496 Transactions. 



translated as Venus spissa, and quoted it as of Quoy. When the text was 

 issued, however, Quoy and Gaimard had used crassa, both this word and 

 spissa being Latin words of similar meanings. 



As Quoy and Gaimard's name proves to be invalid, Deshayes's alternative 

 comes into use. The extraordinary part now comes to be related. The 

 last page of Quoy's work bears the date 17th March, 1835, so that it could 

 not have been published before that date. The preface to Deshayes's book- 

 is dated the 22nd February, 1835, and, according to the Bibliog. France, it 

 was published before the 7th March, 1835. This gives clear priority to 

 Deshaves's name, and proves that this should have been in use all the time, 

 and, further, that Deshayes's name could not possibly have been a misprint. 



Mr. E. A. Smith, I.S.O., of the British Museum, states that he is stil! 

 unable to separate this species from C. mesodesma (Quoy and Gaimard, 

 1835), which Suter has maintained as a distinct species. If this conclusion, 

 which is justified by the material here, be again confirmed, the name to be 

 used for the combination is Chione spissa Deshayes, as shown above. 



Hedley (Zool. Ees. Fish. Exp. " Endeavour," pt. i, p. 100, 1911) has 

 recorded CJrione mesodesma (Quoy and Gaimard) for South Australia, noting 

 it as common in Tasmania, and Gatliff and Gabriel and May have also noted 

 its occurrence in Australian waters. " Venus spurca Sowerby, P.Z.S., 

 1835, 23," included in the synonymy by Suter, was not published until 

 April, 1835. 



As a subspecies, oiolacea (Quoy and Gaimard, 1835) is admitted by Suter 

 The name is invalid, as Gmelin had proposed this in the Syst. Nat., 1791. 

 p. 3288. 1 do not, however, think it worth while to provide a new name 

 for such a slight variation. 



With regard to the variation, it would be interesting if Hedley. May, 

 or Gabriel would investigate the matter as regards Australia, and record 

 whether the same variation is observed there as Suter has admitted in New 

 Zealand, and settle the usage of spissa or the distinction of mesodesma. 



Protothaca crassicosta (Deshayes, 1835). [P. 996.] 



Venus crassicosta Deshayes, Anim. s. Vert., ed. 2, vol. vi, p. 373, 1835, 

 has priority over Venus costata Quoy and Gaimard, 1835, which is, more- 

 over, preoccupied by Gmelin (Syst. Nat., 1791, p. 329). This is an abso- 

 lutely parallel case, as regards nomination, with the preceding, the details 

 being identical. 



Suter has omitted the reference to Deshayes, quoting this name as of 

 Hanley ; the date 1844 should be added to the reference. 



I have followed Jukes-Browne in giving Protothaca generic rank. It 

 will be noted that Suter now classes the species in Paphia (= Tapes), whilst 

 he formerly placed it in Chione. When collecting I was puzzled at its 

 inclusion in Chione, as in appearance and habits it recalled Paphia, and 

 disagreed with Chione. 



The acceptance of Protothaca as a genus seems to satisfy this shell in 

 the best manner. 



Genus Gari (Schumacher, 1817). [P. 1002.] 



I have been unable to trace a valid reason for the rejection of this name 

 in favour of the later Psammobia Lamarck, 1818. Gari was proposed by 

 Schumacher (Ess. Nouv. Syst, Test., pp. 44, 131, pi. ix, fig. 2). The type 

 must be Gari vulgaris = Tellina gari Linne, and this is undoubtedly a 



