216 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
alone excepted) of the tenth edition of the ‘Systema,’ wherein 
the species originally appeared, pertain to that shell. 
PVoluta (spisula. 
It is manifest from the diagnosis of this and the preceding 
species, that Linneus in the ‘Systema’ mentally only divided 
the Olives into such as had a pad-like projection at the base of 
the short spire, and such as had a produced spire which was 
devoid of that callus, from the former of which groups he 
doubtingly separated porphyria, because of the retusion of its 
outer lip and the partial obliteration of the posterior pad. It 
was to be expected, then, that his synonymy would exhibit a 
diversity of species, and, in fact, with the exception of Petiver’s 
engraving, which was copied from Bonanni, every figure repre- 
sents a different shell, all of which, except. Barrelier’s, would 
agree with the too comprehensive description. Rumphius has 
delineated the Oliva ispidula of modern writers at figure 7, and 
O. cruenta at figure 6; Bonanni and Petiver a Brazilian shell 
with somewhat the aspect of the former; Adanson the O. hia- 
tula (as in Reeve). The description in the ‘Museum Ulrice’ 
(where Rumphius alone is cited) harmonises with none of these. 
The characters, indeed, are somewhat remarkable, “ Spira 
conica, longitudine ipsius teste. Anfractibus sursum tantum 
margine acutis et longe ascendentibus,” and suit rather such 
aberrant Olives as O.jaspidea than the larger and typical ones; 
they are not such, however, as to ensure identification. 
The Linnean cabinet does not assist us; for a fossil, which 
has much the general aspect of O.hiatula (which species has the 
most prominent spire of those referred to), but which the late 
Mr. G. B. Sowerby informed me was the O. plicaria of Lamarck, 
is marked for the species in the collection. It is desirable, 
then, if we should retain the name for Oliva ispidula, to abstain 
from quoting the ‘Museum Ulrice,’ and to at least limit the 
reference to the ‘Systema’ by the word “ partly.” 
