126 | Transactions.—Zoology. 
Islands, which is a true Cochlostyla. Reading Gillies’s remarks 
on B. antipodarum (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 1., p. 60) one gets 
the impression that he mistook young specimens of P. bovinus 
for Gray’s species, and in this he was followed by others, 
Professor Hutton kindly allowed me to examine specimens in 
the Canterbury Museum, labelled P. antipodarum, and they 
proved to be young specimens of P. bovinus, but were in no 
way related to B. antipodarum. I am now of opinion that the 
shell found by Dieffenbach, and described by Gray as B. anti- 
podarum, has very likely never been found again in New 
Zealand, and is in reality Cochlostyla fulgetrum, Broderip, 
introduced accidentally from the Philippine Islands. This 
suggestion is supported by the fact that Cochlostyla daphnis, 
Broderip, from those islands, has been found at Picton 
(Trans. N.Z. Inst., xxiv., p. 280). 
9, Amphidoxa and Flammulina. 
Albers founded the section Amphidoxa to receive two species 
__A. marmorella, Pf., and A. helicophantoides, Pf., from Juan 
Fernandez and Chili. Professor Hutton, in his Revision of the 
Land-shells of New Zealand, the foundation-stone of our present 
knowledge of these molluscs, classed nine of our shells under 
Amphidoxa, Albers, and gave descriptions and figures of the 
dentition of eight of them. ‘The diagnosis given by Albers, and 
the figures of the species from Juan Fernandez, seem to fully 
justify Professor Hutton’s view in adopting Amp/udoxa for our 
shells, more especially for A. crebriflammis, PL., A. zebra, Le 
Guillou, and A. costulata, Hutton. Professor Hutton, and the 
writer, never had an opportunity of comparing New Zealand 
specimens with Amphidoxa specimens from Juan Fernandez, 
and the dentition of the latter is still unknown. 
Last year Mr. H. A. Pilsbry published ‘‘ Observations on 
the Helices of New Zealand” (Nautilus, vi., Sept., 1892, 
No. 5, p. 54, &e.), which, coming from such an able concho- 
logist, were greatly appreciated by scientists in Australasia. 
With regard to Amphidowa, he says (l.c., p. 56), ‘The true 
Amphidoxa has not been found elsewhere than upon the island 
Juan Fernandez and the neighbouring South American coast. 
I have compared specimens with the New Zealand shells, and 
find that there is not the slightest ground for supposing them 
congeneric.” After sucha verdict from a competent authority, 
Mr. Hedley and the writer, in the ‘“ Reference List of the 
Land and Fresh-water Mollusca of New Zealand ” (Proc. 
Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vii., (2), p. 648), adopted the name /lam- 
mulina, proposed by Von Martens (Critical List of New Lea- 
land Moll., 1878, p. 12), for the New Zealand species for- 
merly included in Amphidoxa,—F. zebra, Le Guillou, being 
the type. 
