TF. R. Sudleston — On the Torhshire Oolites. 197 



4. — Natica cincta, Phillips, 1829. PL V. Figs. 4 and 5. 



1829 and 1835. Natica cincta, Phil. G. Y., tab. iv. fig. 9, p. 101. 

 1850. Natica Leckhamptonensis, Lycett, Proc. Cottes. Nat. Club, vol. i. p. 77. 

 1854. N. cincta, Phil. =iV. Lechhamptonensis, Lye, Morr. Cat. p. 262. 

 1875. N. cincta, Phil. G. Y. (3rd ed.), tab. iv. fig. 9, p. 325. 



Bibliography, etc. — This remarkable shell was first figured by- 

 Phillips, without a description, as from the Coralline Oolite of 

 Malton, along with " Echinus " germinans, and " Clypeus " semisul- 

 catus. The distinction between the Coralline Oolite of the Malton 

 district and the Inferior Oolite of the Castle Howard district (zone 

 2) was not made known in those early days, when, if a man had 

 a bagful of fossils, collectors did not inquire too closely whence 

 they were obtained. But, as Phillips figured the fossil from the 

 Coralline Oolite, it was naturally presumed that N. cincta belonged 

 to that formation. 



In 1850 the Eev. P. B. Brodie, in a paper " On the Geology of 

 the Neighbourhood of G-rantham,"^ speaks of a very large Natica 

 characteristic of the Inferior Oolite of Denton, of which casts only 

 were known. This was described by Lycett as a new species under 

 the title of iV. Leclchainpfonensis, with the following diagnosis : " Spire 

 elevated, whorls convex, the last enormously expanded, upper 

 surface of the whorls rounded and sulcated ; aperture very effuse, 

 orbicular. Only casts known. A gigantic species." 



In 1854 Morris, with his usual sagacity, perceived the close con- 

 nexion between N. cincta, Phil., and N. Leckhamptonensis, Lye, but, 

 misled by Phillips, quotes it from the Coralline Oolite. Moreover, 

 under the then prevailing impression that the Denton Limestone 

 was Great Oolite (contrary to the opinion expressed by Brodie), he 

 quotes it from the " Great Oolite " of Lincolnshire, as well as from 

 the Inferior Oolite of Gloucestershire. 



It matters little whether the shell be called cincta or Leehhamp- 

 ionensis, the great point is to show that these really are one and 

 the same species. As the notion of N. cincta being a Coralline 

 Oolite form is tolerably well stereotyped in the public mind,* some 

 evidence to the contrary may be demanded. Firstly, after many 

 years experience of public and private collections from the Yorkshire 

 Corallian, I never could find any specimen which at all corresponded 

 with Phillips's figure. Secondly, it became known to me that casts 

 and squeezed specimens of a large tabulate Natica had been taken 

 from some old workings in the Inferior Oolite limestone near Castle 

 Howard. Mr. Eeed of York, who knows that district so well, shared 

 my suspicions that these were bad specimens of Phillips's N. cincta. 

 By the kindness of Professor Miall 1 have been able to examine the 

 type specimen. The matrix at once shows that it belongs to the 

 Bajocian and not to the Corallian limestones of Yorkshire. It is a 

 fawn-coloured sandy limestone, which has considerable resemblance 



1 Proc. Cottes. Nat. Club, vol. i. p. 56. 



^ Like so many Phillipsian errors, which seem to have a singular fascination for 

 some people. 



