MM. Foord and Crick — On Nautilus elegans, Sbt/. 543 



states " was discovered in a marl bank at Middleham, in the winter 

 of 1814." 



The apparent discrepancy between these two localities is explained 

 by Mantell's remark on page 100 of the work just quoted, viz. that 

 " a low bank at Middleham in the parish of Ringmer, near the seat 

 of the Rev. J. Constable, contains Hamites, Turrililes, Nautilites, 

 Ammonites and Inocerami." 



There is in the British Museum (Natural History) a specimen 

 from Dr. Mantell's collection, bearing an old label in faded ink, 

 to the following effect : — " Nautilus elegans, Min. Con. pi. 116, .... 

 Chalk Marl Estate of Rev. J. Constable, Ringmer." 



On comparing this fossil with the figures of Nautilus elegans given 

 by Sowerby l and Mantell, 2 no doubt can be entertained as to its 

 identity with them. The figures have been restored to some extent, 

 but not in such a way as to disguise altogether the characters of the 

 fossil. The foreshortening of the figure, a practice often indulged 

 in by Sowerby, added not a little to the difficulty of realizing the 

 form of the shell. 3 Moreover, Sowerby's figure is reversed. 



An exact drawing of the fossil is here given (Fig. 1, p. 548), 

 which is intended to supply the deficiencies of Sowerby's figure, 

 and render the species more easily recognizable. 



Having identified Sowerby's type-specimen, it will now be useful 

 to notice, on the one hand, those species which, being in reality 

 N. elegans, have had some other name erroneously applied to them, 

 and, on the other hand, those species which have been wrongly 

 named N. elegans. Sharpe has fallen into both these errors. His 

 Nautilus elegans i is not that of Sowerby, but a much wider and 

 thicker shell, with closed umbilicus and the siphuncle above the 

 centre. The specimen which he figured as Nautilus pseudoelegans 5 

 is now in the Museum of the Geological Society of London, and an 

 examination of the fossil leaves no doubt whatever that it is identical 

 with Sowerby's type of N. elegans, as Sharpe's figure, which is fairly 

 accurate, had indeed led one to conclude. 



The source of this confusion is easily explained. Sharpe has 

 relied upon d'Orbigny's descriptions of the Chalk Nautili, in which 

 the definition of N. elegans (Pal. Franc. Terr. Ciet. 1840, t. 1, p. 87) 

 departs so widely from Sowerby's, as to show that d'Orbigny's fossil 6 

 was distinct from the latter. 



Dr. Paul Fischer, of the Museum of Natural History, Paris, with 

 very great kindness, sent to one of us the original specimen figured by 



1 Min. Conch, vol. ii. 1816, p. 33, pi. cxvi. 



2 Fossils of the South Downs; or Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex, p. 112, 

 pi. xx. f. 1 (not pi. xxi. If. 1,4, 8). 



3 This has been a stumbling-block to many. F. B. Meek (United States Geol. 

 Surv. Terr. vol. ix. 1876, p. 500, footnote) says : — " his [Sowerby's] single figure 

 being an oblique view does not show the form of the aperture." 



4 " Description of the Fossil Remains of Mollusca found in the Chalk of England " 

 (Mon. Pal. Soc), 1853, pt. i. Cephalopoda, p. 12, pi. iii. f. 3 ; pi. iv. f. 1. 



5 Ibid. p. 13, pi. iv. figs, la, 2b. 



6 D'Orbigny's N. elegans will now be known as Nautilus Atlas, a name proposed 

 for it by J. F. Whiteaves [see post, p. 550). 



