2 University of Michigan 



simply cites the name as ''new ?" and gives the locaUty as 

 Cooper River, S. C. 



Ravenel seems to have found his species in considerable 

 abundance as there are good sets of it in both the Lea Collec- 

 tion in the National Museum and in the Philadelphia Acad- 

 emy, and Dr. James Lewis had five specimens in his collection, 

 now in my i)ossession, which he received from Dr. Lea. 



As stated by Lea (Rectification, Rev. Ed., 1872, p. 36), 

 having received the species from Ravenel under the MSS. 

 name of tcncrus, he recognized it as valid species in all of his 

 synopses from 1836 to 1870, although no description had been 

 published. He never described or characterized it in any way 

 himself. 



Conrad in his Synopsis of 1853 (1. c.) recognized the species 

 as a valid one. 



H. and A. Adams (1. c.) simply cite the species as a valid 

 one in one of their groups of the Naiades. 



Simpson in his Synopsis, 1900, p. 559, gives two references 

 to Hanley's works, which I have not been able to verify. 



In his paper on the Unionidae of Florida (1892, 1. c), Simp- 

 son figured two specimens from the Lea Collection as Unio 

 tenerus, but gave no description. In his Synopsis (I.e.) he 

 states that he was mislead in his Florida paper by the fact 

 that Lea had two diflferent species in his collection under the 

 name of "tcncnis Rav.'' and that the shells there figured are 

 prevosti-aniis 'L,^a.=ogeecheensis Con. and placed wdiat he con- 

 sidered the genuine tenerus under modioliformis Lea as a 

 synonym. He pursued the same course in his Descriptive Cat- 

 alogue of 1 914. 



In 1913 ]\Iazyck (I.e.), having found two examples in the 

 Ravenel collection, published a short description of the species 

 and remarked: "The shell is ver}' close to Lampsilis ogee- 



