BUCCINUM. Q41 
‘Museum Ulrice,’ and the referred-to figures, has, at the least, 
an equal claim to be considered the Buccimum dolium of Lin- 
neus. This admixture proves but of little importance, as the 
name “doliwm” is no longer a specific, but a generic, appella- 
tion. The synonymy is very incorrect, Seba’s figures of the 
succeeding (t. 70, f. 2) and preceding (t. 70, f. 3, 4) species having 
been most carelessly included in it. The “89” in the reference 
to Gualtier was merely a misprint for “39,” the reading in the 
earlier edition of the ‘Systema’ and in the ‘Museum Ulrice :’ 
the error did not escape the eyes of Linnzeus, who has corrected 
it in his own copy. 
Bucci echtwophorun. 
The Cassidaria echinophora of the ‘ Animaux sans Vertébres’ 
(Kiener, Coq. Viv. Cassid. pl. 1, f. 2) is marked for this species 
in the Linnean collection. The synonymy is correct, except 
that figure 18 of Bonanni, being too bad for recognition, should 
not have been cited. Linnezus, in his revised copy, has added 
“ col(umella) explanata,” and changed “‘ prominente ” to “ ascen- 
dente.” In the Vienna edition the reference to Argenville is 
misprinted 24. ‘3 
Brurcevriei plteatunr, 
Linneus did not possess this species, and, as was usually the 
case when this occurred, has added nothing further relative to 
it in his manuscripts. I am compelled to differ from the views 
of that eminent conchologist Deshayes, who imagines it to have 
been identical with the Cassis plicaria of Lamarck. I find no 
grounds whatsoever for the supposition, since not one of the 
cited figures represents that shell, though our author, had he 
desired it, could have quoted an admirable portraiture of it in 
Seba’s ‘Museum’ (vol. ui. pl. 53, f. 1), a work that he has 
peculiarly referred to for his representations of the Cassides. 
Of the synonyms the nearest approach to plicaria is Argenville’s 
representation of zebra, which figure is the very one queried by 
21 
