220 
Cyclostrema Susonis, Z’enison- Woods, op. cit., p. 147, 1877. 
Cyclostrema (Tubiola) Susonis, Z’ryon, op. cit., p. 95, t. 33, f. 
10 (original), 1888. 
The three shells separately described as distinct species, namely, 
Cyclostrema Weldii, C. Susonis, and Cirsonella australis, are, in 
my judgment, conspecific. Their specific distinctness was not 
publicly challenged till 1895, when Brazier expressed the opinion 
that Weldii and australis were identical. Tyron, from his study 
of examples of the two Tasmanian species, follows Woods in 
their generic location, though further assigned them to the group 
Tubiola. With regard to Angas’s Cirsonella australis, which it 
is evident he had no personal knowledge of, he was not so 
fortunate in the selection of a classificatory position forit. We, 
thus, had at this date the one species under two generic denom- 
inations. Brazier, following on, had to make choice of either 
Cyclostrema or Tinostoma, and very unhappily prefers the latter, 
retaining Cirsonella in subordination. That the species under 
consideration is not a Zinostoma but is a Cyclostrema, does not 
admit of argument ; the distinctive characters of the two genera 
are too pronounced to make confusion possible. By comparison 
of authentic specimens of C. Weldiz and C. Susonis with the 
type of Cirsonella australis preserved in the British Museum, I 
am able to confirm Brazier’s suggestion that C. Weldiz and C. 
australis are conspecific ; but I differ from him as to the priority 
of the former name. 
Tenison- Woods’ paper containing a diagnosis of C. Weldi was 
read August, 1876, but was not published till 1877; that of 
Angas containing his Cirsonella australis, was read January 16, 
1877, and was published early in that year. It may not be 
possible to ascertain definitely which publication appeared first, 
but as Angas’s description is accompanied by figures, and 
Tenison-Woods’s is not, preference should be given to his name, 
though, at the same time, Tenison-Woods’s diagnosis is exact, 
whilst that of Angas is very superficial. 
Brazier considers, moreover, that Tenison-Woods redescribed 
his C. Weldit as C. immaculata, but if he had consulted the 
diagnosis of that species he would have satisfied himself that 
not a single character is applicable to C. Weldii ;in point of fact, 
C. immaculata is an immature Liotia, probably the shell so mis- 
named is Cyclostrema Susonis. I may add in this connection 
that the identification of Tenison-Woods’s species is open to mis- 
trust. I have had the same species communicated to me by 
different Tasmanian conchologists under three specific names 
representing three genera. This discord is largely attributable 
to the circumstances that the type examples in the Hobart 
Museum are not indicated, and that labels in some instances are 
