218 PROCEEDINGS OF THK MAIACOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 



workers, but serious students should never name such. Unfortunately, 

 though I have, in the majority of cases, long series from the Kermadecs, 

 the previously named molluscs with which comparisons have been 

 instituted are represented by odd specimens only. 



Since this note was written my views have received quite un- 

 expected confirmation by the study of series of Janthina. 



E.OYA, n.gen. 

 lioYA Kermadecensis, n.sp. PL IX, Fig. 10. 



Shell thin, conical, bilaterally symmetrical, broadly ovate, anterior 

 slope long, arclied, ])Osterior slope steep, scarcely concave. Apex at 

 about four-fifths its length, nucleus anastrophic, almost immersed by 

 last whorl. The muscular impression is horseshoe-shaped, symmetrical, 

 but composed of two portions : a semicircular broad scar ending in an 

 enlargement, and then on each side continued by a narrow line ; these 

 lines meet obliquely-set oval scars, which are connected by a narrow 

 line. This muscular impression is invisible in dead shells, which are 

 translucent. These are pale rufous, sometimes rayed witli a darker 

 colour; there is no apparent sculpture save growth-lines. The live 

 shell is clothed with a fine gieen epidermis. Length about 5"5, 

 breadth 3"5, height 3 mm. 



Radula : Like that of Gena (Gwatkin). 



Hah. — Sunday Island, Kermadec Group. 



Externally this shell agrees very well with Capulusnutatus, Hedley 

 (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vol. xxxiii, p. 467, pi. ix, figs. I'i-ie, 

 1908). Upon comparison with the type of that species Mr. Hedley 

 and I agreed it was inseparable as far as external conchological 

 characters were observed. The muscle-impression of the shell, and 

 the animal of C. nutatiis are yet unknown. In the British Museum 

 is the type of Tectura radiata, Pease (Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1860, 

 p. 437) from the Sandwich Islands. This seems to be another 

 species of this genus. Yet this sliell was at one time accepted as 

 identical witti Williamia Gussoni, Costa, by such an authority as 

 Mr. E. A. Smith (Proc. Zool. Soc. Loud., 1890, p. 296), judging from 

 conchological features alone. But W. Gussoni, Costa, belongs to the 

 Siphonariidtc, whilst my shell does not. I am therefore doubtful of 

 the correctness of merging specifically my shell with Capnlus nutcdus, 

 Hedley, in view of the fact that animals of similar shells have proved 



