OF NEW SOUTH WALES. 67 



and is synonymous with L. luctuosa, Reeve. The most important 

 difference between L. diemanensis and L. cincta is in the oper- 

 culum. This organ in the former animal is paucispiral with the 

 nucleus marginal. The whorls also are not only few but oblong. 

 The striae are fine, and the appearance delicate. In L. cincta the 

 operculum is many whorled, but not so many as in TrocJwcochlea 

 Australis. They are circular, rugged, irregular and coarse, and 

 the nucleus is nearly central. In this respect L. diemanensis 

 resembles it. In fact, L. cincta is only a large L. diemanensis 

 dark and sombre in color, rugged and sordid in appearance. The 

 operculum no doubt partakes of the rugged character of the shell. 

 I do not say they are the same species, but I think it would not 

 be difficult to find a series passing insensibly from one species to 

 the other, and I strongly incline to the opinion that L. cincta is 

 L. diemanensis in a very much colder climate, on an exposed and 

 rocky coast. 



But is L. diemanensis the proper name for our Australian 

 specimen ? In a note on the Turbo coerulescens of Lamarck, Mr. 

 Deshayes says (Lamarck, 2 edit.. Vol. 9, p. 217) — " This shell 

 belongs to the genus Littorina. It is a species very common on 

 the shores of the Mediterranean. It clings to rocks beaten by 

 the sea, but above its level when calm. Naturalists must find it 

 difficult to determine which is the Nerita littoralis of Linne. 

 Those who consult the quoted reference in Lister's History of the 

 Animals of England, p. 164, cannot fail to recognize the Turho 

 ccerulescens of Lamarck, but those who only consult the figures 

 named in the synonomy of Linne will see that Nerita littoralis is the 

 same species as Turho neritoides. But the confusion increases 

 when we read that it is very common and very variable in color 

 on the rocks of the seas of Europe, and that a smaller variety 

 frequents the fresh waters. It is evident that under the name of 

 Nerita littoralis, Linne confused three species at the least ; 

 Turbo carulescens and T. neritoides doing double duty and 

 probably Neritina fluviatilis. Gmelin simplifies Linne inasmuch 

 as he suppresses the reference to Lister, p. 154, and reduces the 

 synonomy to the figures which represent Turbo neritoides. Con- 

 sequently Gmelin's N. littoralis is a second employment of Turbo 



