GASTEROPODA OF THE LOWER GREEN MARLS. 35 
PYROPSIS ELEVATA, 
Plate 1, Figs. 11-13. 
Rapa elevata Gabb: Jour. Acad. Nat. Sci., Phila., 2d ser., vol. 4, p. 301, 
Pl. xiv, Fig. 12, Meek, Geol. N. J.. Newark, 1868, p. 730. 
Tudicla elevata Gabb: Synopsis, pp. 74-85; Meek, Check List Cret. and Jur. Foss., 
p. 23; Geol. N. J , Newark, 1868, p. 730. | 
Pyropsis perlata Conrad: Am. Jour. Conch., vol. 4, p. 248. 
Pyrula Richardsonu (Tuomey) Conrad: ibid. 
Pyropsis elevata Gabb: Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Phila., 1876, p. 284. 
Shell rather large, broadly turbinate, with a very low spire, in which 
the volutions scarcely rise above each other beyond the general slope of the 
upper surface of the outer one; whorls about three in number, the outer 
one large and biangular in the upper part, the upper surface sloping from 
the suture to the periphery, forming only a very slight angle with the axis of 
the shell on all the inner parts, but more rapidly declining on the outer part 
of the last one; periphery of the last volution nearly vertical between the 
upper and lower angles, but very rapidly contracted in the lower part to 
form the short, obtuse, anterior canal; aperture very large, fully four-fifths 
of the entire height of the shell, strongly biangular on the outer side, and 
modified on the upper inner portion by the body of the preceding volution; 
axis as shown on the cast, large, destitute of columellar folds; surface of 
the shell seemingly marked by revolving ridges, but not very deeply, as 
the cast shows only very faint traces of them, scarcely sufficient to afford 
grounds for a positive assertion that they really existed, yet pretty positive 
indications of lines of growth exist on the summit of the outer .volution, 
and also of stronger folds or varices at somewhat regular distances, prob- 
ably indicating six or eight on the last whorl. 
There may be some question as to the identity of this species with 
Conrad’s Pyropsis perlata. This matter has been discussed by Messrs. 
Gabb and Conrad’ without any very satisfactory results. There cer- 
tainly is a great resemblance between the type specimen of this species 
and the cast which I have referred doubtfully to Mr. Conrad’s species; but 
I am not so sure of its identity with the shell originally figured by Conrad 
1Am. Jour. Conch., vol. 4, p. 428, and Proc. Acad, Nat. Sci., Phila., 1876, p, 284. 
