The marine Carboniferous of North-east Greenl. and its Brachiopod Fauna 603 



Whitfield refers these two figures to Productus sulcatus Sow., 

 var. borealis Haughton (1857 p. 242, PI. 7, Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7), but 

 compares them only with Figs. 1 and 7, which picture full-grown 

 specimens, and prefers to call them Prod, borealis Haughton, as 

 Davidson gives Pr. sulcatus Sow., as synonymous with Prod, costa- 

 tus Sow. It is easy to agree with Withfield that these two figures 

 of Haughton's cannot rightly be referred to Prod, sulcatus Sow., 

 but, on the other hand, it would probably be difficult to identify 

 them with absolute certainty. Still one can venture to advance 

 the possibility that the original of the figures has been Pro- 

 ductus timanicus Stuck., especially since Whitfield identified his fossil 

 with Haughton's species. The characteristics which are specially 

 applicable to Pr. timanicus are the deep sinus, which begins at the 

 outermost point of the umbo, and the form of the dorsal valve. Of 

 the remainder of Haughton's figures, 2 and 3 may very well repres- 

 ent younger specimens of Pr. timanicus, while Figure 4 presents 

 certain differences, w^hich make its identity with this species less 

 probable. Haughton's diagnosis includes among other things the 

 striking characteristic: "sinu lato, alto, usque in umbonem producto", 

 but on the other hand, "margine cardinali non extenso", does not 

 accord with Fig. 7, which pictures the most full-grown specimen, 

 although, it is true, it is somewhat damaged along the cardinal margin, 

 but has large wings, which give the cardinal margin the greatest 

 breadth of the valve. Whitfield's figures do not indicate such 

 full-grown specimens as this figure of Haughton's, or as the figures 

 quoted from Wiman, PI. 17, Figs. 20, 21. 



Whitfield considers his Productus borealis Haughton to be 

 the same as that identified by Etheridge as Prod. Weyprechti Toula 

 and if a careful examination be made of what Etheridge (1. с p. 

 631) states about Productus Weyprechti Toula, especially his hesitation 

 whether he should refer the form in question to Pr. Weyprechti or 

 to Pr. horridus, we cannot avoid entertaining the thought that it was 

 just Pr. timanicus Stuck, that Etheridge had before him. 



The two younger specimens that I consider should probably be 

 referred to Pr. timanicus Stuck, are pictured by Whitfield on PI. 

 2, Fig. 6 and 7, and are given under the name Pr. Verneuilianus 

 De Koninck (Recherches sur les Animaux Foss., Productus and Cho- 

 netes p. 163, PI. 18, Fig. 6, teste Whitfield). I have not succeeded 

 in obtaining the work of De Koninck's quoted, but from what 

 Whitfield says in the text, "with the name appended as a suggest- 

 ion, and future collections may, or may not, confirm the reference', 

 his hesitation may be seen. Whitfield's figures I hardly hesitate to 

 identify with younger specimens of Pr. timanicus. They show spe- 



