88 



ON THE CLASSIFICATORY POSITION AND 

 SYNONYMS OF EATONIELLA EUFILABETS. 



[By Professor Ealph Tate, F.L.S., F.Gr.S., Cor. Memb.] 



The subject of this commiinication, which has long been 

 known as Bithynia, or Tatea Jiuonensis. though another specific 

 name has priority of fourteen years, has hitherto been handed 

 about from genus to genus without finding a resting place. 

 For some years past I have been convinced of the incompata- 

 bility of its reference to those families under v/hich it has been. 

 23laced ; its location under Eissoininse was the first step which 

 led me to its present classificatory position in the genus 

 EatonieUa. 



The main portion of this essay was written twelve years 

 ago, but the desire to fully work out the anatomical characters 

 has always been my plea for postponement of publication ; 

 now, however, the opportunity of addressing the conchologists 

 of Tasmania, who have most materially contributed to the 

 bibliograpby of the species, cannot be resisted, though further 

 study in the direction indicated is still very desirable. 



The shell was first made known by A. Adams in 1862 

 (unless Amnicola hadia, Gould, is the same) from specimens 

 collected on the shore at Port Lincoln, in South Australia, and 

 named by him, Bicda rvfilahris. E. A. Smith, in 1875, pointed 

 out that it differed essentially from Biala, by its thickened 

 and continuous peristome, and oblique aperture and columella, 

 and removed it to the genus Hydrobia. 



Tenison-Woods, in 1875, described the same shell as Bytliinia, 

 Imonensis. In 1878 E. M. Johnston transferred it to BitJiy- 

 nella, and Tenison-Woods in the same year, from information 

 concerning the animal which I had supplied, did me the 

 honour to erect for it the genus Tatea, which has done service 

 till now. Unfortunately, Tenison-Woods mis-read my notes 

 on the animal, and partially made amends in the following 

 year ; the chief error in his description relates to the operculum, 

 which is not calcareous, though it is somewhat strengthened 

 on the inner face with calcareous matter. In this way Tryon, 

 1883, came to be mislearl, and placed Tatea in the family 

 Kissoellidge ; this is repeated by the same author in 1887, and 

 is followed by Fischer, in his " Manuel de Conch." of the 

 same year. 



In the meanwhile, E. A. Smith, in 1882, proved the identity 

 of Biala riifilalris and Tatea Imonensis by comparison of 

 Adams' type with authentic examples from Tasmania, and 

 quotes the sj^ecies as Tatea rufilabris. Up to this time the 



