BRAZIER : NOTES ON AUSTRALASIAN MOLLUSCA. 83 



his report on the Brachiopoda "Voyage of the 'Challenger, " 

 vol. i, pp. 20 — 52, identified it with Chemnitz's species. 

 Both species are quite distinct. Mr. Angas, in " Proc. 

 Zool. Soc, London," 187 1, p. loi, called it Terehratella 

 sanguinea Lam. firom specimens that I had obtained 

 dead at Green Point, in 1879. I sent specimens to Dr. 

 Davidson, labelled as Mege?-lia pulchella Sowerby, and on 

 the 30th July, 1879, I received an answer from Dr. David- 

 son as follows : — " Megerlia pulchella is a species with 

 which I am not fully satisfied. It may be distinct from 

 Megerlia sangui?iea ; but most naturalists seem to believe 

 that it merges into sanguinea, and of which it may be a 

 variety. I dare not yet pass a positive opinion on the 

 subject, and for the present the name pidcheUa may be 

 retained." I published these notes in the " Proc. Linnean 

 Soc, of N.S.W.," September 4th, 1879, vol. iv. ; and in 

 1885 I sent Dr. Davidson a large series of Brachiopoda, 

 from Port Jackson and the coast of N.S.W., and in his, I 

 am sorry to say, last letter, dated Town Free Museum, 

 Church Road, Brighton, 22nd July, 1885, he writes :— 

 " I will say only a few words about two of the species that 

 have interested me very much : first, about the Isnienia 

 pulchella, I agree with you it is distinct from /. sanguinea ; 

 the second species is an extremely interesting species ; it 

 is certainly not a Morrisia or Flatidia, but more nearly 

 resembles the Atretia gnomon of Jeffreys, and if new I will 

 give it your name. I will study it with very great care, and 

 in my next letter will tell you more about it." This last 

 species he named Atretia Brazieri M.S. It has since 

 been fully described by Miss Agnes Crane, in the " Proc. 

 Zool. Soc. of London," 1886, p. 181. Only this year I 

 have sent a series of Megerlia pulchella to the British 

 Museum, and I am pleased to say that my very great 

 friend, Mr. Edgar A. Smith, coincides with my views and 

 Dr. Davidson's that M. pulchella is quite distinct from 



