1019. 



E. W. Vredenburg : Shells of the family Doliidœ. 



147 



Tu 1869 (Journ. Conch., Vol. XVII, p. 228, pi. xii, fig. 1) Monterosato described 

 a deep-sea form from the Mediterranean under the name of Dolium crosseanum refer- 

 ring it, in 1872 (Notizie intorno alle Conch, foss. di Monte Pellegrino e Ficarazzi, 

 Palermo, 1872, p. 89), to a new genus Doliopsis, a name unfortunately preoccupied 

 by Conrad in 1865 for a rather indistinct fossil, and for which, therefore, in 1889, 

 Dall substituted Eudolium {Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., Vol. XVIII, p. 232). Tryon who 

 was at first sceptical about the habitat of the shell suggested {Man. Conch., Vol. VII, 

 1885, p. 263) that it might be a specimen of Dolium zonatum accidentally mixed with 

 some Mediterranean shells. There is, however, not the slightest reason to doubt that 

 the shell was obtained from a depth which may have been as great as 50 fathoms, by 

 the Palermo fishermen who gave it to Monterosato. Nevertheless, Tryon's suggestion 

 prompted by the general resemblance of the shell to Dolium zonatum appears to be 



Shell of Dolium zonatum showing a supernumerary varix (J nat. size). 



to a great extent in keeping with its zoological affinities. I am not aware of the 

 discovery of any further specimens in the Mediterranean, but the shelly has been 

 obtained at a number of spots in the West-Indies, from depths ranging between 90 

 and 300 fathoms and more. 



It was described and figured as Dolium bairdii {Trans. Conn. Acad., Vol. VI, 

 p. 253, pi. xxix, fig. 2) by Verrill who precisely compared it with Dolium zonatum; 

 its specific identity with Dolium crosseanum being recognised by Dall in 1889 {loc. 

 cit.). The oligocène of Liguria, the miocène and pliocene of Piedmont, the pliocene of 

 the Alpes-Maritimes and of the Rhone valley, and of Tuscany, contain fossil forms 

 which are partly the obvious ancestors of Dolium crosseanum. 



According to Cossmann's diagnosis in the Essais de Paléoconchologie (Fase. V, 

 1903, p. 138), Eudolium is essentially distinguished from Dolium, s. str., owing to its 

 posteriorly slightly channelled aperture, its rugose columella, its shallow anterior 



