316 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
teeth on the pillar, but not in the individuals contained in the 
collection. This recognition has, I believe, been already made 
by De Blainville, and probably on the grounds that no other 
Mediterranean shell known to him possessed the peculiar 
though scanty features attributed to the species. 
As the representation in Payraudeau does not exactly show 
the peculiarities of the specimen, it has been delineated in our 
fifth plate (f. 6). 
rochus Pharaonts. 
The description in the ‘Museum Ulrice’ was so clear, and 
the synonymy in that publication (where Gualtier and Argen- 
ville were exclusively cited) so accurate, as to ensure the 
recognition of this species. ‘The Trochus Pharaonis of authors 
(Chemn. Conch. Cab. vol. v. pl. 171, f. 1672, 1673) is still pre- 
served in the Linnean cabinet, and alone agrees with that 
definition. The referred-to figure of Lister, and possibly of 
Petiver likewise, represents an allied congener from Madagascar 
(Gevens, Conch. Cab. pl. 12, f. 101) that is finer grained and 
less articulated ; it is not present in the collection, and, though 
formerly held a variety, the drawings of it must be omitted 
from a correct synonymy; so, too, must Adanson’s figure, 
which suits not the ‘“umbilicata’” of the description. The 
engraving of Bonanni is a greatly magnified yet recognisable 
representation of Pharaonis, for which Rondelet’s rude figure, 
also, seems to have been designed. 
Trochus nvagus, 
The Trochus magus of authors (Donoy. Brit. Shells, vol. i. 
pl. 8, f. 1) is preserved in the box thus marked in the Linnean 
cabinet. Naturalists must have experienced some difficulty in 
recognising this shell, since Linneus, for want of published 
characteristic engravings of it, has referred us to some (Seba, 
Gualtier, Regenfuss) which only exhibit an approximation to 
its features: the painting of Regenfuss, indeed, has been else- 
