76 Transactions of the Society. 



common, and as allied to Frondicularia (which it does not in the 

 least resemble except slightly as to outline), and named it after 

 the somewhat rare alga Ulva (Fadina) j^avonia. Carpenter did 

 not toucli it, but Parker and Jones, going by the figures and 

 Model, suggested in 1863 that "possibly it is a symmetrical 

 Peneroplis ; more probably a semidiscoidal modification of Orbito- 

 lites/'^ and in 1865, as "perhaps an Orbiculina." '-^ Brady, how- 

 ever, found it again in sand from IMadagascar in 1877 (or from the 

 Seychelles ; perhaps from both), and we have given a full account 

 of its reappearance when we described and figured it as a fairly 

 common species from the Kerimba Archipelago.^ 



CoNULiNA appears first, as a Stichostegue, in the Cuba Memoir,* 

 as having been found there ; d'Orbigny promises a Model of it, 

 No. 101 in the mysterious "Fifth Instalment,"^ and gives a 

 figure (pi. i., figs. 15, 16) of the only species of the genus C. conica, 

 which is here reproduced in Plate X, fig. 1. In the Vienna 

 Memoir he repeats the diagnosis an^i the figure, adding nothing. 

 It is, as its name denotes, a perfectly regular, laterally compressed 

 €one, about twice as Ijroad as it is long, with a vast number of 

 closely set sutural lines apparently denoting flat, discoid chambers. 

 The aperture is cribrate, consisting of a quantity of coarse foramina 

 on the surface of the ultimate chamber. It was stated by lieuss 

 and Fritsch to be a '■ living " or recent form, when they attempted a 

 Model of it in 1861, which, however, carries us no farther, as they 

 constructed their Model presumably from d'()rbigny's description 

 and figures.*^ D'Orbigny in 1850 described another and gigantic 

 species, C. irregularis, 12 mm. in length, from the Chalk (Etage 21""^, 

 Turonien) of five districts in France, but this is a nomcn nudum? 

 And there d'Orbigny leaves it. The description of the genu 

 by d'Orbigny is unsatisfactory in so far that it gives no clue to 

 the texture of the shell, but he remarks that it approaches Ortho- 

 cerina in its general form, which would appear to be sufficient 

 to preclude an arenaceous test. Pieuss in his catalogue places 

 it among the Arenacea, but on what grounds there is no evidence. 

 Parker and Jones,'^ basing their surmise on the position assumed 



^^ XVIII., p. 440. 



- XIX., p. 27. They call it " Pavouia, possibly a misprint for Pavonina." 

 It was : the misprint was their own, however. 



^ See XXVII., p. GS3, and Proc. Zool. Soc., London (1915), p. 295, where the 

 previous references are given in full and discussed. They are somewhat confusing. 

 ■ * VII., p. 24. •■ See Appendix D. 



'■' The Reuss-Fritsch Models, intended to supplement and complete the Models 

 of d'Orbigny, were issued in 1S61 with a catalogue which is reproduced verbatim 

 by Parker and Jones (XIX., pp. :!7-41). There would appear to have been a 

 second issue of them in 1865, referred to by Sherboru as the originals "Issued 

 later." The numbering of these as given by Sherborn in his "Index of the 

 Foraminifera " (paasim) is entirely different to that in the 18G1 catalogue, and 

 appears to follow no order of classification at all akin to that of the principal 

 issue and catalogue. 



' XV., vol. ii., p. 210, No. 35G. « XIX., p. 38. 



