262 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
altered description. The specimens, however, are of less 
authority, inasmuch as they were not those originally de- 
scribed, for strigilatum is not recorded as being in his cabinet 
at the date of the publication of the tenth edition of the 
‘Systema.’ If the words of the ‘Museum Ulrice,’ “linea 
interstitiali obscura,” must be translated as “ with a faint inter- 
stitial line,” they repudiate the synonymy, and the definition 
becomes utterly insufficient: perhaps, however, they may be 
understood as “the usual interstitial line obsolete.” If so 
indefinite a species as the B. strigilatum of Linneus should 
be preserved (and had it not been generally accepted I should 
pronounce against it), it is due to Born, whose figure and 
description exhibit a recognisable shell ; hence, in reference to 
it, it will be desirable to add “as amended by Born.” 
Bechwuiii Fuplicatun. 
An additional synonym ‘“ List. 837, f. 64” appears in the 
revised copy of the ‘Systema, which figure, as well as the 
previous references, are constantly quoted for the Terebra 
duplicata of modern writers (Kiener; Hinds). That shell 
(Kiener, Coq. Viv. Terebra, pl. 12, f. 26) is still preserved in 
the Linnean collection, where I find no other that equally 
suits the descriptions and the cited delineations. Gualtier’s 
figure is very unsatisfactory, yet cannot be referred with 
greater certainty to any other known shell. The details of 
the ‘Museum Ulrice’ are applicable to the species of the 
‘Systema,’ a circumstance which is not of invariable occur- 
rence. 
I agree with Deshayes in regarding the 7’. Lamarck, in- 
cluded as a variety by Hinds, as a perfectly distinct species. 
The colouring ascribed to his 7’. duplicata by Lamarck is not 
present in the examples that belonged to Linneus. 
Bucci lanceatune. 
The Terebra lanceata of authors (Sow. Thes. vol. 1. pl. 43, 
f. 52) is preserved in the Linnean cabinet, and alone of its con- 
