YENERID.E. 113 



only other British species that has been handed over to 

 Artemis. 



The genus Pullastra of Sowerby is maintained, though 

 M. Deshayes says that the differences between it and Venus 

 are still less than in Cytherea. We do not concur in this 

 opinion, as that eminent naturalist hat, overlooked the byssal 

 groove, which essential character, with the general aspect of 

 the group, throwing in as a make-weight the slenderness and 

 parallelism of the teeth, have determined us to adopt it as 

 sufficiently well based on organization. 



The animals of this family are so extremely similar, that 

 we call in aid their shell-specialties to assist in constituting 

 sections, to facilitate a divisional arrangement for easy identi- 

 fication. The first section comprises the typical Veneres, 

 which have three strong teeth in each valve ; the second sec- 

 tion contains those with four teeth in one valve and three in 

 the other, with a hollow or pit as the receptacle of the isolated 

 tooth ; these are those which authors have deposited in Cy- 

 therea and Artemis. 



The hard parts of all the species are of very strong and 

 compact texture; their shape is either orbicular tumid and 

 lentiform, or a more or less elongated oval; all have deep 

 siphonal cicatrices, and none have lateral teeth, unless the 

 isolated one of the second section be considered a vestige of 

 one. The animal of Venus has no byssal groove, but I be- 

 lieve that of Pullastra has always that appendage. But these 

 remarks need not be extended, as it will be seen by the 

 specialty descriptions that there are few peculiarities in this 

 old aristocratic family, in which there is little more to do than 

 to ring the changes on trivial points. 



As I have mentioned the terms Venerida and Cytherea, 

 and in another place the genera Solenicurtus and Venerirupis, 

 it may not be improper to make a few remarks on the incor- 

 rect Latinization of nomenclatural appellations. This essen- 

 tial appendage of natural history is admitted by all not to be 

 in a satisfactory position, and I will not go beyond the present 

 pages to demonstrate the truth of these opinions. It is the 

 custom of authors to write Venerupis for Venerirupis, Sole- 



i 



