174 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MALACOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 



HoMOTOMA LoPRESTiANA (Calcara). 

 Fleurotoma Leprestiana {Loprestiana), Calcara : Monterosato, Joum. 



Conchyl., vol. xxii (1874), p. 278. 

 Homotoma [Teretia] Loprestiana, Calcara: Kobelt, p. 223. 

 Fleurotoma crispatum, Philippi, non Cristofori & Jan. 



"Porcupine" Expedition, 1870, Stations 16, 24, 50, 56; off Cape 

 Mondego, 100 fathoms (live); Adventure Bank, 92 fathoms. 



Distrihution. — Mediterranean, and in deep water in the southern 

 portion of the North Atlantic. 



Jeffreys gives the following notes on the animal of a specimen from 

 off Cape Mondego, taken in muddy sand : — 



"Body white. Pallial or siphonal tube rather long. Tentacles 

 cylindrical, short, rather close together ; the part above the eye-stalk 

 is very small and bulbous. Eyes small, black, placed nearly on the 

 top of stalks, which are united with the tentacles. Foot broad and 

 slender, double-edged in front, with triangular corners or auricles, 

 rounded behind." 



If my identification be correct, this form and H. emendatum may 

 be readily severed by an examination of the piotoconch. In 

 H. Lopresticma this portion of the shell is brown, pointed, and the 

 early sculpture is longitudinal costoe ; while in the other species it is 

 almost white, blunt, and button-shaped, and the early sculpture is 

 spiral in nature. 



HoMOTOMA TERES (Forbcs). 



Fleurotoma teres, Forbes: Rep. Brit. Assoc, 1843 [1844], pp. 139, 

 190 [nom. sol.]; Ann. Nat. Hist, vol. xiv (1844), p. 412; 

 Reeve, Conch. Icon., Fleurotoma, sp. 161 [Jan., 1844; bad!]. 

 Homotoma anceps, Eichwald: Kobelt, p. 221 {vide references cited and 

 synonymy). 



"Porcupine" Expedition, 1869, Station 65; 1870, Stations 17, 50, 

 56 ; Adventure Bank, 92 fathoms. 



Distribution. — Norway to the Mediterranean. A Tertiary fossil. 



Jeffreys, in his MS., strongly disagrees with the identification of 

 F. teres and F. anceps, stating that the description and figures given 

 by Eichwald ^ do not agree with Forbes' species ; Dr. Kobelt and 

 most other authors have considered them identical. I have followed 

 Jeffreys, but am unable to express any opinion on the point, as the 

 fossil is unknown to me. Reeve's figure is, as Jeffreys very pertinently 

 points out, scarcely recognisable ; indeed, some authors have doubted 

 whether it be taken from Forbes' species. Probably, however, since 

 he appears to have received his shells from Forbes, it is due to 

 a failure on the part of the artist. 



Drillia Maravign^ (Bivona). 

 Fleurotoma Maravignce, Bivona: Generi posth., 1838, p. 13. 

 Drillia {Crasso pleura) MaravigncB, Bivona: Kobelt, p. 225. 



Naturh. Letli., p. 225 (1830) ; Letli. Rossica, vol. iii, p. 186, pi. viii. 



