NEW SNAILS—PARODIZ 433 
Rafinesque, which becomes the typical form of the species; bonariensis 
Strobel is the same form. Sitiphalomphix Rafinesque, 1833, becomes, 
of course, a synonym of Bulimulus Leach, 1814. 
The typical Bulimus bonariensis is now rather scarce; I have, how- 
ever, examined more than a hundred specimens (in MACN) collected 
during the last 30 years from localities near Buenos Aires (no more 
than 50 miles distant): Olivos, San Isidro, Zelaya, Jauregui, Zaérate, 
Campana, Escobar, Villa Guillermina, Punta Lara, and south of that 
city (about 175 miles) in Piran. 
Following the change in names outlined above, the correct nomen- 
clature and the distribution of the known subspecies are: 
Bulimulus bonariensis bonariensis (Rafinesque) Buenos Aires, Argen- 
tina. 
Bulimulus bonariensis sporadicus (d’Orbigny) Northern, eastern, 
and central Argen- 
tina; and Bolivia. 
Bulimulus bonariensis monievidensis (Pfeiffer) Uruguay. 
Bulimulus bonariensis schadei (Schlesch) Paraguay. 
Bulimulus bonariensis gracilis (Hylton Scott) Salta, Argentina. 
Bulimulus bonariensis morenoi (Preston) Argentina. 
Bulimulus hendersoni Marshall 
Bulimulus hendersoni Marshall, Nautilus, vol. 46, p. 100, 1931 (new name for 
B. felipponer Marshall, 1930, not B. felipponer Ihering, 1928). 
The type of B. hendersoni (USNM 380691) is closely related to 
B. bonarivensis montevidensis (Pfeiffer), and probably is an individual 
form of that subspecies. See observations immediately following 
regarding B. felupponer Ihering, which caused the change of the name 
by Marshall. 
Bulimulus rushii Pilsbry 
Bulimulus rushii Pilsbry, Nautilus, vol. 10, p. 76, 1896. 
Bulimulus rushii, Parodiz, Com. Zool. Mus. Montevideo, vol. 1, no. 8, p. 4, 1944; 
also Nautilus, vol. 70, p. 133, 1957. 
Bulimulus (Scutalus) feltpponei Ihering, Nautilus, vol. 41, p. 95, 1928. 
In the revision of 1944 I did not include B. felipponei Ihering in the 
synonymy of the species. At the present time we can identify this 
unfigured Ihering’s species as an individual variation of B. rushi. I 
have seen specimens of rushiz which are larger than felipponet (27 mm. 
high by 16 mm. in diameter). B. felipponer may also be compared 
with B. vesicalis uruguayanus Pilsbry, but the latter species differs, 
principally in the character of its peristome. 
B. felipponei is not a Scutalus. In fact there are in Uruguay no 
species of Scutalus, which is a genus of western South America from 
Ecuador to northern Argentina. Ihering compared his felipponet with 
“Bulimulus peristomatus” Doering, which is actually a subspecies of 
