VENUS. 73 
The description in the ‘Museum Ulrice’ is so characteristic 
(the yellow teeth combined with the latticed sculpture), that 
the intended species (Venus corbis of Lamarck; Chemn. Conch. 
Cab. vol. vi. pl. 36, f. 382, 883) may be readily identified by its 
perusal. This is a fortunate circumstance, since not one of the 
engravings referred to as illustrative in the twelfth edition is a 
veritable representation of the shell in question: they are all 
orbicular, not subcordate as required, and are most of them 
erased as synonyms in the manuscript of our author. ‘ Gualt. 
t. 83, F” and “ List. t. 335, f. 172” are correctly cited in the 
copy of the younger Linné: the “cren.” for ‘“ margine crenato” 
in the father’s copy corrects the error of the ‘Museum Ulrice.’ 
Pens squanosa, 
Rumphius, pl. 44, f. M, accurately represents the Venus 
squamosa of authors (Chemn. Conch. Cab. vol. vi. pl. 31, f. 335), 
the features of which shell are in harmony with those specified 
in the too succinct description of the species, which may conse- 
quently be regarded as pictorially defined. 
The manuscript of Linneus, in whose collection I find 
nothing that will answer to the description of squamosa, fur- 
nishes us with the following additional details, which corro- 
borate the established identification :—‘ Testa supra vulvam 
producta, striis decussatis transversalibus submembranaceis re- 
curvis: margo crenulatus. Anus ovatus, ferrugineus, magnus. 
Vulva longa, clausa, albida, levis.” Our author has also cited 
“ Gualt. Test. t. 83, f. G,” a very rude engraving, which, never- 
theless, reminds us of the same species. 
Venus tigertwra. 
The V. tigerina appears twice in the twelfth edition of the 
‘Systema. Nor is this the only mistake. Our author has 
united two shells, which he had clearly distinguished in his 
tenth edition, where, likewise, he had appended correct localities. 
Although termed varieties by Lamarck, their differences are 
L 
