IREDALE : ON JIISUSED GENERIC NAJIES. 299 



"By some authors they {Baphnella, spp. Harris, Australia) would 

 possibly be classified with £ela ; that genus, however, appears to be 

 much misunderstood. It does not seem to be recognized tliat the 

 type of Bela (Leach MS.), Gray (Proc. Zool. Soc, 1847, p. 134), is 

 Murex nebula, Montagu, which is practically synonymous with 

 Mangelia costulata, Kisso, the type of the genus Mangilia (em.)." 



I have not, however, observed any author who has named an 

 efficient substitute for Bela, auct. H. & A. Adams, in their synonymy, 

 quote Ishnula, Clark, whicli does not appear to have been published by 

 that author. It is unavailable, as when Gray named Murex nebula 

 as type of Bela he indicated Clark's name as an absolute synonym in 

 that connexion. In their corrections, at the end of vol. ii, H. & A. 

 Adams, p. 654, November, 1858, noted " Onopota, Morch, is a synonym 

 of Bela ". 



Reference to the Cat. Conch. Yoldi, pt. i, August, 1852, p. 73, 

 showed that Mcirch proposed Oenopota as a sub-genus of Pleurotoma, 

 classing these — 



" Bleurotoma pleufotomaria, Couth. Gronland. 



pingelii, Beck. 



livid a, Mull. 



viridula, MiiU. (non Fabr.)." 

 These species all fall into Bela, auct., so that it is obvious Oenopota 

 is the correct substitute for that name. It is worth noting that in 

 a list of Icelandic Molluscs in the Vidensk. Meddel. naturh, Forh. 

 Kjobenhavn, 1868, p. 214, 1869, W6vc\\\\^^^ Belaiov cinerea,violacea, 

 pyramidattis = rufa, awd pinffelii, aud Ischuula ior titrricula {-with \ars. 

 maxima, nobilis, scalaris, exarata) and trevylliana, having apparently 

 eliminated Oenopota in deference to the general Adamsian usage of 

 Bela. Is is too much to ask that from this date Bela should be 

 consistently rejected in favour of 



Oenopota, 

 and let an unfortunate confusion be finally cleared up ? 



AcoLus, Jukes-Browne. 



In the Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. viii, vol. xii, p. 479, November, 

 1913, Jukes-Browne proposed Aeolus as a subgeneric name, under 

 Gomphina, for the shell Cooper & Preston had described as Psephts 

 foveolata (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. viir, vol. v, 1910, p. 110). 

 Previous to his death, I had pointed out to Jukes-Browne that the 

 names Callizona and Leucothea were invalid, and he changed them, 

 without acknowledgment, to Tinctora and Aphrodora respectively 

 (these Proceedings, vol. xi, pp. 61-2, 1914). I had the present case in 

 front of me for transmission when I heard of Ids unexpected decease. 

 I believe I was the last conchologist to personally converse with him. 

 I therefore take upon myself the responsibility of correcting his error, 

 and propose 



Jdkesena, nora. nov., 



for Aeolus, Jukes-Browne, not Foerster, Hymenopt. Stud., ii, p. 100, 

 1856. 



