PROSOBRANCHIATA. 191 
while in the English shells, the angles of the whorls are blunt and strongly tubercu- 
lated, resembling in that character C. sw/ciferus (Desh.), to which, indeed, I should be 
inclined to refer them, notwithstanding the transverse sulcation from which the name 
is taken, but on which much stress is not to be placed, as it does not appear to be a 
strongly marked character; the shell of C. swciferus, however, is thick and ponderous, 
with a narrower aperture, and a deeper curvature in the outer lip. In C. Lamarchir 
(a name which [ propose to give to the eocene species still miscalled C. antedilu- 
vianus), the tubercles are also found, but they are not so prominent nor so persistent 
as in the present species; the shell, also, is narrower, with a sub-conical and more 
elevated spire, and it never attains the size of C. diadema. The only other eocene 
tuberculated species at all resembling the present one, is C. crenulatus (Desh.) ; but in 
that species the shell is perspicuously furrowed, even in its mature state, and the spire 
is shorter and more conical. 
Size-——Axis, 2 inches and 10-12ths (72 millim.); diameter, 1 inch and 8-12ths 
(42 millim.). 
Locality —Bracklesham Bay, where it is common. 
No. 125. Conus cepPEerpDITus. Bruguicre. Tab. XXV, fig. 2 a—c. 
D’ Argenv. 1742. Conchyl. Append., 2d edit., p. 349, t. 29, fig. 8. 
? Walch. 1768. Traité des Petrifact., vol. ii, p. 102, t. 43, fig. 4. 
Favanne. 1780. D’Argeny., Conchyl., 3d edit., t. 66, fig. G 1. 
Conus DEPERDITUS, Brug. 1789. Encycl. méth., vol. i, p. 691, No. 80, t. 337, fig. 7. 
— — Lamk. 1802. Ann. du Mus., vol. i, p. 386; vol. xv, p. 441, No. 6. 
— — Def. 1818. Dict. des Sci. nat., vol. x, p. 261. 
— = Lamk. 1822. Hist. Nat., vol. vii, p. 528, No. 6. 
— — Desh. 1823. Dict. class. d’ Hist. nat., vol. iv, p. 388. 
— = Ib. 1824—37. Descr. des coq. foss., &c., vol. ii, p. 745, t. 98, 
figs. 1, 2. 
— — Galeotti. 1837. Const. geog., &c., de Brabant, p. 148, No. 63. 
— — Bronn. 1838. Lethea geog., vol. 1, p. 1118, t. 42, fig. 14. (ex plur. 
syn.) 
— — Sow. 1841. Min. Con., vol. vii, p. 25, t. 623, fig 5 (non figs. 1, 2). 
— — ? Nyst. 1843. Coq., &c., de Belg., p. 583, No. 501. 
— _— Morris. 1843. Cat. Brit. Foss., p. 143. 
— — D Orb. 1850. Prod. de Paléont., vol. 11, p. 355, No. 336. 
— — ? Bell. 1851. (Foss. nummul. du Comté de Nice), Mém. de la Soe. 
Géol. de France, 2d ser., vol. iv, p. 219, No. 65. 
— autont? Beyr. (non Michel.) 1853. Die Conchyl. des Norddeut. tertiir., p. 24, 
t. 1, figs. 4—6. 
—  oveperpitus, Roissy. 1804. Buff. Moll., vol. xlv, p. 409, No. 10. 
ConrbitHEs CINGULATUS, Schlot.? 1820. Die Petrif., vol. i, p. 125, No. 3. 
