OF SOUTHERN INDIA. 71 
did also Chenu. The latter author enumerates several sub-genera of Conus. It is, 
indeed, difficult to say, without a very extensive knowledge of the different species, 
whether a division of Conus, in the old sense, be necessary or not. What appears to 
be really the fact, is this, that the division, if necessary, must be very great, based 
on the principal variations in the form of the shells; otherwise it would be better to 
have no generic sub-division at all. For my own part, I believe that a farther 
division, even if slightly indefinite for the present, would be of very great service ; 
and I have no hesitation in saying, that some division similar to, or the same as that 
proposed by H. and A. Adams, will be quite essential. It is true, so far as our 
present knowledge goes, that (excluding Dibaphus) the animals scarcely admit of 
any further separation than into Conus and Nubecula (or Tuliparia). 
About 300 living species, belonging to this family, are known; of these, nearly 
one-half are inhabitants of the Eastern Seas. Of tertiary species, which, on the 
whole, resemble the living forms, about 90 have been noticed. Deshayes describes 
in his last work 20 species from the Paris basin alone. 
Pictet* enumerates six cretaceous species, C. cenomanensis, Gueranger, C. tuber- 
culatus, Duj. C. marticensis, Math. C. cylindraceus, Geinitz. C. semicostatus, Minst., 
from Europe, and C. canalis, Conrad, from America. All these species, excepting 
the Conus tuberculatus, to which we shall refer hereafter, are based chiefly upon 
casts, not in a peculiarly good state of preservation, and several of them are rather 
doubtful. In this doubtful state, they must remain until better materials are pro- 
eured. I could add the Conus Vernewilli, Vilanova (Mem. Real Acad. Madrid 
1859, Vol. IV, Pl. 3, Fig. 12), which can be as well an Acteonina. Gabb has 
lately described three species from California (Paleeontol. 1864, I, pp. 122 and 128), 
C. Rémondi, C. Hornit and sinuatus, all of which are pretty well preserved and 
appear to belong undoubtedly to this genus. 
It is rather remarkable that we have not a single species of Conus to notice 
from the cretaceous deposits of Southern India, although numbers of them, at the 
present time, inhabit the Bay of Bengal. The single species procured belongs to 
another genus of this family, only found fossil, so far as known, and for which I 
proposed in 1865 the name Gosavia. 
Of species of Conus, older than cretaceous, we know scarcely anything. The 
jurassic Con. Cadomensis and abbreviatus of Deslongchamps are referred by 
D’Orbigny to Act@onina, although no decided proof can be given that they are not 
Conus. The Conus ? minimus of V Archiac belongs probably to Cylindrites or to an 
allied genus of the OPISTHOBRANCHIA. 
* Pal. Suisse, 3. Ser., 2nd part, 1864, p. 689. 
