78 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Feb., 



stations are possibly the type locality, described as a '^ detached pile 

 of rocks," ''at the foot of the mountain." It has seemed almost 

 hopeless to recognize utaliensis. Pilsbry^^ has discussed the confusion 

 in which he found the descriptions and figures of this form. Hemp- 

 hill's description (in a letter to Binney) was quite inadequate, as 

 follows : 



"This has the form of hemphiUi, but is destitute of the revolving 

 ridges of haydeni. The specimens were all constant in sculpturing, 

 but varied very much in size and somewhat in form." 



Binney published the letter, and on a subsequent page of the same 

 publication says of utahensis: 



"This is a rough, coarse, carinated strigosa, figured in Terr. Moll., 

 V, p. 158, fig. 66. The peristome is sometimes continuous by a 

 heavy raised callus, connecting its terminations. It is sometimes 

 smaller and more elevated." 



As Pilsbry has pointed out, the figure referred to was based upon 

 material from Big Horn Basin, Wyoming, and Binney added charac- 

 ters belonging to the Wyoming form, now known as 0. strigosa 

 magnicornu Pils. The connected terminations of the peristome is a 

 common feature in a number of species of Oreohelix, including Hemp- 

 hill's forms oquirrhensis and gabbiana, and hence is not of diagnostic 

 significance. Material we have seen from the Hemphill collection, 

 bearing the name utahensis, is mostly labelled "near Salt Lake," 

 but one small lot is labelled " near Logan. " We cannot know whether 

 any of it came from Oquirrh Mountains, l^ut it all agrees quite well 

 with our stations 14 and 119 material. The exact type locality of 

 utahensis is not known, except that it is on the west side of this range, 

 and there is no more probable place than these two stations, which 

 really form but one small colony, being each of small extent and but 

 a few rods apart. We cannot ascertain from the descriptions and 

 figures alone, with certainty, just what utahensis is. Material from 

 Hemphill's collection does not settle it, because of the absence of 

 designated types and cotypes, the uncertainty as to whether any 

 we have seen are even topotypes, and the fact that he apparently 

 used that name for more than one form. His hemphilli, with which 

 he compared utahensis, is not true hemphilli, but is the material he 

 collected in the Oquirrh Mountains and distributed under that 

 name, which cannot be separated from his oquirrhensis from the 

 same locality. By referring to the descriptions and figures,'"' we 



39 Nautilus, XXIX, pp. 139-141, IQlf). 



«.Binney's 2d Suppl. to 5th vol. Terr. Moll., pp. 30, 34, PL II, figs. 9, 12. 



