533 



88. Neritina reclivata (pi. cxvi. f. 210, 211), Sai/ ? 



N. macrostoma, lyOrhifjny. N. Eloridana (?), ShuUleioortlt. 



N. testa oblique subconica, solida, Iffivi, subolivacea vel nigres- 

 cente, minutissime nigro lineata ; spira exsertiuscula, apice obtuso, 

 sutura nigro lineata, anfractu ultimo infra medio ventricoso ; aper- 

 tura semicirculari, labio exteruo superne declivo, inferne producto, 

 ad juucturam recedente, intus incrassato ; columella oblique semi- 

 circulari, plerumque albido, valide omuino calloso, ad marginem 

 in medio subarcuato, deutato. 



Taking this as the type of a small series of species, wliich have 

 at least one character in common, that is, the bulging out, as it 

 were, of the lower part of the last whorl over the aperture, we 

 shall point out wherein the succeeding species differ from it. 

 The bulging out of the last whorl increases the appearance of 

 receding in the outer hp, where it joins the body of the shell. 

 Tliis s{)ecies is rather conical, with the spire somewhat produced, 

 but obcL^se ; it is smooth, of a lighter or darker greenish colour, 

 with very fine black undulating lines, and one spiral line at the 

 suture ; the outer lip is, as it were, pinched in near the suture 

 and the lower junction, and is thickened near the edge. The 

 columella is very tumid, generally slightly tinted with orange at 

 the left margin, and obtusely dentated at the right. 



Vera Cruz, Mexico ; on stones in rivers. 



89. Neritina Virginia (pi. cxvi. f. 232-239), Linn., Syst. 

 Nat., p. 1254. no. 730. N. Braziliana, N. Leachii, &c., Recluz. 



N. testa oblique subconica, solida, Isevi, coloribus diversis varie 

 fasciata, punctata, lineata, fasciata vel reticulata : spira subconica, 

 anfractibus antice subgibbosis ; apertura obliqua, antice subpro- 

 ducta ; columella gibbosa, margine crenulato. 



I cannot see any reason for changing the name of this well- 

 known species, even if there should be some sUght cause to doubt 

 the correctness of the application which has been so generally 

 adopted from Lamarck. The species of Linnaeus were not gene- 

 rally well defined, and we may, therefore, well admit an identifi- 

 cation wliich has been generally received, in the absence of proof 

 positive to the contrary. Nor do I see the propriety of separating 

 the varieties which have been labelled by ]\1. Eecluz in Mr. 

 Cuming's collection with the names quoted above, unless, indeed, 

 we were prepared to take every specimen and name it as a species : 

 no two indi\dduals being exactly alike. We might be almost 

 disposed to include N. reclivata in this species, but the upper 



3z 



