74 Annals of the South African Museum. 



auricle, though this is represented as much more reduced in the 

 figure given by d'Orbigny. 



A Lima from the Lower Cretaceous of England, ascribed by W. 

 Keeping * to Eoemer's L. longa, shows great similarity in general 

 form and outline. It differs, however, from the African shell by the 

 relatively longer hinge-line and more extensive posterior ear, and 

 although appearing to vary considerably in regard to the surface 

 ornamentation, is characterised by a more pronounced type of radial 

 sculpture ; L. longa is further distinguished by the possession of 

 great height measurement in proportion to its length.! 



There is closer agreement, again, between L. obliquissima and 

 L. tenuitesta Whitfield, J from Upper Cretaceous rocks in Syria. 

 The two are practically identical in outline and the relative length 

 of the superior border, but L. tenuitesta has the linear striae of the 

 surface more numerous and closely crowded at a given distance 

 from the umbonal apex. 



SUB-GENUS MANTELLUM J. P. Bolten. 



LIMA (MANTELLUM) NEGLECTA Tate. 



Plate II., figs. 8, 8a. 



1867. Lima neglecta E. Tate, Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., vol. xxiii., 

 p. 156, pi. vii., figs. 4a, 4&. 



Three specimens, all left valves, are referable to this species. The 

 ribs are acutely ridged, with sharp summits. The middle of the 

 angular interspace is sometimes occupied by a fine linear ridge, and 

 occasionally a second one may be present. These are stronger than 

 the numerous, delicate, linear ridges which are developed on the 

 sloping sides of the main ribs. 



A specimen 20 mm. in length has a greatest diameter, measured 

 at right angles to the length, of about 12 mm. 



Occurrence. On the left side of the Coega Valley, half a mile down 

 from the railway (448g, 449g, 453g). The specimen described by 

 Tate, numbered 11,013 in the collection of the Geological Society of 

 London, came from the Sunday's River. 



Remarks. Tate's figure of this species is very inadequate, and 

 does not give a good idea of the shell. The appearance of two sets 



* Keeping (1), p. 112, pi. v., fig. 6. 



t F. A. Eoemer (1), p. 79, Taf. xiii., fig. 11 (1836) ; (2), p. 57 (1841). Since the 

 above lines were written, Mr. H. Woods has published an account of this shell and 

 considers that the Upware specimens were rightly identified with the German form : 

 Woods (3), vol. ii., p. 25 (1904). 



I Whitfield (1), p. 390, pl.iv.A, figs. 1, 2. 



