120 CRETACEOUS GASTROPODA 
10. Fusus ponderosus, D’Orb. is Athleta purpuriformis, Forb. sp. (vide sub-fam. 
VOLUTINE p. 91). : 
11. Fusus Fontanieri, D’Orb., is Rostellaria (?) palliata, Forbes. 
12. Fusus buccinoides, D’Orb. (Astrolabe, Pl. 7, Figs. 41 and 42) = F. subbuc- 
cinoides, D’Orb. (Prod. II, p. 229) I am unable to trace; it is possible that it 
belongs to Neptunea excavata, Blanf. sp. (vide p. 121), but as the sutural furrow is 
wanting in D’Orbigny’s figure, the species must remain doubtful ; it would, however, 
in all probability be classed under Neptunea. 
After the exclusion of the doubtful forms we have then from the South Indian 
cretaceous rocks eight species of Fuszv# described on the following pages under the 
generic names of Neptunea, Fusus, Tritonidea and Pollia. I have already stated in 
my previous remarks the limits within which I believe these generic groups ought 
to be taken. 
XXVI. NEPTUNEA, Bolten, 1798. 
1. NEPTUNEA RHOMBOIDALIS, Zekeli, sp. Pl. X, Fig. 21. 
1852. Voluta rhomboidalis, Zekeli, Abhandlungen d. Geol. Reichs-Anst. Wien, Vol. I. Pt. II. 
p. 80, Pl. 14, Fig. 9. 
1865. Neptunea id. Zek. sp., Stoliczka in Sitzungsh. Akad. Wien. LII, Revis. ete. p. 78. 
Nept. testa ovate-rhomboidali, anfractibus quinis, suturis unpressis sejunctis, 
subplanis ; ultimo maximo, spira longiore, subinflato ; superficie im gunioribus spiraliter 
numerosissime striata atque transversim costulata, in etate provectiore striis costulis- 
que plus minusve obsoletis ; apertura elongata, utrinque acute terminante ; marginibus 
arcuatis ; labro acuto; canali producto, lateraliter curvo. 
Spiral angle 66°; sutural angle 8°. 
Height of last whorl : total of shell (considered as 1:00) ,,. 0°65 
There has been only a single specimen of this species found in South India, and 
in comparing it with specimens from the Gosau-deposits, the differences are so slight 
that I cannot hesitate to identify it with the European fossil. 
In my revision of the Gastropoda of the Gosau-formation (loc. cit.) I had already 
remarked, that the volutions ought to be a little narrower along the suture, than 
Zekeli’s figure gives them, and that the canal is bent laterally. It may farther be 
noticed that Zekeli’s enlarged figure 9’ represents the species somewhat broader, 
the last whorl being more angulated about the middle, while it is more uniformly 
younded in our figure. The reason for this is, that Zekeli’s figure refers to a younger 
specimen, while ours is one of more advanced age, although it is, excepting the anterior 
cermination of the canal, quite perfect as regards form. The ornamentation is not 
so distinct in our specimen, but this is more due to a deficient state of preservation 
of the surface, than perhaps to the larger size, although the transverse strize become 
lecidedly less strongly marked in advanced age, as I had occasion to observe 
