64 THE NAUTILUS. 
ANCYLUS excentricus Morelet. Figures 4, 5. 
This is an Ancylus with more excentric apex than any heretofore 
known in the United States. The apex is one-fourth the length from 
the posterior end, and so strongly inclined to the right as to be about 
midway between a median line and the right border. The shell is 
horn-colored, fragile, oval, a trifle narrower behind; in outline the 
profile is convex in front of the apex, concave behind it. There are 
slight indications of the most delicate riblets radiating from the apex. 
Length 4, diam. 3, alt. 1.1 mill. Three specimens collected by Mr. 
Singley in Comal Creek at New Braunfels, Comal Co., Texas. The 
range of this species includes Guatemala, Nicaragua, Costa Rica. 
It has not been reported from Mexico. The identity of the Texas 
shells with the Central American is reasonably certain. I have 
compared specimens. Crosse and Fischer’s figures are a trifle slen- 
derer posteriorly, but undoubtedly represent this species. 
(To be continued.) 
CRITIQUES AND COMMENTS. 
N Mr. Carpenter’s article, “The Shell-bearing Mollusca of Rhode 
Island,” in the August Nautrius, page 45, he mentions the 
“Family Verticordiide,” and says “not represented in America.” 
While the Verticordiidee are not shore shells, nor even shallow water 
forms, they cannot be regarded as exotic unless Mr. Carpenter’s 
America is restricted to the littoral and laminarian zones of the 
main-land, and such a restriction would be absurd. Prof. Verrill 
reports Verticordia from off Martha’s Vineyard and several species 
occur at various depths, from Vineyard Sound, southerly, along and 
off the coast of the Atlantic States to Florida and the Antillean re- 
gion; and not only on the eastern side of North America, but on 
the Pacifie as well, where Dall collected specimens in the vicinity 
of, or at, Catalina Island in the Santa Barbara Channel, California. 
On page 46 occurs the following: “ Family Chamidz ;” on this 
Mr. Carpenter comments “not represented in the U. 8., excepting 
by fossils.” This will be a queer surprise to the large number of 
collectors who have found the beautiful Chama arcinella Linn., not 
uncommon, on the beaches of Florida, and not so frequently the less 
attractive shells of the roughly sculptured C. macrophylla Linn., and 
the Chama florida of Lamarck (==C. sarda Rye.), to say nothing of 
other alleged species, some of which probably fall to the rear of those 
