322 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
doubtlessly a misprint for G (the reading in the tenth edition), 
but both G and M represent granulatus, a T'rochus for which 
the expression “levi” is utterly unsuitable. The reference to 
Lister was equally erroneous; his very rude figure was pos- 
sibly meant for the 7’. lineatus of Da Costa, which is also not a 
smooth species, and hence manifestly not the shell intended by 
Linneus. 
Bonanni alone has depicted the conulus of authors (Philippi, 
&e.), which being in harmony with the description, and most 
closely allied, as stated in the text, to 7’. zizyphinus (“ sequenti 
simillima”) has very properly been accepted as the true repre- 
sentative. That shell (Chemnitz, Conch. Cab. vol. v. pl. 166, 
f. 1558, badly) is still preserved in the Linnean cabinet, and 
alone of the shells there present agrees with the description of 
the species. It is not surprising that the illustrious Swede, in 
his days, experienced a difficulty in finding a characteristic 
representation, since even now it is not easy to cite one in any 
of the more ordinarily accessible works. 
Trochus sisyphinis. 
It matters little that the examples of this species in the 
Linnean cabinet ave not marked, since the features described, 
and the correct references to Lister, Gualtier and Klein, caused 
the T'rochus zizyphinus to be readily identified (Brit. Moll. 
pl. 67, f. 1). As to the rude figures of Argenyille and Rum- 
phius, they were only cited with a note of interrogation, and 
although, in all probability, not designed for the species, 
display, nevertheless, a general likeness to it. As frequently 
happens, the T’rochus described in the ’Museum Ulrice’ was 
quite different, having an “ umbilicus patens.” What it may 
prove becomes of less importance, since the ascribed features 
do not correspond with those indicated in the previous diagnosis 
in the tenth edition of the ‘Systema,’ and consequently the 
Linnean name cannot be retained for it. 
