NERITA. 407 
the ‘Animaux sans Vertébres.’ Born has failed in the recogni- 
tion of it; his shell was apparently the Nerita costata of 
Chemnitz. Linneus did not himself possess a specimen. 
evita chamxleow, 
The Nerita chameleon of authors (plate 4, f. 8) is marked for 
this species in the Linnean collection. There are, likewise, 
several examples which both resemble figures 1988 to 90 of the 
fifth volume of Chemnitz, and plate 8, f. 26 of Regenfuss. 
The description in the ‘Museum Ulrice’ is excellent, but 
the engravings referred to in that publication for the variety b 
are very unlike the typical form. In regard to the three 
synonyms of the ‘Systema,’ the figure of Rumphius has been 
generally ascribed to chameleon, that of Regenfuss is not unlike 
it, Argenville’s looks more like versicolor. 
HLevita wwvata. 
The cited figures exhibit two distinct species, neither of 
which possesses the required characteristics. Both of them 
display a coarse kind of ribbing, in place of the “ sulcis tri- 
ginta” of the description: Gualtier’s drawing, moreover, does 
not present the sharp and projecting spire (‘‘ spira acuta, pro- 
minens,’ M.U.), nor the stated granules upon its inner lip 
(“labium interius—adspersum punctis eminentibus in disco,” 
M.U.); and the Nerite engraved by Rumphius (pica of Chem- 
nitz) is destitute of the “ fasciis latiusculis” which are attributed 
to the species in the ‘Systema.’ We must, consequently, regard 
these drawings, which, after all, are not so unlike wndata, as 
merely the nearest approximations to his species that our 
author, in the dearth of published illustrations, could descry, 
and not defer to them as accurate likenesses of the object 
intended. 
Almost all writers have concurred in regarding figures 1950, 
1951, of the fifth volume of Chemnitz’s ‘ Conchylien Cabinet’ 
as correct representations of the Linnean species, and these 
engravings have been alike quoted for it by the learned 
