512 Zoological Society. 
The group proposed for generic distinction consists of several shells 
remarkable for their elegance of form and sculpture, but which it 
has been neither easy to associate with others in established genera, 
nor advisable, in the absence of all knowledge of the animal, to place 
apart. Accordingly, they have been variously arranged by different 
authors. Philippi, in his excellent Enumeratio Molluscorum Sicilie 
(Berol. 1836), whilst uniting some of them with several species of 
Eulima, Sow., under the head Melania, Lam., has not failed to re- 
mark their discrepancy as marine shells from the last-named genus, 
and to point out the probability of their formation into a genus or 
subgenus, ‘quando animalia eorum cognita erunt’”’: the species 
which belong to Eulima, Sow., being, after Bronn, considered by 
him to be congeneric with Niso of Risso. The genus Hulima, as 
proposed by Risso, consisted of the same exceptionable kind of mix- 
ture ; but being now ably defined by Sowerby, and restricted within 
its proper limits to the latter of these groups, the type of which is 
the Turbo politus of some British authors, I am induced to bring for- 
ward, in relation to the other, some materials obtained twelve or 
thirteen years ago, which at the time indeed immediately suggested 
the formation of the genus Parthenia, but which the progress of 
Conchology, in the more recent establishment of Hulima, seems to 
have rendered really interesting. 
The genus Turbonilla (rectius Turbinella) of Risso, though perhaps 
composed in chief of true Parthenie, is not so constituted, even 
should this supposition prove correct, as to supersede or clash with 
the reception of Parthenia. Its definition is extremely incomplete 
and faulty, and it differs no less in its limits than its constitution ; 
whilst its very author places in his Hulima and in Turritella some 
undoubted species of Parthenia. The name, moreover, rightly 
spelled, is long preoccupied by a well-known genus of Lamarck. 
The group, however, constituted as above, appears sufficiently di- 
stinct from every other. From Melania it is distinguished primarily 
by being marine instead of fluviatile, and in the shell being destitute 
of a dark-coloured epidermis. It differs from Rissoa or Cingula, 
Flem., in the animal, much as Limnea does from Physa, and in the 
shell, as Turritella does from Littorina; whilst from Eulima, Sow:, 
the shells are at once distinguished by their rough or sculptured, 
ribbed, and generally cancellated surface ; and the animal wants the 
lateral membranes and subulate tentacula of Turritella, from which 
the shells also differ in the transverse ribs or plaits of the volutions, 
and in the shape of the aperture and of the opercle, the nucleus of 
which is also probably eccentric and anterior ; but this, without de- 
struction of the specimens, I cannot ascertain. 
The name is formed from rap§evos, a virgin ; the word rap8ena, 
virginity, expressing well, in contrast with Melania, the simple ele- 
gance and purity so remarkably characteristic of these shells, which 
are wholly colourless, and of a spotless milk or ivory whiteness. 
Several recent species of this group are found in the Mediterra- 
nean, and two at least in the British seas. Others appear also to 
occur subfossil, in the tertiary beds of Sicily and Nice. 
