~ 
+ 
Zä 
i38 = Couthow’s Monogfliph on 
specimen of pubéscens in the Portland cabinet, from 
which Mr. Pe is said to have originally described his 
M. declivis, is now before us, and we have the satis- 
. faction to de laré that it is actually our pubescens: 
^ Mya declivis of Donovan is Mr. Wood's ‘Mya convéza, a 
very different shell, and which, from their having no 
description of it, we may conclude neither Maton and 
Rackett, nor Mr. Montagu had seen, but Num a " 
the figure of Mr. Donovan and the name gi by 
him, that it was the declivis of Pennant or a variety, 
and accordingly gave it a place in their synonymy. It 
has been questioned by some, whether A. myális Lam. 
was really this species, but I apprehend a careful ex- 
amination will leave no doubt of the fact. The « de- 
scription of that author is applicable in every paint; 
unless we object to the term ventricosa. But this is 
often very loosely applied, and if it were not, is not 
very far from the truth in this particular instance, one 
valve at least, (the right) being as ventricose as in the 
majority of species to which that term is given. Ek 
should also be borne in mind that Lamarck's gpecimen 
of A. myàlis was received from Dr. : and there- 
fore in all likelihood, the synonyms were also received 
from him. As confirmation of this, we may notice 
that M. Deshayes, in his Article Turacta, Encyc. 
. Meth., states that he had in eontemplation the estab- 
lishment of a genus with the same characters, when he 
saw in the collection of M. Br ugniart, a specimen of 
A. myülis, also received from Dr. Leach, labelled 
by him as Turacra pubéscens. -M de Blainville also, 
although in error as to his specim ing the true A. 
aas seems never to have doubted that shell to be 
