REPOET ON THE GASTEROPODA. 435 



This is not the Natica mahesicnsis, Dufo, Ann. Sc. Nat., ser. 2 (1840), vol. xiv. p. 193, nor (?) 

 of Philippi, Conch. Cab. (ed. Kiister), p. 121, sp. 142, pi. xvii. fig. 7. Did Reeve mean to 

 reproduce Dufo's species, which, as well as Reeve's, comes from the little island of Mahe\ one of the 

 Seychelles, in the Indian Ocean ? The resemblance of the name would seem to imply that he did. 

 It is evident he did not consult Philippi's monograph, published in 1852, three years before his own. 

 Where then did he get the name ? He quotes it from " Recluz MS., Mus. Cuming," and seems to 

 have copied, with addition, the error Recluz had made in spelling. 



The three specimens bearing the name " N. Mahescnse " (sic) on the back of the tablet are in the 

 British Museum, and answer perfectly to Reeve's figures. These constitute the types of the species, 

 and it is with them the Challenger specimen agrees. The name as pre-occupied by Dufo has 

 necessarily been changed. 



I have not quoted v. Martens, Moll. Mauritius, &c, p. 276, because he seems to have mixed up 

 Recluz's and Dufo's species. 



7. Natica variabilis, Eecluz. 



Natica variabilis, Recluz MS. 



,, ,, Reeve, Conch. Icon., vol. ix. pi. xxiii. fig. 104. 



„ labrella (not of Lamarck), Philippi, Conch. Cab. (ed. Kiister), pi. xi. fig. 3 (not the description 



p. 68, nor pi. xi. fig. 17, nor pi. xix. fig. 1). 

 ,, marmorata, H. Adams, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1869, p. 274, pi. xix. fig. 8. 

 ,, variabilis, Sowerby, Thes. Conch., pts. 39, 40, p. 95, sp. 123 (ix. Gen.), pi. cccclxii. fig. 135. 

 „ marmorata, Gwyn Jeffreys, Moll. "Lightning" and "Porcupine," Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 

 1885, p. 36, sp. 18. 



Station 75. July 2, 1873. Lat. 38° 38' N., long. 28° 28' 30" W. Fayal, Azores. 

 450 fathoms. Volcanic mud. 



Habitat. — (?) (Reeve), Canaries (H. Adams, and Rev. R. T. Lowe's dredgings), 

 Madeira (Watson). 



I suppose that this is one of the species covered by Linne's name of Natica glancina. Mr 

 Hanley admirably describes it at p. 394 of his Ipsa Linn. Conch. Philippi (pi. xi. fig. o) figures 

 and (at p. 68 of his Monograph) refers to a species which I have no doubt is the Natica variabilis, 

 Reel., but he considers it a var. of Natica labrella, Lam., which he also describes (p. 68, sp. 79) and 

 figures (pi. xi. fig. 17, and pi. xix. fig. 1). These latter figures and the description agree perfectly 

 with Lamarck's description (Anim. s. vert., vol. vi. 2 p. 201, and ed Desh. vol. viii. p. 639, sp. 17), 

 and with Delessert's figure (pi. xxxii. fig. 12), from which indeed Philippi says he took his figure, but 

 belong evidently to a species distinct from the Natica variabilis, Reel., and to this conclusion Philippi 

 himself came, for, at p. 133, he says that Delessert's fig. and his own represent Natica gambicc, Reel., 

 Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1843, p. 207, which must therefore be reckoned as a mere synonym for Natica 

 labrella, Lam., and he adds : " Dagegen sind mir jetzt sehr grosse Bedenken aufgestiegen, ob die 

 Tafel xi. fig. 3, abgebildete Form wirklich zu Natica labrella gehort und nicht viel mehr eine eigne 

 Art bildet. Leider erlaubt mir meine nahe bevorstehende Abreise nach Siidamerika nicht, diese 

 Frage weiter zu untersuchen." As I have said, I have no doubt that the species to which Philippi's 



