10 THE NAUTILI'S. 



NOTES ON THE GENUS CYTRMk. 



1;Y .lOirX H. CAMPBELL. 



Since the puhlieutiou of the latest mouograiih on the genus 

 Cy[)neii — tliat by j\Ir. Roberts in Tryon's ^Manual of Conchoh)gy — 

 four new species have been described, viz : — 



Cypnea amphithales Melvlll, South Africa. 



Cyprcea cajnddraconis Melvill, Hong-Kong. 



Cyprcea Hungerfordii Soioerby, Hong-Kong. 



Ci/prcea JRashleighana Melvill, hab. unknown. 



Each of them has been described, apparently, from a single spec- 

 imen, and it is not at all certain but that two of Mr. Melvill's species, 

 amphithales and caput-draconis may turn out to be mere varieties. 



In Mr. Melvill's " Survey of the genus Cypriea," reprinted in 

 pamphlet form in ^Manchester, England, last year, a large number 

 of new varieties of known species are described— some of them 

 founded upon mere color variations. Most of them seem to me un- 

 necessary additions to shell nomenclature. Tryou and Roberts 

 recognized 146 species of Cypra^a proper and 40 species of Trivia — 

 making 186 species in the genus. Mr. ^Nlelvill, in his survey, differs 

 with them upon some points. He changes C. princeps, Gray, to C. 

 valentia, Perry; C. undata, Lam., to C. diluculnm, Reeve; and C. 

 turdiis, Lam., to C. ovata. Perry ; reduces from specific to varietal 

 rank, C. reticulata, Martyn ; C. coxi. Brazier ; C. jyolita Roberts ; 

 C. semiplota, Mighels; C. cernica, Sowerby ; C. coxeni, Cox; C. 

 sophice, Brazier; C. microdon, Gray; C. macula, Adams; and C. 

 fuscomaeulata. Pease; and advances to specific rank the following 

 varieties : C. caput-anguis, Phil.; 0. fabula, Kiener ; C. coffea, 

 Soiverby ; C. menkeana, Deshayes ; C. brevidentata, Soiverby ; C. 

 bregeriana, Crosse; C. comptoni. Gray; C. depanperata, Soiverby; 

 and C. scabriiiscula, Gray. 



I have lately received a fine specimen of C. bregeriana, Crosse, 

 New Caledonia, from ^Ir. G. B. Sowerby, of London, who writes to me 

 that he is now of the ojiinion that it is a good species and not a va- 

 riety of C. walkeri. Gray, as he thought it to be when he published 

 his mon<)gra})h in the Thesaurus. Mr. Roberts also make it a 

 variety of C. walkeri. AVeinkauff and Melvill give it specific rank, 

 as does also Mr. Richard C. Rossiter, of New Caledonia. I think it 

 is, undoubtedly, a good species. The white specks are characteristic 

 and are not found in C. walkeri. 



A large series of specimens of C. cervus Linn, and C. exanthema 

 Linn., which I have in my collection, leads me to doubt whether 

 these two species are really distinct. No authentic localities outside 

 of Panama and vicinity, West Indies, PTorida and Southeastern 

 United States are known in connection with either of them, and 

 they are found indiscriminately in the localities named. A beauti- 

 ful set of specimens of C. cervus, from the South Florida Keys, are 

 in the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. I have spec- 



