306 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MALACOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 



Ctpe^a aeabica, Linn. 



C. aralica, Linn. : Syst. !N'at., 10th ed., p. 718. 



var. eglantina, Duclos : Mag. de Zool., 1833, p. 28, pL xxviii. 



var. Gillei, Jouss. : Le Naturaliste, 1893, p. 171, fig. 



var. histrio, Gmelin : Syst. Nat., vol. vi, p. 3403. 



var. reticulata, Martyn : Universal Conchologist, 1784, vol. i, 



pi. XV. 



The above so-called species, on account of their variation and 

 because they run into the typical form, should be considered simply 

 varieties of C. aralica, and not admitted as good species. 



Ctpe^a angustata, Gmel. 



C. angustata, Gmelin : Syst. Nat., vol. vi, p. 3421. 



var. bicolor, Gaskoin : Proc. Zool. Soc, 1848, p. 92. 



var. Comptonii, Gray: Juke's Voyage, 1847, vol. ii, p. 356, pi. i, 



var. dechvis, Sow. : Thes. Conch., vol. iv, p. 31, pi. xxviii, fig. 287 ; 



pi. XXX, figs. 328*% 329*. 

 Ydir. piperata, Graj^: Zool. Journ., 1825, vol. i, p. 498. 

 The note respecting C. arabica and its varieties applies also to the 

 above four so-called species, which for the same reasons I consider 

 simply varieties of C. angustata, Gmelin. 



C. pulicaria, Eve. (Proc. Zool. Soc, 1846, p. 23), on account of its 

 narrower and more elongate form and finer teeth, should be regarded 

 as a good species and not a variety of C. angustata. 



Cypr^a TIGRIS, Linn., var. Rossiteri, Dautzenberg.^ 



This variety, with a yellow dorsal surface and sparsely spotted with 

 brown, was first described by Melvill as C. tigris, Linn., var. 

 flavonitens? 



Cypr^a erythr^ensis (Beck MSS.), Sowerby. 



This is a manuscript name of Beck's adopted for the first time by 

 Sowerby (Conch. Illust. Index, No. 161, fig. 161), who must be con- 

 sidered the author and not Beck, as quoted by several monographers. 



Cypr^a Sdrinamensis, Perry. 

 C. Surinamensis, Perry: Conchology, pi. xx, fig. 4. 



From Perry's description and figure it is impossible to definitely say 

 what shell he intended to represent, though most writers have been 

 inclined to believe that it was the C. Gamhiensis, mihi ( C. nehulosa, 

 Kiener). It is, however, as already stated, impossible to be certain, 

 and C. Surinamensis must therefore remain unidentifiable. The locality 

 given for his species by Perry, Surinam, if correct, which is doubtful, 

 does not tend to strengthen the idea that his species is the C. Gamhiensis, 

 mihi [nehdosa, Kiener), which comes from the Gambia coast. 



1 Journ. de Conch., 1902, p. 341. 



2 Mem. Proc. Manchester Soc. (4), 1888, vol. i, p. 212. 



