Irrdalb. — Sitter's " Manual of the New Zealand Mollusca." 463 



Genus Subularia (Monterosato, 1884). [P. 351.] 



I have been unable to appreciate the subjection of the species commonly 

 called Leiostraca to Eulima. I have already pointed out that Leiostraca is 

 quite untenable, and that it must be displaced by Subularia. In the same 

 place (Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.), 1914, p. 673) I 'noted that Eulima, 1826, 

 was antedated by Melanella, 1822, and it was only by the acceptance of 

 the generic separation of the " humpbacked " species under Melanella that 

 Eulima could be preserved as commonly used. The worker who would 

 lump Subularia with Eulima must needs use Melanella for the association, 

 as the latter two are much more closely related than the former two. 

 I would, at present, deny a very close relationship between the species of 

 Subularia and those of Eulima. I have many species and forms of both 

 under consideration at the present time. 



Fam. Turbinellidae Sowerby, and Genus Megalatractus P. Fischer, 1884. 



[P. 355.] 



These names and the matter relating thereto must be dismissed from 

 the New Zealand molluscan fauna. They were introduced in order that 

 Siphonalia maxima Tryon should be there placed, as, according to the 

 investigations of Kesteven (Mem. Austr. Mus., iv, pp. 419-50, 1904), this 

 species was congeneric with Megalatractus aruanvs (Linne). Kesteven 

 was unacquainted with the anatomy of the Neozelanic shells attributed to 

 " Siphonalia," and consequently no comparisons were made in that direction. 

 Minimizing the differences and magnifying the resemblances observed in 

 the animals of the two species he examined, Kesteven concluded that they 

 were congeneric. From a criticism of his work it becomes obvious that 

 Kesteven confused group characters of a much higher value, and that 

 the differences noted were of generic value. The natural sequence of 

 accepting Kesteven's results would be the transference of all the Neozelanic 

 " Siphonalia " to the genus Megalatractus. If the figures given by Kesteven 

 of the operculum and radula of Siphonalia maxima be contrasted with those 

 given by Hutton (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. xv, p. 119, pi. xiii, fig. F) for 

 " <S." dilatata (Quoy and Gaimard), they will be seen to agree in the very 

 details wherein they differ from Kesteven's own figures of the same items 

 of M. aruanus (Linne). Kesteven also argued that the protoconchs 

 of S. maxima Tryon and M. aruanus (Linne) were essentially similar. 

 I entirely disagree with this conclusion, and would consider they showed 

 radical differences. Here again the protoconchs of S. dilatata (Q. & G.) 

 and S. mandarina (Duclos) are in absolute agreement with those of 

 S. maxima Tryon. It will also be noted that Kesteven made no com- 

 parisons with true Siphonalia, and, consequently, whatever his results, 

 they were prejudiced through overlooking this important item. The results 

 were : S. maxima Tryon, S. mandarina (Duclos), and S. dilatata (Q. & G.) 

 were much more closely related to each other than to M. aruanus (Linne), 

 and were not congeneric. If it were admitted that these were congeneric, 

 then Kesteven had not shown any reason for their transference from 

 Siphonalia. I had got so far in 1907, and was hoping I might find 

 M. aruanvs at the Kermadec Islands, but I did not do so. 



Upon further investigation at the British Museum I found that Siphon- 

 alia was introduced for a series of Japanese shells which were quite unlike 

 those referred to this genus-name by Neozelanic and Australian students. 

 The further discussion will be carried on under the name Verconella, which 



