146 CONTRIBUTIONS TO CANADIAN rAL^ONTOLOGY. 



ArNIOTITES VANCOnVERENSIS. 

 Plate 19, fig. 2. 



Celtites (?) Vancouverensis, Whiteaves— 1887. Dawson, Eep. Geol. Exam. N. pt. 



Vane. Isld. and adj. coasts, in Ann. Rep. Geol. 

 Surv. Can. for 1886, p. 110 B. 



Shell small, discoidal, whorls about four in number, compressed and 

 very gently convex at the sides, slender, increa-sing slowly in size and 

 very slightly embj'acing, so that the whole of the sides of the innei' 

 ones is exposed to view: umbilicus wide and shallow: outer volution 

 distinctly keeled at the periphcjy, the keel appai-entlj- single, entire 

 and with a faint lineai' channel on each side. Suiface of the first and 

 second volution, and the inner half of the tliird volution apiparently 

 smooth, that of the outer half of the third and of the whole of the 

 fourth distinctly ribbed ; the ribs being simple, transverse, generally 

 straight, broadeoing outward and interrupted on the keeled periphery 

 of the outer volution. 



Sutural line unknown. 



In a supplement to Dr. Dawson's report, which was written more than 

 a year before the present paper was printed, the name Celtites(?) Vancou- 

 verensis was suggested provisionally for a number of specimens collected 

 from the Triassic rocks at three localities in the Queen Charlotte Islands, 

 at five on or near the north or north-west coast of Vancouver Island, and 

 at Hernandez Island, in the Strait of Georgia. With the exception of 

 a few crushed fragments, the sj^ecimens from each of these localities 

 are mere natural moulds or impressions in shale of the exterior of one 

 side (or of a portion of one side) only of each shell, in which not a ves- 

 tige of anj' part of the sutural line could be detected. 



Since the original diagnosis of C. Vancouverensis was wj'itten, some 

 of the most perfect sjjecimens from most of these localities have been 

 examined by Professor Hyatt, who is inclined to think that nearly all 

 of them are not referable to Celtites, but to a new genus which is here 

 described under the name Arniotites, that they may possibly be separ- 

 able into two or perhaps throe species, and that it is not quite certain 

 even that thej^ all belong to the same genus. He suggests, also, that 

 the small specimen represented on plate 19, figure 2, be regarded as 

 the type of the genus Arniotites and of the species A. Vancouverensis, 

 and it is in accordance with this suggestion that the description of both 

 has been pi'epared fo]' the present papei'. Professor Hyatt thinks that 

 the most salient characters of tlie species as now I'estricted are "the 

 smooth character of the young shell as shown in the umbilicus, the 



