144 PSEUDOCERATITES OF THE CRETACEOUS. 
LOPHOLOBITES Hyatt. 
LopHovositEes correaul (Nickles). 
Neolobites ? cotteaui Nicklés, 1890, Mém. Soc. géol. France, Paleontologie, No. 4, 
p. 54, figs. 36, 37; pl. 5, fig. 9. 
9 
This is a small, very involute, compressed, smooth form, with minute 
umbilicus and subacute venter. The external characteristics and sutures 
indicate this to be a retrogressive but more involute shell, allied to such 
species as Psilotissotia haugi, figured on the same plate by Nicklés. The 
sutures are entirely distinct from those of Neolobites, especially in the bifid 
character of the first lateral saddles and the greater differentiation of the 
inner saddles and lobes, which are more distinct from those of the outer 
part of the same sutures than in Neolobites. All of these discrepancies 
can be accounted for on the supposition that this is a retrograde form of 
Pulchellia. This also accounts for its small size when nearly outgrown, as 
in this specimen. Nicklés recognized the great differences between this 
shell and Neolobites, but hesitated to describe it as a different genus because 
of the great difference in its size. This fear was unfounded, since Neolobites 
could not have had a similar set of sutures at any age. 
Age: Barremian. 
KNEMICERATIDZ. 
The external aspect of the species of this group places them apparently 
close to the Buchiceratidz, but the sutures and the absence of a keel at all 
stages separate them widely. The first lateral saddles exhibit tendencies 
to division into several distinct branches, as in the Engonoceratide, and 
the outlines of the other saddles and lobes also are similar. ‘The division 
of the first lateral saddles is not carried so far as it is in Engonoceratidee. | 
The principal first lateral resulting from the secondary division of the 
primitive first lateral is consequently a broad solid saddle instead of the 
narrow first lateral of that family. 
Unluckily, the dorsal sutures were in no case exposed, and the 
conditions of fossilization in every specimen made excavation impracticable. 
The forms, both by their ornamentation and general development, 
are apparently more specialized and more complex than those of the 
Engonoceratide, and although the young was seen in only one example in 
a section the appearances were the same as in sections of species of the 
