of the whole genus…. The ‘best known type’ also figured by Swainson for his genus Scaphella is the S. undulata.”

However, in his revision of the family which appeared the following year, Dall (1890) did not pursue the matter further, but accepted the common usage of Scaphella, with V. junonia Hwass as type.

Cossmann (1899) also adopted Scaphella, with the same type, and classed a group of South American shells in Cymbiola Swainson, with V. ancilla Solander as type; this, too, was the customary proceeding.

As a result of further consideration of Swainson's introduction of Scaphella and Cymbiola, Dall later (1907) objected to their being based on V. junonia and V. ancilla respectively. His reasons were: “While Voluta junonia was included among his [i.e., Swainson's] species of Scaphella, it is obvious to the careful student that it cannot be regarded as congeneric with the forms like V. undulata, which was the type of Scaphella, and which were later named Amoria by Gray; nor with the Cymbiola group, founded on Voluta vespertilio, which is the Scapha of Gray and Aulica of Adams and Crosse. Both of these groups have the shelly protoconch of the Volutinae.” (Dall, 1907, p. 370.) He therefore considered new generic names necessary, and proposed Maculopeplum (type V. junonia) to replace the general use of Scaphella, and Adelomelon (type V. ancilla), to replace that of Cymbiola.

Von Ihering (1907, p. 201) did not accept these changes, because he did not have the necessary literature to verify them. Neither did they appeal to Cossmann (1909, p. 205 et seq.), who severely criticized Dall's action and gave a revised summary of the family. He refused to recognize Maculopeplum on the grounds that Hermannsen had “clearly designated V. junonia as type of Scaphella in 1845,” and Adelomelon because “it remains to be explained to what genotype the name Cymbiola ought to be applied.”

Hedley (1914, p. 721) also investigated the position, his results being similar to Dall's except that he gave V. maculata Swainson as type of Scaphella.

Although the question does not have a direct bearing on the revised classification of New Zealand species, it concerns the use of the term “scaphelloid protoconch,” consequently the writer appealed to Mr. T. Iredale, who most kindly contributed the following :—

“Scaphella was proposed (as given by Hedley) in the Zool, Illustr. (ser. 2, vol. 2, pt. 19, pl. 87, 1832), and Scaphella maculata was figured; Swainson, however, stated, ‘Typical species, Scaph. undulata, junonia, maculata, zebra. Aberrant species, Scaph. papillaris, elongata?’ Hermannsen was within his rights in selecting (Index Generum Malacoz., vol. 2, 1848, p. 423) as ‘Type, Voluta junonia Chemn.,’ especially as he gave the correct introduction of the genus as above. Hedley was therefore incorrect in naming Scaphella maculata as type, even though it were the figured species. Cymbiola was introduced at the same time and place, and the shell figured was named Voluta vespertilio. Swainson then wrote, ‘The second or subtypical genus of the Volutes appears to be represented by this common though elegant species,’ adding ‘As we have deemed it advisable to employ the name of Cymbiola (hitherto used in a specific sense) as a generic appelation for the whole group, we trust that those who may adopt our views will hereafter distinguish the Voluta cymbiola of Sowerby, now in the cabinet of Mr. Broderip, by the name of Cymbiola broderipia.’”

The Pakaurangi shells placed under Cymbiola by Marshall (1918, p. 266) are not Volutes, but belong to the Mitridae, though none of the present genera fit them well.