Malacofaunistical Data By J. VÁGVÖLGYI, Budapest On the basis of the work of some foreign authors, some common and widely distributed forms, regarded as subspecies, attained a specific state in recent years. The separation and the establishment of their distribution in Hungary of these species has naturally not yet been made in Hungarian literature. In my present paper, I wish to do this work, and, on the other hand, I should like to further our informations concerning the Mollusca fauna of our country by the publication of the distributional data of some rare — or at least rare in Hungary — species, and by, the rectification of data deriving from erroneous identifications. Carychium tridentatum Risso. With regard to a paper of mine, H. Waiden, Swedish malacologist, was kind enough to call my attention to the work of Watson, H. <& Verdcourt, B. (1953). The above authors present, after having discussed the respective literature, the results of their variation-statistical researches. I find their deductions right. According to them, the form tridentatum Risso has to be given a specific state. The differences between it and mini- mum Müll, may be summed up as follows : Tridentatum is generally longer, more cylindrical and slender than minimum. Whilst the height of tridentatum is 1,75—2,04 mm, its breadth 0,82—0,99 mm, and the ratio between its height and breadth varies between 2,03—2,16, the height of minimum is 1,62—1,86 mm, its breadth 0,89—0,98 mm, the ratio of its height and breadth oscillates between 1,77—1,94 (breadth measured above the aperture!). Some further differences : given the same size, triden­ tatum has generally with 1/2—1/3 more whorls than minimum, the former having generally 5,1, the latter 4,5 whorls. The last whorl of tridentatum is smaller in the main (52,5%), that of minimum is larger than the main (60% of the whole height of the shell). The shells of both species are finely striated, but the striae are higher, more regular and stand more thight together in tridentatum than in minimum. The aperture of tridentatum is, on the main, some­ what smaller than that of minimum, its lip is more strongly developed, broader, the dentide of the outer margin stronger than those of minimum. The differences relating to the whorls, striation and aperture are, however, not constant and may even be of an opposite sense. There is a more reliable and, at the same time, more easily recognizable difference between the two species in the course of the parietal and columellar lamel. The parietal lamel of tridentatum, having entered the last whorl, broadens, thickens, and turns upward ; then, after a course of 0,2 mm, it turns suddenly downward. This phenomenon takes place in minimum more weakly and only later (that is, displaced to the left). The columellar lamel of tridentatum also broadens somewhat (and thickens on its margin), whilst that of minimum remains unaltered. Tridentatum is frequent in mainly hilly and mountainous districts, and in the woods, whilst minimum favours very wet places, meadows, marshes, and open habitats. Both species are widely distributed in Europe. In Hungary and the surrounding Carpathians, both species have a general distribution : tridentatum has 23, minimum 23 known collecting localities, both from the plains and the mountains. Cochlicopa lubricella Porro. (exigua Mke., minima Siem.) Formerly, it was relegated, by the name var. exigua Mke., to lubrica Müll. The dif­ ferences between the two species may, on the basis of Waiden (1955), be summed up in the followings : The shell of lubricella is more cylindrical, its whorls flatter and its tip blunter, its color slightly lighter than those of lubrica. These morphological differences are concurrent with differences in size. Lubricella is smaller, its height varies between 4,20—5,10 mm, (the main being 4,75 mm), its breadth oscillates between 1,80—2,20 mm, (the main being 2,01 mm) ; lubrica is larger, its height between 4,75—7,05 mm (the main being 5,70 mm), its breadth between 2,10—2,80 mm (the main being 2,46 mm). The difference between the mains is varia- tion-statistically real. Waiden also mentions some anatomical differences between the two species, namely, that the flagellum of the penis of lubricella is shorter and less swollen than that of lubrica ; the oviductus of lubricella is less pigmentated against the strongly pigmented oviductus of lubrica. He mentions, however, that the constancy — and so the reliability — of these features is not satisfactorily cleared up yet. Some differences also occur between the two species with regard to their range, since lubricella is missing from Iceland and the northern parts of Sweden. The two species are general in Hungary and the surrounding Carpathians. On the basis of the Collection of the Hungarian Natural History Museum, lubricella has 52, and lubrica 111 known collecting localities. Lubricella seems tobe somewhat more frequent in mountainous districts (including the Central Mountains too). During the examination of my material collected in marshy woods, I looked through many Cochlicopa, and, even before being cognizant of the paper of W a 1 d é n, I began to have the idea that we have to deal with two distinct species. It is natural therefore that I wholly accept the relevant views of Waiden. Quick, too, considered the distinct specificity of the two forms but, unfortunately, I had not been able to receive his paper on Cochlicopa (Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, 30, fasc. 6.). Truncatellina strobeli Gredl. Mt. Peskő (Mts. Vértes, near Tatabánya). A new species to our fauna. The shape and size of the specimens are absolutely identical with those from the Alps. Truncatellina claustralis Gredl. Peskő, Vadorzó valley, Vinyabükk valley. The first of the collecting localities is the eastern limestone face of Mt. Peskő, identical with that of T. strobeli. The other two are situ­ ated also in the Mts. Vértes, near the village Szár. They are both dolomite ravines covered by oaks and hornbeams. Columella edentula Drap. Vörs, in the Transdanubium, in a we.t forest ; Ócsa (on the Great Plains), in an alderwood. Vitrea contracta subcontracta A. J. Wagn. Peskő. Mixed into other materials in the Collection of the Museum, I found it yet from the following localities : Nógrádverőce, „Trencsén", Csáklya : Marjucza-szirt. — With regard to the distribution of this species, L. S o ó s (1943) cites A. J. W a g n e r, according to whom „this form substitutes the type in Hungary and Austria", but he also mentions that he does jiot know this form. The specimens found by me belong all to the flat subcontracta form. Vitrea inopinata Ul. Vörs; Peskő. Perpolita petronella Charp. This species was included in the big monograph of L. S o ó s (1943) on the Hungarian malacofauna on the basis of a single specimen collected by E. D u d i c h in Szalonna. When identifying my hammonis material originating from the marsh forests, I have compared it with hammonis and petronella specimens of the world collection of the Museum and also with Hungarian hammonis and the petronella from Szalonna. Accordingly, it transpired that the shell of Szalonna is not that of a Perpolita petronella but a somewhat curiously whorled shell (due to a break) of a Zonitoides nitidus specimen. It does not show the characteristical inden­ tations of the genus Perpolita, its sculpture agrees wholly with that of Z. nitidus, and even its 1 size comforms with it ; its diameter is 5,4 mm, (4 /i whorls) that of petronella being 4—4,6 mm, that of nitidus 6,5—7 mm. This species must accordingly be deleted from the Hunga­ rian malacofauna. 1 2 Fig: 1. Truncatellina strobeli Gredl. : Vértes hegység, Peskő. — Fig. 2. Zonitoides nitidus Müll. : Szalonna. Vitrina bielzi Kim. Vadorzó valley, Vinyabükk valley, Mts. Mecsek : Mély valley. Trichia filicina bielzi Bielz. Vadorzó valley. Bibliography: I.Ehrmann, P.: Mollusken (in : Die Tierwelt Mitteleuropas, 1933, p. 44). — 2. S o ó s, L.: A Kárpát-medence Mollusca-faunája (Budapest, 1943, p. 478). — 3. W a 1 d é n , H. W.: The land Gastropoda of the vicinity of Stockholm (Arkiv for Zoo- logi, 7, 1955, Nr. 21., Serie 2, p. 391-448). — 4. Watson, H.&Verdcourt, B.: The two British species of Carychium (Journ. of Conch., 23, 1953, No. 9. p. 306-324). .