OSTREA. 105 
reference to B, which letter was. not cited either in the 
‘Museum Ulrice.’ The description in that work coincides 
with the characters of the Pecten which, recognised generally 
as the representative of the species, bears its name in both 
modern and ancient publications. That shell (Knorr, Délices, 
pt. 5, pl. 9, f. 4) is present in the Linnean cabinet, but as its 
presence is not indicated in our author's list, it was probably 
added by his son, whose citation of “ List. Conch. t. 175, f. 12 
suprema.—Arg. t. 24 (= 27 of the edition cited by the father), 
f. D—Gualt. t. 74, f. L” favours the received opinion. 
Ostrea plica. 
The Pecten plicatus of Chemnitz (P. plica of Lamarck) has 
been accepted generally as the representative of the Linnean 
species. The circumstance of a form (the variety subplicata) of 
this Pecten being present in the Linnean cabinet confirms, in 
some measure, the traditional determination, which it is not 
expedient, perchance, to disturb. The description, however, is 
inadequate, for even the details of the ‘Museum Ulrice’ with 
the peculiarities of the hinge will apply to more species than 
one ;* and the illustrative engravings, though usually cited for 
Pecten plicatus are somewhat doubtful representations of it: 
Argenville’s figure, indeed, -is more like the P. undulatus of 
Sowerby’s Monograph (Thes. Conch. vol. i. pl. 19, f. 205). 
“ Auriculis «qualibus” is added in the revised copy of 
the ‘Systema,’ and “striatis” substituted for “ decussato- 
striata.” 
Ostrea pallium. 
The Pecten pallium (Sow. Thes. Conch. vol. 1. Pect. f. 167) 
of authors is preserved in the box marked for this species in 
the Linnean cabinet. In the revised copy of the ‘ Systema’ the 
letter C has been erased from the reference to Rumphius, and 
* To P. Danicus, for instance, of which there are examples in the 
collection. 
P 
