INDEX TO THE HISTORIA CONCHYLIORUM. 
20 
Tab. Fig. 
344. 181. 
345. 182. 
346. 183. 
347. 184. 
— 185. 
348. 186, 
34,9. 187. 
350. 188, 
351. 189 
352. I 89 , 
353. 190 
354. 191 
355. 192 
to me to have been intended for a shell which in the Descriptive Catalogue has 
been confounded with Cham a Ajar, and which Lamarck has separated with the 
name of Cardita turgida. 
Chama trapezia; and Gmelin has erroneously followed Schroeter in describing 
this figure as a separate species, with the name of Venus cancellata. 
Gmelin has followed Schroeter, and constituted his Venus Bengalensis from this 
figure; but it is more likely to be a Chama. 
Though not well executed, it probably belongs to Chama antiquata, and has been 
quoted for that species by Bruguiere and Lamarck. Klein’s 1 .10 . f.41. is a copy; 
and from these two figures the Venus No. 53. of Schroeter’s Einleitung, and the 
Venus rostrata of Gmelin, have been constituted. 
Chama calyculata. 
Chama Pectunculus. 
Dr. Solander has given this reference for his Venus costata, and he must thereby 
have intended the uppermost of the two figures; for the lowermost is different, 
and has all the appearance of a Chama. The Venus costata of Solander is how¬ 
ever quite different from either of the two species which have been described by 
Gmelin and Chemnitz with the same name. 
V Chama Hippopus; and the latter has either been engraved from Buonanni, Ri- 
j creatione, part 2. fig. 81 or they have both been copied from the same figure 
in some other work. /Sj 
l Chama Gigas; and the former is a copy from Buonanni, part 2. f. 53. 
b. ) 
This shell has been generally considered to be a variety of Chama, Gigas; but has 
been separated by Lamarck, and it is his Tridacna crocea. 
A variety of Chama Gigas. This figure has been copied by Lister from Columna, 
“ Observationes,” p. 12; and again from Lister by Klein, t. 10. f. 53. 
Though rather a bad figure, it has been certainly intended for Chama arcinella; 
and is nothing like Ostrea Lima , which name it has received from Dr. Hud- 
desford. Lister has copied the lower figure from Buonanni, Ricreatione, part 2. 
f. 336. 
35 6. 193 . Mytilus bidens. 
,_ 194. These are badly defined figures, but have been quoted by Solander for his Mytilus 
sacculus: and this I believe to be the Mytilus ovalis of Lamarck. Klein’s t. 12 . 
f. 78 . and 79 . are copies. 
_ 195. Mytilus Modiolus; but is far from a good figure; and has been referred to by Dr. 
Huddesford both for this species and for Mya, Perna. 
357 . 195 . b. Variety of Mytilus bilocularis. 
358. 196 . Mytilus demissus. 
359. 197. Mytilusfuscus; and the name was first given by Gmelin to a description of this 
figure. 
_ ipS. Is a species which has been separated from Mytilus Modiolus by Lamarck, with 
the name of Modiola Tulipa ; and to this figure Dr. Huddesford has most 
strangely given the name of Mya arctica. 
360 . 199 . Mytilus canalis of Lamarck; which in the Descriptive Catalogue I have followed 
other authors in confounding with Mytilus ungulatus. 
361 . 199 . b. Has been copied by Klein, t. 9 . f. 27 : and from these figures the Mytilus No. 
26 . of Schroeter’s Einleitung, and the Mytilus mammarius of Gmelin, have 
been constituted. No other author has noticed it; and I can only conjecture, 
that it may be a shell of Mytilus Modiolus encrusted with zoophytes, and other 
marine productions. 
362. 200. Mytilus edulis. 
_ 201 . Is probably a young shell of Mytilus latus. 
_ 202 . Mytilus Hesperianus of Lamarck, which is the Mytilus pallidus of Solander; and 
when the Descriptive Catalogue was published, I was unacquainted with the 
species. 
363 . 204. Appears to me to be Mytilus ungulatus; but has been quoted by Lamarck, with 
a mark of doubt, for his Mytilus opalus. 
364 . 203. Mytilus Perna. 
