MUREX.— Plate XX. 



LiNNiEUs, Syst. Nat., 12th edit., p. 1214. 

 Murex crassispina, Lamarck (not of Kiener). 

 Murex ternispina, Kiener (not of Lamarck). 

 Hab. Eastern Seas. 



M. Deshayes' note on this species in Ids edition of La- 

 marck's ' Anim. sans vert.' so admirably exposes the com- 

 plicated series of errors connected with it, that I cannot 

 do better than give a free translation : — 



"It is very certain that this species {Murex crassispina, 

 Lamarck), is the same as that named Murex tribulus by 

 Linnasus. Lamarck recognised it himself in citing the 

 Linna^au name at the commencement of his synonymy ; 

 and should have restored to the species a name which it 

 ought never to have lost. It is true that LinnEeus refers, 

 amongst others, to some figures of the Murex teuuispina 

 for the illustration of his Murex tribulus ; but this confu- 

 sion, easy to rectify, does not authorise a change of name." 

 " It should be observed that Lamarck confounded two very 

 distinct species in his synonymy of Murex crassispina ; one, 

 the true Murex tribulus of Linnsus, — Martini, Conch. Cab. 

 vol. iii. pi. 113. f. 1053, 1350, which name should be 

 adopted ; the other, the Murex tribulus maximus of Chem- 



nitz, — Conch. Cab. vol. xi. pi. 189. f. 1819, 1820, (for 

 which see PI. XXII. Pig. 89.), described by DiUwyn under 

 the new title of Murex scolopax. This Murex had been 

 abeady figured by Martini, Conch. Cab. vol. iii. pi. 113. 

 f. 1052, as a variety of M. tribulus; and a further error 

 arises on the part of Mr. Sowerby, in his ' Catalogue of 

 Murices ' in the ' Conchological Illustrations.' For the 

 Murex cra-ssispiiKi, Lamarck, he refers to Martini's, f. 1052 ; 

 and for the Murex scolopux, DiDwyn, to Chemnitz's, f.l819, 

 1820, without perceiving that they represent exactly one 

 and the same species. M. Kiener falls into a similar error, 

 and neither author having searched for the origin of these 

 species, they have both committed themselves in not ha\'ing 

 figured the true Murex tribulus at all." 



In reference to the latter part of this remark I may ob- 

 serve, that the shell figured by Kiener for the Murex ter- 

 nispina is in my opinion the Murex tribulus; the true 

 Murex ternispina being correctly figured by Sowerby, 

 Conch. lUus. f. 110, and by myself, PI. XVIII. f. 73, and 

 PI. XIX. f. 76, in my account of which the dift'erences be- 

 tween these two so closely approximating species are 

 detailed. 



