DALL] REVIEW OF AMERICAN VOLUTID. 355 
number 10 on Argenville’s plate, is probably Melongena cornuta 
Agassiz, since M. melongena is, I believe, not known as a European 
fossil, at least as species are understood nowadays. 
Subfamily CARIcELLIN# Dall 
After some uncertainty I have decided to adopt this name for the 
subfamily, characterized by a membranous protoconch, in contrast 
to the shelly protoconch of the typical volutes. 
Genus ADELOMELON Dall 
Adelomelon Dati, Nautilus, April, 1906, vol. x1x, no. 12, p. 143. Type 
V oluta ancilla Solander, 1786. 
Scaphella, Cymbiola, etc., of authors, not of Swarnson, 1832. 
ADELOMELON ANCILLA Solander 
Voluta ancilla SoLANDER, in Portland Catalogue, p. 137, no. 3061, 1786. 
Founded on D’Avila’s “grand Buccin Magellanique,” vol. 1, pl. vim, 
fig. s, no. 181, p. 140, 1767; cf. also Diderot. Encycl. Recueil des 
Planches, vi, pl. 67, fig. 9, 1768; Favanne, Conchyl., pl. xxvii, fig. E, 
1780; Kammerer, Cat. Rudolstadt, pl. vi, fig. 1, 1786. 
V oluta magellanica CHEmMNitz, Conch. Cat., x, pp. 138-9, 1788, ex parte, 
figs. excl. 
Voluta spectabilis GMELIN, Syst. Nat., vi, p. 3468, no. 142, 1792. 
Voluta ancilla LAMARcK, Ann. du Mus., xvut, p. 69, 1811; Encycl. Méth., 
pl. 385, fig. 3, 1816; Anim. s. Vert., vi, p. 343, 1822. GouLp, Exped. 
Shells, Wilkes Ex. Exped., pl. xx, fig. 358, 1852. 
Voluta magellanica LAHILLE, Rev. Mus. de la Plata, vi, p. 315, ex parte 
(? pl. vit, figs. 149, 154, pl. vit, fig. 175), 1895. 
V oluta (Cymbiola) ancilla CHENU, Man. Conchyl., 1, p. 189, fig. 955, 1850. 
Adelomelon ancilla Dati, Nautilus, x1x, no. 12, p. 143, April, 1906. 
Hab. Argentine coast and south to 43° south latitude, low water 
to fifty fathoms, on sandy or muddy bottom. 
This species was named by Solander in the Portland Catalogue, 
and by some of the early writers was confused with allied forms. 
I have cited only the figures which appear to relate to the same 
species as that of D’Avila, upon whose figure Solander’s name rests. 
The name given by Chemnitz is a return to D’Avila’s vernacular 
name; the former regarded V’. ancilla as identical with his own V. 
magellanica in which he included what we now regard as several 
species. But the form figured by Chemnitz is not the same as that 
regarded as magellanica by most iconographers; neither is it the 
same as Solander’s ancilla. The true ancilla was figured by Lamarck 
in the Encyclopedie and distinguished from magellanica by excel- 
lent figures. Since that time the only figure of V. ancilla which I 
