OF CONCHOLOGY. 61 



with which it is grouped. The soft parts of this species are de- 

 scribed by me under the name u Amnicola grana, Say," in the 

 Proceedings Acad. Nat. Sci. Dec. 1862, p. 588. The species is 

 undoubtedly that described by Mr. Lea as " Paludina obtusa." 

 It will be again alluded to, under Pomatiopsis lustrica. 



" Amnicola Sayana, Anth.," page 81, is clearly not an Amni- 

 cola. In its habits it agrees with those of Pomatiopsis lapidaria, 

 with which it is unquestionably generically related. It is sur- 

 prising that the resemblance of the lingual denticles of " Sayana" 

 to those of lapidaria, figured on page 82, should have escaped 

 Mr. Binney's observation. He should also have seen that the 

 lingual denticles of " Say ana" differ essentially from those of 

 Amnicola porata, figured on page 80. Since it is now plainly 

 evident that the species " Say ana" is liberated from Amnicola, 

 and placed in another genus, it may be proper to restore the 

 specific name by which it was first made known. In the present 

 state of our knowledge it may now be known as Pomatiopsis 

 cincinnatiensis, Lea. 



Mr. Binney identifies certain shells of "Little Lakes, N. Y.," 

 with " Amnicola Sayana." The shells in question are similar in 

 form, but smaller. The habits of the animals are decidedly 

 aquatic, while the habits of " Amnicola Sayana " are terrestrial, 

 though confined to moist ground. The occurrence of these small 

 shells of "Little Lakes, N. Y.," in almost every small lake in 

 central New York, and the fact that Say's original locality for 

 11 Pal. lustrica" was " Cayuga Lake, N. Y.," also the fact that 

 certain small shells of similar form and size have recently been 

 detected in the Erie Canal, which connects with Cayuga Lake, 

 lead to the presumption that the shells "No. 8969 " from "Lit- 

 tle Lakes, N. Y.," are identical with Say's lustrica; and this 

 presumption is confirmed and supported by Mr. Say's description 

 of lustrica. More of this under remarks on Pomatiopsis lustrica. 

 In his treatment of " Amnicola limosa," Mr. Binney has un- 

 doubtedly committed several errors. They are nearly of the 

 same character as those which are apparent in his treatment of 

 Melantho. A portion of the " specimens " are misplaced, there 

 can be no doubt. "No. 8962," or at least a part of the speci- 

 mens included under that number, should have been placed under 

 Amnicola cineinnatiensis, on page 86. 



"■No. 8962" (under limosa) ma y probably be from "Little 

 Lakes, N. Y.," instead of Michigan, as indicated. If so, the 

 shells are identical with shells from "Little Lakes, N. Y.," cre- 

 dited to pallida. 



The shells referred to porata may be questioned. It does not 



