50 THE LINGULIDZ OF THE QUEENSLAND COAST. 
L. tumidula Reeve. 
Syn. L. tumida Davidson 1852, p. 377. 
L. tumida Adams 1858, p. 586. 
This large species was originally described and figured 
by Reeve (1841, p. 180, pl.. 125, fig. 4; 184la, p. 100 
Sowerby 1846, p. 339, pl. 67, fig. 7), New Holland beiag 
mentioned as the locality. In 1859 Reeve mentioned «a 
few of the shell characters and figured a specimen (pl. 1, 
figs. 2a 2b) from ‘“‘ Moreton Bay.” As an additional 
lecality he gave Masbate, Philippine Islands, where specimens 
were collected by Cuming in sandy mud at low water, these 
being at first regarded by Reeve (1841a, p. 100) as belonging 
to a distinct species, L. compressa, but subsequently he 
considered them as a synonym or as a variety of L. tumidula 
(Reeve 1859 ; Sowerby 1846, p. 339). Dall (1871, p. 156) 
in referring to the species stated that, judging from Reeve’s. 
figure, it differed materially from the other species figured. 
by him, in the broad form, the emarginations of the beaks, 
as weil as in the size and position of the muscular impress- 
ions: L. compressa was mentioned as a variety from the 
Philippines.* Chenu (1862, figs. 1200, 1201) republished 
Reeve’s figure. Adams (1863, p. 100) referred to finding 
the species in seven fathoms in mud in the Korean Archi- 
pelago. A single shell was present in Adams’ original 
collection when re-examined in 1871 by Davidson who gave 
an account and figure of it (1871, p. 310, pl. 30, fig. 1, and 
1888, p. 218, pl. 28, fig. 19). This led Dall (1873, p. 202) to 
regard it as distinct from L. tumidula and he consequently 
renamed Adams’ shell as L. adamsi, the name being accepted 
by Davidson (1888, p. 219) who added another locality, 
viz. off Formosa. The only locality given by Dall (1873) 
for L. tumidula is ‘“‘ Moreton Bay’ Davidson (1888, p. 
216) mentioned the Philippines as well, one of his figures 
(pl. 28, fig. 14—-from Sowerby) being drawn from a Philip- 
pine specimen and the other (fig. 15—copied from Reeve) 
from a Queensland shell. The former was apparently not 
distorted while the latter obviously was. The sizes given 
*Thomson (1918, p. 43) has erroneously mentioned the Philippines 
as the type locality for the species, while Davidson in 1858 (p. 377) con- 
fused the two localities, giving its habitat as Masbate, New Holland. 
