ANIMALS. Ill 
a step which I consider one of the most important that has of late been made in 
malacological classification. 
I propose placing in this family the genera [sorhynchus, Hypothyris, Camarophoria, 
Uncites, and Pentamerus ; but lookmg at such forms as Hypothyris psittacea, Chemnitz, 
Ff. excavata, Phillips, 1. concinna, J. Sowerby, H. Wilsom, J. Sowerby, H. acuminata, 
Martin, /. plicatella, Dalman, and some others, which are for the present included in 
the same genus, it would appear to consist of more genera than those above named. 
M. Alcide d’Orbigny has indicated or described some, which may be admissible; but 
not being ‘sufficiently acquainted with their characters, I can only make this passing 
allusion to them. 
The genus Hypothyris was first proposed provisionally by Professor Phillips in 1842, 
for shells having the “beak acute, the perforation below it,”” and which had been 
previously distinguished (though not named) from the apically-foraminated Terebratulas 
by J. Sowerby, Von Buch, and Eudes-Deslongchamps.” The group to which the name 
was applied is sufficiently obvious; it is to be regretted, however, that Professor 
Phillips did not point out its type—a circumstance which induced me, when endeavouring 
to establish the group as a genus,* to make free in typifying it with the Atrypa cuboides® 
of J. de C. Sowerby.° 
1M. A. d’Orbigny has made this species typical of his genus Hemithyris ; but in what respect does it 
differ from the true Hypothyrises ? 
* Paleozoic Fossils, &c., p. 35. 
3 T was not aware, until my friend Mr. T. Davidson called my attention to the fact, that M. Eudes- 
Deslongchamps had published his remarkably correct (that is, for the period, 1837) ‘Tableau Synoptique 
d’un Arrangement systématique des Brachiopodes fossiles des Terrains du Calvados ;’ otherwise it would 
not have been overlooked in my paper on the ‘ Palliobranchiata.’ I perceive some of the divisions of this 
Tableau are equivalent with certain of the new genera I have proposed. 
4 Vide Annals and Magazine of Natural History, vol. xvii, p. 28. 
5 I was prevented placing the first species (Terebratula proboscidialis, Phill.) which Professor Phillips 
described under the head of the group, as the type of Hypothyris, from being uncertain as to whether or not 
it belonged to the genus. 
6 I feel it necessary to make a few remarks in this place on the name which is here applied to the present 
genus. Fischer de Waldheim in his ‘Notice sur les Fossiles du Gouvernement de Moscow et sur les 
Coquilles fossiles dites Terebratules,’ published in 1809, was the first to separate the plicated or sub- 
apically foraminated Terebratulas from those with an apical foramen, under the two divisions T'rigonella 
and Rhynconella, each apparently respectively corresponding with the groups Pugnace and Concinne of 
Von Buch; but they are so imperfectly characterised (a fault common to that period), and the type of each 
is so difficult to identify with any known species, that it must be evident to every one, these divisions, 
before they can be adopted, require to be entirely rearranged. Reverting for a moment to the types named 
by the celebrated Oryctographer of Moscow, I would ask, is anything satisfactorily known respecting the 
Trigonella atoma, and Rhynconella loxia? Was any one been able to identify these shells? What formation 
do they belong to? and where are their localities? The foregoing remarks have suggested themselves in con- 
sequence of some authors regarding Fischer de Waldheim’s Rhynconella, as rearranged by M. A. d’Orbigny, 
to be the same as Hypothyris : this may, or may not be the case :—for my part Iam not able to give an 
opinion on the matter, bemg quite unacquainted with what species the learned author of the ‘ Palzeontologie 
