MANGILIA SMITHII. 249 



In 1826 Risso described aud clearly figured a shell as Maiigelia striolala,^ and 

 Prof. Kobelt has lately reproduced his drawing (o/^ elf., pi. xcvi, fig. 25) under the 

 same name. It is a true Mangilia, differing, as far as I know, from anything else 

 either Recent or fossil. Everyone admits that Risso's M. striulata has nothing to 

 do with the Recent form now known under that name. 



Ten years later, in 1836, Scacchi introduced the name Fleurotoiua (Mangelia) 

 striolata into his list of Neapolitan mollusca,^ identifying it with Risso's shell. It 

 has been generally assumed it was different, and that it was the prototype of the 

 Recent M. striolata referred to. It seems impossible to ascertain, however, what 

 Scacchi's species really was. The only direct evidence we have is that its author 

 thought it to be the same as that of Risso. 



For the purpose of our present inquiry the point is not material. If Scacchi's 

 shell was identical with Risso's, it had nothing to do with our Recent species ; if 

 not, the latter has no right to be called M. striolata, that name having been pre- 

 viously used for a different form, viz., for Risso's, still less can it be handed on to 

 anything else.^ 



The first unquestioned notice of the present shell Avas that of Ed. Forbes, who 

 in 1840 described and figured it as Pleurotoiua Smithii,'^ but afterwards, in 1853, 

 in the British Mollusca, Forbes and Hanley, admitting it to be a Mangilia, dropped 

 that name in favour of M. striolata, Scacchi,^ Reeve having meanwhile figured 

 it under the latter name.'' 



In 1844 Philippi described an entirely different species^ under Scacchi's 

 specific term striolata. We appear to have the same form in the Crag (seep. 270). 

 It was, however, a Rapldtoma, not a Mangilia. 



Prof. Kobelt gets over the difficulty by regarding the Recent shell as a liaplil- 

 toma, figuring it side by side with a reproduction of Philippi's drawing, and using 

 Philippi's specific name of striolata for both of them. I prefer, however, to follow 

 Forbes and Hanley, M. Dollfus, and others in describing the former as a 

 Mangilia, under the only name to which it is entitled, viz. M. SmitJili. Philippi's 

 name P. striolata can hardly be applied to the liaphitoma figured by him and to 

 vthe Crag forms which appear to represent it, as it had been previously used for 

 something different. I am describing these shells below as Rapldtoma striatula. 



I have dealt with this matter at considerable length, not only because of its 

 importance but also because the best way of dispelling the confusion which 

 surrounds it seems to be to state the facts as fully but as briefly as I can. 



1 Hist. Nat. Eur. nieii.l., vol. iv, p. 221, pi. vili, fi-. 101, 1826. 



2 Cat. Couch. Regn. Neap., p. 13, 1836. 



3 I assume that our shell is a Mangilia, as M. Dollfus and others think. 

 * Op. cit., p. 107, pi. ii, fig. 14, 1840. 



» Op. cit., p. 483, pi. cxivA, figs. 1, 2, 1853. 



6 Op. cit., pi. XXXV, p. 320, 1846. 



^ Euum. Moll. Sicilise, vol. ii, p. 168, pi. xxvi, fig. 7, 1844. 



32 



