SERPULA. 445 
“ olomerata” and “ decussato.” The description of Serpula glo- 
merata by Lamarck answers to V. suwbcancellatus ; his synonymy 
to V. triqueter; his locality to neither. 
The white species of the-‘ Museum Ulrice’ is not the same; 
it is described in the details as ‘‘contortuplicata modis in- 
finitis,” instead of ‘ glomerata;” it was not improbably a true 
Serpula ; perhaps, indeed, the details of this and the preceding 
were accidentally transposed. In the revised copy of the 
‘Systema’ ‘“ Refert lumbricos conglomeratos” has been written, 
and figure 23 of Martini’s third plate (a Sicilian Vermetus, 
quoted for triqueter) has been referred to. 
? 
Serpula lwurdbricalts, 
There can be no doubt, from the synonymy, that this shell 
belonged to the genus Vermetus. Lamarck has unfortunately 
constituted his V. lumbricalis (yet not as the Linnean Serpula) 
from the “ Vermet” of Adanson, and has pictorially defined it, 
by referring solely to that author, and to the copy of his figure 
in Martini’s quarto (vol.i. pl. 3, f. 24, B). It was not likely that 
our author designed that many-grooved species, for he has not 
quoted these drawings, although he had copies of both the 
publications ; we are not reminded of it, either, by any of the 
figures he has referred to. From the catalogue of his Testacea, 
Linneus appears to have possessed this species; nothing, how- 
ever, which at all resembles it is to be descried in his col- 
lection. The two additional references of the twelfth edition 
of the ‘Systema’ were singularly infelicitous, and utterly un- 
like each other. The cited drawing of Ginanni, perhaps meant 
for Vermetus semicancellatus, suits not strictly the expression 
“apice acuto;” that of Baster represents an Anmnelide (copied 
by Martini, vol. i. pl. 3, f. 21, C) which does not correspond 
with the “apice spiral” of the description, and, moreover, had 
been quoted besides for Serpula spirorbis by Linneus. The 
four original synonyms all exhibit a corkscrew-lhke shell, and, 
allowing for the worn state of the older specimens (which may 
account for the absence of apparent sculpture in the delinea- 
tions of Gualtier, Rumphius, and Argenville) might fairly be 
regarded as representations of the common Vermetus that 
