OF SOUTHERN INDIA. 111 
X. Family—WUURICID A. 
(Adams’ Genera, I, p. 70; Chenu’s Manual, I, p. 133). 
The animals of the Wvrrerpx have the head always somewhat lengthened, not 
thickened, truncate in front ; tentacles moderate with united eyepedicles near the base ; 
teeth in three series, the central fixed, usually three-lobed, the lateral versatile, 
single or at least not numerously hooked; the foot is moderate, never much ex- 
panded; the mantle enclosed with an anterior siphon, which is never much pro- 
duced beyond the length of the canal of the shell. 
-Opereulum annular, horny, ovate with an apical or subapical nucleus; (not 
known in Hemifusus). 
The shell is spiral, ovate or fusiform, usually ornamented with transverse vari- 
cose ribs and anteriorly produced into a more or less elongated canal, being notched 
at the end. The remainders of the outer lip, forming transversal varix-like ribs, are 
characteristic for most species and genera, there are, however, a few as Clavella, 
Neptunea and others, where the varices become nearly or are actually quite obsolete, 
although the preponderance of the other characters does not allow us to exclude 
these forms. It is well known that the exterior ornamentation varies much 
according to the localities in which the species live, and this can therefore be re- 
garded always only as a quotation of a large sum of distinctive characters. A 
general description of the shells must necessarily be very extensive, and we prefer, 
therefore, to attach it to the sub-families, of which the following have been pro- 
posed partially by previous authors; FULG@URINa, FUSINe and MURICINA. 
Dr. Gray (Guide, 1857) adds to the Muvzricrp# the sub-divisions Prsawrawa, 
ComINELLINA (= CoLtvmMBELLID# in parte), Nassrva and Puosrna, the two former of 
which may undoubtedly be better treated as a separate family, and the two latter in 
the family Buceryzpz. On the other hand Gray separates the species of Hemifusus, 
Fulgur, and others into a distinct family, which he calls Cassrpvzrp; but there 
seems to be scarcely necessity for such a thorough separation, that of a sub-family is 
quite sufficient. 
Mister (Beitreege etc. 1841) figures (Pl. IX. Fig. 38) a Fusus Orbignyanus 
from the triassic beds of St. Cassian and in an abstract of Dr.Laube’s “Fauna of 
the St. Cassian beds”’ in the Sitzb. Akad. Wien, Vol. LIII, this fossil has been re- 
tained under the same name. The species is not a Fusus in the restricted sense of 
the genus, but not having had an opportunity to examine the species, we cannot of 
course say whether it does or not belong to the Fuszy#. The three other species 
described and figured by Count Miinster (ibid, p. 123) are much less Fusus, and do 
not even belong to the family Mvrrcrpz at all. There are a number of 
jurassic species grouped with Fwsus, but none of the species as yet found is 
so far perfect as to determine even the sub-family with the requisite accu- 
racy. Deshayes suspects, that all the jurassic and older Fwsws are only mistaken 
Rostellarie (Axara), and for several species this has been already proved to be 
actually the case; so we may expect some farther alterations. There is, however, 
