SALICORNARIID^E. 23 



2. S. SINUOSA, Hassall. PI. XXI, fig. 5. 



* 



Internodiis cylindricis, equalibus vel superne subinde incrassatis. Area elongata 

 rhomboidali, hexagona, vel pyriformi ; superficie delicate granuloso. Orificio subquadran- 

 gulari, margine inferior! valde elevato ; ovicellulae orificio transverse elongate, dente 

 bicuspidato lato infra armato. Avicularii mandibulo, triangulari, acuto. 



Internodes cylindrical, uniform, or slightly incrassatecl above. Area elongated, rhoin- 

 boidal, hexagonal, oblong or pyriform ; surface finely granular. Orifice subquadraugular, 

 with a much-raised lower lip ; ovarian orifice elongated transversely, with a broad 

 bicuspid tooth on the lower margin. Mandible of avicularium triangular pointed. 



FARCIMIA SINUOSA, Hassall, Ann. Mag. N. H., vi, p. 172, pi. vi, figs. 1, 2; Johnston; 



Macffillivray. 



FARCIMIA SPATHULOSA, Hassall. 

 SALICORNARIA FARCIMINOIDES (var.), Busk, B. M. Cat., p. 16; S. Wood; J. Morris. 



Though at one time I entertained the opinion that Sal.farciminoides and Sal. sinuosa 

 were one and the same species, I have long been convinced that they are specifically 

 distinct. The distinction does not, however, arise so much from the prevailing form of 

 the areas in either, seeing that no fixed characters could be thence derived, but chiefly 

 from the following particulars : 1. In S.farciminoides the mandible of the avicularium is 

 semicircular, small, blunt, and looks upwards, whilst in 8. sinuosa it is triangular, 

 acutely pointed, and directed either straight or obliquely downwards. 2. The ovarian 

 orifice in S.farciminoides is simple, and either round or elongated in a longitudinal direction, 

 and in S. sinuosa narrow, slit-like and transverse, the lower border being formed by 

 a wide bicuspid tooth. 3. In S.farciminoides the front of the cell often presents on each 

 side within the area an elongated elevation or ridge, which is never perceptible in S. 

 sinuosa. As to the identity of the fossil and recent forms, a close comparison of numerous 

 specimens of both leaves no doubt whatever on my mind. The only difference between 

 the two, of the least moment, is the frequency or rather the occasional occurrence in the 

 former of anchylosis between the internodes, which has never offered itself to my observa- 

 tion in the latter. Scarcely any remark is required to point out the distinction of this 

 species from its fossil congener, whose more robust and often compressed form, shortness 

 and venation of the arese, simple tooth at the ovarian pore, &c., allow of no hesitation on 

 the subject. 



