150 BULLETIif OF THE 



smaller. I give this information for what it may be worth, and am by no 

 means certain that the memory of my informant is to be wholly trusted ; 

 though I believe the statement was made in entire good faith. 



Subgenus AURINIA H. & A. Adams. 



= Aurinia H. & A. Adams, Gen. Rec. Moll., I. p. 166, 1853. 



< Aurinia H. & A. Adams, Ibid., II. p. 017, 1858. 



< Liconia Gra,y,jide H. & A. Adams, /. c, p. 617, 1858. 



= Volutifusus Conrad, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil., p. 563, 1862 ; Meek, Check-List 

 Inv. Fos. N. Am. Miocene, p. 19, 1864. Conrad, Am. Journ. Conch., II. p. 06, 

 1866. Tryon, Struct. & Syst. Conch., II. p. 166, 1883. 



< Megaptijgma Gabb, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil., 1876, p. 292 ; Tryon, Struct, and 



Syst. Conch., 11. p. 166, 1883 (not Megopttjgma Conrad, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. 

 Phil., 1862, p. 563, type V. sinuosa Gabb). 

 Aulica sp. Tryon, Man., IV. p. 90, 1882. 



Shell fusiform, thin, columellar plaits obsolete in the adult, external surface 

 finely sculptured sometimes beneath an overglaze ; permanent nucleus begin- 

 ning with a sharp erect point ; operculum and radula absent. Type, Valuta 

 duhia Broderip. 



The subgenus Aurinia was first proposed by H. & A. Adams for V. duhia. 

 In the supplement to their work they included with it an entirely distinct 

 form with a lateral nucleus, which would seem to have been named Livonia 

 by Gray, and afterward Mamillana by Crosse. Volutifusus Conrad was based 

 on V. mutahilis, V. dubia, and allied forms purely identical with Aurinia. 

 Megaptygma Conrad, which has been united with Volutifusus by Gabb and 

 Tryon, has directly antithetical characters, as the name implies, and, while 

 perhaps not valid, is not a synonym of Aurinia or Volutifusus. All these 

 forms have been referred to Aulica by Tryon, but the nucleus oi Aulica is of 

 an entirely different character. 



The type is one of the most remarkable shells of the family. It is accom- 

 panied in the Miocene Tertiary by Aurinia mutahilis Conrad, and is itself not 

 uncommon in the Post Pliocene. 



It may be observed, that the Scaphella (Psephcea) concinna Broderip,* of 

 which a fairly preserved specimen was dredged by Stimpson in Hakodadi Bay, 

 Japan, is closely related to Aurinia in its conchological characters. The ex- 

 treme tip of the nucleus appears to be lost in all the specimens, but is very 

 likely to resemble that of Aurinia. The Eocene species of the Paris Basin 

 referred to by Dr. Fischer (Man., p. 607, ex. V. muricina), and to which, on 

 account of their Aurinia-like nucleus, he has given the name of Eopsephcea, 

 may be paralleled in the Scaphella demissa of our own Eocene, which has, 

 however, the plaits of normal Scaphella. It is evident that the gaps are 

 bridged by the fossils, and too many names will prove little less than a burden. 



* Of whicli S. li/riform{s Kiener (not Swainson) and S. Prevostiana Crosse are 

 perhaps varieties, and all possibly referable to S. megaspira Sby. 



