226 CRETACEOUS GASTROPODA 
The identity of 7. quadricincta and Hagenoviana, Goldf., cannot be questioned, and 
I accepted the latter name in my last Revision of the Alpine Gosau-Gastropoda, 
because I had not before the opportunity of examining several of the doubtful 
species. In the last edition of the ‘Petrefacta Germaniz’ the name 7. qnadriciucta is 
retained, but I do not think, that it deserves priority, and it is not characteristic at 
all. Goldfuss’ name of 7. velata refers to an imperfect cast only. Certainty on 
these points can be obtained only by the examination of the originals. 7. Sowerbyi 
and 7. Calypso are the same as figured on our Pl. XVII, Figs. 10 and 16. They 
do not need any farther comment; we examined specimens from the same localities. 
To which species D’Orbigny intended to apply his name 7. Geinitziw is not 
clear. He refers to a Z. multistriata, Reuss, but it cannot be that described by 
Reuss, for in his Prod. II, p. 218, he quotes both the figures of the latter 
author. Perhaps D’Orbigny meant the J. granulata of Geimitz in ‘Verst. von 
Kieslingswalda’, 1843, pl. 1, fig. 18; but I really do not see, why this form should 
be considered different from 7. multistriata of Reuss. 
If according to Dr. J. Miiller 7. quinquecincta, Goldf., and Dupiniana, D’Orb., 
be the same as Reuss’ 7. multistriata, we may quite as well identify with it half 
a dozen of other cretaceous species. I do not see, however, what difference there 
exists between the latter species and Miiller’s 7. quinquelineata, except perhaps, 
that the specimens of the last named species were not so well preserved, as those 
of the former! I would even be very much inclined to suppose, that the 7. gothica 
had been founded upon a few of the top-whorls of 7. multistriata. ‘The Gosau 
species, which had been identified by Zekeli with 7. difficilis, D’Orb., has been 
referred already in my ‘ Revision &c.,’ of 1865 to 7. Hagenoviana, which is identical 
with 7. multistriata. 
Lastly, I would draw attention to the 7. Fittoniana, Miinst. (Goldf. Petr. 
Germ. ITI., pl. 197, fig. 10, and Zekeli loc. cit., pl. 1, fig. 7). The species has been 
described from fragments, which were found in the Gosau deposits. I had examined 
a number of similar fragments, which I first thought to be distinct from 7. multi- 
striata, but I find now, that they all consist of the uppermost whorls of this latter 
species. I should not like to pronounce the unquestionable identity of both, with- 
out having previously carefully compared Miinster’s and Zekeli’s originals, but 
I think it very probable, that they are not different. On the other hand, I would 
retain the Z. sexcincta of Goldfuss with the 7. difficilis of D’Orbigny and the 
T. multilineata of Miiller as identical with Turr. sexlineata, Roemer. (vide my notes 
on Transylvanian cretaceous fossils in Jahrb. Geol. Reichs-Anst., Wien, 1863*, 
Vol. XIII, p. 53). 
T have also compared in the London Geol. Society’s collection the fragments, 
upon which Mr. Baily based his Turr. Meadii + from the cretaceous rocks of 
Sth. Africa. The ornamentation of this species is very like that of 7. multistriata, 
but not sufficiently well preserved to insure correctness of identification. 
* These notes were written in November 1861. 
+ Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., Lond., 1855, XI, p. 458, pl. 12, fig. 6. 
