this colony, and it may therefore help to swell the already long list of shells erroneously ascribed to New Zealand.

4. Gundlachia, sp. Plate XIV., figs. 1–5

About two years ago I found in the River Avon, below the outflow of the Horseshoe Lake, a minute ancyliform shell, which I could not separate from Ancylus woodsii, Johnston (figs. 1, 2), from Tasmania. I then found only empty shells, but further collecting furnished a good number of them alive. On examining the shells I found, to my great surprise, that in several of them the base was more or less closed by a septum, as it is found in the Tasmanian Gundlachia (fig. 3). On consulting Johnston's papers on the Tasmanian fresh-water shells I found the statement that his Ancylus woodsii has “the animal and teeth almost similar to Gundlachia petterdi” (!), and that in the young state the shell of Gundlachia resembles the common Ancylus. I compared the dentition of our shell with that of a Gundlachia from Ohio, and there was almost no difference; therefore the shell from the River Avon must be considered as a Gundlachia. Figs. 4. and 5 show the form of jaw and teeth. The shell, on attaining its full development; will, no doubt, resemble the Tasmanian G. petterdi, but I have not yet succeeded in finding it. According to my own observation, and information received from Tasmania, Gundlachia seems to attain but seldom its full development, but grows and dies mostly in its ancyliform shell, without even attempting to form a septum. This is shown by the fact that here, as well as in Tasmania, Ancylus woodsii is abundant, and Gundlachia is rare in the same locality.

Professor Hutton told me that this Gundlachia in the River Avon might possibly have been introduced from Tasmania on aquatic plants used for packing trout-ova. This may be, but I rather doubt it, for the following reason: I have not found yet the shell in question from the outflow of Horseshoe Lake upwards to the fish-hatching establishment, a distance of several miles, but only in that outflow and downwards from its disemboguement in the River Avon. Very likely it is living in that lake, and was brought down to the river when the canal was cleared from weeds. The lake is not easy of access, and I have not had an opportunity of “exploring it. The question whether it is an introduced form or not can only be settled with certainty when it is found in a locality where the above-mentioned mode of introduction is out of question.

The fact of Gundlachia occurring in New Zealand would not be astonishing at all, for we have, besides some genera of fresh-water shells, of the land-shells the sections Flammulina, Gerontia, Phacussa, Allodiscus, Thalassohelix, Phrixgnathus,

&c., in common with Tasmania, as shown by the writer quite recently.

5. Limnæa tenisoni, Clessin, sp. em. (tennissoni), 1886.

Was described and figured by its author in Conch. Cab. (2), i., Abth. 17, p. 371, pl. lii., fig. 11. Clessin's reason for placing this shell in the genus Physa I do not understand, for description and figure clearly show that it is a Limnæa; and I do not think that Clessin is unable to separate the two genera. Clessin's species seems to differ not very much from Limnæa alfredi, described and figured by the writer (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. xxii., p. 229, pl. xv., figs. 17, 17a), and I propose to make L. alfredi a variety of L. tenisoni, the latter having priority of publication.

Mr. Clessin and other European authors would greatly oblige the writer by sending him a copy, or at least a note, whenever they publish descriptions of new species of terrestrial and fresh-water shells from New Zealand; and they may expect reciprocity.

6. On some Species of Bullinus, Adanson, em. (Bulinus).

Bullinus novæ-seelandiæ, Clessin, sp. 1886, is another addition of Clessin's to our fauna, though the specific name is preoccupied by Sowerby. According to his description and figure (Conch. Cab. (2) i., Abth. 17, p. 372, pl. liv., fig. 7), it is, in my opinion, identical with B. variabilis, Gray. Most species of our Bullinus are so variable that the creation of new species is a very easy matter; but it is highly deplorable if this is done, as it seems to have been the case in several instances, based on a few specimens, and from one locality only, as there is no possibility to estimate the range of variability of the species.

By comparing many specimens, and from different localities, I came to the conclusion that B. tabulatus, Gould, sp. 1848, and B. moesta, H. Adams, sp. 1861, are one and the same species. The distinction of species by the keeling of the whorls is quite untenable, and every gradation of it may be observed.

Two species of Bullinus were brought to light by Mr. Charles Hedley—viz., B. coromandelicus, Dunker, sp. 1862, and B. hochstetteri, Dunker, sp. 1862, which were omitted from former lists of our mollusca. I have but little doubt that both must be considered as identical with B. tabulatus, Gould.

7. Athoracophorus, Gould, 1852. Plate XIV., figs. 6–9, and Plate XV., figs. 10, 11.

In the “Enumeration of the Janellidæ,” published by Mr. Charles Hedley in the last volume, of oar Transactions, the

generic name of Janella, Gray, 1850, was used, and arguments given for doing so. As Janella, Grateloup, is identical with Niso, Risso, the name can stand, but I think, with Pilsbry, that it is far better to reject any name which has been previously proposed in a generic sense, whether the first usage is valid or not. Mr. H. A. Pilsbry, in a letter to. Mr. Charles Hedley, kindly communicated to me, gives the following weighty reasons: “We never know when a name supposed to be a synonym is going to be revived for a section, sub-genus or genus, on account of characters formerly overlooked; and when the name happens to be in a little-known group, unfamiliar to us—Diptera for example—who is to tell whether a generic name is really a synonym or not?” I, therefore, use now the name proposed by Gould.

A. papillatus, Hutton. As this species has only been figured by Simroth (A. verrucosus, Von Mart., Nova Acta, Bd. 54, pl. iv., fig. 11), and I had an opportunity of getting good specimens near Christchurch, I now give correct drawings of the animal, jaw and teeth of the radula (Plates XIV. and XV., figs. 6–11), I compared carefully Simroth's description of the animal and anatomy of A. verrucosus, Von Martens, 1889, with typical specimens of A. papillatus, Hutton, and the details of its anatomy published by Professor Hutton, and am convinced that both are one and the same species.

The var. nigricans and fasciata, Von Martens, I never observed in adult specimens of A. papillatus. Young specimens of this species I found always mixed of the typical form and var. fasciatus, whilst in adult specimens the colourmarkings of the latter had fully disappeared, but they showed somewhat different colours. Some were of a yellowish-brown, but others were dark olive, the latter very likely corresponding with the var.fasciatus in the young. The variety nigricans is rare.

It seems to me that too much importance has been attributed to the colour and colour-markings of Athoracophorus, and this by scientists who have never seen the living animals, but only specimens more or less badly preserved in alcohol, which deteriorates the colour and form of the animals considerably. I have collected hundreds of Athoracophorus on both Islands of this colony, and can testify to the great variability of colour and colour-markings in the species.

A. marmoreus, Hutton, is no doubt the same as A. marmoratus, Von Martens, described by Dr. Simroth. The description and figure of the animal given by Simroth corresponds very well with Hutton's species, and in the main features of the genital organs, according to the publications of both scientists, they also seem to me to agree. I had no specimen of A. marmoratus at my disposal, as was the case with

A. papillatus, to compare its anatomy with all the details given by Dr. Simroth.

According to Simroth's able investigations (Nova Acta, Bd. 54, Die Nacktschnecken Neu Seelands, p. 71, &c.), and his utterances when speaking on the systematic position of the Athoracophoridæ, it will be necessary to class A. papillatus and A. marmoreus in different sub-genera. He says distinctly that the most striking differences between the two species in form and cross-section of the animals and genital organs would almost justify the creation of two genera

The sub-genus Pseudaneitea has been proposed by T. D. A. Cockerell (P. Z.S., 1891, p. 217) for slugs of New Zealand and the Auckland Islands, resembling Athoracophorus, but showing a decided tendency towards the formation of a “mantle area” like that of Aneitea. The type and only species is A. papillatus, Hutton, sp. 1879 (= verrucosus, Von Martens, 1889). As sub-genus for A. marmoreus, Hutton, sp. 1879 (=marmoratus, Von Martens, 1889), must of course be taken Konophora, the former generic name proposed by Professor Hutton in 1879 (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. xi., p. 332)

Neojanella dubia, Cockerell (l.c.), is nothing else but A. bitentaculatus, Quoy and Gaimard. I could show Mr. Cockerell alcohol specimens of this slug which are lacking the “mantle area” and dorsal groove, yet they were distinctly visible when the animals were alive; and also specimens of A. bitentaculatus, with the back pale-yellowish, marbled all over with black or dark-bluish grey. The specimen described by Cockerell is a very large one (length 53mm.), and I know of no other locality than the south side of Cook Strait where A. bitentaculatus attains such a large size.

8. Bulimus antipodarum, Gray, 1843,

Is said to have been found at Kaitaia by Dieffenbach, and recent collectors (Gillies and T. W. Kirk) are reported as having found this shell at different places in the northern part of the Province of Auckland. Opinions are divided as to the validity of the species; some consider it as the young of Placostylus bovinus, others take it as a good species. I therefore thought it well worth to investigate the question, and wish now to say a few words on the subject. Looking at the figure of B. antipodarum given by Smith (Voy. “Erebus” and “Terror,” ii., Moll., pl. i., fig. 5), and reading Gray's description (Dieffenbach's New Zealand, ii., p. 247), one must come to the conclusion that this shell cannot belong to the genus Placostylus, the aperture being quite different, but it agrees in every respect with Cochlostyla. This opinion was evidently held also by the author of the species, for he says that it is allied to Bulimus fulgetrum, Broderip, from the Philippine

Islands, which is a true Cochlostyla. Reading Gillies's remarks on B. antipodarum (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. i., p. 60) one gets the impression that he mistook young specimens of P. bovinus for Gray's species, and in this he was followed by others. Professor Hutton kindly allowed me to examine specimens in the Canterbury Museum, labelled P. antipodarum, and they proved to be young specimens of P. bovinus, but were in no way related to B. antipodarum. I am now of opinion that the shell found by Dieffenbach, and described by Gray as B. antipodarum, has very likely never been found again in New Zealand, and is in reality Cochlostyla fulgetrum, Broderip, introduced accidentally from the Philippine Islands. This suggestion is supported by the fact that Cochlostyla daphnis, Broderip, from those islands, has been found at Picton (Trans. N.Z. Inst., xxiv., p. 280).

9. Amphidoxa and Flammulina.

Albers founded the section Amphidoxa to receive two species—A. marmorella, Pf., and A. helicophantoides, Pf., from Juan Fernandez and Chili. Professor Hutton, in his Revision of the Land-shells of New Zealand, the foundation-stone of our present knowledge of these molluscs, classed nine of our shells under Amphidoxa, Albers, and gave descriptions and figures of the dentition of eight of them. The diagnosis given by Albers, and the figures of the species from Juan Fernandez, seem to fully justify Professor Hutton's view in adopting Amphidoxa for our shells, more especially for A. crebriflammis, Pf., A. zebra, Le Guillou, and A. costulata, Hutton. Professor Hutton, and the writer, never had an opportunity of comparing New Zealand specimens with Amphidoxa specimens from Juan Fernandez, and the dentition of the latter is still unknown.

Last year Mr. H. A. Pilsbry published “Observations on the Helices of New Zealand” (Nautilus, vi., Sept., 1892, No. 5, p. 54, &c.), which, coming from such an able conchologist, were greatly appreciated by scientists in Australasia. With regard to Amphidoxa, he says (l.c., p. 56), “The true Amphidoxa has not been found elsewhere than upon the island Juan Fernandez and the neighbouring South American coast. I have compared specimens with the New Zealand shells, and find that there is not the slightest ground for supposing them congeneric.” After such a verdict from a competent authority, Mr. Hedley and the writer, in the “Reference List of the Land and Fresh-water Mollusca of New Zealand” (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vii., (2), p. 643), adopted the name Flammulina, proposed by Von Martens (Critical List of New Zealand Moll., 1873, p. 12), for the New Zealand species formerly included in Amphidoxa,—F. zebra, Le Guillou, being the type.

A short time ago I examined the dentition of thirty-two land-shells from Tasmania, and found them mostly to belong to the sections Flammulina, Gerontia, Phacussa, Allodiscus, Thalassohelix, and Phrixgnathus, hitherto known from New Zealand only. Afterwards I had an opportunity of examining the dentition of a land-shell from South Africa, a typical form of the section Pella, Albers, which, to my great surprise, showed the very same peculiarities in jaw and radula as are characteristic of our genus Flammulina. All this leads me to think that Flammulina and allied forms belong to the antarctic fauna, which at a very remote period may have lived on the supposed antarctic continent, and of which remnants are now found in New Zealand, Tasmania, South Africa, and—why not South America also?

I hope that some day the dentition of the Amphidoxa species from Juan Fernandez will be made known, and I should not be astonished to see them (and perhaps Stephanoda also) nearly related to those forms I now include in the genus Flammulina.

10. Thalassohelix igniflua, Reeve, and Th. obnubila, Reeve.

Professor Hutton was the first to recognise the absolute identity of the two species (Trans. N. Z. Inst., vol. xvi., p. 203), In the “Reference List” (l.c., p. 636), by Mr. Hedley and myself, however, my friend made Th. obnubila a variety of Th. igniflua. This difference of opinion caused me to look once more at the specimens in my collection, and to compare them carefully with the diagnoses of the two species. It was easy to pick out a few specimens corresponding with each of the species mentioned, extreme forms; but, besides these, there were many intermediate forms, and I again came to the same conclusion as Professor Hutton, that they are all one and the same species, and that there is not even a possibility of making out a constant variety. Th. igniflua, the large, brighter, and smoother form, is found in open country, amongst shrubs, tussocks, &c.; whilst the smaller, dark-coloured, and strongly striated and plaited Th. obnubila occurs in the dark native bush. The differences in the shell seem to be due to the influence of the habitat only. The dentition is the same in both.

An example of similar variability is Thalassohelix fordei, Brazier, of Tasmania, of which no less than about twelve species have been made.

11. Endodonta, Albers. Plate XV., figs. 12–14.

The first New Zealand species of this genus made known to science is E. cryptobidens, Sut. (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol.

xxiii., p. 89). Since then three more species have been recognised, all of which are species described long ago under the generic name of Patula, viz.:—

(a.) E. varicosa, Pfeiffer, sp. 1854 (fig. 12). I sent specimens of E. timandra, Hutton, to Mr. Edgar A. Smith, of the British Museum, to compare them with Pfeiffer's type of H. varicosa. Mr. Smith most obligingly informed me that they were not identical, but that Pfeiffer's Helix varicosa was undoubtedly also an Endodonta, having one tooth (overlooked by Pfeiffer and Reeve) situated on the body-whorl. It is a slender lamella, and might easily be overlooked.

(b.) E. timandra, Hutton, sp. 1883 (fig. 13), is very much like the foregoing, but is smaller, more openly umbilicated, has more riblets, and the armature of the mouth is different, there being three lamellæ, one on the body-whorl, one at the base of the columella margin, and one on the outer lip.

(c.) E. jessica, Hutton, sp. 1883 (fig. 14). On examining this shell, which is very nearly allied to the foregoing two species, I found it to have six teeth in the aperture, of which two are situated on the body-whorl, one at the base of the inner lip, and three on the outer lip.

According to my present knowledge, E. timandra is confined to the North Island, the other three to the South Island.

12. Charopa coma, Gray, var. globosa, Suter, 1892.

This variety is the same as var. beta, Pfeiffer, 1853; but, as varieties are to be named in the same way as species, and there exists already a Charopa beta, Pf. (= barbatula, Reeve), Pfeiffer's name can hardly stand. This variety is not identical with Ch. lucetta, Hutt. (= stokesi, Smith), as supposed by several conchologists.

13. Charopa caput - spinulæ, Reeve, sp. 1852. Plate XVI., figs. 15, 16 (= epsilon, Pfeiffer).

The dentition of this species has never been published before, and, as the radula is a typical form of Charopa, I give here a figure of it and of two jaws, showing the variability of the latter in the same species. The jaw is membraneous, and distinctly striated, not plaited. The radula has the formula. 12—4—1—4—12. It is hardly necessary to describe it, the characters being mainly the same as delineated in former papers by Professor Hutton and myself for Charopa.

14. Tesseraria^* novoseelandica, Pfeiffer, sp. 1854. Plate XVI., fig. 17.

The true systematic position of this little pupiform mollusc