LEPAS. 21 
manifest that the latter was not the species really intended. 
In our author’s revised copy, the Mantissa is referred to 
(“544”), and likewise Lister’s drawing of C. diadema (‘t. 445”), 
of which a worn individual (Wood, Gen. Conch. pl. 4) is still 
preserved in the collection of Linneus. “ Act. Angl. 1785, 
2, t. 34, f. 7,” is added in the same manuscript. 
Hepas testudtnarta, 
With the exception of the figure in Petiver’s Amboyna shells, 
which represents Coronula balénaris, and figure 13 of Ellis in 
the ‘ Philosophical Transactions,’ (Act. Angl.), which is gene- 
rally quoted for C. patula, all the cited engravings are usually 
ascribed to the C. testudinaria of authors (Chemn. Conch. 
Cab. pl. 99, f. 847, 848), which answers to the brief description 
in the ‘Systema,’ and may consequently be regarded as the 
representative of the Linnean species. For not merely are the 
C. patula. and C. balenaris each represented by a single figure 
only, but the excavation of the interstitial areas is much less 
marked than in the traditional testudinaria: moreover, the 
engraving of the former was only added in the twelfth edition ; 
and the drawing of the latter, which is not found on tortoises, 
is a mere copy from plate 14, fig. H, of Rumphius, referred by 
Linneus himself (though erroneously) to the preceding species. 
The “ Apertura clausa valvulis sex,” of the ‘Museum Ulrice,’ 
where the details otherwise correspond, and the synonymy is 
correct, save that the M of Gualtier is misprinted “ 5,” suits 
no member of the genus. 
Hepas uttella. 
There is no reason to doubt the identity of this species with 
the Pollicipes mitella (as defined by Darwin), for although the 
synonymy comprehends some figures of P. cornucopia (Argen- 
ville, and Ellis, ‘ Acta Anglica,’ 1758, pl. 834 —not 23, as in 
M. U.—f. 4), that Cirripede suits not the “ difformiter striata” 
of the diagnosis. The majority of cited figures (Seba, Rum- 
phius, Klein, Petiver) exhibit the P. mitella, which agrees with 
