14 THE NAUTILUS. 
1865, none seemed to have found it. Dr, Lewis in his Freshwater 
and Land shells of Alabama (Geol. Sur. Ala. Rep., p. 25, 1876) 
gives no further information but states that in the absence of the 
operculum it is uncertain whether it should be referred to Neritella 
—Neritina). Binney was not able to add any further information 
in his Land and Freshwater shells of North America. I find in one 
of my books a manuscript note by a very competent conchologist 
which declares under date of 1884 that this shell is the young of 
Anculosa ampla Anth. Under Neritide in the Manual of Concho- 
logy (vol. x, 1888) Mr. Tryon observes that it has not the char- 
acters of Anculosa, on the contrary it more nearly resembles Neritina 
crepidularia, though the coloring of the epidermis is more like that 
of Anculosa than in the other fluviatile species of Neritina. 
For some years I have used every opportunity to seek further in- 
formation about this species but without success, until lately Mr. 
Bryant Walker of Detroit informed me that he had found, among 
shells collected on the Cahawba River in Alabama, by Prof. R. E. 
Call, a single specimen which he had referred to Lea’s species. 
This he was kind enough to send me for examination and on com- 
parison with the types it proved identical, thus establishing the 
correctness of the American habitat of the shell which had been so 
long in doubt. The specimen had also the operculum, which was 
not that of a Neritina, but the soft parts had been removed. 
A comparison was then made with the young of all the species of 
Anculosa in the National collection, which resulted in confirming Mr. 
Tryon’s opinion that it could not be referred to that genus. Dur- 
ing this search, under the head of “ Anculosa ampla, very young” 
were found three additional specimens of the so-called Neritina, 
received under that name from Dr. Lewis, who in turn had received 
them from Mr. T. H. Aldrich who had collected them from the 
Cahawba River, Alabama, thus fixing a second locality for the 
species. Thesmallest of Dr. Lewis’s specimens fortunately contained 
the operculum and dried remains of the soft parts which were put in 
soak and boiled in potash finally revealing an extremely minute 
rhipidoglossate radula, in general not unlike that of Neritina but 
not like that of any species of Neritina yet figured. The differences 
are such as would ordinarily be regarded as generic and, taken into 
consideration with the operculum, it becomes evident that, while the 
species is related to Neritina (and not to Anculosa), a new genus 
must be instituted to receive it. 
