472 ALATID A. 
The Velutina otis of authors, now Otina otis, has been de- 
posited in this genus, but I believe its affinities are in the 
neighbourhood of the Bulle and Conovuli; at the same time 
I admit that it requires further examination. 
I now conclude; and if it be considered, “ Et genus insoli- 
tum concordi lege coégit,” or, im other words, that I have 
applied a law—that of union—to a strange or anomalous race, 
and brought its members more prominently into view, my 
object will have been accomplished. 
ALATIDA, Lamarck. 
I introduce this family with pleasure and without hesitation 
to the British list, to receive a single genus with one species, 
commonly known as the Aporrhais pes pelecani; but this 
generic appellation is rejected with emphasis by M. Philippi, 
for his Chenopus. I object to both, and adopt, on account of 
priority, the generic title of Rostellaria. On what grounds 
both M. Philippi and the French and English malacologists 
have repudiated the natural position of this genus, established 
by Lamarck (and alluded to by the admirable Cuvier as be- 
longing to the Muricide), and consigned it to the Cerithiade, 
I cannot comprehend. Philippi, in a note, says, “ Animal 
secundum Cuvierum Murici simile, quod falsum est.” I do 
not concur with M. Philippi, and will show that Rostedlaria 
and the present species, as one of its members, is essentially 
a Muricidal animal. 
The only ground for the connexion of Rostellaria with 
Cerithium is the muzzle; but naturalists have failed to per- 
ceive that that organ, in the true Cerithia, is of Rissoidean 
stamp, and not at all resembling that of Rostellaria, bemg 
broader, flatter, and differently cloven ; whereas the Rostel- 
larian muzzle is much longer, slenderer, more cylindrically 
tapering, and only differs from the Muricidal typical pro- 
boscis in being, by peculiar development, exsertile, instead 
