I 



columella twisted so as to form an obscure but somewhat callous 

 plication, the slight callosity almost covering the very minutely 

 perforated umbilicus, and extending more or less over the body- 

 whorl towards the posterior portion of the aperture. 

 Type. — Bulimus atomatus, Gray. 



Liparus gunni, G. B. Sby. (sp.). 



1845. Bulbms gumiii, G. B. Sowerby, in Strzelecki, Phys. Desc. N.S.W., 



etc., p. 298, pi. xix. fig. 6. 

 1878. Bulimus gunnii, E. Etheridge, jun., Cat. Aust. Foss. p. 177. 

 1880. Bulimtis gunnii, Johnston, Pap. Roy. Soc. Tas. 1879, p. 90. 

 1888. Bulimus gunnii, Johnston, Geol. Tasmania, pi. xxiv. fig. 7. 



This species is represented by one example only in the British 

 Museum — the type figured by Mr. Sowerby. It is a cast of the 

 interior, and no vestige of the shell itself appears thereon. Mr. 

 Johnston was only acquainted with fragments of the cast, l^ever- 

 theless the present writer is of opinion that the structure of the 

 shell may, to some extent, be inferred from a careful examiuation 

 of the type specimen. From the deepness and general aspect of 

 the sutures it is certain that the test must have been very thin, 

 and, as in certain other representatives of the genus Liparus, the 

 lines of growth no doubt existed both interiorly and exteriorly. 

 These latter are strongly reflected in the cast under consideration, 

 from which it is legitimate to conclude that the shell was by no 

 means smooth, although Mr. Sowerby says " leeviffatis?" 



Unfortunately, a large part of the cast is imbedded in the hard 

 calcareous matrix in such a manner as to mask the phenomena of 

 the aperture, so that the reference of the species to the genus 

 Liparus is not altogether without doubt. When the specimen is 

 compared with the living Liparus leeuivinensis, E. A. Smith,' 

 of N.W. Australia, however, the doubt almost decreases to the 

 vanishing point, for, as far as can be judged from an internal 

 cast, the two must be of the same genus, and, indeed, they are 

 closely allied specifically. The chief specific difference is the more 

 conical and tumid shape of the fossil. On comparing the latter 

 with the living L. kingi, Gray, from King George's Sound, which 



' Proc. Malac. Soc. Loud. vol. i. 1894, p. 94, pi. vii. fig. 27. 



