416 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
represents the form d of the ‘Museum Ulrice.’ Linneus may 
readily be pardoned for having misquoted these drawings for a 
species distinguished by its “labio laterali,” from the cireum- 
stance that they were dorsal views, and consequently did not 
display the characteristic funnel of the interior. 
Batella porveellana. 
A marked example (Enc. Méth. Vers, pl. 456, f. 1) of this 
shell, the Navicella elliptica of Lamarck’s ‘ Animaux,’ is still 
preserved in the Linnean. collection, and corresponds admirably, 
not merely with the few words of the diagnosis, but likewise 
with the fuller description in the ‘Museum.’ The cited drawing 
of Rumphius has been generally referred to elliptica, yet does 
not exhibit the characteristic painting so graphically portrayed 
in the following passage of the ‘Museum Ulrice:’ “ maculis 
albis conicis imbricatis, superficie lineolis ceruleis transversis 
undatis.” 
Patella forwicata. 
Plate 53, f. 8, of Petiver’s ‘Gazophylacium,’ and figures 129, 
130 of Martini’s ‘Conchylien Cabinet’ have been inserted as 
additional references in the revised copy of the ‘Systema.’ 
These drawings fairly enough represent the marked examples 
of the collection (in very poor condition), which prove to be 
the Crepidula fornicata of Lamarck, and demonstrate that 
naturalists had rightly divined the species intended by Linneus. 
The engravings of Lister and Adanson were only added to the 
synonymy in the twelfth edition of the ‘Systema;’ they are 
generally supposed to represent the allied congener C. por- 
cellana. The preferential, though mistaken, reference of them 
to the present shell should have deterred Lamarck from his 
erroneous identification of the preceding species. The locality 
was taken from Gualtier, whose figure of the preceding shell 
had been doubtfully quoted for this in the tenth edition of the 
‘ Systema.’ 
