VENUS. 65 
Among the shells erroneously introduced into the synonymy 
of the twelfth edition (and on afterthought wisely rejected) were 
Venus cancellata (List. t. 278, f. 115) and V. rigida? (List. 
f. 123): “Gualt. t. 88, f. D” (V. calophylla? the thiara of 
Reeve, not Chemn.) was likewise quoted for one of the 
numerous supposed varieties in the ‘Museum Ulrice.’ 
Venus berrucosa. 
The Venus verrucosa of most writers (Crouch, Introd. Lam. 
Conch. pl. 7, f. 6) still remains in the marked receptacle of this 
species in the Linnean cabinet. Our author, in his manuscript, 
has correctly transferred the erroneous references of the last 
species, “ Pet. Gaz. t. 93, f. 17,” and “ List. t. 284 (f. 122),” to 
the present one, and added “ Mediterranea” and “ lab(ia) trun- 
cata” to his former details. The “11” of the reference to 
Gualtier (whose drawing, though not accurate, and possibly, 
indeed, not meant for this shell, exhibits somewhat of its 
general aspect) is a misprint for H. Plate 54, fig. 48, of the 
fourth volume of Pennant’s ‘ British Zoology’ is also quoted in 
the manuscript of the younger Linné. 
Penns casina. 
To the very brief description of this species “ Lab(ia) trun- 
cata” is the only addition in our author’s MS. Neither does 
his collection enlighten us to any great extent; for “pone 
anum canaliculato”’ cannot strictly be applied to any of the 
Veneres, and more than one shell will equally answer to the 
other scanty requirements of the unillustrated diagnosis. A 
fossil specimen of the V. casina of authors (Trans. Lin. Soe. 
vol. viii. pl. 2, f. 1) is, however, present in the cabinet, which 
corroborates in some slight degree the traditional identifi- 
cation. 
