FAMILY ZONITID^E 41 



Arnouldia fulva Bourguignat, Bull. Soc. Mai. de France., vn, p. 328, 1890. 

 Vitrea {Conulus) fulva E. A. Smith, Journ. Conch. (Leeds), vi, No. x, p. 339, 



1891. 

 Euconulus fulvus Woodward, Brit. Nonmarine Moll., p. 353, 1903. 

 Helix egena Say, Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., v, p. 120, 1825. 

 Hyalina (Conn/us) fulva Binney, Land and Freshw. Sh. of N. Am. part 1, p. 



46, fig. 73, 1869. 

 Hyalinia {Conulus) trochiformis (Montagu) Westerlund, Nachr. Mai. Ges., 



xv, p. 173, Dec, 1883. 

 Trochulus trochiformis Westerlund, Fauna Pal. Reg., m te beilage, p. 16, 



1886. 

 Conulus chersinus Morse, Journ. Portland Soc. N. Hist., i, p. 19, figs. 44, 



46, pi. 11, fig. 4, pi. vii, fig. 45, 1864, not Helix chersina Say, 1821. 

 Conulus fulvus (Muller), and var. alaskensis Pilsbry, Nautilus, xn, No. 



10, pp. 1 1 5-6, 1899. 

 Euconulus fulvus Pilsbry, Nautilus, xiv, Nov., 1900, p. 81. 



Variety fabricii (Beck). 



Helix nitida Fabricius, Fauna Gronl., p. 389, 1780, not of Muller. 

 Helix (Petasid) fabricii Beck, Index, p. 21, 1837, nude name. — Moller, 

 Index Moll. Grcenl., p. 7, 1842. 



Range. — Holarctic, and widely distributed south- 

 ward. 



Canada ; Manitoba at Carberry, Pine Creek, Pem- 

 bina, and Lake of the Woods ; in Alberta at Laggan, Q 

 Red Deer, Olds and McLeod ; English River, Kee- FlG - 2S - Eu \ 



watin ; California ! Oregon ! Washington ! Victoria, . . , 



° ' fortius (magni- 



Vancouver Island ! Sitka, Alaska ; Unalaska ! Bering fied \ 



Island, Bering Sea ! Petropavlovsk, Kamchatka ! 



Pooten, Konyam and St. Lawrence Bays, eastern Siberia. 



Variety fabricii Moller. Greenland ! Ungava ! 



Labrador. 



Variety alaskensis Pilsbry. Yukon drainage, Lake 



Fig. 39. En- Lindeman to Point Romanof and St. Michael, 



conulus trochi- Alaska ; Dyea valley, Southeastern Alaska ! 



forjnis var. fa- Thig f am iH ar little shell has had various vicissitudes 



land)' r m nomenclature. The name fulva Muller, by which 



it is best known, was based, according to Beck, who 

 was custodian of Muller's types, upon Helix bidentata Gmelin, while 

 a shell which Muller supposed to be the young, but did not figure 

 or fully describe, was supposed by some of the early naturalists to be 

 our species. Another unfigured species, Helix trochulus Muller, was 

 thought by Dillwyn to be identical with our fulva, but the measure- 

 ments forbid the identification, and Pfeiffer came to the conclusion 

 that H trochulus is identical with the young tip of Buliminus ob- 

 scurus. Fabricius supposed our shell to be identical with Helix 



