DONAX. 59 
pubescens, Venus scortum,” to have been eventually ascertained 
by Linneus. Judging from the expression “glabra” in the 
tenth edition, and the reference to Argenville, whose figure, if 
meant for, and its outline is not unlike to, the present species, 
was clearly taken from an uncoated specimen, the original 
example was artificially polished. In the ‘Museum Ulrice’ 
the synonym of Gualtier was rightly omitted. , “ List. t. 877.— 
Pet. Gaz. 19, f. 11,” are cited in the Linnean manuscript. The 
locality ‘‘ America” is incorrect. It is common on the coast 
of Malabar. 
DMonax pubescens. 
Since the name of either this or the preceding must be 
abolished, and the latter, as the remarks on scortwm demon- 
strate, was most incorrectly defined in the tenth edition, where 
the former, on the contrary, though not illustrated by a re- 
ference to a figure, was fairly enough defined, it seems both 
just and expedient to retain pubescens, rather than the im- 
modest epithet of the more aged shell. . 
“Vulva plana; rima ovata” appears in the Linnean copy of 
the ‘Systema, where also “ Rumph. Mus. t. 43, fF” is cor- 
rectly cited. Both stages of growth are fully described in the 
‘Museum Ulrice.’ 
DOnax viiqgosa. 
The Donax rugosa (Knorr, Délices, pt. 6, pl. 28, f. 8) of 
authors is marked for this species in the Linnean cabinet, 
and accurately corresponds with the brief description in the 
‘Systema.’ The cited figure of Gualtier is so bad that it 
would be unsafe to pronounce what it was designed for: it was 
probably, however, the nearest approximation to the species 
which could then be indicated. “ Albido-radiata” and “rima 
ovata’ are added in manuscript to the diagnosis by Linnzus: 
“levis” is appended to it by his son. 
The description of D. rugosa in the ‘Museum Ulnicwx’ 
answers better to ringens. 
