356 A. H. Foord — Orthoceras vaginatus. 



less distinct transverse costge, and is also covered vpith conspicuous 

 transverse striae. On the other hand, the species described by 

 Eichvrald under the name Orthoceras vagtnatum (and by the present 

 writer under that of Endoceras vaginatum) has a " smooth " test, 

 numerous chambers, and a remarkably large siphuncle, larger in 

 fact than that of v. Schlotheim's species. Doubtless, continues Dr. 

 Dames, Eichwald was led into this error by v. Schlotheim's citation 

 of a figure in Breyn (Dissertatio physica de Polythalamiis, etc., 

 1732, p. 36, t. V. ff, 1-4), which apparently represents a smooth 

 Orthoceras. Dr. Dames then goes on to say that the specimens 

 called Orthoceratites vaginatus by v. Schlotheim himself in the 

 palseontological collection of the Eoyal Museum of Natural History 

 in Berlin are all typical, well-preserved specimens of Orthoceras 

 vaginatum, with ring-like swellings [costse], and distinct striae. 

 When, observes Dr. Dames, v. Schlotheim published his " Petre- 

 factenkunde " [1820], he possessed only Esthonian specimens; but 

 later on he received several from Oeland, and as they were identical 

 \yith the others, he placed them in the same species, and labelled 

 ihem accordingly. In the Catalogue of Schlotheim's collection, 

 printed in 1832 (p. 32), Oeland is mentioned as the locality, and 

 the quotation from the "Petrefactenkunde" has been added. It 

 therefore appears, says Dr. Dames, that in his reference to Breyn 

 v. Schlotheim has compared a species with Orthoceras vaginatum 

 that has no connexion with it. Concluding his remarks, Dr. Dames 

 says that all the specimens in v. Schlotheim's Collection, which he 

 [v. Schlotheim] has named Orthoceras vaginatum, belong to the 

 species (recognized as such by all authors except Eichwald and 

 Eoord) which is distinguished by its transverse ribs and striae. 



In strict equity v. Schlotheim's name vaginatus ought long ago to 

 have been superseded in favour of Hisinger's trochlears, because the 

 former was admittedly inadequately described, while the latter was 

 not only described, but figured,^ in an intelligible manner. It is true 

 that Hisinger had an inkling of the form to which v. Schlotheim 

 had applied the name Orthoceras vaginatum, for he inserts that name 

 (though with a note of interrogation after it) under his description 

 of Orthoceras trochleare. That v. Schlotheim's description of Ortho- 

 ceras vaginatum was unintelligible even to those who had abundant 

 specimens of it at their command, is clearly proved by the fact that 

 Dr. Lindstrom was obliged to appeal to the type-specimens in Berlin 

 to ascertain what was the species to which v. Schlotheim had applied 

 that name. 



However, in deference to Dr. Lindstrom's authority, added to the 

 testimony afforded by the specimens at Berlin under the care of 

 Dr. Dames, I cannot but assent to the adoption of Schlotheim's 

 name for the species in question, and I take this opportunity also 

 of tendering my thanks to Dr. Dames for pointing out the error into 

 which I fell with reference to Eichwald's species. On comparing 



^ Lethsea Suecica, 1837, p. 28, Tab. ix. fig. 7. The name Orthoceras \_Endoceras] 

 trochfeare appears to have been originally bestowed by Dalman. See Hisinger's 

 Aufceckningar i Physik och Geognosie, femte haftet, 1831, p. 12, Tab. iv. fig. 3. 



