~ 
Cr 
CONUS. ] 
Conus aturistacus. 
The harmonious correctness of the synonymy of this scarce 
species, which Linneus did not himself possess, pointed it out 
so unmistakeably (Conus awrisiacus, Reeve, Conch. Icon. vol.1. 
Con. f. 29), that it was identified at a very early period. ‘“ Mart. 
Conch. 2. t. 57, f. 636, 7,” was rightly referred to by the 
younger Linné. 
Conus magus. 
The Conus magus of modern writers (Reeve, Conch. Icon. 
vol. i. Con. f. 190, d.) agrees fairly enough with the language of 
the ‘Museum Ulrice,’ so that the traditional representative 
may not unfittingly retain its appellation. The synonymy, 
however, is wholly erroneous. For want of characteristic re- 
presentations our author was forced to refer to any which 
approached in general features ; hence in his ‘ Systema’ he has 
quoted 32, Q of Rumphius (C. augur), which exhibits the bands ; 
in his ‘Museum Ulrice’ 34, A, (C. Awrisiacus) which displays 
the articulated painting of the object intended. The coro- 
nated Cone (aurantius? ) depicted by Gualtier, and doubtfully 
cited in the ‘ Systema,’ is very properly omitted in the ‘ Mu- 
seum. In the latter publication, the same figure (pl. 15, f. H.) 
of Argenville, which had already been cited for vicarius in the 
twelfth edition of the ‘ Systema,’ has been erroneously quoted 
for the species under consideration : it is a very decided repre- 
sentation of OC. ammiralis. Seba’s drawing, like the rest of 
those referred to, does not exhibit the described features; but 
our author perhaps intended to indicate the one which stands 
next to it in the same plate (an accurate delineation of the re- 
cognised magus); such carelessness of transcription not being 
of infrequent occurrence with him, more especially in regard to 
the costly folios of Seba, which formed no portion of his own 
library. 
