Mr. T. Davidson on the Brachiopoda, 433 



P. Woodward, — the name Spiri^era, D'Orbigny, will therefore 

 require to be considered a synonym of Athyris ; but I must also 

 mention that continental palaeontologists seem more disposed to 

 prefer D^Orbigny's denomination, on account of the zoological 

 contradiction attached to that published by Prof. M'Coy in 

 1844. It has also been found desirable to reduce the value of 

 Defrance's genus Uncites by placing it among the subgenera 

 depending upon Athyris. 



The family and place of the genus Koninckina (Suess) is to 

 my mind still uncertain ; some would place it among the Spiri- 

 feridae, others among the Strophomenidse ; but I prefer to leave 

 the question open for the present ; and may say the same relative 

 to Dr. Sandberger's newly proposed genus Anoplotheca, which 

 has been considered both by the author and by M. Suess to be 

 nearly related to Koninckina. 



3. Among the Rhynchonellidse I can propose no changes. 



4. Strophomenidse. To this family I have added Pander's 

 genus PoRAMBONiTES, and placed Orthisina as a subgenus of 

 Orthis; but it may also perhaps be advisable to retain as a 

 subgenus of Orthis Prof. King^s section Streptorhynchus for such 

 shells as S. pelargonatus, Schloth. ; — Leptcena filling a similar 

 position relative to Strophomena. The genus Davidsonia is 

 also admitted into this group ; and I must here express my re- 

 gret at not being able to coincide with my friend M. de Koninck, 

 who has in his last paper (1855) on the subject considered it as 

 a genus of the family Productidae : it does not possess the reni- 

 form impressions (supposed to be vascular) of the last-named 

 family, but agrees in this particular and in several others with 

 the Strophomenidae, among which it had been already located 

 both by Professor King and Mr. Woodward. 



5. Productidae. Here I have effected no further change than 

 that of placing Strophalosia as a subgenus of Productus ; but 

 I must add, that I consider Prof. M^Coy greatly mistaken in 

 removing Strophalosia, Aulosteges and Chonetes from the Pro- 

 ductidae, and placing them among the Strophomenidae ; nor can 

 I agree for the same reasons with M. Semenow, who has also 

 lately proposed to remove Fischer's genus Chonetes, as had been 

 done by Prof. M^Coy before him. By following such a system 

 the clearly defined characters appertaining to the present family 

 are destroyed, and the great similarity of the interior, and parti- 

 cularly that of the reniform impressions, common to Productus, 

 Aulosteges, Strophalosia and Chonetes, completely lost sight of, 

 as this last character has not hitherto been observed in any of 

 the shells which belong to the Strophomenidae. If those genera 

 or subgenera require to be removed, Productus will require to 



Ann. ^ Mag. N. Hist. Ser. 2. Vol. xvi. 39 



