298 CRETACEOUS GASTROPODA 
and others. Two as yet undescribed species have been found in our S, Indian cretaceous deposits, 
Mamm. edura and carnatica. 
10. Mamma, Klein, 1753, (Ostrac., p. 21,—H. and A. Adams, Gen. I, p. 210,) 
merely differs from IJamimilla by its twisted columella, which forms a thickened 
string in the narrow wnbilicus. The species which appear to belong to this genus 
have not yet been separated from Natica; they are rather rare shells. 
Naticina, Gray, 1842 (H. and A. Adams, Gen, I, p. 211,) will be mentioned in the family 
VELUTINIDA, 
c. Sub-family,—SIGARETIN ZB. 
1. Lupia, Conrad, (Smithson. Mise. Coll. No. 200, Check-list eocene foss., 
1866, p. 15,) with the species L. perovata, Con. 
2. Sigaretus, Lam., 1799 (Stomatia, Hall, 1752 ;—Catinus, Klein, in H. and 
A. Adams’ Gen. I, p. 212). Hill’s name Stomatia would have priority, if it were 
perfectly reliable (vide also Gray’s Cat. 1857, p. 50). H. and A. Adams accept the 
name Oatinus, but besides this name forming only a part of the generic denomi- 
nation ‘Catinus lactis’ used by Klein (vide Ostrac., p. 19,) there appears some 
doubt whether that shell is really a Sigaretus in Lamarck’s sense, for Klein calls the 
shell smooth ; in such a case this would be as well applicable to Stomatia of Helbling, 
or to a Stomatella. 
Romer (Nordd. Kreidegeb., 1841, p. 83,) says of Nat. acutimargo that it pos- 
sesses ‘concentric strie.’ If this is really the case the species may prove to be a 
Sigaretus, although the shell is much more like a Gyrodes. Guéranger (Hssai 
@une repert. Pal., ete., 1853, p. 30,) mentioning a Sigaretus bicarinatus, leaves it 
doubtful whether th® species correctly belongs to that genus. From the refer- 
ence to certain keels and a band between them it would not appear very probable, 
that the shell is a Sigaretus. The figure given in his Album paléont., etc., 1867, 
pl. 10, fig. 8, gives, however, a better idea of the species; it is here evidently entered 
under the name of Stomatia bicarinata. 
The list of cretaceous species of the Naricrpa, as reported in Pictet’s Mat. p. 1. 
Pal. Suisse, 3me. Ser., pp. 891-399, and in Gabb’s Cat. of cret. fossils, is already very 
considerable, and still several species have since been added to that number. 
We have already stated the difficulty, which would necessarily follow any attempt 
at a generic determination of them, for a large number are only known from 
imperfect specimens. Besides many of the species themselves are by no means 
certain or correctly determined. ‘Those of the Alpine Gosau-formation will be 
found re-examined in my revision of the Gosau-Gastropoda, p. 43, etc. (Sitzungsb. 
Akad., Wien, 1865, LII). Additional new species have been described, since 
Pictet’s publication of the 38me. Ser. of the Mat. Pal. Suisse, in Coquand’s ‘ Geol. 
and Pal. de la Constantine’ and ‘ Btage Aptien de l’Espagne’, in Binkhorst’s 
‘Monograph Gast. et Ceph. de la craie de Limbourg,’ in Gabb’s Pal. of California, 
1864, Vol. I; in Guévanger’s Album Paléont. de la Sarthe, ete., 1867; Hichwald, 
Lethxea Rossica, XI. Livy. 1867, pp. 808-821, and others. The thirteen species 
