204 = Prof. W. King on the Histology of Rhynchonella. 
3535) ; v. s. in herb. Mus. Brit., mont. Organens. ad Imbuhy 
(Gardn. 546). 
A very distinct species, having straight elongated branches, 
with axils 14 inch apart; leaves 14-32 inches long, #—2 inches 
broad, on a rather stout petiole 2-3 lines long; the terminal 
panicle is 6 inches long in flower, 8 inches long in fruit, with 
twenty to twenty-four alternate patent branches 4—6 lines 
apart, 1-2 inches long, diminishing upwards, bare at base, the 
lower ones again branched, the upper ones simply spicate ; 
flowers 1 line apart; sepals rather fleshy, very pilose on both 
sides, 14 line long; tube of corolla fleshy, contracted in the 
middle, 14 line long, its segments ?-1 line long; anthers 
cohering in the mouth by their scabrid summits; ovary and 
style equal, glabrous; stigma short, conical, pilose, sub- 
2-lobed. 
XX.—On a point relating to the Histology of Rhynchonella. 
By Professor W. KING. 
To the Editors of the Annals and Magazine of Natural History. 
Glenoir, near Galway, 
GENTLEMEN, August 10, 1868. 
Dr. Carpenter, according to his letter inserted in the 
‘Annals’ of this month, has taken it upon himself to “ think 
that the scientific world has a right to know” my “ present 
opinions’ on a number of points, which he has written out, 
pertaining to the genus Rhynchonella and some other shells. 
As regards most of these points, it strikes me that I am not 
by any means required to notice them: there is one, however, 
on which, considering the way in which it is represented by 
Dr. Carpenter, I feel myself called upon to say a few words. 
It is quite correct that ‘some twenty years ago”’ I was led 
‘to believe that certain very minute dark points, which I ob- 
served here and there dispersed over the surface of the valves 
of various fossil species, were the remains of orifices belonging 
to extremely minute perforations,” and consequently to “ doubt 
the absence” of a perforated structure in any palliobranchiate 
shell. Now it so happens that ample evidence has long been 
published by which the “ scientific world” is enabled to judge 
of my ‘‘ present opinion” on the subject to which my “ doubt” 
applies. In a paper of mine, entitled ‘ Notes on Permian 
Fossils,” which appeared in the ‘Annals’ of April 1856, I 
inserted a footnote, containing some remarks on the histology 
