178 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
Conus spectrin, 
No Cone possessed by Linneus agrees with the definition of 
this shell; the spectrum of authors is not present in his cabi- 
net. The synonym of Regenfuss is clearly erroneous; it suits 
not the indicated colouring “ flavo nebulosa,”’ and, moreover, 
has been rightly quoted by our author for his Conus tulipa. 
The cited figure of Gualtier represents the C. Janus; that of 
Rumphius has been generally quoted for the spectrum of au- 
thors; the painting of both these species is equally unsuited to 
the shell described in either the ‘ Systema’ or the ‘ Museum 
Ulrice.’ The details mentioned in the last-named publication 
(where, as in the earlier edition of the ‘Systema,’ Rumphius 
and Gualtier alone were cited) are so ample, that it is incom- 
prehensible to me how the Conus spectrum of authors (La- 
marck, Reeve, &c.) could so long have retained its appellation 
unquestioned. The description runs as follows: “ oblonga, 
gibba, minus arcte convoluta, albido-cerulescens, nebulosa fas- 
cus longitudinalibus flavis repandis. Strie colorate, plurime 
cingentes ex luteo alboque interstincte. Columella postice 
striata et replicata. Intus testa subcerulescens. Spira ad- 
scendens, mucronata, mucrone, cingulis granulato.” (M. U.). 
The articulated spiral lines are not represented in either of the 
engravings referred to, so that these figures, in all probability, 
were merely cited as the nearest attainable approximations to 
the species intended. The description reminds one, in some 
respects, of C. achatinus : it would be hazardous, however, to 
conjecture what the shell in the Royal Museum actually was ; 
the striated pillar might, indeed, almost induce the belief of its 
not having been a Cone at all. It will be requisite to append a 
note of interrogation when referring to the works of Linneus 
for the traditional spectrum. 
Conus ballatus. 
In the copy of the ‘ Systema’ that belonged to the younger 
Linné, a reference is made to “Knorr, 5, t. 11, f. 4.” This 
