23 
of Nerinea, but whether or not they add to the number of 
species already known is uncertain. 
We have altogether in the Inferior Oolite of the Cotteswolds 
at least twenty species, including N. Cingenda—the Yorkshire 
species—but Lycerrt, in the “‘ Geology of the Cotteswold Hills,” 
has only mentioned five. 
From the time of the appearance of Lycrrt’s book until 
that of my paper “On the Upper Beds of the Inferior Oolite,” 
in the last volume of our Proceedings, no one seems to have 
noticed that the Inferior Oolite of the Cotteswolds contained 
more than the five species mentioned by Lycrerr and the one by 
Dr Wricut, but I have long had in my possession several 
species which I was unable to identify, in consequence of their 
crystalline or fragmentary condition, and the discovery of new 
species in the Clypeus Grit of Rodborough Hill, and the 
observations of Mr W. H. Hupueston, in the Geological 
Magazine on the Nerinea Beds of the Yorkshire Oolites,* 
induced me again to look up the genus in the Stroud area, and 
in consequence my collection has been enriched by the addition 
of many specimens, which have enabled me to increase to a 
considerable extent the list of Cotteswold species. 
It is necessary here to make one or two corrections in the 
references by Lycerrr to the beds in which his species are found. 
Thus WN. Oppelensis, Lyc., is stated to be found in the Oolite 
Mar! at Selsley Hill; it appears also in the marly limestone 
below the Oolite Marl at Longridge, near Sheepscombe. WN. 
Cotteswoldice, Lyc., although particularly abundant in the marly 
limestone of the Oolite Marl of the Nailsworth valley, as stated 
by Lycerr, also occurs rarely in the Pea Grit at Longfords, 
near Nailsworth, and abundantly in the bed below the Oolite 
Marl at Longridge. WN. Gracilis, Lyc., found in the same beds 
of marly limestone at Nailsworth, is also found in the Nerinea 
bed at Swift’s Hill. 
At p. 52 of “The Geology of the Cotteswold Hills,” Lycrrr 
says ‘‘ Perhaps the genus Nerinea has not been found in any 
deposit older than the Oolite Marl.” This remark illustrates 
the confusion that has arisen from the circumstance of the 
= Dec. 3, Vol. I, No. 3, p. 108. 
