214 



ON DOSINIA LUCINALIS (LAMK.) AND ITS SYNONYMS. 

 By A. J. Jokes-Browne, F.R.S., F.G.S. 



Read 10th May, 1912. 



This species was first described by Lamarck in 1818 (Anitn. sans Vert., 

 vol. V, p. 572) under the name of Ci/therea liicmalis, and it was 

 figured by Delessert in 1841 {Recueil CoquilUs, Lamk., pi. ix, 

 figs. 2«-c). Still later a specimen, but apparently not the type 

 as figured by Delessert, was represented in Chenu's I Ihistrationn 

 Co7ichyliolog iques (vol. ii, pi. x, figs. o-Zh). None of the later writers, 

 liowever, such as Hanley, Pliilippi, Sowerby, lleeve, or lliimcr, 

 seem to have seen a specimen which they could identify with 

 Lamarck's shell. 



Hanley in his Catalogue of Recent Bicalve Shells, p. 101, published 

 in 1843, gave a translation of Lamarck's description, with the 

 additional statement that it was ornamented with " minute uninter- 

 rupted h^ngitudinal lineoles". This lie probably inferred from 

 Delessert's figure, a copy of which he gave in liis pi. xiii, fig. 30. 

 Riimer, writing in 1862, remarks that apart from tliese figures and 

 the short description given by Lamarck " the species is quite unknown 

 and seems only to exist in Lamarck's collection ". 



Meantime, however, G. B. Sowerby, in his Thesaurus Conch/lioriim 

 of 1852 (vol. ii, p. 673, pi. cxliv, figs. 71, 84), described a shell under 

 the name of Artemis striatissima, which he believed to be a new 

 species, and certainly he could hardly have identified it with luchialis, 

 because Lamarck said nothing about radiating striae, and his type 

 had a reddish tint on the umbonal region, whereas Sowerby's shell 

 was white. 



Recently a shell came into my possession which agreed so nearly 

 with the description and figure given in Hanley's Catalogue that 

 I thought it must be a specimen of D. lucinalis, in spite of its being 

 white with only a yellowish tint on the disc. The only way to 

 settle tlie matter was to liave it compared with the type in the 

 Geneva Museum of Natural History. Dr. E. F. Weber of that 

 Museum having kindly consented to make the comparison, the shell 

 was forwarded to him, and in returning it he writes: " c'est bien 

 Dosinia lucinalis (Lamk.), cependant il est a remarquer que dans votre 

 €xemplaire le sinus pal leal est plus large, plus obtus que dans le 

 type, et que la coloration interne de I'individu de Lamarck est d'un 

 brun fonce." 



On reporting this result to Mr. E. A. Smith, he drew my attention 

 to the fact that the white D. striatissima of Sowerby must be very 

 similar to my specimen of D. lucinalis., since both have a sculpture of 

 radiating striae and a similar wing-like elevation of the escutcheon 

 area. The shell was therefore sent to Mr. Smith for comparison 

 with Sowerby's type in the British Museum, and he writes "your 

 specimen is so exactly like the type of D. striatissima that if I got 

 them mixed I should not be able to sav which was which ". 



