406 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
better than either of them. ‘The cited figure of Rumphius has 
very much the aspect of that shell, and there is nothing in the 
very meagre account in the ‘Systema’ that opposes such an 
identification. 
The language of the ‘Museum Ulrice’ does not correspond 
with the features of any of the Nerite just mentioned. It is 
not, indeed, impossible, as Deshayes has remarked, that the 
inner surface of the outer lip may have been worn away (by 
hermit-crabs) in the specimens there described from; it is 
quite as probable, however, since more than one member of 
that group is destitute of internal sculpture upon the outer lip, 
that they fulfilled naturally the terms of the definition (“labium 
exterius extus Intusque leve, integerrimum”’). 
Perita plicata. 
Unaided by any illustrative reference to an engraving, natu- 
ralists, nevertheless, succeeded in identifying this species, thanks 
to the excellent description of it in the ‘Museum Ulrice.’ 
Linneeus, in his revised ‘Systema,’ has remedied this omission 
by quoting “ List. t. 395, f. 3” as a delineation of his shell, 
which corroborates the received opinion. He would, in all 
probability, have published this synonym, had he from the 
first possessed a copy of the ‘ Historie,’ a work which he was 
wont to quote, as be has himself confessed, from the observa- 
tions of others. 
The Nerita plicata of authors (Born, Test. Mus. Vind. pl. 17, 
f. 17, 18) is present in the collection of Linneus, who has 
recorded his possession. of an example, and exclusively agrees 
with the definition. 
Mertta grossa, 
Thanks to the enlarged account in the ‘Museum Ulrice,’ 
and the cited engraving of Rumphius, the identification of the 
Nerita grossa has been effected with ease and certainty. It is 
the species thus named by Chemnitz (Conch. Cab. vol. y. pl. 191, 
f. 1968, 1969), by Dillwyn, and by Deshayes, in his edition of 
a a Wik? ae 
mpm 4 + 
