314 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 236 



The geographical distribution of this species includes areas in the 

 tropical and subtropical Atlantic and in the Indian and western 

 Pacific. To the localities cited by Lang (1948, p. 216) the following 

 may be added: Teneriffe in the Canary Islands (Noodt, 1955a); Split 

 Channel, Yugoslavia, in the Adriatic (Petkovksi, 1955a); PortDenison 

 in Western Australia (Nicholls, 1945); Sellick Beach in Southern 

 Australia (Nicholls, 1941); Nan cowry Harbour in the Nicobar Islands, 

 and Addu AtoU in the Maldive Archipelago (Sewell, 1940). 



Family Laophontidae T. Scott, 1904 



A discussion of the various genera over which the many species of 

 this family can be distributed has been published independently by 

 Nicholls (1941b) and Lang (1944, 1948); they have used widely dif- 

 ferent characters to distinguish between the various genera. 



Nicholls, in addition to the genera of Laophontidae which had been 

 introduced prior to his revision, has described the new genus Echi- 

 nolaophonte, for which no type has been indicated,* and he has divided 

 the genus Laophonte into several subgenera: Laophonte sensu stricto, 

 type species L. cornuta Philippi; Mesolaophonte, type species i. lit- 

 toralis T. and A. Scott; Metalaophonte, type species L. depressa 

 T. Scott; Neolaophonte, type species L. trilobata Willey; and Mono- 

 laophonte, type and sole species L. curvata van Douwe. Nicholl's 

 division of Laophonte is based exclusively on characters of the female; 

 the exact limits of this subgenera, which might well be raised to ge- 

 neric rank, consequently are arbitrary. 



Lang's genera are more clearly defined; moreover, his system of 

 subdivision of the Laophontidae is based on characters of both fe- 

 males and males. I propose here to foUow Lang's divisional system 

 definitely and, because of the insufficient characterization, to abolish 

 the subgenera introduced by Nicholls, thereby giving a more official 

 base to the course followed by most investigators since the publication 

 of Lang's monograph. A highly complicated problem would arise 

 if Nicholls' subgenera should be accepted and raised to generic level; 

 a completely new system of the Laophontidae, including redefinitions 

 of Nicholls' and some of Lang's genera, would have to be pubfished. 

 An exception probably can be made for Echinolaophonte Nicholls, 

 1941b, if a type for this genus is indicated by its author.* 



• See note on p. 359. 



