SHAW : ON CY^BJEA AND TRIVIA. 297 



and 11, which, except in being slightly fuller, is precisely similar, and 

 in parts word for word the same. Hidalgo asserts that the second 

 description is of a different species, and has named it C. I)autzenhe)gi. 

 After comparing the two descrii^tiond it is obvious that they relate 

 to one and the same species ; C. Dauhenhergi^ Hidalgo, therefore 

 becomes a synonym of C. ftiscomacnlata, Pease. 



With regard to the C. fusco-inaeulata (Gray, MSS.) described by 

 Sowerby in the Thesanrus, vol. iv, figs. 372, 373, Mr. Smith very 

 kindly went into this matter with me. 



After comparing the two specimens in the British Musenm (which 

 are the two figured by Sowerby) with the descriptions and figures of 

 C. fuscomaculata, Pease, I have no hesitation in pronouncing them 

 to be identical with the latter species. This appears to be the first 

 time that this has been noticed, as all writers and monographers on 

 this genus have considered them to be distinct species. Fascoviaculata 

 having been preoccupied by Pease, Roberts changed the fiisco-maculata 

 (Gray, MSS.), Sow., to Adelince, by which name the latter shell has 

 generally been known. 



One naturally Avonders why two identical shells were both named 

 fuscomaculata by different authors, and I think the solution given to 

 me by Mr. Smith is the right one. It is more than probable that two 

 of his own specimens, perhaps even co-types, were give by Pease to 

 Cuming, which were put in the latter's collection (before it was 

 acquired by the British Museum) labelled C. fuscomaculata, Avithout 

 any author. "When the Thesaurus was Avritten, Sowerby saw there 

 two shells labelled fuscomaculata, and seeing there was no author 

 quoted, concluded it was a manuscript name of Dr. Gray which had 

 not been published (and it would not have been the first time this has 

 happened), and therefore publifhed them in his monograph with the 

 result stated above. The fact that there is no mention of a Cyprcea 

 fuscomaculata ever having been described by Gray in any of his works, 

 and that the two specimens are the only ones in the Museum (we 

 could find none in the Gray Collection), gives weight to this theory. 



Of course all this to a certain extent is mere speculation, but what 

 we do know is, first, that the fuscomaculata. Pease, was unknown to 

 Sowerby at the time, since there is no reference to it in his work, and 

 secondly, that the Adelin(e of lloherts = fuscomaculata {Gray, MSS.), 

 Sow., is identical with the fuscomaculata, Pease. It maybe as well to 

 notice that the figures in the Thesaurus are by no means good illus- 

 trations of the shells they represent. 



The result derived, therefore, is as follows: — 



Ci/2^rcea ftiscomacttlafa, Pease, Proc. Zool. Soc, 1865, p. 515. 



=ft{scomaculata, Pease, Amer. Journ. Conch., vol. iv, p. 95. 

 =fusco-maculata (Graj^, MSS.), Sow., Thes. Couch., 1870, 



vol. iv, p. 28, figs. 372, 373. 

 = Adelines, Ilobeits, Man. Conch., 1885, vol. vii, p. 168. 

 = Bautzenhergi, Hidalgo, Monograph Cj'p., 1907, p. 362. 



I may mention that the two shells in the British Museum are 

 exactly the same size as the one figured by Pease, viz., 13 mm. long, 

 7 in diam. 



