210 Mr. J. W. Kirkby on the Recurrency 



Martin's figures of his Anomites crumena in c Petrif. Derbiensia.' 

 Mr. Davidson appears, in my opinion, to be right in the identi- 

 fication and, hence, in proposing that the name Sch/otheimi 

 should be abandoned for the older one crumena ; for there is no 

 character of importance in Martin's figures to distinguish them 

 from the shell compared, nor is there, moreover, any other Car- 

 boniferous shell which can be considered to represent Martin's 

 species. 



Camarophoria globulina and C. rhomboidea. — Prof. King agrees, 

 " with some reservation," in considering these shells to belong 

 to one species. And the existence of Lingula Credneri* in the 

 Coal-measures of Durham is also allowed, with "some slight 

 reservation." As to Spiriferina cristata being the same as Sp. 

 octiplicata, no definite opinion is expressed by the Professor. 

 The tendency of his remarks seems to indicate a belief in their 

 identity. 



Terebratula elongata, var. sufflata, and T. sacculus. — After a 

 careful study of Prof. King's remarks on the first of these shells 

 in regard to its existence during the Carboniferous epoch, I 

 must confess myself still in some doubt as to what opinion he 

 actually holds on the question. For instance, in the commence- 

 ment of his remarks, he restates an opinion, expressed in the 

 Monograph of Permian Fossils (Palaeont. Soc.), to the following 

 effect, that "sufflata appears to be identical with a shell found 

 in the Mountain Limestone of Bolland." A little further on, it 

 is said, quoting from the same work, that T. sufflata " undoubt- 

 edly lived in the Carboniferous epoch ;" but towards the conclu- 

 sion of the paper it is stated, in a foot-note, that " I am more 

 inclined to regard the ' Bolland shell ' noticed in a previous page 



* The supposed occurrence of this shell in the Lower Red Sandstone at 

 Ferry Hill has led Prof. King to name that deposit " Lingula Sandstone " 

 (Synoptical Table of British Rock Groups, 2nd edit.). Without inquiring 

 whether there is the least occasion to alter a well-established subdivisional 

 name, I would object to the adoption of the term "Lingula Sandstone" 

 for a deposit in which the occurrence of Lingula is extremely doubtful. 

 The only ground that exists for proposing this name at all is the fact of 

 Prof. Johnson of Durham having told Prof. King that he had met with a 

 Lingula in the above-named locality. But neither Prof. King nor any 

 other palaeontologist has ever seen a single example of this shell from the 

 Lower Red Sandstone. And, with all deference to Prof. Johnson's scien- 

 tific reputation, I see no improbability of his observation being at fault on 

 a subject he had not investigated, when it is entirely opposed to the expe- 

 rience of all palaeontologists who have pursued researches in the same dis- 

 trict. But, granting that in one isolated instance this shell has occurred 

 at Ferry Hill, is the sandstone to be specialized b}' the name of " Lingula " 

 in consequence? A Lingula-Sandstone with no Lingula in it, nor even 

 with a specimen to show that can be said to have been found in it ! Such 

 a misnomer should never be adopted. Nor is it any credit to geological 

 nomenclature that it should ever have been proposed. 



