124 TRANSACTIONS OF THE WAGNER FREE 



This is a modest-looking species, having, as far as specific characters go, 

 much the same aspect as Latiriis floridamis Heilprin. 



The rock from which the casts were taken was collected by Mr. Willcox. 

 There are no signs of any lirae in the throat, but the general form of the 

 aperture and base lead me to refer it without much doubt to the present group. 



Genus ECPHORA Conrad. 

 Ecphora Conrad, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. i. p. 310, Oct., 1843. Type Fusiis 4-costains 



Say. 

 ? Slenomphalus Sandberger, Mainz. Tert. Beck., p. 222, 1853. Type Fusus cancellatus 



Thomae, Sandberger, op. cit. pi. xvii. figs. 7, 7 a, 7 b. 



This genus has been referred of late by Tryon and others to Rapana, the 

 type of which is R. bezoar of the Purpiwidce. Latiaxis, which is only an ex- 

 uberant development of species of Coralliophila, — which identical species, when 

 of medium development, comprise the genus Psendomurex, — has been placed 

 next to it. 



The remarkable development of the umbilical pit is the common character 

 of these three diverse genera. This is, however, one of the purely mechanical 

 characters which by the necessity of the case will characterize any spiral 

 gastropod having a few wide whorls rolled on a nearly horizontal plane, and 

 which possesses a deep, rather short, recurved canal, well differentiated from 

 the aperture. It is impossible for such a shell to grow without forming such 

 an umbilical pit. Consequently, it does not follow that shells having this 

 feature are necessarily related. Other characters may show a relationship, but 

 this one taken alone is not decisive. 



My impression is that Say was probably right in referring his fossil to 

 Fusus, as then understood, and I suspect his Fustis quadricostatus, the type of 

 the genus Ecphora, to be related to Chrysodovnis. Take a specimen of C. 

 decemcostatus, about two inches long, and place it by the side of a young 

 EcpJiora. In the latter the revolving ridges are fewer in number and exagger- 

 ated in size, but their character is the same essentially. The nucleus of 

 Ecphora is smaller, the whorls are more horizontally coiled, and the deep, nar- 

 row canal necessitates a flaring umbilical pit, which the wider, shallower, less 

 recurved canal of the Chrysodomiis does not more than suggest. Both shells 

 have the translucent brown outer layer covering a white, opaque lining, both 

 are without lirs. in the throat, and all the general characters except the um- 

 bilicus are strikingly similar. The canal of the young Ecphora is nearly as 

 long as the aperture behind it, and relatively longer than in the Clirysodomns, 

 though in the adult fossil these relations have changed. 



The European shell supposed to be an Ecphora, and named Stenomphaltis 

 by Sandberger, I have never seen. Its relations must remain doubtful until 

 the matter has been re-examined in the light of modern research. It strongly 

 resembles a Rapana. 



