118 THE NAUTILUS. 
Some species and groups are omitted here, although I have received 
highly valuable materials of them, partly because they need being 
studied further, partly as I intend to treat them separately. 
Pupa fallax Say. 
This species has been collected, in typical form, on Curacao 
(Mazyck Coll), a fact which may prove, that P. modica Gld. is not 
only a southern form of fallax. 
Pupa arizonensis. 
The shells sent out under this name by Gabb, or at least most of 
them, are known to be nothing else than P. fallax, e. g., those in 
Smithsonian Inst. Coll.,in Coll. ofthe Acad. of Philadelphia. When 
I found nothing else, in several of the richer private collections, I also 
began thinking that P. arizonensis was nothing else than a synonym 
of fallax, in spite of the description and even more the figure in 
Binney’s work, which seemed to point to something of another kind. 
But since I have seen the (only) type specimen of that fig, in B. & 
B. Coll. (Central Park Mus., N. Y.), I know that there is really 
such a thing as P. arizonensis existing. The specimen is somewhat 
weathered, somewhat grayish-white, the epiconch lost—so that the 
original color cannot be determined exactly—but otherwise in 
good condition. It is best compared with P. corticaria, of the same 
shape, but larger (alt. 3, 5 m.), has no trace of lamellze, and a thick- 
ened lip. Now, a short time ago, I received, by the kindness of Mr. 
L. B. Elliott, of lowa City, a few examples of this same species. They 
had been collected, as Mr. E. writes, “at Siligman, Arizona, by an 
entomological friend, in the nests of large and fierce ants, used as 
materials to build the nests.” They were also somewhat weathered, 
but fair. And again Mr. Elliott sent me a number of Pupidae, 
collected at Albuquerque, New Mexico, highly valuable things, 
among which there were 2 examples of our species, in the same 
condition. One of the Arizona specimens still bears its epiconch 
and the color is a pale horn; all have rather fine, remote, rib-like 
striz, more crowded near the aperture. , 
A controversy may arise about the name: Whether Gabb has seen 
this shell, is not sure, but very improbable; his own description'— 
not to speak of the originals mentioned above—doubtless refers not 
to this species, but a form of P. fallax, not differing even as a var. from 
the type. On the other hand there is no doubt but that the descrip- 
17 Am Journ. Conch. II, p. 331, Oct. 1, 1866, pl. 21, f. 6. 
