182 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
Cypraxa testudinarta. 
In addition to the published diagnosis, our author, who did 
not possess this species, has written in his revised copy 
“‘aspersa atomis albis,” and correctly cited “‘ Mart. Syst. 353, t. 
27, f. 271, 272.” The species was early recognised (Cyp. testu- 
dinaria, Reeve, Conch. Icon. Cyp. f. 9) from the details of the 
‘Museum Ulrice’ and the cited engravings of Rumphius and 
Petiver. The 6 in the first reference to Lister was a misprint 
for 9; the second plate referred to contains two young Cowries 
of different species, one of which is usually quoted for tigris. 
Cyvprxa stercovarta, 
The Cyprea stercoraria of authors (Reeve, Conch. Icon. Cyp. 
f. 15) is marked for this species in the Linnean cabinet. It 
was originally identified rather by the description than by the 
synonymy, which latter, as Deshayes has observed, is very 
faulty, Gualtier f.S, and Petiver f. 8 (the latter of which, quoted 
likewise by Linneus for No. 330, has been erased by him in 
his revised copy) being designed for Mauritiana ; &c., &e. The 
references to Columna, to Gualtier f. T, and to Adanson, may 
be retained as illustrative ;’ the last-named naturalist declares 
that the example delineated by him is a dwarf specimen, and 
that the species attains to three inches in length. “ Knorr. 
Conch. 4, t. 13, f. 1” is rightly cited by the younger Linné. 
There are no shells delineated in plates 1321, 1822 of Barre- 
lier, who, nevertheless, has himself erroneously referred to 
them, instead of to 1325, 1326. If figures 23, 24 of those 
plates were meant to have been indicated, they would more 
aptly have been quoted for Cyprea tigris. Plate 687 of Lister’s 
‘ Historize’ seems to have escaped our author’s observation: it 
is a fair enough representation of the species under consider- 
ation. ; 
