INDEX TO THE HISTORIA CONCHYLIORUM. 
18 
Tab. Fig. 
271 . 107 . Venus mercenaria, 
272 . 108. Venus Islandica; and it is taken from the Historia Animalium Anglise, t. 4 . 
f. 22 . 
273 . 109 . From this Schroeter has constituted his Venus No. 56 ; which is the Venus albida 
of Gmelin, and it is a very uncertain species. 
274 . 110. Gmelin, in a note at p.3284, has questioned, whether it is deserving of notice; 
and afterwards has quoted this figure for a variety of his Venus albida. 
275 . 111 . Chama Cor; and Lister has copied the lowermost figure from Buonanni, Ricrea- 
tione, part 2 . fig. 88 . 
277 . 114. Venus Dysera: and Klein, in his Methodus Ostracolog. t. 10 . f. 48. and 49 . has 
copied these figures. 
278 . 115. Venus cingenda. 
279- n 6 . Venus Paphia. 
280. 117 . Quoted by Gmelin, with a mark of doubt, for a variety of Venus Dysera; and I 
believe it to be a perfectly distinct and undescribed species. 
— 118. Referred to, with a mark of doubt, by Gmelin for Venus Marica; by Lamarck 
for Vimus granulata; and by Dr. Solander for another species, to which he gave 
the name of Venus radula. 
281. 119 . It appears by the Systema Naturae, that Linneus was indebted for his knowledge of 
Venus Jlexuosa to Dr. Solander: and this accurate conchologist, in his MS. de¬ 
scription of the species, has given a reference to the present figure of Listers, 
and to Petiver’s Gazophylacium, t. 25. f. 9 . It is however quite distinct from 
the shell which Born, Chemnitz, Schroeter, Gmelin, and Lamarck have de¬ 
scribed for the Linnean Venus Jlexuosa, and this latter is the Venus rostrata of 
Solander; most of the abovementioned authors have erroneously quoted Listers 
figure for Venus Gallina. 
282. 120 . Venus Gallina. 
283. 121 . Gmelin’s description of Venus Campechiensis has been wholly taken from this fi¬ 
gure, and it appears to me to be Venus crenulata. 
284. 122 . Venus verrucosa. 
285. 122 . a. Schroeter and Gmelin have quoted this rather uncertain figure for Venus Dy¬ 
sera, but Lister considered it to be the same as fig. 123. a. and it is therefore 
more likely to be a variety of Venus castrensis. 
28 6. 123. Venus rigida, 
287 - 123. a. Venus castrensis. 
288. 124. Venus concentrica. 
289 . 125. Is a variety of the Venus lincta of Solander. 
290 . 126 . Vmus lincta of Solander; which is generally considered to be a variety of Venus 
exoleta, but has been arranged separately by Lamarck, with the name of Cy- 
therea lincta, 
29 !• \ Venus exoleta. 
292 . 128 .) 
293 . 129 . Variety of Venus exoleta. 
294 . 130. Venus excisa. 
295 . 131. Is probably the Cytherea rufa of Lamarck, which is a species very nearly allied to 
Venus Juvenis. 
— 132. Venus sulcata. 
296 . 133. Venus spuria, 
297 . 134. Tellina rotundata. 
298 . 135. A young shell of Venus Jamaicensis. 
299 . 136. Tellina crassa; and from this figure Gmelin’s description of Venus crassa has 
been entirely derived. 
300. 137. The Tellina pectinata of Gmelin has been improperly constituted from this figure, 
and it is Venus Jamaicensis. 
301. 142. Tellina divaricata. 
302. 143. Tellina scobinata. 
303. 144. The Venus pur pur ascens of Gmelin has been constituted from this figure; and it 
is probably the Cytherea tigrina of Lamarck, which is a species very nearly 
allied to Venus Pectunculus. 
