36 LEPTACHATINA, GROUP F. 



'44&. L. vitreola purvula Gulick. PI. 2, fig. below 28. 



' ' Shell dextral, imperf orate, conic-oblong, thin, shining, pel- 

 lucid, glossy, of amber hue, microscopically very finely 

 striated; apex obtuse; spire convexly conical; suture simple, 

 moderately impressed; whorls 6, rather convex; columella 

 with a light internal plait; aperture pyriform; peristome 

 simple, unreflected; with columellar margin narrow, adnate; 

 parietal margin wanting. Length 6%, diam. 4 mm. ; average 

 weight 0.1 grain. Nearly of the size and color of A. grani- 

 fera, but of a more cylindrically oblong shape, with a nar- 

 rower base ' ' ( Gulick ) . 



The type locality was unknown. Mr. Sykes has figured 

 the type, his figure being copied on my plate, between figs. 

 27 and 35. 



45. L. GUTTULA (Gould). PI. 2, figs. 34, 35, 36. 



"'Shell small, thin, translucid, shining, short ovate, yellow- 

 ish-green, slightly striated lengthwise, with sometimes a faint 

 appearance of revolving bands. Whorls 6, short, slightly con- 

 vex, the last tumid, more than half the length of the shell. 

 Aperture small, lunate; lip white, thickened, strongly trun- 

 cate at the base ; columella short, furnished with a small fold, 

 the penultimate whorl covered with a callus. Length %, 

 diam. 3/16 inch. ' ' ( Gould. ) 



Maui (Gld.): East Maui (Baldwin). 



Achatinella guttula GOULD, Proc. Bost. Soc., ii, 1845, p. 

 201; U. S. Exp. Exp., Moll., p. 89, pi. 7, figs. 98, 990. 

 NEWC., Ann. Lye. N. Y., vi, 1858, p. 315. PPR., Mon. Hel. 

 Viv., iii, p. 467. Achatinella (Leptachatina) guttula PFR., 

 Mon. Hel. Viv., iv, p. 567; vi, p. 185; viii, p. 247. Lepta- 

 chatina guttula PEASE, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1869, p. 651. 

 SYKES, Fauna Haw., ii, 1900, p. 363. 



1 ' One of the smallest, and proportionally the shortest of the 

 group, its length being but little greater than its breadth. 

 It is much more ventricose and less solid than A. accincta 

 Migh." (Gld.) 



The measurements in both of Gould's descriptions are 

 probably wrong. In both of these he says, in his notes, that 



