332 • " THETIS " SCIENTIFIC RESULTS. 



Family TROCHID^. 

 M I N O L I A, A. Adams. 



MINOLTA ROSULENTA, Watson, sp. 



Solarium rosulentum, Watson, Chall. Rep., Zool., xv., 1886, p. 136, 

 pi. viii., f. 12. 



Stations 28, 33, 49. 



It is a mystery to me why the Rev. B. Watson, who recognised 

 the family likeness of this species, should finally judge it to be a 

 Solarium. Sufficient evidence that his decision must be reversed 

 is given by the brilliant iridescence of the aperture, the apex and 

 of any wound in a fresh specimen. It is nearly related to Minolia 

 pulcherrima, Angas. Unfortunately the shells before me are 

 empty, so that a further appeal to the soft parts cannot yet be 

 made. Our largest specimen slightly exceeds the type in size, 

 being eight millimetres in broadest diameter. 



Thi-ee complete specimens and one fragment were taken in 22 

 fathoms off the Manning River ; one specimen occurred in 24-27 

 fathoms in the north end of the Newcastle Bight ; and one in 

 63-75 fathoms off Port Kembla. 



MINOLIA TASMANICA, Ten. Woods. 



Margarita (Minolia) tasmanica, Ten. Woods, Proc. Roy. Soc. 

 Tas., 1876 (1877), p. 143. 



Minolia tasmanica, Pilsbry, Man. Conch., xi., 1889, p. 263, 

 pi. Ixix., f. 38, 39, 40. 



Stations 28, 33. 



My determination of this species is based on comparison with 

 co-types kindly lent me by the Rev. H. D. Atkinson. Tate and 

 May* unite this with M. vitiliginea, Menke, but I agree with 

 Pritchard and Gatliff in maintaining it as different.! The keel 

 <jn the shoulder of the whorl is the only character that separates 

 this from M. angulata,, A. Ad. 



* Tate & May— Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S. Wales, xxvi., 1901, p. 404. 

 t Pritchard & Gatliff— Proc. Roy Soc. Vict., xiv., 1902, p. 13.3. 



