MONODONTA. 117 



M. suAvis Philippi. PI. 23, figs. 74, 75. 



Shell small, conical, imperforate, rather solid but thin, pale olive 

 or yellowish, with a broad spiral band of alternating crimson and 

 white or greenish square blotches beloAv the suture and another just 

 above the periphery, the space between them occupied by several 

 spiral bands of white or greenish, broken into squares by short 

 vertical red lines, the base radiately marked with red lines ; spire 

 conical, apex acute, olive-colored w-hen eroded through the white 

 layer; sutures impressed; whorls 5, the last flattened beneath, 

 smooth except on the base, where fine concentric lines are visible 

 under a lens ; aperture oblique, the lip thin, acute, brilliantly irides- 

 cent within, green predominating ; columella arcuate, thin, obviously 

 tootheclnear its junction with the axis above, and covering the place 

 of the umbilicus with a white pad of callous ; base concave around 

 the axis. Alt. 12, diam. 14 mill. 



New Caledonia; Japan. 



Trochus suavis Phil., Zeitschr. f. Mai., 1849, p. 191, and Conchy/. 

 Cab., p. 290, t. 43, f. 1.— P^ischer, Jouni. de Conch., 1875, p. 49, and 

 Coq. Viv., p. 312, t. 98, f A.— Ojcxjstele koeneni Dunker, Lid. Moll. 

 Mar. Jap., p. 142, t. 12, f 4, 5, 6 (1882). 



Somewhat similar to M. tabularis Krauss in size and form, but 

 distinct in the columella, toothed above, caused by a semicircular 

 groove which bounds the umbilical callous, the striate base, and the 

 color-pattern. 



Fischer gives the locality New Caledonia on the authority of 

 Balansa. Specimens before me from Japan were received from 

 Prof R. E. C. Stearns. Dunker's 0. koeneni seems to be identical. 

 It is from Japan. See pi. 23, figs. 71, 72, 73. 



Insiifficiently described species of Monodonta. 



" We would reject names accompanied by those short unmeaning 

 Latin diagnoses, Avithout giving distinctive characters or size of 

 specimen, which authors are in the habit of publishing in the 

 Proceedings of various Societies, if the same species is subsequently 

 figured or f ally described by other naturalists. The abuse which has 

 arisen from the claims of priority based on these unrecognizable 

 descriptions is certainly beyond endurance; and no author ought to 

 be permitted to impose upon the scientific world a species character- 

 ized by half a dozen lines of conventional, mongrel Latin, that 



