SCHILDER : ON CYPB^A AND TRIVIA. lO? 



identical witH C. margarita, Gray (1825 nee 1828), and C. margarita, 

 Wood (1828). 



Cypr^a melvilli, Hidalgo (1906). 

 CyprcBa ursellus, Gmel. (1196), is a decorticated shell of G. hirundo, 

 Linn., but C. ursellus, Kiener (1845, non Gmelin), is a good species, 

 or, at least, a subspecies, of C. felina ; the latter therefore had been 

 changed by Hidalgo (1906) into C. melvilli, and Shaw (1909) accepted 

 this name. But this Cyprcea had been described already by Gray 

 (1824, Zool. Journ., i, p. 384) as Cyprcea felina, vav. listen. Therefore 

 C. listeri must supersede C. ursellus, Kien., and melvilli, Hid. (see 

 note under C. listeri. Gray). 



Cypr^a minor, Grateloup (1845). 

 Orbigny (1852, Prodr. Paleont., iii, p. 48) changed C ovum, 

 Grat. (1845, Conch, foss. bassin Adour, tab. 40, fig. 1), into G. 

 suhovum, for this name was preoccupied by Gmelin (1790, = errones, 

 Linn., var.). Sacco (1894, p. 10) pointed out that the name minor, 

 given by Grateloup to a variety of his ovum (op. cit., tab. 40, fig. 16), 

 has priority. I prefer to retain G. suhovum, for Grateloup had already 

 described a G. annularis var. minor as fig. 10. Cossmann (1903) 

 cited this species erroneously as G. ovum, Grat. 



Cypr^a obesa, Deshayes (1866). 

 Hidalgo (1906, pp. 50, 158) cites a Gyprcea ohesa, Carpenter (1857, 

 Rep. pres. state of knowl. Moll. West Coast of North Amer., p. 235), 

 the description of which he did not see. He had possibly seen the 

 Index of Carpenter's " The Moll, of Western North America " (1872), 

 where on p. 45 a Gyprcea is called ohesa. But this is evidently an 

 error in Carpenter's manuscript, for in the treatise which Hidalgo 

 did not know (to be found in Rep. Brit. Assoc. Adv. of Sci., 1856, 

 not 1857), Carpenter, after a list of Gyprcea, enumerates a Gancellaria 

 ohesa, Sow., while there is no Gyprcea of this name. G. ohesa, Carp., 

 is therefore a nomen nudum, and G. ohesa, Desh., may remain. 



Cypr^a obtusa, Perry (1811). 

 I agree with Hidalgo's opinion (1906, p. 178) that Gyprcea vinosa, 

 Gmelin (1790^ Syst. Nat., 13th ed., p. 3421), is really identical 

 with the species afterwards called guttata, Lam. (1810), pantherina. 

 Dill. (1817), tigrina, Lam. (1822), or pardus, Morch (1852). Shaw 

 (1909, p. 301) doubted this, and proposed the name G. ohtusa, Perry 

 (1811, Conchology, tab. 19, fig. 1), for G. pantherina as being given 

 six years earlier. Unfortunately this name had been given 

 to the rather rare dark-chestnut variety ( = theriaca, Melv.), which 

 would rank as a species, while the more common whitish shells would 

 be considered as a variety. Moreover, the word ohtusa is not quite 

 fitting. Compared with its closely allied G. tigris, Linn., G. ohtusa 

 is more slender, its extremities are attenuated, produced, and 



