PATELLA. 423 
placed in the same little box with the preceding species (which 
was the usual way with Linneus, when two small species 
followed in succession), but wrapped up separately from it. 
The specimen alluded to (plate 4, f. 11) belongs to the Gadinia 
Garnoti of Philippi’s ‘ Molluscorum Siciliz’ (vol. 11. p. 85), but 
is more Pileopsis-shaped than Payraudeau’s drawing of that 
Mediterranean limpet. ‘This was probably also the Patella 
mammillaris of Lamarck, but the individual possessed by the 
latter was, I believe, a worn or polished one. The cited figures 
bear much resemblance to the shell, yet were not designed to 
represent it. For Klein’s engraving was copied from Lister, 
who has delineated a peculiarly round form of the Mouwret of 
Adanson, which suits not the “ conica—subdiaphana” of the 
diagnosis. ‘The stated locality is correct. 
Patella trteavivata. 
The specified characteristics of this shell are so peculiar, that, 
although no cited engraving directs our attention to the general 
aspect of the object intended, its identity with the Patella tri- 
costata of Lamarck and Chemnitz (Conch. Cab. x. pl. 168, 
-f. 1622, 1623), as suggested by Deshayes, can scarcely be ques- 
tioned: no other known shell so perfectly accords with those 
remarkable features ascribed to it. Nothing can be found in 
the Linnean collection that will correspond with the account in 
the ‘Systema,’ the revised copy of which has “ Apex recur- 
vatus” in lieu of the expression ‘‘ Spira recurva.” 
Patella pectinata. 
Those who have sought to identify this limpet with the 
Patella intorta of the English conchologists, which is semi- 
transparent, with an almost lateral apex, have neglected the 
expressions “opaca” and “vertice subcentrali.” The Sipho- 
naria Mouret (Le Mouret, Adans. Seneg. pl. 2, f. 5; the Patella 
grisea of Gmelin) is marked (plate 4, f. 12) for this species in the 
Linnean cabinet, and corresponds with the characteristics and 
the assigned locality. That shell, indeed, had been indicated 
