K. J. Bush — Notes on the Family Pyramidellidw. 479 



The referring in 1884, of the three species chariessa, nitida, 

 and lucida to the genus Eulimella, instead of Eidima, was 

 probably an accidental error overlooked in reading the proof. 

 This correction, noted on p. 71, has long stood on our distribu- 

 tion sheets, but never having been published was a MS. 

 name. As lucida is a true Eulima, the name does not now 

 conflict with Eulimella (Syrnola) lucida A. Adams, 1870; 

 but the name nitida Verrill, 1884, is preoccupied by Melania 

 nitida Philippi, 1844=rj?. intermedia Cantraine, 1835, and 

 by Eulima nitida A. Adams, 1S66=E. nitidula A. Adams, 

 1861; also by Leiostraca nitida A. Adams, lS6l=Euli?na 

 Tryon, 1886, and will therefore take the new name, Eulima 

 verrilliana* 



There seems to be no reason for dropping the final i used in 

 the original spelling of smithii Verrill (p. 71), nor for placing 

 the species in the subgenus Syrnola, rather than in the sub- 

 genus Eulimella, used by Yerrill in 1882. The use of Tnr- 

 bonilla for Syrnola tryoni is a typographical error for Euli- 

 m ella. 



The referring of fu sea C. B. Adams from New Bedford, 

 Mass. (p. 73) to Pyramidella (Syrnola V) seems unnecessary. 

 The species, although brown in color, has the form of a typical 

 Odostomia, and should be reestablished in that genus, as given 

 by Gould, 1840. Adams' figure is poor and is like our bisu- 

 turulis without sculpture. Gould's two figures 1840 and 1870 

 are larger with more flattened whorls and more gradually 

 tapered spire. 



There is great variation in the relative stoutness among 

 the many specimens of Turbonilla bushiana Verrill (p. 79), 

 as well as in the relative strength of the axial ribs ; those 

 having well-developed ribs received the subspecific name, abyssi- 

 cola suggested as a variety by Yerrill and Bush in MS. 

 There are comparatively few specimens which differ from 

 both the typical and subspecific forms, going to the opposite 

 extreme, in being entirely destitute of definite axial ribs, the 

 surface smooth and shining, often iridescent ; for these we pro- 

 pose the new subspecific or varietal name inornata. All the 

 specimens which I have studied are destitute of spiral lines, 



* Eulima clistorta Yerrill. \88\ = Eulima perversa, new name. It is similar 

 to E. arcuata C. B. Adams. 1850=new name ?, not E. areuata Sowerby, 

 18G6=E. major Sowerby, 1834 ; Dall, 1889 : not Odostomia arcuata A. 

 Adams, 1860. 



Like E. distorta G. O. Sars. pi. 11, fig. 23, 1878, not E. distorta Deshayes 

 (Compared with typical specimens from Monterosato). not Melania distorta 

 Philippi, 1836 = £". incurva Eenieri, 1804 ; not Melania distorta, Defrance, 

 I824=new name ?, not Leiostraca distorta Pease, l860=Eulima, new name ? 



Eulima intermedia Yerrill, 1881=Eulima Sarsi, new name ; not E. inter- 

 media Cantraine, 1835 ; not Dunkeria intermedia Carpenter, 1857= Odosto- 

 mia (Dunkeria) ; not Odostomia. intermedia Brusina, 1869= Odostomia can- 

 aliculata Philippi, 1844. 



