260 PALEONTOLOGY OF NEW YORK. 



{Rafinesquina alternata, R. expansa, Stropheodonta filosa), reversed convexity {Stropho- 

 mena antiquata, Strophonella euglypha, S.funiculata, Orihothetes peden), and the typical 

 LEPTiENA (L. depressa = rhomboidalis, Wilckens). This application of the term 

 Strophomena is now in general usage, but it is quite too broad for the present 

 requirements of classification. It is highly probable (almost certain indeed) 

 that the specimens described by de Blainville and Defrance under this name 

 had been sent by Rafinesque from America. De Castelnau, in 1843,* in de- 

 scribing his species Produdus ? sulcatus, which is unquestionably an imperfect 

 specimen of L. rhomboidalis, from the Corniferous limestone, says that the fossil 

 had been communicated to him " as a Strophomena of Rafinesque." It was 

 also stated, in Volume III of the Paleontology of New York (page 175), that 

 specimens of L. rhomboidalis in Rafinesque's collection, which came into the 

 hands of Mr. Charles A. Poulson of Philadelphia, were labeled with the name 

 Strophomena rugosa. 



In 1873 Mr. MeeeI provisionally retained Strophomena for Leptcena rhomboid- 

 alis, and referred the numerous resupinate forms he there described to Hemipro- 

 NiTES, though admitting the almost certain identity of S. rugosa, de Blainville, 

 with Lepicena planumbona. Finally Mr. Davidson, in 1884, in his last expression 

 in regard to this genus, says: j.'' Strophomena, Rafinesque, 1820, has caused much 

 confusion. It should, I think, be restricted to forms that agree with Strophomena 

 rhomboidalis." 



CEhlert, in 1887, takes S. rhomboidalis as the type of Pander's Plectambon- 

 ites, leaving under Strophomena (with S. rugosa, Rafinesque (de Blainville), as 

 the type), both the reversed and normally convex forms.§ 



It is evident from the foregoing review of the history of the name Strophom- 

 ena, that in justice to Rafinesque, both the genus and its type-species should 

 be accredited to him ; and although their interpretation and establishment are 

 due to de Blainville and Defrance, we can not with propriety claim for these 

 authors what they had no intention of claiming for themselves. 



* Essai sur le Systeme Siluiien de I'Amerique Septentrionale, p. 90. 

 t Palaeontolog-y of Ohio, vol. i, p. 73. 

 I General Summary, p. 379. 

 . § Fischer's Manuel de Conchyliologie, p. 1281. 



