64 University of Michigan 



From the original description this cannot be confirmed. Car- 

 diiiin might be ovata, ventricosa, or even Proptera capa.r 

 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, cardium is not identifiable, and thus 

 this name cannot supersede ventricosns. 



Lampsilis f'asciola Rafinesque, 1820 

 Type locality: Kentucky River. 



Lampsilis fasciola Rafinesque, '20, p. 299. 



Uttio multiradiatus Lea, '29, p. 434, pi. 9, f. 15. 



U. fasciolus Raf. = [/. multiradiatus Lea, Ferussac, '35, pp. 26, 32; 

 Conrad, '36, p. 26, pi. 11, f. 2 (Poulson's specimen examined). 



Lampsilis multiradiata (Lea), Simpson, '14, p. 55. 



Lampsilis luteola (Lam.)=Z,. fasciola Raf., Vanatta, '15, p. 551 

 (Poulson's "type" examined). 



L. fasciola Raf. = U. multiradiatus Lea, Ortmann, '18, p. 584. 



Conrad and Vanatta have examined a specimen in the Rafin- 

 esque-Poulson Collection, and Ferussac an authentic specimen 

 from Rafinesque; Conrad and Ferussac pronounce fasciola to 

 be the same as midtiradiata, while Vanatta says that it is lute- 

 ola {^ siliquoidca). 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. 



