MUREX. 311 
much resemblance; Argenville’s, indeed, seems intended for 
asper, and Rumphius’s, copied by Klein (f. 119), though it looks 
rather granosely tuberculated than actually prickly, and to have 
too many rows (5) of grains upon each volution, has also been 
generally referred to that shell. As to Bonanni, his sketch 
appears intended for the Trirbinella lineata, and was copied by 
Klein (f. 120) likewise, though the latter has not been quoted 
by Linneus. Since the engraving of Rumphius best suits the 
diagnosis, I had hoped to have discovered in the Linnean 
cabinet a precisely similar Cerithiwm, but find nothing that 
approaches nearer than the preceding species. Deshayes, in- 
deed, has already suggested that we should refer it to that 
shell, of which there are both perfect and imperfect examples 
in the collection; and as more than one species there would 
suit the brief and too inclusive description, if disconnected 
from the synonymy, and not one when combined with it, it 
seems desirable, by this annexation (with a “?” attached) to 
banish from our overcrowded catalogues the name of a Murex 
confessedly characterised from imperfect specimens. 
| stiurex decollatus. 
As this shell was avowedly described from De Geer’s collec- 
tion, it was not to be hoped that a type would be found in the 
cabinet of Linneus, none of whose specimens, and, indeed, he 
has not asserted his possession of an example, answer to the 
described features, which unfortunately are wholly insufficient 
for the purpose of definition. 
The supposition of Bruguiére, that the species was identical 
with the Cerithiwm (Potamis) thus named by him, although 
ingenious, must, I fear, be erroneous, for that shell neither 
corresponds with the “ margine superiore attenuato,” nor with 
the “ interjectis sulcis atris opacis” of the description. Never- 
theless it is not desirable to suggest another hypothetical 
representative. 
