708 STUDIES ON AUSTRALIAN MOLLUSCA, xii., 



and St. Thomas.* But Deshayes, who was in a position to 

 know, asserted positively that Blainville's shell was identical with 

 E. ausfralis, a native of King George's Sound, W.A. Mr. A. U. 

 Henn has sent it to me from Bunbury. The species is a charac- 

 teristic Adelaidean form, and is absent from Eastern Australia. 

 Angas recorded it from St. Vincent's and Spencer's Gulfs, under 

 Quoy's name. While, under Blainville's second name, the species 

 was extended to Tasmania by Tenison- Woods, and to Victoria 

 by Pritchard and GatlifF. Dr. Shirley's record of SuhemarginuJa 

 anstralis Q. k G., from Cairns, Queensland, is obviously wrong. 

 The first name has been uniformly overlooked by all writers sub- 

 sequent to the unquoted notice of Potiez and Michaud. 



MONTFORTIA ASPERA Gould. 



(Plate Ixxvii., fig. 4.) 



Emarginula aspera Gould, Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist., ii., 1846, 

 p.l54; Id., Am. Expl. Exped., xii., 1852, p.S72, PI. 32, f.493,a,6,c. 

 Emarginula radiata Gould, Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist., vii., 1859, 

 p.l63. 



The types of both E . aspera and E. radiata came from Sydney 

 Harbour, and I think that variability misled Gould into giving 

 to his own species a second name. Angasf recorded this from 

 Sydney as E. rugosa Quoy and Gaimard. I have not any West 

 Australian material of E. rugosa for comparison. But if the 

 figures of that in the Astrolabe Atlas are trustworthy, Gould was 

 correct in saying that E. aspera had a groove and notch more 

 deeply cleft than that of E. rugosa. So few beach-shells range 

 unchanged from Sydney to King George's Sound, that it seems 

 prudent to hold E. aspera apart from E. rugosa till they can be 

 satisfactorily identified. 



On this coast, M. aspera is a common shell between tide- 

 marks. In colour and elevation, it is quite variable. The 

 number of prominent ribs increases with age; these are roughened 

 by projecting scales. The size is greater than the records in- 



* Adams, Proc. Zool. Soc, 1851(1852), p.89; Pilsbry, Man. Conch., xii., 

 1890, p. 276. 



t Angas, Proc. Zool. Soc, 1867, p.219. 



