distinguish the two species. As Solander's specific name of Maculosum is almost identical with Maculatum-already employed to designate a Dolium-we have chosen to revive Solander's species, supposing ours to be such, under the name of Dolium Plumatum.

The habitat of this shell I am unacquainted with; the specimen from which my description is made, was obligingly lent to me for that purpose, by P. H. Nicklin, Esq. I have a perforated specimen from one of the South Sea Islands, which was once an ornament of an Indian chief.

Dolium Olearium. Lin.

Shell roundish, rather thin, with about twenty transverse ribs, having an elevated line in the interstices of those nearest the spire; spire rather flat, and grooved at the sutures; outer lip crenulate, with a very strong callous ridge on its inferior edge; pillar umbilicate; colour light fawn or pale brown : length about three inches, and more than two-thirds as broad.

Mr. T. R. Peale brought a number of these shells from Florida, but none of them were living specimens.

ART. XVI. Notes on the AMERICAN SHELLS, figured in the Supplement to the Index Testaceologicus. By JACOB GREEN, M. D. Professor of Chemistry in Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, Corresponding Member.

Read June 7, 1830.

The object of the present communication is to correct some of the inaccuracies which occur in the Supplement to the Index Testaceologicus of W. Wood, Esquire, lately published in London. On three or four of the plates which adorn this beautiful work, we have a number of American shells accurately delineated, but on referring to the accompanying catalogue, for their names, these will be found in almost every instance, to be incorrect or misapplied.

Plate 1st.

In this plate, under the head Mya, we have figured 12 bivalves, all said to be inhabitants of the United States.

Fig. 1. Is called Unio Rotunda-It is, we think, the U. Circu

lus of Mr. Lea. This shell we saw labelled with the name, U. Rotunda some years since in the cabinet of the British MuMr. Lea's name, U. Circulus, must therefore be aban

seum. doned.

Fig. 2. Is called Unio Oblongata. We never saw or heard of this species before.

Fig. 3. Unio Alatus-A bad representation.

Fig. 4. Unio Nasutus.-Very good.

Fig. 5. This is called Unio Undulatus.-It certainly does not represent the U. Undulatus of Barnes-Mr. Lea, in his paper on American Unios, says that this shell should be called the U. Plicatus of Le Sueur. Waving the objection that Le Sueur never described a shell, we repeat✶ that La Marck's name U. Peruvianus, has the priority, and therefore must be applied to it. Fig. 6. This is called Unio Gravis in one place, and U. Cariosus in another; the last name is probably right.

Fig. 7. Is called Unio Rugulosa, It cannot be the U. Rugosus of Barnes, which Mr. Lea, has improperly noticed as a variety of U. Metanevra of Rafinesque.

Fig. 8. Is called Unio Obliquus. It is perhaps intended for U. Obliqua of La Marck, or U. Scalenius, Raf.

* See Contrib. Mac. Lyceum, vol, 1. page 44.

Fig. 9. Is called Castalia Ambigua. No species of Castalia has been discovered in the United States-the only one seen by La Marck was the C. Ambigua in the cabinet of the Marquis De Dree. The genus Castalia however should no doubt be joined to that of Unio.

Fig. 10. Is called Unio Rigida. We are wholly ignorant of this species.

Fig. 11. Is the Unio Prælongus of Barnes. La Marck's name, U. Rectus, has the priority.

Fig. 12. Is called Hyria Angulata. This shell is not, we think, a native of the United States. The figure looks something like one of the varieties of the U. Peruvianus.

Plate 4th.

Fig. 26. This shell is called Strombus Noveboracensis, and is said to be found in the harbor of New-York. It was new to us —perhaps it is intended for the Nassa Obsoleta of Mr. Say.

Plate 7th.

Fig. 11. This is rightly called Helix Tridentata-we have seen it however more than three times the dimensions of the one figured, which is said to be of the natural size.

Fig. 12. This is named Helix Angulata. It is the Planorbis Bicarinatus of Say.

Fig. 13. This is named Paludina Subcarinatus. It is the Pal. Dissimilis of Say.

Fig. 14. This is called, as we are glad to find, Helix Septemvolva, and not by the ill devised and unnecessary generic name, Polygyra, proposed by Mr. Say.

Fig. 15. This is named Helix Monodon. It is the H. Fraterna of Say-whether this last name has priority we cannot determine, as Mr. Wood does not refer to his author.

Fig. 16. This is named Helix Fraterna. It is the Helix Hirsuta of Say.

Fig. 17. This is named Paludina Discisa. It is Paludina Subcarinata. Say.

Fig. 18. This is named Paludina Dissimilis. It is Paludina Discisa. Say.

Fig. 19. This is named Paludina Virginea. It is the Melania Virginea. Say.

All the shells figured on Plate 7th, we are informed by Mr. Wood in the preface to his interesting work, have been named from

the labels in his own cabinet-the correspondent in this country who sent them to him must have been exceedingly careless. A case of this kind happened within our knowledge. An eminent conchologist sent to the Baron Ferrusac, the Unio Ochraceus labelled Unio Radiatus, and it will probably appear under that appellation in the magnificent forthcoming work of that zealous naturalist. The cabinet of this gentleman is rich in American Unios, and on a late visit to Paris, we assisted him in correcting many misnomers on this subject.

Fig. 34. This is properly called Helix Sayii, and not Polygyra

Auriculata, the name given by Mr. Say-the specific name of Auriculata being preoccupied by a fine Helix, native we think, of Africa.

When in London, we examined the collection of shells in the British Museum, and found them for the most part correctly named. There is one there presented by Mr. Say, and called Unio Tuberculatus, of Barnes. It is the Unio Lachrymosus of Lea. Perhaps the U. Lachrymosus is nothing more than the young of the Unio Metanevra of Rafinesque? Mr. Gray, the amiable and profound zoologist of the Museum, has named the Melania Canaliculata-Melania Sayii, as the specific name canaliculata he informed me was preoccupied. Mr. Wood, in the book before us, has also made this correction, and has given us a good figure of the shell on Plate 4, fig. 24. It is represented however in the young state before the nodules on the ribs are fully developed. The only perfect specimen of this species we have ever seen is in the splendid cabinet of Charles A. Poulson, Esquire, of Philadelphia.

It has given us real pain to detect so many errors in the beautiful and expensive work of Mr. Wood; but as it will be often referred to for the names of our shells, we have felt compelled to offer these remarks. The plates and names of the foreign shells we have not accurately examined, and we therefore hope that they will be found generally correct.

ART. XVII. Address delivered before the LYCEUM of NATURAL HISTORY, (now the Second Department of the Institute,) at its first Anniversary, March 1, 1824. By T. ROMEYN BECK.

It is with no small degree of pleasure, that I meet the members of the Lyceum, to celebrate its first anniversary. Having been a witness, rather than an actor, in this place, I can with the more freedom, bear testimony to the activity which has characterized its proceedings, and the success which has attended its youthful efforts. The uncertainty that accompanies every untried undertaking, was early dissipated by the generous patronage of our fellow citizens, while our progress in advancing the objects of the institution has been prosperous even beyond the hopes of the most sanguine. A permanent foundation is laid for the study of several of the sciences that appertain to natural history, and as the information which is so advantageously acquired in a society, increases, we may confidently hope for the elucidation of the remainder. These are subjects worthy of congratulation, and they deserve to be noticed at this time, as commendations for past exertions and incentives to future endeavours.

Natural History with the governments of Europe, is deemed an object worthy of regal patronage. There is no civilized nation, I believe, in that quarter of the globe, which has not at one time or another, sent forth her scientific missionaries to investigate the productions of other lands, and to bring back the fruit of their toils to the bosom and for the benefit of their country. In some instances, these have been connected with commercial or warlike expeditions; while in others, the promotion of science has been the leading and permanent object. The French and English governments, in particular, have adopted such views with steadiness and with unparalleled success. The expedition of Bonaparte to Egypt was attended by a corps of scientific men, who pursued their studies amidst the din of arms and the horrors of the climate; and when that sagacious individual became the ruler of France, he embraced the first moment of peace to dispatch vessels on a voyage of discovery to the Australasian continent. So also with the British government, from the days of Captain Cook down to the present period. Individuals are at this very time employed in every part of her magnificent East India empire, in collecting the