192 STILIFERID^E. 



of tlic British Association/ published in 1865, some 

 further remarks of mine on the subject. In the ' Record 

 of Zoological Literature' for 1864 Mr. Greene says 

 that the " opinion " which I have above exj)ressed is 

 '^ by no means proven.^' It is impossible to prove an 

 opinion ; but the facts on which mine was based remain 

 undisputed. The spawn of S. Turtoni is deposited on 

 the upper surface of the Echinus on which it settles. 

 Although the present distribution of SHlifer is very ex- 

 tensive, no species appears to have been discovered in 

 a fossil state. 



Various have been the positions wliich conchologists 

 have from time to time assigned to this remarkable 

 moUusk in their systems of classification. Turton, as 

 we have seen, placed it in Phasianella ; Fleming in Ve- 

 lutina, although he pointed out the incongruity of the 

 allocation ; Reeve at first between Tarritella and Ceri- 

 thium, but recently between his Canalifera and Turbi- 

 nacea; Macgillivray among his Turbinina, next to La- 

 cuna-, Forbes and Hanley, as well as Woodward, in 

 Pyramidellida ; H. & A. Adams as a distinct family 

 between Eulimidce and Cerithiopsidce ; Clark in Pyra- 

 midellldce, between Aclis and Scalaria ; and Gray also 

 in the same family between his genus Hyala (Rissoa 

 vitrea) and Entoconcha. I am inclined to agree with 

 Messrs. Adams in making Stilifer the type of a separate 

 family; but it is much more difficult to say to what 

 other families it has the nearest affinity. Pyramidellidce, 

 as represented in our seas by Odostomia, ought not to be 

 far off ; and Lmthinidw have similar relations to it, in 

 respect of the nucleus or apex of the shell. Homalogyra 

 has sessile eyes, placed on the neck, as in SHlifer, and 

 it is also finely ciliated all over ; Init in that genus the 

 animal has no tentacles, and the shell is discoid and 



