Hah?) SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
to the peculiar features of the O. flavicans. In the earlier 
list of his shells our author has enumerated this species; in a 
later one it has been written and then erased. Its position in 
that section, which forms the modern Lima might induce the 
idea of its having belonged to that genus; but the bright hues 
of its asserted colouring forbid the supposition. It was pro- 
bably a Pecten, but I find no notice of it in any work; and 
have not myself observed a shell which positively combines 
the stated peculiarity of shape (perhaps only accidental) with 
the other characters enumerated in the ‘ Museum.’ 
Perhaps the Pecten tigris of Lamarck comes nearest to the 
ideal of the species; its comparative flatness does not, indeed, 
answer, to our modern notion of the word gibbous, but Linnzus 
uses the same expression for O. fasciata where the valves are 
declared to be “ parum convexe”: he probably referred merely 
to the distorted look produced by the projecting obliquity of 
the ventral edge (“‘altero latere magis gibbis”’). 
Ostrea fasctata. 
If we derive our notion of this shell from Gualtier’s figure, 
we must regard it as a Pecten, but that engraving does not 
answer to the “ auriculis exoletis” of the definition.» Although 
the figure E conspicuously displays three dark bands, from 
which circumstance the name was, in all probability, bestowed, 
it is generally believed that Linneus intended to indicate the 
Lima which is delineated on the same plate as EE. The 
omitted E is supplied by our author in his revised copy of the 
tenth edition, which in some measure confirms the received 
opinion. 
The shell described in the ‘Museum Ulrice’ seems decidedly 
to belong to the genus Lima, but not to the species (tenera ’) 
delineated by Gualtier: and as the account in the earlier work 
is utterly inadequate to insure identification, the specimen in 
that ‘Museum’ must be regarded as the typical one. From 
the paucity of details it is somewhat difficult to ascertain what 
is the modern name of the object described. Chemnitz having 
with great doubt (an uncertainty equally felt by Dillwyn) sur- 
