250 PALEONTOLOGY OF NEW YORK. 



(Rafinesquina alternata, R. expansa, Stropheodonta Jilosa), reversed convexity {Sfropho- 

 mena antiquata, Strophonella euglypha, S.funiculata, Orlhothetes peden), and the typical 

 Lept^ena {L. depressa =^ rhomboidalis, Wilckens). This application of the term 

 StrophOiMENA is now in general usage, but it is quite too broad for the present 

 recjuirements of classification. It is highly probable (almost certain indeed) 

 that the specimens described by de Blainville and Defrance under this name 

 had been sent by Rafinesqde from America. De Castelnau, in 1843,* in de- 

 scribing his species Produdus ? sulcatus, which is unquestionably an imperfect 

 specimen of L. rhomboidalis, from the Corniferous limestone, says that the fossil 

 had been communicated to him " as a Strophomena of Rafinesque." It was 

 also stated, in Volume III of the Palaeontology of New York (page 175), that 

 specimens of L. rhomboidalis in Rafinesque's collection, which came into the 

 hands of Mr. Charles A. Poulson of Philadelphia, were labeled with the name 

 Strophomena rugosa. 



In 1873 Mr. Meek! provisionally retained Strophomena for Leptena rhomboid- 

 alis, and referred the numerous resupinate forms he there described to Hemipro- 

 NiTES, though admitting the almost certain identity of S. rugosa, de Blainville, 

 witli Leptana planumbona. Finally Mr. Davidson, in 1884, in his last expression 

 in regard to this genus, says: f" Strophomena, Rafinesque, 1820, has caused much 

 confusion. It should, I think, be restricted to forms that agree with Strophomena 

 rho?nboidalis." 



CKhlert, in 1887, takes S. rhomboidalis as the type of Pander's Plectambon- 

 ITES, leaving under Strophomena (with S. rugosa, Rafinesque (de Blainville), as 

 the type), both the reversed and normally convex forms.§ 



It is evident from the foregoing review of the history of the name Strophom- 

 ena, that in justice to Rafinesque, both the genus and its type-species should 

 be accredited to him : and although their intei'pretation and establishment are 

 due to DE Blainville and Defrance, we ciui not with propriety claim for these 

 authors what they had no intention of claiming for themselves. 



* Essai siir le Systeme Silui-ien de rAmrviqne Septeiitiionale, p. 90. 



t Paljeontoloj^y of Ohio, vol. i, p. 73. 



J General .Suininavy, p. 370. 



§ Fischer's Manuel <le Conchyliologie, ji. 1281. 



