marine British Shells and Animals. E. ig 
doubt upon his mind about their being actually of the same 
species, especially as he examined several. 
It may indeed be urged, that it is not less extraordinary (if the 
species given by Chemnitz be the same as mine) he should have 
overlooked the other three valves; but as those valves are ex- 
tremely small, it is probable they would be unobserved in badly- 
preserved specimens, which it is most likel y that author described 
from, judging from his figure. | 
With respect to the species here described, it may be proper 
to remark, that it was examined with the greatest care and atten- 
tion while alive, and a drawing taken while it was in sea water; 
and that the two superior valves, as well as the dorsal one, have 
been represented in the figure that accompanies this, fully as 
large as they actually are, in order that they may be distinguished 
without the assistance of a glass. Considering, therefore, the 
minuteness of these valves, it will not appear extraordinary that 
Chemnitz should have overlooked them in badly-preserved spe- 
cimens. | 
Besides the Lepas nuda carnosa aurita, figured in the 50th vol. 
of the Phil. Trans., and the Eared Barnacle represented in the 
Naturalist’s Miscellany, (which I can. only refer to with doubt for 
the present subject,) Gmelin has quoted Seba and Edwards for 
the Linnean L. aurita. 
Whether any of these be really the Lepas aurita possessing 
the character of.ore octovalvi dentato, as originally described by 
the Swedish Naturalist, I shall leave to others to determine, since 
some of them are so miserably executed as not to represent the 
smallest appearance of belonging to the wh Testacea, being 
destitute of visible valves. 
Whether this may really be considered as distinct from any o or 
either of the species here enumerated it is difficult to determine ; 
2522 but 
