REVIEW OF SYSTEMATIC POSITION OF ZEMIBA, ADAMS — HEDLEY. 119 



remarkable, though superficial, mimicry, and Sowerby rightly 

 retorted ; " It is impossible that M. Deshayes can have seen the 

 two shells, which are generically and specifically quite distinct."* 

 Reeve supported Sowerby's classification by including E. australis 

 in his monograph of Eburna,\ and added his testimony to the 

 separate existence of the two shells which had confused the 

 Parisian writers. His description but not his figure was copied 

 by Kuster. I 



After thus successfully establishing his species, Sowerby re- 

 described and refigured it as Pseudoliva australis.^ The Brothers 

 Adams instituted for E. australis a new subgenus Zemira 

 which they ranked under Eburna.\\ This view is accepted by 

 Tryonll but not by Fischer,** who prefers to subordinate Zemira 

 to the genus Macron. Kobelt, one of the few writers who have 

 contributed more than a copy or a guess to our stock of informa- 

 tion, has added to a full account of the sliell, a description of the 

 operculum, and concludes that the data presented confirms the 

 classification of Adams. ff Tate has promoted Zemira from sub- 

 generic to full generic rank, when describing a second and fossil 

 species. t| The latest classificatory notice is that by Harris^,§ who 

 agrees with Tate in considering Zemira an independent genus 

 allied to Ehurna. 



No particular argument seems to have been advanced by any- 

 one to show why Ehurna should be considered the nearest to 

 Zemira. The deep canaliculation at the suture, the spotted colour 

 and the general contour certainly present analogies. But except 

 for the plications of the columella, as close a general resemblance 

 is shown by Cancellaria. From Ehurna, Zemira diff'ers by its 

 spiral sculpture and especially by the spiral furrow on the fore 

 part of the shell which ends as a projecting point on the aperture. 



The dissatisfaction, rather felt than uttered, of authors about 

 the assigned position of the species, is shown by Sowerby's refer- 

 ence of it to Pseudoliva and Fisher's to Macron. 



It has seemed to me that Zemira more nearly approximates to 

 the Struthiolariidfe than to the Buccinidfe. The two recent 

 genera ( Struthiolaria and Tylospira) of the former are both 

 ornamented by spiral sculpture ; and in some fossil forms, as 



* Sowerby — Thesaurus Conch, iii., 1866, p. 74. 

 t Eeeve — Conch. Icon., v., 1819, Ehurna, pi. i., sp. 4. 

 X Kuster— Conch. Cab. (2), iii., 1858, p. 84. 

 § Sowerby, op. cit., ccxvi., figs. 13, 14. 

 II H. and A. Adams— Gen. Eee. Moll, i., 1853, p. 110. 

 t Tryon— Man. Conch, ii., 1881, po. 101, 213; Struc. and Syst. Conch., 

 ii., 1883, p. 152. 



** Fischer— Manuel Conch., 1884, p. 162. 



ft Lobbecke and Kobelt- Jahr. deut. Malak. Gesell., 1880, p. 335. 



it Tate— Trans. Eoy. Soc. S.A., x., 1888, p. 163. 



§§ Harris— Cat. Tert. Moll. Brit. Mus., 1., 1897, p. 167. 



