32 



UNIO. 



WIDE. 



*subtentus. Say. Con. Desk. Han. 



*IIembeli. Con. 



*Osbeckii. Phili. 



Unio Shanghaiensis. Lea. 

 JJnio digitiformis. Sow. 



*Wrig]itii. Lea. 



*Conradianus. Lea. Han. 



*rubellinus. Lea. 



*acutissimus. Lea. Con. Chenu. Han. 



*parvulus. Lea. 



*penicillatus. Lea. 



Natalensis. Lea. 



*p]iaselus. Lea. 



*scobinatus. Lea. 



Unio Mandarimis. More. 

 U^iio jxUis-lacerti. More. 



fluctiger. Lea. 



crispatus. Gould. Blan. 



WIDE. 



*Sliurtleffianus. Lea. Blan. 



*gTatiosus. Phili. 



*huniilis. Lea. Mart. 



*Dunkerianus. Lea. 



*Murcliisonianus. Lea. Chenu. Han. 

 Unio Douglasise.^ Gray. Baird & 

 Adams. 



*nuspersicus.^ Bunh. 



*Grayanus. Lea. Chenu. Han. 

 Unio Grayii. Ln Griffiths Cuvier. 



ARCUATE. 



*23onderosus. Sol. Han. 



My a ponder osa. Solan. Dill. 

 Mya crassa. Wood. 



Yignonana. Reeve. 



Lea. Chenu. Han. Sh. 



QUADRATE. 



*lacrymosus.' 

 & Hat. 

 Theliderma lacrymosa. Swain. 

 Unio quadratus. Reeve. 



*Forslieyi. Lea. 



' In Jardines's Mag. Zool. and Botany^ vol. i. p. 285, Mr. Gray claims precedence for his name Bou- 

 glasise. He published it in Griffith's Cuvier, bearing the date of 1834. My description, published in the 

 Trans. Am. Phil. Soc, vol. 5, dates March 16, 1832. (Note 1867. Messrs. Baird and Adams, in Zool. 

 Proc, May 9, 186Y, are entirely incorrect in making Murchisonianus (1882) a synonym to Douglasise 

 (1834), saying that "Mr. Lea some years after described and figured a species from China," &c. Qxiite 

 the contrary; I described it, some years before, in the Trans. Am. Phil. Soc, vol. 5. In the same paper, 

 Messrs. Baird and Adams say that "after a careful examination of the description and figure of U. 

 Shanghaiensis (Lea), they are satisfied that it is the same, and that the name of Douglasise must there- 

 fore stand." That "the three sj)ecies are identical." This is another error. Shanghaiensis is really 

 the same as Osbeckii, Phili., with which I have some years since placed it in my MS. for this edition of 

 Synopsis.) 



^ The specimen given to me by Dr. Dunker is so much like a j'oung Murchisonianus, Lea, that I think 

 it will prove to be the same species. 



' It is a matter of some doubt if this be more than a beautiful variety of as-perrimus (nobis). Future 

 observation must deteiTuine. Ferussac and some other zoologists believe it to be distinct. Dr. Ward 

 says they "are certainly distinct." 



