444 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vou. 118 
It is a rare and peculiar species, because the last whorl has a rather 
cylindrical configuration, and the spire is conic and has convex whorls. 
I have seen only one specimen in the U.S. National Museum that agrees 
with Pfeiffer’s description. It is not a Bulimulus or Lissoaeme, but its 
protoconch is typically pitted as in Drymaeus. 
Drymaeus papyraceus (Mawe) 
?Helix (Cochlogena) lita Férussac, Prodrome, p. 54, no. 403, 1819 (name only and 
without locality). 
Helix papyracea Mawe, Linnean system of conchology, p. 168, 1823. 
Drymaeus papyraceus, Pilsbry, Manual of conchology, ser. 2, vol. 11, p. 250, 1897. 
Drymaeus papyraceus, Parodiz, Nautilus, vol. 71, p. 24, 1957. 
Type locality: Bahia, Brazil. 
This species reaches the southernmost range of the genus. It is 
common in the Mesopotamian provinces of Argentina (Corrientes 
and Entre Rios), but is never found west of the Paran& River where 
it is replaced by other forms of the poecilus group. It is very abundant 
on Martin Garcia Island, of the Rio de la Plata, and in Uruguay. 
Typical papyraceus are those of Brazil (Rio de Janeiro northward) ; 
the southern specimens, of Rio Grande do Sul, Argentina and Uruguay, 
belong to the following subspecies: 
Drymaeus papyraceus papyrifactus Pilsbry 
Drymaeus papyraceus var. papyrifactus Pilsbry, Manual of conchology, ser. 2, 
vol. 11, p. 252, 1898. 
Drymaeus papyraceus papyrifactus, Parodiz, Nautilus, vol. 71, p. 24, 1957. 
Type locality: Curitiba, Paranda, Brazil. 
There is one specimen in the USNM collection (107570) which is 
labelled ‘from Buenos Aires.”’ At the present time the subspecies 
has disappeared from the Buenos Aires area, if it ever existed there. 
Many other specimens of this subspecies from Uruguay and southern 
Brazil were examined (in USNM, MCZ, CM, and MACN). 
The bibliographic references of the last century regarding D. 
papyraceus were given by Pilsbry in 1898 completely enough to obviate 
repetition here, but in the present century some authors have again 
used the name “Vitus” for the species; a rectification of this usage is 
needed: 
Helix lita Férussac 1819 is a nomen nudum because it was men- 
tioned in the ‘‘Prodrome” only by name, without description or 
figures. Recently, Barattini (Malacologia Uruguaya, Publ. Cient. 
Serv. Oceanog. Pesca, no. 6, p. 220, 1951) listed the species as Drymaeus 
litus (Reeve); such a species does not exist, because very clearly 
Reeve included the name lita Férussac in the synonymy of papyraceus; 
this mistake was due to Pilsbry’s reference to Reeve’s figure 236 as 
“Uitus,” which actually was named by Reeve papyraceus; furthermore, 
