4 a OE TOR A = 4 fist pH fed efondie bls. ed CIR 5 : os on or fa re oe gid Be bibs Ea [135 4 ihe h RY i if pri Hg ia] dif il i) - Po 7. a ne fA 3 Lhe RARE SE = an hah Poe WEN ie TR i ) ae i ; ; fr) a BK, We f I ig # nr Py Ee Sot ed Ed Bt no Yea > guniiag gio Geri Ted ESRI SEIS RAE PEMA LY rr APU in . Rd at-py 5. 1 REA Ras Ll Whi be A Ll TE Md p bp ) 0h 4 J i a id rds jo Cha o gin A EE Et a ICCB Vo FIR 0 Ug lob bd Fillets i A LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY OF THE ul LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIF LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA So REY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ¢ LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA HE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RRR LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF Ci LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA E UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ROY OF CALE mn a 4 FEB 1 0 2s GABB'S CALIFORNIA FOSSIL TYPE GASTROPODS — 7 BY Rare B. PTEWART. INTRODUCTION Type specimens are designated and illustrated in this paper for the California fossil Gastropods described in the “ Paleontology of : California’ and deposited in the Academy. A few types from the ‘Museum of Comparative Zoology of Harvard University are also figured and those in the Museum of Paleontology of the University . of California are noticed. Sg The two volumes of the “ Paleontology of California,’ containing ‘a study of Mesozoic and Tertiary Gastropods, Pelecypods, Seapho- pods and Cephalopods, were published by the Geological Survey of California. They form the foundation of the study of California fossil Mollusca, and have received much well-deserved praise They are almost entirely the work of William More Gabb,! bein commonly and appropriately referred to as “Gabb’s Paleontolog of California,” and their importance has been emphasized riam.? They are seriously deficient, however, in design type specimens and type localities, two of the most Amp e requirements of present day paleontologic research; th ficiencies, and the fact that the great majority of the oi specimens were not readily available for comparisor,, have ma et. identification of some of the species very difficult for Califor ia students, and this paper, used with the original work and the works &f later authors, should lessen this difficulty. i ‘In the course of studying Gabb’s original material i is only natural that numerous errors in subsequent work would be di © eovered, but it is gratifying to find that most of the forms have been : correctly identified by later workers. Such a r ~cord not only in- dicates careful work on the part of later students but is also a tes timonial to the quality of the original deseriptions and figures. The i original figufes were carefully drawn but some. were restored from ! several specimens; however, many of these restorations are still an aid to identification. L A short biography of this worker hes been written by Dall, Nat. — Soi. . Mem., vol. 6, 1909, pp. 345-361 i & erriam, ’ An Outline of Progress i in Paleontological Research on ‘the Paci onst, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol, vol, 12, 1921, p. 140. (ony) PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY or [Vol. LXXVIII ACENOWLEDGEMENTS This work has been supported by the Museum of Paleontology of the University of California. Without the financial assistance received from the patron of the Museum, Miss Annie M. Alexander, and its Director, Professor Bruce L. Clark, this work could not have been done. I am therefore much indebted to these persons as should be all those who find some help in this report. For the opportunity of studying this material at the Academy, I am indebted to the authorities of that institution, particularly Dr. R. A. F. Penrose, Jr., the former President of the Academy, and Dr. Henry A. Pilsbry, the Curator of the Department of Marine In- vertebrates. Dr. Pilsbry has taken much interest in this work, even to the details, and has often spent hours with me over many of the difficulties. His knowledge of the taxonomy and classification of : the Gastropoda has helped me in many ways and although he can- not be held responsible for possible errors in this paper, he is cer- tainly responsible for much of that which is correct. I am very glad to have had the opportunity to work in Dr. Pilsbry’s depart- assistant, has also helped me in many ways, and all the members of the staff of the Academy have been ever willing to help and have - made my stay in Philadelphia a very pleasant one. Professor H. ~ Burrington Baker, of the Department of Zoélogy of the University of Pennsylvania, and Research Associate at the Academy, has helped me greatly, particularly in the nomenclatorial aspect of this , work. The authorities of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, par- ticularly Professor P. E. Raymond, generously lent material to me for use in connection with this report. Though I spent but a few ' days at the Museum, Professor Raymond madé things very con- venient for me, and I am grateful to him. : Dr. W. H. Dall and Professor Paul Bartsch ‘allowed me the privi- lege of examining material in the Department of Mollusks of the United States National Museum. In the Department of Paleon- tology, Dr. R. 8. Bassler allowed me to study material. Dr. T. W. Stanton and Dr. J. B. Reeside, Jr. of the Geological Survey both helped me with the Mesozoic fossils in the National Museum which are under their charge. These workers and others in the National Museum and Geological Survey I wish to thank for their courtesy and aid. ment for I have learned much from him. Mr. E. G. Vannatta, his Re adhe 4 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 289 Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, has most generously helped me with some of the taxonomic puzzles met with in this paper. The time and work which Dr. Stiles is giving toward the establishment of a universal code of nomenclature can hardly be realized by those who have not visited his offices, but is surely appreciated by all those who have had that opportunity. The importance of an In- ternational Code of Rules is evident to all serious workers in biology and the nearest approach to such a code is plainly that which is being developed by this commission. My visits to Washington were made ever delightful by the kind and thoughtful hospitality of Dr. and Mrs. Wendel P. Woodring. Dr. Woodring, who is a member of the Geological Survey, helped me a great deal with the Tertiary fossils in the National Museum with which he is so familiar. In California I have often examined type specimens and other material in the California Academy of Sciences which were made available to me by the kindness of the Curator of Paleontology, Dr. G. D. Hanna. For suggestions and criticisms, I am indebted to Professor Bruce L. Clark of the University of California, and to Dr. Alfred O. Wood- ford of Pomona College. Through the kindness of Professor Clark the extensive type and study collections of the Museum of Pale- ontology have been available to me. Dr. Isabel C. Stewart, my sister, has helped me greatly with the editing of the manuscript and I am glad to acknowledge my indebt- edness to her. It is also a pleasure to acknowledge the interest and assistance of my father, Mr. Ethan E. Stewart, of Seattle, without whose support this work would not have been undertaken. The illustrations have been provided for by the Academy from specimens photographed by Miss Helen Winchester, the Academy’s artist, and retouched by her, under my direction. MATERIAL The material on which this report is based was collected by the members of the California Geological Survey and deposited in the Academy by Mr. Gabb in 1868.2 In selecting lectotypes, this col- setion has been given first consideration because of its size and the 3 Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1868, p. 384-385. ‘‘Many of the species are ypes described by Mr. Gabb. 290 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII many holotypes which it contains. Unless otherwise stated the specimens mentioned are in the Academy’ s collection. ~The majority of the types have been found in this collection but holotypes of six species were recognized in the collections of California fossils now in the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard. That collection was left to that Museum by J. D. Whit- ney, the head of the Geological Survey of California. These six species, the holotypes of which are figured in this report, are Atresius liratus Gabb, Cancellaria altispira Gabb, Ficus nodifer Gabb, Neverita globosa Gabb; Volutoderma mitraeformis (Gabb), and Whitneyella martinez (Gabb). Although Gabb took most of his types to Philadelphia he left some in the Survey’s collection in California. That collection is now in the Museum of Paleontology of the University of California and it contains at least thirty types which are mentioned in this report. They are: “Acteonina pupoides” Gabb = “A.” calafia Stewart Agasoma sinuatum (Gabb) Ampullina oviformis (Gabb) Anisomyon meekiz Gabb Buccinofusus diegoensis (Gabb) Cancellaria tritonidea Gabb “Chemnatzia” planulata Gabb Conchothyra hamula (Gabb) Cypraea bayerqueir Gabb Ectinochilus canalifer supraplicatus (Gabb) “Fusus” aratus Gabb “Fusus” kingii Gabb “Globiconcha’ remondii Gabb Gyrodes conradiana (Gabb) Lysis duplicosta Gabb Muricidea paucivaricata Gabb = Purpura monoceras (Sowerby) “Nerinea” dispar Gabb “ Nerita deformis” Gabb Paladmete perforata (Gabb) Paladmete hoffmannii (Gabb) “Patella” traskii Gabb Pseudotoma carpenteriana (Gabb) Pseudotoma tryoniana (Gabb) Solariella (?) crenulata (Gabb) Tessarolax distorta Gabb Thais ponderosa (Gabb) Tornatellaea pinguis (Gabb) Turritella chicoensis Gabb Velates cuneatus (Gabb) Volutoderma averillii (Gabb) Je SRI TOR TE SC SRS GS age pays os lh Sih verars YL 25 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 291 Some of these types have been recognized by Merriam, (1895), and illustrations of these and any others that may be found will be published later. Their presence in Berkeley, however, renders them readily accessible to workers on the West Coast so that the necessity for illustrating them is not so great as that of the eastern types. Type material for 118 species has been recognized in the Acad- emy’s collections, making a total of 154 species for which the original specimens have been found; twenty have not yet been found. Some of these may appear in the collections of the Academy and in the Whitney collection of the Museum of Comparative Zoology but the majority will probably be found, if ever, in the California Geological Survey Collection in the Museum of Paleontology at Berkeley. Years ago the importance of this collection was not realized and it has become mixed with other material, but much of it has already been segregated and all of it will probably soon be found. Type material for the following species has not been found: “ Ancillaria” fishiv Gabb (doubtfully recognized by Merriam, 1895) Calliostoma radiatum Gabb Calliostoma tricolor Gabb Cancellaria gracilor ““ Carpenter’ Gabb : Clathurella conradiana Gabb (recognized by Merriam 1805) Columbella richthofeni Gabb “Fusus” flexuosus Gabb ~ “Margaritella” globosa Gabb “ Nerita triangulata Gabb Neverita callosa Gabb Palaeatractus crassus Gabb ‘“ Pleurotoma”’ perversa Gabb “ Pleurotoma’ voy: Gabb “ Ranella’ mathewsoniz Gabb “Surcula’’ praeattenuata Gabb “Trito tum’ fusiforme Gabb Trochita filosa Gabb Trophon squamulifer ‘‘ Carpenter’ Gabb Turcica coffea Gabb Turritella infralineata Gabb - For almost every species it has been possible to give a locality and general horizon which refer to the actual type specimen. Ap- parently only one horizon is present in many of these localities, so that the exact geologic horizon, as used in California, is given. 292 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII Probably the most difficult locality for establishing the horizon is that of “Martinez,” but in almost every case it has been possible to separate the Cretaceous and Tertiary specimens of that locality, and also to recognize Paleocene and Eocene (all of which were called Cretaceous “A” and “B’’ by Gabb). The work of Stanton (1896), Merriam (1897), Weaver (1905), and Dickerson (1914a) who recognized these three horizons in Gabb’s Cretaceous, have greatly aided in separating these species. CRETACEOUS The Cretaceous of California has been divided into three parts; Knoxville, lower, the Horsetown, middle (these two form the Shasta Group of earlier writers) and the Chico, upper. All the Aucella- bearing strata on the west side of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley have been placed in the Knoxville. Little, if anything has been added to the knowledge of the Knoxville fauna, since it was studied by Stanton thirty years ago (1895). Its distinction from the fauna of the Mariposa Formation (Jurassic) and its stratigraphic as well as faunal affinity with the overlying Horsetown, together with its resemblance to the Russian Néocomien fauna, were appar- ently the chief reasons for correlating it with the Néocomien. The correlation was certainly justified, although a few species apparently related to species in the Upper Jurassic of Europe were noted. It is not improbable, however, that a large fauna from these beds will place part of them, at least, in the Upper Jurassic. The unsatisfactory condition of the published information on the Horsetown Formation has been pointed out by Packard (1916, pp. 151-153), and much work remains to be done on the Chico Forma- tion as was noted by him (pp. 153-154). The localities along the east side of the Sacramento Valley, Tuscan Springs, Chico Creek (type locality of the Chico Formation), Penz, and Texas Flat, have been recognized as the Upper Chico by Anderson (1902). All those who have studied the fauna of these localities have correlated it with the Upper Cretaceous of Europe because of the similarity of some species with those in the Turonien and Sénonien, and such a correlation seems justified. Cretaceous localities. The Cretaceous species discussed in this report are from four main localities: Tuscan Springs, Texas Flat, Cottonwood Creek, and Martinez. Tuscan Springs is on Little Salt Creek about 10 miles northeast of Red Bluff (Tehama Quad- 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 293 rangle U. S. G. S.). A geologic section of this locality and a list of Cretaceous species were given by Whitney (1865, p. 207). A similar list was published by Gabb (1864, pp. 219-228) and by Anderson, (1902, pp. 28-29). Tuscan Springs is the type locality for the fol- lowing species: Ampullina oviformis (Gabb) Architectonica veatchii Gabb Eripachya ponderosa (Gabb) Haydenia impressa Gabb Oligoptycha obliqua (Gabb)? Perissitys brevirostris (Gabb) Sycodes cypraeoides Gabb Tessarolax distorta Gabb Turritella (?) robusta Gabb Turritella seriatimgranulata Gabb (not Roemer) Elimia veatchs (Gabb) Velates cuneatus (Gabb) Volutoderma averilliz (Gabb) The Texas Flat locality was described by Whitney (1865, p. 202) “between Beals’ Bar and the Half Way House, near the line of the Sacramento and Placer counties, and not far from Texas Flat.” The fossils were said to have been collected by Dr. Trask from a mine shaft forty feet below the surface. A measured section was given by Whitney based on Dr. Trask’s notes. According to Turner,* this locality is two and one-half miles northwest of Folsom and was known in 1894 as Rock Corral. Folsom is about seventeen miles northeast of Sacramento. The list given by Whitney was taken from Gabb’s checklist (1864, pp. 225-229) and is identical with that given by Anderson (1902, pp. 28-30). Texas Flat is the - type locality for the following species: Ataphrus compactus (Gabb) “ Duscohelix” leana Gabb Emarginula gabbt Stewart Hipponix dichotomus (Gabb) Lysis duplicosta Gabb Margarites ornatissimus (Gabb) “Patella” traskii Gabb “Straparollus’ paucivolvus Gabb Ventridens lens (Gabb) “Calliostoma” radiatum Gabb was also described from this 4 Turner, U. S. Geol. Surv. 14th Ann. Rept., pt. 2, 1894, p. 459. 294 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII locality (1869, p. 170, pl. 28, fig. 53), but the type material has not been found. The Cottonwood Creek (Shasta County) locality has been studied by Diller and Stanton,® who reported the Chico and Horsetown beds in a measured section on the north fork. Not all of the species described by Gabb from this region were found by them. The types of the following species are from this region: Acteonella oviformis Gabb, “Chico Group (?)” “Acteonina’ calafia Stewart, “Shasta Group” Ampullina avellana (Gabb), North Fork® Anzsomyon meekii Gabb, North Fork “Nerinea’’ dispar Gabb, North Fork, “Shasta Group” “ Nerita deformis’ Gabb Paladmete hoffmanniz (Gabb) Paladmete perforata (Gabb), North Fork Potamides diadema Gabb, North Fork? Tessarolax bicarinata (Gabb)? Tornatellaea impressa (Gabb), North Fork® The original material of Turritella infralineata Gabb has not been found but part of it is from this locality. This fauna probably includes more than one horizon. Paladmete and Anisomyon are interesting because of the possibility of their being Atlantic in origin. The types of the following species are from the vicinity of Mar- tinez: “ Acteonina’ californica Gabb Anchura (?) angulata (Gabb) “Anchura’” carinifera (Gabb) Ataphrus crassus (Gabb) Avellana mathewsonii (Gabb) Cophocara stanton: Stewart Concothyra hamula (Gabb) Drepanochilus (?) transversus (Gabb) Lpiionium mathewsonit (Gabb) “Fusus” aratus Gabb “Fusus’ tumidus Gabb Pseudoperissolax (?) occidentalis (Gabb) “Globiconcha’ remondiz Gabb 5 Diller and Stanton, Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull., 5, 1894, pp. 439-447. 6 Reported by Stanton in both Horsetown and Chico (Diller and Stanton, op. cit. pp. 439, 443, 445, 446). 7 Reported by Stanton from the Horsetown beds (pp. 443, 446). 8 Reported by Stanton from the Knoxville and Horsetown (pp. 443, 446, 447). ? Reported by Stanton from the lower Horsetown a few miles south of Cotton- wood Creek (p. 446). 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 295 Gyrodes expansa (Gabb) Margarites tnornatus (Gabb) Noetca gabbi Stewart Polinices shumardianus (Gabb) Solariella angulata (Gabb) Tessarolax (?) inconspicua (Gabb) Margaritella globosa Gabb was described from this region (Beni- cia) but the type has not yet been found. It is presumably a Cretaceous species, “in Division A,” “Chico (?) Group.” Four of the types are from ‘Shasta Group, south of the road from Calusa to the Hot Sulphur Springs.” This locality was con- sidered of Knoxville age by White!® but excluded from the Knoxville by Stanton,!! who suggested a later age for all the species except Atresius liratus which was recognized in the Knoxville. The re- semblance of Acteon politus (Gabb) with A. inornatus White (from Pentz) is in accord with Dr. Stanton’s suggestion. The species from this locality are: Acteon politus (Gabb) Atresius liratus Gabb Liocium punctatum Gabb Volutoderma mitraeformis (Gabb) Palaeatractus crassus Gabb was also described from this locality but the type is missing. The types of Plectocion curvirostris (Gabb) and Ringicula” varia Gabb are from Cow Creek, Shasta County. Potamides tenuis Gabb and “ Chemnatzia’ planulata Gabb are from Pentz. The type of Turritella chicoensis and probably that of Anchura falciformis are from Chico Creek, the type locality of the Chico Formation. Gyrodes conradiana was described from Pacheco Pass, about 50 miles south of Martinez (Whitney, 1865, p. 45-46). “Fusus” kingiz and Pugnellus manubriatus are from “Cottonwood Creek, Siskiyou Co.” EARLY TERTIARY Paleocene. The use of the term Paleocene!'* for the Martinez horizon has proved most convenient. All of Gabb’s Paleocene species are from Martinez. Although the term Paleocene is not generally used in California the correlation of this fauna with the 10 White, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 15, 1885, p. 20. 11 Stanton, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 133, 1895, p. 19. Ua Schimper, Traité Pal. Végét. vol. 3, 1874, p. 680-682. (Suessonien of d’Orbigny). 296 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII Midway? and the Paleocene of Europe was long ago recognized by Weaver (1902), and has been emphasized by Dickerson (1914a) and Nelson (1925). While in some regions there is considerable difficulty in establishing the dividing line between the Paleocene and Eocene, in California it is convenient to place it at the top of the Martinez horizon, though it may later be necessary to place it a little higher. The genera Heteroterma, Retipirula, Priscoficus, Sycum, Mesalia, Drepanochilus, Lacunaria, Tornatellaea and Arae- odactylus (?), all of which are present in the Paleocene, have not yet been found in the Eocene sensu stricto of California, though some of these genera did survive into the Eocene of other regions and Mesalia is still living. Since the Eocene fauna is better known than the Paleocene the absence of these genera from the Eocene is of more significance than the absence of Eocene genera from the Paleocene. The following gastropod genera are known from the Eocene of this region but have not yet been found in the Paleocene. Those marked with an asterisk are known only from the Eocene in Cali- fornia though some of them have been found in the Oligocene and even later horizons of other regions. Those marked with a dagger are still living: *Clavilithes *Ficopsts *Chryptochora s.s. Ficust ; Conust Galeodea *Cryptoconus *Gisortia (1?) *Ectinochilus GyrineumT Molopophorus *Strepsidura Natica s.s.T Terebrat Nekewis W hitneyella Neveritat . *Ranellina *Olequahia? *Scobinella In using the term Paleocene, it is not necessarily implied that this division is of the same importance as the Eocene. It may be re- garded as the lower part of the Eocene sensu lato, the remainder of the Eocene being termed the Eocene sensu stricto. It is not un- 12 A recent paper on the correlation of the Cretaceous deposits of Texas (Scott, Am. J. Sci. (5), 12, 1926, p. 161) contains a suggestion that the lower part of the Midway ‘‘so-called Tertiary ’’ should be correlated with the Danien. Such a cor- relation would not affect the Tertiary (Paleocene) age of the Midway but rather i the Danien in the Tertiary, an arrangement which more or less agrees with i stratigraphy and paleontology (Dewey, Proc. Geol. Assoc., vol. 37, 1926, p. 126). 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 297 likely, however, that the term Eocene used in its restricted sense will gradually come into common use for it is usually desirable to distinguish between these two divisions and it is often done in Europe. In the two-fold classification of the Tertiary which is probably more natural than the four divisions now generally recog- nized, the Eogene or Nummulitic is naturally divided into three parts,—Paleocene, Eocene and Oligocene. Types of the following species are from Martinez (Paleocene) : ~~ Areodactylus (?) costatus (Gabb) Brachysphingus gabbr Stewart, Brachysphingus sinuatus Gabb ~~ Drepanochilus exilis (Gabb) Heteroterma trochoidea Gabb Lacunaria striata (Gabb) Mesalia martinezensis (Gabb) “ Neptunea’ cretacea Gabb Priscoficus caudatus (Gabb) Pseudoperissolax (?) occidentalis Gabb (?) Retipirula crassitesta (Gabb) Sycum mucronatum (Gabb) Tornatellaea pinguis (Gabb) Turritella infragranulata Gabb While many of these species are present in the Paleocene of Simi Valley (Nelson, 1925) not one has as yet been recognized in the Eocene. Eocene. The Eocene of this paper is the Tejon Group of Dicker- son (1916). It has been studied more fully by Professor B. L. Clark, who has collected a great amount of information on it, much of which is still unpublished; he plans to extend his study to all the Eocene localities in California. The following table gives a general outline of the recent history of the California Eocene correlations though the details for any particular locality are rather complicated: Dickerson 1916 Clark 1918-19212 Clark 1923 (1926) Clark 1926 (MS.) ? “Greese Ranch : Horizon” 4 ny Cowlitz Form. I 3 : ejon Gr. Tejon Gr. ej6n 2 Tejon Gr. Meganos Gr. Meganos Gr. - Domengine 1 Santa Susana Form. Meganos Martinez Gr. Martinez Gr. Martinez Gr. Martinez Gr. 13 Clark, Journ. of Geol., vol. 29, 1921, pp. 125-165. 14 Clark, Pan-Pacif. Sci. Cong. 1923 (1926), vol. 1, pp. 874-879. 298 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII Dickerson recognized three faunal zones in the Eocene section south of Mt. Diablo and, for all that is known at the present time, they may be valid zones, but he was unfortunate in the selection of names and in correlating other localities with these zones, so much so, in fact, that these names have practically gone out of use. The fourth zone, which was not recognized at that locality, has been shown by Clark (1921) to belong to the first and second zones. Clark’s views are plainly shown. In the last paper the ‘Greese Ranch horizon” is not mentioned, while the correlation of the Cow- litz formation is evidently doubtful. The absence of Ectinochilus, Ficopsis, Olequahia, Pseudoperissolaz, Strepsidura, and other forms, from the known fauna of *Greese Ranch horizon” in Washington are considered sufficient to exclude it from the Eocene. While some Eocene relics may yet appear in this fauna, it does not seem to be any closer related to the Cowlitz Formation than does the fauna of the Vicksburg to the Jackson or that of the lower Oligocene of Germany to the Bartonian. A re- study of this fauna is certainly desirable. Part of it has been il- lustrated by Dickerson’ and by VanWinkle,'® both workers re- garding it as Lower Oligocene. The hypothesis that the Cowlitz fauna represents a later horizon than the Tejon is an interesting theory which has been neither proved nor disproved. Exact correlations of these stratigraphic units over a distance of 1000 miles are naturally made with caution. There are two facies of the Cowlitz Formation: the lower, but ap- parently recurring again higher in the section, is an unconsolidated sand containing many immature individuals and small species, and an occasional large adult specimen, and is somewhat similar to the Domengine horizon in Alisos Creek, near Simi Valley, and probably, though I have not seen that locality, similar to part of the Domen- gine Formation. I have not seen this facies at Tején. The second and much thicker facies at Cowlitz is a fine fossiliferous shale containing mostly gastropods, and at least in one part, small Fora- minifera. This facies is similar to the Eocene shales (Domengine horizon) in Rose Canyon, San Diego County, but hasnot beenseenat Tejon. It is therefore quite possible that the absence of such genera as Strepsidura, Pseudoperissolax, and Surculites,—the first two of which are fairly abundant at Tején,—is due to a difference of facies 18 Dickerson, Calif. Acad. Sci., (4) vol. 7, 1917, pp. 157-192, pl. 27-31. 16 VanWinkle, Univ. Wash. Publ. Geol., .vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 69-97, pl. 6, 7. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 299 rather than of age; and that the considerable number of species which are closely related to the Tejon species (some of which are ac- tually identical) afford reasonable grounds for the correlation of the Cowlitz Formation with the Tejon. The Cowlitz formation and part of the fauna were described by Weaver (1912), and enlarged and directly correlated with the Tejon at its type locality by Dickerson (1915). The comparison of these two faunas is a very interesting study which I hope to continue in the near future. Apparently no species described by Gabb is from the Meganos horizon of Mt. Diablo, nor has that horizon been recognized in the type material from Martinez. The Eocene species of this paper have been separated into two horizons, the Tejon sensu stricto and the Domengine. Most of the species from the so-called Tejon at Martinez are not found at Tejon but some are known from the Mt. Diablo region and San Diego. The similarity of the Eocene fauna at these three localities was incidentally noticed by Gabb (1864, p. 101) in reference to the occurrence of a species at Mt. Diablo. “It is associated with several species found also at San Diego and Martinez (Bull's Head Point) in Division B.” All the species referred in this paper to the so-called Tejon at Martinez are believed to belong to the Domengine horizon. This fauna is also recognized at Simi Valley, and near Coalinga, where the name ‘Domengine’’ has recently been resurrected for it.” The term Domengine is here used as a faunal name for the Eocene fauna of these localities. The correlation of these localities seems justified and therefore the use of the term Domengine horizon. Ido not think, however, that the term Domengine, as restricted by Clark,® should be applied as a formational name to strata in a region so far from the type locality as Simi Valley. It seems better to use local names in these different sections, since changes in cor- relation will not then greatly upset the local nomenclature. It is particularly true in this case because of the possibility that all the strata in the Domengine horizon at Simi are not represented in the restricted Domengine Formation. 17 Clark and Stewart, Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull., 36, 1925, p. 227. Itis unfortunate that this summary was published inasmuch as it is not the summary of the paper as finally written and which has since been withdrawn from publication. Clark, in Nelson (1925). Clark, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., 1926. Professor Clark has kindly permitted me to read the manuscript of this paper which is now being printed. 18 Clark, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol. 1926 (in press). 300 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII The name Domengine is apparently a valid name for certain strata near Domengine ranch, north of Coalinga, but in view of the unsatisfactory manner in which it was first proposed! and its rather ambiguous position in the literature, I think it would have been better to have used it as a local name only, and to have pro- posed a new name for the Domengine horizon at Simi and used that name in a general horizon sense throughout California. It does not seem to me that the strict application of priority to horizon names always leads to the best arrangement. However, it is hoped that a more detailed study of the Coalinga region will show the choice of the name Domengine to have been a proper one. It is used in this paper in order to be in agreement with Clark’s nomen- clature. The area north of Coalinga has been studied and mapped by Anderson and Pack?’ but their report lacks extensive paleon- tologic data. Types of the following species are from the so-called Tejon at Martinez which is here correlated with the Domengine horizon: *Architectonica cognata Gabb Cypraea mathewsonii Gabb *Galeodea tuberculiformis Hanna Megistostoma gabbianum (Stoliczka) Mitra cretacea Gabb *Pseudoliva lineata Gabb Pseudoperissolax blake: (Conrad) subsp. Scaphander costatus (Gabb) *Surculites mathewsoniz (Gabb) Terebra californica Gabb Turritella uvasana Conrad subsp. Typhis antiquus Gabb *W hitneyella martinez (Gabb) Discinisca (?) circulars (Gabb) “Fusus” flexuosus Gabb was described from Martinez and may be from this horizon. It is apparently an Exzilia, but unfortunately the type has not been found. The species marked with an asterisk have been found in the Domengine horizon of at least two different regions, but have not been found in either the Cowlitz or Tején Formations. Their presence in any locality is a strong indication of the Domengine horizon, but due to the possibility of their being in the Meganos 19 Anderson, Calif. Acad. Sci. Proc. (3) Geol., vol. 2, 1905, p. 167 (as ““Domen- jean sands’); Calif. Acad. Sei. Proc. (4) vol. 3, 1908, p. 14. 20 Anderson, Robert and Pack, R. W., U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 603, 1915. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 301 horizon, the fauna of which is as yet little known, they are not cited as guide fossils. The ‘Eocene of San Diego has been correlated with the Tejon Group by Dickerson (1916) and considered Tejon by Clark. About two years ago (in the fall of 1924) I had occasion to ex- amine a rather large collection of this fauna made for the Museum of Paleontology by M. A. Hanna and G. Vorbes and correlated with the Tejon. It soon became evident to me, however, that this fauna was more similar to the Domengine horizon at Simi Valley than to the Tejon and this correlation is now in use. It is possible that this fauna is a trifle closer to the Tejon than is the Domengine fauna at Simi. Types of the following species are from San Diego: Amaurellina moragai lajollaensis Stewart Buccinofusus diegoensis (Gabb) Ectinochilus canalifer supraplicatus (Gabb) Ficopsis cooperiana Stewart Solariella (?) crenulata Gabb “Surcula’ praeattenuata Gabb was also described from this locality, but the type material has not been found. Gabb’s “Clayton” locality is on the north side of Mt. Diablo in strata of Eocene age, believed to be the Domengine horizon. The following four species were described from there; the last two are also known from other Domengine localities: Cypraea bayerquer Gabb Fasciolaria laeviuscula Gabb |: Pleurofusia raricostata (Gabb) Scobinella claytonensis (Gabb) “Cochran’s” is also North of Mt. Diablo. Dr. Woodford has informed me that “Cochran’s” is at Stewartsville, above the coal. According to Whitney (1865, p. 28) ¢“Cochrans’’ is nearly six miles east of Clayton. This is presumably the Domengine horizon. The type of Exilia diaboli (Gabb) is from this locality. Neverita globosa Gabb and Loxotrema turritum Gabb were de- scribed from “Griswolds,” near New Idria (Whitney, 1865, p. 56— 57). They are believed to be from the Domengine horizon. _Nerita triangulata Gabb is also from this region, but the type is still missing. The fauna of the Tejon at its type locality has been illustrated by Dickerson (1915) and Anderson and Hanna (1925). The paper 21 Clark, Proc. Pan-Pac. Sei., 1923 (1926), p. 876. 302 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII by Anderson and Hanna is a study of all the species known by them to have been listed or described from Tején. Eighty-three gastro- pod species were recognized, all but five having been described as new from this locality. Since the lectotype of four of these came from Tejon, only one, Terebra californica Gabb, is from another locality, the so-called Tejon at Martinez. In as much as that paper will long remain the chief reference to the Tejon fauna the changes made in it are collected here. Cypraea castacensis Stewart, C. mathewsonit Gabb, Exilia microptygma (Gabb), Typhis cf. antiquus Gabb, Amaurellina moragai Stewart, Ranellina pilsbry: Stewart, _ Mitra californica (Conrad), Murex whitney: (Gabb), Calypitraea die- goensis (Conrad), Sinum obliquum (Gabb), Molopophorus cretaceus, (Gabb) should be added to the list of valid names. ‘“Amauropsis alveata,” ‘“ Argobuccinum tejonense,” ‘‘Calyptraea excentrica,” Cla- vilithes californicus,” ‘Conus submonilifer,” ‘Cypraea kerniana,” “ Exilia waringi,” “Mitra murietta,” ‘ Molopophorus tejonensis,” “Murex beali,” ‘Sinum coryliforme,” ‘Surcula ioformss,” and “Surcula alizensis’ should be suppressed as homonyms or synon- yms. Unfortunately there are still more corrections to be made in that paper. About one-third of the generic names will have to be changed, part of which are corrected in this paper, the others will be considered at a later date. Two different species have been confused under the name “Phos blakianus,” and the specimens figured as the adult of “Surcula cohni’’ are quite a different species from the type which has the anal sulcus at the shoulder and not above the shoulder. Other corrections will be made when the fauna is compared with that at Cowlitz. Tején is the type locality for the following species discussed in this paper: Abderospira horniz (Gabb) *Acmaea tejonensts Gabb *Amaurellina moragar Stewart * Architectonica hornii Gabb Bonellitia paucivaricata (Gabb) *Conus hornit Gabb Conus remondit Gabb Crepidula pileum (Gabb) Cylichnina tantilla (Anderson and Hanna) *Ectinochilus canalifer (Gabb) Euspira nuciformis (Gabb) *Exilia microptygma (Gabb) *Ficopsts horniz (Gabb) 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 303 Ficopsis remondiz (Gabb) Ficus mamillatus Gabb Gyrineum californicum (Gabb) Murex whitney: (Gabb) *Natica uwwasana Gabb Nekewis 10 (Gabb) *Neverita secta Gabb *Olequahia hornii (Gabb) Olivella mathewsonii Gabb Polinices horniz (Gabb) *Pseudoliva volutaeformis Gabb Ranellina pilsbryr Stewart ‘Sinum obliquum (Gabb) *Strepsidura ficus (Gabb) *Surculites sinuatus (Gabb) *W hitneyella sinuata (Gabb) The species marked with an asterisk are not yet definitely known in any other California locality. ‘ Tritonium fusiforme’ Gabb is also from this locality. It was not recognized by Anderson and Hanna, but it was probably redescribed by them as Siphonalia tularensis.?? Unfortunately the type has not been found, and since it is possible that the name was based on an immature specimen of Olequahia hormiz, it is at least temporarily regarded as a nomen dubium. As yet no other fauna in California can be definitely correlated with the Tejon at its type locality. The Cowlitz fauna of Wash- “ington seems to be more closely related to the Tejon than is any California fauna which is at all well known. Many Eocene and Paleocene species of California are so similar to Atlantic early Tertiary species, both from the Mississippi embay- ment and Europe, that one is tempted to cite them as subspecies, but it seems best not to attempt such an arrangement until the nomenclature of all three provinces has been more thoroughly established. Other horizons. Types of about 20 of the species of this report are from horizons later than the Eocene. Their position in the geologic column is given under each one or will be found in the references cited in their synonymies. A generalized column of the Tertiary deposits has been published by Clark*? and by Kew.* % Anderson & Hanna, 1925, p. 67, pl. 11, fig. 7, not pl. 10, fig. 1 = Olequahia %% Clark, Journ. Geol., vol. 29, 1921, pp. 583-614, opp. p. 586; Proc. Pan-Pac. Sci. Cong. 1920 (1921), p. 801-818, opp. p. 804. 2 Kew, Bull. Amer. Ass. Pet. Geol., vol. 7, 1923, pp. 411-420. 304 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII The application of the names Oligocene, Miocene, Pliocene, to Cali- fornia stratigraphy has been discussed by Merriam.? TAXONOMY It has been possible to give additional information on the dis- tribution of many of the Eocene species. This information is based on two year’s study and collecting in the Eocene deposits of Cali- fornia and often disagrees with the distribution which would be inferred from a study of the literature. For most species the distribution has been limited. Such limi- tations are the natural result of a study of more and better material and they always appear in palaeontologic research. For a very few species the range has been extended to include related species which have hitherto been considered distinct. This, likewise, is the result of more material indicating that the species were more variable than had been supposed. There is no empirical rule for the variation of a species and while experience undoubtedly helps, the variation of a species is never known until many individuals of it have been examined. Since closely related species usually do not occupy the same ecological niche at the same time, it is logical to class specimens related by structure as the same species if they occur together, notwithstanding such variation as they may show. If certain forms never occur together, the slightest difference be- comes important, and may prove reliable as a criterion for recog- nition of that group. When more or better material shows this slight variation to be without a characteristic distribution, the necessity of recognizing it as an entity disappears, and if already named may easily be suppressed. The naming of such variations, as subspecies, when based on good specimens, rarely causes any difficulty even though they later prove unnecessary. It is some- times even desirable to name peculiar varieties which are apparently without a definite distribution and may even occur with the typical form. However useful the binomial method of classification may be, it is artificial, and it is necessary to take advantage of such modifications as subgenera, subspecies and varieties, particularly in paleontology, if any real arrangement of the fauna is to be had. ; The synonymy listed under each species refers to other authors 2% Merriam, Trans. Amer. Phil. Soc., n.s. vol. 22, 1915, pt. 3, pp. 15-25. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 305 who have studied the species. Catalogues of specific names ob- viously based on the literature, rather than on specimens, are not included in these synonymies for however useful they may be, they contribute no information about the species. Names cited on cor- relation charts are also not listed for it is inferred that the informa- tion given on those charts has already appeared in the literature. In some cases, however, this is not true and it may be that such citations should be listed. Comparisons with other species are cited for they often contain information or may indicate related species. Names in checklists when apparently based on identified specimens are given whether they add to the distribution of the species or only verify an earlier citation. Any change in the generic % Catalogues of California fossils not otherwise cited in this paper unless some special information is given: Conrad, Checklist of Invertebrate Fossils of North America, Eocene and Oligocene, Smiths, Misc. Coll. no. 200, 1866, pp. 1-41. Meek, Checklist of Invertebrate Fossils of North America, Miocene. Smiths. Misc. Coll. no. 183, 1864, pp. 1-32. Gabb, On the Subdivisions of the Cretaceous Formation in California. Proc. Calif. Acad. Nat. Sei., vol. 3, 1867, pp. 302-304. Checklist of the Carboniferous, Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous Fossils of California and Nevada prepared for the Cabinet of the College of Cali- fornia 8 pp. (no date or place of publication). Carpenter. Rept. Brit. Ass. Ad. Sci. 1863, (1864), pp. 589-596, reprinted in Smithsonian Mise. Coll., vol. 10, no. 252, 1872, p. 75-82. Stoliczka, 1868. Only those names which are discussed are listed in the sy- nonymies. Boyle, Catalogue and Bibliography of North American Mesozoic Invertebrata, U. S. Geol. Sur. Bull. 102, 1893, pp. 1-315. Heilprin, On the age of the Tejon rocks of California, etc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil. Proc. 1882, pp. 197-200, 203. Reprinted in, Contributions Tert. Geol. Pal. United States. Philadelphia, 1884. Miller, S. A. North American Mesozoic and Caenozoic Geology and Paleon- tology, Cincinnati, 1881, pp. 75-77, 84, 181, 183, 224. This book is said to ‘have appeared in parts in the Journ. Cine. Soc. Nat. Hist. Cooper, Catalogue of the Invertebrate Fossils of the Western Slope of the United States, pt. 2, 1871. Geol. Surv. Calif., San Francisco. “Geological Survey of California. Geographical Catalogue of the Mollusca found west of the Rocky Mountains between 33° and 49°, north latitude. Pamph., 4to, 40 pp., San Francisco, 1867. 795 speciesnamed.” (Cooper 1894, p. 11). I have not seen this paper. Catalogue of California Fossils, Calif. Min. Bur. 7th Ann. Rept. 1888, pp. 223-308. (The greater part of the ‘Cretac-eocene’ is plainly after abb. Clark, W. B. Correlation Papers, Eocene. U. S. Geol. Survey. Bull. 83, 1891, pp. 104-106. Turner, Rocks of the Sierra Nevada, U. S. Geol. Surv. 14th Ann. Rept. pt. 2, 1894, pp. 458-459. Vogdes, Bibliography . . . . Geol. . . California. Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. 10, 1896, pp. 6—10, 17, 18, 22, 23, 30, 33, 43, 46, 50 (in part), 74. 2nd edit. Bull. 30, 1904. Arnold, Tertiary and Quaternary Pectens of California. U. S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 47, 1906, pp. 12, 14-15. 306 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII classification is also cited. The synonymies are supposed to refer to original work. They are not complete but may serve as a nucleus to be completed. Specific names which are listed as syno- nyms but not otherwise discussed, are believed to be so obviously such as to need no further explanation. This does not imply that the names were obviously synonyms when they first appeared. It only means that they have become so since an actual type for the older name has been established. A question mark surrounded by quotation marks or italicized is that of the author cited; other question marks indicate that a verification of the author’s determination is desirable. When a question mark is placed after a generic name, or between the generic and specific name, it indicates that the correctness of generic name is doubtful; when placed after the specific name it refers only to the species but when placed in front of the generic name the correctness of the whole citation is doubtful. Considerable effort has been made to revise the generic classi- fication used by Gabb but in some cases the material was too poor to permit classification, while for a few names their taxonomic history was too complicated to unravel in the time available. The references for the generic names used are usually followed by a second reference, particularly in the case of the older names. This reference refers to the first subsequent designator of a type species for the generic name, which I have been able to find. If no other reference is given the type was fixed in the original publica- tion, either by original designation, monotypy, or tautonomy. For the changes of generic names throughout this paper which are not discussed, the citation of the type species of the genus used, has been considered as sufficient explanation for the change. For such changes the discarded name is considered so obviously incorrect as to merit no discussion although it may have been the generally accepted name for the genus when it was first used. Extensive reviews of these changes are often interesting, and probably more should have been given, but they are more appropriately placed in systematic studies of families or monographs of specific faunas. Generic names given in parenthesis after names which date from the “Museum Boltenianum’ are believed to be the proper names for the genera if that source of confusion were ignored. While the “ Museum Boltenianum” is accepted in this paper to conform with 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 307 the recent opinion?” of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, it is hoped that it will soon be discarded by that Commission for its rejection will cause much less confusion than its adoption, particularly among the names for recent species. The names in the “Museum Geversianum’ 1787 have been ignored because they were written in the plural and their adoption would cause more confusion than uniformity. It can hardly be hoped that all the names accepted in this paper are correct, and those en- closed in quotation marks are believed to be incorrect, the correct name having yet to be determined. The classification of fossil gastropods is a difficult subject which requires a great deal of tedious routine work, mainly because of the complicated literature. The fossils do not contain an abundance of reliable characters, and so many similar forms have been devel- oped, showing what is commonly called parallel and convergent evo- lution, that particular care must be taken in their determination. Every available character of the animal should be considered. Most Cretaceous gastropods cannot be referred to living genera and for some it is difficult to recognize the family. Even though the family relationships of these forms are not understood they should be named and not confused with living genera. In recent years a number of new generic names have been pro- posed?® for Cretaceous species and more are needed. The Eocene, however, contains many living genera, though some of them now have a limited distribution, and quite a number of entirely extinct forms, a few of which may be recognized in the Upper Cretaceous and some have even survived to the Miocene. The range of fossil gastropods has been much studied by Cossmann but a great deal more work remains to be done. Due to the difficulty in determin- ing genera very little can be gained from the literature, it being necessary in most cases to see the original material. An interesting report of the Miocene Gastropods of the Caribbean region has been published by Woodring?® which well indicates the importance of the range and distribution of gastropod genera. New generic and subgeneric names: 27 Smiths. Mise. Coll., vol. 73, no. 4, 1926, p. 16-18. 28 Cossmann, Essais Paléoconchologie Comparée, vol. 1-13. Wade, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1916, pp. 455-471, pl. 23-24; 1917, pp. 280-304, pl. 17-19. 29 Woodring, Geol. Soc. Amer., vol. 35, 1924, pp. 867-886. 308 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII Bruclarkia Trask new genus, types species Agasoma gravidum Gabb. Cophocara new genus, type species Cophocara stanton n. sp. Lithophysema new genus, type species Haminea grandis Aldrich. Nekewrs new genus, type species Fasciolaria washingtoniana Weaver. Noetca new genus, type species Noetca gabbi n. sp. Olequahia new genus, type species Cassidaria washingtoniana Weaver. Perissitys new genus, type species Perissolax brevirostris Gabb. Se new genus, type species Fasciolaria pergracilis Al- rich. Plectocion new genus, type species Neptunea curvirostris Gabb. Sceptrum new genus, type species Pyropsts perula Aldrich. Whitneyella new genus, type species Hemafusus washingtonianus . Weaver. Atira new subgenus of Margarites, type species Angaria ornatissima Gabb. Dasyostoma new subgenus of Ectinochilus, type species Rimella rugostoma Johnson. : Mirascapha new subgenus of Scaphander, type species Cylichna costata Gabb. The term lectotype was proposed and defined by Schuchert?*— “Where the original diagnosis is without illustrations or is accom- panied by figures based on two or more specimens, the first subse- quent author is at liberty to select from these cotypes a type for the old species, adhering as far as can be ascertained, to the intention of the original author. Such a type specimen is to be designated as a lectotype (= a chosen type).” It corresponds to “type by subsequent designation’ of the International Commission on Zoo- logical Nomenclature. : When there is nothing to the contrary in the text the original figure is taken to represent the type of the species and when the actual specimen which the figure represents can be found it is called, in this paper, the holotype. When there is more than one figured specimen it is necessary to choose a lectotype. When a figure is believed to be based on more than one specimen ~ it is called a synthetograph.®* This is a convenient term and saves many words. A neotype is a supplementary type, proposed in absence of ori- ginal material. When possible it should come from the exact horizon and locality of the original material. 30 Schuchert, Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus., no. 53, pt. 1, 1905, p. 12. 31 Schuchert, op. cit., p. 15. - 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 309 * ALPHABETICAL LisT oF AuTHORS CITED BY THE DATE OF PuBLicATIONS The citation of an author by date may also refer to the pre- ceding synonymy. AnDERsoN, F. M. 1895. Some Cretaceous Beds of Rogue River Valley, Oregon. Jour. Geol., vol. 3, pp. 455-68. 1902. Cretaceous Deposits of the Pacific Coast. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. (3), vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1-154. 1905. A stratigraphic study in the Mt. Diablo Range of California. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. (3), vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 155-248. 1908. A Further Stratigraphic Study in the Mt. Diablo Range of Cali- fornia. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. (4), vol. 3, pp. 1-40. ANDERSON AND MARTIN. 1914. Neocene Record in the Temblor Basin, California, and Neocene De- posits of the San Juan District, San Luis Obispo County. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sei. (4), vol. 4, pp. 15-112. ANDERSON AND HANNA. 1925. Fauna and Stratigraphic Relations of the Tejon Eocene at the Type Locality in Kern County, California. Occas. Pap. Calif. Acad. Sci., vol. 11, pp. 1-249. ARNOLD, RALPH. 1906. The Tertiary and Quaternary Pectens of California. U. S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 47, pp. 1-264. 1907. In Eldridge and Arnold, The Santa Clara Valley, Puente Hills and Los Angeles Oil Districts, Southern California. TU. S. Geol. Surv Bull. 309, pp. 1-266. 1909. Paleontology of the Coalinga District, Fresno and Kings Counties, California. U. S. Geol. Survey, Bull. 396, pp. 1-173. 1909a. In Branner, Newsom and Arnold, Santa Cruz Folio. TU. S. Geol. Surv. Folio 163, p. 1-11. : 1910. In Arnold and Anderson, R.; Geology and Oil Resources of the Coal- inga District, California. U. S. Surv. Bull. 398, pp. 1-354. ARNOLD AND HANNIBAL. 1913. The Marine Tertiary Stratigraphy of the North Pacific Coast of America. Proc. Amer. Phil. Soec., vol. 52, pp. 559-605. Crark, B. L. 1915 (August). Fauna of the San Pablo Group of Middle California. Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 8, no. 22, pp. 385-572. 1915a, (June). The Occurrence of Oligocene in the Contra Costa Hills of Middle California. Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 9-21. ; ~~ 1918. The San Lorenzo Series of Middle California. Univ. Calif. Publ. / Geol, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 45-234. 1921. The Stratigraphic and Faunal Relationships of the Meganos group, Middle Eocene of California. J. Geol. v. 29, pp. 125-165. Conrap, T. A. 1855. In Appendix to the Preliminary Geological Report of William P. Blake, Article 1, Report of Mr. T. A. Conrad on the Fossil Shells Collected in California by Wm. P. Blake, Geologist of the Expedi- tion under the Command of Lieutenant R. S. Williamson, U. S. Topographical Engineers. House Doc. 129, pp. 5-20. 1857. In Appendix to Geological Report by W. P. Blake in Rep’ts. of Ex- plorations and Surveys . . . from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean, vol. 5, 1856, pp. 317-329, (with plates). For con- venience these volumes are often cited as the ‘Pacific Railroad Reports.” This appendix was reprinted in, Report of a Geological 310 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII Reconnaissance in California, W. P. Blake, New*York, 1858, pp. 317-329, (contains explanation of plates) and again in, the Miocene of Astoria and Coos Bay, Oregon, W. H. Dall. U. S. Geol. Surv. : Prof. Pap. 59, 1909, pp. 163-171. CoOPER, J. G. 1894. Catalogue of California Fossils. Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. 4, pp. 5-65. 1896. List of Fossils, in Oil and Gas Yielding Formations of Los Angeles, Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties. Pt. 1. Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. 11, pp. 79-87. Dickerson, R. E. 1911. The Stratigraphic and Faunal Relations of the Martinez Formation to the Chico and Tejon North of Mt. Diablo. Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 6, no. 8, pp. 171-177. 1913. Fauna of the Eocene at Marysville Buttes, California. Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 7, no. 12, pp. 257-298. 1914 (February). Note on the Faunal Zones of the Tejon Group. Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 17-25. 1914a (May). Fauna of the Martinez Eocene of California. Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 61-180. 1914b (December). The Fauna of the Siphonalia sutterensis Zone in the Roseburg Quadrangle, Oregon. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sei. (4), vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 113-128. 1914c (December). The Martinez and Tejon Eocene and Associated Forma- tions of the Santa Ana Mts. Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 8, no. 11, pp. 257-274a. 1915. Fauna of the Type Tejon; Its Relation to the Cowlitz Phase of the Tejon Group of Washington. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. (4), vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 33-98. 1916. Stratigraphy and Fauna of the Tejon Eocene of California. Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 9, no. 17, pp. 363-524. Dnier, J. S. 1896. A Geological Reconnaissance in Northwestern Oregon. U. S. Geol. Surv. 17th. An. Rept, pt. 1, pp. 447-520. Gass, W. M. 1864. Description of the Cretaceous Fossils. Pal. Calif. vol. 1, sect. 4, pp. 57-243. This paper was reviewed in pt. 4, of vol. 1, of the Amer. Journ. Conch., pp. 361-365, which appeared Oct. 1, 1864. Ap- parently the plates were not generally distributed until after Janu- ary, 1865, (Amer. Journ. Sci. (2), vol. 39, 1865, p. 100) and before July 1865, (ibid., vol. 40, p. 141). 1866. Tertiary Invertebrate Fossils. Pal. Calif., vol. 2, Sect. 1, Pt. 1, February, 1866, pp. 1-38. 1869. Tertiary Invertebrate Fossils (continued), Sect. 1, Pt. 2, pp. 39-63; Synopsis of Tertiary Invertebrate Fossils of California, Sect. 1, Pt. 3, pp. 65-124; Cretaceous Fossils, Sect. 2, Pt. 1, pp. 125-205; Synopsis of the Cretaceous Invertebrate Fossils of California, Sect. 2, Pt. 2, pp. 207-254; Pal. Calif., vol. 2. The exact dates of these parts, if they ever appeared separately, is not known. The volume is dated 1869, and is usually cited as such. The intro- duction to volume 2 is dated February, 1869, (p. xiv) and contains this note (p. xiv) ‘‘Section 1, Part 1, was issued in February, 1866; the remainder of this volume was laid before the Philadelphia Academy, in a printed form, in December, 1868.” Since “printed form’ may refer to the printer’s proof, it seems better to consider the date of these parts as early in 1869. The Academy acknow- ledged receipt of Sect. 1, Pt. 1, in 1868 (P. A. N. S. Phila., p. 413) but did not acknowledge receipt of any of the other parts. It acknowledged receipt of vol. 2 complete, in 1869 (p. 260). This volume was reviewed in the Amer. Jour. Sci. (2), vol. 48, July 1869, pp. 133-135. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 311 Lawson, A. C. 1914. San Francisco Folio. U. S. Geol. Surv. Folio, 193, pp. 1-24. Marco, J. 1876. Report on the Geology of a portion of Southern California. App. I, in An. Rep’t Chief Engineers, pt. 3, pp. 378-392. MEeRRIAM, J. C. 1895. A ist of type specimens in the Geological Museum of the University of California, which have served as originals for figures and de- scriptions in the Paleontology of the State Geological Survey of California under J. D. Whitney. Compiled for the use of workers in California geology, Geol. Dept. University of California, Berke- ley, July 1. (This paper contains 3 printed pages which are not numbered. The only copy of it which I have seen belongs to Dr. Chester Stock who kindly lent it to me. I am indebted to Dr. Woodford and Mr. Furlong for calling my attention to this paper). Reprinted by Vogdes, Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. 10, 1896, p. 21, 23; 2nd. ed. Bull. 80. 1897. The Geological Relations of the Martinez Group of California at the Typical Locality. Journ. Geol., vol. 5, pp. 767-775. NEewLsoNn, R. N. 1925. A Contribution to the Paleontology of the Martinez Eocene of Cali- fornia. Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 15, no. 11, pp. 397-466. Packarp, E. L. 1916. Faunal Studies in the Cretaceous of the Santa Ana Mts. of Southern California. Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 9, no. 12, pp. 137-159. 1922. New Species from the Cretaceous of the Santa Ana Mts. California. Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 13, no. 10, pp. 413-462. Smith, J. P. 1912. Geologic Range of Miocene Invertebrate Fossils of California. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. (4), vol. 3, pp. 161-182. Stanton, T. W. : 1893. The Faunas of the Shasta and Chico Formations. Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., vol. 4, pp. 245-256. 1894. In Diller and Stanton, The Shasta-Chico Series. Bull. Geol. Soe. Amer., vol. 5, pp. 435-464. 1895. Contributions to the Cretaceous Paleontology of the Pacific Coast. The Fauna of the Knoxville Beds. U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 133, pp. 1-132. 1896. The Faunal Relations of the Eocene and Upper Cretaceous on the Pacific Coast. U.S. Geol. Surv. 17th Ann. Rep’t., pt. 1, pp. 1005- 1060. 1897. A Comparative Study of the Lower Cretaceous Formations and Faunas of the United States. Journ. Geol., vol. 5, pp. 579-624. Stovriczka, F. 1868. Cretaceous Fauna of Southern India, vol. 2, The Gastropoda. Mem. Geol. Surv. India, 1867-1868, Pal. Indica, ser. 5, pp. 1-497. Waring, C, A. 1917. Stratigraphic and Faunal Relations of the Martinez to the Chico and Tejon of Southern California. Proc.: Calif. Acad. Sci. (4), vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 41-124. WEAVER, C. E. 1905. Contribution to the Paleontology of the Martinez Group. Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 101-123. 1909. Stratigraphy and Paleontology of the San Pablo Formation in Middle California. Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 5, no. 16, pp. 243-269. 1912. A preliminary Report on the Tertiary Paleontology of Western Washington. Wash. Geol. Surv. Bull. 15, 1912, pp. 1-80. 1916 (February). Tertiary Faunal Horizons of Western Washington. Univ. Wash. Publ. Geol., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-67. The Ts 312 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII Formations of Western Washington. Wash. Geol. Surv. Bull. 17, 1916, pp. 1-327. 1916a (May). Eocene of the Lower Cowlitz River Valley, Washington. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. (4), vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1-17. WEAVER AND PALMER. 1922. Fauna from the Eocene of Washington. Univ. Wash. Publ. Geol., vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 1-56. WHITNEY, J. D. 1865. Geology. Vol. 1, Geol. Surv. Calif., pp. 1-498. Report of Progress and Synopsis of the Field-work, 1860-1864. PROSOBRANCHIATA ACMAEIDAE ACMAEA sensu lato Acmaea tejonensis Gabb. Plate XXX, fig. 5. ? Acmaea Tejonensis Gabb, 1869, pp. 172, 230, pl. 28, fig. 56. Acmaea Tejonensis Whiteaves, Can. Geol. Surv. Mesoz. Fos. 1879, p. 130. Dickerson, 1914a, p. 141: 1916, pp. 447, 488. Anderson and Hanna, 1925, pp. 138-139, fig. 5, p. 43. The lectotype is figured. All the external surface of the shell has been worn away. Length 8.2 mm.; width 5.8 mm.; height, 2.4+ mm. No. 4229. Horizon, Tején, Eocene; locality, Tejon. The range of this species is unknown. Acmaea martinezensis Dickerson (1914a, p. 140, pl. 12, fig. 8) is poorly preserved and slightly crushed but evidently had a more symmetrical base. : Acmaea Eschscholtz® is not considered homonymous with Acmea Hartmann = Acme Hartmann. The holotype of “Patella” traskii Gabb (1864, p. 140, pl. 21, fig. 103) is No. 31393 in the Museum of Paleontology. Only a portion of the original surface remains. It had twelve prominent radial ribs. The secondary ribs mentioned by Gabb are from another specimen. Long diameter, 11 mm.; short diameter, 8.2 mm. Height, ca 3 mm. Texas Flat. : The holotype of Anisomyon meekiz Gabb (1864, p. 142, pl. 21, fig. 105) is also in the Museum of Paleontology No. 12004. Short diameter, 21 mm.; height, ca 6.5 mm. “North fork of Cotton- wood Creek, (Division A).”” This species suggests that part of the 32 Rathke, Eschscholtz’s Zool. Atlas, pt. 5, 1833, pp. 16-21. Type species A. mitra ‘“‘Eschscholtz”” Rathke (Dall, Amer. Journ. Conch., vol. 6, 1871, p. 241). Grays selection (P. Z. S. 1847, p. 158) is not considered a definite type designation (see Neptunea). This genus was first described with no species mentioned in the English translation of the Appendix to Kotzebue’s Neue-Reise um die Welt, vol. 2, 1830,p. 350 (reference cited from Dall (1871). I had neglected to cite this earlier reference and am indebted to Dr. Woodring for calling my attention to it. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA : 313 Cottonwood fauna at least, has Atlantic affinities. The type species of Anisomyon? is from the Upper Cretaceous of Yellowstone River. ‘“‘Acmaea’ rudis Gabb. Plate XXXII, fig. 11a. Acmaea rudis Gabb, 1869, p. 51, 87, pl. 14, fig. 9a. The holotype is figured. It is 27877 in the Whitney collection of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard. Longest di- ameter, 40. + mm. ; shortest diameter, 35 mm. Height, ca. 7 mm. “Pliocene of 2 Fernando, near Wiley’s.” I am unable to recognize the muscle scar as drawn by Gabb from this specimen. It seems not unlikely that the species is really a Crucibulum as Dr. Woodring has suggested to me. If such actually proves to be the case the name may have to be dropped as a homonym for the earlier Calyptraea rudis Brod. is said* to be a Crucibulum. FISSURELLIDAE EMARGINULA Lamarck 1801. Emarginula gabbi n.n. Plate XXIII, fig. 10. Emarginula radiata Gabb, 1864, pp. 140, 228, pl. 21, fig. 102, a; 1869, p. 230. Stoliczka, 1868, p. 393. Anderson, 1902, p- 29. ’ Not Emarginula (Clypr- dina) radiata Gould, Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist., vol. 7, 1859, p. 163. The holotype is figured. Greatest diameter, 7.7. mm.; smallest diameter, 5 mm.; height, 3 mm. No. 4239. Horizon, Cretaceous ‘“ Chico Group’: locality, Texas Flat. Gabb’s name, being a homonym, is invalid. Emarginula® is present in the Cretaceous of Europe,® and is said to have existed in the Jurassic. Fissurella bipunctata Stanton® from the Knoxville is probably an Emarginula but it is more circular and has a higher spire than E. gabbi. It has about twenty-seven radial ribs while E. gabb: has about twenty. 3 Meek and Hayden, Amer. J. Sci. (2), vol. 29, 1860, p. 35; Meek, Invert. Fossils Upper Missouri, 1876, p. 285-288, 290, pl. 18, fig. 5a, b, ¢,f. Type species by subsequent designation (Meek), A. patelliformis M. and H. 3 Tryon, Man. Conch., vol. 8, 1886, p. 151. 35 Larmarck, Syst. Anim. Sans Vert. 1801, p. 69. Monotype E. conica = “Patella” fissura Linn. a species living in the N. E. Atlantic. oh Bem gueranger: d’Orbigny, Pal. Fran. Crét., vol. 2, 1842, p. 393, ple gs 3” Cossmann and Peyrot, Act. Soc. Lin. Bord., vol. 69, 1916, p. 211. 38 Stanton, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 133, 1895, p. 63, pl. 13, fig. 8. 314 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVII1 “EUOMPHALIDAE” STRAPAROLLUS Montfort 1810 ‘‘Straparollus’ paucivolvus Gabb. Plate XXIV, fig. 15. Straparollus paucivolvus Gabb, 1864, p. 120, 226, pl. 20, fig. 76; 1869, p. 224; in Whitney, 1865, p. 203. The holotype is figured. Diameter, 6.6 mm. Height of aper- ture, 2.5 mm. No. 4261. Horizon, Cretaceous “Chico Group’; locality, Texas Flat, Placer Co. The matrix and preservation are the same as those of “ Discoheliz’’ leana. The type of Straparollus® is from the Carboniferous of Europe and is probably not related to this species. DISCOHELIX Dunker 1848 “Discohelix’’ leana Gabb. Plate XXIV, fig. 16. Discoheliz Leana Gabb, 1864, p. 119-120, 226, pl. 20, fig. 75: 1869, p. 224; in Whitney, 1865, p 203. Cossmann, Es. P. Comp. v. 10, 1915, p. 143. Cyclogyra leana Se, 1868, p. 352. The only specimen of the species is broken. Gabb’s original specimen was from the collections of the California Academy of Natural Sciences and the type may have been lost when that in- stitution was destroyed by fire in 1906. However, it is possible that Gabb’s figure is a reconstruction of this specimen, and is there- fore the holotype. It agrees very well with Gabb’s description and is remarkably close to the dimensions given by him. Until an un- doubted holotype has been discovered, this specimen may serve as the lectotype. Diameter, 5 mm. Diameter of aperture, 1.5 mm. No. 4240. Horizon, Cretaceous “Chico Group’; locality, Texas Flat. Although not a Discoheliz®® which is based on an angulated shell from the Jurassic of Halberstadt, it is left here for want of a better name. Superficially, it resembles Crassidorsa Brown *# from the Carboniferous of England. Cyclogyra is based on a ‘““non-molluscan argillaceous test” according to Dall.#? The figure* shows the whorls a trifle more embracing than those of “D.” leana. 39 S. dionysii Montfort, Conch. os vol. 2, 1810, p. 175 (figure). A mono- typic genus. Cossmann, 'Essais Pal. Comp. i vol. 10, 1915, p. 146, pl. 9, fig. 4. 40 Dunker, Pal., vol. 1, 1847, p. 132-133, pl. 18, fig. 11, Monotype D. calculz- formas Dunker. 4 Brown, Ill. Fossil Conch., 1849, p. 98, LE 46, fig. 25. 4 Dall, Trans. Wag. Inst., vol. 3, 1892, p. 331. © Wood, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., vol. 9, Rao p- 458, pl. 5, fig. 5. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 315 TROCHIDAE MARGARITES ‘‘Leach’” Gray 1847 ATIRA n. subgen. Margarites (Atira) ornatissimus (Gabb). ~ Plate XXIV, fig. 1. Angaria ornatissima Gabb, 1864, p. 121, 226, pl. 20, fig. 78: 1869, p. 229; in Whitney, 1865, p. 203. Stoliczka, 1868, p. 368 (tentatively suggested Solariella). ? Cooper, in Fairbanks, Amer. Journ. Sci. (3), vol. 45, 1893, p. 476; 1894, p. 60. Anderson, 1902, p. 28. Margarita ornatissima, Whiteaves, Geol. Surv. Can. Meso. Fos., vol. 1, 1879, p. 128, p. 368 (Sucia Islands). White, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 51, 1889, p. 45 (Sucia Islands). Grabau and Shimer, Ind. Fos., vol. 1, 1909, p- 704, fig. 1012. The apex of the lectotype here figured, is broken. The apical whorls are not complete on any of the specimens but enough are preserved to indicate that the nucleus was very minute as in Marga- rites. Beneath the thin, chalky, finely reticulate, ornamentation, the shell is nacreous. The umbical angle is distinct but not ridged. Height of lectotype (the largest specimen), 9.9 mm.; width, 10.1 mm. No. 4290. Horizon, Cretaceous “Chico Group”; locality, Texas Flat. Gabb claimed to have found this species at Tuscan Springs but the speci- men is not with the others. This species differs from Margarites* in having an angulated umbilicus. The angle is not ridged as in Solariella. The umbilicus is much narrower and the walls are more sloping than in Gaza Watson,* which the fine spiral sculpturing—particularly that of M. inornatus—somewhat resembles. Some of the heavier sculp- tured species of Margarites have a rather distinet angle around the umbilicus, but on those forms, the umbilical walls have a different sculpturing. The name Atira is proposed for Margarites ornatis- stmus and M. tnornatus, the former being the type species. Margarites (Atira) inornatus (Gabb). Plate XXIV, figs. 2a, and 4. Architectonica inornata Gabb, 1864, p. 118, 226, pl. 20, fig. 73; 1869, p. 224. Dall, Trans. Wag. Inst., vol. 3, 1892, p. 330 (said to belong to the 7ro- chidae). Anderson, 1902, p. 29. Solarium inornatum Stoliczka, 1868, p. 250. Stanton, 1896, pp. 1023, 1029. Merriam, Journ. Geol., vol. 5, 1897, p. 770; in Lawson, 1914, p. 8. Ander- son, 1902, p. 38. The lectotype is figured—No. 4291 (fig. 2a). It was probably covered with fine spiral lines, but they have almost all peeled off. “4 Gray, An. Mag. Nat. Hist., vol. 20, 1847, p. 271. Monotype species Helix margarita Montagu = M. helicinus (Fabricus) fide Pilsbry, Man. Conch., vol. 11, 1889, p. 286. 4 Pilsbry, op. cit., pp. 154, 158. 316 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII Other specimens still have the fine spiral lines. Height, 9.5 mm.; width, 11.8 mm. One specimen is 20 mm. wide at the base (fig. 4). Horizon, Cretaceous; locality, Martinez. One specimen, prob- ably the one mentioned by Gabb as from Tuscan Springs, is poorly preserved and probably not this species. Stanton and Merriam have listed this species from the ‘Chico’ near Martinez. This species has a trifle lower spire than M. ornatissimus but may prove to be a synonym of that species. It is probably better cited as a subspecies. “Solarium” inornatum d’Orbigny*® is not congeneric with this species and therefore does not conflict with Gabb’s name. ATAPHRUS Gabb 1869 Ataphrus compactus (Gabb). Plate XXIV, fig. 5a. ? Lattorina compacta Gabb, 1864, p. 132, 227 (in part), pl. 20, fig. 89. Littorina compacta Gabb, 1869, p- 227. Whiteaves, Geol. Surv. Con, Mesoz. Foss., 1879, p. 121 (Denman Island). Anderson, 1902, p. Ataphrus compactus Gabb, Acad. Nat. Sei. Phil. Proc. 1876, p- 2008, White- aves, Geol. Surv. Can. Mesoz. Foss., 1879, p. 121. The figured specimen is evidently the one Gabb mentioned in 1876, for it is labelled in his handwriting “ Ataphrus compactus G.” It is the only specimen in the collection and is considered the neo- type, No. 4249. Height, 6.2 mm.; width, 6.6 mm. Horizon, Cretaceous, ‘Chico Group;’’ locality, Texas Flat. The Museum of Paleontology has a specimen of this species which was labelled by Gabb ‘ Littorina compacta G.”” It cannot be cited as the holotype, however, for the spire is entirely broken away. It is quite possible that the original material may yet be found for it was listed as “not rare.” Ataphrus crassus Gabb. Plate XXIV, fig. 12a. Ataphrus crassus Gabo, 1869, p. 171, 229, pl. 28, fig. 54; Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil. Proc., 1876, p. 303 The figured specimen is evidently the holotype. It is poorly pre- served and it is therefore unfortunate that this species should be the type of the genus. However, it seems to be congeneric with A. compactus. The body whorl is not so rounded as on that species. Height (incomplete), 5.8 mm.; width, 7.3 mm. No. 4243. Locality, Martinez. This species is probably from the Creta- ceous. 4 Tryon, Man. Conch., vol. 9, 1887, pp. 24, 27, pl. 6, figs. 32, 33 (as Torinia). 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 317 The genus is represented in the Cretaceous (Ezogyra ponderosa zone) of North Carolina by A. kerr: Gabb.4” SOLARIELLA Wood 1842 Solariella angulata (Gabb). Plate XXIV, fig. 17. Margaritella angulata Gabb, 1869, p. 172, p. 229, pl. 28, fig. 55. The lectotype is figured, No. 4238. The spiral lines are most prominent at the angles and the suture is slightly sunken. About 30 distinct crenulations cross the posterior spirals. Height (incom- plete) 4.3 mm.; width, 4.6 mm. One broken specimen, probably the adult, was about 8 mm. across and has a double row of crenu- lations at the suture. Locality, Martinez. The matrix is a hard black limestone, prob- ably Cretaceous. This species, though not a typical Solariella*® seems sufficiently like S. amabilis (Jeffreys)*® to be related to that group. Solariella ? crenulata (Gabb). Plate XXVI, fig. 10a. Margaritella crenulata Gabb, 1864, pp. 118-119, 226, pl. 20, fig. 74; 1869, p. 229. Cooper, 1894, p. 62. Merriam, 1895. Wilckens, Neu. Jahrb. Min. Beil. Band, 18, 1904, pp. 195, 276 = ‘‘Solariella.” Solariella crenulata Stoliczka, 1868, p. 367. Dickerson, 1916, pp. 439, 452. Gabb had three specimens of this species but there is only one in this collection. It is poorly preserved and is figured here only as an example. It shows some traces of the nodes on the shoulder which are so pronounced on better specimens. Height, 3 mm.; width 5 mm. No. 4222. Horizon, Eocene; locality, San Diego, evidently from a branch of Rose Canyon (Cooper 1894, p. 37). This species has apparently not been found elsewhere. The other two specimens mentioned by Gabb are in the Museum of Paleontology and one of them, No. 11982, has been cited as the figured type of this species by Merriam (1895). None of these specimens is so well preserved as the original figure would indicate. The original figure is therefore a reconstruction or a synthetograph and specimen No. 11982 is taken for the lectotype. Height 3.3 mm. ; width, 4.1 mm. 47 Gabb, Acad. Nat. Se. Phil. Proc., 1876, p. 303, pl. 17, fig. 10. Stephenson, N. Carol. Geol. Surv., vol. 5, pt. 1, 1923, p. 353, pl. 88, figs. 6-13. # Wood, S. V., Annal. & Mag. Nat. Hist., vol. 9, 1842, p. 531, pl. 5, figs. 7, 10. Monotype species S. maculata Wood, from the Pliocene Crag. The figure of this species in Harmer’s Pliocene Moll., vol. 2, 1923, p. 744, pl. 60, fig. 1, does not greatly resemble the original figure. 4 Pilsbry, Man. Conch., vol. 11, 1889, p. 313, pl. 57, fig. 52. According to Pilsbry (p. 308), this species resembles the type of the genus. 318 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII TURBINIDAE ASTRAEA “Bolten” Roeding 1798 (Astralium Link 1807) Astraea (Pachypoma?) biangulata (Gabb). Plate XXXII, fig. 6. ? Pachypoma biangulata Gabb, 1866, p. 15. Pachypoma biangulata Gabb, 1869, p. 83. ? Astralium raymond: Clark, 1918, opp.™p. 408, opp. pp. 416, p. 421, 480, pl. 65, figs. 15 and 16. The holotype which is figured is very poorly preserved. It is larger than Astralium raymond: and has a row of nodes between the angle of the body whorl which is absent on that species. It is probably the adult of that species. Height (incomplete) 66 mm.; width (incomplete) 62 mm. No. 4327. Miocene south of Martinez. The holotype is in a weathered coarse gray sandstone full of shell fragments—probably of the San Pablo horizon. The matrix is similar to that of the type of As- tralinum raymondz, which is from University of Californialoc. 1192— San Pablo formation on Lafayette Ridge about 1; mile north "of Lafayette (Concord Quadrangle U. S. G. S.). Typical Astraea® is an Australian species which is umbilicate. Astraea biangulata lacks the prominent carina of Astraea tnequalis, the type of Pachypoma. NERITIDAE VELATES Montfort 1810 Velates cuneatus (Gabb). Plate XXI, fig. 3a. Nerita cuneata Gabb, 1864, pp. 137-138, pl. 21, fig. 97, not p. 228; 1869, p. 229, in Whitney, 1865, p. 207. Stoliczka, 1868, p. 338, ‘‘a fine species of the subgeneric type Velates.” Anderson, 1902, p. 29. Three specimens were mentioned under the description of this species, but the specimen figured here is now the only one in the col- lection. The outer lip is smooth internally, the inner lip bares about 10 elongate crenulations. Maximum diameter, 30.6 mm.; mini- mum diameter, 23.4 mm. ; height, 11.3 mm.; no. 4246. Another of the original specimens is no. 31392 in the Museum of Paleontology. It has the fracture along the inner lip which is shown in the original figure. Although this fracture is a little farther from 50 Roeding, Mus. Bolt. pt. 2, 1798, pp. 79-80. Type species by subsequent designation T'rochus imperialis ’Gmelin. (Suter, Man. New. Zeal. Moll. 1913, 166.) This species is now generally called Astralium heliotropium (Martyn) Pisbry, Man. Couch., vol. 10, 1888, p. 228, pl. 56, fig. 87. JB Gray, in M. E. Gray, Fig. Moll. Anim., vol. 4, 1850, p. 88. “I re- strict this subgenus [Pachypomal to A. inequale, the first species mentioned by Gray in his description.” (Pilsbry, Man. Conch., vol. 10, 1888, p. 244.) This is a valid type designation. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 319 the aperture than that shown in the figure this specimen is believed tobethe holotype. The specimenisnot quite complete however, and, assuming the figure to be a synthetograph, it must be called a lec- totype. Only part of the outer lip is preserved but it also is smooth internally. Maximum diam. 29.3 mm.; min. diam. 22.9; height, 12.5 mm. Horizon, Cretaceous ‘Chico Group;” locality, Tuscan Springs. The genus Velates®? had its greatest development during Eocene times, but it is also known from the Uppermost Cretaceous (‘‘ Da- nien’’) of Tibet.?®* The Arialoor species of India (Stoliczka, p. 340) is probably incorrectly determined. An undescribed species is present in the Eocene of Simi Valley (Nelson, 1925, p. 402). The peculiar growth and structure of the shell of Velates have been de- scribed by B. B. Woodward,* who found it distinet from its nearest allies, Nerita and Neritina. The callus of V. cuneatus is not so heavy as that on the Eocene species. Unfortunately, the apex is not well preserved, but it was apparently completely covered with callus as on typical Velates. The holotype of ““ Nerita deformis’” Gabb (1864, p. 137, pl. 21, fig. 96) is in the Museum of Paleontology, No. 31390. It is ap- parently related to the Twurbinidae. Height 26.5 mm.; width, 27 mm. ‘North fork of Cottonwood Creek (Div. A).” The name is preoccupied® and a new name should be given to better material. “PYRAMIDELLIDAE” LIOCIUM Gabb 1869 Liocium punctatum Gabb. Plate XXIV, fig. 6. Liocium punctatum Gabb, 1869, p. 174, 232, pl. 28, fig. 59. White, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 15, 1885, p. 20 ‘Knoxville beds.” Stanton, 1895, p. 19, “Upper Horsetown.” Anderson, 1902, pp. 41, 42, “Typical Horsetown species.” Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 8 1909, pp. 81, 96, fig. 45. ‘“ Pseudomelaniidae.”” Packard, 1916, p. 151. The holotype is figured. It has six fine punctate spiral lines on the parietal region, a more distantly spaced posterior one, which may appear above the suture on the preceding whorls, and two 2 Montfort, Conch. Syst., vol. 2, 1810, p. 355. Monotype, Velates conoideus = Velates perversus (Gmelin). This is V. schmidelianus of most authors, but that name was introduced as a polynomial corrected by Gmelin to ‘‘Nerita” perversa. 53 Douvillé, Pal. Indica, n. ser., vol. 5, no. 3, 1916, pl. 25, p. 7, figs. 7a, b, c; Compt. Rendu v. 170, 1920, pp. 154-159. 5 Woodward, Proc. Zoo.. Soc. Lond., 1892, pp. 528-540, pls. 31-32. 5% Sowerby, Trans. Geol. Soc. Lond. (2), vol. 5, 1840, pl. 57, fig. 14. 320 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII more widely spaced, on the columellar region. The outer lip is broken. It probably terminated in a thin margin. Height, 4.7 mm.; width 2.7 mm. No. 4251. Horizon, Cretaceous; locality “Shasta Group, south of the road from Calusa to the Hot Sulphur Springs.” Stanton (1895) has found this species in the “ Upper Horsetown.” This species is the type of Liocium. It differs from Melanella® in having the punctate spirals and a shorter spire. The tip of the apex is broken away. It is placed in the ‘‘ Pyramaidellidae” because of its resemblance to the punctate species, commonly called Actaeopyramis. “Faunus’ marcidulus White’ may be related to Lioctum. It is completely covered with larger punctations, which may be patho- logic, and the aperture has a wide anterior notch and a very small posterior notch. The holotype of “Chemnitzia” planulata Gabb (1869, p. 162; 1864, p. 115, pl. 19, fig. 70) is in the Museum of Paleontology, No. 11970. The penultimate whorl has four strong spiral ribs coarsely beaded by axial ribs. Height (incomplete), 7 mm.; width, 3.7 mm. “Pence’s Ranch,” It was recognized by Merriam (1895). MELANELLIDAE (Eulimidae) NISO Risso 1826 Niso polita Gabb. Plate XXVII, fig. 1; text-fig. 2. Niso polita Gabb, 1864, p. 116, 225 (in part), pl. 21, fig. 113; 1869, p. 224 (in part). Dickerson, 1913, pp. 264, 270: 1914a, pp. 110, 113 (“‘ polite’ typ. error); 1916, p. 408, 454. Weaver, Un. Wash. Pub. Geol. v. 1, 1916, p. 26 (““polito” typ. error.). Anderson and Hanna, 1925, pp. 128-129, 44. Gabb’s figure of this species is much too slender but even so the apical angle of the lectotype (text-fig. 2) is not so great as that of N. pistiliformis Anderson and Hanna (text-fig. 1), Museum of Paleontology, Tején. The whorls are also more elongate than on that species. While more material may show these two species to be but variations of a single species, it seems better to keep them separate, until such material is available. Length of lectotype (incomplete) 6.5 mm., width 3.2 mm. No. 4219 (pl. XXVII, fig. 1, and text-fig. 2); (text-fig. 1, no. 31412 M. of P.). Horizon, Eocene; locality, Martinez. Probably from the so- called Tejon. The specimens are labelled “types.” Gabb later 6 Bowdich, Elem. Conch., pt. 1, 1822, p. 27, pl. 6, fig. 17. Type species M. dufresnii Bowdich (explanation of pl. 6). Monotypic genus. 57 White, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 51, 1889, p. 20, pl. 4, fig. 12, 13. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 321 (1869) listed this species from Tején, but his specimen is N. pistili- formis. According to Dickerson, N. polita is present at Marysville Buttes and in the Martinez horizon at Martinez. Weaver listed it from the Cowlitz Formation of Washington. The type of Niso®® is N. eburnea Risso, a species living in the Mediterranean. 1 Text fig. 1. Niso pistiliformis X 6. Text fig. 2. Niso polita lectotype X 6. EPITONIIDAE (“Scalariidae’’) EPITONIUM ‘Bolten’ Roeding 1798 (Cyclostoma Lamarck 1799) Epitonium (Confusiscala) mathewsonii (Gabb). Plate XXIV, fig. 20. Scalaria (Opalia) Mathewsonic Gabb, 1864, p. 212, pl. 32, fig. 278: 1869, p. 223. ? Whiteaves, Geol. Surv. Can. Mesoz. Fos. 1879, p. 129; 1903, p. 408. ? Scalaria mathewsonizt White, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 51, 1889, p. 45. Scalaria mathewsonii Stanton, in Turner, U. S. Geol. Surv. 14th. An. Rep’t. pt. 2, 1894, p. 460 “?” (near Pentz). Stanton, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 105) 1893, p. 142. Wilckens, Neu. Jahrb. Min. Beil. Band 18, 1904, p. 203, Scala Mathewsonis Stoliczka, 1868, p. 231. ? Epitontum n. sp. a, Packard, 1916. P: 148. ? Epitonium sp., Packard, 1922, p. 428. The specimen figured is labelled in a printed hand ““ type, unique” and is the holotype. It is not in good condition, but reveals about "twelve prominent axial ribs which stop abruptly at the basal carina. 58 Risso, Hist. Nat. Europe, Merid., vol. 4, 1826, pp. 218-219, pl. 7, fig. 98. Monotypie genus. 322 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII These ribs are not continuous from whorl to whorl. The whole surface is covered with very fine spiral lines. Length (incomplete), 20 mm.; width, 10 mm. No. 4220. Horizon, probably Cretaceous; locality, “Near Martinez.” The matrix is a hard, black, limy sandstone. The description of Packard’s ““ Epitonium sp.,” agrees fairly well with this species. This species resembles the Cretaceous group Confusiscala,’® which was elevated to generic rank by Cossmann.®® In the main, the Scalas seem as homogeneous as T'urritella though possibly Cossmann was correct in separating these Cretaceous forms as a distinet genus. As long as the “Museum Calonnianum,” in which it was called Scala, is barred from Zoological Nomenclature, Epitoniums of the “Museum Boltenianum’’ must apparently be used for this genus. It is possible that someday the ‘“ Museum Boltenianum’’ may be like- wise barred and then Cyclostoma will be the valid name. . The holotype of “Nerinea” dispar Gabb (1864, p. 113, pl. 19, fig. 66, a.) is No. 11944 in the Museum of Paleontology. Length (incomplete) 55 mm.; width, 13.5 mm. Horizon, Crotaecony, “Shasta group;” locality, North fork of Cottonwood Creek, Shasta County. It is evidently related to ‘“Claviscala’ clementina (d’Orb) from the Cretaceous (Albien) of Europe. As suggested by Cossmann it is most unlikely that these Cretaceous species are generically related to the living Claviscala.®? NATICIDAE NATICA Scopoli 1777 Natica uvasana Gabb. Plate XXX, fig. 14. Natica Uvasana Gabb, 1864, p. 212, pl. 32, fig. 277: 1869, p. 221. Dickerson, 1915, p. 44; 1916, pp. 421, 433 (Coalinga), 439 (San Diego), 451 (at least, a part); not pl. 38, fig. 8. Anderson and Hanna, 1925, p. 116, 44, pl. 9, g 3, 4. The original figure of this species was apparently based on two specimens; the one figured here is the lectotype. . About a quarter of the body whorl has been broken away. Height, 10 mm.; width, 9.5 mm. No. 4223. 5 de how Journ. de Grail, vol. 57, 1909, p. 256. Monotype species “Scala” dupiniana d’Orb. 60 Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp, vol. 9, 1912, pp. 73-75, pl. 3, figs. 37, 27-28. 1 Roeding, Mus. Bolt., pt. 2, 1798, p. 91. Type species, Turbo scalaris L (Dall, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. vol. 43, 1908, p. 315.) 52 Cossmann, Es. Pal. Comp, vol. 9, 1912, p. 92-94, pl. 4, figs. 39, 42, 43. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA : 323 Horizon, Tej6én, Eocene; locality, Tejon. This species is known with certainty only from Tejon. Natica uvasana has a slightly more appressed suture than Euspira nuciformis and an umbilical ridge. It is related to N. permunda Conrad of Jackson, Miss. (Upper Eocene) which has been compared® to N. canrena, a species living in the Western Atlantic. Calcareous opercula are associated with N. permunda and a species resembling “N.” semilunata Lea, at Jackson. Theyhave but two wide channels on the periphery while the operculum of N. canrena is almost cov- ered with such channels. These fossil opercula closely resemble those of N. helvacea Lam.% of the East Indies, which is evidently a typical Natica.® EUSPIRA Agassiz 1839 Euspira nuciformis Gabb. Plate XXX, fig. 16. Lunatia nuciformis Gabb, 1864, p. 107, 224, pl. 28, fig. 218; 1869, p. 222; in Whitney, 1865, p. 46. ? Stanton, 1896, pp. 1021, 1022. Dickerson, 1913, pp. 264, 270, 273; 1914, p. 23; 1915, pp. 43, 50 (Tején); 1916, opp. p. 372, bp. 378, 392, 408, 421, 426, 427, 433, 438, 450, 476, pl. 39, fig. 4. Weaver, 1916, p. 26. '? Lunatia cf. nuciformis Dickerson, 1914a, pp. 97, 110, 151, pl. 13, figs. 6a, b. N atica nuciformis Clark, Journ. Geol., vol. 29, 1921, p. 159 (at least, in part). Anderson and Hanna, 1925, p. 116, 40, 41, 44, pl. 10, fig. 8. ?Neverita nuciformis Dickerson, 1914b, p. 115. Lunatia cowlitzensis Dickerson, 1915, p. 50, 57, pl. 4, fig. 12a, b. Weaver, 1916, p. 26. The only specimen in the box labelled “types,” which shows the aperture, is figured as the lectotype. Height, 22 mm.; width, 19.5 mm. No. 4213. : Horizon, Tejon, Eocene; locality, Tejon. The range of this species is not yet known. The specimen figured by Dickerson (1916) from near Oroville, and specimens from the Santa Susana Formation have a higher spire than the typical form, but are very closely related to it. Gabb’s available material seems to have all come from Tejon. The Cowlitz specimens often have a slightly more appressed suture. E. nuciformis is apparently related to the Jackson form of “Natica’ semilunata Lea which seems to be present also at Wood's Bluff Alabama (Wilcox-Sabine). All the available specimens of % Dall, Trans. Wag. Inst., vol. 3, 1893, p. 365. ¢ Tryon, Man. Conch., vol. 8 1886, p. 30, pl. 9, fig. 64. % Scopoli, Intro. Hist. Nat., 1777, p. 392. Type species, Nerita vitellus. Al- though numerous workers have designated a type species for this genus Dall seems to have been the first to select one from the original list (Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. Cambridge, vol. 43, 1908, p. 332). 324 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII typical “N.” semilunata Lea (Claiborne) have a faint umbilical ridge, but according to Dall®® and Harris®’ this ridge may disappear on some specimens. No such ridge has been observed on even the young specimens of Euspira nuciformas. E. nuciformis resembles E. labellata (Lam.)%® of the midde Eocene of the Paris Basin, which is similar to the type species of Euspira.®® Most of the recent species which are called Euspira live in Arctic and North temperate waters, a very remarkable distribution for an Eocene gastropod. Euspira lacks the large umbilical ridge of Natica s.s. POLINICES Montfort 1810 Polinices hornii Gabb. Plate XXX, fig. 15. Natica ? oetites Conrad, 1855, pp. 7, 10; 1857, p. 321, pl. 2, fig. 7; (Typ. error for N. aetites). Not Natica aetites Conrad, Blake, Pac. R. R. Rept., vol. 5, pt. 2, 1857, p. 164. Not Conrad, Fos. Shells Tert. N. A., 1833, p. 46. Lunatia horn Gabb, 1864, pp. 106, 224, pl. 29, fig. 217; 1869, p. 222; in Whitney, 1865, p. 46. Not Stanton, 1896, pp. 1044, 1055, pl. 66, fig. 4. Merriam, Journ. Geol., vol. 5, 1897, p. 773. Weaver, 1905, p. 110 (Lake County). Dickerson, 1911, p. 174; 1913, p. 264; 1914, p. 20; 1914a, pp. 74, 75, 86, 95, 97, 110, 113, 115, 151, pl. 13, fig. 5: 1915, pp. 43, 57, pl. 4, fig. 11; 1916, pp. 421, 433, 438, 450, 454, 496. Arnold, 1909, pp. 14, 15, pl. 4, fig. 9(?); 1910, pp. 71, 72, 73, pl. 26, fig. 9 (?). Cooper, 1894, p. 62 (San Diego); in Watts, Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. 3, 1894, p. 10 (Marysville Buttes). Weaver, Wash. Geol. Surv. Bull. 13, 1916, p. 96. Kew, U. S Surv. Bull. 753, 1924, p. 19. Natica hornit Clark, Journ. Geol., vol. 29, 1921, pp. 159, 155; in Kew, U. S. ~ - Geol. Surv. Bull. 753, 1924, p. 29. Anderson and Hanna, 1925, pp. 115, 41, 44, pl. 10, fig. 7. Polinices horniz Waring, 1917, p. 86, pl. 13, fig. 4. Nelson, 1925, opp. p. 402. The specimen figured is the best one of this species in the collec- tion and is taken for the lectotype. It has a lower spire than P. shumardianus. Height 32.5 mm.; width 33 mm. No. 4214. Horizon, Tejon, Eocene: locality, Tejon. This species has a wide % Dall, Trans. Wag. Inst., vol. 3, 1893, p. 364. 67 Harris, Bull. Amer. Pal., vol. 3, 1899, pp. 86-87, pl. 11, figs. 18-20. 68 Cossmann and Pissarro, Iconog., vol. 2, 1910, pl. 10, fig. 61-31 (as Natica (Naticina)). 8 Buspira first appeared with two species, Natica glaucinoides Sowerby not Deshayes and Natica depressa Lamarck ? Sowerby. (Agassiz, in Desor, French translation of Sowerby’s Min. Conch. Gt. Brit., pp. 14, 15, 16, 1839. The German translation of this work is given preference over the French translation by Sherborn but I have not seen the German translation.) The first species is an Eocene shell resembling Lunatia, the second is an Ampullina. The name must therefore go with whichever species was first designated as its type. The first valid subsequent designation which I have been able to find is that of Dall, who chose the first species and identified it as Natica labellata Lam. (U. S. Geol. Sur. Prof. Pap. 59, p. 87). A more satisfactory designation was given in 1915 (Dall, U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 90, p. 106). The type species is Natica glaucinoides Sowerby from the Eocene (Highgate) of England. It is evidently closely related to Euspira labellata (Lamarck) which has been named Labellinacca (Cossmann, Es. Pal. Comp., vol. 13, 1924, p. 137, pl. 1, fig. 8, 9). 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 325 distribution and occurs in the Martinez (Paleocene). I have seen three specimens of it from the lower sands of the Cowlitz Formation. The appressed suture and heavy callus suggests Polinices.”® Polinices shumardianus Gabb. Plate XXI, fig. 11. Lunatia shumardiana Gabb, 1864, p. 106, 224, pl. 19, fig. 61; 1869, p. 222; Proc. Calif. Acad. Nat. Sei., vol. 3, 1867, p. 303. White, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 51, 1889, pp. 34, 45 (?) ? Whiteaves, Mesozoic Fossils; Geol. Surv. Can., vol. 1, 1903, p. 365. Stanton, 1896, p. 1029.” Not Arnold, 1906, p. 17 “cf.” Not Dickerson, 1916, p. 450. Natica (Lunatia) shumardiana Grabau and Shimer, Index Foss., vol. 1, 1909, p- 717, fig. 1040. Polinices (Buspira) shumardiana Nelson, 1925, p. 421. Of the numerous specimens so labelled, that figured here best agrees with the description and the figure. A narrow, almost flat area borders the impressed suture. The umbilicus is probably not very deep. Height, of lectotype, 18 mm., width, 18 mm. No. 4294. Locality, “Hills, southwest of Martinez; abundant.” The box is labelled ‘“ Martinez, Cal.” Cretaceous (Gabb, 1867). The ma- trix of the lectotype is a black sandy limestone. Some of the smaller specimens belong to another species. White and Whiteaves re- corded this species in the Cretaceous at Sucia Island. NEVERITA Risso 1826 Neverita secta (Gabb). Plate XXX, fig. 17. Neverita secta Gabb, 1864, pp. 108-109, 225, pl. 29, fig. 220, a; 1869, p. 222. Harris, Sci., vol. 22, 1893, p. 97 (said to = Natica oetites Conrad). Cooper, Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. 4, 1894, p. 62. Anderson, 1908, p. 10 (Corrall Hollow). Dickerson, 1914, pp. 20, 23; 1914a, p. 115 (?); 1914b, p. 115(?); 1915, pp. 44, 50, 51, pl. 4, fig. 9; 1916, opp. p. 372 (?), pp. 379 (?), 392 (?), 408 (?), 421, 433 (?), 451 (in part), 476, pl. 39, fig. 6 (probably an immature N. globosa); in Dumble, Calif. Acad. Sei. Proc. (4), vol. 8, 1918, p. 143 “cf.” (Alazan shales, S. of Tampico). Weaver, 1916, p. 26. Natica secta Anderson and Hanna, 1925, pp. 117, 44, pl. 10, fig. 9. Neverita weavers Dickerson, 1915, pl. 4, fig. 10b (Cowlitz Formation), not pl. 4, fig. 10a. The holotype is figured. Height 22 mm.; width 22.5 mm. No. 4212. Horizon, Tejon, Eocene; locality, Tejon. This species is probably best considered a subspecies of the living Neverita recluziana (Deshayes) which has already been recognized” 70 Montfort, Conch. Syst., vol. 2, 1810, p. 223. Type species, Polinices albus Montfort = P. mammillaris (Lam.). Montfort included in the synonymy Nerita mamilla L., which was the species designated as type by Gray in 1847 (P.Z.S.). Montfort’s figured specimen, however, is the type of his species, which is the type of the genus by original designation. P. mamilla and P. mammillaris are considered congeneric. 1 Clark, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 11, 1918, p. 167. 326 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII well down in the Tertiary of this region. A careful study of many specimens of this form in the different horizons should prove very interesting. In N. recluziana the umbilicus is practically covered with callus. The posterior lobe of the callus extends across the umbilicus and forward beyond the anterior lobe while on the dozen specimens of N. secta available, both from Cowlitz and Tejon, the posterior lobe does not extend beyond the anterior lobe. N. weaver: Dickerson, which occurs with N. secta at the type locality of the Cowlitz For- mation is a smaller species having the umbilicus covered with callus as in N. recluziana but lacking the sulcus on the callus. It may be the young of N. secta but no intermediate forms have been found although ten specimens of the typical have been examined. A small specimen of N. secta, though lacking the sulcus has the bilobed callus of the adult shells. At Claiborne, Alabama, N. secta is represented by N. limula (Conrad)™ on which the sulcus on the callus is obsolete and on many specimens entirely lacking. Neverita™ is widely distributed in the Recent fauna and is often considered a subgenus of Polinices. The reference of this species to Natica is not to be taken seriously. Neverita globosa Gabb. Plate XXVIII, fig. 6. Neverita globosa Gabb, 1869, p. 161, 222, pl. 27, fig. 39. Marcou, 1876, p. 389 (?) (Tejon). Cooper, 1894, p. 62 (San Diego). Fairbanks, Journ. Geol., vol. 3, 1895, p. 429. Stanton, 1896, p. 1027; in Turner and Stanton, Amer. Geol., vol. 14, 1894, p. 95. Dall, in Diller, 1896, p. 463, 465 (?). Anderson, 1905, p. 164, p. 165, p. 166. Dickerson, 1914, p. 23; 1914 a, p- 95; 1915 b, p. 115; 1916, pp. 392, 408, 442, 451, pl. 39, fig. 5a, b. Polinices globosa Arnold and Hannibal, 1913, p. 572 (Crescent Formation). Natica fiasco Hanna, Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. (4), vol. 13, 1924, p. 173 (new name). Anderson and Hanna, 1925, p. 117, 44. The specimen figured is from the Museum of Comparative Zoology, no. 27859 and was labelled by Gabb. It corresponds to the given dimensions so closely that it is believed to be the holotype. The umbilical portion of the callus has been worn so that its nature is not determinable. Height, 19 mm.; width, 18.7 mm. Eocene; locality, “10 miles W. of Griswolds.” Near New Idria. The type specimen is readily distinguished from N. secta by its prominent shoulder. The specimen figured by Dickerson (1916, 2 Harris, Bull. Amer. Pal., vol. 1, 1896, p. 232, pl. 22, fig. 16. A specimen from a lower horizon (Midway). 73 Risso, Hist. Nat. Europ. Meridionale, v. 4, pp. 149-150, pl. 4, fig. 43. Mono- type species, N. josephinia Risso. ; 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 327 pl. 39, fig. 5) from Oroville has a trace of the sulcus but the callus of this species is not distinctly lobed as that of N. secta. N. globosa also occurs in the Kocene at Simi. A specimen at locality 3991—San Diego Eocene—has a callus resembling this species but is not so distinctly shouldered as the typical. It may be N. weaver: which has a similar callus and a very faint shoulder. “Natica globosa” King™ does not conflict with Neverita globosa since there is no evidence to show that King’s species is a Neverita. There are a number of fossil species which have been described as “Natica globosa’ prior to Gabb’s species, but I cannot find that “any are Neverita, nor does there appear to be a prior “ Neverita globosa.” SINUM “‘ Bolten” Roeding 1798 (Sigaretus Lamarck 1799) Sinum obliquum (Gabb). Plate XXX, fig. 7a. Naticina obliqua Gabb, 1864, pp. 109, 225, pl. 21, fig. 112; 1869, p. 223. Conrad, Amer. Jour. Conch., vol. 1, 1865, p. 363. Stoliczka, 1868, p. 312. (Said to resemble a Sigaretus). White, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 51, p. 30. Heilprin, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., vol. 34, 1882, p. 210 (‘‘appears more like a Sigaretus”). Stanton, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 106, 1893, p. 139. Dickerson, 1914a, p. 95; 1915, pp. 44, 50, 51, pl. 5, fig. 5a, b; 1916, opp. p. 372, 377, 421, 427, 433, 439, 442, 450 (at least in part). Catinus obliquus Conrad, Smiths. Mise. Coll., vol. 7, no. 200, 1866, pp. 15, 35. Sigaretus obliqgua Dall, Trans. Wag. Inst., vol. 3, 1892, p. 380. Sinum obliguum Arnold and Hannibal, 1913, pp. 569, 570, 572. Sinum occidentis Weaver and Palmer, 1922, p. 32, pl. 11, figs. 8, 26 (Cowlitz). Sinum coryliforme Anderson and Hanna, 1925, pp. 120, 41, 44, pl. 9, fig. 10, pl. 10, fig. 15, pl. 15, fig. 8 (Tejon). All the determinable material in the box marked “types” is ap- ‘parent]y from Tejon. The specimen figured is the largest and agrees fairly well with Gabb’s figure and is taken for the lectotype. Height 13 mm.; width 15 mm. No. 4215. Horizon, Tej6n, Eocene; locality, Tejon. The range of this species is unknown. It apparently occurs in numerous places in the Eocene horizons of California, and in the Cowlitz Formation of Washington. Although the Cowlitz form has been described as a new species it appears to be identical with specimens from Tejon. The name Sinum?™ is based on a recent species. Sinum scopulosum (Conrad). Plate XXXII, fig. 4. Sigaretus scopulosus Conrad, in U. S. Explor. Exped. 1838-1842, Dana, Geology, 1849, p. 727, pl. 19, fig. 6a (only), Repr. Dall, 1909, p. 125. Meek, Smiths. Mise. Coll. 183, 1864, p. 19, Dall, Trans. Wag. Inst., vol. uP. P. King, Zool. Jour., vol. 5, “1830-1831,” p. 344. 7s Roeding, Mus. Bolt, pt. 2, 1798, p. 14 Type species ‘‘ Heliz’’ halitoidea (Dall, z S. Geol. Sur. Prof. Pap. 59, 1909, p. 01: U. S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 90, 1915, p- 109). 328 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII 3, 1892, p. 380; in Diller, 1896, p. 474. Anderson, 1905, pp. 188, 203, pl. 16, figs. 72, 73; Pr. Cal. Ac. Sci. (4), vol. 3, 1911, p. 100. Arnold, 1906, pp. 17, 19; 1909, p. 32, pl. 24, fig. 1; 1909a, p. 4; 1910, p. 127, pl. 44, fig. 1. Reagan, Kansas Acad. Sci. Geol. Pap., vol. 22, 1909, pp. 172, 194, pl. 3, fig. 30. Smith, 1912, p. 176. Anderson and Martin, 1914, p. 43. Catinus scopulosus Meek, Smiths. Mise. Coll. 183, 1864, p. 31. Conrad, Amer. Journ. Conch., vol. 1, 1865, p. 151. Stomatia scopulosa Meek, Smiths. Mise. Coll. 183, 1864, p. 31. Sinum scopulosum Meek, Smiths, Mise. Coll. 183, 1864, p. 32. Merriam, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 2, 1896, p. 103, 106 “conf.” Dall, U. S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 59, 1909, pp. 12, 18, 91, pl. 4, fig. 10, pl. 5, fig. 8. Arnold and Hannibal, 1913, pp. 584, 583. English, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol. vol. 8,1914, p. 211. Clark, 1915 a, p. 15: 1918, p. 169, pl. 22, fig. 8. Trask, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 13, 1922, pp. 153, 154. Kew, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 753, 1924, p. 78. Sinum planicostum Gabb, 1869, pp. 49, 78, pl. 14, fig. 6. Dall, U. S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 59, 1909, pp. 91, 92. Sigaretus planicostum Cooper 1896, p. 80. Anderson, 1905, p. 204. 2Sinum (Sigaretus) trigenarium Trask, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 13, 1922, pp. 139, 143, 146, 153, pl. 7, figs. 2a, b. 2Sinum californicum Oldroyd, Nautilus, vol. 31, 1917, p. 13. The specimen figured is taken for the lectotype of S. planicostum. Only a fragment of the original surface of the shell is preserved. Height 30 mm.; width 33.2 mm. No. 4326. “Pliocene, San Fernando,” the label is in Gabb’s handwriting. This species has a wide range, occurring in the San Ramén Formation and still surviving apparently unchanged, in the recent fauna. “Conrad’s type”’—no. 3553, Nat. Mus. (cited by Dall 1909, p. 92) is an internal cast but there can be little doubt but that the specimen figured by Dall (1909) is that species. They are both in a sandy shale matrix. There seems to be no difference between Gabb’s material and that of Conrad. “Sinum californicum” Oldroyd, a recent species, is probably also conspecific. Some specimens have a more depressed spire than the fossils, but this character does not seem to be constant. The type of “Sinum trigenarium’ Trask is too poorly preserved to permit certain identification. It was separated on the grounds that it had fewer spiral lines than S. scopulosum but it seems quite probable that not all of the spiral lines have been preserved on this one poor specimen. GYRODES Conrad 1860 Gyrodes expansa Gabb. Plate XXII, figs. 1a, and 3. Gyrodes expansa Gabb, 1864, pp. 108, 225, pl. 19, fig. 62a, b, ¢; 1869, p. 222; in Whitney, 1865, pp. 203, 207, 210. Cooper, in Fairbanks, Amer. Jour. Sei. (3), vol. 45, 1893, p. 474. Diller and Stanton, Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull. 5, 1894, pp. 439, 443. Stanton, 1896, pp. 1023, 1024, 1025, 1029; in Mer- riam, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 2, 1901, p. 281. Merriam, 1897, p. 770; in Lawson, 1914, p. 8. Petho, Paleontgr., vol. 52,1902, p. 152. Anderson, 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 329 1902, pp. 29, 34, 38. Grabau and Shimer, Ind. Foss., vol. 1, 1909, p. 721, fig. 1048. Packard, 1916, pp. 14% 54 Dickerson, 1916, p. 404. Gyrodes expansus Waring, 1917, p. None of the specimens Eh oo aperture so well exposed as does Gabb’s figure, so the specimen here figured no. 4245, (fig. 1)— is taken for the lectotype. Height, ca. 30 mm.; width, 32 mm. The smaller specimen—no. 4254 (fig. 3)—height, 14 mm.; width, 16 mm.—was probably the basis of Gabb’s figure 62c. Horizon, Cretaceous ‘‘Chico Group.” Though Gabb listed it from numerous localities, the box of specimens is labelled “Mar- - tinez, Cal.” and the lectotype probably came from there. Gyrodes™ is a Cretaceous genus. Its type Gyrodes crenata (Conrad) is said to be synonymous with @. supraplicata Conrad,’ of the Gulf Coast Cretaceous. The genus s. l. apparently survived to the Eocene in the Gulf Coast, where it was called “Natica” (Gyrodes) aperta Whitfield = “ Polinices (Mammilla)” rugifera Dall” and in the Paris Basin as ‘“ Natica (Sigaretopsis) infundi- bulum Wetelet,”® the type of Sigaretopsis.8® Natica cirriformis (Sowerby)® from the English Pliocene has been placed® under Sigaretopsis but it is certainly not typical and in all probability belongs elsewhere. Sigaretopsis probably did not survive the Eocene. “‘Gyrodisca” Dall, 1895, is not a Gyrodes. Gyrodes conradiana Gabb. Plate XXII, fig. 2. ? Lunatia (Gyrodes?) conradiana Gabb, 1864, Py 507 pl. 29, fig. 219. Lunatia (Gyrodes?) conradiana Gabb, 1864, P-2 Lunatia conradiana Gabb, in Whitney, 1865, on Cooper, in Fairbanks Amer. Jour. Sci. (3), vol. 45, 1893, p. 476. Dement, 1895. Lunatia (Gyrodes) conradiana Cooper, Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. 4, 1894, p. 62. Gyrodes conradiana Gabb. 1869, p. 222. White, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull 51, 1889, pp. 34, 45. Whiteaves, Mes. Fos. Geol. Surv. Can., vol. 1, 1879, p- 125; 1901, p. 365. Anderson, Journ. Geol., vol. 3, 1895, P- 460" 1902, pp. 29, 37; 1908, p. 8. Stanton, 1896, p. 1023. Wilckens, Neu. Jahrb. Min. Beil. Band. 18, 1904, pp. 199, 276. Grabau and Shimer, Ind. Foss., vol. 1, 1909, p. 721, “Tike Gyrodes conradi but without the inner angula- ‘tion around the umbilicus.” The holotype of this species was recognized by Merriam (1895). It is in the Museum of Paleontology and corresponds very well with the original figure except that the greater part of the shell has " Conrad, Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. Jour. (2), vol. 3 130, p. 289. Type species designated by Meek, Pal. Up. Missouri, 1876, p. 7 Stephenson, N. Carol. Geol. Surv., vol. 5, Ra 357-9, pl. 89, figs. 1-6. 8 Dall, Trans. Wag. Inst., vol. 3, 1892, pp. 368, 447. Harris, Bull. Amer. Pal., vol. 3, 1899, p- 90, pl. 11, fig. 24. 7 Cossmann and Pissaro, Icon. ‘Compl. vol. 2, 1910- 1, pl. 10, figs. 61-37. 80 Cossman, Mém. Soc. Roy. Malac. Belg., vol. 23, 1888, p- 168. 8 Harmer, Pliocene Moll., vol. 2, pt. 2, 1921, p- 685, pl. 55, fig. 2 2 Cossman, Es. Pal. Comp. 5 vol. 13, 1024, p. 108. 330 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII been removed so that it is an internal cast; no. 31411. Height 34 mm.; width 32.5 mm. Two specimens were mentioned under the original description and the one figured here is the other speci- men and the only one in the Academy’s collection. It is very poorly preserved and the apex is broken. Height (incomplete) 30 mm.; width 34 mm. No. 4255. Locality, San Luis Gonzaga Ranch, Pacheco Pass: horizon, Cre- taceous “Chico Group.” This species has more vertical sides than G. expansa. ? NATICIDAE AMPULLINAE Ampullina sigaretina Lam. is usually cited as the type of Am- pullina but unfortunately, there seems to be no escape from ac- cepting A. depressa as the type.8® Globularia® is evidently avail- able for A. sigaretina, and its allies. It is represented in the Amer- ican Eocene by “A.” morgan: Johnson® and an undescribed species from the Santa Susanna Formation (Eocene) of Simi Valley. On the East Coast, Gobularia survived to the Miocene? and it is still living in Philippine waters—Cernina fluctuata (Sow.).8? Coss- mann®® has found Cernina very common in the Jurassic and Cre- 8 Dall, U. S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 59, 1909, p. 90. By considering that the operculum figured by Bowdich (Elements of Conch. including the Fossil Genera, 1822, p. 31, pl. 9, fig. 2) belonged to some other shell, and this is justified since it is not figured in place as are the other opercula, Bowdich’s figure may be con- sidered a poor representation of Ampullina depressa. The name Ampullina was also used by Ferussac in 1822 (Tabl. Systém. des Anim. Moll, p. XXIV,—February, 1822, according to Sherborn and Woodward, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (7), vol. 8, 1901, p. 75) as a synonym of Natica Lamarck. Its type is therefore the type of Natica and if Ferussac’s paper appeared before that of Bowdich, Ampullina cannot be used for the Eocene ‘‘ Ampullines.” Ac- cording to Sherborn (In. Anim. 1801-1850, 1922, p. XXVIII, LII) both these papers appeared in February, 1822. With the right of the first worker to treat of this apparent contemporaneity, I choose Ampullina Bowdich 1822 as having priority over Ampullina Ferussac 1822. It is not unlikely that an earlier use of the name Ampullina will be found. 8 Swainson, Treat. Malac. 1840, p. 345. Type species, by subsequent desig- nation, Natica sigaretina Lam’ck. (Hermannsenn Ind. Gen. Mal., vol. 1, 1847, p.- 480). This generic name is an alteration of Globulus Sow. (not Globulus Schumacker, Es. Syst. Test, 1817, p. 192). 85 Johnson, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil, 1899, p. 80, pl. 2, fig. 12. Jackson, Miss. Upper Eocene. 8 Heilprin, Trans. Wag. Inst., vol. 1, 1887, p. 112, pl. 16, fig. 51. ‘“Natica” streplostoma. Dall (ibid., vol. 3, 1892, p. 374) has pointed out the close relationship of this species with A. sigaretina Lam. which is the type of Globularia. 87 Tryon, Man. Conch., vol. 8, 1886, p. 52, pl. 22, fig. 28 (as Natica subgenus Ampullina). Tt is probably better cited as a subgenus of Globularia. 8 Cossman, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 13, 1924, pp. 33-37 (as a section of Am- pullina). Cossmann’s Ampullina =Globularia. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 331 taceous of the old world, but such a remarkable distribution for Cernina certainly needs further confirmation. Cernina, unlike typical Globularia, has the columella covered with callus. Glo- bularia hannibali Dickerson® might be cited as an Eocene Cernina, but it has a much heavier callus extending over the parietal region with a distinct boundary. I think it will prove to represent a separate group of Globularia, not directly related to Cernina, the latter having probably developed from Globularia in the Miocene or later. G. hannibali resembles Crommium® but has the ex- panded outer lip of Globularia. Globularia is distinguished from Ampullina by its enlarged aper- ture, which is produced anteriorly. Globularia semipatula (Desh.) is umbilicated and might be cited as a connecting form, but its enlarged aperture places it with Globularia. In a later horizon, it becomes widely umbilicate, and it is probably better cited as a new section of Globularia.® Typical Ampullina is a medium sized, umbilicated shell with a rather distinct shoulder and very finely punctate spiral lines. It has a heavy, excavated columella and a broad rugose area surround- ing the umbilicus and corresponding to a siphonal fasciole.% In the Oligocene, the typical Ampullina developed a channeled suture® but it is more closely related to A. depressa, and A. parisi- ensis d’Orb, than are many of the other Eocene species. In the Western Atlantic, A. recurva (Aldrich) is replaced in the Oligocene 8 Dickerson, 1916, pl. 38, figs. 9a, b (as Natica). Variations of this species are very common in the Domengine horizon at Simi and other localities, but it has not yet been found in the Tej6n. 9 Possibly Globularia compressa (Bast.), (Cossman, Es. Pal. Comp., vol. 13, 1924, p. 33, pl. 3, fig. 1, 2, as Ampullina (Cernina), from the lower Miocene of Europe is a survivor of this group rather than a direct ancestor of Cernina. Globularia fischeri (Dall) from the Miocene (Chipola) of Florida seems to be a connecting form for Globularia and Cernina. Tt has the columellar pad resembling Cernina. (Dall, Trans. Wag. Inst., vol. 3, 1892, p. 374, pl. 22, fig. 36). 9 Cossman, Mém. Soc. Roy. Malac. Belg., v. 23, 1888, p. 173. Type species by original designation, Ampullina willemati Desh. 2 Cossmann and Pissarro, Iconog., vol. 2, 1911, pl. 10, fig. 64—4 (as Ampullina 8.8.) ‘‘Cuisien,” Lower Eocene. % Globularia patula (Desh.) Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 13, 1924, p. 19, pl. 2, figs. 29-30 (as Ampullina s.s. = Globularia) Lutétien, Eocene. % Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 13, 1924, p. 19, pl. 2, fig. 21. % Ampullina crassatina (Lam.) Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 13, 1924, p. 22 pL. 3, figs. 13, 27 (as of the section Megatylotus Fischer 1887) = Ampullinopsts onrad. 9 Aldrich, Geol. Surv. Alab. Bull. 1, 1886, p. 33, pl. 5, fig. 10 (as Natica). Hor Bull. Amer. Pal., vol. 3, 1899, p. 92, pl. 12, fig. 1, (as Ampullina, ““Lig- nitie’’). 332 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII by A. mississippiensis (Conrad)®” which also has the channeled suture. The European and American Oligocene species may be identical. With Globularia s.s., this stock survived to the Mio- cene.?® These typical species of Ampullina have a swelling around the middle portion of the body whorl which is sometimes conspicuous enough to be called an angle. The same swelling is seen on some specimens of Amaurellina moragai lajollaensis n. subsp. but is hardly recognizable on typical A. moragai. The development of the carina on the shoulder of typical A. moragai, alters the outline of the body whorl so as to hide this medial swelling or ridge. This is not the only reason for its absence, however, for in some specimens of the non-carinated subspecies, the ridge is not developed. The type species of Amauropsis Moerch?® is a thin-shelled Arctic species, ‘“Natica” helicoides Johnston.!?® Amauropsis oregonensis (Dall)! from the Empire Formation (Pliocene)!®> seems to be a typical Amauropsis. ‘‘ Amauropsis’” wumpquaensis Dickerson!® from the Eocene of Oregon is probably a Crommium. The type of “ Amauropsis andersons’ Dickerson'™ is apparently a young speci- men of that species. ‘“Natica’ pinyonensis Dickerson'® and its possible synonym, ‘‘Polinices” susanaensis Nelson'® from the Martinez horizon, are Ampullina. ‘“Amauropsis’” martinezensis Dickerson!®is probably an Euspirocrommium although itissomewhat suggestive of the Cretaceous Pseudamaura. “Ampullospira’ susana- ensis Nelson!®® is probably an abnormal specimen of Dickerson’s species which has developed a prominent shoulder on the body whorl. Only one specimen is known. 9 Conrad, Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. Journ. (2), vol. 1, 1860, p. 114, pl. 11, fig. 10. Monotype species of Ampullinopsis Conrad, Amer. Journ. Conch. vol. 1, 1865, 27 > 98 Ampullina amphora Heilprin, Dall, U. S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 90, 1915, p. 108, pl. 11, fig. 5. Tampa silex beds, Ballast Pt., Florida. This fauna is now con- sidered Lower Miocene (Aquitanien). 9 Moerch, App. Rink’s Greenland, 1857, p. 81. Separate edition, 1857, p. 9. Dall, U. S. Geol. Surv. Prop. Pap. 59, 1909, p. 89. 100 Tryon, Man. Coch., v. 8, 1886, p. 53, pl. 22, fig. 31 = Amauropsis islandica (Gmelin). 101 Dall, U. S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 59, 1909, p. 91, pl. 3, fig. 7, as Ampullina (Amauropsts). 102 Howe, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 14, 1922, p. 91. 103 Dickerson, 1914b, p. 120, pl. 12, figs. 3a, b. 104 Dickerson, 1914b, p. 120, pl. 12, figs. 2a, b. 108 Dickerson, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 8, 1914, p. 302, pl. 29, fig. 5a, b. 106 Nelson, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 15, 1925, p. 421, pl. 55, fig. 1a, b, 2a, b. 107 Dickerson, 1914a, p.142, pl. 13, figs. 4a, b. Nelson, 1925, p. 419, pl. 54, fig. 5, 6. 108 Nelson, 1925, p. 420, pl. 54, fig. 7. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 333 AMPULLINA sensu lato Ampullina oviformis (Gabb). Plate XXI, fig. 10. Amauropsis oviformis Gabb, 1864, pp. 109, 225, pl. 19, fig. 63; 1869, p. 223; in Whitney, 1865, p. 207. Stoliczka, 1868, p. 295. Anderson, 1902, p. 28. Dickerson, 1914a, p. 142. Not Amauropsis oviformis? Arnold, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 395, p. 13, pl. 4, fig. 7 = Globularia hannibali (Dickerson). The specimen figured—no. 4256—is crushed dorso-ventrally and the outer lip is not quite complete. Height 30.5 mm.; width 23 mm. It is a little smaller than the holotype which is in the Museum of Paleontology No. 31391. Height 35.4 mm.; width 26.4 mm. Horizon, Cretaceous, “Chico Group;”’ locality, Tuscan Springs. “Nerita” oviformis Forbes has’? been placed under Euptycha,''’ and will not invalidate Gabb’s name. This species resembles Ampullina semitalis (deLoriol).!'t These Cretaceous species are at least, subgenerically removed from typical Ampullina. Pseudamaura™® is probably a related group but the type has a carinated shoulder and is represented in the Cretaceous of America by Pseudamaura stanton: (Cossmann)'® from the Pug- nellus sandstone of Colorado. Ampullina avellana (Gabb). Plate XXI, fig. 9. Lunatia avellana Gabb, 1864, pp. 105, 224, pl. 19, fig. 60; 1869, p. 222. Cooper, in Fairbanks, Amer. Jr. Sci. (3), vol. 45, 1893, p. 474; in Watts, Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. 3, 1894, p. 7. Stanton, 1894, pp. 439, 443, 445, 446; Journ. Geol., vol. 5, 1897, p. 598; 1895, pp. 16, 18. Anderson, 1902, pp. 38, 4 1, N is (Lunatia) avellana Grabau and Shimer, Ind. Foss., vol. 1, 1909, p. 717, g. 1039. Of seven specimens, the one figured most closely resembles Gabb’s figure, and is the lectotype. The callus is moderately thick, and practically ‘covers the umbilical region. The apex is broken. Height 21 mm.; width 17 mm. No. 4296. Horizon, “Shasta Group’; locality, Cottonwood Creek, north fork. Stanton (1895, p. 443) reported this species from the Horse- town of this section. 109 Forbes, Trans. Geol. Soc. Lond. (2), vol. 7, 1845, p. 122, pl. 12, fig. 13. 10 Stoliczka, 1868, p. 339. Meek, (Invert. Pal., 1876, pp. 282-283) proposed to replace this name with Eryptycha because of Euptychia, Huebner, 1816. 1 Cogsmann, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 13, 1924, p. 22, pl. 4, figs. 13-14. Upper Jura of France (Sequanien). 112 Fischer, Man. Conch. 1884, p. 767. Monotype Pseudomaura bulbiformis Sowerby. This is Natica bulbiformis Sowerby of the Gosau Cretaceous. 13 Stanton, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 106, 1893, p. 137, pl. 30, figs. 2-4. Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 13, 1924, p. 54 (as Ampullospira). Cossmann seems to have considered Pseudomaura synonymous with Ampullospira, but for some reason used the latter name, although Pseudomauwra has more than ten years priority. It is quite possible that both names will be useful. : 334 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII This species seems closely related to A. oviformis and may prove to be the young of that species. Superficially, it much resembles Amauropsis, a genus living in the North Atlantic, but it has a much heavier columella. It does not have the prominent shoulder of Ampullina pseudoalveata (Packard), but is probably related to it. AMAURELLINA “Bayle ™ Fischer, 1885 Amaurellina moragai n. sp. Plate XXVIII, fig. 3. Natica alveata Conrad, 1855, pp. 10, 19; 1857, pp. 318, 321, 328, pl. 2, figs. 8, a. Blake, Pac. R. R. Rep'ts., vol. 5, pt. 2, 1857, p. 164. Carpenter, Rep’t. Brit. Ad. Sci. (1863), 1864, pp. 589, 591. Gabb, Amer. Journ. Conch., vol. 2, 1866, p. 90. Hanna, Proc. Calif. Acad. Sei. (4), vol. 13, 1924, p. 168 (said to be an Ampullospira). Not Natica alveata Troschel, Arch. Nat. 1852, p. 159, pl. 5, fig. 3, p. 190. Amauropsis alveata Gabb, 1864, p. 110 (near Tején), p. 190, 225, pl. 10, fig. 59, pl. 21, fig. 111 (= ? A. moragaes lajollaensis n. subsp.)c Conrad, Amer. Journ. Conch. vol. 1, 1865, p. 363 (said to be a Globularia); ibid., vol. 2, 1866, p. 100 (said to be an Ampullina). Stoliczka, 1868, p. 300. Stanton, 1896, p. 1032, not pp. 1021, 1027; not, in Turner and Stanton, Amer. Geol., vol. 14, 1894, p. 95. Anderson, 1905, pp. 164(?), 166(?); 1908, p. 10(?), p. 15 (?). Dickerson, 1911, p. 174 (may be Amaurellina ig. Dickerson, 1914, p. 20 (not); 1914a, pp. 142, 170, not p. 77; 1914b, p. 120, not p. 115; 1915, p. 43, not p. 49, p. 51, not pl. 5, fig. 9 (= A. clarkz n. sp.); 1916, opp. p. 372 (not), not pp. 377, 378, 386, p. 421, not pp. 432, 438, p. 448 (in part), not pl. 38, fig. 7 (= A. moragai lajollaensis n. subsp.). Kew, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 12, 1919, p. 10, (?). Clark, 1921, p. 158 (in part), not pp. 149, 155. Packard, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 13, 1922, ~~ Pp. 429 (?). Anderson and Hanna, 1925, p. 119, 118, 40, 41, 43, pl. 6, fig. 2, pl. 7, fig. 1, pl. 15, fig. 17. Not Bowers, Calif. Min. Bur. 10th An. Rep’t 1890, p. 400. Not Anderson, 1902, pp. 28, 34. Not Arnold, U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 32, 1907, p. 540, pl. 39, fig. 8; U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 309, 1907, p. 224, pl. 26, pl. 26, fig. 8 (= A. moragai lajollaensis n. subsp.). Not Arnold U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull, 396, 1909, p. 13, pl. 4, fig. 21; ibid. Bull. 398, 1910, p. 71, pl. 26, fig. 21, (= A. clarki n. sp.). Not Arnold and Hannibal, 1913, pp. 569, 570, 572(?). Not Weaver, Univ. Wash. Publ. Geol., vol. 1, 1916, p. 24. Not Waring, 1917, pp. 50, 90, pl. 15, fig. 25 (= A. clarki, n. sp.). Not Clark, in Kew, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 753, 1924, pp. 25, 29-(= A. clarki, n. sp.). Lunatia (?) alveata Conrad, Amer. Journ. Conch., vol. 1, 1865, p. 26. Dall, Trans. Wag. Inst., vol. 3, 1892, p. 374 (“may be an Amauropsis’’). Ampullina alveata Conrad, Smiths, Misc. Coll. no. 200, 1866, p. 15. Euspira alveata Gabb, 1869, p. 223 (in part). Not Cooper, Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. baeat, p. 61;1896, p. 84 (?). White, U.S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 51, 1889, p.31 () : Ampullospira alveata Nelson, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol. v. 17, 1925, p. 420. Shell of medium size; protoconch not well preserved but ap- parently naticoid, shell with about seven whorls; spire angulated with a small carina at the shoulder, which is distinct on the last four whorls; body whorl inflated; incised spiral lines most con- spicuous near the suture but on some specimens extending over the 14 Packard, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 13, 1922, p. 429, pl. 35, figs. 1a, b, 3. ‘“This species is undoubtedly the same as that obtained at Tuscan Springs, Cali- fornia, and figured under the name of the Eocene species A. alveata Gabb.” I have not been able to find the figure referred to. \ 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 335 whole shell; aperture biangulate posteriorly, rounded anteriorly; inner lip covered with a thin callus; umbilicus almost closed; columella thickened showing only a trace of the rugose area of typical Ampullina; on some specimens it is entirely obliterated or covered with a thin layer of callus. Height of holotype no. 31387 Museum of Paleontology, 29.1 mm., width 22.5 mm. Horizon, Tejon, Eocene; locality, U. C. 7200, Tején. The typ- ical form is as yet, known only from Tejon. It seems-unfortunate to have to give up Conrad’s well-known name which is a homonym but it has been so abused by almost all later writers that it is probably just as well. The greater part of Gabb’s collection of this species is from Martinez—doubtless from the so-called Tején—and is named be- low, A. moragaz lajollaensis n. subsp. Part of the material, how- ever, is from Tejon and belongs to the typical form. I am unable to recognize the material from the other localities which Gabb cited. A. clarks is not in this collection, but it is in the California Geological Survey material in the Museum of Paleontology. Amauropsis “alocata’ Gabb Arnold! is obviously a typograph- ical error as suggested by Anderson and Hanna.!!¢ Young specimens, particularly of the subspecies described below, show the “siphonal fasciole”” ascending the umbilicus which seems to be analogous to the small ridge extending from the anterior part of the columella directly into the umbilicus on Amaurellina spirata (Lamarck)? the type species of Amauropsella “Bayle” Chelot,!8 and Amaurellina “Bayle” Fischer.'® Amaurellina is apparently the older name. The narrow umbilicus and high spire distinguish this genus from typical Ampullina. It would probably be better to name the San Diego specimens as the typical species, for that form is more widely distributed, and regard the Tejon form as the subspecies but in as much as the type locality of this species has always been Tejon it would probably cause some confusion to change it. Gabb suggested (1864, p. 190) that this species might be related 15 Arnold, U. S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 47, 1906, p. 14. 116 Anderson and Hanna, 1925, p. 119. 17 Cossmann and Pissarro, Iconog. Paris Bas. vol. 2, 1910-1913, pl. 11, fig. 64, ter 1 (as Amauropsella) Lutétien. 18 Chelot, Bull. Soc. Géol. Fran. 3rd. ser., vol. 13, 1885, p. 202. 119 Fischer, Man. Conch. 1885, p. 766. According to Cossmann (An. Soc. Roy. Malac. Belg., vol. 23, 1888, p. 176) Chelot’s article appeared first but since it contains a footnote referring to Amaurellina as having been already published by Fischer, Amaurellina must have priority. 336 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII to “Natica” gibboniana Lea*® but the holotype of that species which is in the Academy’s collections, is a Tylostoma.12 Amaurellina moragai lajollaensis n. subsp. Plate XXVIII, fig. 2. Amauropsis alveata Gabb, 1864, p. 110 (in part), pl. 19, fig. 59 (?), pl. 21, fig. 111; in Whitney, 1865, p. 26 (?). Merriam, Journ. Geol., vol. y 1897, p. 771. Arnold, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 309, 1907, p. 224, pl. 26, fig. 8; U. S. Nat. Mus. Proc., vol. 32, 1907, pl. 39, fig. 8. Anderson, 1908, p. 10 (Corral Hollow), p. 15 (near Domengine Ranch). Grabau and Shimer, Ind. Foss., vol. 1, 1909, p. 722, fig. 105 (?). Dickerson, 1916, pl. 38, fig. 7, p. 438 (in part): in Lawson, 1914, p. 9 (?). : This subspecies differs from the typical form in that the shoulder is a little wider and not carinate, and is generally more globose. Height, 32.5 mm.; width 25 mm.: holotype no. 31401, Museum of Paleontology. University of California locality no. 3976 “7-8 mi. N. of Ladrillo Station, in first canyon east of Rose Canyon, elevation 259 ft. M. A. Hanna and G. Vorbes.” Eocene of LaJolla Quadrangle, near San Diego—Domengine horizon. This form occurs with A. clark: n. sp. near La Jolla and at Ump- qua, Oregon, and at Martinez (Gabb’s coll., probably from the so-called Tejon). It has not yet been found at Simi unless it be represented by some poorly preserved material from locality 3311— the so-called Tejon. Amaurellina (Euspirocrommium) clarki n. sp. Plate XXVI, figs. 8, 9. Amauropsis alveata Arnold, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 396, 1909, p. 13, pl. 4, fig. 21: ibid. Bull. 398, 1910, p. 71, pl. 26, fig. 21. Waring, 1917, pp. 50, 90, pl. 51, fig. 25. Clark, Journ. Geol., vol. 29, 1921, pp. 149, 155, 158 (in part); in Kew, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull, 753, 1924, pp. 25, 29. Dicker- son, 1915, pl. 5, fig. 9. Not Gabb. Shell large, rather heavy; spire high, apex broken, 6% whorls ‘present—possibly nine originally—early whorls rounded and suture linear and slightly channeled; penultimate whorl flattened poster- iorly, shoulder rounded; body whorl with a distinct shoulder, sides slightly inflated, suture barely appressed; surface marked only with incremental lines, most prominent near the suture and inner lip; aperture large, biangulate posteriorly, rounded anteriorly; outer lip thin, broken, inner lip and umbilicus covered with a continuous callus. Height of holotype (fig. 8) Museum of Paleontology no. 120 Lea, Trans. Amer. Philos. Soc. (2), vol. 7, 1841, p. 256, pl. 9, fig. 10. 12t Sharpe, Journ. Geol. Soc. Lond., vol. 5, 1849, pp. 376-380, pl. 9. This genus was proposed for four new species from the Cretaceous of Portugal. 7'ylo- stoma ricordeana (d’Orb.) (Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 13, 1924, p. 62, pl. 4, fig. 3, pl. 5, fig. 18) probably belongs with them but it cannot be cited as the type of the genus because it was not mentioned by Sharpe. Since the type material is so poorly preserved, it would be well to examine it before fixing the type of the genus. Material from Tunis identified as one of Sharpe’s species has been figured. (Pervinquiére, Pal. Tunisienne, vol. 2, 1912, p. 53, pl. 4, fig. 9a, b). 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 337 31385 (incomplete) 42 mm.; width of body whorl, 31.3 mm. Width of specimen 31386, (fig. 9) 31.5 mm. Horizon, Eocene-Domengine at Simi Valley; locality, U. C. 7004, in Llajas Canyon. A more exact description of this locality will be given in a report of the gastropods of this region which is to be published in the University of California Bulletins of the Depart- ment of Geological Sciences. This species lacks the spiral lines of A. moragai n.sp. from Tejon and has a higher spire and more rounded whorls. This species is present in both the Santa Susana formation and the Domengine horizon and in the so-called Tejon (loc. 7198) in Simi Valley. It also occurs with the new subspecies A. moragaz lojollaensis in the San Diego Eocene, in the Domengine at Coalinga (loc. 672) and the south side of Mt. Diablo (U. C. loc. 124,727). Specimens re- sembling it are also found at Umpqua, Oregon (C. A. S. loc. 24) but they have a narrower shoulder and somewhat channeled suture. Internal casts, which have the tall spire and rounded early whorls of A. clarks, have been collected from the north side of Mt. Diablo, in what is probably the Domengine horizon. The specimen figured by Dickerson from Tej6n seems to belong to this species. It has a lower spire, but otherwise seems to be identical. However, the low spire, if constant, will mark it as an important subspecies characteristic of the Tejon, for it has not yet been discovered with typical A. clarks. It is rare in the Tején, and besides the figured specimen, which is adult, but four small speci- mens are known. A single specimen has been found in the shale facies of the Cowlitz Formation. - A. moragai is very common in the Tejon. The well-rounded spiral whorls and attenuated spire are charac- teristic of Fuspirocrommium. The rugose siphonal fasciole of Ampullina is lacking and the umbilicus is entirely absent in most species. While this genus is readily separated from typical Am- pullina, it seems to be closely related to Amaurellina. Amaurellina moragai closely resembles Euspirocrommium, though here the char- acteristically rounded shoulder of the FEuspirocrommium and the absence of spiral lines afford immediate separation. The persist- ance of this characteristic spire through the Eocene and Oligocene to the Miocene indicates its constant and important character— an importance which would hardly be suspected from an examina- tion of one or two species. The high spire of Amaurellina and 338 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII Euspirocrommium immediately separates them from Ampullina but all three groups are apparently related. A. (Euspirocrommium) clark: has a more prominent shoulder than either A. (E.) perovata (Conrad)?? from Claiborne, the type of Lupia Conrad? or A. (E.) acuminata Lamarck'* from France (Lutétien). Unfortunately or fortunately, there is a prior Lupia.'®> Euspiro- crommium!® is apparently the next available name. The type “Natica” elongata Michelotti was fixed by Cossmann.’?” The specific name is preoccupied, and may be replaced by A. (E.) degensis (Sacco).'?®* By some error, Cossmann later cited?® ‘“ Na- tica”’ acuminata Lamarck as the type, but that species was not mentioned by Sacco in 1890, though Sacco later (1891) placed it in this group. This group was called Ampullospira by Cossmann and Pissarro® but that name dates from 1897! and has a Juras- sic species for its type. Euspirocrommium survived to the Miocene in the Caribbean region'® and was also present in the Tertiary of Java.'®® Ampullina s., Globularia s.s. and Euspirocrommium are remarkable in that they are common Eocene genera which have survived to the Miocene in the Atlantic Ocean. The Ampullinae are represented in the Recent fauna by a single Philippine species, Gobularia (Cernina) fluctuata (Sowerby). This is in great contrast with their abundance in the Northern Hemi- sphere during the early Tertiary, where they are represented by 122 Conrad, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. i , vol. 3, 1846, p. 21, pl. 1, fig. 16. Harris, ibid., vol. a8, 1896, p. 474, pl. 19, fig. 3. 123 Conrad, Amer. Journ. Conch., vol. 1, 1865, p. 27. 124 Cossmann and Pissarro, Iconog. Paris Bas, Ro 2, 1913, pl. 11, fig. 64-4. 125 Robineau-Desvoidy, Hist. Nat. 1863. 1 have not seen this book. 126 Sacco, Bull. Mus. Zool. Anat. Comp. Torino. Vol. 5, 1890, p. 42. 127 Cossmann, An. Géol., vol. 8, 1891, p. 741. 128 Sacco, Moll. Tert. Pied., pt. 9, 1891, pp. 10-11, pl. 1, figs. 11, 12. Ton- griano (Ohgocene?), Italy. 129 Cogsmann and Peyrot, Act. Li Linn. Bord., vol. 70, 1918, p. 253. Coss- mann, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 13, 1924, p. 58. 130 Cossmann and Pissarro, Iconog. Paris Bas., vol. 2, 1913, pl. 11; Cossman, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 13, 1924, pp. 58-60. Euspirocrommaium considered a sec- tion of Ampullospira. 131 Harris Catal. Tert. Mollus. Brit. Mus., pt. 1, 182 “ Amauropsis” guppyt (Gabb), Pilsbry, Proc. Pos Nat. Sci. Phila. 1921, p. 386, pl. 34, figs. 25, 26, 27. Santo Domingo. Pilsbry remarked that the species was probably an Ampullina, or Lupia. 183 ““ Natica” bandongensis Min, Tert. Auf. Java, Leiden, 1879-1880, p. 82, pl. 18, fig. 15, 16:—Samml. Geol. R.-Mus. Leiden, n.s., vol. 1, 1895, p. 267, pl. 40, fig. 644 (compared with Ampullina fluctuata). 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 339 numerous genera and many species. On the other hand, the Naticidae, though well represented in the early Tertiary, are very abundant today. It seems better to recognize this all but extinct group as a separate family than to place it under the thriving Nat- icidae. It has been placed in the ‘“Euspiridae” by Cossmann, (1924) but Euspira is now used for a Naticoid shell. LACUNARIA Conrad 1866 Lacunaria striata (Gabb). Plate XXV, fig. 12a. Ampullina striata Gabb, 1869, pp. 161-162, 323, pl. 27, fig. 40. Not Cooper, in Fairbanks, Amer. J. Sci. (3), vol. 45, 1893, p. 476; 1894, p. 60. Stanton, 1896, p. 1022 “?”, 1025, 1029. Merriam, 1897, p. 770, 773 “conf.” Weaver, 1905, pp. 108 ‘‘conf,” 110 “conf.” Dickerson, 1911, pp. 173, 176; 1914a, pp. 73, 86 ‘“‘cf.,”’ 109 “cf.,” 113, 115. Marwick, Trans. New Zeal. Inst., vol. 55, 1924, p. 574 (suggested Globisinum). Natica (Gyrodes) lineata Dickerson, 1914a, pp. 75, 82, 110, 113, 118 (as Gyrodes), 141-142, pl. 13, fig. 3a. Not Natica lineata Lamarck, Anim. Sans Vert., vol. 6, pt. 2, 1822, p. 201. Gyrodes ? lineata Cossmann, Rev. Crit. Paléozool., vol. 18, 1914, p. 180. Natica lineata Waring, 1917, p. 87. Gardner, in Darton, Journ. Geol., vol. 29. 1921, p. 729 “ef”. Natica (Gyrodes) sp. Dickerson, 1914a, pl. 13, fig. 3b. Sinum dickersont Waring, 1917, pp. 72, 86-87, pl. 14, fig. 10. Nelson, 1925, p. 403 “not found by the writer.” Gyrodes insecuris Hanna, Proce. Calif. Acad. Sci. (4), vol. 13, 1924, p. 168 (new name); Nelson, 1925, opp. p. 402 (Martinez of Simi Valley). The lectotype is figured. Unfortunately, the columella is broken. There is a minute umbilicus. Height, 17.4 mm.; width, 15.7 mm. No. 4241. Horizon, Martinez (Paleocene); locality, Martinez. It is also present in the Paleocene near Simi Valley—Sinum dickersoni” Waring and ‘““Gyrodes insecurts Hanna’ Nelson—but the genus has not been found in later horizons. Dickerson and Waring have both redescribed this species under new names while Dickerson’s synonym, being also a homonym, was renamed by Hanna, who has thereby added another synonym to the list. Lacunaria striata may be recognized by its very fine wavy spiral lines being in this respect, much like the type of the genus! from which it differs in having a shorter spire. Lacunaria is closely re- lated to Globularia but is smaller and may be distinguished from it by its wavy spiral lines. 134 Conrad, Smiths. Mise. Coll. no. 200, 1866, p. 12. Type species Lacunaria alabamiensis (Whitfield) (Amer. Journ. Conch. vol. 1, 1865, p. 265, pl. 27, figs. 9-10, as of Natica (Girodes)—*Girodes” is considered a lapsus for Gyrodes since Whitfield later spelled it correctly—designated by Cossmann (An. Soc. Roy. Malac. Belg., vol. 23, 1888, p. 187). This species is from the Midway of Alabama. A new name ‘“Greggsia’’ has recently been proposed for it! (Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 13, 1924, p. 47, pl. 7, fig. 13-14). 340 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII CALYPTRAEIDAE CALYPTRAEA Lamarck 1799 Calyptraea diegoana (Conrad). Plate XXVII, fig. 15. Trochita diegoana Conrad, 1855, pp. 7, 17; 1857, pp. 319, 327, pl. 5, fig. 42; in Blake, Pac. R. R. Rep’t, vol. 5, pt. 2, 1857, p. 176. Carpenter, Rep’t. Brit. Assoc. Ad. Sci. “1863,” 1864, p. 590. ‘Like 7. ventricosa,; but may be Galerus contortus.” Gabb, 1869, p. 115. Calyptraea Diegoana Dall, Trans. Wag. Inst., vol. 3, 1892, p. 353. Not Gardner, in Darton, Journ. Geol, vol. 29, 1921, p. 741 “cf.” Not Galerus diegoanus Cooper, in Watts, Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. 3, 1894, pp. 54, 57, 59, 65. Galerus excentricus Gabb, 1864, p. 136, 228, pl. 20, fig. 95, pl. 29, fig. 232, a: 1869, p. 228. Stoliczka, 1868, pp. 316, 317. Marcou, 1876, p. 389. Cooper, 1894, p. 61; in Watts, Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. 3, 1894, pp. 10, 57. Anderson, in Diller, 1896, p. 460; 1905, p. 166. Stanton, 1896, pp. 1025, 1027. Arnold, 1906, p. 17 “?”, 19 “aff.” (?), 79 “aff. eccentricus” (typ. error) (?); 1909, p. 14, pl. 4, fig. 8; 1909a, p. 4 ““?”; 1910, p. 71, pl. 26, fig. 8. Dickerson, 1911, pp. 174, 177; 1913, pp. 264, 270, 273; 1914, pp. 20, 22; 1914a, pp. 74, 97, 101, 110, 113, 115; 1916, p. 489; in Lawson, 1914, p. 9. Bowers, Calif. Min. Bur. 10th. An. Rep’t, 1890, p. 400? (Cretaceous of Santa Ana Mts.). Dall, U. S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 59, 1909, p. 82 (sug- gested Sigapatella): in Diller, 1896, p. 460. Calyptraea excentrica Dickerson, 1914¢, p. 265; 1915, pp. 43, 49, 51; 1916, pp. 377, 407, 421, 426, 432, 438, 449, 454, 476. Weaver, 1916, p. 24 (“excentricus” by error?) p. 44; 1916a, p. 12. Arnold and Hannibal, 1913, pp. 569, 570, 572. Clark, 1915, pp. 15, 18, 19; 1921, pp. 138, 149 , ‘‘ef.,” 158. Wagner and Schilling, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol, vol. 14, 1923, p- 242, 243, 244. Nelson, 1925, p. 419. Anderson and Hanna, 1925, p- 121, 40, 41, 43. Calyptraea (Galerus) cf. excentrica Clark, 1918, p. 165. Galeropsis excentricus Conrad, Smiths. Misc. Coll. 200, 1866, pp. 11, 34. Tryon, Man. Conch., vol. 8, 1886, p. 103. Wilckens, Neu. Jahrb. Min. Beil. Band. 18, 1904, p. 196, 276. Calyptraea washingtonensis Weaver, 1916, p. 44, pl. 3, fig. 44 (Oligocene of Washington). Calyptraea calabasasensis Nelson, 1925, p. 419, pl. 54, figs. 8a, b (Martinez at Simi Valley). Conrad’s holotype, in the U. S. National Museum, is an inter- nal cast labelled “San Diego Miocene?” The matrix, however, is much like the Eocene of that region, which makes it probable that his species is the common Eocene Calyptraea so often listed as “Calyptraea excentrica.” The lectotype of C. excentrica, figured here, probably came from Tején. The matrix is badly weathered. Maximum diameter, 52.7 mm.; height (the apex is broken), 20.4 mm. No. 4235. Horizon, Eocene. This species occurs at almost every Eocene fossil locality from California to Washington, and also in the Oligocene. The Martinez (Paleocene) and Oligocene forms have been separated on characters which are too variable to be of sys- tematic importance. A more careful study of them is certainly de- sirable. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 341 Externally C. diegoana much resembles the living Australian species, C. calyptraeformis Lamarck® as was suggested by Dall (1909) but the edge of the platform of that species is concave while that of C. diegoana, as in typical Calyptraea®® and the living Cali- fornia species C. fastigiata Gould, is convex. C. lamellosa Desh. of the Paris Basin Eocene is a closely related species. : Calyptraea mamillaris Broderip. Plate XXXII, fig. 10. Calyptraea (Siphopatella ?) mamdllaris, Broderip, Trans. Zool. Soc. London, vol. 1, 1835, p. 201, pl. 28, fig. 5 (Quayaquil). Galerus mammillaris Tryon, Man. Conch. vol. 8, 1886, p. 120, pl. 34, figs. 64— 75, 78-81. Arnold, 1903, p. 307. Calyptraea fastigiata Gould, Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., vol. 2, 1846, p. 161 (Puget Sound). Dall, U. S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 112, 1921, p. 163. Trochita inornata Gabb, 1869, p. 51, 81, pl. 14, fig. 8a, ‘Upper Miocene near Half Moon Bay.” Merriam, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 2, 1896, p. 106: 1895 “?”. Anderson, in Arnold, 1906, p. 118 ‘“‘near.” Reagan, Kansas Acad. Sci. Geol. Pap., "vol. 22, 1909, pPp- Yr, 195, pl. 3, fig. 31 @. Mar- tin, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., "vol. 9, 1916, p. 243, “Pyrisima Formation, Pliocene, Half Moon Bay.” Clark, 1915, p- 421 “San Pablo.” Howe, 1922, opp. p. 93. Galerus inornatus Cooper, 1896, pp. 79, 82. Arnold, 1906, p. 27; 1909a, pp. 4, 6. Calyptraea inornata Clark, in Lawson, 1914, p. 12. ?Calyptraea (Trochita) inornata Dall, U. S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 59, 1909, p. 82, pl. 5, figs. 6, 11; pl. 6, fig. 4. The holotype of Trochita inornata Gabb is figured. Unfortun- ately the aperture is not exposed. Greatest diameter (the circum- ference is incomplete) 30.4 mm.; height (the apex is broken) 14 mm.: no. 4339. “Upper Miocene, near Half Moon Bay’ Purisma Formation, now considered Pliocene. The different forms of this species which occur along the American coast of the Pacific are probably better considered subspecies. A careful study of a large collection of the fossil forms may reveal some interesting extinct subspecies. CREPIDULIDAE CREPIDULA Lamarck, 1799 Crepidula pileum (Gabb). Plate XXIX, figs. 2, 3. Crypta (Spirocrypta) pileum Gabb, 1864, p. 137, 228, pl. 29, figs. 233, a, b. Stoliczka, 1868, p. 317. Spirocrypta pileum Conrad, Smiths. Mise. Coll. 200, 1866, p. 11. Gabb, 1869, p. 288, “Ft. Tejon and New Idria.”” ? Bowers, 10th An. Rep’t. Calif. Min. Bur. 1890, p. 400. Cooper, 1897, p. 85. Spirocrypta (Crypta) ileum (?) Merriam, 1895. 15 Tryon, Man. Conch., vol. 8, 1886, p. 122, pl. 35, figs. 96-99. 136 Lamarck, Mém. Soc. 'd’Hist. Nat. rs 1799, p. 78. Monotype ‘Patella’ chinensis Linn. 342 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII Spirocrypta pileus Fischer, Man. Conch. 1885, p. 758. Crepidula (Spirocrypta) pilewm Tryon, Struct. and Syst. Conch., vol. 2, 1883, p. 213, pl. 64, fig. 78. Dickerson, 1916, pp. 438, 448, 489. Crepidula pileum Dall. Trans. Wag. Inst., vol. 3, 1892, p. 358. Arnold and Hannibal, 1913, p. 569, (Washington Eocene). Dickerson, 1915, pp. 43, 49, 51, (Cowlitz and Tejon); 1916, p. 421. Clark, 1921, p. 155 (pilium “by error). Anderson and Hanna, 1925, pp. 40, 43, 122, PI. 13, fig. 7. Crepidula tnornata Dickerson, 1916, p. 432, 489, pl. 38, figs. 5a, b, (near Coalinga). Anderson and Hanna, 1925, p. 122, 43. \ Crepidula n. sp., Dickerson, 1915, pl. 5, figs. 6a, b. Crepidula dickersoni Weaver and Palmer, 1922, p. 31, pl. 11, fig. 2, pl. 12, fig. 9 (Cowlitz). One of Gabb’s figured types is here illustrated. It shows the septum and is taken for the lectotype, no. 4221 (fig. 3). Length, 15.3 mm.; width, 10.7 mm. Length of no. 4221a (fig. 2), 12 mm.; height, 5 mm. The two other specimens figured by Gabb (pl. 29, fig. 223, b) are in the Museum of Paleontology and were doubtfully recognized by Merriam (1895)—no. 31397 and 31398. Horizon, Tejon, Eocene: locality, Tejon. Though often col- lected in the Eocene, this species has not been found in the Martinez (Paleocene). This species is the type of Spirocrypta Gabb but it is so similar to the type of Crepidula®? that the name is not used. The sinuosity of the edge of the septum is slightly more pronounced than that of typical Crepidula. The Cowlitz and Coalinga forms though de- scribed as new species, appear to be identical with C. pileum. “C. tejonensis” Dickerson (1916, p. 448), is a nomen nudum. —- HIPPONICIDAE HIPPONIX de France 1819 Hipponix dichotomus (Gabb). Plate XXIII, fig. 7a. Helcion dichotoma Gabb, 1864, p. 141, 228, pl. 21, fig. 104; 1869, p. 230; in Whitney, 1865, p. 203. Anderson, 1902, p. 29 (‘‘Helcyun’’ by error). Helcion dichotomus Cooper, 1894, p. 61. The specimen figured, which is the holotype, is the only one in the collection. Maximum diameter, 5 mm.; height, 2.5 mm., no. 4252. Horizon, Cretaceous, “Chico Group’; locality, Texas Flat. The sinuous concentric lines of this species suggest Hipponiz.138 137 Lamarck, Mém. d’Hist. Nat. Paris, 1799, p. 78. Monotype Patella fornicata L. . 138 de France, Bull. Sci. Soc. Philom. Paris, 1819, pp. 8, 9. This paper was signed ‘“H. de Bv.” (de Blainville). Type species ‘‘ Patella” cornucopia Lamarck (Gray, P.Z.S. 1847, p. 157) a species in the Eocene of the Paris Basin (Cossmann and Pissarro, Iconog., vol. 2, 1913, pl. 12, fig. 74-1). 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 343 ARCHITECTONIDAE (Solariidae) ARCHITECONICA ‘‘ Bolten" Roeding, 1798 (Sotarium Lam. 1799) Architectonica hornii Gabb. Plate XXX, fig. 13. Architectonica Hornit Gabb, 1864, pp. 117-118, 226, pl. 29, figs. 224, a, b: 1869, p. 224. Harris, Science, vol. 22, 1893, p. 97 (said to be a Solarium amoenium). Cooper, in Fairbanks, Amer. J. Sci. (3), vol. 45,1893, p. 476; Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. 4, 1894, p. 60, (near False Bay, San Diego). Not Cooper, in Watts, Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. 3, 1894, p. 10, = A. weaver: Dickerson ( fide Dickerson 1913). Anderson, 1905, p. 164, ’ (Avenal Sand- stones, Coalinga). Arnold, U. S. Nat. Mus. Proc., vol. 34, 1908, p. 375. Dickerson, 1913, pp. 259, 287: 1915, p. 43: 1916, PD. 421, 426 (cf)? ?, 427, 432 (?), 448 (at least, in part), 7, i87, Anderson and Hanna, 1925, p. 123, 43, pl. 8, fig. 2, pl. 9, fig. Solarium "hornii Stoliczka, 1368, x 250. Dall, Trans. Wag. Inst., vol. 3, 1892, p. 327. This species has a prominent double keel. The third uppermost rib, mentioned and illustrated by Gabb, is not prominent, and though present on the lectotype which is figured, it is absent from most specimens. The umbilicus is bordered by two serrated ridges as on typical Architectonica. Width of lectotype, 11.8 mm., no. 4223. Anderson and Hanna mentioned a specimen 15.4 mm. wide. Horizon, Tejon, Eocene; locality, Tejon. According to Anderson (1905), this species occurs in the Avenal Sandstones at Coalinga. Dickerson (1916) listed it from Coalinga and Cooper from San Diego. It is known with certainty only from Tejon. This species may often be recognized by its distinct crenulations located just below the suture. A. weaver: Dickerson,’ from Marys- ville Buttes, is crenulated both above and below the suture and probably belongs to the subgenus Climacopoma. A. hornii is closely related to A. amoena (Conrad)® from Clai- borne, but that species has a spiral line halfway between the keel and the umbilical carena, and the spiral line just above the keel is distinct. Dall recognized this group as belonging to the typical recent Architectonica' and they are certainly closely related to it. Architeconica (Stellaxis) cognata Gabb. Plate XXVIII, figs. 7, 8. Architectonica cognata Gabb, 1864, , 226, pl. 20, fig. 72, 72a, ¢, (not 72b); Amer. Journ. Conch., vol. bY 1866, p- 87; 1869, p. 204, (in ppd Harris, Science, vol. 22, 1803, p- 97 (said to be Solarium alveatum). Stan- ton 1896, p- 1021. Dickerson, 1913, p. 287, not 1915, p. 43; 1916, p. 377 (cf. Y: pp- 386, 392 (cf.), p. 448 (in ah pp. x7. 487, not. p. 421. Ander- son and Hanna, 1925, p. 124 ih So Stoliczka, os p- 250. Dall, Trans. Wag. Inst., vol.¢8, 892, p. 32 nl cognata (Conrad), Waring, a p- 98. 139 Dickerson, 1913, p. 287, pl. 13, figs 140 Harris, Conrad’s ih Shells, 1853. Sn 18 Roeding, Mus. Bolt. pt. 2, 1798, p. 78. Bir “Trochus’ perspectivus (Gray P.Z.S. 1847, p. 151). 5d 344 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII The original figure of this species is evidently based on a number of specimens all belonging to the one species. Casts show the um- bilical carina to be like that of typical Stellaxis, i.e., heavily ser- rated. Gabb’s figures are interchanged; 72b is A. alveata, although there is really only one spiral line below the keel of that species as on A. cognata. Width of the lectotype, 13 mm., no. 4224 (fig. 8). This specimen has the surface of the shell preserved. A larger specimen from the Museum of Comparative Zoology is also figured no. 27811 (fig. 7), width, 21 mm. The largest specimen in the col- lection is 30 mm. wide. Locality, probably from the so-called Tejon horizon (Eocene) at Martinez or a few miles south. One of Gabb’s specimens may have come from the Domengine at Coalinga. In their revision of the Tejon fauna, Anderson and Hanna did not find it, nor have I been able to find it at Tejon. It occurs in the Domengine horizon at Simi Valley. On the later whorls of the larger specimens (30 mm. wide) from Simi Valley, the umbilicus is smooth. A single, instead of a double keel, a spiral line above the keel, and the absence of a narrow sulcus surrounding the umbilicus im- mediately distinguish this species from A. horniz of the Tejon. Gabb, Dall, and Harris have compared this species to A. alveata (Conrad), from Claiborne, which is the type of the group Stellaxis Dall.*® There is a medial line of fine crenulations on the umbilical walls of that species which is lacking on A. cognata. Stellaxis has not been recognized'* in Europe though possibly A. bistriata (De- shayes)!# (Cuisien-Yprésien) is best considered such. A. bellensis (Harris) from the Wilcox of Alabama is evidently a Stellaxis. Architectonica (?) veatchii Gabb. Plate XXI, fig. 14a. Architectonica Veatchis Gabb, 1864, pp. 116, 225, pl. 19, fig. 71; 1869, p. 224: in Whitney, 1865, p. 207. Dall, Trans. Wag. Inst., vol. 3 1892, p. 330 (“Should be referred to the Trochidae. LED Anderson, 1902, p- 29 (prob- ably after Gabb). Of the two specimens in the collection the one here figured is the better. Just a small fragment of the shell is preserved. The peri- phery is somewhat rounded. Above it, all the spiral lines are 122 Harris, Republ. Conrad’s Fossil Shells, ete., 1893, p. 47, pl. 17, fig. 3. 14 Dall. Trans. Wag. Inst., vol. 3, 1892, p. 323 14 Cossmann, Essais Pal. Comp. .s vol. 10, 1915, p. 169. Cossmann was mis- taken in supposing A. texana Gabb (Eocene of Texas) to be a Stellaxis. It is, as Dall has pointed out, (1892, p. 329), a ‘‘ Patulazis’ Dall 1892 (= Climacopoma Fischer 1885). 14 Cossmann and Pissarro, Iconog., vol. 2, 1910-13, pl. 16, fig. 104-2. 146 Harris, Bull. Amer. Pal., vol. 3, 1899, p. 82, pl. ii fig. 7 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 345 beaded, but those on the posterior half of the body whorl are coarser. The base is covered with fine spiral lines. Diameter of the body whorl (internal cast) 11 mm. No. 4267. Horizon, Cretaceous, “Chico Group’; locality, Tuscan Springs. Until better material is available, it seems best to leave this species as it was originally proposed. Two impressions of fragments of the ornamentation of this species are in the Museum of Paleontology. They were labelled by Gabb and are believed to be part of the type material. Since it is reason- ably certain that all the type material of this species has been found, the specimen figured here is taken for the lectotype for it best represents—however inadequately—this species. FOSSARIIDAE LYSIS Gabb 1864 Lysis duplicosta Gabb. Plate XXI, fig. 7a. Lysis duplicosta Gabb, 1864, p. 138, 228, pl. 21, figs. 98a, b, ¢: 1869, p. 229. Stoliczka, 1868, p. 321. Tryon, Struct. and Syst. Conch., v. 2, 1884, p. 112 pl. 44, figs. 25, 26, “I . . . do not hesitate to refer it to the Purpurae:” p- 208, “may be related to Velutina.”” Fischer, Man. Conch., 1885, p. 768 (said to be near Eunaticina). Merriam, 1895. Anderson, 1902, p. 29. Cossmann, Es. Pal. Comp., vol. 5, 1903, p. 70 (near Fossarus); vol. 13, 1924, p. 173, pl. 21, fig. 6 (as a subgenus of Micreschara, 1891). There are two specimens labelled “types”; the better is figured. It is very poorly preserved. Length of aperture, 8 mm. No. 4242. Although these specimens are labelled “types” no. 11975 of the Museum of Paleontology is plainly the holotype. It has the peculiar spiral lines shown in the original figure. The body whorl has about eight of these spiral lines. The broadly depressed um- bilical region is bordered by a sharp keel. Length, 13.2 mm. It has been recognized as the type by Merriam (1895). Horizon, Cretaceous, “Chico Group;”’ locality, Texas Flat. This species is the type of Lysis. The genus has been recognized inthe Cretaceous of the San Juan Islands,” in the Santa Ana Mts.!8 _.and it may possibly be present at San Diego."® Lysis oppanus White from ‘Pence’s Ranch’ is probably closely related to, if not identical with L. duplicosta. Conrad suggested! that Lysis was related to Carinorbis.’? Tt, at least, belongs to the Fossari- 147 Whiteaves, Geol. Surv. Can. Mesoz. Foss., 1903, p. 167. us Packard, 1922, p. 431, pl. 37, fig. 2, 3. 149 Cooper, 1894, p. 46, pl. 3, fig. 43. 150 White, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 51, 1889, p. 17, pl. 4, figs. 14, 15. 1 Conrad, Amer. Journ. Conch., vol. 2, 1866, p. 100. — 12 Dall, Trans. Wag. Inst., vol. 3, 1892, p. 322, pl. 18, fig. 3a (considered it a Fossarus). 346 ‘PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII tdae. An unnamed recent species in the Academy’s Collections, from Singapore, much resembles it. TLITTORINIDAE LITTORINA sensu lato Littorina remondii Gabb. Plate XXXII, fig. 5. Littorina Remondii Gabb, 1866, p. 14, pl. 2, fig. 23, a; 1869, p. 80; in Whitney, 1865, p. 32. Arnold, 1906, pp. 24, 73 ‘“Litorina” by error? Weaver, 1909, p. 254. Clark, in Lawson, 1914, p. 12; 1915, pp.-403, 405, 422, 425, 484, 560, pl. 65, fig. 13. Four specimens are labelled in Gabb’s handwriting ‘dupl. types, Pliocene, Kirker’s Pass Cal.” Since better specimens of the original material may be found this specimen is figured only as an example though it may later be chosen for the lectotype. The spiral lines are wider near the angle and smaller and closer together on the base and on the posterior portion of the body whorl. Height (incomplete) 8.5 mm.; width 7.6 mm.; no. 4334. Locality, Kirkers Pass. This species has been identified in the San Pablo horizon, Upper Miocene (Clark). PLEUROCERIDAE ELIMIA sensu lato Elimia veatchii Gabb. Plate XXI, fig. 5. Turritella Veatchit Gabb, 1864, pp. 133, 227, pl. 20, fig. 90; in Whitney, 1865; p- 207; 1869, p. 228. Stanton, in Turner, U. S. Geol. Surv. 14th An. Rep’t., 1894, pt. 2, p. 460. Not Merriam, 1895. Anderson, 1902, p. 30. The holotype is figured. It has twenty axial ribs on the body whorl and fifteen spirals. Only eight spirals are visible on the penul- timate whorl. The outer lip is broken. Since the columella is without callus, Gabb’s reference to an incrusted inner lip must refer to some other specimen which is no longer with the type. Height (incomplete), 20 mm. ; width, 8.7 mm.; no. 4293. Horizon, Cretaceous ‘‘ Chico Group;”’ locality, Tuscan Springs. The Museum of Paleontology has specimens labelled by Gabb as this species which resemble “ Mesostoma (?)”’ intermedium White- aves! from the Cretaceous of Sucia Island. The original desecrip- tion of the inner lip was probably based on one of these specimens. One of them has been cited by Merriam (1895) as the original from which the type figure was taken but, in comparison with the specimen figured here, it differs greatly from the original figure. It might be claimed that this material, being part of the type ma- 153 Whiteaves, Meso. Foss., vol. 1, 1903, p. 361, pl. 43, fig. 4. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 347 terial, was available as a lectotype and was so chosen by Merriam but it is plain from Merriam’s brief introduction to his list of type specimens, that he was identifying ‘originals for the figures . . .” and not designating types. Most workers would consider the figured specimen, the holotype, to have precedence over all later designations. Were it not possible to recognize the holotype of this species there would be no reason for not choosing Merriam’s specimen as the lectotype. This species is not a typical Elimia’® but seems to be related to these river shells which are better known as Goniobasis:'® The genus has been’recognized in the Eocene of Washington. THIARIDAE (Melaniidae) LOXOTREMA Gabb 1868 Loxotrema turritum Gabb. Plate XXVI, fig. 3, 4. . Loxotrema turrita Gabb, Amer. Journ. Conch., vol. 4, 1868, p. 147, pl. 14, fig. 21; 1869, pp. 168, 227, pl. 28, fig. 49. Cooper, 1894, p. 61 (San Diego Eocene). Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 6, 1904, p. 103 (suggested Paryphostoma = Kielostoma Desh.). Arnold, 1909, p. 14, p. 113, pl. 4, fig. 17; 1910, pp. 71, 285, pl. 26, fig. 17 (Coalinga). Arnold and Hannibal, 1913, p. 572 (Glide, Oreg.). Dickerson, 1913, p. 285; 1914b, p. 115; 1916, p. 439 (in part), p. 450. Clark, in Kew, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 753, 1924, p- 29 (““Tejon’’ at Simi). ““ Loxotrema turrita’” Anderson and Hanna, 1925, pp. 104, 44. So tiintnn (Loxotrema) turrita Tryon, Struct. Conch., vol. 2, 1883, p. 196, pl. 60, fig. 95. Loxotrema turritum Fischer, Man. Conch. 1884, p. 678 (considered a sub- genus of Struthiolaria). Specimen no. 4228 (fig. 4) is labelled “dupl. type.” It is ob- viously Gabb’s species and is taken for the lectotype. Specimen no. 27826 of the Museum of Comparative Zoology collection, from the type locality, is figured (fig. 3) to show the sinuous growth lines. Height of lectotype (incomplete) 38.4 mm.; width 17.3 mm.; width of no. 27826, 15.3 mm. ; : Locality “ten miles west of Griswold’s;” horizon, Eocene, prob- ably from the Domengine horizon. The species also occurs at San Diego and at Glide, Oregon (Arnold and Hannibal, and Dicker- son). It is apparently a brackish water form. It occurs at Simi Valley in strata referred to the Tejon by Clark (1924) but the 4 H. and A. Adams, Genera Recent Mollusca, v. 1, 1854, p. 300. Type species Melania acutocarinata Lea (Pilsbry, Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. Proc. 1896, p. 496). This group is discussed by Pilsbry in his manuseript on New York mollusca which is soon to be published. : 155 Lea, Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. Proc., 1862, p. 262. . 1 Weaver and Palmer, Univ. Wash. Publ. Geol., v. 1, no. 3, 1922, p. 44, pl. 12, fig. 2, 3—“Goniobasis” hannibali. 348 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII evidence for the correlation of these strata with the Tejon sensu stricto does not appear to me to be conclusive. It has yet to be found at Martinez or at Mt. Diablo; its absence from the Tejon is probably of stratigraphic importance. This is the only known species of the genus Loxotrema. It much resembles the Melanids and may be related to Pyrgulifera. Dr. Pilsbry has suggested that it is related to the tropical American Melanids. Ketlostoma'? has little in common with Loxotrema, having practically vertical growth-lines. TURRITELLIDAE TURRITELLA Lamarck, 1799 Turritella chicoensis Gabb. Plate XXI, fig. 1. Turritella Chicoensis Gabb, p. 1864, pp. 133-134, 227, pl. 21, fig. 91; 1869, p. 228. Cooper, in Fairbanks, Amer. J. Sci. (3), vol. 45, 1893, p. 474; 1894, p. 63 (in part): 1896, p. 85 (?). Merriam, 1895. Anderson, 1902, pp. 30, 34, 38. Arnold, U. S. Nat. Mus. Proc., vol. 34, 1908, p. 358. Dickerson, 1913, p. 285. Waring, 1917, pp. 57, 69, pl. 9, fig. 12 (Calabasas Quad.). Not Cooper, in Watts, Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. 3, 1894, p. 10 = 7. merriams fide Dickerson, 1913, p. 259. Turritella (Haustator) chicoensis Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 9, 1912, p- 117. The specimen figured is the only specimen of this species in the collection. There are four prominent spiral lines besides the keel; the anterior two are larger, and farther apart. The interspaces and probably the primary spirals are covered with numerous fine spiral lines. Height (incomplete), 27. mm.; width, 14.4 mm.; no. 4268. The holotype of this species is no. 12124 in the Museum of Paleontology. It was recognized by Merriam (1895). It is a fragment of three whorls as shown in the original figure. Height, 25 mm.; width, 14+ mm. Horizon, Cretaceous, ‘Chico Group;” locality, Chico Creek, Butte Co. Turritella pescaderosensis Arnold (1908, p. 358, pl. 31, fig. 7) from San Mateo Co., is probably better considered a subspecies of this form. . Turritella seriatimgranulata Gabb, not Roemer. Plate XXI, fig. 2. Turritella seriatum-granulata Gabb, 1864, p. 132, 227 (in part), pl. 20, fig. 88; 1869, p. 227 (in part), not p. 263. Bowers, Calif. Min. Bur. An. Rep’t., 1890, p. 400 (?). Stanton, 1893, p. 252 ‘“Gabb, not Roemer,” p. 255 ‘“?”. Merriam, 1895. Anderson, 1902, p. 30. Not Roemer, Kreidebild. von Texas, 1852, p. 39, pl. 4, figs. 12a, b. Not Cragin, 4th An. Rep’t Geol. Surv. Texas, 1893, pp. 231, 232. 187 Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 12, 1921, p. 70, pl. 2, figs. 76-78 (as Pary- phostoma). ‘ 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 349 Turritella (Mesalia) seriatim-granulata Grabau and Shimer, Ind. Foss., vol. 1, 1909, p. 729, fig. 1058. Gabb mentioned three specimens from Tuscan Springs but there is only one fragment in the collection; thisis here figured. It has four beaded, widely spaced spiral lines and some finer secondary lines. It is probably not related to the Texas species. Width of whorl, 5.8 mm., no. 4292. Horizon, Cretaceous, ‘Chico Group’; locality, Tuscan Springs. Gabb’s figured specimen was recognized by Merriam (1895) and is now in the Museum of Paleontology. It is small and not well preserved, no. 31399. A new name. is probably necessary but it should be based on better material. Turritella uvasana Conrad subsp. Plate XXVI, fig. 16; text-fig. 3. Turritella wasana Gabb, 1864, p. 134 (in part), 227, pl. 21, fig. 92, 1869, p. 228 (in part). Conrad, Amer. Journ. Conch., vol. 1, 1865, p. 363, ‘‘is an Eocene species.” Turner, Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., vol. 2, 1891, pp. 392, 395. Cooper, in Watts, Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. 3, 1894, p. 62 B: Stanton, 1896, p. 1021 (?), p. 1022, p. 1026 (?). Merriam, Journ. Geol., vol. 5, 1897, p. 771. Anderson, 1902, p. 166; 1908, p. 10 (Corral Hollow), p. 15. Dickerson, 1911, p. 174; 1913, p. 287(?), 1914, p. 22; 1916, p. 372, p. 377, p. 379, p. 386, not p. 421, p. 428, p. 434(?), not pp. 439, 441, p. 452 (in part), not pp. 460, 500, 501, not pl. 42, fig. 5; in Lawson, 1914, p. 9. Clark, 1921, p. 139(?). Not Turritella wvasana Conrad, 1855, pp. 7, 10~ 11; 1857, pp. 318, 321-322, pl. 2, fig. 12. Not Anderson and Hanna, 1925, pp. 126-127, pl. 11, figs. 5, 6(?), pl. 12, fig. 9. Not Turritella (Haustator) wasana Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 9, 1912, p. 117. Not T'urritella wvasana White, Rep’t U. S. Geol. Surv. West 100th Merid., vol. 4, 1877, p. 123, pl. 18, figs. 11a, b, =T. white: Stanton, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 106, 1893, p. 130. This subspecies differs from the typical in the development of a faint collar on the posterior portion of the later whorls. The collar is due to a slight con- striction just anterior to the suture. This difference is very slight but considering the different associations of the two forms, it seems well to keep it in mind. Height (incomplete), 43 mm.; width, 10.5 mm.; no. 4285. Locality, Martinez. Prob- ably from the so called Tejon =Domengine horizon. Gabb’s specimens are labelled “Tejon and Martinez,” but 4 Lo mek hb eB ’ 350 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII of them, including the one figured, are from one locality—a light brown sandstone—and the fifth is from a fine gray sandstone. Typical T. uvasana—the type is in the U. S. National Museum, is from Tejon. T. sargeanti Anderson and Hanna, which occurs with it is usually quite distinet, though some specimens seem to form a connecting link with 7. wvasana. 1 think it is best regarded as a variety of 7. wwasana. It is this variety rather than the typical form which is the important one for it has not yet been found in other localities and its presence should be a strong indication of the Tején horizon. Subspecies or varieties of 7. uvasana are known from most Eocene localities in California and some of them are so similar to the typical that better collections may show them to be identical. The growth lines of 7. wvasana are like those of Guillaume’s “groupe de 7. hybrida.” As suggested by Anderson and Hanna, it is allied to 7. terebellata, a Lutétien species, which belongs to this group. On T. terebellata, the anterior spirals are wider apart, and more prominent. In describing 7. uwvasana, Conrad compared it to T. abrupta Conrad, a closely related species from Claiborne, which also has the growth lines of this group. This group is apparently without a systematic name for most of the species have been called Haustator, and they are probably best considered a section of that subgenus. It has been suggested®® that T. gatunensis Conrad is related to T. wvasana but that species has quite a different spiral sculpturing and the growth lines resemble those of Turritella sensu stricto.s® Turritella inezana Conrad Plate XXXI, fig. 7. Turritella inezana Conrad, Pac. R. R. Rept., vol. 7, 1857, p. 195, pl. 8, fig. 4; in Antisell, ibid., p. 73. Gabb, in Whitney, 1865, p. 135; 1869, p. 81. Cooper, 1896, p. 83. Arnold, 1907, pp. 14, 17, pl. 41, figs. 4, 5 (‘“ineziana’’ by error); 1909a, p. 4, pl. 2, fig. 38 (‘“‘ineziana” by error); 1909, p. 19; 1910, p. 87; U. S. Nat. Mus. Proc., vol. 32, 1907, pp. 528, 532, pl. 51, fig. 4, fig. 3?; ibid., vol. 34, 1908, p. 350, pl. 34, fig. 6. Smith, 1912, pp. 165, 177, 179; in Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. 69, 1914, Folio, pl. 1, fig. 28. Anderson and Martin, 1914, pp. 30, 44. Dickerson, Univ. Cal. Pub. Geol., vol. 8, 1914, p. 268. Waring, Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. 69, 1914, p. 422. Gardner, in Darton, Journ. Geol., vol. 29, 1921, p. 739, 740 “cf.” (in- eziana by error). Kew, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 753, 1924, pp. 37, 45, “cf.” 46, 47 (“‘ineziana’ by error). Woodford, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 15, 1925, p. 178, 179, 180. Nelson, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 15, 1925, p. 369. 158 Dall, Trans. Wag. Inst., vol. 3, 1892, p. 310. 159 Lamarck, Mém. Soc. d’Hist. Nat. Paris, 1799, p. 74. Monotype ‘Turbo terebra Linn. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 351 Turritella hoffmanii Gabb, 1866, p. 14, pl. 2, fig. 24; 1869, p. 80. Watts, Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. 3, 1894, p. 55. Not Ashley, Journ. Geol., v. 3, 1895, p. 438 “San Francisco Sandstones” = 7. pescaderoensis fide Arnold, 1908, p. 358. Cooper, 1896, p. 83. Merriam, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 3, 1904, pp. 379, 380: Trans. Amer. Phil. Soc., n.s., vol. 22, 1915, p. 15. Arnold, 1906, pp. 19, 22 “cf”, 69, “cf” 70, 73, 79, 93 “cf,” 94; 1909, expl. pl. 2, fig. 38 (said to = 7. ‘“ineziana’). Hamlin, U. S. Geol. Surv. Water Sup. Pap. 89, 1904, p. 14 “?” (Vaqueros). Smith, 1912, p. 165 (said to = T. inezana). Gardner, in Darton, Journ. Geol., vol. 29, 1921, pr 741, Yel.) There are three specimens of 7. hoffman in the box labelled “type” in Gabb’s handwriting. Since the type figure is evidently based on two of them the one figured here is the lectotype. Length 59 mm.; width 29 mm.; no. 4324. “From a white Miocene limestone in the extreme southern corner of the Maxima Martinez Rancho, Santa Clara County.” The Museum of Paleontology has two specimens of this type material. The figured specimen of Turritella inezana is unfortunately lost. A specimen (no. 13344) in U. S. National Museum which, according to the label is from Santa Inez Mts. and was identified by T. A. Conrad, is accepted as the neotype. This specimen is incomplete and poorly preserved but is very similar to Gabb’s material and is believed to be conspecific with it. T. inezana is the guide fossil of the Vacqueros horizon which is now generally accepted as the beginning of the Miocene sensu lato in California.6° Turritella (Haustator ?) infragranulata Gabb. Plate XXV, fig. 13. Turritella infra-granulata Gabb, 1864, pp. 212-213, pl. 32, fig. 279; 1869, p. 227. Stanton, 1896, pp. 1022, 1024, 1025, 1029, 1044, pl. 66, fig. 3. Merriam, Journ. Geol., vol. 5, 1897, pp. 770, 771, 773. Weaver, 1905, pp. 109, 111. Dickerson, 1911, pp. 174, 176; 1914 a, p . 74, 86, 87, 99, 111, 113, 151, pl. 13, figs. 9a, b; 1914 ¢, p. 265 (Santa Ana Mts.). Not Waring, 1917, pp. 46 “?”, 47, 89, 91, pl. 15, fig. 20. Spieker, Johns Hopk. Stud. Geol. 3, 1922, p. 63. The holotype is figured. There are about 24 crenulations on the angle of the last whorl. The growth lines are not: well preserved. Height (incomplete), 39 mm. ; width of last whorl, 14 mm. ; no. 4234. Locality, “Near Martinez.” This is a common species in the Martinez (Paleocene) horizon. It has not yet been found at Simi Valley. The specimen figured as such by Waring seems to be some other species. 160 Merriam, Trans. Amer. Phil. Soc., n.s., vol. 22, 1915, p. 14-25. 352 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII The growth lines, though indistinct, suggest Haustator,'®! a sub- genus which is very common in the early Tertiary.!62 Turritella (Haustator) pachecoensis Stanton. Turritella Saffordii Gabb, 1864, p. 135, 227 (in part), pl. 21, fig. 93; Amer. Journ. Conch., vol. 2, 1866, p. 89; 1869, p. 228 (in part). White, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 15, 1885, p. 28. Anderson and Hanna, 1925, p. 50 “‘un- doubtedly Cretaceous.” Not Gabb, Phil. Ac. Nat. Se. Jn. (2), vol. 4, 1860, p. 392, pl. 68, fig. 12. Not Watts, Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. 3, 1894, p. 62 = ? T'. anderson: Dickerson. Not Stanton, 1896, p. 1044. Fond (Haustator) Saffordi Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 9, 1912, p. 11 Turritella pachecoensis Stanton, 1896, pp. 1022, 1025, 1029, 1043-1044, pl. 66, figs. 1, 2 (new name). Merriam, Journ. Geol., vol. 5, 1897, p. 773. Not Anderson, 1902, pp. 164, 166, (probably = 7. andersoni); not 1908, p. 13. Weaver, 1905, pp. 109, 111. Arnold, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 309, 1907, p. 254, pl. 41, fig. 1. Not Arnold, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 396, 1909, pp. 14, 15, pl. 4, fig. 14; Bull. 398, 1910, pp. 71, 73, pl. 26, fig. 14 = T. anderson Dickerson. Dickerson, 1911, pp. 174, 177; 1914 a, pp. 69, 74, 76, 83, 86, 97, 99, 101 (cf.), 110, 113, 115, 151, pl. 14, figs. 1a, c; 1914 ¢, pp. 264, 265. 1916, p. 501; Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. (4), vol. 7, 1917, p. 196; in Lawson, 1914, p. 8 “cf.” (7).. Waring, 1917, pp. 50, 33, 72, 83, pl. 12, fie. 20. Spieker, Johns Hopk. Stud. Geol. 3, 1922, p. 63. Guillaume, Bull. Soc. Géol. Fran., vol. 24, 1924, pp. 290, 297. Kew, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull., 753, 1924, p. 18, 19. Nelson 1925, opp. p. 402, pp. 403, 422. Turritella simiensis Waring, 1917, pp. 50, 72, 88, 100, pl. 14, fig. 15. ? Guil- laume, Bull. Soc. Géol. Fran., vol. 24, 1924, p. 290 (as of Stanton). Kew, U. 8. Geol. Surv. Bull,, 753, 1924, p. 19. Nelson, 1925, p. 403 ‘‘synonym- ous with 7. pachecoensis.”” Gardner, in Darton, Journ. Geol., vol. 29, 1921, p. 729 “2”. ; Gabb’s material is labelled Martinez. This material was in- cluded in the original description of Turritella pachecoensis and is therefore type material but the adult specimen figured by Stanton, PL. 66, fig. 2, is taken for the lectotype for it seems obvious that that specimen was regarded as the type by Stanton. It is in the Na- tional Museum and was collected from the Martinez horizon “one mile north of Pacheco, Cal.” This species is known from almost every Martinez (Paleocene) locality in California. It is probably the adult of T. infragranulata and therefore a synonym ef that species but better material is neces- sary to prove it. Guillaume has placed this species in his “Groupe de 7. hybrida,” 161 Montfort, Conch. Syst., vol. 2, 1810, p. 183. Monotype, Haustator gal- licus = T. vmbricataria Lam. (Deshayes, Coqu. Foss. Envir. Paris, “1824,” vol. 2, p. 273). 162 Guillaume, Bull. Soc. Géol. France, vol. 24, 1924, pp. 290-294. In this valuable contribution to the study of the Turritellidae, subgeneric names are not used, though they are given in the introduction. While some of the reasons for proposing these names may now appear erroneous, nevertheless the names are still available for those groups to which their type species belong. It is much more convenient to speak of Haustator than of ‘Groupe de 7. imbricataria Lmk.” 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 353 but the character of the double sinuosity of its growth lines as well as its general appearance show it to be nearer 7. imbricataria. Turritella (?) robusta Gabb. Plate XXI, fig. 4. Turritella robusta Gabb, I pp- 135-136, 227, pl. 21, fig. 94; 1869, p. 170, 228. Anderson, 1902, p. 30, 34. Not Turritella (Haustator) robusta Srofhowgs, N. Jahrb, on Geol. Pal, Beil. Bd. 12, 1899, p. 646, pl. 20, g. 3 = T. abrupta Spieker. he ve here figured, is the otly specimen known. It is very poorly preserved. The whorls of the spire are apparently characterized by 2 prominent angulations. Length (incomplete), 47 mm.; width of body whorl, 25.5 mm.; no. 4283. Horizon, Cretaceous ‘Chico Group;”’ locality, Tuscan Springs. The large apical angle suggests Mesalia. The species somewhat resembles ““ Turritella’ coalvillensts Meek!® from the Cretaceous of Utah. The following species is referred doubtfully to the Turritellidae: MESALIA Gray 1842 Mesalia martinezensis Gabb. Plate XXV, fig. 1. Turritella Martinezensis Gabb, 1869, pp. 169-170, 228, pl. 28, fig. 51. Stan- ton, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 106, 1893, p. 133; 1896, pp. 1025, 1044. Dick- erson, 1914a, pp. 110, 113, 143, 151, pl. 13, fig. 10: Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. (4), vol. 7 1917, PD 196 “martinez” by error). Waring, Journ. Geol., vol. 22, 1914, p- 783: 1917, pp. 50, 53, 87, 91, 100, pl. 14, fig. 5. Nelson, 1925, opp. p. 402, p. 403. Mesalia martinezensis Cossman, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 9, 1912, p. 126. Turritella maccreadyi Waring, Journ. Geol., vol. 22, 1914, p- 733; 1917, p. So 72, pl. 12, fig. 10. Dickerson, Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. (4), vol. 7,1917, .'196. Nis Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol, vol. 15, 1925, p. 403, “synony- Ps with Turritella martinezensis Gabb.” On the holotype, which is figured, as on the other specimens, there are but two prominent spiral lines above the angle. Height (almost complete), 54 mm.; width of body whorl, 24 mm.; no. 4344. Locality, Martinez; horizon, Martinez, Paleocene. The matrix is a soft greenish-gray sandstone. The rounded form named by Waring is considered a variety of this species. The broadly sinuous outer lip, slightly produced anteriorly, shows this species to be a Mesalia.'®* The rapidly enlarging whorls are likewise characteristic of fossil Mesalia. Besides the African forms, the genus is also living in West Australian waters.'® The 163 Stanton, Bull. U. S. Geol. Surv. 106, 1893, p. 132 pl. 28, fig. 11 (as Glauconia). 164 Gray, Synop. Cont. Brit. Mus. 44 ed. 1842, p. 61. "Iredale, Proc. Malaec. Soc. Lond., vol. 10, 1913, p. 305. Type Cerithium Mesal Adanson (P.Z.S. 1847, p- 155) = M. brevialis (Lam. ), a species living on the N. W. African Coast. 165 F. A. Smith, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., vol. 15, 1915, pp. 360-377. A review of the living species of Mesalia and similar genera, 354 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII genus was wide spread, during the Eocene, and occurs in the Cre- taceous (Cossmann, 1912, p. 126). Mesalia martinezensis resembles Arcotia indica Stoliczka,'® the type of Arcotia. The name may be useful for strongly angulated species but this character is very variable. M. pulima (Gabb)® and its allies from the Midway (Basal Eocene of the Gulf Coast) have rounded whorls and slightly different spirals. Mesalia martinezensis is the only species of this genus known on the West Coast. “Mesalia’ lincolnensis Weaver'® is an Acrilla. “Mesalia” obsuta White'®® has straight, almost vertical growth lines and fine punctations in the interspaces. It is not a Mesalia. “M?” arenicola'™ is a Jackson (Upper Eocene of Miss.) Turritella. It has been suggested that Lithrotrochus Conrad is a Mesalia but that genus is based on a Jurassic Trochoid shell from Chile.1™ CERITHIIDAE CERITHIUM Bruguiére 1789 Cerithium dumblei (Dickerson). Plate XXVI, fig. 15. Cerithiopsis alternata Gabb, 1864, pp. 116, 225, pl. 21, fig. 114, a; 1869, p. 224. Stoliczka, 1868, p. 186. Stanton, 17th Ann. Rept. U. S. Geol. Surv. 1896, p. 1025 (?). Cooper, Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. 4, 1894, p. 60 (Rose Canyon). Dickerson, 1914a, p. 96 (?), p. 109 (?); 1914b, pp. 115, 121; 1915, p. 43 (7); 1916, p. 421 (2), pp. 432, 438, 448 (in part), pp. 489, 490, p. 454 (7). Waring, 1917, p. 90, pl. 15, fig. 3 (““Tejon”’ of Simi Valley). Hanna, Calif. Acad. Sci. Proc. (4), v. 13, 1924, p. 161. Anderson and Hanna, 1925, pp. 135, 43. Not Cerithium alternatum Sowerby, Thes. Conch., vol. 2, 1855, p. 872, pl. 179, figs. 70, 73, pl. 183, fig. 179. Cerithiopsis dumblei Dickerson, 1916, pp. 432, 489, pl. 38, fig. 12 (Coalinga). Cossmann, Rev. Crit. Pal., vol. 20, 1916, p. 110 (said to resemble Bittium). There are six specimens of this species in the collection. The one figured is the lectotype of Cerithiopsis alternate Gabb. Most of the whorls have four prominent spirals but on the last two whorls the secondary spirals are almost as prominent. The base has about six spiral lines. Varices are numerous. Height (incomplete) 15.5 mm.; width 6.5 mm.; no. 4218. 188 Stoliczka, 1868, p. 215, pl. 16, fig. 12, pl. 19, fig. 6. If the growth lines of this species are really straight, as Stoliczka claimed, Arcotia will, of course, be something quite different. 167 Harris, Bull. Amer. Pal., vol. 1, 1896, p. 226, pl. 21, figs. 15-21. 168 Weaver, 1916, p. 45, pl. 5, fig. 85. : 189 White, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 51, 1889, p. 20, pl. 4, figs. 6-7. “Chico Group, near Pence’s Ranch.” - 1° Gabb, 1869, p. 114. Conrad, Amer. Journ. Conch., vol. 1, 1865, p. 141, 1. 10, fig. 11. P ia. rie) N. Jahb. Min. Geol. Pal. Beil. Bd. 9, 1895, p. 27, pl. 4, figs. 5, 6. Cossmann has since proposed to place this genus under his own Proconulus, 1918 (Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 11, pp. 276, 282). Lithrotrochus has more than fifty years priority. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 355 Horizon, Eocene: locality, Martinez. The matrix is a rather soft gray sandstone, probably the so-called Tejon. The specimens are labelled “Types, Martinez.” Those from ‘Cochrans” are evi- dently not in the collection. The type of Cerithiopsis dumblei is an immature specimen but does have faint secondary spirals on the last whorl. This species is very similar to Cerithium excelsum (Dall)! from the Eocene at Umpqua, Oregon, but the spire is more tightly coiled and the sides of the whorls less inflated. One of Gabb’s specimens is evidently C. excelsum. Its matrix is similar to that of the other specimens but a little more decomposed. More material will probably show these two names to be synonymous. Although common in the Domengine horizon neither of these species has yet been found at Tejo6n. This species is about twice as large as any Cerithiopsis and has nu- merous varices. It seems to be more closely related to Cerithium which is quite common in the Eocene. The differences between this species and the living C. alternatum of Philippine waters do not appear to be of more than subgeneric importance, therefore Gabb’s name is a homonym. ~ Cerithium first appeared as a genus without species in 1789.17 Three years later, in the same volume (pp. 467-501) a large number of species were assigned to it, including C. adansoniz Bruguiére with “Le Cerite”” Adanson, which is considered the lecotype of C. adansonii, cited in its synonomy. In the synonymy of “Le Cerite” Adanson!'™ is a polynomial containing the word Cerithium which was mentioned by Bruguiére. C. adansonii Bruguiére is therefore considered the type, by tautonomy, of Cerithium. While this interpretation of tautonomy!'” is somewhat question- able, it seems to be the only means of saving Cerithium from the synonymy of Clava, since the first subsequent designation of the type of Cerithium is by Montfort!’® who chose Cerithium virgatum, 172 Dall, U. S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 59, 1909, p. 75, pl. 3, fig. 9. as (Cerithi- opsis). Bartsch, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 40, 1911, p. 352, pl. 36, fig. 1. (A new description and new figure of the type specimen). 173 Bruguiére, Encycl. Méthod. Hist. Nat., vol. 1, 1789, p. XV. For dates of this work see Sherborn and Woodward, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 1906, pp. 576-82. 174 Adanson, Hist. Nat. Sénégal Coqu. 1757, p. 155, pl. 10, fig. 2. Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 7, 1906, p. 66, 0 1, figs. 3-4. _ Dr. C. W. Stiles, the Secretary of the International Commisssion on Zoolog- ical Nomenclature, has kindly verified this interpretation with me. 176 Montfort, Conch. Syst. 1810, p. 510, genus 128 (figure). C. virgatum is Montfort’s name and is not therefore in the original list but the name for which itis plainly a substitute, Murex vertagus Linn., is in the original list. This appears to be a legitimate subsequent type designation. < 7 356 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII the figure of which is a Clava, and which under its synonymy is cited “Murex” vertagus Linn and Gmel., a Clava.'” Cerithium adansonii has been taken for the type of Cerithium by Vignal.'’8 Cerithium aluco Lam. has been considered!” as the type of this genus on the grounds that Lamarck fixed the type by mentioning this single species under Cerithium in his “Prodrome” (1799), but under the present rules of Zoological Nomenclature Lamarck did not select a type. : POTAMIDES sensu lato Potamides diadema Gabb. Plate XXIII, fig. 11. Potamides diadema Gabb, 1864, pp. 130, 227, pl. 20, fig. 85: 1869, p. 227. White, U. 8. Geol. Surv. Bull. 15, 1885, p. 20 ““?”, p. 21. Stanton, 1893, p. 251; 1894, p. 443: 1895, p. 18: 1897, p. 597. Cooper, Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. 4, 1894, p. 45. Anderson, 1902, p. 41, p. 42 <“?7’. There are a number of specimens of this species in the collection. The lectotype is figured. It has fifteen spines on the body whorl, and twelve on the penultimate whorl. The spiral line just below the shoulder has almost disappeared on some specimens. The canal is apparently very short and shallow. Height (incomplete), 20.3 mm. ; width, not including spines, 13 mm.; no. 4289. Horizon, Cretaceous, “Shasta Group’: locality, Cottonwood Creek. This species has been recognized by Stanton (1894) in the “Horsetown beds” of the Cretaceous section on the north fork of Cottonwood Creek. Potamides tenuis Gabb. Plate XXIII, figs. 8, 9. Potamides tenuis Gabb, 1864, pp. 130-131, 227, pl. 20, fig. 86; 1869, p. 227. Whiteaves, Geol. Surv. Can. Mesoz. Foss., 1879, p. 121, pl. 15, fig. 8; 1903, p. 363. Stanton, in Turner, 14th An. Rep’t U. S. Geol. Surv., 1894, p. 460. : The lectotype is figured (fig. 9). It has ten nodes on the penul- ‘timate whorl. Spiral lines are not evident. The shell has ap- parently been replaced by calcite. Height (incomplete), 12.3 mm. ; width, 5.5 mm.; no. 4288. A specimen, no. 27858, of the Whitney collection, showing part of the canal, is also figured (fig. 8). Height (incomplete), 14.9 mm. Horizon, Cretaceous “Chico Group;” locality, Pence’s Ranch. 7 Martyn, Universal Conch., vol. 1, 1784, no. 12-13. Type, selected by Pilsbry, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sei. Phila., 1901, p. 392. Clava rugata Martyn. Most workers have considered this species identical with “ Murex’ asper Linn. 178 I. Vignal, Journ. de Conch., vol. 58, 1910, pp. 138-140. 179 Dall, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sei. Phila., 1907, p. 369. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 357 BITTIUM Leach 1847 Bittium asperum (Gabb). Plate XXXII, fig. 7, text-fig. 4. Turbonilla aspera Gabb, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sei. Phila., 1861, p. 368. Car- penter, Annals. Mag. Nat. Hist. (3), vol. 17, 1866, p. 276: reprinted in Dall, U. S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 59, 1909, p. 190. Bittium asperum Gabb, 1866, p. 12, pl. 2, fig. 20; 1869, p. 79. ? Tryon, Man. Conch., vol. 9, 1887, p. 153, pl. 30, fig. 7. Cooper, 1896, pp. 79, 81, 86: in Williamson, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 15, 1893, p. 205. Merriam, in Watts, Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. 19, 1900, pp. 220 “?”’, 223. Arnold, Mem. Calif. Acad. Seci., vol. 3, 1903, pp. 291, 293, 294; 1906, pp. 24, 27, 30, 31, 34, 117; 1907, pp. 26, 27, 153; U. S. Nat. Mus. Proc., vol. 34, 1908, p. 354, pl. 37, fig. 6; 1909a, pl. 2, fig. 76. Weaver, 1909, p. 264 (?). English, ‘Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 8, 1914, p. 210 “cf.” Martin, in Lawson, 1914, p. 14; Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 9, 1916, pp. 229, 233, 243, 255. XL. Olid. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 65, 1924, p. 16 (subgenus Larobit- lium). Bittium (Lirobitttum) asperum, Bartsch, U. S. Nat. Mus. Proc. 40, 1911, p. 405, pl. 56, fig. 3. Lirobittium asperum Dall; U. S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 112, 1921, p. 147 (considered a subgenus of Bittium). Bittium barbarensis ‘Bartsch’ Arnold, Smiths. Mise. Coll., vol. 50, pt. 4, 1907, pp. 424, 446, pl. 57, fig. 15. The specimen figured is labelled in Gabb’s handwriting “original specimen.” It is a little longer than the length given by Gabb in 1861 and a little shorter than the length given in 1866. The suture is bordered posteriorly by an unbroken prominent spiral; the other four spirals—the poster- ior one is small—are crossed by eleven axials forming nodes at their intersections. The base has one prominent spiral and two faint ones. The columella is straight and the outer lip is broken. This speci- men is probably the one figured by Gabb (1866) and is the neotype. Height 8.3 mm. ; width 2.3 mm.; no. 4333. “Post-Pliocene Marl, Santa Barbara.” The Pacific Coast species of the genus Text fig. 4. Bittium asperum, Bittium!3° have been divided into “several xX 11, neotype: convenient groups” the primary distinction being, apparently, the presence or absence of spiral lirations on the nuclear whorls. (Bart- sch, 1911, p. 384.) 180 Leach, Annals. Mag. Nat. Hist., vol. 20, 1847 “October,” p. 270. Type Ser by subsequent designation Murex reticulatus Mont. (Gray P.Z.S. 1847, p- : 358 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII STRUTHIOLARIIDAE CONCHOTHYRA “McCoy,” Hutton, 1877 Conchothyra hamula (Gabb). Plate XX, figs. 6, 7. Pogeliis] hamulus Gabb, 1864, pp. 124-125, 227, pl. 20, fig. 81, pl. 18, fig. 48; Amer. Journ. Conch., vol. 2, 1866, p. 89; Amer. Journ. Conch, vol. 4, 1868, p. 139, pl. 13, figs. 1, 2,'3; 1869, pp. 162, 163, 225, pl. 27, fig. 42 a, Tryon, Struct. and System. Conch, vol. 2, 1883, p- 190, pl. 60, figs. 71, 72. Stanton, 1896, pp. 1023, 1029. Merriam, i Geol., vol. 5, 1897, p. 770; in Lawson, Is p- 8. Anderson, 1902, 38. Quaas, > Paleont., vol. 30, pt. 2, 1902, p. 269. Wilckens, N. LI%, Min. Geol. Pal. Beil.-B. 18, 1904, pp- 206, Se. Cossman, Essais Pal. Comp., vol. 6, 1904, p. 37, pl. 7. fig. 3. Waring, 1917, p. 68. Anderson and Hanna, 1925, p. 50 “Undoubtedly Cretaceous.” The holotype of this species is in the Museum of Paloontolozy. no. 31395. It agrees very well with the original figure. Height 39.3 mm.; width 30.5 mm. There were no labels with this specimen but it has the same preservation and matrix as the specimens figured here. Height of 4276—fig. 7— (almost complete) 38 mm.; width (including the expanded outer lip) 29.5 mm. Young individual (fig. 6, no. 4277); height 28.5 mm.; width 15.5 mm. The specimen figured in vol. 2, (1869) which is in the Academy’s collection, is an unusually aberrant individual. Horizon, Cretaceous; locality, Martinez. This species is closely related to Conchothyra tumida (Gabb)!8! from the Cretaceous of Peru, but has a sinus in the outer lip which is absent on that species. These two species have a longer canal than C. parasitica “McCoy” Hutton,'82 a New Zealand Cretaceous species, the type of the genus. - Conchothyra differs from Pugnellus Conrad in having angulated and nodose spiral whorls. It seems to have been confined to the Pacific. This remarkable species is known only from the vicinity of Mar- tinez. Its absence from other Cretaceous localities may, of course, be a matter of facies or small collections, but it may also indicate a different horizon. PUGNELLUS Conrad 1860 Pugnellus (Gymnarus) manubriatus Gabb. Plate XX, figs. 10, 11, 12. Pugnellus manubriatus Gabb, 1864, pp. 125, 126, 227, pl. 29, fig. 229, a. Stoliezka, 1868, p. 20 (said to be very close to P. contortus). Stanton, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 106, 1893, p. 149. Merriam, 1895. Anderson, Journ. Geol., vol. 3, 1895, p. 459 (listed from Ashland, Oregon). Quaas, Paleont., vol. 30, pt. 2, 1902, p- 269. Wilckens, N. "Jahrb. Min. Geol, Pal. Beil-B. 18, 1904. pp. 206, 276. Dickerson, 1911, p. 172. 181 Gabb, Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. Proc., 1860, p. 197, pl. 3, figs. 13, 14. ix Hutton, Geol. Surv. N. Zeal, Rept, 1873 C7 1877, p- 37. Wilckens, Geol. Surv. N. Zeal. Pal. Bull. 9, 1922, pp. 14-17, pl. 3, figs. i 6, pl. 4, figs. 1-2. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 359 Pugnellus (Gymmnarus) manubriatus Gabb, Amer. Journ. Conch., vol. 4, 1868, p. 139, pl. 13, figs. 4, 5 (type of Gymnarus); 1869, pp. 163, 225. Tryon, Struct. Syst. Conch., vol. 2, 1883, p..190, pl. 60, fig. 73. The original figure was probably based on the three specimens here figured but for the present these specimens are regarded as ex- amples. No. 4278 (fig. 10), height (incomplete), 24.4 mm.; width 21.3 mm.; width of younger specimen (fig. 11), 12 mm. Horizon, Cretaceous, ‘Chico Group;” locality Cottonwood Creek, Siskiyou County. The original figured specimen was doubt- fully identified by Merriam (1895) in the University of California collections but I have not been able to find it there. It seems better to wait until that specimen has been found before the type is de- finitely selected. : Gymnarus is closely related to Pugnellus typicus Gabb'# (? = P. densatus Conrad), the type of Pugnellus® but may be distinguished by the hook-like development of the outer lip and the axial ribs on the later whorls. The whorls of the spire of typical Pugnellus are smooth except for very fine spiral lines. Pugnellus fusiformes (Meek) from the Cretaceous (Ft. Benton) of Colorado and P. contortus (Sowerby) Stoliczka!®® from the Cre- taceous of S. India are probably Gymnarus. P. granuliferus Stol- iczka and a related species in the Cretaceous of Africa (Pondoland), P. auriculatus Woods,'® may also be Gymnarus though they have a much heavier sculpture. ‘Pugnellus”’ africanus Quaas,'®® from the Egyptian Cretaceous, is not a Pugnellus. It has been suggested that “ Strombus” crassilabrum Zittel'®? of the Gosau Cretaceous 1s a Pugnellus. It is probably a different genus and though it may be a member of the Struthiolariidae, its sculpture suggests the Strom- bidae. I think “Pugnellus” hauthali Wilckens,'*® from the Cre- taceous of Patagonia, will be found to be a Conchothyra. 183 Gabb, Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. Proc., 1876, p. 298. 18 Conrad, Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil. Journ. (2), vol. 4, 1860, p. 284, pl. 46, fig. 31. No type selected. Although no reference to the figure is given on this page, the omission is obviously a lapsus, for it is given on page 298. Therefore the figured specimen is available for the type of the genus, and it was selected for such b abb, who named it P. typicus. It is certainly very close to, if not identical hs P. densatus (Conrad) (A. N.S. Phil. J. (2), vol. 3, 1858, p. 330, pl. 35, fig. 14). It is a very well-preserved specimen from the Cretaceous of Tippah Co., Miss. 18 Stanton, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull., 106, 1893, pp. 148-149, pl. 31, figs. 7-11. 18 Stoliczka, 1868, p. 19, pl. 3, fig. 8 (‘‘Trichinopoly group”). 187 Woods, Ann. S. African Mus., vol. 4, 1908, p. 319, pl. 38, fig. 15. 188 Quaas, Paleont., vol. 30, pt. 2, 1902, p. 267, pl. 26, fig. 31. 189 Pilsbry, in Eastman’s Transl. Text-Book of Pal., Zittel, vol. 1, 1896, p. 471, fig. 944. : 190 Wilckens, Ber. Naturf. Gesell. Freiburg, vol. 15, 1907, p. 18, pl. 4, figs. 2a, b. 360 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII Typical Pugnellus is represented in the Indian Cretaceous by P. uncatus (Forbes),”! which may possibly have a relative in Tunis.'*? While Pugnellus and Gymnarus were both present in the Atlantic and Pacific Cretaceous faunas, Concothyra seems to have been confined to the Pacific. APORRHAIDAE ANCHURA Conrad 1860 Anchura falciformis (Gabb). Plate XXII, fig. 9. Aporrhais falciformis Gabb, 1 PP: 127, 227, pl. 20, fig. 83; in Whitney, 1865, pp. 203, 204, 207, 200, Anchura Falciformis Gabb, SE Te. Conch, vol. 4, 1868, p. 145, pl. 14, fig. 14; 1869, pp. 165, 226. Stanton, 1894, pp. 439, 443; 1595, 16. "An. derson, Jour. Geol, vol. 3, 1895, p. 460 (near Phoenix, Ore. $3. 1902, p. 28, (not listed from Phoenix). Grabau and Shimer, Ind. Foss., vol. 1 1909, p. 755, fig. 1099. Alaria falciformis Packard, 1916, pp. 148, 154 (Santa Ana Mts.). The specimen figured corresponds fairly well with the size of the original figure, which is probably a synthetograph, and is taken for the lectotype. There was apparently a deposit of callus on the ventral side of the body whorl, opposite the aperature. It is very prominent on some specimens. Height (incomplete) 52 mm.; width of body whorl and expanded outer lip, 45 mm.; no. 4269. Horizon, Cretaceous “Chico Group.” The material is labelled “Chico Creek and Tuscan Springs, Cal.” The type is in a matrix of dark limy shale full of shell fragments and is probably from Chico Creek. The type of this genus, by monotypy, is Anchura abrupta Con- rad,'®® from the Cretaceous of Miss. The anterior projection on the wing of that species is apparently quite long while on A. fal- ciformis there is only a slight swelling on the anterior edge of the wing as on A. parkinsoni (Sowerby)!** of the French Cretaceous, and A. haydenii White®* from the Pierre Group of Colorado, the latter of which it much resembles. Aporrhais is probably the survivor of the Anchura stock but its posterior canal and strongly biangulate whorls are sufficiently distinet to be of generic importance. The substitution of Chenopus 191 Stoliczka, 1868, p. 22, pl. 3, fig. 9. 192 Pervinquiére, Etudes Pal. Tunmsiohns, pt. 2, 1912, p. 30. 18 Conrad, Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., Journ. (2), vol. 4, "1860, p . 284, on 47, fig. 1. 194 ¢’Orbigny, Pal. Franc. Crét., vol. 2, 1842, p. 288, pl. 208, figs. 1, 2.—Gault, Middle Cretaceous. 14a White, Rep’t. U. S. Geol. Surv, 1877, 1879, p. 311, pl. 7, fig. 1a. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELTHIA 361 for Aporrhais Da Costa 177819 because of a pre-Linnean “Apor- rhazs’” is not in accord with the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature. Anchura (?) angulata (Gabb). Plate XXII, figs. 4, 5. Aporrhais angulata Gabb, 1864, pp. 128, 227, pl. 20, fig. 84. Anchura angulata Gabb, 1869, p. 226. Dickerson, 1914a, p. 143. The larger specimen is the lectotype, no. 4270 (fig. 4). The smaller specimen, no. 4071 (fig. 5), shows the ornamentation of the spire. Height of lectotype (incomplete) 49 mm.; width of body whorl and expanded lip, 33.5 mm. ; length of 4071, 14 mm. Horizon, Cretaceous; locality, “ Bull’s Head Pt. near Martinez.” A specimen labelled ‘“Huling Creek’ is fragmentary, but appar- ently belongs to this species. This species seems to be at least subgenerically removed from A. falciformis. Its fine sculpturing suggests Drepanochilus but it evidently had a longer anterior canal. ‘““‘Anchura’ carinifera Gabb. Plate XXII, fig. 6. ? Anchura carinifera Gabb, 1869, pp. 166, 226, pl. 28, fig. 46. Stanton, 1896, p. 1029. The holotype of this species is figured. It is evidently a young specimen and is characterized by a rather prominent carina which is slightly nodose on the penultimate whorl and apparently cor- responds to a notch in the outer lip. The shell has peeled off but it was apparently covered with fine spiral lines. Height (incom- plete) 7 mm.; width 3.8 mm.; no. 4274. - This species is probably of Cretaceous age as suggested by Stanton (1896); locality, Martinez. It somewhat resembles “A por- rhais’ calcarifera Kaunhowen,'¥ of the Maestrichtien (Upper Cre- taceous). DREPANOCHILUS Meek 1864 Drepanochilus exilis (Gabb). Text-fig. 5. Aporrhais exilis Gabb, 1864, pp. 129, 226, pl. 29, fig. 231. Anchura exilis Gabb, 1869, p. 226. Whiteaves, Geol. Surv. Can. Mesoz. Fos., pt. 2, 1879, p. 123 (Sucia Island). Stanton, 1896, p. 1029. Grabau and Shimer, Ind. Foss., vol. 1, 1909, p. 751, fig. 1089. Anchura gabbi Dickerson, 1914a, pp. 74, 75, 144, pl. 14, fig. 4. The specimen figured is evidently Gabb’s holotype for he only had one specimen. Length 9 mm. 1% Da, Costa, Brit. Conch, 1778, p. 136, pl. 7, fig. 7. Type species, A. quadri- fidus = A. pespelecani L. living on the SW coast of Europe. 1% Kaunhowen, Pal. Abhand. (Dames-Koken), n.s., vol. 4, pt. 1, 1897, p. 73, pl. 8, fig. 10-11. 362 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF Vol. LXXVIII Horizon, Martinez, Paleocene; locality, Martinez. Both A. exilis and “A. gabbi” are very poorly preserved. Their similar matrices indicating that they are probably from the same stratum, and their biangulated body whorls are the basis for considering them Synonymous. This species is probably related to Drepanochilus aldrichi (Coss- mann)'? from the Wilcox of Alabama, which seems to be related to typical Drepanochilus. The anterior angulation is well marked in that species and sometimes gives rise to a bifurcated wing while in Drepanochilus this angula- tion is not so prominent. Varices are present on the early whorls of the Wilcox species and probably on Anchura exilis. Unfortunately the entire wing of A. exilis is not known. Probably these two Terti- ary species should be considered a section of Drepanochilus, but they seem to be very closely related to typical Drepanochi- lus. The type of Drepanochilus Meek!®? is Te from the Cretaceous (Fox Hills group) of Text fig. 5. Drepanochilus the Rocky Mt. region. The genus is rep- eitlis, Xiat (holotype). yosented In the European Cretaceous by D. calcaratus (Sowerby).!*® It has been considered a subgenus of Arrhoges but Drepanochilus is the older name. Drepanochilus (?) transversus (Gabb). Plate XXIII, fig. 1. Anchura transversa Gabb 1869, pp. 165, 226, pl. 27, fig. 45. Stanton, 1896, p. 1029. Cossmann, Es. Pal. Comp., vol. 6, 1904, p. 94 (Anchura con- sidered a subgenus of Dicroloma which is a later name.) Dickerson, 1914a, p. 144. Waring, 1917, p. 65. The holotype is figured—4273. Height (incomplete) 10 mm.; width of body whorl and expanded outer lip 12.4 mm. This figure is enlarged three times, instead of twice as given on the plate. 197 Harris, Bull. Amer. Pal., vol. 3, 1899, p. 69, pl. 9, fig. 1 (as A porrhais gracilis Aldrich). Cossmann, Es. Pal. Comp., vol. 6, 1904, p. 56 (as Chenopus aldrichi). 198 Meek, Smiths. Misc. Coll. 177, 1864, pp. 19, 35. Type ‘‘ Rostellaria amer:- cana’ Evans and Shumard = Drepanochi us evanst Cossmann. Meek, Upper Missouri Cretaceous, 1876, p. 325, pl. 32, figs. 8a, b. 199 Cossmann, Essais Pal. Comp., vol. 6, 1904, p. 75, pl. 4, fig. 10, pl. 5, figs. 1, 2 and 14. Cénomanien. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES Of PH LADELFHIA 363 Locality, Martinez. According to Stanton (1896) this species is from the Cretaceous. The holotype seems to have had a short canal like Drepanochilus. ARRHOGES sensu lato Arrhoges californicus (Gabb). Plate XXI, fig. 15. Aporrhais californica Gabb, 1864, p. 128, pl. 29, figs. 230a, b. Wilckens, Geol. Surv. N. Zeal. Pal. Bull. 9, 1922, p. 13. Anchura californica Gabb, 1869, p. 226. Turner, Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., vol. 2, 1891, p. 395. Stanton, 1893, p. 252; 1894, pp. 439, 443; 1895, pp. 16, 21; 1896, p. 1020. Anderson, 1895, p. 460 (near Phoenix, Oreg.); 1902, p- 28, pp. 34, 38, 93. Stoner, in Dickerson, 1914, p. 78. The specimens are labelled ‘Siskiyou Mts. & Martinez” but they all have the same matrix and are probably from the Siskiyou Mts. Since Gabb had other specimens which may more closely resemble his description and figures the specimen figured here is to be considered an example rather than the lectotype, though it may later be found desirable to select it as the lectotype. The first three whorls are smooth, the ornamentation being only on the later whorls. Height 15 mm.; width of body whorl and expanded lip 10 mm., no. 4272. The figure of this species is enlarged twice, in- stead of three times as given on the plate. Horizon, Cretaceous, ‘‘ Chico Group;”’ locality, probably from the Siskiyou Mts. The matrix is a hard black limy sandstone with numerous fragments of this species and some small pebbles. The broad wing of this species suggests Arrhoges but it may be a modified Drepanochilus. The type? of Arrhoges is living in the N. W. Atlantic. The genus is represented in the Eocene by Gonio- cheila Gabb?® and has been recognized a number of times in the Cretaceous but probably none of the Cretaceous species is typical. Arrhoges seems to be related to Drepanochilus. TESSAROLAX Gabb 1864 Tessarolax distorta Gabb. Plate XXIII, figs. 4, 5. Tessarolax distorta Gabb, 1864, pp. 126-127, 227, pl. 20, figs. 82, a, b; in Whitney, 1865, p. 207; Amer. J. Conch, vol. 4; 1868, p. 146, pl. 14, figs. 18, 19; 1869, p. 226. Whiteaves, Geol. Surv. Can. Mesoz. Foss. pt. 2, 1879, E: 123; pt. 5, 1903, p. 358 (Vancouver and Hornsby Islands); Trans. Roy. Soc. Canada (2), vol. 1, pt. 4, 1896, p. 127. White, 12th Ann. Rept. U. S. Geol. & Geog. Surv. Terr , pt. 1, 1883, p. 30; in Becker, Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., vol. 2, 1891, p. 205 (?). Merriam, 1895. Stanton, in Dar- ton, Journ. Geol., vol. 29, 1921, p. 727. , 290 A. occidentalis (Beck). Gabb, Amer. J. Conch., vol. 4, 1868, p. 145. 201 Gabb, Amer. Jour. Conch., vol. 4, 1865, p. 144. Type, G. liratus (Conrad) selected by Cossmann, Essais Pal. Comp., vol. 6, 1904, p. 174. Conrad called this species Alipes but that name is preoccupied. 364 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII Tessarolax distortum Cossmann, Essais Pal. Comp., vol. 6, 1904, p. 56 (con- sidered a subgenus of Chenopus). Anchura (Tessarolaz) distorta Grabau and Shimer, Ind. Foss., vol. 1, 1909, p. 754, fig. 1097. Although the original figure of this species is somewhat restored the holotype specimen may be recognized in the collections of the State Geological Survey now in the Museum of Paleontology. It is No." 31394. It was questionably recognized by Merriam (1895). It corresponds in size with the original figure but the anterior canal is lacking. Height (incomplete) 28.2 mm.; width of body whorl (not including processes) 20 mm. The specimens figured here are examples from the type locality in the Academy’s collection. Width of 4279 (fig. 4), including preserved portion of the posterior apertural spine 34 mm. Length of 4280 (fig. 5) (incomplete) 28.3 mm. Horizon, Cretaceous, “Chico Group;”’ locality, Tuscan Springs. This species is the monotype of the genus. It is unfortunate that some knowledge of its early whorls is not available. Tessarolax hitzi: White (1883, p. 29, pl. 15, fig. 2 a), from the Cretaceous Fort Pierre Group of Montana, is apparently the only other American species. The genus has been recognized throughout the Cretaceous of Europe and in the Arrialoor group of Southern India by Cossmann, but not all the species cited by him are typical. Judging from the original figures Ceratosiphon®” has a more expanded outer lip and an extra anterior prolongation or “digit,” and is at least subgen- erically removed from Tessarolaz. Tessarolax bicarinata (Gabb) not Deshayes. Plate XXIII, fig. 6. Helicaulax bicarinata Gabb, 1869, pp. 166-167, 226, pl. 27, fig. 47. Not Stanton, 1894, p. 443 = Aporrhais, vide Stanton, 1895, p. 72. Stanton, 1895, pp. 72, 18 “27, 22 “?” (near Riddles, Oregon). Anderson, 1902, p- 41. Helicaulaz ? bicarinata Stanton, 1897, p. 595. Helicaulax bicarinatum Cossmann, Es. Pal. Comp., vol. 6, 1903, p. 64 (con- sidered a subgenus of Chenopus = Aporrhais). Not Rostellaria bicarinata Deshayes, in Leymerie, Mém. Soc. Géol. France, vol. 5, 1842, p. 14, pl. 17, fig. 14a, b = Aporrhais retusa (Sowerby) Gardner, Geol. Mag., 1875, p. 53 = Tessarolax retusa (Sowerby). Unfortunately the holotype of Helicaulax bicarinata Gabb is not well preserved. As noted by Stanton (1895, p. 72) the whorls are distinctly angulated. On the body whorl the anterior angle at 202 Gill, Amer. Journ. Conch., vol. 5, 1870, p. 139. Type species by original designation C. moreausianus (d’Orb.) (Pal. Franc. Crét., vol. 2, “1842,” p. 301, pl. 211, 5g. 1). 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 365 least is crenulated. Besides the fine spiral lines a wide prominent spiral is present on the middle of the anterior slope of the body whorl. The callus forms a broad heavy ridge across the ventral portion of the spire. Height (incomplete) 20 mm. ; smallest diameter of the body whorl (the specimen is crushed) 12 mm.; no. 4282. Horizon, Cretaceous, “Shasta Group’; locality, Cottonwood Creek, Shasta Co. This species has been recognized in the ‘‘ Horse- town beds’ of this locality by Stanton (1895, p. 72). The original figure of Rostellaria bicarinata Deshayes leaves much to be desired but most workers have determined it to be Tessarolax retusa which makes Gabb’s name a homonym. A new name for this homonym is not proposed however, because the holotype is very poorly preserved and the exact locality is not known. When better material has been discovered it should be described as a new species. Aspecimen in the U. S. National Museum collected by Dr. Stanton (loc. 1092, 1-2 of a mile east of Wilcox’s ranch, on the road from Lowrey’s “ Palin) has the prominent spiral on the anterior slope of the body whorl and is probably this species but it, too, is poorly preserved. Helicaulax Gabb was first proposed?® for three species. The first subsequent designation which I have been able to find is that of Cossmann?® who chose the first species and the only one figured by Gabb, “Rostellaria” ornata d’Orb. for the type. It is a Cretaceous fossil resembling Drepanochilus but with a prominent posterior canal. It is probably represented on the West Coast by ““ Anchura” condoniana Anderson (1902, p. 76, pl. 8, fig. 179). Tessarolax (?) inconspicua (Gabb). Plate XXIII, fig. 2. Surcula (Surculites) inconspicua Gabb, 1869, pp. 151, 217, pl. 26, fig. 29. Dickerson, 1914, pp. 88, 110 (Martinez). Surcula inconspicua Stanton, 1896. (Considered as possibly Eocene.) The holotype is figured. The growth lines are more broadly sinuous than those of Surculites. The spiral lines are very fine except on the anterior slope of the body whorl where they are larger and widely spaced. The posterior angle is slightly carinate. Height (incomplete) 11.2 mm.; width 7 mm.; no. 4330. Locality, “Martinez Group, Martinez.” If this species is really a Tessarolax it is very likely from the Cretaceous. This species lacks the prominent spiral on the anterior slope of 208 Gabb, Amer. Jour. Conch., vol. 4, 1868, p. 145, pl. 14, fig. 15. 208 Cossmann, Es. Pal. Comp., vol. 6, 1904, p. 63, pl. 5, fig. 12. 366 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII the body whorl of Tessarolax bicarinata. Specimens of Tessarolazx in the National Museum, collected by Dr. Stanton from Cotton- wood Creek, below the bridge at Ono, seem to lack this prominent spiral and may belong with 7. (?) inconspicua. If better material proves this species to be a Tessarolax it will probably be found that this holotype is an immature specimen of 7. distorta. ARAEODACTYLUS Harris and Burrows 1891 Araeodactylus (?) costatus (Gabb). Plate XXV, fig. 6. \ Helicaulax costata Gabb, 1869, p. 167, 226, pl. 28, fig. 48. Stanton, 1896, p. 1029. Waring, 1917, p. 82. Helicaulax costatum Cossmann, Es. Pal. Comp., vol. 6, p. 65 (as a subgenus of Chenopus). The holotype is figured. It is evidently an immature specimen. Height, (incomplete) 11.2 mm.; width, 7.5 mm.; no. 4281. Horizon, “Martinez Group”; locality, Martinez. According to Stanton, (1896), this species is from the Martinez horizon—Paleo- cene. ~ This species resembles Araeodactylus plateau: (Cossmann)?® from the Paleocene (Thanetian) of the Paris Basin, the type of the genus, but since the outer lip is not known, the determination is doubtful. STROMBIDAE RIMELLINAE ECTINOCHILUS Cossmann 1889 _Ectinochilus (Cowlitzia) canalifer (Gabb). Plate XXIX, fig. 8. Rostellaria (Rimella) canalifera Gabb, 1864, p. 123, pl. 29, fig. 228. Rimella canalifera Gabb, 1864, p. 226; Amer. Journ. Conch., vol. 4, 1868, p. 142; 1869, p. 225. Dall, in Diller, 1896, p. 459 (?). Stanton, 1896, p. 1027; not, in Turner and Stanton, Amer. Geol., vol. 14, 1894, p. 95 (““canilifera” by error) = E. macilentus (White). Merriam Journ. Geol., vol. 5, 1897, p. 771 (?) Not Arnold, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 396, 1909, p. 14, pl. 4, fig. 6; Bull. 398, 1910, p. 71, pl. 26, fig. 6 = E. macilentus (White). ? Smith, J. P., in Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. 69, 1914, Folio, pl. 1, fig. 17. Dickerson, 1914, pp. 20, 21 (?), 1914a, pp. 77 (?), 85 (?), 114, 115 (7), 116 (?); 1914b, p. 115 (?), p. 116 (?); 1915, p. 59; 1916, opp. p. 372 (2), p. 377 (?), p. 386 (?), p. 433 (2), p. 452 (?); in Lawson, 1914, p. 9 (“Rz- nella” typographical error). Not Waring, 1917, pp. 91, 98, pl. 15, fig. 10 (= ? E. macilentus). Cowlitzia canalifera Clark and Palmer, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 14,1923, pp. 283, 284, 285, 286, pl. 51, fig. 15-20, 25, 26. Anderson and Hanna, 1925, pp. 102, 103, 104, 43, pl. 9, figs. 6, 9, 13. The specimen figured is the lectotype. It has nine nodes on the 206 ““ Ischnodactylus” plateaus Cossmann, Ann. Soc. Roy. Malac. Belg., vol. 24 1889, p. 83, pl. 2, fig. 28-30. Name preoccupied = Araeodactylus Harris and Burrows, Eocene and Oligocene Paris Basin, 1891, p. 112, new name. Coss- mann, Essais Pal. Comp., vol. 6, 1904, p. 65, pl. 5, figs. 16, 20. 6 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 367 body whorl and ten on the penultimate whorl. A figure of a plaster cast of it has been published (Clark and Palmer, 1923, pl. 51, fig. 25). Height (incomplete), 20.5 mm.; width (not including nodes), 7.5 mm.; no. 4231. Horizon, Tejon, Eocene: locality, Tejon. All of the determin- able specimens in the box labelled “types” are from Tején. The typical form is, as yet, known with certainty, only from Tején. Ectinochilus®*® is represented on the West Coast by E. macilentus (White)??? and at Claiborne, Alab., by E. laqueatus (Conrad).2® These two species differ from the typical mainly by the lack of varices, a character which does not seem to be of great importance in this family. The name Macilentos®®® is available for this small group. FE. texanus (Harris)®® also lacks the, varices and may be considered another member of this group. It is very closely re- lated to E. elongatus (Weaver)?! from Cowlitz, but the outer lip is not so distinctly projected anteriorly. This projection cannot be of much importance for it varies greatly among specimens of Rimella fissurella. If it be desirable to separate E. elongatus and E. texanus from the subgenus or section Macilentos, the name Vaderos*'? is available. ; Cowlitzia®?® itself is not far from Ectinochilus. It has the same sculpture pattern and the same aperture. The ‘‘stromboid sinu- osity”’ is quite well developed on some specimens. The serrated anterior portion of the outer lip, caused by the prolongation of the spiral lines, is the chief character which separates it from Ectino- chilus. The type species, which is from Cowlitz, has no varices, but they are often present on the early whorls of E. canalifer. In spite of the presence of varices on KE. canalifer, these two species are 206 Cossmann, Ann. Soc. Roy. Malac. Belg., vol. 24, 1889, p. 87. Type “Strombus”’ canalis Lam. 207 White, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 51, 1889, pp. 19-20, pl. 3, figs. 10-12. Clark and Palmer, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 14, 1923, pp. 280-281, pl. 5, figs. 9-10. 208 Conrad, Fossil Shell Tert. N. A. (repr. Harris), 1833, p. 67; 1835, p. 91, pl. 15, fig. 4. 209 Clark and Palmer, op. cit., p. 280, pl. 51, figs. 9-10. Type species E. macilentus. 0 20 Harris, Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil. Proc., 1895, p. 78, pl. 9, fig. 1. Lower Clai- borne, Eocene,” Texas. 21 Weaver, Wash. Geol. Surv. Bull, 15, 1912, pp. 37-38, pl. 2, fig. 19 (not fig. 18); Clark and Palmer, op. cit., p. 282, pl. 51, fig. 8 (not, fig. 7). 22 Clark and Palmer, op. cit., pp. 281-282, pl. 51, fig. 8. Type species E. elongatus (not pl. 51, fig. 7 = E. washingtonensis). 23 Clark and Palmer, op. cit. p. 283, pl. 51, figs. 7, 11, 12, 13, 14. Type species E. washingtonensis. 368 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY Of [Vol. LXXVIII so closely related that it would probably be better to recognize this relationship by considering the Cowlitz form a subspecies. The number of axial ribs varies considerably in these forms, but the maximum number is always on the early whorls. The typical form usually has about sixteen while the Cowlitz form usually has twenty. Cowlitzia has not been recognized in other regions and is only repre- sented by E. canalifer and its close allies. While it is tempting to consider the American species generically distinct from typical Ectinochilus because of the general absence of varices, the presence of these varices on the early whorls of some of the specimens of E. canalifer and on “ Rimella’’ smith: Dall,?¢ which seems to be an Ectinochilus, is against such an arrangement. Prob- ably some of the European species will be found to be without varices. Kctinochilus retiae (de Gregorio) from the Priobonien (Upper Eocene) is apparently without varices.?’® In general, varices alone are not a generic criterion. “Rimella’ rugostoma Johnson,*® from Jackson, Miss. (Upper Eocene) is also, I believe, near Ectinochilus, but it, too, is without varices. Its crenulated aperture is so unique that it seems best to recognize it as a distinct subgenus under the new name Dasyostoma. Ectinochilus need not be confused with Ectinochila, as one writer?? has done. Typical Rimella 8 does not seem to have reached America, but it extended as far to the East as Java, where it occurs in the Eocene of Nanggulan.?!? Dientomochilus®®® is quite unlike Rimella and its close ally, Eec- 214 Dall, Trans. Wag. Inst., vol. 3, 1890, pp. 172-173, pl. 10, figs. 4-6 (from the Upper Eocene of Florida). 215 Oppenheim, Palaeont., vol. 47, 1901, pp. 209-210, pl. 9, 5 > (as Rimella). 216 Johnson, Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. Proc., 1899, p. 79, pl. 2 10. 217 Hanna, Calif. Acad. Sci. Proc. (4), vol. 13, 1924, pPp- 176-180. 213 Conchyl. Minéral. Grande Bret. Sowerby, (French translation by Desor, with notes by Agassiz), p. 137, 1841. “principales espéces, Rostellaria (Rimella) rimosa Sowerby et Rost. (Rimella) fissurella Lam.” The name was plainly pro- posed for the fossils, the recent species being definitely excluded by Agassiz (p. 139). Type species by subsequent Gosignefion ‘ Rostellaria fissurella Linn.” (Herrmannsen, Ind. Gen. Malac., p. 397, 1848). According to Hanley, (Ipsa Linnaei Conchylia, 1855, p. 275) Linné had specimens of Rostellaria fissurella Lamarck but whatever be the fate of Strombus fissurella Linn. the name Rimella must remain for the fossil forms, the type species being Rostellaria fissurella Lamarck. I have not seen the German translation of Sowerby’s work, which Sherborn regarded as slightly older than the French (Ind. Anim. 1922, p. xv 219 Rimella tylodacra Boettg., Martin, Samml. Geol. R.-Mus. Leiden., n.s., vol. 2 1914, pp. 157-159, pl. 5, figs. 122, 123. 220 Cossmann, Essais Pal. Comp. svol. 6, 1904, pp- 3840, pl. 3, fig. 21. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 369 tinochilus. It is doubtful whether the recent so-called Rimellae are related to it. ““R.” decussata (d’Orb) (Burdigalien) is probably more closely related to Ectinochilus. The one specimen available is without varices. -Ectinochilus canalifer subsp. supraplicatus (Gabb). Plate XXVIII, fig. 12. ?Neptunea supraplicata Gabb, 1864, pp. 89, 223 (in part), pl. 18, fig. 40: 1869, p. 149, 216 (in part). Neptunea supraplicata Cooper, 1894, p. 62. Merriam, 1895. Not Neptunea (?) supraplicata Dickerson, 1914, p. 20; 1914a, p. 115. Not Chrysodomus supraplicata Dickerson, 1916, pp. 372, 378, 426, 427, 432, 438 (?), 449 (?). “Chrysodomus supraplicata (Gabb)’’ Dickerson, Anderson and Hanna, 1925, pp- 66, 43. Rostellaria (Rimella) simplex Gabb, 1864, p. 124, pl. 20, fig. 80. Not Rostellaria simpler d’Orbigny, Pal. Fran. Crét., vol. 2, 1842, p. 290; pl. 208, figs. 6, 7. Rimella simpler Gabb, 1864, p. 227; Amer. Jour. Conch., vol. 4, 1868, p. 142: 1869, p. 225. Cooper, Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. 4, 1894, p. 62. Dall, in Diller, 1896, p. 463 (?), p. 468 (?). Not Dickerson, 1915, pp. 40, 44, 50, 51, 60, pl. 6, figs. 1a, b. Dickerson, 1916, p. 377 (?) not p. 421, p. 427 (?), p- 439 (in part), p. 452 (in part). Cowlitzia simplex Clark and Palmer, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 14, 1923, pp. 284, 285-286, pl. 51, figs. 21-24. Anderson and Hanna, 1925, pp. 103-104, 43. The holotype of ““ Neptunea supraplicata’” Gabb is no. 31396 in the Museum of Paleontology. It was recognized by Merriam (1895). It is plainly an immature Ectinochilus having about 20 axial ribs on the last whorl. Height (almost complete) 13 mm.; width, 6.1 mm. Horizon, Domengine, Eocene; locality, San Diego. The specimen figured here is Gabb’s ‘“ Rostellaria (Rimella) sim- lex,’ no. 4226. Height, 30 mm.; width, 15 mm. The name, being a homonym, is invalid, therefore the name given to the immature specimen of this species becomes useful. Horizon, Eocene; locality, San Diego. This form is usually shorter and more inflated than the typical E.canalifer and may have as many as fourteen axial ribs on the body whorl. It has heretofore been regarded as a distinct species, but I believe its relationship with E. canalifer is best expressed by treating it as a subspecies. It has about twenty axial ribs on the early whorls, thus resembling the Cowlitz form, from which it differs by being shorter and more inflated. Unfortunately only a few specimens of it are known, so that its variability is a matter of conjecture. As yet this subspecies is known only from San Diego. The specimens mentioned by Gabb as from Clayton have not been found. CLT 370 - PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII CYPRAEIDAE CYPRAEA Linnaeus 1758 Cypraea castacensis n. sp. Plate XXVIII, fig. 10. Oypreg (Luponia) Bayerquei Gabb, 1869, pp. 163-164, 225, pl. 27, figs. a, b, e. Cypraea Bayerquei Whiteaves, Trans. Roy. Soc. Can. 1895, sect. 4, p.128. Stanton, 1896, p. 1025 (Lower Lake) (?). Dickerson, 1915, p- 43, 60, pl. 6, fig. 4a, b. Not ? Cypraea Bayerquet Gabb, 1864, pp. 129-130, text figures, p- 227. Not Cypraea Bayerque: Stoliczka, "1868, p- 52. Not Dickerson, 1914a, p. 109, pp. 145, 151, pl. 15, fig. 1. Not 'Anderson and Hanna, 1925, pp. 105-107, 43. Not Nelson, 1925, p- 425. This species differs from C. bayerque: Gabb in having a more at- tenuated posterior. The specimen figured by Dickerson (1915, pl. 6, fig. 4a, b) is taken for the holotype because it is well preserved and its locality is known. It is not crushed or distorted in any way. Height 12.2 mm.; width 7.8 mm.; no. 11690 in the Museum of Paleontology. Horizon, Tején, Eocene; locality 452, Univ. Calif., Grapevine Creek, Tején. Collected by R. E. Dickerson. The specimen figured here is the one described and figured by Gabb in 1869. It has been crushed. The teeth are small and nu- merous. Height 30 mm.; width 18 mm.; dorsoventral diameter 13.5 mm.; no. 4211. Horizon, Eocene; locality, “Tejon Group at Martinez.” This specimen is probably from the so-called Tejon. The holotype is much smaller, but otherwise seems to be identical with it. A speci- men, apparently from Tejon, with the figured specimen is probably C. mathewsonii (fig. 13). Height, 19.5 mm:; no. 4210. The type of Cypraea® is C. tigris L. an Indopacific species. The holotype of Cypraea bayerquei Gabb (1864, p. 129) is in the Museum of Paleontology No. 31403. Length, 29.2 mm.; (the an- terior end is broken); width 23.1 mm. “Horizon, Eocene?; locality, ‘Clayton, Contra Costa, County.” This specimen corresponds to the original outline drawings too closely to be anything but the original specimen. It is in the F. L. A. Pioche collection of the Museum but just how it reached that collection is not known. The specimen figured by Dickerson (1914a) from Martinez may be this species but it is very poorly preserved. It has been recognized by Anderson and Hanna (1925) in the Eocene of Big Tar Canyon, Fresno County. 21 Linnaeus Syst. Nat. 10th ed. 1758, pp. 718-725. Type designated by Montfort, Conch. Syst., vol. 2, 1810, p. 631. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA . 371 Cypraea mathewsonii Gabb. Plate XXVIII, fig. 5. Cypraea (Epona) mathewsonit Gabb, 1309, pp. 164, 225, pl. 27, figs. 44a, b. Cypraea mathewsons Whiteaves, Trans. Roy. Soc. Can. 1 1895, sect. 4, p. 128. Dickerson, 1915, p. 43, p. 60, pl. 6, fig. 5a; 1916, pp. 421, 438, 448. An- derson and Hanna, 1925, p- 107, 43. Nelson, 1925, p. 425. Capron kerniana Anderson and Hanna, 1925, Pp. 104, 105, 107, 43, pl. 13, gs. 0, 10,11. The holotype is here figured. It has eleven crenulations on the outer lip and twelve on the inner lip. The anterior projection of the inner lip is broken. Height 10.7 mm.; width 7 mm.; dorso- ventral diameter 6 mm.; no. 4217. Horizon, Eocene, probably from the so-called Tejon; locality, Martinez. The Tején form “ Cypraea kerniana’ is said to have only nine denticulations on the outer lip. Such a small difference is prob- ably too variable to be of systematic importance, particularly in the Cypraeidae. Both C. castacensis and C. mathewsoniz are among the species which are believed to be common to the Domengine horizon and the Tejon. SYCODES Gabb 1869 Sycodes cypraeoides (Gabb). Plate XX, fig. 8. ? Ficus cypraeoides Gabb, 1864, p. 105, 224, pl. 19, fig. 58. Stoliczka, 1868, p- 452. Ficus cypraeoides Gabb, in Whitney, 1865, p. 207. Sycodes cypraeoides Gabb, 1869, p. 160, 221. The specimen figured agrees fairly well with Gabb’s description and figure and is evidently the holotype. The siphonal fasciole is very faint. The apex and anterior canal are broken. Height of holotype; (almost complete), 23 mm.; width, 12.5 mm.; no. 4326. Horizon, Cretaceous ‘Chico Group;”’ locality, Tuscan Springs, Tehama County. As remarked by Gabb and Stoliczka, the type is very much like a young Cypraea. Another imperfect specimen, however, has a rather heavy deposit of callus over the fairly distinct siphonal fas- ciole, possibly but not probably indicating that the shell had really reached maturity. The growth lines are diagonal as on typical Cypraea. ~ FICIDAE (Pyrulidae) FICUS ‘“ Bolten” Rolaims 1798 (Pyrula Lamarck 1799) Ficus mamillatus Gabb. Plate XXIX, fig. 12. Ficus mamillatus Gabb, 1864, p. 211, pl. 32, fig. 276; Amer. Journ. Conch. vol. 2, 1866, p- 90; 1869, p- 221. ’ Conrad, Amer. Journ. Conch., vol. 1, : 1865, P. 363, ¢ ‘probably Sycotypus modestus Conrad;” vol. 2, 1866, p. 100 (= Ficopsis). ? Arnold, Smiths, Misc. Coll., vol. By 1907, pp. 420, 441, pl. 50, fiz. 5a, b. Arnold and Hannibal, 1913, 570. English, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 8, 1914, p. 245. i 1915, p. 50, pl. 6, 372 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII fig. 12; 1916, p. 449. Wagner and Schilling, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol, 3 14, 1923, p- 258. Anderson and Hanna, 1925, p. 111, 44. Ficopsis mammillatus Conrad, Smiths, Misc. Coll., no. F500, 1866, p- 13. Ficus mammillatus Conrad, Smiths. Mise. Coll. , NO. ’200, 1866, p. 36. Stolicz- ka, 1868, p. 452, (suggested Sycotypus). The holotype is figured. Secondary spiral lines are absent from this specimen, but they are present on a fragment of a much larger shell, evidently of this species. Height (incomplete), 19 mm.; width, 14 mm. ; no. 4230. Horizon, Tejon, Eocene: locality, Tejon. This is a rare species. Arnold and Hannibal (1913) and Dickerson (1915), reported it from the Eocene of S. W. Washington. Ficus mamillatus has the sculpture pattern of F. decussatus Wood?? of the recent Panamic fauna. They appear to differ only specifically from typical Ficus.??® F. mississippiensis Conrad? also belongs to this group. Like the recent species, it has numerous secondary spiral lines which are absent from the smaller specimen of F. mamillatus though one is present in each interspace of the adult shell. ““Pirula’ tricarinata (Lamarck)? of the Eocene (Lutétien- Bartonian) of the Paris Basin, also has smooth interspaces but a smaller protoconch than the American forms. This protoconch is even smaller than that of Ficopsis. While the classification of this species is difficult, I think it is better placed under Ficopsis. “Pirula” pannus (Desh.)?® which, like the American species, ap- peared in the later Eocene (Bartonian), has a larger protoconch and represents Ficus in that region. These two species almost bridge the gap between Ficus and Ficopsts and they are probably the ones which lead Cossmann??’ to regard all the Eocene forms as typical “Pirvla’’ = Ficus. Ficus modestus (Conrad). Plate XXXII, fig. 2. Borie modesta Conrad, Amer. Jour. Sci. (2), vol. 5, 1848, p. 433, fig. 12. Dall, in Diller 1896, p. 463. Sycotyphus modestus Conrad, Amer. Jour. Conch. vol. 1, 1865, p. 151. Ficopsis modesta Gabb, 1869, p .1 113, Ficus modestus Dall, Us oo Surv. Prof. Pap. 59, 1909, pp. 12, 74, 151, fig. 12 (rep’t of Conrad’s paper). 222 Tryon, Man. Conch., vol. 7, 1885, p. 266, pl. 6, fig. 34. Io Roeding, Mus. Bolt., p. 148, 1798. Type species “Bulla” ficus Gmel. 24 Conrad, Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil, (2), vol. 1, 1860, p. 117. Vicksburg (Oligocene). The Jackson (Eocene) variety of this’ species is said to have a slightly different protoconch (Smith, Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. Proec., 1907, p. 214, 1 17, figs. 5, E 228 en and Pisarro, Iconog., vol. 2, 1911, pl. 3% fig. 164-1. 226 Cossmann and Pissarro, op. cit., pl. 33, fig. 164-2 227 Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp. vol. 5, 1603, pp. 140-143. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 373 Ficus pyriformis Gabb, 1869, pp. 48, 77, pl.14, f. 4. Arnold, 1909, p. 18; 1910, p. 85. Smith, 1912, pp. 166, 175, 179. English, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 8, 1914, pp. 244, 246, 247, 248, pl. 25, fig. 1. Clark, 1918, opp. p.8p. 97 (7), p. 172. Pyrula pyriformis Dall, in Diller, 1896. p. 463 “2”. The holotype of F. pyriformis is figured. It is labelled, in Gabb’s handwriting “Type of species, Miocene, Martinez.” A wide de- posit of callus overlaps the last half of the penultimate whorl. Height (incomplete) 53.5 mm.; width 32 mm.; no. 4325. The matrix is very similar to that of the lectotype of Bruclarkia gravida and it probably came from the same locality (San Ramoé6n Formation) “South of Martinez.” The primary spirals are much closer together on this species than on F. mamillatus. As was noticed by English (1914) the orna- mentation much resembles that of F. dussumier:?® which is living off the coast of China. The body whorl, however, seems to be a trifle more sharply constricted anteriorly, but it is probably closely related to that species. There appears to be no difference between Gabb’s species and F. modestus (Conrad) which was described from the Tertiary (Miocene?) of Astoria, Oregon. Since Conrad’s type is lost (Dall, 1909) a good specimen from the type locality should be taken for the neotype. Ficus (Trophosycon) oregonensis (Conrad). Plate XXXI, fig. 8a. Fusus oregonensis Conrad. Amer. Journ. Sci. (2), vol. 5, 1848, p. 433, fig. 13, repr’t, Dall, 1909, p. 151, fig. 13. Not Fusus oregonensis (Say) Reeve, Conch. Tcon., vol. 4, 1848, pl. 16, fig. 61a, b. Sycotyphus oregonensis Conrad, Amer. Journ. Conch., vol. 1, 1865, p. 151. Busycon ? oregonensis Meek, Smiths. Mise. Coll. 183, 1864, p. 22. Gabb,. - 1869, p. 111 “not yet encountered.” Ficus (Trophosycon) oregonensis Dall, U. S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 59, 1909, 75. pb. isn Rosier Gabb, 1869, pp. 48, 76, pl. 14, fig. 5. Smith, 1912, pp. 166, 175, 1 oe nodiferum English, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 8, 1914, pp. 244, 247, 249, pl. 25, figs. 2, 4. Kew, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 753, 1924, Pp. (9, sU. Not Pyrula nodifera Binkhorst, Mon. Gast. Ceph. Craie Sup. Limbourg, 1861, p- 67, pl. Va:3, fig. 11. Agus ? (Trophosycon) kernianum Cooper, 1894, pp. 53, 54, 65, pl. 3, g Agasoma kernianum Anderson, 1905, pp. 176, 185, 188; 1908, pp. 19, 23, 25; Pro. Cal. Acad. Sci. (4), vol. 3, 1911, pp. 100, 101. "Arnold, 1906, p pp. 19, 73, 78, 83, 84; 1907, p. 147 dof. 1909, p 18; 1909a, p. 4 pl. 2, fig. 40; 1910 p- 85; U.S. Nat. Mus. Proc., vol. 314, P1008, pp. 350, 353, 384, pl. 34, fig. a, kernianum Dall, U. S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 59, 1909, p. 75 28 Tryon, Man. Conch., vol. 7, 1885, p. 266, pl. 5, fig. 30. 374 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVI1II (considered a subgenus of Ficus). English, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 8, 1014, pp. 244, 245, 247, 248, 249, pl. 24, figs. 4, 5, 6. Ficus kernianus Smith, 1912, pp. 166, 175, 179. Ficus kernianum Martin, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 7, 1912, pp. 148, 149. (This citation was questioned by English, 1914). ? Agasoma stanfordensts Arnold, U. S. Nat. Mus. Proc., vol. 34, 1908, p. 384, pl. 35, fig. 5: 1909a, p. 6. Ficus stanfordensis Smith, 1912, pp. 166, 175, 179. Trophosycon stanfordense English, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 8, 1914, pp. 244, 249, 250, pl. 24, figs. 2, 3. This species is commonly called Trophosycon kernianum but since this name must be replaced it is necessary to accept the oldest name, which was proposed by Conrad. Although Conrad’s type specimen is lost (Dall, 1909), T. kernianum has been recognized in the region of Conrad’s type locality (near Astoria) so that it seems probable that Conrad actually had this species, From the original figure Dall was able to recognize it as a Trophosycon, the noded shoulder and particularly the wide anterior canal exclude all other possibilities, and there can be therefore little trouble in de- termining it from material from the type locality, A neotype should be selected from such material If the California form prove dis inct from the Oregon form it will take the name Ficus nodifer (Gabb). The type material of Ficus nodifer is in the Whitney collection at the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge. It consists of two specimens, labelled in Gabb’s handwriting as from ‘Miocene, Griswold’s, PI. S. Fer-"’; no. 27825 is an internal cast with a matrix similar to that of the holotype of Acmaea rudis and therefore from San Fernando, and no. 27824, here figured, which is obviously the specimen figured by Gabb, and therefore the holotype. The holo- type is evidently the one from the ‘“ Miocene at Griswold’s, between San Juan and New Idria, Monterey Co.” Its matrix is a hard, gray sandstone. Width of body whorl, including node, 40.5 mm. : height (incomplete) 32.5 mm. This species has been studied by English who found some differ- ences between the Fernando and Temblor forms. These differ- ences, however, are not well marked. In the Kern River beds (Temblor) the species “ Trophosycon kernianum’ shows every vari- ation which has been cited as distinctive of the Fernando species. Since Gabb’s holotype is from beds of probably Temblor age his name cannot be used for the Fernando species if that form is really distinct. The type of ‘“Agasoma stanfordensis’ is very poorly 282 Howe, Pan-Amer. Geol., Vol. 45, 1926, p. 304. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 375 preserved but seems to be this species. The specimens figured by English lack the shell but they are so similar to Ficus nodifer that it would be very surprising if they turned out to be a different species. This is the only species of Trophosycon. This name was proposed by Cooper (1894) as a doubtful subgenus of Agasoma, and used by Dall as a subgenus of Ficus. It is an interesting Ficus which has developed nodes. FICOPSIS Conrad 1866 The name Ficopsis was apparently first used by Conrad?® in 1866 for a heterogeneous group of Eocene species. The following year, Stoliczka?? remarked upon the absence of any type, and the use- lessness of the name. Gabb,?! a year later, designated as type, the Claiborne species, ‘‘ Ficus penitus = Pyrula cancellata Lea.” This species is very similar to Ficopsis remondit (Gabb), as was long ago noted by Heilprin.?? It differs however in having a more ventricose body whorl. Since it was not included in the original list, this species cannot be taken for the type of the genus. Hema- Sfusus’ remondiz (Gabb?®3) is taken for the type of Ficopsis. Ficopsis is a common genus in the Eocene of Europe®* and America. F. tricostata (Desh.) (Yprésien-Londinien) is closely re- lated to the Wilcox F. juvenis (Whitfield®?). F. texana (Harris?*) is the most curious member of this group. The axial ribs are ex- tremely variable and there are two small deposits of callus on the columella, much resembling columellar folds. The genus seems to have disappeared in America at the close of the Eocene, but the stock is represented in the Miocene of Europe by Fulguroficus®? which should probably be regarded as a subgenus of Ficopsis. 229 Conrad, Amer. Journ. Conch., vol. 2, Apr. 1866, p. 100. 230 Stoliczka, 1868, p. 453. 21 Gabb, 1869, p. 158. 22 Heilprin, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., vol. 34, 1882, p. 212, 238 Gabb, 1864, p. 87, pl. 18, fig. 36. 234 Ficopsis tricarinata (Lam.), F. elegans (Lam.), F. fragilis (Desh.), F. tri- costata (Desh.); Cossmann and Pisarro, Iconog. Paris Bas., vol. 2, 1911, pl. 33 (as Pirula). 2: Whitfield, Amer. Journ. Conch., vol. 1, 1865, p. 259 (as Pyrula). Harris, Bull. Amer. Pal. vol. 1, 1896, Pp. 216-217, pl. 20, figs. 5-6. 26 Harris, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1895, p. 77, pl. 8, fig. 11, (as Pyrula (Fusoficula) texana from Lower Claiborne of Texas). 27 Sacco, Bull. Mus. Zool. Anat. Comp. Univ. Torino, No. 85, vol. 5, 1890, p. 27: Moll. Terz. Pied., pt. 8, 1891, p. 41, pl. 1, fig. 52: monotype species and numerous varieties. F. burdigalensis (Sowerby). Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 5, 1903, p. 141, pl. 6, fig. 9. 376 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII The long, wide anterior canal is characteristic of the Ficidae (Pyrulidae). Ficopsis remondii (Gabb). Plate XXX, figs. 1, 2. Fusus (Hemifusus) Remondii Gabb, 1864, pp. 87, 211, pl. 18, fig. 36. Mar- cou, 1876, p. 389 (‘“ Hemirfusus’’ typ. error). Hemifusus Remondii Gabb, 1864, p. 222. Conrad, Amer. Journ. Conch., vol. 2, 1866, p. 100 (said to belong to Ficopsis). : Fusus Remondii Conrad, Amer. Journ. Conch. vol. 1 1865, p. 363 (referred to Perissolazx). Gabb, Amer. Journ. Conch., vol. 2 1966, p.- 90. Fair- banks, Journ. Geol., vol. 3, 1895, p. 429. Arnold, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 309, 1907, p. 224, pl. 26, figs. 7, 7a; U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 396, 1909, p. 13. Arnold and Anderson, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 398, 1910, p “7% Ficopsis Remondii Conrad, Smiths. Mise. Coll. 200, 1866, oo 15,36. Gabb, 1869, pp. 158, 221. Stanton, U. S. Geol. Surv. 17th Ann. Rept. pt. 1 1896, pp. 1021, 1027. Merriam, Journ. Geol., vol. 5, 1897, p. 771. Weaver, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 4, 1905, p. 119. Dickerson, 1913, p. 264; 1914, pp. 20, 21, 22; 1914a, pp. 85, 115, 266 (?): Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol. vol. 8, 1914, p. 266 (Santa Ana Mts.): 1915, pp. 43, 61, 62, 88, pl. 6, fig. 8; 1916, opp. p. 372, pp. 377, 378, 384, 386, 408, 421, 427, 433, 441, 449: Pr. Calif. Acad. Sci. (4), v. 4, 1914, p. 15; in Lawson, 1914, p. 9 (“F. re- nondi’’ typographical error). Weaver, Calif. Acad. Sci. Proc. (4), vol. 6, 1916, p. 13; Univ. Wash Publ. Geol., vol. 1, 1916, p. 26; Wash. Geol. Surv. Bull. 13, 1916, p. 96. (Said to occur in the Eocene of Western " "ashington). Clark, Journ. Geol., vol. 29, 1921, p. 155. Weaver and Palmer, Univ. Wash. Publ. Geol., vol. 1, no. 3, 1922, p. 39. Anderson and Hanna, 1925, pp. 112, 44. Ficopsis (Hemifusus) Remondii Clark, W. B., U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 83, 1891, p. 110, “closely related if not idential with Pyrula penita.” Perissolax gabbi Stoliczka, 1868, p. 452, (not Dickerson, 1916, which may be the same as ““Strepsidura’ howardi Dickerson). It has been claimed that this species was ‘originally described from Cochran’s, near Mt. Diablo” (Anderson and Hanna, 1925, p. 112) but it is plain from Gabb’s statement (1864, p. 87) that it was not described from Cochran’s. The species was first collected at Cochran’s but, according to Gabb, none of the specimens was more than an inch in length while the original figure, ‘“ Natural size,” is 1% inches long. Since none of the specimens in the collection suf- ficiently corresponds with the figure to be the holotype the figure is considered a synthetograph, and the specimen figured here (fig. 1) which has the ornamentation shown on the original figure, is taken for the lectotype, no. 4184. Height (incomplete) 38 mm. width, ca. 18 mm. The specimen showing the aperture (fig. 2) is no. 31388 from the Museum of Paleontology. Height, 32.5; width 15.4 mm. Horizon, Tejon, Eocene; locality, Tejon. : The outline of the original figure was evidently taken from a specimen which is now in the Museum of Paleontology and pre- sumably came from near Martinez. It is quite devoid of the orna- mentation described and figured by Gabb and since that is best 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 377 shown by his Tejon material it is logical to take the best of his Tején specimens as the lectotype. This species probably occurs at all the localities mentioned by Gabb in his original description. The typical form as figured by Gabb and by Dickerson (1915) has a well-rounded body whorl. On some specimens, this whorl may have become faintly triangulate. It is present both in the Santa Susana Formation and Demengine horizon (U.C. loc. 7015 and 3296) at Simi. A strongly angulated form of this species has been called Ficopsis angulata Weaver.?® It is from the Eocene south of Martinez. Dickerson?? considered it a variety of F. remondii Gabb. Ficopsis remondii var. crescentensis’”’ Weaver and Palmer, an angulated species from the Crescent Formation of Washington, appears to be identical with F. angulata. The development of these angles does not seem to be of much taxonomic importance. It is not found, however, on any of the type Tejon forms, but it is well marked on most of the specimens from San Diego and recognizable on all of them. Some of the Simi specimens are entirely without angles, but they appear to be a trifle more ventricose than the slender Tejon forms. Since the strongly angulated form appears to be absent from Tején it is well to separate it as Ficopsis remondit angulata subsp. Ficopsis hornii (Gabb). Plate XXX, figs. 3, 4. Fusus (Hemifusus) Hornii Gabb, 1864, p. 86, pl. 28, figs. 206, 206a. Hemifusus Hornit Gabb, 1864, p. 222 (in part). Conrad, Amer. Journ. Conch., vol. 2, 1866, p. 100 (referred to Ficopsis). Fusus Hornii Conrad, Amer. Journ. Conch., vol. 2, 1865, p. 363 (referred to Perissolax). Gabb, Amer. Jour. Conch., vol. 2, 1866, p. 90 (referred to the subgenus H emifusus). Priscoficus Hornii Conrad, Smiths. Mise. Coll., no. 200, 1866, p. 15. Ficopsis Hornii Gabb, 1869, pp. 158, 221. Arnold and Rial, 1913,p 572 (2) not pp. 569, 570 = F. cowlitzensis. Dickerson, 1915, pp. 61-62, pl. 6, fig. 9. Anderson and Hanna, 1925, pp. 111, 44, pl. 12, fig. Ss. Since none of the specimens sufficiently corresponds with the original figure to be cited as the holotype the figure is considered a synthetograph and the specimen figured here (fig. 3) is taken for the - lectotype. Height (incomplete) 31.8 mm.; width (not including nodes), 15.7 mm., no. 4182. A specimen no. 31400 from U.C, loc. 7182, Tejon, is figured to show the spire. Height (almost complete) 25.6 mm.; width (not including nodes) 14.2 mm. 28 Weaver, 1905, p. 119, pl. 13, fig. 238 Dickerson, Univ. Calif. Publ. Eo vol. 8, 1914, p. 85. 240 Weaver and Palmer, 1922, p. 39, pl. 11, fig. 14. 378 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII Horizon, Tejon, Eocene; locality, Tejon. As yet this species is known only from the type locality. This species is closely related to F. cowlitzensis (Weaver)?! but may usually be distinguished by its small number of axial ribs (ca. 12) and its flat shoulder. There is considerable variation in both forms, however, so that the Cowlitz form is probably better represented as a subspecies and it may even be a variety. Ficopsis cooperiana n. sp. Fusus (Hemifusus) cooperic Gabb, 1864, p. 86, B. 28, fig. 207. Not Fusus cooperi Conrad, Journ. Acad. Nat. Sei., vol. , 1834, p- 148. Hemifusus cooperit Gabb, 1864, p. 222. iy Amer. Journ. Conch., vol. 2, 1866, p. 100 (said to belong to Ficopsis). Fusus cooperti Conrad, Amer. Journ. Conch., vol. 1, 1865, p. 363 (referred to Perissolar). Gabb, Amer. Journ. Conch. vol. 3 1866, p :-90. Ficopsis cooperit Conrad, Smiths. Misc. Coll. 200, 1866, Pp. Pid 36. Stolicz- ka, 1868, p. 452. Gabb, 1869, pp- 159, 221. Cooper, in "Watts, Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. 3, 1894, p. 62 (Coalinga). Diggers, 1914 b, p. 115 3); 1915, pp. 61, 62, pl. 6, fig. 11; 1916, p. 438, pl. 37, fig. 7 Shell of medium size, spire high, decollated, of 5 whorls; suture linear, slightly appressed; subsutural area slightly concave; body whorl with three rows of tubercles, the posterior two being closer together; and both exposed on the preceding whorls; posterior row forming a conspicuous shoulder; about 11 more or less irregularly spaced tubercles in each row; surface marked by fine spiral lines of various widths and separated by interspaces of various widths but usually wider than the lines, and crossed by lines of growth giving the surface a cancellated appearance; aperture large, outer lip broken; canal broken, probably long and straight. Dimensions of type no. 11691; height, 27.4 mm. (incomplete); width of body whorl, 17 mm. (Museum of Paleontology). Horizon, Eocene (Domengine); locality, Rose Canyon, San Diego County. The San Diego specimen is taken for the type because it is fairly well preserved. It has been figured by Dickerson (1915, 1916). Gabb’s name, being a homonym, may be ignored. A new species is described here instead of giving a new name to Gabb’s species because his material is very poor. In all cases of preoccupied names of doubtful species, it is better to ignore the original, and establish a new species, than to reestablish invalidated and unde- sirable descriptions. This species is found in the Domengine horizon (Loc. 7004) in Simi 21 Weaver, 1912. p. 45, pl. 1, figs. 1. 4. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 379 Valley, and is also present in the Eocene (? Domengine Formation), near Coalinga. In describing this species, Gabb pointed out that the nodes are not arranged in vertical series as on Ficopsis hornii (Gabb). This species further differs from F. hornii in that the middle row of tu- bercles is closer to the posterior row than to the anterior row, as was noticed by Dickerson (1915, p. 62). Another unique character is that the suture lies considerably below the middle row of nodes of the preceding whorl, leaving the whorls of the spire biangulate, a character also observed on a specimen of F. multangulata (Heil- prin).?? However, the character is not constant in that species. The type of Ficopsis furlong: Palmer ?® from the “middle Eocene shales near Vacaville” is unfortunately very badly crushed and will not permit a conclusive study. It apparently has many more ribs than F. cooperiana n.sp. ““ Ficopsis sp.”’ Dickerson?* is an inter- nal cast and not determinable. It also seems to have had a large number of tubercles. F. cooperiana is probably related to a species which occurs with F. juvensis at Wood’s Bluff and Thomasville and Chactaw Corners, Alabama, (Wilcox). This apparently nameless species has incon- spicuous varices on the early whorls. Varices have not yet been observed on F. cooperiana. PRISCOFICUS Conrad 1866 Priscoficus caudatus (Gabb). Plate XXV, fig. 7. Urosyca caudata Gabb, 1869, p. 159, 221, pl. 27, fig. 38. Cooper, 1894, p. 63 (?). Dall, in Diller, 1896, p. 459. Stanton, 1896, pp. 1022, 1024, 1025, 1029, 1047, pl. 67, fig. 6: in Darton, Journ. Geol., vol. 29, 1921, p. 729 (““caudita’ by error). Merriam, Journ. Geol., vol. 5, 1897, pp. 770, 773. Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 6, 1904, p. 124, fig. 14 (said to = Ful- guroficus = Pirula). Sacco, Moll. Terr. Terz. Piem., vol. 30, 1904, p. 102 (Urosyca considered a distinct genus in place of Fulguroficus). Weaver, 1905, pp. 108, 109, 111, 119. Dickerson, 1911, pp. 174, 175, 176; 1914 a, pp. 74, 76, 83, 86, 87, 88, 97, 101 “ef.”, 111, 113, 115, 129, 151, pl. 15, fig. 7a, b; in Lawson, 1914, p. 9, “cf.” (?). The type material of this species is poorly preserved. The speci- men figured is taken as the lectotype, for the original figure is evidently a synthetograph. There are about 15 nodes on the pos- terior angle of the body whorl. Length (incomplete) 54 mm.; width, 32.7 mm.; no. 4208. #2 Heilprin., Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., vol. 32, 1880, p. 374, pl. 20, fig. 2 (as Pyrula). Eocene of Alabama (Wilcox) 23 Palmer, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 14, 1923, p. 295, pl. 52, fig. 6. 24 Dickerson, 1914 a, p. 174, pl. 15, fig. 6. 380 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII Horizon, Martinez (Paleocene); locality, Martinez. A common species of the Martinez horizon of this region. The genus has also been reported from the Paleocene at Simi Valley (Nelson, 1925, opp. p. 402). In a footnote following the first appearance of the name Ficopsis, Conrad proposed?® Priscoficus for “P. intermedia Melville and P. smithiz Sowerby” and apparently also included Ficopsis hornii and F. cooperii, but as there is some doubt about the inclusion of the last two species, Prisoficus intermedius (Melleville)?* is taken for the type. Priscoficus triserialis (Whitfield)? from the Wilcox (Lignitic-Sabine) of Alabama is another member of this essentially Paleocene genus. Priscoficus is evidently an early Ficus-like development of the Ficopsis stock. The name was proposed three years before Urosyca Gabb 1869. CASSIDIDAE GALEODEA Link 1807 Galeodea tuberculiformis Hanna. Plate XXVIII, fig. 11. Morio (Sconsia) tuberculatus Gabb, 1864, pp. 104, 224, pl. 19, fig. 57; 1869, p- 223. Stanton, 1896, p. 1027; in Turner and Stanton, Am. Geol., vol. 14, 1894, p. 95. Arnold, U. S. Nat. Mus. Proc. 32, 1907, p. 540, pl. 39, fig. 9 (2); U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 309, 1907, p. 224, pl. 26, fig. 9 (7). Morio tuberculatus Cooper, 1894, p. 62; 1896, p- 84: in Watts, Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. 3, 1894, p. 10 (?). Anderson, 1902, p. 166 (?). Weaver, 1905, p-111 (7). Dickerson, 1911, p. 174; 1913, p. S64 (in part), 270, 285 ?): in Lawson, 1914, p. 9. Not Arnold and ‘Hannibal, 1913, p. 569. Not J. P. Smith, in Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. 69, 1914, "Folio, pl 1, fig. 20 (Cowlitz). Not Waring, Journ. Geol., vol. 22, 1014, p. 784. Was sp. (tuberculatus) Merriam, Journ, Geol., Vol. 5, 1897, pp. 770, 771, 3 “eo Cassidaria (= Phaliwm) tuberculata Dall, in Diller, 1896, p. 458 (?). Cassidaria tuberculata Dickerson, 1914, pp. 20, 21 , 22; 1914a, pp. 85, 87, 109 “?7, 115; 1914b, p. 115 (7). Galeodea tuberculata Dickerson, 1916, pp. 377 (?), 378 (?), 433, 438 (?), 450 (in pur, 492, pl. 42, fig. 2, not pp. 408, 421; not 1915, pp. 43, 50, 51, pl. 6, g. 3a, b. Galeodea (Moro) tuberculata Waring, 1917, p. 90, pl. 15, fig. 17. Galeodea n. sp. Clark, in Kew, U. S. Geo. Surv. Bull. 753, 1924, p. 25. Galeodea tuberculiformis Hanna, Proc. Calif. Acad. Sei. 4), vol. 5 1924, p 167, new name. Anderson and Hogan 1925, pp. 110, 44. Sehr h Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 16, 1926, p. 83, "pl. 14, figs. 12-16. Not Cassidaria tuberculata Risso, Hist. Neg, Europe Mer., vol. 4, 1826, p. 186. The best specimen in the collection is here figured and taken for the lectotype of Morio tuberculatus Gabb and is therefore the lecto- 246 Conrad, Amer. Journ. Conch., vol. 2, Apr. 1866, p. 100. 216 Melleville, Ann. Sei. Géol., vol. 2, 1843, p. 115, 4 10, figs. 8-9. Cossmann and Pissarro, Iconog., vol. 2, 1911, pl. 5n fig. 164-6. Paleocene (Thanetian). #7 Harris, Bull. Amer. Pal, vol. 3, 1899, p- 67, pl. 8, fig. 17, as Fulguroficus. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 381 type of the substitute name G. tuberculiformis Hanna. This is the specimen which I referred to in a letter, part of which was published by Schenck (1926, p. 83). It has eight nodes on the shoulder. The apex and canal are broken. There is a third anterior row of poorly developed nodes. The inner lip is rather thick and much expanded. The outer lip is much thickened. A varix is present on both penultimate and antepenultimate whorls. This species is characterized by its fine beaded sculpturing. Height (incomplete) 24 mm.; width (not including outer lip), 18 mm., no. 4343. Horizon, Eocene; locality, probably from the so-called Tejon at Martinez. Most of the material belongs to this species but one specimen may be Galeodea susanae Schenck. This species also occurs in the Domengine horizon at Coalinga and Simi Valley, and may be present at San Diego. “Cassidaria” tuberculata Risso is probably synonymous with the type of the genus*® Galeodea echinophora (Linneaus), which makes Gabb’s name a homonym. The proposal of substitute names for homonyms without knowledge and designation of the type material is a thing which careful workers do not do. While in this case not much harm has been done, for the type material is recognizable, certainly nothing was gained by changing the name without fixing the type specimen and the new name might much better have been based on a good specimen, of which there are many, from a known locality. There is as much responsibility, if not more, in the pro- posal of a substitute name as in a new name, therefore those who carelessly scatter substitutes for homonyms should be discouraged. The survival of this genus which was so wide spread during the Eocene, in Mediterranean and N.E. Atlantic waters, is remarkable. ‘HAYDENIA Gabb 1864 Haydenia is doubtfully placed in the Cassididae. Haydenia impressa Gabb. Plate XX, fig. 5a. Haydenia impressa Gabb, 1864, pp. 98, 223, pl. 18, fig. 51; 1869, p. 219; in Whitney, 1865, pp. 207, 210. Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 4, 1901, pp. 155-6. fig. 42 (after Gabb—as a subgenus of Cyllene). Tryon, Man. Conch. vol. 3, 1881, p. 106, pl. 31, fig. 82; Struct. Conch., vol. 2, 1883, p. 150, pl. 51, fig. 72; (after Te Fischer, Man. Conch., 1884, p. 626 (Buccinidae). Stanton, in Turner, U. S. Geol. Surv. 14th Ann. Rep’t, pt. 2, 1894, p. 460. Anderson, 1902, p. 29. The one specimen of this species in the collection is labelled #5 Link, Beschreibung der Nat.-Sammlung der Univ. Rostock, pt. 3, 1807, p.” 113. Monotypic genus. 382 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII “Tuscan Springs, Cal.” It agrees very well with Gabb’s figure and description and is taken for the lectotype. The spire is worn. There are nine incised lines on the anterior portion of the body whorl They are progressively wider anteriorly. The exposed portion of the columella is smooth and covered with callus. A small flange may be present at the beginning of the anterior canal. The si- phonal fasciole is quite distinct. The sulcus surrounding the suture is due to a slight protrusion forward and inward of the growth lines apparently to form a guard for the outer boarder of the posterior canal. Height, 19.5 mm.; width, 15.5 mm.; no. 4199. Horizon, Cretaceous ‘Chico Group”: locality, Tuscan Springs. The anterior and posterior canals, the callus and to a certain extent the ornamentation suggest the Cassididae. Three speci- mens of this species now in U. S. National Museum from Penz Ranch show the inner edge of the columella and one specimen has - a distinct plication about half way up the columella. If present at all on the other two specimens it cannot be seen without breaking back the outer lip. This plication is not present in the Cassididae and it is quite likely that Haydenia is really a member of an extinct and as yet unrecognized family. BURSIDAE (‘“Ranellidae”) " OLEQUAHIA n. gen. Olequahia hornii (Gabb). Plate XXIX, figs. 1, 4, 18. Tritonium Hornii Gabb, 1864, p. 94, 223 (in part), pl. 28, fig. 208: 1869, p. 218 (in part). Stoliczka, 1868, p. 133 (suggested Leiodomus Swainson). Bursa hornii Anderson and Hanna, 1925, pp. 54-55, pl. 13, figs. 3, 4, 8. Not Nyectilochus hornii Dickerson, 1915, pl. 7, fig. 8 (= Ranellina pilsbryzi, n.sp.); 1916, pl. 42, fig. 3 (cf. R. pilsbryz). Stolen Sapo ses Anderson and Hanna, 1925, pl. 10, fig. 1; not pp. 45, 67, pla1l, fg. 7. Tritonium (Trachytriton) Tejonensis Gabb, 1869, pp. 154-155, pl. 26, fig. 34. Trachytriton Tejonensis Schmidt, Mém. Acad. Sci. St. Pét. (7), vol. 19, 1873, p. 17. Marcou, 1876, p. 389. Cooper, 1896, p. 85 (Ventura Co.) (7). Waring, 1917, p. 87. Not Argobuccinum tejonense Anderson and Hanna, 1925, p. 54, 43. Three smooth rounded nuclear whorls form a prominent apex. The first whorl of the shell is rounded and bears seven spiral lines, which are slightly beaded by numerous minute axial ribs, and one varix. The second whorl has two varices and eight spiral lines which are heavier and farther apart. A faint shoulder has appeared and besides the minute axials, there are eight coarse ribs which extend from the suture over the shoulder, half-way to the succeeding “whorl. On the third whorl, the shoulder is more prominent, the 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 383 minute axials are fainter, and there is but one varix. On the fourth whorl, the minute axials have disappeared and the heavy ribs do not extend anterior to the shoulder, but terminate there as nodes. This whorl is slightly biangulate, and has seven widely spaced spiral ‘ribs on the anterior portion of the whorl. There are three spiral ribs on the middle portion of the whorl, the centre one being the heaviest. The aperture and the canal of the holotype are unknown. Height (incomplete), 14.4 mm.; width (not including varix), 10 mm.; no. 4193 (fig. 4). Horizon, Tején, Eocene; locality, Tején. Gabb mentioned a specimen from ‘Cochran’s,” but it is not with the holotype. No. 31381—Mus. of Pal.—(fig. 1) shows the adult ornamentation. As yet, the species is known only from the type locality. A closely related form is present in the Domengine horizon at Simi and Coal- inga. Length of no. 31381, 28 mm. The holotype of ‘ Tritonium tejonense’ is also figured (fig. 18). It is an internal cast of an adult specimen of this species. It is from the Museum of Comparative Zoology, no. 27823. Height, 47 mm.; width, 31 mm. Tején. Adult specimens have nodes on the lower angulation which are offset toward the aperture. This species is not so angulated asA\Olequahia washingtontana Weaver,® the type of the genus, but in general, the two species are identical. This new genus may be recognized by its high spire, straight columella, posterior canal and axial ribs which usually do not extend below the shoulder. The posterior canal and varices suggest the Bursidae. It is known only from the Eocene of the West Coast, while the genus Bursa, in spite of numerous references to the contrary, did not appear on the West Coast until much later, Bursa californica Hinds of the recent fauna being the only known species. It was present in the San Pedro Formation®° which is called Pleistocene. : The first subsequent type designation for Bursa?! which I have been able to find is that of Jousseaume?? who chose Murex bufon- ntus Gmelin. 249 Weaver, Wash. Geol. Suey, Bull. 15, 1912, p. 38, pl. 3, fig. 28 (as Cassidaria). Dickerson, 1915, pl. 7, fig. 20 Arnold, Calif. Acad. sor Mem, vol. 3, 1908, p. 287. 281 Roeding, Mus. Bolt., pt. 2, 1798, p- —129. %2 Jousseaume, Bull. Soc. Zool. an vol 6, 1881, p. 174. 384 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII ; GYRINEUM Link 1807 Gyrineum californicum (Gabb). Plate XXX, fig. 6. Tritonium californicum Gabb, 1869, p. 154, 218, pl. 26, fig. 33. Marcou, 1876, p. 389. Cooper, 1894, p. 63 (?); in Watts, Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. 3, 1894, p. 62 (Coalinga) (?). Dall, in Diller, 1896, p. 467 (?). Arnold, 1906, p. 53 ‘““cf.”’; U. S. Nat. Mus. Proc., vol. 34, 1908, p. 361; not 1909, p. 14, pl. 4, fig. 4; not 1910, p. 71, pl. 26, fig. 4. Arnold and Hannibal, 1913, p. 572 (Crescent Formation) (?). Dickerson, 1913, p. 264 (in part), p. 272; 1914, p. 22 (2). Nyctilochus californicus Dickerson, 1915, pp. 44, 65, pl. 7, fig. 7; 1916, p. 408 (7), pp. 421, 426 “‘cf.”, 427, 433, 451 (in part), not pl. 40, fig. 8. Argobuccinum californicum Anderson and Hanna, 1925, pp. 53-54, 43. The holotype is figured. It is much like Gyrineum kewi** but has a higher spire and smaller nodes. Height, (incomplete) 17.9 mm.; width, 9.8 mm.; no. 4205. Horizon, Tejon, Eocene: locality, Tejon. This species is, as yet, known with certainty only from Tejon. The varices are more or less opposite each other on the holotype though they are not continuous as in typical Gyrineum.*® Adult specimens may show this species to belong elsewhere. RANELLINA Conrad, 1865 Ranellina pilsbryi n. sp. Plate XXX, figs. 8, 9. Fusus californicus (Conrad) Gabb, 1864, pp. 85-6, 222, pl. 28, figs. 205, a; Amer. Jour. Conch., vol. 2, 1866, p. 89; 1869, p. 215. Conrad, Amer. Jour. Conch., vol. 1, 1865, p. 363. ? Dickerson, 1914, p. 20; 1914a, p. 95. Not Clavatula ? californica Conrad, 1855, p. 11: 1857, p. 322, pl. 2, fig. 11 = Mitra californica. Clavilithes californicus (Conrad) Anderson and Hanna, 1925, pp. 63-4, 55, 43, pl. 13, fig. 1, 2. 22 Nyctilochus hornii (Gabb) Dickerson, 1915, pp. 44, 65, pl. 7, fig. 8: 1916, p. 451 (at least in part), pl. 42, f. 3. Anderson and Hanna, 1925, p. 55, 64 “= Clavilithes californicus.” Not Tritonium hornit Gabb, 1864, p. 94, pl. 28, fig. 208 = Olequahia hornit. Shell of medium size, spire high, early whorls broken away, suture linear; whorls angulated and with a small collar; antepenultimate whorl nodose at the shoulder, later whorls smooth but for spiral ribs and irregularly developed, noninterrupted varices, which do not reach above the shoulder. Length of holotype (fig. 8) no. 31382 (incomplete) 20 mm., width, 13.5 mm. No. 31383 (fig. 9) shows a moderately long and almost straight canal: length (in- complete), 18 mm.; width, 10.7 mm. 258 Dickerson, 1915, p. 64, pl. 7, figs. 5a, b (as Nyctilochus). 25 Link, Beschreibung Natur.-Samml. Univ. Rostock, pt. 2, 1807, p. 123. Type species (by virtual tautonomy) ‘“ Murex” gyrinus L. Designated by Dall, Smiths, Misc. Coll.. vol. 47, 1905, p. 131. The earlier designation of Rovereto—G. spin- osum Dillw.— (Atti Soe. Sig. Genova, vol. 10, 1899, p. 106) is not in the original list although Link’s first species is probably a synonym of it. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 385 Horizon, Eocene, Tejon; locality, Tejon. (U. C. loc. 7182). Both specimens are from the Museum of Paleontology. The varices are rather variable and sometimes extend almost to the suture, but, on the few specimens available from Tejon, they are not of the interrupted type. The forms from the Domengine horizon of Coalinga (Dickerson, 1916) and Simi sometimes have the normal growth of the shell interrupted at each varix. This species has a more appressed collar than the Claiborne species, Ranellina maclurii (Conrad), the type of the genus. It has been confused with Mitra californica (Conrad), of which “ Mitra murietta”’ Anderson and Hanna®® is a synonym, but as was pointed out by Conrad, (1865) that species is smooth. Gabb (1866) was mistaken in supposing that species to be founded upon an internal cast. The reference of M. californicus to Leiorhinus®? by Conrad, (1865) is not so unreasonable, for the aperture of the type specimen, which is in the U. S. National Museum, is not ex- posed. THAISIDAE 2 THAIS ‘‘ Bolten” Roeding, 1798 (Link, 1807) Thais (Stramonita) ponderosa (Gabb). Plate XXXI, fig. 3 Trophon ponderosus Gabb, in Whitney, 1865, p. 32 nom. nud. Trophon ponderosum Gabb, 1866, p. 2, pl. 1, fig. 3; 1869, p. 70. Anderson 1905, pp. 180, 203; 1908, p. 25. Arnold, 1906, pp- 19 (7), 24, 84, “cf.” (0). Weaver, 1909, pp. 265, 500. Merriam and Clark, in Lawson, 1014, p- 11. Waring, Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. 69, 1914, p. 423. Clark, in Lawson, 1914, p- 12; 1915, p. 405, opp. p. 408, Pp. 423, 499, 500, pl. 66, figs. 3, 4. Nom- ns, "Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol. Vol. 9, 1916, p- 208. Po 1022, pp. 145, Trophon ponderosus Watts, Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. 3, 1894, p. 55. Cooper, 1896, p. 83. Smith, 1912, pp. 167, 177; not, in Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. 69, 1914, Folio, pl. 1, fig. 41’ Not Trophon (Forreria) ponderosum Arnold, 1909, pp. 25, 26, 27, 32, 36, 40, 88, pl. 14, figs. 3, 5, 6; 1910, pp. 109, 110, 127, 133, pl. 36, figs. 3,5,6 A specimen, no. 31402 in the Museum of Paleontology, corre- sponds so well with the dimensions of the original figure that it is considered the holotype. It has already been refigured (Clark, 1915, pl. 66, fig. 3). Height 56.3 mm.; width (not including spines) 35.7 mm. The specimen figured here is believed to be one of the original specimens. Its preservation is similar to that of the holotype. Height 46.3 mm.; width (not including spines) 33.4 mm. ; no. 4336. 2: Conrad, Amer. Jour. Conch., vol. 1, 1865, p. 21, 191. 26 Anderson and Hanna, 1925, p. 76, pl. 8, fig. 12, 13. gd Font Gabb, Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila, Jour: @), vol. 4, 1860, pp. 401-402, p g << Wis, HP / 386 : PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII Miocene “Kirker’s Pass” (label written by Gabb). This species is probably from the San Pablo horizon. Martin and English did not find it in their studies of later horizons. This species is similar to Thais chocolata (Duclos),?® a living Peruvian species, but has a much narrower canal. Thais chocolata has a tendency to form an anal ridge as in the Atlantic Thais (Strominata) haemostoma (Linn.),?? and it also has a deep notch as in that species. 7. (Stramonita) ponderosa has no such anal ridge but the posterior notch is distinct. This shallow notch separates it from typical Nucella®®® which it otherwise closely resembles. It seems better to recognize Nucella as a distinct genus than to place it with the low-spired aberrant Thais fucus (Gmelin),*! from Cape Verde Islands, the type species of the genus Thais.??2 Thais and Stramonita each have the anal notch and are closely related. Their radulae have been examined by Cooke?? who, though he found Nucella quite distinct, found no radular evidence for a separation of Thais and Stramonita. 28 Tryon, Man. Conch., vol. 2, 1880, p. 160, pl. 44, figs. 27-29. 29 Tryon, Man. Conch., vol. 2, 1880, p. 167, pl. 49, fig. 80. This is the type species of Stramonita Schumacker (Essais Syst. Test. 1817, pp. 226-227) de- finitely designated by Cossmann (Es. Pal. Comp., vol. 5, 1903, p. 71). 260 Roding, Mus. Bolt, pt. 2, 1798, pp. 130-131. Type species Buccinum filosum Gmelin = B. lapillus L. It is probably safe to say that Dall fixed the type in 1909 (U. S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 59, p. 48). 261 Tryon, Man. Conch., vol. 2, 1880, p. 165, pl. 48, fig. 72. (As Purpura neri- toidea Linn.). 262 Roding, Mus. Bolt., pt. 2, 1798, p. 54, “In T. neritoidea Lamarck, the type of Thais, there are no lirations, . . .”” (Dall, U. S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 59, 1909, p. 49). Of course this specific name does not appear in the Mus. Bolt. but some may claim that this is a valid type designation because on another page (p. 46) is to be found ‘Purpura neritoides Lamarck (= Murer fucus Gmelin, 1792).” A valid designation was given by Iredale (Trans. N. Zeal. Inst., vol. 47, 1915, p. 472) “Thais s. str. Type: T. neritoides = M. fucus Gmel.”” Martin's fig. 959-960 (vol. 3, pl. 100) which were cited by Roding for his first species, Thats lena, are considered to represent the lectotype of Murex fucus Gmel. This is the same species as Murex neritoideus Linn, (1766), the type specimen of which, according to Hanley (p. 294) is represented by Bonanni’s fig. 174. But Murex neritoideus Linn. (1767) is an unnecessary substitute for Nerita nodosa Linn. (1758, p. 777) having the same specimen for its type, which is represented by Bonanni’s fig. 174. The result is Thais lena Roding 1798 = Murer fucus Gmelin, 1791 = Murex neritoideus Linn, 1767 = Nerita nodosa Linn. 1758. Gmelin (1791, pp. 3,537) proposed to use Murex meritoideus for shells resembling Rincinula horrida which were included in it and therefore named the remainder—the M. neritoides of later authors and Hanley—Murex fucus. Gmelin had the right, as first reviser, to do this and if he is followed M. fucus will be the name of the type species of Thais. The type species of Thais is Thais lena Roding = Murex fucus Gmelin. 268 Cooke, Proc. Malac. Soc. London, vol. 13, 1919, pp. 91-110. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 387 MURICIDAE MUREX sensu lato Murex whitneyi (Gabb). Plate XXX, fig. 10. /\Tritonium Whitney; Gabb, 1864, pp. 96, 223 (in part), pl. 28, fig. 210, a; AN 1869, p. 218 (in part). Stoliczka, 1868, pp. 133-4 (suggested Hindsia or Tritonidea). Marcou, 1876, p. 389. Dickerson, 1914a, p. 146; 1913, p. 270, p. 273 (7). Not Nyctilochus whitney: Dickerson, 1916, pp. 408, 427 ‘‘cf.”’, 439 “‘cf.”, 442, 451, pl. 41, fig. 9. Kew, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 12, 1919, p. 10. Not Latirus whitney: Anderson and Hanna, 1925, pp. 65, 44. Murex beali Anderson and Hanna, 1925, pp. 50-1, 44, pl. 13, fig. 16. Although only three whorls are preserved?* the lectotype which is figured, is in fairly good condition. It has seven doubled nodes on the body whorl. This double row of nodes on the periphery— also seen on “ M. beali”’—is probably characteristic of this species. Length, (incomplete) 21.4 mm.; width 13 mm.; no. 4195. Horizon, Tején, Eocene; locality, Tejon. The cast mentioned by Gabb, from San Diego, is indeterminate. ‘‘ Murex beals” from Tejon and is plainly this species. M. sopenahensis Weavers from Cowlitz is a very closely related species, but of the numerous specimens examined, none shows the double row of nodes on the periphery. ‘“Anchura’ english: Dicker- son? from the Martinez horizon is probably a related species. M. calcitrapoides Lamarck from the Lutétien has but a single row of nodes on the periphery and only faintly developed secondary spiral lines. These secondary spiral lines are prominent on M. whitney: which has also some tertiary spiral lines. Cossmann?’ placed Lamarck’s species with M. zelandicus Quoy and Gaimard, the type of Poirieria Jousseaume?$® but it. has very different early whorls. It is, at least, subgenerically removed from typical Murex.269 TYPHIS Montfort 1810 Typhis antiquus Gabb. Plate XXVII, fig. 7, 8. Typhis antiquus Gabb, 1864, pp. 82, 221 (in part), pl. 18, fig. 31; 1869, p. 214. Anderson and Hanna, 1925, pp. 51, 45. The original figure of this species is evidently an ideal recon- struction of the specimen figured here (fig. 8) as the lectotype, no. %4 Dickerson’s statement (1914a, p. 146) that the type specimen has 7 or 8 whorls is probably after Gabb. 265 Weaver, Wash. Geol. Surv. Bull. 15, 1912, p. 48, pl. 1, fig. 8. 266 Dickerson, 1914a, p. 144, pl. 14, fig. 267 Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp. , vol. 5 1903, p- 30, pl. 2, fig. 22. 262 Dall, Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. "vol. 36, 1923, p 76. 29 Linnaeus 1758, Syst. Nat., pp- 746-756. 0 species Murex tribulus by subsequent designation Ofoaons Conch. Syst., vol. 2, 1810, p. 619). 388 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII 4335. One surviving tubule shows the fragment to be a Typhis. Length (incomplete) 12 mm.; width 7.4 mm. The other specimen mentioned under the original description is probably a Murex. Horizon, Eocene, probably from the so-called Tejon; locality, Martinez. The other specimen figured here (fig. 7)—length, 13 mm.—is probably from Tejon and therefore the basis of Gabb’s later (1869) citation of this species from that locality. Unfortunately it is not available as a lectotype. Better material from Martinez is neces- sary before the determination of the Tején specimen can be certain. The Tején specimen may be easily recognized by its small smooth shell, high, carinated spire, and tuberculated shoulder. There is apparently but one tubule between each pair of varices. This specimen is remarkably similar to Typhis tubifer*® (Lutétien of Grignou, France) the type of the genus.?”! PURPURA Martyn 1784 Purpura monoceros (Sowerby). Plate XXXII, fig. 1. Murex monoceros Sowerby, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1840, p. 143: Conch. III. 1841, Murex, p. 5, fig. 64-65. Kiener, Coqu. Vivants, ete., vol. 7, 1843, Murex, p. 83, pl. 17, fig. 2. Reeve, Conch. Ill., vol. 3, 1845, Murex, pl. 2, fig. 7. Kobelt, Syst. Conch.-Cab. Murex, 1878, p. 63, pl. 23, fig. 8. Sowerby, Thes. Conch., vol. 4, 1880, p. 28, pl. 389, fig. 86. Tryon, Man. Conch., vol. 2, 1880, p. 115, pl. 35, figs. 388, 389. Not Murex monoceros d’Orbigny, Voy. Amér. Mer. Mollus., 1842 (?), p. 454, pl-78,0z. 1,2 Murex (Pterorhytis) monoceros Arnold, Mem. Calif. Acad. Sei., vol. 3, 1903, 2 Mian (? Phyllonotus) paucivaricata Gabb, 1869, pp. 43, 69, pl. 14, fig. 1. Tryon, Man. Conch., vol. 2, 1880, p. 115 (‘‘ paucilirata’ by error, corrected in the index, = Murex monoceros Sow.) Muricidea paucivaricata Cooper, 1896, p. 82. Merriam, 1895. There are three specimens of this species labelled Muricidea pauci- varicata in Gabb’s handwriting in the Museum of Comparative Zoology. The best specimen is figured here as an example of the original material. It has eight nodes on the shoulder and no varix- like swellings, although they are present on one of the other speci- mens. Height 44 mm.; width 25 mm.; no. 27863. “Post-Pliocene; Santa Barbara, San Pedro and San Diego.” Arnold?” placed this species in the synonymy of Purpura mo- noceros (Sowerby)—a recent species from Lower California—on ‘the authority of Tryon. The figured specimen is readily dis- 270 Cossmann, Essais Paléoch. Comp., vol. 5, 1903, p. 57, pl. 2, fig. 23. 271 Montfort, Conch. Syst., vol. 2, 1810, p. 615, (by original designation). 222 Arnold, Mem. Calif. Acad. Sei., vol. 3, 1903, p. 246. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 389 tinguished from Purpura monoceros by the absence of varices but it is probably an abnormal specimen. The holotype of the Muricidea paucivaricata has been recognized by Merriam (1895) and is now in the Museum of Paleontology (no. 12001). Although it does not have the aperture filled with matrix as shown in the original figure its dimensions are so close to those of the figure that there can be little doubt of its validity. It is labelled, but not by Gabb, “San Diego.” Presumably the matrix has been removed since Gabb illustrated it. Height 47.4 mm., width, 27 mm. It has varices similar to Purpura monoceros (Sowerby) and is considered conspecific with it. This species lacks the prominent varices of typical Purpura.?’ ? ALECTRIONIDAE (Nassidae) MOLOPOPHORUS Gabb, 1869 Molopophorus striatus (Gabb). Plate XXIX, fig. 14. Bullia (Molopophorus) striata Gabb, 1869, p. 157, 219, pl. 26, fig. 36. Dall, U. 8S. Geol. Sur. Prof. Pap. 59, 1909, p. 45 (considered Molopophorus a dis- tinet genus). 1882, p. 7, pl. 3, fig. 27 (Molopo- ARN ih Bullia striata Tryon, Man. Conch., vol. 4 phorus considered a subgenus of Bullia); Struct. Conch., vol. 2, 1883, p. 156, pl. 52, fig. 80. Cossmann, Es. Pal. Comp., vol. 4, 1901, p. 201 (sug- gested Cominella); vol. 10, 1915, p. 231 (considered a typical mint, Molopophorus striata Dickerson, 1915, p. 67, pl. 8, fig. 6. Anderson and Hanna, 1925, p. 74, 44, 72, pl. 8, fig. 14. Molopophorus striatus Fischer, Man. Conch., 1884, p. 634 (position uncer- tain). Clark, Journ. Geol., vol. 29, 1921, p. 159 (in part). The lectotype is figured. The “two faint, variable folds” on the columella refer to the siphonal fasciole. The body whorl has about fourteen axial ribs. A layer of callus bordering the suture may be seen on well preserved specimens. The larger specimens (width, 5 mm.) have a distinct collar. Height of lectotype, 6.1 mm.; width, 4 mm.; no. 4249. Horizon, Tejon, Eocene; locality, Tejon. This species is the monotype of Molopophorus. The genus is quite common in the West Coast Oligocene and may be present in the Eocene of the Paris Basin.?’* It is probably related to Brachy- sphingus but is much smaller. Molopophorus biplicatus (Gabb). Plate XXXI, fig. 4. Cuma biplicata Gabb, 1866, p. 9, pl. 2, fig. 14; 1869, p. 75. Dall, Trans. Wag. Inst., vol. 3, 1890, p. 155, ‘probably Purpura’: in Diller, 1896, p. 463. 2% Martyn, Fig. Non Descript Shells, vol. 2, 1784, (cont. of Univ. Conch.) pl. 66. Monotype species Purpura foliata, Martyn (Explanatory Table). 274“ Clomanella” ovata (Desh.), Cossmann and Pissarro, Icon., vol. 2, 1911, pl. 37, fig. 174-4. Cuisien = Yprésien. A » 390 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII Arnold, 1906, p. 19 (2), 79 (?); U. S. Nat. Mus. Proe., vol. 32, 1907, p. 530; vol. 34, 1908, p. 350 (7); 1909a, p. 4. Smith, 1912, p. 165 (?), 175 (?), 179 (?). Anderson, Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. (4), vol. 3, 1911, p. 100. An- derson and Martin, 1914, p. 43 “2”. Molopophorus biplicata Merriam and Clark, in Lawson, U. S. Geol. Surv. Folio 193, 1914, p. 10. Molopophorus biplicatus Clark, 1915a, pp. 15, 20, “from the Agasoma gravidum zone—believed to be characteristic of the Oligocene’’:.1918, opp. p- 80, p. 91 “‘ef.”, 97 (2), 174, pl. 20, figs. 4, 6, 8. The lectotype is figured. It is the best of four specimens labelled “types” by Gabb. Only three whorls are preserved, otherwise it corresponds very well with the original description. The siphonal fasciole is very distinct. Another specimen shows an internal ascending ridge at the base of the columella. Height 21.5 mm.; width, 14.6 mm.; no. 4340. : “Miocene south of Martinez’; probably from the San Ramoén Formation. The presence of this species in Vaqueros or later horizons is doubtful. According to Clark (1915 and 1918) it is confined to the Oligocene. : Molopophorus antiquatus (Gabb). Plate XXVIII, fig. 4. Nassa antiquata Gabb, 1864, p. 97, pl. 18, fig. 50; 1869, p. 219. Stanton, 1896, p. 1022. Dickerson, 1916, p. 379 (Eocene at Mt. Diablo), 433, 451. The holotype, here figured, is much like Molopophorus cretaceus but it is more slender, the spiral ribs on the anterior portion of the body whorl are closer together, and the axial ribs are finer and more numerous. However it may prove to be a large specimen of that species. Height, (incomplete) 18 mm.; width, 10 mm.; no. 4198. Horizon, Eocene; probably from the so-called Tején (Domen- gine) locality, “Bull’s Head Point, Martinez.” The matrix is a fine brown sandstone. : This species is evidently related to “ Ancillaria’ bretzi Weaver®™ from Cowlitz, but it has well-developed spiral lines. These two species are like Dorsanum politum Lam.,2™ a species living on the West African Coast, but they are distinguished from that species by their axial sculpture. The Cowlitz species also has ai plication on the anterior portion of the columella between the edge of the canal and the siphonal faciole which is lacking on Dorsanum politum. These two species form a rather distinct group which will probably have to have a new name but their relationship to Molopophorus is 25 Weaver, 1912, p. 53, pl. 2, fig. 21. : 276 Gray, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1847, pl. 89. It seems evident that Gray meant Buccinum politum Lam. for the type of this genus, though there is room for doubt. Cossmann sel ected this species for the type (Es. Pal. Comp., vol. 4, 1901, p. 248, pl. 9, fig. 23, the figure is that of a closely related Miocene species). 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 391 not yet understood. They are probably represented in the Paris Basin by ‘“Cominella” acres (Watelet)?””. They have a strong siphonal faciole quite different from that of Buccitriton.?® Buccitriton has been considered?”® a Phos and a subgenus??? of Phos, but it has a larger protoconch, a shorter canal and a collar. Although some specimens have a faint undulation on the outer lip, analogous to the notch of Phos, that genus is more probably repre- sented in the Eocene by Phos (Tritiaria) hilly (Harris)?®! from the Jackson of the Gulf Coast. The genus Phos®®® has not yet been found in the Tertiary of the West Coast. The type of ‘“ Phos” blakianus Anderson and Hanna?®® is evidently an Endopachy- chilus.? > Molopophorus cretaceus (Gabb). Plate XXVIII, fig. 9. Nassa cretacea Gabb, 1864, p. 97, 219, pl. 18, fig. 49; 1869, p. 219. Cooper, in Watts, Calif. Min. Bur. Bull, 3, 1894, p- 10; 1896, p. 84 (Ventura Co.). Arnold, 1907, p 11 (after Cooper). Dickerson, 1916, p- 379 (Eocene at Mt. Diablo), 433, 451. “Nassa cretacea” Anderson and Hanna, 1925, p. 74, Molopophorus tejonensis Dickerson, 1915, p. 66, 67, 0 : fig. 3a, b. Cominella tejonensis Anderson and Hanna, 1925, p- 72, 73, 43. There is considerable material in the box labelled “type,” but it all appears to be the same species. The lectotype here figured is well preserved, though crushed. The axial ribs are more prominent on the early whorls; the penultima has nineteen ribs, the ultima - about twenty-four. The ribs extend over the collar which bears two heavy spiral lines. On the body whorl below the collar are about sixteen fine spiral lines above five heavy spiral lines. The siphonal faciole is prominent and well curved. Pseudovarices are present and the columella has a thin callus. Height, 13.7 mm.; greatest width (the specimen is crushed) 7.5 mm.; no. 4197. 277 Cossmann and Pissarro, Icon., vol. 2, 1911, pl. 37, fig. 178-5. Cuisien = Yprésien. 278 Conrad, Amer. Journ. Conch., vol. 1, 1865, p. 29. Type species, Buccinum sagenum Conrad (Cossmann, Es. Pal. Comp. vol. 4, 1901, p. 159, pl. 6, fig. 11). 279 Dall, Trans. Wag. Inst., vol. 3, 1890, p. 135. 280 Cossmann, Es. Pal. Comp., vol. 4, 1901, Lr 156-160. 281 Harris, Ann. Rep’t Geol. Sur. Ark., vol. 2, 1894, p. 167, pl. 6, fig. 6. John- son, Proc. Acad. Nee Sci. Phila., 1899, . 75, 76, pl. 1, fig. 10, 11. Some of the specimens from Jackson Miss. are remarkably like Phos (Tritiaria) MISSISSIPPI ensis (Conrad) from Vicksburg, Miss. (Oligocene) (Conrad, Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. (2), vol. 1, 1845, p. 116, pl. 11, fig. 28—as Buccinum)—which i is the type species of Tritiaria Conrad (Amer. 7 Conch., vol. 1, 1865, p. 21). 282 Montfort, Conch. Syst., vol. 2, 1810, p. 495. Type species, by monotypy, Murex senticosta Li. 283 Anderson and Hanna, 1925, p. 73, pl. 8, fig. 16 (not pl. 11, fig. 8, 9). 25¢ Cossmann, Ann. Soc. Roy. Malac. Belg., vol, 24, 1889, p. 136. Ty e species, by original designation, Purpura crassilabrum Desh. (Cossmann and Pissarro, Iconog., vol. 2, 1911, pl. 37, fig. 179-10). 392 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII Horizon, Eocene; probably from the so-called Tején (Domen- gine); locality, ‘Bulls Head Point, Martinez.” It is also present at — Tejon. Except for the type of preservation, there seems to be no dif- ference between this species and the Tejon form, “ M. tejonensis.” The two Tejon specimens available seem to have a lower spire but in neither specimen is the spire complete nor does it seem likely that this slight difference, if real, would be constant. “Cominella” coleman: Anderson and Hanna? from Tejon, has a conspicuous groove just anterior to the collar which is not present on this species. It is neither Cominella nor Molopophorus. BRACHYSPHINGUS Gabb 1869 Brachysphingus sinuatus Gabb. Plate XXV, fig. 2. Brachysphingus sinuatus Gabb, 1869, p. 156, pl. 26, fig. 35: 1869, p. 219. Dickerson, 1914, p. 109. Smith, J. P., in Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. 69, 1914, Folio, pl. 1, fig. 16. Not Waring, 1917, pp. 72, 82, pl. 13, figs. 7, 8. = B. gibbosus Nelson. Kew, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 753, 1924, p. 19. Nelson, 1925, pp. 403, 426. Buccinanops (Brachysphingus) sinuatus Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 4, 1901, p. 221. From the eight specimens labelled “types,” no. 4258 which is here figured, is taken for the lectotype. None of them is so large, nor so well preserved as the original figure would lead one to expect. Until the holotype, if such ever existed, is discovered, this figure will be considered a synthetograph. Two of the specimens are much inflated and have weak axial ribs. They are probably smooth forms of B. gabbi. B. sinuatus is a trifle more cylindrical than the globular B. gabbi. Height, (incomplete) 26.8 mm. ; width, 21 mm.; no. 4258. Horizon, probably Martinez, Paleocene; locality, Martinez. This species has been taken?® for the type of the genus, As yet, only three California species are known. Possibly “Fusus’ luciani Briart and Cornet?” from the Montien is related to Brachysphingus, but it is not typical. Brachysphingus gabbi n.n. Plate XXV, fig. 9. Buccinum liratum Gabb, 1864, p. 96, 223, pl. 28, fig. 211. Stoliczka, 1868, p. 143 (tentatively suggested Bullia). Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 4, 1901, p. 222 (placed under Buccinanops (Brachysphingus)). Not Buccinum liratum Martyn, Univ. Conch., vol. 2, 1788, fig. 43. 285 Anderson and Hanna, 1925, p. 71, pl. 9, fig. 11. 288 Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 4, 1901, p. 221. 287 Briart and Cornet, Mém. Acad. Roy. Sci. Let. Beaux-arts de Belgique, vol. 43, 1880, pl. 17, pl. 15, fig. 1a, b. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 393 Brachysphingus liratus Gabb, 1869, p. 156, 219. Tryon, Struct. Conch., vol. 2, 1883, p. 150, pl. 51, fig. 70, “Allied probably to Cominella or Vo- lutharpa’; Man. Conch., vol. 3, 1881, p. 106, pl. 31, fig. 81. Stanton, 1896, p. 1048, pl. 66, figs. 5, 6. Merriam, Journ. Geol., vol. 5, 1897, p. 770,773. Dickerson, 1914a, p. 109 (in part), pl. 15, fig. 4. The holotype has about twenty-one axial ribs on the body whorl and fine close set spiral lines on the anterior portion. Four and one-half whorls form a blunt spire. On two other specimens with the type, the spire is much lower, hardly extending above the penultimate whorl. The aperture has a very small posterior notch or canal. The inner lip is fairly heavy and distinetly limited. The siphonal fasciole is rather broad distinet and curved. Height, 33 mm.; width, 25 mm.; no. 4196. Horizon, Martinez (Paleocene). Gabb gave several localities for this species, under the type description, but his type material is labelled Martinez. Dickerson found it at numerous Martinez localities and Stanton has figured a specimen from Lake county. The heavy axial ribs make this species easily recognizable but it is probable that the globular shape is the more reliable criterion. NEPTUNEIDAE NEPTUNEA ‘‘ Bolten” Roeding 1798 (Link 1807) The first subsequent type designation of Neptunea?8® seems to be that of Cossmann?®® who chose “Fusus antiquus” L. This has priority over Dall’s discussion in 190229° in which no type was selected. Dall’s?! later discussions of Neptunea versus Chrysodomus do not take into consideration the authority of the first subsequent designation of a type species for a heterogeneous genus. Cossmann’s designation also has priority over that of Iredale? but gives the same result, namely, it reduces Chrysodomus Swainson?® to the synonomy of Neptunea. If the ‘Museum Bolteni- 288 Roeding, Mus. Bolt., pt. 2, 1798, pp. 115-117. Link, Beschr. Nat. Samml. Univ. Rostock, pt. 3, 1807, pp. 117-118. : 289 Cossmann, Es. Pal. Com., vol. 4, 1901, p. 99, pl. 4, fig. 15. Dautzenberg and Fischer (Camp. Sci. Monaco, vol. 37, 1912, pp. 68-76, pl. 1, fig. 8) have given a beautiful figure of this species. Unfortunately the first figure of this species, referred to by Linneaus, is not the Neptunea antigua of later writers, but this error was corrected by Gmelin, and Hanley has identified the type species as being that of later writers. (Ipsa Linn. Conch., 1855, p. 302). 290 Dall, U. S. Nat. Mus. Proc., vol. 24, 1902, p. 521. 291 Dall, Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., vol. 81, 1918, p. 137: U. S. Nat. Mus. Proc., vol. 54, 1918, p. 214: Proc. Malac. Soc. London, vol. 15, 1922, p. 36. 292 Tredale, Proc. Malac. Soc. London, vol. 14, 1921, p. 206. 29% Swainson, Treat. Malae. 1840, pp. 90, 308. “‘The Beautiful orange mouthed wilk of England is a typical example.” This is not a type designation par- ticularly when written by Swainson. The type species is Fusus despectus Linn. by subsequent designation (Herrmannsen, Ind. Gen. Malac. 1847, p. 234). 394 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII anum’’ is denied by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, as I think it should be, Neptunea will still be the valid name for this group dating from Link, 1807. The name Tritonium?* is available for Neptunea but this name was so long used for the Triton shells that nothing would be gained and much misunderstanding arise if it were now transferred to Neptunea. Unfortunately none of the original species listed under T'ritonvum are Triton shells so it is impossible to use this name for any of the groups commonly so-called during the 19th century. The first species Tritontum undatum = Buccinum undatum L. is taken for the type species thus making Tritonium an absolute synonym of Bucctnum Linneaus.?% Loven?® used Tritonium in its original sense in 1847 and added numerous species to it, but did not select a type. Gray??? selected M (urex) lyratus as the type of Tritonium b, Loven, but since that name does not occur in “Mueller” this type designation is not valid. Gray also cited Tritonium apparently as an absolute synonym under Triton, Bela, Chrysodomus and Buccinum. The citation under Chrysodomus is the important one. ‘39, Chryso- domus Swains. 1840. Murex B. Schum. Tritonium Miiller, Loven, 1846 not Cuvier, 1817. Mur. antiquus.” From his introduction it is plain that Gray selected a type for Chrysodomus (but Herr- mannsen’s designation is earlier) and apparently the same type for Tritonium but 1 think the type selection of the latter name is rather by implication than by actual designation. Many names are cited in this manner by Gray and to accept them as valid type designa- tions would cause many changes. Something can be said, in favor of considering them as valid type designations, but, since, in doubt- ful cases favor is to be shown to the established nomenclature, and since the rejection of these questionable designations will help to maintain the established nomenclature, they are not accepted as valid type designations. A reversal of this conclusion will make Tritonium the valid name for Neptunea, but such an arrangement would be so undesirable that it would be well to ask for special protection for Neptunea. 29 Mueller, Zool. Dan. Prod. Anim. 1776, pp. 243, 244. 2% Linn. Syst. Nat. 1758, pp. 734-742. Type species, by subsequent designa- tion, Buccinum undatum L., de Montfort, Conch. Syst., vol. 2, 1810, p. 463. 296 oven, Ofversigt Kongl. Vet.-Akad. Forh. “1846,” 1847, pp. 143-145. 297 Gray, Proe. Zool. Soc. London, 1847, p. 134, no. 11; p. 153, no. 6; p. 134, no. 14; p. 137, no. 39; p. 139, no. 62. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 395 Neptunea humerosa Gabb. Plate XXXII, figs. 2, 3. Neptunea humerosa Gabb, 1869, pp. 45, 71, pl. 14, ig J Cooper, 1896, p. 80. Arnold, 1906, p. 27; 1907, p. 25; 1909a, p. 6 « Since the original figure is obviously a oh the speci- men showing the aperture is taken for the lectotype, no. 4328 (fig. 3). The other figured specimen has a more prominent shoulder but is probably conspecific, no. 4328a (fig. 2). It shows the noded early whorls. The large body whorl mentioned by Gabb is in the Whit- ney collection at Harvard (no. 27817). It is apparently con- specific with the lectotype. Height of lectotype (incomplete) 55 mm.; width 34.1 mm. Height of no. 4328a (almost complete) 52 mm.; width 33 mm. “Pliocene of San Fernando, near Wiley’s, on the San Fernando Pass, Los Angeles County.” Neptunea altispira Gabb. Plate XXXI, fig. 6. Neptunea altispira Gabb, 1869, pp. 44-45, 71, pl. 14, fig. 2. Cooper, 1896, p. 83. Arnold, 1907, p. 26. dor liratus Arnold, 1909a, p. 6. Not Neptunea lirata (Martyn). The holotype is figured. The body whorl is badly crushed and the anterior spirals were probably not so conspicuous as shown in the original figure. Height, (incomplete) 55 mm.; width 34 mm.; no. 4322. : “Pliocene of Eagle Prairie, Humboldt County.” This species would probably be better cited as a subspecies of Neptunea lirata (Martyn) of the North Pacific and Arctic Oceans. The shoulder is not so prominent as on that species. ‘‘Neptunea’ cretacea Gabb. Plate XXV, fig. 8. Neptunea (Tritonofusus) cretacea Gabb, 1869, pp. 146-147, 216, pl. 26, fig. 24. Not Dickerson 1914a, pp. 75, 87, 110, 151, pl. 15, fig. 12 = Sycum mu- cronatum. Neptunea cretacea Cooper, 1894, p. 62, "non Soledad” (?). Wilckens, Neu. Jahrb. Min. Beil. Band 18, 1904, p. 213, 2 Chrysodomus cretacea Nelson, 1925, p. 427. The holotype is apparently the only known specimen of this species. Traces of fine spiral lines are still preserved on the colu- mellar region of the body whorl. The holotype is more inflated than Sycum mucronatum, but it may be the adult of that species. Height, 37.7 mm.; width, 34.5 mm.; no. 4206. Probably from the Martinez horizon (Paleocene); locality, Mar- tinez. The holotype of ““ Neptunea’ gracilis Gabb (1864, p. 90, pl. 18, fig. 42) is no. 31384 in the Museum of Paleontology. It was recognized - 396 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII by Merriam (1895). It is very poorly preserved and seems to be related to Endopachychilus crassilabrum (Deshayes)**s—Lutétien— but is more slender. Height (incomplete) 18 mm.; width, 8.8 mm. Horizon, Eocene (?); locality, Martinez. COLUS ‘‘ Bolten” Roeding, 1798 (? Tritonofusus Beck 1847) Colus (Aulocofusus) recurvus (Gabb). Plate XXXII, figs. 8, 9. Neptunea recurva Gabb. 1866, p. 3, pl. 1, fig. 4; 1869, p. 71; in Whitney, 1865, p. 154. Watts, Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. 3, 1894, p. 59. Weaver, 1909, p. 265. Smith, 1912, p. 176. Merriam and Clark, in Lawson, 1914, p. 10. Kew, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 753, 1924, p. 78 (Pico Formation). Chrysodomus recurva Anderson, 1905, p. 177. The specimens figured, which were labelled by Gabb as from Tomales Bay, are obviously not his best material. They may be considered as examples until his holotype has been found. There is but very faint indication of the axial ribs so plainly shown in his figure. Length of internal cast, (fig. 9) 37 mm.; width, 20.5 mm.; length of fragment, 35 mm.; (fig. 8), no. 4346. “Abundant in the Miocene at the Arroyo San Antonio, near Tomales Bay.” The matrix is similar to that of Pseudotoma re- mondii (Gabb). The Museum of Paleontology has three specimens of the original material. The best one has four whorls, the first two of which have the prominent axial ribs of the original figure. The anterior canal, however, is lacking so that it cannot be called the holotype. If the holotype is not found this specimen should be taken for the lecto- type. Gabb listed this species from numerous localities and it is possible that the holotype is to be found in the material from some of his other localities. These specimens, like the Academy’s ma- terial, are from ‘“ Arroyo San Antonio.” The generic determination of this species is based on rather scant evidence and may be incorrect. In spite of references to the con- trary the type species for the genus Colus**® was apparently not fixed until 1918.3°° Awulocofusus®® was proposed for species with a short canal and heavy spiral ribs. 208 Cossmann and Pissarro, Icon. Eocene Paris, vol. 2, 1910-13, pl. 37, fig. 179-10. 299 Receding, Mus. Bolt., pt. 2, 1798, p. 117 300 Dall, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. vol. 54, 1918, p. 217. Type species Murex islandicus Gmelin. 301 Dall, Op. eit. p. 217. Type species, Fusus spitzenbergensis Reeve. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 397 SYCUM Bayle 1880 Sycum mucronatum (Gabb). Plate XXYV, figs. 4, 5. Neptunea mucronata Gabb, 1869, pp. 147, 216, pl. 26, fig. 25. Stanton, 1896, p. 1029 (horizon unknown). Merriam, Journ. Geol. vol. 5, 1897, pp. 770 Martine horizon), 773 (‘ mucronta” typ. error). Weaver, 1905, p. 108, 111, “Lower Martinez.” ?Dickerson, 1911, p. 174; 1914a, pp. 74, 75, 8 110, 151, pl. 15, fig. 11. Not Fasciolaria mucronata Waring, 1917, pp.’ 72, 83, pl. 12, fig. 5 (Martinez at Simi) = Sycum burroensis (Nelson) fide Nelson. "Kew, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 753, 1924, p. 19. Chrysodomus mucronata N elson, 1925, p. 427. Neptunea (Tritonofusus) cretacea Dickerson, 1914a, pp. 75, 87,110, 151, pl. 15, fig. 12. Not Gabb. Catal burroensis Nelson, 1925, opp. p. 402 (loc. 3772 only), not p. 426, pl. 57, figs. 7, 8. From the fasterial labelled “Types,” the best preserved speci- men is taken for the lectotype, no. 4257 (fig. 4). Another specimen (fig. 5) is slightly more inflated than the lectotype. Length of lectotype (incomplete) 17.5 mm.; width 13.8 mm. Length of other specimen (fig. 5) (incomplete) 18 mm.; width 13.6 mm. Horizon, Martinez, Paleocene; locality, Martinez. The spiral lines of Sycum burroensis (Nelson)—Martinez horizon, at Simi—are closer together than on this species which, however, seems to be present in that region at locality 3772. On Sycum mucronatum the spiral lines are rather evenly spaced except near the suture where the interspaces are wider and deeper. On Sycum bulbiforme (Lam.),?*? the type of the genus,*® the spiral lines have disappeared from the inflated portion of the whorl. Sycum constrictum (Aldrich)®** from the Midway of Alabama is closely related to the Martinez species. Its outer lip is crenulated internally. The genus 1s said to have survived to the Oligocene in Europe. .?% ; BRUCLARKIA Trask new genus, Bruclarkia gravida (Gabb). Plate XXXI, figs. 10, 11. Clavella gravida Gabb, 1866, p. 4, pl. 1, fig. 6. Dall, in Diller, U. S. Geol. Surv. 17th Ann. Rept., pt. 1, 1896, p. 467 “2”. Agasoma gravida Gabb, 1869, pp. 46, 72, 113. Tryon, Man. Conch., vol. 3, 1881, p. 105, pl. 31, fig. 75. Cooper, 1894, p 53. Merriam, Univ. Calif, Publ. ool vol. 3, 1904, pp. 378, 380. ral 1909, p. 18 (?); 1910, p. 87 £62 Cossmann and Pissarro, Iconog., vol. 2, 1911, pl. 39, fig. 194-3 ‘“Cuisien- Bartonien.” #3 Bayle, Journ. de Conchyl, vol. 28, 1880, 240. This genus was called Leiostomus by Swainson (1840, pp. 90, 93, 94, 08) and Leiostoma (1840, p. 308). The ‘“ Leiostoma’ is evidently a lapsus since he used that name also for a group of land snails (1840, pp. 192, 194, 328). There being an earlier Leiostomus (Lace- pede 1802), Sycum is evidently the valid name for this group. 204 Harris, Bull. Amer. Pal., vol. 1, 1896, p. 211, pl. 19, fig. 14 (as Neptunea). 208 Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 4, 1901, p. 81. The Italian species is somewhat questionable for it has a prominent shoulder (Bellardi, Moll. Ter. Pied. Lig., vol. 1, 1872, p. 15% pl. 10, figs. 6a, b) 398 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII (?) (Vaqueros near Coalinga, after Anderson); U. S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 47, 1906, p. 78 “cf.” p. 83 (near Palo Alto); U. S. Nat. Mus. Proc., vol. 34, 1908, p. 379 (?). Merriam and Clark, in Lawson, U. S. Geol. Surv. Folio 193, 1914, pp. 10, 11 “2”, Agasoma gravidum Cossmann, Es. Pal. Comp., vol. 4, 1901, p. 148; vol. 13, 1924, p. 257 (considered an incomplete Moro). Anderson, 1905, p. 172 (?) (Temblor near Coalinga), p. 187 (?) (San Luis Obispo Co.), p. 188 (?) (Kern River); 1908, p. 100 (?), (Kern River) not p. 101; Calif. Acad. Sei. Proc. (4), vol. 3, 1911, p. 100 (?), p. 107 (?). Smith, 1912, p. 165 (?), 178 (7). English, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol, vol. 8, 1914, p. 245 (Type species of Agasoma) p. 251, pl. 25, figs. 7 and 8. Clark, 1915a, pp. 15, 18, 19, 20. “believed to be characteristic of the Oligocene: 1918, opp. p. 80, p. 82, 91, 95, 97, 101, 10°, 104, 182, 183, 184, pl. 19, figs. 1, 3, 5, not pl. 22, fig. 19 (evidently a lapsus for A. acuminatum). Wagner and Schilling, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 14, 1923, pp. 246, 247, 248, 252. Agasoma gravidum multinodosum Clark, 1918, opp. p. 80, p. 183, pl. 23, fig. 5. (This interesting “variety” is probably not of taxonomic importance). The specimen taken for the lectotype—no. 4345 (fig. 10)—evi- dently supplied the ornamentation for Gabb’s synthetograph. The anterior row of nodes is barely perceptible. The outline was evidently based on one of the more poorly preserved specimens. The other specimen figured here no. 4345a (fig. 11) is probably one of those which Gabb acquired after the original publication and which he mentioned in 1869. This specimen is by far the best one in the collection and would be taken for the lectotype were it not obvious that Gabb did not have it in 1864. The three rows each have about fourteen nodes. The middle row is slightly closer to the anterior row than to the posterior row. The posterior row only is visible on the penultimate whorl. It has eleven nodes. The siphonal fasciole is quite distinct but it probably varies consider- ably within this species. The growth lines are broadly curved posteriorly but on the body whorl the enlarged collar gives them an exaggerated sinuosity. Height of 4345a (incomplete) 42 mm., width 29 mm. Height of lectotype (incomplete), 32 mm.; width, 2] mm. Probably the lectotype and the other figured specimen are from “south of Martinez;”’ in the San Ramén Formation. They are in similar matrices—a rather hard bluish gray sandstone with some black fragments, apparently of organic origin. This species is the type of the Agasoma gravidum zone of Merriam (1904). It is now used as a guide fossil of the West Coast Oligocene (Clark 1918). Gabb suggested (1869, p. 113) that this species might be identical with Natica geniculate Conrad from Ocoya Creek. That name is best considered a nomen dubium but if revived it cannot be used for this species which is not known from that locally (Temblor Formation). 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 399 This species has long been called Agasoma and was even cited as the type of that genus by English (1914) and Clark (1918), but an earlier type designation by Cossmann (1901) makes a new name necessary. Gabb (1869) proposed the name Agasoma for Clavella gravida and C. sinuata Gabb. Both Tryon®® and Fischer?’ cited the latter species as an example of Agasoma, and Cossmann who was apparently the first to realize that the two species were not congeneric selected C. stnuata for the type of the genus. Clark (1918) also noticed that the two species were not congeneric and Trask3®® believing, with most West Coast palaeontologists, that Gabb’s first species C. gravida, should be considered the type of Agasoma, proposed the new name ‘ Kotlopleura” for Agasoma stnuatum. Since Cossmann, who has already called attention to this (1924), had the right of the first reviser, his type designation, which seems to be the first, cannot be ignored and ‘‘ Koilopleura is therefore an exact synonym of Agasoma. Dr. Trask, who has accepted this conclusion as inevitable, has proposed in a letter to me the new name Bruclarkia, in honor of Professor Bruce L. Clark, for the unnamed portion of Gabb’s “Agasoma.” This is the first appearance of the name Bruclarkia the type species of which is Clavella gravida Gabb. The curved growth lines and comparatively wide canal of Bru- clarkia suggest the Neptuneidae (Chrysodomidae). The canal and whorls of Bruclarkia barkeriana (Cooper)*® of the Kern River Miocene, seem sufficiently like “Sipho” profundicola Verrill®? and “Smith,” a recent, Atlantic species, to merit placing them in the same family. The holotype of Agasoma sinuatum (Gabb) is in the Museum of Paleontology, No. 11994. Height (incomplete) 25 mm.; width 15.5 mm. It has been mentioned by Trask who has published figures of better specimens collected from the Briones Formation (Upper Miocene). 3! 806 Tryon, Struct. Conch., vol. 2, 1883, p. 143, pl. 51, fig. 65. 507 Fischer, Man. Conch., '1884, p . 627. 308 Tragk, Univ. Calif. Publ. oa, vol. 13, 1922, pp. 157-158. 20 English, 1914, p. 252, pl. 25, figs. 3,13, 14 (as 'Agasoma). 30 Verrill, Trans. Conn. Acad. Sei. vol. ’6, 1884, p. 170, pl. 31, fig. 13. The angulation on the 3rd whorl of this figure i is probably exaggerated. 31 Tragk, op. cit. p. 158, pl. 8, figs. 2, 3a, b, 4a, b. Cossmann (1924) has re- produced one of these figures. 400 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII BUCCINIDAE ? PSEUDOLIVINAE PSEUDOLIVA Swainson, 1840 Pseudoliva lineata Gabb. Plate XXVIII, fig. 14a. Pseudoliva lineata Gabb, 1864, pp. 99, 223, pl. 18, fig. 52; 1869, p. 219. Dick- erson, 1914b, p. 123; 1916, pp. 379, 451 (in part). Anderson and Hanna, 1925, pp. 52, 44. The lectotype is figured. The apex is broken. The spiral ribs are regular but there is a tendency to form bands near the siphonal fasciole. Height, 34.5 mm.; width, 23 mm.; no. 4200. Horizon, Eocene, probably from the so-called Tején; locality, Martinez. This species is known from Martinez, Mt. Diablo, and Simi Valley, from strata which are correlated with the Domengine Formation. Like most Eocene and Cretaceous species of Pseudoliva, the pro- jection on the outer lip of this species is farther from the siphonal fasciole than on the recent West African P. “blumbea,” the type of the genus.3!? A small specimen of this species is noded at the shoulder as are the adult of P. dilleri Dickerson from the Eocene of Umpqua, Oregon. However, the spiral ribs are not banded as on that species, but as Dickerson pointed out, the two species are closely related. Pseudoliva volutaeformis Gabb. Plate XXIX, fig. 7. Pseudoliva volutaeformis Gabb, 1864, pp. 99, 223, pl. 28, fig. 212; 1869, p. 220. Arnold and Hannibal, 1913, pp. 568, 570. Dickerson, 1913, p. 285 (?);1914, p. 20 (2); 1914a, p. 115 (?); 1915, p. 44, pl. 7, fig. 3a, b; 1916, opp. p. 372 (7), p- 421, p. 439 (?), p. 452 (in part). Anderson and Hanna, 1925, pp. 52, 53, 44. The lectotype is figured. The spire is badly worn. Although Gabb mentioned two specimens from Tejon, only one is in the box labelled “type.” It has 8 nodes on the body whorl. The outer lip is broken. Height, 30 mm.; width, (not including spines) 17 mm. ; no. 4201. Horizon, Tejon, Eocene; locality, Tejon. This species is known, with certainty, only from Tejon. FASCIOLARIIDAE ‘‘Fasciolaria laeviuscula’” Gabb. Plate XXVI, fig. 6. Fasciolaria laeviuscula Gabb, 1864, pp. 100-1, 224 (in part) pl. 18, fig. 55; 1869, p- 220. Just what species this fragment represents is not known, but it 312 Swainson, Treat. Malac, 1840, p. 82, fig. 3a, p. 306. 313 Dickerson, 1914b, pp. 122, 123, pl. 12, fig. 1a, b, ¢, d. - 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 401 may be a Sycum. The canal is slightly twisted; the columella, as much of it as is exposed, is smooth. Length, 38 mm.; width, 24 mm. Holotype, no. 4203. Horizon, Eocene; locality, S.E. of “Mine Hill,” near Clayton, from beds just underneath the coal; probably Domengine horizon. “Fusus’’ tumidus Gabb. Plate XXI, fig. 6. Fusus tumidus Gabb, 1869, p. 145, 215, pl. 26, fig. 22. Cooper, 1894, p. 61 (?). Stanton, 1896, p. 1029. Not Dickerson, 1915. p. 43 (see Anderson and Hanna, 1925, p. 57). Not Fusinus tumidus Dickerson, 1916, p. 421, p. 450. Fusinus tumidus Anderson and Hanna, 1925, p. 44. The specimen figured—no. 4248—is labelled “type” and is evi- dently the only specimen Gabb had. It has an overlapping collar, coarse spiral lines and large swollen tubercles on the shoulder. Height (incomplete), 31 mm.; width, 15 mm. Horizon, Cretaceous?: locality, Martinez. The matrix is a dark gray hard limy sandstone with numerous shell fragments. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to produce a good figure of this very poorly preserved fossil. It may be related to ““ Hindsia nodulosa’ (Whiteaves).? The holotype of “Fusus” aratus Gabb’® is no. 11979 in the Museum of Paleontology. The sinuous growth lines and the de- pression just anterior to the collar suggest Plectocion but it lacks the prominent spiral ribs of P. curvirostris. There are a few spirals on the anterior portion of the body whorl and it seems quite likely that it is another species of Plectocion but this is questionable since the anterior canal is unknown. Height (incomplete), 15.5 mm.; width, 9.8 mm. Locality, “A single specimen, marked “near Martinez,” in the collection of Mr. Remond.” Gabb did not know the exact lo- cality or horizon of this species. It is presumably Cretaceous. WHITNEYELLA n. gen. Whitneyella sinuata Gabb. Plate XXIX, figs. 6, 17. Fasciolaria sinuata Gabb, 1864, pp. 101, 224, pl. * 8, fig. 213, a; 1869, p. 220 (in part). Dickerson, 1915, p. 74, pl. 11, fig. 3a, b. Latirus sinuatus Anderson and Hanna, 1925, pp. 6 , 41, 44, pl. 13, figs. 14, 15. Not Turris sinuata Arnold and Hannibal, 1913, p. 569 = Whitneyella wash- 1 gtoniana (Weaver). Of the seven specimens in the collection, the one figured (fig. 6) 314 Whiteaves, Mesoz. Foss., vol. 1, Can. Geol. Surv., 1879, p. 125, pl. 15, fig. 7, pl 43, fig. 2. 315 Gabb, 1864, p. 84, pl. 28, fig. 202. The specimen figured by Dickerson (1914a, pl. 16, fig. 4), as this species, belongs to a different genus. 402 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII most closely resembles the original figure and is taken for the lecto- type. The apex is badly worn and there are but 43 whorls pre- served. The specimen has one distinct plication on the columella. Height, 24.5 mm.; width, 13 mm.; no. 4297. The complete aper- ture is shown of a larger specimen, (fig. 17, length, 38 mm.) no. 31404, Museum of Paleontology, Tejon. : ' Horizon, Tején, Eocene; locality, Tejon. Gabb also listed it from San Diego, but his material all seems to have come from Tejon. The closely related species at San Diego has a higher spire and is called W. martinez (Gabb). This species has not been recognized elsewhere except in the Cowlitz Formation of Washington where it has a prominent collar and rather conspicuous nodes on the axial ribs and was called “ Hemafusus washingtoniana’ Weaver.316 “Hemifusus’ washingtonianus resembles Euthriofusus but has a more prominent collar and a shorter canal and its early whorls are rounded. Related to it, are the Oligocene species ‘Fasciolaria™ gabb: Dickerson,’ and ‘‘ Hemifusus” lincolnensis VanWinkle.3!8 “ Hemafusus” washingtonianus was placed by Clark in his genus Perse’? Unfortunately the type of that genus is a poorly pre- served shell of doubtful character but may possibly be the same as “Turris” altascallus Clark.?*® It is at least certain that it does not belong with “H.” washingtonianus and its allies. The name Whitneyella is proposed for this group with “H.” washingtonianus Weaver as the type species. It is characterized by its low spire and usually overlapping whorls. The columellar pli- cation is variable and probably not diagnostic. The type of Euthriofusus is ‘““Fusus’ burdigalensis’' a very common species in the Miocene of Europe. The species so clas- sified®? in the Eocene of Europe are not typical. ‘ Euthriofusus” laubrierer and “E.” distinctissimus probably belong with Chryso- .domus” regularis (Sowerby)? (Bartonian) and ‘‘Fusus’ harrisi 316 Wash. Geol. Surv. Bull. 15, 1912, pp. 46, 47, pl. 2, fig. 11. Not fig. 12, which is “Hemifusus” lincolnensis. 817 Dickerson, Calif. Acad. Sci. Proc. (4), vol. 7, 1917, p. 174, pl. 30, figs. 4a, b. 318 VanWinkle, Univ. Wash. Publ. Geol., vol. 1, no. 2, 1918, p. 89, pl. 7, fig. 10. 819 Clark, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., yok 11, 1918, pp. 179-80, pl. 23, fig. 2 520 Clark, op. cit., p. 189, pl. 23, fig. 1 2! Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp. 5 "vol. 4, 1901, pp. 270 pl. 1, fig. #22 Cossmann and Pissarro, Iconographie, ote. vol. 2, 1910-13, 3 41, figs. 200-1, 200-2, 200-3. 328 Sowerby, Miner. Con. vol. 5, 1825, pl. 423, fig. 1. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 403 Aldrich,** from the Eocene of Alabama, which form an apparently unnamed group. Their outer lip is quite different from that of “ Buccinofusus.” ‘“ Euthriofusus’ bezangoni may be a Whitneyella. “ Euthriofusus” transversarius Wrigley®® (Londinian), if it is really related to ‘“Fusus” lima Sowerby, certainly belongs elsewhere. Judging from the figure?” there seems to be no reason for placing “Fusus” multisulcatus Nyst under Euthriofusus, as has been done.3?? The genus does not appear to have reached America. ‘‘Fusus” mortoniopsis Gabb®® from the Lower Claiborne (Eocene) of Texas, doubtfully placed under Euthriofusus by Cossmann, has the rounded early whorls of Fusinus. Cossmann considered ‘‘Fusus’ equalis Emmons a typical Euthriofusus, but that species has since been placed®?® correctly, I believe, under Heilprinia. ‘‘Fusus’ pyruli- formis Sowerby? from the Neogene of Chili, (Navidad), which Cossmann also included in his Euthriofusus, has a short conical spire and seems to belong elsewhere. The type and only known specimen of ‘““E.” crescentis Palmer’! from Eocene shales near Vacaville, California, is a gastropod protoconch with a single whorl of the shell present. ‘Euthriofusus” spinosus Suter®? from the New Zealand Tertiary is a large spinose shell presenting quite a different aspect from the European Euthriofusus, which is probably confined to the Middle Tertiary of Europe and adjacent regions. Whitneyella martinez (Gabb). Plate XXVI, fig. 7. Fusus Martinez Gabb, 1864, pp. 82, 221, pl. 18, fig. 32; 1869, pp. 146, 214. Merriam, 1895. Fairbanks, Jour. Geol., vol. 1895, p. 430 (?). An- derson, 1905, pp. 164, 166; 1914, p. 20. TL 1914a, p. 73 “cl.” (7), p- 82 (7), p. 100 ‘op 1127), p Ns Pir martinez Dickerson, 1016, opp. p- 372, 433, 438 “ef.” (in part?), 450, 454 (?). Anderson and Hanna, 1925, pp. 62, 44. The figured specimen—no. 27835 of the Museum of Comparative Zoology—may be the holotype of this species. It is not labelled by Gabb and is supposed to have come from Tején Pass but the matrix is a light colored sandstone which may well have come from Mar- tinez. It is evidently a high spired Whitneyella sinuata. Length (incomplete), 15.8 mm.; width, 9.5 mm. , 324 Aldrich, Bull. Amer. Pal, vol. 1, p. 64, pl. 5, fig. #25 Wrigley, A. G., Proe. Mala. Soe, Lond., "vol. 16, Sa p. 242, fig. 9 ®- 240). 226 Nyst, Desc. Coqu. Fossils, Tert. Belg, 1843, p. 491, pl. 40, fig. 1 827 Cossmann, op. cit., p. 29. 228 Harris, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. , vol. 47, 1895, p. 72, pl. 7, fig. 4. #29 Grabau, Smiths. Misc. Coll., ’ vol. 44, 1904, pp- 89-90. 330 Moriche, W., Neues Jahrb. Mineral, ete. 10, Beil. Band. 1895, 1896, pp. 569, 570, pl. 11, figs. 1 2. wl Palmer, Univ. Cal. Bull. Geol., vol. 14, 1923, p. 295, pl. 52, fig. 1a-b. 322 Suter, H., New Zealand Geol. Surv. Pal. "Bull. 5, 1917, p. 24, pl. 4, figs. 1, 2. o ¥ { L/ — i.e aT Fa 404 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII Horizon, Eocene, probably from the so-called Tejon; locality, ? Bull's Head Point, Martinez. It is similar to specimens from San Diego (U. C. loc. 5085) but the ribs extend further anteriorly on the bodywhorl. The holotype has been identified by Merriam (1895) and should be in the Museum of Paleontology, but I have not been able to find it there. “Fusus martinezensis’ Weavers is a nomen nudum. Strepsidura and Plectocion are doubtfully referred to the Fasci- olariidae. STREPSIDURA Swainson 1840 Strepsidura ficus (Gabb). Plate XXIX, fig. 11. Whitneya ficus Gabb, 1864, pp. 104, 224, pl. 28, fig. 216; 1869, p. 221. Con- rad, Smiths. Mise. Coll. no. 200, 1866, p. 19 (‘ Whitnea” by error). Fis- cher, Man. Conch. 1887, p. 620. ? Harris, Sci., vol. 22, 1893, p. 97. Cooper, 1896, p. 85. Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 4, 1901, p. 133, fig. 38 (considered a subgenus of Strepsidura). Dickerson, 1914, p. 95; 1915, pp. 44, 69, pl. 9, fig. 5a, b, ¢, d; 1916, pp. 377 (?), opp. p. 372 (?), pp. 421, 442, 453. Clark, 1921, p. 155; in Kew U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 753, 1924, p. 29. Woods, in Bosworth, Geol. N. W. Peru, p. 97. Anderson and Hanna, 1925, pp. 53, 40, 41, 45. Fasciolaria ficus Marcou, 1876, p. 389. ?Strepsidura ficus Harris, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil., vol. 47, 1895, p. 71, pl. 7, fig. 1. Aldrich, Bull. Amer. Pal., vol. 1, 1895, p. 65, pl. 3, fig. 1a. Whitneya ficoides Tryon, Man. Conch., vol. 2, 1880, p. 214, pl. 68, fig. 397, Struct. Conch., vol. 2, 1883, p. 118. From the eleven specimens labelled “types,” the figured specimen is selected for the lectotype. They all represent the same species and are from Tejon. There is, of course, but one plication on the columella. Height, 24 mm.; width, 18 mm.; no. 4331. Horizon, Eocene, Tejon; locality, Tejon. This species varies considerably in outline. Most specimens have a distinct shoulder on the body whorl but a few are well rounded being without the shoulder. The axial ornamentation of the early whorls is not present on the body whorl. I have seen the typical form only from Tején. A new subspecies occurs in the Domengine horizon at Simi Valley and another in the Santa Susana shales. In spite of the numerous species which have appeared as such, this is the only Strepsidura®* known from the West Coast of North 338 Weaver, 1905, p. 121. 34 Swainson, Treat. Malac., 1840, pp. 90-91, 94, 308. Type species, by original designation, Fusus ficulneus Lam. (Cossmann, Es. Pal. Comp., vol. 4, 1901, p. 132, fig. 37, pl. 6, fig. 1-2 (as Strepsidura turgidus (Solander)). 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 405 America. Very closely related species occur in Texas (Harris) and Peru (Woods). Cossmann proposed a new family name ‘‘ Strepturidae’ for these shells and two other genera which are obviously not related to them. For Lamarck and Deshayes this genus belonged to Fusus and it seems quite likely that it will some day come to rest not far from the Fasciolariidae. According to Cossmann it survived to the Oligocene in Europe. PLECTOCION n. gen. Plectocion curvirostris (Gabb). Plate XXIII, figs. 12, 13, 14. Neptunea curvirostris Gabb, 1864, pp. 88, 222, pl. 18, figs. 37; 1869, p. 216. Conrad, Amer. Journ. Conch., vol. 2, 1866, p. 100 (considered a new genus). Stoliczka, 1868, p. 116, (suggested Euthria). Wilckens, Neu. Jahrb. Min. Beil. Band 18, 1904, pp. 212, 277. There is but one specimen of this species in the collection and though it is smaller and has but four whorls, it agrees fairly well with Gabb’s description and figure. It is probably the holotype and is taken for the lectotype, no. 4185 (fig. 12). The outer lip is crenulated internally, and the columella is not exposed. There are about twenty-five poorly defined axial ribs on the penultimate whorl, and six band-like spiral ribs,—the last being drawn into a rather conspicuous collar and separated from the others by a smooth shallow groove. Anterior to the conspicuous collar of the body whorl, are eight close-set, flat-topped spiral bands, followed by eight widely spaced spiral ribs on the anterior constriction of the body whorl. The axial ornamentation is of growth lines which have a double sinuosity. Length, 18 mm.; width, 7.5 mm. Horizon, Cretaceous ‘Chico Group;’ locality, “Cow Creek, Shasta County.” The other figured specimens are from U. S. Nat. Mus. locality 1037, “N. Fork of Cow Creek, about 10 miles N.E. of Millville, Shasta County, Calif. Collector T. W. Stanton, 1893.” They show the more nearly adult shell (no. 73401, height, 28.9 mm., fig. 14) and the plait on the columella (no. 73402, length, 22.5 mm., fig. 13). Iam indebted to Dr. Stanton for the opportunity to study and figure this material. This species is the type of the new genus Plectocton. Considering its antiquity, it is remarkably like Fasciolaria tulipa (Linn.), a living species, the type of Fasciolaria.?® Its growth lines are more sinuous and not reflected at the suture and theres but one plait 335 Lamarck, Mém. Soc. d’Hist. Nat., Paris, 1799, p. 73. Monotype. 406 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII on the columella. Besides the one distinct plait on the columella of Fasciolaria, that genus usually has a smaller one just posterior to it, and sometimes an anterior one. The difference in the growth lines of these two species suggests that their resemblances are due to convergence rather than direct descent. The growth lines, though more sinuous, and the canal, rather indicate affinity with the Nep- tuneidae to which it may belong, in spite of the columellar plait. MITRIDAE MITRA sensu lato Mitra cretacea Gabb. Plate XXVII, figs. 9, 10. Mitra cretacea Gabb, 1864, pp. 103, 224, pl. 28, fig. 215; 1869, pp. 158, 221. Stanton, 1896, p. 1022. At least three plications are on the columella of the holotype, no. 4302 (fig. 10). Gabb’s second specimen (1869) is also figured (fig. 9). Length of holotype, 9 mm.; width 4 mm. Length of second specimen, 7.6 mm.; width 4 mm. Horizon Eocene, probably from the so-called Tejon; locality, Martinez. This species has a prominent crenulated shoulder and is quite unlike any of the other California Eocene Mitras. The type of the genus 1s Mitra tessallata Martyn.33 VOLUTIDAE RETIPIRULA Dall 1907 Retipirula crassitesta (Gabb). Plate XXV, fig. 11. Turbinella crassitesta Gabb, 1869, pp. 157-158, 220, pl. 26, fig. 37. Bowers, 10th An. Rep’t Calif. Min. Bur., 1890, p. 400 (‘‘Cretaceous’ of Santa Ana Mts.). Merriam, 1897, p. 773 (characteristic of the Martinez). Weaver, 1905, pp. 108, 111, “Lower beds at Martinez.” Dall, Trans. Wag. Inst., vol. 3, p. 232, 1892, (suggested Glyptostyla); Smiths. Misc. Coll., vol. 50, 1907, p. 5 (type species of Retipirula). Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 8, 1909, p. 212 (Retipirula accepted provisionally). Dickerson, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 8, 1914, p. 302; Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. (4), vol. 8, 1917, p. 195. Not Turbinella crassitesta Dickerson, 1914a, pp. 83, 110, 151, pl. 15, fig. 5 (‘“crassatesta’’ by error) = Pseudoliva. Retipirula crassitesta Dall, Smiths. Misc. Coll., vol. 50, 1907, p. 10. Waring 1917, pp. 72, 83, pl. 13, fig. 1, 2 (Simi Valley). Kew, U. S. Geol. Surv. ga, 75, 1924, p. 19. Nelson, 1925, opp. p. 402, pp. 431-432, pl. 59, gs. 6a, The lectotype is figured. The canal of Gabb’s synthetograph was based upon another specimen. There are fourteen rows of tubercles on the body whorl. They are most prominent on the #6 Martyn, Universal Conch., 1784. Explan. Table, pl. 19-23. Type species, by subsequent designation, Mitra tessellata Martyn (Dall, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. vol. 29, 1905, p. 428). 1926] . NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 407 five posterior widely spaced spirals. The parietal region is ap- parently covered with a thin callus. Only two columellar plications are evident. Height, (incomplete) 25 mm.; width, 19 mm.; no. 4332. Horizon, Martinez (Paleocene); locality, Martinez. The early whorls of Retipirula will probably show it to be related to Volutocorbis limopsis (Conrad)? from the Midway of Alabama. Volutocorbis is also present in the Paleocene (Montien) of Belgium?38 and in the Eocene of the Paris Basin.®*® The close relationship between Volutocorbis limopsis and V. (Volutospina) petrosus (Con- rad) has been indicated.34° PLEJONA ‘ Bolten’ Roeding 1798 The history of the subsequent type designation for the name Plejona®® is not a happy one. In 1906, Dall*? contributed the following: “The shells typified by Voluta spinosa, and which are usually called Volutilithes, will probably take the name Plejona Bolten 1798.” This is not a type designation although it has been claimed as such.?® Several months later, Newton®* proposed Volutospina for Voluta spinosa and added in a note (p. 104),— ““ Plejona was founded by Bolten in 1798, the first species referred to, and which should be regarded as the type, being P. fossilis. . ..” This is a valid type designation. Newton recognized that P. fos- silis referred to 4 different shells but unfortunately he did not select one of them for the type of P. fossilis. Because of the indefinite nature of its type species, he refused to accept Plejona. The type 87 Harris, Bull. Amer. Pal., vol. 1, 1896, p. 198, pl. 18, fig. 3 (as Volutilithes). Ths is the type species of Volutocorbis Dall, (Trans. Wag. Inst., vol. 3, 1890, p. 5 388 ““ Voluta” elevata Sow. Briart and Cornet, Mém. Acad. Roy. Sci. Lett., Beaux-arts Belg., vol. 43, 1880, p. 34, pl. 5, figs. 9a, b. 39 Cossmann and Pissarro, Iconog., vol. 2, 1911, pl. 43, figs. 205-1, 2, 3. (Bartonian and earlier). 340 Smith, Proce. Acad. Nat. Sei. Phila., 1906, p. 50, p. 71, pl. 2. #1 Roeding, Mus. Bolt., pt. 2, 1798, pp. 59-61. #2 Dall, Nautilus, vol. 19, 1906, p. 143. : #3 Dall, Smiths. Misc. Coll., vol. 48, 1907, pp. 353-354. The statement itself is not a definite designation (see Opin. 31 of the Int. Com. Zool. Nom.) and the species mentioned is not in the original list. The designation of a synonym of one of the species in the original list is not valid for opinions may differ regarding synonyms (Opin. 31). It may be well to note that both Gmelin and Deshayes have questioned the validity of Conus spinosus Li. = Voluta spinosa, the original being based on ‘ Gualt. test. t. 55, f.E.” (Gaultieri Index Testarum Conchyliorum, Buren, 1742, pl. 55, fig. E). That the Linnean species = P. fossils is likewise oubtful. #4 Newton, Proc. Malac. Soc. London, vol. 7, 1906, pp. 103-104. 408 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol.-LXX VIII species of Plejona having been fixed on P. fossilis, the question now becomes—What is the type of P. fossilis? In 1907, Dall** seems to have made a second attempt to fix the type of Plejona at the same time claiming to have already revived Plejona for one of the species in the original list. He recognized the fact that P. fossilis included three or four species and wrote: “If we prefer to take our type from the first species in Bolten’s list, it reduces itself to a simple process of elimination, which leaves us with V. spinosa (one of those figured) as the type.” (It will be re- membered that Dall was working at that time with the principle of “type of elimination’’). He then went on to consider the second species in the original list as the type, that being the only other alternative considered, and decided that that “would be foolish” since it meant replacing the name “Voluta (Lam.).”” It was evi- dently left to the reader to infer that the first species should be taken for the type, and that this species, by elimination, was Voluta spinosa. Rigidly construed, this is not a valid type designation of either Plejona or P. fossilis. Apparently, then, the type of Plejona has still to be fixed upon one of the four species making up P. fossilis. Fortunately, how- ever, a number of years ago the type was fixed on Voluta ebraea, the second species under Plejona. Plejona is therefore a close synonym of Voluta Linnaeus. As for Plejona fossilis, the third figure®*? from the left of those representing P. fossilis is taken to represent the lectotype. It is evidently a synonym of Volutocorbis (Volutospina) spinosa (Linn.) of the Eocene of the Paris Basin. Volutospina is represented in the West Coast Eocene by Voluto- corbis (Volutospina) lawsoni (Dickerson)®*8 from Marysville Buttes. 3 Dall, Nautilus, vol. 20, 1907, p. 143. 36 Dall, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. Harv., vol. 18, 1889, p. 146. ‘‘ Plejona (Bol- ten) Link, Beschr. Rost. Samml., p. 110, 1807; type, V. hebraea L.” Link cited the genus as of Bolten. The only figure referred to by Linnaeus (1758, p. 733) which represents the V. hebraea of later authors (Tryon, vol. 4, pl. 24, fig. 37, 40) in “Bonan. reer. 3. t. 293.” This figure is taken to represent the lectotype. (Buonanni Ricreatione dell’Occhio e della Mente, Roma, 1681, Class 3, fig. 293. In the Latin Translation, 1684, Class 2, fig. 293. ; : Rovereto, Atti Soc. Ligust. Genova, vol. 10, 1899, p. 104 ““. . . eil typo di Plejona &1a V. hebraea L. . . .” 37 Argenville, Hist. Nat. Lithol. Conchyl., 1742, pl. 33, fig. 10. 38 Dickerson, 1913, p. 284, pl. 12, figs. 5a, b, ¢ (as Voluiay. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 409 VOLUTODERMA Gabb 1876 Yolutoderma averillii (Gabb). Plate XXII, figs. 10, 11. Fusus averillii Gabb, 1864, pp. 83, 222, pl. 18, fig. 34; 1869, p. 215; in Whit- ney, 1865, p. 207. Merriam, 1895. Anderson, 1902, p 29. Volutilithes navarroensis Gabb, 1864, pp. 102, 224, pl. 19, Re. 56; in Whitney, 1865, pp. 204, 207, 209, 210: ' Amer. J. Conch., vol. 2, 1866, p .89. Conrad, Amer. Jour. Conch. vol. 1, 1863, p. 363 (said to be a Rostellites) : ibid., vol. 2, p. 99. Not Shumard, Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist., 1861, vol. 8, p. 192. Volutilithes navarroensis Shum. ?—Gabb, 1869, p. 220. Volutoderma navarroensis Gabb, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil., vol. 28, 1876, p. 289 (type of the genus). Volutoderma (Rostellinda) navarroensis Yabe and Nagao, Sci. Rep’t, Tohoku Imp. Univ. (2) Geol., vol. 7, 1925, p. 124. Fulguraria gabbi White, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 51, 1889, pp. 23-25, pl. 3, fig. 1, not p. 46; in Diller, U. S. Geol. Surv. 8th Ann. Rep’t, pt. 1, 1889, p- fa Dall, Smiths. Misc. Coll., vol. 50, 1907, p. 10 (said to be Voluto- derma). Rostellites gabbii Dall, Trans, Wag. Inst., vol. 3, 1890, p. 71. Volutoderma gabbi Henderson, U. S. Nat. Mus. Proc., vol. 34, 1908, p. 261. Volutoderma californica Dall, Smiths. Mise. Coll., vol. 50, 1907, p. 10. Packard, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 13, 1922, p. 432. The holotype of Volutoderma averillii is in the Museum of Pale- ontology, no. 11964. It was recognized by Merriam (1895). It agrees very well with the original description and figure and though the columella is not exposed, there can be little doubt but that it is an immature Volutoderma. There are 12 axial ribs on the last whorl. Height (incomplete) 18 mm.; width, 9.4 mm. There are two specimens of this species in the Academy’s col- lection. The larger, no. 4299 (fig. 11) is the lectotype of Volutilithes navarroensts Gabb (not Shumard) which was named by Dall, Volutoderma californica. It is the type of Volutoderma by original designation. The smaller specimen (fig. 10) has three oblique pli- cations on the columella. Height of 4299, 91.5 mm.; greatest width (the shell is slightly crushed) 29 mm. ; length of aperture, 64 mm. Length of aperture of smaller specimen, (fig. 10), 40 mm.; width of shell, 19 mm. Horizon, Cretaceous “Chico Group.” The holotype is from Tuscan Springs and the two specimens figured here are evidently from that locality also. : The specimen figured by White was considered a distinet species by Dall (1907, p. 10) because it was “larger and more robust,” but it seems to be this species. The holotype of “Fusus” kingii Gabb (1864, p. 85, pl. 28, fig. 204) is also in the Museum of Paleontology, no. 11965. It was recognized by Merriam (1895). It is an internal cast of what ap- 410 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII pears to have been a slightly biangulated Volutoderma but there is no indication of columellar plaits. It had about 10 nodes on the posterior angulation. Height (incomplete) 26 mm.; width, 11 mm. Cretaceous, “Division A., from Cottonwood Creek, Siskiyou County, north of Yreka.” It has been recognized and figured by Whiteaves®*® from the Cretaceous of Sucia Island. Volutoderma mitraeformis (Gabb). Plate XXII, fig. 7. Cordiera mitraeformis Gabb, 1869, p. 153, 218, ih 26, fig. 32. White, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 15, 1885, p. 20, ‘Knoxville beds.” Bowers, 10th An. Hop’ t Calif. Min. Bur. 1890, P 400 (Santa Ana Mts.). Stanton, 1895, p. Condicria mitraeformis Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 2, 1896, p. 98 (con- sidered a Borsonia). The holotype, which is here figured, is in the collections of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Cambridge, no. 21856. The body whorl has eleven axial ribs, three spiral lines at the suture, and numerous broad, widely spaced spiral lines anterior to the shoulder. The growth lines indicate a distinct posterior sulcus. The columella has two prominent plications and a posterior third, which is very faint. Height (incomplete), 17 mm.; width, 9.5 mm. Horizon, Cretaceous; locality, ‘Shasta Group, Colusa Co., near the Hot Springs.” The Knoxville age of this species has been questioned by Stanton (1895). ‘“Scobinella diller:”’ White,*° may be the adult form of this species. It has been placed under Rostel- linda? The type figure of Rostellinda®? resembles Volutoderma more than it does the angulated forms for which apparently the ‘name was proposed but possibly the type specimen does belong with the angulated forms. OLIVIDAE OLIVELLA sensu lato Olivella mathewsonii Gabb. Plate XXIX, fig. 13. Olivella Mathewsonii Gabb, 1864 pp. 100, 223, pl. 18, fig. 54; 1869 p. 220. Cooper Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. 4, 1894, p. 62 (?);in Watts, Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. 3, 1894, p. 10. Stanton, 17th An. Rept., U. 8. Geol. Surv. pt. 1, 1896, p- 1021. Dickerson, 1913, p. 264; 1914a, p. 147; 1914b, p. 115; 1915, pp. 44, 50, 51; 1916, pp. 408, 421, 439, 451; 1n Dumble, Calif. Acad. Sci. Proc. 3) vol. KR, "1918, p. 143 “near” (Alizan shales, S. of Tampico). Weaver, Univ. Wash. Publ. Geol. vol. 1, 1916, pp. 26-27. Anderson and Hanna, 1925, pp. 80, 41, 44. 39 Whiteaves, Meso. Foss., vol. 1, Can. Geol. Surv., 1879, p. 119, pl. 15, fig. 4. 30 White, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 51, 1889, By 25 pl. 4, fig. 1-3. 31 Dall, Smiths. Mise. Coll., vol. 50, '1907, p 3 Volutoderma (Rostellinda) stoliczkana Ball, ww. cit., p. 6. Stoliczka, 1868, pl. 7 fig. 7. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 411 The specimen figured is one of the largest in the box labelled “types,” but it is considerably short of the original dimension, “8 inch.” However, it is much larger than the ‘‘size mark” given with the figure? The specimen agrees fairly well with Gabb’s description and is taken for the lectotype. There are about seven plications on the columellar pad. Height, 17.4 mm.; width, 7 mm., no. 4202. Horizon, Eocene; locality, probably from Tejon. Most of Gabb’s material of this species is from Tejon. Gabb listed it from a number of localities but I am able to recognize in this material only a small specimen from the so-called Tejon at Martinez of which the dorsal side alone is exposed. * This is a common species in the Eocene of California and occurs in the Cowlitz Formation of Washington, and, according to Dicker- son (1914a), at Umpqua, Oregon. It has not been found in the Martinez (Paleocene). The genus Olivella has been discussed by Dall,** who selected O. dama (purpurata) for the type. The earlier type designations of Gray, Herrmannsen and Cossmann are not valid because the specific names selected by them do not appear in the original list. Some of the type material of “ Ancillaria elongata ”’ Gabb (1864, p. 100, pl. 18, fig. 54) is in the Museum of Paleontology. The holo- type has not been found and it may be necessary to select one of these specimens as the lectotype, but it seems most unlikely that the original figure is a synthetograph and the holotype may yet be found. All the material is very poorly preserved and since the name is a homonym it could have been dropped but unfortunately a substitute name, Ancilla gabbi Cossmann®® has been proposed. Proposing substitute names for this sort of type material is certainly to be discouraged. CANCELLARIIDAE CANCELLARIA Lamarck 1799 Cancellaria (Progabbia) altispira Gabb. Plate XX XI, fig. 9a. Cancellaria altispira Gabb, 1869, pp. 50-51, 79, pl. 14, fig. 7. Smith, J. P., 1912, p. 175 (2). The holotype is figured. The last whorl has twelve nodes on the angle and about twenty-eight spiral lines of varying widths. The #3 Anderson and Hanna's statement that Gabb’s type was only 9 mm. long, was probably based on the ‘size mark.” 34 Dall, U. S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 59, 1909, p. 31. 35 Cossmann, Es. Pal. Comp., vol. 3, 1899, p. 60. 412 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII interspaces are wider than the lines. The suture is overlapped by callus as in C. tritonidea Gabb. Height (incomplete), 56 mm.; width 31.8 mm. This holotype no. 27812 is from the Whitney collection in the Museum of Com- parative Zoology at Cambridge. “Pliocene of San Fernando Pass.” This species is related to C. tritonidea with which it has probably been confused. It is more slender than that species and may be only a unique variation. The early whorls lack the shoulder and prominent axial ribs of typical Progabbia,®® while the later whorls and aperture are quite similar to it. This species is probably better considered a new sec- tion of Progabbia. The sculpture and columellar plications of Pro- gabbia differ so much from typical Cancellaria®" that I suspect that they are not closely related and will have to be separated as distinct genera. ; The holotype of Cancellaria tritonidea Gabb (1866, p. 11, pl. 2, fig. 18) is in the Museum of Paleontology, no. 11998. Height 80.9 mm.; width 47 mm. It was recognized by Merriam (1895). Cancellaria vetusta Gabb. Plate XXXI, fig. 1a. Cancellaria (Euclia) vetusta Gabb, 1866, p. 12, pl. 2, fig. 19. Cancellaria vetusta Gabb, 1869, p. 79. Dall, U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 14, 1891, p. 183 (said to be the young of C. cassidiformis). Ashley, Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. (2), vol. 5, 1895, p. 338 “cf.” Cooper, 1896, p. 79 (?). Ar- nold, Mem. Calif. Acad. Sei., vol. 3, 1903, p. 218 (said to be probably a precursor of C. iritonidea): 1906, p. 84, “cf.” (?): not 1909, pp. 18, 19, pl. 9, fig. 6: not 1910, pp. 85, 87, pl. 31, fig. 6. Smith, J. P., 1912, p. 165 (?). Merriam and Clark, in Lawson, U. S. Geol. Surv. Folio 193, 1914, p. 11 (?) {2 Yom by error). Gardner, in Darton, Journ. Geol., vol. 29, 1921, P-739 “cl. ?Cancellaria anderson: Clark, 1918, opp. pp. 80, 82, 97, pl. 23, fig. 4. ?Cancellaria ramonensis Clark, 1918, p. 186, pl. 23, fig. 7. The figured specimen is the lectotype. It agrees so well with the size given by Gabb that it is probably the holotype. The body whorl has ten axial ribs and eleven primary spirals below the shoul- der and two spirals on the shoulder. Secondary spirals are present in the interspaces. The area above the shoulder has about ten fine spiral lines. The siphonal fasciole is large and distinct. The inner lip is covered with a thick callus. The columella has two plications and some small tubercles anteriorly. The outer lip is broken. Height (the apex is broken) 21.5 mm.; width 15 mm.; no. 4295. 36 Dall, Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., vol. 31, 1918, p. 13. Type species Cancellaria cooperi Gabb. %7 Lamarck, Mém. Soc. d’Hist. Nat. Paris, 1799, p. 71. Monotype species Voluta reticulata Linn. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 413 “Miocene, south of Martinez.” The matrix is finer and darker but similar to that of Bruclarkia gravida of the Oligocene, and is . probably from the same locality, San Ramén Formation at Wal- nut Creek. This species belongs with the same group as C. dalliana Ander- son®8 and its allies, from the Kern River Miocene. It seems to be closest to Solatia®® of the different subgenera of Cancellaria. BONELLITIA Jousseaume 1887 Bonellitia (Admetula) paucivaricata (Gabb). Plate XXIX, fig. 5. Tritontum paucivaricatum Gabb, 1864, p. 95, 223, pl. 28, fig. 209, 209a: 1869, p- 218. Stoliczka, 1868, p. 133. Heilprin, Ac. Nat. Se. Phil. Proe., v. 32, 1880, p. 369; vol. 34, 1882, p. 213 (compared to ‘‘Cancellaria” evulsa). Marcou, Bull. Soc. Géol. France, (3), vol. 11, 1883, p. 416, (said to be a Cancellaria). ?Cancellaria stantoni Dickerson, 1913, p. 282, pl. 12, fig. 2a, b; 1914, p. 23; 1915, pp. 43, 49, 51; 1916, opp. p. 372, p. 378, 386, 392, 407, 421, 426, 427, 432, 438, 448, pl. 39, fig. 9. Anderson and Hanna, 1925, pp. 81, 43. Admete (Bonellitva) stantoni (Dickerson) Weaver and Palmer, Univ. Wash. Publ. Geol, vol. 1, pt. 3, 1922, pp. 40-2, pl. 11, figs. 1, 5. Cancellaria paucivaricata Anderson and Hanna, 1925, p. 81, 43, pl. 8, figs. 3, 4. The apex of the lectotype, here figured, is worn. The axial ribs are very regular and evenly spaced. There are twelve axial ribs on both the penultimate and body whorls. The penultimate whorl has six widely spaced spiral ribs with fine secondary ribs in the posterior three interspaces. Ten widely spaced spiral ribs are on the body whorl. The posterior interspace has two secondary spiral ribs; there is a single rib on each of the next two interspaces; the next three interspaces are smooth, while on the anterior portion of the whorl, the secondary ribs are irregularly developed. Varices are absent. The columella is not exposed. Height, 15 mm.; width, 9 mm.; no. 4194. : Horizon, Tejon, Eocene; locality, Tejon. It is also present at Cowlitz, Washington, where it has been reported as ““ Admete stan- tons” (Dickerson), a species described from Marysville Buttes which seems to be conspecific with the Tejon form. : This species is very variable at its type locality, and often has pseudo-varices. The forms with the pseudo-varices usually have #8 Anderson and Martin, 1914, pl. 8, figs. la—d. %9 Jousseaume, Le Naturaliste, Ann. 9, 2e sér., no. 19, Dee. 15th, 1887, p. 222, fig. 3. Type species, by original designation, Solatia solat Adams (piscatorum Chemn.). The figure of this species given by Sowerby (fig. 33) and copied by Tryon (pl. 4, fig. 70) shows a wider and more conspicuous umbilicus than is true of three specimens from Senegal. The umbilicus is quite variable and the colum- ella is almost straight. . 414 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII finer spiral ribs but not always. It is probable that this variety is “C.” stantoni Dickerson. The protonconch is like that of B. evulsa®®® though the apex is not so high. On that species, the six spiral lines appear before the axials. The type species of Bonellitia,*! B. bonellii (Bellardi) is from the Tortonien and Plaisancien of Italy. It has heavy plications on the columella as do the Eocene species and is better considered generic- ally distinct from the recent Admete on which the plications have almost disappeared. The Eocene species have been called Admet- ula*®®> and this name may be used as a section for them. It would apparently also include Bonellitia serrata (Bronn)*? which is found with B. bonelliz. CONIDAE CONUS Linnaeus 1758 Conus remondii Gabb. Plate XXIX, fig. 15. Conus Remondii Gabb, 1864, pp. 122, 123, 226, (in part), pl. 20, fig. 79; 1869, p. 225. Not Dall, Trans. Wag. Inst., vol. 3, 1890, p. 75. Cooper, in Fairbanks, Amer. J. Sci. (3), vol. 45, 1893, p. 476; 1894, p. 60 (False Bay, San Diego). Stanton, 1896, p. 1021, p. 1027. Merriam, Journ. Geol., vol. 5, 1897, p. 771 (3). Gester, in Dumble, Science, n.s., vol. 35, 1912, p. 907 (from a well at Topila, Mex.). Dickerson, 1915, p. 43, p. 49 (in part), p. 74, not pl. 11, fig. 7 = C. vaderensis; 1916, opp. p. 579. pp. 375, 377, 378, 386, 421, 432 (Fie. 7), 438, 449 (at least, in ph); in "Lawson, 1914, p- 9 (?); in Dumble, Calif, Acad. Sci. Proc. (4), vol. 8, 1918, p. 143 (Alazan shales, S. of Tampico). Not Weaver, 1916, p. 24. 'Not Waring, 1917, p. 90, pl. 15, fig. 4 (= n. sp.?). Clark, 1921, p. 139 (?). Weaver and Palmer, 1922, p. 43. ?Conus remondsi Anderson and Hanna, 1925, pp. 43, 100-101, pl. 8, fig. 7. Conus submonilifer Anderson and Hanna, 1025, pp. 99— 100, 43, 99-100, pl. 8, fig. 6 The specimen figured is one of the largest and best preserved in the box labelled “types.” It has about twenty-two small nodes on the shoulder of the body whorl and numerous, wide, incised spiral lines on the anterior portion of the whorl, which become finer and farther apart posteriorly, and disappear about the middle of the whorl. It is the lectotype. Height (incomplete), 13.8 mm.; width, 7 mm.; no. 4237. Horizon, Tejon, Eocene. Most of Gabb’s determinable material including the lectotype, is from the Tejon locality. A specimen, apparently from Martinez, seems to be without crenulations even 360 Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 3, 1899, p. 33, fig. 5. 361 Jousseaume, LeNaturaliste, 2nd ser., vol, 5, 1887" B 223, fig. 5 (corrected). Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 3, 1899, pp. 32-4, pl. 1, fig. 18. 52 Cossmann, An. Soc. Malac. Belg., vol. 24, 1889, p- 224. Type Cancellaria evulsa Solander, Eocene of England and France. 363 Sacco, Moll. Tert. Piedmonte, pt. 16, 1894, p. 43, pl. 3, fig. 5. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 415 on the early whorls, and is probably a new species. It is doubtful whether the typical form occurs at Mt. Diablo or Martinez. It is as yet unknown at Simi but is present at San Diego. The dis- cussion of Anderson and Hanna (1925, p. 98) of “the specimen fig- ured and described by Gabb” is irrelevant and confusing in as much as those authors did not examine the original material. This name was proposed not only for this material but also for Conus californicus (Conrad) but by selecting the specimen here figured, as the lectotype, the name will not become a synonym of that species. : On some specimens, the later whorls are quite without crenula- tions. One such specimen, I believe, is the type of “C. submoni- fer.” C. vaderensis Weaver and Palmer, from Cowlitz has a carinated shoulder. The first valid subsequent designation of a type species for Conus® seems to be that of Children? who chose C. marmoreus L. Conus hornii Gabb. Plate XXIX, fig. 16. Conus Hornit Gabb, 1864, p. 122, 226, pl. 29, fig. 226: 1869, p. 225. White, .U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 51, 1889, p. 31 (Eocene at Duwamish, Seattle)? Cooper, in Fairbanks, Amer. J. Sci. (3), vol. 45, 1893, p. 476; 1894, p. 60 (False Bay, San Diego)? Dickerson, 1915, pp. 43, 74, pl. 11, figs. 9a, b, ¢; 1916, pp. 421, 426, 427, 432 (in part), 438 (in part), 449 (in part). Ander- son and Hanna, 1925, p. 99, 100, 101, 41, 43. Not Weaver 1912, pl. 2, fig. 17 = C. vaderensis Weaver and Palmer. Spiral lines are absent from the lectotype which is here figured, but are faintly developed both above and below the sharp carina on another less perfect specimen. Height (incomplete), 24 mm.; width, 12.3 mm.; no. 4227. A specimen from U.C. Loc. 7182 is almost twice this size and has faint spiral lines most prominent anteriorly. Horizon, Tején, Eocene; locality, Tejon. This species is known with certainty only from Tejon. TURRIDAE PLEUROFUSIA de Gregorio, 1890 Pleurofusia raricostata Gabb. Plate XXVII, figs. 13, 14. Turris (Drillia) varicostata Gabb, 1864, pp. 93, 223, pl. 18, fig. 47. Turris varicostata Fairbanks, Jour. Geol., vol. 3, 1895, p. 429 ““?”’. Pleurotoma varicostata Stoliczka, 1868, p. 68. 36¢ Weaver and Palmer, 1922, p. 43, pl. 12, figs. 7, 8. 35 Linnaeus, Syst_ Nat. 10th ed. 1758, pp. 712-718. #6 Children, J. G., Lamarck’s Genera of Shells, “1823,” p. 1072. Quart. Sci. Lit. Arts, vol. 16, 1823, p. 69. Children’s paper appeared anonymously in this Journal in vols. 14, 15, 16, 1823. 416 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII Surcula raricostata (Gabb) 1869, p. 217 (varicostata said to be a typographical error). Not Surcula raricostata Whiteaves, Meso. Fossils, vol. 1, pt. 2, 1879, pp. 116-7, pl. 15, fig. 2. Pleurotoma (Drillia) raricostata Stanton, 1896, p. 1021. Drillia raricostata Dickerson, 1915, p. 71, not p. 43 (fide Anderson and Hanna, 1925, p. 92): 1916, p. 386, not p. 421, "not p. 449. Le fresnoensis Arnold, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 396, 1909, p. 53, pl : 23, p-14; U. 8S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 398, 1910, p. 71, pl. 26, fig. 2 ken, 1914a, p- 148. 2Turris fresnoensis Dickerson, 1916, pp. 427, 434, 453 (in part), p. 439 (?), not pl. 37, fig. 8. Clark, 1021, p. 150. 2Surcula fresnoensis Anderson and Hanna, 1925, p. 87, 45. ?2Surcula clark: Dickerson, 1913, p. 278, pl. 11, fig. 3: 1914, p- 23; 1916, p. 408, (in part); pp. 434, 452, 499, pl. 41, fig. 1.0, h; ?Turris (Surcula) clarki Clark, 1921, p. 159 (in part). Although Gabb only listed this species from Clayton, the material is labelled “Martinez & Clayton.” The specimen taken for the lectotype, no. 4191 (fig. 14) seems to be a fair representation of Gabb species. Its matrix is similar to that of the lectotype of Scobinella claytonensis. According to Gabb these two species were from the same stratum of adjacent hills, near Clayton. Preserv- ation and matrix of these two lectotypes was similar to that of many of Gabb’s “Tejon” species at Martinez, i.e., a soft gray sand- stone, and they may both have come from there, it being not im- possible that Gabb had confused his labels. Whatever be the truth in this matter both species probably occur at Martinez and Clayton. The other specimen figured (fig. 13) is closer to Gabb’s size mark and may actually be the holotype. Its matrix is a harder, coarser, brown sandstone which may possibly be found near Clayton. The lectotype is not well preserved. The body whorl has nu- merous fine spiral lines and about eight axial ribs terminating abruptly at the shoulder as slightly twisted nodes. Height of lec- totype (incomplete) 10.5 mm.; width, 4 mm. Height of other specimen (fig. 13) (incomplete), 13.3 mm.; width, 5+. Horizon, Eocene, probably from the Domengine horizon: locality, ? Clayton, Contra Costa County. Pleurofusia fresnoensis (Arnold) and its synonym *“Surcula clarki” probably belong to this species. The smaller apical angle and apparently broader nodes may, however, be characteristic of P. fresnoensis. It occurs at Marysville Buttes, Coalinga and Simi Valley. This species is probably related to ¢Pleurotoma’” vaughani 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 417 Harris?” which was placed by Casey in his genus Lyrosurcula,® but it seems to be closely related to Pleurofusia,*® which is an earlier name. SCOBINELLA Conrad 1848 Scobinella claytonensis (Gabb). Plate XXVII, figs. 11, 12. ST Gabb, 1864, pp. 92, 223, pl. 18, fig. 46: 1869, p. 217 (in part). Pleurotoma claytonensis Stoliczka, 1868, p. 68. Surcula claytonensis Gabb, 1869, p. 217. Wilckens, Neu. Jahrb. Min. Beil. Band. 18, 1904, p. 218 (‘“‘claytonnensis’’ by error). Dickerson, 1914s, p- 78. Anderson and Hanna, 1925, p. 88, 45. Surcula fester Dickerson, 1916, pp. 434, 152, 499, pl. 42, fig. 4. Andosson and Hanna, 1925, pp. 87, 45. Cossmann, Revue Crit. Paléozool., vol. 20, 1916, p. 110, (suggested Asthemotoma). Since Gabb mentioned but one specimen of this species it is dif- ficult to account for the discrepancy between his description and figure. He later (1869) listed it from Tejon but there is no speci- men of this species with the characteristic Tején preservation in the collection. The box is labelled “Martinez and Clayton’ and con- tains a Gemmula only partly exposed, an undeterminable fragment and two specimens of Scobinella which somewhat resemble the original figure. Both specimens of Scobinella are figured but the smaller (fig. 11) is taken for the lectotype, no. 4190, because it has the same matrix as Pleurofusia raricostata which was said to have come from the same stratum in an adjoining hill. This lectotype may be the actual holotype and it will at least serve as the standard of reference until such is found. The antepenultimate and penul- ‘timate whorls have two rows of nodes and the body whorl about six, the anterior rows not being heavily noded. The collar is prominent. The columella is not exposed. Height of lectotype, 9 mm.; width, 2.8 mm. Height of other specimen (fig. 12), 4190a, 11.4 mm.; width, 4 mm. Horizon, Eocene. The lectotype is probably from the so-called Tejon near Clayton; no. 4190a from the same horizon at Martinez. ~The lectotype is in a soft gray sandstone matrix; no. 4190a is in a rather hard, fresh, dark gray limy sandstone. 37 Harris, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1895, p. 57, pl. 4, fig. 8. Lower Clai- borne (Eocene) of Texas. 38 Casey, Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, vol. 14, 1904, p. 156-7. Three new species were described under Lyrosurcula but none Was figured. I believe no type has yet been selected for this name. 39 de Gregorio, Ann. Géol. Paléont. Liv. 7, 1890, p. 33-34, pl. 2, fig. 26. Type species Pleurotoma (Pleurofusia) longirostropsis de Co Claiborne Eocene. The type is said to be related to ‘‘ Pleurotoma’ servata Conrad. (Jour. Acad. Nat. Sei. Phila., (2), vol. 1, 1848, p. 115, pl. 11, fig. 18) from Vicksburg (Oligocene). 418 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII Dickerson’s species is from the Domengine near Coalinga, in strata of probably the same age as the lectotype and the Martinez material. His reporting of it from Cowlitz and Tejon is probably an error. It has a smooth columella but is otherwise very close to Scobinella.’’® Specimens from Simi Valley are much like this species but they have the spiral ribs on the columella as on the typical Scobinella. More material will doubtless show the importance of these columellar ribs. “Scobinella” dillerr White? described from the “Chico Group,” Shasta County, (Cretaceous) has since been referred to Volutoderma by Dall. *7 EXILIA Conrad 1865 Exilia microptygma (Gabb). Plate XXIX, fig. 10a. Cordiera microptygma Gabb, 1864, pp. 93, 94, 223, pl. 28, fig. 203; 1869, p. 218. Cooper, 1896, p. 84. “Cordiera microptygma’” Anderson and Hanna, 1925, pp. 96, 59, 43. Ezilia waringt Dickerson, 1915, p. 68, pl. 9, fig. 3. Anderson and Hanna, 1925, pp. 59, 44. On the columella of the holotype are six spiral lines, the anterior ones being more prominent. - The body whorl has sixteen axial ribs present only on the posterior portion of the whorl. Eight widely spaced spiral lines cross these ribs, and anterior to the ribs, the surface is covered with finer and more crowded spiral lines. Eight primary and a few irregular secondary spiral lines are present on the penultimate whorl. The growth lines are slightly sinuous posteri- orly. Length 19.8 mm. (incomplete); width of body whorl, 7 mm.; no. 4190. Horizon, Tejon, Eocene; locality, Tejon. As yet this species is known only from the Tejon. The type of “E. waringi” has spiral lines on the columella as mentioned in the original description. The type’ of Exzilia has a smooth columella as was stated by Dall 3 so that E. microptygma is not typical. The “co-type’ of E. perkinsiana (Cooper®”) has four poorly preserved spiral lines on the columella, while one young specimen of FE. dickersont 370 Type, S. coelata, (Conrad, Acad. Nat. Sei. Phil. Jour. (2), vol. 1, 1848, p. 120, pl. 12, fig. 8, 9) from the Vicksburg (Oligocene) of Mississippi. 371 ' White, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 51, 1889, p. 25, pl. 4, fig. 1-3. 372 Dall, Smiths. Mise. Coll, vol. 50, pt. 1, 1907, p. 10. 378 Frilia pergracilis Conrad, (Journ. Acad. Nat. Sei. Phila. n.s., vol. 4, pp. 291- 2, pl. 47, fig. 34; Harris, Bull. Amer. Pal., vol. 1, 1896, p. 204, pl. 9, fig. 1) mono- type species. 374 Dall, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 54, 1918, p. 221. 376 Anderson and Hanna, 1925, p. 61, pl. 9, fig. 15. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 419 (Weaver?) has about six, though on most of the adult forms the columella is smooth. Further study of this ornamented pillar should prove interesting. “Fasciolaria” pergracilis Aldrich?” from the Wilcox (Eocene) of Alabama has been confused with Exzilia.?’® It has three widely spaced and inconspicuous lirations on the columella and an orna- mentation suggestive of the Mitridae. It is evidently a distinct genus and may be called Palaeorhaphis. The best figure of this species is that given by Harris?’® who placed it tentatively under Mitra. Although variable, most of the specimens examined show traces of three columellar plications. In classifying this extinct ‘genus it is difficult to choose between the Mitridae and the Fascio- lariidae, but because of the vertical growth lines and heavy axial sculpture of the early whorls it is tentatively placed in the Mitridae. Exilia is placed in the Turridae because of the faint notch in the outer lip of the type species which is probably a shallow anal sulcus. The recent species referred®® to Exilia may well be Chrysodomoid but they are in all probability, not Exilia. Exilia diaboli (Gabb). Plate XXVII, fig. 6a. Fusus diaboli Gabb, 1864, pp. 84, 222, pl. 18, fig. 35: 1869, p. 215 (in part): Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. vol. 28, 1876, p- 279. Kaunhowern, Pala. Abd. Dames und Koken, vol. 2 1898— 1901, p- 84. Anderson, 1905, p. 164. Dickerson, 1914, pp. 20, 22. Ezilia diaboli Anderson and Hanna, 1925, pp. 61-62, 44. Not Exilia diaboli Dickerson, 1915, p. 94, pl. 9, fig. 1: 1916, p. 449. Twenty poorly defined axial ribs are present on the body whorl of the lectotype. They disappear entirely near the middle portion of the whorl. These ribs are fewer and more pronounced on the earlier whorls. On the ribbed area of the body whorl are about nine widely spaced spiral lines, while over the middle surface are nine closely set spiral lines. On the anterior extension of the body whorl, the lines are again widely spaced. Height 19.5 mm. (in- complete); width 6.5 mm.; no. 4181. This is probably from the Domengine hashzon, Eocene; locality, “From the strata above the coal at Cockran’s.’ 378 Tomy Wash. Geol. Surv. Bull. 15, 1912, p. 50, fig. 124 (Cowlitz formation) not pl. 3 377 SIE ol Surv. Alab. Bull. 1, 1886, p. 22, pl. 5, fig. 18. (From Gregg’s Landing, Alabama.) To Cossmann, Es. Pal. Comp., vol. 4, 1901, p. 26, pl. 7, figs. 3-4 (not text-fig. ) 319 Harris, Bull. Amer. Pal., vol. 3, 1899, p. 39, pl. 4, fig. 10. 480 Dall, U. S. Nat. Mus. Proc. vol. 54, 1918. p. 221. 420 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII This species is more slender than E. fausta Anderson and Hanna from the Tejon. Kaunhowern compared it to his “Fusus” planus from the Maestrichtien which is apparently also an Exilia, as was noted by Cossmann.?® Gabb (1876) included E. diaboli in his subgenus FEwxilifusus but this name is a homonym of Exilifusus Conrad.?®? SURCULITES Conrad 1865 Surculites mathewsonii (Gabb). Plate XXVI, fig. 12, 13, 14. Fusus Mathewsonii Gabb, 1864, pp. 83, 222 (in part), pl. 18, fig. 33; 1869, p. 215; in Whitney, 1865, p. 26. Stanton, 1896, pp. 1029, 1032. ?Ar- nold, 1906, pa 17 Yet. 2 (San Lorenzo Formation). Dickerson, 1914a, p. 75 1), 78, 82 (?), 86 (?), 109 (in part), p. 113 (?), p. 147, pl. 16, fig. 2. Pa mathewsoni Dickerson, 1916, opp. pp. 372, 377, p. 433 (loc. 672 only), p. 450 (in part). Anderson and Hanna 1925, pp. 63, 44. Surcula (Surculites) mathewsonii Gabb, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila, 1876, 280. D. Bela clathrata Gabb, 1869, p. 152, pl. 26, fig. 31. Stanton, 1896, p- 1021. Bela cf. clathrata Dickerson, 1914a, D- 85; 1914, p. 21; 1916, opp. p. 372, p. 448; in Lawson, 1914, p. 9 Potamides ? davistana Cooper, Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. 4, 1894, p. 44, pl. 1, fig. 13. Dickerson, 1913, p. 266 (said to be a Surcula). Surcula davisiana Dickerson, 1913, p. 279, pl. 12, fig. 6a, (not fig. 6b): 1914b, pp. 115, 116; 1916, pp. 408, 409, 452. Turris (Surcula) davisiana Clark, Journ. Ceol. vol. 29, 1921, p. 159. Surcula (?) species Waring, 1917, pl. 15, fig. 16. There are four specimens in the box labelled ““ Surcula (Surculites) mathewsoniz Gabb, types of species, Martinez.” The label was ob- viously written by Gabb. None of the specimens agrees with his figure which is considered a synthetograph. The one having “Whorls seven, angular” (fig. 14), no. 4180a, does not have the aperture or canal, but is the same species as the one figured here as the lectotype, no. 4180 (fig. 13). Above the finely serrated shoulder the spiral lines are finer and farther apart than below it. The second angulation is marked by three broad bands. Height of lectotype (fig. 13) 31 mm. (incom- plete); width, 17.5 mm. Height of no. 4180a (fig. 14) 25.5 mm. Fig. 13 1s enlarged twice instead of three times as indicated on the plate. Horizon, Eocene, probally from the so-called Tején: locality, Martinez. It also occurs at Marysville Buttes, as ““Surcula davis- tana,” and in the Domengine horizon of Coalinga and Simi Valley. 381 Cossmann, Essais Pal. Comp., vol. 4, 1901, p. 27. 382 Conrad, Amer. Jour. Conch. vol. 1, 1865, p. Ps. Monotype ‘‘ Fusus’ thal- loides Conrad from Claiborne. “Fusus” funiculosus Lamarck of the Lutétien, for which Cossmann (Es. Pal. Comp., vol. 4, 1901, p. 23, pl. 1, fig. 5) used the name “ Dolicholathyrus’’ is probably a European member of Ezilifusus Conrad. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 421 The Martinez (Paleocene) specimen figured by Dickerson (1914a) is too poorly preserved to be determined but seems to be at least related to this species. The holotype of “Bela clathrate” Gabb, no. 4207 (fig. 12) is a young specimen of S. mathewsonit. Height (incomplete) 8 mm.; greatest width (the specimen is Slightly crushed dorsoventrally) 5.2 mm. “Tejon group, Martinez.” This species is much like Surculites errans (Solander)® from Barton, England (Eocene), but it is less involute and its spiral lines are closer together. The monotype of Surculites®® is S. annosus Conrad, from the Eocene of New Jersey. A specimen in the Academy, though not well preserved, shows a shallow posterior sulcus. It is unfortunate that this name is based on such a poorly known species. Surculites sinuatus (Gabb). Plate XXX, fig. 12. Conus sinuatus Gabb, 1864, pp. 123, 223 pl. 29, fig. 227. Surcula (Surculites) sinuata Gabb, 1869, pp. 150~ B51, 217, pl. 26, fig. 28. Dickerson, 1913, pp. 264 (in ns 270; 1914a, p. 95 of.”; 1915, p pp. 44, 70, pl. 10, figs. %a, b, ¢; 1916, not p. 408, pp. 421, 433 (in part), '439 @), 445 Beet. » , 452 (in part). Clark, 1921, p. 155 (7). Surcula sinuata Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp. vol. 2, 1896, p. 70. Anderson and Hanna, 1925, pp. 90, 41, 45, pl. 12, fig. 5 The specimen figured is obviously Gobi's holotype. Height (in- complete) 17.7 mm.; width 14.4 mm.; no. 4300. Horizon, Tejon, Eocene; locality Tejon. The extreme form of this species is known only from this locality. It is closely related to Surculites mathewsoniz but is generally smoother and has a higher collar. Some specimens have an ex- tremely high collar and are readily recognized but some approach very close to S. mathewsonii. It seems quite likely that more material will show this form to be a subspecies of S. mathewsonii. ; NEKEWIS n. gen. Nekewis io (Gabb). Plate XXX, fig. 11. fPascicfnte io Gabb, 1864, pp. 101, 224, pl. 28, fig. 214. Stoliczka, 1868, 10 p Fasciolaria 10 Gabb, 1869, p. 220. Surcula (Surculites) io Gabb, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1876, p. 280 (said to be no name for this group). Surcula io Dickerson, 1915, p. 44, pl. 10, fig. 11; 1916, p. 421, p. 427 (7). Clark, in Kew, U. S. Geol. Sury. Bull. 753, 1024, p. Bo. Row, Univ. 8 Sowerby, Min. Conch., vol. 4, 1823, pl. 400. Cossmann, (Essais Pal. Comp., vol. 4, 1901, p. 94, pl. 6, fi 13) placed this species under Mayeria Bel- lardi 187 1, an "Italian Miocene’ fa 35 Conrad, Amer. Jour. Conch., vol. 1, 1865, p 2 3; pl. 20, fig. 9. Whitfield, U.'S. Geol. Surv. Mon. 18, ig P. 218, pl. 33, et 422 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 12,1919, p. 10. Anderson and Hanna, 1925, pp. 88, 83, 89, 90, 45, pl. 10, fig. 11. Turris io Arnold and Hannibal, 1913, p. 572 (?). Surcula ioformis Anderson and Hanna, 1925, pp. 89, 88, 45, pl. 12, figs. 3, 7. Surcula alizensis Anderson and Hanna, 1925, pp. 89-90, 45, pl. 12, figs. 2, 4. The holotype specimen which is figured has nine nodes on body whorl, but there are often as many as eleven. The anterior end of the canal has been broken. From other specimens, the colu- mella 1s known to be smooth. Height, (almost complete) 31 mm.; width (not including nodes) 15 mm.; no. 4301. Horizon, Tejon, Eocene; locality, Tején. The species described by Anderson and Hanna seem to be variations of this species. They are both from Tején. This species occurs in the so-called Tején in Simi Valley (Clark, 1924). A number of workers have remarked upon the absence of a name for this species. Nekewis is here proposed, with ‘Fasciolaria” washingtoniana Weaver,*® a closely related species from Cowlitz, as the type. The genus is characterized .by its noded shoulder and very shallow anal sulcus. It has an even wider sulcus than the probably rzlated Pleurotomella Verrill,*® a genus now living in the Atlantic. Systenope polycolpa Cossmann, placed under Pleuro- tomella by Cossmann®®’ is probably a distinct genus. “‘Fusus” whitfieldi Aldrich?8® from the Eocene of Alabama and “ Fusus’ lima Sowerby?®®® from the Bartonian seem to belong to Nekewis. Pos- sibly “Thais” nehalemensis Anderson and Martin®®® from the Oligocene (?) of northwestern Oregon is another member of this genus. : Nekewis may prove to be related to Clinuria calliope Brocchi®® of the Italian Miocene and it also bears a remarkable resemblance to ““ Pseudotoma” bonelli Bellardi®**? of the Italian Miocene. PSEUDOTOMA Bellardi 1875 Pseudotoma remondii (Gabb). Plate XXXI, fig. 5. ? Metula Remondii Gabb, 1866, pp. 3-4, pl. 1, fig. 5. Metula Remondit Gabb, 1869, p. 72. The lectotype is figured. Judging from another specimen the 385 Weaver, Wash. Geol. Surv. Bull. 15, 1912, p. 52, pl. 1, fig. 5. Dickerson, 1915, p. 72, pl. 10, fig. 7a, b. $85 Verrill, Amer. Journ. Sci. (3), vol. 5, 1873, p. 15. 287 Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 2, ’1896, p. 134. 388 Aldrich, Bull. Amer. Pal, vol. 5 1895, p- 2 pl. 5 Je. ‘4—Wilcox. $59 Sowerby, Mineral Conch. vol. 5, 1825, p28 , pl. 423, fig. 4. 390 Anderson and Martin, 1914, p. 83, pl. 6, 391 Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 2, 1896, P , pl. 5, fig. 19. 32 Cossmann, op. cit. p. 146, pl. 7 figs. 11, 12. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 423 spire was very short. Height (incomplete) 29.3 mm.; width 16 mm.; no. 4329. “Miocene of Arroyo San Antonio, near Tomales Bay.” Ac- cording to Dickerson®® this species is from the Merced Formation (Pliocene). The matrix is similar to that of Colus recurvus. This species apparently belongs to the group of West Coast shells formerly called Bathytoma but more recently called Cryptoconus.?% The type species of Cryptoconus®® is a high-spired Conorbis-like shell with a very deep posterior notch which excludes it from the Pseudotominae. It is from the Eocene of the Paris Basin. The name Pseudotoma,®*® proposed for a species resembling the California shells in the Italian Miocene, is available, and if further differenti- ation be desirable, Megasurcula®®” may be used. The posterior sulcus of P. remondiz is very shallow, but it seems to be a member of this group. The specimen figured by Gabb (1866, p. 5, pl. 1, fig. 8) is taken for the lectotype of Pseudotoma carpenteriana (Gabb).3%® .It is no. 11996 in the Museum of Paleontology. The holotype of Pseudo- toma tryoniana (Gabb) (1866, p. 6, pl. 1, fig. 9) is also in the Museum of Paleontology no. 11997. Both of these types were re-- cognized by Merriam (1895). HETEROTERMA Gabb 1869 Heteroterma trochoidea Gabb. Plate XXYV, fig. 3. * Heterolerma trochoidea Gabb, 1869, p. 152, 217, pl. 26, fig. 30, a. Dall, in Diller, 1896, p. 459 ‘“?”’. Stanton, 1896, pp. 1022, 1029, 1046 “Eocene? ”’. Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 2, 1896, p. 64; vol. 4, 1901, p. 70 (sug- gested Tudicla). Merriam, 1897, p. 773 ‘Martinez horizon?” Weaver, 1905, pp. 109, 110 “Upper Martinez.” Dickerson, 1914a, pp. 86, 110, 115. Waring, 1917, pp. 72, 84 (Martinez at Simi). Nelson, 1925, opp. p. 402, pp. 403, 427-428, pl. 58, fig. 5. There are two specimens in the collection labelled “type.” The lectotype is figured, no. 4237. The aperture of the original figure was based on the other specimen, which is not well preserved. The 3% Dickerson, Calif. Acad. Sci. (4), vol. 11, 1922, p. 531. 3% Dall, U. S. Nat. Mus. Proc., vol. 54, 1918, p. 319. 395 Von Koenen, Palaeont., vol. 16, 1867, pp. 167-172 “wird besonders gut charakterisirt durch Pleurotoma filosa Lam.” This species was later cited by Cossmann as the type. (Ann. Soc. Roy. Malac. Belg., vol. 24, 1889, p. 235. 3% Bellardi; Bul. Soc. Malac. Ital., vol. 1, 1875, p. 20. Monotype species Pseudotoma intorta (Brocchi.). 897 Casey, Trans. St. Louis Acad. Sci., vol. 14, 1904, p. 147. Proposed for two species, Surcula carpenteriana Gabb and ““S. tryoni.”” The former is taken for the type species. ; Wi Proc. Calif. Acad. Nat. Sci., vol. 3, Jan. 1865, p. 183-184, (as Pleuro- toma). . 424 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII growth lines indicate a broad, shallow sulcus in the aperture above the shoulder. Length (incomplete) 14.9 mm.; width, 16.7 mm. Horizon, Martinez (Paleocene); locality, Martinez. This species is the type of the genus Heteroterma which seems to be known only from the Paleocene of California. It may, however, be represented in the Cretaceous of Patagonia by “Cominella?”’ praecursor Wilckens.39? TEREBRIDAE TEREBRA sensu lato Terebra californica Gabb. Plate XXVI, fig. 5. Terebra californica Gabb, 1869, p. 162, 223, pl. 27, fig. 41. Cooper, 1894, p- 39. Dickerson, 1916, pp. 421, 427 (?), 434 (?), 453 (?). Anderson and Hanna, 1925, p. 82, 45, 130, pl. §, fig. 18 (Tején). Not Terebra californica Dickerson, 1915, p. 44 (= Turbonilla gesteri fide Anderson and Hanna, 1925, p. 130). The holotype has about twenty-seven axial ribs on body whorl. It is too poorly preserved to be certain, but spiral lines were appar- ently absent. Height, 12.8 mm.; width, 3 mm.; no. 4209. Horizon, Eocene; locality, “Martinez.” Probably from the so- called Tejon. The specimen from Tejon (Anderson and Hanna) is evidently of this species and it probably occurs at Coalinga (Dicker- son, 1916) but better material is desirable. The name Terebra was proposed by Bruguiére*?® but no species were mentioned. It was first cited with a species, Buccinum subu- latum Lin., by Lamarck!" and is therefore a monotypic genus. Its history and divisions have been discussed by Dall.4® GENERA oF DouBTFUL SYSTEMATIC POSITION PALADMETE Gardner, 1916 Paladmete perforata (Gabb). Plate XXII, fig. Sa. Neptunea perforata Gabb, pp. 89, 222, pl. 18, fig. 39. Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 4, 1901, p. 147 (placed doubtfully under Eripachya). Eripachya perforata Gabb, 1869, pp. 149, 216. Tryon, Man. Conch., vol. 3, 1881, p. 105, pl. 31, fig. 77; Struct. Conch., vol. 2, 1883, p. 149, pl. 51, fig. 66; (after Gabb). Fischer, Man. Conch., 1883, p. 626. Anderson, 1902, 41 p- 41. ?Neptunea Hoffmannit Gabb, 1864, pp. 90, 223, pl. 18, fig. 41. Stanton 1893, p. 252. Cossmann, Es. Pal. Comp., vol. 4, 1901, p. 147 (placed doubtfully under Eripachya). ?Eripachya Hoffmannii Gabb, 1869, pp. 149, 216. Merriam, 1895. Ander- son, 1902, p. 41. 399 Wilckens, Ber. Naturforsch. Gesell. Freib., vol. 15, 1907, p. 21, pl. 3, fig. 14, 15. 400 Bruguiére, Encyclop. Méthod. Hist. Nat., Vers, vol. “6” (1), 1789, p. XV. 40 Lamarck, Mém. Soc. d’Hist. Nat. Paris, 1799, p. 71. 402 Dall, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zodl., vol. 43, 1908, p. 245, p. 250. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 425 The specimen figured—no. 4187—is the only one in the Acad- emy’s collection. It has the umbilical depression mentioned in the original description, but is not so well preserved as specimens in the Museum of Paleontology which were labelled by Gabb. These specimens correspond more closely to the original figure and since ~ they are part of the type material, one of them, no. 31389, is taken for the lectotype. The body whorl has ten axial ribs and about fifteen rather closely spaced spiral ribs with secondary spirals in the four posterior interspaces. Height (incomplete) 8.5 mm.; width, 6.3 mm. The specimen figured—4187—is slightly larger having twelve axial and about twenty spiral ribs on the body whorl. Height (incomplete), 12.6 mm. ; width 8 mm. Horizon, Cretaceous ‘Shasta Group’; locality, “ North of Cot- tonwood Creek (Div. A).” It has been possible to expose the columella of one of the speci- mens showing it to be smooth as on typical Paladmete.*®® This smooth columella immediately separates it from Bonellita pauci- varicata which it otherwise very closely resembles. The holotype—no. 11966, Museum of Paleontology—of Palad- mete hoffmannii seems to be an unusually large specimen of this species. It was recognized by Merriam (1895). Height, 26.7 mm.; width, 16 mm. It has thirteen axial ribs on the body whorl and the spirals are more widely spaced than on the smaller specimens. The suture is appressed and the axial ribs do not extend to it as on the typical. Unfortunately the early whorls are not preserved. It cannot be far removed from P. perforata, and I think more material will show it to be conspecific. According to Gabb (1869, p. 149) they occurred together. ERIPACHYA Gabb 1869 Eripachya ponderosa (Gabb). Plate XX, fig. 9. Neptunea ponderosa Gabb, 1864, pp. 88, 222, pl. 18, fig. 38; in Whitney, 1865, pp. 207, 210. Eripachya ponderosa Gabb, 1869, pp. 149, 216. Stanton, in Turner, U. S. Geol. Surv. 14th An. Rep’t, pt. 2, 1894, p. 460. Cossmann, Essais Pal. Comp., vol. 4, 1901, p. 147, fig. 40 (after Gabb) (Buccinidae). Anderson, 1902, pp. 29, 34. The holotype of this species which is figured is very poorly pre- served. It has but three whorls. There are probably a dozen axial ribs on the periphery of the body whorl, but they do not reach 403 Gardner, Maryland Geol. Surv. Upper Cret. 1916, pp. 412-414, pl. 18, figs. 14, 15. Type species Paladmete cancellaria (Conrad). 426 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII the suture, which is sinuous. Primary and secondary spiral lines are present, at least, on the posterior portion of the body whorl. “The columella is smooth and straight; the siphonal fasciole would be rather conspicuous if it were not so badly worn; the outer lip is apparently lirate internally and there is a faint posterior canal. The aperture recalls Cominella. Height, 34.5 mm. ; greatest width, —the specimen has been crushed— 22 mm.; no. 4186. Horizon, Cretaceous, ‘Chico Group’’; the locality on the label is “Tuscan Springs, Cal.” In the same box is a specimen of ‘ Fulgur”’ hilgardi White,** a species described from Pence’s ranch. Cossmann has taken this species for the type of Eripachya Gabb. ATRESIUS Gabb 1869 Atresius liratus Gabb. Plate XXIII, fig. 3. Atresius liratus Gabb, 1869, pp. 169, 227, pl. 28, fig. 50. Stanton, 1895, pp. 19, 20, 67, 68, pl. 11, fig. 6? Anderson, 1902, p. 45. Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 7, 1906, p. 193 (placed in the Trichotropidae). Not Atresius liratus (?) Stanton, 1894, p. 442 (fide Stanton, 1895). The holotype here figured, is from the Museum of Comparative Zoology, no. 27868. The aperture was evidently round, but the exact nature of the anterior end is not determinable. The growth lines are vertical except for a slight sinuosity at the suture. Height (incomplete) 10.6 mm.; width 9 mm. Horizon, Cretaceous? “Shasta Group’’; locality, “ Calusa County, southeast of Hot Sulphur Springs.” This species has been included in the Knoxville fauna by Stanton (1895). This species is the monotype of the genus Atrestus. A number of European Cretaceous species have been referred to this genus (Cossmann). The specimen figured by Stanton (1895) may not be this species for its growth lines are a trifle more sinuous and its spiral lines are not identical with the holotype. PERISSITYS n. gen. Perissitys brevirostris (Gabb). Plate XX, fig. 4. Perissolax brevirostris Gabb, 1864, pp. 91, 223, pl. 18, fig. 43; in Whitney, 1865, p. 207, 210; Amer. Jour. Conch., vol. 2, 1866, p. 90; 1869, p. 217. Conrad, Amer. Jour. Conch., vol. 1, 1865, p. 363 (said to be not a Peris- solax); Amer. Jour. Conch., vol. 2, 1866, p. 99. Whiteaves, Mez. Fossils, vol. 1, 1879, p. 356, pl. 43, fig. 3 (from the Cretaceous of Sucia Island). Tryon, Man. Conch., vol. 3, 1881, p. 104, pl. 30, fig. 67; Struct. Conch., vol. 2, 1883, p. 141, pl. 51, fig. 59 (as a subgenus of T'udicla). Heilprin, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1882, p. 207. Fischer, Man. Conch., 1884, p. 620 (as a subgenus of Tudicla). Bowers, Calif. Min. Bur. 10th An. Rep’t, 1890, p. 400 “?”. Cooper, in Fairbanks, Amer. Jour. Sei. (3), 4 White, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 51, 1889, pp. 22-23, pl. 3, fig. 2, 3. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 427 vol. 45, 1893, p. 476. White, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 51, 1889, p. 46, (said to occur in Cretaceous of San Juan Islands). Stanton, U. S. Geol. Surv. 17th An. Rept., pt. 1, 1896, pp. 1023, 1047, pl. 67, fig. 4: in Turner, U. S. Geol. Surv. 14th An. Rep’t, 1894, pt. 2, p. 460. Merriam, Jour. Geol., vol. 5, 1897, p. 770, “n. var.” (?): in Lawson, 1914, p. 8. Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 4, 1901, pp. 71-2, fig. 42, (as type of Perissolar, a subgenus of Tudicla). Anderson, 1902, pp. 30, 34, 37, 38; 1905, p. 161. Arnold, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 396, p. 11, pl. 1, fig. 2; Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 34, 1908, p. 347; 1909a, p. 3. Grabau and Shimer, Ind. Foss., v. 1, 1909, p. 767, fig. 1119. Packard, 1916, pp. 148, 154. Anderson and Hanna, 1925, p. 70. The holotype here figured has fourteen axial ribs on the body whorl. They do not extend beyond the first and third angulations. Of the spiral lines on the body whorl, the three anterior ones are much the heaviest. The anterior extension of the body whorl is without spiral ribbing. The early whorls are much flattened, forming a very blunt apex. Height, 51.6 mm.; width, 33 mm.; no. 4188. The preservation of the type suggests that it came from Gabb’s “Tuscan Springs” locality. Horizon, Cretaceous, “Chico group.” The box is labelled ‘“ Martinez and Tuscan Spr. Cal.” but the Mar- tinez specimens are Cophocara stanton. This species has been cited as the type of Perissolax but it was not included in the original list under that genus.*® Perissolax trivolva seems to have been the first species definitely chosen” as the type of Perissolax. It is from the Cretaceous of New Jersey and is apparently closely related to Pyropsis perlata (Conrad) the type species of Pyropsis.*” This reduces Perissolar to a close synonym of Pyropsis and removes it from further consideration here. Perissitys brevirostris, which is the type speeies for the new genus Perissitys, may be related to Pyropsis but it has a higher spire and very prominent collar. The growth lines are practically vertical to the suture while in Pyropsis they are very oblique to the suture. This difference suggests that their somewhat similar shapes are due 405 Gabb, Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc., vol. 8, 1861, p. 122. ‘‘There exists a group of shells in the cretaceous formation, of which Fusus longirostris, and F. trivolvus, may be taken as the types.” This statement was evidently the basis for the erroneous conclusion reached by the last reviewers of Perissolaz—*‘Gabb proposed the genus for Fusus longirostris d’Orbigny, and included in it F. trivolvus Gabb, also from the Chilean Cretaceous.” (Anderson and Hanna, 1925, p. 70). ropa, U. S. Geol. Surv. Mono. 18, 1892, p. 34. See also p. 46 and p. 172, pl- 21, fiz. 1-3. : 407 Conrad, Jour. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. (2), vol. 4, 1860, p. 288, pl. 46, fig. 39. Described as a subgenus of Tudicla. This genus has a much smaller protoconch than Tudicla spirillus but the two genera may be related. 428 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII to convergence. Unfortunately the early whorls, the outer lip and extremity of the canal are not preserved. However, a specimen in the Museum of Paleontology has a complete canal which is shorter than that of Pyropszs. Possibly Pyropsis hombroniana (d’Orbigny)*® from the Cretaceous of Chili (Quiriquina Formation) belongs with Perissitys. COPHOCARA n. gen. Cophocara stantoni n. sp. Plate XX, figs. 1, 2, 3. Perissolax brevirostris Gabb, 1864, p. 91 (in part), not pl. 18, fig. 43. Shell of medium size, apex blunt, shoulder and angle of the body whorl conspicuous, all completely covered with a thin layer of callus. Beneath the callus the collar appears crenulated and the shoulder has about twenty nodes with secondary nodes on the spiral just above. The anterior constriction of the body whorl has heavy widely spaced spirals, which are apparently lacking on the pillar. Aperture elon- gated, pointed at both ends; outer lip thin; columella unknown (judging from another specimen it is quite smooth). Canal moder-- ately long and practically straight. Holotype (fig 1). Height, 46 mm. ; width, 27.5 mm.; no. 73399, U. S. Nat. Mus. Horizon, Cretaceous; locality, U. S. Nat. Mus. loc. 1258. Near Blum & Co. Pacheco Warehouse, 13 miles north of Pacheco, Contra Costa Co., Calif. This specimen, the holotype, and the cross-section (fig. 3—width, 20 mm.; no. 73400) belong to the National Museum and were collected by Dr. T. W. Stanton in 1894. I am indebted to him for the use of this material. The cross-section shows the depo- sition of callus over the whorl before the succeeding whorl has been formed and also the reinforcement of the summit and outer walls by an internal secondary deposit. Dr. W. P. Woodring kindly had this section cut for me in the laboratory of the U. S. Geological Survey. One specimen of this species in Gabb’s collection is 36 mm. wide. Another (fig. 2), is an immature specimen (width 17.3 mm.) which shows the spire completely covered with callus even at this early stage. Although the callus does not cover the entire body whorl of this specimen, thin fragments suggest that it originally did so and has since been worn away. Gabb’s material was confused with Perissitys brevirostris and is evidently the basis for his listing of that species from the Cretaceous at Martinez. ; The growth lines seem to be practically vertical as in Perissitys and the canal, though shorter, is also similar. It is probably re- lated to Perissitys but differs in having only one row of nodes and 408 Wilckens, Neu. Jahrb. Min. Geol. Beil. B, 18, 1904, p. 213, pl. 18, fig. 8-9. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 429 an enveloping callus. Cophocara is known from only this one new species which is the type of the genus. PSEUDOPERISSOLAX Clark 1918 Pseudoperissolax blakei (Conrad) (subsp.?). Plate XXVIII, fig. 1. Perissolax blake: ,Gabb, 1864, pp. 92, 228, (in part), pl. 21, fig. 110 (not Conrad): 1869, p. 149 (?), 217 (in part). ?Stanton, 17th Rep’t U. S. Geol. Surv., pt. 1, 1896, p. 1045, pl. 67, fig. 1. Dickerson, 1914, p. 20; in Lawson, 1914, p. 9; 1916, opp. p. 372, pp. 377, 379, 386. ?Waring, 1917, p- 85, pl. 13, fig. 9. Clark, 1918, pp. 180-181 (in part). Eo blakei, n. subsp., Clark, Journ. Geol., vol. 29, 1921, p. 159 (in part). Gabb’s figured specimen of this species differs from the typical, in that the whorls of the adult shell do not extend quite so far over the preceding whorls. The importance of this slight difference may be doubted for otherwise they seem to be identical; no. 4189. Height, 50 mm. ; width, ca 21 mm. Locality, Martinez; horizon, Eocene, probably from the so-called Tejon. : This subspecies also occurs at San Diego and probably at Simi Valley, but more material is necessary to establish its importance as a systematic entity. The typical Pseudoperissolax blakei**® is as yet known with cer- “tainty only from the Tejon. ¢ Perissolax tricarnatus” Weaver? may possibly be the name to be used for this new subspecies, but the type is an internal cast and is said to come from the Martinez (Paleocene). It has been suggested’! that ‘‘Perissolax gabbi” Dickerson? is the same as ““ P. tricarinatus’’ but they belong to quite different genera. The generic name Levifusus was proposed for this species and Fusus trabeatus Conrad and it was so used by Dall** and Harris.*® Fortunately, however, Cossmann*® selected the second species for the type of Levifusus which leaves Pseudoperissolax blake: available for the type of Pseudoperissolax.*’” The genus is present in the Eocene (Wilcox) of Alabama*® and is apparently known only from 409 Anderson and Hanna, 1925, pp. 69-71, pl. 10, fig. 10, pl. 12, fig. 6. 40 "Weaver, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 4, 1905, p. 121, pl. 13, fig. 9. 41 Anderson and Hanna, 1925, p. 71. 42 Dickerson, 1916, p. 497, pl. 37, fig. 14. 43 Conrad, Amer. Journ. Conch., vol. 1, 1865, p. 17. 414 Dall, Trans. Wag. Inst., vol. 3, 1890, p. 109. 45 Harris, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1895, p. 70. : 416 Cossmann, Es. Pal. Comp., vol. 4, 1901, p. 14. A a7 Clark, 1918, p. 180. 418 Pseudoperissolax eocensis (Aldrich), Harris, Bull. Amer. Pal., vol. 3, 1899, p. 65, pl. 8, fig. 13 (as Triton (Ranularia)). Spe 430 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII the Paleocene and Eocene of North America.*? It may be related to the Cretaceous Pyropsis, but it has a larger protoconch and the growth lines are more concave above the shoulder. The remarkable fossil, Pyropsis perula Aldrich,*?° from the Eocene (Wilcox) of Alabama may be related to Pyropsis but its single row of prodigious spines are sufficiently unique, to remove it from that genus. It may be called Sceptrum. It is present in the Eocene (Aquia Formation) of Maryland—Sceptrum marylandicum (Clark and Martin).#2! Unlike either Pyropsis or Pseudoperissolax the inner border of the canal remains free from the columella throughout its whole length. Such a character, however, is prob- ably quite variable. Pseudoperissolax (?) occidentalis (Gabb). Plate XXI, fig. 8. Fusus occidentalis Gabb, 1869, pp. 146, 215, pl. 26, fig. 23. Stanton, 1896, pp. 1021 (?), 1029. Not Dickerson, 1914a, pp. 82, 86, 109, 151, pl. 16, 3. fig. The holotype is figured. There are twelve nodes on the penul- timate whorl. The apex and canal are broken away. The col- umella is apparently slightly incrusted. Height (incomplete), 15.4 mm.; width, 11 mm.; no. 4247. Locality, Martinez; horizon, ? Martinez, Paleocene. : According to Gabb this species was found with “F.”” tumidus but the preservations of the types are different. Unfortunately there is practically no matrix. Stanton and Dickerson have both reported it from the Eocene, but the specimen figured by Dickerson is an internal cast of some other genus. This species may be related to a specimen found by Nelson? in the Paleocene at Simi Valley, but the spiral lines are wider apart. BUCCINOFUSUS Conrad, 1866 The type of Buccinofusus diegoensis (Gabb)#3 is No. 11980 in the 419 “ Pseudoperissolax merriami’’ Clark (1918, p. 181, pl. 21, fig. 4, pl. 22, fig. 10, 15) seems to include two different genera, neither of which is Pseudoperissolaz. 420 Harris, Proc. Acad. Nat: Sci. Phila., 1896, p. 476, pl. 21, fig. 1, a. Bull. Amer. Pal. vol. 3, 1899, p. 46, pl. 6, fiz. 3, a. Both of these references are to the same specimen which was collected by C. W. Johnson at Woods Bluff, Alabama. If this specimen is not conspecific with Pyropsis perula Aldrich (Geol. Surv. Alabama Bull. 1, 1886, p. 25, pl. 3, fig. 4) the name Sceptrum should go with this specimen. #1 Clark and Martin, in Maryl. Geol. Surv. Eocene, 1901, p. 137, pl. 23, fig.t1, a, b (as Tudicla) 22 Fusinys (Levifusus [?]) species, Nelson, 1925, opp. p. 402 (Martinez at Simi). #3 Gabb, 1864, p. 95, pl. 18, fig. 44 (as T'ritonium). One of the specimens figured by Dickerson, from Oroville, (1916, p. 497, pl. 41, fig. 6a) may be related to_this species but it has fewer axial ribs and no varices. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 431 Museum of Paleontology. It was recognized by Merriam (1895). Height (almost complete) 14.3 mm.; width 8.5 mm. It was col- lected by Cooper at San Diego near Rose Canyon*** Eocene—Dom- engine horizon. It is the monotype species of Buccinofusus Conrad? and is not congeneric with the Atlantic Miocene species commonly called Buccinofusus.*? OPISTHOBRANCHIATA—TECTIBRANCHIATA ACTEONIDAE ACTEON Montfort 1810 Acteon politus (Gabb). Plate XXIV, figs. 18, 19. Ringinella polita Gabb, 1869, pp. 174, 175, 231, pl. 28, fig. 60. White, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 15, 1885, p. 20, “Knoxville beds.” Stanton, 1895, p. 19; 1893, pp. 250, 251. Anderson, '1902, p- 41. Cinulia (Ringinella) polita Grabau and Shimer, Ind. Foss., vol. 1, 1909, p. 808, fig. 1187. The material is labelled, evidently by Gabb, ‘“dupl. type,” but one specimen agrees very well with the stated dimensions and is believed to be the holotype. It is, at least, a lectotype, no. 4266 (fig. 18). It is almost twice as large as any of the numerous speci- mens in the lot. On all the specimens of which the columella is visible, there is only one plication. Height of lectotype, 10.5 mm. ; width, 6.2 mm. Height of smaller individual (fig. 19), which may prove to be a distinct species, 6.6 mm.; width, 3.5 mm. The sculpturing of the smaller specimens is so much like the type that they are taken for the same species although intermediate speci- mens are lacking. The incised spiral lines are minutely punctate. There are two, close together, near the suture, the others are widely spaced. Fig. 19 is enlarged three times. Horizon, Cretaceous: locality, “Shasta Group, south of the road from Calusa to the Hot Sulphur Springs . . . , Calusa Co.” Stan- ton (1895) has questioned the Knoxville age of this species. This species has the single columellar plication of the recent Acteon.22” Acteon inornatus White®2® is a closely related species. Whenever spiral lines can be observed on it they are closer together than on A. politus. 424 Cooper, 1894, pp. 37-38. 4 Conrad, Smiths. Mise. Coll. 200, Is pp- 17, 36. 46 Cossmann, Es. Pal. Comp., vol. 4 1901 Ds 33, pl. 1, fig. 10. 47 Montfort, Conch. Syst., vol. 2, 1810, p- 315, ’Monotype species, “Voluta” tornatilis Gmelin. 428 White, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 51, 1889, pp. 15-16, pl. 4, figs. 16, 17, 18. Chico near Pence’s Ranch. 432 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII ACTEONELLA d’Orbigny 1842 Acteonella oviformis Gabb. Plate XXI, fig. 13. Actaeonella oviformis Gabb, 1869, p. 173, 232, pl. 28, fig. 58. Bowers, Calif. Min. Bur. 10th An. Rep’t, 1890, p. 400, (Santa Ana Mts.). Fairbanks Journ. Geol., vol. 3, 1895, p. 429 “?”. Merriam, in Watts, Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. 19, 1900, p. 218 “aff.” Anderson, 1902, pp. 28, 34, 93. Pack- ard, 1916, pp. 144, 147. On the holotype, here figured, the posterior columellar plication is prominent, while the anterior two are barely visible. Length (incomplete), 42.5 mm.; width, 21.6 mm.; no. 4323. Horizon, Cretaceous; locality, “Chico Group, (?) Cottonwood Creek, Shasta Co.” Typical Acteonella®?® has three plications on the columella. This species as interpreted by Bowers and Packard is probably related to Acteonella gigantea (Sowerby)®? of Europe (Turonien ?) and A. humbolti Bose®! of Mexico which have been considered members of Trochactaeon.®? It is probable, however, that this species had a hidden spire like that of A. crassa (Dujardin)*? and if such proves to be true, the species from the Santa Ana Mts. will have to have a new name. : : A. oviformis has been used by Packard (1916) for the type species of the lowest zone of the Cretaceous of the Santa Ana Mts. ACTEONINA d’Orbigny 1849 ““Acteonina’’ calafia n. sp. Plate XXI, fig. 12. ? A cteonina pupoides Gabb, 1864, pp. 113, 225, pl. 19, fig. 67. Actaeonina pupoides Gabb, 1864, p. 225; 1869, pp. 173, 231, pl. 28, fig. 57. Cooper, in Fairbanks, Amer. J. Sci. (3), vol. 45, 1893, p. 474. Merriam, 1895. Anderson, 1902, pp. 28, 34, 38. Not Acteonina pupoides d’Or- bigny, Pal. Fran. Jura, vol. 2, 1850, p. 176, pl. 288, figs. 1, 2. Gabb’s holotype—no. 11967 Museum of Paleontology—is a fragment, but since the name is a homonym it may be ignored. The specimen described and figured in 1869 and figured here is taken for the holotype of a new species. It is characterized by its #9 0’Orbigny, Pal. Franc., Crét., vol. 2, 1842, pp. 107, 110-111, pl. 165, figs. 2-3. Sherborn cited Acteonella as 1843, but although the text did not appear until 1843, this name dates from plates 128-166 which appeared in 1842 (N. Jahrb. Min. 1842, p. 455). Type species Acteonella laevis d’Orb. = “Volvaria’ laevis Sowerby from the Cretaceous of Europe (Hermannsen, Ind. Gen., vol. 1, 1846, p. 17). Middle Upper Cret.-Turonien (Cossmann, Es. Pal. Comp., vol. 1, 1895, p. 74, pl. 2, fig. 13-14). #0 d’Orbigny, Pal. Franc. Crét., vol. 2, 1842, p. 108, pl. 164, fig. 7. 41 Bose, Inst. Geol. Mex. Bol., 42, 1923, p. 205, pl. 17, figs. 6-11. 42 Meek, Amer. Journ. Sci., vol. 35, 1863, p. 89. Type species A. renauziana d’Orbigny, by original designation. 13 ’Orbigny, Pal. Franc. Crét., vol. 2, 1843, p. 111-112, p.. 165, fig. 1. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 433 cylindrical form, and small aperture. Height, 22.5 mm.; width, 13 mm.; no. 4287. Horizon, Cretaceous, ‘Shasta Group’; Locality, ‘Cottonwood Creek.” This is hardly an Acteonina®®* but it is left thus for want of a better arrangement. It seems to be a new genus, but more material is desirable. ‘‘Acteonina’’ californica Gabb. Plate XXIV, fig. 21. Acteonina californica Gabb, 1864, p. 114, pl. 19, fig. 68. Actaeonina californica Gabb, 1864, p. 225; 1869, p. 231. Stanton, 1893, p. 250: Jour. Geol., vol. 5, 1897, p. 598. Merriam, 1895. Cooper, in Watts, Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. 3, 1894, p. 7. Anderson, Jour. Geol., vol. 3, 1895, p. 460: 1902, pp. 28, 34, 37. The specimen figured is one of the type specimens. Its surface was apparently smooth. Height, 51 mm.; width, 29 mm., no. 4259. Horizon, Cretaceous. The box is labelled ‘Benicia’ and con- tains only two specimens. Five specimens of the tyr = terial are in the Museum of Pale- ontology. They were recogni”! by Merriam (1895). They are fragmentary, as mentioned by Gabb, and are labelled in Gabb’s handwriting, “8 M. N. of Yieka and Martinez.”” There seems to be considerable variation in the height of the spire of these speci- mens and they may include more than one species, but it is better not to select a lectotype until the species is better known. The holotype of “Globiconcha’ remondii Gabb (1864, p. 114, pl. 19, fig. 69) is in the Museum of Paleontology, no. 11974. It was recognized by Merriam (1895). It is very poorly preserved but seems to be an Ampullinid possibly Pseudamaura. It has a thick callus on the collumella. Height (almost complete), 62 mm. ; width, 48 mm. ‘““About 2 miles north of Benicia (in Division A).” TORNATELLAEA Conrad 1860 Tornatellaea pinguis (Gabb). Plate XXV, fig. 10. Cinulia pinguis Gabb, 1864, pp. 112, 225, pl, 29, figs. 221a, b. Stoliczka, 1868, p. 411 (“more probably a Ringinella’ Ringinella pinguis Gabb, 1869, pp. 175, 231. Merriam, 1895. Dickerson, 1914a, pp. 74, 75, 83, 97, 101 (ef.), 110, 113, 152, pl. 17, figs. 4a, b: 1914 c, p- 265 “‘el.”: In Lawson, 1914, p 9 “cf.” on a0 fn 5 pgs Nelson, Ge Calit roy Geol., vol. 15, 1925, p. 436, pl. 60, figs. 5 44 d’Orbigny, Prod. Pal., vol. 1, 1850, p. 118. This particular page appeared in 1849 according to Sherborn. But one species is mentioned ‘‘Chemmnitzia” carbonaria de Koninck from the Carboniferous of Belgium. This is the type of the genus by BORD and Meek chose tni3 species for type in 1863 (Amer. Jour. Seci., vol. 35, p. 434 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII The specimen represented by Gabb’s figure 221a has been recog- nized by Merriam (1895). It is no. 11977 in the Museum of Pale- ontology and is the lectotype. Height, 7.7 mm.; width, 5.4 mm. The specimen figured here is the best specimen of this species in the Academy’s collection. Only 23 whorls are preserved. On the body whorl, the spiral lines are closer together, posteriorly. The outer lip, (on another specimen), is not thickened. The parietal callus is much thickened and bears a small plication. It is not so thick on the lectotype. There is no indication that the anterior plication continued as the inner border of the mouth. Height (in- complete) 8.7 mm.; width, 6.5 mm.; no. 4265. Horizon, probably from the Martinez (Paleocene); locality, “in the Bluffs, a mile west of Martinez.” Typical Tornatellaea*® sometimes has a faint parietal plication but does not have the heavy callus of this species. Both of the speci- mens figured by Nelson have the parietal callus. They are from the Martinez horizon near Simi Valley. Acteon merriamz’”’ War- ing#¢ also from Simi may prove to be a synonym of this species. Tornatellaea impressa (Gabb.) Plate XXIV, figs, 7, 8. Actaeon tmpressus Gabb, 1864, p. 142, 229, pl. 21, fn. 106: 1869, p. 232. Stoliczka, 1868, p- 409, “1 suspect that this species is only an imperfect Ringicula.” White, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull, 51, 1889, p. 16. Stanton, 1894, p. 446; 1897, p. 597; 1895, p. 18. Anderson, 1902, p . 41. Tornatellaea impressa Comp. IY Misc. Coll. 200, 1866, p. 9. Stoliczka, 1868, p. 402, “either a Solidula or more probably an a Ringicula.’ The specimen figured (fig. 8) agrees sufficiently with Gabb’s figure and size mark to be called the holotype, but it does not cor- respond to the stated dimensions. Since Gabb had seven speci- mens of this species, it is better to call the one here figured (fig. 8) a lectotype, no. 4286. The columellar and outer lip are broken. A portion of the columella of another specimen (fig. 7) has since been exposed, showing it to be very much like that of typical Tornatel- laea. The early whorls of all The specimens are eroded. Height of lectotype, 11 mm.; width, 6 mm Height of other specimen, (fig. 7) 12 mm.; width (outer lip is broken away), 6.5 mm. Horizon, Cretaceous, “Shasta Group’’; locality, “N. fork of Cot- tonwood Creek.” Stanton (1894) listed this species from ‘Lower Horsetown beds” near the Cotton wood Creek section. The following genus is doubtfully referred to the Acteonidae. 435 Tornatellaea bella Conrad, Phila. Acad. Sci. Journ. (2), vol. 4, 1860, b: 294, pl. 47, fig. 23, Claiborne, Alabama. 4 Joncsyple genus. 436 Waring, 1017, p. 81, pl. 14, fig. 1 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 435 NOETCA n. gen. Noetca gabbi n. sp. Plate XXIV, figs. 9, 10. Cylindrites brevis Gabb, 1864, pp. 115, 225, pl. 29, fig. 223; 1869, p. 232. Stoliczka, 1868, pp. 400-408. Stanton, U. S. Geol. Surv. 17th An. Rep’t, 1896, p. 1029. Merriam, 1895; Jour. Geol., vol. 5, 1897, p. 770; in Lawson, 1914, p. 8 (generic determination doubted). Anderson, 1902, p. 38 Arnold, 1909a, p. 3 “?”. Not Cylindrites brevis Morris and Lycett, Moll. Great Oolite, 1850, p. 101, pl. 8, fig. 13a, b. = Gonzocylindrites Meek (Amer. J. Sci., 1863, p. 8). Shell small; spire almost flat, of about 3% whorls; suture linear, distinct, slightly impressed; body whorl ornamented with widely spaced incised lines; aperture entire, elongate oval, narrow pos- teriorly; outer lip thin; columella covered with callus. Height of holotype, no. 4250 (fig. 10), 8.3 mm.; width, 5.8 mm. Another specimen shows the callus extending over the parietal region and a rather prominent fold on the columella (fig. 9). Height, 9 mm.; width, 8.3 mm. Horizon, probably Cretaceous; locality, ‘ Vicinity of Martinez.” This species is the type of the new genus Noetca which is char- acterized by its short, somewhat swollen shell and columellar fold. Stoliczka noted that this species was unique, but did not give it a name. Its general shape and curved growth lines suggest Bullina scabra (Gmelin)#7 but the heavy callus and curved columella dis- tinguish it from the Recent Bullina. Bullopsis cretacea Conrad*® (Ripley-Cretaceous) somewhat resembles Noetca but it has a sunken spire and two plications on the columella. The type species of Cylindrites®® is much more cylindrical than Noetca. : : RINGICULIDAE RINGICULA Deshayes, 1838 “Ringicula” varia Gabb. Plate XXIV, fig. 3. Ringicula varia Gabb, 1864, pp. 112, 225, pl. 29, fig. 222a (not 222b): 1869, p. 231. Stanton, 1893, p. 250; Jour. Geol., vol. 5, 1897, p. 598. Ander- son, 1902, p. 30. : , There is but one specimen of this species in the collection. It is here figured and taken for the lectotype. It has five whorls. The anterior plication forms the inner border of the aperture. The + siphonal fasciole is very small. The surface is ornamented with widely spaced incised lines and barely visible growth lines. Length, 7.5 mm.; width, 4.5 mm.; no. 4264. “47 Pilsbry, Man. Conch., vol. 15, 1893, p. 176, pl. 45, figs. 18-22. 48 Conrad, Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. Journ. (2), vol. 3, 1858, p. 334: vol. 4, 1860, 2 46, fig. 27—reproduced by Cossmann, Es. Pal. Comp., vol. 1, 1895, p. 111, fig. a0 Sowerby, Min. Conch., vol. 5, 1824, p. 77, pl. 455, fig. 1. Monotype species. Actean cuspidatus Sowerby, Jurassic of England. 436 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF |[Vol. LXXVIII Horizon, Cretaceous, ‘Chico group’; locality, “Cow Creek, Shasta Co.” The ornamentation given by Gabb (fig. 222b) was probably taken from some other species. This species is obviously not a typical Ringicula**® and probably belongs to an unnamed group. OLIGOPTYCHA Meek, 1876 Oligoptycha obliqua (Gabb). Plate XXIV, fig. 14. Cinulia obligua Gabb, 1864, pp. 111, 225, pl. 19, fig. 64, a-c; 1869, p. 231; in Whitney, 1865, pp. 203, 207, 209, 210. Whiteaves, Geol. Surv. Can. Mes. Fossils, 1879, p. 131, p. 354. White, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 51, 1889, pp. 13, 43, 44. Stanton, in Turner, 1894,* pp. 459-60: in Darton, Journ. Geol., vol. 29, 1921, p. 727. Diller and Stanton, Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., vol. 5, 1894, p. 443. Cooper, in Fairbanks, Amer. Jour. Sci. (3), vol. 45, 1893, pp. 474, 477; Calif. Min. Bur. Bull. 4, 1894, p. 60. Fairbanks, Journ. Geol., vol. 3, 1895, p. 430. Anderson, Journ. Geol., vol. 3, 1895, pp. 459, 460; 1902, pp. 29, 34, 36, 38, 49, 50: 1905, p. 161: 1908, p. 8. Merriam, Journ. Geol., vol. 5, 1897, p. 770: in Lawson, 1214, p. 8. Wil- ckens, Neu. Jahr. Min. Beil. Band. 18, 1904, pp. 220, 277, 279 (considered near ‘‘ Eriptycha’ chilensis (d’Orb.)). Arnold, U.S. Nat. Mus. Proe. 34, 1908, p. 347; 1909a, p. 3. Grabau and Shimer, Ind. Foss., vol. 1, 1909, p. 808, fig. 1189. Dickerson, 1911, p. 172. Packard, 1916, pp. 148, 154. Although the callus is broken on the specimen figured, it has the much thickened outer lip and is taken for the lectotype. Height, 11.5 mm.; width, 12 mm.; no. 4263. Horizon, Cretaceous “Chico Group.” The box is labelled “Martinez and Tuscan Springs’ but Gabb listed it from many localities. The lectotype is probably from Tuscan Springs. Its matrix is a coarse gray sandstone. This species has a heavier callus and is more depressed than 0. concinna of the Fox Hills Gr., the type of the genus.*! Oligoptycha seems closer to Avellana than to ‘“Cinulia’” Gray 184742 but since it has but one plication on the columella it is con- sidered a distinct genus. This plication is quite different from that of “Cinulia.” #0 Deshayes, Lamarck’s Anim. Sans Vert., 2nd edit., vol. 8, 1838. pp. 341-345. Type species, by subsequent designation, Awuricula ringens Lamarck. (Gray, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1847, p. 140). Eocene of Paris Basin (Cossmann, Es. Pal. Comp., vol. 1, 1895, p. 114, pl. 3, figs. 12-14). * 14th An. Rept. U. S. Geol. Surv. pt. 2. 41 Meek, Cret. Missouri, 1876, pp. 283-4, pl. 31, fig. 6bis, a, b, c. Type “Cinulia” concinna Hall and Meek. #2 Gray, P.Z.S. 1847, p. 160. Type Avellana globosa d’Orbigny. By consider- ing Cinulia Gray, 1842 (Syn. Cont. Brit. Mus. 44th ed., p. 62) a nomen nudum, Cinulia Gray 1847 may be used. If, however, it is considered a nomen dubium, and there is much reason for considering it as such, Cinulia 1847 will have to have another name. Cinulia, 1842, is sufficiently diagnosed to exclude Cinulia, 1847, which is therefore a homonym and cannot be used. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 437 AVELLANA d’Orbigny 1842 Avellana mathewsonii (Gabb). Plate XXIV, fig. 11. Cinulia mathewsonii Gabb, 1864, p. 111, 225, pl. 19, fig. 65: 1869, p. 231, 265. Diller and Stanton, Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull. 5, 1894, p. 439. Stanton, 1895, p. 16. Merriam, in Watts, Calif, Min. Bur. Bull. 19, 1900, p. 218. Gra- bau and Shimer, Ind. Foss., vol. 1, 1909, p. 807, fig. 1187. Except for some fragments, this is the only specimen of this species now in the collection. It is here figured as the lectotype. Two anterior plications are exposed, but a third, posterior, is very likely present. Height, 11.5 mm.; width, 9 mm.; no. 4262. Horizon, Cretaceous “Chico Group”; locality, “Bull's Head Point, Martinez.” The type of the genus is Avellana avellana Bronguiart*® of the Cretaceous of France (Cénomanian). SCAPHANDRIDAE SCAPHANDER Montfort 1810 MIRASCAPHA new subgenus Scaphander (Mirascapha) costatus (Gabb). Plate XXVII, fig. 5. Cylichna costata Gabb, 1864, pp. 143-144, 229, (in part), pl. 2} fig. 107: 1869, p. 232 (in part). Stoliczka, 1868, p. 430, ‘has very much the appearance of an Atys.” Wilckens, Neu. Jahrb. Min. Beil. Band, 18, 1904, p. 221. Arnold, 1907, p. 224, pl. 26, fig. 10. Grabau and Shimer, Ind. Foss., vol. 1, 1909, p. 810. ?Scaphander n. sp., Dall, in Diller, 1896, p. 459. Scaphander, n.sp., Clark, in Kew, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 753, 1924, p. 25. Scaphander costatus Anderson and Hanna, 1925, p. 139, 45. In the box labelled ‘“Cylichna costata’ are nine specimens of Scaphander and eight specimens of Cylichnina. The Cylichnina having since been named, it is desirable to use Gabb’s name for the Scaphander. This is in accord with Gabb’s figure, which, though probably a synthetograph, resembles Scaphander. The imper- forate apex and expanded aperture immediately separate this form from the perforated, cylindrical Cylichnina. Height of lectotype, here figure, 16.1 mm.; width, 8.2 mm.; no. 4338. #3 d’Orbigny, Pal. Fran. Crét., vol. 2, 1842 (1843), pp. 131, 138, pl. 168, figs. 13-16. Type by tautonomy. Awellana incrassata d’Orbigny is usually cited as the type. It is similar to A. avellana and has been confused with it, but according to d’Orbigny, A. avellana has five plications, instead of three. The two extra plications are probably not very prominent for they do not appear on d’Orbigny’s figure. PL 168 appeared in 1842, but the text did not appear until 1843 (Neues Jahr. Min. 1842, p. 843). There is no indication of tautonomy in the plate but I regard the text (1843) as fixing the type. Gray's statement (P.Z.S. 1847, p. 160) is not considered a definite type designation of Avellana. If it were ac- cepted it would transfer Avellana to forms commonly called Cinulia (the reason for this rejection is the same as that given under the discussion of 7'ritonium). Stoliczka (1868, p. 406) seems to have been the first to definitely select a type. He chose Avellana wncrassata d’Orb. which however can not affect the tautonomie type. 438 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY oF [Vol. LXXVII1 Horizon, Eocene; locality, Martinez. The best specimens are in a dark gray sandstone matrix, probably of the so-called Tejon. One specimen has the characteristic preservation of material from the type Tejon. This species is also common in the Eocene of Simi Valley, but is not known in the Paleocene. It is present at San Diego (Arnold, 1907). Typical Scaphander** is represented in the Eocene by S. primus, Aldrich*® from Mississippi and on the West Coast in the Oligocene by S. washingtonensis Weaver.*¢ S. costatus has the apex of typical Scaphander but has a more cylindrical body whorl and a heavier columella. The subgeneric name Mirascapha is proposed for it. Scaphander ligniticus Aldrich*’ belongs under Mirascapha. It has a slightly blunter apex than S. costatus, the type of Mirascapha. Scaphander cinctus (Desh.)*® of the French Eocene is also a Mira- scapha. “Scaphander” parisiensis d’Orbigny,*° judging from its perforated apex and slight tendency toward forming a siphonal fasciole, is a Scaphander-shaped Abderospira. There is apparently no name for it. “Haminea’ grandis Aldrich®® from the Eocene of Louisiana has been called a Scaphander but it has a perforated apex and a straighter columella. It much resembles the living Abderospira cranchii (Fleming)*? but because of its giant size—some individuals were more than 120 mm. long—and absence of punctate sculpture, it is considered a distinct genus and here named Lithophysema. If young specimens have the punctate sculpture, it may be well to consider this form a subgenus of Abderospira, but for the present, it seems better listed as Lithophysema grandis (Aldrich). 44 Montfort, Conch. Syst., vol. 2, 1810, p. 335, type species, ‘‘ Bulla” lignaria Linn. by original designation. 45 Aldrich, Bull. Amer. Pal., vol. 1, 1895, p. 6, pl. 3, figs. 1, a. gas Weaver, 1916, p. 56, pl. 5, fig. a7 Aldrich, Bull. Amer. Pal., ak 2 1897, p. 177, pl. 3, fig. 4. Wood’s Bluff Alabama, ‘ Lignitic”’ Eocene. 48 Deshayes, Anim. sans Vert. Bas. Paris, vol. 2, 1864, +B: 639, pl. 39, fig. 19-21 as (Bulla). A reference to the figure of this species in the ‘“‘Iconographie” is not available at this time. 49 Deshayes, Coqu. Fossiles-Paris, vol. 2, “1824,” p. 44, pl. 5, figs. 4, 5, 6 (as Bulla lignaria L.). 450 Aldrich, Geol. Surv. Alab. Bull. 1, 1886, pp. 35-36, pl. 3 fig. 1. 41 Dall, Trans. Wag. Inst., vol. 3, 189 0, p. 17, pL: 10, fig. 42 Pilsbry, Man. Conch., vol. 15, 1893, p. 270, pl 28, ig 28, 29. 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 439 ABDEROSPIRA Dall, 1895 Abderospira hornii (Gabb). Plate XXIX, fig. 9. Bulla Hornii Gabb, 1864, p. 143, 229, pl. 29, fig. 235: 1869, p. 232. Stoliczka, 1868, p. 431 “either a Cylichna or more probably an Atys.”” Meyer, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1884, p. 111. Wilckens, Neu. Jahrb. Min. Beil. Band 18, 1904, p. 221. Dickerson, 1914, p. 20(?), p. 22(?); 1914 a, p. 95(?), p. 115(?), 114; 1914 ¢, p. 266(?); 1915, p. 43. Whiteaves, Geol. Surv. Can. Mesoz. Foss., 1879, p. 132; 1903, p. 352. ?Cylichna aff. horni Arnold, 1906, p. 17 (San Lorenzo Formation). Bullaria hornii Dickerson, 1916, opp. p. 372(?), p. 377(2), p. 386(?), p. 407(?), p. 421, p. 426, p. 432 (in part), p. 441(?), p. 442(?), p. 448(in part). An- derson and Hanna, 1925, p. 141, 43. This species is represented by a single, well-preserved specimen, the holotype, here figured. It has been possible to expose the umbilicus and the columella which is slightly concave. The apex is perforated. Height, 19.5 mm.; width, 13.6 mm.; no. 4232. Horizon, Tejon, Eocene; locality, Tejon. This species is known with certainty only from Tejon. This species, unlike either Haminoea®® or Bulla®* is umbilicate. It lacks the columellar plication and posterior notch of Atys?5s. Abderospira®® is also present in the French Eocene (p. 441) and in the Eocene (Wilcox) of Alabama.®” A. hornii is very large for this genus. There is a small siphonal fasciole on the recent Ab- derospira and a faint trace of it may be seen on A. hornii. In Abderospira aldrichi it varies considerably. CYLICHNINA Monterosato 1884 Cylichnina tantilla (Anderson and Hanna). Plate XXVII, figs. 2, 3, 4. Cylichna costata Gabb, 1864, pp. 148-144 (in part); Amer. Journ. Conch. vol. 2, 1866, p. 88; in Whitney, 1865, p. 46, 2037; 1869, p. 232 (in part). White, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 51, 1889, p. 31 (Eocene at Duwamish, Wash.). ?Stanton, in Turner, U. S. Geol. Surv. 14th An. Rep’t, pt. 2, 1894, p. 460 ‘“? young shells, Chico at Pence’s Ranch.” Stanton, 1896, pp. 1021, 1022, 1024, 1025 ““?”, 1027, 1029, 1032; in Turner and Stanton, 7 - Iredale, Proc. Malac. Soc. Lond., vol. 11, 1914, p. 172. Type species, Bulla ydatis. 44 Tinnaeus, Syst. Nat. 10th ed. 1758, pp. 725-729. Bullus Montfort, Conch. Syst., vol. 2, 1810, p. 331; type species by original designation, Bulla ampula. Bullaria Rafinesque 1815. 485 Montfort, Conch. Syst., vol. 2, 1810, p. 343. Type species A. cymbulus = Bulla naucum L., Pilsbry, Man. Conch., vol. 15, 1893, p. 263. 46 Dall, U. S. Nat. Mus. Proc. 1895, p. 32. Type species Bullina chipolana Dall, Trans. Wag. Inst. vol. 3, 1903 pl. 59, fig. 23. Abderospira has priority over “Damoniella’’ proposed by Iredale, Proc. Malac. Soc. Lond., vol. 13, 1918, p. 37. Monotype, ‘“ Bulla” cranchii Fleming (Pilsbry, Man. Conch., vol. 15, 1893, p. 279, pl. 28, figs. 28, 29). This genus had long been known as Roxania Leach, but that name appeared in 1834 under a species of Diaphana. 457“ Oylichna’ aldrichi (Landon) (Aldrich, Bull. Amer. Pal., vol. 2, 1897, p. 173, pl. 5, fig. 5) is an Abderospira. 440 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII Amer. Geol, vol. 14, 1894, p. 95. Cooper, 1894, p. 61. Fairbanks, Journ. Geol., vol. 3, 1895, p. 430. Dall, in Diller, 1896, p. 458 ‘‘cf.” Merriam. Journ. Geol., vol. 5, 1897, pp. 770, 771, 773. Anderson, 1902, p- 29(2), 36(?); 1908, p. 13. Not Whiteaves, Can. Geol. Surv. Mesoz. Fos. 1903, pp. 353, 354 (different sculpture). Weaver, 1905, pp. 108, 110; 1916, p. 24. Arnold, 1909, pp. 13, 15, pl. 4, fig. 19; 1910, pp. 71, 72, pl. 26, fig. 19; not, 1907, p. 224, pl. 26, fig. 10 = Scaphander costatus. Dick- erson, 1911, p. 174(?), p. 177; 1913, pp. 264, 270, 285, 287; 1914, pp. 20, 22: 1914 a, pp. 73, 75, 77, 82, 83, 86, 96, 101, 109, 113, 115; 1914 b, p. 115; 1914 ec, p. 266; 1915, pp. 43, 49, 51; 1916, opp. p. 372, pp. 377, 378, 383, 386, 408, 421, 426, 432, 439, 441, 449, 454; in Lawson, 1914, p. 9. Waring, | 1917, pp. 70, 82, 90, pl. 15, fig. 5. Nelson, 1925, opp. p. 402 “cf.” Cylichna n. sp. Clark, in Kew, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 753, 1924, p. 25. Cylichnella tantilla Anderson and Hanna, 1925, p. 140, 44, pl. 7, figs. 4, 8, 9. The type of this species is an immature specimen from Tejon. Ior comparison a small specimen from Tejon (fig. 4), which unfor- tunately is slightly crushed, and one from Martinez (fig. 3) are dgured. An adult specimen from Martinez is also figured (fig. 2). Tength of Tejon specimen (incomplete), 9.5 mm.; width, 3.9 mm.; uo. 31413, Museum of Paleontology. Length of young Martinez specimen, 12 mm.; width, 4 mm.; no. 4342a. Length of adult specimen, 15.3 mm.; width, 6.4 mm.; no. 4342. Horizon, Tejon Eocene; locality, Tejon. Gabb’s Martinez speci- “mens are probably from the so-called Tejon. They are in a light gray sandstone matrix. This species also occurs with Scaphander - costatus at Simi Valley. Its range is unknown. Doubtless some of the citations in this synonymy were based on specimens of Scaphander but they are all placed here because I think most authors had the cylindrical Cylichnina in mind. Cylich- nina®8 may usually be distinguished from Cylichna by its perforated apex. It is probably Cylichnina which will be found in the Cre- taceous. Unfortunately Gabb’s Cretaceous specimens are not in the Academy’s collection. Cylichnella®® has an imperforated apex and a very distinct colu- mellar plication besides the faint columellar ridge which is present on many specimens of Cylichnina but varies greatly even within a species. Cylichnina differs from Mnestia*®® in being more cylindrical and 48 Monterosato, Nom. Gen. e Spec. Conch. Medit., 1884, p. 143. Type species, ‘‘ Bulla” wmbilicata Montagu not Roeding (Bucquoy, Dautzenberg, Dollfuss, Moll. Roussillon, vol. 1, 1886, p. 524, pl. 64, figs. 6, 78) = C. strigella Loven. (Iredale, Proc. Mal. Soc. Lond., vol. 11, 1915, p. 340). : 49 Gabb, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sei. Phila. “1872,” 1873, pp. 273-274. Type species ‘‘ Bulla” bidentata d’Orbigny. 40H. and A. Adams, Gen. Rec. Moll, vol. 2, 1854, p. 10. Type species, “Bulla” marmorata Adams (Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 1, 1895, p. 99). 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 441 in most all species it is most prominently sculptured anteriorly, while Mnestia may have prominent spirals throughout or else the posterior spirals are the most conspicuous. Typical Mnestia is re- presented in the Eocene by Mnestia semistriata (Deshayes)*! of the Paris Basin. Its prominent posterior spirals, smooth central portion and weak anterior spirals immediately distinguish it from the evenly sculptured Abderospira ovulate (Desh.)*? of the same region. It seems better to consider Mnestia and Cylichnina dis- tinct, for while such a species as Cylichnina thetidis (Hedley) does not show the sculpture differentiation, it may be easily recog- nized by its characteristic cylindrical shape. The columellar ridge is usually more marked in Cylichnina than in Mnestia. Y It is possible that Cylichna acrotoma Cossmann® from Claiborne, Alabama, is an Eocene representative of typical Cylichna.t® It! not only has the truncated apex of Cylichna, but in some specimens: the apex is completely closed. Cylichna goniophora (Desh. )*® from™ the Paris Basin presents some difficulties. It has a distinctly per- forated apex and would therefore belong to Cylichnina but the trun: cated character of this apex so strongly suggests Cylichna, that 1 believe it is more closely related to Cylichna. Cylichnopsis*®” has been proposed for these two species. It is probable that the distinctly perforated Mnestia, Cylichnina and Abderospira do not belong in the Scaphandridae. PHILINIDAE MEGISTOSTOMA Gabb 1864 Megistostoma gabbianum (Stoliczka). Plate XXVI, figs. 1, 2. Megistostoma striata Gabb, 1864, p. 144, 229, pl. 21, fig. 108, a, b: 1869, p. 232. Heilprin, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1882, pp. 210, 213, (probably “identical with the Bullaea expansa Dixon” of the European Eocene). Marcou, Bull, Soc. Géol. France, vol. 11, 1883, p. 416 (said to be related #1 Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 1, 1895, p. 98, pl. 4, figs. 23-24 (as Rozania Leach 1847). * 42(Cogsmann, op. cit., p. 98, pl. 4, fig. 20-22 (as Rozania). : 43 Suter, Man. N. Zeal. Moll. 1913, p. 532, pl. 23, fig. 5 (as Cylichnella). fit Cossmang, Ann. Géol. Pal. Gregorio, Livraison 12, 1893, p. 50, pl. 1, fig. 40, pl.2, fig. 1. : 5 ] oven, Stockh. K. Vet-Akad. Foerh, Oefversigt, 1846, p. 142. Type species “Bulla” cylindracea Penn. (Herrmannsen, Ind. Malac. Suppl. et Corrig., 1852, p. 42). Careful workers will not be likely to confuse Cylichna with Cylichnus, a genus of the Insecta. - ; 46 Deshayes, Anim. sans Vert. Bas. Paris, vol. 2, 1864, p. 632-633, pl. 38, fig. 26-29 (as Bulla). . 47 Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 6, 1904, p. 118, fig. 13, as a section of Bullinella = Cylichna. 442 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY oF [Vol. LXXVIII to Bullaea ‘‘expensa” Dixon). Fischer, Man. Conch., 1883, p. 563 (said to be near Philine). Stanton, 1896, p. 1021. Cooper, 1894, p. 62. Mer- riam, Journ. Geol., vol. 5, 1897, pp. 770, 771, 773. Weaver, 1905, pp. 109, 110. Dickerson, 1914, pp. 21, 22: 1914 a, p. 110 “?”, p. 116; 1916, opp. p. 372, pp. 386, 433, 439, 440, 450, 475, 476; in Lawson, 1914, p. 9. Philine (Megistostoma) striatum Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 1, 1895, p- 127. Philine (Megistostoma) gabbi Cossmann, Ess. Pal. Comp., vol. 1, 1895, p. 127 (new name). Philine gabbi Pilsbry, Man. Conch., vol. 16, 1895, p. 3. Bullaea gabbiana Stoliczka, 1868, p. 434 (new name). Not Bullaea striata Deshayes, Desc. Foss. Paris, vol. 2, “1824,” p. 37, pl. 5, figs. 1,2, 3 (Eocene of Paris Basin) = Megistostoma. The holotype (fig. 1) shows the outline very well except that the posterior extremity of the outer lip is broken away. It is broadly rounded on other specimens. Width of body whorl, 17.5 mm.; length (incomplete), 21 mm. ; no. 4216; width of no. 4216a (fig. 2), (incomplete) 19 mm. Horizon, Eocene; locality, Martinez, probably from the so-called Tejon. Both figured specimens are in a fine grained light gray ~ sandstone. This species also occurs in the Eocene at San Diego and according to Dickerson (1916), at Coalinga. Stoliczka was the first to rename Gabb’s homonym. This is the type species of Megistostoma. It is probably related to Ossiania Monterosato.#8 In both these forms, the parietal portion of the body whorl is much more convex than in Philine.® PULMONATA ZONITIDAE VENTRIDENS Binney and Bland 1869 Ventridens lens (Gabb). Plate XXIV, fig. 13. Straparollus lens Gabb, 1864, p. 120, 226, pl. 20, fig. 77a, b, c: 1869, p. 224; in Whitney, 1865, p. 203. Stoliczka, 1868, p. 255, (‘‘approaches rather more to Dischoheliz’’). Cossmann, Es. Pal. Comp. vol. 10, 1915, p. 136 (referred to Discohelix). The specimen figured is evidently the holotype— no. 4260—but since part of another specimen was also figured it is necessary to select the best specimen—the one figured here—for the lectotype. The other specimen (f. 77d) is not in the collection. The base of 468 Monterosato, Nom. Gen. e spec. Conch. Medit., 1884, p. 147. Type species Philine scutulum Loven = P. quadrata S. Wood. 49 Ascanius, K. Vet. Akad. Stockh. Handl., vol. 33, 1772, p. 331. I have not seen this reference, but since Sherborn listed only one species of Philine, P. quadripartita, it may be a monotypic genus. This species is said to be synony- mous with Philine aperta (Linn.) (Pilsbry, Man. Conch., vol. 16, 1885, pp. 10-11, pl. 3, figs. 47-56). 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 443 the body whorl is broken away. Diameter of lectotype, 7.3 mm. ; height (incomplete), 3.6 mm. : : Horizon, Cretaceous ‘Chico Group;” locality, Texas Flat, Placer Co. This species is associated with ‘ Discoheliz” leana and ““Straparollus” paucivolvus which may also be terrestrial Gastropods. Dr. Pilsbry has kindly determined this species to be a Ven- tridens,*™® a land shell commonly called Gastrodonta. The following species will probably prove to belong to the Brachiopoda: Discinisca (?) circularis (Gabb). Plate XXVI, fig. 11. ?Helcion circularis Gabb, 1864, p. 141, pl. 29, fig. 234, a: 1869, p. 230. Stanton, 1896, p. 1029. Helcion circularis Gabb, 1864, p. 228; Stoliczka, 1868, p. 322. The holotype is figured. It is the only specimen in the collection. Diameter, 4.5 mm.; height, 2 mm.; no. 4253. Horizon, Eocene (?); locality, “Near Martinez.” More material is necessary to prove that this species is a Brachio- pod, but it so much resembles the living Discinisca*™ that this de- termination seems warranted. : ; I am indebted to Mr. E. G. Vanatta for the thoughtful suggestion that this species might be a Brachiopod. INDEX TO WEST COAST SPECIES MENTIONED IN THE PRECEDING PAPER. : alizensis, Surcula, 422 aspera, Turbonilla, 357 altascallus, Turris, 402 asperum, Bittium, 357 alternata, Cerithiopsis, 354 avellana, Ampullina, 333 altispira, Cancellaria, 411 avellana, Lunatia, 333 altispira, Neptunea, 395 averillii, Fusus, 409 alveata, Amauropsis, 334 averillii, Volutoderma, 409 alveata, Natica, 334 andersont, Amauropsts, 332 barbarensis, Bittium, 357 andersont, Cancellara, 412 barkeriana, Bruclarkia, 399 angulata, Anchura, 361 barkerianum, Agasoma, 399 angulata, Aporrhaus, 361 bayerquei, Cypraea, 370 angulata, Ficopsis, 377 beali, Murex, 387 angulata, Margaritella, 317 biangulata, Astraea, 318 angulata, Solariella, 317 biangulata, Pachypoma, 318 antiquata, Nassa, 390 bicarinata, Helicaulax, 364 antiquatus, Molopophorus, 390 bicarinatum, Tessarolax, 364 antiquus, Typhis, 387 biplicatus, Cuma, 389 aratus, Fusus, 401 biplicatus, Molopophorus, 389 470 Binney and Bland, Smiths. Misc. Coll., no. 194, 1869, p. 292. Pilsbry, Rep’t on Moll. of New York, MS. to be published by the N. Y. State Museum. 411 Dall, U. S. Nat. Mus. Proc, 57, 1921, p. 275. “qu PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII bipunctata, Fissurella, 313 blaket, Perissolax, 429 blakei, Pseudoperissolazr, 429 blakianus, Phos, 391 bretzi, Ancillaria, 390 brevirostris, Perissitys, 426 brevirostris, Perissolaxr, 426 brevis, Cylindrites, 435 burroensts, Chrysodomus, 397 burroensts, Sycum, 397 calabasasensis, Calyptraea, 340 calafia, Acteonina, 432 californica, Acteonina, 433 californica, Aporrhais, 363 californica, Bursa, 383 , californica, Mitra, 385 californica, Terebra, 424 californica, Volutoderma, 409 7 californicum, Gyrineum, 384 californicum, Stnum, 328 californicum, Tritonvum, 384 californicus, Arrhoges, 363 californicus, Clavatula, 384 californicus, Conus, 415 californicus, Fusus, 384 callosa, Neverita, 291 canalifer, Ectinochilus, 366 canalifera, Rimella, 366 carinifera, Anchura, 361 carpenteriana, Pseudotoma, 423 carpenteriana, Surcula, 423 : ras iioensls Cypraea, 310 caudata, Urosyca, 37 L Ee 379 UTT itella, 348 cinisca, 443 ben maura, 336 clark, Surcula, 41 clathrata, Bela 20 claytonensis, Scobinella, 417 claytonensis, Turris, 417 coffea, Turcica, 291 cognata, Architectonica, 343 colemani, Cominella, 392 compacta, Littorina, 316 compactus, Ataphrus, 316 condoniana, Anchura, 365 ¢ conradiana, Clathurella, 291 : conradiana, Gyrodes, 329 conradiana, Lunatia, 329 coopertana, Ficopsis, 378 coopers, Ficopsis, 378 cooperit, Fusus, 378 coryliforme, Sinum, 327 costata, Cylichna, 437 ~ costata, Helicaulazx, 366 costatus, Araeodactylus, 366 costatus, Scaphander, 437 cowlitzensis, Ficopsis, 378 cowlitzensis, Lunatia, 323 crassitesta, Retipirula, 406 crassitesta, Turbinella, 406 crassus, Ataphrus, 316 crassus, Palaeatractus, 291 crenulata, Margaritella, 317 crenulata, Solartella, 317 crescentensis, Ficopsis, 377 cretacea, Mitra, 406 cretacea, Nassa, 391 cretacea, Neptunea, 395 cretaceus, Molopophorus, 391 cuneata, Nerita, 318 cuneatus, Velates, 318 curvirostris, Neptunea, 405 curvirostris, Plectocion, 405 cypraeoides, Ficus, 371 cypraeoides, Sycodes, 371 dalliana, Cancellaria, 413 davisiana, Potamides, 420 davistana, Surcula, 420 deformis, Nerita, 319 diaboli, Exilia, 419 diabolz, Fusus, 419 diadema, Potamides, 356 dichotoma, Helcion, 342 dichotomus, Hipponix, 342 dickersoni, Crepidula, 342 dickersoni, Exilia, 418 dickersoni, Sinum, 339 diegoana, Calyptraea, 340 diegoana, Trochita, 340 diegoensis, Buccinofusus, 430 diegoensts, Tritonium, 430 dilleri, Pseudoliva, 400 dilleri, Scobinella, 410 dispar, Nerinea, 322 distorta, Tessarolax, 363 dumbler, Cerithiopsis, 354 dumbler, Ceithium, 354 duplicosta, Lysis, 345 elongata, Ancillaria, 411 elongatus, Ectinochilus, 367 englishi, Anchura, 387 excelsum, Cerithium, 355 excentrica, Calyptraea, 340 excentricus, Galerus, 340 exilis, Aporrhais, 361 exilis, Drepanochilus, 361 expansa, Gyrodes, 328 falciformis, Anchura, 360 falciformis, Aporrhazs, 360 fastiqrata, Calyptraea, 341 fiasco, Natica, 326 ficus, Strepsidura. 404 ficus, Whitneya, 404 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES 2.9L filosa, Trochita, 291 Slexuosus, Fusus, 291 Sfresnoensis, Pleurotoma, 416 furlongs, Ficopsis, 379 fusiforme, Tritonvum, 291 gabbi, Anchura, 361 gabbi, Ancilla, 411 gabbi, Brachysphingus, 392 gabbi, Emarginula, 313 gabbi, Fasciolaria, 402 gabbi, Fulgararia, 409 gabbi, Noetca, 435 gabbi, Perissolax, 376 gabbianum, Megristostoma, 441 gestert, Surcula, 417 globosa, Margaritella, 291 globosa, N everita, 326 gracilis, Neptunea, 395 . gractlor, Cancellaria, 291 gravida, Bruclarkia, 397 gravidum, Agasoma, 397 hamula, Conchothyra, 358 hamulus, Pugnellus, 358 hannibali, Globularia, 331 hannibali, Goniobasis, 347 hilgardi, Fulgur, 426 hoffmannii, Neptunea, 424 hoffmanniz, Paladmete, 425 hoffmanniz, Turritella, 351 horniz, Abderospira, 439 horwit, Architectonica, 343 - hornii, Bulla, 439 horniz, Conus, 415 horniz, Ficopsis, 377 hornat, Fusus, 377 hornii, Lunatia, 324 hornit, Olequahia, 382 horniz, Polinices, 324 hornii, Tritonium, 382 humerosa, N eptunea, 395 wmpressa, Acteon, 434 wmpressa, Haydenia, 381 wmpressa, Tornatellaea, 434 inconspicua, Surcula, 365 mnconspicua, Tessarolaz, 365 inezana, Twrritella, 350 infralineata, Twrritella, 291 infragranulata, Turritella, 351 wnornata, Architectonica, 315 inornata, Crepidula, 342 wnornata, Trochita, 341 inornatus, Acteon, 431 wnornatus, Margarites, 315 insecuris, Gyrodes, 339 intermedium, Mesostoma, 346 10, Fasciolaria, 421 10, Nekewrs, 421 OF PHILADELPHIA 1oformis, Surcula, 422 kerniana, Cypraea, 371 kernianus, Trophosycon, 374 kewr, Gyrinewm, 384 kingvi, Fusus, 409 laeviuscula, Fasciolaria, 400 lawsoni, Voluta, 408 lawsons, Volutocorbis, 408: leama, Discohelix, 314 lens, Straparollus, 442 lens, Ventridens, 442 lincolnensts, Hemifusus, 402 lincolnenstis, Mesalia, 354 lineata, Natica, 339 lineata, Pseudoliva, 400 lirata, Neptunea, 395 liratum, Buccinum, 392 liratus, Atresius, 426 liratus, Brachyphingus, 393 maccreadys, Turritella, 353 mactlentus, Ectinochilus, 367 mamillaris, Calyptraea, 341 mamillatus, Ficus, 371 manubriatus, Pugnellus, 358 marcidulus, Faunas, 320 martinez, Fusus, 403 martinez, Whitneyella, 403 martinezensis, Acmaea, 312 martinezensis, Amauropsts, 332 martinezensis, Mesalia, 353 martinezensis, Turrilella, 353 mathewsonit, Avellana, 437 mathewsonit, Cinulia, 437 mathewsonit, Cypraea, 371 mathewsonit, Epitonium, 321 mathewsonit, Fusus, 420 mathewsonit, Olivella, 410 mathewsonii, Ranella, 291 mathewsonit, Scalaria, 321 mathewsoniz, Surculites, 420 meekit, Anisomyon, 312 merriams, Acteon, 434 merriami, Pseudoperissolax, 430 microptygma, Cordiera, 418 microptygma, Exilia, 418 miatraeformis, Cordiera, 410 mitraeformis, Volutoderma, 410 modesta, Pyrula, 372 modestus, Ficus, 372 monoceros, Murex, 388 monoceros, Purpura, 388 moragas, Amaurellina, 334 mucronata, Neptunea, 397 mucronatum, Sycum, 397 navarroensts, Volutilithes, 409 nehalemensis, Thais, 422 445 446 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXVIII nodifer, Ficus, 374 nodulosa, Hindsia, 401 nuciformis, Euspira, 323 nuciformis, Lunatia, 323 obliqua, Cinulia, 436 obligua, Naticina, 327 obliqua, Oligoptycha, 436 obliguum, Sinum, obsuta, Mesalia, 354 occidentalis, Fusus, 430 occidentalis, Pseudoperissolax, 430 occidentis, Sinum, 327 oppanus, Lysis, 345 oregonensis, Amauropsis, 332 oregonensis, Ficus, 373 oregonensis, Fusus, 373 ornatissima, Angaria, 315 ornatissimus, Margarites, 315 oviformis, Acteonella, 432 oviformis, Amauropsis, 333 oviformis, Ampullina, 333 pachecoensts, Turritella, 352 paucivaricala, Bonellitia, 413 paucwaricata, Cancellaria, 413 paucivaricata, Muricidea, 389 paucivaricata, Tritonium, 413 paucivolvus, Straparollus, 314 perforata, Neptunea, 424 ks perforata, Paladmete, 424 A perkinsiana, Exilia, 418 i perversa, Pleurotoma, 291 pescaderosensis, Turritella, 348 pileum, Crepidula, 341 pileum, Crypta, 341 pilsbryi, Ranellina, 384 pinguis, Cinulia, 433 pinguis, Tornalellaea, 433 pinyonensis, Natica, 332 pistiliformis, Niso, 320 planicostum, Sinum, 328 nulata, Chemnitzia, 320 0, 320 Ng nella, 431 ? Acteon, 431 sa _ Eripachya, 425 ponderosa, Neptunea, 425 ponderosa, Thais, 385 ponderosum, Trophon, 385 praeattenuata, Surcula, 291 pseudoalveata, Ampullina, 334 punctatum, Liocium, 319 pupoides, Acteonina, 432 pyriformis, Ficus, 373 radiata, Emarginula, 313 radiatum, Calliostoma, 291 ramonensis, Cancellaria, 412 raricostata, Pleurofusia, 415 raricostata, Surcula, 416 raymondt, Astralium, 318 recluziana, Neverita, 325 recurva, Neptunea, 396 recurvus, Colus, 396 remondir, Conus, 414 remondii, Ficopsis, 376 remondii, Fusus, 376 remondsi, Globiconcha, 433 remondii, Littorina, 346 remondsi, Metula, 422 remondii, Pseudotoma, 422 richthofenz, Columbella, 291 robusta, Turritella, 353 rudis, Acmaea, 313 saffordvi, Turritella, 352 sargeantr, Turritella, 350 scopulosum, Sinum, 327 scopulosus, Sigaretus, 327 secta, Neverita, 325 sertatvmgranulata, Turritella, 348 shumardiana, Lunatia, 325 shumardianus, Polinices, 325 simplex, Rimella, 369 sinuata, Fasciolaria, 401 sinuata, Whitneyella, 401 stnuatum, Agasoma, 399 stnuatus, Brachysphingus, 392 stnuatus, Surculites, 421 sopenahenstis, Murex, 387 squamulifer, Trophon, 291 stanfordensis, Agasoma, 374 stantonz, Cancellaria, 413 stanton, Cophocara, 428 striata, Ampullina, 339 striata, Bullia, 389 striata, Lacunaria, 339 striata, Megistostoma, 441 striatus, Molopophorus, 389 submonilifer, Conus, 415 supraplicata, Neptunea, 369 supraplicatus, Ectinochilus, 369 susanae, Galeodea, 381 susanaensis, Ampullospira, 332 susanaensis, Polinices, 332 tantilla, Cylichnella, 440 tantilla, Cylichnina, 439 tejonense, Tritonium, 382 tejonensis, Acmaea, 312 tejonensis, Molopophorus, 392 tenuis, Potamides, 356 transversa, Anchura, 362 transversus, Drepanochilus, 362 traskii, Patella, 312 iriangulata, Nerita, 291 iricarinatus, Perissolaz, 429 tricolor, Calliostoma, 201 trigenarium, Sinum, 328 © i 1926] NATURAL SCIENCES tritonidea, Cancellaria, 412 trochoidea, Heteroterma, 423 tryoniana, Pseudotoma, 423 tryonaana, Surcula, 423 tuberculata, Galeodea, 381 tuberculatus, Moro, 381 tuberculiformis, Galeodea, 381 tularensis, Siphonalia, 382 tumidus, Fusus, 401 turritum, Loxotrema, 347 umquaensis, Amauropsis, 332 wvasana, Natica, 322 wvasana, Turritella, 349 vaderensis, Conus, 415 varia, Ringicula, 435 varicostata, Turris, 416 veatchis, Architectonica, 344 OF PHILADELPHIA 447 veatchit, Elvmia, 346 veatchii, Turritella, 346 vetusta, Cancellaria, 412 volutaeformas, Pseudoliva, 400 voys, Pleurotoma, 291 warings, Bxilia, 418 washingtonensis, Calyptraea, 340 washingtonensts, Ectinochilus, 367 washingtonensis, Scaphander, 438 washingtoniana, Fasciolaria, 422 washingtoniana, Cassidaria, 383 washingtoniana, Olequahia, 383 washingtonianus, Hemifusus, 402 weaver, Architectonica, 343 weavers, N everita, 326 whitneyt, Murex, 387 whitney, Tritonium, 387 INDEX TO NEw GENERIC NAMES Atira, 315 Bruclarkia, 397 ~ Cophocara, 428 ~ Dasyostoma, 368 | Lithophysema, 438 Mirascapha, 437 Nekewis, 421 Noelca, 435 Olequahia, 382 Palaeorhaphis, 419 Perussitys, 426 Plectocion, 405 Sceptrum, 430 W hitneyella, 401 PROC. ACAD. NAT. SCI. PHILA. 1926 PLATE XX a ; he x [2 12 STEWART: CALIFORNIA FCSSIL GASTROPODS 1-3. Cophocara stantoni ~~ 6-7 Conchothyra hamula 4. Perissitys brevirostris 8. Sycodes cypraeoides 5-5a. Haydenia impressa 9. Eripachya ponderosa 10-12. Pugnellus manubriatus. 1 [ ] PROC. ACAD. NAT. SCI. PHILA. 1926 PLATE XXI STEWART: CALIFORNIA FOSSIL GASTROPODS 1. Turritella chicoensis 8. Pseudoperissolax ? occidentalis 2. Turritella seriatimgranulata 9. Ampullina avellana . 3-3a. Velates cuneatus ; 10. Ampullina oviformis: 4. Turritella ? robusta 11. Polinices shumardianus 5. Elimia veatchii 12. “Acteonina’ calafia 6. “Fusus” tumidus 13. Acteonella oviformis 7-7a. Lysis duplicosta 14-14a. Architectonica ? veatchii 15. Arrhoges californicus . PROC. ACAD. NAT. SCI. PHILA. 1926 PLATE XXII STEWART: CALIFORNIA FOSSIL GASTROPODS 1-1a,3. Gyrodes expansa. 2. Gyrodes conradiana. 4-5. Anchura ? angulata. 6. ‘“Anchura’’ carinifera- 7. Volutoderma mitraeformis. 8-8a. Paladmete perforata 9. Anchura falciformis. 10-11. Volutoderma averillii. PROC. ACAD. NAT. SCI. PHILA. 1926. PLATE XXIII. : STEWART: CALIFORNIA FOSSIL GASTROPODS 1. Drepanochilus ? transversus. 2. Tessarolax ? inconspicua. 3. Atresius liratus. 4-5. Tessarolax distorta. 6. Tessarolax bicarinata. 7-7a. Hipponix dichotomus. 8-9. Potamides tenuis. 10. Emarginula gabbi. 11. Potamides diadema. 12-14. Plectocion curvirostris. PROC. ACAD. NAT. SCI. PHILA. 1926 18 STEWART: CALIFORNIA FOSSIL GASTROPODS 1. Margarites ornatissimus. 2-2a, 4. Margaritesinornatus. 3. ‘“‘Ringicula” varia. 5-5a. Ataphrus compactus. 6. Liocium punctatum. 7-8. Tornatellaea impressa. 9-10. Noetca gabbi. 11. Avellana mathewsonii. 12-12a. Ataphrus crassus. 13. Ventridens lens. 14 Oligoptycha obliqua. 15. “Straparollus” paucivolvus. 16. ‘‘Discohelix” leana. 17. Solariella angulata. 18-19. Acteon politus. 20. Epitonium mathewsonii. 21. “Acteonina’’ californica. PROC. ACAD. NAT. SCI. PHILA. 1926 PLATE XXV 12 04 STEWART: CALIFORNIA FOSSIL GASTROPODS 1. Mesalia martinezensis 8. ‘“Neptunea’ cretacea 2. Brachsphingus sinuatus 9. Brachysphingus gabbi 3. Heteroterma trochoidea 10. Tornatellaea pinguis 4-5. Sycum mucronatum 11. Retipirula crassitesta 6. Araeodactylus ? costatus 12-12a. Lacunaria striata 7. Priscoficus caudatus 13. Turritella infragranulata PROC. ACAD. NAT. SCI. PHILA. 1926 PLATE XXVI 4 4 STEWART: CALIFORNIA FOSSIL GASTROFODS 1-2. Megistostoma gabbianum 8-9. Amnaurellina clarki 3-4. Loxotrema turritum 10-10a. Solariella ? ecrenulata 5. Terebra californica 11. Discinisca circularis 6. ‘“Fasciolaria’’ laeviuscula 12-14. Surculites mathewsonii 7. Whitneyella martinez. 15. Cerithium dumblei 16. Turritella uvasana, subsp. PROC. ACAD. NAT. SCI. PHILA. 1926 PLATE XXVII 14 STEWART: CALIFORNIA FOSSIL GASTROPODS 1. Niso polita 7-8. Typhis antiquus 2-4. Cylichnina tantilla 9-10. Mitra cretacea 5. Scaphander costatus 11-12. Scobinella claytonensis 66a. Exilia diaboli 13-14. Pleurofusia raricostata 15. Calyptraea diegoana PROC. ACAD. NAT SCI. PHILA. 1926 PLATE XXVIII a x2 STEWART: CALIFORNIA FOSSIL GASTROPODS 1. Pseudoperissolax blakei, subsp. 7-8. Architectonica cognata 2. Amaurellina moragai lajollaensis 9. Molopophorus cretaceus 3. Amaurellina moragai 10. Cypraea castacensis 4. Molopophorus antiquatus 11. Galeodea tuberculiformis 5. Cypraea mathewsonii 12. Ectinochilus canalifer supraplicatus 6. Neverita globosa 13. Cypraea mathewsonii ? 14. Pseudoliva lineata PROC. ACAD. NAT. SCI. PHILA. 1926 PLATE XXIX STEWART: CALIFORNIA FOSSIL GASTROPODS 1, 4, 18. Olequahia hornii 10-10a. Exilia microptygma 2-3. Crepidula pileum 11. Strepsidura ficus 5. Bonellitia paucivaricata 12. Ficus mamillatus 6, 17. Whitneyella sinuata 13. Olivella mathewsonii 7. Pseudoliva volutaeformis : 14. Molopophorus striatus 8. Ectinochilus canalifer 15. Conus remondii 9. Abderospira hornii 16. Conus hornii - PROC. ACAD. NAT. SCI. PHILA. 1926 PLATE XXX STEWART: CALIFORNIA FOSSIL GASTROPODS 1-2. Ficopsis remondii 3-4. Ficopsis hornii 5. Acmaea tejonensis 6. Gyrineum californicum 7-7a. Sinum obliquum 8-9. Ranellina pilshryi 10. Murex whitneyi 11. Nekewis io 12. Surculites sinuatus 13. Archtectonica hornii 14. Natica uvasana 15. Polinices hornii 16. Euspira nuciformis 17. Neverita secta PROC. ACAD. NAT. SCI PHILA." 1926 PLATE XXXI STEWART: CALIFORNIA FOSSIL GASTROPODS 1-1a. Cancellaria vetusta. 2. Ficus modestus. 3. Thais ponderosa. 4. Molopophorus biplicatus. 5. Pseudotoma remondii. 6. Neptunea altispira. 7. Turritellainezana. 8, 8a. Ficus oregonensis. 9-9a. Cancellaria altispira. 10-11. Bruclarkia gravida. iran Se PROC. ACAD. NAT. SCI. PHILA. 1926 PLATE XXXII 10 STEWART: CALIFORNIA FOSSIL GASTROPODS 1. Purpura monoceros 6. Astraea biangulata 2-3. Neptunea humerosa 7. Bittium asperum 4. Sinum scopulosum 8-9. Colus recurvus 5. Littorina remondii 10. Calyptraea mamillaris 11-11a. Acmaea rudis RETURN BIOSCIENCE & NATURAL RESOURCES LIBRARY TO mump. 010 VALLEY LIFE SCIENCES BLDG. 642-2531 LOAN PERIOD 1 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS DUE AS STAMPED BELOW [ SUBJECT TO RECALL all ; Fd A 1 3 fas 0 0 VN SUBseor = JfT 2 3 08 -7 PM 0C102°9/ -900AY rn 5 7 9p0g SUBJECT TO BECALL Ar id PL 8) ® "2 Aa iL 3 F a3 8) 1 a enn re od : “== "UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY FORM NO. DDO, 50m, 11/94 BERKELEY, CA 94720 LIFORNIA ry BERKELEY LIBRARIES MOAN 40 LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY 0 LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — = oe oo — - 0 [ «<2 Sa — “0 a ad = -_ = wd rr fre he = Se ox -—T oc oe — LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA TY OF CALIFORNIA TY OF CALIFORNIA LL jh AVI Nr 0 hit } it hr is i yi i ps ti) (1 iL fk Hs AM Hh (i i he) ew HAR i (ih I 3 i i {3 i "| tli, a ih a 5 ni h Sai bi A Hien RE B RPA ROH 1 (E40 ” bE ye RL hd a i an (il fa Hah I i 2 Hah Se or 4 at Ee g ELS ASA 7 AALS = id = * BL hn Sst MH 4 LT B ¥ nr brad 4H ’ Fi 4 : 0 ery PENS pat ae GO op aA pe ST SUPER MG Ay: KS) ¥ nn ir I ih fi ¥ is EAL AABN PEE ie ed ! : aad’ g ER Ee RC eon ‘or april ing Sa vy TEPID AT Fr OEE Pr oA