32 MARSHALL: ALTERATIONS IN ‘BRITISH CONCHOLOGY.’ 
R. abyssicola Forbes. This is admittedly a variety of 2. teste 
Arad. and Mag., but as the latter is not found on our coasts 
it appears undesirable to make any alteration in the List, 
so that 2. adysstcofa will remain. 
Dr. Norman, in the “ Annals” for November, 1893, 
criticising Jeffreys, considers 2. abyssicola Forbes a variety 
of R. subsoluta Arad. He atso queries 7. delictosa Jeff. as 
a synonym of the latter, and he further assigns 7. fischer? 
Jeff. to &. zeste Arad. and Mag. 
Now, I fear Dr. Norman has not seen specimens of 
R. fischert, nor a sufficient series of /. delictosa, and com- 
pared them with typical #. ¢este and R. subsoluta, or I 
think he would have arrived at different conclusions. 
The three are quite unlike each other, and in my opinion, 
such as it is worth, are good species. 
Given a sufficient series of specimens from various 
localities and depths, 27ssoa adbyssicola can be graduated 
with ease into A7ssoa fest, and the two forms appear self- 
evident as one species ; but A. svbsoluta is not like either. 
The Norwegian form of 2. sazbsoluta (which is R. adyssicola 
Sars = FR. elegantissima Seg.) approaches FR. abyssicola 
Forbes in its sculpture, but that is the only resemblance. 
It differs from &. zesfe and all its forms in having much 
finer sculpture, 4-5 whorls instead of 5-6, which are more 
convex, and especially in the apex being obtuse or button- 
shaped. In A. /este and the var. abyssicola the apex is 
always pointed. 
Then, 2. fischeri Jeff. has no affinity with &. /esze, 
and cannot be compared with it in any way. It is placed 
by Jeffreys next to 2. dictvophora (which it most closely 
resembles) ; he compares it with 2. ca/a/hus, and says it is 
“allied to R. zetlandica” ; but FR. feste is like none of these 
species. Jeffreys’ figures of 2. fischeri and R&. teste in the 
‘Lightning’ Report, though admirably executed, are not a 
sure guide. That of #. ¢este is much too coarsely 
J.C., vili., Jan. 1895. 
