1919.] E. AV. Vredenburg : Shells of the family Doliidœ. 163 



as D. tessellatum. The library of the Geological Survey contains the second edition 

 of Lister's Conchology, from which it may be recognised that the figure mentioned 

 in the synonymy represents a shell of Dolium maculatum, the drawing of which has 

 been badly interpreted by the engraver ; so much so that, for anyone who had not 

 specially studied the species, the figure might just as well be taken for one of Dolium 

 tessellatum, while the short description is too ambiguous to be of any help. In 

 Seba's work, figures 9 to 11, plate lxviii, represent Dolium maculatum, while figures 

 1 and 5, plate lxx, represent D. tessellatum. Figure 2, plate lxx, is too in- 

 distinct for identification and possibly represents a shell of another genus. Knorr's 

 figure undoubtedly represents D. tessellatum. In Martini's work, figures 1072 and 

 1082 undoubtedly represent D. tessellatum, while figures 1073 and 1074 undoubtedly 

 represent D. maculatum. The shell represented in figure 1075 is immature and 

 cannot be so securely identified, though it is probably referable to D. maculatum,. 



Amongst later authors, the one who has most fully dealt with the iconography 

 of the works under consideration is Küster by whom the figures published by Rum- 

 phius and by Knorr are referred to Dolium fimbriatum, that is to the species above 

 described as Dolium tessellatum ; while the figures in the works of Gualtieri and d' Ar- 

 genville are regarded by the same authority as representing Dolium maculatum. 



In conclusion, it is abundantly clear that the figures referred to in Gmelin's 

 synonymy are about equally divided between the two species above described as D. 

 maculatum and D. tessellatum. The synonymy quoted by Linnaeus and Gmelin does 

 not help us therefore in determining which shell was intended in the Systema Naturœ. 

 The diagnosis, unfortunately, does not help us any further. It is as follows : " testa 

 ovata cincta sulcis remotis : cauda prominula," and is therefore totally insufficient to 

 recognise which species is meant. 



In 1770, William Huddesford, in the second edition of Lister's Conchology, adop- 

 ted the name Buccinum dolium for the figure referred to in the Systema. There 

 should be here no room for any ambiguity. Unfortunately, as already mentioned, 

 both the engraving and the diagnosis are very unsatisfactory and would not of 

 themselves materially afford any help to the identification of the species. 



Bruguière, in 1789, in describing the " buccin cordelé," gives to a large extent 

 the same synonymy as Linnaeus for Buccinum dolium. There is nevertheless an im- 

 portant divergence in the reference to Martini's work, from which Linnaeus has 

 quoted no less than five figures of which two only are selected by Bruguière as 

 representing his Buccinum tessellatum. These are figures 1073 and 1082, the second of 

 which, forty years later, was selected by Menke as the type of Dolium costatum. 



Bruguière' s descriptions are of an entirely different type from Linnaeus' diagno- 

 ses, and, although the plates illustrating the Encyclopédie Méthodique ' are not avail- 



1 This is not the famous, though frequently inaccurate original edition of the " Encyclopédie," but the magnifi- 

 cently planned 2nd edition, initiated in 1782 ander the most distinguished auspices, the several parts being entrusted 

 to the most accomplished and learned men of the age. The publication of this stupendous work had been so organised 

 as to ensure its completion in 1792. The revolution unfortunately robbed the scheme of the greater portion of its 

 enlighted and distinguished patronage, after which the publication lingered in a precarious and impoverished condition 

 until 1832, when it was finally interrupted and remained unfinished. 



