VENUS. 71 
The referred-to engraving of Gualtier can only be regarded 
as an approximation to a species of which I know no character- 
istic representation, and of which I could find no second 
example even in the magnificent collection of Mr. Cuming. 
Vewus castrensts, 
The Cytherea castrensis of authors (Chemn. Conch. Cab. 
vol. vi. pl. 35, f. 870) is marked for this species in the Linnean 
cabinet. The synonymy (although marred by one or two mis- 
quotations, as pt. 2 instead of pt. 3 of Bonanni, pl. 42 instead 
of 43 of Rumphius, and vol. u. instead of i. of Regenfuss) 
is essentially correct. Figure 4 of the last-mentioned work 
(pl. 1) must, however, be excluded. Linnzus has also cited 
“ List. 287” in his manuscript. 
Pewus BHprpue, 
Our author did not possess this species, which originally 
appeared as forming a portion of the ‘Museum Ulrice.’ I 
find, however, no species thus designated in that work, nor any 
to which the meagre description can be referred with plausi- 
bility. The citation of “ M. U.” is omitted in the final edition 
of the ‘ Systema.’ 
It is not impossible that the V. Phryne was founded upon 
one of the many semistriated species allied to the preceding, or 
that Solander was correct in referring it to V. flexuosa as a 
variety (macrodon ?), yet, as the brief description is applicable 
to half-a-dozen shells at the least, it is far better to exclude so 
inadequately defined a species from our catalogues. 
Venus Meroe. 
The Cytherea Meroé of most writers, Meroé picta of Schu- 
macher (Chemn. Conch. Cab. vol. vii. pl. 43, f. 450, 451, 452), 
is marked for this species in the Linnean cabinet. 
