50 University of Michigan 
mann’s figure, are practically identical with those of &. ele- 
gantulus, ‘The maximum formula is: 
I LO HZOn FA wees I 
C—;L—;M —-+ — + — + —; or 28-10-1-10-28. 
3 3 2 3 4 I 
The count for the laterals was the same for the two specimens 
examined, but the marginals were determined in only one, as 
the other curled under at the edges. The divergence between 
the descriptions of various writers depend probably in part on 
the inconspicuousness of the entocone on the laterals (in the 
tenth it appears as simply a point of light high up on the 
mesocone) and the difficulty in counting the extreme marginals, 
especially as the edges have a tendency to curl under. The 
outer denticles also vary in numbers; I have found differences 
of two teeth in adjacent rows. All of the well-developed mar- 
ginals are bicuspid as in £. elegantulus. 
Among others that need not be discussed here, the follow- 
ing group names have been applied to our American species 
of this general group: 
Stenopus Guilding (1828), not of Latreille (1825). 
Conulus Fitzinger (1833), not of Rafinesque (1814). 
Guppya Moerch (1867). Type Conulus vaccus “Guppy” 
Moerch (1867), obviously a misprint for Conulus vacans 
Guppy (1866). 
Habroconus Crosse and Fischer (1872). Type Helix selen- 
kai Pfr. (1866). 
Euconulus Reinhard (1883). Type Helix fulva Muller 
(1774). 
Discoconulus Reinhard (1883). No type given, but H. 
gundlachi Prf. is mentioned as an example. 
Ernstia Jousseaume (1889). Type Ernstia ernsti Jouss. 
(1889). 
