Catai^ogur Rece;ntly Described Moei^usca 127 



X'lviPARUS WAI.T0NI1 Tryon. 



Vivipara ivaltonii Tryon, Am. J. of Con., II, 1866, p. 108, pi. 10, fig. 2. 



Type locality : St. John's River, Fla. 



ViviPARus WAREANus ( Shuttleworth) . 



This species is distinct from georgianus Lea. 



Genus CAMPELOMA Rafinesque, 1819. 



Melanthro W. G. Binney non Bowditch. 



Pilsbry has recently (105, p. iii) proposed to su'bstitute Ambloxis Raf. 

 for Campeloma Raf. For the same reasons that I have urged in support of 

 the retention of Anculosa Say, it seems to me that the preference should be 

 given to Campeloma. 



Campeeoma dEcisum (Say). 



The undescribed forms of this species from Michigan listed as vars. 

 Jlava Currier MSS. and melanostoma Currier MSS. (Walker, 142, p. 138) 

 are of doubtful validity. 



Binney is in error in referring the following species to decisum as syno- 

 nyms : integrum Say, genicnlitm Con., milesii Lea, obesum Lewis, rnfum 

 Hald., and siibsolidum Anth. 



MelantJio feciinda mentioned, but purposely left undescribed, by Lewis 

 in 1868 (66, p. 135) and listed as a distinct species in 1869 (67, p. 34) does 

 not seem to be separable from decisum, judging from the author's original 

 specimens now in my collection. Call's remark (17, p. 135) that this is the 

 female of obesum Lewis is wholly wrong. 



Campeloma feortdense Call. 



"Campeloma Horidense Call MSS." (as synonym of C. limum), Call, Bull. 

 Washb. Coll. Lab. of Nat. Hist., I, 1886, p. 159, pi. 6, fig. 7; Pilsbry, 

 Naut., XXX, 1917, p. 42. 



Type locality not specified. Apparently restricted to the St. John's River 

 and tributary creeks in Florida. 

 It has very generally been considered to 'be the C. limum (Anth.). 



Campeloma geniculum (Con.). 



The exact status of this species still remains to be settled. Call at one 

 time considered it a valid species (15a, p. 157), but later (17, p. 134) treated 

 it as a variety of decisum. Lewis remarks (71, p. 41) that all the Alabama 

 species exhibit this peculiarity. Under this aspect of the case, the species, 

 to which Conrad's form should be referred, can only be determined by an 

 examination of his original type. 



