LAND SHELLiS. 
S.A. NAT., 
VOL. xvni. No. 2 . 
ss. 
Semotrachia setigera. 
1894. Hadra setigera Tate, Trans. Roy. Soc. South Austr., VoL 
XVIII, p.l94, November. Central Australia. 
1896. Angasella setigera Tate, Rep. Horn Sci. Exped. Cent. 
Austr., pt. II, ZooL, p.l89, pi. XVII, fig. 6, February- 
MacDonnell Range, Central Australia. 
1896. {Angasella) larapinta Tate, Rep. Horn Sci. Exped. Cent. 
Austr., pt. II, ZooL, p.l90, Feb., new name only. 
Apparently the shells lumped under this name were collected 
at many localities as two distinct species appear among them. 
One of these is the larger shell described by Tate, with rather 
distant rows of hairs, and a smaller one with shorter hairs crowded 
and not arranged in separate rows. These smaller shells are more 
elevated with the mouth continuous, and I name this, Semo- 
trachia esau sp. nov., the type locality being selected as the 
Krickaueff Range. PL I, fig. 11. Major diameter 8.5 mm.; 
minor diameter 7 mm.; height 4.5 mm. 
Semotrachia sublevata. 
1894. Hadra sublevata Tate, Trans. Roy. Soc. South Austr., 
\oL XVIII, p.192, November. Central Australia, 
1896. T her sites sublevata Tate, Rep. Horn Sci. Exped. Cent. 
Austr., pt. II, ZooL, p.l96, pi. XV^II, fig. 5, February. 
Hart Ranges, Central Australia. 
Semotrachia mersa sp, nov. PI. II, fig. 9. 
1905. Xanthomelon sublevatum Hedley, Trans. Roy. Soc. South 
Austr., VoL XXIX, p.l62, pi. XXX, figs. 7, 8-9, Decem- 
ber. Musgrave Ranges, Cent. Austr. 
Hedley stated “As the figure quoted is unsatisfactory, others- 
are now presented.” The typical specimens from the Hart 
Ranges are less elevated than these figures of Hedley, which are 
excellent,^ and especially differ in the formation of the basal 
tooth which is broader and less conical. 
Semotrachia papillosa. 
1894. Hadra papillosa Tate, Trans. Roy. Soc! South Austr., 
VoL XV^III, p.l94, Xovember. Central Australia. 
1896. Angasella papillosa Tate, Rep. Horn. Sci. Exped. Cent. 
Austr., pt. II, ZooL, p.l91, pi. XV^III, fig. 9, February^ 
No locality ex Rev. H. Kempe: probably MacDonnell 
Ranges. 
This conical shell appears to be unknown save from the 
examples described by Tate, and the figure is not too good, but 
It may be recognised by its form and granulose sculpture. 
