302 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
specific epithet was derived from the former, but the latter 
alone agrees with the “spinoso-coronata” of the diagnosis, 
and must consequently retain the Linnean appellation. The 
“ Spira brevis” and other details of the ‘Museum Ulrice’ sup- 
port this conclusion, which is corroborated by a reference to 
plate 800 of Lister's ‘ Historie,’ and the habitat ‘“‘ Campegiam” 
in the revised copy of the ‘Systema.’ Our author did not 
possess this shell when he first deseribed it; P. carica, how- 
ever, 18S present in the collection, but unmarked. The name 
Aruanus has been written upon a specimen of P. vespertilio, 
which would not ill answer to the description in the ‘ Museum,’ 
but the letters do not resemble the handwriting of Linneus. 
sVuvex perbersus, 
The Pyrula perversa of authors (Reeve, Conch. System. pl. 236, 
f. 5) is marked for this shell in the Linnean collection, and 
“List. 907, 908” has been added in the revised copy of the 
‘Systema.’ All the synonyms are usually accepted as correct, 
but Gualtier’s engraving (manifestly taken from a broken ex- 
ample), in the multiplicity of modern illustrations, is not 
worthy of being quoted. 
Murex antiquus, 
The Fusus antiquus of authors (Kiener, Coq. Viv. Fusus, 
pl. 18, f. 1) is marked for this species in the Linnean collec- 
tion, and “ T'enuissime transversim striatus’ has been written 
in the revised copy of the ‘Systema.’ Although the cited 
engraving of Gualtier reminds one of the size and general 
aspect of the shell, it cannot truly be referred to it. Yet the 
citation of it, combined with the stated locality, probably con- 
duced to the correct identification of the species, since no other 
Swedish or Norwegian shell bears so much resemblance to the 
figure as the Fusus antiquus. The ‘ Fauna Suecica’ affords no 
additional descriptive particulars: the account was copied ver- 
batim from the ‘Systema.’ Linneus has shown a more than 
