COCKERELL AND COLLINGE : CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS. 225 



to Pseudaneitea, it may be a section rather than a subgenus, 

 and I have nothing to say against those who, with a full 

 knowledge of the facts, prefer not to use the term. 



Pages 158-159. J. verrucosa and J. marmorata are both 

 credited simply to Von Martens, and stated to be from 

 " New Zealand ; " a glance at my " mischievous," P.Z.S. 

 paper would have prevented these mistakes. They arc 

 from the Auckland Is., as Mr. Suter explains in a footnote, 

 and they were described by Dr. Simroth, although Dr. V. 

 Martens ticketed them with names. The authority, there- 

 fore, should be "V, Mts. in Simr.," or "V. Mts. MS., 

 Simr." Another more doubtful point is the date of the 

 publication of these two slugs. Mr. Hedley cites 1889, 

 which is the date on Dr. Simroth's paper, but the part 

 containing the paper is dated 1890. The paper was 

 reviewed in the " A T acJirisblatt" Jan. -Feb. 1890, and must 

 have appeared, I suppose, in January of that year. There 

 is still, however, the possibility that separates were issued 

 late in 1889. 



Pages 159. Neojantila dubia. I said the head of this 

 was shrivelled. Mr. Hedley perverts it into a statement 

 that the specimen was shrunken, leaving the reader to 

 infer that the whole slug was meant. - He also says it 

 "probably belongs to the preceding species" {marmorata). 

 Now this must be simply a bad guess, for there is 

 apparently no foundation for such a statement. In 

 Messrs. Hedley and Suter's recent New Zealand list, 

 Neojanella is referred, without comment or query, to 

 J. bitentaculata as a pure synonym ! On what grounds 

 I have no idea, and I have been waiting anxiously for 

 particulars, supposing that such a reference must be 

 supported by some very plain and unexpected evidence. 

 But now I get a letter from Mr. Hedley, dated July 20th, 

 1893, in which he says "you will perhaps continue to 

 support Pseudaneitea and Neojanella, of which I must 

 require more evidence before admission. ... If you 

 return to London it would strengthen your position if you 

 published a good figure of Neojanella." Now, what does 

 this mean, unless that he is still undecided about Neojanella, 

 and thinks it possible that further evidence might prove its 

 validity ? If so, how can the reference to bitentaculata, as 

 mentioned above, be justified ? 



