544 MM. Foord and Crick — On Nautilus elegans, Sby. 



d'Orbigny under the name Nautilus elegans (Pal. Franc. Terr. Ciet. 

 1840, torn. i. p. 87, pi. xix.), thus enabling us to observe the 

 difference between the latter, as interpreted by d'Orbigny, and the 

 true Nautilus elegans of Sowerby (see Fig. 1). 



Along with the figured type of Nautilus elegans, d'Orbigny, kindly 

 lent by Dr. Fischer, is one which, though sent as an example of that 

 species, differs materially from d'Orbigny 's shell, its form being 

 much more compressed, and the sutures closer together and more 

 curved than those of the latter. These characters unite it with the 

 N. elegans of Sowerby, and it is interesting to find this species 

 occurring in France. Dr. Fischer states that the French specimen 

 is from the Cenomanien (Lower Chalk). 



Pictet and Campiche,' writing in 1859, give no figures of 

 N. elegans, but they recapitulate its characters (p. 117), saying, 

 however, that its umbilicus is " tres-grand," whereas Sowerby 

 describes it as " small, perhaps closed." On the same page of their 

 work these authors, referring to Mantell's figure of N. elegans, say 

 that it probably represents a different species ; but it is in truth a 

 figure of the same specimen as that which formed the subject of 

 Sowerby's figure in the " Mineral Conchology." 



In 1866 Stoliczka, 2 referring to the Indian Cretaceous specimens, 

 identified by Blanford as Nautilus elegans, states that they " agree well 

 with the European [form], and the external position of the siphuncle 

 can be often noticed on fragments in our collection." The " external 

 position of the siphuncle " and the general form of the shell would 

 associate the Indian species with d'Orbigny's, were it not that the 

 ribbing in the latter appears to be finer, and the French form is, 

 perhaps, on the whole, somewhat thicker than the Indian. As we 

 have been able to examine only the single, badly-preserved young 

 example of the latter which is in the British Museum, we cannot say 

 whether d'Orbigny's fossil is or is not identical with Blanford's. 



In 1876 Dr. Clemens Schliiter, 3 in describing a new species of 

 Nautilus, which he designates N. Sharpei, remarks upon the dis- 

 tinctness of the Nautilus elegans of d'Orbigny and Sharpe from the 

 N. elegans of Sowerby. 



Meek, in association with Hayden, 4 described in 1S62 an American 

 fossil as N. elegans, var. Nebrascensis. 



Not satisfied with Sowerby's imperfect description and fore- 

 shortened figure, Meek 5 adopted with some hesitation Sharpe's inter- 

 pretation of Nautilus elegans, and in 1876, after reconsideration, he 

 crave up the varietal name on account of the resemblance of his form 

 to the N. elegans of Sharpe, which he naturally supposed to be 

 identical with Sowerby's species. He evidentty, however, had his 



1 Description des Foss. du Terr. Cret. Environs de Sainte- Croix (Pal. Suisse), 

 ser. ii. pt. i. 1859, pp. 117, 136. 



2 Mem. Geol. Survey India — Palaeont. Indica — I. Cretaceous Cephalopoda of 

 Southern India, I860, p. 209. 



3 Cephalopoden der oberen deutschen Kreide, Abth. ii., Palaeontographiea, 1876, 

 Band xxiv. (51) 171, Taf. xlvi. ff. 5-7. 



4 Proceed. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 1862, vol. xiv. p. 25. 



5 United States Geol. Surv. Terr. 1876, vol. ix. pp. 499-501. 



