6 University of Michigan 



brosus to this species and if it is the same Conrad's name 

 would have precedence. Conrad states that he received two 

 specimens from the Rappahannock, River. Va., and that he 

 found a single specimen in South Carolina. He does not state 

 from which locality his figured type came. Xo representatives 

 of the species grouping around ogecchccnsis have been found 

 as far north as the Rappahannock and as L. radiata Gmel. is 

 found all through that region, Simpson's reference (Desc. Cat. 

 1914, p. 65) of tenchrosus to that species would seem to be 

 probably correct. 



II 



Lampsilis modioliformis (Lea). PI. II, figs. 1-4. 



As the preceding species has been referred to this by Simp- 

 son (1. c), it seems well to consider both at the same time. 



The type of this species was received by Lea from Ravenel 

 and came from the Santee Canal, S. C. Although Simpson 

 (Desc. Cat., p. 135) extends its range from that locality "south 

 to north Florida; probably west to ^Mississippi," my own ex- 

 perience agrees with his that "all the valid specimens I have 

 seen are from the Santee Canal, S. C." I have examined the 

 shells from Mississippi doubtfully cited by him as this species 

 and am of the opinion that they should be referred to L. 

 vibex Con. In his paper on the Unionid?e of Florida (Pr. U. 

 S. N. M., XV, 1892, p. 414) Simpson referred to this species 

 several of Lea's species and one of Wright's that he sub- 

 sequently in his Synopsis and Descriptive Catalogue very prop- 

 erly transferred to the synonymy of L. z'ibe.v Con. It is possi- 

 ble that his retention of the extension of the range of niodioli- 

 formis to Florida may have been a relic of his former opinion 

 in regard to its synonymy. 



Lea's figured type is an old female and the posterior ex- 



