892 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
AO ag 0 4 Ua 
— Sevita cawrena,. 
No less than six species, at the least, of Natica were confused 
in the synonymy attached to this shell in both editions of the 
‘Systema ;’ to wit, Chinensis (Rump. 22, C); canrena of authors 
(Gualt. 67, V, X ?); millepunctata (Bon. 228; Gualt. 67,8; and 
possibly Arg. 10, C. Adanson, pl. 13, f. 3, though not unlike it, 
is, I believe, distinct); maculata (Bon. 224; Gualt. 67, Q, R); 
a very doubtful figure in Gualtier (67, E); and one of the many 
shells (Regenf. iii. f. 34) allied to the Lamarckian N. glaucina. 
Examples of nearly all these are present, though unmarked, 
in the Linnean cabinet, and are not repugnant to the brief 
diagnosis. Moreover, the three first correspond in order to 
the three first varieties of the Nerita canrena of the ‘Museum 
Ulrice ;’ the fourth variety in which work (“alba lineis undatis 
ferrugineis’”’) was evidently the Nat. lineata, figures of which 
(List. 559, f. 1,” ‘‘ Pet. Gaz. 101, f. 9”) have been, lhkewise, 
cited by our author in the manuscript revision of his own 
work. 
It is somewhat curious that the mass of conchologists (the 
older race of whom felt a greater reverence for their prede- 
cessors than our rising school is wont to exhibit) should have 
followed each other in selecting. as the more typical form, that 
very one which possessed the least claims to that preference. 
For of the many cited drawings one only (Gualt. 67, V.), and 
even that figure was passed over in the ‘Museum Ulrice,’ in- 
contestably represents a species whose portraiture in Argenyille 
(10, A.) was deliberately rejected by our author, in favour of 
another (C) upon the same plate. ; 
I fully agree, therefore, with that excellent critic M. Deshayes, 
that the name canrena (as a Linnean appellation) cannot be 
retained for any one species in particular, but believe that the 
four varieties of the ‘Museum’ should be severally added as 
