250 
PALEONTOLOGY OF NEW YORK. 
(Rajinesquina alternata, R. expansa, Stropheodonta filosa ), reversed convexity ( Stropho - 
mena antiquata, Strophonella euglypha, S. funiculata, Orthothetespecteri), 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 Palaeontology 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. Meek! provisionally retained Strophomena for Lept&na 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 Leptcena planumbona. Finally Mr. Davidson, in 1884, in his last expression 
in regard to this genus, says: 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 Silurien de l’Amerique Septentrionale, p. 90. 
f Palaeontology of Ohio, vol. i, p. 73. 
t General Summary, p. 379. 
§ Fischer’s Manuel de Conchyliologie, p. 12S1. 
