wo 
or 
ww 
SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
designed : the voice of tradition sanctions the supposition. The 
name, however, is peculiarly inappropriate in a genus where all 
the species are ribbed. Its absence from the Linnean collec- 
tion is rather confirmatory of, than adverse to, the received 
opinion, since it has not been indicated as present in any list 
of our author's shells. 
Bucci BWersterine, 
The details mentioned in the ‘Museum Ulrice’ enabled 
naturalists to recognise this species in the Purpura Persica of 
authors. A specimen of that shell (Knorr, Délices, pt. 3, pl. 2, 
f. 5) is still preserved in the Linnean cabinet, and alone agrees 
with the combined synonymy and description in that work. 
The cited drawing of Rumphius (very ill executed, yet not so 
unlike P. haustrum) has been rightly erased in the copy of the 
younger Linné: Grew’s figure belongs to the next species. 
Linneus in his revised copy has added “faux striata” and 
“Tist. 987, f. 46 & 988”: the former figure is that of Persica, 
the latter of Rudolphi, which was likewise confused with Persica 
in the twelfth edition of the ‘Systema,’ by the erroneous re- 
ference to figures 12 to 16 in Seba’s folio. The name was 
taken from Argenville, whose engraving is very characteristic. 
Brechrie patulwne, 
The Purpura patula (Sowerby, Gen. Shells, Purp.) of authors 
is marked for this species in the Linnean cabinet. Our author's 
descriptions of it are not particularly good, but the species was 
easily determined by its synonymy, which is much more accurate 
than usual. Nevertheless, Gualtier, f. D, must be excluded, 
and the f. A (P. hemastoma) of the same plate, which letter, 
however, was only quoted in the ‘Museum Ulrice.’ In the 
revised copy of the ‘Systema’ “pluribusve” has been added 
after “cingulo triplici,” a very desirable improvement of his 
brief description. The reference to Lister’s plate was mis- 
printed 988 in the Vienna edition. 
