THE NAUTILUS. 57 



as cat. no. 45481 U. S. N. M., from station 949, off Martha's Vin- 

 yard, 1881, was determined by him, and the others which I listed, 

 were carefully compared with it and was found absolutely conspecific. 



As to Turhonilla (Turbonilla) striata Verrill, I must again say that 

 I followed Prof. Verrill's dictum ; the 15 specimens listed as cat. no. 

 62340 U. S. N. M., from Naushon gutters, 1883, were determined 

 by him, like the 11 entered under cat. no. 203815 U. S. N. M., from 

 Naushon, 1883, the two last being part of the material recently re- 

 turned, and the other two lots listed are absolutely conspecific with 

 these, I am therefore at a loss to understand how I could possibly 

 have erred in the interpretation of the species. 



I have no additional data concerning Turhonilla (Chemnitzia) 

 aqualis Say. 



Turhonilla (^Strioturbonilla) hushiana Verrill, will have to remain in 

 this subgenus. It falls well within Sacco's definition : " Testa sicut 

 in Turhonilla (stricto sensu), sed transversim striolae parvillimae 

 (sub lente vix visibiles) plerumque tantum in spatiis intercostalibus, 

 interdum etiam supra costas decurrentes saepe suboblitae. Costae lon- 

 gitudinales basim versus gradatim evanescentes. Costicilla circum- 

 basalis nulla. Testae basis subrotunda." 



Page 481. I shall reserve my judgment regarding Turhonilla 

 {Pyrgiscus) areolata Verrill, until I have had the opportunity to 

 make comparisons with the type. I may say, however, that the 

 afiinity of our specimens are not with Turhonilla {Pyrgiscus) vina, 

 as suggested by Dr. Bush, but with Turhonilla (Pyrgiscus) elegans 

 Verrill. 



The most interesting part of the whole review comes under the 

 head " Turhonilla interrupta (Totten) Bush, 1899, pp. 148-151." 



Of this species Dr. Bush gives her own interpretation, and empha- 

 sises her opinion with a figure of what she considers the true " in- 

 terrupta Totten " — stating that " the specimen described (p. 87), 

 and figured by Bartsch, unfortunately does not agree with this, 

 therefore I would distinguish it as Turhonilla pseudointerrupta, new 

 name." 



There is only one fault with Dr. Bush's deductions, namely, that 

 our figure and description were based upon the same individual which 

 has served for her figure of typical interrupta. The figured speci- 

 men from Sta. 770, Narragansett Bay, in 8 fms., dredged in 1880, 

 is now entered under cat. no. 202889 U. S. N. M. It came to us in 



