50 PALEONTOLOGY OF NEW JERSEY. 
into consideration, | have considered these as more nearly related to Axinea 
lentiformis than to either of the other species: 
Locality: Specimens have come to me from near Shiloh and Jericho, 
from the soft gray marls, and from near Bridgeton, N. J., in the light gray 
stony layers. Imprints also occur in the dark chocolate marly clays near 
Shiloh. I have received the specimens from the State survey collections 
and from those of the National Museum. 
Family NUCULID2®. 
Genus NUCULA Lamarck. 
NUCULA PROXIMA. 
Plate vu, fig. 7-10. 
Nucula proxima Say: Jour. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil. first ser., vol. 2, p. 270; Say’s 
Conch. (Binney), p. 94; Tuomey and Holmes Plioc. Foss. S. C., p. 53, Pl. Xvi, 
Figs. 7 and 8; Emmons’ Geol. N.C., p. 287, Fig. 208); Conrad’s Cat. Mioe. Foss., 
Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Phil., 1862, p. 581; Meek, Check List, p. 5. 
? Nucula obliqua (Say) Heilprin; Proc. Acad. Nat. Sei., Phil., 1887, pp. 398, 402. 
“Shell subtriangular, oblique, concentrically wrinkled, and longitudi- 
nally marked with numerous hardly perceptible strize; posterior margin very 
short and very obtusely rounded, a submarginal impressed line; anterior 
margin very oblique, and but slightly arquated; umbo placed far back; 
within perlaceous; polished, edge crenulated; teeth of the hinge robust, 
the posterior series very distinct and regular. 
“Greatest length parallel with the posterior margin, three-tenths of an 
inch. Breadth less than two-fifths of an inch. 
“Very much resembles N. vucleus, but is proportionally wider, and the 
posterior series of teeth is more regular and distinct. It may probably prove 
to be only a variety when numerous specimens are carefully examined and 
compared.” 
The above is Mr. Say’s original description of Nucula proxima, as given 
in the Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, first 
series, vol. 2, p. 270; and also in the Conchology, p. 94, Binney’s edition. 
It agrees so exactly with the fossil shells from New Jersey, as do also the 
living specimens from different parts of the coast, except perhaps in size, 
that I can see no valid reason for considering them distinct. 
