﻿NATICOPSIS— NATICA. 191 



of the back and separating the two groups of striae. As, however, I have been 

 unable to discover Phillips's original specimen, it is impossible to say how far these 

 points may not be due to accident, through the imperfection of the specimen or 

 inaccuracy of drawing, and upon the whole his figure is so similar to Mr. Vicary's 

 largest specimen (which seems more elongate than the others) that in all 

 probability they are identical. 



Sowerby's 1 original figure and description are very imperfect, and certainly do 

 not at first sight at all convey the impression of the present species. It is, 

 however, to be observed that his specimen, though called Carboniferous, comes 

 from " Bradley," *. e. it was a Devonian, and probably a Wolborough fossil, 

 and, moreover, he mentions the splitting of the longitudinal ridges upon the 

 lower part of the shell. I believe, therefore, that he intended to represent the 

 present species. The fossil which he identifies as its young form in the ' Geol. 

 Trans.,' 2 although, as Phillips points out, not very like his earlier figure, evidently 

 belongs to the shell now under consideration. 



Goldfuss and d'Archiac and de Verneuil give views of its aperture, which 

 is not well shown in any English specimen I have seen. The former author 

 most accurately represents it. 



Bronn 3 and Giebel* appear to have confounded it with Buccinites subcostatus, 

 Schlotheim ; 5 but it is totally different from that shell, and there is no reason to 

 suppose that Goldfuss regarded it as the same, while d'Archiac and de Verneuil 

 certainly did not do so. 



In the British Museum are two fine specimens from Paffrath, both showing 

 the aperture ; and they prove, in the opinion of Mr. Etheridge and myself, that 

 it belongs to the genus Naticopsis. They also preserve the colour-markings — 

 three rows of large black spots or splashes, each at the rate of nine or ten to a 

 whorl. 



2. Genus. — Natica, Lamarck. 



No reason appears at present for separating the Devonian species described 

 below from this well-known and widely spread recent genus, but as the aperture is 

 unknown they cannot be allocated to it with any degree of certainty. 



1 1827, Sowerby, ' Min. Conch.,' vol. vi, p. 152, pi. dlxxviii, fig. 5. 



2 1840, Sowerby, ' Geol. Trans.,' ser. 2, vol. v, pt. 3, pi. lvii, fig. 21. 



3 1848, Bronn, ' Handbook,' p. 788. 



4 1866, Giebel, ' Repertorium,' p. 108. 



5 1820, Schlotheim, ' Petrefact.,' p. 130, pi. xii, fig. 3. 



