LEPTINAB1A. 285 



very narrow and tricuspid. The laterals are tricuspid, but 

 the inner cusp is obsolete or even completely wanting. The 

 middle cusp lengthens notably towards the sides of the radula. 

 The marginal teeth are very small, short, bicuspid or tricus- 

 pid, the cusps subequal. The chief peculiarity of this radula 

 is the extreme elongation of the outer lateral teeth (pi. 51, 

 fig. 4, L. lamellata, after Fischer). 



L. gloynii, of the section Neosubulina, has been shown by 

 Binney to have similar median teeth, but he does not mention 

 the outer marginals. See pi. 51, fig. 3, central and first lat- 

 eral teeth. 



Leptinaria was proposed by Beck for five species, of which 

 only the first, L. unilamellata (= L. lamellata), had been de- 

 fined. The next two, L. lacryma Beck and L. succinealis 

 Beck, from Juan Fernandez, both undescribed, were probably 

 members of the genus Tornatellina, while L. soluta Beck and 

 L. sorgum Beck, from Guinea, are undescribed forms of un- 

 known identity. 



Nothus Alb. comprised one species of simple Opeas-like 

 form ; but the name was preoccupied. Lamellaxis of Strebel 

 included the similar forms, mexicana Pfr., modestus Streb., 

 salleana Pfr., venezuelensis Pfr., aequatorius Mill., imperfor- 

 atus Streb., filicostatus Streb., striosus Ad., and paludinoides 

 Orb. 8. mexicanus Pfr. was selected as the type by Fischer, 

 Manuel de Conchyliologie, p. 488. The term may be retained 

 in a subgeneric or sectional sense for the forms reproducing 

 by eggs, and without a parietal lamella, with L. mexicana as 

 the type. 



Leptinaria chathamensis Ball, 1892, has been shown to 

 belong to Tornatellina; cf. Ball, Proc. A. N. S. Phila., 1900, 

 p. 95. 



Bulimus pupoides Anton, Verzeichniss, p. 42, no. 1535, 

 from "Opana in South America," may be an Opeas or Lep- 

 tinaria, or possibly a Paludestrina. It is scarcely to be iden- 

 tified. 



In the Orient, Bulimus plicifer Bs. (see p. 63) has some 

 characters of Leptinaria. It has been considered a Buliminus 

 by Kobelt (Conch. Cab., Buliminidce, p. 688), but with doubt, 



