248 [ [December, 



'* very well describes the 77. siliquoideus Barnes, 5 ' (under the name of luteolus} 

 as Mr. Conrad states, and that I had mentioned (Trans. 1833) having seen the spe- 

 cimen itself in Paris, still Mr. Conrad, in 1834, places luteolus Lam. as a sy- 

 nonym to cariosus, Say; and in 1836, changing siliquoideus Bar. into a type, he 

 says he would have adopted luteolus Lam., if Ferussac had not referred La- 

 mark's specimen of luteolus to cariosus, Say. Thus relying more on Ferussac 's 

 opinion (whom I found really not very well acquainted with our species) than 

 to his own judgment on studying a description, which did apply; or, on mine, 

 to confirm it, who had examined the original carefully. Now in 1853, he comes 

 to the conclusion that 77. luteolus Lam. = 77. siliquoideus Bar., exactly what I 

 stated twenty years ago in the Trans. Am. Phil. Soc. vol. 5, p. 91. 



The note on 77. viridis Raf. (p. 266) may be answered by saying that in de- 

 scribing 77. Tappanianus, I did not then believe, nor do I now, that it is the shell 

 Rafinesque had before him when he wrote his description. He does not allude 

 to the striking peculiarity of the teeth of Tappanianus, and he says his shell is 

 common in the Kentucky and the small rivers adjacent." The Tappanianus 

 is supposed not to exist in the west. The reason that I did not retain 

 the name of viridis and give it to Mr. Conrad as he suggests, was that I did not 

 believe that he and Rafinesque described the same shell, and I did not wish to use 

 the names of the latter.* The fact stated by Mr. Conrad, that the specimen was 

 labelled by Rafinesque himself as the 77. viridis, and that its habitat was the 

 Kentucky river, ought to have satisfied him that it was one of the nu- 

 merous errors of Rafinesque. f That there is an error in the habitat or the name, 

 there is no doubt. Mr. Say, in his Synopsis, with the advantage of comparing this 

 specimen labelled by Rafinesque, declares it to be his cariosus ! This affords 

 another of the very many difficulties attending the attempt to substantiate Mr. 

 Rafinesque's species. It has been the cause of the loss of an immense deal of 

 time among naturalists, and it would have been better for Natural History if he 

 was entirely "considered to be destitute of authority and entirely unworthy of 

 notice," as Dr. Binney years ago concluded. 



As regards the note on obliquus Lam. (p. 265), Mr. Conrad suggests that I 

 considered undatus Bar. a synonym, because Mr. Barnes gave it with a mark of 

 doubt. Mr. Conrad does not advert to the fact that I had seen the original spe- 

 cimen in Paris in 1832, and that I had published my note of it on my return. 



In his note on 77. fasciolus Raf. (p. 267) he says that the specimen was la- 

 belled by Rafinesque. Notwithstanding this it was not admitted by him in his 

 Synopsis of 1834 at all ! But Mr. Say introduced it in his Synopsis with multi- 

 radiatus Lea, as a synonym, which {multiradiatus) Mr. Conrad had admitted 

 as a. good species. In 1836, however, Mr. Conrad in his Monography, introduced 

 fasciolus Raf., and then degraded multiradiatus as its synonym. Now in 1853 

 he makes multiradiatus a synonym to ligarnentinus Lam., and fasciolus is made 

 to appropriate subangulatus Lea, as a synonym, which was described in Trans. 

 1840 in vol. 8th not 10th as quoted by Mr. Conrad. 



I am gratified to see (p. 266) that 77. trigonus Lea, after twenty years denial, 

 is acknowledged to be a distinct species. In Mr. Conrad's Synopsis, 1834, he 

 made it a synonym to undatus Bar., as Mr. Say also did in his Synopsis. My 

 own label on the specimen given by me to the Academy at the time, was su- 

 perseded for years by Barnes's name of another shell. There never was any 

 doubt in my own mind about it, after I had given it a proper examination. 



I object to Mr. Conrad's changing my name TJnio Moussonianus, named after 

 Prof. Mousson, to Moussianus, and that of Estabroolianus, named after Prof. Es- 

 tabrook, to Eastbrookianus , as well also Margaritana Vandenbusehiana, named 

 after Dr. Vandenbusch, to Buschiana. 



* My having done so in the 77. interruptus and one or two others was entirely 

 an oversight and unintentional. I always intended to avoid using Rafinesque's 

 names. 



f In a letter from the late Dr. Ward, of Chilicothe, 1836, he says in regard 

 to this species, " that is another of Professor Rafinesque's apocryphal tales." 



