94 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
which engraving, and not 236, as misprinted, was designed, as 
we learn from the correction in the revised copy of the 
‘Systema,’ to have been quoted as illustrative. One cannot 
feel surprised at the great incorrectness of the synonymy (the 
reference to Gualtier excepted) attached to the description, 
since even now I know of no delineation which precisely 
exhibits the peculiar features of the shell in question: none 
assuredly are to be found in any of the works habitually 
consulted by Linneus. Nevertheless, the cited figures of 
Rumphius, Sloane and Gualtier present as much general 
resemblance to the object intended as was then possible to 
be found: as to Bonanni, his figure is not recognisable, 
and Adanson’s is scarcely more so. The Arca represented 
by Rumphius reminds one a little of holosericea, but is almost 
too rude for positive determination: Lister, t. 236, was clearly 
meant for Deshayesi, and, in all probability, so too was 
Sloane’s rude drawing, judging from the locality and the 
English description which accompanies it: it bears, however, 
little resemblance to that well-known species. Gualtier’s en- 
graving is important; firstly, because it greatly resembles 
the type (it is scarcely elongated enough); secondly, because 
its ligamental area is perceptibly simple, and not scarified by 
rhomboidal incisures, as in the adjacent figure (B) of the same 
plate, to which it was preferred as a portraiture by Linneus. 
The original example, being much worn, was accompanied in 
the cabinet by a perfectly fresh-looking specimen that had 
possibly been introduced by Sir J. Smith, to further illustrate 
the species. The latter, the Arca scapha of Meuschen (Gronoy. 
Zoop. p. 274, No. 1173, pl. 18, f. 13), and of Chemnitz (Conch. 
Cab. vol. vii. pl. 55, f. 584) was figured (pl. 1, f. 4) in this work, 
in the belief that it was identical with the marked individual, 
to which it was preferred as more characteristic. ‘The type, 
however, having been subsequently pronounced by that emi- 
nent naturalist Mr. Cuming to be the maculosa of Reeve, it 
has been thought desirable to give an engraving of it likewise 
(pl. 4, f. 3). 
As too frequently happens, a very different species, whose 
ligamental area, in place of being simple, is characterised by 
angular grooves, “‘rhombeo plano striato ad angulum _ ob- 
tusum,” bears the same name in the ‘Museum Ulrice’, where 
