200 Proceedings of flee Roijdl Society of Victoria. 



Hab.— Portland ; Lome ; Western Port ; Port Phillip. 



Obs. — This shell was tirst described by Pease as C. maculosa, 

 a name pre-occupied by Sowerby. Angas then wrongfully 

 identified it as C. derniestoides, Kiener, an allied species from 

 the West Indies. Then Brazier incidentally drew attention to 

 the error of Angas, and said it was C lineolata, Pease ; in this 

 he made a mistake, as Pease never named a shell C. lineolata, 

 but described one as C. lineata, which was not figured, and the 

 description does not tally with the shell under discussion ; we 

 therefore must cite the species as C. lineolata, Tryon. Tryon's 

 figure is not a good one, and appears to have been taken from a 

 poor small specimen. 



COLUMBELLA MILTOSTOMA, T. Woods. 



1876. Columbella miltostoma, T. Woods. P.R.S. Tas., 



p. 134. 

 1883. Columbella (Mitrella) semiconvexa, Tryon (non 

 Lamarck). Man. Conch., vol. v., p. 125, pi. 

 48, f. 93. 

 1892. Columbella (Mitrella) semiconvexa, Kobelt (non 



Lamarck). Conch. Cab., p. 82. 

 1892. Columbella (Mitrella) unisulcata, Kobelt. Conch. 

 Cab. (ed. Kuster), p. 119, No. 100, pi. 17, 

 f. 15, 16. 

 Hab. — Flinders, San Remo. 



Obs. — Tryon considers this shell to be a minor variety of C. 

 semiconvexa, Lamarck. He is wrong. The foregoing species, 

 C. lineolata, is in general habit nearly related ; but it may 

 be distinguished therefrom by a continuous encircling groove 

 immediately below the suture, by its lighter coloration, and 

 different style of marking ; these diversities are constant. 

 Tryon's figure is a poor one and the delineation has not shown 

 the groove alluded to ; it is not a deep one, but always present, 

 and he may be excused, as Tenison Woods does not mention it 

 in his description of the shell. Dr. Kobelt follows Tryon in 

 regarding C. miltostoma, T. Woods as a variety of C. semi- 

 convexa, Lamarck, yet the actual species we regard as T. AVoods' 

 is described by him as new, clearly showing that T. Woods' 

 species had not been correctly identified. 



