76 phylogeny of fusus and its allies. 



Additional Species. 

 Fusiis strigattis Philippi, Abbildungen, vol. 3, p. 116; pi. V. (42), 



fig- 3- 



Fusiis pfciffcri Philippi, Abbildungen, vol. II, p. 117, pi. Ill, fig. i. 



Fusus nigricostatns E. A. Smith, Moll, from Japan, p. 202, pi. 20, 

 fig. 33. Canal rather too short and flexed for a typical Fustis. Re- 

 calls Aptyxis syracnsanns. 



Fusus niponicus E. A. Smith, ibid., p. 203, pi. 20, fig. 3. Appears 

 to be related to the rostratiis series, if a true Fitsiis. 



F. coreanicus E. A. Smith, ibid., p. 204, pi. 20, fig. 35. Probably 

 not a true Fusus, may be related to the preceding. 



Fusus pulchcllus Philippi, Kobelt, Iconographie, p. 55, pi. 8, figs. 

 20 to 25. Appears to be related to F. rostratus. Canal too short and 

 flexed for a typical Fusus. 



The following additional species are figured by Reeve (Iconica, 

 Fusus) : Species 17, F. aureus Reeve, allied to F. crchriliratus; species 

 20, F. ustulatus Reeve ; species 24, F. tojrulosus Lam., allied to F, 

 distans; species 52, F. lanceola (Martini) probably belongs to the colus 

 series; species 54, F. dausicaudatus Hinds Voy. Sulphur, pi. i, figs. 

 10, 11; species 58, F. rufus Reeve; species 65, F. gradatits Reeve; 

 species 69, F. gracilimus Reeve, probably a member of the colus series ; 

 species 75, F. acus Adams and Reeve, a small form, probably of the 

 coins series ; species 88, F. municatus Montagu, probably a member of 

 the F. rostratus series. 



Fossil Species Not Seen. 

 FUSUS (?) UNICARINATUS Desh. 



1824. Fusus imicarinatus Desk., Coq. Foss. Env. Paris, t. 2, p. 515, pi. 72, figs. 



II, 12. 

 1866. Fusus unicarinatus Desh., Anim. sans vert., t. 3, p. 252. 

 Not Fusus unicarinatus Beyrich, Zeitschrift der Deutsch. Geol. Gesellsch., 1856, 



p. 80, pi. 7, fig. 6. 

 1889. Fusus unicarinatus Cossmann, Cat. Coq. Foss., p. 177. 



I have not seen this species, which occurs in the Sables inferieurs 

 of the Paris Basin. I am inclined to class it with FalsifusnsF scrratus 

 (Deshayes) though I am not unmindful of the possibility that it may 

 prove a true Fusus. This, however, I doubt very much, for, occurring 

 in the lower Eocene, it has already advanced beyond the Fusi of the 

 middle Eocene {F. aciculatus of the Galcaire gross.) in development. 

 The middle Eocene species are very primitive, while this lower Eocene 

 species takes rank in development with Miocene and later species 

 of true Fusus {F. rostratus and F. hredce). The relationship must 

 be established by the study of the protoconch, which I believe will 

 show its relationship to Falsifusus rather than to Fusus. 



