PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 381 



albula of Greeulaud, wbiolij according to Jeffreys, is distinct from our 

 shell, so named by Gould. These three forms all belong to Menestlio 

 M oiler ( — Liostomia G. O. Sars). 



Auriculina insculpta ? (Mont.). 



G. 0. Sars, oj). cit., p. 204, j)l. 11, figs. 11, 12; pi. xviii, fig. 38 (operculum). 



A single dead and i^robably immature specimen, which I refer doubt- 

 fully to this species, was taken at station 892, in 487 fathoms. It agrees 

 nearly, in form and sculpture, with the figure (12) given by Sars, but our 

 shell is shorter, ovate-fusiform. There are five slightly convex whorls ; 

 the anterior half of the body- whorl is covered with distinct, fine, spiral 

 grooves ; nuclear whorl rounded, rather large, i^artially incurved. Aper- 

 ture narrow-ovate ; a slight fold on the columella ; no umbilicus. 



Diaphana Brown, 1827 (restricted) ; H. & A. Adams. 



Utrlculus {pars) Brown, 111. Brit. Conch., 1844 (wow Scliumacher, 1817). 

 Utricuhis G. O. Sars, Moll. Reg. Arct. Norv., p. 285. 



In 1827 Brown proposed the name Diaphana for certain species of 

 shells figured by him (but not described), which now are known to belong 

 partly to the restricted modern genus Utriculus and partly to Amphi- 

 sphyra Loven, 1846. But he did not then define the genus, and in a later 

 edition of his work (1844) he discarded the name and substituted Utri- 

 culus for it.* But Utriculus had been used by Schumacher, in 1817, for a 

 different genus {Conidw). Loven's name {AmpldspJiyra), established by 

 him for Brown's second section of Utriculus, should, therefore, be re- 

 tained for that group, which is a good genus. Diaphana and Utriculus, 

 as used by Brown, were absolutely synouj-mous, but Diaphana, as used 

 by G. O. Sars, is a sj'uonym of Amphisphyra. In its original sense, Dia- 

 phana might be rejected, because undefined. But since Utriculus had 

 been preoccupied, it seems necessary to retain Diaphana for the first 

 section of Brown's genus, corresponding nearly with Utriculus of G. O. 

 Sais. This is also in accordance with the nomenclature in H. & A. 

 Adams's Genera of Shells. 



The absence of an odontophore in Diaphana H. «& A. Adams = Utri- 

 culus Sars, is certainly a very important character by which the genus 

 can easily be distinguished from Gylichna and Amphisphyra. But this 

 genus cannot always be distinguished from Cylichna by the shell alone. 

 On that aijcount Loven, Jeffreys, and other able conchologists have re- 

 ferred some of the species of ^^ Utriculus" to Cylichna. 



Diaphana nitidula (Lov6n) Verrill. 



Cipichna nitidula Lov(5u, op. cit., p. 142, 1846. 



Utriculus iiiiidulus G. 0. Sars, op. cit., yt. 286, i)l. 17, fig. 13; j)l. 26, fig. 3; j)l. 

 xi, figs. 6 a, 6 6 (gizzard, «fcc.). 



This shell has been dredged by us in several localities in deep water 

 off the coast of New England and ISTova Scotia, and by Mr. Whiteaves 

 in the Gulf of Saint Lawrewce. This season it was taken at stations 

 891, 892, and 894, in 305 to 500 fathoms. 



* This change was probably first made' in the edition of 1834, which I am unable to 

 consult. 



