332 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
Conch. Cab. vol. v. pl. 164, f. 1552, 1553, lower figures) in the 
Linnean cabinet sanctions the idea, and, although the numerals 
have been partially erased, their mere presence proves the 
typical nature of the examples, which, since they do not cor- 
respond with the published characteristics of any other shell in 
the ‘Systema,’ but answer fairly to the early definition of 
calcar, may not unreasonably be supposed the original types of 
this species. 
An important change occurred in the last edition of the 
‘Systema,’ evidently intended for the purpose of including the 
Trochus solaris, Indie occidentalis of Chemnitz (T’. longispina ? 
Lamarck), of which Linneus possessed a specimen; for 
the reference to a representation of that shell in Argenville 
(plate 11, f. H), has been substituted for the earlier citation 
(pl. 9, f. R), and the previous “imperforata;’ modified by a 
“sub” preceding it. The “subtus scabri punctis eminentibus” 
‘of the ‘Museum’ will not, however, apply to that magnificent 
shell, which may, nevertheless, with some reason, be considered 
the calcar of the twelfth edition. 
Turbo ruqosus, 
A marked but aged example (Chemnitz, Conch. Cab. vol. v. 
f. 1782 to 1785, for species not specimens) of the Turbo rugosus 
of authors, confirms the accuracy of a recognition established 
rather upon the words “ columelle labro purpureo,” a most un- 
usual feature, than upon the exactness of the synonymy. For 
the shell represented by Seba looks more like cidaris, and the 
cited engravings of Bonanni and Gualtier, if intended for 
rugosus, are far from characteristic of that species. 
In the revised copy a reference to Lister “647” has been 
added, which figure gives a better idea of the species intended. 
The worn state of the original example was probably the source 
of the incorrectness of the synonymy. 
