CONUS. 



To avoid any confusion arising out of certain errors committed in my own Monograph of this genus published 

 i 1843, and in that subsequently published by M. Kiener in 1847, I have made a critical examination of each 

 )ecies. The following emendations resulting from this investigation have been aided principally by the greatly 

 ilarged collection of Mr. Cuming, and that of M. Gubba of Havre, who has kindly furnished me with the means 

 ' examining many of M. Kiener's specimens. 



mendatious applicable to the monographs of the Conchologia Iconica, and Iconographie des coquilles 



VIVANTES. 



Adamsoni, Gray. Conch. Icon. pi. 4. f. 22. 



This very beautiful species proves to have been first 

 imed in America, by M. Couthouy, C. Rhododendron, in 

 e Annals Lyceum Nat. Hist, of New York, and figured 



the Catalogue of Dr. Jay, an eminent conchologist of 

 at city. 



AMabilis, Lamarck. Couch. Icon. pi. 11. sp. 57. 



First described in 1795 by Chemnitz, at the close of 

 i great work, Conch. Cab. vol. xi. pi. 182. f. 1770-1, 

 der the name C.festivus. I cannot agree with M. Kiener 

 regarding it a variety of the 0. pertnsns, Hwass, des- 

 bed in 1792 by Bruguiere in the Encyclopedie Metho- 

 [ue. 



aueantius, Hwass. Conch. Icon. pi. 14. f. 73. 

 This species should take the name C. leucostictus first 

 ren to it by Graelin, notwithstanding that the author 

 afounded it afterwards with C. ammiralis as a variety. 



Ceylonicus, Chemnitz ; vide C. obesus. 



Dillwymi, vide C.piperatus. 



Dux, Hwass. Conch. Icon. pi. 3. f. 13. 



First described by Born under the name C. circumcisus, 



lompanied by a reference to Martini (Conch. Cab. vol. ii. 



5. f. 571-2), whose figures were respectively named 



Gmehn C. qffinis and leevis. 



elongates, Eeeve, Conch. Icon. pi. 27. f. 157. 

 This name having been applied by Chemnitz to the 

 Mozambicm, of which it has priority, I propose to call 

 i species C. oblitus 



EEMIneus, Born ; vide C. lithoglyphus. 



festivus, Chemnitz ; vide C. amab'dis. 



C. informis, Hwass. Coneh. Icon. pi. 5. f. 24. 



The observations of M. Deshayes, coupled with the 

 figure pi. 337. f. 8, of the Encyclopedie Methodique, go 

 far to confirm an opinion I have long entertained, that 

 this shell is truly a variety of the C. elongatus, Chemnitz 

 (better known as 0. Mozamiicus). Neither of the figures 

 to which Lamarck refers in the Conchylien Cabinet, apply 

 to the species. The C. spectrum Sumatra of Chemnitz 

 I take to be a species collected during the voyage of the 

 Samarang, to which the name C. pica has been given 

 (Conch. Icon. Supp. pi. 9. f. 282). 



C. jaspidetjs, Kiener, Icon. coq. viv. pi. 55. f. 2. Conch. 

 Icon. Supp. pi. 3. f. 281. 



The above name cannot be retained for this species, 

 having been already used by Gmelin in reference to 

 Martini's figures, Conch. Cab. vol. ii. p. 55. f. 612 a, b, 

 c, d, which, however, represent three species. The species 

 under consideration is extremely variable in colour, and, 

 notwithstanding the very different aspect of the figures, I 

 am strongly inclined to regard it as a variety of C. Loveni, 

 Krauss, Sudaf. Moll. pi. 6. f. 25. 



C. ledcostictus, Gmelin j vide C. aurantim. 

 C. lithoglyphus, Meuschen. Conch. Icon. pi. 4. f. 20. 

 M. Deshayes reminds us that this species was first 

 described by Born under the name C. ermineus. 



C. Lorenzianus, Chemnitz. Conch. Icon. pi. 16. f. 87. 

 The shell here represented from M. Delessert's collec- 

 tion, the same figured in Kiener, Icon. coq. viv. pi. 55. 

 f. 1 , belongs to a well-known species which I propose to 

 name C. virgatas, hitherto mistaken in this country for 

 Lamarck's C. zebra. It is more attenuated towards the 



June, 1849. 



