424 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
in the earlier issue of the ‘Systema,’ where the species was 
pictorially defined by a reference to Klein’s drawing (“‘t. 8, f. 1”) 
of it. His rude engraving, copied from plate 537, f. 17, of 
Lister’s ‘ Historie,’ cited, as illustrative, in the manuscript of 
our author, had been, likewise, quoted by Linneus for his 
P. mammillaris, a shell whose contour more closely resembles 
it than the ordinary shape of P. pectinata; this circumstance, 
in all probability, caused its exclusion from the synonymy of 
the twelfth edition. 
Patella lutea, 
The cited figure of Rumphius represents the interior of an 
irrecognisable species of Stomatella, which exhibits the general 
aspect of striatula or auricula: the latter has been preferentially 
selected by Adams as the representative of the Linnean Patella, 
and termed by him Gena lutea in his Monograph of the Stoma- 
telling. The “striata” of the diagnosis contrasts too strongly 
with the “levigata” of the English conchologist to permit the 
possibility of such an identification: a nearer correspondence 
might be urged in favour of striatula. Martini, whose recogni- 
tion, evidently based upon the figure of Rumphius, has been 
generally adopted, has delineated for it a very dark-coloured 
Stomatella, which combines the produced shape of planulata 
with the dusky painting of nigra. Yet no member of that 
genus bears the slightest resemblance to the upper valve of 
Anomia Patelliformis, to which lutea has been likened in the 
‘Fauna Suecica,’ and the expressions “ mucronato, reflexo” are 
not peculiarly appropriate for the spiral apex of a Stomatella. 
The vertex of the Patella lutea of Born’s ‘ Testacea’ is sub- 
central, in place of submarginal, as required, a discrepancy 
commented upon by Schréter, who has, likewise, expressed his 
doubts as to the illustrative authority of the engraving of 
Rumphius. In this suspicion I am inclined to concur, since, 
although the Dutch publication had been habitually consulted, 
from the first, by Linneus, he made no reference to that 
figure, nor to the Indian habitat, until the final edition of his 
‘Systema:’ it may be presumed, then, that the likeness was 
not very striking; indeed, such is the rudeness of the reversed 
