50 PALEONTOLOGY OF NEW JERSEY. 



iiitu (•(lusideration, I liavc considered these as more nearly I'elated to Axiiica 

 loitiformis tlian to either of the .other species. 



Locality: Specimens have come to me from near Shiloii and Jericho, 

 from the soft irray marls, and from near Bridfreton, N. J., in the li<i'ht gray 

 stony layers. Imprints also occnr in the dark chocolate marly days near 

 Shiloh. I ha\e recei\ed the specimens from the State survey collections 

 and from those of the National Museum. 



Family NUCULII )^5i:. 

 Genus NUCULA Lamarck. 



NUCULA PROXIMA. 



Plate VII, flg. 7-10. 



Nucula proxima Say: Jour. Acad. Nat. Sci. Pliil., first ser., vol. 2, p. 270; Say's 

 Conch. (Binney), p. 94; Tuomey and Holmes Plioc. Foss. S. C., p. 53, PI. xvii, 

 Figs. 7 and 8: Emmon.s' Geol. N. C, p. 287, Fig. 20Sft; Conrad's Cat. Mioc. Foss., 

 Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Phil., 1862, ]>. 581; Meek, Check List, p. 5. 



f Nucula obliqtKt (Say) Heilpriii; Proc. Acad. Nat.' Sci., Phil., 1887, pp. .$98, 402. 



"Shell sul (triangular, oblique, concentrically wrinkled, and longitudi- 

 nally marked with numerous hardly perceptible strife; posterior margin very 

 short and very obtusely rounded, a submarginal impressed line; anterior 

 margin very oblifpie, and but slightly arquated; umbo placed far back; 

 within perlaceous; polished, edge crenulated; teeth of the hinge robust, 

 the posterior series very distinct and regular. 



"Greatest length parallel with the posterior margin, three-tenths of an 

 inch. Breadth less than two-tifths of an inch. 



" Ver^' much resembles N. nucleus, but is proportionally wider, and the 

 posterior series of tectli is more regular and distinct. It may probably prove 

 to be only a varietx- when numerous specimens are carefully examined and 

 compared." 



The above is Mr. Say's original description oi' Nucula proxima, as given 

 in the Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, first 

 series, vol. 2, p. 270; and also in the Conchology, p. 94, Binney's e<lition. 

 It agrees so exactly with the fossil sliells from New Jersey, as do also the 

 living specimens from different parts of the coast, except perhaps in size, 

 that I can see no valid reason for considering them distinct. 



