62 . University of Michigan 
U. cariosus Say ’17, by Lea, Conrad, and Férussac, but Lea 
changed his opinion after the examination of Lamarck’s type, 
identifying it with siliquoideus Bar. There is no question that 
Lamarck’s brief description applies better to cariosa (“‘poste- 
rior end broader and rounded” ) and that of the localities given, 
the first (Susquehanna) has only cariosus, but not siliquoideus. 
If the type of luteola is the latter, the description is unsatis- 
factory. In either case, the name /wfeola cannot be used. 
The next name to be discussed is fasciata Raf. Conrad con- 
siders this to be carinatus Bar. (ligamentinus auct.), and 
according to Vanatta the “type” confirms this. However, 
Frierson thinks that it is siliquoideus. The original description 
of fasciata (see also under Actinonatas carinata) gives the 
characters: elliptic, convex, shell not thick; epidermis little 
rugose, olivaceous, with brown rays; nacre bluish, cardinal 
tooth rugose, divaricate ; lateral tooth carinate; size up to over 
three inches. This fits both species, and thus fasciata is not 
identifiable. 
In view of Rafinesque’s statement that his fasciata occurs 
in the Ohio, Muskingum, Kentucky, Salt, Green, and other 
rivers, and that while it is ordinarily a small species, yet he 
had seen it more than three inches in length, it would seem 
to be conclusive that it is not the same as siliquoidea Bar. 
A series of comparative measurements shows that of the 
possible species known in the Ohio system to which it might 
be approximated fasciola Raf. and carinata gibba Simp. are 
the only ones that at all correspond to those given by Rafin- 
esque. As between these two, so far as proportions are con- 
cerned, there is not much choice. In the absence of any speci- 
fication as to the character of the rays of fasciata, it is impos- 
sible to refer it with any certainty to either, although the com- 
parison with ochracea would seem to indicate fasciola rather 
