MUREX. 281 
Murex cornutus, 
Great carelessness is displayed in the synonymy of this 
species. The “ Kirch. Mus.” was clearly an error for “ List. 
Conch.,” which engraving (901, f, 21) exhibits the Murex cor- 
‘nutus of authors; Petiver represents the M. brandaris, for 
which it was also quoted by Linneus; so, too, it seems to me, 
does Seba’s figure 8. A similar neglect is apparent in the 
‘Museum Ulrice,’ where the 5 in the reference to Rumphius 
was misprinted 8, and ‘“ Differt a sequente cui simillimus” 
induces the supposition that the trunculus/ which follows it in 
that publication was intended, instead of brandaris, which it pre- 
cedes in the ‘Systema.’ From the description in the ‘ Museum,’ 
however, and the characteristic engravings of Gualtier, Lister 
and Seba, f. 7, naturalists have generally recognised and pre- 
served its original specific and generic appellation (Reeve, 
Conch. Icon. vol. ii. Mur. pl. 18, f. 71). The cited engravings 
of Rumphius, Columna (the third figure by position only), 
Bonanni, and Adanson (as we learn from his description, 
rather than from his drawing), were all intended for the 
species; Seba’s figure 8, although usually ascribed to it, is not 
characteristic. 
Slurexr branvaris. 
The Murex brandaris of authors (Reeve, Conch. Icon. Mur. 
pl. 23, f. 96) is marked for this shell in the Linnean collection, 
and “ List. 900” rightly quoted, as a synonym, in the revised 
copy of the ‘Systema.’ The references are correct, though the 
figures of Gualtier and Rumphius are not satisfactory. 
Uurvex truneulus. 
The Murex trunculus of authors (Martini, Conch. Cab. pl. 109, 
f. 1019) is marked for this shell in the Linnean cabinet. The 
reference to Argenville was an error, and Linnzus, in his 
20 
