O4 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
‘Systema,’ where, also, “List. t. 279” is annexed to the 
synonymy. The Portuguese locality, to say the least, requires 
confirmation. 
Venus HMlavtea. 
Our author having declared his possession of this species, as 
one shell, and one alone in the entire collection will agree 
with the specified characteristics, no doubt can be entertained 
of the typical authority of that specimen. It is, as might 
be expected, the well-known Venus Marica of conchological 
writers (Encycl. Méth. Vers, pl. 275, f.2), who easily recognised 
it from its peculiar style of lamellation. The “cren.” (for 
margine crenato) that is added in the manuscript corrects the 
error of the ‘Museum Ulrice.’ 
Venus Dysevra, 
The illustrious Swede had included so many essentially 
distinct shells as varieties of his Dysera, that upon the neces- 
sary dismemberment of the species not a single one was left in 
possession of the original name. 
Linneus, in the twelfth edition of his ‘ Systema,’ had 
elevated the variety 6 of the earlier edition (the var. z of the 
M. U.) to the rank of a species (Paphia), and in his own copy 
of that work he has likewise expunged all the other references 
except Klein and the figures K and Q of Argenville. The first 
of these three, being a mere copy of the erased figure of Lister, 
is virtually repudiated likewise; and the figure Q of Argenyille 
represents the succeeding species. Hence a single drawing 
(Arg. pl. 24, f. K), which, although rude, is manifestly intended 
for the Venus plicata of authors, instead of many discordant 
references, illustrates the intended species, and that engraving, 
moreover, is the one cited in both editions as the typical form 
of Dysera.* 
* Since writing the above, I perceive with pleasure that Morch (Cat. Yoldi) 
has arrived at a similar conclusion. 
