﻿LOXONEMA. 179 



Locality. — Wolborough. There are two poor specimens in Mr. Vicary's 

 Collection, and a third in the Torquay Museum. 



Remarks. — The figured specimen is extremely worn, and very little can be 

 learned from it. Only at one point immediately below the suture has it any 

 remains of the surface, and there a few indistinct obliquely transverse lines are 

 visible under a lens. As its form, however, seems different from any of the 

 known Gasteropods of our localities, it is figured here in the hopes that this may 

 ultimately lead to its identification. 



Affinities. — It differs from Loxonema scalar ixf or me, Holzapfel, sp., by its much 

 narrower whorls and finer markings. 



5. Loxonema scalarixforme, Holzapfel, sp. PI. XVIII, fig. 5. 



1867. Loxonema rtjgifebum, Trenkner (not Phillips). Palaont. Novit., pt. 1, 



p. 11, pi. i, fig. 19. 

 1867. — vagifeeum, Trenkner. Ibid., in the explanation of plate only 



(probably misprint). 

 1882. Holopella scalaet^forme, Holzapfel. Palaeontographica, vol. xxviii, 



p. 250, pi. xlviii, fig. 2. 

 1884. Loxonema btjgiferitm, Clarke. Neues Jahrb. f. Min., Beil.-Band iii, 



p. 366, pi. v, figs. 24, 25. 



Description. — Shell moderate in size, elongate, turreted, many-whorled. Suture 

 deep and wide, apparently indented by the ridges of the ornament. Whorls 

 broad, convex, crossed by strong, sharp, distant, prominent, straight, transverse 

 ridges, inclining slightly forward from above, and apparently vanishing upon the 

 lower part of the body- whorl, which curves rather rapidly inwards to form the 

 base of the shell ; each whorl containing about sixteen ridges. 



Size. — About 13 mm. in width. 



Locality. — A specimen from Wolborough is in Mr. Vicary's Collection. 



Remarks. — The specimen described above is unfortunately in very poor and 

 defective condition, but it clearly belongs to a well-marked species, which is very 

 distinct from anything else occurring in the same localities. It has been labelled 

 by Salter " Loxonema not rugifera" and in that opinion I entirely agree. It is cer- 

 tainly quite unlike the shell described by Phillips in the ' Geology of Yorkshire ' ] 

 under the name of Melania rugifera. His figure and the specimens from the 

 Mountain Limestone in the British Museum show that that shell has much narrower 

 whorls which are more swollen below, and that the ridges are much more oblique, 

 and are only prominent on the lower part of the whorl. I do not believe that the shell 



1 1837, Phillips, < Geo!. Yorks.,' pt. 2, p. 229, pi. xvi, fig. 26. 



24 



