S.A. NAT.. 
VOL. XVIII, No. 2. 
Hy TOM IREDALE. 
The following are aberrant and may require removal. 
Shell more elevated, but easily distinguished by its peculiar 
granulose sculpture papillosa. 
Shell very similar to basedowi but with the spire more 
elevated; requires reinvestigation stibsecta. 
Shell flattened, subdiscoidal, umbilicus very wide, mouth 
almost normal, lips scarcely thickened, sculpture of 
very fine radials only exreL 
Semotrachia basedowi. 
1905. Thersites basedowi Hedley, Trans. Roy. Soc. South Austr., 
VoL XXIX, p.l61, pi. XXX, ff. 1-3, December. Mus- 
grave Ranges, Central Australia. 
At the place cited Hedley pointed out that a specimen from 
the Mann Range was “regarded for the present as a varietv.^' 
It is here named S.b. mannensis subsp. nov., as it is smaller, less 
keeled, the umbilicus narrower, the mouth not free, the lips not 
■continuous and the apex smooth. PL II, fig. 18. 
Semotrachia winneckeana. 
1894. Hadra winneckeana Tate, Trans. Roy. Soc. South Austr., 
Vol. XVIII, p.l94, November. Central Australia. 
1896. Angasella zvimieckeana Tate, Rep. Horn Sci. Exped. Cent. 
Austr., pt. II, ZooL, p-191, pi. XVIII, fig. 8, Febr uary. 
Spencer Gorge, by Brinkley Bluff. 
Tate wrote “is similar to euzyga except In dimensions in the 
'Sparsely developed setae and the finer and closer sculpture." No 
shell examined shows any setae. 
Semotrachia euzyg’a. 
1894. Hadra euzyga Tate, Trans. Roy. Soc. South Austr., Vol. 
XVIII, p.l94, November. Central Australia. 
1896. JngaseUa euzyga Tate, Rep. Horn Sci. Exped. Centr. 
Amtr.^ pt, II, ZooL, p.l90, pi. XVdl, fig. 7, February. 
Alice Springs, Central Australia. 
Superficially only a larger relative of zvhineckeana, appearing 
to agree in every essential feature, but Tate wrote “might be 
regarded as a dwarf state, (of setigera), but the flat shape, the 
more deflected aperture, and fewer rows of bristles render the 
separation easy.” ■ 
No specimen available shows any bristles. 
