100 PALEONTOLOGY OF NEW JERSEY. z 
exactly the same features as do these New Jersey specimens, and it is pos- 
sible that they belong here. 
. 
TURBINOPSIS HILGARDI? 
Plate xu, Figs. 7-9. 
Turbinopsis Hilgardi Conrad: Jour. Acad. Nat. Sci., Phila., 2d ser., vol. 4, p. 289, 
Pl. xvi, Fig. 29; Gabb, Synopsis, p. 86; Meek, Check List Cret. and Jur. 
Foss., p. 19; Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Phila., 1876, p. 300. 
Turbinopsis depressus Gabb: Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Phila., 1876, p. 300. 
Cancellaria Hilgardi (Conrad) Gabb: Synopsis, p. 42, and Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., 
Phila., 1876, p. 300. 
The casts which I have identified with this species are extremely im- 
perfect; two of them retain the external markings and the external form; 
another is a cast of the interior, retaining the external markings somewhat 
en a part of the outer volution, and the imprint of them on the inside of the 
east of the volutions; form turbinate; the spire somewhat elevated, with 
convex volutions, separated by very distinct sutures; the volutions largest 
a little below the upper side and rapidly contracted below, giving them an 
obconical or turbinate form; umbilical opening in the internal cast moder- 
ately large, the margin sharply angular; aperture elliptical, acute below 
and more rounded above; volutions four or five; columella concave, ridge 
or fold not shown; surface marked by spiral ridges sixteen or more in num- 
ber; interspaces as wide as or wider than the ridges; these are crossed by 
vertical folds which are more distant than the ridges, and are rounded; 
strongest on the upper part of the volution and obsolete below. 
The specimens referred to this species are badly crushed, so the iden- 
tification may be considered somewhat doubtful. ‘The spire seems to have 
been proportionally higher than that of Conrad’s figures, and the volutions 
less compressed below; the umbilicus is smaller, and, besides, there is the 
absence of vertical folds on the original which are distinct on these. The 
folds, however, are small and rather closely arranged. I hesitate much 
in identifying them with the figure given of the type on account of these 
wide differences, but were the specimens less imperfect they might show 
more intimate resemblances. There may be some doubt as to the identity 
of Gabb’s 7. depressa with this species, as the measurements given by him 
