CONUS. . 173 
Conus Ebrxus. 
An early recognition of this Cone ensued from the copious- 
ness of the synonymy and the language of the ‘Museum Ul- 
rice. The “ varietas maculis ramosis gaudens” (M. U.) is the 
vermiculatus of authors, and to that shell belong the references 
Pehust. 779.4. 26,” and “ Gualt. 25,Q:" Seba,/47, f. 2919 not 
characteristic: the other engravings that are cited by Linneus 
correctly represent the Conus Ebreus of authors. Specimens 
of both this (Reeve, Conch. Icon. vol. i. Con. f. 104, b) and 
vermiculatus are preserved in the Linnean collection, and alone 
agree with the description and synonymy. 
Conus Stercews-miuscavriney. 
The box marked for this shell in the Linnean cabinet holds 
the Cone habitually recognised for this species (Mart. Conch. 
Cab. vol. ii. pt 64, f. 711, 712), and the C. arenarws likewise. 
Both, indeed, were confused in the synonymy, and the lan- 
guage of both the ‘Systema’ and the ‘Museum Ulrice’ is quite 
as applicable to the latter as to the former. Nevertheless, as 
no coronation is mentioned, the somewhat arbitrary decision 
that favoured its uncrowned rival was not wholly unreasonable. 
Of the engravings referred to, three only (Argenville, Rump. 
AA, and Gualt. P.) absolutely indicate arenarius; Seba’s 
group, No. 1, contains both forms ; Regenfuss, Rump. Z, Gualt. 
O, and perhaps Petiver also, represent the stercus-muscarum of 
authors; Gualt. N. (rather an uncertain figure) was not in- 
tended for either of the two. ‘“ Mart. Conch. 2, t. 64, f. 711, 
712” has been annexed to the synonymy in the copy that be- 
longed to the younger Linné. 
Conus varius. 
The language of the ‘Museum Ulric, combined with the 
figure of Argenvyille, clearly distinguished the species intended 
