VENUS. Mh 
Venus Borealis, 
The Lucina radula of Lamarck (Donovy. Brit. Shells, vol. iv. 
pl. 180) is marked for this species in the Linnean collection, 
and still reposes in its ancient receptacle. ‘The specimen 
perfectly agrees with its description, the ridges being more 
distant than in most examples. The reference to Lister is 
rightly erased in the manuscript of the younger Linné; the 
engraving represents a nearly smooth shell, the Scrobicularia 
piperata of modern writers. “Int.” for “margine integerrimo” 
is added in the revised copy of the ‘ Systema.’ 
Venus pectinata, 
It requires a careful examination to separate the young of 
Circe gibbia from the more aberrant forms of Circe pectinata : 
far more difficult, if not wholly impracticable, does it prove to 
decide which of these two closely-allied species was, in each 
case, the original of the rude drawings referred to by our 
author. Were shape alone the criterion, the figures in Rum- 
phius, and one, at least, (EK) of Gualtier’s might be ascribed to 
the former; the execrable engraving of Argenville to the latter ; 
yet the equality and closeness of the ribbing as displayed in all 
but the last delineation, favours the supposition that they were 
intended for pectinata. Similarly the language of the ‘Museum 
Ulrice’ is more suggestive of gibbia in the details of form and 
sculpture, of pectinata in respect to the colouring and lanceo- 
lated lunule. These two shells are likewise mingled together 
in the Linnean collection, where the Circe divaricata of Chem- 
nitz (f. 316) is likewise present. The form of the latter, indeed, 
suits the “sublentiformi” of the diagnosis, but the expression 
“yamosa,’ as well as the details of the ‘Museum Ulrice’ ex- 
clude it. ‘‘ List. t. 312, 313” is added in the Linnean manu- 
script: both these figures are often quoted for pectinata proper, 
but the latter alone correctly represents it. Mérch, in one of 
his critical Sale-catalogues (Kierulf) pronounces its identity 
