It appears that Dr. Leach had some short time since published a figure of this shell: his definition is altogether brief, and the information he affords less explanatory than might be desired: he quotes no authority or synonyms, and in his general description merely observes that “It seems to be a very rare species, a few specimens only having been received from New Zealand.” Vide. Zool. Misc. p. 76. Lamarck assuming from these observations, as it may be presumed, that the shell had not been previously noticed, unless it were an Anomia Capensis of Gmelin, proposes it as a new species under the name of Terebratula Sanguinea of Leach, at the same time that he rejects his specific character, and assigns another to the species; the character given to it as a new species by Dr. Leach is “Testa sanguinea, subtillissime et creberrime impresso-punctata, longitudinaliter costata, costis simplicibus; antica uniundulata;” that of Lamarck, “Testâ oblongâ, irregulari, rubrá, creberrimé impresso punctata; striis transversis undulatîs; margine denticulato,” to which is added, “Habite—les mers de la Nouvelle Zélande d’après M. Leach.” This seems to shew that the shell was only known to Lamarck, through the communication of the last-mentioned writer; and the suggestion is the more probable since the specimen in the British Museum has the same interrogation as to being the Anomia Capensis of Chemnitz, that is annexed by Lamarck to his description of the species. “Je crois qu’on doit donner comme synonyme l’Anomia capensis Gmel., d’après la citation de Chemniz; mais l’individu que j’avais sous les yeux, n’est pas assez entier pour affirmer ce rapprochement.”
There is obviously some want of farther explanation in these details, the omission of which may possibly be supplied by tracing the history of this interesting shell from the time in which it first appeared in this country; for there are local circumstances connected with it which having escaped the mention of Dr. Leach, and consequently of Lamarck, have led to the erroneous conclusion that it had remained till very lately undescribed. Dr. Leach was probably not aware, or through some oversight omits to notice that the specific name which he has given to this shell was that assigned to it many years ago by Dr. Solander, and that it has uniformly borne the name of Anomia sanguinea, or (Terebratula sanguinea) among all the English Naturalists in consequence from the time of that learned friend and companion of Sir Joseph Banks down to the present period: It is the Anomia sanguinea of Dr. Solanders MSS. and was designated under that name in the Museum of the Dutchess of Portland: it appeared under the same appellation in the catalogue of that museum, published in 1786: in the Calonnian Museum and Catalogue, printed in the year 1795; it stood under that name also in the Museum of Sir Ashton Lever, and it appeared under the same denomination in the sale catalogue of that museum, published in the year 1806. Under all these circumstances it may be presumed the name must have obtained no small publicity, and we need scarcely add that the example of these authorities were followed in the Cabinets of english collectors generally, that happened to be in possession of the shell, among which was that of Mr. Cracherode, which was subsequently deposited in the British Museum. And lastly, it should be mentioned that it occurs under the same name in the Testaceological Manual of Mr. Dillwyn. Nothing therefore can be more certain than that the french writers are not correct in their opinion when they imagine that the shell had been so named in the first instance by Dr. Leach; and it is no less certain that the credit of having first noticed the species is due to Dr. Solander, he described it more than forty years ago: his words as they stand in his manuscripts are, “Anomia sanguinea obovato, longitudinaliter sulcata, triloba; sinu profundo nate producta latere angulata foramen ambiente.” Mr. Dillwyn has well expressed the character of this shell in his description of Anomia Sanguinea, but has by some oversight misquoted this passage of Dr. Solander’s manuscripts; and by that means has confounded the Anomia Sanguinea of Dr. Solander, with his Anomia Cruenta; this will be more fully shewn hereafter.
Upon this subject we have only lastly to observe that although Lamarck has deemed it requisite to give a specific character of this shell dissimilar from that of Dr. Leach, he omits to mention, as well as the former, that very conspicuous character of the species, the deep longitudinal hollow down the middle of the upper valve, and the dorsal elevation of the lower one. Lamarck, indeed, confesses that the individual which he had under his eyes, and consequently that which he describes, is not sufficiently perfect to authorize him in determining the analogy between that shell and the Anomia Capensis of Gmelin, which Chemnitz has figured; a circumstance that may explain the cause of this omission in the specific character of Terebratula sanguinea. Yet we should have thought a shell sufficiently entire to have enabled this ingenious Naturalist to have composed his character of the species, would have been so far perfect as to have justified some conclusion upon its analogy with the Gmelinian Anomia Capensis. We may confidently add that these two shells are totally distinct species, and are even generically different if we enter very scrupulously upon their distinctive characters. Dr. Solander had described this latter shell before the time of Gmelin under the name of Anomia Cruenta.
The representations of this choice testaceous production, which accompanies our present description, will, it is presumed, convey a more correct idea of the shell than can be expressed by words. The Leverian specimen from which, as before observed, these figures are taken, realized at the public hammer at the Leverian sale the sum of five guineas,[[27]] and it still remains so rare that there would probably be little, if any, dimunition in the price were it again to be disposed of in the same manner at the present period. The shells of this kind vary in some small degree in the intensity of colour from a very deep sanguineous red to a paler hue.
35
London. Published by E. Donovan & Mess.rs Simpkin & Marshall, March 1, 1823.