The sub-var. hibernica was brought forward in the Irish Naturalist for Nov. 1907, as Vitrina (Hyalina) hibernica, which contained a description and figures of the shell and some account of the organization with illustrations by the Rev. F. W. W. Bowell, and although Dr. Böttger, to whom specimens were sent by Mr. Kennard for determination, remarked:—"The Hyalina from Murlough Bay I have as cellaria var. compaeta Jeffreys from Gill's Bay, Caithness," yet Messrs. Kennard and Bowell decided to describe it as a new species.

Mr. A. W. Stelfox and others, who have especially studied this question, practically regard all full-grown Irish specimens of H.cellaria as referable to hibernica, the only exceptions being those inhabiting some of the eastern counties, which do not appear to grow beyond the usual size of English specimens. — Vitrea hibernica n.sp. SHELL: somewhat convex above, less so beneath, thin, glassy, semitransparent, pale horn colour above, clouded white beneath STELE: parallel with the mouth and more pronounced at the suture : WHORLS 5-6, bodywhorl about half the size of the shell ; SPIRE slightly produced ; APEX blunt.; SUTURE: shallow and grooved ; MOUTH semilunar and somewhat oblique;UMBILICUS narrow and deep. Height 6-7 mm. Breadth 11-14 mm. It can be distinguished from V. cellaria by the greater height of the spire and by the more oblique mouth ;this last being very noticeable in immature specimens (pl. 42, fig. 4-7).

The Rev. E. W. W. Bowell has recently published an account of the Irish specimens, regarding them as decidedly referable to V. pyrenaica Fer., which he affirms he has collected and examined in France. The anatomical drawings published to establish this contention are, however, so deficient in the clearness and accuracy essential to the presentation of anatomical details, and the organs so misapprehended and misnamed, that little weight or importance can be attached to the Further, the V. pyrenaica, as figured by Ferussac, is certainly not referable to our Irish shell, as a comparison of the figures here given will show. The shell is much larger, the coiling is appreciably less, and the degradation of structure is much further advanced in V. hibernica, while the whole contour of the shell is also different. Moreover, V. pyrenaica would appear to be a really indeterminate or dubious species, as Ferussac never described it, and so far as he is concerned the species is known only by his figures of the shell and the following precise description of the locality where it is supposed to have been found :

"Helicolimax pyrenaica nobis, pi. ix., f. 3 Habit les Pyrenees a 2OO ou 300 toises au dessus des Eaux Bonnes, vallee d'Ossian pres de Pic du Midi." Abbe Dupuy, a celebrated and enthusiastic conchologist, and author of one of the most important standard works on the Mollusca of France, who lived within reach of the published locality, regarded V. pyrenaica as a myth, stating that although he had often and assiduously sought expressly for it on the precise and only spot indicated by Ferussac, he had only found V. beryllina or V. elongata there, and seems inclined to regard the illustrations as unprecise figures of the former species ; while M. Mermet, who so especially and thoroughly studied the molluscan fauna of the Western Pyrenees, could never find and indeed neversaw the species. Moquin-Taiulon describes V.pyrenaica in his work, but appears to have done so without personal knowledge, as his enumeration of the places in which it is said to be found, lack his usual mark of personal verification, and, further, his figure shows a much more globose and less degenerate shell than our V. hibernica. We are, therefore, compelled to conclude that no valid grounds exist for the