1882.) ‘LIGHTNING’ AND ‘PORCUPINE’ EXPEDITIONS. 665 
‘ Porcupine’ Exp. 1870: Atl. St. 16, 17, 17a. 
Distribution. Norway, Bay of Biscay (‘Travailleur’ Exp. 1880), 
New England (Verrill)? ; 100-450 fms. 
Professor Verrill’s notice and figures of this species, which are 
given with his usual care and accuracy, differ so much from Euro- 
pean specimens, that I cannot satisfactorily quote his habitat. 
C. propinguus is smaller and less swollen than C. jeffreysi, not so 
contracted at the point; and especially the mouth is not obliquely 
truncated, but circular. 
& 6, Capuxus JEFFREYSI, Monterosato. 
C. subfusiformis, B. C. v. p. 196, pl. ci. f. 3. 
Helonyx jeffreysii, Monterosato, ‘Poche note sulla Conchiologia 
Mediterranea,’ 1875, p. 10. 
* Porcupine’ Exp. 1869: St. 1, 2,3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 14, 16, 22, 23a, 
25, 27-30, 61, 89. 1870: Med. 50, Adventure Bank. 
Distribution. Norway (and var. tumidula, as C. tumidosus of G. O. 
Sars, not of me), Shetland, Valentia (west of Ireland), Bay of Biscay 
(var. tumidula), Mediterranean from Marseilles to the Agean, 
Canary I. (‘Challenger ’ Exp.), Josephine Bank and Azores (‘ Jose- 
phine’ Exp.), New England (Verrill) ; 40-1125 fms. 
Fossil. Pliocene: Calabria and Sicily. 
C. diploconus, Seguenza. Although it somewhat varies in size, 
the shell is always much larger and more swollen than C. sud- 
fusiformis, to which I had erroneously referred it. 
ah 7. CapuLus Tumiposus, Jeffreys. (Plate XLIX. fig. 8.) 
C. tumidosus, Jeffr. in Ann. & Mag. N. H. Febr. 1877, p. 156. 
* Porcupine’ Exp. 1869: St. 39. 1870: Atl. 16, 17, 17a (and 
var. minor), 22, 24, 31-34 (var. minor). 
Distribution. ‘Valorous’ Exp., Bay of Biscay (‘Travailleur’ Exp.), 
Canaries (‘ Challenger’ Exp.); 1093-1450 fms. 
Fossil. Pliocene: Messina. 
Some specimens are faintly or indistinctly striated lengthwise. 
In all probability many of the species described by Mr. Dall from the 
‘ Blake’ dredgings in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea, as well as 
of those described by Mr. Watson from the ‘ Challenger’ Expedition, 
may ultimately prove to be united with some of the species which 
I have described. It is very difficult to define the line of variation, 
and much more that of specific distinction. At all events the above 
may be considered ‘‘ forms”’ if not species. 
yY 8. Caputus ampHorA'’, Jeffreys. (Plate XLIX. fig. 9.) 
SHELL resembling in shape an ancient wine-vessel without handles, 
bulging towards the middle, gently curved, narrowing towards each 
end but more contracted at the base or point, rather solid, glossy, 
and opaque: sculpture consisting of a slight but distinct keel which 
encircles the shell on the upper two fifths of its length ; that part is 
somewhat excavated or flattened ; no striz of growth are perceptible : 
1 Like an amphora, 
