![Thumbnail: [Volume 38, 1905 page 319]](/journals/rsnz/images/rsnz_38/thumbnails/rsnz_38_00_0342_0319_ac_02.gif)
Corbula macilenta, Hutton (1873).
Corbula macilenta, Hutton, Cat. Tert. Moll. N.Z., 1873, p. 18. (?)Corbula erythrodon, Von Martens, Crit. List. Moll. N.Z., 1873, p. 41; Hutton, Journ. de Conch., vol. xxvi, 1878, p. 44; Man. N.Z. Moll., 1880, p. 135; Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vol. ix, 1884, p. 513; Pliocene Moll. N.Z., 1893, p. 74; Suter, Fauna Novæ-Zealand., 1904, p. 88 (not of Lamarck). Corbula pura, Webster, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. xxxvii, 1905, p. 279, pl. x, figs. 12, 12a.
The late Professor Von Martens was very doubtful about identifying our species with the Japanese C. erythrodon, Lamk. Mr. Hedley, in his paper on the Pelecypoda dredged in 110 fathoms off Great Barrier Island (this volume), points out that the New Zealand species hitherto known as C. erythrodon is very different from Lamarck's species, and that it should be
![Thumbnail: [Volume 38, 1905 page 320]](/journals/rsnz/images/rsnz_38/thumbnails/rsnz_38_00_0343_0320_ac_02.gif)
struck off the New Zealand list. Having now read Lamarck's diagnosis I fully agree with Mr. Hedley, and as Hutton's name macilenta is available it has to take the place of erythròdon. Webster's C. pura I do not consider as a distinct species; the radiate striation is more or less distinct in all specimens of C. macilenta that came under my observation, and its greater predominance, together with more regular concentric striation, can hardly be considered as sufficient reason why it should be regarded as a species different from macilenta. Unfortunately, the Rev. Mr. Webster took the anterior for the posterior margin, and the right for the left valve in consequence.