444 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
worm-shells delineated in the cited drawing of Argenville is so 
little in harmony with these expressions that our author, who 
only quoted it in the twelfth edition, has himself queried it in 
the revised ‘ Systema:’ had it been referred to as illustrative of 
S. vermicularis it might have been accepted as a possible repre- 
sentation of that well-known Annelide, which was fairly enough 
delineated by Bonanni also (pt. 1, f. 20, f. 20, F). The words 
of the ‘Museum Ulric’ are few in number, and not peculiarly 
suggestive: they run as follows—“ parva, crassitie fili grossioris, 
rugosa, rufa, per varios anfractus instar contortuplicati lum- 
brici conglomerata.” As the brownish red colouring here spe- 
cified is rarely, if ever, present in European Serpule, I should 
have suspected a Vermetus was intended had it not been for'; 
the extreme slenderness attributed to the tubes. The species 
of the ‘Museum,’ in the absence of an illustrative reference, 
was,.in truth, too indefinite for recognition: that of the twelfth 
edition of the ‘Systema’ has been usually identified with the 
worm-shell figured by Martini in his ‘Conchylen Cabinet,’ 
pl. 8, f. 24, A; in confirmation of which it may be stated that 
Linneus has himself quoted the same drawing, as illustrative, 
in his revised edition. ; 
Serpila qlomerata. 
Since our author has signified his possession of an example 
of this European shell, and since one species alone in his col- 
lection, the Vermetus subcancellatus of Philippi (Moll. Sicil. 1. 
p. 172, pl. 9, f. 20), corresponds with the entire description,— 
the “‘ decussato-rugosa”’ is an important feature,—there can be 
no reasonable doubt of the typical authority of the specimen. 
I know not a single characteristic delineation of the species in 
the earlier publications, so that Linneus, in seeking to illustrate 
his species by a pictorial reference, has unfortunately quoted 
two figures that do not answer to the requirements of his 
diagnosis. Gualtier’s engraving, indeed, has been cited with 
doubt, by Philippi, for the Vermetus triqueter, a shell which is 
devoid of decussated sculpture; Argenville’s, utterly unlike the 
preceding in every respect, and probably meant for a group of 
Serpula vermicularis, does not harmonise with the expressions 
