142 
Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa. 
Genus Eulophoceras, Hyatt. 
42. Eulophoceras natalense, Hyatt. 
1921. Spath, Pondoland, table to p. 50. 
As will be mentioned in the description of Spheniscoceras, Hyatt's form 
may be only one and an uncommon type of the development separated 
from Eulophoceras by Crick and again by Dr. van Hoepen on account of 
minute differences in what appears to be a very variable suture-line. 
Genus Spheniscoceras (Crick MS.), Spath. 
1921. Spath, loc. cit. (Zululand), p. 242, text-fig. C 1, p. 243. 
Genotype : S. africanum (Crick MS.), Spath, ibid., p. 243, fig. C la 
(Plate VI, fig. 1). 
In the original diagnosis this group is described as " intermediate 
between Placenticeras and Sphenodiscus, Meek," and after giving the char- 
acteristics of these two genera Crick continues : 
" In the present genus the shell is discoidal, lenticular, with a very 
small or a closed umbilicus, the sides with obscure radiating ridges ; the 
periphery is acute and usually pinched in a little on either side. The lobes 
and saddles of the suture-line are rather numerous, but not so many as in 
Placenticeras and Sphenodiscus. In the suture-line the saddles are feebly 
incised and have not entire margins as in Sphenodiscus ; the external lobe is 
wide and very deep ; the external saddle is deeply divided by a secondary 
lobe. 
" This genus is represented in the present collection by three [four] 
examples and a fragment. The examples, which range from 102 to more 
than 157 mm. in diameter, appear to belong to four different species." 
The suture-lines of Crick's three species were figured by the writer on 
a previous occasion ; that of Spheniscoceras cf. amapondense, here repro- 
duced, is of interest in that it has the external saddle less indented than 
the other " species," and the ventral lobe is very shallow. 
The absence of any reference to Eulophoceras, Hyatt, to which genus 
Crick refers the specimens in 1906 (see Woods, loc. cit., p. 337) is the more 
remarkable as the four " species " of Crick are very close to Eulophoceras 
natalense, Hyatt, and it might be held that the development of what may 
be a thinner keel, and the slight differences in suture-line and ornamenta- 
tion, are not sufficient to justify the creation of even different species. 
The ornamentation of the earlier whorls of Sph. minor has great resem- 
blance to that of Diaziceras ; but since the early whorls of D. tissotiaeforme 
are compressed (loc. cit., Zululand, pi. xix, fig. Ic), Spheniscoceras cannot be 
