INDEX TO THE HISTORIA CONCHYLIORUM, 
17 
Tab. Fig. 
252. 86. 
253. 87. 
— 88 . 
254. 89- 
255. 90. 
256. 91. 
257. 92. 
— 93 . 
258. 94. 
259. 95. 
260. 96. 
261. 97. 
262. 98. 
263. 99 - 
264. 100. 
265. 101. 
266. 102. 
267. 103. 
268. 104. 
269. 105. 
270. 106. 
Venus tripla. 
Mactra truncata. In the Historia Animalium Angliae both the valves are figured, 
and Lister has here only copied one of them. Buonanni, in the Ricreatione, part 2. 
f. 51. and 54. has copied both valves; and Gmelin has quoted the former figure 
for Mactra solida, and from the other valve has most absurdly constituted a se¬ 
parate species, with the name of Venus rugata. 
Mactra Listeri of Gmelin; and this species in the Descriptive Catalogue has been 
confounded with the Mactra piperata of Poiret, to which it is very nearly 
allied: but Lamarck says they are distinet, and that the latter “est plus ap- 
“ platie et moins arrondie.” Dr. Turton has named the former shell Listera 
compressa, in honour, as he says, of “ the coryphaeus of all systematic concho- 
logybut the same tribute to the memory of Dr. Lister had long before been 
paid by Mr. Brown; and the name of Listera is in common use for a genus of 
the Orchideae. The specific name of Listeri was first given to this shell by 
Gmelin; and his description is taken entirely from the Historia Animalium 
Angliae, where both the valves are figured, although one of them only has been 
copied here. Buonanni, in his Ricreatione, part 2. f. 52. and 55. on the con- 
trary, has copied both valves; and Gmelin has quoted one of them jointly with 
fig. 51. for Mactra solida, and from the other valve his Venus gibbula has been 
wholly derived. 
Venus Pectunculus. 
Lister’s opinion has been adopted by Schroeter and Gmelin, that this is only a va- 
riety of the preceding species, fig. 89: but in Solanders MS. it has been quoted 
for Venus opima, which is a separate species, and is altogether different from 
the Venus opima of Gmelin. 
Venus Pectunculus : and the name thus retained was given by Gmelin to one of 
Schroetefs species, which was constituted entirely from this and the two fol- 
lowing figures. 
j- Yarieties of Venus Pectunculus. 
This shell is generally considered to be a variety of Venus castrensis, but has been 
arranged separately by Lamarck, with the name of Cytherea ornata. 
Is the Venus ornata of the Descriptive Catalogue: but the Cytherea ornata above 
mentioned is a different species, and this is the Cytherea picta of Lamarck. 
Venus edentula. 
Has been quoted by Born, Gmelin, and Lamarck for Venus concentrica, which it 
much resembles in an early stage of growth; but Lister describes it from the 
Mauritius, and it is therefore more likely to be either a bleached shell or white 
variety of Venus Histrio. 
Venus castrensis. 
Lamarck has twice mentioned this figure as probably belonging both to his Cy¬ 
therea albina and his Cytherea immaculata; and it has been quoted by 
Schroeter and Gmelin for Mactra rotundata, which is a very uncertain species. 
Lister has expressed a suspicion, that this may belong to the same species as fig. 
99; and it has therefore been quoted by Gmelin, with a mark of doubt, for a 
variety of Mactra rotundata, but it is more probably a variety of Tellina 
crassa. 
Tellina fausta. 
Is the Tellina Icevis of Wood: and it may be doubted whether this is more than 
a variety of Tellina Remies. 
Is most probably a variety of Tellina fausta, and has been quoted by Lamarck for 
his Tellina striatula. 
Vmus Erycina. 
Probably, on account of its being marked on the authority of Mr. Llwyd for an 
English species, this figure has been generally quoted for Venus Chione, but it 
is more like Venus exalbida, of which Lamarck says “ sans etre fossile, en a 
“ 1’apparence.” Dr. Turton considered it to be a fossil of the former species: but 
if a fossil, it is more likely to be the Venus angulata of Sowerby. 
Venus maculata. 
E 
