J. Starhie Gardner — Cretaceous Gasteropoda. Ill 



Seeley has described two species from the Cambridge Gault or 

 Greensand : F. elongatus, pi. xi. j&g. 7, and ? F. hrevis, pi. xi. fig. 8, 

 of the volume above referred to. 



The latter shell is in all probability a variety, and might be omitted 

 from future lists of fossils. No species have hitherto been added, 

 nor have I seen any fossils described under other names which can 

 be referred to this genus. 



Funis crebrioostatus, J. S. G. Upper Chalk, Norfolk. 

 Plate III. Fig. 18. 



Shell elongated, angle 25°; whorls inflated and rounded; ribs 

 numerous, probably twenty to twenty-five, very thin and salient; 

 striae exceedingly strong and prominent, about one -third closer to- 

 gether than are the ribs, which they cross, forming nodes at the 

 intersections ; sutures indistinct. The height and prominence of the 

 strise, which is nearly as great as that of the ribs, give the shell a 

 reticulated appearance, whilst the nodes at the frequent intersections 

 give it a rugose aspect. There are very faint traces of ornamentation 

 preserved on the cast. 



The fragment figured is in my collection. 



Funis oangellatus, J. S. G. Gault. Plate IV. Fig. 7. 



Shell turreted, thin, angle 23° ; whorls numerous, very inflated, 

 with eight spiral ridges visible on each, except the last, which pos- 

 sesses twelve. The spiral ridges are crossed by finer transverse ribs, 

 which cancellate the surface, leaving a slight flattened node at each 

 intersection. The transverse ribs and the nodes decrease in strength 

 as the whorls enlarge. 



This shell I at first thought might prove to be F. hrevis, Seeley ; 

 but a comparison has shown them to be quite unlike, the ornament- 

 ation being finer and far more regular. It is not unlike CeritMum 

 Lallierianum, so much so, that there is a specimen placed with that 

 species in d'Orbigny's collection, which is undoubtedly a Funis, and 

 probably the one now described. 



The specimen described is from the Gault of Folkestone, and is 

 in my collection. 



We now come to a small group of shells which evidently cannot 

 be placed in the genus Scalaria, but which falls naturally into a genus 

 constituted by Philippi under the name of Pyrgiscus, since united with 

 Chemnitzia, d'Orb., and described as Turbonilla by Price & Adams. 

 But the Cliemnitzim are placed in the Pyramidellidce, a family into 

 which the present group cannot be received on account of its want of 

 columellar plaits, and it therefore becomes necessary to re-separate 

 them and restore Pyrgiscus as a generic term. The resemblance of 

 Pyrgiscus to the forms of Scalaria just described is so great as to 

 forbid, in my opinion, the possibility of placing them in a family far 

 removed, and I therefore think we are justified in following Deshayes' 

 example, and placing Pyrgiscus as a genus of the family of Scalidce ; 

 without, however, following him to his ably argued conclusions 



