BUCCINUM. 261 
Bttectnim vittatun, 
As the figure of Klein represents a shell whose characters 
are in harmony with those ascribed to the Buccinum vittatwm, 
the species, consequently, was sufficiently defined for identifi- 
cation. That Bullia (Terebra vittata, Sow. Conch. Man. f. 427) 
is still preserved in the Linnean cabinet, and exclusively suits 
the figure and description. In his manuscripts, Linneus has 
also referred us to Petiver’s ‘Gazophylacium,’ pl. 98, f. 15, 
which rude drawing was either designed for B. vittata or for 
its closely allied congener B. livida. 
Beectwum striqtlatunr, 
Having perceived that he had inadvertently cited the figure 
of Bonanni both for this and the succeeding species, the author 
of the ‘Systema’ has properly erased it, in his own copy, from 
the synonymy of the former, and has enlarged his published 
description by the following passage: “ Margo anfractuum 
punctis fuscis:” ‘‘anfractus cincti ordine punctorum pur- 
pureorum” has been, likewise, written in the copy that be- 
longed to his son. These remarks suffice, also, to exclude 
the synonym of Rumphius, whose figure has been generally 
quoted for T. myuwrus: the other two (Gualtier and Argenville) 
exhibit Terebre, that answer, indeed, to the inadequate descrip- 
tion in the tenth edition of the ‘ Systema’ (where “ bifidis” is 
omitted), but not to that in the twelfth. Gualtier’s figure re- 
presents the well-known Terebra strigilata of authors (Kiener, 
Coq. Viv. Ter. pl. 9, f. 18); Argenville’s drawing delineates a 
narrower form, which has been termed concinna by Deshayes, 
and it is so very closely allied that its essential differences may, 
perchance, be questioned. That shell forms part of the Lin- 
nean collection, and, if one might admit the manuscript substi- 
tution of “simplicibus,” which Linneus has made in his own 
copy of the ‘Systema,’ for the published “ bifidis,” would alone 
suit (since the typical strigilata of authors is not present) the 
