16 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MALACOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 
posterior end, and has a longitudinally-wrinkled surface ; it shows no 
traces whatever of septation, and, so far as we can see, is not of the 
nature of a phragmocone. So far as we know, no similar structure has 
been observed in Belemnoteuthis. It is, however, known that the 
pro-ostracum of some species of Be lemnites posse .ssed a central ridge 
which was continued on to the conotheca; this stylform projection 
may have been a portion of such a ridge, but we are not able to state 
definitely ; at any rate, we sce nothing to prevent us from regarding 
both it and the adjacent fragments of shelly matter as parts of the 
crushed phragmocone with its conotheca and pro-ostracum. Fragments 
of the nacreous pro-ostracum are also seen lying upon and near the 
ink-bag with its contents. 
Since the characters exhibited by the British Museum specimens 
from the neighbourhood of Charmouth and Lyme Regis, in common 
with the present example, agree with the corresponding structures, so 
far as they are known, in those examples of Belemnites that have been 
described, in which the remains of the animal are associated with the 
‘ouard,’ we feel justified in referring them all to the ‘genus’ 
Belemnites. It is not, however, possible to refer the present specimen 
to any described form, because the species of this genus hitherto 
described have been founded upon the shape of the ‘ euards,’ 
The specimen may then be known either as Belemmtes Montefioret, 
J. Buckman, sp., or simply as Belemnites sp. By adopting the former 
name the identity of the specimen is retained; but as somewhat 
similar remains of Belemnites, having the hooklets of the arms, the 
ink-bag, and portions of the internal sheil in conjunction, are found 
at different horizons, this might lead to some confusion, because all 
such specimens might be referred. to this species. It is, however, 
most probable that the specimens obtained at different horizons 
belonged to different species, but, according to our present knowledge, 
the form of the hooklets, and the nature of the ink-bag and fragments 
of the internal shell, are not sufficient to distinguish these species. 
We do not, for example, see how, in the absence of the guards, the 
two specimens figured by Professor Huxley (op. cit.) under the names 
Belemnites Bruguierianis (pl. i, fig. 1) and B. elongatus (pl. i, fig. 2) 
respectively could be distinguished. In the circumstances it seems 
therefore desirable, so far as the present specimen is concerned, to 
discard any specific name, and simply write—Belemnites sp. 
