IeNSIS R.1. Murchison, 1834. 
Ammonites Chelt 
CEPHALOPODA Ammonites Cheltiensis 
R. I. Murchison, 1834. 
Original description 
(1834. — Outline of the Geol. of Neighb. of Chellenham). 
[49] « The Lower Lias Shale… occupies nearly all the Vale of Gloucester. This Shale.. is 
a dark coloured calcareo-argillaceous and finely laminated deposit. Among the fossils which 
characterize it near Cheltenham, are found 
« Ammonites Cheltiensis. New species, and various other Ammonites… 
« The Ammonite which 1 have named in honour of the town, is also found in the Lias 
of Lyme Regis in Dorset. It is represented in the following wood cut (fig. 1) [20]... 
[24] « Specimens of the Ammonites Cheltiensis, which I found in pits near Charlton in 
great profusion, were covered with an irridescent nacre. » 
Note :—The figure with similar remarks was reproduced in The Silurian System, by 
R. I. Murchison, 1839, p. 19, fig. 24, p. 18 (S. S. Buckman). 
OBSERVATIONS 
Description of T!:—Whorls depressed, rapidly increasing, tumid, thicker than broad, aper- 
ture transverselv oval. Ornament :—side, double row of spines, not always opposite, 
sometimes connected in pairs by costæ, sometimes intermediate costation irregular ; peri- 
pherv, fairly marked costæ springing by twos, or threes. from each spine of outer row 
(sometimes the costæ are unconnected). All over specimen signs of longitudinal striæ, distinct 
between inner spines and whorl edge Periphery uncarinate, broadly arched but becoming 
convexi-fastigate at end of whorl. Inclusion covers outer row of spines and half interme- 
diate space. Gerontic characters are shewn at end of whorl, where spines and costæ decrease 
rapidly in last inch. Septal line complex, but not distinct enough to mark. Body chamber not 
quite whole of last whorl ; part of edge of aperture, which is quite plain, is seen on left side 
of specimen (aperture facing), and, just slightly, near the whorl-contact on right side. 
History of T1 :—In answer to enquiries at the Museums of Practical Geology, Jermyn 
Street, and of the Geological Society, of London, the places where most of Murchison’s types 
are preserved, information was received that nothing answering to An. Cheltensis could be 
found. Then I requested Mr. Crick who has charge of the Cephalopoda at the British Museum 
(Nat. Hist.) to make a search. This he kindly did, and he found the example now figured. 
We examined it, and came to the conclusion that it might be regarded as the holotype, upon 
the following evidence :—The original figure suggests an obliquely truncate aperture ; it 
shews the third main rib from the aperture stouter than the ultimate and penultimate ribs; it 
suggests the decline of the ribs (gerontic characters) just before the aperture (I pointed out 
this feature to Mr. Crick before he began his search, as an indication that the figure repre- 
sented a larger fossil reduced : 1 expected a larger fossil than he found) ; the figure shews 
the edge of the aperture near the whorl-contact running forward on to the occluded w horl ; 
while the aperture is depicted as jagged, and about on the position of the last rib. All these, 
which may be regarded as peculiar individualistic characters, are to be seen in the specimen 
figured as T!. 
How did the specimen come into the possession of the Museum ? The information in the 
Museum Registeris, «74,955.— 5 Ammonites Henleyi : Mid. Lias, Leckhampton, Gloucestershire; 
Bought of William Jenkins, 1877. » Jenkins was a working collector of fossils who lived at 
Cheltenham ; how did he get this supposed Murchisonian specimen ? My theory is this :— 
the specimen originally belonged to the Museum of the Cheltenham Philosophical Institu- 
tion, which is mentioned by Murchison (Op. cit., p. 20). His pamphlet was printed and 
published in Cheltenham, and he had an engraving of this local specimen made for an illustra- 
. tion. Then, when the Philosophical Institution ceased to exist, the contents of its Museum 
were sold, and William Jenkins, the collector, purchased some specimens, this one among 
them. He placed this with others like it and sold the series to the British Museum, giving a 
locality, Leckhampton, which did not necessarilv apply to all the five specimens. 
Genus : — Am. Cheltensis was placed by Wright in Waagen’s genus Aegoceras (1882. — 
Monog. Lius Amm., p. 378) as a synonym of 4es. striatum (Reinecke), and certain figures 
which he gives (PI. XLII, figs 1, 3 only, PI. XLIII) may be considered to represent À. Chel- 
tensis thoroughly. It is allied to, and has been confused also with 4m». Henleyi Sowerby ; but 
it is more inflated, more coarsely and more irregularly ornate than À. sfriatus Rein, and 
much more involute than À. Henleyi. These species were placed by Hyatt in his genus Lipa- 
roceras (1867. — Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., p. 84). 
Locality. Charlton Kings, a parish on the east of Cheltenham ([Gloucestershire) where 
there are several brickyards in which this species is found. [N. B. What was the western 
part of the parish has now been absorbed into Cheltenham by extension of urban boundaries]]. 
Horizon : —Zone of À. striatus as it 1s termed ; above the strata with Acanthopleuroceras 
Valdani (d'Orbigny). Pliensbachian (Middle Lias). 
Result. Liparoceras Cheltense (Murchison). 
1905. S. S Buchman. 
PALAEONTOLOGIA UNIVERSALIS. — 67° 
