CRETACEOUS FOSSILS. 161 



Length of the largest sjjecimen seen, inchiding canal, about 1.28 

 inches; breadth of body-volution, including the lip as far as preserved, 

 about 0.70 inch. 



The specimens of this shell are unfortunately not in a condition to show 

 the entire lip, though they leave no room for doubting that it is more or less 

 extended. The fact that the commencement of a single mesial angle can 

 also be seen on the outside of the dilated part indicates that the lip proba- 

 bly has but one spur; and, from a slight upward curve of this angle, it is 

 probable the extended part is more or less recurved. None of the specimens 

 show the inner lip or the exact form of the aperture. 



Owing to the stoutness and straightness of the canal, and the presence 

 of flexuous costse on the outer side of the body-volution in this species, it 

 presents some general resemblance to Pugnellus mantibriatus, Gabb, from the 

 Cretaceous rocks of California. Unfortunately, no specimens have been 

 found in a condition to show whether or not it has the outer margin of its 

 lip thickened as in that genus; but it seems not to present that character. 

 It at least differs specifically from G. manubriatus in having its canal more 

 slender and elongated, and its spire more elevated.* 



Localitif and j)osition. — The type-specimens were found at the water-tank 

 two miles from Coalville, Utah, and on Chalk Creek above Coalville, in a 

 whitish Cretaceous sandstone. I also found several specimens of it at Coal- 

 ville, in bed No. 11, of section given on page 439 of Dr. Hayden's Sixth 

 Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey of the Territories, 

 1873. 



* Since the foregoiug description and remarks were written (in 1870) Dr. White has 

 figured and described, in his rei)ort on Lieutenant Wheeler's collections (page 190, pi. 

 xvii, Bg. 4), a shell from New Mexico supposed to belong to this species. Although 

 when he showed me his specimens with others when I was lying sick at Oakland, Md., 

 in 1874, I was inclined to believe it not distinct from this species, a later coniparisou 

 has led me to regard the New Mexican shell as belonging to another species with a 

 more elevated and more slender spire. Better specimens of the two forms would 

 doubtless show other difl'erences. 

 11 PR 



