330 BULLETIN: MUSEUM OF COMPARATIVE ZOOLOGY, 
margin entire, simple, in the adult, in the young slightly crenulate by the radial 
sculpture; concentric sculpture feeble, chiefly of the incremental lines; radial 
sculpture of rather conspicuous threads with wider interspaces in the young; the 
threads flatten and become much wider and the interspaces mere grooves, in the 
‘adult; longer diam. of base about 25 mm., height 9 mm. 
U. 5. S. “ Albatross,” station 9781, off the Chilean coast, in 348 fathoms, mud, 
temperature 509 F. U.S. N. Mus. 96,926. 
This species differs from €. ungaricus iu its closely coiled spire and different 
periostraeum, and from the Peruvian C. ungaricoides Orbigny, in its strong sculp- 
ture, symmetrical habit, and different color. 
Hipponicidae. 
HIPPONIX DEFRANCE. 
Capulus (pars) Montford, Conch. Syst., 1810, 2, p. 55, and figure. 
Amalthea a, Schumacher, Essai, 1817, p. 181, sole ex. A. conica Schumacher = Patella 
australis Lam., fide Smith. Not Amaltheus Montfort, 1810. 
Hipponix Defrance, Bull. Soc. Philom. Paris, Jan., 1819, 3me ser, p. 8-9 (type, H. 
cornucopiae Defr.) Journ. de phys., de chymie, d’hist. nat., etc., Mar., 1819, 88, 
p. 217; Ferussac, Tableau, 1821, p. xxxvii. ; Defrance, Dict. Sci, Nat., 1821, 
tom. 21, p. 185; Deshayes, Encyc. Méth., 1830, 8, p. 274; Anton, Verzeich- 
niss, 1839, p. 28. 
Pileopsis (pars) Lamarck, Anim. s. Vert, 1822, 6, 2, p. 19 (Les hyponices Defrance), 
Pileopsis cornucopiae Lamarck ; Defrance, Tabl. Corps Organ., 1824, Les hip- 
ponices, pp. 19, 14, 111, 134. 
Hipponyx Blainville, Dict. Sci. Nat., 1824, 32, p. 297; Man. Conch., 1825, p. 607 ; 
Sowerby, Genera, 1820, part 1, 1st ed., pl. 3; 1821, 2d ed., pl. 3; Bowdich, 
Elem. Conch, 1822, 1, p. 35, H. cornucopiae Defr. ; Swainson, Man. Malac, 
1840, p. 356. 
Malluvium Melvill, Proc. Mal. Soc. Lond., June, 1906, 7, p. 82; type, Capulus 
lissus E. A. Smith. 
According to the proposed rule, which seems generally accepted by systematists 
(though to the writer it appears not only unnecessary but objectionable), the 
presence in nomenclature of Amaltheus precludes the use of Amalthea Schu- 
macher. The name Hipponix was consistently used by Defrance and others, and 
no derivation given in the original diagnosis; the alteration, therefore, by Blain- 
ville, five years later, was gratuitous, though not unnatural, according to the 
notions of the time. 
Lamarck, ignoring Montfort's name of Capulus, evidently intended to include, 
as Montfort did, both Capulus and species of Hipponix in his genus Pileopsis, 
which thus becomes an exact synonym of Capulus Montfort. Lamarck’s name, 
though not published, was evidently in use among the naturalists of the group 
associated at the Museum at Paris, and it was the discovery of the shelly support 
secreted by the Hipponix cornucopiae of the faluns of Hauteville, which led Defrance 
