LINNEAN SPECIES OF BRITISH NON-MARINE MOLLUSCA. 215 



Lister's "Anim. Angl., pi. ii. f. 30," rather suggests tumidus. Retzius, 

 however, as next reviser separated the two species on lines ever since followed 

 and no objection has ever been raised to his decision. It is commonly 

 overlooked, however, that the name Unio was Limie's own, as Retzius 

 acknowledges, its characters having been communicated to him by Linne's 

 pupil Acharius. 



*Margaritana (Mya, L.) margaritifera (1). 



No uncertainty has ever existed concerning the identification of this well- 

 known species, supported as it is by Lister's figure (Anim. Anyl. append., 

 pi. i. f. 1). 



*Anodoxta (Mytilus, L.) cy-gnea (1). 



Of the two species now once more recognized as valid, the inscribed and 

 numbered specimen in the collection with the figures cited (Li.-ter angl. app. 

 t. 1. f. 3 and Gualtieri t. 7. f. F, the latter written against by Linne himself 

 in his copy of the work) quite establish its identity. 



The further quotation of Lister " conch, t. 193. f. 8 " in the 10th edition 

 of the ' Systema ' (p. 706) should, as Hanley remarks, be " 153," but both 

 Linne and Hanley overlooked the fact that the figure in question is a 

 reprint of Lister's Anim. Angl. append., pi. 1. f. 2 adduced by Linne in 

 illustration of his anatinus. This same figure copied by Klein (Ostr. t. 9. 

 f. 26) is correctly cited by Gmelin under anatinus. 



The correct reference to Lister's Conch, should have been " 156 " which 

 is the copy of the "app. t. 1. f. 3." 



*Anodonta (Mytilus, L.) anatina. 



Lister's figure (Anim. Angl. append., pi. i. f. 2) originally cited in the 

 first edition of the ' Fauna Svecica,' with the enlarged description in the 

 'Systema' (10th ed., p. 706, no. 219) and in the second edition of the 

 'Fauna Svecica' (No. 2158) convince us that the customary identification 

 of this species is correct. The figure in Gualtieri added in the 12tli edition 

 of the 'Systema' may or may not have been intended for a Unio, but lacks 

 any hinge-teeth. This may have caused Linne to include it and possibly may 

 account for his puzzling observation in (he 10th edition of the 'Systema' — 

 " similis Mya? pictorum, sod fragilior & cardine distinctissimus." 



We do not agree with Hanley that Lister's " f . 2" shows "an ordinary 

 example of the Anodontd cygnea," nor with his selection of the specimen 

 figured by him in illustration, which, as the umbonal rugae show, belongs to 

 the genus Pseudanodonta, Of. P. qrateloupiana (Gassies) or P. normandi 

 (Dupuy). It is only fair to add, however, that this genus had not in his 

 days been separated off from Anodonta. 



*SrH,£RIUM (Tellina, L.) corneiim. 



Happily, though we were unable to trace the specimen in the collection, 

 this is another of the undisputed species and calls for no comment. 



