SHAW : ON CYPR^EA AND TRIVIA. 301 



together, and is not worthy of specific rank. A. Adams is not the 

 author of this shell, as has always been supposed ; he never described 

 a Cyprcea, and macula was a manuscript name published for the first 

 time by Angas, who must be considered the author. 



When compared with C. macula, C. notata is more elongate and 

 narrower, is not pyriform, the back is curved in a different manner, 

 the extremities are produced, the external margins are more thickened, 

 the base is nearly flat, the columellar teeth are finer, closer, and more 

 numerous, and the marginal tooth is larger and stouter. On the 

 outer lip are considerably more teeth, there being twenty-two, as 

 compared to fifteen or seventeen in C. macula, which in the latter 

 are coarser than in C. notata. In C. macula there are no "blurred 

 longitudinal straw-coloured lines," their place being taken by faint 

 brown dots ; nor are there any distinct yellow bands along the sides 

 separating the colour of the back from that of the margins. 



With all the ditiierences enumerated above, and bearing m mind 

 the elongated rostrate form of C. notata and its difference of dentition, 

 I fail to see how these two species can be considered identical. To 

 my mind C. notata, Gill, is a distinct and good species, while 

 C. macula, Angas, is only a variety of C. fimlriata, Gmelin. This 

 species was described by Angas as C. macula, and not as C. maculata, 

 as quoted by many writers. It should therefore be known by the 

 original appellation. 



Cypkjea pantheeina (Solander's MSS.), Dillwyn.^ 

 Hidalgo (p. 178) makes this species a synonym of C. vinosa, Gmelin,^ 

 1791, which species might or might not be the same as C. panther ina. 

 Dill. The two figures referred to by Gmelin are practically useless; 

 the figure in the Mus. Kirch. (1709) is simply a copy of the one in 

 the Recreatio (1684). I therefore do not think it is advisable to change 

 this well-known name to C. vinosa, Gmelin, which is a very doubtful 

 species. However, Perry, ^ under the name of Cyprcea oltusa, gives 

 a very good figure of a colour variety of C. pantherina (var. theriaca, 

 Melvill). I therefore see no reason why Perry's name should not be 

 accepted, as in this case there is no doubt about the species, and he is 

 six years prior to Dillwyn. As, however, there is a varietal difference 

 in colour between C. ohtusa, Perry, and C. pantherina. Dill., I propose 

 to keep C. patitherina as a colour variety of C. ohtusa, so that in this 

 way the well-known and more common form will still retain its name 

 but be reduced to varietal rank. 



Cypr^a physis, Brocchi.* 



Hidalgo (p. 245) gives a note to the effect that the fossil shell 



is different from the recent. The recent form was first named 



C. achatidea by Sowerby in 1837, and in 1844 Kiener* called it 



C. Grayi. Deshayes (" Anim. sans Vert.," 2nd ed., vol. x, p. 551), 



' Descr. Cat., 1817, p. 449. 



"- Svst. Nat., vol. vi, p. 3421. 



'" Couch., 1811, pi. xix, fig. 3. 



* Conch, loss. Subapp., 1814, vol. ii, ]>. 284, pi. ii, fig. 3. 



'" Coq. Yiv., p. 20, pi. xxvi, tig. 3. 



