73 



5. Haliotis (Teinotus) asinina Linné. 



LlNNÉ. Syst. Nat. YA. X, p. 780, sp. 652. 



RUMPH. Amb. Rariteitkamer, p. 121, figs. E, F. 



Reeve. Conch. Ie. Vol. XII, Haliotis, fïg. 18. 



Weinkauff. Martini-Chemn. Conch. Cab. Ed. II, Haliotis, p. 5, PI. 1, fig. 5; PI. 9, figs. 2, 3. 



PlLSBRY. Man. of Conch. Vol. XII, p. 126, PI. 14, fig. 76. 



Stat. 2. Madura-strait. 56 M. 1 Spec. 

 Stat. 58. Seba, Savu. Reef. 1 Spec. 



Stat. 60. Haingsisi, Samau-island, Timor. Reef. 3 Spec. 



Stat. 93. Pulu Sanguisiapo, Tawi-Tawi-islands, Sulu-Archipelago. 12 M. 6 Spec. 

 Stat. 301. Pepela-bay, East coast of Rotti. Reef. 1 Spec. 

 5 Amboina. 2 shells with soft parts of 3 specimens. 



Many of the specimens have the shell partly covered by the epipodial lobes, this may 

 be the case in a more conspicuous manner in living specimens. The foot even in specimens in 

 alcohol is considerably longer than the shell. In a specimen from Haingsisi, with a shell of 

 49 Mill., the foot is 72 Mill. in length, in another from Stat. 301, it is 69 Mill. with a shell of 

 57 Mill. The breadth of the foot in the first-mentioned specimen, is about 39 Mill. Corresponding 

 to this more developed foot, the operculigerous lobe (as usually without operculum) is much 

 more conspicuous, as well as the longitudinal furrow, characterizing the subgenus Tcinotns by 

 features taken from the soft parts. 



Fam. Stomatellidae A. Adams 

 Stomatella Lamarck. 

 1. Stomatella papyracea Chemnitz. 



CHEMNITZ. Conch. Cab. Vol. V, p. 215, PI. 182, figs. 1817, 1S1S. 



Reeve. Conch. Ie. Vol. XIX, Stomatella, fig. 3. 



PlLSBRY. Man. of Conch. Vol. XII, p. 10, PI. 52, figs. 46, 47; PI. 51, fig. 9. 



Stat. 37. Sailus Ketjil, Paternoster-islands. 27 M. Coral and coralsand. 1 Spec. 

 Stat. 43. Pulu Sarassa, Postillon-islands. 36 M. Coral. 2 Spec. 



The soft parts agree in most respects with the description of Pilsbry (Proc. Ac. Nat. Sc. 

 Philad. 1891, p. 71, 72) but both specimens have a long foot, which is pointed, not emarginate 

 behind, this posterior part is not furrowed longitudinally as strongly as the anterior part, it 

 is strongly keeled at the upper surface, with small fringes at the keel. The epipodial ridge 

 bears 3 instead of 2 cirri, accompanied by fringed lobes, the third one is placed at the posterior 

 part of the foot. I think however that this difference may result from the faculty, ascribed by 

 A. Adams only to Stoiuatia and Gcna (Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 1850, p. 29) "of spontaneously 

 detaching a considerable portion of the hind part of the foot when disturbed or irritated", indeed 

 the specimens show a groove, which, if one supposes the part behind it were lost, would give 

 a shape corresponding to Pilsbry's lïgure. I see no operculum. 



78 



