1897.] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 359 



the left as it approaches the base ; the reflexed edge adnate nearly 

 to base, where it is free, leaving a small umbilical perforation. 

 Length 56, diam. 26 ; alt. of aperture 25 mm. 



Sheikh Husein, lat. 7° 43' 32" N., Ion. 40° 44' 30" E., (Dr. A. 

 Donaldson Smith, Sept. 21, 1894). 



Somewhat like L. turris Pfr., but the columella is distinctly con- 

 vex instead of gently concave, and the apex is decidedly more ob- 

 tuse. It is also a smaller, less conic shell. The spire is longer than 

 in L. Ruppelliana Pfr. as figured by Jickeli. The narrow, straight, 

 not branching, color streaks are also characteristic. It is dedicated 

 to Mr. E. G. Vanatta. who kindly assisted me in examining the 

 literature of Achatinidce for the species herein described. 



Helicella (Lejeania) chionobasis n. sp. 



Shell very narrowly umbilicate, thick lens-shaped, low-conoid 

 above, flattened-convex beneath ; the periphery angular at first, be- 

 coming rounded ; rather thin but moderately solid, and slightly 

 shining. Conspicuously bicolored, the base being opaque 'white as in 

 Xerophiles generally, the top rust-brown with numerous irregular, 

 arcuate whitish streaks, the apex and several earlier whorls glossy- 

 black. 



Sculpture of irregular, low wrinkles of growth, with extremely 

 fine arcuate striae also above ; on the base eery minute incised circu- 

 lar strioz are visible under the lens in addition to the wrinkles. 

 Whorls nearly 6£, slowly increasing, slightly convex, a distinctly 

 defined whitish cord margining the sutures above, produced by the 

 keel of the whorls. Aperture mainly basal, lunate, moderately ob- 

 lique, bicolored within ; peristome simple, suddenly dilated at the 

 columellar insertion, partly covering the narrow umbilicus. Alt. 

 13, greatest diameter 19'5, least 18 mm. 



The Haud (Dr. A. Donaldson Smith, July 25, 1894). 



The italicized clauses in the above description sufficiently indicate 

 the more conspicuous features of this form, which is apparently 

 different from any member of the group Lejeania known to me. 



The permanence of the name Helicella for the group of Xero- 

 philes depends upon the date of publication of Ferussac's Prodrome, 

 which is still in doubt. It may prove later than Jacosta of Gray, 

 which would then assume the generic role. This is a mere question 

 of names, however. The limits and characters of the group I have 

 been able to define with considerable exactness, thanks to the 

 previous work of Schmidt, Moquin-Tandon, von Ihering and others. 



