IVrELVILL : NOTES UPON CYPR/E/E. 121 



about which I can ascertain nothing. When I last visited the 

 Museum, the Cyprseoe were not arranged in very good order, but 

 it is some years since I last visited Paris. 



At all events, Reeve, Sowerby, and Roberts have, as I have 

 said, merely copied Kiener's description and figure, and drawn 

 conclusions, more or less erroneous as to its near affinities. 



Kiener himself arranges it after cylhidrica (Born), quadri- 

 maculata (Gray), and teres (Gmel.), and just before asellus (L.), 

 interriipta (Gray), and hlnindo (L.). 



Sowerby (Thes. Conch.) places it amongst the Trivice, after 

 cicercula (L) and glabulus (L), and before annulata (Gray), to 

 which, in a note, he considers it allied, as a young form of some 

 well-known species. 



Mr. Raymond Roberts, in Tryon (Man. Conch. Cyprtea, 

 p. 172) describes the species as follows: 'Canary, obscurely 

 banded, with extremities tinted deep orange, teeth very fine, no 

 spots or other markings on the shell. Length "65 inch.' Add- 

 ing^' Believed to be the young form of some other species. 

 I do not know tTiis shell, nor can I get other information than 

 that derived from Kiener.' 



He places it after stolida (L.) and cryihnecnsis (Beck). 



In the ' Catalogue of Cyprtea' appended to the general 

 survey of the forms and species of this genus, published in 

 1888,* by myself, I find this species placed a.[tQr p/iy sis (Brocchi.) 

 and before Isabella (L.). 



These three instances show how varied have been the 

 opinions based only on a more or less accurate figure, copied 

 and re-copied, opinions now, I think, all to be found very wide 

 of the mark. 



Some six or eighi months ago, I received from Mr. C. W. 

 Viner, of Bath, an undoubted example of this species, with 

 label in Kiener's handwriting — ' C. chrysalis, nobis.'' 



Mem. & Pioc. Maiiclicslcr T-. & V. Soc, \oI. i.^ .|lli Scr., [i. 250. 



