THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Office of Geology P. 0. Box 20307 Volume 15, Number 3 Jackson, Mississippi 39289-1307 September 1994

THE STATUS OF SURFACE GEOLOGIC MAPPING IN MISSISSIPPI

David T. Dockery Ill, Michael B. E. Bograd, and David E. Thompson Mississippi Office of Geology

INTRODUCTION and locating areas suitable for waste disposal. The Office of Geology intends also to pull together the At the current rate of production of detailed surface work ofother geologists and publish their maps to make them geologic maps, coverage ofthe entire state of Mississippi will available to all potential users. be accomplished in about 100 years. Now that we have your attention, some explanation is in SCALE AND OUTPUT OF GEOLOGIC MAPS order as to our plans for improvement. The Mississippi Office ofGeologycurrently has four surface mapping projects under­ With all the mapping underway, it might seem that geo­ way. Two ofthese are centered along the Wilcox outcrop belt logic map coverage of the whole state should be forthcoming. in Lauderdale, Kemper, Winston, and Noxubee counties with So, what's the holdup? There are four aspects of the current plans for expansion northward to the Tennessee state line. The mapping program that make for slow going. First, the maps are Wilcox Group contains important clay and lignite resources at being published at a scale of l :24,000 - the same as that of a and near the surface, is a source of oil in the subsurface of 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. This allows much greater southwestern Mississippi, and is an important source for detail than is possible at the scale of previously published drinking water in the central and northwestern parts of the county geologic maps. At this scale, 837 quadrangle maps are state. The third mapping project is along the Catahoula required to cover Mississippi. That's a lotofmaps to be done! outcrop belt in south-central Mississippi. The Catahoula Is this much detail really necessary? Yes; many users in Formation contains clay resources, and its sandstone units construction, environmental remediation, agriculture, and even have been utilized as building stones (e.g., the stone wall at home buyers would like to see geologic maps ofmuch greater Piney Woods School and the Old Capitol in Jackson). Most detail, even at the scale of I: 12,000. In some areas around importantly, sands of the Catahoula Formation are a major Jackson, such resolution would allow a prospective buyer to source ofd ri nking water for southern Mississippi. The fourth determine ifa home or business were on or offtheY azoo Clay mapping project is in Jackson County where population ex­ outcrop belt and allow a better assessment ofpossible founda­ pansion is placing new demands on local resour~es; geologic tion problems. At this point we must define what we mean by information is needed concerning drinking water resources "detailed" geologic maps. We define detajJed geologic map- ping as that done and printed at the scale of I :24,000, or one digital products are convenient, modifiable, and preferred by inch on the map represents 2000 feet on the ground. Greenl y many users. they are more efficiently done by full-time data and Williams ( 1930) stated that only in very simple areas processing technicians. Having no DP technicians available could a scale of I :20,000 be regarded as detailed. Compton for the surface mapping projects, geologists must create and ( 1962) defined detailed geologic (or topographic) mapping as digitize their own finished maps. The finished digital product being at scales larger than I inch = 200 feet (I :2400). He requires more of the geologist's time than does the field referred to the scales I :24,000 to I :62.500 as intermediate mapping and test hole drilling. This is complicated by the fact scales. The U.S. Geological Survey'sgoals under the National that all must use the same equipment. Funding of a DP Geological Mapping Act are to see the entire country mapped technician will free up three geologists to devote their full time at the scale of I :24.000. to geologic mapping. At present, 29 geologic quadrangles are available as open-file reports or otherwise, leaving 808 to be done. Some THE VALUE OF GEOLOGIC MAPS of this number straddle state lines and may be published with adjacent maps. Stil l. at an optimistic estimate of producing 8 Why bother to map the state's geology in the first place? per year with our current programs, coverage ofthe whole state The best answer to that question is in another question- what will require I 0 I years. Because of reasons below, it is ifwe had no idea of the nature ofthe strata below our feet. The expected that this output will increase. Biblical parable comes to mind about the wise man who built The second aspect slowing ma p output is that the current his house upon the rock and the fool who built upon the sand. programs have targeted the state's most difficult geologic The fool in Matthew 7: 24-27 did not know his surface terrains. These are areas where the present State Geologic geology. A storm came; the sand gave way; the foundation Map (Bicker, 1969) is inadequate or incorrect. Once these failed, and great was the fall thereof. Many a structure today terrains or outcrop belts are satisfactorily completed, interven­ suffers a similar fate. Maps showing unconsolidated alluvium ing areas can be done with greater ease. are in demand by emergency management agencies. In plan­ The third aspect is also related to geologically difficult ning fora major earthquake occurrence along the New Madrid areas of the state. In the past, local formational names were Seismic Zone, emergency management agencies need maps of given to sections of the Wilcox Group where traditional units these and other potentially unstable areas in order to place could not be readily distinguished. These local names were shelters, staging areas, and field hospitals on solid ground that used by some and rejected by others. The present mapping can withstand the aftershocks. programs in the Wilcox outcrop belt utilize only those form a­ A second important use of geologic maps is in the explo­ ti ons recogni zed in the group's type area in Wilcox Count y, ration for mineraJ resources. Mississippi's first oil field at Alabama. This provides a uniformity in nomenclature from Tinsley was found while mapping the surface geology of western Georgia to Mississippi and better reflects the geneti­ Yazoo County. The Tinsley Field was a major oil find and is cally related depositional packages- or. in layman terms, what still in operation today. A fault mapped in Wayne County was the real geology is like. Mapping of these formatio ns into laterthe site ofa successful oil well. Even though the domestic northern Mississippi becomes more difficult as the units tend oil industry is underappreciated, the state has reaped hundreds to look more alike there. Careful field work. the drilling of of millions of dollars in severance taxes on oil production and core holes, geophysical log analyses, and analyses of micro­ in lease sales on state-owned land. scopic fossil pollen and dynocysts are necessary to guarantee Geologic maps are also important in the exploration for success. Sometimes maps have to be changed with the arrival materials used by the construction industry every day such as of new data. sand and gravel. brick and ceramic clays, lightweight aggre­ The care mentioned above. while time consuming. is gate, and crushed stone. Most of these materials have a low important to our mapping program. Geologic maps are unit value, which requires that their source be close to the job required to stand the scrutiny of paleontological (fossil) ex­ site. For example, land transportation costs on gravel from aminations, dera iled surface correlation, and test hole data. Tennessee would be considerable for use on a job in southern Only then are they considered reliable geological documents. Mississippi. Geologic maps showing graveliferous units are No geologic map is expected to be 100% perfect in the needed around every metropolitan center where demand is depiction of its geological outcrops. This is not the issue that high. Other materials with a low unit value include limestone concerns us. The disastrous error is that of a geologic map for cement and agricultural lime and lignite. Lignite is not lacking well-defined stratigraphic units - a meaningless or mined in Mississippi at present but may soon be used to fuel misleading document. new electric power plants. The fourth aspect is one that substantially slows our Mineral resources in the state with a high unit value geologic mapping program . Our maps are now produced (meaning they can be economically shipped over great dis­ digitally using AutoCA D software after the geologist has tances) include bentonite, tripoli, heavy mineral sands, and completed field and office work and map sketching. While mineral clays. Of these, only bentonite and mineral clay are

38 MISSISSIPPI GEOLOGY, V . 15, No. 3. SEPTEMBER 1994 MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF GEOLOGY (MISSISSIPPI GEOLOGICAL SURVEY) 1994 mined at present. Tripoli was once mined in the state, and been published and accompany the county geologic reports heavy mineral exploration is ongoing. Heavy minerals are (bulletins); the first was pub Ii shed in 1939 and the most recent shipped from Australia for use in plants on the Mississippi in 1988. The quality ofthes e maps varies with the better ones Gulf Coast. A local source would be much better. Mineral being the most recent, but these maps are generally the best clays from the Bucatunna Formation in Smith County are heat source of information on the geology of any area. The ftrst dried, bagged as is, and (according to a plant worker) sent as figure shows counties for which geologic map coverage is soil additives to banana plantations bordering the Southwest available. In addition, water-resources bulletins with geologic Pacific. maps have been published for the Grenada County area and the A third use for geologic maps is one that has become six coastal counties. Unfortunately, three of the county increasingly important with population growth and develop­ bulletins and the coastal report have gone out of print, so ment. Geologic maps show the distribution of clay- rich and researchers may no longer purchase copies. sand-rich units and are useful to planners concerned with The geologic quadrangle mapping series was initiated pollution control. A city's most valuable resource is usually a with the publication of the Mendenhall West Quadrangle by plenti ful source of fresh ground water. Therefore, it is of May and Marble ( 1976) and the Brax ton Quadrangle by utmost importance that sanitary landfills not be located on the Gilliland and Harrelson ( 1981 ). Nine geologic maps by recharge area of the local aquifer. The san1e is true for Merrill ( 1988) covering the Tishomingo County portions of hazardous waste sites. For such land-use decisions, a geologic 13 quadrangles (including the Belmont, Tishomingo-Bishop, map is not only important but has become a legal document in luka-Margerum, Yellow Creek-Waterloo, Doskie, Burnsville, court decisions. As no map is I 00% correct, map editors in Paden, Paden SE, and Fulton NE- Red Bay quadrangles) were many cases have been advised to include legal disclaimers. published in conjunction with the Tishomingo County Bulle­ From a different perspective, a thick clay or chalk uni t with low tin as open-file reports. Fourteen geologic quadrangle maps permeability may be viewed as a resource for disposal of by David Thompson along the Wilcox outcrop belt in Lauder­ hazardous waste shou ld the state be required to dispose of its dale, Kemper, Winston, and Noxubee counties are scheduled own. to be published as open-fi le reports this year. These are the A fourth use for geologic maps is academic in nature but Kewanee, Daleville, Moscow, Lynville, Preston, Tamola, is perhaps the most interesting. These maps tell the story ofthe Toomsuba, Lauderdale, Lauderdale NW, Oak Grove, state's geologic past. They show marine fonnations with fossil Porterville, DeKalb, Townsend, and Gholson quadrangles. shel ls and the bones of ancient whales (the state fossi l), which See the second figure for an example, in reduced form, of the lived in oceans that once covered the state. Between such units geologic quadrangles being published atthe scale of I :24,000. are often the sands and clays deposited in ancient rivers and This mapping project was initiated by Phillip Weathersby and deltas. Older formations of Upper Cretaceous age contain the Wayne Stover, passed on to George Puckett and David rema ins oflong-ext inct gian t sea reptiles and here and there the Thompson, and completed by Thompson. Other projects bones of dinosaurs. Mississippi has an exceptionally com­ include ongoing work in the Meridian South (first draft com­ plete sequence of strata ranging from Upper Cretaceous to pleted) and Meridian North quadrangles by Steve Ingram, the Paleogene in age. containing well-preserved fossils ofinterna ­ Center Ridge and Taylorsville quadrangles in Smith and tional significance. The geologic history revealed in this Covington counties by Don Bates, and the Latimer and Vestry sequence has been used not onl y in statew ide but in worldwide quadrangles in Jackson County by John Marble and James models of Earth History. Researchers from around the world Crellin. come to study it. Local geologic names such as the Jackson Information about how to order these and other publica­ and Vicksburg groups arc used internationally in reference to tions of the Mississippi Office ofGeology may be found in the rock or time intervals that correlate with the Jacksonian and current List of Publications, which is available at no charge. Vicksburgian stages. The Yazoo River has given its name to Some additional geologic maps of Mississippi have been both a formation, the Yazoo Clay, and a stream morphology published by the U. S. Geological Survey and other entities. (Bograd. 1994). GEOLOGIC MAPPING BY OTHER WORKERS AVAILABILITY OF GEOLOGIC MAPS AT PRESENT The Office of Geology is doing plann ing work with The Mississippi Office of Geology under various names outside researchers toward making their already completed has been making geologic maps for over a century. Early maps maps available through our open-file report series. Dr. Ernest include those of the state by Harper ( 1857), Hilgard ( 1860), E. Russell, Mississippi State Un iversity emeritus, mapped the and others (see Gi ll iland, 1984, for details). The modem state Cretaceous ofTennessee for the Tennessee Division of Geol­ map was done in 1945 and revised with little change in 1969. ogy and the perimeter of the Yellow Creek Nuclear Power Current mapping programs wi II call for revisions leading to a Plant site for the Tennessee Valley Authority. The latter map new edition of this map. Forty county geologic maps have was helpful in the mapping of Tishomingo County. Dr.

40 MISSISSIPPI GEOLOGY, V . 15, No. 3 , SEPTEMBER 1994 ·~ n~! t,h 6 Jl • •t! i ~· '!~f{~! r.'b·I f ~ t 'tt ,,,, i ~ ''Ti~tj il'J'lh tMH: J: ,... J : I !f !.t{Ui! 'il. ·t C1? 1 ' 'rJ ~ ·'! il w - .. - !::"' = H;t•Ii !., l' 9o r- ::J:W z I' fl r~.!t· ...... :I !t iih II ... - u· ,I VI f) u ,_ !..Z~ f 0.. • '1'!'''' • t•fl' "' tf' ~~i i M ·ti· •f ..... o~za:: ! I •:::[ ~ ij'fl:l ~ 1!(t.,f oe §. ~~ ! 11.1 '~ ~ ·' t •! 2 f,,JJl, . IJ ~~5~ ... I . :I 5 nllt: tl f !f!•jl "'"' ::~ :::~UVl ~ 5 I' 2~, ~~It: ~ •ftfh • Oor.(ii "'~ 'f' I' oc;:E:J I z :1 tl g t li•J ~ tf!lJ't! !J !::!~~~ 1 § 0 0 ::l::l w . ~ t ~ ~ !ff{tfHI ; 111'1''1 ....&: i3' g• ... t > I ~ ,h if! g fl(dz ~ ltdfl ~ UthlJI ~ ® JH O:><"" c ww I J z 1 ~ I ~ I ~I!; e>o =u ~ r ~ i 0 ' f ~ I I 0 I c!OOIJ:J xo:n1111 c!tlOIJ:l J.Y.¥.0 '1'1 ~ J.li.,Hllll't'OO JNJ:>OllYd .. . ~ ~ !; =

-~

MISSISSIPPI GEOLOGY, V . 15, No.3, SEPTEMBER 1994 41 Russell has mapped several quadrangles along the Cretaceous and "tongue" as geologic terms (abstract): Journal of the outcrop belt in northeastern Mississippi that are unpublished. Mississippi Academy of Sciences, v. 39, issue 1, p. 47. Tentative arrangements have been made to include these in the Compton, Robert R., 1962, Manual of field geology: New open-tile report series. Other candidates for open-tile reports York, John Wiley and Sons, p. 170. are maps along the Wilcox and Midway outcrop belts in Fuller, H. K., G. B. Gunnells, and Ann France, 1989, Geologic northern Mississippi by Charles Swann of the Mississippi map index of Mississippi: U.S. Geological Survey. Mineral Resources Institute. Dr. Maurice Meylan, University Gilliland, William A., 1984, Brief history of the Bureau of ofSouthern Mississippi, in conjunction with graduate students Geology, 1850-1983: Mississippi Bureau of Geology, has produced several geologic quadrangle maps along the Information Series 84-2, 17 p. Miocene outcrop belt in southern Mississippi. Tentative Gilliland, William A., and Danny W. Harrelson, J981 , Gen­ arrangements have been made to coordinate this work with eral geology and mineral resources ofthe Braxton Quad­ that of Don Bates in an effort to map the Miocene sediments rangle, Mississippi: Mississippi Bureau ofGeology, Map in the southern part ofthe state. Dr. Ervin Otvos, Gulf Coast GQ 95-SW, 54 p. and geologic map in color at a scale of Research Laboratory, has been mapping the geology of the I :24,000. coast for decades, and cooperative projects have been consid­ Greenly, Edward, and Howel Williams, 1930, Methods in ered there too. geological surveying: London, Thomas Murby and Co., Additional completed mapping products for Mississippi 420 p. are listed in Fuller et al. (1989). These other maps are mostly Harper, L., 1857, Preliminary report on the geology and reconnaissance maps made by the U. S. Geological Survey in agriculture of the State of Mississippi: Jackson, E. various parts ofthe state, most recently in 1965. Barksdale, State Printer, 351 p. Considering the amount of work done to date, and the Hi lgard, Eugene W., 1860, Report on the geology and agricul­ mapping under way by the Office of Geology and other ture of the State of Mississippi: Jackson, E. Barksdale, researchers, we are confident that detailed maps of the state State Printer, 391 p. can be made available in a reasonable time. May, James H., and John C. Marble, 1976, General geology and mineral resources of the Mendenhall West Quad­ REFERENCES CITED rangle, Mississippi: Mississippi Geological Survey, Map GQ 82-NW, 53 p. and geologic map in color at a scale of Bicker, Alvin R., Jr., compiler, 1969, Geologic map ofMissis­ 1:24,000. sippi: Mississippi Geological Survey, 1 sheet, scale Merrill, Robert K., 1988, nine maps: Mississippi Bureau of I :500,000. Geology, Open-File Reports 5-13, scale 1:24,000. Bograd, Michael B. E., 1994, Mississippi origins of"yazoo"

42 MISSISSIPPI GEOLOGY, V . 15, No.3, SEPTEMBER 1994 THE CONORBIS WITH THE DESCRIPTION OF A NEW SPECIES FROM THE EOCENE OF MISSISSIPPI

John K. Tucker Illinois Natural History Survey 1005 Edwardsville Road Wood River, Illinois 62095, USA

INTRODUCTION ing suggested members that do not possess traits of the type species, to reconsider lhe definition of the , and to The genus Conorbis Swainson, I 840 (type species: Co­ describe a new species of Conorbis from the Eocene of nus dormitor So lander, I 766) was restricted by Koenen (I 867) Mississippi. to a number of European Paleogene whose internal shell walls were at least partially resorbed, thereby distin­ Fam ily Conidac Ralinesque, 1815 guishing it from the species Koenen (1867) included in Cryptoconus. Resorption of the internal shell walls (sensu Taylor et al.( 1993) broadly defined this family and Koenen, 1867; Kohn et al., 1979) is a derived character state include in it all that have a radularcaecum, hollow (Kohn, 1990). marginal teeth, and noodontophore. In all, seven subfamilies Cossmann ( I 896) included Conorbis with the Conidae (, Oenopotinae, Conorbinae, Coninae, due in part to resorption of the interior shell walls. Powell Mangeliinae, Daphnellinae, and Taraninae) were included. ( 1966), on the other hand, included Conorbis in its own It is virtually certain that these seven taxa sbared a common subfamily, Conorbiinae, within the Turridae. However, he ancestor (Shimek and Kohn, 1981 ; Taylor et al., 1993). noted "Conorbis appears to be very closely allied to ..." However, Taylor et al. ( 1993) omitted significant and that "Some early Conorbis could well be the radicle from synapomorphies from their analysis which resulted in such a which the Recent Conidae have ascended" (Powell, 1966: 95). broad delinition. Other family-group taxa are much nar­ Powell ( 1966) further noted Thiele's ( 1929) inclusion of rower in their definition (e.g .. , Conus coromandelicus E. A. Smith, 1894, as a Recent repre­ Strictispiridae). Had the nature of the radular membrane sentative of Conorhis and the conid-like radular tooth of that (Shimek and Kohn, 1981) and internal sheU remodeling species as illustrated by Thiele (1929: fig. 459). (Cossmann, 1896; Kohn, 1990) been incorporated into this Recently, Taylor et al. ( 1993) presented a new classifica­ analysis, narrower taxa would have been suggested. There­ tion of the Conoidea based primarily on foregut anatomy. fore, the Conidae is restricted to those taxa that have a Their classification, which is at present untested, is very vestigial radular membrane, completely enrolled radular different from those of all previous authors. Their cladogram teeth, and some indication of internal shell remodeling along (Tayloret al., 1993: fig. 27) suggests that Conorbinae [sic] and with the three synapomorphies pointed out by Taylor et al. Coninae are sister taxa distinguished by possession of an ( 1993). The taxa fitting these criteria occur in Conorbinae (a plesiomorphic trait), intermediate sphincter to and Coninae (.rcnsu Taylor et al., 1993). Excluded arc ta~a the buccal rube (an apomorphic trait), and presence of acces­ that Tayloretal. ( 1993)placed in Clathurellinae, Oenopotinae, sory salivary glands (a plesiomorphic trait). They do not Mangeliinae, Daphnellinae, and Taraninae. include internal shell resorption in their limited set of she ll So restricted, the Conidae as defined herein is essen­ character states (ten characters, seven of which arc tia lly identical to the concept of the family presented by directionless). !lad they included this character which is a Cossmann ( 1896). It includes the genera Genota, Conorhis. synapomorphic trait for all ofthe genera included in Powell 's Benthofascis, and Conus. Based on Powell" s ( 1966) analysis Conorbiinae except for Cryptoconus which shows it only ofthe species included in Pseudotoma(- Acamptogenottaof slightly (Koenen, 1867: Cossmann, 1896), then the inclusion Powell), I exclude Pseudotoma from the family. The genus ofGenotawould not have been questioned in Sysoev's(l993) Cryptoconus is considered a synonym of Conorbis. The classification of Recent genera. generaHemiconus and Hermes are considered synonyms of The purpose of the present paper is to review the species Conus until synapomorphies sufficient to distinguish taxa that have atone time or another been included in Conorbis and from within the broadly defined Conus are determined, a task Cryptoconus, to narrow the definition ofthe se taxa by exclud- beyond the scope of the present work.

MISSISSIPPI GEOLOGY, V . 15, No. 3, SEPTEMBER 1994 43 Subfamily Conorbiinae De Gregorio, 1890

Genota, Conorbis (with Cryptoconus as a synonym), and Benthofascis are included in this subfamily. These genera are united by the following characters. All have relatively few whorls (4 to 8) in full size specimens. The sinus is not symmetrical and fonns a reverse L with the distinct arcuate projection ofthe outer and is located on the shoulder slope. The shells are biconical with the making up nearly half ofthc length oft he shell. In all cases, the spiresarescalarifonn and the shoulders are indistinct in most species. Most species possess a false umbilicus(the "cicatrice parietale" ofCossmann, 1896). Unfortunately, these shell characters are all plesiomorphic. However. radulae ofRecent species ofGenota and Bemhofasc:is share an important apomorphy. Unlike the completely enrolled teeth found in the turrid subfamilies that were excluded from the Conidae, the teeth of Genota and Bentho.fascis are not only relatively short but have a waist developed (Powell, 1966). Besides this, Conorbis and Figure I. Apertural view of the holotype (PRJ 33191) of Bentho.fascisshare another important apomorphy. namely the Conorbis dolini, n. sp., from the Moodys Branch Fonnation, absence of nodules on the shoulder at all growth stages. They Upper Eocene at Town Creek, Jackson, l linds County, Missis­ also sho\\ no axial ornamentation on the body that reaches the sippi (MGS locality 1). Total shell length is 25.3 mm. shoulder nor is the outer lip thickened. Nodules or other axial ornamentation types are present in Genota (and all Paleogene species of Conus). Finally, most species of the Conorbiinae or only barely shouldered, and with an erect oftwo show at least some evidence of internal shell remodeling, a to three whorls. This definition excludes some species that trait mnxima ll y developed in the Coninae. have been included by authors such as Powell. For instance, Conorbis mcnairyensis Wade, 1917, which was questionably Genus Conorhis Swainson, 1840 considered a Conorbis by both Soh I ( 1964) and Kohn ( 1990), is excluded from the genus. This species has no sinus on the A It hough kept separate by most previous authors, Conorbis shoulder slope and axial ornamentation on the body, both and Cryptoconus are considered to be synonyms herein. characters not shared with the species included in Conorbis. Koenen ( 1867) distinguished them based on the degree to Similarly, Cryptoconus rembangensis Pannekoek, 1936, is which internal remodeling was present. llowever, someofthe excluded because it has axial ornamentation on the body and species he included in OJ•ptoconus have it about as well a thickened outer lip. These two are important exclusions developed as those he included in Conorbis. Powell ( 1966) because the first species was used to extend the stratigraphic distinguished them as follows. Supposedly, Conorbis has a range of the genus into the Cretaceous whereas the latter was ''more Conus-Ii ke shape, with a shorter more broadly conic used to extend it into the Upper Miocene. The one supposed spire. a broadly conical protoconch of J whorls, instead of Recent member, Conus coromandelicus E. A. Smith, 1894, is 2 I 2 whorls. a narrower parallel-sided , and more also excluded because that species has nodulose spire whorls, prominent axial growth lines" (Po'' ell, 1966: 95). These a feature not found in Conorbis as defined herein. characters are all highly variable \\ ith in a single species and These exclusions restrict the time range ofthe genus to the arc not sufficient to objective I) distinguish two genera. Paleogene ofNorth America and Europe and to the Eocene­ IIJ fact, the genus Bemhofasc1s can only be distinguished Lower Miocene of the Indo-Pacific region. Although many from Conorhis by the morphology of the protoconch. In the species-group taxa have been described (Appendix I) or former, the protoconch is "broad, low, dome-shaped, the tip placed into either Conorbis or Cryptoconus, relatively few nattencd, smooth and inrolled ... " (Powe ll , 1966: 96), whereas valid species occur in each region if excluded species and in the latter, the protoconch is multispiral and erect. Other than synonyms are discounted. On ly three Indo-Pacific species arc this difference, shells ofthe two genera closely resemble each recognized as valid members oft he genus. All ofthese species other. arc remarkably unifonn in morphology even though they The genus Conorbis as defined herein contains species range from Eocene to L. Miocene in age. All Indo-Pacific without axial ornamentation on the body or nodules at the species are ovate and biconical in shape. They have indistinct shoulder, with a reverse L shaped siphon located on the shoulders and scalarifonn rounded spire whorls. Each of the shoulder slope, with biconic to subbiconic shells that are not three species have spiral grooves that reach the shoulder and

44 MISSISSIPPI GEOLOGY, V . 15, No. 3 , SEPTEMBER 1994 two or more spiral ridges on the tops. A total ofseve n European species are recognized. Unlike their Indo-Pacific congeners, the European species are much more diverse morphologically. Three of these species (Conorbis dormitor, C.filosus, and C. grotriam) are similar in that the spiral ridges and grooves on the body always reach the shoulder. C. grotriani is unique among all previously de­ scribed species of Conorbis in being distinctly shouldered I whereas the other species have shoulders that are barely recognizable. C. dormitor and C.filosus are very similar to each other. However, the former species has a spire that is only A slightly scalariforrn whereas the latter has the spire distinctly c scalariform with the spire whorls distinctly rounded. In C. dormitor, the spire whorls are nearly flat and form an evenly conical shaped spire. Figure 2A. Drawing of protoconch of the bolotype (PRI C. fi/osus and C. priscus are also very similar to each other 33191) ofConorbis dolini, n. sp. 2B. Drawing of protoconch but the latter has a pronounced false umbilicus and an enlarged of a 24.3 mm long specimen (PRl 33 192) of Conorbis subsutural collar whereas the former has an indistinct or porcellanus from the Byram Formation, L. Oligocene at NEI internal false umbilicus and no enlarged subsutural collar. 4, Sec. 29, T6N, R4W, Hinds County, Mississippi (MGS Instead, C.filosus bas three to four spiral ridges on the whorl locality 106). 2C. Drawing of protoconch of a 20.5 mm long tops that are subequal in size. The spiral ridges on the body specimen (PRJ 33l93)ofConorbis alatoideus from the Moodys whorl of most (but not all) specimens of C. priscus also fade Branch Formation, Upper Eocene, Jackson, Hinds County, out before reaching the shoulder. The shoulder slope in most Mississippi. specimens of C. priscus is also slightly to markedly concave whereas it is convex in C.filosus. However, small specimens Conorbis dolini new species of the two species are difficult to separate. Figures I, 2A, 38 Like C. priscus, the other European species of Conorbis (C. elongatus, C. interpositus, and C. labiatus) have spiral Description: Protoconch oftwo and one-half rounded, swol­ ridges restricted to the anterior portion of the . len whorls whose first whorl is smooth, inclined, and partially These fourtaxa can be divided into two species pairs. One pair hidden by the smooth swollen second whorl; teleoconch ofsix (C. priscus and C. labiatus) contains rather squat rounded whorls. The first whorl has a subsutural collar and three spiral shells while the other pair (C. elongatus and C. interpositus) grooves with growth lines raised into axial ridges that stop at contains species that are distinctly elongated in appearance. the shoulder. Enlarged growth lines then persist into the sixth The species in each pair are further distinguished similarly. In whorl. The subsutural collar also persists and becomes punc­ the frrst pair, C. priscus has two or more spiral ridges on the tate by whorl three. The spiral grooves number three on whorls whorl tops whereas C. labiatus has either no such ridges or one through four with a relatively large centrally located ridge only has a swollen subsutural ridge present. In the second pair, being produced. This central ridge becomes even more C. interpositus has ridges well developed on the whorl tops pronounced in whorls five and six and is crossed by the whereas they are absent or restricted to a single subsutural enlarged growth lines producing a cancellate appearance in ridge in C. elongatus. the outer two whorls; the other spiral ridges persist as well. Like their European congeners, the North American spe­ The spire whorls are only slightly scalariform due to pro­ cies of Conorbis are morphologically diverse. As among the nounced impressed suture between adjacent whorls. The European species, there are those that have spiral ridges on the whorl tops are flat, being neither convex nor concave through­ body whorl that reach the shoulder (C. alatoideus and C. out the length of the spire. The spire is only slightly elevated washingtonensis) and those that have the spiral ridges obso­ consisting of about one-third of the total length of the shell. lete before reaching the shoulder (C. conoides and C. The body whorl is ornamented with spiral grooves and porcellanus). A fifth species described as new herein is the flat-topped ridges. These reach the shoulder but are separated North American counterpart of the European C. grotriani in from the spire ornamentation by a narrow smooth area at the that it is distinctly shouldered and has ridges that reach the shoulder angle. Although not sharply angular, the shoulder shoulder. At present no North American counterpart of the angle is pronounced. The shell is about one-half as wide ( 12 elongated European species (C. e/ongaws and C. interpositus) mm) as it is in total length (25.3 mm), giving it a somewhat is known. squat, conical appearance. Gro-w1h lines are pronounced

MISSISSIPPI GEOLOGY, V. 15, No.3, SEPTEMBER 1994 45 Figure 3. Spire with protoconch of Conorbis a/atoideus (A), Conorbis dolini (B), and Conorbis porce/lanus (C).

where they cross the grooves between adjacent ridges on the provided much assistance including preparation of Figure 1. body whorl. The sides of the body whorl are slightly but AI an J. Kohn and Donn L. Tippett provided copies of many distinctly convex. The aperture is moderately narrow and obscure references. The Malacology Section Library at the widest at the anterior end of the shell just posterior to the false Smithsonian Institution, United States National Museum, pro­ umbilicus which is pronounced. vided photocopies of other references. Type specimen: A single specimen (PRI 33 19 I) collected by Luc Dolin, for whom the species is named, was available for LITERATURE CITED study. Type Locality: Moodys Branch Fom1ation, Jackson Group, Aldrich, T. H., 1885, Notes on the Tertiary of Alabama and Upper Eocene at Town Creek (MGS locality I) in Hinds Mississippi, with descriptions ofnew species: Cincinnati County, Mississippi. Society ofNatural History, Journal, 8(2), p. 145-153, pis. Comparison: This species is immediately distinguished from 2, 3. other North American congeners by the shouldered rather Amitrov, 0. V., 1973, Turrid pozdnego Eotzena-rannego Conus- like shell whose spire is only very slightly scalariform. Miotzena juga SSSR: Trudy Paleontologicbeskogo All other North American species have indistinct rounded lnstitutom, Akademij Nauk SSSR, I 35, p. I -211 , figs. 1- shoulders. The protoconch of this species with its swollen 16, pis. 1-12. [In Russian. Title also listed as "Late rounded second whorl but inclined first whorl (Fig. 2A) is also Eocene-early Mioceneturrids from the south ofthe USSR." unique. Other North American species do not have the first Series title also listed as "Trudy Palaeontological whorl inclined (Figs. 2B, C). Institute.") This species is also similar in shape and ornamentation to Bellardi, L., 1877, lmolluschi dei terreni terziarii del Piemonte C. grorriani, a species from the L. Oligocene of Germany. e della Liguria. Parte U: Memo ire della Reale Accademja However, the European species does not have a pronounced delle Scienze di Torino, serie 2, 29, p. 1-373, pis. 1-9. central ridge on the whorl tops which is a characteristic feature Beyrich, [E.), 1853, Die conchylien des norddeutscben of C. dolini. Terti!rgebirges: Zeitschrift der Deutscben geologischen In some ways the new species is similar to Paleogene Gesellschaft, 5, p. 273-358, pis, 4-8. species of Conus. However, it possesses the conorbid traits of Boussac, J ., 1911, Etudes stratigraphiques et paleontologiques reverse L shaped sinus and a false umbilicus, both features not sur le NummulitiquedeBiarrits: AnnalesHebert, Annales found in Paleogene species of Conus. The new species, like de Stratigraphie et de Paleontologie, 5, p. 1-96, figs. 1-2, all other species assigned to the Conorbiinae, does not have pis. 1-22. nodules on the spire whorls whereas these are characteristi­ Brebion, Ph., 1992, Quelques cones etpleurotomesdu Lutetien cally present in Paleogene species of Conus. du Bassin de Paris: Cossmanniana, 1, p. 1-32, pis. 1-4. [Series title also listed as Bulletin du Groupe d'Etude et ACKNOWLEDGMENTS de Recherche Macrofaune Cenozoique.] Briart, A., and T. L. Cornet, 1871, Description des fossiles du Luc Dolin collected and donated the holotype of the new Calcaire grossierde Mons. Premiere partie. Gasteropodes. species. David T. Dockery, III allowed me to study it and Ordre I. Prosobranches. Section A. Siphostomes:

46 MISSISSIPPI GEOLOGY, V. 15, No.3, SEPTEMBER 1994 Memoire s Couronnes et Memo ires des Savants Etrangers, Indica, new series, 3( I), p. 1-83, pis. 1-8. Academie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux­ d ' O r bigny, A., 1852, Pro drome de paleonto logic Arts de Belgique, 36, p. viii + 1-76, pis. 1-4. stratigraphique universelle des animaux mollusques & Bronn, H. G., 1838, H. G. Bronn's Lethaea Geognostica oder rayonnes faisant s uite au cours e leme ntaire de Abbildung und Beschreibung filrdieGebirgs-Formationen paleontologieetde geologie stratigraphiques: Paris. Victor beze ichne ndsten versteinerungen: Stuttgart, Masson: 3, p. 1- 190. Schweizerbart, v. 2. Dall, W. H., 192 1, Summary of the marine shellbearing Brown, T., 1838, lllustrations of the fossil conchology of mollusks of the northwest coast of America, from San Great Britain and Ireland, with descriptions and localities Diego, California to the Polar Sea, mostly contained in the of all the species: Edinburgh, Maclachlan & Stewart, 52 collection of the United States National Museum, with p., 48 pis. illustrations of hitherto un figured species: United States Bruguiere, J.-G., 1792, Cone: Encyclopedic Methodique. NationaiMuseumBulletin, l 12, p.l-217,pls. 1-22. Histoire Nature lie des Vers, I , p. 586-757. De Gregorio, A., 1880, Fauna di S. Giovanni llarione Charig, A. J., 1963, The gastropod genus Thatcheria and its ( Paris iano) Monog rafia. Parte 1": Cefalopodi e relationships: Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural Gasteropodi: Palermo, P. Montaina and Co., XXVII + History), Geology, 7(9), p. 255-297, pl. 47. 110 p., 9 pis. Clark, B. L., and H. E. Vokes, 1936, Summary of marine De Gregorio, A., 1890, Monographic de Ia faune Eocenique Eocene sequence of western North America: Bulletin of de I' Alabama et surtout de celle de Claiborne de I'Etage the Geological Society of America, 47, p. 85 1-878, figs. Parisien: Annales de Geologie et de Paleonto logic, 7(8), 1-3, pis. 1-2. p. 1-316, pis. 1-46. Conrad, T. A., 1835, Fossil shellsoftheTertiary fom1ationsof De Gregorio, A., 1895, Descriptions des faunes tertia ires de Ia North America [subtitled: Eocene fossils of Claiborne, Venetie. Fossiles de Lavaci lie pres de Sassano des assises with observations on this formation in the United States, de S. Gonin i a Conus diversiformis Desh. Ancillaria and a geological map of Alabama]: Philadelphia, Judah anoma/a Schloth. Eburna caronis Brongt, (recueillis par Dobson, W. P. Gibbons, Printer. v. I (part 3), p. 29-56, Mr Andrea Balestra): Annates de Geologie et de pis. 15-18. Paleontologic, 20, p. 1-24, pis. 1-2. Conrad, T. A., 1848, Observations on the Eocene formation De Gregorio, A., 1896, Descriptions des faunes terti aires de Ia and description ofone hundred and five new fossils ofthat Venetie. Monographic de Ia faune eoct'mique de Ronca period from the vicinity of Vicksburg, Mississippi; with avec une appendice sur les fossiles de M. Pulli: Annales an Appendix: Proceedings of the Academy o f Natural de Geologie et de Paleonto logie, 2 1, p. 1-163, pis. 1-27. Sciences of Philadelphia, 3(2), p. 280-299. Delpey, G., 1938, Gasteropodes recueillis par M. Senesse Conrad, T. A., 1865, Catalogue of the Eocene and Oligocene dans le Santonien superieur des Corbieres: Bulletin de Ia Testacea of the United States: American Journal of Societe d ' H istoire Nature lie de Toulouse, 72(2), p. 155- Conchology, I ( 1), p. 1-35, two unnumbered pages of 160, figs. 1-5. errata follow p. 190. Deshayes, G. P., 1824-1837, Description desCoquilles Fossiles Conrad, T. A., 1866, Checklist of the invertebrate fossils of des environs Paris: Paris, Deshayes, 1: 1-393, 2:1-178, North America. Eocene and Oligocene: Smithsonian 1824; 179-306, 1833; 307-434, 1834; 435-562, 1835; Miscellaneous Collections, 7(200}, p. 1-41. 563-690, 1836; 691-814, 1837; Atlas: pis. 1-65 and 1- Cossmann, M ., 1889, Catalogue i llustre des coqu ili es fossiles 10 1, 1837. de I' Eocene des enviroms de Paris: Annales de Ia Societe Deshayes, G. P., 1865, Description des animaux sans vertebres Royale Malacologique de Belgique, 24, p. 3-381, pis. 1- decouverts dans le Bassin de Paris pour Servir de 12. supplement a Ia Description des Coquilles Fossiles des Cossmann, M., 1896, Essais de Paleoconchologie comparee: Environs de Paris Comprenant une Revue Generale de Paris, Cossmann, Vol. 2, p. 1- 179, figs. 1-48, pis. 1-8. toutes les Especes Act:uellement Connues: Paris, J. B. Cossmann, M., 1923, Description des mollusques, p. 1-188, Balliere et Fils, Atlas Tome Deuxieme.-(107 Planches) pis. 1-11 in G. O'Gorman and M. Cossmann, LeGuisement Mollusques cephales et Mo llusques cephalopodes and Cuisien de Gan (Basses-Pyrenees): Pau, Cossmann & Tome Troisieme.-Texte Mollusquescephales, Deuxieme O'Gorman, xxvii + 188 p., 14 pis. Partie. Mollusques cephalopodes, 20 1-658 p. Cossmann, M ., and G. Pissarro, 190 I, Faune eocenique du Desmoulins, C., 1842, Revision de quelques especes de Cotentin (mollusques): Bulletin de Ia Societe Geologique Pleurotomes: Actes de Ia Societe Linneenne de BordeaLL'<, de Normandie, 20, p. 11-90, pis. 7-1 5. 12, p. 109-181. Cossmann, M., and G. Pissarro, 1909, The of the Dickerson, R. E., 1916, Stratigraphy and fauna of the Tejon Ranicot Series. Part I. Cephalopoda and : Eocene of California: University o f California Memoirs oft11e Geological Survey oflndia, Palaeontologia Publications, Bulletin of the Department of Geology,

MISSISSIPPI GEOLOGY. V. 15, No. 3, SEPTEMBER 1994 47 9( 17), p. 363-524, pis. 36-46. ThOringischen Staaten, 10(2), p. 281-574, pls. 24-36. Edwards, F. E., 1857, A monograph of the Eocene Mollusca, Kohn, A. J., 1990, Tempo and mode ofevolution in Conidae: or descriptions of shells from the older Tertiaries of Malacologia, 32{1), p. 55-67, figs. 1-4. England. Part Ill, No. II. Prosobranchiata (continued): Kohn, A. J., E. R. Myers, and V. R. Meenakshi, 1979, 1nterior London. Palaeontographical Society, Vol. 9, p. 181-240, remodeling of the shell by a gastropod mollusc: pl. 24-27. Proceedings ofthe National Academy ofSciences (USA), Ferrero Mortara, E., 1971, 11gene re Cryptoconus bel Paleogene 76(7), p. 3406-3410, figs. 1-4. Veneto: Ani Memorie Accademia Patavina, 83(2), p. 13- Lamarck, J. B. P. A. de, 1804, Suite des memoires sur les 29, figs. 1-10, unnumbered pl. fossiles des environs de Paris: Annales du Museum Glibcrt, M., 1960, Les Conacea fossiles du Cenozoi'que National d' Histoire Naturelle: Paris, 3, p. 163-170. Etranger des collections de l'institut Royal des Sciences Long, D. C., 1981 , Late Eocene and early Oligocene Turridae Naturelles de Belgique: lnstitut Royal des Sciences (Gastropoda: Prosobranchiata)ofthe Brown's Creek and Naturelles de Belgique Memoire, scrie 2, 64, p. 1-132. Glen Aire Clays, Victoria, Australia: Memoirs of the Grant, U.S., Ill , and H. R. Gale, 1931 , Catalog of the marine National Museum of Victoria, 42, p. 15-55, pis. 4-7. Pliocene and Pleistocene Mollusca of California and Martin, K. , 1931, Mo ll usken aus dem Obereoc1in von adjacent regions: Memoirs of the San Diego Society of Nanggulan: Bienst van den Mijnbouw in Nederlandsch­ Natural History, I, p. 1-1036, figs . 1-1 5, pis. 1-32. lndit!, Wetenschappelijke Mededeelingen, v. 18, p. 1-56, Grateloup, J. P. S. de, 1847, Conchyliologie fossile des pis. 1-7. terrains tertia ires du Bassin de I' Adour. Atlas I. Univalves: Martin, K., 1933 , Eine neue tertiare Molluskenfauna aus dem Bordeaux, Th. Lafarguc,45 pis. + 12 p. index+Supplement lndischen Archipel: Leidsche Geologische pis. 46-48. [The Atlas is erroneously dated 1840; many Mededeelingen, 6(1), p. 7-32, pis. 1-5. names not mentioned by Grateloup, 1832, or contained in Maury, C. J., 1925, FosseisTerciariosdo Brasil com descripyao the plate captions for the Atlas are listed in the index and de novas formas Cretaceas: Servi~o Geologico e validated by references to specific plates and figures.} Mineralogicodo Brasil, Monograpbja,4, p. l-665, pis. 1- Hall, C. A .. Jr., 1964, Middle Miocene Conus (Class 24. Gastropoda) from Piedmont, northern Italy: Bollettino Melleville, M., 1843, Memoires sur les Sables t ert~iaires della Socicta Paleontologica ltaliana, 3(2), p. 111-171, inferieurs du Bassin de Paris: Annates des Sciences fig. I, pis. 20-28. Geologiques, 2(2), p. 77- 120, pis. 1-10. Hanna. G. D.. 1924, Rectifications of nomenclarure: Michelotti, G., 1861, Etudes sur le Miocene inferieur de Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences, !' Italic septentrionale: Natuurkundige Verhandelingen series 4, 13. p. 151-186. van de Hollandsche Maatschappij der Wetenschappen te Hanna, M.A., 1927, An Eocene invertebrate fauna from the La Haarlem, tweede verzameling, 14, p. 1-172, pis. 1-16. Jolla Quadrangle, California: University of California Newton, R. B., 1891 , Systematic list of Frederick E. Edwards Publications, Bulletin of the Department of Geological collection of British oligocene and eocene Mollusca in Sciences. 16(8), p. 247-398, pis. 24-57. the British Museum (Naturali-Ustory), with references to Kljushnikov, M. N., 1958, Stratigrafia i fauna nishnetretichnykh the type-specimens from similar horizons contained in ottozhenij Ukrainy: Trudy lnstituta Geologicheskikh Nauk, other collect ions belonging to the Geological Department serija Stratigrafii Palcontologi i, 13, p. 1-453, pis. 1-47. of the Museum: London, British Museum (Natural [In Russian. Eng! ish translation ofthe title is "Stratigraphy History), xxviii + 365 p., 17 pis. and fauna of Lower Tertiary deposits of the Ukraine." Noetling, F., 1895, On some marine fossils from the Miocene English translation of the series title is Transactions ofthe of Upper Burma: Memoirs of the Geological Survey of Institute of Geological Sciences, series Stratigraphy and Ind ia, Palaeontologia Indica, 27{1), p. 1-45. Paleontology. II is published by the Ukrainian SSR Oppenheim, P., 190 I, Die Priabonascbichten und ihre Fauna Academy of Sciences, Kiev.] im Zusammenhange mit gleicbalterigen und analogen Koenen, A. von, 1865, Die Fauna der Unteroligocanen Ablagerungen: Palaeontographica, 47, p. 1-348, figs. 1- Tcrtiarschichten von l lclmstast bei Braunschweig: 33, pis. 1-21. Zcitschrift der Deutschen Geologischen Gesellschaft, 17, Palmer, K. V. W., and D. C. Brann, 1966. Catalogue of the p. 459-534, pis. 15-16. Paleocene and Eocene Mollusca of the southern and Koenen, A. von, 1867, Ueber Conorbis und Cryptoconus, eastern United States. Part II. Gastropoda: Bulletins of Zwischenformen dcr Gattungen: Palaeontographica, 16, American Paleontology, 48(218), p. 471-1057, pis. 1-5. p. 159-174, pl. 15. Pannekoek, A., 1936, Beitrage zur Kenntnis der altmiocllnen Koenen, A. von, 1890, Oas Norddeutsche Un ter-Oligocan und Molluskenfauna von Rembang(Java): Amsterdam, N. V. seine Molluskenfauna. Conidae: Abhandlungen zur Noord-Hollandsche Uitgeversmaatschappij, xi i + 88 p., 4 geologischen Spccialkarte von Preussen und den pis.

48 MISSISSIPPI GEOLOGY. V . 15, No.3, SEPTEMBER 1994 Peyrot, A., 1930, Concho Iogie neogenique de I' Aquitaine Solander, D. C., 1766, Fossilia hantoniensia collectas ct in (Suite): Actes de Ia Societe Linneenne de Bordeaux, 82, Musco Britan nica dcpositas: London, Solander, 43 p .. 9 p. 73-126, pis. 1-4. pis. Pe:zant, A., 1909, Etude iconograpbique des Pleurotomes Sowerby, J. de C., 1850. Description of, and remarks on the fossiles du Bassin de Pari s: Memoires de Ia Societe Tertiary she lis from Brack lcsham and Selsey, p. 206-24 I , Geologique de France Paleeontology, 16(39), p. 1-30, pis. 2-8 in F. Dixon, The Geology and fossils of the pis. 1(15)-5(19). Tertiary and Cretaceous fonnations of Sussex: London, Pezant, A., 191 0, CoquiUes fossiles des calcaires Grossiers de Longman. Brown. Green and Longmans, xvi + 422 p .. 45 Parnes 1890-1910: La Feuille des Jeunes Naturalistes, pis. [Also a second edition edited by T. R. Jones in 1878; ser. 4, 40(480), p. 185- 197, pis. IJ-14. pagination is xxiv + 469 p., 64 pis. ) Powell, A. W. B., 1944, The Australian Tertiary Mo llusca of Strausz. L., 1966, Dudari Eocen Csigak: Geologica Hungarica, the family Turridae: Records of the Auck land Institute series Palaeontologica, 33, p. 1-200, pis. 1-24. [Title also and Museum, 3( I), p. t-68, pis. 1-7. listed as "Die Eozangastropoden von Dudar in Ungam."] Powell, A. W. B., 1966, The molluscan families Speightiidae Swainson, W., 1840, A Treatise on Malacology, or shells and and Turridae an evaluation of the valid taxa, both Recent shell-fish. The Cabinet Cyclopaedia conducted by Rev. and fossil , with lists of characteristic species: Bulletin of Dionysius Lardner, ... assisted by eminent literary and the Auk land Institute and Museum, 5, p. 1- 184, text-figs. scientific men. Natural History: London, Longman, OmH!, A I-A3 , B-F, pis. 1-23. Brown, Green, & Longmans and John Taylor, 419 p., 130 Rafinesque, C. S., 1815, Analyse de la Nature, ou Tableau de figs. I'Univers et des Corps Organises: Palenno. Sysoev, A. V., 1993, Appendix 2 Genus-group taxa of recent Raymond, W. J., 1904, Two new species of Pleurotoma from [sic] Turridae S. L., p. 163- 169 in J. D. Taylor, Y. I. Californ ia: The Nautilus, 18, p. 1-3. Kantor, and A. V. Sysoev, Foregut anatomy, feeding Sacco, F., 1893, I molluschi dei terreni terziarii del Piemonte mechanisms, relationships and classification of the e della Liguria. Parte XIII (Conidae e Conorbidae) Conoidea (= Toxoglossa) (Gastropoda): Bulletin of the (Fascicolo secundo): Torino, Carlo Clausen, p. 55-143,9 Natural History Museum of London (Zoology), 59(2), p. pis. 125-170, figs. 1-27. Schaufhaeut l, K. E., 1863, Slld-bayems Lethaea Geognostica. Tate, R., 1890, The gastropods of the Older Tertiary of Der Kressenberg und die slldlich von ihn gelegenen Australia-Part Ill: Transactions of the Royal Society of Hochalpen: Leipzig, Leopold Voss, 487 p .. Atlas of 86 South Australia. 14(2). p. 185-235. pis. Taylor, J. D., Y. I. Kantor, and A. V. Sysoev, 1993, Foregut Schlosser, M., 1925, Die Eocanfauna der bayerischen Alpen. anatomy, feeding mechanisms, re lationships and I. Teil: Die Faunen des Unter- und Mitteleocaen: c lassification of the Conoidea {= Toxoglossa) Abhandlungen der Bayeriscben Akademie der (Gastropoda): Bulletin ofthe Natural History Museum of Wissenschaften Mathematisch-naturwissenschaftliche London (Zoology), 59(2), p. 125-1 70, figs. 1-27. Abteilung, 30{7), p. 1-207, pis. 1-8. Thiele,]., 1929, llandbuch dersystematischen Weichtierkunde: Schlotheim, E. F. Baron von, 1820, Die Pet:refactenkunde auf Erster Teil, Gustav Fischer, Jena, 376 p. ih remjetzigen Standpunkte ... : Gotha, Becker, lxi i + 437 Tomlin, J. R. le B., 1937, Catalogue of Recent and fossil p., 15 pis. Cones: Proceedings of the Malacological Society of Shimek, R. L., and A. J. Kohn, 1981, Functional morphology London,22,p.205-330. and evolution of the toxoglossan : Malacologia, Trechmann, C. T., 1925. The Scotland Beds of Barbados: The 20(2), p. 423-438. Geological Magazine, 62, p. 481-504, pis. 2 1-24. Shuto, T., 1984, A revision of the Bunnese Tertiary turrids: Tucker, J. K., and J. Le Renard, 1993 , Lisle bibliographique Memoirs of the Faculty of Science, Kyushu University, des Turridae (Gastropoda, Conacea) du Paleogene de series D, Geology, 25(2), p. 11 5- 157, figs. 1-3. I' Angleterre, de Ia Belgiqueetde Ia France: Cossmanniana, Smith, E. A.• 1894, Natural History notes from H. M. Indian 2(1n ),p. t-66. Marine Survey Steamer Investigator, Commander C. F. Van Winkle, K. E. t-1 ., 19 18, PaleontologyoftheOiigoceneof Oldham, R. N.-S eries II., No. I 0. Report upon some the Chehalis Valley, Washington: University of Mollusca dredged in the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Washington Publications in Geology, 1(2), p. 67-97, pis. Sea: Annals and Magazine of Natural History, series 6, 6-7. 15, p. 157- 174, pis. 3-5. Vincent, G.. 1878, Description de Ia faune de I' Etage Ianden ien Soh l, N. F., 1964, , Opisthobranchia and in fe ricur de Belg ique: Ann ales de Ia Societe Basommatophora from the Ripley, Owl Creek and Prairie Malacologique de Belgique, I:, p. 135- 186, pis. 6-10. BluffFormations: U.S. Geological Survey, Professional [Publication date follows Tucker & Le Renard, 1993 .] Paper 33 1B , p. 149-344, pis. 19-52. Vredenburg, E., 1925, Descriptions of Mollusca from the

MISSISSIPPI GEOLOGY. V . 15. No. 3 , SEPTEMBER 1994 49 Post-Eocene Tertiary formations ofNorth-Western India: tangustus Brebion, 1992. Conorbis margina111s (Lamarck, Cephalopoda, Opistobranchiata, Siphonostomata: 1804). Memoirs of the Geological Survey of India. 50( I), p. 1- L'Orme. Luteticn, M. Eocene. 325, pis. 1-13. Is Conorbis priscus (Solander, 1766), f. Tucker, herein. Wade, B., 1917, New and little known Gastropoda from the Upper Cretaceous of Tennessee: Proceedings of the tapennicus Bronn, 1838. Cryptoconus. AcademyofNatural Sciences of Philadelphia, 69, p. 200- Paris Basin. Eocene. 304, pis. 17-19. Conus f. d'Orbigny, 1852. White, C. A., 1887, Contribui9oes {I paleontologia do Brasil: Archivos do Museu Nacional do Ri o de Janeiro, 7, p. 1- tapproximata Deshayes, 1865. Pleurotoma. 273, pis. 1-28. Grignon; Parnes; Fonteney; Mouchy; and Chaussy. Lutetien, M. Eocene. Appendix I: A catalog of the species-group taxa that have Is Cryptoconus [= Conorbis] priscus (Solander, 1766), f. been included in either Conorbis or Cryptoconus by previous Tucker and Le Renard, 1993. authors. Each species-group taxon is alphabetically arranged with the first line containing the species-group name as origi­ tasyli De Gregorio, 1880. Conorbls. nally spelled excepting capitalization ofthe first letter of each S. Giovanni llarione. Parisiano. name, the author and date of the original description, and the Is Conorbis labiatus (Deshayes, 1834), f. Tucker, herein. original genus-group taxon. The second line contains the type locality and time-stratigraphy for the type locality cited in the t atractoides Tate, 1890. Conus (Conorbis). original description. Subsequent lines contain a citation ofthe Adelaide Bore, Adelaide, S. Australia. Clayey greensands, first authority to assign particular taxa to either Conorbis or Janjukian?, L. Miocene. Clyptoconus ifitwas originally described in a genusotherthan Conorbis f. Powell, I 944. those two and/or the assignment of the taxon along with.a reference to previously published determinations ifany. Com­ tbarbadensis Trechrnann, 1925. Cryptoconus. ments in square brackets are those added by myself, herein. Spa, Barbados. Scotland beds, Eocene. The t symbol indicates that the type specimen is a fossil. Valid Not identifiable to genus f. Tucker, herein. species of Conorbis are in bold-faced italic type. tbaudoni Cossmann, 1889. Cryptoconus. taequipartitus Cossmann, 1889. Conorbis. Mouchy. Lutetien, M. Eocene. Grignon. Lutetien, M. Eocene. Is Cryptoconus [= Conorbis] interpositus(Deshayes, 1865) f. Is Cryptoconus [= Conorbis] interpositus (Deshayes, 1865) f. Tucker and Le Renard, 1993. Tucker and Le Renard, 1993. tbhagothorensis Vredenburg, 1925. Conorbis dormitor +a!atus Edwards, 1857. Conus (Conorbis). (Solander, 1766), variety. Nari of Bhagothoro Hill, Sind. Bracklesham beds, M. Eocene. Oligocene. Is Clyproconus [-.:: Conorbis] priscus (Solander, 1766), f. Is Conorbis sindiensis Vredenburg, 1925, f. Tucker, herein. Tucker and Le Renard, 1993. tbiapproximatus De Gregorio, 1880. Conorbis. t a/atoideus Aldrich, 1885. Conus (Conorbis). S. Giovanni llarione. Parisiano. Moodys Branch, Jackson, Hinds County, Mississippi. Moodys Is Cryptoconus [= Conorbisj priscu.r (Solander, 1766), f. Branch Formation, L. Jackson Group, U. Eocene Ferrero, 1971 . Conorbis f. Palmer and Brann, 1966 t biarritzensis Boussac, 1911 . Conorbls dormitor (So lander, ta/phonsi Briart and Comet, 1871. Pleurotoma. 1766), variety. Biarritz. Priabonien, Priabonien, U. Eocene. Mons, Belgium. Montien, L. Paleocene. Is Conorbis dormitor (Solander, 1766), f. Tucker, herein. Is Cryptoconus [= Conorbis] priscus (Solander, 1766). f. Tucker and Le Renard, 1993. tbistriata Deshayes, I 834. Pleurotoma. Parnes and Mouchy-le-Ch§tel. Lutetien, M. Eocene. tamphiconus J. de C. Sowerby, 1850. PleurotOma. Is Cryptoconus [= Conorbis] fllosus (Lamarck, 1804), f. Bracklesham Bay. M. Eocene. Tucker and Le Renard, I 993. Conorbis f. Koenen, 1867. Is Cryptoconus [= Conorbis] priscus (Solander, 1766), f. tbrevispira Newton, 1891 . Conorbis a/at us {Edwards, I 857), Tucker and Le Renard, 1993. variety.

50 MISSISSIPPI GEOLOGY, V . 15, No.3, SEPTEMBER 1994 Bramsbaw. Bracklesham beds, M. Eocene. tdefecta Pezant 19 10. Cryptoconus infragradatusCossmann, Is a nomen nudum. 1889, variety. Parnes. Lutetien, M. Eocene. tcalophora Deshayes, 1865. Pleurotoma. Is Cryptoconus [= ConorbisJ elongatus (Deshayes, 1834), f. Ocynes. Lutetien, M. Eocene. Tucker and Le Renard, 1993. Is Cryptoconus (= Conorbis) filosus (Lamarck, 1804), f. Tucker and Le Renard, 1993. tdegensis Bellardi, 1877. Cryptoconus. Dego. Miocene inferiore. tcarinatus K. Martin, 1933. Cryptoconus. Is Conorbis /abiatus (Deshayes, 1834), f. Tucker, herein. Waisiu, East Indies. Tertiary. Thatcheria f. Charig, 1963. tdenudata Deshayes, 1865. Pleurotoma. Chaumont. L. Lutetien, M. Eocene. tcingillus T. Brown, 1838. Conus. Renamed Cryptoconus [= Conorbis] cossmanni by Tucker Barton. Horizon not stated. and Lc Renard, 1993. Is Conorbis dormitor (Solander, 1766), f. Tomlin, 1937. Is Cryptoconus [= ConorbisJ priscus (Solander. 1766). f. Tucker and Le Renard, 1993. tcincta Deshaycs, 1834. Pleurotoma. Beyne. Lutetien, M. Eocene. tdepulsa Pe:z.ant, 1909. Pleurotoma (Conorbis) marginata Is Cryptoconus [= Conorbis) filosus (Lamarck, 1804), f. Lamarck, 1804, variety. Tucker and Le Renard, 1993. Parnes. Lutetien, M. Eocene. Is Cryptoconus [= Conorbis] priscus (Solander, 1766), f. tclavicularis Lamarck, 1804. Pleurotoma. Tucker and Le Renard, 1993. Grignon. Lutetien, M. Eocene. Is Cryptoconus [= Conorbis] filosus (Lamarck, 1804), f. tdeshayesii Desmoulins, 1842. Pleurotoma. Tucker and Le Renard, 1993. Beyne. Lutetien, M. Eocene. Nomen novum pro cincta Deshayes, 1834. tconoides Conrad, 1835. Pleurotoma. Is Cryptoconus [= Conorbis] filosus (Lamarck, 1804), f. Claiborne, Alabama. Gosport Sand, U. Claiborne Sand, M. Tucker and Le Renard, 1993. Eocene Conorbis f. Conrad, 1865. tdeshayesii Koenen, 1867. Conorbis. Lattorf. L. Oligocene. tconradi De Gregorio, 1890. Conorbis (Cryptoconus?). Is Conorbis labiatus (Desha yes, 1834), f. Tucker, herein. Claiborne, Alabama. Gosport Sand, U. Claiborne Group, M. Eocene t dolini Tucker, herein. Conorbis. Nomen novum pro Pleurotoma conoides Conrad, 1835. Town Creek, Hinds County, Mississippi. Moodys Branch Is Conorbis conoides Conrad, 1835, f. Tucker, herein. Formation, Jackson Group, U. Eocene.

coromandelicus E. A. Smith, 1894. Conus. tdollfusi Vincent, 1878. Pleurotoma. 80-IIOfin, I4° 18'15"N,80° 18'30"Eand 128frn, I5°04 '07"N, Wanzin, Belgium. L. Landenien, Paleocene. 80~5'07"E, Coromandel Coast., India. Cryptoconus [= ConorbisJ f. Cossmann, 1896. Conorbis f. Thiele, 1929. Is Conorbis priscus (So lander, 1766), f. Tucker, herein. Is not a Conorbis f. Tucker, herein. t dormitor Solander, 1766. Conus. tcooperi Dickerson, 1916. Drillia. Hampshire. Horizon not stated. Marysville Buttes, Sutter County, California. Tejon, Eocene. Conorbis f. Koenen, 1867. Cryptoconus (= Conorbis] f. B. Clark and H. E. Vokes, 1936. Is not a Conorbis f. Tucker, herein. tdudariensis Strausz, 1966. Cryptoconus priscus (Solander, 1766), subspecies. tcossmanni Tucker and Le Renard, 1993. Cryptoconus. Dudar, Ungam. Mergelm Lutetien, M. Eocene. Chaumont. L. Lutetien, M. Eocene. Is Conorbis priscus (Sol ander, 1766), f. Tucker, herein. Nomen novum pro Pleurotoma denudata Deshayes, 1865. Is Cryptoconus [= Conorbis] priscus (Solander, 1766), f. tdunlceri Koenen, 1867. Cryptoconus. Tucker and Le Renard, 1993. Lattorf and Lethen. L. Oligocene. Is Conorbis elongatus (Deshayes, 1834), f. Tucker, herein.

MISSISSIPPI GEOLOGY, V . 15, No. 3, SEPTEMBER 1994 51 telongata Deshayes, 1834. Pleurotoma. t grotriani Koenen, 1865. Conus. Grignon; Parnes; and Mouchy. Lutetien, M. Eocene. Helmstadt. L. Oligocene. Cryptoconus [= Conorbis] f. Koenen, 1867. Conorbis f. Koenen, I 867. terecta Deshayes, 1865. Pleurotoma. themilissus Edwards, 1857. Conus(Conorbis)alatusEdwards, Saint-Felix. Lutetien, M. Eocene. I 857, variety. Is Cryptoconus [= Conorbis] interposillls (Desha yes, 1865) f. Brockenhurst. Headon Beds, Oligocene. Tucker and Le Renard, 1993. Conorbis f. Glibert, t960. Is Cryptoconus [= Conorbis] priscus (Solander, 1766), f. teucalypti De Gregorio, 1880. Conorbis bistrialus(Deshayes, Tucker and Le Renard, 1993. 1834), forma. S. Giovanni llarione. Parisiano. therculei Pezant, 1909. Pleurotoma (Conorbis) fllosa Is Conorbis priscus (Solander, 1766), f. Tucker, herein. Lamarck, 1804, variety. Parnes. Lutetien, M. Eocene. tevu/sa Deshayes, 1865. Pleurotoma. Is Conorbis fllosus (Lamarck, 1804), f. Tucker, herein. Cuise-la-Mone; Retheuil; Laversine; and Laon. Ypresien, L. Eocene. t inaequistriata Desha yes, I 865. Pleurotoma. Is Cryptoconus [= Conorbis] prise us (So lander, 1766), f. Grignon. Lutetien, M. Eocene. Tucker and Le Renard, 1993. Is Cryptoconus [= Conorbis] fllosus (Lamarck, I 804), f. Tucker and Le Renard, 1993. texacutus Bellardi, 1877. Cryptoconus. Dego altd Carcare. Miocene inferiore. tinfragradatus Cossmann, 1889. Cryptoconus. Is Conorbis priscus (Solander, 1766), f. Tucker, herein. Grignon. Lutetien, M. Eocene. Is Conorbis elongatus (Deshayes, 1834), f. Tucker, herein. texorllls De Gregorio, 1880. Conorbis lineo/atus (Lamarok, 1804). forma. tinjucundus G. D. Hanna, 1924. Cryptoconus. S. Giovanni llarione. Parisiano. Marysville Bunes, Sutter County, California. Tejon, Eocene. Is Conorhisfllosus ( Lamarck, 1804), f. Tucker, herein. Nomen novum pro Drillia cooperi Dickerson, 19 16. Is not a Conorbis f. Tucker, herein. texpolttus Kljushnikov, 1958. Cryptoconus. Dnepropetrovska, Ukraine. U. Eocene. t i~tterp osita Deshayes, I 865. Pleurotoma. Is Conorhis fllosus (Lamarck, 1804), f. Tucker, herein. Aizy. Ypresien, L. Eocene. Cryptoconus [= Conorbis] f. Cossmann, 1889. tjaasiKijushnikov, 1958. Conorbisprocerus(Beyrich, 1853), variety. t irravadicus Noetling, I 895. Pleurotoma (Cryptoconus). Dnepropetrovska, Ukraine. U. Eocene. Burma. Miocene. Conorhis f. Amitrov, 1973. Eosurcula f. Shuto, I 984. Is Conorhis fllosus (Lamarck, 1804 ), f. Tucker, herein. tkressenbergensis Schlosser, I 925. Cryptoconus. tfavontus De Gregorio, 1880. Conorbis bistriatus (Deshayes, Emanuelnebengestein; Purarian Alps. Lutetian, M. Eocene. 1834) forma. Is Conorbis interpositus (Deshayes, 1865) f. Tucker, herein. S. Giovanni llarione. Parisiano. Is Conorbis priscus (Solande r, 1766), f. Tucker, herein. t labiata Oeshayes, I 834. Pleurotoma. Parnes and Mouchy-le-Chatel. Lutetien, M. Eocene. tjilosa Lamarck, 1804. Pleurotoma. Cryptoconus [= Conorbis] f. Koenen, 1867. Grignon. Lutetien, M. Eocene. Clyptoconus [= Conorbis] f. Koenen, 1867. tlaevigata Melleville, 1843. Pleurotoma. Laon. Ypresien, L. Eocene. tglabrata Lamarck, 1804. Pleurotoma. Renamed Cryptoconus [- Conorbis] me/levi/lei by Tucker Grignon. Lutetien. M. Eocene. and Le Renard. I 993. Is Cryptoconus [= Conorbis] priscus (Solander, 1766), f. Is Conorbis prise us (Solande r, I 766), f. G Iibert, I 960. Tucker and Le Renard. I 993. t lavacillensis De Gregorio, I 895. Conorbis semistriatus (Oeshayes, 1834), variety.

52 MISSISSIPPI GEOLOGY, V . 15, No. 3, SEPTEMBER 1994 Lavacille near Sassano. Tertiary. Is Conorbis e/o,gatus (Deshayes, 1834 ), f. Tucker, herein. Is Conorbis fi/osus (Lamarck, 1804), f. Tucker, herein. t porcellana Conrad, 1848. Pleurotoma. tligans De Gregorio, 1880. Conorbis lineolatus (Lamarck, Vicksburg, Mississippi . Byram Formation, Vicksburg Group, 1804), forma. Oligocene. S. Giovanni llarione. Parisiano. Conorbis f. Conrad. 1866. Is Conorbis fi/osus (Lamarck, 1804}, f. Tucker, herein. t priscus Solander, 1766. Murex. tlineolata Lamarck, 1804. Pleurotoma. Hordwell. Barton beds, Eocene. Grignon. Lutetien, M. Eocene. Cryptoconus [= Conorbis] f. Cossmann, 1889. Cryptoconus f. Koenen, 1867. Is Conorbis fi/osus (Lamarck, 1804 ), f. Tucker, herein. tprocerus Beyrich, 1853. Conus. Westeregeln, Magdeburg. Tertiary. t longobiconicus Sacco, 1893. Conorbis protensus(M ichelotti, Conorbis f. Koenen, 1867. 1861 ), variety. Is Conorbis labiatus (Deshayes, 1834}, f. Tucker, herein. Cassinelle. Tongriano. Is Conorbis labiatus (Deshayes, 1834), f. Tucker, herein. tpropefilosus De Gregorio, 1880. Conorbis. S. Giovanni llarione. Parisiano. t marginata Lamarck, 1804. Pleurotoma. Is Conorbis filosus (Lamarck, 1804), f. Tucker. herein. Grignon. Lutetien, M. Eocene. Conorbis f. Koenen, 1867. tprotensa Michelotti, 1861. Pleurotoma. Is Conorbis prise us (Solander, 1766), f. Tucker, herein. Dego. Miocene inferieur. Conorbis f. Glibert, 1960. tmcnairyensis Wade, 1917. Conorbis. Is Conorbis labiatus (Deshayes, 1834}. f. Tucker, herein. Coon Creek, McNairy County, Tennessee. Ripley Formation, U. Cretaceous. tpunctata Brebion. 1992. Cryptoconus lineolatus (Lan1arck. Is not a Conorbis f. Tucker, herein and with query f. Sohl, 1804), variety. 1964; Kohn, 1990. Villiers. Lutetian, M. Eocene. Is an unavailable varietal name. t me/levi/lei Tucker and Le Renard, 1993. Ctyptoconus. Is Conorbisfilosus (Lamarck, 1804), f. Tucker, herein. Laon. Ypresien, L. Eocene. Nomen novum pro Pleurotoma laevigata Melleville, 1843. tpunctatus Tucker and Le Renard, 1993. Cryptoconus Is Conorbis priscus (Solander, 1766), f. Tucker, herein. lineolatus (Lamarck, 1804). subspecies. Villiers, Ia Fcrme de I'Orme. Lutetien, M. Eocene. tmu/lipartitus Kljushnikov, 1958. Conorbis deshayesi Is Conorbis fi/osus (Lamarck, 1804}, f. Tucker. herein. (Desmoulins, 1842), variety. Dnepropetrovska, Ukraine. U. Eocene. traulini Peyrot, 1930. Conorbis. Is Conorbis filosus (Lamarck, 1804), f. Tucker, herein. Peyrehorade. Aquitanien [= U. Oligocene]. Is Cryptoconus l=Co norbis] interpositus (Desha yes, 1865) f. tnormalis De Gregorio, 1880. Conorbis bistriatus(Deshayes, Tucker and Le Renard, 1993. 1834), forma. S. Giovanni Ilarione. Parisiano. tregulolineatus De Gregorio, 1880. Conorbis bistriatus Is Conorbis labiatus (Deshayes, 1834), f. Tucker, herein. (Deshayes, 1834), forma. S. Giovanni llarione. Parisiano. totwayensis Long, 1981 . Conorbis atractoides (Tate, 1890), Is Conorbis filosus (Lamarck, 1804), f. Tucker, herein. subspecies. Point Flinders, Cape Otway, Victoria, Australia. Glen Aire trembangensis Pannekoek, 1936. Cryptoconus. Clay, U. Aldingan, L. Oligocene. Sedan, Rembang, Java. U. Miocene. Is not a Conorbis f. Tucker, herein. t perliratu:r Cossmann and Pissarro, 1909. Cryptoconus. Jhirak, India. U. Ranikot beds, Eocene. trestitutus White, 1887. Conus (Conorbls). Rio Piabas, Province ofPara. Cretaceous. t pleurotomoides Cossmann and Pissarro, 190 I. Cryptoconus. Conus f. Kohn, 1990; age is Miocene f. Maury, 1925. Fresville. U. Lutetien, M. Eocene.

MISSISSIPPI GEOLOGY, V . 1 5. No.3, SEPTEMBER 1994 53 trouaulti Cossmann, 1923. Cryptoconus. tstromboides Schlotheim, 1820. Conus (Conilites). Gan. Ypresien, L. Eocene. Germany. Oligocene. ls Cryptoconus [= Conorbis] interpositus (Deshayes, 1865) f. Is Conorbis dormitor (Selander, 1766), f. Tucker and Le Tucker and Le Renard, 1993. Renard, 1993. tsandiegoensis M. A. Hanna, 1927. Cryptoconus. tsubagranulatus Sacco, 1893. Conorbis antidiluvianus La Jolla, California. Eocene. (Bruguiere, 1792), variety. Is not a Conorbis f. Tucker, herein. Castelnuove d' Asti. Miocene. Is Conus antidiluvianus Bruguiere, 1792, f. Hall, 1964. t scandens Schaufhaeutl, J 863. F usus. Germany. Eocene. tsubangulata Deshayes, 1834. Pleurotoma. Cryptoconus f. Schlosser, 1925. Parnes and Mouchy-Je-Chatel. Lutetien, M. Eocene. Is Conorbis interpositus (Deshayes, I 865) f. Tucker, herein. Conorbis f. Koenen, 1867. Is Cryptoconus [= Conorbis] priscus (So lander, I 766), f. tsemi-baudoni Pezant, 1909. Pleurotoma (Conorbis). Tucker and Le Renard, 1993. Parnes. Lutetien, M. Eocene. Is Cryptoconus [= Conorbis] jilosus (Lamarck, 1804), f. tsubclavicularis Bellardi, 1877. Cryptoconus. Tucker and Le Renard, 1993. Dego. Miocene inferiore. ls Conorbis lahiatus (Deshayes, 1834), f. Tucker, herein. tseminuda Edwards, 1857. Conus dormitor(Solander, 1766), variety. t subdecussata Desha yes, 1834. Pleurotoma. Barton; Alum Bay; Lyndhurst; and Brockenhurst. Headon Courtagnon and Darnerie. Lutetien, M. Eocene. beds, Oligocene. Is Cryptoconus [= Conorbis] priscus (Selander, 1766), f. Conorbis f. Koenen, 1867. Tucker and Le Renard, 1993. Is Cryptoconus [= Conorbis] priscus (Selander, 1766), f .• Tucker and Le Renard, 1993. tsubfilosa d'Orbigny, 1852. Pleurotoma. Gaas and Lesbarritz; Dax. Stampien, L. Oligocene and tsemi-striata Deshayes, 1834. Pleurotoma. Burdigalien, Miocene, respectively. Parnes and Mouchy. Lutetien, M. Eocene. Nomen novum pro Pleurotomafilosa ofGrateloup, 1847. Is Conorbis.filosus (Lamarck, 1804), f. Tucker, herein. Is Conorbis prise us (So lander, 1766), f. Tucker, herein. tsemisubdecussata Pezant, 1909. Pleurotoma (Conorbis). tsublaevigata d'Orbigny, 1852. Pleurotoma. Fay. Lutetien, M. Eocene. Laon. Ypresien, L. Eocene. Is C1yptoconus ["" Conorbis] filosus (Lamarck, J 804), f. Nomen novwn pro Pleurotoma laevigata Melleville, 1843. Tucker and Le Renard, I 993. Cryptoconus [= Conorbis] f. Cossmann, 1889. Is Conorbis priscus (Selander, 1766), f. Glibert, 1960. tsenessei [)elpey, I 938. Conorbis. La Jouane and Lit de I' Eau Sa lee aSougraigne. U. Santonien. tsubmarginatus Koenen, 1890. Conorbis. Is not certainly a Conorbis f. Kohn, 1990. Lattorf and Unseburg. L. Oligocene. Is Conorbis jilosus (Lamarck, 1804), f. Tucker, herein. i'sindiensis Vredenburg, 1925. Conorbis dormitor(Solander, 1766), variety. tsubsimilis Schlotheim, 1820. Conus (Conilites). Navi of Bhagothoro Hill, Sind. Oligocene. Germany. Oligocene. Conorbis f. Powell, 1966. Is Conorbis dormitor (Selander, 1766), f. Tucker and Le Renard, 1993. t somniator Oppenheim, 190 I. Conorbis. Castelcies. Tertiary. t surculaeformis Cossmann and Pissarro, 1909. Cryptoconus. Is Conorbis grotriani (Koenen, 1865), f. Tucker, herein. 2 miles E of Kandaira, Vera plain east and underscarp of Jakhmari. U. Ranikot beds, Eocene. stearnsiana Raymond, I 904. Pleurotoma (Genota). Is not a Conorbis f. Tucker, herein. 25-30 fm, off San Diego, California. Cryptoconus [= Conorbis] f. Dall, I 921; Is a Megasurcula f. tumbgrovei K. Martin, 193 I. Conorbis. Grant and Gale, 1931. Nanggulan. U. Eocene. Is Conorbis sindiensis Vredenburg, 1925, f. Tucker, herein.

54 MISSISSIPPI GEOLOGY, V . 15, No. 3, SEPTEMBER 1994 tunifascialis Deshayes, 1834. Pleurotoma. Ronca. Eocene. Grignon. Lutetien, M. Eocene. Is Conorbis filosus (Lamarck. 1804), f. Tucker, herein. Is Cryptoconus [= Conorbis] /abiatus (Deshayes, 1834), f. Tucker and Le Renard, 1993. twashingtonensis Van Winkle, 1918. Conus. 0.25 mile W of Lincoln Creek Station, Chehalis Valley, tunisulcata De Gregorio, 1896. Pleurotoma (Cryptoconus) Washington. Molopophorus lincolnensis zone, L. Oligocene. lineolata Land. [sic] variety. Conorbis f. Powell, 1966.

MISSISSIPPI GEOLOGY" V . 16, No.3, SEPTEMBER 1994 55 MISSISSIPPI GEOLOGY Department of Environmental Quality Office of Geology Post Office Box 20307 Jackson, Mississippi 39289-1307

Mississippi Geology is published quarterly in March, June, September and December by the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Geology. Contents include research articles pertaining to Mississippi geology, news items, reviews, and listings of recent geologic literature. Readers are urged to submit letters to the editor and research articles to be considered for publication; format specifications will be forwarded on request. For a free subscription or to submit an article, w rite to:

Editor, Mississippi Geology Office of Geology Editors: Michael B. E. Bograd and David Dockery P. 0. Box 20307 Jackson, Mississippi 39289-1307