ON THE MORPHOLOGY OF THE HELIClNIDJi. 759 patches by digging holes to lay their eggs ; so they asked the Shark to take the Megapodes away. This was done, but now the natives missed the Megapodes" eggs, so they asked the Shark to bring the Megapodes back but to confine them to one spot. This request was also complied with, and the result may now be seen. The Megapodes lay their eggs in two large and broad sandy spaces, and nowhere else on the island. I suspect that there is more than a grain of true history in this legend, and that it records the fact that when the ancestors of the natives came to the island, they brought with them two raaiii staples of their food-supply — yams and Megapodes. 35. Contributions to the Morphology ut* the Group Neritacea of the xVspidohranch Gastropods. — Part II. The Heli-ciNiD.^. By Gilbert C. Bourne, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S., F.Z.S. [Received April 29, 1911 : Read May 9, 1911.] (Plates XXX.-XLII.*) When, two years ago, the Society published the first part of my contributions to the morphology of the Neritacea (2), I had already accumulated a number of observations on the anatomy of the Helicinida?, but deferred the publication of them until I was able to obtain specimens of difteient species from various parts of the Pacific region. Having experienced considei'able difficulty in obtaining specimens sufiiciently well preserved for microscopical examination, the publication of my results has been long delayed, with the result that I lose the cltiim to priority for several minor discoveries concerning the anatomical features of this family, for, in the meantime, Thiele (10) has given an account of the anatomy of Hyclrocena cattaroensis in which is included a description of the female generative organs oi Helichia kuharyi, and the following descriptions lose much of the novelty they Avould have possessed had they been published as soon as the facts were ascertained. Previous to the publication of Thiele's paper, our knowledge of the anatomy of the Helicinidne rested, for the most part, on Isenkrahe's (4) account of the anatomy of Helicina titanica. Isenkrahe gave a sufficiently accurate description of the external anatomy, the muscular system, the greater part of the alimentary tract, and the pulmonary cavity, but he failed altogether to distinguish the kidney, and his descriptions of the heart, the nervous system, and the reproiluctive organs are defective. These imperfections notwithstanding, Isenkrahe was able to confiiiu Troschel's opinion that Helicina, on account of its rhipidoglossate dentition and other anatomical characters, was closely related to the Neritidaj. Von Jhering (5) in 1877 placed the Helicinacea and Proserpinacea * For explanation of the Plates see pp. 806-809.
BioStor
