CARDIUM. ote 
Museum was referred to, as the type, even before the publica- 
tion of the ‘Museum Ulricer,’ and from the numerous details 
mentioned in that work we might reasonably have hoped to 
determine the species. It has, however, been rather guessed 
at than positively identified; at least that certainty has not 
been attained which is so indispensably necessary before per- 
manently adopting the Linnean name. 
Born, regardless of the “nodulis crenatis,” considered it to 
be the Mediterranean oblongum (Cardium sulcatum of Lamarck). 
Chemnitz, with much hesitation, has delineated the Cardiwm 
muricatum as this species. Schréter, with more reason, has 
figured for it a Cardiwm, which is nearly allied to, if not 
actually the Cardiwm rugosum of authors (but with some of the 
submedial ribs unsculptured, as we learn from the description), 
and Spengler, who sent him the specimen, assents to (and 
perhaps originated) the identification. Bruguitre, Dillwyn 
and Wood merely transcribe or abridge the description of 
Schréter. Lamarck cites it with doubt, and Morch positively, 
for C. rugosum; Schroter’s shell (Hinleit. Conch. pl. 7, f. 11), 
whatever it may have been designed for, agrees very fairly with 
the language of the ‘Museum Ulricee.’ 
Caroium labvigatun. 
The Cardium papyraceum of Chemnitz (pl. 1, f. 8) is marked 
for this species in the Linnean cabinet, and well agrees with 
the description thereof. The name levigatwm cannot, how- 
ever, take precedence, since the definition was so imperfect as 
to baffle all attempts to identify the species by methods patent 
to all. It is not just to others that simple priority of notice 
should prevail, where species, through the indolence, careless- 
ness, or incompetence of their first describers, become involved 
in such obscurity as can only be dispelled through the light 
thrown upon them by the described examples. 
