MARSHALL: ALTERATIONS IN ‘BRITISH CONCHOLOGY.’ 33 
sculptured, while the body-whorl of R. fischeri should be 
more expanded, and the peculiar spiral apex should be 
shown. ‘The latter is a very coarsely sculptured shell, and 
_ the intersections of the ribs are nodulous, while those of 2. 
teste would be more correctly described as riblets in com- 
parison. And I speak here of similar specimens of 7. fest 
to those adduced by Dr. Norman—R. ¢feste =conformis, 
Palermo.” 
Dr. Norman also places #. de/iciosa Jeff. (with a query) 
as asynonym of #. subsoluta ; but Jeffreys’ figure of the 
former (a good one) shows an altogether different shell ; it 
is a short cone, with compressed whorls and a bulbous 
apex, and comes nowhere near any of the forms of 2. feste 
or Le. subsoluta except in its var. muétecostata ; in this the 
sculpture is somewhat similar to the finely-sculptured abyssal 
form of &. subsoluida. 
It must not be forgotten that Jeffreys separated his 2. 
adeliciosa from R. subsoluta only after having received the 
type of the latter from the author, Aradas. And it is the 
same species described as &. e/ecta by the Marquis de 
Monterosato, who would be well acquainted with A&. 
subsoluta, 
The variation of 2. deliciosa is no doubt extreme, as 
well as its great diversity of habitat, and Jeffreys might well 
say of it that species-makers would revel in the manufacture 
of other forms out of it ; but its family likeness is always 
apparent. 
I have all these shells before me, and find no difficulty 
in determining Jefireys’ types and varieties. 
R. costulata Alder. This stands in the same category as 
k. abyssicola, being a variety of the &. sémilis of Scacchi, 
which name is prior to Alder’s ; but for the same reason as 
previously stated, it is not advisable to alter the name in the 
British List. 2. szwzdis is smaller and more slender than 
this, and has numerous varieties outside Britain. Moreover, 
G 
