ABBENBA BT COBRIGENBA, 
Many of the errata wliich follow have been occasioned by the Author’s distance from the press — 
for these, it is hoped, the circumstance now mentioned will plead an excuse. 
In the Descriptions helonging to the Plates. 
Plate l, paa:e i, line 3, 4, for Phytolithus Lythoxylon (Quercus) &cc. sub- 
stitute liie specific character, &c. given iu l\\e systematical arrangement, page 27. 
— page 2, line 7, for liginous r. ligneous. 
P. 2, 3, 4, page 2, line 4, for Linne r. Linne. This typographical error occurs fre- 
quently in the course of the work, which the reader will observe without its again 
being noted. — page 3, line 5, fttr waving r. having.— line 9, for St. Cuthberd’s r. 
Cuthbert’s. — page 4, line 15, for 8. Perpendicular section tkc. r. 8. A supposed 
longitudinal section &c. It is necessary to observe, that we have never been able, 
by the ntost careful artificial section of the Entrochite, to detect the structure 
depicted in the figure just referred to, though we have repeatedly ascertained it, in 
specunens in which the constituent parts have been gradually separated by the slow 
but certain operations of nature. The figure, therefore, is merely an illustration 
of the structure thus ascertained. 
P. 5, page 1, line 5, for system r. principles. 
P. 6, page 1, line 3, for fiabelliformis r. nudus. 
P. 11, 12, &c. page 2, line 12, for ferrugiiieous r. ferruginous. — page 3, line 7, for im- 
bricate r. imbricated— Line 13, for cancellatus r. cancellicaudex. 
P. 15, l6, page 1, line 6, for S. t. r. S. p. 
P. 17, IS, page 1, line 3. for ERISMOLITHUS r. ERISMATOLITHUS.— Line 4, 
for bine r. hinc. — page 2, line 8, for ccespitosa r. cespitosa ; for Linne, Linne 
Line 16, for ERRISMOLITHUS r. ERISMATOLITHUS.— page 3, line 13, 
for lamniellae r. lamellae. 
P. 21, page 2, line 2, troni bolt, for vestage r. vestige. 
P. 22, 23, page 4, line 3, for semiorbiculatis r. semiorbiculafus. 
P. 27, 28. In a note, on the specific name of CONCH YLIOLITHUS Myce oralis, we 
have observed that Dr. Pnltney first established the difterence between Mya oralis 
and Mya Pictorum. Linn. This, however, is a mistake : Dr. Solander appears to 
be the first who applied the term oralis to the shell which had, till then, been con- 
sidered as the Mya Pictorum of Liuneeus, and which, according to Dr. Matton 
and Mr. Rackett, ought still to be considered as such. Vide these Gentlemen’s 
masterly paper on the British Teslacea in the 8th Vol. of the Linnean Piansactions. 
P. 32, 33, page 1, line 4, for decussatem r. decussatim. — page 3, line 1, for ciuiieform 
r. cuneiform. 
P. 35, page 1. Ip this and other parts of the work, where a reference is given to a Sys- 
tem of Reliquia or extraneous fossils, as “ (see Syst. Gen. 6, Fam. Animonita;.)” 
the Volume of “ Outlines” is referred to. 
P. 38, 39, &c. page 2, line 15, for Tisdewtll r. Tideswell. — page 3, Note *, for White- 
hurl’s r. Whitehurst’s. — page 6, line 2 from bolt, for arragemeut r. arrangement. 
P. 42, 43, 44, page 4, line 7, for romboidalis r. ihomboidalis. 
