II:|TIA. MB 



euomphaloids ami therefore quite different genetically from /U/////I.S/OH*'/. while 

 ithViently known to l>e placed satisfactorily. 



It i-i not worth while to review the literature of the genus that appeared during 

 tin- time included l*?tween the years 1H5'. ami 1VH>. It will suffice to say that the 

 naim> gradually attained a somewhat precarious standing among American paleon- 

 tologists as a convenient designation for lenticuliar shells which in other respects 

 were supposed to be of the type of l'lntr<it<n<iri>i.' Taking Miller's list of species 

 referred to Raphistoma* as a fair example of the use to which the genus had attained 

 in recent years, it is evident that it is truly an incongruous assemblage. Of the 

 nineteen specie* prokiMy only the three originally referred to the genus really 

 belong t here. The others belong mostly to our new pleurotomarian genera Eotoman'n 

 ami Lioxftii-'t. ami to L'>ij>histominti, while several are too ill known to justify a definite 

 arrangement under any genus. 



In 1 viol Koken endeavored to establish #</////;.-/< and to show its relations to 

 iinri'i on the one side and l-'.nnmplnilus on the other. His effort has not 

 proved entirely successful because he failed to grasp fully the essential peculiarities 

 of the type species, R. ttaminea.\ Unfortunately we cannot follow his arguments 

 as closely as we would like, hence we are not quite certain that our objections to his 

 statements are always fully justified. The main point, however, is that he holds to 



i-toHHi as a good genus. According to our views he should have gone a step 

 far* her and removed the genus entirely from the Pleurotomariidu . The absence of 

 a true slit-kind alone seems to us fatal to a reference of Raphistoma to that family, 

 and it is surely so when coupled with the rather obvious relations in which the 

 genus stands with i\-i/lii>i>tertis ami EccyliompkaltU on the one hand and I/i-lirtoma 

 on the other. Still, we are inclined to believe that Koken has overestimated the 

 closeness of the line of the development which he seeks to establish between 

 li'ijihisioma and /><// h'o/tfTiw. 



Koken's observations are based chiefly upon European specimens which he has 

 identified with A'.//. //)>///<; in accordance, as he believes, with Hall's description of 

 the genus in the tir-t paleontological volume of the New York Survey. He starts 

 with Schlotheim's /-.'/MMI/I/I^/MX </""'' which he regards as the Kuropean 



represei 'f our /.' -'./m/ir//. i on>idering the great variety of shells that have 



been referred to the species <y<" / - be regretted that Koken did not 



Anr. (tool, mod Pal . p. 01, W 

 t X J.hrl. f . MlMrmMCto. Me . B. llwt.-bd. r I. p. J|. 



u*toMrr*odl JfaetarM itrMa Emmnna. u Ihr lyprof RapkMMM. pn.i-.l.ljr liccaoM tk(towrtpiln ..f tlikt 

 ltothtlMtofaUovtlW|MHteHMt| t,,rk. under H tUmUBKHop. rtT- p.) idrot 



th.i tl.l. l.aul.tak.-. f.ir I.. w; dhllnnly n,i Ihp (rar , " wu but "oN;urrly IndlrmMd upon" UMrfrfeta. 



rlUll rater to lk etonclcr IB Uivlr dawrlptlOM of UM*pote& hllil.r Imttrr I. r.-rjr p. 



lr m .ho ins lu pmtmcf l R. ttamtmm muA R. plunMrte, (u<n| ofr rn M to OJM wood-cut IMCOW It wu not uH . 

 etaatljr l>n>ul.t out on Uw plat*. 



