BY C. HEDLEY. 23 



Watson, who examined the Gasteropods, questioned the correct- 

 ness of the locality from the presence of these Atlantic forms, 

 and was inclined to believe that some mistake must have occurred. 

 I also at first held the same view; but as Dr. Murray is convinced 

 that no such error in the locality could possibly exist, I feel 

 bound to withdraw that opinion."* 



Probably most naturalists will fail to reconcile the facts with 

 the conclusion quoted. Personally I cannot believe that an 

 extensive series of marine shells could be taken in the neighbour- 

 hood of Sydney, which on the one hand should contain no Pacific 

 species, but on the other have so large a proportion as one quarter 

 of North Atlantic forms. A consultation of the " Summary of 

 Results " of the Challenger expedition, strengthens the presump- 

 tion that these shells are foreign to Australian seas. For it is 

 written (i., p. 574) that at station 164 B., the operations con- 

 sisted of sounding and putting over the trawl which came up 

 V with a few specimens." In fact, the dredge was not put down 

 at all. If the record of these specimens be correct, then one of 

 the most profitable hauls of the voyage, rich in species and 

 exceptionally rich in individuals, was made without using a 

 dredge and appeared to the officer-in-charge as "a few specimens." 



With reference to D. ensiculus, Pilsbryf writes : — "Taking 

 into account the association of species of other genera, it seems 

 to us quite incredible that these forms actually occurred at the 

 station alleged. It is more likely that a locality label became 

 misplaced." 



Following this suggestion, it occurred to me that "164 B." 

 might be a mistaken label for "64." Examination of the 

 record of the latter station gives some support to this hypothe- 

 sis. For Challenger Station 64 is in mid- Atlantic, between 

 Bermuda and the Azores, with a depth of 2,700 fathoms. Here 

 the dredge was put down "to get a good sample of the 



* E. A. Smith, Proc. Malac. Soc. i., 1894, pp. 59, 60, 



t Pilsbry, Man. Conch, xvii. p. 122. /<V^^ ^' n/^ 







