668 MR. TOM IREDALE ON MOLLUSCA 
If this were the first introduction, I/. metcalfei has priority, but 
in Hanley’s ‘ Bivalve Shells,’ these two species are again described 
and figured. ‘The locality given for both species is the Philippine 
Tslands, and the specimens above noted from the Cuming Collection 
are so labelled. Both names appear on the same page, but here 
again I. metcalfei appears first. According to the data given 
in the Introduction to the work this page appeared in 1843! 
Whichever appeared first, I conclude that MZ. metcalfer would 
claim usage in preference to MZ. philippinarum. Ii 1t be conceded 
that both species were described from the same locality, there 
cannot be the slightest hesitation in accepting the identity of 
the two species, the very slight difference in form being almost 
certainly due to age. 
ANTIGONA TIARA (Dillwyn, 1817) *. 
In illegally rejecting Cytherea of Bolten 1798 and accepting 
Antigona Schumacher 1817 in its stead, Jukes-Browne (Proce, 
Malac. Soc. (Lond.) vol. xi. p. 70, 1914) has unwittingly selected 
the most appropriate name. For a valid reason for the rejection 
of Cytherea Bolten 1798 exists in the fact that there is a prior 
Cytherea of Fabricius, Ent. Syst. vol. iv. p. 413, 1794, as well as 
a Cythere O. F. Miller, Entomostraca, p. 63, 1785. This was 
unknown to Jukes-Browne and overlooked by Dall, Hedley, 
and Suter, who have recently used Bolten’s name. According to 
nomenclators, Antigona Schumacher 1817 was predated by Aznta- 
gonus Htibner 1816, and hence, according to British usage, 
invalid ; but Sherborn has shown that Antigonus was not 
published by Hiibner until 1820, leaving Antigona unassailable. 
This detail was also unknown to Jukes-Browne as to most 
malacologists. 
ACANTHOPLEURA SPINOSA (Bruguiere, 1792). 
Specimens of large size were obtained, and these seem inter- 
esting on account of the southern distribution, this being the 
furthest south record I have traced. 
ACANTHOPLEURA GEMMATA (Blainville, 1825). 
For the past five years I have been studying the forms of the 
genus Acanthopleura, especially with relation to those grouped by 
Pilsbry (Man. Conch. vol. xiv. pp. 221-226, 1893) under the name 
Acanthopleura spiniger Sowerby. This would seem an appropriate 
place to note generally the points raised. 
Hedley has accepted for the species name Linné’s Chiton 
aculeatus, but I agree with Pilsbry in rejecting this as indeter- 
minable. Pilsbry, however, discarded Chiton gemmatus Blainville 
(Dict. Sci. Nat. vol. xxxvi. p. 544, 1825) and selected Chiton 
spiniger Sowerby (Mag. Nat. Hist. 1840, p. 287, Suppl. pl. xvi. 
fig. 2) instead. 
* {The parentheses around the names of authors placed after scientific names in 
this paper are used in accordance with Article 23 of the International Rules of 
Nomenclature (Proc. 7th Int. Cong. Boston, 1907, p. 44 (1912))—Epiror. | 
