238 anatinidtE. 



taken it at Oban; on the Ross Coast ; and at Lerwick. Mr. 

 M 'Andrew has taken it in sixty fathoms water, twenty 

 miles westwards from the Zetland Coast. It is taken 

 from sandy bays in the Orkneys (Thomas and Laing) ; the 

 Murray Firth (M' Andrew) ; and the Frith of Forth, 

 where it was noticed by Laskey. It ranges to the Nor- 

 wegian seas. It is not known in a fossil state. 



The only information we possess of the animal of this 

 interesting shell is derived from a note of Mr. Clark, who 

 describes it as closely resembling that of the several British 

 species of Thracia. Its foot is situated very anteriorly, 

 and similar in shape to that of its allies. The tubes appear 

 also to be similar, and the mantle closed to the same ex- 

 tent. " The branchice are completely similar, being com- 

 posed of one oblique lamina fastened dorsally and facing 

 ventrally, pectinated in a marked manner. There are two 

 small labia on each side the mouth. The branchial plate is 

 divided by an oblique furrow into two parts, the upper 

 being less in depth than the lower portion." — ClarJc MSS. 



Note. — It is with regret that we allude to a paper on the AnatinidcB by M. 

 Recluz, ill the " Revue Zoologique" for 1845 (p. 407), but his positive asser- 

 tions respecting the species of British Thraclm must not pass uncontradicted. 

 His erroneous impressions respecting them have arisen from his constant habit of 

 trusting to the language and figures of writers, without correcting his views bj^ 

 the personal examination of typical specimens. His declaring (p. 414) that the 

 name dcclivis originated from Donovan ; his boldly naming (p. 414) the Anaiina 

 distorta of Turton, Th. Turtofiiana, under the idea that that author had not 

 divined the Montaguiau species, which he states is identical with T/i. corhidoldes 

 of Kiener (he has likewise proposed the name Beatiiana for what he calls the 

 Thr. dedivis of Sowerby and of Thorpe ; we know not where the former was 

 published, the latter was figured from Mr. Hanley's cabinet, and is our phaseolina) 

 — his denial of an apical fissure to C. prceteime, &c. &c. have rendered us, perhaps 

 erroneously, adverse — from want of confidence in his statements — to that separa- 

 tion of prcetenite from CocModesma, as Ligula proper (the name retained to it 

 alone of the Thraviai Syndosmi/ce and Scrohicularia, confused together in that ill 

 constituted genus), which is urged by an author who displays a minute research 

 and a knowledge of our couchological literature which demands our liigh respect. 



