302 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MALACOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 



believing they were identical, united C.physis and C. achaticlea, sinking 

 the latter as a synonym. Since then, till recently, Deshayes was 

 believed to have been right, and the recent shell has been known as 

 C. phijsis. However, on examining and comparing the fossil and recent 

 forms, it will be seen that they are not absolutely similar. In the 

 first place, the fossil is a more solid and ponderous shell, in most 

 cases considerably larger; indeed, Brocchi's figure is almost twice the 

 size of an average recent specimen. Moreover, in the fossil the teeth 

 are stronger, the shell is more deeply iimbilicated, the aperture is 

 narrower and more curved, and at the anterior end is less gaping ; 

 the external lip is more solid and rounded on the inner edge. The 

 colour also in C. physis from the original description is " ad latera 

 alba, vel toto ex fusco lutea," while in the recent shell the sides 

 and margins are of a reddish-brown colour. There is no doubt that 

 the fossil and recent forms are very close ; still, there are differences, 

 as shown above. I therefore think that the recent shell ought to 

 return to its original name of C. acJmtidea and be kept separate 

 from the fossil, a practice which is now adopted by most Continental 

 conchologists. 



C. achatidea was first published in the Conch. Illust. ( Cyprcea), 

 1837, pi. cxxxi, fig. 179, and index, p. 3. No description of the 

 species is given, only a figure, and in the index we find C. achatidea., 

 Gray. Dr. Gray never described a C. achatidea, so it follows that 

 Sowerby must have adopted a manuscript name of Gray's, and 

 published it for the first time in his work. Sowerby, therefore, and 

 not Gray, is the author of C. achatidea. C. Orayi, Kiener, is a 

 synonym. 



The same applies to C. Reevei, Sow.^ Sowerby gives Gray as 

 the author, but the latter did not describe a C. Reecei; it again 

 follows that Sowerby adopted a manuscript name, and therefore 

 must be considered the author. Likewise the Trivia costis-punctata~ 

 was only manuscript in Gaskoin's cabinet till first published by 

 Sowerby. 



Cype^a punctulata, Gray.^ 



This specific name was used by Gmelin,* and according to Hidalgo 

 must stand in place of C. tahescens, Dillwyn.^ The reason for not 

 accepting the punctulata of Gmelin, as Hidalgo suggests, will be seen 

 elsewhere, but anyhow \he punctulata, Gray, cannot stand. The name 

 Rolertsi, suggested for it by Hidalgo, must be accepted. 



Cype^a fuscortjbra, n.n. for C. similis, Gray.® 

 After examining the type of this species and the C. castanea of 

 Higgins'' in the British Museum, I am bound to agree with Roberts 



1 Conch. Illust., pp. 2, 3, pi. viii, fig. 52. 



2 Sowerby, Thes. Conch., vol. iv, p. 42, pi. 326, figs. 452, 453. 



3 Zool. Journ., 1824, vol. i, p. 387. 

 * Syst. Nat., vol. vi, p. 3404. 



6 Descr. Cat. Shells, 1817, vol. i, p. 463. 



6 Zool. Misc., 1831, p. 36. 



■' Proc. Zool. Soc, 1868, p. 178, pi. xiv, fig. 1. 



