280 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
of the intermediate set of differently-disposed short spines upon 
its tail, but this shell, which corresponds best to Lamarck’s 
description, is not imaged forth in his synonyms, which ap- 
pear, on the contrary, to represent the ternispina of our 
English conchologists, and were possibly only quoted in default 
of more correct delineations being known to him. I am thus 
prolix, because the shell confused by Linneus with tenuispina 
is generally understood to be crassispina, which it certainly 
is of the Lamarckian synonymy, not so, if our English authors 
have rightly comprehended the species, of his description. — 
To tenuispina belong the Linnean references to Bonanni, 
Argenville, Olearius, Seba, pl. 78, f. 1, 2, 3, Rumphius, pl. 26, 
f. 83, and Gualtier, pl. 31, f. B: to ternispina, which is marked 
for tribulus in the Linnean cabinet (Sow. Conch. Illust. Mur. 
f. 110 exactly), Rumphius, pl. 26, f. G, Columna, pl. 60, f. 6, 
Petiver, pl. 101, f. 16 (added in the Linnean copy of the 
‘ Systema’), and perchance, though less characteristically, Seba, 
pl. 78, f. 4, Lister, pl. 902, f. 22, and Gualtier, pl. 31, f. A. 
One almost hesitates to change the appellation of the latter, as 
suggested by Deshayes, to tribulus (a name proposed for both 
species by Rumphius), since the references to the more beauti- 
ful rival are less doubtful, and quite as numerous; one avoids, 
however, by so doing, the difficulty of pronouncing what 
species was the ternispina of Lamarck. The expressions 
“ nobilior varietas spinis longissimis” (Syst.), “ nobilitant hane 
testam spinarum longitudo, &c.” (M. U.), prove that both shells 
were alike included in, and both consequently alike entitled to, 
the name tribulus; and although, in the tenth edition, the 
more characteristic figures of tenwispima are distinguished by 
an asterisk, as the “nobilior varietas,” we must not conclude 
that the other synonyms exhibit the more typical form. For 
in the works of Linneus, and of many other naturalists of the 
older school, the word variety had not its modern signification 
of an object presenting some slight difference from the cha- 
racters previously enumerated: the usual mode was to specify 
in the diagnosis the more striking characters common to every 
supposed individual of the species, and then separately attach 
the differential minutie to each of the dissimilar forms, a 
proceeding which invested the whole of the varieties with 
equal rank. 
