EUOMPHALUS. 
25a 
phalus, Sandberger/ and for a long time I was disposed to regard it as a specimen 
of it ; but a closer examination causes me to believe that it is generically distinct 
from it, for in that shell the strise are very strongly deflected across the sinus- 
band, while in the present species they appear to be perfectly straight. 
It is also very similar to Euomphalus acuticosta, Sandberger,^ but it is easily 
distinguished from it by possessing a broad depression on its shoulder instead of 
a single sharp keel. It differs from Schizostoma vittatum, Goldfuss,^ not only in 
the absence of a sinus-band, but by the coarseness of its ornamentation ; while 
Sch. tseniatum, Goldfuss,* and Sch. fasciatum, Groldfuss,^ are also distinguished by 
the possession of a few more spiral depressions. 
From Ph. serpens and Eil annulatus the angulation of the whorls caused by 
the sulcus at once distinguishes it. 
7. Euomphalus? araneipbk, n. sp. PI. XXIV, fig. 13. 
Description. — Shell small, spiral, fiat, sinistral. Apex depressed. Spire of 
few angulated whorls. Suture deep, wide. Section of whorls rising from the 
suture in a small angulated ridge, followed by a narrow groove, from which it 
again rises to a higher ridge, followed by a linear constriction, from which it 
slopes convexly downward for a rather wider interval to another small ridge, 
after which it appears to sink perpendicularly. Surface covered with fine, close, 
prominent, rounded, longitudinal ridges. 
8ize. — Width about 12 mm. 
Locality. — Lummaton. There is a single poor specimen in my collection. 
Remarks. — The fossil above described is so poor and obscured that but very little 
can be ascertained about its nature. It seems most probably to be a Euomphalus, 
and I have therefore placed it provisionally in that genus, but it may possibly 
prove to belong to something quite different. It is, in fact, so confused with the 
subcrystalline matrix that neither Mr. Roberts nor I feel certain whether it is the 
surface or the external cast of a shell, and if the latter were the case the descrip- 
tion would of course have to be reversed. 
Affinities. — Mr. Roberts and I, on examining it together, came to the conclu- 
sion that it very nearly resembled in its aspect Pleurotoriiaria euomphalus, 
Sandberger, but that it evidently did not belong to that species, inasmuch as it 
showed no signs of a sinus-baud, and therefore was not a Pleurotomaria. 
^ 1853, Sandberger, ' Verst. Rhein. Nassau,' p. 187, pi. xxii, figs. 12, 12 a!. 
2 Ibid., p. 210, pi. XXV, tig. 2. 
^ 1844, Groldfuss, ' Petref. Germ.,' vol. iii, p. 79, pi. clxxxviii, figs. 6 a, h. 
* Ibid., p. 79, pi. clxxxviii, figs. 4a — c. 
^ Ibid., p. 79, pi. clxxxviii, figs. 5 a, b. 
