OF CONCHOLOGY. 91 



that this was first named and described by the Rev. Mr. Gaskoin, 

 in Proc. Lond. Zool. Soc. for 1849, p. 17. 



Sp. 51. 3f. oblonga, Sw. Reeve quotes 31. cat'nea, Storer, 

 and JI. amabilis, Redf., as synonyms of this. As regards the 

 latter I am disposed to acquiesce in this opinion, for sinc^ my 

 description of it was published, an examination of more exten- 

 sive suites of specimens has shown that it is difficult to define a 

 satisfactory separation. But I still regard Storer's 3f. carnea 

 as a valid species, the pattern and coloring of which are always 

 sufficiently distinct from 31. ohlonga. The group is, however, a 

 perplexing one, and I have recently seen two or three specimens 

 intermediate between 31. oblonga, Sw., and 31. guttata^ Dillw., 

 having the form and ground work of color of the former, with 

 the white flecks of the latter, and I suspect that 31. nivosa in 

 like manner connects 31. guttata, Dillw., with 31. j^rwmosa, 

 Hinds. 



Sp. 55. 31. ajigustata, Sow. Ascribed to Brazil, erroneously 

 I think. Sowerby referred it to the East Indies. Kiener 

 (mistaking it for 31. hullata), says it inhabits the Indian Ocean. 

 My specimens came from Ceylon. 



Sp. 57. 31. persicida, L. The well marked variety named 

 by Lamarck 31. avellana, is omitted from the synonymy. If 

 dropped as a species, it still deserves mention as a variety. 



Sp. 61. 3f. similis, Sow. This name must give place to 31. 

 obesa, Redf., which has precedence by eight months, as I have 

 already noted in Ann. N. Y. Lye. Nat. Hist, iv, 494. (The 

 shell which Sowerby at a later date named obesa, for which I 

 proposed (loc. cit.) the name of 31. p)yrulata, but which I suspect 

 is only a variety of 31. labiata, Val., is omitted from Reeve's 

 Monograph). Although Mr. Reeve figures and describes my 

 31. obesa, (under the name of 31. similis), he thinks it may 

 probably be only a variety of 31. interrupta. Lam. I must con- 

 tinue to dissent decidedly from this view, referring to my full 

 description in Ann. N. Y. Lye. Hist, iv, 164, 165, for a detail of 

 the differences, which are constant and sharp. At Carthagena, 

 S. A., both species occur together, always readily distinguishable. 

 At St. Martha the 31. interrupta is found alone. 



*S^. 65. 31. 7naoulosa, Kiener. The shells figured under this 

 name are certainly not Kiener's 31. maculosa, nor do they hardly 

 answer to 31. guttata, Sow., which I have learned to regard as 

 distinct. They are more nearly related to Swainson's shell than 

 to Kiener's, but without inspection of the types referred to by 

 Reeve, I do not think proper to propose a new name. 



