670 MR. TOM TREDALE ON MOLLUSCA 
described Turbo lamellosus. In the Conch.-Cab. {Kiister) Turbo, 
p- 41, Philippi figured this species, but renamed it Turbo foliaceus 
as his former name was preoccupied by Broderip. This would 
seem to be the entry quoted by Hedley, the titlepage of the 
volume giving 1846. In the British Museum copy of this work 
the dates of publication have been collated, as the titlepage date: 
veferred only to the first few pages. I there find that page 41 
appeared in 1847. 
Gray, in the Narr. Surv. Voy. ‘ Fly,’ vol. ii. p. 359, fig. 8, pl. 1. 
1847, described the same shell from Port Essington under the 
name J'urbo squamosus. There is no question of priority, how- 
ever, as there is a prior J'urbo foliaceus Gmelin (Syst. Nat. p. 3602, 
1791) invalidating Philippi’s name, : 
I have noted that Reeve (Conch. Icon. Turbo, fig. 17, 1848) 
gave the name 7urbo laminiferus to the same species, and that 
specimens from Torres Straits were independently named Z'urbo 
foliaceus by Hombron and Jacquinot, which name was published 
by Rousseau in the Voy. Péle Sud, vol. v. 1854, p. 60. The 
ficures (Moll. pl. xiv. figs. 34-37) may have been issued earlier, 
but I have no data, and the invalidity of the name obviates any 
inquiry. 
AcM#A SACCHARINA (Linné, 1758), var. 
Under the above name I have included two specimens. 
In his Queensland List Hedley admitted two species of Aemea 
under the names, Aemcea costata Sowerby 1839, and dAemaa 
saccharina Linné 1758. Why the former name was used I cannot 
say, as in the Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 1904, p. 189, Hedley himself 
went into the matter of the nomenclature of the Sydney shell 
known as Acmca costata Sowerby and endeavoured to prove that 
name inapplicable, and that the correct name was dAemea alti- 
costata Angas (Proe Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 1865, p. 56, pl. ii. fig. 1) 
given toa South Australian form. I have not seen any contro- 
version of Hedley’s argument, so with the help of Mr. G. C, 
Robson, of the British Museum, I tried to clear the matter 
up. Working at this group Mr. Robson recovered the spe- 
cimen from which the figure of Lottia? costata Sowerby (Zool. 
Beechey’s Voy. 1839, p. 147, pl. xxxix. fig. 1) was prepared, and 
it proves to have the data “ Arica, Peru” on the back of the 
tablet. It is obviously not the Australian shell, and this discovery 
absolutely disposes of Sowerby’s name as referable to the Sydney 
Acmea. 
The same species occurs in South Queensland, but in North 
Queensland it is replaced by a different species, which Hedley 
catalogued as Acmea saccharina Linné 1758. At Port Curtis. 
I collected a series of specimens, and the determination of the 
name to be used has caused quite a lot of trouble. 
Mr. Robson has investigated the question of the type locality 
of Linné’s Acmea saccharina and has fixed this as the Philippine 
