408 THE CHICAGO ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. 
body whorl is also more flat-sided and the inner lip is narrower. It 
differs from jacksonensis in its flat-sided whorls and narrower inner 
lip in addition to its longer aperture. 
The types of gabbii show that the specific characters are fairly 
constant and do not connect it with any other species. Tryon’s figure 
in the American Journal of Conchology is very good. Cooper (op. cit.) 
considered it a variety of both adeline and catascopium. The speci- 
mens examined show but little variation. 
GROUP OF GALBA EMARGINATA, 
Galba emarginata (Say). Plate XXX, figures 27-28; plate XLI, 
figures 18-24; plate XLIII, figures 1-12. é 
Lymneus emarginatus Say, Journ. Phil. Acad., II, p. 170, 1821; Long’s 
Exp., II, -p. 263, 1824; Binney’s Ed., pp. 67, 130, 1858. 
Limneus emarginatus Say, Amer. Conch., part VI, pl. 55, fig. 1, 1834; 
Binney’s Ed., pp. 67, 140, 211, pl. 55, fig. 1, 1858—KUster, Conch. Cab., I, p. 44, 
taf. 8, figs. 6-10, 1862. 
Limnea emarginata HaLpEMAN, Mon. Lim., p. 10, pl. 2, figs. 1-5, 1842.— 
DeKay, Zool. N. Y., p. 73, 1843 (part)—GouLp, Agassiz’s Lake Sup., p. 244, 
1850.—INGERSOLL, Bull. U. S. Geol. & Geog. Surv.; I, p. 139, 1875 (part); Rep. 
U. S. Geol. & Geog. Surv. Terr., 1874, p. 406, 1876 (part). 
Lymnea emarginata GouLtp, Lamarck’s Genera, p. 69, 1833.—RAVENEL, Cat. 
Sh., p. 11, 1834—WHEATLEY, Cat. Sh. U. S., Ed. 2, p. 23, 1845.—Jay, Cat., Ed. 
4, p. 268, 1852.—ReeEvE, Elements of Conch., p. 178, 1860.—BaKker, Amer. Nat., 
XXXIX, p. 671, figs. 6, 7, 19095 —Datt, Alaska Moll., p. 68, 1905 (part) —BAKER, 
Bull. Ill. State Lab., VII, 102, 1996—Watker, Nautilus, XXII, p. 18, pl. 1, fig. 
1, 1908.—LErMonp, Shells of Maine, p. 38, 1908—WALKER, An. Rep. Mich. 
Geol. Surv., 1908, p. 290, 1909.—GLEASON, |. c., pp. 60-62, 1908. 
Limnea emarginata Goutp, Proc. Bost. Soc. N. H., Ill, p. 181, 1850.— 
Stimpson, Sh. N. E., p. 52, 1851.—Utrrers, Trans. Ill. State Ag. Soc., I, p. 612, 
1855..—ReevE, P. Z. S.,.1862, p. 105 —Binney, L. & F.-W. Sh. N. A., II, p. 51, figs. 
75, 77, 79, 1865 (part).—Currier, Kent. Sci. Inst., Pub. No. 1, 1868.—Tryon, 
Con. Hald. Mon., p. 110 (84), 1872—Sows., Conch. Icon., XVIII, Lim., sp. 35, 
pl. 7, figs. 35, b, c, pl. 15, fig. 47 a, 1872 (the figures are not all typical) —SmiTH, 
Rep. U. S. Fish Com., 1872-73, p. 702, 1874—AucuHey, Bull. U. S. Geol. & Geog. 
Surv., III, p. 700, 1877..—Watker, Journ. Conch. II, p. 330, 1879 (part) —Ottawa 
Nat., I, p. 58, 1882 (part).—LatcHrorp, Amer. Nat., XVIII, p. 1052, 1884 (part). 
Ottawa Nat., II, p. 264, 1885 (part).—Ottawa Nat., IV, p. 55, 1890 (part).— 
WALKER, Nautilus, VI, p. 34, 1897 (part) —Taytor, Ottawa Nat., VI, p. 35, 1892 
(part).—Watker, Rev. Moll. Mich., p. 17, 1894 (part) ; Nautilus, IX, p. 5, 1895.— 
NyYLAnpeR, Nautilus, VIII, p. 126, 1895—Taytor, Ottawa Nat. VIII, p. 147, 
1895 (part)—Ny Lanner, Nautilus, XI, p. 10, 1897; Nautilus, XIII, p. 104, 1900; 
Nautilus, XV, p. 127, 1901; Destr. of L. Emarg., p. 3-4, 1901—StTEARNS, Proc. 
Nat. Mus., XXIV, p. 291, 1901 (part)—Apams, Rep. Mich. Geol. Surv., 1908, 
p. 10, 1909. 

1It is impossible to verify this record which was undoubtedly not based 
on the true emarginata. 
“This record has not been substantiated. No specimens of emarginata or 
of its varieties have been seen from Nebraska. 
