We disagree with Gofas & Waren (1982: 6) that this species should be considered synonymous with Rissoa {Arsenia) imperspicua as figured by Pallary (1920: pl. 1 figs. 28, 29). R. imperspicua was not described; the nominal taxon was based on only a poor photograph, which is not satisfactory for recognition of the species in question. It is even doubtful whether there are any axial ribs, let alone how many. Very vaguely some spirals are discernible at the base of the shell. The length given by Pallary [2.8 mm (according to the line of natural size); 2.3 mm (after the magnification-factor indicated)] is far larger than that of any of the specimens of A. vermaasi we have seen. Moreover the proportions of the shell(s) figured by Pallary are different, viz. ratio breadth: length 0.56, whereas the average value for A vermaasi is 0.60. Of course, the protoconch and its sculpture are not visible at all on Pallary's photographs. Moreover, none of the specimens studied by Gofas & War6n are from the type locality Casablanca, nor were any identified by Monterosato or Pallary. Alvania imperspicua is based on material from Monterosato found at Casablanca and Pallary (1920: 50) does not mention any other locality, so that the identification of material from Tangier by Gofas & War6n is not well founded. Pallary's photographs might represent a form of A. parvula, A. rudis (Philippi, 1844), or even some other species as well. We therefore consider Rissoa imperspicua Pallary, 1920, a nomen dubium.