TURBO. ‘ Sue 
Turbo argvrostomus, 
Of this shell there are several marked examples in the Lin- 
nean cabinet (Turbo margaritaceus, Reeve, Conch. Icon. Turbo, 
f. 29: not of authors) which answer to the description. The 
synonymy is very inaccurate: the engravings of Rumphius 
and of Gualtier, the former of which looks almost like the 
T. radiatus of Lamarck, alone approach the described features. 
Argenville’s drawing exhibits an imperforated! shell; Lister’s 
has elsewhere been quoted by Linneus for 7. cochlus, and 
represents that species as understood by Chemnitz; Regenfuss 
has admirably depicted the next species, to which, indeed, as 
Linneus has remarked, it bears a close affinity. One cannot 
wonder, then, that this Turbo was not correctly identified by 
Lamarck, who has taken the Argyrostomus spinosus of Chem- 
nitz for it, although no mention was made, even among the 
fuller details in the ‘Museum Ulric,’ of the peculiar spinous 
scales, which characterise that shell, and Seba, whose figure 
had been previously quoted for cochlus,! alone of the many 
authors referred to has depicted it. 
Philippi, in the ‘ Zeitschrift fiir Malakozoologie’ (1846, p. 134), 
has already remarked the erroneous acceptance of the Argy- 
rostomus spinosus, which he terms 7. princeps, for the Linnean 
species. Judging from his reference to Geve (Conch. pl. 16, 
f. 158, 154), combined with his description, he seems to have 
ccorrectly divined the species of Linneus. 
Turbo wmargavitaceus, 
The synonymy of this shell is equally incongruous with that 
of the last, so that it is surprising that naturalists have truly 
determined the species intended by the great Systematist ; the 
presence, however, of a marked specimen (Zurbo margaritaceus, 
Chemn. Conch. Cab. vol. v. pl. 177, f. 1762) in the Linnean 
cabinet proves their discernment. Not a single engraving 
of those referred to exhibits the species, or harmonises 
