BUCCINUM. 249 
(Gualt. f. P.—Seba, f. 34, &c.) with arcularia proper, Linneus 
has not confused these two closely allied congeners in his 
synonymy, which is so correct that the R of Gualtier alone is 
doubtful, and that figure was assuredly not intended for Rwmphiv. 
“List. 970, f. 24” has been rightly quoted as an additional 
reference in the revised copy, where our author has also ap- 
pended “ Faux unidentata, striata lab(ium) ext(erius) postice 
subdentatum” to his published description. The rude figure 
of Rumphius, though quoted by Lamarck for his variety }, 
seems to me more like arcularia proper. 
Bucci pullus, 
From the extreme shortness of the diagnosis, and the erro- 
neous multiplicity of conflicting delineations, it is not sur- 
prising that very different-looking Nasse should have been 
designated by the same appellation, in the works of various 
authors, so that it really becomes difficult to say what is 
the modern received notion of the Linnean species. The 
“'Totombo” of Adanson is held by Deshayes, and I suspect by 
Schréter (I know not wherefore, unless from the likeness it 
bears to the also cited N of Gualtier’s folio), to be the typical 
pullus; the “ultimo ad angulum trituberculato” of Lamarck 
is not exhibited in these figures, to which Kiener’s pullus bears 
not the slightest resemblance. In the revised copy of the 
‘Systema’ the characters “acuminata,” “labio exteriore den- 
tato” and “faux unidentata” have been added to the meagre 
particulars previously enumerated, and the reference to Lister 
rightly changed to 971 (to which, indeed, figure 26 belonged). 
The Buccinum (Nassa) Thersites of Kiener's Monograph 
(Coq. Viv. Buc. f. 118) is present in the Linnean cabinet, and 
of the shells therein preserved (and pullus is declared to be in 
the collection) alone answers to the description of this species. 
Moreover, this and the succeeding Buccinum were found placed 
together in a box marked as containing both of them, so that 
no doubt can be entertained as to what shell was designed by 
our author. The synonymy, added only in the twelfth edition, 
is most incongruous ; nearly every engraving displays a different 
shell; Lister, f. 26, alone can be retained. 
2K 
