MUREX. 283 
is solely applicable, is fairly ousted from the competition. If, 
however, that description is to be considered as appertaining 
strictly to the type, of which the forms A, B were erroneously 
held variations, then inflatus is excluded by “nigra, oblonga” ; 
and “sulcata striis transversis albis;” “apertura intus den- 
tata” is alike adverse to both axicornis and adustus. In that 
event M. calcitrapa (of which a black variety is present in 
the Cumingian cabinet) would alone correspond to the entire 
description. 
Tn addition to these several MZurices, the figures of many other 
members of the same genus (monodon, brevifrons, palma-rose, 
&e.) have been referred to in the ‘Systema.’ It seems to me, then, 
that the specific name was erroneously bestowed by Linnzus 
upon a group collectively, and not upon any one shell exclu- 
sively; hence, the species not being adequately defined, the 
name should either be consigned to oblivion, or, if retained, 
should be applied to inflatus as the ramosus of Rumphius, and 
of Linneeus “in part.” 
Two typographical errors occur in the twelfth edition (only) 
of the ‘Systema’; the reference to Klein should have been 82, 
not 8; to Regenfuss, t. 7, not t. 1. 
Uvex scorpio. 
Linneus has not signified his possession of this strangely 
formed object. Naturalists have easily recognised it (Murex 
scorpio, Kiener, Coq. Viv. Mur. pl. 9, f. 9) by the very charac- 
teristic figures of Seba and the details of the ‘Museum Ulricee,’ 
which clearly distinguish it from its allied congener rota. ‘The 
synonymy is apparently correct. 
Sluvex saxattlis. 
Not one of the many figures referred to as illustrative 
exhibits a species which precisely agrees with the “ quinque- 
fariam frondosa” of the diagnosis; hence the Murices there 
delineated can, strictly speaking, be only regarded as approxi- 
