THE LOESS AND THE LANSING MAN. 329 



species were incorrectly .identified; and in still other cases 

 conclusions concerning the mollnsks were unwarranted by the 

 facts. 



Some of the earlier reports upon the fossils of the loess were 

 inexcusable. Aughey's list of fossils from the loess of Ne- 

 braska* is impossible. No such series of shells was ever ob- 

 tained in the loess. His method of identification as related 

 by himself** is sufficient to condemn the list as unworthy of 

 serious notice. This list contains a large number of southern 

 fluviatile molluscs, and the author states positively that "fresh- 

 water shells are quite abundant at some horizons." He also 

 states that many of his specimens fell to pieces, and conse- 

 quently he had no specimens to show! It was the writer's 

 privilege to examine a remnant of Professor Aughey's collec- 

 tion while at Lincoln in 1 889-1 890, and he found a small set 

 of very ordinary loess fossils of terrestrial species. It is re- 

 markable that the heavy-shelled Viviparidce, Strepomatida 

 and UnionidcB mentioned in the list should have so disinteg- 

 rated, while the delicate Pupoe, and other fragile forms of the 

 ordinary loess fauna should have been preserved ! 



Similar to this are the erroneous reports concerning the 

 modern habits of the species of snails found in the loess. 



Lyell speaks of the "amphibious genus Succinea"^ and of 

 the abundance of freshwater and land-shells in the vicinity 

 of Natchez, yet no aquatic shells have been discovered since. % 



Todd§ refers to Succineas and Helicinas as semi aquatic. 



*See Hayden's U. S. Geol. Sur. of Colorado and adjacent territory, 

 1876, pp. 266-269; also a practical reprint in Sketches of Phys. Geog. 

 and Geol. of Neb., 1880, pp. 287-290. 



**See "Sketches of Phys. Geog.,'' 1. c. 



tFor discussions of Succinea see the writer's recent paper on the 

 Loess of Natchez. Am. Geol., vol. xxx, pp. 283-284. 



tin a recent private letter Dr. Hilgard, for many years a student of 

 the loess in Mississippi, corroborates the writer's recent declaration (1. 

 c. p. 282) that no aquatic species are as yet known from the loess of 

 Natchez. 



§Reprint from Proc. A. A. A. S. , vol. xxvii, 1878, p. 6. 



