PHOLAS.
The Pholas of the manuscript is perfectly dissimilar to that of the 'Systema.' Our author had evidently, when he first wrote the 'Museum Ulricæ,' not appreciated the remarkably striking characteristics of this group, having located the only species he then knew (for P. candidus seems a subsequent discovery) with the Solens.
P. candidus. Not mentioned in the manuscript.
P. crispatus. Sol. ovatus, obtusissimus, cardinis dente depresso rotundato.
The Appendix to Lister was not cited; "Habitat in Anglia, Suecia," was appended to the description, which in many respects was inferior to the published one. The account of the hinge was merely "Cardo dente dilatato rotundato extus excavato."
MYA.
The three incongruous forms assorted as Myæ were not so united in the MS.; the second being very properly placed with the Mussels, the other two ascribed to Solen.
M. Lutraria. Sol. ovali-oblongus, cardine laterali dilatato semiorbiculato.
In lieu of the reference to Lister (whose work does not appear to have been consulted by our author at the period when this portion of his manuscript was written), plate 45, figure N, of Rumphius was quoted as illustrative. The published account of the hinge is much more complete than the written one, which was apparently drawn up from a worn specimen; it ran as follows: "Cardo extus vix gibbus, intus constans laminis 2 semiorbiculatis concavis introrsum spectantibus."
By a slip of the pen, in my "Ipsa Linnæi Conchylia," I had termed Brown's figure of the Linnean Mya lutraria, L. oblonga, instead of L. elliptica.