CONUS. Myvi 
certainly, and is not improbably what was designed by the “ va- 
rietas parva, magis cylindrica, lineolis tenuissimis reticulatis” 
(M. U.). 
Conus aalteus. 
The entire synonymy of this species is a tissue of confusion. 
Seba’s delineations of this and the preceding shell have been 
transposed in the references; f. 10, 11, of plate 47, being evi- 
dently aulicus, whilst f. 14, 15, are clearly textile. The following 
Species are included in the synonymy, and agree nearly equally 
well with the language of the ‘ Systema.’ 
C. aulicus of authors (Reeve, Conch. Icon. vol. i. pl. 24, f. 
134). Arg. 16, G.; Gualt. 25, Z; Regen. 8, f. 25; Seba, 43, 
f. 1, 2 (and by transposition 47, f. 10, 11). 
C. episcopus. Gualt. 25, V.; Bon. 8, f. 188? 
C. pennaceus. Rump. 33, f. 4, has been quoted by Lamarck 
for pennaceus ; 1t seems equally like episcopus. 
C. auratus. Seba, 48, f. 4, 5. 
C. omaria. Seba, 47, f. 18. 
Of these the first has been selected by naturalists as typical, 
not alone on account of the much greater number of the cited 
delineations of it, but from the circumstance, likewise, that 
auratus and omaria had been only included in the twelfth edi- 
tion, where pennaceus (?) too had been ejected. The figure 
which represents the only remaining claimant of the appella- 
tion is erased in the copy that belonged to the younger Linné. 
Since the established opinion has been based upon rational 
srounds of credence, it is scarcely desirable to disturb it. Ne- 
vertheless, the language of the ‘Museum Ulrice,’ where 
figures of aulicus, pennaceus? and episcopus are cited, applies far 
better to the last-named species; the expression “ obovata-sub- 
cylindrica” being inapplicable to the aulicus of authors. 
No marked box or inscribed specimen is preserved in the 
Linnean cabinet. 
