28 Mr. Sylvanus Hanley on the 



Gray, who subsequently referred the forgotten T. penaatifera 

 of Blainville {loo. cit. p. 269) to Turton's species. The 

 British Museum does not possess the beautiful pallet ascribed 

 to it in the text of the ' Iconica.' 



*2^. megatJiorax\ Gould, — In what work? Can the name 

 te a inistake or a misprint for T. tlioracites of Gould's * Otia ' 

 (from Proc. Bost. vol. vi.), otherwise omitted? It is cer- 

 tainly, however, not the Calohates thoracites of Wright in the 

 Linnean Soc. Trans, (vol. xxv. pi. Ixiv.), or its ally G. aus- 

 tralis (ib. figs. 1-5), both of which are here omitted. 



T. campanulata^ Deshayes. — This supposed manuscript 

 species has been quoted by Tryon — whose monograph evinces 

 a most painstaking research — as the real 8tutchburyi of Blain- 

 ville ! I could not descry the delineated valves in the British 

 Museum ; but Mr. E. Smith writes as follows : — '' The figures 

 give a very rough notion of the valves copied. The auricle 

 is both too long and too wide, and in fig. 9, a, the anterior 

 area is not sufilciently large." 



'\T. Saulii. — This supposed manuscript species of Professor 

 Wright combines the valves of the Nausitora Saulii of 

 Wright (Trans. Linn. Soc. vol. xxv. pi. Ixv. tigs. 9-1 5) with 

 the pallets of Kuphus Mannii oi the same plate (figs. 1-8). 

 Such combinations render identification hopeless to those 

 whose libraries and whose leisure for research are limited. 



T. hatava. — This is not the shell designed by Spengler 

 (Skriv. Nat. Selskab. vol. ii. pt. 1), whose characteristic figure 

 of a pallet (pi. ii. fig. 3) coincides precisely with that of the 

 navalis of the ' Iconica,' and is very different from the one here 

 depicted. Surely the ascribed locality Batavia (which is not 



* " Two specimens had been so labelled in the British Museum from the 

 Cumingian collection. The drawings differ in several particulars ; the 

 lower or narrow end of the valves (fig. 8, b) is much too incurved, and 

 the inferior margin of the anterior area is also too arcuated. In fig. 8, «, 

 the auricle is too prominent, and the central portion of the valve too 

 narrow." — E. Smith. 



t Mr. Smith writes that, although the drawings are rough and incor- 

 rect, yet they are perhaps better than those in the ' Linnean Transactions.' 

 Fig. 10, a, seems to him imaginative^ for he could not find anything like 

 it in the museum. The tablet indicated Callao, not Callas Bay ; the 

 specimens came from Miss Saul (1853), and why Professor Wright 

 ascribed them to Port Phillip, Australia, was unknown to him. 



