OF SOUTHERN INDIA. 185 
Localities—W. N. W. of Moraviatoor; common in coral limestone (vide 
If. Blanford’s Report in Mem. Geol. Surv. India, Vol. IV, pt. I, p. 90), but rare in 
the conglomeratic sandstone near Parully in the Trichinopoly District. 
Lormation.—Ootatoor group. 
3. NERINEA, sp. Pl. XIV, Fig. 7. 
Two cast specimens have been found of this species, one in the calcareous 
sandstones near Moraviatoor, and one in the limestones near Odium. It is remark- 
ably conical and short, not so cylindrical as other Nerinee. The section of the 
whorls exhibits two columellar folds, and two on the outer lip, of which, however, 
rather exceptionally, each posterior one is almost stronger than the lower. The pos- 
terior portion of the inner lip has only one strong fold. Towards the aperture there 
are on the anterior portion of the outer lip some distant impressions of three-toothed 
varices noticeable. By these varices the inner spaces of the aperture must have 
been made still narrower than would have resulted from the thickening of the other 
folds. No trace of the surface of the shell has been as yet found preserved. I am 
not acquainted with any exactly similar species, and my present object in figuring 
the incomplete specimen is only to draw attention to this interesting form. 
Formation.—Ootatoor group. 
XIX. Family—OCERITHIOPSIDZ. 
(Vide Adams’ Genera I, p. 239; Gray’s Guide, 1857, p. 56.) 
When we compare the animals of this family with those of the PYRAMIDELLIDE 
and the shells with those of the Czrzrruzrpx there could be no better place assigned to 
it. Gray acknowledges the first relationship, but H. and A. Adams place the family 
altogether out of connection with any of these two. LL. Reeve—Conch. Icon—says 
that, the shells of Cerithiopsis are not to be distinguished from those of Cerithium, and. 
he does not consequently accept the first genus at all. This we certainly believe to be 
a little exaggeration. There are many particulars in the structure of the shell of 
Cerithiopsis to be noticed which appear to be characteristic for it, although much 
dependence is scarcely to be placed upon the form of the shell in general. Where, 
however, such marked distinctions have been verified, as those which are known to 
exist between the animals of Cerithiopsis* and Cerithium, and where the respective 
shells are well known, it is certainly, at least with respect to these known species, 
not correct to disregard these distinctions, instead of being a little more patient and 
awaiting a more certain solution of those cases, which are as yet doubtful. The 
family may, therefore, be retained, but it ought to stand close to the Crrrryrrpx. 
It will be easily understood if there are already such great difficulties experi- 
enced in the determination of the recent shells, that the determination of fossil species 
must be much more doubtful. That forms of Cerithiopsis, resembling extremely 
* And the sub-generic forms dlaba, Diala, Seila (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 1861, p. 131) and probably some others. 
Diez, 
