544 NON-MARINE FOSSIL MOLLUSC A. 



PLATE 29. EOCENE. 

 PLANORBIS UTAKENSIS Meek. (Page 447.) 



FIG. 1. Upper view, natural size. 



FIG. 2. Under view of the same example. 



FIG. 3. Peripheral view of the same. After Meek. 



PLANORBIS UTAHENSIS var. SPECTAEILIS M. (Page 447.) 

 FIG. 4. Upper view, natural size. 

 FIG. 5. Under view of the same example. 

 FIG. 6. Peripheral outline of the same. After Meek. 



PLANORBIS CIRRATUS White. (Page 448.) 

 FIG. 7. Upper, under, and peripheral views, enlarged. 



PLANORBIS .EQUALIS W. (Page 448.) 

 FIGS. 8 and 9. Under and peripheral views, enlarged. 

 FIG. 10. Upper view of a smaller example, enlarged. 



(All are imperfect, and perfect adult examples are doubtless larger.) 



HELIX PERIPHERIA W. (Page 455.) 

 FIG. 11. Lateral view, natural size. 

 FIG. 12. Opposite view of the same. 



HELIX RIPARIA W. (Page 455.) 

 FIG. 13. Lateral view, natural size. 

 FIG. 14. Opposite view of the same example. 



PUPA INCOLATA W. (Page 456.) 



FIG. 15. Lateral view, enlarged. 



FIG. 1(3. Opposite view of the same example, showing the aperture. 

 FIG. 17. View of the same, showing the edge of the outer lip. 

 PUPA ATAVUNCULA W. (Page 456.) 

 FIG. 18. Lateral view, enlarged. 



PUPA ARENULA W. (Page 50 456.) 



FIG. 19. Two lateral views of the type specimen. The rim of the aperture has been 

 broken off. 



LIMN^A SIMILIS M. (Page 445.) 

 FIG. 20. Lateral view, enlarged. 

 FIG. 21. Opposite view of the sa*me. After Meek. 



LIMN.EA VETUSTA M. (Page 445.) 

 FIG. 22. Lateral view, natural size. 



FIG. 23. Opposite view of another example, a little enlarged. After Meek. 

 LIMNJEA MINUSCULA W. (Page 446.) 



FIG. 24. Lateral view, enlarged. 



FIG. 25. Opposite view of the same example. 



SUCCINKA (BEACHYSPIRA) PAPILLISPIRA W. (Page 457.) 



FIG. 26. Three views of separate examples, natural size, from gutta-percha casts in 

 natural molds. 



ANODONTA DECURTATA Conrad. (Page 479.) 

 FIG. 27. Lateral view, natural size, from an example believed to have been Conrad's 



type specimen. 



FIG. 28. Dorsal view of the same. The true geological age of this species is not cer- 

 tainly known, but it is believed to be Eocene. 



