BY C. HEDLEY. 601 



Confusion early enveloped this species. Deshayes was the first 

 to transfer it from Patella to Hifponyx.'*' Under the name of 

 Hipponyx aust7'alis, Quoy &, Gaimard described an Australian 

 shell for which they say they kept Lamarck's name but amended 

 his description to agree with their specimens,! 



It has been remarked that Lamarck's description differs in 

 important details from that of Quoy & Gaimard. Menke 

 endeavoured to harmonise the discrejDancy by supposing that 

 Lamarck's characters '■^ testa tenui, seinipellucida," applied to the 

 young shell, and that Quoy & Gaimard's phrase " cras.^a " properly 

 described the adult.; As the size (one inch) specified by the 

 earlier writer equals that given by the later authors, Menke's 

 explanation is untenable. 



To avoid doulbt several writers have ignored Lamarck and 

 have quoted the species as of Deshayes, or of Quoy ife Gaimard. 

 Angas considered that the species illustrated in the ' Voyage of 

 the Astrolabe ' is probably identical with the earlier Amalthea 

 Gonica, Schumacher.§ Tryon suggests that Patella cassida, 

 Dillwyn,|| embraces both, which is likely to be the correct view. 



Granting the argument that Lamarck dealt with one shell and 

 Quoy & Gaimard with another, then to what species should 

 Lamarck's name apply 1 The answer I would give is that what 

 Delessert figured and Lamarck described, is the shell now wrongly 

 known to Australian conchologists as Capidus danieli. The mis- 

 appropriation of this name to the Australian shell is due to 

 Angas. IT 



Capidus danieli, Crosse, was described from New Caledonia, 

 and it is improbable that it should also occur in South Australia. 

 Watson, who examined the type of C. australis yet failed to 



* Deshayes, Encycl. M(^th. Vers, ii., IS.SO, p. 274. 



t Quoy & Gaimard, Voy. Astrolabe, iii., p. 434, PI. Ixxii., f. 25-34. 



Z Menke, Zeit. f. Malak., 1844, p. 61. 



§ Angas, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1865, p. 175. 



Ij Dillwyn, Descr. Cat. Rec, Shells, ii., 1817, p. 1037, based on Martini, 



Conch. Cab. i., pi. xii., f. 116. 



^ Angas. Proc. Zool. Soc. 1865, p. 175. 



