4 Hawaiian Species of Helicina. 



and strongly impressed just above and below the peripheral keel. 

 Color reddish alternating with somewhat zigzag light flammules, 

 which are almost white at the periphery, base brownish, except 

 around the callus where there are traces of reddish flammules. 

 Spire low conical, apex acute. Suture lightly impressed, mar- 

 gined above. Whorls nearly 4, almost flat, the last two slightly 

 projecting at the periphery ; the embryonic nearly smooth ; the 

 last flat above the carinate periphery, slightly convex below, not 

 descending in front. Aperture nearly triangular; outer lip thin, 

 forming a straight line above the periphery, arcuate below. 

 Callus whitish about the axis, the rest very thin, transparent and 

 minutely punctate. Operculum wanting. Maj. diam. 5.0, total 

 length 2.7 mm. 



Oahu : Waianae Mountains and Mt. Tantalus (Cooke). 

 The locality of the type specimen is, back of the Ueilehua Ranch- 

 house, Waianae Mts. 



Type No. 14,911, Bishop Museum. 



This shell has been referred to H. sandwichiensis , Soul., by 

 various authors and collectors. Its nearest relative is H. laciniosa, 

 Migh., var. delta, P. & C, from which it is easily distinguished 

 by its much more depressed contour. 



Helicina laciniosa Migh. 



Helicina laciniosa Mighels, P. Bost. Soc, ii, 1845, P- l 9- Helicina laciniosa 

 Gould, U. S. Exp. Exp., Moll., pi. vii, fig. 108. Helicina sandwichiensis 

 Souleyet, Voy. Bonite, Zool. , ii, 1852, p. 529, pi. xxx, figs. 1-5. 



Unfortunately we do not have before us a typical shell of this 

 species, though some of its numerous varieties are the most abund- 

 ant of the Helicinae found on the Hawaiian Islands. Specimens 

 which would be hard to separate from this species, except as varie- 

 ties, occur on Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Maui and Hawaii. 



From Souleyet's description it would be hard to separate his 

 species from laciniosa even as a variety. H. bronniana, Phil., and 

 H. dissotropis, Ancey, have been retained as varieties. Both of 

 these differ but slightly from Mighel's description. Probably the 

 form described by Mighels is one of the extremely local forms and 

 it does not seem to have been rediscovered by any of the later col- 

 lectors. Gould's description (U. S. Exp. Exp., Moll., p. 99, pi. 

 vii, fig. 108) agrees closely with that of Mighels. Unfortunately 



[200] 



