BY C. HEDLEY. 269 



Dosinia. The species resembles one another so closely, that dis- 

 crimination is unusually difficult. A considerable proportion re- 

 main unfigured. The genus has never been properly revised, and 

 its nomenclature has suffered ill-usage from the associates of 

 Cuming. 



Deshayes reduces* Artemis lamellata Reeve, 1850, to a synonym 

 of Dosinia tumida Gray, 1838. But from Deshayes' type, I con- 

 sider that D. nobilis Deshayes, 1853, is also a synonym of D. 

 tumida. Again, Artemis incisa Reeve, 1850, seems to me insepar- 

 able. 



Dosinia CoErulea Reeve. 



Artemis ccerulea Reeve, Conch. Icon., vi., 1850, PI. iv., fig. 25. 



In the original account of this species, the locality is given as 

 "Raines Island, Torres Straits." I am convinced that this locality 

 is wrong, and that Tasmania is the proper habitat of this species. 

 The survey ships then, as now, retired from Torres Straits to Tas- 

 mania during the hurricane season. From the cruise of the "Rattle- 

 snake," a parcel of Tasmanian shells, Fissurella scutella, F. lineata, 

 Cominella maurus, Ziziphhius nebulosus, etc-, were misreported 

 from Torres Straits D. ccerulea has not been found in Queens- 

 land, but the types agree with examples from Tasmania. 



By comparison of types, I consider Dosinia diana A. Adams and 

 Angas,f from Hardwick Bay, Spencer's Gulf, S.A., a synonym of 

 D. ccerulea, not as Tate and May place it, with D. sculpta Hanley 



Again, the type of another unfigured species, D. cydippe A. 

 Adams, 1856, sent by Mr. Gunn from Van Diemen's Land, appears 

 to me a young specimen of D. ccerulea Reeve, not as Tate and 

 May, Pritchard and Gatliff class it under D. circinaria. 



Dosinia tenella Romer. 

 (Plate xvi., figs. 23, 24.) 

 Dosinia tenella Romer, Proc. Zool. Soc, 1860, p. 118. 

 As this has never been figured, I now offer an illustration from 

 the British Museum specimen, presumably the type, which is 20 



* Deshayes, Cat. Conch. Brit. Mus. 1853, p. 15. 

 t Adams & Angas, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1863, p. 424. 

 21 



