SHAW : ON CYPR^A AND TBIVIA. 307 



Cypk^a stJBViEiDis, Eeeve. 

 C. siihviridis, Lake: Proc. Zool. Soc, 1835, p. 68. 



At the above reference Mr. Lake and not Reeve appears as the 

 author of this species. A note by Reeve, however (Conch. Icon., 

 Cyprcea, sp. 48), shows that he was the author and that Lake was 

 a typographical error. 



Cype^a subcylindrica. Sow. 

 C. subcylindrica, Sow. : Thes. Conch., vol. iv, p. 9, pi. xsvii, figs. 269, 270. 

 This shell is broader and more oval than C. cylijidrica, Born 

 (Index Mus. Caesar. Vindob., p. 169, pi. viii, fig. 10), with the teeth 

 not extending so far over the base ; it is, however, undoubtedly 

 only a variety of the latter. 



Cype^a Wilhelmina, Kenyon. 



C. Wilhelmina, Kenyon: Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., 1897, vol. xxii, 

 p. 145. 

 Never having seen the shell, and fi'om the inadequate description, 

 no figure being given, it is impossible to saj^ what this species is. 



Cypejea maeginata, Gaskoin. 

 C. marginata, Gaskoin: Proc. Zool. Soc, 1848, p. 91. 



After examining the unique shell in the British Museum, I am 

 inclined to believe that it is only a young deformed specimen of 

 C. ther sites, Gaskoin, the margins being flattened and laterally 

 produced so as to form a crenulated ridge on each side of the base. 

 Apart from the above, it agrees well in shape, colour, dentition, etc., 

 with C. thersites. 



Cype^a Petitiana, Crosse & Fischer. 

 C. Petitiana, Crosse & Fischer: Journ. de Conch., 1872, vol. xx, p. 213. 

 I have only seen one example of this shell in the Natural History 

 Museum, which certainly seems very close to C. pyrum, Gmelin, to 

 which I am inclined to unite it as a variety. Before any definite 

 conclusion can be arrived at, it is necessary that a larger series of 

 specimens should be studied. 



CvPEiEA Macandeewi, Sow. 



C. Macandrei, Sow.: Thes. Conch., vol. iv, p. 52, pi. xxxvii, figs. 537, 

 538 {Macandrecei'). 

 I have never had the advantage of seeing this shell, but from the 

 figures and description it seems doubtful whether there is any real 

 difference between it and C. Bechii, Gaskoin (Proc. Zool. Soc, 1835, 

 p. 203), and I am of "Weinkauft's opinion (Conch. Cab., p. 120) that it 

 is probably only a variety of that species. 



Cype^a miceodon, Gray, C. chbysalis, Kiener, C. minoeidens, Melvill. 



I entirely agree with Mr. Melvill on the changes and explanations 

 given by him in the Journal of Conchology, vol. x, pp. 117-19, 



