﻿EUOMPHALUS. 247 



2. Euomphalus Hecale, Hall. PI. XXIV, figs. 7, 7 a, 8, 8 a. 



? 1841. Euomphalus sebpens, Phillips (pars). Pal. Poss., p. 94, pi. xxxvi, fig. 172 g 



(only). 

 ? 1843. — depbessus, Hall (not Ooldfuss). Geol. N. Y., Surv. Fourth 



Geol. Dist., p. 294. 

 1867. — sebpens, Semenow and Moller. Ober-Dev. Schicht. Mittl. 



Russlands, p. 675, pi. iv, figs. 4 a, b. 

 1879. Hecale, Hall. Pal. N. T., vol. v, pt. 2, p. 59, pi. xvi, 



figs. 10—14. 

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



Description. — Shell small, depressed, elliptically coiled, nearly discoidal, of 

 three or four rapidly increasing whorls. Spire forming a very low cone. Suture 

 deep and wide. Whorls transversely elliptic in section, rising gently from the 

 suture and being slightly convex on the upper surface, becoming very convex 

 round the back, and being decidedly convex, or possibly subangulated, below. 

 Umbilicus large and deep, exposing the rounded inner sides of the whorls. 

 Surface smooth, or marked with indistinct growth-lines. 



Size, — Height about 10 mm., width about 22 mm. 



Localities. — In Mr. Champernowne's Collection there is one specimen from 

 Wolborough and one from Lummaton. In the Museum of Practical Geology 

 there is a specimen from Wolborough. In the British Museum there is a specimen 

 from Wolborough, which perhaps belongs to the same species. 



Remarks. — I formerly thought that these fossils were a variety of Eu. Isevis, 

 d'Archiac and de Verneuil, 1 as the figure of that species given by Sandberger 2 

 seemed to approach them more nearly than does the original figure of the French 

 authors. However, a further comparison has convinced me that that view cannot 

 be sustained, as the English fossils are definitely conical, and their whorls are 

 decidedly fewer and more oval in section, and increase much more rapidly. 



Moreover, Prof. Kayser has united Etc. Isevis with Eu. planorbis, d'Archiac and 

 de Verneuil, 3 while the various figures of the German shells leave little doubt that 

 he is correct in doing so ; the English fossils which I have above referred to that 

 form are evidently distinct from those now under notice. 



On the other hand, these fossils appear almost exactly to correspond with 

 Euomphalus serpens, Semenow and Moller (not Phillips), and I can find no grounds 



1 1842, d'Archiac and de Verneuil, 'Geol. Trans.,' ser. 2, vol. vi, pt. 2, p. 363, pi. xxxiii, 

 figs. 8, 8 a. 



2 1853, Sandberger, ' Verst. Rhein. Nassau,' p. 213, pi. xxv, figs. 6, 6 a, 6 6. 



3 1842, d'Archiac and de Verneuil, ' Geol. Trans.,' ser. 2, vol. vi, p. 363, pi. xxxiii, figs. 7, 7 a. 



