318 MEMOIRS OF THE CARNEGIE MUSEUM. 



correctly understood the species, we must accept this latter locality. "Georgia," 



given by Simpson, probably rests ui:)on Conrad's record of U. oratus from Flint 



River, and if U. rosaceus Conrad should actually belong here, we would also have 



to include the Savannah River. However these southern localities emphatically 



need confirmation in view of the fact that from the James River southward, in 



Virginia and the Carolinas, not a single reliable record is at hand. 



As to the standing of this species in the Atlantic fauna, see Ortmann, 1913a, 



pp. 325 & 363. 



Lampsilis ochracea (Say) (1817).^" 



L. ochracea Simpson, 1914, p. 49.-"* 



Plate XX, figs. 6, 7. 



Records from Pennsylvania: 



Say, 1817 (Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers, " with the preceding," namely U. cariosiis). 



Conrad, 1836 (Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers). 



Oabb, 1861 (Schuylkill and Wissahickon, Philadelphia; League Island, Philadelphia). 



Schick, 1895 (Delaware River, Philadelpliia). 



Marshall, 1895 (Philadelphia). 



Hartman & Michener have confounded this species with L. cariosa, and their records: Schuylkill, 

 Delaware, and Susquehanna are unreliable. This species has never been found in the Susquehanna in 

 Pennsylvania. Caffrey (1911) records it from the Delaware, Northampton Co., but he certainly refers 

 to L. cariosa. See also Ortmann (1909&, pp. 204 & 209). 



Characters of the shell: Having only scanty material at hand, I confine myself 

 to giving only the characters of this species differentiating it from its allies, chiefly 

 L. cariosa. 



L. ochracea is a rather small, thin shell, much thinner than L. cariosa, and 

 much thinner and smaller than any of its western relations {ventricosa, fasciola). 

 It resembles these in outline, but is mostly somewhat shorter than L. cariosa, 

 and has a slightly more distinct posterior ridge. The chief difference is in the 

 epidermis, which does not have the gloss of L. cariosa, and becomes quite rough 

 toward and on the posterior slope. The color is duU, not bright yeUow, but gray- 

 ish, greenish, yellowish, or brownish olive, a grayish green being the prevailing 

 hue; and the rays have a different character. Sometimes the latter are entirely 

 absent, iDut (when present) they are not sharp and blackish, but indistinct, and 

 grayish or grayish green, rather fine, and cover all or a large portion of the surface. 

 Upon the posterior slope, the rays are obscure, and sometimes somewhat wider. 



-»' Not 1816. 



^"^ The figures of DeKay (184.3, PI. 19) do not represent this species, but L. radiata (See above, p. 

 292, footnote 191). Very probably the figure of Gould-Binney (1870, p. 174, fig. 476), and certainly that 

 of Hartman & Michener (1874, p. 89, fig. 184) represent females of L. cariosa. There is only one good 

 figure of this species, that of Conrad (Men. 4, 1836, PI. 17, fig. 2) which represents the male. 



