454 SPECIES OF THE MANTISSA. 
for the species. There is no reason, however, to question the 
correctness of the identification. 
VENUS RUGOSA was so briefly characterised that even its 
generic position can only be guessed at: the plicated margin 
and thick subcylindrical radiating ribs remind one of the 
ordinary features of a Cardita; the members of that genus, 
however, have been located in Chama by Linneus. Gmelin 
has supposed it to be the Venus rigida! Dillwyn has quoted 
it for a young V. verrucosa. 
VeENus TRIPLA follows castrensis in the revised ‘Systema,’ 
and has been generally recognised as the Cytherea tripla 
(Sow. Thes. Conch. uu. pl. 128, f. 19) of the Lamarckian 
arrangement. 
Venus succtinora follows Erycina in the revised ‘ Systema.’ 
Its meagre description would apply to half a dozen known 
species of Veneride, and must consequently be pronounced 
insufficient for the purposes of definition. I am not aware 
that any writer has positively identified it: the V. succincta 
of Valenciennes (Zool. Humb.) was evidently different. The 
characters remind one of an Astarte or of a Meroe such as 
effossa. Bb lg 
VENUS TUMIDULA was possibly a Lucina, for it has been 
placed between incrustata and punctata in the revised ‘ Systema.’ 
It was too ill defined for recognition. 
VENUS comprREssA, as Dillwyn has remarked, has not been 
successfully identified. The unillustrated description is ap- 
plicable to more than one shell, and amongst others to a 
nearly mature specimen of Astarte elliptica. 
CuHAMA RUGOSA has been referred by Solander to Cardita 
Ajar, which, however, is not furnished with the specified 
number of ribs: it is more likely that it was identical with 
the fossil Venericardia imbricata (Enc. Méth. Vers, pl. 274, 
f. 4). In the revised ‘Systema’ it preceded antiquata. 
CuaMA GRyPHICA followed bicornis in the revised ‘ Systema.’ 
There is a large fossil Chama, inscribed gryphita, in the 
Linnean cabinet, which perfectly agrees with the description, 
and was, I doubt not, the original type. It has been de- 
lineated in the fifth plate (f.11) of the present work, but has 
been reduced in size. 
SPONDYLUS ANTIQUATUS. I am not aware that this little 
