240 AMPHIBULIMA. 



Distinguished from typical Amphibulima by its regular, Succinea- 

 like form, and roseate tint, without color-markings or spots. The 

 anatomy resembles that of Amphibulima. It differs from Succinea 

 in the corrugated 1^ apical whorls. 



A. RUBESCENS (Deshayes). PI. 61, figs. 26, 27. 



Shell Succi?iea-\i\<Le, thin but moderately strong ; rose-tinted cor- 

 neous, dull, and a little translucent. Sculpture of fine growth- 

 wrinkles decussated by irregular spirals, and short, obliquely de- 

 scending impressions, most conspicuous below. Whorls 2|, convex, 

 spire short, obtuse. Aperture large, ovate, the lip thin and simple, 

 columella thin, deeply arched. 



Alt. 20, diam. 13.5, length of aperture 17 mill. 



Alt. 18, diam. 13, length of aperture 15 mill. 



Alt. 22, diam. 14 mill. (Desh.). 



Guadelupe (Deshayes); Marie Galante (Schramm, Maze); Martin- 

 ique (Maze and others); Dominica, 300 ft. elevation (A. D. Brown). 



Succinea rubescens DESH., in Guerin's Mag. de Zool., 1830, p. 4, 

 pi. 4, f. 1,2; Encycl. Meth., ii, p. 20; Anim. s. Vert., viii, p. 319; 

 Guerin's Icon. Reg. Anim., pi. 6, f. 8, 8 a KUSTER, Conchyl. 

 Cab., Succinea, p. 36, pi. 3, f. 34, 35 PFR., Moriogr., ii, p. 531 ; 

 v, p. 26. A. D. BROAVN, Amer. Naturalist, xv, 1881, p. 57 

 SOWERBY, in Conch. Icon., xviii, pi. 4, f. 25 a, b (1872). Helix 

 (Cochloln/dra) rubescens FER., Hist,, pi. 9 B, f. 3. 



Amphibulima (Rhodonyx) rubescens FISCHER, Journ. de Conchyl. 

 1873, p. 324 (S. rubescens), 325 (anatomy); J. de C. 1874, p. 145- 

 148, pi. 5, f. 13 (animal), pi. 6, f. 1 (jaw), 2, 3 (teeth), 4 (genitalia), 

 5, 6 (central nervous system). A. rubescens BECK, Index Moll., p. 

 98 BINNEY & BLAND, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1874, p. 45, 

 pi. 8, f. 2 (jaw), 3 (teeth), 4 (genitalia), specimen from Martinique. 

 _E. A. SMITH, Ann. Mag. N. H. (6), ii, 1888, p. 231 Rhodonyx 

 rubescens MAZE, Journ. de Conchyl. 1883, p. 49. 



The locality Guadelupe, originally given by Deshayes, has not 

 been verified by later naturalists. Indeed Maze, who reports it from 

 Marie-Galante, did not himself collect it, and cannot give the exact 

 locality on the island for the three specimens recorded. A. D. Brown 

 reports it as " not common " on Dominica; but none of the other 

 naturalists who have collected on that island found it at all, and there 

 are no specimens in Brown's collection, now in that of the Academy. 



