298 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MALACOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 



Cype^a GrASKoiNii, Rvo./ and C. Peasei, Sow.* 



These two forms have generally been considered distinct, but after 

 examining the type of C. Gashoinii in the Natural History Museum 

 and comparing it with a series of C. Peasei, Mr. E. A. Smith and 

 I have come to the conclusion that they are identical. There is no 

 difference in the dentition, aperture, marginal spots, or colour pattern, 

 as mentioned by Sowerby, and the shape is exactly similar. The only 

 difference appears to be that in a few cases G. Peasei is more pellucid 

 and transparent, but this feature also varies considerably. With 

 a series of shells it is impossible to separate the two, and I therefore 

 feel justified in considering C. Peasei simply a synonym of C. Gaskoinii, 

 and not entitled even to varietal rank. Moreover, both come from the 

 same locality, and I fail to see the slightest reason for keeping them 

 apart. C. Gashoinii, on the other hand, is a good species, and quite 

 distinct from its nearest congeners, C. crihraria, Linn., etc. 



CvrPE^A HIE.UNDO, Liuu.^ 



Hidalgo (p. 177) has adopted for the type of this species the one 

 quoted on p. 576 of the Mus. TJlricse, although he unites it with 

 the C. hirundo of the Systema, and maintains that hirundo (Mus. 

 Ulricae) equals neglecta, Sowerby, and designates hinmdo, auctorum 

 (which is the typical shell), as Kieneri, Hidalgo. The following 

 it is hoped will clear up the misunderstanding. 



Linnaeus evidently confused two species under this name. The 

 first, in the tenth edition of the Systema, is the one that has always 

 been accepted as the type, and Hanley (Ipsa Linnsei Conchylia, 

 p. 190) says: "and the fact that the Gyprcea hirundo of authors 

 [Reeve, Conch. Icon., fig. 104] is present in the Linnean cabinet, 

 where it solely answers to the definition of the species, is not without 

 value in confirming the established opinion." 



The species in the Mus. Ulricae is the G. neglecta, Sow.,* the 

 chief differences between the two shells being that in C. hirundo 

 the teeth are coarser, further apart, and do not extend over the base ; 

 while in G. neglecta they are finer, closer, and extend over the 

 basal surface. This agrees with " dentibus transversis, extensis 

 rugis per basin exteriorem " of the Mus. TJIricse. I maintain that 

 if the hinmdo, Linn., is the neglecta. Sow., Hanley would have 

 mentioned the fact, considering both these species are on the same 

 plate in Reeve's Conch. Icon., and I therefore do not see how the 

 species of the Mus. XJlricse can be taken as the type, ignoring that 

 of the Syst. Nat. which was described six years earlier, and quite 

 a different shell, and I hold the typical hinmdo, Linn., to be the 

 one quoted in the Syst. Nat., while the species of the Mus. Ulricae 

 equals the neglecta, Sow., which is now generally admitted as 



1 Proc. Zool. Soc, 1846, p. 23. 



2 Thes. Conch., vol. iv, p. 33, figs. 167, 168. 



3 Syst. Nat., lOtli ed., p. 722. 



* Conch. Illust., p. 6, pi. xiii, fig. 12*. 



