MUREX. 801 
of it in Reeve as a Pyrula (same species ?): the specimen in 
some respects reminds us of P. Ternatana. It is not unim- 
portant to remark that the original description was not taken 
from that specimen which Linneus did not possess when he 
published his tenth edition. 
Murer spills. 
The Pyrula! spirillus of Lamarck (Swains. Zool. Illus. 
ser. i. vol. iii. pl. 177) is partially marked (55) for this species 
in the Linnean collection, and, alone of the contents of the 
cabinet, exactly answers to its description. The striking 
peculiarity of its features and the comparatively ample de- 
scription in the ‘Systema’ enabled naturalists to easily identify 
it, although unillustrated by any synonyms. If, indeed, any 
figures of the shell were extant at that period, they are not 
readily to be found in the works ordinarily consulted by our 
author. 
ftlurexr canaliculatus. 
The Pyrula canaliculata of authors is marked (Kiener, Coq. 
Viv. Pyr. pl. 10, f. 1) for this species in the Linnean cabinet. 
The stated locality and the synonym of Gualtier are correct, 
but Seba represents a sinistral Pyrula (quoted by Lamarck for 
perversa), and the engraving of Ellis (copied by Baster) is so 
uncharacteristic, that it has been ascribed by Deshayes to 
carica. ‘The page in Ellis’s publication is 85, not 851; the fry 
and egg-case delineated in his plate belong to the shell he has 
figured, and not to the granuwm of the tenth edition, which 
latter is declared on good authority (Brander) to come from the 
Mediterranean. 
turer Arians, 
‘The synonymy of this species includes both Fusus probosci- 
diferus (Rumphius, Bonanni), and Pyrula carica (Gualtier): the 
