CIvAIBORNE FOSSILS 



By 



Gilbert D. Harris. 



Part I. — Syno7iy7ny of the Claiborne sand species of Conrad arid 

 Lea as determined by an inspection of the type collections 

 flow at the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 



To some, perhaps a discussion of this subject will appear un- 

 necessary at the present time since Conrad formerly wrote two 

 articles covering practically the same grounds, the first in an 

 appendix to Morton's Synopsis of Organic Remains &c., 1834, 

 the second in volume i of the American Journal of Concholog}^ 

 1865. From these articles however, as well as the personal re- 

 lations that existed between himself and Lea, it is evident he 

 did not have access to the latter' s collections, and the deductions 

 he was able to draw regarding them from the Contributions to 

 Geology were not always trustworthy. 



Of late, two foreign paleontologists, viz., de Gregorio of Pal- 

 ermo and M. Cossmann of Paris have given us the benefit of 

 their studies on the Alabama Eocene fauna in the Arinales de 

 Geologie et de Paleontologie , 1890-93. But their work while 

 showing much stud}^ is sometimes at fault and it might be said 

 unpardonably so if they had had access to one or both type 

 collections. De Gregorio' s work is very elaborate and in many 

 ways remarkable. Though it claims to be an exhaustive treat- 

 ise on the subject, American Tertiary paleontologists will agree 

 that a good monograph on the Claiborne molluscan fauna has 

 still to be written. As a slight aid to those who may be striv- 

 ing toward that end this table of synonym}^ has been prepared. 



The Conradian collection is fairly complete as regards its larger 

 species but many of the smaller ones, especially the Fiisi, appear 

 to be lost. The Lea collection (here made to include that of 

 H. C. Lea also) contains a number of small species differing 

 slightly from each other. Their relations will only be deter- 

 mined by collecting immense numbers of allied forms and com- 

 paring the same with the so-called types. 



In both collections some of the specimens have been glued on 

 the wrong card; in some instances species of different families 

 are assembled and made fast to one and the same card. Under 

 these circumstances it is evident that some of the conclusions 

 herein expressed may be changed by future research, yet it is 



