ANOMIA, L3l 
assigned by him to other species, except C (an apparently exe- 
crable delineation of Terebratula decollata), that latter, per- 
chance, was the one meant: B would have been more suitable, 
since it was probably intended for the shell at that period de- 
signed by our author. The original description of the species 
in the tenth edition stands thus: “ A. testa ovata, levi, gibba; 
valvula altera apice longiore. Column. purp. 22, f. 2. (Copied 
by Lister, Hist. Conch. pl. 453, f. 12) Habitat . . fossilis.” 
Now in the Linnean cabinet, and our author possessed the spe- 
cies from the first, are two specimens which bear a strong lke- 
ness to Columna’s figure, a circumstance not to be asserted of 
any other fossil there present. It is not very improbable, then, 
that these were the original types, yet, unless the engraving re- 
ferred to should be clearly and indisputably a representation of 
them, they are of no authoritative value. Of the engravings 
known to me, figure one of plate 101 of Sowerby’s ‘ Mineral 
Conchology’ appears the nearest likeness. It is a representa- 
tion of the Terebratula ornithocephala, which shell is the spe- 
cles supposed to have been intended by Columna. In the first 
volume (1773) of the ‘Upsala Transactions, which appeared 
subsequently to the final edition of the ‘ Systema,’ Linneeus has 
published a figure of his recent Anomia caput-serpentis. The 
engravings (pl. 5, f. 1, 2, 3) appear designed for the smooth 
Terebratula cranium, and it is stated that the species delineated, 
received from Bergen, in Norway, was identical with the fossil 
described in the tenth edition of the ‘Systema’ (a seeming 
acknowledgment of the distinctness of that of the later edi- 
tion), which had not previously been known to our author ina 
recent condition. Had not Columna’s figure been avowedly 
taken from a fossil, it might have been accepted as a rude 
representation of the same species. Unfortunately the descrip- 
tion which accompanies the figure in the ‘ Transactions’ does 
not suit it, being similar to (copied from ?) that of the twelfth 
edition of the ‘Systema,’ with the obnoxious “striata” still 
preserved. It is not unworthy of notice, that this paper imme- 
diately follows that of our English Pennant on the other caput- 
serpentis. 
Are we, then, to regard the species as pictorially defined in 
the tenth edition, and bestow the name on Columna’s fossil; to 
look solely to the details of the twelfth edition, and, by retaining 
