334 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
Accordingly we find the reference to Argenville (pl. 20, f. B) is 
decidedly an error, for that engraving represents an Ampullaria, 
a genus whose aperture would exclude it from the Turbines of 
the ‘Systema.’ I think from the expression “ easque maximas, 
solidissimasque” that Gualtier’s figure should be regarded as 
the typical one; the others, although probably designed for 
allied species, are by no means so characteristic. 
Chemnitz has figured in his ‘ Conchylien Cabinet’ (vol. v. 
pl. 178, f. 1771, 1772) a shell which he considers to be the 
natural state of T'urbo olearius, and this recognition has been 
generally accepted. Deshayes regards it as an advanced state 
of T’. marmoratus. 
Turbo ptea, 
The Turbo pica (Chemn. Conch. Cab. vol. v. pl. 176, f. 1750, 
1751) of authors is marked for this species in the Linnean col- 
lection. It would have been strange if the shell had not been 
recognised, since seven of the eight synonyms are correct, and 
the peculiarly striking features of the object itself rendered it 
unlikely to escape attention or to be confounded with any 
other. The reference to Rumphius must be erased; this 
engraving had been previously and correctly cited by our 
author for Trochus Niloticus. Linneus has added in his own 
copy of the ‘Systema’ “Acta Paris. 1766, p. 528, t. 15, f. 1, 
veuve.” ‘The assigned locality is incorrect. 
Turbo sanguinets. 
In the entire Linnean collection I find only a single species 
(T. coccineus, Desh. Exp. Morée, Moll. pl. 19, f. 6, 7, 8) that 
will agree with the description of this shell; hence, as our 
author has stated his possession of an example, I entertain no 
doubt of the typical authority of the specimen. It is the Turbo 
which, having been already identified by Philippi, has been 
thus named by him in his ‘ Enumeratio Molluscorum Siciliz’ 
(vol. i. p..179; vol/ainp. 151): 
