334 PKOCEEDlJiGS OF THK :\I ALACOLOGICAL SOCIKXV. 



Ekato voluta (Montagu). 



This sliell is more commonly kuown as Erato Icevis, Douovan (Nat. 

 Hist. Brit. Shells, vol. v, pi. clxv {Voluta), 1804: Weymouth). As 

 far as I can yet ascertain, this volume did not appear until after the 

 publication of Montagu's Test. Erit. It may be that Donovan's 

 name has really priority of publication, but until this can be actually 

 proved we must admit Montagu's name. Many names depend upon 

 the facts, and at the present time all Donovan's names published in 

 the fifth volume are ranked as later than Montagu's. In the present 

 instance Montagu's name has been rejected, as it has been cited as 

 Bulla voluta, and there is a prior Bulla voluta, Gmelin (Sj'st. Nat., 

 p. 3433, 1791). It is thus quoted in Forbes & Hanley's Hist. Erit. 

 Moll., vol. iii, p. 502. 



Montagu, however, called it Ciiprcea voluta (Test. Brit., pt. i, p. 203, 

 pi. vi, fig. 7.7, 1803 : Salcomb Bay), and this name is valid and must 

 be preserved. 



Family CERITHIID^. 



Under this name appear the genera Cerithium, Bittium, Triforis, 

 Newtoniella, Cerithiopsis, and Lceocochlis. I am unable to defend this 

 association, and I think that not only is the family heterogeneous, 

 but the genera are also polyphyletic. The shell classed under 

 Cerithium is (^uite unlike the type of the genus, whether we accept 

 Lamai'ck's selection or not. For the species described by Jeffreys as 

 Cerithimn procerum (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. iv, vol. xix, p. 322, 

 April 1, 1877 : Valorous, Station 12) I propose the new genus name 



Chasteria, n.g. 

 Chasteria DANiELSENi (Fricle). 

 This will be the name for Cerithium procerum, Jeffreys, as thirty 

 odd years before Kiener, Coq. Viv. Cerithium, p. 22, pi. xviii, 

 figs. \-\a, 1841-2, had selected that name for a different shell. In 

 the Nyt. Mag. Naturvid. (Christ.), vol. xxiii, pi. iii, p. 3, 1876-7, 

 Friele had described the same shell as Cerithium danieheni. I have 

 not yet ascertained the exact dates, but I believe that Friele's name 

 has also priority, an advantage which is not now necessary. 



EUMETA ARCTICA (Morch). 



This would appear to be the correct name for the shell listed as 

 Cerithiopsis costulata, Mciller. In the Index Moll. Groenl., 1842, 

 p. 10, Mciller proposed Turritella (?) costulata from Greenland. In the 

 Vidensk. Med. Nat. Forh. (Kjoben.), 1868, p. 208, Mcirch introduced 

 Eameta as a sub-genus of Cerithiiifn for this species, having previously 

 changed the specific name as above. This alteration has recently been 

 rejected, as it was argued the species was not a true Cerithium. 

 I would point out, however, that Mighels& Adams proposed in January, 

 1842, a Turritella costulata (Bost. Journ. Nat. Hist., vol. iv, pi. i, 

 p. 50), and this name invalidates Moller's selection. In Brit. Conch., 

 vol. iv, p. 273, 1867, Jeffreys wrote: "Morch changed the name 

 given bv the discoverer to Cerithium arcticum, because the latter had 



