SHA"W: ON OYPB^A AND TRIVIA. 29? 



doubt, and I entirely agree with M. Deshayes' remarks in connexion 

 with that species.^ 



Cypk^a DUBiA, Gray.' 

 After searching through all subsequent writers and monographers 

 I have been unable to find a single reference to this species. 

 Mr. E. A. Smith and myself carefully examined the Gray Collection, 

 now in the British Museum, and failed to discover any shell bearing 

 this name. It certainly is not the C. dubia of Gmelin,^ which is the 

 C. exanthema of Linnaeus. The Zool. Miscellany seems to have been 

 unknown or ignored by a considerable number of writers, and probably 

 on this account we find no reference to this species in any work. 

 From the description alone it is impossible to say what Gray's species 

 was, and it must therefore be classed among the "Unidentifiable." 

 Cyprma hicallosa, Trivia exigna, C. Friendii, and C. similis were also 

 first described in the same paper, pp. 35-6, though it is generally 

 stated that T. exigtia and C. bicallosa first appeared in the " Descriptive 

 Catalogue," which was a year later. 



CrPEiEA FLAVEOLA, Linn. 

 Hidalgo (pp. 174, 245) states that the Jlaveoia of the tenth edition 

 and of the Mus. TJlricse is a different species to that of the twelfth 

 edition, and maintains that the former is only a colour A'ariety of 

 C. helvola, which being so, the jlaveola of the twelfth edition (which 

 is the Jlaveola, auctorum) cannot retain the appellation given it by 

 Linnaeus, as it is later than the tenth edition and the Mus. Ulricse, 

 where this name was first used, and according to Hidalgo erroneously. 

 He therefore has substituted for the species of the twelfth edition 

 the C. acicularis, Gmelin, which he regards as a synonym. 

 The result of these changes is as follows : — 



C. Jlaveola, tenth edition and Mus. Ulr. = C. helvola, Linn., var. 



C. acicularis, Gmelin = C. Jlaveola, twelfth edition. 



The C. Jlaveola, Linn., therefore entirely disappears. 

 Mr. E. A. Smith and I have gone into this question, and have 

 come to the following decision, which does not agree with that 

 arrived at by Hidalgo, but which in my opinion seems conclusive. 

 In the first place, I do not admit that the Jlaveola of the tenth edition 

 and of the Mus. Ulricas is a colour variety of C. helvola. The 

 difference lies in the Mus. Ulricae. The twelfth edition is a copy of 

 the tenth with a slight addition. It is more than probable that the 

 shell described in the Mus. Ulricae was different from that of the 

 tenth and twelfth editions of the Systema. Yet it is evident that 

 the author supposed them to be the same, since in the twelfth edition 

 we have a reference to the Mus. Ulricse, in which he again refers to 

 the tenth edition. 



The difference does not seem to lie in the fact that in the twelfth 

 edition mention is made of the marginal spots, while there is none in 



' Anim. sans Vert., 2nd ed., vol. x, p. 511. 

 * Zool. Misc., 1831, vol. i, p. 36. 

 3 Syst. Nat., p. 3405. 



