254 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
being derived from Argenville, whose delineation probably re- 
minded Linneus of a short stunted example of his species: the 
shell there intended, however, was a gorgeously iridescent 
Turbo! One feels surprised that Gualtier, plate 113, figure X, 
was not referred to in preference, for his delineation of rustica 
is not uncharacteristic. 
Bucechwuewm spiratiunr. 
No less than three species of Hburna, E. areolata, spirata 
and lutosa, have been marked for this species in the Linnean 
cabinet. This might have been anticipated from the “ Variat 
anfractu suture 1. rotundato,’ and from the illustrative re- 
ferences in the two principal editions of the ‘Systema,’ as 
well as in the ‘Museum Ulrice. The synonymy, indeed, 
includes two species (perhaps more, for Gualtier’s outer 
figure B differs from any Hburna known to me), the Hburna 
areolata (represented by Bonanni, f. 70, Rumphius, f. C, and 
Seba, f. 23, 26), and the H. spirata of authors, to which most, 
if not all, the other figures belong. The meagre descrip- 
tion in the ‘Systema’ will equally apply to either: not so the 
details of the ‘Museum, where the ‘“ Color albidus, maculis 
ferrugineis triplici serie digestis” pertains to areolata solely. 
It was fitting, therefore, since the name must be restricted to 
one species exclusively, that the preference should have been 
given to that shell (Kiener, Coq. Viv. Ebur. pl. 2, f. 3), which 
alone answers to the characters specified in all the works of 
Linneus. Unfortunately for science, Lamarck, who rarely, if 
ever, consulted the original editions of our author, has not fol- 
lowed this rule; and subsequent writers have abided by his 
identification. 
Brucetaime glabratiun. 
Two very dissimilar shells, the Ancillaria glabrata of 
Sowerby’s ‘Species Conchyliorum’ (Anc. f. 61), and the 
Eburna Zeylanica of the ‘Animaux sans Vertébres,’ are con- 
fused together in the synonymy of the ‘Systema; but the 
