294 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
Linnean collection. So imperfectly, however,.does the specimen 
harmonise with the prescribed characteristics that I entertain 
but little doubt that this marking was an error; at all events 
the shell was not the original example, since our author did 
not possess the species (as we know by his lists) when he first 
described it. It is my duty, however, to record the circum- 
stance. 
Kivex MervitoTeus, 
The pictorial synonyms of this shell represent two distinct 
species: Gualtier and Bonanni, f. 174, correctly portray the 
Purpura Neritoides of authors; the other three engravings were 
designed for Ricinula horrida. The “columella planiuscula,” 
however, clearly indicates the former to have been the object 
intended, and this is confirmed by the presence of that shell 
(KGener, Purpura, pl. 22, f. 62) marked for Neritoideus in the 
cabinet of Linneus, by his manuscript correction (“990”) of 
the published reference to Lister, and by his notice, in the pro- 
posed new edition, of that very striking feature, the “labium 
interius punctis 2 maculatum.” 
SMurvex Hvstrtx, 
The Purpura hystrix of Lamarck has decidedly no claim to 
be considered the Murex hystrix of Linneus. Had it been so, 
why should the coloured representation of it in Regenfuss 
(pl. 8, f. 32) have been referred by our author to M. hippo- 
castanum? When the species first appeared, in the tenth edi- 
tion of the ‘Systema,’ the short diagnosis was accompanied 
only by the synonym of Argenville, whose engraving was indis- 
putably meant for Rie. arachnoides, a shell which, as we have 
seen, was termed M. ricinus by our author. The single line 
and a half of unillustrated description does not suffice for 
the determination of any species. Let us turn, then, to the 
‘Museum Ulrice.’ The account in that work, although 
scarcely sufficient to point out any shell with positive cer- 
