CARBONIFEROUS FOSSILS. 13 



GENUS SPIRIFER, Sowerby. 



SUBGENUS MARTINIA, McCoy. 

 SPIRIFER LLNEATUS, Martin? (sp.) 



PI. 2, Fig. 6, and 6 a, b, c, d. 



Conchilioiithus Anomites lineatus, Martin. Petrefact. Derb., tab. 36, fig. 3. 1809. 



Terebratula lineata, Sowerby. Min. Conch. 4, p. 39, tab. 343, figs. 1, 2 (not fig. 1). 



Terebratula imbricata, Sowerby. Ibid., 34, fig. 3. 



Spiri/era Martini, Fleming. Brit. An., p. 376. 1828. 



Spirifera lineata, Phillips. Geol. York, p. 219, pi. 10, fig. 17. 1836. 



Spirifera imbricata, Phillips. Ibid., fig. 20. 



Spirifera mesiloba, Phillips. Ibid., fig. 14. 



Reticularia reticulata, McCoy. Synop. Garb. Ireland, pi. 19, fig. 15. 1844 



Reticularia imbricata and lineata, McCoy. Ibid., p. 143. 



Martima stringocephaloides, McCoy? Ibid., p. 144, pi. 22, fig. 8. 



Spiri/era dliptica, McCoy. Brit. Pal. Foss., p. 427. 1855. 



Spirifera imbricata and lineaia, McCoy. Ibid., p. 429. 



Spiri/er setigerus, Hall. Kept. Geol. Iowa, vol. 1, pt. 2, p. 705, pi. 27, fig. 4, a, b. 



Spirifera perplexa, McChesney ? New Species Palaeozoic Fossils, p. 43. 



THE shell I have referred to the above widely distributed species may possibly 

 be found to present some internal or other specific difference from Spiri/era lineata, 

 when a series of good specimens, entirely detached from the matrix, can be ex 

 amined. So far, however, as I have been able to determine from those in the 

 collection before me, it seems to agree exactly with young examples of that species 

 figured by Mr. Davidson in his "Monograph of the Carboniferous Brachiopoda 

 of Great Britain." In size, and nearly all other respects, it likewise agrees well 

 with S. perplexa of McChesney, which Mr. Davidson pronounces identical with 

 S. lineata, after a careful comparison of authentic American specimens with 

 British examples of Martin's species. 



If our shell never attains a larger size than the specimens under examination, 

 I should strongly suspect it to be distinct from S. lineata; but in that case it would 

 be difficult to find characters to distinguish it from S. perplexa, McChesney, which 

 from its uniformly smaller size may be distinct from S. lineata. 



