VENUS. 
sl 
oS 
Venus Pennrsvplbantea, 
The numerals 139, which indicate the succeeding species, are 
written upon a Lucina in the Linnean collection, which perfectly 
agrees with the definition of this shell. This is clearly a slip 
of the pen for 138, for our author did not possess the in- 
crustata, and the characters of the specimen are not agreeable 
to those attributed to the latter. The example referred to is a 
worn specimen of the Lucina Pennsylvanica of authors (Chemn. 
Conch. pl. 37, f. 394), and is therefore confirmatory of the 
received opinion. ‘The species first appeared in the tenth 
edition of the ‘Systema,’ and, although too briefly defined, was 
recognised by the rude yet harmonising figure of Argenville. 
The violet-edged shell subsequently distinguished as V. Penn- 
sylvanica in the ‘Museum Ulrice’ is of course distinct (a 
Cyrena ?). 
wenus twerustata, 
Our author did not himself possess this shell, at least he has 
not recorded it as forming part of his collection. The specimen 
in the ‘Museum Ulrice’ was referred to as typical, even in the 
earlier edition of the ‘Systema.’ 
The surmise is not an improbable one, that the species was 
constituted from a diseased and polished Zucina of the tigerina 
group (perhaps of the next species), but no positive certainty 
can be attained to, without examination of the type in the 
Dronningen Museum. 
Venus punctata, 
Our author has not recorded his possession of this species. 
The reference to Rumphius was clearly a typographical error, 
the same figure having been quoted previously by our author 
for another species: moreover, neither the G of plate 42, nor of 
