208 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
an analysis of the contents of his cabinet. Unfortunately such 
was not the case, and since no record is preserved of from 
whence the description was derived, it is better to wholly erase 
the name from our catalogues. 
Linneus has violated his own arrangement by introducing 
into a genus characterised as being perfectly entire at the 
base (“basi integerrima’’), and devoid of columellar plaits 
(‘columella levis’’), a species declared to have five or six folds 
upon the pillar, and to be notched at the base of the aperture. 
The value of an illustrative reference is here exemplified by its 
absence; for want of one we cannot even determine in what 
modern genus the considea should be located. Had it been 
inserted originally in Voluta, one would have conjectured it had 
been a Mitra of the Conohelix section: it first appeared, how- 
ever, in the final edition. 
Bulla fontinalts, 
From the brief characters in the ‘Systema’ we only know 
this shell to be a Physa; it is from the details in the ‘ Fauna 
Suecica,’ and, abové all, the locality there specified, which con- 
tracts so vastly (thanks to the paucity of the indigenous Physe 
of the North of Europe) the number of objects to be compared 
with the definition, that we are enabled to positively recognise 
the species designed by Linneus. It is the Physa fontinalis of 
authors of which an example (Sowerby, Genera Shells, Lymn. 
f. 8) is still preserved in the Linnean cabinet. No references 
to any illustrative figures were published by Linneus; he had 
remedied this defect, however, in his proposed new edition, by 
citing “List. Conch. t. 134, f. 34” and “Gualt. Test. t. 5, 
f. C. C.”; the latter, though generally quoted for fontinalis, is 
not very characteristic. 
Bulla Hyprworunw. 
Nothing in the Linnean cabinet answers to the definition of 
this fluviatile shell. The description in the ‘ Fauna Suecica,’ 
