290 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
vol. ii. Trit. f.15) is marked for pileare in the Linnean cabinet ; 
but, since it was impossible, without actual examination of the 
type, to have deduced this fact from a definition which was not 
merely inadequate but misguiding, it is not expedient to create 
confusion by altering the established nomenclature. The figures 
were doubtlessly referred to as exhibiting the nearest accessible 
approximation to the features of the Mediterranean congener. 
Murex pyrunt. 
As the species originally appesred it was unintelligible, owing 
to the variety of delineations referred to, as illustrative of it, in 
the tenth edition of the ‘Systema.’ Triton clavator (Regentf. 
f. 50), J. pyrum of authors (Gualt.), 7. sarcostoma of Reeve 
(Arg.), &c., were exhibited in the cited engravings, and would 
about equally correspond with the briefly comprehensive de- 
scription. Yet as all the figures except the first named bear a 
general resemblance to each other, one is not surprised that the 
majority of naturalists have accepted the most accurate of the 
drawings (Gualtier’s) as a correct representation of the type. 
In this they havé erred, since the limiting additions ‘“ Teste 
alba, &c. Cauda longitudine teste” to the description in the 
twelfth edition of the ‘Systema,’ and the preferential retention 
of figure 50 of the two previously-quoted paintings of Regen- 
fuss, render it impossible to accept this arbitrary identification. 
For, on the principle of rejecting as illustrative all such 
engravings as do not harmonise with the described features, 
that figure (Reg. f. 50) which represents the long-tailed white 
Triton can alone be retained, and hence the 7’. clavator (as 
exhibited by Reeve) must be regarded as the veritable repre- 
sentative of the Linnean Murew. 
urex vubecula, 
The Triton rubecula (Reeve, Conch. Icon. vol. ii. Trit. f. 29) 
of authors is marked for this shell in the Linnean cabinet, 
and agrees with the synonymy and the descriptions in the 
‘Systema’ and ‘Museum Ulrice.’ 
