80 THE NAUTILUS. 



variety of cruenta or of cau,rica. That his purpose is more plainly 

 shown in the list of figures given is apparent, but as the volume 

 examined by me was an uncut one, this list was not at the time dis- 

 covered. 



Since many readers of the Nautilus may lack the opportunity 

 of seeing Mr. Melvill's statement, and judging for themselves as to 

 its clearness, it is given here verbatim, as follows : " C. cruenta 

 (Gmel.) is very nearly allied to the preceding," [i. e. caurica] " and 

 the variety coloba (fig. 7), so-called from the stunted appearance, is 

 also figured in Sowb. Thes. f. 190, as caurica var. ; it would appear 

 nearer this species : the base is always brighter coloured, and teeth 

 interstices bright red. I possess stunted caurica with which this var. 

 cannot be mistaken." 



Now if any reader of the Nautilus can show by these sentences 

 to which of the two species Mr. Melvill assigned the variety, it will 

 be a pleasure for me to acknowledge my error in questioning his 

 meaning. But whether the language refers to one variety or 

 another is really of very little moment at this time, since it can in 

 no way affect the present status of the shells. Be it agreeable to 

 Mr. Smith or not, the fact remains that Mr. Melvill's so-called 

 description is simply meaningless and void, embracing as it does, 

 just three words, viz, "base brighter colored," meaning, of course, 

 brighter colored than the type shells he had in mind. 



But how brighter or how colored? They are certainly not 

 brighter than both cruenta and caurica usually are; and there is not 

 a hint as to whether the color is green, blue, yellow or any one of a 

 dozen hues, yet with such a description at hand, the student was 

 expected to distinguish the shells from all others. It is true that 

 there are other words besides the thi'ee quoted, viz, " teeth inter- 

 stices bright red." Unfortunately, however, the same sentence 

 is used in the description of the type C. cr\ienta, (to which species 

 Mr. Smith assures us the variety coloba relates) and is therefore 

 entirely worthless as a distinctive varietal character. 



For these reasons, I claim that the name coloba is absolutely 

 devoid of collateral support, since nothing can be plainer than the 

 fact that without an accompanying description intelligible enough 

 for comprehension, the suggested name or title of a shell is of no 

 scientific value whatever. 



But then, as Mr. Smith intimates, there is the figure! and surely 

 that counts for something. 



