JONES : ON CYCLOPHORUS OP HONG-KONG. 315 



It is quite obvious that the Cyclophorus of Hong-Kong is not 

 C. exaltatus, Pfr., and the question arises naturally, what is it? 

 There are in the JS'atural History Museum two specimens of C. sub- 

 carinatus, Molldf., from Lofoushan, a place 40 miles E.JS'.E. of Canton, 

 which agree in every particular of shape and sculpture with the 

 Hong-Kong species, and with a certain large proportion of them in 

 coloration also. 



Further, the description given by Mollendorff of C, siihcarinatm 

 exactly fits the Hong-Kong species as regards the existence of the 

 keel on the periphery of the last whorl and the flattening of the base 

 below it. There exists another species, C. elegans, Molldf., from Shui 

 Hing, a locality about 50 miles N.N.W. of Canton, which, from the 

 figure given of it, bears a considerable resemblance to the Hong-Kong 

 species, but as I have not been able to examine actual specimens 

 I think it better to say no more of it for the present. 



Mollendorff thought that on further investigation it might be 

 possible to unite C. punctatiis, Grat., C. exaltatus, Pfr., and C. sub- 

 carinatus as one ; to me, judging by the material at present available, 

 they appear quite distinct. 



There is next to be faced the question of the distribution of 

 C. siihcarinatus, which is recorded from the island of Hainan as well as 

 from Lofoushan, and now, in my opinion, shown to occur at Hong-Kong 

 as well. 



It is to be remembered that the region under consideration has 

 scarcely been touched by conchologists, of whom a few have collected 

 in scattered localities often at great distances from one another, so that 

 it is quite likely when the molluscau fauna of South-Eastern China is 

 better known, it will be found that C. subcan'natus is a common enough 

 Species, with a large area of distribution, in suitable localities. In 

 conclusion, I can only say that I think C. subcarinatus, Molldf., and 

 the Hong-Kong species are not capable of separation. 



Since writing the above I have ascertained that Mr. Fortune, 

 a botanical collector employed by the Horticultural Society of London, 

 spent nearly three years in China, from early in 1843 to the end 

 of 1845. 



The bulk of his time was occupied by collecting in the Chusans, 

 Chekiang, and Eokien, although he did visit Canton and was several 

 times at Hong-Kong. He does not mention collecting any mollusca, 

 but expressly states that all his plants were sent home from Hong- 

 Kong, which fortifies me in my belief that in this way an error of 

 locality has crept in with regard to the specimens of Cyclophorus which 

 he sent to this country. 



VOL. vin. — JULY, 1909. 25 



