89 



Genus 3. APORRHAIS, Be Monfford:' 



Animal ; disc truncated in front, acuyninated behind, carrying at 

 the extremity a small ohlony horny operculum, head very large, 

 prohoscidlform, someichat cylindrical, obliquely trmicated ; 

 mouth longitudinal, occupying the length of the truncated por- 

 tion of the head ; tentacles very long and pointed, pedunculated 

 at the base, at the summit of which pedunculated portion is the 

 eye ; mantle thin, simple, or lobed. 



Shell ; elongated, fusiform, slightly canaliculated at the base ; 

 columella straight, rather callous ; outer lip dilated ayid thick- 

 ened, detached from the spire at the upper part, and either 

 simple or expanded into claws, or diyitations. 



The Stromhus jjes-Pelieani was set apart as the ty^t of a new genus hy 

 De Montford, under the name of Aporrhais, by which it had been distin- 

 guished in the earhest records of Natural History ; and Lamarck, uniting 

 it with the Linnsean Stromhus fusus and its congeners, proposed a new 

 genus for their reception, under the name of Rostellaria ; the researches 

 of M. M. Ehrenberg, Quoy and Gaimard, Poli, Deshayes, and Philippi, 

 have, however, demonstrated not only that there is an important generic 

 difference between the animals of the Lamarckian Uodellarim rectirostnim 

 [Stromhus fusits, Linn.), and pes-Pelicanl, but that whilst the former is 

 characterized by the same peculiarity of structure as the true Stromhus, 

 the latter is wanting in that pecuHarity and presents an unexpected affinity 

 with Sfruthiolaria, in having a large proboscidiforra head and ample mouth, 

 without the bifurcated tentacles and divided disc, which is to be found in 

 Rostellaria, Pterocera, and Stromhus. 



The mantle of the AporrJiaides, as in the remaining genera of Alata, is 



* The Aristoteliau title of Aporrltnis, adopted by Sowr rby after the example of De Mont- 

 ford, has been objected to by Philippi, substitutiiifr that of Chetiopus, on the grounds of its more 

 especial reference to the Pieiocera. It is true that Kondelet, one of the earliest writers on 

 Natural History after the revival of letters, has ligurcd a P. lamhis for Aporrhais ; but it seems 

 evident, upon his own testimony, that the name, derived from 'ATroppeco to flow out in drops, 

 was suggested to the Athenian philosopher by the spouted J. pcs-Pelicani of the Mediterranean, 

 from whence the materials for the ' Historia Animalium ' of antiquity, were mainly derived : — 

 " Dicam pncterca quod suspiciouibus et eonjecturis tantum iuductis de 'ATroppatSeo- scntio ; 

 nimirum Muricum geueris sunt qua vocant Gra-ci Colycia, turbinata seque sed minora multo ". 

 I consider, therefore, that the word Jporrliais may be maintained without prejudice, for the 

 group under consideration, the type of which was, no doubt, the particular shell referred to by 

 the great father of zoology. It should perhaps be added, that the word " IMuricum " just cited, 

 is not used in the sense in which we understand it ; in Gaza's translation of Aristotle, quoted by 

 Rondelet, the ' KTroppdibecr are rendered Min-ices, and the K{]f)vxa Bucchia, including the 

 Tritons ; while the Murices of our own day were the IJopcpvpa or Purpiirce of the ancients, 

 from the circimistance of their obtaining the Tyrian purple from that geuus. 



