120 PROCEEDINGS OP THE MALACOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 



C. SPURCA, Linn., var. elliptica, Gray (1825). 



D. 501. — -This name must take the place of var. elongata, 

 Dautzenberg & Fischer (1906, Res. camp, scient. Albert de Monaco, 

 xxxii, p. 40), if one considers such slight modifications to be 

 varieties. 



C. EROSA, Linn., var. inocellata, Gray (1825). 



D. 504. — It connects the typical erosa with its var. phagedaina, 

 Melv. (1888, Mem. Proc. Manchester L. Ph. Soc, (4) i, p. 223), for 

 the dark eyes in the white dorsal spots are almost absent, as well as 

 the large dark square spot on each margin. 



C. EROSA, Linri., var. Gray (1828). 



G. 84.^ — Gray cited Sowerby's description from " Tank. Cat." 

 (1825, p. 84), but the words " sub-albida ", printed instead of 

 " subtus albida " by mistake, made Gray's description quite 

 obscure. There is a large open space after the " var." — perhaps 

 Gray intended giving a name to this variety resembling var. 

 nebrites, Melv. (1888), but did not do so. 



C. OCELLATA, Linn., var. brunnea. Gray (1825). 



D. 505. — This variety is cited without any name by Hidalgo 

 (1907, Mon. gen. Cyjprcea, p. 449) as ocellata var. 1 ; it seems that it 

 has not been found since Gray's time. Its sides and base are darker 

 than in typical shells, and therefore it is somewhat allied with var. 

 calophthalma, Melv. (1888). 



C. LAMARCKii, Gray, var. inocellata. Gray (1825). 



D. 508. — Must be considered as a synonym of C. miliaris, Gmel. 

 (1790), which was not treated in Gray's monograph as a species, but 

 mentioned as a synonym of C. erosa, Linn., of lamarckii var. 

 inocellata, Gray, and of listen, Gray ( = marginalis, Dillw.), according 

 to the three figures cited by Gmelin. But Shaw (1909, Proc. Mai. 

 Soc. London, viii, p. 300) was right, I think, in upholding the validity 

 of the name proposed by Gmelin for the species closely allied to 

 C. lamarckii. 



C. LAMARCKII, Gray, var. /S, Gray (1828). 



G. 85. — ^Was it also = miliaris, Gmel. ? Its description is very 

 short and dubious. 



C. LAMARCKII, Gray, var. y, Gray (1828). 



G. 85. — Appears to be a variety of C. miliaris, Gmel. ; it might 

 belong to its var. diversa, Kenyon (1902, Journ. of Conch., x, p. 184), 

 a synonym of which is var. nivea, Preston (1909, The Nautilus, 

 xxii, p. 121) ; var. intermedia, M. Smith (1913, The Nautilus, 

 xxvii, p. 69), connects it with the typical shell. 



