﻿260 
  PROCEEDINGS 
  OF 
  THE 
  MALACOLOGICAL 
  SOCIETY. 
  

  

  I 
  have 
  put 
  these 
  facts 
  forward 
  as 
  it 
  seems 
  important 
  tliat 
  Saceo's 
  

   discover}^ 
  shouki 
  he 
  confirmed 
  or 
  otherwise, 
  and 
  Adeorlis 
  placed 
  upon 
  

   a 
  secure 
  basis 
  or 
  rejected. 
  

  

  Ilaiua. 
  

  

  Introduced 
  as 
  a 
  subf2;enus 
  of 
  Liotia 
  (Gen. 
  llec. 
  Moll., 
  1854, 
  p. 
  405) 
  

   for 
  the 
  species 
  Delphinula 
  evoluta, 
  Reeve, 
  this 
  name 
  has 
  given 
  

   trouble 
  owing 
  to 
  the 
  similarity 
  of 
  the 
  diagnosis 
  to 
  shells 
  commonly 
  

   referred 
  to 
  Omahxis. 
  I 
  have 
  pointed 
  out 
  that 
  ' 
  Omalaxoid 
  ' 
  shells 
  

   have 
  anastrophic 
  apices. 
  The 
  type 
  lot 
  of 
  evoluta, 
  though 
  superficially 
  

   similar 
  to 
  some 
  ' 
  Omalaxoid 
  ' 
  shells, 
  as 
  instance 
  Pseudomalaxis 
  

   Macandrewi, 
  Iredale, 
  differ 
  wi 
  tolo 
  when 
  critically 
  examined. 
  They 
  

   retain 
  their 
  opercula, 
  which 
  at 
  once 
  separates 
  them 
  from 
  that 
  group, 
  

   as 
  it 
  is 
  horny, 
  raultispiral. 
  From 
  Discosolis 
  nohilis, 
  Yerrill, 
  they 
  are 
  

   differentiated 
  by 
  their 
  apices 
  ; 
  in 
  llaira 
  evoluta 
  the 
  apex 
  is 
  minute 
  and 
  

   dextral. 
  

  

  The 
  shells 
  are 
  quite 
  solid 
  and 
  have 
  the 
  character 
  of 
  Liotina, 
  and 
  

   I 
  am 
  inclined 
  to 
  endorse 
  the 
  action 
  of 
  the 
  brothers 
  Adams 
  in 
  placing 
  

   them 
  near 
  that 
  genus. 
  They 
  quite 
  recall 
  such 
  a 
  shell 
  as 
  Liotina 
  

   discoidea, 
  Reeve. 
  

  

  Haliotis. 
  

  

  In 
  his 
  Conch. 
  Syst., 
  vol. 
  ii, 
  1810, 
  Montfort 
  introduced 
  Padollus 
  for 
  

   rubtcmidus, 
  pp. 
  114-15, 
  and 
  retsi'med 
  S'aliotis 
  ior 
  astmnus, 
  pp. 
  118-19. 
  

   He 
  definitely 
  stated 
  " 
  Espece 
  servant 
  de 
  type 
  au 
  genre", 
  so 
  that 
  

   it 
  seems 
  to 
  me 
  that 
  Montfort's 
  action 
  must 
  be 
  accepted, 
  as 
  asinmus 
  

   is 
  one 
  of 
  the 
  original 
  Linnean 
  species. 
  Pilsbry, 
  in 
  the 
  Man. 
  Conch., 
  

   vol. 
  xii, 
  p. 
  75, 
  1890, 
  accepted 
  Gray's 
  designation 
  of 
  1847, 
  and 
  treated 
  

   Montfort's 
  Haliotis 
  as 
  a 
  new 
  genus. 
  But 
  I 
  believe 
  that 
  view 
  to 
  

   be 
  incorrect, 
  and 
  that 
  we 
  must 
  follow 
  Montfort 
  in 
  his 
  separation 
  of 
  

   the 
  genus 
  Haliotis. 
  

  

  Newtoniei.la. 
  

  

  Cossmann 
  (Ann. 
  Soc. 
  Roj-. 
  Malac. 
  Belg., 
  vol. 
  xxviii, 
  for 
  the 
  year 
  

   1893, 
  p. 
  18) 
  proposed 
  Neivtoniella 
  to 
  replace 
  his 
  own 
  Newtonia 
  

   (Annuaire 
  Geol., 
  vol. 
  viii, 
  1891, 
  p. 
  721), 
  preoccupied. 
  Newtonia 
  was 
  

   provided 
  as 
  a 
  substitute 
  for 
  Cerithiella, 
  Verrill 
  (Trans. 
  Conn. 
  Acad., 
  

   vol. 
  V, 
  p. 
  522, 
  1882), 
  which 
  itself 
  had 
  been 
  introduced 
  on 
  account 
  

   of 
  the 
  name 
  Lovenella, 
  Sars 
  (Moll. 
  Reg. 
  Arct. 
  Norv., 
  p. 
  187, 
  

   1878), 
  being 
  ineligible 
  through 
  a 
  prior 
  use 
  of 
  that 
  name. 
  The 
  

   type 
  of 
  Lovenella 
  was 
  Cerithium 
  metxda, 
  Loven, 
  and 
  as 
  no 
  other 
  

   type 
  was 
  designated 
  at 
  the 
  times 
  of 
  introduction, 
  consequently 
  that 
  

   species 
  became 
  the 
  type 
  of 
  Cerithiella, 
  Newtonia, 
  and 
  Newtoniella. 
  

   In 
  the 
  Ann. 
  Soc. 
  Roy 
  ."^ 
  Malac. 
  Belg. 
  for 
  the 
  year 
  1896 
  (1899), 
  p. 
  29, 
  

   Cossmann 
  named 
  Cerithium 
  claims, 
  Lamarck, 
  as 
  type 
  of 
  Neivtoniella, 
  

   but 
  that 
  action 
  cannot 
  be 
  recognized. 
  Without 
  a 
  true 
  knowledge 
  or 
  

   appreciation 
  of 
  the 
  facts 
  Newtoniella 
  has 
  been 
  allowed 
  to 
  gain 
  an 
  

   entry 
  into 
  recent 
  conchological 
  literature. 
  

  

  Cossmann 
  claimed 
  that 
  Cerithiella, 
  Verrill, 
  was 
  invalidated 
  by 
  

   Ceritella, 
  Morris 
  & 
  Lycett 
  (Mon. 
  Gt. 
  Ool. 
  Moll., 
  Palseont. 
  Soc, 
  

   1850, 
  p. 
  37), 
  and 
  in 
  my 
  opinion 
  the 
  two 
  names 
  are 
  sufficiently 
  

  

  