6 THE NAUTILUS. 
respecting other forms. <A number of “ Zonites” were included, 
among them specimens of Z. carolinensis Ckll., and of two new spe- 
cies, one of about the same size as suppressus, the other larger. Of 
these an account will be given later. Among the Helices, one of 
the most interesting forms was labelled “ H. wetherbyi Bld. var. Don’t 
believe it!” Upon glancing at the specimens I was compelled to 
join Wetherby in his scepticism, for the shells are certainly unlike 
H. wetherbyi, and belong to quite a different group of species. The 
first notice of these so-called wetherbyi appeared in a paper written 
by Mr. Wetherby on the shells of Roan Mountain, and published in 
the Journal of the Cincinnati Society of Natural History, vol. iv, 
as long ago as 1881. The paragraph is as follows: 
“ Mesodon wether byi Bland.—Shells which have been referred to 
this species occur somewhat sparingly at this locality. Like the 
specimens from the original station, the shells are covered with a 
thick coating of dirt, imbedded in the hirsute covering of the epi- 
dermis, which being carefully washed away leaves the shell of a 
pale greenish white color. These shelis have a lamellar projection 
on the inferior surface of the peristome much like that of some 
varieties of 7. appressa, and which is a character very distinct from 
that of the same region in the type. A very careful examination 
of the genitalia shows them to be much more like those of Triodop- 
sis. Indeed, looking over the whole field, it seems not improbable 
that here we have another case of the union of characters of Meso- 
don with other groups, like that of Stenotrema, mentioned in my 
notes, No.1. Mr. Binney says, Terr. Moll., vol. v, p. 301, “ Trio- 
dopsis does not differ from Mesodon or Polygyra in the character of 
its jaw.” Again, p. 306, he says that the genitalia of T. appressa, 
resemble, in certain features, those of Mesodon sayii—=M. diodonta. 
This shell certainly presents as many features that would ally it 
to Triodopsis through appressa, as to Mesodon through dentifera. 
In fact, I am inclined to the belief that the shell is not Mesodon 
wetherbyi at all, but a distinct species, probably a Triodopsis, and 
having the closest analogy to M. dentifera Binney, which certainly 
has some very strong claims to relationship to Triodopsis through 
T. appressa. The station of this species is always in the dirt under 
and beside rotting logs. It is very sluggish and timid, and very 
rare.” 
It will be seen that Wetierby recognized the Triodopsoid affini- 
ties of the snail; but in the writer’s opinion it is more nearly allied 
