GASTEROPODA. 189 



As that, I believe, is not a permanent character, I am much inclined to think the Crag 

 shell is the same species. A fragment (fig. 1 a) is one third of an inch in diameter, 

 with sixteen sharp angular costse, and when perfect, must have measured three or 

 three inches and a half in length. I imagine it to be only an altered form of the same 

 species. 



2. Dentalium entale. Tab. XX, fig. 2, a — h. 



Dentaltum entalis. Linn. Syst. Nat. p. 1263, 1766. 



— — Mont. Test. Brit. p. 494, 1803. 



— — Broe. Conch. Subapenn. p. 263, No. 8, 1815. 



— — Besh. Monog. de Dent. p. 39, pi. 1, fig. 7, and pi. 2, fig. 2, 1825. 



— LABIATUM. Brown. Illust. Brit. Conch, pi. I, fig. 4, 1827. 



ENTALIS. - - .pi. 1, fig. 7. 



— — Bujard. Mem. Soc. Geol. de France, torn, ii, pt. 2, p. 273, 1837. 



— — Nyst. Coq. foss. de Belg. p. 345, pi. 35, fig. 3, 1844. 

 _ _ Phil. En. Moll. Sic. vol. ii, p. 206, 1844. 



— — Thorpe. Brit. Mar. Conch, p. 1, 1844. 



— — Lovin. Ind. Moll. Scand. p. 28, 1846. 



— TAKENTiNtJM. Lamarck. Hist, des An. s. Vert. v. p. 345, 1818. 



D. Testa tereti, leviter arcuatd, Icevigatd, politd, crassiusadd. 



Shell tubular, subcylindrical, slightly curved, smooth, glossy, thick, and strong, 

 with distinct lines of growth ; anterior margin acute. 



Length, (?) 



Locality. Mam. Crag, Bridlington. Recent, Britain. 



One specimen from the above locality, among the fossils sent by Mr. Bean, is all 

 that I have seen of this species. The posterior portion is broken ofi", and only about 

 two fifths of an inch of the shell remaining, which, however, so fully corresponds with 

 the recent species, that I think there is no doubt of its identity. This shell is quoted 

 by M. Deshayes as fossil from Bordeaux, and also from the Eocene formations of 

 France. The specimen figured by J. Sowerby, in ' Min. Conch.' t. 70, f. 3, is a 

 doubtful identification. I have examined specimens from Barton and from Bracklesham, 

 in the extensive collection of Mr. Edwards, and that gentleman agrees with me in 

 the opinion that it is not a British Eocene fossil, at least, that we have not as yet seen 

 anything that can be considered as B. entale, and that the figure in 'INIin. Conch.,' 

 as well as the one by Brander (fig. 9), are representations of specimens, the 

 surfaces of which have been eroded, or, at least, have a less extended portion of 

 the striae, the striae also being different from those upon Z>. entale. Fig. 2 a is a 

 representation of what appears to be B. tarentinum, Lamarck, which M. Deshayes 

 thinks is only a variety of the former ; and as he has had the opportunity of 

 examining the original specimens, upon which Lamarck founded his species tarentinum, 

 I have given it upon his authority. The specimens figured are from the cabinet of 

 Mr. Bean. 



