Cgpi licula ',2 and Cypraa Itistrio distinct. 



I have purposely left to the close of this paper some remarks 

 oil a shell which Beems to hare attracted the attention of Dearly all 



the writers <>u thi< genus, and which they have generally consid- 



! as a variety of C. arabica. The shell 1 refer to is that figured 



by rliener, in his pi. 1, fig. '!. by this tiile, and is represented on 



our PI. xvi. fig. 3. The following references seem to indicate the 



BSD 



C, arabica rur 0. Crwlin, 13th edit Syst. Naturae, p. 3398. 



Enc. M6thod. pi. 352, f. 5. 

 ('. ar&hjca rar. Lamarck. Hist. Anini s;ms Vertebras. Vol. 7, p. 378. 



(Jo. var. intermedia, Gray- Monog. Cypreidae, Zool. Jour. I. p. 77. 



do. rar. Sowcrby. Conchological Illustrations, f. 1GG. 



I have at times been strongly inclined to view this as a distinct 

 species, but its character is so ambiguous, that I am not prepared 

 in maintain it as such. It. approaches, however, much nearer to 

 the C. reticulata, than lo the C. arabica, and it* it be retained as 

 a variety, it must be transferred to the former species. In- 



d, it seem- to differ from the typical C. reticulata, only in» 

 being of a much smaller size, more thickened at the sides, and 

 f the ventral blotch of that species. Notwithstanding 



this la! tic, it can never be confounded with the C. 



lUttrio. The teeth are fewer in number than in the typical reticu- 

 lata, but this, as 1 have remarked, may be owing to its diminished 



More accurate knowledge of the animal) of its locality and 

 habits, will no doubt lead to a just determination of its claims to 

 the rank of a species. Should it prove specifically distinct, the 

 name proposed by Gray for it. as B variety would be extremely 

 appropriate, viz., Cypraa intermedia. 



