Recoil and Fossil Foraminifera. '■'<'■''■> 



the coarse vertical tubuli at an angle. Nothing of the kind is 

 visible in our sections, and it is possible that Schlumberger was 

 confused by the pillar-like appearance of the shell-substance of 

 the boss caused by the coarse perforations of the tubuli. The cen- 

 tral boss appears to be a simple deposit of shell-substance, such as 

 occurs in Cycloloculina, and is in no way connected with "the pro- 

 longation towards the centre of the walls of the chambers." 



Schlumberger gives no clue to the position to which he intended 

 to relegate his genus Linderina, beyond pointing out certain points 

 of external resemblance to Orbitoides and Cycloclypeus. In the 

 doubling of the shell wall of the later chambers it certainly shows 

 a tendency towards the Cycloclypeime, but on the whole we are dis- 

 posed to regard it of much simpler type, closely allied to Cyclolocu- 

 lina and Planorbidina, and perhaps as a transition type between 

 these and the more highly developed (Jycloclypeinse. 



The specimens are of very frecpuent occurrence in the elutriated 

 material from the shore-sands all round the Selse}^ peninsula, and 

 vary from young specimens in which only the central boss is 

 apparent, surrounded by a ring of deeply sutured and bead-like 

 chamberlets (which led Mr. Millett, to whom we submitted some 

 of the earliest found tests, to suggest that they were Planorlulina 

 larvata), to large specimens in which many rings of chamberlets 

 surround the central boss, thus producing a shell suggestive of 

 Cycloclypeus, as noted by Schlumberger. This was before we had 

 made the sections, which we found to conform to the descriptions 

 given by Schlumberger, as set forth above. 



From the external appearance of the shells and the micro-struc- 

 ture of their material, there seems every reason to suppose that 

 they reach the Selsey shore-sands from the same geological deposit 

 as Cycloloculina. M. Schlumberger, as is seen above, gives no very 

 definite clue to the precise formation from which his specimens 

 were derived, and in the absence of further and better evidence we 

 are constrained to suppose that our specimens are, like Cyclolocu- 

 lina, derived from an exposure of Eocene clay, which, so far, we 

 have failed to discover between or above tide-marks at Selsey Bill. 



It would be interesting if more definite information as to the 

 locality of the original specimens could be obtained, and if it could 

 be ascertained whether any deposit of similar age is known among 

 the Tertiary deposits of Great Britain. 



376. Truncatulina refulgent Montfort sp. 



Cibicides refuhjevs Montfort, 1808, Conchyl. System, vol. i. p. 122, 31e Genre. 

 Truncatulina refuJgens (Montfort) d'Orbigny, 1826, Ann. Sci. Nat., vol. vii. 



p. 279, pi. xiii. figs. 8-11 ; Module, No. 77. 

 Ditto. (Montfort) Parker and Jones, 1865, Phil. Trans., vol. civ. p. 382, 



pi. xvi. fig. 19. 

 Ditto. (Montfort) Brady, 1865, Nat. Hist. Trans. Northd. and Durham 



vol. i. p. 105, pi. xii. fig. 9. 



z 2 



