100 HIND : NEW CARBONIFEROUS NAUTILOIDS. 
of very different habit and characters, as evidenced by their 
suture lines. He had, if I am correct in thinking that the speci- 
men I mention is the one figured, also added details to the figure 
which were not shoA\Ti in the specimen, and invented a suture 
line which the shell did not possess. The shell is almost the same 
size as the figure, it bears a label in Mr. Wild's own handwTiting 
giving the horizon and locality Carre Heys, Burnley, Bullion Coal. 
It shows well one feature of the drawing, the median ridge along 
the centre of the periphery. 
The test is present in the greater part of the shell, especially 
at the commencement of the last whorl, and the sutures are not 
to be seen in that part of the shell as showTi in Wild's figure, but 
nearer the body chamber the sutures are seen to be simple, trans- 
verse, and without a central saddle. I am informed by Mr. 
Wilkinson, of the Manchester Museum, that the specimen marked 
No. 15 is in the Kay Shuttleworth collection, and not in the Wild 
collection, and that Wild was knowTi to have complained that he 
was unable to procure the return of specimens loaned to Burnley. 
I recollect seeing a large Nautiloid shell, which I think is the one 
in question, at Mr. Wild's house many years ago. I would caU 
attention to the improbability of the small number of sutures 
shown in the figure {Op. supra cit.) being correct, only five are 
sho\Mi about f inches apart. This specimen is about the same 
size as the Caton example, but much better preserved. The 
broad periphery and the large amount of inclusion distinguish 
the species from S. dorsalis, Phill., sp., S. hibernicus, Foord, and 
S. latiseptatus , de Kon. Dr. Foord has given the name S. cale- 
donicus to a sub-globose form from Arden Quarry, Nitshill, near 
Glasgow, and I should suspect that horizon to be not far from 
that of the Caton brick shales ; and moreover Arden Quarry 
has afforded specimens of Pleuronautilus nodoso-carinatus. In 
8. hibernicus Dr. Foord states that the siphuncle is central, which 
is not the case in the new species. I have been somewhat struck 
by the angular margin of the aperture, and the question of the 
affinity of the species to Acanthonautilus , Foord, occurred to me. 
The sheU differs entirely in its habits from A. bispinosus, Foord, 
and it does not seem that the ridge, at the margin of the umbilicus, 
is going to be folded and produced into a spine. Dr. Foord says 
in his generic description of Solenocheilus, Cat. Foss. Cep. Brit. 
