MISCELLANEOUS NOTES. 813 



No.XXKl.—HOLCOSTEPHANUS? IN CUTCH. 



I should like to mention a rare find in the Athleta beds of the Fakirvvadi 

 Ridge near Bhuj — a find which I believe will be of no small interest to 

 Paleeontologists. From studying Dr. Uhlig's description of Holcostepha- 

 nus (Pal. Ind. Ser. xv., Vol. iv) 1 do not think I am far wrong in believing 

 my find to be of or related to that family, iinless it should be a morpholo- 

 gical equivalent in some other series. Ho/costephcmzcs has not been report- 

 ed from Cutch, but the Spiti shales hold plenty : any connecting link 

 between the Spiti shale fauna and those of Cutch needs very close 

 examination. Not having found any one in India who has the leisure 

 or expert knowledge to deal with the matter, I venture to write this, 

 hoping that it may catch the eye of some one who would care to 

 examine the specimen. My description does not pretend to be fully 

 . scientific. 



I make out the measurements of the specimen to be : — Diam : 65 mm. ; 

 Umbil. diam : 22 ; Height from umbil. : 26 ; Height from preceding peri- 

 phery : 19 (?) ; Breadth across spines : 25 (?). The specimen is badlj'- worn, 

 the existing aperture especially so, but I believe it is not crushed. The 

 inner whorls have been corroded by the soft clay of the Athleta beds : 

 possibly a very careful handling might reveal some of the inner whorls, 

 but 1 hesitate to try this myself : for the specimen is a rarity : during my 

 constant exploration of these beds for over 3 years, I have only found this 

 one specimen of this species. Now, as to its similarities to Holcostppha- 

 nus, I give the following notes: — 



Transverse section of outer whorl — very like Dr. Uhlig's figure of 

 Holcostephamts spitiensis (Pi. viii, fig. i b). The preceding whorl is extre- 

 mely depressed — -very much broader than high — as agrees with the same 

 figure and description. The specimen broke in washing and showed this 

 very clearly. Row of spines along imibilical edge — 12 in number, it seems, 

 to the whorl. Dr. Uhlig's has more. In Sintiensis the edge is 

 rounded : in mine it is acute, nor does it slope down to the umbilicus but 

 falls sheer. But there is another point which seems to militate strongly 

 against identity: viz., the fact that the spines do not seem to be tubercles 

 raised on the ribs and directed in the rib-direction but are fairly round 

 with an appearance of being pinched if at all contrary to the rib-direction ; 

 and they are absolutely on the umbilical edge not a bit above it. The 

 ribs are low and rounded, and start out of the narrow level space which 

 skirts the outer side of the row of spines : they number some four to each 

 spine, as far as discernible. They are directed slightly but distinctly 

 forwards and cross the siphonal in a bend, keeping the same thickness and 

 height as on the outer part of the side. Yet again there is another fact 

 in favour of the connection with Hole, spitiensis, viz., that the increase of 

 height in the later part of the last whorl seems to coincide with a narrow- 

 ing of the bodj'' chamber as Dr. Uhlig tells us of spitiensis. The very 

 rapid development from a low depressed beginning of the whorl to a high 

 conical end in a specimen so small cannot escape one's notice here. The 

 transverse width of the ea,rlier part of the last whorl seems greater than 

 that of the later part. The spines being a good deal worn one cannot give 

 the precise measurements. 



The lobes are not visible. I hesitate to try to work them out, for the 

 specimen already broken and cracked may fall to pieces. 



I hope these few notes will attract expert attention to what I believe 



justifies the title of this letter. I have never seen a HolcostephaJius : 



but the similarity of my specimen to that figured and described by Dr. 



Uhlig makes me suspect a possible connection ; and my specimen is quite 



21 



