189 
4a, 4b, ‘Java seas,’’ also figs. 6a, 6b (error in text 2a, 2b), “Java 
7; Reeve, Conch. Sys., 1842, vol. ii., p. eaten el., fig. 1; 
Reeve, Conch. Icon., 1846, vol. iii., pl. vili., fig. 25; H. and A. 
Adams, Gen. Recent Moll., vol. i., p. 443 (Padollus); Sonera 
Thes. Conch., 1882, vol. v., p. 30, Sp. 56, pl. iii. (430), figs. 21, 26; 
Weinkauff, Gonch. Cab., 1883 (itd. Kiister), Band. vi., Abt. 1B. 
p. 39, Sp. 29, pl. xvi., figs. 1, 2; Pilsbry, Tryon, Man. Conch. 
1890, vol. xii., p. 119, pl. ix., fig. 51, pl. xlix., fig 23; Pritchard 
and Gatliff, Proc. Roy. Soc. Victoria, 19038, vol. xv. (New Series), 
part 2, p. 180, ‘“‘Portsea, Port Phillip.” 
Dredged alive up to 15 fathoms and taken alive on the 
rocks at low water along the South Australian coastline in 
both gulfs from Yankalilla Bay to Streaky Bay, and Murat 
Bay in the west. I did not get it at St. Francis Island nor 
anywhere in Western Australia. It is recorded from Port 
Phillip, Victoria, but not from Tasmania. It would seem to 
be very localized and confined to the southern coast of 
Australia. 
Haliotis emmez, Gray. 
Haliotis emma, Gray, MSS., Brit. Mus. Cat.; Reeve, Conch. 
Icon., 1846, vol. iii., pl. x., fig. 29; also Elements of Conch., 1860, 
vol. 1i., pp. 12, 18, pl. xxiii., fig. 181; Sowerby, Thes. Conch., 
1882, vol. v., p. 32, P: 68, pl. ii. (429), fig. 16, “New Zealand” ; 
Weinkauff, Conch. Cab. (Ed. Kiister), Band. vi., Abt. 1.B., p. 56, 
Sp. 43, pl. xxii., figs. 1, 2; Pilsbry, Tryon Man. Conch., 1890, 
vol. xil., p. 122, pl. xiv., fig. 75; Tate and May, Proc. Linn. Soc. 
N.S.W., 1901, vol. xxvi., pp. 407, 447, ‘‘Tasmania’’; Pritchar 
and Gatliff, Proc. Roy. Soc., Victoria, 1908, vol. xv. (New Series), 
part 2, p. 178, ‘‘Victoria.”’ 
Padollus emma, Gray, H. and A. Adams, Gen. Recent Moll., 
1858, vol. i., p. 443. 
W. Swainson, in Proc. Roy. Soc., Tasmania, 1855, p. 48, 
says, ‘“/1. tricostatus, Lam.; H. pulcherrima, Auct.; and our 
H. costata, are (in Reevye’s Conch. Icon.) erroneously called 
Hi. emme,” and cited as Australian species. But 7. costata, 
Swainson, is given by Pilsbry as a synonym of 7. rugosopli- 
cata, Chem. Again, on page 51, “I see no difference between 
the species figured at plate x., fig. 29 (Conch. Icon., Reeve), 
under the singular name of H. emma, and that described by 
me in the Bligh Catalogue as Haliotis carinata. . . . Dr. 
Milligan has fine specimens from the Tasmanian coasts, but 
we do not think it also inhabits New Holland, as here 
stated.” 
It was recorded for South Australia in Adcock’s Handlist 
of Aquatic Mollusca, 1893, p. 9, No. 372, as H. (Padollus) 
carinata, Martyn, with emma, Gray, as a synonym; but this 
was compiled from Tate’s manuscript list, and he, in the Tas- 
manian Census in Proc. Linn. Soc., N.S.W., 1901, pp. 407 
and 447, withdrew H. carinata in favour of H. emme. 
