OF SOUTHERN INDIA. AOL 
columella, but a short anterior canal. It would be very interesting to compare 
perfect specimens of both these genera together. Meek’s (loc. cit., p. 88), proposition 
of Costellifer for the buccinoid and transversally ribbed species of Ceritella appears 
to me to have no foundation. 
5. Bullina, Férussac, 1821 (Tornatina, Adams, 1850; H. and A. Adams, 
Gen., II, p. 12), has the general form of Cylindrites, being involute with a distinct, 
more or less elevated, spire; the suture is canaliculated, the inner lip has a colum- 
ellar plait, but it appears to be placed somewhat higher than in the previous 
genus. 
There are few mesozoic species known which can be correctly referred to 
Bullina, but the tertiary ones are tolerably numerous. The recent species 
are not only deep-water shells, but several of them are also found in brackish 
water. I believe that Bullina stands in precisely the same point of relation to 
Cylindrites as (Auriculina) of Gray does to Acteonina. It is indeed very difficult 
to make strict distinctions between any of these genera. 
Gray in his Guide of 1857 unites H. and A. Adams’ two genera, Bullina and 
Cylichna, into one under the former name. Deshayes in his last edition of the Paris 
fossils, p. 619, ete., keeps them distinct, but he correctly replaces the name Tornatina 
by that of Bullina, admitting at the same time the existing great confusion as regards 
the names of several allied forms. Considering the strict rule of priority the 
retaining of the name Suwllina appears correct. Férussac first proposed this 
name for some species of the old genus Bulla, which have a distinct spire, like 
Bulla aplustrum, undata, truncata, and allied forms. The first species had already, 
in 1817, been called Aplustrwm by Schumacher ; for the Bulla undata, Brug. (which 
is the same as B. lineata, Sow.), Beck proposed, according to Swainson, in 1840, the 
name Bullinula (Treat. of shells, p. 860), and consequently the name Bullina 
of Férussac remains for the species like B. truncata, for which A. Adams suggested 
the name Zornatina. 
6.? Acteonema, Conrad, 1865. Amer. Journ. Conch. I, p. 147; Check List 
Eocene foss. of N. America, 1866, p. 9; shell conical, aperture suboval, reflected at 
the base. Conrad refers to this genus among others the two species, Pasithea striata 
and swleata, described in Lea’s ‘ Contributions to Geology,’ these shells being appa- 
rently generically not distinct from Aclis (Huzrupz). In neither of the descrip- 
tions of those two species does Lea mention the existence of a columellar fold, 
though he says that the lip is anteriorly somewhat flattened. In his previous cata- 
logue of the Eocene and Pliocene fossils (Am. Journ. Conch. I, 1865, p. 35) Conrad 
proposes for Pasithea striata, Lea, the name Celatura, which he subsequently (iid., 
p- 147) replaces by that of Act@onema. 
7. Myonia, Adams, 1860 (Ann. mag. nat. hist., V, p. 406). Shell ovately 
turreted, thin, generally spirally sulcated; aperture oblong, anteriorly a little 
produced, inner lip somewhat posteriorly with an oblique fold. The species 
belonging to this genus were at first (Sowerby’s Thesaurus) described by A. Adams 
as Monoptygma, which genus represents a perfectly different type of shell, belonging 
5 F 
