374 Mr. T. Davidson on some recent 



Plate XXL 



Fig. 1. Cf/there gihhosa (female ?), seen from tlie left side. 



Fig. 2. The same, seen from above. \ X 60. 



Fig. 3. The same, seen from the front. 



Fig. 4. Limnicythere Sancti-Patricii ; abdomen of female (?) : a, abdomen ; 



6, postabdominal ramus (P); c, copulative organs (?). x210. 

 Fig. 5. Poh/cope compres^a, seen from the left side. ") 



Fig. 6. The same, seen from above. 



Fig. 7. The same, seen from behind. y X 60. 



Fig. 8. The same, right valve, from inside, showing hinge-joint j 



and serrulated margin. J 



Fig. 0. The same, superior antenna. | 



Fig. 10. The same, inferior antenna. > X 210. 



Fig. 11. The same, postabdominal ramus. ] 



Fig. 12. Fucythere declivis, YHi'.j^ravn (female), seen from left side. | 

 Fig. 1 3. The same, seen from above. i x 40. 



Fig. 14. The same (male), seen from the left side. ) 



Plate XXII. 



Fig. 1. Ophianoplm awiulosus, fragment of ray, dredged in Birterbuy 



Bay ; natural size. 

 Fig. 2. The same, disk, seen from above, with one ray ; a little larger than 



natural size. 

 Fig. 3. The same, base of a ray, with portion of disk, seen from below : 



a, madrepore-plate ; b b, smaller, and c c, larger mouth-papillae. 

 Fig. 4. The same, portion of ray, seen from below, denuded of spines. 

 Fig. 5. The same, from above. 



Fig. 6. The same, transverse section of ray near the middle : a, outer, 



b, inner foot-papillte. (Figs. 2-6 after Sars.) 

 Fig. 7. Fxiingiiia stilipes, upper antenna, X 84. 



Fig. 8. The same, lower antenna, x 84. 

 Fig. 9. The same, maxilliped, x 210. 

 Fig. 10. The same, first gnathopod, x84. 

 Fig. 11. The same, second gnathopod, x84. 



Fig. 12. The same, last segments of body, showing telson and uropod, 

 X84. 



XLVI. — Notes on some recent Mediterranean Species of Bra- 

 cJdopocla. By Thomas Davidson, F.R.S., F.G.S.', &c. 



While I was recently at Nice, it was suggested by our dis- 

 tinguished naturalist Mr. J. G. Jeffreys that I should carefully 

 examine the original specimens of the Mediterranean species 

 of Brachiopoda described by Antonio Bisso*, in order to clear 

 away some uncertainty still prevailing with reference to the 

 correct identification and specific value of that author's s})ecies. 

 Bisso's knowledge of the Mollusca, both recent and fossil, Avas 

 considerably inferior to his amount of information regarding 



* Ilistoire Naturelle des principales Productions de I'Europe Meri- 

 dionale, et particulierement de celles des Thivirons de Nice et des Alpes 

 Mavitinics, vol. iv. 1S2(). 



