278 
MEMOIRS OF THE QUEENSLAND MUSEUM. 
Family CERITHIIDiE. 
Here again difficulty is apparent in every direction, generic values being 
still undefined and specific identities masked in synonymic lumping. It will be 
a somewhat difficult task to unravel even the major groups, as there is no 
unanimous conclusion as to the type of ( 1 cri thiu.m. At the present time it should 
he noted that there appears in Medley’s Queensland list many specific names 
which have no legal status. Thus CeritMum contraction Sowerby 1855 is 
included, but Bayle (Journ. de Conch., xxviii, p. 24:1, 1880) had provided 
( ' crumena as Sowerby ’s name was invalid; at the same time Bayle (p. 246) 
added C. proditum for Cerithium fusifornw Sowerby 1855, also invalid. Through 
Sherborn’s Index Animalium, pt. ii, I find many more, and here propose 
substitutes until revision can be thoroughly undertaken. < 'critkmm duffieldi 
non:, nov. for Cerithium. granosum Kiener 1842, not <’. grmosum ltorson (Mem. 
R Acc Sci. Torino, xxvi, 327, 1822). The well-known name Cerithium leinnis- 
calurn Quov & Gaimard 1834 was anticipated by Brogniart (Mem. terr. 
Vicentin, p* 71, 1823), and I here propose Cerithium prohteema norm nov. for 
Ouov and Gaimard’s species. Cerithium morns Lamarck 1822 is not the species 
so called by Bruguiere in 1701, and the typical form of Lamarck’s species is here 
renamed (Jlijpeomorus pentkmarus nom. nov.; there are many synonyms often 
cited but these appear to refer to different valid species, (i rithiuin mitm forme 
Sowerby 1855 is invalid if the genus name is broadly used, as Wood's Murex 
mitriforrms 1828 was allotted to CeritMum. by Wood himself in the same work. 
The species must be renamed if generic values be revised, but at present the 
names do not clash, Wood’s Murex mitriformis being a ('lava. Cerithium 
variegation Quoy & Gaimard 1834 is invalidated, and differs from jancllei 
llombr. and Jacquinot 1853, and 1 rename Quoy and Gaimard s species 
Cerithium sejunelum nom. nov. Again many names have been synonymised. but 
without much justification, from the series examined. Cerithidca Icieneri Hombr. 
& Jacq. 1853,' described as Cerithium, is here renamed Ceritliidea anticipate i 
nom. nov., as there is a prior C. kiencri ( antraine (Bull. Ac. Roy. Brux. ii, p. 3.12, 
I was going to add Cerithium lac.tcum Kiener (Spec. Coquilles 
(Cerithium), p°58, pi. vii, f. 3-3a, 1842), but 1 find there is a prior C. lacteum 
Philippi (Enum. Moll. Siciliae, vol. i, p. 195, 1836), so instead will add Cerithium 
collacteum nom. nov. for Kiener ’s species. 
Two other names must be amended, viz., Cerithium laniatum Sowerby 
(Conch. Icon., vol. xv, sp. 119, 1865), which is invalid through Ihe usage of the 
same name by Quoy and Gaimard in 1834, and 1 propose Cerithium complexion 
nom. nov. for Sowerby ’s species. I note it has been synonymised, but ha\e 
found that the species are much more distinct m nature than they appear m 
literature, and have seen half a dozen distinct species grouped under one name. 
A better alteration 1 make in proposing C rrithiuni , pkylarchus non), nov. 
for Cerithium sowerbyi Kiener (Spec. Coquilles \ iv., (danal, p. 18, pi. vn, i. , 
1841 ) , which is not C. sowerbyi Deshayos 1834. This is a very fine species, quite 
distinct from C. cummyi A. Adams, with which it has been confused. 1 have not 
yet solved the problems surrounding the usage of the genus name ( erithnim. 
Family JANTHINIDiE. 
In Hedley’s list only lanthina iantJiina Linne appeared. Some years ago 
I prepared a monographic account of these shells which still remains in manu- 
