Ibedalb — Suter'& ''Manual of the New Zealand Mollusca." 477 



Genus Bullinula (Swainson. 1840). [P. 521.] 



Bullinula Swainson, Treat. Mai., p. 360, 1840, must replace Bullina 

 Ferussac, 1821, as there is a prior Bullinus. Suter has accepted this dictum, 

 as he has used Cylichnella instead of Cylichna Loven, 1846, not Cylichnus 

 Burmeister, 1844. The above name will be familiar, as it was used in the 

 ." Index Faunae Novae-Zealandiae." 



Bullinula ziczac (Muhlfeldt, 1818). [P. 522.] 



The species-name must also be changed, as Bulla scabra Gmelin, 1791, 

 was antedated by 0. F. Midler's selection of the same name in the Zool. 

 Dan., vol. ii, p. 90, 1784. The shells in the British Museum have long liorne 

 Muhlfeldt's specific name 



Genus Leuconopsis (Hutton, 1884). [P. 592.] 



For the Neozelanic shells Suter has degraded Hutton's genus to the 

 rank of a section under Leuconia Gray. It has been overlooked that as long 

 ago as 1903 the latter name was abandoned by British malacologists for the 

 British species. B. B. Woodward, in his " List of Non-marine Mollusca " 

 (Journ. Conch., vol. x, p. 355, 1903), utilized Bivona's name Ovatella, writing 

 on p. 361, " Leuconia is a svnonvm. as Gray himself admits in 1847. for 

 Ovatella of Bivona, 1832." 



As the Australasian group is at present well defined, I cannot see any 

 reason to recommend the adoption of Bivona's name, but would urge the 

 reinstatement of the absolutely correct one, Leuconopsis Hutton. As Suter 

 quotes, I would only admit one species as at present known in New Zealand 

 waters. 



Genus Marinula King, 1831. [Pp. 591, 594.] 



When Mr. Hedley was in England I pointed out that Cremnobates was 

 synonymous with Marinula King, and upon examination of the types of 

 the two genera he concurred in this view. My friend Mr. M. Connolly, 

 during the preparation of his invaluable " Reference List of South African 

 Non-marine Mollusca " (Annals South Afr. Museum, vol. xi, 1912), referred 

 to me as to the status of the Neozelanic forms. We carefully investigated 

 the whole matter, and Connolly will publish the results, many complications 

 intervening. The fact that the two species referred by Hedley and Suter 

 to the genus Cremnobates — viz.. M. main&roni Velain and M. nigra (Philippi) 

 Velain — are typical Marinula at once discredits Cremnobates ; but the 

 further fact that Marin "la nigra Philippi is a svnonym of M. pepita King, 

 the type of Marinula, must be convincing proof of its invalidity. As Con- 

 nolly's paper will be published in South Africa, and will not commonly 

 come under the notice of the Neozelanic student. I might give the following 

 notes suggested by Connolly's MS., which is now before me. 



Marinula pepita King, gen. and sp. nov., was described from the Island 

 of Chiloe. South America. The distribution of typical specimens, probably 

 under manuscript names, caused the description of such as Auricula nigra 

 Philippi, King's name having meanwhile been twisted on to a Chilian shell 

 superficially agreeing. This transference became universal, and in the 

 British Museum the type set of Marinula pepita King bore on the front the 

 name " nigra Phil..'" whilst distinct shells, not even referable to the genus, 

 were named " pepita King." This confusion existed also in France and 

 Germany, and brought about the record of M. nigra Phillippi from Tristan 

 da Cunha, &c. 



