W. H. Sudledon — On the Yorkshire Oolites. 113 



" Sbaley clay in Eobin Hood's Bay near Scarborough, by Mr. Bean." 

 Tbis seems rather to point to the Lias. If the original is still pre- 

 served amongst Sov/erby's types, I have not seen it. Tate and Blake 

 make no allusion to any such shell. Hence we may feel pretty 

 sure that no such form occurs in the Lias. On what grounds Morris 

 classed it as " Corallian, Scarborough," I have no information. Since 

 Sowerby's figure is characteristic, and evidently depicts a shell similar 

 to the one now under consideration, there can be very little doubt as 

 to the correctness of the present identification. Our shell most cer- 

 tainly coming from the Dogger, it is only natural to suppose that 

 Sowerb^^'s type came from the same horizon, the words " Sbaley 

 Clay " notwithstanding. This supposition is indirectly confirmed by 

 the fact of Phillips (1829) having referred, although in error, the 

 common Nerincea of the Dogger to Sowerby's species. 



Description. — Specimen from the Dogger (zone 1), Peak? 

 Leckenby Collection. 



Length 31 millimetres. 



Width 7 ,, 



Sph-al angle 15°. 



Height of whorl to width 58 : 100. 



Shell elongate, subconical, spiral angle regular; whorls nearly 

 twice as wide as high, upper portion of whorl very convex, lower 

 jiortion constricted. The whorls are rather pi'ominently sculptured 

 with numerous spiral bands. These decussate on the upper or 

 tumid portion of the whorl -with short curved longitudinal costse 

 (characteristic of Sowerby's figure) : base of each whorl marked by 

 a strong spiral varix. 



Aperture concealed in matrix, but sufficiently shown as to render 

 it probable that this shell is a Nerincpa rather than a Turritella. 



Eelations and Distribution. — There seems but little affinity between 

 such a fossil as this and the usual forms of Nerintea prevailing on 

 low horizons. Neither can I find any indication of such a fossil 

 having been found in the Inferior Oolite of other districts. 



Even in Yorkshire it must be very rare, since the specimen now 

 figured is the only one ever recognized by me in any collection. 



Judging from the matrix there can be no reasonable doubt of its 

 being a true Dogger fossil. But it most probably comes from one 

 of the more sandy beds of the Dogger, and not from the NerincBa- 

 bed. Altogether there is a mystery attaching to this species which 

 is not yet quite satisfactorily cleared up. 



34. — Neein^a granulata, Phillips, 1829. Not figured.' 



1 The type specimen, figured both by Phillips and Lycett, should be in the 

 Scarborough Museum, but 1 have never been able to see it. Nor have I ever been 

 able to see a specimen of tbis vei-y scarce species until quite lately, when I discovered 

 a fragment | inch in length in the Jermyn Street Museum. The apical portion is 

 entirely gone, but^j;« -well-preserved anterior whorls, in a most undoubted Cornbrash 

 matrix, are sufficient to show that this is the species figured and described by Lycett 

 from Phillips's type specimen. Lycett's figure is 1^ inch long, and shows eic/ht 

 whorls, whilst Phillips's figiu'e is nearly 2 inches long, and shows thirteen whorls. 

 Hence the available specimens have been continually getting shorter. 



DECADE III. — VOL, I. — NO. III. 8 



