296 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MALA,COLOGICAL SOCIETY. 



the tenth edition and the Mus. TJlricse ;~.it is very probable that 

 in both the latter cases the spots were there, but were not mentioned. 

 Where, however, we do find a difference is, as Hanley ^ points out, 

 the " JS'ocitur colore supra et subtus ilavo " of the Mus. Ulrica}, as 

 compared with the white base of C.flaveola., auctoruin. 



I have examined the specimen now in the British Museum tigurcd 

 in Reeve, to which Hanlej^ refers as being typical of the shell in 

 the Linntean cabinet ; and after comparing it with the descriptions, 

 entirely agree with Hanley that this is the true flaveola, Linn., and 

 I do not see why, because a few of the words in the description of 

 the Mus. Ulricse do not quite agree with the other two descriptions, 

 we should refuse to adopt Wvq flaveola, Linn., considering what Hanlej^ 

 has said, and when its identity with the two editions of the Systema 

 is unmistakable. C. flaveola, Linn., should therefore be retained in 

 the sense in which it has always been recognized. 



With regard to the C. acicularis of Gmelin, it is obvious from 

 his description that this shell is a synonym, not of C. flaveola, Linn., 

 but of sjmrca, Linn. The figure cited in Martini, and the latter's 

 description, together with tlie fact that he says he has received it 

 from the "Spanish Sea," all prove this point, and I fail to see 

 how Hidalgo could have made it a synonj^m of C.flaveola. I may 

 perhaps point out that the lahiolineata. Sow. (as of (iaskoin), is only 

 a variety of C. flaveola, Linn., and not of C. gangrenosa, Dillwyn, 

 as stated by Sowerby in the Thesaurus and by other Avriters. It 

 is the same shell as G. labrolineata, Gaskoin, and C. Eelenx, Roberts. 

 Of this I am certain, as I have examined in the British Museum 

 what is probably one of the co-types of Gaskoin's species, in which, 

 when compared with C. flaveola, the teeth are seen to be finer, and 

 to have a fine brown line running down the centre of each from 

 the margins to the aperture. The shell also is of a slightly paler 

 colour. 



The conclusions arrived at concerning the species under discussion 

 are as follows : — 



1. C.flaveola, Linn., Syst. JSTat., 10th ed., Mus. Lud. XJlr., 12th ed. 



{fartiiii). 



2. C. spurca, Linn., Syst. Nat., 10th ed., p. 724. 



= acicularis, Gmelin, Syst. Nat., 13th ed., vol. vi, p. 3421. 



3. C.flaveola, Linn., var. labrolineata, Gask., Proc. Zool. Soc, 1848, 



p. 97. 



= JSelencB, Roberts, Amer. Journ. Conch., 1868, vol. iv, 



p. 250, pi. XV, figs. 7-10. 

 = lahiolineata, Sow. (as of Gask.), Thes. Conch., vol. iv, 



p. 38, fig. 231. 



Cype^a fuscomaculata. Pease. 



This species was first described in the Proceedings of the Zoological 

 Society, 1865, p. 515, and a second description of it appeared in the 

 American Journal of Conchology, 1868, vol. iv, p. 95, pi. xi, figs. 10 



1 Ipsa Linn. Couch., 1855, p. 193. 



