TURBO. 329 
Turbo petholatus, 
The Linnean specimen (Chemn. Conch. Cab. vol. vy. pl. 184, 
f. 1836) marked for this species is the subangulated form of the 
Turbo petholatus of modern writers. The engravings referred 
to in the synonymy were not especially accurate, yet, coupled 
with the details of the ‘Museum Ulrice,’ they sufficed to 
establish a correct identification. Figures 24, 25, 28 must be 
erased from those enumerated as representing the shell in 
Seba’s gigantic folio. “ List. 584, f. 389” is quoted by our 
author in his own copy of the ‘ Systema.’ 
Turbo cochlus. 
Although the description of this shell is very short, none of 
the species in the Linnean cabinet exhibit the required com- 
bination of characteristics. Born and Chemnitz have selected 
very different Turbines as the representatives of this doubtful 
species, whose ill-assorted synonymy has proved a stumbling- 
block to conchologists. The smooth Turbo cochlus of Chem- 
nitz (Conch. Cab. vol. v. pl. 182, f. 1805, 1806) bears not the 
slightest resemblance to 7’. argyrostomus ; hence it cannot be 
the striated Linnean one which is declared to resemble that 
coarsely ribbed shell. The erroneous references to Lister 
(erased by Linneus in his revised copy) and to Regenfuss 
(whose outer figure 12, however, clearly represents marmoratus) 
were doubtlessly the source of the false identification. ‘The 
remaining synonyms indicate two species at the least: Seba, 
pl. 74, f. 6, being the Lamarckian spinous form of 7. argy- 
rostomus—to which, possibly, the irrecognisable uncoated Turbo 
delineated by Argenville may belong—Seba, pl. 74, f. 20, 21, 
and Rumphius, pl. 19, f. 4, being apparently the T. margari- 
taceus (as delineated by Chemnitz, figure 1762). These two 
last were also quoted by Born for his narrow-ribbed cochlus, 
which, from his synonymy, weeded by his description, seems 
not unlikely to have been the Chemnitzian margaritaceus. 
20 
