266 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
interius reflexum gibbum, dente gibboso in fauce ad canalis 
anterioris initium.” 
Much of the present confusion has not improbably arisen 
from a cursory verification of specimens by the aid of our 
author’s cabinet; the ideas derived thence, indeed, may have 
been the source of many traditional identifications. 
Strombus pes-pelecant. 
The Aporrhais pes-pelecani (Crouch, Introd. Lam. Conch. 
pl. 18, f. 3) is preserved in the box marked for this species in 
the Linnean cabinet, and alone agrees with the definition of the 
shell. The synonymy, upon the whole, is good; the 866 of 
Lister, however, should have been 865 (which numerals appear 
in the revised copy, where “Pet. Gaz. 79, f. 6” has been 
accurately cited), and Bonanni, f. 86, which was doubtlessly 
taken for an immature specimen, does not correctly represent 
one: in the Vienna edition 87 was misprinted 97. 
‘Stronbus chivagra. 
Until lately two very distinct shells have been confounded 
under this appellation, the Pterocera chiragra and the Pt. rugosa 
of Sowerby and Reeve. The excellent description in the 
‘Museum Ulrice’ clearly indicated the former, and that shell 
(Sow. Thes. Conch. vol. i. Pter. f. 12) is marked for the species 
in the collection of Linneus. His synonymy is far from 
correct, and as it would be somewhat bold to pronounce from 
rude uncoloured dorsal views, in very many cases taken from 
immature examples, between two species so allied in form as 
those specified, I shall not attempt to fully revise it, but merely 
mention a few of the more striking inaccuracies. The reference 
to Bonanni should have been 314, 315, for 812 was clearly 
designed for either P. scorpio or P. pseudoscorpio (it has been 
quoted for the latter by Lamarck); in Barrelier there is no 
f. I., figures 8 and 9 were probably intended. Gualtier, pl. 36, 
f.B is much more like P. lambis. The true Pterocera chiragra 
was well depicted in Seba, pl. 82, the second and third figures 
