168 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
769 of Lister’s ‘ Historie’ is quoted as illustrative in the 
revised ‘Systema,’ and “ Mart. Conch. 2, t. 56, f. 623, 625” in 
the copy that belonged to the younger Linné; both these refer- 
ences corroborate the received identification. The Cone thus 
named in the ‘Museum Ulrice’ was apparently a different spe- 
cies; at least the partial canaliculation of the spire there 
alluded to, and the expressions “ flava, maculis albis,” &c., do 
not suit any example of the true Genwanus that has been exa- 
mined by myself. 
Comms glaucns. 
This Cone, being one of those which our author has not enu- 
merated as being in his possession when he wrote the ‘ Sys- 
tema, is absent from his cabinet. It was pictorially defined 
by the figure of Rumphius, which harmonises with the few 
characters specified in the brief description, and is clearly the 
Conus glaucus of modern writers (Reeve, Conch. Icon. vol. i. 
Con. f. 10). The shell is described at large in the ‘ Museum 
Ulrice,’ where the details fully confirm the conclusion deduced 
from the combined diagnosis and reference in the ‘ Systema.’ 
Cows nrowachus. 
Since the beautiful figure of Regenfuss clearly represents 
that Cone which has been generally recognised for the Conus 
monachus (Reeve, Conch. Icon. vol. i. Con. f. 122), and agrees 
fairly with the language of both the ‘Systema’ and the ‘Mu- 
seum Ulrice,’ whilst the other engravings referred to in the 
synonymy bear a certain amount of resemblance to the species, 
although what they may have been designed for is most uncer- 
tain, it is not desirable to disturb the received opinion. Never- 
theless the expression “ magnitudine glandis” (M. U.) is indi- 
cative of a smaller species, and the term “acuta” is scarcely 
applicable to the spire of monachus. Yet Linneus may have 
merely sought to contrast the elevation of that part with its 
depression in the preceding shell; and mere size is never a 
