TELLINA. On 
Tellina planata. 
Both the references prove to be delineations of the white 
variety of J’. radiata, an oblong shell which does not at all co- 
incide with the diagnosis. Chemnitz, led by these figures, 
queried that shell for it: Spengler, without cause, imagined 
that it was the snow-white hyalina of Chemnitz (vol. vi. f. 99) : 
Schréter contented himself with copying the Linnean descrip- 
tion. Born’s idea of the Linnean species has been generally 
adopted (by Solander amongst others), and with reason, since 
his shell agrees most fairly with the characters mentioned in 
the ‘Museum Ulrice.’ This view is supported by an examina- 
tion of the typical collection, for among the marked specimens 
we find that species (Born, Test. Ces. pl. 2, f. 9). By some 
error the indicative numerals are those of the next species, 
but as that is likewise inscribed, and correctly so, and as both 
thus agree with their respective descriptions, there can be no 
doubt that the final cypher was a mere mistake. I may remark, 
too, that no shell in the Linnean cabinet will better answer to 
the details given in the ‘ Museum Ulrice.’ 
Tellina labigata. 
A rather young colourless example (like Sow. Thes. vol. 1. 
pl. 64, f. 227, without the red margin) of the Tellina levigata 
of authors is marked for this species in the Linnean cabinet, 
where the rayed variety (Schréter, Einleit. Conch. vol. u. pl. 7, 
f.10) is likewise present. The quoted figure of Rumphius 
gives a better idea of its general aspect than any drawing at 
that time published, but was evidently designed for the T’. chlo- 
roleuca of Lamarck, to which, however, the expressions ‘‘ mag- 
nitudine ovi vel major, crassa” (M. U.) and “pube striato- 
scabra” are not so correctly applicable. The localities are 
erroneous, the species being really West Indian. 
