VOLUTA. 237 
is written in his copy by Linneus, and a gigantic marked 
specimen of it forms part of his collection. 
Voluta epurbtun. 
The Cymba porcina of authors (Broderip in Species Conchyl. 
Cymb. f. 6, g, h) is marked for this species in the Linnean 
cabinet, and accurately agrees with the description in the 
‘Systema,’ and with one half (Adanson; Seba, pl. 65, f. 5, 6, 
and pl. 66, f. 5) of the figures referred to. Gualtier’s engraving 
(the C. cymbiwm of authors) exhibits the same shape, but the 
“biplicata” of the ‘Systema’ clearly excludes it; Seba, pl. 66, 
f. 18 is doubtful, yet not so unlike the C. olla of authors, to 
which I should also refer Bonanni, f. 6, from which the locality 
was derived. Columna, though generally quoted for C. porcina, 
seems to me designed for an allied congener, the C. proboscidalis, 
the species probably intended in the ‘Museum Ulvice,’ where, 
in opposition to the heading, “ plicis 8 seu 4” were ascribed to 
its columella in the details. Gualtier’s figure of cymbiwm, 
though the only figure there cited, is declared, in that work, to 
be merely an approach to the species intended; it is somewhat 
strange that Bonanni’s representation (pl. 3, f. 2) of proboscidalis 
was not mentioned in place of it. 
Poluta olla. 
The Cymba olla of modern writers, whose pillar is traversed 
by only two folds, cannot possibly be the Linnean Volute, whose 
columella is declared, in both the ‘Systema’ and the ‘ Museum 
Ulrice,’ to be furnished with four (“ quadriplicata”’): the “ apex 
obtusissimus, derasus,” too, of the last-named publication is 
utterly inapplicable to the mammillary projection upon its 
summit. Hence the synonyms of Aldrovand, Columna, f. 6, 
Lister and Klein (whose engraving was copied from the very 
figure in Bonanni which is quoted for the preceding species), 
cannot be regarded as illustrative, since they represent a shell, 
the characters of which are not in harmony with those described. 
