Gastrocopta servilis (Gould, 1843)  

“At first sight this species would be referred either to P. rupicola or P. procera. But a closer examination shows that while it has the pale brown lip of the latter, it is a shorter and much more ventricose shell; and while the number and arrangement of the teeth are as in rupicola, the latter has a much more slender form, the aperture is more oblique and less elongated, the apex is obtuse, and the lip is white.” (Gould, 1843)

“This species differs from G. procera and G. rupicola by the absence of an internal thickening of the lip, which is well expanded but thin. There is no external crest. The columellar lamella is simple, without a callous or tubercle below it. The angulo-parietal lamella is not forked in front, but there is a very low and inconspicuous projection on the columellar side, marking the anterior end of the parietal portion. One of the commonest Antillean species. It was well described by Gould, but subsequently was for a long time merged into the group of forms known collectively as Pupa pellucida. Dr. Pfeiffer seems to have initiated this lumping, in which he was followed by Binney and many other authors. It is certainly related to pellucida, but differs by being constantly larger and generally of darker color. The shortest individuals of procera are broader than the largest G. pellucida. G. rupicola and its subspecies differ by the thick lip and spurred angulo-parietal lamella, but immature shells are much alike. The typical form of servilis has a tapering shell of about 5½ whorls, the summit very obtuse. There is no crest behind the outer lip, but the whorl is flattened over the lower palatal plica. The peristome is thin and brown, its margins rather remote. The angulo-parietal lamella shows a small lobe on the right side, in front view, caused by the slight outward flare of the inner end of the angular. The front end of the parietal is typically not distinct (but in some forms there is a very small projection on the columellar side). Columellar lamella enters horizontally and is without accessory denticles or callous deposit within. The basal and upper palatal plica? are small tubercles, but the lower palatal is somewhat lengthened and a little more deeply placed. The shell drawn in figs. 5 and 6 measures, length 2.45, diam. nearly 1.1 mm. Like some other Gastrocoptas, there is a rather wide range of individual variation in size. An extremely short, conic form from Somerset, Bermuda, is drawn in pi. 14, fig. 7; length 2, diam. 1.1 mm. I have seen several examples, but as they were picked out of normal lots, it is not likely that they represent a race. The specimens from Porto Rico, St. Thomas (pi. 14, fig. 4), Guadeloupe and some others have the inner end of the angular lamella more prominent, forming a distinct spur in a front view. Part of the Mexican shells are similar. To the localities given above for this species, all verified by myself, Guatemala might perhaps be added, as Professor von Martens gave several places in that country for P. pellucida with which he unites servilis. Pupa desiderata "Weinland. PL 14, fig. 10. Shell broadly and deeply rimate, ovate-cylindric, corneous, thin, slightly obliquely striate under a strong lens; spire moderately tapering, the apex obtuse; suture rather impressed; whorls 5, convex, the last shorter than the spire; aperture subvertical, truncate-ovate, obstructed by a long parietal and another smaller and more deeply placed palatal tooth, opposite to the parietal; peristome corneous, thickened, expanded throughout, the right margin somewhat sinuous, right and basal margins a very little reflected. Length 2.4, diam. above the middle 1 mm. Gonave Island, off Haiti, under stones (Dr. Brown), a single specimen in the Bland collection. Pupa desiderata WEINLAND, Jahrbucher der Deutschen Malak. Ges., vii, 1880, p. 377, fig. in text. It may be suspected that Pupa desiderata is either a small bleached B. servilis or a form of B. pellucida. Both of these species are known to occur in Haiti. It is practically certain that Weinland did not see all of the teeth, only the anguloparietal and upper palatal being noticed by him. There must certainly be a columellar lamella, and I suspect lower palatal and basal plicae also, though these might be degenerate, as in G. s. riisei.” (Gould, 1843)