« 
Nn 
PATELLA. 42 
drawing that it might readily have been taken for a narow 
depressed limpet with a submarginal vertex and a simple edge. 
Assuredly it did not represent the minute species of the 
‘Museum Ulvice’ described as being “magnitudine seminis 
peponis;” the brief account in that work (referred to even 
previous to its issue) reminds one more of such a limpet as the 
Pilidium fulvwm ; but, in truth, the unillustrated definition was 
too meagre to enable naturalists to arrive at any logical con- 
clusion. The name is not inserted in the final list of Testacea 
possessed by our author. 
Patella wnguts. 
The reference in the ‘Systema’ to the utterly dissimilar 
drawings of Petiver and Rumphius, the former of whom has 
portrayed a Lingula (which more precisely corresponds with 
the “vertice mucronato, carinato’’), the latter a Parmophorus 
(which agrees far better with the “‘margine antico retuso’’), 
would have left us in doubt as to which of the two shells, if 
either, was preferentially entitled to the specific appellation, 
had not the language of the ‘Museum Ulrice,’ where the ob- 
jectionable synonym of Petiver was omitted, definitely settled 
the question. It was, probably, from a perusal of the details 
mentioned in that valuable publication that Schumacher cor- 
rectly decided that the Patella unguis of Linneus belonged to 
the genus elsewhere termed Parmophorus ; one (N. Syst. Vers 
Test. pl. 22, f. d, e) of the two species depicted by him as illus- 
trative very fairly represents the marked type (pl. 3, f. 4) of the 
Linnean collection. No Lingula is present in the cabinet. 
qatella cristata. 
This rare and costly shell was not possessed by Linneus, 
whose mention of the noted collection which it graced has 
alone enabled us to recognise the object thus designated. For 
although no pictorial illustration has been referred to by our 
author, Argenville, in his Appendix (pl. 1, B), has, fortunately 
for conchology, delineated the celebrated typical example in 
3 1 
