Iredalb. — Suter's "Manual of the New Zealand Mollusca." 483 



Vomanus subgen. nov. [P. 795. J 



1 provide this name for Conophora Hutton, 1879 (em.), from Konophora, 

 as there is a prior Conophorus Meigen, Mag. f. Insek. (111.), ii, p. 268, 1803, 

 and these are undoubtedly the same word. It will be observed here that 

 Suter has used Conophora em. for Konophora given by Hutton, an exactly 

 parallel case to Calydon and Kalydon. The latter name was also given 

 by Hutton, who consistently used K, and, though in the present case 

 emendation was made, it was not in the case of Kalydon. 



The inclusion of the East African Parmarion ? Kersteni ii^ the family 

 Athoracophoridae seems an obvious error, the geographical distribution of 

 the family, without the species, being quite natural. I would constantly 

 query such an entry as being unnatural, considering our present knowledge 

 of slug forms. 



Nucula simplex A. Adams. [P. 833.] 



From examination of the types preserved in the British Museum, Hedley 

 (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vol. xxxviii, p. 263, 1913) has shown the synonymy 

 of Nucula simplex A. Adams, N. strangei A. Adams, and A T . antipodum 

 Hanlev. He has preserved the first-named, apparently on the score of 

 priority, quoting the years 1856, 1860, and 1860. Suter has, however, 

 given the correct quotation and correct date for the second — viz., 1856. 

 As a matter of fact, the first two names occur on the same page. Never- 

 theless, Hedley's choice must be maintained, as it has place priority. 



The synonymy would read then : Nucula simplex A. Adams, Proc. 

 Zool. Soc. (Lond.), 1856, p. 52 ; Nucula strangei, id. ib. ; Nucula antipodum 

 Hanley. Thes. Conch.., vol. iii, p. 159, pi. 230, fig. 155, 1860. 



Genus Nuculana (Link, 1807). [P. 834.] 

 This name must supersede Leda Schumacher, 1817, or else a new name 

 altogether must be provided for the genus. British conchologists have 

 adopted the former, but Dall advised its rejection, as being simply a sub- 

 stitute name for Nucula. Lamarck. Jukes-Browne (Journ. Conch., vol. xi, 

 p. 100, 1904) discussed the merits of the two names, but with little access 

 to much literature, and mainly dependent upon second-hand information, 

 no conclusion was reached. Dall's reason for the rejection of Nuculana 

 may be sound, but, as Jukes-Browne concludes, " It is, of course, quite 

 possible that some conchologists will dispute Dr. Dall's reading of Link, 

 and no doubt it is a debatable question." I was quite agreeable to accept 

 Dall's judgment, but was about to point out that authors accepting this 

 had failed to reject Nassaria, which is absolutely parallel. However, upon 

 referring to Schumacher, to confirm the introduction of Leda, I noted 

 the explanation given for its proposal read, " M. de Lamarck a etabli un 

 genre sous le nom de Nucule (Nucula), et prend pour type de son genre la 

 Nucule nacree (Nucula margaritacea) ou V Area nucleus Lin. En examinant 

 soigneusement cette coquille, j'ai trouve que la charniere a beaucoup plus 

 de rapport avec celle de la Pectoncle ; et cest pourquoi j'ai change le nom 

 de son genre en celui que je lui ai donned I have italicized the last sentence, 

 as this proves Schumacher's name to stand on exactly the same basis as 

 Link's ; or, rather, it is worse off, for Schumacher has admitted that his 

 generic name was purely a substitute for Nucula Lamarck, whereas it is 

 simply inferred that Link's was so proposed. Under these circumstances 

 Leda cannot be preferred to Nuculana, but if the latter be rejected the 

 former must also pass into synonymy. I advise the retention of Nucidana 

 in preference to the alternative of using an entirely new name. 



16* 



