NArTILlD^E. 
275 
pean [form], and the external position of the sijjhuncle can be often 
noticed on fragments in our collection.” The “ external position of 
the siphuncle ” and the general form of the shell would associate 
the Indian species with d’Orbigny’s, were it not that the ribbing in 
the latter appears to be finer, and the French form is, perhaps, on 
the whole, somewhat thicker than the Indian. As, however, there 
is only a single, badly preserved young example of the latter in the 
British Museum, I am not able at present to give a decided opinion 
upon the question whether d’Orbigny’s fossil is or is not identical 
with Blanford’s. 
Two authors on the American continent, viz. Meek ^ and Whit- 
eaves have made noteworthy observations on the present species. 
Xot satisfied with Sowerby’s imperfect description and fore- 
shortened figure. Meek adopted with some hesitation Sharpe’s inter- 
pretation of Nautilus elegans^ which interpretation I have shown to 
be erroneous. Meek, in association with Hayden had already 
described the American fossil as N. elegans, var. Nebrascensis, but 
after reconsideration he gave up the varietal name on account of 
the resemblance of his form to the N. elegans of Sharpe, which he 
naturally supposed to be identical with Sowerby’s species. He evi- 
dently, however, had his doubts about Sharpe’s identification of the 
species in question being correct, for after describing the American 
form, he remarks that he believes the latter “ will be found to agree 
so closely with Sowerby’s species, that there may be no necessity 
for separating it, even as a variety — that is, if Mr. Sharpe’s illus- 
trations can be relied upon.” He continues, “ from Sowerby’s 
application of the words ‘ indistinctly sagittate,’ however, to the 
aperture, it would seem that his type specimen must be much more 
compressed than ours, which, as already stated, agrees well with 
Sharpe’s figures in form. As Sharpe ought to have been well 
acquainted, however, with Sowerby’s species, I infer that the latter’s 
original type may have been accidentally compressed.” It will be 
seen from this quotation that Meek was not quite satisfied in his 
mind of the identity of Sharpe’s species with Sowerby’s, and he 
singles out the discrepancies between these authors’ descriptions 
with much discernment. He afterwards comments upon the reten- 
tion by Pictet^, and also by Blanford®, of the name Nautilus elegans 
^ United States Geol. Surv. Terr. 1876, vol. ix. pp. 499-501. 
^ Geological Survey of Canada — Mesozoic Fossils, vol.i. pt. i. 1876, pp. 14-18 
® Proceed. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 1862, vol. xiv. p. 25. 
Descr. des Foss, du Terr. Cr6t. des Environs de Sainte-Oroix (Pal. Suisse), 
s6r. ii. pt. i. 1859, p. 117. 
* Mem. Geol. Surv. India— Palseont. Indica— i. Cretaceous Cephalopoda of 
Southern India, 1861, p. 29. Itfid. 1866, p. 200. 
x2 
