10 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MALACOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 
NO Tae 
Furtuer Nore on tHe Typre-specrmen oF VoLturTA ROADNIGHTH, 
McCoy. (Read 8th Nov. 1901.)—With reference to the communication 
read at the Malacological Society’s meeting in November (Proc. Malac. Soc., 
vol. iv, p. 184), I cannot consider the matter of the type-specimen settled, 
unless the specimen stated to be the type in the National Museum 
(Melb.) corresponds in every particular to the numerous and very precise 
measurements given by the late Professor Sir Frederick McCoy (Ann, & 
Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. v, vol. viii, 1881, p. 88). The illustration in this work 
does not seem to correspond with that in the “ Thesaurus Conchyliorum.” 
Sowerby’s figure is that of a perfect shell, McCoy’s shows the anterior 
extremity with a ragged or broken edge, while the 18 or 19 spiral strize 
encircling the upper portion of the body-whorl from the outer to the 
inner lip are not shown by Sowerby, and the arrangement of the ribs 
differs in the two figures. Sowerby says, “Columella tenuiter triplicata,” 
and only three small plaits are visible in his figure ; whereas McCoy 
states, ‘three or four large oblique plaits on pillar, the hindmost but one 
the largest”: this and other differences ought to be a sure means of 
identification. Unfortunately all who could have vouched for the 
authenticity of the type-specimen have passed away. In conclusion I 
should like to point out that, although in McCoy’s description of the type- 
specimen it is noted as having been found in 1878, no specimen was 
exhibited until the specimen found at Portland (which was generally 
supposed to be the type) was purchased in 1881 ; it will be observed that 
Sir Frederick, although he says he had described the type three years 
previously to the publication of the description in 1881, does not mention 
its being in the possession of the Museum, and if it was, it seems rather 
singular that it was not made use of for the wax model for the Trustees of 
the Australian Museum, Sydney. 
Unfortunately, owing to the removal of the conchological specimens 
from the University Museum to the Technological Museum, where they 
still remain packed up, the specimens cannot be compared. 
(Mrs.) A. Kenyon. 
Nore on Eurora Braxrana, Newe., ano Hotora tuna, Pius. 
(Read 13th Dec. 1901.)—Some misapprehension, which it is desirable to 
rectify, concerning the correct synonymy of Hulota Blakeana having got 
abroad, the following note, it is hoped, will remove any doubt that may 
exist as to the identity of the above two species. 
In my first report on Helicoid Land-Shells from Japan and the Loo- 
Choo Islands (Proc. Malac. Soc., vol. iv, p. 16) I referred some shells which 
I there figured, to Lulota Blakeana, Newe. Dr. Pilsbry afterwards pointed 
out to me that my shells were distinct from Newcomb’s species, but agreed 
