78 Reviews—Cossmann’s Shells of the Paris Basin. 
the publication of M. Cossmann’s “Catalogue”; in round numbers 
250 species occur which had to be worked out and placed in their 
proper genera in this family, and it was found desirable to propose 
several new genera and sub-genera in accomplishing the work. The 
author must have considerable courage in attempting to distinguish 
Potamides from Cerithium in the fossil state, and the division is 
necessarily an arbitrary one. In regard to Lovenella, Sars, 1878, 
the author remarks that Monterosato has said that the name is 
pre-occupied, but this is disregarded on the grounds that the latter 
did not give either author or date of pre-occupation. We may 
therefore recall the fact that Hincks, in 1868, had used the term 
Lovenella for a Ceelenterate (Hist. British Hyd. Zoophytes, 1868, 
vol. i. p. 177), as Mr. R. B. Newton has pointed out. The last- 
mentioned author replaces the molluscan genus Lovenella by 
Cerithiella, Verrill, 1882, which M. Cossmann considers, from etymo- 
logical grounds, is pre-occupied by Ceritella, Morris and Lycett, 
which term, however, we think is sufficiently distinctive. In con- 
sequence of our author adopting pre-Linnean works, the well- 
known Rostellaria, Lam., 1799, is replaced by Gladius, Klein, 1753. 
Amongst the Fasciolariide we find a new genus, Streptochetus, 
proposed for several species having considerable affinities with 
Latirus; M. Bayle, in classifying the collection in the Kcole des 
Mines, Paris, believed that these peculiar forms should be included 
in a new genus, Kelletia, of which Fusus Kelleti, Forbes, is the 
type, and which Dr. Fischer considers is a sub-genus of Siphonalia, 
M. Cossmann, however, shows that the Paris Tertiary species differ 
from the type of Kelletia, and they cannot be included under 
Siphonalia on account, amongst other things, of the characters of 
their embryo, by the length and twisting of their canal, and by 
their columella, which is sometimes plicated. In spite of the 
exhaustive work of M. Jousseaume on Cancellaria, our author is 
able to add two new sub-genera thereto. ‘The Conide have been 
the subject of considerable revision, and M. Cossmann’s original 
work amongst Pleurotoma might fittingly be paralleled with that of 
Bellardi on the same genus. The Order Nucleobranchiata is repre- 
sented in the Paris area by one species only—the ancient Cyclostoma 
spiruloides of Lamarck, which forms the type of a new genus 
Eoatlanta. Amongst the Pulmonata may be mentioned the new 
genus Acroria, which is placed doubtfully in the Gadiniide, and 
four new subdivisions, two of which are sections of the already 
overburdened Heliz. 
Fascicule V. shows that only two genera of Pteropoda are present 
in the Paris Basin Eocene—Spirialis and Valvatina. The Vaginella 
Parisiensis of Watelet, said to have come from the Sables de Cuise, 
at Mercin, is eliminated, as M. Cossmann believes that it is really a 
V. depressa from the Bordeaux district, with which we entirely 
concur. Huchilotheca succincta, Defrance, is mentioned by some as 
a Pteropod, but our author has placed it amongst the Cecide. The 
Cephalopoda are represented by the genera Sepia, Belosepia, Beloptera, 
Nautilus, and Aturia; whilst five genera of Brachiopoda occur, viz. : 
Orania, Terebratulina, Terebratula, Kingena, and Cistella. 
