General Ilislury of the Marine Pohjzon.. 327 



Trans. New Zeal. Instit. for 1890. This figure must be 

 ignored, as the colour is unlike the species and the venation 

 portrayed is also difterent from any known genus of 

 Cicadida3. 



Cicada cassiope, Iluds. I.e. p. 54, = Mclainpsalta nervosa, 

 Walk. List Horn. i. p. 213. n. 166 (1850j. 



L. — Contributions towards a General History of the Marine 

 Pohjzoa, 1880-91. — Appendi.c. By the Kev. THOMAS 

 liiNCKS, B.A., F.K.S. 



[Continued from vol. viii. p. 480.] 



'Annals/ August 1881 (p. 65 sep.). 



Mucronella teres, sp. n. 



Syn. Mucronella la-vis, MacGillivray, Trans. Roy. Soc. Victoria, July 

 1882 ; Prodr. Zool. Vict, decade xii. p. 64, pi. cxvi. fig. .3. 



There can be no doubt that MacGillivraj's M. Icevis is 

 identical with the present species, of which it must rank as a 

 syuon3-nu The only differences between tiie two as described 

 are that in Al. loivis three spines are present in front of the 

 ooecium on each side, whilst in the specimens which I 

 examined there were only two, and that the small nodular 

 projection on the inner face of the niucro in M. teres is not 

 noted by MacGillivray. These points are quite immaterial. 



Ibid. (p. Qo Sep.). 



]\[ucroneUa spinosissima , sp n. 



This species is identified by AVaters* with Mucronella 

 Peachii, var. octodentata, Hincks, and Miss Jelly has taken 

 the same view in her ' Catalogue ; ' but I am quite unable to 

 accept their decision. 31. spinosissima is, I have no doubt, 

 identical with the fossil form from New Zealand described 

 by Waters {loc. cit.) ; it agrees with his diagnosis even in 



* " Tertiary Cheilostomata from New Zealand,'" Quart. Journ. Geol. 

 Soc. for Feb. '1887, p. 56. 



