Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology 5 



Simpson. But in 1840 Lea described an entirely different 

 species as Unio tener, which is now known as Lanipsilis ten- 

 era (Simpson, Desc. Cat., p. 122). I do not find any Latin 

 adjective as tenerus, but if construed as such the feminine 

 form would be tenera and, therefore, could not be used either 

 in a specific or varietal sense in Lampsilis, although in Unio 

 the two names would undoubtedly be considered sufticiently 

 distinct. 



It hardly seems possible that tencrus could be construed 

 as a word "formed by an arbitrary combination of letters 

 (Code, Art. 8-k), but if so, Mazyck's use of Lampsilis tencrus 

 might be retained either in a specific or varietal sense. 



I fully agree with Mazyck that Ravenel's species "is very 

 close to Lampsilis ogeecheensis Con." and "may best be con- 

 sidered a variety" of that species. Unfortunately our knowl- 

 edge of Conrad's species is very limited. The types do not 

 seem to be in the collection of the Philadelphia Academy and 

 I am not aware of the existence of any authentic specimens. 

 It is not represented at all in the Lea Collection. We are 

 consequently restricted to the original description and figure. 



Then, too, our knowledge of Lea's species, vaughanianus 

 from Camden, S. C, prevostianus from the Etowah River, Ga., 

 and proximus from "Georgia" and their relations to Conrad's 

 species is still too imperfect to enable us to arrive at any 

 definite conclusions at the present time. From an examination 

 of the types I fully concur in a suggestion of Frierson's that 

 concavus and sudus of Lea should also be included in the same 

 category. In this general uncertainty it is impossible to fix 

 the standing of Ravenel's species any more definitely than 

 ]\Iazyck has done and there seems to be no other way than to 

 leave it for the present in that very unsatisfactory position. 



Both Lea and Conrad agree in referring Conrad's U. tcnc- 



