124 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
but it is so short that the species has not been ascertained by 
any subsequent author.” Now Pennant, in the ‘ Upsala Trans- 
actions’ (vol. 1. p. 88, pl. 5, f. 4) has described and delineated an 
Anomia from Norway (without bestowing upon it a specific 
name) the T’erebratula caput-serpentis of modern writers (Sow. 
Thes. Conch. vol. i. pl. 68, f. 1, 2, 3), and that shell perfectly 
agrees with the characters of A. retusa, and alone of the re- 
corded Norwegian species does so. There can be little doubt, 
then, that it was the species intended by our author. Speci- 
mens thus named, moreover, were found wrapped up in paper 
in the Linnean collection ; but there is no evidence, from the list 
of the contents of his cabinet, that they ever belonged to him. 
The original description in the tenth edition of the ‘ Sys- 
tema’ is preserved unaltered in the final one, as well as in the 
second edition of the ‘Fauna Suecica,’ and, though brief, 
enabled Gronovius to correctly determine the species. Should 
not the name retusa, then, be preferred to caput-serpentis, an 
epithet first and erroneously bestowed on the same shell in the 
twelfth edition of the ‘Systema’ ? 
 Anomia gryphus. 
The numerals 192 on a worn specimen of this shell in the 
Linnean collection refer us to the Anomia Gryphus of the 
‘Systema Nature.’ Linneus appears to have soon discovered 
his error in placing it in the genus Anomia, as we find a mar- 
ginal note in his writing against this species—‘sed cardo 
Ostree.” The marked example (as I am informed by Messrs. 
Sharpe, Davidson, and Salter) is the Gryphea obliquata of 
Sowerby’s ‘ Mineral Conchology’ (pl. 112, f. 3). The reference 
to Rumphius was probably misprinted, as the D of plate 59 
represents an Hchinus: B was probably intended. The cited 
engraving in Lister, which is precisely like Bonanni's figure, as 
well as that referred to in the ‘Museum Tessinianum,’ have 
been quoted by Deshayes for G. arcuata. 
