Report on the zoological collections made in the Indo-Pacific Ocean ...

60 COLLECTIONS FROM MELANESIA.with the extreme tips tinged with orange or pink. The ventralsurface is peculiarly humpy near the middle, owing to a considerabledeposit of callus. Figure 43 a represents the dextral outlinerather too prominent, and both this and fig. 43 b delineate the shelltoo broad and the outer lip too thick.60. Littorina scabra.Linn., Philippi's Ahbild. vol. ii. p. 221, pi. 5. figs. 3-7 ; Reeve, Conch.Icon. figs. 21 a-d.Hob.Thursday Island, Torres Straits, in mangrove-swamps.61. Littorina filosa.Soioerly, Genera Rcc. 8f Foss. Shells, fig. 5 ; Heere, Co7ich. Syst.pi. 212. fig. 5 ; Conch. Icon. figs. 24 a-c; Philippi, Ahhild. vol. iii.pp. 46 & 55, pi. 6. fig. 4, and pi. 7. figs. 1, 2.Hah. Eoko Island, Endeavour Strait, North Australia, in mangrove-swamps.62. Littorina mauritiana, Lamarclc(Var, diemenensis.)Hah. Port Jackson {Ooppinrjer).This species is very variable in size, the difi^erence in this respectbeing the only distinction between the typical form and the varietynamed L. diemenensis by Quoy and Gaimard {vide Philippi's excellentmonograph of this genus in the Abbild. und Beschreib. neuer'Conch.' vol. ii. p. 195). L. antipodum of Philippi (?. c. pi. 4. fig. 2)and L. acuta of Menke are also small varieties. The EuropeanL. neritoides of Linn. ( = Turho cceridescens of Lamarck) is consideredthe same species by Mr, Tenison-Woods (Proc. Linn. Soc. N. S.Wales, vol. iii. pp. 65-72) ; but this determination, I think, requiresstill further substantiation, and I rather incline with Philippi toretain that form as distinct. Littorina siczac is a well-knownWest-Indian species, but is also recorded from the Ked Sea andKangaroo Island, South Australia, by Philippi, who remarks that itis scarcely separable from L. mauritiana, with the exception ofcolour and, in most cases, a slight difference in the transverse striation(?. c. p. 165). Mr. Tenison-Woods believes it to be only avariety, but at the same time is not prepared to assert this positively.He also fails to see any specific difference between this shelland L. africayia (Krauss), Philippi. I should here point out that theshell figured by Keeve (Conch. Icon. figs. 37 a, b) is not the truePhilippian species, but merely L. mauritiana ; and consequently ifMr. Tenison-Woods based his opinion upon that figure he is certainlycorrect. L. africana is compared by its author with L. neritoides,from which it is said to differ in sculpture, form, and the columella.