SPURIOUS AND UNIDENTIFIABLE SPECIES. 
The following pages include a list, with notes, of all the unidenti- 
fiable and spurious species of North American Lymnzas. Some of 
these names were founded on foreign species erroneously referred 
to America, several have been ascertained to belong to other families 
while a large number are nude names of which no description has ever 
been published. The list is quite extensive and it is believed that all 
of the questionable species are recorded. 
Limnza bombycina Lunge. 
Limnea bombycina LuncE, Woop, Nautilus, V, p. 56, 1891—Kerep, West 
Amer. Sh., p. 314, 1904. 
Mr. William J. Raymond, of Oakland, California, has kindly 
given the following information concerning this reference: 
“The name was inserted in our list of ‘Mollusks of San Francisco 
County’ by Mr. Wood. I do not know the species, but am under the 
impression that we thought it, or rather Mr. Wood, an oriental species, 
introduced into San Francisco, perhaps with living fish or aquatic 
plants. The describer was probably Dr. De Lunge, an eccentric col- 
lector, who died several years ago. His collection, or a part of it, 
is now in possession of the University of California, of which I am a 
member.” No other information has been obtained concerning this 
species. As no description was published it must fall into the list of 
nude names. 
Limnea elliptica “Lea” Sowerby. 
Limnea elliptica Lea, Sowersy, Conch. Icon., XVIII, Limn., sp. 61, pl. 9, 
mee Oil, sig fon Ieee 
Mr. E. A. Smith has informed Mr. Bryant Walker that the orig- 
inal specimens of this species, in the British Museum, quoted by Sow- 
erby from Lake Madison, Michigan, are a form of Succinea from Lake 
Madison, Wisconsin. The name elliptica Lea is an error of Sowerby’s, 
for Lea never described a Lymnza of that name. There is a Physa 
clliptica Lea, and this is possibly the name Sowerby had in mind. 
Lymnea heterostropha C. B. Adams. 
Lymnea heterostropha, C. B. Apams, Amer. Journ. Sci., XXXVI, p. 392, 
1839.—Binney, L. & F.-W. Sh. N. A., II, p. 70, 1865. 
This may have been a lapsis penne for Physa heterostropha, but 
as the latter species is also mentioned, it is quite impossible to know 
just what species was in the mind of Prof. Adams. 
