488 Cypree.i reticulata and Ch/praa histrlo distinct. 



I have purposely left to the close of this paper some remark* 

 on a shell which seems to have attracted the attention of nearly all 

 the writers on this genus, and which they have generally consid- 

 «red as a variety of C. arabica. The shell I refer to is that figured 

 by Kiener, in his pi. 4, fig. 3, by this title, and is represented on 

 our PI. xvi. fig. 3. The following references seem to indicate the 

 same. 



C. arabica var 0. Cmolin, 13th edit. Syst Naturae, p. 3398. 



Enc. M6thod. pi. 352, f. 5. 

 C. arabica var. Lamarck. Hist. Anim sans Vertobres. Vol. 7, p. 378. 



do. var. intermedia. Gray. Monog. Cypraidao, Zool. Jour. I. p. 77. 



do. var. Sowerby. Conchological Illustrations, f. 166. 



I have at times' been strongly inclined to view this as a distinct 

 species, but its character is so ambiguous, that I am not prepared 

 to maintain it as such. It approaches, however, much nearer to 

 the C. reticulata, than to the C arabica, and if it be retained as 

 a variety, it must be transferred to the former species. In- 

 deed, it seems to differ from the typical C. reticulata, only in 

 being of a much smaller size, more thickened at the sides, and 

 •destitute of the ventral blotch of that species. Notwithstanding 

 this latter characteristic, it can never be confounded with the C. 

 Mstrio. The teeth are fewer in number than in the typical reticu- 

 lata, but this, as I havo remarked, may be owing to its diminished 

 size. More accurate knowledge of the animal, of its locality and 

 liabits, will no doubt lead to a just determination of its claims to 

 the rank of a species. Should it prove specifically distinct, the 

 name proposed by Gray for it as a variety would be extremely 

 appropriate, viz., Cyprcea intermedia. 



