178 CALCAREOUS SPONGES. 



portion of the fibres much larger three- or four-rayed spicules are in places distinctly 

 visible. The fibres vary from -14 to -3 mm. in thickness. 



Distribution. Lower Neocomian : Censeau, Salins, Jura. Hils-Conglomerate : 

 Berklingen, Brunswick. 



CoxocffiLiA CENTROL^vis, Eoem. sp. 



1864. Limnorea centroltevis, F. A. Roem. Pal. Bd. 13, p. 37, t. 1. f. 18. 

 1878. Conocoelia centrolavis, Zitt. Studien, III Ab. p. 34. 



Distribution. Lower Neocomian. Hils-Conglomerate ; Berklingen, Brunswick. 

 Genus EUSIPHONELLA, Zittel, 1878. 



EUSIPHONELLA BrONNII, MUtlSt. Sp. 



182G-33. Scyphia Bronnii, Miinst. in Goldf. Petref. 1 Th. p. 91, t. 33. f. 9. 

 1854. Scyphia Bronnii, Morris, Cat. Brit. Foss. p. 29. 



1859. Siphonoccelia elegans, From. lutrod. a I'etude des Ep. foss. p. 31, t. 1. f. 7. 

 1859. Parendea gracilis, Etallon, Leth. Bruut. p. 421, t. 58. £. 30. 

 1878. Scyphia Bronnii, Quenst. Petref. Bd. 5, p. 183, t. 124. f. 1-15. 



1878. Eusiphonella Bronni, Zitt. Studien, III Ab. p. 35 ; id. Handbuch der PaL vol. i. 

 p. 191. f. 109. 

 On the summit of the wall of an example of this species from Nattheim there is a 

 dermal layer of three-rayed spicules ; possibly, however, the spicules may be furnished 

 with a fourth ray penetrating into the sponge-wall. 



Distribution. Upper Jura : Nattheim, Wiirtemberg. Great Oolite : Minchin- 

 hampton (Morris). 



Eusiphonella intermedia, Miinst. sp. 



1826-33. Scyphia intermedia, Miinst. in Goldf. Petref. 1 Th. p. 92, t. 34. f. 1. 

 1878. Scyphia intermedia, Quenst. Petref. Bd. 5, p. 229, t. 125. f. 55-58. 

 1878. Eusiphonella intermedia, Zitt. Studien, III Ab. p. 35. 



Distribution. Upper Jura : Eanden ; Nattheim. 



' Eusiphonella perplexa, Quenst. sp. 



1878. Scyphia perplexa, Quenst. Petref. Bd. 5, p. 230, t. 125. f. 59-63. 

 1878. Eusiphonella perplexa, Zitt. Studien, III Ab. p. 35. 



Distribution. Upper Jura : Eanden. 



Genus CORYNELLA, Zittel, 1878. 



The presence of a canal-system which, according to Prof. Zittel, constitutes the 

 main difference between this genus and Peronella, appears to me to be too inconstant 



