18 EOCENE MOLLUSCA. 
numerous shells united under the name of Belovacina in the lower London Tertiaries 
belonged to more than one species. I had hoped to have been able to assign to these their 
respective localities, of which not less than twenty are recorded; Mr. Prestwich fears 
that, without a re-examination of the ground, this cannot be satisfactorily done. 
The costee in the wpper valve of our shell are visible in most of the specimens found at 
Woolwich ; these may also be observed in some from Beauvais, although in the generality of 
specimens from this latter locality they are obsolete. Tab. VII, fig. 3, 4, has the upper 
valve quite free from these radiations, while in Tab. VI, fig. 3, c, another specimen from 
the same locality, they are very distinct. Differences quite as great, or even greater, may be 
observed in specimens of O. edulis. M. Hebert considers the shell from Kleyn-Spauwen, 
figured under this name, to be a different species, and says (Bull. de la Soc. Géol., 1848-9, 
p. 469, No. 7) that he has examined only the upper valve, and that this presents sufficient 
differences to entitle it to be specifically removed from Be//ovacina ; having seen only 
one valve, he refrains from giving it a new name. ‘The shell represented by M. Nyst has 
distinct radiations upon the upper valve, but the muscle-mark seems rather more rounded 
than in the British fossil, which is reniform and somewhat pointed; the same may be said 
of the figure of the muscle-mark given by M. Deshayes from the Paris Basin; in a 
specimen I have from Beauvais, the muscle-mark precisely resembles those in the 
Woolwich specimens. I believe them to be the same species. 
Philippi introduces this name as a fossil from Palermo, but he gives no figure, only a 
description, and this so short that it might be adapted to other species. In the Museum 
of the Geological Society is a specimen from Gibraltar much resembling our shell, but I 
think it is distinct ; it has rather larger radiations, and these are more foliaceous. Sir 
Charles Lyell gives the name of Bellovacina to an Ostrea found in limestone at the 
“ Grove,” about seventeen miles north of Charleston, in South Carolina, ‘ Proc. Geol. 
Soc. Lond.,’ February, 1845, p. 567, and T have seen a specimen, in Sir Charles’s cabinet, 
from Virginia (without a name), which, in some characters, resembles O. pulchra ; I can 
scarcely think it strictly identical either with it or with Be//ovacina. 
A, Ostrua caLiirEera, Lamarck. ‘Tab. V, fig. 1, a, d. 
OstREA CALLIFERA. Zam. Hist. des An. sans Vert., t. vi, p. 218, No. 19, 1822. 
_ — Desh. Coq. Foss. des Envy. de Par., t. 1, p. 399, pl. 50, fig. 1; and 
pl. 51, figs. 1, 2, 1824—37. 
—_ — Id. An. sans Vert. du Bassin de Par., t. 1, p. 110, 1860. 
— — Goldf. Pet. Germ., vol. ii, p. 27, No. 71, pl. 83, fig. 2, d—f, 1833. 
_ — ? WNyst. Coq. Foss. de Belg., p. 317, pl. 29, fig. 1, a, 1843. 
— —_ Bronn. Lethea Geogn., t. 39, fig. 14, 1836. 
— — Forbes. Mem. Geol. Sury., 1856, pp. 46—143, pl. 1, figs. 5, 5, @. 
—  urprorus? Lam. Loc. cit. sup.,t.vili, p. 159, No. 2, 1806 (non Aippopus recens). 
Spee. Char. O. testa ovatd, hine prope basim callo crasso subauritd ; valod majore 
