PHANEROTINUS. 
263 
our sliells in having the outer whorls more loosely coiled, while the apical whorls 
are in contact, and in its rate of increase being decidedly greater; while 
Eu. serpula, de Kon., var. compressus, Goldfuss, is distinguished by its section 
being very widely elliptic instead of circular. 
3. Phaneeotinus cbntkifugus, F. a. Bonier, sp. 
1842. EuoMPHALTTS SERPULA, d'Arch. and de Vern. (pars). Geol. Trans., ser. 2, 
vol. vi, pt. 2, p. 363, pi. xxxiii. figs. 9 a, 
9 h (only). 
1843. Serpulakia cewtripuga, F. A. B'Omer. Verst. Harzgeb., p. 31, pi. viii, 
fig. 13. 
1844. EtroMPHALTTS serptjla, var. gracilis, Goldfuss. Petref. Germ., vol. iii, 
p. 86, pi. cxci, figs. 1 b (only). 
? 1861. — LA5US, Hall. Desc. New Species of Fossils, p. 26. 
? 1862. — — — Fifteenth Eep. N. T. State, Cab. Nat. Hist., 
p. 54, pi. vi, fig. 2. 
1876. — SERPULA, F. Bomer. Leth. Pal., pi. xxxii, fig. 10. 
? 1876. EccuLioMPHALUs ? LAXUs, Hall. 111. Dev. Foss. Gast., pi. xvi, figs. 16 — 18. 
? 1876. — COMES, Hall. Ibid., pi. xvi, figs, 8, 9. 
? 1879. — LAXUS, Hall. Pal. N. Y., yoI. v, pt. 2, p. 60, pi. xvi, 
figs. 8, 9, 16—18. 
1884. Phakerotinus cehtteifugus, Clarke. Neues Jahrb. f. Min., Beil.-Band iii, 
p. 359. 
1887. — SEiiPULA, Tschernyschew. Mem. Com. Geol. Euss., vol. iii. 
No. 3, p. 38. 
Description. — Shell rather large, flat, circularly coiled in a few slowly increasing 
volutions. Spire almost in one plane, and very loosely coiled, the whorls being 
separated from each other by a much greater distance than their diameter. 
Whorls circular in section, marked by numerous close, indistinct, straight, 
irregular growth-strige, which are perpendicular to the inner side of the whorl, but 
incline rather rearward upon its back. 
Size. — Height 10 mm., width 50 mm. 
Locality. — There is a specimen from Barton or Lummaton in the Torquay 
Museum, and another from Wolborough in the British Museum. 
Bemarhs. — The slowness of increase and the regular circular coiling seem to 
distinguish this shell from Phanerotinus militaris ; the differences are so well 
marked that it seems necessary to separate them, although the English material 
is so poor that the present species cannot be fully defined. 
It is less certain whether the shell described as Phanerotinus mundus is 
distinct, as it is possible that it may represent the inner whorls of the same 
shell, as that of which the present fossil shows only the outer. 
