OF CONCHOLOGY. 253 



In our review of a paper on Chinese Shells, by Dr. Baird and 

 Mr. H. Adams, published in the Proc. Zool. Soc, (see p. 51, 

 vol. iv, of this Journal), we stated that we would probably again 

 refer to it. Perhaps we cannot better fulfill that promise than 

 by giving a republication to Dr. Lea's paper. 



" Notes on some singular forms of Chinese species of Unto. 

 By Isaac Lea. 



" In a paper on ' Chinese Shells,' by Dr. Baird and Mr. H. 

 Adams, published in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of 

 London, May 9, 1867, there are some remarks and claims which 

 call upon me for correction. 



" 1st, ' JJnio Douglasice.' It is stated that ' in 1833 Dr. 

 Gray shortly described and accurately figured in the 12th 

 volume of Griffith's edition of Cuvier a species of Unto, which 

 he called U. Douglasice,'' &c. Further, that ' Mr. Lea, some 

 years afterwards, from not knowing the shell as figured in Grif- 

 fith, described and figured a species from China, which he named 

 U. 3Iurchisonianus, but which there is no doubt is the same as 

 U. Douglasice of Gray.' In the above statements there are 

 several to which I beg leave to demur. It is suggested by these 

 gentlemen that ' perhaps from not knowing the shell (Douglasi(e) 

 as figured in Griffith,' I had ' described and figured Murchi- 

 sonianus, which there is no doubt is the Douglasice of Gray.' In 

 answer to this I would ask how I could, when I read my paper 

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

 Society, know of a description of Griffith's Cuvier dated 1834 ? 

 (not in 1833, as incorrectly cited). Douglasice therefore cannot 

 have .precedence 'of some years,' as claimed for it, but it must 

 remain a synonym to Murchisonianus, where I placed it in my 

 Synopsis, first, second, and third editions, since 1836. 



" As regards the claim in the same paragraph for U. Sliang- 

 haiensis, Lea, being also a synonym to Douglasice, I am con- 

 strained to differ in opinion. Shanghaiensis is not the same 

 with Douglasiai, as affirmed, but it is the same with U. Osbeckii, 

 Philippi, the description of which I had not seen. ' Conchylien, 

 vol. 3d.' Some years since I placed it as a synonym to Osbeckii 

 in the manuscript copy of my Synopsis, 4th ed., preparing for 

 the press. 



" 2d. Anodonta tenuis, Gray, — also called JJnio tenuis, Gray, 

 in Griffith's Cuvier, — is considered to be, by Messrs. Baird and 

 Adams, an Anodonta, and it is said to be little known. This 

 shell does not belong to either of these genera. It is a true 



19 



