THE NAUTILUS. 57 



NOTE ON MITRA PICTA REEVE. 



BY SLOMAN ROUS. 



Mitra picta Reeve (Conch. Icon., p. 123, 1844) has been placed 

 by Tryon in the synonymy of M. barbadensis. This, 1 think, is an 

 error. A very cursory examination of the two shells will at once 

 show them to be distinct. The sculpture of barbadensis consists of 

 spiral raised lines, with fine microscopic, spiral and longitudinal 

 lines decussating the spaces between them. In picta the spiral lines 

 are impressed, closely, deeply foveolated, microscopically striated 

 longitudinally and pitted where they cross the revolving lines. The 

 fine spiral lines of barbadensis are absent in picta. 



In color M. picta is a much darker brown, with the white patches 

 much more conspicuous, being larger and more numerous often in 

 wide longitudinal lines from end to end of the shell, but broken at 

 the suture, or often massed on the suture so that the white predom- 

 inates. I think usually one-fourth of the surface is white. 



The folds on the columella of M. barbadensis are five in number, 

 sometimes a sixth being just perceptible, in picta there are only four, 

 the fourth being very small. I do not recollect ever to have noticed 

 a fifth fold, but if it occurs it will be as rare as six in barbadensis. 



Tryon also says " Sowerby erroneously refers the latter (picta) to 

 the Cape of Good Hope." This is not an error of Mr. Sowerby. 

 I was resident in the Cape over forty years, during which I had the 

 pleasure of supplying him with many examples, and I have many 

 still in my possession, most, or I think all, of them collected in 

 Algoa Bay. 



There can be no doubt that M. picta Reeve, is a valid species, and 

 that its habitat is the Cape of Good Hope. That other writers have 

 followed Tryon in this synonymy is sufficient reason for bringing this 

 error to the notice of conchologists. 



NOTE ON VITREA APPROXIMA AND V. VANATTAI. 



BY H. A. PILSBRY AND BYRANT WALKER. 



Owing to the fact that the proof of the article in which these 

 species were described (Proc. A. N. S. P. 1902, pp. 431-3) was not 

 read by both us, some errors unintentionally crept in, which were 



