ii8 



JOURNAL OF CONCHOLOGY, VOL. 10, NO. 4, OCtaBER, I^Ol. 



I have since examined very many series of all these forms, and find, 

 as regards C. microdon (so called) Gray, C. fimbriata Gmel. (including 

 C. macula Ad., and C. cholinondeleyi Melv., which I think are merely 

 size varieties, green, tinged with chestnut), and C. chrysalis Kien., 

 that the fine small teeth of the last-named average 25, labially, the 

 ridges not extending far over the surface ; that, secondly, C. microdon 

 possesses about 20 teeth, also minute, delicate, and fine, while, lastly, 

 the coarser teeth of C. fimbriata and its varieties only average about 

 16, each channelled over, say, one-third of the labial surface. Besides 

 these dental differences, let us consider other distinctive characters, 

 and formulate them tabularly, viz. : — 



(a) fimbriata {GmQ\.). (b) microdon Auct. (c) chrysalis Kien. 



(non Gray). 



I. Once or twice banded, 



or blotched dorsally. 



II. Minutely dotted dorsally. 



Usually chestnut colored, 



twice delicately banded. 



Minutely chestnut dotted. 



twice. 



III. Chestnut brown. 



VI. Spotted laterally, spots 



distinct, coarse. 

 Extremities violet tinged, 



never protruded. 



Very obscurely 



banded. 

 Very obscurely 



sparsely dotted. 

 Dun colour. 

 Finely spotted laterally. 



and 



V. 



Extremities 

 produced. 



decidedly 



VI 



Body whorl rounded, not 

 pyriform. 



Body whorl roundly ven- 

 tricose and pyriform. 



Chestnut brown. 



Spots very sparse or ab- 

 sent. 



Extremities nearly as in 

 fimbriata, perhaps how- 

 ever, slightly more pro- 

 duced. 



Body whorl depressed and 

 flattened, in one variety 

 slightly pyriform. 



Allowing for a certain amount of variety in any true species, I am 

 inclined to change my former opinion as to the specific distinctness 

 of the Cowry generally known as C. microdon, and to follow Roberts, 

 Sowerby, and others, in assigning to it specific rank, basing this mainly 

 on its uniformly depressed body whorl, and very small fine teeth. It will 

 thus stand as an intermediate form between C. chrysalis Kien. and 

 C. fimbriata Gmel., with the undoubted varieties of the latter lately 

 mentioned. 



Now, as regards the nomenclature : — It occurred to me, early in 

 March last, to examine at the British Museum (Natural History) the 

 types of Cyprcea in the Gray Collection, which fill two drawers or 

 more beneath one of the table cases. They are all mounted in the 

 old-fashioned way, with cement on tablets. Amongst them is a decor- 

 ticated, but unmistakeable, specimen of chrysalis Kien. ; labelled 

 '■' 7nicrodon" this being the actual type of the shell described by S. 

 Gray in 1828^ as follows: — 



1 J. E. Gray, Additions and Corrections to a Monograph on Cypraea, a genus of Testace- 

 ous Mollusca, etc., Zoological Journal, vol. 6, 182S, pp. 66-88. 



