504 
PACIFIC SCIENCE, Vol. XXI, October 1967 
who did original investigation, and they have 
been studied by a host of serious authors who 
followed them. It is tragic that we are com- 
pelled to abandon such solid material and ac- 
cept references to a series of poorly drawn old 
wood cuts. Typical of these are some of Roding 
in the notorious Museum Boltenianum in which, 
for some, Roding lists as many as four refer- 
ences all to entirely different species, some of 
them unrecognizable, and the actual shell has 
been sold as a curio and lost. What the species 
may have been is known only to God. 
We propose to recognize four major divisions 
in the Olividae with others as subgenera: Oliva, 
Olivella, Agaronia, and Ancilla. On shell char- 
acters alone the generic distinctions between 
Oliva and Olivella are difficult to define. In gen- 
eral, the species of Oliva are larger, although 
there are many exceptions. Oliva has no oper- 
culum and no epidermis. In general, Olivella 
is distinguished from Oliva by the small size of 
the shell, its more produced spire, and the 
presence of a thin horny operculum. Neverthe- 
less, some species of Olivella, e.g., Olivella nivea 
(Gmelin, 1791), lack an operculum. Anatomi- 
cal characters must be considered. The animal 
of Olivella is like that of Oliva, but the tentacles 
and eyes are wanting, the foot is shorter, 
rounded behind, and does not extend beyond 
the tip of the spire. Species of Olivella are best 
distinguished from Oliva by the radulae. In 
Oliva the radular ribbon generally shows but 
little variation, the differences between species 
being small. The ribbon of Oliva is generally 
long and narrow, with many rows of teeth 
(about 100), while the rhachidian teeth are 
tricuspidate, the basal margin of the ribbon is 
wide and often yoke-shaped. In Olivella the 
ribbon is short and wide, with fewer rows of 
teeth (generally less than 50), the rhachidian 
teeth are multicuspidate, the cusps being small 
and numerous. While the rhachidian teeth of 
both Agaronia and Olivancillaria are tricuspi- 
date, there are small denticles on the sides that 
are not present in Oliva. The rhachidian teeth 
of both are very similar in this character. The 
radula of Ancilla is somewhat different. The 
rhachidian teeth are tricuspidate, but there are 
two strong lateral teeth. 
Some species of Oliva are a source of con- 
fusion, with various authors accepting different 
names for the same species. These notes are an 
attempt to indicate our diagnosis of the tax- 
onomy. We have freely adopted the work of 
many others. It would seem that the only ad- 
vantage to be gained from the recognition of 
color forms is to give the references to the writ- 
ing of authors in which they frequently add 
substantially to an understanding of the species 
involved. With few exceptions there are inter- 
grades in and out of all of them. It is our opin- 
ion that naming them is somewhat analogous 
to describing all of the kittens in a litter. We 
will discuss the better known color forms that 
have been given names. 
In this paper we will discuss the taxonomy 
of certain species from the Indo-Pacific of the 
genus Oliva Bruguiere 1789. 
Oliva oliva (Linnaeus 1758), Systema Naturae, 
ed. 10, p. 729, no. 350; ed. 12, p. 1188, 
no. 399. 
This species has been confused by many au- 
thors with O. ispidula (Linnaeus 1758). The 
recent publication by Olsson and Dance (1966) 
seems to have established the fact that the true 
Voluta ispidula Linnaeus is a fossil species of 
Agaronia, and that the O. ispidula of authors is 
the Voluta oliva of Linnaeus. Generations of 
authors have described and figured this species 
as O. ispidula. The synonymy is extensive. The 
figures and discussion given by Reeve (1850) 
are excellent. Try on (1883) gives a clear de- 
scription: "White, ash, yellow, brown, chestnut 
or chocolate colored, without markings, or with 
nebulous spots, zigzag lines or reticulations, 
often with a band near the top of the body 
whorl; columella white; interior chocolate 
colored. Length 1-1.5 inches.” It is impossible 
to enumerate the shades and patterns of coloring 
of this species. The chocolate-colored interior 
is the most characteristic feature. We will men- 
tion a few of the described color forms. 
algida Vanatta 1915. Nautilus 29:67-72. 
It is our opinion that this variety is not suf- 
ficiently distinct. It was based, with doubt, on 
a figure of Reeve (1850). Nevertheless, other 
workers have accepted this as a variety, and 
Reeve’s figure is clear. The shell is a bluish- 
white with light-brown longitudinal streaks, a 
yellow-brown lip, and a shorter spire than usual. 
