GASTEROPODA. _ 17 
upon some of the Older Tertiary Plewrotome, and I believe that colour is preserved upon 
some of the older Secondary Fossils. So far as the uncertainty which always attaches 
from the resemblance to this species which other species, when fossil, may from decortica- 
tion put on, will allow me to say, WV. catena seems common in the Fluvio-marine Crag 
of Bramerton, and in the Chillesford bed at Horstead and Coltishall, but rare in the 
Lower Glacial sands, and is common in the young state in the Middle Glacial of Hopton 
Billockby. I have not seen it from the Post-Glacial beds of East Anglia. 
Natica pusitia? Say. Supplement, Tab. IV, fig. 9. 
Narica pusitia, Say. Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil., ii, p. 257, 1822. 
— oo Binney. Gould. Inv. Massach., 2nd ed., p. 344, fig. 613, 1870. 
Locality. Coralline Crag, near Orford. 
The above represents a shell I have lately obtained, but, like the generality of speci- 
mens of the Crag WVatice, the glossiness of the exterioris gone. I have given it the above 
name with doubt, as my shell differs in some respects from the existing one. On 
comparing my specimen, it seems to have rather more convex volutions than the recent 
pusilla, and the pad over the umbilicus larger and more extended in the Crag shell. It 
resembles somewhat Vat. occulta, Desh., ‘Des. An. sans Vert.,’ Pl. LXVIIL, figs. 11—13, 
and it appears intermediate between the two, as if the Crag one descended from the 
Paris basin shell with alteration, and the recent species from the Crag one with still further 
alteration. I feel much disposed to consider it specifically distinct, and to call it 
NV. occultata, but having only two or three specimens, and those with the exterior not 
perfect, I have preferred giving it the above name. 
Narica catrenoipEs, 8. Wood. Crag Moll., vol. i, p. 141, Tab. XVI, fig. 16, Supple- 
ment, ‘lab. IV, fig. 13 a, 6. 
Localities. Red Crag, Waldringfield, Sutton, and Walton. Chillesford bed, Easton 
Bavent. ? 
The shell represented in fig. 13 of Supplement, Tab. IV, was obtained at 
Waldringfield by Mr. Canham, which being much larger than the one represented in 
“Crag Moll.,’ I thought it desirable that it should be figured; especially as considerable 
uncertainty has existed, and, indeed, still exists, respecting the correct appropriation of 
this Red Crag shell. The late Edward Forbes considered it identical with WV. glaucina 
(catena), ‘Mem. of the Geol. Survey,’ 1846, p. 430; while in the ‘ Brit. Moll.” vol. iii, 
p. 806, 1853, the authors refer this Crag shell to Wat. sordida. Again, M. Thuden has still 
more recently placed it as a doubtful synonym with Wat. nitida (Om. de J. Bohus. 
Postplioc. eller. glac. format.,’ p. 56, 1866). I cannot say that I agree with any of these 
