100 THE NAUTILUS. 



label is with these specimens, but I have not been able to 

 identify the handwriting. It is quite possible that they came 

 from Marie as MacAndrew had considerable material from the 

 Marie collection. These shells do not at all agree with Adams' 

 description of chittyi nor with the figure of that species given by 

 Bourguignat in the J. de Con,, IV, 1853, p. 172, pi. VI, fig. 

 10. Unfortunately Bourguignat does not state whether his 

 figure was drawn from the unique type in the Chitty collection 

 or not. It seems possible that the citation of obscurus from 

 Guadeloupe by Fischer in 1853, which Maze in 1883 states had 

 not been verified to his knowledge, may have been based on 

 similar specimens. Curiously enough, however, I have a speci- 

 men of this same species received from Geret of Paris as from 

 the Crosse collection, which has no specific name attached 

 whatever. 



The citation of A. obscurus from St. Thomas rests entirely 

 upon Shuttleworth's citation in his " Catalogue of the Terres- 

 trial and Fluviatile Shells of St. Thomas" (Ann. Lye. Nat. 

 Hist., N. Y., VI, 1854, p. 72) and repeated in his paper on 

 "The Land and Fresh-water Shells of Porto Rico" (Diag. 

 NeuerMoll., No. 6, 1854, p. 99). Shuttleworth expressly states 

 that he relied on Adams' identification for the name. In the 

 Adams collection is an unidentified set of a small Ancylus from 

 St. Thomas received from Bland and, no doubt, collected by 

 him on his visit to that island in 1852, which is entirely differ- 

 ent from Haldeman's species. Bland in his notes to Shuttle- 

 worth's paper (1. c. p. 68) states that he had sent to Shuttle- 

 worth specimens of all the species that he had collected on St. 

 Thomas and, though it is possible that Shuttleworth's speci- 

 mens were received from his own collector, Blauner, it is prob- 

 able, especially as he relied on Adams' identification, that were 

 received from Bland and, if so, were, no doubt, part of the same 

 lot in the Adams collection. 



As suspected at the time and intimated in my paper (1. c. 26) 

 the Floridan species referred to obscurus by Dall is quite differ- 

 ent also. 



I have not been able to obtain any additional information in 

 regard to the species from Porto Rico referred to obscurus by 



