136 Annals of the South African Museum. 



tinctive feature is the very elongated, sharply demarcated and deeply 

 excavated lunule, well preserved and exhibited in the specimen un- 

 satisfactorily figured by Tate. The widely erroneous statements of 

 shell-measurements, so numerous in that author's paper on the South 

 African fossils, are difficult to account for and may best be ignored. 

 Tate's comparison of A. pinchiniana with two English Oolitic forms, 

 A. excentrica Morr. and Lye. and A. puviila J. de C. Sow., is also 

 unfortunate, since a very much closer resemblance is shown to several 

 Cretaceous forms. A. excentrica'''' is much more triangular in outline 

 and has the lunule scarcely defined, while A. pumila f is a narrow, 

 convex, inequilateral shell widely different in type from the one we 

 are considering. 



The question whether A. pinchiniana should be referred to the sub- 

 genus Eriphyla, as defined by Stoliczka, cannot be decided by an 

 examination of the material which has been at my disposal. In no 

 instance have I been able to ascertain the characters of the hinge, and 

 it is therefore uncertain whether lateral hinge-processes are present 

 in either valve. At the same time, the external characters of shape 

 and the presence of a deep and sharply defined lunule, suggest the 

 strong probability that the arrangement of hinge and lateral teeth is 

 the same as in Eripliyla, but it would, of course, be unwise to accept 

 close agreement in external features as justification for a definite 

 conclusion on this point. For the time being, a provisional reference 

 to Eripliyla may be permitted. This question might seem to be of 

 subsidiary interest were it not that the known characters of 

 A. pinchiniana give this shell so close a resemblance to members of a 

 principally Cretaceous group of forms, and as additional evidence for 

 the age of this fauna, such resemblance must be taken fully into 

 consideration. Remarks on the application of the name Eripliyla in 

 dealing with certain Cretaceous forms of Astarte will be found above 

 in the discussion concerning the relationships of Astarte (Eripliyla} 

 herzogi. 



A. pinchiniana differs from immature examples of A. herzogi bythe 

 relatively more extended lunule and the disappearance of concentric 

 sculpture at the close of the neanic stage. It bears a great outward 

 resemblance to immature specimens of A. striata Sow.,:]: having a 

 similarly elongated lunule, with the marginal profile of concave form 

 in front of the umbo ; but in .4. pinchiniana the concentric surface 



* Morris and Lycett (1), part iii., p. 83, pi. ix., fig. 8 (1855). 

 t J. de C. Sowevby (1), vol. v., Tab. 444, fig. 2 (1824). 

 I Ibid., vol. vi., p. 35, Tab. 520, fig. 1 (1826). 



