SuTEK. — On Neio Zealand MoUiisca. 281 



19. Limncea (Limmts) stagnalis, L. Eiver Avon, Christ- 

 church. Introduced intentionally as food for trout (F. W. 

 Hutton). Auckland, at the Onehunga Springs (Charles T. 

 Musson) . 



Art. XXI. — List of Land and Fresh-icatcr Mollusca doubtful 

 for New Zealand or not inhabiting it. 



By H. SuTEB. 



[Read before the Philosophical Institute of Canterbury, 4th November, 



lSDi:\ 



1. Elcea rapida, Pf. (1853). Professor F. W. Hutton, in 

 his " Manual of the New Zealand Mollusca, 1880," and in his 

 *' Revision of our Land Mollusca," has already pointed out that 

 the New Zealand locality for this mollusc is very doubtful. 

 Mr. Charles Hedley, in his " Notes on Queensland Shells " 

 (Proc. Roy. Soc. of Queensl., vol. vi., p. 100), says, " Elcea 

 rapida is not Australian ; its only habitat is the New He- 

 brides, where Mr. Brazier himself has collected it. "When first 

 described it was stated to come from New Zealand." There 

 can be no doubt now that E. rapida has to be omitted from 

 the list of New Zealand land-shells. 



2. Nanina guttula, Pf. (1853), is another land-shell very 

 likely erroneously attributed to New Zealand by Pfeiffer. It 

 was described by him, with the foregoing, in " Zeitschrift fiir 

 Malakozoologie, 1853," and it seems that for both incorrect 

 localities were given to Pfeiffer. Zelebor mentions it as found 

 on the Nicobar Islands ; but Lieut. -Colonel Godwin- Austen, 

 F.R.S., who is thoroughly acquainted with the molluscan 

 fauna of those islands, assures me that he does not know any- 

 thing of the occurrence of N. guttula on the Nicobars. As 

 the localities given by Pfeiffer are not always to be relied on, 

 we might do well to place N. guttula amongst our doubtful 

 species as long as it is not found by modern collectors in our 

 colony. 



Professor F. W. Hutton says (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. xvi., 

 page 186), " I am not satisfied with my identification of 

 H. guttula, Pf., as the shell in the Wellington Museum ex- 

 ceeds the dimensions given by Pfeiffer, and it can hardly be 

 called thin ; but in other respects it corresponds well with the 

 description, and with Reeve's figure." The height of Reeve's 

 figure is too great by about l^mm. if reduced to the measures 

 given by Pfeiffer. The shells in the Wellington Museum were 

 collected by Mr. T. W. Kirk on " mountains near Masterton." 



