370 Notes and Comments. 
previous paper ‘ Xenopsylla brasiliensis Baker was treated 
as a synonym of cheopis Rothschild, but, as we have already 
published, after critically examining Baker’s types of this 
species, it is evident that it is a distinct species, and the name 
must be retained for the species we named X. vigetus. We 
give the author’s own words, but we confess we are not quite 
clear how the matter stands. Fleas usually are troublesome, 
we believe, but these rat fleas are causing much more worry 
than they should. 
MORE REVISION. 
Similarly, in The Entomologist for October, Mr. S. Webb 
has some notes on the varieties of Peronea cristana Fab. Here 
we learn that ‘ Lichenana Curt., may perhaps be identical with 
Subvittana Steph.—The ground colour of Unicolorana is 
mentioned as dark green . . . the unicolorous pale brown 
variety . . . was placed in all our older collections under 
this name, and it had better be retained for such forms. Rufi- 
cristana Johns., was very properly dropped. . . vossiana 
may have been a oe specimen of cristana, 
whilst the other albicostana Sand., . «. = Unknown torus 
as British. These should be eeatieel from our catalogues.’ 
On page 320 of the same journal a corresponednt records a 
black Satyrus semele and asks if it is a ‘ named variety. What 
is the necessity for naming every variation of every insect, 
especially when they are subsequently ‘dropped’ or ‘expunged’ ? 
NEW (?) SHELLS. 
In The Journal of Conchology for October, Mr. J. T. Marshall 
describes as a ‘new variety’ ‘ F. propinguus Ald., var. levis 
Marsh, n. var.’ This corresponds with F. gracilis var. glabra, 
but is still smoother than that variety, and comes from the 
same British locality.’ How a future worker is to know to 
what extent this variety is smoother than glabra we are not 
informed. No figure is given, although the same writer, 
speaking of another species with which there is apparently also 
some confusion, says ‘ unfortunately the author did not accom- 
pany his description with a figure’! Another ‘ new species,’ 
F. consimilis is admittedly ‘closely allied fo F. attenuatus.’ 
We learn that ‘ with two exceptions it agrees in every respect 
with Gwyn Jeffreys’ description of F. attenuatus, so closely 
indeed as to suggest at first that these two exceptions may 
possibly be reconciled if more specimens come to hand.’ Then 
why not have waited a bit ? With regard to this alleged new 
species we can repeat the author’s own words, and regret that un- 
fortunately he does not accompany his description with a figure. 
MORE MOLLUSCAN MIXES. 
In the very next paper in the same journal Mr. L. E. Adams 
refers to a recent account by Mr. J. W. Taylor of an addition 
Naturalist, 
