OF SOUTHERN INDIA. 283 



furrow should prove that it has no comiexiou with tlie ligament, but is caused by 

 the hinge-rib. 



10. Caprlmtla, d'Orbigny, 18i7, (Pal. franc, terr. cret., iv, p. 187). Shell 

 inequivalve, botli valves large, cellular, with internal tubuli ; lower or left valve 

 larger, elongated, sub-spiral, with a longitudinal ligamcntal furrow, at the bas^e of 

 which where it enters the margin of the shell there exist a number of rather larger 

 pits into whicb tlie ligament apparently extends, producing an internal cartilage ; in 

 front of these so-called cartilage-pits there is a strong cardinal tooth extending down 

 tbe interior wall of the valve, and there are said to be two cardinal teeth in the 

 free, upper valve, which is smaller and distinctly spiral with an incurved beak. 

 Type, C. Boissyi, d'Orb. 



11. CajJrinella, d'Orb., 1847, (1. cit., p. 189). Shell inequivalve, attached 

 valve larger, involute, spiral with a ligamental furrow on the convex side, and appa- 

 rently with numerous cartilage-pits internally, tlie convex side of the shell being very 

 thick and fibrous, internal part chambered ; free valve smaller, sub-conic, elevated, 

 Avith an eccentric pointed slightly twisted umbo. Type, C. triangtilaris, Desm. 



List of cketaceous species. 

 These bave lately been catalogued by Pictet and Campiebe in Pal. Suisse 5™<' scr., 4™'' p.art., 

 1868, p. 4 et seq., wbere the respective references to the various species will be found; I shall 

 have to add but few which have not been included in that list. 

 1. — Diceras Gennani and LorioU, Pict. and Camp. 



2. — B. ganlUnum, Pict. and Rous, is, on account of the inequality of the valves, more probably 

 a Chama, as Pictet and Campiche also suggest. 



3. — Diceras arieiiua, d' Avch., (iiouDeluc.), from cretaceous rocks, is supposed to be a Cajjrhia. 

 4. — I). Favri, Sharpe, is most likely a Requienia, but distinct from R. Lonsdulii. 

 f Diceras guttata, Sharpe apud Gabb, is Uiancliora ? gullala , Sharpe, and does not belong 

 to the present family). 



5. — Requienia Jaccardi and eurijstoma, Pict. and Camp. 



6-10. — R. Lonsdalii, Sow., sp., aiumouia, Goldf., sp., gr^phoides, Math., lamellosa, d'Orb. 

 Grasiana, jMortillet. 



11-2^. — R. rugosa, navis, Dehirneana , ornata, lavigata, Curoitotiensis, Cdrinata, Toiicasiana, 

 Arc/iiaciaua, suh-a-qualis, Mic/ieliiii, and Marticensis, are described by d'Orbigny. 



23. — Req. Cyplyana, Ryek., is quoted by Bosquet from the ujiper cretaceous beds of Bergen 

 (vide Staring's Bodem van Nederland, ii deel). 



24. — Req. Lithuana, Eichw., (Leth ross., livr. x, p. 362,) was origiually described as Acardo ; 

 it differs from both, Requienia and Cajirotina, by its short straight beaks, and very likely does not 

 belong to this family. 



25. Req. texana, Romer. Meek retains this species in Caprtdina, origiually described by 

 Romer under that generic name, but it appears more likely to be a Requienia. 



26-28. — Monopleura corniculum, Talangiensis, and Valdensis, Pict. and Camp. 



29-36. — M. varians, Math., Michailensis, Pict. and Camp., deprcssa, Math., trilobiita,A'Ovh. 

 ail., iii/bricata, sulcata and Marticensis, Math., Plauensis, Geinitz, sp. 



37. — 31. texana, Romer, has been transferi-ed by Gabb to Capndiua, as Cap. Romeri, and by 

 Pictet and Campiche to Requienia. The species could belong to either of the genera, but viewing 

 it externally it does not appear to dilfer in the least from Ch'iinuslrea. 



