PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 381 
albula of Greenland, which, according to Jeffreys, is distinet from our 
shell, so named by Gould. These three forms all belong to Menestho 
MGlier (= Liostomia G. O. Sars). 
Auriculina insculpta ? (Mont.). 
G. O. Sars, op. cit., p. 204, pl. 11, figs. 11, 12; pl. xviii, fig. 38 (operculum). 
A single dead and probably immature specimen, which I refer doubt- 
fully to this species, was taken at station 892, in 487 fathoms. It agrees 
nearly, in form and sculpture, with the figure (12) given by Sars, but our 
shell is shorter, ovate-fusiform. There are five slightly convex whorls; 
the anterior half of the body-whorl is covered with distinct, fine, spiral 
grooves; nuclear whorl rounded, rather large, partially incurved. Aper- 
ture narrow-ovate; a slight fold on the columella; no umbilicus. 
Diaphana Brown, 1827 (restricted); H. & A. Adams. 
Vtriculus (pars) Brown, Ill. Brit. Conch., 1844 (non Schumacher, 1817). 
Utriculus G. O. Sars, Moll. Reg. Arct. Norv., p. 285. 
In 1827 Brown proposed the name Diaphana for certain species of 
shells figured by him (but not described), which now are known to belong 
partly to the restricted modern genus Utriculus and partly to Amphi- 
sphyra Lovén, 1846. But he did not then define the genus, and in a later 
edition of his work (1844) he discarded the name and substituted Utri- 
culus for it.* But Utriculus had been used by Schumacher, in 1817, for a 
different genus (Conide). Lovéi’s name (Amphisphyra), established by 
him for Brown’s second section of Utriculus, should, therefore, be re- 
tained for that group, which is a good genus. Diaphane and Utriculus, 
as used by Brown, were absolutely synonymous, but Diaphana, as used 
by G. O. Sars, is asynonym of Amphisphyra. In its original sense, Dia- 
+ phana might be rejected, because undefined. But since Utriculus had 
been preoccupied, it seems necessary to retain Diaphana for the first 
seetion of Brown’s genus, corresponding nearly with U¢riculus of G. O. 
Sars. This is also in accordance with the nomenclature in H. & A. 
Adams’s Genera of Shells. 
The absence of an odontophore in Diaphana H. & A. Adams = Utri- 
culus Sars, is certainly a very important character by which the genus 
can easily be distinguished from Cylichna and Amphisphyra. But this 
genus cannot always be distinguished from Cylichna by the shell alone. 
On that account Lovén, Jeffreys, and other able conchologists have re- 
ferred some of the species of “ Utriculus” to Cylichna. 
Diaphana nitidula (Lovén) Verrill. 
Cylichna nitidula Lovén, op. cit., p. 142, 1846. 
Utriculus nitidilus G. O. Sars, op. cit., p. 236, pl. 17, fig. 13; pl. 26, fig. 3; pl. 
xi, figs. 6a, 6b (gizzard, &c.). 
This shell has been dredged by us in several localities in deep water 
off the coast of New England and Nova Scotia, and by Mr. Whiteaves 
in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence. This season it was taken at stations 
891, 892, and 894, in 365 to 500 fathoms. 
* This change was probably first made in the edition of 1834, which I am unable to 
consult. 
