INVERTEEUIATE PALAEONTOLOGY. 12o 



intimated, the type of Eriphyla has more the aspect of forms belonging near 

 Astarte. 



Nothing is yet known in regard to the pallia] line of Mr. Gabb's type;* 

 but if it is simple, as seems more probable, there can be little doubt that the 

 above-mentioned Indian shells referred to Eriphyla by Dr. Stoliczka, belong 

 to an entirely distinct genus, if not, indeed, to a different family. Dr. Sto- 

 liczka remarks that Mr. Gabb's figures of the hinge of his genus, and his 

 statement that it has a deep lunule, leave no doubt that it belongs to the 

 Dosinince instead of to the Astartidce. To me, however, there seems to be 

 no reason yet known for such a conclusion, especially as its hinge is very 

 similar, as already stated, to that of Gouldia; while the presence of a deep 

 lunule is common in the Astartidce, and even in Gouldia; though there can 

 be little doubt that the Indian shells Dr. Stoliczka had under consideration 

 are related to the Dosini)i(B.\ 



Another Indian Cretaceous form, referred by Dr. Stoliczka to Grotriania, 

 Speyer, seems to be quite as nearly related, if not more nearly, to Eriphyla 

 than those mentioned above. It has essentially' the same hinge-characters, 

 excepting that its cardinal margin is much broader and its lunule and 

 escutcheon are much deeper. It is a round, lenticular shell, with a simple 

 pallial line and fmely-crenate margins. It may be worthy of remark here, 

 however, that this species is certainly generically distinct from Speyer's type 

 of Grotriania, which is both figured and distinctly described as having no 

 lateral teeth ; while the Indian shell here mentioned has well-developed 

 lateral teeth. Curiously enough, Dr. Stoliczka defines Grotriania, contrary 

 to its author's diagnosis and figured type, as having lateral teeth. 



* H. aud A. Adams describe Gouldia as having the "pallial line simple, or slightly siunated." In 

 G. mactracea, however, it is certainly completely simple. 



t Dr. Stoliczka neither figures, describes, nor mentions any other Indian species of Eriphyla than 

 E. lenticularis, E. Forbesiana, aud E. diirrsu ; while he cites the first as the best known example of the 

 genus, it having been long since described from Geruian specimens by Goldfuss, under the name Lucina 

 I, ntii ularis. He further states that the type of the genus (evidently alluding to E. lenticularis) and two 

 others occur in the Cretaceous rocks of India. How that species, however, came to be the type of the 

 genus is difficult to comprehend, when Mr. Gabb, in founding it, only had before him the siugle species 

 E. umbonata of California, and makes no allusion whatever to any other species in connection with the 

 new genus. In such cases, the only species mentioned by the author of a new genus can alone be con- 

 sidered its type. It is very singular, that some naturalists should si ill have such loose ideas of the rales 

 of zoological nomenclature, as to seem to think that they have a right to view any species that they may 

 believe belongs to a genus as its type, without the slightest regard for the fact that the original author 

 had founded it upon an entirely different form. Farther on, Dr. Stoliczka mentions the fact, that in 1868 

 B isqucl had proposed ;i g''iiiis Do:in for Hie reception of Licina lenticularis, Goldfuss. 



