BY C. HEDLEY. 715 



West America, where Dr. Dall says it does not exist. Its proper 

 habitat has not yet been recovered. 



Deshayes excluded reference to Martyn from the Chemnitzian 

 synonymy, and Menke definitely noted that the species of Martyn 

 was different from that of Chemnitz. Gatliff, Gabriel, and Suter, 

 realising this misuse of Martyn's name, have sought to replace it 

 by one more appropriate. The former advanced Patella diemen- 

 ensis Philippi, an unfigured species, described in 1848 as being 

 common at Hobart. Although Philippi introduced P. diemenensis, 

 P. decora^ and P. limbata together, yet he omitted the former 

 when he came to figure the others in the Abbildungen, and pos- 

 sibly doubted that it was a good species. For the New Zealand 

 expression of the so-called tramosei'ica, Suter has accepted P. 

 antipodum, proposed in 1874 by Mr. E. A. Smith. In doing so, 

 he is on the firm ground that antipodum certainly represents the 

 New Zealand shell. 



But prior to Philippi, two names were apparently proposed for 

 the Chemnitzian tramoserica, from its original localit}^, and both 

 writers remarked on the general resemblance it has to the Euro- 

 pean P. vulgata, a remark not applicable to another Australian 

 limpet, thereby fixing its identity satisfactorily. In 1825, 

 Blainville proposed Patella variegata for a species from Botany 

 Bay; and, five years later, for a Port Jackson shell. Lesson 

 suggested the name Patella jacksoniensis. It is likely that the 

 type of Blainville is preserved in the Museum at Paris, and his 

 name is now recommended for adoption. I agree with Iredale 

 that the New Zealand form is not separable specifically from the 

 Australian. According to Suter, it is rare in New Zealand. 

 Brazier traced it northwards to Moreton Bay. Dr. Verco writes 

 that it becomes small and rare in the Great Australian Bight, 

 and fails to reach Western Australia. Features of the radula 

 are discussed by Tenison- Woods and Maplestone. Brazier, 

 Pritchard and Gatliff gave some references to the literature, 

 which are not here repeated. 



It is unlikely that shells so large and conspicuous as Helcio- 

 niscus limbatus and Patella neglecta should have been overlooked 

 by the collectors of Baudin's Expedition. Perhaps study of 



