BY C. HEDLEY. 309 



This is the eastern analogue of C. rutilus Menke. No locality 

 was given in the original description of this species. By an odd 

 error, the type in the British Museum is now labelled "Cape of 

 Good Hope/' the Australian localities quoted by Brazier, Angas, 

 Bergh, Pritchard and Gatliff, being overlooked.* 



The type of C. neglect us A. Adams is noted, at South Kensing- 

 ton, as being equivalent to C. aplustre. C. cooki Brazier is a 

 variety of aplustre in which the interrupted spiral lines have 

 coalesced into ziczac radials. Smith has remarked! that Tryon 

 erred in uniting C. multicatenatus to aplustre. 



Conus cyanostoma A. Adams. 



Conus cyanostoma A. Adams, Proc. Zool. Soc, 1853, (1854), p. 

 116; Id., Sowerby, Thes. Conch., iii., 1858, p. 19, PI. 4, fig. 304. 



Conus coxeni Brazier, Proc. Zool. Soc, 1875, p. 34, PL 4, fig. 4; 

 Id., Hedley, Proc. Linn. Soc. N. S. Wales, xxx., 190G, p. 535. 



Conus innotabilis Smith, Proc. Zool. Soc, 1891, p. 487, PL xl., 

 fig. 1. 



In error, Arthur Adams reported Conus cyanostoma from West 

 Africa, instead of from East Australia. By this hitherto uncor- 

 rected mistake, the name has been lost to Australian conchology. 

 The type, marked as such, is preserved in the British Museum, and 

 is noted by Mr. E. A. Smith as conspecific with C. coxeni. The 

 typical form is nearer innotabilis, while coxeni is a variety. J. B. 

 Jukes dredged this species off Sandy Cape, Queensland. 



Conus Tasmania Sowerby: 



Conus tasmanice Sowerby, Thes. Conch., iii., 1866, p. 328, PL 

 288, fig. 636. 



This species, as the name implies, was alleged by its author to 

 be from Tasmania, but local naturalists have failed to find it there. 

 A single specimen of the South Kensington collection, in a poor 

 state of preservation, is marked, "Type, Conus tasmanias, Sow., 



* Brazier, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1869, p.562; Angas, op. cit., 1871, p.93; 

 Bergh, Nov. Act. Ksl. Leop.-carol. Deut. Akad. lxv., 1895, p. 131; 

 Pritchard and Gatliff, Proc. Roy. Soc. Vict., 1906, p.52. 

 t Smith, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1891, p. 400. 



