86 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
with the definitions of this species. To the published synonymy, 
which is quite correct, ‘ List. t. 8350” is added, with reason, in 
our author’s revised copy of his ‘ Systema.’ 
Chama antiquata. 
This species was briefly yet efficiently defined, in the tenth 
edition of the ‘Systema,’ by the citation of a single rude figure 
in Gualtier of Cardita sulcata, a shell which harmonises with 
the succinct diagnosis. Bonanni’s figure of the same shell is 
also quoted in the ‘Museum Ulrice,’ and the shell itself (Poli, 
Test. Sicil. vol. ii. pl. 23, f. 12, 13) is also present in the Lin- 
nean cabinet. Another somewhat allied species (the Cardita 
bicolor) may also be seen in the same drawer, and has erro- 
neously been declared the antiquata of Linneus from actual 
observation of his collection. So far, however, from being 
either marked as such, or deposited in a marked receptacle, the 
loose specimen is queried for Chama cordata on modern paper 
(not by Linnzeus), and was probably introduced by Sir J. Smith. 
The reference to Adanson in the ‘Systema’ must be sup- 
pressed ; his engraving represents the Cardita Ajar, and was not 
cited until the twelfth edition. Not one of these three shells 
perfectly coincides with the language of the ‘Museum Ulrice.’ 
Chama trapesta. 
The Cardita trapezia (Chemn. Conch. Cab. vol. xi. pl. 204, 
f. 2005, 2006) of authors still remains in the box thus marked 
in the Linnean .cabinet, and, unless we possibly except the 
young of the preceding shell, alone in the collection agrees 
with the definition. Linneus has erroneously suspected this 
species to be “ varietas prioris”; the young of that shell, how- 
ever, does certainly exhibit much resemblance to trapezia. 
The recorded locality is erroneous,:the Mediterranean being 
the real birthplace of the species: no Cardita, that I know of, 
is found in Norway. 
