68 THE XAUTILUS. 



nent feature, flame painting, straight sharp peristome, which 

 describes a convex then a concave sweep on approaching the right 

 insertion, and a projecting seniitransparent callus, which buries the 

 sculpture of the whorl on which it encroaches. For this group I 

 provisionally accept the title Charopidce, assigned by Hutton, 1884 

 (Trans. N. Zealand Inst, xvi, p. 199), extending, however, the 

 limits indicated by that writer. His vague diagnosis runs as fol- 

 lows: 'Animal heliciform with an external shell; tail with a 

 mucus gland.' Xo type is nominated by the author of the family, 

 and I therefore suggest that the type of Charopidce would naturally 

 be the genus Charopa Albers, whose type species is C. coma Gray." 



Mr. Hedley proceeds to quote the original descriptions of the 

 groups Charopa Alb., Pltys Beck, Endodonta Alb., Libera Garr., 

 Gerontin Hutt., Pyrrha Hutt., Fsyra Hutt., Therasia Hutt., Thera 

 Hutt., Phacunsa Hutt. ; mentioning also Laoina Gray, Maoriana 

 Suter, Simplicaria Mouss. ; concluding that "From the above 

 review of the genera proposed, it will be seen that the student of 

 the Charopidce, is better supplied with divisional names than with 

 definitions." And finally: " To summarise : I would consider that 

 Patula has no existence in the Pacific ; that the southern species 

 usually referred to that genus are not even of the Helicidce family ; 

 that these species can most conveniently be referred to one or other 

 of the genera enumerated above, which genera may be grouped 

 under the subfamily Charopida', a division of the family Zonitidce." 



It will be noticed that Hedley includes in Charopidce most of the 

 forms which in my article were placed as sections under Pcdula and 

 Gerontia. The similarity of the shells of these two groups is 

 remarkable, but the information furnished by Hutton upon the 

 animals denied to the Kew Zealand Vatulie^^ Chai-opa, a mucus 

 gland upon the tail, and therefore I did not feel justified in uniting 

 the two groups, as I could see no reason for sundering Charopa from 

 the genus Pcdula. If, however, Charopa and its allies, Pitys, Endo- 

 donta, etc., possess a mucus tail gland, I would unhesitatingly fol- 

 low Hedley in his separation of Charopa from Pcdula, and in 

 grouping it with Gerontia {x. lat.). Unfortunately only dried 

 specimens are accessible to me, and the evidence furnished by 

 authors is so conflicting that we may well suspend judgment. In 

 the rank given to the group by Hedley I find myself unable to 

 fully concur. The presence of a caudal gland and furrows along 

 the foot margin are rarely if ever of more than generic importance. 



