1856.] 



127 



much water-wore. They are both flat and discoid, No. 2 more so than No. 1 ; 

 both taper very much towards the apex, and increase especially rapidly from 

 the middle towards the aperture. Both consist of at must two whorls, the 

 dorsal part of the second being more than half overlapped by the ventral part of 

 the first, and lying, as it were, in a groove. They have ap[)arently six lobes and 

 as many saddles, the lobes being provided with three teeth, which, on account 

 cf their size, might rather be called sscondary lobes. The septa are angular 

 and bent backwards on the back. The siphuncle is dorsal, as seen on fig. A, 

 where it is broken out and has left a groove. In No. 1 the latter half of the 

 second whorl is broken out and a hole is left. The size of both specimens is 

 very nearly the same. No. I measures in length 58-3 millimetres, in width 50- s., 

 and in thickness 31. No. 2 measures in length 51- s. millimitres, in width 46, 

 and in thickness 26. 



No. 2. 



No. 1. 



I was first inclined to recognize in the three ppecimens two different species, 

 hut the somewhat different appearance seems to have been caused by the attri- 

 tion which they have undergone. 



The question arises here, from which formation these Ceratites come ? The 

 circumsrances that they have been found in the lower cretaceous formation, that 

 carbonate of lime is the fossillizer, and that they are closely allied to Ceratites 

 Syriacus of the cretaceous formation of Asia Minor, are indeed strong reasons 

 to pronounce them to be cretaceous fossils, but this seems to me still somewhat 

 doubtful. 



