194 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
which it has been quoted), was the nearest approach to a repre- 
sentation of the species then extant. 
The “ noscitur colore supra et subtus flavo” of the ‘ Museum 
Ulrice’ does not suit the white-based flaveola of the four emt- 
nent conchologists just mentioned. It is not improbable, then, 
that the same appellation was bestowed at different periods 
upon two distinct species: the one (that noticed in the final 
edition of the ‘ Systema’) adorned with obsolete and somewhat 
scattered marginal spots; the other (that described in the ‘ Mu- 
seum’ and in the tenth edition of the ‘Systema,’ where none 
are mentioned) entirely destitute of them. 
Cyprxea spurca. 
The Cyprea flaveola of Lamarck, now generally recognised as 
the spwrca (Reeve, Conch. Icon. vol. ii. Cyp. f. 68) of Linnzus 
is present, as declared, in his cabinet, where no other species 
possesses the required characteristics. Although the descrip- 
tion was not very ample, and, moreover, was not illustrated by 
references to any engraving, the confined locality, by greatly 
limiting the number of species to be compared with the defini- 
tion, has served to indicate the object intended by our author. 
Cyprea stoliva. 
The Cyprea stolida of authors (Reeve, Conch. Icon. Cyp. f. 
67) is still preserved in the Linnean cabinet, and alone agrees 
with the definition of this Cowry. The species was pictorially 
defined in the tenth edition of the ‘Systema,’ where its very 
brief description harmonised with the single reference to Argen- 
ville’s figure. In the revised copy, the 19 in the synonym of 
Petiver has been rightly changed to 18. The typographical 
errors, which have caused such perplexity to naturalists, re- 
sulted, I suspect, from the peculiar handwriting of Linneus, 
which is very difficult to decypher. The younger Linné has 
cited, in further illustration of the species, “ Mart. Syst. t. 29, 
f. 305,” and “ Born, Ind. 177.” 
