288 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
engraving meant was 10, not 11 (as printed), and the “7, 8” is 
not to be understood as attached to the figures, which are only 
the seventh and eighth by position upon the plate. 
Murex cutacenus, 
The Triton cutaceus of authors (Sowerby, Genera Shells, 
Trit. f. 2) is marked for this shell in the Linnean collection, 
and the additional synonym of “List. t. 942” has been ac- 
curately cited in the revised copy. The published reference to 
Seba was very unsatisfactory, the adjacent figures 71, 73 being 
far more characteristic than 72. 
Murex lotoriu, 
This shell (which is not mentioned as being in the possession 
of Linneus) first appeared in the tenth edition of the ‘Systema’ 
with the same utterly insufficient description that was repro- 
duced in the twelfth one, and with a single queried reference 
to a Triton delineated by Argenville, which I suppose to be 
aquatilis or pileare. Hence the species, as then produced, 
must be rejected as irrecognisable. The M. lotoriwm was next’ 
published in the ‘Museum Ulrice,’ where it was described as 
a large red Triton with “subter costas singulas tuberculorum 
series 5 longitudinales.”’ Now, in whatever sense we may 
understand this passage, it suits not the 7’. lotoriwm of authors; 
if, however, the ‘‘ subter” should have been a mere misprint for 
“inter”’—and, as the “ costas” here signify varices, it would be 
sheer nonsense to talk of tubercles beneath them: moreover, 
in the antithetical description of a shell (lampas) declared to be 
like it in the opposite page of the same publication, “nodi tres 
—inter costas” are specified—in that case the entire account 
would suit the 7’. pyrum, and, strange to relate, the account of - 
M. lampas would apply fairly enough to the traditional T’r. loto- 
rium, which has three, not five, knobs between each varix. 
Had I been alone in this opinion I should scarcely have 
ventured to positively assert the identity of the Lamarckian 
