Go to National Library of New Zealand Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa
Volume 57, 1927
This text is also available in PDF
(17 MB) Opens in new window
– 320 –

A Further Commentary on New Zealand Molluscan Systematics.

[Read before the Otago Institute, 11th November, 1924; received by Editor, 31st December, 1925; issued separately, December 23rd 1926.

Twelve years ago Iredale wrote a “Commentary” on Suter's “Manual of the New Zealand Mollusca” (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 47, pp. 417–497, 1915). Many subsequent notes were drawn up by him in connection with the collection in the British Museum (Natural History), but the war prohibited any sustained study and consequent publication. Examination of Roy Bell's Australian material developed a few cases of Neozelanic interest, and some have been published in the Report on the Twofold Bay collection (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vol. 49, pp. 179–278, 1924), hereafter referred to as “Iredale (1924)”. In 1923 Iredale returned to Australia, and his intensive collecting around Sydney has been instrumental in indicating some relationships not previously recognized.

For some years the present author has been studying Recent and fossil New Zealand Mollusca, and many series of lineage forms linking up fossil and Recent shell-groups have been determined. Data have been procured proving the ancient development and separation of apparently closely-related Recent forms, and I would endorse Martin's dictum, “The species with which one has to deal in palaeontology are no physiological but morphological species. The individuals of such species of mollusca… agree in a single anatomical element, the shell. Such an agreement may exist, however, while other elements are absolutely different.” (Martin, 1917). One may cite in illustration of this the heterogeneity of the Minolioid shells, the Buccinoid Mitras, and especially, in connection with New Zealand species, the case of Diloma nigerrima Sow., considered later.

Little close relationship in Recent times is determinable between the east Australian and Neozelanic molluscan faunas, relations whenever recognized being usually with the latter and Tasmanian species. A “List of Recorded Relationships between Australian and New Zealand Mollusca,” dealing chiefly with the fossils, has

[Footnote] * As originally presented, this paper was under the joint authorship of T. Iredale and H. J. Finlay. It had been suggested and written by the latter after verbal discussion and some correspondence with Mr. Iredale, to whom it was subsequently submitted for revision and extension. Pressure of other work, however, unfortunately prevented Mr. Iredale from carrying out this part of the undertaking, and it has accordingly been agreed that the paper shall appear under a single name. The writer must therefore take all responsibility for its shortcomings, and desires to acknowledge his indebtedness to Mr. Iredale not only for some of the ideas and suggestions contained therein, but also for his generosity in permitting the publication of the paper in its present form.—H. J. F.

– 321 –

been published (Finlay, 1924G), but owing to the great confusion existing in connection with palaeontology in Australia, such correlation as may be necessary cannot safely be undertaken for many years. Apparent conchological affinities have proved on closer examination to be due to convergence only, and not to be radical. One may note in this connection the statement made by Marwick (1924, p. 330) that “In correlating Australasian Tertiary strata the stratigrapher will therefore have to deal with generic correspondence and specific resemblances rather than with specific identities.” A recent visit to Australia, and the collecting and study of museum collections at Adelaide, Melbourne, and Sydney thus made possible, suggested to me the reconsideration of relationships previously, under the influence of earlier workers, taken for granted. A stay in Sydney where, with the material and literature available at the Australian Museum, the main points were discussed with Mr. Tom Iredale has led to the production of this paper, the principal features of which are the rejection of bad records, the proposition of new group-names for Neozelanic forms, and the indication of systematic and other errors. The group-names here introduced as generic may be regarded as such until a fuller appreciation of further material exactly valuates them. I note, in passing, Dr. J. Allan Thomson's opinion, “Some students object to the process of minute distinctions between genera, mainly on the ground that it renders the study more complex, and a matter only for the specialist. But the narrower definition of genera, if it is based on phylogenetic grounds, prevents the assimilation of apparently similar but historically distinct forms, and for the purpose of discussing geographical distribution and geological correlation becomes an instrument of the utmost utility.” (Thomson, 1918, p. 53).

It may be understood also that, unless statement is made to the contrary, wherever reference is made to any species, I have studied either the actual type specimens or, when these were not available, topotypes of the species. The Tertiary and Recent types in the Dominion, Canterbury, and Otago Museums, and the New Zealand Geological Survey collection have been at all times readily made available for study, and I here desire to record my thanks to the curators and others in these institutions who have made this possible. Unfortunately, the types in Suter's own collection—now in the Wanganui Museum—are not so readily available. My own private collection, however,—a practically complete topotypic suite (and perhaps the largest yet made) of New Zealand fossil and living mollusca—has enabled me to overcome almost every difficulty in regard to types.

Since the publication of Suter's “Manual,” workers have, as Iredale anticipated, been busy in connection with Neozelanic molluscs, and the keen interest shown by the younger workers is a great tribute to Suter's monument. Errors in Suter's work are found to be numerous, but when the magnitude of the work is contrasted with the many disabilities of the worker, in lack of both specimens and literature, Suter's accomplishment is prodigious. It is possible that if such a work were available to Australian conchologists more interest would be evinced, when at the present time the older

– 322 –

generation, Hedley, Verco, May, Pritchard, Gatliff, and Gabriel, seem to have no successors. The enthusiastic band of workers, (Allan, Brookes. Bucknill, Marwick, Miss Mestayer, Oliver, and Powell) at present in New Zealand is the best tribute to his work Suter would have desired, while the passing of Murdoch leaves a blank which one may hope to see filled, perhaps by still another student.

It has been the habit of austral palaeontologists, following Tate and Cossmann, to look for the affinities of austral shells, Recent and fossil, principally in the beds of the Paris basin—partly because the assemblage there exposed is so rich in generic forms, and partly because the many local workers and their possession of abundant illustrative resources have made that fauna so well known —but I believe that until the lineage of austral forms is definitely determined, such association will prove futile. An excellent example of the lengths to which exotic comparison may be carried is provided by Wilckens, who has remarked of the New Zealand Upper Senonian Calliostoma decapitatum Wilckens that “it is only to be compared with the living C. zizyphinus L. from the Mediterranean Sea, which very much resembles our species. Certainly this resemblance of a Cretaceous shell from New Zealand to a living form from the Mediterranean is surprising” (N.Z. Geol. Surv. Pal. Bull. No. 9, p. 5, 1922). This writer also compares his Protodolium speighti from the same beds with the living D. galea L. because of a resemblance in external sculpture; all these comparisons are made quite confidently in spite of the fact that the New Zealand fossils are crudely preserved and imbedded in hard matrix—such work calls for no comment. Etheridge is quoted by Benson (1923, p. 47, footnote) as approving of Uhlig's principle, “I do not consider it wise to identify a form with a species described from a region thousands of miles distant, unless the agreement is so close as to leave no room for doubt as to their identity,” and Hedley wrote even in 1899 (p. 416) “Our increased knowledge develops distinctions more than affinities between the Central Pacific and the Tropical Atlantic.” The examination of the living species of Australia has shown so much discord with the living European forms that only more confusion must ensue if the attempt to use European group-names for austral fossils be pursued further. So much splitting has been done (probably correctly) in connection with European fossils by specialists such as Cossmann and Sacco, that a host of names has accumulated, and any attempt to utilize such names would necessitate autoptic examination of authentic series of specimens by each worker, with probably different results in every case, due to the personal equation. Cossmann's work, because of his peculiar method of type selection, is difficult to comprehend, and the rejection of the whole of his extra-austral group-names would lead to less error than the attempted recognition of superficial resemblances, due more to convergence, chance similarity in the combinations of dominant and recessive factors, and like response of organisms to like environment, than to any real genetic (and therefore generic) relation other than, perhaps, common derivation from an ancient stock. In many of the cases in which Coss-

– 323 –

mann has provided data in connection with austral species he has been peculiarly unfortunate in his judgment of their affinities.

There are very strong geological and geographical reasons for the step I propose to take, and as much literature bearing on this point has accumulated within recent years, one may note here the views of some of the geologists, palaeontologists, and zoo-geographers who have dealt with these problems. Especially may one recommend study of the many important papers and summaries by Benson and K. Martin, and of the “Proceedings of the First Pan-Pacific Scientific Conference, Part 3.”

It is to Suess that we owe the conception of the Tethys Sea—an ancient vast waterway that occupied the area now covered by the Gulf of Mexico, the Mid-Atlantic, the Mediterranean, and Southern Asia, and practically divided the dry land of much of later Palaeozoic and Mesozoic time into two huge continents, a Palaearctic northern mass, and the austral “Gondwanaland,” including Peninsular India. This period saw more or less free migration of forms to all the shores of Tethys, but with the breaking up of this immense Mediterranean the differentiation and localization of faunas proceeded apace. “The community of character of forms on either side of the Pacific was very marked in Lower Triassic times, indicating an intimate connection of the two regions, which became interrupted during the crust movements of Middle Triassic times. (Smith, 1904). We see, therefore, that the extension of the Tethyan coast to New Caledonia, but not to New Zealand, was a feature of Lower Triassic as well as of Permian times… As in New Zealand, so in the Malay Archipelago, the sea retreated early in the Cretaceous period, and great orogeny followed …. The last remnant of the Tethyan Sea was driven out from the region by these movements. Except for a few forms, the immigrant fauna appearing later in Cretaceous times was of the Indo-Pacific type* … at the close of Mesozoic times the various portions of Australasia ceased to have any striking unity of geological history. The fragmentation of the region became more active, and extending subsidence blocked it out into geographical elements, the remnants of which are now visible. These appear to have had very diverse histories during the Tertiary period,…. and to have developed provincial faunas with little intermigration.” (Benson, 1923, p. 38 et seq.)

K. Martin (1914, pp. 732–734) has discussed the question “When was the Indian Archipelago separated from Tethys?”, and, but for

[Footnote] * “Up to this time (late Jurassic) the successive faunas were all closely related to Malayan and Tethyan faunas in general, with some circumpacific elements, but now significant changes took place…. The new immigrant fauna (Senonian) was distinctly of the Indo-Pacific type, and apparently had a definitely marked affinity with that of New Zealand and the American Antarctic regions.”—(Benson, 1924, p. 124.)

[Footnote] † Workers have hesitated to unite even Silurian austral fossils with superficially similar Northern forms. Thus, as regards corals, Benson (1923, p. 25, footnote) has noted that “Yabe is, however, inclined to explain the similarity of the Canadian, Baltic, and Australian forms (of Halysites) as the result of parallel evolution under analogous conditions from a common stock, rather than by a continuous intermigration of derived forms.”

[Footnote] ‡ My thanks are due to Dr. Benson for kindly translating this paper from the original Dutch.

– 324 –

lack of space, his conclusions would here be quoted in full. He states that the East Indian-Philippine Tertiary deposits, extending from Eocene to Pliocene, are “stamped with a remarkable petrographical and palaeontological uniformity….one must conclude that during the whole period subsidence of the Indian Archipelago took place. It does not follow from this that this geosyncline was in connection with the Mediterannean Sea, the Tethys in the Tertiary period, or that a connection existed between Europe and the Indian Archipelago. All the faunal studies can give decisive evidence on this point. The fauna of the Eocene of Nanggulan in Java differs indeed completely from that of Europe….In the Neogene the differences are still greater….It follows that already during the deposition of the Nanggulan sediments….Java of the present day was no longer connected with Tethys, and the communication was not renewed at a later date….There is not the least reason to consider, as Noetling does, that the Eocene fauna of Europe had migrated to India. Apart from some interchange of species between neighbouring areas, one may consider the Tertiary fauna of the Indian Archipelago as autochthonous in the main.” All these remarks apply with redoubled force to the far more isolated and much more distant province of New Zealand. In a later paper (1917, p. 801) the same author remarks, “From the Neogene fauna of Europe the (Lower Miocene) mollusca of the West-Progo Mountains (of Java) are entirely different….they clearly present an Indo-Pacific character….the whole character of the Tertiary fauna of the West-Progo Mountains is in complete agreement with the theory formerly developed by me, according to which the Javanese sea was separated from the Tethys since the Upper Eocene.” It is the opinion of Wayland Vaughan (1921, p. 868) that “tracing from Europe to south-eastern Asia is possible for early Eocene, but it is not possible for later Eocene, Oligocene, and Miocene times.” And again (p. 720), “The connection between the Pacific and Atlantic by way of Tethys appears to have been closed before latest Eocene times, and perhaps except for transitory communication there has been no connection across Central America between the two oceans since older Miocene time. Marshall's insistence on the isolation of the New Zealand fauna appears to me to be fully warranted.”

The foraminifera one would expect to be more widely dispersed and to afford less definite information than the mollusca, but they nevertheless give evidence of a definite stage in the breaking down of the eastern margin of Australasia. The study of the Eocene foraminifera of New Caledonia by Piroutet and Deprat shows that they belong to a characteristic fauna which may be traced through New Guinea to the Malay Archipelago, and contains as one of its components some forms as yet indistinguishable from European species. This fauna is, however, quite unrepresented in New Zealand. (See e.g., Benson, 1924, p. 125.)

The case of the Brachiopods has been stated by Thomson (1918, pp. 37–61). The convergence of many lines of evidence has led to the conception of Gondwanaland, “a congerie of continental masses

– 325 –

lying south of the Tethys at the close of Palaeozoic times.” - (Benson, 1921, p. 57). Thomson has argued for the genesis of the southern stocks of Brachiopods almost solely on the shores of this old continent; “The most obvious explanation of all the above facts is that these two groups of the Terebratellidae originated on the coasts of Gondwanaland, on the remnants of which they now survive, and to which they are almost restricted.” Though the dispersal of marine mollusca is more complex, by reason of different habits and embryonic stages, there appears to be little reason to doubt that this hypothesis will apply also to very many stocks of southern mollusca. Thomson remarks further, “The distribution of southern Recent Brachiopods, then, is satisfactorily explained by an ancestral distribution in the Miocene, and not only does it not call for any land bridges or shallow submarine connections between the various southern continents and islands since that date, but is distinctly opposed to any such means of intercommunication except between South America and the Antarctic….The fact that the Gondwanaland element occurs both in New Zealand and Australia, but not in the Antarctic and South America, suggests that the intercommunication between New Zealand and Australia did not occur at the same time as that between New Zealand and the Antarctic, but that the latter was the earlier….The circum-Pacific southern connections were all broken much as at present by the Miocene, and since that date there have been no renewed connections between the southern continents and island districts, except possibly between South America and the Antarctic and the adjacent islands.” Hedley (1899, p. 398) has in like manner dealt with the distribution of mollusca along these ancient highways; “A centre of distribution has been described for New Guinea; another such occurs in New Zealand….Along the tortuous route by which the Malayan forms crept south to New Zealand from New Guinea, there flowed a return current of Antarctic life….It is to be noted that the Antarctic fauna which passed over New Zealand is quite distinct from, and probably far older than, that other Antarctic element, the Euronotian, which reached Australia through Tasmania.” Tillyard, too, in treating of insect faunas, has quite recently (1924, pp. 407–413) stressed the fact that Antarctic connections with Tasmania and New Zealand were not synchronous, and that because of this time difference considerable dissimilarities in their faunas have arisen. “We are struck with the very great differences not only in the types of insects which reached Tasmania and New Zealand respectively about this time (early Tertiary), but also in the associated flora and fauna. This leads us to postulate two separate connections with Antarctica in early Tertiary times….Tasmania, however, holds the largest share in the immigrants received through the Antarctic connections, and this gives its fauna its somewhat remote relationship with that of New Zealand.”

Benson (1922, p. 60) has noted that “there is, however, no divergence of opinion in regard to the isolation of New Zealand since the middle of Tertiary times….this seems to preclude the possibility of the formation of a temporary association of lands during the late Tertiary and Pleistocene orogenic and epirogenic movements in New Caledonia, New Zealand, and Eastern Australia, to which Cockayne

– 326 –

(1919) seems to be inclined to ascribe the entry of a presumably post-Mesozoic floral element in New Zealand.” Though it is certainly true that the great majority of both New Zealand and temperate Australian mollusca have Tertiary ancestors, nevertheless the collector who has access to both Recent and Tertiary Australasian shells notices at once that apparently the Recent faunas of Australia and New Zealand are far more closely allied than are those of the “Miocene.” Finlay, in discussing New Zealand Tertiary Cymatiidae (1924A, p. 465), has noted “The fact that none of our Tertiary species occurs in Australia is all the more significant since all our Recent species occur there*….the only explanation is that very different conditions were brought about for a short time after the close of the Wanganuian, and allowed the passage of characteristic Australian forms into our waters.” It should, however, be emphasized that the Recent faunas and those of the Tertiary are not directly comparable, since one of the most important elements of the Recent faunas—the conspicuous littoral and shallow water forms—is totally absent from almost all Australasian Tertiary faunas. A possible reason for this resemblance between the Recent faunas lies in the ocean currents. At Shell Harbour, some 80 miles south of Sydney, an insweeping ocean current brings to that one neighbourhood many typical Queensland forms, whose presence would be otherwise inexplicable. In like manner, the same Notonectian current, sweeping southwards far past Tasmania, and then up the coasts of New Zealand, is probably responsible for the introduction of many forms of Maugean (i.e. East Tasmanian) affinity. Introduction by this means within quite recent times seems the most feasable explanation of the occurrence on New Zealand shores of most of our present Cymatiidae, and the few other species apparently identical with Peronian, Adelaidean, or Maugean forms. It is not known how long the influence of the Notonectian current has been at work, but it is quite possibly of recent development, and to the absence of this factor may be partly due the appearance of so very few Australian fossils in New Zealand Tertiary beds, as compared with apparently greater resemblances in the Recent faunas. Ashby (Rep. Austr. Assoc. Adv. Sci., vol. 17, p. 371, 1926) has lately invoked the aid of ocean currents to explain the distribution of Australian chitons.

I have quoted the geological evidence at some length, partly because it forms a very stable foundation on which to raise a zoological and palaeontological superstructure, partly, because the treatment of the New Zealand fauna as autochthonous would be only half justified without some indication as to its origins and how it may have become modified by migrations from other sources, and partly because

[Footnote] * As will be seen later some of the New Zealand forms are represented in the Australian faunal provinces really by regional variants and not identical species; this, however, does not alter the relative closeness of affinity between the fossil and the Recent assemblages.

[Footnote] † Name proposed by Hedley (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vol. 35, 1910); rejected by Halligan (Proc, Roy. Soc. N.S.W., vol. 55, p. 193, footnote, 1921). It is, however, a convenient term for an important distributional factor.

[Footnote] ‡ It should be well understood that indications alone are outlined here; the recognition of the distinctness of a fauna need not await demonstration of the actual origin of all its component parts.

– 327 –

the “Tethys sea,” “Gondwanaland,” and such like fundamental concepts convey unfortunately but little meaning to many neontologists and systematists. Yet they form an indispensible basis for the accurate tracing of faunal relationships, seriation lines, and “natural” genera in austral lands.

I propose, therefore, to deal with the Neozelanic molluscan fauna, Tertiary and Recent, as an entity, comparable only with Australian (and South American) species, and believe that European fossils should be given less consideration until a later date. Bather, in his presidential Address to the Geological section of the British Association for the Advancement of Science at Cardiff in 1920, dealt with “Fossils and Life,” an essay of even more importance to the systematic neontologist than to the members he addressed. Therein he sketched the difference between the work of the Palaeontologist and that of the Neontologist. The effect of the time-concept on principles of classification should be used as an introduction to all systematics, and it is important to emphasize the fact that lineage is the all-important concept. Dall has written of “Two groups which are represented side by side in all the Eocene horizons and still have representatives in the Recent fauna…. These distinctions seem hardly of sectional value….The estimation of values in such cases is liable to a large personal equation, but it seems to me that historical and stratigraphical palaeontology will be benefited by regarding the differences as of subspecific rather than specific value.” I would disagree entirely with this dictum, and would rather suggest that the fact of such differences remaining throughout so long a lineage is of itself sufficient evidence that probably not different subspecies but different genera are represented. When two superficially similar forms live side by side, the balance of probability is either that they are not closely related, or else that they represent a period of variation in the lineage of the genus alternating with more fixed species of the line directly preceding and following the variable “species.”

Owing to the splendid series of fossiliferous horizons now known, in Neozelanic palaeontology it is almost always possible to secure series showing lineage down to existing forms. Dr. Allan Thomson has expressed the opinion that in connection with Neozelanic palaeontology “One (line of advance open) is the more detailed study of the species on evolutionary lines (such as I have been attempting in the brachiopods and limpets) with a view to defining valid species of limited range, and to arranging the species in evolutionary order.” One may endorse this dictum, and add that the study of Recent forms, especially as to their variation geographically and bathymetrically, should precede palaeontological decisions. It must be emphasized that, as regards Mollusca at all events, there can be no Palaeontologist ignorant of Neontology, nor can the Neontologist safely determine faunas without recourse to Palaeontology*, yet in the past the two branches have been commonly treated as if they were distinct and alien subjects.

[Footnote] * Cf., for example, in the notes that follow, the cases of Leucosyrinx thomsoni Mestayer and Cerithium invaricosum Odhner.

– 328 –

If, therefore, lineage can be traced for a shell form back through the Tertiary, I propose to regard that group as of generic or at least subgeneric value, whether the group is represented by only one living species or by many. Where available, however, the living forms should first be studied, and the fossils then classified conchologically in seriation. Many cases will arise where the radular or opercular features of the living species will command a higher value than the conchological features.

As a means of indicating by nomenclature the recognition of seriation and lineage among mollusca, Iredale has proposed the use of trinomials of varying kinds (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 15, p. 37, 1922), and this method seems to be of great value, there being many instances where its application obviates useless discussion as to the exact status of the affined molluscs, and a digest may be here given as applied to the Maorian Sub-Region.

Regional names in connection with Australian marine molluscs have proved of great value, and consequently the proposition of similar names for New Zealand is simply a matter of form. I have already (Gedenboek Verbeek, p. 168, 1925), following a MS. scheme of Iredale's, subdivided the Maorian Sub-Region into five provinces, as follows:—

Kermadec Province Kermadec Islands
Cookian Province North Island of New Zealand
Forsterian Province South and Stewart Islands
Moriorian Province Chatham Islands
Rossian Province Subantarctic Islands, including Macquarie Island

Ornithologically these provinces may be distinctly characterized, botanically they are quite separable, structurally there are differences*, while conchologically the data is strong and important. I make the proviso, however, that the Cookian and Forsterian provinces as here defined may not be “natural” and may be subdivisible later—in which case the present names are to be retained for the southern portions of each island. Cook Strait has been adopted as a temporary dividing line purely for present convenience; many characteristic regional forms are known to range across it. The quite recent development of Cook Strait as a geomorphic feature may account for this. Cotton (1916, pp. 248, 319) has written that “The orogenic movements which followed the Tertiary deposition, and to which the present relief is entirely, or almost entirely, due, must have occurred in or about the Pliocene period….Faults of late date appear also to have determined the outlines of at least some parts of the New Zealand coast, especially in and about Cook Strait.” And again in a later paper (1918, p. 325), “This justifies the adoption of a tentative hypothesis that at the close of the orogenic movements which gave birth to the New Zealand land mass, the dividing strait was not in existence, and that the separation of the two islands has taken

[Footnote] * Cf., for example, Cotton (1918, p. 324), “The close political association of the two (main) islands is a result, no doubt, of their isolation from the rest of the world: it has come about in spite of striking physical differences between them.”

– 329 –

place subsequently, as a result of subsidence of blocks, possibly contemporaneous with the partial subsidence of an adjacent portion of the South Island.” Cockayne (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 39, p. 313, 1907) and lately Myers (l.c., vol. 56, p. 455, 1926) have also noted in the case of plants and heteroptera respectively that “Cook Strait forms no line of demarcation.” The former author has placed a boundary at latitude 42° S., that is, near the Clarence River. It is preferable, however, to create Regional names only where justifiable on present evidence; north of Hauraki Gulf there may possibly be a different provincial region (the Cape Maria van Diemen fauna seems notably distinct); some of the most marked Forsterian forms are traceable only as far north as Shag Point; and the molluscan fauna of the South Island north of Banks Peninsula is too indefinitely known to permit of analysis;—on the facts available I nominate Cook Strait in the meantime as a dividing line between two certainly distinct provinces, the great bulk of the North Island, and the Southern portion of the South Island, and anticipate that future research will provide more exact limits.

The Kermadec Province has been well discussed in these Transactions, thanks to Oliver and Iredale. The results of study of Chatham Island mollusca will be published at an early date—but it is pertinent to mention the significant fact that the further one goes back into the Cainozoic record there, the more does its fauna differ from that of the other provinces. The Cookian Province shows a series of northern mollusca which are absent from the Forsterian, and the latter has many forms allied to Rossian species which never reach the Cookian Province. And Hedley, from consideration of Antarctic and Subantarctic mollusca has observed, “The Subantaretic Islands differ in their marine fauna from Antarctica almost as much as they do from such temperate zones as those of New Zealand or Tasmania.” The mollusca collected by members of the Mawson Antarctic Expedition were reported upon by Hedley in 1916, and included a collection from Macquarie Island which added to the known fauna many new species and records, all of which are discussed or mentioned in this paper. The circumpolar range allowed for some of the Subantartic species needs re-consideration, for when series are examined valid differences are easily observed.

Where a species occurs in more than one Province, it will generally be found to differ subspecifically, and here ordinary trinomials may be used. When the form varies bathymetrically to such an extent that it becomes an arguable point as to its specific identity or distinction, a trinomial is used with the second name enclosed in simple brackets. When a fossil is found so closely related that its specific distinction is indefinite, and its Recent relation indubitable, a trinomial may be used, the second name being enclosed in square brackets. As a concrete example, the various forms of Thoristella may be taken as well illustrating this scheme:—

Thoristella chathamensis chathamensis (Hutton) Moriorian Province
Thoristella chathamensis dunedinensis (Suter) Forsterian Province
Thoristella chathamensis oppressa (Hutton) Cookian Province
Thoristella chathamensis aucklandica (Smith) Rossian Province
– 330 –
Thoristella (chathamensis) benthicola n. sp.* Deep water in some Province (Forsterian in this case).
Thoristella [chathamensis] fossilis n. sp.* Tertiary ancestral species.

This scheme can be enlarged in any way, as the deep water form could be referred to in the Cookian Province as Thoristella (oppressa) benthicola; and a species older than fossilis could be described as Thoristeila [fossilis] profossilis n. sp.

It may be noted that on the occasion of the first introduction to New Zealand of a trinomial system (Matthews and Iredale, “A Reference List of the Birds of New Zealand”; “Ibis” for April and July, 1913), one austral zoologist expressed his hearty commendation of the scheme, and its advantages cannot be better told than in his words: “It will be seen from a few examples that this is a very useful innovation, in that it indicates at once the close affinity between the different forms or subspecies of one and the same species which inhabit the different islands that constitute the New Zealand area. Systematic work in all groups nowadays is more and more closely correlated with geographical distribution than it used to be; and as classification is the espression of genetic relationships, the utility to the evolutionist of this trinomial system becomes manifest.” (Benham, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 46, p. 189, 1914). I could not better epitomize my views and close this introduction than with these words.

The types of all new species described are in the Finlay collection; paratypes wherever possible have been deposited in the Australian Museum, Sydney.

All new genera proposed for New Zealand shells, or newly added to the fauna, and all additions made to the Recent fauna since the publication of Suter's “Manual,” also all notes of interest on already described species, and references to most of the fossils (all, since 1922 inclusive) described since the publication of New Zealand Geological Survey Palaeontological Bulletin No. 5, 1917, will be found in this paper, which aims at being not only a more or less exhaustive revision, but also a work of reference to the scattered and now fairly voluminous molluscan literature which has accumulated on New Zealand forms since Suter's death. It is sincerely hoped that in both these categories it will prove useful.

Order Polyplacophora [P. 3]

Iredale and Hull have published a “Monograph of the Australian Loricates” in the Australian Zoologist, the plan of which for accuracy, clearness of treatment, and general utility to both tyro and specialist it would be difficult to better. The general account of “Systematics and Structure” forming No. 1 (Austral. Zool., vol. 3, pt. 5, pp. 186–194, 1923) is the introduction par excellence for any student starting work on this interesting group. Therein it is shown (p. 186) that the name Polyplacophora Gray, 1821, the

[Footnote] * Described later in the paper.

[Footnote] † As in the “Commentary,” the references in square brackets give the page of the “Manual” referred to, and, also as before, the names at the head of the paragraphs are not always those used by Suter.

– 331 –

usage of which was based on priority, must give way to that of Loricata Schumacher, 1817, and they have suggested the use of the vernacular “Loricate” in preference to “Chiton,” which is the name of one of the genera of the Loricata*. Their classification differs a little from that used by Suter, and also from that of Thiele, recorded in the “Commentary” by Iredale (pp. 423–426). The new arrangement may be condensed thus: the suborder Lepidopleurina Thiele is abolished, as all the Lepidopleurids appear to be degenerate forms only (No. 4, p. 339), and nine families are admitted (No. 1, p. 193):—Ischnochitonidae, Lepidopleuridae, Lepidochitonidae, Callistochitonidae, Loricidae, Cryptoconchidae, Cryptoplacidae, Plaxiphoridae, and Chitonidae. The fourth and seventh of these are not yet represented in New Zealand waters. A useful key to these families is presented (p. 194), and also to the various genera and species as they are treated.

Besides this exhaustive monograph, numerous other papers on the Loricates have appeared recently. Ashby in his “Monograph on Australian Fossil Polyplacophora (Chitons)” (Proc. Roy. Soc. Vict., vol. 37, N.S., pp. 170–205, 1925), and in his “Acanthoid Chitons of New Zealand” (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 17, pp. 5–35, 1926) has proposed several changes in classification, and in the value and nomination of the higher groups, while in his “Regional Distribution of Australian Chitons (Polyplacophora)” (Rep. Austr. Assoc. Adv. Sci., vol. 17, pp. 366–393) he suggests alteration of Hedley's Australian regional divisions and proposes the new names Indo-Australian and Tasmanian, suppressing Solanderian in favour of Dampierian (which he constantly misspells Damperian). It is unfortunate that these papers are marred by lack of lucidity and method, and the conclusions often obscurely worded; they frequently clash with those of Iredale and Hull, but in every case the opinions of the latter authors seem to merit more consideration than he has given. His regional divisions are not adopted here; further evidence as to their validity seems to be required.

Odhner (1924, pp. 5–9) has recorded a considerable number of species from many localities visited by the Mortensen Expedition, but the identifications do not always seem to be trustworthy. Finally, Miss Mestayer has contributed a couple of papers (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 53, pp. 176–179, 1921; l.c., vol. 56, pp. 583–587) in which several new species are described. Two of her species (Acanthochiton foveauxensis and Macandrellus oliveri) have been anticipated by Ashby, who, while referring to her MS. account, has described and figured them in his paper (1926B, pp. 20, 18) as Notoplax (Amblyplax) foveauxensis and Notoplax (Amblyplax) oliveri respectively; his account and names have one month's priority.

Lepidopleurus inquinatus (Reeve, 1847). [P. 6]

This is the species for which Ashby proposed (Proc. Roy. Soc. Vict., vol. 33, N.S., p. 157, 1920) the new name L. iredalei through a mistaken idea; he has since rectified his error (Trans. Roy. Soc.

[Footnote] * Ashby has recently (Rep. Austr. Assoc. Adv. Sci., vol. 17, p. 379, 1926) in an “Explanatory Note” rejected this name, but his reasons are inadequate, and the note not explanatory.

– 332 –

S.A., vol. 47, p. 217, 1923). Attention is here drawn to this as Finlay (Rep. Austr. Assoc. Adv. Sci., vol. 16, p. 342, 1923), Oliver (1923A, p. 529), and Odhner (1924, p. 5) have used Ashby's incorrect name.

The genus Terenochiton Iredale, 1914 (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 11, p.28) may be used for this species, and there are several others to be described in Neozelanic waters. Odhner (1924, p. 5), in identifying and figuring a valve from Campbell Island as inquinatus, has noted that it differs from Stewart Island specimens, also figured. Hedley (1916, p. 34) has added from Macquarie Island Lepidopleurus kerguelenensis Haddon, but this seems a doubtful identification from every point of view.

Genus Callochiton Gray, 1847. [P. 12]

Iredale and Hull (Austr. Zool., vol. 3, pt. 8, p. 349, 1925) have noted that Callochiton auct. is not Callochiton Gray, 1847, of which the type is Chiton laevis Pennant. They have accordingly proposed the genus name Levicoplax for Chiton platessa Gould, and classed the Australian members of the Lepidochitonidae under this genus, Icoplax Thiele (for Chiton puniceus Couthouy), and Eudoxoplax Iredale and May (for Chiton inornatus T.-W.). The last named is not represented in New Zealand, but Levicoplax will include platessa (Gould) (I have recorded the finding of two specimens of this species at Taieri Beach: Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 517, 1924) and Callochiton mortenseni Odhner (1924, p. 6), from Campbell Island. Icoplax will cover the remaining New Zealand species, regarding which quite a number of notes have appeared, as follows:—

I. empleurus (Hutton). Miss Mestayer (Trans. N.Z.‘Inst., vol. 53, p. 180, 1921) has supplemented Suter's description of the valves and has lately figured and given Oliver's description of the radula (l.c., vol. 56, p. 583, 1926). I have recorded the species from the littoral in Dunedin Harbour (l.c., vol. 55, p. 517, 1924), and Odhner records it from Campbell Island (1924, p. 6), though as he mentions differences in sculpture and slitting, he probably had a distinet species.

I. sulculatus (Suter). Recorded by Odhner (1924, p. 7) from North Channel, Kawau Island (misspelt “Kawaii”).

I. kapitiensis (Mestayer) (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 583, 1926). Described from Kapiti Island on the specimens Suter identified as Chiton limans Sykes.

Family Plaxiphoridae Iredale.

Add Plaxiphora (Maorichiton) lyallensis Mestayer (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 3, p. 176, 1921). Notes have also been given by Miss Mestayer on P. zigzac (Hutton) (l.c., vol. 56, p. 584, 1926) and P. ovata (Hutton) (l.c., p. 585), which she treats as distinct from Fremblya egregia H.Ad. Powell (N.Z. Journ. Sci. & Tech., vol. 6, p. 285, 1924) has recorded P. biramosa (Q. & G.) from the Cookian Region.

Hemiarthrum setulosum Dall, 1876.

This extraordinary genus and species is added to the Neozelanic list by Hedley, as common at Macquarie Island (1916, p. 34); Iredale

– 333 –

has studied the specimens and suggests that Hemiarthrum may be a degenerate Plaxiphorid (see also Austral. Zool., vol. 3, pt. 8, p. 339, 1925), “the unslit head plate being faintly striated, the sutural laminae of the median valves being more like those of Plaxiphora s.l. than of Acanthochiton s.l., while the little unslit projecting tail plate is like that of a young Plaxiphorid, and not at all Acanthochitonoid. Further, the sculpture agrees better with that of the former, and curiously enough, while Carpenter noted only four tufts around the head valve—the correct number for an Acanthochiton—Haddon pointed out that the specimen he examined had six, while the specimens in the Australian Museum prove to have eight, which pretty definitely determines the relationship.

The Macquarie Island shells appear to be a little different, the sculpture being finer and the mucro of the posterior valve nearly median and little elevated, while in the extra-limital shell the mucro is elevated and terminal.” (in litt.)

Plaxiphora aurata (Spalowsky, 1795). [P. 21]

This name was incorporated in the “Commentary” as the correct name for the species Suter called P. superba and this conclusion has been accepted by Hedley in his Antarctic Report (1916, p. 35), where unfortunately he has spelt the specific name “aureus”; a long synonymy is there given, but Iredale writes me that “still another synonym has to be added with a somewhat humorous history, viz. Chiton raripilosus Blainville (Dict. Sci. Nat. (Levrault), vol. 36, p. 547, 1821). Attention was drawn to the identity of this species by Pelseneer, but was overlooked by Iredale. Subsequently Dupuis (Bull. Mus. & Hist. Nat. Paris, p. 535, 1917) recognised the type in the Paris Museum, and ignorant of both Pelseneer's and Iredale's papers proposed it as the valid name for the species. Then Ashby, glancing at the Loricates in the Paris Museum, noted (Trans. Roy. Soc. South Austr., vol. 46, p. 576, 1922) that this species of Blainville's was quite foreign to him, not recognizing in it the type of Plaxiphora, a generic name he has recently preferred for Australian shells.”

Family Cryptoconchidae Iredale.

This is Suter's “Family Acanthochitidae Fischer” [P. 25], and Ashby's “Family Acanthochitonidae Hedley” (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 17, p. 10, 1926). Ashby does not accept Iredale's Family name, giving as his reason, “Under the International Rules, the law of priority does not apply to ordinal or family and subfamily names, the word ‘type-genus’ in Article 4 of those rules meaning ‘Typical genus’.” He then considers Acanthochites Risso as typical of the family, notes that it has been supplanted by Acanthochiton Gray (em. by Iredale, 1915, p. 422) and proceeds to derive new family and subfamily names from this source. Now Iredale has, in another connection, stated his views quite clearly as follows: “the family name….should be called Pyrenidae, not Columbellidae….I have been questioned as to my argument, the only rule in this connection reading “The name of a family is formed by adding the ending -idae

– 334 –

….to the root of the name of its type genus.” The only type genus of a family I can recognise is the oldest genus admitted in the family. The selection of any other would cause as much confusion as there is in recognising the type species of a genus at present, and give rise to even more complications.” (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 12, p. 33, 1916). If any sort of stability is to be maintained, this is the only logical interpretation that can be given to the rule in question; the point is so manifest that it need not be laboured, and Ashby's contrary action must be rejected.

It has already been noted that two new Recent species of this family described by Miss Mestayer must be credited to Ashby as author. Ashby also sinks Miss Mestayer's Acanthochiton foveauxensis var. kirki (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 586, 1926) as a synonym of the species itself; the variation is purely individual. A new genus Lophoplax has been created by Ashby (type: L. finlayi Ashby) (1926B, p. 29) for a curious form from 60 fathoms Otago Heads; also a new subgenus Amblyplax, for Notoplax (Amblyplax) oliveri Ashby (l.c., p. 18). Several other new species are proposed, and some buried ones resuscitated by Ashby in the paper quoted. The carnivorous proclivities of Cryptoconchus porosus Burrow, 1815, have been made the subject of a note by Miss Mestayer (N.Z. Journ. Sci. & Tech., vol. 3, p. 117, 1920).

Genus Rhyssoplax Thiele, 1893.

Miss Mestayer has described a new species (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 53, p. 179, 1921) as R. oliveri; the unique type, however, appears to be a juvenile and is almost certainly a synonym of R. aerea (Reeve), and not related to the Australian translucens (H. & H.). This writer has also rejected R. limans (Sykes) from the New Zealand fauna, redescribing the specimens Suter so identified as Callochiton kapitiensis (l.c., vol. 56, p. 584, 1926). I have recorded (l.c., vol. 55, p. 518, 1924) R. canaliculata (Q. & G.) from the littoral, Dunedin Harbour, an unusual occurrence. The obscure R. huttoni Suter has been recorded from several localities by Odhner (1924, p. 9), but the specimens he sent me so named were Sypharochiton sinclairi (Gray)!

Genus Lorica H. & A. Adams, 1852. [P. 45]

Miss Mestayer has shown (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 53, p. 177, 1921) that Lorica volvox (Reeve) has no place in the Neozelanic fauna, and has described our species as L. haurakiensis; later (l.c., vol. 56, p. 587, Pl. 101, f. 10, 1926) she has figured its radula. I have recorded the species from a Forsterian locality (l.c., vol. 55, p. 517, 1924). I now propose the new genus Zelorica for Lorica haurakiensis Mestaver. basing its distinctions chiefly on girdle characters. This was described originally as of “medium width, closely set with smooth convex scales, which vary slightly in size. There are no tufts of bristles; the posterior slit extends the whole width of the girdle.” Lorica has a girdle covering of “large irregular striated scales and numerous spiculose tufts” (Iredale and Hull; Austral. Zool. 3, pt. 8, p. 357, 1925); the anterior valve is also not so prominently recurved. Neither Loricella nor Kopionella can be utilised, so a new genus becomes necessary.

– 335 –

Onithochiton subantarcticus Suter, 1907. [P. 49]

I have published a note on this form (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 521, 1924), but, owing to lack of material, was unable to decide on its status. Since then Odhner has sent me specimens identified as var. subantarcticus from Campbell Island, and these are quite distinct from neglectus, so that the form should be recognised as a separate species.

Family Cavoliniidae. [P. 53]

This spelling is wrong, as the genus name is written Cavolina. It is a very doubtful point whether Abildgaard's name has preference over Bruguiere's proposition of Cavolina of the same year, but this cannot be settled at present.

Hedley has allowed his strangulata specific rank (1918, p. M 106) and this should be here followed, eliminating longirostris.

For Cavolina trispinosa, Hedley has used Diacria generically, a usage to be recommended, and adopted here.

Cavolina uncinata Rang appears to be a doubtful constituent of the New Zealand fauna, as no authentic record is cited by Suter.

Of Cuvierina columnella Rang, Suter wrote, “This is the only living species of Cuvierina,” but Hedley has preferred urceolaris Moerch as a distinct species for the Australian form, and also revived the genus name Vaginella, proposed by Daudin generations ago; under this name Clark (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 37, p. 419, 1903) and Marshall (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 50, p. 263, 1918) have described Tertiary species from New Zealand (see list after following note).

Four species of Clio have been admitted to the New Zealand Tertiary fauna by Suter (Alph. List N.Z. Tert. Mollusca, p. 10, 1918), viz., annulata (Tate), rangiana (Tate), tatei Suter, and urenuiensis Suter. The first of these cannot be definitely rejected at present, but probably will be when better specimens are available; the second. however, has already been written off by Marwick (Rep. Austr. Assoc Adv. Science, vol. 16, p. 323, 1924). “Clio tatei Suter” seems to be a nomen nudum, it was apparently first introduced in 1915 (Alph. Hand-List N.Z. Tert. Mollusca, p. 7), perhaps as a new name for one of Tate's species; in the “Lists of New Zealand Tertiary Mollusca” (N.Z. Geol. Surv. Pal. Bull. No. 8, p. 50, 1921) there is only one occurrence of the name, in a list of fossils collected by Thomson and Speight at Trelissick Basin, but no legal definition of the species has been given. Clio urenuiensis Suter may from the figure be anything at all; specimens have not been seen.

Finally, Miss Mestayer (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 48, p. 124, 1916) has added to the New Zealand fauna Styliola subula (Q. & G.) (misspelt sublata in her paper), and Hedley (1916, p. 64) has identified some 20 specimens washed up on the shore of Macquarie Island after a gale as Cliodita caduceus Q. & G. (Ann. Sci. Nat., vol. 6, pt. 21, p. 74, 1825).

Genus Limacina. [P. 57]

Iredale has shown (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 11, p. 295, 1915) that this genus name must give way to Spiratella Blainville, but probably

– 336 –

Embolus Jeffreys must come into use for the second species added by Miss Mestayer, Limacina inflata Orbigny (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 48, p. 124, 1916). Marwick has introduced a new genus Lornia (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 316, 1926) for Lornia limata n. sp., a Waiarekan fossil with the facies of a Spiratella, but very much larger; it may not be a Pteropod at all.

A list of the present-known species of Pteropods from New Zealand, with their localities, would appear as follows:—

Cavolina inflexa (Lesueur, 1813) (off Great Barrier Island)
" strangulata Hedley, 1907 (off Great Barrier Island)
" telemus (Linné, 1758) (Chatham and North Is.)
Diacria trispinosa (Lesueur, 1821) (off Great Barrier Island)
Spiratella australis (Eyd. and Soul, 1840) (Lyall Bay)
Embolus inflatus (d'Orb., 1836) (off Big King and North Cape)
(?) Lornia limata (Marwick, 1925) (Waiarekan Tuffs, Eocene)
Clio annulata (Tate, 1887) (?) (Black Point, Eocene)
" (?) urenuiensis Suter, 1917 (White Cliffs, Pliocene)
Cliodita caduceus Q. & G., 1825 (Macquarie Island)
Styliola subula (Q. & G., 1827) (off Big King Island)
Cymbulia parvidentata Pelseneer, 1888 (Cook Strait)
Vaginella urceolaris (Moerch, 1850) (off Great Barrier Island)
" aucklandica Clarke, 1903 (Orakei Bay, Pliocene)
" torpedo Marshall, 1918 (Kaipara, Oligocene)

Family Acmaeidae [P. 61]

A valuable account of the Recent and fossil New Zealand and Australian members of this family has just appeared from the pen of W. R. B. Oliver (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, pp. 547–582, 1926), and no more can be said on the subject here. He states that “The characters of the radula have been used in defining the genera and subgenera,” and further that, “Apparently the shell and radula characters do not always run parallel….species whose shells are alike have quite different teeth, while, conversely, the same radula formula is found in species having very unlike shells.” (p. 548). This is but further confirmation of what I have already stressed in my introduction (written before Oliver's paper appeared), and it is safe to assume that similar independence of shell and radula characters will be found in almost every molluscan family. Oliver creates the following new groups for Australasian Acmaeas:—

  • Chizacmea for Patelloida flammea Q. & G. (p. 558).

  • Asteracmea for Helcioniscus illibrata Verco (p. 563).

  • Actinoleuca for Patella campbelli Filhol (p. 567).

  • Conacmea for Acmaea parviconoidea Suter (p. 577).

  • Thalassacmea for Notoacmea badia Oliver (p. 579).

  • Subacmea for Notoacmea scopulina Oliver (p. 580).

the last three being treated as subgenera of Notoacmea Iredale. He also notes two changes in specific names of New Zealand species.

– 337 –

both introduced by Iredale: Patella inconspicua Gray, 1843 (Dieff. Travels N.Z., vol. 2, p. 244) supercedes Fissurella rubiginosa Hutton (Iredale, 1924, p. 237), and the specific name fragilis is restored to the sole species of Atalacmea, Patella fragilis Sow., 1823 (Gen. Shells, pt. 21, pl. 140, f. 6, and text) antedating P. unguis-almae Lesson, 1830 (Iredale, 1924, p. 238). Oliver, however, retains rubiginosa Hutt. as a trinomial for the Moriorian form (p. 565), sinking Acmaea cingulata Hutton instead as an absolute synonym of inconspicua Gray.

Radiacmea macquariensis Hedley (1916, p. 41) and several new species and subspecies are added to the New Zealand “Acmaea” fauna in Oliver's monograph.

Genus Nacella Schumacher, 1817. [P. 76]

Suter admitted this genus and under the section Patinigera Dall ranged two species, Nacella fuegiensis (Reeve, 1855) and Nacella illuminata (Gould, 1846). The distribution of the former was given as Campbell Island and Macquarie Island, and of the latter as Antipodes Island, Auckland Islands, Campbell Island, and Macquarie Island. Under the genus Helcioniscus appeared H. redimiculum (Reeve, 1854) from the mainland, Chatham, Bounty, and Auckland Islands; and H. strigilis (Hombron and Jaquinot, 1841) from the mainland, Chatham, Antipodes, Auckland, Campbell, and Snares Islands. Iredale in his “Commentary” (p. 432) from study of mainland shells in Otago advised the lumping of the last two, since shells showing variation covering the two accepted types had been collected on the mainland, and the range was small.

A reconsideration of the facts has become necessary since Hedley published his account of the Mawson Expedition Mollusca. Therein he admitted two species only from Macquarie Island, referring both to Nacella and giving a good account of the animals and shells. Using Nacella delesserti (Philippi, 1849), given to a Marion Island shell, he synonymised Reeve's redimiculum, but doubtfully added Hombron and Jaquinot's strigilis. He concluded, however, that Nacella illuminata (Gould) from the Auckland Islands was a different species. The growth stages he figured of his “delesserti” agreed with the forms from the Auckland Islands described as illuminata by Gould and as strigilis by Hombron and Jaquinot. However, study of growth stages of redimiculum from the mainland reveals that, although it shows parallel stages to illuminata and strigilis, the juvenile is more coarsely ribbed and secondary sculpture is obsolete, in this respect showing an approach to the Tasmanian shell known as limbata and commonly referred to Cellana. This suggests study of the Tasmanian species, and also of the mainland New Zealand redimiculum, which is superficially a true “Nacelloid.” Since redimiculum is separable, the reference to delesserti does not seem satisfactory, so that I propose to follow Hedley's first idea and introduce the new name Nacella macquariensis for the species so well described and figured by him (Rep. Austr. Antarct. Exped., vol. 4, pt. 1, “Mollusca,” p. 42, pl. 6, figs. 65–69), the type series being in the Australian Museum.

– 338 –

We have then a series of subantarctic and mainland forms,—

Nacella macquariensis nov. Macquarie Island
" strigilis (H. & J., 1841) =illuminata Auckland Island (Gould, 1846)
" terroris (Filhol, 1880) Campbell Island
" redimiculum (Reeve, 1854) South Island

Before one can determine any further synonymy or localities, specimens must be examined, as N. illuminata has been recorded from Antipodes Island, H. redimiculum from Chatham, Bounty, and Auckland Islands, and H. strigilis from the whole of the mainland and all these places except Macquarie Island, while Hedley's adult shell from that locality would have been so named without question. Suter's strigilis from Tauranga is the most interesting record. For the kelp living form Hedley has preferred Nacella kerguelenensis Smith, proposed for a Kerguelen species, to N. fuegiensis Reeve used by Suter, observing that the Macquarie Island forms “agree generally with specimens from Kerguelen Island.” In this case also it would have been better to have proposed a new name for the form under consideration.

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

In the N.Z. Journal of Science and Technology (vol. 2, Nos. 4 and 5, p. 264, 1919), Dr. Allan Thomson has provided some interim notes on “Polymorphism in the Common New Zealand Limpet, Cellana radians (Gmelin),” and his full conclusions have not yet appeared. The technical names, owing to their extremely involved nature, need careful consideration, but may really be left till the facts are established. However, it is as well to note that Patella decora Philippi undoubtedly refers to this group, and not to the strigilis series; Thomson (l.c., p. 264) accepted Suter's recognition of a photograph of the original illustration, but the accompanying description giving details which apply to radians, not strigilis, was not considered by either Thomson or Suter. Thomson has written, “The high conical shells go through a depressed stage with an anterior apex. They are therefore more advanced in form than the depressed adult shells, and deserve specific recognition on this account. The species perana and flava belong here. Perhaps an intermediate species should be recognised. The type of radians is a depressed form.” Most workers, however, will not agree that in the limpets form alone is of specific value. Intensive study of Australian limpets by Iredale has shown that, in confirmation of his former surmise, the shells do vary in this respect (as in others) according to the nature of the rock. To cite a concrete instance, on Long Reef, composed of the Narrabeen Shale, a long depressed shell is found, and on the sandstone boulders adjacent thereto a higher shell occurs, while in Freshwater Cove, three or four miles south, a much higher, more conical form lives on the sandstone. Series can be easily collected which would be valid species according to Thomson's dictum, but which we know are not recognisable variants. According to the exact position with regard to wave stress, variation in shape occurs and is not governed by locality. Thus at the Bottle and Glass Rocks

– 339 –

inside Sydney Harbour, on sandstone exposed to surf, the shells agree fairly closely with those from the Narrabeen Shale of Long Reef, save in colouring, which is much richer.

Cellana stellifera (Gmelin, 1791). [P. 86]

Noted by Powell (N.Z. Journ. Sci. & Tech., vol. 4, p. 204, 1921) as plentiful at Busby Head, Whangarei Heads. Suter gives this species a range from Cape Maria van Diemen to Campbell Island; this needs investigation. Bucknill (1924, pl. 2, figs. 10, a, b) has lately figured young and old examples. He has also figured (l.c., figs. 8, 9) Cellana ornata (Dill.) and the subspecies inconspicua (Gray) admitted by Suter [P. 81]. But it has already been noted (see Note on Family Acmaeidae) that Patella inconspicua Gray applies to the common mainland Radiacmea, and not to a limpet, so that the ornata variety is at present nameless. Iredale (1924, p. 238) doubts whether the form is worth distinguishing, and from what I have seen I am inclined to agree, but the matter must be left till someone can study large suites from many localities.

Scissurella mantelli Woodward, 1859. [P. 88]

This species belongs to the genus Schizotrochus, a world-wide group of but few species. When Miss Mestayer described a fine shell as Scissurella regia nov. (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 48, p. 123, 1916), she noted that Hedley had suggested the possibility of her having found the long lost mantelli, and then said, “but it does not at all resemble that species, being more depressed, and quite differently sculptured.” In these comparisons she was evidently judging from Suter's figure in the Manual “Atlas,” which is almost the extremity of crudeness. Pilsbry (Man. Conch., vol. 12, Pl. 57, f. 12) gives a much better copy of Woodward's figure, which portrays a shell very like that depicted by Miss Mestayer, allowing for different aspects of view and methods of illustration. When one remembers the paucity of species of Schizotrochus (only one species being usually present in a faunal area, and that species having generally a wide range), and the fact that both these forms were described from the North Island, it is not difficult to imagine that they represent the same thing, and from examination of paratypes in my possession I can affirm that this is so. Schizotrochus mantelli (Woodward) therefore becomes the name for the only Recent Neozelanic member of this genus, regia Mestayer falling as a synonym; I have seen fossil ancestral species. As regards other Scissurellas, Iredale has proposed the new genus Scissurona for the rosea type (1924, p. 215), and no true Scissurella has yet been described from New Zealand, though undescribed species are known to me.

Genus Schismope Jeffreys, 1856. [P. 89]

Suter admits three species and a subspecies, two of the species being identified with Australian shells. Both these records must be expunged, for reasons given below, where the Neozelanic species are described as new. Suter's figures are not drawn from New Zealand shells; that of S. beddomei is a poor tracing of May's drawing (“Revised Census of the Marine Mollusca of Tasmania,” Pl. 24, fig.

– 340 –

24, 1901), while that of S. atkinsoni seems to be a careless copy of Watson's figure of his S. carinata (Chall. Rep., vol. 15, p. 119, pl. 8, fig. 6, 1886). There are at least two species of the beddomei group found in deep water off the Snares, but neither of these matches with Australian forms; there are other species of the same group from more northern localities.

Schismope lyallensis n. sp.

Shell generally similar to S. atkinsoni, but with less prominent keels. Sculpture above fasciole very inconspicuous, only some raised growth-lines and a few spiral grooves; below the sunken fasciole with its raised edges there is a broad concave almost smooth space, then another keel emerging from the suture; below this, base is lightly convex, and is scored by 8–9 shallow grooves, marking very low broad ribs, inner ones of which are in and on margin of umbilicus, which is wide and deep, defined by a blunt keel; above inner spiral rib there are numerous curved axial threads. Base nowhere angled by any of the ribs (there is a third keel in atkinsoni); whorls bulge out further past fasciole than in Tenison-Woods' species, and aperture is less oblique, due to narrower umbilicus. Whole of aperture bounded by curved lines, not straight as in atkinsoni. Anal perforation one-eighth of a whorl in length.

Height, 1.5 mm.; diameter, 1.8 mm.

Locality,—Lyall Bay, in shell sand.

Schismope laqueus n. sp. (Figs. 30, 31.)

Closely allied to S. beddomei, but differing, as Suter says, in larger size and more depressed shape, also in more numerous axial ribs. Spire hardly at all elevated, the smooth shoulder being very broad and horizontal, apex lightly concave. Constantly about 15 axial ribs (interstices about twice their width) on base below the smooth concave space under fasciole keel, and about the same number before the aperture on upper side, diminishing regularly in size, but remaining conspicuous till almost hidden by sinking of the upper whorls. Ribs on spire begin to encroach on shoulder about 1¼ whorls from aperture. About four narrow and distant spiral threads distributed over base. Umbilicus moderately large and deep. Other details as in S. beddomei.

Height, 1.25 mm.; diameter, 1.5 mm.

Locality,—Snares Island, in 50 fathoms.

Schismope iota n. sp.

More like beddomei in size, but less elate and with fewer axial ribs, and different aperture. Spire projecting, its sides formed by the rather high penultimate whorl, its lightly convex top by the much depressed earlier whorls; the smooth shoulder is not so wide as in previous species, and distinctly sloping. Constantly 9 narrow and distant axial ribs (interstices 3–4 times their width) on base, and about same number of prominent and still distant ribs before aperture on upper whorls, followed near apex by about half-a-dozen smaller and closer ribs. Ribs on spire encroach on shoulder when less than a whorl from aperture. About three almost obsolete spiral ribs very close together bordering umbilicus, which is narrow and very shallow.

– 341 –

Aperture suboval except for straight columellar edge, only slightly angled above, margins much thickened for so small a shell. Anal perforation smaller and with much less raised margins than in beddomei and laqueus.

Height, 0.9 mm.; diameter, 0.8 mm.

Locality,—Snares Island, in 50 fathoms.

Sinezona n. gen.

I propose this name for the Schismope brevis group, naming that species as type. The distribution of species in this group invites consideration, Hedley's brevis being recorded from Lyall Bay (type), Snares Island, in 50 fathoms, and Lyttelton Harbour; while the subspecies laevigata Iredale is given as from Sandfly Bay (type) and Lyall Bay. Examination of numerous specimens shows that there is but one species of Sinezona at Lyall Bay, differing from all the southern forms in its more central apex and inflated spire-whorls. Laevigata Iredale should be regarded as a distinct form, characterized by low and generally quite smooth spire, lateral elongation of the last whorl, less tumid whorls (noticeable especially on the base), and short fasciole. I have recorded it from Taieri Beach (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 517, 1924), and it seems to be typically a Forsterian form, but Snares specimens are not at present separable; brevis, of course, does not occur at the Snares. Finally, Schismope subantarctica Hedley (Rep. Austr. Antarct. Exped., vol 4, pt. 1, p. 36, pl. 5, figs. 54, 55, 1916), from Macquarie Island, must be added to the Neozelanic list of Sinezona. Miss Mestayer (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 51, p. 130, 1919) has recorded this species from Lyall Bay and the Snares, but these records may be rejected without much hesitation; subantarctica is easily distinguished from the Lyall Bay brevis, while it differs from laevigata in being smoother, less elongate laterally, the last whorl rapidly descending downwards, and in having—in the unique type—no fasciole behind the perforation. The nearest approach to subantarctica I have seen is an undescribed species from the Chatham Islands. The absence of the fasciole-girdle suggests the name chosen for the genus and will afford a ready means of recognition; the whole facies, however, is peculiar. S. lacuniformis Watson (Chall. Rep., vol. 15, p. 118, pl. 8, fig. 8), from off the West Indies is superficially like this group, but has a gaping umbilicus; in Sinezona this is generally sealed up by the inner lip.

Genus Haliotis Linnaeus, 1758. [P. 92]

In the Proc. Mal. Soc. (Lond.), vol. 9, p. 260, 1911, Iredale pointed out that Montfort had selected as type of Haliotis the Linnean species asininus, and had introduced Padollus for a species rubicundus. If we admit that more than one genus is represented in the Linnean Haliotis, and if Montfort's action were upheld, the New Zealand shells would all fall into his Padollus. Iredale informs me, however, that reconsideration suggests that as tuberculata L. was the well-known species, and commonly regarded as such, being named vulgata and vulgaris, Haliotis may be retained in connection with it; a most desirable proceeding. The New Zealand species may thus, for the present, all be left in Haliotis.

– 342 –

Haliotis australis Gmelin, 1791. [P. 93]

Add to the synonymy Haliotis aleata Bolten (Mus. Bolten, p. 14, 1798). In the synonymy Suter has included Haliotis plicata Karsten (Mus. Leskeanum, p. 297, 1789), which would have priority, but Karsten's names are unacceptable as they are simply quotations from binomial and also non-binomial authors, without any attempt to treat them all binomially.

Haliotis varia Linnaeus, 1758. [P. 94]

This should be placed on a suspense list in the meantime. No authentic specimens are known to local collectors, and the New Zealand habitat of the specimens Suter recorded is open to doubt.

Haliotis huttoni Filhol, 1880. [P. 96]

This form also occurs at Auckland Island, and may be trinomially treated as a regional development of virginea, Gmelin. Odhner's record of virginea from Auckland Island (1924, p. 12) refers to this form; the differential characters given by Suter are quite good.

Fissurella huttoni Suter, 1906. [P. 97]

From study of the type specimen in the Dominion Museum, Oliver has formed the opinion (private communication), which he has kindly allowed me to publish, that it is an exotic shell, probably Diodora barbadensis (Gmelin), and should share the fate of Raeta perspicua Hutton and other extra-limital species wrongly included in the New Zealand fauna by Hutton. Hutton originally gave no locality for his Fissurella squamosa, “Foveaux Strait” being added later; it may be noted that Oliver has written (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 15, pt. 4, p. 186), “In his Manual, Hutton appears to have set himself the task of attaching localities to the species he had previously included in his Catalogue without any.” The matter is, however, complicated by the fact that there are in the British Museum (fide Iredale) specimens, reputedly Neozelanic, referred to this species. These seem to be related to the Australian shell long known as lineata Sow., but which Iredale (1924, p. 220) has named Elegidion audax. The collecting and dredging of many years in New Zealand by both local and outside workers has failed to bring to light any further specimens, so that one may query the British Museum record, and the best course appears to be the relegation of this species in the meanwhile to the suspense list, with the probability that it will not be found to live in New Zealand.

Genus Emarginula Lamark, 1801. [P. 99]

Chapman and Gabriel have written (Proc. Roy. Soc. Vict., vol. 36, N.S., p. 29, Dec., 1923) of Emarginula wannonensis Harris that “Suter (Alph. Hand List N.Z. Tert. Moll., p. 9, 1915) has also given it as a living species in New Zealand, but so far we have not met with any occurrence recorded from that or any other area.” The authors then proceed to comment on the long range possessed by this and other species, several times citing wannonensis as a Tertiary form now found living only in New Zealand. If, however, they had

– 343 –

thought to check their statement by reference to the later Alph. List Tert. Moll., p. 13, 1918, or to any of the Palaeontological Bulletins, e.g. No. 9, appearing after 1915, they would not have made this error. Suter had no intention of recording Harris's species as a Recent New Zealand shell; the asterisk in the 1915 List is very evidently a typographical error; it is known that that list contains many such mistakes, and seems to have been compiled in haste. The Tertiary records of E. wannonensis are mostly based on specimens from the Kakanui and Waiarekan tuff horizon; they must be rejected also; the form in question is a new species of the striatula group, and there do not seem to be in New Zealand any members of the wannonensis type. Of the Australian Tertiary species discussed by Chapman and Gabriel, only dennanti and delicatissima seem to have affinity with Neozelanic forms.

Fissuridea monilifera (Hutton, 1873) [P. 105]

This species has nothing whatever to do with Fissuridea, which has the “animal capable of being contained entirely within the shell” to quote Suter's own definition, whereas the New Zealand animal is much too large for its shell. As a matter of fact it is closely related to the Australian shells such as javanicensis Lamarck, nigrita Sow., and concatenata Crosse and Fischer, each of which has proved, from examination. of the radula and animal, to represent a distinct genus. Iredale (1924; pps. 182, 218, 219) has generically named these as Amblychilepas Pilsbry, Sophismalepas nov., and Cosmetalepas nov., and as the New Zealand shell has a different type of sculpture, and the genera are very local it would be wiser with our present knowledge not to attach the Neozelanic species to any one of these, but to propose the new generic name, Monodilepas for it alone. It may be noted here, however, that at least three species of Monodilepas inhabit the New Zealand area, one of which is known at present only from the Moriorian Province; there is also an undescribed older Tertiary species from the Clifden beds (Finlay, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, pp. 534–38, 1924), so that the lineage is evidently an ancient one.

Montfortula conoidea (Reeve, 1842). [P. 101]

Simultaneously with Iredale's report in the “Commentary,” Hedley published some notes on this group (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vol. 39, p. 706, 1914 (Feb. 26, 1915)), and followed this up with a review of the genera Tugalia and Scutus (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vol. 41, pp. 695, 704, 1916 (Apl. 4, 1917)). In the “Commentary” Iredale suggested that, if association of the “rugosa” group were necessary, it should be with Emarginula, not with Hemitoma where it had been placed. Further study shows the Montfortula series to constitute a distinct development, the Sydney species, for which Iredale has revived Reeve's name as above, living and growing to a large size at high water mark, a station quite different from that occupied by the other groups, which live below low water. The New Zealand shell, misrecognized as rugosa, appears to be both rare and nameless. Only one authentic specimen from the mainland is at present known to local collectors; it is in Miss Mestayer's collection,

– 344 –

but has not been available for examination, so that unfortunately no details of its affinities can be given. There are, however, in the Finlay collection three specimens of a new Montfortula from the Chatham Islands; these differ in shape and sculpture from conoidea Reeve, and will be described in the Chatham Report. Also, from examination of the type, kindly lent by Mr. Bartrum, I have determined the lower Pliocene Tugalia kaawaensis Bartrum (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 51, p. 100, 1919) as referable to this genus.

Tugali elegans Gray, 1843 [P. 102]

In his account of this genus, Hedley proposed for the shell Suter included as S. parmophoidea the new name Tugalia bascauda (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vol. 41, p. 698, pl. 52, fig. 47, 1916 (Apl. 4, 1917), a praiseworthy innovation, but he allowed Reeve's specific name intermedia for the second New Zealand species. Iredale (1915, p. 435) had indicated his distrust of the name, and it should be rejected in favour of the correct name above given almost simultaneously by Gray. Reeve's name was given to a Philippine Island species in the first place; the type was apparently lost, Sowerby synonymised it with cinerea Gould–a later name–, and Reeve finally accepted the synonymy and gave a figure of a specimen in Sowerby's collection. It is obvious that if Reeve rejected his own species, there can be no reason for considering it in connection with the Neozelanic fauna, when there is an exact name of even date available. Iredale (1915, p. 432) has already noted that the generic name was originally introduced as Tugali (Dieff. “Travels,” vol. 2, p. 259, 1843) and there seems to be no valid reason for rewriting it.

Thiele has proposed Emarginula (Tugalia) suteri nov. for a Chatham Island shell (Conch. Cab., Bd. 2, Abth. 4a, p. 105, Pl. 12, figs. 17, 18, 1916), and this would anticipate Hedley's bascauda, but though Hedley recorded his species from the Chathams, he chose as type a shell found “under stones near Wellington.” This is fortunate, for the Moriorian form regionally differs from the mainland shell in greater elongation, generally more parallel sides, and squarely, not narrowly, rounded anterior end. No perfectly fresh specimens of suteri Thiele have been available; it is probable that these would be still more easily differentiated from fresh bascauda Hedley.

Local workers have been puzzled as to the criteria for distinguishing some forms of elegans from very similar shells referable to bascauda, the general distinctions of smaller size and more netted sculpture in the latter often. apparently proving of but little use. This confusion is due to the fact that there are living in the New Zealand area not two but four—possibly five—species of Tugali, the name “intermedia” auct. covering two distinct forms, elegans and colvillensis n. sp. (q.v.). The only feature which always allows of ready distinction between the bascauda and elegans groups is the nature of the sinus rib (the median anterior raised cord which overlies the interior groove). In both species this begins as a single strong keel, which in bascauda and suteri soon bifurcates and remains so to the margin, while in elegans and colvillensis the sinus rib on breaking up at once becomes triple, often several more riblets being

– 345 –

intercalated before the margin is reached. Colvillensis, simulates the bascauda group in having netted sculpture, and to this is due the confusion of the species, but its true affinities are at once shown by the nature of the sinus rib. I have myself made this error by recording Tugalia bascauda from the littoral, Dunedin Harbour (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 518, 1924); I now withdraw this, as the trifurcate sinus-rib shows the specimen to belong to the elegans group, and though it is juvenile, the altitude, netted sculpture, and carination characterize it as colvillensis. Bascauda does not seem to enter the Forsterian region, but elegans has already been reported from Banks Peninsula by Iredale (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 40, p. 392, 1908) as “Dead shells in shell-sand”;—these may have been colvillensis also.

Ancestral species to these Tugalis occur in the New Zealand Tertiary. I have described (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 227, 1926) T. pliocenica and T. navicula from the Pliocene and Miocene respectively, the former being directly ancestral to colvillensis n. sp., the latter of a rather different type, more like the Tertiary Australian T. crassireticulata (Pritchard) (Proc. Roy. Soc. Vict., vol. 8, p. 125, 1896) from Table Cape.

Tugali colvillensis n. sp.

Shell intermediate in size between elegans Gray and bascauda Hedley, high, laterally compressed and narrowly elongate, tapering slightly in front, where there is a very short truncation due to narrowness of interior groove. Front slope decidedly carinate medially, the central sinus-rib at first single, wide, and strong, but soon breaking into three narrow ribs which continue with sublinear interstices to margin. Sculpture netted, much as in T. bascauda; in the type the ribs are fairly wide and flattish, but most of the paratypes have narrow radial and concentric ribs, swollen at intersections, with tiny square pits between.

Height, 8 mm.; length, 21.5 mm.; width, 13 mm.

Locality,—Hauraki Gulf, dredged in 20–25 fathoms, near Cape Colville; also Dowling Bay, Dunedin Harbour, one specimen on the littoral, with Emarginula.

The specimens were kindly sent for examination by Mr. A. W. B. Powell of Auckland, and the paratypes are in his collection.

Scutus ambiguus (Chemnitz, 1795). [P. 103]

Suter observed, “E. A. Smith has thoroughly revised the genus in an excellent paper in the Quart. Journ. Conch., vol. 2, p. 250, 1879.” It should be noted that this revision had taken place some thirty odd years previously, so that probably some emendations were necessary. In the place referred to in the preceding note, Hedley recorded some corrections in connection with Australian forms, and indicated breviculus Blainville (Bull. Sci. Soc. Phil., p. 28, 1817) as the name for the Neozelanic species.

Puncturella demissa Hedley, 1904. [P. 104]

Iredale has named this species as genotype of his Vacerra (1924, pp. 182, 221), which was provided “for the small austral forms ascribed to Puncturella, but which do not closely agree, even in superficial features with the type of that genus.”

– 346 –

One may emphasize Iredale's former remark that “summaries are most helpful,” and I would express my arrangement of the authentic Neozelanic Rhipidoglossate forms so far dealt with as follows,—

  • Genus Schizotrochus Monterosato 1884 Type: S. crispata Fleming.

  •     Schizotrochus mantelli (Woodward, 1859).

  • Genus Scissurona Iredale, 1924. Type: S. rosea Hedley.

  •     Scissurona rosea (Hedley, 1904).

  • Genus Schismope Jeffreys, 1856. Type: S. cingulata Costa.

  •     Schismope lyallensis nov.

  •     — laqueus nov.

  •     — iota nov.

  • Genus Sinezona nov. Type: S. brevis Hedley.

  •     Sinezona brevis (Hedley, 1904).

  •     — laevigata (Iredale, 1908).

  •     — subantarctica (Hedley, 1916).

  • Genus Haliotis Linnaeus, 1758. Type: H. tuberculata L.

  •     Haliotis australis Gmelin, 1791.

  •     — iris Martyn, 1784.

  •     — virginea Gmelin, 1791.

  •     — — huttoni Filhol, 1880.

  • Genus Monodilepas nov. Type: L. monilifera Hutton.

  •     Monodilepas monilifera (Hutton, 1873).

  • Genus Incisura Hedley, 1904. Type: S. lytteltonensis Smith.

  •     Incisura lytteltonensis (Smith, 1894).

  • Genus Emarginula Lamarck, 1801. Type: P. fissura L.

  •     Emarginula striatula Q. & G., 1834.

  • Genus Montfortula Iredale, 1915. Type: E. rugosa Q. & G.

  •     Montfortula sp. nov.

  •     [— kaawaensis]* (Bartrum, 1919).

  • Genus Tugali Gray, 1843. Type: T. elegans Gray.

  •     Tugali elegans Gray, 1843.

  •     — colvillensis nov.

  •     — suteri Thiele, 1916.

  •     — — bascauda Hedley, 1917.

  •     [— pliocenica] Finlay, 1926.

  •     [— navicula] Finlay, 1926.

  • Genus Scutus Montfort, 1810. Type: S. antipodes Montfort.

  •     Scutus breviculus (Blainville, 1817).

  • Genus Vacerra Iredale, 1924. Type: P. demissa Hedley.

  •     Vacerra demissa (Hedley, 1904).

Family Trochidae. [P. 105]

Much advance has been made in this group since Iredale's “Commentary” was issued. In connection with Australasian species Iredale has examined many radulae in the Gwatkin collection (now in the British Museum), including some results in his “Roy Bell” essay on Australian forms. Thiele has published a revision of the Trochids based solely on radular characters, but when these were

[Footnote] * In this and similar summaries the enclosure of a name in square brackets indicates that it is a fossil species and does not occur in the Recent fauna.

– 347 –

unknown he has fallen back on shell features. As this Revision will not be seen by many Neozelanic students and is a very imkortant account, a digest (which I owe to the kindness of Mr. Tom Iredale) is here offered. Some startling associations are propounded, but when we realize that we are dealing with one of the most primitive groups of simply-coiled shells, our surprise at these is lessened.

Thiele admits three families: Trochidae, Cyclostrematidae, and Turbinidae, in his Stirps Trochacea, but his Subfamilies are better treated as Families, and his subgenera raised to genera, and thereby one can produce an arrangement more in accord with the lessons learned from palaeontology, which Thiele has ignored. Further, it becomes apparent that the southern Trochoids have developed very long ago, as we find in early Tertiary beds forms practically inseparable conchologically from their Recent descendants. As the separative characters are based almost entirely on animal characters, it is necessary to establish the Recent fauna first, and then associate the fossils with the living species in direct lineage, and with the strictest scrutiny, growth-stages providing the best guide.

Thiele's “Family Trochidae” embraces the subfamilies Margaritinae, Calliostomatinae, Trochinae, Umboniinae, Stomatiinae, Angariinae, and Delphinoideinae (=Skeneinae, corrected in MS. in the copy seen). The “Family Cyclostrematidae” is used as a receptacle for a few minutiae, and seems a poor proposition. The “Family Turbinidae” is subdivided into four subfamilies, Liotinae, Bothropomatinae, Turbininae, and Phasianellinae.

In the subfamily Margaritinae Thiele has associated northern and southern groups, somewhat incongruously if one may judge from shell characters. However, one can avoid argument, as the oldest genus name included is Stomatella, so that we can use the Family Stomatellidae for our southern mollusca, whether the northern ones are separated or not. Thiele has arranged Margarella as a subgenus of the northern Margarites, but here again, by accepting a higher value, and admitting Margarella as a distinct genus, one can obviate any discussion. Photinula is widely separated, being included in the subfamily Calliostomatinae. Following the Margarites series, Thiele places Turcica-and its allies, Calliotropis (=Solariellopsis Schepman, not Gregorio), Turcicula, and Lischkeia. Conchologically these forms show no great disagreement among themselves, but have no likeness to the preceding Margarites shells. They are followed by Perrinia, Danilia, Euchelus, and Stomatella, another good conchological arrangement, but the next form, Solariella, disagrees in every way in shell features, and its palaeontological age denies it very close relationship. Concluding this subfamily are the deep water genera Basilissa, Seguenzia, and Gutterula.

The subfamily Calliostomatinae is utilized for the genera Calliostoma and Photinula alone, including Astele as a subgenus, apparently for the Australian type and some quite unrelated American shells. The radular characters of the southern “Calliostomas” were probably unavailable to Thiele, as they show valid distinctions, and would have been utilized for separation. The reference of Photinula here does not seem in accord with the conchological features and southern range.

– 348 –

The subfamily Trochinae includes all the usual Trochoids with a few innovations and a few conservative groupings. Thus a “genus” Gibbula is admitted, covering “Sectiones (ad libitum)” ranging all over the world, and clutching the austral groups, Eurytrochus, Calliotrochus, and Cantharidella, but the group name would be Phorcus if Thiele's own association were accepted. A genus Fossarina is ranged next, with a section Clydonochilus and a subgenus Synaptacochlea. These three appear to be closely related, though the last named was introduced as a relative of Gena. Then follows a genus Cantharidus, with a section Phasianotrochus, subgenus Jujubinus, subgenus Bankivia with section Leiopyrga, subgenus Thalotia with sections Alcyna and Odontotrochus. The inclusion of Jujubinus, hitherto regarded as a subgenus (or genus) of Calliostoma, is noteworthy, but obviously it is a valid genus. Leiopyrga is also of generic value, while Alcyna is a very distinct genus, not closely related to this series at all. The importance of the reference here of Jujubinus is seen in the matter of the Australian “Calliostomas,” as these appeared to be closely related to Thalotia, and this can now be accepted. The only unfortunate item in Thiele's Revision is his worldwide range for relationships, seen again in the next genus, Monodonta. This is made to include the European Osilinus, as well as the American Diloma and Oxystele. Austrocochlea (for constricta) is ranked as a subgenus of Mondonta s.str., while Melagraphia (for aethiops) and Chlorodiloma (for crinita) are ranged as sections of the subgenus Diloma (for the South American nigerrima). Then follow the genera Chrysostoma, Tegula, Cittarium, and Norrisia, which do not concern us at present. Gaza is doubtfully interpolated before Clanculus, which is followed by Trochus with many sections and one subgenus, Tectus, with two sections, Cardinalia and Rochia.

The subfamily Umboniinae comprises a novel series, beginning with Callumbonella questionably referred here, then followed by a new genus Nanula, proposed for the Australian Margarita tasmanica Petterd, Halistylus, and then Minolia, with sections Isanda, Umbonella, and Conotrochus; Monilea, with section Rossiteria and subgenus Priotrochus; and Ethalia with a subgenus Ethaliella, concluding with Umbonium. This will be discussed further on.

The subfamily Stomatiinae begins with a doubtful form, Stylobates, then the genus Stomatia with sections Microtis, Pseudostomatella Thiele (for papyracea Chemnitz), and Niphonia; genus Phaneta questionably allied, and Gena with a section Plocamotis; concluding with genera Roya and Broderipia.

The subfamily Angariinae covers the genus Angaria alone; as a section Angarina being admitted, though its reference to the family has been disputed.

The last subfamily, Delphinoideinae (that is, Skeneinae), is a heterogeneous assemblage of minute forms, northern and southern forms being incongruously associated with numerous question marks, and is of little use. Thus, to the genus Skenea, a British form of definite status, is added as a subgenus with a “?” Adams' Tubiola, a well marked tropical group, the animal of which is unknown. The genus Daronia follows, also queried, and as a subgenus, again queried, is added Cyclostremella, a northern group quite unrelated. The

– 349 –

genera Ganesa and Tharsiella succeed, with, as sections, several probably allied groups, but the next series which concerns us consists of austral and Pacific forms, most of them queried. These are Cirsonella, Lodderia, Teinostoma (with sections Pseudorotella, Calceolina, and Callomphala), Philorene, Leucorynchia, Haplocochlias, Morchiella Thiele (for Morchia A. Adams, 1860, not Albers, 1850), and Microtheca. Haplocochlias is geographically dissevered, the remainder agree in geographical distribution. Thiele's blunder in proposing Morchiella is notable, as that is the genus name of a well known group of Rissoinids, and Morchia A. Adams is valid since Alber's name was not proposed until later on in the year 1860.

The Family Cyclostrematidae is a curious selection, as Iredale has shown that Marryat's Cyclostrema is indeterminable, but very probably a Liotinid. Attached hereto are Vetulonia, Circulus, Zalipais, Brookula with section Liotella, Chunula, Cithna, and Lissotesta, the last two and the first queried.

The Family Turbinidae begins with a subfamily Liotiinae, based on Liotia, which Thiele uses for the forms Iredale referred to Liotina, the other genera included being Môlleria and Leptothyra, a few sections and subgenera being admitted. The subfamily Bothropomatinae is proposed for a new genus and species, Bothropoma isseli: this is an interesting form from the Red Sea, as, judging from Thiele's account, it is a small Turbinid shell with a Turbinid operculum, but with a fairly typical Trochoid radula. Probably many of our austral forms will show similar eccentricities when the animals are examined. In the subfamily Turbininae two genera only are admitted, Astraea and Turbo, with nearly twenty sections. In the subfamily Phasianellinae three genera are ranged, Prisogaster being here placed, though conchologically it appears quite unrelated; the other two being Tricolia and Phasianella. As sections of Tricolia, Chromotis and Eulithidium are allowed, but no sections of Phasianella are included.

The preceding synopsis will serve to show that radulae alone are not convincing, but in connection with conchological features and geographical distribution are of the greatest value, and palaeontologists must be guided by the lessons learned therefrom.

Trochus tiaratus Quoy and Gaimard, 1834. [P. 109]

In Iredale's “Commentary” this was placed under the genus Trochus, section Coelotrochus, the species T. viridis being added under the section Thorista Iredale. Thiele has admitted the same values, but Cossmann has introduced Neozelandia for Trochus conicus Hutton, which he has renamed huttoni. I have dealt with this matter (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 16, pt. 2, p. 99, 1924), and Iredale tells me that independently he had inquired into the proposition with exactly the same conclusions, that Neozelandia was unnecessary. At the place mentioned I also added Trochus (Coelotrochus) huttoni (Cossmann) to the Recent fauna. The fossil Trochus (Anthora) avarus Suter (N.Z. Geol. Surv. Pal. Bull. No. 5, p. 3, 1917), though not seen, would seem from the figure to belong here though the “2 smooth spirals, starting from the anterior part of the columella and descending into the umbilical excavation” are not quite in accord.

– 350 –

Thoristella carmesina (Webster, 1908). [P. 140]

Suter has placed this species with “Solariella” egena (Gould), but it does not seem related. I have seen no specimens of this species, nor do any seem to be available in other collections, but if one may judge from Webster's original figure and description (the travesty in the “Atlas” is useless), it seems to be a Thoristella. The only factor against this location is the open umbilicus, but this is approached occasionally in the other species, while the remaining details of columella and base can hardly indicate any other genus. The usual Cookian form is T. oppressa (Hutton), and it will be interesting if there is a second northern form. Suter records carmesina from Cape Palliser, at the not far distant Lyall Bay occur specimens apparently intermediate between carmesina and dunedinensis—certainly not oppressa. The exact valuation of these Cookian forms must be left till much more material is available.

Thoristella (chathamensis) benthicola n. subsp. (Figs. 7–10.)

Shell conic, high, with sharper spire than any of its congeners, sides almost straight, slightly stepped. Spiral sculpture constant; a strong basal keel (weaker than in chathamensis, stronger than in the other species) bisected by a deep groove and visible as a suprasutural cord on spire-whorls; six flatly-rounded cords above keel (interstices linear), first and third from keel always much weaker; seven strong cords on base, inner ones closer and narrower, outer ones often with an intercalated thread between. Twenty blunt prominent vertical axial ribs (interstices narrower), rising suddenly from suture to form bluntly-rounded nodules on top spiral cord, remaining strong over next two ribs, which they render undulating, and very quickly fading out on reaching fourth rib, fifth rib only rarely undulated by their terminations, keel not crenulate: axials present on all but the two apical whorls which are spirally ribbed. Umbilicus very narrow, not deep, an outer rib forming its edge, an inner one almost obselete except for slight columella swelling, above which pillar is slightly indented.

Height, 6 mm.; diameter, 7 mm.

Locality,—Dredged off Otago Heads in 60 fathoms (type). Also off Oamaru at same depth, and in 15 fathoms Foveaux Strait.

The sutural swellings give this form a striking superficial resemblance to Gibbula magus (L.).

Thoristella [chathamensis] fossilis n. subsp. (Figs. 11–14.)

Related to aucklandica and dunedinensis, but easily distinguished by basal characters. In all the Recent species the convexity of base is constant immediately past the keel, in the fossil species base slopes quickly up to peripheral keel which is moderately prominent, and shell has a concave outline above it. Six (rarely five) cords above keel (chathamensis never has less than 7, sometimes 8), both top cord and keel finely crenulate, occasionally the other spirals also, but there are no axial ribs, and the crenulations are much finer than in the other species, about 65 on peripheral cord (i.e. about five times as many as in chathamensis). Umbilicus narrower and deeper than in

– 351 –

Recent species, which all have a greater callus deposit filling it. An outer rib margins the pit, the inner one is inconspicuous, columella with a strong tubercle at top.

Height, 5.5 mm.; diameter, 7 mm.

Locality,—Target Gully Shell Bed (Awamoan,—“Miocene”); also Pukeuri.

This is a direct ancestor to the Recent forms.

Thoristella dunedinensis (Suter, 1897). [P. 108]

A figure is presented (from a topotype) of this hitherto unfigured shell, for comparison with those of the two previous species and the other known forms. (Figs. 15, 16).

Trochus ringens Menke, 1843. [P. 112]

This is a West Australian species of Clanculus which must be dismissed from the Neozelanic fauna. The shell that has been erroneously so identified is quite a rare one and differs at sight from Menke's species, as indeed Suter has already noted. The resemblance to ringens is entirely superficial, for the New Zealand shell is not even a Clanculus; no true members of this genus occur in the New Zealand area. Our shell is imperforate and differs radically from pharaonicus L.; it is now described as new.

Paraclanculus peccatus n. gen. and sp. (Fig. 17).

Shell conic, trochiform, with quite straight sides, spire angle of 65°. Colour light yellow-brown, maculated on the two lower cords with regular, slightly oblique, chestnut brown rectangles, 18 on last whorl, base same colour, speckled with brown dots. Four nodulous spiral cords on all whorls, the lowest rapidly becoming strongest; four subequal cords (with narrower interstices) on body-whorl, a strong double keel at periphery, and six narrow cords (with wide interstices) on base. Whorls tabulated at suture which is slightly excavated. Base flat, suddenly expanded downwards near aperture. Aperture rhomboidal, outer lip thin and sharp, the silvery nacre inside with three or four heavy lirae; basal lip with three stronger and much coarser lirae. Outer half of shallow false umbilicus China-white with two smooth circling ribs, a strong projecting bifid denticle at base, with two tiny denticles below and one above it to left; inner half silvery nacreous with another faint rib on outer border and three moderate denticles on lower half.

Height, 11 mm.; diameter, 11 mm.

Locality,—Tryphena, Great Barrier Island.

Mr. Iredale remarks that there is a specimen in the Australian Museum from Mokohinau Island, presented by A. Hamilton; “it is a curious evolution, tall, with peculiar sculpture, not comparable with any other I have come across” (private communication).

Clanculus takapunaensis Webster, 1906. [P. 112]

Mr. Iredale informs me that a co-type of this species in the Australian Museum is very close specifically to Clanculus plebejus (Phil.), the genotype of his Mesoclanculus (Iredale, 1924, p. 224), and is undoubtedly congeneric with it. “It is less closely related

– 352 –

to Eurytrochus danieli (Crosse) from New Caledonia, and is not comparable with C. atypicus Iredale from the Kermadecs, the columellar characters being decidedly different.” (in litt.).

Genus Monodonta Lamarck, 1799. [P. 113]

This genus name, based on Trochus labio Linné, must be dismissed from Neozelanic systematics. The species named is a tropical form with a strongly-toothed columella, quite unlike any South Australian or Neozelanic species. As equivalent to Monodonta, Thiele has cited “Trochulus Mus. Calonn.” which has priority, but Humphrey's name is a nomen nudum, “Trochus labio?” alone being cited. In the British Museum collection four groups are allowed, Austrocochlea, Monodonta, Neodiloma (=Melagraphia) and Diloma. The radulae in the Gwatkin collection are arranged in the same groupings, and Thiele also admits these. Consequently one can omit Monodonta without any arguing whether it be invalid through the prior Monodon or not. Diloma was furnished for the South American species, which, agreeing conchologically, show distinct animal features, so that it must be ignored also. This leaves Austrocochlea and Melagraphia, and the former being restricted to the endemic Australian series ranging about constricta, zebra, etc., Melagraphia Gray, 1847 is left as the only valid name for the Neozelanic forms. The type of Melagraphia is aethiops Gmelin, which is conchologically aberrant, so that new names must be given to the other conchological groups. The Neozelanic forms range themselves into four series, aethiops, lugubris, excavata, and all the remainder. In radular and conchological features the Australian species melanoloma (=rudis) and striolata (=concamerata) are apparently allied to the latter Neozelanic series. Chlorodiloma is so easily recognizable that it has commonly been separated without question, but the Neozelanic member of this group is of very doubtful status.

The Neozelanic Trochoids are worthy of much attention; they are generally easily procurable, the animals are not shy, and the radulae need careful study. It is noteworthy that Suter should write of lugubris, a peculiar form, “dentition unknown.” As the four series mentioned are quite distinct and show no intergradation, they may all be regarded as genera, as follows,—

Melagraphia s. str. Type: Turbo aethiops Gmelin
Zediloma nov. " Zediloma digna n. sp.
Cavodiloma nov. " Trochocochlea excavata Ad. & Ang.
Anisodiloma nov. " Trochus lugubris Gmelin

In digna and arida n. spp. (vide infra) the presence of a continuous nacreous band across the parietal wall, uniting the ends of the peristome, is a constant and useful feature, associated always with untoothed columella, more excavated base, and spreading aperture, and deserves subgeneric distinction. Accordingly, Zediloma s. str. may be kept for these two, and a subgenus Fractarmilla may be introduced for corrosa A.Ad., subrostrata Gray, atrovirens Phil., and morio Troschel, the first named being nominated as type.

– 353 –

Monodonta coracina (Troschel, 1851) [P. 114]

Reference to Philippi, who published Troschel's MS. name, shows a figure and description applicable only to the species later named Trochocochlea excavata by Adams and Angas, for which Philippi's name should therefore be used. Labio porcifera A. Ad., included by Suter in the synonymy of his coracina, has nothing to do with this species, so that the new name Zediloma arida is now provided for the species described and figured by Suter as “Monodonta coracina” (Manual, p. 114, Pl. 38, fig. 4). I have been informed by several who have had access to the Suter collection, including Dr. Marwick and the late Mr. Murdoch, that it is in a very unsatisfactory state, most of the original specimens being dispersed; the specimens from which the figures in the “Atlas” were drawn were never kept separate, so that it is necessary to select a neotype for the species; I therefore choose as neotype a specimen in the Finlay collection from Lyttelton Harbour, one of the localities mentioned by Suter.

Monodonta nigerrima (Gmelin, 1791). [P. 114]

The true Turbo nigerrimus Gmelin is the South American species, and the synonyms quoted by Suter, Trochus araucanus d'Orb., Turbo quoyi Kiener, and Trochus gaudichaudi Hupe all apply to the same form. The Neozelanic species is a southern form, very similar in shell features to the South American species, but with a different animal. The shell is well described by Suter, who has also figured the radula, but, for reasons given in the previous note, I select and figure a type in the Finlay collection from St. Clair near Dunedin (Figs. 24, 25) and name this very beautiful form Zediloma digna n. sp. Powell (N.Z. Journ. Sci. & Tech., vol. 6, p. 285, 1924) has recorded the swarming of this species, but for only two months of the year, at Motutara, the first record north of Wellington.

Monodonta excavata (Adams and Angas, 1864) [P. 119]

As already pointed out, this species was described by Philippi under the name Trochus coracinus Troschel some years before the above name was proposed. Consequently the species must now be called Cavodiloma coracina (Philippi). The peculiar small trochiform shell and almost totally excavated base render this genus conspicuous.

Mondonta lugubris (Gmelin, 1791) [P. 119]

The Cookian and Forsterian forms of this species are easily distinguished. North Island specimens have the three main cingulae stout and all heavily knobbed, especially the peripheral cord, and one weaker but still prominent cord in the interstices; the sides of the aperture are enormously thickened, and the smooth umbilico-columellar area is hardly wider than the band of nacre. Southern specimens, on the other hand, are more depressed, have weaker main cingulae (the upper two almost smooth), with only 3–4 fine smooth ribs in the interstices; the sides of the aperture are quite thin, and the callus-area in the middle of the base is much wider than the nacre-strip; the base is also flatter and less descending. As all the

– 354 –

synonyms of lugubris refer to the northern form, it is proposed to distinguish the Forsterian shell by the name Anisodiloma lugubris lenior n. subsp. The type chosen in the Finlay collection is from Taieri Beach, five miles south of the Taieri River, and measures (height) 10.5 mm. by (diameter) 14 mm.

This provincial form has been mentioned as an example; almost any of the species when collected in bulk and critically examined will show regional variation.

Monodonta subrostrata (Gray, 1835) [P. 121]

This is closely allied to corrosa, and represents this Forsterian form in the Cookian province; rudis A. Ad. is an Adelaidean ally. Similarly, striolata Q. & G. is a near Australian relative of atrovirens Phil.

Chlorodiloma crinita (Philippi, 1848) [P. 121]

This is another West Australian shell and must also be dismissed from the New Zealand fauna. Suter credits the record to Cheeseman; it is well known that some Australian vagrants had crept into Cheeseman's collections, e.g. Bankivia fasciata, Thalotia conica, etc., and the present species is but another of these. There are no authentic specimens in local collections; some “New Zealand” specimens so named in the Auckland and Canterbury Museums proved to be not even crinita, but the South Australian adelaidae. Quite recently Odhner (1924, p. 13) has re-recorded crinita from “Bay of Islands, muddy estuary, 7 specimens,” but as he has not recorded the common northern subrostrata it seems probable that he has misidentified his specimens.* The type of Trochocochlea mimetica Hutt., said to be in the Otago Museum, cannot be found, but there are three specimens so labelled in his handwriting which are also D. adelaidae and I suggest that these and the type are all Australian specimens, very probably from Cheeseman's original lot, and that, till further information is forthcoming, Hutton's name should be synonymised with Chlorodiloma adelaidae (Phil.), and omitted from the New Zealand lists.

Genus Cantharidus Montfort, 1810 [P. 122]

The type of Cantharidus Montfort is the Neozelanic Limax opalus Martyn, and the group is a well defined one, to which may be referred the Southern Australian Phasianotrochus, a subgeneric value being apparently the most admissible.

Elenchus appears first in the Museum Calonnianum in 1797, but at that place the name is a nomen nudum, no references being given to the Neozelanic species named. Mr. Iredale has sent me the following interesting note: “Humphrey wrote ‘Elenchus’ and Hermannsen gave as ‘Etym. nom. apell. Conf. seq.,’ with a footnote, “Quamvis Swainson ubique Elenchus scribat, magis tamen arrideret Eleuchus, quod derivandum esset ab γγγ, lumen; et γγγ, habeo. Rectus

[Footnote] * Since the above was written, I have received specimens from Odhner labelled “crinita (Phil.)”; these are, as I suspected, M. subrostrata Gray. On the same basis I can now state definitely that many of his identifications are erroneous, and his records therefore not always trustworthy.

– 355 –

tum scribendum Heleuchus.” It is curious how the learned err when they endeavour to force meanings out of names given in Natural Science without thought of the object on which the name was bestowed, as in this instance old Humphrey, who apologised for being but little acquainted with the learned languages, used a word found in Latin dictionaries of his age, “Elenchus γγγγγos A pendant for the ears, consisting of three pear-shaped pearls hanging beside one another, and worn only by rich ladies of distinction,” and as the vernacular for his Elenchus gave “Poires, ou Pendants d'Oreille—Ear-drop.”

The small species allotted to Cantharidus form an easily recognizable group, for which I propose the new genus Micrelenchus, with Trochus sanguineus Gray as type; this group dates back at least to the “Miocene” in New Zealand (undescribed species in Geol. Survey and Finlay collection), but true Cantharidus is at present known only from the Pliocene onwards.

Cantharidus dilatatus (Sowerby, 1870) [P. 122]

To the synonymy of this species should be added Photinula suteri Smith, based on a young stage of dilatatus and thus lacking the thickened and expanded outer lip. The two diagnoses given by Suter otherwise read word for word alike, and the two forms are always found together in seaweed-washings (especially in the neighbourhood of Wellington). It might be inferred from the ranges given by Suter (though these overlap) that suteri is the southern representative of dilatatus, but even this view does not seem tenable for Sowerby's species ranges to Stewart Island, specimens from there being apparently inseparable from northern forms. It has not, however, been found between that locality and Banks Peninsula.

Cantharidus sanguineus (Gray, 1843) [P. 128]

I have not seen Suter's var. elongatus, but coelatus Hutton, 1884 is a deep water Forsterian representative of Gray's species. Odhner (1924, p. 14) has described a shell from “Auckland Island, Carnley Harbour, 45 fms.” as Gibbula mortenseni n. sp. This looks at first like a baby Calliostoma; from the shape and general appearance it could only be spectabile A. Ad., but the swollen pillar and the number of spirals at so early a stage negative its reference to this group. It is evidently a Micrelenchus, and appears closely related to coelatus Hutton. The latter species is very variable in the number and pustulation of the ribs; many specimens from 60 fathoms off Otago Heads agree generally with Foveaux Strait topotypes, and differ from Snares, Auckland, and Bounty Island specimens only in slightly taller shell and more flexed columella. The latter specimens agree well with Odhner's figure and description (though not always so granulose) so I would regard his species as merely a Rossian form of sanguineus Gray, and would write it as Micrelenchus sanguineus mortenseni (Odhner, 1924).

Cantharidus tenebrosus A. Adams, 1853 [P. 129]

Suter included with this a subspecies “huttoni Smith,” giving as “Hab.—The same as the species but more abundant.” The distinc-

– 356 –

tion accepted by Oliver is gathered from his Ecological Essay in that he records (p. 525) Cantharidus tenebrosus from Shag Point, and (p. 536) C. tenebrosus huttoni from Otago Harbour, i.e. the species a rocky shore dweller, the subspecies an estuarine form.

To this species should probably be referred the New Zealand records of Gibbula dolorosa T.-W. Hedley has discussed this species, referring to it Fischer's Gibbula scamnata (N.Z. Journ. Sci. and Tech., vol. 3, No. 1, p. 54, 1920), but it is not known to local workers, and had better be placed on the suspense list for the present.

Photinula coruscans Hedley, 1916 [P. 125]

This was introduced for the species Suter included as Cantharidus pruninus subsp. perobtusus Pilsbry. The reference to the genus Photinula does not seem a happy one, especially in view of the fact that it has been rejected in favour of Margarella (Iredale, 1915, p. 438). Since Hedley's proposal, Thiele has separated Margarella and Photinula into two subfamilies, each different from the Cantharidus series. Examination of the shells reported upon by Hedley leaves one in no doubt that they are simply relatives of Cantharidus capillaceus (Philippi) and that they should not be classed in Photinula. Trochus capillaceus Phil., Cantharidus pruninus var. minor Smith, and Photinula coruscans Hedley are all good species, and form a group noticeably differing from Cantharidus proper by the greater flexure of the pillar to the right, and the strongly convex early whorls, leading to a depressed dome-shaped apex; C. opalus and its congeners rise to a sharp point, the spire being often concave. The subantarctic group, too, has a uniformity of sculpture and colour (“leaden purple, which on the apex changes to bright rose”) rendering it at once conspicuous. So far as is at present known the distribution is:—

Capillaceus and minor Auckland and Campbell Is.
Coruscans Macquarie and Antipodes Is.

The Snares and Bounty forms do not seem to have been recorded. Other members of the group probably exist and I provide for it the new name Plumbelenchus, with T. capillaceus Phil. as type, and would provisionally rank it as of subgeneric value under Cantharidus.

Cantharidus fasciatus (Menke, 1830) [P. 130]

Although several localities are given for this Australian species, it seems justifiable to recommend that it and the genus Bankivia Beck should be struck off the faunal list. As in the case of Chlorodiloma crinita, there are specimens—probably of Cheeseman's “collecting”—in the Auckland Museum, and it is sufficient to remark that in the same box with them are two specimens of the Tasmanian. Phasianotrochus irisodontes (Q. & G.). Northern collectors have never met with this species, and agree that it should be rejected.

Cantharidus picturatus (H. & A. Adams, 1863) [P. 130]

Omit this from the list of Neozelanic mollusca. Wherever such a shell might have been found in New Zealand, Stuart (sic) Island is surely about the last place to locate it. Iredale, in his “Commentary,” noted that Gould's name lineolaris has priority over the name

– 357 –

given above, and has since recorded the confusing nature of the Australian Leiopyrgas (1924, p. 225).

Cantharidus conicus (Gray, 1827) [P. 131]

This is also an alien species which must be eliminated from the Neozelanic list. Suter gives “Auckland (T. F. Cheeseman)” and the “Chatham Islands” as the localities whence it has been received, but specimens must be re-collected before even the genus Thalotia, of which conica Gray is the type, can be admitted as Neozelanic.

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

This now well-known shell has not yet been figured, and Oliver in his Ecological Essay, dealing with the molluscan associations at Shag Point, has included Margarella antipoda (1923a, p. 520) obviously intending this species, described from that locality. Since Oliver in that paper has altered several names without indication, one may conclude he intended to show that he considers M. decepta as a synonym of M. antipoda, but they are quite distinct.

There are four species of Margarella in the Neozelanic region—M. antipoda (H. & J.) and M. macquariensis Hedley (1916, p. 37) (Rossian), M. decepta (Iredale) (Cookian), and M. fulminata (Hutton) (Moriorian). This is one of the very useful regional genera, the species live under the roots of kelp, and are all absolutely littoral; the four mentioned constantly characterize their respective provinces. Differential characters may be given thus (macquariensis has not been seen and is therefore omitted from the key, but it seems, from Hedley's figure, to be more depressed and to have more clasping whorls than the other species; it is imperforate).

Shell constantly imperforate M. decepta
" " perforate
Depressed, generally with spiral colour-bands M. antipoda
Fairly high, never with spiral colour-bands, but with zigzag colour-pattern M. fulminata

There does not seem to be a Forsterian form, and the genus is evidently of southern origin. The distribution of the species as given by Suter calls for some comment. First, Chrysostoma rosea Hutton was described from “Stewart's Island,” and is recorded from various subantarctic islands. The type is definitely determinable as antipoda on account of its open umbilicus, depressed form, and spiral red bands; it certainly did not come from Stewart Island, and should—as Iredale has already suggested (1915, p. 439)—be reduced to an absolute synonym of the subantarctic form. Secondly, Chrysostoma fulminata Hutton, described as from “Chatham Islands only,” is credited by Suter to “Hauraki Gulf to Cook Strait, not common.” I have never seen a North Island Margarella, and would regard these identifications as erroneous, referable probably to the young of “Cantharidus” dilatatus Sow. or “Gibbula” nitida A. Ad.; the true fulminata is apparently a very distinctive and restricted Moriorian form. It may also be noted that decepta apparently does not range north of Shag Point, Otago, the Southern limit being Stewart Island. To facilitate recognition of this beautiful species, figures are now offered of a specimen in the Finlay collection from kelp roots, Otago Penin-

– 358 –

sula (Figs. 3, 4). Since the type of decepta has been lost, I here select this figured topotype as neotype of the species.

Photinula nitida (A. Adams and Angas, 1864) [P. 134]

As suggested by Iredale in his “Commentary,” this species appears conchologically referable to Cantharidella, founded upon the Australian picturata Ad. & Ang. The specific name of the Neozelanic form must be corrected, since Iredale tells me he noted in the British Museum a tablet labelled tesselata, upon the back of which was written, “Margarita tesselata A. Ad., P.Z.S., 1851, p. 191. Hab.? Types.” These were compared with the description and found to agree, and when contrasted with the type set of nitida A. Ad. & Ang. were broader and less elevated, but agreed entirely with specimens from Lyall Bay, Wellington. There is a tall form from the west coast of the North Island for which it may be possible to reinstate nitida, but since South Island shells agree in detail with Auckland and Wellington specimens, it seems better to admit in the meantime only one species, for which the correct name will be Cantharidella tesselata (A. Adams).

Gibbula tasmanica (Petterd, 1879) [P. 136]

What the species is that Suter records under this name is at present unknown. This note serves to point out that the true Gibbula tasmanica has proved to have a very anomalous radula, and Thiele has proposed for it a new genus Nanula, placing the genus in the family Umboniidae. Nanula, however, cannot, until further evidence is forthcoming, be included in the Neozelanic fauna.

Genus Gibbula Risso, 1826 [P. 135]

This disappears entirely from Neozelanic molluscan systematics. All the species included by Suter have been dealt with in the previous notes, except Gibbula micans Suter, and this, until further specimens are available, may be classed under Micrelenchus. A resume of the alterations in this genus reads,—

Gibbula tasmanica (Petterd) Place on the suspense list.
fulminata (Hutton) Margarella fulminata (Hutton)
micans Suter Micrelenchus micans (Suter)
dolorosa T.-W Omit at present.
suteri (Smith) Micrelenchus dilatatus (Sow.) juv.

Fossarina rimata (Hutton, 1884) [P. 139]

Powell (N.Z. Journ. Sci. & Tech., vol. 4, p. 204, 1921) has found this species living under oysters on rocks at the Bay of Islands.

Genus Monilea Swainson, 1840 [P. 140]

Since Iredale wrote in his “Commentary” that Solariella might be used to include all the Neozelanic species classed by Suter under the genus Monilea, a revolution has been effected in our knowledge of these simple Trochoids.

Peile investigated the radulae of three Australian species, and found that these were so different that shell characters became of secondary importance. The type of Solariella is a fossil from the

– 359 –

British Crags, and it is conchologically something like the Neozelanic S. egenum (Gould). Notwithstanding this similarity, probably no relationship exists; two Australian shells showing more likeness proved to cover very different animals. Consequently Solariella need not be further considered in connection with Neozelanic Recent shells, which have had long lineages of their own throughout the Tertiary. Thiele has used Solariella as equivalent to Machaeroplax, which is a mistake, as the latter genus is based upon peculiar features of the animal and radula. These peculiar radular characters can be traced throughout the world, in association with different conchological features, as in Spectamen from Australia. On account of these radular differences, Thiele has placed Solariella in the subfamily Margaritinae, interposing between Margarites and Solariella all the Eucheloid-Stomatelloid series. It may be that Machaeroplax is related to Margarites, but no close relationship to Stomatella can be easily seen. Thiele places Minolia in his subfamily Umboniidae, apparently judging the group from the radula of a species allotted to Minolia by shell characters, but the type of Minolia does not appear to have been examined for its radula yet. The Australian species that Iredale regarded as conchologically agreeing with the type of Minolia proved to possess a radula of the Machaeroplax style, another unexpected complication. It is quite impossible, therefore, to forecast the radular features of the Neozelanic series, and as they disagree conchologically with Australian shells, I consider the correct course to pursue is to propose new names for the different groups met with in New Zealand, and wait until the animal characters are available to ascertain definitely their generic or subgeneric value. When Iredale introduced the genus Talopena for a series of austral shells, he was not referring to Neozelanic forms, and Finlay (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 520, 1924) has wrongly utilized Talopena in that connection for a new Recent species. Talopena develops a tubercle at the top of the columella, and the genus has no Neozelanic representatives. The common species M. egena (Gould), proposed as a species of Solarium by its author, was the one that recalled Solariella, and for it I propose the new generic name Antisolarium. In direct lineage may be named Solariella stoliczkai (Zittel) from the Awatere beds. The remaining Recent species cannot easily be grouped together, the beautiful shell named Minolia textilis by Murdoch and Suter being generically separable from Minolia plicatula M. & S. and M. semireticulata Suter, while Monilea carmesina (Webster) has already in this paper been transferred to Thoristella.

For Neozelanic Minolioids I therefore propose the following genera,—

Antisolarium nov. for Solarium egenum Gould
Zeminolia nov. for Minolia plicatula Murdoch & Suter
Zetela nov. for textilis Murdoch & Suter
Conominolia nov. for Heliacus conicus Marshall

The latter species, though also originally introduced as a Solarioid (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 49, p. 453, 1917), from the Palaeocene Wangaloa beds, is the first known member of a well marked early and middle Tertiary Neozelanic group. S. sulcatina Suter, from the Kakanui

– 360 –

Tuffs (N.Z. Geol. Surv. Pal. Bull. No. 5, p. 5, 1917), is the only other member at present described, but at least five new species are known to me from “Miocene” beds. Antisolarium seems to be a late development of Conominolia, both have the early whorls regularly diminished to a tiny inconspicuous embryo, a sculpture of only spiral cords or keels, of which three are often more prominent, a narrow but deep umbilicus with crenulated edge, and a peculiar aperture* and sinuous pillar; Antisolarium differs in its depressed instead of conic shell, few strong keels, and smooth band on the base. Until transition forms are found, it is preferable to regard these two distinct series as genera.

Zeminolia and Zetela, on the other hand, have a disproportionately large and bulbous embryo, and different umbilicus. Zetela is by far the older group; besides the type I include the “Miocene” Solariella praetextilis Suter (N.Z. Geol. Surv. Pal. Bull. No. 5, p. 4, 1917), and some undescribed Tertiary species; the beautiful sharp reticulate sculpture, developing on later whorls into numerous beaded ribs, and the narrower style of umbilicus amply distinguish the genus from Zeminolia, which has a very wide perspective perforation. The latter seems to be quite a Recent development, no fossil species being known at present; besides the type I include only Minolia semireticulata Suter. Powell (Rec. Cant. Mus., vol. 3, pt. 1, p. 45, 1926) has recently preferred Spectamen for this and the other New Zealand Recent species, and Solariella for the fossil sulcatina Suter, but for reasons given above I prefer to dismiss both these genera.

Genus Calliostoma Swainson, 1840 [P. 144]

Thiele's subfamily Calliostomatinae does not show whether he has studied the Neozelanic species or not. As he included Astele for Australian and American species, he had apparently little material, for the American species he names in connection with Astele has no close connection with the Australian type. Iredale has introduced the generic names Salsipotens and Fautor, for the large and small Australian “Calliostomas” respectively (1924, p. 230). The Neozelanic representatives of the Fautor series are the fossil Calliostoma marwicki Finlay and C. cancellatum Finlay (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 54, pp. 102, 103, 1923), and the Recent Calliostoma onustum described by Odhner (1924, p. 16) from 50 fms. off Cape Maria van Diemen, but the other Neozelanic Recent “Calliostomas” belong to a group quite distinct from Salsipotens, which was provided for armillatus Wood. They may, for the present, all be classed in one new genus Venustas (for which I name Trochus tigris Martyn as type), with a subgenus Mucrinops nov., typified by Zizyphinus spectabilis A. Ad. In Venustas s. str. I also place pellucidum and selectum, together with the following Tertiary species,—undulatum Finlay (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 54, p. 104, 1923), ponderosum Hutton (l.c., vol. 17, p. 322, 1885), hodgei Hutton (l.c., vol. 7, p. 458, 1875) (these two are

[Footnote] * Powell's excellent figures of egena (Bucknill, 1924, Pl. 7, figs. 18, a) show this very well.

[Footnote] † Not C. cancellatum Schepman, 1908. I have since substituted Calliostoma temporemuta (err. typ. for temporemutata) nom. nov. (loc. cit., vol. 55, p. 509, footnote, 1924).

– 361 –

possibly synonyms, but much material needs to be examined), filiferum Suter (N.Z.G.S. Pal. Bull. No. 5, p. 3, 1917), gracilis Marshall (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 50, p. 263, 1918), and fragilis Finlay (l.c., vol. 54, p. 102, 1923); these forms have a rather sharply-angled periphery, somewhat inconspicuous sculpture, and usually a concave spire with styliform apical whorls, the coiling varying greatly with age. The shells of the subgenus Mucrinops have usually a rounded or but slightly-angled periphery, strongly-granulose prominent cords, and a straight or convex spire, the coiling being always regular; here I include punctulatum, urbanior n. subsp. (see later), osbornei Powell (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 591, 1926), and among fossil species, oryctum, waiparaense, and acutangulum Suter (N.Z.G.S. Pal. Bull. No. 5, pp. 3, 4, 1917), and suteri Finlay (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 54, p. 101, 1923). The earlier forms in both groups are a little aberrant, e.g., the two last named have a sharp periphery, but they are small species, and on account of coiling and sculpture are better referable to the subgenus; they may be transition forms. In both groups, too, large size does not seem to have developed until “Pliocene” times, the older “Calliostomas” being mostly small shells. Oliver is describing some further new Recent species in a paper to appear shortly in the Proc. Mal. Soc. (Lond.), but I have not seen these.

Calliostoma pellucidum (Valenciennes, 1846) [P. 145]

This seems to be the only species of Venustas that has no Forsterian representative. The Upper Pliocene C. undulatum Finlay is extremely close to this species, and the acquisition of further material enables me to state that the differences given when I described it (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 54, p. 104, 1923) are not of value, but that since the fossil shells seem always to have lower ribs and weaker granules, the name may be retained as a trinomial, Venustas [pellucida] undulata (Finlay).

Odhner (1924, p. 15) has admitted to the New Zealand fauna Calliostoma trepidum Hedley, based on two small specimens, 3 mm. in height, dredged in Colville channel and off Cape Maria van Diemen. This record of a Capricorn species may be rejected without any hesitation whatever; apart from the extreme improbability of any subtropical Queensland form—much less a Trochoid—occurring in New Zealand waters, it is evident that Odhner had before him only young shells of V. pellucidum (Val.)

Calliostoma punctulatum (Martyn, 1784) [P. 146]

The Forsterian and Cookian forms of this shell are quite distinct, and as the synonyms diaphanus Gmelin and grandineus Val. both apply to the northern shell, the southern form is now brought to notice as a new sub-species.

Venustas punctulata urbanior n. subsp. (Fig. 27).

Close to the northern punctulatum (Mart.), but altogether a more delicate and graceful shell; not so crass; generally depressed rather than conic; whorls far more convex, leading to deeper sutures;

– 362 –

and spirals much thinner and wider apart, and with far finer granules, especially evident on base.

Height, 26 mm.; diameter, 28 mm.

Locality,—Type from 20 fms. Foveaux Strait, common anywhere in the Forsterian Province on the littoral and down to 30 fms.

Calliostoma selectum (Chemnitz, 1795). [P. 146]

This combination cannot be used, as Chemnitz was not a binomialist. Before this name had been used binomially, Griffiths and Pidgeon had published an excellent figure of the species with the name Trochus cunninghami (“Cuvier's Animal Kingdom,” vol. 12, pl. 1, fig. 7; Index, p. 600, 1834). The plate is dated 1833, and this is the name and date that should come into use. I have recorded large examples of this species (and of V. tigris) from 20 fathoms off Otago Heads (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 518, 1924); these are really separable from the typical form as a Forsterian representative, and as such I have described it elsewhere in this volume.

Calliostoma spectabile (A. Adams, 1885) [P. 147]

What Suter has figured for this species in the “Atlas” (Pl. 40, fig. 5), I do not know; but it is nothing like the original figure of Adams' species. As neither this nor any other accurate figure of the species is readily available to New Zealand workers, and as this form is the type of Mucrinops, I here present a figure of a beautiful specimen in the Finlay collection (Fig. 26), dredged alive in 60 fms. off Otago Heads. The locality “Chatham Islands” given by Suter should be deleted.

Genus Euchelus Philippi, 1847 [P. 148]

This genus may be replaced by Herpetopoma Pilsbry, 1890, the New Zealand species having a multispiral operculum, and otherwise agreeing generically with scabriusulus Angas, the type of this genus. Powell has recently described (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 17, Pt. 1, p. 36, 1926) a second New Zealand member of the genus, from Whangaroa, as Euchelus (Herpetopoma) larochei; it is related to scabriusculus.

Euchelus Hamiltoni (Kirk., 1882) [P. 149]

Powell has recently figured the unique type of this species for the first time (Bucknill, 1924, Pl. 6, figs. 26, a). I have examined the type specimen, and conclude without hesitation that it is an abnormal form of E. bellus Hutton, specimens of which are frequently found with a more or less deep groove in the umbilical area; in the “hamiltoni” specimen it is only somewhat deeper than usual, and in all other details the two “species” coincide exactly.

Suter's record [P. 1048] of E. baccatus (Menke), which Iredale has shown should bear the name Herpetopoma aspera (Phil.) (1924, p. 230), must be rejected, the two New Zealand shells which he so identified representing an undescribed species, related to aspera, but differing in details.

Family Trochidae [P. 150]

Under this heading Iredale in his “Commentary” advised the admission of the genus Angaria to include the two species Suter listed

– 363 –

as Liotia serrata [p. 151], and L. solitaria [p. 152]. This is an error; Miss Mestayer has recorded that solitaria is the juvenile of Astrea heliotropia (Mart.), while serrata is a true Liotid, allied to tryphenensis Powell (see following note) and such Australian forms as tasmanica T.-Woods. Angaria must therefore be dismissed from the Neozelanic fauna.

Munditia n. gen.

I propose this for the elegant shell described by Powell (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 592, 1926) as Liotina tryphenensis n. sp. and name in conjunction with it Liotia serrata Suter* and the Tasmanian L. tasmanica T.-Woods. Liotia suteri Mestayer, and a host of Australian species such as L. botanica Hedley, L. australis Kiener, L. subquadrata T.-Woods, etc., possibly represent a different group, but may be included here at present. Iredale (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 9, pt. 4, p. 258 1911) has discussed the name Liotia, restricting it to the cancellata group; and later remarked (1915, p. 440) that “the type of Liotia agrees with Cyclostrema micans A. Ad. in every essential particular.” This shell has a peculiar facies, a horny operculum, and a thin unvariced aperture. For the large solid Liotids with heavily variced aperture and spiral lines of calcareous particles on the outer side of the operculum (Liotia auct., typified by L. peronii Kiener) Iredale advocated the use of Liotina Fischer, 1885, based on the fossil L. gervillei Defrance. As a near relative of Liotina was noted Ilaira H. & A. Ad. (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 9, pt. 4, p. 260, 1911), proposed for D. evoluta Reeve, a discoidal shell with “whorls angulated, detached, the last entirely free.” None of these groups exactly suits the majority of temperate Australian and Neozelanic Liotias, with their widely umbilicate depressed shells, moderately variced aperture, and simple multispiral horny operculum. Hedley's Liotia affinis (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vol. 33, pt. 3, p. 483, 1908), noted as having an operculum “similar to that figured for L. peronii,” would fall very easily into Liotina, which seems to be a well marked tropical and sub-tropical group of extremely solid, not very depressed shells, with very narrow cyclindrical perforation. Hedley's Liotia botanica, however, (loc. cit., vol. 39, pt. 4, p. 710, 1914), typical of a large South Australian and Tasmanian series, seems to be a temperate relative of the warm water Liotina; it has a depressed less heavily ornamented shell, not strongly variced trumped-shaped aperture, and wide umbilicus; Hedley does not mention the operculum, but it is horny, multispiral, with but faint traces of granules. This group is probably separable from Munditia nov. s. str., which has a still more planorbid shell, with tendency to reduction of sculpture to knobs on the double keel, very wide perspective umbilicus, lightly variced aperture, and simple horny multispiral operculum.

Liotella incerta (Ten.-Woods)

Why Miss Mestayer has recorded this shell (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 48, p. 125, 1916) is obscure. New Zealand specimens are not like Tenison-Woods' species—which Tate and May (1901, p. 398)

[Footnote] * See nomenclatural note elsewhere in this volume.

– 364 –

have recorded as the immature form of L. tasmanica Ten.-Woods. There are many species of Liotella in Neozelanic waters, all endemic, and I remove this bad record by proposing for the shell figured by Miss Mestayer (loc. cit., Pl. 12, fig. 5) the name Liotella indigens nov.

Family Cyclostrematidae Fischer [P. 152]

Suter has included a family of this name, but Iredale has proposed to reject the name altogether (1915, p. 440), counselling the admission of a Family Liotiidae Iredale, while pointing out that the usage differed from that usually accepted. Thiele has reverted to the former bad usage—bad because in a systematic revision based on radular characters the use of an indeterminate shell of unknown locality (and of which necessarily the animal is unknown), to typify a family, must be condemned. Thiele states that as he has studied a shell agreeing with Gray's description of his Liotia, Iredale's conclusions must be wrong. Iredale studied the type series of Gray's Liotia, so that it is more probable that Thiele's shells were wrongly determined. Further, Thiele omitted to deal with Pseudoliotia Tate, which Iredale rejected as exactly synonymous with Gray's Liotia, and which Thiele should have reinstated. It would not be wise to revive Cyclostrema until something definite is known about the type species. Iredale has suggested that if it ever be recognized it will replace the Liotina series. I therefore continue Iredale's family Liotiidae, and draw attention to Thiele's action with regard to Elachorbis; he states this is referable to Vitrinellidae, closely allied to Rissoidae and Adeorbidae. This is quite incorrect, for the genus is obviously Liotid. It is recalled by some European Tertiary forms, but the resemblance is probably quite superficial, and I have already decided not to consider these in connection with austral forms (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 16, pt. 2, p. 100, 1924).

Cyclostrema eumorpha Suter, 1908. [P. 153]

Iredale (1915, p. 444) advised that this should be placed with subtatei Suter in Elachorbis, but the examination of ample material shows that a better location would be in Lodderia; it is quite close to L. lodderae (Petterd) but is less depressed. As usual, Suter's figure is poor, and shows the aperture too high up. Further undescribed species of Lodderia are known to me from northern localities.

True Elachorbis is of considerable antiquity in New Zealand, Circulus cingulatus Bartrum (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 51, p. 97, 1919), C. helicoides (Hutton) (l.c., vol. 9, p. 598, 1877), and C. politus Suter (N.Z.G.S. Pal. Bull. No. 5, p. 5, 1917) all falling in line with subtatei, but I would dissociate from the group C. inornatus Marshall (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 51, p. 226, 1919), from the Hampden beds; I have not seen this species and do not attempt to place it from the ineffective figure and diagnosis. A second Recent species of Elachorbis has been described as E. diaphana Finlay (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 518, 1924).

– 365 –

Zalipais lissa (Suter, 1908). [P. 154]

May has reported this from Tasmania (P.R.S. Tas., for 1919, p. 68) but it is improbably the same species. I have described Z. parva from the South Island (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 518, 1924).

Pseudoliotia imperforata Suter, 1908* [P. 156]

In Iredale's “Commentary,” this species from figures and description was transferred to Leptothyra; later, recognizing the misuse of Leptothyra, Iredale proposed Collonista for the Kermadec shell determined as Collonia picta Pease, and Finlay has therefore referred to the Neozelanic shell as Collonista imperforata (Suter) (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 497, 1924).

From Lord Howe Island, minute shells which agreed in every detail with such forms as Collonia picta Pease, have been traced to their adult stage, which proved to be Turbo cepoides Smith. The range of Collonista suggests a Stewart Island habitat as foreign to the genus, and this is fully justified when a series of specimens is examined. I have been able to trace Pseudoliotia imperforata Suter definitely as the juvenile of Turbo granosus (Martyn), so that Collonista and all matter relating to it should be omitted from New Zealand lists.

Juvenile Trochinae have frequently given trouble before, and may be expected to do so also in the future. Thus, in New Zealand, we have the following identities:—

Liotia (Arene) shandi Hutton, 1873 is juv. Turbo granosus (Martyn, 1784)

Pseudoliotia imperforata Suter, 1908 is juv. Turbo granosus (Martyn, 1784)

Turbo (Lunella) radina Webster, 1905 is juv. Turbo smaragdus (Martyn, 1784).

Risella kielmansegi Zelebor, 1866 is juv. Astrea sulcata davisii Stowe, 1872.

Astralium pyramidale Webster, 1905 is juv. Astrea sulcata davisii Stowe, 1872.

Liotia solitaria Suter, 1908 is juv. Astrea heliotropia (Martyn, 1784).

Photinula suteri Smith, 1894 is juv. Cantharidus dilatatus Sowerby, 1870.

Calliostoma trepidum Odhner, 1924 is juv. Calliostoma pellucidum Val., 1846.

We do not yet seem to know the very young stages of Turbo smaragdus or Astrea sulcata, while the Monodonts, Cantharidi, Calliostomas, and Eucheloids may all be expected to provide problems.

Genus Brookula Iredale, 1912.

I have recently dealt with the fossil members of this group (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, pp. 526–531, 1924), and proposed a division Aequispirella (type: Scalaria corulum Hutton) to cover the conic, narrowly-umblicated, less-sculptured forms. It may be brought to notice here that B. fossilis Finlay was inadvertently included in this

[Footnote] * See nomenclatural note elsewhere in this volume.

– 366 –

division in the “Key to Species,” (p. 531) whereas it is a true Brookula. It was also suggested, on the strength of a figure published by Miss Mestayer (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 48, Pl. 12, fig. 4, 1916), that fossilis should be admitted as a Recent shell. This is now withdrawn, topotypes of Miss Mestayer's shell showing valid distinctions in their more numerous axial ribs (about 36 on the last whorl in adults), taller shell, and weakening of the ribs on base till in the umbilicus they vanish altogether. The name Brookula prognata nov. is here advanced for the shell figured by Miss Mestayer (locality,— off Big King Is. in 98 fms.). Brookula funiculata Finlay also has a distinct Recent descendant, at present undescribed. Hedley has reported a “Brookula sp.” from Macquarie Island (1916, p. 45).

Lissotesta errata n. sp. (Figs. 28, 29).

Shell close to L. micra (T.-Woods), but smaller, and with a not quite complete peristome. Spiral threads are occasionally visible over whorls, generally near suture; about four coarser threads with narrower interstices are developed in umbilicus, which has a subkeeled margin. A rather wide flattish shoulder at suture, merging off imperceptibly into periphery. Suture almost canaliculate.

Height, 1.4 mm.; diameter, 1.3 mm.

Locality,—Snares Is. in 50 fathoms.

This shell has been misidentified as L. micra T.-Woods. Iredale, judging from figures and descriptions, associated with this species Cirsonella granum Murd. & Suter, and examination of topotypes of both species shows his judgment to have been correct. Lissotesta is also of considerable antiquity in New Zealand, the “Miocene” Lissospira exigua Suter being hardly separable even as a species from the form described above. L. granum also has early Tertiary representatives.

Powell (Rec. Cant. Mus., vol. 3, pt. 1, p. 46, 1926), in describing a new Recent species of Cirsonella (C. parvula, from 100 f. off Lyttelton), seems doubtful whether Lissotesta differs from that genus; but the groups are distinct in texture, altitude, umbilicus, aperture, and operculum, and should both be recognised.

Family Orbitestellidae Iredale.

Miss Mestayer has added this to the fauna by describing from the Snares O. hinemoa (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 51, p. 131, 1919), which I have recorded also from Bluff oyster scrapings (l.c., vol. 55, p. 517, 1924). Another undescribed species of the genus, probably belonging to Iredale's second group (vide Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 12, p. 327, 1917) is known to me from dredgings from 12 fathoms, Doubtless Bay; and a third species from shell-sand, Lyall Bay.

Genus Turbo Linneus, 1758. [P. 161]

The type of Turbo L. is the tropical marmoratus L., and this is sufficiently unlike the Neozelanic shells—which are both unusual forms—to make the loss of the name a matter for no regret. Helix smaragdus Martyn falls into Lunella Bolten, while the quite peculiar Trochus granosus Martyn already has a name of its own in Modelia Gray, 1840. No Tertiary ancestors of either of these forms are at

– 367 –

present known, but this is certainly due to the almost total lack of quite littoral fossil deposits in New Zealand; the ancestors of such distinct shells must certainly have lived in the same locality.*

Suter admits six species to the Tertiary fauna (Alph. List N.Z. Tert. Mollusca, p. 29, 1918), and Bartrum has since added another by describing Turbo postulatus n. sp. from Kaawa Creek (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 51, p. 100, 1919). The latter form I have not seen and the figure provides no key to a generic solution. Turbo superbus Zittel must also be left alone till good material is available. Turbo etheridgei T.-Woods is an Australian Tertiary form, and its inclusion may be justly doubted. Turbo approximatus Suter has been shown by Marwick (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 555, 1924) to be a Naticoid, and is now Magnatica approximata (Suter) Of the remaining three species, two are the Recent forms, and the third, Turbo marshalli Thomson is peculiar. This species has been well described by Thomson and Suter (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 40, p. 103, 1907; and N.Z. Geol. Surv. Pal. Bull. No. 3, p. 3, 1915), and differs in opercular and shell characters from any named austral group, so I provide for it the new name Incilaster, and would provisionally associate with it Astrea transenna Suter (N.Z. Geol. Surv. Pal. Bull., No. 5, p. 6, 1917; a close Australian ally is the Tertiary Astralium flindersi T.-W., from the Table Cape beds (Proc. Roy. Soc. Tas. for 1876, p. 95; see also May, l.c. for 1918, p. 71, pl. 10, fig. 11), erroneously referred by its author and by Cossmann (Ess. de Pal Comp., livr. 11, p. 145, 1918) to Calcar. As no illustration of marshalli is available in later publications, figures are appended of topotypes in the Finlay collection (Figs. 20–23). Rather curiously, what seems to be an exotic congeneric species—from the figures it would not be easy to separate it even specifically—is Astralium bathyraphe Smith (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 7, vol. 4, p. 247, 1899) from the Indian Ocean. It has the same simple operculum.

Argalista fluctuata var. immaculata (Suter, 1908) [P. 165].

This should be merged in fluctuata. The types of both species and variety are from southern localities, and live specimens from the Snares show absolutely the same range of colour and sculpture as Foveaux Strait specimens, which grow to just as large a size.

Powell (Rec. Cant. Mus., vol. 3, pt. 1, p. 46, 1926) has described Argalista umbilicata from 100 f. off Lyttelton; a Tertiary ancestral form, with the same wide umbilicus and prominent tongue, occurs at Target Gully together with the ancestor of fluctuata, so that the two species have long been differentiated.

Genus Astrea Bolten, 1798 [P. 166]

This also should have no place in Neozelanic molluscan systematics, our two well-known forms being both highly abnormal, and

[Footnote] * Cf. Marwick, who has just lately written of a similar case, “The most probable explanation seems to be that the ancestors of Chione stutchburyi and Protothaca crassicosta have lived in the New Zealand area since the Cretaceous, but owing to an unfavourable station they were not preserved.” (N.Z. Journ. Sci. and Tech., vol. 8, no. 5, p. 272, 1926).

[Footnote] † See nomenclatural note elsewhere in this volume.

– 368 –

only distantly related to T. imperialis Gmelin, the type of the genus. For Trochus heliotropium Martyn, Montfort's Imperator is available, while Lesson has provided Cookia for Trochus sulcatus Martyn. Of the latter species no Tertiary ancestors are yet known—for the same reason as advanced in the case of our Turbos—but (because of nonlittoral habitat) forms closely similar to heliotropia are found from the “Miocene” onwards, while Suter's Astrea bicarinata (N.Z. Geol. Surv. Pal. Bull. No. 5, p. 6, 1917) may perhaps be located in Imperator. The Australian Tertiary Astrea undosa Chapman has been compared by its author (Proc. Roy. Soc. Vict., vol. 25, N.S., p. 188, 1912) with heliotropia, while another Australian fossil ally is certainly Imperator hudsoniana Johnston (Geol. Tas., pl. 29, figs. 12, 12a; see also Chapman, Proc. Roy. Soc. Vict., vol. 35, N.S., p. 9, 1922). Imperator was thus common to both countries during the Tertiary, but seems to have now no Recent representative in Australia. Cookia, however, appears to be represented there by the beautiful Astralium aureolum Hedley (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vol. 32, p. 492, 1907), described from Mast Head Reef, Queensland, from a single living and adult example, compared by its describer with sulcata, and classed “as a second member of the subgenus Cookia.” It may be noted that if the form davisii Stowe, admitted by Suter as a subspecies of sulcata, is really worthy of separation, and if Suter's synonymy is correct, the name it should bear is Cookia sulcata kielmansegi (Zelebor, 1866); Stowe's name dates from 1872, and is thus six years too late. I have recorded juveniles of this form from Dunedin Harbour, on muddy weed-covered rocks (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 518, 1924).

Astrea subfimbriata Suter (loc. cit., p. 7, 1917), from the “Oligocene” of Pakaurangi Point, Kaipara, is an interesting form as making some approach to the Australian Bellastrea Iredale (1924, p. 232). As far as superficial resemblances go, the species is really nearer to sinius (Gould) than to “fimbriata” (Lamk.), but the relationship is quite distant The peculiar ornament and base, with its relatively huge callus area, the extremely oblique curved pillar, and the curious nodulation under the periphery form an ensemble deserving generic recognition, and I propose Opella nov. for it alone. It may be a branch from the Bellastrea line, but the differences are too considerable to admit of close relationship.

Phasianella huttoni Pilsbry, 1888 [P. 169]

As already noted, Thiele includes Prisogaster in his subfamily Phasianellinae (which is better regarded as a family), with two other genera, Phasianella and Tricolia. For the latter, Humphrey's name Eutropia must be used, and the family name would become Eutropiidae, but the Neozelanic species does not belong to the genus Eutropia. Pilsbry has pointed out that the small Australian species have a radula of the Phasianellid style, not of the Tricolia (=Eutropia) form. Consequently one may propose for the Neozelanic species the new generic name, Pellax, associating with it the Australian rosea Angas, virgo, Angas, etc.

– 369 –

Family Umboniidae [P. 169]

As above noted, Thiele, by means of the radular characters has brought together a peculiar series in the family Umboniidae, and consequently amended Iredale's conclusions in connection with this family and generic values. It has been shown that a Minolioid shell may possess an Umbonioid radula, e.g., the common Australian shell previously known as M. angulata A. Ad., but which Iredale has renamed Ethminolia probabilis (1924, p. 228). This is succeeded by another series such as M. vitiliginea (Menke) of Australian workers, which is a Talopena. Thiele has also included Monilea i.e. Talopia, and when these are all studied in connection with true Umbonium, Ethalia, and Ethaliella, the Neozelanic species with its angulate periphery is a little discordant. Iredale (1915, p. 446) stated that “Globulus anguliferus Philippi, given by Suter in the synonymy of “Ethalia zelandica Hombron and Jacquinot, 1854,” was really published in 1853, and therefore has clear priority over the name assigned to Hombron and Jacquinot, but only published by Rousseau in 1854,” and therefore used the name Umbonium anguliferum (Phil.) for the species. Unfortunately, this conclusion must be revised, as there is a prior Globulus anguliferus J. de C. Sow., 1840 (Tr. Geol. Soc. Lond., vol. 2, pt. 5, expl. pl. 26). The specific name zelandicum must therefore be restored, whether it be credited to Rousseau or to A. Adams, who also proposed Umbonium zealandicum as a name for this species in the same year (Proc. Zool. Soc. for 1853, p. 188, 1854); which has priority is not at present known.

Cossmann has proposed Ethaliopsis for the Neozelanic shell (Essais de Pal. Comp., vol. 11, p. 223, 1918), but that name had been used before by Schepman for a different mollusc. I accordingly propose Zethalia as a suitable substitute. This kind of shell is not known below the Pliocene in New Zealand, though plentiful in Nukumaruian beds. Powell (N.Z. Journ. Sci. & Tech., vol. 4, p. 205, 1921) has found zelandica living in enormous numbers in the littoral zone at Marsden Point.

As a key to the somewhat extensive changes in these groups, a summary is presented of the locations here adopted of all New Zealand members of the Trochacea, both Tertiary and Recent,—

Fam. Trochidae d'Orbigny.

Genus Trochus Linneus, 1758. Type: Trochus maculatus Linné.

  • Subgenus Coelotrochus Fischer, 1880. Type: Trochus tiaratus Q. & G.
    • Trochus tiaratus Q. & G., 1834.

    • huttoni (Cossmann, 1916)

    • [—avarus] Suter, 1917.

  • Subgenus Thorista Iredale, 1915. Type: Polydonta tuberculata Gray (i.e. T. viridis Gmelin).
    • Trochus viridis Gmelin, 1791.

    • camelophorus Webster, 1906.

  • Genus Thoristella Iredale, 1915. Type: Polydonta chathamensis Hutt.
    • Thoristella carmesina (Webster, 1908).

– 370 –
    • Thoristella chathamensis (Hutton, 1873).

    • — —oppressa (Hutton, 1878).

    • — —dunedinensis (Suter, 1917).

    • — —aucklandica (Smith, 1902).

    • — (—)benthicola nov.

    • — [—]fossilis nov.

  • Genus Paraclanculus nov. Type: Paraclanculus peccatus nov.

  •   Paraclanculus peccatus nov.

  • Genus Mesoclanculus Iredale, 1924. Type: Trochus plebejus Phil.

  •   Mesoclanculus takapunaensis (Webster, 1906).

  • Genus Melagraphia Gray, 1847. Type: Trochus aethiops Gmelin.

  •   Melagraphia aethiops (Gmelin, 1791).

  • Genus Zediloma nov. Type: Zediloma digna nov.
    • Subgenus Zediloma s. str. Zediloma digna nov.

    • arida nov.

    • Subgenus Fractarmilla nov. Type: Labio corrosa A. Ad.

    • Zediloma corrosa (A. Adams, 1853).

    • — —subrostrata (Gray, 1835).

    • — —atrovirens (Philippi, 1851).

    • — —morio (Troschel, 1851).

  • Genus Cavodiloma nov. Type: Trochocochlea excavata Ad. & Ang. (i.e., T. coracina Phil.).
    • Cavodiloma coracina (Philippi, 1851).

  • Genus Anisodiloma nov. Type: Trochus lugubris Gmelin.
    • Anisodiloma lugubris (Gmelin, 1791).

    • — —lenior nov.

  • Genus Cantharidus Montfort, 1810. Type: Limax opalus Martyn.
    • Subgenus Cantharidus s. str. Cantharidus opalus (Martyn, 1784).

    • — —purpuratus (Martyn, 1784).

    • Subgenus Plumbelenchus nov. Type: Trochus capillaceus Phil.

    • Cantharidus capillaceus (Philippi, 1848).

    • — —coruscans (Hedley, 1916).

    • — —minor Smith, 1902.

  • Genus Micrelenchus nov. Type: Trochus sanguineus Gray.
    • Micrelenchus sanguineus (Gray, 1843).

    • — —coelatus (Hutton, 1884).

    • — —elongatus (Suter, 1897).

    • — —mortenseni (Odhner, 1924).

    • — —tenebrosus (A. Adams, 1853).

    • — —huttoni (Smith, 1876).

    • — —rufozonus (A. Adams, 1853).

    • — —oliveri (Iredale, 1915).

    • — —dilatatus (Sowerby, 1870). (=P. suteri Smith)

    • — —micans (Suter, 1897).

  • Genus Cantharidella Pilsbry. Type: Gibbula picturata Ad. & Ang.
    • Cantharidella tesselata (A. Adams, 1851).

– 371 –
  • Genus Fossarina Ad. & Ang., 1863. Type: Fossarina patula Ad. & Ang.
    • Fossarina rimata (Hutton, 1884).

Fam. Stomatellidae nov. (=subfam. Margaritinae Thiele, pars).

  • Genus Herpetopoma Pilsbry, 1889. Type: Euchelus scabriusculus Ad. & Ang.

    • Herpetopoma bella (Hutton, 1873).

    • — —larochei Powell, 1926.

  • Genus. Margarella Thiele. Type: Margarita violacea Sowerby.

    • Margarella antipoda (Hombron & Jaquinot, 1854).

    • decepta (Iredale, 1908).

    • fulminata (Hutton, 1873).

    • macquariensis Hedley, 1916.

Fam. Calliostomatidae Thiele.

  • Genus Fautor Iredale, 1924. Type: Zizyphinus comptus A. Ad.

    • Fautor onustus (Odhner, 1924).

    • [— marwicki] (Finlay, 1923).

    • [— temporemutatus] (Finlay, 1924).

  • Genus Venustas nov. Type: Trochus tigris Martyn.

    • Subgenus Venustas s. str.

    • Venustas tigris (Martyn, 1874).

    • pellucida (Valenciennes, 1846).

    • — [—] undulata (Finlay, 1924).

    • cunninghami (Griffiths & Pidgeon, 1833) (=selectum auct.).

    • —— regifica Finlay, 1927.

    • [— ponderosa] (Hutton, 1885).

    • [— hodgei] (Hutton, 1875).

    • [— filifera] (Suter, 1917).

    • [— gracilis] (Marshall, 1918).

    • [— fragilis] (Finlay, 1923).

    • Subgenus Mucrinops nov. Type: Zizyphinus spectabilis A.Ad.

    • Venustas spectabilis (A. Adams, 1855).

    • osbornei (Powell, 1926).

    • punctulata (Martyn, 1784).

    • — — urbanior nov.

    • [— waiparaensis] (Suter, 1917).

    • [— orycta] (Suter, 1917).

    • [— — acutangula] (Suter, 1917).

    • [— — suteri] (Finlay, 1917).

  • Genus Zetela nov. Type: Minolia textilis M. & S.

    • Zetela textilis (Murdoch & Suter, 1906).

    • [— — praetextilis] (Suter, 1917).

  • Genus Zeminolia nov. Type: Minolia plicatula M. & S.

    • Zeminolia plicatula (Murdoch & Suter, 1906).

    • — — semireticulata (Suter, 1908).

– 372 –

Fam. Umboniidae Adams.

  • Genus Conominolia nov. Type: Heliacus conicus Marshall.

    • [Conominolia conica] (Marshall, 1917).

    • [— sulcatina] (Suter, 1917).

  • Genus Antisolarium nov. Type: Solarium egenum Gould.

    • Antisolarium egenum (Gould, 1849).

    • [— stoliczkai] (Zittel, 1865).

  • Genus Zethalia nov. Type: Umbonium zelandicum A. Ad.

    • Zethalia zelandica (A. Adams, 1854).

Fam. Liotiidae Iredale.

  • Genus Munditia nov. Type: Liotina tryphenensis Powell.
    • Munditia tryphenensis (Powell, 1925).

    • serrata (Suter, 1908).

    • — (?) suteri (Mestayer, 1919).

  • Genus Lodderia Tate. Type: Liotia lodderae Petterd.
    • Lodderia eumorpha (Suter, 1908).

  • Genus Elachorbis Iredale, 1915. Type: Cyclostrema tatei Angas.
    • Elachorbis subtatei (Suter, 1907).

    • diaphana Finlay, 1924.

    • [— cingulatus] (Bartrum, 1919).

    • [— helicoides] (Hutton, 1877).

    • [— politus]. (Suter, 1917).

  • Genus Liotella Iredale, 1915. Type: Liotia polypleura Hedley.
    • Liotella polypleura (Hedley, 1904).

    • rotula (Suter, 1908).

    • indigens nov. (= L. incerta Mestayer, not T.-Woods).

    • — (?) neozelanica (Suter, 1908).

  • Genus Brookula Iredale, 1912. Type: Brookula stibarochila Iredale.
    • Subgenus Brookula s. str.

    • Brookula prognata nov. (= Brookula sp.: Mestayer).

    • — sp., Hedley, 1916.

    • [— fossilis] Finlay, 1924.

    • [— funiculata] Finlay, 1924.

    • [— pukeuriensis] Finlay, 1924.

    • [— endodonta] Finlay, 1924.

    • Subgenus Aequispirella Finlay, 1924. Type: Scalaria corulum Hutt.

    • Brookula corulum (Hutton, 1884).

    • [— tenuilirata] Finlay, 1924.

    • [— iredalei] Finlay, 1924.

  • Genus Lissotesta Iredale, 1915. Type: Cyclostrema micra T.-W.
    • Lissotesta errata nov.

    • granum (Murdoch & Suter, 1906).

    • [— exigua] (Suter, 1917).

  • Genus Zalipais Iredale, 1915. Type: Delphinoidea lissa Suter.
    • Zalipais lissa (Suter, 1908).

    • parva Finlay, 1924.

  • Genus Cirsonella Angas, 1877. Type: Cirsonella australis Angas.
    • Cirsonella densilirata Suter, 1908.

    • parvula Powell, 1926.

– 373 –
    • (?)* Genus Conjectura nov. Type: Crossea glabella Murdoch.

    • Conjectura glabella (Murdoch, 1905).

  • (?)* Genus Dolicrossea Iredale, 1924. Type: Crossea labiata T.-W. Dolicnossea vesca nov.

  • * Genus Crosseola Iredale, 1924. Type: Crossea concinna Angas.
    • Crosseola errata nov.

    • cuvieriana (Mestayer, 1919).

Fam. Orbitestellidae Iredale.

  • Genus Orbitestella Iredale, 1917. Type: Cyclostrema bastowi Gatliff.

    • Orbitestella hinemoa Mestayer, 1919.

Fam. Turbinidae Gray.

  • Genus Argalista Iredale, 1915. Type: Cyclostrema fluctuata Hutt.

    • Argalista fluctuata (Hutton, 1883).

    • crassicostata (Murdoch, 1905).

    • umbilicata Powell, 1926.

  • Genus Lunella Bolten, 1798.

    • Lunella smaragda (Martyn, 1784).

  • Genus Modelia Gray, 1840. Type: Turbo granosus Martyn.

    • Modelia granosa (Martyn, 1784).

  • Genus Incilaster nov. Type: Turbo marshalli Thomson.

    • [Incilaster marshalli] (Thomson, 1908).

    • [— (?) transenna] (Suter, 1917).

  • Genus Imperator Montfort, 1810. Type: Trochus heliotropium Martyn.

    • Imperator heliotropium (Martyn, 1784).

    • [— bicarinata] (Suter, 1917).

  • Genus Cookia Lesson, 1832. Type: Trochus sulcatus Martyn.

    • Cookia sulcata (Martyn, 1784).

    • [Opella subfimbriata] (Suter, 1917).

  • Genus Opella nov. Type: Astrea subfimbriata Suter.

    • — — kielmansegi (Zelebor, 1866).

Fam. Eutropiidae nov. (= subfam. Phasianellinae Thiele).

  • Genus Pellax nov. Type: Phasianella huttoni Pilsbry.

    • Pellax huttoni (Pilsbry, 1888).

Incertae sedis: Trochus circinatus Hutton (Cat. Tert. Moll., p. 15. 1873), Trochus mutus Finlay (= T. nodosus Hutton, preoccupied; Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 16, p. 99, 1924), Trochus (?) antipodum and Calliostoma decapitatum Wilckens (N.Z.G.S. Pal Bull. No. 9, pp. 4, 34, 1922—Cretaceous forms), Canthandus fenestratus Suter (l.c., No. 5, p. 3, 1917), submargarita (?) tricincta Marshall (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 51, p. 227, 1919), Talopena sublaevis Finlay (l.c., vol. 55, p. 520, 1924), Circulus inornatus Marshall (l.c., vol. 51, p. 226, 1919), Turbo postulatus Bartrum (l.c. p. 100) and Turbo superbus Zittel (Voy. “Novara,” Palae., p. 39, 1865).

Nerita melanotragus Smith, 1884. [P. 172]

A paper entitled “Notes on the Radula of the Neritidae,” by H. Burrington Baker, was published in the Proc. Acad. Nat Sci. Philad., vol. 75, pp. 117–178, 1923. As this will not be seen by many Neozelanic students, Iredale has kindly sent me a few notes on it

[Footnote] *See later under “Genus Crossea.”

– 374 –

which may be here given in connection with the genus Nerita:—“Baker accepts Montfort's designation of the type of Nerita Linné as peloronta L., and divides the genus, which differs little from the customary acceptance, into two subgenera, Nerita s. str. and Puperita. The latter he divides into two sections Puperita and Heminerita, and the former into four, Amphinerita, Theliostyla, Pila, and Nerita s. str. The second named subgenus, proposed for umlaasiana, a variety of polita, is used to cover the Neozelanic N. melanotragus. Judging from the characters of the shell and operculum, this is probably correct, but he also notes that the Pacific species morio Sowerby, 1833 seems scarcely separable.”

The type of the fossil Nerita nitida (Hutton, 1873), recently renamed N. pomahakaensis by Finlay (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 16, pt. 2, p. 100, 1924), has been examined, with a quite unexpected result. Considerable collecting has never brought to light another specimen, and further, no shells from the Pomahaka marls show any traces of colour markings, so that the occurrence of a greenish Nerite with black stripes is more than suspicious. The broken unique type is in fact a Recent Pacific Theodoxus, certainly not found in New Zealand—let alone fossil at Pomahaka, and must be dismissed from the fauna.

Fam. Cocculinidae [P. 172]

It is questionable whether any of the Neozelanic shells referred to this family (which depends on animal characters) really belong here, since of all of them only the shells are known. From criticism of the North Atlantic typical species one may advocate the dismissal of Cocculina from the Neozelanic list, the conchological features disagreeing. Four species are included by Suter, clypidellaeformis, compressa, craticulata, and tasmanica. When Thiele monographed the group he was doubtful of the location of any of these, and suggested that craticulata, judging from the description, might be a Phenacolepas. Hedley has used Thiele's genus Cocculinella, provided for minutissima Smith, for his coercita, but Thiele did not so class it.

I would dismiss Cocculina tasmanica (Pilsbry) from the New Zealand list, and refer all records of this type of shell to C. craticulata Suter, which may be named as type of a new genus Notocrater, including therein tasmanica Pilsbry and meridionalis Hedley.

For the remaining Neozelanic species, clypidellaeformis Suter and compressa Suter, I propose Tectisumen nov., with the first named as type. Here may also be located C. coercita Hedley, C. tasmanica May, and Tectisumen mayi* nom. nov. for Cocculina clypidellaeformis, May (Illust. Index Tas. Shells, Pl. 21, fig. 20, 1923), not of Suter. The outlines of the Tasmanian shell differ from those of New Zealand topotypes, while May, in his original record of the species (Pap. & Proc. Roy. Soc. Tas., 1912 (1913) p. 43), remarked that his shells were “not quite so raised as the type.”

[Footnote] * Finlay (Austr. Assoc. Adv. Science, vol. 16, p. 343, footnote, 1924) proposed C. mayi as a new name for C. tasmanica May, but as May's shell was described as a Cocculinella, and is not congeneric with Acmaea tasmanica Pilsbry, May's name will stand; in Tectisumen mayi nov. I perpetuate the intended compliment.

– 375 –

I have seen further undescribed Recent species of Tectisumen from New Zealand (e.g. what Miss Mestayer has recorded as compressa; Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 48, p. 125, 1916); it has not been found fossil, but Notocrater occurs in early Tertiary beds.

Littorina infans E. A. Smith.

“Some small sps., max.h. 1.3 mm., shaken from algae, Cape Maria van Diemen” are the basis on which Odhner (1924, p. 18) has recorded the above Sydney species. This does not need discussion.

Littorina mauritiana (Lamarck, 1822) [P. 188]

Iredale, in preferring the name Melarhaphe unifasciata (Gray, 1826) for Australian shells (1915, p. 447) remarked that the New Zealand form seemed separable, and as no name has previously been given to it, I here act this suggestion—which I am able to confirm—by describing it as new.

Melarhaphe zelandiae n. sp. (Figs. 18, 19).

Shell related to M. unifasciata (Gray), but with shorter and less convex whorls, not so inflated. Much darker in colour, uniformly blackish outside, greyish-brown where corroded, inner part of base sometimes whitish; inside rich dark chocolate-brown with a white band below. Spiral sculpture much better marked than in Australian shells, especially on base, interstices not linear, and rendered prominent by their white colour. Peripheral subangulation better marked.

Height, 17 mm.; diameter, 10.5 mm. (type; harbour form).

Height, 11 mm.; diameter, 7.5 mm. (Taieri Beach rock form).

Locality,—Dunedin Harbour, on rocks at half and high tide level.

Laevilitorina hamiltoni (Smith, 1898) [P. 190]

This form does not agree conchologically with caliginosa, the type of the genus. There is an undescribed closely-allied form at the Auckland Islands, and probably search at Campbell, Bounty, and Antipodes Islands would reveal further members. For this group is proposed Macquariella nov., with Paludestrina hamiltoni Smith as type, allowing it subgeneric rank under Laevilitorina.

Finlay, (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 522, 1924) has recently recorded the genus from the mainland, describing two new forms, L. micra and L. cystophora. These looked conchologically aberrant, and are now shown to be widely sundered from Laevilitorina. This genus and Macquariella agree in having a paucispiral Littorinoid operculum, and Finlay has stated that this in his shells is “normal.” Dissection of further specimens shows, however, that though appearing normal while deep within the aperture, the minute operculum in both species is really not spiral at all, but pyriform, with a medio-lateral nucleus Many other undescribed species of this group, all minute, are now known from the mainland, while Brookes has described one from the North Island (L. iredalei Brookes; Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 589, 1926), and I signalize their distinction from Laevilitorina—which, so far as the Neozelanic region is concerned, is restricted to the Rossian province—by the proposition of a group name, Zelaxitas nov., naming L. cystophora Finlay as type.

– 376 –

Fam. Fossaridae Fischer [P. 192]

Odhner (1924, p. 18), in admitting the type genus to the Neozelanic fauna, has associated under it an incongruous assemblage of forms, covering at least three genera, none of which has anything to do with true Fossarus. For clearness' sake one may propose the necessary new genera now, and then proceed to discuss them,—

Zeradina nov. for F. ovatus Odhner.
Nilsia nov. " F. conicus Odhner.
Scrupus nov. " F. hyalinus Odhner.

Odhner's F. ovatus and F. productus may be regarded as congeneric, both having a blunt paucispiral embryo, a complete peristome, and a groove behind the inner lip; with these may be associated the Tertiary Couthouyia coninna Marshall and Murdoch (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 53, p. 80, 1921) and, provisionally, Lacuna exilis Murdoch (loc. cit., vol. 32, p. 220, 1900) and Aclis costellata Hutton (loc. cit., vol. 17, p. 319, 1885). The Recent Couthouyia corrugata Hedley is near to these but has a tiny apex, expanded whorls, and a deep, keeled umbilicus spreading from the groove; it does not belong to Couthouyia, and the new name Radinista may be supplied for it alone at present, taking subgeneric rank under Zeradina.

Odhner's third species, F. conicus, is quite a different kind of shell, having only the fine spiral sculpture in common with the previous series. The apex is minute, of several whorls, almost pointed, the peristome is considerably broken by the convex parietal wall, and there is no groove behind the inner lip. I nominate it as type of Nilsia nov., and place it at present near Dardanula in Rissoinidae; Rissoina cuvieriana Suter is apparently congeneric, and though Suter's figure and dimensions differ considerably from Odhner's, I suggest that when his unique type is examined it will prove to be the same species; if that is so, Suter's name has precedence.

Fossarus hyalinus, Odhner's last species, is about as far removed conchologically from Fossarus as it could well be. The thin hyaline test, depressed dome-shaped and glossy two-whorled apex, quite incomplete peristome, perforate umbilicus more or less filled by a calluspad, deep sutural triangular sinus in the outer lip, deep rounded notch in the basal lip, and swollen subplication low down on the pillar, form a very curious combination of characters. I give it a name of its own in Scrupus nov. and provisionally associate with it Cithna marmorata Hedley, and perhaps Fossarus minutus Petterd,* locating the genus temporarily in the neighbourhood of Cithna which, in an exaggerated way, it somewhat resembles, except for the posterior sinus. Odhner's record of F. minutus from Hauraki Gulf cannot be accepted; identified specimens he has sent me belong to Notosetia (s.l.) and are in no way related to Scrupus hyalinus.

Planaxis brazilianus (Lamarck, 1822). [P. 194]

Definite evidence regarding the authenticity of New Zealand examples of this shell—which should be generically called Hinea—is not yet forthcoming, and till it is the species should be placed on the suspense list. It is, however, common at the Kermadecs.

[Footnote] * For nomenclatural note on this species, see elsewhere this volume.

– 377 –

Family Rissoidae Gray [P. 198]

I have given some account of the Tertiary Neozelanic species, with generic and specific keys (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, pp. 481–493, 1924) and have there added several new species and the Australian genus Epigrus Hedley (Mem. Austr. Mus., No. 4, p. 355, 1903) to the Tertiary fauna.

The genus Amphithalamus must be rejected as Iredale suggested, for even if it were applicable to some Australian forms, the Neozelanic hedleyi is typical of a very distinct group, and for this species I therefore propose the new generic group Nannoscrobs. It may be noted that probably Scrobs is characteristic of an Australian Family, for many species are being discovered belonging to two or three distinct groups, one centering round shells like the American Amphithalamus (but probably not at all related), another of shells like Watson's Scrobs scrobiculator which appear to be of a slighter texture, and some smaller thinner species, rather like Scrobs, which constitute the group named Nannoscrobs above. The two former have not yet been recorded from New Zealand itself, though known from the Kermadecs. Odhner's Rissoa semen may be located in Nannoscrobs, but his R. erosa, with its squat shell and heavy ornament, is a different style of “Amphithalamus.”

Hedley (1916, p. 46) has added Eatoniopsis to the fuuna by describing E. ainsworthi from Macquarie Island. The fossil Rissoa vana Hutton (Cat. Tert. Moll., p. 12, 1873) I have shown to be a subfossil Potamopyrgus (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 491, 1926).

Elsewhere in this volume Powell describes sixteen new Recent species, a welcome addition to the fauna.

Rissoa cheilostoma Ten.-Woods, 1877 [P. 202]

This name must disappear from New Zealand lists, as Iredale has already suggested (1915, p. 449). Its place will be taken by Merelina lyalliana (Suter, 1898), described from Lyall Bay; as this shell has never been figured, illustrations of topotypes in the Finlay collection are appended (Figs. 35. 36). Numerous specimens of Merelina are known to me from New Zealand waters, representing two or three group; I have already proposed (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 483, 1924) the genus Linemera (type: L. interrupta Finlay = Rissoa gradata Hutton*) to cover forms with Merelinid sculpture, but a smooth glossy apex, while Powell (l.c., vol. 56, p. 593, 1926) has introduced Promerelina for two extreme forms of this group, P. crosseaformis and coronata Powell, both Recent species. For shells like Lironoba in sculpture, but with a smooth glossy apex like Linemera, I have proposed Nobolira (type: Lironoba polyvincta Finlay) (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 227, 1926).

Powell (Rec. Cant. Mus, vol. 3, pt. 1, p. 46, 1926) has added to the Recent fauna Haurakia venusta, from 100 f. off Lyttelton, stating that Haurakia has the protoconch “sculptured with exceedingly fine uneven spiral striae,” and that his species has “a striking resemblance to Finlay's Linemera, which is only superficial, however, the nucleus being quite smooth and glossy in the latter genus.” Nevertheless, I would refer venusta without hesitation to Linemera, as the

[Footnote] * See nomenclatural note elsewhere in this volume.

– 378 –

southern representative of the Cookian deep-water pingue Webster, which is a close ally of gradata Hutton, the genotype. I would restrict Haurakia at present in New Zealand to the type (hamiltoni), huttoni Suter, and the Tertiary oamarutica Finlay (my H. mixta should, I think, be dropped; the type was irreparably damaged during illustration, and the sole paratype proves to be a juvenile abnormal Estea impressa): when the austral Rissoids are monographed, Haurakia will probably become a monotypic genus, as hamiltoni differs in habitat and facies from all the other species referred here. I cannot understand Powell's description of the apex of this species and venusta. Linemera differs from Haurakia most noticeably in development of spiral sculpture, but both genera have a smooth and glossy paucispiral apex, that of Haurakia being more depressed, slightly inrolled at the tip, and with a less marked terminal varix. But under a high power, and in very strong sunlight, the shells and the apices of both groups are seen to be of a minutely porous structure (much as in Terebratella and other brachiopods), and the very fine dense punctures occasionally give the effect of running together in spiral lines. This is probably what Powell mentions as “spiral sculpture,” and no more than this is visible in my topotypes of hamiltoni on the one hand, or of exserta, pingue, gradata, and venusta on the other. Quite different is the true spiral sculpture (often heavy) seen on the embryos of Merelina, Promerelina, Lironoba, Anabathron, Attenuata, and Brookesena (vide post).

Merelina plaga n. sp. (Figs. 37, 38).

Shell similar to M. lyalliana, but of weaker build, though slightly larger. Number and disposition of spiral ribs the same, except that subsutural rib stronger, and the two on the periphery subequal, giving the spire-whorls a half-hexagonal instead of a triangular outline; body-whorl thus loses its angled periphery. All spiral ribs thinner, interstices three to four times as wide instead of same width, axial ribs slightly less numerous and weaker; nodules at intersections much smaller; axials and spirals thus enclose large square meshes instead of small rectangular pits. Aperture larger, more obliquely oval than subcircular. Other details as in Suter's species.

Height, 3 mm.; diameter, 1.3 mm.

Locality,—Snares Islands, in 50 fathoms.

Rissoa incidata (Fraunfeld, 1867) [P. 208]

Omit this species; Suter's records apply to species of Estea; one that I have seen, from Lyttelton, is a lusus of E. minor which developed a groove for a short distance following a fracture. In passing, it may be mentioned that Odhner's record (1924, p. 22) of Rissoa subfusca Hutt. is, from examination of shells sent by him, based also on Estea minor (Suter), so that this species does not appear to be at all well understood.

Rissoa roseola Iredale (=rosea Hutton) and Rissoa roseocincta Suter. [P. 209]

Transfer these species to Dardanula. In connection with Dardanula fuscozona (Suter), it may be noted that of two specimens so identified and sent to me by Odhner, one is a Dardanula n.sp., the other a Zelaxitas sp., cf iredalei (Brookes).

– 379 –

Ancestral to D. limbata is the Teritary D. rivertonensis Finlay (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 491, 1924).

Rissoina hanleyi Schwartz, 1860. [P. 219]

Several species seem to be masquerading under this name. Odhner (1924, p. 23) has recently split off one good species as Rissoina achatina nov., but recorded hanleyi also; there are at least two others in the compound remaining, and in describing one of them I now dismiss this Philippine Island species from the New Zealand fauna.

Rissoina anguina n. sp. (Figs. 39, 40)

Shell stout, shining, generally milky white with broad chestnut-brown band just below periphery, and a narrower subsutural one; sometimes there are several tawny-yellow bands instead, or the whole shell may be blackish-brown or orange-yellow. About 24 axials per whorl, interstices 2–3 times as wide; they have fairly wide bases but rapidly narrow and become sharp, obsolescent on body-whorl; whole shell with dense fine spiral grooving. Spire about 1½ times height of aperture, outlines faintly convex. Other details as mentioned by Suter in his diagnosis of R. hanleyi.

Height, 5.5 mm.; diameter, 2.5 mm.

Locality,—Whangaroa Harbour

Omalogyra bicarinata Suter, 1908 [P. 229]

This shell has no affinity with Omalogyra, but is closely related to the form described by Miss Mestayer as Discohelix hedleyi (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 48, p. 125, 1916). O. bicarinata was described from the Snares in 50 fms., and related forms are known to me from northern localities, while D. hedleyi, described from off Big King Island in 98 fms., has similar southern relatives. For this series I propose the genus Zerotula nov., with D. hedleyi Mestayer as type; no congeneric Australian forms are as yet known. The species are all small and discoidal, the shells usually somewhat shining and with a simple ornament of two or three strong keels on the periphery, otherwise smooth except for faint corrugations on the upper and lower surfaces and occasional weak serrations on the two outer keels; the aperture is squarish with a complete peristome. Miss Mestayer's location of the species in the Family Architectonicidae (loc. cit., vol. 51, p. 132, 1919) seems reasonable, the apex being slightly inrolled. There may perhaps be relationship with Discohelix, or such Discohelix-like forms as Omaxlaxis meridionalis Hedley. The forms are certainly adult and not the juvenile stage of some Trochoid.

Genus Tatea Ten.-Woods, 1879.

Hedley (1916, p. 46) has introduced this genus to the Neozelanic region by describing Tatea melvilli nov. from Macquarie Island. Brookes has added a second species (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 153, 1924), Tatea hedleyi, from Rangitoto Island, but Iredale informs me that this shell is really Assiminea nitida (Pease, 1865), (Proc. Zool. Soc., 1864, p. 674), which is distributed throughout Polynesia, and has been recorded from the Kermadecs by Oliver (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 47, p. 522, 1915).

– 380 –

Melanopsis trifasciata Gray, 1843 [P. 236]

The genus Melanopsis is based on a European form, and all monographers have noted the distinction of the Neozelanic group without providing a distinctive name for it. As the genus is represented in the early Tertiary (by Ancillaria pomahaka Hutton; Cat. Tert. Moll., p. 6, 1873; see also Suter, 1915A p. 6), I have no hesitation in proposing Zemelanopsis n.gen., naming this species as type. Another group of “Melanopsis” existed in the New Zealand Tertiary, of which Coptochetus zelandicus Marshall (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 50, p. 265, 1918) and Melanopsis waitaraensis Marwick (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 317, 1926) are members; Dr. Marwick has noted that they have the aperture of Zemelanopsis, but differ in their strong sculpture; this is of at least subgeneric importance in this group, so that I now separate them under the name Pakaurangia n. subgen., with M. waitaraensis Marw. as type.

Fam. Cerithiidae Fleming [P. 236]

The only members of this family admitted by Suter are referred to two genera, Cerithidea and Bittium, four species being allotted to the former, a tropical mangrove form, and six to the latter, a British type. Both generic names must be dismissed from the Neozelanic fauna, and some of the species also. First, the recognition that a Neozelanic species is establishing itself in Australia necessitated a criticism of the species, with the result that Suter's first species, Cerithidea alternata Hutton, was found to be based on an Australian specimen of Cerithium australis Q. & G., and not to be of Neozelanic origin. The type in the Dominion Museum has been examined, and this fact is evident. Secondly, Iredale tells me that the species name bicarinata Gray, 1843, is invalid, but that the substitute lutulentum Kiener was published in 1842, and was therefore the valid name all the time. Thirdly, the next two species must be lumped, since Hutton's tricarinata is simply an individual variant of Sowerby's subcarinata—this is the species that has gained an Australian foothold; it is extremely common and spreading rapidly at Freshwater, near Manly, Sydney. Lastly, the whole series, now reduced to two species, has nothing much to do with the genus Cerithidea—which was introduced by Swainson for a very different mangrove Cerithioid—and must be separated as a distinct genus, for which the new name Zeacumantus is proposed, Sowerby's subcarinata being named as type. In direct lineage may be noted Ataxocerithium perplexum Marshall and Murdoch (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 51, p. 254, 1919) and Cerithidea tirangiensis Marwick (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 317, 1926). Iredale tells me that the South Tasmanian species diemenensis Q. & G., referred at the present time to Pyrazus, a poor decision, is congeneric.

With regard to the genus Bittium, Suter wrote, “Operculum 4-whorled, with central nucleus,” and of Bittium exile Hutton noted “Operculum normal.” Suter also included Bittium granarium Kiener, 1842, and Bittium lawleyanum Crosse, 1863, in each case observing, “Operculum normal.” These two well-known Australian species form no part of the Neozelanic fauna, and must be eliminated from the records. As a matter of fact, the operculum in these species is not “normal” in the sense used by Suter, but has proved to be

– 381 –

truly Cerithioid, and for the former Iredale has provided the genus name Cacozelia (1924, p. 246), while the specific name of the East Australian species Hedley has shown to be lacertinum Gould (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vol. 41, p. 310, 1923). Crosse's lawleyanum appears to be congeneric with this species. Suter has also included Bittium cylindricum Watson, 1881, a Port Jackson species, for a Foveaux Strait shell: this name must also disappear.

This leaves only three species, two of which are congeneric, viz., Bittium exile Hutton and Bittium vitreum Suter. For these a new name Zebittium may be introduced, the former being cited as type; the exact position of the group may be held over until further information regarding the operculum and radula is obtained. The early Tertiary Cerithidea minuta Marshall (renamed C. marshalli by Cossmann; see elsewhere in this volume) may perhaps be included here. Bittium retiferum Suter does not, however, belong to this group, but must be included in the following series.

The family Cerithiopsidae may be rejected since it is based purely on features of the animal of a British species, and there is not the slightest fact to connect this with the species allotted to the family by Suter, not even the operculum of any being recorded. A much safer procedure is to leave these under the family Cerithiidae until the animals are investigated, and to use definite group names for the series such as (a) sarissa, acies, and subantarctica, with a many-whorled reticulate apex* ending in a carina; (b) retifera, canaliculata, marginata, and styliformis, with a few-whorled smooth and rounded apex: and (c) crenistria, a peculiar form. Suter has included C. cessicus Hedley, a Tasmanian species, recording it from the Snares in 50 fathoms. The Tasmanian shell is referable to Joculator Hedley, but Suter has written, “Protoconch papillate, of 1½ whorls, the first smooth and shining, the remainder distantly plaited,” a description which does not apply to Joculator, so that the species name cessicus is inapplicable and must be rejected. True Joculator does seem to occur in northern New Zealand, and here may be provisionally located Odhner's new Cerithiopsis dirempta (1924, p. 26), the apex of which is not known.

Another name involved in this holocaust is Newtoniella, which Iredale has shown must be replaced by Cerithiella, but this latter also merits rejection as previously suggested by the same writer Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 47, p. 455, 1915). Odhner has described a shell (1924, p. 27) as Cerithiopsis trizonalis nov. which is congeneric with Newtoniella stiria Webster; he has supplied a good figure and full details of the apex, which begins with a smooth whorl, then has two more with axial costae, developing spiral keels towards its close. A fifth group is represented by a common Tertiary species, Cerithiella fidicula Suter, which has a very tall, cylindrical, polygyrate, perfectly smooth and glossy embryo. Cerithiopsis aequicincta Suter, another widely-spread Tertiary form, has a rather short, keeled, polygyrate, “Daphnellid” apex, and may be associated with the sarissa group. Finally, the Tasmanian Cerithiopsis apicicostata May

[Footnote] * Suter has described all these species as having a smooth protoconch; this is incorrect, well-preserved specimens showing Daphnellid reticulation on all whorls, the forwardly sloping curved threads stronger.

– 382 –

(Pap. and Proc. Roy. Soc. Tas., p. 64, 1919) represents a group not yet recorded from New Zealand, but of which I have new species; the apex, well figured by its describer, is paucispiral, rather swollen and flattened on top, ornamented all over with quite strong axial ribs; this group may be near crenistria, but the latter has a much larger and more massive shell, different aperture and ornament, and a diverse type of axial ornament on the embryo, the ribs being heavy, wide, and flattish, on a bulbous, almost planorbid, few-whorled apex; as Suter's illustration was drawn from a juvenile and does not well show the canal, I refigure this fine species (Fig. 42) from a specimen, in the Finlay collection, dredged off Otago Heads in 60 fathoms. I propose to designate these groups as follows:—

Specula nov. for C. styliformis Suter.
Alipta nov. " C. crenistria Suter.
Mendax nov. " C. trizonalis Odhner.
Socienna nov. " C. apicicostata May.
Zaclys nov. " C. sarissa Murdoch.
Miopila nov. " C. fidicula Suter.

Of these, the third and fourth are not yet known as fossils, but all the others have known or undescribed Tertiary representatives in “Miocene” and older beds in New Zealand. C. mamilla May and C. turbonilloides Ten.-Woods represent Specula in Tasmanian waters, while C. semilaevis Ten.-Woods and C. dannevigi Hedley can easily be referred to Zaclys.

Genus Seila A. Adams, 1861 [P. 250]

This name seems inapplicable to any of the Neozelanic forms, which, as in Cerithiopsis, fall into several groups, easily defined by apical characters. As the Tertiary species need further study, and some of these are not available to me, I defer full division of the group, and merely propose Notoseila nov. for the common Cerithium terebelloides Hutton (of which the protoconch is “long, cylindrical, of 4 convex and smooth whorls, the nucleus mamillate”) and Hebeseila nov. for S. bulbosa Suter, which has the protoconch “globular, of 1½ smooth whorls, the first bulbose, of greater diameter than the next few whorls.” Notoseila is the only group of Seila that extends throughout our Tertiaries, for here belongs S. attenuissima Marshall and Murdoch (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 52, p. 129, 1920), and there are several new “Miocene” species. The only other fossil species is the late Pliocene S. huttoni Suter (N.Z.G.S. Pal. Bull. No. 3, p. 6, 1915), but this is related to S. chathamensis, and these two may for the present be located in Hebeseila. S. cochleata Suter may be reduced to a synonym of S. chathamensis until the unique type (which appears to be based on a worn and distorted shell) is made available for examination. Fresh Whangaroa specimens, which I take to be practically topotypes of cochleata, do not differ from Chatham Island and Auckland specimens of chathamensis. The latter name has priority, being published in Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 8, p. 37 (April, 1908), while cochleata appeared in Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 40, p. 361 (June, 1908). Seila dissimilis Suter, excellently figured lately by Odhner (1924, Pl. 1, f. 18) stands out from the other species, which have a characteristic uniformity of habit and sculpture, and differ mainly in apical

– 383 –

features; it has faint axial ribs and nodulations, and may be grouped at present near Cerithiopsis styliformis Suter, i.e., in Specula; but here again Suter's type must be examined before one can be quite sure of what he described. A somewhat similar Australian form seems to be Cerithiopsis turbonilloides May. Among other Australian species, Seila albosutura Ten.—Woods seems congeneric with S. terebelloides, while S. halligani Hedley may be located in Hebeseila. Seilarex Iredale (1924, p. 246), type: Seila attenuata Hedley, seems from the description related to Notoseila, but actual specimens differ widely in texture, facies, and features of aperture, and show that no close relation to any of the New Zealand groups exists.

Genus Ataxocerithium Tate, 1894.

Marshall and Murdoch have stated that the fauna of the Castlecliff beds “differs from the Recent fauna only in the presence of Ataxocerithium….”; this distinction has now been removed by Odhner, who has described Cerithium invaricosum from off Moko Hinau Island in 5 fathoms, and this species immediately falls into line with a series of Neozelanic fossil forms. Unfortunately Odhner was not acquainted with these, and was not able to compare his Recent specimen with Pliocene shells; this is to be regretted since topotypes of his shell are identical with the Castlecliffian A. huttoni (Cossmann) (vide Suter, N.Z.G.S. Pal. Bull. No. 2, p. 14, 1914). Odhner's figure and description might well stand for a Castlecliff shell, the apparently more sparse axials being due to the smallness of his specimen.

I have lately treated of the New Zealand members of this genus (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 475, 1924), but the acquisition of further material enables me now to amend one or two erroneous conclusions there. The type of A. pyramidale subsp. robustum Finlay consisted of only some of the apical whorls; curiously enough, in the remaining unsorted material from the same locality the remainder of the shell was discovered, and it now proves to grow into A. quadricingulatum Finlay. The shell is worth full specific rank, and will bear the prior name robustum Finlay. This evidence also seems to warrant the union of the two “Miocene” forms described as pyramidale and nodicingulatum, both of Finlay, the former having priority. Doubt was expressed at the time as to whether one might not be the fully-grown form of the other, and I am now satisfied that it is. There can be little question that a direct lineage is represented here, — pyramidale (= nodicingulatum) [Miocene], robustum (= quadricingulatum) [Pliocene], huttoni (= invaricosum) [Uppermost Pliocene and Recent]. The first species is abnormal in occasionally showing a denticular plait on the middle of the pillar, but it is more usually absent, and in the later members never present; except for this feature these shells appear absolutely congeneric with Cerithium serotinum Adams, the type of Ataxocerithium Tate, and it may be noted that the Australian Tertiary ancestors of this species (e.g. A. concatenatum Tate) also occasionally possessed a rudimentary plait. A. tricingulatum Marwick (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 194, 1924) is probably an offshoot from this lineage.

– 384 –

Ataxocerithium suteri Marwick (l.c., p. 195) has, however, little to do with this series; peculiar in form, and possessing always a strong medial columellar plait, it demands separate recognition, which is given by providing for it alone the name Taxonia nov.; ancestors and descendants have not yet been found.

Genus Batillaria Benson, 1842.

This was introduced into New Zealand Tertiary lists by Harris (Cat. Tert. Moll. B.M., Pt. 1, p. 229, 1897) when he renamed Hutton's Cerithium nodulosum. I now reject it, and note that B. pomahakaensis Harris, Cerithium hectori Harris, and Turritella ornata Hutton, appear to be congeneric, and demand a new genus. This is provided in another paper in this volume.

Zefallacia n. gen.

I propose this for the Tertiary Fastigiella australis Suter (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 51, p. 68, 1919). This species has little affinity with Fastigiella carinala Reeve, an Antillean species, but is a member of a group of species occurring in early and middle Tertiary beds in New Zealand. Suter's records of Nerinea from the Tertiary (cf. N.Z. Geol. Surv. Pal. Bull. No. 8, p. 95; “Nerinea n. sp.” from Chatton) refer to shells of this kind, and several undescribed species are known.

Genus Triphora Blainville, 1828 [P. 254]

That the complex covered by this name is polyphyletic has been admitted for long enough; as in the case of Seila, typical forms do not occur in New Zealand. There are many groups in Australasian Triphorids—and once again study of the apices seems to provide the best divisions—while the Neozelanic members fall into three series, huttoni, lutea, and the rest.

There is a well-marked austral group of Triphorids possessing a polygyrate apex with a sharp median carina crossed by numerous axial threads. T. fasciata Ten.—Woods, granifera Brazier, innotabilis Hedley, tribulationis Hedley, infelix Webster, and fascelina Suter all fall easily into this group, for which I propose Notosimister nov., with T. fascelina Suter as type. Odhner's record (1924, p. 28) of T. tribulationis Hedley, a north Queensland form, in New Zealand waters cannot be accepted. He mentions differences apparent even from the figure, and it is very probable that he was dealing with a fresh example of T. fascelina Suter.

T. huttoni Suter has a smooth several-whorled protoconch with a flattened dome-shaped top, and a strong medial groove on its later whorls; nodular sculpture is obsolete, and the shell has rather the appearance of a reversed “Seila.” It may stand as type of a new genus Teretriphora, and with it may be placed the South Australian and Tasmanian T. gemmigens Verco; Suter states [p. 257] that T. angasi Crosse and T. kesteveni Hedley are also closely allied species.

T. lutea Suter, with which T. obliqua May may perhaps be grouped, has a characteristic apex with a short blunt asymmetrical point and two heavy spiral keels on all its whorls. I name it as type of Cautor nov. Teretriphora and Cautor may in the meantime be regarded as subgenera of Notosinister.

– 385 –

I append a summary of the classification of New Zealand Cerithioids here proposed as follows.*

Fam. Cerithiidae Fleming.

  • Genus Zeacumantus nov. Type: Cerithidea subcarinata Sow.
    • Zeacumantus subcarinatus (Sowerby, 1855).

    • lutulentus (Kiener, 1842).

    • [— perplexus] (Marshall and Murdoch, 1919).

    • [— tirangiensis] (Marwick, 1926).

  • Genus Zebittium nov. Type: Cerithium exilis Hutton.
    • Zebittium exile (Hutton, 1873).

    • vitreum (Suter, 1908).

    • (?) [—marshalli] (Cossmann, 1921) (=minuta Marshall).

  • Genus Specula nov. Type: Cerithiopsis styliformis Suter. Subgen. Specula s. str.
    • Specula styliformis (Suter, 1908).

    • marginata (Suter, 1908).

    • retifera (Suter, 1908).

    • canaliculata (Suter, 1908).

    • (?) — dissimilis (Suter, 1908) (Seila).

    • Subgen. Mendax nov. Type: Cerithiopsis trizonalis Odhner.

    • Specula trizonalis (Odhner, 1924).

    • stiria (Webster, 1906).

    • Subgen. Socienna nov. Type: Cerithiopsis apicicostata May.

    • Specula n. spp. not yet described.

  • Genus Alipta nov. Type: Cerithiopsis crenistria Suter.
    • Alipta crenistria (Suter, 1907).

  • Genus Zaclys nov. Type: Cerithiopsis sarissa Murdoch. Subgen. Zaclys s. str.
    • Zaclys sarissa (Murdoch, 1905).

    • subantarctica (Suter, 1908).

    • acies (Suter, 1908).

    • [— aequicincta] (Suter, 1917).

    • Subgen. Miopila nov. Type: Cerithiella fidicula Suter.

    • [Zaclys fidicula] (Suter, 1917).

    • (?) [— tricincta] (Marshall, 1919).

  • Genus Joculator Hedley. Type: Cerithiopsis ridicula Watson.
    • Joculator diremptus (Odhner, 1924).

  • Genus Notoseila nov. Type: Cerithium terebelloides Hutton.
    • Notoseila terebelloides (Hutton, 1873).

    • (?) [— attenuissima] (Marshall and Murdoch, 1920).

  • Genus Hebeseila nov. Type: Seila bulbosa Suter.
    • Hebeseila bulbosa (Suter, 1908).

    • (?) — chathamensis (Suter, 1908) (= cochleata Suter).

    • (?) [— huttoni] (Suter, 1915).

  • Genus Ataxocerithium Tate. Type: Cerithium serotinum Adams.
    • Ataxocerithium huttoni (Cossmann, 1895) (= invaricosum Odhner).

    • [— robustum] Finlay, 1924 (=quadricingulatum Finlay).

    • [— pyramidale] Finlay, 1924 (=nodicingulatum Finlay).

    • [— tricingulatum] Marwick, 1924.

[Footnote] * Add to this also the new genus Batillona Finlay, proposed elsewhere in this volume for three more New Zealand Tertiary species of this family.

– 386 –
  • Genus Taxonia nov. Type: Ataxocerithium suteri Marwick.
    • Taxonia suteri (Marwick, 1924).

    • Genus Zefallacia nov. Type: Fastigiella australis Suter. Zefallacia australis (Suter, 1919).

Fam. Triphoridae Jousseaume.

  • Genus Notosinister nov. Type: Triphora fascelina Suter.

    • Subgen. Notosinister s. str.

    • Notosinister fascelina (Suter, 1908).

    • infelix (Webster, 1906).

    • (?) [— aoteaensis] (Marshall and Murdoch, 1920).

    • (?) — ampulla (Hedley, 1902) (?).

    • Subgen. Teretriphora nov. Type: Triphora huttoni Suter.

    • Notosinister huttoni (Suter, 1908).

    • Subgen. Cautor nov. Type: Triphora lutea Suter.

    • Notosinister lutea (Suter, 1908).

Incertae sedis: Cerithium inaequicostatum Wilckens (N.Z.G.S. Pal. Bull. No. 9, p. 8, 1922); this Cretaceous species is based on a mere fragment, and might equally well be referred to the Scalidae.

Bittium oamaruticum Bartrum (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 51, p. 96, 1919) belongs to my genus Notacirsa, and the name is therefore invalidated by the prior N. oamarutica (Suter), the genotype; the species, founded on a single worn and broken shell, is too obscure to be worth renaming, and may be allowed to lapse.

Genus Serpulorbis Sasso, 1827 [P. 259]

This is better replaced by Vermicularia Lamarck, 1799, which is used by both Hedley and May for sipho Lamarck and allied forms. Marshall and Murdoch have described the “Miocene” form as Vermicularia ophioides (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 53, p. 80, 1921), and Marwick (l.c., vol. 56, p. 312, 1926) has described a still earlier ancestor as Serpulorbis lornensis.

Genus Siphonium Mörch, 1859 [P. 260]

This genus name is preoccupied by Browne (Hist. Jamaica, ed. 2, p. 396, 1789), and as Stoa is not available for the Neozelanic species, I propose the new genus name Novastoa, naming the Neozelanic species Siphonium lamellosum Hutton as type. The nuclear characters in this family (or families) show well-marked differences, and— when available—provide the best means of classification.

The name “Siphonium planatum Suter” appears in many of Suter's lists of Tertiary fossils, but considerable difficulty was experienced in tracing the name. The place of its introduction is nowhere referred to by Suter, and I had come to the conclusion that it was either a nomen nudum, or a substitute name, on some ground or other, for Hutton's lamellosum, when I dropped across the description of it and another species (which has been totally neglected, see the notes on Trophons, later) in Rec. Cant. Mus., vol. 2, p. 57, 1913. It is a circularly involute adherent-planorbiform species, described from two examples from Kapiti Island; both are now in the Canterbury Museum. The species may be referred temporarily to Vermicularia, and not Novastoa, and all records of it from the “Miocene” would

– 387 –

be better referred to Marshall and Murdoch's V. ophioides, till the group as a whole is revised.

Stephopoma nucleogranosum Verco, 1904 [P. 262].

It is doubtful whether Neozelanic specimens are really identical with South Australian ones; in these variable shells the only safe guide is the apex, and there seem to be a series of these “nucleogranose” and “nucleocostate” forms. There is an Upper Pliocene ancestor to the New Zealand species found in the Castlecliff beds. These shells are not well placed in Stephopoma, the type of which is the Neozolanic rosea Q. & G., so I provide for them the group name Lilax nov., naming S. nucleogranosum Verco as type.

Siliquaria cumingi Moerch, 1860 [P. 263]

Omit this. Suter himself said that he was “inclined to consider the specimen in the Canterbury Museum as a variety of the next species” (weldii Ten.–Woods). I have seen the specimen and concur.

A Tertiary species has been described by Marwick (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 313, 1926) as Siliquaria senex.

Caecum digitulum Hedley, 1904 [P. 265]

Odhner has described a new species (1924, p. 29) from 35 fathoms, Colville Channel, as Caecum suteri, remarking, “This may be the same species as Suter (1913) mentions and (1915) figures under the name of Caecum digitulum Hedley, and which differs from Hedley's type in its less rapid tapering, according to a remark made by Iredale and quoted by Suter (l.c., p. 265).” Odhner seems to have the impression that digitulum is an Australian species, whereas it comes from Lyall Bay. The rapidity of its taper is rather variable, and examination of many topotypes of both Hedley's and Odhner's species shows that the Lyall Bay and Hauraki Gulf forms are the same; Odhner's name will fall as a synonym of digitulum.

Genus Turritella Lamk., 1799 [P. 265]

This is in great confusion, specifically as regards the fossils, and generically as regards all the New Zealand representatives. Suter's descriptions of the Recent species contain many errors, especially concerning the apices and comparisons with exotic forms; his note on T. tasmanica Reeve (in the remarks on T. fulminata Hutton) has been corrected by Iredale (1924, p. 250). The latter writer has recently separated several genera for the Australian species, but many other groups can be distinguished. The austral genera at present recognised are as follows:—

Colpospira Donald, 1900; for T. runcinata Watson (= accisa Watson). Includes sinuata Reeve, cordismei Watson (which Iredale says is either the southern stage of sinuata, or identical with runcinata), and the Balcombian platyspira Ten.—Woods. Closely allied to these in style of apex and sinus, but uniformly differing in general facies (unpolished, more solid test, with perfectly straight instead of lightly concave spire), more rugged sculpture, tending to develop three strong keels (the middle one weakest and frequently slightly beaded), and deeply-cut suture, is a mostly Eocene group containing the Australian aldingae Tate (which Suter at one time identified from

– 388 –

New Zealand, but which Marwick has rejected) (Rep. Austr. Assoc. Adv. Sci., vol. 16, p. 328, 1924), conspicabilis Tate, tristira Tate, and the New Zealand rudis Marshall (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 51, p. 227, 1919) waihaoensis Marwick (Rep. Austr. Assoc. Adv. Sci., vol. 16, p. 328, 1924), and tophina Marwick (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 313, 1926). For these is proposed the new genus Spirocolpus, with T. waihaoensis Marw. as type. The Australian shells have a slightly different appearance from the New Zealand forms here placed, and may later require separation.

Platycolpus Donald, 1900; for T. quadrata Donald. Includes Colpospira guillaumei Iredale. The latter author was at first of the opinion that Platycolpus merited only subgeneric status under Colpospira (1924, p. 247), but later ranked it as a genus (1925, p. 266). This is quite necessary, the protoconch and build of shell differing altogether from Colpospira, the deep sinus and rather weak sculpture being the only points in common.

Ctenocolpus Iredale, 1925; for T. australis Lamk. Includes the varietal form C. australis diffidens Iredale (1925, p. 267), and the fossil T. pagodula Tate, and T. warburtoni Tate. The latter superficially resembles some beaded specimens of Spirocolpus rudis (Marshall), but the essential details of apex and sinus place them in different groups.

Gazameda Iredale, 1924; for T. gunnii Reeve. Includes tasmanica Reeve (= subsquamosa Dkr.), while clathrata Kiener (see nomenclatural note elsewhere in this volume) and the fossil acricula Tate are, from the apical features, more or less closely allied, though representing diverse styles of sculpture and development. The group is quite peculiar in the large, obtuse, glossy, and almost Scaphelloid protoconch, as also, as Iredale notes, in viviparous habits. Iredale mentions that fossils labelled T. murrayana Tate showed lamellose sculpture as in the oxyacris form of tasmanica (1924, p. 250), but his specimens were evidently wrongly labelled, for murrayana shows no features of resemblance to Gazameda. This sublamellose ornament is occasionally seen also in the New Zealand T. abscisa Suter, but here again the affinity is purely superficial.

Glyptozaria Iredale, 1924; for T. opulenta Hedley. Includes the Balcombian T. transenna Ten.—Woods; widely different in facies from all the foregoing groups

Not a single New Zealand shell can be easily referred to any of the Australian genera, and it is necessary to create new names for the three main groups into which they fall. The largest group is typified by T. vittata Hutton, 1873 (= carlottae Watson), which may be named as type of a new genus Zeacolpus. With it can be associated the Recent T. fulminata Hutton and pagoda Reeve (which, though constant in habit, are both recognisably bathymetric or regional forms of vittata), and the Tertiary lornensis Marwick (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 313, 1926), albolapis Finlay (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 16, p. 101, 1924; new name for concava Hutton, preoccupied), abscisa Suter, perhaps semiconcava Suter, and many new species. Zeacolpus has a rather flattened apex of about one whorl, often developing a keel towards the end; the sculpture starts with two strong cords on the lower half, the upper stronger; two subequal

– 389 –

finer cords are soon developed above them, and there is a tendency for one or two of the spirals to become keels on later whorls; spire outline interrupted posteriorly by deep sutures, much less so anteriorly.

Also with a paucispiral apex, but with a different type of sculpture is Stiracolpus new genus, proposed for T. symmetrica Hutton, 1873; with which may be grouped the Recent chordata Suter (probably only a freak variant of the type species), and the fossil waikopiroensis Suter (N.Z.G.S. Pal. Bull. No. 5, p. 8, 1917), kanieriensis Harris (Cat. Tert. Moll. B.M., Pt. 1, p. 241, 1897), and possibly the Australian Recent T. godeffroyana Donald, atkinsoni Tate and May, and smithiana Donald; many new Tertiary species are known to me. The apex of this group is one-whorled, without a keel, the sculpture starting with three subequal spirals, the median quickly becoming a little stronger; these three cords usually remain far the strongest, with not many interstitial riblets; the older Tertiary species have the lower two cords close and distant from the upper one, the later species tend to have the cords equally distributed.

The third group is represented by the common T. rosea Q. & G., which may be put forward as type of a new genus Maoricolpus; under this may also be ranged the Tertiary cavershamensis Harris (1897, p. 242) and many new species, and the Australian Tertiary T. murrayana Tate. The protoconch is polygyrate, papillate, and apparently sinusigeroid, the three to four tiny whorls being of distinctly smaller diameter than the following shell whorls, and thus noticeably projecting from them; the initial sculpture is of three ribs, the median strongest, the uppermost weakest; fine threads are intercalated on later whorls, which are relatively narrower between sutures than in the other groups, and tend to be concave; spire outlines straight, sutures very inconspicuous at all stages. T. difficilis Suter, I have noted elsewhere in this volume as preoccupied, but apparently inseparable from rosea.

The Cretaceous Turritella solitaria Wilck. (N.Z.G.S. Pal. Bull. No. 9, p. 35, 1922) cannot yet be located; its apex is unknown.

Turritella carlottae Watson, 1881 [P. 266]

Odhner (1924, p. 30) has correctly resumed the use of Hutton's specific name vittata for this species; Murdoch and Suter (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 38, p. 292, 1906) dropped the name on account of supposed preoccupation by Lamarck, but that was an error, as has already been pointed out by E. A. Smith (Brit. Antarc. “Terra Nova” Exped., vol. 2, No. 4, p. 80, 1915), who also records that the species grows to a length of 85 mm.

Mathilda neozelanica Suter, 1908 [P. 273]

Suter has compared this species with the Australian M. decorata Hedley, but commented on the difference in apex. The resemblance between the two shells is curious but entirely superficial, decorata having a smooth bulbous embryo, abruptly set at right angles to the shell, while neozelanica has a heavily spirally keeled protoconch, marked off by a slight varix, but otherwise in the plane of the whorls, only the tip being slightly immersed (Suter's figure much exaggerates this feature). An exactly similar type of apex, differing only in

– 390 –

more numerous keels is shown by Aclis succincta [p. 327], described by Suter in the same year but not recognized as a near relation. In the absence of soft parts and operculum, it is difficult to know where to locate these shells, but the new genus Brookesena here proposed for them (with M. neozelanica Suter as type) may be provisionally located in Rissoidae, near Lironoba. The genus is named after A. E. Brookes of Matamata, a well-known conchologist.

Family Struthiolariidae Fischer [P. 273]

Dr. Marwick has recently published (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 161–190, 1924) a comprehensive monograph of “The Struthiolariidae,” this family being represented by 28 Neozelanic species in the Tertiary and Recent faunas. Since then, three further Tertiary species have been described: S. prior Finlay (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 228, 1926), S. nana, and S. praenuntia Marwick (l.c., p. 318). Marwick creates one new genus, Monalaria (p. 163), for Struthiolaria tuberculata concinna Suter; this is entirely a very early Tertiary group, of few species. Apart from this, all the New Zealand forms are included in Struthiolaria (Strutkiolariopsis similis Wilckens, 1922, p. 17, a Cretaceous form, is shown to be not referable to the family), three groups being outlined but not named. They should have been, however; one of them at all events is quite distinct, for the following reasons: Marwick figures the curious apex of Struthiolaria vermis Mart. (p. 163), and remarks, “Well preserved examples of the Recent and Pliocene S. papulosa and S. vermis show, in most cases, a small, almost planorbid apex of one or two smooth volutions. This has always been considered as the protoconch; but a surprising condition was revealed by some specimens of S. vermis from the Wanganuian Pliocene. In these the protoconch is a smooth, bulbous, capuliform structure, with its long axis at right angles to that of the shell. That this is the true protoconch is shown by the appearance of the same feature on specimens of S. convexa n.sp…. In withdrawing from the embryonic shell, the animal constructs numerous septa, so that, the hollow bulb being easily broken off, a planorbid apex is the result. It is probable that this type of protoconch prevails throughout the genus, for the smooth planorbid tip, generally seen in all well-preserved shells, is followed by a convex striated conch-whorl similar to that following the deviated protoconch of the examples cited above.” Later (p. 167), he figures the apex of S. papulosa Mart., and examination of any perfect specimen will show that this small, glossy, planorbid embryo is certainly the true apex, and has not resulted from fracture. That the apex of S. convexa Marwick resembles that of S. vermis Mart., is to be expected, as both species belong to the same lineage. The protoconch of S. subspinosa Marwick, on the other hand, is identical with that of its lineal descendant, S. papulosa. This difference in the embryos is the best and surest evidence of the presence in New Zealand Tertiary beds of two radically different though superficially similar stocks of Struthiolaria*

[Footnote] * In a later publication (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 266, 1926) Marwick has himself made the statement, “The shape of the nucleus is a valuable guide in grouping related shells,” and has adopted this as a principle in classifying the Volutes.

– 391 –

(comparison of the radulae of the two Recent species would be very interesting, and one may predict that it would but confirm the separation here made on apical features). Dr. Marwick has noted them as different groups, but, misinterpreting the observed embryonic differences, was not able to separate them with certainty from shell features alone. But I would now recognise them as distinct genera, so that Pelicaria Gray, 1857 (Guide Syst. Distrib. Moll. B.M., p. 97) (type: S. vernis (sic) = Buccinum vermis Mart., vide Marwick, p. 170) returns to use as a generic name for the vermis lineage; forms of this group which converge towards Struthiolaria s. str. in shell formation are placeable easily and with certainty if the apex is examined. For the Struthiolaria callosa Marwick group I now provide the new subgenus Callusaria; it is probably not so distinct as the vermis line is from Struthiolaria s.str., but the four species included by Marwick form a rather compact assemblage, for which a group name is desirable.

Xenophora corrugata (Reeve, 1842) [P. 278]

In this case Suter's name of X. neozelanica must be used, as Reeve's species is quite distinct. The misunderstanding arose through the extreme range given to Reeve's shell, “Indian Ocean, Japan, etc.” Mr. Iredale informs me that when the type of Reeve's species is examined, the Neozelanic shell is easily separable, and when Hedley suggested their identity, he referred only to Fischer's conception of Reeve's species.

The generic name must be Onustus Humphrey, as maintained by Moerch many years ago, the description and bibliographical reference enabling the exact recognition of Humphrey's genus.

I have described an early Tertiary ancestor to the Recent species (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 228, 1926) as Onustus prognatus, showing that the neozelanica style of shell has lived in this locality for a long time.

Fam. Hipponicidae Fischer [P. 281]

The three species recorded from New Zealand, Hipponyx hexagonus Suter, Pilaeopsis radiatus Hutton, and H. antiquatus Linné have been discussed by Powell in a “Review of the Recent and Fossil New Zealand Species ascribed to Hipponyx” (N.Z. Journ. Sci. and Tech., vol. 6, nos. 5 & 6, p. 282, 1924) and by Finlay (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 16, pt. 2, p. 100, 1924) with the result that the Recent form disappears as a synonym of Gadinia nivea Hutton (q.v.), while, of the fossil shells, radiatus proves to be a Crepidula, its name being an available substitute for the indeterminable C. striata (Hutton), and antiquatus is rejected, the sole record for the family being now Hipponyx species from Kaawa Creek.

Fam. Calyptraeidae Broderip [P. 282]

Smith (Brit. Antarc. “Tera Nova” Exped., vol. 2, no. 4, p. 83, 1915) has recorded the Australian calyptraeformis from New Zealand, but Peile, from examination of the radula, has distinguished the New Zealand shell as a new species, terraenovae (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 16, pt. 1, p. 21, 1924). This species is common in the Cookian Province in depths of from 20–60 fathoms, where it seems to replace

– 392 –

S. novaezelandiae. In Peile's description, differential features were based mainly on the radula and he did not stress the chief conchological characters; in consequence his shell is not readily recognisable to those who have not abundant material. Terraenovae is easily distinguished from novaezelandiae by the absence of an open umbilicus, only a mere chink being present; its shell is more circular and has a less excentric nucleus, but it is proved to be a Sigapatella by the spiral grooves at the close of the protoconch. Peile does not mention the spiral ornament; this is not always present in either species, but when it is it serves as a ready means of identification; novaezelandiae has four coarse irregular low spiral cords (interstices about as wide), while terraenovae has numerous flat ribs (with sublinear grooves between) descending more or less rapidly to the margins. Since Peile did not illustrate his shell, figures are here appended of a specimen in the Finlay collection from 40 fathoms near Cuvier Island (Figs. 1, 2). The species does not occur in other provinces, tenuis and novaezelandiae occurring down to 60 fathoms in Forsterian localities from which dredgings have been seen.

Very distinct Tertiary members of Sigapatella are Calyptraea maccoyi Suter (N.Z. Geol. Surv. Pal. Bull. No. 5, p. 9, 1917), and its direct ancestor C. vertex Marwick (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 314, 1926); these also have peculiar radial ornament. Calyptraea solitaria Wilckens (N.Z.G.S. Pal. Bull. No. 9, p. 6, 1922) possibly belongs to Sigapatella, but this Cretaceous species is worthless, being known to science by one internal cast.

It is probable that there are many forms of the “scutum” series, for Smith separated the Australian shells from the Neozelanic ones, calling the former hedleyi, the latter being tenuis Gray. Though never explicitly stated, the types of Smith's hedleyi were South Australian shells sent by Verco (information from T. Iredale). Shells of this style, tentatively named hedleyi, from Twofold Bay, are much higher than Verco's specimens. The radulae of these shells and the radula of the Neozelanic tenuis differ from that of the Sigapatella series. The central tooth approaches much more closely to that of chinensis Linné, the type of Calyptraea Lamarck, 1799 (a name which must give way to Galerus Humphrey of the Museum Calonnianum, p. 5, 1797, founded on the same type), and the shells are conchologically easily separable, so that for this group I propose Zegalerus nov., naming Clypeola tenuis Gray 1867 as type.

Here, too, may be located in the meantime Calyptraea alta (Hutton) (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 17, p. 329, 1885), based on a Pliocene fossil. This still lives as a Recent form in the Chatham Islands, but the Cape Maria van Diemen shells referred here are distinct. Hutton described the species as Trochita alta, but Conrad had, thirty years previously, employed the same name (Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad., p. 259, pl. 15, fig. 3, Jan. 1855, where a reference is given to Waile's Geol. Miss., p. 287, pl. 15, fig. 3, a, b, 1854, which has not been seen). I have to thank Mr. Iredale for these references, and I now provide for the Petane species originally described by Hutton the new name Zegalerus crater. As a species, this is not always readily separable from tenuis Gray; adults are easily distinguished by their much larger size and tall conical form, but juveniles of the two forms are

– 393 –

often deceptively alike. Careful serutiny, however, always allows of separation, for crater has a much more solid shell of very coarse texture, the sides are almost straight, the whorls being more concealed than in tenuis, the growth lines appear from above rather as concentric circles than as logarithmic spirals, there is generally no tendency for the last whorl to flatten out (as is almost always the case in tenuis), and there is no hollow axis. The last feature, which is so conspicuous in true tenuis, is perhaps the safest for quick separation. Even young shells of crater can be distinguished from tenuis by the character and set of the embryonic whorls, which project laterally and obliquely, and have the inner whorl somewhat inrolled and hidden by the outer; the protoconch of tenuis rises in a more regular spiral, and juts more vertically, the inner whorl generally rising above the outer and not at all obscured by it. E. A. Smith's figures of Gray's type of tenuis (Brit. Antarct. “Terra Nova” Exped., Moll., pt. 1; pl. 1, figs. 20–22, 1915) are a little puzzling, the side-view showing a shell quite like crater, though the internal aspect is that of what I am taking for tenuis; however, the actual size given shows that the type was a juvenile shell, and such are sometimes found with considerable altitude. The whole of Smith's descriptions and comparisons apply to the common South Island littoral and deep-water shell rather than to the very rare Moriorian and Pliocene crater.

Genus Crepidula Lamarck, 1799 [P. 286]

This genus name is later than, and exactly equivalent to, Crypta of the Museum Calonnianum, p. 4, 1797, both being based on the American Patella fornicata L. It is almost certain that the radula will show good differences in Crepidulid shells, but the Neozelanic group centering in costata Sow. is a very peculiar one, being confined to New Zealand, and having many fossil antecedent forms in the same country. Curiously enough, Suter mentioned as equivalent aculeata Gmelin, which is at present given a world-wide range, showing very little variation; it, however, has a notched septum, and otherwise differs considerably. In view of these facts I propose to erect a new genus Maoricrypta, naming C. costata Sow. as type

Another group is represented by the series of slipper limpets that live inside dead shells; this is an extremely interesting one and needs detailed study. Whereas the apex in the costata series is smooth and glossy, passing directly into the crude corrugations of the adult sculpture, the monoxyla line has developed an intervening brephic stage which forms a large slightly raised ellipsoidal cap (with the flatly-coiled smooth embryo at one of the foci), ornamented all over with fine threads radiating from the embryo. The “Miocene” ancestor of monoxyla has the same feature, only the threads are fewer and wider; this stage has evidently developed long since, and never appears in the costate forms; I therefore emphasize the distinction of the parasitic group by providing Zeacrypta nov. for monoxyla Lesson at present allowing it subgeneric rank under Maoricrypta. The reference of the high, nonparasitic forms to monoxyla is doubtful; they seem quite distinct specifically, possibly generically, and may indeed be degenerate forms of Maoricrypta.

– 394 –

One may recommend investigation of this problem and I suggest that only the flattened parasitic forms are true Zeacrypta monoxyla.

Maoricrypta has numerous fossil members, haliotoidea Marwick (Trans. N.Z. Inst, vol. 56, p. 318, 1926), radiata Hutton (see note on Hipponyx), densistriata Suter (N.Z.G.S. Pal. Bull. No. 5, p. 10, 1917), wilckensi Finlay (= incurva Zittel, preoccupied) (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 16, p. 101, 1924), and hochstetteriana Wilckens (N.Z.G.S. Pal. Bull. No. 9, p. 5, 1922), may all be cited in this connection; the last named carries the line back to the Upper Senonian.

Genus Natica Scopoli, 1777 [P. 288]

None of the known Neozelanic members of the family fall into the genus Natica, which has a spirally multisulcate calcareous operculum.

Natica australis Hutton was proposed as a Lunatia, and is now referred to Bolten's genus Cochlis, so that a new name is not necessary, unless there be another species australis in Cochlis, or another L. australis be unearthed. At present my substitute, Natica maoria (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 16, pt. 2, p. 101, 1924), cannot be used, and the species name will revert to australis (Hutton).

Natica zelandica Q. and G. is also to be referred to the genus Cochlis. Dr. Marwick has published an account of the Tertiary and Recent Naticidae and Naricidae of New Zealand (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, pp. 545–579, 1924), and makes no mention of Cochlis, but till more is known of the opercula of the fossil species, all his species of Natica would be better classed as Cochlis.* In that paper he has added two species to the Recent fauna, Natica denticulifera Marwick (p. 552) (from unknown locality, type from the Pliocene), and Uber (Euspira) barrierensis Marwick (p. 571) (from off Great Barrier Island, 110 fathoms, while he places Suter's two species of Ampullina—undulata (Hutton) (see nomenclatural note and new substitute name elsewhere this volume) and venusta (Suter)—in his new genus Globisinum, proposed for Sigaretus (?) drewi Murdoch (pp. 575, 576). To the species included here by Marwick must be added G. crassiliratum Finlay (Trans. N.Z. Inst. vol. 56, p. 230, 1926). The other new group names proposed by Marwick in this account are:— Carinacca (for Ampullina waihaoensis Suter), Magnatica (for Polinices planispirus Suter), and Sulconacca (for S. vaughani Marwick; see note under Ampullina apora, below); the genotypes of these three groups are all lower Tertiary shells. Besides these, the genera Neverita Risso and Amauropsella Chelot are added to the Tertiary fauna. I have since then added three further Tertiary species of Magnatica (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, pp. 228, 229, 1926) and proposed a new subgenus Spelaenacca for one of them (M. altior).

Powell has (elsewhere in this volume) added still another Recent species of Cochlis (from Whangaroa) to the New Zealand fauna.

[Footnote] * Since the above was written, I have recovered from two fossil species, N. praeconsors Finlay and N. notocenica Finlay, opercula of the true Cochlis style.

– 395 –

Genus Polinices Montfort, 1810 [P. 290]

This has been displaced by Uber Humphrey. 1797, of the Museum Calonnianum, in a recent study of the group by Hedley (Rec. Austr. Mus., vol. 14, No. 3, p. 154, 1924). The species Lunatia vitrea Hutton is very probably distinct from Watson's Natica amphiala, the location and station being widely separated; this is discussed by Marwick (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 570, 1924) and the usage of vitreus Hutton may, at all events, be recommended for Forsterian shells. Marwick has used Uber, but seems to be dubious that the distinction between the horny and shelly operculate groups is definite. Study of the radulae of the Recent species shows valid differences.

One further Tertiary species of Uber has to be added to Marwick's list, Uber laxus Finlay (l.c., vol. 56, p. 229, 1926), while Wilckens (1922, pp. 6, 7) has described two Cretaceous forms selwyniana and ingrata.

Ampullina apora (Watson, 1881). [P. 293]

The Neozelanic shell referred to this Aru Island species of Watson may be a species of Friginatica. That genus has been recorded (in the form of F. pisum Hedley) from Macquarie Island (Hedley, 1916, p. 52), but Hedley's species does not, from the figure, seem congeneric with his genotype; a true fossil member is, however, known in Lunatia suturalis Hutton (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 9, p. 597, 1877). Marwick has proposed a new genus Sulconacca for S. vaughani Marwick, a close relative of this species, so that Sulconacca appears to be an absolute synonym of Friginatica. The characters on which Sulconacca was founded are all present in Friginatica, while the Australian Tertiary F. polita Ten.-Woods (P.R.S. Tas. for 1875, p. 23) is with difficulty separable even as a species from S. vaughani Marwick, * and (according to Hedley, 1916, p. 51) even from the genotype of Friginatica, N. beddomei Johnston (Proc. Roy. Soc. Tas. for 1884, p. 222).

The “Family Naricidae” used by Marwick must give way to Merriidae, while reference to the early Tertiary European Micreschara and its section Macromphalina would be obviated by the use of Hedley's Naricava (P.L.S.N.S.W., vol. 38, p. 294, 1913), proposed for Adeorbis angasi A. Ad., to which Micreschara huttoni Marwick is very similar even specifically.

Genus Lamellaria Montagu, 1815. [P. 293]

To L. cerebroides Hutton and L. ophione Gray must now be added Lamellaria verrucosa Odhner (1924, p. 31), described from Auckland Island.

Genus Trichotropis Broderip and Sowerby, 1829. [P. 296]

This genus is based on an Arctic species with only a vague resemblance to the Neozelanic species, which Hedley suggested might be referred to Sirius, but a new genus would meet the case better, S. badius T.-W., the type of Sirius, being a much smaller shell, with different style of ornament and aperture. I therefore propose the new generic name Trichosirius, naming Trichotropis inornata Hutton as type.

[Footnote] * Dr. Marwick, having seen specimens, concurs in this view.

– 396 –

Iredale has indicated (1924, p. 251) that if the grouping be continued the family name must be Lippistidae on the score of priority, and he has also pointed out the confusion existing in connection with the species and specific names of Lippistes. The South African type has a similar appearance to the Neozelanic shell, but agrees less with the intervening Australian series. As Tertiary forms related to the Neozelanic type have been found within late years (L. perornatus Marshall and Murdoch, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 54, p. 121, 1923; and L. pehuensis Marwick, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 319, 1926), there is probably only indirect relationship between the several Recent stocks, which perhaps sprang from a common ancestral dweller on the shores of Gondwanaland. One may, therefore, introduce a new generic name Zelippistes, naming Separatista benhami Suter as type.

Genus Recluzia Petit, 1863.

Powell has added this to the New Zealand fauna by recording Recluzia lutea (Bennett) from Great Barrier Island (N.Z. Journ. Sci. and Tech., vol. nos. 5 and 6, p. 285, 1924).

Trivia australis (Lamarck, 1822). [P. 301]

Iredale has pointed out that the Lamarckian name is preoccupied and no substitutes are available, and has therefore described the Australian shell as a new species under the name Triviella merces (1924, p. 257). Upon examination it is found that Neozelanic specimens differ, so also require description as a distinct form.

Triviella memorata n. sp. (Fig. 73.)

Shell globose and inflated, high but not elongate. Milk white, with two central large red-brown patches meeting across dorsal groove, a small anterior and one or two posterior patches, ends of outer lip same colour. Whole surface with weak transverse ribs, meeting at a more or less faint dorsal groove, continued everywhere into interior except for a small smooth space at anterior canal. Sides curved, not even approximately parallel. Outer lip not much projecting beyond spire. Other details as in T. merces Iredale.

Length, 13.5 mm.; height, 8.5 mm.; width, 9.5 mm.

Locality,—Ahipara Bay, near Auckland.

Close to T. merces (a Sydney specimen of which is here figured for comparison—Fig. 74), but shorter, higher, and more globose, with larger colour-patches, and less produced outer lip. Not very close to any of the three Tertiary Neozelanic species, zelandica Kirk (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 14, p. 409, 1882), pinguior Marwick (l.c., vol. 56, p. 314, 1920), or “avellanoides Tate” (vide Marshall, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 49, p. 461, 1917); the latter is of the same generic style, but the two former would be better referred at present to Trivia.

Genus Erato Risso, 1826.

Although living species are known from Australia and most other parts of the world, this genus is not yet represented in the Recent Neozelanic fauna, the nearest occurrence being E. lachryma Gray, recorded by Iredale from the Kermadecs (Proc. Mal., Soc., vol. 9, p. 71, 1910). A Tertiary species, however, E. neozelanica Suter (N.Z.

– 397 –

G.S. Pal. Bull. No. 5, p. 12, 1917), has been known for some time, and has recently been redescribed and figured by Murdoch (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 160, 1924). To this have now to be added several further species described lately: antiqua Marshall (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol., 51, p. 227, 1919), vulcania Marwick (l.c., vol. 56, p. 314, 1926), and senectus Murdoch (l.c., vol. 55, p. 160, 1924). The curious plaits running over the anterior part of the outer lip on to the base in the last-named species are evidently a specific character, as I have another specimen from Target Gully agreeing exactly in this respect with the previously unique type.

Family Septidae. [P. 302]

This name was amended to Cymatiidac by Iredale in his “Commentary,” and some notes given on the classification of the group. Some further corrections may now be made in the species and group names.

Septa tritonis (Linné, 1758). [P. 304]

This is a very doubtful member of the fauna, and shells so called should be critically examined and compared with typical specimens. Smith (Brit. Antarct. Exped., Moll., pt. 1, p. 84, 1915) has pointed out that a perfect apex dredged in 11–20 f. near North Cape differed in detail from that of true tritonis.

Septa rubicunda Perry, 1811 [P. 303]

Iredale advised the use of Charonia lampas (Linné, 1758), but informs me that, as in other cases of lumping, he has been compelled by study of more material to alter his decision. “When series of shells are studied, the variation is seen to be geographical as well as individual, and consequentl races (or species) can be really determined. Thus, a dozen South African shells showed features of nodulation which differed from that seen in Australian specimens, though both series varied inter se. The few Kermadec specimens differ from a series of New South Wales shells, and the Neozelanic form is easily separable.” (T. Iredale, in litt.)

I have recorded an Australian form, euclia Hedley, from off the Neozelanic coast (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 462, 1924, but this proves different again, so that these Neozelanic forms are now described as new.

Charonia capax n. sp. (Fig. 67.)

Shell large and wide, with capacious aperture. Apex lost. Two strongly-noduled, broad spiral cords per whorl (9–10 nodules per whorl), and many variable narrow flattish riblets (interstices wider on shoulder, sublinear below); body-whorl with about nine strong cords, all with faint nodulation, 2–3 narrower weaker cords in interstices, canal with 10–12 cords. Colour pure white, with pale yellowbrown maculations on main cords, parts of shell suffused with a pinkish-brown tinge; inside of outer lip and lower part of columella glossy, greyish-brown, with occasional pale reddish-brown bars. Varices, about 150° apart, low, flattened, with little difference in level on either side. Spire a little shorter than aperture, sides straight; whorls with a submedian shoulder (slope about 45°, thence vertical);

– 398 –

sutures distinct, irregular but not undulating. Body-whorl considerably inflated, with an expanded outer lip which is thin and sharp, only slowly thickened inside, curving regularly, the wide and short canal hardly protruding beyond it. Pillar placed much to the left, considerably angularly excavated above the three or four weak basal plaits. A rather weak parietal tubercle distant from outer lip.

Height, 165 mm.; diameter, 90 mm.

Locality, off Otago Heads, in 20 fathoms.

Differs considerably from the Australian rubicunda in colour, higher shoulder, weaker and more numerous nodules, more excavated and sloping pillar, shorter and wider canal, much weaker parietal tubercle, expanded and regularly curved outer lip, not angled at shoulder, absence of teeth and chocolate-brown bars inside lip, and altogether larger and more inflated body-whorl.

Subsp. euclioides nov. (Fig. 68.)

In colour and general arrangement of sculpture similar to the species, but the whole ornament stronger; the nodules are smaller, higher, and more pronounced on all whorls, especially those on lower cord; cords on shoulder very much narrower, interstices 4–5 times as wide. Shell much thinner and taller, spire considerably higher than aperture, which is rather compressed, the outer lip (though broken) much less expanded. Parietal plait much stronger.

Height, 210 mm.; diameter, 90 mm.

Locality, off Otago Heads, in 40 fathoms.

Very similar to euclia Hedley, and recorded by me as such, but apparently of different colour, and with a taller, more compressed aperture and more excavated pillar; also it is evidently a derivative of capax nov., which differs considerably from the forms out of which euclia has sprung.

Cymatium parthenopeum (von Salis, 1790). [P. 305]

New Zealand specimens have a longer canal, a different outer lip, and a considerably smaller aperture than Australian shells, so that the use of Hutton's name Triton acclivis (Cat. Mar. Moll., p. 13; plate fig. 8, 1873) may be counselled.

Cymatium exaratum (Reeve, 1844) and Austrotriton parkinsonianum (Perry, 1811). [pp. 306, 307]

Lack of comparative material at the present time prevents criticism of these species and their New Zealand records, though it may be noted that Powell has lately re-recorded them both (N.Z. Journ. Sci. and Tech., vol. 6, nos. 5 and 6, p. 286, 1924). I present figures of actual New Zealand shells (exaratum, Figs. 83, 84; parkinsonianum, Fig. 85), but the few specimens I have seen do not show satisfactory differential characters from Australian shells, so that these two species may stand in the meantime. They and Cymatium acclive (Hutton) seem to be geologically quite recent immigrants to the New Zealand region; a species of Austrotriton (maorium Finlay) is common in the “Miocene,” but the genus seems quite absent in the Pliocene. For a discussion of the New Zealand fossil species and

– 399 –

their relationships, with keys to genera and species, see Finlay, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, pp. 453–465, 1924.

Argobuccinum argus (Gmelin, 1791). [P. 309]

Argobuccinum is not valid at the place quoted by Suter, viz., Hermannsen, 1846, but dates only from Moerch, Cat. Conch. Yoldi, 1852, where it exactly equals Priene H. & A. Adams, 1858 (Gen. Rec. Moll., vol. 2, p. 654), which name it must replace. I therefore propose the new name Gondwanula, naming Ranella tumida Dunker as type. The existing members of this group seem to be confined to shores of the continents that once formed “Gondwanaland,” and the stock would thus seem to be of very early origin and South Tethyan distribution.

I have elsewhere added Priene retiolum Hedley to the Neozelanic fauna (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 462, 1924). The generic location of retiolum is in Fusitriton Cossmann, and the Neozelanic shell requires a new specific name. A beautiful specimen has lately been obtained from off Otago Heads in 40 fathoms, and since this permits of more accurate comparison than was possible with the fragment recorded from Taieri Beach, and proves to be distinct, it is now described.

Fusitriton laudandum n. sp. (Fig. 65.)

Shell large, fusiform, thin and light. Colour whitish, marked with double yellow-brown bands on the spire-whorls. Apex lost. Sutures deep, spire a little higher than aperture and canal. Varices very weak and low, irregular, two or more to a whorl. Whole surface reticulated, four more-prominent double spiral cords per whorl, and about 19 axials, interstices about three times as wide in each case, so that there are square meshes with double nodules at each corner over the whole shell except base, axials rather abruptly fading out just below periphery; 16 spirals and 27 axials on last whorl. Aperture ovately pyriform, outer lip with a stronger varix than elsewhere, simple within; a channel posteriorly between outer lip and a low thick parietal plait; anteriorly a fairly long, straight, sloping canal. Inner lip smooth, distinctly limited. Pillar with a low blunt ridge at its base, above which it is deeply excavated.

Height, 100 mm.; diameter, 46 mm.

Locality,—Off Otago Heads in 40 fathoms.

The shell is smaller and the sculpture coarser than in F. retiolum (Hedley), which has 35 radials and 22 spirals on the last whorl of a shell measuring 130 mm. by 60 mm.

With this shell were dredged several living and very large specimens of Gondwanula tumida (Dkr.), the largest measuring 130 by 79 mm.; the maximum size given by Suter is 103 by 62 mm.

Argobuccinum australasia (Perry, 1811). [P. 310]

For this species Iredale has proposed the genus Mayena, and an investigation of the forms would yield much of interest. There appears to be variation associated with geographical distribution, but this is somewhat masked by individual variation. From southern Australia specimens with two rows of nodules on the last whorl are

– 400 –

commonly met with, the majority of the Sydney shells show only one obsolete row, while from Norfolk Island a large shell with numerous nodules has been seen. As the New Zealand shell appears to differ also, having a subobsolete lower keel, and many nodules on the peripheral keel (about 9 between varices in specimen figured), I supply the name Mayena zelandica for the shell from Tauranga (in the Finlay collection) here figured (Fig. 66); a general diagnosis of the species is given by Suter under Argobuccinum australasia. The dimensions of the figured type are 90 mm. by 52 mm.

In treating of the New Zealand fossil Cymatiidae, I noted the distinctness of one of the groups (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 458, 1924), and I now refer C. kaiparaense Finlay and C. sculpturatum Finlay to Mayena; these specimens were compared with the Australian fossil Triton intercostale Tate, and this species is also a Mayena. Two others (revolutum Finlay and transennum Sut.) that were included in this group now turn out to belong, as I suggested, to Semitriton; the former has been described and figured also by Marwick (l.c., vol. 56, p. 315, 1926). My octoserratum (loc. cit., p. 459), which I compared with quoyi and its congeners, will be referable to Cymatiella Iredale (1924, p. 253).

Phalium labiatum (Perry, 1811). [P. 312]

Iredale is reviewing the Australian species of this group in a paper to appear shortly in the Records of the Australian Museum. As he is incorporating there some remarks on New Zealand forms I have sent him, and describing some as new species, a revision must be postponed until his paper has appeared. Mention need be made only of the new genus Euspinacassis Finlay (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 230, 1926) created for three Tertiary New Zealand shells—E. pollens Finlay (l.c.), Phalium grangei Marwick (l.c., p. 319), and Cassis muricata Hector (vide Suter, N.Z.G.S. Pal. Bull. No. 3, p. 12, 1915)—somewhat resembling Echinophoria Sacco. In a recent paper on the “Cassididae of Western America” by Schenck (Bull. Depart. Geol. Sci., vol. 16, No. 4, p. 72, 1926), Echinophoria (with type Cassis intermedia Brocchi) is placed as a section of Bezoardica with the definition, “Callus nearly smooth; nodosities almost covering whorl.” Euspinacassis has a ridged callus, and appears, as one would expect, genetically related to the austral Casmaria (pyrum Lk., etc.) rather than to areola Gm., the type of Bezoardica.

Tonna variegata (Lamarck, 1822). [P. 314]

Hedley has separated New Zealand shells from the Australian variegata Lamk., and supplied for them the name Tonna haurakiensis (Rec. Austr. Mus., vol. 12, No. 11, p. 331, 1919). Wilckens (N.Z.G.S. Pal. Bull. No. 9, p. 18, 1922) has proposed a new genus Protodolium for Neritopsis speighti Trechmann (Geol. Mag., n.s., dec. 6, vol. 4, p. 300), an Upper Senonian fossil, and referred it to the Tonnidae, as an ancestor of Dolium (i.e. Tonna).

Family Architectonicidae H. and A. Adams. [P. 315]

General notes on the few New Zealand species of this family may be brought together under this head.

– 401 –

Architectonica reevei (Hanley, 1862) appears to claim a place in the Neozelanic fauna, Powell having lately figured New Zealand specimens gathered at Mt. Maunganui, Bay of Plenty (Bucknill, p. 57, Pl. 8, fig. 19, 1924). Tertiary species are aucklandica (Marsh.) (v.i.), marwicki Allan (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 338, 1926) and ngaparaensis Suter (1917, p. 14); inornata Marshall (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 49, p. 452, 1917) I have made the subject of a nomenclatural note and the type of a new genus elsewhere in this volume.

Philippia Gray, 1847 should be given generic rank. P. lutea (Lamarck, 1822) seems also to have several authentic New Zealand records, and has also been figured from New Zealand specimens by Powell (loc. cit., Pl. 8, fig. 20).

Heliacus variegatus (Gmelin, 1791) should probably be replaced by H. stamineus of the same author, if one may judge from Suter's description and figure; I have seen no adult New Zealand specimens. Apart from this rather doubtful record, the genus has no representatives in the Neozelanic fauna, though several Tertiary species have been described as such. H. conicus Marshall (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 49, p. 453, 1917) has already herein been made the type of Conominolia nov. and referred to the Umboniidae; I have advocated the dismissal of imperfectus Suter as an unrecognizable species (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 506, 1924), certainly not a Heliacus; aucklandicus Marshall (l.c., vol. 50, p. 263, 1918) is an Architectonica close to marwicki Allan.

Omalaxis amoenus Murdoch and Suter, 1906 should, as Iredale has contended (1915, p. 461), be referred in the meantime to Heliacus, larger shells than the type showing the characteristic rounding and descending of the whorls.

Discohelix meridionalis Hedley, 1903 has been recorded by Miss Mestayer (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 48, p. 125, 1916), but further examination of the sole fragmentary specimen would probably lead to its identification with the previous species. As, however, these Agadinoids have a wide distribution, and I have not seen Miss Mestayer's shell, the record cannot be definitely rejected at present.

It has already been noted that the new genus Zerotula for Discohelix hedleyi Mestayer and Omalogyra bicarinata Suter should be placed in this family.

Genus Epitonium Bolten, 1798. [P. 319]

Powell has added a species by describing Epitonium bucknilli nov. (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 138, 1924).

The earliest name is undoubtedly Scala Humphrey, 1797 of the Museum Calonnianum (p. 23) and the family name must revert to Scalidae, one of the pleasing changes that occur. The grouping of the Neozelanic species needs careful consideration; de Boury made a life study of these fascinating shells, but did not live to complete his monograph and see it published.

Epitonium parvicostata and simplex Marshall (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 49, p. 451, 1917) (which I have referred to Tenuiscala; Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 16, p. 102, 1924), tricinctum Marshall (l.c., vol. 50, p. 263, 1918), tenuispiralis Marshall (l.c., vol. 51, p. 227, 1919), Cirsostrema caelicola Finlay (l.c., vol. 56, p. 231, 1926), C. angulata

– 402 –

Marwick (l.c., p. 320), and Scalaria (Cirsostrema?) pacifica Wilckens (1922, p. 8) (Cretaceous) must be added to the list of fossil species.

The beautiful shell named Scala laevifoliata by Murdoch and Suter is so distinct that it probably does not even belong to this family. It is quite unlike any of the groups indicated by de Boury, who would probably also have denied it relationship. I propose the new genus Murdochella (with this species as type) for this group, which also occurs in Australian waters, and of which there are at least three other distinct Neozelanic members, one of which I here describe. Hedley has identified an Australian shell with Murdoch and Suter's species, but in view of the slight differences between species in this genus, it is probable that re-examination would result in its description as new.

Murdochella alacer n. sp. (Fig. 41.)

Shell similar to M. laevifoliata, but stouter and less slender. Apex of same style, but larger and wider, only the incoiled tip smooth, the rest with rather distant strong curved axial ribs, not becoming laminate toward the close; not so well marked off from the succeeding whorls. Lower two keels on spire-whorls much more prominent (in laevifoliata the upper and lower are subequal and the median strongest), only a faint suggestion of a fourth subsutural thread on body-whorl; a carina as strong as lower keels emerging from suture, and between this and pillar one more strong cord. Axial lamellae fewer, stronger, and more distant, not stopped by carina but passing over whole base. Other details as in laevifoliata.

Height, 4.7 mm.; diameter, 1.6 mm.

Locality,—Near Cuvier Island, in 40 fathoms.

Genus Crossea A. Adams, 1865. [P. 324]

The Neozelanic specimens referred to Crossea cancellata Ten. Woods, 1878 and to C. labiata Ten.-Woods, 1876 are quite distinct from these species and I describe them as new.

Iredale has proposed two new genera, Crosseola for C. concinna Angas, which will include the first named, and Dolicrossea for the latter (1924, p. 251). The animal of the former has not yet been examined, but the operculum proves to be horny and multispiral, and the genus therefore referable to the family Liotiidae.

The species Crossea glabella Murdoch is not congeneric with either, and is an endemic and very peculiar form. For it may be proposed the new generic name Conjectura. Tertiary forms of Crosseola and Dolicrossea are known to me from New Zealand, but Conjectura has not been met with except as a Recent shell, which, however, has a wide Neozelanic range.

Till more is known of the animals of these little shells it will be safest to include all these genera in the Family Liotiidae Iredale (vide antea).

Crosseola errata n. sp. (Fig. 33).

Shell related to cancellata Ten.-Woods, but differing in aperture and details of sculpture. Three strong spirals on spire-whorls, six and the umbilical cord on body-whorl; upper three by far the strongest, with interstices twice their width; lower three below aper-

– 403 –

ture, interstices much narrower than those above, but still about 1½ times width of ribs; no trace of a seventh rib. Axial lamellations coarse and thick, interstices 1½–2 times as wide. Umbilical rib stout and crenulated. Spire as high as aperture, somewhat tabulated, outlines straight; whorls squarely convex. Aperture with thickened sides, interior quite circular, no angle above, and no canaliculation at base, but the thickened and produced pillar forms with basal lip a slightly-grooved triangular pad, enfolded by umbilical cord. Very narrow chink-like shallow umbilicus.

Height, 2 mm.; diameter, 1.9 mm.

Locality,—Awanui Bay, North Auckland, dredged in 12 fathoms.

Dolicrossea vesca n. sp. (Fig. 32).

Shell small, globose, thin, and fragile. Sculpture of spiral sublinear grooves, about 8 on penultimate whorl and 30 on body-whorl; no narrow smooth zone above umbilical rim, but grooves continued over basal cord and weakly into umbilicus. Spire short, but little over half height of aperture, outlines straight. Whorls convex, base flattish. Suture distinct. Aperture obliquely pyriform, angled above, rounded below, with a very slightly canaliculate pointed anterior emargination. Peristome continuous. Outer lip thin and sharp, not reflexed or fringed. Basal lip hardly truncated, pointed at the pillar. A low wide cord encircles pillar and margins umbilicus which is narrow and short. Inner lip and columella as in D. labiata.

Height, 2.5 mm.; diameter, 2 mm.

Locality,—Lyall Bay, Wellington.

Abundantly distinct in tenuity, outer lip, relative proportions, spire, and aperture, from true labiata.

Genus Aclis Lovén, 1846. [P. 325]

This must disappear from Neozelanic literature. Aclis succincta has herein been placed in the Rissoidae in a genus Brookesena; and the Pliocene Aclis costellata Hutton has been referred to Fossaridae in (temporarily) my genus Zeradina; Aclis semireticulata Murdoch and Suter is just as aberrant. It belongs to a series that goes far back into the Tertiary, and there are other Recent forms known to me. I here describe three allied forms, and propose for the group Powellia n. gen. (after my able friend, A. W. B. Powell, whose fine work on New Zealand shells is so welcome), naming P. lactea n. sp. as type; owing to lack of knowledge of the animals, the genus is of uncertain affinities, but may be temporarily located in the Family Rissoidae.

Powellia lactea n.sp. (Figs. 47. 48.)

Shell subulate, highly polished, milk-white. Apex blunt, subpapillate, smooth, and polished, not marked off from true shell, which is also quite smooth, but with an indication of a subangle just above suture, forming periphery of body-whorl. Spire nearly twice height of aperture, outlines straight or a trifle concave. Whorls gently convex, most swollen near lower suture. Aperture pyriform, subangled above, distinctly pouting and emarginate below; outer lip very crass, backed by a wide rounded strong varix, inclined forward anteriorly, and set a little behind the edge; inner lip very thin,

– 404 –

distinct, peristome continuous. Umbilicus chink-like, not covered, and surrounded by a blunt angulation. Pillar excavated and produced.

Height, 3.3 mm.; diameter, 1.4 mm.

Locality,—Pukeuri sandy clays (Awamoan, i.e. “Miocene”) near Oamaru. Fairly common.

Powellia comes n. sp. (Fig. 45, 46).

Shell like the preceding form, but smaller, more inflated, and less slender. Whorls more convex, with deeper sutures. Peripheral subangle marked by a thread, indications of other spiral threads present. Faint axial plicae on upper whorls. Spire about 1½ times aperture in height, outlines a trifle convex. Outer lip and varix not nearly so crass as in last species, aperture suboval, less emarginate below. Umbilicus about same size, but less prominent, due to absence of encircling blunt angulation and rounder base.

Height, 2 mm.; diameter, 1.2 mm.

Locality,—Same as last species. Nearly related to the Recent semireticulata M. & S., but shorter, with weaker peripheral thread and umbilicus.

Powellia paupereques n. sp. (Figs. 43, 44).

Shell resembling C. comes in size, but with much less convex whorls, and heavily variced aperture. Distinguished from all the other species by the suture being submargined below as well as above. Only very faint traces of spiral threads over the polished surface, but the peripheral thread is strong. Traces of close axial ribs present. Whorls very lightly and regularly convex. Spire 1½ times height of aperture, outlines convex. Aperture as in comes but more pressed against parietal wall; outer lip with a narrow heavy varix some distance behind edge, strongly inclined forward anteriorly. Umbilicus almost hidden.

Height, 2.4 mm.; diameter, 1.4 mm.

Locality,—Off the Poor Knights Islands in 60 fathoms.

Powellia semireticulata (M. and S., 1906). [P. 326]

As the figure of this species given in the “Atlas” (Plate 16, fig. 5) is not good, emphasising the sculpture far too much, I present another figure, (Fig. 49) taken from the type in the Dominion Museum. The dimensions of the type given by Suter are incorrect; they should be 2.8 mm. by 1.6 mm. Odhner has sent me specimens identified as this species, from 35 f., Colville Channel, North Is.; they are a n. sp., close to Linemera gradata (Hutt.), and not related to Powellia.

This species differs from paupereques in its thinner, less polished shell, stronger axial sculpture, taller spire (about twice height of aperture), more convex whorls, deeper sutures, and less heavily variced outer lip.

Genus Eulimella Jeffreys, 1847. [P. 329]

E. awamoaensis M. & M. has been described from the Tertiary (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 53, p. 83, 1921).

– 405 –

Syrnola pulchra Brazier, 1877. [P. 331]

This is not a constituent of the Neozelanic fauna, the single shell Suter so identified being easily distinguished, so I now describe it as new.

Syrnola menda n. sp. (Figs. 50, 51).

Shell very tall and slender, polished, and shining, perfectly smooth except for inconspicuous growth-lines. Apex heterostrophe, set not quite at right angles to shell-whorls. Spire very high, slowly tapering. Whorls 11, subangled close to lower suture, then cut in sharply to suture, straight or faintly concave above subangle till very near upper suture, then suddenly rounded in to suture, which is thus deeply cut. Colour whitish-grey, with a brown band just above the subangle on all whorls, no second band on base, which is flatly convex, rapidly contracted below periphery. Aperture short, subrhomboidal, basal lip rounded into outer lip, elsewhere with straight sides, no lines of striae. Pillar with a moderately strong plait. Umbilicus narrow, open.

Height, 6.7 mm.; diameter, 1.3 mm.

Locality,—Near Cuvier Island in 40 fathoms.

Differs from S. pulchra Brazier among other things in longer and more slender shell, much more rapidly-rounded base and shorter aperture, absence of second colour-band on base, and weaker columellar plait.

A Tertiary species of Syrnola has been described as S. semiconcava M. & M. (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 54, p. 122, 1923).

Pyramidella tenuiplicata Murdoch and Suter, 1906. [P. 332]

The type of this species is a mere apical fragment. It was absurd to describe it; Pyramidellids are difficult enough to identify from perfect specimens, and it is asking too much to expect recognition of one from type material so poor as this. The name must be neglected till topotypes are available, and even then may prove indeterminable. In the meantime no records of this species can be safely made.

Odostomia bembix Suter, 1908. [P. 335]

This must give place to Odostomia georgiana Hutton (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 17, p. 319, 1885). The type shells of this Upper Pliocene species are not separable from abundant topotypes (and many specimens from other localities) of Suter's bembix. I would like to reduce stygia Suter also to a synonym of Hutton's species, but not having seen the holotype, refrain at present from uniting them; stygia may be retainable as a deep-water smaller representative of georgiana Hutton, though I feel considerable doubt about it.

Odostomia impolita (Hutton, 1873). [P. 343]

This species must likewise be dropped. The type specimen consists of three unrecognizable fragments gummed on a slide. Hutton's original diagnosis contains no specific characters, and the type is said to come from Stewart Island where three or four Evaleas can be found, so that the only solution is to drop Hutton's Rissoa impolita as indeterminable. Suter has described E. liricincta from Port

– 406 –

Pegasus, Stewart Island; chordata Suter is a northern form; while the Upper Pliocene huttoni Suter (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 40, p. 368. 1907) and obsoleta Murdoch (l.c., vol. 32, p. 217, 1900) will have to be noted when identifications are being made.

Genus Pyrgulina A. Ad., 1863. [P. 344]

Ancestral forms to rugata (Hutt.) await description; the Tertiary pseudorugata M. & M. (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 53, p. 83, 1921) is not in direct lineage, though closely allied; it represents another branch, of which I have several new species.

Genus Menestho Moeller, 1842. [P. 345]

This name must be dismissed from Neozelanic literature; it was bestowed on a Greenland species, and the sole member admitted by Suter has little alliance with the type. Following Dall and Bartsch, Suter admits. Evalea for forms with simple grooves, and Menestho for shells which have the grooves traversed by thin axial threads. It is doubtful whether such a distinction is at all useful, for the growthlines in species of Evalea frequently produce minute fenestrations in the grooves. One is, however, less concerned with this point than with the grouping of the New Zealand species, and it is to be noted that all well-preserved specimens of Evalea liricincta Suter and of what has been taken for E. impolita (Hutton) show more or less distinct axial threadlets in the interstices. Suter's Menestho sabulosa certainly should not be cut adrift from these species, in fact I would suggest that when the types are compared it may prove inseparable from liricincta, in which case liricincta has place priority; topotypes of the two species agree entirely. I conclude that Menestho is unnecessary in New Zealand, and would refer the following species to Evalea—sabulosa Suter, liricincta Suter, chordata Suter, huttoni Suter, and obsoleta Murd.

Genus Turbonilla Risso, 1826. [P. 332]

Several additions have lately been made to the sole representative of this genus included by Suter:—

  • T. (Pyrgolampros) blanda Finlay (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 522, 1924).

  • T. campbellica Odhner (1924, p. 33); from Campbell Island.

  • T. powelli Bucknill (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 16, pt. 3, p. 122, 1924).

  • T. finlayi Powell (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 594, 1926).

  • T. lamyi Hedley (1916, p. 63); from Macquarie Island.

  • T. suteri Powell (Rec. Cant. Mus., vol. 3, pt. 1, p. 47, 1926).

As regards Tertiary species, T. oamarutica Suter has been removed to the Epitoniidae and made the type of a new genus Notacirsa (Finlay, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 231, 1926); possibly T. prisca Suter should go with it, but its position must remain in doubt till the apex is known. This leaves the only fossil species so far recorded as T. awamoaensis Marshall and Murdoch (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 53, p. 84, 1921) and T. antiqua Marshall (loc. cit., vol. 51, p. 228, 1919) (renamed elsewhere in this volume).

– 407 –

Family Eulimidae. [P. 346]

The genus Teretianax Iredale, 1918 (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 13, p. 39), considered by its author as doubtfully referable to this family, has been added to the Recent fauna by Powell (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 596, 1926) with the description of T. pagoda nov.—the second known species—from several North Cookian localities.

Eulima itself has had three Tertiary species lately described, aoteaensis M. & M. (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 53, p. 84, 1921), christyi Marwick (l.c., vol. 55, p. 195, 1924), and waihaoensis Allan (l.c., vol. 56, p. 339, 1926).

Genus Fusinus Rafinesquee, 1815. [P. 357]

The name Colus Humphrey. 1797 (Mus. Calonn., p. 34) takes precedence over Fusinus Rafinesque, but the name is applicable in New Zealand only to some of the Lower Tertiary species. A full treatment of the Neozelanic forms is withheld, as there are so many new species to describe, and there are already several synonyms among the proposed species. The only living member of the group in this region, however (excepting Columbarium suteri Smith, 1915; Brit. Antarc. “Terra Nova” Exped., vol. 2, no. 4, p. 87; see also Mestayer, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 48, p. 126, 1916), Fusus spiralis A. Ad., is so distinct from Colus, and represents the culmination of so well-defined a group that there can be no hesitation in proposing for it a new genus Coluzea. In lineage may be named Fusus dentatus (Hutton) (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 9, p. 594, 1877), Fusinus maorium Marshall and Murdoch (l.c., vol. 51, p. 254, 1919), F. climacotus Suter (N.Z.G.S. Pal. Bull. No. 5, p. 21, 1917), and many new species. The striking protoconch, of the genotype especially (bulbous, flat-topped, with whorls subangular at the top, strongly keeled at the end), the single, strong, serrate keel, and Columbarium-like facies, are all highly characteristic. Euthriofusus tangituensis Marwick (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 320, 1926) is like a Colus in many respects but I have not seen actual specimens.

Family Mitridae A. Adams. [P. 359]

Much confusion centres round the New Zealand forms grouped here. “The shells referred to the Family Mitridae show so much diversity in the radular characters as to suggest polyphyletic origin. Troschel years ago divorced the series widely, but shell characters and laisse faire have ruled since, so that the Family “Mitridae,” as shown for example in the British Museum, is an incongruous association of species. Cooke has recently reviewed the radulae (Proc. Zool. Soc., 1919, pp. 405–422), and, ignoring the shells altogether, has simply grouped them by this means, and in Group 1—Mitra Martyn he includes M. glabra Swainson (Tasmania) and M. rhodia Reeve (Port Jackson).” (T. Iredale, in litt.). These shells closely resemble the species Suter includes [P. 361] as Mitra carbonaria Swainson (which is described below as Mitra maoria nov.) and the Tertiary species Mitra hectori Hutton (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 37, p. 473, 1904), M. eusulcata Finlay, and M. elatior Finlay (loc. cit., vol. 55, p. 468, 1924), so that the genus name Mitra may be retained in Neozelanic literature.

– 408 –

Besides these fairly typical forms, other kinds of Mitra are known from New Zealand Tertiary beds. Marshall (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 50, p. 266, 1918) has described three species from Pakaurangi Point as Cymbiola masefieldi, nitens, and calcar. Marwick (l.c., vol. 56, p. 264, 1926) has noted that these are “not Volutes, but belong to the Mitridae, though none of the present genera fit them well.” In shell features, however, they are not very far removed from Mitra s. str. though in radular characters they may have differed. There is an Australasian Tertiary group of fairly large Mitras with long aperture and snout and a tendency to suppression of the lower two plaits (sometimes in adult shells only the uppermost remains), as opposed to the Recent glabra—rhodia—maoria group with short aperture and pillar and four or more strong and regular plaits. For this group, which includes Marshall's three species, I propose the name Diplomitra nov., with Cymbiola nitens Marshall as type; here may be referred the Australian Tertiary M. alokiza T.-W. (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vol. 4, p. 9, 1880), M. dictua T.-W. (l.c.), and M. monoploca Finlay (new name given elsewhere in this volume to M. uniplica Tate, preoccupied). This group of Mitra is not at present known in New Zealand elsewhere than at Pakaurangi Point.

The use of the genus name Conomitra Conrad, 1865 for some austral Tertiary forms is due originally to Harris (Cat. Tert. Moll. B.M., p. 129, 1897) who there classed othone (T.-W.), dennanti (Tate), and ligata (Tate). The last species is placed later in this paper in Microvoluta; the other two are closely allied, and have Neozelanic representatives in Mitra inconspicua Hutton (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 17, p. 326, 1885), Vexillum apicicostatum Suter (N.Z.G.S. Pal. Bull. No. 5, p. 27, 1917), and Conomitra othoniana Finlay (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 467, 1924). Inconspicua has been definitely localized by Allan (l.c., vol. 56, p. 341, 1926) as occurring only in the Waimatean stage, and falsely recorded from the Awamoan, while I have compared it (l.c., vol. 55, p. 468, 1924) with the Australian complanata Tate. All these species may be embraced in the new genus Waimatea here proposed, with Mitra inconspicua Hutton as type. Mitra fusoides Lea, the genotype of Conomitra, and the assemblage of Paris Basin shells placed in this genus by Cossmann differ in whorling and snout, and are more regularly biconic than these austral forms.

Mitra albopicta Smith, 1898. [P. 360]

In the Dominion Museum is a tablet marked “Mitra albopicta Sm., co-type, Mohokinau, 453” on one side, but labelled “Paratypes” on the reverse. These are certainly authentic examples of Smith's species, agreeing in detail with his description and figure. But they also agree in detail with the type specimen of Mitra obscura Hutton, which is from the Bay of Islands, and which Suter records also from Mohokinau Island. Hutton's name has 25 years' priority, and must replace that of Smith. Cooke has compared albopicta Smith with M. pica Reeve, and this seems indeed to be a close ally.

Mitra hedleyi Murdoch, 1905, looks like a juvenile shell and may be a Microvoluta, but definite location must be deferred at present.

– 409 –

Mitra maoria n. sp. (Fig. 57).

A full diagnosis of this species cannot be given till better specimens turn up; all those found so far are much worn. Shell moderately large. Surface quite smooth, but very much rubbed; traces of linear spiral grooves visible. Spire about 1½ times height of aperture. Whorls flatly convex, very faintly and bluntly shouldered at upper ⅔, body-whorl oblique below this sub-shoulder, then bent in rather suddenly at base. Suture apparently narrowly canaliculate—at least in worn shells. Aperture sharply angled above, widely open below, outer lip almost vertical, basal lip horizontal, not notched. Pillar stout, markedly oblique, with five strong close plaits, decreasing in strength from top downwards, a trace of a sixth at the bottom. Colour light brown, with a yellowish tinge.

Height, 48 mm. (true height probably about 58 mm.); diameter, 17 mm.

Locality,—Tauranga beach.

Genus Vexillum Bolten, 1798. [P. 364]

Under this head Suter includes six species, but at least four good conchological groups are represented, while several alterations are necessary in the species names. First, Vexillum marginatum (Hutton) was erroneously used by Suter to replace the species he and Murdoch described as Vulpecula biconica; Hutton's shell is from the Upper Pliocene and is not only quite distinct from biconica (as Smith concluded ten years ago; Brit. Antarc. Exped., Zool., vol. 2, No. 4, pt. 1, p. 85, 1915) but belongs to a different group; marginatum does not seem to occur Recent. Hedley wrote Iredale some years ago, “May not Vexillum marginatum Hutton be Mitra novaezelandiae Filhôl, Mission Ile Campbell, vol. 4, pt. 2, p. 554, 1885?” This name does not appear in Suter's work at all, and upon reference to Filhol's work it is found to be simply a new name for Mitra zebra Hutton, not Reeve. Filhol seems to have erred in ascribing such a name to Hutton, so that his substitute has no standing. Columbella zebra Gray was included by Hutton in his Man. N.Z. Moll., 1880 (p. 61), and Filhol may have had this in mind.

Secondly, Suter has introduced a new species pseudomarginata, ranking his previously named angulata as a variety; if the forms deserved only varietal rank, angulata would have to become the species, and pseudomarginata the varietal name, but both forms are worthy of specific rank, and here again, when subdivision is fully carried out, will probably be placed in different groups.

Lastly, Turricula planata Hutton has also been misapplied by Suter: it is a Pliocene species, and though Suter commented on its large size, he used it as the name for a common northern littoral shell. The type of planata is quite distinct from “planata” auct., therefore I describe the Recent shell below as a new species.

The radulae of the Vexillum species show two very distinct styles; the distinguishing feature of the group is the unicuspid lateral, but while one series of Vexillum has a multicuspid rachidian tooth, the other has a regular tricuspid Buccinoid central tooth. The former of these is cited by Cooke for V. tasmanicum Ten.-Woods, and V. teresiae Ten.-Woods, both from Tasmania, and the latter for

– 410 –

V. australe Swainson from North Tasmania. Neither of these two shell types can be quite matched in New Zealand, and the Neozelanic groups seem to be aberrant even when gauged by the Tasmanian forms, which in themselves are not typical. It is, therefore, best to introduce new group names for the Neozelanic forms which are also known as fossils.

A full subdivision of the New Zealand species is not by any means carried out here; the time for that is not yet ripe; but the four groups proposed are the main ones and produce a satisfactory arrangement of most of the forms. They are as follows:—

Genus Austromitra nov. Type: Columbella rubiginosa Hutton.

This will cover a large and characteristic austral series, and, in New Zealand, includes besides the type rubiradix n. sp. (=planata auct.), planata (Hutton), antipodum (Brookes) (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 588, 1926), ambulacra (Marwick) (l.c., p. 320), pseudomarginata (Suter), marginata (Hutton) (not biconica M. & S.), and, provisionally, angulata (Suter) and fracta (Marwick) (l.c., p. 321).

This group seems to have many Tasmanian allies, such as analogica Reeve, legrandi Ten.-Woods, pumilio May, scalariformis Ten.-Woods, bellapicta Verco, etc.

Genus Microvoluta Angas, 1877. Type: M. australis Ang., 1877.

In this genus, which was introduced in Proc. Zool. Soc. for 1877, p. 34, I include the Recent Vulpecula biconica M. & S., and the Pliocene Turricula lincta Hutton, from Petane, while I know of another new Recent species. The group is characterized by its twisted beak and weak irregular plaits, as opposed to the very strong plaits of Austromitra, which sweep over the whole base and regularly diminish from the top. The New Zealand shells are more allied to M. royana Iredale (P.L.S.N.S.W., vol. 49, pt. 3, p. 269, 1924) than they are to the genotype, while the Australian Balcombian forms, such as M. ligata (Tate) (see also nomenclatural note elsewhere in this volume), are somewhat intermediate in character. Iredale (l.c.) notes that this genus really does belong to the Volutidae as Angas thought, and not to the Mitridae where it has been generally placed, the radula being very similar to that of Scaphella undulata.

Genus Proximitra nov. Type: Vexillum rutidolomum Suter.

A Tertiary series, comprising the type named (N.Z.G.S. Pal. Bull. No. 5, p. 29, 1917), apicalis (Hutton) (Cat. Tert. Moll., p. 7, 1873), enysi (Hutton) (l.c., p. 7), suteri (Finlay) (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 16, p. 102, 1924=ligrata Suter, preoccupied), parki (Allan) (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 341, 1926), and possibly plicatellum (M. & M.) (l.c., vol. 54, p. 123, 1923). The types of apicalis and enysi, regarded as lost by Suter, have been discovered, together with other “lost” specimens, by Dr. Marwick, who writes me regarding them: “V. apicale Hutton. Buchanan's drawing, published by Suter gives a very good idea of the appearance of this shell. The latter's statement that there are 25 nodules on the shoulder-angle was based on two specimens from Awamoa, mentioned as plesiotypes. They, however, differ much in shape from Hutton's holotype, and represent an undescribed species, wrongly identified by Suter at another time

– 411 –

(N.Z.G.S. Pal. Bull. No. 8, p. 75, 1921) as V. linctum Hutton. Locality, Awamoa (fide Hutton), also common at Pukeuri.” “V. enysi Hutton. Distinguished from apicale by greater size, fewer knobs per whorl, and lower spire. Locality, Broken River (Lower).”

With this group, quite provisionally, may be associated Mitra obscura (Hutton) (=albopicta Smith), with, as has been mentioned, its Australian ally pica Reeve, and Mitra mortenseni Odhner (1924, p. 34).

Genus Egestas nov. Type: Vexillum watei Suter.

The type and a direct Tertiary ancestor, V. fenestratum Suter (N.Z. Geol. Surv. Pal. Bull. No. 5, p. 28, 1917) comprise this last group, widely sundered from the others by shell form and the possession of only three plaits. Uromitra etremoides Finlay (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 469, 1926) and Vexillum lornense Marwick, 1926 (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 314) also have three columellar plaits, but a quite different facies, and do not seem to belong to any of the groups here outlined.

Austromitra rubiradix n. sp.

Shell similar to rubiginosa, but narrower and with different colour-pattern. Axial sculpture the same, but obsolete on most of last whorl; spirals much finer, dense minute grooves, a single strong cord beheading axials on shoulder. Colour uniformly blackish, with a slight purplish tinge, only the pillar and fasciole area reddish-orange brown, no bands on spire. Pillar plaits somewhat weaker than in rubiginosa (Hutton) and antipodum (Brookes), aperture more compressed, spire a trifle higher and more convex.

Height, 8 mm.; diameter, 3.5 mm.

Locality,—Whangaroa Harbour (type); generally distributed in the north of the Cookian Province and restricted to it.

This is the Recent species erroneously taken for planata (Hutton).

Siphonalia nodosa (Martyn, 1784). [P. 368]

When Iredale wrote his “Commentary,” he proposed Aethocola as a subgenus for Martyn's species. This form has been found to be well represented in the Tertiary, a number of species having been named and Aethocola raised to generic rank. Recently I have pointed out (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 16, pt. 2, p. 102, 1924) that Martyn's specific name had been anticipated by Solander for a different species, an item overlooked by Iredale. Depending upon Suter's synonymy, I selected raphanus Lamarck as the next available name. Iredale, however, tells me that the species had been well figured by Chemnitz, and had been named Drupa glans by Bolten (Mus. Bolten, p. 56, 1798; for Chemnitz, 10, t. 163, f. 1558). Lamarck's Fusus raphanus was given in a Liste, p. 8, 1886 explanatory to the shells figured in the Tabl. Encycl. Method, Pl. 435, fig 1, and when he wrote his Hist. Anim. s. Verteb., Vol. 7, 1822, p. 128, Lamarck included under his species name only the references to Martyn, Chemnitz, and the Encycl. Meth., which may account for the neglect of Bolten's name.

– 412 –

It is unfortunate, too, that the decision regarding Austrofusus must be reversed, as it must come into use for this group. When Martens wrote up the early years of the Zoological Record, he used to make comments, and in the volume for 1881, Mollusca, p. 40, records “Austrofusus, subgen. n. of Neptunea, type N. nodosa (Martyn) = raphanus (Lamark); Kobelt, J. B., mal Ges. 8, p. 321.” This must be accepted, but why Martens selected this species, which simply figures midway in Kobelt's list, cannot now be ascertained. After many vicissitudes this species therefore comes to rest—one hopes finally—as Austrofusus glans (Bolten, 1798). This is typically a Cookian form, the Forsterian representative has been described elsewhere in this volume as Austrofusus glans agrestior Finlay.

For a further discussion of the Tertiary forms of Austrofusus and its allies, descriptions of new species and removal of the genus to the Buccinidae, see Finlay, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, pp. 232-238, 1926. Three group names were proposed for the fossils: Neocola (for Austrofusus beta Finlay) (p. 232), Zelandiella (for Neptunea subnodosa Hutton) (p. 232), and Nassicola (for Neptunea costata Hutton) (l.c., vol. 54, p. 514, 1924). The sole species described since that account, Aethocola cliftonensis Marwick (l.c., vol. 56, p. 321, 1926) may be located in Neocola.

Verconella dilatata (Q. and G., 1833) [P. 370]

The recognition of this species has given much trouble. The shell that Quoy and Gaimard described was dredged in 25 fathoms in the Bay of Islands, and was pictured by them as having a short canal, rather squat and wide shell, and fine spiral lirae. Quoy and Gaimard's figures are so exact and careful that there is no reason to regard their illustration as incorrect in this case. The common littoral Northern shell disagrees in having coarse lirae and being altogether a more massive shell; this form should, as Hedley has pointed out (N.Z. Journ. Sci. and Tech., vol. 3, no. 1, p. 54; no. 3, p. 170, and no. 4, p. 222, 1920) take the name adusta Philippi, but I do not approve of Hedley's action in deflecting Quoy and Gaimard's name to the large deep-water Verconella called Megalatractus maximus by Suter. This form is, though larger than any of the others, quite thin, with a very long canal and fine lirae. It evidently cannot be Quoy and Gaimard's shell, but may be regarded as a benthal form of the true dilatata, for which I now propose the trinomial Verconella (dilatata) rex n. subsp., and figure as type (Figs. 71, 72) a specimen in the Finlay collection (measuring 154 mm. by 65 mm.) from off Whakatane, Bay of Plenty, in 40 fathoms. The identity of true dilatata cannot be settled until exact topotypes are dredged, but in the meantime I advance as the best expression of Quoy and Gaimard's species I have seen a shell from the Castlecliff beds here figured (Fig. 70); this is obviously neither adusta nor rex, but has the short canal and fine lirae of dilatata. V. mandarina (Duclos), as Iredale has stated, undoubtedly goes generically with these forms, while in lineage may be named the Tertiary Fusus crawfordi Hutton (Cat. Tert. Moll., p. 3, 1873), Buccinum inflatum Hutton (l.c., p. 6; referred to Verconella by Finlay, Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 16, p. 103, 1924), and numerous undescribed species.

– 413 –

Powell has some further notes on this genus, and adds to it five more Recent species elsewhere in this volume.

A large number of Tertiary species have been described under the name Verconella, but not one of them is really referable to it. Four are dealt with in the note (later) on Siphonalia valedicta; V. delicatula M. and M. (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 54, p. 123, 1923) is a Colus; while spiralis, uttleyi, and formosa Allan (l.c., vol. 56, p. 340, 1926) are Turrids, belonging to a characteristic early Tertiary group which contains also Siphonalia senilis M. and M. (l.c., vol. 52, p. 131, 1920), Surcula serotina Suter (N.Z.G.S. Pal. Bull. No. 5, p. 52, 1917), Daphnella ovata and multicincta Marshall (l.c., vol. 49, p. 457, 1917), and Belophos incertus Marshall (l.c., vol. 51, p. 229, 1919). The last named species, described from Hampden, is, from comparison of the types, a synonym of the earlier Daphnella neozelanica Suter (N.Z.G.S. Pal. Bull. No. 5, p. 60, 1917), based on a fragmentary specimen from the “Esdaile Collection, Teaneraki;” this locality has been shown by Marwick (N.Z. Journ Sci. and Tech., vol. 6, p. 280, 1924) to refer really to the “greensand, McCulloughs Bridge, Waihao River,” which is of the same age as the Hampden beds. Allan (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 341; Pl. 76, f. 8) has lately figured an adult example from McCulloughs Bridge which perfectly corresponds with Marshall's incertus. For this group, which is somewhat like Austrotoma Finlay in facies and embryo, but has a Verconellid aperture, without trace of an anterior notch, and only a wide and shallow posterior sinus, I now propose the genus name Marshallena (with Belophos incertus Marshall=neozelanica Suter as type), as a mark of admiration for the magnificent pioneer work Dr. P. Marshall has done for New Zealand Palaeontology.

The genus Iredalula Finlay (Trans. N.Z. Inst. vol. 56, p. 231, 1926) for the Tertiary Bela striata Hutton, may perhaps be placed near the Verconellidae, but its affinities are at present obscure.

Siphonalia caudata (Q. and G., 1833). [P. 371]

This is another of Quoy and Gaimard's species that does not appear to have been met with since their time; I suggest that when it does turn up it will be found to be either related to the “Miocene” Siphonalia excelsa Suter (N.Z. Geol. Surv. Pal. Bull. No. 5, p. 30, 1917), which I have (elsewhere in this volume) referred to Austrosipho Cossmann (Ess. de Pal. Comp., livr. 7, p. 229. 1906); or a member of my genus Zeatrophon (vide post). I think the latter is more probable, as I have specimens of true Zeatrophon from deep water in Hauraki Gulf and off Otago Heads which closely resemble Quoy and Gaimard's figure, though not one of them is exactly like it.

Suter's obscure figure of caudata in the “Atlas” does not agree with the original one, but represents, Iredale informs me, the species named Fusus vulpicolor by Sowerby (Thes. Conch., vol. 3, p. 78, Pl. 411, Fig. 73, 1880), which was described from New Zealand and then erroneously referred to the Falkland Islands, the type in the British Museum being labelled New Zealand. I have collected it alive in deep water in Otago, and Iredale's record of valedicta (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 40, p. 383, 1908) refers to this species. It

– 414 –

seems almost certain that no one has troubled to investigate the apex of this shell, for it is so radically different from that of any other Verconella that it would surely have provoked comment. Suter says it is of “two smooth whorls, small and globose”—an extraordinary statement. I was fortunate in finding egg-capsules and all growth stages of this species in 60 fathoms off Otago Heads, and it proves to be viviparous. Inside a circular wafer-shaped horny egg-case are found about a dozen progeny, consisting of the embryo and a whorl or so of true shell. The embryo is pagodiform, very strongly carinate, rising to a crude tip; it is everywhere coarse and roughened which suggests that it also may have been cased in a horny capsule that was early lost. I have therefore no hesitation in providing for this elegant form the new generic name Glaphyrina, and as Suter's illustration is extremely poor, I refigure this species from a specimen in my collection dredged off Otago Heads in 60 fathoms (Fig. 80). A closely allied direct ancestor is found in the Upper Pliocene Castlecliff beds; it differs only in finer sculpture (the spirals being more even and less prominent, and the axials absent on the last three whorls), deeper suture and rather thinner test. For it I provide the name Glaphyrina [vulpicolor] progenitor nov., the type being in the Finlay collection.

Siphonalia valedicta (Watson, 1886). [P. 372]

This likewise has not been met with again, but deep-water dredging will probably bring it to light. It seems to be a benthal relative of a series of shells well represented in the Pliocene, and of which several members have recently been described, viz., Verconella marshalli Murdoch (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 159, 1924), V. compta Finlay (loc. cit., p. 523), V. dubia Marwick, and perhaps V. thomsoni Marwick (loc. cit., p. 196). The group seems related to Verconella s. str. by its apex (which, however, is much smaller) and canal, but shows constantly different whorling, and has a tendency, never shown by Verconella, to develop tubercles on the inner lip; palaeontological evidence shows that the two series have lived side by side for a long time. Accordingly, in my opinion, both are worth generic rank, and I provide for the valedicta group the new genus Aeneator, naming V. marshalli Murdoch as type.

Streptopelma henchmani Marwick (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 321, 1926) is somewhat allied to these forms but cannot be referred to either Streptopelma or Aeneator.

Genus Euthria Gray, 1850. [P. 373]

Oliver in his Ecological Essay (1923A) has reverted to Euthria for the whole of the Neozelanic forms, although the type of Euthria is a European shell of unlike shell characters and possesses a different radula. The smaller New Zealand “Euthrias” show a radula notably unlike that of “Euthria” linea, which more approaches that of the European type. Cooke has shown so clearly that the radula must be weightily considered in relation to shell characters that Oliver's retrograde step does not seem wise. If the whole series were to be lumped again, the name Euthria would also have to be rejected, on account of the prior Buccinulum.

– 415 –

It is very difficult to proceed to a natural grouping of the Neozelanic, “Euthria”—Evarne association, because (1) the style of shell and ornament is extremely simple and approximately the same throughout (2) there seem to be local colour-variants of several of the species, yet other forms which at first sight appear to belong to this category apparently have proved to possess different radulae—e.g., E. flavescens, (3) the forms being almost all littoral, there is a consequent dearth of available fossil members, so that the lineage in most cases cannot be traced.

First, the name Evarne must give way to Buccinulum, of which Iredale has designated Buccinum lineatum as type (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 14, pts. 5–6, p. 208, 1921). Under this species Suter ranges two subspecies, pertinax von Martens and traversi Hutton. Von Martens' shell should at present be treated as distinct; it may remain in Buccinulum in the meantime till a range of specimens is available, but the few juvenile topotypes seen indicate that the form is possibly a Euthrena. Fusus traversi Hutton, however, must be removed from this neighbourhood altogether; the type proves to be an Axymene (vide post, under Trophon), and has nothing to do with the figure and interpretation given by Suter.

Near Buccinulum may be placed another group—that centering round Cominella striata Hutton (Pliocene), with which may at present be associated Tritonidea fuscozonata Suter, 1908, and the fossil T. compacta Suter, 1917 (with which I have united T. elatior Suter, 1917; Trans. N.Z. Inst. vol. 55, p. 503, 1924), and many new forms, though other groups will be separable when these are described. It is difficult to state absolute differential characters, but all have a large protoconch of several smooth whorls, showing more or less axial acceleration (though never a reticulate stage) before passing into the adult sculpture, which is typically prominently spiral (but the tendency is towards reduction of this in later members and littoral forms); a broad swollen varix occurs just before the aperture, the whorls are convex and inflated and not flattened as in Euthrena, and the canal is considerably longer than in that genus. Buccinulum lineum, though evidently related, stands out from this assemblage in its peculiar colour-pattern, smooth surface, still larger protoconch, and more gently wound columellar plait. Euthrena, on the other hand, has a very small protoconch, weakly axially ribbed at an early stage; before passing into adult sculpture (of low broad axials) there is a very well marked brephic stage of narrow strong axial and spiral cords producing a coarse reticulation, the points of intersection marked as blunt gemmules. For the striata group I therefore provide the name Evarnula nov., citing Cominella striata Hutton as type, and allotting it subgeneric rank under Buccinulum. Suter's type of Tritonidea fuscozonata is a badly beach-worn shell; I refigure the species from a fresh Whangaroa specimen in the Finlay collection (Fig. 77); from the same source are figured Castlecliff examples of B. (Evarnula) striatum (Hutton), since Hutton's original figure was very sketchy (Figs. 78, 79).

The remaining species may in the meantime be associated together under Euthrena, with Fusus vittatus Q. and G. as type, the

– 416 –

following points being noted. Suter's subspecies costulata is not close to littorinoides, but is far nearer to and may be identical with vittata, which itself appears to be a northerly form of the closely-related martensiana. The Chatham Island “vittata” is a peculiarly distinct form more sundered from true vittata than that species is from martensiana or than littorinoides is from strebeli and flavescens; for it must be restored Hutton's Fusus bicinctus (Cat. Mar. Moll., p. 10, 1873), described from “Chatham Islands only.”

Euthria striata (Hutton)” is admitted to the Recent fauna by Suter, but the Recent shell obviously differs from the Pliocene type. I here describe the species as new.

Buccinulum sufflatum n. sp. (Figs. 75, 76).

Shell wide and solid. Embryo large, mamillate, smooth, tip flattened, central; a brephic stage of one or two axial riblets at its close. First two whorls after apex with 11-13 little stout axial riblets per whorl (interstices narrower), swollen on lower half, weak on shoulder; entirely absent on last three whorls. Spiral sculpture of moderately raised thickish cords with 1–4 weaker interstitial riblets; cords and interstitials stronger on base. Spire not quite as high as aperture with canal, outlines straight, hardly broken by sutures. Whorls gently concave on upper half, gently convex below, thus having a swollen and undulating appearance; body-whorl tumid on periphery, rapidly contracted on base. Suture distinct, slightly submargined below, the whorls clasping. Aperture pyriform, bulging, angled and channelled above, produced below into a moderately long open canal, flexed to left and faintly notched at base. Outer lip strongly convex, a little contracted near suture and at canal, with a sharp edge but rapidly thickened inside, and with many sharp strong lirae (roughly in pairs) situated well within, those near canal stronger and more distant. Inner lip well defined as a rather thick glaze over parietal wall and pillar, with about a dozen tubercles spread over its whole length, those on parietal wall elongated and ridge like, those below closer and suboval. Pillar deeply excavated in centre, with a strong twist below forming margin of canal. Fasciole fairly strong, slightly lamellose. Occasionally a tiny umbilical chink. Colour pure white. or with a yellowish-brown tinge.

Height, 35 mm.; diameter, 17 mm.

Locality,—Lyttelton Harbour.

Genus Cominella Gray, 1850. [P. 381]

I have already (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, pp. 238-244, 1926) treated of the New Zealand Tertiary and Recent species referred to this genus, and there is nothing futher to discuss at present. The following divisions were proposed in the paper noted: Eucominia (for Buccinum nassoides Reeve), Cominula (for Cominella quoyana A. Ad.), Procominula (for Cominella pulchra Suter), Zephos (for Nassa cingulata Hutton), Acominia (for Buccinum adspersum Brug.), and Cominista (for Buccinum glandiforme Reeve = luridum Philippi). Cominella s. str. is restricted to Buccinum maculosum Mart. and its relatives. In Acominia will be placed C. hendersoni Marwick (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 322, 1926), while C. compacta Marwick (l.c.)

– 417 –

is either a Procominula or a Cominella (more probably the latter), depending on the character of the columella; I have not seen it. Suter, in connection with Cominella maculosa [P. 388], has written, “The Buccinum catarracta Chemnitz is considered by Tyron to be a mere colour variety of this species, and, as far as I know, Chemnitz gives New Zealand as the habitat; Krauss (Sudafric. Moll., p. 119), on the other hand, claims it for the coast of Natal but I suspect that he wrongly identified his specimens.” Chemnitz's species name has been used for the South African shell resembling the Neozelanic Lepsiella scobina (Q. and G.), but Iredale tells me that upon reference to Chemnitz one finds that the description and figure apply exactly to the South African shell known as Cominella delalandii, which, though resembling the Neozelanic species, is quite distinct, and belongs to Burnupena Iredale (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 13, pts. 1 and 2, p. 34, 1918).

Cominella zealandica (Reeve, 1846). [P. 390]

This shell is not known to New Zealand collectors, and should be rejected at present as probably exotic. Iredale has withdrawn his record of C. costata (Q. and G.) (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 13, pts. 1 and 2, p. 34, 1918), while Hedley has placed Cominella quoyi (Kiener) as probably a juvenile of Pollia undosa (L.) and therefore not Neozelanic (N.Z. Journ. Sci. and Tech., vol. 3, no. 1, p. 55, 1920).

Cominella campbelli (Filhol, 1880). [P. 382]

Iredale suggested, and Cooke afterwards proved by means of the radulae, that the Magellanic Euthrias belonged properly to Cominella s.l. (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 13, pts. 1 and 2, p. 33. 1918). This, however, is only in a very broad sense; although campbelli and its congeners have the superficial appearance of the “costata” group of Cominellids, they lack the deep anterior sinus and corresponding strong fasciole. Such forms as plumbea Philippi, magellanica Philippi, fuscata Bruguiere, rosea H. and J., campbelli Filhol, etc., have a uniformity of texture, appearance, and shell formation that demands separation from Cominista proper. Pareuthria Strebel, 1905 (Zool. Jahr., Bd. 22, Heft 6, p. 600) proposed for fuscata Brug. should be used generically for these forms; the series may be derived from Cominista (or vice versa); but has by now become considerably differentiated in virtue of a subantarctic habitat.

Zephos otagoensis n. sp. (Fig. 81).

Shell small, rather elate, with strong axial and spiral sculpture. Apex of two smooth and glossy whorls, flatly dome-shaped, quite symmetrical; the pullus very minute, rapidly enlarging to the swollen next whorl; well marked off. Fourteen vertical and strong axial ribs per whorl (interstices a little wider), extending over whole shell, but weaker on shoulder and base. Numerous fine threads on shoulder: six strong spiral chords per whorl between shoulder and lower suture, ten on body-whorl, cords flatly rounded, with narrow interstices except on base where lowest two have wide spaces on either side traversed by fine interstitial threadlets. Spire more than 1½ times height of aperture. Whorls shouldered at upper ¾, the

– 418 –

angle bluntly convex; shoulder narrowly concave, lightly convex and cut in below. Suture linear, distinct, undulated by axials. Aperture shortly pyriform, angled and narowly channelled above, open below in a short oblique canal, deeply and narrowly notched behind. Outer lip thin and sharp, contracted at shoulder; inner lip a narrow distinctly limited milk-white glaze. Pillar straight, a trifle excavated above, with a strong narrow groove, and below it a raised narrow ridge bordering the canal. Fasciole narrow, raised, smoothish, margined anteriorly by a low sharp carina. Colour pure white.

Height, 18.5 mm.; diameter, 8 mm.

Locality,—off Otago Heads in 50 fathoms.

More elate and with a less angular shoulder than Fax tenuicostatus (Ten.-Woods); ornament also differs in details. For a note on this shell, and also the proposal of the genus Zephos, see Finlay, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, pp. 239, 240, 1926. No authentic specimens of Iredale's genus Fax have been available to permit of comparison between the two genera, and the present species may belong to Fax rather than to Zephos.

Pisania reticulata A. Adams, 1855. [P. 392]

This shell, which Iredale has renamed Fusus mestayerae (1915, p. 466), may be retained in the fauna at present. Only juvenile specimens seem to have been found in New Zealand, but Mr. Powell informs me that his juveniles from Whangaroa match well with Tasmanian examples of mestayerae.

Genus Cantharus Bolten, 1798. [P. 393]

This has no Neozelanic representative. Iredale has stated that, of the two groups Tritonidea and Cantharus used by Suter, the latter is preferable for both New Zealand forms, but is antedated by Pollia Sowerby, 1834 (1915, p. 466). However, neither of the two species recorded by Suter can be regarded as congeneric with Triton undosus Lamk., the type of Pollia, and one of them, T. fuscozonata Suter, has already herein been referred to the subgenus Evarnula nov. of Buccinulum. The other, Tritonidea colensoi Suter has a Tertiary ancestor in T. acuticingulata Suter (N.Z. Geol. Surv. Pal. Bull. No. 5, p. 35, 1917), which I name as type of a new genus Zeapollia, erected for these two shells, and for the Australian Tertiary Ricinula purpuroides Johnston (Proc. Roy. Soc. Tas. for 1879, p. 33) from the Table Cape beds (Janjukian), which is very close to acuticingulata. The two other Tertiary species referred by Suter to Tritonidea, viz., T. compacta Suter and T. elatior Suter (loc. cit., pp. 35, 36) have been united by Finlay (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 503, 1924) and are now placed in Evarnula nov. (vide antea).

Latirus (Peristernia) neozelanicus (Suter) (vide Allan, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 341, 1926) and Latirofusus optatus M. and M. (l.c., vol. 54, p. 123, 1923) both need new generic locations but cannot be discussed at present.

Alectrion fasciata (Lamarck, 1822). [P. 397]

Eliminate this from the Neozelanic fauna. Records that have been made of this shell probably refer to what E. A. Smith has

– 419 –

recorded (Brit. Antarctic “Terra Nova” Exped. 1910; Moll., p. 85, pl. 1, fig. 28, 1915) from 11-20 fathoms near North Cape, New Zealand, as Arcularia coronata var., citing Buccinum coronatum Bruguiere, 1789 as the prime entry. As Bruguiere's name is invalid through preoccupation by Martyn, I propose to name the New Zealand shell figured by Smith Nassarius aoteanus nov.

As regards “Alectrion suturalis subsp. Dunkeri Suter, 1908” [P. 398], Iredale has commented on the identification, (1915, p. 467), and doubtfully regarded Suter's shells as N. spiratus A.Ad., noting, however, that the diagnosis seemed to refer to a shell of the “glans” group. Powell and La Roche have collected one or two specimens, and these prove to be of the “glans” type, not like spiratus, but close to particeps Hedley. The name dunkeri must be dropped; it is merely a new name for Nassa intermedia Dunker and cannot be used for New Zealand shells.

Family Muricidae. [P. 399]

Iredale has given some account of the higher groupings in his “Commentary,” but did not deal with the species. There is not very much to say when there are only three species to consider, but Murex octogonus Q. and G. does not occur in Australia, neither does Trophon umbilicatus Ten.-Woods occur in New Zealand. What Suter has called umbilicatus is merely a grading form of octogonus and deserves no recognition; the size of the umbilicus is entirely variable. I have elsewhere in this volume advocated the use of Murexsul Iredale (1915, p. 471) as a full genus for this and allied species and added a new species, Murexsul cuvierensis, to the Recent fauna.

In place of Murex angasi Crosse, a common Sydney species, Murex eos Hutton must be cited, nothing like angasi occurring in New Zealand; the resemblance between these two is so superficial that the Neozelanic shell proves to be more closely related to the Tasmanian Murex triformis and referable to the subgenus Pterochelus (=Alipurpura, even as Suter placed both) instead of the subgenus Poropteron. The reference by Iredale in the “Commentary” to the closed canal of Murex angasi does not apply exactly to the Sydney species, and not at all to the Neozelanic species. There is a fossil New Zealand species, however, which was even named as a Typhis (zealandica Hutton, Cat. Tert. Moll., p. 2, 1873) on this account; it is not uncommon in the Castlecliff beds and has wide frilled varices, and the canal completely closed, thus widely differing from the Recent eos Hutton, though Suter stated of the latter species that “This is Typhis zealandica Hutton.” For this shell, Hutton's zealandica must of course be revived; eos does not seem to occur fossil, nor zealandica Recent. Curiously enough, the “Miocene” form (undescribed) is again of the eos style, with narrow shell and open canal. I present figures of both eos Hutton (Fig. 55) and zealandica (Hutton) (Fig. 56) in order that they may be contrasted.

Genus Trophon Montfort, 1810. [P. 404]

The comments necessary on this group more than make up for the little that could be said of the Murices.

– 420 –

Under this genus name Suter has arranged:—

  • Subgenus Trophon

  • T. ambiguus (Philippi, 1844).

  • T. rugosus (Q. & G., 1833).

  • Subgenus Xanthochorus

  • T. cheesemani (Hutton. 1882).

  • T. patens (H. & J., 1854).

  • T. squamatus (Hutton, 1878).

  • Subgenus Kalydon

  • T. aucklandicus (E. A. Smith, 1902).

  • T. convexus Suter, 1909.

  • T. corticatus (Hutton, 1873).

  • T. curtus Murdoch, 1905

  • T. erectus Suter, 1909.

  • T. inferus (Hutton, 1873).

  • T. paivae (Crosse, 1864).

  • T. plebejus (Hutton, 1873).

  • T. waipipicola Webster, 1906.

  • Subgenus Trophonopsis

  • T. bonneti Cossmann, 1903.

  • T. crispulatus Suter, 1908.

  • T. pusillus Suter, 1907.

Before dealing with any of the species, one must dismiss the genus name Trophon. Though very superficially the species ambiguus is Trophonoid, actual comparison shows many differences; the radula figured by Suter, however, proves that the likeness must be minimised, since it is very different from the true Trophonoid radula, while the embryos of the two forms are strikingly dissimilar.

The subgeneric names Xanthochorus and Trophonopsis must also be eliminated as having nothing to do with Neozelanic shells.

To the Neozelanic fauna must be added what Hedley has determined as Trophon albolabratus Smith from Macquarie Island (1916, p. 60)* and Trophon mortenseni Odhner, described from Auckland Island (1924, p. 39). I have not seen either of these, but would place both at present in the ambiguus group. Vitularia candida H. & A. Adams (Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.), p. 430, 1863) included by Suter as a synonym of T. ambiguus (Phil.) proves from examination of the type (fide T. Iredale) to be an American, not a Neozelanic shell.

Iredale, in his “Commentary,” made three emendations in this group; Trophon stangeri Gray, 1843 in place of T. rugosus Q. & G. (preoccupied); Xymene gen. nov. for Fusus plebejus Hutton and its congeners; and X. quirindus nom. nov. for Trophon paivae Suter, not of Crosse. A careful study of the group suggests many further alterations.

The description of T. stangeri does not read at all well, but the figure cited seems sufficient to determine the species as the one customarily so called—though it may be noted that Hutton was dubious of the identity and described the so-called stangeri as a new species, Polytropa retiaria (J. de Conch., p. 20, 1878).

Iredale wrote that “Suter's description does not apply to the types of paivae Crosse (=recurvus Philippi) nor hanleyi Angas, all of which I have examined in connection with this note.” Suter's description, however, does not exactly apply to the Neozelanic shell, as it includes characters belonging to the Australian species and foreign to Neozelanic specimens. On the other hand, the words

[Footnote] * Hedley compares this species with ambiguus but does not report upon the apex. T. albolabratus Smith is a Kerguelen species and probably a true Trophon, while examination of the Macquarie Island species would, I think, demonstrate the presence of a conic polygyrate embryo as in ambiguus, so that this name must be queried.

– 421 –

“protoconch of two axially finely costate whorls, the nucleus small, pointed,” do not apply to either Australian or Neozelanic forms, so that the diagnosis seems to be an indeterminate mixture; it is known that Suter was in the habit of drawing up conglomerate descriptions. At the time Iredale wrote, Suter's plates had not appeared, but the figure there given appears to be of an Australian shell. Under the circumstances I regard Iredale's quirindus as covering the Australian paivae+hanleyi+the New Zealand shell, and certainly not applicable to the New Zealand shell alone and would therefore drop it as indeterminable. For the Australian hanleyi group Iredale has proposed the name Bedeva (1924, pp. 181, 273); this genus does not occur in New Zealand.

The type tablet of Polytropa squamata Hutton has three shells affixed to it, in the manner indicated by Suter's figures (“Atlas,” pl. 19, fig. 3). One of the shells (the uppermost of Suter's figures) is a specimen of T. stangeri Gray, while the other two are the commonly accepted squamata, reputedly from Dunedin Harbour; how the north Cookian stangeri came to be included in the same lot is inexplicable if the locality is correct. To save confusion I here select the centre specimen (middle one of Suter's figures) as lectotype of Hutton's species. The radula of the species has not been investigated, but it is inseparable in shell characters from Lepsiella, being evidently the Neozelanic representative of the Tasmanian L. vinosa aurea Hedley, just as the northern L. scobina is an ally of the Peronian L. botanica Hedley. While touching on L. scobina, one may note the record of this Cookian form from an isolated patch of rocks in Dunedin Harbour, a curiously anomalous occurrence (Finlay, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 518, 1924).

Trophon patens (H. & J.) is a puzzling form. Conchologically it is inseparable from squamata Hutton, and even seems to grade into it; there are no features in the apex, aperture, or shell which would serve for generic distinction, yet squamata, as has just been noted, is apparently a Lepsiella, while the radula figured by Suter for patens is Trophonoid. Since Suter, however, examined a wrong radula in several other cases, it is just possible that he did not have a patens radula at all, and as the shell agreement is so close, one may at present await confirmation or rejection of Suter's evidence, and temporarily locate both species in Lepsiella. It is of course quite possible that similarity in shell characters should once again cover a different dentition, and the apices of Trophon and Lepsiella are too much alike for ready distinction; if patens does prove to have Trophonoid rather than Thaitid affinities, it may be possible to associate it with T. cheesemani (Hutton). The examination of the radula in this and many other New Zealand species is a matter of importance and urgency, and may be recommended to the zoological student as a piece of work of great value and promise.

Euthria aucklandica Smith, 1902 has been referred by Suter to Trophon on account of the dentition; but here again it is questionable whether he examined the right shell. Suter's “aucklandicus” is probably a very different thing from Smith's type, which is possibly the same as “Euthria lineata var. pertinax” von Martens from the

– 422 –

same locality. In that case “Trophon aucklandicus Suter” would become available for the form described and figured by Suter in the “Manual,” so that in the absence of certain knowledge of Smith's type, the problem would become complex and annoying. Fortunately, however, we can dispose of an awkward dilemna by regarding Suter's name as indeterminable. This is made possible on account of several factors, as follows. Auckland Island specimens differ specifically from mainland shells, and though Suter may not have had topotypes of Smith's species, he certainly included Preservation Inlet and Campbell Island shells in the species, as these localities are mentioned by him. The diagnosis is thus a compound one, covering features characteristic of both Forsterian and Rossian forms. The figure does not seem to be taken from an Auckland Island shell, but neither is it typical of mainland forms, and as it does not agree with his diagnosis (spirals too few, and this is a specific character) and the original is not preserved, I consider the correct course is to neglect it and dispose of Suter's name. This vexed problem cannot be entirely settled till Smith's type is reported on, but at present one may advocate the dismissal of the name aucklandica altogether—Smith's use being a probable synonym, Suter's indeterminable. Iredale intended his quirindus to apply to this style of shell, and as that name has been shown to be also indeterminable, I now put forward a new name altogether (turbator n. sp., see later) and thus place this common shell on a more satisfactory footing.

The type lot of Trophon curtus Murdoch contains specimens of a perfectly distinct species, which are responsible for parts of the diagnosis such as “very often both whorls (of protoconch) are strongly keeled.” True curtus never has strong apical keels, the embryo being only sub-shouldered, with traces of a lower angle near its end. The species confused with it, though always distinct in apex and ornament, is congeneric with it, and very close to the shell that Suter three years later described as Mangilia devia from the Snares Islands in 50 fathoms.

Trophon bonneti Cossmann is an Upper Pliocene fossil, and does not occur Recent, Suter's records being based on new species. The union of T. ambiguus pumila Suter with this species is quite wrong, Suter's shell having nothing to do with either ambiguus or bonneti. It is a very variable shell and often simulates the bonneti type of sculpture, but has a radically different embryo and belongs to a widely removed group. It is, in fact, synonymous with my Xymene robustus (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 520, 1924), over which it has priority, Suter's figure and identification of his shell with bonneti leading me to believe that pumila was of the ambiguus group; topotypes since obtained have demonstrated its true affinities.

The remark “Allied to the Pliocene T. gouldi Cossmann” which is added to the description of T. crispulatus should, of course, be transferred to the next species, T. pusillus. Crispulatus has nothing whatever to do with gouldi, while pusillus is very close. It may be noted that Powell has lately figured pusillus for curtus (Bucknill, 1924, Pl. 8, fig. 6). This appears to be the only marked error in this useful little book, though it is a pity the author has so assiduously followed the “Manual,” for the resulting bad nomenclature robs the

– 423 –

book of some of its worth. The value of the work lies in Powell's illustrations, which are fine and natural, taken from authentic New Zealand specimens (the originals of which are preserved mostly in his own collection), and forming a far better guide for the casual collector than the “ Atlas” or Moss's unpretentious work.

Marwick has lately fallen into error in a discussion of the validity of the name gouldi for the Petane shell called crispus Gould by Hutton; I have gone into the matter elsewhere in this volume and advocated the retention of the name gouldi for the New Zealand shell.

Trophon virginalis Suter is a species that seems to have fallen into oblivion since it was described in 1913 (Rec. Cant. Mus., vol. 2, pt. 1, p. 58) along with Siphonium planatum Suter. Only list records of the latter appear elsewhere, and nowhere with a reference, but of the former not even these are available, and the name seems to have been forgotten entirely by its proposer and all other workers. The unique type specimen, which by the kindness of Mr. Speight I have been able to examine, is from Cape Maria van Diemen and has lost the protoconch and part of the outer lip. Enough remains, however, to show that it is a valid species, and that it belongs to the genus Galfridus Iredale (1924, p. 271), thus remaining in the Muricidae. It differs from the Sydney G. speciosus (Angas) mainly in much finer spiral sculpture; the state of preservation and appearance are exactly the same as other shells known to be from Cape Maria van Diemen.

The association now proposed contains many novelties, in both names and groupings, but it is based on lineage and nuclear characters, and is the result of long study of ample type and topotypic material. As in every other difficult group studied, I regard the embryo (taken in conjunction with build of shell and style of ornament) as of the highest importance in indicating true groups. One finds numerous cases of convergence, almost identical-looking shells having diverse apices, so that an attempt to classify Trophons without recourse to embryonic features leads at once to error; if, however, nuclear characters are used as a basis for division of the Recent forms, it is at once seen that the fossils fall readily into lineage and indicate that natural grouping has been accomplished.

Neozelanic Trophons may be primarily divided into two large groups, according to whether the apex is

  • (a) of more that two whorls, conic and mamillate, symmetrical, the nucleus central and minute, or

  • (b) of 1–2 whorls, papillate, asymmetrical, the nucleus lateral and large.

The first division contains the groups typified by ambiguus, plebejus, and pusillus; the second, those represented by turbator n. sp., convexus, curtus, crispulatus, and crassiliratus, also Buccinum geversianum Pallas, the genotype of Trophon s. str. The genera that I suggest, and the species grouped under them, are as follows (I give references only where they are not directly obtainable from the “Manual”). As before, a name in square brackets indicates an exclusively Tertiary form.

– 424 –

Zeatrophon n. gen. Type: Fusus ambiguus Phil.

Fusus ambiguus Phil., 1844.

Trophon. albolabratus” Hedley, 1916.

[Trophon (Trophonopsis) bonneti] Cossmann, 1903.

Trophon mortenseni Odhner, 1924.

(?) [Trophon huttoni] Murdoch, 1900 (T.N.Z.I., vol. 32, p. 221.

Several new species from deep water in both Islands.

Xymene Iredale, 1915. Type: Fusus plebejus Hutton.

Fusus plebejus Hutton, 1873.

Fusus inferus Hutton, 1873.

[Trophon expansus] Hutton, 1883 (T.N.Z.I., vol. 15, p. 410).

[Cominella drewi] Hutton, 1883 (T.N.Z.I., vol. 15, p. 410).

[Trophon (Xanthochorus) pulcherrimus] Suter, 1917 (Pal. Bull. No. 5, p. 38).

[Cominella monilifera] Hutton, 1885 (T.N.Z.I., vol. 17, p. 327).

Xymenella n. gen. Type: Trophon pusillus Suter.

Trophon pusillus Suter, 1907.

[Trophon gouldi] Cossmann, 1903 (Essais de Pal. Comp., livr. 5, p. 54).

[Cymatium suteri] Marshall and Murdoch, 1921 (T.N.Z.I., vol. 53, p. 80).

[Trophon (Kalydon) lepidus] Suter, 1917 (Pal. Bull. No. 5, p. 37).

[Trophon (Kalydon) minutissimus] Suter, 1917 (Pal. Bull. No. 5, p. 37).

Many new Tertiary species; most of the “Miocene” forms belong to this group.

Paratrophon n. gen. Type Polytropa cheesemani Hutton.

Polytropa cheesemani Hutton, 1882.

Fusus stangeri Gray, 1843.

Undescribed ancestral species.

Axymene n. gen. Type Axymene turbator n. sp.

Axymene turbator Finlay, 1927.

Trophon erectus Suter, 1909.

Fusus corticatus Hutton, 1873.

Fusus traversi Hutton, 1873.

Trophon waipipicola Webster, 1906.

Trophon ambiguus pumila Suter, 1899 (= Xymene robustus Finlay).

[Trophon murdochi] Marwick, 1924 (T.N.Z.I., vol. 55, p. 198).

New Pliocene species.

Lenitrophon n. subgen. Type: Trophon convexus Suter.

Trophon convexus Suter, 1909.

An ancestral new Pliocene species.

Comptella n. gen. Type: Trophon curtus Murdoch.

Trophon curtus Murdoch, 1905.

Mangilia devia Suter, 1908.

New Recent species.

– 425 –

Terefundus n. gen. Type: Trophon crispulatus Suter.

Trophon crispulatus Suter, 1908.

Mangilia quadricincta Suter, 1908.

Leucosyrinx cuvierensis Mestayer, 1919 (T.N.Z.I., vol. 51, p. 133).

New Recent species.

Minortrophon n. subgen. Type: Daphnella crassilirata Suter.

Daphnella crassilirata Suter, 1908.

The differences between Zeatrophon and Trophon s. str. have already been commented on. Xymene is a peculiarly distinct little group whose members have a uniform style of shell and gemmate spiral sculpture, the early whorls with low flattish cords cut up into beads, and with generally no distinct axial ribs, whereas Xymenella has the post-embryonic whorls strongly bicarinate, with pronounced axial ribs. Almost the whole of the “Miocene” forms belong to this latter group, which, except for Terefundus, contains the smallest Trophonoids. The apex of Paratrophon has not been seen, hence I may have erred in associating these two species together; they are both aberrant forms, and do not associate well, but the build of shell seems to be essentially the same in both stangeri and cheesemani, and, pending examination of unworn apices, it is preferable to place them together. Axymene and Comptella have a conspicuous feature in the strong oblique cord traversing the neck of the canal, but Comptella has a regular fenestrate ornament, with thin distant spirals and axials, and a very short canal, while Axymene consists of elate shells with strong coarse axial ribs and rather irregular spirals, the canal being pronounced. T. pumila and T. murdochi are not typical forms of Axymene, but may, on account of their apices, be left here temporarily; the position of T. huttoni is also insecure as no perfect apex has been seen, but it probably belongs to Zeatrophon. Lenitrophon may be treated as of subgeneric rank under Axymene, as the apices are essentially similar; the shell formation differs in its gently convex unshouldered whorls and absence of stronger cord on canal Terefundus is a very distinct group, characterized by minute size of shell, few and thin spiral cords with axial laminations, and totally smooth base and canal. Minortrophon has the same small shell and smooth base, but the facies of the shell is otherwise quite different, there being only heavy broad revolving cords, and an almost obsolete canal. The diversity of locations used for the species of Terefundus sufficiently attests the distinctness of the group. How Leucosyrinx cuvierensis Mest. and L. thomsoni Mest. could have been placed together in this genus, with the remark that the nearest ally of the one is the other, is beyond comprehension; they are totally unrelated. Miss Mestayer remarked that “they do not seem to be very closely allied to any other New Zealand species, either Recent or fossil.” The danger nowadays of systematic work without a knowledge of the fossil faunas (and vice versa) is exemplified in this statement, for both forms are very closely related to previously described New Zealand species, the latter, in fact, being a synonym of Turris nexilis bicarinatus Suter, while the former is barely separable from Mangilia quadricincta Suter.

– 426 –

Axymene turbator n. gen and sp. (Figs. 127, 128).

Shell small, dark coloured. Apex small, papillate, of 1½ smooth whorls, the nucleus globose and asymmetric. 14-16 axial ribs per whorl, faint and thin on shoulder, thence prominent to lower suture (interstices narrow at bottom, subequal to ribs at top of ribs), rapidly vanishing on base. Four spirals on penultimate whorl below shoulder (which is smooth), nine on body whorl, cords thickish (with subequal interstices), undulated and faintly thickened by axials, the ninth on neck of canal, very prominent. Faintly lamellose growth-lines over the whole surface. Spire subequal to aperture with canal, outlines stepped but straight. Whorls strongly shouldered at upper third, shoulder lightly concave, straight below. Suture inconspicuous, margined below by a pronounced swelling, above by the lowest cord. Aperture trapezoidal, widely angled above, produced below into a moderately long narrow canal, flexed a little to left, not notched at base. Outer lip thin and sharp, vertical in middle, straight and oblique in opposite directions at shoulder and base. Inner lip defined as a narrow glaze. Pillar subvertical, twisted near inception of canal and thence narrowing to a long fine point. Fasciole weak, smooth except for growth-lines. Colour sienna-chocolate, outside with greyish tints, inside chocolate, pillar touched with white.

Height, 12.5 mm.; diameter, 6 mm.

Locality,—Dunedin Harbour, under stones at low tide.

Genus Vesanula Finlay.

For a curious Middle Tertiary shell of both Trophonoid and Fusid affinities, V. chaskanon, I introduced this genus name (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 245, 1926), stating that Pagodula vegrandis M. & M. (l.c., vol. 54, p. 124, 1923) “is superficially similar, but the embryo is radically different.” This conclusion was based on an abnormal specimen, and study of further material of both species and of V. tegens (Hutton) (l.c., vol. 9, p. 594, 1877) allows me to correct the mis-statement, and give a better description of the embryo of Vesanula. All the species have a two-whorled protoconch, smooth and glossy, the second whorl somewhat inflated and ending in a distinct curved varix, followed by a short brephic stage of similar but distant and stronger varices before there arises the median keel with its strong triangular open spines. There is some variation, however, in the initial whorl; in chaskanon and tegens it is minute, slightly asymmetrical, and very depressed, quite tiny in comparison with the much inflated second volution, in vegrandis it is much more loosely coiled, suberect and somewhat papillate, the second whorl relatively much less swollen. Nevertheless, there seems to be no fundamental difference shown, and the shells are so similar in facies that they can safely be grouped together. This is welcome, as it will remove the extra-limital genus Pagodula from New Zealand faunal lists. I cannot help thinking that Columbarium maorum M. & M. (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 54, p. 127, 1923) would be better placed in Vesanula; the characteristic aperture is unfortunately missing, but the embryo, though described as lightly carinated, is nothing like the large bulb of the Recent C. suteri Smith or the Australian Tertiary forms such as acanthostephes (Tate). Vesanula seems, on

– 427 –

the whole, to be better placed near Xymenella in the Trophonidae than near Columbarium in the Fusidae.

Genus Typhis Montfort, 1810. [P. 420]

Suter was able to record only a damaged and specifically indeterminable specimen of this genus from 110 fathoms off Great Barrier Island, but Miss Mestayer has now definitely added it to the fauna by describing T. pauperis (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 48, p. 127, 1916) from 60 fathoms Poor Knights Is., and 30 fathoms Hauraki Gulf. The Tertiary species T. hebetatus Hutton has lately been recompared with Australian material (Marwick; Rep. Austr. Assoc. Adv. Sci., vol. 16, p. 328, 1924), and its asserted identity with T. maccoyi T.-W. decided to be well founded. I have added a second Tertiary species, T. francescae (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 465, 1924).

Thais haustrum (Martyn, 1784). [P. 422]

In his “Commentary” Iredale proposed to use for this genus Haustrum, of Perry, 1811, but Haustrum was a Humphrey name, published in 1797 in the Museum Calonnianum, where the only recognisable constituent of the genus is Buccinum persicum Linné (teste T. Iredale), so that Hutton's genus name Lepsia can be reverted to.

This species has been denounced as an oyster-borer (Hedley, N.Z. Journ. Sci. & Tech., vol. 2, No. 6, p. 366, 1919).

Thais succincta (Martyn, 1784). [P. 423]

This species was localized as from New Zealand, but contemporary authorities recognized that it came from Botany Bay, New South Wales. When series of specimens are examined, this is very definite, as the form figured by Martyn is typical of the common Sydney shells and disagrees with the Neozelanic type. Several species prove to have been confused under the above name, and the Neozelanic species must bear the name scalaris Menke 1829 (Verz. Conch. Samml. Mals., p. 33). New Zealand shells differ at sight from Sydney specimens, especially when juveniles are compared, in relatively much more capacious aperture, quite differently flexed pillar, and shorter and broader spire, besides differences in detail of sculpture.

The apex of N. lacunosa Bruguiére needs examination to determine its nature; there is nothing to show at present that it is really Neothaitid, i.e., sinusigerid, horny, sharply conic, polygyrate, swollen at its base, and set somewhat obliquely on the shell.

Powell has recorded (N.Z. Journ. Sci. & Tech., vol. 4, p. 205, 1921) a large specimen (36 mm. high) of Lepsiella scobina rutila (Suter) from Whangarei.

Thais tritoniformis (Blainville, 1833). [P. 424]

The correct name is Agnewia tritoniformis, but it must be noted that Suter gives no authority for the two localities he mentions, “Bay of Islands; Cook Strait,” referring to Justice Gillies's introduction of it to the Neozelanic fauna. Mr. La Roche, of Auckland, has two specimens found by himself at Whangaroa; I have examined

– 428 –

these, and here figure one of them (Fig. 32), but as the species is a somewhat variable one more Neozelanic examples must be studied before a safe discrimination can be made. One may therefore admit it doubtfully to the fauna. The specimens possibly came from Australia in ballast; exotic shells have occasionally been reported alive in New Zealand waters, e.g. Murex ramosus L. (Moss; Beautiful Shells of New Zealand, p. 16, 1908) and Conus marmoreus L. (Mestayer; N.Z. Journ. Sci. & Tech., vol. 1, p. 102, 1918: Ericusa sowerbyi Kiener also reported from a dead shell). These have, of course, no just claim to inclusion in the Neozelanic fauna.

Family Cancellariidae. [P. 429]

This has as yet only one Recent representative, but I have in my collection undescribed new species belonging to several genera.

The fossil species have considerably increased in number, and the following new genera have been proposed for them: Oamaruia Finlay (for Admete suteri M. & M.; Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 52, p. 132, 1920) (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 54, p. 514, 1924), Inglisella Finlay (for Ptychatractus pukeuriensis Suter; N.Z.G.S. Pal. Bull. No. 5, p. 26, 1917) (l.c., p. 513), Maorivetia Finlay (for Turbinella brevirostris Hutton; Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 9, p. 596, 1877) (l.c., p. 513), and Procancellaria Wilckens (for P. parkiana Wilck.; N.Z.G.S. Pal. Bull. No. 8, p. 21, 1922); the last is a Cretaceous genus and is a very doubtful member of the family. Inglisella seems to be allied to the Recent Australian genus Microsveltia Iredale (for M. recessa Iredale) Rec. Austr. Mus., vol. 14, p. 265, 1925) and includes, besides the type, cincta (Hutton) (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 17, p. 327, 1885), anomala M. & M. (l.c., vol. 52, p. 132, 1920) and the Australian Tertiary etheridgei (Johnston) and probably caperata (Tate). Pepta Iredale (l.c., p. 266) another Recent Australian genus, proposed for Admete stricta Hedley, and including the Tertiary turriculata Tate, has no Neozelanic representative. Neither is Cancellaria proper represented in New Zealand, though Cancellaria scobina Hedley and Petterd, which Iredale has noted (1924, p. 262, and 1925, p. 266) should be “removed from Admete back to Cancellaria s.l.” is quite like some members of the series lacunosa Hutton (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 17, p. 320, 1885), maorium M. & M. (l.c., vol. 53, p. 82, 1921), ovalis Marshall (l.c., vol. 50, p. 269, 1918), and hampdenensis M. & M. (l.c., vol. 54, p. 124, 1923), for which the generic name Bonellitia Jousseaume—apparently a reasonable location—is at present in use in New Zealand. The Australian Trigonostoma series is represented in the New Zealand Tertiary by T. waikaiaensis and christiei Finlay (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 466, 1924). Maorivetia is at present restricted to the type species, while Oamaruia includes one New Zealand species (though others are known to me), i.e., O. suteri (M. & M.) the genotype, and several Australian species, ptychotropis and tatei (Cossmann) (= gradata Tate; see nomenclatural note elsewhere in this volume), and the Recent pergradata (Verco). The list of New Zealand Tertiary species is completed by the addition of three doubtfully located forms, Aphera (?) scopalveus Finlay (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 246, 1926), Uxia (?) marshalli Allan (l.c., p. 342), and “Admetecristata

– 429 –

Marwick (l.c., p. 323), the last named probably does not belong to this family.

Admete trailli (Hutton, 1873). [P. 429]

The reference to the genus Admete is indefensible. Suter's description, “Protoconch of 1½ smooth and convex whorls, the nucleus globular.…Columella vertical, with 3 low rounded and oblique plaits” should be contrasted with that of the type of Admete, with its sculptured complex protoconch and its smooth columella. I propose the new generic name Zeadmete, naming Cancellaria trailli Hutton as type.

Family Pyrenidae. [P. 430]

The forms referred to this family by Suter are placed in four genera, Mitrella, Anachis, Alcira, and Atilia. All these four names must be dismissed, and most of the species redistributed. Suter's basis of classification—length of the canal and the presence or absence of an oblique plait at the base of the pillar is useless as regards Neozelanic species; Suter himself could not use it, for there are several “Mitrellas” among his “Alciras” and vice versa.

Before rearranging the forms into more natural groups, however, it is best to deal with three specific names that call for rejection; these are Alcira sanguinea, A. inconstans, and Atilia biconica.

Topotypes of Alcira sanguinea Suter agree absolutely with topotypes of Mitrella rosea (Hutton); as evinced by his generic location, Suter saw a basal plait in the Bounty Island shells, and therefore distinguished them from rosea which he had placed in Mitrella; but all specimens of rosea show a strong basal plait, while Hutton's original location in Obeliscus is sufficient evidence that he had not missed it.

Suter (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 38, p. 329, 1906) renamed Columbella varians Hutton C. inconstans nov., and (wrongly) changed Lachesis sulcata Hutton to Columbella huttoni nov. (Index Faunae N.Z., p. 72, 1904), but the type material of the former—from the Upper Pliocene—is inseparable as a species from the two poor type specimens of the latter; sulcata has many years' priority. The confusion seems to have begun when Murdoch (Trans. N. Z. Inst., vol. 37, p. 223, pl. 7, fig. 12, 1905) figured a Whangaroa shell which he took to be huttoni, i.e. sulcata; it hardly resembles it and belongs to a different group, but nevertheless this is the interpretation and illustration given to Hutton's species in the “Manual” [p. 440] and “Atlas” [Plate 20, fig. 1]. Murdoch at the same time gave a good description of his specimens, which represent a distinct form, so I rename it after him (see under Paxula), selecting a type here figured (Figs. 60, 61) from the same locality, in the Finlay collection.

Suter described Atilia biconica from Hauraki Gulf, in 25 fathoms, remarking that “The two specimens at my disposal for drawing up the above diagnosis do not appear to be quite full grown.” This, no doubt, was the reason for a curious blunder, for the specimens are juveniles of the shell he had described three pages previously as Mitrella pseudomarginata from the Bay of Islands; I have specimens dredged in 25 fathoms in Hauraki Gulf. i.e., topotypes of biconica.

– 430 –

Mitromorpha suteri Murdoch was referred to Alcira by Suter; this was probably an accident as the shell has no plait on the pillar; however it has spiral sculpture. It is not a Pyrenid, and Murdoch's original location was quite good, considering what was known of Mitromorpha at that time; it is now removed again to the Turridae, and will be dealt with later.

Lumping all the Mitrellas, Alciras, and Atilias together, and resorting, I suggest the following grouping:—

Paxula n. gen. Type Columbella paxillus Murdoch.

With the type I associate C. transitans Murdoch, Mitrella leptalea Suter, M. subantarctica Suter, and Paxula murdochi nom. nov. for Columbella huttoni Murdoch, not of Suter (vide antea). This is a very compact little assemblage, all the members of which have a sharp straight spire, and highly characteristic aperture (well shown in Murdoch's original figures of transitans and paxillus) which has a medially inflated shortly pyriform shape, a considerably excavated pillar, twisted below, but with no trace at any stage of a plait or groove, and a very short canal flexed to the left. Specific differences in the group seem limited to variation in spiral sculpture and slenderness of shell. The range of localities given by Suter for Murdoch's transitans is worth noting; it probably does not reach the South Island, while the Subantarctic records refer to subantarctica. The Pliocene Columbella angustata Hutton is, however, not referable here, but is a Turrid.

Liratilia n. gen. Type: Daphnella conquisita Suter.

This shell and Alcira angulat Suter, described the following year, are extremely close specifically, though one would not guess so from the crude figures. Suter's inability to recognize his own groups is frequently evident, especially to the palaeontologist (cf. Marwick, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 310, 1926), but more to be regretted is his habit of retouching figures to conform with his generic locations. This is a matter that must unfortunately be brought to notice as it has caused so much confusion, and it must be repeatedly stressed that generic conclusions are drawn at great risk from Suter's figures. Dr. Marwick has frequently mentioned Suter's unreliability in both generic and specific identifications and the false impression often given by his figures; the point is noted again since European authorities are accustomed to place Australasian shells from figures alone, and in the case of Neozelanic shells this leads only to confusion. A much better figure of D. conquisita (though of a juvenile shell) is given by Odher under the misidentification and wrong generic location of “Prosipho chariessa” (1924, p. 37; pl. 1, fig. 25). Odhner mentions that “it is possible that also some of the spirally lirate species of Alcira from New Zealand belong to Prosipho,” and notes that Hedley has referred some Australian species there. I doubt the applicability of Prosipho to any Neozelanic species, but it certainly does not apply to the present Pyrenid group, which again is little like the Australian cassandra, pallidula, etc. A third species of Liratilia is Pleurotoma (Leucosyrinx) eremita M. and S., described from 110 fathoms off Great Barrier Island; this differs from the other two chiefly in possessing faint axial riblets on the upper whorls; it is

– 431 –

certainly not a Turrid. I know of the genotype as a Castlecliff fossil, but otherwise the group is so far of only Recent occurrence.

Zemitrella n. gen. Type: Lachesis sulcata Hutton.

Here may be grouped the remaining New Zealand Pyrenids (except those placed in Anachis); choava, pseudomarginata, stephanophora, websteri, laevigata, rosea, the type, and (provisionally) Atilia daemona Webster. There is indication that more than one shell type is included here, but there is gradation, and till the fossil forms are better known I prefer not to split further. Marshall's Mitrella inconspicua (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 50, p. 266, 1918) and some undescribed Tertiary species (e.g., Suter's “Alcira n. sp.”—N.Z. Geol. Surv. Bull. No. 20, pp. 89, 93, 1918) belong to this group, all the members of which show an oblique plait at the base of the pillar. Choava has the plait subobsolete, but all the others show it strongly, especially in juvenile shells.

The Neozelanic species of Anachis are divisible into two groups, one containing small shells with short beak, and the other—restricted to the Tertiary—larger shells with distinct canal. Neither of these exactly matches with Pyrene gemmulifera Hedley (the type of Retizafra) which is a minute Mitrithara-like shell from the Capricorn group, nor with the genotypes of any of the cancellate genera outlined by Iredale in Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 12, pt. 1, p. 33, 1916. The forms of both series seem to be sublittoral dwellers of southern development, and as no other austral group is suitable I provide names.

Macrozafra n. gen. Type: Clathurella subabnormis Suter.

Here would also be placed the only other Recent species included by Suter, Clathurella nodicincta Suter. But from the series available I would maintain Columbella saxatilis Murdoch as a third good form, very close to subabnormis but apparently distinct in its higher spire, stouter shell, and narrower and less flexuous axials; described from Takapuna, it would seem to be a northerly regional representative of the Lyall Bay subabnormis. Suter's poor figure in the “Manual” is quite different from his original illustration, and seems to have been taken from a northern shell; when the original figure is contrasted with Murdoch's picture of saxatilis (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 37, pl. 8, fig. 15, 1905) the differences are at once apparent.

There is a Tertiary ancestral (undescribed) species from the “Miocene,” but otherwise no fossil species of this group are known. M. nodicincta would seem to be very closely related to the Tasmanian and South Australian Pyrene calva Verco. The Australian early Tertiary Columbella balcombensis Pritchard (P.R.S. Vict., vol. 17, N.S., pt. 1, p. 324, 1904), though also nearly allied, represents a separable group.

Antizafra n. gen. Type: Columbella pisaniopsis Hutton.

The type, C. cancellaria Hutton, Anachis speighti Marwick (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 199, 1924), and two “Miocene” (undescribed) ancestors constitute this group in New Zealand, while Columbella plexa Hedley seems to be an Australian member.

Family Volutidae Gray. [P. 444]

Dr. Marwick has just recently published a revision of the “Tertiary and Recent Volutidae of New Zealand” (Trans. N.Z. Inst.,

– 432 –

vol. 56, pp. 259-303, 1926), in which 82 species are admitted to the New Zealand faunal lists, and the following groups proposed:—

  • Notoplejona for Athleta necopinata Suter (p. 270).

  • Mauia for Galeodes maoriana Suter (p. 271).

  • Waihaoia for W. allani Marwick (p. 274).

  • Teremelon for Scaphella tumidior Finlay (p. 279).

  • Pachymelon for Waihaoia amoriaformis Marwick (p. 281).

  • Spinomelon for Lapparia parki Suter (p. 283).

  • Metamelon for Miomelon clifdenensis Finlay (p. 285).

Fulgoraria Schumacher is dismissed altogether from this region, and Alcithoe used instead as a full genus. The only other previously known genus utilized is Lyria Gray, which I admitted to the fauna by describing L. zelandica (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 470), and regarding which Marwick has remarked (p. 263), “The presence of an isolated but typical Lyria in Middle Tertiary (probably Oligocene) beds in New Zealand is rather surprising.” Eight Recent species are allowed; seven of these are placed in Alcithoe, viz., swainsoni Marwick (new name for elongata Swainson, preoccupied by Solander), larochei Marwick (a new species from off Opotiki in 30 fathoms), arabica (Mart.), jaculoides Powell (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 16, p. 108, 1924), depressa Suter, gracilis (Swainson), and hedleyi M. & S., while the eighth, Watson's Cymbiola lutea, is referred to Waihaoia, subgenus Pachymelon, but it is so sundered in time-occurrence from the other members of the genus, and especially the subgenus, that close affinity is doubtful. The formation of the whorls and beak, and especially of the columellar plaits is very different from that seen in amoriaformis and its allies. Watson says of the pillar plaits, “four not strong, equal, concealed,.… very oblique teeth,” Pachymelon has 5–6 very strong, unequal, prominently visible, not very oblique plaits; Watson's figure 3b (Chall. Rep., vol. 15, pl. 15) shows the peculiar columella and general facies much better than his figure 3a, which Marwick has reproduced (l.c., Pl. 63, fig. 3). I accordingly propose Palomelon n. subgen. of Waihaoia for Watson's species alone, to mark its conchological and chronological separation from the other members of that group; it is possibly not closely allied to them at all. Waihaoia firma was inadvertently described without locality in Marwick's paper; he has now given this as “shell-bed, Target Gully, Oamaru” (N.Z. Journ. Sci. and Tech., vol. 8, no. 5, p. 304, 1926).

To Marwick's census must be added the genus Microvoluta Angas, 1877 (vide antea) with its two Neozelanic species biconica M. & S. (Recent), and lincta Hutton (Pliocene); also the extraordinary genus Iredalina Finlay (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 17, p. 59, 1926), proposed for “A Volute without plaits,” I. mirabilis Finlay, described from the unique type trawled in 40 fathoms off Otago Heads. The Australian Ericusa sowerbyi (Kiener) has been reported by Miss Mestayer (N.Z. Journ. Sci. & Tech., vol. 1, p. 103, 1918) from the beach at Evans Bay, Wellington Harbour, but is, of course, no true member of our fauna.

Genus Ancilla Lamarck, 1799. [P. 450]

Ancilla, at the reference given by Suter, which is correct, is based upon the figures of Martin, “Conch., 2, p. 359, t. 65, fig. 722-724.”

– 433 –

These figures are recognized by Pfeiffer in the Krit. Register, 1840, p. 20 as:—fig. 722, A. candida Lamarck; figs. 723-4, Voluta ampla Gmel.=A. cinnamomea Lamk. No true Ancilla occurs in New Zealand, living or fossil; Baryspira Fischer, 1883 (Type: A. australis Sow.) is available for Neozelanic forms, but at least three groups can be determined, and as numerous additions have been made to the Tertiary list within recent years, these are here outlined. First, however, it may be noted that two Australian Tertiary species, papillata Tate and subgradata Tate, have been dismissed from the Neozelanic fauna by Marwick (Rep. Austr. Assoc. Adv. Sci., vol. 16. p. 322, 1924), an Australian species which had been confounded with the Neozelanic A. hebera Hutton being renamed A. tatei Marwick at the same time (l.c., p. 319).

Baryspira Fischer, 1883 (Man. de Conch., fasc. 6, p. 600) should be used generically for the Recent species australis and mucronata Sowerby, and the fossils spinigera and cincta Marshall (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 50, p. 267, 1918), robusta Marwick (Rep. Austr. Assoc. Adv. Sci., vol. 16, p. 322, 1924), tirangiensis Marwick (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 324, 1926), and waikaiaensis Finlay (l.c., p. 251). Powell has recorded (N.Z. Journ. Sci. & Tech., vol. 6, p. 285, 1924) the occurrence of numerous living specimens of mucronata on a sandpit off Devonport, Auckland; the only instance of its having been found in the littoral zone.

Alocospira Cossmann, 1899 (Ess. de Pal. comp., livr. 3, p. 92) may be employed subgenerically for the Tertiary hebera Hutton (Cat. Tert. Moll., p. 6, 1873) and subhebera Marwick (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 323, 1926), and perhaps the Recent novaezelandiae Sowerby. Hebera is a variable form, but many specimens show the characteristic callus and spiral ridges of the Australian Tertiary papillata Tate, the genotype of Alocospira. Novaezelandiae is rather difficult to place, but Iredale, in treating of Australian Recent Ancillas (1924, p. 261), has included the smooth-spired forms in Alocospira; there seems to be much gradation in this character, and hebera is frequently smooth.

Pinguispira n. subgen., type: Ancilla (Baryspira) opima Marwick (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 200, 1924) is proposed to include the remaining species; the Recent forms depressa Sow. and crystallina Brookes (l.c., vol. 56, p. 589, 1926), and the Tertiary species (besides the type) lata Hutton (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 17, p. 325, 1885) (which should not be merged in depressa as Suter has done), waikopiroensis Suter (N.Z.G.S. Pal. Bull. No. 5, p. 42, 1917), and morgani Allan (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 342, 1926). This group is very distinct in its squat and inflated shell, and short and heavily thickened pillar, notably excavated and twisted anteriorly.

All the New Zealand species have been mentioned in the above summary.

Family Marginellidae. [P. 456]

Probably a large number of these shells will turn up in dredgings later, as Tasmania has over sixty species already listed, while New Zealand shows only fifteen. The major groupings are in a state of chaos, and Suter is to be congratulated upon attempting a scheme

– 434 –

of separation, though the grouping of the New Zealand forms is as confused as in the Pyrenidae. Suter recognises a genus Cryptospira of Hinds, 1844, subordinating to it a subgenus Gibberula Swainson, 1840. This arrangement must be reversed, but probably neither genus is correctly used. The five Australian species are very doubtful inclusions.

Odhner has added Marginella coma n.sp. from 50 fathoms off Cape Maria van Diemen, and the status of this form must remain in doubt till relatives turn up; it may be distantly related to Peculator Iredale (1924, p. 269), but is certainly no true Marginella. The only other addition to the Recent fauna since the “Manual” was published is M. cairoma Brookes (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 154, 1924) from the north Cookian region. The Tertiary list, however, has been augmented considerably, and now stands as follows:—(group A), conica Harris (Cat. Tert. Moll. B.M., p. 88, 1897), whitecliffensis Marwick (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 324, 1926); (group B), harrisi Cossmann (Ess. de Pal. comp., livr. 3, p. 88, 1899; see nomenclatural note elsewhere in this volume), fraudulenta Suter (N.Z.G.S. Pal. Bull. No. 5, p. 42, 1917), aveniformis Marshall (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 51, p. 230, 1919); (group C), dubia Hutton (Cat. Tert. Moll., p. 8, 1873; from Broken River, Lower beds; “Outline like M. kirki Marwick, but much larger and stronger, body whorl more inflated, and spire broader and lower”—Marwick, in litt.), hectori Kirk (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 14, p. 409, 1882), kirki Marwick (Rep. Austr. Assoc. Adv. Sci., vol. 16, p. 324, 1924), and marwicki Finlay (new name for brevespira Marwick, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 201, 1924, preoccupied; see elsewhere this volume).

Marwick has rejected the record of an Australian Tertiary species M. propinqua Tate from the New Zealand Tertiary (Rep. Austr. Assoc. Adv. Sci., vol. 16, p. 324, 1924).

Family Turridae. [P. 468]

No comments on this family are offered here, as it is proposed to deal exhaustively with both the Recent and fossil forms in a revision now in preparation, and the many emendations necessary in Suter's arrangement will then be made. Attention may, however, be drawn to the following genera, lately created for New Zealand forms:—

  • Liracraea Odhner (1924, p. 44), for Clathurella epentroma Murdoch.

  • Rugobela Finlay (1924 c, p. 514), for Ptychatractus tenuiliratus Suter.

  • Parasyrinx Finlay (1924 c, p. 514), for Pleurotoma alta Harris.

  • Austrotoma Finlay (1924 c, p. 515), for Bathytoma excavata Suter.

  • Phenatoma Finlay (1924 c, p. 515), for Pleurotoma novaezelandiae Reeve.

  • Cryptomella Finlay (1924 c, p. 516), for Leucosyrinx transenna Suter.

  • Comitas Finlay (1926, p. 251), for Surcula oamarutica Suter.

  • Insolentia Finlay (1926, p. 252), for Surcula pareoraensis Suter.

  • Zemacies Finlay (1926, p. 252), for Z. elatior Finlay.

  • Speightia Finlay (1926, p. 252), for Euthriofusus spinosus Suter.

– 435 –
  • Fenestrosyrinx Finlay (1926, p. 254), for Turris nexilis bicarinatus Suter.

  • Stilla Finlay (1926, p. 254), for Mangilia flexicostata Suter.

  • Vexithara Finlay (1926, p. 254), for Antimitra vexilliformis Marshall and Murdoch.

  • Marshallena Finlay, 1927 (herein), for Belophos incertus Marshall.

Some specific name changes, mostly in connection with Tertiary fossils, have also been introduced by Finlay in two nomenclatural papers, (a) Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 16, pt. 2, pp. 103, 104, 1924; (b) elsewhere in this volume.

Hedley has recently completed his investigation of the Australian complex grouped under the name “Turridae,” and he has suggested that the family is polyphyletic, and the species of heterogeneous origin; one thing is certain, that the austral groups have practically nothing in common with the northern series classed under this family name.

To the Recent fauna have to be added Heterocithara mediocris Odhner (1924, p. 43), the first (and a correct) record of this genus from New Zealand; Guraleus tenebrosus Powell (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 17, p. 37, 1926), which is closely allied to Drillia lyallensis Murdoch [P. 482]; and Mangilia huttoni E. A. Smith (Brit, Antarc, “Terra Nova” Exped., Zool., vol. 2, No. 4, p. 88, 1915), which Suter has nowhere mentioned.

Genus Terebra Lamarck, 1799. [P. 513]

This can be dismissed from the Neozelanic list, since, of the two species, T. flexicostata Suter (possibly a synonym of venosa, and not Neozelanic) is referable to the genus Acuminia Dall (Nautilus, vol. 21, p. 124, 1908), while the second may be an aberrant species of Pervicacia Iredale (1924, p. 262), or representative of a new group. Suter's subspecies crassicostata [P. 515] is not worth recognition; Lyall Bay forms do not differ from those found elsewhere. The Tertiary species are divisible into two groups; the first contains the smaller species, with blunt paucispiral embryo, related to tristis Desh., and comprises costata Hutton (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 17, p. 315, 1885) (which, as I have noted elsewhere in this volume, is preoccupied, but seems to be inseparable from tristis, so may be dropped), benesulcata Bartrum (l.c., vol. 51, p. 99, 1919), omahuensis Marwick (l.c., vol. 56, p. 326, 1926), and numerous new species; for this assemblage Pervicacia may be used. The second group, which may at present be referred to Acuminia, consists of larger species with flatter whorls and a sharp polygyrate apex, and contains orycta Suter (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 45, p. 296, 1913), pareoraensis Suter (N.Z.G.S. Pal. Bull, No. 5, p. 62, 1917), biplex Hutton (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 17, p. 327, 1885), sulcata Marshall (l.c., vol. 51, p. 232, 1919), possibly bicorona Hutton (l.c., vol. 17, p. 328, 1885; see also Marwick, Rep. Austr. Assoc. Adv. Sci., vol. 16, p. 327, 1924), and also many undescribed forms. Marwick, at the reference just quoted, has rejected the Australian Tertiary T. catenifera Tate, reported by Suter, as not of Neozelanic occurrence.

– 436 –

Genus Conus Linné, 1758.

This has no Recent representative in New Zealand (except for the occasional occurrence of an exotic species in the North Cookian region, e.g., marmoreus L. has been recorded alive from Farewell Spit by Miss Mestayer, N.Z. Journ. Sci. and Tech., vol. 1, p. 102, 1918), but the number of Tertiary species is now quite respectable. They are as follows:— armoricus and fusellinus Suter (N.Z.G.S. Pal. Bull. No. 5, p. 61, 1917), suteri Cossmann (= deperditus* Suter), thorae Finlay (= convexus* Marshall), marshalli Finlay (= lyratus* Marshall), abruptus Marshall (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 50, p. 270, 1918), pseudoarmoricus M. and M. (l.c., vol. 52, p. 135, 1920), huttoni Tate (= ornatus* and trailli* Hutton), triangularis Finlay (l.c., vol. 55, p. 479, 1924), rivertonensis Finlay (l.c., vol. 56, p. 255, 1926), and tahuensis Allan (l.c., p. 344). The record of C. catus Hwass from “a well-digging 10 feet in depth, Chatham Islands” (Harris, Cat. Tert. Moll. B.M., p. 35, 1897) can surely be dismissed. The specimen may have come from “Chatham Island” in Polynesia.

Actaeon craticulatus Murdoch and Suter, 1906. [P. 518]

Hedley, when describing Acteon roseus (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vol. 29, pt. 4, p. 536, April 12th, 1906) unwittingly gave a valid name to the New Zealand shell as well. He remarked that “There is a closely allied species from 110 fathoms off the Great Barrier Island, New Zealand, which my friends Messrs. R. Murdoch and H. Suter are about to describe as A. cratericulatus. The New Zealand shell differs by being much smaller, with sharper sculpture, the grooves being broader and deeper, and crossed by more distant and elevated threads.” This comparison, taken in conjunction with the excellent figure and full description of A. roseus Hedley, amounts to a good diagnosis, and as Murdoch and Suter's name was not published till June, 1906, it must be displaced by Actaeon cratericulatus Hedley. I select the specimen examined by Hedley, in the Australian Museum collection (fide T. Iredale), as holotype of the species.

No Recent representative has yet been found of our large Pliocene Actaeons, such as A. praestitus Finlay (= sulcatus Hutton, preoccupied; Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 16, p. 105, 1924).

Genus Pupa Bolten, 1798. [P. 518]

There are several local names available for the local species, and it is unwise to employ one given to an Indo-Pacific shell. Therefore I reject Pupa affinis A. Ad. as inapplicable to Neozelanic shells, none of which show the peripheral groove emerging below the suture, or have the same outlines as Adams's shell. For the small Actaeon-like form common in northern deep-water dredgings, Hutton's Buccinulus albus is suitable; the type is lost, but there is only one small New Zealand, species, and sufficient data is given in Hutton's diagnosis and measurements to indicate that he described this; as the shell occurs all round the Hauraki Gulf and its precincts, and it is advisable to have a type specimen, I chose as neotype a specimen in the

[Footnote] * See nomenclatural notes elsewhere in this volume.

– 437 –

Finlay collection, dredged in Hauraki Gulf in 25 fathoms. Suter's figure is too slender and has the base too regularly contracted.

Examination of type material in the Dominion Museum convinces me that Buccinulus kirki Hutton, 1873 is identical with and has priority over B. gracilis Kirk, 1882, but that B. huttoni Kirk, 1882 is possibly different. Too few specimens are available for a full investigation, but in the meantime I recommend that two large species be recognised under these names, and suggest that there may really be only one.

Genus Triploca Tate, 1894.

This has been added to the Tertiary fauna by Marshall and Murdoch (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 54, p. 128, 1923) with a new species T. waihaoensis, which is closely allied to the only other species of the genus, the Australian Tertiary T. ligata Tate.

Leucotina pura (A. Adams, 1855). [P. 521]

From study of the type in the British Museum, Hedley recognised that A. Adams' species was a Sydney shell, and the ascription to New Zealand consequently erroneous; the record should be eliminated.

Bullina scabra (Gmelin, 1791). [P. 522]

This name has already been changed by Iredale in his “Commentary,” but unfortunately still another change is necessary, as Voluta ziczac Muhlfeldt, 1878, had been anticipated by Schroeter, 1804, so that the name to be used now appears to be Bullinula lineata Gray, 1825 (information from T. Iredale). Authentic New Zealand specimens have been collected in late years by Powell at Mt. Maunganui and Great Barrier Island (see also Bucknill, 1924, p. 78).

Genus Ringicula Deshayes, 1838. [P. 523]

To R. uniplicata Hutton, the sole Tertiary species recorded by Suter, must now be added R. torquata Marwick (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 326, 1926); there are, however, many undescribed new species.

Hydatina physis (Linné, 1758).

Powell has lately added this to the New Zealand fauna by recording the finding of a live specimen on Great Barrier Island (N.Z. Journ. Sci. & Tech., vol. 6, Nos. 5 & 6, p. 284 with text fig., 1924).

Genus Volvulella Newton, 1891. [P. 529]

Hedley (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vol. 41, p. 716, 1916) has indicated that this must be replaced by Rhizorus Montfort, 1810, proposed for R. adelaidis Mont.= Bulla acuminata Brug.

The New Zealand species is at present unnamed. Suter identified Recent shells with the “Miocene” Cylichna reflexa Hutton, from White Rock River, though commenting (N.Z. Geol. Surv. Pal. Bull. No. 3, p. 46, 1915) that Recent specimens were somewhat larger than the type. This is constantly the case, but there are far more marked distinctions also. The fossil shell has a long and very sharp spire, notably concave at its base, which gives it the appearance of a projecting thorn, while the Recent shell has only a short and not

– 438 –

very sharp apex of fairly regular formation. The little chink-like perforation on the inner side of the spire is consequently much more drawn out in true reflexus, which also justifies its name in having the basal lip more reflexed, with a stouter, more oblique pillar-plait. Both shells have fine dense spirals all over, but the stronger grooves on base and apex are more numerous and closer in the fossil. In relation to width, the Recent shell is considerably more elongate, especially as regards the inner half of the body whorl as seen from the front. Suter has figured a Recent shell (though the pillar twist is too strong and the shell rather short), so I give the name Rhizorus nesentus nov. to the specimens dredged in 38 fathoms off Cuvier Island, selecting a type from that locality in the Finlay collection.

Genus Cylichnella Gabb, 1873. [P. 530]

Suter includes two Australian species, pygmaea A. Ad. and thetidis Hedley, stating that arachis Q. & G. does not occur in New Zealand waters, and that the type of Kirk's C. zealandica is lost. This is a mistake, for it and three syntypes are in the Dominion Museum, Wellington; Hedley, who examined them, left a note that the type was C. arachis and the syntypes C. thetidis. On the strength of this, Miss Mestayer (N.Z. Journ. Sci. & Tech., vol. 3, Nos. 5 & 6. p. 303, 1921) has identified some 50 examples sorted from Hauraki Gulf dredgings as C. arachis (Q. & G.). Two, at least, of these records of Australian shells must now be rejected. When Hedley returned Kirk's type material, he sent also Sydney specimens of arachis for comparison, but Miss Mestayer evidently did not use them, for differences are obvious, and could hardly have been overlooked The Australian shells grow to more than twice the size of the New Zealand species, the top of the aperture rises much higher, the apex of the shell narrows in considerably so that the pit round the perforation is much narrower (the perforations are about the same size relative to width of shell, but the width of the pit border is much narrower in arachis), and the pillar plait in New Zealand shells is very much weaker, lower down, and with no groove behind it. C. zealandica Kirk must be revived for this form. As regards C. thetidis Hedley, Suter's figure in the “Atlas” seems to be a copy of Hedley's original fine drawing (Mem. Austr. Mus., vol. 4, pt. 6, p. 395, fig. in text, 1903), but the little material available does not enable me at present to separate Australian and New Zealand specimens.

Cylichnella pygmaea A. Ad. does not occur in New Zealand, and it is hard to say what Suter's figure is intended to represent, for it is not like the New Zealand shell, yet does not well portray true pygmaea; it is probably a poor copy of some other figure. The New Zealand form is stouter and much wider on top than Adams's shell, and the perforation much larger; I describe it as a new species below. Hedley and May have placed these forms in Cylichnina Monterosato, and here may (at present) also be referred the remaining New Zealand species, Cylichna striata Hutton, which is a close ally of C. iredaleana Hedley.

– 439 –

Cylichnina opima n. sp. (Fig. 34).

Shell small, squat, but well inflated for its size, pure white. Sculpture of numerous close incised grooves over whole surface. Shell widest near base, but very little narrowed posteriorly. Apex hollowed out, the pit occupying only about one half area of top, with a blunt edge, perforation at its bottom narrow, open, about half width of bordering rim. Aperture longer than shell, a little projecting above, effuse below. Pillar straight, slightly bent to left, with no plait, but a distinct rounded truncation at its base.

Height, 3.3 mm.; diameter, 1.8 mm.

Locality,—Lyall Bay, in shell sand.

Bullaria adamsi (Menke, 1850). [P. 534]

This should be dismissed from the Neozelanic fauna. A shell which has borne the above name may occur in the extreme north, but it is improbably Menke's species, and further authentic specimens must be collected and examined before any conclusions can be drawn.

Bullaria australis (Q. and G.). [P. 535]

Gray's name was incorrectly rejected because, according to Suter, his “descriptions are quite inadequate and not accompanied by a figure.” However, when Hedley referred New South Wales shells to Iredale for comparison with the types in the British Museum, although they agreed, Gray's name was found to be preoccupied; none of the recorded synonyms had reference to the Australian species, so Hedley proposed for it the new name Bullaria botanica (1918A, p. M 104, No. 1104). This name does not enter the Neozelanic fauna, since Gray's Bulla quoyi is sufficiently distinct to be separated; consequently the whole of the Neozelanic shells will bear the name Bullaria quoyi Gray, 1843, no variety being recognized, and Bullaria australis Q. & G. will be removed from the Neozelanic list.

Family Peltidae.

Odhner (1924, p. 46), in establishing a new genus Runcinella, with R. zelandica nov. (from Cape Brett, near Bay of Islands) as type, has added this to the Neozelanic fauna, as “Family Runcinidae”; the generic name Pelta Quatrefages, however, antedates Runcina Forbes, and is usually made the basis of the Family name.

Umbraculum umbellum (Martyn, 1786). [P. 549]

Iredale (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 12, pts. 2 and 3, p. 89, 1916) noted that Solander's name Patella umbraculum (Cat. Port. Mus., p. 178, April, 1786) had priority over Martyn's name, which occurred in the third volume (not second as printed in Iredale's paper), and this volume was not published until 1788. However, Hedley has named the Sydney form Umbraculum botanicum (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vol. 48, pt. 3, p. 315, 1923), and included under this name the form occurring at Lord Howe Island, Norfolk Island, and the Kermadec Islands. At the last named locality Iredale tells me that he collected a few specimens and noted that the shells and animals differed, and was unable to find any record of the explanation of these differences. The most feasible one was that they were sexual. Similar specimens

– 440 –

were shown Iredale by the late Mr. G. Gross at Brisbane, who had been similarly puzzled. Roy Bell sent the two forms of shell from Norfolk and Lord Howe Islands, and Iredale searched for them in the Sydney district. Collecting at Long Reef, near Manly, New South Wales, in September, 1924, Iredale and I found two specimens associated which showed these differences exactly and proved them to be sexual. The larger specimen was bluish, with massed nodules, the sole being pale bluish-white; the shell was large, flattened, the central portion clear of extraneous growth. The smaller one was distinctly yellowish, with dark bluish-green, rather more separated nodules, the sole being deep yellow; the shell was smaller, more conical, and entirely covered with growth.

Suter's record stood in need of confirmation, and this has lately been supplied by Powell (N.Z. Journ Sci. & Tech., vol. 6, nos. 5 and 6, p. 286, 1924) who has recorded the trawling of two live specimens of botanicum in 20-30 fathoms near the Hen and Chicken Islands.

Pleurobranchaea novaezelandiae Cheeseman, 1878. [P. 553]

The carnivorous habits and spawning of this creature have been noted by Miss Mestayer (N.Z. Journ. Sci. & Tech., vol. 3, p. 170, 1920).

Suborder Nudibranchia. [P. 554]

This group will provide much novelty to the first student who takes an interest in it. Iredale collected many more species than Suter has included, though few of the recorded forms. These, he informs me, were sent to Sir Charles Eliot, but have never been reported on, and never will be now by Eliot, or probably anyone else in the near future.

The last molluscan work that engaged Iredale's attention in England was the establishment of Nudibranchiate nomenclature on a firm basis (vide Iredale and O'Donoghue, Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 15, pp. 195-233, 1923). From this point of view alone the following emendations are necessary; the page references being to the paper quoted:—

Tribe Tritoniomorpha must become Superfamily Zonabranchiatae (p. 229).

Family Tritoniidae must become Family Duvauceliidae (p. 229). Genus Tritonia must become Genus Sphaerostoma Macgillivray, 1843 (p. 229).

Tritonia incerta must become Sphaerostoma incerta (Bergh, 1904). Tribe Doridomorpha must become Superfamily Phanerobranchiatae (p. 217).

Family Goniodorididae must become Family Okeniidae (p. 217). Genus Acanthodoris must be referred to Family Onchidoridae (p. 219).

Family Dorididae must become Family Doridigitatidae (p. 226).

Genus Doris must become Genus Archidoris Bergh, 1878 (p. 228).

Subgenus Homoiodoris must become Genus Homoiodoris Bergh, 1882.

Subgenus Ctenodoris must become Genus Ctenodoris Eliot, 1907.

Aphelodoris cheesemani must become Aphelodoris luctuosa (Cheeseman, 1882).

– 441 –

Tribe Eolidomorpha must become Tribe Cladohepatica (p. 200).

Genus Eolis must become Genus Æolidia Cuvier, 1798 (p.200).

Eolis leptosoma must become Æolidia leptosoma (Hutton, 1884).

Genus Aeolidiella must become Genus Eolidina Quatrefages, 1843 (p. 201).

Aeolidiella drusilla must become Eolidina drusilla (Bergh, 1900).

Aeolidiella faustina must become Eolidina faustina (Bergh, 1900).

Genus Eolidia must become Genus Dolicheolis nov., proposed for:—

Eolidia longicauda must become Dolicheolis longicauda (Q. and G., 1832).

Family Proctonotidae must become Family Zephyrinidae (p. 213).

Genus Antiopella must become Genus Janolus Bergh, 1884 (p. 213).

Antiopella novozealandica must become Janolus novozealandicus (Eliot, 1907).

Genus Fiona Hancock and Embleton, 1853, must become Genus Fiona Forbes and Hanley, 1851 (p. 212).

Fiona marina must become Fiona pinnata (Eschscholtz, 1831) (p. 212).

Tribe Elysiomorpha must become Suborder Ascoglossa (p. 197).

Family Hermaeidae must become Family Stiligeridae (p. 199).

But few incidental notes on the species have appeared since the publication of the “Manual.” Young has recorded and described the spawning of Archidoris wellingtonensis (Abraham) (N.Z. Journ. Sci. & Tech., vol. 7, No. 3, p. 189, 1924). Powell (N.Z. Journ. Sci. & Tech., vol. 6, Nos. 5 & 6, p. 286, 1924) has recorded the finding of Sphaerostoma incerta (Bergh) in abundance at several localities in the North Island, while Odhner (1924, pp. 52-54) has identified seven New Zealand species in the material collected by Dr. Th. Mortensen, giving notes on the dentition of Alloiodoris lanuginata (Abraham) and Chromodoris amoena Cheeseman, and adding a genus to the Suborder as developed in New Zealand by describing Cuthona zelandica nov. He remarks that this is a true Cuthona, but compares it with Eolis stipata Alder and Hancock which is a Cratena.

Ophicardelus australis (Q. and G., 1832). [P. 590]

This name is used by Suter for the Neozelanic shell, but it was given to a shell collected at Western. Port, Victoria and Hobart, Tasmania. For this Australian species Hedley has used ornata Ferussac, placing it in the European genus Phytia. One may unhesitatingly reject the latter genus name in favour of Ophicardelus, given to the austral forms. From Lakes Entrance, Gippsland, Iredale has received a large number of specimens collected by Roy Bell, and these showed three species, “australis,” “stutchburyi”, and “quoyi.” The former proved to be the ornata shell, the second agreed with sulcata, which Hedley included in the New South Wales List, and with the types of stutchburyi, described from Port Curtis, Queensland, and the third with the types of quoyi, described from Moreton Bay, which Hedley did not include in the N.S.W. List, but suggested might be Neozelanic.

– 442 –

Mr. A. E. Brookes sent New Zealand specimens to Iredale, and these he tells me are very close to the Australian quoyi, and must be called costellaris (H. & A. Adams, 1855) (Proc. Zool Soc. for 1854, p. 12; described as Melampus).

Cremnobates parva Swainson, 1855. [P. 594]

The figure of this shell is a rather poor copy of one prepared by Hedley, and published by Hedley and Suter (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 9, pt. 3, p. 152, in text, 1910); it was drawn from a South Tasmanian topotype, and Suter remarks that: “All the shells from the Antipodes have the spire considerably shorter than the aperture, but this would hardly appear to be sufficient reason for establishing a variety or subspecies. The type, figured by Swainson, has the height of the spire equal to that of the aperture: the total height is 7 mm.” Further study of this group shows the differences to be of much greater value and fully specific. Odhner (1924, p. 86, “Addenda”), in proposing to call Auckland Island specimens (which he figures) “var. striata n.,” notes a further difference in that the Subantarctic shells are spirally lirate, at least on the upper whorls. I therefore adopt Odhner's name as of full specific rank, so that Marinula striata Odhner will replace Cremnobates parva Swainson in New Zealand lists; the genus seems restricted in this Region to the Rossian province.

Siphonaria australis Q. and G., 1833. [P. 598]

Oliver has made some remarks in his Ecological Essay on the relationships of this species and S. zelandica of the same authors. The former was described from Cook Strait as a small elongately oval shell, with 50 ribs, measuring 14.5 by 10.5 mm., and living on Durvillea utilis. The latter was only localized as from New Zealand, and said to be a large roundish shell measuring 19 by 16.8 mm., with twenty ribs.

If one judges from study of the Australian forms, these may be very distinct species, the station being a characteristic feature of the species in this genus, though the extent of the station may at first obscure the distinction. The chief difference recorded for the Neozelanic shells is the form of the lateral teeth of the radula; if this be confirmed they must be regarded as distinct species. Re-examination of the dentition of New Zealand Siphonarias is urgently needed and may lead to the discovery of several new species.

Hedley has reported Kerguelenia redimiculum (Reeve) and (doubtfully) K. lateralis (Gould) from Macquarie Island (1916, p. 61). The Antipodes Island K. innominata Iredale (1915, p. 478) closely agrees, but S. obliquata Sowerby must receive a new generic name. Conchologically it is quite aberrant; Iredale, noting this, suggested its inclusion in Kerguelenia (1915, p. 478), but the redimiculum group is quite a large one and will not easily contain obliquata, which seems to be a more northerly development from that stock. I therefore propose it as type of Benhamina nov., naming this genus in tribute to one of New Zealand's best-known zoologists, William Blaxland Benham. Miss Mestayer (N.Z. Journ. Sci. & Tech., vol. 3, p. 171, 1920) has recorded the spawning of this form and given a good figure (in text) of a clean specimen.

– 443 –

Gadinia nivea Hutton, 1878. [P. 603]

Discussing the discovery of a “Gadinia” at the Kermadees, Iredale concluded (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 9, p. 71, 1910) that only one species occurred at the Kermadecs, New Zealand, and Australia. As usual, lumping necessitates revision, and radular characters now show that the New Zealand nivea is abundantly distinct. Hutton has published an account of his Gadinia nivea and gave the formula of the radula, which he figured (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 15, p. 144, pl. 17, figs. S-V, 1883) as 60 — 1 — 60×150, the central tooth multi-cuspid, the inner laterals twenty-one, the outer thirty-nine, all with toothed cusps. Claude Torr has figured (Trans. Roy. Soc. S. Austr., vol. 38, p. 367, pl. 20, fig. 6, 1914) the radula of the South Australian form as 30 — 1 — 30 × 100, the central tooth with one large cusp, the inner laterals obscurely bicuspid, the outers unicuspid. The New South Wales form is being re-investigated when fresh material is procured, for Iredale found that the specimens in the British Museum showed a formula of about 40 — 1 — 40×120+. These figures are sufficient to show that different species are being confused, and that the specific name nivea Hutton should be reinstated for the Neozelanic form.

Genus Amphipeplea Nilsson, 1822. [P. 607]

Kennard and Woodward have recently noted (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 16, pt. 3, p. 125, 1924) that the date of publication ascribed to Nilsson's Historia Molluscorum is incorrect and should be 1823, and that therefore Myxas (Leach) J. Sowerby, June, 1822 (monotype: Helix glutinosa Mont.) has priority over Amphipeplea Nilsson, and claims usage. This name must not be confounded with Myxa Hedley (Mem. Austr. Mus., No. 4, p. 362, 1903), proposed for a Pyramidellid mollusc; the names are sufficiently distinct not to clash.

Genus Ptychodon Ancey, 1888. [P. 689]

The sole addition to the land molluscan fauna since Suter's death is Ptychodon suteri Murdoch and Finlay described from a subfossil deposit in the South Island (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 54, p. 133, 1923). It is to be hoped that some worker will soon come forward to fill the gap left in this branch by the loss of Suter and Murdoch; there is much work—descriptive, classificatory, ecological, and distributional—to be done.

Genus Dentalium Linné, 1758. [P. 817]

Two fossil and one Recent species have lately been added to the New Zealand list. The Recent form is D. marwicki Mestayer (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 587, 1926), a form previously confused with nanum Hutton. The fossils are the Tertiary D. otamaringaensis Marwick (l.c., p. 326), and the Upper Cretaceous D. (Laevidentalium) morganianum Wilckens (N.Z.G.S. Pal. Bull. No. 9, p. 24, 1922), which its author states is unexpectedly plentiful for a Cretaceous Dentalium; later (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 543, 1924) he regards the occurrence of a fragment so identified as sufficient evidence of the Upper Senonian age of the Green Island greensands! Marwick (Rep. Austr. Assoc. Adv. Sci., vol. 16, p. 319, 1924) has noted that the occurrence of the New Zealand Tertiary D. mantelli Zitt. in

– 444 –

Australian Tertiary beds is by no means beyond doubt, and that the Australian workers have confused several species. For a nomenelatural note on the Jurassic D. huttoni Bather (non Kirk) (Geol. Mag., dec. 5, vol. 2, p. 532, 1905) see elsewhere in this volume.

Cadulus teliger n. sp. (Figs. 52, 54).

Shell small, vitreous, lightly curved, smooth except for numerous growth-rings. First half of shell fairly quickly increasing in diameter, second half of practically uniform width till near anterior end, where there is a slight constriction near mouth, much better marked on inner side. Curve of shell almost uniform on outer side, but distinctly irregular on inner, curve of first third being regular, thence diminishing till for last half inner side is practically straight, giving an asymmetrically swollen appearance to shell. Aperture with a thin, sharp edge, outline almost circular, but a little compressed on outer side. Posterior opening of somewhat same outline, but edges not so thin, furnished on convex side of shell with a medial sharp projecting tela, in the shape of an isosceles triangle with the equal sides slightly convex and the apex narrowly rounded off.

Length, 4.7 mm.; diameter, 0.7 mm.

Locality,—Off Auckland Island in 95 fathoms.

This is the form Suter has admitted as C. spretus Tate & May— from which it differs in almost every particular.

Nucula strangei A. Adams, 1856. [P. 833]

We must revert to this name for the New Zealand shell, for, though Iredale recorded Hedley's determination as against it (1915, p. 483), study of the types shows that no change is necessary, the other supposed synonyms being referable to the Australian species, which can be easily separated from the Neozelanic form.

Hedley has added his genus Pronucula by describing a new Macquarie Island species, P. mesembrina (1916, p. 17), and as Oliver has recorded the genus from the Kermadecs, also by a new species, P. kermadecensis (1915, p. 550), it is fairly certain that it occurs throughout the mainland. I know, at all events, of at least one new species occurring in 60 fathoms off Otago Heads.

Add Nucula grangei and ruatakiensis Marwick (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol., 56, p. 327, 1926) to the Tertiary fauna.

Family Nuculanidae. [P. 834]

For a peculiarly rostrate little form with curious radial sculpture, Marwiek has introduced a new genus Zealeda, monotype: Z. hamata Marwick (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 16, pt. 1, p. 25, 1924), from the Pliocene Awatere Beds. He has since (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 328, 1926) described a second species as Z. mutabilis, noting that Dall considers Zealeda a synonym of his Spinula, but rightly pointing out the numerous differences that deny it close relationship. Several new congeneric species (including a Recent form) are known to me.

Two more fossil species of Nuculana (ellisi and onairoensis) have been described by Marwick (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 328, 1926), while Allan (l.c., p. 344) has noted that I would here place Sarepta solenelloides Marshall, 1919 (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 51, p. 233) and

– 445 –

has described N. belluloides nov. from the McCulloughs Bridge green-sands. From comparison of type material in my collection, I can affirm that this is a synonym, of Leda semiteres Hutton, 1877 (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 9, p. 598), the types of both are ancestral bellula forms, and from the same locality.

Woods (1917, p. 17) has described an Upper Cretaceous species as N. amuriensis and notes the occurrence of a second species, figured but left unnamed.

Solenelloides seems referable to the subgenus Pseudoportlandia, recently created by Woodring (1925, p. 20) for Leda clara Guppy, a Miocene species from Jamaica; it closely resembles the genotype, and, if really belonging here, is only the third known species of this distinct group. The section Jupiteria Bellardi is known to me by undescribed Tertiary species in New Zealand, while onairoensis Marwick and amuriensis Woods should probably be referred here. The remaining species, fastidiosa A. Ad., bellula A. Ad., ellisi Marwick, and semiteres Hutton, may be placed in Saccella Woodring (l.c., p. 15), proposed to replace Ledina Sacco, not of Dall, the genotype being the Mediterranean Arca fragilis Chemnitz.

Genus Malletia Desmoulins, 1832. [P. 836]

Marwick has noted (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 329, 1926) that Neilo A.Ad., 1854, which Suter treats as a subgenus [P. 837] is so distinct from Malletia that it should be regarded as a full genus, and under this name four species have been added last year to the Tertiary fauna, sinangula and awamoana Finlay (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, pp. 255; 256, 1926) and sublaevis and waitaraensis Marwick (l.c. p. 329). Marwick, however, retains Malletia, in the form of the subgenus Minormalletia Dall, for a fifth species, tenera Marwick (l.c., p. 328), but the specimens are not well enough preserved to allow of satisfactory generic location. Dall (Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool, vol. 43, No. 6, p. 385, 1908) introduced Minormalletia (type M. arciformis Dall) with two species, defining it as “Shell small, blunt, plump, with amphidectic ligament, no resilium, the pallial sinus large, no radial depressions or sculpture.” Marwick's shell is very flat, and the character of the pallial sinus, noted by Dall as not of the usual Malletinid type, was not determined, so that a new location (probably a new genus) will be required when better specimens are available.

To the species mentioned above must also be added the Palaeocene M. elongata Marshall (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 49, p. 458, 1917) (see nomenclatural note elsewhere this volume) and the upper Cretaceous M. (Neilo) cymbula Woods (1917, p. 18); both these are referable to Neilo, which thus has an extended lineage.

Poroleda lanceolata (Hutton, 1885). [P. 839]

The Recent Neozelanic form has been named Poroleda pertubata by Iredale, the correct reference to the generic name being given at the same time (1924, p. 185). I figure a Dusky Sound specimen (fig. 69) in my collection; pertubata differs from the mid-Pliocene lanceolata chiefly in greater elongation, the length being more instead of less than three times the height.

– 446 –

Genus Sarepta A. Adams, 1860.

This name has been used by Australian writers to-cover the Tertiary Leda obolella Tate (Trans. Roy. Soc. S.A., vol. 8, p. 129, 1886) and its Recent descendant Sarepta (?) tellinaeformis Hedley (Rec. Austr. Mus., vol. 4, p. 26, 1901). The fossil species has been reported from New Zealand by Suter (Alph. List N.Z. Tert. Moll. p. 24, 1918), while Marshall has described three further Tertiary species. Of these, his S. solenelloides has just been dealt with under Nuculana, and his S. tenuis (Trans N.Z. Inst., vol. 51, p. 233, 1919) seems to be identical with the species he describes immediately after it, Limopsis hampdenensis, a much better' generic location; but his S. aucklandica (l.c., vol. 50, p. 271, 1918) seems to be congeneric with Hedley's tellinaeformis, for which Iredale has now provided the genus Ovaleda (Rec. Austr. Mus., vol. 14, no. 4, p. 250, 1925).

Anomia furcata Suter, 1907. [P. 842]

This species is under an extraordinary cloud. Oliver states that it is a Monia, that there are only two muscle-scars in the left valve, though Suter repeatedly referred to and figured three, and that Suter's statement that these muscle-scars could be seen in only one specimen is incorrect (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 15, pt. 4, p. 180, 1923).

Suter states: “Colour whitish-yellow. Interior of same colour, and somewhat pearly, with a sharp and smooth margin.” This is not characteristic of Monia, which is greenish-white outside and darker green internally. The muscle-scars of Monia are two, one nearly circular and striated, the other circular, smaller, and nearly touching or confluent; never is the (generally well-marked) musclesear “long, tongue-shaped.”

Examination of the type and numerous specimens dredged off Otago Heads and elsewhere indicates that Oliver was correct in his description of the type shell, and that Suter's drawings are erroneous; the specimen in which Suter saw three muscle-sears may have been a young Anomia, or the effect may have been imaginary. As a species, I find furcata difficult to separate satisfactorily from zelandica, especially where juvenile shells are concerned; the muscle-scars in both are quite variable, the upper larger, suboval (sometimes in compressed shells rather elongate, but never to the extent Suter has figured), radially striate, and confluent with or separated from the lower. The interior is always dark-greenish centrally in fresh shells, and Suter's description of the colour of furcata is probably due to his handling water-worn shells. I can only note that zelandica seems to grow to a larger size than furcata (of which I have specimens over 40 mm. in length, i.e. nearly three times the size of Suter's), and has coarser radial sculpture and a larger byssal opening in the right valve. Zelandica has been accepted as the type of Monia by Winck-worth (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 15, pt. 1, p. 33, 1922).

Anomia undata Hutton, 1885* [P. 843]

This species has caused more trouble even than the last. The latest pronouncement on it is by Marwick (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55,

[Footnote] * See nomenclatural note elsewhere in this volume.

– 447 –

p. 191, 1924) who has figured the type and an adult Pliocene example, comparing it with trigonopsis. I have grave doubts whether walteri can be retained as distinct from the latter species, the characters noted by Oliver (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 15, pt. 4, p. 180, 1923) being inconstant, while the same variation is noticeable in “Miocene” specimens. But undata is quite distinct; Marwick notes the different formation of the musclescars, the lower being relatively huge. No localized Recent records have been made; I therefore mention that I have several specimens from Auckland Harbour.

Family Arcidae. [P. 846]

Oliver (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 15, p. 182, 1923) has added the Australian Arca trapezia Desh. to the Neozelanic fauna from two water-worn valves from Spirits Bay, and a well-preserved valve from Muruwai; he states that “all these specimens are large, heavy, shells, but I am unable to separate them as a species from Australian specimens of A. trapezia.” This is an interesting record, but seems to call for further investigation before this Peronian species can be definitely accepted as a natural constituent of the New Zealand fauna. Marwick has stated (Gedenboek Verbeek, p. 370, 1925). “Anadarca and Scapharca.…In New Zealand these two subgenera are absent;” it may be noted that Woodring (Carnegie Inst. Wash., Publication No. 366, p. 40, 1925) has supplied the new name Diluvarca (type: Arca diluvii Lk.) for “Anadarca of authors, not of Gray, 1847,” with which he unites “Scapharca of authors, not of Gray, 1847,” and this is the group-name to be used for Arca trapezia above. Another group has been introduced into the Tertiary lists by the description of Fossularca januaria Marwick (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 310, 1926). Woods (1917) has described “Arca” hectori and Arca (Barbatia) sp. from Upper Cretaceous beds, while his “Nemodon sp.” (l.c., p. 19) has been referred by Wilckens (1920) to the Antarctic and South Indian Cretaceous genus Nordenskjöldia Wilck. (Schwed. Südpol. Exped., Bd. 3, lief. 12, p. 26, 1910; type: N. nordenskjöldi Wilckens), and named N. woodsi Wilckens.

Brookes (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 590, 1926) has added another Recent species by describing Arca sociella from the Bay of Islands. Contrary to his statement, the ligament is confined to a very oblique patch behind the beaks; and this, together with the characteristic reticulate sculpture, renders the species referable to Acar Gray (type: Arca gradata Brod. & Sow.; designated by Woodring, Carnegie Inst. Wash., Pub. No. 366, p. 37, 1925). Acar is known to me from the Tertiary also, by new species from the mainland and Chatham Islands.

True Arca is represented in New Zealand only by the Tertiary A. subvelata Suter (N.Z.G.S. Pal. Bull. No. 5, p. 65, 1917) and an allied form which will be described by Marwick from the Chatham Islands.

Genus Bathyarca Kobelt, 1891. [P. 850]

Iredale (1924, p. 186) has written that Bathyarca “appears to be the southern degenerate deepwater relation of the tropical Cucullaea,

– 448 –

agreeing in most essential features.” The sole New Zealand species is very common in Recent dredgings but is not known fossil.

As regards the Tertiary species of Cucullaea, it may be noted that C. worthingtoni Hutton (Cat. Tert. Moll., p. 27, 1873) is identical with and has priority over C. attenuata Hutton (l.c., p. 28), a more common name in Tertiary lists. Woods has added a Cretaceous species, C. zealandica (1917, p. 20), and Allan (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 345, 1926) has described an early Tertiary species as C. waihaoensis.

Genus Glycimeris Da Costa, 1778. [P. 850]

Marwick has written a revision entitled “The Genus Glycimeris in the Tertiary of New Zealand,” describing many new species. Elsewhere he has rejected striatularis Lk. as not Neozelanic (Rep. Austr. Assoc. Adv. Sci., vol. 16, p. 329, 1924). To Marwick's list of species has to be added the Palaeocene G. concava Marshall (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 49, p. 459, 1917) and the Upper Cretaceous G. selwynensis Woods, (1917, p. 20).

Genus Limopsis Sasso, 1827. [P. 853]

Add to the Tertiary species L. hampdenensis Marshall (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 51, p. 233, 1919) (which should probably be L. tenuis; see note on Sarepta, antea), campa, and waihaoensis Allan (l.c., vol. 56, pp. 345, 346, 1926). L. producta Finlay and McDowall (l.c., vol. 54, p. 112, 1923) I now regard as a distorted specimen of zealandica Hutton. Marwick has advocated the use of Hutton's name (Rep. Austr. Assoc. Adv. Sci., vol. 16, p. 329, 1924) instead of aurita (Brocchi), and of zitteli Iher. instead of insolita (Sow.), these extralimital species names being rejected.

Family Philobryidae. [P. 856]

I have to thank Mr. Tom. Iredale for the following notes:—“Bernard's results and conclusions were never reviewed by that brilliant worker, his early death proving a calamity to malacological science, especially as regards Pelecypods. In every case, fuller knowledge has caused emendations, and in the case of these small bivalves there can be little doubt, judging from his published works, that Bernard would have seriously revised his first accounts.

Thus, Hochstetteria was first published by Velain in the Comptes Rendus Acad. Sci. (Paris), vol. 83, p. 285, July 1876, in connection with three species, H. crenella, aviculoides, and modiolina, all from the Ile Saint Paul, and all nomina nuda, so that the name has no validity at this date. In the Archiv. Zool. Experiment Generale, vol. 6, “1877” (probably not published until 1878) the genus Hochstetteria was fully diagnosed, animal as well as shell characters being noted (p. 129) with the same three species, all figured: H. aviculoides p. 130, pl. 5, figs. 3, 4; “Very abundant on the littoral”: H. modiolina p. 131, pl. 5, figs. 7, 8; “Dredged 35 M.”: H. crenella p. 131, pl. 5, figs. 5, 6; “Dredged 35 M.”; the observation being made that “H. aviculoides est la seule des trois espèces qui avait été recueillie avec l'animal.” Consequently this species must be regarded as the type of the genus, and in his first essay Bernard used Hochstetteria in this sense,

– 449 –

describing H. costata and H. meleagrina from New Zealand. The latter seems to be very nearly allied to H. aviculoides in every detail, even to the station. Bernard afterward regarded the genus Philobrya of Carpenter as equivalent to this, so transferred the genus name Hochstetteria to species like H. crenella and thereafter described H. trapezina from New Zealand. This action, quite incorrect in every way, has been accepted and the name Hochstetteria used thus by Suter.

Hedley took up the study of these interesting bivalves, and noting the differences between the smooth capped and uncapped “Philobryas,” used Philippiella for the latter. Recently, in his Antaretic Mawson Report (1916, p. 20), he dealt with the Subantarctic forms again, and restricted Philippiella to Antaretic forms, proposing Notomytilus for the Australian species previously so called.” (in litt.) In the genus Philippiella he included P. meleagrina, adding a new species from Macquarie Island, P. hamiltoni. To this species the Rossian P. modiolus Suter (the figure of which in the “Atlas” is quite inadequate: I present new figures, taken from topotypes; figs. 86-89) is very closely allied. The essential point so far, then, is that Hochstetteria Velain = Philippiella Pfeffer, and Hedley, 1916, not Hedley, 1904, and is not Hochstetteria Bernard, 1897, and Suter.

The costate group, such as costata Bernard (which has been compared with the Australian paralellogramma Hedley; Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vol. 30, p. 545, 1906), is a very distinct one in sculpture, form, prodissoconch formation, and hinge teeth. It appears to be nameless, so is here distinguished as Cosa nov., the type designated being Hochstetteria costata Bernard. As to the species Hochstetteria trapezina Bernard, it does not seem to belong even to this family; there seems to be confusion in regard to it, for all specimens so named by Suter are referable to Lissarca, and it may be that Bernard's shell does really belong there, but this cannot be settled till the type is re-examined.

Family Mytilidae. [P. 861]

“Confusus” has been recently revived for a small Neozelanic mussel, but it is more appropriate to the state of our knowledge of this family at present. The changes may be tabulated thus:—

(Ecological Essay)
Genus Mytilus
Subgen. Eumytilus Subgen. Mytilus
  M. edulis L. M. planulatus. Lamk.
Subgen. Chloromya Subgen. Perna
  M. canaliculus
Subgen. Aulacomya
  M. magellanicus M. maorianus nov. Brachyodontes maorianus
Genus Modiolus
  M. ater M. neozelanicus nov. M. pulex Lamk.
  M. australis M. areolatus Gould M. confusus Angas.
  M. fluviatilis
– 450 –

Oliver's emendations were introduced in the Ecological Paper already referred to (1923 A), and some of them more fully explained later in the Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 15, p. 181, 1923.

Mytilus edulis Linné, 1758. [P. 862]

For the Neozelanic species so misnamed, Oliver has introduced a West Australian name, M. planulatus Lamk., but this may need reconsideration when long series are brought together and accurately compared. Odhner (1924, p. 60) has also noted differential characters in the muscle-scars between edulis L. and New Zealand shells.

Mytilus magellanicus Lamarck, 1819. [P. 865]

For the Neozelanic species Iredale proposed Mytilus maorianus, but Oliver has used Brachyodontes maorianus without explanation. There does not, in any case, appear to be a valid one, as Brachidontes was diagnosed by Swainson thus, “Umbones prominent, not terminal; valves corrugated; hinge margin considerably angulated: teeth many small, erenate.” Only species, “sulcata, En. Meth. 220, fig. 2.” The latest workers on the Mytiloids have placed this and the maorianus series in different subgeneric groups, widely separated, Aulacomya being the group name for the latter. The ‘Miocene” Mytilus huttoni Cossmann (vide Suter, N.Z.G.S. Pal. Bull. No. 5, p. 84, 1917), and its (Oligocene?) ancestor M. torquatus Marshall (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 50, p. 271, 1918) do, however, belong to the Australian “Brachyodontes” series, being quite like hirsutus and rostratus; for these shells Iredale has recently advocated the use of Trichomya Ihering (1924, p. 196).

Modiolus ater (Zelebor, 1866). [P. 866]

This preoccupied name was emended to neozelanicus by Iredale, but Oliver has preferred an Australian name, M. pulex Lamk., for the Neozelanic shore shell. An interesting complication appears in the fact that though some Auckland specimens are found fairly agreeing with some Tasmanian ones, the common South Island shells disagree notably. Is it wise to accept, under such circumstances, a Tasmanian name for the Auckland form, and then name the southern New Zealand shell as distinct? Such a procedure has nothing to recommend it, so it seems preferable to use the Neozelanic name for the whole of the New Zealand shells, and leave the Australian name for Australian specimens—at all events till the animals are anatomically critically compared. It may be noted that as a synonym of the Neozelanic “ater,” Suter included Perna confusa Angas, which Oliver is now putting forward as the correct name for a different New Zealand species.

Modiolus fluviatilis (Hutton, 1878). [P. 867]

Oliver has proposed to replace this with M. confusus, based on Perna confusa Angas, described from the Parramatta River, Sydney, New South Wales. In this case one has little hesitation in rejecting the Australian name, as Suter noted in his “Key to the Species” “Beaks a short distance from the anterior end,” a feature well marked in all the forms of the Neozelanic species, but missing in

– 451 –

most of the Australian forms. It should be noted that these molluses are variable according to their environment, and in some places colonies of constant forms may be collected, differing from their nearest neighbours more than from many distant colonies; a similar fortuitous likeness between a few specimens of two regional forms is insufficient evidence for uniting species described from localities nearly two thousand miles apart.

Modiolaria barbata (Reeve, 1858). [P. 868]

For this shell Iredale has provided the generic name Trichomusculus (1924, p. 196); series of Australian and New Zealand forms should be compared, but I have so far failed to pick specific differences.

Lithophaga truncata (Gray, 1843) [P. 870]

This shell is a Lithophaga only in the widest sense. In its anomalous shape, absence of radial sculpture except for a few scratches under the beaks, and bark-like epidermal, layer, crassly thickened and produced posteriorly, it differs considerably from true Lithophaga. I provide for it alone the new generic name Zelithophaga; the “Miocene” L. nelsoniana Suter may possibly be congeneric, but I would not include L. striata Hutton, the figure of which is more like an Amygdalum; neither species has been seen.

Pecten medius Lamarck, 1819. [P. 874]

An investigation made by Iredale (1924, p. 193) into the forms grouped under Pecten medius showed much of interest. The Lamarckian name was invalid, and a substitute had to be found. Study of the material in the British Museum showed certainly that recognizable forms, species, or subspecies, existed. Criticism of long series in Australia proved that the forms were well defined, so that Tate's early conclusions were fully confirmed. The Neozelanic species agrees neither with the Sydney form, P. fumatus Reeve, nor with the Tasmanian species, P. meridionalis Tate. Reeve's name of Pecten novaezelandiae (Conch. Icon., vol. 8; Pl. 8, f. 36, 1852) is available and must be used; I have not noted any subspecific variation in New Zealand, but the Pliocene (Castlecliffian) ancestral form is notably different from the Recent shells. For novaezelandiae Reeve I propose the new group name Notovola to contain, the austral “medius” assemblage, as it cannot be satisfactorily referred to either Pecten's. str. or Euvola Dall. It seems rather nearer the former, though possessing characters of both groups, and as the austral forms occupy a homogeneous geographical region widely removed from the areas covered by Pecten (North Europe) and Euvola (West Indies and America), it seems best to mark the differences by a separate group name. Woodring (Miocene Molluses from Bowden, Carnegie Inst. Wash. Pub. No. 366, p. 63, 1925) has lately stated that Euvola (Type: Ostrea ziczac L.) “differs from Pecten s.s. in having a more inflated right valve, weaker radial sculpture, and only one pair of cardinal crura.” Notovola has the inflated right valve, but strong (though simple) radial sculpture, and especially is different, and more like Pecten, in having 3–4 pairs of cardinal crura. These are, however,

– 452 –

not quite so strong as in Pecten, the inner ones shorter and the outer ones considerably longer, due to the greater length of the whole hingeline and auricles; the left valve is not at all inflated and has not the strong secondary radial ridges on the main ribs (meridionalis has very weak ridges, the other species are practically smooth); the right valve also has none of the strong secondary ridges characteristic of Pecten maxima L., the type of Pecten, the ribs are higher and flatter, and the interstices deeper, smooth, and narrower. The shells from the Kermadecs recorded by Oliver (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 47, p. 553, 1915) as Pecten medius Lamk. will almost certainly show, when reexamined, regional differences from novaezelandiae Reeve, which is probably endemic to New Zealand. Marwick has noted (Gedenboek Verbeek, p. 375, 1925) that this type of Pecten has appeared in New Zealand only since the Upper Pliocene, and has suggested that ocean currents may be responsible for this.

Genus Chlamys Bolten, 1798. [P. 875]

Three more Recent species have to be added to the Neozelanic list; C. subantarctica Hedley (1916, p. 23) (a very large species described from Macquarie Island and compared to the Australian C. antiaustralis Tate); C. campbellica Odhner (1924, p. 61) (from Campbell Island, compared with the West Patagonian C. patagonicus King and the New Zealand Pliocene Pecten triphooki Zittel, which, however, is not a typical Chlamys); and C. consociata Smith (1915, p. 89) (from 70-100 f. north of New Zealand, compared with zelandiae, and apparently overlooked since its description).

For the specific name of one of the species Suter has wrongly written “imparvicostatus,” the correct name for Bavay's shell is Chlamys imparicostatus.

A large number of new Tertiary species and notes on described species have been added lately, but as the generic grouping is in a chaotic state, and Dr. Marwiek is outlining a more satisfactory arrangement in his Report on the Chatham fossils, mention of these would be superfluous and of little use here. Nomenclatural notes on several New Zealand Tertiary species will be found elsewhere in this volume.

Genus Cyclopecten Verrill, 1897. [P. 880]

True Cyclopecten has not yet been recorded from New Zealand, though an undescribed species like the Australian favus and obliquus is known to me from deep water in the North. The name “Pecten aviculoides Smith,” included by Suter, may be easily dismissed; the type is from a locality a third of the globe distant, and Suter's identification is probably based on a juvenile Chlamys convexus.

Pecten transenna Suter has a peculiar facies quite different from that of true Cyclopecten; it is rhomboidal, the ears are not marked on the right valve and only slightly on the left, and both valves have the same sculpture of strong, rather distant nodulous ribs, while the texture of the shell differs from that of Cyclopecten, being similar to that of a young Chlamys. I supply for it the new generic name Cyclochlamys, and mention as a second member a shell described and well figured by Miss Mestayer (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 51, p. 135,

– 453 –

1919), but misidentified by her as Suter's species; it differs from transenna in its much larger size, and in having about twice as many ribs. I propose for it the name Cyclochlamys secundus n. sp. Suter's drawing of transenna gives the appearance of his species quite well, and his specimens were adult, numerous topotypes I have examined not reaching any larger size.

Genus Spondylus Linné, 1758.

This does not occur in the Recent fauna, but Marshall (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 50, p. 271, 1918) has described a Tertiary member, S. aucklandicus; other species are known to me, and Woods (1917) has reported a Spondylus sp. from Upper Cretaceous beds.

Lima lima (Linné, 1758). [P. 883]

Sowerby described a Lima zealandica; (Proc. Zool. Soc. for 1876, p. 754); this has wrongly been lumped in with Lima squamosa= L. lima (L.), but it is a very distinct species, quite unlike any of the other species confused under the name L. lima. Suter seems to have described the Neozelanic specis, but his remarks, “This species has a wide range of distribution, etc.” must be omitted altogether.

Suter includes [P. 884] “Subsp. multicostata” from the “Bay of Islands” without authority, and this must also be omitted, with all the extract referring thereto. The so-called “multicostata” is a common variable Sydney shell, which is certainly a very distinct species from the egregious L. lima, and has been renamed Lima nimbifer by Iredale (1924, p. 195).

In the Dominion Museum is a specimen from Foveaux Strait named Lima multicostata, and this proves to be identical with L. mestayerae Marwick (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 192, 1924), originally described as a Pliocene fossil from the clays below the limestone at Petane; all Recent specimens of “multicostata” from New Zealand are probably this species. A closely-allied ancestral form is L. watersi Marwick (l.c., vol. 56, p. 329, 1926). Woods (1917) has described a Cretaceous species as L. marlburiensis.

Lima angulata Sowerby, 1843. [P. 885]

Mantellum, H. & A. Ad., 1858 should be used generically for this kind of Lima.

The specific name given by Sowerby proves to have been anticipated by Munster (Beitr. Petref. Kunde, vol. 4, p. 73, 1841), and the next name, if the species be widely dispersed, is basilanica Ad. & Reeve, 1850 (Voy. “Samarang,” pt. 7, p. 75), as cited, by Suter. But Powell (Rec. Cant. Mus., vol. 3, pt. 1, p. 48, 1926) has recently preferred the name Lima murrayi Smith (Proc. Zool. Soc. for 1891, p. 444) for shells from 100 f. off Lyttelton. This name (of which Limea acclinis Hedley—misspelt Lima acclinus by Powell—is a synonym) was given to Australian shells from much deeper water, but seems preferable to any other at present. The species is not uncommon in 60 f. off Otago Heads, where it reaches a length of 14 mm.; most specimens are relatively longer than Powell's figure. The Tertiary forms identified as L. angulata by Suter represent, as Powell has noted, a different branch of Mantellum, which is appar-

– 454 –

ently unrepresented in our Recent fauna; he has described the Castlecliffian form as Lima marwicki (l.c.), while a direct ancestor to this has been described by Marwick as Mantellum inconspicuum (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 311, 1926), and a related Tertiary Australian species by Tate (Trans. Roy. Soc. S.A., vol. 8, p. 119, 1886) as Lima polynema. Suter and others wrongly give the type of Mantellum as Ostrea hians Gm.; it should be O. inflata Gm., as pointed out by Woodring (1925, p. 80).

Lima bullata. (Born, 1780). [P. 886]

The specific name was given to a West Indian shell, and Hedley has preferred strangei Sowerby for the Australian species. Curiously enough, Thiele, when monographing the group, admitted bullata as an Australian shell, ranking strangei as a synonym, and then for a young individual introduced a new species jacksonensis. Limatula S. V. Wood, 1839 should be applied generically to this group, and the New Zealand shell must receive a distinct name for it differs at sight from the Australian strangei.

Limatula maoria n. sp. (Figs. 104-106).

Shell close to L. strangei Sow., but differing in outline, being less slender, more oblique, and more evenly rounded basally. Sides not nicked in so much below auricles, so that these are less prominent; dorsal margin straighter. Radial ribs lower and blunter, closer and more numerous, 25 as against 19 in Australian shells. Internally, a median sulcus is absent or very feeble in strangei, but is distinct in the new species at all stages of growth.

Height, 33 mm.; diameter, 20.5 mm.

Locality,—Castlecliff beds (Upper Pliocene), type (fig. 106); off Otago Heads in 60 fathoms, figd. paratypes (Figs. 104, 105), not uncommon throughout New Zealand in water of moderate depth.

The median sulcus has been responsible for the identification of juveniles of this species as L. suteri Dall by both Suter and later workers; but the latter species has about 16 ribs on each valve, the termination of sculpture on each side is less well defined, and the suleus is external, so that the interior shows a strong medial rib with another strong one on each side; maoria shows a medial groove with a strong rib on each side. As ancestral to this species in New Zealand may be named Limatula trulla Marwick (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 311, 1926) and Lima (Limatula) huttoni Woods (1917, p. 26), a Cretaceous form which has been renamed L. woodsi by Suter on account of preoccupation; see note elsewhere in this volume. An Australian form ancestral to strangei Sow., L. jeffreysiana Tate has rightly been rejected by Marwick from the New Zealand Tertiary fauna Rep. Austr. Assoc. Adv. Sci., vol. 16, p. 323, 1924); the differential features between maoria and strangei seem to be continued throughout the lineages.

Genus Limea Bronn, 1831.

I have added this to the Tertiary fauna by recording the Australian L. transenna Tate from Ardgowan (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 509, 1924); I have had no further opportunity since then of

– 455 –

deciding whether my record was correct, but comparison with actual Australian specimens would probably show the New Zealand shell to be new. The form seems somewhat like the Recent Limea acclinis Hedley (Rec. Austr. Mus., vol. 6, p. 46, 1905) later placed as a synonym of Lima murrayi Smith, in this form referred to Limea by Hedley (Check-List Mar. Fauna N.S.W., p. M 10, 1918), but transferred to Mantellum by Iredale (1924, p. 194). Perhaps the fossil species is a Notolimea (Iredale, 1924, p. 194; proposed for Lima australis Smith), but I have seen no specimens of this genus.

Genus Ostrea Linné, 1758. [P. 887]

I am supplying some notes on this in a Report on the Chatham Island Recent shells, so merely record here that Oliver (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 15, p. 182, 1923) has discussed the species angasi, tatei, corrugata, and reniformis; Hedley (N.Z. Journ. Sci. & Tech., vol. 2, No. 6, p. 365, 1919) has given his impressions of the rock-oyster fishery of Auckland, identifying the species concerned (which Suter has called glomerata Gould) as O. cucullata Born; Iredale (1924, p. 192) has rejected this last name as exotic, and reverted to the use of glomerata Gould for the sheltered shore and mangrove form, mordax Gould applying to the ocean reef species, and has noted that the New Zealand shell called angasi appears to be a distinct species; and Marwick (Rep. Austr. Assoc. Adv. Sci., vol. 16, p. 324, 1924) has removed two Australian Tertiary species arenicola and manubriata Tate from New Zealand faunal lists. Woods (1917, p. 25) has identified a Cretaceous species as Ostrea sp. cf. dichotoma Bayle.

Pinna zelandica Gray, 1835. [P. 893]

Hedley (Rec. Austr. Mus., vol. 14, p. 142, 1924) has written, “Suter has unfortunately transferred Pinna zelandica Gray to Atrina, whereas it really is, as Gray said, a Pinna. On the other hand, P. senticosa Gould is probably an Atrina.” Finlay (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 518, 1924) and Bucknill (1924, p. 95) have recorded that the species reaches a larger size than given by Suter. Murdoch (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 157, 158, 1924) has dealt with and figured the two Tertiary species (P. distans Hutton and P. lata Hutton) so far described from New Zealand. Woods (1917, p. 28) has recorded, but not named, a species from the Upper Cretaceous, which Wilckens (1920) states is also found in South Patagonia and Antarctica.

Hedley's statement needs investigation. There seems at present to be no evidence of the occurrence of a true Pinna in New Zealand; only one member of the Family seems to be known to collectors, and that is the common Atrina which has always been regarded as A. zelandica. The two fossil species are both Atrinas.

Modiolarca trapezina (Lamarck, 1836). [P. 896]

The original spelling was trapesina, but that does not concern us much since Hedley (1916, p. 25) has described the Macquarie Island shell as Gaimardia trapezina var. coccinca, and the examination of many specimens from the Falkland Islands convinces one that the

– 456 –

Neozelanic shell is easily recognizable as a distinct species, Gaimardia coccinea Hedley.

Modiolarca tasmanica Beddome, 1881. [P. 896]

The Bounty Island shell so determined by Suter differs from the typical Australian shell, which Odhner (1924, p. 66) has determined as a Neogaimardia, while the New Zealand forms so called are true Gaimardia. Two closely allied species occur, one from Auckland Island, the other from the mainland, both described below.

Gaimardia forsteriana n. sp.

Shell very similar to G. tasmanica, but considerably smaller (none of a large number of specimens examined reaches 5 mm. in length), rostrum narrower and placed lower down, the base much less sinuous, only slightly bulging downwards past the rostrum; no signs of posterior sulcations.

Length, 4 mm.; height, 3 mm.; width (2 valves), 2.2 mm.

Locality,—Taieri Beach, South Island, in seaweed at half tide.

Gaimardia aucklandica n. sp. (Figs. 122-124).

Shell closely related to the previous species, but much less inflated, with a still less developed rostrum. Anterior dorsal margin straight, hardly excavated below the beaks, this makes the rostrum almost completely triangular. Basal margin adds to this effect by being still less sinuated. Colour lighter brownish-red than in forsteriana, and the beaks more anterior.

Length, 4.5 mm.; height, 3.3 mm.; width (2 valves), 2 mm.

Locality,—Auckland Island, common. Also Bounty and Antipodes Islands (rather more inflated than type).

This is what Odhner has misidentified as M. acrobeles Suter, and this explains his puzzling reference of that species to Gaimardia; all his remarks on the anatomy and shell of acrobeles refer really to aucklandica, and in his work this name should be everywhere substituted for acrobeles.

Genus Kidderia

This genus has been used by Hedley to include a new species from Macquarie Island, which he named Kidderia macquariensis, and Gould's Mytilus pusillus, described from Patagonia, which he refigured from Macquarie Island (1916, p. 26; Pl. 2, figs. 23-27). Suter included Modiolarca pusilla, Gould from “Cape Saunders (Iredale), Antipodes Island. Campbell Island, and. Macquarie Island.” In the British Museum are specimens of Gould's species “named from the typical shells,” and these differ according to Iredale from the ones he collected on the Otago Coast. As Macgillivray (Hist Moll. Anim. Aberd., p. 206, 1843) had anticipated Gould in his usage of Mytilus pusillus, I propose to name the Macquarie Island specimens described and figured by Hedley, Kidderia hamiltoni n. sp. I would further include in the genus Modiolarca smithi Suter, also figured by Hedley (loc. cit., p. 24; Pl. 2, figs. 17-19), and M. acrobeles Suter. Odhner (1924, p. 66) refers to and figures the hinge of the latter

– 457 –

species as a Gaimardia*, but topotypes (two of which are here figured: figs. 102, 103) show it to be close to hamiltoni in shape, while allied to macquariensis by the occasional presence of a few weak threads across the centre of the shell. Odhner has added another closely allied species, K. campbellica nov. (1924, p. 67), so that there are now five species recorded from the Neozelanic region, macquariensis Hedley, hamiltoni Finlay, campbellica Odhner, acrobeles (Suter), and smithi (Suter)—all restricted to the Rossian province.

Costokidderia n. gen.

I propose this for the shell Odhner has described as Kidderia costata nov. from Auckland Island (1924, p. 68). This species shows as Odhner has remarked, affinity with Kidderia in its shape and hinge, but has strong radial sculpture. True Kidderia has only occasionally a few weak threads across the centre of the valve (e.g., macquariensis and acrobeles), in the new genus the shell has strong ridges over the whole surface except for a small smooth anterior area. The genus has probably been overlooked as the young of Cardita which it much resembles, but there are several Neozelanic members, of which two are described below. Shells very close to C. costata occur on the mainland (littoral seaweed-washings from Taieri Beach), but will probably prove separable when ample material is obtained. Odhner has noted “fourteen strong radiating costae,” five in the middle and nine on the posterior end, but he had only one specimen, and this sculpture is not the normal one in Auckland Island shells; there are usually about six very strong posterior and dorsal ribs, with 4–6 almost obsolete central ribs; occasionally the ribs are subequal in strength and often there are only the few prominent posterior ones. I refigure the species from topotypes to show this variation (figs. 99-101).

Costokidderia pedica n. sp. (Figs. 96-98).

Differs from costata Odhner in being less elongate, more expanded posteriorly, and more finely sculptured. Fourteen subequal ribs strongly pectinate the margins; interstices sublinear (ribs of costata hardly extend beyond the edges and have subequal interstices). Interior as in costata.

Length, 3.8 mm.; height, 2.8 mm.

Locality,—Snares Islands, in 50 fathoms.

Costokidderia pedica n. sp. (Figs. 96-98).

Allied to the last in its fairly wide shell, which, however, is far more regularly quadrilateral, all four sides being fairly straight, so that the basal margin is much more distinctly angled posteriorly than in pedica. Anterior end is more produced and less rostrate. Sculpture coarser, more as in costata, but the ribs of even strength. Twelve subequal ribs, those in centre hardly weaker, interstices a little narrower. Other details as in costata and pedica.

Length, 3.7 mm.; height, 2.7 mm.

Locality,—Lyall Bay, in shell-sand.

[Footnote] * Since this was written, I have received specimens from Odhner, so identified, which explain this discrepancy, for his shells are not acrobeles at all, but Gaimardia aucklandica Finlay.

– 458 –

Genus Neogaimardia Odhner, 1924.

This is constituted by Odhner (1924, p. 64) for the Australian Kellia rostellata Tate, which at the same time he records from New Zealand. Actual specimens sent by Odhner from Cape Maria van Diemen do not agree in shape with Tate's original figure, nor with Odhner's own illustrations— probably, drawn from Australian material. I therefore reject the record, and regard the New Zealand species as at present undescribed.

The acceptance of Neogaimardia solves another much disputed problem. The status of Modiolarca minutissima Iredale (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 40, p. 387, 1908) has caused an amount of debate remarkable for so tiny a shell. Oliver has lately summarized the position (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 15, p. 183, 1923) as follows:—“Iredale described this species as a Modiolarca. Suter reduced it to Lasaea miliaris. Iredale next asserts that his species is a Modiolarca, and a valid species, and lists it as Gaimardia minutissima. If, before making this statement, Iredale had examined specimens, he could not have repeated his error. The species is correctly placed by Suter under Lasaea, but is certainly not Lasaea miliaris.” Now the type of Lasaea is the British Cardium rubrum Montagu, to which the Australian L. australis is very similar, and these shells differ so much in hinge, texture, shape, and general facies from minutissima (of which I have author's paratypes), that one is tempted to remark that if, before making his statement, Oliver had compared specimens he could not have made this error. Iredale's location in Gaimardia is much nearer the truth, but the form is, of course, atypical, and differs from Gaimardia s. str. in the very details which make it referable to Neogaimardia. It may be remarked that Tate's original figure of K. rostellata resembles much more the Forsterian minutissima than it does the Cookian shells Odhner has referred to rostellata.

A fossil species (Pliocene) occurs at Titirangi, Chatham Islands, and will be described by Marwick in his report.

Crassatellites bellulus (A. Adams, 1854). [P. 898]

Powell has lately recorded this shell from off Great Barrier Island in 30-40 fathoms (N.Z. Journ. Sci. & Tech., vol. 6, nos. 5 and 6, p. 286, 1924), and under the name Crassatella aurora Ad. & Ang.—a record that I reject—Odhner has described and well figured the same species (1924, p. 72; Pl. 2, figs. 40, 41), adopting Lamy's restoration of the name Crassatella. Iredale has, however, shown (1924, pp. 202-204) that there are several austral series included under “Crassatellites” auct., all separable from Northern groups. He has provided Talabrica for C. aurora Ad. & Ang., and this name can be used for bellulus A.Ad., and for the Tertiary Eucrassatella media Marwick (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 311, 1926), and probably C. cordiformis Suter (N.Z.G.S. Pal. Bull. No. 5, p. 72, 1917). Salaputium Iredale, given to a large series of Australian minute forms, has as yet no Neozelanic representative. Eucrassatella Iredale was bestowed on the large crass forms, C. kingicola Lk. being taken as type, and here will be located the Tertiary species amplus Zittel (Voy. “Novara,” Pal., p. 46, 1865) and attenuatus Hutton (Cat-

– 459 –

Tert. Moll., p. 24, 1873). For the remaining Neozelanic forms and a number of new species I have introduced a fourth genus Spissatella (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 256, 1926), with type Crassatella trailli Hutton.

Cuna delta (Tate and May, 1900). [P. 902]

Suter's figures are rough copies. of Hedley's drawings in Rec. Austr. Mus., vol. 4, no. 1, p. 23, 1901, and therefore, represent the Australian shell, with which New Zealand examples do not agree. To eliminate this record I describe one new species from the Snares Islands, but there are several, in New Zealand waters awaiting description.

Cuna laqueus n. sp. (Figs. 90-92).

Shell similar in general style to C. delta (T. & M.), but relatively much wider, larger, and less inflated. 9–10 weak radiating costae, interstices narrower but widening towards margin, where ribs flatten out and become obsolete; ribs clearly visible in interior as strong grooves. Shell as wide as high, flattened.

Height, 2.6 mm.; width, 2.6 mm.; thickness (2 valves) 1 mm.

Locality,—Snares Islands, in 50 fathoms.

Cardita calyculata (Linné, 1758). [P. 903]

There are at least two Recent species of Cardita in New Zealand, neither of which can be merged in the Linnean Chama calyculata, and this name should be erased from the lists. I describe both these as new species; the northern one (Cardita brookesi) is nearest C. variegata Brug. but is distinct, while the southern one (C. aoteana) is allied to the Tasmanian form called calyculata, but again is distinct. Both species are easily separable from the Peronian form by the wider interstices between the ribs; in Sydney shells the ribs, especially anteriorly and on the upper half, are separated by linear grooves, in New Zealand specimens the ribs are narrow, and have always interspaces almost their own width.

Cardita brookesi n. sp. (Figs. 116-118).

Shell like C. variegata, but smaller and with a much more deeply indented basal margin and byssal excavation; not maculated with brown spots, but uniformly light-tawny coloured. 18 ribs as against about 23 in variegata, not minutely serrated along their edges; interstices narrow but not linear. There are only three ribs below lunule down to basal margin, and the ribs over the posterior swollen angulation are almost straight instead of curved inwards as in variegata. Shell rather short dorso-ventrally, but very inflated; basal margin deeply concave and the valve edges much sunken at, byssal area.

Length, 12 mm.; height, 6.5 mm.; width (2 valves) 7 mm.

Locality,—Whangaroa Harbour, collected by A. E. Brookes.

Cardita aoteana n. sp. (Figs. 114, 115).

Shell rather large, winged posteriorly, with coarse ribs, rustysienna coloured. Beaks generally quite anterior; anterior side vertical, basal margin only slightly concave, and with very little byssal

– 460 –

excavation, dorsal margin rising posteriorly and forming a Mytiloid wing. 14 coarse ribs, interstices almost as wide over whole shell: lunule lanceolate, with only, one rib between it and basal margin, next six ribs low and weak, then three very strong and broader ribs on posterior swollen angulation, then four progressively weaker ribs on wing; ribs weakly lamellose, with rather distant low tubular spines.

Length, 27 mm.; height, 15 mm.; width (2 valves), 16 mm.

Locality,—Dunedin Harbour, attached to rocks on the littoral at low water (type). Throughout New Zealand, and down to 60 fathoms in the South Island.

The Tasmanian form (Mytilicardia tasmanica T.-Woods) has a quite different contour and apparently still fewer ribs, which, however, have (as in aoteana) wide interstices.

Genus Venericardia Lamarck, 1801. [P. 904]

Some corrections are here necessary in the specific values. It has been questioned whether V. difficilis Deshayes should be regarded as a distinct species from V. purpurata Desh.; the difficulty may be settled by regarding difficilis trinomially as a bathymetric form of the littoral purpurata, for one is evidently a derivative of the other. Judging from the extensive series I have examined there is no difficulty in picking a shore shell from a dredged one, the ribs are constantly narrower and sharper and with stronger prickles in the bathymetric form. An ancestral form is V. urutiensis Marwick (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 330, 1926).

V. amabilis Desh. should be unhesitatingly dismissed from the fauna; though originally recorded from “New Zealand,” it is an Australian species, and an error of localization must have occurred.

Cardita zelandica Desh., 1854 is not preoccupied by Venericardia zelandica Potiez and Michaud, 1838, the different generic location being sufficient to validate Deshayes's name. Consequently, Hutton's name lutea, proposed as a substitute for zelandica Desh. on this account, is unnecessary, and though Hedley (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 38, p. 73, 1906) and Iredale (1915, p. 487) both used lutea, I regard retention of the original name as correct.

Venericardia bollonsi Suter, 1907 cannot be even trinomially separated from V. zelandica Desh. Topotypes and numerous specimens, from off Otago Heads (the other locality given by Suter) have been compared with extensive series from localities all over the Dominion, and there is no doubt that all the shells belong to one species, extending in range from North Cape to Stewart Island. I have not yet met with it, however, in either the Moriorian or Rossian provinces, though it probably occurs in the former; the numerous specimens seen from the latter all belong to Venericardia marshalli Marwick. This name was rightly provided (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 192, 1924) for Stewart Island shells referred to the European V. corbis Phil, by Suter. It is essentially a deep-water Rossian and south Forsterian form, common off Auckland, Snares, and Stewart Islands, and Otago Heads, but I have not met with it any further north. In the North Island occurs an allied new species to which Suter's Hauraki Gulf records probably refer. Whereas zelandica (=lutea) has commonly

– 461 –

18 (sometimes 16 or 17) ribs, with numerous small horizontally elongate granules, marshalli has usually 12 (occasionally 11 or 13) ribs, often ill-developed, and rather weakly granose.

Loripes concinna Hutton, 1885. [P. 912]

Although Iredale in his “Commentary” indicated the rejection of the name Loripes in favour of Lucinida, he did not question the reference of the Neozelanic species to the genus. Upon examining the species one finds that it has little relationship with the named genus, but that it is allied to the Australian shells formerly classed in Myrtaea, for which Iredale has proposed the name Notomyrtea (1924, p. 206); specifically it is quite close to the South Australian Myrtaea bractea Hedley (Zool. Res. Endeavour, pt. 1, p. 99, 1911). Bractea and concinna differ somewhat from the type of Notomyrtea (botanica Hedley) in having no radial sculpture, and may later prove separable; a quite typical species has, however, been described from Tertiary beds—Myrtaea (Eulopia) papatikiensis Marwick (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 330, 1926)—and others are known to me.

A series of New Zealand shells, however, including Cyclina dispar Hutton (= Lucinida laevifoliata M. & M.; vide Marwick, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 193, 1924), Lucinida tirangiensis Marwick (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 330, 1926), Chione auriculata Bartrum (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 51. p. 97, 1919; vide Finlay, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 538, footnote, 1924), and Loripes laminata Hutton (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 17, p. 331,1885) need subgeneric recognition on account of peculiar sculpture, large shell, and anterior wing; for these I suggest the name Pteromyrtea nov., naming C. dispar Hutton as type. Suter's figure of laminata (N.Z. Geol. Surv. Bull, No. 3, Pl. 8, figs. 19a, b, 1915) is very little like this species, and really represents an undescribed species of Notomyrtea common in Oamaru “Miocene” beds. Ancestral new species to both this and concinna, are known to me from as far back as the Palaeocene in New Zealand.

Woods (1917, p. 29) has described a Cretaceous Lucinoid as Lucina cantaburiensis.

Montacuta triquetra* Suter, 1913. [P. 918]

The genus to which this shell is referred was founded on a small British bivalve which is but little like the New Zealand form. I know of at least two other undescribed Recent allies, while a form directly ancestral to triquetra occurs in the Pukeuri “Miocene” beds, so one need not hesitate to found a new genus Parvithracia, with M. triquetra Suter as type. The pallial line is not “continuous and simple” as Suter describes, but has a deep sinus; the whole aspect of the shell is that of a miniature Thracia, near which genus I would provisionally place it.

Family Diplodontidae. [P. 915]

The genus Diplodonta may be dismissed from the Neozelanic fauna. There is a prior Diplodon; and it may be noted in passing

[Footnote] * See nomenclatural note and new name elsewhere in this volume.

– 462 –

that Dr. Allan Thomson has crroneously used Diplodon in one of his papers instead of Diplodonta (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 52, p. 391, 1920). I propose the new generic term Zemysia, naming Lucina zelandica Gray as type and quoting Diplodonta infrequens Marwick (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 312, 1926) in lineage. There may be more than the three species allowed by Suter, but these comprise two series and the names need correction.

Although Hedley, May, and Suter decided that Gray's Lucina zelandica was conspecific with Diplodonta tasmanica Ten.-Woods, more material has negatived the conclusion. There are constant differences in outline and inflation, and since ancestors of these species are found in the Tertiary with the same characteristics, it is evident that different species have developed. I have not the material to institute sufficient comparison between D. tasmanica Ten.-Woods and D. ampla (Hutton) (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 17, p. 323, 1885), but the latter Pliocene form would seem to be a closer ally to the Tasmanian shell than is D. zelandica.

“Lucina novae-zelandiae Reeve” appears in Reeve's work really as Lucina novo-zelandica, and the reference should be to Plate 9, fig. 14, where a globose shell with a brown epidermis is described; it looks like a Joannisiella, and is certainly not the Neozelanic shell recorded as D. striata Hutton. Hutton's name was simply proposed as a substitute for Reeve's name, on account of the prior zelandica Gray, so that the species needs description as new; I describe it below as Zemysia striatula nov.

“Diplodonta globularis Lamarck, 1818” included by Suter, is here also described as a new species (Z. globus nov.), for Lamarck's shell was named from King George's Sound, W.A., and is quite different, the Eastern Australian representative known as globulosa A.Ad. being different again. These three and Z. striatula nov. form an easily recognised branch of the Zemysia line (or vice-versa), having a hemispherical thin and inflated shell, submedian and inflated beaks overtopping a very narrow hinge-line, and small short teeth, and one may emphasize these differences by providing a new subgeneric name Zemysina with Z. globus nov. as type. This group also goes far back in the New Zealand Tertiary.

Zemysia (Zemysina) globus n. sp. (Figs. 109-111.)

Shell thin, inflated, subequilateral, horny outside; interior white, dull centrally, shining at margins. Beaks moderately inflated, a little forward of middle; dorsal margins sloping away at subequal angles from umbo, both ends equally rounded, basal margin gently and regularly curved. Sculpture of fine and close growth-laminations. Other details as in globularis.

Length, 26 mm.; height, 23.5 mm.; width (1 valve), 8.5 mm.

Locality,—Stewart Island (type). Common in deeper water.

Zemysia (Zemysina) striatula n. sp. (Figs. 112, 113).

Shell small, inflated and globose, not so thin as preceding species. Beak slightly forward of middle; dorsal margins very slowly descending; shell subeircular in outline, but a little vertically compressed. Sculpture of irregular flattish concentric ridges, lamellate near

– 463 –

margin. Shell less shining than globus, in specimens of same size more inflated, and with a shorter ligament. Other details as given by Suter under “Diplodonta striata Hutton.”

Length, 14.5 mm.; height, 13.5 mm.; width (1 valve), 6 mm.

Locality,—Auckland Harbour.

Genus Thyasira Lamarck, 1818. [P. 918]

Add the Tertiary T. planata Marwick (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 331, 1926).

Erycina parva (Deshayes, 1856). [P. 922]

The introduction of Deshayes' species name into Australian lists appears to have been a pure blunder, and Hedley's acupuncta has been revived by himself in his Check-list of the N.S.W. Mollusca, (1918, p. M 19) while Iredale has commented upon the use of the Lamarckian genus Erycina. He concluded that in every case it was inadvisable to continue the usage of that generic name in connection with Australian Recent mollusca, and therefore introduced the generic name Melliteryx for Hedley's species alone (1924, p. 207). With this must be associated the Neozelanic parva (for which I have recorded a littoral habitat, Dunedin Harbour; Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 517, 1924), but Kellia bifurca Webster belongs to a different series. Though Suter wrote that he had never seen it, Webster's species is a common shell both Recent and fossil, and proves to be a close ally of the form Hedley has described as Erycina helmsi (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vol. 39, pt. 4, p. 701, 1915). There are several undescribed fossil forms, while a characteristic of the species seems to be the frequent formation in adolescence of two interior thickened limy patches; I provide for the group the name Arthritica nov.; naming Kellia bifurca Webster as type.

Genus Kellia Turton, 1822. [P. 922]

A Tertiary species has been described as K. antiqua Marwick (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 312, 1926), but the generic location was made with some doubt.

Genus Neolepton Monterosato, 1875. [P. 924]

This is another British group-name wrongly used to cover a compact little assemblage of austral forms, and I propose Notolepton nov. to replace it, naming as type Kellia antipoda Filhol, of which K. sanguinea Hutton is very possibly a synonym. There is considerable variation in shape in one and the same species in these shells, and I cannot satisfactorily separate topotypes of the two species, though there is evidence that more than one form exists. It may be noted that whereas Suter describes antipodum as having the anterior end slightly longer, his figure (which is a copy of Hedley's good drawing in Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 37, pl. 1, fig. 5) shows it if anything slightly shorter. N. citrinum Hutton is a distinct form, while N. novacambrica Hedley (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vol. 29, p. 701, 1915) would easily enter Notolepton. Odhner has given some anatomical details for N. sanguineum (Hutton) (1924, p. 75).

– 464 –

Genus Lasaea Leach, 1827. [P. 926]

Odhner (1924, p. 78) makes the curious statement that “Oliver (1923) maintains the identity of L. miliaris of Suter and Modiolarca minutissima of Iredale, as well as the specific distinctness from L. miliaris of Philippi.” This is not what Oliver intended; all he maintained was that minutissima was a Lasaea, but was distinct from the species Suter called miliaris. This matter has already been discussed under Neogaimardia. Miliaris is a Mediterranean shell and must be rejected; in the meantime its place may be taken by L. consanguinea Smith, added and figured by Hedley from Macquarie Island (1916, p. 32), but the mainland shells will require a new name. L. scalaris Phil. should also be omitted. These matters are dealt with, and new species proposed, in a paper on the Recent Mollusca of the Chatham Islands, shortly to be published.

Myllita stowei (Hutton, 1873). [P. 929]

This species shows a very different facies from the Australian species, which are all circular in shape, though they vary from almost smooth to strongly sculptured forms with extraordinary “ears.” I therefore propose to separate this form under the new generic name Zemyllita, and suggest its great distinction from the Australian species.

Another discrepant form has lately been described by Marwick as Myllita finlayi nov. (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 194, 1924), with the remark, “The generic location under Myllita is only provisional. The outline and ribbing are not the same as in that genus, but the whole group will be revised later. A closely related unnamed species occurs at Castlecliff.” It seems that Dr. Marwick was judging the genus from M. stowei, which I have just noted as quite atypical: as a matter of fact M. finlayi is quite like M. tasmanica in shape and pattern of sculpture, but is a much smaller and far more fragile shell. The style of divarication is that of Divaricella rather than that of true Myllita. Since M. finlayi is known from but a single specimen, I name as type of the new genus Myllitella which is now proposed for this group, M. vivens n. sp. (Figs. 119, 120, 121), from 25 fathoms off the Hen and Chicken Islands. This Recent form appears to differ from finlayi only in smaller size and slightly different contour, but as the intervening Upper Pliocene form from Castlecliff differs again in its more transverse shell, and as a still more transverse form is known to me as a mid-Pliocene fossil from the Chatham Islands, I conclude that further Petane specimens will show abundant differences from the Recent form, and better diagnostic characters may then be given. I know of ancestral forms back to the “Miocene” in New Zealand, but do not at present know of any Australian species that could be included here.

Genus Rochefortia Velain, 1878. [P. 930]

Iredale has shown that this genus name, preferred to Mysella on the score of priority was not published until later and must be rejected in favour of Angas's name.

– 465 –

Odhner has, by a curious error, provided a name for the Neozelanic shell wrongly recorded by Suter as R. donaciformis Angas. Regarding some Stewart Island shells as distinct from Montacuta triquetra Suter, he described them as M. unidentata nov. (1924, p. 76), failing to see in them Suter's R. donaciformis. Even going by the figures, it is hard to see how one could confound the two groups, but though Odhner's choice of genus was poor, his specific name is acceptable, and the New Zealand shell may now be separated from donaciformis under the name Mysella unidentata (Odhner). Hedley has added from Macquarie Island R. charcoti (Lamy) and R. macquariensis nov. (1916, p. 32), and these may be classed in Mysella, as, provisionally, may also be the second species of Montacuta described by Odhner, M. tellinula (1924, p. 77). R. reniformis Suter (which I have noted as not uncommon on the littoral, Taieri Beach and Dunedin Harbour; Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 517, 1924) is, however, a different style of shell; with superficial resemblance to shells Hedley called Bornia, it differs in texture, solidity, and somewhat in hinge, so that I give it Rochefortula nov. as a generic name for itself, and anticipate the discovery of Tertiary ancestors.

Genus Cyamium Philippi, 1845. [P. 932]

This and the sole representative C. oblongum Smith, included by Suter, have been rejected by Hedley (1916, p. 26), the shells so determined being there described as Kidderia macquariensis nov. (vide antea, under Kidderia).

Family Galeommatidae.

Neozelanic representatives of this family have been known for some time, but Odhner has now definitely introduced it with a new species, Spaniorinus zelandicus, from 35 fathoms, Hauraki Gulf, and 45 fathoms, Auckland Island (1924, p. 78). Very full details of anatomy and shell are given, and these show disagreement with Spaniorinus, so that it is legitimate to propose Scintillona nov. for Odhner's species. The Australian shells called Solecardia are close allies, but have a better developed hinge.

Genus Corneocyclas Férussac, 1818. [P. 934]

The introduction of this, with a section Pisidium Pfeiffer, 1821 [P. 936], is due to Dall's initiative; Pisidium is now considered as of generic value, but the New Zealand species need re-examination, especially as to their anatomy.

Family Tellinidae. [P. 945]

Considerable rearrangement of the species is necessary here, for Suter's groupings are quite unnatural. I would dismiss Tellina s. str. as inapplicable to any New Zealand species, the following association having more affinity with Macoma Leach, 1819:—eugonia Suter, huttoni Smith and var. sterrha Suter, gaimardi Iredale, edgari Iredale, spenceri Suter, and the “Miocene” robini Finlay (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 474, 1924).

T. charlottae Smith cannot be classed with this group, having different cardinal teeth, and two subequal valves hardly flexed or

– 466 –

angled anywhere; the free, short, and rapidly ascending sinus prevents reference to Eurytellina Fischer, which it otherwise somewhat resembles, nor has it the facies of Elliptotellina Cossmann, which has a somewhat similar sinus. It does not seem referable to any austral Tellinid group, and is therefore named as type of a new division Maoritellina.

The Australian representative of T. liliana Iredale (T. deltoidalis Q. & G.) has also been classed as a Macoma by Hedley and May, but it differs considerably from the previous group in its hinge, which is far closer to that of Tellina disculus Desh.; I would place these two forms near that species, but propose for them the group name Macomona nov., with T. liliana Iredale as type; the Australian Tertiary T. basedowi Tate, which has been compared to deltoidalis (Trans. Roy. Soc. S.A., vol. 25, p. 148, 1901), may also be located here. Odhner has for no apparent reason reverted to the usage of T. deltoidalis Q. & G. for New Zealand shells. Iredale and E. A. Smith, studying long series, unhesitatingly separated the two forms, and the British Museum recognizes their distinctness; in the face of this action by an austral worker and one of the greatest authorities on bivalves, it is not the wisest course for an extra-limital worker, studying scant material, to unite them, and Australasian students will hardly endorse the action. As, however, it is not known what shell Suter figured, I take this opportunity of illustrating authentic New Zealand examples of M. liliana from Stewart Island (figs. 107, 108).

It may be noted that for a peculiar late Tertiary species with heavy hinge, pronounced posterior lateral teeth, and no anterior laterals, Marwick has introduced a genus Barytellina, type B. crassidens Marwick (Proc. Mal. Soc. vol. 16, pt. 1, p. 25, 1924) and I have since described a second member B. anomalodonta (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 473, 1924).

Tellina disculus Deshaycs, 1855. [P. 951]

Oliver has counselled the rejection of Arcopagia for this species, and the substitution of Pseudarcopagia. But disculus is no close relative at all of Tellina decussata Lk. (i.e., P. victoriae Gat. & Gab.), the type of Pseudarcopagia, as the radial sculpture is practically absent, the hinge is not quite in accord, and the pallial sinus shows differences, which are exaggerated by reference to other New Zealand Tellinids. I have already noted that the hinge of disculus is quite like that of Macomona liliana, which suggests that as a shell form it is a derivative of the older Macomona, and may have nothing to do with Pseudarcopagia. Accordingly I name T. disculus Desh. as type of Zearcopagia nov., and suggest that Pseudarcopagia piratica Hedley (Proc. Roy. Geogr. Soc. Aust., S.A. Branch, p. 7, 1918) is a similar development in West Australian waters.

Genus Leptomya A. Ad., 1864 and
Macoma suteri Smith, 1898. [P. 955]

From consideration of topotypes I would class this in Leptomya, as a very near relative of L. perconfusa Iredale. From the series seen, I admit it at present as a distinct species, differing slightly in

– 467 –

shape and in much less prominent radial sculpture, but I do not feel at all certain that the comparison of further material will support this, as perconfusa is variable in shape, and the Lyttelton shells are somewhat rubbed. Should they prove synonyms, the correct name for the species will be Leptomya retiaria (Hutton); the type specimens of Tellina retiaria Hutton, 1885 (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 17, p. 322), from the upper Pliocene beds at Castlecliff are in the Canterbury Museum, and are the same species as he described from Recent shells as Tellina lintea (Cat. Mar. Moll., p. 67, 1873). This name having been used previously by Conrad, Iredale (1915, p. 489) proposed L. perconfusa nom. nov. as a substitute, but this must give way to Hutton's equivalent and earlier retiaria. No difference can be picked between Petane (Mid-Pliocene) and Recent shells, nor can regional subspecies be satisfactorily determined in the Recent specimens; it may be noted in this connection that Hedley (1916, p. 29) has reported perconfusa from Carnley Harbour, Auckland Is. An older Pliocene form has, however, been differentiated as L. simplex Marwick (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 331, 1926).

Mesodesma subtriangulatum (Gray, 1825). [P. 957]

Suter admitted three species, M. subtriangulatum (Gray), M. ventricosum (Gray), and M. australe (Gmelin), placing each in a separate subgenus. Iredale reviewed the group in his “Commentary,” eliminating Mesodesma, preferring Amphidesma, and allowing four species, with two subgenera; A. gaymardi Desh., A. quoyi Desh., and A. ventricosum Gray under the subgenus Taria, and A. australe Gmelin under the subgenus Paphies. In the footnote, A. gaymardi was corrected to A. subtriangulatum Wood. Oliver has since dealt with the matter (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 15, pt. 4, p. 186, 1923), but as he has confused distinct forms, his notes require some revision. Suter's confusion as cited by Iredale depended upon Suter's written work, not upon how shells were privately labelled by him. This appears to be clear from Iredale's review, but seems to have been misinterpreted by Oliver. Thus Iredale pointed out that apparently Suter had confused quoyi with ventricosum, since Suter, in the diagnosis of his Taria, which included only the latter, had written, “pallial sinus well marked, sometimes deep.” The pallial sinus in true ventricosum is always deep, so that only one conclusion is possible to account for the use of the word “sometimes,” and that is that a species with a short pallial sinus had also been examined. As regards subtriangulatum, Oliver apparently wishes to show that the Northern shell (“quoyi” Iredale) differs only subspecifically from the southern one (“gaymardi” Iredale), because shells from the Chatham Islands indicate variation. Oliver then suggests a usage of the known names which cannot be followed, on account of the fact that all the names were given to the northern form. This is certain from study of the figures alone, so that the southern form, interpreted quite wrongly by Iredale, following Lamy, as subtriangulatum, is nameless. The confusion seems to have arisen on account of the fact that there are two bicarinate species; not only ventricosum, but its associate subtriangulatum also, has in the adult shell a second carina bisecting the posterior dorsal area, whereas the southern form

– 468 –

has none. This solves all the difficulties, for we can now understand how subtriangulatum was sometimes lumped with the southern shell (on account of shape and sinus), and sometimes, by Suter, with ventricosum (on account of the two carinae); and it further allows one to settle definitely not only the specific distinctness of the form, but also the form referred to by the various figures. Judged by this and other criteria, Wood's figure of subtriangulatum certainly represents the northern shell, which must therefore bear his name, with quoyi Desh., latum, Desh., spissa Reeve, and gaymardi Desh. as synonyms. Further, Oliver's statement that his Upper Pliocene pliocenica nov. is “more distinct from the two Recent forms than they are from each other,” is negatived, for pliocenica possesses no second ridge, and is evidently directly ancestral and quite close to the southern shell, while subtriangulatum is considerably different. The mid-Pliocene crassiformis M. & M. (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 52, p. 136, 1920) is a still earlier ancestor, also having no second ridge. For sake of convenience, and to obviate further error, I now present a key to the species:—

Shell inequilateral
Adult shell posteriorly bicarinate.
  Pallial sinus deep ventricosa
  " " shallow subtriangulata
Adult shell posteriorly unicarinate, sinus shallow.
  Shell very high and crass, posterior dorsal area cut straight in crassiformis
  Shell high but not crass, posterior dorsal area moderately cut in pliocenica
  Shell neither high nor crass, posterior dorsal area rather expanded forsteriana n. sp.
Shell subequilateral, not carinated australis

I propose the name Amphidesma forsteriana n. sp. for the southern species, characterized by inequilateral rather small shell, not high nor crass, nor inflated; rather short anterior end in comparison with subtriangulata, and more produced posterior end, the beaks being therefore much less posterior; wing-like expanded posterior dorsal area, not sharply cut in, and with no distinct second medial carination, the bordering main carination being itself weak; and short pallial sinus. A holotype (69 mm. by 48 mm. by 19 mm.—two valves) is selected from Warrington beach, near Dunedin, in the Finlay collection. This species is so distinct from subtriangulata at every growth stage that one cannot understand how the two have ever been confounded.

Miss Mestayer (N.Z. Journ. Sci. & Tech., vol. 4, no. 2, p. 84, 1921) has supplied some “Notes on the Habits and Uses of the Toheroa” and states, “there are also one or two beds in the South Island. These may, however, contain a closely allied species.” It is probable that she had in mind A. forsteriana nov., but on the other hand, a form of ventricosum certainly does occur in the Forsterian region. The few examples I have from Moeraki and Riverton (where I am told it is common) appear to differ trinomially from the Cookian form in the shape of the posterior end, but separation may be left till more material can be compared. Miss Mestayer presents a figure of ventri-

– 469 –

cosum which is unnatural, a much better illustration is given by Bucknill (1924; Pl. 12, f. 12) who also gives a good idea of subtriangulatum (Pl. 12, p. 13) except that the second carina is indistinct in both cases. I have seen Forsterian examples of the latter species also; they may, however, prove trinomially separable.

Mesodesma australe (Gmelin, 1791). [P. 969]

In his Ecological Essay, Oliver has sometimes used Amphidesma australe, at others A. novaezelandiae without indication as to whether emendation is intended or merely a slip made. It is a little unfortunate that Oliver in this essay has, without published explanation, introduced so many nomenclatural changes, sometimes unncessary, and occasionally incorrect. Name changes are always annoying, but, however necessary, should really not be introduced in the absence of simultaneous adequate explanation. Apart from this, the wealth of information stamps Oliver's work as one of the best that has appeared on this subject, and one that will undoubtedly stimulate much fruitful search. As regards Amphidesma australis, no specific change is, of course, necessary, but the use of Paphies generically may be advocated, while the Auckland Is. var. aucklandica is almost distinct enough to be regarded as a second good species. If regarded as of only regional subspecific rank, it should be written trinomially, Paphies australis aucklandica.

Genus Raeta Gray, 1853. [P. 969]

Oliver (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 15, p. 184, 1923) has dismissed the Recent species admitted by Suter (perspicua Hutton) as based on a specimen of the exotic R. canaliculata (Say), but the genus name is still present in the fauna by reason of the Tertiary Raeta tenuiplicata Bartrum (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 51, p. 97, 1919); no specimens of this have been available for examination.

Family Veneridae Leach.

A full revision (by Dr. Marwick) of the New Zealand members of this family appears elsewhere in this volume; many new genera are proposed. It therefore need only be noted here that Oliver (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 15, p. 186, 1923) has dismissed Bassina disjecta (Perry) [P. 989] from the New Zealand fauna, and Marwick (Rep. Austr. Assoc. Adv. Sci., vol. 16, p. 322, 1924) has similarly treated an Australian Tertiary form recorded by Suter, Clausinella subroborata (Tate).

Dosinia caerulea (Reeve, 1850). [P. 977]

Oliver (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 15, p. 188, 1923) has provided Dosinia maoriana nov. for the New Zealand shell incorrectly determined as Reeve's species.

Genus Macrocallista Meck, 1876. [P. 981]

This will be replaced by Notocallista Iredale (1924, p. 210), proposed for the austral forms, with Callista kingi Gray as type.

Cytherea creba (Hutton, 1873). [P. 984]

The correct spelling is crebra, as appears in the synonymy. When Iredale furnished some remarks on the nomenclature of Venerids, he

– 470 –

followed Suter's acceptance of facts, carefully noting that he did so, pointing out in the case of C. zelandica that the species did not appear correctly referable to Antigona. Oliver has written (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 15, pp. 184-5, 1923) on this matter, and has stated his opinion that zelandica and crebra should be united, and oblonga admitted, and then has added, “As a species, A. oblonga is doubtfully distinct from A. zelandica.” This conclusion had been arrived at by Deshayes very many years before, from study of the actual types, and had been endorsed by E. A. Smith in the Voyage of the “Erebus and Terror,” (p. 6, 1874) fifty years ago, as cited by Suter. Since Suter has also intimated the distinction of the group, I introduce the new generic name Dosinula,* naming as type Dosina zelandica Gray, of which Venus oblonga Gray is a synonym. The name crebra Hutton may, however, be conveniently retained as a name for the shells which have very broad and inflated beaks with a peculiarly erect set. They are quite distinctive, and occur at Lyall Bay and Hauraki Gulf together with zelandica, but are much rarer; I have not seen the form in the South Island, though zelandica is plentiful in 30-50 fathoms. As a fossil, crebra occurs in the Pliocene of Castle Point, but never at Castlecliff or Nukumaru. These distributional facts seem to warrant its separation. Smith's figures (from types?) of zelandica and oblonga in Voy. “Erebus and Terror” do not include crebra.

Chione subsulcata Suter, admitted to the Recent fauna in the “Manual” [P. 985], has nothing to do with this group; it is a restricted mid-Pliocene fossil of the spissa type, and must be omitted from the Recent fauna. Suter's Recent records refer to a totally unrelated new species, which has also occurred in deep water off Otago Heads.

Chione stutchburyi (Gray, 1828). [P. 987]

I provide the new generic name Austrovenus for this species. It compares well with no other Chione, and is a distinctive Neozelanic evolutionary product. It is found fossil from the mid-Pliocene onwards, produced a crass and tumid offshoot in C. crassitesta Finlay (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 478, 1924), and has a “Miocene” (or earlier) relative in C. acuminata Hutton (N.Z. Geol. Surv. Pal. Bull. No. 2, p. 51, 1914).

The spissa group has had an addition made to it in the form of C. mawsoni, described by Hedley from Macquarie Island. (1916, p. 33). This species, spissa Desh., and the Pliocene subsulcata Suter are related to a well marked Australian series for which Iredale has proposed the genus name Chioneryx (1924, p. 210), naming Erycina cardioides Lk (= Antigona striatissima (Sow.) auct.) as type, but are not quite the same, and have been separated by Marwick.

Paphia fabagella (Deshayes, 1854). [P. 994]

This species, originally named as a Tapes, was described from New Zealand, then commonly found in Australia and the Neozelanic habitat rejected as fictitious, then re-found in New Zealand. There

[Footnote] * The new genera of Veneridae here proposed were erected before Dr. Marwick's paper was written up, but, owing to delay in publication, appear simultaneously with it.

– 471 –

is still doubt as to the exact identity of the Neozelanic form, but New Zealand specimens in the Australian Museum, assigned to this species, do not agree with Australian forms, having a much longer sinus, and longer and more prominent teeth; the type figured by Reeve is the Tasmanian form, which is like the New Zealand shell, but (though much larger) still with a shorter sinus. Hedley, following Jukes Browne, has classed this species under Venerupis, but this seems a bad location. Jukes-Browne included fabagella and galactites under Pullastra, and then added “two species generally assigned to Venerupis, viz., V. rugosa and V. siliqua. … are better placed under Pullastra than under Venerupis.” Oliver has proposed Notopaphia for Venerupis elegans, citing as diagnostic “the characters of the teeth” and the possession of “a well defined lunule,” using the other New Zealand forms as true Venerupis, as he follows by stating that V. reflexa and V. siliqua are inseparable and should be lumped. The extraordinary variation in the teeth makes it difficult to utilize this feature, and the best characters for separating elegans appear to be the lunule and the crenulation of the margins. However, as Jukes Browne pointed out, the other austral species are not true. Venerupis, and as that name is also doubtfully valid for any group, I propose Irona nov., naming V. reflexa Gray as type, and Paphirus nov., naming Venus largillierti Phil. as type. This ill-sounding name may have to replace the familiar Venus intermedia Q. & G., which Iredale tells me is preoccupied; but since he has sent no details I am unable to verify this statement.

Protocardia pulchella (Gray, 1843). [P. 1000]

The type of Protocardia (C. hillanum Sow.) is a European Cretaceous form, while the section Nemocardium (type: C. semiasperum Desh.; Eocene, Paris Basin) is Suter's location, from perusal of Dall's “Tertiary Mollusks of Florida” (Trans. Wagn. Free Inst. Sci., vol. 3, pt. 5, p. 1078, 1900; Dr. Marwick has kindly pointed out to me that both Dall and Suter wrongly give the page reference to Nemocardium Meek as p. 172, whereas it should be p. 167). This stock lived in Australian and New Zealand seas throughout the Tertiary, giving rise to a large series of forms, to cover which Iredale has introduced the genus name Pratulum (1924, p. 207), provided for Cardium thetidis Hedley, originally proposed merely as a variety of striatulum Sow. (=pulchellum Gray). Iredale, however, did not consider Nemocardium, which seems to cover the austral forms so well that the use of Pratulum may be postponed until differential characters are adequately pointed out. In direct lineage in New Zealand may be named Nemocardium semitectum Marwick (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, p. 312, 1926) and new species extending back to the Palaeocene. Oliver (Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 15, p. 183, 1923) has noted that pulchella does not occur at the Kermadecs, the shells he so identified (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 47, p. 556, 1915) being really Cardium maculosum Wood.

Some large Tertiary species referred to Protocardia will probably prove separable from Nemocardium, but may be referred there temporarily. Suter has allowed three species, patula (Hutton) (Cat. Tert. Moll., p. 23, 1873), sera Hutton (l.c.), and alata Suter (N.Z.

– 472 –

G.S. Pal. Bull. No. 5, p. 78, 1917), but I have noted that there may be only one (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 498, 1924). Cardium patulum Hutton was described from two localities, Waipara, and Broken River (Lower); I now nominate the latter as the type locality, and this will render sera, from the same locality, an absolute synonym; alata is from Mt. Brown, and may prove separable when more material is available.

Cardium (Glans) kaiparaensis Marshall (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 50, p. 272, 1918) I have determined (l.c., vol. 55, p. 538, footnote, 1924) as a synonym of Venericardia subintermedia Suter (N.Z.G.S. Pal. Bull. No. 5, p. 74, 1917).

Soletellina biradiata (Wood, 1815). [P. 1083]

Suter has admitted this Australian form from a single specimen found by Brookes in Manukau Harbour. Mr. Brookes, in sending the shell for examination, wrote as follows: “The label is in Suter's writing; he did not consider it the above species, and asked me to allow him to send it to the British Museum. It does not agree quite well with my specimens of S. biradiata from Tasmania, the contour of the shell is different, and is less inflated, and the teeth are somewhat different.” My own Sydney specimens show numerous differences, the nymphs being very much weaker and shorter, the teeth feebler and differently placed, the muscle scars quite different in size and shape, and the pallial area smaller and differently inclined. The specimen evidently cannot bear the name biradiata (which should therefore disappear from New Zealand lists), but what it really is remains doubtful at present. It has the appearance of an abnormality, and may be an extra-solid distorted overgrowth of siliqua. On the other hand it may be a perfectly distinct new species; decision must be deferred until further similar specimens are found.

Genus Solecurtus Blainville, 1824.

I have added this to the fauna by describing three Tertiary species, bensoni, evolutus and chattonensis (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 472, 1924). The reference to the generic name is Dict. Sci. Nat. (Levrault) vol. 32, p. 351, and the type (vide Iredale, Proc. Mal. Soc., vol. 11, p. 306, 1915), Solen strigillatus L.

Corbula gibba (Olivi, 1792). [P. 1008]

This European species can be dismissed without hesitation. Suter wrote in connection with it, “The peculiarity of distribution it shares with several other bivalves—viz., Arca reticulata, Lima lima, Cardita calyculata, Venericardia corbis, Thyasira flexuosa, etc. As has been shown, comparison of actual specimens does not support these records; Arca reticulata does not occur in New Zealand, Lima lima and Cardita calyculata have perfectly distinct Neozelanic representatives, Venericardia corbis has been rejected by Marwick, and, when sufficient comparative material is at hand, Thyasira flexuosa will probably also disappear. However, in the case of Corbula gibba, the record appears to be simply one of a common European shell accidentally included among endemic forms.

– 473 –

As regards Tertiary species, I have recorded (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 499, 1924) that C. humerosa Hutt. is equal to and has priority over C. canaliculata Hutt.

Saxicava artica (Linné, 1767). [P. 1012]

It would be better to follow the example of Hedley and May with regard to this species, and use Lamarck's name Saxicava australis in preference to admitting one world-wide species. Hedley has enlarged the genus in the Neozelanic region by recording Saxicava antarctica Phil. from Macquarie Island (1916, p. 33), and I know of still another species representing the aberrant Australian S. subalata Gat. & Gab.

Genus Panopea Ménard, 1807. [P. 1012]

The correct spelling is Panope, as used by Hedley, May, and others.

Dr. Marwick writes me that as regards the Tertiary forms, he would recognize three species as follows: zelandica Q. & G., Recent and Wanganuian in occurrence, with large shell, length generally a little under twice the height, irregularly folded and waved; worthingtoni Hutton, Oamaruian in occurrence, length over twice the height, with regular concentric folds, 6–7 per centimetre; and orbita Hutton, Oamaruian in occurrence, length much less than twice the height, with regular concentric folds, 3–5 per centimetre. Woods (1917) has admitted three further species to the Upper Cretaceous fauna, awaterensis Woods, malvernensis Woods, and clausa Wilckens. Marshall has given figures of worthingtoni (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 49, Pl. 33, f. 4) and orbita (l.c., Pl. 37, f. 50), but his usage of the specific names should be reversed. Marwick (Rep. Austr. Assoc. Adv. Sci., vol. 16, p. 320, 1924) has denied the occurrence of orbita in Australia, and his reproduction of Tate's figure of a supposed orbita fully supports this contention. As specimens I have lately seen from the Australian Tertiaries are quite constantly like Tate's figure and widely different from any New Zealand form, I finally dispose of this bad record by giving the name Panope ralphi n. sp. to the shell originally figured by Tate (Trans. Roy. Soc. S.A., vol. 9, Pl. 18, f. 3, 1887); this specimen was from the River Murray cliffs. It is more nearly allied to the Table Cape Panopeagnewi (T.-W.) than to orbita Hutton.

Teredo bruguieri Delle Chiaje, 1828. [P. 1019]

Suter rejected Teredo norvegica Spengler, 1792 as “not binomial,” but this erroneous conclusion, through non-access to the literature itself, has been pointed out by Calman (Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1920, p. 394) and Spengler's name should come into use.

Iredale has noted (1924, p. 214) that the genus Bankia Gray, 1842 should be used to cover the second species erroneously called T. saulii Wright, the correct specific name being australis Calman, 1920 (loc. cit., p. 397), described from Brisbane, the syntype being from Auckland.

Genus Thracia Blainville, 1824. [P. 1023]

The Australasian species previously referred to Thracia appear to differ appreciably from the European type, and as the status of

– 474 –

Thracia itself is in doubt, a change seems necessary. Iredale has shown that two series have been confused in Australia, one showing an external ligament, the other without this feature. For the latter, Thraciopsis was available, and for the former Eximiothracia was introduced (Iredale, 1924, p. 199). The two Recent Neozelanic species, and also the Tertiary forms vegrandis M. & M. (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 51, p. 258, 1919) and magna M. & M. (l.c., vol. 53, p. 77, 1921) and the Cretaceous haasti and “Thracia sp.” Woods (1917, pp. 34, 17) seem referable to the last named.

Genus Myodora Gray, 1840. [P. 1028]

Dealing with species of Myadora (the earliest spelling), Iredale noted the restricted geographical range of the species (1924, p. 200) and one may therefore advise the rejection of several of the names included by Suter. Captain Bolton's specimen of “brevis” is probably the immature shell of some other species, while C. Traill's Stewart Island records of Sydney shells are of course all wrong. Traill apparently received a collection of common Sydney forms, and these were presented (probably inadvertently) to the British Museum, and are there all labelled “Stewart Island,” though obviously not from that locality (information from T. Iredale). Through ignorance of the Neozelanic fauna, some of these have been recorded as from Stewart Island, as in the case of the next species, Myadora crassa Stutchbury, which must certainly be rejected. Suter notes, “I have not seen this species,” but it is not a very rare Sydney shell.

Myadora pandoriformis (Stutchbury, 1835), the commonest Sydney species, also depends in the first instance on Traill's Stewart Island record. Misled by this, Suter has recorded the species from Port Pegasus, Stewart Island, and Iredale included it from Banks Peninsula. The name must be rejected, the records probably referring to one of the other described species, such as M. antipoda Smith.

Myadora rotundata Sowerby, 1875, was erroneously described from New Zealand; the type in the British Museum proves to be tasmanica Ten.-Woods, a Tasmanian species, so that the name must be expunged from New Zealand lists.

Chamostrea albida (Lamarck, 1819). [P. 1033]

Iredale in his “Commentary” showed that Cleidothaerus must be used as the generic name in place of Chamostrea, but did not deal with the forms confused under the above name. Collecting at Sydney, he tells me he observed that the local form, named C. chamoides by Stutchbury, disagreed slightly with the South Tasmanian form, the typical C. albida of Lamarck. While considering the advisability of separating these, he noted that the Neozelanic form was obviously a distinct species, and I had independently arrived at the same conclusion. I therefore now describe it as:—

Cleidothaerus maorianus n. sp. (Figs. 125, 126).

Shell differing from C. chamoides in being less compressed, i.e., the valve is shallower and muscle-scars further apart, the pallial line in the New Zealand shell being thus much longer. It has also a distinct indication of a sinus, more evident in the flat valve, the pallial line being indented and broken up into several separate scars at the

– 475 –

posterior muscle-scar; in the right valve the pallial line is sharply submedially angled, the anterior portion being horizontal, the posterior sloping steeply straight up to meet the muscle-scar. These features are not seen in Australian shells. Muscle-scars of left valve sub-parallel, not markedly divergent as in chamoides. Anterior end of shell much less (often not) pointed; erect portion of shell considerably higher.

Diameter (ant.-post), 63 mm.; (dorso-vent.), 70 mm.; width of attachment (right valve), 45 mm.; height of erect portion, 55 mm.

Locality.—Kawhia Harbour.

Sepia apama Gray, 1849. [P. 1058]

This was described from Southern Australia, and Iredale, by intensive collecting in the Sydney district, has proved that these animals are very local, so that the Neozelanic species may be quite different. The good description and figures given by Suter are copied without alteration from McCoy's account of Victorian specimens, the typical S. apama.

Iredale has lately published in the Rec. Austr. Mus. a monograph of the Peronian forms, but this has not yet been seen. Species are quite numerous round the Australian coasts, and individuals often extremely abundant, but no small species is yet known from New Zealand; their absence here is very striking to anyone fresh from the Sydney beaches.

In this essay I have proposed the following new generic and specific names:—

  • Zelorica n. gen. for Lorica haurakiensis Mestayer.

  • Nacella macquariensis n. sp. for “Nacella delesserti” Hedley.

  • Schismope lyallensis n. sp. for “Schismope atkinsoni” Suter.

  • Schismope laqueus n. sp. for “Schismope beddomei” Suter.

  • Schismope iota n. sp.

  • Sinezona n. gen. for Schismope brevis Hedley.

  • Monodilepas n. gen. for Lucapina monilifcra Hutton.

  • Tugali colvillensis n. sp.

  • Thoristella (chathamensis) benthicola n. subsp.

  • Thoristella [chathamensis] fossilis n. subsp.

  • Paraclanculus n. gen. for Paraclanculus peccatus n. sp.

  • Zediloma n. gen. for Z. digna n. sp.

  • Zediloma digna n. sp. for “Monodonta nigerrima” Suter.

  • Zediloma arida n. sp. for “Monodonta coracina” Suter.

  • Fractarmilla n. subgen. for Labio corrosa A. Ad.

  • Cavodiloma n. gen. for Trochocochlea excavata Ad. & Ang.

  • Anisodiloma n. gen. for Trochus lugubris Gmelin.

  • Anisodiloma lugubris lenior n. subsp.

  • Micrelenchus n. gen. for Trochus sanguineus Gray.

  • Plumbelenchus n. gen. for Trochus capillaceus Phil.

  • Antisolarium n. gen. for Solarium egenum Gould.

  • Zeminolia n. gen. for Minolia plicatula M. & S.

  • Zetela n. gen. for Minolia textilis M. & S.

  • Conominolia n. gen. for Heliacus conicus Marshall.

– 476 –
  • Venustas n. gen. for Trochus tigris Martyn.

  • Venustas punctulata urbanior n. subsp.

  • Mucrinops n. subgen. for Zizyphinus spectabilis A. Ad.

  • Munditia n. gen. for Liotina tryphenensis Powell.

  • Liotella indigens n. sp. for “Liotella incerta” Mestayer.

  • Brookula prognata n. sp. for “Brookula sp.” Mestayer.

  • Lissotesta errata n. sp. for “Lissospira micra” Suter.

  • Incilaster n. gen. for Turbo marshalli Thomson.

  • Opella n. gen. for Astrea subfimbriata Suter.

  • Pellax n. gen. for Phasianella huttoni Pilsbry.

  • Zethalia nom. nov. for Ethaliopsis Cossmann.

  • Notocrater n. gen. for Cocculina craticulata Suter.

  • Tectisumen n. gen. for Cocculina clypidellaeformis Suter.

  • Tectisumen mayi nom. nov. for Cocculina clypidellaeformis May, not of Suter.

  • Melarhaphe zelandiae n. sp. for “Litorina mauritiana” Suter.

  • Macquariella n. subgen. for Paludestrina hamiltoni Smith.

  • Zelaxitas n. gen. for Laevilitorina cystophora Finlay.

  • Zeradina n. gen. for Fossarus ovatus Odhner.

  • Radinista n. subgen. for Couthouyia concinna Hedley.

  • Nilsia n. gen. for Fossarus conicus Odhner.

  • Scrupus n. gen. for Fossarus hyalinus Odhner.

  • Nannoscrobs n. gen. for Amphithalamus hedleyi Suter.

  • Merelina plaga n. sp.

  • Rissoina anguina n. sp. for “Rissoina hanleyi” Suter, partim.

  • Zerotula n. gen. for Discohelix hedleyi Mestayer.

  • Zemelanopsis n. gen. for Melanopsis trifasciata Gray.

  • Pakaurangia n. subgen. for Melanopsis waitaraensis Marwick.

  • Zeacumantus n. gen. for Cerithidea subcarinata Sow.

  • Zebittium n. gen. for Bittium exile Hutton.

  • Specula n. gen. for Cerithiopsis styliformis Suter.

  • Mendax n. subgen. for Cerithiopsis trizonalis Odhner.

  • Socienna n. subgen. for Cerithiopsis apicicostata May.

  • Alipta n. gen. for Cerithiopsis crenistria Suter.

  • Zaclys n. gen for Cerithiopsis sarissa Murdoch.

  • Miopila n. subgen. for Cerithiella fidicula Suter.

  • Notoseila n. gen. for Cerithium terebelloides Hutton.

  • Hebeseila n. gen. for Seila bulbosa Suter.

  • Taxonia n. gen. for Ataxocerithium suteri Marwick.

  • Zefallacia n. gen. for Fastigiella australis Suter.

  • Notosinister n. gen. for Triphora fascelina Suter.

  • Teretriphora n. subgen. for Triphora huttoni Suter.

  • Cautor n. subgen. for Triphora lutea Suter.

  • Novastoa n. gen. for Siphonium lamellosum Hutton.

  • Lilax n. gen. for Stephopoma nucleogranosum Verco.

  • Spirocolpus n. gen. for Turritella waihaoensis Marwick.

  • Zeacolpus n. gen. for Turritella vittata Hutton.

  • Stiracolpus n. gen. for Turritella symmetrica Hutton.

  • Maoricolpus n. gen. for Turritella rosea Q. & G.

  • Brookesena n. gen. for Mathilda neozelanica Suter.

  • Callusaria n. subgen. for Struthiolaria callosa Marwick.

  • Zegalerus n. gen. for Calyptraea tenuis Gray.

– 477 –
  • Zegalerus crater nom. nov. for Trochita alta Hutton.

  • Maoricrypta n. gen. for Crepidula costata Sow.

  • Zeacrypta n. subgen. for Calyptraea monoxyla Lesson.

  • Trichosirius n. gen. for Trichotropis inornatus Hutton.

  • Zelippistes n. gen. for Separatista benhami Suter.

  • Triviella memorata n. sp. for “Trivia australis” Suter.

  • Charonia capax n. sp. for “Septa rubicunda” Suter.

  • Charonia capax euclioides n. subsp. for “Charonia lampas euclia” Finlay.

  • Gondwanula n. gen. for Ranella tumida Dunker.

  • Fusitriton laudandus n. sp. for “Priene retiolum” Finlay.

  • Mayena zelandica n. sp. for “Argobuccinum australasia” Suter.

  • Murdochella n. gen. for Scala laevifoliata M. & S.

  • Murdochella alacer n. sp.

  • Conjectura n. gen. for Crossea glabella Murdoch.

  • Crosseola errata n. sp. for “Crossea cancellata” Suter.

  • Dolicrossea vesca n. sp. for “Crossea labiata” Suter.

  • Powellia n. gen. for P. lactea n. sp.

  • Powellia comes n. sp.

  • Powellia paupereques n. sp.

  • Syrnola menda n. sp. for “Syrnola pulchra” Suter.

  • Coluzea n. gen. for Fusus spiralis A. Ad.

  • Mitra maoria n. sp. for “Mitra carbonaria” Suter.

  • Diplomitra n. gen. for Cymbiola nitens Marshall.

  • Waimatea n. gen for Mitra inconspicua Hutton.

  • Austromitra n. gen. for Columbella rubiginosa Hutton.

  • Austromitra rubiradix n. sp. for “Vexillum planatum” Suter.

  • Proximitra n. gen. for Vexillum rutidolomum Suter.

  • Egestas n. gen. for Vexillum waitei Suter.

  • Verconella (dilatata) rex n. subsp. for “Megalatractus maximus” Suter.

  • Marshallena n. gen. for Belophos incertus Marshall.

  • Glaphyrina n. gen. for Fusus vulpicolor Sow.

  • Glaphyrina [vulpicolor] progenitor n. subsp.

  • Aeneator n. gen. for Verconella marshalli Murdoch.

  • Evarnula n. subgen. for Cominella striata Hutton.

  • Buccinulum sufflatum n. sp. for “Euthria striata” Suter.

  • Zephos otagoensis n. sp. for “Phos tenuicostatus” Suter.

  • Zeapollia n. gen. for Tritonidea acuticingulata Suter.

  • Nassarius aoteanus n. sp. for “Alectrion fasciata” Suter.

  • Zeatrophon n. gen. for Fusus ambiguus Phil.

  • Xymenella n. gen. for Trophon pusillus Suter.

  • Paratrophon n. gen. for Polytropa cheesemani Hutton.

  • Axymene n. gen. for Axymene turbator n. sp.

  • Axymene turbator n. sp. for “Trophon aucklandicus” Suter.

  • Lenitrophon n. subgen. for Trophon convexus Suter.

  • Comptella n. gen. for Trophon curtus Murdoch.

  • Terefundus n. gen. for Trophon crispulatus Suter.

  • Minortrophon n. subgen. for Daphnella crassilirata Suter.

  • Zeadmete n. gen. for Cancellaria trailli Hutton.

  • Paxula n. gen. for Columbella paxillus Murdoch.

– 478 –
  • Paxula murdochi n. sp. for “Columbella huttoni” Murdoch.

  • Liratilia n. gen. for Daphnella conquisita Suter.

  • Zemitrella n. gen. for Lachesis sulcata Hutton.

  • Macrozafra n. gen. for Clathurella subabnormis Suter.

  • Antizafra n. gen. for Columbella pisaniopsis Hutton.

  • Palomelon n. subgen. for Cymbiola lutea Watson.

  • Pinguispira n. subgen. for Ancilla (Baryspira) opima Marwick.

  • Rhizorus nesentus n. sp. for “Volvulella reflexa” Suter.

  • Cylichnina opima n. sp. for “Cylichnella pygmaea” Suter.

  • Dolicheolis n. gen. for Eolidia longicauda Q. & G.

  • Benhamina n. gen. for Siphonaria obliquata Sow.

  • Cadulus teliger n. sp. for “Cadulus spretus” Suter.

  • Cosa n. gen. for Hochstetteria costata Bernard.

  • Zelithophaga n. gen. for Lithodomus truncatus Gray.

  • Notovola n. gen. for Pecten novae-zelandiae Reeve.

  • Cyclochlamys n. gen. for Pecten transenna Suter.

  • Cyclochlamys secundus n. sp. for “Pecten aff. transenna” Mestayer.

  • Limatula maoria n. sp. for “Lima bullata” Suter.

  • Gaimardia aucklandica n. sp. for “Modiolarca tasmanica” Suter.

  • Gaimardia forsteriana n. sp.

  • Kidderia hamiltoni n. sp. for Kidderia pusilla Hedley, not Mytilus pusillus Gould, nor Macgillivray.

  • Costokidderia n. gen. for Kidderia costata Odhner.

  • Costokidderia pedica n. sp.

  • Costokidderia lyallensis n. sp.

  • Cuna laqueus n. sp. for “Cuna delta” Suter.

  • Cardita aoteana n. sp. for “Cardita calyculata” Suter.

  • Cardita brookesi n. sp.

  • Pteromyrtea n. subgen. for Cyclina dispar Hutton.

  • Parvithracia n. gen. for Montacuta triquetra Suter.

  • Zemysia n. gen. for Lucina zelandica Gray.

  • Zemysina n. subgen. for Z. globus n. sp.

  • Zemysia (Zemysina) globus n. sp. for “Diplodonta globularis” Suter.

  • Zemysia (Zemysina) striatula n. sp. for “Diplodonta striata” Suter.

  • Arthritica n. gen. for Kellia bifurca Webster.

  • Notolepton n. gen. for Kellia antipoda Filhol.

  • Zemyllita n. gen. for Pythina stowei Hutton.

  • Myllitella n. gen. for M. vivens n. sp.

  • Rochefortula n. gen. for Rochefortia reniformis Suter.

  • Scintillona n. gen. for Spaniorinus zelandicus Odhner.

  • Maoritellina n. gen. for Tellina charlottae Smith.

  • Macomona n. gen. for Tellina liliana Iredale.

  • Zearcopagia n. gen. for Tellina disculus Desh.

  • Amphidesma forsteriana n. sp.

  • Dosinula n. gen. for Dosina zelandica Gray.

  • Austrovenus n. gen. for Venus stutchburyi Gray.

  • Irona n. gen. for Venerupis reflexa Gray.

  • Paphirus n. gen. for Venus largillierti Phil.

  • Panone ralphi n. sp for Panopea orbita Tate, not Hutton.

  • Cleidothaerus maorianus n. sp. for “Chamostrea albida” Suter.

– 479 –

List Of References Cited.

(The following list of references is believed to include titles of practically all articles written on or referring to New Zealand Mollusca, Tertiary and Recent, since the publication of Suter's “Manual of the New Zealand Mollusca,” in 1913, as well as a few important works prior to that date. All the works mentioned have been consulted in drawing up the present paper.)

Allan, R. S., 1926. Fossil Mollusca from the Waihao Greensands. Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, pp. 338–346.

Ashby, E., 1925. Monograph of Australian Fossil Polyplacophora (Chitons). Proc. Roy. Soc. Vict., vol. 37 (N.S.), pt. 2, pp. 170–205.

—— 1926 A. The Regional Distribution of Australian Chitons (Polyplacophora). Rep. Austr. Assoc. Adv. Sci., vol. 17, pp. 366–393.

—— 1926 B. The Acanthoid Chitons of New Zealand, with Descriptions and Figures, including Several New Species. Proc. Mal. Soc. (Lond.), vol. 17, pt. 1, pp. 5–35.

Baker, H. B., 1923. Notes on the Radula of the Neritidae, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad., vol. 75, pp. 117–178.

Bartrum, J. A., 1919. New Fossil Mollusca. Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 51, pp. 96–100.

Bather, F. A., 1920. Fossils and Life (Presidential Address, Geological Section), Rep. Brit. Assoc. Adv. Sci. for 1920, pp. 61–86.

Benson, W. N., 1922. Recent Advances in New Zealand Geology (Presidential Address, Section C), Rep. Austr. Assoc. Adv. Sci., vol. 15, pp. 45–133.

—— 1923. Palaeozoic and Mesozoic Seas in Australasia, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 54, pp. 1–62.

—— 1924. The Structural Features of the Margin of Australasia, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, pp. 99–137.

Brookes, A. E., 1924. Descriptions of Two New Species of Gastropod Shells. Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, pp. 153–154.

—— 1926. New Species of Recent Mollusca. Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, pp. 583–587.

Bucknill, C. E. R., 1924 A. Sea Shells of New Zealand. 123 pp.; Auckland, Whitcombe and Tombs.

—— 1924 B. On Turbonilla powelli, nov. spec. Proc. Mal. Soc. (Lond.) vol. 16, pt. 3, p. 122.

Chapman, F., and Gabriel, C. J., 1923. A Revision and Description of the Australian Tertiary Patellidae, Patelloididae, Cocculinidae, and Fissurellidae. Proc. Roy. Soc. Vict., vol. 36 (N.S.), pp. 22–40.

Chapman, F., and Singleton, F. A., 1925 A. A Revision of the Cainozoic Species of Glycimeris in Southern Australia. Proc. Roy. Soc. Vict., vol. 37 (N.S.), pt. 1, pp. 18–60.

—— 1925 B. The Tertiary Deposits of Australia. Proc. Pan-Pac. Sci. Cong. (Australia) 1923, vol. 1, pp. 985–1024.

Clarke, E. de C., 1905. The Fossils of the Waitemata and Papakura Series. Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 37, pp. 413–420.

Cockayne, L., 1919. New Zealand Plants and their Story. (2nd Ed.).

Cossmann, M., 1895–1921. Essais de Paléoconchologie Comparée, vols. 1–12. (See note in Finlay, 1927).

Cossmann, M., 1897–1925. Revue Critique de Paléozoologie, vols. 1–29 (See note in Finlay, 1927).

Cotton, C. A., 1916. The Structure and Later Geological History of New Zealand, Geol. Mag., Dec. 6, vol. 3, pp. 243–49, 314–20.

—— 1918. The Outline of New Zealand, Geogr. Rev., vol. 6, pp. 320–40.

Dennant, J., and Kitson, A. E., 1903. Catalogue of the Described Species of Fossils in the Cainozoic Fauna of Victoria, South Australia, and Tasmania. Rec. Geol. Surv. Vict., vol. 1, pt. 2, pp. 89–147.

– 480 –

Finlay, H. J., 1923. Some Remarks on New Zealand Calliostomidae, with Descriptions of New Tertiary Species, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 54, pp. 99–105.

—— 1924 A. New shells from New Zealand Tertiary Beds, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, pp. 450–479.

—— 1924 B. New Zealand Tertiary Rissoids. Ibid., pp. 480–490.

—— 1924 C. The Molluscan Fauna of Target Gully. Ibid., pp. 494–516.

—— 1924 D. Additions to the Recent Molluscan Fauna of New Zealand. Ibid., pp. 517–526.

—— 1924 E. The Family Liotiidae, Iredale, in the New Zealand Tertiary: Part 1—The Genus Brookula. Ibid., pp. 526–531.

—— 1924 F. Some necessary changes in Names of New Zealand Mollusca. Proc. Mal. Soc. (Lond.), vol. 16, pt. 2, pp. 99–107.

—— 1924 G. List of Recorded Relationships between Australian and New Zealand Mollusca, Rep. Austr. Assoc. Adv. Sci., vol. 16, pp. 332–343.

—— 1925. Some Modern Conceptions Applied to the Study of the Cainozoic Mollusca of New Zealand. Verbeek Mem. Birthday Vol., pp. 161–172.

—— 1926 A. New Shells from New Zealand Tertiary Beds: Part 2. Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, pp. 227–258.

—— 1926 B. On Iredalina, new genus: a Volute without plaits. Proc. Mal. Soc. (Lond.), vol. 17, pt. 1, pp. 59–62.

—— 1927. New Specific Names for Austral Mollusca. Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 57.

—— and McDowall, F. H., 1923. Fossiliferous Limestone at Dowling Bay. Ibid., vol. 54, pp. 106–114.

—— 1924. Preliminary Note on the Clifden Beds. Ibid., vol. 55, pp. 534–538.

Harris, G. F., 1897. Catalogue of Tertiary Mollusca in the Department of Geology, British Museum (Natural History), Pt. 1, The Australasian Tertiary Mollusca. 407 pp., British Muesum, London.

Hawkins, H. L., 1920. Invertebrate Palaeontology. 226 pp., Methuen & Co.

Hedley, C., 1899. A Zoogeographic Scheme for the Mid-Pacific, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vol. 24, pp. 391–417.

—— 1902. Scientific Results of the Trawling Expedition of H.M.C.S. “Thetis”; Mollusca, Pt. 1, Brachiopoda and Pelecypoda. Mem. Austr. Mus., No. 4, pt. 5, pp. 288–324.

—— 1903. Idem., Pt. 2, Scaphopoda and Gastropoda. Ibid., pt. 6, pp. 327–402.

—— 1904. On the Change of Name of Poroleda lanceolata Tate. Vict. Naturalist, vol. 21, No. 8, p. 112.

—— 1906 A. Eighteenth-Century Names that relate to New Zealand Mollusca. N.Z. Col. Mus. Bull. 1, pp. 48–49.

—— 1906 B. Studies on Australian Mollusca, Pt. 9. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vol. 29, pt. 4, pp. 520–546.

—— 1907. The Mollusca of Mast Head Reef, Capricorn Group, Queensland, Pt. 2. Ibid., vol. 32, pt. 3, pp. 476–513.

—— 1911. Report on the Mollusca obtained by the F.I.S. “Endeavour,” chiefly off Cape Wiles, South Australia, Pt. 1. Zool. Res. “Endeavour,” vol. 1, pt. 1, pp. 90–114.

—— 1913. Studies on Australian Mollusca, Pt. 11. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vol. 38, pt. 2, pp. 258–339.

—— 1914. Mollusca (continued). Zool. Res. “Endeavour,” vol. 2, pt. 2, pp. 65–74.

—— 1915. Studies on Australian Mollusca, Pt. 12. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vol. 39, pt. 4, pp. 695–755.

—— 1916. Mollusca, Sci. Reps. Australasian Antarc. Exped., ser. C, vol. 4, pt. 1, pp. 1–80.

—— 1917. Studies on Australian Mollusca, Pt. 13. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vol. 41, pt. 4, pp. 680–719.

—— 1918 A. A Check List of the Marine Fauna of New South Wales, Pt. 1, — Mollusca. Suppl. to Journ. Roy. Soc. N.S.W., vol. 51, pp. M1-M120.

—— 1918 B. Mollusca. Proc. Roy. Geogr. Soc. Australia (S.A. Branch), 1916–1917, reprint, pp. 1–21.

Explanation Of Plate 18.

  • Figs. 1, 2.—Sigapatella terranovae Peile, off Cuvier Island, 40 f. × 4/3.
  • Figs. 3, 4.—Margarella decepta (Iredale): neotype. × 14/2.
  • Figs. 5, 6.—Herpetopoma larochei Powell: topotype. × 3.
  • Figs. 7–10.—Thoristella benthicola n.sp.: (holotype, 8). × 3.
  • Figs. 11–14.—Thoristella fossilis n.sp.: (holotype, 13). × 3.
  • Figs. 15–16.—Thoristella dunedinensis (Suter): topotypes. × 3.
  • Fig. 17.—Paraclanculus peccatus n.gen. et sp.: holotype. × 1½.
  • Figs. 18, 19.—Melarhaphe zelandiae n.sp.: (holotype, 18). × 2.
  • Figs. 20, 21.—Incilaster marshalli (Thomson): topotypes. × 2.
  • Figs. 22, 23.—Incilaster marshalli (Thomson), operculum. × 2.
  • Figs. 24, 25.—Zediloma digna n.gen. et sp.: holotype. × 5/3.
  • Fig. 26.—Venustas (Mucrinops) spectabilis (A. Ad.), off Otago Heads. × 1.
  • Fig. 27.—Venustas (Mucrinops) urbanior n.sp.: holotype. × 1.
Picture icon

Figs. 28, 29.—Lissotesta errata n.sp.: (holotype, 29). × 6.
Figs. 30, 31.—Schismope laqueus n.sp.: holotype. × 6.
Fig. 32.—Dolicrossea vesca n.sp.: holotype. × 6.
Fig. 33.—Crosseola errata n.sp.: holotype. × 6.
Fig. 34.—Cylichnina opima n.sp.: holotype. × 6.
Figs. 35, 36.—Merelina lyalliana (Suter): topotypes. × 6.
Figs. 37, 38.—Merelina plaga n.sp.: (holotype, 37). × 6.
Figs. 39, 40.—Rissoina anguina n.sp.: (holotype, 39). × 3.
Fig. 41.—Murdochella alacer n.gen. and sp.: holotype. × 6.
Fig. 42.—Alipta crenistria (Suter), off Otago Heads, 60 f. × 3.
Figs. 43, 44.—Powellia paupereques n.gen. and sp.: (holotype, 43). × 6.
Figs. 45, 46.—Powellia comes n.sp.: (holotype, 45). × 6.
Figs. 47, 48.—Powellia lactea n.sp.: (holotype, 47). × 6.
Fig. 49.—Powellia semireticulata (M. & S.): holotype. × 6.
Figs. 50, 51.—Syrnola menda n.sp.: (holotype, 50). × 6.
Figs. 52-54.—Cadulus teliger n.sp.: (holotype, 54). × 6.
Fig. 55.—Pteronotus (Pterochelus) eos (Hutton): topotype. × 1.
Fig. 56.—Pteronotus (Poropteron) zelandicus (Hutton): topotype. × 1.
Fig. 57.—Mitra maoria n.sp.: holotype. × 1.
Figs. 58, 59.—Austromitra antipodum (Brookes): topotypes. × 3.
Figs. 60, 61.—Paxula murdochi n.gen. et sp.: (holotype, 61). × 3.

  • Explanation of Plate 20.
  • Figs. 62, 63.—Phalium n.sp. (labiatum auct.), Opotiki. × ¾ and ⅖
  • Fig. 64.—Phalium n.sp. (pyrum auct.), 40 fath., off Whakatane. × ⅖.
  • Fig. 65.—Fusitriton laudandus n.sp.: holotype. × ⅗.
  • Fig. 66.—Mayena zelandica n.sp.: holotype. ⅖.
  • Fig. 67.—Charonia capax n.sp.: holotype. × ½.
  • Fig. 68.—Charonia capax euclioides n.subsp.: holotype. × ⅖.
  • Fig. 69.—Poroleda pertubata. Iredale, Dusky Sound. × 4.
  • Fig. 70.—Verconella dilatata (Q. & G.), Castlecliff beds. × ½.
  • Figs. 71, 72.—Verconella rex n.sp.: holotype. × ⅗.
  • Explanation of Plate 21.
  • Fig. 73.—Triviella memorata n.sp.: holotype. × 4/3.
  • Fig. 74.—Triviella merces Iredale, Port Jackson. × 4/3.
  • Figs. 75, 76.—Buccinulum sufflatum n.sp.: (holotype, 76). × 5/4;.
  • Fig. 77.—Buccinulum (Evarnula) fuscozonatum (Suter), Whangaroa. × 1½.
  • Figs. 78, 79.—Buccinulum (Evarnula) striatum (Hutton): topotypes. × 1.
  • Fig. 80.—Glaphyrina vulpicolor (Sow.), off Otago Heads, 60 f. × 1.
  • Fig. 81.—Zephos otagoensis n.sp.: holotype. × 1.
  • Fig. 82.—Agnewia tritoniformis (Blainville), Whangaroa. × 1.
  • Figs. 83, 84.—Cymatium exaratum (Reeve), Tauranga. × 1.
  • Fig. 85.—Austrotriton parkinsonianum (Perry), Whangaroa. × 1.
  • Figs. 86–89.—Hochstetteria modiolus (Suter): topotypes. × 6.
  • Figs. 90–92.—Cuna laqueus n.sp.: (holotype, 92). × 5.
  • Figs. 93–95.—Costokidderia lyallensis n.gen. et sp.: (holotype, 95). × 6.
  • Fig. 96–98.—Costokidderia pedica n.sp.: (holotype, 96). × 6.
  • Figs. 99–01.—Costokidderia costata (Odhner): topotypes. × 6.
  • Figs. 102, 103.—Kidderia acrobeles (Suter): topotypes. × 6.

Explanation of Plate 22.

  • Figs. 104–106.—Limatula maoria n.sp.: (holotype, 106). × 4/3.
  • Figs. 107–108.—Macomona liliana (Iredale), Stewart Island. × 1.
  • Figs. 109–111.—Zemysia (Zemysina) globus n.gen. et sp.: (holotype, 109). × 1¼.
  • Figs. 112, 113.—Zemysia (Zemysina) striatula n.sp.: (holotype, 113). × 1¼.
  • Figs. 114, 115.—Cardita aoteana n.sp.: holotype. × 1½.
  • Figs. 116–118.—Cardita brookesi n.sp.: (holotype, 116). × 1½.
  • Figs. 119–121.—Myllitella vivens n.gen. et sp.: (holotype, 119). × 6.
  • Figs. 122–124.—Gaimardia aucklandica n.sp.: (holotype, 124). × 6.
  • Figs. 125–126.—Cleidothaerus maorianus n.sp.: holotype. × ⅔.
Picture icon

Axymene turbator n.gen. and sp.

– 481 –

Hedley, C., 1919 A. Notes on the Rock-oyster Fishery of Auckland. N.Z. Journ. Sci. and Tech., vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 365–366.

—— 1919 B. On Siphonalia dilatata of Suter's Manual. Ibid., vol. 3, no. 1, Nat. Hist. Note, p. 54. (See also corrections of misprints in this paper, ibid., vol. 3, no. 3, p. 170, 1920, and no. 4, p. 222, 1920).

—— 1919 C. A Revised Name for a New Zealand Trochoid. Ibid., vol. 3, p. 54.

—— 1919 D. Cominella quoyi Kiener. Ibid., p. 55.

—— 1919 E. A Revision of the Australian Tun Shells. Rec. Austr. Mus., vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 329–336.

—— 1922. A Revision of the Australian Turridae. Rec. Austr. Mus., vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 213–359.

—— 1923. Studies on Australian Mollusca, Pt. 14. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vol. 48, pt. 3, pp. 301–316.

—— 1924 A. A Revision of the Australian Pinnidae. Rec. Austr. Mus., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 142–153.

—— 1924 B. Some Naticoids from Queensland. Ibid., pp. 154–161.

—— and Suter, H., 1910. The Genus Cremnobates Swainson. Proc. Mal. Soc. (Lond.), vol. 9, pt. 3, pp. 151–152.

Hutton, F. W., 1873 A. Catalogue of the Marine Mollusca of New Zealand, with descriptions of the species. 116 pp.; Govt. Printer, Wellington.

—— 1873 B. Catalogue of the Tertiary Mollusca and Echinodermata of New Zealand in the collection of the Colonial Museum. 48 pp.; Govt. Printer, Wellington.

—— 1880. Manual of the New Zealand Mollusca. 224 pp.; James Hughes, Wellington.

—— 1905. Three New Tertiary Shells. Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 37, pp. 472–474.

Iredale, T., 1908 A. Notes on some New Zealand Marine Mollusca. Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 40, pp. 373–387.

—— 1908 B. A Preliminary List of the Marine Mollusca of Banks Peninsula, New Zealand. Ibid., pp. 387-403.

—— 1911 A. On Some Misapplied Molluscan Generic Names. Proc. Mal. Soc. (Lond.), vol. 9, pt. 4, pp. 253-263.

—— 1911 B. Value of the Gastropod Apex in Classification. Ibid., pt. 5, pp. 319-323.

—— 1912. New Generic Names and New Species of Marine Mollusca. Ibid., vol. 10, pt. 3, pp. 217-228.

—— 1914. Invalid Molluscan Generic Names. Ibid., vol. 11, pt. 3, pp. 170-178.

—— 1915 A. Some More Misused Molluscan Generic Names. Ibid., pt. 5, pp. 292-306.

—— 1915 B. A Commentary on Suter's Manual of the New Zealand Mollusca. Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 47, pp. 417-497.

—— 1917. More Molluscan Name-changes. Proc. Mal. Soc. (Lond.), vol. 12, pt. 6, pp. 322-330.

—— 1918. Molluscan Nomenclatural Problems and Solutions—No. 1. Ibid., vol. 13, pts. 1 and 2, pp. 28-40.

—— 1921. Idem—No. 2. Ibid., vol. 14, pts. 5 and 6, pp. 198-208.

—— 1922. The Nomination of “Recent” Fossil Mollusca. Ibid., vol. 15, pt. 1, pp. 37-38.

—— 1924. Results from Roy Bell's Molluscan Collections, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vol. 49, pt. 3, pp. 179-278.

—— 1925. Mollusca from the Continental Shelf of Eastern Australia. Rec. Austr. Mus., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 243-270.

—— and O'Donoghue, C., 1923. List of British Nudibranchiate Mollusca. Proc. Mal. Soc. (Lond.), vol. 15, pt. 4, pp. 195-200, and pt. 5, pp. 201-233.

—— and Hull, A. F. B., 1923-1925. A Monograph of the Australian Loricates. Austr. Zoologist, vol. 3.

Lang, W. D., 1919. The Pelmatoporinae, an Essay on the Evolution of a Group of Cretaceous Polyzoa. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond., ser. B, vol. 209, pp. 191-228.

—— 1912 Palaeontology and Bernard's Biological Theories. Geol. Mag., N.S, Dec. 5, vol. 9, pp. 550-558.

– 482 –

Marshall, P., 1916. Relations between Cretaceous and Tertiary Rocks. Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 48, pp. 100-119.

—— 1917. The Wangaloa Beds. Ibid., vol. 49, pp. 450-460.

—— 1918. The Tertiary Molluscan Fauna of Pakaurangi Point, Kaipara Harbour. Ibid., vol. 50, pp. 263-278.

—— 1919. Fauna of the Hampden Beds and Classification of the Oamaru System. Ibid., vol. 51, pp. 226-250.

—— 1920 A. The Hampden Beds and the New Zealand Tertiary Limestones. Ibid., vol. 52, pp. 111-114.

—— 1920 B. The Tertiary Rocks near Wanganui. Ibid., pp. 115-128.

—— 1923. Early Tertiary Molluscan Faunas of New Zealand. Ibid., vol. 54, pp. 115-121.

—— and Murdoch, R., 1919. Some New Fossil Species of Mollusca. Ibid., vol. 51, pp. 253-258.

——— 1920. Some Tertiary Mollusca, with Descriptions of New Species. Ibid., vol. 52, pp. 128-136.

——— 1921 A. Idem. Ibid., vol. 53, pp. 77-86.

——— 1921 B. Tertiary Rocks near Hawera. Ibid., pp. 86-96.

——— 1923. Some Tertiary Mollusca, with Descriptions of New Species. Ibid., vol. 54, pp. 121-128.

Martin, K., 1914. Wanneer is de Indische Archipel gescheiden van de Tethys? Konin. Akad. van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam, Deel 22, pp. 732-734.

—— 1917. On the Miocene Fauna of the West-Progo Mountains in Java. Ibid., vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 800-804.

Marwick, J., 1922. Fossil Pearls of New Zealand. N.Z. Journ. Sci. and Tech., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 202-203.

—— 1923. The Genus Glycimeris in the Tertiary of New Zealand. Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 54, pp. 63-80.

—— 1924 A. Notes on a Molluscan Collection of Supposed Waiarekan Age. N.Z. Journ. Sci. and Tech., vol. 6, nos. 5 and 6, p. 280.

—— 1924 B. An Examination of some of the Tertiary Mollusca claimed to be common to Australia and New Zealand. Rep. Austr. Assoc. Adv. Sci., vol. 16, pp. 316-331.

—— 1924 C. The Struthiolariidae. Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, pp. 161-190.

—— 1924 D. Palaeontological Notes on some Pliocene Mollusca from Hawke's Bay. Ibid., pp. 191-201.

—— 1924 E. The Tertiary and Recent Naticidae and Naricidae of New Zealand. Ibid., pp. 545-579.

—— 1924 F. Zealeda and Barytellina, new fossil Molluscan Genera from New Zealand. Proc. Mal. Soc. (Lond.), vol. 16, pt. 1, pp. 25, 26.

—— 1925. The Indo-Pacific Element in the Marine Tertiary Mollusca of New Zealand. Verbeek Mem. Birthday Vol., pp. 369-378.

—— 1926 A. Tertiary and Recent Volutidae of New Zealand. Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, pp. 259-303.

—— 1926 B. Molluscan Fauna of the Waiarekan Stage of the Oamaru Series. Ibid., pp. 307-316.

—— 1926 C. New Tertiary Mollusca from North Taranaki. Ibid., pp. 317-331.

—— 1926 D. Origin of the Tertiary Mollusca of New Zealand. N.Z. Journ. Sci. and Tech., vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 269-272.

May, W. L., 1919 A. Critical Remarks on the Table Cape Fossil Mollusca in the Johnston Collection, with Figures. Pap. Roy. Soc. Tas. for 1918, pp. 69-73.

—— 1919 B. A Revised Census of the Mollusca and Brachiopoda in the Table Cape Beds. Ibid., pp. 101-117.

—— 1921. A Check-List of the Mollusca of Tasmania. 114 pp.; Govt. Printer, Hobart.

—— 1923. Illustrated Index of Tasmanian Shells. 100 pp.; Govt. Printer, Hobart.

Mestayer, M. K., 1916. Preliminary List of Mollusca from Dredgings taken off the Northern Coast of New Zealand. Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 48, pp. 122-128.

—— 1918 A. A Note on the Young Stages of Astrea heliotropium (Martyn). Ibid., vol. 50, pp. 191-192.

– 483 –

Mestayer, M. K., 1918 B. The Occasional Occurrence of Australian and South Sea Island Molluscs in New Zealand. N.Z. Journ. Sci. and Tech., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 102-104.

—— 1919. New Species of Mollusca Dredged off New Zealand, Snares, and Bounty Islands. Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 51, pp. 130-135.

—— 1920 A. Note on a Habit of the Chiton Cryptoconchus porosus (Burrow). N.Z. Journ. Sci. and Tech., vol. 3, no. 2, Nat. Hist. Note, p. 117.

—— 1920 B. A Note on Pleurobranchaea novaezelandiae Cheeseman. Ibid. no. 3, Nat. Hist. Note, p. 170.

—— 1920 C. Note on the Spawn-Coils of Kerguelenia obliquata (Sow.). Ibid., p. 171.

—— 1921 A. The Occurrence of Cylichnella arachis (Q. & G.) in New Zealand Waters. Ibid., nos. 5 and 6, Nat. Hist. Note, p. 303.

—— 1921 B. Notes on the Natural Camouflage of some Marine Mollusca. Ibid., vol. 4, no. 2, p. 39.

—— 1921 C. Notes on the Habits and Uses of the Toheroa. Ibid., pp. 84-85.

—— 1921 D. Notes on New Zealand Mollusca: No. 1, Descriptions of Three New Species of Polyplacophora, and of Damoniella alpha. Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 53, pp. 176-180.

—— 1921 E. Idem.: No. 2. Ibid., p. 180.

—— 1926. Idem.: No. 3. Ibid., vol. 56, pp. 583-587.

Morgan, P. G., 1922. Notes on the Geology of New Zealand. N.Z. Journ. Sci. and Tech., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 46-57.

Moss, E. G. B., 1908. The Beautiful Shells of New Zealand. 46 pp.; Collins Bros. & Co., Auckland.

Murdoch, R., 1900. New Species of Pliocene Mollusca from Wanganui, with Notes on other Species. Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 32, pp. 216-221.

—— and Finlay, H. J., 1923. The Occurrence of Land Mollusca in a Recent Sea-beach Deposit. Ibid., vol. 54, pp. 131-133.

Odhner N. H., 1924. New Zealand Mollusca. Pap. Mort. Pacific Exped., 1914-1916, No. 19, pp. 1–88.

Oliver, W. R. B., 1915. The Mollusca of the Kermadec Islands. Ibid., vol. 47, pp. 509-568.

—— 1923 A. Marine Littoral Plant and Animal Communities in New Zealand. Ibid., vol. 54, pp. 496-545.

—— 1923 B. Notes on New Zealand Pelecypods. Proc. Mal. Soc. (Lond.), vol. 15, pt. 4, pp. 179-188.

—— 1926. Australasian Patelloididae. Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 56, pp. 547-582.

Park, J., 1921. The Birth and Development of New Zealand. Ibid., vol. 53, pp. 73-76.

Peile, A. J., 1924. A new species of Sigapatella (S. terranovae). Proc. Mal. Soc. (Lond.), vol. 16, pt. 1, pp. 21-23.

Powell, A. W. B., 1921. Some North Auckland Marine Mollusca. N.Z. Journ. Sci. and Tech., v ol. 4, no. 4, Nat. Hist. Note, p. 204.

—— 1924 A. Notes on New Zealand Mollusca. Ibid., vol. 6, nos. 5 and 6, pp. 282-286.

—— 1924 B. Description of a new subspecies of Alcithoe arabica Martyn, from New Zealand. Proc. Mal. Soc. (Lond.), vol. 16, pt. 2, pp. 108-109.

—— 1924 C. On a New Species of Epitonium. Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 55, p. 138.

—— 1926 A. Descriptions of Six New Species and a New Genus of Gastropod Mollusca from Northern New Zealand. Ibid., vol. 56, pp. 591-596.

—— 1926 B. Descriptions of two new Gastropods from Whangaroa, New Zealand. Proc. Mal. Soc. (Lond.), vol. 17, pt. 1, pp. 36-38.

—— 1926 C. Mollusca from 100 fathoms, off Lyttelton, with Descriptions of Four New Species, and also a New Pliocene Fossil. Rec. Cant. Mus., vol. 3, pt. 1, pp. 43-50.

Smith, E. A., 1915. Mollusca, pt. 1—Gastropoda Prosobranchia, Scaphopoda, and Pelecypoda. Brit. Antarc. (“Terra Nova”) Exped. 1910, Nat. Hist. Report, Zool., vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 61-112.

– 484 –

Suter, H., 1911. Two New Fossil Mollusca. Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 43, pp. 595-596.

—— 1913 A. Manual of the New Zealand Mollusca, with (1915) Atlas of Plates. 1120 pp.; Govt. Printer, Wellington.

—— 1913 B. New Species of Tertiary Mollusca. Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 45, pp. 294-297.

—— 1913 C. Descriptions of Two New Marine Shells from New Zealand. Rec. Cant. Mus., vol. 2, pt. 1, pp. 57, 58.

—— 1914. Revision of the Tertiary Mollusca of New Zealand, Pt. 1, N.Z. Geol. Surv. Pal. Bull. No. 2, pp. 1–64.

—— 1915 A. Idem., Pt. 2. Ibid., No. 3, pp. 1–69.

—— 1915 B. Alphabetical Hand-List of New Zealand Tertiary Mollusca. 28 pp.; Govt. Printer, Wellington.

—— 1917 A. On the Origin of a New Species by Isolation. Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 49, pp. 279-283.

—— 1917 B. Descriptions of New Tertiary Mollusca Occurring in New Zealand. N.Z. Geol. Surv. Pal. Bull. No. 5, pp. 1–93.

—— 1918. Alphabetical List of New Zealand Tertiary Mollusca. 32 pp.; Govt. Printer, Wellington.

—— 1919. Descriptions of a New Species of the Family Cerithiidae. Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 51, pp. 68, 69.

Swinnerton, H. H., 1925. Outlines of Palaeontology. 420 pp.; Arnold and Co., London.

Tate, R., 1878. The Fossil Marginellidae of Australasia. Trans. Phil. Soc. Adelaide for 1877-78, pp. 90-98.

—— 1886. The Lamellibranchs of the Older Tertiary of Australia, Pt. 1. Trans. Roy. Soc. S.A., vol. 8, pp. 96-158.

—— 1887 A. Idem., Pt. 2. Ibid., vol. 9, pp. 142-189.

—— 1887 B. The Scaphopods of the Older Tertiary of Australia. Ibid., pp. 190-194.

—— 1887 C. The Pteropods of the Older Tertiary of Australia. Ibid., pp. 194-196.

—— 1888. The Gastropods of the Older Tertiary of Australia, Pt. 1. Ibid., vol. 10, pp. 91-176.

—— 1889. Idem., Pt. 2. Ibid., vol. 11, pp. 116-174.

—— 1890. Idem., Pt. 3. Ibid., vol. 13, pp. 185-235.

—— 1893. Idem., Pt. 4. Ibid., vol. 17, pt. 2, pp. 316-345.

—— 1894. Unrecorded Genera of the Older Tertiary Fauna of Australia, including diagnoses of some New Genera and Species. Journ. Roy. Soc. N.S.W., vol. 27, pp. 167-197.

—— 1898 A. A Second Supplement to a Census of the Fauna of the Older Tertiary of Australia. Ibid., vol. 31, pp. 381-412.

—— 1898 B. On Some Recent and Fossil Australian Species of Philobryae. Trans. Roy. Soc. S.A., vol. 22, pt. 2, pp. 86-89.

—— and May, W. L., 1901. A Revised Census of the Marine Mollusca of Tasmania. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vol. 26, pp. 844-471.

Thomson, J. A., 1916. On Stage Names Applicable to the Divisions of the Tertiary in New Zealand. Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 48, pp. 28–40.

—— 1918. Brachiopoda. Sci. Rcps. Australasian Antarct. Eped., ser. C, vol. 4, pt. 3, pp. 51-63.

—— 1919 A. Polymorphism in the Common New Zealand Limpet, Cellana radians (Gmelin). N.Z. Journ. Sci. and Tech., vol. 2, nos. 4 and 5, pp. 264-267.

—— 1919 B. Geological and Palaeontological Notes on the Palliser Bay District. Ibid., pp. 267-268.

—— 1920. The Notocene Geology of the Middle Waipara and Weka Pass District, North Canterbury, New Zealand, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 52, pp. 322-415.

Tillyard, R. J., 1924. Origin of the Australian and New Zealand Insect Faunas, Rep. Austr. Assoc. Adv. Sci., vol. 16, pp. 407-13.

Tomlin, J. R. Le B., and Peile, A. J., 1925. Notes on the Identity of Patella affinis Reeve. Proc. Mal. Soc. (Lond.), vol. 16, pt. 4, p. 198.

Vaughan, T. W., 1921. The Correlation of the Later Mesozoic and Cenozoic Formations of New Zealand, Proc. First Pan-Pacific Scientific Conf., pt. 3, pp. 713-43.

– 485 –

Vaughan, T. W., 1924. Criteria and Status of Correlation and Classification of Tertiary Deposits. Bull. Geol. Soc. America, vol. 35, pp. 677-742.

Vredenburg, E. W., 1910. A Summary of the Geology of India. (2nd Ed.).

Wilckens, O., 1920 A. Die Kreideformation von Neuseeland. Geol. Rundschau, Bd. 11.

—— 1920 B. Das Neuseelandische obersenon, nebst einigen Bemerkungen über seine Bivalvenfauna. Zentralbl. f. Min., 1920.

—— 1922. The Upper Cretaceous Gastropods of New Zealand. N.Z. Geol. Surv. Pal. Bull. No. 9, pp. 1–42.

Winckworth, R., 1922. Note on the British species of Anomia. Proc. Mal. Soc. (Lond.), vol. 15, pt. 1, pp. 32-34.

Woodring, W. P., 1925. Miocene Mollusks from Bowden, Jamaica. Pelecypods and Scaphopods. Carnegie Inst. of Washington, Publication No. 366; 222 pp.

Woods, H., 1917. The Cretaceous Faunas of the North-Eastern part of the South Island of New Zealand. N.Z. Geol. Surv. Pal. Bull. No. 4, pp. 1–42.

Woodward, B. B., 1924. Date of Publication of S. Nilsson's Historia Molluscorum Sveciae. Proc. Mal. Soc. (Lond.), vol. 16, pt. 1, p. 23.

Young, M., 1924. Note on the Spawning of Doris wellingtonensis Abraham. N.Z. Journ. Sci. and Tech., vol. 7, no. 3, Zool. Note, p. 189.