OF SOUTHERN INDIA. 209 
A good deal of difference exists in the opinions of conchologists with regard 
to the number of genera, into which the family ought to be divided. Though 
H. and A. Adams have attempted to distinguish a number of genera and sub-genera, 
it is indeed extremely difficult to follow this division into detail, even when restricted 
to the recent species alone. Our information as to animals and shells must be much 
increased before we can insure success on this point. The difficulty becomes, 
however, considerably greater when we enter upon the determination of the fossil 
species. It cannot be said that the Zuwrritelle belong to the number of rare fossils, 
but they are often met with in a deficient state of preservation. 
From the recent Yurrirerrm2 we can select only a small number of forms, 
characteristic enough to be acknowledged as separate genera; the larger bulk of 
them we would prefer for the present to note merely under sub-generic divisions of 
Lamarck’s genus Turritella. Deshayes offered lately (Paris foss. 2nd edit., Vol. II, 
p- 305, etc.) some valuable remarks upon the family, in which he distinguishes only 
three genera, Proto, Defr. (now Leach and oth.) Twurritella and Scalaria. The last 
of these, including Zglisia, will in conformity with the opinions of other concholo- 
gists be classified under a separate family, (vide p. 228). 
The following may serve as a short review of the genera, which according to 
the present state of knowledge constitute the family TurrrreLtzipZx :— 
1.— Glauconia, Giebel, 1852. 
1826? Proto, Defr. (? 1824) (non idem, Leach or Oken). 
1852. Omphalia, Zekeli, (non idem, Haan). 
1852.  Glauconia, Giebel, Allgem. Paleont., p. 185. 
1866. Casstope, Coquand, (Mon. Pal. de l’étage aptien de l’Espagne, p. 57) (non idem seu Cassiopea, Don, 
et cet.). 
Prof. Coquand proposed lately the name Cassiope in place of Omphalia, but 
the former has been already used in a different sense, and I find, that Prof. Giebel 
has proposed the name Glauconia in the same year, as Zekeli his Omphalia. There 
is, therefore, no necessity for the application of a new generic name. 
Char. Glau. testa conica seu turrita, crassa; anfractibus numerosis, liris 
spiralibus, levibus aut granulatis, plerumque ornatis ; basi ultimi anfractus convexa ; 
apertura ovata, antice truncata seu subemarginata; labro postice aut prope medium 
émsinuato ; labio calloso, columellam crassam, plus minusve excavatam, formante. 
Many details concerning the distinguishing characters of this genus have been 
reported in my revision of the Gosau-Gastropoda, p. 11 (Sitzb. Akad., Wien, 1865, 
Vol. LIT). In the same paper I have also referred to the great similarities, which 
exist between the shells of Glauconia and the well known Turritella cathedralis, 
Brong. This last named species has been repeatedly determined as a Proto, though 
it is very difficult to understand what the real signification of that genus is. 
The name Proto was given by Defrance (Dict. des sc. nat. etc., 1826, Vol. XLITIT, 
p. 410, Zool. pl. Turriculées foss., fig. 1) to a small, supposed fossil shell, consisting 
of about 12 nearly smooth whorls, and in form very much resembling a young 
Turritella. The margins of the aperture are entire and somewhat expanded. This 
form of the aperture recalls evidently that of Chilocyelus, Bronn, (Cochlearia, Brown 
apud Miinster, olim.), in which this expansion of the margins exists only in somewhat 
a 
@) 1s 
