ANOMIA. 1238 
taken from the language of that author: the truncata, however, 
is striated (not smooth, as declared), is not of a roundish 
(““subrotunda”) shape, and instead of one beak (“nate per- 
forata”’) only being perforated, has the orifice formed by the 
two conjointly. Our author, who did not himself possess the 
species, has added nothing in his manuscript to the description 
which originally appeared in the tenth edition. 
Anomta aurtta. 
The name of this shell also was derived from the language of 
Gualtier (“ nonnihil aurita”), and I cannot but suspect, from 
the extreme brevity of its description strongly contrasting with 
his accounts of those T’erebratule which he had himself in- 
spected (truncata, pubescens, caput-serpentis), that Linneus has 
constructed both this and the preceding species from the en- 
gravings only: the circumstance that he did not himself possess 
examples somewhat favours this supposition. Gualtier’s cited 
figure is execrable, but has been quoted for 7’. caput-serpentis, 
and is not so unlike a specimen of that variable species with 
the beaks eroded from constant attrition. It is impossible, 
from the paucity of indicated features, and the rudeness of the 
cited illustration, to positively pronounce what our author 
intended. Naturalists have acted wisely, therefore, in avoiding 
any positive recognition; the caput-serpentis has, however, 
been suggested as its representative, and to that species (if we 
should not wholly dismiss the name from our catalogues) it 
may be referred with a note of interrogation appended. No- 
thing has been added in the revised copy to the published diag- 
nosis, which stands as it originally appeared in the tenth 
edition. 
Anonta retusa. 
Dillwyn, who copies the diagnosis of this species from the 
‘Systema,’ thus speaks of it: ‘ Linneus appears to have given 
the above description from a shell which Pennant sent him, 
