1 8 Lozvcr California?! Shells. ■ [zoe 



in that region near some ranch which has since been abandoned 

 (Hke many others), or was never mapped down. The type figured 

 by Forbes was smaller and higher-colored than any variety of the 

 species now known from its more northern range, of which ten or 

 more have been named by Hemphill and others. Its lost station 

 may be one of the small islands. The blunders of authors that 

 were made before 1873 as to this locality are amusing, and it was 

 not until then that explorations had proved that the two species 

 named must have come from the peninsula, together with the two 

 allied forms, while positive locations are only now ascertained. 

 "Central America" given by Reeve is about as bad an error as 

 Straits of Juan de Fuca. (N. B.— J. R. Browne states that this is 

 a real family name, but the San Juan has it del meaning ''ofthe.") 



17. H. LEVIS Pfeiffer, 1845. " California," Hi?ids. El Rosario, 

 lat. 29° 50', Orc7itL "Columbia River" is another blunder of 

 Pfeiffer 's (see H. areolata k Varieties indicate that this form may 

 intergrade with that and /f. pandorce. It seems limited in range be- 

 tween the two forms named. 



18. H. NEWBERRYANA W. G. B. , 1858. San Pedro, Cal, 

 lat. 33° 40', Yates (fossil only?). San Diego, Newberry, lat. 32^ 40'. 

 South to Ensenada, lat. 31° 51', Oraitt. 



19. H. PANDORA Forbes, 1850. "Santa Barbara as per box 

 label " (Carpenter). "San Juan del Fuaco, Kellett and Wood" 

 (Forbes). "Margarita Island, lat. 24° 20' " (Newcomb, Binney). 

 San Quintin. lat. 30° 24', Orcidt, the only positive location yet ob- 

 tained, but is reported from further north. Forbes' locality is 

 explained under H. Kellettii, but it is not identified for either species 

 lately. The next is probably correct, but conflicts .with Pease's 

 statement about H. areolata. It seems probable that he, as well as 

 Ciabb, considered this form, like the small form of areolata, merely 

 one of the varieties of that species. H. damascenus Gould, 1856, 

 from " Desert east of California, Dr. Frick'' (Newcomb), but not 

 confirmed from north of the boundary, was probably from near 

 San Tomas, and is considered a variety of pandorcs. As to varia- 

 tions in this group compare the figures already published. W. G. 

 Binney gives copies of the original types in Terr. Moll, of the U. 

 S., vol. Iv; in Land and Fresh Water Shells he figures quite differ- 

 ent varieties of all these species, and Tryon in the Monograph, 



