936 THE PALEONTOLOGY OF MINNESOTA. 
[Raphistomida 
publish good figures of the form that alone is entitled to bear the name. Under the 
circumstances we are unable to decide whether it is a true Raphistoma. But we 
will concede for the present that it is. The second species is a new one which he 
calls R. schmidti and compares with the American Rf. striatum. This strikes us as 
not a true Raphistoma, the strie upon the upper sides of the whorls curving back- 
ward too strongly and being neither interrupted nor sigmoidally curved. The figure 
(op. cit., pl. XI, fig. 7) represents the shell as preserved on the inner volutions only, 
but a small peripheral rim or “collar” is rather distinctly indicated so that the 
species may be an undeveloped and closely coiled Hecyliopterus or an unusual type 
of Helicotoma. The remaining species constituting the supposed phylum (Huomphalus 
marginale Kichwald, Raphistoma spirillum Koken, Pleurotomaria replicata Lindstrém, 
and Kecyliopterus alatus Roemer, sp.) are doubtless all good species of Hecyliopterus 
and not Raphistoma at all. 
In constructing the line Koken seems to assume that the other characters are 
equal, and then to depend upon the gradual sinking of the spire and on the increas- 
ing freedom of the whorls. Neither of these conditions, however, appears to us of 
material consequence in the case, both pertaining strictly to the Eccyliopterus end of 
the line and neither occurring ever in any true Raphistoma. Further, we doubt very 
much that Raphistoma and Eccyliopterus represent different stages of one and the 
same line of development, nor have we met with any evidence that might cause us 
to believe that the distinction between the two is ever likely to become arbitrary 
or artificial (“eine kiinstliche”). Finally, according to our opinion, the validity of 
Eccyliopterus will be determined not so much by its relations to Raphistoma as by its 
connection with Ophileta and Helicotoma and possibly Eccyliomphalus.* 
We find that Eccyliopterus is very closely related to the latter genera, only one 
so far constant peculiarity separating it in either case. The feature alluded to is 
the prominent thin plate into which the notch-keel is produced and which 
surmounts the top of the whorls like a high ‘‘collar.” On seeing a shell like the 
Calciferous Eccyliomphalus volutatus Whitfield, which, from a careful study of a 
series of specimens recently sent us by Prof. H. M. Seely, we have determined to be 
a true Hecyliopterus, the first impression would naturally be that the genus is a very 
near relation to Hccyliomphalus. And so it may be, yet, if for a moment we leave 
out of sight the fact that its whorls are widely disconnected, and consider only the 
other characters, it will soon become obvious that the balance of agreements lies on 
the side of Ophileta rather than Eccyliomphalus. The whorls of EH. volutatus are 
flattened on the lower side, although casts of the interior are rounded here, the shell 
*When we say Hecyliomphalus we are to be understood as referring to shells of the type H. intortus and canadensis of 
Billings and Z. undulatus Hall, which with other species form a distinct and natural group that it is presumed will include 
also Portlock’s original types of the genus. Atany rate, they are so nearly like them that, without more certain knowledge 
respecting Portlock’s species, it is not safe to separate them. 
