102 Annals of the South African Museum. 



II. THE GENUS Marinula, King, 

 with Diagnosis of an undescribed Species. 



Little notice has been taken of this genus for over thirty years, 

 while much that was written by earlier authors is erroneous. I 

 therefore hope that the following notes, made during the elucidation 

 of the species hereinafter described, may be of use to future students 

 of Auriculidae. 



The genus Marinula was founded by King in July, 1832 (not 

 1835, the date usually quoted), to receive a new species from the 

 Island of Chiloe, off the extreme south coast of Chili, which h& 

 named Marinula pepita. 



His diagnoses of the genus and genotype are : 



" MAEINULA. Nov. Genus. 



T. ovato-producta, sub-solida ; apertura ovata, integra ; columella, 

 bidentata, et basin versus uniplicata ; dentibus magnis sub-remotis 

 conniventibus, superiore maximo ; operculum nullum. 



MAEINULA. PEPITA. 



M. t. ovato-producta, viridi-fusca ; anfractibus sub-tumidis ; spira 

 brevi ; ap. nigricante ; dentibus plicaque albidis ; long. T 7 ^ ; lat. 



T V poll. 



Hab. ad ins. Chiloe. Mus. Brit. nost. Brod. G. Sowerby." * 



Several writers have attributed to King the statement that the 

 animal differs from that of Pedipcs in its foot not being transversely 

 divided, but there is no mention of this in his published writings. 



No difficulty should ever have arisen over King's genus or species.. 

 He mentions that there is a typical set in the British Museum, and 

 it is there to this day, agreeing well with his description and labelled 

 "Chiloe; Captain P. P. King, E.N.," but, instead of pepita, the 

 name on the front of the tablet is nigra, Phil. 



The explanation of this mistake is as follows : 



In the Cuming collection are three tablets ; on one is the Type set 

 of Auricula recluziana, Petit, from Colombia, labelled in Pfeiffer's 

 writing "pepita, King"; on each of the others is a set of, 

 apparently, a smaller form of the same species, but one is labelled 

 pepita, King (Hab. Chile), and the other, acuta, Orb. (no Hab. given). 

 These shells are neither pepita nor acuta ; in fact, they do not belong 

 * Zool. Journ., 1832, v. pp. 343, 344. 



