CYPRMA. 193 
be expunged: it was probably a misprint for A.A. of the same 
plate, which has been usually cited for cawrica. 
Cyprvxea evosaA. 
From the correctness of the published synonymy this spe- 
cies was identified at an early period. The Cyprea erosa of 
authors (Lister, Hist. Conch. pl. 692) is still preserved in the 
box thus marked in the Linnean cabinet, and ‘‘ Mart. Syst. t. 
30, f. 320, 8321” is rightly quoted in the revised copy of the 
‘Systema,’ where the modern numbering (“692”) of Lister’s 
plate has been substituted for the more circuitous style of refer- 
ence to the earlier edition of his ‘ Historie.’ 
Cvprxa flaveota. 
The older writers were unable to recognise this species, 
although described at large in the ‘Museum Ulrice.’ Chem- 
nitz, Schréter, Gmelin, and Dillwyn, left it in its primitive ob- 
security ; Born’s flaveola was pyrum and Lamarck’s the shell 
termed spurca by Linneus, neither of which Cowries possesses 
the required characteristics. The claims of another species 
suggested as the Linnean flaveola by Gray, and confidently re- 
ceived as such by Deshayes, Sowerby, and Reeve, are de- 
cidedly stronger ; for its features approach more nearly to the 
ideal shadowed out from the combined descriptions of the 
‘Museum’ and the ‘ Systema’ than any other Cyprea I have 
met with. I cannot doubt that it was the shell intended in the 
‘Systema,’ for two examples of it (Reeve, Conch. Icon. Cypr. 
pl. 18, f. 95) are preserved in the Linnean cabinet, and alone of 
its undetermined contents (our author has declared his posses- 
sion of it) exhibit the few features required by the description 
in that work. Moreover, Linnzus, in his revised copy of the 
‘Systema,’ has referred us to plate 96 figure 12 of Petiver’s 
‘Gazophylacium,’ which drawing bears much resemblance to 
his specimens, and though possibly meant for gangrenosa (for 
a. ¢ 
