OSTREA. 108 
original, must consequently be sought for in the Dronningen 
Museum, and not in the private collection of Linnzeus, who did 
not possess it at that period. 
The shell identified with it by authors (Pecten zigzac, 
Chemn. Conch. Cab. vol. vi. p. 277, pl. 60, f. 590, 591, 592) is 
present in the Linnean cabinet, where its eventual presence is 
indicated in the list accompanying the final edition of the 
‘Systema.’ That shell does not at all correspond to the 
characters mentioned in the ‘Museum,’ where from eighteen 
to twenty, instead of about thirty, ribs are ascribed to the flat 
valve, &c., &c. What Pecten was really intended in that work 
I shall not conjecture, although the account is almost adequate 
enough to tempt one to do so. 
Ostrea striatula. 
Our author did not himself possess this species, but de- 
scribed it from a specimen in the Dronningen Museum, of 
which he has given us a fuller account in the ‘Museum 
Ulrice’; to this description he has referred, even before 
its publication. That a Pecten was intended is easily 
perceived; but the exact species has never been divined, 
scarcely indeed conjectured. No notice, indeed, is taken of it 
in the recent Monograph of this genus in the ‘ Conchologia 
Iconica’: in the early one of the ‘Thesaurus’ it is enumerated 
among the undetermined species. Plate 170 of Lister’s 
‘Historie Conchyliorum’ is quoted as illustrative in the 
Linnean copy of the ‘Systema,’ but being, in all probability, 
only added from recollection of the type, not cited, as when the 
types existed in his own cabinet, from actual comparison with 
the original examples, is not of like importance with such 
synonyms. This engraving exhibits a Pecten, upon which 
Gmelin, who has constituted the species solely from this 
wretched figure, has bestowed the name O. crenata, but what 
species it was meant for it would be rash to surmise: assuredly 
it does not exhibit the characters alluded to in the de- 
scription. 
