NERITA. 401 
encased, were transported, gipsey-fashion, on the back of their 
parents. 
Our author has not indicated his possession of an example ; 
consequently his collection throws no additional light upon the 
species. His account of it, however, is more complete than is 
usual in the ‘Systema,’ and does not seem at variance with 
the solitary figure referred to as illustrative; hence a general 
recognition of the Neritina pulligera (Born, Test. Mus. Vind. 
pl. 17, f. 9, 10), as its representative, has ensued. 
gdevtia pupa. 
} 
Despite the startling assertion of its equality in size with 
Nerita littoralis, the peculiar colouring attributed to this shell 
has caused its established recognition as the Neritina pupa (Desh. 
ed. Lam. vii. p. 587). This determination of the species is 
both sanctioned by the presence (as recorded by our author) of 
examples of it (Conch. Illus. Ner. f. 30, upper fig.) in his cabinet 
(the original numerals have been partially effaced from the box 
that contains them), which alone of the four or five Neritine of 
the Linnean collection answer to the other requirements of the 
definition, and by the illustrative synonyms of “ List. 605, f. 31,” 
“Pet. Gaz. 15, f. 8,” inserted together with the correct locality 
“Jamaica” in the proposed new edition of our author's 
‘Systema.’ 
Perita Liens. 
Unfortunately for us, Linneeus himself neither possessed this 
shell nor has added any particulars respecting it in his manu- 
scripts. The species does not appear to have been recognised 
by naturalists, who could not, indeed, have identified it upon 
logical grounds, since the description of it was utterly insuffi- 
cient, and was not illustrated by any pictorial reference. There 
exists even a discrepancy between the brief account of it in the 
final edition of the ‘Systema,’ where the colouring is stated to 
be green, and its alleged hue (“‘atra”’ lutea”) in the more de- 
tailed characters of the ‘Museum Ulrice.’ ‘The specimens 
3F 
