SMITH : CATALOGUE OF GENUS PARTULA. 433 
as a synonym of /wsca, to which frofea was also referred: this was 
partly owing to erroneous labels in the Pease and other collections, 
which were repeated in the Hartman cabinet. When, later, he sepa- 
rated ovalis (MS. Catalogue), it does not appear that he corrected his 
labels to correspond with the separation. Hence No. 4127, though 
labeled P. ovals, may really belong with No. 4111 among the varieties 
of P. fusca. See notes under 4128, below. 
4128. ‘‘Partula fusca Pse. (typical), Raiatea, Coll. Pse.’’ On the 
back of the card is written: ‘‘The type /wsca in Coll. Pse. are like 
these and = ovalzs Pse. ‘These are the young of ovals.’’ Six speci- 
mens, all somewhat immature and uniform dark castaneous in color. 
See Hartman, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sc. Phila., 1885, pp. 207-208, 
where he observes: ‘‘ The type examples of fusca (Coll. Pse.) are 
immature shells of the uniform dark fuscous ova/zs, two quarts of which 
were included in the Pease duplicates, labeled P. ovals by Pease. 
The shell is solid, of a uniform dark chestnut-brown or fuscous color, 
with a white expanded lip, and the pillar tooth is absent. Ihave seen 
several suites labeled fusca, from the hands of Mr. Pease, in which the 
banded ovads and profea predominated. ’’ 
Mr. Garrett wrote (Jan. 25, 1885): ‘‘ After Pease sent his nine sets 
of Partula to London he had no duplicates left of fusca or citrina.’’ 
It is, perhaps, impossible to identify the form which Pease originally 
described as P. ovalis ; he did not figure it, and his description would 
apply to varieties of two or three species. Through shifting of labels or 
carelessness, two or three distinct forms among his duplicates became 
known by this name. Dr. Hartman supposed it to be a shell which he 
long regarded as a variety of P. fusca Pse., but eventually separated 
as a valid species in his MS. work; it appears doubtful, however, 
whether he made a corresponding change in his labels. As nearly as 
can be ascertained, the shells which he meant to separate as ova/s are - 
No. 4126, labeled ovadis, and No. 4128, labeled fusca; No. 4127, 
labeled ovals, is doubtful and may eventually be referred to fusca ; No. 
4125, labeled ovals, is certainly not that species. 
Most of the Peasean names were adopted from Garrett’s provisional 
ones, but this was not the case with ovalis , hence Garrett, when he 
sold his collection to Pease, retained no duplicates with that label. 
Subsequently he attempted to identify it from the description, but was 
never quite sure, as appears from his letter of February 10, 1879, 
in which he says: ‘‘I have only five specimens of what I now call the 
