3G8 Bihliographical Notice. 



I. Forms with a broad saddle and slightly pendent, feebly developed, 

 auxiliary lobes. 



(«) Forms of larger growth. 



No. Page Page Page 



12. Spiticeras Stanleyi (Oppe/) 77 82 107 



Yd. ,, Mojsvari, sp. nov 77 82 110 



(6) Forms of medium and smaller growth. 



1. Spiticeras spitiense (i?/f7«/.) 77 82 89 



3. „ subspitiense, sp. nor 77 82 93 



2. „ Gcrotei {Oppel) 77 82 92 



4. „ bilobatum, sp. nov 77 82 9R 



5. „ subbilobatum, sp. nov 77 82 98 



8. „ binodigrurn, sp. nov 77 82 101 



7. „ pliinum, sp. nov 77 82 99 



9. „ conservans, sp. nov 77 82 102 



10. „ Oautleyi(0/jpe/) 77 82 104 



11. „ subcaiitleyi, sp. nov 77 82 106 



I'l „ Griesbacbi, sp. nov 77 82 114 



14. „ scvx^inm {Strach.) 77 82 112 



1.5. „ buUiforme, sp. nov 77 82 114 



II. Forms with narrow slashed saddles and deeply pendent, 

 strongly developed, auxiliary lobes. 



20. Spiticeras obliquelobatum, sp. nov 77 83 122 



19. „ Oppeli, sp. nov 77 83 121 



21. „ iudicum, sp. nov 77 83 124 



18. „ gnttiiimn (Strach.) 77 83 119 



17. „ sp. nov. indet 77 83 117 



III. Isolated and extreme forms. 



22. Spiticeras eximium, sp. nov 77 83 126 



23. „ speciosum, sp. nov 77 83 127 



24. „ nov. indet 77 83 129 



The "important and oft-quoted" HoIostepTianns (Astieria) Schenhi, 

 3ppel, sp., is refigured and described anew from Oppel's restoration 

 of the Tobeta specimen, and another fragment is mentioned (pages 

 130-132). Some observations are made on the standing of the 

 species among its allies, also on the relationship of some South- 

 African Ammonites to one of the groups of HoJostephanus. 



Besides the shape and ornamentation of the shell and the 

 peculiarities of the septa, the naturalist has to note their successional 

 features (due to phases of growth), in establishing specific and other 

 divisions in Ammonites. In estimating the relative value of their 

 many features and characters, Dr. Uhlig finds breaks and puzzling 

 contrasts, and it will be quite possible that other Cephalopodists, 

 following their own views of the relative value of the evidence, may 

 be unable to accept the classification proposed in this Monograph, 

 but at all events they will highly appreciate the value of its great 

 store of illustrated information, so carefully collected and systema- 

 ticaUj arranged. 



