RHYNCHONELLA. 163 



2. Rhynchonella (Camarotcechia) togata, n. sp. Plate XIX, figs. 15 — 18. 



? ? 1841. Spirifek budis, Phillips. Pal. Foss., p. 78, pi. xxxi, figs. 136 a — c. 



189G. Camakokechia 1 togata, WMdborne. Proc. Geo). Assoc, vol. xiv, p. 376. 



Description. — Shell very large, subtrigonal, hardly (if at all) wider than long. 

 Beak apparent^ elevated, acute, and only moderately incurved. Ventral valve 

 with a broad subtrigonal sinus, becoming deep in front and bearing two strong 

 median ribs ; and with four ribs on each side, of which the first is very strong and 

 the others are successively less distinct. Dental plates (which may be sometimes 

 absorbed ?) short, diverging. Muscular area strongly impressed. Dorsal valve 

 with three ribs on the fold, with a short median septum (less than a quarter of the 

 total length) divided into branches posteriorly, supporting an incipient spondylium, 

 and with strongly crenulated outer socket-walls. 



Size.— Length and width about 33 mm. 



Localities. — In the Porter Collection are two specimens from Pilton and one 

 from Roborough ; in the Barnstaple Atheuasum one from Pilton ; in the Museum of 

 Practical Geology four, labelled North Devon, Marwood, Braunton, and Barnstaple. 

 I have recognised it at Ashhill Quarry. 



Remarks. — Though this species appears well characterised, our specimens are 

 all too fragmentary and crushed to permit its full definition. Of them five are 

 ventral and three dorsal valves; and in the latter the indications of lateral ribs 

 are obscure, probably in part on account of the crushing of the shell, whereas in the 

 former they are very strong and definite. 



With regard to its generic position, a careful comparison of our specimens with 

 the figures given by Hall 2 of his group Camarotcechia shows that in all points 

 of structure it falls well within its limits. 



It is not impossible that this may be the same shell as Spirlfera nulls, Phillips. 

 His types appear to be lost, and he gives practically no description. His three 

 figures are so "rude" that they may be regarded as unidentifiable, but one of 

 them is very like a dorsal valve of this species. Probably, if our shells were 

 trimmed down, fragmentary specimens could be produced which would agree with 

 all three of his drawings, though possibly the same effect might be produced by- 

 trimming other shells in a similar manner. At all events Phillips's species is too 

 ambiguous for any identification with it to be safe. 



I have examined the type of Rh. subdentata, Sowerby, 3 in the Woodwardian 



1 By a clerical error this word was printed Camarella in my list. 



2 1894, Hall and Clarke, 'Pal. N. Y.,' vol. viii, pt. 2, pi. lvii, figs. 15—32, 49. 



3 1840, Sowerby, ' Geol. Trans.,' ser. 2, vol. v, pt. 3, pi. liv, fig. 7. 



