THE NAUTILUS. 57 



->. W., Vol. XXX, p. 52o, 1906) has already suggested the identity 

 )f Herviera with Odostmnelhi. Dall and Bartsch wrongly cite this 

 genus as Odostomlella and se[)arate it from Elndiamea by characters 

 which seem intangible, as the two species of Herviera show features 

 assigned to each. 



On p. 134 Dall and IJartsch include as valid Salassia De Folin, 

 Const, d. Chemnitzidae, 1885, p. 1.0, and then for the ty[)e species 

 give the quotation Salassia cartaata De Folin, Fonds de la Mer, 

 Vol. 2, 1872, p. IGS, pi. G, fig. G. 



This latter would appear to be the quotation for the subgenus. 

 Certainly the former cannot be used as the name appeared under 

 exactly the same conditions in the 1870 paper above noted. 



However is not the name preoccupied by Sulassa Moore, P. Z. S., 

 1859, p. 24G ? To divert, on p. 1 6 is indicated and on p. 133 is 

 diagnosed a new subgenus Sulassiella. Is not this also preoccupied 

 by Salasiella Strebel, Mex. K. Land. u. Suswass. Conch., Ill, p. fi, 

 29,1877? 



On p. 16 Oceanida De Folin is included as valid and the correct 

 reference is given, but the type species name is misquoted gradata; 

 it should be graduata. Into synonymy Dall and IJartsch consign 

 the rest of De Folin's genera, Noemia, Lia, Odetta, Juminea, Jami- 

 nina and Onduia. The first three are all .recorded as nude names in 

 Vol. I, p. 314, 1871. 



This is quoted for Noemia, p. 136, as Fonds de la Mer, 1873, p. 31 4. 

 Lia, p. 176, 1870, p. 51.0. 



Odetta, p. 184, 1870, p. 314. 



^^ Jaminea De Folin, Consiit. Method, de la Fam. Chemnitziidae, 

 1885, p. 15. Type Jaminea bilirata De Folin; not Jnminea Brown, 

 1827. 4- Jaminina De Folin, Zool. Record, Vol. 22, 1885, p. 'J4. 

 Type Jaminea bilirata De Folin." This appears in the synonymy 

 of Menestho Mtiller, on p. 184, and seems incorrectly stated. As 

 previously noted Jaminea bilirata De Folin was diagnosed in Fonds 

 de la Mer, Vol. I, p. 214, 18G9; in the 1885 paper De Folin writes 

 '■'^Jaminea Brown,^^ and gives no names of species so that I cannot 

 understand the reason of typifying it as of De Folin. Jaminina De 

 Folin does not occur in any copies of the Zool. Record, 1885, p. 94, 

 that I have had access to, and I have been unable to trace it. Of 

 course all the preceding are minute errors but they are, nevertheless, 

 very perplexing if literature is unavailable. 



I have noted the following typographical errors : 



