304 HAAS: ABIDA AND CHONDRINA. 



at most there is only a light thickening of the inner rim of 

 the mouth. 



Pupa jumillensis Pfeiffer, as understood by its author, has 

 never been found again, as its tooth-combination a-2-0 was 

 not present in my material. What Bourguignat (Moll. S. 

 Julia de Loria, pi. 2, figs. 7-9, copied by Pilsbry, XXV, pi. 5, 

 figs. 6, 7) figures under this name, is according to the aper- 

 tural structure, a form corresponding to C. avenacea farinesi, 

 and not the true jumillensis. I think I can explain how the 

 confusion arose whereby the name jumillensis was employed 

 by Pfeiffer as well as Rossmaessler, but used for two different 

 forms. Rossmaessler received from Guirao, besides the smaller 

 form coming from Jumilla, and which he named jumillensis 

 (the jumillensis guiraonis of Pilsbry), also a series of larger 

 snails from the locality Orihuela, which were more variable in 

 dentition than the smaller ones. He sent authentic specimens 

 of both to Pfeiffer, who, under the impression that the larger 

 ones pertained to Rossmaessler 's still unpublished name jumil- 

 lensis, described one of them under that name. His type 

 happened to have the unusual combination a-2-0, while in the 

 rest of the original series, only the combinations Nos. 7, 10, 

 11, 13, 15, 18 and 19 of our list are represented. Now in view 

 of the great variation in teeth and size of this race already 

 given under localities, it is quite intelligible that Pfeiffer and 

 Rossmaessler selected different types, and considered their 

 species to be different, whilst from the standpoint of our 

 present knowledge we may confidently unite them under the 

 Pfeifferian name. 



It must further be stated that in the original series of 

 smaller jumillensis {jumillensis guiraonis Pils.) there are, be- 

 sides 6 examples with the combination given as typical, a-1-0, 

 also 2 with the combination 2-1-0. 



Pfeiffer 's original series of his P. jumillensis is indeed, as 

 shown by the locality list, by no means homogeneous. Of the 

 five specimens therein, only two have the combination given 

 as typical, a-2-0, the other three standing in quite different 

 places in our list of combinations. From this it follows that 

 P. jumillensis cannot be accepted in the narrow sense which 



