284 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
mations to the object intended. The details of the ‘Museum 
Ulrice’ are very scanty, utterly insufficient, indeed, for the 
determination of any shell, without the addition of a partially 
correct synonymy. In this predicament, Lamarck has cut the 
Gordian knot, by selecting for his Murex saxatilis, the shell 
represented by Regenfuss, f. 26, and Rumphius, f. 2. The 
reason for this selection is not apparent, especially since he 
has referred four of the other figures (those of Argenville, 
Regenfuss, f. 6, and Seba, f. 5, 6) to his endivia, which is said 
to be occasionally armed with five varices only. Seba, f. 4, 
represents Murex inflatus, and Rumphius, f. C, was perhaps 
designed for adustus. As even in the shortest synonymy (that 
in the ‘Museum,’ where the varices are limited to four or five) 
no less than three species are referred to, none of which suit 
the description, no definite conclusion can be arrived at by the 
study of our author’s publication. In short, the M. saxatilis 
was practically undefined, and, as Deshayes suggests, should be 
dropped as a Linnean species: otherwise the claims of endivia 
must be preferred to those of the larger shell; Mérch, indeed, 
in one of his critical catalogues, has pronounced it identical 
with the Linnean shell. Our author does not appear to have 
described the species from examples in his own cabinet, for the 
name is not included in the list of T’estacea which were in his 
own possession. 
MUuvex evtwacews. 
The Murex erinaceus (Knorr, Délices Yeux, pt. 4, pl. 23, f. 3) 
of authors is marked for this species in the Linnean cabinet, 
and answers to the description, locality, and quoted illustra- 
tion. 
SWurexr vana. 
The Ranella albovaricosa of Reeve (Conch. Icon. vol. 11. Ran. 
pl. 1, f. 2) is marked for this shell in the Linnean cabinet; as 
well as the R. spinosa of Lamarck (Kiener, &c.), which latter 
