., 1886.
130. A. lombricoides, Morel.
131. A. simrothi, Ckll.
drymonius, Simr., ex. err.
132. A. subagrestis, Simr., 1891.
133. A. agresticulus, Simr., 1891.
134. A. maltzani, Simr., 1884.
ponsonbyi, Hesse, 1885.
135. A. phoeniciacus, Bgt., 1853.
136. A. berytensis, Bgt., 1853.
137. A. fedtschenkoni, Koch &
Heyn., 1874.
138. A. thersites, Heyn. & Koch,
1886.
139. A. bottgeri, Simr.
140. A. oertzeni, Simr.
141. A. carrane, Poll., 1891.
142. A. pollonere, Simr., 1889.
143. A. mazjoricensis, Heyn.
144. A. pycnoblennius, Bgt., 1861.
145. 4. zéberus, Eichw.
146. A. altaicus, Simr., 1886.
147. <. andrios, Simr. (sine descr. ).
148. 4. hanryanus, Flor., 1889
(2 1890).
149. 4. cyrntacus, Mab.
150. A. pallens, Simr. (sine descr.).
151. A. jeckelit, Heyn.
152. A. nitidus, Simr.
153. A. levis, Miill., 1774.

brunneus, Drp., 1801.

AND COLLINGE :

154.
155.

156.
157.
158.
159.
160.
161.

162.
163.

164.
165.
166.

CHECK-LIST

5 Ae

Pa AY-
A.

OF SLUGS.

arenarius, Gass., 1867.
parvulus, Norm., 1852.

. mucronatus, Wst.
-, maculatus, Ckll.

intentaculatus, Baud.
Z. mentonicus, Nev., 1880.

. 2. lacustris, Bonelliin L. & P.,

1882.

. L. heydeni, Heyn., 1863.

1. bourguignati, Mab., 1870.
I. rarotonganus, Heyn.

|. braziliensis, Semper.

|. andecolus, D’Orb.

. berendti, S. & Pf.

. hemphilli, W. G. Binn.

pictus, Ckll. in W. G. Binn.

. 2. semitectus, Morch, 1857.

. 2. guatemalensis, Cr. & Fisch.,

1870.

. 4. americanus, Tate, 1869.
. |. stenurus, Streb., 1880.
. |. campestris, Binn., 1841.

tunicatus, Gray ex err., 1855.
gracilis, Raf.

. occidentalis, Cooper.
. hyperboreus, Wst.
. montanus, Ing.

castaneus, Ing.
ingersolli, W. G. Binn.

. typicus, Ckll.

li. intermedius, Ckll.
ili. tristis, Ckll.

, ZOnatipes, CkIl.

. nigrescens, CkIl.

. 2. argentinus, Strob.

meridionalis, | Sring.
1. sanwichiensis, ‘‘Soul.,”
Semper.
|. jalapensis, Str. & Pfr.
1, queenslandicus, Hedley,

1888.

[PACHYMILAX, Bttg.].

[171. P. sandbergeri, Bttg., 1884. ]
MABILLIA, Bet., 1872.
MEGASPIS, Bet. (nec. Gray).

(No species named).

DELEVIELEUSTA, Hag., 1885.

172. LD. bourguignati, Hag., 1885.
173. D. detournenxt, Hag., 1885.
174. D. prisca, Hag., 1885.

175. D. eximia, Hag., 1885.

176. D. elonvata, Hag., 1885.

FAUDELTA, Hag., 1885.

177. F. letourneuxt, Hag., 1885.

CHANCELTA, Hag., 1885.

178. C. letourneuxt, Hag., 1885.

PARMACELLINA,, CkIlL., 1891.

PARMACELLA, Cuv., 1804.

Drusia, Gray, 1855.

Parmacellina, Sandb.

Cryptella, Webb & Berth,
1833.

Candaharia, G.-Aust.

179. P. olivieri, Cuv., 1805.
mesopotamie, Oken, 1816.
ambigua, Fér., 1820, teste

Crosse.
é. ibera, Eichw., 1841.
P. alexandrina, Ehr., 1831.

181. P. dorsalis, Mouss., 1874.

P. deshayesii, Moq.
algerica, Desh.

6. major, Wst.-

. valenciennii, W. & Van B.

moquini, Bgt., 1859.

a. typica, Ckll., 1887.
é. punctulata, Ckll., 1887.

184. P. v. maculata, Ckll., 1887.
valenciennesi, Hesse, 1885.

b. olivacea, Ckll., 1887.

185. P. gervaisi, Moq., 1850.

P. calyculata, Sowb.
ambigua, d’Orb.
canariensis, W. & Berth.

6. auriculata, Mouss.
187. P. callosa, Mouss.
188. P. rutellum, Hutton, 1849.
[189. P. sayni, Font. ]
[190. P. unguiformis, Gerv.]
[1o1. P. vitrineeformis, Sandb. |
[192. P. succini, Klebs. ]
{193. P. paladilhiana, Pench. }

TRIGONOCHLAMINA,, CkIl.,
1891.

TRIGONOCHLAMYS, Bttg.

194. T. imitatrix, Bttg.

195. 1. retowski, Bttg.

—_ 12 COCKERELL AND COLLINGE: CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS.

196. T. semiplumbeus, Bttg., 1886.

PSEUDOMILAX, Bttg.

197. P. lederi, Bttg.

198. P. bicolor, Bttg.

199. P. velitaris, V. Mts., 1880.

SELENOCHLAMYS, Bttg.

200. S. pallida, Bttg.

PLUTONIINA, Ckll.

PLUTONIA, Stab.

Viquesnelia, Morel. ex err.

2o1. P. atlantica, Morel. & Drouet.

é. simrothi, Ckll.

CYSTOPELTINA,, CkIl., 1891.

CYSTOPELTA, Tate, 1881.

202. C. petterdi, Tate, 1881.

HELICARIONINA,, G.-Aust.

VELIFERA, W. G. Binn.

203. V. gabbi, W. G. Binn.

ASPIDELUS, Morel., 1883.

204. A. chaperi, Morel., 1883.

ESTRIA, Poirier, 1837.

205. E. allaudi, Poirier, 1887.

DAMAYANTIA, Issel.

206. D. dilecta, Issel.

MARIAELLA, Gray.
Clypidiella, Val. MS., teste

Gray.
Tennentia.
Dekhania, G.-A.
Vega, Wst.

207. M. dussumieri,

Gray.

208. M. d. thwaitesii, Humb.

209. M. d. beddomei, G.-A.

6. nigra, G.-A.
c. maculosa, G.-A.

210. M. infumata, Fer.

211. MW. nordenskioldi, Wst.

212. M. philippinensis, Semp.

IBYCUS, Heyn.

213. I. gracilis, Gray, 1855.
fissidens, Heyn.
sikkimensis, G.-A., 1888.

6, mainwaringi, Nev. Ms,

G.-A.

214. L. problematicus, Fer.

215. |. cacharicus, G.-A., 1888.

216. |. pupillaris, Humb.
punctatus, Hass.

6. punctata, V. Mts.
c. marmorata, V. Mts.

Val. MS.,

COCKERELL AND COLLINGE : CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS.

d. vittata, V. Mts.
217. |. siamensis, Ckll.
218. |. beccaria, Issel, 1874.

6. doriz, Issel, 1874.
Sect. CRYPTIBYEI, Ckll., 189.
219. |. magnificus, Nev. & G.-A.
Subg. PSEUDAUSTENIA, CkIl., 18or.
220. I. ater, G.-A.

6. aterrimus, G.-A.

c. Cinerus, G.-A.

d. castaneus, G.-A.
2221. I. auriformis, BIf., 1866.
PARMACOCHLEA, E. A. Sm.
222. P. fischeri, E. A. Sm.
AFRICARION, G..-A.
223. A. palleus, ‘‘ Morel.,” G.-A.
224. A. lymphaseus, Morel.
AUSTENIA, Nev., 1878, sine descr.,

G.-A., 1883, descr.
? Laconia, Gray.

225. A. gigas, Bs.
226. A. hyalea, Bock.
227. A. peguensis, Theob.

228. A. unguicula, Morel.

229. A. aperta, Beck. MS., Pfr., 1848.
230. A. verrucosa, G.-A.

231. A. erratica, G.-A., 1888.

232. A. khyoungensis, G.-A., 1888.
2233. A. ferwssact, Gray.

?234. A. venusta, Theob.

235. A. fez, Canefri, 1890.

2236. A. salius, Bens.

6. ovata, G.-A.
237. A. papillaspira, G.-A.
?238. A. globosa, G.-A.
?239. A. panchetensis, G.-A.
?240. A. bensoni, Pfr.
b. sylhetensis, G.-A.
A. monticola, Bens.
?242. A. stoliczkanus, Nev.
?243. A. serahanensis, G.-A.
?244. A. theobaldi, G.-A.
Sect. EUAUSTENIZA, Ckll., 180r.
245. A. scutella, Bs.
Sect. CRYPTAUSTENIAZA, Ckll., 189r.
246. A. planospira, Bs., 1859.
succinea, Keeve.
GIRASIA, Gray, 1855.
Hoplites, Theob., sine descr.
1864.
Parmarion, Fischer, 1856.
Rigasia, Gray.

?241.

247. G. extranea, Feér.
theobaldi, G.-A.
a. hookeri, Gray.
6. brunnea, G.-A.
c. shillongensis, G.-A.
d. maculosa, G.-A.
248. G. crocea, G.-A., 1872.
6. depressa, CkIl., 1891.
249. G. burtii, G.-A.
? 4 radha, G.-A.
250. G. nagaensis, G.-A.
251. G. cinerea, G.-A.
252. G. dalhousia, G.-A.
253. G. pankabariensis, G -A.,
1888.
254. G. serahanensis, G.A., 1888.
255. G. butleri, G.-A.
minor, G.-A.
? resplendens, Nev.
2256. G. solida, G.-A.
257. G. affinis, CkIl., Sor.
258. G. setchuanensis, Heude, 1885.
259. G. kersteini, V. Mts.
260. G. teniata, Hass.
261. G. reticulata, Hass.
262. G. lutea, Mouss. in V. Mts.
263. G. plana, Mouss. in V. Mts.
PARMELLA, H. Ad.
264. P. planata, H. Ad.
265. P. etheridgei, Brazier.
ELISOLIMAX, Ckll.
Elisa, Heyn., preocc.
206. E. longicauda, Fisch., 1882.
6. maculata, Fisch.
bella, Heyn, 1883.
c. permaculata, CkIl, 1891.
UROCYCLUS, Gray, 1864.

267. U. kirkii, Gray.

268. U. flavescens, Kef., 1866.

269. U. pallescens, CkIl., 1891.

270. U. comarensis, Fisch.

271. U. vittatus, Fisch.

272. U. buchholzi, V. Mts.

273. U. fasciatus, V. Mts., 1879.
flavescens, Gibbons ex err.

6. pallidus, Gibbons.

74. U. acuminatus, Poirier, 1887.

275. U. kraussianus, Heyn, 1862.

76. U. madagascariensis, Poirier,

1887.
DEN DROLIMAX, Dohrn.
277. D. heynemanni, Dohr.

14 COCKERELL AND COLLINGE :

278. D. graeffei, Simr., 1890.
TRICHOTOXON, Simr., 1888.
279. T. heynemanni, Simr., 1890.
280. T. martensi, Heyn.

ATOXON, Simr., 1890.

281. A. hildebranti, Simr., 1890.

282. A. schulzei, Simr., 1890.

BUETTNERIA, Simr., 1890.

283. B. leuckarti, Simr., 1890.

PHANCROPORUS, Simr., 1888.

284. P. reinhardtii, Simr., 1890.

Subf. OTOCONCHINA,, Ckll.

OTOCONCHA, Hutton.

285. O. dimidiata, Pfr., 1851.

286. O. zebra, Leguill., 1842.

TESTACELLIDA, Gray,

1833.

TESTACELLA, Cuv., 1800.
Testacellus, F.-Big., 1802.
Helicolimax, Fér.

287. T. maugei, Fer., 1819.

haliotidea (pars), Lam., ex
err., 1801.

burdigalensis, Gass. in Grat.,
1855.

vagans, Hutton.

oceanica, Grat., 1855.

canariensis, Grat., 1855.

é. viridans, Morel.

. T. m. deshayesi, Mich., 1855.

altz-ripoe, Grat. |.

289. T. catalonica, Poll., 1888.

290. T. scutulum, Sby., 1823.
anglica, Grat.
scutata, Less., 1838.

a. typica, Ckll.
b. pallida, CkIl.
c. aurea, Ckll.
d. medii-templi, Tapping.
291. T. s. pecchiolii, Bgt.
292. T. s. bisulcata. Risso, 1826.
galloprovinciales, Grat.,
1855.
é. major, Wst.

293. 7. albida, Ckll., 1885.

294. T. episcia, Bgt., 1861.
bisultata (pars), Risso, 1826.

295. T. campanyonii, Dup., 1847.
campanyoi, Dup. em. P.

Massot, 1870.
canigonensis, Grat., 1855.

CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS.
296. T. pascali, Bgt., Massot, 1870.
297. T. bourguignati, Massot, 1870.
298. T. brondeli, Bet.
299. T. subtrigona, Poll., 1888.
300. T. haliotidea, Drp., 1801.
europcea, Roissy in Buffon,
1805.
haliotides, Cantr., 1840.
gallice, Oken, 1815.
subterranea, Laf., 1806.
. major, Pfr.
albinos, Mog.

>

ce

? albina, Pfr.

d. elongata, Pfr.

é. Ovalis, Mogq.

jf. trigona, Gass. & Fisch.

g. flavescens, Mog.

h. dilatata, Poll., 1889.
301. T. h. barcinonensis, Poll.,

1888.
302. T. h. dubia, Poll., 1888.
303. T. fischeriana Bet.
major, Gass. & Fisch.
304. T. gestroi, Issl.
305. T. williamsiana, Nevill.
306. 7. servainz, Massot, 1870.
307. 7. drymonia, Bgt., 1861.
haliotidea, Costa ex err. 1840.

308. 7. deccariz, Issel.
309. 7. stabzlez, Pini.
310. 7. pelett?, Massot., 1872.
[311. T. asinina, Serres. ]
312. T. bruntoniana, Serres.]
[313. T. lartetii, Dup., 1850. ]
[314. T. nouleti, Bgt., 1881.]
[315. T.pedemontana, Sacco, 1885.|
[316. T. zelli, Klein. ]
2317. 7. adtkrangensts, G.-A.

2318. 7. aurigaster, Layard.
DAUDEBARDIA, Htm. in Sturm.
1821.
Helicolimax, Gray.
Subg. LIBANIA, Bet., 1867.
Moussonia, Bet., 1866 (nec.
Semp., 1865).
Pseudolibania, Stef.
Sieversia, Rossm.
Rufina, Cless.
Eudaudebardia, Wst.
319. D. rufa, Drp., 1805.
é. cycladum, V. Mts., 1880.
c. viridis, Reul., 1889.

COCKERELL AND COLLINGE : CHECK-LIST OF

320. D. r. heldii, Cless., 1872.
nivalis, Cless. ex err.
321. D. r. nivalis, Benoit.
322. D. r. monticola, Benoit.
323. D. hassiaca, Cless., 1863.
324. D. letourneuxi, Bet.
325. D. nubigena, Bet.
326. D. grandis, Benout.
327. D. haliciensis, Wst., 1881.
328. D. isseliana, Nevill.
329. D. brevipes, Drp., 1805.
longipes, Zgl.
d. maravignee, Pirajno, 1840.
330. D. atlantica, Bet.
331. D. platystoma, Let., 1870.
332. D. charopia, Let., 1870.
333. L. elata, Miihlf., sine descr.
334. D. lederi, Bttg., 1881.
b. albinos, Wst. sine descr. 1886.
335. D. sicula, Bivona, 1839.
rufa, Benoit, ex err.
elongata, Calcara.
330, heydeni, Bttg., 1879.
pawlenkoi, Bttg., 1880.
337- sieversi, Bttg., 1880.
338. D. fischeri, Bgt., 1864.

sicula, Fisch., ex err. 1556.
. boettgeri, Cless.
. tarentina, De Stef, 1879.
. calophana, Wst., 1881.
. langi, Pfr., 1846.
transsilvanica, Blz., 1859.
bielzi, Parr.
343. D. saulcyi, Bgt.
berytensis, Grat.
syriaca, Roth.
344. D. s. gaillardoti, Bet.
Subg. ISSELIA, Bet.
345. D. sardoa, Issel.
SCHIZOGLOSSA, Hedley, 1893.

o
ie)
Ne)
0000 0D O

346. S. novoseelandica, Pfr., 1862.

(1861 ?)

CHLAMYDEPHORUS, W. G.

Binn., 1879.
Apera, Heyn.

347. C. gibbonsi, W. G. Binn., 1879.
348. C. burnupi, E. A. Smith, i892.

? PHOSPHORAX, Webb & Berth.
349. LP. noctilucus, D’Orb., in Fér.
PLECTROPHORUS, Fér., 18109.
350. P. orbigniz, Fér.

351. LP. costatus, Bosc.

SLUGS. [

mn

2352. P. corninus, Bosc.
ARIONIDA, Gray.
OOPELTINA,, Ckll., 1891.
OOPELTA, Morch in Heyn., 1867.
353. O. nigropunctata, Morch in
Heyn.
2354. O. aterrimia, Gray, 1855.
BINNEYINA,, Ckll., Sor.
BINNEYA, J. G. Cooper, 1863.
Xanthonyx, Cr. &
1867.

Fisch.,

355. B. notabilis, J. G. Coop.
356. B. sumichrasti, Brot., 1867.
357. B. salleana, Pfr., 1856.

358. B. cordovana, I’fr., 1859.
359. B. chiapensis, Pfr.

HEMPHILLIA, Bld. & Binn., 1872.
360. H. glandulosa, Bld. & Binn.
CRYPTOSTRACON, W.G. Binn.,
1879.
361. C. gabbi, W. G. Binn.
PELTELLA, Webb & Van. B.
Pectella, Gray.
Peltellina, Gray.
362. P. palliolum, Fér.
? americana.
Subg. GGEOTIS, Shutll.
363. G. albopunctata, Shutll.
364. G. flavolineata, Shutll.
365. G. nigrolineata, Shutll.
ARIONINA, W. G. Binn, 1864.
ARION, Fér., 1819 (18172).
Baudonia, Mab.
Eugeomalacus, Mab., 1870.
Kobeltia, Seib.
Prolepis, Moq.
Lochea, Mog.
Carinella, Mab.
366. A. ater, L. 1758.
6. albus, L.
i. simplex, Mogq.
ii. marginatus, Moq.
ili. elegans, Moq.
iv. oculatus, Mogq.
c. medius, Jens.
d. cinereonebulosus, Jens.
e. cinereus, Wst.
f. marginatus (Mogq. ?) Esm.
A. a. rufus, L. 1758.
melanocephalus, F.-Big.
subflavus, Johns.
empiricorum, Fér.

367.

16

COCKERELL

glaucus, Colb.

a. johnstonii, Kal.
vulgaris, Moq.

i. draparnaudii, Kal.

ii. brunneus, Roeb.

é. lamarckii, Kal.
ruber, Mog.

c. nigrescens, Raz.
razoumowskii, Kal.

? fuscatus, Fér.

i. seminiger, Ckll.

ii. cinerascens, CkIl.
cinereus, Roeb. (nec. Wst.)

iii. plumbeus, Roeb.

iv. aldrovandii, Kal.

ater, Moq.

niger, D. & M.

griseomarginatus, D. & M.

aterrimus, D. & M.

». marginellus, Schr.
swammerdamii, Kal.
marginatus, Moq.

f luteus, Raz. 1789.
succineus (pars), Miill.
flavescens, Fér.
schrankii, Kal., 1851.

i. lividus, Colb., 1866.

ii. ferussacki?, Kal., 1851.
virescens, Mill., 1850(?1854).
subdeletus, Ckll., 1886.

g. pallescens, Mogq.

i. luteopallescens, Roeb. MS.,

Ckll.

ii. brunneopallescens, Roeb.

iii. fuscolutescens, CkIl.

iv. Zuteoalbescens, L. E. Ad., sine

descr.

Ah. albus, Fer.
albidus, Roeb.

z. reticulatus, Roeb.

j. bicolor, Mog.

k

u

BS

is

. scharffi, Ckll.
. subreticulatus, Ckll., 1886.
ii. elineolatus, Ckll., 1886.
7. albolateralis, Roeb.
m. bocagei, Simr., sens. Clige.
n. fasciatus, Ckll.
20. fasciatus, Seib.
jp. mulleri, Kal.
g. maculatus, D. & M.
r. violescens, Cllge.

368.
360.

370.
371.

372.

373:

AND COLLINGE : CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS.

s. bicolor, V. d. Broeck, 1870.
z. rupicola, Mab.

?2. olivaceus, Lehm, 1856.
?v. servainianus, Mab., 1870.

A. a. hibernus, Mab., 1868.
rufulus, Baudon, 1884.

A. a. brevierei, Poll., 1887.

6. niger, Brev. in Poll.

A. a. aggericola, Mab., 1870.

A. a. sulcatus, Morel, 1845.

6. bocagei, Simr., s. str.
pallescens, Lisb. Mus. MS.,

sine descr.

A. lusitanicus, Mab., 1868.
rufus, Morel, ex err.

? fuligineus, Morel, 1845.

6. rufescens, Cllge., 1893.

c. olivaceus, Cllge., 1893.

d. nigrescens, Clige., 1893.

e. griseus, Clige., 1893.

fF. simrothi, Ckll.

A. |. hispanicus, Simr., 1886.

A. |. dasilvze, Poll., 1887.

A. |. nobrei, Poll., 1889.

ater (pars), Morel, ex err.

1845.

3752.A. flagellus, Clige, 1893. *

a. phillipsi, Clige., 1893.
A. subfuscus, Drp., 1805.
cinctus, D. & M., 1852.
fasciatus (pars), Nilss.
cinereofuscus, Drp.
incommodus, Hutt.
i. typus, Poll., 1890.
ii, krynickii, Kal., 1851.
d. cinereus, Loc. sine descr.
c. griseus, Cllge.
? fasct?s-obsoletis,
descr.
d. albus, Esm.
e. rufofuscus, Drp.
? rufescens, Loc. sine descr.
i. mabillianus, Bet.
ii. aurantiacus, Loc.
descr., CkIl.
iii. rufescens, Cllge., 1892.
iv. ardosiarum, Colb.
j. succineus, Bouil., 1836.
flavescens, Cllge.
i. gaudefroyi, Mab., 1870.
? olivaceus, Schm., 1856.

SI

Clige. sine

sine

* Described since this list was written, W.E.C.

COCKERELL AND COLLINGE: CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS.

g. lateritius, Clige., 1892.
A. alpestris, Poll., 1890.
? fuscescens, Loc. sine descr.
z, nigricans, Poll., 1887.
7. vormanni, Loens., 1890.
k. nivalis, Kock, 1878.
Z. brunneus, Lehm.
. atripunctatus, D. & M.,
1852.
mn. medius, Jens., 1872.
o. quadrifasciatus, Jens.,1872.
p. pollonera, Pini, 1884.
limacopus, Wst., 1871.
euthymeanus, Flor., 1886.
. s. fuscus, ‘‘ Miill.,” Poll.
. boettgeri, Poll.
c. stabilei, Poll.
citrinus, Wst.
s. bavayi, Poll., 1887.
. Ss. pegorarii, L. & P., 1882.
. flavus, Nilss., 1882. (? Miill.)
campestris, Mab., 1868.
melanocephalus, Wst., ex err.

. A. rubiginosus, Baud.

b. nigricans, Baud.

. rupicola, Mab.

. tenellus, Millet, 1854 (? 1859).

albidus Baud., 1871.

. oresiaecus, Mab., 1870.

sourbieut, Fagot., 1884.

occidentalis, Ckll., 1893.

. hortensis, Fér., 1819.

? concavus, Brard, 1815.
fuscus, (pars) Mogq., ex err.

? fallax, Sterki, 1882.

a. fasciatus, Moq., 1855.

i. typus, Poll.

ii. niger, Mogq.

. alpestris, D. & M.

iv. pyrenaicus, Mogq.

v. albipes, Ckll.

i. dorsalis, Moq.

pelophilus, Mab., 1870.

limbatus, Moq., 1855.

fasciatus, Kick., 1830.

é. griseus, Mogq.

c. ceruleus, Clige.

d. distinctus, Mab.

e. virescens, Mogq.

nemoralis, D. & M.

g. pallidus, Roeb. sine descr.

hk. luteus, Baud.

ws

386

387.

388
389

17

2 SUDTUSCUS, ©. Pir, 1827.

i. rufescens, Mog.
? ii, fallax, CkIl.
. A. h. celticus, Poll., 1887.
A, h. anthracius, Bgt., 1866.
. A. cottianus, Poll., 1887.
. A. nilssoni, Poll., 1887.

hortensis, Malm, ex err.

. A. alpinus, Poll., 1887.

? alpicola, Fér., 1823.

6. aureus, Less., 1881.

391. A. intermedius, Norm., 1852.

392.

? flavus, Miill., 1774.
? aureus, Gmel., 1778.
? melanocephalus, F. Big. in

Fér., 1822.
tenellus, Heyn. ex err., 1861.
bourguignati, Mab., 1867

(Geomal.).
hiemalis, Drouet, 1867.
mabillei, Baud., 1868.
mabillianus, Baud., 1864.
minimus, Simr., 1885.
vendeanus, Let., 1869.
a. normalis, Mogq.
6. pallidus, Mog.
c. albidus, Mog.
d. plumbeus, Cllge., 1892.
é. apenninus, Poll., 1889.
A. i. paladihianus, Mab.,
1867.
verrucosus, Brev., 1881.
moitessicrianus, Mab., 1867.
. i. mollerii, Poll.
. pascalianus, Mab., 1868.
fuscatus, Morel., ex err.,
1845.
. dineatus, Risso, 1826.
. austentanus, Nev. sine descr.
. fasciatus (pars), Nilss. 1822.
alpicola (pars), Fér.
marginatus, Kickx., 1837.
circumscriptus, Johns., 1828.
leucophzus, Norm., 1852.
griseus, Bet. ex err., 1864.
dupuyanus, Bet., 1864.
bourguignati, Mab., 1868.
bayani, (pars) Jouss., 1876.
6. miser, Poll., 1887.
i. griseus, Cllge., 1892.
¢. neustriacus, Mab., 1868.
i. flavescens, Clige., 1892.

ae

wv

B

18 COCKERELL AND COLLINGE: CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS.

ii. subfuscus, Roeb., 1892.

d. atripunctatus, Ckll., 1891.
398. A. f. subcarinatus, Poll., 1885.

399. A. f. ambiguus, Poll., 1889.

é. armoricanus, Poll., 1889.

c. subalbidus, Ckll., 1891.

A. paladilhianus, Mab., 1870.

A. timidus, Morel.

? montanus, Mab.

4ota.A. elongatus, Cllge., 1893.°

ARIUNCULUS, Lessona, 1881

402. A. speziz, Less.

403. A. mortilleti, Less.

a. flavus, Less.
typus, L. & P.

d. aurantiacus, Less.

c. monachus, Less.

d. pullatus, Less.

404. A. camerani, Less.

Sect. ICHNUSARION, Poll. 1890.

405. A. isselii., Bgt.

GEOMALACUS, Ailm.

406. G. maculosus, Allm., 1846.
lusitanus, Da Silva, 1873.
maculatus, Gray ex err., 1855.
andrewsi, Mab.

a. typicus, Heyn.

é. allmani, Heyn., 1873.

c. verkruzeni, Heyn., 1873.
d. fasciatus, Ckll., 1890.

Sect. ARRUDIA, Poll., 1890.

407. G. oliveire, Simr.

408. G. anguiformis, Morel, 1845.
anguiformis, Gray ex err.,

1855.
viridus, Morel.
é. squammatinus, Morel.,
1845.

LETOURNEUAXIA, Bet.

409. L. numidica, Bet.

410. L. moreleti, Hesse.

411. L. atlantica, Bgt.

412. L. tournieri, Poll., 1890.

[413. L. pliocenica, Sacco, 1885. ]

TETRASPIS, Hag., 1885.

414. 7. letourneuxi, Hag., 1885.

ANADENUS, Heyn.

Sect. ALTIVAGI, CkIl.

415. A. altivagus, Theob.
giganteus, Heyn.

? modestus, Theob.

400.
401.

416. A. schlagintweiti, Heyn.
Sect. SULCATI, Ckll.
417. A. jerdoni, G.-A., 1882.
Sect. incert.
418. A. blandfordi, G.-A., 1882.
419. A. insignis, G.-A., 1882.
ANADENULUS, CkIl., 1890.
420. A. cockerelli, Hemph., 1890.
PROPHYSAON, Bid. & Binn.
Limacarion, Cooper.
Sect. TYPICI, Cll:
421. P. andersoni, Coop., 1872.
. hemphilli, B. & B.
. pallidum, CkIl., 1891.
. marmoratum, CkIl., 1892.
. suffusum, Ckll., 1893.
. pacificum, Ckll.
flavum, CkIl.
Sect. CAERULEI, Ckll.
423. P. ceruleum, CkIl.
6. dubium, CkIl.
Sect. FASCIATI, Ckll.
424. P. fasciatum, Ckll. in W. G.

Us Xo &

422.

Binn., 1890.
andersoni, W. G. Binn., ex
err.

é. obscurum, Ckll, 1893.
425. P. f. humile, Ckll.
Sect. PHENACARION, CkIl.
426. P. foliolatum, Gould.
427. P. hemphilli, W. G. Binn.
ARIOLIMAX, Morch.
428. A. columbianus, Gould, 1851.
a. typicus, Ckll., 1891.
6. stramineus, Hemph., 1891.
c. maculatus, Ckll. in W. G.
Binn., 1890.
d. niger, Ckll., 1891.
429. A.c. californicus, Coop., 1872.
6. maculatus, Ckll., 1891.
430. A. c. costaricensis, Ckll.,
1890.
431. A. c. hecox?, Weth., sine descr.
HESPERARION, Simroth., 1892.
432. H. niger, Coop., 1892.
é. maculatus, Ckll., 1892.
?c. andersoni, W. G. Binn.
433. H. hempelli, W. G. Binn.
é. maculatus, Ckll. in W. G.
Binn., 1890.
PHILOMYCINA,, CkIl., 1891.

5 Described since this list was written.—W. E. C.

COCKERELL AND COLLINGE : CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS. 19

LIMACELLA, Blainv., 1817.
Brard.).
Limacellus, Fér., 1821.
Philomycus, Raf., 1820.
Tebennophorus, Binn., 1842.
Pallifera, Morse., 1864.
Meghimatium, V. Hass.,
1824.
Incillaria, Bens., 1842.
Eumelus, Raf., 1820.

L. carolinensis, Booc.
carolinianus, De Roissy.
togata, Gould.
marmorata, De Kay., sine

descr.
quadrilus, Raf.

435. L. nebulosa, CkIl., 1890.
? nebulosa, Raf., 1820.
? flexuolaris, Raf., 1820.

. L. pennsylvanica, Pilsb.

437. L. dorsalis, Binn., 1842.

? oxurus, Raf.

? oxyurus, Gray ex err.
? fuscus, Raf.

? dividus, Raf.

(nec

434.

438. L. wetherbyi, W. G. Binn.

439. L. hemphilli, W. G. Binn.

440. L. crosseana, Streb.

441. L. sallei, Cr. & Fisch.

442. L. aurata, Tate.

443. L. costaricensis, Morch.
ee

lactiformis, Blainv., 1817.
lactescens, Fér. ex err. -
elfortiana, Blainv., 1825.

445. L. bilineata, Bens., 1842.

446. L. confusa, CkIl., 1890.
bilineata, Kef. ex err.

447. L. chinensis, Ckll., 1890.
bilineata, Heude exerr., 1882.

448. L. formosensis, Ckll., 1890.

449. L. campestris, G.-A., 1876.

450. L. striata, Hass., 1824.

451. L. picta, Stol.

452. L. monticola, G.-A., 1876.

453. L. reticulata, v. Hass.

454. L. cylindracea, Fér.

455. L. australis, Bergh.

VERONICELLIDA, Gray,
1840.

VERONICELLINA,, Ckll., 1891.

VERONICELLA, Blainv.

Vaginula, Fér., 1821.
Vaginulus.
(i.) Species of the Indian Region.
456. V. alte, Fér.
457. V. frauenfeldi, Semper.
458. V. maculata, Temp.
459. V. reticulata, Wst., 1885.
460. V. sarasinorum, Simr., 1892.

(ii.) Species of the Indo-Chinese

Peninsula.
461. V. birmanica, Theob.

6. pallidula, Fea., sine descr.

462. V. siamensis, Mart.
463. V. hasselti, Mart., 1867.
464. V. proxima, Tap.-Can.
465. V. andersoniana, Tap.-Can.
466. V. bocourti, Roch., 1885.
467. V. chandoensis, Roch., 1888.
468. V. titanotona, Roch., 1888.
469. V. hennigi, Simr.

(iii.) Species of Malay Peninsula.
470. V. carusi, Simr.

(iv.) Species of Chinese Region.
471. V. crosseana, Mab. & Le M.
472. V. chinensis, MOll., 1881.
473. V. fargesiana, Heude.

474. V. patriatiana, Heude.
475. V. carbonaria, Heude, 1890.

476. V. pictor, Heude, 1890.

477. V. lemonieriana, Heude, 1890.

478. V. reinhardti, Semp., 1885
(1886 ?).

(v.) Species of Philipine Is.
479. V. luzonica, Gray.
480. V. zamboangensis, Semp.
(vi.) Species of Borneo.
481. V. wallacei, Issel, 1874.
2482. V. stuxbergi, Wst., 1885.
sternbergi, Ed. Mal. BL.,
err. typ.
483. V. flava, Heyn.
484. V. ide, Semp.
(vii.) Species of Sumatra.
485. V. schneideri, Simr., 1892.
486. V. sumatrensis, Simr., 1892.
487. V. weberi, Simr., 1892.
(viii.) Species of Java.
488. V. levigata, Cuv.
489. V. bleekeri, Kef., 1865.
490. V. strubelli, Simr., 1892.
491. V. cockerelli, Simr., 1892.
492. V. marshalli, Simr., 1892.

= 20 COCKERELL AND COLLINGE: CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS.

493. V. platei, Simr., 1892. (xxi.) Species of Princes Is.
494. V. newtoni, Simr., 1892. 532. V.myrmecophila, Heyn.,1868
495. V. maculosa, V. Hass. (xxii.) Species of Bermuda.
496. V. mollis, V. Hass. 533. V. schivelyce, Pilsbry, 1890.
2497. V. porulosa, V. Hass. (xxili.) Species of Florida.
2498. V. punctata, V. Hass. 534. V. floridana, Binn.
499. V. viridialba, V. Hass. (xxiv.) Species of Cuba.
(ix.) Species of Moluccas, Celebes, 535. V. cubensis, Pfr., 1840.
&c. occidentalis, Arango, ex err.
500. V. chavesi, Simr., 1892. (xxv.) Species of Jamaica.
sor. V. bocagei, Simr., 1892. 536. V. sloanii, Cuv.
502. V. graffi, Simr., 1892. levis, Blainv.
503. V. vivipara, Simr., 1892. 6. coffez, Ckll., 1893.
(x.) Species of New Caledonia. 537. V. virgata, Ckll., 1892.
504. V. plebeia, Fisch., 1868. 538. V. jamaicensis, Ckll., 1892.
(xi.) Species of Queensland. 539. V. dissimilis, Ckll., 1892.
505. V. leydigi, Simr. (xxvi.) Species of Porto Rico.
506. V. hedleyi, Simr. 540. V. portoricensis, Semp.
(xii.) Species of the Seychelles. (xxvii.) Species of Lesser Antilles.
507. V. seychellensis, Fisch., 1872. 541. V. occidentalis, Guild.
508. V. bicolor, Heyn., 1885. 542. V. punctatissima, Semp.
509. V. elegans, Heyn., 1885. 543. V. dubia, Semp.
5to. V. tristis, Heyn., 1885. 544. V. morchii, Semp.
511. V. parva, Heyn., 1885. 545. V. lucice, Ckll.
(xili.) Species of Rodriguez. (xxviii.) Species of Central America.
512. V. rodericensis, E. A. Sm. 546. V. moreleti, C. & F., 1872.
(xiv.) Species of Mauritius. 547. V. mexicana, S. & P.
513. V. punctulata, Fisch. 548. V. olivacea, Stearns, 1871.
514. V. trilineata, Semp. 549. V. strebelii, Semp.,
515. V. andreana, Semp. mexicana, Semp. (necS.& P.).
(xv.) Species of Bourbon. (xxxix.) Species of Eastern S. America.
516. V. maillardi, Fisch., 1872. 550. V. solea, D’Orb.
(xvi.) Species of Madagascar. . 6. bonariensis, Strob.
517. V. subaspera, Fisch. 551. V. tuberculosa, V. Mts., 1868.
518. V. verrucosa, Heyn., 1885. 552. V. paranensis, Burm.
519. V. margaritifera, Heyn, 1885. 553. V. multicolor, Semp.
520. V. sulfurea, Heyn., 1885. 554. V. taunaysii, Fér.
(xvil.) Species of Comoro Is. 555. V. fusca, Heyn.
521. V. picta, Heyn. 556. V. langsdorfi, Fer.
522. V. grossa, Heyn. 557- V. aberrans, Heyn., 1885.
523. V. comorensis, Fisch., 1883. 558. V. angustipes, Heyn., 1885.
(xvili.) Species of East Africa. 2559. V. reclusa, Allemao, 1859.
524. V. petersi, V. Mts. 560. V. jordani, Simr., 1892.
525. V. koellikeri, Semp. 561. V. paraguensis, Simr., 1892.
526. V. brevis, Fisch., 1872. 562. V. taylori, Simr., 1892.
(xix.) Species of South Africa. 563. V. caerulescens, Semp.
527. V. natalensis, Rapp. 564. V. bielenbergii, Semp.
528. V. maura, Heyn. 565. V. immaculata, Semp.
529. V. saxicola, CkIl. 566. V. galathece, Semp.
(xx.) Species of West Africa. 567. V. boettgeri, Semp.
530. V. liberiana, Gld. 568. V. variegata, Semp.
531. V. pleuroprocta, V. Mts. 569. V. behnii, Semp.

COCKERELL AND COLLINGE: CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS. 21

570. V. lamellata, Semp.
571. V. marginata, Semp.
572. V. kjellerupii, Semp.
573. V. kroyeri, Semp.
574. V. martensii, Semp.

(xxx.) Species of Western South
America.

575. V. limayana, Less.
576. V. andensis, Mill.
b. cephalophora, Mill., 1879.
c. quadrocularis, Mill., 1879.
577. V. boetzkesi, Mill., 1879.
é. complanata, Mill., 1879.
578. V. arcuata, Mill., 1879.
é. teres, Mill., 1879.
579. V. atropunctata, Mill., 1879.
580. V. lingueeformis, Semp.
581. V. marianita, Cousin, 1887.
582. V. adspersa, Heyn, 1885.
583. V. gayi, Fisch., 1872.
584. V. nigra, Heyn.
585. V.chilensis, Leipzig Mus. MS.,
Simr., 1891.
586. V. decipiens, Semp.

(xxxi.) Species of uncertain locality.
587. V. kraussii, Fer.
588. V. kreidelii, Semp.
589. V. telescopium, Semp.
590. V. voigtii, Semp.
Subg. IMERINIA, CkIl., r&g1.
591. V. grandidieri, C. & F., 1871.
LEONARDIA, T.-Can.
592. L. nevilliana, T.-Can.
? OTHELOSOMA,Gray, 1869.
593. O. symondsiz, Gray.
Subf. VAGINULINA, Ckll., 1891.
RATHOUISIA, Heude.
594. R. sinensis, Heude, 1882.
leonina, Heude.
595. R. tigrina, Heude.
596. R. pantherina, Heude.
ATOPOS, Simr., 1891.
Vaginulus, W. G. Binn.,1879.
597. A. semperi, Simr., 1891.
598. A. strubelli, Simr., 1891.
599. A. leuckarti, Simr., 1891.
600. A. trigonus, Semp.
6o1. A. pulverulentus, Beus.
sanguineus, ‘‘ Stol.”
PRISMA, Simr., 1891.
602. P. tourannense, Eyd. & Soul.
603. P. prismaticum, T. -Can., 1883.

604. P. heynemanni, Simr., 1891.
605. P. australe, Heyn.

JANELLIDA, Gray, 1853.
JANELLINA,, CkIl., 1891.
JANELLA, Gray in M. E. Gray (nec
Grat. ).
Athoracophorus, Gould,
1852.
606. J. bitentaculata, Q. & G., 1832.
6. antipodarum, Gray, 1853.
Sect. KONOPHORA, Hutton.
Conophera, Tryon ex err.
607. J. marmorea, Hutt., 1879.
608. J. marmorata, V. Mts. MS.,
Simr.
Sect. PPEUDANEITEA, CkIl., 1891.
609. J. papillata, Hutt, 1879.
610. J. verrucosa, V. Mts. MS.,
Simr.
6. nigricans, V. Mts. MS.,
Simr.
c. fuscata, V. Mts. MS., Simr.
fasciata, V. Mts. MS., Suter.
NEOJANELLA, CkIl., 1891.
611. N. dubia, Ckll., 1891.
ANEITELLA, CkIl., 1891.
612. A. virgata, E. A. Sm., 1884.
ANEITEA, Gray, 1860.

Aneiteum, W. G. Binn, ex
err.

Triboniophorus, Humb.,
1863.

613. A. graffei, Humb., 1863.
schutei, Kef.

b. krefftii, Kef., 1865.

c. rosea, Hedley, 1592.
614. A. macdonaldi, Gray, 1860.
615. A. hirudo, Fisch., 1868.
616. A. modesta, C. & F., 1870.

HYALIMACINA,, G.-A., 1882.
HYALIMAX, H. & A., Ad., 1855.
617. H. maillardi, Fisch., 1867.
618. H. mauritianus, Raug., 1827.
mauritius, Fér., 1827.
mauritii, Woodw., ex err.
619. H. perlucidius, Q. & G., 1832.
pellucidus, Tryon, ex err.
Sect. JARAVA, G.-A., 1882.
620. H. andamanicus, G.-A., 1882.
6. punctulatus, Ckil., 1890.
621. H. reinhardti, Morch, 1872.
622. H. viridis, Theob., 1864.

22 COCKERELL AND COLLINGE: CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS.

SUCCINEIDZA, W. G. Binn. 2 6. felina, Guppy.
em Fischer. 624. O. guadeloupensis, Less.
OMALONYX, D’Orb. ? antillarum, Grat.
Homalonyx, Agass., 1847. 625. O. patera, Doring.
Amphibulima, (pars) Beck, 626. O. gayana, D’Orb.
1837. 627. O. convexa, Mart., 1868.
Helisiga, (pars) Ffr., 1855. ? Subg. PEL TA, Beck.
623. O. unguis, Fer. 628. O. cumingi, Beck.

matheronii, Pot. & Mich.

NOTES.

1¢. It is a matter of opinion whether maculatus (Leach) or
kryvnickit should take priority.

te. The form maculatus, Pic., is hardly distinct from fpunctatus,
Esm. ; of course, Picard’s name has priority, but it is not
the same as maculatus, Leach.

t f. Moquin-Tandon is the author of this variety, strictly speaking.

1g. I have seen the type of megaspidus in the British Museum.
The external mouth-parts are those of maximus, not of
flavus ; so also the reticulation, &c.

1 7. strobeli, as I have identified it, is only a pale or semialbine
form of maximus.

1 g’. subunicolor, Simroth I have seen no description of this.

2-8. Subspecies or races not studied by me, and of quite minor
rank,

9. cinereo-niger. After all the discussion that has taken place,
I feel somewhat diffident about adding more. For my
own part, I have never been at a loss to identify cinereo-
niger by external marks, even when the sole has been
unicolorous. Yet it is only fair to state that an example
from Wales, which I was strongly persuaded was cénereo-
niger, though the sole was not banded, was at Leeds
referred to maximus.6 Probably the specimens are still
preserved there, and if it is really maxzmus, I must retract
the above statement about the identification of c’nereo-niger.
This slug was recorded by Mr. Fenn as cinereo-niger var. in
Journ. of Conch., 1887, p. 198 (see also p. 137). In the
British Museum there is a large cinereo-niger, entirely
white (var. a/bus, Paasch.).’

®In all probability this was cizereo-niger.—W. E. C.

™It would be interesting to know in what manner the var. adéus, Am Stein, of L. maximus,
L., differs from this var. a/éus of Paasch.—W.E.C.

COCKERELL AND COLLINGE; CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS. 23

As it seems to me, the real question of the specific or
subspecific validity of cémereo-niger is not solved by the
statements made by Messrs. Roebuck and Collinge, and it
still remains to be asked, can both maximus and ctnereo-
niger be obtained from eggs laid by a single slug of either
kind? If not—and I do not believe myself that they could
—cintreo-niger 1s a valid subspecies or species. Then, if it
be found (as seems to be the case) that cimereo-niger, thus
distinct, intergrades with maximus in certain localities, it is
not a species but a subspecies, and that, I believe, is its
proper rank.

Of course it follows from this way of looking at the
matter, that some of the older and more distinct varieties
of horses, dogs, &c., known to have developed under
domestication, are subspecifically distinct, and _ this,
I think, is a just conclusion.

to, I have restored the name geographicus, as it no doubt belongs

to dacampz, and is older and also appropriate.

13. L. fungivorus is placed by its author in Ma/lacolimax, but

Simroth says it is a young cvereo-niger form !

21. Bottger described it as a variety of maximus, his name takes

priority.

31. To éenellus have been referred aureus, Gmel., and sguam-

matinus, Morel., but it appears that the first is an Arion,
the second a Geomadlacus.

31 4. I have seen no description of gvtseus.

34

. L. raymondianus. Simroth has referred this name to a variety

of Amalia gagates, but I can hardly believe he is right.
Pollonera has recognised a true Madacolimax as raymon-
dianus,

36. L. nyctelius. Mr. Pollonera has sent me this from Algeria.

37:

A species formerly called mycte/iws by Simroth seems to be
subsaxanus.

L. valentianus. According to Simroth, this is a race of

arborum (marginatus). Mr. Pollonera sent me a specimen
from Barcelona, and it seemed to me quite distinct from
marginatus. However, so far as external marks went,
I could see no specific difference between valentianus and
nyctelius.

38. L. fulvus. Simroth suggests that this may be a yellow form

of tenellus.

. L. marginatus. I believe sylvestris is the same, but it is too

poorly described to be certainly recognisable.

24 COCKERELL AND COLLINGE: CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS.

44b. Var. wmbrosus, Phil. This name may be taken to represent
a slight mutation like maculatus, Kal., but with the dark
colouring more brown.

449. Var. lineolatus. Mr. Collinge must forgive me for saying that
I am still quite puzzled about this form, owing to the
yellowish tentacles. Will not its author give some further
details about it ?°

44 r. canariensis. This probably does not differ from the type.
L. canartensts of Mr. E. A. Smith (P. Z.5,, 1849, pp. 276-78)
is another thing altogether, being Agriolimax agrestis, v.
sylvaticus, Moq., as I have satisfied myself by an examina-
tion of the original specimens. Dr. Simroth in his
beautiful work on the slugs of Portugal and the Azores, has
drawn some erroneous conclusions from the misidentifica-
tion of canariensts.

44. L. ehrenbergit. Heynemann states that this is favus. It was
supposed to have no shell.

44. L. megalodontes, Q. and G. Found near Port Jackson,
Australia. The Australian malacologists seem agreed that
this is flavus.

57. Heynemann remarks of phaeniciacus that Bottger thought it
was Avriolimax agrestis, but from the figure it might be
variegatus (flavus ).

59. L. déneolatus. The description reads like the young of a dark
form of flavus.

65. L. cobanensis. Probably an Agriolimax.

68. LZ. /atus. Fossil in the I. of Wight. Z. modioliformis is also
English.

71-77. Lumilax, having priority over Parvalimax, must be used for
the genus.

Amatlia.—Aspidoporus is older than Amalia, and Clytropelta than
Lallemantia; yet 1t would seem absurd to adopt these
names, both founded on fictitious characters.

78 b. typfica, Poll. ‘This is in the British Museum from Bath. It
is like hezwstont.

79. A. plumbea may appear either as a variety or sub-species,
according to the locality ; that is to say, in England it
represents a geographical race or subspecies, but plumbeous
specimens may occur where the type prevails, just as black

5It seems foolish to puzzle one’s self over such a very minor colour variation as yellow
tentacles. I have no further details to add to my original description. As its name indicates, it
had a line on the sides of its body, and as such a form was not known, I thought it of sufficient
importance to name.—W.E.C.

COCKERELL AND COLLINGE: CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS. As
ones are occasionally found in England. All the species
of the gaga/es group are very closely allied, and the validity
of some is doubtful ; but they can hardly be studied in
a satisfactory manner without much larger collections than
are at present available in museums. Meanwhile, it seems
best to keep them distinct, and to treat somewhat cautiously
assertions of identity which are not backed by adequate
comparison of specimens.®

97 f. pallida. I merely include this name as it has been published;
it does not represent any distinct variety.

106. A. pallidula, Ckll., is a small form, distinguished from the
young of sozwerb:zt by its colour, its transparency, its high
acute keel, and its non-attenuate tail. 4. cristata, Kal.,
as figured by its author, is pale reddish-ochre, head and
neck blackish, no sulcus visible on mantle—thus unlike
pallidula. But Dr. Simroth has lately figured as crestata
a slug which seems so like Aad/idu/a that they may well be
the same thing. Hence, assuming that Dr. Simroth has
correctly identified his slug, and that Kaleniczenko’s figure
was somewhat misleading, I place fa//idu/a as a doubtful
synonym of cristata.

113.= Aspidoporus Limax, Fitz.
Agriolimax, 1868. This is a good test case for the law of
priority, all the following names being prior to it.
(1.) Deroceras, 1820. There can be little doubt that
D. gracilis, Raf., was A. campestris, Binn., but the
description was inaccurate.
(2.) Limacellus, 1821, as quoted by Kreglinger, may be
a mistake. JZzmacellus, as known to me in Férussac’s
writings, is Blainville’s genus—a totally different thing.
(3.) Krynickia, 1839 (afterwards called Arynickillus, and
also Megaspis), has been used for the /ezvzs group of
Agriolimax, but I do not see how this restriction can
be justified. However, it included some species of
Agriolimax.
(4.) Malino, 1855, was founded on A. lombricotdes—
a true Avriolimax—yet its author was under a mis-
®T have elsewhere (Conch. 1892, ii. p. g2) pointed out that in my opinion A. A/umdbea is but
a colour variation of A. gagates. | fail to see any reason whatever why it should be regarded as
specifically distinct from A. gagates any more than any of the other colour varieties. The
anatomical evidence for the specific identity of a number of the gagaves group is practically »7?,
and malacologists will do well to recognise only such whose anatomy has been fully described
and figured. The constant splitting up of a species into subspecies, varieties, &c., is a practice

I have little patience with, and in a difficult genus like Aadra it is only adding confusion to an
already complicated study, and heaping up difficulties in the way of future workers.—W. E. C.

26

COCKERELL AND COLLINGE : CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS.

apprehension as to the generic characters, and placed
the species of Agriolimax with which he was himself
acquainted in Lzmax !

(5.) Megapelta,1857. Also founded on a misconception
of the generic characters ; the species being known to
the author by a drawing only. It certainly was an
Agriolimax of the /evis group.

Of the above, not one was correctly defined, nor were
the true generic characters mentioned, but it will be hard
for those who believe in strict priority to overlook them all
in favour of Agriolimax. Limacellus, as quoted by Kreg-
linger, may be safely put aside as a mistake, but I cannot
now refer to the place cited. The correct synonymy of
Limacellus seems to be :—

(1.) Limacellus, Fér., 1821 = Limacella, Blainv., 1817 =

Philomycus.

(2.) Limacellus, Turt., 1831 = Zimacella, Brard., 1815 =
Limax.

There now remain four names, three of which were
founded solely on slugs which were doubtless species of
Agriolimax. In the case of Deroceras and Megapelta it is
true the identity is not actually proven; but with JZalino
there can be no shadow of doubt. Aydrolimax (or
Deroceras or Megapelta) is available for the /evis group,
if that can be separated from the agrestis group in any
satisfactory manner, which I doubt.”

120. A. agrestis, The mutations of the species are extremely

numerous, and according to one’s opinion, have been named
too much—or too little. At all events, it is not difficult to
find several mutations not yet named, which are as distinct
as several of those named. Thus at Parkstone, Dorset,
I found four mutations, none exactly agreeing with any
described. Again, at Acton, Middlesex, D. B. Cockerell
found five specimens representing three undescribed
mutations, one of which was identical with one from
Parkstone. Of course, these mutations are but slight—
about equivalent in value to the band-variations of some
fTelices.

10 There can be little doubt, I think, but that Ag77olimax should remain, seeing not one

of the prior genera mentioned was correctly defined. Future investigations upon the anatomy
of the slugs will undoubtedly necessitate the re-describing of many genera, and I would venture
to suggest that, instead of adopting a new term, the old one should be retained, and simply alter
the name of the author—e.g., should the genus Neojanella, Ckll., 1891, be found upon anatomical
examination to be distinct from any other genus of /aned/ide, I should retain the name
Neojanella, adding to it the name of the author who first adequately described and figured the
same.—W. E, C.

COCKERELL AND COLLINGE: CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS. 27

120 @. ¢ristis. _Moquin-Tandon describes his slug as banded, which
seems to indicate that it may not be agvestis. If so, the
form recognised as ¢vzs¢7s in England will want a new name.

120 ¢. typicus. Ihave used the name for the ordinary immaculate
forms, not necessarily within the strict definition of “ypus,
L. and P. I did not originate the name, and believe
it was first used by Roebuck as an amended form of
typus, or by error for Lessona and Pollonera’s term. Thus,
Roebuck cites it as “‘¢ypica” of Less. and Poll. in
ao, Conch. 1804, ps 252.

120 4. niger, Morelet. I have not seen Morelet’s description ;
Mr. Butterell described it under the same name.

120 2. albidus, Pic., Hpus, L.& P., and cineraceus, Mogq., are but
slight modifications of the grey immaculate form. So
also albitentaculatus.

120 &./. rufescens, L. & P., is obscurely spotted, but rufescens, D. & M.,
is immaculate ; q. orvatus, Paul., is probably to be united
with zz/escens as given by Less. & Poll., and ornatus, Mogq.,
seems only a further modification of the same type.

120 f.w.s. In the same way, the reddish succineus, Wst., taking
brownish spots, becomes odscurus, Moq., and when the
spots become darker and more distinct with the interstices
of the rugze usually darkened, we have vefzcudatus, Mill.

120 4.x. veranyanus and punctatus are practically equivalent it would
seem.

120 a’. 0. varians and sylvaticus. Moq., are almost precisely the
same. Draparnaud’s sylvaticus is something altogether
different.

120 0.g’. melanocephalus, Moq. (not A. melanocephalus, Kal.), is
practically identical with atritentaculatus.

120 é.

molestus, Hutton. A form of the species found in New
Zealand, descended from introduced examples. A speci-
men in the British Museum, which I examined, from
Dunedin (Otago Univ. Mus.), seemed peculiar in its rather
smooth body, its white ground-colour, and its blackish-
brown tint above. Hutton (Man. V.Z. Moll.) states that
the slug is quite variable, so that it will hardly be possible

to identify mo/estus with any particular mutation.

1l This is only another case of the careless manner in which Mr. Roebuck uses the nomen-
clature of foreign authors. I have always regarded the ‘‘ tyfica"” of Mr. Roebuck as an error.
The above form in such a case should read ¢yficus, Ckll. How can the type be a variety?—
W. E. C.

28 h COCKERELL AND COLLINGE: CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS.

120 p. xanthosoma, ‘This is stated to be yellowish-amber, so it might
be identified with xzfescens, D. & M. There is a more
extreme form, bright orange above, of which Mr. Wilcock
sent me a drawing, with the following description :—

‘‘Body and mantle bright orange red, shading to greyish
down the sides ; tentacles and head fuscous.” This might
better be referred to succimeus, of which Westerlund writes
“ supra subrufus, subtus albus.” It was found in Yorkshire.

120 7. bilobatus. A curious malformation ; the only specimen I have
seen came from Philadelphia, U.S.A., sent by Mr. Pilsbry,
121. virescens, 1f the same, takes priority.
123. Limax setchuanensts is evidently an Agriolimax; the figure
looks like agrestis.

131. A. simrothi. ‘This name is proposed for the species indicated
by Simroth in his work on the slugs of Portugal and the
Azores as adrymonius, Bgt., the true dxymonius being an
Amalia. .

148. A. hanryanus. May not this be a form of agvesézs.

150. pallens ; see Fort.-Azor.-Faun., p. 313. Is it a slip for
pallidus ?

152. A. uitidus. According to Simroth, Bourguignat’s brondelianus
is a species similar to wztidus, but Pollonera thinks
differently.

154. A. mentonicus. Tryon refers this to agres¢is, but it seems
rather to be some form of /evzs, or allied thereto.

158-17c. Simroth is disposed to refer all these to Ze7zs, but never-

theless they show some distinctions among themselves.

Certainly when one examines many specimens it becomes

exceedingly difficult to draw specific lines; and from any

point of view, no doubt to have six names for the Central

American forms, and three for those of South America, is

quite unnecessary. In North America there were three

nominal species in the books for some time, but as soon as

they could be sufficiently compared, it was seen that they

were at best only varietally distinct. A more recently

discovered species from the Pacific coast of North America

(hemphiili) seems adequately distinct from campestris, but

is, In my opinion, a variety of A. derendti of Central
America.

158. A. rarotonganus. In the British Museum are specimens from

Rarotonga (coll. Rev. Wyatt Gill; pres. by Sir J. Lubbock)

COCKERELL AND COLLINGE: CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS. 29

and New Caledonia, which appear to be veritable vavoton-
ganus,* but are not, so far as I can judge, the same as
levis. The Rarotonga slug looks like agrestis, but one of
the New Caledonia ones has the ground-colour dark, as in
campestris. Without dissection it would be very difficult to
make any positive assertion about their identity, but it
seems possible that they may represent a distinct species.

170. A. gueenslandicus. According to Dr. Simroth this is Zezzs.
166 f. nigrescens. Merely a mutation; dark, blackish or brownish-

179-188.

grey, mantle mottled with darker, back obscurely mottled,
tentacles blackish, central area of sole darker than lateral
areas. Washington, D.C., several examples (Dr. R. E. C.
Stearns).

The species of Parmacella doubtless ought to be reduced,
but it seems best to consider them distinct until they are
definitely proved otherwise. Simroth in his work on the
slugs of Portugal and the Azores, gives an interesting
discussion of the matter, and concludes that valencienniz,
deshayest, calyculata, callosa, and dorsalis are all races of
oliviert; which is, in fact, the only valid species of
Parmacella !

The curious thing is, as Simroth points out, that whereas
there is considerable difference of colour among the so-called
species, those from the extreme east most resemble in this
respect those of the extreme south-west.

I made a comparison of certain specimens in the British
Museum, and found therein structural differences which
may help to distinguish the species. The reticulation is
not equally fine in all, and in order to test this point,
I counted the transverse lines or grooves extending from
mantle to foot in ro millim. of the length of the slug.

. oliviert from the Caucasus showed 5 lines in 1o mm.
P. v. maculata from Gibraltar showed 7 lines in 10 mm.
P. gervaisit from Gibraltar showed 7 lines in 10 mm.
P. deshayesti from Oran showed 11 lines in 10 mm.

Of course these measurements are from specimens in
alcohol.

* I made the following descriptive notes from these :— ;
(x). Rarotonga slug. 1o mm. long (in alch.); ochreous, body almost unicolourous,

mantle dark. Respiratory orifice pale-margined. Medium area of sole very
little wider than either lateral area. Hardly any keel. Structure like agrestis.

(2). New Caledonia slug. 16 mm. long (in alch.); mantle 73 mm. long blackish or

black, paler at sides, margin of respiratory orifice paler. Body rather well but
obtusely keeled, very dark-blackish above, the reticulations marked black, more
or less. Sole yellowish-grey, unicolorous, median area a little wider than either
lateral. Ground colour dark, but structure like agrestis.

(3). New Caledonia slug. Differs from 2, in having ground-colour lighter.

30 COCKERELL AND COLLINGE : CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS.

P. deshavesti is like maculata externally, except for the finer
reticulation and the absence of the black spots and streaks.

The Caucasus o/ivterd presents an extraordinary resem-
blance to maculata var. olivacea, but the reticulation is not
so fine. In the specimens seen by me, the jaw of maculata
was broad and rounded at the ends, whereas the jaw of
oliviert had the ends tapering. Whether the above
distinctions are constant can only be learned from the
examination of a larger series than I have had access to.”

Selenochlamys. This genus is referred to Z7rigonochlamine
in consequence of the statements made by Simroth in his
work on the slugs of Portugal, &c.

Plutoniine n. subfam. The information given by Simroth
(l.c.) shows the affinities of P/utonia to be with Vitrinine ;
and consequently, according to my views, the genus must
be placed in a new sub-family, which I call Plutonzine.

Piutonia. It appears that this name has also been used for
a genus of trilobites.”

201 4. stmrotht. This is the pale variety from Fayal; Simroth, Lc.,
OP iitatonn aie ae

207-211. My impression is that these five names represent but
one species of JAZariae/la, but, as usual, I give them the
benefit of the doubt. The oldest name is 7x/umata.

218 b. dorie. 1 do not know any good reason for considering this
a species distinct from deccariz.

Austenia. 1 have removed from this genus various species
wrongly included in it by authors (e.g., dimidiata, minuta,
australis), but the present list includes several which do
not seem to be congeneric with A. gigas. I must leave it
to those who are familiar with these species to finally settle
where they should be placed.

249 &. radha. ‘This may be a distinct species.
Farmella. 1 follow Mr. Hedley in placing this in the
fTelicarionine.

12The separation of species upon the form of reticulation or number of ruga is the very latest
from the school of systematists. Some years ago I made some similar observations upon Avion
empiricorum. have not the figures by me, but I remember that there was a great variability
shown. Simroth is in all probability correct in assuming o/ivierz to be the only valid species,
but, at the same time a careful inquiry upon the structure of the other so-called species is very
desirable.—W. E, C.

151f any change is necessary, the generic name had better be altered, seeing that it is pre-
occupied. I would therefore suggest that the subfamily, &c., read :—
Vitriplutoniine, Cllge.
= Plutoniine, Ckll.
Vitriplutonia, Clige.
= Plutonia, Stab.

COCKERELL AND COLLINGE: CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS. Bilt

Lilisolimax, new name for £disa, Heyn., not visa, Reichen-

bach, 1854 (a genus of birds). 7/sca has also been used
twice (H/zsza, Cantr., 1835, in Mollusca; éisza, Big.,
1857, in Diptera), but I should not myself consider this
the same name as A/zsa. I have elsewhere stated that
I consider L@tsodimax (£lisa) a valid genus.

Otoconchine. Mr. Hedley classes QOsoconcha with the fe/z-

300 .-h.

cartonine, further research haying shown that its affinity
with the Aznneyine was illusory. According to the scheme
of classification I have adopted, it forms a new sub-family.
In Messrs. Hedley and Suter’s recent list of New Zealand
Mollusca, Ofoconcha and Ffelicarion appear as genera of
Zonitide, and Mr. Suter in a footnote expresses the opinion
that Ofoconcha is the same as the Philippine I. genus
Vitrinoidea, Semper. As to this latter proposition I am
not competent to form an opinion, but the reference is
unlooked-for, and appears improbable on general grounds.
However, Hutton remarks that Ovoconcha seems allied to
feltella, and so far as superficial appearances go, Le/te/la
is a good deal like Vitrinoidea albajensis, Semp. (see
Semper’s figure) ; judging therefore from external characters
one might just as well say that Ofoconcha is allied to
Vitrinoidea—the more so, because we are led to believe
from recent researches that it has at least some real affinity
with it.

This question of Ofoconcha and Vitrinoidea shows how
entirely arbitrary is the line supposed to be drawn between
the snails and the slugs.

Possibly these varieties do not all pertain to Aa/zo¢idea s. str.
as now understood.

303. This is what was formerly called 7: d¢swlcata var. major, and

it may be a question whether it should not be called
T. major, Gass. and Fisch. Similarly Girasta butleri is
a name given to what was Austenta gigas var. minor, and
strict priority would oblige us to write G. minor, G.-A.
instead of dutlert.

318. Z. aurigaster. J know nothing of this beyond what has

appeared in an advertisement on the cover of Journ. of
Conch.

Daudebardia. It seems now to be generally recognised that

Libania and the five names I have placed under it, as
synonyms represent only one valid sub-genus. Westerlund
proposed Ludaudebardia because none of the other names

32 COCKERELL AND COLLINGE: CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS.

were originally given to the group it represents as a whole,
but all to separate parts of it. Believing that the rules of
nomenclature demand the use of Zzbanza (which seems to
be the oldest name), I have sunk Westerlund’s name as
asynonym. Westerlund recognises nineteen species in the
group; my list contains more, but probably a thorough
revision, with ample material, might reducethe species by half.

Chlamydephorus. This differs by one letter from the similarly-
named genus of mammals, and, from their derivation, the
two names should be spelled alike. Afera is occupied in
botany, but that is not generally considered to prevent the
use of a zoological generic name. On the whole I prefer
Mr. Binney’s term with the original spelling, but those who
use the list can follow whichever course they consider best.
It is one of those cases which illustrate the difficulty of
strictly applying the laws of nomenclature.

Phosphorax and Plectrophorus. One feels inclined to write
Bosh, instead of Bosc, after some of these names!
I merely insert them because they have been published ;
the generic and specific characters are purely imaginary.
Gray suggested that P. corninus was founded on A. ater,
some hardened mucus being taken for a shell.

366. Arion ater. It seems open to question whether the species
or sub-species called emfiricorum can be separated from
the Linnean a¢er. Dr. Scharff (Slug. s of Ireland, p. 539)
states that he has examined specimens from Norway, and
finds less difference between East Irish and Norwegian
examples than there is between the West and East Irish.”
Again, if these forms are to be sub-specifically separated,
can we call either of them empzricorum? Linné (Syst. Wat.
Ed. x. 1758, p. 652) includes under his a¢ery the Scan-
dinavian form, but he also refers to Lister's Zizmax ater as
identical—and this is our English black “ empericorum.”
Admitting, however, that afer can be used only for the
Scandinavian race, we next come to rufus. A. rufus, L.,
is the sub-rufus of the Fauna Succica, which Pollonera
gives as a doubtful synonym of empiricorum, but it is also
Lister’s Z. sub-rufus montanus, which is the British form,
and there is a reference to Aldrovandi’s Limax magna,
colore rufo, which is surely also the so-called empiricorum.*

14 Was this not from an external examination oxdy ?—W. E, C,
* T regret that I cannot now examine Aldrovandi’s work, to see Ww hether this is so, but there
can hardly be a doubt. For an interesting notice oN this pioneer in the study of slugs (ob. 1605)
see Jardine’s Naturalists’ Library, vol. xvii.—T. D.

COCKERELL AND COLLINGE: CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS. 2335

‘Therefore, since we know that 7w/us was meant to include
the red empiricorum, and only doubt whether it may not
have included something different in ‘‘ swb-rufus,” it seems
but reasonable to use 7z/uws, L., in preference to Férussac’s
title.

Furthermore, even if we set aside the Linnean name as
unavailable, empiricorum falls before ZL. duteus, Raz., 1879,
and ZL. succineus, Mull., 1774—-which represents its yellow
variety.

366 6. albus. First described by Miller as Z. albus margine lutes
in 1763, but first named a/dus in accordance with the
modern system of nomenclature, by Linné, Syst Vat.
ed. xi. (1767). I follow Pollonera in referring this to
ater proper.

366 &. i-iv. These four forms named by Moquin-Tandon ought to
be such as are found in France, and therefore belonging
to rufus (empiricorum). But they exactly correspond both
in character and the order in which they are given with
Miiller’s four varieties (Verm. Hist., 1774, p. 4) of his albus,
so they may be taken as based on the Miillerian descrip-
tions, and not on specimens examined by Moquin-Tandon,

366 7. marginatus. Miss Esmark (/. of Conch., 1812, p. 102) records

var. marginatus, Moq., from Norway. If the Scandinavian
slug is held distinct from the French one, this will be
a variety of it, coloured like marginatus. It is to be
' observed, however, that Pollonero admits that some Scandi-
navian examples are veritable emfzricorum, as distinct from

ater. (Arionide, p. 5.)

367 a. gohnstonit. So spelled by its author.

367 &. Gray (Cat. Fulm. B. M., 1885, p. 54) quotes Limax ruber,
Drap. I cannot now consult Draparnaud’s work, but if
the present variety was named ruber, of course lamarckit
must fall.

367 f luteus. I prefer this name, because Miiller says of saccineus,
“ Rufofuscus vel succint coloris”—thus including red-
brown forms. I have been doubtful whether to cite the
synonym /favescens, as it is by chance that Férussac uses
a single term for the variety—as may be seen by comparison
with his other citations of varieties, which are evidently
intended as descriptive. The figure of favescens is too red
for Zufews as strictly defined.

367 f. ul. ferussackiz, So spelled by its author. This name and
the two placed as synonyms of it belong to a greenish

Cc

34. COCKERELL AND COLLINGE: CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS.
68
subfasciate form, supposed to be the young of the yellow

variety. Mr. Gain (Sez. Goss., 1890, p. 45) remarks that
the young of light-coloured varieties of this species show
stripes a week or two after leaving the egg.

367 &. scharffi. Back black, sides yellow. Dr. Scharff records this
from Ireland, and from what he states it appears to be
quite common at Raheny, near Dublin. Although I am
quite unable to understand Dr. Scharff’s views about
classification, and believe he equally fails to understand
mine, or Dr. Simroth’s (or did so when he last wrote on
the subject), I may perhaps venture to give this form his
name in recognition of the value of his work on Irish
slugs. It happens that the forms I named sadbreticul «tus
and eltneolatus, years ago, are but sub-varieties of this
scharffi, but inasmuch as their names express peculiarities
not necessarily inherent in the variety, I have disregarded
what might seem the strict requirements of priority.

367 m. bocaget. Dr. Scharff figures a sub-variety of this, which he
found in Ireland; and Mr. Collinge has written on the
British representatives of docager. I think our forms should
be separated as one or two sub-varieties, as the citation of
the name docage simply may give rise to misunderstandings.
(See sulcatus.)

367 0. factatus, Seib. This is older than the facéatus, Ckll., having
been published in AZa/. BZ, 1873, p. t90. I have no note
of its peculiarities, and do not know whether it has any
standing. Pollonera, in his revision of the genus, does not
recognise it.

367 p. mullert. This is Miiller’s variety, “ater, carina dorsi pallide
virente.” The word “carina” can hardly be supposed tu
refer to any distinct keel, and so far as one may judge, the
slug must be very similar to Dr. Scharff’s Irish form of
var. bocaget. Therefore, by strict priority, we should
perhaps place docagei as a sub-variety of mulleri-—or it
may be more correct to say that docagel is the mudleri-like
form of sulcatus.

367 7. violescens. This may well be the same as /Azbernus, but as the
latter is claimed to be a distinct race or species, instead of
a colour-variety, I give it the benefit of the doubt.

367 s. bicolor. This is not Moquin-Tandon’s dicolur, but is based

on a little slug 30 mm. long, supposed by some to be a form
of A. rufus.

COCKERELL AND COLLINGE: CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS. 35

367 ¢. rupicola. Pollonera cites this as a doubtful species; it has
been thought to be a form of A. rufus.

Very likely both this and dzcolor, Broeck, really belong not
to A. rufus but A. subfuscus, especially as Pollonera says he
had some young sw#é/fuscus from France agreeing with dzco/or.

371. sulcatus. I give this sub-specific value, as it differs somewhat
from rufus of Central Europe. Simroth’s ewpiricorum var.
bocaget should probably be placed under sz/catus, in which
case the docagez-like forms (mullert, &c.) of rufus must be
separated from it. The question is whether we are to
regard the name Jdocaget as applying merely to the peculiar
colour of that .slug, or to colour plus such slight structural
differences as pertain to the Portugese race. So far as
observed the pale-backed forms of sulcatus (bocager) and
rufus (mullert, &c.) are not strictly identical, as may very
well be seen by comparing the figures of Simroth and
Scharff; and it seems very possible that 7z/ws proper does
not produce a colour-variety exactly like docagez, nor sud.atus
one like mudlert.

I have examined several examples of sw/catus in the
British Museum, which were obtained by Mr. E. A. Allen.
They are dark brown in colour.

372. fuligineus. If it could be proved that this was Zust/anicus, of
course it has priority. Pollonera suggests its affinity with
subjuscus—but that species appears not to be found in
Portugal. Simroth thinks it may be an immature form of
lusitanicus, or a Closely allied species.

372 ¢. simrothi. A small race from the Azores, which should
probably be regarded as a sub-species. See Simroth,
Archiv. f. Nat., 1888, p. 227, and Port. Azor. Faun.,
Daf. 4.5 figs. 12-13.

375. ucbret. Five specimens from Portugal in the British Museum
(E. A. Allen) appear to belong to xodrez, but they vary
among themselves. One seems like sz/catus, only black
with a plumbeus sole ; the other four have the rugze divided
more transversely, after the manner of afev. The exact
particulars are as follows :—

1. Black, mouth pale, sole plumbeus, unicolorous,
length 614 mm.

2. Black, mouth pale, sole plumbeus, unicolorous,
length 613 mm.

3. Black, mouth hardly pale, sole olivaceous, length
51 mm.

36 COCKERELL AND COLLINGE: CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS.

4. Black, mouth not pale, sole olivaceous, unicolorous,
length 46 mm.

5. Black, mouth hardly pale, sole with central zone
pale olivaceous, lateral zones black, and each
broader than central, length 37 mm.

So far as external characters go, specimens 1 and 2
should be xodrez, and 5 dasilv@, while 3 and 4 seem some-
what intermediate. It is hard to believe they are not all
mutations of one species.

370 a-c. The grey forms of swbfuscus may be distinguished as
follows :—
t. Banded

(a) bands distinct, sole yellowish = cznereofuscus.
sole whitish = /¢ypus.
(b) bands indistinct aie = krynickit.
2. Bands wanting S00 Son ae = griseus.

“ fascits-obsoletis” (Conch., 1893, p. 115) is perhaps only
a descriptive term from a label written by Mr. Pollonera.
There is an unnamed form, found by Mr. Wilcock, which
is like cenereofuscus, but has an orange foot-fringe.

370 e.g. The reddish forms may be separated thus :

1. Banded:
(a.) reddish, bands black = rufofuscus.
(6.) yellowish, bands brown = = madbzllianus.
(¢.) orange = aurantiacus.
(d@.) brick-red = rufescens.

(e.) greyish red, bands blackish = a7dosiarum.
2. Bands wanting :

(a.) yellowish, margin greyish = gaudefroyl.
(6.) yellowish, margin yellow = succineus.
(c.) brick-red, margin grey = lateritius.

Of course these forms run into one another. The form
aurantiacus, as described by me, is bright orange, with the
bands ill-marked (Sc. Goss., 1886, p. 187). It may not
be the same as Locard’s undescribed form, but in all
probability it is. The form vormanni, Loens, 1890, 1s
almost precisely the same thing, perhaps tending rather to
succineus. Var. audosiarum seems very close to Pollonera’s
later described v. adfestris, but the latter is sometimes with
four bands.

According to Pollonera, Avion olivaceus, Schmidt, is the
same as var. gaudefroyt. I have not had the opportunity
of consulting Schmidt's description, but if the names are
synonymous, o/’vaceus has many years priority.

COCKERELL AND COLLINGE: CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS. Siy/

Var. flavescens, Clige., given as a synonym of succinews, is
yellowish, with bluish sulci (7de, Collinge in litt.). The
latter feature might possibly separate it as a sub-variety.””

377. A. fuscus. Miller’s description is hardly sufficient to fix the
exact race, as given by Pollonera. It seems that /uscus,
sens. Poll., cannot be separated as a species from swd/uscus ;
and if it is clear what Miller intended, the name /uscus
must stand for the species, having priority.’

It may here be remarked that A. /uscatus, Fér., which has
been thought to be a form of juvenile A. azer, is placed by
Pollonera in the szé/uscus group, though with a query.

378. A. bavayt. This, xzvalis and euthymeanus, differ from sud-
Juscus proper in the colour of the slime; but although this
character has value in many cases, I do not think it can be
held to indicate distinct species in this group, as it is known
to be variable.”

385. A. hortensis. The name concavus, applied to the shell only,
is earlier; but I do not see how it can be satisfactorily
identified. Turton (1831) makes ZLzmacellus concava,
Brard., identical with Zimacellus vartegatus. The name
Jallax, Sterki, is also very uncertain in its application ; its
identity with 4. dourguignati has been suggested.

385 a. vil. There is some difficulty here. I have not seen the
description of fasciatus, 1830, but very probably it was
merely a wrong identification of fasczatus, Nilss., 1822, in
which case it has no standing. Pollonera cites /zméatus
as equivalent to A. anthracius, Bgt., but I do not know
why, as Moquin’s description precisely agrees with
A. hortensts, v. pelophilus. In either case the name
limbatus, Moq., cannot be given up, being earlier than
pelophilus or anthractus.

The various forms of var. fasciatus are very similar,
differing in the degree of darkening, and the colour of the
sole and sides of foot. Thus dorsalis has only the dorsal
region black, fasciatus proper shows distinct black bands,

15 T have never described any such vars. as 7u/fescens or flavescens of A. subfuscus, and these
names should certainly not appear. In a letter to Mr. Cockerell I mentioned that I purposed
describing such, but he pointed out that Locard had named a var. vu/escens (sine descr.), so
I purposed grouping all red forms under »w/fofuscus, Drp.: the new var. datertius, however,
turned up, and, being a much better marked one than any previously described, I grouped all xed
forms under it. I was not aware of the var. succinens, Bouill., when I used the term _/lavescens.
_ All the yellow forms mentioned by Mr. Cockerell should be removed from the red ones.—W.E.C.

16 In all probability Miiller’s A. fuscus is A. sub/uscus, Drp. Signor Pollonera_has very
kindly favoured me with examples, and I agree with him that there is practically no difference in
the anatomy from Draparnaud’s species. _ There is, however, a doubt about Miiller’s species, and
so Draparnaud’s name should, in my opinion, be retained. 4, citrinus, Wst., is probably the
same thing.—W. E. C.

17 The next step will probably be to separate species according to whether they are found
on the north or the south side of the hedge !—W. E. C.

38 ‘ COCKERELL AND COLLINGE: CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS.

pyrenaicus 1s similar, but the ground-colour is dark grey,
niger is so dark as only to leave the ground-colour appearing
as pale bands. ‘The form a/ézpes has the sole white
(slime colourless), 7yfws has it yellow with the sides of the
foot reddish, and in felophilus the margin is decidedly red.

385 g, pallid, Roeb., MWaiuralist, Aug. 1887, p. 249, from Lincoln-
shire, was not described. Possibly it is the same as
v. nemoralis, which is a very pale form, though more or less
banded.

385 2. luteus. This seems to differ from zvzrescens in being yellow,
and’ having less pronounced bands.

390. A. alpinus, Poll., is doubtless a valid species, but the names
alpicola’ and aureus are both older than Pollonera’s
designation. The figures of a/fzcola given by Feérussac
(pl. 8 A. f.-2-3) look like A. swbfuscus, and since there are
several different species of similar appearance, it may be
impossible to decide what Férussac’s slug really is. It
might even be specifically identical with my A. occidentalis,
which is certainly not a/pznus."*

391. A. intermedius. It is doubtful which name should be
preferred for this. I do not know A. flavus, Nilss., as
distinguished by Pollonera, but if it has good structural
characters, it seems almost hopeless to identify the names
of older authors with it or zztermedius. The oldest favus
is that of Miller, 1774, an inch and a half long, yellow,
spotless, white beneath, found in Denmark and Norway.
It has black tentacles. ‘This is not Z. flavus, Linn., of
course, and all the slugs at that time being in Zzmax,
Miller’s name was altered to aureus, on account of pre-
occupation, in 1778.

Now doubtless flavus, Miill., is an Avzon, and if it is
flavus sens Poll., or ¢xlermedius, the name must be used.
Probably it will never be identified with certainty, and so
it remains on the lists as a doubtful,—chiefly of importance
because it prevents us from admitting a later //avws into
the nomenclature. Consequently, although I leave 4. flavus,
Nilss., on the list, following Pollonera, it would be more

correct to write :—

380. A. campestris, Mab.
flavus, Nilss., Poll. (? Miill.)

The name campestris applies strictly to an orange form, and
the yellow form might be distinguished as a_ variety.

18 Férrusac’s figure, if not subfuscus i is very closely allied to it, w hereas the A. occide ntalts,
Ckll., belongs to the Zorvtens7s group. In my opinion, it is A. hortensis.—W. E. C.

COCKERELL AND COLLINGE: CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS. 39

However, the slug is probably only subspecifically distinct
from A. subfuscus, to which it may be allied through such
forms as vormannt.

Simroth has shown that ¢tfermedius (minimus) is quite
distinct from all swbfuscus forms, and consequently whether
campestris is a variety or sub-species of swbfuscus, or an
allied species, it ought not at the present day to be
confounded with zv¢éermedius. But the outward similarity is
such, that in dealing with the old descriptions we can
hardly come to any certain judgment. Simroth has
remarked, however, on the large size of Miiller’s flavus,
which seems to distinguish it from zvfermedius.

Miiller’s Avzons have always been a source of perplexity, and
it may not be amiss to give some account of them for the
benefit of those who cannot consult the original work.

O. F. Miiller.—Verm. Terr. e¢ Fluv. Hist., vol. 2 (1774).
p. 2. Limax ater. ‘The first variety is the Linnean
ater. The fourth variety ‘‘ fusco-castaneus, ora
lutescente , subtus acbis,” is said to be L. subrufus,

Linn.

p. 4. Zemax albus. With four varieties.

p. 7. Limax succineus. “L. supra subrufus, subtus
albus.” ‘*Long. 14 unc. Rufo-fuscus vel succint
coloris est absque macults aut cingulo. Tentacula
majort superne nigra, inter haec linea obscura.”
With reference to L. subrufus, L., Syst. 3, and
Hill, Anim. p. 87, |.c. Miller here makes some
mistake, as Z. succineus and L. ater var. (as above)
either should not be separated, or are not both
subrufus, LL.

p. 9. Limax cinctus. Two inches long, yellowish,
amber above, white beneath, band and back with
grey bands. Whatis this? <A form of swbfuscus ?
It is to be noted that this is the frst banded Arion
ever named, so whether it might be sadbfuscus,
intermedius, hortensis, or what not, it has priority.
Morch has reported A. cznctus from Iceland.

p. 10. LZ. flavus, see above.

p. 11. LZ. fuscus. Reddish with black tentacles, white
beneath. ‘‘ Linea lateral: dorsoqgue nigricante.”
Length 8 lin.

40% COCKERELL AND COLLINGE: CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS.

p. 11. Z. ¢enellus. Genus uncertain ; the name cannot
be certainly applied to Lemax fenellus, Auctt. It
is greenish white, mantle yellowish, head and
tentacles black.

39t a-c. Moquin-Tandon's 4. flavus, with three varieties belongs to
intermedius.

392. Priority demands the use of the earlier name paladilhianus,
Simroth remarks on the close affinity of this with z/e7-
medius, and there seems nothing to separate it other than
as a subspecies.

398-399. It is doubtful whether these two forms should take even
sub-specific rank. In all probability, civcumscriptus, placed
as a synonym of fasciatus, is the same as ambiguus; and
the forms named swbfuscus (=the British representative of
neustriacus) flavescens and griseus belong rather to ambiguus
than to fascitus proper, judging by the character of the
keel, which in these is lost in the adult. For further
observations see Mr. Collinge in Conchologist, 1892, vol. 11.,
pp. 77-80, where an alternative and possibly better arrange-
ment of the varieties is given.”

402-403. Mr. Pollonera kindly sent me A. mortzllett from Rosazza,
Piemont, and A. sfezze from Maccugnaga, Piemont. I did
not dissect them, but judging from their appearance, they
might well be the same species. Mr. Pollonera states (in
litt.) that A. spezie is smaller than morti/lett, and its
mantle is also proportionately smaller.

Letourneuxia. Opinions differ about this. Heynemann in
1882 said it was scarcely distinct from Arion ; Pollonera
gives it as a sub-genus of Geomadacus ; and now Simroth
places it as a valid genus.

410. According to Simroth, more/efi may not be distinct from
numidica.

413. Geomalacus pliocenicus, Sacco, from Piemont (Upper Pliocene),
should from its locality belong to the Le/ourneuxia group,
which may formerly have inhabited Italy, and have been
driven south during the glacial epoch. From the fossil it
would be impossible to decide this one way or the other,
and the generic reference merely rests on the balance of

probability.
19 Having seen all the varieties excepting d. of this species 397, I do not agree with the
arrangement adopted in the present list. AZ/sev, Poll., is as distinct from grésews, Cllge., as
neustriacus, Mab., or atripunctatus, Ckll., are; ” flavescens, Clige., is a variety in which the

yellow predominz ates, neustriacus is quite a dfferent thing. The two are possibly brought closer
together by sxb/uscus, Roeb. I say possibly, for I never could distinguish wherein this latter
differed from nexstriacus.—W. E, C.

COCKERELL AND COLLINGE: CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS. 4I

Limacella. 1 have found it most perplexing to decide what
name to use for this genus, but after much consideration
have come back to my original (1890) decision in favour
of Limacella. There can be no manner of doubt what
Blainville’s slug was, all the evidence duiy considered ; and
his type may be seen any day in the British Museum. The
whole question seems to turn on the acceptance or otherwise
of the rule, ‘once a synonym always a synonym ”’—a rule
which is of doubtful value, as it gives an importance to pure
synonyms they ought not to have, and prevents their being
dropped out of the classification. At first sight, the rule
appears to be a convenient one, but its logical outcome is
absurdity. For example, if I were at the present moment,
without conceivable reason, to propose a new name for the
present genus, according to the rule, this name could never
be used for another genus afterwards! ‘That is to say, an
absurd proposal of this sort would bind down zoologists
ever after to keep the name in their notes or indices lest
they should duplicate it. And if valid genus were given
this name the nomenclator might lose its authorship,
because he was not aware that I had proposed a useless
name years before! Some present difficulty is got over by
the ‘once a synonym ” rule, certainly, but it only heaps up
trouble for those coming after. One may imagine the
scientific author of the year 2000 on his travels followed
by a large van. Passer-by: “ How is it you have so much
luggage ?” Scientific man: “Oh, my luggage is in this
hand-bag; that van contains the volumes of the dictionary
of synonyms.”

436. Philomycus pennsylvanicus, Pilsbry in litt., July 5, 1893.
A medium-sized species with ribbed jaw. Will shortly be
published by its author.

448. L.formosensts. I expect this is only a race or variety of bitineata.

447. L. chinensis. Doubtless Heude’s slug is the same, but he
says it grows to 6 or 7 cm. long, so my type was immature.

457. V. frauenfeldt. Probably a synonym of a/¢e.

461. V. birmanica. Stoliczka in 1873 suggested that this and
V. hasselti might both be synonyms of V. modlts (Onchidium
molle, Hass.).

463. V. hasselti. Also in Borneo and Sumatra.

464-465. I find I have no note of the locality of these, but I think
I have included’ them in the night series.

483.
ive
E2ibe
526.

SAGE

529:

COCKERELL AND COLLINGE: CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS.

. The date of publication of Semper’s work (fezsen tn Arch.

Phil. vii., Heft.), containing so many new names in
Veronicella, is a matter of importance. It is dated 1885,
but the British Museum copy is marked as received
Jan. 15th, 1886. Probably, therefore, it was published
early in January 1886.

V. flava. Also I. of Nias, off Sumatra.

V. trilineata. Perhaps a form of mazlardi.

V. koellikert. Probably a form of fefersz.

V. brevis. In the British Museum is a coffee-brown species
from Zanzibar (Dr. Kirk) which may not be specifically
distinct from drevvs.

V. natalensis. Gibbons (Q.J.C., 1879, p. 140) records
a supposed variety of this from Mozambique, but surely it
was a different species. It is said to be keeled.

V. saxicola. J have had this species in MS. for several years.
It is 57 mm. long, 14 mm. broad, sole 6 mm. broad.
? orifice 2 mm. from sole and 32 from head. Sole not
projecting posteriorly ; mantle granulose, no raised warts,
no sort of keel. Dark red-brown, unicolorous below,
mottled-streaked with black or blackish above; a pale
middle line slightly indicated posteriorly. When young
paler, with a more obvious pale middle-line. Hab.; Port
Elizabeth, under stones (A. E. Craven) ; in British Museum.
Nearest, perhaps, to V. petersz. It is to be hoped that
specimens which can be dissected will fall into the hands
of some malocologist.

The following statistics of the position of the female
orifice in African (and African-insular) species may be of
service ; but it must be remembered that the character is
liable to some variation :—

V. myrmecophila ... 2 orifice "42 of total length from head.

Vispleur opracia © Sete AG - s
V. subaspera | ;

V. tristis zor elias 7 ¢
V. grandidtert )

VEMAKLATILU CTA a a0 a 4
V. grossa

V. verrusosa oO alee 52 + ;
V. parva ado 6 a 53 53 an
V. peterst Souk Bam ES 5
V. saxicola sce ty OREO * mm

COCKERELL AND COLLINGE: CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS. 43
elegans . | ? orifice *57 of total length from head.
rodericensis
sulfurea Soe IO Me ;
COMIOTETESTS esate, 53 59) 0 ¥
natalensis 8's) a OO 7 5

. maura soe ‘OI 7 5

V.

533. V. schivelye.
535. V. cubensis.

descri

9
Perhaps a variety of V. more/et¢ introduced.

Mr. Ponsonby has kindly copied for me the
ption of Onchidium cubense, and 1 judge from it that

the slug is not identical with V. occidentalts, to which it has
been referred.
Semper has described a slug from Cuba and Jamaica,

which
it can

he referred with doubt to V. séoaniz: I do not think
possibly be that species, but it may be a variety of

my V. dtsstmilis, with which it agrees in possessing two
retractores penis.

536. V. sloan

wz. Ihave been rather perplexed which name to use

for this slug, but have concluded that s/oanzi is preferable.
The facts, which are not apparently well-known to authors,

are as

(1.)

(2.)

follows :—

Sir Hans Sloane found a Veronicella in Jamaica,
which he figured very roughly in his work on the
natural history of that island. We now know that
there is more than one species of this genus in
Jamaica ; and there is nothing in Sloane’s figure or
very short descriptive notes, to prove that he saw
one species only, or what species he observed. One
might have made a guess, but no absolute certainty
would have been possible, I imagine, from Sloane’s
record alone.

Cuvier in 1817 proposed the name Onchidium
sloantt for this slug, giving no description, but merely
a reference to Sloane’s work. (Regne Animal, ii.,
410-11.)

Férussac (fist. Wat. Moll., p. 82, pl. 7, figs. 8-9)
gave an account of the creature, taken from Sloane,
and placed it in Verontcellus.

In the meantime (1817) Blainville described a slug
in the British Museum collection as Veronzcella
levis. Afterwards (1825) he called it Onchidium
feve, being apparently unaware that his genus
Veronicella was distinct from Oxchidium.

44 COCKERELL AND COLLINGE: CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS.

(5.) Heynemann (/Jahrd., 1885, p. 15) refers to the
existence of the type of /ezzs in the British Museum,
and mentions the fact that it was from Jamaica, and
out of the Sloane collection. I have examined the
specimen and can confirm Heynemann’s statement.
Thus it becomes evident that sdoanz and 4evis are
one and the same thing, and since we have
access to the type of Jevis, the species can be
identified. ‘There are two smaller examples in
another bottle in the Museum, with no locality
stated, but probably from the same source.

The original specimen of /@v/s may be described as follows :
—Entirely yellowish-white (Sloane has it white or ashy,
with some blackish marks). Length, 50 mm.; breadth, 174
mm. Breadth of sole, 7 mm. End of sole rounded, not
projecting beyond mantle. Female orifice, 29 mm. from
head and 2 mm. from sole. Anal (?) orifice, 6 mm. from
end of sole, and 134 mm. from female orifice. Respiratory
orifice somewhat rounded in outline, close to, and a little
to the right of, the end of sole, much as in other species,
Mantle granulose. Penis projecting from male orifice,
stout, with end blunt and rounded.

The anal (?) orifice deserves note. I think it is abnormal,
and not a peculiarity of the species, that there should be
such an orifice away from the respiratory orifice. In
Sloane’s figure an orifice is drawn in the middle of the sole

an evident mistake ; but in Blainville’s figure what looks

like a female orifice too far back is really this anal (?)
orifice.”

536 4 var. cofie@. No adequate description of this has yet appeared,

so I proceed to give one.

Slug when alive over 3} inches long, 31 mm. broad ;
when put into alcohol it exudes copious slime.

Adults not fusciate, young obscurely fusciate. Pale
middle-line, usually very conspicuous. Colour above dark
vandyke brown, obscurely marbled with darker. Skin
minutely tuberculose. Beneath yellowish-white, spotless,
sole more ochreous, end of sole blackish. Slime not milky
in the living slug. Eye peduncles dark, inferior tentacles
light. Sole narrow, not projecting: beyond end of body.

20 There can be no doube TE that ts slug should be termed séoaxz7, as none of the later
descriptions are any better than that given by Sloane. It yet remains for some one to describe
and figure from better material the internal and external morphology. It is to he hoped, however
whoever does this will retain the term s/oavzz, aud simply alter the authority. —W.E.C.

COCKERELL AND COLLINGE: CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS. 45

Measurements in alcohol: breadth of body 21 mm, of’
‘sole 8 mm. Female orifice 2 mm. from sole, 33 from
head, and 32 from hind end. Filiform glands numerous
(more than 15), about 6 mm. long. Penis-sac cylindrical,
curved into the form of a U; retractor single, long ; penis
cylindrical with a rounded head and terminal orifice.

537. V. virgata. I am now somewhat uncertain whether this is
distinct from s/oanz other than in a varietal sense. I have
descriptions of several other Jamaican Veronicel/e, which
I refrain from naming publically, hoping by further study
to arrive at some clear decision with regard to their
standing. It is possible to distinguish these forms by
characters which seem not altogether unimportant, but
without obtaining further statistics as to variation, it seems
hazardous to propose them all as species.

V. virgata, in five of the six specimens originally found, had
the female orifice $ mm. from sole; in the sixth # mm. ; in
V. sloanit (both type and var. coffee) it is 2 mm. from sole.

The female orifice is about the same distance from the
middle in wrgafa as in sloaniz, or perhaps rather more
median. The six specimens of vzga/a had it respectively
$5 25065459555 250,50, and “57 of total length rom) head:
In /evts (sloaniz) type it is *58.

As to breadth of body and sole, a virgata 50 mm. long
had body 16 mm. broad and sole 6 broad—thus about
I mm. narrower than the type of /e@zvs.

The anal orifice of vizgafa is not separate from the
respiratory orifice. The filiform glands of zxgafa are
g mm. long, whereas in s/oanti v. coffee they are about 6 mm.

The types of wzgafa were from Port Henderson, but
Mr. Peckham found (and kindly gave me) a single specimen
at Moneague.

538. V. jamaicensis. This must be regarded as founded on
Semper’s figure and description. ‘The specimens I had,
‘which I believed identical with it, I now think to be
distinct, and probably not specifically separable from
virgata.

541. V. occidentalis, Guilding. ‘This. slug is reputed to occur in
Cuba, Hayti, Porto Rico, Dominica, Venezuela, Guiana,
Martinique, St. Vincent, Guadeloupe, Jamaica, Trinidad,
and perhaps St. Thomas. ‘These records, however, are
mostly worthless, being based on a supposition that almost

46 COCKERELL AND COLLINGE: CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS.

any Veronicella found in the West Indies might safely be
dubbed occidentalis. I do not for a moment suppose that
true occidentalis is found in the Greater Antilles, or /evis
(sloanii),”" which has been confused with it, in the Lesser.

The type of occidentalis was from St. Vincent, and the
description indicates it as brown above, with dark brown
points ; pale beneath, with a few brown points towards the
sides. Length, 65 mm.; breadth, 15 mm.

The description, by itself, would not enable us to decide
about the identity of the species, but whenever specimens
agreeing with it are brought from St. Vincent, it will be
possible to record the structural character which may serve
to indicate the species wherever found.

It seems quite probable that occzdentalis really does range
southwards to the continent. In the British Museum
there are specimens from British Guiana (I. Quelch) which
above are dark brown with black peppering, below pale
purplish-grey with some black spots : these might well
be occidentalis. Another question arises, with regard to
punctatissimna, Semper. This species is recorded from
Porto Rico, St. Thomas, and Trinidad, and very likely
occurs 1n most of the Lesser Antilles. I have said above
that I do not suppose occidentalis to be a native of the
Greater Antilles, but it may extend as far as Porto Rico,
and have just such a distribution as /zzcfatissima. In fact,
it seems highly probable that it and Auzctatissima are one
species, as has already been suggested by Mr. Guppy
(J. of Conch., 1893, p. 222). Semper himself indicated
this possibility. Mr. Guppy, in the article quoted, records
only one Veronicella from Trinidad, namely occidentalis.
While this record is probably correct, his earlier writings
(Proc. Sct. Assoc. Trin., 1866; An. Mag. NV. H. (3 setr.),
vol. xvil., p. 47) seem to indicate the existence of a second
species, described as dark grey. It is for the Trinidad
naturalists to inquire whether this is not Semper’s
V. caerulescens, already known from Venezuela.

545. V. luce, Ckil. Length about 67 mm.; breadth 234 mm. ;
sole, breadth 11 mm. ; female orifice about 38 mm. from
head, and 13 mm. from sole. Sole rounded posteriorly,
not projecting beyond body. Mantle finely fitted. Sides
produced, so that a transverse section of the slug would be

*1 If Prof. Cockerell thinks the term s/oand/ preferable to devis he might at least set the
example by using it, or adhere to either the one or the other. Note 537 is very confusing. —W.E.C.

COCKERELL AND COLLINGE: CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS. 47

somewhat fusiform in outline. Colour, above dull rathcr
dark olivaceous, below (including sole) dull reddish-brown.
Habitat: Fond St. Jacques, St. Lucia. In British Museum.

This appears to be a very well-marked species, so
I venture to describe it, the anatomy being unknown.

Simper has doubtfully referred to occidentalis a slug from
St. Thomas, which presents some resemblance to /ucre.
The position of the female orifice is almost precisely the
same; and the whitish colour, without markings seems to
ally it to Zwcee@. However, in Simper’s slug the breadth, as
compared with the length—the breadth of the sole, and
the total length—all differ from Zucre. Thus:—V. lucie
has the breadth ‘34 and the breadth of sole ‘16 of total
length. In Semper’s slug the measurements are 26 and
‘08 of total length.

In the British Museum there is a small species from
Dominica, black with the head and sole brown. It seems
to be a new species allied to /angsdorfi, but I hold back
the description in the hope of further specimens being
collected, so that dissections can be made.

550. V. solea. It is doubtful whether this is a widely distributed
and variable species, or whether there is a group of distinct
species closely allied to it. Some such species have been
separated, and must for the present be held valid, namely,
V. tuberculosa, V. marianita, and V. multicolor. For
figures of these slugs see Mrs. Gray, Fig. Moll. Anim.,
LO59, pl. 278, f: 2 (or D'Orb.; Voy: Amer. Mer, t. 2x.
f. 3-4), Bul. Soc. Zool., France, 1889; Jahrbuch a. D. Mal.
Ges., 1885, Taf. 2, 4 ,and Semper’s work.

576. V. andensts. Perhaps identical with /7mayana.

584. V. nigra. May be identical with gayz.

588-589. V. kretdelit and ¢elescopium. These are supposed to be
American,

In the list I have given the species of Vevonicel/a in groups
according to locality, but a better classification of them is to
be desired. Dr. Simroth has proposed three groups, thus :—

(a) Acrocaulier. Penis perforate at the point ; equa-
torial, ¢.g., V. sloaniz.

(4) Phyllocaulier. Group of V. tudbercudosa and allies ;
neo-tropical.

(c) Pleurocaulier. Penis laterally perforated ; Asiatic
and African, e¢.g., V. maculata.

48

COCKERELL- AND COLLINGE: CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS.

Unfortunately, however, it is not yet possible to classify
the whole series by the characters Simroth relies on, owing
to our want of knowledge concerning the genital organs
of many. If the groups are natural ones, very probably a
sufficiently experienced person might be able to classify
the species in them, even without reference to the anatomy ;
but I do not know of anyone, unless it is Dr. Simroth,
who could at present attempt this with any chance of
success.

V. faunaysi, as I pointed out in P. Z. S., 1891, p. 218,
has characters which separate it somewhat widely from the
type of Veronzcella. We shall probably recognise it here-
after as the type of a distinct sub-genus, to which the
name Vaginu/a, Fér., will apply. It does not fall properly
under either of Dr. Simroth’s divisions.

The group Acrocaulier is equivalent to typical Vevonz-
cella ; Phyllocaulier and Pleurocaulier may hereafter have
to be named as sub-genera. ;

Imerinia is a subgenus founded on a species from
Madagascar, supposed to be V. grandidiert, The year
before it was published, M. Ragonot applied the name
Imerina to a genus of moths, and Mr. Gahan named a
genus of beetles /merinus. I mention this, as some may
think this constitutes pre-occupation ; but it seems to me
that the difference of a letter sufficiently distinguishes the
slug name.

The following description is taken from the specimens in
the British Museum, on which the subgenus /merznia is
founded :-—

Length 64 mm., breadth 164 mm., breadth of sole
54 mm. Female orifice 34 mm. from head, nearly 3 mm.
from sole. Sole very narrow, narrowest posteriorly, rather
rounded at end, not projecting. Mantle above and below
thickly impressed-punctate ; above with scattered raised
warts, I or 2 mm. apart. Respiratory orifice practically
median beneath end of sole. Some tufts of red-brown
bristles about 1 mm. long, on anterior right-edge of mantle.
A very slight impressed, hardly pale, middle-line of dorsum.
Colour dark reddish-brown; no spots or bands. Two
other specimens lack the bristles ; one is darker, the other
paler, brown.

Hab. Imerina, Madagascar (J. Wills).

COCKERELL AND COLLINGE: CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS. 49

Concerning Leonardia, I regret to say I possess no infor-
mation beyond that published in /. de Conch., 1890, p. 82.
Might it possibly be the same as Adopos ?

Vaginuline. So named because Binney used the name
Vaginulus for the group, but perhaps athouisiine
(Rathouistide, Heude) would be a preferable subfamily
name.

I should have been disposed to consider AZofos
a synonym of fathouista, but Dr. Simroth, who is best
qualified to judge, does not unite them.

601. Atopos pulverulentus apparently includes a specimen in the
British Museum from Pinang (Theobald), marked
“ V. sanguinea, Stol.” It has the body beautifully marbled
with black and grey, the sole pale orange tinted. Length
about 54 mm. _ Bluntly keeled.

604. P. heynemanni. Simroth founds this name on Heynemann’s
account of the Huon Gulf specimen in the British Museum.
I made a description of this same specimen as follows :—
Length, 36 mm.; breadth, 8 mm.; breadth of sole, 44 mm. ;
distance of margin to keel, 6 mm. Strongly keeled
dorsally ; a deep groove between sole and mantle, mantle
thickly and finely papillate, occasional papille black, thus
producing sparse black points. General colour ochreous,
clouded with grey. A doubtful orifice on right side of sole
about 44 mm. from head. No slit or orifice in mantle
above; mantle projects over head anteriorly; body tapers
posteriorly. Hab.—Huon Gulf (Dr. Comrie).

It is much to be regretted that Dr. Heynemann, in his
paper on the slugs in the British Museum, did not think it
necessary to cite the names of the collectors, or the persons
from whom the slugs were obtained. Dr. Comrie’s name
is now first mentioned, I believe, in connection with the
above slug; Verontcella fusca and V. flava(Borneo specimen),
described without any mention of their collectors, were
obtained by the Museum from Dr. Cunningham and
E. Gerrard, jun., respectively. The V. ¢aunayst in the
British Museum, it may be mentioned, is also from Dr.
Cunningham.

605. P. australe. I believe this is a Prisma, not an Afopfos, but
have no exact information.

Janellide. Mr. Hedley has lately sent me a paper, “An
Enumeration of the /anellide,” which appeared in Zrans.
NV.Z. Inst., 1892. In this article he uses language “ more

5° _. COCKERELL AND COLLINGE : CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS.

forcible than polite” regarding some of my published
writings. I have privately communicated to Mr. Hedley
my opinion concerning his controversial writings, and we
are now on the best of terms, so there is no occasion for
further personalities by way of public reply !

Yet I desire to assure Mr. Hedley and others, in all
sincerity, that I greatly value criticism of my published
statements, so far as it helps towards the elucidation of
the truth. This must be the attitude of every reasonable
naturalist, and if it is proved in any case that an error has
been made, the author of the mistake ought to feel obliged
to its detector.

“ Humanum est errare,’ however, and if one attacks
a paper with the deliberate intention of making the most of
its faults, and it is astonishing how much criticism may be
written. To illustrate this, I will take Mr. Hedley’s
“Enumeration of the /ane/lide,” and point out the actual
and probable mistakes and omissions it contains. .

Page 156. Mr. Hedley refers to his paper in An. Mag.
N. Hist., p. 169-71, as exposing my errors, and uses other
similar language, entirely ignoring my reply, in which
I showed that his criticisms were without reasonable
foundation. The “ Enumeration” was read June 2nd, and
as my reply appeared in May, it obviously was not available
in Australia when the paper was written. However, on
p. 160, Mr. Hedley quotes from my reply on one point,
showing that he had it before the “ Enumeration” was
published. Why then did he not omit his previously
written remarks on p. 156, or insert some justification of
them ?

Notwithstanding the language he uses in the ‘‘ Enumera-
tion,” Mr. Hedley does not bring forward a single new
fact to prove that I was wrong. Indeed, the whole paper
contains no new fact, except the description of the
interesting variety on p. 161.

Pages 157-8. My Pseudaneitea is sunk as a synonym
(I called it a subgenus) of Javea, and its type species
(papillata) is given as a variety of /. ditentaculata. One
can only suppose from this that Mr. Hedley did not know
papillata, the more so because the mistake of classing it as
a variety is rectified in the recent list of N.Z. Mollusca, in
which Mr. Hedley was assisted by Mr. Suter. With regard

COCKERELL AND COLLINGE: CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS. 51

ee

to Pseudanettea, it may be a section rather than a subgenus, ~
and I have nothing to say against those who, with a full
knowledge of the facts, prefer not to use the term.

Pages 158-159. /. verrucosa and J. marmorata are both
credited simply to Von Martens, and stated to be from
“New Zealand ;” a glance at my “mischievous,” P.Z.S.
paper would have prevented these mistakes. They are
from the Auckland Is., as Mr. Suter explains in a footnote,
and they were described by Dr. Simroth, although Dr. V.
Martens ticketed them with names. The authority, there-
fore, should be “V. Mts. in Simr.,” or “V. Mts. MS.,
Simr.” Another more doubtful point is the date of the
publication of these two slugs. Mr. Hedley cites 18809,
which is the date on Dr. Simroth’s paper, but the jart
containing the paper is dated 1890. The paper was
reviewed in the “ WVachrtsd/att,” Jan.-Feb. 1890, and must
have appeared, I suppose, in January of that year. There
is still, however, the possibility that separates were issued
late in 1889.

Pages 159. LVeosanella dubia. JI said the head of this
was shrivelled. Mr. Hedley perverts it into a statement
that the specimen was shrunken, leaving the reader to
infer that the whole slug was meant. He also says it
‘probably belongs to the preceding species” (sarmorata).
Now this must be simply a bad guess, for there is
apparently no foundation for such a statement. In
Messrs. Hedley and Suter’s recent New Zealand list,
Negjanella is referred, without comment or query, to
J. bitentaculata as a pure synonym! On what grounds
I have no idea, and I have been waiting anxiously for
particulars, supposing that such a reference must be
supported by some very plain and unexpected evidence.
But now I get a letter from Mr. Hedley, dated July 2oth,
1893, in which he says “you will perhaps continue to
support /seudanettea and Neojanella, of which I must
require more evidence before admission. . . . If you
return to London it would strengthen your position if you
published a good figure of Weojanella.” Now, what does
this mean, unless that he is still undecided about Weosane//a,
and thinks it Aosszé/e that further evidence might prove its
validity? If so, how can the reference to dztentaculata, as
mentioned above, be justified ?

52 COCKERELL AND COLLINGE: CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS.

Page 161. The species of AHyalimax have some
synonymy, which is omitted. Also A. mazl/ardi is given
as from Mauritius,—-should it not be Bourbon? I have no
access to the original description, but have always been
under the impression that it came from the latter island.
I note, also, that Dr. Heynemann cites it as from Bourbon
only.

Page 157. ‘ Athoracophus” and ‘‘ Konophera” are
doubtless only misprints.

Now I leave it to be imagined what sort of a criticism
Mr. Hedley might have written of ‘‘ An Enumeration of the
Janellide,” if it had not so happened that he, and not I, was
its author.

Athoracophorus. For reasons stated under Limace/la,
I am not now disposed to reject /ane//a on account of
preoccupation by a synonym. This was Mr. Hedley’s
view, but singularly enough, just as I decide in its favour
I hear from him “I am now inclined to substitute
Athoracophorus for Janella.” ”

608. J. marmorata. Messrs. Hedley and Suter place this’ as
a synonym of Hutton’s marmorea. 'To me, they seemed
amply distinct, but there may be reasons unknown to any
but these authors, which make it necessary to unite them.
I have only seen one example of marmorea and none of
marmorata.

610. J. verrucosa. For the present I give this the benefit of the
doubt, but probably Messrs. Hedley and Suter correctly
refer it to papillata. Hutton cites papillata from the
Auckland Islands.

611. WV. dubia. As above mentioned, Messrs. Hedley and Suter
have referred this to Jane/la bitentaculata. ‘The back of
the Jane//a presents a groove which is lacking in Weojanel/a,
and the specimens I have of /. dctentaculata are much
smaller than MNeojanel/ia. Thus, Neosanella dubia
(in alcohol) is 53 mm. long, /. dztentaculata from
Wellington, N.Z., is 16 mm. long. (Spn. fr. Otago Univ.
Mus.) /. ditentaculata = antipodarum, Gray, type specimen,
is 19 mm. long. In Gray’s type of antipodarum (in Brit.
Mus.) the genital organ protrudes, leading one to suppose
that the slug is mature. If so, it cannot possibly be the

22 It is to be hoped that Mr. Hedley and other authors will retain the name /ame//a'—
Wer:

COCKERELL AND COLLINGE: CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS. 53

same as /Veojanella, but if Messrs. Hedley and Suter can
affirm that individuals agreeing with dz/en/aculata (antipo-
darum) do grow to a length of 53 mm. (as measured in
alcohol), and that when so grown they agree with my
description of Weojanella dubia, of course I have nothing
further to say. I very much hope that conclusive proof
will soon be offered, one way or the other.

Hyalimacine. Mr. Hedley refers to the anatomy of
“ Parmarion” kerstent, V. Mts., which appears to make it
a member of this group. Its proper generic position 1s still
undecided, and my information about it does not enable
me to offer any opinion.

Another “ Parmarion” which I do not understand is
rangianus, Fér., from Bourbon and (it is said) Madagascar.
Tryon gives it as a Parmarion, and Gray (BL. MZ. Cat., 1855)
cites it as a doubtful Drusza. It has also been called
Parmacella rangtt. 1 had an idea it was a Hyalimax, but
Mr. Hedley makes no mention of it in his “‘ Enumeration,”
and I have not now access to the literature that might
enable me to decide about it.

CONCLUSION.

In concluding the list, I wish to point out that it is necessarily
very far from perfect, and that the progress of knowledge concerning
slugs must inevitably require great changes to be made, even in
respect to matters which now seem beyond dispute. ‘The compiler
of such a list knows its weak points better than most of its critics
can know them—knows how often it has been impossible to decide
with any certainty about the validity of a species; and how often
one opinion has seemed about as good as another, and has been
followed because some choice had to be made, rather than because
it was probably correct.

Probably there are few things so prejudicial to the progress of
science as the spirit of confident assertion which will not readily
admit the possibility of error, or consider the views of one who
thinks differently. To illustrate the dangers of such an attitude,
I may instance the radical changes which have taken place of late
years in our views respecting the species of Avzon. Kobelt’s catalogue
(1881) may undoubtedly be taken as compiled from the best sources,
and to represent the opinion of the time, yet when we turn to A7zon
in the index, we find as follows :—

54 COCKERELL AND COLLINGE: CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS.

A. bourguignate=flavus var. A. dupuyanus =fuscus var.
A. brunneus=emptricorum jv. A. fasctatus=hortensis et fuscus.
A. campestris =empiricorum var. A. intermedius=emptricorum juv.

A. nivalis =valid species.

A. olivaceus=valid species.

A. pascalianus = fuscus.
and so forth. It 1s easy now to see how little the conclusions of the
authors of 1881 were to be trusted, but does this not suggest

possibilities concerning the opinions of authors of 1893 ?

Finally, I will venture to make a suggestion regarding the list.
Let it be the basis of our classification until it can be improved; and let
every slug-student send notes to the “‘ Journal of Malacology” ; which
may be published under the general heading of Additions and
Amendments to the Slug List. Such notes, one might hope, would
be fairly numerous, especially just at first, as every student on reading
the list will be sure to think of several changes which seem to him
necessary or desirable. The proposed changes might be discussed
after publication by those who disagreed with them, and after a time,
it might be announced that a second (revised) list was about to
appear. Upon this announcement every student would write to the
Editor of the Journal, giving his latest opinions, and in due time
the list would appear, doubtless a vast improvement upon its prede-
cessor. As in the present list, some notes would be appended,
especially when it was necessary to explain the views of minorities
who disagreed with the classification given. In cases of great
difficulty, a post-card vote might be taken to decide a point. The
revised list would not of course, be in any sense final, but would be
followed by other editions as often as circumstances demanded or
permitted.

If the funds could be obtained for printing, a new edition every
year would be very useful, and would give a great impetus to the
study.

APPENDIX.
By WALTER E. COLLINGE.

Professor Cockerell has placed all students of the slugs under
a great obligation for so admirably and carefully compiled a check
list. Only those who have worked at this group, and have extended
their inquiries beyond the fauna of their own immediate country,
are fully able to appreciate the value of such a list as the present,
and whatever difference of opinion may prevail as to the validity of

COCKERELL AND COLLINGE : CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS. 55

this or that genus or the system of classification, all malacologists
will, 1 think, appreciate the amount of patient labour involved in such
an undertaking.

Professor Cockerell has invited me to append to his list some
critical observations and notes of my own, but as the same has
passed through my hands during the vacation, during which period
I have had other work to complete, and often away from the
sources of literature desired, I have only been able to express an
opinion on a few general points.

I am not aware that the slugs have ever been so catalogued
before, and therefore a very many points of difficulty must have
arisen to the compiler as to classification, priority, generic and
specific distinction, &c., in all of which cases a decision was a very
perplexing matter. No one appreciates more than myself Professor
Cockerell’s work upon the slugs ; in fact, for the last five years I have
followed very closely his writings, and have been in constant
correspondence with him, and which, I hope, may continue for
very many years to come. We regard the slugs—in fact, the
Mollusca altogether—from two entirely different standpoints ;
nevertheless, we are prepared to agree to differ, and not to permit
objectional personalities to arise or stand in our way in elucidating
the history of so interesting and important a group.

Hitherto the slugs have been studied purely from a systematical
standpoint, but with the publication of the works of Simroth, Semper,
Lessona, Pollonera, Godwin-Austen, Scharff, Hedley, and others, our
views are rapidly changing, and a new and more rational system is
supplanting the old. This new system—which I am pleased to
observe is spreading in other departments of Zoology'—demands
a knowledge of internal as well as external morphology, and as I have
previously stated,” ~7ghily refuses to recognise inadequate descriptions or
descriptions of shells apart from the animal, or to acknowledge genera
or spectes founded upon purely external features ; in short, it demands
that they shall be classified and created “upon the aggregate
characters,” and not upon single features.*

The slugs, as a group, are one which are subject to endless
variation in colour, markings, form, size, &c., &c. Mr. Gain has
shown that in a lifetime an individual species passes through a
number of distinct variations in colour, markings, and form, very
different, in some cases, from the adult animal.! The observations

1 W. F. Kirby, ‘‘ Nature,” 1893 (roth Aug.), p. 339.
* Conchologist, 1892, vol. ii., p. 64 (footnote).

* Hedley, Trans. New Zeal. Inst., 1892, xxv., p. 155.
£ Conchologist, 1892, vol. ii., p. 55.

56 COCKERELL AND COLLINGE : CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS.

of numerous malacologists on the changes effected by habitat,
climate, food, &c., are known to all. Important as these various
variations may be—I must confess I cannot attach the importance
to them that some have done—they are, from the variability of their
nature, unsuitable for generic or specific distinction, except as
secondary characters. Recourse must, therefore, be made to the
anatomy. In the form of the various organs we find a permanent
and well-marked difference between one genera or species and
another. It must be remembered that there are slight variations in
the form, colour, &c., of the various organs according to age,
season, &c., so that a reasonable limit must be allowed in which a
species may vary. The anatomical differences which distinguish
Arion from Testacella, or Testacella from Veronicella, are at once
appreciable. Not only is this so, but, generally speaking, an
acquaintance of any duration will enable the student in most cases
to readily distinguish between one species and another from the
morphology of the generative organs alone; where these are
undeveloped or at all doubtful, the nervous and digestive systems
are almost as serviceable. Seeing, then, that the external features
are liable to such change, and that the internal are much more
constant, I prefer to accept the latter, and upon these build up a
rational basis for a system of classification. The old system of
systematic zoology has had its day, and as a warning (and in
evidence of its worthlessness) leaves us volumes of synonyms to
almost every species, not to mention any of the graver errors it has
been the source of. With the advance of morphological investiga-
tion, the student, instead of revelling in the multiplication of so-
called species and varieties (to me Bourguignat and Westerlund are
a terrible warning) endeavours to classify upon some scientific basis,
and then to show the genetic or specific relationship between one
genera or species and another. A study based on such lines rises to
one of importance and value; on the old, resembles a schoolboy’s
attempt at a system of ethics—in short, becomes a farce.

Until Professor Cockerell describes and figures the anatomical
differences in his species of slugs, I cannot accept them as valid.
I do not say that they are not so, as many seem to be very distinct,
judging from the external features, X&c., but until I see structural
differences—not mere variations in the breadth or colour of some
single organ—differences which mark them off in the majority of
individuals from their nearest known ally, I shall regard them as
doubtful.

If we allow a species (or variety) to vary within a certain limit,
there is no need for any such things as subspecies (or subvarieties)

COCKERELL AND COLLINGE: CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS. 57

which are so prominent in the present list. I will only mention
a single example to show the utter absurdity of such a method of
treatment. The genus Amalia has been thrown into the greatest
confusion and chaos, so many are the species made out of the slight
anatomical variations and the many colour variations of four or five
species. Professor Cockerell warns malacologists ve confident
assertions, the admission of errors and the consideration of others’
views, all of which are very apt and opportune, but when a case is
brought to the test, and anatomical evidence of the most convincing
and undeniable character from the ablest malacological anatomist
living, is advanced to disprove the specific identity of such a variety
as cinereo-niger of L. maximus, he writes :—‘‘I have never been at
a loss to identify cemereo-niger by external marks.”

Coming to the Avonide, a family I am particularly interested in,
there is much that I cannot agree with, re 4. ater, rufus, and empiri-
corum. Professor Cockerell seems to have overlooked the fact that
because Linné thought that Lister’s species was identical with his, or
vice versa, it does not at all prove that either were right. My view—
possibly I am quite wrong—is that Linné described an Avion which
he termed ater—I am omitting any question as to genera —a species
which seems to be limited to the Scandinavian region; he also
described an A. rufus, which is probably but a variety of A. ater?
Various other European authors later described a large black Avion
or varieties of it. The best description, however, about which there
can be no doubt as to the species, is that of Férussac’s. He gave
the name empiricorum to this slug. Moquin-Tandon named the red
variety ruber, which, however, must give way to Kaleniczenko’s var.
lamarcku (if the description is good), which is the same thing, and
there the matter ends.

What Professor Cockerell is trying to prove respecting the
varieties docaget, sulcatus, and mudler? 1 really fail to see. First he
endeavours to prove that sz/ca¢ws is something for which there is no
evidence whatever, and classes docaged as a variety of it, whereas
Simroth, its author, classed it as a variety of empiricorum. He next
suggests to class docage? as a subvariety of mudler? and finally concludes
“that docagez is the mudleri-like form of sudcatus.” Simroth states that
sulcatus is identical with empiricorum, and even Pollonera advances
little or nothing in support of its identity as a species. If there is any
evidence—I have not the original description by me—for supposing
Miller’s variety is identical with Simroth’s, then the former must
have priority, and sw/catus should remain as a distinct variety of
empiricorum, unless we place the three unnamed minor forms I have
described, all under one name. It seems to me that Moquin-

E

58 COCKERELL AND COLLINGE : CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS.

Tandon’s var. dzcolor is sufficiently well marked and described to
include all those forms in which there is a dark dorsal surface and
lighter sides; in such a case it would include, as well as the forms
above mentioned, v. a/bolateralis, Roebuck, and v. scharffi, Ckll.
(in 1891 Professor Cockerell classed this as v. bicolor, Moq. See
Conchologist, 1891, 1., p. 50).

Respecting the final suggestion, I will gladly do what I can, by
placing the pages of the “ Journal of Malacology” at the disposal of
all malacologists for open and free discussion of the list.

I have a suggestion to make myself, which, if other malacologists
will help, I will endeavour to carry out. It is very desirable, I think,
that we should have a “ Register of Original Descriptions,” and, if
possible, figures, where they exist, of all described slugs and their
anatomy. I purpose to commence such a register, which will
contain a copy of the original description of every known family,
sub-family, section, genus, sub-genus, variety, &c., with reference to
the original. These I will place at the disposal of any malacologist
by sending copies of any description, on payment of some small fee
to cover the cost of clerical expenses. The register, when complete,
I may possibly print, and place in some public museum, with a
collection of the slugs of the world, which I am bringing together.
The descriptions desired at present are all in the foregoing list ;
after a time a notice will appear in the “‘ Journal,” stating by number
and letter what are still wanted.

In conclusion, I feel sure the publication of this list well merits
the grateful thanks of all malacologists, and that it will give a
definite impetus to the study of the slugs in this and other countries.
I trust the “spirit of confident assertion,” &c., is not so rife as
Prof. Cockerell thinks, but that we are all open to conviction, and
pursuing our studies in a spirit of broad-mindedness, and with “that
fanaticism of veracity which is a greater possession than much
learning.”

Printed by MCCorquodale & Co. Limited, Leeds.

oe a il
aransa ir le

5
/ ‘ , t a
’
ne f ; J
; 1
. )
y e *
, i .: - ¥
é =~ J ‘ scree .
’ * 2 ue 2
: J . \ . , . y
r = -
4 , 2 ¢ =
F 7 U = .
fe ; A g
\ _ >
‘ 5 ‘ :
-
4 r a F . ;
, “i :
: J ‘ ; } :
ay ' a hi Pie = f és :
» U ny =x
¢ : $ y hy ' ft : .
* ¢ _ " - ul . ’ 4