OF CONCHOLOGY. 93 



Sp. 75. M. oryza, Lam. Very properly restored to its 

 place as a species distinct from M. miliaria, L. 



Sp. 81. 31. lactea, Kiener. As only the back of the shell is 

 figured, the more essential characters are not seen ; but as the 

 description states the columella to be three-plaited, it cannot be 

 Kiener's shell, which he distinctly describes as ^'- quadriplieata." 

 Reeve's shell is doubtless the M. suhtriplicata, Orb., closely 

 allied, but differing by having only three plaits, which are also 

 more oblique than in lactea. Reeve's figure 135, on plate 24, 

 also represents the M. suhtriplicata. Both species are found at 

 various points in the Caribbean province. 



Sp. 83. 31. avena, Val. The shell here figured is not the 

 usual typical form, but that which Bernardi has described and 

 figured in Petit's Journ. de Conch., iv, l^O, as 31. Beyerleana. 

 I have hitherto regarded this as a distinct species, characterized 

 by the interrupted character of its rose-colored bands; but some 

 specimens have recently been sent me by Mr. D. W. Ferguson, 

 in which these bands — while still of a bright rosy tinge — are 

 free from interruption, and well connect the Beyerleana with the 

 ordinary or more fulvous variety. 



Sp. 85. 31. tceniata, Sow. Neither Sowerby nor Reeve 

 gives the habitat of this species. I have specimens from the 

 Bahama Islands. 



Sp. 87. 31. conoidalis, Kiener. 31. apicina, Menke, which 

 is quoted as a synonym, should take precedence. 



Sp. 88. 31. prainosa, Hinds. This figure approaches the 

 Carolina shell which I have named 31. roscida (Proc. Phil. Ac. 

 Nat. Sci., xii, 174), though it shows less angularity of the body 

 whorl. A comparison of the original types may, perhaps, show 

 them to be identical. Mr. Conrad (Am, Journ. Conch., iv, 67) 

 says he is unable to distinguish my 31. roscida from his 31. 

 Umatilla (fossil). In a fossil state the flecking of the 31. roscida 

 would readily disappear, and I think further examination may 

 establish the identity of the two, in which case Mr. Conrad's 

 name would take precedence over all. 



aS^. 90. 31. Saulcyana, Petit. The figure certainly repre- 

 sents, not the Saulcyana, but cincta, so as to fully justify 

 Reeve's remark that it is " very closely allied to 31. cincta., and 

 possibly a variety of that species." But M. Saulcyana, Petit, 

 is, in my estimation, quite a different affair, being identical 

 with 31. Storeria, Couthouy, referred to in my note on the next 

 species. 



7 



