BUCCINUM. g 263 
tents agrees with the definition of this shell. Argenville’s 
figure, though rude, is characteristic; that of Rumphius is 
narrower than usual, yet, whether intended or not for it, con- 
veys the general idea of its features. ‘‘ Simplicibus” has been 
substituted for “integris” in the revised copy, and ‘ Anfractus 
lineis ferrugineis erectis’” has been added in the manuscript of 
the younger Linné. 
Beecham DirritDtatun. 
Both in his synonymy and in his collection our author has 
confused together the Terebra dimidiatu and T’. muscaria of 
Hinds’s Monograph. Both agree alike with the utterly insuffi- 
cient description, but as four of the five quoted delineations 
apparently represent varieties of muscaria, whilst a very un- 
characteristic drawing of a young shell (Seba, pl. 56, f. 19) is 
the sole representative of dimidiata, I do not think that 
naturalists have acted wisely in selecting that species as the 
typical form, more especially as figure 15 of the same plate in 
Seba, Gualtier, pl. 57, f. M, &c., were at hand for illustrative 
purposes. In confirmation, however, of this admixture “ List. 
843” has been added in our author’s own copy of his ‘ Systema.’ 
In accepting the traditional dimidiata we should at least qualify 
our reference to the Linnean Buccinwm by a “ partly.” 
Bucci nvr, 
No author appears to have recognised this species; for the 
description is too brief, and the cited engraving does not 
exhibit the indicated characters. The drawing of Gualtier 
represents a livid and cancellated Terebra-like shell, which 
does not precisely resemble any member of that genus hitherto 
described; indeed, the omission in the figure of the charac- 
teristic anterior emargination renders it uncertain whether it 
should be positively referred to Terebra at all. Whatsoever it 
may have been intended for, it is assuredly not the Buccinwm 
murinum of the description; for the whorls are neither sub- 
angulated above nor encircled with three prickly striae: at 
