INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE, PHILADELPHIA. 163 



behind it ; inside it has about eighteen strong lirae, unpaired and with wider 

 interspaces ; inner lip heavily callous, reflected, strongly pustular, lirate at the 

 base of the pillar and on the body ; canal narrow, short, strongly recurved ; 

 axis pervious; siphonal notch very deeply cut; siphonal fasciole strong, with 

 a deep channel behind it ; the callus of the aperture reaches to the shoulder. 

 Max. Ion. of shell 26.0 ; of aperture 21.0 ; max. lat. 19. mm. 



The specimen described came from Ten-Mile Creek, Chipola River, col- 

 lected by Mr. Burns. Its nearest relative seems to be C. ccelaUtra, which is 

 quite differently sculptured and proportioned. It is named in honor of Mr 

 T. H. Aldrich,who is doing so much to increase our knowledge of the South- 

 ern Eocene fauna of the United States. A figure will appear later. 



Family DOLIID/E. 



Genus PYRULA Lamarck. 



Pyrula papyratia Say. 



Pyrula papyi'atia Say, Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., ist series, ii. p. 238, 1S22 ; Tryon, Man. 



vii. p. 266, pi. 6, fig. 35, 1S85; Dall, Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus. No. 37, p. 134, 1889. 



Fossil in the Pliocene marls of the Caloosahatchie and the Post-Pliocene 

 of the Carolinas and of Florida. Living from North Carolina to the West 

 Indies. 



The specimens are not common in the marl, perhaps on account of their 

 fragility, but they are perfectly identical with the living specimens in every 

 detail. The species is the P. gracilis of Philippi, and was referred to as P. 

 rctiadata by Prof Heilprin in his list of Caloosahatchie fossils, these Trans- 

 actions, volume i. p. 103. 



Family OVULID^. 



Genus OVULA Bruguifere. 



The writer had taken it for granted that the Messrs. Adams and Morch 

 were justified in quoting Meuschen as an authority on nomenclature. Lately, 

 having sought for many years to obtain a copy of Meuschen's work, but in 

 vain, he was enabled to examine a copy. His astonishment may be imagined 

 at the discovery that Meuschen did not, apparently, have the remotest idea of 

 a binomial nomenclature, and is no more entitled to be quoted in that line 

 than Aristotle or Fabius Colonna. On the other hand, his catalogue seems 

 destitute of any scientific value, and is not to be named in the same day with 

 Klein, Adanson and others, who were men of genius, although they did not 

 adopt the Linnean nomenclature. As a result Meuschen's names must be 

 absolutely discarded, including the name Ampliiperas and the family AmpJii- 

 perasidcB based upon it, which have so long enjoyed a currency to which they 

 were in no respect entitled. 



