334 MELVILL : ON MITRA RUGOSA. 



My chief object, however, in calling attention to the subject 

 at the present juncture is to defend its rights as a species. The 

 author of the ' Manual of Conchology,' in what he terms a 

 ' Conservative policy,' though it had perhaps better be termed 

 a Radical movement, seeks to prove this a mere variety of J^^ 

 Cumingii (Reeve), a species with which it has hardly any 

 relationship. I quote Mr. Tryon's words, ' Manual of Con- 

 chology,' vol, iv. p. 170 : " Turricula ingosa (Sowb.) (fig. 439) 

 of which only a single specimen is known, appears to differ 

 [from M. Cumingii\ only in the somewhat greater prominence 

 of the revolving sculpture on the body whorl. I think it the 

 same species, if it is, then its priority of publication must cause 

 the adoption of its name instead of that of CumingiiP 



Whether the author expresses a doubt or not upon this 

 subject is not very material, for this luckless shell is favoured 

 with a somewhat roughly executed figure of some totally differ- 

 ent species (fig. 439), while what is apparently copied from 

 Reeve's well-known figure of M. rugosa is made to do duty for 

 M. Motitrouzierii (Souverbie) (fig. 440), from New Caledonia. 



This is merely one of many instances which I have been 

 sorry to see marring the utility and perfection of so compre- 

 hensive a work as the ' Manual of Concholog)^' When the 

 author has been able personally to compare and trace the 

 affinities between nearly allied species from long series of speci- 

 mens in the Museum of the Academy, Philadelphia, his con- 

 clusions are mostly weighty and, at all events, worth attention, 

 but there are hundreds of shells which the public and private 

 collections of this country or the continent of Europe alone 

 possess ; relying here on descriptions or plates he has not so 

 often been successful in the interpretation of their characteristics 

 or affinities. 



There are hardly two Mitras so different from each other 

 as M. Cumingii and M. rugosa^ and it may not be amiss to 

 demonstrate briefly the more salient points of distinction ;— 



J C, v., July, 1888. 



