138 NON-MARINE FOSSIL MOLLUSCA. 



PLATE 29. EOCENE. 



Planorbis utahensis Meek. (Page 41.) 



Fig. 1. Upper view, natural size. 



Fig. 2. Under view of the same example. 



Fig. 3. Peripheral view of the same. After Meek. 



Planorbis utahensis var. spectajiilis M. (Page 41.) 

 Fig. 4. Upper view, natural size. 

 Fig. 5. Under view of the same example. 

 Fig. li. Peripheral outline of the same. After Meek. 



Planorbis cirratus White. (Page 42. ) 

 Fig. 7. Upper, under, and peripheral views, enlarged. 



Planorbis ^equalis W. (Page 42. ) 

 Figs. 8 and 9. Under and peripheral views, enlarged. 

 Fig. 10. Upper view of a smaller example, enlarged. 



(All are imperfect, and perfect adult examples are doubtless larger.; 

 Helix peripiieria W. (Page 49.) 



Fig. 11. Lateral view, natural size. 

 Fig. 12. Opposite view of the same. 



Helix riparia W. (Page 49.) 

 Fig. 13. Lateral view, natural size. 

 Fig. 14. Opposite view of the same example. 



Pupa incolata W. (Page 50.) 

 Fig. 15. Lateral view, enlarged. 



Fig. 16. Opposite view of the same example, showing the aperture. 

 Fig. 17. View of the same, showing the edge of the outer lip. 

 Pupa atavuncui.a W. (Page 50.) 

 Fig. 18. Lateral view, enlarged. 



Pupa arenula W. (Page 50.) 



Fig. 19. Two lateral views of the type specimen. The rim of the aperture has been 

 broken off. • 



Limiosa similis M. (Page 39.) 

 Fig. 20. Lateral view, enlarged. 

 Fig. 21. Opposite view of the same. After Meek. 



LlMNiEA vetusta M. (Page 39.) 

 Fig. 22. Lateral view, natural size. 

 Fig. 23. Opposite view of another example, a little enlarged. After Meek. 



LlMNiEA minuscula W. (Page 40.) 

 Fig. 24. Lateral view, enlarged. 

 Fig. 25. Opposite view of the same example. 



Succixea (Bhachyspira) PAni.LispiRA W. (Page 51.) 



Fig. 26. Three views of separate examples, natural size, from gutta-percha casts in 

 natural molds. 



Anodonta decurtata Conrad. (Page 73.) 

 Fig. 27. Lateral view, natural size, from an example believed to have been Conrad's 



type specimen. 

 Fig. 28. Dorsal view of the same. The true geological age of this species is not cer- 

 tainly known, but it is believed to be Eocene. 



