1854.] 247 



Synopsis, as I have stated before. It would require too much space and time. 

 Those interested in the subject must jud^e between the two synopses. I have 

 certainly seen nothing in Mr. Conrad's to induce me to change the synonomy of. 

 mine. I shall be at all times most willing to render my own more perfect by 

 corrections founded on fact. 



Mr. Conrad gives precedence to claims on various principles. Sometimes he 

 gives the priority of manuscript names in letters or labels, to printed descrip- 

 tions and figures, as in the case of JJnio coccineus, which I described and figured 

 in the Trans. Am. Phil. Soc (Dec. 19, 1834). He inserts it in his Synopsis 

 " TJnio coccineus, Hildreth, MSS." Certainly I never intended to deprive my 

 old and excellent correspondent Dr. Hildreth of any credit due to his long and 

 ardent services in the development of the Natural History of the Valley of the 

 Ohio. He sent it to me with many others in June 1833. There were two shells 

 which he thought to be new, and the names he proposed were 77. coccineus and 

 Alasmodonta obscura. I had previously received the latter from him and named 

 it in honor of him (Unio Hildrethianus,) and communicated it to the American 

 Philosophical Society. I adopted his proposed name for the first, as I am always 

 accustomed to do, if it be appropriate, and called it coccineus. I also stated that 

 it was the name proposed in his letter to me. I put Hildrethianus among the 

 TJniones because it belonged to a peculiar group, by form and habit, which were 

 classed as TJniones. Mr. Conrad, while he gives the name of 77. coccineus to 

 Hildreth, objects to my retaining the name of plicatus as Lesueur's, instead of 

 giving it to Mr. Say as he does. It seems to me that the cases are entirely dif- 

 ferent. Mr. Lesueur gave the shell to Mr. Say with its name plicatus, as a new 

 species. Mr. Say considered it as only an undulated variety of his crassus, 

 pointing out that variation, and at same time said, that, " it is most probably a 

 distinct species, and if so, the designation proposed by its accomplished discove- 

 rer, ' plicata,' will be an excellent one." He did not describe it, and I believe 

 all the conchological writers of the time accredited it to Lesueur, viz. Barnes, 

 Rafinesque, Short and Eaton, Hildreth, &c. It was, subsequently to Mr. Say's no- 

 tice, described by Barnes in Silliman's Journal, and accredited to Lesueur Say's 

 name following Lesueur's. It was then universally received as plicatus Lesueur, 

 and is still known as such. Although neither he nor Mr. Say described it, it is bet- 

 ter to retain its established authorship. If it be not retained as Lesueur's it 

 must be given to Barnes, who was really the first to publish a description of it. 

 The same want of stability of plan displays itself in the authorship of 77. 

 paliatus from South Carolina. Dr. Ravenel sent me this species labelled by 

 himself with this name. Believing that he meant to publish a description of it 

 himself, I quoted it in myjSynopsis, first edition, 1836, accrediting it to him, and 

 so continued it in the 2d and 3d editions. Mr. Conrad, on the contrary, accredits it 

 to me, and refers to the page of my Synopsis where I insert the species as Rave- 

 nel's, and he adds to this error by quoting for it the Trans. Am. Phil. Soc. vol. 

 x. page 79, pi. 7 fig. 20 where it will not be found, but quite a different species, 

 the TJ. poJlescens Lea, which, at p. 254 of the Proceedings, in his Synopsis, he 

 inserts as a distinct sppcies. I never described paliatus, nor claimed it in any 

 way. It never has been described, I believe, but having been so long known as 

 paliatus of Ravenel, 1 hope it will be continued as such. 1 have no desire to 

 have my name attached to any species which 1 have not been the fiist to de- 

 scribe. 



Regarding the " notes " on several species at the end of Mr. Conrad's synop- 

 sis, having long since given my opinion respecting 77. complanatus, Solander, U. 

 obliquus Lam. and most of the others, I shall not repeat these opinions; but I 

 am glad to see in a note on cariosns, Say, (p. 264,) that he has at last done justice 

 to Lamarck in acknowledging his luteolus. In this note he says he followed 

 Ferussac in referring luteolus to that species, but that his "description does 

 not apply. It very well describes 77. siliquoideus Barnes." I stated in 1833 

 that, having examined Lamark's specimen of luteolus in Paris, I found it to be 

 a true siliquoideus Bar., and therefore have ever since given luteolus priority, 

 as I was bound to do in common justice. But notwithstanding that Lamark 



