64 University of Michigan 
From the original description this cannot be confirmed. Car- 
dium might be ovata, ventricosa, or even Proptera capax 
Green, and from the comparison of L. ovata Say with cardium 
given by Rafinesque we should conclude that cardium is the 
female of ovata (ovata differs chiefly by the less swollen shape 
and non-dilated posterior end). This is also supported by the 
figure of cardium, which shows distinctly a rather sharp pos- 
terior ridge. At the best, cardiuwm is not identifiable, and thus. 
this name cannot supersede ventricosus. 
LAMPSILIS FASCIOLA Rafinesque, 1820 
Tvpe locality: Kentucky River. 
Lampsilis fasciola Rafinesque, ’20, p. 290. 
Unio multiradiatus Lea, ’29, p. 434, pl. 9, f. 15. 
U. fasciolus Raf.=U. multiradiatus Lea, Ferussac, ’35, pp. 26, 32; 
Conrad, ’36, p. 26, pl. 11, f. 2 (Poulson’s specimen examined). 
Lampsilis multiradiata (Lea), Simpson, ’14, p. 55. 
Lampsilis luteola (Lam.) =L. fasciola Raf., Vanatta, ’15, p. 551 
(Poulson’s “type” examined). 
L. fasciola Raf. =U. multiradiatus Lea, Ortmann, 718, p. 584. 
Conrad and Vanatta have examined a specimen in the Rafin- 
esque-Poulson Collection, and Férussac an authentic specimen 
from Rafinesque ; Conrad and Férussac pronounce fasciola to 
be the same as multiradiata, while Vanatta says that it is lute- 
ola (= siliquoidea). There is evidently some mistake about 
the supposed “type.” 
However, Rafinesque’s description is unmistakable. It “indi- 
cates a shell of the cardium-ovata type, with unequal, flexuous 
rays, which fits multiradiata Lea, but not luteola Lam.” (Ort- 
mann), and Conrad has also pointed out as the essential char- 
acter the numerous “unequal, green, undulated or flexuous 
rays.” Thus fasciola is identifiable and valid. 
