===
;
|
ate
eens
+e
css
hic tebe ny
Heep
Whey de
Babin
TEA HOE STA EN GF,
Veal
Dy
Kf
‘
IO
te
Nine
{
hh
AWA AANA AM
Dannnn
CN bb
sth HG: (
tr
=> >s2Ss5
Speecnayes
Stsosts
lay
eens
Anny
ae aes
ue
Wie
rey ine
yee *
MOURA
thew
Daryn
hse
At Hh uy
Nai)
Nina On)
ANNE
th
S53 53
ani aeaite
aed
Viketee
=s
Hest
ent
rane fh
AWA
hy
rt
an, rite
iN
ta
‘
i
AY
ay
ay f Hest eie
MLN PLE val alles
Haingle
ee icr
eileen
Hi
ty at
DREADS
eget)
£).
tAIA}
Ah '
' A XEN i
Ohba:
vi
i tt
2a
Naat
EN RAO
ibaa eects tN eA
fide aces
Mahe SAAN RN
Hasenyg eee
Velyoerdeyye:
Hee yeep
wis vetey
MY ty
PCO ebay
Seen haus
(KYMy
CORA ide AAA
NAAN AMAA AD
AYN) ENE
va
Rt)
Wereeeen
SOUR)
WORSE gay te
) tees
ve
we
Poyen ee tony
Ny
ate $e
Mere eater
Peeeyeeee ees
v POUL UOKON
\
,
ROSCOCOCOCORLL A
SEN CRSEAND .
HAN te shoe
Coven
Me iy
Z:
weeny
Veo taeky
nee be
if
Ay mn
feo
Wao eeu ‘
iaeees ay tea "
RYDEN Ny AbANM
DAS
”
,
Veter
0! el
AN
Hg ee
' \
DORA On
CAR: 46 vvatdisgy ah MY
wea yey it
i
Veer y brat» 7 Nf Bia i} ‘
M tee hia y ‘ Mth
Sel nenuatiies ve ite
OSMAN
Hagin intone ds)
| Vet
veer AE bed: MAA
Hecvgeticena geveoed fay aedy :
Wnoebe eed) ty K
Vieira We
i
eines er
eee
, ‘\ N oe
A RY i?
PE anenieele revi be
VAN Naty
SHAM se A USA PAN
AY er ROOT YE YA
PO NUEN VICE aaa HY
hs DUA}
verte
FLEES YS
Ay bea
Ahk ys
ont
DORA RAR GLAM AH ARAL OLAS i)
DO RORIGCRRR RICK ne in
SEOUL) Und beak ev
OEORC RWaY MOA aU
UOUUEA LS aii
OOMOUAA KA ae vie
ARNG Scares
PIVEN E A ertergte dy iyet t
Wee ey Wrepv erty
4s " ROD CCOU
Westy
v i AN
Me Suu eh
Wat yoan hse Ain AAA AAAR AD vewhee
WARN VERY A PTC)
Maree
RONEN ROG
RORY MANNY
BOWOOSEKIN MRK SACO
NOR CUR CR OIC
Ney A)
eave
.
i POO COU OC
Aes Se Hb eeT Cr ELE e VERY
ally ‘
CRA?
CUO
POCO ee 2)
HE CEP EN UHC ERE
ae by
eee
veya ait
ony
4
vere
soe
pyerioes
re
“=e
=
3
=
asst
Boe
=f
=i
=
=
=
a2 Et
2%
>:
SisSsF3
353
‘eae
=
Santee sees
Saeco
32 =.
a2 = os
=
a nh
SHINN
rei
Deh be
hy
Nai
sie
aia
Met
b
=
re
Sg
=
ae
att
aa
f
of
anya i AAs
Wi
AMC th
bee
Sey AN
==3
=<
3s
Se
Us
ait
ii
, OA
ie i
My
i
ni
Ohh
HGLAK
Ss See
‘
AY
Sr:
jes=s
MN
Ni
14
i
are
{ve
ry
‘eye
Ea
in
yy
Haute
DOr Oca
SOO
Veer ey
vse vay
OOteOOU Ia?
Veer ee
OY
ve
ty
RAN
there eeve
ve
ee th
Cran
‘
.
he
VEN AAVA RIED EDD ye
SUDO sa
AAU a
Cc
Vevvrere
Pathan ve pies
NOVO HNN NY
AVES cba by They
yee even
UO
y
i *
BUCO UDO
WeUOOseObe | COON Oe
vy eye
25
erste
#
ese:
<3
2s
oy
ue
tetra
35
=33>
An y ii eee te
bg nites hile ee eet
ate
n 0
heal
es
tt
FS Pt DEAD Gh behets:
Hants a eal
rt ab HOB He F Nob
=e
Ez
res
pss
nee
ees
35
>
SEOs
33
Ai 4)
ite
il
=
=e
es
=a:
oy
we
Tee
=
SS
aE
se.
Ft.
a
=r:
S355
=<
SE
53
=:
=
S33
52.
ses
a
: ser
22a
<35Ss
-s
’ He
Cin
hnarhhy
i)
nian
fet
AT AAR bak ake
NOOO ae 7 i. vices
ihe HA
it sienna
i)
vi
Wel e
tata
Sid dinet
henrar hal
Aurer yt
>
Dinan)
ei tt
shih
i Lp rs
hey
ete Crier arta
content th oh
ea bh PRR A
Meare ayy fr
Lv
pe
he
irr
Eee lrewntheee Petri’
Jeg pA pres
ees Thebepeptele
Ree
atirtateceset te
Pe bell hay PERS BY beh Bet Fol
mee
en Hei
0
FF pes upp ian
riba re
eho tee
akics # ib ure
fod Net bbe
HELEN et ete
icone a bps Bo
PATS ok iets dey met te
} S
t Srory JEsermee
iil oli ahs 4 a8
isentkides
aie atten ete ee:
rin entereteen
nM
icine
alate Lote powers ecoatsott
YY
pepevecgevaye ss:
Prob 4 pHomep ek 5s
yes ame
oo
ree
ice
asrtcaie
x
eer
HG panithv rede mbhevesheen ton
‘es fe ae ens oie
nies omar stage
penal
Petes Pe
tae
oF
das hated tao ans
“7s
js int
Co Nprhedy Se
sles ea po ea ble
ahaa
certs eeagrr
ne bette te
% i
‘biebn oha -abebet doe
Vb hohe eh ops
Seeded
om
dns btered
Wade ea peseene
nb tesbend temitaneeraens
penis
Ceo
Dhan attends haan
ene oat
fabgtirdprslre
Lag yen Aa pe on ee
ve
~
parpaary yy
Be GT RL ete
ekprche
ESN Ge vricre teh
bees amet bee
wr 2 ha
tans iicecepareitowsrannet toes
A shea VY Peete tr ee ee eh
ha Ciuerndeana nee ieenrerenens A ay
Kengre pny te
‘
werteen iti
48 mye vi
PAPA hi Haney
alee a bi
vie : ietane Mrs
Rol nah
hn WAR?
ea
Kno tourette
PCs y
ieee
oT
oink
Aah)
iy | te '
Pert ts eles 0 bop ines te
Srempttints Wes
ard rue
2
eet ees et
mpeeia Neahte etree
Areliry Baa
tees 2
SRR eeenorins
Netenter’ .
aie :
Mean har de
i eanreet ie
Mahaneert esti on
Steet tie cov ebieey RF Apres
HP ete
yi
i
Ee
ss
est
SEs
veel he
rer
ene
DR AN A AALA Rn
CE arh ists 4 8 vet
pear
i} viene
tn
Meee
SOatant
Pvt rere
0
«
¥
EOOUUUues
DOGO hala male)
Meee perhh Reet
ees
* GLK)
FANOH ISL Ch atbens
oon tatve ernie ve
~ vent bere
Po A eld opal
ve
ay a
RUA a eno st
FONT ee tvek eee
¥
veevlivee\ eee
“vevese bee
ear
td he bob ¥
ree ee aa
i veniieegs cre acn vere tree es
err
hte
alan
Peet enes ite erie coemert
ett, Pann Sierabas sed
Serres ti errer ry
ost cee tm!
ye
;
ee
cee
pranpenr ven
Lt poe
btepegeus
evry
Petehah dati iad cd
beet tey rete
ricoaatrenis never es
eevee Pet h its
rea crt be) ener
he
PEPE PRE smoky PER Hes om
eer 1 get vee
Tee eee ESE Ow V8 Ps | me
coerenee.
SoG.
wy
Manta ad
FAs eee OEE ETRE Meh
Pe ce teey PON he hey
eee men rete wL ETE y Shoe phew mie bee ei Hey
Vee peer rey
AM aala hh alla ek aah ake
PIV EPA ND Ph ones Fee weeD HOTTY om
we
*
o se
a Cs ee en
gee
——
wee vie eye
vere
oe
vee
tes
THE
[NSTITUTED MDCCCXLVIL.
VOLUME FOR 1891.
LONDON:
MDCCCXCII.
A MONOGRAPH
OF THE
DEVONIAN FAUNA
OF THE
SOUTH OF ENGLAND.
BY
G. F. WHIDBORNE, M.A., F.GS.
PART IV.
THE FAUNA OF THE LIMESTONES
OF
LUMMATON, WOLBOROUGH, CHIRCOMBE BRIDGE, AND CHUDLEIGH.
Paces 251—344; Puatres XXV—XXXI.
LONDON:
PRINTED FOR THE PALZONTOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY.
1892.
, a
as PRINTED BY :
-ADLARD AND SON, BARTHOLOMEW ‘CLOSE. |
. J2FER 92:
as teaae.) ae
EUOMPHALUS. 251
21850. Evompuaus rutrorsus, F. A. Romer. Beitr., pt. 1, p. 15, pl. iti, figs.
15 a, 6.
1853. — ANNULATUS, Sandberger. Verst. Rhein. Nassau, p. 211,
pl. xxv, figs. 4, 4a—d.
1853. — RETRORSUS, Sandberger. Verst. Rhein. Nassau, p. 213,
pl. xxv, figs. 8, 8 a, b.
1854. — ANNULATUS, Morris. Catal. Brit. Foss., p. 247.
? 1866. — rETRORSUs, F. A. Romer. Beitr., pt. 5, p. 8, pl. xxxiv, fig. 3.
? 1867. — L&VIS, Trenkner. Paliont. Novit., pt. 1, p. 7, pl. i, fig. 11.
1888. — ANNULATUS, Eth. Foss. Brit., vol. i, Pal., p. 163.
Description.—Shell rather small, discoid, flat, of about five or six volutions.
Spire flatly concave, umbilicus large and still deeper; suture deep and very well
defined, facing upwards. Whorls increasing very slowly, almost circular in
section, slightly compressed perpendicularly ; regularly rounded, ornamented with
fine transverse threads divided by similar furrows which are very clear to the
naked eye in the full-grown shell. Mouth unknown.
Size.—Height 4°5 mm., width 14 mm.
Locality.—There is a finely preserved specimen as well as a much larger cast
in the Museum of Practical Geology, and two poorer examples in Mr. Vicary’s '
Collection, from Wolborough.
Remarks.—The best specimen at Jermyn Street [ have no hesitation in
regarding as the type specimen of Hw. annulatus, Phillips. It has the same
number of whorls, but the body-whorl is more defective than in his figure, and the
striz are much finer and more numerous. On consulting Mr. EH. T. Newton, he
agreed with me that there is every probability of its being the type specimen, and
that the injury near the mouth is to be accounted for by its having been detached
from the matrix and mended.
The second specimen in the same Museum is the cast of a much larger shell,
and has been there labelled Huomphalus planorbis, d Arch. and de Vern.; but a
small remaining fragment of the test shows that in all probability it belonged to
the present species.
One of Mr. Vicary’s specimens is in a peculiar state of preservation, and is so
misleading that for a long time I regarded it as quite a different kind of shell. It
is the inside surface of the spiral face of the shell, with the partitions rubbed
away, and looks very lke a low sinistral shell; but on a close examination its true
character is unmistakably evident, and, where chips of the shell are removed, the
marking is seen exactly to correspond with that of the present species, with which
I have, therefore, no hesitation in classing it.
Goldfuss’s figure has much finer strive than has -Phillips’s, and we might
even be inclined to class it with Ph. serpens but for its much more numerous
whorls.
33
252 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
Hu. retrorsus, F. A. Rémer,! seems only to differ in having fewer and more
quickly increasing whorls. In a subsequent part of his work Rémer? figures a
variety with fewer striae and more slowly increasing whorls. If these two are
really only varieties of the same species, it is almost certain that that species must
be the same as Phillips’s, as the points of difference are not permanent in the two
specimens. Sandberger® identifies with Rémer’s shell a small cast which may very
well belong to the present form.
Hw. annulatus, Sandberger, seems to agree exactly with Phillips’s type, but it
has a bifurcation and diminution of the ridges on the back which are not discernible
on Phillips’s shell, though from its bad state of preservation it is quite possible
that they originally existed.
Affinities.—This species is distinguishable from Ph. serpens, sp., Phillips, by
the larger number of its volutions, its narrower and more slowly increasing
whorls, and by its more prominent and coarser markings.
Hu. germanus, Phillips, sp., differs from Hu. awnulatus, Phillips, and all the
other English species of these localities by having spiral threads which form
reticulations with the longitudinal lines.
6. HUOMPHALUS NEAPOLITANUS, n. sp. Pl. XXIV, figs. 12, 12 a.
Description.—Shell rather small, flat, discoid, obliquely coiled in about five
slowly increasing volutions. Spire concave. Suture rather deep, facing upwards.
Whorls nearly circular in section, slightly flattened on the back, and bearing on
their highest point a flat sulcus bounded by indistinct ridges. Ornament (of the
inner whorls) consisting of fine, close, rounded ribs or striz, tending slightly
backwards, and not deflected on the sulcus. Shell-structure thick.
Size.—Height about 6 mm., width 21 mm.
Locality.—W olborough. Ibid., p. 79, pl. elxxxviii, figs. 5 a, 6.
254 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
From Huomphalus acuticosta, Sandberger,' which equals Hu. Schnuri, d’ Archiac
and de Vern.,” it is distinguished by the presence of the ridge and groove close to
the suture, and by several other features.
8. HUOMPHALUS FENESTRALIS, Whidborne. Pl. XXV, figs. 1—3.
1841. EvoMPHALUS SERPENS, Phillips (pars). Pal. Foss., p. 94, pl. xxxvi,
fig. 172 f (only).
1889. — CATENULATUS, Whidborne (not Hisinger). Geol. Mag.,
dec. 3, vol. vi, p. 30.
1889. _ FENESTRALIS, Whidborne. Ibid., dec. 3, vol. vi, p. 30.
Description.—Shell small, flat, discoidal, of four whorls. Apex sunk about
one-third of the height of the shell. Spire flatly concave. Suture excavate,
narrow, deep, facing upward, crenulated by the ornament. Whorls increasing
rapidly, irregularly hexagonal or polygonal in section; an imaginary horizontal
plane through the apex almost exactly passing through the suture and the shoulder
of the shell; the part of the whorls above this plane being about one-fourth the
total height of the whorl, and divided into three shallow grooves by two central
ridges, which are rather closer to each other than to the ridge on the shoulder,
and to a similar ridge immediately in front of the suture. Ridge of shoulder
defined above, confluent below. Section of whorl below the above-mentioned plane
bluntly trigonal, and about two-thirds the height of shell. Ornament consisting
of small, very elevated, rounded ridges or cords, separated by rather wider, deep
channels, and swelling almost into nodules on the ridges, rising from the suture,
crossing the supersutural ridge and inner furrow perpendicularly, bent backwards
very slightly over the central furrow and very greatly over the external furrow,
vanishing (almost completely) upon the oblique flat back below the shoulder, and
becoming very large, prominent, and rounded on the blunt angle and sides of the
umbilicus. Umbilicus very large, wide, and deep, composed of the regularly
convex inner sides of the whorls (which are there of a nearly circular curvature),
divided by a deep linear suture, and ornamented by strong, subangular, prominent,
elevated, transverse ridges, which are separated by deep furrows, and radiate
directly on every side straight from the lower side of the nucleus or apex.
Mouth small, subpolygonal. Shell-structure probably thick.
Size—Height 5 mm., width 13 mm.
1 1853, Sandberger, ‘ Verst. Rhein. Nassau,’ p. 210, pl. xxv, fig. 2.
2 1842, d’Arch. and de Vern., ‘Geol. Trans.,’ ser. 2, vol. vi, pt. 2, p. 364, pl. xxxiv, figs. 7,
Ta, 7b.
EUOMPHALUS. 255
Localities.—Of the upper face or exterior of the shell there are two specimens
in Mr. Vicary’s Collection from Wolborough; another in the British Museum from —
Wolborough ; and three others in the Torquay Museum, which seem to have come
from Lummaton.
Of the umbilicus there is a fine specimen in my collection, and two in the
British Museum, one of which, in the Lee Collection, was figured by Phillips as a
specimen of his Huomphalus serpens. These three specimens are all from
either Lummaton or Barton.
Remarks.—In the above enumeration are given two series of shells, one of
which shows the spire and the other the umbilicus. Generally speaking, these
specimens do not give any indications that the two series belong to the same
shell, but one of the Torquay Museum specimens of the first series shows
enough of the umbilicus to prove that there is every reason to suppose that it is
identical with those which are visible in the second series of fossils. Therefore,
although I originally treated them as distinct in the ‘ Geological Magazine,’ I now
feel obliged to group them together. It only remains to remember that similarity
of the umbilicus, though it suggests, may not prove, identity, as two distinct
fossils might have an exactly similar umbilicus, and therefore that further
evidence may show that after all the two species are distinct.
Having regard first to the group of specimens that show the spire, we observe
that they belong to avery beautiful and distinct species. Mr. Roberts and myself
compared it with all the species of Huomphalus mentioned in d’Archiac and de
Verneuil’s list, and found it quite unlike any of them, and there is nothing like
it in any of the later writers whom I have been able to consult.
Its upper surface somewhat resembles the original figure of Huomphalus
germanus, Phill., sp.,' and as such one of the specimens in Mr. Vicary’s Collection
was labelled by Salter. From that shell, however, it distinctly differs in the
arrangement of the ornament and the shape of its section.
The specimen in the British Museum is there labelled Plewrotomaria euom-
phalus, Sandberger,’ but to that species the present shell clearly does not belong.
Though very similar in general shape, the central furrow is much broader and
is not marked as a sinus-band, so that it evidently is not even of the same genus
of shell.
For these specimens I proposed the name of Huomphalus fenestralis in the
‘Geological Magazine, 1889.
Turning to the group of specimens showing only the umbilicus, we find that
with regard to them the question of nomenclature is much more difficult.
Mr. Lee’s specimen, now in the British Museum, is the original of one of
1 1841, Phillips, ‘ Pal. Foss.,’ p. 118, pl. xlviii, fig. 226.
* 1852, Sandberger, ‘ Verst. Rhein. Nassau,’ p. 187, pl. xxii, figs. 12, 12a.
256 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
Phillips’s figured types of his Hw. serpens, fig. 172 f (only). At page 222 he says
of this and fig. 172 g, ‘‘ They have a different aspect from the rest ;’’ and, in fact,
they evidently differ specifically from the shell, described by him and represented
by his figs. 172 a, b, which we have taken for the type of his restricted species,
Eu. serpens. There is also reason to suppose that his fig. 172 q represents a
different species, so that only his fig. 172 f belongs to the specimens which we
are now discussing. For these specimens I proposed the name of Hu. catenulatus,
in the ‘ Geological Magazine’ for January, 1889; but since then it has become
evident that Hu. fenestralis has the strongly ribbed umbilicus which is distinctive
of these specimens, and therefore there is every reason to suppose that the two
species are synonymous.
Affinities —Huomphalus Labadyi, d Arch. and de Vern.,' differs in having a
single keel, and no transverse ridges on the upper surface, while it bears very
similar radiating, rounded ridges on the umbilicus and base. These authors
quote it from Newton, but I have not seen any fossil agreeing with it from that
locality.
Huomphalus concavus, F. A. Romer,’ has a median sulcus, but its whorls are
much more rounded, without the strong spiral ridges, and it does not seem to
possess any strong longitudinal bars upon the umbilicus.
9. HuoMPHALUS GkeRMANUS, Phillips, sp. Pl. XXV, figs. 4, 4a, 5, 5a, 5b.
1841. Navrinus eerManus, Phillips. Pal. Foss., p. 118, pl. xlviii, fig. 226.
1853. Evompnatus pEecussatus, Sandberger. Verst. Rhein. Nassau, p. 210,
pl. xxv, figs. 3, 3a, 3 6.
1854. Navutitus germManvs, Morris. Cat. Brit. Foss., p. 308.
1888. _ — Etheridge. Foss. Brit., vol. i, Pal., p. 168.
1889. EvompnHatus agerManus, Whidborne. Geol. Mag., dec. 3, vol. vi, p. 30.
1889. —- pEcussaTuUS, Whidborne. Ibid., dec. 3, vol. vi, p. 30.
Deseviption.—Shell small, discoid, apparently asymmetrical, elliptically coiled
in three or four slowly increasing whorls. Spire sunk below the summit of
the body-whorl, almost unseen, but apparently marked very similarly to the base.
Suture wide and rather deep. Whorls subcircular or subquadrate in section,
flattened on the back, which is broad, and defined above and below by spiral
ridges, and is microscopically reticulate. Ornament of the base, between the
lower keel and the suture, consisting of five or six similar low, rounded, distant,
1 1842, d’Arch. and de Vern., ‘Geol. Trans.,’ ser. 2, vol. vi, pt. 2, p. 362, pl. xxxiii, figs. 6,
Ga, 6b.
2 1852, F. A. Romer, ‘ Beitr.,’ pt. 2, p. 74, pl. xi, fig. 21.
EKUOMPHALUS, 257
spiral ridges, crossed by numerous smaller transverse lines. Umbilicus very wide
and shallow. Peristome thickened. Whorl sometimes bearing a transverse varix
at some distance behind the mouth.
Size-—Height 8 mm., width 25 mm.
Locality.—Wolborough. Phillips’s type is in the Museum of Practical Geology,
and there is another specimen in the Woodwardian Museum.
Kemarks.—This species was regarded by Phillips as a Nautilus. He compared
it with N. sulcatus, Sowerby,’ N. subsulcatus, Phillips,’ and N. quadratus, Fleming ;*
but from all these species it differs very widely. In fact, the similarity, such as it
is, 18 entirely superficial. The section given by Phillips (fig. 226 0) is a restora-
tion, and, after a careful examination of his type specimen. by Mr. EH. T. Newton
and myself, we came to the conclusion that it was incorrect, and that there was
no evidence that the fossil was a Cephalopod. It appeared to me that it
evidently belonged to the genus Hwomphalus.
The specimen in the Woodwardian Museum has been labelled by Mr. E. B.
Tawney LHuomphalus decussatus, Sandberger ; and with that species it clearly agrees,
and as such was recorded by me in the ‘ Geological Magazine’ of 1889. At that
time I had not had an opportunity of comparing the two English specimens, but
since then the authorities of the two Museums have most kindly placed them in
my hands for figuring, and upon laying them side by side it becomes at once clear
that they belong to the same species, and therefore Sandberger’s name becomes a
synonym of Phillips’s.
In consequence of some features in the type specimen, I was much inclined to
describe it as a sinistral shell, but as that fossil has evidently suffered from some
squeezing and distortion, and as the Woodwardian example and Sandberger’s
figure both point to its being dextral, it has seemed to be safer to treat it as such.
Thus both the English specimens must be regarded as showing the base of the
shell. The markings of its upper surface are, however, well shown in
Sandberger’s figure ; and from it we learn that the upper side of the spire was
less concave than the base, that its sutures were shallower, and that its ornamen-
tation was almost exactly the same.
Affinities.—In Hu. araneifer the ornamentation is very much closer and finer.
I am not aware of any other species that could be mistaken for this shell.
1827, Sowerby, ‘ Min. Conch.,’ vol. vi, p. 187, pl. dixxi, figs. 1, 2.
1886, Phillips, ‘Geol. Yorkshire,’ pt. 2, p. 233, pl. xvii, figs. 18, 25.
1828, Fleming, ‘ Hist. Brit. Anim.,’ p. 231.
o bee} _
258 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
10. Kuompnatus rota, Sandberger. Pl. XXV, figs. 6—8.
1841. EvomenHatus rapratus, Phillips (not Goldfuss MS.). Pal. Foss., p. 188,
pl. lx; fig: U7.
1858. — rota, Sandberger. Verst. Rhein. Nassau, p. 212, pl. xxv,
figs. 5, 5 a—d.
1854. — RADIATUS ?, Morris. Cat. Brit. Foss., p. 248.
1888. — — Etheridge. Foss. Brit., vol. i, Pal., p. 163.
1889. — rota, Whidborne. Geol. Mag., dec. 3, vol. vi, p. 30.
Description—Shell small, flat, discoidal, of numerous (five or six) volutions,
elliptically coiled. Spire so much depressed below the plane of the exterior whorl
as to be almost, if not quite, symmetrical with the base. Suture deep. Whorls
rising convexly from the suture, shortly elliptic or almost circular in section,
except where they are indented by the whorl within, but bearing upon the upper
and lower elbows a sharp, raised, prominent, spiral keel or ridge, more confluent
towards the back than towards the sides, so that the back of the whorls is
almost flat. Surface, except on the keels, marked by multitudinous, close, fine,
rounded, transverse threads, sloping slightly backwards from the suture to the
keel. Mouth slightly expanded and much thickened round its margins. A varix
sometimes crossing the whorl at about one-third of a volution behind the mouth.
Size.—Phillips’s original specimen measures 8 mm. in height by 23 mm. in
width. Another specimen is 9 mm. in height by 30 mm. in width.
Localities—W olborough; Lummaton (?). From the former locality there are
four specimens in Mr. Vicary’s Collection, five in the Museum of Practical
Geology, of which one is Phillips’s figured specimen, and one in the Torquay
Museum. In the Torquay Museum are three specimens which most probably
come from Lummaton, and there is one from Barton in the British Museum.
Remarks.—The nomenclature of this shell is rather intricate. In 1832 Gold-
fuss’ catalogued without description a German shell under the name of Huomphalus
vadiatus. He, however, appears to have described it in manuscript, and from this
description Phillips, in 1841, incorrectly identified the Devonshire specimens with
Goldfuss’s species.” Hence, though Phillips’s species was actually published before
that of Goldfuss, it does not seem right that it should appropriate a name only
given to it by mistake; and therefore it must bear the name which, in 1853,
Sandberger gave to other German shells which are undoubtedly identical with it.
The only difference between the HKnglish specimens and Sandberger’s figure
1 1832, Goldfuss, in ‘ De la Beche Handbook,’ p. 532.
2 1844, Goldfuss, ‘ Petref. Germ.,’ vol. iii, p. 83, pl. clxxxix, fig. 14.
PHANEROTINUS. 259
is that they are frequently coiled in an elliptic instead of a circular spire, but
this does not seem a very constant character, as they are sometimes almost or
quite round. The best of the specimens in the Torquay Museum is the only one
which shows the fine transverse markings, and these agree exactly with those
of Sandberger’s figure. Phillips has supplied much coarser markings in his figure,
which do not exist in his specimen, and which were probably due to his having
confounded it with Goldfuss’s shell, which is clearly distinct according to the
description given of it by d’Archiac and de Verneuil.
Salter has evidently observed this distinction, as he labelled one of the
specimens in Mr. Vicary’s Collection, ‘* Vermetus, sp. (Huomphalus radiatus, Phill.,
not Goldfuss).”
The species is very clearly defined by the squared appearance given to it by
its two spiral keels, and by its very fine transverse striation. The former is not,
however, perfectly symmetrical, as one of the keels appears to be slightly further
from the suture than the other, so that the back of the whorls is somewhat
oblique. On the inner whorls these keels are visible as a thread just inside the
suture. The squared appearance is entirely due to these keels, for the whorls
themselves are elliptic or subcircular in section both inside and out.
Affinities.—Hu. Schnurii, d’Arch. and de Vern.,’ has much more rapidly
increasing whorls, with a triangular rather than a circular section, and it has
angulated elbows rather than raised keels.
In Hu. radiatus, Goldfuss, or Schizostoma radiata, d’ Arch. and de Vern.,’ the
shell is less symmetrical, the transverse strize more arched and coarser above,
the upper keel very much more elongated and the whorls deeper in section.
3. Genus.—Puanerorinus, Sowerby, 1842.
This genus only differs from Euomphalus in having its whorls free; and as
im some species the apical whorls are united, it may be doubted whether the dis-
tinction is of permanent value. Shells of this genus were included by de Koninck
under Huomphalus. Heculiomphalus, Portlock, 1843, and Serpularia, F. A. Romer,
1843, are synonyms.
1. PHANEROTINUS MILITARIS, n. Sp. Pl. XXV, figs. J—11.
1853. Evompuatus serpuna, Sandberger. Verst. Rhein. Nassau, p. 214, pl. xxv,
fig. 9.
1884. Eccunrompnatts sereuna, Tryon. Structural Conchology, vol. u, p. 220,
pl. lxv, fig. 20.
1 1842, d’Arch. and de Vern., ‘ Geol. Trans.,’ ser. 2, vol. vi, pt. 2, p. 364, pl. xxxiv, figs. 7, 7 a, 7 0.
2 Ibid., ser. 2, vol. vi, pt. 2, p. 364, pl. xxxiv, figs. 3, 3a, 30.
34
260 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
1889. EvompHaLus sErputa. Whidborne. Geol. Mag., dec. 3, vol. vi,
p. 30.
Description.— Shell rather large, more or less lenticular or discoid, ellip-
tically coiled in a few free and very distant whorls. Apex unseen, probably free.
Spire sometimes lying in the same plane with, or even depressed below, the plane
of the mouth, and sometimes somewhat elevated above it ; consisting apparently
of about two volutions, which increase with considerable rapidity, and are sepa-
rated from each other by a much greater distance than their greatest diameter.
Whorls almost exactly circular in section, marked by numerous close, rather pro-
minent but indistinct, straight, irregular growth-striz, which tend rather rear-
ward from the inner to the outer side of the whorl. Shell-structure rather massive.
Size.-—A specimen measures 9 mm. in height by 35 mm. in width and 25 mm.
in breadth. Other specimens are found considerably larger.
Localities—From Wolborough there are two specimens in the Torquay
Museum, two specimens in the British Museum, three in the Museum of Practical
Geology, two in the Woodwardian Museum, and two in Mr. Vicary’s Collection.
From Lummaton (?) there is one specimen in the Torquay Museum and several
fragmentary specimens in my Collection.
Remarks.—This species appears to be moderately common at Wolborough.
In shape it is a long, rapidly increasing, circular tube, loosely coiled once or
twice in an elliptic curve, so that the spaces between the whorls are generally
very much greater than the diameter of the whorls themselves, though
not increasing in the same ratio. There does not appear to be any
tightening of the coiling towards the apex, which seems situated some distance
from the middle point of the ellipse, but it is possible that the true apex is lost in
the specimens observed. ‘The increase in the diameter of the tnbe appears to be
about four times its size in the course of a volution. The surface is not particu-
larly well preserved in any of the specimens, but in some of those from Lummaton
it is sufficiently retained to show that it had no ornamentation except close indis-
tinct and irregular striz or growth-lines, which crossed the whorls a little obliquely
but without undulations or angles. The coiling of the spire seems to vary in
elevation, being sometimes nearly in one plane, and sometimes raised so as to
form the skeleton of a low cone.
A comparison of the figures of Hu. serpula, de Koninck, given by foreign
authors leads to the impression that more than one Devonian species has been
incorrectly described under that name. The present shell appears to agree specifi-
cally with the figure given by Sandberger, which differs, however, in having
numerous central whorls. It is subject to so little variation, and is so individualized
in general appearance, that we cannot regard it as identical with any of the other
figures of foreign examples of Hu. serpula which we have examined.
PHANEROTINUS. 261
Affinities.—The original Hu. serpula, de Koninck,' is a Carboniferous shell,
and seems to differ from this species in being more regularly and closely coiled
and in having two narrow distant spiral grooves upon its upper surface. Its
apical whorls are rather elevated.
Goldfuss’s figures of Hu. serpula’ are distinguished by being circularly and much
more closely coiled. Their whorls show nearly the same rate of increase as do those
of the present shell. De Koninck considers that only Goldfuss’s var. teres (1 a
and 1e) belong to his species.
Euomphalus vermilia, Goldf.,* is distinguished by its more slowly increasing
whorls, and by the possession of four spiral striz.
Ph. intermedius, de Koninck,* and Ph. Archimedis, de Koninck,°® are also
distinguished by their circular coiling and spiral striz.
Ph. lawus, Hall,® differs in being circularly and more regularly coiled, in being
marked with much coarser and more distant striz, in being on the whole slower
in its rate of increase, and in having a slightly expanded mouth.
2. PHANEROTINUS MUNDUS, n. sp. Pl. XXV, figs. 12, 13.
1842. Evompnatus serpuna, d’Arch. and de Vern. (pars) (not de Koninck).
Geol. Trans., ser. 2, vol. vi, pt. 2,
p- 363, pl. xxxiii, fig. 9 (only).
Description.—Shell small, discoid, flat, circularly coiled, slowly increasing ;
apex very minute. Spire free, almost flat above, consisting of about three or four
volutions, comparatively closely coiled, the distance of each whorl from that
within being about a quarter its breadth. Whorls nearly circular in section,
smooth or marked only by indistinct growth-lines.
Size-—A small specimen measures in height 1°5 mm., in width 5 mm.
Localities—There is a specimen in the Museum of Practical Geology from
Wolborough, and two small specimens perhaps from Lummaton in the Torquay
Museum.
Remarks.—These shells present very few points for definition. They are
characterised by their whorls being free from the apex, and yet coiled in close
proximity. he rate of increase seems to be decidedly slow. The best Torquay
1 1842-4, de Koninck, ‘ Dese. Anim. Foss.,’ p. 425, pl. xxiii bis, figs. 8a, b, and pl. xxv, fig. 5, and
1888, de Koninck, ‘Ann. Mus. Royal H.N. Belg.,’ vol. viii, pt. 4, p. 4, pl. xxi, figs. 1—3.
21844, Goldfuss, ‘ Petref. Germ.,’ vol. iii, p. 86, pl. exci, figs. 1 a—e.
3 1844, Goldfuss, ‘ Petref. Germ.,’ vol. iii, p. 86, pl. exci, fig. 2. _
41883, de Koninck, ‘Ann. Mus. Royal H. N. Belg.,’ vol. vii, pt. 4, p. 5, pl. xxu, figs. 5, 6.
5 Ibid, p. 5, pl. xxii, figs. 7, 8.
6 1861, Hall, ‘Desc. New Species of Fossils,’ p. 26.
262 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
specimen shows the shell as distinctly sinistral, with the upper surface of the
whorls lying almost in one plane.
In some of the foreign species of this genus, while the apical whorls are closely
coiled or even contiguous, the coiling becomes looser with the increase in size.’
Hence, whether all the present fossils are full-sized specimens, or whether some
are only the apical whorls of a larger species, cannot be decided until more
numerous specimens are found. At present there is no reason against regarding
them as full-grown shells. From the accompanying species they appear to be
distinct, as in the former the coiling is very much looser even to the apex. In
Ph. militaris, moreover, the rate of increase of the whorls is very much greater.
At first sight this species seems identical with fu. retrorsus, F. A. Romer,’ as
given by Sandberger ;* but his enlarged figure is only that of a cast, and a refer-
ence to Rémer’s original description shows that his species is very different, and
that its whorls are contiguous instead of being free.
One of the examples of Hu. serpula figured by d’Archiac and de Verneuil*is
so similar that it may belong to the same species, though it appears to differ in
having the central whorls in contact.
Both de Koninck’ and d’Archiac and de Verneuil quote each other in their
original description of their species. It would seem probable that that of the
latter authors was published first ; but, as they ascribe the species to de Koninck,
and he claims it as his own, his must be regarded as the authoritative description.
Moreover, in his later work,’ de Koninck states that the French authors were
incorrect in their identification of their shell with his. He considers that Huom-
phalus serpula, var. gracilis, of Goldfuss, is one of the Devonian species described
by them under his name, and says that it should bear the name of Ph. gracilis.
Although, as he first described it, there is no appreciable difference in Ph. serpula
from our shell, his latter description shows that it differs by bearing one or two
spiral strize.
Huomphalus approximatus, de Koninck,® is so similar that I was at first
inclined to regard it as identical. It differs, however, in having a very decidedly
elevated spire, and therefore, remembering the difference of the formation, it is
best to regard it as distinct.
As given by Goldfuss, Hu. serpula, de Kon., var. gracilis, probably differs from
! The figure of our small Lummaton specimen (fig. 13) seems to show this character. This
appearance is deceptive, and is due to the light in which this specimen was drawn. The outer whorl
should have been represented as wider, and closer to the next within.
21850, F. A. Romer, ‘ Beitr.,’ pt. 2, p. 15, pl. iii, fig. 15.
3 1853, Sandberger, ‘ Verst. Rhein. Nassau,’ p. 213, pl. xxv, figs. 8, 8a, 8b.
4 1842-4, de Koninck, ‘ Dese. Anim. Foss.,’ p. 425, pl. xxiii bis, figs. 8 a, 0.
5 1883, de Koninck, ‘Ann. Mus. Royal H. N. Belg.,’ vol. viii, pt. 4, p. 4, pl. xxii, figs. 1—3.
6 Tbid., p. 6, pl. xxii, figs. Lda, b.
PHANEROTINUS. 263
our shells in having the outer whorls more loosely coiled, while the apical whorls
are in contact, and in its rate of increase being decidedly greater; while
Eu. serpula, de Kon., var. compressus, Goldfuss, is distinguished by its section
being very widely elliptic instead of circular.
3. PHANEROTINUS CENTRIFUGUS, I. A. Romer, sp.
1842. EvompHatus sERPULA, d’ Arch. and de Vern. (pars). Geol. Trans., ser. 2,
vol. vi, pt. 2, p. 363, pl. xxxiil. figs. 9a,
9 b (only).
1843. SERPULARIA CENTRIFUGA, F. A. Romer. Verst. Harzgeb., p. 31, pl. viii,
fig. 13.
1844. EvOMPHALUS SERPULA, var. GRAcILIS, Goldfuss. Petref. Germ., vol. iii,
p- 86, pl. exci, figs. 1 4 (only).
P 1861. — Ltaxus, Hall. Desc. New Species of Fossils, p. 26.
? 1862. — — — Fifteenth Rep. N. Y. State, Cab. Nat. Hist,
p. 54, pl. vi, fig. 2.
1876. — SERPULA, F’. Rémer. Leth. Pal., pl. xxxu, fig. 10.
21876. Eccuntompuatus ? taxus, Hall. Ill. Dev. Foss. Gast., pl. xvi, figs. 16—18.
? 1876. — comes, Hall. Ibid., pl. xvi, figs. 8, 9.
? 1879. — Laxus, Hall. Pal. N. Y., vol. v, pt. 2, p. 60, pl. xvi,
figs. 8, 9, 16—18.
1884. PHaneRorinus centRirueus, Clarke. Neues Jahrb. f. Min., Beil.-Band iii,
p- 359.
1887. — SERPULA, Tschernyschew. Mém. Com. Géol. Russ., vol. iii,
No. 3, p. 38.
Description.—Shell rather large, flat, circularly coiled in a few slowly increasing
volutions. Spire almost in one plane, and very loosely coiled, the whorls being
separated from each other by a much greater distance than their diameter.
Whorls circular in section, marked by numerous close, indistinct, straight,
irregular growth-striz, which are perpendicular to the inner side of the whorl, but
incline rather rearward upon its back.
Size-—Height 10 mm., width 50 mm.
Locality.—There is a specimen from Barton or Lummaton in the Torquay
Museum, and another from Wolborough in the British Museum.
Remarks.— The slowness of increase and the regular circular coiling seem to
distinguish this shell from Phanerotinus militaris; the differences are so well
marked that it seems necessary to separate them, although the English material
is so poor that the present species cannot be fully defined.
It is less certain whether the shell described as Phanerotinus mundus is
distinct, as it 1s possible that it may represent the mner whorls of the same
- Shell, as that of which the present fossil shows only the outer.
264 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
As far as can be judged from the very fragmentary specimens, it exactly
agrees with the shell described as Huomphalus serpula by d’Archiac and de Verneuil
(in part), which appears to be the same as Serpularia centrifuga, F. A. Romer.
Clarke remarks that the apical whorls of this form are in contact.
There does not seem any great difference between the American form described
by Hall as Hw. lawvus and Rémer’s shell, but it appears to expand more rapidly,
to be more coarsely ornamented, and to have a slightly expanded mouth; it is
therefore probably distinct. In Phanerotinus paradoxus, Winchell,’ the apical
whorls are united and the base of the whorls more deeply convex.
VII. Family.—Trocuiva, d’ Orbigny, 1837.
1. Sub-family.—Trocuina, Swainson, 1840.
1. Genus.—PLaGIoTHYRA, gen. nov.
Shell conical, of few broad, rapidly increasing whorls, generally more or less
nodulated or spirally ridged. Base convex or flattish. Mouth subcircular or
subtriangular, obliquely situated, its upper angle being much in advance of the
lower. Columella arched. Outer lip sharp. Inner lip flattened, diffuse, callous,
bearing upon the centre of its inner side a large, prominent, transversely
flattened tooth. Shell-structure massive.
The two shells described below, though very different in general shape, appear
to belong to the same type, so that they may be generically united. Their most
prominent feature seems to be the possession of a single large median tooth on
the inner lip of an obliquely receding mouth. Thus they clearly belong to the
Trochide, and come very close to the genus Monodonta, from which they are
separated by the absence of denticulations in the outer lip, and the position and
character of the tooth on the inner lip. The columella, also, is not truncated.
The genus Twreica’ is distinguished from this by its very thin shell, and by the
character of the teeth upon the columella; and the genus Naticodon,*® by its less
oblique aperture and its globose naticiform shell.
The very great variety of the generic names given to Pl. purpura, d’A. and
de Vern., sp., by different authors shows the difficulty that has been experienced
in the attempt to fix its proper position. As it does not seem possible satis-
factorily to allocate either it or its fellow-species to any known genus, the only
course open has been to found a new genus for their reception.
' 18638, Winchell, ‘ Proc. Acad. Sci. Philad.,’ p. 21.
2 1858, Adams, ‘ Genera Recent Mollusca,’ vol. i, p. 423.
> 1847, Ryckholt, ‘Mélang. Pal.,’ vol. i, p. 75.
PLAGIOTHYRA. 265
1. Puaciornyra purPuRA, d’ Archiac and de Vernewil, sp. Pl. XXV, figs. 14, 14a.
1832. TvurBo noposus, Goldfuss. In De la Beche’s Handbook, German edition,
p- 5383 (named only).
1842. Monoponra purPUREA, @’ Archiac and de Verneuil. Geol. Trans., ser. 2,
vol. vi, pt. 2, p. 358, pl. xxxui, fig. 15.
1842. Turso (Monoponta) eranosus, Sandberger. In Neues Jahrb. f. Min., 1842,
p- 394, pl. viii B, fig. 8a, b.
1844. Monoponra Purpura, Goldf. Petref. Germ., vol. iii, p. 101, pl. cxev,
fig. 4.
1848. TurBo eranosus, Bronn. Handbuch, vol. iii, p. 1320.
1849. TRrocnus PuRPURA, d’Orbigny. Prodrome, p. 64.
1853. Lirrortna purPuRA, Sandberger. Verst. Rhein. Nassau, p. 221, pl. xxv,
figs. 17—19.
1866. Monoponta purpura, Giebel. Repertorium, p. 105.
1889. Lirrorina purpuRA, Whidborne. Geol. Mag., dec. 3, vol. vi, p. 30.
Description.—Shell small, turbiniform, of few volutions. Spire small, of broad,
rapidly increasing whorls. Suture deep, rather wide, facing horizontally.
Whorls moderately convex, bending in rather suddenly at the suture. Ornament
consisting of seven or more rows of elevated, rounded, spiral ridges, separated by
slightly wider furrows, and divided into nodules by perpendicular lines crossing
the whorls almost in a straight line from the suture. Mouth unseen in the
English specimens.
Size.—Height about 10 mm., width about 11 mm.
Locality.—There are four specimens in the Battersby Collection, which appear
to have come from Lummaton or Barton. ;
Remarks.—This is evidently a very beautiful and well-defined species. It has
been well figured by d’Archiac and de Verneuil, by Goldfuss and by Sandberger,
and their figures evidently agree, although the former authors represent the shell
as a little more angulated or trochiform than do the latter. Sandberger,' however,
figures as varieties two far more angulated and depressed shells than that of
d’Archiac, so that his shell evidently includes d’Archiac’s. They all give the
mouth, which is rounded, has the umbilicus closed by a callosity, and bears a large
blunt central or subcentral tooth on the inner lip. The columella is merged into
the lips on both sides.
The English specimens in the Battersby Collection are all very defective, and
would enable us to know very little about the species were it not that they evi-
dently correspond with the German examples. They agree rather with Sandberger’s
than with d’Archiac’s figure. The cancellation of the surface is, however, very
clearly shown in them.
1 1853, Sandberger. ‘ Verst. Rhein. Nassau,’ p. 222, pl. xxv, figs. 18, 19.
266 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
The species was named by Goldfuss without a description in von Dechen’s
‘Handbuch’ in 1832; but in 1842 it was independently described by two other
authors under two different names. It is a matter of some difficulty to determine
which of these two latter has the priority; but from the facts stated below
(p. 284) it appears most probable that it lies with d’Archiac and de Verneuil.
Sandberger, in his later work, though asserting that his name has the priority,
withdraws it in favour of d’Archiac’s as being the more suitable.
Affinities.—Scoliostoma texata, Miinster, sp., has a much higher spire and a
much sharper, though somewhat similar, ornamentation. The shape of its mouth,
moreover, shows it to be quite a different kind of shell, so that the similarity of its
markings is only superficial.
The shape of the mouth resembles that of Plagiothyra archon, which differs
in its surface bemg almost smooth.
Delphinula funata, Goldfuss,' from the Coralline Oolites, is very similar in orna-
ment, but it is a shorter, more globular shell, with a totally different mouth and
with an umbilicus.
Naticopsis Ciuna, Vern., sp.,° is according to Barrois* a more elongate form,
with a larger body-whorl.
2, Puaciorayra archon, Whidborne, sp. Pl. XXVI, figs. 6, 6a, 7, 7a, 7b.
1889. Monoponta arcuon, Whidborne. Geol. Mag., dec. 3, pt. 6, p. 30.
Description.—Shell large, elevated, trochiform, consisting of few and quickly
expanding whorls. Suture almost linear. Whorls nearly flat, spreading at once
obliquely down from the suture, with a row of low indistinct nodules immediately
below it, and then becoming first slightly concave, and then slightly convex until
they suddenly curve to form the flat base of the shell, which is apparently with-
out an umbilicus. Mouth entire, bluntly triangular, very oblique, so that the
plane through it slopes backwards and downwards at an angle of more than 40°.
Outer lip sharp. Inner lip diffuse and concave, spreading over a large part of the
base of the shell, and bearing a single broad, low, flat tooth in its centre.
Surface ornamented with a few, coarse, regular growth-lines, sloping obliquely
backwards from the sutures. Shell-structure thick. Colour black (°?).
Size-—Height 35 mm., width 45 mm., im a specimen in which the apical
whorls are absent.
Locality.— Chudleigh. Three specimens in Mr. Vicary’s Collection.
1 1844, Goldfuss, ‘ Petref. Germ.,’ vol. iii, p. 89, pl. exci, fig. 11.
2 1846, Verneuil, ‘ Bull. Soc. Géol. Fr.,’ ser. 2, vol. 11, p. 455.
3 1882, Barrois, ‘Mém. Soc. Geol. Nord,’ vol. ii, No. 1, p. 346, pl. xvii, figs. 15a, b.
FLEMINGIA. 267
Remarks.—This is evidently a very fine and remarkable species, but unfortu-
nately in all the known specimens the upper part of the shell is too defective to
enable its shape to be definitely made out. Its contour appears to have probably
been obliquely conical, and scarcely indented by the sutures. The mouth, on the
other hand, is very clearly shown, and is remarkable for its deeply excavate inner
lip, its broad median tooth, its sharp bevelled outer margins, and its great
obliquity, thus giving good generic characters.
2. Genus.—Fiemineta, de Koninck, 1881.
*¢ Shell conical, with a sharp apex. Whorls numerous, nearly flat, angulated at
the circumference. Mouth often compressed, angular behind ; peristome not continu-
ous. Lip oblique, thin, sharp. Columella thin, slightly twisted on itself, and forming
an umbilical depression more or less large, but not perforated. Surface smooth, or
simply covered with irregular oblique lines of growth, rarely spirally striated.”
De Koninck thus defines his genus, which seems on the whole to agree with
Trochella, M‘Coy. It extends from the Silurian to the Carboniferous.
The following species appears to belong to it, as far as can be judged from the
state of the specimens observed.
1. Fuemineta pexversa, Whidborne, sp. Pl. XXVII, figs. 2—4.
1889. PLEUROTOMARIA PERVERSA, Whidborne. Geol. Mag., dec. 3, vol. vi, p. 30.
Description.—Shell large, sinistral, broadly conical, of five rather slowly
increasing volutions. Apex sharp. Spire pagoda-shaped, formed by the revolu-
tion of a concave line, the slope of the upper whorls being much less than that of
the body-whorl. Suture small, deep, simple, facing outwards. Whorls sloping
out from the suture in a slightly convex curve to the widest and almost lowest
part, where they turn suddenly and sharply through a right angle over a narrow,
flat supersutural band, which is ornamented by three rows of small close
tubercles, to form the flat oblique base. Ornament consisting of a slight cancella-
tion formed by eight or ten very minute distant threads above the band (which
is bounded by a more prominent ridge), crossed by very oblique lines which arch
obliquely backwards. Mouth subcircular, transverse. Shell-structure rather thin.
Size.—A small specimen is 19 mm. high by 23 mm.wide. A large specimen is
about 30 mm. high.
Locality.—Wolborough. There are two specimens in Mr. Vicary’s Collection;
two others in the Godwin-Austen Collection of the Museum of Practical Geology ;
and another, perhaps from the same place, in Mr. Champernowne’s Collection.
35
268 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
Remarks.—These specimens are easily distinguished by their peculiar form.
They are all sinistral, and the flatness of the whorls increases with the growth of
the shell, so as to give a peculiar unsymmetrical appearance to the spire. The speci-
mens in the Museum of Practical Geology are rather more elongate than the others,
and their whorls are somewhat more convex, but they clearly belong to the same
species.
The narrow band, which truncates the otherwise sharp keel of the back, has
much the appearance of a sinus-band, and as such I was at first inclined to regard
it. In this case it would of course belong to the genus Pleurotomaria. But in no
instance does it show any signs of a flexion of the growth-lines, and I now
think that in all probability it does not indicate a labial sinus. In some specimens
I cannot detect this band, and it seems replaced by a simple rounded edge.
Affinities—From Trochus petrxos, Mimster,' these fossils differ in size, in being
sinistral, in having decidedly narrower whorls, and in having fewer (twelve instead
of fifteen) spiral threads, and more prominent transverse threads, so that the
surface is more definitely reticulate. Tiochus Neptuni, Minster,’ is another closely .
allied dextral shell, differing in being much more elevated, in having a beaded
spiral ridge immediately below the suture, and in having fewer spiral threads. It
is, however, reticulate like the English form, which thus comes midway between
these two German shells, but is distinguished from both by being sinistral. The
latter character is constant in the English specimens, and with the other differ-
ences is ample to constitute a specific distinction.
Sandberger regards Miinster’s Trochus petrzos as belonging to a section of
Plewrotomaria which he calls Nodulose, and defines as sinistral and granuliferous.
Pl. elegans, d’Arch. and de Vern.,* which is figured by Goldfuss,* and is the
same as Pl. nodulosa, Sandberger,’ but not as Pl. antitorquata, Phillips (not
Minster), approaches very near to this species, which is distinguished from it
by its flatter, more pagoda-like shape, its reticulate rather than granular ornament,
its size, its more angular whorls, and especially by the acute ridge or angle imme-
diately above the band; these features bring it nearer to Pl. ewiliens,’ which again
differs in the perfect flatness of its whorls and its granular ornament. From
these shells, however, the absence of a sinus-band seems definitely to separate it.
There is nothing which could at all represent it in Phillips’s ‘ Pal. Foss.’ Mr.
Vicary’s specimens were labelled by Salter “‘ left-handed species, distinct from
1 1840, Minster, ‘ Beitr.,’ pt. 3, p. 88, pl. xv, fig. 16.
Thid., p. 88, pl. xv, fig. 15.
3 1842, d’Archiac and de Verneuil, ‘Geol. Trans.,’ ser. 2, vol. vi, pt. 2, p. 360, pl. xxxiii, figs.3, 3a—e.
4 1844, Goldfuss, ‘ Petref. Germ.,’ vol. iii, p. 63, pl. elxxxii, fig. 10.
5 1853, Sandberger, ‘Verst. Rhein. Nassau,’ p. 200, pl. xxiv, figs. 18, 13a—e; and 1842,
G. Sandberger, in ‘ Neues Jahrb. f. Min.,’ p. 390, pl. viii, fig. 4.
6 1853, Sandberger, ‘ Verst. Rhein. Nassau,’ p. 200, pl. xxiv, figs. 12, 12 a.
ROTELLINA. 269
antitorquata ;” and in that he was clearly right, as both Miinster’s! and Phillips’s”
species totally differ from the present form in their elevation, in the rotundity of
their whorls, and in the position of their sinus-band.
Pl. expansa, Phillips,’ differs, as described from Devonshire, in its flat whorls,
its more depressed and definitely conical shape, its small suture, and the absence
of spiral threads.
Trochus ellipticus, Hisinger,* seems to be a higher form with straighter sides,
and to have four or five distant indistinct spiral ridges on each whorl. Giebel’”
states it to be the same as Turbo antiquissimus, Hichwald.®
Under the name of Trochus oxygonus, F. A. Romer’ describes a dextral shell
which is very similar in general shape, but, as it is a cast, it is impossible to say
whether its ornament agreed, and, moreover, it appears to have a much larger
umbilicus.
Flemingia acies, F. A. Romer,® sp., is a dextral and much more globose shell.
2. Sub-family.—U mBontinm, Adams.
1. Genus.—Rortwiuina, de Koninck, 1881.
This genus contains small flattish shells with long and highly enveloping
spires, rounded whorls, and without any umbilicus. De Koninck formed it for
a single species from the Carboniferous Formation of Belgium.
1. Roretuina ? wevicina, Minster, sp. Pl. XXVI, figs. 10, 10a, 11, lla.
1840. EvompHatus HELICINUS, Minster. Beitr., pt. 3, p. 85, pl. xv, figs. 7 a, b.
Description—Shell small, lenticular or subdiscoid, very depressed. Spire so
low as to be almost flat, of four rapidly decreasing whorls. Suture scarcely
indented. Whorls slightly rising and spreading flatly from the suture, and,
when they have nearly reached their greatest width, curving round to form a
1 1840, Minster, ‘ Beitr.,’ pt. 3, p. 87, pl. xv, fig. 12 (Schizostoma).
2 1841, Phillips, ‘ Pal. Foss.,’ p. 96, pl. xxxvii, fig. 176 d.
3 1841, Phillips, ‘ Pal. Foss.,’ p. 97, pl. xxxvii, fig. 179; and 1836, Phillips, ‘Geol. Yorks.,’ pt. 2,
p. 226, pl. xv, fig. 4.
4 1844, Goldfuss, ‘ Petref. Germ.,’ vol. iii, p. 48, pl. elxxviii, figs. 4a, d.
5 1866, Giebel, ‘ Repertorium,’ p. 97.
6 1842, Eichwald, ‘ Urwelt Russlands,’ vol. ii, p. 58, pl. ti, fig. 7.
7 1843, F. A. Romer, ‘ Verst. Harzgeb.,’ p. 29, pl. viii, fig. 5.
8 1850, F. A. Romer, ‘ Beitr.,’ pt. 1, p. 37, pl. v, figs. 25a, 6; and 1884, Clarke, ‘Neues Jahrb.
f. Min.,’ Beil.-Band iii, p. 352.
270 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
moderately convex back with an axis parallel to the perpendicular of the spire.
The upper whorls hidden almost up to the shoulder. Surface smooth.
Size.—Height 4 mm., width 9 mm.
Locality.—There is a specimen in the Woodwardian Museum which was
collected by my friend the late Mr. EK. B. Tawney from Lummaton, and another
specimen in the Torquay Museum, apparently from the same locality.
Remarks.—This species is distinguishable by its almost flat spire, the very
shght risimg of the whorls from the suture, and the bluntly rounded or com-
pressed appearance of the side of the whorls. Our specimens appear to
correspond almost exactly with Miinster’s figure of his Hu. helicinus, and I have
no doubt that it must be referred to that species. To what genus, however, it is
to be referred is another question. I should certainly not regard it as a
Huomphalus, but as the mouth and umbilicus are hidden in the English specimens
its place is not easy to decide. As far as the evidence goes it probably best
agrees with the characters of [otellina, de Kon.
Affinities.—Mimster distinguishes this shell from Huomphalus subcarinatus,
Minster,’ by the absence of any keel upon the back of the whorls. The same
point and the much greater height and rotundity of its whorls separate it from
Pleurotomaria gracilis, Phillips.’
Rotella heliciformis, Goldfuss’ (= ? Helicites helicineformis, Schloth.*), is a
much more globose and rapidly increasing shell. Rotella Wurmu, F. A. Rémer,?
also appears decidedly more globose, though it closely resembles the present shell.
Platyschisma helix, Clarke,’ appears to be a wider shell with more transversely
oval whorls.
Rotellina planorbiformis, de Koninck,’ has a rather longer and more slowly
decreasing spire, and is not umbilicated.
3. Sub-fanily.—Liotina, Adams.
1. Genus.—Liorta, Gray, 1842.
The shells of this genus have few whorls, are subglobose, and strongly
ribbed or nodulated. They have a continuous subcircular mouth, and a very
' 1840, Minster, ‘ Beitr.,’ pt. 3, p. 85, pl. xv, fig. 5.
? 1841, Phillips, ‘ Pal. Foss.,’ p. 98, pl. xxxvii, fig. 181.
3 1844, Goldfuss, ‘ Petref. Germ.,’ vol. iii, p. 102, pl. exev, figs. 7 a—e.
4 1820, Schlotheim, ‘ Petrefact.,’ p. 104, pl. xi, fig. 6.
5 1848, F. A. Romer, ‘ Verst. Harzgeb.,’ p. 30, pl. viii, figs. 6 a—e.
6 1884, Clarke, ‘Neues Jahrb. f. Min.,’ Beil.-Band iii, p. 358, pl. iv, figs. 22—24.
7 1881, de Koninck, ‘ Annales Musée Royal H. N. Belg.,’ vol. vi, p. 92, pl. x, figs. 86—88.
LIOTIA. 271
massive shell-structure. The genus is described as beginning in the Trias, but
the shell described below is so similar to some of the modern forms that both
Mr. Edgar A. Smith and myself mdependently referred it to this genus.
Neritopsis, Grat., is the only other genus which it approaches, but it differs from
that in not having a reticulated surface.
1. Liotta Brevis, Sowerby, sp. Pl. XXVI, figs. 8, 8a, 9.
1827. Buccinum Breve, Sowerby. Min. Conch., vol. vi, p. 128, pl. dlxvi, fig. 3.
1841. Macrocuertus Brevis, Phillips. Pal. Foss., p. 102, pl. xxxix, fig. 193.
1849. _ Puiutrsit, d’Orbigny. Prodrome, vol. i, p. 63.
1849. Murcuisonia Brevis, d’Orbigny. Ibid., vol. i, p. 70.
1854. Macrocueiius Brevis, Morris. Catal. Brit. Foss., p. 256.
21889. Turso Scuwetmensis, Kayser. Zeitschr. deutsch. geol. Gesell., p. 289,
pl. xiii, figs. 1, La, 10.
Deseription.—Shell large or small, massive, more or less depressed, turbinated,
of few whorls. Spire of four rapidly increasing whorls. Suture deep, narrow,
facing upwards, complicated by the ornament. Apex acute. Upper whorls
obliquely flat, being more than half enveloped by the succeeding whorls. Body-
whorl forming a wide oblique semi-ellipse. Ornament consisting of two or three
spiral rows of large, sharp nodules, set on elevated rounded spiral bands, which are
divided by more or less distinct shallow furrows; the nodules being also trans-
versely arranged in rows, which slope slightly backwards from the suture, and,
when worn, are seen to result from the lines of growth. Mouth large, subtriangular
externally, subcircular internally, with sharpish, bevelled outer lip. Shell-
structure very thick. Inner lp almost straight, swollen externally, so as to fill,
but not to cover, the umbilicus. Upper extremity of mouth externally pointed.
Base of shell ornamented with two or three low spiral ridges.
Size.-—A perfect specimen in Mr. Vicary’s Collection measures 18 mm. in
height and 23 mm. in width. A specimen in the Torquay Museum measures
30 mm. in width. Most of the specimens, enumerated below, are much smaller.
Locality.—Chudleigh. There are twelve specimens in Mr. Vicary’s Collection ;
four in the British Museum (labelled ‘‘ Barton,” but shown by their mineral
condition to be evidently from Chudleigh); one in the Woodwardian Museum ;
a poor fragment of the spire in the Godwin-Austen Collection ; and a very large
specimen of the body-whorl in the 'lorquay Museum. ‘The last specimen,
though unlike most of the Chudleigh shells in mineral character, is so similar to
the Woodwardian specimen that it evidently came from the same locality.
Remarks.—Most of the specimens of this beautiful and highly ornamented shell
272 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
are perfect and free from matrix, but still there is considerable difficulty in deciding
both its generic and its specific position. A shell is described by Sowerby under
the name Buccinum breve’ from “ Bradley.” His drawing was taken from a very
poor specimen, but evidently agrees with our shell and with Macrocheilus brevis,
Phillips, which is also said to be from ‘‘ Bradley, near Newton Bushell.” That
shell bears a certain resemblance to our specimens, but is still so different from
most of them that, if Phillips’s figure be accurate, it could only be classed
with them on the supposition that the species is extremely variable. The
species is certainly extremely variable, as may be seen by examining the
specimens in the British Museum or in Mr. Vicary’s Collection. These show
great variations in height, so as almost to include Phillips’s shell, which is much
longer than is usual with them. That feature, however, may be partly due to
distortion, from which many of these shells have evidently suffered.
The markings of this species are very peculiar. The upper whorls show them
normally to be straight, raised, flattened, transverse ridges. As the shell advances
in growth these are gradually broken into spiral rows by one or two furrows,
and become short, curved, sharpish spines or nodules, which gradually seem to
diminish and grow wider apart on the body-whorl.
Generically the shell bears some likeness to Ampullina, but is separated from
it by having a highly ornamented surface and by other particulars.
It appears that the shell described by Kayser under the name of Turbo
Schwelmensis belongs to the same species, although the German fossil is a much
larger and finer specimen than are any of the English shells. Remembering the
variability of the English species, it is far more probable that the differences
observable between them have no specific weight.
Affinities—Delphinula subarmata, Sandberger,” presents some similarity to the
present species, but it differs in having much closer, smaller, and more regular
nodules, a more angulated mouth, and an umbilicus ; thus most probably it did not
belong even to the same genus.
A. Sub-family.—Toursinina, Swainson, 1840.
1. Genus.—Euasmonema, Fischer, 1885.
The genus Callonema was formed by Hall® in 1879 for elongate or subglobose
shells with rather numerous convex whorls, which are ornamented by distant, sub-
1 1827, Sowerby, ‘ Min. Conch.,’ vol. vi, p. 128, pl. dlxvi, fig. 3.
2 1853, Sandberger, ‘ Verst. Rhein. Nassau,’ p. 215, pl. xxv, figs. 10, 10 a—c.
3 1879, Hall, ‘ Pal. N. Y.,’ vol. v, pt. 2, p. 50.
ELASMONEMA. 273
lamellar spiral striz. The aperture is circular, the lips are continuous, and the
umbilicus rather large. As the name Callonema had been used by Conrad in 1878,
Fischer has substituted Hlasmonema as the name for the genus. According to
Fischer,’ these shells have been regarded by Lindstrém and by Meek as belonging
to the Scalaride. He himself twice describes the genus, placing it first under the
name of Hlasmonema under the Scalaride, and then under the name of Callonema
near the Trochidex. By Zittel’ it is placed among the Trochide.
1. ELAsMONEMA ROTUNDUM, n. sp. Pl. XXVIL, fig. 5.
Description.—Shell of moderate size, elevated, turbiniform, turrited, of about
four rather rapidly increasing whorls. Spire conical, about half the height of the
shell, rather more slender apically than below owing to the expansion of the body-
whorl. Suture very deep and rather acute. Whorls very much swollen, sub-
quadrate or step-like, of equal width and height; in section spreading convexly
out from the suture to the shoulder, then turning suddenly to the back, which is
nearly flat, then again turning suddenly to the base, which is nearly flat, and then
turning suddenly upwards to the umbilicus. Body-whorl comparatively larger
and wider than the whorls of the spire. Ornament almost obliterated, but
apparently consisting of very numerous, flat, parallel, close, spiral ridges divided
by deep grooves. Umbilicus very large and deep, penetrating far up the centre of
the shell. Mouth unseen. Shell-structure thin.
Size.—Height 20 mm., width 18 mm.
Locality.—W olborough. by
having a wider shell, more quadrate whorls, and a larger umbilicus.
' 1887, Fischer, ‘Manuel Conch.,’ pp. 77% and 836.
2 1882, Zittel, ‘Handb. Pal.,’ pt. 1, Band ii, p. 188.
3 1879, Hall, ‘ Pal. N. Y.,’ vol. v, pt. 2, p. 52, pl. xii, figs. 19—22.
274 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
2. Genus.—Turso, Klein, 1753; Linneus, 1758.
The four following species are only represented by poor specimens. In
general shape they agree with shells of this genus, but whether they really belong
to it cannot be definitely decided until better specimens come to hand.
1. TurBo 1Namictus, n. sp. Pl. XXVII, fig. 1.
Description.—Shell small, elevated, turbiniform. Spire conical, elevated, of four
or five rapidly increasing whorls. Suture deep, horizontal, rectangular. Whorls
rather broad, nearly evenly convex. Body-whorl large, dilated, more than half
the height of the shell. Base convex. Mouth nearly circular, but pointed above.
Inner lip much arched, diffuse, thickened. Outer lip dilate and convex. No
umbilicus. Surface unknown.
Size.—Height 10 mm., width 7 mm.
Locality.—W olborough. A single specimen is in the Torquay Museum.
Remarks.—Little can be said of the small fossil here described. Its surface is
quite decayed, so that it is impossible to tell whether it was smooth or ornamented.
In general shape it bears some resemblance to species described under the genus
Macrochilina, but the character of the aperture seems to show that it does not
belong to that group of fossils.
It might very well belong to the Ptychomphalus of Agassiz, a sub-genus of
Pleurotomaria, if it proved to possess a sinus-band on the body-whorl; but the
defective surface of our specimen gives no testimony on this point.
I have not observed any foreign species to which it is likely to belong;
and therefore as it appears to be a distinct form I have suggested for it a
provisional name.
2. Turso Pencenui, Whidborne. Pl. XVII, fig. 14, and Pl. XXVII, fig. 7.
1889. TurBo PenaELuil, Whidborne. Geol. Mag., dec. 3, vol. vi, p. 30.
Description.—Shell small, turrited, turbiniform. Spire step-shaped, of few
whorls, probably four or five, rapidly decreasing. Suture well defined. Whorls
spreading out almost horizontally and flatly from the suture for about one-third of
their breadth, and then traversed by a low, blunt, spiral ridge or angle, after
TURBO. 275
which they become slightly convex and nearly parallel to the perpendicular
through the apex. Base of shell convex. Mouth, ornamentation, columella, &c.,
unseen.
Size.—Height 14 mm., width 10 mm.
Locality.—There is a single worn specimen of this shell in the Battersby
Collection in the Torquay Museum, which probably came from Barton or Lum-
maton; and another fragmentary specimen from Wolborough in Mr. Vicary’s
Collection.
Remarks.—The two specimens which I know of the present species are
unfortunately very defective, and hence its position can only be determined by
comparison with Continental forms. It is, however, so similar to the shell
described as Turbo subangulosus, F. A. Rémer,' as evidently to belong to the same
genus as that shell, though separated from it by specific differences. Mr. Roberts
and I concluded that it was distinguished from it by being more angulated in
form, by having the part of the whorl above the shoulder more flattened, and by
having the ridge upon the shoulder much further from the suture than in that
shell.
&. TURBO CIRRIFORMIS, Sowerby. Pl. XXVII, fig. 6.
1840. TurBo crrEiForMis, Sowerby. Geol. Trans., ser. 2, vol. v, pt. 3, pl. lvii,
figs. 19, 20.
1848. — — d’Orbigny. Prodrome, vol. i, p. 67.
1854. — _ Morris. Catal. Brit. Foss., p. 282.
1888. — — Etheridge. Foss. Brit., vol. i, Pal., p. 165.
Description.—* Conical, short, oblique, smooth; apex obtuse; whorls slightly
rounded, most prominent below ; aperture circular. Height and diameter equal,
about half an inch” (Sowerby).
Localities —“ Common at Stonehouse Hill.’ There is one specimen of this
species in Mr. Vicary’s Collection from Chudleigh.
- Remarks.—Mr. Vicary’s specimen is a mould, and shows nothing of the shell
except that it was massive. It agrees, however, as far as it goes, so accurately
with Sowerby’s figure and description that there is every reason to believe that it
belongs to the same species, especially as I know of no other shell from these
localities of which it could be the cast.
1 1843, F. A. Romer, ‘ Verst. Harzgeb.,’ p. 29, pl. viii, fig. 8.
276 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
4, Turso necLEctUS, Phillips? sp. Pl. XXVII, fig. 8.
1840. Turbo suBpanauLatus, Sowerby (not Brocchi). Geol. Trans., ser. 2, vol. v,
pt. 3, pl. lvii, fig. 18.
? 1841. Macrocuertztus? neatecrus, Phillips. Pal. Foss., p. 105, pl. xxxix, figs.
196 a, b.
1849. Loxonema nuaurotus, d’Orbigny. Prodrome, vol. i, p. 63.
1849. TurBo n1so, d’Orbigny. Prodrome, vol. i, p. 67.
21854. Macrocurrnus ? NeatEcrus, Morris, Catal. Brit. Foss., p. 256.
1854. Turso suBaneutatus, Morris, Catal. Brit. Foss., p. 283.
1888. — — Etheridge. Foss. Brit., vol. i, Pal., p. 165,
1888. Macrocurinus nea@nsorus, Etheridge. Foss. Brit., vol. i, Pal., p. 164.
Description.—Shell small, rather elevated, trochiform, slightly turrited. Spire
consisting of about four rather narrow whorls. Suture excavated, deep, and
rather broad, crenulated by the ornament. Whorls spreading out obliquely for a
short distance from the suture, and then becoming flat and conical till they bend
in a little at the lower suture. Ornament on the upper whorls consisting of broad,
flat, rather oblique, straight, transverse ridges, which are divided by similar
furrows, and which in the lower whorls become broken by spiral furrows into
four rows of rather confluent, large, elevated, blunt mammille or tubercles, of
which the first and third rows are smaller and lower than the second and fourth.
Body-whorl slightly rounding-in below. Base and mouth not seen. Shell-
structure rather thick.
Size.—Height about 14 mm., width about 11 mm.
Locality.—There are three specimens in the Torquay Museum, two of which
are in the Battersby Collection. They probably came from Lummaton or Barton.
Remarks.—Sowerby describes under the name of Turbo subangulatus an
obscure water-worn shell which differs from our specimens in having only three
spiral ridges, and, judging from his figure, in being rather more elongate. He
does not state whether the spiral ridges are tuberculated ; and, indeed, his speci-
men is so poor that probably all trace of tubercles, as well as of the fourth ridge, may
have been worn away. It is, therefore, most probable that these Torquay shells
belong to his species ; although from its description it is quite impossible to speak
with any degree of certainty one way or the other. I have been unable to
meet with the type specimen.
This shell is not to be confounded with Turbo subangulosus, F. A. Rémer,'
which is a totally different form.
Phillips gives the name of Macrocheilus ? neglectus to an unidentifiable frag-
ment from Brushford, but appends to it Sowerby’s description of the present shell.
1 1843, F. A. Romer, ‘ Verst. Harzgeb.,’ p. 29, pl. viii, fig. 8.
PLEUROTOMARIA. 277
His figure does not look at all like our specimens, but it is only a cast, and is
evidently imperfect or distorted. Hence there is some difficulty in fixing upon the
right name for our fossils.
D’Orbigny points out that Brocchi' had already used the name Turbo sub-
angulatus for a Tertiary fossil, and calls it 7. niso; but if Phillips’s shell is the
same as Sowerby’s, his name would take precedence to D’Orbigny’s.
IX. Family.—Pcevroromaripm, D’ Orbigny, 1842.
1. Genus.—Pusvrotomaria, Defrance, 1826.
This large and well-known genus, starting in the Silurian, is found in almost
every succeeding form to the present time. In the Paleozoic and Mesozoic periods
it abounded and is represented by many hundred species. In the Tertiaries it
was rare and there are only four living species.
Our Devonian species show much variability of shape, and belong to several of
the different sections into which de Koninck and others have subdivided the genus.
1. PLevrotomaria CHAMPERNOWNI, n. sp. Pl. XXVI, figs. 1—5,
1889. Trocnus MULTISPIRA? Whidborne (not Sandberger). Geol. Mag., dec. 3,
vol. vi, p. 30.
Description.—Shell rather large, spiral, turrited, trochiform, of six or seven
narrow and very slowly increasing volutions. Apex probably blunt. Spire
conical or hive-shaped. Sutures very deep, acute, and vertical. Sutural angle
very small and regular. Whorls very narrow; in section subquadrate, horizontal
above and below, with slightly convex and nearly perpendicular back. Sinus-
band central, broad, elevated, and slightly concave, contaiming a fine thread-like
central line, and having the flexions of the transverse lines in it shallow. Surface
above the sinus-band bearing two or three round, low, massive, spiral ridges,
separated by similar grooves. Surface below the sinus-band first forming a small
groove, and then curving round the lower and widest part of the shell to form the
broad, flat, smooth, and nearly horizontal base. Growth-lines and secondary spiral
markings very fine and indeed microscopic. Mouth very wide, subquadrate. Inner
lip straight, slightly thickened, vertically twisted or corkscrew-like, so that it is
slightly excavate at the lower corner of the mouth. Umbilicus, if any, very minute.
1 1814, Brocchi, ‘Conchiologia Foss. Subapennina,’ vol. 11, p. 374, pl. vi, fig. 16.
278 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
Size-—Height 20 mm., width 17 mm.
Localities—From Wolborough there are three specimens in Mr. Vicary’s
Collection, and three in the Museum of Practical Geology. There are two in the
Battersby Collection in the Torquay Museum, one of which, an extremely poor,
almost unrecognisable specimen of the most elevated variety, is from Wolborough,
and the other, equally poor, is apparently from Lummaton.
Remarks.—Vhese specimens vary so mich in the height of their spire and style
of ornamentation that at first I was much disposed to regard them as belonging
to more than one species. The latter quality is, however, probably due to their
state of preservation. A specimen of Mr. Vicary’s is the only one which retains
the external shell, and therefore the only one whose ornamentation can be relied
on. The decortication of the other specimens has more or less destroyed their
true ornamentation.
In the above-named specimen the sinus-band is clearly shown, and hence it is
clear that the species belongs to the genus Plewrotomaria.
Affinities—From Trochus multispira, Sandberger,’ which it resembles in the
number of its whorls, it differs in the possession of spiral ridges, in the shape
of the front of its mouth, and in the possession of a sinus-band.
2. PLEevRoTOMARIA suBCLATHRATA, Sandberger. Pl. XXVII, figs. 9—11.
1842. PLEUROTOMARIA SUBCLATHRATA, Sandberger. In Neues Jahrbuch f. Min.,
p. 391, pl. 8B, fig. 5a—e.
1853. _ — Sandberger. Verst. Rhein. Nassau, p. 198,
pl. xxiv, figs. 10, 10 a—e.
1857. Turso nanus, Hichwald. Bull. Soc. Nat. Moscow, p. 164.
1860. — — _- Lethzea Rossica, p. 1188, pl. xliv, fig. 20.
1889. PLEUROTOMARIA SUBCLATHRATA, Whidborne. Geol. Mag., dec. 3, vol. vi,
p. 30.
Description.—Shell of moderate size, turbinate, turrited, rather depressed, of
about four volutions. Spire conical. Suture rectangular. Whorls narrow,
slowly increasing, spreading somewhat flatly from the suture to the shoulder, then
suddenly turning and becoming perpendicular for about an equal distance, and
then curving rapidly inwards to form an obliquely flat base. Sinus-band situated
on the shoulder, narrow, very concave, bounded by steep, sharp, prominent ridges.
Ornament consisting of one similar spiral ridge near the suture, two or three similar
equidistant ridges on the back below the sinus-band, and smaller decreasing
and rather closer ridges on the base. Mouth sub-quadrate, transverse? Inner
lip arched. Umbilicus very small.
1 18538, Sandberger, ‘ Verst. Rhein. Nassau,’ p. 218, pl. xxv, figs. 11, 11 a—e.
PLEUROTOMARIA. 279
Size.—Height 17 mm., width about 18 mm.
Localities.—There are three rather poor specimens in Mr. Vicary’s Collection,
and two small indistinct specimens in the Museum of Practical Geology,
from Wolborough. In the Bristol Museum is a small specimen from Lum-
maton.
Remarks.—These specimens are all imperfect, and are so much weathered that
no finer ornamentation can be seen. Hence they do not in themselves show any
distinctive marks of the genus Plewrotomaria. However, they so closely resemble
Pl. subclathrata as described and figured by Sandberger, that Mr. Roberts
and I came to the conclusion that they must be regarded as undoubtedly
belonging to that species, the only difference being that the English shells are
rather more coarsely ornamented than are Sandberger’s types. On the other
hand, they are so similar to various species of the genus Cyclonema of Hall’ that
it would be necessary to refer them to it, were it not that the fine ornamentation
shown in Sandberger’s figure proves that his shell is certainly a species of
Pleuwrotomaria.
Turbo nanus, Hichwald, is either the young of this species or of Trochus Ivanit,
Lév. It seems somewhat more elongate than the former, but exactly agrees with
it in ornament, and I am therefore disposed to regard it as identical.
Affinities.—Trochus Yvanii, Léveillé,’ as shown by the original figure, is more
elongate, and has finer, more numerous, and equal spiral lines. It appears to
have an umbilicus, and is certainly distinct from the present species. It is a
Carboniferous shell. As figured by Goldfuss,’ it is a more globose shell, with
many more spiral ridges, than the English species. Again, as given by
de Koninck from the Carboniferous of Belgium, under the name Plewrotomaria
Yvan, Lév.,* it is sometimes as little elevated, but seems to differ in having all
the ridges equal and similar, except those of the base, which are closer. In
de Koninck’s later work, where he calls it Baylea Ivanii, Lév.,’ it exactly
corresponds with Léveillé’s original type.
None of the other species which de Koninck refers to his genus Baylea,
which seems synonymous with Hall’s Cyclonema, approach our English shell
more nearly.
D’ Archiac and de Verneuil give a Devonian variety of Trochus Ivanii,’ which
1 1879, Hall, ‘ Pal. N. Y.,’ vol. v, pt. 2, p. 34.
2 1835, Léveille, ‘Mém. Soc. Géol. Fr.,’ vol. ii, p, 89, pl. ii, fig. 24.
3 1844, Goldfuss, ‘ Petref. Germ.,’ vol. iii, p. 51, pl. elxxviii, fig. 9.
4 1842-4, de Koninck, ‘Desc. Anim. Foss.,’ p. 390, pl. xxxvii, figs. 1 a—e and 7 a—e.
5 1883, de Koninck, ‘ Ann. Mus. Roy. H. N. Belg.,’ vol. viii, pt. 4, p. 69, pl. xxvii, figs. 1—5, and
pl. xxxii bis, figs. 8, 9.
6 1842, d’Archiac and de Verneuil, ‘ Geol. Trans.,’ ser. 2, vol. vi, pt. 2, p. 359, pl. xxxii, fig. 16.
280 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
comes very close, but is much less turrited, and has finer and more numerous
ridges. This shell d’Orbigny separates under the name Trochus devonicus.'
Turbo ellipticus, Minster,’ also approaches it very closely, but is less turrited,
and has more rounded and numerous ridges and a smaller spire.
Sandberger and Giebel® identify the present shell with Pl. catenulata,
d’Archiac and de Verneuil,* but it differs from that species by having a more
angulated and less conical spire, and its ridges are less distinctly granulated ; and
therefore it cannot be regarded as identical, although possibly allied. Pl.
catenulata, as given by Goldfuss,* is still more clearly shown to be distinct by the
possession of a series of three close-set spiral rows of rounded nodules imme-
diately below the suture.
Turbo micros, Trenkner,® is similar in general shape, but is a more
elevated shell.
Cyclonema Hamiltoniex, Hall,’ is also very similar, but is rather more
elevated, and has no marks upon the flat band between the suture and the keel
on the shoulder. It has, of course, no sinus-band.
F. A. Romer® describes a very similar shell, to which in his letterpress be
gives the name “ Plewrotomaria scalaris, Sandberger ?” but in his plates Turbo
tricinctus. His description is very slight, but, judging from his figure, it appears
to be a more elevated species, with fewer, coarser, and more equal ridges. In a
later part’ of his work he gives under the latter name a better figure and description,
which show that it is very distinct, the ridges being coarsely nodular.
3. Puevrotomaria Lonspaw, D’Archiac and de Vernewil. Pl. XXVII, fig. 12.
1842. Prevroromaria Lonspautit, d’ Archiac and de Vernewil. Geol. Trans., ser.
2, vol. vi, pt. 2, p. 359, pl. xxxii, figs. 21, 21a.
1844. — — Goldfuss. Petref. Germ., vol. ii, p. 63,
pl. elxxxii, fig. 9.
1853. — EURYOMPHALUS, Sandberger. Verst. Rhein. Nassau, p. 199,
pl. xxiv, figs. 11, 11 a—d.
1 1849, d’Orbigny, ‘ Prodrome,’ vol. i, p. 64.
2 1844, Goldfuss, ‘ Petref. Germ.,’ vol. iii, p. 91, pl. excii, figs. 10 a, b.
* 1866, Giebel, ‘ Repertorium,’ p. 99.
* 1842, d’Archiac and de Verneuil, ‘ Geol. Trans.,’ ser. 2, vol. vi, pt. 2, p. 359, pl. xxxii, fig. 17.
> 1844, Goldfuss, ‘ Petref. Germ.,’ vol. iii, p. 63, pl. elxxxii, fig. 11.
6 1867, Trenkner, ‘ Palaiont. Novit.,’ pt. 1, p. 8, pl. i, fig. 14.
7 1879, Hall, ‘ Pal. N. Y.,’ vol. v, pt. 2, p. 37, pl. xii, figs. 34—36.
8 1850, F. A. Romer, ‘ Beitr.,’ pt. 1, p. 15, pl. iii, figs. 14a, 8.
® 1855, ibid., pt. 3, p. 14, pl. iii, figs. 19 a, b.
PLEUROTOMARIA. 281
1866. Prevrotomaria Lonspauit, Giebel. Repertorium, p. 99.
1889. — _ Whidborne. Geol. Mag., dec. 3, vol. vi, p. 30.
Description.—Shell rather small, flatly conical, of four or five rapidly increas-
ing volutions. Spire of the form of alow convex cone. Suture deep, small,
rectangular. Whorls narrow, curving immediately at the suture, then sloping
obliquely and flatly to the lowest and widest part, and there curving rapidly
inwards to form a broad, flat, and almost horizontal base. Umbilicus rather large,
shallow. Mouth unseen. Surface above the sinus-band covered by about nine
small, low, close, crenulated, spiral striz. Simus-band apparently convex and
shghtly truncating the curve at the widest or supersutural part, but very
indistinctly seen.
Size.—Height 13 mm., width 18 mm.
Locality.—Wolborough. A single specimen is in the Museum of Practical
Geology.
Remarks.—The only specimen I have seen is in a very poor state of preserva-
tion, and its ornamentation can only be approximately traced. As far as can be
judged it appears to be referable to the shell described by d’Archiac and de
Verneuil, although its spiral striz seem to have been considerably more
numerous. These authors state the spiral striz on the back of the whorls to
have been only four, with, however, some smaller intermediate ridges. In their
figure, however, as well as in that given by Goldfuss, about six are shown, while
in Pl. ewryomphalus, which Sandberger himself identifies with Pl. Lonsdalii, nine
are drawn, and they are described as ‘‘ numerous.” As our specimen is rather
larger than d’Archiac and de Verneuil’s figure it is possible that this may in
part account for the difference. On the whole there seems no reason to doubt
its identity.
Affinities. —Pl. Beaumontii d’Archiac and de Verneuil’ has a higher spire,
more convex whorls and a more distinct cancellation.
Trochus Klippsteinti Goldfuss’ is not very dissimilar from it in general shape,
but is a much flatter shell, with more evenly convex whorls and a more rounded
base. Its ornamentation appears different.
In Pl. fragilis de Koninck® from the Carboniferous, which is very closely
allied, the ornament seems more distant, the spire less conical, and the whorls
more evenly convex.
1 1842, d’Archiac and de Verneuil, ‘ Geol. Trans.,’ ser. 2, vol. vi, pt. 2, p. 361, pl. xxxiii, figs. 1, 1 a.
2 1844, Goldfuss, ‘Petref. Germ.,’ vol. iii, p. 50, pl. elxxxi, fig. 1.
3 1842-4, de Koninck, ‘ Desc. Anim, Foss.,’ p. 372, pl. xxxv, figs. 8 a—e.
282 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
4, PLEUROTOMARIA IMPENDENS, Sowerby. Pl. XXVITI, figs. 13, 13a.
1840. PievRoTOMARIA IMPENDENS, Sowerby. Geol. Trans., ser. 2, vol. v, pt. 3,
pl. lvii, fig. 16.
? 1841. — — Phillips. Pal. Foss., p. 98, pl. xxxvii, figs.
180, 180 *.
1854. — — Morris. Catal. Brit. Foss., p. 273.
? 1861. _— Huse, Hall., Rep. N. Y. State Cab. Nat. Hist., p. 105.
? 1862. — — — Fifteenth Rep. N. Y. State Cab. Nat. Hist.,
pl. v, figs. 7 and 8.
? 1876. — —_ — Illust. Dev. Fos., pl. xix, figs. 2—7.
? 1879. — — — Pal. N. Y., vol. v, pt. 2, p. 68, pl. xix,
figs. 2—7.
Description.—Shell of moderate size, turbiniform. Spire forming a low convex
cone of about four slowly increasing volutions. Apex obtuse. Suture rather
shallow and obtuse. Whorls semi-elliptic, sloping out obliquely and very convexly
‘to their widest part, where they become perpendicular for a short distance
above the lower suture. Body-whorl large, curving rapidly round the back, and
becoming obliquely convex on the base. Sinus-band super-sutural, broad,
consisting of three prominent close rounded ridges, divided by two narrow
grooves. Ornament consisting of about ten close, low, rounded ridges above the
sinus-band, crossed by numerous, close, flatly-rounded threads, which arch
obliquely backwards on the upper part of the whorls, and become almost invisible,
on the sinus-band, where they appear to be recurved. Umbilicus small or absent.
Mouth unseen.
Size.—Height 18 mm., width 22 mm.
Localities —There is a specimen in Mr. Champernowne’s Collection from
Lummaton, and a cast in Mr. Vicary’s Collection from Wolborough.
Remarks.—This appears to be the shell imperfectly described by Sowerby
from Plymouth, though his figure and description are not clear enough to permit
any very great certainty. Our specimens are obscured round the base, which
seems on the whole convex, though there may have been a concavity round the
umbilicus. Sowerby speaks of the base as concave; but in other respects his
description appears to agree with the present fossils.
The ornament of the shell appears to be very distinct. The spiral marks
dominate, and the narrow furrows between the close ridges quite cut the longi-
tudinal threads. As the lower part of the body-whorl and the base of Mr.
Champernowne’s specimen are decayed, the ornament on that part of the shell is
unknown.
PLEUROTOMARIA. 283
Affimties.—It comes very near Pl. Beawmonti, d’Arch. and de Verneuil’ in
general shape, but differs from it in its much greater size, its more convex spire,
and the closeness of its ridges. Goldfuss’s figure of that species’ also shows that
the sinus-band was of different character, being a simple concave band marked by
fine arching striz. Sandberger identifies Pl. Beawmonti with his Pl. decussata
var. elegans,® which differs from the present shell in the same particulars, and is
clearly distinct.
Pl. elegans, d’ Arch. and de Verneuil,* more nearly approaches it in ornament,
but is much more elevated, and appears to belong to a distinct group of sinistral
shells.
Pl. gemmulifera, Phillips,® as given by de Koninck,® is less turrited, and has
broader furrows, minute and definite granules, and a better defined sinus-band.
Pl. granulata, de Koninck,’ is also rather similar, but is considerably more
elevated, and has a convex granulated sinus-band.
Pl. Hebe, Hall, appears so close to the present shell that neither from Hall’s
figures nor rather short description can I see any sufficient reason for separating it.
Neither the English nor the American specimens are very well preserved, and it is
possible that with better specimens points of specific divergency might be brought
to light. At present the only striking point in the American form is the great
angularity of the body-whorl at the sinus-band, but this character vanishes in
some of his specimens.
5. Prevroromaria Orsieantana, D’Archiac and de Verneuwil. Pl. XXVII, fig. 14.
1842. PLEUROTOMARIA ORBIGNYANA, @’Archiac and de Vernewil. Geol. Trans.,
ser. 2, vol. vi, pt. 2, p. 359, pl. xxxii,
figs. 18—20.
? 1842. — Breaumonti. Ibid., p. 361, pl. xxxiii, fig. 1, 1 a.
1842. _ Orpienyana, d@’Archiac and de Vernewil. Bull. Soc.
Géol. Fr., vol. xiii, p. 261.
1842. — pDECusSATA, Sandberger. In Neues Jahrbuch f. Min.,
p. 392, pl. vis, figs. 6a—e.
1 1842, d’Archiac and de Verneuil, ‘ Geol. Trans.,’ ser. 2, vol. vi, pt. 2, p. 861, pl. xxxiii, figs. 1, la.
2 1843, Goldfuss, ‘ Petref, Germ.,’ vol. iii, p. 62, pl. elxxxii, fig. 8.
3 1858, Sandberger, ‘ Verst. Rhein. Nassau,’ p. 197, pl. xxiv, figs. 3, 3 a—d.
4 1842, d’Archiac and de Verneuil, ‘ Geol. Trans.,’ ser. 2, vol. vi, pt. 2, p. 360, pl. xxxiii, figs. 3,
3 a—e.
5 1836, Phillips, ‘Geol. Yorks.,’ pt. 2, p. 227, pl. xv, fig. 19.
6 1842-4, de Koninck, ‘ Desc. Anim. Foss.,’ p. 370, pl. xxxi, figs. 7 a—d.
7 Tbid., p. 373, pl. xxxiii, figs. 3 a—e.
37
bo
oa)
ro
DEVONIAN FAUNA.
P1844. Puievrotomarta Braumontr. Goldfuss. Petref. Germ., vol. iii, p. 62,
pl. elxxxii, fig. 8.
— Orpienyana. Ibid., p. 65, pl. elxxxiii, fig. 3.
1853. — pDEcussATA, Sandberger (pars). Verst. Rhein. Nassau,
p. 196, pl. xxiv, figs. 1, 1 a, 1 0.
1853. — DECUSSATA, var. ELEGANS, Sandberger. Ibid., p. 196,
pl. xxiv, figs. 3, 3 a—d.
1853. — DECUSSATA, var. GEMINATA, Sandberger. Ibid., p. 196,
pl. xxiv, figs. 9, 9 a.
1885. _ Orpienyana, Maurer. Kalke von Waldgirmes, Darm-
stadt, p. 234, pl. x, fig. 3.
1889. Turso cf. Orpranyanus, Barrois. Faun. Cale. d’Ebray, p. 216, pl. xv,
figs. 7, a, b.
1889. PLEvROTOMARIA D’ORBIGNTIANA, Whidborne. Geol. Mag., dec. 3, vol. vi,
p. 30.
Description.—Shell very small, turbiniform, dilate, few-whorled. Spire conical,
rather elevated, of three or four rather broad convex whorls. Suture deep, obtuse.
Whorls horizontal at the suture, but immediately sloping obliquely downwards in
a convex curve to the lower part, and there curving more rapidly inwards to the
lower suture, or, in the case of the body-whorl, to form an obliquely flattish base.
Sinus-band low down, being immediately above the suture in the upper whorls,
~ and just below the widest point of the shell in the body-whorl, not elevated, broad,
with low bounding ridges. Ornament consisting normally of eight distant spiral
threads, similar to the ridges, above the sinus-band, and eleven below it, which
are occasionally alternating or undeveloped ; the upper part of the shell being thus
divided into about five shallow grooves similar to the sinus-band, and the lower
part into eight or nine which are closer ; the whole crossed by more, and generally
much more, numerous stout rounded threads, which slope obliquely back from the
suture at an increasing angle till they reach the sinus-band, in which they curve
round, and then proceed perpendicularly across the next grove, then tend rather
backwards, and then again become perpendicular at the centre of the base.
Umbilicus minute, aciculate, twisted. Inner lip not diffuse, and not continued to
the upper angle. Columella longitudinally grooved, shghtly arcuate. Mouth
transversely ovate. Shell-structure rather thick.
Size.—Height 10 mm, width 10 mm.
Localities—There are seven specimens in the Woodwardian Museum which
were obtained by Mr. H. B. Tawney from Lummaton, and four in the Torquay
Museum, which probably came from Lummaton and Wolborough.
Remarl:s.—There seems some doubt whether Sandberger’s or d’Archiae and
de Verneuil’s name for these shells should have the priority. They were both
published in the year 1842. Sandberger in his later work gives it to his own
name; but it is to be noted that d’Archiac’s paper was read in December, 1841,
PLEUROTOMARIA. 285
and that in February, 1842, Sir R. Murchison, in his presidential address to
the Geological Society, mentions it as soon to be published, whereas there is
internal evidence in the ‘ Neues Jahrbuch ’ showing that Sandberger’s paper was
certainly not published till after April 10th, and probably much later in the year.
It seems, therefore, best to follow Goldfuss, who first united them, and writing
only two years afterwards gave the precedence to d’Archiac and de Verneuil.
There is, I think, no doubt that both the shells described by these authors are of
the same species.
Whether P/. Beawmonti, V Archiac and de Verneuil, is, as Sandberger supposes,
a variety of the same shell is more doubtful. Its figure, at first sight, seems to
suggest an ornament of close threads as in Mr. Champernowne’s specimen of
Pl. «mpendens, Sowerby, with which I at first identified it. On closer comparison,
however, of the figure and description I am disposed to think that this appearance
is misleading, and that really the ornamentation is much the same as in Sand-
berger’s Pl. decussata ; and moreover, while our figured specimen clearly belongs
to that species, it presents decided approximation to Pl. Beawmonti, especially in
the shape of the columella and the mouth. I[ am, therefore, now disposed to follow
Sandberger in uniting it with this species. If this is so, Mr. Champernowne’s
fossil shows that Pl. Beaumonti cannot be a synonym of Pl. impendens, as that is
quite different from the present form, being a much larger shell, and having many
more spiral threads which are closely arranged instead of being separated by
broad furrows.
We may note that in our figured specimen the transverse threads are very
well marked, being rounded and raised so as to be almost unbroken by the
intersecting spiral furrows, and about their own distance apart. On the whole
they are twice as close as the spiral threads except where smaller intermediate
spiral lines exist; but in another Torquay example they are hardly more numerous
than the spiral threads.
Affinities.—In ornamentation and shape this species closely resembles Huom-
phalus granulatus, Minster, but as that author refers his species to Huomphalus
we must suppose that it had a large open umbilicus, and therefore was quite
distinct from the present form. It is a decidedly lower shell than our specimens,
and Miinster’s description leaves no room, if at all accurate, for any sinus-band.
Pl. cancellata, Phillips,’ is very slightly described from South Petherwyn and
Newton. ‘Two imperfect specimens are figured; one of which is evidently from
Wolborough, and is a very much larger shell with more rapidly increasing
whorls and much less oblique reticulations, and clearly is different. The second
figure, on the other hand, is about the same in general form, but the sinus-band is
1 1840, Miinster, ‘ Beitr.,’ pt. 3, p. 86, pl. xv, figs. 19 a, b.
2 1841, Phillips, ‘ Pal. Foss.,’ p. 96, pl. xxxvii, figs. 176 a—e, /.
286 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
higher on the whorls, the spire seems more elevated, and the enlarged figure of
the pattern is very different.
Turbo cf. Orbignyanus, Barrois, shows no sinus-band, but the specimen
described being very poor it is very possible that it may be the same.
6. Prevroromaria Neaponitana, n. sp. Pl. XXVII, figs. 15, 16.
Description.—Shell rather small, elevated, trochiform. Spire conical, appa-
rently shghtly produced apically, of four or five rather narrow whorls. Suture
rather deep, but obscured and complicated by the ornament. Whorls spreading
out obliquely and flatly from the suture to their lower extremity, where they turn
through a short blunt angle for a short distance to the lower suture. Ornament
consisting, upon the angle, of three sharp spiral carinz, which are separated by
furrows, and of which the central is the highest, and, upon the upper flattened part
of the whorls, of five much less prominent spiral threads, which are crossed and
reticulated or knotted by very numerous similar straight transverse threads
sloping slightly backwards from the suture. Sinus-band probably situated
between the two lower carine. Base of the shell flat, and ornamented by
numerous fine spiral lineations. Mouth and umbilicus unseen.
Size.—Height about 18 mm., width about 16 mm.
Locality.—There are two specimens in the Torquay Museum which probably
came from Lummaton or Barton. Another large but rather indistinct specimen
in the Museum of Practical Geology is from Wolborough.
Remarks.—These specimens are all so much worn that it is difficult to feel
certain about the direction of the finer lines, and the markings of the sinus-band
are almost obscured. It is indeed very hard to say which of the two furrows
between the large carine is the sinus-band, for the upper and widest is obscured
by matrix, and in the lower of the two the cross stria seem much finer, and have
changed their direction, being either arched or sloping forward. The shell is
remarkable for its extreme trochiform shape, reminding us strongly of the recent
Trochus ziziphinus, but after a very careful examination of the markings I see no
reason to doubt that it is really a Plewrotomaria.
Mr. Roberts was inclined to regard these specimens as large examples of PI.
trochoides, but it appears to me that they are distinguishable from that species by
several particulars.
Affinities.—This species differs much from Pl. angulata, Sandberger,' in
shape, ornamentation, and the position of the sinus-band, and especially in having
an almost flat base instead of being convex below.
| 1858, Sandberger, ‘ Verst. Rhein. Nassau,’ p. 204, pl. xxiv, fig. 19.
PLEUROTOMARIA. 287
Trochus Bouei, Steininger,' is figured from an Hifel shell without description,
and is hardly identifiable. It has almost the shape of an equilateral triangle, with
one row of large separate tubercles on each of the upper whorls, and about six
rows on the body-whorl. At all events it differs from the present shell in being
strongly tuberculate.
I have employed the classic form of the word ‘‘ Newton” for the name of this
species.
7. PLeuRotomaRiA TROcHOIDES, Whidborne. Pl. XXVII, figs. 17—19.
1841. PLevRoToMaRIA MoNILIFERA, Phillips. Pal. Foss., p. 97, pl. xxxvii, fig.
178 (not Geol. Yorks.).
1842. —_— — @’ Arch. and de Vern., Geol. Trans., ser. 2,
vol. vi, pt. 2, p. 389.
1854. — — Morris, Catal. Brit. Foss., p. 273.
1888. — — Htheridge. Foss. Brit., vol. i, Pal., p. 164.
1889. — TROCHOIDES, Whidborne. Geol. Mag., dec. 3, vol. vi,
p. 30.
Description.—Shell small, trochiform, acuminate, of six or eight narrow
volutions. Apex very small and slightly rounded. Spire conical, elevated, with
slightly concave sides caused by the greater dilation of the lower whorls;
sometimes a little bent on one side. Suture very deep, excavate, and rounded.
Whorls spreading out obliquely and straightly to the elbow, which is nearly at the
bottom of the whorl, and then turning through a sharp angle to form a flattish
oblique base. Ornament generally coarse, consisting of two beaded spiral ridges
immediately below the suture, followed by a wide, flat, or slightly concave median
area or groove, which is smooth or filled with fine threads, then by a broad
elevated sinus-band on the widest part, then by another groove bounded by a flat
ridge, and then by numerous finer close ridges on the base; the surface being
thus divided into two prominences and two grooves. ‘Transverse ornament con-
sisting of strong ribs, which cross and tuberculate the upper ridges in a forward
direction, then, becoming much finer, sweep back across the median groove, then
become perpendicular and sometimes very strong in the sinus-band, then tend
forward in the groove below it, and then form a sigmoid curve on the base.
Sinus-band bounded by two very strong prominent ridges. Mouth apparently
trapezoidal, produced in front. Columella thick, arched. Shell-structure thick.
No umbilicus.
! 1834, Steininger, ‘Mém. Soc. Géol. Fr.,’ vol. i, pt. 2, p. 371, pl. xxiii, fig. 4.
288 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
Size.—A specimen in Mr. Vicary’s Collection measures 15 mm. high and
13 mm. wide.
Loealities—From Lummaton there is a specimen in the Torquay Museum, and
another, which is very poor, in the Bristol Museum. From Wolborough there is
a Specimen in the Museum of Practical Geology. From Chudleigh there are five
specimens in Mr. Vicary’s Collection.
Remarks.—This seems a very variable species, so much so that I should have
been inclined to separate its extreme varieties were they not connected by inter-
mediate specimens. The variation is caused by the differences in strength of the
different lines of ornament; thus the upper spiral ridges are sometimes large, and
sometimes very small, and the cross striz on the sinus-band are sometimes strong,
straight, distant rungs, and sometimes fine, close, arched threads. The shape of
the shell also varies considerably : sometimes, for instance, the whorls are much
more overhanging, and sometimes the base is comparatively flat. Nevertheless,
the specimens all seem to preserve a general character, and I have no doubt that
they all belong to one species.
The fossil described by Phillips as Pl. monilifera in the ‘ Pal. Foss.’ evidently
represents this shell. His figure is very defective, and seems to present some
differences, but his description leaves no doubt of its identity, especially in view
‘of the great variability of the species. Pl. monilifera, however, as previously
described by him from Yorkshire,’ is totally distinct, and could by no possibility
be the same as our Devonshire shell. As seen in specimens in the British
Museum, one of which is figured in the ‘‘ Geology of Yorkshire,” its ornamentation is
quite different, there being, for instance, no smooth median band. As reproduced
by de Koninck’ (who gives a long synonomy) it differs in being more turbiniform,
and in having finer, though somewhat similar, sculpture, no smooth median band,
a greater sutural angle, and a more circular mouth.
Affinities.—Trochus Bouei, Steminger,® with which Phillips compared his
Devonian species, was figured without a description, but the figure represents a
shell ornamented with tubercles in a very different style.
The Carboniferous Pl. Goeppertii, Goldfuss,* is very similar in shape, but its
ornament consists of first a plain surface, then a double row of tubercles, then a
concave sinus-band, and then another double row of tubercles.
Pl. semimuda appears to be less trochiform in shape, and to have much coarser
ornamentation.
1 1836, Phillips, ‘Geol. Yorks.,’ pt. 2, p. 227, pl. xv, fig. 10a.
2 1842-4, de Koninck, ‘ Desc. Anim. Foss.,’ p. 387, pl. xxxiv, figs. 2 a, 2.
3 1834, ‘Mém. Soc. Géol. Fr.,’ vol. i, p. 371, pl. xxii, fig. 4.
4 1844, Goldf., ‘ Petref. Germ.,’ vol. iii, p. 69, pl. clxxxv, fig. 7.
PLEUROTOMARIA. 289
8. PLeUROTOMARIA SEMINUDA, n. sp. Pl. XXVIII, fig. 1.
1840. PLEUROTOMARIA CIRRIFORMIS? Sowerby. Geol. Trans., ser. 2, vol. v, pt. 3,
pl. lvii, fig. 17 (not Min. Conch.).
? 1853. — CRENATOSTRIATA, Sandberger (pars). Verst. Rhein.
Nassau, p. 188, pl. xxiii, fig. 2 d (only).
1854. — CIRRIFORMIS, Morris. Catal. Brit. Foss., p. 272
1888. = — Etheridge. Foss. Brit., vol. i, Pal. p. 164.
Description.—Shell rather small, trochiform. Spire of four or more rapidly-
increasing narrow whorls. Suture simple, horizontal, deep. Whorls bluntly
triangular, spreading out obliquely with a slight convexity from the suture to their
widest part, where they turn through a blunt angle, and then slope in for a short
distance to the lower suture. Body-whorl large, uniform with the upper whorls,
arching in below to form a wide flattish base. Sinus-band situate on the
widest part of the whorls, wide, concave, bounded by two large prominent
rounded ridges or keels, of which the lower is the more prominent. Ornament
consisting of a third indistinct keel a short distance below the sinus-band, and of
coarse transverse ribs arching gently back from the suture, and recurved on the
sinus-band. Umbilicus and mouth unseen.
Size-—Height 14 mm., width 14 mm.
Locality. Wolborough. There is a specimen in the Battersby Collection of
the Torquay Museum, and another in the Woodwardian Museum.
Remarks.—The above description is taken from the Battersby specimen,
which is, unfortunately, in so poor a state of preservation that the orramentation
is almost entirely obliterated. It was evidently a beautiful shell. The sides of
the whorls are flattened and expanding, being at first a lttle convex and then a
little concave before they reach the sinus-band.
As far as can be judged from the figure of Sowerby’s cast, it is identical with
his Pl. cirriformis of the ‘Geol. Trans.,’ but it differs much from the shell
previously described by him under that name in the ‘ Min. Conch,” which is a
finely cancellated shell of a different shape, and with a very differently arranged
sinus-band.
Affinities. —This shell approaches the shorter of Sandberger’s two figures of
Pl. angulata, Phill. sp.,’ but it differs from it in having flatter and more angular
whorls, and having the sinus-band narrower, and situated lower down on the
1 1817, Sowerby, ‘ Min. Conch.,’ vol. ii, p. 160, pl. clxxi, fig. 2.
2 1858, Sandberger, ‘ Verst. Rhein. Nassau,’ p. 204, pl. xxiv, fig. 19 (only).
290 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
whorl. Murehisonia angulata, Phillips,’ is a much more elevated shell, while Pl.
angulata, Sowerby,” is totally distinct from both species.
Pl. Daleidensis, F. Romer,’ is very similar, and seems to agree in ornamen-
tation, but it differs in being shorter and more cone-shaped, and in having a much
narrower and less prominent sinus-band.
Pl. striata, Goldfuss,* also seems somewhat similarly ornamented, but is
distinguished by being much flatter, with differently shaped whorls, more numerous
spiral ridges, and a flatter and less prominent sinus-band. With this shell
Sandberger identifies his Pl. crenatostriata,’ which differs from the present form
in much the same particulars. He, however, figures, as an elevated variety, a very
dissimilar shell, which comes very much nearer to it, and may possibly be
identical. It has, however, less expanded and more slowly increasing whorls, its
sinus-band seems higher up, its transverse ornamentation is much better shown,
and its boundary ridges are hardly so prominent.
Pl. ewaltata, d’Archiac and de Verneuil,® is distinguished by its broad convex
sinus-band.
Pl. trochoides differs in having well-defined ridges or keels on the upper part
of the whorls.
_ 9, PLEUROTOMARIA ASPERA, Sowerby.
1840. PrEevROTOMARIA asPERA, Sowerby. Geol. Trans., ser. 2, vol.v, ser. 3, pl. liv,
fig. 16.
1841. — — Phillips (pars). Pal. Foss., p. 96, pl. xxxvii, fig.
177 ¢ (only).
1854. — — Morris. Catal. Brit. Foss., p. 272.
Remarks. —Sowerby’s original specimen from Plymouth is in the Woodwardian
Museum, and is a beautiful and very distinct shell. Phillips quotesit from Pilton,
South Petherwyn, and Newton, but his figures seem to include more than one
species, the figure 177 ¢ alone agreeing with Sowerby’s type. In the ‘ Geol. Mag.’
for 18897 I separated the shell represented by figs. 177 a and b under the name
of Pl. distinguenda. I then thought that two poor specimens from Wolborough in
the Museum of Practical Geology belonged to that shell, but a further examination
1 1841, Phillips, ‘ Pal. Foss.,’ p. 101, pl. xxxix, fig. 189.
2 1839, Sowerby, in Murchison’s ‘ Sil. Syst.,’ p. 641, pl. xxi, fig. 20.
3 1844, F. A. Romer, ‘ Rhein. Uebergangsgeb.,’ p. 80, pl. i, figs. 7 a, d.
4 1844, Goldfuss, ‘ Petref. Germ.,’ vol. iti, p. 61, pl. clxxxu, fig. 4.
5 1853, Sandberger, ‘ Verst. Rhein. Nassau,’ p. 188, pl. xxiii, figs. 2, 2a—d.
6 1842, d’Archiac and de Verneuil, ‘ Geol. Trans.,’ ser. 2, vol. vi, pt. 2, p. 361, pl. xxxiu, fig. 5.
7 1889, ‘Geol. Mag.,’ dec. 3, vol. vi, p. 30.
PLEUROTOMARIA. 291
has since caused me to refer them to a different species. I have met with no other
specimens belonging to either of these two forms ; and consequently it must remain
doubtful to which of them the shell which Phillips quotes from Newton belongs.
The shell which Philhps gives in his fig. 177*, and speaks of as “perhaps a
cast of this species,”’ belongs apparently to Pl. victriv. As he does not quote
Newton as a “ doubtful” locality, it seems unlikely that this is the only shell
referred to from that place.
10. PLevRoromarta canceLiata, Phillips. Pl. XXVIII, fig. 4.
1841. PLEUROTOMARIA CANCELLATA, Phillips. Pal. Foss., p. 96, pl. xxxvii, figs.
176 a—c, f.
1849. — — d’Orbigny. Prodrome, vol. i, p. 69.
1854. — — Morris. Catal. Brit. Foss., p. 272.
1888. — = Etheridge. Foss. Brit., vol. i, Pal., p. 164.
Description.—Shell small, moderately elevated, turbiniform. Spire rather low,
consisting of three or four rather quickly increasing whorls. Suture deep, obtuse.
Whorls rounded, subquadrate, sloping out flatly from the suture, very convex on
the shoulder, slightly convex on the back, and curving in rapidly to the base.
Sinus-band situated about the middle of the back, some distance above the lower
suture, narrow, concave, and excavate. Ornament consisting of four or five strong
distant spiral ridges above the sinus-band, and more numerous similar ridges below
it and on the base ; crossed and decussated above the sinus-band by similar, distant,
transverse ridges which slope obliquely backwards from the suture. Mouth sub-
circular. Columella arched. Umbilicus very small. Shell-structure rather thick.
Size.-—Height 8 mm., width 9 mm.
Locality.—There are two worn specimens in the Museum of Practical Geology,
one of which is on the same slab of rock as a specimen of Scoliostoma tewatum.
Remarks.—The specimen from which the above description is taken has
suffered much from decortication, but the ornamentation can be fairly seen.
It appears to agree fairly well with the smaller figure which Phillips gives of
Pl. caneellata, and there seems to be no doubt that it belongs to that species.
Whether Phillips’ second figure does not belong to a different species appears to
be doubtful. It represents a very much larger and more definitely cancellated
shell. It is clear from his drawing that it came from Wolborough.
In the same year that Phillips described this species Miinster’ described another
shell under the same name from the St. Cassian beds. To the latter shell d’Orbigny*
11841, Miinster, ‘ Beitr.,’ pt. 4, p. 118, pl. xi, fig. 18.
2 1849, d’Orbigny, ‘ Prodrome,’ vol. i, p. 195.
jou)
(@ 6)
292 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
has given the name Pl. subcancellata, leaving Phillips’ name for the present form
unchanged. As I have no other evidence as to the priority, I have followed
d’Orbigny in this point.
Affinities—The English specimens of Pl. Orbigiiana, d’ Archiac and de Verneuil,
seem to have less quadrate whorls, and the sinus-band is situated very much
farther from the suture, near the base instead of in the centre of the whorls.
These points are less distinctly shown in the Sandberger’s figures of the German
shell. Its ridges also appear to be wider apart, and the transverse striz finer
and more oblique.
Pl. subclathrata, Sandberger, is a much more angulated shell.
Pl. subimbricata, Whidborne, is more conical, and has very much more
numerous and finer striz and a rather higher sinus-band.
11. Prevroromaria CuupietcHensis, Whidborne. Pl. XXVIII, figs. 2, 3, 3a.
ef. 1860. Prevrotomaria Bopana, Ff. A. Roimer. Beitr., pt. 4, p. 163, pl. xxv,
figs. 16 a, 6.
1889. _ CHUDLEIGHENSIS, Whidborne, Geol. Mag., dec. 3, pt. 6,
p- 30.
Description.—Shell small, ovate, turbinate, few whorled. Spire conical, rather
depressed, of four subangulated whorls. Suture deep, acute, facing upwards.
Whorls regularly and moderately convex in general shape, covered with strong
spiral ridges. Sinus-band on shoulder just above the widest part of whorl, rather
elevated, bounded by two strong narrow ridges giving the angulated appearance
to the whorl, and sometimes bisected by a fine median thread. Ornament
consisting of two strong acute ridges below the suture, of which the first forms
the steep side of the suture, and which are followed by two fine threads; after
which come the ridges or keels of the sinus-band, and then over the back and base
of the whorl about twenty regular, smaller, spiral ridges or coarse threads,
occasionally alternating, which diminish as they approach the umbilicus; the
whole series of spiral lines being crossed and knotted by fine and closer longitu-
dinal threads, which sweep obliquely back from the suture, arch suddenly for-
ward in the sinus-band, and then gradually curve over the back of the shell till
on the lower part they again slope backwards, but begin to curve forwards again
at the extreme inferior point. Umbilicus small, rounded. Columella twisted,
curved, and rounded. Mouth sub-circular or sub-polygonal, posteriorly obtuse,
knotched at the keel. Lips blunt. Shell-structure thick.
Size.-—One specimen is 14 mm. high and 16 mm. wide; another is 17 mm.
PLEUROTOMARIA. 293
high and 15 mm. wide. The specimens, though perfect, appear to be generally
distorted, and probably the true measurement would come between these two.
Locality.—¥rom Chudleigh there are two specimens in Mr. Vicary’s Collec-
tion and another in the Woodwardian Museum. From Wolborough there is a
specimen in the Museum of Practical Geology.
Remarks.—These shells come very near to Pl. subimbricata, but in the opinion
of Mr. Roberts and myself are certainly distinct from it. The character of the
ridges is different, being less uniform and stronger; the suture is deeper and more
acute, the whorls broader and less swollen, the sinus-band higher up, and the
transverse markings much stronger and more definite.
Affinities.—Pleurotomaria Bodana, F. A. Romer,’ so closely resembles this
species that I am in some doubt whether it may not be identical. Romer’s descrip-
tion is very slight and agrees as far as it goes, but his figure presents several
differences. Its shape seems slightly shorter and more trochiform, the sinus-band
seems smaller and of a different character, wanting the bounding ridges and being
more strongly barred, and there are no signs of stronger ridges near the suture.
Hence it must probably be regarded as distinct.
Turbo canaliculatus, F. A. Romer,’ is somewhat similarly marked, but the shell
is flatter, and the mouth is more expanded, while the main keel is lower down
on the whorls and shows no signs of apy cross marks that would suggest its
being a Pleurotomaria.
An indistinct specimen figured by Phillips’ as “ perhaps a cast of ” Pl. aspera,
Sowerby, appears not unlike this species in general character, but differs in having
the sinus-band decidedly lower down on the whorl, and may more probably be
referred to Pl. victria.
12. PLevROTOMARIA SUBIMBRICATA, n. sp. Pl. XXVIII, figs. 5—8.
1855. PLEvROTOMARIA IMBRICATA, M‘Coy (not F. A. Romer). Brit. Pal. Foss.,
p- 393.
Description.—Shell rather small, spirally conical, turbinate, few-whorled,
pointed. Spire of four rather narrow, rapidly increasing volutions. Apex acute.
Suture well-marked, obtuse. Whorls obliquely expanding in a slightly convex
curve from the suture to the back, which is narrow and convex, and then
curving rapidly in to form an oblique and slightly convex base. Upper whorls
! 1860, F. A. Romer, ‘ Beitr.,’ pt. 4, p. 163. pl. xxv, figs. 16 a, db.
2 1843, F. A. Romer, ‘ Verst. Harzgeb.,’ p. 29, pl. vii, fig. 14.
3 1841, Phillips, ‘Pal. Fos.,’ p. 96, pl. xxxvii, fig. 177.
294 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
exposed to about the centre of the back. Sinus-band narrow, flat or concave,
prominent, situate upon the shoulder just above the widest part, bounded
and sometimes bisected by fine or coarse threads. Ornament consisting of nine
to fourteen fine, alternating, spiral threads above the sinus-band, and very nume-
rous similar alternating threads below it and upon the base. Transverse orna-
ment consisting of a few more or less indistinct broad bulges near the suture, and
very fine oblique striz, which are seen to be very acutely deflected at the sinus-
band, but are so indistinct as to be almost invisible. Mouth unseen. Umbilicus
small, deep. Shell-structure thin.
Size.—A specimen measures 15 mm. high and 13 mm. wide; another measures
20 mm. high and 19 mm. wide.
Localities.—In the Woodwardian Museum are two specimens from Wol-
borough, which were described by M‘Coy as Pl. imbricata, F. A. Romer, and a
third from Lummaton, which was collected by Mr. H. B. Tawney and referred by
him (on the museum label) to Pl. aspera, Philips. In the Museum of Practical
Geology are three examples from Wolborough, and in the Torquay Museum is a
small specimen from Lummaton.
Remarks.—The distinctive features in this shell are the narrow, elevated sinus-
band, and the numerous fine and rather irregular spiral threads on the rest of the
surface. The transverse ornament is so fine as rarely to be detected. In Mr.
Tawney’s specimen the spiral threads are more numerous and alternating than in
the Torquay fossil, and the sinus-band is deeply concave, while in the latter it is
filled by one or two coarse threads. One of the specimens in the Museum of
Practical Geology has the sinus-band lower down and the spiral lines above it
very fine; it presents rather a peculiar appearance, due to the slightly convex and
oblique upper parts of the whorl, which, being very wide and enveloping a great
part of the whorl above, cause the spire to have a gently undulating contour, broken
only by the flatter perpendicular sinus-band. I formerly regarded this specimen
as distinct, but a further examination leads me to believe that it is nothing more
than a variety of the present species.
Pl. imbricata, as originally described by F. A. Romer,’ is extremely like the
English fossils, but it presents some minor differences from them. Thus the
transverse striz are more strongly marked, the sinus-band is much wider,
the sutures are deeper, and the shape of the shell is flatter. Clarke’ redescribes
Rémer’s specimens, and states that the transverse marks are really almost imper-
ceptible, but he describes the shell as even flatter than does Rémer, and the
sinus-band as being much higher or broader than it is in the English fossils. I
am therefore in much doubt as to whether M‘Coy is to be followed in his identifi-
1 1843, F. A. Romer, ‘ Verst. Harzgeb.,’ p. 28, pl. 8, fig. 1.
2 1884, Clarke, ‘Neues Jahrb. f. Min.,’ Beil.-Band in, p. 341.
PLEUROTOMARIA. 295
cation. The height of the shell and the narrowness of the sinus-band seem
constant differences in the English specimens from Rémer’s shell, and therefore
upon the whole I think that it is safest to regard them as distinct. Other
differences also probably exist; for instance the base of the shell seems to be
decidedly more oblique.
Affinities.—Pl. aspera, Sowerby,’ differs entirely in the character of its orna-
ment, which is definitely reticulate, and in its convex sinus-band.
Pl. Chudleighensis is distinguished by the fewness and coarseness of its spiral
lines, the distinctness of its transverse striz, the greater length of the shell, and
the higher position of the sinus-band.
Pl. rotundata, F. A. Romer,’ appears to differ in being more discoid, and in
having fewer spiral ridges and more definite transverse striz, which form a
reticulation with the ridges.
Pl. decussata, var. evewicosta, Sandberger,*’ which seems to be identical with Pl.
imbricata, differs in being a much flatter shell with a broader sinus-band, and more
decussated and indistinct ridges.
Pl. carinata, Sowerby,* sp., and Pl. striata, Sowerby, sp.’ are clearly distinct,
for they are transversely instead of spirally striated, as also are Pl. striata, as given
by de Koninck,’ and the Canadian Pl. Delia, Billings.’
The conical specimen in the Museum of Practical Geology mentioned above
very nearly agrees in contour and other particulars with Pl. Lindstromi,
Cihlert,® which is evidently very nearly allied. That species may, however, be
distinguished by its depressed and narrower sinus-band, by the absence of an
umbilicus, by the much greater indistinctness of the spiral threads, and by the
clearness of the growth-lines.
Pl. filitexta, Hall,’ has a rather lower spire, and is marked by clear transverse
as well as very fine and numerous spiral lines.
In Pl. Wurmi, F. A. Romer,” the spiral lines are nodulated by transverse striz.
1 1840, Sowerby, ‘Geol. Trans.,’ ser. 2, vol. v, p. 8, pl. liv, fig. 16; and 1841, Phillips, ‘ Pal. Foss.,’
p- 96, pl. xxxvii, fig. 177 ¢.
2 1855, F. A. Romer., ‘ Beitr.,’ pt. 3, p. 35, pl. vii, figs. 4a, b; and 1884, Clarke, ‘ Neues Jahrb.
f. Min.,’ Beil.-Band iii, p. 344.
3 18538, ‘Sandberger,’ ‘ Verst. Rhein. Nassau,’ p. 197, pl. xxiv, figs. 4, 4 a.
4 1813, Sowerby, ‘Min. Conch.,’ vol. i, p. 34, pl. x, upper and lower figures.
> 1817, ibid., vol. 11, p. 159, pl. 171, fig. 1.
6 1842-4, de Koninck, ‘ Desc. Anim. Foss.,’ p. 399, pl. 31, fig. 2; and 1583, de Koninck, Ann.
Mus. Roy. H. N. Belg.,’ vol. viii, pt. 4, p. 32, pl. xxi, figs. 19—22.
7 1874, Billings, ‘ Paleozoic Fossils,’ vol. 11, pt. 1, p. 61, pl. v, fig. 3.
8 1887, Ghlert, ‘ Bull. Soc. d’Htud. Sci. d’Angers,’ p. 28, pl. viii, figs. 6, 6a.
9 1879, Hall, ‘ Pal. N. Y.,’ vol. v, pt. 2, p. 74, pl. xx, figs. 26, 27; and pl. xxviii, figs. 15—17.
10 1843, F. A. Romer, ‘ Verst. Harzgeb.,’ p. 27, pl. vii, fig. 18 ; and 1884, Clarke, ‘ Neues Jahrb.
f. Min.,’ Beil.-Band in, p. 343.
296 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
15. Puevroromarta SHarert, n. sp. Pl. XXVIII, figs. 9, 9a
1844. Scuizostoma virratuM, Gloldfuss. Petref. Germ., vol. iii, p. 79, pl. clxxxviii, ©
fig. 6a, b.
21853. Prevroromarta EvVoMPHALUS, Sandberger. Verst. Rhein. Nassau, p. 187,
pl. xxi, figs. 12, 12 a, 0b.
Description.—Shell rather small, discoidal, very short. Spire flat, of four or
five slowly increasing whorls. Suture apparently very deep, facing upwards.
Whorls sub-circular in section, rising convexly from the suture to their highest part,
where there is an excavated flat sinus-band, about one-fifth the width of the whorl,
and bounded by sharp edges. Ornament consisting of close fine lines or threads,
arching backwards from the suture, curving round in the sinus-band, sloping
forward below it and gradually becoming perpendicular on the back. Back oO! the
whorl flatly convex.
Size.—Height about 5 mm., width about 21 mm.
Locality.—There are two badly preserved specimens in the Torquay Museum
which probably came from Lummaton, and another, equally indistinct, in the
Woodwardian Museum from the same locality.
Remarks.—The specimens from which the above description is taken are in a
very unsatisfactory state of preservation. Their surface is so decayed and
damaged by matrix that it is most difficult to make out the character of the
ornamentation. They appear to be very similar to Schizostoma vittatum, Goldfuss,
and most probably belong to the same species, although one or two differences may
be observed in that Hifelian shell, e. g. its sinus-band seems broader and not sunk
below the rest of the surface, and its striz seem to be finer.
Pleurotomaria euomphalus, Sandberger,' seems at first sight to correspond
exactly with our shell, but it differs from it in the one important point of having
a raised sinus-band between two slight furrows. This point is not very clearly
shown in Sandberger’s figure, and, but for this, the resemblance between the two
species is so great that they would certainly be placed together.
The name Pl. vittata’ was used for a very different shell by Phillips some
years before Goldfuss named the present shell, and consequently a fresh name
must be found for the latter. It does not seem safe to use Sandberger’s name in
consequence of the difference mentioned above; I therefore propose to rename it
after my friend Professor H. Shaler Wilhams, of Cornell ee EE one of the
foremost American workers in Devonian Geology.
i 1853, Sandberger, ‘ Verst. Rhein. Nassau,’ p. 187, pl. xxii, figs. 12, 12 a, 0.
2 1836, Phillips, ‘Geol. Yorks.,’ pt. 2, p. 228, pl. xv, fig. 24.
PLEUROTOMARIA. 297
Affinities.—Sch. txeniatwm, Goldfuss,t and Sch. fasciatwm, Goldfuss,” besides
having elevated sinus-bands, are also distinguished by the possession of a few more
spiral ridges on their whorls.
14, PLEUROTOMARIA DELPHINULOIDES, Schlotheim, sp. Pl. XXVIII, figs. 10—13.
1821. HeELictrEs DELPHINULOIDES, Schlotheim. Petrefact., p. 102, p. xi, fig. 4.
1842, PLEUROTOMARIA DELPHINULOIDES, @ Archiac and de Verneuil. Geol. Trans.,
ser. 2, vol. vi, pt. 2, p. 861, pl. xxxiii,
figs. 4, 4a.
1843. o- SUBLAVIS, F. A. Romer. Verst. Harzgeb., p. 27, pl. vii, fig. 9.
oN ? 1843. Evompnatus Dionysir? F. A. Rémer. Ibid., p. 30, pl. viii, figs. 84, b.
1844, ScCHIZOSTOMA DELPHINULOIDES, Gioldfuss. Petref. Germ., vol. iii, p. 78, pl.
elxxxviii, figs. 3a—d.
1853. PLEUROTOMARIA DELPHINULZFORMIS, Sandberger. Verst. Khein. Nassau,
p. 188, pl. xxiii, figs. 1, 1 a—e.
1860. — DELPHINULIFORMIS, Hichwald. Lethea Rossica, p. 1172,
pl. xl, figs. 3a, 6.
1874. — LyDIA, Billings. Paleozoic Fossils, vol. 11, pt. 1, p. 62,
pl. v, figs. 4, 4 a.
1876. — DELPHINULOIDES, F. Romer. Leth. Pal., pl. xxxii, fig. 7.
1884. =i SUBLA&VIS, Clarke. Neues Jahrb. f. Min., Beil.-Bd. iii,
p. 340.
1887. _ Viennayt, W@hlert. Bull. Soc. d’Etud. Sci. d’Angers,
p- 30, pl. ix, figs. 2, 2a, b.
1887. — Metyixovi, Tschernyschew, Mém. Com. Géol. Russ., vol.
ii, No. 3, p. 169, pl. v, figs. 8 a—e.
1889. — DELPHINULOIDES, Whidborne. Geol. Mag., dec. 3, vol.
vi, p. 30. :
Description.—Shell sometimes very large, turbiniform, more or less elevated,
of four or five rather slowly increasing volutions. Spire rather variable in height,
broadly conical, symmetrical with the body-whorl, generally exposing the greater
part of the whorls. Suture deep, narrow, acute. Whorls roundly convex,
sub-circular or sub-elliptic, arching horizontally or obliquely from the suture to the
back, which is generally flatly perpendicular for a short distance, and then curving
more or lessin to the lower suture, or in the case of the body-whorl arching round
the base to the umbilicus with a deep symmetrical curvature. Sinus-band very
broad, supra-sutural, flat or slightly convex, level with the rest of the surface,
situated slightly, above the centre of the back, generally bounded by very fine,
low, raised, rounded threads or blunt angles, and sometimes bisected by an indis-
1 1844, Goldfuss, ‘ Petref. Germ.,’ vol. iii, p. 79, pl. elxxxviii, figs. 4. a—e.
2 Tbid., p. 79, pl. clxxxviii, figs. 5 a, 6.
cS
ep)
D
DEVONIAN FAUNA.
tinct median line. Surface nearly smooth, ornamented by fine irregularly grouped
erowth-lines, that start perpendicularly from the suture, arch back to the sinus-
band, which they cross in a shallow concave are or curve, and then seem to
become rather stronger on the base of the shell. Surface below the suture some-
times covered by multitudinous, very fine, low, close, rounded threads. Umbilicus
large and deep. Mouth emarginate, sub-circular or sub-elliptic. Lips sharp,
continuous. Shell-structure rather thin.
Size.
Height 42 mm., width 42 mm. A small flat specimen measures 9 mm.
high, 14 mm. wide.
Localities.
In Mr. Vicary’s Collection are three specimens from Chudleigh
and thirteen from Wolborough; in my Collection two from Chudleigh and one
from Wolborough ; in the Torquay Museum six, some probably from Lummaton
and some from Wolborough; in the Museum of Practical Geology three from
Wolborough; and in the British Museum one from Lummaton and one from
Wolborough.
Remarks.—Helicites delphinuloides, Schlotheim, is a very common and well-
known shell, which has been frequently figured and described under various
names by foreign authors. These figures show the great variability of the species,
and the same fact is borne out by an examination of our English examples.
‘They vary greatly in the height of the spire, the rate of increase and number of
| the whorls, and the shape of their section. Unfortunately these specimens are
for the most part defective or decayed and cannot therefore be compared as com-
pletely as could be wished. In spite of their variability, however, they all appear
to have the same general character, and there is little doubt that they all belong
to Schlotheim’s species. His figure represents a specimen of medium height, and
shows the broad sinus-band bounded by a raised thread, and the obliquely longi-
tudinal strize above and below it.
D’Archiac and de Verneuil and also Sandberger figure two extreme varieties,
and the former authors suggest that one of theirs, which is exactly hike the most’
elevated of our shells, may possibly prove to be a distinct species. The specimens
now before us from their constant variability do not point to this, and probably
the possession of a few more good examples would fill up the gaps which still exist.
Sandberger gives no reason for changing the name of his shell.
Hu. delphinuliformis as given by Hichwald is much more elevated, and perhaps
increases less rapidly ; but in view of the variability of the species it may probably
be regarded as simply a variety. It is longer than wide, and smooth except for
the sinus-band.
Huomphalus Dionysii? F. A. Romer looks just like the cast of a rather elevated
form of this shell. Some of Mr. Vicary’s specimens almost exactly agree with
Romer’s figure. In his later work, however, Romer refigures his species under the
~PLEUROTOMARIA. 299
name of Pl. lzvis,' and that shell, which differs considerably from his former, is
distinguished from the present species by its more globose shape and narrower
convex sinus-band, and by having two or three indistinct spiral lines near the
suture. Itis to be noted that when the surface is worn away it is often difficult
to separate specimens of our shell from Huw. circularis.
Pl. Melnikovi, Tschernyschew, also appears to be an extremely elongated
variety. Being only figured as a cast, however, it is possible that the ornamenta-
tion may prove different.
I am not very certain whether Pl. Viennayi, Hhlert, should be regarded as a
synonym of the shorter variety ; the only distinction seems to be that the sinus-
band is situated slightly higher on the whorls than usual.
Pl. sublevis, F. A. Romer, and, as far as can be judged, Pl. Lydia, Billings,
seem accurately to agree with some of our varieties.
Affinities—In 1817 Sowerby described a shell from the Carboniferous of
Derbyshire under the name of Pl. cirriformis,’ but. both his figure and description
are too indistinct to be recognisable. In the ‘Geol. Trans.’* he doubtfully
identifies with it a water-worn cast from Plymouth, remarking that the true
Pl. cirriformis is found at Paffrath and is the Pl. delphinuloides of foreign authors.
The Plymouth shell is, I believe, really a specimen of Pl. semimuda; while an
examination of Sowerby’s type specimen of the original Pl. cwriformis, which is
now in the British Museum, shows that it is totally distinct from either. The
shape of its whorls is different; the sinus-band is elevated, flat, narrow, and
very coarsely marked with irregular arched striz ; the surface above the sinus-
band is finely but distinctly cancellated. I do not think that any of the Plewro-
tomariz from Devonshire can be referred to Sowerby’s species.
D’ Archiac and de Verneuil suggest that Pl. vittata, Phillips,* should be regarded
as an intermediate variety, and there is certainly nothing in either Phillips’ figure
or description to differentiate it. His type specimen, however, and other
_ specimens in the British Museum show that it is quite distinct. Its shapeis much
more elongate and ovoid, its whorls are more evenly rounded, and its sinus-band
is flatly convex and bounded by depressed striz. Moreover its growth-lines are
finer and there is no umbilicus. In general shape it somewhat resembles the
shell referred by me to Natica meridionalis, Phillips. It is placed by de Koninck
in his sub-genus Rhineoderma.
The shell described as Pl. delphinuloides ? by de Koninck’ (with a long
1 1850, F. A. Romer, ‘ Beitr.,’ pt. 1, p. 37, pl. v, fig. 27.
2 1817, Sowerby, ‘ Min. Conch.,’ vol. ii, p. 160, pl. 171, fig. 2.
3 1840, ibid., ‘Geol. Trans.,’ ser. 2, vol. v, pt. 3, pl. lvii, fig. 17.
* 1836, Phillips, ‘Geol. Yorks.,’ vol. ii, p. 228, pl. xv, fig. 24.
§ 1842-4, de Koninck, ‘ Desc. Anim. Foss.,’ p. 377, pl. xxxvi, fig. 4.
39
300 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
synonymy) evidently does not belong to this species, as it has eae angulated
whorls and a much smaller umbilicus.
Pl. elliptica, Minster,’ has a narrow concave sinus-band upon an elevated rim.
Pl. undulata, F. A. Romer,’ seems to have much flatter sides, more angulated
whorls and a much narrower sinus-band. Ferd. Rémer* considers it distinguished
by its shortness and its triangular mouth. Some specimens of the present shell,
however, are certainly very short.
Pl. plena, Hall,* is a more exactly conical shell, less umbonated, with a lower
sinus-band, which is partially covered by the succeeding whorl, and with fine
transverse striz only.
Pl. Koltubanica, Tschernyschew,’ is a small shell which differs in having spiral
ridges on the upper part of the whorls and a still wider sinus-band.
15. PLEUROTOMARIA DISSIMULATRIX, n. sp. Pl. XXVIII, fig. 17.
Description.—Shell large, turbinate, rather elevated, of three or four volutions.
Spire increasing rather quickly. Suture deep, rectangular. Whorls sub-circular
in section, nearly flat at the suture, and most convex on the shoulder and at the
lower angle. Body-whorl very much swollen. Sinus-band narrow, elevated,
‘bounded by indistinct ridges, situated in the centre of the back. Ornament
consisting of coarse, oblique, rounded, transverse ridges, arching back from the
suture, and apparently of one or two coarse indistinct spiral ridges near the sinus-
band.
Size.—Height, 38 mm.; width about 38 mm.
Locality—Wolborough. There are four very defective specimens in the
Museum of Practical Geology, anda very doubtful specimen in the British Museum.
Remarks.—Only two of these specimens show much character; the others
being almost unrecognisable. Even these are too obscure to permit a complete
definition of the species, or even certainty as to its true position. The distinctive
features are the narrow elevated sinus-band, the sub-quadrate or sub-circular
section of its whorls; and the coarse oblique striz. As in these points it differs
from Pl. delphinuloides, I do not think it can be regarded as a variety of that
shell. It more nearly approaches Pl. victriv, but the shape and the ornamentation
are apparently different, the spiral lines dominating in the one, and the oblique
1 1844, Goldfuss, ‘ Petref. Germ.,’ vol. iii, p. 67, pl. clxxxiii, fig. 9.
2 1843, F. A. Romer, ‘ Verst. Harzgeb.,’ p. 28, pl. vii. figs. 10a, 8.
3 1844, F. Romer, ‘ Rhein. Uebergangsgeb.,’ p. 80.
4 1879, Hall, ‘Pal. N. Y.,’ vol. v, pt. 2, p. 66, pl. xvii, figs. 11—13.
5 1887, Tschernyschew, ‘Mém. Com. Geol. Russ.,’ vol. ii, No. 3, p. 170, pl. 6, figs. 1O—11.
PLEUROTOMARIA. 301
in the other; moreover the direction of the oblique lines is very different, and one
or two other distinctive features exist which prevent its union with it, which,
chiefly from the paucity of the material, I was at one time inclined to propose.
Affinities.—Schizostoma costatum, Goldfuss,' is sinistral, and its ridges seem
fewer and less oblique than those of the present species. Its sinus-band also
appears much narrower, like that of the genus Porcellia.
Worthenia Munsteriana, de Koninck,’ has a larger and more elevated spire.
Pl. Larteti, Ghlert,’ is very similar, but is a more conical shell with more
numerous whorls and a less inflated body-whorl.
16. Puevroromaria victRIx, Whidborne. Pl. XXVIII, figs. 15, 16.
21841. PiEevRoTOMARIA aSPERA, Phillips (pars), not Sowerby. Pal. Foss., p. 228,
pl. xxxvii, fig. 177* only.
1854. _— — Morris, Catal. Brit. Foss., p. 272.
1889. —_ vierrix, Whidborne, Geol. Mag., dec. 3, vol. vi, p. 30.
Description.—Shell large, turbinate, rather elevated, angulated, of about four
volutions. Spire increasing rather slowly, somewhat elevated. Suture simple,
deep, rather broad. Whorls broad, sub-circular, much exposed, moderately convex
above, the curvature increasing at the lowest and widest part, where there is a
rapid rounding-in to form a spirally convex base. Sinus-band narrow, elevated,
flat or slightly concave, bounded by a minute groove and edge, which become a
ridge on the upper whorls; situated about the middle of the body-whorl, or in the
upper whorls about twice its width above the suture. Ornament consisting of
three fine equally distant threads above the sinus-band, and numerous close
minute spiral threads on the base of the shell, the whole crossed by microscopic
characteristic growth-striz which are unusually steep on the upper part of the
whorls, and become coarser on the base so as to break the spiral threads.
Size.— Height about 27 mm.; width, 23 mm.
Localities.—There are two specimens in my collection from Lummaton, another
fragment (probably of the same species) from Lummaton in the Bristol Museum,
and a very poor specimen from Wolborough in the Godwin-Austen Collection in
the Museum of Practical Geology.
Remarks.— Upon the upper whorls the spiral threads are so strong as to give
a polygonal shape to its section, but upon the body-whorl they become very
indistinct. This species comes near to Pl. delphinuloides in some respects, but it
is more angulated than any of the varieties of that species, and also has a narrower
1 1844, Goldfuss, ‘ Petref. Germ.,’ vol. iii, p. 79, pl. clxxxviti, figs. 7 a, 5.
2 1888, de Koninck, ‘Ann. Mus. Roy. H. N. Belg.,’ vol. viii, pt. 4, p. 66, pl. xxxii bis, figs. 7, 8.
3 1887, Ghlert, ‘Bull. Soc. d’Etude Sci. d’Angers,’ p. 25, pl. xxix, figs. 1, La—e.
302 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
sinus-band, and is differently marked. Mr. Roberts and I think that it is to be
regarded as a new species of the Delphinuloides type.
Affinities.—Pl. Larteti, Hhlert," comes between this species and Pl. delphinu-
loides, being a more turbiniform shell without spiral strie.
Pleurotomaria silurica, Hichwald,’ is rather similar in general shape. It
differs in being more elevated and angulated, in having no spiral lines above the
suture, and in having the transverse marks very coarse.
Pl. aspera, Sowerby,’ is a widely different shell with coarse reticulate markings
and a convex sinus-band; as also for the most part is Phillips’ rendering* of that
species. The four figures given by the latter author are, however, so dissimilar
that it seems probable that he has included more than one species under this
head. Three of these are totally distinct from the present form; but the fourth,
which he has separated from the rest, and described as “‘ perhaps a cast of the
above species,’ most probably represents an example of this shell. It is very
similar in general shape, but Phillips’ sketch seems to indicate that its ornamenta-
tion was coarser.
It appears very closely to resemble Pl. cirriformis, Sowerby, sp-, but differs in
being less reticulate and more trochiform, in having the sinus-band smaller, less
convex, and higher on the whorls, and in having a shallower suture.
17. Purvrotomaria Croker, n. sp. Pl. XXVIII, fig. 14.
Description.—Shell small, depressed, turbiniform, of few volutions. Spire
forming a very low cone. Suture rather deep. Whorls elliptic in section, much
wider than high, spreading out flatly from the suture with a gradually increasing
curvature, very convex round the short back, and flattish on the base. Body-
whorl very large. Sinus-band situate on the widest part of the whorls, elevated,
convex, rather narrow, bounded by fine thread-like grooves, and marked by fine
recurved striz. Surface smooth, or marked only by indistinct growth-lines.
Size.-—Height, 11 mm.; width, 17 mm.
Locality—Wolborough. ‘here is a specimen in the British Museum, and
another doubtful specimen in the Museum of Practical Geology.
Remarks.—I have felt very doubtful whether these fossils were distinct, or
whether they should be regarded as one of the numerous varieties of Pl. delphinu-
loides. 'They seem to differ from that species by having a narrower, convex, and
' 1887, Giblert, ‘ Bull. Soc. d’Ktude Sci. d’Angers,’ p. 25, pl. ix, figs. 1, 1 a—e.
2 1860, Eichwald, ‘ Lethea Rossica,’ p. 1171, pl. xliv, fig. 11.
3 1840, Sowerby, ‘ Geol. Trans.,’ ser. 2, vol. v, pt. 8, pl. liv, fig. 16.
* 1841, Phillips, ‘ Pal. Foss.,’ p. 96, pl. xxxvii, figs. 177 a—c, 177*.
PLEUROTOMARIA. 303
more elevated sinus-band, and by the greater flatness and peculiar slope of their
whorls ; and after several examinations I have come to the conclusion that there
is reason for treating them as a separate species. The sinus-band may possibly
have been bounded by ridges, but the state of preservation of the specimens does
not permit evidence upon this point.
Affinities.—Pl. naticiformis, Sandberger,' exactly agrees with this species in
shape, but is distinguished by its flat sinus-band which is divided into fine granules
by three spiral furrows.
Pl. turbinea, Schuur,’ is distinguished by its numerous fine spiral striz and its
more rounded and rapidly increasing whorls.
Pl. levis, F. A. Romer,’ differs in having much more numerous whorls, which
increase more slowly and are less elliptic. He says it is the same species as that
which he formerly described as Hu. Dionysii ?* and which chiefly differs from the
present by having a higher spire and shallower sutures. Clarke’ says there is little
variation in that species, and that the sculpture is so fine that it is often difficult
to recognise the sinus-band. Hence it is probably distinct from the present shell
in which the sinus-band is very clearly seen.
T have named this specimen after the late Dr. Croker, of Bovey Tracy, an old
student of the paleontology of Devonshire.
18. PLEvROTOMARIA GRACILIS, Phillips. Pl. XXVIII, fig. 18.
? 1840. EvompPnanvs suscarinatus, Minster. Beitr., pt. 3, p. 85, pl. xv, fig. 5.
1841. PLEUROTOMARIA GRACILIS, Phillips. Pal. Foss., p. 98, pl. xxxvii, fig. 181.
1854. — — Morris. Catal. Brit. Foss., p. 272.
1888. = — Stheridge. Foss. Brit., vol. i, Pal., p. 164.
Description.—Shell small, lenticular, much depressed, of about four volutions.
Spire small, flatly conical. Suture narrow, linear, deep, simple. Whorls rather
quickly increasing, rising from the suture and immediately curving with a
decreasing curvature till the widest part of the whorl is reached, which is marked
by the sinus-band, and immediately followed by the lower suture. Body-whorl
rather large, similar to the other whorls above, and rapidly curving below to form
' 1853, Sandberger, ‘ Verst. Rhein. Nassau,’ p. 192, pl. xxiii, figs. 4, 4a—e.
? 18538, Steininger, ‘Geogn. Bescreib. Eifel,’ p. 47, pl. i, fig. 16; and 1853, Sandberger, ‘ Verst.
Rhein. Nassau,’ p. 192, pl. xxiii, figs. 5, 5a—e.
> 1850, F. A. Romer, ‘ Beitr.,’ pt. 1, p. 37, pl. v, fig. 27.
* 1848, ibid., ‘ Verst. Harzgeb.,’ p. 30, pl. viii, figs. 3 a, 0.
> 1884, Clarke, ‘Neues Jahrb. f. Min.,’ Beil.-Band iii, p. 340.
304 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
a flattish base. Mouth, umbilicus, and surface unknown. Sinus-band apparently
very narrow, and rather elevated.
Size.—Height, 6 mm.; width, 11 mm.
Locality.—There is a specimen apparently from Lummaton in the Torquay
Museum.
Remarks.—I have been unable to find the type specimen of Pl. gracilis, but
after careful consideration Mr. Roberts and myself came to the conclusion that
the fossil described above must belong to that species. Phillips’ figure of it
represents a still flatter shell, with much broader whorls, but these differences
may be due to the imperfection of the specimens. Thus, while the figure here
given accurately represents one view of the Torquay specimen, its whorls seem,
when viewed from another side, to be much more horizontally flattened, so that it
much more nearly approaches Phillips’ figure.
The specimen is very poor, its surface is lost, and it is impossible to say
whether the body-whorl is not partly absent ; but the size and shape of the sinus-
band is clearly shown, and appears to be elevated, rounded, very narrow, and
situate on the shoulder or widest part of the whorls. Phillips, on the other hand,
writes of his fossil as if its sinus-band were depressed instead of elevated, but it is
very difficult to be sure of his meaning.
It seems very probable that it is also identical with Miinster’s Huomphalus
subcarinatus,' which only differs in having a rather more elevated band or keel,
and rather more numerous and slowly increasing whorls, so that the spire is
larger. As the umbilicus of our fossil is unseen, I do not feel sufficiently sure of
its identity to adopt Mimster’s name, though I expect that it will ultimately
prove that both the North and the South Devon shells will have to be referred to
that species.
Affinities. —Plewrotomaria sigaretus, Sandberger,’ is similar in general shape,
but differs in its greater flatness, in the position of the sinus-band (which is not
seen in Sandberger’s figure), and in the section of the whorls being bluntly tri-
angular instead of semi-elliptic.
Natica discus, F. A. Romer,’ is also almost exactly similar, and in the figure
there are some signs of an (unmentioned) band as in our specimen. It is difficult
to decide upon such slight evidence whether it is the same shell. Romer mentions
some backward lines of growth which might point to its being a Plewrotomaria.
Clarke,* however, describes it under the name Turbinilopsis discus, F. A. Romer
sp., and says that it is covered by microscopic spiral strize.
1 1840, Minster, ‘ Beitr.,’ pt. iii, p. 85, pl. xv, fig. 15.
2 1853, Sandberger, ‘ Verst. Rhein. Nassau,’ p. 194, pl. xxiil, figs. 9, 9a, 9 4.
3 1852, F. A. Romer, ‘ Beitr.,’ pt. 2, p. 88, pl. xiii, figs. 11 a, 6.
* 1884, Clarke, ‘Neues Jahrb. f. Min.,’ Beil.-Band iii, p. 351.
PLEUROTOMARIA. 305
Pleurotomaria arata, Hall,’ has a higher spire, a broader sinus-band, strong
transverse ridges, and a more angulated section.
Euomphalus nanus, Hichwald,? has a much more depressed spire, and a
decidedly deeper suture.
19. Pievroromaria Biscnorru, Goldfuss. Pl. XXXI, figs. 1, 1 a.
' 1844. PrLevrotomari1a Biscuorrit, Goldfuss. Petref. Germ., vol. iii, p. 65, pl.
elxxxiii, fig. 4.
1853. — CALCULIFORMIS, Sandberger. Verst. Rhein. Nassau, p. 193,
pl. xxii, fig. 14.
1889. — — Whidborne. Geol. Mag., dec. 3, vol. vi, p. 30.
Description.—Shell very small, lenticular, depressed, globose or turbinate.
Spire conical, very low, of five whorls. Suture very slightly marked. Whorls
almost flat close to the suture, and then curving with a nearly semicircular
curvature to form the sides of the shell. Upper whorls very much enveloped by
those below. Surface smooth except that there are signs of a raised rounded
sinus-band or keel, which is distant about half the width of the whorl from the
suture. Shell-structure thick. Mouth and umbilicus hidden.
Size.-—Height, 6 mm.; width, 10 mm.
Locality—Lummaton. There is a specimen in the Woodwardian Museum,
which was collected by Mr. E. B. Tawney from that place.
Remarks.—Uxcept that there are signs of very minute spiral strie, Sand-
berger’s species corresponds exactly with our specimen. It agrees both in general
shape and in the postion and convexity of the sinus-band. Its aperture is
possibly slightly larger, but there can, I think, be no doubt of its identity. The
sinus-band in the English specimen is very indistinct, and but for the exact corre-
spondence with Sandberger’s species might well be overlooked, but a close exa-
mination leaves, I think, no doubt that it really exists.
Sandberger identifies his species with Plewrotomaria Bischoffii, Goldfuss* which
he describes as only a cast, though Goldfuss does not mention this. Goldfuss’s
figure is quite smooth and has perhaps more quickly increasing whorls and a wider
sinus-band than the English shell. As no side view is given the elevation of
the shell cannot be compared ; but there is no cause for questioning the correct-
1 1879, Hall, ‘ Pal. N. Y.,’ vol. v, pt. 2, p. 64, pl. xvii, figs. 1—10.
2 1857, Hichwald, ‘Bull. Soc. Nat. Moscow,’ p. 150; and 1860, ‘ Lethwa Rossica,’ p. 1635, pl. lx,
figs. 26 a—e.
3 1844, Goldfuss, ‘ Petref. Germ.,’ vol. iii, p. 65, pl. clxxxiii, figs. 4 a, 8.
306 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
ness of Sandberger’s identification; and as he gives no reason for changing the
name of course Goldfuss’s original name must stand.
Affinities—This shell is so similar to fotellina helicina, Minster sp., in
general appearance that even Mr. Tawney supposed it to be the same shell, but it is
clearly distinguishable by the presence of a sinus-band, by its more elevated spire,
and its less discoid form. From Plewrotomaria gracilis, Phillips,‘ to which Mr.
Tawny referred both shells, it is distinguished by its sinus-band being well
within the shoulder instead of on the median line of the whorl, and by its more
globose shape.
In Pl. Brilonensis, Kayser,’ the sinus-band is much farther down from the
suture.
Schizostoma bistriata, Minster,’ differs in having a depressed sinus-band which
is not so high up on the shoulder, and in which the concave lines of growth are
very visible.
2. Genus—Murcuisonia (d’Archiac and de Verneuil Mss.), Phillips, 1841.
This genus is distinguished from Pleurotomaria, which it otherwise closely
resembles, by its elongate turrited form and by the constant absence of an
umbilicus. It occurs from the Silurian to the Trias.
1. Murcuisonta turpinata, Schlotheim, sp. Pl. XXIX, figs. 1—16, and Pl. XXX,
figs. 1—12.
1821. Muricrres turBinatvs, Schlotheim. Petref., p. 145.
1827. Bucctnum spinosum, Sowerby. Min. Conch., vol. vi, p. 128, pl. d1xvi, fig. 4.
1827. TuRRireLta appreviata, Sowerby. Ibid., vol. vi, p. 125, pl. d1xvi, fig. 2.
1830. Mutanopsis coronata, Honinghaus. Jahrb. f. Min., p. 2381.
1832. TURRITELLA coronata, Goldfuss. De la Beche’s Handbook (German
edition), p. 533.
1834. CERITHIUM aANTIQUUM, Stezninger. Mém. Soc. Géol. Fr.; ser. 1, vol. i, p. 367.
1840. Scurzostoma rricincta, Minster. Beitr., pt. 3, p. 87, pl. xv, fig. 14.
1 1841, Phillips, ‘ Pal. Foss.,’ p. 98, pl. xxxvii, fig. 181.
2 1872, Kayser, ‘ Zeits. Deutch. Geol. Gesell.,’ vol. xxiv, p. 673, pl. xxvi, fig. 3.
5 1840, Minster, ‘ Beitr.,’ pt. 3, p. 86, pl. xv, figs. 11 a, 6.
MURCHISONIA. 307
1840. Bucctnum sprnosum, Sowerby. Geol. Trans., ser. 2, vol. v, pt. 3, pl. vii,
? 1841.
1841.
1841.
1841.
1842.
1842.
1842,
1842.
1842.
1842.
? 1842-4,
1843.
1844,
1844.
1844.
1844.
1844.
1844.
1844.
? 1849.
1849.
1849.
1849.
1849.
1849,
1849,
1848.
1848.
1848.
1848.
? 1848.
1850.
1851.
figs. 24—27.
Murcuisonra aNauLata, Phillips. Pal. Foss., p. 101, pl. xxxix,
fig. 189.
GEMINATA, Phillips. Ibid., p. 102, pl. xxxix, fig. 190.
BILINEATA ? Phillips. Ibid., p. 102, pl. xxxix, fig. 191.
spinosa, Phillips. Ibid., p. 102, pl. xxxix, figs. 192 a—e.
coronata, d’Archiac and de Verneuil. Geol. Trans., ser. 2,
vol. vi, pt. 2, p. 355, pl. xxxii, fig. 3.
INTERMEDIA, d’ Archiac and de Verneuil. Ibid., p. 356, pl.
xxxii, figs. 4, 5.
ANGULATA, @’Archiac and de Verneuil. Ibid., p. 356, pl.
xxxil, figs. 6, 7.
BILINEATA, d’Archiae and de Verneuil. Ibid., p. 356, pl.
Xxxil, fig. 8.
BIGRANULOSA, @’Archiac and de Verneuil. Ibid, p. 357, pl.
xxxil, figs. J—11.
Brnovosa, d’Archiac and de Verneuil. Ibid., p. 357, pl. xxxii,
fig. 12.
VERNEUILIANA, de Koninck. Desc. Anim. Foss., p. 414,
pl. xxxviii, figs. 5a, b.
Hercyyica, &. A. Rimer. Verst. Harzgeb., p. 29, pl. viii,
fig. 4.
LINEATA, Gloldfuss. Petref. Germ., vol. ii, p. 23, pl.
BILINEATA, Goldfuss. . elxxii, figs. 1 a—e.
INTERMEDIA, Goldfuss. Ibid., vol. iii, p. 28, pl. clxxii,
figs. 2 a, b.
coronata, Goldfuss. Ibid., vol. iii, p. 28, pl. clxsii,
figs. 3 a, 0.
BiInoDOSA, Groldfuss. Ibid., vol. iii, p. 24, pl. clxxii, fig. 4.
AN@uULATA, Goldfuss. Ibid., vol. ili, p. 24, pl. elxxii,
figs. 5 a—e.
BILINEATA, Ff. Rémer. Rhein. Uebergangsgeb., p. 80.
ANGLICA, @’Orbigny. Prodrome, vol. i, p. 70.
BIGRANULOSA, d’Orbigny. Ibid., vol. i, p. 70.
BINODOSA, d’Orbigny. Ibid., vol. i, p. 70.
ANTIQUA, @’Orbigny. Ibid., vol. i, p. 70.
GEMINATA, d’Orbigny. Ibid., vol. i, p. 70.
INTERMEDIA, d’Orbigny. Ibid., vol. i, p. 70.
Hercyntica, d’Orbigny. Ibid., vol. i, p. 70.
BINODOSA, Bronn. Index Palexont., p. 747.
GEMMATA, Bronn. Ibid., p. 747.
Heroynica, Bronn. Ibid., p. 747.
TURBINATA, Bronn. Ibid., p. 748.
VeRNEUILIANA, Bronn. Ibid., p. 748.
BisTriaTa, F, A. Romer, Beitr., pt. 1, p. 37, pl. v, fig. 26.
TURBINATA, Bronn. Lethea, 3rd ed., pt. 2, p. 461, pl. iii,
fig. 16.
4.0
308
DEVONIAN FAUNA.
Mvrcutisonra Bacuetrert, Rowault. Bull. Soc. Géol. Fr., ser. 2, vol. viii,
p- 384.
— . BILINEATA, Quendst... Handb. Petref., p. 425, pl. xxxiv, fig. 11.
PLEUROTOMARIA ANGULATA, Sandberger. Verst. Rhein. Nassau, p. 204,
pl. xxiv, figs. 19, 19 a.
== NERINEA, Sandberger. Ibid., p. 208, pl. xxiv, fig. 18.
MURCHISONIA INTERMEDIA, Steininger. Geogn. Beschreib. Hifel., p. 46.
—_— ANTIQUA, Steininger. Ibid., p. 46.
— BIGRANULOSA, Morris. Catal. Brit. Foss., p. 258.
— @emMInata, Morris, Ibid.,.p. 259.
ct spinosa, Morris. Ibid., p. 259.
PLEUROTOMARIA EXILIS, Hichwald. Lethza Rossica, p. 1168, pl. xliv, fig. 18.
Macrocuitvs pestprerata, Hall. Desc. N. Sp. Foss., p. 22.
— — Hall. Fifteenth Rep. N. Y. State Cab. Nat.
Hist., p. 50, pl. iv, fig. 12.
Morcutsonia ornata, Trenkner. Paliont. Novit., pt. 1, p. 9, pl. i, fig. 15.
=a cockLEA, Trenkner. Ibid., p. 9, pl. i, fig. 16.
— TURBINATA, FP. Rimer. Lethea Pal., pl. xxxii, fig. 4.
— Verneviniana, F. Romer. Ibid., pl. xlv, fig. 12.
— Detacet, Munier-Chalmas. Journ. Conch., ser. 2, vol. xvi,
p. 104.
— — Delage. Strat. Terr. Prim., Ille-et-Vilaine, p. 80.
— DESIDERATA, Hall. Pal. N. Y., vol. v, pt. 2, p. 89, pl. xxi,
figs. 1—3, 10.
— INTERCEDENS, Hall. Ibid., vol. v, pt, 2, p. 92, pl. xxx, fig. 29.
— BILINEATA, Zittel. Handbuch Paleozool., Band ii, p. 182,
fig. 224 a.
— INTERMEDIA, Tryon. Structural Conch., vol. ii, p. 319, pl.
Ixxxul, fig. 86.
_ Hercynica, Clarke. Neues Jahrb. f. Min., Beil.-Band ii,
p: 345.
— BILINEATA, Clarke. Ibid., Beil.-Band ii, p. 345.
— ANGULATA, Clarke. Ibid., Beil.-Band iu, p. 345.
— ef. rrtcincta, Clarke. Ibid., Beil.-Band in, p. 345.
_ OBTUSANGULA, Lindstrim. Sil. Gast. Gottland, p. 128,
pl. xii, figs. 7, 18.
— BIGRANULOSA, Etheridge, in Phillips’ Manual of Conch.,
ploix, festa:
— Bacuentert, M@hlert. Bull. Soc. d’Etude Sci. d’Angers,
p. 15, pl. viii, figs. 2—2 d.
— Cuatmasi, @hlert. Ibid., p. 16, pl. vii, figs. 3—3 8.
— ANGULATA, T'schernyschew. Mém. Com. Géol. Russ., vol. ii,
No. 3, p. 171, pl. v, fig. 14.
— INTERMEDIA, T'schernyschew. Ibid. p. 171, pl. vi, figs. 12 a, d.
— BILINEATA, Fischer. Manuel Conchyl. p. 847, pl. x,
fig. 25.
—_ BIGRANULOSA, Etheridge. Foss. Brit., vol. i, Pal., p. 164.
— GEMINATA, Etheridge. Ibid., vol. i, Pal., p. 164.
MURCHISONIA. 309
1888. Munrcuisonza sprnosa, Etheridge. Ibid., vol. i, Pal., p. 164.
18838. — — Prestwich. Geology, vol. ii, p. 79, pl. v, fig. 10.
1889. PLEUROTOMARIA LATEVITTATA, Koken. Neues Jahrb. f. Min., Beil.-Band vi,
p. 324, pl. x, fig. 12.
1889. Murcuisonra aff. praranutosa, Koken. Ibid., Beil.-Band vi, p. 367, pl.
xiv, fig. 5.
Description.—Shell large, very variable, elevated, many-whorled, turrited, and
frequently more or less coarsely tuberculated. Apex apparently rather sharp.
Spire conical, more or less elongated, generally, but not always, far exceeding the
body-whorl in height, coiled irregularly in about seven to ten volutions. Suture
deep, acute, simple or frequently complicated by the ornament. Whorls swollen,
angulated, variable in shape, generally bearing just below the suture a tuberculated
ridge or row of tubercles, which are sometimes very large and nodulous, and about
twelve to fourteen to the whorl, and having more rarely on the lower bend of the
whorl another indistinct ridge or row of elongate tubercles. Sinus-band in the
centre of the back, narrow, prominent, concave, bounded by two strong, sharp, lofty
ridges. Growth-lines irregular, indistinct, moderately oblique, arching in a slightly
sigmoidal curve back from the suture to the sinus-band, where they are recurved,
and then sloping similarly forward on the lower part of the whorl. Mouth
small, oblique, sub-ovate, bluntly and indistinctly pointed both above and below.
Outer lip convex, deeply notched at the extremity of the sinus-band. Columella
thickened, arched, rounded. Umbilicus absent, or occasionally present but very
small. Shell-structure thin on the back of the whorls, thicker elsewhere.
Size.—A very large specimen, wanting the body-whorls, measures 70 mm. high
by 27 mm. wide. Other specimens, with the body-whorls, measure respectively
70 mm. by 31 mm.; 57 mm. by 30 mm.; and 33 mm. by 22 mm.
Localities.—This species is very common at Chudleigh, and is well represented
from that locality in most collections. From Wolborough there are two specimens
in Mr. Vicary’s collection, three in the Torquay Museum, one in the British
Museum, and one in my Collection. In the Torquay Museum are three small
specimens which may have come from Lummaton.
Remarks.—This shell is so variable that it is very difficult to give an exact
description of it. If two of the extreme varieties were placed together without
their connecting links, they would certainly be regarded as belonging to distinct
species if not to distinct genera. Nevertheless, when a large number are examined
together, it is at once seen that hardly two specimens are exactly alike, and that
extreme varieties can be united in series of almost imperceptible links, so that it
is impossible to find a dividing line between them. Moreover, sometimes the
shape, ornament, and coiling change their character in different parts of the same
shell. This is strikingly seen in one of Mr. Vicary’s specimens (Pl. XXX, fig. 12),
310 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
in which the first seven whorls exactly correspond with Goldfuss’s figure of the
variety M. intermedia, while the other two whorls change from the short, rounded,
nodulous, to the acutely triangular, smooth style, and have very narrow sinus-
bands, so that they are much beyond the extremes of his figures of the varieties
M. bilineata and M. angulata. Another of Mr. Vicary’s specimens has its whorls
generally smooth, but they occasionally become tuberculous for a short distance.
The coiling of the spire is frequently irregular, so that its contour becomes
slanting or unsymmetrical, convex or concave. Specimens also differ very greatly
in elevation, and in the size of the body-whorl, some having it higher and more
capacious than the rest of the spire, while in others it is less than a quarter of the
total height. Again the shape of the section of the whorls and the amount of
tuberculation is extremely variable, but, as observed above, these points sometimes
change so much in the same specimen that it is easy to see that they are not
specifically important. In spite of all these differences there is so much character
in the species that, except perhaps in one or two cases, it is very easy to define its
bounds. The only other Devonshire species which approaches it is M. Vicariana,
but that shell shows several clear distinctions, and I have seen no passage speci-
mens between them.
On the other hand there is a recognisable amount of centering around certain
shapes, a few of which are enumerated below ; but in all probability these were
not hereditary varieties, but only common accidental shapes of the shell.
1. Group spinosa. Sheil often very large, generally much elevated. Upper
row of nodules few and very coarse; lower row sometimes indistinct, sometimes
like the upper row. Whorls subquadrate. Pl. XXIX, figs. 1—10.
Cf. M. spinosa, Sowerby, and Phillips (pars), M. coronata, bigranulosa, and
binodosa, ad’ Archiae and de Verneuil.
2. Group curta. Shell short, body-whorl generally longer than the spire.
Upper row of nodules few and very coarse; lower row absent. Whorls sub-
globose. Pl. XXIX, figs. 14—16.
Cf. M. spinosa, Phillips (pars).
3. Group intermedia. Shell rather large, regular, elevated, conical. Upper
row of nodules small, and numerous, and indistinct. Whorls subquadrate.
Pl. XXX, figs. 1—4.
Cf. M. bilineata ? Phillips ; M. intermedia, d’ Archiac and de Verneuil.
4. Group angulata. Shell elongate, irregularly coiled. Whorls triangular, not
nodulous. Sinus-band prominent, strongly ridged, situate at the widest and
central line of the whorl to which the sides slope concavely above and below.
Pl. XXX, figs. 5—10.
Cf. M. angulata and geminata, Philips; M. angulata, d Archiac and de Verneuil ;
M. angulata (pars) and nerinxa, Sandberger.
MURCHISONIA. dll
In the British Museum is a specimen which is supposed to be Sowerby’s type
of his B. spinosum from Bradley. It evidently belongs to this species, as an
interesting variety, and may be compared with Pl. XXIX, figs. 9 and 10, but
differs in its nodules, which are fewer and more defined. The matrix is very like
that of the Chudleigh shells, but the material of the shell itself is crystalline. I
could well imagine that it came from Chudleigh.
The originals of two of Phillips’s figures (192 6 and c) of M. spinosa are in the
Museum of Practical Geology; one of these belongs to the group curta, the
other is intermediate between curta and spinosa.
The specimen described by Phillips as Murchisonia geminata is in the Museum
of Practical Geology, and a comparison of it with other specimens proves it to be
only a variety of the present shell with more angulated whorls and more numer-
ous and finer nodules than usual. It would lie between the groups intermedia
and angulata.
M. tricincta, Minster,’ agrees with some of our examples, and evidently must
be referred to the same species (cf. Pl. XXX, fig. 11). It is a very imperfect
example of a young shell.
M. Hercynica, F. A. Romer, seems only to differ from some of our smooth
varieties by having somewhat more pronounced spiral ridges. In Rémer’s figure
these seem indistinct, and not very different from what is seen in some of the
English shells (cf. Pl. XXX, fig. 6), and, therefore, are probably not of specific
value. Clarke regards M. conula, de Koninck,' as possibly identical with it, but
that shell is certainly different from M. turbinata.
In the Battersby Collection of the Torquay Museum is a badly preserved shell
which is just like Plewrotomaria nerinewa, Sandberger. This is much more elongate
than usual, but not quite as much so as is Sandberger’s figure. The only mark-
ings seen are two foliaceous ridges, bounding a wide sinus-band, which is situated
rather low on the whorl. This specimen is certainly a variety of M. turbinata,
and hence it follows that Sandberger’s type must also belong to it, and, therefore,
his name becomes a synonym.
In the same Museum are three small specimens which exactly agree with one
of the figures given by Sandberger of his P/. angulata. They appear to be small
forms of our group angulata, and hence are connected by Mr. Vicary’s shell
(Pl. XXX, fig. 12) with the group intermedia. Sandberger identifies his shell with
M. angulata, Phillips, of the Pal. Foss.; but not with his Rostellaria angulata,* of
the Geol. of Yorkshire. A comparison of these two figures and of that given by
de Koninck in his ‘ Dese. Anim. Foss.’ certainly gives every reason for regarding the
Carboniferous species as distinct. The second or shorter of Sandberger’s two
1 1883, de Koninck, ‘ Ann. Mus. Roy. H. N. Belg.,’ vol. viii, pt. 4, p. 17, pl. xxxiv, figs. 9, 10.
2 1836, Phillips, ‘Geol. Yorks.,’ vol. ii, p. 280, pl. xvi, fig. 16.
312 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
figures, if it belongs to the same species as the other, represents a variety which I
have not met with among the English specimens.
Prof. F. Rémer? appears to have been the first to point the extreme var ‘ability
of the present shell. After the examination of a large number of examples he
united the J. bilineata, M. intermedia, M. coronata, and M. bigranulosa, as well as
more doubtfully the M. binodosa, and M. angulata, of Goldfuss and of d’Archiac
and de Verneuil.
De Koninck, in his earlier work, figured a fossil from the Carboniferous of
Belgium under the name of M. Vernewiliana, which he identified with M. angulata,
d’Arch. and de Verneuil, but separated from M. angulata, Phillips. This seems
exactly similar to some specimens of the present shell, which in that case would
have to be regarded as reaching into the Carboniferous. In his later work,°
however, de Koninck retracts his identification ; and in the enlarged figure, which
he there gives, the minor ornament is very different, and, therefore, at least as
amended, his species is distinct. M. angulata, de Koninck,* though identified by
him with Phillips’ Devonian shell, and Plewrotomaria angulata, de Koninck,’ are
two totally different species. There are, however, numerous specimens labelled
M. angulata and M. Vernewiliana in the British Museum from the Mid. Dev. of
Petigny, Belgium, which while they agree with our var. angulata, Pl. XXX,
figs. 8—10, vary very little, and show that in Belgium at all events it is a fixed
variety, if not even an established species.
I have not found any specimens agreeing with M. bilineata, d’Archiae and
de Verneuil, among the English shells. It appears, however, to come very close to
one of the figures of his M. intermedia and to lie between our groups intermedia
and angulata, differing from the first in having no tubercles, and from the latter in
having less angulated whorls. I think that it most probably belongs to the same
species. It certainly has a somewhat distinct appearance owing to the breadth of
its whorls, but it may in this respect be compared with the specimen figured at
Pl. XXIX, fig. 8. M. bilineata, Sandberger,‘ is a different shell, with evenly convex
whorls and a low sinus-band, and probably belongs to M. loxonemoides, n. sp.;
Goldfuss figures three specimens under the name of M. bilineata which bridge over
the difference between d’Archiac and de Verneuil’s figure and some of our specimens
(e.g. Pl. XXX, figs. 8 and 12); and a number of foreign specimens are in the
British Museum by which a perfect chain can be arranged from even more
aberrant specimens than that figured by d’Archiac and de Verneuil, and the
ordinary nodulated varieties of the shell.
1 1844, F. Romer, ‘ Rhein. Uebergangsgeb.,’ p 80.
2 1842-44, de Koninck, ‘Desc. Anim. Foss.,’ p. 414, pl. xxxviii, figs. 5 a, 0.
5 1883, de Koninck, ‘Ann. Mus. Roy. H. N. Belg.,’ vol. viii, pt. 4, p. 25, pl. xxxiv, figs. 85—387.
4 1842-44, de Koninck, ‘Desc. Anim. Foss.,’ p. 412, pl. xxxviii, figs. 8 a—e,
> Tbid., p. 369, pl. xxxvii, figs. 2a—e.
§ 1853, Sandberger, ‘ Verst. Rhein. Nassau,’ p. 204, pl. xxiv, fig. 17.
~MURCHISONIA. 313
Pl. ewilis, Hichwald, is a small shell which differs in having eight rounded
whorls with a very broad sinus-band, but is otherwise very similar to this species,
to which it is just possible that it may belong.
M. Bachelieri, Rouault, seems from hlert’s description to be so similar that I
believe it to be asynonym. ‘The only difference I can see, is the rather greater
convexity of the upper part of the whorls. than in most English examples. M.
Chalmasi, Hhlert, is identical with some of our varieties.
I am, on the whole, inclined to regard M. desiderata, Hall, as a plain form of
the European shell. It comes very close to Goldfuss’ figure of M. dilineata, but
neither it nor any of the other American shells show any signs of sutural nodula-
tion, and the thin transverse striz seem finer and more regular. It appears to
be at least the American representative form.
M. intercedens, Hall, is another American so-called species which I cannot dis-
tinguish from some of the smooth examples of the British shell.
M. obtusangula, Lindstrém, seems so similar in shape that it may be the same
species. Possibly its sinus-band is rather more elevated.
Schlotheim’s original description of M. turbinata is very vague, and is unaccom-
panied by a figure. Bronn appears to have been the first to recognise its identity
with some of the forms (JZ. intermedia, M. lilineata, M. coronata, M. bigranulosa)
described by Goldfuss, and d’Archiac and de Verneuil. He still separated it
from M. spinosa which he placed under the name JM. binodosa d’Archiac, but as we
have seen above, there is not the shghtest doubt of their identity. The shell was
figured under the name M/. twrbinata first by Bronn in 1851 and afterwards by
F. Romer in 1876, and there can be no question that this is the designation which
it ought to bear.
_. Affinities —M. Marsi, Ehlert, differs in having a fine line bisecting a broad
sinus-band ; and M. Lebesconti, Hhlert,’ and M. Davidsoni, Hhlert,° differ in having
very convex whorls and flat smus-bands. It is very possible that the two former
belong to a single species ; but I do not think they are varieties of the present shell,
as their broad and sometimes bisected sinus-bands, combined with broad globose
whorls, are features which do not characterise any of the varieties of M. turbinata
which I have had the opportunity of examining.
‘The figured specimen of Phillips’ original Carboniferous M. ang ulate in the
British Museum is so poor as to be indescribable, but better specimens in the same
museum show that it is quite distinct. It has a very highly keeled sinus-band
situated very low on the whorls, and very numerous fine spiral striz.
1 1887, Ghlert, ‘ Bull. Soc. d’Etud. Sci. d’ Angers,’ p. 17, pl. viii, figs. 1, la. 6.
2 Ibid., p. 18, pl. vii, figs. 3, 3a, 36.
3 Tbid., p. 20, pl. vii, figs. 4, 4.a—d.
4 1836, Phillips, ‘Geol. Yorks.,’ vol. ii, p. 230, pl. xvi, fig. 16.
314 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
In M. cingulata, d’Archiac! (not Hisinger), and M. Loesseni, Kayser,” the sinus-
band forms a very elevated broad and flat ridge along the centre of the whorl.
M. spirata, Goldfuss,* is very similar to some of the smooth forms of our species,
but I do not think that it is likely to bea variety of it, as it differs in the possession
of several coarse spiral ridges below the sinus-band.
M. moniliformis, Lindstrém,' and M. Hebe, Billings,’ are distinguished by having
regularly globose or convex whorls.
2. Murcutsonta VicaRIANA, n. sp. Plate XXX, figs. 13—15.
_ Description.—Shell of moderate size, very elongate and subulate, turrited and
finely tuberculated. Apex sharp. Spire elongated, irregularly coiled, and some-
times rather deflected, of eight or nine volutions. Suture deep, obtuse. Whorls
slightly convex, more or less flattened on the back; curving round gently below
to form a sloping oblique base. Sinus-band median, very prominent, narrow,
consisting of an almost linear groove between two rounded ridges. Ornament con-
sisting of two low, beaded, rounded ridges between the suture and the sinus-band,
separated by similar grooves, and two or sometimes three similar ridges below the
sinus-band, of which only one is visible on the upper whorls; the whole crossed
by numerous, close, sharp, lamellar, very irregular, undulating striz or growth-
lines, which trend rather backwards above, and forwards below the sinus-band, over
which they are gently recurved. Mouth elongate, pointed above, produced sub-
angulated and slightly excavate below. Outer lip gently convex. Inner lip
callous, diffuse. Columella long, straight, thickened. Umbilicus minute or
obliterated. Shell-structure thick except on the back of the whorls.
Size.—Height 40 mm., width 15 mm.
Locality—Chudleigh. There are five specimens in Mr. Vicary’s Collection.
Remarks.—These fossils are closely allied to M. turbinata, Schlot., and I am in
some doubt whether they are more than a variety of that very variable shell.
They seem, however, to be separated by several constant differences, and there is
little or no indication of any passage between them and its various forms.
1 1845, Murchison, de Verneuil, and de Keyserling, ‘Geol. Russ.,’ vol. 11, p. 339, pl. xxii,
figs. 7 a, b.
2 1889, Kayser, ‘ Abbandl. Kinig. Preuss. Geol. Landes.,’ Neue Folge, Heft 1, p. 15, pl. viii, Bg. 9.
3 1844, Goldf., ‘ Petref. Germ.,’ vol. ili, p. 24, pl. elxxii, figs. 6a, b.
41884, Lindstrom, ‘Sil. Gast. Gottland,’ p. 128, pl. xii, figs. 5, 6.
9
5 1874, Billings, ‘ Paleozoic Fossils,’ vol. ii, pt. 1, p. 57, fig. 28, pl. v, fig. 6.
MURCHISONIA. 315
Though they themselves show some amount of variability they present a very
close general resemblance to each other; especially in the very narrow median
sinus-band, the two ridges above it and the two or three below it, the sharp
lamellar growth-striz, the fine indistinct tuberculation, the elongate mouth, and
the general contour of the spire. Specimens of MV. twrbinata may certainly be
found which agree with them in one or two of these particulars, but in every case
they are very distinguishable in others. The number and shape of the spiral
ridges, both above and below the sinus-band, are especially distinctive. In none
of the specimens of M. turbinata is there more than one ridge above it. In one of
the present specimens it is true that the lower of the two ridges is much smaller
than in the other, but even in this case it is constant and well defined. I therefore
think that there is sufficient grounds for regarding it as a distinct species,
although, if passage forms were found, this opinion might have to be modified.
3. MURCHISONIA TREPOMENA, n. Sp. Pl. XXX, figs. 16, 16a.
1841. Murcnisonia trictnora, Phillips (not Minster). Pal. Foss., p. 139,
pl. lx, fig. 190.*
1842. — — @ Arch. and de Vern. Geol. Trans., ser. 2, vol. vi,
pt. 2, p. 358, pl. xxxii, figs. 18, 13 a.
1852. PiLevRoTOMaRIA TRILINEATA, Sandberger (not Goldfuss). Verst. Rhein.
Nassau, p. 202, pl. xxiv, figs. 16,
16 a.
1854. Muorcuisonia tricrnera, Morris. Catal. Brit. Foss., p. 259.
1888. — — Etheridge. Foss. Brit., vol. i, Pal., p. 164.
Description.—Shell very elongate, subturrited, regular. Apex sharp. Spire
very elongate and subulate, of twelve or fourteen, narrow, convex, very slowly
increasing whorls. Suture deep, acute, facing upwards. Whorls more convex
below than above, bearing at about two thirds the way down a narrow, concave
sinus-band, bounded by two sharpish ridges. Surface above and below the sinus-
band marked with two or three indistinct spiral ridges, of which the two most
prominent are sutural and finely beaded; the whole crossed by fine distant growth-
strie trending backwards to, and forwards from, the sinus-band. Mouth small,
wide, subquadrate. Inner lip short, straight. Outer lip notched at the extremity
of the sinus-band.
Size.— Height, 32 mm.; width, 11 mm.
Locality.—Wolborough. There are seven specimens in the Godwin-Austen
Collection in the Museum of Practical Geology, four in Mr. Vicary’s Collection,
one in the British Museum, and two in the Woodwardian Museum.
Remarks.—One of the specimens in the Godwin-Austen Collection appears to
41
316 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
be the original of Phillips’ figure of M. tricincta (fig. 190*), but does not show
such an elaborate ornamentation as is represented in his figure. It is a suffi-
ciently distinct species, and is characterised by its numerous and narrow whorls,
its low-set, narrow sinus-band, and slight indistinct spiral ridges. It was iden-
tified by Phillips with Schizostoma tricinctum, Minster,’ but the above-mentioned
points all separate it from that shell, which in fact is, in all probability, only a
variety of Murchisonia turbinata, Schlot. It therefore becomes needful to find
another name for the species.
It agrees accurately with Pleurotomaria trilineata, Sandb., but the name M.
trilineata was before used by Goldfuss’® for quite a different shell with much
shorter spire and smooth whorls.
A ffiities.—Pleurotomaria dentalo-lineata, Sand.,* differs in having reticulated
striz above the sinus-band, in having a coarsely and convexly-barred sinus-band
situated lower on the whorls, in being sinistral, and having more quickly-increasing
whorls. Pl. bilineata, Sandberger,* not d’Archiac and de Verneuil, has broader
whorls and a lower sinus-band.
Murchisonia quadricincta, Trenkner,’ is very similar, and may perhaps be the
same species. According to his figure it has evenly convex whorls with one or
two spiral ridges just below the suture, and three others on the lower part of the
whorl.
From M. loxonemordes it differs in several particulars as mentioned under that
“species, e.g. its narrow whorls, coarser and more distant transverse striz, and
more median sinus-band.
M. conula, de Koninck,’ has four strong keels on its whorls, and the sinus-
band is median.
I have been in much doubt whether M/. Hercynica, F. A. Romer,’ is the same
as this shell, with which Clarke® is inclined to unite it, or with JW. turbinata,
Schlotheim. Romer’s figure is very indistinct and his description might apply to
either. After repeated examinations I am inclined to think that its shape and the
median position of its sinus-band points to its identity with the latter species rather
than with the present.
rat
1840, Minster, ‘ Beitz.,’ pt. 3, p. 87, pl. xv, figs. 14a, 6.
1844, Goldf., ‘ Petref.,’ vol. iii, p. 25, pl. elxxii, figs. 8, 8 a.
1853, Sandberger, ‘ Verst. Rhein. Nassau,’ p. 201, pl. xxiv, figs. 14, 14 bis, 14 a.
Ibid., p. 204, pl. xxiv, fig. 17.
1868, Trenkner, ‘ Paliont. Novit.,’ pt. 2, p. 22, pl. vii, fig. 10.
1883, de Koninck, ‘ Ann. Mus. Roy. H. N. Belg.,’ vol. vii, pt. 4, p. 17, pl. xxxiv, figs. 9, 10.
1843, F. A. Romer, ‘ Verst. Harzgeb.,’ p. 29, pl. viii, fig. 2.
1884, Clarke, ‘ Neues Jahrb. f. Min.,’ Beil.-Band ii, p. 345.
QO Cue co 29
Oo
MURCHISONIA. 317
4. MURCHISONIA LOXONEMOIDES, n. sp. Pl. XXX, figs. 17, 18, 18 a.
1853. Purrvroromaria BILINEATA, Sandberger (not d’Archiac and de Verneutl).
Verst. Rhein. Nassau, p. 204, pl. xxiv,
fig. 17.
Description.—Shell very elongate, large, acuminate, coiled in more than eight
rather broad whorls. Apex probably acute. Spire regularly and slowly increasing.
Suture rather shallow and obtuse. Whorls rather broad, moderately and regularly
convex, the widest point being about three-quarters the way down from the suture.
Sinus-band situated on the widest point, rather narrow, prominent, bounded by two
large rounded ridges, of which the upper is the largest. Ornament consisting of two
small spiral ridges below the sinus-band, and two or three slight indications of spiral
lines above it; the whole crossed by numerous, very fine, regular, almost micro-
scopic, transverse lines, arching gently backwards on the upper part of the
whorls, recurved on the suture, and running obliquely forward below it. Mouth
unseen. Shell-structure thin. No umbilicus.
Size.—Height 50 mm., width 22 mm. (specimen defective).
Localities—Three specimens from Wolborough, and one probably from
Lummaton, are in the Torquay Museum.
Remarks.—This species is characterised by its regular shape, rather broad and
evenly convex whorls, and delicate non-tuberculate ornament. It presents so strong
a general resemblance to Loxwonema reticulatwm, Phillips, that specimens which
want the surface may easily be confounded, but of course when auy of the ornament
can be seen the shells are at once distinguishable.
M. bilineata, Sandberger (not Goldfuss), very closely resembles this shell. Its
whorls are somewhat narrower, and Sandberger mentions only a single spiral
ridge below the sinus-band which is not shown in the figure, but the position
of the sinus-band is identical, and on the whole it seems probable that it is
the same species.
Affinities—The points above mentioned remove it so far from all the varieties
of M. turbinata, Schlotheim, sp., that it evidently is specifically distinct. It
approaches MV. trepomena more nearly ; and the ornamentation is so similar that
possibly it may prove to be no more than a variety of it; but as that species,
unlike MW. turbinata, Schlotheim, seems to vary very little, there appears more
reason for regarding it as distinct. The whorls in this shell are much broader
and more convex, the. sinus-band is pecouedly lower on the whorls, and the
ornamentation is coarser.
Turritella Ponti, Goldfuss,! approaches this shell closely in ornament, but the
1 1844, Goldfuss, ‘ Petref. Germ.,’ vol. iii, p. 104, pl. exevi, figs. 2 a, 6.
318 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
transverse stria on the upper part of the whorls are coarser, the four carine on
the lower part are larger and more separated, and the whorls are almost as broad
as high. Goldfuss does not recognise any sinus-band, but the similarity in other
respects is so great that I am much under the impression that it existed, and that
it is at least a kindred species to the present form.
Pleurotomaria insignis, Kichwald,' also seems rather similar, but the transverse
striz are still more deeply deflected, and the sinus-band is not so low down and is
very indistinct.
Pl. nitida, Kichwald,’ has a flat sinus-band, and narrower and much more
numerous whorls.
5. MUuURCHISONIA MARGARITA, n. sp. Pl. XXX, figs. 19, 20, 20a.
Description.—Shell small, extremely elongate, turrited, of nine to fifteen
whorls. Apex very sharp, sometimes produced, and twisted asymmetrically
for the last three or four whorls. Spire very elongate and subulate, with narrow,
triangular, slowly increasing whorls. Suture deep, linear, facing upwards.
Whorls much exposed, bluntly triangular in section, with a strong, microscopically
tuberculated hem or rounded rim immediately below the suture, followed by
an indistinct groove, from which the line of contour spreads in a concave curve to
the central and widest part of the whorl, which is sharply rounded, and then sinks
in a similar curve to the lowest part, which bears a similar indistinct hem. Sinus-
band central, rather broad, defined by minute raised threads outside linear grooves,
within which is a row of close round tubercles forming the raised centre of the
band. Ornamentation consisting of six or seven very minute spiral threads both
above and below the sinus-band, and similar transverse threads sloping back-
wards to, and forwards from, the sinus-band. Mouth short, oblique, and wide.
Outer lip deeply and widely notched; inner lip long. No umbilicus.
Size.-—Length of a specimen of about fifteen whorls, 21 mm.; width, 5 mm.
Locality.—Chudleigh. Two specimens are in the Woodwardian Museum.
Remarks.—The larger of these two specimens has rather narrower whorls than
the other, andis a much more subulate shell, with fifteen whorls remaining. Some
of the whorls of the nucleus are strangely twisted and elongated, and, though this
might be accounted for by a crushing of the fossil, it has more the appearance of
being a natural though, of course, accidental feature of the shell. The other
specimen has only nine or ten whorls including the body-whorl. However, they
1 1860, Hichwald, ‘ Lethwa Rossica,’ p. 1165, pl. xliii, fig. 1.
* Ibid., p. 1179, pl. xliii, fig. 2.
MURCHISONIA. 319
undoubtedly belong to the same species, and are characterised by the central
convex sinus-band, the peculiarly arched sides, and the numerous spiral striz.
Affinities.—From M. turbinata, Schlotheim, this species is widely separated, and
evidently is formed on a very different plan. M. trepomena approaches it more
nearly ; from Phillips’ original figure it might perhaps be supposed to be identical,
but his description and an examination of the type specimen show that it is really
quite distinct. In that species the sinus-band is not central but close to the
lower suture, there were very few spiral threads in the ornamentation, and the
contour of the whorls is nearly evenly conical.
It approaches the Carboniferous J/. angulata, Phillips, sp.,' but, as seen by a
comparison of Phillips’ specimens in the British Museum, in that shell the whorls
are broader, the spiral striz are smaller and more numerous, and the sinus-band
does not seem so coarsely nodulated.
6. MurcHisonta ? opesa, n. sp. Pl. XXX, fig. 21.
Description.—Shell small, conical, turrited, moderately elongated, of six or
seven narrow, regularly and slowly increasing volutions. Apex acute. Suture
rather deep and broad. Whorls very narrow, gently and evenly convex, slightly
flattened on the back. Sinus-band narrow, flat, situated about three-quarters
down on the whorl, and below its greatest width. Body-whor! small, similar to
the other whorls of the spire. Ornament consisting of very numerous, delicate,
direct transverse striz, apparently tending slightly backwards just above the sinus-
band and gently curving on it, crossed and decussated by numerous similar spiral
striz, which seem larger and coarser on the lower part of the whorls.
Size.—Height and width about 15 mm.
Locality.—Wolborough. There are two specimens in Mr. Vicary’s Collection.
Remarks.— These specimens are so much worn that the ornament and other
characters of the shell cannot be fully made out. Whether the band on the lower
part of the whorl is a true sinus-band is not absolutely certain, but as far as can
be seen from the state of the ornament it has every appearance of being so.
In general shape these little fossils are very different from any other Gasteropod
occurring in the beds we are now reviewing, and I have not noticed any foreign
species with which they appear to correspond.
1 1836, Phillips, ‘Geol. Yorks.,’ vol. ii, p. 230, pl. xvi, fig. 16.
320 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
3. Genus—Oponromarta, Ff’. Rémer, 1876.
This genus was formed for the reception of a Devonian shell in the shape of
an unrolled Plewrotomaria, with which Prof. Romer regards it as closely allied.
At first sight our specimens seem very like a Dentalium or even a Serpula, to the
latter of which some specimens of the following species were formerly referred by
Sandberger. A close examination, however, seems to bear out Prof. Rémer’s view,
which was probably based upon the observation of better preserved specimens
than those which we have seen.
1. Oponromarra semipLicata, Sandberger, sp. Pl. XXXI, figs. 2, 2a.
1850. SERrpuLa semipLicata, Sandberger. Verst. Rhein. Nassau, p. 38, pl. iii,
figs. 6, 6a, 6.
Deseription.—Shell tubular, slightly arched but not spirally coiled, twisted,
slowly attenuating at the rate of 1 mm. in width to 9 mm. in length. Whorl or
tube rather spirally twisted, so that the marks which start on the back or external
side are, in the course of growth, gradually carried upwards through a quarter of a
circle. Section of the whorl nearly circular or oval, slightly flattened on the
sinus-band, and on a broader surface on each side of it. Sinus-band broad, flat,
bounded by low rounded ridges, situated on the centre of the outer surface of the
tube. Ornament consisting of two similar slight ridges bounding the flattened
surface on each side of the sinus-band; the whole crossed by very indistinct
growth-lines which appear to cross the sinus-band horizontally, and to be directed
forward on each side of it.
Size-—Length 60mm. Diameters of section at widest part 11 mm. and 9 mm.
Locality.—Wolborough. There isa specimen in the Torquay Museum, another
in the Museum of Practical Geology, a third in Mr. Vicary’s Collection, and a
fourth in Mr. Champernowne’s Collection.
Remarks.—These curious shells agree exactly with the fossil described by
Sandberger from the Stringocephalus-Limestone of Villmar. Their surface is in
every case almost completely obliterated. They show great regularity in their
general shape, except that the amount of curvatures seems greater in some parts
of the tube than in others, and that the section of the whorl is in some cases
circular and in other cases oval.
Affinities. —The present species presents great resemblance to the type species
BELLEROPHON. 321
of the genus, Odontomaria elephantina, which is figured and slightly described by
Dr. F. Rémer,! and which differs from it in its section being roughly octagonal
instead of being oval. Hence, as far as can be judged from Rémer’s figure, it
appears to be specifically distinct, though evidently very closely allied.
X. Family—Betieroepontiva, M‘Coy, 1852.
1. Genus—Betierornon, Montfort, 1808.
The zoological position of this group of palzeozoic shells has been often altered.
They were first supposed to belong to the Cephalopoda, then to the Heteropoda,
but now they are generally placed low down among the Gasteropoda, being regarded
as horizontally symmetrical shells akin to Pleurotomaria. They extend from the
Cambrian throughout the Palseozoic period, and have been found in these strata in
almost every part of the world.
1. BELLEROPHON LinEATUS, Goldfuss MS. Pl. XXXI, figs. 3—6.
21781. Nautilit sans cloisons, de Hiipsch. Naturg. der Neiderdents, p. 27, pl. i,
fig. 22.
1826. BrttEropHon sraiatus, de Ferussac. In d’Orbigny, Tabl. Cephal.; Feru.
Bull. (Sci. Nat.), vol. ix, p. 245.
1826. _ — @ Orbigny et de Ferussac. Aun. Sci. Nat., vol. vii,
p- 140.
1828. — —- Keferstein. Teutschland, Band vi, p. 27.
1832. — —? Goldfuss. De la Beche’s Handbook, German
ed., p. 534.
1832. — UNDULATUS, Goldfuss. Ibid., p. 534.
1834. — STRIATUS, Keferstein. Nat. der Erdk., pt. 2, p. 480.
1834. — unDULATUS, Keferstein. Ibid., p. 480.
1835. — STRIATUS, Bronn. Lethea, p. 96, pl. i, figs. 11 a—e.
1840. — LINEATUS, Goldfuss, MS. De Ferussac et d’Orbigny, Hist.
Nat. Ceph., p. 192.
1840. a stTRIATUS, de Ferussac. De Ferussac et d’Orbigny, Hist.
Nat. Ceph., p. 192 (Bellerophon),
pl. i, fig. 11; pl. iui, figs. 11—17 ;
pl. iv, figs. 1—5, and pl. vu,
figs. 4, 5.
? 1840. a Sowersyl, de Ferussac et d’Orbigny. Hist. Nat. Ceph.,
p. 202, (Bellerophon) pl. v,
figs. 19—23.
1841. — STRIATUS, Phillips. Pal. Foss., p. 106, pl. xl, figs. 198 a, 6.
1 1876, F. Romer, ‘ Leth. Pal.,’ pl. xxix, figs. 10a, 6.
22 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
oN)
i)
1842. BrniERopHon srriatus, d’ Archiac and de Verneuil. Geol. Trans., ser. 2,
vol. vi, pt. 2, pp. 853 and 389, pl. xxviii, fig. 6.
1843. — — ?, F. A. Romer. Verst. Harzgeb., p. 32, pl. ix,
figs. 4a, b.
1848. — _ Bronn. Index Palexont., p. 164.
1849. _ -- @’ Orbigny. Prodrome, vol. i, p. 72.
? 1849. — Sowersyl, d@’Orbigny. Prodrome, vol. i, p. 126.
1850. — sTRIATUS, F. A. Romer. Beitr., pt. 1, p. 33.
1851. — — Bronn. Lethea, 3rd edit., pt. 2, p. 442, pl. i,
figs. 11 a—e, and pl. ii’, figs. 19a, 6.
1853. — LINEATUS, Sandberger. Verst. Rhein. Nassau, p. 179,
pl. xxii, figs. 5, 5a—h.
1854. — sTRIATUS, Morris. Catal. Brit. Foss., p. 288.
2? 1854. — SowerBytl, Morris. Ibid., p. 288.
1855. — striatus, M‘Coy. Synopsis Brit. Pal. Rocks, p. 400.
1861. — Petops, Hall. Descr. New Sp. Fossils, p. 28.
1862. — — — Fifteenth Report N. Y. State Cab. Nat.
Hist., p. 56.
1869. — LINEATUS ?, Zeuschner. Zeitsch. Deutsch. Geol. Gesell.,
vol. xxi, p. 267.
P1871. — PROPINQUUS, Meek. - Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil., p. 78.
? 1873. — — — Geol. Surv. Ohio, Pal., vol. i, p. 226,
pl. xx, figs. 4a, b.
1876. — STRIATUS, F. Rimer. Lethea Pal., pl. xxxii, fig. 9.
1879. —_ _ Pstops, Hali. Pal. N. Y., vol. v, pt. 2, p. 95, pl. xxii,
figs. 7—13; pl. xxvi, fig. 1.
? 1883. —_ Meext, de Koninck. Ann. Mus. Roy. H. N. Belg., vol. viii,
pt. 4, p. 188, pl. xlii bes, figs. 24—26.
? 1883. — AFFINIS, de Koninck. Ibid., p. 138, pl. xlii bcs, figs. 18 —20.
1883. — sTRIaTUS, Tryon. Structural Conch., vol. ii, p. 322,
pl. Ixxxu, fig. 95.
1884. — sTRIATUS?, Clarke. Neues Jahrb. f. Min., Beil.-Band iii,
p- 347.
? 1887. — Sowersyl, Fischer. Manuel Conchyl., p. 853, fig. 601.
1888. — — Etheridge. Foss. Brit., vol. i, Pal., p. 165.
2 1888. = = a Ibid., p. 293.
1889. = Petors, Barrois. Faun. Cale. d’Ebray, p. 210, pl. xv,
figs. 14a, b.
Description.—Shell of median size, involute, horizontally symmetrical. Spire
and umbilicus deep, rather open. Whorls rising from the suture and curving
very rapidly round to the back, which is rounded, but rather obliquely flattened
above and below, and meets in the centre in a small prominent squared keel. Keel
bounded by very fine threads. Ornament consisting of delicate, sharp, distant,
transverse ridges, much recurved on the keel, and proceeding from it at first
nearly perpendicularly on each side, but bending obliquely forward and occasionally
coalescing as they approach the suture; these ridges in some specimens com-
BELLEROPHON. 323
plicated by finer ones which tend to arrange themselves in groups. Mouth not
preserved in the English specimens, but showing a callosity on its inner sides.
Size.-—About 18 mm. in height; 20 mm. in width.
Localities.—There are four specimens from Lummaton in my Collection, three
others probably from the same locality in the Torquay Museum, one from Barton
and four from Wolborough in the Museum of Practical Geology, and one ee
Chudleigh in Mr. Vicary’s Collection. )
Remarks.—This species seems to be liable to very considerable variation both
in shape and in ornament. Generally speaking it appears very globose, but the
specimens figured by Phillips and some others are decidedly broader and flatter.
The ornamentation is very definite on some of our specimens, but in others it is
much more indistinct, and seems somewhat changed in character, the striz being
more numerous, oblique, close, and arranged in groups, and the keel seeming
smaller and more rounded. I was at first inclined to regard these points as
indicating a specific distinction, but further examination leads me to believe that
they are partly due to crushing and deterioration during fogsilization, and partly
to individual variation. Thus, even in the most typical specimens with clear cut
distant striz, signs of other indistinct lines may be observed under a lens; and in
other specimens the development of these secondary lines may be traced until
they are seen to become similar to the original striz. Moreover in some specimens
these original strize are considerably ‘coarser and more distant than in others.
While in the main the striz are uniform, there are some slight indications of inequali-
ties which might indicate a tendency to undulations in an older stage of growth
than that of any of our specimens, so that then they might assume quite a different
appearance, such as is seen in some foreign examples of de Férussac’s species.
Although I have not been able to find the original of Phillips’ figure, there can
be no doubt of the identity of our specimens with the species described by him.
Whether it is identical with de Férussac’s original species is a larger question. It has
been separated from it by d’Archiac and de Verneuil,’ but these authorities assign
no reasons for their view. The only point of difference which I have been able to
discover is that the English specimens have a somewhat more distinct and larger
umbilicus extending sometimes almost to a quarter the width of the shell. This
is in every case filled with matrix, but there is every reason to suppose that it was
definite, perforate, and deep. De Férussac and d’Orbigny describe it as slight, and
their figures seem to represent it as small, and with less defined margins than is seen
in our specimens. Sandberger, who gives figures of several varieties varying much
both in the size of the umbilicus and in the fineness of the striz, is almost the only
foreign author who figures B. striatus with as large an umbilicus, though F. A.
Romer’s figure shows that one existed. In our shells, however, the mouth is in
! 1842, d’Archiac and de Verneuil, ‘Geol. Trans.,’ ser. 2, vol. vi, pt. 2, p. 353.
A2
324 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
every case gone, and possibly if it had been preserved the umbilicus might have
been found to have become more closed with age from the thickening of its sides,
as is clearly the case with many of the figured specimens of de Férussac’s shell.
Moreover in the British Museum are some specimens of the foreign shell which
accurately agree with the Devonshire fossils in the size of their umbilicus as well as
in other points. It appears, therefore, that, at least until better evidence is forth-
coming, Phillips must be regarded as correct in identifying our Devonshire
species with the B. striatus of de Férussac or Bronn.
De Férussac appears to have only catalogued his shell in 1826, without
describing it; but d’Orbigny gives an elaborate description of it accompanied by
many beautiful figures in de Férussac and d’Orbigny’s ‘ History of Cepkalopods’
(published 1835—48) ; and as these two authors worked in common this descrip-
tion may be regarded as authentic. He there shows that in its young state it is
identical with B. lineatus, Goldfuss MS.; that in its median state it agrees with
B. striatus as originally defined; and that in its aged state the striz become
flounced, and ther it is identical with B. undulatus, Goldfuss MS. He gives
figures of all these stages and of some intermediate forms. Of the old or flounced
stage I have not as yet seen any British example. D’Orbigny doubtfully refers
the species to the shell figured in 1781 by Von Hiipsch.
Bronn’s B. striatus is evidently the same species as de Férussac’s, whom,
however, he does not quote before the third edition of his Lethza. His figures
show that the umbilicus varied in size, and is sometimes quite as large as are
those of the English specimens.
A further question arises as to the name which the species ought to bear.
De Férussac merely catalogued it without description in 1826. Two years after (in
1828) Fleming" described a very different and spirally striated shell under the same
name ; while a third shellis named B. striatus by Sowerby in 1836. Hence it appears
that Fleming’s species has the prior right to the name B. striatus, and consequently
it is necessary to follow Sandberger and adopt Goldfuss’ name for the present
form, especially as it was given by d’Orbigny as a synonym as early as 1840.
It only remains to state that authors seem to have been in much doubt whether
Bronn or de Férussac should be credited with the name B. striatus ; thus Phillips,
Sandberger, I. A. Rémer, and Morris ascribe it to Bronn; and d’Orbigny, Bronn
(‘ Index Pal.,’ and ‘ Letheea,’ ed. 3), F. Rémer, and d’Archiac and de Verneuil
ascribe it to de Férussac.
Semenow and Moller’ figure as B. striatus, de Férussac, a shell with a much
more flattened back and a closed umbilicus.
B. Pelops, Hall, which in Dr. Hall’s opinion is the same as B. propinquus, Meek,
1 1828, Fleming, ‘ Brit. Anim.,’ p. 338.
2 1863, Semenow and Miller, ‘ Uber Dev. Schicht. Mittl. Russlands,’ p. 676, pl. iv, figs. 2 a—e, 3.
BELLEROPHON. 325
seems so nearly to approach the English shell in general shape and in ornament
that I think it must be regarded as identical. It has a very expanded mouth, of
which there is no evidence in the British specimens. Its umbilicus is very variable
in size, being sometimes slight but sometimes much larger than in the latter, and
in perfect specimens it is closed by the expansion of the sides of the mouth.
Barrois’ figure’ of B. Pelops from the French Devonian comes very near our shells,
and shows no expansion of the mouth, but has a very large umbilicus. Barrois
notes its similarity to B. lineatus, Sandberger, and, if his identification of his shell
with the American form is correct, it strengthens the probability of the identity of
the latter with de Férussac’s species.
B. affinis, de Kon., and &. Meeki, de Kon., seem to be so similar that I have been
unable to discover any line of distinction. De Koninck’s figures are not, however,
very clearly individualised.
Affinities—B. tenuifascia, Sowerby,’ seems very like some of our more worn
specimens and has a similar umbilicus, but it is distinguished, according to
d’Orbigny,® and as seen in Sowerby’s type-specimen in the British Museum, by
having an essentially linear, though prominent, keel.
B. Munsteri, d Orbigny,* has numerous very fine striz and its umbilicus is closed.
B. imbricatus, Goldfuss,* is not umbilicated.
B. hiuleus, Martin sp.,° seems very similar. Its possession of side ridges to the
keel, by which d’Orbigny’ distinguishes it, is of no value, as they are equally seen
in B. striatus. However, judging from his figures, its keel is generally much
broader and more coarsely marked. In one figure, on the other hand, it is very
fine and narrow, and I can see nothing to distinguish that specimen from the
present species. The specimen figured by Sowerby, however, shows that it is
distinguished by its keel not being elevated above the rest of the shell, and by
the greater rapidity of increase in its whorls.
B. costatus, Sow.,® has a sharper narrower keel of a different character, and
some signs of spiral ornament. It also, as seen by de Koninck’s figures,’ seems to
increase more rapidly.
1 1889, Barrois, ‘ Faun. Calc. d’Ebray,’ p. 210, pl. xv, figs. 14a, b.
* 1824, Sowerby, ‘ Min. Conch.,’ vol. v, p. 109, pl. edlxx, figs. 2, 3.
3 1840, de Férussac and d’Orbigny, ‘ Hist. Nat. Ceph.,’ p. 201, (Bellerophon) pl. i, figs. 6 and 7,
and pl. v, figs. 14—18.
4 Ibid., p. 187, pl. ii, figs. 11—15.
5 Ibid., p. 195, pl. v, figs. 1—4.
6 1809, Martin, ‘ Petr. Derb.,’ p. 15, pl. xl, fig. 1.
7 1840, de Férussac and d’Orbigny, ‘ Hist. Nat. Ceph.,’ p. 196, (Bellerophon) pl. i, fig. 4; pl. iv,
fig. 18; pl. v, figs. 5—8.
8 1824, Sow., ‘Min. Conch.,’ vol. v, p. 110, pl. edlxx, fig. 5, and 1840, de Fér. and d’Orb.,
‘Hist. Nat. Ceph.,’ p. 198, (Bellerophon) pl. i, figs. 2, 8, 5; pl. v, figs. 9-18; pl. vi, figs. 3—5.
9 1883, de Koninck, ‘Ann. Mus. Roy. H. N. Belg.,’ vol. viii, pt. 4, p. 185, pl. xl, figs. 1—3.
326 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
Perhaps B. Sowerbyi, d’Orbigny, comes closer to some of the Devonshire
specimens than any other shell. D’Orbigny’s figure seems just similar to one
specimen in the Museum of Practical Geology, having a narrow prominent barred
keel, oblique sides, large umbilicus, and grouped striz.
B. umbilicatus, Potier and Michaud,’ is, as re-established by de Koninck,’ very
similar in ornament, but has a much sharper and narrower keel and apparently a
more open umbilicus.
2. Be.teropHon Hicxst, n. sp. Pl. XXXI, figs. 7, 7 a, 7 b, 8,8 a.
Description.—Shell rather large, globose, nautiloid, horizontally symmetrical.
Spire and umbilicus deeply and equally concave, rather broadly open, showing
the margins of the interior whorls. Sutures deep, acute. Whorls rising from the
suture in an inward curve, and then rounding rapidly over the sides to the back,
which is broad and flatly convex. Sinus-band median, narrow, elevated, slightly
flattened on the back, and very slightly marked by fine, irregular strie or growth-
lines. Ornament consisting of numerous, irregularly undulating and zigzagging,
elevated, sub-nodulous, rounded ridges, somewhat anastomosing and often inter-
rupted and branching, about half the height of the keel, curving gently backwards
from it, divaricating towards it, and consequently becoming much less numerous
on the sides of the whorl. Mouth apparently much expanded. Shell-structure
moderately thick.
Size.—A specimen in the Torquay Museum measures 17 mm. in height, and
17 in the diameter. A rather defective cast in Mr. Vicary’s Collection measures
about 27 mm. in height, and 31 in width.
Localities.—From Wolborough there is a fine specimen in the Woodwardian
Museum which was presented by Mr. George M. Hicks; two large casts and two
poor specimens retaining the test in Mr. Vicary’s Collection; and another large
cast in the Battersby Collection of the Torquay Museum. In the last Museum are
two specimens with the shell which probably came from Lummaton or Barton.
Remarks.—These shells seem to be distinguished from B. lineatus, Goldfuss, by
their greater comparative height, their narrower and more rounded keel, and their
closer and more rounded and irregular venous-like ribs and striz. Mr. Hicks’s
specimen is very fine, though probably part of the body-whorl is missing. It appears
to show that the distinctive character of the striz is maintained throughout, although
they become coarser and more irregular near the mouth. The inner whorls of the
1 1838, Potier and Michaud, ‘ Galer. Moll. Mus. Douai,’ vol. i, p. 5, pl. i, figs. 13—15.
2 1883, de Koninck, ‘Ann. Mus. Roy. H. N. Belg.,’ vol. viii, pt. 4, p. 148, pl. xxxvi, figs. 4—6.
BELLEROPHON. 327
spire seem to be hidden, at least on one side of this specimen, by a thickening of
the lateral margin of the mouth. In the casts of the shell, however, the spire is
well exposed on both sides.
3. BELLEROPHON MUNDUS, Whidborne. Pl. XXXI, figs. 9, 9 a.
1889. BrtieRorpHon muNnDUS, Whidborne. Geol. Mag., dec. 3, vol. vi, p. 29.
Description.—Shell small, globular, horizontally symmetrical, of few rapidly
increasing whorls. Shell-structure very thick. Surface with a smooth, median,
flattened area in place of a keel, and with low, close, rounded, very indefinite and
discontinuous ridges arching forward from it on either side. Cast with a wide
median groove bounded by rounded prominences about a quarter the width of the
shell apart. Mouth reniform, much recurved and very wide, being nearly four
times as wide as deep.
Size.—Height of cast 13 mm., width 13 mm.
Locality. Lummaton.. A single example is in Mr. Lee’s Collection.
Remarks.—This small specimen is almost entirely a cast. The surface can
only be seen on a very small portion where the shell is retained ; and as that has
been covered by an outer whorl, it may, perhaps, have partially lost its original
character. ‘The most remarkable feature of the species is the central depression
seen upon the cast, which distinguishes it from almost every other species of
Bellerophon with which I am acquainted.
Affinities.—Bellerophon Loheste,’ de Koninck, appears to have a much more
indefinite central depression. B. ewcavatus, de Koninck,’ has a similar depression,
but in the centre of it there exists a small median keel of which there is no sign
in the English species.
f
4, BELLEROPHON MACROMPHALUS, Ff’. A. Romer. Pl. XXXI, figs. 10, 10 a.
1843. BELLEROPHON MacrompPHALus, F A. Romer. Verst. Harzgeb., p. 32, pl. ix,
fig. 3.
1884. — —_ Beushausen. Abhandl. Geol. Specialk.
Preuss., Band vi, pt. 1,
p. 44, pl. ii, fig. 1.
1 1883, de Koninck, ‘Ann. Mus. Roy. H. N. Belg.,’ vol. viii, pt. 4, p. 142, pl. xxxvi, figs. 7—9,
and pl. xxxix, figs. 1—3.
* Thid., p. 143, pl. xxxvii, figs. 6—8.
328 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
Description.—Shell of moderate size, subglobose, horizontally symmetrical.
Spire and umbilicus similar, concave, wide, of few (two or three) whorls. Whorls
rather rapidly increasing, especially near the mouth, long-oval in section, being
highly convex on upper and lower sides, flattish inside, and moderately and
decreasingly convex on the back; bearing (in the cast) a few indistinct longi-
tudinal inequalities, one of which on the centre line of the back tends to become a
sharp keel near the mouth. Mouth large, very narrow, sub-lunate. Test and
surface unknown, but shell-structure probably massive.
Size-—Height about 27 mm., width 27 mm.
Localities —There are three specimens in Mr. Vicary’s Collection, and two in
my Collection, from Chircombe Bridge.
Remarks.—These fossils are all internal casts and, therefore, nothing can be
learnt of the character of the shell itself except inferentially. It is, however, so
like the figure given by Beushausen that I have no hesitation to referring it to the
same species. The restoration given by F. A. Romer of his shell is utterly unlike,
having many more whorls, but Beushausen states that this is incorrect, and the
fragment of the shell itself figured by Romer seems to agree with our shell.
Affinities.—It differs from B. bisulcatus, F. A Romer,’ by being larger, higher,
and less trilobed, and from B. globatus, Sowerby,” by having a larger umbilicus,
and less expanding mouth.
B. radiatus, Hichwald,’ seems somewhat similar in general shape, but its spire
appears to be more open ; from its general appearance I think it cannot be identical.
It is covered with an elaborate ornamentation of which the English fossils pre-
serve no trace.
B. apertus, Sowerby,* which, though in England a Carboniferous shell, is quoted
by @’Orbigny® from the Hifel, is very similar, but it is marked with much more
decided spiral elevations and depressions.
B. plenus, Billings,’ shows a distinct keel on the cast.
I am in much doubt whether the small shells doubtfully referred by Phillips to
B. Wenlockensis, Sowerby, may belong to this species. As, however, they are very
much smaller and appear to have a more convex back I have thought it safer
not to unite them at present.
1 1843, F. A. Romer, ‘ Verst. Harzgeb.,’ p. 32, pl. ix, fig. 1.
2 1839, Sowerby in Murch. ‘ Sil. Syst.,’ p. 604, pl. iii, fig. 15, and pl. iv, fig. 50.
3 1860, Eichwald, ‘ Lethea Rossica,’ p. 1074, pl. xl, figs. 1 a—e.
4 1824, Sowerby, ‘ Min. Conch.,’ p. 108, pl. edlxix, fig. 1.
5 1840, de Férussae and d’Orbigny, ‘ Hist. Nat. Cephal.,’ p. 190, (Bellerophon) pl. i, fig. 1, and
pl. in, figs. 4—6. “a
6 Billings, ‘ Paleozoic Fossils,’ vol. ii, pt. 1, p. 62, pl. v, figs. 8, 8 a, 8b.
BELLEROPHON. 329
5. BenriteropHon WENLOCKENSIS, Sowerby 4
1841. BrttERopHon WeENLocKENSIS?, Phillips. Pal. Foss., p. 108, pl. xl,
figs. 203 a, b.
1854. — HIuLCUS, Morris. Catal. Brit. Foss., p. 288.
Remarks.—Phillips mentioned a small shell from Newton, of which he says
that there is not sufficient information ‘to determine its true relation to forms
which have been described by other authors.” “ By its semiannular opening and
partially disclosed umbilicus it may be compared with B. apertus or B. Wenloc-
kensis. I give it provisionally the latter name.”
I have met with no specimens of this little shell and can, therefore, do no more
than record Phillips’ descriptions. His figures show very little character. Of the
accompanying shells it appears most nearly to resemble B. macrophthalmus, F.
A. Romer, but to differ from it by having a more evenly convex back, and I have,
therefore, not thought it safe to unite them until further evidence of their identity
be found.
From B. lineatus it differs in having a larger umbilicus and no median keel.
6. BrLLEROPHON IMPERFORATUS, n. Sp. Pl. XXXI, figs. 11, 11 a.
Description.—Shell small, subglobose, horizontally symmetrical. Spire small,
wholly involute and hidden by the outer whorl. Shell rather wider than high.
Umbilicus wholly closed. Whorls very convex, rather flattened obliquely above
and below. Mouth very large, broad and expanding, including the spire, which
forms a low prominence in its centre. Lips thickened and flattened on each side,
and rather excavate laterally at the pomts of the springing of its arch. Surface
obscured.
Size.— Height 12 mm.; width about 14 mm.; depth 9 mm.
Locality.—Wolborough. There is a specimen in the Museum of Practical
Geology; and another in the British Museum.
Remarks.—This small species cannot be very clearly defined on account of the
poorness of the specimens. It differs from B. lineatus in many particulars, as for
instance in its closed umbilicus, the absence of a keel, and the larger size of
the mouth; and from the specimens referred doubtfully to B. Wenlockensis by
Phillips by its closed umbilicus.
330 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
B. globatus, Sowerby,’ differs in having an open umbilicus and a more flattened
back.
2. Genus—Porcetiia, Léveillé, 1835.
Leveillia, R. B. Newton, 1891.
This genus is marked by its grooved or fissured back, its long narrow notch,
its very open umbilicus and correspondingly depressed spire, and by its unex-
panded mouth. It occurs from the Upper Silurian to the Trias.
The genus has long been well known under the name Porcellia, but my friend
Mr. R. B. Newton, in a recently-published paper,’ stating that Léveillé’s name is
essentially the same as Porcellio, a genus of Isopodous Crustacea established by
Latreille in 1804, proposes the name Leveillia in its place. I find the opinion of
those whom I have consulted to be divided as to the advisability of this change,
and, as the two words although so similar are actually distinct, I do not at present
see my way to adopt it. In his paper Mr. Newton gives an interesting history
of this genus and of the neighbouring genus Bellerophon. He refers it to the
Family Pleurotomarude, but it seems to be so allied to Bellerophon that it must
follow the family in which that genus is placed.
1. Porceniia piripa, Sandberger, sp. Pl. XXXI, figs. 12—14.
1841. BrnitERopHon Woopwarnil, Phillips (not Martin). Pal. Foss., p. 107,
pl. xl, fig. 201.
Pp Porcettia Woopwarpil, Salter, MS. In the Vicary Collection.
1853. PLevroromarta BIFIDA, Sandberger. Verst. Rhein. Nassau, p. 185, pl. xxii,
figs. 10, 10a, 6.
1854. Porcrett1a Woopwarpil, Morris. Catal. Brit. Foss., p. 289.
1867. — — Etheridge. Quart. Journ. Geol. Soe., vol. xxii,
pp. 628 and 647.
1889. — BIFIDA, Whidborne. Geol. Mag., dee. iii, vol. vi, p. 30.
Description.—Shell rather large, discoid, of rather rapidly increasing volutions,
only slightly involute. Spire sunk so low beneath the highest point of the body-
1 1837, Sowerby in Murchison’s ‘Sil. Syst.,’ p. 604, pl. iii, fig. 15; and 1840, Sowerby, ‘ Geol.
Trans.,’ pl. lin, fig. 30.
2 1891, R. B. Newton, ‘ Geol. Mag.,’ dec. iii, vol. viii, p. 202.
PORCELLIA. 331
whorl as to be very nearly as deep as the umbilicus. Suture deep, rectangular,
facing upwards. Whorls rising steeply from the suture with a slight outward
bend till they reach the highest point of the shoulder, where they curve more or
less rapidly and then slope out obliquely to the widest point, where they become
almost horizontal, and then curve back below in a way similar to the upper
surface; the greatest width of the shell being marked by a small narrow deep
channel or groove. Ornament consisting of very fine, sharp, radiating threads,
separated by their own width, which rise perpendicularly from the suture, and after
crossing the shoulder, where an intermediary series of similar ribs come in,
diminish in size and bend gently rearwards as they approach the back.
Size.—Height 9 mm., width 28 mm.
Localities.—From Wolborough there are six fine specimens in Mr. Vicary’s
Collection, one in the British Museum, two in the Museum of Practical Geology,
and one in my own Collection. There are twelve specimens in the Torquay
Museum, some of which are from Wolborough, and some from Lummaton or
Barton.
Remarks.—This shell was described by Phillips in his ‘ Paleozoic Fossils’ as
Bellerophon Woodwardi, Sowerby, but the identification is certainly erroneous.
He made it from a single Devonshire specimen in which, as he intimates, the
ornamentation was obliterated. Hence the spiral striation, which is indicated
both in his figure and description, was clearly filled in from the Carboniferous
shell. Though many of the specimens, which I know, are decorticated after the
manner so frequent in Wolborough fossils, yet in each of the collections mentioned
above are examples which preserve the sculpture, and they show distinctly that
it is of a radiating and not of a spiral character. In most of these it is seen that
these radiating striz become smaller and more numerous on the outer part of
the shell, though it is not quite clear whether this arises from divarication or
from the rising of an alternate series of striz. Another distinction between the
Carboniferous and Devonian species is the much greater angularity of the former,
so that even if the ornament had remained unknown the distinctness of the
present shells, which exactly correspond with Phillips’ figure, could have been
easily established.
The angle at the shoulder seems to be considerably more pronounced in the
older and larger speeimens, and, as seen in one of the Torquay examples, the
symmetry is not quite perfect, the umbilical side being slightly steeper than
the upper.
It appears to be the same shell as Plewrotomaria bifida, Sandberger. Possibly
the section of the whorls is a little more angular in the full-grown English shells,
but the general appearance, the bifurcating ornament, and the variability in the
coarseness of the striz and in the angularity of the shoulder are the same in both
332 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
the English and German forms. Both Mr. T. Roberts and Mr. R. B. Newton
have verified and agree with this identification.
Affinities.—Porcellia primordialis, Schlotheim, sp.,' is the species which appears
to be most nearly allied to the present. It seems to be a somewhat variable form,
and the question arises whether the variation is so great as to include Sandberger’s
species within its limits. In considering this question I have had the advantage
of the help of Mr. Newton, and we both have come to the same conclusion.
Schlotheim’s figure of his Ammonites primordialis is so bad that his species can
only be identified by the help of his description. F. A. Rémer,’ however, under
the name Bellerophon primordialis, Schlotheim, sp., gives several figures which
show that typically the species is finely cancellated, but that occasionally the
spiral lines are almost invisible especially in young individuals. In his later work
he figures under the name of Schizostoma carinatum, a shell which shows the
spiral striping and seems to be a young example of the same species, though it
appears in the figure slightly sub-discoidal. Lastly Clarke* describes Porcellia
primordialis, Schlotheim, sp., as having spiral lines, though occasionally only
radiating lines are visible. In the British Museum are several German specimens
of P. primordialis which show the spiral striz more or less distinctly in shells of
all sizes, while on the other hand there are three other fossils which exactly
correspond with our specimens, and are marked only with definite radiating striz
of exactly the same character as in them. Under these circumstances Mr. Newton
came to the same conclusion as myself, that the latter as well as our English
species ought to be referred to Sandberger’s species, and regarded as in all
probability distinct from Schlotheim’s shell. It is possible that Clarke included
both species under one head.
Huomphalus striatus, Goldfuss,’ is another very similar shell. In it the radi
do not seem to divaricate or increase, and the shell is less angulated and bears a
small rounded keel. When Mr. Roberts and I examined it we came to the con-
clusion that our shells did not belong to this species, but to Sandberger’s. They
certainly do not belong to the genus Huomphalus.
Bellerophon vradiatus, @Orbigny,® which that author identifies with Porcellia
retrorsa, Minster,’ has rather coarser striae, which seem to bend rather forward on
the shoulder. The whorls also seem to be more definitely oval and increasing more |
slowly. D’Orbigny and Miimster describe it as striated for three-quarters the
1 1820, von Schlotheim, ‘ Petrefact.,’ p. 65, pl. ix, figs. 2a, b.
* 1843, F. A. Romer, ‘ Verst. Harzgeb.,’ p. 31, pl. viii, figs. 16 a—e.
3 1850, F. A. Romer, ‘ Beitr.,’ pt. 1, p. 38, pl. v, figs. 28 a—d.
+ 1884, Clarke, ‘ Neues Jahrb. f. Min.,’ Beil.-Band iii, p. 348.
1844, Goldfuss, ‘ Petref. Germ.,’ vol. iii, p. 84, pl. clxxxix, figs. 15 a—e.
6 1840, de Herussac and d’Orbigny, ‘ Hist. Nat. Ceph.,’ p. 216, (Bellerophon) pl. vi, figs. 20—23.
7 1839, Miinster, ‘ Beitr.,’ pt. 1, p. 38, pl. 11, figs. 8 a—e.
HELMINTHOCHITON. 333
length of the whorl, and smooth on the back, thus giving another point of distinc-
tion from ours.
Bellerophon Vernewllii, @ Orbigny,' is referred by de Koninck’ to Porcellia ; but,
as seen both from the descriptions by these authors and from specimens in the
British Museum, it is a much narrower shell, and has only coarse radii on the
inner half of the whorls, the outer half or back being quite smooth. It is a
Carboniferous form.
In Porcellia tuberculosa, Geinitz,? as well as in Bellerophon tuberculatus,
d’Orbigny,* the longitudinal striz are replaced by rows of tubercles.
Lastly the Carboniferous shell, to which Phillips incorrectly referred it, is easily
distinguished by the very sharp angles on the shoulder and the margin of the
umbilicus and by the coarse close granulation formed by impressed longitudinal and
spiral strie. It was first described by Martin’ as Ammonites Woodwardii ; and its
characters are distinctly shown by Sowerby® who calls it Nautilus Woodwardii, by
Phillips’ who calls it Bellerophon Woodwardii, and by de Koninck® who calls it
Porcellia Woodwardit, and are also very clearly displayed in several specimens in
the British Museum.
Class—PLACOPHORA, Jhering, 1877.
1. Order—CHITONIDA, D’Orbigny, 1837.
1. Genus—Hetuintuocuiton, Salter, 1847.
This sub-genus of Chiton is thus defined by Salter: “ Hlongate; plates as
long as wide, subquadrate, thin; apex of the anal plate remote from its front
edge; sustentacula widely separated ; shell but very little covered by the mantle.”
1 1840, de Ferussac and d’Orbigny, ‘ Hist. Nat. Ceph.,’ p. 212, (Bellerophon) pl. vi, figs. 12—14.
2 1842-4, de Koninck, ‘ Descr. Anim. Foss.,’ p. 361, pl. xxviii, figs. 4a, 6.
3 1842, d’Archiac and de Verneuil, ‘ Geol. Trans.,’ ser. 2, vol. vi, pt. 2, p. 353, pl. xxviii, fig. 9.
4 1852, Geinitz, ‘ Verst. Grauw. Sachsen,’ p. 44, pl. xi, figs. 11, 11a.
> 1809, Martin, ‘ Petrificata Derbiensia,’ p. 17, pl. xxxv, figs. 4, 5.
6 1827, Sowerby, ‘Min. Conch.,’ vol. vi, p. 188, pl. dixxi, fig. 3.
7 1836, Phillips, ‘Geol. Yorks.,’ vol. ii, p. 231, pl. xvii, figs. 1—3.
8 1842-4, de Koninck, ‘ Descr. Anim. Foss.,’ p. 360, pl. xxviii, figs. 2a—ce.
9 1847, Salter, ‘Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc.,’ vol. iii, p. 51.
334 DEVONIAN FAUNA.
1. HenMintHocuiton pParitio, Whidborne, sp. Pl. XXXI, fies. 15, 15a, 155, 16.
1889. Curron pariLio, Whidborne. Geol. Mag., dec. 3, vol. vi, p. 30.
Description.—Plate elongate, narrow, deep; posteriorly pointed; dorsally slightly
convex ; laterally flat and very oblique, somewhat pinched in in front ; anteriorly
deeply excavate, but with a broad, flat, slightly produced margin in the centre.
Sides produced forwards into a kind of wing, so that the greatest length is about
one and a half times that of the dorsal line. Margins of sides oblique, slightly
convex, apparently bearing a small projection about half-way back, rapidly and
evenly rounded in front; inner. margin of the wing nearly parallel with the outer
margin. Surface obliterated but apparently bearing some raised oblique lines.
Shell-structure thin except in the centre, where it is thickened by an indistinct
rounded internal process crossing the centre of the valve, and running obliquely
down the wings. No apophyses of insertion visible.
Size.—Length of back 11 mm.; total length 16 mm.; depth 10 mm.; width
14 mm.
Localities.—There is a specimen from Wolborough in the Museum of Practical
Geology, and another from Lummaton in my Collection.
Remarks.—This species is only known by two detached median valves, which
are not in a good state of preservation. It appears to have been a well-marked
form, distinguished by its height and narrowness, and by the development of its
wings. ‘There seem to have been several raised lines near the extremity of the
wings, almost parallel with the dorsal keel. The sides meet m an acute angle on
the back forming a ridge which is slightly convex longitudinally.
This description is taken from the specimen from Wolborough which is detached
from matrix, My own specimen is very doubtful and indistinct, but though a
little flatter it may, if a Chiton at all, have belonged to the same species.
Affinities.—This species seems to come in general shape about midway between
Chiton sagittalis, Sandberger,’ and Chiton corrugatus, Sandberger,’ differing, how-
ever, widely from each. The former is a very much narrower shell: the latter is
much broader, its posterior margins are concave, it is dorsally excavate, and it
bears strong apophyses. Both species are strongly ornamented with concentric
erowth-stri.
Helnuinthochiton Lebescontei, Barrois,* is very similar in some respects, but differs
in having much smaller wings, in the margins being almost straight instead of
1 1853, Sandberger, ‘ Verst. Rhein. Nassau,’ p. 239, pl. xxvi, figs. 23, 23 a, 230.
* 1853, ibid., p. 238, pl. xxvi, figs. 22, 22 a—d.
3 1889, Barrois, ‘ Faun. Cale. d’Ebray,’ p. 181, pl. xv, figs. 15 a, 0.
HELMINTHOCHITON. 335
deeply concave in front, in being slightly concave in the latero-posterior part, in
having very strong apophyses, and in bearing a strong concentric ornament.
Chiton priscus, Minster,’ from the Carboniferous, is a much shorter and more
quadrate form.
Under the name of Chiton levigatus, F. A. Romer, Clarke’ unites the shells
described by F. A. Romer as Bellerophon expansus? and Chiton levigatus* together
with Chiton sella, Trenkner.’? This species differs from the English shell in the
shape of the wing, the concave postero-lateral border, the flattened back, and the
concentric ornament.
Chiton trapezoidalis, Trenkner,° and Chiton gibbosus, Trenkner,’ are very much
wider and differently shaped forms, while the other species figured by Trenkner and
reproduced by Clarke are established only on terminal valves, and therefore cannot
be compared with the present fossils.
None of the Chitons figured by de Koninck at all approach it. he nearest
are Heliminthochiton gemmatus, de Koninck,*® which is wider, flatter, and more
recurved along the back, and has smaller wings; and H. mucronatus, de Koninck,’
in which the posterior side is larger and the wings very much smaller.
1 1839, Munster, ‘ Beitr.,’ pt. 1, p. 60, pl. xiii, figs. 4 a—e.
2 1884, Clarke, ‘ Neues Jahrb. f. Min.,’ Beil.-Band iii, p. 337.
3 1843, F. A. Romer, ‘ Verst. Harzgeb.,’ p. 32, pl. ix, figs. 5 a, b.
4 1855, F. A. Romer, ‘ Beitr.,’ pt. 3, p. 386, pl. vii, fig. 8.
5 1867, Trenkner, ‘ Paliont. Novit.,’ pt. 1, p. 14, pl. ui, fig. 27.
6 [bid., p. 15, pl. ii, fig. 32, and 1884, Clarke, ‘Neues Jahrb. f. Min.,’ Beil.-Band in, p. 338,
pl. iv, fig. 20.
7 1867, Trenkner, ‘ Paliont. Novit.,’ pt. 1, p. 16, pl. ii, fig. 383, and 1884, Clarke ‘ Neues Jahrb.
f. Min.,’ Beil.-Band ii, p. 339, pl. iv, figs. 12 and 13.
8 1883, de Koninek, ‘ Ann. Mus. Royal H. N. Belg.,’ vol. viii, pt. 4, p. 206, pl. li, figs. 28—31.
9 Jbid., p. 204, pl. li, figs. 832—35.
i
ae:
a Fy aw
Ua,
it Pyne
t MNdbeate
CST aR
Palle
5 ania i
ee
ven
Tap ta ee:
Rutan
as
His” iss
Acidaspide
Acidaspis
— Hughesit
_— pilata
— Robertsii
Acroculia columbina
— compressa
_— contorta
— haliotis
— multiplicata .
— proeva
— sigmordalis
— trigona
—_— vetusta
Actinoceras .
— devonicans
— Sowerby
Actinoceratide
Ammonoidea
Antitrochus .
— arietinus .
Aristozoe
Asaphus sp. .
Auriculide
Bactropus
— decoratus
Bellerophon .
— affinis
— Hicksii
— hiuleus
— imperforatus
— lineatus
— macromphalus
INDEX TO VOLUME I.
12
214
208
218
220
. 220
208, 209
198
. 210
208, 216, 218
119
120
142
119
56
234
235
42
PAGE
Bellerophon Meeki 322
— mundus 327
aa Pelops 322
— propimquus 322
— Sowerbyt . 321, 322
— sp. 217, 218
— striatus 321, 322
— undulatus . 321
_— Wenlockensis ? 329
—_ Woodwardit 330
Bellerophontidze 321
Bronteidz Ae ny
Brontes flabellifer 38, 39, 40
Bronteus 32
— alutaceus A mete)
— alutaceus 39, 40
— delicatus 33
— flabellifer 38
— flabellifer 40
— eranulatus 40
-- intermedius 40
— _ pardalios 35
— tigrinus 34
Buceinites arculatus 162
— subcostatus . 159
Buccinum acutum . 164
— arculatum 159, 162
—_ — var. carinatum, ventri-
cosum, and torosum . 162
— breve 271
= imbricatum 159, 164
— l22ve 164
— Oceant 162
Buecinum spinosum
Calymene acciprina
— — granulata
— ? Jordani
— latifrons
—_ Latretllii
— macrophthalma
— sp.
— Sternbergii
Capulidee
Capulus
— ecolumbinus
— compressus
— contortus ?
— cordatus
— deflexus
— _ galeritus
—. gracilis
— haliotis
—? invictus
— multiplicatus .
— naticoides
— _ pericompsus
— proevus
— puellaris
i — rostratus
— rostratus P
Sa Ca SDs
— — sigmoidalis
— squamosus P
— terminalis
— tylotus
— uncinatus ?
— Ussheri
— vetustus
Cephalopoda
Cerithium antiquum
Cheiruridee
Cheirurus
— affinis
— articulatus
— gibbus
— Pengellii
— Sternbergii ?
Chiton papilio
Chitonide
Cirrus rotundatus
INDEX TO
211
216
2138
3218
216, 218
55
306
VOLUME TI.
Cirrus rotundatus, var.
Crustacea
Cyphaspis
ocellata
Cypridella
P sp.
Cypridina
P sp.
P sp.
P sp.
Cypridinadee .
Cypridinella .
Cyprosina
ceca
W bhidbornii
Cyprosinide .
Cyrtocera lineata
tentaculata
Cyrtoceras
armatum
difficile
Eifelense
? fimbriatum .
jfimbriatum .
lamellosum .
Leet
lineatum
majesticum .
marginale
morsum
multiseptatun
Sp. NOV.
nautilordeum
Nessigi
nodosum
obliquatum .
ornatum
preclarum .
pulcherrimum
quindecimale
reticulatum
Robertsiu
subconicum .
tredecimale .
undulatum .
ventricosum .
Vicarii
102
109
10S
103
108
INDEX TO
PAGE
Cyrtoceratide | 90
Cyrtoceratites depressus 108
— finbriatus 104:
— lamellosus 103
— lineatus 108
— multistriatus 85
— ornatus 94,
= quindecimalis 102
Dechenella 217
— setosa 27
Dirhachis 157
= atavus 157
Ecculiomphalus comes 263
— ? laxus 2638
— serpula 259
Elasmonema . é 272
— rotundum . 273
Entomidide . 51
Entomis 51
— pelagica 52
— peregrina 51
— tuberosa 52
Euomphalus . 244
— anguis 245
a annulatus 250
— annulatus . 251
— annulosus . 250
— ? araneifer 253
— catenulatus 254:
— circularis . 248
ame — var. gemmulifer . 250
— clymenoides 241
— decussatus . 256
— depressus 24.7
= Dionysii 244.
_ Dionysii ? 297
—_ fenestralis 254:
= germanus . 256
— Hecale 247
— heliciformis 245
— helicinus 269
—_ laxus . 263
— leevis 239, 247, 251
— — var. turritus 245
— Neapolitanus 252
= omalocephalus 39
= ophirensis . 245
VOLUME I.
Huomphalus orbis
= planorbis .
aaa cf. planorbis
— radiatus
= retrorsus
— rota
— serpens
= serpula
— subcarinatus
— vortex
Fish remains .
Flemingia
— perversa
Gasteropoda .
Goldius flabellifer
— granulatus
Gomphoceras
— Marri
me poculum .
— sp.
— vasiforme
Gomphoceratide
Goniatitide .
Goniatites
-- aratus
= equabilis
— bicanaliculatus
— circumflexifer ?
a costulatus
—- discus
== excavatus
— fulguralis
— globosus
_ Hughes
— inconstans
— molarius
— nuciformis
a obliquus
— pentangularis
— planidorsatus
— psittacinus
— retrorsus umbilicatus
— serpentinus P
a sp.
= Sp. :
— transitorius .
var. gracilis .
“Ad
339
PAGE
. 241
239, 240, 241
240
258
951
. 258
241, 247, 254
259, 260, 261, 263
263
303
245
340
Goniatites Wildungensis
Gyroceras
— armatum
— asymmetricum
— cancellatum
— costatum
— Crickii
= EHifelense
— Leei
— nodosum
— nudum
— obliquatum .
— ornatum
— preclarum .
—_ quadrato-clathratum
— sp. :
— tredecimale
Harpedide
Harpes
— macrocephalus .
— —_ speciosus
— ungula i
Helicites delphinuloides
“— Dionysir
— ellipticus
— priscus
— trochilinus
Helminthochiton
_ papilio
Hercoceras inornatum
Holopella
—_— costata
—_ duplisulcata
— elongata
— Hennahiana .
— piligera
— scalariceforme
— subulata
— tenuicostata .
_— tenuireticulata
= tenuisuleata .
Leveillia
Licbadee
Lichas
— devonianus
Liotia
— brevis.
INDEX TO
PAGE
99
101
VOLUME I.
Liotiinee
Litorina globosa
Littorina
— biserialis
— devonica
— lirata
— purpura
— subcostata
— Ussheri
Littorinidee
Tituites Hifliensis
— ornatus
Loxonema
— adpressum
— anguloswm
—_— arcuatum
— commune
= conicum
= costatum
— deornatum
— Hennahianum
— linctum
— neglectum
— nexile
= obliquiarcuatum
— Phillipse
— ? preteritum
= priscum
— —_— P var.
-— reticulatum .
—_— Reemeri
— rugiferum
— scalarizeforme
— scalaroides
-- sicula
— sp.
— Sp.
— striatum
== vagiferum
Macrocheilus arculatus
— brevis
— elongatus .
— harpula
— imbricatus
—_ levis
= neglectus .
== ? neglectus
159,
159, 164,
Macrocheilus Oceani
= ovatus
— Phillipsii
— Schlotheimt
— subcostatus
— subimbricatus
— tumescens
—_— ventricosus
Macrochilus desideratus
—_ striatus
Macrochilina . ;
— aff. acuta .
—- arculata
— cyclostoma
= elevata
== ejecta
— imbricata
—_ lineta
= subcostata
— subimbricata
— ventricosa
Melania antiqua
— arcuata
— costata
— deperdita
— prisca
Melanopsis coronata
Metoptoma cordata
Michelia
— exaltata
—_— Sp. -
Mollusca
Monodonta archon
= purpura
—_— purpurea
Murchisonia . ;
oo aff. bigranulosa
_— anglica
— angulata
= antiqua
— Bachelieri
— bigranulosa
— bilineata
— binodosa
— bistriata
— brevis
— of. tricineta
INDEX TO
PAGE
307,
307,
307,
307,
162
168
271
159
159
166
166
164:
308
177
158
168
162
aval
170
170
164:
163
159
166
167
228
175
229
V7
181
306
212
183
183
183
55
266
265
265
306
309
307
308
308
308
308
308
307
307
271
308
VOLUME I.
Murchisonia Chalmasi .
— cochlea
= coronata
— Delaget
se desiderata .
— geminata .
— gemmata
= Hercynica
— intercedens
— intermedia
a lineata
— loxonemoides
— margarita .
? obesa
= obtusangula
— ornata
= spinosa
= trepomena
— tricincta
os turbinata .
— turbinata .
— Verneuiliana
— Vicariana .
Murex harpula
Muricites turbinatus
Natica
— antiqua
— efossa .
— globosa
— gregaria
— interstrialis
— meridionalis
— ?nexicosta
— nexicosta
— piligera
— sp. .
— subcostata
Naticidee
Naticopsis
— harpula
Nautilit sans cloisons
Nautilidz
Nautiloidea .
Nautilus germanus
Nerita deformis
— speciosa
— spirata
307, :
307,
307, ¢
307, 308,
307,
307,
189,
192,
342
Nevita subcostata
Odontomaria
— semiplicata
Olenus flabellifer
Orthocera, sp.
Orthoceras
— acuminatum
— ef. O. acuminatum
= ct. O. stmplicissimum .
_ ef. O. teniale
— Champernewni
— cinctum
— comatum
— Dannenbergi
— discretum
— dolatum
— ellipsoideum
a eutrichum
— gracile
— Grundense
— hastatum
a bea
_— imbricatum .
— irregulare
— laterale
— lineatum
— — var. tenwistriatum
— Ludense
— multiseptatum
— Oceant
— oryx
— rapiforme
— rapzeforme .
— Robertsii
— simplicissimum
— Sowerbyt
— sp.
_ speciosum
— subannulare
— subtubicinella
— tenuistriatum
-- tubicinella .
a tubicinella
— — var. suwbnodosum
a ventricosum
— Vicarii
= — var. eductum .
VOLUME I.
Orthoceras Wissembachii
Orthoceratide
Orthoceratites calycularis
— ellipticus
= spectosus
= subannularis
— subfusiformis
— subpyriformis
= tenuistriatus
— ventricosus
Orthonychia .
= costata
— quadrangularis
Ostracoda
Paradoxides ?
Phacopidee
Phacops
— batracheus
— eryptophthalmus
— granulatus
— latifrons
— Latreilli
— macrophthalmus
Phanerotinus :
— centrifugus
— militaris .
— mundus .
os serpula
Phasianella adpressa
— Susiformis .
— ventricosa .
Philoxene
— levis
_ philosophus .
— serpens
Phorus philosophus
Phragmoceras ,
— ? ungulatum
— ungulatum
Phragmoceratidz
Phyllocarida .
Pileopsis compressa
— prisea
= vetusta
Placophora
Plagiothyra
_ archon
PAGE
138
120
108
120
149
138
Tees
115
124
108
222
222
223
ars
EE OX
oO wo bw bw
Haan’
b nw bo
Or DG ON
ow
INDEX ‘TO
PAGE
Plagiothyra purpura 265
Platyceras costatum 222
_— sp. . 205
Platyostoma . : 198
— ? deforme . 200
_ naticoides . 198
— sigmoidale 198
— speciosum 202
Pleurotomaria 277
— angulata 308 .
— antitorquata 235
—_ aspera . 290
— aspera . 3801
— Beaumonti 283, 284
— bifida 330
—_— bilineata 317
— Bischofhi 305
— Bodana . 292
os caleuliformis 305
— cancellata 291
aa Champernowni 277
a Chudleighensis 292
— cirriformis 289
— crenatostriata 289
— Crokeri . 802
— decussata : 283, 284
= — var. elegans 284
pists a var. geminata 284
— delphinulexformis . 297
— delphinuliformis 297
— delphinuloides 297
— dissimulatrix 300
— euomphalus 296
— euryomphalus 280
— extlis 308
— gracilis . 303
— Hebe 282
— imbricata 293
— impendens 282
-— latevittata 309
— Lonsdalii 280
— Lydia 297
— Melnikovi 297
— monilifera 287
7 Neapolitana 286
— Nerinea 308
— Orbigniana 283
VOLUME I.
Pleurotomaria Orbignyana
— perversa
ae seminuda
— Shaleri .
— subelathrata
— subimbricata
— subleevis
— trochoides
— trilineata
a Viennayt
— victrix
Pleurotomariide
Polycope
— Devonica
—_ — _—-var. concinna .
=e — var. major
— — var. obliqua
— Hughesize
— simplex
— simplex
Polycopide
Porcellia
— bifida
— Woodwardit
Portlockia latifrons
Poterioceras :
— ellipsoideum
— Marri
— vasiforme
Proétide
Proétus
— andax
— batillus
— Champernowni
— subfrontalis
Prosobranchia
Pseudomelaniide
Pulmonata
Rissoa ? Lefeburii
Rotellina
— ? helicina
Scalaria antiqua
Scalaride .
Schizostoma delphinuloides
— tricinetum .
— vittatum
Scoliostoma .
343
PAGE
283, 284:
267
289
296
278
293
297
287
315
297
301
277
47
oo bo
“N Oo cK b
“I, Or
bo
ww ®
Be oO O
IN NNN KM FS EH FE FE
a) D
a os
544.
Scoliostoma crassilabrum
— gracile ?
os megalostoma
—_— texatum
Sedis incertze
Serpula semiplicata
Serpularia centrifuga
Solariide
Spanionema
= sealaroides .
Straparollus Dionysit
= priscus
Strophostylus
— Sp.
Temnocheilus
— inornatus
Terebra Hennahiana
— Hennahii
—. newilis
Tetrabranchiata
Trilobita
Trilobites Sternbergii
Trochide
Trochine
Trochoceras . ‘
fae Foordianum
— obliquatum
— pulcherrimum
— reticulatum
— sp.
—- Vicarii
PRINTED BY AD
INDEX 'TO
PAGE
231
233
231
931
54
320
263
236
184
185
244, 245
245
197
197
80
80
928
. 228
172, 175
56
VOLUME LI.
Trochoceratide
Trochus multispira
— purpura
Tropidocaris .
_— > sp.
Turbinine
Turbo
— ct. Orbignyanus .
— cirriformis
— cyclostomoides
— granosus
— inamictus
— nanus
— neglectus P
— niso
— nodosus
—- Pengelli
— Schwelmensis
— subangulatus
— subcostatus
— texatus
Turritella abbreviata
— coronata
o gregaria
— obsoleta
Umboniine
Velutinide
— texatus
Vertebrata
LARD AND SON, BARTHOLOMEW CLOSE.
Vermetus antitorquatus .
Cereal’
huaaveshya Py
Fre.
. Apical view of a finely preserved specimen. 1a, lateral view. Lummaton.
—
© DBO
(ee)
11.
13.
14.
15.
PLATE XXV.
HUOMPHALUS FENESTRALIS, n. sp. (Page 254.)
Torquay Museum.
. Umbilical view of another specimen. Lummaton. My Collection.
. Umbilical view of another specimen with worn surface, figured by Phillips as
Hu. serpens. Lummaton (?). Lee Collection, British Museum.
KuompuHanus Germanus, Phillips, sp. (Page 256.)
. Phillips’s type specimen. 4a, lateral view. Wolborough. Museum of
Practical Geology.
. Another specimen. 5a, lateral view; 5b, surface of back, x 10. Wol-
borough. Woodwardian Museum.
Kvompnatus rora, Sandberger. (Page 258.)
. An elliptically coiled specimen. 6a, lateral view. Wolborough. Vicary
Collection.
. Circularly coiled specimen. Wolborough. Vicary Collection.
. Phillips’s specimen, figured as Huomphalus radiatus, Goldfuss. Wolborough.
Museum of Practical Geology.
PHANEROTINUS MILITARIS, n. sp. (Page 259.)
. Apical view of a large specimen. Wolborough. British Museum.
10.
Umbilical view of another specimen. 10a, lateral view. Wolborough.
Vicary Collection.
Umbilical view of another specimen. Lummaton. My Collection.
PHANEROTINUS MUNDUS, n. sp. (Page 261.)
. Large specimen much obscured by matrix. Wolborough. Museum of
Practical Geology.
Apical view of small specimen, X 2°5. Lummaton or Barton. Torquay
Museum.
PraciorHyra PURPURA, d’Archiac and de Vernewil, sp. (Page 265.)
Specimen, wanting apex, X 2°5. 14a, upper whorl, x 5. Lummaton (?).
Torquay Museum.
DiRHACHIS ATAVUS, n. Sp. (Page 157.)
Specimen showing the beginning of the teeth, which become much clearer
within the inner lip. Chudleigh. Woodwardian Museum.
imp
L.hith et
de
ATE XXV.
Pas
s
Geo.West &
PLATE XXVI.
PLEUROTOMARIA CHAMPERNOWNI, n. sp. (Page 277.)
Fie.
1. Very elongate specimen, X 1°5. Wolborough. Vicary Collection.
2. Less elevated specimen. 2a, basal view. Lummaton(?). Torquay Museum.
3. Another specimen preserving the surface. Wolborough. Vicary Collection. ¥
4, Very short specimen, much worn, and wanting the body-whorl. 4a, apical
view. Wolborough. Vicary Collection.
5. Another much worn specimen. 5a, basal view. Wolborough. Museum of
Practical Geology.
PLaciotHyra ARCHON, Whidborne, sp. (Page 266.)
6. Very large specimen, wanting the apex. [The upper whorl is merely a
restoration, and not to be regarded as correct.| 6a, another view, showing the
tooth on the inner lip. Chudleigh. Vicary Collection.
7, 7a. Another specimen, wanting the apex. 7 b, basal view, showing the tooth.
Chudleigh. Vicary Collection.
Liotia BREVIS, Sowerby, sp. (Page 271.)
8, 8a. Large specimen preserving the surface, x 2. Chudleigh. Vicary Col-
lection.
9. Another large but worn specimen. Chudleigh. Torquay Museum.
ROTELLINA (?) HELIOINA, Minster, sp. (Page 269.)
10. Specimen retaining surface. 10a, apical view. Lummaton. Woodwardian
Museum.
11. Another specimen rather worn. 11a, apical view. Lummaton. Torquay
Museum.
PLATE XXVI
Geo.Weat & Sons del.lith etimp.
PLATE XXVII.
TURBO INAMICTUS, n. sp. (Page 274.)
Fra.
1. Decorticated specimen. Wolborough. Torquay Museum.
FLEMINGIA PERVERSA, Whidborne, sp. (Page 267.)
2. The largest specimen known. Wolborough. Vicary Collection.
. Another specimen. Wolborough. Vicary Collection.
4. Another specimen. 4a, basal view. Wolborough. Museum of Practical Geology.
(ou)
ELASMONEMA ROTUNDUM, n. sp. (Page 273.)
5. Imperfect cast. Wolborough. Vicary Collection.
Turso crrrirormis, Sowerby. (Page 275.)
6. Imperfect cast. Chudleigh. Vicary Collection.
Turbo Peneetii, Whidborne. (Page 274.)
7. Specimen, defective below. Wolborough. Vicary Collection.
Turbo nequectus, Phillips, sp. (?). (Page 276.)
8. Large specimen, defective at the base, x 3°5. Lummaton(?). Torquay Museum.
PLEUROTOMARIA SUBCLATHRATA, Sandberger. (Page 278.)
9,10. Rather worn specimens. Wolborough. Vicary Collection.
11. Smaller and more elevated specimen. Wolborough. Museum of Practical Geology.
Prevrotomaria Lonspauil, d’ Archiac and de Vernewl. (Page 280.)
12. Specimen with ornament much obscured. Wolborough. Museum of Practical Geology.
PLEUROTOMARIA IMPENDENS, Sowerby. (Page 282.)
13. Specimen with the ornament obliterated on the lower part of the body-whorl. 18a, portion of
the surface of the penultimate whorl, x 10. Lummaton. Champernowne Collection.
PLEvROTOMARIA Orzrientana, d’ Archiac and de Verneuil. (Page 283.)
14. Finely preserved and perfect specimen. Lummaton. Torquay Museum.
PrevroTomaRriaA Neaponirana, n. sp. (Page 286.)
15. Large and finely preserved specimen. Lummaton (?). Torquay Museum.
16. Less elevated and rather worn specimen with deeper sutures. Wolborough. Museum of
Practical Geology.
PLEUROTOMARIA TROCHOIDES, Whidborne. (Page 287.)
17. Specimen, imperfect at the base. Lummaton. Torquay Museum.
18. Smaller specimen, with wider central band. Chudleigh. Vicary Collection.
19. Aberrant specimen in which the transverse ornament is much less developed, and the base more
produced. Chudleigh. Vicary Collection.
PLATE XXVII
Geo.Weat & Sons del. lith etimp.
PLATE XXVIII.
PLEUROTOMARIA SEMINUDA, n. sp. (Page 289.)
Fre.
1. Specimen with surface much worn. Wolborough. Torquay Museum.
PLEUROTOMARIA CHUDLEIGHENSIS, n. sp. (Page 292.)
2. Specimen showing aperture, though injured on the outer lip. Chudleigh. Woodwardian Museum.
3. Another specimen showing the finer markings. 3a, diagram of the surface, x 5. Chudleigh.
Vicary Collection.
PLEUROTOMARIA CANCELLATA, Phillips. (Page 291.)
4. Specimen with rather worn surface. Wolborough. Museum of Practical Geology.
PLEUROTOMARIA SUBIMBRICATA, n. sp. (Page 293.)
5. Specimen with fewer spiral threads than usual. Lummaton. Torquay Museum.
6. Typical specimen. Lummaton. Woodwardian Museum.
7. Large specimen with very fine markings, described by M‘Coy as Pl. imbricata. Wolborough.
Woodwardian Museum.
8. Large specimen slightly distorted. Wolborough. Museum of Practical Geology.
PLEUROTOMARIA SHALERI, n. sp. (Page 296.)
9. Worn and slightly distorted specimen, showing signs of coarse transverse ornamentation.
- 9a, lateral view. Lummaton (?). Torquay Museum.
PLEUROTOMARIA DELPHINULOIDES, Schlotheim, sp. (Page 297.)
10, 10a. Very large and elevated specimen. Chudleigh. Vicary Collection.
11. A still larger but more depressed specimen. Chudleigh. My Collection.
12. A small and very depressed specimen with a very broad sinus-band. 12 a, apical view.
Lummaton (?). Torquay Museum.
13. A large specimen with few whorls, of unusual shape, but in many respects very similar to
Schlotheim’s original figure. Wolborough. Vicary Collection.
PLEUROTOMARIA CROKERI, n. sp. (Page 302.)
14, Small specimen with narrow convex sinus-band. Wolborough. British Museum.
PLEUROTOMARIA VictRIx, Whidborne. (Page 301.)
15. Specimen much obscured by matrix. Lummaton. My Collection.
16. Another specimen showing ornament. Lummaton. My Collection.
PLEUROTOMARIA DISSIMULATRIX, n. sp. (Page 300.)
17. Defective specimen showing transverse folds. Wolborough. Museum of Practical Geology.
PLEUROTOMARIA GRACILIS, Phillips. (Page 303.)
18. Small specimen. Lummaton. Torquay Museum.
PLATE. XXVIIL.
3a ff
J Pobih-
Geo.Weat & Sone del. lith et imp
Fre.
. Turrited specimen with foliaceous growth-strie. Chudleigh. Vicary Collec-
ive)
6.
‘5
8.
16.
PLATE XXIX.
Morcuisonta TURBINATA, Schlotheim, sp. (Page 306.)
(Groups—spinosa, figs. 1—10; curta, figs. 14—16.)
tion.
. Turrited specimen with large and distant nodules on shoulder and indistinct
nodules below. Sinus-band consisting of a single keel. Chudleigh.
Vicary Collection.
. Turrited specimen with very large nodules on shoulder and very deep sutures.
Chudleigh. Vicary Collection.
. Elongate specimen with few and large nodules on shoulder and lower angle,
wide sinus-band, and shallow suture. Chudleigh. Vicary Collection.
. Fusiform specimen, with two rows of large nodules and narrow whorls.
Chudleigh. Vicary Collection.
Very large specimen with indistinct nodules and with whorls enveloped to
sinus-band. Wolborough. Vicary Collection.
7a. Two views of an elongate specimen with broad whorls and two rows of
‘small distant nodules. Chudleigh. Vicary Collection.
Fusiform specimen with broad, involute whorls and few coarse elongate
nodules. Chudleigh. Vicary Collection.
. Similar but shorter specimen with very elongate ridges below. Chudleigh.
Vicary Collection.
. Similar but still shorter, conical, and more involute specimen. Chudleigh.
Vicary Collection.
. Similar but still shorter specimen, with very narrow whorls. Chudleigh.
Vicary Collection.
12a. Two views of a very short, involute specimen with two rows of large
nodules. Chudleigh. Vicary Collection.
. Short involute specimen with only one row of coarse indistinct nodules,
figured by Phillips as M. spinosa. Chudleigh. Museum of Practical
Geology. (Figs. 11, 12, and 13 are intermediate forms.)
. Similar specimen with larger body-whorl. Chudleigh. Vicary Collection.
. Similar specimen with still larger body-whorl. Chudleigh. My Collection.
Similar but still shorter specimen, figured by Phillips as J/. spinosa. Chud-
leigh. Museum of Practical Geology.
ie PLATE XxIx.
Geo-West & Sone del.lith etimp
PLATE XXX.
MURCHISONIA TURBINATA, Schlotheim, sp. (continued). (Page 306.)
(Groups—intermedia, figs. 1—4; angulata, figs. 5—10.)
Fie.
1. Elongate specimen with small numerous nodules on the shoulder in the two lower whorls, smooth
on the upper whorls, and with very wide sinus-band. Chudleigh. My Collection.
bo
. Similar but shorter specimen with more triangular whorls, only nodulated on part of the body-
whorl. Chudleigh. My Collection.
3. More elongate specimen, with larger nodules and nodulated on all the whorls. Chudleigh.
Vicary Collection.
4. Similar specimen, obliquely coiled. Chudleigh. My Collection.
5. Smooth and very elongate specimen with broad triangular whorls and deep sutures. Chudleigh.
Vicary Collection.
6. Similar specimen, with much narrower and more numerous whorls. Chudleigh. Vicary
Collection.
7. Very elongate specimen with broad whorls and wide sinus-band bounded by foliaceous ridges.
Wolborough. Torquay Museum.
8. Shorter and more conical specimen. Wolborough. Museum of Practical Geology.
9. More conical specimen with very narrow whorls. Chudleigh. Vicary Collection.
10. Young specimen. Lummaton (?). Torquay Museum.
11. Specimen with narrow triangular whorls and very small nodules (intermediate to figs. 3 and 6),
figured hy Phillips as MZ. geminata. Wolborough. Museum of Practical Geology.
12, 12a. Two views of a large specimen showing a remarkable change in character, the upper whorls
being quadrate and nodulous (cf. figs. 1—4), and the lower whorls smooth and triangular (cf.
figs. 5—9). Intermediate form. Chudleigh. Vicary Collection.
Murcnison1a VicaRIANA, n. sp. (Page 314.)
13—-15. Specimens showing the double row of nodules on the shoulder and the delicate foliaceous
growth-strie. Chudleigh. Vicary Collection.
MURCHISONIA TREPOMENA, n. sp. (Page 315.)
16. Specimen figured by Phillips as IZ. ¢tricincta. 16a, portion of whorl, x38. Wolborough.
Museum of Practical Geology.
MURCHISONIA LOXONEMOIDES, n. sp. (Page 317.)
17. Specimen showing general shape. Wolborough. Torquay Museum.
18. Specimen retaining ornament. 18a, portion of whorl, x 2. Lummaton(?). Torquay Museum.
MURCHISONIA MARGARITA, n. sp. (Page 318.)
19. Very elongate specimen with at least fourteen whorls. Chudleigh. Woodwardian Museum.
20. Less elongate specimen. 20a, whorl x 3, to show the ornament. Chudleigh. Woodwardian
Museum.
Mvrcuisonia (?) oBESA, n. sp. (Page 319.)
21. Specimen with worn surface. Wolborough. Vicary Collection.
PLATE XXX.
Geo.West & Sons del.lith eLimp
PLATE XXXI.
Prevrotomartia Brscuorrtit, Goldfuss. (Page 305.)
Fre.
Ik
bo
10.
11.
16.
Specimen showing sinus-band. la, apical view. Lummaton. Woodwardian Museum.
OponTOMARIA SEMIPLICATA, Sandberger, sp. (Page 320.)
Specimen showing the broad sinus-band between two similar flat areas. 2a, lower view. Wol-
borough. Torquay Museum.
BELLEROPHON LINEATUS, Goldfuss MS. (Page 321.)
. Small typical specimen. 38a, lateral view. 34, portion of surface, x 8. Lummaton. My
Collection.
. Flatter specimen with very distant and irregular strie. 4a, lateral view. Lummaton (?).
Torquay Museum.
. Specimen with very close strie. 5a, portion of surface, x 7. Lummaton(?). Torquay
Museum.
. Specimen with still closer striz, the minor strize having become as large as the major. 6a, lateral
view. 60, portion of surface, x 5. Wolborough Museum of Practical Geology.
Betieroruon Hicxsii, n. sp. (Page 326.)
. Specimen showing the branching strie. 7a, lateral view. 76, portion of surface, x 4. Wol-
borough. Woodwardian Museum.
. Large but doubtful specimen, in which the surface is destroyed. 8a, lateral view. Wolborough.
Vicary Collection.
BELLEROPHON MUNDUS, Whidborne. (Page 327.)
. Cast, retaining only a fragment of the shell. 9a, lateral view, showing the broad median sulcus.
Lummaton. Lee Collection.
BELLEROPHON MACROMPHALUS, F. A. Romer. (Page 327.)
Specimen wanting shell. 10a, lateral view. Chircombe Bridge. Vicary Collection.
BELLLEROPHON IMPERFORATUS, n. sp. (Page 329.)
Specimen showing the thickened and flattened sides of the aperture. 11a, lateral view. Wol-
borough. Vicary Collection.
PoRCELLIA BIFIDA, Sandberger sp. (Page 330.)
. Specimen with rather angulated whorls, worn on the back. 12a, lateral view ; 12, portion c1
surface, x 3. Lummaton. Museum of Practical Geology.
. Smaller specimen. 18a, portion of surface, x 6, showing the striw, which are probably
roughened by fossilisation. Lummaton (?). Torquay Museum.
. Small specimen showing the divaricating strie. Lummaton (?). Torquay Museum.
HELMINTHOCHITON PAPILIO, Whidborne. (Page 384.)
. Worn and distorted specimen. 15a, lateral view showing the obscure ornament; 15, anterior
view, showing the thickening of the under side. Wolborough. Museum of Practical Geology.
Very obscure and doubtful specimen, which may perhaps be a Brachiopod. Lummaton. My
Collection.
PATH XXX.
GeoWest & Sons del lith etimp.
Serey ny
Re]
" x meet
LOAM beh br ert :
rowan
AA ntigs
Cor
‘4 bens
eng
° yy arial
* NA
ion
ene
hs
Me
REAR
‘ YY
WOULO
. toeraiy'yy
ACU Gb ey
POO Ty yy
+e
taney sibel
89 bh a iben
Aptana ed veagte gy
BARRO KY ON
Deo LLL * “My rhe POPE anit
PR SY YY INAS NY}
NAPA a ke fae DAY SPV Lay,
- Ae Leal
+ Bans
wristenonl
‘ RANK abt
one wthy et Cathe
OC
ait rule
ny
i
I.
sets=.
an VARA
1M
OU OOU na
it}
ea
DMA KCI)
uy Rn yyy yy
MOOT LEN YY
ey ENN
iy)
Wah A teeny
NAS
Siete
‘ :
Flos vty
RYE MP
fees tetera rey
wu suas
CORE)
Ah
OY Mitt
$y SONY)
ONE ¥
Want rd
s
Ny
ATE Fgh
Ns anal
oun
ON!
Hite
Vie
OeYEY)
Rare
”
te
Vee
'
it
rh
Duals
ry)
AYA
WAM)
Pabe eee (ly
=:
sn)
tar
sidet Vaan tery
nth ae a
$3
wit
(y
any
AA)
ayy
=
3
ante sternaniaay ie
ne des He Atte ny i hh
Nini}
aN
.
a Set cony
ae)
: tatbarag:
HURRAY
PAT NMR RNY YT AA Ny
to " SAARI Tt}
Ronee
==
f
Ms
' bate ag.
HARTY i)
SARK ARB KA WYNNE YY Hy)
Nee hatte Mat RUNS MAAN ID ANKE
Hoey ' mt Linh ih ii) » Wan) NYRR EK y AR OU)
ea a pany MOAI A) CONRAD Meet Hi { i / (Ronan
lire yeti int AYO THAN yy Hiatt) Na iia Ser gaa he PNR AAMANNOLNAS Hate nti ant tahini leiccae ey (iAH Neuss tavat
Netehtt doh erases tes SHA Ebe Chin alent yyy oi sea iy ade Sepratetee sti ‘ ih! ee ik AWA N
doa animate i aaa a nC ait
he nahin a Sannyy nibs Ry NAME it
tH nny
i
a bts ( hye
INVA OREN KL Re tre ect
vy ’ A Ne
BN ttl Mi
t hi by Dy
On i TAU freehand
HOH N Eh ot oma tan tite Boviy yy
} Patient tls PAY NRRN ERT eG! misangt ate "
tren etd Wihtest fh ! H ARN
: i ht f y
rotaiteancr ety AAAI CH ari Hen h rata
sa ieiaint SAN
0
bb tat beh ph
WY
seis it
‘ ‘a
ut hint ee fous * han \
as : RAL eR
bade (op h
Mi) beh etsbegdh
Heth
'
tye
A
DR ot tebe
Set bop
MAAR hho
ate
sith Raye ti
nh . (tte OU
edebinet Pe hy , i
>} yyy ‘oot aS oy + im MAAN)
hata bey bey 1 ‘ ‘
Settle UPTAKE
aed ‘) ih
a4 ti 4
Ain
My
bie .
a
bon ee
Hitt:
44 ‘ry
ih) 14 bik
14. 4
ov te Fete i t
riz
=t=5)
U
i} Da) fh bt
¥ 4
( fiat ale
2332
soe
nh
iM
ti
iid)
ih AK IR
i : fe
Abani
dale titete
y mee 4m
aba nents tly
i oh anh
PMR Aa Yanks)
‘i Ny Arad
SOTO Nr ap Nat itd
fry Suan tt
My)
'
ieee it ‘
mre ah ney
‘ts 4. Mi Vid ae
:
Tet).
ma
enh if
Beat ers gt
Wary
‘
f \ t Onan
i)
ash sal
Wesada
TAOOEON
Hh
“a
Dany:
POE
fat i
ih Neat
avetaiy
myiatit
a bs
RAHN
Oh
, aN
HW Syeda gy
HELA BAA aga y
Hine
Paes be
dy tho a
A
Y
vied
,
ise
Hey
Meta bee cay
Ashen NRO
soars
pera
=
el ebrt tea Copp
Het rinen feat
A AHRNTNARE
==
RES
i
a
ee
aed
inet eee
aneete cd
aniatstune tai
52
=
5
=
Pye
UA depy.
Hitt
hy
Aaa PPE ti
MVE Ute 14
SH shat peer ict Wigs
Ren UNDER EAL
| toys
WAN eI ab
Nea ae sth
if marist tent
+t
ise
i) i
ROMER
SAMA Kd A
Nb Nini Ryne DOLD)
HAVA Mis ( bebd echt: i RU Utsat iC eatad | HOES SIS aly
siddtnddyhih TIS DANaitig yayits Dy Nfitpat
it Wala 1a ot , I } AY y wi Waa i
4 th 3 vii y
Wiha?
1 Oy Cy
) i y Petal BY Ys
itt f ‘ ¥ dent ; i
4
ie
iit
=
ii
neti he fe
ise in
bai ah)
me)
Ait
1
f iit
hh a
i Wh Bis
han Coie, i si
on i +
eoeees
ss
=o
‘|
Ait)
ie)
23
<=
iS
Herp
Rd
SES
3
4
ter
ne
ores
ny
“i
on si Mie
f Tey
ne }
he tye vee
sit it hitvdes
4) 14 teh THY iy ri IVE essays
by) Ai} ‘ iivatyieataa nance ohh ie
ut Dhiyies HW bat Petals ‘ nies
is YAY NY ny yy
RRA yin '
lt if 44 WRU
ay yrs Rite itl si
I, 4 y Katy ti AAA ALS 2 Le
ahh puljsten ee, sa
ste ‘iy f
ene
Genter
HE Hy Samet fh
ari YAN A bly
Pay Hasianatiai win
nan by
vay
327
Pe)
+ AAA ey
SO JUTRNF DOYS ey
Seely i ow ett
‘ HEA Aba ves
WARRORKE) $ Se RIAU NYSE RAMA
NOE celeb g: I WAR LT Ped
Tits i ty An
p ¥ f (i
.
CU aey ys)
Danae
ROUT
CRED eb
2h
on
*
Msi
Mis’ ! PAPAS
He thiet " 4 AEN DO en
y t f Mf + t A
COO MMR an ata) te
WS RAL ERR
LRA ey
tah ra
i Mt
jet 4 1 5 bib
Dan iy mi Rates
CONEY f atin
cesses
ns
aves
eecres
Ltr eee eee be
Sade ened
trees
Ses
$3
5
Hote
rhe
NW MARRIED
{ MeeVee yy
Naki) ve
Ab ode
5
2
s2=
os
my)
=
=
He
ROR
sy
An
ROAR He
iia
=
: f nesta ty
WV EV b ee iy vi i
AYA Haves
SOYEN DAY Aah ‘
‘ i UMD NO MANRAS yy
y aan! Are etiidy,
WA tale /
he
Vet
=
s3=
s=S==:
a
==
ORY
Tee ee
A
Pau)
eX)
?
=s
pases
oN Ee
SOR Oa)
TPE E LG bey
=:
pysreees
BE
OGY en)
Oa,
three e pce
= .s3
eos
a
4 eset Pee ypsb
MAUR oy ASE ERMA REXEL) OY)
SUPPL Fae WA VATALASE yy ary
APA UATE wr NA
“ «
He
Dx
i NY ey
v ‘ noe
eee reeee ies OOO? oak ‘ wiht
int PINOy ; \ aut:
PAN CH edt '
Hitec y
HENNA eae d
SURRY
232422
Sa:
Ny
Aan
cot
=s
Veena
DARD
teebeee
’
cos:
Es
==
eoes
Eest
Stasesos
S2332=
es
Y
’
PHT eden y
SAACRRYE IDS] RY)
MAAN DEY)
FS
Henn tt
My
“
i
=:
t
Area: Dak} Wea Neda
: ‘ “ K vr xy) xh)
aa ; Dati
vent
MAN
» we )
RYDE AA
‘ ‘ MANOA) M Oa <
DREN KT vids ee wie COA ‘ «
Wt y ns WW AND SOA a Nae
‘ TBO ANS ean Wine es
Wore eddy
a Dan} i ‘
.
RAM RRO)
Nina
Tale eet Ge
Masi cramiet
NA Ra
552522
hy
A) Dat
POLO Kh
nein
ors
ee
vated ’
Weer ed ye
0