If species appeared in the lists without habitat, it would be far preferable to 

 positive error. Mr. Roberts' catalogues are not alone open to criticism ; for 

 others that have appeared in connection with the Journal contain omissions 

 and geographical inaccuracies which might have been avoided by the furnishing 

 of proofs to those investigators who. from residence or special study, possess 

 the requisite data. The criticism herein is not dictated by hypercritical or un- 

 kind feeling, but prompted solely by a high regard for the cause in which we 

 are all working— with, let us hope, some degree of usefulness. 



1. Luponia albuginosa, Maive, "California," should be Lower California. 

 Although this species is credited to the Oregonian and Californian Province in 

 the Smithsonian Institution Check-List, by Dr. Carpenter, (June, 1860), he 

 properly omits it in his Supplemental Report to the British Association, 1863. 

 It is common at Cape St. Lucas and various points in the Gulf of California, 

 and belongs to the "Mexican and Panamic province." 



32. L. Goodalii, Gray, is credited to Lord Hood'I^Island, which is quite in- 

 definite, as many islands have been so named— one in the Gailapagos group, 

 which would connect this species with the Central American fauna. This spe- 

 cies, however, is not found there, but pertains to the Indo-Paci6c province— 

 perhaps to "Lord Hood's Island" in the Paumotu group. 



49. L. onyx, Linn., "San Diego I." If, by the habitat given, San Diego or 

 the islands off that coast are meant, it may be intended for one of the Coron- 

 ados ; but L. onyx is not found there— neither at San Diego or at any other 

 point on the west coast of America. As the species in some of its varieties re- 

 sembles in coloration G9, the blunder on the part of the original author may be 

 thus explained. 



68. L. Sowerbyii, Kiener, for which no habitat is given, is found in the Gulf 

 of California, and consequently belongs in the same province with No. 1. Some 

 authors have confounded this species with L. picta. Gray, which latter is Afii- 

 can. In Sby's Conch. Illust., L. picta is credited to "Guaymas ;" while L. 

 Sowerbyii, through its synonym, 'zonata, Lam," is without habitat. 



69. L. spadicea. Swains., "New Holland," is a Californian, credited by Dr. 

 Cooper to "Santa Barbara, San Diego and islands," which is correct, being 

 confirmed by my published and manuscript lists. It is a well-marked species 

 and quite distinct from 49. It is figured in -Chenu's Manuel," Vol. I, fig. 

 1715— the outline of which is well enough, but the dark spots so prominently 

 represented might lead astray. 



4. Aricia arabicula. Lam., is properly credited to "Acapulco," though its 

 specific centre is in the neighborhood of Mazatlan, Gulf of California, where 

 it is quite common. Its occurrence at Panama is exceedingly rare. Professor 

 C. B. Adams found but "7 specimens on the reef"; while ot fifty-nine (Lu- 

 ponia) punctulata. Gray, credited in the List to "Mazatlan-Panama," he col- 

 lected "83.5 specimens." Mazatlan is quite likely an error, for in the great mass 

 of material from that place, and from other points on the Gulf of California 

 which has passed under my examination, I have never detected a specimen. It 

 is sometimes washed up dead by the winter stormy at Cape St. Lucas. 



