16 Foord and Crich — On Prolecanites compressiis. 



Cork, viz. JE. funatiis,^ E. ovatns,'^ and E. compressiis,^ regarding the 

 first, although from the Carboniferous Limestone, as sj)ecifical]y 

 identical with de Montfort's type. The suture-line of M compressiis, 

 not to speak of the other two species, excludes it absolutely from 

 de Montfort's genus. 



De Haan,* in 1825, placed Sowerby's E. compressus in the com- 

 prehensive genus Planulites, Montf.^ (or, as he preferred to spell it, 

 Planites), but even if this name be retained in a restricted sense, 

 de Montfort's type differs so considerably from Sowerby's species 

 that the two cannot be placed in the same genus. 



In 1831 Parkinson,^ observing that " two very different shells 

 have [had] been placed under the genus Ellipsolithes (Sowerby), 

 both oval and discoidal shells ; but one possessing the involved 

 whirls and the plain septa of Nautilus, and the other the whirls, 

 apparent on both sides, and the winding septa of Ammonites," 

 divided the genus, and gave the name Nautellipsites to the former, 

 referring to it (pi. vi. fig. 3) the E. ovatus, J. Sowerby, and the 

 name Ammonellipsites to the latter, i-eferring to it the E. funatus and 

 M compressus of Sowerby, the figure of his type (pi. vi. fig. 4) of 

 this division probably representing Sowerby's E. funatus. Even if 

 Parkinson's name Ammonellipsites be retained, it must be used for 

 the group of shells allied to E funatus of Sowerby, a shell which 

 differs considerably from Sowerby's E. compressus. 



Munster' prefaces the description of his Ooniatites spuriiis with 

 the remark, " near to Ellipsolites compressus ? Sowerby Tab. 38," 

 and Bronn in his "Index Palaeontologicus " (p. 545) regards 

 Sowerby's E. compressus as a synonym of Miinster's Goniatites 

 spurius ; but Munster's description of the suture-line of the latter 

 suffices to show that the two species are not identical. 



Sowerby seems to have considered E. compressus to be an 

 Ammonoid, for, writing in 1821 ^ — eight years after the publication 

 of the description of his species — he says: — "The genus Ellipsolithes 

 must certainly be abolished, and its species ranged under Ammonites, 

 the oval form being quite accidental." Many authors,^ however, 

 not having seen the septa, regarded Sowerby's species as a Nautiloid 

 and referred it, either to the genus Nautilus, or to the genus 

 Discites, but the character of the septa, as now recognized, at once 

 excludes it from these divisions. 



According to our present knowledge of E. compressus, we cannot 

 rightly adopt any of the interpretations, which, so far as they are 

 known to the writers, have hitherto been given of this species. 



Let us consider in the next place the name Ammonites Henslowi. 



1 Min. Con., vol. i. p. 81, pi. xxxii. 1813. 



2 Ibid. p. 83, pi. xxxvii. 1813. 



3 Ibid. p. 84, pi. xxxviii. 1813. 



* Monog. Ammon. et Goniat., 1825, p. 93. 



5 Conchyliologie systematique, 1808, vol. i. p. 78. 



8 Introduction to the Study of Fossil Organic Eemains, 1822, p. 164. 



"> Planul. uud Goniat., 1832, p. 30 ; Beitriige, Heft i. 1843, p. 23. 



® Min. Con., vol. iii. p. 167, footnote. 



3 See footnote, antea, p. 11. 



