162 CEETAOEOUS PELEOYPODA 



through the kindness of Dr. Bosquet. The lunular tooth in the right and the corresponding pit in 

 the left valve are very distinct. In the latter the two anterior cardinals are very close together^ as in 

 Cyprvmena ; the posterior is also deeply grooved ; in the right the middle cardinal is by far the 

 thickest ; the two others thin^ and especially so the posterior ; the pallial sinus is deep_, somewhat 

 asceading and sharply angular at the end ; the convexity of the shell is slightly greater than could 

 be supposed from Groldf uss^ figure. 



58. — F. sul-faba^ d^Orb. {V. faha, Goldf.). Goldfuss^ figure represents a shell slightly more 

 attenuated posteriorly than that figured by Sowerby^ but I do not know whether there is sufficient 

 reason for a specific distinction. Sowerby^s faha, I suspect^ is a Cyprimeria. V. fahacea of 

 Romer which Miiller identifies with it is, however, evidently quite a different shell. 



59, — V. elliptica, Romer. If it be the same as, or allied to, V, fragilis, d''Orb., it belongs to 

 the new genus Baroda. 



60. — V. GMdfussi, Gein., (V. parva, Goldf. = V, stih-parva, d''Orb.). Goldf uss^ figure 

 resembles a cast of Miiller^s V. tumidaj which is a small Caryatis^ but Geinitz^ representations and 

 descriptions (Char. p. 76, pi. xx, figs. ^-1^ would rather indicate an EripJiyla with an excavated 

 lunula. 



61-63. — V. hmarlcay parallela, and giblosa of Miinster are all doubtful; the first could belong 

 to Eripliyla and the third to CytJierea. Schaf hseutl, (Siid-Bayerns Leth. Geog., 1863, p. 170, pi. xliii, 

 fig. 7,) calls a cast specimen V, giblosa, Munst. ; it certainly very little agrees with the original 

 figure in Goldf us s^ ^^ Petrsef. Germanise,'''' and may be a different shell altogether. 



64. — y^ suh-decussata, Romer. Judging from external appearance only, no reasonable objection 

 could be raised as to this species belonging to the sub -genus Amygdala of Tapes, but Nuculce 

 when devoid of the upper layer of the shell often show similar radiating ribbings or strise. 



55. — Y, concentrica, Rom., (V. suh-concentrica, d^Orb.) ; this could be a Cyprimeria. 



66. — V. lata, Rom., most likely a Cytherea, or perhaps belonging to the sub-genus Mercenaria. 



67. — V. fahacea, Rom. Miiller, as already stated, and apparently also Bosquet, unite this 

 with d^Orbigny^s V. sul-fala (fala, Goldf.). 



68. — y. laminosa, Rss., (siih-laminosa, d^Orb.,)' appears to be an Eripliyla, if it be not 

 a Lucina, 



69. — y, (Cytherea) elongata, Rss., (suh-elongata, d^Orb.), has, if not by accidental pressure, 

 a peculiar form which greatly recalls some recent species of Tapes. 



70. — y, tumida, Miill. The right valve of which I have examined the hinge shows that the 

 species is most probably a Cyprimeria. There are two widely diverging bifid teeth pretty distinctly 

 visible. The shell is generally more uniformly convex than shown inMiiller^s figures. 



71. — yenus? exuta, Nillson, (Petrif. Suecana, &c., 1827, p. 17, pi. iii, fig. 16). I do not 

 know a single species of Veneridje with which this shell could be compared. It is oblong, 

 inequilateral, with pointed beaks, with a few concentric striae and numerous fine radiating ribs 

 on the posterior side. It could be a species of Psammocola, or Psammobella, or perhaps a Linearia 

 of the Tellinidm, but I do not know any others, unless the shell is referable to Anatina or 

 Thracia. Nillson apparently makes it the type of his yenulithes, under which name he means 

 to include the cretaceous representants of Linnets Venus. 



72. — V. Matheroni, Zitt., is a species of Cytherea, \>Q\ongviig io the section which Conrad 

 called Dosiniopsis (see p. 151). 



73-74. — Cytherea Hornesi and polymorpha, Zittel, belong to the sub-genus Caryatis. 



75-76. — Venus prifu^eva, (Cyclina id,, Zittel), and V. cretacea (Boslnia id. Zittel), belong to 

 Cyprimeria. 



77. — y^ eximia, (Tapes id,, Zittel,) is a typical sj)ecies of the new genus Baroda, 



