OF SOUTHERN INDIA. 285 
from Hbala. 'The species with numerous whorls and straight transverse ribs must 
be excluded from Chemnitzia and referred to Turbonilla, Scala, Eglisia, and others. 
7a. Loxonema, Phillips, 1841, (Paleoz. foss., ete., p. 98). The characters given 
(loc. cit.) by Phillips correspond with those of smooth species of Chemnitzia, 
the whorls, being contracted posteriorly, generally show slight insinuations of the 
strive of growth. The author seems, however, to have also referred to this genus 
species which belong to Holopella, Turbonilla and others. Unless in Loxonema 
the margins of the aperture are united and internally somewhat thickened, its 
generic distinction cannot be retained. 
8. Subulites, Conrad, 1842 (Pal. New York, 1847, I, p. 182), proposed for a 
smooth shell, resembling a very much elongated Terebellum, but the exact form of 
the aperture is unknown. If this be really rounded and entire in front, the genus 
must be placed in this sub-family; in the contrary case it may belong either to the 
PyrrauipeELie or to the Arara. 
9. Polyphemopsis, Portlock, 1843 (Geol. of Londonderry, etc., p. 415, pl. 31, 
fig. 2). The original species resembles a smooth Chemnitzia, but the surface is 
perfectly worn off, and unless any peculiarities of better preserved specimens be 
pointed out, the genus can hardly be considered as of any value for the determina- 
tion of species. — 
10. Holopella, M’Coy, 1855, (Brit. Pal. foss. II, p. 303,) includes a number of 
species with remarkably convex whorls, the first of which are often cancellated by 
transverse and spiral striz. The species, belonging to this genus, are in some 
respects intermediate between Dunkeria and Hyala; they also resemble Aclis. 
11. Pseudo-Melania, Pictet and Camp., 1862 (Mat. p. 1. Pal. Suisse, 3me. Ser., 
p- 266). It is difficult to state precisely in what the differences of this genus 
consist, as compared with Chemnitzia. The few species referred to it by Pictet 
and Campiche, and myself,* are all smooth shells, like many Chemnitzie, and can 
only be generically separated from them by their not possessing the characteristic 
insinuation of the outer lip. Should Polyphemopsis be proved to exhibit the same 
distinction from Chemmnitzia, Pictet and Campiche’s name can be omitted. 
The cretaceous species which can, properly speaking, be referred to any of the above named 
genera, mentioned under numbers 6-11, are only very few. 
Pictet and Campiche (loc. cit., pp. 269 and 270,) name a number of species as belonging to 
Pseudo-Melania, but none of them are known in a sufficiently good state of preservation. The 
Chem. Pailletteana, D’Orb., very much recalls by the form of its aperture a Keilostoma, but if it 
has not the outer lip thickened, it may better remain under the generic name of Chemnitzia. 
The Ch. mosensis, D’Orb., the only cretaceous species left by Pictet and Campiche (loc. cit., p. 266,) 
under Chemnitzia, is more probably a Turbonilia, for it has straight transverse ribs. Ch. Beyrichi, 
Zekeli, is a Melania. The Chem. gloriosa, Rém., is identical with Fasciolaria rigida, Baily 
(vide p. 109) ; I have compared the original specimen in the Museum at Bonn. There are also in 
D’Orbigny’s collection in the Jardin des plantes at Paris, three specimens marked Chem. inflata ; 
one of them from Uchoux most probably is only an imperfect specimen of Ampullina bulbiformis, 
Sow.; two others from Chattellrouit and Montruhard are very doubtful and imperfect casts, From 
* Sitzungsb. Akad., Wien, 1865, LIT, Revision, ete., p. 20. 
4A 
