THE CONCHOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE 

 GENERA AND SECTIONS OF THE PUPININiE. 



By EDWARD COLLIER. 



(Read before the Society, June 8th, 1904). 



My principal purpose to-night is to bring before you the shells of the 

 sub-family Pupininte, and more particularly the differences between 

 the various sections of the genus Pupina. I have up to recently 

 arranged my shells after Paetel, who places the Pupininae in the 

 family Cyclostomacea, but according to Fischer they belong to the 

 family Cyclophoridse, which view I believe to be correct. 



Paetel in his catalogue divides his sub-family Pupina into the 

 following ten genera, viz. -.—Megalomastoma, Tomocychis, Cataulus, 

 Rhaphaulus, Stteptauhis, Puptnella, Mesosioma, Pupina, Pseudo- 

 pomatias and Bellardiella, but Fischer in his sub-family Pupininse has 

 only five genera, viz. : — Piipina (in which he includes as sub-genera 

 Sireptaulus, Pupinella and Anaulits or Rhaphaulus and places Bellar- 

 diella as only a section of Pupina), Hybocystis, Cataulus, Coptocheilus 

 and Megaloniastonia in which he includes Toinocyclus as a sub-genus. 



The Pupininse, with the exception of Megalomastonia and 

 Toinocyclus, are all found in the region bounded by India, Burmah, 

 through the lower part of China to Japan, down through the Philippine 

 Islands and New Guinea, including the Solomon Islands, New 

 Hebrides and New Caledonia to the northern part of Australia and 

 the islands between there and Ceylon. In the Cambridge "Natural 

 History, Section Mollusca," by the Rev. A. H. Cooke, this region 

 coincides with what he calls the Oriental Region, with the addition of 

 New Guinea and the neighbouring islands to the east, from his 

 Australian Region. 



Megalomastonia and Tomocyclus according to Fischer are all found 

 in the West Indies and Guatemala, a very different locality from the 

 Pupininae, but he only includes the true Megalomastonia, with its 

 section Farcimen and its sub-genus Tomocyclus. Paetel, however, 

 includes in Megalo?nastoma section Hainesia, which Fischer puts in 

 the Cyclostomatidee, because of the form of its horny operculum. 

 Paetel also includes section Coptocheilus, which Fischer separates from 

 Megalomastonia and makes into a separate genus, and as all the 

 Coptocheilus come from the Oriental Region I have no doubt this will 

 be correct. Paetel, however, gives two species of Coptocheilus, one 

 from Guatemala and the other from Hayti, but on comparison these 

 are not referable to Coptocheilus as there seem to be no generic 

 differences between his Coptocheilus giiildingianum Pfr. and his 

 Megalomasto7na antillarum Sow. 



