4 Prof. W. King on Spirifer cuspidatus. 
the exceptional specimen from Millicent, on the contrary, ex- 
hibited “ not the smallest trace of perforations.’ Moreover, by 
“ slicing across’ the umbonal region of one of the specimens, 
it was found to contain the canaliferous septum already 
spoken of ; but on making a similar slice in the “ imperforate” 
or exceptional specimen, “no vestige whatever” of the septum 
was seen*. 
It cannot be too strongly impressed on the reader that, in 
his examinations in 1844 and 1852, Dr. Carpenter was unable 
to detect any perforations in Spirifer cuspidatus, that in 
January 1867, having gone over a number of “ chips of speci- 
mens from six different localities,” including his “ original 
Bristol sections,” which were submitted to a ‘“ careful exami- 
nation,” there was ‘‘ not one” showing the “ smallest trace of 
perforations ;”” whereas, in his late and fourth series of investi- 
gations, a// the new sections and chips from Irish specimens, 
with only one exception, were found “ unquestionably exhi- 
biting patchy perforations.”’ It must also be borne in mind 
that Dr. Carpenter, noticing other “‘ two Millicent specimens,” 
examined by him on the last occasion, admits that he ‘‘ might 
not have ascertained the existence of perforations in them, had 
not every lamella of the shell that could be scaled off been 
carefully scrutinized ” (loc. ctt. p. 71). 
Now, considering the different results obtained, the paucity 
of evidences of the kind really needed, and the difficulty in 
ascertaining the true histological characters of certain speci- 
mens, I feel convinced that few of such “ paleontologists as pay 
special attention to the Brachiopoda” would have so hastily 
adopted the conclusion with which Dr. Carpenter has identified 
himself. 
It is to be regretted that neither Mr. Meek nor Dr. Carpenter 
has published a representation of the perforationst. Mr. Meek 
describes them as being “ very small, scattering, and not ar- 
ranged with the regularity seen in most types of Terebratu- 
lide, or in Cyrtina, Spiriferine, &c.,”—also “so distant that 
fragments large enough to show clearly the punctures as seen 
in the various types of Terebratulide might be without a 
* ‘Annals,’ July 1867, pp. 69-72. 
T It appears, however, from a letter which I have received from Mr. 
Meek, that he had an intention of publishing a paper, with illustrations, 
on the subject; but after Dr. Carpenter had acknowledged the accuracy 
of his conclusions, he decided not to publish it. Mr, Meek has kindly 
favoured me with two of his drawings, which have been of much service 
to me in my present investigations. Considering the careful attention he 
has paid to the perforations of Spirifer cuspidatus, and the opportunity he 
appears to have of examining various allied species, I would strongly urge 
him not to relinquish entirely his intention. : 
