RHYNCHONELLID A. 169 
breviort, lacunosa, apice quadridentata. Mus. Tess., tab. v, fig. 6; Lister, ‘ Angl.,’ 249, 
tab. ix, fig. 57; Grew, ‘ Mus.,’ tab. xix, fig. 6: fossilis.’ This description is obscure, 
for many species of Rhynchonella have their shell roundish, with numerous grooves, 
and the remainder of the diagnosis cannot be easily understood. Linné, however, 
gives us three references for figures; but these in no way assist us in clearing up 
the difficulty, for it is certain that these three figures refer to totally different species! 
The first reference is to pl. v, fig. 6, of the ‘Museeum Tessinianum;’ and although it 
would be difficult to positively identify any species from such unsatisfactory drawings 
(see our Pl]. XXIII, fig. 15.4, B), it would be still more difficult to refer to it the shell 
under description. The description in the ‘Museum Tessinianum’ is, however, some- 
what more explicit,’ but by no means implies that the shell we now term Rhynchonella 
Wilsont was Linné’s Anomia lacunosa2 The second reference to pl. ix, fig. 57, of 
Lister’s ‘ Historia Animalium Anglize’ (1678) is quite a mistake, as any tyro would at 
once perceive by a glance at the figure we have also reproduced from that work (PI. XXIII, 
fig. 17). This last, according to Lister, would be a Carboniferous shell, and is stated to occur 
near Gunnerley, in Lincolnshire, and in the lead-bearing rock of Derbyshire and Yorkshire. 
The reference to Grew’s curious old book, ‘Museum Regalis Societatis,’ published in 
1681, is stranger still, for the Rhynchonella therein figured (see our Pl. XXIIT, fig. 16) 
is as different from that of Lister as it is from Linneus’s own represented in the 
‘Museeum Tessinianum.’ It is therefore not surprising that James Sowerby, in 1816, did 
not recognise the Linnean species while describing his Zerebratula Wilsoni ; and as no 
other person could possibly have done so, who had not been able to consult the Tes- 
sinian collection where the type of 4. /acunosa is preserved, it naturally follows that 
Sowerby was justified in giving the name /i/soni to his well described and figured 
species. It will also be seen from a glance at the list of synonyms and references that, 
with the exception of Wahlenberg, Hisinger, and Dalman, almost every paleontologist 
has made use of the Sowerbyan designation of Wi/sont. In 1821, it is true, Wahlenberg 
describes Anomites lacunosus by the following few words :—“ plicatus globosus, in sola 
Gothlandia lectus ;’ and Dalman, in 1827, described at some length, and gave recog- 
nisable figures (see our Pl. XXIII, fig. 18) of Sowerby’s 7. Wilsoni, as the Anomia 
lacunosa of Wahlenberg; but strangely he does not refer to Linné, though he mentions 
T. Wilsoni of Sowerby as being a synonym! Hisinger, in 1837, reproduces Dalman’s 
views; and, as I stated above, it is very possible that 4. /acunosa of Linné and 
T. Wilsont may be synonymous, but of this there is not positive proof. At p. 128 of 
his ‘Ipsa Linnei Conchylia,’ however, Mr. Hanley informs us that in the Linnean 
1 «Museeum Tessinianum,’ p. 88 :—a. ‘‘ Anomia subglobosa, postice dupliciter striata, tab. v, fig. 6 :— 
Testa versus umbones striis 16, antice vero 8. Valvula superior antice valde emarginata dentibus duobus, 
ad latere vero utrinque dentibus duobus. Valvula inferior tribus, ad latere vero utrinque dentibus duobus.”’ 
2 Prof. M‘Coy and some other palzeontologists would, however, refer quite another species, namely, the 
T. borealis of Schlotheim and von Buch, to the A. lacunosa of Linneus. 
22 
