MM. Foord and Crick — On Nautilus elegans, Shy. 545 



doubts about tbe correctness of Sharpe's identification of the species 

 in question; for, after describing the American form, he remarks that 

 he believes the latter " will be found to agree so closely with 

 Sowerby's species, that there may be no necessity for separating it, 

 even as a variety — that is, if Mr. Sharpe's illustrations can be relied 

 upon." He continues, "From Sowerby's application of the words 

 ' indistinctly sagittate,' however, to the aperture, it would seem that 

 his type-specimen must be much more compressed than ours, which, 

 as already stated, agrees well with Sharpe's figures in form. As 

 Sharpe ought to have been well acquainted, however, with Sowerby's 

 species, I infer that the latter's original type may have been 

 accidentally compressed." It will be seen from this quotation that 

 Meek was not quite satisfied in his mind as to the identity of Sharpe's 

 species with Sowerby's. He comments upon the retention by Pictet, 1 

 and also by Blanford, 2 of the name Nautilus elegans for d'Orbigny's 

 type ; and remarks that " if JV. elegans, d'Orbigny, is specifically 

 distinct from the previously published JV. elegans, Sowerby (which 

 seems very probable), of course d'Orbigny's shell will have to 

 receive some other name, as two species of the same genus cannot 

 retain the same name." The required name has been supplied by 

 Mr. Whiteaves, 3 who proposes to call d'Orbigny's fossil Nautilus 

 Atlas. 



Judging by Meek's careful description and admirable figures of the 

 American form, it appears to be distinct from JV. elegans, Sowerby, and 

 also from d'Orbigny's and Sharpe's JV. elegans, which have been re- 

 named JV. Atlas. Although Meek's form has undoubted affinities with 

 the last-named species, it differs in having a much wider shell, an open 

 though small umbilicus, at least in the adult, and the siphuncle 

 somewhat nearer the centre. On the whole, it is more like the Indian 

 form already mentioned than the French form, JV. Atlas. 



Regarding Meek's form — JV. elegans, var. Nebrascensis — Mr. 

 Whiteaves 4 expresses the following opinion : — that "the description 

 of the Nebraska fossil .... accords much better with that of JV. 

 Atlas (nobis) than with Sowerby's diagnosis of his JV. elegans. 

 The globose shape, together with the position of the siphuncle in 

 the American shell, are in favour of this view, but it is possible that 

 the varietal name, proposed by Mr. Meek, may have to be raised to 

 specific rank, as the sculpture of the so-called ' variety Nebrascensis' 

 is said to consist of ribs which are ' five times as broad as the 

 grooves between,' and in this respect it differs from JV. Atlas, as 

 well as from allied species." 



It is due to Mr. Whiteaves to observe that he arrived at the con- 

 clusion, from a careful study of the descriptions of the species, that 

 the Nautilus elegans of d'Orbigny and of Sharpe was distinct from 



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

 ii. pt. i. 1859, p. 117. 



2 Mem. Geol. Surv. India — Pabeont. Indica — I. Cretaceous Cephalopoda of 

 Southern India, 1861, p. 29 ; Ibid. 1866, p. 209. 



3 Geological Survey of Canada— Mesozoic Fossils, 1876, vol. i. pt. i. p. 17. 



4 Ibid. p. 18. 



DECADE III. — VOL. VII. NO. XII. 35 



