BUCCINUM. 245 
continually annexed to the species he was defining the re- 
ferences also, which should have been attached to the adjacent 
one. I cannot help suspecting, then, that as his own library 
was not adorned with a copy of that costly publication, he had 
formed a list, when the opportunity occurred to him of con- 
sulting its pages, of all the species named by him there 
delineated, and has exhibited his usual carelessness of tran- 
scription in the distribution of the figures. 
“Col(umella) adglut(inata), p(er)for(ata) ; lab(ium) exte(rius) 
extus maculatum” has been added in the revised copy of the 
‘Systema.’ 
Bucctwiune Decussatune. 
“ List. 1000” has been rightly added to the synonymy in the 
revised copy of the ‘Systema.’ The Cassis decussata of authors 
(Kiener, Coq. Viv. Cas. pl. 15, f. 81) is present, as declared, in 
the Linnean cabinet, and alone agrees with the combined 
description and synonymy. The details of the ‘Museum 
Uliice’ clearly indicate that species, which is the one repre- 
sented by Gualtier, Bonanni and Lister, though Lamarck has 
erroneously ascribed the two last figures to C. abbreviata. The 
“Jabium interius punctis eminentibus” suits, indeed, abbreviata 
far better, and there is little doubt, although that passage is 
explained in the revised copy by “ Col(umella) explan(ata) punc- 
tato-rugosa: corpus varicosum,” that our author, who possessed 
them both, confused the two allied congeners. Since, however, 
no delineation of the latter was cited, and the unillustrated 
description in the ‘Systema’ is utterly insufficient for the 
determination of any species, it is far better to confine the 
name to that shell which is clearly pointed out to us in the 
‘Museum Ulrice.’ The reference to Rondelet must be ex- 
punged. 
Bucci areola, 
As well from the synonymy and the widely remote localities, 
as from the expressions “ Alia striata est, alia levis,” it is mani- 
