119 215 



Leptomya spectabilis, Hani. 



Leptonuja spectabilis, Han ley, Proc. Zool. Süc. Lüiidon, 1882, p. 576. 



— — — Journ. Linnean Society, Zoology, XVI, 1883, p. .'ill, pi. 12, fig. 7. 



South of Koh Mak, 5—6 fathoms ('/s). 

 Long. 3'5 mm. 

 Distribution: — Japan (?). 



In spite of the small size of the specimen, I do not doubt that the determina- 

 tion is correct. 



Fam. Donacidae. 



Donax (Hecuba) acuticarinatus, Sow. 



Oonax acuticarinatus, Sowerby, Thesaur. Conchyl., Ill, 1866, p. 305, No. 3, pi. 280, figs. G — 7. 



— [Hecuba) aciitocarinatus, Sowerby, \'. Bkbtin, Kevision d. Donacidées, p. 81, No. (>. 



— aciitocarinatus, Sowerby, P. Fischer, Catal. d. Moll, de I'lndo-Chine, p. 240. 



"Siani" (Sowerby). 



The Danish Expedition to Siam collected no specimens of this species. 



Donax (Serrula) incarnatus, Chemn. 



(PI. IV, Figs. 12—13). 



Donax incarnata, Chemnitz, Conchyl. Cabin., VI, 1782, p. 265, pi. 26, fig. 259. 



— — — Reeve, Conchol. icon., VIII, Donax, Sp. 53. 



incarnatus, — Sowerby, Thesaur. Conchyl., Ill, p. 311, No. 43, pi. 283, figs. 98— 99. 



— {Serrula) incarnatus, Chemnitz, Römer in Martini u. Chemnitz, Conchyl. Cabin., X Bd., 3 Abth., 



p. 76, No. 47, pi. 2, fig. 11 ; pi. 13, figs. 9 — 12. 



— — — — V. Bertin, Revision d. Donacidées, p. 90, No. 26. 



— incarnatus, Chemnitz, Dautzenberg & Fischer, Journ. de Conchyl., vol. 53, 1905, p. 468. — vol. 



54, 1906, p. 219. 



— Dysoni, Deshaye.s, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, XXII, 1854, p. 353, No. 167. 



— — — Reeve, Conchol. icon., VIII, Donax, Sp. 54. 



— (Serrula) Dijsoni, Deshayes, Römer in Martini & Chemnitz, Conchyl. Cabin., X Bd., 3 Abth., 



p. 69, No. 42, pi. 12, figs. 8— 10. 



— — — — V. Bertin, Revision d. Donacidées, p. 90, No. 27. (non D. Dysoni, 



Lischke = D. semigranosus, Dkr.). 



"Siam" (Sowerby). 



The Danish Expedition to Siam collected no specimens of this species. 



Distribution: — Malacca, Tranquebar, Malabar Coast, Bombay. — • Annam, 

 Cochin China. 



It is doubtful whether the authors (e. g. Römer) have really had Chemnitz's 

 species incarnatus for examination, Römer writes that Reeve does not indicate the 

 same species by the name incarnatus, as that to which he himself has applied 

 that name, and he is undoubtedly right in this. Spengler's specimens of D. in- 

 carnatus from Tranquebar (determined by him as D. muricata L.) are in the Zoo- 

 logical Museum of the University of Copenhagen; they precisely agree with 

 CHEMNrrz's figure of incarnatus. 



