284 JOURNAL OF CONCHOLOGY, VOL. I4, NO. 9, JANUARY, I915. 



Of course the name Pitaria must go with the type form {P. tninens) — 

 there is no getting out of that, because it was the original '■'■ Pilar'''' of 

 Adanson ; but I could propose a new name, say Pitarina, for those which 

 compose my Group 3. The genus could then remain as Pitaria, with a sub- 

 genus Pitarina, though in this case the type-form would have to be excluded 

 from the definition. 



I do not quite see at present the best way of getting over this diffi- 

 culty. P. tutnens is really a link between Amiantis and Pitaria. 



Believe me, Yours very truly, 



A. J. Jukes-Browne. 



Westleigh, Torquay, 



January 18, 1913. 

 Dear Mr. Melvill : 



I appreciate your kindness in sending me so many of your Pitarias, 

 which duly reached me this morning, having I see been posted yesterday. 



I have unpacked thein, and find they have travelled without harm. I 

 will go through them carefully, and name as many as I can. At present I 

 will only say that the shells in a glass- topped box, labelled at back Cyiherea 

 exilis Desh. ?, are not that species, but the Cytherea nitidiila of Lamarck, 

 which is a Tivela. I have long been wanting to see this species, which 

 appears to be rare, and comes from the west coast of North America (see 

 Carpenter's List). 



Your specimens are odd valves, evidently picked up on the shore, and 

 not found alive. 



The three shells labelled '■^nitida, Tasmania," are the Venus nitida of 

 Quoy and Gaim. ( = liEvigata Sow., 1835). It is not a Pitaria, nor any kind 

 of Cytherea, lacking an anterior lateral tooth, but appears to be a Marcia, 

 allied to M. kochii of South Africa. 



Of the others I will write when I have had time to examine them. 

 Believe me. Yours sincerely, 



A. J. Jukes-Browne. 



Westleigh, Torquay, 



February 19, 191 3. 

 Dear Mr. Melvill : 



I am now able to return the second set of shells which you kindly lent 

 me for examination. Some of them were correctly named, but others I 

 have been able to rectify, as you will see from the labels. 



I think \Pitnrid\ lata and obliquata are really varieties of one and the 

 same species, and I don't see much difference between prora (Conrad) and 

 obliquata (Hanley). 



Your Hong-Kong shell is a rather rare form, the alabastruin of Sow- 

 erby, and I am glad to have seen it. 



The shell I have named pellucida (Lam.) is certainly the li/natula('S)0'w.), 

 but I believe them to be identical ; I wrote to Sowerby for both, but he 

 could only send me liiiiatula, saying that they could not be sure oi pellucida. 

 Lamarck's description applies to liinatula, but is too short, and his shell has 

 never been figured. Romer tries to distinguish between them, but I doubt 

 his accuracy, as it does not appear that he saw the type of either. 



