BY C HEDLEY. 607 



It seems clear that Triphoro., Blainville (1828), demands 

 recognition as the prior genus of the family. Certain reconstruc- 

 tion follows this deduction. The type of Triphora, T. tristoma, 

 is mentioned by Hervier (Journ. de Conch., xlv. 1898, p. 289) as 

 belonging to Inella, Bayle ( = Ino, Hinds). If this be right, 

 Tnella should disappear as a synonym of Triphora. I should, 

 however, have regarded T. tristoma as referable to Jousseaume's 

 genus Mastoni(mtrmis (Bull. Soc. Malac. France, i., 1884, p. 239). 



The family Triphoridae is divided by Jousseaume into eleven 

 genera. Probabl}- none of the species I record from this State 

 fall into Triphora, sensu stricto. Though some, if not all, of 

 Jousseaume's genera are natural, they are so vaguely defined that 

 I prefer to wait before allotting the Australian species. Probably 

 at least a hundred species exist in Australian seas, and a better 

 knowledge of these is desirable before framing a classification, 

 especially as opinions are divided as to whether these eleven 

 sections are of generic or subgeneric value. 



Passing from the consideration of genera to that of species, a 

 far larger number of Triphora are known to Australian collectors 

 than are named in literature. Some of these might already 

 have been dealt with, but a necessary preliminary to the descrip- 

 tion of new species is the distinction of old species, and here all 

 workers have encountered an insuperable obstacle. 



Several new Australian Triphora unluckil}'- fell into the incom- 

 petent hands of Arthur Adams, who, in naming them, deliberately 

 omitted all measurements, neglected to figure species, and gave 

 scanty descriptions. Probably he never used a microscope, and 

 Smith has observed that he was colour blind.* In conchology 

 his work is of the same grade as that of his contemporary Francis 

 Walker in entomology. 



Though enjoying a monopoly of the types, London writers have 

 made no effort to rehabilitate these species. In monographing 

 " Triforis,^^ Tryon simply excluded these species of Adams as 

 unintelligible. To ignore names which any day may be resur- 



* Smith, Chall. Rep. Zool. xiii., 1885, p. 61. 



