220 rKOCEEDINOS OF 1UE MALACOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 



NOTES OX THE GENUS TEMESA, 11. & A. Ad., WITH DESCRIPTIONS 

 OF TWO NEW LAND-SHELLS [TEMESA AND CLAUSILIA) FROM 

 SOUTH AMERICA. 



By E. K. Svkks, B.A., F.L.S., etc. 

 Read Vltti April, 1901. 



In April, 1855, Messrs. II. & A. Adams proposed T the subgenus Temesa 

 for Balea australis, Forbes, B. clausilioides, live., B. Funcki, Pfr., 

 B. glorifica t Parr., and li. livida, Menke. These species formed 

 Pfeiffer's set ion 2 of Balea in 1853. 2 In 1859 Pfeiffer adopted 3 

 the name as a section of Balea for the first three species, which he 

 placed in reverse order, and he excluded, or rather omitted, the last 

 two, which belong to Alopia, 



In 1866 4 Semper treated the group as a genus, admitting the same 

 three species. The previous paper by Bourguignat, as will be seen 

 from Semper's criticisms, did net in any way assist in clearing- up the 

 difficulty as to what species should be regarded as the type Pfeiffer, 

 in various subsequent notes, expressed doubts whether these ohree 

 forms really belonged to one genus. 



In June, 1892, Mr. Hedley 6 pointed out that Balea australis, 

 Forbes, was identical with Cceliaxis exigua, Ad. & Aug. (1867), and 

 removed the species to Pt rrieria, Tap.-Canefri (1878). It may be 

 noted that Sphalerostoma, Girard (1894), appears to be a synonym of 

 Cceliaxis. Fischer, 6 having in 1888 mentioned Balea clausilioides as 

 an example of Temesa, which he treated as a subgenus, Mr. Pilsbry, 7 

 in March, 1896, went a step further, and definitely fixed B. clausilioides 

 as the type of the genus Temesa, which he placed with the Peruvian 

 Bulimuli. In a little paper at the time 8 1 expressed my doubts as 

 to the wisdom of this course, and also put forward the suggestion, 

 to which I still adhere, that Balea australis did not really belong to 

 Perrieria. Further consideration has led me to the view that it is 

 wiser to accept what has actually been done than to consider what 

 should have been done, and I adopt Bulimus clausilioides, Reeve, as 

 the type of Temesa. 



In 1900 Dr. Jousseaume 9 proposed the genus Exbalea for a shell 

 which he identified with, and figured as, Balea Peruviana, Philippi. 10 



1 Gen. Rec. Moll., vol. ii, p. 175. 

 - Men. Helic. Viv., vol. iii, p. 584. 



3 Op. eit., vol. iv, p. 714. 



4 Journ de Conch., torn, xiv, p. 42. 



5 Proc. Linn. Soc. New S. Wales, ser. n, vol. vii, pp. 311-313. 

 s Man. Conehyl.. p. 483. 



' Man. Conch., ser. n, vol. x, p. 134. 

 s Journ. Malac, vol. v, p. 59. 

 9 Bull. Soc. l'hilom., ser. ix, torn, ii, p. 34. 

 '« Malak. Blatt., Bd. \i\ (1867), p. 78. 



