196 AMERICAN JOURNAL 



gists will not need to follow us in this, for they will know how 

 to extract the very valuable information which the book contains 

 without accepting its conclusions.) 



We agree with Mr. Binney in uniting Limncea umhrosa Avith 

 L. refiexa. He has confounded with them L. RoivelUi and L. 

 zebra, nob. 



We believe L. Sumassi, Baird, to be correctly represented by 

 figs. 56 and 57, but the following figure (58) is a veri/ doubtful 

 representation : we call it L. ampla, Mighels. 



L. 7nacrostoma, Say, is surely distinct from L. columella. To 

 the synonymy of the latter must be added Succinea 2)(illu(^id(ii 

 Lea. 



L. JViittalUana, Lea, is not a synonym of L. lyalustris ; and 

 L. obriissa, Say, is very different from L. dcsidiosa, of the same 

 author. 



Of the S3'nonyms of desidiosa it may be remarked that L. Plii- 

 ladeljjhia. Lea, is certainl}^ a synonym, but a personal examina- 

 tion of Mr. Lea's L. acuta leaves me in considerable doubt 

 whether it is not a distinct species ; but a few specimens of 

 acuta were obtained, and I have never seen any shells like them 

 in collecting in the vicinity of the locality where they were dis- 

 covered. Mr. Lea's species should at least have the benefit of 

 the doubt, since it has been described as new. L. fusiformis, of 

 Lea, is certainly a synonym of L. obrussa. L. Jamesii, Lea, is 

 a distinct species, belonging to this group. 



L. catascopium, Say. L.jnnguis, Say, is distinct. L. Vir- 

 giniana, Lam., is certainly an exotic, probably an Indian spe- 

 cies. Fig. 86, doubtfully referred to this species by Mr. Bin- 

 ney, represents L. Broivnii, nob., originally described from 

 Elyria, Ohio. 



L. humilis, Say. L. modicella is distinct. L. jyarva and 

 exigua, Lea, are synonyms of the former, and L. curia and plica, 

 Lea, of the latter ; while L. G-riffitliiana, Lea, is very distinct. 



L. platgsto7na, Haldeman. This species is evidently L. limosa, 

 Linn. I have specimens exactly like the figure. 



It would be useless to enter into a review of Mr. Binney's 

 list of admitted species of Physa, as his views differ so entirely 

 from my own. SufSce it to say that he does not admit more 

 than thirty species, while I extend the number beyond sixty 

 published species, besides many unpublished ones in my cabinet, 

 and that most of these additional species are forms of what Mr. 

 Binney considers P. heterostroplia and P. gyrina. 



Planorbis glabratus, Say, " is said to be found in Oregon." 

 I do not know who is authority for this assertion, which is cer- 



