t€f,.. -

HISTORICAL REVIEW. OF THEMOLLUSKS OF LII{I{AEUS

o

PART 4, THE GENERA BUCCINUMAND STROMBUS OF THE

CLASS GASTROPODA

I{ENRY DODGE

BULLETINOF THB

AIVIERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY

A

\IOLUI\{E 111 : ARTICLE g NEW YORK : 1956

BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN IVIUSEUM OF I{ATURAL HISTORYVolume 111, article 3, pages 1SJ-3tr2

Issued, October Zg, f 956

Price: $2.00 o copy

Ìtt+ht

?t'? "fi,l ,Ì? Yt Éridt

T /tlt7{ h

,fr*îy

g4 /u$7t ryA /"r?r

Tn!\ Wryrl' fit ),tf Yy,=lVltr*t,.J 't7

yr.r I r.+'peff l1 ry '6*"*;

-l $ ,.J:f W & {;? i -sr*{t" /\-V"f

{r.Vl tt- ry )' {A$ d v3r5rr *rrr.n}?în}rdL,t-

gJ y.'S .'"1,r i il Î ?a f iU t.l * ,l a "dJ

t?.I1_

'&,,'_nJ'3:,_, ,Y# 33#' v{T5 1xi- w {d'? vn t-& x *

!'l n ali

}sff {z Yr* '{,

tq,olll , t/''ri';'.! Lrn?

Z'f hrP: ?i7,, {1 rvwfi

lffn;tinli{ "fP{l

{sr !'rf IvS#r} 6tY

i{

- iJ Pl t7'd "w,7*"'7+t 4 fi *'Y

*f$ h fr- 4 hi'!

' .-4? '/a l - r'{l ,/ {)

-É / r*,- l L. :.;U

z, fr í t'-r,4,

,n ?Jf,f'u Z

,i; oÍs q'

/-{ fr

fi? i 7

î,s te p {

!-

f

fJIv

,l-t7

'*,\ f d$g

'ù11j't \

"t..i. , ,i ! i ;;:-f

'/i

m''t I'ffi -i j"-_i i't'il,$JfÍs:' '

i$r-#&tS*, r': I

t 'u; ".*", t.9 r': fl{ i r itfi.''zis,r;;J

.4

-. r-. ! : j'. ,t ."

,!tF"l

l,:'i { i?rj i6ol

**J ríl

-i !' r'-, ;"v

\q*l"rr,{ .

.2"1A*q t,L t:

ay{f,prT."l-l ,r't4"líroc)

4-l'totrîrv6 í T

i P S? ,é/*} i sr]'*Ttn?{"r t+ w *} -ffi-{

'" wnr* {-"{, ,?Yrr{Y ;:f*# $ - I yYrf"vfi"74.o'tif te*"*t,g'f? fte

g;x*te'tt'rf rgvidf Íi"+** I àdl]È?:3

," u # .*.# ?ÉFgl si x qf ; 1 x.r r3 n'* I

1', 7r+f *rrg#-'f*'?* *t'"J flI

g'xrnn rsr+lf h*rr{ q"*-i?a: {hEW :tu}.rrqr?$

îF! rà{' w4"'"{4 i-r,n.*t Ll t4hú *rtrt,r I'J

,l3l U6 r1 ..711,1 r-

íyl a\9n r.,rvxa-ha 1-

éf tl

tt tt l"ll 7-t-2.,jv"*:I-=

.S.,: +*t ..i "Ft{ 3 $ s 3 "hJ t "1 L+|U fr'# -'tf S0 fl

'gdy tt k t* ? !€ ,lt J 3?t ?# F?sl!

.Ì.ì; F (1 í#'t,4.*gr? g i'.41"L, t u, t r"fS J-

itw r n +L ,f r h g,rt )rur"r r?

u**-**-r.6.€r*îr*?r '#'-é L1 l,1d ? Wt-rrJa34' ; 9'tdF

- {#v f k *'t "J{# *i J Yb"ì tk?e? *3rg

lr3\àUdt?dó *"rd g-*"# , dv : -s -S{t -l'S'v*?t?i1

í *#-q{ { tff::?*

'*,.r,'p# ;*ltr\&g e, ilW "$ J*lt }{' { s í -r c {, {f? *.lttaf? { g f*r; I j {16 g?-"} l*,1 1 Jl#}* Ftf }

, j\r f1 €t i,?lr&s"?{?? PJ,t _r ns

ryF -€#l r4Í,u *t î? '{ hqtt ' ?'ffi. ryG

&*r#r, uÀHtg 's / fl ,, ît ffi+

, f,*/ nr/1 l-

1WT +

v t?qT.rl'#w '.ììI

srtr*?? m*rtg Jff?

r,** $il s7tr

,?rt h 8t 11 7tw

i ; i.J Q -'îd J S 'i* ti.f i

'ff-rt1 J*l-g 'a*lé i

olU-rf {}3*ri. fruU

{s'*'r*{s'aqà**€st$$q

tt rt É- V W A I F-l .;r1'r3j#*sqg.-fl {-' +111 -

6 0l 4c 'V.*-se: ;e"{Lt <- ' oli f s fl yvnvqt n1

'

'l;d4,r?.J l*nlz-t-. ftff 0f,d" rrl*{'ddr't*-gf -? h0l

g * -rf: t{-"}ff{l{t.- 's #-C S"?{',r-

4nJ3v&nrrrr{tr *'útttq t$" \t**ilWs*{ 'r f îXl'ht,h;t 2o61 -te",f'ttnp, tttl &J't, I qnr{.)'()rars I

**-*-=** *T-----' '--l

i grs:l- fvl.€.'"? xfffi p',t-t''"'€l{/ é d' p-p{f q" ? # #& J F-f f-,"i .,,$.* :0":t*"{rw,**" ""1 #'qì

3# r,*-rzs-J.s .iq {, ; rk" F # & ?f il $?3" }i # { g,' ," * fr s ',? JrJ' rc$ s p"p*:

ft

+#f #-L ..${#lí0,î{*

f "p* *r.'ÈÌ3 i,: &rÈd-qrl*,*?#,' S { ? F'}#f S &*4jtf * ar**'sgff : R'l' t t{

"i€,i } &

'$ Ís l*,*? eF +,rfr?"+-f?*+ '$& **,*;; * tr$ l$f p,":"-t

*@J ,tFJ?i''a+f{ff.} *':i:'d'=*dfup F Îp,1, *,,'5/+t')fAJ 4#' àt ? Î&,fr iP{Jà tq V

{rn. i* 'vnàt/"Ù.ulr't **{-'-$'"*F}?€ it*SS& 1 'f.,S*'$

"r-

' trJ rÈ l;**.l .i L; tl.'.**y, ;

hhktf n:,71 td;t{ r.'g,Ì i;,il ,?*,stt.i&í}'} +

;Ì'iÉfiS.r-ir"

,I; * #'í1157 4

i *p*6 #{ qtv";6"9! 7}l ;?ta$ v(, J nl }filù3 A, il

{,f

*y r}t dJ.-S e*+f ?'ÈHi

4:i6sf h

d *,* *"J-itle j # -tf+ ."t $ ? ea*l F, I *i r

i*al{

{v

'È 'f.oe$*t'{s *, t lddg'p*f d*.**^

?, ì i4?s-"1€.-4 4

y.*y*u ry *- ,n ,.,,,

)*y1v*#e ,í {*i, .J *J J I ,'

V r t-7 Ó r*?V; , lvo o7 $? ;'t., j l .S lif '"'!tS ít.:,rp É q .i":,i,3Í*.; t:-** J i tJ T;,

n fk-u uP ifÌ-""*Yffi***#'#"* li,{ }* h {}"* f L: 4 +4 -

tg.-* : ffi$,;"*; n,',ri '

f, *";.t

rt$

3,,ú{. li'I? *

tr!

Í? -*r i\'*:* ' rc{"

t,! ts

tq "* *"r" f *i"'. *g

(, u NtTeS i

f{" J.

,:$ *t'

1\-lr'É

*: | ?'t4 í. 6*'' l*'+t*- €"r' $ : a

l* tu -* tÀ4 ttr S e"f**rú'rLé $"f { v f-rrt

ft B.

,l tuturÉa*.

J" *?

rTJ!

S rt fiq*6.g{#r?.W "

*t Ltyr.g"g

$ u ott*rr,'

ftoo*tv ip?{*fl

Sa&e

B'* *{ e

&.*1, tf *cot-É-?*&

f(LL|L \í"rit y_4 ry4,*t{El*&* y* # If * ilJ n., 4 +,

,bf?$ #a{ i,l'tl* $'*

r**ru t{* ú.

L ' tA h,e -$ d o*.&

tÍ_::l"t gr.$ra J.

l':'.Lt: /$ $* * o ,a rt' uF*ol*

i,i r$ fe {,

$ s'+ fT'**J.t tA.+r{-

,<s#@Wturù4

iT u *u u*.0 \t

*r***tr'#d

l+LllL ,l4

l&+.

(Tnc

ft-rurrvfrr.$t F rrfi

K,,o rt F rir uJ $' 3 '*

&,r*r-rÈsnt f ff$'; tr"f*rf {tte, $ *rf

Ar' . JiJ.(L$rtitt'* 3 ?J,

V Iuor

bÉ* r t {'.[

f-'r $rv

$qe

{,is

t',( L(t" -

44,41i, *****--rF,

{ ' L-* Qu.f****'n fa*ese{*ryq}

t$egur*rud f e*t rgt* , _t Kv. úttt HC

+KM È{Lr "{^ju{i ,,

{ g**"t ; gea* éar) + &oenr, C.r* {g,fr*tÍtu'raÈ",

Fx v - fr^

ó.L,f rèc É f ve fF*S*q€JJvF# ee*$,,-

lo * ltf ^,.Gu

A LrLÈì p f+ f"; L, +4D Cfr,gplg"**ro** nglttlq.

lo t[ * t|t ,,f#.l4ruuÈtL t id 'n $l Y *] C,€{r*.ruL**t'r,'

;ryutn, u o o 1-f rc ty-+ g, aK.+ ú*Í$*'*tu*

* É$c,ry € . Vll tn F t 9f- 6q--

.ó

s6b"

l; Snr;.

u'un$'

h t,r.r l$e*-&sjnî . Í St s * $ r+ f1 bf .

n,irbr,t

{K' +{

It i^rt5

+*g

* re É,ff'

,Q

Feter fuct' [t vnt fu 3e. ] 3b.

c la^wJà ,. fpt '{ F I r+ , f|lti tt s

L''st É f{{ ff?*ft{rul '{'J* Í.o S

$e+p l{ir É y

So€M ,firtt ,i lgt

utffiPt'"

'(&*ooroon )

COLLATBRAL NOTESi

IN rrrs COIIRSE oF TrrE preparation of the pres-

ent series of papers, certain historical, bib-liographic, and tanonomic questions have

arisen which, while outside the nafTow scope

of the work itself, are sufficiently germane toits general subiect to seem to justify c9m-ment. Instead of using the inappropriateheading "Foreword," as in earlier pqts' Ishalt hènceforth group my discussion of these

questions under the heading "CollateralNotesr" as they are in no sense forewords tothe discussion of the particular species treatedin tle main text.

1. Staternents made in Part 3 of thepresent series, in the discussion of Volutomenilis, Tf . msrcatori&, V. p*upe77*|fr- and V.s*ngwis,ugo, rnust be colTected. I' corre"tty*t*l*d tÉat none of these species Eras de-mrihd in the "Museurn lJlricae," but myfurther statements that no specimen of anyof thern is faund today in the Queen's collec-tion at Uppsala were elroneous. fn the case

of V. ffietii,frs, Dr" Holm cf the University of '

Uppsala has recently feund in the collectiona

- Jttitrg of 29 bored specinnens. Thís is,

incidenialty, a" further confrrmation of theornamental use of the sheÎl and of the sourceof the specific rlarne. In the opinion of Dr.Odhner

- {Wrsonal comrnunicatian, 1955}

thesg specimens \rene probably added afterthe poÉticatio4 of the I'Mu**um Ulricae'' -int?64. Specirnens of the other !ht99 spgie* :

nnentisned have also tur,ned up in tàè cslte-tion, and Dr, Odhner suggests that these alsorepresent later additions,

It seems rnost imprcbable that Linnaeuswoutd have omitted the descriptions of thesespecies if the specime$s had been presentwhen he catalogued the collection. Dr.&hner adds, "- . . they rnay have henduplicates in Linné's ourn collection used byhim for exchange against frne gxample_s fromthe Queen's cótteciion." Not only does itftem irnprobable that Linnaeus would havebeen guilty of such a substitution but, asfarther evidenee that they were added bysrne persn other than him, L,ovén (1887, p.td) etatee tlat as late as Jun€, ll?A,Linnaeusuas $urnmoned to the Queen's residence atDrottningholm "to p,rf itr order the new*cquiaitiCIns."

2. In Part 3 of the present series (Dodge,1955, pp. 41-45) the species Butrla terebellumLinné, 1767 (Conus terebellurtt,, Linné' 1758)'was discuss€d, with particular emphasis onthe confusittg subdescription that Linnaeussupplied under the name Bulla terebel'trum inthè "Museum Ulricae." Since the publicationof tlat part, Dr. Nils Odhner of the Na-turhistoriska Riksmuseet in Stockholm hassuggested (personal comrnunication, 1955i a'

pos"iUle partial explanation of Linnaeus' cotl-iusion. îhe prtinent excerpt from Dr.Odhner's letter follows: "As to Csnus tffe-behhum I have been in the satne predicamenta^s yotlrself, and wonderd whether Linné hadmade some confusion when urriting hisdiagnosis in M.L.I'. f think that he mighlhave had kfore hirn both tarcball*m andCa*us nussatella', which he had both dwriM

' already in 1?58 (perhaps they wefe even-thenuníted in a single ntrmber). Afterqrards heobserved his rnisiake and cofrected it in t767,keeping C- terehellttm { * C'

'}îtsetall'e in hiq

o*o còllection), but separating the semndterabelÍ,wm into BuIEo, In î76É. he found'tjrisseparation necessary because of the differ-uó** between diag""** of the-two, Aq1 É1d,not fuffiIt his iatention perfectly-*or did itlater on i* tfu gotlecti,*e wit$ the aid of hisSyst. l{at. t-0" (italics mine). .-

3. There has'fugn an appafent rr-risunds-standing a^s to th. g,t*ot

- to .*o-*. tle

molluscan nafnes in tle Pmtland Catalqpe(1?S6) should be attribut{. Many -"f thffnamffi qlerer in facg 6rst giffi'to the shetls

by Daniel Slander, but- wgT E€Yer ptlbtished, being used only in his maauscript"species slipc" deslSned to be enentually in-corporated in a. "C'eneral sgrve;l' of .na$5{history," in tJre words of Iredale (1!I_6), *hi{was to be, in effect, a revisíon of tiqqg1,31 , i.., ,.,S3rstemanatur&€,''Ioronma"s.*k.'9',..

r The so-cat!€d t'Sofiatrdtr nrinu 'S'€ftèn rìe*

ferred to in tfre early tieratutq-ffit"i#d of úe-sevtrat*t"* of the* rpti:b":tiF. They wTe siSiEEy.T8:6A ilr the libÉa;y of Sir Iomph Eanb but 1ge btrfaquired by the Briti$h Museum {Natural }Iirftry}';h*" they- are still prwrvea. Tbey rere prteryYshrdied and f'derred to by lnany of _thc ear{y_d*

"gr*;nctuding C'@ge l{qgrhrcr, &tqry,.-,.,,,., ,

flffii** Maton, and tiis aotleb@tqr' qf AÉlt',ffi1Rackett, Ctr*p Moatagu, L. W. IXllwytr,:&l*arú

157

158

furnished by him for the collections of Banksand sir Hans sloane and, possibly, for the col-lection of the Duchess of Portlana wnich wassold at auction in 1786. Both of the two first-named collections are now in the British Mu-seum (Natural History).

The first use of these names in a publishedwork uras in the Portland Cataloà,r*. Thiswas published anonymously, but wJhave theauthoTty of Dillwyn (181 I, p. LTT, and l.gZJ,p. q) that the compiler of the catalogue was,in fact, George Humphrey. The wòrk corr-tained many of the original solander namesas well as Ta-ny others erected by Humphreyhirnself. Although the names copieà biHumplr*y from

-solander's manuscàpt srips

or labels are often attributed to Sotander ittrecent molluscan literature, it is inescapablethat t!*y, as well as the new Humphreynames in the catalogue, should be cited

"s or

Humphrey alone.lsome of the names in tlre Portland cat-

alogue are followed by tJre letter 'ns," indi-cating, sr€ assume; that they were copiedfrom the solander rnanuscripts or labels.

D_onorran, w. j" Broderíp, sylnanus Haoluy, and othm.More reently the history of these minuecripts igdiscussed in detait by Witkins (1gSS, pp. 8l-'861. matBanks wirs origínatty th9 crrstodian of ihe manusaíptsit tts'ded by Diltrryn in his bibtiograpey to the ,.funyriptive. catalague of ryent she$J" (ttilZ, p. xi) aa9lg*', "sobnder's Mss. Manuscript adiitio* *gFllu'-?v tBe hte Dr. solande+ in the Librah'sf theRtght Hon" Sir Jeeph Bank."

BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY vol. 111

since the_preparation of my bibliographic ,',

note, R. F..Rutch, of the university oigetne, .r,has noted (1956) that tJre "rndex"- wa^s actu- ,,,+

some recent writers have cited such names as" 'solander' Humphrey," and the fresentwriter has. -b"*t guilty of this unnecessaryand unwieldy, although possibly permissibtiusage.

4. The evidence availabre to the presentwriter indicates that the ,'rndex rerum ilÍr-turalium Musei caesarei vindobonensis" ofBorn, which bears the date "lTTg" on its titlePaEe' was not published until 1280, and this,conclusion is noted in the Bibtriogiaphy h.tow.

$ty publishd at least as early as rITg, as is :..'Ì

indicated by a manuscript noie by J. s. wit ,,"ritenbach in t.he gopy of the work o*ned uv -the

'jjuniver€ity to the effect that "he receivú th;" '':copy in 1779." Furtfter, Rutch refers to the'l;fact that Fr. Brauer (îszs) cites t,he pubtim--tì*tion of the "trnde:c" as of

-!r?9. Rutcu adds, -i

lY:,ll1,thyefore *g. rearyl !" gguut tuiii*Born's 'Index' was reatty published in l??g.f#{rauer, in his paper, *"}pli"r ; ;il**''$tlat the "Index" E'aspublishd in fllg, oththan his citatíon af ii as of tlat year. ' , 'l.ti

. i:'-j':;';i

t€ú.*

)L. 11 1

mes as)resent:essaryissible,

rr€S€I}tm fl&-iis" ofts title,d thisry be-

raphic3erne,actu-,asis. W'it-ry thed the:o theblica-adds,- that7 79."ienceotjrer

of the(1955,rnpileray bÈrerein,

CLASS GASTROPODA

-

BUCCI$IIM LrmrÉ

Tns Bucc,inutft oF TsE tenth edition of thet'Systema naturae" contained 47 species. Inthe twelfth edition two species were moved toother genera (8. virgiruum to Bullo and B.scabriculum to Vol*a), and six new specieswere added: Iwemostorna, besoar, glnciole,subulatu,ttt, tvitta,tutn, and la,ncu,tilttt, makin g atotal of 51 species. Five more were added inthe "Mantissa," t77L.

All have been satisfactorily identified €x-cept three of the "Mantissa" species (gam,i-cttntt manih, and pro ,irwtum) and one"Systema" species (m,urinam). Tryon (1879-1888, vol. 7 , p.39) tentatively, and probablyconectly, placed thern in the genus TerebroBruguière, 1789, but listed them as spec'àasd*bine.

As will be sen in the following pages, thisis another extrernely heterogeneous group. Itn'as drastically broken up at a comparativelyearly date, the mcst important genera carvedout of it being erected prior to 1800:. HarfaWalch, t77Í, T n*o Brtinnich, 177Í, Csssarkopoli, L777, Pxrpxro and Terefuo Bru-guière, 1?S9, Thalis- and Cant\rcr*s Róding,1798. In all, tle Linnaean spies of Bwc,i**mare now included in 20 different genera, manyof thesn rernote from one another bth biologically and in shell characters, such as Cossos,Terebrc, and JYg$scrdns, to mention but thre,Only two spcies nemain ín Bwcinam as atpresent restrictd, B. gkenifrle and *&turfi.

The Linnaean genue isn howerrerr FBrrrdrk-able in the fact that the aut$oCe concept afthe individual spcies wa^s so ctearly h**Ain his mind in 1?58 that the lack of materialchange in f767 is very noticeable. In theease of the great rnajority of the specie thedescriptions suffereú nó change; and furseveral others the only changes were in gram-mar and punctuation. Th; few al&dtionsthat may be caltd material are discussedunder the respective species, below.

Tne Tux SssLLs ot Btrceinam LnnrÉ

$ras adequate to cover the species latercribed to it, including the five Linspecies olw,riutn, galoo,, perdir, pomum,d,olium.t

The Linnaean species, with the exof pomum, form a compact groupguished by lightness of shell, generallsize, and absence of teeth on the ou

Iargelip,

which, however, is often crenulated y theterminations of the spiral cords, feature

Tonna.present in all membern of the genThe fifth species (pomum) is Àuc smaller,heavier and more wlid, and is ided witb"teeth" in the form ofridges which commencedge.

pronou paralleljust i ide the lip

The next name prope*d the wholegroup was Caà*s Riiding (179, , p. 151),s fol-Iowed by Cú.ism Link {tS$ , p. 113), bothgenera including ponru*n as ell as the thin-ner-shelled spie. B*cci,1?58, is the type species

$erdix Linné,both Cad,tss and

Cúi*m, by su@uent igqation, Wood-d*9, 1928. It uras not r;lrtil 1832 rhat rhe

from Tantw. Inpwn*m group sasthat year Valencienne 832n p. 325) erectedthe genus Maie&, on a shell found on

I Winc&worth, (I94&)before the Interaatiml

the To*m @tffiCornmiseioc on Zoologiel

Ncmclatnre in an igr to barre To*ttg Brùs,dch eddd to& of &nerkNamesin Zod-ogy. Thc Cqmrnifflion 1950r p...310]

to phe thc q4re m thco tbcapf,btimOfrdaf [.for, sir&crer*ttfu dùrclr**mgnefilfutal'in 1772 ag hd *r1@. & Coqmúsisn, ín itcdecÍgi@, i a valfttrrtioa of thc f?n dae. Arwst Q$nion, 237, drtsd ''t'tay ,21, t93*,impletfttrs thi deidsn end a furtLer Opinbn of ,thEun€ date, Wr *rcpe the Br&nnich work for

pqrpoeÉe

eór,rlar gcflr Linsq 1753, ar t1ryeby *rur.'t$f3',Ià the aG$E of

wtggd*nd',1r.*tt"'tftè'-,'|tffifirst prbtiúed in 1??1 aad nc

re erectim of R0dingk &drs'tte eutlgqfo th€ "Mgstro.Cabnnit$tn't,'([?9.?}

tbb groryp t&c'ls-e D !ù bsúBrowrc'c ttNatural hi*try of Jameica"l?ffil. Not only was this ditin of

which Dúfua ry3nfere4 ere-tinrcaE xatr s ial sriter:" 'r16pE1i

tkitr bof tLehsd u*dadopùed(tu

'Btwrc"The firet step h the émhrment of but

Buccinutn Linné was erection by Brtln- " fu not a@ for any nommelabrbtnich of the gen 'oo* in his "Zmlogiae by tla tFEt of ffnhn 5t,of'. ,Int d

ion oa Zodogicat Nwrdam 'It mr nótfundamenta'i î, p. 248). While the author untthe

fsur yeare lats that t"amarctr l&Ilr.validty ddescri -o species, the generic definition DoBÍrr;t*

160 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORYthe coast of chile, which he called letilebr,is,which is Cay,ls ,!ryStns _Wood, 1g2g. Its iypespecies is M. Ietila,bris valenciennes , l$z: b*b*quent designation, Gray, Lg4I , anHerrmannsen , rg4l. rn the leantime Lil11fI h* pub,tished his qenus Dol,iim, 18d,with a single "exampr*,'] D. loi;- ti-i"frq,and in his first definitive list of'rp;.i", iidrt,yolj 7: pp. qie 262) seven specid;;i- ìl$"aincludilg all the Linnaean nam*r, ii*rJ;".that his D. macurntum is Li""uL;;' dff;*and that he changed this "r** t" .d"iJ atautonymic designation. Dolium Ld**icf.

extent supplanted it f.or po?rî,urn t' "* discus-

out the Indo-pacific region, andcoast of Africa.

was used generally until the .o*pffii*ryrecent redisco]ery of Tanna Bru"dich,

-to

which Dail calted attention in i906fd*à96yand in 1909 {p. IZ). Matea is ,tift';;Jiymost writers.for_species

9f the pom$à *Àuo,althoug,h Quirnalea lredar e, ]Jifg, tdo to"soLe

In addition to the variability of the d-dividuar species, the Lioalu' descripti$nsof this group are brief ""ainrewardingutundomit many of t\: gpo.tant dilhsticfeatures of the shells. The ,yrrorymief, too,are unsatisfactory, ,1 qany of ti"rrrrt.ou.1.two or more species. It is orr. of it d*orst-defined group, thq ,,St;;;; if.lo..,,' By the tl*" irr.t trt"-4"úorto", r,É?J u**ncompared one with another and aS ;;rgrngof the synonymies has been attenpt"o, and,in two gases, after the ?p;;;;tlf,iilàrr*.,numbering of speciment itr^tft" ij?í";;li .of-lection has been considered, we $re reft withtlt" suspicion thar Linna",rr' ;Tf,;-;;;rt ofthe group was confused. M"rb-;k1;[:;

expended on the conflicts in,gth; il;ifica-tions of these names.by Linné.rr;,ù-.*Lr*,and the present writer corrfèsses that he isnot entirely convin."q thu-f, in ";;t .ur*,the shells that are today donsidered as therepresentatives of the Lirdnaean names arecorrectly identified.

,','

Buccinum oÉ"ri r*1758, Systema naturae,,,ràd. 10, p. 754, no. JZ6.1767, Systema naturae;ed.l.Z, p. l'96, no.43g.Locer,rry: "rn o. Indipo" rrzis, 176,7)'.

---

"8. testa subrotun@ cincta sulcis obtusis:Iineola elevata interstidrctis, "p"rturu edentu 1a.,,

VOL. rlr

on the wesi'

t 95ó

phrax'such i

olenrittItw

the L)'earsreasonof oletGreenlishedformetfiguresbelow

Theis iderof thesatisfaLinna,is, it s

evenshoulcphrastproba'onym'which(RumhimseGualtis alnIt isauthoshelland fibetwe(Petir(18ssSoweralliedfigure:i Pr.sameof theiutn, t

figureerron(erby's

r Rerin disc,plate crt'A cormarckiaccura(vol. 10for tha,and b1

siop af. pom%ffi, below). L

f--- s'v'a

In addition to cad,us, cad,í,umfand, Doriunr,the followirg are ,yrrorrym# of foono',Peúitc Montfort, 191ó, ryt $risson, lT6A,type species P. ret'í,cura,tus -vd*rrrt, by "tigl:TL designation ; Foratid,o{irn Roiereto,

1899, a new name f.or perd& Montfort; andParvitonn&_ Irerrare, lg3t,/type species p.perselecta lredale, by ,rÉ";;ypy. Forbes,1852, erected th" g*"uf praíi;irioroyo -forsome small- pelagic m/rusks, whiclí *"r*dernonstrably thà vodng of

' some Tonna,

species, although not $p".incably determin-able. Fischer *jis"*4/t!tem ti îó"r* pria;*"

The name Tonn$, from which tÉ* an-glicized vernacular du*" ,,Tun,, was derived,

Tî ::î* r:_l]o/l"" by Gersaint, Lrs6,Argenville,. lT4L*fkrro*, -IT7l,

Seba, 1fsg,and Davila,- lf 67, and Lamarck used"Tonne" as the$rench .r*rrr**,lar name forhis Doliurn. /^ All specie s ft Tonna,, and some species ofpuimalse, ary'very variable, not only in size,2V,but in cotofi- colór pattern, scurpt,rr*, lndshape. Thi{ has often made it difrficurt to:llf3te ryfiven form or individual to

""v orr"valld spSies, with the result that a host of*t:I":s / synonyms have been proposed.wincflvorth and Tomlin's list of the ionrri-

The shell that -ér identified as areariumby the majority "f writers for armost onehundrgd y"*rs anffthat is stil cailed uv trr"tname by many t'orkers u"a ,o labeled inmany museums i$ a different species and onethat does not .dnfor* to the Linnaean de-scriptior. This;i orearium of authors is a

f,Pi"::, "h:ll.,with. numerous very flat, strap-like, spiral ribd which are so closely ,!t tfrltthe interst ' :'

.1"f appea-r to be merely incisedrines. rts'1È*f",#ú;; ;?ffiilír'ff'il:upper porliF of the body whorl, that in]vorn speciglî*, and

"n"tt occasionally infresh onesf the upper third of the wrrort:,1p"":: a$nost-smooth. Linnaeus' shell, ool|"_^:lly ha3d,. was .describ"J

-", -h;;iis

!:: ^f$3, pp. ZAG|Zrc) contains 96 names,IewF ,tfutt one-third of which are listed inca{ttal letters, signifyirg good species. The

|1lfg'" 13":. ; *id"";;;;, ir," ,p*.i", all ribsdor only those a[ the ;t of the*nÀrt.many ies of thies ot thrs group, either between

being found in the western Atra"ai.,irrrir*rr- Linnaeus would hardly have iised the cited

218 BULLE,TIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY vol. 111

praecedenti simillima, pallida, obsolete maculata scription is adequate to govern the entifica-striis obscurioribus, sed differt apertura minim tion. Linnaeus' references are ofte iarlydentate et columella absque labio; Spirae etia undependable, &s has already noted inminime plicatae sunt."

There is no doubt as to the species In the copy of the "S " owned bydescribed by Linnaeus. The descrip n, Linnaeus' son the word " " has beenwhich is identical in the tenth and tufr tfth added to the description an 'tota" insertedditions, maJr with assurance be ref to before "laevi," thus addin

tion to the identification.urther confirma-

the Nitiúchfe Íawí,goto of modern wri ,a

195t

be'fac'sp€FigDil

brownísh lines and spots insteadprovided by the nrgosity of the

FruSuière;'wlo listed eiú,

not recognize Níi as a gmd genus buty whorl. treat it as a n of Columbella Lamarck.

It is an exact nyrn af Psrdalirffi Jous-

shelt that is fousd in both the wmteastern Atlantic waters (see p. 2L6Whatever may be the representatipreceding spqcies (.B. *'6t'idutrum), thsptries.ie differentiatd from it byunrnistakable lansuage" It issmooth instead- of rugose and p

presente use of

(1799), where itwas long included. arck himself, however,

d to be had retained the ies in Buccinu,?n Linné.notably Thiele, still do

seaumer, 1888 not Gray, 1867. The present,iÉíà.*Eum {see ly identical witlr Cohumbella

cwtci*w* by, 1822.collection in London coo-

The species is nowNiii"delb, erected by

ained in the genusatnson rn 1840 to

Lamarck's coilr-

marked specimen of l*wtgatu,rn.ibed in fle "Mus€um fJlricae."

the B*cc,iîùttt 8 laafigatat* Chem-, which Grnelin (1791, p. 3494) r€-

.lfr,eoissómum.Th beqt figure of the species is found in

(1843-1878, vol. 11,, Col,ansbelle, pt. 11,

en

E"ffiù**"*rt"tr*1?58, Slrutema naturì&€, ed"

'10, p. 741, no. 415.1'î67, Systerna natur?€, ed. 12, p. 1205, no. 479.Locerrty: "fn O. Afrieae, Asiae" (1758, 1767),"8. testa turrita subfusiformi, anfractibus

*g:'#*Î:Iru:fffif;il,1r,; '' resta n'.

The words "subfusiformis" and "ín divisis"were added to the description in the twelfthedition.

This, the largest of the Linnaean Tere,brsspecies, was correctly identified 'bi' all ofLinnaeus' immediate followers as earty as

Chem nitz and Born. So accurate is the de-scription that the identification has neverbeen questioned.

Ths synonymies, in both editions, needsome cotrection. In the tenth edition threeRumphius figures were cited (pl. 30, figs. A,B, D), two of which are generally conceded torepresent other spcies. Figure B appars to

'n andbove).of the

ftided withf the striae

as an f[P-lwigatam

syrtioalofis,edithtofsull4sel56T}wish

pi,T1.,'..diffi rI .B;' *i*àih*Ixm a

Hanley (1855, p. 258) was

ori ndly described*iiie*Í*m Linné.

);

his succesor$ He regardedposítive thanidentification

"s61&er,:ras probable than * absoluter" andba$€d hisr daubt on the o y figure cited by

, .Lirrn*eus (Gualtieri; pl. 5 fi9. B). This crudefigure shoqns what is &, CoÍxmbello

latter, but isor a .&I#'idúIb, probabl$ thespecifically u e. It mmewhatrese"rnbtres Nitid/ahí&

{tsr$ais2$-[1834], 2, pl. 248), which qras

a Cotrxwbel|a,, not B.

tains anIt is not

n(\f,fr

infrttd:8ll0tlaba

dat

T

s

$

(t3

Wale Sowerby, 1822 sp. a, b). It is not figured in the "Tableau

tiri's decriptionspqqks of it as rninu y datted with white ona' reddíah ground instead of the "fusco-striata" of Linnae ' I*evigatttnt. [t was prob-ably, therefore, on a spqcimen of *iti-d,*b fuwerby. peculiar use of "striata"for "lines of co " in the decription of the

di*ussed under the preced-prsent spctesing epeciw. Fdthere can behas this un

If Fip.21ó, aboAdanson'collectedspciesIantic,

m the "laevi" of the contextittle doubt but that the termal meaning.

Piette and his collaborators (see

) were correct in concluding thatspecimens of luví,gotum wereSenegal, then nre have another

at occurs on both sides of the At-it is common in the waters of

Flori and some of the Antilles. It alsoin the Mediterrahean. Although the

frgure was badly chosen or was possiblyor of transcription, the excellent de-

occucited

1956 DODGE: MOLLUSKS OF LINNAEUS

be the next species, subulntum, and it was in

f*rt again used for subulotum when that*o"ri"* first appeared in the twelfth edition'

Figut" D was clearly based on Terebra oculnta

iifrt*ytr, 1817. Figure B was omitted in the

synonymy of maculntum in the twelfth edi-

iíon, L"t the good figure A _was retained

;;ú with the eitoneous figure D. A Gualtierifigó (p1. 56, fig. B) was cited in the tenthriitiott.-tttit also represents subulata, but inih" t*etfth edition figure I on the same plate

of Gualtieri, a good frgure oî. maculatum' was

substituted. The Argenville figure (17 42, -Pl-

ie, tig. A), cited in both editions, is_well .lo-,un for nnculatutn, as are the Seba figqre (pl.

SO, ng. O; and that frorn Buonarini (pl. 317).

Thus the twelfth-edition synonymy is correct

with the erception of the figure of oculnta

sbown in RumPhius' figure D. ---ttt*

species therefore may be said to be

pictoriatiy as well as descriptively defined.

The locality "O. Asiae" is accurate. I have

nOt 5een * tp""imen of wacula,tutn from as farwest as the African coast.

The phrases "anfractibus . . . in divisisintegerrimis," "anfractibus bifidis," and "an-fra{ibus bipartitis" in the descriptions oftlre Linnaean Terebra species describe thedifference in the rnanner in which the whorlsare separated. In maculatutn, subulntu'rn, and

bnceot*rw the first of these phra$es is used, &s

these species show a simple suture, withoutany false suture below the true one or anyband of color which might be said to simulatea false suture. The words "indivisis" in thedescription of maculntum were modified to"suffiivisis" in the notes for Linnaeus' pro-po*d "revised twelfth edition." As thisspecies is typiqal of the terebras that havesimpte and Lntire sutures, the reason for thischange is not apparent. The applicability ofthe óther phrases is discussed under thespecies so described.

B*ccimu,m macula,tum is nowthe genus Terebra Bruguière

contained in1789 (1789,

1792, p. xv).It is frgured in Reeve (1843-1378, vol - 12,

Tsrebra, pt. 1, sp. 4) and in Kienerl (1834-1850, vol.8, pl. 1, figt. 1, 1a). See also Platt

r Kiener credited the name macalato to Lamarck,although l-amarck himself acknowledged that Linnaeus*"t th. author. Kiener was also guilty of a slip of thepen, as in his list of species at the end of his monographhe spelled the name macul'os(r.

(lg4| pl . 52, fig. 20). The figures - in the

'ìTabl*ir.r encyclopédique" (pl. 402, figt. 1a,

lb) are the best of the black and white draw-ings.

Terebra robu.sfo Hinds, 1844, from the west

coast of Central America simulates thepresent species very closely. That species isro*"*hat coarser and heavier in structure'less shining, and never attains the size ofmaculnta.'lhere are very slight differences incolor pattern between the two shells.

Th; species vras on Linnaeus' lists of ownedspecies, and specimens are present in theLinnaean collection in London, although un-marked.

In the "Museum Lllricae," which waspublished between the dates of the tenth andlwelfth editions of the "Systema," the syn-onymy reflects the efTors of the tenth edi-tion, as it cites all three of 1he Rumphiusfigures and both of the figures from Gualtieri.The description is much arnplifi€d, as usual,and clarified by the use of the following:"characteribus serie duplici: superioribusoblongis fuscis; inferioribus punctis ferru-gineisl' The two "varieties" described asnVariat colore luteo, characteribus albis;Colore fulvo characteribus nigyicantibus,"refer undoubtedly to ocula,ta and subula,ta

respectively, &s shown in the Rumphiusfrgures D and B in the synCInymy-

Bueciaum subulatum

1767, Systema naturae' ed. 12, P- 1205, no' 480'

Locer,trY: "In India" (L767).,'8. testa turrita subulata laevi indivisa inte-

gerrim& . . . Pallida maculis ferrugineis in singuloanfractu per paria adscendentibus; differt a B.

maculato minime gibba."

It is possible that when Linnaeus published

the tenth edition of the "systelrla naturae"he believed this species to be a form of B.maculntum, the precedittg species, and that he

elevated it to specific rank in the twelfth. As

is said in the discussion of. macula,tum (above),

one of the figures cited for the latter species(Rumphuis,.pt. so, fig. B) in the tenth editioni; cleàrly a picture of subulaturn and was

moved. to the synonymy of subulatum whenthe latter was listed as a good species in t7 67 .

The description is the only entirely satis-factory definition of all the Linnaean terebras.The shell is distinguished from maculatum bythe words "testa minime gibba." Although

219

22A

the description fails to mention that the bodywhorl shows three rows of reddish brownspots, it defines the pattern of the remainirrgwhorls with the phrase "in singulo anfractuper paria adscendentibrrs. "

In the synonymy, the Seba figures (pl. 56,figr- lr, lq) may be disregardeó. Figure 11seems to show Buccinurn ocul,atum Dill*yrr,1817, which does not have the color patternof subulatu,rn.

_ Figure 16 is undoùbtedly

meant for Terebra muscar'í,a l-amarck, lgzz,Posssibly because of the citation of seba's

figure 16, the shell has been confused withtlrusc&ria by some early writers. The two aresuperfi'cially similar in appearance. The latter,however, has all its whorls divided by ashallow sulcus just below the suture, givingthe appearance of a whorl divided intó twosections. In sccbula,tum only the upper whorlsare so grooved, the lower eight being simpleand undivided. Also the squarish, reA-brownspots of. subul,atunt, are always in three rows onthe last whorl, and in two on all the others. rntnasc&rio there are usually four rows of spotson the last whorl, three on the next three orfour whorls, and two on the remainder. Thisprogression in numbers is, however, very vari-able" A third difference is that the whbrls ofsubulatum are noticeably terrac€d, which isnot true of flrusc&ri,&. The remainder of thesynonyrny (Buonanni, pl. 118; Rumphius, pl.30, fig. B; Gualtieri, pl. 56, fig. B; Aigenvilie,1742, pl: 14, fig. X) consists of t*"roràbly ac-curate figures of subulattcrn. The locatily iscorrect.

This species has also been confused withBaccinafte tigrinunr Gmelin (1?91, p. 3502,1second use), which equals B. fel,í,nît n Diltwyo,1817, This species is also superficially similarto subulatum in color pattern but has only asingle row of spots on the base of each whórl,except on the last where there are occasion-4ly two rdws. It also has a slightly depressedline at the middle of each whorl, so that itapproaches the appearance of those specieshaving a divided whorl, although the latterfeature was not mentioned by Gmelin. La-marck did not list tigrinum, although it is agood species, and has been so considered eversince Lamarck.z

I Gmelin h*d- already listed a B. tigrónum on page3!75, anrynq the species later moned to the gàt utPlwlium Link, 1807. There are several instances oT thi,double use of a specific name by Gmelin.

BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY VOL. 1I1

;}H

:trÈÈ";.a*-

F+"F:'ì.J4F

*j:.r

with t!" exception of the tempo rary co*-fusion with muscar,in and tigrinum, theidentification of the species has presented nocomplications.

It is very characteristicaily figured by$eeve (1843-1828, ,yol, !2, Terebla, ù. ó,fig. 22) *ttq by platt ( Ig4g,pí. 52, fig. íq)^. ò".of the early figures, that àf Bornllzd0, pr.10, fig. 9) is nearly as good as the recentpl"lggraphic figures. Th; subur,aturn of the"Tableau encyclopédique" (pl. 4O4 figs. Za,b) shows rnuscari,o,. Lamarcii properlli sepa_rated the two species (ISZ4 .rà1. i , pb. ZSf2?0)

"ld provided them with clear'à.rcrip-tions. In the "Explanation of plates," ho*-ever, the two were confused, the reference tothe figures being: "Terebra subulata. T.muscaria Lamarck."s

_ T!* species is now included in the genusTerebra Bruguière, r ?gg, and is the

-typ*species of the genus, by monotypy, Lam*i.t ,L?gg.1

pall (rgzlb, p. 125) idenrified Buccinumsubula,turn Linné with the Buccinurn taurin,urrof the Portland catalogue, but that species islow recognized as a good species, which waslater called Terebro- fiamrnea by r"**r"r.(1s22, vol- 7, p. zs4l (see Abbott, rgs4b, p.265.) ' -

',

The identification of the Linnaean specieswith the Terebra subulata, of. all authoi, **confirmed by Hanley (lsss, p. 2sg) uy irrefinding of a specimen

-of that sneú il in*

Linnaean collection in London marked forsubulatum in the handwriting of Linnaeus.

It \il'as not described in the {'Museum

t Deshayes and Mitne-'Idwards (ls3s-l&s, vol. 10,F- 253, footnote) detaihd very comp'elr*"rírr*ry- th;features that distinguish the t*ó speciàs ncbrúotsrr andmuscoria- (see also Deshayes and tvrine-pdwardr, t*r.c&., p.241, footnote.)

-^t_r!. _figure from chemnite (r?8O-r?gs, vor. 4, p.?8.8, pl. 53, fig. 1441), which he calld *8;. ,ul*Itn*!-iytnei," is ertainly incorrect. It shours a shell*wit] alight brown background and brack-brown spots, a di-vided whorl, andlh"j lplgTs to be a decuàtu'*,rtp,ture over the entire shell. I do not know what it repre.sents. The figure was cited far st&tbtum by Gmèlín(lryl, p.- s4J;g)_and by Dilluryn (lgt?, p.-f/jZl fn, "rrariety af. muula,tum. " - --r

r As Terebre- Bruguière ir " genus without specie+having been descriH only in the Index (p. *rl ;volume 1 of his ttHistoire nature[e des lr*rr,;th" ónlyvolume he lived t9

-ur5rte, the first species assigned to itare those from which the type múst be selóted. La-marck, in the "Prodrorne" of t Tgg, assigned to Tercbrt? single species, B. sabuh.tum Linné,

"'tri"tt thereby

became the type species, by monotypy.

DODGE: MOLLUSKS OF LII.{NAEUS

of it is present in to the shell described by him, but the next fig-

ure on the plate, numbered 9, is a good figure

of crenulntum and was doubtless the one in-tended. The locatity is accurate, although toorestricted, which is true of almost all his

localities, as he usually had only a single

specimen from a single locality available. Thisspecies ranges from the African coast east-

ward to thà North and South Pacific as Íaras the Hawaiian Islands and Samoa'

An unmarked specimen of crenulatum is

found in the Linnaean collection in London'It is, however, the only shell in the collec-

tion that can be said to agree with the de-

scription in the "Systema," and is in all prob-

ability Linnaeus' tYPe.T er eb r a f,mb r'íata and'int erlin e at o D esh aY€s,

1859, are probably conspecific. Reeve (1843-

iSZg, vol . L2, Terebra, pl- 2, sp' 6a) said that

f,mbiiota was merely a forrn.with a "richerdlsplay of color" than the typical uenulntum,bui made inteflineoto a good species. Tryon,however (1879-1888, vol . 7 , p' 8, Pl' 8, fig' 1'

ift" typical crenulata, fig: .2, rt*?ryata, and

fig. 6,'interlineato), treated both of Deshayes

sÈe!!s as forms of erenula,ta, "illustrating the

long persistence of juvenile characters,"

i*66ota because of the absence of tubercles'at the shoulder, and interl'íneota for rea-

sons not stated. i have not seen examples of

either form.Deshayes (1859, p. 27 6) believed that

Buccinurn varicosltfrî, Gmelin (1791, p. 3505)

was a form of crenulatum and listed it as itsvariety "P." Grnelin cited only a single figure

for his species (Seba, vol- 3, pl'- 59, fig' 17)

which ,ho** a light-colored shell with a

coronation that the artist may have meant for

tubercles or blunt spines, and having a

double row of dark dots on each whorl as in

the typical crenulaturn His description mightbe taken for crenulnturn except for the equiv-

ocal phrase "convexis coronatis bifariarn"in th; description of the whorls- There is no

evidence of a-double row of shoulder tubercles

in the figure he cited-The Jpecies is novr included in the genus

Terebro Èr,rguière, 1?89. It is figured in.Reeve

(tom. cit., îerebra, pl. 2! .sp' 6b), ^in theùT"bleau encyclopédique" (pl. 402, fi$t. 3a,

b), and in Plàtt (tq+q, PJ: 56, fig' 20)' The

ifr"*nitz figure (1?80-1795, vol ' 4, pl' 154'

fig. 1445) is characteristic, although some-

what stYlized.

22L1956

Ulricae," and no specimen

the UPPsala collection'

Buccinum crenulattrm

1?58, Systema naturae, ed' 10, P' 741' no' 416'

lf Aí, Systema naturae, ed' !2,.p',12A5' no' 48L'

Locar,rTy: ,,In O. Africano" (1785, 1767).

-,,8. testa turrita, anfractibus bifidis margine

crenatis.tt

The identification of this species with the

Tsrebra crenulata af. all authors has presenlgd

;; dtfficulties. The description is reasonably

;1*[, although the use of ihe word "crenatis"io, tft* .orJrr"tion of blunt spines at the

J;.lder of the whorl, and indeed the specific

il;;--itr"ff, is not an exact use of the word.

'iffi1i ltr* hrst of the Linnaean terebras said'iO-il** a bifid or divided whorl- It must be

.r,6ogri1zf}d.that Linnaeus used these words in

dè-"btoadest possible sense. In Buccinutn'

ú*pl,i,catum the whorl is truly divided by &

a*pfy incised line near the top of the whorl;hi.É simulates another suture, and although

;h;-sculpture of the whorl so divided isidentical the two sections are of & different*otor. In B . str,igilntum no line or other sculp-

tural featuqe dfvides the whorl, the division

n*ing simuíated by a band of white at the

shouider which is usually spotted with red-

brown blotches. In B. dim'id,'i,atum the divisionis simutated by the fact that there is a notice-

able terracinf of the whorl below the suture,

the upper poition of the whorl being abruptlynrrro**d at this point and of a solid color

free from the spots or flammules whichdecorate the rest of the whorl" The present

species deserves the word "bifidis" least of all'

Just below the suture there is a very faint,narTow, and shallow sulcus encircling thewhorl and decorated with a spiral row of verysmall dots. This sulcus is almost invisible, isoften obsolete, and in most specimens isevidenced only by the slightly narrowedappearance of ihe whorl at its site. To call thisa bifid whorl seems to stretch the meaningoI the word unreasonablY.

The synonymy is almost entirely accurate.The frgure in Gualtieri (pl. 5?, fig. L) and thatof Arfenville (lT47 pl,-14, fig. V)t althoughcrudiy drawn, rre obviously based on speci-

mens tf the crenulntum of all authors- TheSeba frgure, when corrected, is also of thesame species. Linnaeus cited it as volum€ 3,

plate 5b, figure 35, which bears no resemblance

222 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY

In the "Museum tllricae" the descriptioncopied that in the tenth edition of the"Systeffia," where the word "bifrdis" was notused. In the additional description, however'this feature may be irrcluded by the phrase

"Anfractus . . . margine supra lineam inter-stitialem crenato, obtuso," although thelanguage is hardly intelligible. Linnaeusseems to have included the coronatedshoulder and the "interstitial line," which Ihave referred to as a shallow sulcus, in a singlephrase. Although the description, togetherwith the same two figures from Gualtieri andArgenville which were cited in the tenth andtwélfth editions of the "Systema," clearlypoints to crenula,turn, the specimen bearingItt"t label in the Uppsala collection today is

B. ocnlaturn Dillwyn, 1817. Its non-conform-ity with the diagnosis would, of course, indi-cate that there had been a mixture of spec-

imens or labels in the collection, were it notfor the fact that there is no specimen ofcrenul,atum in the collection and that oculatumwas not described in the "Museum Ulricae"under any f1ame. The presence of this llon-conforming specimen indicates, therefore'either that Linnaeus' specimen of crenulatumhad been lost and an example of ocula,tumsubstituted for it by a custodian of the collec-tion who was deceived by some of the figuresof these two species in which the white "eyes"of the one and the tubercles of the other are'as drawn, very similar in appearance' or thatLinnaeus in 17 64 had a different conceptionof. crenula,turn than he had when he added aspecimen to his own collection. This is apossibility not to be lightly disregarded andiaises a scintilta of doubt as to the tenth-edi-tion diagnosis of crenulotît#r. He may not haveseen a specimen of either species at that date.It may be safely said, however, that thepresence of a specimen of crenula,tum in theLondon collection is probably an adequateconfirmation that his concept of that species

as of the date of the twelfth edition was thecorrect one.

Buccintm hecticum

1758, Systema naturae, ed. 10, P. 74t, na' 417'

1767, Systema naturae' ed. 12, P, 12A6, no' 482'

Locar,rrY: "In O. Africano" (1758, 1767)',,8. testa turrita, anfractibus bifidis margine

superiore compresso-attenuato. "

vol. 111

This has always been a debatable sp€cies.

The early literature contains several at-tempts to make it identical with Terebra xoc-rulescens Lamarck, 1822, or a pale variety ofBuccinutn dim'íd'iatum Linné, but the strikingdifferences between these last-named shellsare sufficient indication of the fact that thediagnoses of Linnaeus and his immediatefollowers were confusing to conchologists.

The description of hecticum in the "Sys-tema," to which the word "bifidis" was adddonly in the twelfth edition, might well be tiedto dim'idliatum, as the latter conforms to thewords "turritai ' "anfractus bifidis," and"margii^e superiore compresso-attenuato,"the compression being effected in that speciea

by the fact that the subsutural band is thedepressed and narrowed upper stage of thewhorl. It is in fact a better description ofdim'í"d'íatum than Linnaeus gave to the lattsshell itself, which merely says "Testa turríta,anfractus bifidis laevibtls. "

Linnaeus' synonymy consisted of twofigures. The figure in Gualtieri (pl. 56, fig. C)shows a smooth shell with uniformly sloping :

sides, and with symrnetrically decoratdbands, which by the exercise of a litth :

imagination might be referred ta caerulcsca*s. ''a

Thtseba figure 1pt. 5ó, fig. 35) is probably * 1

necess ary corTection. Two figures were atr , -',,. .

parentlytransposed. Figur e 21, actually Cited " ' ' ':

:., r ;l

l-' t.': '., ,:

u,j t' ,

i.'',,lì',,*.r':l

i,:ì :. ,

DODGE: MOLLUSKS OF LINNAEUS 2231956

is used. As this phrase is not employed forafiy of the other Linnaean terebras, it mightbe argued that the author thus intended tocalt attention to the great difference' in thisrespect, between vittatum and the species

írnmediately preceding it. I offer the sugges-

tion merely to give all the evidence, however

slight, on all sides of the questior, although toexptaitt why Linnaeus used certain words inhis descriptions is anything but a rewardingtask.

In 1?80, Chemnitz (1780-L795, vol- 4, p.

2g2,pl. 154, fig. !4&) described a shell whichhe catted Subula' fasc'i,o circutnvoluta, andreferred it to a variety lutescens, which Born(1780, pp. 261-262, no figure) added to theO**tiplion of dimid'iotum Linné. Born'svariety was described as "maculis longi-tudinalibus niveis, anfractuum marginesuperiore compresso," which conforms to thedescription of hect'ic*m Linné. The subspecificor varietal name indicates the pale variety ofirtimàilia,ttntn. Chem nitz said of his shell (p.

293): "Is not this the Buccinurn ihùn'ídiatumof Linnaeus?'r He added, moreover' a patra-

graph which probably strengthened thatt}*ry: n'According to Prof. Miiller in thesixth volume of his comprehensive work onthe Systema naturae of Linnaeustandfollowing Pastor Schróter's opinion in thefourth volurne of his Journal where he dis-cusges the Linnaean synonYffis, in speakingof Knorr's volume 1. pl. 23. figure 5, this mustbe tlre B*ccinum hect'icutn Linné"'l In theMtiller reference, the author cites B. lwct'icumLinné as a good species, and describes it as

foìlows: "Ttiis is similar to the so-called spiralNeedle shell, with the difference that the mar-gin of the whorl appears compressed andihinned-out. As to color, it is golden red, dec-orated with white flarnmules, as large as thepreceding lcrenulotuml and from the samelocality." This agrees with the Linnaeandescription aÍ hecticum as far as sculpture isconcerned, but the rernarks on color and size

are new and are of some assistallce. Miillersupplied no figure. The Knorr figure referredto was cited f,ar hect'icum by Miiller, as well as

by Schróter, and is a very good figure of thepale or pink form of dimid'futum Linné. Two

I The Schróter work was not available to the presentstiter.

other Knorr figures (vol. 6, pl. 18, figt. 5, ó)

were referred by Miiller to B. dimid'íntum(p. 47 3, Do. 457). Figure 6 is poor but is possi-

bly intended for B. duplico,tu,rnt,. Figure 5,

however, clearly shows dirn'i"diatum with paleyellow markings.

Chem nítz' own later listing of' B. hecticum(1?80-1795, vol. 11, PP. 95-97, pl. 188, figs.1817-1818) is interesting. He referred it to thehecticum of. the "Systema" and described it as

"turrita" and as having "maculis quadratisrufescentibus pallidis." He did not use theword "bifidis," but indicated a divided whorlby the use of the expression "marginesuperiore gyrationum depresso seu attenuato,inferiore incrassato. "

Hanley (1355, P._ 260) makes a curiouscriticism of a claim Chem nitz is supposed tohave made as to. Buccinurn hecticurn. Hanleysaid: "I"Jnfortunately Linnaeus did not him-setf possess this most puzzling shell, whichhas generally bafifted the endeavors of natural-ists to identify it: hence Chemnitz wasdeceived, when he flattered himself that hehad determined it by the aid of the Linnaeancollection, which was at that time in thepossession of Sir J. Smith ; the shell delineatedby him agrees with the supposed pale varietyof Ter. dirn'id''ì,ata ín Hinds monograph of thegenus, but bears not the least likeness tó theèngr"vings cited in illustration of B. hecti-c00rn." I can find no basis for Hanley's state-ment as to any such claim made by Chemnitz.Chemnítz mentioned hecticum only twice, as

noted above, and in neither place is there theslightest intimation that he had even seen

thé Linnaean collection. Even if he had,Linnaeus never owned the shell on which he

based hís hect'i,curn.At the end of Chemnítz' discussion of

hecticurn he made two "observations" thefrrst of which contradicts his suggested iden-tity of. hecticum with dimid'iatum in his fourthvolume:

,,Obs. 1. One often finds Buccinurn dimid'ia-tum also with very pale pink spots. One shouldnot thoughtlessly go on and presume that he

has the rare Buccinufrl, heciicum Linné. First,the other broad diagnostic characters mustbe present before one may turn to the colora-tion."

"Obs. 2. Herr Hofrath von Born, in hisTestaceis Mus. Caes. Vindob. page 263,

224

discusses a Buccinuftr cand,id,ilffi, whose figureis there seen on plate 10, figure g. It is theantitype of our Buccinu,ftr. he,c[,i,61am. ours hasdivided whorls adjacent to a constricted, de-pressed, and narrorved suture, but the other[Born's cand'idurnl has undivided whorlsadjacent to a swollen suture. I assume thatits 'color niveus' is not natural, but that itsreal color pattern is bleached by the strongheat of the sun. It is therefore probably nonew species, but a bleached Bucc,inuflr, a;*;-d'iatum Linné."

I leave the reader to unravel the meaningof these two "observations." one is hampet*din rea9i"g them, first, because it is necess aryto realize that chem nitz gave to the expres-sion "divided whorls" a much narrower mean-i1s than did Linnaeus; second, by the factthat chem nitz was confident thai he knewwhat Linnaeus' hect,kum waq although he didnot take us into his confidence as tò how hearrived at his identification. On the questionof color pattern, moreover, the two .'olbserva-tions" seem to contradict each other. onemust not be deluded by the mention of quad-rate spots. Althou gh d,im,id,ia,turn usuaily hasa pattern of white ffammules on an orange-pi3k or yellowish background, many individ-uals show square spots of color on a lightF""l.ground. one other confusit g item is seenin chem nitz' discussion of Borrt's cand,,id,ttrn.He said that cand,id.ufiî, had "undivided whorlsadjacent to a swollen suture," which, even ify-e accept his narrow meaning of ,,un-divided," does not describe ant form ofdirnidiaturn. Two sentences later (*ee above)he said trtat it was probabty a bleached speci-nren af. dim,ídiatum.

Gmelin (179r, p. 3s00) copied the Linnaeandescription and synonymy and added avariety " P' ' for which he cited another figurefrom Gualtieri (pl. 56, fig. D). Figure b ismade up of two figures, one of which is un-recognizable. The other has a subsuturalband of what appear to be either tubercles orspots and might be intended to show B.str'í,gilntum. His added subdescription:"Testa 4 pollices longa et longiori, alba,anfractibus singulis fascia obsòleta' luteomaculata cinctis," might apply to the firstof the Gualtieri figurep cited lno"r the letterD.

Lamarck did not even mention hect,icum,

BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY vol.. 111

but Deshayes and Milne-Edwards (1s3s-1845, vol. 10, p. z41 footnote) advan.àa the!!"9tv that it might be caerule'scens Lamarck.under the latter species they said: ,,rs notBuccinurn hect,icum the same specie, ,, this?Linnaeus, in his synonymt, cited twofigures: that from Gualtieri pi.

.56, f. C, may

be referred with fair certainty to caerulescens;the other figure is number it on plate 56 ofseba and must be referred to a different spe-cies from that shown by Gualtieri. This s€c-ond figure resembles Terebra d,itnid.,iafo, but istoo doubtful for one to cite it for that speciesor for any other. tlt In a phrase unfortunatelytoo short, Linnaeus said anfractibus birtd,is,which cannot be applied ta caerulescetis . ..we do not know upon what chem nitz reliedin reltstablishing the Buccinufiî, hectieum ofLinnaeus on a variety of. Terebra d,imid.iata, of.Llmarck; nothing justified this opinion, towhich 1\{. Ktister subscribes. In b*r ,i**,Buacùtu.rn hecticatn in one of those *pe.i"swhich we must abandon because of the úo"*r-tainties in nomenclature which they entail."

The final conclusion of both Hanley andDeshayes and Milne-Edwards is on* withwhich I am in accord, although I do not agreewith all of the reasoning by which Jachreached this conclusion, nor with all theirinterpretations of figures or items in theLinnaean description.

4 f*-q years later Deshayes (1g5g, p. 31S)said of hect'kum.' "A doubtiul species.-underthis name chem nitz shows ; variety ofdim'i'd'iata, but in reality this opinion hasnothing to j-qstify it in the desiription orsynonyrny of Linnaeus." I cannot agree thatthg description of. hecticum does not, Éo**rr"r,paint a possible picture of. dim,íd,iatum Linné;efgn though the synonymy shows somethingdifferent.

Neither Reeve nor Kiener listed hecticumor ventured to identify it, and, to my knowl-edge, it has not been listed by any"tr" sincethe above comments, with the exteption ofTryon, who misinterpreted Hanley's remarks.Hanley had said (18SS, p. 260) that T.caerulescens Lamarck was represented by a

^ I Deshayes apparently did not study the- plate ofseba witJr enough care to see that tjreie had b*o

"oobvious transposition of figures by Linnaeus, who shouldhave _cited fiqure 35, which is an acceptable figure' ofcaerulescetts. (See p. ZZ2, above.)

specimen in the Linnaean collection and con-

ii;rJ t" the tenth-edition description of

fuctic$m, where the word "bifidis" was not

il;ilJ"4. ge did not say !h"i it conformed to

;i; úegth-edition destriptio-n, nor that.the

unmarked specimen of cierulescens could be

il*pr"A as Linnaeus' tyge- o{ hecticum' He

srastemptedtoagree*itt'DeshayesandM6--B,i*ards th; the two shells might be

i,ril"tical, but concluded with the words:;bJo any change of name' that must be left

;-h"- iúagemànt of my readers." Tryon

iieig_r88glvot, 7 , p.31) in his comments on

cosrutrrrini said, however: "It is ' ' ' T''.. ,lui,ícum Linné {teste Hanley)." Later, on

l,-' ''#iílg, Tryon tit*a "8. hecticum Gmel.'':, ,,' ilii-iir; of undetermined speciet gf Terebra'fi '.i. .. ln nlg ffSL Ltl LtlruE

u...ì,. This iil*bably correct, as Gmelin's whole

i". ,' i#;is of this riame is too vague to iustify:' *y ;ategorical identification' , rr --L:^r^Línnaeus did not own the shell on which

hi, Jl-gnosis aÍ hecticum was based, as it did

oot *pf.ur on either of his lists. The specimen

of coeruleriint in the collection is strongly

suspect, nofottty bggause it is not documented

in any *ry rr,d might have been added later,

but because we have a direct conffict bet\ileen

;h; descriplions of hecgicum in the two edi-

tions and a further conftict between descrip-

tion and synonymy. The species should be

considered - r"

-undefined and the name

dropped from the nomenclature'It was not described in the "Museum

Ulricae."

DODGE:MOLLUSKSOFLII.{NAEUS

Buecinum vittatam

1767, Systema naturae' ed' 12' P' 12A6' no' 483'

Locer,nY: Not given',,8. testa turritJsubstriata, sutura anfractuum

duplici ,r*n,tt*ta . . . Testa ex ovata turrita'albida, rernote transversaliter striata' Sutura

duplicata, vix triplicata, articulata crenata, 4r-fractus distinguens'

Buttia a,í,ttata of all authors. The species may

iherefore be said to be descriptively and pic-

iorially defined. In the manuscript notes for

tirrrrtéus' proposed "revised twelfth edition"he added a fuither figure (Petiver, pl. 98, lg.iil. This shows a

-Buttia which is either

oittoto or its close congener B. livido Reeve,

1846, frde Hanley (1855, P' 261)'--C"*"" (1S43-igZ8, vo1. 3, tsullia, p1' ?'- sP'

g), in discussing uittata, was not so confident

"iirr" exclusiveness of the Linnaean diagnosis.

g" said: "Two species appear to have been

.orrfo,rnded undei this head by Linnaeus and

subsequent authors; that which I retain to

represent it, answers best to the Linnean

diagnose tsic] and -is the one figured_in thegtiwclopfiil méthodiquert -1*d by Kiener;

the ótttel species, whiCh follows under the

,r"*" B. t'ivid'a, is that figured by Martini and

b* Blainville.'i I do not know whether Reeve

brs"d his opinion as to the composite nature

"t the Linnaean diagnosis on the phrase

"vix triplic ata" or on some other feature of

the description. In any case tivida is readily

Ji*tirtguishable from vittato, and I can see

"otttiig in either Linnaeus' description or his

fidr", tfirt points to the former species'. The

.JIo, of liÍtida is a brilliant blue in a. fresh

specimen and the aperture is a deep brown,

where as v,i,ttaúo is of à dirty white tolot with a

light brown or yellow aperture. From the

p3* of view of ,.,rlptuie, the .shoulder of

itt" body *trott in tfuide has a single row of

short ,rgr*, and on the spire all whorls are

so thicf,iy' tuberculate that one might

;r.;it; ih"* as "pebbled," whereas in

i;ononthe subsutural band consists ordinarily

of a double row of tubercles on both body

whorl ";d spire, although, as said above, this

number is not constant, many specimens

showing three rows' or, rather, a single band of

short t,tg." divided by shallow sulci into three

rows of PaPillae.l - .- - got; iligO, p.264) published a satisfactory

description "f B. óAUoturn, although he

r"ppfila no figure. Schróter's figure - (1183-

lt-Se, vol. 1, p. 352, Pl' 2, fig' 7) is the best

1 In a fair proportion of specimens of útnta the

double row of i"b"rcles has apparently coalesced into a

sinele row of short rugae. -

Buccinurn tvittata is also

àì;?i;s"lJabb from livida by the -presence

of a pro-

nounced .rtti* on the body whorl.of some specimens' a

f*tr'rt" I have not observed in liv'id'a'

225

1956

-i Fii fÈ, i.$t*t

S !i!l'* '{Theonlycriticismthatcouldbemadeof

this excellerrf d"r.ription is the use of the

phrase ,,vix-triplicaà." It would have been

more accurate to say "saepe triplic?ta," 3tmany *p".ùens of ift" strètt have the sub-

sutural trb.r.les divided into three rows in-

stead of two. The synonymy consists of asingle figur"- (Klein,'pl-- i, fig' 121) which

entirely conforms to' the description -andshows a r"urorrably accurate picture of the

226 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY vol.. 111

that appeared for many years. Indeed , La-marck called it "icon optimrrm."

Chem nitz described the species twice. In1780 (1780-1 795, vol. 4, p. 305, pl. 155, figs.L46L-I462) he described what he calledTurbo oro patulo, but referred it to the B.vittatum af. Linnaeus and cited also the Kleinand Petiver figures cited in the "Systema."His locality was Tranquebar. The figures areunmistakably Bullia. Although figure L46lhas the color of l,fuida, figure 1462 is vittata.In 1795 (of . cit., vol. tl, p. 92, pl" 188, figs.181f1S15) Chemnítz described the speciesunder the Linnaean name but mentioned onlyone row of tubercles instead of two, using theexpression "unica tantum serie crenularumin sutura anfractuum cincta." His two figuresshow this error, if error it be, as he rnay haveused as his model a specimen in which thetwo rows have coalesced, as mentioned in mypreceding footnote, or the figures may be badfigures of liviila which omit the multipletuberculation of the spire. On page 94 of thesame volume Chemnítz lists a "Varietasnotabilis Buccini vittati," which is describedas having decussate sculpture instead of thesimple and. shallow spiral lines of vilnn Hisfrgure shows this sculpture very clearly (pl.188, fig. 181ó) and pictures a shell consider-ably narrower and more Terebro-like thanvittata. Dillwyn (1817, vol ,2, g.466) cited tttislatter figure for his "variety" of, B. víttatum,describing it in some detail. I arn unfamiliarwith any Bull,in or Terebro conforming to thisdescription and figure. Chemnitz located it onthe Malabar coast.

Schumacher (1817, p. 206) not only re-moved the species from Bucciniltn, placing itin the genus Eburno Lamarck, 1801,1 butchanged the specific name to rnonili$, & namethat has not been adopted. Lamarck (1822,vol. 7 , p. 29L) again changed the genericname, placing it in Terebra Bruguière, 1789.This placement was followed by l)eshayesand Milne-Edwards (1835-1845, vol. 10, p.25I), who, however, added a disapprovingfootnote: "This shell does not belong in thegenus Terebro.' although more elongated thanthe majority of the Buccins, it is in that genusthat it should be placed." This placement is

I This is not Eburna Lamarck, 1822, which, being ahomonym, is replaced by BobylonieF. Schltiter, 1838.

somewhat more realistic than that used eitherby schumacher or Lamarck, but the species isdefinitely separable from Bucc,i,nun as well. Itis now included in the genus Butl,ia, Griffith,!834.2

In addition to the figures mentioned above,the species is well figured in the "Tableauencyclopédique" (pl. 40| figs. 4a, b) and inSowerby (185 2, pl. 20, fig. 427).

An unmarked specimen is present in theLinnaean collection in London. The specieswas not described in the "Museum {Jlricae."

Buccínum strigilatum1758, Systema naturae, ed. 10, p. 74I, no. 418.1767, Systema naturae, ed. 12, g. 1306, no, 484.Locelrry: "[n O. Asiatico" (1758, 1767]."8. testa turrita, anfractibus bifidis oblique

striatis. "This description, in which the word

"bifidis" was added in the twelfth edition,is hardly a revealing definition of the speciesas it ornits any reference to the color pattern,which is not only striking but was the utl-doubted basis on which Linnaeus rested hisvery questionable designation of the speciesas having a bi6d or divided whorl. In thisspecies there is a band of white around theupper margin of the whorl decorated withquadrate dark brown spots. There is no other"division" of the whorl, either by a ridge, anincised line, or a terracittg at. the middle ofthe whorl, as is the case with several of thespecies which Linnaeus called "divisis" cr"bifidis." The presence of the colored band isthe only excuse for the word" In Linnaeus'manuscript notes designed to be incorporatedin his propsed "revised twelfth edition" headded the followittg: "Margo anfractus punc-tis fuscis," which goes far to clarify the de-

t In Grifrth's edition of Cuvíer (Gríffith and Pidgeon,1834) the name BuIIb is proped in the legend to plate7, for figure 8. There is no description. In the "Ex-planation of Plates" (p, 59ó) the name is misspelled"Bull&eo." In addition to the complication broughtabout by tle misspelHog, I question the advisabilityof basing a generic name on a mere plate heading. Ihave already, in a previous part of this series of papers,expresd my feeling in regard to the validation by theCommission of the "plate-heading" generic nam€xlattributed to Bruguière. The Griffith authorship ofBuhrie has, however, been accepted by Thiele (1931, p.322) and followed by other autJrors and museums, andas its nalidity is legalized by the Commission's p!íngby implication, it must stand.

195ó

rcription. A further manuscript note, replac-

iI" I;Uifidis" with "simplicibus," shows that

ff, ,.l|hor had realized that his earlier word

;r;Arivocal and misleading, or that he had

ffi;Èiely changed his concept of his species-

;j[e hé may h".r9 changgd -it twice if we

iili;; that the omission of "bifidis" in the

ffiil-*aition and its inclusion in the twelfth

ilil, that he had used the word as indicating

, airiAed whorl in the more accurate sense of

A;-word' In the copy -of -the "Systeq""&*o by Linnaeus' son the following further

rf*rintutiott was added in manuscript: "An-fractus cincti ordine punctorum purpureo-

' iurfr.ttThesynonymy is almost entirely erroneous-

The Buonar,tri figure (pt. 3, fig. 110) shgrys-th"

;*t species , Buiciftutn dupl,icotf*, which has

a-à*frnit"ty divided whorl, and the citation,' if tJris. figure is some indication that thet.iúthor haé given a more realistic meaning to,l';ùc.,,bifidis'r of the twelfth edition. Incid€n-'tat$, this sarne figure was cited by Linnaeus,..1;; lo l,icatwn itself. However' it was deleted'' lfó* tU* synonymy of. strigílatumby a furtherslanuscript note, which again indicates that

'.'' d[tef t]re- publication of the twelfth editionLínnaeus tiad changed his mind as to the spe-

*io or had realizeúthat he had merely used a

misleading word. The figure from Rumphius(p[. 30, fiÉ. $ shows, and fl generally citediàt, the species later calted Terebr& myuros byI,a;arch in lgZZ. This species is unlike thestrigilnta of authors in that it has spiral,"d.t than longitudinal sculpture and a sub-

sutural band cónsisting of two spiral cords,

each of which is thicktyn although not promi-nently, tuberculate. The Gualtieri figur9 (pl.

5?, fig. o) has a subsutural band which is notAehnéA by terracirg, the color pattern and

sculpture of which are those of the strigíla'taof authors. It is a very fair picture of thespecies. Hanley (1855, P. 261) said that thisfigure conformed to the strigila,tum of thetenth endition, where "bifidis" Ìvas omitted,but not to the strigilntumof the twelfth, andin this he was cofTect, depending on how wellwe can guess at what was in Linnaeus' mindas to the use of the disputed word. Hanley also

described the Argenville figure (L7 42, Pl. 14,fig. R) as not conforming to the twelfth-

"ditiott strigílatum for the same reason, but

he must hale misread the figure or was guilty

^{*HÉiryftÈry€g'**+i*,*"o*ifi*àsrsrjrj.' --a "

DODGE: MOLLUSKS OF LINTNAEUS 227

of a lapsus calami, 4s figure R is an excellentfigure of the strigilata of authors, showingclèarly the white subsutural band spottedwith brown, which was incorrectly thoughtto simulate a divided whorl.

I do not know what Linnaeus had in mindin describing this species. The difficulty ofdetermining the reason for his changes ofwording, and the discordance of the synon-ymy in itself, make this an extremely unsat-isfactory diagnosis. It is little wonder thatsome of Linnaeus' followers Ìvere confused.

Born (1?80, pp. 26b265, Pl. 10, fig' 10)gave an excellent description of the strigílntaóf authors. It used the phrase "anfractibusindivisis," although, as pointed out above,how far this word or its opposite may be used

depends on the individual describer. He citedthiee of Linnaeus' references. Born's ownfigure is characteristic of the strigilnta ofaúthors, except that it does not show thetongitudinal striae.

eh"*nitz (17s0-1795, vol. 4, P. 235,vignette 40, fig. 3) also shows a good figure ofth- strigilata of. authors in his introduction tothe section on the turbinids. It is an even

better figure than that of Born' as it shows theobliqu" lottgitudinal sculpture. It is describedon page Sig of the same volume, as "DieTaschà," is not referred to the strigilntutn af'

Linnaeus, and there is no indication in theChem nitz text, in spite of the good figure inVignette 40, that the author thought that he

*À dealing with strigilatum Linné. In thesame volume Chemnitz describes (pp. 302-303, pl. 155, frg. 1456) a shell called subula

rtlo*tntn granulata constricta et contexf,o. Whileit is *p*.ificatly referred to the strigilatum of,

the "Systeffi&," both in the tenth and twelftheditions, Chem nitz' description in his texthas not a point in cornmon with that shell,and the figure is clearly based on Terebra

tnyuro.s Lamarck, as it shows the double ro\f,r

of tubercles below the suture and the spiralsculpture. Even the name of his shell suggests

,nyilro.s. It will be recalled that the Rumphiusfigure cited for strigilntum by Linnaeus re-sembled fnyuros and was called Strombus 9,

granulntus by Rumphius,, a name that sug-

gests tnyuros and not strig,ilatu,m,, and, further-lror", Chern nitz cited this figure for his shell.The evidence is thus complete that he identi-fied strigilatum Linné with Ìnyu'ros.

.. i iil,;,8''tf -

rq€."'dl

.':l

t; *r;-

228

The Gmelin diagnosis of. strig,ilatum (llgl,p. 3501) is equally equivocal. For his ,,typ-ical" species he copied the Linnaean desciip-tion and referred to the Rumphius figure ofrltyuros and chem nitz' figure of that shell.He also cited two new figures, Knorr (vol . 6,ql. 22, figr. 8-9) and Lister (pl. 845, fig. IS).The Lister figure shows a shell with very con-vex whorls and spiral sculpture which is unde-terminable. The figures from Knorr are of anextremely narrow, elongated shell which hasno resemblance to strigilaturnof authors. Theyshow a subsutural band of two cord-like ridgesand spiral sculpture. It is quite apparentthat Gmelin believed that strig'ila,tum Linnéwas either rnyuros or a species closely alliedto it. For his variety " p" he cited the Gualtierifigure cited by Linnaeus, which is clearly theTerebra strigilata of authors, the Argenviltefigure cited by Linnaeus which is equallyconvincing, and the god Born figure men-tioned above. He also cited figure 1 on chem-nitz' Vignette 40, which must have been anerror for figure 3, as it shows a shell brokenopen to show the spirality of the columellaand with insufficient detail to show a par-ticular species. A fifth figure cited *ur inLister (pl. 979, fig. 3ó). This is probabtymeant for the strigilata of authors. Thus itseems evident that Gmelin relegated ourstrigíl,ata to the rank of a variety of rnyuros.For his variety "^r" he cited a single figure(Lister, pl .979, fig. 37), with a query. This isnot determinable. His last variety, "d," wassupported by another figure from Argenville(1757, pl. 11, fig. S) also with a query. Thisshows a pale and possibly bleached specimenof the strigila,ta af. authors.

Dillwyn (1817, p. 647) did not use any ofGmelin's varieties, but erected a new one ofhis own, which he described as "Yellowish,and somewhat tesselated with red." Chem-nitz' figure (tom. ci,t., pl. lS4, fig. l4SZ) isquite unrecognizable. It shows an extremelysubulate shell with straight sides thicklystrewn with orange oblong spots on the lowerpart of a divided whorl and with correspond-ittg square spots on the upper part. Dillwynalso referred his variety to Buccinufi, corn-maculatum Gmelin. In Gmelin's listing ofcornftt&cul,aturn the description is that of ashell having spiral sculpture, and his refer-ences, the chemnitz figure which Dillwyncited and figures 8-9 from Knorr, which

BULLETIN AMERICAI\T MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY vol. 111

,:i: iri.il

l,i :r:.', 'l

',j

.i ;':

i: ..,'.j

i rír ,!

;t.l

-, '.. :

l;:' ,;

,i: i

.r: .tiLl il',i.': :,

',1 ,'l ,

1,"*,i,';

: . -,."';i:. ,ri.':1

fl. ,i:

1,"'. '' ,

irl: :,

l :.; :jln,:' ,..

?.i, :

+;ílf=', .

l "t r

L"", -. f.4:::';t,:?,-l

g,È :i :,

?:; i.,,1,

;r^l t

t-t r ';,r l,

...:r

.: t:Í

t, :'.'

i':

Gmelin also cited for his "typical" strigilaturndo not conform to the description. Th; ,r***coftrftt&culnlu? appears frequèndy in synony_mies of. strig,ilatum, but I cannot guess what itis. Dillwyn, for his "typical" s;rúhtutà, re-ferred to the "syste*"i' shell, th; chemnitzfigure 1456, which is ft,yu,ros, Gmerin'sstrigilnturn, Rumphius' figuie H of rry-u.ros,and the Knorr figures 8 and 9 which aíe un_recognizable. This hodge-podge of referencesis, however, aided by his desciiption, *t i.n i,an almost exact translation oi thai of Lin_naeus, and may be said to describe theslrwlata of authors. For Linnaeus' ,,bi-fidis" he used the phrase ,,transverselydivided." His subdescription is here q"ot"oin full, as it illustrates his confusion ofmind even better than his discrete synonymy:"shell about two inches and three-q,r*1"r,lorg, and scarcely more than one-eiirrtr, asbroad, whitish witJr yellow spots, *Li"h attimes form square sornewhat tesselatedpatches, and marked with a narrow elevatedband both above and below the suture. TheLinnaean description is so short, and thereferences so discordant, that this must al-ways continue to be rather a doubtful species,lnd Born, under the name of B. strigíl,otarn,!t.* figured a very different shell. hfartini'slsicJ fig. 1452, from which Grnelin has con-stituted his B. commÍrcula,tum, is very in-distinct, particularly about the aperture, andis Tos! probably only a varièty of thisspecies.tt

I syrnpathize with Ditluryn's doubts as tothe Linnaean description and the figure lhszfrom chem nitz, but particular àttentionshould be called to the fact that his sub-description, quoted above, is utterly at vari-ance with his main description and by nostretch of the imagination can be said todescribe the strigil,ata of authors, which themain description, and Linnaeus' descriptionas corrected by his manuscript notes, both do.

Lamarck (1522, vol. 7, p. Zg0) moved thespecies to Terebro Bruguière, r ?89. His refer-ences included three figures of the str'i,gibtaof authors, already noted (from Gualtieri,Sg"nville, and Born), and Chemnitz, figurefrom Vignette 40, which Lamarck cited witha query. His description is extremely accu-rate, if we agree that he had before him thestrigilata aî. modern authors.

Deshayes and Milne-Edwards (183S-IB4S,

1956 DODGE: MOLLUSKS OF LINNAEUS 229

synonymized with strigilaturn Born, Gmelin'svariety " P: ' and the Gualtieri figure ofrnyuros- He added, &s to the Argenville figure,that it is "a narrower form, which has b""rttermed concinncL by Deshayes, and is so veryclosely allied that its essential differencesffiay, perchance, be questioned." I agree withHanley that concinna is not specifrcatty sepa-rable from the strigilata of authors, and I càn-not see in it the "essential differences" men-tioned by Hanley. The latter said of it:"That shell forms part of the Linnean collec-tion, and, if one might admit the manuscriptsubstitution of 'simplicibus,' which Linnaeusmade in his own copy of the 'systeffi&,' for thepublished 'bifidis,' would alone suit (since thetypical strig'il,ete of authors is not present) thealtered description." According to Hanley,then, conciwt{r,, of which a specimen is inLinnaeus' collection, is not the strigilata ofauthors. As said above, I can see no differencebetween the two. The matter is, however,academic, as the specimen lacks all authority,because it was not the shell originally d;-scribed, the name strigi,latutnnot appearing onLinnaeus' list of owned species at the datè ofthe publication of the tenth edition.

In summary, we have a description in the"Systema" which was twice changed inLinnaeus' lifetime, and we cannot be surewhether either change meant a change in hisconcept of the species or a mere alteration ofa misleading word or the addition of a wordto clarify the diagnosis. on one basis thedescription in the tenth edition vaguelysuggests the str'igilata of authors, and thatin the twelfth some species with a dividedwhorl, depending on what we consider wasLinnaeus' meaning of the word "divided."In the synonymy we have figures of threedifferent species, one of which is the strigilataof authors. The divergent views oi thewriters quoted above suflficiently illustratethe confusion that the Linnaean diagnosishas caused. The species is, in my opin-ion, too vaguely defined to justify our identi-fying it with any of the species that have beenreferred to it. The difficulty is immeasurablyincreased by the fact that three of thesespecies (duplicaturn, ffi!ilFos, and the stri-gilnta of authors) are so remote from one an-other in shell characters that it would seemimpossible to confuse them. while I stronglysuspect that Linnaeus intended, by his ée-

vol. 10, p. 248, footnote) attempted to clarifyand explain the several figures, with the resultthat has already been reached above. Twoexcerpts should be quoted: "It is evident thatLinnaeus confused two species under thename Buccinu,nî, strigilatu,trî,. The figure citedfrom Rumphius represents the Terebra ffiy-flros of Lamarck, while the figures of Gualtieriand of Argenville should be referred to an-other and very distinct species for whichLamarck believed the Linnaean nAme shouldbe preserved.'f And later: "This is not alltJrere is to note in the work of Gmelin; indeed,we find, ofl page 3502, a Buccinum cotnff,G,ca-laturn which represents a double use of thenariety cu of strigil,atum [Gmelin's] which, &swe have just said, is Terebra fityutos. Bucci-fiîr,tn catntn$,cula,tum being a repetition, shouldbe suppressed, and, to avoid troublesoneconfusions in the nomenclature, it would bewise also to suppress strigilnturn itself, since itínvolves two species in Linnaeus and at leastfour in Gmelin. M. Hinds, in his work pub-lìshed last year on the genus Terebno, proposesto reltstablish Buccinufit, corntrî.&cuha,turn, andto allot to it as a synonym the Terebr& ftlyrurosof Lamarck. We think that Lamarck's nameshould be preserved, because as a double usecoffftwrculatunt, should disappear. "

The difficulty inherent in the suggestion ofDeshayes and Milne-&lwards is apparent. Tosuppress the name strigilatam itself wouldIeave the strigil,ota, of. authors without a name.I admit that the Linnaean name, was badlyand equivocaliydefined and technically shouldbe left as a species dubí,a, but the narne, as ap-plied to the str'igilata of. authors, is so firmlyfixed in the literature today that its suppres-sion would cause too much confusion, as itwould mean thatconchologistswould be forcedto familiarize themselves with a new name.The only other alternative would be to catlour shell strigilota Lamarck, which would bealmost equally confusing. Hinds's suggestionto preserve corntwr,culatum Gmelin in prefer-ence to tnyuros is technically sound, &s it isthe earlier name, but this change presupposesthat we consider coftrmlrculntum to be clearlydefined, which I am not prepared to admit.

Hanley remarked (1855, p. 261) that thefugenville figure, which seems to me to be anacceptable picture of the strigilata of authors,was in fact designed to represent BuccinuÌnconcinnurn Dilwyn, I8I7, which Dillwyn

.t'É;.r! il:

t ::"

'*i.

'.h.

{#

#-i

+:

*.\.sg*ì-i.ft

na

scriptior, to describe the strigilata oî, authors,I do not believe that we should make a posi-tive statement as to the identity of a speciesin the absence of a positive conviction. Han-ley (Ioc. cit.) was less troubled. He said that,if the name should be accepted, it will havebeen due to Born's figure and description, andcontinued: tt. . . hence, in reference to it, itwill be desirable to add 'as arnended byBorn,' " a solution which is not only clumsybut one which is not possible from a nomen-clatorial point of view.

In spite, however, of our lack of convictionas to what Linnaeus meant, the name hasbecome so firmly fixed in the literature as thestrigilata af. authors that it would be unwiseto change it at this late date. The confusionthat would result could hardly justify ouradherence to the strict letter of any "rule-of-thumb" for the identification of a Linnaeanspecies. Terebra strigilata is a comrnon andwell-known species, and there has not been asingte voice raised against it in the last hun-dred years.

Qo*e of the synonyms that have beenpublished for the species, in addition to thosediscussed above, are Terebra oerreauxí, T.mathwoniana, T. modesta, T. e,c''u,trrefg, T.argent'í,l\ei, all of Deshay€s, 1859, and T.Iepida Hinds, 1844. Terebra cinerea (Born),tr 780, has been by some writers, notablyReeve, treated as a synooyffi, but seems quitedistinct. It is a broader, less cylindrical shellthan strigilata, is much less colorful, and thesubsutural color pattern is less well defined,as is the sculpture.

In addition to the figures noted above, thespecies is figured by Reeve (1S43-1878, vol.12, Terebra, pl. 18, sp. 85a, b), and by Kiener(1$f1850, vol. 8, pl. 9, frg. 18). It is notfigured in the "Tableau encyclopédique."

It was described in the "Museum Ulrica€,"where the description adds a ptrzzling phrase,

"linea interstitiali obscur a." In the examina-tion of a considerable series of the strigi,lntaof authors, I have not been able to detect avestige of such a line. While the descriptionis a copy of that in the tenth edition of the"Systema," and the synonymy is identicalwith the Linnaean synonYmY, except that theBuonanni figure of B. duplicatum is omitted,the additional words not only cast a scintillaof doubt on the shell Linnaeus had before him

BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY vol-. 111

but tend to add to the doubts one has as tothe identity of the "Systema" species. The[Jppsala collection contains tod ay a specimenof the strigil,ata of. authors, properly labeled,but our knowledge of the vicissitudes whichthis collection has undergone, and the factthat all labels are the work of a later hand,make all the labels to a certain degree suspect.Incidentally, the existing label reads "strigí,-lete Lam."

Buccinum duplicattrm

1758, Systema naturae, ed. 10, p. 742, no. 419.1767, Systema naturae, ed. 12, p. 1206, no. 485.Locer,rry: "fn O. Indico" (1758, L767)."8. testa turrita, anfractibus bipartitis striatis."

The above description, identical in thetenth and twelfth editions of the "Systema,"is entirely characteristic $o far as it goes, but,as are all Linnaeus' descriptions of this groupof species, is barely adequate for a categoricalidentification. It is a classic example of aTerebra with a decidedly "divided" whorl,the upper portion being set off from the lowerby a decply incised line which simulates asuture. The usefulness of the description tobring this out is, however, much lessened bythe loose way in which Linnaeus used thewords "divisis," "bífidis," and !'bipartitis" inthe other Terebro descriptions.

The synonymy is unsatisfactory. The figurefrom Gualtieri (pl. 57, fig. N) is extremelypoor. Hanley (1855, p. 262) justly remarkedthat it "cannot be referred with greater cer-tainty to any other known shell," which ,is

hardly a convincing guess. The figure dosshow a row of dark spots around the top ofthe whorl, which is a feature of occasionalspecimens cf the species. The figure fromBuonanni (pl. 110) is equally poor butrecognizable, and both were cited î.or duplica-tum by Dillwyn, Lamarck, Kiener, Hinds,and others. Linnaeus added a third synonym("List. 837, f. ó4") by a manuscript note inhis own copy of the twelfth edition, a figurethat has also been constantly cited for thespecies. It is less informative, however, thanthe figures originally cited, as it is merely ahighly conventionalieed drawing of a Terebrawith divided whorls and might be taken forany one of several species.

Although this is not a satisfactory diagRo-sis, the species was identified by all the earlier

23r

fug**gw4geffgm-;wffi fi

fniffg**r

m,;g "{#ffiÈ'#y#ffif::Í!r

ffiffij:*;5ffi #ff#$ffl"rffiH"1i"J varies considerablv-in color' al' aiiti*tum' correctlv labeled'

fanglns from shaces of g1-ayish. blue'-from Buccinuolanceatum

ffi*:J*}"ili"&t Tlrr:T?sil"ii L'.'lill':,tlì*f:tif;'ii:-1111' n' 486

rcribeditas,,"in"r"o-.*lruiescente," butlisted 6:%; til;1."ì"i, anfractiblt

^t-"t^Tl:r yellowish form a"-{bl "g.

fu1 l:,1:* fi""i.'fo"gìt"dinalubus testaceis ' ' ' Testa aprce

fulya.,, The specrmen in tít" Linnaean collec- i"""ikittti"riata' Cauda vix retusa"'

il;lt ihi. tutt"t -color variety' as ÍIas' ap-

The above description, which appeared for

H,tH; *xlrylr'gx'lii3,;fill'li'4 *"5:x.'ru hili ir",*x t*" o*he

Milne'Blward' t"#ìiiii'^";' ;q'o' ziàì "Svstema"' js o"eof the few Linnaean de-

cited the twelfth "aiti'* oi the "s-yrtu'iJ/' :-"ii:"*l -: *:'#'^ifi"f.:i:*"ttrffi

fffid.Ti"*;ff,!#T" "ài,W ttX"#t?'*,if["til' mi"a' o tnnceotn or a' au-

$m oî,the tenth "afaf""'r"a ih;1yftffi

-iftti"'Of the two figures cited in the svnon-

ulricae.,, I find no.,rtrroritv for.thi.s r" itll 1'*yin".-rt-",1tetgà't"itt" (1742-'pl' 14' fre'z)

tentl-edition a;"*"iil, -Jlír.rgrr

-*" .i"rì ís c'haracteristic' ilthough crudelv drawn' as

described in the "noi*;'"'tiiii"i"l' *igr'i'ii' F:t-"'*ft'itt" ngttt" (pt' so' fig' G)' the lat-

the variety or r-.-"r,àI'iffi "e"i:n:11 iffHi5;;mP-:.":" slender

Jtr"t r'"t color variety, the upper qgr:lol

the divided whorl is-clnrt""tv g,".ri*r,.Jl irì ..-i;. qttf"G ---"ttttcript

notes for his

color. This was referred to in the "tvt}1i* 1't""iti11J1r1th edition" l'simplicibus" has

urricae,, in the *o,à,r'corg *ryi-ri1llfr m*in*',t*"*"3;,,';ffi;ft#""tlJint"i.titi"l"* pallidus, infra testaceus'-'

The species * ,i"? i"^in"i;"r1 Terebro *"'gt9,*o,úl-;e"fractus iineis ferrugineis

Bruguière, rzss, a;à h"r'-ú":; ot"4'!í ::F-*:".H:;;iffq'::*;"gT:'iffi#some conchologists fn tt'" "uUg""us

Diolo' manuscrlpf,'

maizdDall, lele.r in the suoserruÙ vLvw-

t"+nt:;":*::iff:#':""1v iltf" deepness

;,x'miffi,i,.'ifff?ryru':Lffi"'U3i'# :ti:tlr;it*n*144'" :#1'*fi '?ííiir.'i*rìíg'ii"iìqe^g5*TT:,qd^P:il,'"Îffirú ú ri;t*t::ffi;f; ililrSfrT:BìiÌr: shourd be :'.?".-'q*:"

rhe Recommendation, bowever'

nattr€ was siven to a land s

*,;,,:t-ooí ,,Dt?ticoria;,r'ft;;.;fd"g :*i i:t'.TH"j,H*};U*:*f#.16i:""1r",t#IHf,:;,fi" tàk í" coa" concerning new qenenc nam'

,.which differ from generic **À if.".afinu"e orúy fi líi13i'-;;Uk'i.ay,^'M;ooa*| is a precedent for the

terminations or in a sright vari;atio" * :ryt-I^t*:^1i lil**tn;lg*J$i::"'not necessary for Dan to

DODGE: MOLLUSKS OF LINNAEUS

:ì:ffiT1f;;";'::"il":T: :il$Hi';ilT;f ;";;; 1.," selected the new nafrle.

232

wide, being reported from localities as farapart as Madagascar and Tahiti. A record ofa specimen from Ascension Island in theAtlantic, in the collection of the AmericanMuseum of lr{atural History, is withoutconfirmation and probably erroneous.

The species is well figured by Reeve (1s4J-1878, vol. 12, Terebra, pl. g, sp. Jó). '

The specimen of lanceata ú the Linnaeancollection in London has been accepted asLinnaeus' type, as the name was on his listof owned species, and the specimen aloneagrees with the description in the ,,Systema."

It was not described in the "-MuseumL]Iricae""

Buccinum ditnidiatum1158, Systema naturae, ed. 10, p. 742, no. 420.1767, Systema naturae, ed. lZ, p. 1206, no.4g7.Locer,rry: "In O. Afrjcano" (125g , 176;,I)."8. testa turrita, anfractibus bifidis laevibus."

The description is the same in the teirthand twelfth editions of the "systema," andrny comment on its clarity is the sarne as thatsuggested.for B. duplicatum (p. zsl, above).I do not know just what different meaningLinnaeus gave to the word "bipartitis" fordupl'icatum and "bifidis" for -

d,im&,iatutn.Likewise both species are described asn'turrit &r" whereas, while dim,id,i,atum has aturreted appearance produced by the con-striction of the upper part of the whorl, ind'uplicatum the sides of the shell are evenlysloping, without "steps." The same observa-tion should be made in the case of the pre-ceding species, l,ancea,tu,m, which is not in theleast "turreted," although so described. It isapparently necessary to allow to Linnaeus aspecial meaning of "turrita," which does notinvolve the step-like narrowing of each whorl.No other shell characters are mentionedexcept for the word "laevibus," which equaltyapplies to l,anceatu,tlr. It is the shortest descrip-tion of any of the Linnaean terebras exceptduplicatu,rn.

No references were cited in the tenth edi-tion- In the twelfth several seba figures (pl.16, figs. 16, L9, ZS, 24, and ZI) *"r" given.Figure 19 is a poor drawing of what ap-pears to be an immature dirníd,,íata. The r€-mainder are all forms of T. muscaria fx,-marck,1822, several of these figures, however,together with a Lister figure (pl. 843), which

BULLETIh{ AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY vol-. 111

Linnaeus added to the synonymy in manu-script, were constantly cited- foi d;mid,,iataup to comparatively recent times. There isIittle resemblance between d,imid,iata of uu_thors and Lamarck's fituscaria, and it is im-possible to explain why Linnaeus shouldhave cited the four erroneous s"ù fi;;;o,especially as figure ls on the same pÉteofSeba, which was not cited, is a good pirtur" otdimid'iato, except on the r,rfposiiion tirathis d'imidiatum is something óth", th*r,

-it.d'imid'iata of authors. As rt, ordinat ruletl,e present writer gives more weight io thedescription than to the figures, Èut i" ir,upresent case the description is too vague to beauthoritative, and the synonymy certainlyleans towards ftiusc&ri&. itt a"y case we arefaced with a composite species.

-Hanley frss. p. z6s) was unwiling toselect the d,i,tnidiata of authors as the ipocies that should carry the Linnaean name,argujls that Linnaeus' omission of the onlyg-ood figure of seba was very weighty eviden.uthat Linnaeus' shelt was t ot

-d.im,id,,i,an,

Likewise, Gualtieri, whose work was inLinnaeus' .library, has a good figure ofdimidiata (pl. sz, fig. M) *rri.rr L"innaeusdid not use, although it was on the same plaiefrom which he drew figures of four oi hisother terebras. Hanley concluded by saying:"In accepting the traditional d.im,id,iata weshould at least qualify our reference to theLinnaean Bucc'inutn by a tpartly,' " ,

,

Specimens of both ditnid,iata and ,*r-caria, were found by Hanley in the Linnaean '

collection, although botJr are apparently ss-' ,'.'

marked. In spite of this confusion both in ths "'diagnosis in the "systema" and in the collec-tion, the deScription may be interpreted ingne way which supports the claim of thedinc'id'iata of. authors to be considered as tlrerepresentative of the name. Although thed-"t.lption is short, it is the only Lne ofthe Terebro descriptions where the mention ofthe "divided" whorl was not qualified by t}emention of some feature not prsent inditnid'ia,tu,m. Buccinuflt, crenula"tum has a"margine crenatis." Buccinum vittal*n

,

(which is not a Terebra, although Linnaeucclassed it with that group) was sid to bc"duplici crenul ata." Buccinam strigíl&tsturas described as "oblique striatis"; Buaùttnt ';':

:

duplim,tu.tn,as "striatis." Baccinun tnuriw$tt, , '

DODGE:MOLLUSKSOFLII'{NAEUS233

1956

the next species, was described as "anfractibus

,.,ú""g"tutir, siriis tribus muricatis'" Thus'

bv the process of exclusion' we may point to

ii""il*Aioto of authors as the only one to

which th;- d"tttiption can possibly apply'

There remains ortty B. hecticum, which-, al-

*"'gr,Iffeatitasaspecies.dubi,o,hasbeen;;;"red with some fórm of dimidioturn bv

s€vefal writers, because of the almost perfect

i*i"r*iiv of itr d"*cription with that of our

dimii,ia,n, In fact, as noted above, its de-

;;ipdon is a better definition of dim'í6"ía'-

Utthan th- description of that shell itself' Iarn not willing to say tlrat I innaeus' dim'i'dia-

tum is thl AAínU;atn of. authors' or that.it is

hN6ti**, "t ttt"t it is tnusffi,ri,a,.I do not think

that anyone can' with any degr-eg of confi-

,. . I*nr*, ;*o; thai he has identified the species',, ii'rpit* of tnis doubt, it yorlld be unwise to

;íitffi-rh- ttr** of tire dimi,iWota of authors

'..;ffi;t "t it is so firmly fixed in th,e,lit::-1,':t:

t-" ffi;trlJ**rranted rottf.*iol would result- I, . ffi;;il6t said several times in this series

; -iu"t rhe retention of disputed' of Paper

ilafnes, and even of names that have been

;;*i i"àrrecr, is offensive to one who

il;t"thizes with those who insisr on strict

adherence to the principles that I feel should

S";** identification. I realíze, howev€f, that

ittit is a minoritY opinion'Diilwy; (1S1 7 , p.650) was the first writer

clearly to rèstrict ttt* species -to the dim'idia-

ta af rnttror*. His citaiion of figures iot hisi;typiralJ- rp*.i*s. are all correct and char-

acteristic olihat shell. The Lister figu1er cited

bt Linnaeus in manuscript, and which is a

dubiour at"*itg, he allotted to his "Variety'Fernrgirro*, "7iin

obsolete white spots'"

The figures of muscaria, cited by Linnaeus'

were omitted. His description gives .a corn-

pletely co,,vincing picture of the d,í'mid'inta

of authors.our d,imi,itiafo is figured by chemnitz (1780-

1?95, vol. 4, pl. 154; fig- 1444) and by Rgeve

(184i-1s?s; iol. 12, Terebro, Pl' 7, sP' 27-)' Itù not figured in itt* "Tableau encyclopé-

dique."it, onlY certain synonym is Terebra

splend,ens beshaY€s, tg5g, a pale forrn in

which the yellow or orange backgrgun-d is

broken up into squarish spotf, instead of the

typical pattern of white flammules on &

yellow ground.

The species was not described in thet'Museum LJlricae."

Buccinum murintrm

1758, Systema naturae, ed' 10' p' 742' no' 421'

1767, Systema naturae' .d: 12: P'1206' no' 488'

Locar,rrY: "Ad Africam" (1758' L767)' -,,8. testa turrita, anfractibus subangulatis,

striis tribus muricatis " . . Testa nigra, basi gibba'

anfractibus saepe basi alba'"

This species must be left as undetermined'

The synonymy consists of a single figure

iC""fÉ"ri, pt. il , ng. P) which does not at all

conform ió the .É"t".ters described. The

alrrtiption is, in fact, longer than most of the

ott *rr in this group, but it is not possible to

ii" it, details to any known Terefu&ì or to any

other sPecies.Hanr"y (1355, pp. 263-i264) described the

Gualtieri drawinÉ -"t

showinq "" livid and

cancellated Terebra-like shell," a fairly accu-

rate description, although the figure does not

suggest any Terehro known to nle. It does not,

for instance, show the characteristic Terebro

base. I" ;;t case it is not the murinurnof the

d.r.ription, "r the whorls shown are not

r"g"trt"J àt provided with the three "striis**i.atis" noted bY Linnaeus'

There is evidenóe in Linnaeus' notes in

his copy of the twelfth edition that he had

intended to move the species to Strombus in

his proposed "revised" edition, whiclt- ttg-g"rtàA to Hanley that it might be a Cerithium,

ltft"ugh there is only one species of Cerithiurn'

in Sfra mbus Linné-The name murinuffI, Was on Linnaeus'

tenth-edition list of owned species, but not in

hi; twelfth-edition list, which possibly indi-

cates that he had lost his specimen or that he

h;J based rtir description ot a borrowed shell

", "" a description iurnished by a colleague'

Hanley ,rgi"rted that, of all .th" specimens

in the colleciión, the only one that resembled

the descri;|i"" of rnurinumwas a specimen of

Cer,íthiu*' gronulntum Bruguière , Iry4 a shell

that has r-triple rour of tubercles. This would

be a reasorrrbl" suggestion if- t-t were not for

it * fact that Linnaeus probably did lo! own

the type of, murinum at the time of his death,

as it had b."r, omitted from his last list, and

ift" specimen of C. granulatummay h"yg-been

added later, as we -!.tto* that some additions

to tft" collection were made while it was in the

t

C.*:ti.,.r.l+

Itt;f.j

+?

n

,{t*\

234

possession of Sir James Smith. Moreover, thespecimen does not answer to the coloringmentioned in the subdescription of rnurinîtrnuHanley concluded that, while the identity oftnurinurtî. with C. granul,atum "is not so im-probable," it could not be proved.

Tryon (1879-1888, vol. 7, p. 39) suggestedthat the shell might be a Triton, but on whatreasonitrg I do not know.

While most of the earlier post-Linnaeanwriters merely copied Linnaeus' descriptionand synonymy, P. L. S. Mtiller (1713-1776,vol. ó, p. 47 3) gave a more expanded descrip-tion: "Here the whorls are somewhat angularand the shell has three spiny ribs ldorní,geStrichel. It is black and the aperture ex-panded, and often the lower part of the whorlis white." It is readily seen that this is a mereparaphrase of the Linnaean description, andI question whether Miiller had ever seen theshell he described.

The name has been dropped from the liter-ature and is very properly regarded as stand-ing for an undetermined species.

TrrB "MANîrssA" Spncrps tN Bucci:numLn-rNÉ

,;,

Buccinum rugosum .ro

1771, Mantissa plantarufii . . . regrri animalisappendix, p. 549. _..'

inferius late explanatum, in ip*a fauce inaequale.Crypta, inter testam eù/ labiurn interius, pro-funda. t' ,'

BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY vol-. 111

,t' :

which Gmelin desÉribed as Buccinum tyrrhe-nîttrr, borrowittg t$e specific name from Chem-nitz (1780-179Í, vol. 10, p. 192). Thattyrrhenurn was Ehe type of the rugosum of. the"Mantissa" is_,flemonstrated by the presenceof a specimet' of that shell in the Linnaeancollection inf-ondon, marked by Linnaeus forfIt"gosu.rn. I

fh" species is very close to Galeoitcoechinophora (Linné), and the student is againcautioned that both species are very variàbhin sculpture. The typical echinophwa has fourto six nodulose band3 on the body whorl.There ray be, howèver, as few as one suchband. The specie s. tyrrhen&is typically lackingin nodules, although at times one or morerows of nodules are present.

The species is very graphically described inthe "Mantissa." The name tyrrheno should beahan,coned and the species known as Galeodcarugos& (Linné), 1 77 t.

Buccinum monile1771, Mantissa plantarum . . . regni animalis

appendix, p. 550"Locer,rry: Not given."Testa turrita anfractibus bifidis: inferiore

sulcato, superiore moniliformi . . . Testa subulataalbida seu flavescens: anfractus bifidi: inferior,latior, longitudinaliter obtuse sulcatus; superiorangustus, ex catena nodulorum, dimidium monilereferens. t t

This is an unidentified species. Althoughthe description is long and apparently fr-fectly clearo the particular combination ofcharacters listed cannot be applied to any.single species. A few of the early followers ofLinnaeus mentioned moniln but only by copy-ittg or paraphrasing Linnaeus' descriplionand with an admission, expressed or implied,that they had not rcen the species.

Gmelin (1791, p" 3505) repeated Linnaeus'main description and the first clause of tlesubdescription relating to shape and color,but referred only to the "Mantissa" andomitted the locality, 8s did Linnaeus. Thename was listed by him at the end of hisgenus Buccinum along with prorimahtm,c,í,ngulatutn, and gemicum-all "Mantissa"species.

Dillqyn (1817, p. 645) also listed ir, withan almost exact English translation ofLinnaeus' main description, referred to the"Mantissa" and to Gmelin's mention of thespecies, and said: "Linnaeus, who alone hadnoticed this species, says that it is subulate,white or yellowish, with"a transverse row ofnodules on the upper division of the whirls,which is narrowest, and the lower divisiongrooved longitudinally. Linnaeus, on thesame page of the 'Mantissa,' has given twoalmost exactly similar descriptions of tJris

..'r i,r:;

-ù -lj::;.'r7i"

":"'l

,.. t..Èr-:' i-4;

;'{ú5i"4'.'$

This name is Juilv discussed underBuccinunt echinopl,iorum (pp. I72-L7 4,above). It is Gateodga tyrrhetta (Gmetin) L791,

um Ulricnot described in the "Muse-

DODGE:MOLLUSKSOFLINNAEUStf5ó

^^-le,e,r' He also grouped ,nonile with theÍEr'res -:'-:;"i1". itt Buccinrt'fii" As toLllor Terebra speoesSLit "írJ, ér,l*ttr", there t: no otherI ttlr vrr J --7'F ' ;; ;*- sso of the "Mantissa'd.ryîi*,

called ,,alnrost exactly sim'ar" to

úat can De c.ausu '".:":r-lill '

ffii "t noniln', as none of them mentrons a

ilnilirorm band on lh* whorls or any expres-

** of similar meanlng'

I"amarckdidnotrefertomonilanordidDeghay* ",,d

Mit''"-klwards, the editors of

[it *.ond edition'*'-fiantey (1855, P. 456) noted that Linnaeus'

in his manuscripi 1o!es for his proposed "Ig-

;J iwelfth editior," grouped monile'

i*;**, and pioximaturn, the three "Man-

Ho*" species that are probably le'ebras,ffi*i"t"ty after- hecticum, and said that all

thrÉ wers members either of the gln-us

n tllì- or of Terebro, but that none of the

;t*i could be recogpized by the characters

i*i|,ú in rheir descriptions. As none of the

&{Itiospecies can be described as " subulat&,"

* "ora

used in the descriptions of all three of

tt u rtt.lls in questior, it seems obvious thatnone of them were in that genus'

Menke (1830, p. 30) listed, but did not

dfrlt ; "-

Terebra rnonilns, which he referred

to .8. manile Linné'Deshayes (1859, p. 319), it his "General

review óf the genur Terebr&," listed the

spcies as a tt"m"1hat had been used and said,

'iUnfortunately, the too short description of

t-his species leaves it among the indetermi-nable spcies." The description is, of course'

rather lbng and comprehensive, although notapplicable to any Terebra I have seen'

I have found no further reference to thename until Tryon (18?9-1888, vol' 7, p' 39)

said that, while monib was specifically un-determinable, it, with its two companionspecies in the "Mantissa" (gtm?cutn_and

froximatum), was probably -a terebra. Since

ih*r, the name seems to have completelydropped out of the literature' and I arn unable

to make any reasonable suggestion as to itsidentity.

Buccinum gemicum

1771. Mantissa plantarum . . . regni animalisappendix, p. 550.

Locar,rtv: Not given."Testa turrita, anfractibus bifidis, substriata

superiore protuberantiore...Testa subulata,alba. Anfractus bifrdi: inferior latior, transver-

saliter obsolete striatus: stria superiore crassiore'

Anfr. superior angustus, sed magis elevatus'

laevis, obtrrr.rr; pti*o intuitu videntur cingula

quasi ex duPlici filo convoluta'"

All that is said above about Buccinufn

monile can be repeated for this specieg. The

treatment by Gmelin (I79I, p' 3506) Sttdóifi*v" (18i?, p. 645) is to !!* same effect

as their treat*"ttt of the preceding species, €x-

.*pt that both authors listed this as " gem'

in|rn." Deshayes (1859, p. 318) also dismissed

it as indeter*ittuble, and Tryon (1379-1888'

vol. 7, p. 39) merely classed it with monile

as probablY a Terebro'.

i have searched in vain for a specimen or

figure of any Terebra that even approaches

th" characters mentioned in the descriptionof gem'i,cum and can add nothing to t!"- ac-

."pi*d opinion that the specieF is to be left as

unidentified-

Buccinum cingulatum

1771, Mantissa plantarum . . . regni animalis

appendix, P.550. -Èb-r- LocEl.rîY: "In Islandia" (1771)'

"Cingulis tribus elevatis supra infraque canali-

culatis : . . TesJa magnitudine pruni minoris,

o"*tt, cinereaf tt"tttverse striata: ventrem cin-

gunt cingula 3, spiram 2. Cingula haec maxime

Elevata, laevia, "itttt latiora seu utrinque canali-

culata. Anfractus supra planiusculi' Aperturaobovata: columella planiuscuta. Murici Doliarioproxima. t tl

This is the Thais cingulata, of modern

authors.That this species, with its peculiar and

distinctive tculpture of heavy' revolving,cord-like ribs, which was so precisely and

fully described by Linnaeus' should not have

been immediately referred to the Buccinutnc|4gulatum of the "Mantissa" is largely if notentirely accounted for by the fact that the

"Maniit** plantarum" was apparently notknown to, ót at least not consulted by, theearly zoologists.

1 Linnaeus, possibly owing to an oversight, described

B. cóngalo,tumiwice in the "Mantissa." The second de-

scriptiln (p. 549) is a mere pargPhrase of that on page

iig: quotà above, the only added matter being a de-

;;ú;n of the lip ("Labrum sub cingulis plicafym")

"rrd a question *àrk after the word "Bucci,fru,flr." The

ioàfity, the name of the collector, Koenig'"14 the com-

p"ri*" with Murer iloliarium are identical. There is no

iuestion but that the two descriptions refer to the same

S.i"t, though Linneaus may have thought he was de-

scribing two varieties.

235

236

Although Linnaeus supplied no synonymy,good figures of the species were available tohim in Lister (pl. 1059, fig. 2>, periver (pl.191, fig. l4), and Knorr (pt. 3, pl. 7, fig. 2).The shell, in spite of the remoteness òr itsrange, was apparently well known to theearly conchologists. Linnaeus' specimen wassupplied to him by his pupil D. Koenig andthe stated locality, Iceland, was probablyvouched for by Koenig, although I have notseen the species reported from northernwaters, its home being the Cape of GoodHope and the strait of Magellan. Linnaeus'comparison of the species with Murerdol'iariurn (Cobestana dol'inria) is consider-ably overdrawn, às the ribs of that speciesare always more numerous than in the typicalcingulate', are sharper, and are tuberculate bythe crossing of prominent longitudinalthreads.

The species is very variable in the numberof its revolvirg cords. The usual number,and the number on the specimen described byLinnaeus, is three, but individuals with onlyone or two cords and even with four to eightare fairly common.

The earliest post-Linnaean rSference to thespecies was that of Davila (L767-[1?gS], vol.1, p" I43, pl. 8, fig. 5), which was four yearsbefore the publication of the "Mantissa."Davila called it only by its French vernac-ular name, "le Cabestan," the capstan. Inhis text he spoke of "Two extremely rareBuccins" one of which had three ribs and theother two.

The next mention of the species \nras byMartini in 1777 (1769-1777, vol. 3, p. 4l!,pl. 118, fig*. 1089a, b) who called it Doliarntricarinotutn, Trochlea d,i,ctum. His figuresshow the typical or most common form withthree cords on the body whorl, from whichfeature he derived the name. He erroneouslylocated it in the East Indies.

Schróter (1783-1786, vol. 1, p. 360, pl. Z,figr. 8a, b) did not give the shell a name butcalled it merely "Buccinum No. 15" and gaveit four ribs, which are shown in the figure.His "Buccinum lr{o. 16" (loc. cit.), which isnot figured, is described as havittg three.

Bruguière (1789, 1792, pp. 24V249) gavethe species the specific name trochleo, prob-ably borrowed from Davila, and left it inBuccinî,ern. He cited the Petiver, Knorr,

BULLETIN AMERICAI\ MUSEUM OF I\iATURAL HISTORY vol. 111

(

I

,f

Davila, and Martini figures referred to above,together with a new figure from Favan".-tpr.34, fig. E) and tht four-ribbed s.t rtit ,figure, the latter of which is an excellentdrawing. He mentioned that the ,h"li-ir"obeen a rarity, but "is so no longer since it hasbeen discovered on the shores ór tn" C*p. orGood Hope. " His description is one of the bestdiagnoses of this species in the literatur.. Itrefers to the variability in the number ofribs: "The form of which M. schrót*i-h*,given us ? figure has four; I have ,".r, aspecimen in the cabinet of M. de Joubertwhich has gnty two, and I o,^rn an examplewhose two lower ribs are united in " ,inlr*one.tt

Gmelin ( l7gl, pp. 348s, 3s06) tisted thespecies twice under different names, unawarethat he was dealing merely with two varietiesof the same shell. on page 34gs he described afour-ribbed shelt in ths words ,,primo

costisquatuor glabris," calling it Bucèinun. sm,h:.That it was the same sheil described by hispredecessors Martini, schróter, and bru-guière is evidenced by his citation of most ofthe-figures in the earlier synonymies. He gaveno locality. on page s506 he again oescibedit as a three-ribbed form with the Linnaeannarne Buccinurn cingula,tum, and referred it tothe "Mantissa" species, with no furtherreferences and paraphrasing Linnaeus' Ian-guage very closely. He used the IcelandIocality givgn by Linnaeus. This representsthe first identification of the "Màntissa"species that I have found.

Dillwyn (1817, p. 619) reverted to Gmelin'sfirst name scola,, but described three varieties:variety A, a four-ribbed shell, for which hecited Gmelin's scala, and the schróter refer-ence to "B'ccinum No. 1S"; variety B, athree-ribbed form, for which was ciied tJre"Mantissa" reference, Bruguière's trochl,eo,Schróter's "Buccinum No. 16:' and theearlier figures from Lister, Knorr, Davila,and Martini; variety c, with two ribs, citingthe Favanne figure. He gave all the localitiesused by the earlier writers, the ,,EastIndies" of Martini, "strait of Magellan andc_ape of c'ood Hope" of Bruguière, and even"Muryland" from the "e Marilandia" ofLister, which latter he quoted with a questionmark.

Lamarck (1822, vol. 7, p. Z4\) restored the

?.{!f

qt.,À

,.8s*:#

$.*'$s

s

*fi

fff'q

à

*:FtìÈ:t6

*g

frsÈ

t

DODGE: MOLLUSKS OF LINNAEUS237

ps

ffiffi;'-ilitt"e, it should be restored to' *ttittt would becorne PurPura

the $Pecres'

'tirgryIola"'., Two years later, Reeve (1S1t18?8' vol' 3'

iioo",;, rt 4 É', 19)- lt-:"*, *. -tr?T#"' ffff;;o' íil s"r"q lt".* 1':':f ,,'1* :::tr-,;;*;7;isrrl"í"m oî, the "Mantissa" as a syno-

:,': syn. Thi; rpp."1s to l.i*-tt*^3:1t:i:l

cribroso (fig. 111)." The form spirilis of Reeve

i,,t o*n'in frYon's figure II!' ,

Hanley's e*ami"t"tiott of the Linnaean

collection i,-, Lo,'don in the years immediately

preceding iASS entirely coafirmed the now

accepted iJentification, "t -ttf found a speci-

menofwhathethencalledPurpuratrach'Ieain a box rnarked for Buccinufn c,i,ngulatum

in the collection (HanleY, 1S55' P' 45ó)' Since-hit

a.v ttt" ,,"*à cingulata has been- iÎ-t::ut-ingly "*pl-o;;J;

alth-ough - some continental

.o""óftologists retain ed tr a chlea'

In addition to the figures cited above, the

species is well figurJd 1" the "Tableau

encyclopiaiq,r"' foi' 422, fig*' 4a' b) and by

Maxwell smith (1953, pi' t8' fig'- ?t)-' both

;;;;*t showins IÈ"- tvpl:al three-ribbed form'

A compuii*on"of ttte i'Tubleau" figures with

the arr*irrl ,f ,,Triton" ilolarium (fig. 7)

on the same plate is instructive as showing

the great diffàrerr." in the sculpture of the

latrer #;i;- -

which Linnaeus said was

"proxi*à; i" ttit description. of' B ' cingulatum'

The present ,p".il*'hu, been included in

the genus Thais Rbding' 1?98' subgenus

Trochio swainson, 1840, ,1*ce the "Museufn

Bolteniutt*" of Riding cafe to the renewed

attention of conch"f"giits- in 1906, although

it still ,no-"r, i' pur,f,ura in unrevised collec-

tions, *à the latter ttt** is still used by some

workerswhoareslowtoacknowledgethewisdom oi opinio" qo of the commission

that the "Muieurn Boltenianum" iS "nornen-

clatorily available'i or who question the

interpretation of the word "available'"SynonymsareBuccinutntrochleaBru-

guière , il89; B' scala Gmelin' I79l; Murer

pl,anatus of tir",, ittrr"urn c,eversianum," fide

DillwyrtiPur?uresÚriti,.sReev€,1846;andP.cribrosa Ktause'

The'p".i"sisnotdescribedinthe..Muse-um lJlricae'"

Buccinum Proximatum

nsrne n i:!k:.:7#:f,dn #:: ;Xff ii'::thc genus fury'w'i

':^';?*; i-,,* .lid not refer."rild the t*'r- t cingulata'

"*ill;:l ;;'Milne-ktwards (1 s3s-184s,

ml. 10, PP' iO-gil ' in their second edition of

larnarctt'' iJ'tt' lia refer the species to the

***toatH;;lvtu"tissa" and were the first

to re@rnm;;à the reinstatement of that

Esme. They also apparently considered the

varioust' ,Jufi;;l"à iot*r as conspecific' as'

rlthough th"it description - *:tttions only

úr€e ribs o" itt* body whorl' the references

in tle ,Vr'"rrym-y inciude two-' three-' and

four-ribbd ;írltít. A footnote says: "The

fiorttissa of t;;a, a work little consulted by

motogtsts, contains' at the place cited' a

verf exacr ;;rfpriól of two varieties of this

wcies :- as thil "if ", l- ^iTl:,Tt#:"i:::3T:

;ffiiJ"*i}i*. advoc"l*a by Deshiyes and

;fil,,*ff"'uiar. Reeve proposed, however,

to rmtrict the name ti"gt't"ry ry the typical

form having-til;;; ribsl and described,.:h"

form with f,t" ribs as Pur?úrg spiriî'is ' This

limitation of the speci-ei has not been

adapted by àost of ttt* later conchologists'

Tryon (1S79-1888, vol' 2, P'169' pl' 51' figs'

10S, 110, r i r , nLttl) ieferred to and dis-

agreed *itr,-i{*r*'* rlstriction, saying: "Ihavebeforefneaseriesincludingspecimenswith from one to eight ribs' anú in some of

which the ribs become obsoiete and replaced

by deep ,,ri** *"u" the shoulder of the whorls

disappears ft thel we have the form, the

young of wt i.t, i, described by Krause as P'

IPurfuroBruguièretlilg,hasnotyetbeenofihciallyacceptd ". "'llÌiJ-gll*{;';;e

as itt" International

commission on Zoologic"l Nomenclature has ruled' in

opinion z+, tir";l#"in's 1g15 lisr of. nomin& conser'

wnila (including Pwfuro Btuguière) cannot be ac-

cepted in toto, but that.each "àme must be ruled on

seprately on'.onria"ration of a proper application' Iftlis name should be relectàd, thé tt9lt available name

would & Haustrum Pe"y, i'Srr' wl.th H' zealand'icum

pe.ry a, typJ;*;" îúiL i* "ót Purpuro Bruguière,

figi (ree p. 200 above)'

appendix, P- 550'- LocelrrY: Not given',,Testa arrrìi"," arrfractibus bifidis: inferiore

substriato, t"p;;ilre filiformi ' ' ' Testa subulata'

nitida. e"fr.Jt", Uinai. Anfractus inferior latior'

!77 l, Mantissa Plantarum regni animalis

il;";;;ii;; obsolete striatut' .A.ttf.t::'1i, ::L::ll#"à,ii.?*ir, etevatior; primo intuitu videntur

-l ^--^l^ ^1t;n;[-,'i:"ri*prì.""i-r"p.r"" stria elevata, ob-

tusa, gemina."

238 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY vol. 111

iliir

ri ;

This also is an undetermined species. whathas been said of B. monile

"tra gemicim,tEt*,-lpplies equally to this species. Gmelinand Dillwyn both listed it, but merely copiedor translated the Linnaean descriptíon, andDillvryn (191?, p. 64s) said, "No *u**éuentauthor has- ascertained this species. :. . "Tryon included it in his list of undeteimirredterebras. I can offer no further suggestion asto its identity except to say thaf"it is urr_doubtedly a Terebra. The déscription j"i"t,oyt many characters that it has in

"o**onwith gem'i,cum.The following species, placed in Buccinutnin the tenth edition, were moved in the

twelfth edition to the genera indicated:

Tgxtg Eortror.r

Buccinum virgíneuftr, no. 402Buccinufit sc&bricuXuîn, {ro. 4lz

STOIfiBIIS LrxrsÉ

In the tenth edition of the ,,systemanaturae" the genus strombus incluéed zzspecies. Seven more were added in the twelfth,two of which had been transferred frornother genera-fusus from Murex and spíno-.$rú.r from conus. The "Mantissa" proiidedtwo more, making a totar of 31 namès. Theseare today distributed among l0 differentgenera' one species being here treated as aspecies dubia. It may nevertheless be saidthat strambus Linné is a much less hetero-geneous group than are several other of theLinnaean genera, os rI of the J0 identifiedspecies are still retained in Strornhu., as nowrestricted- This is a very large proportion*lg" compared with the presen"t distributionof the contents of some of the genera alreadydiscussed, notably venus, Butla, voluta, arrdBuccinu.rn. The remainirg 13 species are', it i,true, widely scattered among g*n*r. most ofwhich are far removed from

*úro*bus as now

gtlceived, and in some cases in other families.Tibia Róding accounts for three, LambisSitai"g for four, Aporrhais Da costa, MorumRóding, cerithiurn Bruguière, Terebraliasrvainson, Faunu.s Montfoit, rrrd voluto' pinoIr[ewton, for one each. Thus the t-i""i".r,genus is sharply divided into two groups: onewith strombus, Tibia, and Lambis, which ,ieinclrrded in tho f.*i1,, C+*^'_1-:A^^ ^-.: 'L^

other a heterogeneous -group of species,most of which have rittre phyrog"".ti.

affinity with that family.The earfy breaking up of strortbus Linnéby Bruguière, Rtiding, Montfort, and La-marck has produced Jclassification that rr*,

since remained fairry stable. The most radicaldeparture from the classification" oi tùr.early writers was that of Link (1g02, pp. iò2,1q?, ',9),

whose arrangement has ;;; ù**followed. Fifteen of Linnaeus' rT ,p".i"* ofthe restricted strombus were placed'by Linkin the genus Larnbis -Ródins, rs trrai *u,was conceived by him . Sbombus li,mbis

Linné itself, from which we must assume thatRóding derived his new generic nam e Lambis,

Twplmn EnrrroNBulla virginea, no. S90Voluto scabricula, no. 412

yas placed by Link not in Larnbíl but inPterocera,s (sic) Lamarck, llgg, alonj *ittles-pelecani, ch'iragra, and m,ilieped,ai;rrne.He did not fisf scorpius Linné. Link,speculiarly conceived sb;ffib?/s contained only{ve species: a s. gibbosus, which ,*r**Lt", ucerithiurn accordi"g to tir" figures he cited,two of the murices of Gmeli nl phcatulus andnodulo,szts' a shell that he ruil*d Strornhusturri,tus, which he said was ,,close to Cerithiumaluco Linné," and strombus ater Linné.

In general the descriptions in the strombusof the "systema" are brief, and in severalcases omit important diagnostic features ofthe shells. Many of thesJ cases are assistedby good synonymies, however, and a verylttgg proportion of the species are representeàby fully documented types in the Linnaeancollection in London.

p. 752, no. 478

p. 1207, no. 489

1956

The r

was thtexcept '

was chasubdesc

InRostellatYPe, b192-19,-which rFor thtLinnaerby marhayes e

frcationused. Tis presethe twc

Rosteanteriobeak ntire shedentatrmarginseries owhorlswhorls

Rosfrshell, lgreaterCf -.rS€Swhorl Irectirosand lolower lrectirosboth as

the botis apprrectirosshell.

Indout th;the wo"s1'steand tl"rectisLamarthe bestraighobliqu,gr rnat

Strombus fusus1158, Systema naturae, ed. 10,

(itt Murer).17_67, Systema naturae, ed. lZ,

(i.r Strombus).Locerrry: "f n O. Americano" (l 75S) ; ,,in

America, rarior" (1 767)."s. testa turrita laevi, cauda subulata, Iabro

dentato . . . Genus hujus difficile determinatur.Testa laevi a Muricibus omnino differt; cauda

,*,"sir ,recta a strombis aliquatenus recedit, sed