REVIEW OF SYSTEMATIC POSITION OF ZEMIRA, ADAMS — HEDLEY. 119 
remarkable, though superficial, mimicry, and Sowerby rightly 
retorted ; “ It is impossible that M. Deshayes can have seen the 
two shells, which are generically and specifically quite distinct.”* * * § 
Reeve supported Sowerby’s classification by including E. australis 
in his monograph of Eburna, f and added his testimony to the 
separate existence of the two shells which had confused the 
Parisian writers. His description but not his figure was copied 
by Kuster.f 
After thus successfully establishing his species, Sowerby re- 
described and refigured it as Pseudoliva australis. § The Brothers 
Adams instituted for E. australis a new subgenus Zemira 
which they ranked under Eburna.\\ This view is accepted by 
Tryonll but not by Fischer,** * * §§ who prefers w subordinate Zemira 
to the genus Macron. Kobelt, one of the few writers who have 
contributed more than a copy or a guess to our stock of informa- 
tion, has added to a full account of the shell, a description of the 
operculum, and concludes that the data presented confirms the 
classification of Adams, ft Tate has promoted Zemira from sub- 
generic to full generic rank, when describing a second and fossil 
species. If The latest classificatory notice is that by Harris§§ who 
agrees with Tate in considering Zemira an independent genus 
allied to Eburna . 
No particular argument seems to have been advanced by any- 
one to show vrhy ^Eburna should be considered the nearest to 
Zemira. The deep canaliculation at the suture, the spotted colour 
and the general contour certainly present analogies. But except 
for the plications of the columella, as close a general resemblance 
is shown by Cancellaria. From Eburna , Zemira differs by its 
spiral sculpture and especially by the spiral furrow on the fore 
part of the shell which ends as a projecting point on the aperture. 
The dissatisfaction, rather felt than uttered, of authors about 
the assigned position of the species, is shown by Sowerby’s refer- 
ence of it to Pseudoliva and Fisher’s to Macron . 
It has seemed to me that Zemira more nearly approximates to 
the Struthiolariidie than to the Buccinidse. The two recent 
genera ( Struthiolaria and Tylospira) of the former are both 
ornamented by spiral sculpture ; and in some fossil forms, as 
# Sowerby — Thesaurus Conch, iii., 1866, p. 74. 
f Reeve — Conch. Icon., v., 1849, Eburna, pi. i., sp. 4. 
X Kuster — Conch. Cab. (2), iii., 1858, p. 84. 
§ Sowerby, op. cit ., ccxvi., figs. 13, 14. 
|| H. and A. Adams — Gen. Rec. Moll, i., 1853, p. 110. 
IT Tryon — Man. Conch, ii., 1881, po. 101, 213; Struc. and Syst. Conch., 
ii., 1883, p. 152. 
** Fischer — Manuel Conch., 1884, p. 162. 
ft Lobbecke and Kobelt— Jahi\ deut. Malak. Gesell., 1880, p. 335. 
XX Tate — Trans. Roy. Soc. S.A., x., 1888, p. 163. 
§§ Harris— Cat. Tert. Moll. Brit. Mus., i., 1897, p. 167. 
