290 CRETACEOUS GASTROPODA 
anteriorly somewhat narrower. The whorls are 9 or 10, being slightly convex and 
in young specimens obsoletely spirally striated; in older ones they are smooth, the 
striee of growth are curved in S-form, and at short intervals there are occasionally 
somewhat deeper sulcations perceptible, instead of varices as is usually the case 
in recent Hulime. The aperture was ovate, posteriorly very narrow, anteriorly 
roundish, as shown by an outline in our Fig. 4. The outer margin is thin, sharp 
at its edge, and according to the strize of growth laterally somewhat produced; the 
inner lip thick, without any fold or teeth, and strongly arcuated ; the columella solid. 
I was surprised to find in the London Geol. Soc. Collection from the cretaceous 
rocks of South Africa, imperfect specimens of this species determined by Mr. Baily 
as Turr. Renauxiana, dV’ Orb. 
Localities. —N. of Alundanapooram, E. of Anapaudy, and near Comarapolliam, 
in coarse, siliceous sandstone; not common. 
Formations.—Trichinopoly — and Arrialoor - groups. The mineralogical charac- 
ter of the rock from the two first named localities, which according to Blanford’s 
map refer to the Trichinopoly group, is very similar to that of the last locality, 
certainly belonging to the Arrialoor group; and it may be possible that the beds, 
from which the fossils had been extracted in the two former localities, also belong 
to the same group. 
e.. Sub-family,—STILIFERIN 2. 
(Sryiireripa, H. and A. Adams, Gen. I, p. 238). 
The animal of S¢idifer in general very much resembles that of Hulima, except 
that its foot is anteriorly much more produced, tongue-shaped, forming in some 
respects a transition to that of the Naziciom. Jeffreys published several very valu- 
able observations on the animal of Stilifer. He agrees with H. and A. Adams in 
the formation of a separate family, but leaves its place undecided (vide Ann. Mag, 
Nat. Hist., 1864, XIV, p. 821). 
The shells differ from those of the nvzrurvz by a greater globosity of the 
whorls, and they also are generally thinner. The following genera constitute the 
sub-family :— 
1. Macronalia, A. Adams, 1860 (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., V, p. 301,) is stated 
to be a middle-form between Leiostraca and Stilifer. It lives parasitic on different 
species of Menrnrp2Z. 
2. Stilifer, Broderip, 1832 (H. and A. Adams’ Gen. I, p. 239). Stiliferina, 
A. Adams, 1860 (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., VI, p. 335,) is stated to be a form 
allied to Sdilifer and ntoconcha. The aperture is, however, rather angular, 
while in S¢éifer it is always roundish; it seems therefore more correct to place 
Stiliferina in the zrrropina” of the family Pranaxip#. 
2 
3. Lntoconcha, Miller, 1852 (Gray’s Guide, 1857, p. 62; H. and A. Adams’ 
Gen. IT, p. 622). 
4. . Macrocheilus, Phillips, 1841 (Pal. foss., etc., p. 103).. Only those species, 
which have an elongated spire composed of numerous, convex and smooth 
