6 
Chapman, Trans. New Zealand Inst., vol. 38, 1905, p. 83.—Cushman, 
Bull, 7F,-U.S2 Nat:-Mus., pt. 1; 1910; p.” 45,< figs “47-49 eGn stexere 
Bull, 104, U.S. Nat. Mus., pt. 1, 1918, p. 55, pl. 21, figs. 4-6. 
A few specimens were found which seemed to belong to this genus. They 
had apertures, but were without necks. Later a single specimen with the 
tapering tubular neck was found, showing that the whole are probably P. rotun- 
data. Records for typical specimens are rare and much scattered. 
GENUS WEBBINELLA RHUMBLER, 1903. 
Webbinella hemisphaerica (Jones, Parker and H. B. Brady). 
Webbina hemisphaerica Jones, Parker and H. B. Brady, Pal. Soc. Mon., 1865, 
p- 27, pl. 4, fig. 5—Robertson, Rep: Brit. Ass., 1875, p. 189:— He BB: Brady 
Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zoology, vol. 9, 1884, p. 350, pl. 41, fig. 11.—Egger, 
Abh. bay. Akad. Wiss. Miinchen, vol. 18, 1893, p. 266, pl. 14, figs. 1-3. 
Cushman, Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., vol. 34, 1908, p. 24.+Heron- 
Allen and Earland, Prec. Roy. Irish Acad., vol. 31, pt. 64, 1913, p. 53. 
Webbinella hemisphaerica Rhumbler, Arch. Prot., vol. 3, 1903, p. 228, fig. 54 
(in text).—Cushman, Bull. 71, U.S. Nat. Mus., pt. 1, 1910, p. 51, figs> 56a, 
(in text).—Pearcey,. Trans. Roy: Soc-}Edinburgh, vol. 49; 1914) p: 1002: 
Cushman, Bull. 104, U.S. Nat. Mus., pt. 1, 1918, p. 62, pl- 25, figs. 1-3. 
At station 4.this species is evidently common as numerous small stones 
sent me had numerous specimens-on their surfaces. The specimens are not as 
high as that of the Challenger Report figure, nor are they of the same texture or 
shape. The same is true of a comparison of those I have figured from off the 
Carolinas, and there is a considerable difference from either of the others. 
The specimens which are common in Hudson Bay give the appearance of 
being the résult of selection in position of the material. If it may be supposed 
that the original animal was free and able to ingest various sorts of material, it 
is easy to see how the test might be formed. The whole is somewhat convex in 
the central portion, with a thinning toward the periphery which is in general 
circular, but often somewhat irregular. The central cavity in broken specimens 
is comparatively small. It is bordered with the largest sand grains of the 
whole test, and the outside gradually becoming finer, until the final outer coating 
is very fine and smooth. There is no apparent aperture. All the specimens 
examined are very uniform in structure and in appearance. This would lead 
one to the belief that in this region there is a definite species, probably not the 
same as that described by Jones, Parker and H. B. Brady, nor the same as that 
figured in the Challenger Report, nor the same as that I have figured and referred 
to above. 
GENUAS THOLOSINA RHUMBLER, 1895. 
Tholosina bulla (H. B. Brady)? 
This species which was so abundant in the Canadian Arctic Expedition 
collection seems to be almost wanting in Hudson Bay, unless a single detached 
138 
