346 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
Gurbo replicatus. 
Perhaps the shells which come nearest to the description of 
our author are certain specimens of the Twrritella brevialis of 
Lamarck (the Mesal of Adanson, pl. 10, f. 7), whose surface 
may not inaptly be called “levis, non glabra,” and which are 
so far “sursum imbricati, margine angusto” as to have the 
upper edge of each whorl slightly overlapping that of the pre- 
ceding one. Of this species, or rather of what we consider only 
a variety, the 7’. varia of Kiener, there is an example in the 
collection, and since Linneus has stated his possession of the 
shell, it is not impossible that he considered it identical. Yet, 
since it is neither marked nor contained in the marked trays, I 
am far from advocating the adoption of the name replicata. 
Moreover; as we find by the first catalogue of his cabinet 
(attached to the tenth edition of the ‘Systema’), he did not 
describe the species from his own specimen, for he has not 
enumerated it among his possessions. I perceive no other 
shell in the Linnean cabinet which will agree with the expres- 
sion “anfractibus sursum imbricatis;” neither, indeed, have I 
noted elsewhere a T'wrritella thus characterised (to which genus 
it appears to belong) that can correctly be termed, in addition, 
“levi.” The only figure referred to by Linneus (plate 14, &, 
of Argenville’s ‘Conchyliologie,’ misprinted Gualtier in the 
‘Museum ’—for 14 & of that author represents a Cowry) exhibits 
no appearance of imbricated whorls. It represents a worn Twr- 
ritella, the smoothness of whose surface, and the form of whose 
mouth remind one of brevialis ; but whose size and elongation 
forbid the supposition. The only additional information to be 
gleaned from the ‘Museum Ulrice’ is that the shell was pro- 
duced, horn-coloured with paler shades, not glabrous; that the 
overlapping edge was narrow, and the mouth entire and ovate. 
It is not surprising, then, that authors with no better data for 
forming an opinion than a too succinct description, and an 
irrecognisable figure, have not succeeded in determining this 
species. ‘The majority of them appear to have regarded figure 
1412 of the fourth volume of the ‘Conchylien Cabinet’ as a 
