304 PROCEEBINGS OP THE MALACOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 



brown, entirely destitute of granulations, with a few white spots on 

 the margins. With a series of specimens it is possible to link up the 

 two extremes, thus clearly proving that C. limacina is only a variety. 

 With regard to the C. interstincta, Wood,' which MelvilP considers 

 as a variety and distinct from limacina (both of which he regards 

 as varieties of C. staphylcea), after examining Wood's figure, which 

 is unaccompanied by a description, I have been unable to see where 

 it differs from limacina, and maintain that it is simply another name 

 for the same shell. 



Kiener, in his monograph of this genus, pi. xxxv, fig. 1, depicts 

 the typical limacina (Col. Lam. et Mus.), while figs. \a, \l, and 

 pi. XV, fig. 1, are good illustrations of some of the varieties. 



Cypr^a tabescens, Dillwyn.^ 



In his monograph of this genus, pp. 178 and 484, Hidalgo changed 

 the name of this species from tabescens to pmiciulata, Gmelin.* 

 Gmelin founded his species on two figures, of which one represents 

 a young shell, and both are unrecognizable and not in any detail the 

 same as the shell known as tabescens. Gmeliii's description is absolutely 

 inadequate, and I fail to see how Hidalgo could possibly have made 

 this change. Cyprcea punctulata, Gmelin, must therefore remain, as 

 it always has been, one of the unrecognizable species described by 

 that author. 



While looking up these jjoints I had occasion to refer to the original 

 descriptions of Cyprcea tabescens, Dill., teres, Gmelin, and subteres, 

 Weinkff. With regard to teres, Gmelin,* there is not the slightest 

 doubt, the description being good, and the figure referred to 

 representing the typical form of this shell, and agreeing with the 

 description. 



Cyprcea tabescens. Dill., has generally been considered a good species, 

 and distinct from C. teres, Gmelin, but on comparing the descriptions 

 and figures cited, this will be found not to be the case. The shell 

 figured in Martini, Conch. Cab., vol. i, pi. xxviii, figs. 294, 295, quoted 

 by Dillwyn, is C. cylindrica, Born,^ while Martini, vol. i, pi. xxviii, 

 figs. 296, 297, represents the C. teres, Gmelin. The greater part of 

 the rest of the other figures quoted by him have reference to one or 

 other of these two species. It therefore appears that C. tabescens was 

 founded chiefly on C. teres, Gmelin, and partly on C. cylindrica. 

 Born. It follows that tabescens cannot be retained as a good species, 

 as it is simply a synonym in part of C. teres, Gmelin. 



CrPE^A STJBTERES, Weiukauff.' 

 This is decidedly not a synonym of C. teres, as most monographers 

 and writers have asserted. It is only necessary to compare the two 



1 Index Test. SuppL, 1828, pi. iii, tig. 9. 



2 Mem. Proc. Manchester Soc. (4), 1888, vol. i, p. 232. 



3 Descr. Cat., p. 463. 



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



^ Op. cit., p. 3405. 



6 Index Mus. Vind., 1778, p. 169. 



■' Coneli. Cab. , p. 27, pi. viii, fig. 4 ; pi. xiii, figs. 1, 4. 



