﻿MACROCHILINA. 169 



by its elongate slender form, by its narrow spire, which is about the same height 

 as the body-whorl, by the extension of the mouth below, and by its long straight 

 columella. It is very closely allied to M. ventricosa (fig. 8), from which it chiefly 

 differs by its much more slender shape. 



In general shape it very closely corresponds with Macro chilus ovatus, Sand- 

 berger, but, its surface being absent, it is impossible to say whether it bore any 

 strias, as given by that author. 



Affinities. — Prom M. elevata it is distinguished by its larger body-whorl and 

 smaller spire, and from M. stibimbricata, d'Orb., sp., by its smaller body-whorl, 

 larger spire, and more conical or fusiform shape. It very closely resembles M. 

 ovatus, F. A. Bonier, 1 but is a much larger and more acute shell than that 

 species. 



The shell, which Sowerby states to be common in the Plymouth Limestone, 

 and quotes in the ' Geological Transactions ' as Buccinum imbricatum, bears much 

 resemblance to this species, but I am inclined to think that his figure really 

 represents a worn specimen of M. subcostata, Schlotheim, sp. 



I have been in much doubt whether this was the shell described by Goldfuss 

 as Phasianella fusiformis* but I now believe that it is to be distinguished by its 

 convex whorls and broader form, and that Goldfuss's figure belongs to the 

 species which will be described on the next page, and which is certainly distinct 

 from the present form. 



It only differs from MacrocJiilus acutus, Sow., 3 as given by De Koninck, 4 in 

 having less convex or globose whorls, and I am very doubtful if it can be 

 separated from that Carboniferous shell. 



Macrochilus Dunkeri, Holzapfel, 5 differs, according to Clarke, 6 in being a 

 slighter shell, with a deeper suture and much broader and more convex whorls. 



Subulites priscus, Eichwald, 7 is a much slighter and a beautifully imbricated 

 shell, with lips of a different character. 



1 1850, F. A. Bomer, ' Beitr.,' pt. 1, p. 35, pi v, fig. 16. 



2 1844, Goldfuss, 'Petref. Germ.,' p. 113, pi. cxcviii, fig. 16. 



3 1827, Sow., ' Min. Conch.,' vol. vi, p. 127, pi. dlxvi, fig. 1 (not Sow., ' Geol. Trans.,' ser. 2, 

 vol. v, pt. 3, pi. lvii, fig. 23). 



4 1842-4, De Koninck, ' Desc. Anim. Fobs.,' p. 473, pi. xl, figs. 10 a, b, and pi. xli, figs. 13 a, b. 



5 1882, Holzapfel, ' Gon.-Kalk von Adorf. ;' ' Palaeontographica,' vol. xxviii, p. 250, pi. xlviii, fig. 4. 



6 1884, Clarke, ' Neues Jahrb. f. Min.,' Beil.-Band iii, p. 367, pi. v, figs. 22, 23. 



7 1860, Eichwald, ' Lethaea Boss.,' p. 1128, pi. xliii, figs. 8 a, b. 



