4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MALACOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 



Rolle did not describe the colour of his perelongata ; our specimen 

 agrees perfectly with the description given by Pilsbry of P. 

 daillyana. 



No. 21. — Neptunea antiqua, sub-sp. japonica, Dautz. & Fisch., 



A SYNONYM OF ChRYSODOMUS INTEESCULPTUS, Sowb. 



1899. Chrysodomus inter sculptus, Sowb., Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist., 



iv, p. 371. 

 1912. Neptunea antiqua (Linne), sub-sp. japonica, Dautz. & 



H. Fischer, Kesult. Camp. Sci. Albert ler, Fasc. xxxvii, 



p. 77, pi. ii, fig. 2. 

 Monsieur Ph. Dautzenberg agrees with me that the above are 

 one and the same species. 



No. 22. — An additional note on Murex spinicosta, Kiener 



In an interesting article on Florida in the Nautilus (vol. xxxii, 

 July, 1919, p. 6) Mr. C. W. Johnson notes: " I also found my only 

 living specimen oi Murex fulvescens, Sowb. [M. spinicostata, Val.)." 



I have already suggested in these Proceedings (vol. xii, 1917, 

 " MoUuscan Notes," No. 10) that the proper name is spinicosta, 

 and that the species should be credited to Kiener and not to 

 Valenciennes. 



The first reference to fulvescens appears in the catalogue of 

 Sowerby's " Gonchological Illustrations", as follows: "sp. 94. 

 M. tuhinatus. Lam., vii, p. 170. Con. lUus. {M. fulvescens), fig. 30. 

 Var. Con. Illus., fig. 90, 91." 



If the fig. 30 is really the same species as spinicosta, Kiener, 

 that name will fall and fulvescens, Sowb., take its place. To me, 

 however, it is not certain that they are identical, and so I would 

 suggest that spinicosta, Kiener, be adopted for the Florida shell, 

 especially seeing the ambiguous manner in which fulvescens was 

 published. 



No. 23. — On type-specimens of the " Morelet Collection ". 



In 1892 I purchased the collection of land and freshwater shells 

 formed by the late Arthur Morelet. Unfortunately, during the 

 transit from Dijon to London a good many of the more fragile 

 specimens, owing to their having been mounted on very thick and 

 heavy cardboard tablets, got broken, including some type-specimens. 

 The British Museum acquired all the types, some 600 or so, and the 

 late Mr. Edgar Smith, I believe, made a list of the missing types, 

 but, as far as I know, never published it. The types were not marked 

 as such, otherwise especial care might have been taken in the packing 

 of them and their loss have been avoided. I have thought it useful 

 to put these facts on record, and it would be well if a fist of the 

 missing types were pubhshed, in order that those having co-types of 

 such might fill the gaps left by the loss of the actual types. 



