CHITON. 15 
of the ‘Systema,’ has indicated his possession of the species, 
and in truth there still exists in his cabinet a worn specimen 
(probably the piceus of Wood and Sowerby), which displays the 
few specialties required by the original short definition. In the 
list appended to the twelfth edition the aculeatus is omitted ; the 
example no longer answers to the enlarged description. Is it 
not desirable to wholly reject the Linnean aculeatus as a recog- 
nisable species ? 
Chiton fascteularts. 
It is to be regretted that Linnzus did not possess this shell, 
since the brevity of his description renders it doubtful, in the 
absence of a synonymy (at that period there was no drawing of 
a tufted Chiton extant), to settle whether the name should be 
continued to that shell (Conch. Illust. f. 87), which is thus 
‘termed by almost all who have described it, or transferred to 
the larger allied species, the crinitus of Sowerby (Conch. Illust. 
f. 88). The locality, “ Barbaria,” favours the latter idea, yet it 
seems scarcely worth while, on such slender grounds, especially 
as both mollusks are found in the Mediterranean, to disturb 
an established recognition. 
ChHttow squamosus., 
He who has carefully perused the elaborate description in the 
‘Museum Ulric,’ and pondered on the “ semistriata” of the 
diagnosis, will begin to marvel at the singular inapplicability of 
that term to the fully sculptured Chiton that usually bears this 
name (Born, pl. 1, f. 1; Wood, Gen. Conch. pl. 1, £, Les be 
will naturally wonder, too, that three excellent synonyms 
(Sloane, Edwards, Petiver), well known to the author of the 
‘ Systema,’ should have been referred to other species. Speng- 
ler (whose opinion is adopted by Schumacher), in his valuable 
yet neglected Monograph of the genus Chiton, remarks on the 
incorrectness of the ordinary appropriation of this name, and 
proposes the epithet undatus for the Bornian squamosus. The 
