62 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
cation of the ‘M. U.’ was thus referred to in the earlier edition 
of the ‘Systema,’ should prove a different species, it is not 
expedient to remove the specific appellation from that species 
to which it has so long been attached. 
Donax sevipta. 
Despite the incorrectness of the synonymy this species has 
long been determined by conchologists, since the figures of 
Klein, Lister and Rumphius—the F in the twelfth edition (not 
in the tenth) is a typographical error for f—exhibit a shell 
whose characters are in accordance with the definition in the 
‘Systema.’ Gualtier’s engraving seems more like trunculus or 
some allied Donaxz, and Bonanni’s delineation of a Neapolitan 
shell (hence the erroneous locality) was probably intended for 
Tapes geographica: neither of the two exhibit the indicated 
characteristics. The species is clearly the Meroe (Cytherea) 
scripta (Chemn. Conch. Cab. vol. vi. pl. 26, f. 261), of which 
there remain examples, that alone agree with both description 
and figures, in the Linnean collection. 
Monax wmitvicata, 
Our author most unfortunately did not possess this shell, of 
which he has added no further particulars in his manuscript. 
Although the description of it in the ‘Museum Ulrice’ is far 
from scanty, scarcely even a conjecture has been added re- 
specting it; the old compilers having satisfied themselves with 
copying the original recorded characters. Nothing but the 
sight of the typical example in the Dronningen Museum will 
enable us to logically demonstrate even the modern genus in 
which this most ambiguous shell should be located. I know 
of no Donax that will correspond to the description; the 
sculpture, indeed, is more that of a Cardiwm, a Lucina or 
a Cypricardia. What are we to understand by the following 
passage, extracted from the ‘Mus. Ulvic.,’ “ Margo anterior 
