249 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
Linneus as bearing the least resemblance to the object de- 
scribed. Bonanni 156 has been quoted by Lamarck for C. 
flammea, to which, indeed, his second figure has some likeness ; 
the first reminds one more of spinosa (= fasciata), which, how- 
ever, suits not not the definition; assuredly it was not meant 
for plicaria. Another representation of flammea may also be 
met with in the referred-to drawing of Seba, and even Gualtier’s 
engraving, though generally believed to be meant for a variety 
of tuberosa, might pass almost equally well for that species ; it 
is, indeed, a very uncertain figure. In addition to the above, 
we find Bonanni 161, in lieu of 156, referred to in the earlier 
edition of the ‘Systema ;’ this represents C. crumena (a variety 
of testiculus), but was quoted in the same edition for flammea, 
and suits not the “decussatim substriata” of the diagnosis. It 
is not impossible, then, that as the description of flammea har- 
monises best with an immature individual of that species, and 
the extant delineations of adult examples were not quoted for 
it, that an aged specimen of that shell was the original of Buc- 
cinum plicatum, but, as this is conjectural, it is far better to 
omit the species as too inadequately defined for positive 
identification. 
Btiechwim corneum. 
Our author has not indicated his possession of this huge and 
common helmet-shell, which is known to be a Cassis, from the 
circumstance that all the cited engravings represent members of 
that genus. The “scrobiculis punctata,” by limiting the illus- 
trative figures to such only as possess that character, confines 
the species to that generally recognised as C. cornuta (Kiener, 
Coq. Viv. Cas. pl. 2, f, 3), a shell which likewise answers to the 
details of the ‘Museum Ulrice.’ The synonyms have been 
generally accepted as accurate, except that of Rondelet, which 
Deshayes thinks more like the C. tuberosa. In his revised copy 
Linneeus has added “ Aperture lab(ium) callo explanato.” 
