GASTROPODA. 911 
Conradella elegans.] 
The specimen figured seems to be complete. If this is the case, then we have 
another feature in which C. bellula difters from both of the species with which we 
have compared it. Namely, a slit extending only about a fourth, instead of half 
around the circumference of the last turn. 
Formation and locality.—Lower half of the Loraine group, Covington, Kentucky. 
Collection.—E. O. Ulrich. 
CoNRADELLA ELEGANS Miller. 
PLATE LXVII, FIGS. 12—15. 
Cyrtolites dyert (part.), MeEK, 1873, Pal, Ohio, vol. i, p. 149, plate x1, figs. 2d, 2e. 
Cyriolites elegans, MILLER, 1874, Cincinnati Quart. Jour. Sci., vol. i, p. 310. 
This species is closely related to and about of the same size as C. dyeri Hall, 
but we cannot say that we ever found it difficult to distinguish. In the first place 
the transverse lamellz are less crowded—sometimes they are more than twice as 
far apart as in that species; next the undulations or loops of each are not so deep 
and fewer, there being only five or six to a side as against ten in C. dyeri; then it is 
only in rare instances that even the most obscure appearance of revolving ridges is 
observable; finally, the whorls are a trifle higher, while the slit-band bears distinct 
and closely arranged lunule. The last is probably to be regarded as the most 
important of the differences mentioned. The C. triangularis of the Stones River 
group, though of a similar type, is readily distinguished by its larger size, rougher 
surface, oftener and more deeply undulated lamelle, and angular umbilical edges. 
C. grandis is perhaps nearer than any other, but it grows so much larger that there 
is little danger of confusion between them. For comparisons with C. bellula see 
that description. 
Formation and localityi—As yet this pretty shell is known only from the shaly limestones of the 
Loraine group, at Cincinnati, Ohio and localities in the immediate vicinity of that city. 
Collection.—K. O. Ulrich. 
CoNRADELLA ImBRICATA Meek and Worthen. - 
PLATE LXVII, FIG. 11. 
Cyrtolites imbricatus MEEK and WORTHEN, 1868, Geol. Surv. Ill., vol. iii, p. 340, pl. rv, fig. 12. 
A good figure of this species has not yet been published, and as it is an 
interesting form and one that may be expected to occur in Minnesota, we have 
decided to illustrate a specimen that a careful comparison with the original type 
proves to belong to the same species. This specimen is from the same locality as 
the type and differs from it only in being smaller. The greatest diameter of the 
type is about 22 mm.; in our specimen 15.5 mm. 
