The remaining sixty eight species included in the catalogue 
of 1894 have been authenticated by the actual inspection of 
Michigan specimens. In addition to these, the following six 
species and two varieties have been added to our fauna: 
Strobilops affinis Pils. Polygyra albolabris minor 
Vitrea wheatleyt Bld. Sterk1. 
Gastrodonta intertexta Conulus fulvus mortont 
(Binn.) (Jeffr. ) 
a . demissa (Binn.) Conulus chersinus polygyratus 
Agriolimax agrestis (1.) Pils. 
making a total of seventyfive species, which have been undis- 
putably established as living in this state. 
While it is quite possible that some of the rejected species 
may hereafter be found within our borders, and that new or 
additional ones may be reported, yet it is not probable that 
the present list will be largely increased. 
But, while in this particular our fauna can be said to 
have been well developed, our knowledge as to the distribu- 
tion of the different species is lamentably deficient. I have 
indicated on the accompanying chart the number of species 
which have been reported from each of the counties of the 
state. From this it will be seen how small a part of the 
state has been collected over with any sort of thoroughness. 
Of the fifteen counties in the upper peninsula, only three are 
represented by even a single reported species, while of the 
sixty eight counties in the lower peninsula, the fauna of 
twenty seven, or nearly one-half, is entirely unknown; twen- 
ty two are represented by from one to ten species; eight by 
from ten to twenty species, and only eleven by more than 
twenty. Kent is the banner county with fifty two species 
to its credit. When it is considered that all of the southern 
counties have, in all probability, as large a fauna as is now 
reported from Kent, and that the species reported from Char- 
levoix and Chippewa counties range through the entire 
northern part of the state, the poverty of our knowledge and 
its entire inadequacy for anything like positive statements in 
regard to the distribution of the different species is only too 
obvious. 
The great extent of unknown territory in the center of 
the state north of the Saginaw-Grand valley is especially 
noticeable and is particularly unfortunate. The Saginaw- 
Grand valley and the counties lying south of it, and the 
Grand Traverse region, have been sufficiently explored to 
give a substantially accurate knowledge of their fauna asa 
whole. But with this great stretch of unexplored territory 
4 
