78 DEVONIAN FAUNA. 



the Torquay Museum the polished section of a Goniatite, which, as far as we can 

 make out from its very defective exterior, belongs to this species, and if so the 

 chambers are shown to have been very short and deep. 



The large specimen figured on Plate VI, fig. 7, is the only one that shows the 

 suture, and in that the shape, although generally clear, is not very easily made out 

 in detail. On reference to the drawing, fig. 7 «, a rudimentary central lobe and 

 central saddles will be seen to be there represented. Though the draughtsman 

 thought he traced them, and I therefore permitted them to stand, I myself believe 

 that they have no existence, and that they ought to be replaced by a continuation 

 of the simple curve. 



Affinities. — Phillips does not seem to have noticed this form. The two South 

 Petherwyn Goniatites, O. linearis, Miinst. {fide Phillips)^ and G. hiferus, Phill.,^ 

 are the only ones that resemble it, even in outward form ; but in each case the 

 shape of the sutures is so entirely different from what we have every reason to 

 suppose those of our shell to have been, that we may, with perfect confidence, 

 regard them as species belonging to a different section of the genus from the 

 present shell. From Miinster's original G. linearis it is altogether alien. 



G. divisus, Miinst.,^ has sulci, a closed umbilicus, and acute lobes. 



G. cancellatus, d'Arch. and de Vern.,* has the umbilicus entirely closed and a 

 definite central depression. 



G. bifer, Phillips, as given by Sandberger,^ is very similar in outward form, 

 but it differs entirely in its suture-lines, which are the same as in Phillips's shell. 



G. micromphalus, F. A. Rom.,^ also comes very near to our species. It seems 

 rather a flatter shell, with a narrower back, and slightly oblique sides, and, 

 according to his description, with a more undulated suture-line, as it is said to 

 possess distinct central and side lobes. 



6r. circumflexifer , Sandb., as given by F. A. Romer,'^ is extremely like our 

 species, but it has a narrower back, and its suture-lines have definite central 

 and side lobes. I do not understand why Romer has separated it from his last- 

 mentioned, G. discus.^ Another small species, G. tumidus, F. A. Rom.,^ has a still 

 more complicated suture-line. Sandberger's own G. circumflexifer is, as we have 

 already seen, a differently shaped shell. 



1 1841, Phi]., ' Pal. Foss.,' p. 120, pi. xlix, fig. 229. 



2 Ibid., p. 120, pi. xlix, fig. 2,30. 



3 1832, Munst., ' Uber Clym. und Gon. Fichtelgeb.,' p. 18, pi. 4 a, figs. Qa—d. 



* 1842, D'Arch. aud de Vern., ' Geol. Trans.,' ser. 2, vol. vi, pt. 2, p. .339, pi. xxv, figs. Gab. 

 ■' 1851, Sandb., ' Rhein. Nassau,' p. 72, pi. ix, fig. 4, and (var. delphinus) fig. 5. 



6 1850, P. A. Eiim., ' Eeitr.,' pt. 1, p. 19, pi. iii, figs. 30a, h. 



7 1852. ibid., pt. 2, p. 80, pi. xii, fig. 22. 



^ Ibid., p. 95, pi. xiii, figs. 35 a, b. ^ Ibid., p. 94, pi. xiii, figs. 33 a, b, c. 



