SMITH : RECENT SPECIES OF THE GENUS PIRULA, LAMARCK. 65 



a new species recently received from the Bay of Bengal, I took the 

 opportunity of examining the species contained in the collection of 

 the British Museum and also the literature in connection with the 

 genus. 



As there appears to be considerable difference of opinion among 

 the authors mentioned with regard to the value of Lamarck's 

 P. deaissata, and also a divergence of opinion respecting the 

 synonymy of some of the other species, I was induced to study the 

 subject somewhat carefully and so put together the following notes : — 



1. Pirula ficus (Linn.) 



Bulla ficus, Linn. Syst. nat., ed. 12, p. 1184, partim. Sycotypus 

 fens, H. & A. Adams, Gen. Moll., vol. iii., pi. xxi., fig. 1 (animal). 

 Ficula Icevigata, Reeve, Con. Icon., fig. 4 ; Voy. Samarang, p. 39, 

 pi, ix., fig. 4 (animal). 



Hab. : Indian Ocean and Moluccas (Lam.) ; Ceylon, Aden 

 (Brit. Mus.) ; Sooloo Sea, 35 fins. (A. Adams). 



The identification of this species has been agreed upon by all the 

 monographers ; but Reeve, who employed the generic name Ficula, 

 suggested by Swainson in 1835 f° r tne species of this genus, in order 

 " to avoid tautology " proposed another name, Ficula kevigata, for 

 this species. In the present day, however, we adopt the generic 

 term Pirula, and therefore are at liberty to use the specific term 

 ficus without being tautological. The genus " Pyrula " of Lamarck 

 included species belonging to several genera as now understood, but 

 it was restricted to its present limitations by Montfort in 1810, by 

 Schumacher in 181 7, and again in 1824, by Sowerby, a fact 

 apparently unknown to Swainson or Reeve. Moreover the only 

 species quoted by Lamarck, when he originally described the genus, 

 and therefore the type (Mem. Soc. Nat. Hist, Paris 1799, p. 73) was 

 the Bulla ficus of Linn. 



In the twenty-fourth number of his " Genera of Recent and 

 Fossil Shells," published in 1824, Sowerby figured three species of 

 " Pyrula," and in the account of the genus observed: "The shells 

 which, alone, in our opinion, ought to form the genus Pyrula, are 

 oblong, rather thin, and generally, more or less strongly cancellated 

 on the outside ; they have a thin epidermis which is scarcely ever 

 sufficiently adhesive to remain on the shells when brought into 

 commerce." He gives a further careful description of the genus, 

 leaving not the slightest doubt as to its scope and consequently the 

 revival of Swainson's name by Reeve, Kobelt, and the late G. B. 

 Sowerby was altogether unnecessary. For various reasons the generic 



