CLOUGHTONIA. 
247 
in Ps. Nerei, d’Orb (‘ Terr, Jur.,’ ii, p. 50, pi. ccxlii, figs. 5, 6, 7), but in other 
respects our shell has no resemblance to the fossil of Marquise. This form, 
again, in the shortness of its spire scarcely comes within the diagnosis of 
Pseudomelania. Five specimens from the Parkinsoni-zone of Burton Bradstock 
are in my collection. 
Genus — Cloughtonia, Hudleston, 1882. 
Shell short, conical, solid. Whorls about five, fiat, angular, and disposed in 
steps. Suture often canaliculated. Body-ivhorl more or less hicarinated. Surface 
smooth, or ornamented with rugose lines of growth. Aperture ovate to ovate-oblong, 
rounded anteriorly, angular behind. Pillar nearly straight, and loith but little 
callus. 
This genus was constituted in order to receive a peculiar group of shells, of 
which Cloughtonia cincta, Phil., may be taken as the type. It is difficult to 
distinguish from certain Naticas, but the real affinities of Cloughto7iia are with 
Pseudomelania. Melania abbreoiata, Homer, which occurs in the Corallian of 
Bradley near Oxford, may probably be referred to this genus. There are also 
two forms occurring in the Portlandian of Bucks and the Vale of Wardour, 
described by me provisionally under Pseudomelania (‘ Geol. Mag.,’ September, 
1881, p. 389), which belong to Cloughtonia. 
In 1878 Gemmellaro (‘ Faune Giuresi,’ &c., p. 262) described Microschiza as a 
sub-genus of Chemnitzia. This appears to differ but little from Cloughtonia, 
which, therefore, would be merely a synonym of Microschiza. Provisionally it 
may be safer to retain Cloughtonia for our English fossils. 
185. Cloughtonia cincta, Phillips, 1829. Plate XIX, figs. 1 a, 1 b. 
1829 and 1835, Phasiaxeiia cincta, Phillips. Greol. Torks., pt. 1, p. 123, pi. ix, fig. 29. 
1851. Natica (Euspiea) ? cincta, Phil. Morris and Lycett, Great Ool. Moll., 
p. 113, pi. XV, fig. 20.^ 
1882. CiouGHTONiA CINCTA, Phil. Hudleston, Geol. Mag., dec. 2, vol. ix, p. 203, 
pi. V, fig. 14. 
^ This figure is so extremely unlike the one by Phillips that it can hardly represent the type, as 
stated by Morris and Lycett. Nevertheless Morris and Lycett’s figure is a faithful representation of 
the specimen in the York Museum. In some respects this reminds me of Puspira subcoronata, see 
postea, p. 270. 
