Art. XLVII.—A Commentary on Suter's “Manual of the New Zealand Mollusca.”

By Tom Iredale.

in understanding better the results stated. The references given can be quoted freely, as I have carefully verified each one myself.

Order Polyphacophora.

This order has been my chief interest ever since I commenced the study of molluscs. I hope to incorporate all the results of my investigations in a monograph of the Australasian forms. I have, to this end, contributed to the Proceedings of the Malacological Society (London) a series of articles dealing with nomenclatural problems, and also indicating alterations necessary in classification. I herewith give a summary as affecting the names and status of the New Zealand genera and species as I understand them at present. In the “Additions and Emendations,” pp. 1077–82, Suter has included some of my earlier notes, so that when considering this group these must be reckoned with. On p. 1082 Suter has given a synopsis of Thiele's classification of these molluscs, a scheme which I generally approve of. I would, nevertheless, indicate that Thiele's arrangement opens up a large field for study, as, though radular characters form the basis of his grouping, shell features confirm it.

Ischnochiton contractus (Reeve, 1847). [P. 8.]^*

I have not seen Suter's immature specimen, but I doubt if it should be referred to this species. Mr. W. L. May has sent me specimens of three distinct species which have been confused by Tasmanian collectors under that species-name.

Ischnochiton campbelli (Filhol, 1880). [P. 9.]

On p. 1077 Suter comments upon my identification of I. fulvus Suter, 1905, and I parkeri Suter, 1897, with the earlier Tonicia gryei, Filhol, 1880, and rejects the last-named, as Filhol's description was unaccompanied by a figure; but Mr. Suter's rejection cannot be maintained. He also differs from me in still considering his own two names as representing distinct species I have therefore once more re-examined the shells, of which I have long series, and cannot see any differentiating features. Suter only gives “shape and divergence,” and in this genus these characters are unstable. Further study of these shells has convinced me that the correct name to be used is as above, based on Lepidopleurus campbelli Filhol (Comptes Rendus Sci. Paris, vol. xci, p. 1095, 1880: Campbell Island). When I studied the types of the French authors, by permission of the Curator of the Paris Museum, the types of this species had been mislaid. As the types of Tonicia gryei Filhol were hidden under the later name Lepidopleurus melanterus Rochebrune, I conclude that the tube so labelled also contained the shells described by Filhol as L campbelli. The description is quite good—indeed, more applicable in detail than that of Tonicia gryei, which follows it. Though no figure was offered, this is no reason for dismissing Filhol's name, and I therefore reinstate it as above.

I have seen specimens from South Australia named I. fulvus by Dr. Torr, but these are at once recognized as distinct by examination of the girdle-scales. The few deep grooves on the scales of I. campbelli Filhol are quite characteristic.

Ischnochiton maorianus Iredale, 1914. [P. 9.]

In the Proc. Mal. Soc. (Lond.), vol. xi, p. 36, 1914, I proposed this name for the common New Zealand species known as I. longicymba Quoy and Gaimard, 1835.

In the Dict. Sci. Nat. (Levrault), vol. xxxvi, 1825, Blainville furnished the first systematic monograph of this order, and on p. 542 described Chiton longicymba from specimens collected at King Island, Bass Strait. In 1835, as quoted by Suter, Quoy and Gaimard figured a shell under Blainville's name, giving as localities New Zealand and Australia.

In the Manual Conch., vol. xiv, p. 87, 1892, Pilsbry detailed the differences between the shells thus named from Australia and New Zealand, and, ignoring Blainville's name, used Quoy and Gaimard's misinterpretation, further making confusion by restricting the name to the New Zealand form. It is unjustifiable to transfer names in this manner, and the only way out was to name the New Zealand species as I have done.

Acanthochiton australis (Suter, 1907). [P. 16.]

Suter described a Mopalia australis from the Snares Islands. Geographically the generic location was extraordinary, and it has now been proved that the genera of Chitons are restricted to certain geographical areas. Thiele, from this reasoning, threw doubt upon the accuracy of Suter's selection. I have been puzzled, but now put forward the solution. The description given by Suter agrees in every detail, save the number of slits in the anterior valve, with Acanthochiton. The normal number of slits in that genus is five, and any larger number is due to interslitting. Consequently the eight recorded by Suter is quite abnormal, and misled him owing to the eroded nature of the exterior. Had the sculpture been observed, it is almost certain that the true generic location would have been ascertained at first.

Plaxiphora aurata (Spalowsky, 1795). [P. 18.]

In the Proc. Mal. Soc. (Lond.), vol. xi, p. 31, 1914, I noted that P. aucklandica Suter was based upon a juvenile of P. campbelli Filhol. I now put forward the above as the correct name for a species which has the longest synonymy of any austral Chiton, and yet is the best-marked species.

In the Proc. Mal. Soc. (Lond.), vol. ix, 1910, I synonymized P. superba Pilsbry and P. subatrata (Pilsbry) Suter with the earlier P. campbelli Filhol. These names refer to Neozelanic shells. On the next page I pointed out that P. carmichaelis (Wood) should be used for the South American species commonly known as P. setiger King, and also recorded as a synonym C. hahni Rochebrune. The following year Pilsbry (“Nautilus,” vol. xxv, p. 36, 1911) showed that Chiton auratus Spalowsky (Prodr. Syst. Hist. Test., p. 88, pl. 13, figs. 6a, 6b, 1795) antedated both, and though described from “Die Südsee (von der Insel Otahaiti?)” was undoubtedly the South American shell. I have examined large numbers of the latter in every stage of growth and preservation, and I cannot distinguish any differential characters between them and the Neozelanic shell. It should be remarked that hitherto no one has critically compared the two species. Pilsbry only knew the Neozelanic form from Carpenter's notes, and Suter never mentions the South American species in connection with it. A parallel distributional case is the admission of Callochiton puniceus Gould, a common South American shell, to the New Zealand Chiton fauna (p. 14). Suter

dismissed P. campbelli Filhol for lack of figure (p. 1079), but this excuse cannot be urged against Spalowsky's name, as a beautiful coloured representation accompanies it. I hope to elaborate the relationships of the littoral marine molluscs of South America and New Zealand at some later date, as hitherto not much notice has been given to this fact.

Plaxiphora zigzag (Hutton, 1872). [P. 19.]

Forty-odd years ago Hutton described this species, which has only received its due recognition this year (1914) by myself through indications by Thiele in 1909. In the Revision, p. 23, Thiele's examination of a small shell from Lyttelton led him to point out the differences between this and P. caelata Reeve. As the specimen seemed young, Thiele fortunately withheld nomination. When I was collecting at Lyttelton I was always puzzled at the association of all the small Plaxiphora under the one name, caelata Reeve. A smaller shell, differently coloured, with a peculiar girdle, was more common, but almost always in an unrecognizable state as regards valve sculpture. The larger, clean, easily determined P. caelata Reeve lived lower down, and was much more rare. I collected numbers of the former in the desire to secure good-looking specimens. Dissection of many of these showed them constantly to give the characters noted by Thiele as differentiating his unnamed form from P. caelata Reeve. In the Proc. Mal. Soc. (Lond.), vol. xi, p. 34, 1914, I recorded the fact that no new name was needed, as this was the species described by Hutton in 1872, and this must be added to the New Zealand list, and the name removed from the synonymy of P. caelata Reeve. Hutton's description is very good as regards external features, and the shell can be recognized by means of it.

Suter (p. 1078) remarks that P. terminalis may be classed as a subspecies of P. caelata; but that conclusion was not intended by my remarks. My reading of Thiele's description and figures of P. schauinslandi led me to decide that agreement with P. terminalis was certain, laying no weight upon locality. The Chatham Island species, which I have not seen, would appear to differ, though it is difficult to judge from descriptions, and, if so, would bear Thiele's name.

Plaxiphora glauca (Quoy and Gaimard, 1835). [P. 20.]

What the species included under this name is I do not know. It cannot bear this name, as it undoubtedly cannot be the Australian species thus named, for which the correct name is P. albida Blainville, as noted by Suter on p. 1079, but rejected as unfigured. “The latter [glauca Q. & G.] can still be retained,” Suter writes; but that is not so, as the name is preoccupied as corrected by Thiele.

Thiele also named P. schauinslandi from the Chathams, and this may be Suter's species. The coincidence of locality and description forces the conclusion, though P. schauinslandi is referable to the group I have called Maorichiton, while the true P. albida is a member of the Poneroplax group. I propose to substitute Thiele's name for the doubly invalid one selected by Suter, and ask for confirmation.

I have expressed my views with regard to the genus Plaxiphora in the Proc. Mal. Soc. (Lond.), vol. xi, pp. 31–33, 1914, and have separated the species P. obtecta Pilsbry, with generic rank. I have distinguished five subgenera in the genus Plaxiphora, and would insist upon their usage. This necessitates more careful examination of the species and study of

many dissected examples, but it obviates puzzles such as presented by the record of the species P. glauca Q. & G. from the Chatham Islands. The item in Suter's description, “Posterior valve convex, with transverse lines, mucro terminal,” suggests its reference to the subgenus Maorichiton, and consequently its identity with Thiele's P. schauinslandi. The terminal mucro is characteristic of the subgenus, the mucro in Australian shells being never terminal, but subterminal or subcentral.

Genus Acanthochiton (Gray, 1821, em.). [P. 25.]

The introduction of the subgeneric name Acanthochitona by Gray in the “London Medical Repository,” vol. xv, p. 234, 1821, has been constantly overlooked, the later Acanthochites of Risso, 1826, being commonly in use. When I restored it (Proc. Mal. Soc. (Lond.), vol. xi, p. 126, 1914) I also gave notes on the names Amicula, Cryptoconchus, and Macandrellus, and advocated the recognition of four generic types in the Acanthochitons of New Zealand. The synonymy of these names has been discussed in detail at the place quoted, so need not here be elaborated. The family name should be Cryptoconchidae, as I noted that Cryptoconchus must be regarded as introduced in 1815, and therefore antedates Acanthochiton Gray, 1821. I agree with Suter (p. 1080) that Spongiochiton productus Pilsbry should be dismissed from the New Zealand list

Amaurochiton glaucus (Gray, 1828). [P. 34.]

In the “Spicilegia Zoologica,” pt. 1, p. 5, 1828, Gray described Chiton glaucus from unknown locality. Pilsbry rejected this name, as he considered the description inadequate, and stated that the type was lost. It appears he wrote this last sentence without inquiry, as the type is preserved in the British Museum. Further, Pilsbry based his monograph upon Carpenter's manuscript notes, and Carpenter recognized the type, and upon the back of the tablet is a note by Carpenter regarding his identification. It is undoubtedly the New Zealand shell, and all Neozelanic specimens for many years were, and are still, given Gray's specific name. I simply noted this fact in the Proc. Mal. Soc. (Lond.), vol. xi, p 38, 1914, in a footnote, when noting the dissimilarity between “Chiton pellisserpentis Quoy and Gaimard” and “Chiton quoyi Deshayes” = Amaurochiton glaucus (Gray). The usage of the generic Amaurochiton becomes necessary through the rejection of “Chiton” as applicable to a heterogeneous assemblage of Chitons with scaly girdles and pectinated insertion teeth.

Amaurochiton was proposed by Thiele from an examination of the radular characters of Chitons. The name was given to the South American species C. olivaceus Deshayes. Thiele also proposed Triboplax generically for the present species, but these are only specifically distinct. Indeed, some workers have used the names as if they were conspecific. The relationship is really very close, and there can be no hesitation in using the above generic name. Chiton belongs to a species which superficially recalls Chiton pellisserpentis Q. & G., and the rejection of it in the present connection will be admitted as necessary by every accurate worker.

Craspedochiton cuneatus (Suter). [P. 42.]

The genus Tonicia must be dismissed from the Neozelanic fauna, and the species named by Suter Tonicia cuneata transferred to Craspedochiton. On p. 1081 Suter records Thiele's conclusion to the same effect from study

of the radula. My own result was achieved by criticism of the shell characters alone. The slitting in the head-valve is abnormal, four only being counted, instead of the usual five, but in Tonicia the normal is eight. I would emphasize the fact that the generic location must be regarded as temporary only, as I have not seen the unique specimen, and the figure given by Suter is comparatively valueless, showing seven valves only.

I wish Mr. J. C. Anderson would find some more specimens, but I well know the difficulty of securing these rare stragglers from deeper water.

Genus Acanthopleura (Guilding). [P. 44.]

This, with the species A. granulata, and all the matter connected with them, must be omitted, as this is no constituent of the New Zealand fauna. I have pointed out, as acknowledged in the Manual, p. 1078, that Tonicia corticata Hutton should rank as a synonym of Plaxiphora biramosa (Quoy and Gaimard). The genus Acanthopleura is confined to the tropics, rarely occurring outside these limits. It is absolutely littoral in every portion of its range, though sometimes specimens are dredged in shallow water. Two species occur in north Australia and the Pacific Ocean, but it is the West Indian species that is here included. It is impossible to accept such a record, and I do not think that the shell upon which Suter based his record had any history at all. It was certainly never collected alive in New Zealand waters. The locality, Pitt Island, I do not understand, and in view of the known distribution of Chitons this species cannot be recognized as Neozelanic. Will collectors please note.

Onithochiton neglectus (Rochebrune, 1881). [P. 49.]

In the Proc. Mal. Soc. (Lond.), vol. ix, p. 153, 1910, I wrote upon New Zealand Onithochitons, and agreed with Thiele that O. semisculptus Pilsbry was an absolute synonym of O. undulatus Quoy and Gaimard, and that, moreover, Pilsbry's name was antedated by Rochebrune's four specific names published a dozen years earlier. I also stated that I would consider Suter's var. subantarcticus as a different species. In the same journal, vol. xi, pp. 45–46, 1914, I noted that Quoy and Gaimard's name was preoccupied, and that the common New Zealand shell would bear the name O. filholi Rochebrune. Upon reconfirming my data I find that this was due to a misreading of my notes, and that the name to be used is O. neglectus Rochebrune.

Suter's record of his var. subantarcticus from Cook Strait and New Brighton does not refer to this species, which is confined to the subantarctic islands, but belongs to a species quite distinct, but as yet unnamed.

Summaries are most helpful, and I here give a summary of my classification of the Neozelanic Chiton fauna, with the use of Thiele's system as basis I add the original reference only when it differs or is not given by Suter.

• Suborder Lepidopleurina.

•  Fam. Lepidopleuridae Pilsbry.

•   Genus Lepidopleurus Risso, 1826.

•    Subgenus Terenochiton Iredale, 1914. Terenochiton Iredale,     Proc. Mal. Soc. (Lond.), vol. xi, p. 28, 1914. Type:      Lepidopleurus subtropicalis Iredale.

•    Lepidopleurus inquinatus (Reeve, 1847).

• Suborder Chitonina—continued.

• Fam. Chitonidae Thiele.

• Genus Sypharochiton Thiele, 1893. Sypharochiton Thiele, “Das Gebiss der Schnecken,” vol. ii, p. 365, 1893. Type: Chiton pellisserpentis Quoy and Gaimard. Synonym: Triboplax Thiele, loc. cit., p. 366.

• Spharochiton pellisserpentis (Quoy and Gaimard, 1835).

• ——sinclairi (Gray, 1843).

• ——torri (Suter, 1907).

• Genus Amaurochiton Thiele, 1893. Amaurochiton Thiele, loc. cit., p. 362. Type: C. olivaceus Deshayes. Synonym: Poeciloplax Thiele, loc. cit., p. 365.

• Amaurochiton glaucus Gray, 1828. Chiton glaucus Gray, “Spicilegia Zoologica,” pt. i, p. 5, 1828. Synonyms: C. viridis Quoy and Gaimard, 1835; C. quoyi Deshayes, 1836; C. quoyi subsp. limosus Suter, 1905.

• Genus Rhyssoplax Thiele, 1893. Rhyssoplax Thiele, loc. cit., p. 368. Type: Chiton affinis Issel. Synonyms: Clathropleura Thiele, loc. cit., p. 367 (not of Tiberi, 1878); Anthochiton Thiele, loc. cit., p. 377.

• Rhyssoplax aerea (Reeve, 1847).

• ——canaliculata (Quoy and Gaimard, 1835). Synonyms: Chiton stangeri Reeve, 1847; C. insculptus A. Adams, 1854.

• ——clavata (Suter, 1907).

• ——huttoni (Suter, 1906).

• ——limans (Pilsbry, 1893). Chiton limans Pilsbry, Man. Conch., vol. xiv, p. 176, 1893. Synonym: C. muricatus A. Adams, 1854, not Tilesius, 1824.

• ——suteri (Iredale, 1910) Synonym: Chiton stangeri Suter, 1897, not Reeve, 1847.

• Genus Onithochiton Gray, 1847.

• Onithochiton marmoratus Wissel, 1904. Synonym: Onithochiton nodosus Suter, 1907.

• ——subantarcticus Suter, 1907.

• ——neglectus Rochebrune, Bull. Soc. Philom. Paris, ser. 7, vol. v, p. 120, 1881: Wellington, N.Z. Synonyms: Chiton undulatus Quoy and Gaimard, 1835, not Wood, 1828; Onithochiton astrolabei Rochebrune, loc. cit., p. 120; O. filholi, id. ib.; O. decipiens, id. ib., vol. vi, p. 196, 1882; O. semisculptus Pilsbry, 1893.

There is still much to be done in the investigation of the Neozelanic Chiton fauna, as, in addition to the preceding, I have unicums representing two distinct species, and I have two other recognizable species hitherto confused. I have also seen a deep-water Lepidopleurus dredged by the Scott Antarctic Expedition.

Fam.Acmaeidae.[P. 62.]

It is doubtful whether this name should be retained, as there is a prior Acmea (“Hartmann Neue Alpin,” i, 1820) and the two names seem to conflict. I am, however, less concerned with regard to this debatable point after examination of the type species of Acmaea Eschscholtz. This is a west North American shell, and the Neozelanic shells are decidedly not

congeneric. When the classification used by Australian and Neozelanic malacologists was prepared scientific investigation as to phylogeny as understood to-day was in its infancy, and geography and much else was disregarded. If a shell resembling Acmaea mitra was found by a Neozelanic conchologist, I venture to state it would have been classed anywhere but in Acmaea. I am convinced that, though Neozelanic malacology has benefited greatly by the research of American workers, it has also suffered through the acceptance of their conclusions as regards generic and specific values, such conclusions being based on little or no material conjoined to an ignorance of local conditions. From 1880 to 1913 the number of forms recognized was raised from 447 to 1187, and this can be said to be the work of one man, Mr. Henry Suter, for, though much collecting was done by others, the bulk of this was due to Mr. Suter's initiative. The work is just commencing in every way, animals and habits being as yet comparatively unknown.

The rejection of Acmaea from the New Zealand list is certainly inevitable, and the other names given to northern “Acmaeas,”—viz., Tectura Gray, Erginus Jeffreys, and Collisella Dall—are just as unsuitable.

From shell characters the Neozelanic species are easily grouped, and there can be little doubt that animal characters coincidently agree. I propose to introduce new names for these, and invite investigation and study. These names are equally applicable to Australian forms, and it should be observed that these austral species have no connection with northern forms, “Acmaeas” being practically absent from the intervening tropics. By the usage of these names we get a better idea of the relationships of the forms than by the continuance of extra-limital terms which are most doubtfully applicable, and which, judging from shell characters, are certainly untenable.

Radiacmea gen. nov. [P. 63.]

I propose this name for the group of shells around A. cingulata Hutton, which I name as type. These agree in shape, external features, and general coloration. According to Suter, the radular characters are “typical, resembling very much that of A. mitra Esch.” With this species the shell has nothing in common. The shells would come nearer A. corticata Hutton, but the radula of this species differs. The group is well marked in New Zealand, but I dissociate Suter's A. intermedia and roseoradiata from it, and restrict it to A. cingulata Hutton and Fissurella rubiginosa Hutton.

I did not collect any “Acmaeas” at the Kermadecs, nor have I got any from Norfolk Island, nor are there any littoral species from Lord Howe Island, but one small species is commonly dredged. Mr. Oliver has, however, received some specimens of Radiacmea from the Kermadecs.

Atalacmea gen. nov. [P. 68.]

I propose this name for the species commonly known as Acmaea fragilis Chemnitz. Chemnitz was, however, not a binomialist, and his species-names cannot be accepted. This is undoubtedly true as regards all the preceding ten volumes, but because in the eleventh, where this name occurs, binomials are frequent and polynomials scarcer, such binomials have been commonly preserved. Their rejection is inevitable, and it should be noted that these names do not occur in Sherborn's “Index Animalium.” The next name appears to be Lesson's Patella unguis-almae, which must come into use.

The anatomy of this species is said to differ little from that of other “Acmaeas.” I do not agree with this, as the shell characters differ extraordinarily, and in habits this species is no “Acmaea”: its habitat and rapid movements are unique in the family, if it be classed correctly.

Notoacmea gen. nov. [P. 71.]

I name as typePatelloïda pileopsis Quoy and Gaimard, and would class under this genus the remaining uncharacterized Neozelanic “Acmaeas,” with the proviso that probably more than one generic form is here confused. The type shell conchologically resembles that of Tectura, of the Northern Hemisphere, and the southern shells were so placed by Thiele, though differences in the radula were shown. The small “Acmaeas,” such as A. daedala Suter and A. parviconoidea Suter, are easily separated, and might form a subgenus, for which I propose the new name Parvacmea, and name A. daedala Suter as type.

If the Neozelanic species were collected and examined in connection with the names here proposed it would at once be seen how natural my groups are, and also that the Australian forms fall into order.

Patelloïda (Quoy and Gaimard, 1834). [P. 73.]

The nomination of some shells from the Montebello Islands, Western Australia, allowed me the opportunity of rectifying the nomenclature of the shells grouped about A. saccharina (Linné), and I discovered that this name was applicable to the group named by Suter as Collisellina Dall, 1871. The type of Patelloïda Quoy and Gaimard was given in the Manual Conch. by Pilsbry as P. fragilis Q. & G., but that was an error; also one which would not be easily discovered by the Neozelanic worker. These facts were recorded in the Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.), 1914, p. 670.

The Neozelanic species would be named Patelloïda stella (Lesson, 1831); P. pseudocorticata (Iredale, 1908); P. perplexa (Pilsbry, 1891).

I will discuss the status of corticata, now admitted as a subspecies, and pseudocorticata in my next communication, when I will give figures elucidating my species.

Notoacmea suteri nom. nov. [P. 65.]

Acmaea roseoradiata Suter, 1907, is preoccupied by the prior Acmaea roseoradiata E. A. Smith (Journ. Conch., vol. x, p. 106, pl. i, fig. 19, 1901). I had intended that such alterations should have been made by Mr. Suter himself, but as he has written me to the effect that he will be unable to give more attention to the Recent Mollusca in the future I herewith propose amendments. Mr. Suter comments: “This pretty little shell is well characterized, and quite distinct from all other known New Zealand species of the genus.” I therefore introduce the above as a suitable alternative. I do not, however, class the species in my genus Radiacmea, though Suter associated it with A. cingulata Hutton. The radular characters are unknown, and the shell differs appreciably to me from Radiacmea. Its reference to Notoacmea is, however, of a temporary character.

Notoacmea helmsi (E. A. Smith, 1894). [P. 69.].

Under this name I include the shells referred to Acmaea septiformis Quoy and Gaimard by Suter, and also class as a variant the var. leucoma Suter, 1907, which he referred to A. parviconoidea. Only two localities

are quoted by Suter for A. helmsi—viz., Greymouth and Cape Egmont. Examination of the types, however, show it to be a common shell occurring at many points from Lyttelton to Dunedin, and which I had so identified, but ranked as a variety of A. septiformis Q. & G. I would reject this latter from the Neozelanic list, as it seems to be the Australian representative of the Neozelanic A. pileopsis Quoy and Gaimard. The two species seem liable to extraordinary variation, due to environmental stresses, and really many well-differentiated forms should be recognized in both species. The Australian septiformis runs into the form called “cantharus,” quite wrongly according to my investigations; and at Caloundra, Queensland, I collected two fine shells which immediately recalled large pileopsis: they were less elevated, more rounded in outline, and rayed with white rather than spotted; internally they showed the same black edging and light inside coloration. If the Neozelanic and Australian forms be considered separately, and the variation of each carefully studied, much more good would be effected. It does not seem possible with the present material to class helmsi as a variant of pileopsis, so that a good deal of collecting must be done before much advance can be made in this family. One point I would emphasize is that, from any given place, series of these shells are fairly constant according to their environment.

Notoacmea pileopsis (Quoy and Gaimard, 1834). [P. 71.]

Through usage of alphabetical sequence Acmaea cantharus (Reeve) appears five pages away from Acmaea pileopsis (Q. & G.). In life there is no such separation. My conclusions put forward in Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. xi, p. 367, 1908, regarding the identity of these two are therefore not accepted. Further study has not occasioned the revision of my facts, and I would note that since I wrote I have seen that Pilsbry (“Nautilus,” vol. viii, p. 127, 1895) had recognized the Tasmanian shell as the true cantharus Reeve, quoting that Hutton had previously so decided. Pilsbry, however, has never seen Reeve's types, which I have now examined, and I find they are undoubtedly the Neozelanic shell upon which my conclusions were framed. I had thought that it might be possible to rank cantharus Reeve as the southern geographical representative of the northern pileopsis. I find that this is impossible, as, though Quoy and Gaimard gave as localities Bay of Islands and French Pass, they described and figured a shell quite like cantharus. Suter's recognition of both species at the Auckland Islands necessitates the rejection of specific distinction; and, finally, the name cantharus is predated.

Patella sturnus Hombron and Jacquinot (Ann. Sci. Nat., 2nd ser., vol. xvi, p. 191, 1841) refers to this species, and as the description applies to the cantharus form, and the type was almost certainly collected in Otago, where cantharus is abundant, it would have to come into use. It is somewhat remarkable that, while this name passed into the synonymy of P. radians Gmelin, the succeeding Patelloides antarctica was correctly placed under the present species.

Patella floccata Reeve. [P. 71.]

This name has continually given trouble, and its last resting place is in the synonymy of Acmaea pileopsis Q. & G. I have carefully examined the types of this species, and would suggest it is not a New Zealand shell at all. It is not, from shell characters, an “Acmaea” at all, but belongs to the family Patellidae.

Patelloida perplexa (Pilsbry, 1891). [P. 75.]

This is the only species of “Acmaea” or limpet at present commonly acknowledged as specifically identical in Australia and New Zealand. Pilsbry's name was given to an Australian shell, and comes into use, as Hutton, who first described it from New Zealand, unfortunately selected a preoccupied name.

A summary of my classification of the New Zealand “Acmaeidae” would read,—

• Genus Radiacmea nov.

• Radiacmea cingulata (Hutton, 1883).

• ——rubiginosa (Hutton, 1873).

• Genus Atalacmea nov.

• Atalacmea unguis-almae Lesson. Synonyms: Patella fragilis Chemnitz, 1795 (non-binomial); Patelloïda fragilis Quoy and Gaimard, 1834; Patella solandri Colenso, 1844.

• Genus Notoacmea nov.

• Notoacmea campbelli (Filhol, 1880).

• ——daedala (Suter, 1907).

• ————subsp. subtilis (Suter, 1907).

• ——helmsi (E. A. Smith, 1894).

• ————var. leucoma (Suter, 1907).

• ——intermedia (Suter, 1907).

• ——parviconoidea (Suter, 1907).

• ————subsp. nigrostella (Suter, 1907).

• ——pileopsis (Quoy and Gaimard, 1834). Synonyms: Patella sturnus Hombron and Jacquinot, 1841; Patelloides antarctica, id. ib.; Patella cantharus Reeve, 1855.

• Notoacmea scapha (Suter, 1907).

• ——suteri nov. Synonym: Acmaea roseoradiata Suter, 1907, not Smith, 1901.

• Genus Patelloida Quoy and Gaimard, 1834. Synonym: Collisellina Dall, 1871.

• Patelloïda stella (Lesson).

• ————subsp. corticata (Hutton, 1880).

• ——pseudocorticata (Iredale, 1908).

• ——perplexa Pilsbry (1891). Synonym: Patella octoradiata Hutton, 1873, not Gmelin, 1791.

Genus Cellana (H. Adams, 1869). [P. 78.]

In the synonymy of Helcioniscus Dall, 1871, is placed “Cellana H. Adams, P.Z.S., 1869, 274; type, Nacella cernica, H. Ad.” In the Man. Conch., vol. xiii, 1891, Pilsbry (pp. 149–50) noted: “This species is the type of H. Adams's subgenus Cellana. It probably belongs to Helcioniscus rather than to Nacella or Patinella. The name Cellana has priority over Helcioniscus, but it has not been adequately defined.”

Under the present laws governing nomenclatural usage the lack of definition does not invalidate a generic name, and consequently Cellana must displace Helcioniscus. Helcioniscus was only provisionally introduced by Dall, who was unaware of H. Adams's Cellana.

Pilsbry, in this volume of the Man. Coch., did not use names for Acmaeas and limpets in accordance with the rules now in use, and many alterations are now necessary.

Patella antipodum (E. A. Smith, 1874). [P. 79.]

Suter has made use of this name for the species known in New Zealand as Helcioniscus tramosericus Martyn. This name having been questioned as doubtfully applicable to the Australian shell, and P. diemenensis Philippi used instead, upon Dall's advice Suter utilizes the present name as obviating discussion, being certainly referable to the New Zealand form, whether this be the same or different from the Australian species. It is regrettable that such a pretty argument should be entirely spoilt by the fact that Smith's name is not available. Almost the first shell I noted in the British Museum was this species, and I was surprised—as most conchologists will be when they read this note—to recognize in it a commonplace variation of Patella radians Gmelin. In view of its usage by Suter I have consulted Mr. Smith, the author of the species, and he agrees that his P. antipodum could be easily classed as a variant of Gmelin's P. radians, while he emphasizes the fact that it has no relationship with the Australian shell known as H. tramosericus Martyn. Of this I collected a long series, showing variation and growth stages, at Caloundra, Queensland. None of these exactly agree with Martyn's figure.

I have seen no Neozelanic specimens, so cannot say whether they differ or not. I would certainly endorse Suter's remark, “Species of the Patellidae have usually a very limited range of distribution.” Suter has not described his Hauraki Gulf specimen, but reprinted E. A. Smith's account of his P. antipodum, and, as this refers to a different species, there is no description on record of Neozelanic “tramosericus.”

With regard to the Australian “tramosericus,” if Martyn's name be rejected the earliest recognizable name is Patella variegata Blainville (Dict. Sci. Nat., vol. xxxviii, p. 101, 1825: Botany Bay). This name is, however, preoccupied by Gmelin, so that choice then falls upon Patella jack-soniensis Lesson, Zool. Voy. “Coquille,” vol. ii, p. 418, 183: Port Jackson, New South Wales. Both these names were rejected by Pilsbry, but any one acquainted with Australian limpets can recognize them with ease. Blainville described half a dozen other limpets at the place quoted, from Australia, and it is just possible that one of these names may also apply; but I hope to elaborate this in another place. This will suffice to show that it is even probable that a name may exist for the Neozelanic “tramosericus,” though I think not.

Cellana denticulata (Martyn, 1784). [P. 80.]

In his distribution of this species Suter observes, “Hutton also mentions Dunedin and the Chatham Islands.” It is pretty certain that Hutton, mainly dependent upon second-hand information, did not recognize our names for the forms accepted. Thus in 1907 I made notes upon the Otago Museum shells, and I observed that under the name P. denticulata specimens were shown from Moeraki and Nelson; but these were not that species, but C. ornata Dillwyn. I do not know who was responsible for the incorrect nomination, but the adjacent shells were true C. denticulata Martyn, and these bore the data “H. strigilis var. redimiculum, North Island, F. W. H.” I should conclude this merely meant that Hutton collected or presented these specimens, but he may also have specifically determined them.

Cellana radians (Gmelin, 1791). [P. 81.]

It may be as well to record that the date of Gmelin's Mollusca is given throughout Suter's work as 1790, whereas it should be 1791 (Hopkinson, P.Z.S., 1907, p. 1035), the earliest date of notice being the 14th May, 1791.

First, omit from the synonymy “P. sturnus, H. & J., t.c., 191″ (a synonym of N. pileopsis Q. & G.); and add, “Patella antipodum E. A. Smith, Voy. Ereb. & Terr., Moll., p. 4, pl. 1, f. 25, 1874.” The forms of this species recognized by Suter I cannot consider well defined.

Patella argentea Quoy and Gaimard, 1834, is untenable through Patella argentea Gmelin, Syst. Nat., p. 3704, 1791; also Patella affinis Reeve, 1855, by P. affinis Gmelin, loc. cit., p. 3726, and Patella olivacea Hutton, 1882, by the use of P. olivacea Gmelin, loc. cit., p. 3702.

For Hutton's P. olivacea I propose the new name Cellana radians perana, and would unite with it the so-called “argentea.”

Suter has reduced to subspecific rank under this species the shell he described as Helcioniscus mestayerae. This is not a New Zealand shell. It was supposed to have come from Stewart Island, but when Miss Mestayer showed me the type in 1908 I at once remarked upon its alien features. Miss Mestayer concurred, and suggested that the locality was incorrect. A few days later, at Sydney, Mr. Hedley gave me a specimen agreeing entirely, naming it as Patella testudinaria Linné. Into the synonymy of this exotic species, then, must pass Helcioniscus mestayerae Suter: Stewart Island (error); and it must be expunged from the Neozelanic list.

Cellana strigilis (Hombron and Jacquinot, 1841). [P. 87.]

I cannot separate, even as a variety, Patella redimiculum Reeve, which Suter admits as a distinct species, writing, “The two are very nearly allied.” At Shag Point, Otago, I collected a long series showing gradation from the one to the other. Only one species is admitted in the British Museum. The variation in the species is really slight, and when the two forms are studied in life it is easily seen that the elevation or depression is due to environmental stress. At a point in Dunedin Harbour, Otago, I procured many specimens of typical “strigilis,” leaving no doubt as to their development by stress, as the juveniles were quite typical “redimiculum.”

Suter records both species from Preservation Inlet, and his measurements of the “redimiculum” shell agree almost with a “strigilis” from Tauranga to a millimetre—viz., 58 x 47 x 23 mm. and 60 x 48 x 24 mm.

My arrangement of the species of Cellana would be,—

Genus Cellana H. Adams, 1869. Synonym: Helcioniscus Dall, 1871. Cellana sp. ?? Synonym: Helcioniscus antipodum Suter, not Smith.

• ——denticulata (Martyn, 1784).

• ——ornata (Dillwyn, 1817).

• ——radians (Gmelin, 1791).

• ————var. decora (Philippi, 1848).

• ————var. earlii (Reeve, 1855).

• ————var. ?chathamensis (Pilsbry, 1891). Synonym: affinis Reeve, 1855, not Gmelin, 1791.

• ————var. flava (Hutton, 1873).

• ————var. perana nov. Synonyms: olivacea Hutton, 1882, and argentea Quoy and Gaimard, 1834, not Gmelin, 1791.

• ——strigilis (Hombron and Jacquinot, 1841). Synonym: P. redimiculum Reeve, 1854.

• ——stellifera (Gmelin, 1791).

• ————var. phymatia (Suter, 1905).

A most delightful field of study here reveals itself, as the species and varieties are repeated throughout the Dominion, and there must be a

recognizable cause for the repetition of distinct forms in separate localities. An easily determined form is Cellana radians var. flava Hutton. This beautiful shell is common at Napier, and lives upon the red sandstone rocks, into which it makes hollows, so that it is difficult to detach without cutting the rock away. Upon the black hard rocks intermingled dark shells are found, and I believe that this yellow form will only be obtained when the soft red rocks are available for its development. Perfectly coloured shells are rare, as might be anticipated.

Montfortula gen. nov. [P. 100.]

Under the genus-name Subemarginula Blainville, 1825, three New Zealand species are named, two sections being admitted. This nomenclature and classification is incorrect, though Suter is not to blame in the matter, as he simply followed the “Manual of Conchology,” wherein the species of this family were monographed by Pilsbry twenty-odd years previously. It is quite remarkable that no corrections have been made since Pilsbry's work was published, and it has apparently been accepted by most workers without question.

Firstly, the genus-name Subemarginula Blainville, 1825, was accepted. Upon reference to the place quoted (Man. Mal., p. 501, 1825) the name does not occur, but there is only a section of the genus Emarginula named “Les Subémarginules.” Such an introduction of a vernacular is not recognizable, and it was necessary to trace the first user of the latinized form Subemarginula. This search resulted in Gray, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.), 1847, p. 147; type, Patella octoradiata Gmelin. This is not the type named by Pilsbry—viz., Emarginula emarginata Blainville—but there is no question that Subemarginula must date from Gray, 1847, with Patella octoradiata Gmelin as type, upon the present facts. Hemitoma Swainson (“Treatise Malacology,” pp. 244, 356, 1840), with H. tricostata Sw., Sow. Gen., fig. 6, was the next synonym, but this appeared to be preoccupied by Hemitoma Rafinesque, 1820. Rafinesque, however, proposed Hemiloma, and Hemitoma was only one of Agassiz's gratuitous manuscript corrections? quoted by Scudder. This species is congeneric with Blainville's E. emarginata, and would be the earliest name for the association grouped by Pilsbry under “Subemarginula.”

At this point it became necessary to study the shells, which I casually knew, more carefully, to determine the groups, as it became obvious Pilsbry's grouping was faulty.

Clypidina Gray, 1847, was used by Suter as the sectional name for “rugosa Quoy and Gaimard.” I collected many specimens of this shell at Sydney, New South Wales, and Caloundra, Queensland. I also procured examples of Patella notata Linné at Colombo, Ceylon. This shell is the type of Clypidina which was introduced by Gray in the Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.), 1847, p. 147. These are entirely different in every manner, and do not show the “internal groove distinct, ending in a short anterior notch,” which is given by Suter as the character of the section. The groove is so indistinct that very recently specimens of this Linnean species (Syst. Nat., ed. x, p. 784, 1758) were determined by a well-known conchologist as a new species of Acmaea! This memo should indicate how unlike Clypidina is to the other “subemarginuloid” shells. I regard this as a distinct monotypic genus, and it is so classed in the British Museum.

I also consider Tugalia, notwithstanding Pilsbry's opinion, should also rank as a distinct genus, the animal as well as the shell showing good

1843,” a name for some unknown reason quite ignored by Pilsbry. In the Revue de Zool., 1843 (Sept.), p. 259, Récluz diagnosed a group and named it “Montforti (Nobis). Les Subémarginales Blainville.” He wrote, “De cette section… nous connaissons six espèces… Em. emarginata Blainv., Em. panki [sic] Quoy, Em. australis Quoy, Em. tricostata Sow. (Patella tricostata Gmelin), Em. depressa Blain. et la suivante… Nous proposerions de donner à ce nouveau genre le nom de Montfortia en l'honneur de Denis de Montfort.” On p. 376 the first line given in corrected to “Montfortia (Nobis). Les Subémarginules (Blainv.).” I designate as type E. australis Quoy and Gaimard, as the Blainvillean species are doubtfully determined; Récluz's species are all congeneric, and the name falls as a synonym of Hemitoma.

I have therefore failed in my search for a name for the “rugosa” group, and therefore propose the new generic name Montfortula, with Emarginula rugosa Quoy and Gaimard as type. My study of the shells available at the British Museum, and my knowledge of the live animals of M. rugosa (Q. & G.), with species of Emarginula, leads me to state that there is a greater alliance between species of Montfortula and Emarginula than between Montfortula and Hemitoma, whilst Subemarginula Gray, 1847, I suggest differs greatly. As a matter of fact, it is quite probable that study of the shells classed under Emarginula would cause the degradation of Montfortula to subgeneric rank under that genus. I have to consider many species of Emarginula in the Lord Howe Island fauna, when I will carefully deal with that aspect of the case.

The alterations necessary may be summarized thus: Omit Subemarginula Blainville, 1825, with its synonymy, and Clypidina Gray with its reference, and read,—

• Genus Montfortula nov.

• Montfortula rugosa (Quoy and Gaimard, 1834).

• Genus Tugalia Gray, 1843, em.

• Tugalia parmophoidea (Quoy and Gaimard, 1834).

• ——intermedia (Reeve, 1842).

The synonyms given under M. rugosa Q. & G. may not be all correct, but I will attend to those later.

With regards to Tugalia intermedia (Reeve, 1842), Suter says, “The type is from Port Jackson.” In the original description, however, the locality given is “I. of Bohol, Philippines.” The type should be in the Mus. Cuming, preserved in the British Museum, but I have not yet traced it. I mention this as there are Philippine species of this genus.

Genus Trochus (Linné, 1758). [P. 106.]

The classification utilized by Suter is that put forward by Pilsbry in the “Manual of Conchology” twenty-odd years previously, and is one which, as regards generic and subgeneric values, has been discarded for many years even by Pilsbry himself. No recent malacologist, however conservative he may be, sinks Clanculus as a subgenus of Trochus. A criticism of the series presented in the British Museum shows the species generally classed under Trochus to resolve themselves into three distinct rather large groups and several distinct smaller ones.

The generally accepted type of Linné's Trochus I have shown to be untenable, as it does not occur in the Linnean genus, and therefore to cause the least confusion I designated as type of Trochus Linné (Syst. Nat., ed. x,

• Genus Clanculus Montfort, 1810.

• Clanculus ringens (Menke, 1843).

• ——takapunensis (Webster, 1906).

Section Melagraphia (Gray, 1847). [P. 115.]

This name must displace Neodiloma Fischer, 1885. It appears to have been quite overlooked, as it appears in no recent synonymy I have examined, nor is it included in Scudder's Nomenclator. It is introduced in the Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.), 1847, p. 145, as of “Stentz, 1836,” for Tr. aethiops Gmel. alone. I have been quite unable to trace any publication by Stentz, and have concluded its reference to Stentz implies manuscript usage only. I observed Philippi referred to other names given by Stentz in manuscript to shells in the Berlin Museum.

Labio concolor (A. Adams, 1853). [P. 116.]

Eliminate this name from the synonymy of Monodonta aethiops Gmelin, 1791, as examination of the types, preserved in the British Museum, show the locality given to be incorrect, the shells being a form of Trochus lineatus Da Costa, a shell I have collected at Torquay, England.

Labio rudis (A. Adams, 1853). [P. 117.]

This is the earliest name given to the “corrosa” group by A. Adams, the locality “Australia” being incorrect. It has one page priority over L. corrosa, but the name is invalidated by the prior Mondonta rudis Gray in King's Survey Coasts Austr., App., p. 480, 1826, which appears to me to be identical with and have priority over the Western Australian melanoloma Menke. It is possible that Labio rudis has been placed in the synonymy of the Western Australian species, but examination of the types show them to be the commonest form of corrosa,” such as is easily collected in the Heathcote Estuary, Christchurch.

Trochus acuminatus (Perry, 1811). [P. 124.]

This synonym of Cantharidus opalus Martyn, 1784, is not included by Suter. In Perry's “Conchology,” pl. xlvii, fig. 1, an easily recognizable figure is given.

Cantharidus capillaceus (Philippi, 1848). [P. 125.]

Suter has used the later C. pruninus Gould, 1849, though including the present name in the synonymy. In the Man. Conch., 1st ser., vol. xi, p. 122, 1889, Gould's name was preferred, but that was due to a mistake in dates, the Otia. Conch., p. 55, being quoted as “1846,” though the earliest publication of the name is that given by Suter, and the date 1849 is correct.

Cantharidus capillaceus subsp. perobtusus (Pilsbry, 1889). [P. 125.]

Omit from the “Hab.”“Sandfly Bay, Otago Peninsula (T. Iredale).” That refers to the shell I described as Photinula decepta, which was named as above by Mr. Suter.

Cantharidus capillaceus var. minor (E. A. Smith, 1902). [P. 125.]

From examination of the types, I believe this to be a distinct species, which I will deal with later.

Cantharidus oliveri nom. nov. [P. 126.]

I propose this name for the species described by Suter under the name Cantharidus pupillus Hutton, 1884. Hutton did not describe this shell as a distinct species, but simply made use of Gould's name. This misinterpretation cannot be utilized as the basis of a name: this law has been universally accepted, and Suter has constantly admitted it.

Hedley wrote his conclusion thus (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vol. xxxiv,. p. 436, 1909): “Born never proposed his Patella tricarinata as a new species, so that when it is accepted that he did not treat of the Linnean P. tricarinata his name has no standing in literature.” In case I have no other opportunity, I would point out that the name selected by Hedley on that occasion—viz., Emarginula clathrata Adams and Reeve, 184—is antedated by Deshayes's usage (Ency. Meth. Vers., ii, p. 111, 1830).

I name the Cantharidus after my friend Mr. W. R. B. Oliver, who accompanied me on my many collecting trips in New Zealand.

Cantharidus lineolaris (Gould, 1861). [P. 130.]

Hedley (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vol. xxxiii, p. 466, 1908) has shown that this name, published in the Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist., vol. viii, p. 14, 1861, has priority over H. and A. Adams's name picturatus of 1863. If the locality “Stuart Island” be the only one known, it would seem to be a doubtful constituent of the New Zealand fauna. The sections Bankivia, Leiopyrga, and Thalotia would be best treated as genera; but I hope to deal with the species of Cantharidus at a later date. Thalotia is generically recognized in the British Museum collection, as is also Bankivia, but Leiopyrga is given subgeneric rank under the latter.

Calliostoma tigris (Martyn, 1784). [P. 148.]

Add as a synonym Turbo granatum Bolten, Mus. Bolten., p. 88, 1798. This name is given to Der Granat-Apfel (T. Martin, Univ. Conch., 2, fig. 75), so that the synonymy is exact.

Margarella decepta (Iredale, 1908). [P. 133.]

I will shortly give a figure of the shell I described as Photinula decepta, which has not yet been figured. It closely resembles Photinula violacea (Sowerby), and must be classed in the same genus. From examination of the radular characters the species of the caerulescens group (true Photinula) have been separated from the forms allied to violacea. Such a separation is amply confirmed by shell characters, so that Photinula can be dismissed from the Neozelanic fauna. I was the first to introduce it in connection with the species under discussion, and I did so on account of the apparent close relationship with violacea, which I only knew from literature. For the violacea group Thiele proposed (Gebiss d. Schnecken, vol. ii, p. 259, 1891) Margaritella, quoting violacea, expansa, and the New Zealand antipoda. The genus-name being preoccupied, he has since amended it to Margarella. This name should be used. Suter has rejected this name, using Photinula, making the remark, “Thiele included in his genus Margarella our species P. nitida and P. antipoda because the dentition shows a close resemblance. Margarella stands, no doubt, nearer to Valvatella, the animal having jaws.” The conchological features of antipoda, decepta, and violacea are essentially identical, whilst nitida shows quite different features.

The first three must be grouped together, whilst the last must be separated; and though the shell described as Photinula suteri by Smith has been classed in Gibbula by Suter on account of the presence of jaws, it is much nearer Margarella, and I would there place it for the present. I believe, from a criticism of the shells—and this is confirmed by examination of the radula—that the recognition of the jaws depends too much upon the personal equation, and cannot in the present state of our knowledge be depended upon. I would therefore reject Photinula, and replace it by Margarella, and recognize three Neozelanic species, thus:—

Genus Margarella Thiele. Synonym: Margaritella Thiele, 1891, not Meek and Heyden, 1860.

• Margarella antipoda (Hombron and Jacquinot, 1854). Synonym: Chrysostoma rosea Hutton, 1873.

• ——decepta (Iredale, 1908).

• ——suteri (E. A. Smith, 1894).

I see no good purpose in retaining Hutton's name rosea for a variety, as the colour-variation is endless, and there is no definition.

Gibbula nitida Ad. & Ang., 1864, which Suter placed in Photinula because the animal had no jaws, is certainly not congeneric with the above, and shows a much closer relationship with G. picturata of the same authors, which Pilsbry made the type of Cantharidella, a section of Gibbula. Jaws are said to be present, but neither of these species has a very close relationship to Gibbula

Genus Solariella Searles Wood. [P. 140.]

Under this genus-name in the British Museum is placed the shell known to Neozelanic collectors as Monilea egena Gould. It should be remembered that this generic (Monilea) location was simply Hutton's solution, as Pilsbry in his monograph states he did not know it, and therefore followed Hutton. To my eyes the Neozelanic shell was not congeneric with Monilea, but was nearer Minolia, which Suter used subgenerically for some other Neozelanic species. I could not see any subgeneric difference between these, and they seemed well placed in Solariella.

Mr. E. A. Smith has just told me that he cannot determine Monilea Swainson, that he cannot separate Minolia from Solariella, and that all the Neozelanic species are congeneric. His conclusions will be published before this is in print, but it is certain that Monilea must be rejected, and in its stead Solariella may be used, and all the Neozelanic species be so classed

Fam. Trochidae. [P. 150.]

Add: Genus Angaria Bolten. Angaria Bolten, Mus. Bolten., p. 71, 1798. Type: Turbo delphinus, Linné. Synonym: Delphinula Lamarck, &c.

This genus has not yet been recorded from New Zealand, though I have recorded two species at the Kermadec Islands. From dredgings made at that place I sorted out many minute shells, and a long series enabled me to recognize the growth stages of this genus. They show no form or sculpture at all like the adult, and do not appear to have yet been figured. The two species, Liotia serrata Suter, 1908 (p. 151), and Liotia solitaria Suter, 1908 (p. 152), are probably both juveniles of this genus: the latter certainly is, whilst the species Suter compared it with—viz., L. stellaris Ad. & Rve.—is also a juvenile Angaria, as is shown here in the British Museum, the type being so placed when it was described.

The presence of the genus in north Neozelanic waters is not strange, as it occurs on all the three northern groups—Lord Howe Island, Norfolk Island, and the Kermadecs. From the two former it is as yet known only by juvenile and half-grown specimens dredged, but at the Kermadecs one species was rarely obtained, alive and adult, below low water. The juveniles dredged show great variation, so that I cannot refer Suter's two species to any named species, nor decide whether they are conspecific. The only conclusion under such circumstances is to admit both, and draw attention to the matter, so that adults may be looked for. Will northern collectors please note.

• Genus Angaria Bolten, 1798.

• Angaria serrata (Suter, 1908).

• ——solitaria (Suter, 1908).

Fam. Liotiidae Iredale. [P. 150.]

I propose this family name for quite a different association to the family Liotiidae Gray, used by Pilsbry and Suter. That name is based upon the usage of Liotia for the shells with heavily varicosed aperture, and operculum with a calcareous superimposition in the form of spirally disposed particles. No member of this group inhabits New Zealand as far as is yet known, though I collected a typical species at the Kermadecs.

In the Proc. Mal. Soc. (Lond.), vol. ix, p. 257, 1911, I showed that Liotia Gray was proposed for the shells typified by Delphinula cancellata Gray, and that species did not possess a variced mouth nor a calcareous operculum. The name for these latter I also concluded was Liotina Fischer (Man. de Conch., p. 831, 1885), with type L. gervillei Defrance. I have since recognized that the type of Liotia agrees with Cyclostrema micans A. Adams in every essential particular. The types of both are before me. As this was selected by Tate as typical of a new genus Pseudoliotia, that name falls as an absolute synonym of Liotia Gray. The species classed by Suter under Liotia have no relationship with that genus.

On p. 152 the family Cyclostrematidae Fischer is admitted. This would partly represent my family Liotiidae.

On p. 153 the genus Cyclostrema is utilized for a species—Cyclostrema eumorpha Suter. Suter's arrangement is based upon that proposed by Miss Bush after a study of west North American forms. I have investigated the austral species in view of Miss Bush's conclusions, and cannot advise that the groups there proposed should be introduced into Neozelanic literature. Miss Bush, however, killed the ghost of Cyclostrema, as it appeared that no one previously had examined the matter, but simply used Cyclostrema as a “waste-paper basket” for puzzling minute Trochoids. I am sorry that this usage still persists, a chief offender being Melvill, who wrote upon the Cyclostrematidae of the Persian Gulf (Proc. Mal. Soc. (Lond.), vol. vii, pp. 20–28, 1906), and has since described species of “Cyclostrema” most obviously not congeneric with the type. The genus “Cyclostrema” was proposed for a shell found among some West Indian forms. The type is lost, and the nearest species known comes from the Philippines. I have often studied the figure and description of Marryat's genus and species, and these seem to represent an immature shell which might have developed into a species of what I call Liotina. I would suggest that the name be dismissed as indeterminable, especially as it has been so casually used in no scientific manner.

On p. 154 Delphinoidea is included, but the species so classed bears little resemblance to the British shell, which is the type of the genus.

On p. 157 Miss Bush's fam. Vitrinellidae is admitted, but the shells placed under this name bear little or no resemblance to Vitrinella, and the name should be dismissed at once from Neozelanic literature.

Miss Bush's Lissospira is also introduced for the minute turbinate species, corulum Hutton, 1885, and micra Tenison-Woods, 1877. The former of these has little resemblance to the species of Lissospira, and I have already proposed to seperate it generically. The latter bears only superficially the aspect of species of Lissospira. Moreover, Miss Bush recognized as a subgenus of Lissospira the genus Ganesa Jeffreys. That name has long priority, but the species are quite unlike the austral species.

Thiele has shown that most of the Antarctic shells, which closely resemble boreal species—so much so that previous workers had considered them congeneric—showed vast differences when the aninals were examined. In my own case, I cannot separate shells of Heterorissoa and Jeffreysia, yet the opercula notably differ, and Thiele has been able to recognize several genera in the southern so-called “Jeffreysia.”

Under these circumstances, I unhesitatingly reject Lissospira, and also Cyclostremella Bush, admitted by Suter on p. 160. This latter genus was proposed for such a shell as the Australian Cyclostrema charopa Tate, but Thiele has differentiated an Antarctic genus under the name Microdiscula. The austral species I would class under this name rather than under Miss Bush's, especially as she writes, “Nuclear whorl relatively large, turned downward, seen only in a basal view, leaving a small pit above.” No austral form I have examined shows this character. Suter's Cyclostremella neozelanica seems to show no affinity with either Cyclostremella Bush or Microdiscula Thiele, but differs in almost every particular, as will be hereafter shown.

Circulus Jeffreys is, on p. 159, introduced into the Neozelanic fauna to include a shell very closely allied to “Cyclostreme” tatei Angas. There is quite a large group of Indo-Pacific shells agreeing vaguely in character with C. tatei Angas, but these do not correlate with the type of Circulus when actual specimens are compared.

The whole of the Neozelanic and Australian species bear a different look when specimens (not descriptions and illustrations) are brought alongside European forms, and I advocate the rejection of European names until animals are examined.

I herewith introduce four new generic names for usage in connection with the Neozelanic forms, and most of these will come into use for Australian species. I have collated some sixty generic names proposed for shells of this group, and I have examined the types of the majority of these genera and most of the species, both fossil and Recent, allotted to the genera named, in the hope that I may at some time produce a monograph of the whole group. In addition to the named forms, I have many unnamed species from the Kermadec Islands, Lord Howe Island, and Norfolk Island, and these have been utilized in consideration of the groups here named. The usage of these would certainly obviate such incongruous assemblage as my friend Mr. Hedley (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vol. xxxiv, 1909) has produced in classing figs. 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 on plate xxxix as Liotia, and figs. 46, 47, 48, pl. xxxix, and figs. 49, 50, 51, pl. xl, as Cyclostrema.

Liotella gen. nov. [P. 151.]

I introduce this genus-name to cover a series of minute shells which have been classed by Australasian workers in Liotia, but which differ in their texture, do not possess a thickened peristome, and are more or less loosely coiled. I name as type Liotia polypleura Hedley, a species I am very familiar with, and that shell has a multispiral horny operculum with a central nucleus. The second species on p. 151 (Liotia rotula Suter) would be here classed, and I would suggest the addition of Líotia annulata, Ten.-Woods (Proc. Roy. Soc. Tasm., 1877, p. 121, 1878); Liotia anxia Hedley (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vol. xxxiv, p. 437, pl. 39, figs. 43–45, 1909); Liotia petalifera Hedley (Rec. Austr. Mus., vol. vii, p. 116, pl. 22, figs. 6–8, 1908); Liotia disjuncta Hedley (Mem. Austr. Mus., iv, p. 336, fig. 66 in text, 1903); and Homalogyra pulcherrima Brazier (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vol. ix, p. 175, pl. 14, fig. 13, a, b, 1894). These are all obviously neither Liotia nor Liotina, and, though I suggest all are not congeneric, the present location is good as a temporary one, though not permanent.

Zalipais gen. nov.

Suter described a minute shell as Cyclostrema lissum in 1908, and he now disposes of it in Delphinoidea Brown. That genus is based upon a British shell which I do not consider congeneric with Suter's C. lissum, which was one of my first discoveries when investigating the minutiae found living in seaweeds in tide-pools at dead low water on the New Zealand coast. I sent Mr. Suter specimens for examination from Blind Bay, Nelson, in addition to the localities he mentions, and I also obtained it at Sandfly Bay, Otago Peninsula. It is probably well distributed, but we have knowledge of very little of the New Zealand minute marine molluscs as yet.

I propose the above generic name, naming C. lissum Suter as type, and anticipate many additions. I have another Neozelanic species, yet undescribed, before me, but at present I do not know any Australian species I would refer here.

Lissotesta gen nov.

I mentioned to Mr. Suter in 1907, when I passed through Auckland on my way to the Kermadec Islands, that I had written to Mr. Hedley asking his opinion with regard to Cirsonella? neozelanica Murdoch. I had compared the type of Cirsonella, and from shell characters it was not congeneric, and the anatomical details given by Murdoch confirmed this conclusion, whilst the operculum made the rejection of the species from Cirsonella certain. Mr. Hedley has replied suggesting Assiminea, and agreeing with my opinion. On p. 155 Cirsonella neozelanica is included, but on p. 1082 there is a note quoting Thiele's investigation and its tentative reference to Acmella in the subfamily Omphalotropidinae of the family Pomatiasidae, which is certainly a much better location.

The first species,Cirsonella densilirata Suter, 1908, is certainly correctly placed under the genus Cirsonella in the present state of our knowledge, but the third species, Cirsonella granum Murdoch and Suter, 1906, I would remove to my genus Lissotesta, which I here propose for the shells about Cyclostrema micra Ten.-Woods, 1877, which I name as type. Yet Suter has placed the former in the family Cyclostrematidae, and the latter in the family Vitrinellidae.

These “featureless” “Cyclostrematids” are difficult to place from figures and descriptions alone, but the two here mentioned are conchologic-

ally as alike as any of these things are. Thus I would here place Cyclostrema torridum Hedley (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vol. xxxiv, p. 438, pl. 40, figs. 49–51, 1909); and I at one time considered C. porcellanum Tate and May would belong here, but examination of specimens in the British Museum, marked “co-types,” shows this species to have an oval aperture quite repugnant to my genus, and recalling shells I collected in New Zealand and which from opercular characters were referred to Laevilitorina.

Elachorbis gen. nov.

On p. 153, under Cyclostrema, Suter has placed his own Cyclostrema eumorpha, and on p. 159, under Circulus, he has ranged his Cyclostrema subtatei.

There is a large group of minutiae similar in general characters to Cyclostrema tatei Angas, and I propose the above genus for these, with that species as type. There cannot be recourse to Cyclostrema, as already pointed out, and Circulus, from examination of the type, would be a bad substitute.

Melvill has described a whole series of species from the Persian Gulf under the genus-name “Cyclostrema” which would come into this genus. Melvill's idea of “Cyclostrema” as further exemplified in the Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb., vol. xlviii, 1912, pp. 345–46, is about as vague as the Linnean Helix, as he admits “this genus is somewhat multifarious already in its component parts.”

Leptothyra imperforata (Suter, 1908). [P. 156.]

This is where I should place the shell named Pseudoliotia imperforata by Suter. Pseudoliotia Tate, from examination of types, agrees exactly in every detail with Liotia Gray, and must be ranked as an absolute synonym of that name.

I have not seen Suter's species, but the description and figure agree very closely with the type of Leptothyra, and until the opercular characters are known this should be its generic location.

When Hedley introduced Liotia latebrosa (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vol. xxxii, 1907, p. 493) he commented, “The shell resembles Leptothyra, but the operculum is of a different type. It seems to me probable that neither Leptothyra nor Collonia occurs in Australasian seas, and that the species which have been ascribed to them ought to be transferred to Liotia.” This was written before I had shown that Liotia Gray was not Liotia Auct., and with our present knowledge it is quite impossible to class Hedley's Liotia latebrosa with either Liotia Gray (= Pseudoliotia Tate) or Liotina Fischer (= Liotia Auct.).

Hedley admitted (loc. cit., p. 479) Leptothyra laeta Montrouzor, and this fairly agrees with typical Leptothyra. The species I found at the Kermadecs and recorded as Leptothyra picta Pease is also quite a typical shell. The present species does not closely resemble Cyclostrema micans A. Adams, but recalls Collonia roseopunctata Ten.-Woods, and this would also range under Leptothyra.

The species Suter includes in Leptothyra (pp. 164–65) are not congeneric, and I will deal with these when I arrive at those pages.

Brookula corulum (Hutton, 1885). [P. 158.]

The shell described as Scala corulum by Hutton was temporarily placed under Cyclostrema by Suter and myself in 1908. Suter now ranks it under

Lissospira, which it disagrees with in almost every particular. I have introduced (Proc. Mal. Soc. (Lond.), vol. x, p. 219, 1912) the genus-nameBrookula, with type the Kermadec species B. stibarochila, and the group thus named is quite a large one, and well defined.

Liotella? neozelanica(Suter, 1908). [P. 160.]

Suter's Cyclostremella neozelanica is autoptically unknown to me, but it is obvious that it is not a Cyclostremella. I have seen species somewhat recalling Suter's figure and description, and until I know them better I would class them as close relations of Liotella spp.

My disposition of the species ranked by Suter in the families Liotiidae, Vitrinellidae, and Cyclostrematidae (pp. 150–61) are as follows:—

Transfer Liotia serrata Suter, 1908, and Liotia solitaria Suter, 1908, to the genus Angaria Bolten, 1798, in the family Trochidae. Transfer Cirsonella neozelanica Murdoch, 1899, to the genus Acmella in the family Pomatiasidae. Transfer Pseudoliotia imperforata Suter, 1908, to the genus Leptothyra in the family Turbinidae. The remainder may be classed in the family Liotiidae Iredale, as hereafter named:—

• Fam. Liotiidae Iredale.

• Genus Liotella nov.

• Liotella polypleura (Hedley, 1904).