70 • THE NAUTILUS. 



labelled amiissitata while genuine amumtata came as toreuma. I 

 am by no means satisfied in my own mind, however, that the two 

 last named are not one and the same species. 



H. encosmiiis is a very distinct and easily recognized species and 

 varies very little compared with other species of the genus. The 

 figures in Eeeve (Conch. Icon. pi. xvi, p. 36) are good and so are 

 all those in the Manual of Conchology (vol. xiii, plate 71). 



Mr. Pilsbry in the Manual points out that Reeve applied the 

 name P. variegata to two diiferent species. The first described in 

 Conchologia Systematica which appears to equal rota of Gmeliu 

 and the other in Conchologia Iconica twelve years later, this last 

 being the species Mr. Pilsbry now names H. encosviins on the 

 ground that the name variegata is pi'eoccupied by Blainville for an 

 unidentified species from Botany Bay. 



So far, so good, but Mr. Pilsbry next proceeds to quote as a syno- 

 nym for his encosmius, H. variegatus Dall, Amer. Jour, of Conch., 

 vi, p. 277, but this was Reeve's first variegatus ■= rota Gmel., as 

 Dall himself surmised. Consequently Dall's localities (which 

 Pilsbry has copied) are clearly incorrect when applied to encosmius- 



My own impression is that the true H. encos7niits Pilsbry (:r^vari- 

 egatus Rve., Conch. Icon., pi. xvi, f. 36) is a species restricted to 

 Japanese and Chinese waters, while the localities " Suez (Fischer) 

 and Red Sea and Gulf of Akaba (Smithsonian Cabinet)," given 

 by Dall and copied into the Manual are correct for rota Gmel. (=: 

 variegatus Rve,, Conch, Syst. ii, pi. 136, p. 1). 



The remaining locality given in the ^Manual, viz., "Australia" 

 (Rve.), is also, I think, an error, although I have received from 

 dealers siDCcimens of encosmius which they assured me had come 

 from there. 



I should have mentioned above that although Dr. Dall in his 

 paper in the American Journal of Conchology is writing evidently 

 of rota, not of encosmius, he quotes both of Reeve's figures as 

 though referring to the same species. 



[Communicated.] 

 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CONCHOLOGISTS. 



Phil.\delphia, Sept. 28, 1892, 

 Since the publication of the list of members, there have been 

 admitted to the Association, the following new members: 



