Avliieli may be Inoccramus concent rlcus, but whieb arc .so fragnientaiy, or 

 el^^e so much distorted, that their generic position even is nncertain. 



Besides phuit remains, wliieh ai-e of frequent occurence, the col- 

 k'ction contains fourteen species of Cephalopoda, six of Gasteropoda, 

 twenty-two Lanielliiwanchiate bivalves, two Brachiopoda and a Zoan- 

 tbariaii coral. It will be most convenient to describe these fossils tirst, 

 and to discuss theii- probable geological horizon afterwards, but it may 

 be brieflj' stated here that there is an apparent mixture of oolitic and 

 cretaceous tyjies. Tin's (.-i rcumstance has necessitated double comparisons 

 throughout, and has added not a little to the diflicultj- of the under- 

 taking. 



The sculpture of the shells is generally well preserved, but in conse- 

 quence of the laminated structure of the matrix, most of the specimens 

 have been subjected to such a variety of distortion and compression, that 

 it is impossible to tell what their original shape was. In addition to this, 

 they are frequentl}- imjjerfect or broken, and as in man}' cases there i> 

 but a solitar}' example of each kind, it may easily happen that Avhat now 

 seem to be specitic characters, may prove to be only individual peculiar- 

 ities when a more complete series has been obtained. 



The most striking and characteristic fossils of the Lower Shales 

 belong to the class Cephalojioda. Ammonites, in particular, abound 

 almost to the exclusion of other genera, but none of them belong to 

 divisions in which the shells are either simply or crenately keeled. Out 

 of eleven species, eight have rounded backs, one belongs to Pictet's sub- 

 section Mammillati, while the two remaining, although ranked among the 

 Clypeiformes, have the periphery obtuse. Another noticeal:)le feature in 

 the Cephalopoda from these shales is, that the commencement of the 

 decline ©f the group, as a whole, through the half coiled types of the Am- 

 monite family, is rarely perceptible. Such genera as Scaphites, Hamites, 

 Baculites, Helicoceras, Turrilites, and Toxoceras are almost unrepre- 

 sented. The onlj^ exception is a small fragment which is very doubt- 

 fully referred to Hamites, but which may just as likely have been part 

 of an Ancyloceras. 



lu describing the Ammonites from these rocks, the most recent modi- 

 fications of the divisions proposed by Von Buch and D'Orbigin- have 

 been adopted as far as practicalde. At the same time it must be admit- 

 ted that this system of classification is ver}' unsatisfactory in practice. 

 Many Ammonites present a mixture of characters, and such sjjecies 

 might be referred to two, or even three, of these sections, with equal pro- 

 bability. Others, again, which have been placed in two separate groups, 



