79 175 
Diplodonta conspicua, Smith. 
Diplodonta conspicua, EpG. Smirn, Report on the Lamellibranchiata of the Challenger Exped., 1885, 
p. 198, pl. 14, fig. 11. 
Sound of Koh Chang, 5 fathoms, soft clay ('/2). Koh Kahdat, 1 fathom, sand (°*/2). 
S. of Koh Kahdat, 8—10 fathoms, mud (°/2). Between Koh Kut and Koh Kahdat, 
6—10 fathoms, clay mixed with sand, and shells (*/2). N. of Koh Kut, 10 fathoms, 
mud (*/2). W. of Koh Kut, 15 fathoms, mud (7/2). W. of Koh Kut, 30 fathoms, 
sand and mud (1/2). 
Long. 2—11 mm. (long. 11 mm., alt. 10°5 mm., crass. 7 mm.). 
Distribution: — Flinders Passage, Torres Strait. 
SmitH’s specimens from the Challenger Expedition have a length of only 
4 mm., while the specimens from the Gulf of Siam may measure as much as 
11 mm. in length. Epa. Smirn has overlooked (or perhaps they were but in- 
distinctly visible in his small individuals) that besides the characteristic denticula- 
tions on the inner front margin there also occur 38--5 corresponding denticles on 
the inner hinder margin, at the same level as those on the front side. Smiru 
mentions the presence of 5 to 6 distinct denticles on the inner front margin, this 
is certainly often the case, but most frequently 7—9 denticles occur both on 
larger and smaller specimens. 
Note. It is strange how Diplodonta globosa, Forskal, has been misapprehended, 
and confusion thereby brought into the literature, although both ForskAL and 
CHEMNITZ have given good diagnoses and figures of it. FORSKAL’s original specimens, 
contained in SPENGLER’s collection, on the basis of which CHEMNITz wrote his de- 
scription, are now preserved in the Zoological Museum of the University of Copen- 
hagen. In the following I shall give a summary of the views, partly erroneous, of 
the different authors, concerning this species and its synonymy: — 
Venus globosa, ForskaL, Descript. animal. qui in itin. orient. obsery., 1775, p. 122, No. 538. 
— = — Cuemnitz, Conchyl., Cabin., VI, 1784, p. 36, pl. 40, figs. 430—31. 
Lucina sp., SavigNy, Iconographie d. Moll. de Egypte, pl. 8, fig. 7 = Dipl. globosa, Forsk. In the explana- 
tion of the figures AUDOUIN erroneously names this species Lucina edentula. VatLuanr (Journ. 
de Conchyl., XIII, 1865, pp. 124—125) and, on his authority, IsseL (Malacologia d. Mar Rosso, 
1869, p. 358) refer Savieny’s figure to Diplodonta Savignyi, Vaill. E. v. Marrens (Vorderasiat. 
Conchylien, p. 103) says in regard to this point: “Fiscner und IsseL haben wbrigens Unrecht, 
die Abbildung in der Description de l’Egypte Pl. 8, Fig. 7 hierher zu citiren, da diese nach 
der Zeichnung der Muskeleindriicke eine richtige Lucina darstellt, ohne Zweifel L. globosa, 
Forsk.” Vaitiant’s Diplodonta Savignyi, according to my opinion, is identical with Diplodonta 
globosa; on the other hand VarLiant’s Lucina globosa can scarcely be CHEMNITz’s (Forskal’s 
species of this name. 
-- globosa, CHEMNiItTz, Gray, The Annals of Philosophy, New Ser. IX, 1825, p. 136. 
—  Globosa, — Haney, Il. Catal. rec. biv. shells, p. 78. 
Diplodonta bullata, DuNKkeR, Novitates Conchologicae, II, Meeres Conchyl., p. 76, No. 83, pl. 26, figs. 1—3 
= Dipl. globosa, Forsk. 
Lucina globosa, ForsKAL, PFEIFFER in MARTINI u. CHEMNITZ, Conchyl. Cabin., XI, 1 Abth., 1869, p. 267, 
pl. 20, figs. 11—12. 
—  (Loripes) globosa, CuEmnirz, IsseL, Malacol. del Mar Rosso, 1869, p. 85, No. 107. 
—  (Anodontia) globosa, ForskAL, v. MArrens, Mollusken d. Maskarenen u. Seychellen, 1880, p. 146. 
(v. MARTENS regards here erroneously, L. pila, Reeve (Conchol. icon., Sp. 24), as a synonym of 
the present species. REEVE (Conchol. icon.) says expressly regarding the species figured on PI. V, 
(Sp. 21—24), that they have ‘“‘the hinge toothless,’ which is not at all the case in L. globosa, Forsk. 
The fact that v. Marrens refers this species to the subgenus Anodontia (as also the observa- 
tions he makes elsewhere regarding this species) proves that his view of it is wrong, and that 
he has overlooked what is expressly stated in CuEmNirz’s diagnosis: “Im Schlosse stehen in 
jeder Schale nur zween Zahne.’). 
