š 
a 
f. 2, represents it. Montagu q 
- his description of M. preténuis, a "Shell which is not m 
k y vn the Family Osteodesmacea. T “139 
the same as M. declivis Penn. It seems, therefore, as 
if the evidence in favor of so E it was con- 
clusive. 
M. Deshayes, in his continuation of Lamarck, VI. p. ; 
83, has committed a slight mistake in giving Mya vw 
béscens Penn. Brit. Zool. as a synonym of T. pubés- 
cens. Mr. Pennant has no such shell, and it should 
1 read Mra declivis Penn. instead of as it now stands. 
Mr. V ‘ood, in his Gen. Conchology, pl. 18, fig. 3, has 
figured andes species (A. declivis, Turton) as the 
young of this shell, and to this Mr. Turton undoubtedly 
refers in his remarks on A. pubéscens, Brit. Biv. p. 45, 
when he says * we have been fortunate enough to pro- 
cure the intermediate sizes of this species, by which we 
are enabled to clear up all gtii with respect to 
the : young of the present shell and Mya declivis, 
Montagu. For Montagu re read Wood, 
as the former has no shell of though. x 1, 
this feud against 
cated posteriorly, as the figure is, and therefore must have 
been attached to it by mistake: Dr. Dillwyn, in his 
Descriptive Catalogue, vol. I. p. 43, cites Mya declivis, 
Donov., as a synonym of this species, and considers M. 
convéca, Wood, as merely a variety more convex than 
usual. He does not state whether he arrived at this. 
conclusion from a comparison of the shells tliémselves; a 
or from the general resemblance of the figures. I can- 
not but think, however, that his opinion must have 
arisen from thé Jáiiet,,. as, if he had ever seen the true 
M. convéza, he would not have failed to perceive that 
l it differed from Mr. Pennant's declivis not only È 
d. nj 
g 
* 
xs 
