this estuary during the occupancy of the eastern coast by civilized man. but 

 according to the fossil record the drill was well distributed along the coast 

 before this ftme. Unintentionally roan has accelerated the mixing and dispersal 

 of the species. 



U ro sal pinx has been reported from, the eastern shore of Virginia since the 

 last century (Ryder, .1883; Federighi, 1931c; Newcombe & Menzel.. 1945). But 

 lower Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries also nurtured a fair population of U. 

 cinerea at least as early as the latter half of the last century, contrary to the 

 reports of Federighi (193.1c) and Newcombe and Menzel (1945) who suggest that 

 early in the present century the drill was limited principally to the eastern shore 

 and was spread into the Chesapeake on oysters, Uhler as early as 1878 described 

 the drill as common on the rocks in the vicinity of Fort Wool, and Ingersoll (1881) 

 and. Goode (1884) both wrote of the abundance of drills over much of the lower 

 Chesapeake . Ryder (1883) found them more or less abundant in. all waters in which, 

 oyster culture v/as practiced Rathbun (1888) reported them in the Chesapeake, but 

 states unrealistically that they gave little trouble, while Moore (1898a) wrote that 

 drills were the most destructive enemies of the oyster in the Chesapeake and 

 adjoining areas. Federighi (1931c) described Urosalpinx as occurring over the 

 whole Hampton Roads area and more abundantly on planted areas than on natural 

 bottoms . He concluded that the greatest infestation of drills obtained in Chesapeake 

 Bay and in the coastal waters of the northern states commensurate with the intense 

 culture of oysters in these waters* while to the south where oyster culture was 

 rare, the drill was insignificant. Galtsoff et al. in 1937 reported that drills were 

 very abundant on the eastern shore and in the lower Chesapeake Bay and the lower 

 portions of its tributaries where salinities remain high . Newcombe and Menzel 

 (1945) found the drill unevenly distributed over most of the bottoms of the bay and 

 rivers with a salt content above 15 O/oo . Engle (1953) confirmed the abundance and 

 ubiquitousness of this muricid in this area and considers it the principal enemy of 

 the oyster . The giant form of Uro salpinx from the eastern shore of Maryland and 

 Virginia has never been reported elsewhere . In view of many possible avenues for 

 dispersion by man, it would seem that this race has evolved and remained v'ithim a 

 narrow set of ecological limits found only in its present habitat. Experimental 

 transplantation to other regions has not been attempted; such studies may shed light 

 on the nature of the factors which enforce this restricted isolation. 



Southeastern States, Very little is known of the distribution and abundance 

 of U . cinerea in this area as a whole . Since in the late 19th, century oyster 

 culture was carried out only to a limited degree (Ingersoll, .1881) there was little 

 opportunity to observe the activity of this snail, and the propagation of the drill 

 was not benefited by the extensive cultural practices which augmented the drill 

 populations of northern waters. Moore wrote that in 1898 (1898b) the drill was 



10 



