Mr. Broderip on two new Shells from the Mauritius. 203 



resemblance are some of those to which various authors have given 

 the name of saxatiliSy under which name more than one or two 

 species, as I am inclined to think, have been confounded. Our 

 shell, however, differs from all these, not only in the number of 

 the varices (which, I am aware, form rather a precarious specific 

 character in the genus Murex of Lamarck) but also in form and 

 habit. From the Murex saxatilis, Lam. it differs entirely. 



Lamarck's description is as follows. (Syst. p. 167, No. 34.) 



*' Rocher feuille de scarole. Murex saxatilis. 



M. test a subfusiformiy valde ventricosa^ sexfariam frondosa^ 

 transversim rugosa et striata^ alba^ roseo aut purpurea 

 zonula / frondibus simplicibiis, erectis^foliaceis^ complicato- 

 canaliculatis ; cauda umbilicatd, compre^sd / fauce roseo- 

 purpurascente. 



Murex saxatilis. Lin. Gmel. p. 3529. No. 15. 



Rumph. Mus. t. 26. f. 2. 



Regenf. Conch. 1. t. 9. f. 26. 



Martini, Conch. 3. t. 108. f. 1011—1014. 



Habite I'Ocean des grandes Indes, etc. Mon cabinet. C'est 

 })eut-etre la plus grande des especes parmi les rochers a six rangs 

 de franges. Ses varices sont formees par des rangees de lames 

 foliacees, en general assez droites, canaliculees, non laciniees, et 

 un peu pointues a leur sommet. Ouverture grande, vivement 

 coloree de rose. Longueur. 7 pouces 4 lignes. Vulg. Xapourpre" 

 de'Goree. Cette coquille est d'un roux brun dans sa jeunesse." 



Our shells are full grown, and a comparison of Lamarck's de- 

 scription and Martini's figures with our's, will at once point out 

 the wide distinction between M. saxicola and M. saxatilis. 



It may not be impertinent to say a word about the confusion 

 which envelopes the M. saxatilis of authors. Almost every refer- 

 ence presents us with the figure of a different shell. Gmelin, 

 and after him, Turton, refer to two whole plates of Martini (107, 

 108, with the exception of one figure) for M. saxatilis. The 

 reference consists of no less than eleven figures, four of which only 

 (in pi. 108) are referred to by Lamarck for the young and old 

 state of his M. saxalilisj and indeed the rest not only differ from 



