S.A. NAT., 
\0L. XVIII, No. 2. 
By TOM IREPALE. 
33. 
From near Blinman, east of the Flinders Range, a larger 
shell, very flattened, with the keel permanently retained over 25 
mm. in width, has the umbilicus narrow, but hidden by the 
leflected columella. The outer lip is thin and it is thus distin- 
guished from the true howardv. the larger shell is here named 
M, meridionale suspecttim aubsp. nov. No locality was given 
by Glide, and only “near Blinman” for many shells of the present 
form, which seem to intergrade, while the most extreme form is 
labelled Parachilna, and this might be fixed as the type locality. 
PI. I, fig. 27. Gude’s measurements are 28 mm., by 23.5 mm., 
by 16.5 mm. 
Meracomelon stutchburyi. 
1857. Helix stutchburyi Pfeiffer, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.), 1856, 
p.386, May 8 1857. “Drayton Range, North Australia 
(Mr. Stutchbury),” error=Port Elliott, South Australia. 
In the Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.), 1863, p.520, Apl. 20 1864, 
Angas wrote ^‘Helix {Hadra) stutchburyi Pfr. A somewhat thin, 
pale straw-coloured shell with a faint band, intermediate between 
//. cassajtdra and H. gilberti of New South Wales. From the 
scrubs near Port Elliott.” This was continued in his 1876 list 
(Journ. Conch. (Leeds), Vol. I, p.l35), and shells from Port 
Elliott are before me. These are dead but show the characteristic 
banding and agree well with Pfeiffer’s description. No shell has 
yet been found in Queensland In agreement, so that it appears 
that an error in locality was made. In the same paper Pfeiffer 
■described Helix ductilisj H. delta, and H. pliculosa from the same 
locality, and //. adelaidae from Adelaide. The lastnamed is 
rejected as not being South Australian, and of the other three, 
only one, delta, has been recognised from Queensland. 
Meracomelon luteofuscum. 
1868. Helix luteofusca Cox, Mon. Austr. Land Shells, p.52, pi. 
XII, fig. 1, la, Alay. Flinders Range, South Australia 
(Masters). 
This shell, of which the topotypes, including the type, are in 
the Australian Aluseum, is a small somewhat aberrant associate 
of the Meracomelon series. It is much smaller, very thin, sub- 
conical, umbilicus narrow, deep not hidden by the slightly re- 
flected columella, lips thin, subkeeled, with a sculpture of irregular 
wavy ribs overridden by a very fine granulation which persists on 
the apex. As it Is not well understood, a new subgenus, Findo- 
melon, is proposed, so that further study may be made. It is also 
uniform golden brown in coloration thus contrasting notably with 
the typical banded Mieracomelon. 
