MUREX. 307 
sMuvexr Spracusanis. 
The Fusus Syracusanus (Kiener, Coq. Viv. Fus. pl. 4, f. 2) of 
authors is marked for this species in the Linnean collection, 
and correctly answers to the description. Bonanni has very 
accurately exhibited the species designed, and the reference to 
his engraving doubtlessly enabled naturalists to identify it. 
Murex eraticulatus, 
Rondelet’s Turbo angulatus, an extremely rude figure, with 
somewhat the aspect of Turbinella polygona or Fasciolaria 
Tarentina, is represented as haying its volutions angulated 
above, and not with rounded whorls in accordance with the 
description in the ‘Systema.’ No aid, therefore, can be de- 
rived from it; it was manifestly an erroneous reference, and, 
as well as the locality, taken perhaps from it, was only added 
in the twelfth edition. The Twurbinella craticulata (Kiener, 
Coq. Viv. Turb. pl. 19, f. 2) has been generally accepted as the 
representative, and, should we understand the “apertura den- 
tata” as explained by “apertura intus striata,’ answers very 
correctly to the description. It is somewhat curious, however, 
that the extant delineations of the species in Lister (pl. 919, 
f. 18) and Seba (iii. pl. 50, f. 55, 56, and pl. 51, f. 31, 32) should 
not have been referred to. The shell is not present in the 
Linnean cabinet. 
Murex seviptus. 
Philippi, after due examination, has asserted that the Buc- 
cinum (!) corniculatum of Lamarck (Kiener, Coq. Viv. Buc. f. 56) 
is identical with this long-undetermined species. His decision 
was confirmed by an analysis of the contents of the Linnean 
