564 REPORT—1863. 
11. Modiola capax, Conr. Galapagos, Cuming. [Lower} California, Nuttall. 
Mazatlan, Carpenter. [Reiyen is the authority for the shells described 
in the Maz. Cat., not Cpr. ] 
17. Modiola Braziliensis, Chem. “ Brazil.” [At f. 31, which appears the true 
Brazilian shell, we are informed that this specimen is a “variety from 
Guayaquil.” ] 
Modiola nitens, “ Cpr. Cat. Reigen Col. Brit. Mus. California.” [The shell 
was erroneously described as from “ California” in P. Z.S., aud does not 
appear in the Reigen Mazatlan Cat.: =. subpurpwreus, Mus. Cum. 
5. Lithodomus cinnamominus, Chem, Philippine Is. and St. Thomas, W.I. [=Z 
cinnamomeus, Maz. Cat. 177. Probably an Adula. | 
8. Lithodomus Cumingianus, Dky., MS. ‘ North Australia and Mazatlan.” {The 
species is figured trom the Mazatlan specimen, which may probably be 
the adult form of Z. calyculatus, Cpr.* The cup is not distinct, but 
shows a tendency to the peculiar formation described in Maz, Cat. no. 174, 
Rve.’s diagnosis, however, appears written from Dkr.’s Australian speci- 
mens, so labelled in Mus. Cum.—a very distinct species, without incrus- 
tations. The name was given by Mr. Cuming to a large Chilian species 
brought by the U.S. Expl. ap 
12. Lithodomus Grunert, Phil. MS. in Mus. Cum. “N, Zealand.” [The species 
=L. falcatus, Gid., and is certainly from California, where it is found in 
the rocks with Pholadidea penita. | 
18. Lithodomus teres, Phil. “Mazatlan.” [The specimens in Mus. Cum. are 
labelled “ Cagayan, Phil.” 
14. Lithodomus coarctata, Diy. Galapagos, Cuming. [= Crenella e., Maz. Cat. 172.) 
16. Lithodomus caudigerus, Lam. “ West Indies” [without authority]. “The 
calcareous incrustation produced beyond the ant. extremity is no specific 
characteristic.” [Vide reasons for contrary opinion, Maz. Cat. no. 176: 
= TL. aristatus. Dr. Stimpson has seen Lithophagus arranging its peculiar 
incrustation with its foot. | 
24, Lithodomus pessulatus, Rve. (Oct. 1857). Hab. >— [The unique sp. figured is 
labelled “ Mazatlan” in Mus. Cum, It resembles plwmula, with ventral 
transverse rug. | 
26. Lithodomus subula, Rve. Hab.?— {=L. plumula, hie 
6, Avicula Cumingit, Rve., March 1857. ‘Ld. Hood's Is., Pacific Ocean, 
attached to rocks, 10 fms., Cuming.” |[?=Margaritiphora fimbriata, 
Dix., var. 
9, Avicula Babak Rve. Panama, under stones at low water, Cuming. [=M. 
Jimbriata, Dky.,=M. Mazatlanica, Hanl.| “ Differs from Cuwmingit in 
regular sequence of scales, developed only at margin, and yellowish tone 
of colour.” 
67, Avicula heteroptera, Lam. N. Holland. “ =A. sterna, Gld.” [Gould’s species 
is from Gulf Cal.; but in Mus. Cum. it is marked inside “ semisugutta.” | 
4. Placunanomia foliata, Brod. Is. Muerte, Bay Guayaquil. “ May=echinata, 
W.L., but has very much larger orifice.” 
7. Placunanomia macroschisma, Desh. ‘ Onalaska, Cuming” [who never was 
there]. Kamtschatka, Desh. [Vancouver district, abundant. ] 
7. Thracia plicata, Desh.“ Mr. Cuming has specimens from California and St. 
Thomas, W.I.” [Cape St. Lucas, Xantus. ] 
Melania. [Various species are described from ‘ Central America,” &c., which 
or supposed, are rejected altogether. Thus shells sent to Mr. Cuming, with authentic 
name and locality attached, may appear soon after without any, or with erroneous, 
quotation. The error is rendered graver by appearing with the weighty authority of 
* Mus. Cum.” 
* The species described in the Brit. Mus. Cat. seldom appear in the monographs, 
unless there happen to b> a specimen in Mus. Cum. Some of the monographers often 
content themselves with figuring the shells that come most easily to hand; and do not 
seem to consider it a part of their work to pass judgment on previously described 
species, or to concern themselves with what are small or difficult. 
