﻿386 
  PROCEEDINGS 
  OF 
  THE 
  NATIONAL 
  MUSEUM 
  vol. 
  io3 
  

  

  Hubendick 
  (1952) 
  has 
  rather 
  completely 
  described 
  and 
  figured 
  the 
  

   critical 
  and 
  diagnostic 
  anatomy 
  of 
  animals 
  of 
  this 
  genus. 
  His 
  slight 
  

   misinterpretations 
  of 
  the 
  reproductive 
  anatomy 
  are 
  easily 
  understood 
  

   by 
  anyone 
  who 
  has 
  personally 
  examined 
  the 
  gross 
  reproductive 
  

   anatomy 
  of 
  thousands 
  of 
  individual 
  mollusks 
  belonging 
  to 
  the 
  "Mela- 
  

   nian 
  complex," 
  including 
  hundreds 
  of 
  individuals 
  belonging 
  to 
  the 
  

   family 
  Thiaridae. 
  Nearly 
  all 
  the 
  biological 
  peculiarities 
  seen 
  by 
  

   Hubendick 
  in 
  the 
  seven 
  females 
  of 
  Fijidoma 
  maculata 
  available 
  to 
  

   him 
  are 
  the 
  distinguishing 
  biological 
  characters 
  possessed 
  by 
  every 
  

   individual 
  of 
  the 
  families 
  Planaxidae 
  and 
  Thiaridae 
  (Thorson, 
  1940, 
  

   and 
  Morrison, 
  1952). 
  The 
  assumption 
  by 
  Hubendick 
  that 
  these 
  

   animals 
  ever 
  possess 
  a 
  testis 
  must 
  be 
  histologically 
  proven 
  in 
  order 
  to 
  

   refute 
  the 
  observed 
  parthenogenicity 
  of 
  these 
  females. 
  Abbott 
  

   (1952, 
  p. 
  92) 
  could 
  not 
  find 
  sperm 
  in 
  living 
  material 
  or 
  in 
  histological 
  

   sections 
  of 
  the 
  gonads 
  of 
  six 
  mature 
  adults 
  of 
  the 
  related 
  Tarebia 
  

   granifera 
  (Lamarck). 
  Hubendick 
  did 
  not 
  recognize 
  the 
  completely 
  

   separate, 
  secondary 
  or 
  adventitious 
  nature 
  of 
  the 
  brood 
  pouch 
  of 
  

   these 
  animals. 
  His 
  "uterus" 
  is 
  not 
  a 
  part 
  of 
  the 
  primary 
  gonoduct 
  

   as 
  is 
  the 
  case 
  in 
  the 
  Viviparidae 
  and 
  the 
  Lavigeriinae, 
  hence 
  should 
  

   not 
  be 
  called 
  a 
  uterus. 
  Abbott 
  (1952, 
  p. 
  92) 
  has 
  pointed 
  out 
  that 
  

   the 
  brood 
  pouch 
  of 
  the 
  Thiaridae 
  is 
  not 
  developed 
  until 
  the 
  animal 
  

   begins 
  to 
  reach 
  maturity. 
  

  

  Hubendick's 
  correction 
  of 
  the 
  taxonomic 
  placement 
  of 
  Fijidoma 
  

   was 
  incomplete; 
  his 
  references 
  to 
  its 
  close 
  relationship 
  with 
  the 
  genus 
  

   Emmericia 
  of 
  the 
  family 
  Hydrobiidae 
  were 
  erroneous. 
  Elsewhere 
  

   (Morrison 
  1949, 
  p. 
  14) 
  I 
  have 
  put 
  on 
  record 
  the 
  critical 
  and 
  diagnostic 
  

   (male) 
  reproductive 
  characters 
  of 
  the 
  subfamilies 
  of 
  the 
  Hydrobiidae, 
  

   including 
  Emmericia 
  of 
  the 
  Emmericiinae. 
  

  

  Family 
  Thiaridae 
  (in 
  Africa) 
  

   Genus 
  Thiara 
  Roding, 
  1798 
  

  

  This 
  typical 
  genus 
  of 
  the 
  family 
  occurs 
  in 
  the 
  east 
  Africa 
  region 
  as 
  

   well 
  as 
  in 
  Asiatic 
  waters. 
  

  

  Genus 
  Melanoides 
  Olivier, 
  1804 
  

  

  The 
  genotype 
  of 
  Melanoides 
  (Olivier, 
  1804, 
  p. 
  40), 
  M. 
  tuherculata 
  

   (Miiller) 
  1776, 
  was 
  probably 
  the 
  first 
  member 
  of 
  the 
  family 
  to 
  be 
  

   proved 
  ovoviviparous 
  in 
  the 
  tliiarid 
  fashion. 
  Raymond 
  (1852) 
  

   described 
  the 
  brood 
  pouch 
  very 
  well. 
  His 
  tales 
  of 
  the 
  young 
  going 
  

   back 
  into 
  the 
  brood 
  pouch 
  at 
  night, 
  however, 
  must 
  be 
  completely 
  

   discounted. 
  What 
  he 
  did 
  not 
  reahze 
  was 
  that 
  there 
  is 
  only 
  a 
  partial 
  

   release 
  of 
  the 
  young 
  at 
  any 
  one 
  time, 
  so 
  that 
  every 
  time 
  he 
  looked 
  

   into 
  the 
  brood 
  pouch 
  of 
  an 
  adult 
  he 
  found 
  young 
  still 
  there 
  — 
  not 
  back 
  

   there 
  again. 
  

  

  