50 PALEONTOLOGY OF NEW JERSEY. 



into consideration, I have considered these as more nearly related to Axinea 

 lentiformis than to either of the other species. 



Locality: Specimens have come to me from near Shiloh and Jericho, 

 from the soft gray marls, and from near Bridgeton, N. J., in the light gray 

 stony layers. Imprints also occur in the dark chocolate marly clays near 

 Shiloh. I have received the specimens from the State survey collections 

 and from those of the National Museum. 



Family NUOULIDiE. 

 Genus NUCULA Lamarck. 



NUCULA PROXIMA. 



Plate vii, fig. 7-10. 



Nucula proximo, Say: Jour. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil., first ser., vol. 2, p. 270; Say's 

 Conch. (Binney), p. 94; Tuomey and* Holmes Plioc. Foss. S. C, p. 53, PI. xvn, 

 Figs. 7 and 8; Emmons' Geol. N. C, p. 287, Fig. 208ft; Corfrad's Cat. Mioc. Foss., 

 Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Phil., 1862, p. 581; Meek, Check List, p. 5. 



t Nucula obliqua (Say) Heilprin; Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Phil., 1887, pp;i398, 402. 



" Shell subtriangular, oblique, concentrically wrinkled, and longitudi- 

 nally marked with numerous hardly perceptible striae; posterior margin very 

 short and very obtusely rounded, a submarginal impressed line; anterior 

 margin very oblique, and but slightly arquated; umbo placed far back; 

 within perlaceous; polished, edge crenulated; teeth of the hinge^ robust, 

 the posterior series very distinct and regular. 



" Greatest length parallel with the posterior margin, three-tenths of an 

 inch. Breadth less than two-fifths of an inch. 



" Very much resembles K nucleus, but is proportionally wider, and the 

 posterior series of teeth is more regular and distinct. It may probably prove 

 to be only a variety when numerous specimens are carefully examined and 

 compared." 



The above is Mr. Say's original description of Nucula proxi'ma, as given 

 in the Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, first 

 series, vol. 2, p. 270; and also in the Conchology, p. 94, Binney's edition. 

 It agrees so exactly with the fossil shells from New Jersey, as do also the 

 living specimens from different parts of the coast, except perhaps in size, 

 thut I can see no valid reason for considering them distinct. 



