264 PALEONTOLOGY OP NEW JEESEY. 



Formation and locaJifi/: One of the specimens, the one figured, came 

 from the deep cut of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, and is from a 

 highly ferniginous, siliceous sand, which belongs to the Lower Marl Beds 

 of New Jersey. As it is so near the limits of the State, it will no doubt 

 be found, if it has not already been found within the State. The smaller 

 individual is of similar character, but of a finer material, with a large pro- 

 portion of iron, which gives it a reddish brown color. Both specimens are 

 from the collection of the Acad. Nat. Sci., Phila. 



SCAPHITES KENIFOKMIS. 



Plate XLiv, Fig. 3. 



Scaphites reniformis Morton : Synopsis, p. 43, PI. II, Fig. 6. 

 Scapliites hippocrepis (Mort.), young specimen, Gabb, Synopsis, p. 33. 

 Scaphites subreniformis D'Orbigny: Prodrome Paldont., vol. 3, p. 314, No. 56, not 

 8. reniformis Brug. 



Dr. Morton describes this species as "ventricose in the middle, tapering 

 rapidly at each end ; with numerous costse that bifurcate laterally." He 

 gives the size as "less than [an] inch in length," and states that only a sol- 

 itary imperfect cast was found. Mr. Gabb, in his Synopsis, p. 33, appears 

 to consider it a young specimen of 8. hippocrepis De Kay, and so cites it. 

 I do not know if Mr. Gabb saw the original specimen used and figured by 

 Dr. Morton. The specimen is not now to be found, but in place of it there 

 comes to me from the Academy's collection a fragment of a Scaphites the 

 figured type of S. iris Conrad, from Tippah, Mississippi, in the tray which 

 should, according to the label in it, contain the type specimen. The spec- 

 imen used by Dr. Morton may have been one of 8. hippocrepis, but I can 

 hardly think so ; as if so, it would not have presented so large an umbilicus, 

 that of 8. hippocrepis being very small. I have before me some fragments 

 of very small specimens of that species which are as finely annulated as that 

 shown in Dr. Morton's figure, but without more exaggeration or careless 

 delineation than has been permitted in the great majority of his figures no 

 such di-awing could ever haA-e been made from it. And after seeing the 

 accuracy of most of Dr. ]\Iorton's figures and determinations, and carefully 

 studying the matter, I am inost strongly inclined to the belief that 8. reni- 

 fonnis was a distinct form from 8. hippocrepis and a valid species. 



