NO. 1205. SYNOPSIS OF THE NAIADES— SIMPSON. 681 



1807, p. 146.— *Matox and Rackett, Tr. Linu. Soc. Lond., A^III, 1807, p. 

 38. — *\VoOJD, Gen. Couch., 1,1815, p. 104, pi. xix, fijjs. 3, 4. — " Dillwvn, 

 Cat., I, 1817, p. 49. — *Titkton, Conch. Diet., 1819, p. 106. — * Wood, Index 

 Test., 1825, p. 12, pi. ii, fig. 26c; "rev. ed., 1856, p. 15, pi. n, fig. 26.— "?Chenu, 

 Bib. Conch., 1st ser., I, 1845, p. 114, pi. xlvii, figs. 8, 9.' — *Hanley, Ipsa. 

 Linu. Conch., 1855, p. 460. 

 * Unio piclorum Retzius, Diss. Hist. Nat., 1778, p. 17. — *Spengler, Skriv. Selsk- 

 Nat., Ill, 1793, p. 59.— "Drapaunaud, Tab. Moll. Fr., 1801, p. 106; in part 

 Hist. Moll. Fr., 1806, p. 131, pi. xi, fig. 4.-— *Gaertner, Vers. Ein. Syst., 

 1813, p. 36.— ''Mii.LET, Moll. Maine et Loire, 1813, p. 74.— *Brard, Hist. 

 Coq. Paris, 1815, p. 226, pi. viii, fig. 1. — Brookes, Int. to Conch., 1815, 

 p. 51, pi. II, fig. 12. — *CuviER, Regne Animal, II, 1817, p. 473. — *Klees, 

 Diss. Test., 1818, p. 45. — * Lamarck, An. sans Vert., VI, 1819, p. 77. — *C. 

 Pfeiffeh, L. and Suss. Moll., Pt. 1, 1821, p. 115, pi. v, figs. 9, 20.— *Nils- 

 SON^, Hist. Moll. Svec, 1822, p. 111.— *Bosc, Hist. aNat. Coq., Ill, 1824, 

 J). 139, pi. XXIII, fig. 3. — 'Blainville, Manual, Mai., 1825, p. 539, pi. lxvii, 

 fig. 2.— "Crouch, 111. Int. Lamarck, 1827, p. 16, pi. ix, figs. 4, 4«, 46.— 

 *Waakdenberg, Com. Hist. Nat., 1827, p. 36. — "Kleeberg, Moll. Boruss, 

 1828, p. 38.— Stark, Nat. Hist., II, 1828, p. 90.—' Fleming, Hist. Brit. Animals, 

 1828, p. 416.— "GouPiL, Hist. Moll. Sarthe, 1835, p. 84. — * Rossmassler, 

 Icon., I, 1835, p. 118, pi. in, figs. 71, 71a, 71&; III, 1836, p. 23, pi. xiii, fig. 196; 

 VI, 1837, p. 55, pi. XXIX, fig. 409; IX, 1839, p. 10, pi. xlv, fig. 587-590; XI, 

 1842, p. 14, pi. LV, fig. 741 ; XII, 1844, p. 30, pi. Lvm, figs. 762-766 ; p. 31, pi. lix, 

 tigs. 767-769.— *FouRNEL, Fauu. Moselle, I, 1836, p. 486.— 'Fleming, Moll. 

 Animals, 1837, pi. xiv, fig. 51.—* Wyatt, Man. Conch., 1838, p. 67, pi. viii, fig. 

 6.—" PoRRO, Mai. Come, 1838, p. 117.—" Terver, Moll. Terr, et Fluv., 1839, p. 

 39.—* ANTOiX, Verz. der Couch., 1839, p. 15.—* ? Gras, Moll. Isere., 1840, p. 71, 

 pi. I, fig. 8.3— *Hanley, Test. Moll., 1842, p. 205; *Biv. Shells, 1843, p. 205.— 

 *SCHOLz, Schleis, L. and W. Moll., 1843, p. 127. — *Catlow and Reeve, 

 Conch. Nom., 1845, p. 62. — * Stabile, Faun. Lug., 1845, p. 60, pi. in, fig. 73. — 

 *Morelet, Moll. Port., 1845, p. 108.—* Brown, L. and F. W. Conch., 1845, p, 

 107, pi. XIX, figs. 1-4.—* Puton, Moll. Vosges, 1847, p. 70.— *Stein, Die Lebend. 

 Schneck., 1850, p. 104, pis. xxiv, xxv, figs. 1, 2.— *Middendorff, Sib. Reise, 

 II, 1851, p. 276, pi. XX viii, figs. 1-3.— * Leach, Syn. Moll. Gt. Brit., 1852, p. 

 234.— *DuPUY, Hist. M. Fr., 1852, p. 647, pi. xxvi, fig. 20.— * Forbes and 

 Hanley, Hist. Brit. Moll., II, 1853, p. 142, pi. xxxix, fig. 1. — * Kuster, 

 Conch. (Jab. Unio, 1854, p. 88, jil. xxiii, figs. 1, 2; pi. xxiv; xxv, figs. 1, 2. — 

 " Moquin-Tandon, Moll. Terr. Fluv. Fr., II, 1855, p. 576, pi. l, figs, 8, 10; 

 LI, figs. 1, 10. — *voN Wahl, Arch. Naturk. Liv. Est., 2d ser., 1855, ]3. 105. — 

 *NoRDENSKiOLD aud Nylander, Fin. Moll., 1856, p. 83, pi. y, fig. 72. — 

 *Drouet, Nay. Fr., II, 1857, p. 103, pi. viii. — *Turton, Man. L. and F. W. 

 Shells, 1857, p. 279, pi. ii, fig. ll.~*H. and A. Adams, Geu. Rec. Moll., II, 

 1857, p. 491; III, j)l. cxvi, figs. 5, 5a, 56. — * Sowerby, III. Index Brit. Shells, 

 1859, No. 2, pi. VII.— ^Goodrich, 111. Nat. Hist., II, 1859, p. 523, tig.— 

 Jeffreys, Brit. Conch., I, 1862, p. 34.— *Bielz, Faun. Sieben, 1863, p. 192.— 

 * Reeve, L. and F. W. Moll. Brit., 1863, p. 221, tig. 2.—* Tate, L. and F. W. 

 Moll. G. Brit., 1866, pi. ii, fig. 3. — * 1 Schrenck, Reise und F. im Am. Lande, 

 II, 1867, p. 696.-'- * Kobelt, Fauu. Nass. Moll., 1871, p. 241.— * Wester- 



1 U. hatavus perhaps. 



-Draiiarnaud gives_ figures 1-4 for i)lctorum. One and 2 may possibly be that spe- 

 cies, but they look more like hatavus, and 3 is certainly hatavus, Avhile 4 is probably 

 picto7'um. 



'■^ Doubtful, may be hatavus. 



* It is very probable that the specimens from Amur Land and vicinity which have 

 been referred to U. pictorum are a smooth variety of Nodularia douglasiw Gray, a 

 species resembling it iu form, but not at all closely related to it. 



