MUREX. 285 
was the “varietas—spinis aliquot elongatis e Tranquebar,” 
figured by Seba (pl. 60, f. 19). The R. crwmena of Lamarck 
has usually been considered the MZ. rana of Linnzus, and so 
little attention was paid to the minuter details by the older 
engravers, that it is scarcely possible to decide what shell the 
cited figures of Gualtier, Bonanni, Regenfuss, and perchance 
Rumphius (the latter seems more lke albovaricosa), were de- 
signed for; Petiver’s is also an uncertain figure: all, however, 
remind one strongly of the species they were quoted for, which 
also agrees with the description in the ‘Museum Ulrice.’ 
Figures 15, 16 (and possibly 18, 17, 18) of Seba were certainly 
intended for albovaricosa ; 14 and 20, as well as the R of Argen- 
ville’s cited engraving must be expelled from the synonymy, 
since they represent R. bufonia (or some very close ally of it); so, 
too, must Argenville’s P, which reminds one of the R. granifera, 
as exhibited by Kiener. Possibly these two last were the 
several representatives of the varieties b and a of the ‘Museum 
Ulrice.’ 
SMuver qvrintes. 
A specimen (Knorr, Délices Yeux, pt. 6, pl. 25, f. 5, b) of 
the Ranella ranina of Lamarck, in the Linnean collection, is 
marked with numerals referring to the ‘Systema’; but time 
has so nearly obliterated the cyphers that it would be pre- 
sumptuous to declare them indicative of this species, were it 
not for the circumstance that no other shell in the cabinet (and 
our author possessed it) answers alike to the combined descrip- 
tion and cited figures. Moreover, a delineation of the same 
shell in Petiver’s ‘ Gazophylacium’ (pl. 102, f. 14) is quoted by 
our author in his revised copy of the ‘Systema.’ The expres- 
sion ‘edentula” is by no means appropriate, but is used, also, 
for the two succeeding species, which have also tubercles on the 
internal margin of the outer lip. It is somewhat strange, too, 
that Gualtier, pl. 49, fig. EK. was not cited, since that engraving 
fairly exhibits the shell intended. 
