BY C. HEDLEV. 689 



Recent Shells, 1856, p. 355; Id., Reeve, Conch. Icon., xiv., 1864, 

 PI. i., fig. 3 (not Venus rivularia Born, Index Mus. Ctes. Vind., 

 1778, p.59. and Test, ect., 1780, p.72, PL v., fig.7). Circe 

 tmdalina Angas, Pi'oc. Zool. Soc, 1867, p. 922 (? Venus U7idalina 

 Lamarck, An. s. vert., v., 1818, p.575; 1 Reeve, Conch. Icon., 

 xiv., 1864, PL L, fig.lc). Circe pe7-sonata Reeve, Conch. Icon., 

 xiv., 1864, PL2, fig.6; Id., Roemer, Monog. Venus, 1869, PL liv., 

 tigs. la, lb, not Ic; Id., Schmeltz, Cat. Godeff. Mus., v., 1875, p. 169 

 (not C. per sonata Desh., Cat. Conch. Brit. Mus., 1853, p.8 4). 

 Circe sugillata Jieeve, Conch. Icon., xiv., 1864, PL iii., fig. 11. 

 Circe scripta Ohenu, Illustr. Conch., 184 7, PL xi., figs. 8, 8a, 8b 

 only; /c?., Smith, Chall. Exped. ZooL, xiii., 1885, p. 140; Id., 

 Roth, N. Qld. Ethn. Bull., iii., 1901, p 18; Id, Hedley, these 

 Proceedings, xxxL, 1906, p. 466 (not Venus scripta Linne, Syst. 

 Nat., x., 1758, p.680). 



The "Challenger" Expedition reported Circe scripta Linn., 

 as taken in 4-18 fathoms in Port Jackson. It is difficult to 

 decide what shell ought to bear this name. For none of the 

 figures cited by Linne in the original account of 1758 harmonise 

 with any shell known in modern times as Circe sc7'ipta. He 

 quoted first the Chama litterata rotunda of Rumphius,* which 

 is a rounder, smoother shell than a Circe, and might pass as well 

 for Lioconcha fastigiata. Hanley statedf that a specimen in the 

 Linnean cabinet corresponds to Sowerby's illustration of C. 

 scripta, Thes. Conch., ii., 1844, PL 139, fig.38. This iovm{ = alhida 

 Deshayes) occurs, I believe, in Queensland; it difiers from the 

 Sydney shell in shape and colour. 



Thus, whether C. scripta is to be identified from the figures to 

 which Linne referred, or whether the shell owned by Linne, and 

 noted by Hanley, is to be taken for the foundation of the species, 

 we must equally exclude C . scripta from the local fauna. Having 

 arrived at the conclusion that "this shell (usually termed the 

 Scripta of Australia) is completely distinct from the true scripta 

 of Linnaeus," Hanley suggested for it "the name of Quoyi, in 



* Runiphius, Ambom. Rariteitkamer, 1741, p. 139. 

 t Hanley, Ips. Linn. Coiioh., 1855, p. 78. 



