CAMAROPHORIA. 139 
2. CAMAROPHORIA PROTRACTA, Sowerby, sp. 
1840. ArryPa Prorracta, Sowerby. Geol. Trans., ser. 2, vol. v, pt. 3, pl. lvi, fig. 16. 
1865. RuyNncHonELLA pRoTRACTA, Davidson. Brit. Foss. Brach., vol. iii, pt. 6, 
p- 69, pl. xiv, figs. 27—29. 
1882. —- — Davidson. Ibid., vol. v, pt. 1, p. 44, pl. ii, 
fig. 17. 
1885. CamaropnHoria ? proTRActa, Maurer. Abhandl. Grossh. Hessisch. Geol. 
Landes., vol. i, pt. 2, p. 212, pl. 
vil, figs. 41—41 8. 
71889. RuyncHoneuta, n. sp., Toll, Mém. Acad. Sci. St. Pétersbourg, ser. 7, vol. 
xxxvil, No. 3, p. 22, pl. u1, figs. 6—8. 
Localities.—There are six specimens of different sizes in my Collection from 
Lummaton. 
Remarks.—I have nothing to add about this shell. It seems distinguished 
from C. Phillipsii by the great relative elongation of its fold forwards, the 
greater convexity of its central dorsal contour, and by the greater number and 
stronger character both of its median and lateral ribs. 
38. CamaropHoriaA LumMatonensis, Davidson. 
1865. RayNcHONELLA ? LUMMATONENSIS, Davidson. Brit. Foss. Brach., vol. iii, 
pt. 6, p. 70, pl. xiv, figs. 14—18. 
1885. CaMAROPHORIA RHOMBOIDEA, Maurer. Abhandl. Grossh. Hessisch. Geol. 
Landes., vol. i, pt. 2, p. 211, pl. 
viii, figs. 42—44 b. 
Localities. —From Lummaton there are eighty-five specimens in my Collection, 
ten in the Woodwardian Museum, one in the British Museum, three in the Bristol 
Museum, and two in the Torquay Museum. There is a very doubtful specimen 
from Wolborough in Mr. Vicary’s Collection, and two in the British Museum. 
Remarks.—This little species in its typical form is very distinct. Maurer 
unites it with ©. rhomboidea, Phillips (with which he also seems to join Rh. 
Oqwelliensis), but I believe that Davidson is correct in regarding his three species 
as distinct. The present shell is distinguished from Ah. Oywelliensis, by its higher, 
narrower beak, its much more numerous, deeper, and angular plaits, and the 
much greater straightness of its dorsal contour. I have not material for such a 
complete comparison of it with Devonshire specimens of C. rhomboidea, but it may, 
