182 PROCEEDINGS OF SECTION C. 
transgression, namely, Holaster and Cardiaster. Gregory 
(Gregory, 90, p. 491) in speaking of the coliection examined 
by him says that Cassidulus, Cardiasier, Holaster, and 
Micraster ave characteristically Cretacecvs, while Coelop- 
leurus and Echinolampus are’ as strikingly Eocene, and 
further, the absence of typical Upper Eocene geneva is very 
noticeable. “‘ The real correlation of the beds will depend 
more on the Moliusca than on the Echinoidea; the latter 
are so ancmalousacollection that littie faith can be attached 
to their evidence on the subject . . . [The fauna] seems 
to be composed of two constituents; about a third are 
species of the ordinary Palaearctic Upper Cretaceous genera ; 
these seem to have migrated southwards, and become mingied 
on their journey with a fauna that agrees most closely with 
that of the Eocenes of India and Malaysia.” The conclu- 
sion is arrived at that the beds are Eocene, and, perhaps 
Oligecene. However, it may be remarked that the so- 
called Holaster is not a Holaster at all, as it has a very 
distinct subanal fasciole, and has, on other grounds, been 
made the type of a new genus (Duncaniaster) by Lambert 
(Lambert, 96, p. 317, footnote). Its evidence of Cretaceous 
affinities is then valueless. In other beds which the mollus- 
can evidence shows to differ but little in age from the those 
yielding the fauna examined by Gregory, we have Clype- 
aster and Menostychia, which are usually regarded as 
snowing Post-eocene affinities. 
Remains of Asteroidea, Ophiuroidea, Holothuroidea, and 
Crinoidea occur, but their fragmentary nature does not allow 
any conclusions of vaiue to be drawn. The same may be 
said of Crustacea, a few plates of Cirrepedia, and some 
Decapod chele are known. 
Polyzoa.—The polyzoa are an anomalcus collection, but 
though many have been described and recorded, the details 
of distribution are very incomplete.. There is a largo 
pumber of receut species, and at the same time survivals 
occur. The typically southern family, Catenicellide, is 
well. represented, perhaps as weli as in recent seas. With 
these we find the Cretaceous Tecticavea, apparently the 
European 7’. boletiformis, which is widely distributed in the 
limestones. Other genera not less Mesozoic in aspect are 
also found, but the difficult group to which they belong— 
the Cyclostomata—has not yet been satisfactorily dealt with. 
Brachivpoda.—Tate (Tate, 89, p. 143) says ~ the facies of 
our Tertiary Palliobranch fauna is, so far as regards genera, 
most decidedly modern, but the specific pomts of contact 
are few. . [Six species are quoted as near allies to 
