150 UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SUE VET OF THE TERRITORIES 



nearly like those of the typical Veniella, excepting in some of the details. I 

 am not very well acquainted with this shell, but its rounded form, central 

 beaks, distinct radiating costae, and regularly- crenate inner margins, altogether 

 give it so different a physiognomy from either of the groups here described, 

 that it seems to me rather typical of a distinct genus from both. 



At any rate 4 if the type of Anisocardia is congeneric with Veniella, I do 

 not see how the group to which it belongs can be placed as a subgenus under 

 Veniella, unless it is done in defiance of the established rules of nomenclature, 

 and the law of priority. Upon what principle of justice or propriety a new 

 genus, regularly described and published in 1863, can be reduced to the rank 

 of a subgenus under another published in 1870, is rather difficult to under- 

 stand. If there is only a subgeneric difference between Anisocardia, 1863, 

 and Venilicardia, 1870, the latter would have to stand as a subgenus under 

 Anisocardia, and not the reverse. The fact that Dr. Morton had published 

 in 1834, under the name Venilia, the same group that Dr. Stoliczka proposes 

 to call Veniella (because Venilia was pre-occupied), does not alter the case, 

 if we have to discard Venilia; since Veniella, Stoliczka, is an entirely new 

 name, that only dates back to 1870. This conclusion, however, is too evi- 

 dent to require any argument beyond the men' statement of the tacts. 



In regard to the relations between Veniella and Cyprina, it may be 

 desirable to say a few words. In the first place, it should be noted that, at the 

 same time that Dr.. Stoliczka recognizes Dr. Morton's proposed genus Venilia 

 as distinct from Cyprina, and gives if a new name, wrongly characterizing it 

 (from Dr. Morton's figure V) as having only two cardinal teeth in each valve, 

 he actually refers the only two species he had, belonging to Dr. Morton's 

 genus {V. Forbesiana and V. cristate/), to Cyprina. These two shells, how- 

 ever, as stated by Mr. Conrad, are certainly, in all respects, true typical 

 species of Venilia, Morton ; and consequently, as Veniella was proposed as a 

 substitute for Venilia, they must go into that group instead of into Cyprina. 



That Veniella ami Cyprina, however, agree quite nearly in their hinge- 

 characters is certainly true. Yet. on comparison of our cuts of Morton's 

 typical species of the former, it will be seen that in this type the hinge is 

 more arched or bent in the middle, and that in its left valve the middle 

 cardinal tooth is much more massive, more broadly trigonal, and more curved ; 

 while the small middle and posterior cardinal of its right valve are more 

 distinctly connected above, and its anterior cardinal much more massive, 



