OF SOUTHERN INDIA. 149 
14, Pyrula nodifera, Binkh., ibid, p. 57, Pl. V,23, Fig. lI—(of a similar form to P. 
Jilamentosa, only with somewhat higher spire; but equally doubtful as to generic determination). 
15. Pyrula parvula, Binkh., ibid, p. 67, Pl. V3, Fig. Bab,—(perhaps a Rapana; at least 
the thickness of the columella, observable in Fig. Bb, makes it very probable that the species belongs 
to this sub-family). 
16. Pyrula? plicata, Binkh., ibid, p. 68, Pl. V 23, Fig, Aab—(probably Rapana, belonging 
to those small forms similar to Adams’ Coralliophila,* 
17. Pyrula subcarinata, ? Arch. (Mem. Soe. Geol. France, II, Ser. II, Vol. p. 345, Pl. 25, 
Fig. 7), which D?’ Orbigny called in the Prodrome Fusus Galathea, is probably a Tudicia, certainly 
not a Fusus, 
It is difficult to pronounce an opinion on the Pyrula Smithii, Sow. (Trans. Geol. Soc., London, 
Ser, IT, Vol. IV, Pl. 11, Fig, 15). Sowerby already supposed, that he may have figured two 
species. Seeley (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. Ser. III, Vol. VII, p. 282), thinks that the Fig. 15a may 
belong to his Pteroc, globulatum (ibid, p. 281), and proposes for the species figured in 15b the name 
Pyrula Sowerbii, I would much rather believe that the species belongs to Rapa or to Hemifusus, 
than to Micula = Sycotypus (Pyrula in parte). 
AFRICAN SPECIES, 
18. Pyrula cretacea, Coquand, Paléont. Const. 1862, Pl. II, Fig. 12—(is a very doubtful cast, 
the general form and the indication of a laterally bent canal recall a Rapa), 
AMERICAN SPECIES. 
19. Rapa pyruloidea, Gabb, Proc. Acad. Phil. 1860, p. 94, Pl. II, Fig. 4—(doubtful cast). 
20. Rapa supraplicata, Conrad, Jour. Acad. N, Se, Phil. IIT, 1858, p. 332, Pl. XXXV, Fig. 
20—(equally doubtful). 
21-22, Pyrula (Fusus) longirostra, et P. Hombroniana, VOrb. Voy. Astrol. Paléont. 1847, 
pl. I. figs. 80-31; (belong most probably both to Rapa) ; the species are from Chili. 
me Tudicla elevata, Gabb, Rapa idem, Jour. Acad. N, Se. Phil. II, Ser. IV, p. 801, Pl. XLVIII, 
Fig. 
i 
24, Tudicla perlata (Pyropsis id.) Conrad, Jour. Acad, Nat. sc. Phil, II, Ser. IV, p. 288, 
Pl. XLVI, Fig. 839—(well preserved and typical form). 
25. Tudicla trochiformis, Tuomey, sp. (Gabb, in Am. Phil. Soc. VIII, p. 141, states, that the 
former is probably identical with this species).+ 
26. Morea cancellaria, Cony. Jour. Acad. Nat. Se. Phil. II, Ser. IV, p. 290, Pl. XLVI, Fig. 30. 
27. Morea naticella, Gabb, ibid, p. 301, Pl. XLVIII, Fig. 15—(doubtful). 
28. Whitneya ficus, Gabb, Pal. Calif. 1864, I, p. 104, Plate XXVIII, Fig. 216, 
INDIAN SPECIES. 
The following are described here from the South Indian cretaceous rocks. 
29. Tudicla eximia n. sp. 
30. Rapa cancellata, Sow., sp. 
31. Rapa nodifera, n. sp. 
32. Rapa Andoorensis, n. sp. 
33, Rapa coraliina, n. sp. 
34. Rapana tuberculosa, n. sp. 
We may safely state, that the Indian species are so far well preserved as to admit at 
least of a tolerably certain generic determination, and as regards the sub-family there 
can be no doubt whatever. This, however, is by no means so certain with reference 
* Pyrula ambigua and fusiformis, Binkh., have rather the form of FUSIN.Z. 
+ Meek. (‘Check List of cretaceous invert. Foss. of N, America,’ 1864, p. 23) refers Busycon Bairdi, and Fusus Dakotensis, 
to Tudicla. 
2P 
