130 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
answer to the brief account of the species in the ‘ Systema.’ 
“These examples,” observes Mr. Sharpe, “look like our Eng- 
lish Oolitic ones,” and I think it highly probable were derived 
from this country through Pennant or Solander, who appear to 
have furnished our author with many of his specimens. No 
locality is given; had the “in nostris montibus” been declared, 
one would have expected rather the 7’. octoplicata or T. plica- 
tilis, which are abundant in the chalk of Sweden, and would 
equally agree with the definition’; these, however, are not pre- 
sent in the Linnean cabinet. (Sharpe MS.) In default of a 
better representation, Linneus, in his revised copy, has re- 
ferred us to “ List. t. 450, f. 6,” a rude figure, which exhibits 
somewhat of the general aspect of the specimens, but is pro- 
nounced by Dillwyn (not by Lamarck) to have been intended 
for the T’. pectita of Sowerby. 
Anonta captt-serpentts. 
Two very distinct shells have been thus designated by Lin- 
nus in the two principal editions of his ‘Systema’; in the 
tenth the Anomia first appeared as a smooth fossil species, 
very briefly described, yet with a single harmonising reference 
to a figure; in the twelfth, a recent striated one is announced, 
fully described, indeed, yet with a discordant synonymy. It is 
the latter which was originally published in the second edition 
of the ‘ Fauna Suecica,’ where the species previously so named 
in the ‘ Systema’ was not referred to, which of late years has 
been generally considered identical with our North British 
Terebratula, so called in the ‘ Thesaurus Conchyliorum’ (vol. 
i. pl. 68, f. 1 to 4); and since it corresponds very fairly with 
the description, and no other known species from the declared 
locality equally suits, there is every reason to be satisfied with 
the identification. Neither of the quoted figures represent it, 
or agree with the diagnosis. The erroneous reference to Gual- 
tier, only annexed in the twelfth edition, was probably a mis- 
print; for plate 96, figure D (rightly erased by the younger 
Linné), had been correctly cited by Linneus for his Ost. mal- 
leus. Since all the other figures of that plate have also been 
