44 
THE NAUTILUS. 
before us, I wish to use this criticism of these unnecessary names to 
illustrate the suggestions as to labeling such shells, made in my 
notes on H. cippressa in the June Nautilus. The chief forms of 
H. tridentata in my collection are the following : 
The type, from many localities in many States; I need not cite 
them here. 
A variety found under the shingle and waste of the limestone 
cliffs about Cincinnati. This shell is characterized by its very light 
color, horny texture, polished appearance, comparatively few and 
little impressed striae, and the aperture of Vilsbry’s juxtidens. 
A variety found on Braden Mt. in Campbell Co., Tenn., of very 
large size, very much depressed, deeply sculptured and with the 
denticles little developed and remote. 
A smooth variety from Whitley Co., Ky., with polished surface, 
striae very little impressed, aperture nearly circular, almost with¬ 
out denticles. 
A variety from Putnam Co., W. Va., very small, with all the 
mouth parts approximated, but not like Pilsbry’s fraudu/enta. 
This is a most interesting form, and as widely separated from the 
last as it well could be. 
A variety from Cherokee Co., N. C., with all the characters of 
juxtidens but with the mouth parts cupped like H.fallax. 
Now I do not hesitate to affirm that in these lots are every gradation 
necessary to unite them with the type. This is a matter of the eye simply- 
Now what shall we do ? Shall we label the first form H. tridentata 
polita, the second H. tridentata edentilabris or what not, and so on 
to the end, or shall we say for the first H. tridentata Say, var. Cin¬ 
cinnati, O., and for the second H. tridentata Say, var. Campbell Co., 
Tenn. ? and so on to the end. The first method loads up our liter¬ 
ature with trinominal designations of varieties that fix a limit just as 
rigid as a specific name. The second method is in accordance with 
nature and the facts in the case. They are varieties, uniting each 
other, through the gradations in each, with the type. What is a 
“ subspecies ” t I undertake to say that there is no such thing in 
nature whatever. We may have species; we certainly have no 
“ subspecies .” The moment the specific line is passed, if any exists, 
that instant we are in the realm of variations, inhabited only by 
varieties. To name these varieties is to make types of them as 
rigid as the specific type itself. If not, why name them f If so, why 
