XAUTILID-E. 
257 
were brought about during the lengthened existeuce of this species 
in the Sainte-Groix region. 
It is very apparent, judging from the figures of the Indian ex- 
amples of the present species, figured by Blanford, that the ribs were 
much coarser in these than they are in the English specimens. 
Comparing d’Orbigny’s original specimen of Nautilus pseudo- 
elegans^ with Blanford and Stoliczka’s^ figures and descriptions, I 
am inclined to doubt the identity of the Indian with the European 
form. The following is Blanford's description, which may be com- 
pared with that of the type specimen I have given above : — “ Shell 
inflated, evenly rounded, ornamented with numerous sulcations 
generally visible on the cast. Ventral area broad and rounded. 
Umbilicus impressed and veiy small in the cast ; the perforation 
not exceeding of the diameter of the shell. The sulcations 
rather variable in width, narrow on most specimens, forming a very 
obtuse angulation on the median ventral line, whence the sulci 
curve forward towards the umbilicus (generally becoming obsolete 
on the sides of the cast), and forming a very slight flexure towards 
the umbilicus. Aperture orbicular ; septa numerous, about 22 to 
the whorl, the margins [sutures] slightly flexuous at the sides, 
straight or slightly convex in the ventral region.” The siphuncle 
was subsequently to this description ascertained to be “ rather 
approaching to the inner margin of the septa. ” ^ 
The principal feature in which the Indian differs from the European 
form lies in the more narrowly rounded periphery, and altogether 
less robust habit of the shell, next in the smaller umbilicus, and, 
lastly, in the character of the ribbing, which seems to have been 
coarser in the Indian than it is in the French form. Blanford’s 
fig. 2 (Joe. cit. pi. xix.) certainly gives one the impression of being 
that of a much iiarrower shell than d’Orbigny’s type. As all the 
specimens in the Indian Survey Collection are stated to be casts, it 
is not surprising that their characters (especially the ornaments of 
the test) should not have been very satisfactorily made out. On 
the whole I am inclined to regard the two forms as probably distinct, 
though perhaps rather nearly related. 
D’Orbigny states that Nautilus pseudoelegans is characteristic of 
^ For the loan of this and other specimens already mentioned I am indebted 
to the courtesy of Dr. Paul Fischer. 
Mem. Geol. Surv. of India— Paleeont. Indica — i. Cretaceous Cephalopoda 
of Southern India, p. 33, pi. xvii. f. 3, pi, xviii. ff. 3, 3a, 3b, pi. xix., pi. xx. 
if. 1,1a. 
^ Stoliezka, Mem. Geol. Surv. of India — Pakeoiit. Indica — i. Cretaceous 
Cephalopoda of Southern India, p. ‘210, pi. xciii. f. 3. 
P.\RT II. 
s 
