SCHILDER : ON CYPB^A AND TRIVIA. 109 



teres, Gmel. (= tahescens aut.), by it. But it is rarely so swollen as 

 in the typical C. rhinoceros. 



Cypr^a prisca, Deshayes (1866). \ 



Oliva prisca, Binkhorst (1861, Monogr. Gastr. Ceph. du Limbourg, 

 p. 71), is perhaps a cretaceous Cyprcea, as its author and Heilprin 

 (1882, Proc. Ac. N. Sci. Philadelphia, p. 209) believed. If that 

 should be confirmed by future investigation, it would be necessary 

 to give a new name to Deshayes' species from the French Paleocene. 



Cypr^a rostrata, Zekeli (1852). 

 Grateloup (1845) called a miocene shell Cyprcea columharia, var. 

 rostrata, which by future investigation will perhaps be proved to 

 belong to C. leporina, Lam. ; no author has afterwards cited it. 

 I^ames given as varietal ones do not hinder their repeated use for 

 other species of the same genus, if the former never were considered 

 as species or subspecies, therefore the name of Zekeli's very 

 interesting cretaceous Cyprcea must not be changed. 



Cypr^a stercoraria, Linnaeus, var. rattus, Lamarck (1810). 

 Long before Lamarck, the same variety was already described 

 twice by Gmelin (1790^ Syst. Nat., 13th ed.), first on p. 3405 

 as C. conspurcata. The type of Born's fig. 1 in his " Test. Mus. 

 Cses. Vindob." (1780), tab. 8, cited by Gmelin, is preserved in the 

 Museum of Natural History in Vienna and agrees very well with 

 Lamarck's description. Again, on p. 3413, Gmelin described a 

 C. nehulosa, the identity of which with C. rattus was acknowledged 

 by Gray (1824). The variety therefore must be called conspurcata, 

 Gmel. C. nehulosa, Gmel., and G. rattus. Lam., are synonyms. 



Cyprcea variolaria, Lamarck (1810). 

 Gmelin (1790, Syst. Nat., 13th ed., p. 3421) described a Cyprcea 

 chinensis which was interpreted by many authors (Gray, Menke, 

 Cnvier, Anton, Roberts, and Melvill) as a C. lynx, and by Hidalgo 

 (1906) as a C. variolaria. Shaw (1909) contested its identity with 

 the latter, holding it doubtful as Dillwyn (1817) had done. In this 

 case I am of the same opinion as Hidalgo ; Gmelin's description 

 (" oblonga solida variegata ; labiis aurantiis ") and, above all, the 

 cited figure (Argenville, Conchyl. (1772), tab. 18, fig. z), which is 

 well recognizable, do not allow any other interpretation but that 

 his specimen was a C. variolaria. C. chinensis, Gmel., therefore, 

 should stand for this species. 



Trivia apfinis, Dujardin (1837). 

 This species, described by Dujardin as a Cyprcea, must receive 

 another name, for Gmelin (1790) had called by this name a shell 

 afterwards proved to be C. globulus, Linn. Following Sacco (1894), 

 its var. pseudoasulcata, Sacco, should supply the preoccupied name. 

 But future investigation may perhaps prove that other fossil Trivia 



