W. H. Hudleston—The Yorkshire Oolite. 395 
perhaps be thought that rolling or abrasion has had something to do 
with the latter feature, and this may be so to a certain extent. 
Nevertheless the aperture is unusually well preserved, which shows 
that the specimen has not been subjected to very hard usage. The 
heaviness of the columellar lip, and the anterior rounding off, in 
such marked contrast to the oval outline of the anterior extremity of 
Chem. Heddingtonensis (see Fig. 1b), are very striking points. The 
shell substance also is immensely thick. 
Relations and Distribution—The affinities of this shell with any- 
thing hitherto found in Yorkshire are by no means obvious. The 
excessive flatness of the whorl separates it both from the Hedding- 
tonensis group and from the athleta group. Whether it is to be 
regarded as an aberrant form, or is entitled to the indefinite rank of 
a species, I can hardly undertake to say at present. Yet the presence 
of such a shell, and the fact that it tallies so fairly with specimens 
found by D’Orbigny in the Corallian of Sainpuis (Yonne), and by 
Cotteau at Chatel-Censoir, is certainly worthy of being recorded. At 
the same time, when a ‘‘species” has been noted at very few 
localities, its qualifications are liable to suspicion, and one cannot help 
wondering where may be its head-quarters, since nothing of the kind 
has been noted in the Corallian of the South of England. 
The specimen figured was found in the same quarry as Ch. 
Langtonensis, along with several rare and curious fossils. This 
serves still further to illustrate the remarkable character of the 
Coral Rag in the eastern portion of the Howardian Hills, and should 
stimulate collectors carefully to watch the quarries of that region. 
9.— CuemnitziA Lanetonensis, Blake and MHudleston, 1877. 
Plate XIII. Fig. 3. 
Chem. Langtonensis, Bl. and H., 1877, Q.J.G.S., vol. xxxiii. p. 393, pl. xiii. fig. 3. 
Specimen from the Coral Rag of Langton Wold (my Collection). 
Bibliography and Description.—The following extract from the 
paper above quoted tells us all that is known of this peculiar shell :— 
« Although this is an incomplete and unique specimen, its ornaments 
are so distinct that it can be confounded with no other Chemnitzia. 
It also possesses a remarkable callosity on the inner lip, which ought 
perhaps to separate it from this genus. 
“Spiral angle 19°, angle of suture 130°. Total length 53 inches 
(estimated) ; last whorl 2 inches long, double the next whorl ; 
whorls only moderately convex, least so in the upper part; suture 
not deep, but rather abrupt; ornaments irregular, undulating risings 
parallel to the length of the shell, numerous and close together.” 
One or two imperfect specimens which may belong to this species 
have turned up since the above was written, but nothing throwing 
any additional light on the case. Since the early whorls are unknown, 
they may be without any other ornament than what is due to lines of 
growth; and thus the immature shell may be represented by such a 
form as that shown in Pl. XIII. Fig. 4. 
