﻿iekd\le: 
  new 
  and 
  old 
  molluscan 
  generic 
  names. 
  29 
  

  

  same 
  journal 
  in 
  1860. 
  Danker 
  described 
  AnacJiis 
  2>usioIa, 
  compai'inp; 
  it 
  

   with 
  C. 
  garrcttii, 
  Pease, 
  and 
  almost 
  immediately 
  afterwards 
  Sclimeltz 
  

   (!Mus. 
  Godetf. 
  Cat., 
  v, 
  Feb. 
  1874, 
  p. 
  127) 
  STnonymized 
  both 
  C. 
  p^isiula, 
  

   Dkr., 
  and 
  C. 
  garrettii, 
  Pse., 
  with 
  Columhella 
  lacry)iia[^sic], 
  Gaskoin. 
  

   Hervier 
  made 
  a 
  detailed 
  study 
  of 
  this 
  shell 
  and 
  its 
  relations, 
  writing 
  : 
  

   " 
  Elle 
  parait 
  etre 
  le 
  type 
  d'un 
  petit 
  groupeinteressant, 
  caracterise 
  par 
  

   son 
  galbe 
  special, 
  son 
  mode 
  de 
  sculpture, 
  et 
  la 
  conformation 
  de 
  son 
  

   ouverture." 
  He 
  describes 
  three 
  varieties 
  : 
  of 
  " 
  fli^r^t-m^rt" 
  he 
  notes, 
  

   " 
  Cette 
  forme 
  serait-elle 
  le 
  C. 
  pusiola, 
  Dunker, 
  oumemele 
  C. 
  liniget-a, 
  

   Duclos 
  ? 
  Je 
  n'ai 
  pu 
  m'en 
  couvaincre 
  " 
  ; 
  and 
  oi 
  " 
  jiifescftis,^' 
  "Cette 
  

   forme 
  correspond-elle 
  au 
  C. 
  gracilis, 
  Peeve, 
  des 
  iles 
  Fidji, 
  qui 
  parait 
  

   decrite 
  et 
  figuree 
  sur 
  un 
  echantillon 
  jeune 
  ? 
  " 
  He 
  then 
  added 
  a 
  species 
  

   C. 
  stihlacliryma, 
  with 
  a 
  variety 
  sphcerica. 
  

  

  I 
  have 
  studied 
  tlie 
  figure 
  of 
  C[olombella] 
  linigera, 
  Chenu, 
  Illust. 
  

   Conch., 
  1846, 
  pi. 
  xvii, 
  figs. 
  13-14, 
  and 
  would 
  not 
  associate 
  it 
  with 
  

   this 
  species, 
  but 
  believe 
  it 
  is 
  referable 
  to 
  another 
  shell 
  also 
  recovered 
  

   from 
  these 
  Lord 
  Howe 
  15-20 
  fathom 
  dredgings, 
  which 
  is 
  a 
  true 
  

   Zafra. 
  I 
  will 
  elaborate 
  this 
  point 
  later. 
  

  

  I 
  have 
  not 
  found 
  a 
  C. 
  gracilis, 
  Peeve, 
  and 
  conclude 
  Hervier 
  referred 
  

   to 
  Citharopsis 
  gracilis, 
  Pease 
  (Amer. 
  Journ. 
  Conch., 
  vol. 
  iv, 
  Nov. 
  3, 
  

   1868, 
  p. 
  97, 
  pi. 
  xi, 
  fig. 
  20: 
  Paumotus). 
  The 
  figure 
  appears 
  to 
  

   be 
  drawn 
  from 
  an 
  adult 
  specimen 
  which 
  should 
  be 
  classed 
  under 
  

   Seminella. 
  I 
  would 
  record 
  Tryon's 
  remark 
  under 
  C\_olumhella^ 
  

   gracilis, 
  Pease 
  (Man. 
  Couch., 
  vol. 
  v, 
  1883, 
  p. 
  167): 
  " 
  Pretty 
  constant 
  

   in 
  form, 
  but 
  varying 
  in 
  sculpture 
  and 
  coloring. 
  Pease 
  described 
  it 
  

   from 
  a 
  not 
  perfectly 
  adult 
  specimen. 
  Dunker 
  described 
  the 
  adult 
  

   under 
  the 
  name 
  of 
  C. 
  pusiola. 
  A 
  portion 
  of 
  the 
  original 
  set 
  of 
  the 
  

   latter 
  species 
  is 
  before 
  me. 
  Mr. 
  Garrett 
  believed 
  C. 
  pusiola 
  to 
  

   = 
  C. 
  lachrymn, 
  Gaskoin." 
  There 
  is 
  little 
  close 
  affinity 
  between 
  

   " 
  C. 
  lachryma 
  " 
  and 
  " 
  C. 
  gracilis", 
  so 
  I 
  at 
  present 
  cannot 
  understand 
  

   Tryon's 
  note. 
  

  

  However 
  much 
  "lachryma" 
  varies 
  — 
  and 
  there 
  is 
  a 
  considerable 
  

   amount 
  of 
  limited 
  variation 
  — 
  it 
  is 
  an 
  easily 
  recognizable 
  shell. 
  As 
  

   Hervier 
  noted, 
  it 
  is 
  marked 
  by 
  a 
  striking 
  facies. 
  It 
  has, 
  however, 
  been 
  

   referred 
  to 
  several 
  groups, 
  and 
  these 
  need 
  consideration. 
  When 
  Pace 
  

   reviewed 
  Columbelloid 
  names 
  (Proc. 
  Malac. 
  Soc, 
  vol. 
  v, 
  April, 
  1902) 
  

   he 
  observed 
  much 
  confusion 
  in 
  connexion 
  with 
  the 
  names 
  Citharopsis, 
  

   Pease, 
  and 
  Seminella, 
  Pease, 
  and 
  concluded, 
  p. 
  42, 
  "It 
  will 
  be 
  best, 
  

   in. 
  my 
  opinion, 
  to 
  restrict 
  the 
  name 
  Citharopsis 
  to 
  the 
  very 
  distinct 
  

   group 
  of 
  C. 
  ^rttf/ir//«!« 
  (Rve.), 
  which 
  species 
  is 
  one 
  of 
  those 
  enumerated 
  

   by 
  Pease, 
  and 
  Seminella 
  to 
  the 
  group 
  of 
  C. 
  troglodytes, 
  Sow." 
  ; 
  and 
  

   p. 
  44, 
  "If 
  C. 
  lachryma 
  (Rve.) 
  is 
  correctly 
  referred 
  to 
  the 
  

   Columbellidge, 
  Cantraine's 
  Mitra 
  olivoidea 
  must 
  accompany 
  it 
  . 
  . 
  . 
  

   the 
  columella 
  folds 
  are 
  unlike 
  those 
  of 
  Mitra, 
  and 
  resembles 
  rather 
  

   the 
  peculiar 
  split 
  tooth 
  which 
  is 
  met 
  with 
  in 
  so 
  many 
  Columbellidae." 
  

   I 
  do 
  not 
  conclude 
  from 
  this 
  that 
  Pace 
  considered 
  C. 
  lachryma 
  (live.) 
  

   congeneric 
  with 
  Mitra 
  olivoidea, 
  Cantraine 
  ; 
  the 
  latter 
  is 
  the 
  type 
  of 
  

   Mitrolumna, 
  Bucquoy, 
  Dollfus, 
  & 
  Dautzenberg, 
  and 
  I 
  would 
  not 
  

   place 
  "lachryma" 
  in 
  the 
  same 
  genus, 
  and 
  in 
  this 
  opinion 
  Mr. 
  E. 
  A. 
  

   Smith 
  agrees. 
  It 
  was 
  probably 
  due 
  to 
  Pace's 
  comments 
  that 
  Hedley 
  

  

  