Shell rather large for the radiata group, up to 45 mm. (1,75 inches) in length, ovate, slightly narrowed anteriorly, and of rather low profile, the apex at a little anterior to the middle; anterior slope straight, posterior slope arched. Sculpture consisting of very numerous narrow radial ribs, weakly but densely scaly where crossed by fine concentric lamellae and growth lines. The radials are fairly even, except that about every fourth one is a trifle larger. Colour of exterior pale yellowish brown, with white flecks and dark-brown maculations in the interstices of a pale-brown, nine-pointed star pattern. Interior yellow, with the dark-brown maculations showing through, except for the spatula, which is dark chestnut-brown, usually more or less clouded with white callus. Length: 30-44 mm; Width 24-35 mm; Height 9-12,5 mm.

This species belongs to the radiata series, but is nearer in shape to karachiensis than it is to typical radiata. From karachiensis it differs in sculpture, being finely radially ribbed, with about every fourth primary a trifle larger, and in its coloration of white flecks and dark maculations in the interstices of a nine-pointed star, the rays of which extend to the margin.

Red Sea and Gulf of Aqaba.

This is Reeve's 1854 version of his variegata of 1842, a very different shell, from unknown locality, but here considered to be a synonym of radiata capensis. The name variegata, however, is not acceptable as of Reeve at either presentation, since there are two prior usages of that name in Patella, one of Roding, 1798, and the other of Blainville, 1825. Dall (1870) correctly localised Reeves 1854 variegata as coming from the Red Sea area, not Australia, as claimed by Reeve. Then in 1891, Pilsbry provided a new name, eucosmia, for the variegata of Reeve, 1854, and cited the following localities for it—"Suez, Red Sea and Gulf of Akaba,' Japan and Australia." However, in 1895, in the Stearns "Catalogue of the Marine Mollusca of Japan," pp. 112, 113, Pilsbry, without reasons, switched his eucosmia to cover a very different, common Japanese Cellana even adding that "The species is not known from any locality outside of Japan." Pilsbry's 1891 original proposition must stand for the name of the Red Sea Cellana, since it was clearly introduced as a new-name for the 1854 variegata of Reeve, bourn out also by the description, based upon Reeve's 1854 figures.