GASTEROPODA. 189 



As that, I believe, is not a permanent character, I am much inclined to think the 

 Crag shell is the same species. A fragment (fig. 1 a) is one third of an inch in 

 diameter, with sixteen sharp angular costge, and when perfect, must have measured 

 three or three inches and a half in length. I imagine it to be only an altered form 

 of the same species. 



2. Dentalium entale. Tab. XX, fig. 2, a — b. 



Dentalium entalis. Linn. Syst. Nat. p. 1263, 1766. 



— — Mont. Test. Brit. p. 494, 1803. 



— — Broc. Conch. Subapenn. p. 263, No. 8, 1815. 



— — Desk. Monog. de Dent. p. 39, pi. 1, fig. 7, and pi. 2, fig. 2, 1825. 



— labiatum. Brown. Illust. Brit. Conch, pi. 1, fig. 4, 1827. 



— entalis. - - - pi. 1 , fig. 7. 



— — Dujard. Mem. Soc. Geol. de France, torn, ii, pt. 2, p. 273, 1837. 

 _ _ Nyst. Coq. foss. de Belg. p. 345, pi. 35, fig. 3, 1844. 



— — Phil. En. Moll. Sic. vol. ii, p. 206, 1844. 



— — Thorpe. Brit. Mar. Conch, p. 1, 1844. 



— — Loven. Ind. Moll. Scand. p. 28, 1846. 



— takentinum. Lamarck. Hist. des. An. s. Vert. v. p. 345, 1818. 



D. Testa tereii, leviter arcuatd, Icevigatd, politd, crassiuscuid. 



Shell tubular, subcylindrical, slightly curved, smooth, glossy, thick, and strong, 

 with distinct lines of growth ; anterior margin acute. 



Length, (?) 



Locality. Mam. Crag, Bridlington. Recent, Britain. 



One specimen from the above locality, among the fossils sent by Mr. Bean, is all 

 that I have seen of this species. The posterior portion is broken off, and only 

 about two fifths of an inch of the shell remaining, which, however, so fully corre- 

 sponds with the recent species, that I think there is no doubt of its identity. This 

 shell is quoted by M. Deshayes as fossil from Bordeaux, and also from the Eocene 

 formations of France. The specimen figured by J. Sowerby, in ' Min. Conch.' 

 t. 70, f. 3, is a doubtful identification. I have examined specimens from Barton 

 and from Bracklesham, in the extensive collection of Mr. Edwards, and that 

 gentleman agrees with me in the opinion that it is not a British Eocene fossil, at 

 least, that we have not as yet seen anything that can be considered as D. entale, 

 and that the figure in ' Min. Conch.,' as well as the one by Brander (fig. 9), are 

 representations of specimens, the surfaces of which have been eroded, or, at least, 

 have a less extended portion of the striae, the strise also being different from those 

 upon D. entale. Fig. 2 a is a representation of what appears to be D. tarentinu/n, 

 Lamarck, which M. Deshayes thinks is only a variety of the former ; and as he has 

 had the opportunity of examining the original specimens, upon which Lamarck 

 founded his species tarentinum, I have given it upon his authority. The specimens 

 figured are from the cabinet of Mr. Bean. 



