1898-1902. No. 32.] FOSSIL FAUNAS FROM SERIES B. 11 



Tabulate. 

 Favositi'dae. 

 Favosites LAM. 



Favosites cf. helderbergiae HALL. 

 PI. VI, fig. 3. 



Amongst the specimens of corals is a flat fragment of a Favosites, 

 which in all visible characters seems to agree closely with Favosites 

 helderbergiae HALL, but as the outer form and the size are not exactly 

 known it cannot with certainty be given any specific name. The piece which 

 has a longest diameter of 5 6 cm. and an average thickness of 8 9 mm. 

 is built up by a number of parallel or only very slightly radiating corall- 

 ites, arranged vertically to the upper surface of the piece, which may 

 represent the original one. The tubes show on the whole a very uniform 

 size, the diameter being about 1,5 mm. The tabulae are throughout 

 extremely closely arranged, 34 in one mm. that is, still more closely 

 than is usually found in Favosites helderbergiae. Whether this character 

 is a constant one or not in the form in question, can of course not be 

 decided before more material is available. 



Occurrence: B, lower part, Reindeer Valley. 



Favosites forbesi E. and H., var. eifelensis NIGH. 

 PL IV, fig. 5-6. 



1879. Favosites forbesi E. and H. var. eifelensis NICHOLSON. On the 

 Structure and Affinities of the Tabulate Corals of the Palaeozic 

 Period, p. 61, pi. II, fig. 3, pi. Ill, fig. 11 b. 



Several specimen of a Favosites which must be referred to this 

 form are found. The outer form varies from pyriform to more flat sub- 

 hemispherical. Greatest diameter measured 7 cm. The tubes are of 

 very unequal size, the greatest about 2 mm. in width. Between the larger 

 hexagonal or pentagonal cells, there commonly occur very small, tri- 

 angular or quadrilateral ones. Tabulae close, on an average 2 per mm. 

 On the inner walls of the tubes are developed numerous rows of quite 

 prominent spines. The pores seem to be arranged in two or three rows. 

 With the unequal size of its tubes and also relatively small dimensions 

 of the colonies, this form without doubt is closely related to Favosites 

 forbesi E. and H. With its well-developed septal spines it seems further- 

 more to agree with the type, which NICHOLSON (from Devonian specimens 

 from Gerolstein) has named var. eifelensis. I have however, by pre- 

 paring microscopic sections of a Fav. forbesi from the Silurian of Got- 



