150 PROCEEDINGS OF THK MALACOLOGICAL SOCIETT. 



Ifab. — North Australia. 



I include this species in the Australian list on tlie strengtli of 

 a remark written on the back of tlie tablet containing the type of 

 M. cordiformis. In pencil it is written " N. Australia fide specimen 

 in Sydney Museum". M. cordiformis is without any doubt merely 

 the young of 31. turgida, since it agrees with it in every detail, even 

 to the violet umbi)nes, a feature not mentioned by Reeve. The 

 hinge-dentition is identical, and the sculpture of the dorsal areas 

 and the rust-red streaks on both are quite similar. 



The locality of M. turgida is rather uncertain, since it has been 

 quoted from Tranquebar (Chemnitz), St. Thomas, West Indies 

 (Reeve), also Ceylon (Hanley), and Panama (Bernardi), the last two 

 localities^(/^ Weinkaulf. 



St. Thomas and Panama certainly must be eliminated. 



38. Mactra (Spisula?) veesicolor, Tate. 



Hemimactra versicolor, Tate, Trans. Roy. Soc. S. Aust., vol. ix, p. 64, 



pi. iv, fig. 12, 1887. 

 Mactra {^Hemimactra) versicolor, Tate, op. cit., p. 84. 



Hab. — Lake MacDonnell, Great Australian Bight, south coast of 

 Australia (Tate). 



39. Cypricia grayi, H. Adams. B.M. 

 Raeta grayi, H. Adams, Proc. Zool. Soc, 1872, p. 13, pi. iii, fig. 23. 

 Lahiosa grayi, Hedley, Rep. Aust. Assoc. Adv. Sci. 1909, p. 351, 

 1910. 



Ilab. — Borneo (Adams), Queensland (Hedley). 



The genus Lahiosa, Schmidt, first appeared in print in an article by 

 Moller in Oken's Isis, 1832, p. 136, and all he states is '■'■Lahiosa, 

 Schm., Anatina, Shum." No description is given, and no species 

 cited. We can therefore only infer that tlie shell referred to belonged 

 to the same genus as the species described and figured by Schumacher 

 in his Nouv. Syst., p. 126, pi. viii, fig. i. 



On the other hand, Gray in 1853 (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., vol. xi, 

 p. 43) gives a short description of his genus Cypricia,^ quoting 

 C. recurva as a type, Mactra recurva. Wood, Index Test. Suppl., 

 p. 4, pi. i, fig. 2, 1828. This species is the same as the well-known 

 lineata. Say, originally described as a Lutraria in 1821. It becomes 

 then a question whether the genus Cypricia should nut be retained 

 rather than Lahiosa. 



I fail to discover any features in Raeta which can distinguish it 

 even sub-generically from Cypricia. 



40. Cypricia meridionalis, Tate. 



Raeta meridionalis, Tate, Trans. Roy. Soc. S. Aust., vol. xi, p. 61, 

 pi. xi, fig. 3. 

 Hab. — Aldinga Bay, S. Australia (Tate). 



1 Proc. Zool. Soc, 1847, p. 185, No. 565. 



