SMITH : ON THE GENUS SCUTUS. 253 



that shell tlie name of Pa>DWphonis elegans ('Annals of Pliilosophy' 

 1825) not percei\ing that it was merely a variety of the old 

 Linnean Patella unguis. Quoy and Gaiinard next pursue the 

 erroneous course. In the first place they figure a very uncommon 

 broad form of the abundant Faniiophorus australis as a typical 

 example, and secondly create two unnecessary so-called species, 

 the one ( /-'. convexus) being the ordinary form of Patella aiistralis= 

 anatinus Donovan, and the other i^P. inibricatits) a variety of P. 

 unguis. 



Reeve in his 'Conchologia Systematica' figures a shell under 

 the name of ParniopJurus corrugatus which likewise is only 

 another form of P. u/.'guis. 



A. Adams in the 'Proceedings of the Zoological Society,' 

 1851, in a monograph of this genus reprinted in the 'Annals and 

 Magazine of Natural History,' besides giving very confused 

 synonymy of the species, describes one very inadequately as 

 Scutus angusiatus., also in my opinion merely a broad form of 

 the Linnean species, having a subcentral apex. He also attributed 

 a Parmophorus tumidus to Quoy and Gaimard, who never char- 

 acterized the species under that name but as P. convexus. 



Under Scutus unguis L. he includes three species — r, P. 

 unguis proper; 2 P. ainbigua Chemnitz = /^. antipodes Monlf, ; 

 3, P. australis Lam.=/'. elongatus Blainv. 



Under Scutus elongatus Lam,, a fossil species, he places the 

 Emarginula elongata of Sowerby's 'Genera,' which is a totally 

 distinct shell, being in fact the Scutus anatinus. 



The monograph by the same author in Sowerby's 'Thesaurus 

 Conchyliorum ' is replete with misconceptions. His idea of 

 P. hrcviculus Blainv. and P. unguis L, are utterly erroneous. 

 The shell he figures under the former name is P. unguis vai". == 

 angustatus A. i\d., and that under the latter is the broadish form 

 of Scutus anaiiiius, as is also the specimen represented by figure 

 10 on the same plate. 



