Arterne inden denne Slægt synes at være i hoi Grad 
polymorfe og om end denne smukke glatte Form er saa 
heist ulige alle de øvrige kjendte af Slegten, er jeg dog 
ikke sikker paa, at der vil vise sig Overgange til Solariella 
obscurus, Couth. De paa et Par Exemplarer af S. levis 
forekommende Spor af Spiralsculptur synes at antyde dette. 
Typen for Solarzella, Wood er S. maculata, Wood! og 
denne er ifølge Jeffreys? Trochus cinctus, Philippi = Mache- 
roplax amabilis (Jeff.) Friele® = Machæroplax affinis (JSeff.) 
Friele®. Hvis dette er correct, hvilket jeg ikke har havt 
Anledning at forvisse mig om, saa maa Macheroplax vige 
Plads for Solariella, uagtet Wood selv senere i Crag Moll. 
Pag. 135 inddrager Slegten under Margarita. Jeffreys 
feiler imidlertid, naar han henfører Margarita cinerea, 
Couth og Margarita groenlandica, Chm. under Macheroplax.*— 
g 
Margarita umbilicalis, Br. & Sowb. 
Tab. XI, Fig. 22, 23. 
M. umbilicalis, Brod. & Sowb. Zool. Journ. IV, Pg. 371. 
Trochus umbilicalis, Phil. Conch. Cab. Martini & Chm. af 
Kiister, Pag. 245, Tab: 37, Fig. 2. 
Som Regel er M. umbilicalis mere fladtrykt end M. 
groenlandica, Chm. Sculpturen er snart glat paa Oversiden 
af Skallen, snart forsynet med nogle faa, ofte parvis op- 
trædende Spiralstriæ og paa Undersiden tæt, fint spiral- 
strieret. 
Størrelse: Mine største Exemplarer maaler 10”” A xiall. 
og 167” Diam. 
Radula viser ingen Afvigelse fra M. groenlandica. 
t=} ke) 
Forekomst: Den forekom talrig paa omkring 20 
Fayne Magdalenebay (Spitzbergen). 
Margarita striata, Br. & Sowb.* 
PI. XII, Fig. 1. 
M. striata, Brod. & Sowb. Beechys Voy. Pag. 143, Pl. 34, 
Fig. 11. 
t Ann. & Mag. Vol. IX 1842, Pac. 531, Pl. 5, Fig. 7, 10. 
* Moll. ,Lightning & Porcupine Exped.“ Part VI 1883, Pe. 97. 
3 Tungebeveebng. hos de norske Rhipidoglosa 1876, Pag. 313. 
Jeffreys 1. ce Pag. 96. 
> Hvis M. striata, Br. & Sowb. ikke kan beholde sit specifike 
Navn, da der allerede er en Trochus striatus, Lin. maa M, polaris, Phil. 
rykke op istedenfor, men jeg tror ikke, at denne Forandring er nød- 
vendig, thi man resikerer neppe Misforstaaelse. 
4 
The species ineluded in this genus appear to be, in 
a very great degree, polymorphous, and although this 
beautiful, smooth, form is so very unlike all the others of 
the genus kuown, yet, I am not certain that transitions 
to Solariella obscurus, Couth, will be traceable. The traces 
of spiral sculpture appearing on a couple of specimens of 
S. levis would appear to indicate this. The type for Sola- 
riella, Wood, is S. maculata, Wood* and that is according 
to Jeffreys? Trochus cinctus, Philippi = Macheroplax amabilis 
(Jeff.) Friele? = Macheroplax affimis (Jeff.) Friele*. If 
that is the case, but of which I have had no opportunity 
of satisfying myself, Machwroplax must give way for Sola- 
riella, although Wood himself, subsequently, in Crag Moll. 
(p. 185), includes the genus under Margarita. Jeffreys 
errs, however, when he assigns Margarita cinerea, Couth. 
and Margarita groenlandica, Chm. to Macheroplax*. 
Margarita umbilicalis, Br. & Sowb. 
JE XL spes) 22. Bhs 
M. umbilicalis, Brod. & Sowb., Zool. Journ. IV, pag. 371. 
Trochus umbilicalis, Phil.. Conch. Cab. Martini & Chm, by 
Kiister, pag. 245, Pl. XX XVII, fig. 2. 
As a rule, M. umbilicalis is more flattened than M. 
groenlandica, Chm. The sculpture is sometimes smooth 
on the upper surface of the shell, sometimes it is furnished 
with only a few spiral striæ appearing, frequently, in pairs; 
and on the lower surface it is compactly and minutely spir- 
ally striated. 
Size. My largest specimen measures: Axial length, 
JOD ma G7 
The Radwla does not differ from that of M. groen- 
landica. 
Habitat: It occurred abundantly in Magdalene Bay 
(Spitzbergen); Depth, 20 fathoms. 
Margarita striata, Br. & Sowb.> 
jeg Giel 
M. striata, Brod. & Sowb., Beechys Voy. pag. 143, PI. 
XXXIV, fig. 11. 
* Ann. & Mae. Vol. IX 1842, pag. 531, Pl. V, fig. 7, 10. 
? Moll. ,Lightning* & ,Poreupine* Hxped. Part VI 1883, 
pag. 97. 
3 Tungebevæbng. hos de Norske Rhipidoglosa 1876, pag. 313. 
+ Jeffreys Op. c. pag. 96. 
3 If M. striata, Br. & Sow. can not retain its specific designa- 
tion owing to there being a Trochus striatus, Lin. already, then M. 
polaris, Phil. must be substituted, but I do not think this change is 
necessary as there is scarcely room for misunderstanding. 
