﻿GASTROPODA 
  245 
  

  

  The 
  nioiiotypic 
  designation 
  of 
  Chrysallida 
  can 
  be 
  inferred 
  from 
  Carpenter's 
  statement 
  in 
  

   his 
  original 
  description, 
  although 
  one 
  other 
  species 
  is 
  linked 
  with 
  the 
  name, 
  because 
  of 
  his 
  

   definite 
  type 
  designation 
  (1863). 
  His 
  reference 
  is 
  to 
  C. 
  communis 
  C. 
  B. 
  Adams. 
  Therefore, 
  

   the 
  question 
  of 
  the 
  right 
  or 
  wrong 
  identification 
  of 
  C. 
  communis 
  in 
  Carpenter 
  (1857a, 
  

   p. 
  419) 
  has 
  no 
  bearing 
  on 
  the 
  type 
  species 
  of 
  Chrysallida 
  as 
  Dall 
  and 
  Bartsch 
  believed 
  

   (1909, 
  p. 
  137; 
  1955, 
  p. 
  60). 
  Their 
  statement 
  of 
  the 
  type 
  species 
  of 
  Chrysallida 
  as 
  C 
  torrita 
  

   Dall 
  and 
  Bartsch 
  (= 
  C. 
  communis 
  Carpenter, 
  1857, 
  not 
  C. 
  B. 
  Adams, 
  1852) 
  has 
  no 
  validity. 
  

   Chrysallida 
  was 
  proposed 
  in 
  the 
  year 
  before 
  the 
  Mazatlan 
  Catalogue 
  was 
  published 
  (1857). 
  

   Carpenter 
  stated 
  earlier 
  (1856) 
  that 
  more 
  details 
  would 
  be 
  given 
  in 
  the 
  Mazatlan 
  Catalogue. 
  

  

  Odostomia 
  (Chrysallida) 
  cincta 
  Carpenter 
  

  

  Chrysallida 
  cincta 
  Carpenter, 
  1864b, 
  p. 
  613, 
  659; 
  Reprint, 
  1872, 
  p. 
  99, 
  145; 
  1866, 
  California 
  

   Acad. 
  Sci., 
  Proc, 
  vol. 
  Ill, 
  p. 
  220; 
  Cooper, 
  1867, 
  Gcog. 
  Cat. 
  Moll., 
  Geol. 
  Sur. 
  California, 
  

   p. 
  ZZ 
  

  

  Pyramidclla 
  cincta 
  (Carpenter), 
  Tryon, 
  1886, 
  Man. 
  Conch., 
  vol. 
  VIII, 
  p. 
  315, 
  pi. 
  74, 
  fig. 
  51, 
  

   section 
  Mumiola 
  

  

  Mumiola 
  cincta 
  (Carpenter), 
  Keep, 
  1887, 
  West 
  Coast 
  Shells, 
  p. 
  54 
  

  

  Odostomia 
  (Chrvsallida) 
  cincta 
  (Carpenter), 
  Dall 
  and 
  Bartsch, 
  1909, 
  U. 
  S. 
  Nat. 
  Mus., 
  

   Bull. 
  68, 
  p. 
  137, 
  152. 
  pi. 
  15, 
  figs. 
  2, 
  2a 
  tvpe; 
  Bartsch, 
  1912. 
  U. 
  S. 
  Nat. 
  Mus., 
  Proc, 
  

   vol. 
  42, 
  no. 
  1906, 
  p. 
  304, 
  329; 
  Dall, 
  1921, 
  p. 
  128; 
  Oldroyd, 
  1927. 
  vol. 
  II, 
  pt. 
  Ill, 
  p. 
  156, 
  

   pi. 
  58, 
  figs. 
  2, 
  2a 
  tvpe 
  same 
  as 
  Dall 
  and 
  Bartsch, 
  1909; 
  Baily. 
  1935, 
  West 
  Coast 
  Shells 
  

   (Keep), 
  p. 
  184; 
  Keen, 
  1937, 
  p. 
  42; 
  Burch, 
  1946, 
  no. 
  61, 
  p. 
  8, 
  36 
  

  

  "Passing 
  towards 
  Mumiola. 
  Radiating 
  sculpture 
  very 
  faint. 
  [Carpenter, 
  1864, 
  p. 
  659] 
  

  

  "Chr. 
  t. 
  satis 
  regulari, 
  alba, 
  marginibus 
  spirae 
  vix 
  excurvatis 
  ; 
  vert. 
  nucl. 
  parvo, 
  celato, 
  

   dimidium 
  truncationis 
  vix 
  superante: 
  anfr, 
  norm. 
  IV 
  parum 
  excur\-atis, 
  suturis 
  distinctis; 
  

   costis 
  spiralibus 
  obtusis 
  circ. 
  X, 
  cincta, 
  quarum 
  IV, 
  in 
  spira 
  monstrantur 
  ; 
  costis 
  iii 
  posticis 
  

   radiatim 
  subgranulosis, 
  seriebus 
  circ. 
  XV., 
  marginibus 
  spirae 
  utrinque 
  parallelis, 
  supra 
  

   quartam 
  subobsoletis 
  ; 
  interstitiis 
  latis, 
  delicatim 
  decussatis; 
  basi 
  satis 
  prolongata; 
  columella 
  

   antice 
  valde 
  eflfusa 
  ; 
  plica 
  parva. 
  mediana. 
  

  

  "Long. 
  0.11, 
  long. 
  spir. 
  0.07, 
  lat. 
  0.05, 
  div. 
  35°. 
  

  

  "Hah. 
  Santa 
  Barbara 
  group 
  of 
  islands. 
  Cooper. 
  

  

  "The 
  solitary 
  specimen 
  is 
  probably 
  immature. 
  Intermediate 
  between 
  Chrysallida 
  proper 
  

   and 
  Mumiola." 
  [Carpenter, 
  1866a, 
  p. 
  220] 
  

  

  Apparently 
  Dall 
  and 
  Bartsch 
  and 
  Oldroyd 
  overlooked 
  Carpenter's 
  detailed 
  description 
  

   (1866). 
  The 
  type 
  is 
  in 
  the 
  U. 
  S. 
  National 
  Museum. 
  It 
  is 
  labeled 
  "Sta. 
  Barbara 
  Cooper 
  fig'd 
  

   type". 
  

  

  Dall 
  and 
  Bartsch 
  included 
  an 
  enlarged 
  description. 
  This 
  was 
  recopied 
  by 
  Oldroyd. 
  

  

  Dimensions. 
  — 
  Length 
  3 
  mm.; 
  diameter 
  1.5 
  mm. 
  (holotype) 
  (Dall 
  and 
  Bartsch) 
  

  

  Holotype. 
  — 
  U. 
  S. 
  National 
  Museum, 
  no. 
  15730 
  

  

  Distribution. 
  — 
  Santa 
  Barbara 
  Island, 
  California 
  (type) 
  ; 
  Santa 
  Barbara 
  to 
  San 
  Diego, 
  

   California 
  (Burch) 
  

  

  Odostomia 
  (Chrysallida) 
  virginalis 
  Dall 
  and 
  Bartsch 
  

  

  Evalea 
  graciliente 
  "Cpr", 
  Keep, 
  1887, 
  West 
  Coast 
  Shells, 
  p. 
  52 
  

  

  Odostomia 
  (Chrysallida) 
  virginalis 
  Dall 
  and 
  Bartsch. 
  1909, 
  U. 
  S. 
  Nat. 
  AIus., 
  Bull. 
  68, 
  

  

  p. 
  160, 
  pi. 
  18, 
  figs. 
  7, 
  7a. 
  Not 
  Odostomia 
  qracilcnta 
  Monterosato, 
  1878, 
  Gior. 
  Sci. 
  Nat. 
  

  

  Ec, 
  vol. 
  XIII, 
  p. 
  93 
  var. 
  of 
  interstincta 
  Montagit. 
  The 
  writer 
  cannot 
  find 
  O. 
  gracilenta 
  

  

  in 
  Monterosato, 
  1884, 
  "12," 
  mentioned 
  as 
  fide 
  Trj^on, 
  Alan. 
  Conch., 
  vol 
  VHI 
  1886 
  

  

  p. 
  384 
  

  

  Keep 
  apparently 
  used 
  a 
  manuscript 
  name 
  of 
  Carpenter 
  and 
  therefore 
  should 
  receive 
  credit 
  

   for 
  the 
  specific 
  name. 
  Dall 
  and 
  Bartsch 
  in 
  transferring 
  the 
  specific 
  name 
  to 
  Odostomia 
  

   discovered 
  that 
  there 
  was 
  a 
  previous 
  O. 
  gracilenfe. 
  As 
  a 
  secondary 
  homonym 
  Keep's 
  designa- 
  

   tion 
  required 
  renaming. 
  Dall 
  and 
  Bartsch's 
  appellation 
  was 
  given 
  to 
  replace 
  a 
  formerly 
  

   described 
  species 
  ; 
  hence 
  the 
  type 
  of 
  their 
  name 
  should 
  be 
  that 
  of 
  Keep. 
  In 
  this 
  case 
  Dall 
  

   and 
  Bartsch 
  chose 
  a 
  new 
  type 
  from 
  a 
  distant 
  locality 
  (Todos 
  Santos 
  Bay, 
  Lower 
  California). 
  

   Presumably 
  Keep's 
  specimens 
  came 
  from 
  California. 
  He 
  probably 
  did 
  not 
  segregate 
  certain 
  

   specimens, 
  and 
  they 
  have 
  not 
  been 
  found. 
  However, 
  for 
  scientific 
  purposes 
  and 
  technicalities 
  

   of 
  nomenclature 
  it 
  would 
  be 
  better 
  if 
  a 
  neotype 
  had 
  been 
  chosen 
  for 
  the 
  new 
  name, 
  O 
  

   virginalis, 
  from 
  the 
  California 
  area 
  instead 
  of 
  from 
  Lower 
  California. 
  

  

  