^{page 73 note 1} “Jurassic Ammonites from New Zealand”: Q.J.G.S., vol. lxxix, 1923. “On the Blake Collection of Ammonites from Kachh, India”: Mem. Geol. Surv. India, Pal. Indica, 1923.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 2} In Pavlowand Lamplugh, Argiles de Speeton, Moscou, 1892, pp. 116, 117 (Craspedites subditus and C. fragilis). Pavlow, Études sur les Couches Jurass. et Crét. de la Russie, i, Moscou, 1889, pl. iv, figs. 6–8 (Craspedites of. subditus and Oxynoticeras catenulatum).Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 3} “Summary of Progress for 1922”: Geol. Surv., 1923, Appendix ii.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 1} “Notes on Some Speeton Clay Belemnites”: Hull Mus. Public., No. 29, March, 1906, p. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 2} “On the Subdivisions of the Speeton Clay”: Q.J.G.S., vol. xlv, 1889, pp. 575–618. “On the Speeton Series in Yorks. and Lines.”: ib., vol. iii, 1896, pp. 179–220.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 3} “On the Speeton Clay”: Q.J.G.S., vol. xxiv, 1868, pp. 218–50.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 4} “Notes on the Belemnites of the Speeton Clay”: Trans. Hull Geol. Soc., vol. v, 1906, pt. i, p. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 5} “Glied. d. Nordd. Unt. Kreide”: Centralbl. f. Min., 1908, pp. 107 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 6} Loc. cit., Summ. Progr. 1922, table on p. 147.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 7} A. fontinalis, Hudleston: Geol. Mag., 1890, p. 241, pi. ix, fig. 1, B.M. C. 5306, belongs to this keeled and costate Desmoceratid stock, quite distinct from the earlier Aconeceras Hyatt.

^{page 75 note 1} “Notes on the Speeton Ammonites”: Proc. Yorks Geol. Soc. (N.S.), vol. xvi, 1906.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 2} “Mat. z. Kenntn. d. Untercret. Amm. Fauna, etc.”: Mém. Com. Géol. St. Petersb. (N.S.), Livr. ii, 1902, p. 135.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 3} “Fauna of the Spiti Shales”: Mem. Geol. Surv. India, Pal. Indica, ser. xv, Himalayan Foss., vol. iv, fasc. 2, 1910, pl. lxxviii.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 4} Gen. nov. (genotype: B. modderensis Kitchin sp.). See Pal. Notes below.

^{page 75 note 5} Proposed (in “Ammon. Blake Coll. Kachh, India”: loc. cit., 1923) for the Craspedites-like developments of Dichotomies. (Genotype: N. semilævis v. Koenen sp.).

^{page 75 note 6} “Ammonitiden d. Nordd. Neocom.”: Abh. k. Preuss. Geol. L.A., N.F., Heft 24, 1902.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 1} “Fauna d. Neocomsandst. i. Teutob. W.”: Pal. Abh., vol. ii, 1884, pt. i.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 2} The genus Subastieria was proposed for this sulcosus-group in “Monograph of the Ammonoidea of the Gault”, (Pal. Soc.), vol. for 1921 (1923), p. 32.

^{page 76 note 3} The genus Parastieria for “Acantoceras (?)” peltoceroides Pavlow (1892, p. 152, pi. x, figs. 20, 21), obviously a derivative of the group of “Astieria” sulcosa Pavlow, was proposed by the writer in “Ammonite Horizons of the Gault and Contig. Format.”: Summary Progress for 1922: Geol. Surv., 1923, p. 144.

^{page 76 note 4} Gen. nov. (genotype: S. subbipliciforme nov.). See Pal. Notes below.

^{page 76 note 5} Gen. nov. for “Crioceras” capricornu (Roemer) Pavlow (1892, p. 154, pl. xi, fig. 9), differing from Crioceras s.s. (duvali group) in ornament and sutureline, but connected with it by such forms as Æ. seeleyi (Neum. & Uhlig).

^{page 77 note 1} “Ammonitiden a.d. Hilsbild. Nordd.”: Palæontogr., vol. xxvii, 1881, Lief. 3–6.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 2} Geology of Yorks, 2nd ed., 1835, p. 95, pl. i, fig. 21 only (non 20 = Hamites insignis Pictet).Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 3} Gen. nov. (genotype: C. clypeiformis Judd non d'Orbigny). See Pal. Notes below.

^{page 77 note 4} Gen. nov., genotype: Crioceras occultum Seeley (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., III, vol. xvi, 1865, p. 246, pl. x, fig. 1). (Sedgw. Mus.)

^{page 78 note 1} Gen. nov., genotype: Ham. phillipsi (Bean MS.) Phillips, Geol. of York shire, pl. i, fig. 30, a form close to Crioceras Iceviusculum v. Koenen; to include also Crioceras fissicostatum (Roemer) Neum. & Uhlig, non v. Koenen ?, and allied forms.

^{page 78 note 2} Gen. nov., genotype: Crioceras abichi (Bač. Simon.) Anthula (Beitr. Pal. Geol. Öst.-Ung., vol. xii, 1899, p. 124, pl. xii, fig. 1).

^{page 78 note 3} A large fragment, resembling “Heteroceras sp. ind.” in Hang, “Puez Alpe”: Beitr. Pal. Öst.-Ung., vol. vii, 1888, p. 222, pl. xiii, fig. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 4} Gen. nov., genotype: Crioceras rude v. Koenen, 1902, loc. cit., p. 311, pi. xxxiv, fig. 1.

^{page 78 note 5} Gen. nov., genotype: Crioceras bidentatum v. Koenen, 1902, p. 329, pl. xxxviii, figs. 1–3.

^{page 78 note 6} Gen. nov., genotype: Toxoceras royeri (d'Orbigny) v. Koenen, 1902, p. 399, pl. xxxvii, figs. 7, 8.

^{page 78 note 7} This genus (genotype: Ammonites plicomphalus Sowerby, Min. Conchol., vol. iv, 1823, p. 145, pi. cccciv, non. pi. ccclix = Ammonites ptychomphalus Brown, 1889, emend. Spath) was proposed in “Blake Coll. Ammon. from Kachh, India”: loc. cit., 1923.

^{page 80 note 1} “Le Crétacé Infér, de la Russie, etc.”: Nouv. Mém. Soc. Imper. Nat. Moscou, vol. xvi, 1901, p. 39.Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 2} New genera for these forms were proposed by the writer (Q.J.O.S., vol. lxxix, 1923, p. 307).Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 1} The cast, on an Exogyra, of part of a large ammonite, recorded by Mr. Lamplugh (Q.J.G.S., 1896, p. 200, footnote 3), was stated to be insufficient for specific determination, but possibly “akin to the Craspedites group of Olcostephani”. It shows that curious backward bend of the costæ on the umbilical slope, found in many large Polyptychites of the brancoi group, but is unfortunately quite indeterminable.

^{page 81 note 2} Pringle, J., “Pal. Notes on the Donnington Borehole of 1917”: Summary of Progress, Geol. Surv. for 1918 (1919), Appendix iii, p. 50.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 3} Salfeld, “Glied. d. Ob. Jura in N.W. Europa”: N.J. f. Min., Beil.-Bd. xxxvii, 1914, table to p. 128, evidently in error, quotes “Platylenticeras caletanum”.

^{page 81 note 4} “Ammonitiden d. Nordd. Neocom.”: Abh. k. Preuss. Geol. L.A., etc., N.F., Heft 24, 1902, p. 440.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 5} “Ammonitiden d. Unt. Kreide im W. Schweiz. Jura,” pt. vi: Abh. Schweiz. Pal. Ges., vol. xxxvi, 1910, pp. 41–5.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 1} Lamplugh, loc. cit., 1896, p. 201.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 2} “Fauna of the Spiti Shales”: loc. cit., fasc. ii, 1910, pl. xlv A, fig. 1.

^{page 82 note 3} “Faunes Jurass. & Crét. de San Pedro del Gallo”: Bol. Inst. Geol. Mexico, vol. xxix, 1912, p. 129, pl. xxxiv, figs. 18, 19, 21, 22.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 4} “Céphalop. Argentins”: Mem. Soc. Géol. France, Pal. No. 43, 1910, pl. xix; figs. 3, 4.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 5} “Le Crétacé Infér, de la Crimée, etc.”: Trav. Soc. Imp. Nat. St. Pétersb., vol. xxxii, 1907, p. 130, pl. xiii, figs. 1–5.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 6} Lamplugh Coll., labelled “probably C₆” and recorded (loc. cit., 1896, table, p. 184) as Olcostephanus (Simbirskites) cf. carteroni d'Orb. (Professor Pavlow's identification).

^{page 83 note 1} Spath, loc. cit., Summary Progress, 1923, p. 147.Google Scholar

^{page 83 note 2} Loc. cit., 1889, Diagram section, fig. 8, p. 618.

^{page 83 note 3} This was determined as “Hoplites ?” by Dr. A. v. Koenen (M.P.G. 17043).

^{page 84 note 1} Genotype: Crioceras curvicosta v. Koenen, loc. cit., 1902, p. 326, pl. 1, fig. 1.

^{page 84 note 2} With Hemihoplites, gen. nov. (genotype: Ammon. ferarudianus, d'Qrbigny) and Metahoplites, gen. nov. (genotype: Hoplites henani [Coquand] Sayn) included in Hemihoplitidæ.

^{page 84 note 3} In Freeh, “Lethsea Geogn.,” ii. Mesoz. 3. Kreide, pt. i, Unter-Kreide, fasc. iii, 1913, p. 351.

^{page 85 note 1} Cat. descript. Ancyloceras, 1851, p. 25, pl. ix, No. 17 (holotype: B.M. 46882).Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 2} Spath, “Notes on Ammonites”: Geol. Mag., N.S., Dec. VI, Vol. VI, 1919, pp. 30, 220.Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 3} “Die Ammon. d. Unt. Kreide Patagoniens”: N. Jb. f. Min., etc., Beil. Bd. xxv, 1908, p. 636, pl. xxxvi, f. 4; pl. xxxvii, f. 1.

^{page 85 note 4} On a former occasion (Spath, “Cret. Ammon. Angola”: Trans. Roy. Soc. Ed., vol. liii, pt. i, 1922, p. lll) included in Parahoplitidce, with Ammonitoceras, but they are probably independent Lytoceras (Cicatrites) derivatives.

^{page 85 note 5} Sinzow, , “Untersuch. einig. Ammonitiden aus dem Unt. Gault Mangyschlaks, et.”: Verh. Muss. K. Min. Ges. (II), vol. xlv, 1907. p. 510, pl. vi, figs. 9–12.Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 6} Loc. cit., 1902, p. 392, pl. xxxiii, fig. 3, from the Aptian of Ahaus, which was wrongly placed by Stolley (loc. cit., 1908, p. 220) below instead above the deshayesi zone.

^{page 86 note 1} In Zittel, “Die Fauna der Älteren Cephalopoden-führenden Tithonbildungen”: Palæontogr. Suppl., 1870, pl. xii (xxxvi), figs. la–c.Google Scholar

^{page 86 note 2} Kilian (loc. cit., 1910, p. 187) quotes Bochianites in the fauna of the “boissieri-zone”, which includes several Infravalanginian and Tithonian horizons, to judge by Kilian's lists.

^{page 86 note 3} “The Invertebrate Fauna and Pal. Relat. of the Uitenhage Series”: Ann. S. Afr. Mus., vol. vii, pt. ii, 1908, p. 202, pl. x, fig. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 87 note 1} Loc. cit., 1902, pp. 146, 412, pl. xxxix, fig. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 87 note 2} In Skeat and Madsen, “On Jurass. Neocom. and Gault Boulders, etc.”: Danmarks Geol. Unders. (II), No. 8, 1898, p. 194, pl. vii (Olcostephanus cf. kleini, Neum. & Uhlig).Google Scholar

^{page 87 note 3} Olcostephanus [Simbirslcites] ? sp. in Danford, loc. cit., 1906, pl. xii, fig. 3. See above, under II.

^{page 87 note 4} See Lamplugh, loc. cit., 1896, p. 210.Google Scholar

^{page 87 note 5} In Pictet and Campiche, Ter. Crét. Ste. Croix, 1860, p. 294, pl. xlii.Google Scholar

^{page 87 note 6} In Freeh, “Lethsea Geogn.,” ii. Mesoz. 3. Kreide, pt. i, Unter-Kreide, fasc. ii, 1910, p. 210.

^{page 87 note 7} Loc. cit., pt. v, 1908, p. 32.Google Scholar

^{page 87 note 8} Genotype: Hoplites juv. raimondii (Gabb) in Lisson, Geol. de Lima, 1907, p. 41, pl. v, fig. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 1} In Salter and Blanford, Pal. Niti., 1865, p. 83, pl. xii, figs. 2a, b, holotype B.M., No. C. 5032.Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 2} “Rech. Géol. Province Alicante, etc.”: Ann. Hébert, vol. i, 1892, p. 191, pis. vii, viii.Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 3} Pal. Franç., Ter. Crét. (I), 1841, p. 108, pl. xxv, figs. 1, 2. (The “subcarinate”venter is poorly illustrated.)Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 4} Loc. cit. (Spiti Shales, pt. ii, 1910), p. 251, pl. Ixxxvii, fig. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 5} Ibid., p. 256, pl. lxxxv, fig. 1.

^{page 88 note 6} Loc. cit., 1912, p. 163. The type of Steueroceras, namely St. transgrediens (Steuer), was erroneously considered to be an Aulacostephanus, which, however, includes “Odontoceras” anglicum Steuer.

^{page 88 note 7} Cossmann (Revue Crit. Pal., ii, 1898, p. 115) and Uhlig (Spiti Shales, 1910, p. 156) had already restricted Steuer's genus to “Odontoceras” anglicum and “O.” transgrediens. The first, an Aulacostephanus from the Kimmeridge Clay of Weymouth, was erroneously compared to the Argentine forms, so that “O.” transgrediens remains as the genotype.

^{page 89 note 1} Genotype: Odontoceras malarguense Steuer, “Argentin. Juxa-Ablag.”: Pal. Abh., N.F., iii, pt. iii, 1897, p. 55, pl. xx, figs. 1–3.

^{page 89 note 2} B.M., Nos. C. 11204–5.

^{page 89 note 3} See “Blake Collection of Ammonites from Kachh, India”: loc. cit., 1923, and “Ammonites from New Zealand”: loc. cit., 1923, p. 292.