Miscellaneous. 167 



On Oliva auricularia, Lam., 0. aquatilis, Beeve, and 0. auricularia, 

 D'Orb. By F. P. Markat. 



The history of these shells is somewhat remarkable — so much so 

 that eacli author who has written upon them has had some informa- 

 tion to impart of a character differing considerably from that of his 

 predecessor. 



Lamarck described a species which he called 0. auricularia 

 (Aniraaux sans Yertebres) ; the former part of this description 

 refers to the 0. aquatilis, Eeeve, pi. 18. fig. 38, while the latter 

 (" columella callosa, complanata ") refers to the 0. auricularia, Lam., 

 as figured by Reeve, pi. 18. fig. 39. 



D'Orbigny (Voy. Amer. Merid, vol. ix. pi. 59. figs. 20-22) has 

 figured a shell, accompanied by the animal, and named it Olivancil - 

 laria auricularia, Lam., from which species it differs so much as to 

 be regarded as even generically distinct. Deshayes, in a footnote to 

 the description of 0. auricularia, Lam., remarks that D'Orbigny has 

 confounded his shell with Lamarck's species, and considers D'Or- 

 bigny's species to be 0. hiplicata, Sow., quoting the figure in Wood's 

 Supplement. Again, this author, under the species 0. hiplicata, 

 Sow., gives D'Orbigny's 0. auricularia as a synonym, and describes 

 the difference existing between the two species. In the Tankerville 

 Catalogue, page 33, Appendix J^o. 2331, we have a description of 

 the two species under the name of 0. patula seu aperta, Sol. MS., 

 the former portion of this description referring to the 0. auricularia, 

 Reeve, or the thick African species, and the latter portion to the 0. 

 aquatilis, Reeve, or the thin South-American shell. 



Duclos (Genre Olive, pi. 29. figs. 4-7) has not only figured the two 

 shells hitherto confounded under the 0. auricularia, Lam., but has 

 introduced two figures of another allied species or varictv (pi. 29. 

 figs. 5 & 6). 



Reeve, in his ' Monograph on the genus Oliva,' in 1851, separated 

 the shells into two species, viz. 0. auricularia, Lam., and 0. aqua- 

 tilis. Reeve, but gave a wrong locahty to the former, viz. Brazil 

 instead of Africa. The Messrs. Adams, in their valuable work on 

 the ' Genera of Recent Mollusca,' vol. i. pp. 140 & 141, give a de- 

 scription of the genus OUvancillaria, D'Orb., and figure at pi. 15. 

 fig. 2 a copy of D'Orbigny's animal and shell, with the name 0. ve- 

 sica, Gmelin. On the same plate, fig. 2*, 0. auricularia, Reeve, is 

 given as the shell of D'Orbigny, the first having an open canaliculate 

 spire, and the second a closed canal ; in fact two species could 

 scarcely be selected that differ more widely. Dr. Gray, in his w^ork 

 on the Olividae, p. 19, gives the Clane&phila auricularia. Lam,, as the 

 0. aquatilis, Reeve, and 0. patula. Sow., as a synonym, and to the 

 thick African shell he has given a new name, CI. gihbosa, Gray. 



What inferences can we draw from these contradictory statements? 

 First, that the 0. vesica, Gmel., is the 0. auricularia. Lam., in part, as 

 well as the 0. patula, Sow., in part, and of Duclos in part, these authors 

 all believing that the 0. aquatilis, Reeve, was only a variety of 0. 

 auricularia. Lam.; and the credit of distinguishing them as species 



