VOLUTA. 235 
mined, with facility, from the number of excellent representa- 
tions of it that Linneus has quoted. He has not signified his 
own possession of a specimen, but has corroborated the received 
identification, by referring in his revised copy to plate 829 
of Lister’s ‘ Historie,’ where the T'urbinella capitellum of 
authors is depicted (Reeve, Conch. Icon. iv. Turb. f. 45). He 
has likewise noticed, and corrected, in one of his many copies 
of the ‘Systema’ (that decorated with his heraldic bearings), 
his erroneous reference to Murex capitellum in the ‘ Museum ;’ 
“n. 308. Murex Ceramicus” would be the proper reading. The 
368 in the fourth line was a misprint for 286, as the numerals 
originally stood in the tenth edition. The synonymy thus 
amended becomes correct, unless we should object to the rude 
figure A of Rumphius’s ‘ Thesaurus.’ 
Voluta pyrinr. 
Although neither of the wretched figures that were quoted in 
illustration of this shell can be positively pronounced the Tur- 
binella pyrum of authors (yet Rumphius has been quoted for it), 
nevertheless the ideal produced by both of them, when modified 
by the words of the description, so corresponds to the general 
aspect of that species, as to have caused its general recognition 
as the Linnean Volute. Hxamples (Chemn. Conch. Cab. vol. xi. 
pl. 176, f. 1697, 1698) of it are preserved in the Linnean collec- 
tion, yet are destitute of authority as types, since their presence 
has not been declared in our author’s lists. 
Voluta Lappornica. 
As both of the figures cited in illustration of this shell exhibit 
the same Volute, one, moreover, which possesses the few cha- 
racters required by the description, the species may be regarded 
as pictorially defined, and has been identified by all the principal 
writers upon conchology (Sow. Thes. Conch. vol. i. pl. 51, 
f. 68, 69, 70). The stated locality is erroneous, and the name 
somewhat objectionable, from conveying the false impression 
