THE NAUTILUS. 45 



at Bay View, Petoskey, Michigan. Among a large lot of U. rubi- 

 ginosHs sent to me by Dr. Leach from the same locality was 

 another specimen, which in the sulcate or rather heavily imbricated 

 character of the surface resembles Lea's description of this species. 

 It is, however, more inflated, and although somewhat eroded, lacks 

 the peculiar beaks described by Lea. If not distinct, it certainly 

 is a very peculiar form of U. rubiginosus. 



U. novi-eboraci Lea. Abundant everywhere. A form without 

 rays from this state was described as U. opalinus by Anthony, but 

 is not considered as distinct by Lea in his last synopsis. Dr. 

 De Camp sends me the following note on Anthony's sj^ecies. 

 " McNeil found the only specimen of this and sent it to Anthony. It 

 was from Ottawa county, and McNeil says he thought it was a 

 malformed U. gibbosus Bar. I have hunted the same stream and 

 never found one." 



U. occidens Lea. Generally distributed through the southern 

 part of the State. 



U. parvus Bar. River Rouge, Wayne county. 



U. penitus Con. Cited by Sager and Miles, probably a mistake, 

 as the species is a southern one. 



U. perplexus Lea. Cited by Sager and Miles. 



U. phaseolus Hild. Cited in most of t:he catalogues. Sheboygan 

 County is the most northern locality known to me. Specimens from 

 the Detroit river are smaller than usual, very strongly arcuate and 

 darker colored without spots. 



XJ. plicatus Les. Western part of the State, extending as far 

 north as Muskegon. I have not found this form in the eastern part 

 of the State. Michigan sj)ecimen seem to be smaller than those from 

 more southern localities. 



U. pressus Lea. Common all over the State. 



U. pustulatus Lea. River Rouge, Wayne county. 



XJ. pustulosus Lea. Cited by Sager, Miles and Call. 



U. radlaius Lara. Cited by De Camp from Grayling, Crawford 

 County, and as U. distans Anth. by Currier and De Camp. Were 

 it not for the occurrence of U. complantus Sol., in the northern part 

 of the State, (a species which is usually considered as confined to the 

 Atlantic drainage), I should question whether there was not some 

 mistake in the above citations. Gould in Agassiz " Lake Superior " 

 however, cites this species from the north shore of that lake, and it 

 is quite possible that it has extended from Canada into our northern 



