78 



IL Mittheilungen ans Museen, Instituten etc. 



Linnean Society of New South Wales. 



August 27th, 1902. — 1) Botanical. — 2) Life-Histories of, and Notes 

 on Australian Neuroptera. By W. W. Froggatt, F.L.S. One species of the 

 Family Panorpidae [Bittacus mistralis Klug) and twelve of the Family 

 Hemerobiidae are treated of. — 3) and 4) Botanical. — 5) The Ulcer Disease 

 (Black Ophthalmia?) of Rainbow Trout. By E,. Greig Smith, M.Sc, Mac- 

 leay Bacteriologist to the Society. The ulcer disease of rainbow trout 

 appears to be identical with the brook trout disease of American writers. 

 The disease called black ophthalmia recently occurred at the same time as 

 the ulcer disease in a tank of rainbow trout, but there is reason to believe 

 that these two are not the same disease. From the ulcers, Micrococcus pyogenes 

 was isolated. This produces somewhat similar lesions in mammals. The 

 action of the micrococcus in trout appeared to be influenced by the unhealthy 

 conditions to which the fishes had been subjected. — Mr. D. G. Stead 

 exhibited life-sized photographs of a very large Black Bream [Chrysophrys 

 australis) showing the fish in profile and in face-view. The fish weighed 4 lbs. 

 14 ozs., and was of the following dimensions; — total length 19 3 / 4 , height of 

 body 7, thickness 2 3 /4> girth 1 5 3 / 4 inches. — Mr. Waterhouse exhibited* 

 some noteworthy specimens of Rhopalocera as follows: — Abisara segeo'a, Hew. 

 (q^Q)} from Cape York; an Erycinid, new to Australia, but a well-known 

 New Guinea form; Holochila margarita Semper (q^Q), from Cape York, 

 which has passed unnoticed since its description; Arhopala Wildei Misk. (q 1 ), 

 from Cairns; and Cyaniris temila Misk. (cfQ), from Cairns, hitherto 

 placed in the genus Lycaena. 



September 24th, 1902. — 1) and 2) Botanical. — 3) Notes on Proso- 

 branchiata. Part i. Lotorinm. By IT. Leighton Kesteven. The first portion 

 of the paper is a discussion of the synonymy of the genus and family. 

 The conclusions are in favour of the adoption of Montfort's name Lotorium 

 for the genus, and Harris's Lotoriidae for the family. The second part deals 

 with the arrangement of the species of the genus. The writer contends that 

 it is unnatural, and only tending to confusion, to regard Tryon's subgenera 

 as full genera; and he further seeks to prove that these subgenera are 

 redundant and useless. In support of his argument, he draws up , what he 

 calls, lines of generic similiarity which connect completely the extreme forms 

 of the genus. The form of the protoconch is also used in support of his 

 argument. Representatives of twenty-six species, nine of which are from 

 fossils, are figured, and descriptions of a few others from various sources 

 are also given. It is by this means shown that if the group known of old as 

 Triton is to be split up, forms utterly unlike must be grouped together, and 

 others very similar must be separated. He proposes an arrangement of the 

 species similar to that adopted by Pilsbry for the species of the various 

 genera of Helices, The advantages claimed for this arrangement are, firstly, 

 that as none of the sectional names are quotable, they are not additions to 

 an already overburdened nomenclature; and secondly, that the groups being 

 small and composed of essentially similar species, their citation should at 

 once convey to the reader a tangible type. On the evidence of the apex it 



