212 Dr. E. von Martens on the Species of Amphipeplea. 
2. Australian Species. —Dr. Pfeiffer (Malakozoologische Blatter, 
1854; Proc. Zool. Soc. 1856 ; Novitates Conchologice, pp. 2, 5, 6, 
& 19, 14, 15) has described two Australian species under the 
names Amphipeplea Strangei and A. Melbournensis. The latter 
resembles in every respect so closely the Limneus Lessoni, Des- 
hayes (Guérin, Magasin de Conchyliologie, 1830, pl. 16), that 
T cannot satisfy myself as to its specific distinctness. L. Lessoni 
has been observed alive, described and figured by Lesson, ‘Voy. 
de la Coquille, Zool.’ pl. 15. f. 1 and ‘Centurie Zoologique,’ 
pl. 44 (Gray, Fig. Moll. An. 307. 2): the foot is figured rather 
large and clongated; but nothing like an expansion of the 
mantle over a part of the outside of the shell is indicated. 
Even in the figure of the shell given by Pfeiffer for his new 
Amphipeplea the limits of the parietal lamina are to be distinctly 
traced, and prove to be those of a Limneus. Therefore the 
claims of A. Melbournensis to a place in the genus Amphipeplea 
appear to be unfounded. The same is the case with 4. Strangei, 
which has still more the appearance of a Limneus, the spire 
bemg more produced. The analogy of the shell with Amphi- 
peplea Cumingi is the only reason alleged by Pfeiffer for its 
systematic position ; but this resemblance of the shells is much 
more distant than that between the so-called A. Strangei and 
Limneus Lessoni, or also L. ampullaceus. It must be left to 
Australian naturalists to ascertain whether any real Amphipeplea 
is found in Australia; at present we have no proof of it. 
3. The Philippine species, on the contrary, is not only a true 
Amphipeplea, but exhibits the distinguishing characters of that 
genus more developed than in the European type itself. The 
late Mr. Cuming, to whom science is indebted for valuable ob- 
servations on the habits of living mollusks, besides an unparal- 
lelled increase of new species, has described it as a ‘‘ freshwater 
Bulla.” Pfeiffer (Novitat. p.6; Souleyet, Voyage de la Bonite, 
Zoologie, pl. 29. f.383; Gray, Fig. Moll. An. 304. 7) figured the 
living animal, exhibiting an extraordinary development of the 
mantle and a very long foot. The development of the mantle- 
lobes is confirmed by the examination of the shell; the parietal 
lamina is continued in a shelly deposition with unequal waved 
limits, occupying nearly half the circumference of the last whorl 
and enveloping the apex itself. Beyond it, in the latter half of 
the last whorl, there are to be seen, in many of the specimens, 
scattered spots, of the same whitish appearance, probably thin 
shelly deposits made by temporary contact of the mantle. 
Three authors have named and described a Philippine Amphi- 
peplea, without taking notice one of the other :— 
Beck, ‘ Index Mioilusedae 1837, p. 115. Amphipeplea 
Luzonica, 
