XAUTILID.E. 
273 
There is in the Aluseum a specimen from Dr. MantelTs collection, 
bearing an old label in faded ink to the following effect : — “ Nauti- 
lus elegans, Min. Con. pi. 116,. . , .Chalk Marl Estate of Eev. 
J. Constable, Eingmer”k 
On comparing this fossil with the figures of Nautilus elegans given 
by Sowerby^ and Mantell^, no doubt can be entertained as to its 
identity with them. The figures have been restored to some extent, 
but not in such a way as to disguise altogether the characters of 
the fossil, otherwise its recognition would have been still more diffi- 
cult. The foreshortening of the figure, a practice often indulged in 
by Sowerby, added not a little to the difficulty of realizing the form 
of the shell k 
An exact drawing of the fossil is here given (fig. 60), which is 
intended to supplement the deficiencies of Sowerby’s figure and 
render the species more easily recognizable. 
I may here add that I have had the advantage of seeing the speci- 
men of Nautilus elegans figured by Sharpe under the name N.pseudo- 
elegans (Foss. Moll, of the Chalk, Mon. Pal. Soc. 1853, pt. i. Ceph. 
p. 13, pi. iv. f. 2). This fossil is now in the Museum of the Geo- 
logical Society of London ; there is no doubt whatever that it is 
identical with Sowerby’s type of Ak elegans, as Sharpe’s figure, 
which is fairly accurate, had indeed led one to conclude. 
Having thus cleared the ground as to what is really the Nautilus 
elegans of J. Sowerby, it will now be useful to notice, on the one 
hand, those species which, being in reality N. elegans, have had 
some other name erroneously applied to them, and, on the other 
hand, those species which have been wrongly named N. elegans. 
Sharpe has fallen into both these errors. His, N autilus elegans^ is 
not that of Sowerby, being a much wider and thicker shell, with 
closed umbilicus and the siphuncle above the centre. His Nautilus 
pseudoelegans^ , on the other hand, is not that species, but Sowerby’s 
elegans. The source of this confusion is easily explained. Sharpe 
^ The locality given by Mantell (‘ Foss. South Downs,’ p. 113) is “ Micldleham,” 
but at p. 100 he states that “ a low bank at Middleham, in the parish of Ring- 
mer, near the seat of the Rev. J. Constable, contains Hamites, Turrilites, Nau- 
tilites, Ammonites, and Inocerami” 
^ Min. Conch, vol. ii. 1816, p. 33, pi. cxvi. 
^ Fossils of the South Downs ; or Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex 
p. 112, pi. XX. f. 1 (not pi. xxi. ff. 1, 4, 8). 
^ This has been a stumbling-block to many. F. B. Meek (United States 
Geol. Surv. Terr. vol. ix. 1876, p. 500, footnote) says: — “his [Sowerby’s] 
single figure being an oblique view does not show the form of the aperture.” 
® “ Descr. of the Fossil Remains of Mollusca found in the Chalk of England” 
(Mon. Pal. Soc.), 1853, pt. i. Cephalopoda, p. 12, pi. iii. f. 3, pi. iv. f. 1. 
® Ibid. p. 13, pi. iv. ff. 2 a, 2 b. 
PAUT It. 
T 
