CRICK: ON BELEMNOTEUTHIS MONTEFIOREL, J. BUCKMAN. 15 
We have carefully examined all these, and in no instance have we 
been able to make out more than six double rows of hooklets indicating 
six uncinated arms. Unfortunately, in neither of the examples figured 
by Huxley’ that show the hooklets and other remains of the body 
associated with the guard, are the arms well preserved; in the 
example of B. Bruguierianus (pl. i, figs. 1, la) there are only a few 
scattered hooklets, while the arms of B. elongatus (pl. i, figs. 2, 2a) 
are represented by a confused mass of hooklets. In five examples, 
however, we have been able to clearly make out six uncinated arms; 
of these specimens four (bearing the register numbers 47,020, 47, rae 
82,985, and C. 3,007 respectively) are ‘from the Lias of ‘Lyme Regis, 
and one (bearing the register number 39,901) is from the Lias of 
Charmouth. In his monograph on the structure of the Belemnitide 
Professor Huxley states (p. 16) I have not been able to make out 
more than six or seven arms in any specimen, nor has any exhibited 
traces of elongated tentacula, though the shortness of the ar ms which 
have been preserved would lead one to suspect their existence.’ It is, 
of course, quite possible that one of the double rows of hooks might 
become separated during fossilization, and so give the appearance of 
a seventh arm; but from the above-mentioned observations it seems 
fairly safe to conclude that those Belemnites, of which any remains of 
the arms have been obtained, had only six wuncinated arms. On the 
other hand, Belemnoteuthis had at least ten arms (each provided with 
a double row of hooklets), as is very plainly shown by a specimen in 
the British Museum collection (No. 25,966) from the Oxford Clay of 
Christian Malford, that was figured by G. A. Mantell in his “ Petri- 
fications and their teachings,”’ 1851, p. 459, fig. 100.2 Although the 
evidence of the number of the arms cannot be regarded as positive, 
because the present specimen may originally haye possessed other 
arms which are not now preserved, yet the balance of the evidence 
is certainly in favour of the separation of the specimen from Belemno- 
teuthis, and of its association with Belemnites. 
We fail to see any ground for the outline of the body as given by 
Professor Buckman. True, there are marks on the slab in about the 
positions indicated in the figure, but these are simply tool-marks that 
have been made during the development of the fossil, and certainly 
have nothing whatever to do with the form of the animal’s body. 
Professor Buckman considered that the “small pointed projection, 
= of an inch [19 mm. ] in length,”’ whichis seen ‘“‘ below the ink-bag,”’ 
represented ‘‘ the phragmacone of the true Belemnite.”’ The posterior 
portion of the ink-bag has been broken away since the specimen was 
figured, but the ‘‘small pointed projection” still remains. We have 
examined this very carefully, but have failed to recognize in it the 
representative of ‘‘the phragmacone of the true Belemnite’’; it is 
styliform, 2°5mm. wide at the anterior end, 1mm. wide at the 
1 T. H. Huxley: Mem. Geol. Surv., Monog. ii (Structure of the Belemnitide), 1864, 
pl. i, figs. 1, la (B. Bruguierianus), and 2, 2a (B. ear): 
* See also G. A. Mantell, ‘‘ Medals of Creation,’’ vol. ii (1854), p. 460, fig. 145; 
and J. Prestwich, “ Geology,” vol, (1888), p. 218, fig. 116. 
