92 POMPECKJ. JURASSIC FAUNA OF CAPE FLORA [norw. pol. exp. 



pieces were found in loose blocks, most of them on July 16th, north of 

 Elmwood, at a height of 500—550 feet, and also on July 14th, at Windy 

 Gully at 400 feet, and on July 10th, on the talus at 100 feet above the 

 sea. The pieces of Cadoceras Nanseni described under various names by 

 Newton, come from Elmwood, on Cape Flora, and might be from a height 

 of 500—550 ft. One of the individuals, Newton's Amm. macrocephalus — 

 1. c. PI. XXXIX. fig. 1. — , was stated in 1896 to be from "calcareous shale". 



Cadoceras sp. ex. aff. Cad. Nanseni (n. sp). 

 PI. II. fig. 4 a, b, c. Letter-press fig. 18. 



The specimen represented in fig. 4 of PI. II — chambered cast, with half 

 a whorl of body-chamber — agrees in the character of the sculpture with 

 Cadoceras Nanseni n. sp. It differs from the preceding species in the some- 

 what greater widlh of umbilicus, in the less pronounced 

 ■f^ f\/V\\ "}%?& involution (little more than half of each whorl is con- 

 i^ ' cealed by the succeeding one), and moreover, in the some- 



Fig. 18. vfhat asymmetrical lobe-line. The saddles are a httle 



Cadoceras sp. ex aff. 



Cad. Nanseni (n. sp.) less slender than in Cadoceras Nanseni n. sp., and 

 1 at a" heisht of ih ^^'^ ^'^^ second auxiliary lobe lies closer to the umbilical 

 whorl of 7 mm , 2 X seam, while in Cadoceras Nanseni n. sp. there still 



enlarged. 



follows a slight in-curving of the lobe-line after the 

 second auxiliary lobe, before the seam. (Conf. letter-press fig. 18 with p. 88. 

 letter-press fig. 17.) The lobes of the inner side can be seen very distinctly. 

 The antisiphonal lobe is long and narrow, ending in a single point. 



I have not before me sufficiently large and well-preserved materials of 

 Cadoceras Nanseni to enable me to determine the Hmits up to which the 

 young forms of this species may vary. For this reason — and because the 

 full-grown stage of the form in question is not known — I must leave it 

 undecided whether this form represents a new species, or whether it is only 

 an individual variation of Cadoceras Nanseni. As, however, some differ- 

 ences, though only slight ones, may be detected, I consider this specimen sc]ia- 

 rately. 



