Prof. E. Forbes's Reply to Prof. A. Leymerie. ^^S 



be no doubt on the subject; they are certainly Panopeece. 

 This I know from the examinations of English specimens 

 showing the dentition, which is identical with that of the 

 French shells, as recently figured in the Paleontologie Fran- 

 caise, so that any argument from supposed difference of 

 genus must fall to the ground. 



2nd. "Astarte Beaumonfii, Leym." — This I identified with 

 the Astarte obovaia of the Mineral Conchology. That the En- 

 glish shell is identical with the French, I hardly think M. Ley- 

 merie himself would dispute. I identified it by comparison with 

 French specimens, as well as by its agreement with the figures 

 and descriptions given in M. Leymerie's paper, above referred 

 to. English specimens sent to France were recognised as 

 Astarte Beaumontii by M. d'Orbigny. The question is really, 

 then, not whether I am right in calling the English and 

 French species one, but whether I am correct in referring it 

 to Astarte obovata^ Sowerby. I did so with the concurrence 

 of my friend Mr. Morris, on whose judgement I place great 

 reliance. The figure in the Mineral Conchology is not very 

 good, but does not differ materially from the figure given by 

 M. Leymerie, nor does the description. Moreover, this 

 Astarte is the only one which occurs, so far as English collect- 

 ors know, at Sandown, where it is common, and whence the 

 specimen figured in the Mineral Conchology came. Had M. 

 Leymerie looked to the plate and text of the Mineral Con- 

 chology before he settled his species, he might, probably, have 

 abstained from creating a new and useless synonym. 



3rd. " Cardium subhillanum." — There can be no doubt that 

 this name should be retained for the Lower Greensand form, 

 which, as M. Leymerie says, is distinct from the true striatu- 

 lum. It is not the less, however, the Cardium striattdum of 

 the list of Lower Greensand fossils in the 4th vol. of the Geo- 

 logical Transactions, 2nd series, so that the argument of Dr. 

 Fitton is not affected. 



4th. " Cucidlcea Gabrielis.'* — This I identified with the 

 Area exaltata of Nilson. 



Nilson's figure (t. v. 1 A. 1 B) is very bad, and his ideas of 

 the restoration of the species, as indicated by dotted lines, in- 

 admissible. But the figure given by Goldfuss of the cast is 

 excellent. The longitudinal ribs indicated in Goldfuss's figure 

 are present in almost all British specimens, good examples of 

 which being sent to France, were identified by M. d'Orbigny 

 with Ciicidlcea Gabrielis, although the longitudinal ribs are 

 not represented in his otherwise excellent figure (pi. 308, 1-2) 

 in the Paleontologie Francaise. They are shown, however, 

 in his figure of the young shell (same plate, f. 4, 5). My own 



