\ at) is 1)?
ite *y
Rie haeee fig.
&
Fee pots Se hrmtac ee:
a t ate ahacprepiiateerni uomttrtaht peedictiees en
pats Wes rw hire
-_
a i Rs i
| 3
4
PHOTOTYPE F.GUTEKUNST PHILAD'S
PROCEEDINGS
OF THE
ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES
PHIGADELPARA Gat
1888.
COMMITTEE OF PUBLICATION: JosEPH Lerpy, M. D., Gro. H. Horn, M. D., Epw. J. Noxtan, M. D.. THoMAs MEEHAN, JOHN H. REDFIELD.
Epiror: EDWARD J. NOLAN, M. D.
PHIEAD EIR ET A: AGA DEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES, LOGAN SQUARE, 1889.
ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADRLPHIA, e February 6, 1388.
Thereby certify that copies of the Proceedings for 1888 have been presen at the meetings of the Academy as follows :—
Pages 9to 40 . 2 é . April 10, 1888.
‘“ Aton BTA we : F . April 24, 1888. we io to, LO4aee F : . May 1, 1888. Se 10antowl some. - : - May 5, 1888, Sd 3ietonli2eue ~ : . May 22, 1885 — “153 to 165" - : F . June 26, 188s. <<) 169 to} 2007 é . . August 7, 1888. “Pe 20 tow2iG- | ; ; . August 28, 1888. © (4217 tor24s) . . ¥ . September 25, 1888. SOP 249 ston 2a. 7. : 5 . October 23, 1888. << Zipatoro0d as. ‘ : . December 11, 1888. TE S105) (Ko) BR) e ; , . December 18, 1888. 337 to 363 (Ce : ; . January 8, 1889. 569) to) 400) 7 : = . January 15, 1889. Ss 40leto 4165": A ; . January 27, 1889. So MATT tod 327 <: . : . February 12, 1889. ‘© 6-438 to 464 5 ; . February 19, 1889. EDWARD J. NOLAN, G oH Recording Secretary. / HL
PHILADELPHIA : HORACE BINDER, PRINTER.
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS.
With reference to the several articles contributed by each.
For. Verbal Communications see General Index.
PAGE.
Allen, Harrison, M. D. The distribution of the color-marks of the Mammalia. 84
ilewalakalaeacdm Man....c....<.00...consomesnapecewecdnedeesaneen-ewsrecovecene 2S -Chapman, Henry C., M. D. Observations on the female generative apparatus
of Hyzena crocuta. (Plates X, XI.).......cscsssearsceecsceecer eee reseessoecos 189 Chapman, Henry C., M. D. and Albert P. Brubaker M. D. Researches upon
the general physiology of nerve and muscle. No. L.......seeceeseeeeeeees 106
Researches upon the general physiology of nerve and muscle. No. 2.... 155 Fielde, Adele M. Notes on an aquatic insect, or insect-larva, having jointed
dorsal appendages. (Plate VIII.).............csssscceseccevesoscncsenscoence 129 Ford, John. Description of a new species of Ocinebra.......seeeeeeeeeereneeecees 185 Hartman, Wm. D., M.D. A bibliographic and synonymic catalogue of the (Gams vATIm@LIGIIEN Bie Gegnecosasocdsecbeoseccos coanbonedpoddoncopacnBcnodcoddec 14 A bibliographic and synonymic catalogue of the Genus Achatinella, (label We) ectaaseareedcannsneccneecaveeoceeronnsencersansiecns-edn0cnnessenaeacspaeente 16 New species of shells from the New Hebrides and Sandwich Islands, (Plate MTLT2) rece... ce. ccsscescncensenaesscscrcesseseneceeseconstsscaccecasenses 250 Heilprin, Angelo. Contributions to the natural history of the Bermuda Is- lands. (Plates XIV, XV, XVI.)..ccocccccssscseeescccerccessesccernccarseccnas 302 Ives, J. E. On two new species of Starfishes..........sssseesenceerseecerecesoncnees 421 Jordan, David Starr. Description of a new species of Etheostoma (E. longi- mana) from James River, Virginia........ccseeceeccceeceeesecneeteseeenesenens 179 On the generic name of the Tunny........cessseccecrcecececcnvesscscscsseseseonss Isp) Kelley, Edwin A. Notes on the Myology of Ursus maritimus........s:seeeeeees 14] Keyes, Charles R. On the fauna of the lower coal measures.......-.s+eseseeeee 222 Descriptions of two new fossils from the Devonian of Iowa. (Plate NOM) ewetweisiesnaassisissne saison sus vacsineaceiseravsacpeseiunsvossaceceessuncceeesscsesannm 247 Leidy, Jos., M. D. Distinctive characters of Odontaspis littoralis.......0..+00 162 arasitics Crustacea c.n.cencereeraceccereoascceensneasssssiascovcionseesennite acasoscacno, Hes
Meehan, Thomas. Contributions to the life-histories of plants, No. II. Some new facts in the life history of Yucca. A study of the Hydrangea in relation to cross-fertilization. On the forms of Lonicera Japonica; with notes on the origin of the forms.......++. ER oc sencccine bone aoa 274
Contributions to the life-histories of plants, No. III. | Smilacina bifolia. Dichogamy and its significance. Trientalis Americana. On the
glands in some Caryophyllaceous flowers....-..ssesseseeeees spoeengncccoce Sil. McCook, Rey. Henry C., D. D. Descriptive notes on new American species
of Orb-weaving SPiders.......<---++scocceseeoseacseoses eee Bae a saeneeemaone 193.
A new fossil spider, Eoatypus Wood wardil..........-+ss-seecesereceesesereesees 200
Nesting habits of the new American Purseweb Spider............2-++eeeeeeee 203.
Ochsenius, Carl. On the formation of rock-salt beds and mother liquor salts. 181 Osborn, Henry Fairfield. Additional observations upon the structure and
classification of the Mesozoic Mammalia......0...c0c.cscssceseecsscsreesence . 292 Pilsbry, Henry A. On the Helicoid land Mollusks of Bermuda, (Plate PROWL) ace sae aces dicavcnedc dase saspeemeer sents Seesneience nea dnemt= ate aan . 285: Ringueberg, Eugene N. S., M. D. Some new species of fossils from the Niagara Shales of Western New York. (Plates VII.) .......00.22csesee0s - 131 Ruschenberger, W. S. W., M. D. Biographical notice of Geo. W. Tryon Jr. (With portrait.)....... ssisbesdentecslst dsdevedesccacssesnsonecceee sce ss teceee eam - oo
Wachsmuth, Charles and Frank Springer. Discovery of the ventral structure
of Taxocrinus and Haplocrinus and consequent modification in the classification of the Crinoidea. (Plate XVIII.)......ccsssescsecseceeceeeee 337 Crotalocrinus ; its structure and zoological position. (Plates XIX, XX.) 364
Wright, Berlin Hart. Description of new species of Uniones from Florida. (Plates 1D, TET; DW, Ws Vis )\ececre ses tevcensab tenses anvede such aas saeep eeceeem cone 113
PROCEEDINGS
OF THE
ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES
OF
PHILADELPHIA.
LSSS:
JANUARY 3, 1888. The President, Dr. JosrPpH LeErpy, in the chair.
Twenty-one members present. The death of Andrew Garrett, a correspondent, was announced.
——_—___——.
JANUARY 10. The President, Dr. JoserH LeErpy, in the chair.
Twenty-four persons present.
On a fossil of the Puma.—Pror. Letpy directed attention to a spec- imen recently sent to him for identification from Sparta, Illinois. It is the cranial portion of a skull of the Puma, Felis concolor, and was found under about thirty feet of earth, when digging in the bed of the Kaskaskia river, for a bridge pier. It accords with the cor- responding part of recent animals, though presenting some slight ditterences from a number of skulls of our museum. The most strik-
10 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888.
ing difference is in the interparietal crest which is higher and of more uniform height and is especially higher in front. The narrow part of the cranial case is narrower and the forehead is more mesially depressed between the angular processes. Comparative measure- ments with two recent skulls of about the same size are as follows:
Fossil Recent Recent
Length of interparietal crest 98 108 94mm Height of interparietal crest 10-15 9-12 8-12 Height, on line of lower part .of coronal
suture 15 10 5 Breadth at narrow part of cranium 37 42 AT Breadth at centre of squamosals 74 7) 79 Breadth at zygomata 150 = 150 145 Breadth at frontal angular processes 74 80 81 Breadth of narrow part of forehead 42 52 44 Length of forehead to post-nasal depression 41 48 48 Height of inion from occipital foramen. 62 63 62
—
JANUARY 17. Dr. A. E. Foore in the chair.
Eight persons present.
A paper entitled “Some new fossils from the Niagara Shales of Western New York” by Eugene N. S. Ringueberg M. D., was presented for publication.
JANUARY 24. Mr. Gro. W. Tryon, Jr. in the chair. Twenty persons present.
A paper entitled “The Distribution of the Color Marks of the Mammalia” by Harrison Allen M. D., was presented for publica- tion.
The death of Wm. L. Mactier, a member, was announced.
On the relation of Sarracenia purpurea to Sarracenia variolaris. —Prof. W. P. Witson remarked that Sarracenia purpurea produces two kinds of leaves. As the young plantlet first develops itself from
1888. | NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 11
the seed it forms a few leaves which differ widely from those which appear on the same plant a little later. The adult stage of these first leaves is from a twentieth to a tenth smaller than the adult stage of the second or later developed leaves. Generally only from five to ten of these first-leaves are produced.
After the second leaves begin to appear, then no more of the first form are grown by the plant.
In the ordinary leaves of S. purpurea it is well known that the hood surmounting the hollow leaf is erect and in no wise protects or covers its opening. In S. variolaris this is just the opposite— here the hood, a little above and back of the opening, makes a sharp bend forward and not only covers over the whole orifice but projects beyond it on all sides nearly 2 inch.
These first or seedling leaves of S. purpurea resemble in form not the later and adult leaves on the same plant, but those of S. vario- laris. The hood is not erect but arches over the hollow leaf in pre- cisely the same manner as in the adult leaves of S. variolaris.
There are also two forms of leaves in S. variolaris. In this plant, however, the differences are not so much a matter of shape as appar- ently of arrested development. The first leaves are very much like the adult form on the same plant only being from ten to twenty times smaller.
But the important fact remains to be stated :—the first leaves from each of these plants are perfect miniatures of each other. It would be next to impossible for an expert to separate them, should they happen to become mixed, and to accurately say which belonged to the one or which to the other of the two species.
The production of this first set of leaves by S. purpurea which so very closely resemble the ordinary leaves of S. variolaris had led him to believe that the species purpurea is a retrograde development from variolaris.
His belief in this is, however, not wholly based on the production of the early leaves, but rests upon several other important facts.
S. variolaris is avery highly specialized plant for the purpose of catching and digesting insects. Up and down the margin of the wing and around the mouth of the protected pitcher are numerous honey glands. In the interior is the smooth surface and also the hairy ones to prevent the escape of insects which have fed up to the top of the leaf and then fallen into this treacherous opening. These special adaptations are all present in S. purpurea, but the honey glands seldom secrete any nectar and are sometimes even rudi- mentary. Again the fluid found in S. variolaris contains a consider- able quantity of a digestive ferment which acts directly upon the entrapped insects. This is not so in the fluid excreted by the leaves of S. purpurea. Only a trace of this ferment could be found after the most careful chemical search for it.
%
12 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888.
JANUARY 31. Mr. CHarves Morris in the chair.
Twenty-eight persons present.
Mimiery among Plants—Pror. J. T. RorHrock remarked that among animals mimicry is usually related to the safety of the indi- vidual, or less frequently to the ease by which it may conceal itself and thus more readily capture its food. Whatever may be the cause of mimicry among plants, or by whatever governing forces one plant in the long run, may come to resemble another more or less remotely related to it, it is clear that neither of the causes which are associated with mimicry among animals can obtain in the vegetable kingdom.
These mimetic cases may conveniently be ranged under two heads.
1. Those in which we find the resemblances between plants in groups clearly distinct. The lower of these may sometimes well be called anticipating or prophetic types.
2. Those found between plants in the same natural family, where the descent within recent period, of one from the other, may rea- sonably be supported by all who admit the doctrine of evolution. This resemblance is of course often merely external, disappearing under even the slightest examination; as, for example, when one glances hastily at a specimen, particularly an herbarium specimen, of Zygadenus elegans Pursh, and then compares it with a narrow- leayed specimen of Swertia perennis. There are few who will not be struck with the likeness, yet the former is a well marked represen- tation of the monocotyledonous group, and the other as evidently one of the dicotyledonous plant. It is somewhat startling to find along with marked points of distinction that there exist certain struct- ural resemblances ;_ thus one may well compare the unusual mark- ings found on the bases of the perianth divisions in Zygadenus with the equally unusual gland found at the base of the petals in Swertia. There is in these resemblances nothing which can in any sense be called prophetic, because the relationship between the ex- amples is quite too remote.
The case is, however, somewhat different when one compares the shape of some of the young liverwort with the prothallus of some ferns. Here the resemblance is often very marked and the line of relationship not so distant. It might almost be said that the perma- nent form of the liverwort clearly resembled the early, transient form of the fern.
Or, as another instance, compare the protonema of a moss before the shoot appears which is to develop into the erect aerial branch, with one of our filamentous algz. Here again we have so marked a general resemblance that it may well enough be classed with the prophetic types.
1888, ] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 13
The second group to which allusion has been made—those in which the resemblance is between related plants, may be fairly illustrated by the resemblance between Nepeta Gilechoma and Lamium am- plexicaule, especially when (as is often the case in Nepeta) the petioles are very much reduced in length.
Another unusual resemblance comes to mind. One may easily understand why the cup found about the base of the stigma in so many of the Lobeliaceae should be so exactly repeated in the allied order of Goodeniaceae. » But how are we to explain its appearance in Gaura (one of the Onagraceae) which can hardly be regarded as closely related to either of the above orders. These resemblances and the questions growing out of them are to be further considered in a paper in course of preparation.
Messrs Lawrence J. Morris, Stewart Culin and Roberts Le Boutil- lier were elected members.
The following were ordered to be printed :—
14 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888.
A BIBLIOGRAPHIC AND SYNONYMIC CATALOGUE OF THE GENUS AURICULELLA, PFEIFFER.
BY W. D. HARTMAN, M. D. Genus AURICULELLA, Dr. L. Pfeiffer.
A. amena, Pfeiffer. (Frickella.) Proc. Zool, Soc. t. 30, p. 3, 1855. Frickella amena, Pfeiffer, Mal. Blatt. 1i-1855, 166-1856. Auriculella amena, Gul. Proce. Zool. Soe. 91-1875. Sandwich Islands. A. ambusta, Pease. Jour. Conch. 345, 1869. Proc. Zool. Soc. 649, 1869. Sandwich Islands. TA. auricula, Pfr. (Partula.) Fer. System, 66, No. 6. Auriculella Auricula, Kust. t. 3, p. 14-16. Auriculella Owaihiensis, Chem. Tornatella Owaihiensis, Pfeiffer, 1842. Partula Dumartroy, Souly. Partula Auricula, Albers. Achatinella Auricula, Pfeiffer, 1855. Auricula Sinistrorsa, Chem. In Kiist. t. 7, p. 14-16. Bulimus Armatis, Migh. Proc. Bost. Soe. I, p. 19, 1845. Tornatella Sinistrorsa, Pfr., Mon. Hel. viv; 652. Hawai, Sandwich Islands. TA. brunnea, Smith. Proc. Zool. Soc. t. 10, f. 23-1873. Molokai, and Kauai. TA. Cerea, Pfr. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. t. 20, f. 21-1855. Achatinella Cerea, Pfr. Mall. Blatt,—1855. Auriculella Cerea, Pse. Proce. Zool. Soc. 649-1869. Sandwich Islands. A. Chammissoi, Pfr. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. 98-1853. Proce. Zool. Soc. Pfr. Mall. Blatt, 1855. Auriculella Chammissoi, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 649-1869. Sandwich Islands. A. Crassula, Smith. Proc. Zool. Soc. t. 10, f. 22-1873. Makawao, East Maui. TA. diaphana, Smith. Proc. Zool. Soc. t. 10, f. 25-1873.
Oahu.
Proc.Acad.Nat.Sc1. Phila. 1888. | Hedi
1888. ] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 15
TA. expausa, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 649-1869. Jour. Conch. xvi. t. 14, f. 8. Sandwich Islands. A. jecunda, Smith. Nomen in Ann. Lyc. N. Y. x. 331-332-1873, West Maui. yA. lurida, Pfr. (Achatinella.) Mon. Hel. Viv. iii, 552. Tornatellina Castanea, Pfr. Mon. Hel. Viv. iv, 570. Balea Castanea, Adams. Tornatella Castanea, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 166-1856. Auriculella lurida, Pfr. Nomen. Hel. Viv. 304-1881. Sandwich Islands. A. Obeliscus, Pfr. (Achatinella.) Mon. Hel. Viv. iii, 563. Balea Newecombia, Pfr. Proc. Zool. Soc. 67-1852. Temesia Newcombia, Bourg. Auriculella Obeliscus, Pfr. Mall. Blatt, 166-1856. Sandwich Islands. A. patula, Smith. Proce. Zool. Soc. t. 10, f. 24-1873. Sandwich Islands. TA. petetiana, Pfr. (Tornatellina.) Mon. Hel. Viv. ii, 399. Auriculella Petetiana, Pfr. Mall. Blatt, 4-1855. Sandwich Islands. A. perpusilla, Smith. Proc. Zool Soc. t. 10, f. 26-1873. . Sandwich Islands. fA. pulchra, Pse. Jour. Conchyl. xvi, t. 14, f. 6-1869. Sandwich Islands. There is little difference between type examples of S. pulchra, Pse. and A. auricula, Fér.; the former are somewhat larger in size. A. pusilla, Gld. (Partula.) Expd. Shells, t. 9, f. 90. Achatinella pusilla, Pfr. Mall. Blatt, 166-1856. Auriculella pusilla, Pfr. Nomen. Hel. Viv. 304-1881. : Matea Island. A. solida, Gul. Nomen in Ann. Lye. N. Y. x, 331-332-1873, Kanailola, Oahu. A. solidissima, Smith. Nomen m Ann. Lye. N. Y. x. 331-352-1873. Makawao, Oahu. A. tenuis, Smith. Proc. Zool. Soc. t. 10, f. 27-1873. Sandwich Islands. A. triplicate, Pse. Jour. Conch. 346-1859. Maw. TA. uniplicate, Pse. Jour. Conchyl. xvi, t. 14, f. 7-1869. Maui.
16 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888.
A BIBLIOGRAPHIC AND SYNONYMIC CATALOGUE OF THE GENUS ACHATINELLA,
BY W. D. HARTMAN, M. D.
The genus Achatinella,* embraces a group of small, beautiful and variously colored land shells, peculiar to the Sandwich Islands. Mr. Swainson first introduced the genus to the notice of naturalists in Brand’s Journal, in 1828, and in 1831 the same author assigned it a position in the systematic arrangement of species, under the above name. Since that period many new species have been describ- ed by naturalists. Dr. L. Pfeiffer in the Malakozodlogische Blatter, and subsequently others have proposed sub-divisions for the numer- ous and diversified forms embraced by the genus. In some instances the lines of these sub-divisions are well-defined, while in others they are less marked. They have been generally adopted by conchologists, as they are found convenient for the arrangement of a collection. Mr. Thomas Bland says “the distinctions derived from the consideration of the form of the shells are arbitrary, and the limits are not well defined.” His classification of the sub-divisions of the genus, is chiefly founded on the structure of the lingual den- tition, “which indicates three groups, a. Partulina and Achatinella b. Newcombia and Laminella, and c. Leptachatina ; judging from the shells alone, Bulimella and Apex belong to group a, while Labiella belongs to group 6 or ¢ rather than to a.” This arrangement is chiefly in accord with that of Dr. Pfeitfer and Mr. William H. Pease, for the details of which I must refer the reader to their several pa- pers. I agree with Dr. Pfeiffer in eliminating Carelia and Auricu- lella as separate genera from Achatinella, and I also concur with Dr. Gulick in the opinion that Frickella should be added to Auri- culella. Jam also in accord with Mr. Lovell Reeve in the opinion that the small common shells for which Dr. Gould proposed the name of Leptachatina, should be removed from Achatinella, as they are more nearly allied to the Oleacinide than to the Bulimide, and they differ from Achatinella in being oviparous while the latter are viviparous. In consequence of the connection heretofore existing be-
* Although Azzziculella possesses the same form of dentition as Partula and Achatinella, Dr. Pfeiffer has placed it in a separate genus, on conchological grounds, in which I concur. These minute shells, would seem to have no place in a serial arrangement of the genus Achatinella. Species marked Ff are in the author’s collection.
>
1888. | NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 17
tween Achatinella and Leptachatina, the latter has received especial attention in the preparation of this paper, and for the present it has been retained in the genus Achatinella. In analyzing the species of Leptachatina proposed by Dr. Gould, of which L. acuminata Gld. was designated as the type, they are found to be divisible into three groups. In the first may be placed the elongate or cylindrical and semi-transparent varieties, as L. acuminata, striatula and cerealis Gould, gracilis Pfeiffer, tenebrosa Pease, terebralis and exilis Gul., and fusca Newe. In the second, the short oval clear and polished va- rieties, as cingula Migh. saccata Hartm. brevicula Pse. and nitida Newe. And in the third, the larger inflated and more stout species, as Hartmanii Newe. M.S. suecincta, fumosa, and vitrea Newe, fusca and resinula Gul. together with corneola and pyramis Pfr. The major part of the species are terrestrial in their habits, while a few are arboreal. In my examination of the Achatinellz, I have also inclu- ded the allied genus Auriculella. The generic name of Achatinella has been used by all authors previous to Dr. Pfeiffer’s sub-division of the genus in Malakozodlogische Blatter in 1854 and 1856. Owing to several causes the species have been burthened with numerous synonyms, many of which have been herein omitted, to avoid a needless repetition of names. Their variability in form, age and color, has misled naturalists into the error of multiplying the spe- cies, and a change of environment Dr. Newcomb informs us, is known to so alter the appearance of some, as to cause them to be mistaken for distinct species. A change of environment and mal- nutrition materially modifies the growth of all animals, and no- where is it more observable than in the molluscan fauna. The different appearance of depauperized or aberrant forms of shells is a prolific source of error, and often of embarrassment to the student of natural history, since corrections can only be made by the examin- ation of types in scattered collections. Mr. Geo. W. Tryon Jr. in his recent books on conchology, has relegated to synonymy many shells heretofore considered of specific value, some of which are doubtless the result of environment or hybridization. In the early history of the genus Achatinella, naturalists in different parts of the world were engaged at the same time in describing the species, and some of the names then given have only been established by priority of publication. The application of boiling water to remove the an- imal, materially alters the color of the shell, changing a green or bright green to a dirty yellow; and the manufacture of species by
18 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888.
scraping, has also been resorted to, to increase the number of com- mercial species.
Hybridization may have been a factor in the origin of some va- rieties as occurs in the allied genus Partula. The preservation of the species in the lower animals is due in a great measure to animal instinct, but where nearly allied species are thrown together, as often happens in the involuntary change of position of Achatinella, or the proximity of broods, as occurs with Partula, hybridization may take place. It is well known that embryonic young are priceless to the biologist, and since the tissue cells of species evolute from pre-exist- ing germs and do not originate de novo, the shape of the embryonic or apical fold of each species of viviparous mollusk, should be the true index of a species, except in the case of hybrids, when it would take the form of one or the other of the parents, and would be far- ther distinguished in the adult, by the form, size and color of the predominating parent, a law always observable in hybrids.
Dr. Isaac Lea has always maintained the importance of the shape of the apical fold, for a correct determination of a species of Unio, I have said elsewhere, that viviparous hermaphrodite mollusea (being cold blooded animals) would probably more readily hybridize than warm blooded, which might in a measure account for the numerous forms and varieties of Unionide and Strepomatide in the rivers of the United States. The late Prof. Haldeman believed that hybrid Unios existed, and farther that individuals between Melantho decisa and M. ponderosa Say are often found, which look very much like hybrids of these species. It is well-known that fish, frogs and toads (which are cold blooded animals) hybridize, and recently some spe- cies of salmon have been successfully and profitably hybridized.
So far as known the food plants of the Achatinella have no in- fluence in the coloration of the shell; those species -~possessing a black, dark or slate colored mantle, secrete a variegated shell, while others with a greenish, bluish, light yellow or flesh-colored mantle, secrete a shell with different shades of yellow. The varied and gor- geous tints of the shells of Achatinellz, are probably owing to the action of light and oxygen on the secretions from the glands of the mantle; the striations and variations of color, are probably due to the chemical composition of a fluid from a different set of glands; hence the painting of the arboreal species is more bright and pleasing than that of the terrestrial, which are generally of uniform and somber hues. The surface of all the porphyroid and gaily painted species, exhibit under a glass, waved spiral strize, similar to Partule. These
1888. ] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 19
lines commence at the termination of the first one-and-a-half whorls of the apex, which corresponds to their embryonic age. The apices of some of the Amastra are coarsely plicate, in this respectresem- bling Laminella. This is especially noticeable in the elongate spe- cies, as A. magna, assimilis, biplicata, Huchinsoni, turritella and some others which have been classed with Laminella by Dr. Pfeiffer ; in others the plice of the apex are small wrinkles, and in A. farcimen, reticulata, tristis, elliptica, and some others, the apex is smooth and rounded, forming a sub-group of Amastra. A more constant char- acter is found in the species of Amastra being destitute of spiral striae, differing in this respect from the porphyroid Achatinelle. The Amastra being ground species and living beneath dead leaves and other debris, when the shells are deprived of the animal and are exposed to the atmosphere, the epidermis is more readily, detached than in other Achatinellee.
“The facts relating to the geographical distribution of Achati- nella, and the development of so large a number of species within the limits of small areas, are very remarkable and _ interesting, and have presented problems bearing or. the theories of evolu- tion. Each island has its own peculiar species, and not only species, but its own peculiar types, or groups of species, of similar form. Again, on islands where there has been a full development of Acha- tinella, each principal mountain ridge and valley has its own pecu- liar species which are found nowhere else; the species of each ridge or valley being often connected with those of the next—by intermediate varieties. Another important fact observed in the distribution of the Achatinella is, that on a mountain chain with many culminating peaks, the tendency is to divergence of species, while on an indi- vidual mass of mountains concentrating towards a single culminating peak, the tendency is to a convergence of species.” ‘* The structure of the Hawaian Islands is voleanic; and in studying the distribution of shells over them, it is important to note the relative ages of the several islands. Geologically speaking, Kauai is the oldest; next in the series is Oahu; then Maui with the adjoining islands of Molokai and Lanai; and last comes Hawaii, in the southern por- tion of whieh volcanic fires are still raging.”
“Oanu. The development of Achatinella on this island, both as regards number and variety of form and color, has been greater than on any other island of the group. Unlike most of the other islands which have individual mountain masses, Oahu has two true ranges or chains of mountains, a longer and a shorter one, with many in-
20 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888.
dependent culminating peaks. The aggregate length of the two ranges is 50 miles. The sides of these ranges, their entire length, are furrowed by deep valleys separating ‘lofty ridges. These val- leys and ridges are the home of Achatinella: each valley and ridge has its ‘own distinct species which are connected with those of the next valley and ridge, by a multitude of intermediate varieties, presenting minute gradations of form and color, These two ranges of mountains have already furnished 227 distinct described species of Achatinella, the number of varieties has been estimated as high as 800 or 900. All these species and varieties, are found in an area of less than 120 square miles; and a considerable portion of the longer range remains yet to be explored. These species have all the va- rious shapes from globose to conic, ovate and elongate-conical, and present almost every possible shade and variety of coloring, from pure white to jet black, and all the shades of green, rose, yellow, brown and ash; sometimes several of these colors are combined in one species, either in regular or irregular bands, or tessellated, mar- bled or zigzaged designs.” :
“West Maur. On this part of Maui we have the converse of Oahu. Its individual mass of mountains, clustering around one com- mon centre peak, 2000 feet higher than any part of Oahu, furnishes only 30 described species of Achatinella, each principal valley and ridge has its own peculiar species or varieties; but all the arboreal species can be referred to seven leading types, these differ much from the Oahu types, and do not present the same varieties of form or color. The prevailing colors are white and dark brown with all the intervening shades of either, plain or variously arranged in bands or zigzaged lines.”
“East Maur. The distribution of Achatinella on this part of Maui is not fully known. All its mountain gorges and ridges concentrate around the rim of the immense crater of Haleakala, a circumscribing bound of nearly thirty miles in extent. The almost impenetrable forest on the mountain slopes to the east and south of the crater comprising a belt of twenty miles long and six miles wide, remain unexplored, and its molluscan life is unknown. The woodlands on the north-west slope of the mountain facing West Maui furnish 29 described species of Achatinella; but they are the same or unmistakable counterparts of those found on West Maui. The narrow depression of land between East and West Maui has led many to infer that they were originally separate islands, this
5 * f ie i « ( t '
1888. ] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 21
similarity of shell-types would seem to indicate that, if ever separate, they must have been united before the development of molluscan life ; otherwise we should expect to find the types of East and West Maui differing as much from each other as do those of Maui and the contiguous islands of Molokai and Lanai.”
“Morokal. The distribution of Achatinella on this island pre- sents some new features not observed on any other island. The island is forty miles long with a width of only seven miles, it is about one-third the size of Oahu, and like it has a mountain range extending nearly thirty miles through its length. The range is fur- rowed on each side by deep valleys. Some of these mountain gorges are very wide and cut deep into the narrow axis of the island. The larger ones have proved an effectual barrier to the migration of the shells. The island is thus divided into three natural sections, and each section retains its own peculiar species without intermin- gling with those of the next section.” “ Molokai furnishes 25 de- scribed species which are about equally divided between the three sections of the island, these shells exhibit more variety of form and color than those of Maui, and have peculiarities which separate them entirely from types of other islands.”
“DLanar. This is the smallest and most arid of the shell produc- ing islands. Its area is 100 square miles, of which probably not over one tenth is suited for the support of mollusks. The island is, however notable as the home of A. magna Adams, the largest shell of the whole Achatinella family. Specimens in our cabinet measure 12 inches long, the whole number of species of Achatinella on Lanai is 13, and they exhibit peculiarities of type.”
“Kauat. This is the oldest and most verdant island of the group. It lies to the west of Oahu, and is separated from it by a channel wider than occurs between any of the other islands. Its extensive forests, luxuriant vegetation and moist climate render it peculiarly adapted for the abode of Achatinella; and one would naturally ex- pect to find here a larger, and if possible, higher development of the family. But we are doomed to disappointment, the island yields no arboreal species, the shells are terrestrial, and those classed with Achatinella belong to the plainest forms of the Amastra and Lepta- chatina groups; 5 species to the former and 18 to the latter. Kauai, however, does furnish a very peculiar and interesting group of large terrestrial shells, remarkable for their elongate turretted form. The generic name of Carelia has heen provided for the group;
22 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888.
it embraces some seven species. Specimens of Carelia turricula Migh. in my cabinet measure three inches long. This group has no place in the Achatinella family, as classed by M. Gulick. It lacks the peculiar spiral twist of the columella and other generic charac- ters of that family; living specimens of Carelia are now very rare, but at some period in the history of Kauai they were exceed- ingly abundant. The alluvial deposits near the coast portions of the island, contain multitudes of these shells in a semi-fossil state, which have been washed from the mountains by the freshets of ages past. The small neighboring island of Nihau also has a single species of Carelia found in sand and mud deposits ; no living speci- mens are found there now.”
“Hawa. This island embraces within its bounds two-thirds of the total area of the whole group. It is also supposed to be the most recently formed of the islands. The volcanic forces are still at work here. The extensive forests are as well adapted for the support of Achatinella, as those of any of the other islands, but it furnishes only a single arboreal species, and five terrestrial. The arboreal species is A. physa; it was first described by Dr. Newcomb in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London in 1853. In asub- sequent number of the same Journal, Mr. Wm. H. Pease refers to this same shell as a “species rarely met with on the mountains of Hawaii.” The centre of production is the Kohala range of moun- tains, notably the most ancient portion of the island; and it exists there now in unparalled abundance. During a recent visit to the lo- cality in a few minutes I collected several hundred specimens, picking them from treesand low bushes as rapidly as one would gather huckle- berries from a prolific field. The shell appears to be slowly migra- ting into the adjoining districts of Hamakua and Kona, and assu- ming new shapes and varieties of coloring. One of these varieties in our cabinet is almost worthy of assignment as a new species. The conchologist of a few centuries hence will no doubt be naming A chati- nella from the different districts of Hawaii of manifold forms and gaudy colors, which have developed through the mysterious pro- cessses of evolution from the humble A. physa of the Kohala Moun- tains.”
“The discovery of so large a number of land shells of the same genus within limited island areas was unprecedented, and at once induced the belief that the “completion of a collection of the genus had been sealed,” this is a mistake. The homes of Achatinella
1888. ] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 23
are on rugged mountains, densely covered by vegetation and their sides furrowed by deep and almost inaccessible ravines and large districts on Oahu and East Maui which have never been visited by white men, remain yet to be explored. It will require years of re- search and study, before the number and exact distribution of the remaining species can be ascertained. It is also generally supposed that these shells are becoming extinct by the ravages of cattle through our forests. This is true in respect to a limited number of species on the island of Oahu whose habitats were the forests on the lowest range of hills. Some of these hills have been denuded of woods, not only by cattle, but the woodman’s axe, and certain species are be- coming rare. The favorite resorts of many species are the Ki (Dra- cena terminalis) and the Olona (Boehmeria stipularis) both excellent fodder plants. But in localities where these plants have been entirely destroyed by cattle, the shells have generally selected homes on other adjoining plants. The ravages particularly of wild cattle in our mountain forests are certainly to be deprecated, nevertheless by clearing the under brush they render the forests more accessible for the collection of known species; and by opening the paths to higher and more dense forests they facilitate the discovery of new species. The agencies now threatening the wholesale destruction of these little gems of the forest are the rats and mice, which have become very abundant in mountain forests, particularly where there are no cattle. Their ravages are not confined to the shells whose habitats are on the ground, but extend to those found on trees. It is not uncommon to find around the charnal cells of these noxious little animals hundreds of empty, mutilated shells. Notwithstanding these threatening agen- cies, the Achatinelle are still quite abundant on Oahu and Molokai, where cattle have the widest range, though not so abundant as for- merly on West Maui where the cattle ranges are somewhat limited and the mice enjoy greater immunity. In a recent excursion with a friend through a portion of the mountain forests between Ewa and Waialua on Oahu more than 3000 shells were collected in a few days embracing over fifty species of Achatinella, some of them new to science. In a similar trip around Molokai nearly 5000 were collec- ted, embracing thirty species, some new.”
To Wesley Newcomb, M. D. more than to any author on Achati- nella, we are indebted for a correct knowledge of the described spe- cies of this beautiful genus of shells. During a residence of nine
1Mr. D. D. Baldwin in Hawaian Almanac and Annual.
24 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888.
years in the Sandwich Islands he collected and reared large numbers of the different species and observed the numerous varieties from a common parentage. When in Europe in company with the late Dr. A. A. Gould he examined the types of Dr. L. Pfeiffer and others which enabled him to correct the synonymy of many doubtful spe- cies; all of which he has embodied in his Synopsis of the Genus, which entitles him to the designation of authority on Achatinella “ par excellence.”
For convenience of reference I have arranged the species alpha- betically under the several sections, rather than in a connected series, as was attempted by Mr. Pease. The sections of Achatinellze being more or less artificial, authors are not always in accord as to which certain species should be assigned. In the majority of instances, I have followed Dr. Pfeiffer or Mr. Pease in the distribution of the species among the sections, being guided in the main by authentic examples, or by figures and descriptions of authors; the sub-section Helicterina adopted by Mr. Pease from Baron Ferussac, has been supplanted by Partulina, the former having been preoccupied.
In the preparation of this paper I am indebted for aid to several friends. To Prof. A. Agassiz for the loan of the entire Pease collec- tion of Achatinella together with all his duplicates amounting to near two bushels of examples, I have had in my possession several entire suites of Achatinellz, kindly loaned to me by Prof. James Hall, Dr. Lea, Mrs. George Andrews and Mr. R. Ellsworth Call, by which I was enabled to identify types from authors hands. Recently, at the invitation of Dr. Newcomb I spent the greater part of two days in the examination of his collection of Achatinella made some years ago in the Sandwich Islands. My acknowledgements are also due him for assistance in the determination of many varieties. When in Europe in 1883 I purchased some of the species of Messrs Gulick and Smith from G. B. Sowerby Jr. Recently I have been favored by Mr. D. D. Baldwin of the island of Maui with written catalogues of the localities of the Achatinelle of the Sandwich Islands, together with numerous examples of Achatinella and especially with spec- imens taken from the determined type examples of Mr. Gulick, in the Hawaian Museum. The geographical distribution of the Acha- tinellee in those islands together with their habits, which has been embodied in this paper was expressly prepared by Mr. Baldwin for the Hawaian Almanac and Annual. I am also under obligations to Mr. Geo. W. Tryon Jr., for his uniform courtesy in aiding me in
1888. ] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 25
the examination of books and examples belonging to the Academy of Natural Sciences.
The following references have been abbreviated in the Catalogue:— Monographia Heliceorum viventium and Nomenclator Heliceorum viventium by Dr. L. Pfeiffer; Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, containing the papers of Drs. Newcomb, Pfeiffer and Gulick; Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History, containing the papers of Drs. Gould and Mighels; Contributions to Conchology by C. B. Adams; Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences ; the American Journal of Conchology, containing the papers of Dr. Newcomb, and also the Journal de Conchyliologie, containing many of the papers of Mr. Wm. H. Pease.
Species marked } are in the author’s collection.
The arrangement of the sub-groups of Achatinella herein adopted is as follows:—
Partulina Perdicella Bulimella Newcombia A 2 Achatinellastrum B Labiella Eburnella Laminella Apex Amastra Carinella C | Leptachatina
Section PARTULINA Dr. L. Pfeiffer.
P. aptycha, Pfr. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soe. tab. 30, f. 1-1855. Newcombia aptycha, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 165, 1856. Helicter aptycha, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 615-1869. Perdicella aptycha, Pfr. Nomen. Hel. Viv. 315-1881. Sandwich Islands. TP. cinerosa, Pfr. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. tab. 30, f. 5,-1855. (Helicter perversa, Pse.) Proe. Zool. Soc. 645-1869. (Non Swains.) Sandwich Islands. TP. compta, Pse. (Partulina.) Partulina compta, Pse. Jour. Conchyl. xvii-1869. Molokai. JP. crassa, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 24, f. 71-1853. Bulimella crassa, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 124-1854, 163-1856, Partulina crassa, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 647-1869. Lanai.
3
26 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888.
P. dolium, Pfr. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. tab. 30, f. 15-1853. Bulimella dolium, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 165-1856. Partulina dolium, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soe. 647-1869. Sandwich Islands. +P. dubia, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. tab. 24, f. 65-1853. Achatinella radiata, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 116-1854. Non Gould. Bulimella dubia, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 162-1856. Achatinellastrum dubium, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 648-1869.
Partulina dubia, Pfr. Nom. Helie. Viv. 305-1881. Maui. P. Dwightii, Newe. (Achatinella.) Amer. Jour. Conch, ii, pl. 19, f. 9.
Partulina Dwightii, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 162-1856. Molokai. P. Gouldii, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soe. pl. 22, f. 1-183.
Achatinella talpina, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. pl. 7, 138-1856. Partulina Gouldii, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 116-1854; 162-1856. Waialuku Maui. TP. grisea, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soe. pl. 24, f. 60-1853. Achatinella dubia, Pfr. Var. 7. 1854. Partulina grisea, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 117-1854.
Achatinellastrum grisea, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 1869. East Maui.
+P. marmorata, Gld. (Achatinella.) Proc. Bost. Soc. p. 200-1847. Expd. Shells tab. 7, f. 94. .
TAchatinella Adamsii, Newe. Ann. Lyc. N. Y. 19-1853, Proce. Zool. Soc. pl. 22, f. 20-1853. Achatinella induta, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. 207-1856. +Achatinella ustulata, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. pl. 11, p. 37-1856, (reversed ex.) Achatinella plumbea, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. pl. 11, f. 39, 1856. Laminella marmorata, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 126-1854. Bulimella marmorata, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 163-1854. Bulimella marmorata, Pfr. Nomen. Helic. Viv. 306-1856. Partulina marmorata, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 647-1869. Partulina perdiz, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 116-1854. (Non Rve.) Haleakala Waialuku and Kula E. Maui. Obs. The variable coloration of this species has been the source of its numerous synonymy.
P. morbida, Pfr. (Achatinella.) Mon. Helic. vi-167, Helicter morbida, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 645-1869. Achatinellastrum morbida, Pfr. Nomen. Helic. Viv. 306-1881. Sandwich Islands.
1888. ] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 27
TP. perdix, Rve. (Achatinella.) Mon. tab. 6, f. 48a, 43b, 1850. Achatinella pyramidalis, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. pl. 7, p. 32-1856. Achatinella undosa, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. pl. 7, f. 33-1856. Partulina perdiz, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 116-1854.—marmorata, Newe. Partulinu marmorata, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 647-1869. Lahaina and Kula, E. Maui. Obs. Dr. Newcomb in his excellent synopsis of the genus Acha- tinella, has described the animal of A. perdix Pfr. which materially differs from that of A. perdix Rve.; they are doubtless specifically different. TP. proxima, Pse. (Partulina.) PI. f. 1-2. Partulina proxima, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soe. 6-1862. Bulimella proxina, Pfr. Nomen. Helic. Viv. 807-1881. Molokai. TP. radiata, Gld. (Achatinella.) Proc. Bost. Soc. 27-1845. Partula radiata, Pfr. Mon. Helic. Viv. iii, 454. Partula densilineata, Rve. Mon. Part. pl. 2, f. 9-1850. Bulimus Gouldii, Pfr. Mon. Helic. Viv. ii, p. 74. Achatinella dubia, Pfr. (Non. Newe.) Mall. Blatt. 116-1854. Achatinella grisea, Pfr. (Non. Newe.) Mall. Blatt. 117-1854. Achatinellastrum radiatum, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 646-1869. Partulina radiata, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 162-1854.
Maui. TP. Redfieldii, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. tab. 22, f. 5-1853. Partulina Redfieldii, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 115-1854. Bulimella Redfieldii, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 163-1856. Molokai.
P. rufa, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 22, f. 83-1853. Achatinellastrum rufa, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 137-1854-164-1856. Partulina rufa, Pse, Proc. Zool. Soc. 647-1869.
Molokai, E. Maui.
TP. splendida, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soe. tab. 22, f. 4-1853. Achatinella Bayleana, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y.; 202, pl. 7b, 31a.
31b-1858.
Partulina splendida, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 115-1854, 162-1856. Waialuku, Maw.
TP. Tappaniaua, C. B. Adams. (Achatinella.) Conch. Cont. 126-1850. tAchatinella eburnea, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y.199, f. 28a, 28b, 1856. tAchatinella ampulla, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. 200, f 29, 1856.
28 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [ 1888.
+Achatinella fasciata, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. 201, f. 30, 1556. Bulimella Tappaniana, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 647-1869.
Maw.
TP. tessalata, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soe. t. 23, f. 28-1853. Achatinella insignis, Mighls.? (Pfr.) Partulina tessalata, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 115-1854, 162-1856. Molokai. TP. virgulata, Mighl. (Partula.) Proc. Bost. Soc. 20-1845. Bulimus Rohri, Pfr. Zeitsch. 1846. Achatinella Rohri, Rve. Tab. 1, f. 83-1850. Achatinella insignis, Pfr. (Newc.) In schedule. (Pfr. & Rve.) Partulina Rohri, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 114-1854, 162-1856. Partulina virgulata, Pfr. Nomen. Helic. Viv. 305-1881. Molokai. Section BULIMELLA, Dr. L. Pfeiffer.
TB. abbreviata, Rve. (Achatinella.) Mon. pl. 3, f. 19, April 1850. Achatinella clementina, Pfr. Proc. Zool. Soc. 205-1855. Achatinella nivosa, Newe. Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 12, f. 6-1853. (Manufactured.) Bulimella abbreviata, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 135-1854. Achatinellastrum abbreviata, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 164-1856. Bulimella abbreviata,=bacca, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 647-1869.
Palolo, Oahu. B. bacca, Rve. “(Achatinella.) Mon. pl. 6, f. 45.
Laminella bacca, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 135-1854. Achatinellastrum bacea, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 164-1856. Bulimella bacca, Pse. Proce. Zool. Soc. 647-1869.
Palolo, Oahu. TB. bulimoides, Swains. (Achatinella.) Zool. Illus. ii, 450.
Achatinella bulimoides, Rve. Mon. t. 4, f. 28.
Achatinella obliqua, Gul. Ann. Lyc. N. Y. 245, f. 63, 1858. Achatinella odmorpha, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. 246, f. 64, 1858. Bulimella bulmoides, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 119-1854, 162-1856.
Kahana, Oahu. 7B. Byronii, Gray. (Helix.) Woods Index, Suppl. pl. 7, f. 30.
Achatinella melanostoma, Newe. Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 22, f. 7,-1853. Achatinella limbata, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. pl. 8, f. 70-1858. Achatinella pulcherrima, Rve. (Non Swains.) Mon. pl. 3, f. 23. Laminella Byronii, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 136-1854. Bulimella Byronii, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 346-1869.
Ewa, Oahu.
a ee ee
=
eee SOU Ae.
1888. ] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 29
7B. decipiens, Newe. (Achatineila.) Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 24, f. 68-1863. Achatinella planospira, Pfr. Proc. Zool. Soe. pl. 30, f. 8-1855. + Achatinella cuneus, Pfr. Proc. Zool. Soc. 205, 1858. Sinistral. + Achatinella torrida, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. pl. 8, f. 68-1858. Sinistral. Achatinella corrugata, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. pl. 8, f. 66, 1858. (Short var.) Achatinella scitula, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. pl. 8, f. 61. (Reversed smoothe var.) Achatinella herbacea, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. pl. 8, f. 52. Var. Bulimella viridans, Pfr. (Non Mighl.) Mall. Blatt. 121-1854, 163-1856. Bulimella decipiens, Pse. Proce. Zool. Soc. 646-1869. Bulimella decipiens, Pfr. Nomen. Helic. Viv. 306-1881. Koolauloa, Oahu. Obs. This is a species affected by environment, hence its protean forms. TB. elegans, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. tab. 24, f. 57-1853. (Bulimella elegans, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 163-1856. Hanula, Oahu. B. faba, Pfr. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. 30-1859. Bulimella faba, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 646-1869. Sandwich Islands. B. Forbsiana, Pfr. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 30, f. 16-1855. Bulimella Forbsiana, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 163-1856. Palolo Oahu. ’ TB. glabia, Newe. (Achatinella.)* Proc. Zool. Soc. tab. 23, f. 23-1853. Achatinella elegans, Pfr. (Non Newe.) Mon. Helic. iv—520. Achatinella platystyla, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. Pl. 6, f. 25-1856. Bulimella glabra, Ptr. Mall. Blatt. 124-1854. Kawaiawa Oahu. B. Hanleyana, Pfr. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. 202-1855. Bulimella Hanleyana, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 163-1856. Bulimella Hanleyana, Pse. Proce. Zool. Soc. 646-1869. B. Lehuiensis, Smith. (Achatinellastrum.) Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 9, f. 8-1873. Achatinellastrum Lehuiensis, Pfr. Nomen. Helic. Viy, 308-1881. Lehwui Oahu. Obs. This shell may equal Bulimella multicolor, Ptr.
B, morbida, Pfr. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. 30-1859. Helicter morbida, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 649-1869. Bulimella morbida, Pfr. Nomen. Helic. Viv. 306-1881. Sandwich Islands.
30 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888.
+B. multicolor, Pfr. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soe. pl. 30, f. 11, Jan’y 1855. Achatinella oviformis, Newe. Proc. Zool. Soc. 208, Nov. 1855. Bulimella multicolor, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 165-1856. Oahu.
+B. multlineata, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soe. pl. 22, f. 23-1853. Helicter multilineata, Pse. Proe. Zool. Soc. 645-1869. Achatinella monacha, Pfr. Proc. Zool. Soe. pl. 30, f. 9-1855, var. Bulimella multilineata, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 163-1856.
Kolaupoco Maui. +B. ovata, Newe. (Achatinella.) Ann. Lye. N. Y. 22-1853. Proce. Zool. Soc. tab. 22, f. 2-1853.
Achatinella Wheatleyi, Newc. Ms. Syn. Ann. Lye. N. Y. 147- 1855.
+ Achatinella candida, Pfr. Proce. Zool. Soc. pl. 30, f. 4, 4a—1855.
tAchatinella Frickii, Pfr. Proc. Zool. Soe. pl. 30, f. 7, 1855. small var.
tAchatinella vidua, Pfr. Proc. Zool. Soe. pl. 30, f. 10-1855.
}Achatinella rotunda, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. 249, pl. 8, f. 67— 1868.
Achatinella cervina, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. 241, pl. 8, f. 62-1868.
+ Achatinella spadicea, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. 214, pl. 7, f. 65— 1868.
Achatinella phaeozona, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. 214, pl. 7, f. 40, 1865, immature.
Achatinella lorata, Rve. Non Fér. Mon. pl. 1, f. 6.
Bulimella ovata, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 119-1854, 163-1856.
Koolauloa Oahu.
Obs. This is a very variable species in size and coloration. TB. rosea, Swains. (Achatinella.) Zool. Illus. ii, tab. 123. f. 1. Bulimella rosea, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 119-1854, 163-1856. Obs. Recently I have received from Mr. D. D. Baldwin of Honolulu a small white variety with a yellow lip, see pl. I, fig. 4. Waialua, Oahu.
7B. rutila, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 22, f. 21-1853. Achatinella macrostoma, Pfr. Proc. Zool. Soe. pl. 30, f. 6-1855. Achatinella viridans, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 120-1854. Non Mighl. Bulimella rutila, Pse. Proce. Zool. Soc. 646-1869.
Palolo and Niu, Oahu.
7B. rugosa, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. tab. 22, f. 22-1853. Bulimella rugosa, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 123-1854, 163-1856.
Ewa, Oahu.
1888. ] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 31
B. solitaria, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 24, f. 60-1853. Achatinellastrum solitaria, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 163-1856. Bulimella solitaria, Pse. Proce. Zool. Soc. 647-1869.
Palola, Oahu.
7B. sordida, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soe. pl. 25, f. 27-1853. Achatinella Swainsonii, Pfr. Proce. Zool. Soe. pl. 30, f. 13-1855. Bulimella sordida, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 163-1856. Lehwi, Oahu. Obs. I have followed Dr. Newcomb in placing Swainsonii as a
synonym of sordida, Dr. Pfeiffer in Nomen. Helic. Viv. gives it as
a variety of sordida.
+B. Sowerbiana, Pfr. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 30, f. 14-1855.
{Bulimella fuscobasis, Smith. Proc. Zool. Soe. pl. 9, f. 15-1873. Bulimella Sowerbiana, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 163-1856. Oahu.
¢B. subvirens, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 22, f. 21-1853.
Bulimetla viridans, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 163-1856. Non Mighls.
Bulimella subvirens, Pse. Proce. Zool. Soc. 640-1869. Niu, Oahu. +B. taeniolata, Pfr. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. 38-1846.
Achatinella rubiginosa, Newe. Proce. Zool. Soe. pl. 24, f. 59-1853. Bulimella taeniolata, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 124-1854, 163-1856. Pulolo, Oahu.
7B. terebra, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soe. pl. 23, f. 40-1853. Achatinella attenuata, Pfr. Proc. Zool. Soe. pl. 39, f. 12-1855. Achatinella lignaria, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. pl. 7, f. 35. (Var.) Achatinella crocea, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. pl. 7, f. 36.
Bulimella attenuata, Pfr. Nom. Helic. Viv. 307-1881. Bulimella terebra, Pse. Proce. Zool. Soc. 648-1869. Waialuku, Maui. Obs. I have followed Dr. Newcomb in referring Mr. Gulick’s species to terebra, it varies in size and color; some are attenuate while others are large and inflated.
{B. viridans, Migh. (Achatinella.) Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist. Jan’y 1845. Achatinella radiata, Pfr. Proc. Zool. Soc. Aug. 1845. Achatinella cuneus, Pfr. Proc. Zool. Soe. 205-1855. Sinistral. Achatinella rutila, Pfr. Var. 8. Mall. Blatt. 1854. Non Newe. Achatinella subvirens, Pfr. Var. 2. (Non Newe.) Mall. Blatt.
1854. Achatinella decipiens, Pfr. Var. 8. (Non Newe.) Mall. Blatt. 1854. Bulimella viridans, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 646-1868. Kouahuanui, Oahu.
32 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888. Section ACHATINELLASTRUM, Dr. L. Pfeiffer.
TA. adusta, Rve. (Achatinella). Mon. tab. 4, f. 30-1850. Achatinellastrum adusta, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 138-1854.—164-1856. Oahu. yA. ampla, Newe. (Achatinella). Proc. Zool. Soc. tab. 22, f. 19-1853. Achatinellastrum ampla, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 185-1854.-164-1856. Kolau Oahu. TA. bella, Rve. (Achatinella). Mon. Tab. 3, f. 17-1850.
Achatinellastrum bella, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 135-1854,-165-1856.
Achatinellastrum pulcherrimum, Pfr. Mon. Helie. B. ii, 237.?
Laminella bella, Rve.—=Polita, Newe. Pse. Proc. Zool. Soe. 648— 1869. d Molokai. +A. bellulae, Smith. (Achatinellastrum). Proc. Zool. Soc. t. 9, f. 8-1873.
Sandwich Islands. +A. Buddii, Newe. (Achatinella). Proc. Zool. Soc. Tab. 9, f. 8-1873.
Achatinella pexa, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. 196-pl. 6, f. 26-1856.
tAchatinella plumata, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. 217. pl. 7 f. 41- 1856.
Achatinella papyracea, Gul. Ann. Lyc. N. Y. 207, pl. 8, f. 48, 1856.
Achatinella caesia, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. 234, pl. 8, f. 53, 1856. (Junior Ex.)
Laminella Buddii, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 138-1854.
Achatinellastrum Buddii, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 164-1856.
Achatinellastrum fuscozona, Smith. Proc. Zool. Soe. pl. 9-f. 9- 1873. Pololo Oahu.
Obs. This species is very variable in texture and coloration.
TA. castanea, Rve. (Achatinella). Mon. Tab. 2, f. 24-1850.
Achatinellastrum castanea, Pfr. Mall. Blatt, 139-1854,-164— 1856. :
Achatinellastrum castanea, Rve.=adusta, Rve. (Pse). Proce. Zool. Soe. 646-1869. Oahu. TA. colorata, Rve. (Achatinella). Mon. Tab. 3, f. 18-1850.
Achatinellastrum colorata, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 184-1854.
Laminella colorata, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 164-1856.
Laminella ustulata, Newe. M. 8. (Pfr.) Mall. Blatt. 136-1854.
Bulimella colorata, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 646-1869.
Achatinellastrum colorata, Pfr. Nomen. Helic. Viv. 308-1881.
Ahuimanu Oahu.
1888. ] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 39
+A. concinna, Newe. (Achatinella). Proc. Zool. Soc. Pl. 24, f. 79-1853. Achatinellastrum econcinna, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 137-1854.-164 * =1856. Laminella concinna, Pse. Proc, Zool. Soc. 648-1869.
Lana. +A. consanguinea, Smith. (Achatinella). Proc. Zool. Soc. Pl. 9, f. 3-1878.
A. concolor, Smith. Proc. Zool. Soe. Pl. 9, f. 1-18 wee Oahu. Obs. These two species of Mr. Smith, are probably only varieties of colorata. 7A. cucumis, Gul. (Achatinella). Ann. Lye. N. Y. pl. 7, f. 45-1858. Achatinellastrum cucumis, Pse. ee Zool. Soe. 646-1869, Kaliua Oahu. A. formosum, Gul. (Achatinella). Ann. Lyc. N. Y. pl. 8, f. 55-1858. Achatinellastrum formosum, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 646-1869. i Oahu. tA. fulgens, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 22, f. 24-24a, 1853. Achatinella diversa, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. 222-1858. (Junior Ex.) tAchatinellastrum angusta, Smith. Proc. Zool. Soc. 74, pl. 9, f£. 7- 1873. Achatinellastrum fulgens, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 137-1854, 164-1856. Waialua, south east end of Oahu. +A. fuscolineata, Smith. (Achatinellastrum.) Proc. Zool. Soc. 75, pl. 9, f. 2— 2a-1873. Achatinellastrum fuscolineatum, Pfr. Nomen. Helic. Viv, 307— 1881. Kaialua, Qahu. Obs. A large quantity of duplicates of this species was contained in the collection of Wm. H. Pease. Mr. Smith designates versipellis Gul. as its nearest affinity, while Dr. Newcomb thinks it is one of the innumerable varieties of vu/pina Fér. +A.fuscozona, Smith. (Achatinellastrum.) Proc. Zool. Soe. pl. 9, f. 9-1873. Makiki and Palolo, Oahu. Obs. Judging from a suite of all ages, this may be a good species, although it approaches very near to fuscolineata, Smith. +A. germana, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 24, f. 62-1863. Achatinellastrum germana, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 185-1854, 156-1856.
Bulimella germana, Pse. Proce. Zool. Soc. 649-1869. Makawao, Mau.
34 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888.
JA. Johnsoni, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 23, f. 50-1853. Achatinella aplustre, Newe. Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 23, f. 51-1853. Achatinellastrum Johnsoni, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 134-1854.
Palolo Crater and Kolau, Oahu.
A. lilaceum, Pfr. (Achatinella.) Mon. Helic. Viy. vi 175.
Achatinellastrum lilaceum, Pfr. Nomen. Helic. Viv. 308, 1881.
Sandwich Islands.
fA. ligatum, Smith. (Achatinellastrum.) Proc. Zool. Soe. t. 9, f. 13-1873.
A, diluta, Smith. Proc. Zool. Soe. t. 9, f. 14-1873.
Waimula, Oahu.
Obs. Examples of the above in the Pease collection marked “new species” equal a dextral variety of vulpina, Fér. tA. Nattii, Baldw. Nobis. (Achatinellastrum.) pl. I, f. 3.
Shell dextral, turbinate, spire half the length ; whorls 5, polished, the two last rapidly enlarged and inflated. Suture impressed, col- umella yellow, stout and twisted. Color bright gamboge yellow, with one white and three wide chestnut bands beneath the suture, the latter visible from within the aperture ; aperture round ovate, white, labiam white, slightly thickened within, L. 16, D. 10, L, Ap 8, D. 5 mill.
Makawao, E. Maui. Obs. This shell was found at the above locality by D. D,
Baldwin, Esq. of Lahaina Maui, who has devoted much time and at-
tention to the Achatinella of the Sandwich Islands. He has known
of similar examples being found at the same locality. The shell is not quite mature, and at first sight has the facies of an Apex.
fA. olivaceum, Rve. (Achatinella.) Mon. tab. 3, f. 20-1850. Achatinella prasinus, Rve. Mon. Tab. 4, f. 27. Achatinellastrum olivaceum, Pfr. Mall. Blitt. 138-1854, 164-1856. . Sandwich Islands. TA. polita, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 23, f. 37-1853. Achatinellastrum polita, Pfr. Mall. Blatt, 134-1854, 164-1856. Laminella polita, =bella, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 648-1869.
Molokai. Obs. Polita Newe. and bella Rve. are doubtless distinct. TA. productum, Rve. (Achatinella.) Mon. tab. 2, f. 13-1850. Achatinella venulata, Newe. Proc. Zool. Soe. pl. 23, £. 48-1853. Achutinella hybrida, Newe. Proc. Zool. Soe. pl. 22, f. 52-1853. Achatinella bilineata, Rve. Mon. Tab. 3, f. 22.
delta 2a ere
a “>
ie
1888. ] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 35
Achatinella Dunkeri, Cum. (Pfr.) Proc. Zool. Soc. 208-1855. Achatinellastrum productum, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 154-1854, 163 —1856. Kolau, Oahu.
fA. pulcherrimum, Swains. (Achatinella.) Zool. Illus. pl. 123, f. 2.
Achatinella napus, Pfr. Proc. Zool. Soe. f. 19-1855.
Achatinella mahogani, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. f. 72-1858.
Laminella pulcherrima, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 185-1854.
Achatinellastrum pulcherrima, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 164-1856. Ahonwi, Oahu.
tA. trilineatum, Gul. (Achatinella.) Ann. Lye. N. Y. pl. 7, f. 46-1858.
Achatinella zonata, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. pl. 8, f. 58-1858, (var.) Achatinellastrum trilineatum, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 646-1869. Oahu. tA. versipellis, Gul. (Achatinella.) Ann. Lye. N. Y. vi, pl. 7, f. 44a, b. Achatinellastrum versipellis, Pse. Proce. Zool. Soc. 646-1869. Kailua, Oahu. fA. vulpinum, Fér. (Helix.) Hist. Mol. tab. 155, f. 1. Achatinella vulpina, Rve. Mon, Tab. 4, f. 29. Achatinella livida, Pfr. Non Swains. Achatinella Stewartii, Green. Maclur. Lye. i, pl. 4, f. 1-2. Achatinella Stewartti, Rve. Mon. tab, 4, f. 26, Achatinella virens, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. vj, f. 47. Achatinella varia, Gul. Ann. Lyc. N. Y. vj f. 43. Achatinella crassidentata, Pfr. Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 30, f. 23-1855. Achatinellastrum tricolor, Smith. Proc. Zool. Soe. pl. 9, f. 6-1878. Achatinellastrum ligatum, Smith. Proc. Zool. Soe. pl. 9, f. 12-18, 1873. (Dextral var?) Achatinellastrum longispira, Smith. Proc. Zool Soe. pl. 9, f. 2- 1873. (Var. Stewartii.) Eburnella vulpina, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 1389-1854. Achatinellastrum vulpinum, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 189-1854. Oahu. A. zebra, Newe. (Achatinella). Ann. Lye. N. Y. 142-1853. Achatinellastrum zebra, Pfr. Nomen. Helic. Viv. 508-1881. Laminella zebra, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 648-1869. East Maui.
36 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888. Section EBURNELLA, Wm. H. Pease.
TE. casta, Newe. (Achatinella). Proc. Zool. Soc. tab. 22, f. 12-1853. Achatinella dimorpha, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. pl. 8, f. 56-1858. Achatinella juncea, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. pl. 7, f. 49-1858.
(Dwarf.)
Achatinella cognata, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. pl. 7, f. 60-1858 Achatinellastrum casta, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 138-1854,-164—-1856. Eburnella casta, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 647-1869. Ewa, Oahu. Obs. I have followed Dr. Newcomb in assigning Mr. Gulick’s species to casta, Mr. Gulick admits E. dimopha as a synonym, see
Proce. Zool. Soc. 90-91-1873.
TE. curta, Newe. (Achatinella). Proc. Zool. Soc. tab. 23, f. 43-1853. {Achatinella delta, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. 231, pl. 8, f. 50-1858. Achatinella contracta, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. 237, pl. 8, f. 57,
1858.
{Achatinellastrum rhodoraphe, Smith. Proc. Zool. Soc. 74, pl. 9,
f. 10-1873.
Eburnella pygmea Smith. Proc. Zool. Soe. 75, pl. 9, f. 11-1878. Laminella curta, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 139-1854. Achatinellastrum curta, Pfr. Mall. Blitt. 164-1856. Eburnella curta, Pse. Proe. Zool. Soc. 647-1869. Waialua, Oahu.
Obs. In a large number of duplicates, contained in the collection of the late Wm. H. Pease, the above synonymy was illustrated. TE. livida, Swains. (Achatinella). Zool. Illus. p. 108, f. 2. tAchatinella viridans, Rve. Mon. Tab. 4, f. 25. (Non Migh.) Achatinella Reevii, C. B, Adams. Conch. Cont. 128. tAchatinella Emersonii, Newe. Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 24, f. 74-1853. Achatinella glauca, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. f. 47-1858. Eburnella livida, Pse. Proe. Zool. Soe. 647-1869. Kalaikoa and Waialua, Oahu. Obs. About two quarts of duplicates, in the collection of Wm. H. Pease, exhibited considerable inosculation of the above so called species, A. vulpina Fer. which Dr. Pfeiffer places under Eburnella as a synonym of livida Swains, has no affinity therewith. TE. porcellana, Newe. (Achatinella). Proc. Zool. Soc pl. 23, f. 27-1863. Bulimella porcellana, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 123-1854. Eburnella porcellana Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 647-1869. East Maui.
1888. ] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 37
fE. recta, Newe. (Achatinella). Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 22, f. 45-1853. Laminella recta, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 136-1854. Achatinella nympha, Gul. Ann. Lyc. N. Y. 251, pl. 8, f. 9-1858. Eburnella recta, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 647-1869. Waialua, Oahu. E. saccata, Pfr. (Achatinella). Mon. Helic. vj.-175. Eburnella saccata, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 647-1869. Sandwich Islands. E. semicarinata, Newe. (Achatinella). Proc. Zool. Soe. pl. 24, f. 76-1853.
Bulimella semicarinata, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 124-1854. Eburnella semicarinata, Pfr. Nomen. Helic. Viv. 309-1881.
Lanai. fE. undulata, Newe. (Achatinella). Bost. Jour. Nat. Hist. 218-1855. Amer. Jour. Conch. pl. 13, f. 15-1866.
Laminella curta, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 189-1854. Achatinellastrum curta, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 164-1856. Eburnella curta, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 647-1869.
; Waialua, Oahu. Obs. I think this a variety. of E. curta, Newe.
tE. variabilis, Newce. (Achatinella). Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 24, f. 70-1853. Achatinella fulva, Newe. Proc. Zool. Soc. 208-1855. Achatinella lactea, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. pl. 6, f. 27-1856. Bulimella variabilis, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 124-1854. Eburnella variabilis, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 647-1869. Lanai. Section APEX, * Albers._1860.
*The species of the Section Apex, are involved in almost inextricable confusion. Authors in many instances, have not given the localities of the species, and the great variability in size and color of many species, added to the many intermediate varieties, entails an almost endless task to separate them. To arrive at a certainty, the color of the anmmal and mantel must be observed, and local suites should be collected by which critical comparisons could be instituted. It is to be regretted, that species have been multiplied on slight grounds. In my endeavours to arrive at a correct synonymy, I may have erred by restricting the species within too narrow limits, which will be for future observers to correct. The Section Apex exhibits four prevailing types, as illustrated by the species éurgida, mustellina, per- versa and Swi/tiz, from which all others seem but modifications.
tA. cestus, Newe. (Achatinella). Proc. Zool. Soc. t. 22, f. 8-1853. Bulimella cestus, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 125-1854. Helicter cestus, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 645-1869.
Apex cestus. Pfr. Proc. Zool. Soc. 310. Palolo, Oahu.
38 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888.
{A. concavospira, Pfr. Proc. Zool. Soc. 36-1859. : Laminella concavospira, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 648-1869. Achatinellastrum concavospira, Pse. Nomen. Hel. Viv. 307.
Sandwich Islands. +A. decora, Fer. (Helix). Hist. Moll. t. 155, f. 5-7.
Achatinella decora, Gray. Bulimus decorus, Beck, and Anton. Achatinella vestita, Migh. Proc. Bost. Soc. 1845. Achatinella lugubris, Pfr. Non. Rve. Achatinella vittata, Pfr. Non. Rve. Achatinella simulans, Pfr. Non. Rve. Laminella decora, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 140-1854. Helicter decora, Pse. Proce. Zool. Soc. 645-1869. Apex decora, Pfr. Nomen. Hel. Viv. 310. Kaliakoa and Ahouin, Oahu. tA. flavida, Gul. (Apex). Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 10, f. 1-1873. Apex tuberans, Gul. Proc. Zool. Soe. pl. 10, f 83-1873. Kaliakao, Ahouin and Waialua, Oahu. Obs. This shell may—dextral Swiftii which often varies greatly in color. 7A. Gulickii, Smith. (Apex). Proc. Zool. Soe. pl. 9. f. 7-1873. {Apex albofasciata, Smith. Proc. Zool. Soe. pl. 9, f. 29-1873. tApex innotabilis, Smith. Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 9, f. 23-1873. tApex neglectus, Smith. Proc. Zool. Soe. pl. 9, f. 22-1873. tApex coniformis, Gul. Proce. Zool. Soe. pl. 9, f. 17-1873. tApex versicolor, Gul. Proc. Zool. Soe. pl. 9, f. 18-1873. Kalikoa and Ahouin, Oahu. Obs. About two quarts of the variety albofasciata was represen- ted in the Pease collection. As I possess the other varieties, I can see no difference in them. Dr. Newcomb places the above with perversa of which he considers them only varieties. TA. lorata, Fer. (Helix). Hist. Moll. t. 155, f. 9-10. tAchatinella pallida, Nutt. Rves. Mon. pl. 1, f. 2a 2b. Achatinella alba, Nutt. Jays Cat. Helicteres loratus, Beck and Anton. tAchatinella ventrosa, Pfr. Proc. Zool. Soe. 6-1855. _ Achatinella nobilis, Pfr. Proce. Zool. Soc. 220-1855. Achatinellastrum lorata, Pfr. Mall. Blatt, 134-1854. Bulimella lorata, Pfr. Mall. Blatt, 163-1856. Helicter lorata, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 645-1869. Sandwich Islands.
1888. ] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 39
Obs. Lorata and alba represent the elongate varieties, and ven- trosa with nobilis the short and inflated varieties. {A. lugubris, Chem. (Turbo.) No. 2059-60, t. 8, f. 9-10.
Achatinella pica, Swains. Zool. Ill. pl. 99, f 1.
Monodonta seminigra, Lam. vii-37.
Bulimus seminigra, Menke. Syn. 26.
Helix apex-fulva, Dix, Voyage around the World, 1789.
Helix lugubris, Fér. Hist. Moll. t. 155, f. 8.
Helicter lugubris, Beck.
Achatina lugubris, Gray.
Achatinella lugubris, Pfr. 1841.
Achatinellastrum lugubris, Pfr. Mall. Blatt, 140-1854, 164-1856.
Helicter lugubris, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 645-1869.
Apex lugubris. Pfr. Nomen. Hel. Viv. 310, 1881.
Apex bicolor, Gul. Mon. Hel. Viv. 529.
Apex polymorpha, Gul. Proc. Zool. Soe. t. 10, f. 5-1873.
Apex leucozonus, Gul. Proc. Zool. Soe. t. 10, f. 6-1873.
Oahu.
yA. mustellina, Migh. (Achatinella.) Pro. Bost. Soc. 21-1845, Rve. Mon. t. 3, f. 20-21a.
Bulimella mustellina, Pfr. Mall. Blatt, 125-1854, 163-1856.
Helicter mustellina, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soe. 645-1869.
Apex mustellina, Pfr. Nomen. Hel. Viv. 309.
Waianea, Oahu. A. ovum, Pfr. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. 336-1856.
Helicter ovum, Pfr. Proce. Zool. Soc. 645-1869. Apex ovum, Pfr. Nomen. Hel. Viv. 310. Oahu.
tA. perversa, Swains. (Achatinella.) Zool. Il. pl. 99, f. 2.
Achatinella concidens, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. pl. 8, f. 54.
Achatinella cinnamomea, Pfr. Proc. Zool. Soe. 22-1858.
Apex leucophea, Gul. Proce. Zool. Soe. pl. 9, f. 16-1878.
Helicter perversa, Pse.=cinerosa, Pfr. Proc. Zool. Soc. 645-1869.
Apex decora, Pfr. Var. Nomen. Hel. Viv. 310.
Waianea, Oahu.
Obs. Dr. Newcomb remarks, “there are several varieties of this
species, one of which has a near affinity to decora which has led to their having been confounded with each other.”
tA. pulchella, Pfr. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. t. 30, f. 2-1855.
Helicter pulchella, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 645-1869.
Apex pulchella, Pfr. Nomen. Hel. Viv. 310. Sandwich Islands.
40) PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888.
7A. simulans, Rve. (Achatinella.) Mon. pl. 2, f. 15.
Achatinella decora, Pfr. Mon. Hel. iv, 528. (Non Fér.) Bulimella simulans, Pfr. Mall. Blatt, 125-1854, 163-1856. Apex tumefactus, Gul. Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 9, f. 20-1873. Apex simulans, Pfr. Nomen. Hel. Viv. 310.
Wahiawa, Oahu.
tA. Swiftii, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 22, f. 9-1853. Achatinella apicata, Newe. Proc. Zool. Soc. 210-1855. Achatinella valida, Pfr. Proce. Zool. Soe. pl. 30, f. 54-1855. Bulimella apicata, Pfr. Mall. Blatt, 125-1854.
Helicter Swiftii, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 645-1869. Apex Swiftii, Pfr. Nomen. Hel. Viv. 310. Apex flavidus, Gul. Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. x, f. 1-1, a-1873. Apex lilacea, Gul. Proce. Zool. Soe. pl. x, f. 4-1873. Apex leucoraphe, Gul. Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. x. f. 2-1873. Ewa, Oahu.
tA. turgida, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 22, f. 10-1853. Achatinellastrum turgida, Pfr.’ Mall. Blatt, 188-1854, 164-1856. Apex turgida, Pfr. Nomen. Hel. Viv. 310.
Apex turbiniformis, Gul. Proce. Zool. Soe. pl. x, f. 7-1873. Apex albospira, Gul. Proc. Zool. Soe. pl. x, f. 8-1873. Ahouni, Oahu. Obs. The two species of Mr. Gulick seem to be dextral varieties ~ of turgida.
TA. vittata, Rve. (Achatinella.) Mon. No. 9, Mus. Cunning. (Newe.) Achatinella decora, Pfr. Var. Non. Fér. Mon. Hel. iii-465. Achatinella globosa, Pfr. Proc. Zool. Soe. pl. 30, f. 25-1855. Helicter globosa, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 645-1869.
Apex vittata, Rve. Nomen. Helic. Viv. 310. Sandwich Islands.
Section PERDICELLA, Wm. H. Pease.
TP. Helena, Newe. (Achatinella). Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 24, f. 63-1853. Newcombia Helena, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 117-1854. Perdicella Helena, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 648-1869. Molokai. PR. Mauiensis, Newe. (Achatinella). Proc. Zool. Soc. 207-1855. Amer. Jour. Conch. pl. 13, f. 16-1866. ‘ Partulina Mawiensis, Gul. Proc. Zool. Soe. 91-1873. Perdicella Mawiensis, Pfr. Nomen. Helic. Viv. 315-1881. Maui.
1888. ] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 41
P, minuscula, Pfr. (Perdicella). Mon. Helic. Viv. iv. 562.
Perdicella minuscula, Pse. Proc Zool. Soc. 648-1869. Sandwich Islands.
+P. ornata, Newe. (Achatinella). Proc. Zool. Soe. pl. 24, f. 55-1853. Newcombia ornata, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 118-1854.-165-1856. Perdicella ornata, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 648-1869.
Maui.
P. zebrina, Pfr. (Achatinella). Proc. Zool. Soc. 202-1855.
Newcombia zebrina, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 165-1856. Perdicella zebrina, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 648-1869. Sandwich Islands.
Section NEWCOMBIA, Dr. L. Pfeiffer.
+N. cinnamomea, Pfr. (Achatinella). Proc. Zool. Soc. 22-1858. Newcombia cinnamomea, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 230-1853. Molokat. +N. Cumingii, Newe. (Achatinella). Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 24, f. 59-1853. Newcombia Oumingii, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 118-1854.—165-1856. Halea—Kala, Maui. +N. Newcombia, Pfr. (Bulimus). Mall. Blatt. 119-1854.-165-1856. Achatinella Pfeifferi, Newe. Proc. Zool. Soe. pl. 24, f. 58-1853. Molokai. +N. plicata, Migh. (Achatinella). Proc. Bost. Soct.-1848. Rve. Mon. pl. 6, f. 44. Bulimus liratus, Pfr. Mon. Helic. Viv. ii, 235. Newcombia liratus, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 165-1856. Molokai. N. Philippiana, Pfr. (Achatinella). Mon. Helic. Viv. iv, 559. Newcombia philippiana, Pfr. Nomen. Helic. Viv. 315-1881. Sandwich Islands. {N. sulcata, Pfr. (Achatinella). Proc. Zool. Soc. 22-1858. Newcombia sulcata, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 649-1869.
Section LABIELLA, Dr. L. Pfeiffer.
L. callosa, Pfr. (Achatinella). Mon. Helic. Viv. iv. 531. Labiella callosa, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 651-1869. Oahu. TL. labiata, Newe. (Achatinella). Proce. Zool. Soc. pl. 23, f. 33-1855. Labiella dentata, Pfr. Proc. Zool.'Soe. pl. 30, f. 27-1855. Achatinella legena, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. pl. 6, f. 35-1855. (=var.)
42 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF T1888.
Labiella dentata, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 142-163-1856. Lehui, Oahu. L. pachystoma, Pse. (Labiella). Jour. Conch. xviij, 171-1869. Kauai.
Section LAMINELLA, Dr. L. Pfeiffer.
TL. Alexandria, Newe. (Achatinella.) Cal. Nat. Hist. Soc. iii-1$2-1865. Achatinella Alexandria, Newe. Amer. Jour. Conch. pl. 13, f. 14— 1866. Perdicella Alexandri, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 648-1869. Laminella Alexandri, Pfr. Nomen. Helic. Viv. 312-1881. West Maw. TL. citrina, Migh. MS. (Achatinella.) Achatinella citrina, Rve. Mon. tab 5, fig. 33-1850. Laminella citrina,—venusta, Pse. var. Proc. Zool. Soe. 648-1869.. Laminella citrina, Pfr. Nomen. Helic. Viv. 312-1881. Oahu. L. erecta, Pse. (Laminella.) Jour. Conch. xvij-174-1869. Maui. TL. fusoidea, Newe. (Achatinella.) Amer. Jour. Conch. ii, pl, 13, f. 8-1866. Achatinellastrum fusoidea, Pfr. Nomen. Helic. Viv. 309. Laminella fusoidea, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soe. 648-1869. Maui. 7. gravida, Fér. (Helix.) Hist. Moll. tab 155, f. 3. , Achatinella Dimondii, C. B. Adams. Conch. Cont. 126. Laminella gravida, Pfr. Mall. Blatt, 126-1854, 164-1856. Sandwich Islands. L. lutcola, Fér. (Helix.) Hist. Moll. tab 155, f. 12. Bulimus lutcolus, Pfr. Mon. Helic. ii, 234-1841. Amastra turritella, Fér.—=lutcola, Fér. (Pse.) Proc. Zool. Soc. 650— 1869. Laminella luteola, Pfr. Nomen. Hel. Viv. 312-1881. ; Sandwich Islands. Obs. . The small yellow shell figured by Férussac as Jutcola, has never been identified by conchologists. L. Mighelsiana, Pfr. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. 231-1849. Laminella Mighelsiana, Pfr. Mall. Blatt, 136-1854. Achatinellastrum Mighelsiana, Pfr. Nomen. Helic. Viv. 308— 1881. Laminella Mighelsiana, Pse. Proce. Zool. Soc. 648-1869. Molokm.
1888. ] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 45
TL. physa, Newe. (Achatinella.) Pro. Bost. Soc. 218-1853. Proe. Zool. Soe. pl. 24, f. 64-1853. (Junior.) Amer. Jour. Conch. ii, pl. 13, f. 10 (adult).
Newcombia physa, Pfr. Mall. Blatt, 117-1854, 165-1856. Laminella physa, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 648-1869. Hawai.
Obs. Mr. Pease observes, “ this shell has no distinct allies” how- ever he places it amongst the Laminella to which I assent. This is an instance which exhibits the difficulties in many of the attempts to classify these heterogeneous forms. +L. picta, Mighl. (Achatinella.) Proc. Bost. Soc. January 1845.
Achatinella bulbosa, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. pl. 8, f. 71-1858.
Achatinella picta, Rve. Mon. tab 67, f. 28.
Laminella picta, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 648-1869. East Maui. L. Remyi, Newe. (Achatinella.) Ann. Lyc. N. Y. 146-1855. Amer. Jour. Conch. pl. 18, f. 13-1866.
Laminella Remyi, Pfr. Mall. Blatt, 165-1856. Lanai. fl. sanguinea, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 22, f. 15-1853.
Achatinella Férussaci, Pfr. (var.) Mon. Helic. Viv. iv, 546. Laminella Férussaci, Pfr. Mall. Blatt, 164-1856.
Laminella sanguinea, Pfr. Mall. Blatt, 156-1854, Lehwi, Oahu. +L. straminea, Rve. (Achatinella.) Mon. pl. 5, f. 38.
Laminella straminea, Pfr. Mall. Blatt, 126-1854. Sandwich Islands. Obs. This shell in the collection of the Jardin des Plants, is la- belled A. gravida, Fér. var.; it is certainly distinct from gravida.
+L. subrostrata, Pfr. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. p. 31-1839.
* « Labiella subrostrata, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 651-1869.
Laminella subrostrata, Pfr. Nomen. Helic. Viv. 314-1881. Oahu.
Obs. My examples of this species, obtained in London, and said to have been compared with the type, equals albolabris Newc. and is an Amastra.
L. tetrao, Newe. (Achatinella.) Amer. Jour. Conch. ii, pl. 13, f. 11-12-1866.
Laminella tetrao, Pfr. Nomen. Helic. Viv. 314-1881. Lanai. +L. venusta, Mighl. (Achatinella.) Proc. Bost. Soct. 21-1825.
Laminella venusta, Pfr. Mall. Blatt, 127-1854. Laminella venusta,=citrina, Mighl. Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 648-
1869. West Molokai.
44 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888.
L. zebra, Newo. (Achatinella.) Ann. Lye. N. Y. 142-1855. Achatinellastrum zebra, Pfr. Nomen. Hel. Viv. 308. Laminella zebra, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 648-1869. Maui. Section AMASTRA, H. and A. Adams. A. accincta, Gld. (Achatina.) Proce. Bost. Soc. 20-1845. Gld. Expd. Sh. tab. 7, £: 9% Leptachatina accincta, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 650-1869. Amastra accincta, Pfr. Nomen. Hel. Viv. 31-1881. Obs. The figure of this shell in Chemnitz, represents an Amastra.
Oahu. {A. affinis, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 23, f. 35-1853,
+Achatinella goniostoma, Pfr. Proc. Zool. Soc. 203-1855. Laminella afinis, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 165-1856. Amastra affinis, Pse. Proce. Zool. Soc. 650-1869.
{A. albolabris, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soe, pl. 24, f. 56-1853. Achatinella nucleola, Rve. (Non Gld.) Mon. pl. 5, f. 39. Laminella albolabris, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 132-1854, 165-1856. Labiella albolabris, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 651-1869.
Oahu. A. amicta, Smith. (Laminella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 10, f. 20-1873.
Laminella amicta, Pfr. Nomen. Hel. Viv. 314-1881.
Sandwich Islands. Obs. This shell may equal A. petricola, Newe.
fA. Anthonyi, Newe. (Achatinella). Proc. Cal. Nat. Hist. Soc. ii, p. 93-1860. Amer. Jour. Conch. ii, pl. 13, f. 2-1866. Amastra Anthonyi, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 649-1869.
Koloa.. A. assimilis, Newe. (Achatinella..) Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 23, f. 53-1853.
Laminella assimilis, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 129-1854. Amastra assimilis, Pse. Proce. Zool. Soc. 650-1869. Amastra conicospira, Smith. Proe. Zool. Soe. pl. 10, f. 10-1873. East Maui. Obs. Dr. Pfeiffer considers this species to be a small variety of A. nubilosa, Migh. tA‘biplicata, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soe. pl. 24, f. 75-1853. Laminella biplicata, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 128-1854, 165-1856. Amastra biplicata, Pse. Var. Deshaysii Morelet, Proce. Zool Soc. 649-1869.
Lanat.
1888.] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 45
A. brevis, Pfr (Achatinella.) Mon. Hel. Viv. iii, 558. Laminella brevis, Pfr. Nomen. Hel. Viv. 315-1881. Sandwich Islands. TA, crassilabrum, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proce. Zool. Soe. pl. 23, f. 31-1853. Labiella crassilabrum, Pse. Proce. Zool. Soe. 651-1869. Laminella crassilabrum, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 180-1854-165-1856. Waianea, Oahu. +A. cylindrica, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soe. pl. 22, f, 11-1853. Laminella cylindrica, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 164-1856. Amastra cylindrica, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soe. 650-1869. Watanea, Oahu. A. conifera, Smith. (Amastra.) Proce. Zool. Soc. pl. 10, f. 11-1873. Amastra conifera, Pfr. Nomen. Hel. Viv. 314-1881. Kula, East Maw. tA. cornea, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 23, f. 32-1853. Laminella cornea, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 182-1854, 165-1856. Leptachatina cornea, Proc. Zool. Soc. 651-1869. Sandwich Islands. Obs. Dr. Newcomb pronounces this shell an Amastra, in which T concur. TA. ellipsoidea, Gld. (Achatinella.) Proc. Bost. Soc. 200-1847. Exped. Sh. tab. 7, f. 96. Achatinella decorticate, Gul. Proe. Zool. Soe. pl. 10, f. 14-1878. Achatinella pupoidea, Newe. Proc. Zool. Soe. pl. 23, f. 42-1853. Amastra éllipsoidea, Pfr. Nomen. Hel. Viv. 311-1881. Maui. TA. elliptica, Gul. (Amastra.) Proc. Zool. Soe. pl. 10, f. 15-1873. Laminella elliptica, Pfr. Nomen. Hel. Viy. 515-1881. Waianea, Oahu. TA. elongata, Newe. (Achatinella.) PI. I, f. 9, Ann. Lye. N. Y. 26-1853. Achatinella acuta, Newe. Proe. Zool. Soe. 142-1853. Laminella acuta, Pfr. = elongata, Mall. Blatt. 127-1854, 165- 1856. Helicter Hutchinsonii, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soe. 7-1862. Newcombia Hutchinsonii, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 649-1869. Amastra elongata, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 649-1869. Makawao, Maw. Obs. Mr. Pease observes, this shell is the analogue of Amastra obscura, Newe.; like many other species of Amastra, it possesses the
46 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888.
plicate apex of Laminella, but wants the spiral striz, which is the best evidence that it belongs to the section Amastra.
7A. farcimen, Pfr. (Achatinella.) Pl. I, f.5. Mon. Hel. Viv. iv, 552. Laminella farcimen, Pfr. Nomen. Hel. Viv. 315-1881.
Amastra farcimen, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 649-1869. Maui.
TA. flavescens, Newe. (Achatinella.)Proc. Zool. Soe. pl. 24, f. 62-1853. Achatinella tenuilabris, Gul. Proc. Zool. Soe. pl. 10, f. 16-1878. Laminella flaveseens, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 130-1854, 165-1856. Amastra flaveseens, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 650-1869.
Hawaii, (Baldwin.) Wanoa, Oahu, (Newcomb.) Obs. A comparison of types exhibits A. tenwilabris, Gul.—= flavescens, Newe. The latter in the collection of the Jardin des
Plantes, is erroneously labelled A. modesta, C. B. Adams.
A. gigantea, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 20, f. 17-1853. Laminella violacea, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 141-1854.
Laminella gigantea, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 140-1854. Laminella gigantea, =violacea, var. Pse. Proc. Zool. Soe. 648— 1869. Amastra violacea, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 164-1856. Haleakala, Maui. Obs. The only example of gigantea ever found is in the British Museum. It probably equals a large example of A. violacea, Newe.
TA. humilis, Newe. (Achatinella.) Ann. Lyc. N. Y. 143-1855. Amer. Jour. Conch. 211, pl. 13, f. 4-1866.
Laminella humilis, Pfr. Nomen. Hel. Viv. 313. Amastra humilis, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 649-1869. Molokai. TA. intermedia, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soe, pl. 22, f. 13-1853. Laminella intermedia, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 165-1856. Amastra intermedia, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soe. 650-1869. Wainoe, Oahu. A. irregularis, Pfr. (Achatinella.) Mon. Hel. Viv. iv, 564. Amastra irregularis, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 164-1854. Sandwich Islands. A. inflata, Pfr. (Achatinella.) Mon. Hel. Viv. iv, 549. Laminella inflata, Pfr, Nomen. Hel. Viv. 313. Amastra inflata, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 649-1869. : Sandwich Islands. A. luctuosa, Pfr. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. 204-1855. Sandwich Islands.
¢ 1888. ] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 47
7A. magna, C. B. Adams. (Achatinella.) Conch. Cont. 125-1850. Achatinella Baldwin, Newe. Proce. Zool. Soe. pl. 24, f. 72-1853. Achatinellastrum Baldwinii, Ptr. Mall. Blitt. 140-1854. Amastra Baldwinii, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 164-1856. Laminella Grayana, Pfr. Proc. Zool. Soc. 204-1855. (Junior.) Amastra magna, Pfr. Nomen. Hel. Viv. 311-1881. Lanai. Obs. Examples compared with Grayana, Pfr. in the British Museum, exhibit Grayana as the junior of magna. Numerous ex- amples of all ages in the Pease collection, confirm the diagnosis. A. malleata, Smith. (Amastra.) Proc. Zool. Soe. pl. 10, f. 18-1873. Kula, East Maui. 7A. Mastersii, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proe. Zool. Soe. pl. 24, f. 67-1853. A. rubens, var. Pfr. (non Gould.) Mon. Helie. iv, 552. Laminella Mastersti, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 129-1854. Amastra Mastersii, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 650-1869. Maui. TA. melanosis, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 23, f. 41-1853. Laminella melanosis, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 132-1854, 165-1856. Amastra melanosis, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 650-1869. Hawai. +A. micans, Pfr. (Laminella.) Pl. I, f. 10. Mon. Hel. Viv. vj, 179, Amastra micans, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 650-1869. Sandwich Islands.
7A. modesta, C. B. Adams. (Achatinella.) Conch. Cont. 128-1850.
Laminella modesta, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 129-1854, 165-1856. Amastra modesta, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 650-1869. Molokai. A. moesta, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 24, f. 77-1853. Laminella moesta, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 128-1854. Newcombia obscura, Newe.—mvoesta, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 649— 1869. Lanai. 7A. mueronata, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 23, f. 49-1853. Laminella mucronata, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 129-1854-165-1856. Amastra mucronata, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 650-1869. Maui. 7A. nigra, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Bost. Soc. 219-1855. Amer. Jour. Conch. ii, pl. 13, f. 3. Amastra nigra, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 164-1856. Maui.
48 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888.
tA. nigrolabris, Smith. (Amastra.) Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 10, f. 11-1873. Laminella nigrolabris, Pfr. Nomen. Hel. Viv. 315-1881. Wahiawa, Oahu. +A. nubilosa, Migh. (Achatinella.) Proc. Bost. Soct. 20-1845. A. nubilosa, Rve. Mon. pl. 1, f. 1-1850. Laminella nubilosa, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 129-1854, 165-1856. Amastra nubilosa, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 650-1869. Molokai. Obs. Dr. Newcomb says nubilosa comes from Molokai, while Mighels, Reeve, and Gould give Oahu as the locality. I have never seen a shell that equals in size Dr. Mighels’ figure in Reeve’s Mono- graph, and with Dr. Pfeiffer I incline to the opinion that it equals. assimilis, var. +A. nucula, Smith. (Amastra.) Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 10, f. 19-1873.
Lanai. yA. nucleola, Gld. (Achatinella.) Proc. Bost. Soc. 28-1845.
A. brevis, Pfr.? Proc. Zool. Soc. 1845. Laminella nucleola, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 142-1854, 165-1856. Amastra nucleola, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 649-1869. Kavai.
+A. obesa, Newe. (Achatinella.) Ann. Lyc. N. Y. 24-1853. Proc. Zool. Soe. pl- 24, f. 39-1853.
Amastra obesa, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 164-1856. Amastra obesa, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 649-1869. Haleakala, Maui. TA. Peasii, Smith. (Amastra.) Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 10, f. 13-1873. Laminella Peasti, Pfr. Nomenc. Hel. Viy. 313-1881. Sandwich Islands. TA. petricola, Newe. (Achatinella.) Amer. Jour. Conch. ii, pl. 13, f. 6. Laminella petricola, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 165-1856. Amastra petricola, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soe. 650-1869. Molokai. 7A. porphyrea, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 22, f. 16-1853. A. grassa, Pfr. Proc. Zool. Soe. 204-1855. (Var.) Laminella porphyrea, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 180-1854-165-1856. Amastra porphyrea, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 650-1869. Manoa, Oahu. TA. porphyrostoma, Pse. (Amastra.) PI. I, f. 6. Proc. Zool. Soc. 649-1869. Amastra porphyrostoma, Pfr. Nomen. Hel. Viv. 311-1881. Oahu. Obs. This shell resembles examples of A. farcimen, Pfr. in Coll, Newcomb, from the Coll. Cuming.
é Ni AL SCIENCES OF DELPHIA. 1888 NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 49
TA. pusilla, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 23, f. 39-1853. Amer. Jour. Conch. ii, pl. x, iij, f. 5.
A. pulla, Pfr. Proce. Zool. Soe. 209-1855. Laminella pusilla, Pfr. Nomen. Hel. Viv. 334. Amastra pusilla, Pse. Proce. Zool. Soc. 650-1869.
Lanai. TA. reticulata, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 24, f. 54-1853.
A. transversalis, Pfr. Proc. Zool. Soe. 204-1855. A. conspersa, Pfr. Proce. Zool. Soc. pl. 30, f. 26-1853. Achatinellastrum reticulata, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 141-1854. Amastra reticulata, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 164-1856. Amastra reticulata, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 649-1869. Waianoe, Oahu. tA. rubens, Gld. (Achatinella.) Pro. Bost. Soc. 27-1845. Rve. Mon. pl. 6, f. 42b. Laminella rubens, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 129-1854—165-1856. Amastra Mastersii, Pfr. (Non Newe.) Amastra rubens, Pse. Proce. Zool. Soc. 650-1869. Oahu. fA. rubida, Gul. (Amastra.) Proc. Zool. Soe. pl. 10, f. 12-1873. Laminella rubida, Pfr. Nomen. Hel. Viv. 313-1881. Kahuku, Oahu fA. rudis, Pfr. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 3, f. 17-1855. A. chlorotica, Pfr. Proc. Zool. Soc. 205-1855. A. albida, Pfr. Proc. Zool. Soc. 202-1855. (Rudis var. B.) Laminella rudis, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 165-156. Oahu. TA. rustica, Gul. (Amastra.) Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 10, f. 17-1878. Kula, East Maui. Obs. This species may be only a variety of variegata, Pfr. Mr. Smith says rustica is allied to confiera, which latter may be another variety of variegata. TA. rugulosa, Pse. (Amastra.) Jour. Conch. xvij 95-1870. Kula, East Maui. Obs. This shell is near sphoerica, but the latter is larger and more depressed than rugulosa.
TA. sericea, Pfr. (Laminella.) Mon. Hel. Viv. iv, 179. Sandwich Islands. TA. spirozona, Fér. (Helix.) Mon. tab. 155, f. 14-15. A. boetica, Migh. Laminella spirozona, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 127-1854-156-1856. Amastra spirozona, Pse. Proce. Zool. Soc. 650-1869. Oahu.
50 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888.
A. sphoerica, Pse. (Amastra.) Jour. Conch. 1870. Jour. Conch. pl. 1, f. 5- 5a-1876. Lanai.
Oahu. TA. textilis, Fér. (Helix.) Pl.I,f. 8. Tab. Syst. Animal Moll, p. 56, No. 436-1819. A. ventulus, Rve. Mon. No. 31 (non Fér). A. microstoma, Gld. Proc. Bost. Soc. 25-1845. Laminella textilis, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 126-142-1854-164-1856. Amastra textilis, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 649-1869. Sandwich Islands.
+A. tristis, Fér. Helix (Cochlogena). Tab. Syst. Animal. Moll. p. 56, No. 435 1819.
Bulimus tristis, Pfr. Mon. Hel. Viv. ii, 240-1842.
A. fuliginosa, Gld. Proc. Bost. Soc. 28-1845. Laminella tristis, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 141-1854-164-1856. Amastra tristis, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 649-1869.
A. solida, Pse. (Amastra.) Jour. Conch. xviij 173-1869.
Palolo, Oahu. A. turritella, Fér. (Helix.) Hist. Moll. pl. 155, f. 13.
A. Oahuensis, Green. Mal. Lye. 1827.
Laminella turritella, Pfr. Nomen. Hel. Viv. 313.
Amastra turritella, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soe. 650-1869.
Sandwich Islands, 7A. umbilicata, Pfr. (Achatinella.) Pl. I, f.11. Proc. Zool. Soc. 205-1855. .
Laminella petricola, Pfr. Var. Mall. Blatt. 165-1856.
Sandwich Islands.
Obs. When in London I had the good fortune to obtain this rare shell, for G. M. Sowerby Esq. Dr. Newcomb affirms it to be a good species, in which I concur.
TA. uniplicata, Nobis. (Amastra.) PI. I, f. 7.
Shell dextral, solid, elongate oval, occasionally cylindrical, whorls 7, slightly rounded, the last somewhat inflated, suture impressed, longitudinally striate, aperture sub-oval, white; a single white elon- gate twisted plicee within; outer lip acute, color of the shell a pale ochre-yellow, concealed by a black epidermis.
L 20. D 9. Aperture 28. D 4. mill. Molokai.
Obs. This shell is from a different island from A. biplicata, Newe. which it resembles, the latter possesses more coarse longitudinal strix, and has a double plicee within, and the aperture is red, while uniplicata has a single plice, and the aperture is white. The Pease collection contained a large number of duplicates marked “new species” by Mr. Pease.
1888. ] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 51
7A. variegata, Pfr. (Achatinella.) Zeitsch. 90-1849. A. variegata, Chem. Tab. 67, f. 14-15. A, rubens, var. Rve. Mon. pl. 6, f. 42a. A. decepta, C. B. Adams. Conch. Cont. 127-1850. Laminella variegata, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 128-1854-165-1866. Amastra variegata, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 650-1869. Head of Boothes Valley, Oahu. Obs. This is a very variable species and the name may embrace others herein enumerated as distinct species. 7A. ventulus, Fér. (Helix). Tab. Syst. Animal. Moll. p. 56, No. 437-1819. (Non Rye). Achatinella melampoides, Pfr. Proc. Zool. Soc. 1851. Amastra melampoides, Pfr. Nomen. Hel. viv, 311-1881. Amastra ventulus, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 648-1869. Manoa, Oahu.
Section CARINELLA, Dr. L. Pfeiffer.
7C. Kauaiensis, Newe. (Achatinella.) Syn. Ann. Lyc. N. Y. pl. 18, f. 1-1860. Amer. Jour. Conch. ii, pl. 13, f. 1-1866. Leptachatina Kauaiensis, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 650-1869. Carinella Kauaiensis, Pfr. Nomen. Hel. Viv. 312-1881. Kauai. TC. obesa, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 23, f. 59-1853. A. obesa, var. agglutinans, Newe. Amastra carinata, Gul. Proc. Zool. Soc. 83-1873. Carinella carinata, Pfr. Nomen. Hel. Viv. 312. East Maut. Obs. Dr. Newcomb informs me that agglutinans and carinata are local varieties of obesa.
Section LEPTACHATINA, Dr. A. A. Gould.
7L. acuminata, Gld. (Achatinella.) Proc. Bost. Soc. 200-1848. Expd. Shells t. 7, f. 100.
Leptachatina acuminata, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 154-1854, -166-1856. Leptachatina acuminata, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 650-1869. Kauai. TL. antiqua, Pse. (Leptachatina.). (Sub fossil.) Jour. Conch. t. 13, f. 6-1876. Kauai. TL. balteata, Pse. (Leptachatina.) Jour. Conch. t. 4, f. 4-1876. Kauai. TL. brevicula, Pse. (Leptachatina.) Jour. Conch. 169-1869. Kauai.
52 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888.
+L. cerealis, Glad. (Achatinella.) Pl. I, f.13. Proc. Bost. Soc. 201-1848. Newcombia cerealis, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 119-1854. Amastra cerealis, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 164-1856. Leptachatina cerealis, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 166-1856. Waianea, Oahu. tL. cingula, Migh. (Achatinella.) Pl. I, f. 14. Proc. Bost. Soc. 21-1845. Achatinella dimidiata, Pfr. Proc. Zool. Soe. 205-1855. Bulimus cingula, Chem., t. 67, f. 57. Leptachatina cingula, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 144-1854-166-1856. Oahu. Obs. Achatinella dimidiata, Pfr. equals cingula, Migh. in Coll. Newcomb, ex Auct. The figure of this shell in Chemnitz does not represent the species, but equals an Amastra.
L. clausiana, Migh. (Bulimus.) Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist. 20-1845.
Hawaii. TL. compacta, Pse. (Leptachatina.) Jour. Conch. xviij—1869. Labiella compacta, Pfr. Mon. Hel. Viv. viij 219. Mau.
TL. corneola, Pfr. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soe. 90-1845.
Leptachatina corneola, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 144-1854, 166-1856.
Labiella corneola, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 651-1869.
Sandwich Islands. TL. coruscans, Nobis. Pl. I, f. 16.
Shell dextral, ovate, very thin and polished, spire one third the length ; apex obtuse, whorls 42, rounded, the last one and a half in- flated ; suture impressed, aperture semi-ovate, with a very thin white lamellar tooth near the base; labium slightly thickened within and white, color amber.
L 9. Diam 4}. L. apt. 3}. Diam. apt. 23.
Molokai.
Obs. This shell was received from Mr. D. D. Baldwin, it has the outline of L. brevicula, Pse. but is much larger and more polished.
TL. costulosa, Pse. (Leptachatina.) Jour. Conch. xviij—90-1870, t. 3, f. 4-1876. Kauai. Obs. Near L. striatula, Gld.
L. cylindrata, Pse. (Leptachatina.) Jour. Conch. 1869. Kauai. L. exilis, Gul. (Achatinella.) Ann. Lye. N. Y. vj t.6 f. 15. Leptachatina exilis, Pse. Proce. Zool. Soe. 651-1869. Oahu.
1888.] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 53
L. extensa, Pse. (Leptachatina.) Proc. Zool. Soc. 651-1869. Jour. Conch. 1870.
Kauai. +L. fumosa, Newe. (Achatinella,) Proc. Zool. Soc. t. 23, f. 28-1853 Leptachatina fumosa, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 143-1854-166-1856. Labiella fumosa, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soe. 651-1869. Manoa, Oahu. +. L. fusca, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc.. Zool. Soc. pl. 33, f. 44-1853, Achatinella striatella, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. t. 6, f. 6-1856. Achatinella petila, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. t. 6, f. 17-1856. Laminella fusea, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 165-1856. Leptachatina fusca, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soe. 651-1869.
Manoa, Oahu. L. fuscula, Gul. (Achatinella.) Ann. Lye. N. Y. vj, f. 8.
Leptachatina fuscula, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 651-1869. Molokana, Oahu,
TL. gracilis, Pfr. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 30. f. 22-1855.
Achatinella elevata, Pfr. Proce. Zool. Soc. 209-1855.
Achatinelia subula, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. vj, f. 19-1856.
Leptachatina elevata, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 164-1856.
Achatinellastrum elevata, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 164-1854.
Leptachatina gracilis, Pse. Proce. Zool. Soe. 651-1869.
Oahu. L: glutinosa, Pfr. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. 204-1855.
Achatinella lachryma, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. pl. 6, f. 4-1858. Achatinella glutinosa, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 165-1856. Leptachatina glutinosa, Pse. Proe. Zool. Soc. 651-1869.
Lehui, Oahu.
TL. guttula, Gld. (Achatinella.) Proc. Bost. Soc. 201-1845. Expd. Shells, t. 7, f. 98.
Leptachatina guttula, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 144-1854-166-1856. Achatinella gummea, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. vj pl. 6, f. 10. Achatinella fragilis,Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. vj pl. 6, f. 11.
East Maui.
TL. grana, Newe. (Achatinella.) Ann. Lye. N. Y. vj 29-1853. Proc. Zool. Soc. pl. 23, f. 46-1853.
Achatinella granifera, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. pl. 6, f. 13-1858. Achatinella vitriola, Gul. Ann. Lyc. N. Y. pl. 6, f. 23-1858. Achatinella parvula, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. pl. 6, f. 24-1858. Leptachatina grana, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 144-1854, 166-1856.
East Maui.
54 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF a
{L. Hartmani, Newe. (Leptachatina.) Ms. Coll. Newcomb. Achatinella extincta, Pfr. (sub fossil.) Proc. Zool. Soc. 204-1855. Laminella extincta, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 165-1856.
Leptachatina extincta, Pse. Proce. Zool. Soc. 651-1869. Oahu.
Obs. Dr. Newcomb having recent examples of this shell, has changed the name, the former being a misnomer.
fL. laevis, Pse. (Leptachinata.) Jour. Conch. xviij-91-1870. 97, pl. 4, f. 6— 1876.
Kauai. {L. lineolata, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soe. t. 23, f. 29-1853. Laminella lineolata, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 128-1856. Amastra lineolata, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 650-1869. Mawi. ©
Obs. Examples of this shell from Dr. Newcomb, exhibits it as a Leptachatina. S. lucida, Pse. (Leptachatina.) Proc. Zool. Soc. 651-1869.
Kauai. tL. margarita, Pfr. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. 206-1855. Achatinella granifera, Gul. Proc. Zool. Soc. 1873. Leptachatina margarita, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 166-1856. Oahu.
TL. nitida, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soe. t, 23, f. 30-1853. Achatinelia crystallina, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. vj pl. 6, f. 14. Leptachatina nitida, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 144-1854-166-1856.
Maui and Oahu.
TL. obclavata, Pfr. (Achatinella.) Mon. Hel. Viv. iv, 568. : Achatinella octogyrata, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. pl. 6, f. 18-1856. Achatinella turrita. Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. pl. 6, f 20-1856. Leptachatina obclavata, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 166-1856.
L. obtusa, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. 209-1855. One Leptachatina obtusa, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 166-1856. Sandwich Islands.
L. oryza, Pfr. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. 206-1855.
Achatinella tritacea, Gul. Ann. Lyc. N. Y. vj t. 6, f. 12.
Leptachatina oryza, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 166-1856. Oahu.
TL. pyramis,) Pfr. Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. 90-1845. Achatinella pyramis, Rve. Mon. t. 6, f. 41-1850. Achatinella leucocheila, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. vj t. 6, f. 1. (dwarf.)
Leptachatina pyramis, Pse. Proce. Zool. Soc. 651-1869. Kauai.
1888. ] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 5D
L. resinula, Gul. (Achatinella.) Ann. Lye. N. Y. Vj. t. 6, f. 2.
Leptachatina resinula, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 651-1869.
Oahu. L. saccula, Nobis. (Leptachatina.) pl. I, f. 15.
Shell dextral, ovate conic, thin and semi-pellucid, spire more than half the length. Whorls 6, slightly convex, the last inflated, suture well impressed, surface coarsely striate. Aperture roundly ovate, sub-umbilicate, columella white, with an oblong plice within ; inte- rior of labium white and slightly thickened ; color pale green.
L 10. Diam. 6. L aft. 4. Diam. 23 mill.
Hab. Sandwich Islands.
Obs. Three examples of this species were found amongst the du- plicates of the Pease collection. tL. succinata, Newe. (Achatimella.) Proc. Bost. Soc. 220-1855, Amer. Jour.
Conch. ii, t. 13, f. 7.
Achatinella marginata, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. vj pl. 6, f. 7.
Labiella suecincta, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soe. 651-1869.
Leptachatina succincta, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 166-1856.
Wahai, Oahu. L. saxitilus, Gul. (Achatinella,) Ann. Lyc. N. Y. vj. t. 6, f. 15. Leptachatina saxitilus, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 650-1869.
Oahu. L. sculpta, Pfr. (Achatina.) Mon. Hel. Viv. iv, 609. Leptachatina sculpta, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soe. 650-1869. Oahu. L. semicostata, Pfr. (Achatinella.) Mon. Hel. Viv. iv, 565. Achatinella costulata, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. vj t. 6, f. 5. Leptachatina semicostata, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 166-1856. Oahu.
Obs. Dr. Newcomb thinks it questionable if this species is not a synonym of L. fusca, Newe. TL. simplex, Pse. (Leptachatina.) Jour. Conch. 1869-70. : Hawa. Obs. Examples L. nitida, Newe. (coll. Newe.) and L. simplex, Pse. (coll. Pse.) are similar. L. stiria, Gul. (Achatinella.) Ann. Lye. N. Y. yj. t. 6, f. 22-1855.
Leptachatina stiria, Pfr. Nomen. Hel. Viv. 316-1881. Oahu. {L. striatula, Gid. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soe. 28, January 15-1845, Achatinella clara, Pfr. Proc. Zool. Soe. August, 1845. Leptachatina striatula, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 143-1854, 166-1856.
Kauai.
56 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888.
+L. tenuicostata, Pse. (Leptachatina.) Jour. Conch. 170-1869. Leptachatina tenuicostata, Pfr. Mail. Blatt. 166-1856.
Hawai. +L. tenebrosa, Pse. (Leptachatina.) Jour. Conch. t. 3, f. 5-1876. Kauai. L. terebralis, Gul. (Achatinella.) Ann. Lyc. N. Y. vj t. 6, f. 21. Leptachatina terebralis, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 651-1869, Oahu.
L. teres, Pfr. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. 206-1855. Leptachatina teres, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 651-1869. Sandwich Islands. +L. turgidula, Pse. (Leptachatina.) Jour. Conch. xviij—87—1870. Labiella turgidula, Pse. Jour. Conch. xviij-167. _ Leptachatina turgidula, Pse. Jour. Conch. 96-1876.
Kauai. +L. vitrea, Newe. (Achatinella.) Proc. Zool. Soc. t. 25, f. 24-1853.
Achatinella fumida, Gul. Ann. Lye. N. Y. vj t. 6, f 9-1853. (Dwarf.) Leptachatina vitrea, Pfr. Mall. Blatt. 144-1854-166-1856. Labiella vitrea, Pse. Proc. Zool. Soc. 651-1869. Manoah, Oahu.
EXPLANATION OF PuateE I.
No. 1 Partulina proxima, Pse. Typical. 2 Partulina proxima, Pse. Variety. “ 3 Achatinellastrum Nealii, Bald. Nobis.
4 Bulimella rosea, Swains. Variety,
5 Amastra farcimen, Pfr. Typical.
6 Amastra porphyrostoma, Pse. Type.
7 Amastra uniplicata, Nobis. Type.
8 Amastra textilis, Fér. Typical,
9 Amastra Huchinsonii, Pse. . Typical. 10 Amastra micans, Pfr. Typical. 11 Amastra umbilicata, Newe. Typical. 12 Leptachatina Hartmanii, Newe. Type. 13 Leptachatina cerealis, Gould. Type. 14 Leptachatina cingula, Mighls. Typical. 15 Leptachatina saceula, Nobis. 16 Leptachatina coruscans, Nobis.
1888. ] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 57
FEBRUARY 7. Mr. THoomas MrEnan, Vice-President, in the chair.
Twenty-four persons present.
The death of Geo. W. Tryon, Jr. on the 5th inst. having been announced the following minute was adopted :—
While this may not be the time to fully set forth the services which have been rendered to this Academy and to the scientific world by our departed member Geo. W. Tryon, Jr., yet it is fitting that the sad announcement of his death should be followed by im- mediate though brief expression of our sorrow.—Therefore be it
Resolved—That by the death of Mr. Tryon, the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia is bereft of one of its most faithful and useful workers—one whose devotion to the interests of the in- stitution has been proven during nearly thirty years in varied and responsible positions of trust, by repeated and generous gifts, and above all, by untiring labor for its advancement; and whose earnest- ness and assiduity in his chosen field of study have been rewarded with a well-earned celebrity which will forever connect his name with the history and progress of conchological science.
Resolved—That we are enabled by our own knowledge of his kindly, helpful and endearing qualities to sympathize heartily with his family in their irreparable loss.
Dr. W. S. W. Ruschenberger was appointed to prepare a bio- graphical notice of Mr. Tryon for publication in the Proceedings.
Frsrury 13. MEETING OF THE BorANICAL SECTION. The Director, Dr. W. S. W. RuscuENBERGER, in the chair.
The death of Dr. Asa Gray, on January 30, was announced and the following minute which had been adopted by the Academy at the meeting held February 7, was read :—
The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia has learned with deep sorrow of the death of Professor Asa Gray of Cambridge, Massachusetts, who was elected a correspondent in 1836. In plac- ing this record in our Proceedings we are unable to give adequate expression to our sense of the great loss which we, in common with
58 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888.
the whole world of science, have sustained. A life extending to nearly four score years has been wholly devoted to scientific investigation, mainly in his chosen department of Botany, in which his labors and philosophic insight have been attended with results that do honor to him and to his country. In entering upon the study of the flora of his native land, he early realized the imperfect character of its existing literature and turned his attention to the examination of the original tyjfes of various authors as found in the herbaria of North America and Europe. His ultimate object seems to have _ been the production of a complete flora of North America, which, though he lived to see far advanced, he was not permitted to entirely finish.
In the course of his studies his far reaching mind found deep in- terest in the difficult questions pertaining to the geographical dis- tribution of plants, and he was led to the discovery of the remarkable analogies between the flora of the Eastern United States and that of Eastern Asia. His reasoning upon this and kindred subjects pre- pared his mind to give respectful attention to the deductions made by Darwin, when they were first published, and though never a blind follower, he was one of the earliest scientists of our land to uphold the idea of progressive development, always maintaining its perfect harmony with theistic belief. Thus his labors in the botanical field have been utilized for the entire scientific world.
His interest in this Academy never abated; our library bears abundant evidence of his researches; our herbarium has been great- ly enhanced in value by his studies ofits types, and by his generous contributions; whilst his kind, genial and attractive presence at many of our meetings has endeared him to us all.—Therefore be it
Resolved—That this expression of our sorrow be communicated to his immediate family with the assurance of our deep sympathy with them in a loss which is so widely felt.
Resolved—Thait this record be entered in full upon our minutes and published in the Proceedings.
Mr. REDFIELD offered at the meeting of the Section, the following preamble and resolutions which were unanimously adopted :—
When in due course of nature a man eminent in his calling, con- spicuous as a large minded citizen and remarkable for his private virtues is taken from us it is a duty which his colleagues owe, not only to the memory of the departed, but to themselves that they
1888. | NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 59
should recognize by public expression the value of so distinguished a life to the times in which it was cast:—Therefore be it resolved,—
Ist. That in the death of Professor Asa Gray, the Botanical Section of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia recogni- zes the removal of one who stood without a rival in his chosen field. The magnitude of his work, the industry and ability with which it was executed, the clearness of insight, the truthfulness and accu- racy displayed in all that he undertook, have done more to elucidate the flora of North America, than the labors of any of his predeces- sors or cotemporaries.
2nd. That we desire here to record the fact, that as he was ever ready to aid his co-workers however humble, by his extensive know- ledge, his removal is deplored as a loss to the whole scientific com- munity.
3rd. That while his great intellectual attainments were combined with the charms of a pure life, a warm heart and a charitable dis- position which gave a rare loveliness to his whole character,—there were also added an inflexible purpose, an unyielding devotion to duty, and an allegiance to all right principle.
4th. That we will cherish his memory, and endeayor to follow the spirit and purpose of his life in science, by fostering that frater- nal feeling which he did so much to create among the botanists of our country.
5th. That while we trust that his removal hence is but the en- trance upon a nobler field of action, we desire to offer to Mrs. Gray and to other relatives our most profound sympathy in their be- reavement.
6th. That these resolutions be entered in full upon the minutes of the Section, be printed in the Proceedings of the Academy, and that a copy of them be transmitted to Mrs. Gray.
Mr. Wx. M. Cansy in seconding the resolutions said :—
One of the most remarkable men of our country and, as a scientist, the best known and most esteemed abroad of any American of our day, has passed from among us. The early advantages of AsA GRAY were not many. He was not a college-bred man in the ordi- nary acceptation of the term and his rise was due to his own genius and energy. It falls to me to-night to speak of him as a systematic botanist. It is difficult for our younger botanists to comprehend the low state of the science when Dr. Gray first became interested in it. Nothing of any moment had as yet been done except in systematic
60 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888.
botany. True there had been good workers in this department, and the labors of Bartram and Marshall, of Walter and Michaux, of Muhlenberg and Elliott, of Schweinitz, Pursh, Nuttall and others, have always been highly esteemed. Many foreign botanists, from the time of Linnzeus onward, had described American species. The labors of these had laid a foundation for North American botany. But many of the descriptions were in diverse and scattered publica- tions and were often incomplete or faulty. Thesynonymy had become much confused. Vast regions now well known, were then terre incognite. Even the flora of so near a district as the pine lands of New Jersey was almost unknown.
Nothing daunted, the young botanist, encouraged by the late Dr. Beck of Albany and yet more by his life-long friend and associate Dr. Torrey, gave up the practice of medicine and devoted his whole time to his tavorite science. So far as I know he was the first American to fully do this. Almost at once the effect of his carefuk and excellent labor began to appear and much preliminary work was soondone. Dr. Torrey had seen the manifest need of a new and better “Flora of North America.” Here was one who could not only assist him but take the main burden of the work; and soon the now classic “Torrey and Gray’s Flora” began to appear. Any one familiar with this work must have noticed how rapidly the deserip- tions improved as the work went on, and what a vast amount of new material the collections of Nuttall, Fremont, James and other explor- ers of our western Territories brought into it. While the species were thus well studied and the new ones admirably described, the fullest and most generous credit was always given to the discoveries. and labors of others. But collections of the plants of the great western regions, from public and private sources, began to come, in most embarrassing richness. It became evident that the further publishing of the “Flora” must be delayed until the floral wealth of the great interior could be better known. It was also necessary that the synonymy of the earlier described species should be settled. So, for a brief period, Dr. Gray studied these in Enropean herbaria and gardens. Twice afterward he made similar studies with most im- portant results. Soon after his return from his first visit abroad, came the call to Cambridge and his settlement at the Botanic Garden there. From this time onward he stood in the very front rank as a botanist. His energy and industry were unceasing, and his work, by no means confined to systematic botany or to the plants
1888. ] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 61
of our own country, went forward rapidly and well. Less than a year ago I was told by the Governor of the Fiji Islands that Dr. Gray’s work upon the flora of those distant lands was still the foun- dation of their systematic botany. His researches into the flora of Japan and China are well known. Soon the “Manual of Botany” appeared with its excellent arrangement and its clear and accurate descriptions. Who can measure the influence of that work upon the botany of our country or the effect it has had to create and increase an interest in the science. At last, after an amount of well directed labor and research which could have been applied by no other man, and after very many “contributions” of new species and “monographs” of difficult and little known genera had come from his pen, the time seemed ripe for a real and comparatively complete “Flora of Notth America” to appear. We all know how two volumes of this were issued and, in a second edition, extended and improved; and how fondly we had hoped, knowing how un- impaired was his mental and physical vigor, that the whole might have been finished before death claimed him. This was not to be; but we can never be sufficiently thankful that so much which he alone could give was made free to all.
What estimate shall we place upon his work in this department of the science? None but the very highest would be just. To me it seems as if the systematic botany of our country owes nearly every thing to Dr. Gray. Much that he did not do personally gvas done under his eye or by his advice and approbation. He it was who brought order out of confusion and having made stable and secure the foundation of this branch of the science, erected thereon a noble edifice which his tireless energy well nigh completed.
But no man could have done this who was less richly gifted than Asa Gray, for he had that clear insight and prescience which is genius rather than talent. In him, with eminent ability to detect the relations of genera and species, were combined a rare faculty of conveying his own knowledge to others by felicitous and accurate description, and the conscientious truthfulness which would allow no work to be carelessly or incompletely done.
Would that it were my place also to bear testimony to his great- ness of soul. But this I must leave to others,—only saying, what all will recognize as true, that in the death of Dr. Gray we have, in the largest sense, lost the best as well as the greatest of American botanists.
62 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888-
Prof. J. T. RorHrock then said:—
I desire here to speak of Asa Gray simply as a teacher, and shall not allude to his rich and rounded career in any other relation, except so far as may be required to bring out the teacher more fully. His work as a systematist will receive fuller and better consideration from others, than I could hope to give it.
Directly or indirectly almost all the botanical teachers and in- vestigators of this country owed their training, or their inspiration to Professor Asa Gray. If they had not been directly trained under his eye, they were at least taught by those who had been, or had used the text-books prepared by him for the special purpose of diffusing a popular knowledge of botany. Two of his least preten- tious books,—‘“How Plants Grow” and “How Plants Behave” are veritable missionaries which daily impart some worthy lesson to thousands of children all over the land. We can hardly think of a time when these books will cease to be read, or to be popular.
In each generation there are a few men to whom “the world owes its most notable impulses.” One may well say that the life and labors of Charles Darwin illustrate this statement fully; and with equal propriety we may claim, that so far as our own country is con- cerned, the teaching and example of Asa Gray were, no less note- worthy.
There comes a time in the history of almost every ambitious youth, bent upon an intellectual life, when he is called upon to decide what special career he will select. His earliest ambition to become a master in the whole realm of knowledge is found to be worse than a dream. His first intention was to have devoted a year to one celebrated in- structor and another year to a second, and so on, until he should lay the broad and solid foundation upon which his great learning and reputation might rest. I have known such ambitious students, and I have known them to become pupils of Professor Gray, with the full intention of leaving him at the end of a year or two, to seek instruction in another department of Science, from another teacher: but of that number, very few ever completed their proposed course of study. The charm of Professor Gray’s manner, his kindness of heart, no less than the constantly widening views which unfolded under his instruction, wedded them to botany for life. Yet I never knew him to say, or even intimate, that one should elect his branch over anothers. There have been students to whom botany - was far from a favorite branch, but in less than six months, the
1888. | NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 63
great, warm-hearted teacher had won the pupil to himself and to botany forever. Had Asa Gray been a man of but medium attain- ments, his transparent and unselfish goodness would alone have made him a model teacher, whose example and whose memory a student must have revered to the end.
Yet of all this personal power which Gray the teacher wielded, not a trace was due to toleration of half done work. On the contrary if he had a characteristic which absolutely predominated, it was thoroughness. Not once in years did I ever know him to rest satis- fied until he had obtained from a pupil the best results possible under the circumstances. From the outset he not only encouraged, but required a student to see, think and conclude for himself: often without aid from books and always without unnecessary aid from him. This may appear to many as harsh treatment, but systems of teaching can only be judged by their result, and in this ight Pro- fessor Gray’s method stands abundantly vindicated. How wretched the system of education which “crams” a lad with facts and leaves him unable to stand alone when beyond the authority of the preceptor. To the fullest extent Doctor Gray recognized this, and to prevent such a result insisted on mental discipline which left the student with a well-grounded confidence in his own powers. But on the other hand a student never could learn presumptuous trust from a teacher who had nothing of the kind Dimself. Those who received from Professor Gray the largest share of judicious “letting alone” were the ones disposed to hunt an easy solution to their problems. It was never enough to simply reach a result in work. His common custom was to question and cross question until there could be no doubt in the mind of either teacher or taught, that the result was fairly obtained. Often the conclusion of the student was treated as a thesis to be sustained.
Dr. Gray not seldom assigned to his advanced students, subjects for original investigation and of course required a written report, often for publication. Nothing shows more clearly his conscien- tiousness as a teacher than his strictness concerning these reports. It was not sufficient that the conclusions should be correct, but they must be stated in exactly the right way. An artistic turn of a sen- tence, making it graceful as well as logical, was in his eyes of the utmost importance. “There now, that is neatly stated,” is an ex- pression which yet rings in my ears. It was uttered by Doctor Gray, when at last I had succeeded in “putting a point” as he thought
64 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888.
it should be. I had written my first scientific paper at least six times, and each time thought it was as well done as could be; certainly as well done as I was capable of doing it. But my critic was merciless. — I mentally resolved each time, that I would not re-write it; but I did re-write it; and was obliged to continue doing so until he thought it might be allowed to pass. I can see now the benefit of all that criticism. It was the most helpful lesson I ever received in the art of stating things. How much easier it would have been for Professor Gray to have made a mere perfunctory criticism, and then allowed the paper to have gone, with the statement,—it will do, but it should have been better! The fact that he did not do so, however, is just the point that I desire to bring out in illustration of his conscientious discharge of duty. I have no doubt he sighed more over having to take time to re-read it, than I did over having to re-write it. But, though to him lost time, he was good enough to regard it as a duty, — and as such he did it. His character as a teacher came out in the fact that he did not allow it to pass. It was this disregard of his own time when a duty to a student was apparent, which places him now so high in the esteem of scores of pupils.
During working hours Professor Gray would allow no talking for talk-sake, at least but fora moment. He would, however, volunteer a hint, to place a student on the track in a difficult problem, or if necessary he would cheerfully give an hour for the same purpose, though he would not reveal anything which it were better that the student should discover for himself.
So far as I am aware he never forgot or lost interest in any one whom he had instructed. This is certainly true of those who had spent any considerable period with him. ‘Time and time again, have I known him to be on the watch for a chance to help a student make an honorable name. Is it strange then that all over the land there are those who have heart aches when it is remembered we shall see that loved teacher no more?
When a great, good leader has been taken it hardly alters the case that he went full of years and honor. We are even then not ready to spare him. We never would have been ready to spare Asa Gray.
Each year the aspect of a science changes and some new phase becomes the popular one: and this for the time being is apt to be re- garded, as, if not the whole, then at least as the better or the major part of the science. It is simply the expression of an old human
1888. ] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 65
weakness, which tries to make a part appear greater than the whole of a thing. An individual of great force of character, may if he desires, impress his associates with an idea of the supreme impor- tance of his particular, partial line of study. But after all we only discover the solid bulk of anything when it is viewed from all sides. This is intended to bear especially upon the fact that Professor Gray’s teaching lay mainly, but by no means exclusively in the line of systematic botany. Just now there is a decided tendency to give more attention to morphological and physiological botany than ever before, which is right; and to discourage systematic botany, which iswrong. Itis merely atemporary swing of the pendulum. Gravity will at length place all these lines of botanical thought, as they de- serve to be, on an even plane. It should, however, be said that those who disparage the systematic side to which Doctor Gray leaned, and on which he mainly taught, have as a rule had so little training in it, that they fail to comprehend its full meaning. Even mere analy- sis of a plant may, nay must, if properly taught, indicate beside the name, those broader relationships which express, or suggest the lines of descent by which the plant hascome down tous. If itis a grand study, and it surely is, to follow the development of the individual from the egg or cell to the adult condition, is it not a much grander and broader problem to follow the evolution of the species or the genus?
Further, it should be stated that Professor Gray’s work and teach- ing was directly in the natural sequence of events. Above all, it is to be remembered that the most timely work is always the most valuable. The first, most pressing task in the botany of any country is to correctly name and arrange its plants. This is a pre-requisite condition upon which the record of all other botanical studies then, and the diffusion of all knowledge thence, must rest. Jt was to the completion of this great, this necessary work that Professor Gray was bending all his strength.
It is well, however, to come to the clear statement, that no one in America, and but very few in Europe were so fully and practically acquainted with the latest thought and latest observations in all de- partments of botany as was the subject of this sketch. He could discuss just as clearly the functions of chlorophyll, or the dual nature of lichens, or the relation of a plant to its environment, as he could the relation of one American species to another, or of an Eastern United States plant to one from far away Japan. Let it then be
66 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [ 1888.
stated, that judged by the broadest standard, as a teacher, Asa Gray stood perfectly rounded in his knowledge. If any one can doubt this, let him but read the critical reviews which during the past twenty years Professor Gray has written for the American Journal of Science, and be convinced. Indeed the wide range of his exact knowledge was wonderful. But vast as were his attainments, and vast as was the sum of all that he has written, his strongest claim to a perpetual remembrance does not rest there. His was the task of starting a generation of teachers in the right direction. True, the times were ripe for the coming of Professor Gray; but how much more meagre the harvest would have been if he had not come! Certainly it could not have been what his care and culture have made it! It is a great thing to write a good book. It is a greater thing to write a clearer book for a country than had been produced before. But it was greatest of all, to take the young, ambitious na- turalists of this growing and educationally immature country and teach them how to teach others, not only as to facts, but as to methods. The value of this labor passes comprehension, for its ultimate effects ever widening, reach far out into the future. Facts may be lost sight of, theories disproven, hypotheses rejected as insufh- cient, but men will henceforth never lose a key which unlocks realms of knowledge. Asa Gray’s whole life as teacher and as inves- tigator has been the model of a master key. Those who have his patience, his honesty, his genial faith in his associates will best un- lock the secrets of our flora so long as any remain unrevealed.
Think of him in what relation we may, he stands out in strong light for inspection, the picture of a “manly man.’’ Was he with- out fear? It was because he was without reproach. If to the last, his cheerfulness and mental buoyancy amazed even those who knew him best, it was because the elasticity of his love of God and man enabled him to reach beyond the limits which age usually im- poses, clear into the sunlight of eternal youth.
Asa Gray has gone to his rest. We mourn his removal from our midst: but we are thankful for the honor he cast upon this land, throughout the length and breadth of which his name is revered. More than this, we his associates and pupils are especially grateful for the example of kindness and conscientious devotion which he has left us; as well as for the methods of study which he inculcated and so well illustrated in his own daily Jife and labor.
1888.] | NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 67
Prof. W. P. Wrtson said :—
I wish to offer a few words on the relation sustained by Dr. Asa Gray to the various leading scientific societies and naturalists of the old world. I do this all the more gladly because like some others of our true scientific men he was known better abroad than in his own land. I do not wish to say that Dr. Gray was not well known at home, for he was. His series of text-books, eight in all, has in- troduced his name wherever botany is well taught, but had his celebrity in this country depended on his scientific papers and books not intended for the general reader, he might have been almost as unknown to the masses as Jeffries Wyman, who wrote no text-books but made some very important additions to science and consequently was much better known in England and on the Continent than here. In this country, to the great majority of individuals who had seen or heard of Dr. Gray, his name was inseparably connected with the finest set of text books ever issued in the English language. Only a few botanists and friends knew of his incessant labor on original ques- tions, and that the results of this work were frequently published in the proceedings of the different societies. It was this latter kind of work which rapidly gained for him abroad a great recognition.
While Dr. Gray in his early career labored incessantly at his chosen work, went on numerous collecting tours, prepared important papers on the Grasses and Sedges, gave lectures on botany in two or three schools and colleges, published several minor papers in differ- ent societies and made himself indispensable in the early work of the Flora of North America which Dr. Torrey had already begun—he was known only to a very limited circle at home.
This activity, accuracy and ability in botany had already made him through his collecting and papers quite a reputation abroad and had as early as 1836 secured for him membership in three foreign societies: The Royal Academy of Sciences of Stockholm in 1829, the Imperial Academy Naturze Curiosorum, Warsaw, 1835, and the Royal Botanical Society of Regensburg (Ratisbon) 1836.
Dr. Gray’s visits ‘to Europe were in all six. He first went for botanical study in November 1838, returning in the November or the following year. The progress of the North American Flora re- quired the study and comparison of the many collections which in earlier times had been sent over from America to the European herbaria.
68 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF , (1888.
In Glasgow he was the guest of Dr. W. J. Hooker. Among those whom he met in England at this time were George Bentham, Robt. Brown, Balfour, Lindley, Boott, Bauer, Lambert, Greville and a score of others. Upon finishing his work in England he went to the Continent pushing his undertaking with great vigor. In the course of his extended tour he visited Paris, Lyons, Vienna, Munich, Geneva, Halle, Berlin, Hamburg and other cities, and made the ac- quaintance of such men as Jussieu, Brongniart, Decaisne, Mirbel, Adrien, Gaudichaud, Gay, Delile, Duval, Endlicher, von Martius, Zuccarini, the De Candolles, Ehrenberg, Schlechtendal, Klotzsch, Kunth, Link, Lehmann and many more.
It will be seen that in this, his first visit to Europe, he made the acquaintance of many botanists already eminent, and others who like himself were later to become so. This was one of the most im- portant years in his life. Acquaintances were made which were life-long ; correspondences were opened and exchanges of plants and works begun which were alike helpful to all parties. It must be admitted that in America Dr. Gray had no equal, but in Europe there were many who were working on kindred problems and to whom he might turn for scientific companionship. Upon returning home he prosecuted the work on the “ Flora” with his ae- customed energy and by the spring of 1841 had issued the first 184 pages of Vol. II.
Passing over ten years of hard work in collecting, writing and teaching at Cambridge, we find him in June of 1850 in a sailing vessel for a second time on his way to Europe. His object now was a study of the plants of the Wilkes Exploring Expedition.
After travelling in Switzerland, working for a time in DeCandolle’s herbarium at Geneva and visiting von Martius at Munich, he went with Mrs. Gray to the country place of Mr. George Bentham in Hertfordshire and spent two months there, going over in company with Mr. Bentham, the entire collection which had been sent out from America.
He next went to Sir Wm. Hooker’s house at Kew, London, to study collections there.
A visit of six weeks to Paris with work in P. Barker Webb’s herbarium and at the Jardin des Plantes was followed by nearly four months stay in London with study at the British Museum. Robert Brown was then living. For him Dr. Gray entertained the most profound respect, rating him as he ever after did, as one of the greatest of philosophical botanists.
1888. ] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 69
In 1855 he made his third journey, visiting some of his old friends but remaining from home but six weeks. His fourth trip to England and the Continent was made in 1868. Between the years 1855, the date of the last visit, and 1868 much valuable work had been done. He had issued his “Structural and Morphological Botany” which had no rival in America, and no superior in Europe. It was a model of clearness and conciseness in its methods of treating the general morphology of the plant and especially that of the flower.
The “Manual” had been published and was already recognized as. worthy a place by the side of Koch’s German Flora. No higher praise could have been given to it. ‘The two Manuals were regarded as models of clearness and brevity in description.
The work, also that on the Flora of North America, had been con- stantly carried on, besides the publication of various papers on botan- ical subjects, the most important of which was: “ Relation of the Japanese Flora to that of North America.’ This had been a very remarkable piece of work, requiring close reasoning and comparison, all the more remarkable because the geological and palaeontological work on the fossil flora of the North by Heer had then not been done. The “Principles of Variation in Species” soon to be made known by Charles Darwin’s “Origin of Species” was yet unpub- lished. Both of these works might have given great help toward the solution of the problem in hand. It is safe to say that this last work made him known to every active thinker in Europe.
What wonder is it then, that after the very successful issue of his valuable text-books, after many additions to the North American Flora and the publication of numerous papers including the last one mentioned on geographical distribution, this fourth visit abroad in 1868, should have been one continued ovation? Leaving home in September he spent this and the following autumn at Kew, hard at work. Inthe interim, visiting Paris, he renewed old acquaintances ; worked with von Martius in Munich and with DeCandolle in Geneva, and visited various herbaria all over the Continent before returning to England.
Something of the high regard in which his scientific labors were held at this time may be gathered from the fact that when he sailed for home in 1869 he had been made a member of nearly every Royal Scientific Society in Europe.
He was in Europe twice after this; first in 1880, remaining about ayear. He visited Paris, the Herbarium at Madrid, Spain, most of
70 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888.
the Italian herbaria and then settled down at Kew for hard work, receiving plants for comparison from many of the German and other continental herbaria. Some time was, however, given to the visiting
of old friends.
The last visit to Europe was made in April, 1887, returning in October of same year. A little work was done at Kew, and the Lamarck Herbarium at the Jardin des Plantes was carefully ex- amined. Otherwise the time was devoted to pleasant travel and old. friends. Returning in October, he had planned among other work the writing of his Recollections of European Botanists.
Dr. Gray was known both in England and on the continent not alone as a botanist, but as one of the ablest exponents of evolution. In the early times after the publication of the “ Origin of Species” he was its most out-spoken defender in America. His articles at this time were often copied by the English journals. He did not accept the theory in its entirety. Many letters of Darwin’s attest how fully the latter relied on his judgment and support—Darwin
says in one of his letters to Dr. Gray “ you never touch the subject ) yo J
without making it clearer,” “I look at it as even more extraordinary that you never say a word or use an epithet which does not fully ex- press my meaning,” “others who perfectly understand my book, yet sometimes use expressions to which I demur.” And again in the same letter he writes “ I hope and almost believe that the time will come when you will go further, in believing a much larger amount of modification of species, than you did at first or do now.”
When the history of the development theory is written no small part will be given to him whom we commemorate.
More than one continental botanist has had reason to venerate our teacher and leader in botany fully as much as Mr. Darwin. His criticism-and kindly advice was freely given when asked and often proved invaluable.
Prof. THomas MrEHAN remarked that he desired to dwell some- what more fully upon a trait of Dr. Gray’s character which the previous speakers had touched only incidentally. The whole world of science owed a debt to Dr. Gray for his botanical labors; but he was not sure but the greater debt was due to his unpublished work, namely his kind helpfulness to other workers. Many had been made scientific students, many had even become eminent in usefulness, solely by the early encouragement received from Dr. Gray. If he might be-
1888.] ° NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 71
pardoned for referring to his own history, he would say that few have had better opportunity of knowing Dr. Gray in this respect than he himself. In 1857, at the instance of a friend he was led to open a correspondence with Dr. Gray upon the constant differences between the European and American forms of Spiraea salicifolia. Nothing could be kinder than the reply which urged him to continue his observations, saying that former authors had made the American form a distinct species under the name of S. carpinifolia and that Dr. Gray might probably adopt this name in the next edition of the Manual. The subsequent appearance of Darwin’s “Origin of Species” so changed the hitherto prevailing idea of specific types that it is no wonder that it did not appear in the next edition under a dis- tinct name. But the encouragement given to the obscure young man was not lost. It led to a closer observation of similar phenom- ena, and the paper on the relative characters of American and Eu- ropean species, which subsequently received the approval of Darwin, Mivart and others, was the result of the encouragement given in that letter. That and many subsequent papers were submitted to Dr. Gray before publication, and not presented without his approval ; and it was not till later, after he had caught up with the whole lit- erature of the subject, that he ventured to stand alone without the aid of his early friend and monitor.
Prof. Meehan then spoke of his long and frequent correspondence with Dr. Gray, growing out of his own editorial position. From month to month Dr. Gray would send his criticisms upon his edito- rial work. These were occasionally sharp and adverse, but always judicious, encouraging and kind, and Mr. Meehan cited many in- stances illustrative of this.
It was characteristic of Dr. Gray to give the same attention to the poorest and most obscure, as to the most prominent, if only he found them to be earnest searchers for truth. It had been said that he was hard to convince, but this was because he himself had taken so much pains to reach the truth. Nothing but positive evidence would lead him to set aside a conclusion at which he had arrived; but when
once such evidence was produced, no one accepted it more readily —
or gracefully, and hence he was even more merciless in judging of his own work, than that of others. Of this readiness to re- verse his own decisions, and do justice to others, Prof. Meehan gave many pleasant instances. Few men could have a warmer heart towards friends than Dr. Gray—but this did not lead him to ig-
72 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888.
nore their faults, nor prevent him from expressing his views of them. Tender, loving and considerate as he always was, he could be caustic and severe when he believed the good of science demanded it. Once a very zealous collector to whom science was under many obligations, described and published a large number of plants, from imperfect material, with undue haste and without com- petent knowledge. Dr. Gray had to show that really there were very few new species among them, and in so doing his criticism was unusually severe. Mr. Meehan in writing to Dr. Gray ventured to remonstrate with him upon the severity which he hadused. The reply was, “In my heart, I would have been more tender than you, but I cannot afford to be. I am, from my position before the world, a critic, and I cannot shrink from the duty which such a position imposes upon me. If you were in the position that I am, with a short life and a long task before you, and just as you thought the way was clear for progress, some one should dump cart loads of rub- bish in your path, and you had to take off your coat, roll up your sleeves and spend weeks in digging that rubbish away before you could proceed, I should not suppose you would be a model of amia- bility.”
In giving these recollections Prof. Meehan hoped that he should be pardoned for so much allusion to his own history, but it was be- cause that history bore such full and rich testimony to the critical acumen, the kind judgment, the friendly aid and the warm and loy- ing heart of the man as well as the scientist, whom we this evening commemorate.
Mr. Isaac C. MARTINDALE then spoke of Professor Gray’s en- couragement to young students, and of his willingness always to aid them in their studies; this he was able to testify from his own exper- ience, having been again and again assisted while engaged with perplexing botanical problems: he also spoke of the genial, kind and social dispusition ever displayed, and which made the name of Professor Gray a household word in so many homes. He gave an interesting account of a botanical excursion to the mountains of North Carolina made in 1884 in company with this greatest of American botanists, referring to the readiness with which he recalled the names of all the plants met with during the journey, showing not only his perfect familiarity with the names of the species but also his most remarkable memory.
1888. ] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 73
FEBRUARY 14. The President, Dr. JosepH Lerpy, in the chair.
Twenty-two persons present.
On the resemblance of the primitive foraminifera and of ovarian Ova.—Prof. Ryprer remarked that upon cutting sections of nearly mature ovarian ova with their investing membrane, zona radiata, in place, it was found that, in quite a number of cases, fine protoplas- mic processes or pseudopods extended from the peripheral layer of protoplasm of the egg, through iis capsule or zona and joined the cells of the granulosa or discus proligerus. This arrangement re- minded one forcibly of the filamentous pseudopods extended from a Heliozoén or of the slender pseudopods extended through the per- forations in the walls of the single chambers of Globigerina. This resemblance was all the more suggestive if one will compare a section of one of the chambers of a Globigerina made through the calcareous shell and its contained protoplasm with a similar section through the ovum of the Gar Pike, where the zona is formed of pillars of homogenous matter. Such prolongations of pseudopods through the investing zona radiata in the case of many species of ani- mal forms, shows fairly well that this must be the principal means by which new matter is taken up from without and incorporated, as there is no direct extension of the vascular system into the egg, by which it can take up nutriment. It is thus seen that the early stages of the growing ovum, not only resemble some of the lower forms of Helizoa and Foraminifera as respects the grade of their morphological differentiation but also as to the mode in which they exhibit their nutritive or physiological activities. This resemblance is still further heightened if a form like Orbulina is compared with certain stages of the development of ova. It is thus seen that, in many cases, the ovarian germ, at least, passes through a stage which may be morphologically as well as physiologically compared with some of the lowest grades of the Protozoa.
Chaetopterus from Florida:—Prof. Letpy directed attention to specimens which were collected in the trip of Prof. Heilprin and Mr. Willcox, at the mouth of the Manatee River. The species appears to be the Chaetopterus pergamentaceus of Cuvier, originally des- eribed from specimens from the West Indies. It is a remarkable form. It belongs to the Tubicolae or tube-living worms, but unlike most of these, is devoid of the numerous cephalic appendages, or tentacles and gills. The tube is membranous and laminated in structure and it has the appearance of parchment. The two tubes collected are 16 inches long by jths of an inch in diameter, and tapering towards the ends. ‘An incomplete worm, not well preserved on account of its delicacy, in its present condition i is 9 inches long,
6
74 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888.
and appears very narrow in comparison with the capacity of its tube. The anterior division of the body, about an inch long, is flattened, and about half as wide, but narrowing behind, and is composed of eight podal segments provided with dense bunches of lustrous, golden setae. The succeeding segment, long and narrow, is provided with a pair of wing-like appendages an inch long, and each furnished with two bundles of diverging setae. Then follow five long narrow seg- ments with large membranous appendages, without setae. The terminal segments, of which 15 remain in the specimen, are furnish- ed with pairs of long pointed appendages with bundles of setae.
FEBRUARY 21. The President, Dr. Lerpy, in the chair. Twenty-one persons present. The following papers were presented for publication :—
“Researches upon the general physiology of Nerves and Muscles.” By Henry C. Chapman M. D. and A. P. Brubacker M. D.
“Notes on an aquatic insect larva with jointed dorsal appendages.” By Adele M. Fielde.
Necessity for Revising the Nomenclature of American Spiders.—Dr- McCook remarked that during the summer of 1887, while visiting the Zoological Library of the British Museum of Natural History, he gained information which may revolutionize, or at least compel a radical revision of the nomenclature of American spiders.
His interest in these animals being known by some of the zoolo- gists in the room, his attention was called to a volume of unpublished figures of American spiders then in the library. These drawings were made by Mr. John Abbot, an Englishman settled in Savannah during the latter part of the eighteenth century. The figures were made as early as 1792. At least they bear that date. Mr. Abbot is well known to entomologists by his work upon lepidoptera, pub- lished in connection with Mr. Smith. This book proved to be the volumes, long supposed to be lost, of original drawings from which Baron Walckenaer described the numerous species from Georgia which are found m his Natural History of Apterous Insects.’
1«The Natural History of the rarer lepidopterous insects of Georgia. Including their systematic characters, the particulars of their several metamorphoses and the plants on which they feed. Collected from the observations of Mr. John Abbot, many years resident in that country, by James Edward Smith M. D. 2 Vol’s, fol. London, 1797.”
* Histoire Naturelle des Insectes. Aptéres. Vols. I. and II. Suites a Buffon. 1837.
1888. | NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 75
It was known, of course, from Walckenaer’s introduction to his descriptions that he had purchased Abbot’s' drawings of over five hundred species of spiders and other arachnids; that he also had the manuscript drawings made by Bose of South Carolina spiders. But Americans seem to have been in ignorance of what had become of these drawings, and the fact that they were in the Zoological Lib- rary appears to have escaped the observation of the little circle of British students of araneads; at least the speaker could recall no reference made to them in current literature. It was not until the above incident that an American student was known to have a clew to the whereabouts of the valuable volume which the British Mus- eum is so fortunate as to possess.” How the book happened to come into its present place, or in what manner it was procured from Baron Walckenaer or his executors, Dr. McCook was not able to say.
On the day when the discovery was made, he had engagements which prevented him giving more than an hour or two to the study of the figures, and as he was about to leave London, no further oppor- tunity presented for making extended notes. However, he was able at once to recognize a number of species which have long and fa- miliarly been known under the names published by Hentz. He took notes of a number of these species, principally among the orbweav- ers, a group with which he was at present particularly engaged. He also took the numbers under which the figures are listed by Abbot. :
After returning to America Dr. McCook went over Walckenaer’s descriptions, comparing them with his own notes, and found that there is no doubt at all as to the identity of these drawings with the original ones from which Walckenaer described his published spe- cies. The number of Abbot’s figures as they appear in the manu- scripts correspond with the numbers cited by Walckenaer in his references to the same. Moreover, Walckenaer’s descriptions, view- ed in the light of the speaker’s recollection of the drawings, together with his own notes and identification on the spot, remove all doubt as to the identity of at least a considerable number of the species.
The importance of this discovery is seen in view of the following facts: Walckenaer published his descriptions of Georgia species in 1837; Professor Hentz, the father of American Araneology, made: his publications in the Proceedings and Journal of the Boston So- ciety of Natural History beginning with the year 1841, and con- tinued until 1850. The latter have been gathered together and
1 Walckenaer erroneously refers to the author as “Thomas” Abbot; his name is “John.”
2 The full title of the book is “Drawings of the Insects of Georgia in America by John Abbot of Savannah. Vol. XIV, 1792.’’ Zoological Library of the British Museum of Natural History, London.
76 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888.
published in book form under the title of “The Spiders of the United States,” edited by Edward Burgess and with notes by Mr. Emerton."
Hentz had some previous papers of no very great consequence, and in 1835 he published a simple list of 125 species arranged under the genera to which he supposed that they belonged. This was in the Second Edition of Hitchcock’s Report of the Geology of Massa- chusetts, (1835.) An examination of this list shows that it includes a number of the species which Walckenaer described in 1837 from the drawings of Abbot. So far then as the bare publication of these names is concerned Hentz has a priority of two years.
The question of priority involved is yet more complicated by the fact that the second volume of Walckenaer’s work, containing many of the American species and all the orbweavers, bears a date whose integrity is seriously questioned. The title page gives “1837” as the year of publication, the same as that rightly borne by the first vol- ume; but Dr. T. Thorell, who is one of the highest living authorities in Araneology, declares that this volume “did not come out till 1841.” This fact, however, does not seriously effect the points in issue, as only a few species of the Mygalidae were published by Hentz in 1841;° all the remaining species were published during and subsequent to 1842.
The attitude of American students of spider fauna toward Walck- enaer’s descriptions alluded to above has been something after the fashion of the famous Scotch verdict “not proven.” In other words, in the absence of any types or specimens anywhere existing to which his descriptions might be referred; in the absence of the original drawings from which his descriptions were made, for none (or only one) of them were made from the specimens themselves; and in the absence of any knowledge as to whether those drawings anywhere existed, it was generally conceded, so far as there was any thought or action on the matter at all, that Walckenaer’s descriptions must be considered as non-existent. The priority, therefore, of all the descriptions made by Hentz has been heretofore universally allowed, even though some of Walckenaer’s descriptions are sufficiently clear to show without the aid of figures that he had in mind the same species covered under different names by Hentz. Dr. McCook be- lieved that on the whole this decision was a righteous one, and that up to this date no claim could have been established in favor of Walckenaer’s priority.
However, a question now arises which it is necessary to face and in some way settle. Does not the discovery of the original drawings in the Zoological Library of the British Museum put an entirely
1 Boston: Boston Society of Natural History, 1875.
> Thorell: “On European Spiders,” Nova Acta Reg. Soc. Sci. Upsaliensis; Ser. 3rd, Vol. VII., p. 15, foot note. The text indicates that he knows “with certainty that such date was incorrectly given.”
3 Mygale truncata, solstitialis, carolinensis, gracilis and unicolor. See Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist. I, pp. 41-42. :
1888. ] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 17
new phase upon the matter? Shall we not be compelled, in view of the fact that there can now be no doubt of the identity of Walcken- aer’s species, to give the priority to him?
The very few “American students of our spider fauna have become so familiar with many of Walckenaer’s species under Hentz’s names, that it will be difficult to throw those names out of mind. Moreover they have entered into all our literature up to this date, and there will be great confusion in making the corrections. Besides, it must be allowed that Hentz’s names are better chosen then Walckenaer’s. If Abbot, whose patient, long continued and intelligent labors de- serve the real honor, could receive the credit of entitulation, one might, at least on the ground of sentiment, feel more reconciled to seeing the priority pass from Hentz; especially as Baron Walcken- aer was often indifferent to the prior rights of fellow naturalists. But the laws of priority must be considered, and honesty and justice can give no room for considerations of convenience and sentiment.
Many of Walckenaer’s descriptions may be considered as fairly good, and indeed they have all along been recognized as clearly covering some of Hentz’s species. But when those descriptions are placed alongside of Abbot’s drawings, from which they were made, all doubt is removed as to the identity. For the most part, Abbot’s drawings are tolerably accurate, well finished, are colored after
nature, and there was no difficulty at first sight i in identifying a large number of our well known species, under ‘the names published by “Professor Hentz. It seems unfortunate that such good work should have remained so long unnoticed, and that credit for the same should have been so wholly lost to the author. It is at least some satisfaction to be able to render such justice and honor as this notice
may bring, to one who barely escaped the distinction of being the father of American araneology by inability to publish or procure the publication of his faithful labors.
There are thus raised very delicate points as to the law of priority, concerning which Dr. McCook desired to obtain the judgment of his associates : - first, in view of the fact that Walckenaer’s species were described not from the spiders themselves, but from the drawings of them made by another hand, can we be permitted to give priority to Hentz, whose descriptions were made from the animals them- selves? Second, does the fact that two years previous to Walcken- aer’s descriptions, Hentz published the names of one hundred and twenty five species, many of which are identical with those of Abbot’s drawings and Walckenaer’s Sees entitle the American au- thor to “priority as to these species? Under ordinary circumstances it would perhaps be at once admitted that Hentz could have no claim, but in view of the special circumstances alluded to may there not be some departure from the strict construction of the /ex priorita- tis? The inconvenience of overthrowing Hentz’s names would be a peculiar hardship to American ar aneologists, unless the original or a fac-simile of Abbot’s Drawings could be obtained and made ac- cessible on this side of the Atlantic. With the book in the British
78 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888.
Museum, there is no final court, before which to test the integrity of species, available for the bulk of American students. While Walckenaer’s descriptions are generally intelligible with the draw- ings in hand, many are obseure without them. This is equally true of Hentz’s descriptions; but then we have his figures to interpret the descriptions sufficiently well to enable us to identify the species.*
Dr. McCook presented a list of a few of the best known species, especially among the orb weavers, of those which were recognized by him as identical with the corresponding numbers in Abbot's drawings, and which, if Walckenaer’s claim to priority be conceded, must hereafter be known under the names assigned by that natural- ist. A reading of this brief list will give araneologists some idea of the serious labor that must be wrought by them before fixed and satisfactory results can be evolved from the confusion into which our existing nomenclature has been startled by the unexpected reappear- ance of Abbot’s long lost manuscripts.
These species are here given in the following tabulated form. ‘The first column shows the name given by Hentz. The second shows Walckenaer’s names. The third column gives the names of the species as they must hereafter be known if Walckenaer’s names are to be accepted.
TABLE OF RevisepD NOMENCLATURE OF AMERICAN SPIDERS.
HENTz. W ALCKENAER. REVISED. Epeira insularis Epeira conspicellata ' Epeira conspicellata. Epeira trivittata Epeira arabesca * Epeira arabesea.
. Epeira Pegnia * Epeira arabesca. Epeira domiciliorum Epeira benjamina* Epeira benjamina. Epeira parvula Epeira eustala ° Epeira eustala. Epeira thaddeus Epeira cepina ° Epeira thaddeus. Epeira verucosa Epeira arenata * Verucosa arenata.
*In the discussion which followed the remarks of Dr. McCook the opinion was expressed by Professors Leidy, Lewis and Dall that the earlier names should in all cases be adopted, no matter how much inconvenience might be entailed thereby, af the descriptions were recognizable. Prof. Heilprin held that such cases should ‘be decided so as to cause the least embarrassment to naturalists and therefore the deast detriment to Science.
1 Walck. Nat. Hist. Apteres. Vol. II, p.58. 2id p. 74. 3id p. 80. 4 id p. 42.
5id p. 37. This species, whose remarkable variations have attracted the atten- ion of all who know it, is described by Walckenaer under several names, as it was by Hentz.
§id p. 88. Walckenaer confounds thaddeus with parvula of which he makes ita variety. Hentz’s name may therefore stand.
Tid p. 133.
1388. | NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 79
Epeira stellata Plectana stellata ° Plectana stellata. = Epeira nobilis *
cy Epeira cerasiae *
s Epeira iris * Epeira riparia Epeira cophinaria™ Argiope cophinaria. Epeira fasciata Epeira argyraspides ° Argiope argyraspides. Epeira cancer Plectana ellipsoides * Gasteracantha ellipsot- des. Epeira rugosa Plectana gracilis * —_Acrosoma gracilis. Epeira spinea Plectana sagittata * Acrosoma sagittata. Epeira mitrata Plectana reduviana *® Acrosoma reduviana. Epeira caudata Epeira turbinata “ — Cyrtophora turbinata. ce “cc
Epeira glomosa * Tetragnatha grallator Tetragnatha fulvua® Tetragnatha fulva. Phyllyra riparia Uloborus Americanus” Uloborus Americanus
The numbers under which the species described by Walckenaer and listed in Abbot’s figures are here given for the convenience of those who wish to refer to the originals. The reference numbers attached to them correspond with the reference numbers in the second column of the table and in the foot notes.
Axsgor’s Manuscript Numpers.—l16, 121'; 331, 346°; 375, Eeoeea > 126% 119% 120 117°; 181, 182; 183"; 1617; 166°; pea ipl 15a s 1185. 47; 48%: 50%; 49%; 79, 80.25 Heo > 211,; 216,221 %; 44.
8id II, 171. This is probably the figure to which Hz. refers (Sp. U. S. p. 125) when he cites Bosc as authority for the name. The species which Walck. has named nobilis, iris and cerasiae all seem to me to be sée//ata, and it is odd that Walck. should have put them even into a different genus from ste//afa which is described in his “Tabl. des Araeides”’ p. 65, fig. 54. If this spider is to be placed in a genus other than Z/ezra, it might retain the now abandoned name of P/ectana, which is here provisionally revived to receive it. Emerton gives the species to Hentz. (‘New Eng. Epeiridae,” p. 319).
9id p. 119. 10 id p. 120. 11 id p. 109. 12 id p. 110. 13 id p. 155.
14 id p. 193. 1s id p. 174. 16 id p. 201. 17 id p. 140.
Sid p. 144. This bears some likeness to my species Cyrt. 6zfurca and may prove to be the same.
19 id p. 212. Abbott figures a number of Tetragnathas including what appears to be Emerton’s 7. caudata (7. lacerta Wik); but a careful study will be re- quired to determine which are simply variations. Hentz’s gradlator is probably ‘the one here designated. Walckenaer’s 7etragnatha zorilla (Aptr. II, p. 221 and Pl. 19, 2 B) which is figured from Abbot’s mss., belongs to his own genus La¢ro- dectus (Lathrodectus), and is Hentz’s Theridion verecundum and /ineatum. It is also the Latrodectus formidabilis and L. variolus of Walk. (Apt. Vol. I. p. 647, 648.). The name of this interesting spider will now be Lathrodectus form- 2dabilis WALCK.
20 jal joa EA
80 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888
Cirolana feasting on the Edible Crab.—Prof. Lrerpy stated that. on last Saturday, having occasion to go to Beach Haven, N. J. dur- ing a leisure half hour stroll along shore, he noticed, here and there a dead crab, Callinectes hastatus, lying on the sand, near the last high tide mark. The crabs observed happened to be all females and they appeared to have died recently as some were quite fresh and showed no signs of decomposition. Others, broken open by remoy- ing the carapace, were found to have the body cavity swarming with a living isopod, the Cirolana concharum, which had preyed upon the organs and were variously colored by the food with which they were: gorged. From a single crab there were taken 108 of the Cirolana ranging from 15 to 22 mm. in length by 5 to 7 mm. in breadth.
The isopod is grayish translucent above and whitish translucent. beneath, and centrally variously colored, brown, black, red or yellow, from the food contents. The dorsal plates are minutely dotted, black or brown, in bands. The eyes are triangular with rounded angles, and black. The antennae are nearly double the length of the anten- nules. The mandibles are furnished with a strong, brown, tricuspid molar. The caudal plate or telson is triangular with a blunt, slightly emarginate apex and with a pair of spines each side of the latter. The isopod has been observed by Stimpson at Charleston, S. C. and by Harger at Vineyard Sound, Mass., but has not previously been reported from the coast of New Jersey. Three isolated specimens. of the same were picked up on the shore of Beach Haven, the last summer.
On Bopyrus palaemoneticola.—Prof. Leidy also presented numer- ous specimens of the prawn, Palaemonetes vulgaris, infested with the parasite, Bopyrus palaemoneticola, obtained at Beach Haven, N. J. From about two quarts of the prawn, caught for fish-bait, upwards of fifty contained the Bopyrus.
FEBRUARY 28. The President, Dr. Lretpy, in the chair.
Twenty-five persons present. The death of James S. Mason, a member, was announced.
Note on Lepas fascicularis—Prof. Lerpy remarked that while stopping at Beach Haven, N. J., the last summer he had observed that from time to time the debris thrown on shore would differ accord- ing to the direction of the wind. On one occasion a strong wind from the north cast up a considerable quantity of material consisting of frag- ments of wood, grass, fucus, ete., to most of which was attached a pro- fusion of goose-barnacles, Lepas fascicularis. Among the materials observed were apples and cranberries, which also had bundles of barnacles attached, and as the fruit was not decomposed, it appar-
1888. | NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 8f
ently indicated a rapid development and growth of the animal. Portions of apples were exhibited with dense hemispherical groups of attached barnacles an inch and a half in diameter with the barna- cles from 2 to 3 lines long, and several cranberries with bunches in which the barnacles are from 2 to 6 lines long.
Reputed Tape-worm in a Cucumber—Prof. Lerpy stated that several years ago, his colleague in the University, Prof. Wm. Goodell, submitted to his examination a tape-worm, which he received from a correspondent, with the label “From the middle of a cucumber pre- served in brine. §. E. Robinson, West Union, Iowa, May 29, 1876.” The specimen appears to be complete and in its present condition, preserved in alcohol, is about eight inches long. The head is large, spheroid, provided with four, small, equi- distant hemispherical both- ria, and surmounted by a prominent crown with a double circle of strong hooks. The neck is a slight constriction whence the body rapidly widens and again tapers behind. The anterior segments are transversely linear with a gradually increasing length and more acute and prominent lateral ends; the middle segments are about twice the breadth of the length “and slightly companulate; and the posterior segments are proportionately longer and narrower. In the latter, the uterus is distended with eggs only at their anterior portion.
The hooks are partially lost on one side of the crown; and it is estimated that there were about 40 or more.
The head is °875 mm. broad; the crown of hooks *625 mm.; the neek *8 mm.; at the middle of the body six segments together are 1 em. long and 3:5 mm. wide; the terminal segments are : about 4mm. long and 9-5 mm. wide. The egos measure from -032 to -036 mm.
While it cannot be admitted that the worm belonged to the cucum- ber, nor is it clear how it reached this position, it is a question as to the species. It bears a near resemblance to the Taenia crassicollis of the Cat, but is not more than half the size of this as it ordinarily occurs.
In comparison with a complete specimen of the latter, six inches in length in the contracted condition as preserved in alcohol, we find the following measurements.
T. of the cucumber T. crassicollis.
Breadth of head = = = °875 mm. 1°875 mm. Breadth of crown of hooks - ‘O205 0. ie aS Breadth of neck : : = 8 « Opin Me Breadth of middle segments a a Kg Gatoromes Length of middle segments SEs) ae i = Breadth of terminal ‘seements E Pe De a 35 ff Length of terminal segments - 4 5 a
Diamonds in Meteorites—Professor CARVILL Lewis exhibited a small fragment of a meteorite which had fallen in the district of Krasnoslobodsk, Government of Penza, Siberia, on September 4, 1886,
82 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF _ [1888.
and which he had obtained through the kindness of Mr. George F. Kunz. The specimen was of especial interest on account of the re- port (see Nature. Dec. 1, 1887. xxxvii, p. 110) that Professor Lat- chinof and Jerofief had detected in the insoluble residue small cor- puscles having all the characters of diamonds.
The speaker had extracted from the fragment in his possession two small oval bodies with extremely high index of refraction and showing only slight traces of polarization, such as is common to many diamonds. They were colorless and transparent, resembling certain specimens of Brazilian “bort.” Having been able to dis- tinctly scratch a polished sapphire with portions of the meteorite, he was disposed to agree with Professor Latchinoff and Jerofief that these bodies were true diamonds. The olivine in this meteorite was also in the form of oval grains and had a deep yellow color and bright polarization. The rounded form of the olivine and the dia- monds may have been due to corrosion of the igneous mass. This rounded form is yery commonly shown by the olivines in basic erup- tive rocks.
While diamonds have never before been found in meteorites, car- bon has long been known in them in its graphitic or amorphous form. Recently Fletcher" has described under the name of Cliftonite a cubical form of carbon, somewhat harder than ordinary graphite, which he found in an Australian meteorite.
The important bearing of the present discovery upon the vexed question of the diamond is evident. The speaker had recently en- deavored to show that the commonly received notion that itacolumite was the original matrix of the diamond is a mistake, and that dia- monds reaily occur in, or in the neighborhood of, basic eruptive rocks.” The facts regarding the associations of the diamond in Africa, Borneo, New South Wales, California and elsewhere all point to peridotites or allied rocks as the matrix of the diamond. The similarity, both in structure and composition, of the diamond- bearing Kimberlite of South Africa to meteorites had been pointed out by: the speaker previously, and he had, in view of this fact, sug- gested the search for diamonds in meteorites.
Ctenophores in Fresh Water:—Dr. BENJAMIN SHARP reported that he had observed in a fresh water pond at Sachecha, Nantucket, a great number of Ctenophores, in apparently good condition. This pond i is occasionally opened to the sea to allow the escape of the perch that breed there is great numbers. The Ctenophores without doubt found their way into the pond at such time. As far as he could de- termine they were the common Mnemiopsis Leidyi, unchanged by their strange environment. They not only appeared perfectly healthy and active but were highly phosphorescent at night. He was not
1 Jour. Mineralog. Soc. vii, p. 121, 1887. Proc. Brit. Assoc. Adv. Science. Manchester, 1887. (See Geolog. Magazine, March. 1888.)
1888.] | NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 83
able to say whether they bred there or not, and until this is proven it is not possible to say that they have become perfectly adapted to the new condition of life. Many observers have noticed that Coe- lenterata move up rivers, but this is an interesting case, as the transi- ition from the salt to the fresh water must have been very sudden. At the time of observation Dr. Sharp said that on drinking the water he could not notice the slightest trace of salt.
Messrs Henry A. Pilsbry and S. G. Morton Montgomery were elected members.
The following papers were ordered to be printed :—
. tere See et ene ee
84 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888.
THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE COLOR-MARKS OF THE MAMMALIA|! BY HARRISON ALLEN, M. D.
The variations in the colors of the hair and the skin are of a char- acter and importance which warrant a systematic study. I have ventured to formulate my impressions on this subject, and while de- parting in some degree from the directions of approach which zool- ogists have developed, I have not I trust, stated the case without due regard to the views of others on this perplexing phase of obser- vation.
My main object has been to contemplate color marks as the result of nutritiye processes controlled by recognized biological forces both in health and disease. JI will not hesitate to treat of a perverted growth in the human subject as comparable to a normal growth in any member of the mammalian series.
Statements will be made respecting the distribution of colors of hair, (the superficial color, or rather the effect of the main color of the hair upon the eye being here intended) of the colors of pigment marks on the skin, of localized hypertrophies and atrophies, of vi- brissze, of pilose and naked warts, as though they were co-ordinates of equal value.
I have examined the museums at Philadelphia, New York, New- Haven and Washington. I have consulted the illustrations of works on Natural History and have made extended observations on the domesticated animals especially of dogs, horses, cattle, guinea- pigs and rabbits.
The conclusions drawn at this time have stood the test of repeated re-examinations and while they are not all susceptible of being held as rigid deductions from the premises, they present, I think, a group of tenets which may prove of interest to working zoologists.
The subject of distribution of the hair in the human subject has received attention from D. F. Eschricht’ and C. A. Voigt.’
Both writers have taken the new-born child as a standard and have described the directions of the hair in two ways: first as it is
1 This paper is an elaboration of a portion of an essay which constituted the presidential address at the annual meeting of the American Society of Natural- ists, December, 1887.
2 Miiller’s Archiv. 1837, Vol. IV, 37. 3 Denkschr. Wein. Akad. d. Wissenschaft. 1857, Vol. XII, III Abth. p. 1.
1888. ] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 85
observed radiating from certain points, and second as it is seen to converge to certain points.
The following are the main points of radiation. The parietal bone, ashort distance to the right of the obeleon, and the axilla. The pa- rietal centres may be symmetrical.
The following are the main points of convergence. The head at the obeleon and directly above the auricle; the face at the inner end of the eyebrow, and at the root of the nose; the neck over the cen- tre of the hyoid bone; the sternum at its upper third; the abdomen at the summit of the bladder; the under surface of the penis at the base ; the nape of the neck on each side of the vertebral column ; the trunk over the lower part of the coccyx ; the side of the trunk ; the arm at the insertion of the deltoid muscle; the elbow at the ob- cranon; the wrist at the head of the ulna; the ilium over the ante- rior superior process; the thigh at the lower end of the femoral artery; and the ham at the inner border.
It will be found in the course of the ensuing statements that the points of convergences are often found associated with the regions of markings which contrast with the ground-color. Thus the obeleon is the site of brown or black spots in the dog; in the same animal the tan-colored wart is found in black and tan dogs; the centre of the hyoid bone is also the centre of the gular white or gorget in many carnivorous and quadrumanous animals; the sternal point is often white in the horse and dog; the lower end of the back at the sacrum and coceyx is black or brown in ordinarily parti-colored dogs; the insertion of the deltoid is the lower end of the epaulette-region which is frequently of a contrasted color to that of the rest of the limb; the spot over the head of the ulna is in the line of the fringe of the fore- leg in the setter-dog and in some lemurs. The nape of the neck, the root of the nose, the summit of the bladder, the base of the penis, the olecranon, the anterior prominence of the ilium, the femoral point and the inner border of the ham are not found associated with color-marks. These cannot in turn be entirely separated according to Eschricht from being in the line of union of parts which unite late in the development of the foetus. A complicated disposition at the upper lip is held by the same writer to result from the union of the right and left halves at the median line. Some points, as for exam- ple the olecranon and the iliac process, answer to bony surfaces which are near the skin. The femoral point is also the region at which the long saphenous nerve pierces the fascia. The point on the
86 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888.
side of the trunk is associated with the naked trunk surfaces of birds, and the colored area in Indris brevicaudatus. (See infra.)
In men who are notably hairy (the cases of universal hyper- trichosis are not here included) the hair is chiefly developed on the breast and the anterior wall] of the abdomen at its upper part,—on the region over the trapezius muscle near the scapula—and on the lower part of the loin and the shoulder. In a number of examinations I have made of hirsute men, I have never found the teeth defective unless a disposition to universal hypertrichosis was present. This disposition is shown (in addition to the dental defect) by great shag- giness and looseness of contour of the eye-brows. They meet across the inter-orbital space and straggle off toward the temporal side of the forehead. The best marked of the naked places of the body in the hirsute men are the forehead, and the side of the trunk. Eschricht mentions having found but a single example of the trunk being naked at the side. His observations appear to have been made in Copenhagen and may perhaps exhibit a national peculiarity. In America I am sure such naked places are frequently seen. I can confirm Eshricht’s statement that hirsute individuals usually have black hair, are of stalwart build and do not of necessity have strong beards or more than ordinary growths from the head.
An instructive analogy can be detected to exist between the na- ked surfaces on the sides of the trunk and the great lateral feather- less spaces (apterylia) of most birds. Above I have invited atten- tion to the fact that in Indris brevicaudatus' the side of the trunk possesses hair of a different color from that covering the ventre or the dorsum.
The literature of the subject of color-marksis scanty. The papers here given in abstract are of importance.
Th. Eimer? believes the striped forms of the mammalia antedated the spotted, and the retention of color obey phylogenetic laws. He traces the markings of Viverra through the varieties of the genus Canis. Faint traces of the transverse marks of Hyena can be detec- ted in the wolf. The black spot at the root of the tail is mentioned as occurring in all dogs. The presence of a dorsal stripe is mentioned as being commonly present. In vertebrates generally the posterior parts of the body is more strongly marked than the anterior. This is evident in mammals though less marked than in the lower classes.
1 American Museum of Natural History at New York, No. 260. 2 Zool. Anzeiger 1882, V. 685; 1883, 690.
1888. ] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 87
The transverse body stripes are the highest form of development of a body-mark, and succeeds in phylogeny the series of dotted-marks. This order is the reverse of that suggested by Darwin. _ A paper by G. T. Rope’ describes two varieties of coloring in the English form of the domestic cat viz: transverse stripes or rows of dots on a white ground and white markings of a more or less longitudinal direction on a black ground.
The following list includes the arrangement of the subject-matter of the present essay.
1. The “break” from the prevailing or ground color compared with the positions at which hair is retained in nearly hairless animals.
2. Brindles.
3. The regions in which color-marks are found regularly disposed. These are: the dorsal line of the trunk; the back of the neck; the the dorsi-facial line; the ventre and limbs; the ulnar border of the foreleg ; the axilla and pudenda; the “collar;” the regions of the spe- cial senses; the sides of the body; the regions of nerve-endings ; muscle-regions ; regions which are rich in seba and moisture.
4. The effects of age.
5. Bilaterality.
6. Antero-posterior symmetry.
1. THe “BREAK” FROM THE GROUND COLOR, OR PREVALENT COLOR, COMPARED WITH THE PosITIONS AT WHICH HAIR IS RE- TAINED IN NEARLESS HAIRLESS ANIMALS.—When an animal of a single color changes (even in a slight degree) the uniformity of the tint, the new color will appear in an order definite enough for the variety, species, and sometimes for the family to which the animal belongs. A black, gray or chestnut colored dog when thus changing almost invariably has a white spot appear at one of the following localities: The tip of the tail,’ the breast, the dorsal surfaces of the feet, and the tips of the ears. I have observed these changes in the New Foundland dog, the greyhound, the Irish setter and the collie. In the sunbear (Ursus malayanus) the prevailing black is relieved by a crescentie whitish-yellow spot on the breast. Sarcophilus when varying from its prevalent color exhibits a spot of white in the same region. Horses having white feet and a white
1 Zoologist, 1881, 353.
» According to Gervais the first white appears at the tip of the tail. G. T. Rope (Zoologist, 1881, 353) states that where only a very minute portion of white occurs, it is most likely to be found on the chest.
88 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888.
star on the breast while the remainder of the bodies are dark are objects of common observation. It cannot be an accidental cireum- stance that animals that are nearly hairless retain sparse clumps in the same localities. | Rhinoceros lasiotis is hairless except at the tip of the tail, the dorsal surfaces of the feet and the tips of the ears. Rhinoceros indicus shows the same peculiarities to a less marked extent. In Elephas the tip of tail is similarly furnished. In the Mexican variety of the so-called hairless dog the same regions named in Rhinoceros are alone hairy. In another variety the breast is furnished with an abundant growth of hair. Men, who are more than usually hairy, yet who do not belong to the group of universal hypertrichosis, possess hair on the pectoral region, and are apt to have a sparse growth of hair at the upper margin of the auricle and a similar but separate line of hair along the posterior border, as well as a patch on the loin or near the coccyx in the median line of the trunk.
It may be said that the regions named tend to behave differently from the prevailing disposition in hair-nutrition. In breaking from a uniform color these regions present a contrasted color, and the same regions tend to retain hair which elsewhere for the most part is lost. .
But it must be acknowledged that in animals which are for th most part hairless, clumps are seen which do not belong to the above category. These are discussed under other heads. See hair at june- tion of limbs to trunk, (p. 94) hairs on dorsal line (p. 89) hair at nerve ends. (p. 98)
2. Brrypies.—In some animals the break from the prevalent color assumes another disposition of a widely spread character. I allude to the plan by which the entire pelt is covered by alternations of black with brown or chestnut : these embrace the “brindles.” The wolf (Canis lupus) is often a brindle. Many varieties of dogs e. g. some of the mastifis and bull dogs are brindles. It is often seen in the female of the domestic cat. The prevalent color remaining black the break is seen in dogs to take place to “tan” and to be localized to the feet to the supra-orbital hair clumps and to the hairy wart on the side of the face. The prevalent color being white, black spots are apt to have “tan” margins as is well seen in the fox terrier.
3. THE REGIONS IN WHICH CoLoR-MARKS ARE FOUND REG— ULARLY DISPosED.—I will now treat of the manner in which the color of a hue which is contrasted to the prevalent color is apt to occur along definite lines or regions of the body.
1888. | NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 89
The Dorsal line of the Trunk. The line of the dorsal spines of the vertebral column (including the head as far as the parietal foramina,') is one of the most instructive of these. The black line in the ass and the horse has especially received the attention of Darwin. Prof. Jno. Ryder’ detected a dorsal arrangement of hairs in an embryo of the domesticated cat. It retains the same color in many carnivores. In the domestic cat two pairs of black stripes are often found on either side. In domesticated cattle these are supplanted by awhite line. In piebald rats the stripe is commonly black.
Lemur collaris,* has a prevalent squirrel gray color, while the head is black and a black spot is seen at the root of the tail on the dorsal surface. In Propithecus diadema, a conspicuous dorsal line is con- tinuous with a black sacral region and tail. In Lemur varius® the same character of dorsal line is seen as in the foregoing animal but isnot so marked. In the parti-colored Jndris brevicaudatus' the region of the back of the sacrum is distinguished from the rest of the fur by being a uniform dull ochreous hue—a hue unlike that met with in any other region of the body. In Propithecus verreauxi coquerelit> the dorsum near the lower part of the thorax is marked by a dark spot, which is in contrast to the surrounding color. The ‘sacrum and loin are of a dirty gray color. In animals which ex- hibit spots on the line which are in contrast to the prevalent color the retained colors may be looked upon as persistencies which for some reason have resisted the forces which have displaced the line itself Such a view is in harmony with Darwin’s statement? that dappled and spotted animals were originally striped. One of the numerous forms of Lemur varius exhibits a white circle at the base of the tail the prevalent color being light brown. This does not of necessity correlate with the dark sacral spot. But distinctive kinds of marking at the root of the tail in the dog are of the same signifi-
1 These are persistent in the human cranium near the sagittal suture a short distance in advance of the lamdoidal suture.
2 Animals under Domestication pov.
3 Proc. of Acad. of Nat. Sci. 1887, 56.
* American Museum of Natural History at New York.
5 Ibid. No. 263.
6 Ibid. No. 266.
7 Tbid. No. 260.
8 Ibid. No. 973.
9 Animals under domestication I. p. 65.(Eng. Ed.)
i
90 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888.
cance asthe sacral spot. In Didelphys a dark pigment ring encircles the base of the tail. In roan horses a white ring is occasionally found which also encircles the base of the tail.
In Thylacinus, Felis manul,' Hyena striata, Myrmecobius, and in some of the viverrine genera, the line is interrupted and a number of sad- dle marks are seen which are best marked posteriorly. In the dog when the black and tan colors are bred out, as in the English setter,, the bull terrier and the fox terrier, the dorsal line is retained only at the sacrum and at the root of the tail. It often forms an irregular mark which may extend upon the flanks. In the “ Chester reds,” a variety of hog bred in Eastern Pennsylvania, black is persist- ently bred out, yet a small black spot is commonly found at the sac- rum. In Phoca fasciata a broad white band crosses the trunk at the sacral region.
In Cercopithecus diana, the greater part of the dorsal region and all the sacral region are of a red color which extends downward upon. the outer surface of the flank.
This disposition is seen in a number of the quadrumana. It ap- pears to be repeated in many dogs (as already mentioned) in which a flank mark is continuous with the sacral spot. The mark may be homologous with the sacral saddle mark of Thylacinus and Felis tigrise
In a colony of piebald rats observed at the Zoological Garden, Philadelphia, the sacral region was black while the prevalent hue was white.
I will now attempt to explain the persistence of color marks at the region of the sacrum and the root of the tail, though the varieties of the colors themselves are not at present susceptible of demonstration.
In the range of human observation, L. Tait? records the frequent possesssion—nearly 45 per cent—of a pit, or “sacral dimple,” over the sacral region in women.
A. Ecker’ describes the frequent appearance of pits or depressions in the region of the coccyx, in the foetus and in new-born infants. The spot is associated with various pilose conditions. Max Bartels* describes a tail-like formation in man from the lower part of the same region. Virchow’ finds the pilose spots co-ordinated with
1 A. Milne Edwards, Recherches sur les Mammiferes, Paris, 1868 to 1874. Jae Bile
2 Nature, 1878 XVIII, 481.
3 Archiv. f. Anthropologie, 1880, XII, 129. 4 Ibid, 188], XIII, 1.
5 Zeitschr f. Ethnologie 1875, VII 280.
Be |
1888. ] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 91
occasional deformity of the sacral spinal processes and he ar- rives at the conclusion that the sacral pilosity is often connected with attempts at formation of spina bifida. Both Tait and Ecker con- nect the presence of the sacral depression with the formation of an exserted tail. I make the suggestion that the retention of white, black, tan or lemon colored patches at the sacral and lumbar region is an evidence in tailed quadrupeds of the great activity of nutritive pro- cesses between the superficies and deep-seated parts. It is but a step further, and a legitimate step I think, to connect the sacral pig- ment patches with the subject of sacral tumors which has been so ably elucidated by R. Middeldorpf.'| This writer traces the congenital sacral tumors to retention-cysts of the neuro-enteric canal of the em- bryo, as defined by Kowalensky. The canal is the same as the post- anal gut of Balfour. It has been identified in Ascidians, Amphioxus, and in plagiostome and teleostean fishes. Should the retention of the pigment patch at the superficies of the region where such pro- found changes are seen to occur be proved to be associated with minor degrees of interference at the same region, it follows that in the individuals thus marked, minor changes in the sacral elements, and possibly in the condition of the lumbar swelling of the spinal cord, might be sought for.
The Back of the Neck—The region of the back of the neck inclu- ding the withers is well known to be often furnished with a mane of long or short hair. It is of interest to note that in a case of trichosis circumscripta recorded by Virchow’ a distinct pilose growth lay over the region of the third and fourth cervical vertebree.
As already remarked p. 88 the breast may be hairy in an animal which in other respects is nearly naked. It remains to mention the gnu in which form a pendant growth of hair from the same region is found associated with an animal having short hair—and a long tail furnished with a terminal brush.
The dorsi-facial Line—The region of the head as far as that of the parietal foraminal belongs to the trunk while that in front is distinctive. A white median stripe is commonly found in the region last named in parti-colored dogs. In some varieties a spot of the prevalent color lies directly at the beginning of the trunkal region near the occiput which interrupts the dorsal white line, in the rare instances of its backward prolongation or may be enclosed by it. Mephitis may exhibit a white spot on the dorsum of the face especially
1 Virchow’s Archiv 1885, 101, 37. 2 Zeitsch f. Ethnologie VII, 279.
92 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888.
in the young. Horses commonly show a white mark, the “star,” in the middle of the forehead between the eyes. In Cercopithecus a median white spot is often seen on the dorsum of the nose.
The Ventre and Limbs.—The hair of the under part of the trunk is in all animals less thick than that of the upper and is apt to be of a lighter shade of color. The color of the ventre is continuous with
the inner sides of the limbs, and with the throat where it is apt to.
pass in Quadrumana to the crown. The account of the color-marks of the limbs cannot be disassociated from that of the trunk. Thé hair of the outer surfaces of the limbs extends to the sides and dor- sum of the trunk and neck, while the inner surfaces extend to the yentre. “Stockings,” by which term is meant patches of white color which pass entirely round the manus or pes above the palm or sole, are exceptions to the rule.
The feet of an animal are liable to be of the same color and this color to be black or a break from this color to a contrasted one (see p- 88). In the horse this is notably the case—a bay horse has black feet or exhibits a break from the black color to white. Both fore and hind feet of the Thibetan bear, Ailwropus melanoleucus, are black, the rest of the animal being white, with faint shades of brown. The fore foot in mammals is apt to a greater degree than is the case with the hind foot to retain the same color for the arm and the re- gion of the scapula. This is remarkably well seen in Ai/uropus, in which form the entire fore limb including the shoulder is black, while the hind limb and region of pelvis (excepting the foot) is white. The region of the scapula in many animals is distinctively patterned as is seen in the tiger (Felis tigris) and the leopard (Felis pardus). In the dog the prevalent color of the neck and the trunk is rarely continuous over the region of the scapula, which is usually of the contrasted color. The spots on the side of the trunk in white dogs appear to be arrested by the region of the scapula. A post-scapular spot of an opposed color is commonly seen in dogs.
P. Michelson’ describes cases of trichosis cireumscripta in which clumps were found above and below the region of the scapula but not uponit. I have often found similar clumps in hirsutemen. In the horse and its allies the stripes when sparsely distributed are con- fined to the region of the scapula or lie in front of it. The region of the scapula is apt to be white in Pecora. The region of the shoulder, 7. e. the region of the humero-scapular joint, is separately
1 Virchow’s Archiv. 1883, Vol. C. 66.
]
1888. ] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 93
marked in a number of diverse forms. In many bats a tuft of white color distinguishes this region. In the llama, camel and bison shagey tufts of hair adorn it. Cynocephalus hamadryas exhibits on both shoulders conspicuous growths of hair which extend back- ward. In a specimen of Colubus querza’ the shoulder was found furnished with an epaulet of long white hair. In other examples of this species the epaulet extends backwards. . B. Ornstein* describes an instance of trichosis cireumscripta, in an adult man in which a clump of hair was found on both shoulders.
In Quadrumana the colors of the limbs are apt to be differently dis- posed from the arrangement in quadrupeds. In Lemur catta the colors are much like those in lower animals and in all varieties white stockings may be seen in the fore arm and leg. The inside of the limb is apt to be of a lighter color than the outer.
With this qualification I think I may say that the outer surface and anterior surface of the thigh to a point answering to the prox- imal third or fourth of the tibia is differently colored in Quadrumana from the leg and the foot. This is noticeable in Indris brevicauda- tus’ and Propithecus verreauxi-coquereli.*
The manus is commonly’ black in Quadrumana. In Indris brev- icaudatus® the outer side of the arm is black, while the entire fore- arm is white.
In the figures of Audebert® the separate color marks of the limbs often correspond to the regions of manus, fore-arm, arm, pes, leg and thigh especially for the outer surfaces. From the well known artistic abilities of Audebert these figures may be accepted as au- thoritative.’
The ulnar Border of the Foreleg—The ulnar border of the fore- leg often displays hypernutritive characters. The disposition is not confined to the mammalia. In this class the growth is most likely asurvival of the natatorial form of foot and is at best an adaptative
1 Am. Mus. No. 298.
» Arch. f. Anthropologie 1886, 507.
3 Am. Mu. No. 260.
4 Ibid. No. 9738.
5 Ibid. No 260.
6 L’ Histoire Naturelle des Singes, des Makis, et des Galéopithéques, 1800.
7 C. F. Maynard (Quarterly Journ. Boston Zool. Soc., 1883, II, 18) states that in the variety of bear ( Urses Americanus) met with in Florida ‘‘brownish lines” are seen “starting from the point of each shoulder and extending down the legs on the inside.” This disposition is certainly exceptional.
94 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888.
effort to extend a fold of skin from the sides of the limb. A skin- fold is demonstratable in Menopoma (where it is supplied by a branch of a nerve) as well as in Emys and its allies. It is the be- ginning of the hair-covered membrane in the flying squirrel (Sciur- opterus) and in Belideus; it is enormously displayed in the bat.
The long fringe on the ulnar border of the fore-arm in the setter dog may be named as an example of its occurrence in a terrestrial mammal.
The fold corresponding to it is not so evident in the hind leg— where it would naturally be sought for on the inner border. The line of feathers seen in some varieties of the pigeon and of the domes- tic fowl on the outer border of the leg may be associated with a similar proclivity to that above named.
In a ease of trichosis cireumscripta recorded by B. Ornstein’ in an adult male a growth of hairs was found on the ulnar border of the fore-arm of both sides.
In some species of Quadrumana the hair of the arm and the fore- arm inclines toward the elbow. Wallace’ and Darwin® describe this arrangement in connection with the use made of it by the animal in shedding the water falling upon the flexed limb. That the hair in Hylobates agilis should be directed toward the wrist is evidently an aberrant arrangement if we are to follow the distribution of the lanugo as outlined by Eschricht and Voigt.
A marked instance of growth of the hair from ulnar border of the fore-arm and the corresponding border of the arm is met with in Propithecus verreauxti-coquerelii* A long brilliant fringe of orange and white colors equals in width the arm at its greatest diameter.
The Avilla and Pudenda—The presence of hair in the axilla and pudenda in man is not without interest in connection with the pilose regions of the newly born infant. It will be noticed that both Esch- richt and Voigt separated the pudenda and the entire perineum from the rest of the body.
In Lemur varius’ the prevalent color being a light brown the per- ineum is black. The axilla is often of the same color as the inside of the entire fore-leg in Indris brevicaudatus.
1 Arch. f. Anthropologie, 1866, 507. On Natural Selection, 344.
3 On Descent of Man. Am. Ed. I. 185. 4 Am. Mus. No. 973.
Ibid. No. 268.
Ibid. No. 260.
i)
Oo
a
a Et
1888. ] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 95
It would appear that retention of hair at both junction of the fore and hind leg with the body is in someway connected with se- cretion and with retention of heat at these localities. (See p. 9+.) The black stripe which is well defined in many examples of Lemur varius may extend as far as the patella or a little distal of that bone. -In the case of the child exhibiting circumscribed trichosis reported by H. Ranke' a large pilose patch occurred at the front ot the pa- tella and the upper part of the leg to its distal side. Two small patches were found in line with the front of the thigh.
The position of the pilose marks above mentioned can be consist- ently placed in the same category as the thigh marks in the lemurs.
The Collar—The region of the head is distinguished in some of the more specialized mammals by a transverse band extending from the vertex down over or near the auricle (commonly in front of this appendage) and is variously dispersed on the neck. It is an inter- esting region since it affords some of the most striking superficial color-marks of the Quadrumana and is the probable precursor of the hair of the crown of the head and of the beard in man.
In the figures of Eschricht’s and Voigt’s papers on the lanugo al- ready quoted, the outlines of the region of the color are clearly deter- mined.
In many species of Quadrumana the region of the vertex of the head to near the occiput, the auricle, the region below the auricle and the throat and submaxillary regions are white. This disposition is con- spicuous in Hylobates lar.2 In Colobus guereza, the prevalent color being black, a white color is disposed as above and extends down the neck to the clavicle. In Colobus vellerosus the collar is white and includes the gular region. In Cercopithecus diana, the white collar is interrupted by black at the side; the chin is furnished with a white goatee. The prevalent color is a squirrel gray. In Cebus hypoleucus the collar is continuous down the neck and is continuous with the white scapular region and with the outside of the arm to a little below the elbow. The prevalent color is black.
In Lemur varius’ the ears, retromaxillary region and the neck uniting the head lines, are white. In Lemur albifrons* a white band extends from the white crown over the head and thence to the neck.
1 Archiv. f. Anthropologie, 1883, 339, XIV.
2 American Museum of Natural History, No. 953. 3 Ibid. No. 266
4 Ibid. No. 275.
96 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888.
In Lemur catta’ the prevalent color being squirrel gray, the white color between the eyes unites with the color round the eyes and thence passes to the front of the neck. In another individual of the -same species (No. 268) the crown remains black, while the rest of the collar is white. In Phoca fasciata a white band encircles the head and neck at the region of the auricle.
It will be seen from these examples that the color of the vertex which may be defined as the crown of the head, excepting the mar- gin near the occiput, is often white; that this color tends to pass: down over the region of the ear to the neck, where it may unite with the white of the ventre and embrace more or less of the arm. With the exception of Phoca fasciata I have not met with this color mark outside of the Quadrumana. Within the group last named the band appears to be homologous with the hair of the crown and the whiskers of the human subject. In the Saki the color is black in this region and inclines forward to the submandibular growth or the beard proper.
The abruptness of termination of the white patch on the crown as. it approaches the occiput, appears to relate to the limitation of baldness of the human subject, and explains the common retention of hair at the line of the occiput. The occiput is under the control of the causes which maintain the body color as distinct from that of the rest of the head.
The Regions of the Special Senses—In addition to the dorsi-facial stripe in the carnivores and the “collar,” the mammalian head dis- plays a very noteworthy feature in the retention of a contrasting color to the prevalent one of the body, about the nostrils, the eye- lids and the auricles. Such a style of coloration is typically rep- resented in Ailuropus melanoleucus, in which form the body color is. a dull white. According to Darwin’ the Himalayan rabbit at birth is white, but in the course of a few months it gradually assumes dark eyes, nose, feet and tail. The cireumpalpebral black is found in many animals when the ear is imperfectly pigmented, as in Didelphys and Solenodon. In Nycticebus javanicus the circle is brown. In Nyeti- pithecus and Loris the two circumpalpebral circles unite in a median dorsal line. In Nasua the circle is white. In Cercopithecus aethiops, C. collaris and C. fuliginosus the eye-lids are white. In many dogs. which are otherwise black or black and tan—a conspicuous black
1 Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 270. 2 Animals under Domestication I, 109.
1888. ] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 97
patch surrounds one eye and includes one or both ears. Such are fox terriers, bull terriers and bull dogs. The two patches of cireumpal- pebral black may interrupt the dorsi-facial white stripe as is seen occasionally in the beagle.
Both the eyelids and the auricle may be included inthe same patch of black as is seen in many dogs especially in pointers. The same is noticed in the Japanese dog. This disposition leads the observer to note that the same black patch may extend still farther backward and be found on the sides of the body. A typical example of such an atrangement is seen in Myrmecophaga jubata. In Myrmecobius the circle extends backward in a stripe. I have seen asimilar stripe in the Scotch collie. In Procyon the patch is for the most part in- fra-orbital and extends backward to include the ear. In one of the many varieties of Mephitis the ear and auricle are included ina line of black, while the rest of the head is furnished with white lon- gitudinal stripes; more commonly, however, the entire head is black except a jugal stripe which is white and extends down on the sides of the trunk but inclining toward the dorsum as in Myrmecophaga. When the auricle is black the tip may be furnished with a pencil of white hairs which suggest the reversion to the plan of coloration de- scribed on page 88.
The region of the nostrils or the muzzle is pigmented black in most mammals an exception being found in the Quadrumana as in Semnopithecus nasalis.
It is interesting to find that in the bull terrier the black may dis- appear in whole or in part from the muzzle.
The special organs containing as they do black pigment often ap- pear to determine retention points of the same color at the periphery.
The breaks in the cireumpalpebral color determine the disappear- ance of the color from the region in hairless animals excepting the brow where it is apparently caused by the presence at that point of the circumorbital wart. The eyebrow in man isin reality a stripe which tends to pass backward in obedience to the tendency of the stripe in animals generally.
But the direction taken by the eyebrow is not a guide to all the transitions in the form of the black about the eyes. <A vertical black stripe extends from the eye to the mouth in the cheetah (Cyn- elurus jubatus). The same patch includes the lip in some New Foundland and pointer dogs.
98 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888.
The auricle and the hair growing from it need not be entirely black. The margin only is black in the hoary bat (Atalapha cinerea) and in Didelphys. The hair upon the auricle may be entirely white instead of black as in the North American badger (Taaxidea amer- icana). The base of the auricle may be alone covered with black hair as in the fox-terrier, or with tan as in the beagle.
The auricular black in the dog may include the skin of the side of the head for a variable distance and may cross the vertex and be in common with the corresponding patch of the opposite side. This arrangement interrupts the dorsi-facial white stripe. The appear- ance of black, tan or white spots on the vertex surrounded by patches of a contrasted color form “points” of breeding in some of the var- ieties of the dog.’
May it not be expected that a connection can be traced between the region of the obeleon and the pineal eye? Embryology teaches that the presence of various color marks of the skin appear before many of the more important deeper organs, and that the species to which an embryo belongs can be determined before the genus. The occasional reappearance in the dog of a patch of pigment at the spot at which an organ of special sense appeared in a remote ancestor, but which has no functional expression in the living de- scendant, isin harmony with many of the conclusions drawn from the ‘data presented in this paper.
.The Sides of the Body—In Pecora the Sos of the abdomen and chest are variously stripped and spotted when the body elsewhere, is differently marked. The young of the boar (Sus scrofa) is striped on the body. Lateral stripes are also seen in Coelogenys, and in Tamias and Spermophilus. Many varieties of domestic cattle show white spots extending up from the sides of the body from the ventre to variable distances.
Is it likely that the dorsal marks of the horse and carnivores, and the saddle marks of Thyalcinus, extending as they do downward are opposed in Pecora® by the disposition of ventral marks which extend upward ?
Nerve-Endings——The white stripes on the face in many South American bats, in Lophiomys, in Taxidea, and in some varieties of Mephitis, appear to be distinct from the simple contrast of color of
1 [n a recent exhibition of dogs in Philadelphia the vertex spot of the contrasted color was seen in the pointer, the Irish setter and the beagle each twice, in the spaniel and fox terrier each once.
? An exception is seen in Aztilope scriptus, which has white saddle marks.
1888. ] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 99
the black of the special organ above mentioned. In the tiger’s marks, as seen on the muzzle, they are undoubtedly correlated to the distribu- tion of the infra-orbital nerves. It is probable that similar patches of color, either black or white, are related to similar causes. Among them may be mentioned the black oral angle in Fedis onca, the white lips of Tapir pinchaque, and the black lower lip in some varieties of the bull terrier and the fox terrier. In the ground hackie (Tamias striata) I have demonstrated that the main longitudinal body stripe answer to the terminal filaments of the intercostal nerves and to those nerves which are in serial homology with them.’ I have found the spots on the fawn of the Virginian deer ( Cariacus virginia- mus) answer to the places at which the cutaneous nerves pierce the fascia.
The papilla on the flexor aspect of the fore-arm which is seen in the domestic cat, the sciurmorph and myomorph rodents, and in some of the lemurs, is furnished with bristle-like hairs with the ex- ception of the last named animals. It is supplied by a separate nerve in the domestic cat. The length of the hairs correlate with the length of the vibrisse of the labial set, and are used (as I have observed in the common mouse) for cleansing the face and especially in combing the labial bristles. J. Bland Sutton* found a small bristle-bearing wart on the flexor surface of the the fore-arm in Lemur catta, Chirogaleus coquerliand Hapalemur griseus. No special pigment patches or hair clumps have been found associated with this papilla.
The so called “chestnut” of the fore-leg of the horse is probably homologous with this growth. Owing to the changes in the limb coincident with the reduction of the toes the growth assumes a more posterior position.
All warts and skin caruncles are best developed on the naked spaces at or near the margins of hairy surfaces. They are well seen on the margins of the regions of the whisker and the moustache in the human subject. They are found about the mandibles in the moose (Alces canadensis) and the hog. The same positions are seen occupied by warts in the bat where the face is sparsely haired. P. Michelson? found warts on the margins of the pilose patches in trichosis cireumscripta.
1 Science 1887. 2 Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 1887, 372. 3 Virchow’s Archiv. 1885, C, 66.
100 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888.
Animals which are ‘uniformly furred carry occasional warts on the face—-one of these is always supra-orbital and another is on the cheek, and forms in the dog the so-called “kiss mark.” It is often separately marked by tan in the black and tan terrier, when it con- stitutes a “point” for the breeders of this animal.
Virchow' expresses the opinion that retention of lanugo upon the face may be confined to the distribution of the fifth pair of cranial nerves.
Muscle—Regions.—The stripes and spots on the limbs and the dap- ple-marks on the trunk, as well as some of the broader sheets of color, appear to be related to the intervals between muscle-masses or to the extent of skin-surfaces which corresponds to muscles.
The depression between the radial and digital extensors in the Felide is often marked by a black stripe. Felis chaus of India ac- cording to Sir W. Elliot’ exhibits a brown bar on the inside of the arm. This writer assumes that the mark is distinctive of the East Indian species. J have seen a black mark in the same locality, in many examples of the varieties of the domestic cat in or near Philadelphia.
The black mark on the front of the thigh in lemurs (see p. 95) is limited distally to the region of the tibia at which the gracilis, semi- tendinosus and sartorius muscles are inserted. The region of the back which answers to the lower trapezius sheet is abruptly outlined in pure black, in contrast to the white color of the loin and of the lower distal region, in Indris brevicaudatus.’ H. Ranke’ reports a case of trichosis cireumscripta, in which a patch was found in front of and below the right knee and a second over the front of the left knee. These marks may be held to be homologous with the distal ends of the black femoral stripe in Indris brevicaudatus as already stated above.
Regions which are rich in Seba and Moisture.—Eschricht’ called attention to the fact of the early appearance of the sebaceous glands in connection with the development and distribution of the hair. While the presence of seba is found associated with hair-growth the fact that some clumps of hair are found in regions which are especially rich in the secretions poured from the skin, form a
1 Berliner Klin. Wochenschr. 1873, No. 29.
2 Darwin, An. under Domestication. Eng. Ed. I. 44. 3 Am. Mus. No. 260.
4 Archiv. f. Anthropologie, 1883, taf. XIII.
5 Miiller’s Archiv. 1837, 44.
1888. ] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 101
separate group of the localities which show special disposition to re- tain abundance of hair. Such regions are illustrated by the hairy warts about gular pouches, by the hair of the axilla, of the pudenda and of the perineum.
The hair of the perineum is commonly distinctly colored in the dog and in some of the lemurs. The highly colored and’ vascular surfaces of the region of the perineum in the Cynopithecoids are probably created by the same cause.
The hair of the external auditory canal is associated with cerum- inous glands. The coarse hair at the base of the nipple may be included in the same category.
I have found the wrinkles of the skin of the head of the wart-hog (Phacochoerus aethyopicus) correspond to the black stripes seen in the zebra (Equus zebra). I have no proof, however, that this mark- ing is caused by influence of seba or of moisture.
The roof of the mouth being black in many mammals induces the observer of pigment patches to include this region under the head- ing of the distribution of color marks on the general integument. It is interesting to note that the efforts of breeders to run out the black from the integument will often result in the loss of pigment from the roof the mouth. That the oral surface is capable of yielding special outgrowths which are comparable to those of the skin is shown in Balaena and many rodents.
4. Errects or AGre—That the color marks of young animals frequently differ from the adult forms is a matter of common obser- vation. The relations existing between the young of one species and the adult form of others have been often observed but need