122 THE NAUTILUS. 



A two-hour hunt for Helix caroliuensis, made December 1, upon 

 the timbered flats of the Paint Rock River, resulted as follows r 

 Helix obstrieta Say, var. 4. Binn = H. caroliuensis Lea, 59. H. 

 infleda Say, 22. H. thyroides Say, 13. H. stenotrema Fer., 3. 

 Zonites laevigahis Pfr., 1, Z. acerrus Lewis 2. Patula alternata 

 Say., var. mordnx Shutt, 4. Selenites concava Say, 1 Limacidae, 8. 

 A little later in the season, these flats will be inundated most of the 

 time for several months. A visit to the same station a little earlier 

 than this last year, yielded about the same results. 



NOTES ON SOME NEW ZEALAND LAND AND FRESH WATER MOLLUSKS. 



BY HENRY SUTER. 



1. Ancylns woodsi Johnston. About one year ago, I discovered a 

 small Ancylus in the River Avon, near Christchurch, which I 

 recognized as being identical with A. ivoodsi from Tasmania. This 

 was, to my knowledge, the first Ancylus ever found in New Zealand, 

 and I mentioned the fact in Crosse's Journ. de Conch., vol. 32, p. 

 248. I can not recognize Ancylus dohrnianus Clessin as a New 

 Zealand species, as long as Clessin can not give the exact locality 

 where his species has been fomul, and thus enable us to verify its 

 occurrence in this colony. There is no such Ancylus known to New 

 Zealand conchologists, and it therefore will only help to swell the 

 already large list of shells erroneously ascribed to New Zealand. 



Only a few weeks ago, I collected a good number of J., woodsi, 

 and this time alive. To my great astonishment I found several 

 specimens with a septum more or less in process of formation, so 

 that there could be no doubt but that this mollusk is not an Ancylus 

 at all, but a Gwidlachia. This was further confirmed by examin- 

 ing the radula, which perfectly corresponds with the radula of a 

 Gundlachia collected and kindly sent to me by my friend. Dr. V. 

 Sterki, of New Philadelphia, Ohio. Having come into possession of 

 some literature on Tasmanian mollusks, I now find that Johnston, in 

 his description of A. woodsi (Proc. Roy. Soc. Tasm., 1878, page 25) 

 says: "Animal and teeth almost similar to Gundlachia petterdi." 

 And in the description of G.petterdi (1. c. page 23) he writes: " In 

 the young state the shell is simple, and resembles the common Ancy- 

 lus." I really do not understand why Johnston established the n. sp. 

 A. ivoodsi, when he must have been fully aware of the fact that it 



