﻿PHILOXENE. 243 



(/3) No. 2 must evidently be taken as the type of Euomphalus annulatus, 

 Phillips. There can be no doubt that the specimen in the Museum of Practical 

 Geology is the original of this figure, and it certainly belongs to a well-marked 

 and distinct species. 



(y) No. 3 is represented by a poor and almost unrecognisable figure of the 

 umbilical side. The authorities of the British Museum regard a shell in the Lee 

 Collection as the original of this figure, and the accidental marks of the specimen 

 make it almost certain that they are right in doing so. As the figure is so poor, 

 and does not agree with Phillips's description, it has no right to the original name 

 of Eu. serpens. This shell, as will be seen below, in all probability belongs to the 

 species described by me as Eu. fenestralis. 



(S) No. 4 is represented by a figure of the upper side only. Phillips regards it 

 as the same as No. 3, saying on page 222, " They (figs. 172/ and g) have a different 

 aspect from the rest." It is, however, quite different from the upper surface of 

 my Eu. fenestralis, and its figure does not seem to me to be likely to correspond 

 with the type of fig. 172/. I have been unable to discover the original specimen. 

 It appears to me, however, to agree with Eu. Hecale, Hall, except that it shows 

 signs of strong ribbing. Until either the type or more perfect specimens agreeing 

 with it are found it will be difficult to differentiate it with certainty. 



(e) The last form, No. 5, is a minute, many-whorled, and more globose shell. 

 It probably comes from North Devon. It differs from all except No. 4 in having a 

 more conical spire, and from No. 4 in having more slowly increasing whorls, and 

 probably in being smooth. It has been recognised by M'Coy 1 from the Carboni- 

 ferous beds, and there are specimens of it in the Bristol Museum. 



Hence for the form now under description we may retain Phillips's name, 

 especially as it appears to be the shell which subsequent authors have generally 

 understood to represent his species. 



In it the spire is so depressed that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish the 

 top of the shell from the bottom, but at other times the lower side of the aperture 

 is slightly angulated. 



I can see no difference between Eu. orbis, Eichwald, or Eu. clymenoides, Hall, 

 and the English shell, except that they are not elliptically coiled and bear no 

 attachment scars ; but these are not constant features in this species. 



Affinities. — Eu. gequalis, Sowerby, 2 from the Mountain Limestone, is very 

 similar, but it has more numerous and more slowly increasing whorls. 



The young of Euomphalus Goldfussi, d'Archiac and de Verneuil, 3 has decus- 

 sating and more undulating striae. 



1 1844, M'Coy, ' Syn. Carb. Foss. Ireland,' p. 37. 



2 1816, Sowerby, ' Min. Conch.,' vol. ii, p. 89, pi. cxl, fig. 1. 



3 1842, d'Arch. and de Vera., ' Geol. Trans.,' ser. 2, vol. vi, pt. 2, p. 362, pi. xxxiv, figs. 1, 1 a, 2, 2 a. 



32 



