632 NOTES ON PROSOBRANCHIATA, 



probability, entirely overlooked by him. Adams Brothers d) 

 enumerated three species of Echinella, viz. : — E. coronaria, Lamk. 

 E. granulata, Swains., and E. cumingii, Phil. Although devoid 

 of the tooth on the columella, Tectarius spinulosus, Philippi (17), 

 has the multispiral operculum, and is, therefore, an Echinella. 

 Tectarius bullatus, Martyn, and T. tectum-persicum, Linn., are 

 probably referable here also. Tryon regards E. coronaria, Lamk., 

 as a variety of the former of these two (25, p. 257), but it is 

 doubtful whether this is correct; T. spinulosus, Phil., which he 

 has stated to be the young of T. bullatus, Martyn, is certainly a 

 distinct species. As stated by Hedley (8), Tectarius inontrouzieri , 

 Fischer, is a Turcia. 



E. granulata, Swains., never having been identified, we have 

 three species certainly belonging to the genus Echinella, with the 

 probability of two others. E. coronaria, Lamk., doubtless has a 

 polygyral operculum, and from personal knowledge the writer can 

 say the other two have also. The opercula of several species of 

 Tectarius have also been examined b}'- the writer, and in no 

 instance can he find an intermediate between the typically 

 polygyral one of E. cumingii and that of T. pagodus, Linn., 

 which is typically littorinoid. 



In discussing the affinities of Echinella^ the writer is handi- 

 capped in having been unable to obtain specimens for dissection. 

 The operculum, however, happily affords us an important clue to 

 its systematic position. Although undoubtedly bearing great 

 conchological resemblance to Tectarius, the difference between 

 their opercula debars their inclusion in the same family. There 

 are only five or six families in the T^enioglossa in which the 

 multispiral operculum occurs; of these the Modulida? is the only 

 one to which Echinella can be referred. The tooth on the base 

 of the columella, possessed by some of the species, strengthens 

 this classification, which, in view of our ignorance of the soft 

 parts, is more advisable than would be the addition of another to 

 the already large number of families in the suborder. 



Peasidla was proposed by Nevill (14) as a subgenus of Eisella 

 for the reception of Trochus tantillus, Gould (6). His treatment 



