84 PSEUDOCERATITES OF THE CRETACEOUS. 
The development of Eulophoceras indicates quite clearly derivation 
from the same common stock as Buchiceras and the Tissotidze, and it should 
be noted that the sutures are more like those of Buchiceras, in having very 
large, broad first and second lateral saddles. The form indicated for the 
ephebic stage of Tegoceras in d’Orbigny’s figure suggests that here, as in the 
Tissotidee and Coilopoceratidze, the more primitive species had truncated 
venters with keels and lateral tubercles. 
TEGOCERAS*® n. gen. Hyatt. 
The curious ferm figured by d’Orbigny as Ammonites mosensis 1s 
obviously entirely distinct from any species heretofore described, so far as 
I know. The external outline in the gerontic stage in section is oval, with 
rounded venter and only slight involution, There were obviously large 
alternating nodes on the venter of the inner ephebic volution and a some- 
what elevated and bluntly subangular venter. These characters are com- 
bined with sutures having in the gerontic stage a large first lateral saddle 
divided as in gevrilianus, so that it is probably really two principal laterals. 
The auxiliaries are irregular and pseudoceratitic in outline. The peculiar 
crowded, tongue-like, elongated, marginal saddles and lobes are similar to 
those of Hulophoceras, and it is mentioned in this paper on that account 
The only species known is the following: 
TEGOCERAS MOSENSE (d’ORBIGNY). 
Ammonites mosensis VOrbigny, 1840, Terr. Crétacé, pl. 67. 
Age: Albian. 
LENTICERAS Gerhardt.’ 
This genus, described by Gerhardt in his Kreideformation in Venezuela 
and’ Peru, had for its type Lenticeras (Amm.) andii (Gabb). Being unable 
to compare this with Gabb’s types that have apparently disappeared, it is 
“Téy os, root. 
bIn Zittel’s Text-book of Palaeontology, Vol. I, p. 590, Professor Hyatt refers this genus, together 
with Paralenticeras and Platylenticeras, to the family of Lenticeratidee. Although the statement is 
not directly made that the family is abandoned, it may be inferred from the reference of Platylenticeras 
to Coilopoceratidee, the remark under Paralenticeras about its affinity for Hulophoceras, and the fact 
that the manuscript was arranged as now published with Lenticeras and Paralenticeras between 
Tegoceras and Eulophoceras.—T. W. 8. 
¢ Neues Jahrbuch fiir Min., Geol., und Pal., Beil.-Bd. XI, 1897-98, p. 81, pl. 1, fig. 9. 
