316 CRETACEOUS GASTROPODA 
adopts in his last edition of the Paris fossils (Vol. II, p. 259) the above named 
division of Gray as a sub-order, though this does not.appear to have the same rank 
as the other corresponding divisions. Gray further distinguishes in the Cazyprripa 
three sub-families, crerrpULINA, GALERINA, and caLypTra#ina. It is likewise not 
probable that these sub-divisions will prove of much practical use, though the first 
and third one perhaps may occasionally be found convenient. The shells of the 
Catyerripez are Patelli-form or conically elevated, subspiral, with a sublateral or 
posterior apex, internally with simple or variously folded processes, usually origin- 
ating at the apex; rarely is there a partial basal disc formed resembling that of 
the Onustivz. The aperture is in consequence of this varied form of the shell 
very different in shape, but always very large; none of the species are known to 
have an operculum. 
The principal genera, as usually accepted, are— 
1. Galerus, Humphrey, 1797. It will always be very difficult to distinguish 
fossil species of Galerus and Infundibulum, for the depressed conical form cannot 
be considered as the principal character of Galerus, though the more rapid increase 
of the whorls may often serve as a distinction between the two. 
la. Galeropsis, Conrad (Check list. eoc. fossils of N. America), proposed for 
Galerus excentricus, Gabb, which differs from other species of that genus by a more 
elevated spire. 
2. Infundibulum, Montfort, 1810; (Zrochita, Schum., 1817). Montfort’s figure 
(Conch. syst., p. 166,) of his Jv. typus is certainly not very clear, but his description 
and reference to the relations of Calyptra help to recognize the character of the 
genus. He draws special attention to the thin structure of the internal layer which 
is exactly similar in Calyptra, and only in form resembles Zrochus. It would 
simply be impossible to say that of Carinidea concava, Mart., which H. and — 
A. Adams (Gen. I, p. 415,) refer under the name of Infundibulum, Montf, to Poly- 
donta, as a sub-genus. This is hardly correct as far as Carinidea of Swainson is 
concerned (Treat. shells, 1840, p. 350), but we certainly cannot accept it with re- 
ference to Montfort’s Infundibulwm, however much he may have confounded other 
species of shells with it. There is indeed no good reason to be given in support of 
Schumacher’s name Trochita as adopted by Adams, Chenu, Gray and others, because 
the name~ Infundibulum was accepted and well illustrated by other typical species 
before Schumacher’s name was introduced (vide Sowerby’s Min. Conch., 1815, 
Vole IE ply ou)e 
3. Calyptra, Klein, 1753, Ostrac., p. 118 (Calyptrea, Lamarck, 1799), Klein 
(loc. cit.) says: ‘ Calyptre nomen imponimus monoconchis rotundatis, natabili 
processu conico, obliquo ad figuram pileorum, etc.,—accedentes’ ; and in quoting 
the species he describes the first, C. Rwmphiana alba, ‘ intra ossicula rotunda tubuli 
instar instructa, etc.’ There is no necessity for changing the name into Calyptrea, 
to make it suited to generic denomination. 
4. Crucibulum, Schumacher, 1817. 
5. Crepiduia, Lamarck, 1799.  Crypta, Humphrey, 1797 [teste Swainson | 
cannot contest priority with Lamarck’s name. 
