212 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. vol.54. 



Genus PARVISIPHO Cossmann^ 1889. 



Subgenus Parvisi'pho s, s. 1889. 

 Type, Fusus terehralis Lamarck (Eocene). 

 Section GolumbeTlisipho Cossmann, 1889. 



Type, Fusus hordeolus Lamarck (Eocene). 



Subgenus Tortisipho Cossmann, 1889. 

 Type, Fusus jucundus Desliayes (Eocene). 



Subgenus Andonia Harris and Burrows, 1891. 

 Type, Fusus honellii Gene (Pliocene). 



Subgenus Amplosi/pho Cossmann, 1901. 

 Type, Buccinmn rottaei Baudon (Eocene). 



Subgenus Varicosipho Cossmann, 1901. 

 Type, Sipho lahrosus Tate (Eocene). 



In the case of the arrangement of Dautzenberg and Fischer, it has 

 already been conclusively shown that Sipho can not be used in con- 

 formity with the International rules. Turrisipho dijffers from Si- 

 phonorhis only in the relative height of the spire to the length of the 

 aperture. This character is subject to infinite gradations between 

 related species and in my opinion is of not more than specific value, 

 when the whole series is considered. Take the following series show- 

 ing the relation between aperture (including the canal) and the 

 whole shell in total length. 



S. lachesis has a ratio of 1 to 2.36. 



S. tortuosiis has a ratio of 1 to 1.93, difference 0.43. 



C. islandicus has a ratio of 1 to 1.90, difference 0.03. 



C. hirsutus has a ratio of 1 to 1.90, difference 0.03. 



0. jejfreysianus has a ratio of 1 to 1.82, difference 0.08. 



C. pubescens has a ratio of 1 to 1.68, difference 0.14, 



S. sdbinii has a ratio of 1 to 1.44, difference 0.24. 



Thus the difference between sabinii and tortuosus equals 0.49, or 

 0.06 more than between lachesis and the species nearest to it. 



It is, however, true that the unusually long spire of S. lachesis gives 

 it a rather peculiar aspect. 



Anomalosipho presents a somewhat different case. The shell so 

 beautifully figured by Messrs. Dautzenberg and Fischer under the 

 name of Sipho verkruzeni Kobelt, is difficult to identify with the 

 original figure of that species given by Kobelt in 1876, who says 

 " feinen nur bei starkerer vergrosserung sichtbaren spiralstreifen." 

 This agrees with specimens received from Verkruzen by me and 

 named by Kobelt in 1876. It is possible that Verkruzen, who was 

 not an expert, may have sent out more than one species under that 

 name. At all events Dautzenberg's shell upon which the name 



