318 CRETACEOUS GASTROPODA 
in Prof, Miiller’s collection, but I must say that, so far as descriptions and general determinations are 
concerned, I found most of Prof. Miiller’s references correct, while many of his figures are decidedly 
bad and often contradict his own statements, not because the specimens were imperfect, but because 
they have been badly drawn. 
With reference to the representation of the family Caztyprrip# it our South 
Indian eretaceous deposits we are furnished only with very meagre materials. 
Prof. Forbes described two species under the names of Calyptrea ? elevata and 
C.? corrugata, both of which appear with far greater probability to belong to the 
family Uscrvrrp#. We shall state our reasons for this transfer subsequently, 
vide pp. 822 and 323. 
The only trace which we have been able to discover, as indicating the occur- 
rence of a species in our cretaceous rocks, is an impression (see Pl. XIX, Fig. 25) 
of the concave basis of a shell, together with a small portion of one side of a whorl. 
This impression appears to belong to an Jufundibulum, and was found in the 
yellowish calcareous sandstones to the North of Moraviatoor in the Ootatoor 
group. 
XLITI. Family,—_CAPULIDA. 
H. and A. Adams, Genera I, p. 870; Gray, Guide, 1857, p. 119; Chenu, Manuel, p. 328. 
The shell of the Carutip& is cup-shaped, with an eccentrical, subspiral apex and 
an enlarged aperture with entire margins. The muscular impression is usually horse- 
shoe shaped. No species are known to possess an operculum. 
The genera quoted by H. and A. Adams are — 
1. Capulus, Montfort, 1810, (Conch. Syst., p. 54), (Pileopsis, Lamck., 1812) ; 
Klein (Ostrac., 1753, pp. 118-119,) was the first to name these shells Cochlearia (non 
id., Linn., and others) and ‘ Mitra hungarica, 
2. Amathina, Gray, 1842, with the species A. ¢ricarinata, Chem., and 
A. bicarinata, Pease. A third one was described by A. Adams as Amath. nobilis 
from the Japan sea (Proc. Zool. Soc., 1867, p. 312). 
3. Cochlolepas, Klein, 1753 (Ostrac., p. 119; Hipponyx, Defrance, 1819). 
Klein’s figure evidently represents the same shell which has been afterwards named — 
Hipponyx by Defrance. 
Amalthea, Schumacher, 1817, is distinguished by Adams as a separate genus, 
including certain species which simply excavate with their foot a superficial cavity 
on the surface of the stone or shell to which they are attached, and do not form a 
shelly plate distinct from the substratum. Mr. Fisher in a paper on the anatomy 
of Hipponyx, (Cochlolepas antiquatus, Jour. de Conch., 1862, X, pp. 4-17, pl. 2,) 
states, however, that the formation of a calcareous substratum is not a character 
of either generic or specific value. 
Brocchia, Bronn, seems to be likewise a doubtful genus. It is distinguished 
from Capulus by certain undulations and crenulations of the posterior margin ; but 
it has not as yet been proved whether this form of the shell is a normal one. The 
