72 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
and Martini’s figure, here mentioned, is cited in illustration by 
the younger Linné. The reference to Seba, as was usual, is too 
comprehensive, his figure 1 being millepunctatus: his 2 and 8, 
likewise, are far from characteristic. The somewhat rude en- 
graving of Olearius can scarcely be pronounced with positive- 
ness to be intended for betulinus; yet it is not unlike it. The 
other synonyms are correct. 
Conus figultrys. 
Had no account of this peculiar-looking Cone appeared in 
the ‘Museum Ulric,’ it might have been doubtful whether the 
C. quercinus were not entitled to the appellation, since the 
cited figure of Rumphius was clearly designed for that shell 
(33, No. Lis figulinus), and the brief diagnosis in the ‘ Systema’ 
was at least equally applicable to it. The description of the 
spire in that work, however, (“‘ Spira ferruginea, convexa, basi 
rotundata, sensim mucronata, anfractibus 11 seu 12”) sets the 
question at rest. Regenfuss has correctly delineated a pale 
specimen (“pallidis cinctus lineis testaceis,’ M. U.) of the 
true figulinus, which species (Reeve, Conch. Icon. vol. i. Con. 
f. 160) is still preserved in the Linnean eabinet. ‘ Mart. 
@oneh:2, t: 59, f 656,-658,” and “Seba, 3;4: 54; £1) 2,38 
are added in the copy of the younger Linné. That Regen- 
fuss’s engraving has not been referred to in the ‘Museum UI- 
rice’ is not singular, inasmuch as his beautiful paintings were 
never once cited in that work. Rumphius, Argenyille, and 
Gualtier, form the great staple of its synonyms ; Seba is quoted 
seventeen times; Lister’s ‘ Angliz’ nine times; Bonanni and 
Petiver six or seven times; ‘Acta Anglie’ four times; Klein 
and Ginanni twice; Adanson, Lister’s ‘Conch.,’ Baster’s 
‘Mis., Browne, Plancus, and the ‘Mus. Tessin.’ once only. 
The relative frequency of our author’s consultation of these 
works may affect the relative authority of antagonistic 
synonyms. 
