NERITA. 397 
was not unreasonable. The D of Gualtier must be excluded 
from a correct synonymy; and although Seba’s engraving looks 
very like the traditional mammilla, his description will scarcely 
allow of such an impression. The substitution, in the revised 
‘Systema,’ of “List. 571” for the longer reference to the first 
edition of the ‘ Historie,’ has demonstrated that our author, in 
citing that iconography, had been wont to reckon as a single 
“tabula” all the copper-plates upon one page. He has added 
“testa seepius lactea” to his published description. 
Alervita covowa. 
It must appear marvellous to the critical naturalist that the 
Neritina corona of authors should ever have been regarded as 
the true representative of this Linnean Nerita. Reécluz, in one 
of his admirable papers upon this group, published in the 
‘Revue Zoologique, has proposed the appropriate name lon- 
gispina for that common shell, denying positively that it was 
the corona of Linneus. A careful perusal of the ‘Museum 
Ulric’ rendered this conclusion inevitable; since not only 
was that pitch-coloured Neritina unrepresented by any of the 
pictorial references, but the ‘cinerea, adspersa punctis ob- 
longiusculis” of that publication was opposed to its well-known 
characters. 
The Neritina, which alone of those in the Linnean collection 
answers to the description of corona (and our author has re- 
corded, in a list appended to the tenth edition, his possession 
of an example), has been pronounced identical by Sowerby with 
the shell he has delineated in the ‘Thesaurus’ under this 
appellation. The specimens are very young, and do not so 
perfectly resemble the adult shells he has delineated as to 
render the citation of them as portraitures desirable: one of 
the types has consequently been delineated in Plate V. (f. 10) 
of the present work. The cited illustrations convey a very fair 
idea of the shell intended, and if not identical (they are almost 
too rude to decide upon) were assuredly the nearest ap- 
proximations to it then published. Petiver’s was copied from 
Rumphius’s: Argenville’s shell is said to be olive, with the 
spines black. 
