410 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
cabinet, and the reference (“ Mart. Syst. 177, t. 14, 15, f.136, 141) 
in the revised ‘Systema’ to acknowledged delineations of it, 
corroborate the received opinion, to which the details in the 
‘Museum Ulrice’ are not adverse; indeed, the “rugosa” of 
that publication corrects the idea of a fancied smoothness, 
which might otherwise be conceived from the absence of indi- 
cated sculpture in the ‘ Systema.’ 
Haliotis tuberelata, 
The traditional Haliotis tuberculata must have been deter- 
mined as such from the European locality and the great pre- 
ponderance in the synonymy of figures of that shell; certainly 
not from any peculiar and especial correspondence of its fea- 
tures with those specified in the brief descriptions. One might 
have expected from the antithetical diagnosis of this and the 
succeeding species that the present was devoid of longitudinal 
(spiral) stria, and was solely distinguished by transverse 
(radiating) rugose tubercles, yet the former were clearly de- 
lineated in several of the illustrative figures (Bonanni, Lister 
Angl. &c.); in some (Adanson, &c.), indeed, to the exclusion of 
the transverse ones. Many shells (Iris, Australis) in the Lin- 
nean cabinet would suit the description better than our indi- 
genous species does; but no representation of any such is to 
be found among the references. Hence as the meagre descrip- 
tion (even the longer account in the ‘Museum Ulric’) was 
wholly insufficient to indicate with certainty what our author 
intended, it is not expedient, especially as many specimens (Da 
Costa, Brit. Conch. pl. 2, f. 1) of the Haliotis tuberculata of 
authors are preserved in the Linnean cabinet, to alter without 
absolute necessity a traditional identification. As no member 
of the genus has been enumerated in the Scandinavian shell- 
lists of Lovén or Asbjérnsen, it is not improbable that the 
example of the ‘Fauna Suecica’ was of foreign origin. 
The rude drawing of Rumphius widely differs from the 
other engravings referred to, and must not be quoted in an 
harmonious synonymy. One feels surprised that Regenfuss 
(pl. 10, f. 40) was not referred to. 
