O. Meyer—Species in the Southern Old-tertiary. 463 
aperture. Aperture and section are not circular but ovate, the 
Species, however, is not as much depressed as Cadulus depres- 
sus Meyer* from Claiborne. The most characteristic is the poste- 
rior aperture. By four notches or fissures this end is divided into 
four turret-like appendages, similar to what Lea describes in his 
Dentalium turritum, Of these four prominences only the oppo- 
it i 
Smaller than in Jackson. It may be considered either a variety 
or a different species, and may be called Cadulus Vicksburgensis. 
What Lea described as Dentalium turritum is apparently a 
fragment of a large Cadulus with well preserved posterior aper- 
ture, and not a fragment of a Dentalium with “accidental” aper- 
ture, as Conrad once suggested. As Lea, who observed very ex- 
actly, writes “aperture round” it is probably not identical with the 
Strongly compressed Cad. compressus Meyer. ound of the lat- 
ter species, unfortunately, no well preserved posterior termination, 
and not having seen Lea’s type-specimen I cannot have a decided 
opinion about the relation of the Jackson to the Claiborne 
Species, 
47. From Claiborne I have two species of Teinostoma. Both 
are small, the umbilical region is completely covered mee callus, 
here it 
ticed. The 
~~ 
angle, while the other, Teinostoma angularis, n. sp., is extremely 
arin In Jackson occurs Teinostoma Verrilii. 
wo revolving, impressed lines directly above the suture very dis- 
tunctly developed, while in the Claiborne form they are only indi- 
cated or quite obsolete. At the base of S. Henrici we find one 
distinct line around the umbilicus and an indistinct one along the 
margin; at the base of the Jackson species the umbilical line is 
the Jackson specimens show indistinct traces of more longitudinal 
lines; these other revolving lines are fully developed in the Vicks- 
burg species, Solarium triliratum C. : 
This relation between the three forms is one of the best illustra- 
tions of evolution, which can here be brought forth. The three 
Solaria appear different enough to justify specific names. On 
* 
Proc. Ac. Nat. Se. Philad., 1884, p. 111. 
