6 



CONUS. 



C. pustulatus, Kiener, Icon. coq. viv. pi. 101. f. 3. 



Having examined this shell in the collection of M. Gnbba, 

 1 find it to be a small dark variety of M. Kiener's C.papil- 

 losus, represented at pi. 72. f. 4. 

 C. Reevei, Kiener, Icon. coq. viv. pi. 44. f. 2. 



This shell, to which M. Kiener his paid me the com- 

 pliment of attaching my name, is, I fear, a variety of 

 C. Senator. It is certainly not my C.punctatus, var. 

 C. roseus, Kiener, (not of Lamarck). Icon. coq. viv. 

 pi. 107. f. 4. 



The name roseus being not only an inappropriate one 

 for this species, but already occupied by Lamarck, I pro- 

 pose to name it after the author of the Iconographie, 

 C.Kieneri. The shell figured by M. Kiener at pi. 59, 

 f. 4. for C. Nisus of Chemnitz is another variety of the same. 

 Through the kindness of M. Gubba I am able to figure 

 both these specimens at Supp. pi. 9. sp. 283, a and b. 



C. roseus, Lamarck. Kiener, Icon. coq. viv. 



M. Kiener states that I have figured a C. lividus for the 

 C. roseus, but a comparison of our figures will show that 

 the species was perfectly well known to me. The specimen 

 represented in the Conchologia Ieonica is not in such 

 good condition as that of the Iconographie coq. viv., but 

 it is a true example of the species. 



C. scalaris, Valenciennes. Kiener, Icon. coq. viv. pi. 88. 

 This species I have not seen, but the figure is so like 

 the fusiform variety of C. acutangulus that I cannot forbear 

 suggesting the comparison. 



C. Sinensis, Sowerby. Kiener, Icon. coq. viv. p. 143. 

 pi. 71.f.l. 



M. Kiener arranges the C. Sinensis next in order to the 

 C. ciiHjidatus, with the remark that the species ought to be 

 united in one. The shell described and figured is not the 

 C. Sinensis, but truly a rather sharply acuminated specimen 

 of C. cingulatus. The name C. Sinensis having been used 

 by Gmelin, I propose to change it, in reference to the 

 present species, for C. Sowerbii. 

 C. sphacelatus, Sow. Kiener, Icon. coq. viv. p. 17. 



M. Kiener remarks, in his observations on C.nebulosus, 

 that Mr. Sowerby's C. sphacelatus is merely a young 

 individual of that species. It is quite distinct. 

 C. stellatos, Kiener, Icon. coq. viv. pi. 99. f. 3. 



I believe this to be the young or dwarf state of M. 

 Kiener's C. Elisa, both of which I have exainiued and 

 figured at Supp. pi. 8. f. 275. 



C. striatus, var. Kiener, Icon. coq. viv. pi. 47. f. 1, b. 

 This shell is a well-known variety of the C. gubernator. 



C. subulatus, Kiener, Icon. coq. viv. pi. 92. f. 6. 



This figure appears to represent a variety of the C. acu- 

 leiformis. Should it prove to be a new species the above 

 name cannot be retained, as M. Kiener has already usee 

 it in reference to another species at pi. 70. 

 C. sulphuratus, Kiener, Icon. coq. viv. p. 130. pi. 66 

 This shell figured by M. Kiener under the above nami 

 at pi. 66 of his work, and again under the name C. citri 

 mis at pi. 78, is the young of a well-known bright yellov 

 variety of C. vexillum. Mr. Sowerby figured it in hi 

 Illustrations as the young of C. mustelinus. 

 C. tabidus, Reeve. Kiener, Icon. coq. viv. pi. 66. f. 2. 

 The shell here figured appears to be a C. mus ; it ] 

 certainly not my C. tabidus, in Mr. Cuming's collection. 

 C. terminus, Lamarck. Kiener, Icon. coq. viv. pi. 48. 

 M. Kiener introduces this species as a synonyme i 

 C. gubernator. The shell upon which this observation 

 founded, represented at f. 1 d, is truly a C. gubernato 

 The C. terminus is quite another species, though vei 

 similar in general aspect. It appears to be little know 

 on the continent. 

 C. tornatus, Kiener, Icon. coq. viv. pi. 59. f. 5. 



This shell is not the species intended, but a C. inte 

 ruptus. C. tornatus is very closely allied to C. interrupt 

 but a different type from the one here represented. 

 C. venulatus, Hwass. Kiener, Icon. coq. viv. p. 18 

 pi. 69. f. 1. 

 The well-known C. nivosus of Lamarck has be 

 hitherto attributed to this species, and I doubt if . 

 Kiener's figure gives a better interpretation. It loc 

 as if it were copied from another figure or from a specim 

 in bad condition. 

 C. Verrecxii, Kiener, Icon. coq. viv. pi. 60. f. 5. 



This species is my C. conspersus, of which M. Kiel 

 has copied at PI. 88. f. 2, the figure in Conch. Icon, tal 

 at the time from an indifferent specimen, the only < 

 known to me, received from M. Gruner of Bremen. I 

 an illustration of this species in fine state, see Con 

 Icon. Supp. pi. 9. 



C. undatus, Kiener, Icon. coq. viv. p. 142. pi. 93. f. 2 

 This shell is certainly a variety of C. cingulatus, thov 

 differing in general aspect from that which M. Kie 

 figures at PI. 93. f. 2, as the type of the species. 

 C. casianeus is another variety. 



C. voluminalis, Hinds. Kiener, Icon. coq. viv. pi. 

 The shell here represented is not the species intend 

 nor is the G. voluminalis at all like the C. Proteus. 1 

 figure has the appearance of a pale C. stramineus. 



