148 CRETACEOUS GASTROPODA 
and others. The same must be done with Rapa and other Rapanrva, Melongena, 
Hemifusus and other rusty#, and what then remains to be called Pyrula, I am 
not prepared to say, nor is the matter involved in any way in the present discussion 
of our cretaceous shells. Dr. J. Miller, in his ‘ Petrefacten d. Aachner Kreideform.’ 
1851, pp. 39 and 40, was one of the first who directed attention to the cretaceous 
forms belonging to Tudicla (Pyrella) and Rapa, as being different from Murex 
and Pyrula respectively. 
Gabb has distinguished in his catalogue a few species of Rapa and others 
belonging to this sub-family. Pictet and Campiche referred them all summarily to 
Fusus, in a similar manner as they have done in another place with Aporrhais. 
We cannot agree with this kind of generic classification. 
The following is a list of the species which have been made known edn the 
cretaceous deposits, and which appear to belong to this sub-family; the names 
of the genera to which they show at least the nearest relation are noted in a 
EUROPEAN SPECIES. 
1. Rapa depressa, Sow. sp., Gabb, Am. Ph. Soc. VIII, p. 130; Pyruda id. Sow. Trans. Geol. 
Soe. London, IV, p. 242, Pl. 18, Fig. 20—(may be a Twdicla or Rapa). 
2. Pyrula Brightii, Sow., ibid, Pl. 18, Fig. 21; Husus id. auctorum—(probably a Rapa). 
3. Fusus clathratus, Sow., ibid, Pl. 18, Fig. 19; F. subclathratus, D’Orb. Prod. II, page 1551— 
(may be a Rapa, but the original specimen was very imperfect and nothing has been made known 
since). 
4. Pyrula planulata, Nilss. Romer, Norddeutsch. Kreid., p. 78, Pl. 11, Fig. 11; 2d. Geinitz, 
Reuss. ; Pyredla id. Miiller, Petr. Aach. Kreidef. II, 1851, p. 39-—(probably a Twdicla). 
5. Pyrula carinata, Rimer, N. Kreidef., p. 78, Pl. 11, Fig. 12—(? Rapa). 
6. Pyrula coronata, Rom. N. Kreidef., p. 78, Pl. 11, Fig. 13 ; idem Geinitz and others; Rapa 
id. Miill. Petr. Aach. Kreidef. IT, 1851, p. 40—(probably a Rapa). 
7. Pyrula costata, Rom. N. Kreidf., p. 79, Pl. 11, Fig. 10—(? Rapa). 
8. Pyrula carinata, Mist. Goldf. Pet. Germ. Gast. p. 27, Pl. 172, Fig. 11; Fusus carinatulus, 
D’Orb. Prod. II, p. 229; Kner, in Haidinger’s Abhandlg. IIT, 1850, Pl. 4, Fig. pee be a Rapa; 
the form in Goldfuss resembles rather a Zudicla). 
9. Pyrula sulcata, Kner, in Haidinger’s Abhandlg. III, 1850, p. 22, Pl. 4, Fig. 8; Fusus 
Althii, Kner, Denksch. Akad. Wien, 1852, Vol. III, Pt. II, p. 309, Pl. 16, Fig. 1s —(pronaite a 
Rapa). 
10. Pyrella Benthiana, Miiller, Petr. Aach. Kreidef. II, 1851, p. 39, Pl. 6, Fig. 7—(perhaps a 
Rapa, but no sufficient evidence can be derived from the description or figure). 
11. Rapa Monheimi, Miller, Petr. Aach. Kreidef. II, 1851, p. 40, Pl. 5, Figs 22 and 23—(the 
transverse ribs terminating below the suture in strong tubercles are of a form somewhat unusual in 
Rapa and more characteristic for Hemifusus ; nothing about the umbilicus, or the flattened columella, 
is noticed in the description above referred to, but the species may remain proyisionally as here 
classed, until a chance may occur of examining the specimens again). 
12. Pyrula jfilamentosa, Binkhorst, Mon. Gastr. ete. Mestricht, 1861, p. 7, Pl. II, Fig. 5— 
(may be a Rapa ; vide Rapa cancellata, Sow. sp. 155). 
13. Pyrula tuberculosa, Binkhorst, did, p. 8, Pl. 7, Fig. 5—(probably Rapana). 
13. Pyrula planissina, Binkhorst, iid p. 8, Pl. V8, Fig. 3—(much resembling Zudicla 
brimia, n. sp. vide p. 151). 
