CONUS. fal: 
Whether Linneus constructed his Conus rusticus from the 
combined characters of these two shells is less important to 
ascertain, from the circumstance that the name could not in 
any case be retained for the species of the ‘Systema,’ the de- 
scription in that work being manifestly inadequate for purposes 
of definition, and the synonymy actually deceptive. The C. 
rusticus of the ‘Museum Ulrice,’ where no murication is men- 
tioned among the details, appears to be a different shell; yet 
the previous synonymy has been retained, and though the 
figures of Argenyville and Rumphius are still opposed to its 
altered style of colouring, “ alba longitudinaliter nebulosa flavo 
et glauco,” the synonym of Gualtier, supposing his drawing to 
have been designed for magus, may, perchance, be not an incorrect 
one, since the account of the species in that work is fairly 
applicable to the magus of authors. Nevertheless, I would 
follow Deshayes in wholly suppressing so conjectural a species. 
Conus nrercator. 
The Conus mercator (Reeve, Conch. Icon. vol. i. Con. f. 83, 
b) of authors was found wrapped up in a paper thus inscribed 
in the Linnean collection, to which, in all probability, it was a 
subsequent addition, since its presence is not recorded in the 
several lists of species possessed by Linneus. The authority 
of the specimen, however, matters but little, since the entire 
synonymy, with the exception of Lister’s plate 758 (which has 
been rightly erased in the revised copy of the ‘Systema,’ for it 
presents not the slightest resemblance to the species), har- 
monises with the description, and clearly points out the Cone 
to which the appellation has been universally assigned ; and 
this decision was fully supported by the language of the ‘ Mu- 
seum Ulrice.’ ‘“ Mart. Conch. 2, t. 56, f. 619, 620” is added 
in the copy that belonged to the younger Linné. 
Conus Detulinus. 
The Conus betulinus of authors (Mart. Conch. Cab. vol. 11. pl. 
60, f. 665) is marked for this species inthe Linnean cabinet, 
