384 RALPH TATE. 
Family Fousip2. 
Genus Columbarium. 
In my synopsis of the species of Fusws,! the reference of certain 
of them to Columbarium was indicated, though I then thought it 
“convenient to include them under Fusus.” However, the group 
offers good characters for generic separation. M. Cossmann,” 
argues for the retention of Columbariwm in Fuside, whilst Mr. 
Harris’ refers it to Pleurotomide. | 
Genus Streptochetes, Cossmann. 
Mr. Harris‘ has referred my Fasciolaria exilis to the above 
genus, but between it and the type-species of the genus I see no 
resemblance, or also between it and S. incertus, with which Mr. 
Harris compares it. My criticism is the result of comparison 
with authentically named specimens. However, I would transfer 
the Australian fossil to Latirofusus, because of its long, straight, 
almost closed canal and by the possession of one or two transverse 
ridges on the columella; it moreover present great analogy with 
the Parisian Eocene species ZL. funiculosus. 
Genus Latirus. 
When referring a number of our Australian fossils to Peristernia’ 
I had recognised the uncertain value of the differences which 
separate Latirus and Peristernia—the long recurved canal of the 
majority of the species influenced me in using the latter name. 
M. Cossmann‘ and Mr. Harris,’ applies the former one to those of 
our species, which they had for study ; in this step I follow them, 
but rather on the ground only of the priority of Latirus, because 
the intermediate characters presented by many of our species 
render the selection of either name open to dissent. 
Peristernia approcimans and P. purpuroides are conchologically 
referrable to Latirus, but their analogy to the recent Trophon 
ee 
1 Trans. Roy. Soc., opr Australia, 1887. 
? Essais, pt. ii., p.64. 3 Cat. Brit. Mus., P. 51, 4 Ibid., p. 137. 
* Trans. Roy. Soc. South Australia, p. 1 
* Ann. Geol. Univ., p. 1090, 1889. 7 Cat. Brit. Mus., p. 142. 
