Iredale. — Suter's " Manual of the New Zealand Mollusca." 471 



characters of Hexaplex. It may, therefore, be so classed, but a subgeneric 

 name should be used to emphasize the peculiarities of this form. I there- 

 fore propose " Murexsul subgen. nov.,"' and name Murex octogonus Quoy 

 and Gaimard as type. 



The small shells classed about Murex angasi (Crosse) certainly fall into 

 Pteronotus. Suter placed them in the section Alipurpura, but that section 

 differs very little from Pteronotus s. str., while the above-named shell was 

 described as a Typhis, and has the canal completely closed when adult. 

 Jousseaume proposed Poropteron for Murex uncinarius Lam., which is 

 undoubtedly congeneric. 



The result of this determination would give the following reading of 

 the Neozelanic species : — 



Genus Murex Linne, 1758. 



Subgenus Poirieria Jousseaume, 1879. 



Murex zelandicus Quoy and Gaimard, 1833. 

 Genus Hexaplex Perry, 1811. 

 Subgenus Murexsul nov. 



Hexaplex octogonus (Quoy and Gaimard, 1833). 



var. uttibilicatus (Ten. -Woods, 1876). 



— var. espinosus (Hutton, 1886). 



Genus Pteronotus Swainson, 1833. 



Subgenus Poropteron Jousseaume, 1879. 

 Pteronotus angasi (Crosse, 1863). 

 var. eos (Hutton, 1873). 



Trophon stangeri (Gray, 1843). [P. 406. j 



This name has been rejected by Suter in favour of the prior Purpura 

 rugosa Quoy and Gaimard, 1833. It is pleasing to me to find that there 

 is a prior Purpura rugosa Lamarck, Anim. sans Verteb., vol. vii, p. 242, 

 1822, so that we can revert to the above well-known name. 



Xymene gen. nov. [P. 410.] 



I propose this genus-name, and name Fusus plebeius Hutton, 1873, as 

 type. Kalydon Hutton, 1884, that would otherwise be used for these shells, 

 is invalidated by the prior Calydon J. Thomson, Syst. Ceramb., p. 263, 

 1864. The two names are absolutely the same, the C and K in this case 

 being interchangeable. These miniature coloured ' Trophons " form an 

 easily recognized group to me, but, as observed in the succeeding note, my 

 interpretation is not coincident with that of my friend Mr. Charles Hedley. 



Xymene quirindus nom. nov. [P. 415. j 



This name is given to replace Trophon paivae Suter, p. 415, not Trophon 

 paivae Crosse, 1864. 



Hedley (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vol. xxxviii, 1913, p. 329) has written, 

 " By Tryon, T. paivae Crosse was united to T. hanleyi Angas, a decision 

 which has misled Australian collectors. . . Not only are these two 



clearly distinct (from examination of types), but T. paivae . . . should 

 be regarded as a synonym of T. recurvus. Probably when Professor Hutton 

 wrote that Trpohon paivae belonged to this new genus Kalydon he intended 

 to refer to T. hanleyi." Then Hedley retained Trophon recurvus Philippi 

 in the genus Trophon, and used Kaldyon (p. 330) for a species which I con- 



