26 THE NAUTILUS. 



quotes no other localities than those of Haldeman, Adams, Shuttle- 

 worth and Fischer. His figure is so decidedly different from Hahlr- 

 man's that it would seem to have been drawn from an actual speci- 

 men, but. he does not so state. He also compares obscurus with 

 diaphanus, saying that it differs only by its more posterior apex. 



Pilsbry, in his description of A. eugraptus (NAUT. ix, p. 131)), 

 compares that species with both fuscus and obscurus. 



These are the only references to obscurus that I have been able to 

 find. The only specimens 1 have seen, which are at all referable to 

 this species, are in the collection of A. A. Hinkley, from Volusia 

 county, Florida, and are said to have been identified by Dr. Dull. 

 There are eleven specimens in this lot, of which six are A. penhi- 

 sulce, the remainder are quite different and may be obsciirus. At the 

 time Dr. Dall's paper was published, A. pemnsttlce had not been 

 described and, if these specimens were identified by him, the mixture 

 of the two forms raises a query not only as to which form he identi- 

 fied with A. obscurus, but also in regard to the identity of the speci- 

 mens referred to that species from the several Floridan localities 

 quoted in his paper. Both of the forms represented in the Hinkley 

 lot are characteristic, wide, depressed Lcevapices and such as would 

 be expected from a lake country, being closely related to A. fuscus. 

 As has already been stated, the only species of Lavapex from the 

 region from which Haldeman's type came, that has been clearly 

 identified, is A. diaphanus. With that exception, all the Ancyli seen 

 from that region belong to the section Ferrissia. This tact, taken in 

 connection with Haldeman's figure and his comparison of obscurus 

 with rivularis and haldemani, raises a very serious doubt in my mind 

 whether the Floridan specimens referred to have been correctly 

 identified. It certainly seems remarkable that so acute an observer 

 aa Haldeman should have made such a comparison, if he had before 

 him a shell similar to those of the Hinkley lot. 



1 regret that I have not been able to have Haldeman's type ex- 

 amined critically in regard to the apical characters. When that is 

 done, I should not be at all surprised if it proved to be a genuine 

 Ferrissia. In the meantime, it seems best to describe and figure the 

 Hinkley shell, as it may be represented in other collections under 

 this name, leaving the question of its identity with Haldeman's spe- 

 cies for future determination. When cleaned, the shell is a light 

 yellowish horn-color, shining, very thin, fragile and transparent; 



