14 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA, 
copied from that of Rumphius, is almost a fac simile of it: no 
ligamental spines are represented in either. 
Two Chitons have been suggested as entitled to the Linnean 
name,—the spiniferus of Frembley (Zool. Journ.) and the 
aculeatus Nicobaricus of Chemnitz (Conch. Cab. vol. x. pl. 173, 
f. 1692): the claims of the former are supported by Reeve and 
one or two modern writers ; of the latter by Spengler, Deshayes, 
and the majority of the older conchologists. Although it is not 
impossible that a worn specimen, as suggested, of the former 
shell was the source of the Linnean aculeatus, I cannot accede 
to the propriety of disturbing the name of a well-established 
species, without a more perfect correspondence of its features 
to the ascribed characteristics than is here obtained; for, inde- 
pendently of the unlkelihood of a Chilian shell having been 
known to our author (the recorded locality of whose species is 
* Asia”), its sculpture so far differs as to induce considerable 
doubt. The American shell is adorned with both radiating 
rows of granules and obliquely longitudinal sulci, a florid style 
of ornamentation scarcely compatible with the simplicity one 
might expect from “transverse per totum striate.” The re- 
quired echination heed not consist of long spines; the ‘‘ corpore 
subaculeato,” as observed by Chemnitz, would rather imply 
mere prickles. 
The only modern writer who has described the Chemnitzian 
aculeatus 1s Deshayes, whose description appears to have been 
derived from the details given in the ‘ Conchylien Cabinet.’ In 
the exquisitely illustrated Monograph of this genus in the 
‘Conchologia Iconica’ it is referred, somewhat strangely, to 
spiniferus: a perusal of the characters indicated by Chemnitz 
forbids such an appropriation. It is possible, indeed, that we 
no longer possess the species in England: of those published 
in the ‘Conchological Illustrations’ by Sowerby, his repre- 
sentation of a Philippine Island species (spiniger, f. 68) most 
nearly resembles the delineation of Chemnitz, whose statement 
that the surface was granose where not eroded, and that the 
ligamental prickles were of a whitish hue (but red in Spengler’s 
specimens), corresponds with the characteristics of that shell. 
If the identity of these two can be proved, the C. aculeatus 
Nicobaricus can scarcely be the transversely striated shell of the 
‘Systema.’ Our author, in his own copy of the tenth edition 
