40 
Reply to Dr. Harlan^ s Note, 
just quoted, it would be precisely correct; thus — The 
picta of this author ( Dr. H. ) is identical with the species 
previously known to naturalists as the S. intermixtaP It 
is not my intention to enter into any controversy on this 
subject, but in justice to myself I must state that the S. in- 
termixta was long known to be a species described by me 
to almost every gentleman in this city who paid any atten- 
tion to this subject; and in two cabinets at least, besides my 
own, the specimens of these animals were labelled with that 
name — This was known to Dr. H. himself before he pub- 
lished or wrote his description. 
With regard to the other animal. Dr. Harlan observes — 
S. Jeffersoniana, Green, was previously, described as a 
variety of S. variolata, at page 334 of this Synopsis;" (for 
p. 334, read p. 18.) I am at a loss to discover the Doctor's 
object in this note. The variety of the S. variolata was not 
described before the S. Jeffersoniana, according to his own 
showing — for upon turning to the date of his paper it will 
be seen that it was read December 12, 1826" — whereas 
my paper was read October 23, 1826." His paper was 
published in February, 1827, and mine in January, 1827. 
By what rule of arithmetic he makes out a priority of claim 
I cannot determine. But suppose the Dr. to be correct in 
his calculation, I contend that the animals are wholly differ- 
ent. Before describing the S. Jeffersoniana, I compared it 
not only with a number of specimens of the Variolata, but 
also with the very animal to which he alludes; and both in 
my own judgment, and in that of some friends who were 
present, the two species were distinct. The truth is, that 
there is perhaps no species better characterized than the S, 
Jeffersoniana — those who are curious on this subject may 
see the descriptions and figures of both — The S. variolata 
will be found in the Jour. Acad. Nat Sc. vol. i, p. 460, pi. 18, 
the other in the first No. of the Contributions, &c. plate 1. 
