﻿NATICA. 193 



shell. Its shape is slightly more elongate, and the ribs are not quite so prominent, 

 and show little signs of uniting at the suture ; but these points do not seem of 

 specific value, and there seems every reason for regarding it as a synonym. The 

 mouth is shown in Sandberger's figure, and he regards his shell as belonging to the 

 genus Littorina. In the Battersby specimen and in Phillips's figure it is not seen. 



The small Woodwardian specimen is rather more elongate than the Torquay 

 example, and in it the ribs are strongest in the upper part of the shell, but this 

 seems due to the accidents of fossilization. 



IAtorina glohosa, Eichwald, seems exactly similar ; the only apparent dif- 

 ference being that in the Russian shell the ribs are wider, instead of being 

 narrower, than the intervals. Its aperture is not figured or described. 



Affinities. — Naticopsis harpula, Sowerby, sp., differs from this species in being 

 more angulated in contour, and in having subsidiary ribs starting one-third the 

 way down from the suture, where the other ribs also much diminish in size. 



In Natica lirata, Phillips, 1 the shell is very much wider, and the longitudinal 

 ribs few and very much more distant. 



N. nexicosta, F. A. Ronier, 2 almost certainly belongs to a different species, as in 

 it the ribs appear to be much more numerous, and the spire is much lower. In 

 fact, N. excentrica, F. A. Romer, 3 would more nearly approach it if it were not dis- 

 tinguished by much more slanting ribs. Clarke* states that some at least of the 

 original specimens of Natica nexicosta, F. A. Romer, are nothing but young forms 

 of N. inflata, F. A. Romer. 



Eolopea tumidula, CEhlert, 5 appears to have very much finer striations. 



2. Natica antiqua, Goldfuss. PI. XIX, figs. 2, 2 a. 



? 1843. Natica nexicosta, F. A. Romer (not Phillips) . Verst. Harz., p. 27, pi. vii, 



fig. 5. 

 1844. — antiqua, Goldfuss. Petref. Germ., vol. iii, p. 116, pi. cxcix, 



figs. 2 a, b. 

 ? 1844. — efossa, Goldfuss. Ibid., vol. iii, p. 117, pi. cxcix, figs. 3 a, b. 

 ? 1850. — intersteialis, F. A. Romer. Beitr., pt. 1, p. 34, pi. v, figs. 11 a, b. 

 1853. — piligeea, Sandberger. Verst. Rbein. Nassau, p. 235, pi. xxvi, 



figs. 6, 6 a — c. 

 1882. — Holzapfel. Palseontographica, vol. xxviii, p. 250. 



1889. — Whidborne. Geol. Mag., dec. 3, vol. vi, p. 30. 



1 1836, Phillips, ' Geol. Yorks.,' vol. ii, p. 224, pi. xiv, fig. 22. 

 1843, F. A. Romer, 'Harz.,' p. 27, pi. vii, figs. 5a, b. 

 Ibid., p. 27, pi. vii, figs. 7 a, b. 



1884, Clarke, 'Neues Jahrb. f. Mm.,' Beil.-Band iii, p. 353. 

 1887, CEhlert, ' Bull. Soc. d'Etudes Sci. d'Angers,' p. 5, pi. vi, figs. 7, 7 a. 



