Prof. W. King on Spiriter cuspidatus. 3 
Histology. 
In his Report “On the Microscopic Structure of Shells,” 
published in the Brit. Assoc. Report, 1844 (p. 18), Dr. Car- 
penter states that perforations “are absent in Spir “fer cuspi- 
datus.” Some years afterwards, previously to 1850, my at- 
tention was directed to this point; but, from the appearances 
which I observed on a specimen, by means of a Coddington 
lens, I was led, with respect to the above statement, to ‘ sus- 
pect” that it had been made through “an oversight” *. Sub- 
sequently, apparently in 1852, Dr. Carpenter, again referring 
to this and another species, stated he was “ fully satisfied that 
in neither do any perforations exist’ T. 
Two or three years ago, Mr. Meek, while examining a col- 
lection of American specimens related to or identical with 
Spirifer cuspidatus, also a specimen of this species from Mil- 
licent, in Iveland, detected, ‘‘ with a good pocket lens, some 
evidence” of the former having “a punctate 
point which he afterwards put a beyond doubt” by ‘ Pete 
fragments of the shell under a high magnifier, where they 
could be examined by transmitted light.” “The Millicent spe- 
cimen ‘also was quite unexpectedly, found to be clearly punc- 
tate, like the American forms”’f. 
The announcement of Mr. Meek’s discovery brought out a 
letter from Dr. Carpenter, who expressed himself as having 
“yead”’ it with “‘much surprise.” The letter mentions that 
Dr. Carpenter had examined his “ original Bristol sections,’ 
also ‘chips of specimens from six different localities,” ‘1 in 
not one ‘of which”’ is there the smallest trace of perforations, 
though the structure of the shell is well preserved in every 
instance’’S. 
[I have now arrived at an important stage in the history of 
the discovery of the true histological characters of the species 
under consideration. 
The reasons for my suspicion were stated in the ‘Geological 
Magazine,’ published in June last. In the succeeding month, 
Dr. Carpenter, after having “ confidently affirmed” the results 
of his second investigation, as above stated, publishes a paper 
in which the following points are made known :— Out ot four 
Irish specimens examined, three were found to be “ indubitably 
perforated,” and the perforations had a “ patchy distribution ;” 
6c 
* Monograph of Permian Fossils of England, p. 126. 
+ “On the Intimate Structure of the ‘Shells of the Brachiopoda,” in 
Davidson’s Monograph of British Fossil Brachiopoda, Introduction, p. 34. 
{ Proc. Acad. Nat. Se. Philadelphia, Dec. 1865, pp. 275, 276. 
§ Annals & Mag. Nat. Hist. January 1867, p. 30, 
1% 
