56 THE NAUTILUS. 



invertebrates were placed in Professor Verrill's charge by the U. S. 

 Bureau of Fisheries for report, and have been in his care until very 

 recently, when most of them were returned to the custody of the 

 U. S. National Museum. It would seem only natural that I should 

 have had specimens for comparison ; first, because they represented 

 government material reported upon, and, secondly, because when 

 Miss Bush was at work upon her southern report, Dr. Dall furn- 

 ished her with cotypes and authentic material as requested, and as 

 duly acknowledged in her report. 



I neither had nor have any desire to enter into a controversy with 

 any one concerning these old species, the original descriptions of 

 which in some instances are so poor that it is scarcely possible to re- 

 fer them to the proper subgenus, and which in most cases might be 

 applied to almost any member of a subgenus. No types are extant, 

 some having been burned in the Chicago and Portland fires and 

 others lost. 



There is only one of two ways open in dealing with such names, 

 viz., to place them as " sedes incertae," or to fix them to some known 

 species. The latter method was adopted by Prof. Verrill, and I 

 attempted as far as it was in my power to follow his diclum, the only 

 logical method under the circumstances. 



The subgenus Eulimella will have to be dropped from our New 

 England list, now that Dr. Bush has been able to show that the two 

 specimens identified by Prof. Verrill as Eulimella ventricosa Forbes, 

 are TurboniUa (Ptycheulimella) polita (Verrill) and AcUs tenuis 

 Verrill. I have seen no specimens of Eulimella from New England, 

 and quoted it on Dr. Verrill's authority as stated. 



Pyramidella [Syriiold) smithii Verrill has only a single fold on the 

 columella, hence is a Syrnola ; not a Eulimella, which has two folds. 



I have seen C. B. Adams' types at Amherst College, and feel no 

 need of changing my statement regarding Pyramidella (Syrnola) 

 fusca and producta. I agree with Dr. Bush that they are not typi- 

 cal Syrnolas ; that is why I placed the ? after Syrnola. It is quite 

 probable that these two species and /S".? winkleyi may belong to a new 

 group, but I have refrained from giving it a name until some knowl- 

 edge of the animal might be obtained.' These are by no means 

 Odostomias, but are nearest to if not exactly congeneric with Syrnola. 



My TurboniUa (TurboniUa) nivea Stimpson, was an acceptance of 

 Professor Verrill's interpretation of that species. The specimen listed 



