Iredalb. — Sitter's "Manual of the New Zealand Mollusca,.*' 461 



1840 as quoted in Suter's work, and that at the page given (174) Philippi 

 simply described Solarium luteum Lamarck. He there gave observations 

 on the animal, stating it was apparently normally Trochine, and had a 

 Trochoid operculum. I have already recorded that Philippia does not 

 appear in any of Grav's writings, as far as I could trace, until 1847 (Proc. 

 Mai. Soc, vol. x, p. 309, 1913). 



Genus Omalaxis (Deshayes, 1830). [P. 318.] 



Suter's matter in connection with this genus-name is copied from Dall. 

 As long ago as March, 1911, I had, however, published the results of an 

 investigation into the status of this name, and it shows how slow the publi- 

 cation of the work must have been when no consideration of that article 

 was able to be incorporated by Suter. I there showed that the type of 

 Omalaxis was not Solarium bifrons Lam., as quoted by Suter, but Solarium 

 disjunctum Lamarck, conchologically a different shell. I stated that study 

 of growth-stages of shells collected at the Kermadecs had shown such a 

 shell as that described by Murdoch and Suter as Omalaxis amoena to become 

 adult as Heliacus, and that this species should be there transferred. I 

 have since received many more examples, and hope to give figures later. 

 The genus-name Omalaxis must be eliminated. 



Fam. Pyramidellidae Gray. [P. 327.] 



Though not mentioned, it seems obvious that Suter's classification of 

 this family is based upon Dall and Bartsch's monograph. 



In the " Nautilus," vol. xxiv, pp. 52-58, 1910, I made some comments 

 on the nomenclatural defects apparent in this monograph, indicating the 

 grave danger of the inaccuracies being continually copied by workers who 

 were unable, through want of literature, to check their references. I stated 

 that I was at that time unable to criticize the arrangement and grouping 

 of the species and genera. I have not yet completed my studies, but can- 

 not recommend the acceptance of Dall and Bartsch's groups. Suter appears 

 to have done so, and Hedley did at one time, but only for a very short time. 



Genus Eulimella (Jeffreys, 1847). [P. 329.] 



In my paper quoted I showed that the reference given by Dall and 

 Bartsch, and copied by Suter, was wrong, and that the earliest introduc- 

 tion of the genus-name Eulimella was by Jeffreys in the Ann. Mag. Nat. 

 Hist. 



I cannot recognize Eulimella as a subgenus of Pyramidella, the forma- 

 tion of the mouth being a clear separative feature, whilst geographically 

 the group has a wider range than Pyramidella. 



Genus Syrnola (A. Adams, 1862). [P. 330.] 



This group also deserves generic recognition, as it is well marked and 

 easily defined. Moreover, it is a large group with a great range, and, if 

 only for convenience' sake, would claim usage. 



Genus Odostomia (Fleming, 1813). [P. 333.] 



Suter has here accepted the incongruous association considered a genus 

 by Dall and Bartsch. This method of accepting a huge unwieldly group 

 with a multitude of sections, many of which seem unnecessary, does not 



