![Thumbnail: [Volume 55, 1924 page 169]](/journals/rsnz/images/rsnz_55/thumbnails/rsnz_55_00_0211_0169_ac_02.gif)
4. Genus Tylospira Harris, 1897.
Genotype: Buccinum scutulatum Martyn.
Pelicaria was proposed by Gray (1857, p. 97), who gave as the single example, and therefore the genotype, S. vernis, for shells with a callus spreading over the body. The division was recognized sectionally by Tryon (1885, p. 134) and subgenerically by Fischer (1887, p. 677), but these authors cited B. scutulatum Martyn as an example, and did not mention S. vernis. Harris (1897, p. 218) noticed the anomaly, and thought S. vernis to be a misprint for S. vernis (Martyn). Consequently Pelicaria became synonymous with Struthiolaria, so he proposed Tylospira with genotype B. scutulatum Martyn for the calloused species. This proceeding was not approved by Cossmann (1904, p. 106), who argued that Gray, “who knew perfectly well S. vermis and B. scutulatum,” would not have created a new genus for the former, which is nearer to the true Struthiolaria than is the latter.
In support of this he states that “all authors (Tyron, Zittel, Fischer) have admitted, till now, S. scutulata as the type of Pelicaria.” The latter
![Thumbnail: [Volume 55, 1924 page 170]](/journals/rsnz/images/rsnz_55/thumbnails/rsnz_55_00_0212_0170_ac_02.gif)
argument does not apply, for the mere citing of an example by subsequent writers is not a legal fixation of a genotype (Jukes-Browne, 1909, p. 238), which, in any case, must be one of the original species given by the author. The only way, therefore, in which Pelicaria can be accepted for this group is to prove that S. vernis is synonymous with B. scutulatum.
This synonymity appears to be unlikely; for if Gray was “familiar with both B. vermis and B. scutulatum,” and intended it for the latter, why (1) did he propose a new specific name for it? why (2) did he use a name so likely to be confused with vermis? what (3) is the derivation and meaning of vernis? It does not appear to be a Latin word.
On the other hand, S. vermis does not possess a spreading callus, as stated by Gray, but has a more limited one than Struthiolaria s. str., so it seems likely that he was handling a specimen of T. scutulata wrongly identified as S. vermis. This, however, cannot alter the fact that the only example cited by the author of Pelicaria, and therefore the type of that genus, is S. vermis. This is confirmed by at least one of the figures that he cited. The original reads, “P. vernis, t 5, f 3, t 91, f 6: Adams, Gen. Moll. t 27, f 7.” The former reference is to Figures of Molluscous Animals, by Maria E. Gray (1850–54), a work which unfortunately was not available for this revision. The figure referred to in Adams's work is labelled “Struthiolaria vermis,” and is a copy of Kiener's figure of that species; vernis is therefore a misprint for vermis, and Pelicaria is synonymous with Struthiolaria, as Harris stated. Tylospira must be used for the group of calloused shells typified by Buccinum scutulatum Martyn, and including the fossils T. coronata (Tate) and T. clathrata (Tate). (See text-fig. 8 and remarks above under Struthiolarella.)
Both Tryon and Cossmann give only New Zealand as the locality for T. scutulata, and consequently cite Pelicaria (=Tylospira) as a New Zealand genus. This is not correct. T. scutulata is a New South Wales shell (Tate, 1889, p. 170), and does not occur in this country, so that the genus Tylospira must be considered as exclusively Australian. The peculiar formation of the body-whorl by continued growth of the outerlip callus, as well as the arched columella and sharp beak, justify generic distinction from Struthiolaria.