OP CONCHOLOGY. 6 



" On Lingual Dentition, studied by the Microscope and Pho- 

 tography." By Wm. G. Binney and Tliomas Bland. 



"Descriptions of Miocene, Eocene, and Cretaceous Fossils." 

 By T. A. Conrad. 



" Observations on the Genus Astarte, with Descriptions of 

 two other Genera of Astartidie." By T. A. Conrad. 



"Notices and Reviews of New Conchological Works." By 

 Geo. W. Tryon, Jr. 



Mr, Tryon, on behalf of a Committee appointed at the Janu- 

 ary Meeting, read the following report : 



Hall of the Academy, February 9th, 18G9, 



The Committee appointed to ascertain and report to the Con- 

 chological Section whether Dr. Lea's Paliuiina bimonilifera 

 has priority, as asserted by him, over Mr. Conrad's P. mat/nifica, 

 respectfully report: 



That Dr. Lea's species was included in a paper read by him 

 before the American Philosophical Society, March 16th, 1832, 

 a,nd published in the " Transactions " of that Society, the title 

 page of the completed volume bearing date 1837. But the 

 volumes of the Philosophical Transactions were issued in Parts, 

 with no internal evidence of the date of publication of each ; nor 

 do the records of the Society furnish these dates. 



Dr. Lea claims, and Mr. Conrad has allowed, that the printed 

 date of the species contained in the paper in question, is 1834, 

 and by reference to the Minute-Book of the Academy of Natural 

 Sciences, your Committee find' that one of Dr. Lea's extra 

 copies of his paper, under the title " Observations on the Genus 

 Uuio, etc.," was presented by the author to the Academy Sept. 

 16th, 1834. 



Mr. Conrad's Pahichna magnifica was first published by him 

 in a small work entitled " New Fresh Water Shells of the United 

 States," Philadelphia, 1834; and the editor of Silliman's Amer- 

 ican Journal of Science acknowledges receipt of a copy of this 

 work in the No. of that Journal issued July 1st, 1834. 



There is, consequently, no doubt of the priority of Mr. Con- 

 rad's species m printed publication. But Dr. Lea claims priority 

 for his date of reading, asserting that at the early period referred 

 to. Societies published infrequently, and in order to secure to 

 an author the fruits of his labors, by almost universal consent, 

 the date of reading was adopted as date of publication. Sub- 

 sequently, as science became more active and larger numbers 

 of persons became interested in it, this plan was found to be in- 

 convenient, and a more rapid diffusion of discoveries was obtained 

 by the issue by the principal scientific bodies, at frequent inter- 

 vals, of cheap publications entitled " Proceedings." Thus small 



