APSTKALUN ITN SIfEI.I.S HRDT.FIY. ...i.. 



Tionid varieguta, Verco, Ti-ans. \{o\. Hoc. S.Austr., xxxvi., l!>02, p. 210 

 (not D. r<ifle<f((tuvi of Pliilippi, lieeve, Tryon or Anpas). 



Doh'vm hlenpvi, Pliilippi, Abbild. Bescli., iii., 1847, j). .'i6. 



This, which Peroii collectecl in Shark Bay, Western Australia, was 

 the first to be reported fi-oni this Continent, but its name and identity has 

 been involved in much confusion. Tjannii'ck in 1822 completed by 

 dictation, being overcome by blindness, his history of invertebrate animals. 

 Here he introduced Peron's shell under the name of Doliinn vnriiuintitm . 

 He said that it had a short spiie, that the i-ibs were close and round backed, 

 some red, others white, the Avhite ones tesselated with red spots and that 

 the length was two inches eight lines. 



In 1885, Kiener figured as from the Lamarckian Collection and as 

 D. varieijatiiiii, two dissimilar shells, Dolium, Plate ii., figs. ',i and 8a. 

 Observing this discre])ancy, Pliilippi in IS-iS proposed the name of Jjnliinn 

 miuujimdnm for Kiener's figure oa. He continued in 1847, b}- stating 

 that the remaining figure 3 was not in accord with Lamarck's description 

 and distinguished it as a new species, Dolium l:ienerl. In support of this 

 contention he pi'esented original figures^*^ of a shell that he conjectured to 

 be the real D. vnricyatam. These figures so closely resemble the type 

 figures of 7>. rhineiise, Dillwyuii, that I suggest their identity. 



Probably the figures of Kiener are considerably reduced and since 

 the count of ribs in front differs from behind, are also a little inaccurate, 

 the basal funicle is curved moi'e like that of Dolinni fest(trdi, Montrouzier, 

 than like that of the shell hei*e named rarlerfatti. 



Philippi's conclusions wei^e not accepted by subsequent writers ; 

 Reeve in 1849 figured for Dolium varieijntnm two different forms, neither 

 of which agreed with Kiener's or with Philippi's meaning of Lamarck's 

 species. Tryon in 1885 considered that Dolinni vnrieffaiuvi and D.chineu.<e 

 were varieties of one species. So that by diffei'ent authors, at different 

 times, at least five diffei'ent forms have been called Dolium i-uriegafmii. 



Oidy reference to the Lamarckian type, now pi'obably in the Geneva 

 Museum, can decide what D. nu-ieijfitinu really is. Meanwhile, as a working 

 hypotliesis, 1 assume that Lamarck based his species on a half-grown 

 iiulividnal of a common Western Australian form ; that Kiener figured, 

 though not very accurately, the I'eal D. varicgata as his fig. 8. Conse- 

 quently I regard D. lieiieri as a synonym of D. varief/atum. But which- 

 ever view be taken of the identity of D. vnriegKttim, it is improbable tliat 

 Reeve was correct in embracing a giant species from New South Wales 

 under that name. 



In the adult state, size alone will distinguish the species from Western 

 Austi-alia and that from New South Wales. A specimen of Toiiim varie- 

 (jutn of four and a half whorls is 95 mm. long, while one of that now called 

 7'. cereviniiia of four and a half whorls is 170 mm. long. Besides 7'. varie- 

 ijatii is narrower in proportion to height and carries on the upper half of 

 the wliorl an interstitial riblet in each groove, that is absent in 7'. rererisivn . 



'" Philippi— .\bbild. Heschr., iii., ]847, pi. i., figs. 2a, 2b. 



'J Chemnitz — Conch. Oah., xi., 1795, pi. clxxxviii., figs. 1804, 1805. 



