NOTE ON THREE SPECIES OF PELECYPODS. 27 



Chemnitz's specimen was presented to him by the Messrs. Favanne de 

 Montcervelle who were not certain of its locality, but merely state that it was 

 given to them as having been collected on the coast of New Guinea This 

 I regard as altogether erroneous, and I have no doubt as to its being the 

 fossil shell. 



2.— Area pistaehia, Lamarck. 



Mr. Hedley (I.e. supra, p. 202) regards this species the same as A. radula 

 which I described in the Report upon the "Challenger" Lamellibranchiata, 

 but I cannot admit that he is the least justified in so doing on the grounds 

 stated by him. Lamarck's description is altogether inadequate for the de- 

 termination of any species, and he neither gave nor referred to any figure. 

 He described his shell as " ovata " and "exius grisea," characteristics which 

 certainly are not applicable to A. radula. Mr. Hedley also observes, — 

 " Lamarck's "intus fusco-nigricante; natibus proximis " are recognition-marks 

 which distinguish the species from Australian congeners." This, however, 

 is not true, for both A. fasciata, Reeve, and A. fus^ca^ Bruguiere have the 

 interior more or less dark coloured, and the umbones quite as close together 

 as they are in A. radula. Perhaps M. Lamy, who is studying the Arridcs, 

 may throw some light upon this subject, but at present I cannot see there 

 are any grounds for uniting the species in question. 



Mr. Limy does not quote A. 2nsf(irhia in his list of species preserved in 

 the Paris Museum with Lamarck's labels, but merely refers to Deshayes's 

 opinion that it differs little from A. fusca. 



Timor and King Lsland, the localities given by Lamarck, do not assist 

 us in the identification as they are in different seas on opposite sides of 

 Australia. 



3— Cardium bechei, Keeve. 

 This very fine Cardium was originally described by Reeve (Proc. Zool. Soc, 

 1847, P- 25), the description subsequently being reproduced in the Zoology 

 of the Samarang with the word "^y;e" substituted for "/" ; hence it is that 

 Adams and Reeve have generally been regarded as the joint authors of the 

 species. The original reference, however, has not been entirely overlooked, 

 as stated liy Mr. Hedley (I.e. p. 95), for l'r\oii in his catnlogut o( Cardiidaf^ 

 (Amer. Journ. Conch., vol. vii, p. 268) gives it correctly although he places 

 the authors' joint names after the species probably in deference to Reeve's 

 wisli tliat the species should stand under his own and Adams's name, for we 

 ( anuot suppose that he was unaware of having a year prc\iously described 

 the spe( ies when he reproduced the original description with the slight alter- 

 ation referred to. 



The two very fine specimens in the British Museum mentioned bv 

 Melvill :uu\ Standeii ( j. Liim. Soc. Zoo!., vol. xwii, p. 192) were received 

 from the Chinese ( "ourl of the International I'i.sheries Ivxhihilion of 1883. 

 They are (juite as large anil in as jjeriect eoiulilion as tlie .shell figured by 

 Dunker in his liule\ Moll. Maris Japonici, pi. xv, figs, i — 3. 



