76 Reviews—Cossmann’s Shells of the Paris Basin. 
is a reprehensible one; it is satisfactory, however, to note that the 
changes due to this are exceedingly few and comparatively unim- 
portant in the work under review. The greater number of genera 
have been divided into sections, or sub-genera. The value of such 
a classification is very manifest to workers in those groups containing 
large numbers of species, and is certainly a more convenient method 
than by elevating the sub-genera into genera, whereby the original 
generic name is not infrequently lost sight of. 
In fascicule I. we note that a new genus Fabagella is proposed for 
the original Corbula faba of Deshayes, who in his “Supplement ” 
had referred it to the genus Poromya, which M. Cossmann states is 
not found in the Paris Basin. He elevates Arcopagia, which is con- 
sidered by many authors to be merely a sub-genus of Tellina, into 
a genus, principally because of the special characters exhibited by 
the sinus and general shape of the shell. Venus conformis, Desh., 
forms the type of the new genus Atopodontu, being separated from 
Venus properly so-called, on account of the particular disposition of 
the hinge, and absence of a sinus. Following other authors, M. 
Cossmann substitutes the name Meretria for Cytherea by reason of 
the priority of the former; similarly, Spherium takes the place of 
Cyclas; and Trapezium that of Cypricardia. Of all the species 
of Cardium found in the Paris Basin, only one, Cardium Bazini, is 
referred to the typical form of the genus. 
Fascicule II. continues the description of the Pelecypoda. We 
notice that Fimbria is replaced by Corbis, the former designation 
having been used by Bohadsch in 1761 for a nudibranch, but as 
the date mentioned is prior to the appearance of the 12th edition 
of the “Systema Nature,’ we should prefer to retain Fimbria of 
Mégerle, and cite Corbis in the synonymy. Cyclas, Klein, 1753 
(Stoliczka, 1870), is retained by M. Cossmann as a section of Lucina, 
but, as we have seen, the name Cyclas, Brug. 1792 (used for a very 
different Pelecypod) falls in synonymy under Spherium; the genus 
having been used by Bruguiére and others. Stoliczka was not 
justified, from our point of view, in bringing on the Cyclas of Klein, 
and we are disposed to adopt Divaricella, proposed by von Martens 
in 1880 for this genus. The resuscitation of pre-Linnean authors’ 
works also leads our author to displace the well-known Lima, Brug., 
by Radula, Rhumphius, 1711; Klein, 1753. J. Sowerby’s Axinus, 
1821, is adopted, but the name having been used by Kirby in 1817 
it cannot be retained, and moreover is synonymous with Thyasira, 
Leach (fide, Lam. 1818); in case the last-mentioned should be 
considered as identical with Thyatira, Hibner, 1816 (as by M. 
Cossmann), Awinus should apparently be replaced by Cryptodon, 
Turton, 1822, or by (?) Pétychina, Phil., 1836. Our author does not 
accept Monterosato’s genus Neolepton, 1884, but includes it in Lepton ; 
he does not agree that the oblique shells striated concentrically, on 
which the former genus was founded, can be generically differentiated 
from Lepton. The diagnosis of Hrycina is amended in accordance 
with the typical species; this had been rendered necessary on the 
removal of certain forms which were shown not to belong to the genus. 
