﻿PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 381 



aJhula of Greenland, wbich, according to Jeffreys, is distinct from our 

 shell, so named by Gould. These three forms all belong to Mcnestho 

 M oiler {— Liostomia G. O. Sars). 



Auriculina insculpta ? (Mont.)- 



G. O. Sars, oji. cit., p. 204, pi. 11, figs. 11, 1'2; \A. xviii, fig. 38 (operculum). 



A single dead and probably immature specimen, which I refer doubt- 

 fully to this species, was taken at station 892, in 487 fathoms. It agrees 

 nearly, in form and sculpture, with the figure (12) given by Sars, but our 

 shell is shorter, ovate-fusiform. There are five slightly convex whorls ; 

 the anterior half of the body-whorl is covered with distinct, fine, spiral 

 grooves ; nuclear whorl rounded, rather large, partially incurved. A^ier- 

 ture narrow-ovate; a slight fold on the columella; no umbilicus. 



Diaphana Browu, 1827 (restricted) ; H. & A. Adams. 



Utriculns (pari^) Browu, 111. Brit. Couch., 1844 {non Schumacher, 1817). 

 UtnvHlus G. O. Sars, Moll. Eeg. Arct. Norv., p. 28,''>. 



. In 1827 Brown proposed the name Diaphana for certain species of 

 shells figured by him (but not described), which n'ow are known to belong- 

 partly to the restricted modern genus fJtriculus and partly to Amphi- 

 sphyra Loven, 184G. But he did not then define the genus, and in a later 

 edition of liis work (1844) he discarded the name and substituted Utri- 

 culns for it.* But Vtriculus had been used by Schumacher, in 1817, for a 

 different genus {Gonidcv). Loven's name [AmpMsphyra), established by 

 him for Brown's second section of Utricidus, should, therefore, be re- 

 tained for that group, which is a good genus. Diaphana and Utricidus, 

 as used by Browu, were absolutely synonymous, but Diaphana, as used 

 by G. O. Sars, is a s^monym of Amphisphi/ra. In its original sense, Dia- 

 phana might be i-ejected, because undefined. But since Utyicidus had 

 been preoccupied, it seems necessaiy to retain Diaphana for the first 

 section of Brown's genus, corresponding nearly with Utricidus of G. O. 

 Sars. This is also in accordance with the nomenclature in H. & A. 

 Adams's Genera of Shells. 



The absence of an odontoi^hore in Diaphana H. & A. Adams = Utri- 

 culus Sars, is certainlj' a very important character by which the genus 

 can easily be distinguished from Cylichna and Amphisphyra. But this 

 genus cannot always be distinguished from Cylichna by the shell alone. 

 On that account Loven, Jeffreys, and other able conchologists have re- 

 ferred some of the species of ^^Utricidus^^ to Cylichna. 



Diaphana nitidula (Loven) Verrill. 



Cyliclina nitidula Lov6n, op. cit., p. 142, 1846. 



Vtriculus nitiduhis G. O. Sars, op. cit., p. 286, j)l. 17, fig. 13; pi. 20, fig. 3; pi. 

 xi, figs. 6fl, 6& (gizzard, &c.). 



This shell has been dredged by us in several localities in deep water 

 off the coast of New England and ISTova Scotia, and by Mr. Whiteaves 

 in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence. This season it was taken at stations 

 891, 892, and 894, in 3C5 to 500 fathoms. 



* This change was proLably first made in the edition of 1834, which I am unable to 

 consult. 



