31 



nearly in size and most of its other characters with the eastern 

 Miocene P. Americana, but can be readily distinguished. 



41(j = Solen curtus, Conrad, Am. J. Sci. V, (2) 433. 



431=Bulla petrosa, Conrad, ib. 432, Fig. 11. 



434 = Tornatella elliptica, Trask, Proceed. Cal. Acad. Sci. 1856,41. 



455 — The name of this species should have been Helonyx thalhis, (Con- 

 rad) Meek, in the list, since it belongs to the genus Helonyx, 

 founded by Dr. Stimpson for the reception of the recent Denta- 

 lium cluvatum, of Gould. This genus dates back to the Creta- 

 ceous epoch, and includes DentuUum {Durdpa'/) pusillum, Gabb, 

 from the California Cretaceous. 



4G7:=Diodora crucibuliformis, Coxrad, Proceed. Acad. N. Sci., Feb. 

 1855. I am authorized by Mr. Conrad to place this species in 

 his name under Ceinoria, Leach. The propriety of making the 

 change, however, may be doubted, since it is questionable 

 whether or not Leach's M. S. name was published previous to 

 Gray's name Diodora. 



498= Narica diegoana, Conrad, Pacific R. R. Rept. V, 326. Doubtful 

 Miocene species. 



521 = Crepidula praerupta, Conrad, U. S. Expl. Exp., X, 727, 19, 9, 9a. 

 Mr. Carpenter refers this to the recent C. princeps, Middendorf. 

 Mr. Conrad's specimens agree in size and form, and appar<jntly 

 in surface markings with the recent shell, but they are unfor- 

 tunately too imjjerfect, and there are not enough of them to 

 make a satisfactory comparison in a genus like this. 



548 = Turbo glabra, H. C. Lea. Tr. Am. Phil. Soc, IX, 267,37, 87. 

 ( = Vivipara gluhru, Conrad, Synop. Miocene Foss. Proceed. 

 Acad. 1862, 567). 



e21 = Natica inezana, Conrad, Pacif. R. R. Rept. VII, 195, 10, 5, 6. 

 This should probably have been printed Lunatia inezana, in the 

 list. I see Mr. Carpenter refers it with doubt to the recent 

 Lunatia Lewisii, Gould. On comparison, however, I find they 

 can be readily distinguished. The specimens of the fossil spe- 

 cies are imperfect, but present, at least, one character, which 

 is alone sufiicient to separate the species. That is, a peculiar 

 truncation and hoiizontal flattening of the upper part of the 

 whorls, just below the suture ; the flattened or slightly concave 

 shoulder being bounded by a revolving angular ridge. Unfor- 

 tunately, Mr. Conrad's figure represents an internal cast, which 

 does not show this character. Good specimens would doubtless 

 present other differences. 



631 — If we go back to pre-Linnsean names, that is, to names proposed 

 previous to the issue of Linnasus' 10th ed. Syst. Nat. 1758, 

 the name of this species would have to be Stomutia scopulosa, 

 or Catinus scopulosus, the former generic name having been pro- 



