176 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
Contts strtatts. 
The Conus striatus of authors (Knorr, Délic. Yeux, pt. 3, pl. 
22, f. 4) is thus named in the Linnean cabinet. The excellent 
description in the ‘Museum Ulrice,’ where the synonymy (as 
likewise is the case in the tenth edition of the ‘ Systema’) is 
perfectly correct, ensured the early determination of the spe- 
cies. The additional references in the final edition of the 
‘Systema’ are wrong; Lister, Adanson, and Seba, f. 7, 10, not 
being intended for striatus; figures 8, 9, however, of the last- 
named author, really represent the shell in question. The 
younger Linné has added “ Mart. Conch. 2, f. 714—716” in his 
own copy, and erased the faulty reference to Adanson. 
Conus textile. 
It is manifest, from the language of the ‘ Systema’ and the 
‘Museum Ulrice,’ that the shells ordinarily termed ‘ Cloth of 
Gold Cones ” formed the Linnean ideal of this species. Hence 
the references to Gualtier, f. X, and to Seba f. 10, 11 (quoted 
for C. auratus and C. aulicus) must be ejected from the syno- 
nymy: both possibly were carelessly placed here, instead of 
with the next species; Seba assuredly was a transposition for 
14, 15 (textile), which was negligently ascribed to aulicus. 
The Conus textile of Bruguiére and Lamarck (Reeve, Conch. 
Icon. Con. f. 209) has with reason been accepted as the typical 
Linnean shell, a view as well confirmed by the cabinet of our 
author, where two varieties of it are present, as supported by a 
critical scrutiny of the synonymy. Gualtier A.A. is a charac- 
teristic representation of it; Regenfuss has delineated that 
loosely reticulated form that links it to verriculum; Bonanni 
(whose drawing is execrable) seems likewise to have intended 
it; the figure P of Rumphius, and the I of Argenville (the 
latter, however, has been ascribed to archiepiscopus by Bru- 
guiére) bear much resemblance to it. There remains only the 
figure O of Rumphius to be disposed of; it is not textile 
