NO. 2.] 



SUMMARY. 



107 



17. Cadoceras Nanseni n. sp. pag. 86. PI. 

 II. Fig. 1-3, 5, 6. 



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

 pag. 92. PI. II. Fig. 4. 



19. Cadoceras Frearsi (d'Orb.) Nik. pag. 

 93. PI. II. Fig. 10. 



20. Cadoceras sp. indet. pag. 94. PI. II. Fig. 8. = 



21. Cadoceras sp. {? Elatmae Nik.) pag. 95. 



22. Quenstedtoceras vertumnum Sintz. pag. 

 96. PI. II. Fig. 9. 



23. Belemnites m. f. subextensus Nik. — ; 

 Panderi d'Orb. pag. 100. PI. I. Fig. I 

 13—21. I 



24. Belemnites sp. indet. 1. pag. 102. ^ 



25 Belemnites sp. (cf. Beyrichi 0pp.) pag. = 

 103. PI. I. Fig 22, 23. I 



(Belemnites sp. perhaps group of Cana- 

 liculati) pag. 104) 



26. Belemnites sp. indet. 2. pag. 104. PI. I. 

 Fig. 24. 



Amm. 'Macrocephalites) macrocephalus 

 Schl. pag. 497, PI. XXXIX, Fig. 1,2. 



Amm. (Cadoceras) Tchefkini (?) d'Orb. 

 e. p. pag. 496, PL XXXIX, Fig 6. 



Amm. (Cadoceras'l modiolaris Luid., flat- 

 tened variety, pag. 497, PI. XXXIX, 

 Fig. 10. [90] 



Amm. (Macrocephalites) macrocephalus, 

 Schl. e. p. pag. 498, PI. XXXIX, Fig 3. 



[94] 



1 ) ? ? Cosmoceras (Kepplerites) sp. "allied 

 to Amm. gowerianus", ? ? pag. .502.^ 

 Belemnites Panderi d'Orb. pag 498, PI. 

 XXXIX, Fig. 11—14. [101] 



Belemnites sp. e. p. pag. 501. 



Belemnites sp. (the third form) pag. 502. 



? Belemnites sp. pag. 502, (the other 

 forms there mentioned). 



In the first place, this comparison shows that, judging from Professor 

 Nansen's collection, the Jurassic fauna of the neighbourhood of Cape Flora 

 proves to be considerably more abundant (26 species) than might be supposed 

 from the results of the Jackson-Harnisworth Expedition (14 .species). Among 

 the 26 species collected by Professor Nansen, there are 17 which, as against 

 the results of the Jackson-Harmsworth Expedition, are new, while in the 

 collection described by Newton, there are 5 species which are wanting in 

 Nansen's collection, Ten of the species recorded in the table could be directly 

 identified with species already known from other localities; 7 could be recog- 

 nised as being allied to known species, or similar to them. Of the remaining 

 forms, 5 are new; the rest may perhaps also be new, but they are in so 

 imperfect a state of preservation, that their exact determination seems in the 

 meantime to be impos-sible. 



In the Jurassic fauna of Cape Flora, the Cephalopods and the LameUi- 

 branchs occupy an exceedingly predominant position. 



It is especially worthy of note, that as far as can be judged, the Gastro- 

 pods are extremely rare, a fact to which we must give our attention later on. 



1 Not described. 



