300 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MALACOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 



known, it would be best to consider this a distinct species, since 

 after careful search I have been unable to unite it to any other. It 

 certainly is not a variety of C. carneola, Linn. 



CyPK-aiA MiLiAKis, Grmelin.^ 



The figure in Lister (Hist. Conch., pi. 700, fig. 47), quoted by 

 Gmelin, represents C. erosa of Linnaeus ; the other figure referred 

 to (pi. 701, fig. 48) probably equals C. ocellata of Linnaeus. The 

 figure referred to in Martini (Conch. Cab., vol. i, pi. xxx, fig. 323) 

 corresponds to the C. miliaris, auct. As this species is well 

 established, and the figure and description in Martini agree perfectly 

 with the shell which has always been known as miliaris, it is 

 undesirable to make any change, but perhaps it may be well to 

 draw attention to the fact that both of Lister's figures must be 

 eliminated and the species restricted to the figure in Martini. The 

 same applies to C. guttata of Gmelin.^ Grray has sometimes been 

 quoted as the author, but erroneously, since he himself refers it to 

 Gmelin. This species must be restricted to the latter's reference 

 to Martini (Conch. Cab., vol. i, pi. xxv, figs. 252, 253). 



The figure quoted from Lister (pi. 676, fig. 23) equals the young 

 state of C. vitellus of Linnaeus, while the one in Gualtier (Test., 

 pi. xvi, fig. 1) probably repi'esents the same shell. These two 

 references must therefore be eliminated. 



CrPE^A Gambiensis, n.n. for C. nebulosa, Kiener.^ 



This name was preoccupied bj^ Gmelin * for a species which, 

 according to Dillwyn and Roberts, equals C. stercoraria, Linn., 

 while Hidalgo refers it to C. eglantina, Duclos. Personally, after 

 examining the figure in Lister's Concholog)^ referred to by Gmelin, 

 I am inclined to agree with Dillwyn and Roberts, and now rename 

 this species G. Gambiensis from the locality which is usually 

 associated with it. 



Cype^a notata, Gill.^ 



Hidalgo (pp. 176, 443) has united this species with C. macula, 

 Angas,^ asserting that they are identical. The latter, having been 

 described nine years later, becomes a synonym of Gill's species. 

 I venture to point out that this is not the case. C. macula is only 

 a variety of C. fimhriata, Gmelin,'' being more pyriform, and having 

 generally a larger brown maculation on the dorsal surface than in 

 the typical form. After examining a number of specimens at the 

 British Museum and elsewhere, I am convinced that this form is 

 only a variety of C. fimhriata, as it is always possible to link them 



1 Syst. Nat., 13th ed., vol. vi, p. 3420. 



•- Op. cit., p. 3402. 



' Coq. Viv., 1845, p. 63, pi. xxxii, fig. 3. 



*• Syst. Nat., 13tli ed., vol. vi, p. 3413. 



5 Ann. Lye. Nat. Hist. New York, 1858, vol. vi, p. 255, pi. ix, figs. 1-3. 



^ Proc. Zool. Soc, 1867, p. 206, not maculata as quoted by some authors. 



' Syst. Nat., p. 3420. 



