iKtDALE. — Suier' s ''Manual of the New Zealand Mollusca." 455 



shell-sand would easily add others at the same place, such inhabiting the 

 sublittoral zone. It is, however, more than probable that when the animals 

 are examined many will be found to belong to other families, and it is im- 

 perative that the present association be only recognized as a temporary 

 one. 



Omalogyra bicarinata (Suter, 1908). [P. 229.] 



I have before me specimens which agree in detail with Suter's description 

 and figure. They cannot be referred to Omalogyra, as the " peristome 

 continuous " is quite antagonistic to that genus. I have many times 

 studied them, and they do not carry adult features in my eyes. My series 

 does not exactly prove, but I myself am of the opinion, that they represent 

 the first stage in the growth of Turbo smaragdus (Martyn, 1784). The 

 careful search for young microscopic forms at any locality would well repay 

 the student, and such a puzzle as the present one would be quickly solved. 

 The shells can be compared with the juveniles of Angaria, which Suter 

 described as species of Liotia (ante). I have examined, as well as the Euro- 

 pean and Neozelanic species of Omalogyra, species from Sydney, New South 

 Wales, Lord Howe Island, and Norfolk Island, and they are all easily 

 recognizable. 



Genus Cerithiella (Verrill, 1882). [P. 249.] 



In the Proc. Mai. Soc. (Lond.), vol. ix, p. 260, 1911, I discussed the 

 rejection of this name by Cossmann, and the proposition of the new name 

 Newtoniella. According to the nomenclatural laws now in force, Cerithiella 

 is the valid name for this genus, and must be used. Thiele, apparently 

 independently, has also investigated the matter, and has endorsed my 

 conclusion. Morris and Lycett introduced Ceritella, and this name does not 

 clash with Cerithiella, which was proposed by Verrill in the Trans. Conn. 

 Acad., vol. v, p. 522, 1882. Mr. Edgar A. Smith, I.S.O., recently working 

 upon Antarctic shells, has considered the matter, and also confirmed my 

 results. 



The only Neozelanic species seems referable to the genus as defined 

 by Harris and quoted by Suter, but disagrees somewhat with the type. 



Seila terebelloides (Hutton, 1873). [P. 253.] 



Suter used Cerithium terebelloides Martens, Crit. List, 1873, p. 26, as the 

 basis of his Seila terebelloides, rejecting Cerithium. cinctum Hutton of even 

 date, writing, " Hutton's name has priority by one month, but the de- 

 scription is quite inadequate, and he himself adopted the name bestowed 

 on the species by von Martens." Hutton, however, published Martens* 

 name at the same time as his own — viz., in the Cat. Mar. Moll. N.Z., 

 p. 107, 1873 — so that Hutton's C. cinctum, p. 27, has only page, not time, 

 priority. This is quite sufficient to legalize Hutton's name ; but we are 

 relieved from making any alteration, as Hutton's name-selection was an- 

 ticipated by Bruguiere (Tabl. Ency. Meth. Vers., pt. 2, p. 493, 1792). 



The original reference, however, must be quoted : Cerithium (Bittium) 

 terebelloides Hutton, Cat, Mar. Moll. N.Z., p. 107, 1873. 



Calyptraea tenuis (Gray, 1867). [P. 284.] 



Mr. E. A. Smith has shown that Calyptraea scutum Lesson is indetermin- 

 able, and that the correct name for the Neozelanic shell is C. tenuis Gray, 

 Proc. Linn. Soc, 1867, p. 735. 



