398 Miscellaneous. 
trious naturalist, first established in Sicily, and four of whose works 
on the natural history of that island were published at Palermo in 
1810-1815, removed, about the year 1817, to the United States. 
During his residence there, he worked assiduously on the natural 
history of the States, which were almost virgin ground—chiefly the 
plants and fishes. As yet, none of their famed river mollusks had 
been described, and M. Rafinesque sent to Europe in 1820, for pub- 
lication in the ‘ Annales Générales des Sciences Physiques’ of Brus- 
sels, a paper entitled “‘ Monographie des Coquilles bivalves fluviatiles 
de la rivicre Ohio, contenant douze genera et soixante-huit espéces.”” 
Here is an instance in which as many as sixty-eight species of the 
North-American river shells, including all the principal species, were 
described for the first time, so recently as 1820, in a work of scien- 
tific authority; and yet they have been passed over by American 
writers as not being sufficiently clear for identification. But if the 
descriptions of the whole sixty-eight are not clear enough, there can 
be no mistake about the majority of them; and I am happy to say 
that, in a monograph of the genus Unio (now in course of publica- 
tion in the ‘Conchologia Iconica’), I hope, with the assistance of 
Mr. Anthony, of Cambridge, Massachusetts, to succeed in restoring 
the priority of most of M. Rafinesque’s names. 
I have been led to offer this communication, not only for the sake 
of making the acceptable announcement of the forthcoming publica- 
tion of Messrs. Binney and Tryon’s reprint, but with the view of 
upholding an important principle in nomenclature, which appears to 
be much too readily cast aside. In Mr. P. P. Carpenter’s paper “On 
Mollusea of the West Cuast of North America” (Brit. Assoc. Re- 
ports for 1863, p. 677) occurs the following passage :— 
“Tt is unfortunate that in the two most important branches of 
North-American freshwater mollusks, the Melaniadez and the Unio- 
nidee, there exists a radical difference of opinion between the leading 
writers, which has sometimes assumed the appearance of personal 
animosity. Malacologists east of the Atlantic, unwilling to become 
partisans where the leading nomenclators of the rival schools are 
equally honoured, have to a great extent declined to pay attention to 
the unexhausted riches of the American waters, regarding any settle- 
ment of the disputed points as hopeless. Dr. Isaac Lea, who has 
spared no expense in illustrating his publications of the results of a 
lifelong study, follows the restrictions on the priority-rule allowed 
by the British Association Committee. Other writers, however, 
claim a certainty in identifying the supposed species of Rafinesque 
and other similarly inaccurate authors, which would be considered 
by most English naturalists as not warranted by the few loose words 
of description given. It would be well if the student were permitted 
to start from +the first carefully ascertained land-mark, rather than 
from the defaced tracks of the first hunter.” 
On the principle involved in this passage, many of the tracks of 
the hunter Linnzeus must be regarded as being defaced, and probably 
one-half of tbe species of the ‘Systema Nature’ would have to be 
set aside. I am, Gentlemen, your obedient Servant, 
Sutton, Heston, Oct. 2, 1864. Lovey REEVE. 
