The Loess and the Lansing Man. — Shimck. 355 
obtained in the loess. His method of identification as related 
by himself* is sufficient to condemn the list as unworthy of ser- 
ious notice. This list contains a large number of southern flu- 
viatiie mollusks, and the author states positively that "fresh- 
water shells are quite abundant at some horizons." Fie also 
states that many of his specimens fell to pieces, and consequent- 
ly be had no specimens to show! It was the writer's privilege 
to examine a remnant of professor Aughey's collection while 
at Lincoln in i88o,-i8(jo, and he found a small set of very or- 
dinary loess fossils of terrestrial species. It is remarkable that 
the heavy-shelled Viviparidae, Strepomatidae and Unionidae 
mentioned in the list should have so disintegrated, while the 
delicate Pupae, and other fragile forms of the ordinary loess 
fauna should have been preserved ! 
Similar to this are the erroneous reports concerning the 
modern habits of the species of snails found in the loess. 
Lyell speaks of the "amphibious genus Succinea J \ and of 
the abundance of freshwater and land-shells in the vicinity of 
Natchez, yet no aquatic shells have been discovered since. $ 
Todd § refers to Succineas and Helicinas as semi aquatic. 
Call, who alone of this list of writers made a pretense of 
special knowledge of conchology, reported Helicina occulta || 
and Pomatiopsis lapidaria\ as aquatic, and Succinea as semi- 
aquatic ! 
But these forms are terrestrial and a mere tyro who would 
have taken the trouble to go to the field could have avoided 
such misstatements. Yet they have been accepted with others 
quite as unreliable and have been incorporated in geological 
papers to form the basis of important conclusions. Todd and 
Call both reported (1. c. ) on the depauperated shells of. the 
loess, and concluded that cold was responsible, and these con- 
clusions were relied upon by McGee° who used them to sup- 
*See "Sketches of 1'hys. Geog.," 1. c. 
fFor discussions of Succinea see the writer's recenl paper on The Loess 
of Natchez, Am. Geou, vol. xxx, pp. 283-284. 
tin a recent private letter Dr. Hilgard, for many years a student of Hie 
loess in Mississippi, corroborates the writer's recenl declaration (1. c. p. 282) 
thai no aquatic species are as yet known from the loess of Natchez. 
\ Reprint from Proc. L. L. L. n.. vol xxvii. L878, p. 6. 
II As Helicina oculata: Im. Vat., vol. xv. p. 586, 1881. This error con- 
cerning habii is copied by McGee, I.e. p. 461, in a statemenl at the close of 
a lisi of fossils quoted from the presenl writer. There was no warrant for 
such a statement in the article quoted. 
\Am. Nat. ).<-.. Ark. Geol Sur. vol. li, pp. L66, 167, L68, 1891. 
The L5ss and Associated Deposits of Des .Moines, p . 16, 1882. 
See Loss and Associated Deposits Of I ,( ' s Moines, p. I'.'!. e1 Seq. 
