shell-sand would easily add others at the same place, such inhabiting the sublittoral zone. It is, however, more than probable that when the animals are examined many will be found to belong to other families, and it is imperative that the present association be only recognized as a temporary one. Omalogyra bicarinata(Suter, 1908).[P. 229.] I have before me specimens which agree in detail with Suter's description and figure. They cannot be referred to Omalogyra, as the “peristome continuous” is quite antagonistic to that genus. I have many times studied them, and they do not carry adult features in my eyes. My series does not exactly prove, but I myself am of the opinion, that they represent the first stage in the growth of Turbo smaragdus (Martyn, 1784). The careful search for young microscopic forms at any locality would well repay the student, and such a puzzle as the present one would be quickly solved. The shells can be compared with the juveniles of Angaria, which Suter described as species of Liotia (ante). I have examined, as well as the European and Neozelanic species of Omalogyra, species from Sydney, New South Wales, Lord Howe Island, and Norfolk Island, and they are all easily recognizable. Genus Cerithiella (Verrill, 1882). [P. 249.] In the Proc. Mal. Soc. (Lond.), vol. ix, p. 260, 1911, I discussed the rejection of this name by Cossmann, and the proposition of the new name Newtoniella. According to the nomenclatural laws now in force, Cerithiella is the valid name for this genus, and must be used. Thiele, apparently independently, has also investigated the matter, and has endorsed my conclusion. Morris and Lycett introduced Ceritella, and this name does not clash with Cerithiella, which was proposed by Verrill in the Trans. Conn. Acad., vol. v, p. 522, 1882. Mr. Edgar A. Smith, I.S.O., recently working upon Antarctic shells, has considered the matter, and also confirmed my results. The only Neozelanic species seems referable to the genus as defined by Harris and quoted by Suter, but disagrees somewhat with the type. Seila terebelloides (Hutton, 1873). [P. 253.] Suter used Cerithium terebelloides Martens, Crit. List, 1873, p. 26, as the basis of his Seila terebelloides, rejecting Cerithium cinctum Hutton of even date, writing, “Hutton's name has priority by one month, but the description is quite inadequate, and he himself adopted the name bestowed on the species by von Martens.” Hutton, however, published Martens' name at the same time as his own—viz., in the Cat. Mar. Moll. N.Z., p. 107, 1873—so that Hutton's C. cinctum, p. 27, has only page, not time, priority. This is quite sufficient to legalize Hutton's name; but we are relieved from making any alteration, as Hutton's name-selection was anticipated by Bruguière (Tabl. Ency. Meth. Vers., pt. 2, p. 493, 1792). The original reference, however, must be quoted: Cerithium (Bittium) terebelloides Hutton, Cat. Mar. Moll. N.Z., p. 107, 1873. Calyptraea tenuis (Gray, 1867). [P. 284.] Mr. E. A. Smith has shown that Calyptraea scutum Lesson is indeterminable, and that the correct name for the Neozelanic shell is C. tenuis Gray, Proc. Linn. Soc., 1867, p. 735.