OF SOUTHERN INDIA. 169 
for a separate explanation on our part had we not seen the subject of classifi- 
cation dealt with so very severely elsewhere. (Vide Deshayes’ Anim. s. vert. bass. 
de Paris, 2nd edit., vol. II). 
The Cancetztarips are classed by H. and A. Adams in the so-called RostRiFERA, 
by Gray in the PrososcrpirEra, but in both cases far apart from the TreREBRIDs, which 
are acknowledged to belong to the ToxireRa, in the vicinity of the Coyrpz and 
Prevrorourp#. When we compare the animals.of the Canceztarirp2 with many 
of the Veresrrps, we find that both agree in the small foot; short tentacles, 
thickened at the base; sessile eyes on the outer base of the tentacles; usually in 
the presence of a short proboscis, and in the occasional want of a lingual 
-membrane and teeth. I am not aware in how many species of Cancellaria the 
teeth have been examined, but Troschel says that the teeth of Cancellaria resemble 
those of Conus. Even if this is really throughout the case, all the similarities be- 
tween the tivo families, the Cancerrarrrpz and the Tzrzzrrpm, cannot be sacrificed 
to the one single difference that Terebra has usually a prolonged sipho. Many of the 
fusiform shells of Cancellaria are not by any means so very different, that they could 
not be looked upon as transitional forms to Terebra, and they have also a short sipho. 
The only thing which could be done in an extreme case and which may actually 
have good reason, is to place both the families after the Conide, in which case the 
CanceLLériip# Would form a transition to the Vorurip2z. 
Originally the Zarzeripx were placed by H. and A. Adams immediately 
before the Prraurprttips”. There does not seem in fact to exist such a great 
difference between the animals of Terebra and Pyramidella, as generally supposed. 
The form of the foot, short head, proboscis and tentacles, generally unarmed tongue, 
or rudimentary teeth, are certainly, as already stated, very like in both. The differ- 
ences consist in the foldings of the tentacles, the internal position of the eyes in Pyra- 
midella and the prolonged sipho in Zerebra. As regards the form and structure of 
the shell there is certainly no other group of Mollusca more related to many fossil 
Prraurpettip# than most of the recent Txrzzrrpz. The fossil species of Nerinea 
and others, which certainly have their recent representatives in Pyramidella and Obelis- 
cus, are thus most closely allied to the Tzrzzrrpm, so that to make a distinction 
between them is sometimes almost impossible, even among better preserved speci- 
mens. Ido not understand why Mr. Deshayes should so very much regret that 
H. and A. Adams did not state particularly their reasons for having placed the 
Trresrips before the Prraumpezzrips. (Vide An.sans vert. Foss. bas. de Paris, Vol. IT, 
pp- 529 and 530, and Vol. III, pp. 513 and 514.) Iam rather more surprised that those 
conchologists who refer Zerebra to the Buccrwipz, have not thought it necessary 
to explain their reasons for dog so. They have, it is true, the authority of 
Lamarck, Quoy and Gaimard, but with those authorities they seem to have remained 
contented. Lamarck predicted the relation of Zerebra and Buccinuim (Nassa 2) from 
the supposed similarities of the shells, in which he was evidently supported by 
referring seyeral species of Northia and Bullia to Terebra and vice versa. Certainly 
2V 
