OF CONCHOLOGY. 201 



In this communication Prof. Carpenter emphatically denies 

 that the above species is punctate, as asserted by Prof. F. B. 

 Meek in the Am. Jour. Science for May, 1866, and suggests 

 that the shells examined by Prof. M. belong to a different 

 genus. 



Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. 1866. Part 2. Calcutta. 



Contributions to Indian 3Ialacology, No. VII. List of spe- 

 cies of Unio and Anodonta, described as occurring in In- 

 dia, Ceylon and Burma. By Wm. T. Blanford. 



The above paper is by no means so complete as its title indi- 

 cates, — the omissions of species are numerous and important, 

 and the synonymy in many cases incorrect. The list of autho- 

 rities quoted by Mr. Blanford is so meagre that we are not 

 surprised at this result, but we are astonished that a good con- 

 chologist should undertake to decide upon the validity of genera 

 and species whereof he has not seen even descriptions or figures, 

 much less specimens. We much doubt whether Mr. Blanford 

 has ever seen as extensive a collection of Unionidte from the 

 countries named as can be produced at this moment by a few 

 gentlemen residing in Philadelphia and its environs. 



The paper of Mr. Blanford is, however, despite these defects, 

 an excellent one, and, by directing inquiry to the subject at 

 home, will doubtless stimulate research and elicit truth. There 

 are many valuable notes on synonymy and distribution, and one 

 of the latter is curious. In speaking of Unio Wynegungaensis, 

 Lea, Mr. Blanford remarks : " The locality given by Lea is 

 Wynegunga river, east of Nagpoor in the Deccan, Bengal, which 

 is equivalent to talking of Philadelphia, in New England, Vir- 

 ginia." 



We do not consider the names of Indian shells given by Ra- 

 finesque so entirely worthless as supposed by Mr. Blanford. 

 The genus Diplasma, proposed by Rafinesque,* is surely distinct 

 from Unio. It comprises a large number of Southern Asiatic 

 Laiionid^. 



It is a mistake to confound U. crispatus, Gould, with U. cris- 

 jnsalcatus, Benson. The difference of form is as great as that 

 between U nasutus and U rubiginosus. Mr. Blanford has not 

 seen the former, but in the United States neither of them is un- 

 common ; while the species described by Morelet, U. pellis- 

 lacerti, and not mentioned by Mr. Blanford, has also found its 



* Complete Writiags of Rafinesque. Bianey & Tryon's Edition. New- 

 York, 1863. 



