Cypreea reticulata and Ci/preea histrio distinct. 481 



the Zoological Journal Mr. Gray pronounced Mr. Barnes' species 

 to be one of his varieties of C. arabica, whereupon Mr. Barnes 

 published a second notice of the C. maculata in the same volume 

 of the Annals, in which he shows most conclusively that his species 

 cannot be united with the arabica. The object of this second no- 

 tice being simply to reply to Mr. Gray's opinion, it appears not to 

 have occurred to Mr. Barnes that there was the least occasion to 

 point out the differences between his species and the true histrio, 

 ■with which he must have been acquainted. That Mr. Barnes' shell 

 is identical with that of Martyn's, I think there can be no doubt ;* 

 and while we regret that the former must lose the name, from want 

 ■of priority, we can claim for him the merit of independently point- 

 ing out the distinctive characters of a shell, which no author, since 

 the days of Martyn, has distinctly recognized. 



A Monograph of this genus appeared in 1830, in Sowerby's 

 Conchological Illustrations. In this we find two figures applica- 

 ble to the species under discussion. Fig. 80, called in his index C. 

 histrio, seems to represent the C. reticulata, although the ventral 

 spot of that species is but faintly indicated. Fig. 166, which he 

 calls C. reticulata, is perhaps a dwarf variety of that species, and 

 will be again referred to. In a Catalogue subjoined to this Mon- 

 ograph, he refers both theso figures to C. arabica, thus follow- 

 ing the example of Gray. But he remarks of the C. arabica, 

 " This seems a variable species ; the C. histrio and C. reticulata 

 may possibly prove distinct. I havo never seen the C. maculata 

 of Barnes, but if permitted to form my judgment from his figure, I 

 should say it was perfectly distinct." Sowerby has hero come 

 nearer the truth than any othor monographer. 



* Mr. Barnes in his notice states that the C. maculata is nevor reticulated, and 

 it may bo thought that this statoment is inconsistent with the idoa that his shell is 

 identical with C. reticulata. But it must bo remembered that Mr. Barnes was 

 contrasting his shell with the arabica, which is eminently reticulated. The 

 groundwork of both reticulata and histrio, may in ono sense bo considered as a re- 

 ticulation, embracing the occllated spots. Martyn's name was not very appropri- 

 ate, and wore it not for the propriety of a rigid adhereuco to the law of priority, 

 wo should profor the name applied by Mr. Barnes. 



