Palceosoic Fossi/s. 383 



reproduces one of them, then the form, differing from the figures 

 of H. herschrli, must be a new species, but I have not named it as 

 I believe that a reexamination of Salter's specimens will show 

 that there has been a mistake in di-awing. 



The following are the Rhine species (C. Koch, ed. E. Kayser): 

 *Hoinalonotusannatus, Buim.; '^H. suh-arinatus, Koch; H. aculea- 

 tus, Koch ; H. ornatus, Koch ; H. roineri, de Koninck ; H. rJwna- 

 niis, Koch ; ^'H. cra>i>iicauda, Sandberger ; H. scahrosus, Koch ; 

 H. obtusus, Sandberger ; H. itrulficosfafufi, Koch ; H. Iwvi- 

 cauda, Quenst. ; H. jjlamis, Sandberger. ^ Our Cape Devonian 

 fossils, both in the general distribution of genei-a and mode of 

 preservation, are extraordinarily similar to the Rhenish ones, but 

 a critical examination of the species of Homalonutu^ demonstrates 

 that none of them are identical. Those marked with an asterisk 

 have been compared with the South African foi-ms. 



The following ai-e the South Afi-ican species : — 



H. JwrscheU, Mui-chison ; H. colossus, Lake ; H. quernus,hdke; 

 H. sp., Lake ; "^H. knigJiti, de Koninck'*, *H. crassicauda, Sand- 

 berger^; H. jjejUi'tnatiis^Fvech* ; H.horridtis, n.sp. ; H. ay rest is, 

 n.sp, ; H. lex, n.sp. ; H. hippoccunptis, n.sp. ; H. Jierscheli, variety ? 



* signifies mistaken identity. 



Hoinalonotus herscJteli, Murchison. 



PI. VIIL, Fig. S : PI. IX., Fig. 3. 



Homalonotus Hersclictii, Murchison; Sil. Syst., p. (j;52, pi. VIL, 

 bis., fig. 2. 



This species is difficult to recognise. Specimens apparently 

 of this species differ from those figured and' described by Salter* 



'Abh. z. geol. Specialkarte v. Preussen, Bd. IV., Heft. 2, Mit Atlas, 

 Berlin 1883. 



^Bull. Acad. Roy. Belg., Vol. XIII., pt. 2. p. ^19. 



'Rhein. Schichten Syst. Nassau, p. 477. 



^Lethaja geognostica, Th. 1, Bd. II., Lief. L p. 218. 



'Trans. Geol. Soc,, Vol. VII., 2nd Ser., p. 215, PI. XXIV 



