794 



as Morgania fusiformis ^). The two other forms, V. Vernueili and 

 V. callosa, are difficult to compare, as the former is only incom- 

 pletely known, but the rich material of V. callosa. present at 

 Leiden from Java, Borneo and the Philippines, renders it extremely 

 probable that all the forms of Vicarya, until now described, belong 

 to one single species, which is very variable in shape and sculpture. 

 This is also Dollfus' view, for he gives V. callosa as synonymous 

 with V. Vernupili. 



The chief characteristic of Vicarya as contrasted to other forms 

 resembling it, is the slit of the outer lip, reminding of Pleurotoma. 

 Of this nothing is seen in the fossil from Celebes, it only possesses 

 a broad and deep bend, reaching upwards to the row of nodes, 

 and of which the author justly says: "nettement analogue ci celui 

 de Tympanotomus'\ In fact, with this genus also the sculpture 

 agrees: "qui est également celle de Tympanotonms" ; but this 

 sculpture again deviates entirely from that of the genus Vicarya. 

 For in specimens of this latter form, of about equal size as the 

 fossil pictured by Dolt.fus, the nodes on the younger part of the 

 shell are much more prominent already and are at much larger 

 distances from each other than in the fossil from Celebes. 

 This also holds for the objects figured by Becker *), which accord- 

 ing to the author: "sont plus voisins des nótres qu' aucun des 

 autres figures". That in the fossil from Celebes the slit-band, 

 corresponding with the slit of the outer lip, is lacking, is evident 

 after what precedes. 



No more than it belongs to Tympanotomus and the mentioned 

 fossil from Celebes, figured by Dollfus, Vicarya is an Oligocene 

 genus. We know that the fossils, described by u'Archiac, 

 originate from different strata and have wrongly been united to 

 a single fauna; it is difficult therefore, to state with any certainty 

 the age of T^. Verneuili. It has been tried to remedy the confusion 

 and so this fossil has for a time been regarded as upper cretaceous ; 

 according to Fedden *), however it belongs to the Gaj. -group, which 

 is considered by Vredenbekg as the youngest Oligocene "), by 



^) Essais de Paleoconchologie comparée VIII. p. 164 (1909). 



3) Un. States Geol. Survey 1901, Annual Report XXI, Part. 3, pp 624 and 

 625. — The author has failed to notice that these figures agree completely with 

 those published by me; for Becker here translated a paper by myself (Ueber tert. 

 Foss. von den Philippinen; Sammlgn. Geol. R. Mus. Leiden 1, Vol. 5, p. 52. See 

 the figures on pp. 67 and 68 of this paper). 



3) Mem. Geolog. Surv. of India, Vol. XVII, Pt. 1, 1879, p. 206. 



*) A. summary of the Geology of India, Calcutta 1907, p. 60 



