“Venericardia (Pleuromeris) marshalli n. sp. (Plate 16, figs. 1, 2.)
1906. Venericardia corbis Philippi: Suter, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 38, p. 317 (not of Philippi).
1913. Venericardia corbis Philippi: Suter, Man. N.Z. Moll., p. 908, pl. 53, fig. 3 (not of Philippi).
1915. Venericardia unidentata (Basterot): Iredale, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 47, p. 487 (not of Basterot).
The identification of this New Zealand shell with V. corbis, a Pliocene and Recent species of the Mediterranean, was made by Dr. W. H. Dall, and was accepted by Suter (1906, p. 318). Such a distribution is in itself suspicious; and as, by good fortune, the Dominion Museum has a copy of Philippi's Enumeratio Molluscorum Siciliae, in which V. corbis is described, a comparison could be made with the original figures and description. The figures show a shell without radial ribs. The short description reads, “striis transversis densis, undulatis, sulcis longtudinalibus obsoletis,” while a fuller description below is, “transversim eleganter striata, et sulcis longitudinalibus distantibus parum profundis (interdum obsoletis) decussata.” New Zealand specimens, when well preserved, have 11–12 strong somewhat nodular ribs, and so should be separated. There are also differences in shape.
As regards V. unidentata, Suter probably quoted this in his synonymy from information supplied by Dall, no date of publication being given in either case. Iredale accepted the synonymy, but pointed out the priority of unidentata; he does not appear to have compared New Zealand with European specimens. Cossmann and Peyrot (1912, p. 81) state that the two European species should be kept apart, for in corbis the concentric and in unindentata the radial ornamentation predominates. These radials are 20–22 in number, so it is surprising that the New Zealand shell with only half as many ribs should have been placed in the same species.
Types of V. marshalli (right valve) in the collection of the New Zealand Geological Survey.
Height, 5 mm.; length, 4.5 mm.
Locality.—Stewart Island (Recent). Kindly presented by the late Mr. R. Murdoch.
Subgenerically, this shell should go with V. lutea and V. bollonsi under Pleuromeris, and should not have been under Miodontiscus as classed by Suter.”
(Marwick, 1924: 192-193)
