68 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
in the text), which was not intended for this species: in his 
own copy of the ‘Systema’ he has added, however, ‘“‘ Pet. Gaz. 
t. 25, f. 8,” which figure gives an excellent idea of the ordinary 
beaked form of the shell in question. The specimen (Cytherea 
flexuosa of Lamarck) being much worn does not exhibit the 
characteristic rostration to any marked extent, which circum- 
stance accounts for the omission of that character in the 
description. There is a specimen in the cabinet of an allied 
species, V. macrodon (as in Delessert), marked for this species, 
but with the name purposely scratched through. 
Venus Brpeina. 
The illustrious Swede having recorded his possession of this 
shell, and there being only a single specimen (Chemn. Conch. 
Cab. vol. vi. pl. 32, f. 8337) in the whole of his collection which 
answers to the description, no reasonable doubt can be enter- 
tained of the typical authority of that individual. It is the 
Cytherea Erycina of authors: there is no allied species in the 
cabinet. “ List. ¢. 268,” which bears much resemblance to, even 
if not intended for, this shell, is cited in the revised copy of the 
‘Systema,’ where “ int.” for “ margine integerrimo”’ is likewise 
written. 
Venus mereewarta. 
The Venus mercenaria of most writers (Chemn. Conch. Cab. 
vol. x. pl. 171, f. 1659, 1660) is marked for this species in the 
Linnean collection. The correctness of the authenticated 
locality greatly assisted its early recognition. Lister (An. Angl.) 
represents a fossil shell of the size and with much the general 
aspect of this species. 
Plate 271, f. 107, of Lister’s ‘ Historie’ is correctly cited in 
the manuscript of the younger Linné: “cren.” for “ margine 
crenulato” is added in our author’s copy of the ‘Systema.’ 
The shell supposed to be it in the ‘ Fauna Suecica’ is referred 
to the next species by Loven: the description, however, was 
