52 Ammonoidea from Pondoland 



The Pondoland form here described, has first one, then two, then 

 three fine intermediate ribs between the tuberculated stronger ribs. 

 The latter, at an early stage, break up into two finer ribs of the 

 strength of the intermediaries, but at the four tubercles, two of which 

 are ventral, and two lateral, they unite in the button and loop style 

 (fibulation) characteristic of Peronoeeras. On the dorsal area, all the 

 ribs are continuous and of equal strength. 



Some Turonian Hyphantoceras? (e.g. Hamites multinodosus) Schluter 1 

 or Heteroceras ceratopse, Anderson 2 , have a somewhat similar appear- 

 ance, but the suture-line of Hyphantoceras is much more complex than 

 that of the present Upper Senonian stock which apparently is related 

 to the genus last described (Oxybeloceras). The new genus, apparently, 

 stands in the same relationship to Nostoceratido3 z (e.g. Exiteloceras), 

 as Anisoceras does to Turrilitidce ( Psendhelicoceras robertianum,, 

 d'Orbigny, sp.). 



It is probable that i Ancyloceras'' pseudo-armatum, Schliiter 4 , from 

 the mucronata-Ch&Yk represents an adult whorl fragment of a form of 

 the new genus. 



15. — Neocrioceras cf. spinigerum, Jimbo sp. Plate VII, figs. 6a-c. 



1894. Crioceras spinigerum, Jimbo, loc. cit. p. 38 (184), pi. viii, figs. 

 1, la, b. 



The form here figured (type : fig. 6c) differs from Jimbo's presumably 

 Upper Senonian species in having the costation radial, not inclined 

 forwards, also apparently in cross-section. The outline-section of fig. 

 6c is given to shew the helicoid coiling, but the whorls are crushed ; 

 the other two fragments, also, are compressed, apparently accidentally, 

 whereas the Japanese species is depressed. In spite of the crushing, 

 however, the whorl-section of the large fragment (fig. 6a) is nearly 

 circular; all the three examples are septate throughout. The suture- 

 line appears to be of the same simple type as that of the Hokkaido 

 form. 



1 loc. cit. p. 106, pi. 32, figs. 1 & 2. 



2 loc. cit, (1902), p. 91, pi. iii, figs. 100-1. 



3 Not related to Cosmoceratida or the other families with which Hyatt (in 

 Zittel-Eastman) had united it. 



4. loc. cit. p. 164, pi. 43, figs. 8 & 9 (5-7?). 



