Hutchinson, J.M.C, Reise, H. & Schlitt, B. 2022. Will the real Limax nyctelius please step forward: Lehmannia, Ambigolimax, or Malacolimax? No, Letourneuxia! Archiv für Molluskenkunde 151: 19–41.

Please email me for a pdf!
Link to journal (paywalled):


In the caption to Figure 7, the penultimate sentence dealing with collection numbers contains an error: the slug in Fig. 7E does not have collection number p24227 and indeed the Moravian slug illustrated is not in the collection of the SMNG. The reason for the error is that the current illustration was substituted for another and this part of the caption was not corrected. There does exist a specimen of L. carpatica with the number p24227, but it is another from the type locality.

On p. 39 we wrote with regard to Giusti (1976), "His description is in close agreement with the specimens available to us except that we could not find a canal-like structure leading from the basal penis to the bursa duct." This slight disagreement was due to our careless misinterpretation of the Italian original; the "canale" to which Giusti (1976:212) referred is clearly the bursa duct itself, leading the bursa copulatrix. Thanks to Folco Giusti for pointing out this error.

The ZooBank number given for the description of A. parvipenis actually refers to the article. The correct number is
Similarly for A. waterstoni: the correct number is

Gary Barker examined his original pencil drawings and confirmed our presumption (p. 29) that his 1999 illustration was in error; the entrance of the vas deferens should lie inside the flaps. On the other hand he found that his illustration of the internal structure of the penis of A. valentianus did match his original sketches. We still cannot match that illustration to the anatomy we have observed in this species, but it thus seems that we were mistaken to presume that the reason was “stylising” (which of course all drawings necessarily do to some extent).


Dissections of further specimens of A. parvipenis has revealed that, although most often the rectal caecum does indeed not reach to the end of the viscera, sometimes it does. So this is less reliable a distinction from A. valentianus than we proposed in the article.

Back to list of abstracts
Back to list of publications