158 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [March, 
I have not seen specimens. Mr. Binney in his first note considers the 
Salmon river form identical with what Mr. Simpson reported as H. 
fimbriatus from Indian Territory, and gives no separate or definite 
description of it, though he mentions that Hemphill had given the 
(MSS.) name ‘‘salmonacea.’’ The figure of one of the original speci- 
mens, given in Binney’s Fourth Supplement, represents a shell with 
wide umbilicus and small aperture, like H. arizonensis, from which it 
differs, according to published information, by the smoother surface, 
arizonensis being constantly very well sculptured. 
Punctum pygmeum (Drap.). 
San Marcos, Hays county; Comal county; Hondo river, Medina 
county; Devil’s river, Val Verde county. 
The form in this region is slightly larger than northeastern speci- 
mens, and is more strongly sculptured. There are barely four whorls, 
the first 14 smooth, the next striate; the last two whorls have striz 
at regular intervals much larger, with about six fine striz in each space, 
and the basal spirals are very distinct. This sculpture reminds one 
of the west coast forms, conspectum, pasadene and californicum, which 
however are decidedly larger and coarser shells of a dark brown color. 
SUCCINEIDZ. 
Succinea luteola Gld. 
Gould, Proc. Bost. Soc. N. H., III, p. 37, June, 1848 (Texas); Terr. Moll., 
II, p. 75, pl. 67c, fig. 1. (Florida; Texas, especially Galveston.) Bin- 
ney, Terr. Moll., V, p. 419; Man. Amer. Land Shells, p. 441. 
Succinea texasiana Pfr., Monogr., II, 526; Roemer’s Texas, p. 456, 1849 
(Galveston). 
Succinea lutescens Sowerby, Conchologia Iconica, XVIII, pl. 10, fig. 67 a, b, 
1872 (Texas). 
We took specimens in Texas along the Guadalupe river above New 
Braunfels, Comal county; San Antonio, Bexar county; near Hondo 
river about two miles north of Hondo, Medina county, and in Val 
Verde county at Del Rio, high land west of Devil’s river, and in the 
canyon of the Pecos near the High Bridge. 
In Gould’s original description the only locality given was Texas. 
In the Terrestrial Mollusks he states ‘‘found in Florida, and more 
abundantly in Texas, especially in the region of Galveston.’’ Speci- 
mens collected at Galveston by the author in 1885 agree perfectly 
with Gould’s figures, and that place may be taken to be the type 
locality. I have seen no Florida shells which I would refer with cer- 
tainty to luteola, though S. floridana is closely related. 
