PATELLA. 417 
Patella crepioula. 
The typographical error that excludes this shell from the 
section provided with an internal appendage did not pass un- 
noticed by Linneus, who has written “hec ad primam divi- 
sionem pertinet” in his own copy of the ‘Systema.’ The 
Crepidula unguiformis of Lamarck (Humphrey’s Conch. pl. 6, 
f. 3) is marked for this species in his cabinet, and correctly 
answers to his description, and to the cited figure of Gualtier, 
from whose publication the specific name was derived. The 
reference to Adanson must be expunged; his engraving re- 
presents the type of a very different genus, the Sormetus of 
Blainville. 
Patella lactwtosa. 
Figure 81 of Martini’s ‘Conchylien Cabinet’ has been re- 
ferred to, as an additional synonym, in the revised ‘ Systema,’ 
and as both this and the published references have been also 
cited for the Patella laciniosa of Gmelin, Lamarck, and Dillwyn, 
it may be presumed that the species of these four writers was 
identical. The last-named conchologist, who has likewise 
quoted certain drawings of Favanne and Petiver that were 
evidently taken from the cited engravings of Argenville and 
Rumphius, has thus commented upon the subject: ‘‘ The 
species appears to me to rest almost entirely on the authority 
of Rumphius, from whose figure the others have probably been 
copied.” A careful comparison of these illustrations leaves no 
doubt of the correctness of this conclusion; the species, of 
which Linnzeus has not recorded his possession, was ap- 
parently constituted solely from these drawings, and pictorially 
defined by them. I have not, however, been so fortunate as to 
descry any specimens that I could unhesitatingly identify with 
them, and confess, with Schréter, my ignorance of the shell 
they were intended to represent. 
