4 Dr. H. Woodward—On a New Genus of Fossil “ Calamary.” 
found hooks associated with these sword-shaped pens (save in these 
coprolites) is so far as negative evidence goes somewhat against that 
conclusion.? 
Prof. Wagner furthermore separates from Acanthoteuthis under the 
genus Keleno, or Celeno,? a form, named C. conica, displaying hooks 
similar to those of Acanthoteuthis Ferussacii, and in addition, the 
remains of aceéabula or suckers. 
Prof. Huxley therefore concludes that “upon the whole it becomes 
plain that the Acanthoteuthes of Miinster, so far as they are known 
only by hooks and impressions of soft parts, may have been either 
Belemnites or Belemnoteuthes, or Plesioteuthes, or may have belonged 
to the genus Celeno; and that, with the evidence before us, it is 
impossible to say whether Acanthoteuthis speciosa and Ferussacii 
belong to Belemnites, or to Belemnoteuthis.” 
He further expresses his opinion that it would be better to 
separate A. speciosa and A. Ferussacii and place them in the genus 
Belemnoteuthis, and to retain Acanthoteuthis for the Plesioteuthis of 
Wagner. 
As regards our Lebanon fossil, it is interesting to record that 
Doctors von Der Marck and Cl. Schliiter in their valuable Mono- 
graph on the New Fishes and Crustacea from the Chalk of Senden- 
horst, Westphalia,’ enumerate, among other fossil remains from this 
formation, ‘the hard parts of a naked Cephalopod which we have 
placed under Wagner’s genus as Plesioteuthis arcuata.” As no 
figure of this fossil is given, we cannot enter upon its comparison 
with our specimen. 
Bearing in mind the fact that the genus Acanthoteuthis was 
originally established upon the fossil hooks of a Calamary, with ten 
nearly equal arms, all furnished with a double series of horny hooks 
throughout their length, we cannot refer the Sahel-Alma Teuthid to 
this genus, as it has eight nearly equal arms and remains of two 
long tentacles. We are equally disinclined to refer it to Wagner’s 
genus Plesioteuthis, about which we have little certain information. 
There is good reason to conclude that this new Squid is near to the 
genus Ommastrephes, of D’Orbigny, judging from the general form 
of the animal, as well as by its pen. : 
There is, however, reason to conclude that although indistinctly 
preserved, the arms were furnished with both minute hooklets and 
acetabula (suckers), which would show its affinity with Belemno- 
teuthis.* 
After carefully considering all the evidence, it seems more con- 
venient to place it in a new genus, for which I would propose the 
name of Dorateuthis,> and for the only species the geographical 
appellation of Syriaca. 
‘ See Professor Huxley’s (Memoirs Geol. Surv. 1864), Monograph II. ‘‘ On the 
Structure of Belemnitide, p. 21. 
* This may have belonged to the genus Belemnoteuthis 2 
3 Paleontographica, Band xv. pt. 6, p. 272. 
4 The extremely chalky and friable nature of the Sahel-Alma deposit renders the 
preservation of minute structures such as these a task of extreme difficulty. 
5 From ddpu, ddéparos, a spear or lance ; and Tev@ls, a squid or cuttle. 
