50 University of Michigan 



mann's figure, are practically identical with those of E. cle- 

 gantuliis. The maximum formula is : 



I lo 20 4 3 I 



C — ;L — ;M \ \ \ ;or 28-10- 1 -10-28. 



3 3 2341 



The count for the laterals was the same for the two specimens 

 examined, but the marginals were determined in only one, as 

 the other curled under at the edges. The divergence between 

 the descriptions of various writers depend probably in part on 

 the inconspicuousness of the entocone on the laterals (in the 

 tenth it appears as simply a point of light high up on the 

 mesocone) and the difficulty in counting the extreme marginals, 

 especially as the edges have a tendency to curl under. The 

 outer denticles also vary in numbers ; I have found differences 

 of two teeth in adjacent rows. All of the well-developed mar- 

 ginals are bicuspid as in £. elegantiilus. 



Among others that need not be discussed here, the follow- 

 ing group names have been applied to our American species 

 of this general group : 



Stcnopiis Guilding (1828), not of Latreille (1825). 

 Comilus Fitzinger (1833), not of Rafinesque (1814). 

 Guppya Moerch ( 1867). Type Conulus vacciis "Guppy" 

 Moerch {T867), obviously a misprint for Cotiulus vacans 

 Guppy (1866). 

 Habroconus Crosse and Fischer (1872). Type Helix selen- 



kaiFir. (1866). 

 Eucomdus Reinhard (1883). Type Helix fulva Miiller 



(1774). 

 Discoconuhts Reinhard (1883). No type given, but H. 



gundlachi Prf. is mentioned as an example. 

 Ernstia Jousseaume (1889). Type Enistia crnsti Jouss. 

 (1889J. 



