PKOCEEDINGS OF THE MAI.ACOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 199 



ORDINARY MEETING. 

 Feidat, November 9th, 1894. 

 Dr. H. "Woodward, F.R.S., etc., President, in the Chair. 

 The following papers were read : — 



1. " Synopsis of a review of the Genera of the Recent and Tertiary 

 Mactridse and Mesodesmatidse," by W. H. Dall. 



2. "Descriptions of nine new species of Shells," by G. B. Sowerby, 

 F.L.S., etc. 



3. " Note on Spirulirostra,^' by G, B. Pritchard. 



[abstkact.] 

 The author pointed out that Mr. K. B. Newton and Mr. G. F. 

 Harris, in their paper "A revision of the British Eocene Cephalopoda" 

 {ante, pp. 119-131), had apparently overlooked the record of a 

 Victorian species of the genus SpiruUrostra. It was first recorded 

 from Bird-rock Bluff, also known as Spring Creek, near Geelong, 

 Victoria, by Professor Ralph Tate, at the April Meeting, 1890, of the 

 Royal Society of South Australia (Trans. Roy. Soc. S. Australia, 

 xiii. p. 245). A second specimen was obtained in the following year, 

 and in July, 1893, Professor Tate described and figured the species 

 under the name of S. ciirta, in the Journal of the Royal Society 

 of New South Wales, vol. xxvii. p. 170, pi. x. figs. 1, \a, \h. A third 

 example was collected by the author from the same locality in 1891. 

 The deposits from which the Victorian specimens were obtained are 

 classed as Eocene, so that in Australia also there was an extension of 

 the range in time of the genus. 



[reply in abstract.] 

 Mr. R. B. Newton and Mr. G. F. Harris, in reply, whilst 

 expressing their indebtedness to Mr. Pritchard for directing their 

 attention to this matter, pointed out that the first cited occurrence 

 of this genus in Australia was unaccompanied by any description or 

 figure, so that no notice could be taken of it. On the other hand, 

 Prof. Tate's paper containing the description and figure of SpiruUrostra 

 curta, although read in July, 1893, was not published till March, 1894 

 {fide Hedley, Journ. of Malacol. iii. 1894, p. 60), whilst the part 

 containing it was not received in the British Museum (Natural 

 History) until July, 1894; whereas the authors' paper was read in 

 March and published in June, 1894, so that they could hardly be said 

 to have overlooked that which was not then in evidence. It was 

 satisfactory to note that their theoretical restoration of S. anomala 

 was so strikingly confirmed by the Australian species. It would 

 appear that the two had much in common, and no doubt denoted a 

 similar horizon, homotaxially. 



VOL. I. — march, 1895. 14 



