On Cretaceous Cephalopoda from ZulultnnL 225 



specimen is compared with the gigantic Ammonite cited above, and by 

 these authors doubtfully classed with Forbes' species, and with the 

 smaller figured example. The suture-line seems to agree very well, 

 judging from the photographs only ; but the bulges on the inner 

 portions of the lateral area, reminiscent at once of Parapuzosia lepto- 

 pltylla (Sharpe) and of certain Pacliydiscus and Parapachydiscus, are 

 not apparent in the photographs of the form here described. P. 

 gaudama itself (B.M. G-eol. Soc. Coll. 10487) is different, and P. corbarica? 

 Grossouvre,* with a thickness of only 27 per cent, of the diameter, 

 is too compressed. The ornament of the inner whorls of the example 

 here described, however, is very similar to that of this species, as it 

 also is to that of the more coarsely ribbed P. daubreei, Grossouvre sp.,| 

 though, owing to the absence of the inner half of the lateral areas, the 

 primary costse are only just indicated, so that comparison with this 

 species, the presumed genotype, is difficult. The sectional outline of 

 Grossouvre's species given by Nowak + is more compressed than that 

 of the Zululaud form. On the other hand Nowak's figure of the 

 suture line apparently shows good agreement, as does that of P. 

 leptophyUa, Sharpe sp.|| The fine example of P. daubn'ei figured by 

 Miiller and Wollemann^" has a larger umbilicus and very strong 

 primary costation. 



Nowak is inclined to unite these two Santouian species, and considers 

 P. tannenbergica, Fritsch and Schloeubach* to be closely related, 

 but he also quotes, as an example of Parapuzosia, Stoliczka's A. 

 denisonianiis, which is pre-Senouian, like P. <///*//'///, Sharpe sp.,tt a 

 form much nearer the ancestral Pitzosia-type. P. stobae Nilssou,++ 



* "Koch. s. 1. Craie Sup.," II., Pal., " Les Amm. d. 1. Craie Sup." 'Mem. 

 C.-irto Geol. France,' 1893 (1894), p. 174, pi. xxvii, figs. 1 a, b. 



t Hid., p. 154, pi. xxviii. (" Sonneratia," in Grossouvre.) 



j " Unters. ii. d. Ceph. d. Ob. Kreide Pol.," iii, ' Bull. Ac. Sci. Cracovie 

 ser. B (1913), pi. xliii, fig. 32, p. 363. 



Hid., pi. xliv, fig. 40. 



|| ' Moll. Chalk England,' III, " Cephal." (1856), pi. xxi, fig. 2. 



H" " Moll. Fauna d. Unter-Senon v. Braxinschweig," II, " Ceph.," ' Abh. Preuss. 

 L.A.,' N.F., Heft 47 (1906), p. 8, pi. v. 



** ' Cephal. d. Bohm. Kreideform.,' Prague, 1872, pi. ix. 



ft Loc. cit., II, 1854, p. 28, pi. xii, figs. 1 a, l>. 



It ' Petrif. Suec. form, cret.,' p. i, London, 1827, p. 5, pi. i. Moberg, ' Ceph. 

 i Sverig. Kritsyst.,' II, " Artbeskrifn.," Sver. Geol. Unders., ser. C, No. 73, 1885, 

 p. 18, pi. ii, figs. 1-5. Nilsson's figure is somewhat diagrammatic, but Moberg's 

 example (la) represents a form apparently similar to the specimen here 

 described, if more compressed. The suture-line, however, stamps P. stobae to 

 be a Parapachydiscus, connected with such forms as P. colligatus by P. exilis, 

 Binkhorst, which Schliiter (loc. cit., p. 56) thought perhaps belonged to P. stobae. 



