PINNA. 149 
Conch. Cab. vol. viii. pl. 88, f. 774), and the referred to figure 
in Rumphius. An example of this shell is present in the Lin- 
nean cabinet. 
Puma pectinata, 
This most briefly described species is pictorially defined by 
the engraving of Gualtier, which harmonises fairly enough with 
the few features that are indicated in the diagnosis. Hence, as 
that figure is generally, and not unreasonably, regarded as re- 
presenting the abundant European species habitually thus 
named, that shell (despite the Indian locality attributed to the 
Linnean pectinata) has been almost universally accepted as its 
representative. ‘There is a specimen of it (Turt. Dithyra Brit. 
pl. 19, f. 1) in the Linnean cabinet, but as our author has not 
indicated his possession of it, it is without authority, and was 
probably a subsequent addition. ‘The reference by the son to 
“Penn. Zool. iv. t. 59, f. 80,” favours the received opinion to 
which, in all cases of uncertainty, it is expedient to bow. 
Pina nobilis. 
Neither of the engravings referred to exhibits the canalicu- 
lated tubes mentioned in the diagnosis. Bonanni’s was omitted 
in the ‘Museum Ulrice.’ Argenville’s is erased in the manu- 
script of the younger Linné: both, however, are usually quoted 
as matured stages of growth of that shell (Chemn. Conch. Cab. 
vol. viii. pl. 92, f. 784) which is now generally accepted as the 
representative of the Linnean nobilis. 'The description in the 
‘Museum Ulzice’ is well suited to the Pinna nobilis of authors 
(of which squamosa is the matured adult), and conjointly with 
the “habitat in Mari Mediterraneo” is suited to it alone. 
Linneus has omitted to enter the name of this species in his 
final catalogue of the contents of his Museum. 
