29 



by Lamarck in 1709 to such forms as Chama cahjculata, Lin., 

 subsequently (1824) called Mytilicardia, by Blainville. 



191 = Cardita radians, Conead, Am. Jour. Sci. XLI, (2) 2, 16. 



192 = Cardita carinata, Emmons, Geol. N. Car. 302. 



193 = Cardita subtenta, Cokkad, U. S. Expl. Exp. X, 726. Mr. Car- 



penter refers this to the recent C horealis, Conrad. On con>- 

 parison of the fossil form with typical eastern coast examples 

 of the recent shell, I am led to regard them as distinct. The 

 fossil species is more gibbous, and has uniformly from five to 

 seven more costse. In form, it is much nearer the western 

 coast species or variety ventricosa, Gou^, but it has smaller and 

 more numerous ribs. 



.195 = Cardita monilicosta, Gabb, Proceed. Acad. N. Sci. 1861, 371, is 

 included with doubt in the Miocene list. 



196 = Cardita occidentalis, Conrad, ib. 1855. 



224 — Mr. Carpenter, misled by an imperfect figure, suggests that this 

 species " has the aspect of a large Lazaria." It is, however, a 

 true Solemya, with an extremely thin sliell, and nearly obsolete 

 postero-dorsal radiating costse. Lazaria, Gray, 1853, is a syn- 

 onym of Carditamera, Conrad, 1838. 



230^ = Lucina occidentalis, Conkad, U. S. Expl. Exp. X, 725, from the 

 Astoria (Oregon) beds, was inadvertently omitted in its proper 

 place between Nos. 230 and 221, in the list. It is a little re- 

 markable that the specimen figured in the Xth Vol. U. S. Expl. 

 Exp. pi. 18, fig. 8 and 8 a, as Pcc<m??cmZ«s /jaru/ws, represents an 

 internal cast of this species of Litcina. 



I see Mr. Carpenter expresses the opinion that Lucina occi- 

 dentalis, of Conkad, is identical with the common recent L. hore- 

 alis of authors ; and that Pectunculus patulus, Conrad, founded 

 as above stated on an internal cast of Lucina occidentalis, may 

 be the recent Pectunculus septentrionalis, Middendorf. In 

 regard to the identity of Lucina occidentalis, Conrad, with the 

 recent L. horealis, I scarcely feel prepared to express an opinion, 

 having but a single specimen of the fossil shell (the original 

 type) in even a moderately good state of preservation for com- 

 parison. They are certainly much alike, but as species in this 

 genus are often very similar, I have little doubt but on com- 

 paring a good series of each they will be found specifically 

 distinct. The suggestion in relation to the supposed Pectun- 

 culus patalus, is obviously an error. 



237 = Cyclas permacra, Coxrad, Pacific R. R. Rept. VII, 192. 



247 = Venus bisecta, Conrad, U. S. Expl. Exp. X, 724, 17, 10, 10a. 

 Although tliere are several good specimens of this species in 

 the Astoria collections, none of them show the hinge. From 

 markings on some of the internal casts, however, I am nearly 

 convinced that its pallial line is simple, from which fact, together 



