REPORT ON THE GASTEROPODA. 133 



Habitat. — New Holland (Quoy and Gaimard), New Zealand (Hutton), Port Jackson and 

 all Southern Australia (Angas), Seychelles, Amirante Islands, Mauritius (v. Martens). 



Deshayes is responsible for at least some part of the confusion which has gathered round this 

 species. In his edition of Lamarck, vol. viii. p. 603, note to Ncrita atrata, Chem., an Atlantic species, 

 he says that this is the species to which Quoy and Gaimard, "Astrolabe," vol. hi. pi. lxv. figs. 41, 

 42, gave the name of Ncrita punctulata (sic). But there is no such species in Quoy and Gaimard, and 

 the Nerita punctata, to which he meant to refer, they distinctly say is a species from New Holland. 

 The species in the British Museum, with which the Challenger specimen agrees, is marked Ncrita 

 atrata, Chem., but on the back " N. punctata, Quoy and G., voy. 'Astrol.,' t. 65, f. 41," and this 

 is obviously the name which it should bear. Chemnitz evidently had this species before him as 

 well as that from the Atlantic (which he describes), for he says (vol. v. p. 296) he had seen a black 

 Nerita from the South Seas procured in one of Cook's voyages ; and in the points he enumerates, both 

 of resemblance and of difference, he makes it obvious that this of Quoy and Gaimard is the species 

 he had in view. Grey in his Fauna of New Zealand (Diffenbach's Travels, vol. ii. p. 240, No. 96) has 

 somewhat added to the confusion by referring to a Ncrita nigra, Quoy and Gaimard, and by quoting 

 Quoy as his authority for ascribing it to New Zealand ; but no such species of Quoy and Gaimard 

 exists, only in the " Voyage de l'Uranie " (Zool., p. 460) mention is made of a Ndritc noirdtre of 

 unknown locality. All this has been already shown by von Martens (Crit. Reg., loc. cit. supra), but has 

 not checked the repetition of the mistake of identifying the New Zealand species with that from the 

 Atlantic, but the reason for this may have been that Professor v. Martens closes his remarks without 

 plainly saying what that species should be called, which he had so clearly proved could not be Ncrita 

 atrata, Chem. In his Mollusca of Mauritius, &c, he marks Ncrita punctata, Quoy, as " nicht weiter 

 verbreitet " than the Mascarene group of islands — a statement I do not understand in the face of 

 his " Critical List " as above. Perhaps he had come to doubt his identification of Ncrita punctata, Quoy, 

 with that from Australia. Altogether, I suspect that Mr Smith's solution of the difficulties, by 

 introducing for our species a quite new name, is the best. Still, the points of divergence in 

 Quoy and Gaimard's description on which Mr Smith dwells hardly outweigh the evidence supplied 

 by the locality to which they ascribe their species. 



5. Nerita tessellata, Gnielin. 



Nerita tessellata, Gmelin, p. 3685, No. 65. 



,, striata, Chemnitz, Conch. Cab., vol. v. p. 313, pi. cxcii. figs. 1998-99. 

 ,, tessellata, Lamarck, Anim. s. vert., vol. vi. p. 194, and (ed. Desh.) vol. viii. p. 609, sp. 16. 

 ,, „ Dillwyn, vol. ii. p. 1006, sp. 65. 



,, „ Deshayes, Encyclop method, vers., vol. iii. p. 617, sp. 3. 



„ „ Reeve, Conch. Icon., vol. ix. pi. ix. fig. 43. 



Wood, Ind. Test., p. 182, pi. xxxvi. fig. 68. 



Station 24. March 25, 1873. Lat. 18° 38' 30" N, long. 65° 5' 30" W. Off Culebra 



Island, West Indies. 390 fathoms. Pteropod ooze. 



Habitat.— West Indies (Chemnitz). 



I do not know the Nerita from Senegambia which passes under this name, and I have excluded 

 Adanson's le Tadin, p. 190, pi. xiii. fig. 2, from the references, because, though from his quotation 

 for his species of Petiver Ncrita jamaiccnsis, Gazophyl., vol. i. p. 581, pi. xiii. fig. 12, it is evident 



