PROSOBRANCHIATA. 195 
Var. FILIFER. Testa latiori; marginibus posticis anfractuum concentrice lineatis ; 
liners irregularibus, aliquando granulatis. 
Shell oblong, inversely conical, smooth, with an elevated, nearly conical spire, in 
height a little exceeding a third part of the whole length of the shell, and terminating 
in a small pointed pullus of three volutions. The whorls, 8—10 in number, exclusive 
of the pullus, are narrow, angulated at the shoulders, the posterior margins slanting 
backwards towards the preceding whorl, and concave; the sutural edge finely plicated 
by the strongly marked lines of growth. The early whorls present on the shoulders a 
row of small rounded tubercles, which are continued, more or less, on the later whorls, 
in different individuals. The aperture is straight and narrow; the outer lip thin, sharp- 
edged, not much arched, and separated from the suture by a wide, shallow curvature. 
In the specimens from Bracklesham Bay, forming the variety /i/:fer, the shells are 
wider than in the type, the posterior margins of the whorls present concentric lines, 
variable in number, and occasionally finely granulated where they are decussated by 
the lines of growth, and a single row of very small, bead-like knobs runs round the 
sutural edge, instead of the plication usually found there, in this respect somewhat 
resembling C. concinnus. The specimens from Bramshaw agree better with the French 
shells than do those from Bracklesham Bay; in the latter the shells generally are 
somewhat wider, the tubercles on the angles of the whorls disappear more early, and 
the shoulders are blunter than in the typical form. J regard these differences, however, 
rather as merely local variations than as sufficient to justify the separation of the shells 
from the present species, with which they agree in the elevated spire, the slanting 
concave margin and crenulated edge of the whorls, and the size of the shell itself. 
With regard to the nomenclature of the French shell, much confusion has arisen, 
the origin of which is explained by M. Deshayes in a note in the 2d edition of 
Lamarck’s ‘ Histoire Naturelle’ (vol. xi, p. 155). From this it appears that the shell 
described by Bruguiére as having been found at Courtagnon, and to which he gave the 
name C. antediluvianus, was, in fact, a Sub-apennine shell, and that Lamarck, misled by 
this, quoted C. antediluvianus as a Paris-basin species in his Mémoire, published in the 
‘Annales du Musée.’ In 1814, Brocchi, in his work, applied the name given by 
Bruguicre to the Sub-apennine shells, to which it strictly and properly belongs; but 
Lamarck, in 1822, in the first edition of his ‘Histoire Naturelle,’ again recorded 
Bruguicre’s species as occurring in the environs of Paris. Subsequently, M. Deshayes, 
in his ‘ Description des coquilles fossiles,’ &c., pointed out the fact that Bruguicre’s 
description referred to an Italian species not found in the Paris basin; but unfortu- 
nately, in describing the French Eocene shells, he applied Bruguicre’s name to them. 
Bronn also, in the ‘ Letheea Geognostica,’ retained the name C. antediluvianus for the 
Paris-basin species, erroneously associating it with C. concinnus (Sow.), a species per- 
fectly distinct; and he proposed the specific name C. Apenninicus for the Sub-apennine 
shells. The same author subsequently, in his ‘ Index Palzeontologicus,’ again united 
