106 



ON TENISON- WOODS TYPES IN THE TASMANIA.N 



MUSEUM, HOB ART, 



By W. L. May. 



Read October, 1902. 



It is known to all workers in Australian Conchological 

 Science that the late J. E. Tenison-Woods, during the years 

 1875 to 78, described a large number of Tasmanian Marine 

 Shells in the proceedings of this Society. 



His species are usually fairly well described, but he pub- 

 lished no figures, and with a lew exceptions the specimens he 

 used were not marked as types. 



Owing to many of these species also occurring on the 

 coasts of Southern Australia, and which have since been 

 discovered and worked up by scientists there, they have taken 

 an important place in their investigations, but owing to the 

 want of figures, and particularly types to authoritatively 

 settle uncertainties and differences of opinion, some confusion 

 and considerable irritation have been caused. The Tasmanian 

 workers could not definitelv assert that any species referred 

 to them was certainly Woods' species without the type, and 

 could only assume that it was so because it agreed with 

 specimens so named in the Museum, or through tradition 

 handed down by W. Legrand, C. E, Beddome, and others, 

 and they were in consequence sometimes taunted with not 

 knowing their own shells. 



In this way some errors crept in amongst lists and collec- 

 tions, and Australian workers made frequent mistakes, for 

 which on the whole they had considerable excuse. 



So lately as during the preparation of the Revised Census 

 of Tasmanian Marine Shells, Tate and May\ the authors 

 were still troubled by this want of definite types, and did 

 not venture to quote the Museum specimens as such, unless 

 so marked, which made the work less complete and 

 authoritative than it otherwise would have been, and also 

 led to several errors. But a better dav has dawned, and it 

 is the object of this paper to make public the steps lately 

 taken to place this vexed subject on a satisfactory basis. 



During the sittings of the last Congress of the A.A.A.S. at 

 Hobart in January, 1902, several leading conchologists were 

 present from various Australian States, and after some preli- 

 minary conversation on the subject, they formed a committee 

 to investigate, and if possible settle, the question as to 

 whether Tenison-Woods's species so named were the types, 

 and, if so, definitely mark them as such. The names of those 

 comprising the committee should be a sufficient guarantee of 

 careful and thorough work, and it is not probable that their 



