Dillwyn, in his descriptive catalogue, thus characterizes it: "Shell ventricose, with the spire conical, and coronated with spines; aperture dilated, with the beak long, and the pillar flexuous." "Chemnitz's figure is five and one quarter inches long, of which the beak occupies two inches. It is coarse and ponderous, and slightly ribbed transversely." From these remarks of Dillwyn, it is apparent that he had no specimen before him, and that he only repeated what had been said by others, referring to Chemnitz's figure, as if that indicated the size of the shell.

Wood, in his "Index Testaceologicus," gives an uncolored figure, and states its length to be five and a half inches; both of which circumstances prove that he merely followed the path of preceding authors.

Lastly comes Lamarck; and on his descriptions we may rely with confidence, as they were written from specimens actually before him. He describes a shell under the name of Fusus proboscidiferus as follows: "testa fusiformi, ventricosa, transversim sulcata, fulvo-rufescente; anfractibus angulatis, supra planulatis; angulo tuberculis nodiformibus coronato; spira, parte superiore cylindracea, proboscidiforme, apice mamillari, labro intus lævigato." "I received this shell," says Lamarck, "under the name of trompe d' Aru,' but the characters and synonymes of Linnæus and Gmelin do not correspond with it. This Fusus is very remarkable on account of the superior part of the spire, which resembles a straight trunk or proboscis, as it were inserted and terminal. Length 3 inches 11 lines."

On examination of this description, I believe it will be manifest that ours is the same shell; the only obscure character being that relating to the end of the spire, which is said to resemble a proboscis. In what this fancied resemblance consists I cannot say, but I am not surprized

that he could not identify his shell with the descriptions of preceding authors, these being so vague and loose as to give a very imperfect idea of the shell intended to be represented. It is possible that some deformity caused the remarkable appearance noticed by him in his specimen.

On reviewing the preceding descriptions, I think I am justificed in concluding, that since the time of Buonanni this shell has been rarely seen, and that the descriptions in the books are mere copies, one from another, down to Lamarck, who possessed a small specimen. The great size and beauty of this species induced me to suppose that conchologists would be gratified to see a new and correct figure, (see plates V. & VI.) and a more perfect description, which I now add.

FUSUS ARUANUS. Pl. V. and VI.

Shell fusiform, ventricose, large and ponderous, of a uniform light yellow color externally, and pale flesh color within; transversely striate, the striæ gradually becoming larger from the summit to the body whorl, where they are distinct furrows. Spire conical, crowned at its summit with nodular tubercles, which gradually decrease and become obsolete as the whorls increase in size. Whorls prominently angulated, uniting with each other a little below the angle. Body-whorl large and ventricose, its angular carina about equidistant from the tip of the spire and extremity of the canal. Beak long and somewhat flexuous. Pillar lip so far dilated as to leave a considerable umbilical opening. Outer lip entire and trenchant, within smooth and polished. Epidermis dark brown.

Murex Aruanus, LINNAEUS. Sytema etc. ed. 12. No. 556. p. 1222. Mus. Reg. Ulr: No. 322. p. 641. Fusus proboscidiferus. LAMARCK. Vol. VII. p. 126.

BUONANNI Rec. et Kirch: III. f. 101.

RUMPHIUS Tab. XXVIII. fig. A.

MARTINI IV. vign. 39.

The length of the shell is 22 inches, and its circumference round the body whorl 28 inches; it is supposed to have been brought from the East Indies.

BOSTON

JOURNAL OF NATURAL HISTORY.

VOL. I.

MAY, 1835.

No. 2.

ART. VII.-ON CERTAIN CAUSES OF GEOLOGICAL CHANGE NOW IN OPERATION IN MASSACHUSETTS. By EDWARD HITCHCOCK, A. M., Professor of Chemistry and Natural History in Amherst College. Communicated March 5, 1835.

ence.

THE object of this communication is, to call the attention of the Society to certain causes that are at work to modify the surface of this State, but which seem hitherto to have been almost entirely overlooked by our geologists. Some of them do, indeed, exert only a very limited influBut at a time when every fact illustrative of the dynamics of causes now in action is eagerly sought after, none, however feeble, should be overlooked. I do not mean that these causes (except perhaps one or two of them) are not described in the treatises on geology; but merely that their operation has not been noticed on this side of the Atlantic. In describing them I hope so to avoid technical obscurity, that my statements will be intelligible to every man of good sense, whether a geologist or not; so that, should the Society make them public, many may be led to observe similar phenomena and to describe them, and thus the facts on the subject be multiplied.

SUBMARINE FORESTS.

Although these are not uncommon in Europe, according to geological writers, they seem to have been unnoticed in this country. But I am inclined to believe them

water.

common enough along our coast. They consist of the remains of ancient lowland forests, now submerged a few feet below the sea, though sometimes laid bare at low The vegetables found in them are such as now grow in swamps along the coast; and peat is not uncommonly found. This is the case, according to Lt. Jonathan Prescott, in the harbor of Nantucket, where was found one of these forests, when it was dredged, under the direction of that gentleman, a few years since. The stumps and masses of wood discovered there were maple, oak, beech and cedar. (Cupressus thuyoides.) These were very much decayed, except the cedar, which was nearly as sound as ever. These relics were buried by four feet of sand, and lay about eight feet beneath low water mark.

I have ascertained the existence of similar submarine forests at Holmes' Hole, on Martha's Vineyard, near the southwest extremity of that island, on the north shore; on the north side of Cape Cod, extending several miles into Barnstable Bay; and on the shore of Provincetown harbor, opposite the village. But as I have not been able to give these places much examination, I hope this slight notice will excite the attention of gentlemen favorably situated along our coast for observing these and other cases of the same geological phenomenon.

Submarine forests must have resulted either from the elevation or subsidence of the land or the ocean. And since they generally occur under similar circumstances,