﻿Descriptions 
  of 
  New 
  Species 
  of 
  Marginella, 
  Sfc. 
  227 
  

  

  amygdala 
  Kiener, 
  and 
  the 
  latter 
  having 
  been 
  given 
  to 
  a 
  worn 
  

   example 
  of 
  a 
  peculiar 
  aspect, 
  which 
  is 
  now 
  ascertained 
  to 
  be- 
  

   long 
  to 
  a 
  variety 
  of 
  M. 
  quinqueplicata 
  Lam. 
  M. 
  Petit, 
  in 
  his 
  

   "Journal 
  de 
  Conchyliologie 
  " 
  for 
  Nov. 
  1851, 
  describes 
  and 
  

   figures 
  a 
  Marginella 
  Hainesii, 
  which 
  is 
  apparently 
  identical 
  

   with 
  the 
  shell 
  I 
  had 
  called 
  M. 
  vermiculata, 
  and 
  does 
  not 
  ap- 
  

   pear 
  to 
  me 
  to 
  possess 
  sufficient 
  distinctive 
  characters 
  to 
  war- 
  

   rant 
  its 
  separation 
  from 
  31. 
  quinqueplicata. 
  Should 
  it 
  prove 
  

   otherwise, 
  the 
  name 
  of 
  M. 
  Hainesii 
  must 
  be 
  adopted. 
  

  

  In 
  the 
  same 
  journal 
  (which 
  should 
  be 
  more 
  widely 
  known 
  

   and 
  circulated 
  among 
  conchologists 
  than 
  it 
  is), 
  May, 
  1851, 
  

   M. 
  Petit 
  has 
  published 
  a 
  well-digested 
  catalogue 
  of 
  recent 
  and 
  

   fossil 
  Marginella. 
  Including 
  Erato 
  and 
  excluding 
  a 
  few 
  

   species 
  which 
  M. 
  Petit 
  thinks 
  should 
  be 
  retained 
  for 
  the 
  genus 
  

   Volvaria, 
  he 
  enumerates 
  155 
  recent 
  and 
  27 
  fossil 
  species. 
  

   We 
  note 
  here, 
  that 
  M. 
  pudica 
  Gaskoin, 
  which 
  appears 
  in 
  the 
  

   catalogue 
  as 
  a 
  distinct 
  species, 
  should 
  have 
  been 
  placed 
  as 
  a 
  

   synonym 
  to 
  our 
  31. 
  chrysomelina. 
  We 
  are 
  in 
  doubt 
  as 
  to 
  M. 
  

   Dehssertiana 
  Recluz, 
  not 
  having 
  seen 
  the 
  description 
  in 
  Re- 
  

   vue 
  ZooL, 
  1841, 
  but 
  from 
  the 
  fact 
  that 
  M. 
  Petit 
  doubtfully 
  

   quotes 
  for 
  this 
  species 
  fig. 
  141 
  of 
  Sowerby's 
  Thesaurus, 
  we 
  

   are 
  inclined 
  to 
  regard 
  it 
  as 
  identical 
  with 
  Orbigny's 
  31. 
  alboli- 
  

   neata, 
  which 
  does 
  not 
  appear 
  in 
  M. 
  Petit's 
  catalogue, 
  and 
  which 
  

   Sowerby's 
  fig. 
  141 
  certainly 
  represents. 
  If 
  identical, 
  Recluz' 
  

   name 
  has 
  probably 
  precedence, 
  though 
  the 
  current 
  French 
  

   mode 
  of 
  publishing 
  works 
  of 
  the 
  character 
  of 
  the 
  " 
  3Iollusques 
  

   de 
  Cuha^'^ 
  in 
  fasciculi, 
  without 
  date, 
  renders 
  it 
  difficult 
  to 
  de- 
  

   cide 
  this 
  point. 
  31. 
  ovuliformis 
  Orb. 
  seems 
  also 
  have 
  been 
  

   overlooked 
  by 
  M. 
  Petit. 
  

  

  In 
  an 
  article 
  aiming 
  to 
  show 
  the 
  distinctive 
  character 
  of 
  

   Cyproca 
  histrio, 
  and 
  C. 
  reticulata, 
  published 
  in 
  vol. 
  4 
  of 
  An- 
  

   nals 
  of 
  Lye. 
  Nat. 
  Hist., 
  pp. 
  447, 
  448, 
  I 
  mentioned 
  that 
  I 
  had 
  

   not 
  had 
  opportunity 
  to 
  consult 
  Meuschen's 
  Museum 
  G-eversia- 
  

  

  