HALIOTIS. 409 
of Malaccensis, and involves the less confusion in nomencla- 
ture, from the fact that the shell so named by Lamarck was 
essentially distinct from the one previously so designated by 
Chemnitz. It is not improbable, however, that the “ Varietas 
alba, maculis nigris tessellata” of the ‘Museum’ was the 
textils of the ‘ Animaux sans Vertébres.’ 
EAL OO TS: 
Considerable stress has been laid, in the ‘Museum Ulrice,’ 
upon the total number of ‘foramina,’ and the relative propor- 
tion of closed and open ones, characters which, however useful 
as an auxiliary means of separating two closely allied con- 
geners, only mislead when carried to that extent and arbitrary 
limitation of number displayed in such passages as “ Fora- 
mina 30, quorum 6 seu 7 pervia.” The relative size, distance, 
shape and elevation of these little knobs form valuable cha- 
racters for specific distinction; the mere number of those per- 
vious or sealed up depends, in a great measure, upon age and the 
accidents of growth. Consequently, in granting the accordance 
of the descriptions in the ‘ Museum Ulrice,’ these features have 
not been taken into account. 
HBaltotis Mage. 
This shell has hitherto been solely determined from the 
cited figure of Gualtier, which represents the Haliotis Mide of 
authors, a species not directly opposed in features to the pecu- 
larly meagre definition. The expression “ utrinque nitida” is 
supposed to have been derived from an artificially polished 
specimen. The preservation of many examples of that well- 
known shell (Knorr, Dél. Yeux, pt. 5, pl. 20, f. 3) in the Linnean 
3G 
