Remarks on Certain Species of N. A. Helicidce. 125 



"I am inclined to believe that Mr. Say's indisposition to multiply 

 species induced him to miite the three sliells,* with which we are now- 

 confused, under the one name inornata, and if it was not for the word 

 polished, I would believe that ray shell was the type from which his 

 description was written. All of these shells are, I believe, found in 

 Pennsylvania, certainly inornata By. and fuU^inosa^ and we can scarcely 

 believe that they escaped the observation of so industrious a naturalist 

 as Mr. Say. We have a similar instance of his uniting allied species in 

 the avara group, in which he certainly embraced H. Postelliana and 

 espiloca, and probably others which do not coiTcspond with the descrip- 

 tion of the Florida avara^ 



Having heard it attributed to Say, that he never volunteered 

 to correct errors, and even avoided indicating the shell (when 

 directly applied to) intended by his description, I had further 

 correspondence with Dr. Kavenel, who, under date 10th April, 

 1860, favored me with an explanatory letter, from which I 

 extract the following : — 



" In answer to your question whether Say ever corrected labels, I can 

 tell you that I sent him the H. Hopetonensis without a name, merely 



writing ' Helix S. Car.,' and he returned some of the specimens 



with my label filled up ' H. tridentata var. ephabus Say.' I sent him 

 specimens of a variety of the same, from the gardens in Charleston ; he 

 then wrote in pencil on my label, ' H. tridentata var. ephabus, — the same 

 as the shell which you sent me several years ago.' I sent him H. Pos- 

 telliana with my label * Helix S. Car.,' and he filled up the gap 



with ' avara Say.' With H. esjnloca the same thing occurred. He cor- 

 rected, and also gave me names of our raai'ine shells sent to him ; and when 

 I sent him new shells, he described them, and generally returned the 

 specimens with his paper, I therefore infer and believe that if he had 

 considered my label H. inornata incorrect, he would have corrected it; 

 and at the same time, if he had not considered the shell to be inornata^ 

 be would certainly have described it as new. 



" I have before expressed the opinion to you that Mr. Say sometimes 



* Dr. Ravenel overlooks JI. glaphyra Say, but his explanatory suggestions are 

 both interesting and valuable. 



