122 THE NAUTILUS. 
A two-hour hunt for Helix carolinensis, made December 1, upon 
the timbered flats of the Paint Rock River, resulted as follows: 
Helix obstricta Say, var. 4. Binn = H. carolinensis Lea, 59. H. 
inflecta Say, 22. H. thyroides Say, 13. H. stenotrema Feér., 3. 
Zonites laevigatus Pfr.,1, Z. acerrus Lewis 2. Patula alternata 
Say., var. mordax Shutt, 4. Selenites concava Say, 1 Limacidae, 8. 
A little later in the season, these flats will be inundated most of the 
time for several months. <A visit to the same station a little earlier 
than this last year, yielded about the same results. 
NOTES ON SOME NEW ZEALAND LAND AND FRESH WATER MOLLUSKS. 
BY HENRY SUTER. 
1. Ancylus woodsi Johnston. About one year ago, I discovered a 
small Ancylus in the River Avon, near Christchurch, which I 
recognized as being identical with A. woodsi from Tasmania. ‘This 
was, to my knowledge, the first Ancylus ever found in New Zealand, 
and I mentioned the fact in Crosse’s Journ. de Conch., vol. 32, p. 
248. I can not recognize Ancylus dohrnianus Clessin as a New 
Zealand species, as long as Clessin can not give the exact locality 
where his species has been found, and thus enable us to verify its 
occurrence in this colony. There is no such Ancylus known to New 
Zealand conchologists, and it therefore will only help to swell the 
already large list of shells erroneously ascribed to New Zealand. 
Only a few weeks ago, I collected a good number of A. woodst, 
and this time alive. To my great astonishment I found several 
specimens with a septum more or less in process of formation, so 
that there could be no doubt but that this mollusk is not an Ancylus 
at all, but a Gundlachia. This was further confirmed by examin- 
ing the radula, which perfectly corresponds with the radula of a 
Gundlachia collected and kindly sent to me by my friend, Dr. V. 
Sterki, of New Philadelphia, Ohio. Having come into possession of 
some literature on Tasmanian mollusks, I now find that Johnston, in 
his description of A. woodsi (Proc. Roy. Soc. Tasm., 1878, page 25) 
says: “Animal and teeth almost similar to Gundlachia petterdi.” 
And in the description of G. petterdi (1. c. page 23) he writes: “In 
the young state the shell is simple, and resembles the common Ancy- 
lus.” I really do not understand why Johnston established the n. sp. 
A. woodsi, when he must have been fully aware of the fact that it 
