292 " THETIS " SCIENTIFIC RESULTS. 



N U C U L A, Lamarck. 



NUCULA OBLIQUA, Lamarck. 



Nucula obliqua, Lamarck (not Hanley, Smith, &c.), Anim. s. vert., 

 vi., 1, 1819, p. 59 ; Id., Chenu, Man. Conch., ii., 1862, p. 179, 

 f. 897. JV. tenisoni, Pritchard, Proc. Eoy, See. Vic, viii., 

 1896, p. 128. 



Station 49. 



Lamarck notes that his species was gathered at the " Cap aux 

 Huitres," by Peron. There can be no reasonable doubt that this 

 place is Oyster Bay, Maria Island, Tasmania, where Peron made 

 a large collection of shells in February, 1802. The "Thetis" 

 shells, taken oif Port Kembla in 63-75 fathoms, are so named 

 because they correspond not only with Lamarck's description and 

 Chenu's figure of the type, but also with specimens from the 

 Derwent River, Tasmania, presented by Mr. W. L. May. But 

 if they are rightly regarded as JV. obliqua, it follows that 

 Lamarck's species has been misinterpreted by all later writers. 



An allied species has been mistaken for JV. obliqua by Hanley 

 and Smith. "^ It is common off the coast of tropical Queensland, 

 in a depth of about 20 fathoms. Whereas Lamarck describes 

 the shell from the Cap aux Huitres as thin, with '■ margine integer- 

 rimo," and 11 mm. long, the Queensland shell is very solid and 

 the margin is microscopically crenulated, and it is the largest 

 living species. I have taken it off the Palm Islands, 20 mm. long, 

 and Dr. Coppinger's specimens from the Arafura Sea reached 

 28 mm. The northern species is longer in proportion to height 

 than the Tasmanian, and differs by having just anterior to the 

 long row of teeth a slight but constant inflexion of the dorsal 

 margin. I propose to distinguish the Queensland species as 

 Nticula svperba, nom. inut. 



After re-examining the question, the Curator (Mr. R. Etheridge, 

 Junr.), and I support Mr. G. B. Pritchard in considering that there 

 is no specific difference between .A^. obliqua, as here identified, and 

 the Eocene fossils described by Tenison Woods as JV. tttmida.f 

 Mr. R. Etheridge, Junr., has already pointed outj. that the name 

 JV. tumida was preoccupied by Phillips.!^ Pritchard adds that 



* Hanley— Thes. Conch., 1860, iii., p. 156, pi. ccxxx., f. 150; Smith- 

 Chall. Rep., Zool., xiii., 1885, p. 225. 

 t Ten. Woods— Proc. Roy. Soc.Tas. for 1876 (1877), p. 111. 

 + Etheridge— Cat. Australian Fossils, 1878, p. 155. 

 § Phillips -lUustr. Geol. Yorkshire, 1836, pt. 2, pi. 5, f. 15. 



