OF SOUTHERN INDIA. 189 
8. Ceritella, Morris and Lycett, 1850 (Moll. Great Oolite, Pt. I, p. 37.)= 
Tubifer, Piette, 1856 (Bull. Soc. Géol. France, 2d ser. XIII. Vol., p. 203), also proposed 
for a number of small jurassic shells which resemble Acteonina in form, the last 
volution being somewhat ventricose and largest, but terminating anteriorly with a 
short and slightly twisted canal. The whorls are either smooth or often orna- 
mented with short transverse ribs, seldom spirally striated as usually in the Acteonide, 
The name Zwbifer must yield to that of Ceritella, the latter having priority. No 
eretaceous species of Ceritella are as yet known, although the genus appears very 
numerously represented in the middle jurassic beds. 
4.  Brachytrema, Morris and Lycett, 1850 (Moll. Great Oolite, Pt. I, p. 24), 
including turbinate shells with usually convex whorls, ornamented by spiral strize 
and transverse nodulose ribs, thus approaching already more to the typical forms 
of Cerithiwm. The aperture terminates anteriorly with a short canal, the 
columella being somewhat twisted. Piette (Bull. Soc. Géol. France 2nd Ser. XIII. 
Vol., p. 597) referred some of the species belonging to this genus to Purpurina, 
(Purp. costellata, and oth.) which genus we would rather see classed either with the 
TRICHOTROPID#, or With the LirroriwipZ. 
Of Brachytrema also no cretaceous species has been reported, but it is probable 
that some, like Cerith. Phillipsi, Leym. (Mem. Soc. Géol. France, V. page 14, 
Pl. XVII, Fig. 12) and a few others belong to this genus. They agree at least much 
better with the jurassic Brachytrema, than with other species of Cerithium, proper. 
5. Mesostoma, Deshayes, 1864, Anim. s. Vert. Foss. du bas. de Paris, 2nd edit. 
II. tom., page 416) has, we believe, to be classed here, and not with the Rissomz 
as proposed by Deshayes. It is even very doubtful whether those species, which 
have suggested the new generic name, are really different from Brachytrema ; their 
form is almost exactly the same as in many species of the last genus and only the 
fact of the transverse ribs being somewhat more numerous and less nodulose 
could form a distinction, if this can be really regarded as such. The shell of 
esostoma appears to be thinner than that of Brachytrema, and the columella is 
stated to be hollow, but Brachytrema has also often a fissured columella. 
6. Fvxelissa, Piette, 1861 (Bull. Soc. Geol. France 2nd ser. Vol. XVIIL., 
p- 15): Kilvertia, Morris, 1863 (Suppl. Monog. Gast. Great Oolite, ete., p. 15 
and 93). Both names have been proposed for the same species as type, the 
Cerith. strangulatum, d’Arch., and the genus includes a large number of very 
characteristic, transversally ribbed species. D’Archiac in his original figure of 
C. strangulatum (Mem. Soc. Géol. France. V, Pl. XX XI, Fig.1) restores the species 
as having a short anterior canal, but Piette and Morris say, that there is no anterior 
eanal present. We are sorry that we have no good specimens of the typical Evelisse 
to compare, but the question as to the existence or non-existence of a canal does 
not appear to us quite settled. We have made a few observations on a cretaceous 
species, Cerith. muricatum, Forb., which agrees in the ornamentation very 
much with other jurassic Hvelisse, and we find that in very young specimens 
there is scarcely a trace of a canal perceptible. The margins appear united all round, 
3A 
