No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 May 2009
In a former communication (Geol. Mag. Dec. III. Vol. IV. No. 9, p. 396, 1887), when pointing out how Reinecke's Amm. serpentinus had been misunderstood, I gave as a synonym, but with a query, Sowerby's Amm. Strangewaysi. As I have, since then, examined the type-specimen of the latter species contained in the collection of the Natural History Museum, and as Mr. E. Walford kindly forwarded me for my determination a capital specimen from Byfield, I have been able to satisfactorily settle the identity of these forms. Except being evolute carinate Ammonites, the two species have hardly a feature in common.
Discoidal, compressed, hollow-carinate. Whorls flattened, ornamented with genuine sickle-shaped ribs, which, though less conspicuous in size on the body-chamber, are there more distinctly bent. Ventral area marked by the prolonged forward sweep of the ribs, and surmounted by a well-marked hollow-carina.
page 202 note 1 Hitherto unknown (Haug). It agrees almost exactly with my fig. 28, pl. A. (Monogr, . Ammonites, 1889, part iii.Google Scholar), but the inferior lateral lobe is a little larger and is nearer the edge.
page 202 note 2 I take the opportunity of thanking the officers of the Natural History and Jermyn Street Museums for their kindness and courtesy.