EUOMPHALUS. 
251 
P1850. Etjomphaltjs eeteoesus, F. A. Romer. Beitr., pt. 1, p. 15, pi. iii, figs. 
15 a, b. 
1853. — ANNULATtrs, Sandberger. Verst. Ehein. Nassau, p. 211, 
pi. XXV, figs. 4, 4 a — i. 
1853. — BETBOKsrs, Sandberger. Verst. Ehein. Nassau, p. 213, 
pi. XXV, figs. 8, 8 a, h. 
1854. — AKNTJLATtrs, Morris. Catal. Brit. Poss., p. 247. 
? 1866. — EETEOBSus, F. A. Bomer. Beitr., pt. 5, p. 8, pi. xxxiv, fig. 3. 
? 1867. — L^vis, Trenkner. Palaont. Novit., pt. 1, p. 7, pi. i, fig. 11. 
1888. — ANNULATirs, EtTi. Poss. Brit., vol. i, Pal., p. 163. 
Description. — Shell rather small, discoid, flat, of about five or six volutions. 
Spire flatly concave, umbilicus large and still deeper ; suture deep and very well 
defined, facing upwards. Whorls increasing very slowly, almost circular in 
section, slightly compressed perpendicularly; regularly rounded, ornamented with 
fine transverse threads divided by similar furrows which are very clear to the 
naked eye in the full-grown shell. Mouth unknown. 
Size. — Height 4*5 mm., width 14 mm. 
Locality. — There is a finely preserved specimen as well as a much larger cast 
in the Museum of Practical Geology, and two poorer examples in Mr. Vicary's \; 
Collection, from Wolborough. 
Remarks. — The best specimen at Jermyn Street I have no hesitation in 
regarding as the type specimen of Eu. annulatus, Phillips. It has the same 
number of whorls, but the body-whorl is more defective than in his figure, and the 
striae are much finer and more numerous. On consulting Mr. E. T. Newton, he 
agreed with me that there is every probability of its being the type specimen, and 
that the injury near the mouth is to be accounted for by its having been detached 
from the matrix and mended. 
The second specimen in the same Museum is the cast of a much larger shell, 
and has been there labelled Mwmphalus planorbis, d'Arch. and de Vern. ; but a 
small remaining fragment of the test shows that in all probability it belonged to 
the present species. 
One of Mr. Yicary's specimens is in a peculiar state of preservation, and is so 
misleading that for a long time I regarded it as quite a different kind of shell. It 
is the inside surface of the spiral face of the shell, with the partitions rubbed 
away, and looks very like a low sinistral shell ; but on a close examination its true 
character is unmistakably evident, and, where chips of the shell are removed, the 
marking is seen exactly to correspond with that of the present species, with which 
I have, therefore, no hesitation in classing it. 
Goldfuss's figure has much finer strige than has Phillips's, and we might 
even be inclined to class it with Ph. serpens but for its much more numerous 
whorls. 
33 
