Note on Toads found in Blocks of Stone. I quite agree with you that the statements about toads found in solid stone, are mostly very unsatisfactory (Zool. 677). One instance of the kind I have seen, as briefly stated, 'Mag. Nat. Hist.' ix. 316. The toad appeared to me neither more nor less than our common species, although I certainly did not examine it scientifically. The stone was the new red sandstone of geologists; and was brought up, as I was told, some yards from below the surface. I understood the toad, and the two portions of stone in which it was found inclosed, were deposited in some medical museum at Birmingham. The animal would not have been discovered but for an accident: the workmen were carting the stone away, and the block containing the toad happened to be placed on the top of a great load, and accidentally fell from the cart to the ground, and breaking by the fall, brought to light the incarcerated reptile, which, I conclude, was somewhat injured by the fall, as there was a fresh wound on one side of the head, and it appeared to be blind of one eye. The toad died, I was informed, the second day after it was discovered, partly, in all probability, in consequence of the injury. When I say the block of stone was solid, this statement requires some qualification: the two parts of the stone fitted together exactly, and quite close, except where the cavity was in which the toad lay; but from this cavity there was evidently a flaw on one side towards the extremity, and a discolouring of the substance of the sandstone, so that although the two portions fitted together, they might not have been (on one side of the cavity) very firmly united. This circumstance, perhaps, may detract much from the value of the example; nevertheless, it is unaccountable how the animal could have got into the position in which it was found: it is not conceivable, I think, that it should have been there ever since the first formation of the rock, and there certainly appeared to be no means by which it could have entered the rock in its present state, even admitting (what we know to be the fact) that toads have the power of getting in and out of a very small orifice. — W. T. Bree; Allesley Rectory, Sept. 17, 1844. The boar-fish Note on the occurrence of the Boar-fish on the Coast of Cornwall. (Zeus Aper) continues to be taken in the neighbourhood of the Runnel-stone rock, and along the coast near the Land's End, a tract till of late not much visited by the Mount's Bay fishing-boats. Fresh discoveries will probably be heard of when we arrive at a more extended knowledge of the hidden secrets of the Lethowstow or Lioness, as the expanse of troubled waters between Scilly and the Land's End is here called.-Frederick Holme; Penzance, October 21, 1844. Correction of a previous Error. I write to request the correction of a verbal error in the last number (Zool. 679), where, in my note on the Opah, Eccles is stated to be on the western coast of Norfolk, which is wrong, as it is on the north-eastern part of our coast.-J. H. Gurney; Norwich, Sept. 7, 1844. Note on Duval's Terebratula. In the September number of your interesting periodical (Zool. 679), there appears a notice accompanied by a figure of what is considered to be a new form among the Terebratulæ. However rarely specimens exhibiting this remarkable character (the central perforation) may find their way into English collections, figures and descriptions of allied species have long been known to many naturalists. The earliest notice of this form that I am acquainted with, occurs in a work by Fabius Colonna, published at Rome in 1616, entitled 'Ecphrasis Stirpium minus cognitarum,' and there called Concha diphya. In the Encyclopédie Méthodique,' 1797, Brugière has figured another species, subsequently described by Lamarck in 1819 as Terebratula deltoidea. To these, Antonius Catullo has added another species, Ter. Antimonia, in his 'Zoologia Fossile,' 1826. Von Buch, in his valuable monograph on the Terebratulæ (Transactions of the Berlin Academy, 1835), considers the above mentioned three species only as modifications of one form, namely, Ter. diphya. Antonius Catullo has however published (Osservazioni Geognostico-Zoologiche &c. Padua, 1840) some careful and interesting observations on this group, partly in reply to Von Buch, considering them all as distinct species, and adding a fourth, under the name of Ter. mutica. Other species, closely allied to the above, will shortly be published in a work by M. Zeuschner, on the Geology of a portion of the Carpathian mountains. The true age of the deposits to which these singular species belong, is not, I think, quite definitely settled; they are generally considered to belong to the cretaceous series, and it would therefore have been interesting to have ascertained the locality from which the specimen in the collection of Prof. Duval-Jouve was obtained. John Morris; Kensington, Oct. 15, 1844. Description of Natica intricata, in comparison with Natica glaucina. By JONATHAN COUCH, Esq., F.L.S., &c. THE only British naturalist to whom I am able to refer, for information concerning Natica intricata, is Dr. Fleming; who, in his 'History of British Animals,' gives the authority of Donovan's 'British Shells,' under the name above given, and to Col. Montagu, who terms it N. Canrena: but he adds, "this species has occurred only to Mr. Donovan." And when I add that Prof. E. Forbes (Malacologia Monensis,' 62) supposes it to be the same with N. nitida, and that it is not to be distinguished from some other foreign species, it will be allowed to be of rare occurrence; and I am therefore led to hope that a description of it, derived from more than one example, and compared with the kindred species, N. glaucina, of about equal size, and both of these with several smaller specimens of each, will be found interesting to the readers of The Zoologist.' The shell termed by Fleming N. intricata, has too rarely come within the observation of British naturalists to have received so many names as the fancies or mistakes of authors have affixed to the more common species. But to avoid all errors in reference, it is necessary to say, that under the name Natica glaucina is meant that which by Pennant is denominated Nerita glaucina, and, it is believed, also by Montagu; by Fleming, Natica glaucina. Professor Edward Forbes, as quoted above, terms it Natica monilifera, from a supposition that it may be the shell so called by Lamarck; and the same is adopted by Macgillivray, (Molluscous Animals of Aberdeen,' &c. 125). In September of the present year (1844) I obtained a specimen of Natica intricata, from Penzance; and this I supposed to be the first I had ever seen. But in the course of the same month I obtained a much larger specimen from Plymouth Sound; and a comparison of this pair with a fine specimen of the more common N. glaucina, will enable me to give a measurement and description, sufficiently precise to fix the identity of the rarer species. The smaller specimen of N. intricata here referred to, measures of an inch in its longest diameter; but the larger, which was + in its longest diameter, and in its shortest diameter, afforded a closer comparison with N. glaucina, my largest specimen of which is 1 by in these diameters. The latter, therefore, is a rounder and more compact shell, the greater comparative length of N. intricata being obvious on inspection. They differ also in the arrangement of the whorls, as well as in their number; which, in N. glaucina, is clearly six, but in N. intricata no more than five can be ascertained. In N. glaucina the second and the smaller whorls are more inflated, and form a higher spire, the decreasing line of separation having a regularly circular sweep; whereas in N. intricata, besides that the whole is much more depressed, the spire is not placed in the centre of the whorl, but inclined to the superior side. Another distinguishing mark is the form and situation of the umbilicus; which in N. glaucina is a simple ascending cavity, in a degree intruded on by a single porcellaneous band, which proceeds from the columella. In N. intricata this band is divided so nearly into two, that the connexion is only by a narrow slip; and the cleft or separating gap, which in the smaller specimen is rounded, and in the larger square, exposes the umbilicus above the columella, and therefore passes directly inward, instead of obliquely upward as in N. glaucina. The pillar thus becomes exposed, uncovered by the band on one side, and the body-whorl on the other, in a manner to be highly characteristic of the adult state. The inferior portion of the band does not stretch fully across to the whorl, but is rounded off by a narrow channel, which proceeds circularly, to terminate within a short distance of the aperture, offering, in fact, a broad and smooth porcellaneous separate termination to the pillar. In colour, N. intricata is much the most beautiful of English turbinated shells. The two specimens differ very much in the depth, though not greatly in the distribution of their tints. In the larger, it is far more rich, of a fulvous brown; in the smaller lighter, and of a porcellaneous yellow. The smaller whorls are, in the larger, somewhat livid, yellow at the separating line; in the larger, a pale yellow; and the beauty of the colouring does not begin above the lower half of the second whorl, from which it descends in four regular lines, at nearly uniform distances, to the margin. These lines are in their ground lighter than the other portions of the surface, and their margins are well defined; they are also portioned out and intersected with some regularity, by arrow-shaped marks, of which those in the two middle. are the most regular. The two external lines are the widest, and their arrows broader and more separate, but that which is nearest the separating line of the whorl is most irregular. The line nearest the umbilicus (separated from it however by a white space) is, in the smallest specimen, ornamented with regularly formed arrows, but in the larger, one side only of this marking appears. The marks here denominated arrows, are converging lines closing to a point as they descend, and at this part with more of colour; but there is no middle line: and in the larger specimen their form is much less regular than in the smaller. From the line of separation of the whorls run a considerable number of brown lines, encircling the convexity of the whorls, and uniting the longitudinal lines of arrowy marks, but not actually crossing them so as to break in on their continuity. The comparative number of these encircling lines, as well as their irregularity, is much greater in the larger specimen. A close inspection of these shells, in comparison with a small parcel of Naticæ, of about the size of small peas and which, without enquiry I had believed to be all of the more common species has impressed me with the belief that the N. intricata is not so rare as has been supposed; for I found several among them distinguished by the regular lines of arrow-shaped marks, and thereby easily separated from others of a paler cast, and with only one line of obscure linear marks near the border of the whorl. On further examination, I find also on these prettily marked specimens that the spire is less elevated and possesses the general form already described as belonging to N. intricata. But it is remarkable, that in the umbilicus and band all these specimens are alike, and resemble N. glaucina: a circumstance which does not excite in my mind any doubt of their being of different species, and that those having lines of arrow-shaped marks are a young state of N. intricata: for I believe that the observation of Prof. E. Forbes may be depended on; that colour in the Naticæ is distinctive of species, but at the same time it tends to show that in their younger state they resemble each other in that which subsequently constitutes their most important difference. In their youthful condition, then, the marking of the body-whorl, and the depressed and irregular form of the spire must be regarded as the chief distinctions; to which in the adult state must be added the situation and structure of the band, and the umbilicus intersecting it; but how far this shell is thus separated from the foreign species of Naticæ described by authors, I have not the means of knowing. J. COUCH. Polperro, Oct. 6, 1844. Note on Polyommatus Agestis &c. In your last No. (Zool. 682) you gave your opinion that P. Agestis, P. Salmacis and P. Artaxerxes were mere varieties of the same species the variety being the result of locality. I have in my small collection P. Salmacis, which I captured on Durdham-down, Bristol. The cabinet of one of my friends contains a similar specimen taken in the Isle of Wight; and that of another some of your central and northern varieties caught in the vicinity of Clifton, Bristol. This, I think, tends to weaken your theory of climates, while it somewhat confirms the opinion of those who would identify P. Salmacis with P. Agestis. I have subjoined a few of my captures this year. Eupithecia strobilata, June 19 rufifasciata, June 20 exiguata, July 2 subumbrata, July 11 pusillata, June 1, August 4 subfulvata, August 8. Triphosa cervinata, April 25, July 15 Aventia flexula, July 20 cinerana, rhombifasciana, cuspidana, pavonana, Bæberana, are all one species. Fifty-one specimens caught on a wall near my house, August 3 Anacampsis Mouffetella, July, August domestica, July 29 Anacampsis diffinis, July 20 angustella, bifasciella, leucatella Aphelosetia marginea, June, September fulvescens, rufipennella, June Porrectaria albicosta lutaria, June, August Harpagus cinctella, May 14 Achmia fusco-viridella guttea, May 14 Pancalia fusco-ænea, June Lepidocera Birdella, June 20, eighteen |