336 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
properly with the description. The expression “lineis dor- 
salibus levibus” excludes both Bonanni’s nodulous shell and 
Seba’s young marmoratus (or some allied congener): Argen- 
ville’s figure of setosus, also, must be rejected, as that Turbo is 
not umbilicated. As to Rumphius, his engraving (pl. 19, f. 3) 
having been likewise quoted by our author for the preceding 
species, its value as a pictorial definition is destroyed: it was 
probably a typographical error for pl. 9, f. 4, which drawing 
bears more resemblance to the object intended. The same 
numeral (4) was probably meant in the reference to Seba’s 
plate, for that drawing is generally cited in illustration of mar- 
garitaceus. The reference to Regenfuss in the synonymy of 
argyrostomus was not improbably misplaced by accident, since 
it evidently belongs here. 
Turbo delphines, 
Of the many known Delphinule proper (of which genus this 
Turbo was undoubtedly a member) whose distinctions, formerly 
held of only varietal, are now more justly esteemed of specific 
importance, two only, the laciniata (Reeve, Conch. Icon. 1. 
Delp. p. 2, f. 9) and atrata, are present in the Linnean cabinet. 
Since our author possessed the species, and the latter is cor-. 
rectly marked for another shell, one cannot but conclude that 
the former was the type of his 7. delphinus. Linneus, as 
usual in citing Seba (whose work was not in his own library), 
has quoted the wrong plate; 58 being filled with Nerites (in the 
Linnean sense); 59 with Delphinule. Of the 27 figures men- 
tioned, Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, must be excepted, being Trochi, and 
No. 1 (Del. spherula) from not exhibiting the “ spinis ramosis”’ 
of the description. 
Gurbo Vistortus. 
The Delphinula atrata (Reeve, Conch. Syst. vol. u. pl. 212, 
f. 12) is marked in the Linnean cabinet for this shell, agrees 
with its description, and admirably suits the illustrative 
