Fossil Terebratule. 439 
bratula impressa, The description however cannot have been 
drawn up from that shell, or Lamarck would not have stated it 
to be white. I have given the figure of the Terebratula impressa 
marked Ter. concava from B. Delessert’s collection, as well as a 
figure of Magas pumilus from Meudon marked fig. M. It is 
therefore evident that Lamarck’s species must be cancelled from 
the nomenclature. 
27. Terebratula semiglobosa (Sow. M. C. tab. 15. fig. 9). 
Obs. Lamarck does not seem to have known Sowerby’s spe- 
cies, as none of the three specimens marked such in B. Delessert’s 
collection belong to it, being specimens of Ter. ornithocephala, 
and a variety of Ter. globata, Sow. The true species is cretaceous. 
28. Terebratula punctata (Sow. M. C. pl. 15. fig. 4). 
Obs. Several specimens are to be seen in M. Delessert’s col- 
lection, none of which are Sowerby’s type: Lamarck’s speci- 
mens belong to Ter. numismalis, indentata and vulgaris. Sowerby’s 
species is a well-characterized liasic shell. 
29. Terebratula phaseolina, Val. in Lamk. Pl. XIII. fig. 29. 
T. testa parva, subcompressa, rotunda, alba, striis concentricis, mar- 
gine supero sub-biplicato : nate brevi, non producta. 
Obs. M. D’Orbigny seems to consider Lamarck’s Terebratula 
phaseolina to be Brocchi’s Anomya biplicata, Pal. Frang. Ter. Cré- 
tacés, vol. iv. p. 95. pl. 511. fig. 9,15. After comparing the 
numerous specimens of Ter. phaseolina im M. le B. Delessert’s 
collection with the figures given by Brocchi, ‘ Conchologia Fos- 
sile, p. 469. pl. 10. fig. 8, 1814, I cannot believe them to be the 
same shell as Ter. phaseolina ; and since even M. D’Orbigny places 
a point of interrogation behind his synonym of Brccchi, it is evi- 
dent he was not certain of the identity. I therefore do not see 
why Lamarck’s well-known species should make place for Broc- 
chi’s uncertain one; which has no indication of locality or de- 
posit. It seems also strange that M. D’Orbigny should every- 
where write Lamarck’s Ter. phaseolina, “ phascolina,” and whilst 
he rejects it in page 95, adopts it in page 109 of the ‘ Pal. Frang. 
Ter. Crétacés.’ 
30. Terebratula ovata (Sow. M. C. pl. 15. fig. 3). 
Obs. As M. Deshayes observes, in his new ed. of Lamarck, 
the specimens in the museum of the Garden of Plants do not 
belong to Sowerby’s type. M. Deshayes believes them to re- 
semble Ter. lata of Sow., but they do not represent that species. 
. 31. Terebratula biplicata (Sow. M. C. pl. 90. fig. 1, 5). 
Obs. We find a number of specimens under this name in La- 
