THE NAUTILUS. 59 



the synonymy of Mighels' Phasianella. sulcosa. Under these circum- 

 stances, Odostomia (Menestho) morseana will have to do duty as stated 

 in my text, p. 104, 



I object emphatically to the lumping of Odostomia bisuturalis Say 

 and 0. trifida Totten, In the 1700 and more specimens that I have 

 seen, I have no difficulty whatever in distinguishing them. It is true 

 that trifida sometimes has the three suprasutural grooves poorly de- 

 veloped, but I have never seen them completely absent, as is the case 

 with bisuturalis. 



I also deny that there is any special relationship between Odos- 

 tomia (^Menestho) bedequensis and Odostomia (Menestho) impress a Say. 

 The relationship of Odostomia (Menestho) trifida and Odostomia 

 (Menestho) trifida bedequensis I believe is parallel to that between 

 O. (M.) bisuturalis and 0. (M.) bisuturalis ovilensis. 



Dr. Bush questions whether I intended to use the word " spiral " 

 in the fourth line of my description of Odostomia (Menestho) impressa 

 Say. I did. " Spiral" is correct. 



The specimen described and figured by me as Odostomia ( Odosto- 

 mia) modesta Stimpson, will have to be cited as Odostomia (^Odosto- 

 mia) gibbosa Bush. 



Dr. Bush states (p. 482, last paragraph), " that the shell which 

 is referred to Odostomia (Odostomia) dealbata Stimpson," is not the 

 same as fig. 595, given in Binney-Gould, p. 327;" of the latter she 

 says : " This, as indicated in a marginal note, represents a much 

 larger and different species, which may be called 0. gotddii, new 

 name." Unfortunately, the name Odostomia gouldii was used by 

 Dr. Carpenter in 1865, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., 3rd ser., XV., p. 

 30, for a West American species, and can therefore not serve in the 

 present instance. 



Summing up Dr. Bush's review I must say that nearly all the 

 questions raised in it could have been settled better by correspond- 

 ence than by discussion in print. It is somewhat unfortunate that 

 Dr. Bush should not have published her paper written thirteen 

 years ago, but I cannot see how this can now be helped. I have given 

 all my spare time to this group since 1897, and hope, now that the 

 West Coast is cleared up, to consider the Atlantic side of America. 



The field is much larger than any one, who has given it less atten- 

 tion, would imagine. My card catalogue of described forms contains 

 somewhere between "2,500 and 3,000 names, including recent and 

 fossil species. 



