Catai/)guk Recently Described Mollusca 127 



\'IVIPARUS WALTONII Tryoii. 



Vivipara ivaltonii Tryon, Am. J. of Con., II, 1866, p. 108, pi. 10, fig. 2. 



Type locality : St. John's River, Fla. 



ViviPARus wareanus ( Shuttlcworth) . 



This species is distinct from gcorgianus Lea. 



Genus CAAIPELOAIA Rafinesque, 1819. 



Mdanihro W. G. Binney non Bowditch. 



Pilsbry has recently (105, p. in) proposed to substitute Amhloxis Raf. 

 for Campelouia Raf. For the same reasons that I have urged in support of 

 the retention of Anctdosa Say, it seems to me that the preference should be 

 given to Ca)iipclonia. 



Camphloma decisum (Say). 



The undescribed forms of this species from Michigan listed as vars. 

 ^az'a Currjer MSS. and iiicloiiostoiua Currier MSS. (Walker, 142, p. 138) 

 are of doubtful validity. 



Binney is in error in referring the following species to decisum as syno- 

 nyms: integrum Say, geniculnm Con., milesii Lea, ohesnm Lewis, rnfniv, 

 Hald., and sv.bsolidum Anth. 



Melnntho fecnnda mentioned, but purposely left undescribed, by Lewis 

 in 1868 (66, p. 135) and listed as a distinct species in 1869 (67, p. 34) does 

 not seem to be separable from decisum, judging from the author's original 

 specimens now in my collection. Call's remark (17, p. 135) that this is the 

 female of ohesum Lewis is wholly wrong. 



Campeeoma feortdense Call. 



"Campeloma fioridense Call JMSS." (as synonym of C. limum), Call, Bull. 

 Washb. Coll. Lab. of Nat. Hist., I, 1886, p. 159, pi. 6, lig. 7; Pilsbry, 

 Naut., XXX, 191 7, p. 42. 



T)pe locality not specified. Apparently restricted to the St. John's River 

 and tributary creeks in Florida. 

 It has very generally l)een considered to be the C. limum f.^nth.). 



Campeloma geniculum (Con.). 



The exact status of this species still remains to be settled. Call at one 

 time considered it a valid species (15a, p. 157), but later (17, p. 134) treated 

 it as a variety of decisum. Lewis remarks (71, p. 41) that all the Alabama 

 species exhibit this peculiarity. Under this aspect of the case, the species, 

 to which Conrad's form should be referred, can only be determined by an 

 examination of his original type. 



