^{page 91 note *} Subschloenbachia is to be replaced by Inflaticeras, Stieler emend., throughout this memoir, completed before the publication of Stieler's paper (“Üb. d. sogen. Mortoniceraten d. Gault,” Centralbl. f. Min., etc., 1920, pp. 345–52, 392–400); and Pseudophacoceras, Spath is invalidated by Oxytropidoceras, Stieler. Also, if Stielek's reading of Brancocems be adopted, Hyatt's generic term Hyiteroceras must be used for the lineage here called Brancoceras.

^{page 92 note *} Trans, Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. li, pt. iii, No. 13, 1916, pp. 498 et seq., 521.

^{page 92 note †} Ib., Memoirs Nos. 14–17, 1916.

^{page 92 note ‡} Ib., No. 15, p. 562.

^{page 92 note §} “Études Pal. et Strat. s. la partie moy. d. Ter. Crét., etc.,” Trav. Lab. Géol. Fac. Se. Univ. Grenoble, vol. viii, 1908, p. 296.

^{page 92 note ║} “On the Gault of Folkestone,” by Price, F. G. H., Q.J.G.S., vol. xxx, 1874, p. 353.Google Scholar

^{page 93 note *} “Note s. la Succession d. Moll. Céph. pendant l'époque Crét. dans la rég. d. Alp. Suisses et du Jura,” Arch. d. Sc. de la Bibl. Univ., Nouv. Pér., vol. x, April 1861, p. 18.

^{page 93 note †} “Verbreitg. d. Ceph. i. d. Ob. Kreide N. Deutschi.,” Verh. Nat. Ver. Preuss. Bheinl., vol. xxxiii, Bonn, 1876, p. 331.

^{page 93 note‡} “On Ammonites from the Cambridge Greensand,” Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., 3rd ser., vol. xvi, 1865, p. 226.

^{page 93 note §} In Fitton, , “Observ. on … Strata below the Chalk,” Trans. G.S., 2nd ser., vol. iv, pt. ii, 1836, p. 337Google Scholar, pi. xi, fig. 21.

^{page 93 note ║} Catalogue, 2nd ed., 1854, p. 298.

^{page 93 note ¶} “Sur quelq. Amm. du Crét. Algér.,” Mém. Soc. Géol. France, Pal., vol. xvii, fase. 2–3, 1910, p. 64, pl. vi, fig. 1.

^{page 93 note **} In Steinmann, , “Beitr. z. Geol. pal. S.-Amer.: xvii, D. Fauna d. Vracon u. Cenoman in Peru,” N. Jb. f. Min. etc., Beil.-Bd. xxxiii, 1912Google Scholar, text-figs. 1 and 2 on p. 81.

This Ammonite, apparently a new form, was associated with A. lyelli, a species that does not range up into the Upper Gault, so that the reference to A. inflatus, as well as its designation as “Vraconnian,” obviously is misleading.

^{page 93 note ††} Geol. Mag. (57), 1920, e.g. pp. 14 and 15.

^{page 94 note *} Pavlow, , “Les Amm. de la z. à Aspidoceras acanthicum de l'E. de la Russie,” Mém. Gom. Géol., vol. ii, pt. 3, 1886, p. 87, pl. v, figs. 4a—c.Google Scholar

^{page 95 note *} Spath, L. F., “Cret. Ceph. fr. Zululand,” Ann. S. Afr. Mus., vol. xii, No. 16 (1921), p. 277.Google Scholar

^{page 95 note †} Garte Géol. de la Tunisie, “Ét. de Paléont. Tunis.: I. Céph. d. Terr. Second.,” pp. 227–9.

^{page 95 note ‡} “Ét. Pal. et Strat. s. la Partie Moy. d. Terr. Crét.,” Trav. Lab. Géol., Univ. Grenoble, vol. viii (190&), table on p. 393.

^{page 96 note *} Compare, e.g., the suture-line of “Schloenbachia” inflaba (J. Sowerby) in Choffat, , “Contrib., etc.: ii, Nouv. données s. 1. z. littorale d'Angola,” Comm. Serv. Géol. Portugal, 1905, pl. ivGoogle Scholar, fig. 7, with that of Pictet's A. inflatus (in Pictet and Roux, Grès Verts, etc., 1847, pl. ix, fig. 6c), and with those of Dipoloceras and other genera.

^{page 96 note †} “Fossilien d. Mungo-Kreide,” Geol. v. Kamerun (1904).

^{page 96 note ‡} “Die Cephal. d. Ob. Kreide Südpatagoniens,” Ber. d. Naticrf. Ges. Freiburg i. B., vol. xv, 1907, pp. 167–248.

^{page 96 note §} E.g. Price (in coll.) and Be Rance (Geol. Mag., v, 1868, p. 170, p.p. II only).

^{page 96 note ║} “Matériaux, etc.” (Choffat and de Loriol), Mém. Soc. Phys. et d'Rist. Nat. Genève, vol. xxx, No. 2, 1888, pl. ii, fig. 2. In his later work (1905, p. 34) Choffat named fig. 1 of the same plate “S. aff. roissyana,” but fig. 2, perhaps, bears more resem blance to the roissyunus-grout than does fig. 1. (See p. 133.)

^{page 96 note ¶} “Foss. Alb. d'Escragnolles,” Pal. Ital., vol. ii, 1896, p. 88 (36), pl. xi (ii), fig. 8.

^{page 96 note **} There are important differences, e.g. in the character of the costation and other details.

^{page 97 note *} A. goodhalli, J. Sowerby, is another species that is said to occur in beds 11, 12, and 13 of the Survey [ = bed 11 of Price], representing a thickness of over 56 feet.

^{page 97 note †} In spite of v. Pia's (loc. cit., 1914, p. 158) remarks about Hyatt's “entirely unsuccessful attempt” to reconcile phylogeny with nomenclature, and the improbability of attaining this ideal, the writer has tried to base his genera on “series” as distinct from the morphological assemblages of systematists like v. Pia.

^{page 97 note ‡} “Deser. Coll. Foss Dr A. Raimondi, Peru,” Jl. Ac. Nat. Sci. Phüad., 2nd ser., vol. viii, 1877, p. 273, pl. xxxix, fig. 2.

^{page 97 note §} In Zittel-Eastman, 1900, p. 590.

^{page 97 note ║} “Pseudoceratites,” p. 24.

^{page 97 note ¶} In Zittel, , Grundzüge, i (3rd ed.), 1910, p. 501Google Scholar (included in Pulchelliidae).

^{page 97 note **} Amm. del Peru, Lima, 1908, p. and pl. xv.

^{page 97 note ††} Loc. cit., pp. 66, 82, and 128. This author also fell into the error of identifying A. ventanillensis with S. infletta of a much higher horizon.

^{page 97 note ‡‡} Associated, in Mr J. A. Douglas's collection, with Dipoloceras cornutum, Pictet sp., numerous Pseudophacoceras, Lyelliceras and Hystatoceras, but no forms of the Upper Albian.

^{page 97 note §§} “Monog. Geog. e Pal. d. Cerro de Muleros, etc.,” Boll. Inst. Geol. Mexico, No. 25, 1910, p. 68, pl. iii, figs. 1–4.

^{page 98 note *} Loc. cit. (Pictet and Roux, 1847), p. 94.

^{page 98 note †} The costæ on shell and cast, however, may be entirely different. An ingenious explanation of a probable physiological significance of this type of ribbing is given in Pia, J. v., “Untersuch, ü. d. Gattung Oxynoticeras,” Abh. K. K. Geol. R., vol. xxiii, Heft i (1914), p. 116.Google Scholar

^{page 98 note ‡} “D. Kreide. v. Texas,” Geol. u. Pal. Abh., vol. x (1904), p. 20.

^{page 98 note §} Gatal., 1860, iv, p. 144, pl. xxvi, figs. 6 and 7.

^{page 98 note ║} Loc. cit., 1910, p. 69, pl. iv, figs. 1–5, pl. iii, fig. 6.

^{page 98 note ¶} Comparable with “Schloenbachia n. sp.,” in Böse, ib., pl. viii, fig. 6, and with Schlagintweit's “S. inflata,” referred to above.

^{page 99 note *} “Über Tithon u. Kreide i. d. Peraan. And.,” N. Jb. f. Min., etc., 1881, vol. ii, p. 133.

^{page 99 note †} Loc. cit., 1900, vol. i, pt. 2, p. 590.

^{page 99 note ‡} In Zittel's, Text-book of Palæontology (Easuian), 1900, i, p. 590.Google Scholar

^{page 100 note *} The examples figured by Prestwich, (Geology, ii, x, 5Google Scholar, B.M. No. 88581A) and Jukes-Browne, and Hill, (fig. 23, p. 58Google Scholar, loc. cit., 1900, M.P.G. No. XII, ) are typical A. rostratus, but the figures are unfortunate. BUVIGNIER'S example (pl. xxxi, figs. 8 and 9, Statist. Meuse, 1852) also apparently is a compressed, but otherwise typical rostrata.

^{page 100 note †} Expl. Carte Géol. France, 1878, pl. xci, fig. 1.

^{page 101 note *} Loc. cit., 1909, pl, lxv and pl. lxvii, fig. 1 only.

^{page 102 note *} “Untersuch. Südind. Kreideform,” Beitr. Pal. Geol. Öst.-Ung., vol. ix, 1890, p. 187; Stoliczka, , 1865, pl. xxix, figs. 1, 3;Google ScholarFritel, , Fossiles Gharact. Ter. Sédim. Foss. Second., Paris, 1888, pl. xivGoogle Scholar, fig. 6, representing the Malmstone (Gaize) type “A. [Schloenbachia] rostratus”).

^{page 102 note †} Loc. cit., 1907, pl. ix, fig. 9 only.

^{page 102 note ‡} “Geogr. and Geol. Black and Grand Prairies, Texas,” 21st Ann. Rep. U.S. Geol. Surv., 1901, pl. xxxvi, fig. 1.

^{page 102 note §} In Jack, and Etheridge, , Geol. and Pal. of Queensland, 1892, pl. xxxviGoogle Scholar, fig. 1.

^{page 102 note ║} Loc. cit., Rce. Austr. Mus., vol. vii, No. 4.

^{page 102 note ¶} Thomas, and Peron, , “Descr. Moll. Foss. Tunisie,” Expl. Scientif. Tunis., Paris, 1889, p. 20.Google Scholar

^{page 102 note **} From Renevier's remark in Choffat (Faune Grét. du Portug.: i, Esp. Nouv., etc., 2nd ser., 1898, p. 80) it is clear that his “Vraconnian” included, not the inflatus-beds of most authors, but only its upper portion (VIb in Jacob), since Renevier himself excluded the inflata-beas of the Upper Gault of the Perte-du-Rhône, where he states the true “Vraconnian” to be absent.

^{page 102 note ††} Under the specific descriptions, reference will be made to the forms figured by Brongniart, Quenstedt, Bayle, Buvignier, and other authors, whose interpretation of Sowerby's species was too comprehensive.

^{page 103 note *} M. inflatum, var. crassissima, Kilian (Trav. Lab. Géol., Univ. Grenoble, vol. xii, 1919, p. 94), apparently not figured yet, is another doubtful form, as is “Schloenbachia” borealis, Whiteaves (Gontrib. Can. Pal., ii, and Trans. R.S. Can., sect, iv, 1893, p. 17), compared with “S. propinqua,” but quoted by Haug (loc. cit., p. 1289) as Cenomanian.

^{page 103 note †} Identified as “Mortoniceras ct'. lenxi” by Mr. Cbiok, and associated only with Turonian Tissotids (Choffaticeras, eta).

^{page 103 note ‡} “Contrib. etc.: ii, Nouvelles données. Angola,” Gomm. Serv. Géol. Portug., 1905, pp. 33, 34 (63, 64).

^{page 104 note *} “Low. Cret. Foss. etc.: pt. ii, Ceph., 2,” Rec. Austral. Mus., vol. vii, No. 4, 1909, pl. lxvii, figs. 3, 4, p. 237 = “Hystrialoceras” antipodem, Eth. fil., Mem. R. Soc. S. Austr., ii, 1, 1902, p. 47, pl. vii, fig. 6.

^{page 104 note †} Min. Conch., vol. v, 1825, p. 74, pl. 451, fig. 4 only (B.M. No. 43952A).

^{page 104 note ‡} Ib., vol. ii, 1821, p. 100, pl. 255 (B.M. No. 43949).

^{page 105 note *} Other such species from the Montagne des Fiz, Savoy, are in the Sir Philip Egerton Coll., Qeol. Soc.

^{page 105 note †} Traité de Pal., vol. ii, 1854, p. 675.

^{page 105 note ‡} Loc. cit., 1907, p. 234, pl. xi, figs. 4”, 6.

^{page 105 note §} Loc. cit., 1900, p. 459 (Cunnington Coll.) in Jerniyn St. ?].

^{page 106 note *} Mr R. B. Newton very kindly drew the writer's attention to the existence of these Nigerian specimens, now incorporated in the B.M. Collections (C 21955–8, A. E. Kitson Coll.). They also include Elobiceras cf. lobitoense (Crick MS.) n. (cf. Choffat's S. lenzi, pl. i, flg. 5 only); E. cf. angustum, nov., see pl. i, fig. 3 (cf. Choffat's pl. i, fig. 7).

^{page 106 note †} In Pictet, and Roux, , loc. cit., 1847, p. 105Google Scholar, pl. x, fig. 2 only. This form requires a new name. The writer's notes, made in 1911, when going through the Pervinquière Collection at the Sorbonne, and the Ammonites in the Museum of the Ministry of Public Works in Tunis, contain a reference to this form as “var. tubercidata.” This reference now is too obscure for the (MS. ?) name to be employed here, and Pervinquière's var. spinosa is quite different.

^{page 106 note ‡} Loc. cit., 1907, text-fig. 93, p. 228.

^{page 106 note §} Loc. cit., ii, 1907, text-fig. 25, p. 45.

^{page 106 note ║} In Pictet, and Roux, , loc. cit., 1847, pl. viiiGoogle Scholar, fig. 2c; D'Obbigny, pl. lxxxviii, fig. 5.

^{page 106 note ¶} The inner whorls of “S. cfr. gracillima” in Choffat, (loc. cit., 1905, p. 36Google Scholar, pl. iii, fig. 3) appear to be like those of Neokentroceras, but the specimen, like a comparable Nigerian one, is badly preserved.

^{page 106 note **} Loc. cit., i, 1895, p. 188, pl. xxii (viii), fig. 7.

^{page 107 note *} “Amm. d. Sächs. Kreidef…,” Beür. z. Geol. u. Pal. Ost.-Ung., vol. xiv (1902), p. 153 (23), pl. ix (iii), figs. 3α, 6.

^{page 107 note †} Loc. cit., 1862, p. 56, pl. xxxii, fig. 2.

^{page 109 note *} Loc. cit., 1908, p. 361.

^{page 110 note *} Kilian, (Lethxa, p. 334)Google Scholar wrongly includes these forms in the Neocomian genus Saynella.

^{page 110 note †} Lethæa Geognostrca: ii, Mesozoic, 3 Kreide, 1 Unterkreide, pt. 3, 1913, p. 349.

^{page 111 note *} Kilian, (Lethæa Geognostica, ii, Mesoz., 3 Kreide, 1 Unterkreide, pt. 2, 1910, pp. 180–187Google Scholar, and pt. 3, 1913, p. 349) derives the whole of the Aptian-Albian as well as of the Neocomian Hoplitids from Berriasella; but the writer has already drawn attention to the possibility of Desmoceratid developments being confused both with Berriasellida and Hoplitida.

^{page 111 note †} And that, therefore, there is no need to assume with Neumayr (loc. cit., p. 17) a boreal origin for the forms of “Schloenbachia” here considered.

^{page 111 note ‡} Paulcke, (“Die Cephalop. d. Ob. Kreide Südpatagon.,” Ber. d. Naturf. Oes. Freiburg i. B., vol. xv, 1907, pp. 15Google Scholar (181) and 17 (183)) traces his so-called Hoplites [=Hoplitoplacenticeras] back to the true Gault Hoplites, and even to the Neocomian forms, but in the writer's opinion they are developments of Acanthoceratida.

^{page 111 note §} Koenen, “Üb. Fossil, d. Unt. Kreide a. Ufer d. Mungo i. Kamerun,” Abh. K. Ges. Wiss. Göttingen, M.-Naturw. KL., N.F., Bd. i, No. 1, 1897, and Nachtrag, 1898, “Die Gattung Acanthoceras ist nun durch die ganze Kreide verbreitet.”

^{page 111 note ║} Loc. cit., 1908, p. 381.

^{page 111 note ¶} Ib., p. 393.

^{page 111 note **} “Pal. de Madagascar: iii, Céphal. Crét. d. envir. d. Diego-Suarez,” Annales de Fale'ont., ii, 1907, p. 34, pl. viii, fig. 8. These authors (p. 27) considered A. lyelli to be tlie type of Acanthoceras; and they figured as suture-line of “A. lyelli after D'Orbigny” (text-fig. 13) what appears to be a copy of the suture-line of Stoliczkaia dispar in Douvillé, (Bull. Soc. Géol. France, (3), vol. xviii, 1890, p. 282Google Scholar, text-fig. 8).

^{page 112 note *} Loc. cit., 1908, p. 355.

^{page 112 note †} Loc. cit., 1874, p. 362, and Jukes-Browne and Hill, 1900, p. 81.

^{page 112 note ‡} A splendid collection from the Montagne des Fiz, Savoy (Sir Philip Egerton Coll., Geol. Soc.) includes, with some 75 Albian Ammonites, three examples of true Schloenbachia (varians-growp). The Gault fossils, however, represent many horizons, from Leymeriella below, to Stoliczkaia above, and there is no evidence that the Cenomanian Schloeiihachia occurred in association with any of the Albian fossils, though the matrix is similar. The fauna is referred to by HAUG (vol. i, loc. cit., pl. i; vol. ii, fase. 2, p. 1255) and by Jacob (loc. cit., p. 504).

^{page 115 note *} It should be added that this portion was covered by matrix, until exposed by the writer, so that the three small fragments mentioned under S. subrotunda could have been taken for the young of S. depressa.

^{page 115 note †} Unless the suture-lines, by their spacing and coarseness (cf. fig. lb on pl. xxix in Stoliczka) indicate that these Subschloen-hachia are not dwarf developments.

^{page 115 note ‡} Boule, Lemoine, and Thévenin, (loc. cit., p. 41)Google Scholar, also Choffat, (loc. cit., 1905, p. 35Google Scholar (65)), considered this to be a typical S. infiata; but Sowebby's species, at that diameter, is costate and only feebly tuberculate. An equally evolute and inultituber-culate specimen from near Catumbella (No. C 14812 of Dr Ansorge Coll., British Museum) differs from S. meunieri only in having the costæ somewhat closer, especially on the inner whorls. Mr Beeby Thompson's collection includes what the writer considers to be an adult S. meunieri.

^{page 116 note *} Loc. cit., pl. xxii, fig. 4.

^{page 116 note †} Loc. cit., pl. xxiii, fig. 1.

^{page 116 note ‡} It may be added that several specimens of Pictet's form, from Ste-Croix, Vaud, Switzerland, and probably from the Perte-du-Rhône, are in the British Museum (e.g. Nos. 50430B and c, 50420). A fine example of S. quadrata from Devizes (B.M. No. 88718) is still septate at the diameter of 90 mm., and still typical.

^{page 116 note §} Loc. cit., 1905, p. 36, pl. iii, figs. 4a, b.

^{page 116 note ║} Recueil d'études paléont. s. la faune crét. d. Portugal, vol. i, ser. 1, 1886, and 2, 1898, pp. 3 and 79, “Céphalopodes,” pl. iv, figs. 1a, b.

^{page 116 note ¶} Diameter in mm., greatest whorl-height, thickness, and umbilicus in percentages.

^{page 117 note *} Statist, de la Meuse, 1852, pl. xxxi, figs. 8.and 9. A typical fragment in the Mantell Collection (B.M. No. 5700) represents a similar thin variety.

^{page 118 note *} “Contrib. á Pal. do Brazil,” Arch. d. Mus. Nacion, d. Rio d. Janeiro, vol. vii, 1887, p. 228, pl. xx, fig. 5.

^{page 118 note †} Descr. Géol. d. Envir. d. Paris, Cuvier and Brongniart, 3rd ed., 1822, pp. 83 and 95, pl. vi, fig. 1, A and B.

^{page 118 note ‡} Cephalopoden, 1849, p. 209, pl. xvii, figs 2a, b, c (as A. varicosim).

^{page 118 note §} Loc. cit., 1910, p. 75, pl. ix, figs. 1–3.

^{page 119 note *} Loc. cit., 1887, pl. i, flg. 1.

^{page 119 note †} Loc. cit., 1885, p. 233, pl. ii, fig. 3 (wrongly numbered 1).

^{page 119 note ‡} Loc. cit., 1863, p. 48, pl. xxvii, fig. 1.

^{page 119 note §} Loc. cit., 1895, p. 186, pl. xxiii, fig. 2; pl. xxiv, fig. 1.

^{page 119 note ║} Loc. cit., 1865, p. 227, pl. xi, fig. 4.

^{page 121 note *} Loc. cit., 1887, p. 61, pl. i, figs. 1 and 2.

^{page 121 note †} Loc. cit., 1907, p. 229, pl. xi, fig. 2.

^{page 121 note ‡} Loc. cit., 1895, p. 187.

^{page 121 note §} Loc. cit., 1907, pl. ix, fig. 10, pl. xi, fig. 1, p. 40.

^{page 121 note ║} “Die Kreide-Amm. v. Texas,” Qeol. u. Pal. Abh, vol. x (N.F.), 1904, pt. 4, p. 25, pl. vii, fig. 1, and text-fig. 6 on p. 26. Lasswitz's statement about the Senonian age of this form cannot be relied on.

^{page 122 note *} B.M. No. C 413, probably from Perte-du-Rhône.

^{page 122 note †} The typical form, somewhat like Sowerby's paratype of A. rostratus, referred to in the earlier part of this paper, occurs in the Malmstone and in the Cambridge Greensand; but the more closely costate variety, like the similar S. kiliani, seems to be commoner (B.M. 88581B, C 455, 70525; M.P.G., Cunnington Coll.). A still more finely costate variety, comparable to Boule, Lemoine, and Thévento's large form (88185 from Devizes, 88720B from Potterne, Wilts), leads directly to the new species referred to before (88717) with 72 costæ, and to forms that develop close and single costation, like the adult S. neuparthi, Choffat sp., or S. robusta, nov. (e.g. No. XIII , Isle of Wight, in M.P.G.).

^{page 122 note ‡} Loc. cit., 1888, pl. xiv, figs. 7 and 8.

^{page 122 note §} Bol. d. Inst. Geol. de Mexico, No. 25, 1910, p. 78, pl. x, figs. 1, 2, 4.

^{page 122 note ║} Loc. cit., 1895, p. 187.

^{page 122 note ¶} Loc. cit., 1895, p. 188.

^{page 122 note **} Loc. cit., 1907, p. 41.

^{page 122 note ††} Both Kossmat, and Boule, Lemoine, and Thévenin, in referring to fig. 3 of Szajxocha's pl. ii, mean the (wrongly numbered) fig. 1.

^{page 123 note *} Loc. cit., 1895, p. 188.

^{page 124 note *} Loc. cit., 1888, pl. i1, fig. 4 only. The specimen here described was marked “Schloenbachia cf. lenzi, Mat.,” by Mr Wordik.

^{page 124 note †} Loc. cit., 1910, pl. iii, fig. 4. It has been mentioned, however, that this form may be a Mojsisovicsia, as it comes from the horizon with Exogyra texana and is associated with Pseudophacoceras.

^{page 124 note ‡} Loc. cit., 1921, p. 285, pl. xxiv, fig. 9.

^{page 124 note §} Loc. cit., 1909, pl. lxvi, fig. 1 only.

^{page 124 note ║} Loc. cit., 1895, p. 188.

^{page 124 note ¶} Loc. cit., 1907, p. 41.

^{page 124 note **} Loc. cit., 1888, pl. i, fig. 6 only.

^{page 124 note ††} It is interesting to note that a body-chamber fragment of a very large specimen of what the writer considers to be Acantho-pleuroceras rursicosta, Buckman, S. (“Jurassic Chronology: Lias,” Q.J.G.S., vol. lxxiii, 1918, p. 286Google Scholar, pl. xxvi, figs, 4a-c), probablv also from Gloucestershire, but for some inexplicable reason labelled “Vancouver Island,” got incorporated with the Upper Cretaceous Hector Collection. Kossmat, on the occasion of his examination of that collection (see Jb. K. K. Reiclisanst., vol. xliv 1894, p. 472) identified this specimen as “Schloenbachia n. sp.,” and in a fragmentary MS. by Mr Crick on the Hector Collection this Ammonite, the only one fully described, is mentioned as “Schloenbachia n. sp., F. Kossmat MS.”

^{page 124 note ‡‡} Loc. cit., 1907, p. 233.

^{page 124 note §§} Loc. cit., 1888, pl. i, figs. 3–5. The first is referred to under Neokentroceras. Fig. 4 (S. dombensis, n. nov.) is mentioned sub S. cycloceratoides. Fig. 5 has been referred to under Elobiceras lobitoense, but probably belongs to a new and evolute form. There is a fragment from near Catumbella in the Dr Ansorge Collection in the British Museum (No. C 14809) which agrees in side-view and which has been identified by Mr Crick as “Schloenbachia lenzi, Szajnocha, fide Choft'at I, 4” But in this specimen the periphery is narrower and much more fastigate than even Choffat's fig. 5, and it also probably is much more involute. This again represents an unnamed new form of Elobiceras.

^{page 126 note *} Loc. cit., 1888, p. 66, pl. i, fig. 8.

^{page 126 note †} Loc. cit., 1888, pl. i, fig. 8.

^{page 127 note *} Loc. cit., 1907, pl. xi (iv), fig. 1.

^{page 127 note †} Loc. cit., 1905, pl. iv, fig. 1 only.

^{page 127 note ‡} In Pictet, and Roux, , loc. cit., 1847, pl. xGoogle Scholar, fig. 2b (see also under Neokentroceras).

^{page 128 note *} Loc. cit. (Grès Verts), pl. ix, fig. 6c (A. inflatus). Specimens from Ste-Croix, Vaud, Switzerland, Perte-du-Bhône, etc., are in the British Museum (see Spath, , loc. cit., 1921 [Zululand], p. 284).Google Scholar

^{page 128 note †} Loc. cit., 1910, pl. i, fig. 5.

^{page 128 note ‡} Loc. cit. (Ste-Croix), pl. xxii, fig. 4.

^{page 129 note *} Loc. cit., 1888, p. 64, pl. i, figs, 1a, b. Mr Wordie, on a label attached to the specimen, stated: “Answers to Choffat, M. I, 1.” In 1905 (loc. cit., p. 35 [65]), CHOFFAT referred this form to the elobiense-grown.

^{page 129 note †} Loc. cit., 1895, p. 188.

^{page 129 note ‡} Loc. cit., 1885, p. 234, pl. iii, fig. 1 only.

^{page 130 note *} Kilian, W., “Note sur le Gault, etc.,” Bull. Soc. Géol. France, 3rd ser., vol. xv, 1887, p. 464Google Scholar; and “Descr. géol. de la Montagne de Lure (Basses-Alpes),” Ann. d. Sc. géol., vol. xix, xx, Paris, 1889, p. 289 (sep. copy).

^{page 130 note †} Loc. cit., 1888, p. 67.

^{page 130 note ‡} Loc. cit., 1895, p. 188.

^{page 131 note *} Loc. cit., 1905, p. 38, pl. iv, fig. 4 only.

^{page 132 note *} Loc. cit., 1888, p. 65. In 1905 (loc. cit., p. 37 [67]) Choffat queries the identity of this form with S. lenzi.

^{page 132 note †} Loc. cit., 1895, p. 188.

^{page 132 note ‡} Loc. cit., 1907, p. 233.

^{page 133 note *} Loc. cit., 1888, p. 66, pl. i, flg. 7 only; see also under No. 33.

^{page 133 note †} Ib., p. 67, pl. ii, fig. 1.

^{page 133 note ‡} Loc. cit., 1905, p. 34.

^{page 133 note §} Loc. cit., 1888, pl. ii, fig. 2, p. 67.

^{page 133 note ║} Loc. cit., 1861, pl. xxx, fig. 5.

^{page 135 note *} The place where the outer whorl begins does not mark the last septum, as the crushing and corrosion of the inner whorls might suggest. In that case the body-chamber would have been at least a complete whorl in length. Although the suture-lines, actually cannot be seen, it appears that the shell was septate for about another quarter of a whorl.

^{page 135 note †} Loc. cit., 1888, p. 66, pl. i, fig. 8.

^{page 135 note ‡} Loc. cit., 1888, p. 66, pl. i, fig. 8 only. See under No. 34, E. intermedium.

^{page 136 note *} “M. lobitoense” probably is meant.

^{page 137 note *} Loc. cit., 1888, p. 64, pl. i, fig. 5 only. Two comparable specimens from Southern Nigeria (Nos. C21957–8, A. E. Kitson Coll.) are in the British Museum.

^{page 137 note †} See under E. arietiforme (No. 38).

^{page 138 note *} “Nouvelles données, etc.,” loc. cit., 1905, p. 34.

^{page 138 note †} Referred to in this paper in the description of Elobiceras flexicostatum, nov. (see No. 32).

^{page 138 note ‡} Loc. cit. (Diego-Suarez, 1907), p. 41, text-fig. 21.

^{page 138 note §} Loc. cit., 1888, p. 64, pl. i, fig. 2

^{page 138 note ║} Loc. cit., 1895, p. 188.

^{page 139 note *} Loc. cit., 1888, pl. ii, figs. 1 and 2, p. 67.

^{page 139 note †} The writer considers it probable that, as in the recent Nautilus, the animal of Ammonitids was not fully grown and propagating until after the formation of the last septum, so that the change of the ornament on the body-chamber, where it occurs, either as elaboration or simplification, cannot be spoken of as a phenomenon of “old age.” See the writer's “Notes on Ammonites,” Geol. Mag., N.S., decade vi, vol. vi, January to May 1919; also vol. vii, March 1920, pp. 142–4.

^{page 140 note *} Nos. C 14818–20; two larger, highly tuberculate, examples, Nos. C 20284–5, represent the adult stage.

^{page 140 note †} Loc. cit., 1888, pl. i, fig. 3a, b only. Boule, Lemoine, and Thívenin, (loc. cit., 1907, p. 36)Google Scholar include this in “S.” tectoria, White, but the proportions are different, and in the Brazilian form the outer tubercle is much more developed.

^{page 142 note *} Left blank m the figure, to avoid its being mistaken for the inner whorls of the type-specimen.

^{page 142 note †} Loc. cit., 1862, p. 56, pl. xxxii, fig. 2.

^{page 143 note *} “Die Fauna d. Kreide v. Teraojoli in W. Borneo,” Samm. d. Geol. Beichsmus. Leiden, vol. vii, Heft i (1902), p. 24, pl. ii, fig. 9a-c.

^{page 143 note †} Loc. cit., 1907, p. 36.

^{page 144 note *} The trifurcating ribs first split up near the umbilical end, and the branch that bifurcates, posterior or anterior, in no definite order, does so, occasionally, quite near the periphery.

^{page 145 note *} In Pictet, and Roux, , Grès Verts. 1847, pl. xiGoogle Scholar, fig. 1 only.

^{page 146 note *} B.M. (Sir Philip Egerton Coll.), including Actinoceramus sulcatus (characteristic of the “varicosus-zone”) in its matrix. Cf. also specimen b (Geol. Soc. Coll., 1911) from Perte-du-Rhône.

^{page 147 note *} Fragment No. C 20052 is mudi like C 20050 in mode of preservation, and almost fits on to it, so that but for its umbilical tuberculation they might have been considered to belong to the same specimen.

^{page 147 note †} With the exception of a new form of ? Hyderoceras, already referred to, in the Dr Ansorge Collection in the British Museum (No. C 14811).

^{page 147 note ‡} Not in the sense of, e.g., Boule, Lemoine, and Thévenin, (loc. cit., 1907, p. 53)Google Scholar, whose classification is based on shape only, following Kossmat, (loc. cit., 1895, p. 144)Google Scholar and older authors. The time-element was not sufficiently appreciated by these authors. It must be confessed that the Upper Albian Ptychoceras glaber (Whiteaves) is very similar to the Neocomian P. inornatum, Simionescu, just as Diplomoceras cylindricum (d'Orbigny) is almost indistinguishable from a homoeomorphous form in the Upper Gault; but the writer believes that the ptychoceratid type of coiling recurred in various stocks, and some of the Senonian “Ptychocerat,” at any rate, are merely the young of Emperocems.

^{page 147 note §} Loc. cit., 1908, pp. 240 and 345. Has Hamites as a descendant of Costidiscas.

^{page 147 note ║} In Zittel-Eastman, , Text-book of Palaeontology, 2nd ed., 1913, pp. 653–4.Google Scholar Anisoceras and Torneutoceras, besides many other genera not discussed here, have been omitted in this edition.

^{page 147 note ¶} Loc. cit., 1913, pp. 374 ff.

^{page 148 note *} Professor J. Perkin Smith (in the second edition [1913] of Zittel's Text-book of Palaeontology) does not accept HYATT'S genera for the various Hamitid developments, etc., and includes in Macroscctphitinae (Lytoceratidæ), besides Hamites, also the Jurassic Baculina, which, in the writer's opinion, is quite inadmissible. See in this connection the writer's “Notes on Ammonites,” Geol. Mag., N.S., dec. vi, vol. vi, 1919, part v, p. 220.

^{page 148 note †} Specimens of Torneutoeeras attenuatum, collected by the writer, both from the English Gault and from the Albian of Wissant in France, apparently agree very well with the Angola specimen, but the suture-line is not shown in the latter.

^{page 148 note ‡} Descr. Géol. d. Envir. de Paris (Cuvier and Brongniart), 3rd ed., 1822, by Brongniart, p. 395, pl. vii, figs. 7a, b, c.

^{page 148 note §} In Pictet, and Roux, , loc. cit., 1847, p. 134Google Scholar, pl. xiv, fig. 6.

^{page 148 note ║} Loc. cit., 1822, p. 395, pl. vii.

^{page 148 note ¶} Ib., fig. 5b.

^{page 148 note **} Loc. cit., 1847, p. 135, pl. xiv, figs. 7–9.

^{page 149 note *} “Üb. einige Ceph. a. d. Unt. Kreide Patagon.,” Ark. f. Zool. K. Svensk. Vetensk. Akad. Stockholm, vol. vii, No. 23, 1912, pp. 11–14, pl. i, flgs. 2 and 3.

^{page 149 note †} Pal. Franc. Ter. Crét.: i, Céph., 1842, p. 611, pl. cxlviii, tigs. 7–9 and 10–15.

^{page 149 note ‡} Loc. cit., 1861, p. 182.

^{page 150 note *} “Rep. on Cret. and Tert. Foss. Up. Missouri Country,” in Hayden, , U.S. Geol. Surv. of Territ., vol. ix, 1876, p. 486.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note †} “Phylogeny of an Acq. Charact.,” Proc. Am. Phil. Soc., vol. xxxii, 1894, pp. 565–577.

^{page 150 note ‡} In Zittel's, Text-book of Pal., i, 1900, p. 586.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note §} Loc. cit. (Diego-Suarez, [fin], 1907), p. 53.

^{page 150 note ║} “The Strata below the Chalk,” Trans. Geol. Soc., 2nd ser., vol. iv, 1836, p. 337, pl. xii, figs. 1 and 2.

^{page 150 note ‡} Loc. cit., 1900, p. 459.

^{page 150 note **} “Amm. d. Crét. Alg.,” Mém. Soc. Géol. France, vol. xvii, No. 42, 1910, p. 49, pl. i, fig. 28.

^{page 150 note ††} Mineral Gonchology, vol. i, p. 136, pl. lxi, fig. 2.

^{page 151 note *} Pal. Franç. Ter. Crét.: i, Céphal., p. 557, pl. cxxxvii, fig. 5.

^{page 151 note †} Loc. cit. (Diego-Suarez [fin], 1907), p. 56, pl. xiii, fig. 6.

^{page 151 note ‡} Loc. cit., 1861, pl. xc, fig. 10, p. 195.

^{page 151 note §} Loc. cit., 1895, p. 150.

^{page 151 note ║} Loc. cit., 1912, p. 354. This author puts Ptychoceras with Hoplitids, but the writer is inclined to believe that some of the Neocomian forms that show Ptychoceras-coiling are Lytoceratids.

^{page 151 note ¶} “Untersuch, ü. d. Ceph. d. Ob. Kreide in Polen,” iii, Bull. Acad. Sei. de Gracovie, B, June 1913, pp. 378 ff.

^{page 151 note **} “Notes on Ammonites,” Geol. Mag., N.S., dec. vi, vol. vi, 1919, pp. 30 and 220.

^{page 151 note ††} In Pictet, and Roux, , loc. cit. (Grès Verts, 1847), p. 118Google Scholar, pl. xiii, figs. 1–7.

^{page 152 note *} Traité de Paléontologie (1854), vol. ii, p. 705, and Atlas, pl. lvi, fig. 12.

^{page 152 note †} Pal. Franç. Ter. Crét., i, 1840, pl. lxxx.

^{page 153 note *} Krenkel, (in “D. Unt. Kreide v. Deutsch-Ostafrika,” Beitr. z. Geol. u. Pal. Österr.-Ung., vol. xxiii, 1910, p. 226)Google Scholar described “Desmoceras” laiidorsatum, Michelin (d'Orbigny) as coming from the Aptian.

^{page 153 note †} “Les Céphalop. Néocrét. d. Îles Seymour et Snow Hill,” Wiss. Ergeb. Schwed. Süd-Pol. Exped., 1901–3, vol. iii, pt. 6, 1909, pp. 17 and 46.

^{page 153 note ‡} “Foss. Alb. d'Escragnolles,” Pal. Ital, vol. ii, 1896, p. 81.

^{page 153 note §} “Cretaceous Rocks of Britain,” vol. i (Mem. Geol. Surv. U.K.), “The Gault and Upper Greensand of England,” 1900, p. 458.

^{page 153 note ║} “Ét. de Pal. Tunis., i: Céphalop. d. Ter. Second.” (Carte géol de la Tunisie), 1907, p. 157, pl. vi, figs. 25 and 26.

^{page 153 note ¶} “Cret. Foss. of Natal,” iii, part i (Third Report Geol. Surv. Natal and Zululand), 1907, p. 214.

^{page 153 note **} Loc. cit. (Grès Verts, 1847), p. 37, pl. ii, fig. 5.

^{page 153 note ††} “Moll. etc. Chalk: pt. i, Cephalop.,” Monogr. Pal. Soc., 1853–56, p. 42, pl. xix, fig. 3.

^{page 154 note *} Loc. cit., iii, 1898, p. 112 (177), pl. xviii (xxiv), fig. 1.

^{page 154 note †} “Ét. s. quely. Am. d. Crét. Moy.,” Mém. Soc. Géol. France, vol. xv, No. 38, 1907, p. 38.

^{page 154 note ‡} Loc. cit., 1896, p. 80 (28), pl. xi (ii), figs. 1 and 2.

^{page 154 note §} Ib., p. 81 (29), pl. xi (ii), fig. 3.

^{page 154 note ║} Loc. cit., 1888, p. 49.

^{page 154 note ¶} Loc. cit., 1916, p. 576, pl. i, figs. 18–19.

^{page 156 note *} Loc. cit. (Angola), p. 562.

^{page 156 note †} Loc. cit. (Zululand), p. 95.

^{page 157 note *} Loc. cit. (Lethæa), p. 123.

^{page 157 note †} Das Antlitz d. Erde, vol. ii., pt. iii, Absohn. vi, p. 366.

^{page 157 note ‡} Loc. cit., 1912, pp. 128–134.

^{page 157 note §} Kossmat, (in “Die Bedeut. d. Südind. Kreideform.,” Jb. K. K. Reichs-A., vol. xliv, 1894, p. 465)Google Scholar identified the Angola form with S. clavigera, Neuraayr; but Choffat's figures comprise several species.

^{page 158 note *} Loc. cit, 1907, p. 425; loc. cit., 1910, p. 81.

^{page 158 note †} Loc. cit., p. 1367.

^{page 158 note ‡} “Note sur le Gault, etc.,” Bull. Soc. Géol. France (3), vol. xv, 1887, p. 464.

^{page 158 note §} Loc. cit. (Lethæa, ii, 3, pt. i, 1), p. 28.

^{page 158 note ║} Ib., pp. 25–29, 61–64.

^{page 158 note ¶} “On the Beds between Gault and Up. Chalk near Folkestone,” Q.J.G.S., vol. xxxiii, 1877, pp. 433–4.