262 Mr. E. A. Smith on new Species o/" Terebridge. 



togeny, and phylogeny remain the three great " records of 

 creation," Avhich alone, by their reciprocal completion, eluci- 

 dation, and agreement, can enlighten us as to the essence and 

 origin of organic forms. 



[To be continued,] 



XXVIII. — Remarks on a feio Species belonging to the Family 

 Terebridge, and Descriptions of several new Forms in the 

 Collection of the British Museum. By Edgar A. Smith, 

 F.Z.S., Zoological Department, British Museum. 



Terebra BUCCiNULUM,Desh., described in the' Jom-nalde Con- 

 chyliologie,' 1857, vol. vi. p. 92, pi. v. fig. 12, and refigured by 

 Reeve in the ' Conchologia Iconica,' vol. xii. Terebra^ fig. 101 ^, 

 is the same species of shell as that figured by tlie latter author, 

 in his monograph of the genus Bullia, as B. turrita, Gray. 

 Of this there can be no doubt, as I have before me the 

 actual examples that are figured and cannot trace the slightest 

 difference. 



Messrs. H. & A. Adams (Gen. Eec. Moll. i. p. 114) place 

 turrita, Gray, as a Leiodomus, Swainson (as restricted by 

 them), a subgenus of Pseudostrombus, where at present it may 

 be convenient to let it remain ; for certainly this shell has more 

 affinity to the Bullia group than to the Terebridge. 



Terebra acicidina, Lamk. 



Messrs. Deshayes, Hinds, and Beeve (partim) refer the same 

 shell to this name. Deshayes cites the figure 13 on plate vii. 

 of Kiener's 'Coq. Viv.' Hinds, in his monograph in the 

 'Thesaurus Conchyl.,' figures it on plate xlv. fig. 130 as a 

 synonym of cinerea, Basterot, and Beeve, Conch. Icon. xii. 

 figs, d (typical) and a, c,/ (vars.). The latter author quotes as 

 synonyms anomcda, Gray, inconstans, Hinds, and mathero- 

 niana, Desh., which I believe to be as good and distinct 

 species as any in the genus. T. anomala, the type of which is 

 before me, is not the shell figured by Beeve, Conch. Icon, 

 fig. 121, a&c. Hinds has given a very fair representation of 



cited has some claim to be received. In fact, for reasons of comparative 

 anatomy, it is not improbable that originally {phyh'ticalh/ !) the gastro- 

 tibrous lamella (or gastro-muscular lamella) originated from the entoderm, 

 and the skin-lamella (or dermo-muscular lamella) from the exoderm. 

 The coalescence of the two originally separate muscular lamellae in the 

 mesoderm, such as usually appears to occur in the ontogeny of the 

 Vertebrata, would then have to be conceived as a secondary develop- 

 mental act. 



