ox SOUTH AFRICAN ENNE^. 09 



relatively wider, than the East London shells ; therefore, the 

 average smaller size and greater obesity of the East London 

 shells cannot be considered of importance, since they might 

 not be maintained in a series. 



The obliquity of the aperture which inclines from the 

 right, above, to the left, below, is conspicuous, and is not 

 equalled in any of Stnrany's figures, nor in any Natal 

 example that I have examined. The absence of the deep 

 constriction behind the labrum is probably the most important 

 feature, but is not so easily detected. The accompanying 

 figures are designed to illustrate this divergence from the 

 type. 



The dimensions of the East London shells are as follows : 

 height X width, 2-69 x 1-36, •2-64 x 1-37 mm. 



It will be seen that while the width of these shells exceeds 

 that of even Stnrany's largest measured example, the ratio of 

 width to height is greater in the specimen of which he gives 

 the dimensions as 2*5 mm. higli and 1"3 mm. wide. 



Ennea connollvi 2Ieh-. & Pons. PI. V, fio-. ,52. 



Ennea couuollyi 31elv. it- Pons.. Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., vol. iv 

 (1909), p. 486, pi. viii, fig. 2 ; Connolly, Ann. S. Af. Mus.. vol. xi 

 (1912), p. 69. 



As Connolly indicates, loc. cit., the original figure does not 

 adequately represent the shell. Not only is it too wide, but 

 the sutures are too shallow, and certain apertural processes 

 are not shown. Therefore this opportunity is taken to 

 publish a new figure. 



The dimensions set forth in the description, given in 

 " round numbers," probably give almost as erroneous an idea 

 of the true proportions of the shell as the figure does, for in 

 my series, kindly supplied by the discoverer, I have no 

 example nearh' so attenuate as the recorded dimensions of 

 the type would indicate it to be. 



The following table of dimensions and ratios will indicate 

 the amount of variation in those respects which may be 



