Catalogue of Marine Shells of Victoria. 237 



acuticostata must therefoie be still retained for the fossil shell, 

 and we cannot accept Mr. Hedley's treatment in regarding it as 

 a mere variant of T. marofaritacea. 



Family Nuculidak. 

 Genus Nucula, Lamarck, 1799. 



NucuLA MiCANS, Angas. 



1878. NuGula micans, Angas. P.Z.S. Lend., p. 864, pi. 



54, f. 16. 

 1887. Nucula micans, Tate. T.R.S. S.A., vol. ix., p. 102, 



No. 125. 



1901. Nucula antipodum, Tate and May (non Hanley). 



P.L.S. N.S.W., vol. xxri., pt. 3, p. 435. 



Hab. — Dredged off Rhyll, Western Port. Corio Bay, Port 

 Phillip. 



Obs. — The late Professor Tate identified the above species a^ 

 N. antipodum, Hanley, for one of us, but on going into the 

 original description of that species, and the particulars and 

 figure given by Sowerby in his Thesaureus Conchyliorum, we 

 consider it to be a distinct species. On the other hand, our 

 shell asrees well with the description and figure given by Angas 

 of N. micans. 



Nucula hedleyi, nom. mut. 



1877. Nucula minuta, T. Woods (non Gould and others). 

 P.R.S.Tas., p. 156. 



1902. Pronucula minuta, Hedley. Mem. Austr. Mus., 



vol. iv., pt. 5, p. 291, f. 40. 



Hab. — Western Port. 



Obs. — We agree with Mr. Hedley in his conclusions as to the 

 distinctness of this species from N. antipodum and N. micans,' 

 but have been unable to regard it as validly placed in his new 

 genus Pronucula, our examples ])eine apparently indistinguish- 

 able from Nucula. In view of the prior use of this specific name 

 by several authors, we have deemed it necessary to change the 

 name as above. 



