DALL] REVIEW OF AMERICAN VOLUTID. 367 
Fusus tessellatus SCHUBERT AND WAGNER, Suppl. Bd. Mart. u. Chemn., 
Conch. Cab. (x1), p. 24, pl. 219, figs. 3048, 3049, 1829; K1eNER, Icon. 
Cog. Viv., Iv, Fusus, p. 39, pl. xx1x, fig. I; copied in REEve, Conch. 
Icon., Iv, pl. xiv, fig. 53, 1847; not of Zekeli and Pictet Foss. 
Gosaugeb., 1852. 
Voluta (Aurinia) dubia H. ann A. ApAms, Gen. Rec. Moll., 1, p. 166, 
1853. 
De teiictes) dubia Conrap, Am. Journ. Conch., 1, p. 66, 1866. 
Voluta mutabilis Tuomey and Howtmes, Pleioc. fos. S. Car., p. 128, pl. 
XXxvil, figs. 5, 6, 1856; not of Conrad, Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 
VII, p. 135, 1838, and Am. Journ. Sci., xL1, p. 346, pl. x1, fig. 7, 1841, 
Miocene of Maryland. 
Voluta (Aulica) dubia Tryon, Man., tv, p. 90, pl. xxvu, figs. 77, 81, 1882. 
Aurinia dubia Dati, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., xvu1, p. 151, 1889; Trans. 
Wagner Inst, im,.p.7so, pl 7 fg 4, 1800; Bully U. S. Nat: Mus:, 
XXIV, NO...1204,-p. 504, pl. xr, fig: 11; 1902. 
Pliocene of South Carolina; south and west coast of Florida, and 
off the Florida reefs; between the mouth of the Mississippi and 
Cedar Kays, Florida, in 111 fathoms, gray mud; off Cape Hatteras, 
North Carolina, 36 to 40 miles, on sandy bottom, in 34, 124 and 
168 fathoms ; bottom temperature 48.5° Fahr. 
U.S. Nat. Mus., 54,544, 83,866-69, 97,169. 
A full description of the shell and gross anatomy will be found 
in the Blake Report, published by the Museum of Comparative 
Zoology above cited. 
In January, 1827, Broderip described a shell, obtained from M. 
Roussell and belonging to Sowerby, under the name of Voluta dubia. 
This specimen, which he figured, has been lost sight of, but Broderip 
mentions that the only other known specimen was in the collection 
of Prince Massena. Two years later Schubert and Wagner, in the 
twelfth or supplemental volume of the Conchylien Cabinet, figured 
a shell which they called Fusus tessellatus. This figure is taken 
from a drawing. They state that they had not seen the shell and 
give no information as to the collection in which it is preserved, or 
the name of the person who furnished the sketch. The figure is 
bad, but not uncharacteristic; and if, as Kiener states, the Massena 
specimen served as type for all the authors who had treated of the 
species, it might be surmised that Schubert’s figure was a hasty 
sketch made without authority from that specimen.t There is, at 
any rate, no reason to doubt that the two figures of Broderip and 
Schubert represent two immature specimens of the same species. 
Kiener gives an excellent figure, which was afterward copied in the 
*The fact that Schubert’s figure represents an immature shell and Kiener’s 
a mature one, makes it most probable that they were derived from different 
sources. 
