THE NAUTILUS. 139 



BEMAEK8 UPON THE IDENTITY OF " UNIO FASCIATA," RAFINE8QUE. 



BY L. S. FRIERSON. 



Lampsilis fasciata, Rafinesque. 

 Unio fasciata, Rafinesque, 1820. 

 Unio siliquoideus, Barnes, 1823. 

 Unio inflatus, Barnes, 1823. 

 Unio distans, Anthony, 1865. 

 Unio luteolus, Auct. as of Lamarck. 



The above wide-spread, common, and well-known Naiad, is 

 seldom given the name which we adopt ( "fasciata, Rafinesque" ) 

 but is all but universally known as "luteolus" as of Lamarck. 



The use of the latter as the specific name of the shell is merely 

 the unquestioning acceptation of the dictum of Dr. Lea, who on 

 returning from Europe in 1833, wrote that the "specimen cited 

 by Lamarck" seen by him in the "Garden of Plants" was a 

 "true siliquoideus" of Barnes. Against this application of 

 Lamarck's name for the species, the following reasons seem just. 



(1) Lamarck's description does not describe the species in 

 question, but does fairly well describe the Unio cariosus. 

 Say, as evidenced by the unanimous opinion of all writers 

 previous to Lea's pronouncement of 1833 (as well as by some 

 of the more courageous spirits since that event). 



(2) Lamarck gives as habitats (he must have seen more than 

 one?) the "Susquehanna and Mohawk Rivers." 



The cariosus abounds in these streams, but from neither 

 of them did Lamarck obtain specimens of the species luteolus, 

 Auct. (The shell does not live in the Susquehanna; but accord- 

 ing to Marshall the species is now an immigrant in the Mohawk 

 through the Erie canal, and this is confirmed as to the Genesee 

 by Ortmann. ) 



(3) Lea claimed that the specimen seen by him, "cited by 

 Lamarck," was a "true siliquoideus, Barnes;" but his ident- 

 ification was disputed by Ferussac, who stated that according 

 to Lamarck's "example" the shell was "cariosus, Say." 



