STKES : MOLLUSCA OF " POECUPINE " EXPEDITIONS. 187 



Closely related to many forms of Clathurella, but I am unable to 

 exactly identify it. Mr. Marshall notes " nearest to C. linearis, var. 

 (Bqualis, but more oblong, sculpture finer, with infrasutural area." 



Clathurella nivea (Monterosato). PI. XVI, Figs. 8, 8«. 

 Befrancia reticulata, var. nivea, Monterosato: Atti Ace. Palerm., 1875, 



No. i, p. 44. 

 Pleurotoma {Homotoma) nivea, Monterosato: Enum. e Sinon., 1878, 

 p. 46. 

 "Porcupine" Expedition, 1870, Station 56. 

 Bistrihution . — Mediterranean . 



Eecorded from specimens identified by the author. Mr. Marshall 

 writes: "This species resembles C. reticulata in size, sculpture, and 

 outlines, but while C. reticulata has a slender and acute apex of four 

 whorls, C. nivea has a broad twisted apex {apex revolutus) of two 

 whorls only, somewhat similar to that of Trophon and Murex, so that 

 when either of these species are found minus the upper whorls, there 

 is some doubt in determining the species. The same remarks apply 

 to dwarf forms of C. purpurea in relation to C. hicolor, V. gemmata, 

 and C. gracillimay 



Clathurella pseudohysteix, n.n. 

 Befrancia hjstrix, Jan : Jeffreys, Ann. Nat. Hist., ser. iv, vol. vi, 



p. 82. 

 ? Peratotoma histrix, Jan : Sacco, Moll. Terz. Piemonte, pt. xxx, 



p. 52, pi. xiii, fig. 37. 

 Clathurella ( Cordieria) hystrix, Jan : Kobelt, p. 357, pi. xcvi, fig. 20. 

 Pleurotoma {Clathurella) histrix, Jan: Watson, Journ. Linn. Soc, 



ZooL, vol. xxvi, p. 304. 

 Non Pleurotoma Jiystrtx, Jan: Cat. Conch., 1832, p. 10. 

 Non Raphitoma histrix, Jan : Bellardi, Mem. Ace. Torino, ser. ii, 



vol. ix, p. 613, pi. iv, fig. 14. 

 Non Homotoma histrix, Jan : Bellardi, Moll. Terz. Piemonte, pt. ii, 

 p. 267. 

 "Porcupine" Expedition, 1870, Station 50; Adventure Bank, 

 92 fathoms (with a white variety in both cases). 



Bistrihution. — Several localities in the Mediterranean; also Madeira 

 (Watson). 



I have set out the above references in detail, as I am unable 

 to agree with the identification of the recent specimens with the 

 older Tertiary form. Nothing can be gleaned from Jan's original 

 reference, and the species really rests on Bellardi's diagnosis and 

 figure, which were, as I understand it, taken from a specimen sent to 

 him by Jan. Further references may be obtained from the works 

 cited. 



As the Marquis de Monterosato, who kindly suggested the above 

 -name to me, points out, the fossil form has a pointed protoconch, 

 composed of three or four whorls ; while the recent shell, in the 

 character of its protoconch, rather resembles Trophon. Precisely 

 where the fossil form disappeared and was replaced by the present 

 shell, I am unable to determine, but the two appear to be distinct. 



