106 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
the synonymy thus purified becomes correct. With such a 
figure as that of Regenfuss it would have been very im- 
probable that the ‘‘ Ducal mantle” should have escaped recog- 
nition: Argenyille’s drawing, however, is decidedly inaccurate, 
but his description establishes the correctness of the synonym. 
The ‘Museum Ulrice’ dwells more upon the peculiarities of 
the auricles than of the sculpture. 
Ostrea nodosa. 
The description and correct synonymy of the ‘Museum 
Ulrice’ (where Rumphius, Argenville and Gualtier alone are 
quoted) leave no doubt of the identity of this shell with the 
Pecten nodosus of authors, a specimen of which (Chemn. Conch. 
vol. vii. f. 609) is present in the Linnean cabinet, and alone 
agrees with the definition. The reference to Bonanni has 
been justly erased in the manuscript of the younger Linné. 
“List. t. 186” has been added to the references in the re- 
vised copy of the ‘Systema’: the figure cited is scarcely 
orbicular enough, but agrees in other respects with the essen- 
tial features. 
Ostvea pes-felis. 
No cited engraving threw light upon this doubtful species ; 
hence the determination of it has proved a serious difficulty. 
In the tenth edition of the ‘Systema’ the rays or ribs are stated 
in the diagnosis to be “7”; in the particulars after the habitat, 
“novem radiis sensim undata”’ is appended: this apparent dis- 
crepancy (a misprint, I suspect) seems reconciled in the species 
selected by Chemnitz (f. 612) for its representative, where the 
ribs range in number (as he declares) from seven to nine. 
Specimens of that shell* (Chemn. Conch. Cab. vol. vi. fig. 613), 
a by no means common one, whose reputed habitat agrees with 
the locality mentioned by our author, are still preserved in the 
* It is the Pecten pes-felis of Sowerby’s Monograph also, but the colouring 
of his figure is unlike the painting of those in the cabinet. 
