80 THE NAUTILUS. 
variety of eruenta or of caurica. That his purpose is more plainly 
shown in the list of figures given is apparent, but as the volume 
examined by me was an uncut one, this list was not at the time dis- 
covered. 
Since many readers of the Nauritus may lack the opportunity 
of seeing Mr. Melvill’s statement, and judging for themselves as to 
its clearness, it is given here verbatim, as follows: “ C. cruenta 
(Gmel.) is very nearly allied to the preceding, ” [i. e. cawrica] “and 
the variety coloba (fig. 7), so-called from the stunted appearance, is 
also figured in Sowb. Thes. f. 190, as caurica var. ; it would appear 
nearer this species: the base is always brighter coloured, and teeth 
interstices bright red. I possess stunted cawrica with which this var. 
cannot be mistaken.” 
Now if any reader of the NaurrLus can show by these sentences 
to which of the two species Mr. Melvill assigned the variety, it will 
be a pleasure for me to acknowledge my error in questioning his 
meaning. But whether the language refers to one variety or 
another is really of very little moment at this time, since it can in 
no way affect the present status of the shells. Be it agreeable to 
Mr. Smith or not, the fact remains that Mr. Melvill’s so-called 
description is simply meaningless and void, embracing as it does, 
just three words, viz, “base brighter colored,” meaning, of course, 
brighter colored than the type shells he had in mind. 
But how brighter or how colored? They are certainly not 
brighter than both cruenta and caurica usually are; and there is not 
a hint as to whether the color is green, blue, yellow or any one of a 
dozen hues, yet with such a description at hand, the student was 
expected to distinguish the shells from all others. It is true that 
there are other words besides the three quoted, viz, “teeth inter- 
stices bright red.” Unfortunately, however, the same sentence 
is used in the description of the type C. cruenta, (to which species 
Mr. Smith assures us the variety coloba relates) and is therefore 
entirely worthless as a distinctive varietal character. 
For these reasons, I claim that the name coloba is absolutely 
devoid of collateral support, since nothing can be plainer than the 
fact that without an accompanying description intelligible enough 
for comprehension, the suggested name or title of a shell is of no 
scientific value whatever. 
But then, as Mr. Smith intimates, there is the figure! and surely 
that counts for something. 
