COCHLOSTYLA-HYPSELOSTYLA. 25 



C. CALYPSO Broderip. PI. 12, fig. 3. 



I m perforate, ovate-pyramidal, very minutely striated ; diapha- 

 nous ; buff-white, ornamented with greenish bands and a chestnut 

 basal area. Spire pyramidal, apex obtuse, purple-brown. Whorls 

 6, rather flat, the last a little shorter than the spire, subangular in 

 the middle. Coluraella thickened, somewhat twisted, flesh colored. 

 Aperture lunate-oval, milk-white within ; peristome narrowly 

 expanded, edged with chestnut. (Pfr.) 



Alt. 40, diam. 21 ; aperture, alt. 21, breadth 13 mill. 



Negros, Philippines. 



Bulinus calypso BROD., P. Z. S., 1840, p. 158. Bulimus calypso 

 PFR., Monogr. ii, p. 11. REEVE, Conch. Icon. t. 7, f. 31. 



Seems to be closely allied to C. calista. 



C. CAMELOPARDALIS Broderip. 'PL 12, figs. 4, 5. 



Imperforate, elongated, turrited. Light brownish-yellow, becom- 

 ing browner below, the earlier (embryonic) 2 whorls orange-brown ; 

 the remaining whorls have longitudinal stripes of cream-white cuti- 

 cle. Spire long, apex obtuse; whorls 7 to 7-}, the earlier 2 quite 

 convex, the rest nearly flat ; body-whorl obviously or almost im- 

 perceptibly subcarinated. Aperture narrow, elliptical, white inside, 

 the lip expanded, dark brown. Coluniella visibly twisted, brownish 

 or fleshy-white, surrounded by a purplish callus. 



Alt. 51, diam. 22 ; oblique alt. of aperture 21 mill. 



Alt. 49, diam. 22 ; oblique alt. of aperture 22^ mill. 



Zebu and Camotes Is., Philippines. 



Bulinus camelopardalis BROD., P. Z. S., 1840, p. 157. Bulimus 

 camelopardalis PFR., Monogr. ii, p. 12 ; Conchyl. Cab. p. 178, t. 52, 

 f. 8, 9, B. cameleopardalis RYE., Conch. Icon. t. 8, f. 36. Cochlo- 

 stijla camelopardalis SEMPER, Reisen, Landmoll. p. 208, t. 8, f. 13; 

 t. 18, f. 19 (anatomy). HIDALGO, Journ. de Conch. 1887, p. 168. 

 -MLLDFF., Landschn. Cebu, p. 244. 



The extremely slender form and the style of marking (the stripes 

 being mainly longitudinal and neither zigzagged nor oblique except 

 on the base) constitute the principal characters of this form. 

 Neither of these characters is of much value, the alleged differences 

 in contour between camelopardalis and boholensis being readily 

 bridged by many specimens before me. 



