JURASSIC. 65 



Eophyton moriekei Saporta and Marion. 



Eophyton morierei Saporta and Marion, 1881. L'Evolution du regne vegetal; Cryp- 

 toganies, Paris, rig. 21B. 



The figure given of the species shows it to be much like Eophyton 

 bleicheri Saporta. It does not appear to be a true Eophyton. 



Eophyton bleicheri Saporta. 



Eophyton bleicheri Saporta, 1882. A propos des algues fossiles, Paris, p. 66, PL 

 VI 11, rig. 6. 



This form may be Eophyton, but the illustration does not convey the 

 same impression as the true Eophyton of the Lower Cambrian. It is from 

 the Silurian sandstone of Herault, in the suburbs of Vailhan. 



Eophyton dispar James. 

 Eophyton dispar James (J. F.), 1891. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am., Vol. Ill, p. 40, tig. 14. 

 This is an Eophyton-like trail from the Cincinnati formation of Ohio. 



Eophyton saportanitm Crie. 



Eophyton saportanum Crie, 1881, in Saporta and Marion, l'Evolution du regne vegetal; 

 Oryptogames, Paris, p. 83, note. 



This species is mentioned in the above reference, but it is neither 

 described nor figured. I have been unable to find other mention of it. 



FOSSIL MEDUSA FROM THE JURASSIC AND THE PERMIAN. 



THE JURASSIC. 



The fossil medusse of the Jurassic are preserved as impressions, with 

 the corresponding casts, on the surface of the fine lithographic slates of 

 Bavaria. Their appearance and mode of occurrence suggest that the 

 medusae were left by the retreating tide on a soft, clayey bottom, the 

 weight of the medusa forcing it slightly down into the mud or ooze. With 

 the evaporation of the watery content of the tissues the part of the animal 

 substance that was preserved formed a thin film in the impression, which 

 served as the plane of division between the impression and the material that 

 filled it on the return of the tide. The conditions for the preservation of 

 mon xxx 5 



