Mr. Barnes's Reclamation of Unios. 359 



American Unios, of which the author, Mons. A. Valenciennes, 

 describes nine species, all of which have been previously de- 

 scribed by American naturalists, either under the same or dif- 

 ferent names ; but, in several instances, no notice is taken of 

 the original author, from whom those names were derived. 

 This is a singular oversight, in the French naturalists, who 

 have been distinguished by their liberality towards American 

 authors ; inasmuch as these shells have been sent to the Bar- 

 on Ferussac, and set forth in his excellent Bulletin, with all 

 due praise. It is an act of duty to Mr. Say and myself to 

 notice this departure from the law of naturalists, that priori- 

 ty must have preference, in all regular publications. I have, 

 however, no doubt, that the oversight was unintentional, and 

 such as will sometimes unavoidably occur. After the publi- 

 cation, in your sixth volume, of the shells brought from the 

 northwestern territory, in 1820-1, I was shown a paper, by 

 Professor Rafinesque, published in Brussels, without a date, 

 in which I discovered some of those which I had published. 

 I am not sure which had the priority, but if it belongs to Mr. 

 R. that circumstance probably occurred from the delay in 

 printing the paper in your Journal, caused by my absence 

 from the city, during the prevalence of the yellow fever, and 

 several other unfavorable events. The want of a date in Mr. 

 R's paper, sent to Dr. Mitchill, the only one I have seen, was 

 I believe, owing to its being a part of a larger work of which 

 some extra copies were bound up for the author. Mr. R's 

 paper was totally unknown to me at the time of publishing 

 mine, as you will perceive by the introduction, in which Mr. 

 Say's paper is mentioned as the only one then known. 



In the paper of A. Valenciennes, which is the subject of 

 this reclamation, Mr. Rafinesque is mentioned but not fol- 

 lowed ; and the author's view appears just and reasonable, 

 which is to leave the genus as it now stands, and not to con- 

 stitute other genera from it, by the external form of the shells. 

 Mr. Say is also respectfully mentioned, but no notice what- 

 ever is taken of the paper in your sixth volume, though sever- 

 al of the same species are set forth under the same names, 

 even those of which you have given plates ; and others are 

 republished under different names. I shall notice them in 

 detail with corrections to each. 



1 . Unio ovAta. (ovatas.) — The gender of the word Unio 

 is again mistaken. It is masculine. This error is noticed in 



