I had hoped to have found the 19 a misprint, but the MS. and the printed
copy agree precisely in every particular.
C. FLAVUM. _Buc._ subovatum sulcatum, latere altero scabrum, altero
dentatum.
The redundant "subovata" was not in the copy, where the remark was made
that the species resembled the shell subsequently termed _Chama cor_,
the figure of which (Gualt. t. 71. f. E.) had been cited, but erased in
the MS. The ideal hence derived is a very different shell from the one
supposed identical. No mention is made of lateral teeth: was it then a
veritable _Cardium_?