N. canrena. N. edentula umbilicata, spira mucronata, labio reflexo bifido.
When Linnæus first described this shell, under the appellation of N. musica, he did not admit a single one of the cited figures as illustrative.
N. glaucina. N. edentula convexa, umbilico simplici semiclauso gibboso dicolore.
None of the deceptive figures were at first referred to, but had been added at subsequent period; and that of Rumphius again erased. N. luteola was the intended name.
N. albumen. N. edentula subrotunda, umbilico teretinsculo.
The present heading agrees with the subsequent details, which could not be affirmed of the printed one borrowed from the 'Systema.' The MS., in some degree, clears up the extraordinary confusion in which the Linnean species was enveloped. There were two N. albumens in the written copy. The shell here described (assuredly not the lobed albumen of the 'Systema') was originally termed hepatica or luteola (for both had been erased). The true albumen was described as "edentula subrotunda, umbilico subcordato labri interioris lobo explanato" and the only figure referred to was "Rumph. t. 22. f. B." "Klein 13. Platystoma vitellum compressum" was also mentioned. This description was suppressed, and the other species retained, with the erroneous designation, and the faulty synonymy, attached. Nor was this the only change. In order to include the Natica vitellus of authors ("Rumph. t. 22. f. A. Valvata lævis prima s. vitellus" had been quoted by our author) the "aut lutea", "aut maculis albis", had been added to the earlier description: so, likewise, had been "Apertura rotundata, semicordata", and "glabrum, planiusculum, nitidum." I suspect, then, that whilst the ideal of the albumen of the 'Systema' was any hemispherical or flattened Natica with a labial lobe (such as Nat. albumen, didyma, olla, &c.), the albumen of the 'Museum', as printed, was composed of Natica rufa ("Rumph. 22. f. D." was quoted in the MS.) and vitellus (for A, not B, of Rumphius was the letter indicated in the MS.).
N. mammilla. The entire account of this common shell was added in the Linnean handwriting. The inappropriate "aut lutea" was not at first present.
N. corona. N. edentula, simplici spira spinosa.
"Pet. Amb. t. 3. f. 4.", a mere copy of the Rumphian figure, was also quoted. The 19 in the reference to d'Argenville was a misprint for the written 10. N. spinosa was the intended designation.
N. radula. N. edentula sulcata, tuberculis æqualibus.