294 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MALA.COLOGI0AL SOCIETY. 



This I think will be evident after comparing C. Boivinii with 

 C. Listeri and C. gangrcBnosa^ as it agrees much better with the latter 

 in colour and marking, possessing the characteristic brown maculations 

 at each end of the shell, which is one of the constant features of 

 C. gangrcenosa, besides being much closer to it in shape and dentition. 



The pale violet-tinged base, which induced Hidalgo to make it a 

 variety of Listeri, is noticeable in some colour varieties of C. gangrcenosa, 

 but nevertheless there is no doubt that C. Boivinii is simply a large 

 and pale form of C. gangrcenosa, as recognized by all previous writers. 



It may not be out of place to point out that C. Reentsii, Dunker,' 

 which is only a variety of C. gangrcenosa, is quite a different shell 

 from C. Boivinii, with which it has been confused. When compared 

 with the latter it is seen to be much smaller, of a bluish colour, with 

 the extremities maculated with brown, the base bluish purple, and the 

 dorsal surface transversely lined with brown. 



Cypr^a CLARA, Gaskoin.'^ 



After comparing specimens of this so-called species with C. cinerea, 

 Gmelin,^ I have come to the conclusion that they merely belong to 

 a variety of it. In C. clara the teeth are slightly finer, the base 

 is of a whiter colour, and the form is slightly more elongate. In 

 C. cinerea there is generally more colour between the teeth, though 

 this is not always present ; also, the black markings along the margins 

 of the shell, though generally conspicuous, are by no means constant. 



Both these forms come from Central America, and also from the 

 West Indies, being restricted to these regions. I have examined 

 a number of these shells, and although in certain cases have been 

 able to separate them, in others it has been impossible, as they merge 

 into each other. I therefore do not hesitate in considering C. clara 

 merely a variety of C. cinerea, and cannot understand why Gaskoin 

 compared it to C. isahella. 



Cypr^a cruenta, Ghnelin.* 



Hidalgo (p. 174) states that the C. cruenta, Gmeliu, is not the 

 C. cruenta, auctorum. The former, he says, equals C. errones, Linn., 

 var., and the cruenta, auctorum, is the same as C. Chinensis, Gmelin.* 

 Gmelin's description is very inadequate, and the figure in Argenville 

 which he quotes is very poor, so that it is doubtful whether it 

 represents C. cruenta, auctorum, or not. Gmelin's description of 

 C. cruenta and his reference to Gualtier (Test. T. 15, f. E) make one 

 inclined to agree with Hidalgo that this species is a variety of 

 C. errones, Linn. Under the circumstances I think it would be wise 

 to adopt the name of C. variolaria, Lamarck,® about which there is no 



» Zeitsch. f. Malak, 1852, p. 189, and Novitat. Conch., 1858, pi. ix, figs. 3, 4. 



2 Proc. Zool. Soc, 1851, p. 13. 



3 Syst. Nat., 13th ed., vol. vi, p. 3402. 

 ♦ Op. cit.,p. 3420. 



5 Op. cit., p. 3421. 



« Ann. du Mus., 1810, vol. ivi, p. 91. 



