►62 CARBONIFEROUS CEPHALOPODA OF IRELAND. 



placed just opposite to the Inuer indentation ; the septa are numerous, with even 

 edges." ■ ■ 



The figures given by Sowei'by represent a large cast and a very small 

 specimen, in which the test with its ornaments is well preserved. The latter 

 specimen is in the British Museum and is known to me. 



Seven years later (1836) Phillips very briefly described a species under tlie 

 . name Nautilus suleatus, Sowerby ; his figure of it, though roughly sketched, 

 adequately represents Sowerby's species, and there is nothing in the description, 

 short as it is, to contradict the testimony of the figure. 



La 1844 de Koninck' described as local varieties of Nontilas suleatus, Sowerby, 

 two species, one of which has been I'ecognised as the Nautilus sulcifer of Leveille;" 

 For the other Hyatt has proposed the name Strohoceras belgicum? Of this I shall 

 liave something further to say later on. 



M'Coy's 'Synopsis' (1844), part of which appeai'ed simultaneously with 

 de Koniuck's ' Description des Animaux fossiles,' &c., contains a most careful 

 description and a figure of Sowerby's species such as leaves no doubt in my mind 

 that the Irish form is identical with the English one. Unfortunately M'Coy in 

 the description omitted all reference to his figui'e of the species (' Synopsis,' 

 pi. iv, fig. 14), which is quite unaccountably named in the plate " bisulcatus," 

 as if the author had intended to give the Irish shell that name, but had changed 

 his mind, and, taking the more correct course, identified it with Sowerby's species. 

 De Koninck^ noticing this circumstance, and regarding M'Coy's species as 

 distinct from Sowerby's, makes use of the name " bisulcatus" and constitutes 

 M'Coy the author of the new species, which is fouuded, be it remarked, upon the 

 figure only, de Koniuck's reference being limited to the words ' Synopsis,' pi. iv, 

 tig. 14. It should be mentioned here that the name " bisulcatus " is not contained 

 m the list of M'Coy's species published in 1862 by Sir Richard Griffith, and 

 appended to that issue of the ' Synopsis,' but there is this important piece of 

 information to be gleaned from it. At p. 273 of the 1862 text' is a "note" 

 containing a number of errata, not only concerning names of species, but also the 

 numbering of the plates and figures. The " note " is as follows : 



1 ' Description des Animaux fossiles,' &c., p. 5i5. 



2 ' Cat. Toss. Ceph. British Museum,' pt. 2, 1891, p. 124. 



^ "Carboniferous Cephalopods." Second paper. ' Geological Survey of Texas, Fourth Annual 

 Report, 1892 ' (1893), p. 411. 



* ' Calc. Carb.,' p. 128, pi. xxvii, figs. 5—7, 9. 



"* I have called this tiie 18G2 text or issue, but I do not mean to imply by this that it was a new 

 edition ; there is no warrant for such an assumption. I think that probably some sheets left over 

 from the first (1814) issue were distributed with a new title-page, dated 1S62. To this fresh issue 

 Sir E. Griffith added his useful topographical and str.atigrapliical list of the Irish Carboniferous 

 fossils, and thus supplied M'Coy's grievous omission oMocalities from iiis text. 



