VOLUTA. 271 



66. Maima-Emma (f. 133), Gray. — Described from a single 

 shell sent to Dr. Gray by Mr. Cuming for description, and now 

 deposited in the British Museum. It resembles V. siibnodosa in 

 general form and colouring, but has a thick papillary spire, like 

 that of V. seapka. 



67. Kossiniana (f. 135), Bernardi. — This magnificent species 

 resembles V. imperialis, but it has not the coronal spines pro- 

 duced, its sides are not so straight, the outer lip is expanded. 



68. exoptanda (f. 136), Sowb. — A fine shell of a rather coni- 

 cal form, with an angle near the top of the outer whorl. It is 

 finely reticulated, with two bauds. The spire is mamillated. 

 The aperture is rather narrow, and of a rich orange colour. Port 

 Lincoln, S. Australia. 



69. innexa (f. 137), Reeve. — Differs from V. rutila in being 

 more angular, having tubercles on the angle ; the colouring is 

 similar in pattern, but paler. 



73. Loroisi (f. 138), Valenciennes, Joum. de Conc/i. — De- 

 scribed from a worn specimen in the French Museum. It is 

 of a rounded oval form, of a pinkish colour with brown zebra-like 

 stripes. The plica3 on the columella are almost obsolete. 



71. pRjETEXTA (f. 125), Reeve (Amoria Turneri Cumin r/ii, 

 Gray). — Resembling V. reticulata, Reeve; of more solid texture, 

 much finer reticulations, with two rows of distant dark-brown 

 markings on the body-whorl. The teeth are fewer and less ob- 

 lique. 



72. Torneei (f. 129), Gray. — Resembling V. pallida, Gray, 

 but the longitudinal lines, which appear in some specimens of the 

 latter near the apex, ornament the whole body-whorl in the former; 

 besides which are two rows of distant cloudy large spots on the 

 last whorl. I believe it to be distinct, at least sufficiently so for 

 conventional purposes. 



73. Angasii (f. 29), Soicb. — I propose to distinguish by this 

 name the shell which has been usually regarded as the Tasmanian 

 variety of V. undulata. The figure 29 hardly represents the dif- 

 ference sufficiently, being from a less developed specimen. But 

 the angular form and close angular markings of one, as compared 

 with the graceful elongation and less suddenly curved lines of the 

 other, are constant in all stages of development, nor have I seen 

 any intermediate degrees which would cause embarrassment. The 

 differences have been pointed out in a note from Mr. G. F. Angas, 

 who has collected both species. The note concludes with the 



