THE NAUTILUS. 27 



In the box with the Knox Co. cryptomphala were over 70 

 shells which from the sculpture should be V. carolinensis 

 wetherbyi, but if they were found in the North would be called 

 indentata, and a single example of V. rhoadsi. I am indebted to 

 Mr. Walker for the suggestion of the very appropriate name. 



Some notes on Vitrea indentata (Say) and allies may be given 

 here. 



In the Journ. Acad., 11, 372 (1822) Say described Helix 

 indentata as imperforate, stating: "umbilicus none, but the 

 umbilical region is deeply indented ". Pilsbry, in The Nautilus, 

 xii, p. 102, shows that this was an error : "In Say's types the 

 perforation may be seen with a good lens, though it was not 

 noticed by Say, who probably worked with what would now be 

 thought an inferior glass ' ' . 



The Texas form of indentata is generally larger than the typical 

 eastern form and was at one time identified by W. G. Binney 

 as sndpt;ilis Bid. In the British Naturalist, April 1893, p. 81, 

 Cockerell speaks of the Texas form as ' ' Z. indentatus var. um- 

 bilicatus Singley " (See also Nautilus, xii, p. 120). This variety 

 has a very distinct umbilicus. 



" Zonites carolinensis" Ckll., is very inadequately described in 

 Binney 's Supplement iv, p. 167, pi. Ill, fig. 7, and it will be 

 noticed that the figure shows a distinct perforation. In the 

 Nautilus, xii, p. 120, Cockerell gives his "original descrip- 

 tion", although I have been unable to find it in any other 

 place. In this he says : "Umbilicus small, narrow ". 



In Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci.. 1900, p. 130, Pilsbry describes the 

 microsculpture of carolinensis as a character which separates it 

 from indentata and calls all of the Great Smoky shells carolinensis. 

 In a review of this paper, ' ' Mollusca of the Great Smoky Moun- 

 tains", published in the Nautilus, vol. xiv, p. 45, Cockerell 

 says : " Thus in place of Vitrea indentata there is an abundance 

 of V. carolinensis of a small type (var. wetherbyi Ckll. ined.) 

 intermediate between indentata and carolinensis proper, the exact 

 locality of which is unfortunately unknown". This is the only 

 "description" of var. ivetherbyi that I have been able to find, 

 except that in Proc. A. N. S., 1902, p. 430, "The Mollusca of 

 the Mt. Mitchell Region, No. Car.," Pilsbry says: " The type 



