LYMNZIDZ OF NORTH AMERICA. 21% 
shell is also narrower and the upper whorls are rounder and more 
turban-shaped. There is considerable variation in the form of the 
shell of techella, the last whorl being either simply convex or 
disproportionately. swollen. The inner lip varies greatly in the extent 
to which it is expanded or compressed. The spire also varies in height, 
as do the sutures in their degree of impression. Some specimens some- 
what closely resemble var. cockerelli, in which, however, the spire is 
always very short. There is also great variation in size, individuals 
from some localities being about half the size of those from other 
localities. 
Old specimens have the last whorl distinctly malleated, but this 
character is not apparent on shells of younger growth, which are 
smooth and polished, with a comparatively short spire. The type lot 
have the majority of the specimens with the spire eroded, for which 
reason and on account of the insufficient figures of both Haldeman 
and Tryon, the species has been misunderstood by most conchologists 
and has been confounded with both bulimoides and cubensis. Dr. 
Pilsbry (loc. cit.) was the first conchologist to correctly describe and 
figure this form, which is one of the neatest of the American Lymnzas. 
Techella and cockerelli were once thought to be specifically sepa- 
rable from bulimoides, but the examination of a large series of both 
forms has proven conclusively that techella is but a race of bulimoides. 
Techella, while normally possessing a broadly dilated inner lip, is some- 
times seen with a folded inner lip as in bulimoides, but with the sharp 
spire and obese body whorl of techella. Again, the inner lip may be 
broadly expanded and the body whorl may be compressed as in butli- 
moides. The latter also exhibits parallel cases of variation. 
Galba bulimoides cockerelli (Pilsbry and Ferriss). Plate XX VI, 
figures 5-7; plate XX VIII, figures 4-7. 
Lymnea bulimoides cockerelli Pitrspry, Nautilus, XIX, p. 30, March, 1906.— 
Pirspry and Ferriss, Proc. Phil. Acad., p. 162, figs. 13-17, 1906—HENDERSON, 
Univ. Col. Stud., IV, pp. 93, 180, 1809.—Watker, Nautilus, XX, p. 108, 1907.— 
Pinspry and Ferriss, Nautilus, XXII, p. 104, 1909; Proc. Phil. Acad., p. 144, 1910. 
Limnea bulimoides BLAND and Cooprr, Ann. N. Y. Lyc. N. H., VII, p. 370, 
1862.— Binney, L. and F. W. Sh. N. A., II, p. 61, fig. 96, 1865 (mec. desc.).— 
STEARNS, N. Am. Fauna, VIII, p. 275, 1893—-Souyer, Nautilus, VIII, p. 65, 
1894.—Pitspry, Nautilus, X, p. 96, 1896—STEARNS, Proc. Nat. Mus., XXIV, p. 
288, 1901—Ezrop, Bull. Univ. Mont., Biol. Ser., No. 3, p. 172, 1902. 
Lymnea (Stagnicola) bulimoides Dati, Alaska Moll., fig. 62, 1906—HeEn- 
DERSON, Univ. Col. Studies, IV, p. 179, fig. 36, 1907. 
Lymnea bulimoides Berry, Nautilus, XXIII, p. 77, 1909. 
Limnophysa bulimoides Catt, Bull. Wash. Lab. N. H., I, p. 118, 1885.* 
1from Call’s description and his reference to Binney’s figure 86, there 
would seem to be little question that his specimens were cockerelli, 
