890 rnocEEDiNos or ////: \.IT/O\.U. . 



f DIPLODON MENZIEZI var. DEPAUPERATUS Mutton. 



I nio depauperaliis Hrrrox, Tr. X. /. hist., XVI. 1SSI, p. 21(>. P.KTKI,, Conch. 

 Sam., Ill, 1890, p. 150. 



New Zealand. 



DIPLODON WAIKARENSIS Colenso. 



1'nio waikareiisis COLENSO, Tasin. .11. N. Sci., II, 1841, p. 250, footnote; Tr. X. 

 Z. lust., XIV, 1882, p. 169. ' 



Waikare Lake, Few Zealand. 



t DIPLODON ZELEBORI Dunker. 



*Unio zelebori DUXKER, Reise der Nov., 1867, p. 15, pi. n, fig. 28. 'HuTTox. N. 



/. Moll., 1880, p. 161. *PYETEL, Conch. Sam., Ill, 1890, p. 172. 

 *Manjaron ( Unio) zelebori LEA, Syn., 1870, p. 52. 



New Zealand. 



DIPLODON FLYENSIS Tapperone Canefri. 



*Unio flyensis TAPPEUONK CAXEFKI, Ann. Mus. Genov., XIX, 1883, p. 293, fig. 1. 

 I' i TKL, Conch. Sam., Ill, 1890, p. 153. 



Fly River, New Guinea. 



fllPLODON VITTATUS Lea. 



* rnio ritlatus LEA, Pr. Ac. N. Sci. Phila., Ill, 1859, p. 153; *J1. Ac. N. Sci. Phila., 



IV, 1860, p. 249, pi. xxx vm, fig. 128; *Obs., VII, 1860, p. 67, pi. xxxvin, fig. 

 128. *RKEVE, Conch. Icon., XVI, 1864, pi. xxm, fig. 83. *P;ETEL, Conch. 

 Saui., Ill, 1890, p. 171. 

 *Margaron ( Unio) rittatus LEA, Syn., 1870, p. 35. 



Australia. 



f DIPLODON LESSONI Kuster. 



* I'm to Icssonl KUSTEU, Couch. Cab., 1856, p. 135, pi. xxxvi, fig. 4. *PyETEL, Conch. 



Sam., Ill, 1890, p. 157. 



* Unio australis KUSTER, Conch. Cab., 1861,, p. 230, pi. LXXVII, fig. 6. 



New South Wales. 



f DIPLODON AUSTRALIS (Lamarck) Hanley.* 



*fUnio anstralis LAMAKCK, An. sans. Vert., VI, 1819, p. 80. *?DESHAYES, Enc. 

 Mcth., II, 1830, p. 582." HANLEY, Test. Moll., 1842, p. 192 ; " Bi v. Shells, 1843, 

 p. 192, pi. xxi, fig. 25. * CATLOW anil RKEVE, Conch. Xoni., 1845, p. 56. 

 * PHILIPPI, Conch., Ill, 1848, p. 81, pi. v, fig. 5. *H. and A. ADAMS, < Jen. Rec. 

 Moll., IF, 1857, p.493. *P^:TEL, Conch. Sam., Ill, 1890, p. 145. 



1 Snter thinks this is a variety of menziezi, but Colenso states that the posterior 

 slope is keeled. If this is so, it must be quite different from that species. 



2 Lamarck's description of this species is wholly inadequate, and would apply about 

 equally well to several species. He refers to no figure, and Lea states that he did 

 not see the type. I credit the species to Hanley, whose figure seems to represent a 

 form of an abundant and variable species couimouly referred to Lamarck. 



