THE NAUTILUS. 35 



cally the first effort in a new field and forms the most valuable 

 portion of the entire work. The synonymy is practically that of 

 Binney with the addition of more recently described forms. Until 

 a thorough revision of the subject can be made, based on abundant 

 material from all parts of the country, and the study of the original 

 types, this is no doubt the wisest course to pursue. The advisability 

 of printing the MSS. names of Calkins, all of which stem to be 

 synonyms, may be perhaps questioned. 



The treatment of the Limnceidce will in the main commend itself 

 to the student. The author declines to follow Crandall in separating 

 Physa ellfptica Lea from P. yyrina oleacea Tryon. Judging from 

 the figures given, it seems possible that elliptica as differentiated by 

 Crandall does not occur in the Chicago Area. Certainly as species 

 go in Physa, there is room for a difference of opinion on this subject. 

 The elaborate descriptions of the Pleuroceridtz are worthy of notice,, 

 and are a refreshing improvement upon the descriptions that do not 

 describe, of the older authors in treating of this most difficult family. 

 The union of Goniobasis depygis to G. livescens seems a rather 

 radical innovation and will likely provoke dissent. If it serves to 

 incite discussion and careful study, it will have accomplished a use- 

 ful purpose. 



The author's figure of the radula of Gincinnatia cincinnatiensis is 

 tbe first that has been published of that species. It is remarkable in 

 not showing the " tongue shaped process from the middle of the 

 anterior surface, reaching beyond the base," which is given by 

 Stimpson as a generic characteristi-: of Amnicola. If the figure is 

 correct, Oincinnatia must be removed from under that genus and 

 placed elsewhere. We do not understand the statement on p. 335 

 that figures 4 and 11 on Plate I. of Haldeman's Monograph are mis- 

 named. In the copy before us, both the description and plate give 

 the proper references. The author also seems in error in his re- 

 marks on page 33G in regard to Binney 's figure 162 as copied from 

 Troschel. Neither Binney nor Troschel refer the radula there 

 figured to Amnicola cincinnatiensis Anth. Both refer it, and prob- 

 ably correctly, to A. sayana Anth., which is a synonym of Pornati- 

 opsis cincinnatiensis Lea, an entirely different thing. The synonymy 

 of the Campelomas is that established by Call and, barring the 

 reference of Lea's milesii to subsolidum, is entirely acceptable. There 

 is reason to believe that Lea's species should rather be referred to 

 decisum. The large specimen figured as decisum on plate 36, fig. 5,. 



