38 ; SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
Selina rvadtata. 
The Tellina radiata (Sowerby, Genera Shells, Tel. fig. 3) of - 
authors is marked for this species in the cabinet of Linneus: 
“List. t. 493.— Gualt. t. 89, f. 1—Arg. t. 25, f. A.” are added 
to the references in his manuscript, where the correct locality 
“Jamaica” is also noted. Of these figures the last had erro- 
neously been quoted by him for 7’. virgata. The European 
locality is a mistake, and arose either from his confounding a 
Swedish species (‘ Fauna Suecica,’ No. 2132) with it, or per- 
chance from specimens, the spoils of some wrecked merchant- 
man, having been discovered upon the beach after a violent 
tempest. 
Sellina vosivata, 
The well-known Tellina Spenglert (Chemn. Conch. Cab. vol. 
vi. pl. 10, f. 89) i$ marked for this species in the collection at 
Soho Square, and “ List. t. 8398” correctly referred to in the 
revised copy of the ‘ Systema,’ where “ Anguli et ani et vulvee 
denticulata” is also added. This agrees with the language in 
the ‘ Museum Ulrice,’ “ano rimaque subserrata”’ (words quoted 
as in the tenth edition of the ‘Systema,’ where, however, they 
are not to be found), “ striis transversis retrorsum subimbricatis 
—anus utrinque a testa distinctus angulo denticulato seu sub- 
serrato.” Schumacher has taken this view of the species; yet 
those writers are scarcely to be blamed who, regarding the 
three figures cited in the ‘ Systema’ (although actually, I doubt 
not, only referred to for the shape, the veritable rostrata not 
having been delineated at that period) as indicative of the spe- 
cies intended, especially as they were not repugnant to the 
original diagnosis of the tenth edition, in which “angulis sub- 
dentatis”’ was not inserted, have bestowed the name on the 7. 
vulsella of Chemnitz (Sow. Thes. Conch. vol. 1. pl. 61, f. 163). 
In my Monograph of Tellina I considered that the amended 
twelfth edition was the correct standard for the Linnean 
species. 
