64 Pritchard and Gatliff : 



Mr. Whitelegge, in his " List of the Marine and Freshwater inver- 

 tebrate fauna of Port Jackson and the neighbourhood,"' lists the 

 species as N.^Hdyma, Bolton, m.s., Philippi. 



Messrs. Tate and May, in their " Revised Census of the Marine 

 Mollusca of Tasmania,"' quote the same shell as Polinices ampla, 

 Philippi, and give Natica lamarckiana, Recluz, as a synonym, and 

 subsequently at page 448 state that Natica ampla — JV. didyma, 

 Bolten. They also^ list as a separate species, Polinices tasmanica, 

 T. Woods, and give a figure* of a shell that is not his species; it does 

 not answer to the description, being of a different form, with the 

 umbilical callosity entire, and not spirally sulcate. 



Messrs. Pilsbry and Vanatta, in a paper entitled " Notes on 

 Vrdinices didyma, with description of a new Australian species,'"'' 

 describe and figure N . tasmanica, T. Woods, as a new species, under 

 the name of Polinices aulacoglossa,^ type locality Altona Bay, Wil- 

 liamstown, near Melbourne, Victoria, and remark, " Some speci- 

 mens received from Dr. J. C. Cox are larger, alt.. 41 J diam., 42 

 min., otherwise similar. This is apparently the form listed by 

 Messrs. Pritchard and Gatliff as Natica didyma, Chemn., It i» 

 certainly distinct specifically from P. didyma, or any of its sub- 

 species. 



.\atica chemnitzii, Recluz (not N. chemnitzii Pfr., 1840) seems to 

 be identical with this species, though if so it attains a larger size 

 than any examples we have seen. In any case the name is a/ 

 homonym, and cannot stand. 



Natica tasmanica, Tenison-Woods, has been placed in the 

 synonymy of P. didyma, by Messrs. Pritchard and Gatliff. but Tate 

 and May, in their Census of Marine Mollusca of Tasmania (1901), 

 have retained it distinct, a decision supported by the figure pub- 

 lished by thein, it is a far smaller species than P. aulacoglossa, 

 alt. 13, diam. 16 mm. 



It is unfortunate that Messrs. Tate and May figured the wrong 

 shell. Mr. May's attention was personally drawn by one of us to 

 the matter on 11th May, 1901. On 10th Mai'ch, 1913, we wrote ask- 

 ing him where the type was. He replied, " There is in this instance 

 unfortunately no type known to refer to, or authentic co-types." 

 and admits that the wrong shell was figured by Prof. Tate and him- 

 self. 



I Proc. Koy. Soc. N.S.W., 1889, p. 96, No. 406. 



•2 Proc. Lin. Soc. N.S.W., 1901, vol. xxvi., 375. 



3 Loe. eit. 



4 Loc. cit., pi. xxv., fig 49. 



'■> Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila<lelphia, 190S, vol. Ix., pp. .')6.'i-5.'>9, pi. 29. 



(■> Loc. cit., pi. 29, fii,'s. 1-3. 



