250 BULLETIN OF THE 
Leda solidula E. A. Surru. 
Leda solidula E. A. Smith, Chall. Rep. Lam., p. 233, pl. xix. figs. 6, 6 a, 1886. 
One valve was found from 1002 fms., near Cape San Antonio; another from 
640 fms., near by, in Yucatan Strait ; both were inadvertently included among 
the varieties of L. messanensis at the time the preliminary examination was 
made. The type was dredged by the Challenger expedition at Station 120, 
off Pernambuco, in 675 fms., red mud. 
Leda vitrea D’Orzieny, var. cerata Dall. 
Leda vitrea (?) D’Orb. 1846, var. cerata Dall, Bull. M. C. Z., IX. p. 126, 1881. 
Plate VIII. Figs. 12, 12a. 
Habitat. Barbados, 100 fms.; Sigsbee, off Havana, 450 fms. ; Station 206, 
near Martinique, in 170 fms. 
Among the species of Ledide from our southern coast, recent and fossil, are 
several closely allied to each other and to foreign forms, which have been in 
a state of more or less confusion. These are as follows, in order of publication. 
Leda (Nucula) concentrica Say, Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil., IV. 141, pl. x. fig. 6, 
1824. 
Leda (Nucula) acuta (Say ?) Conrad, Am. Mar. Conch., p. 32, pl. vi. fig. 3, 1831; Tert. 
Fos., p. 57, pl. xxx. fig. 2, 1845. 
Leda cuneata Sowerby, P. Z. S., 1882, p. 198; Thes., p. 128, fig. 92. 
Leda commutata Philippi, Zeitschr. Mal., p. 101, Jan. 1844. 
Leda vitrea D’Orbigny, Moll. Cuba, II. 262, pl. xxvi. figs. 27-29, 1846. 
Leda jamaicensis D’Orbigny, |. c., p. 263, pl. xxvi. figs. 30-32, 1846 (= acula + cuneata). 
Leda (Nucula) eborea Conrad, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil., II. p. 24, pl. i. fig. 4, 1848 
(= concentrica Say). 
Leda unca Gould, Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist., VIII. p. 282, 1862. 
Leda Bushiana Verrill, Trans. Conn. Acad., VI. 229, 1884. 
Leda unca Verrill, 1. c., p. 260, 1884. 
Leda concentrica Say, described as a fossil, is without doubt the same as the 
recent eborea Conrad, which I have from Conrad’s original collection. It is 
distinguished by its strong sculpture and long straight rostrum. It ranges 
from Florida to Texas. 
Leda acuta was poorly described, and very badly figured. I have not been 
able to compare with the figure in the Am. Marine Conchology, but his figure 
in the “ Fossils of the Tertiary Formation ” is much more slender and recurved 
than the species which American writers have regarded it as intended to 
represent. This may probably be the fault of the figure, and it will save a 
good deal of trouble, and give us a clear way out of the confusion, to adopt 
