150 QUARTERLY CHRONICLE, 
Further, at the suggestion of Mr. Davidson, I have examined 
chips from the shells of the following Carboniferous species, 
all of them more or less nearly allied to Sp. cuspidata ; viz., 
Sp. laminosa and Sp. distans, prepared for me by Mr. Etheridge 
from the Museum of the School of Mines ; and Sp. subconica, 
kindly transmitted by Mr. Carrington from Derbyshire. 
These, like Sp. cuspidata, show no trace whatever of perfora- 
tions. 
I cannot but believe, therefore, that my original determi- 
nation of the imperfect character of the shell of Spirifera 
cuspidata remains unshaken by Mr. Meek’s contradiction ; 
and I can only suppose either that Mr. Meek (like Professor 
King) has mistaken the accidental black points which often 
present themselves on the surface of these shells for the 
punctations indicative of true perforations, or that (as he 
himself suggests) his punctated shell, though resembling Sp. 
cuspidata in external appearance, really belongs to a different 
genus. I trust that I shall be able, ere long; to clear up this 
part of the question, Mr. Davidson having written to request 
that Mr. Meek will send me chips of a shell belonging to his 
punctated Syirifer, and that Professor Winchell will send me 
chips of a shell belonging to his genus Syringothyris. When 
I shall have examined these, I shall report to you the results 
without delay.—I remain, gentlemen, your obedient servant, 
Wiriiam B. Carpenter. 
P.S.—Mr. Davidson permits me to add the following ex 
tract from a note which he has written to me after perusing 
the above :—“ I have always placed the most implicit reliance 
on your admirable observations on the shell-structure of the 
Brachiopoda, and therefore, as I am personally concerned, 
would not have required the additional confirmation given by 
your recent researches ; but I am not sorry that you shouid 
have again investigated the matter, as it can but strengthen 
the value of your discoveries,—and the more so, as I have 
always found this shell-structure to be combined with internal 
modifications, so that a perforated species could not be gene- 
rically the same as an imperforate one. This has now been 
observed in so many instances, that the supposed exceptions 
brought forward by Messrs. Meek and King are, no doubt, 
the result of incorrect observation. To make this clear to the 
public was therefore a matter of some importance, and I am 
very glad you have done so.” 
March.—* On Hyalonema,” by Professor Max Schultze.— 
The beautiful ‘‘Glass Rope,” specimens of which are brought 
to this country from Japan, has been the subject of some con- 
troversy lately in England; and the microscope has rendered 
