464 Mr. H. J. Carter on the Fossil Foraminlfcra of Scinde, 



this conclusion, which has been done above, and next my infer- 

 ences, which were based on the assumption that this Orhitolites 

 was identical with D'Orbigny's Cijclolina. 



My inference (Geol. Papers, &c., p. G.27) that the white lime- 

 stone forming the summit of the great cliff-scarps on the south- 

 east coast of Arabia was of Cretacean age, because it contained 

 a discoid fossil identical in appearance with Cyclolina cretacea, 

 D'Orb. (this fossil, according to D'Orbigny, being confined to 

 the Cretacean period), is perceived to be wrong, since it is now 

 proved to be Orhitolites, which brings back the summit-portion 

 of these scarps to Eocene age, as assumed in the first edition of 

 my Memoir on the Geology of this coast (Journ. Bombay Asiatic 

 Soc. vol. iv. p. 95), wherein the fossil itself was also first called 

 '' Orhitolites." 



Again, at p, 701, foot-note, the mistaking of this Orhitolites 

 for Cyclolina has led to a similar error ; for, finding the Scinde 

 Orbitolite associated with fossils of the Eocene period in that 

 country, and considering it also a Cyclolina, I inferred that 

 D^Orbigny himself was wrong in restricting the existence of this 

 fossil to the Cretacean period ; whereas, now that it is known to 

 be an Orbitolite, the inference is in the opposite direction, and 

 in support of D'Orbigny's assertion. 



What, then, is D'Orbigny's Cyclolina? — a question which 

 may be first met by stating that "had D'Orbigny made plain 

 what Cyclolina is, there would have been no occasion for such a 

 question." 



From what Dr. Carpenter has stated, it is evident that he was 

 inclined to view Cyclolina as a species of Orhitolites (first Mem. 

 p. 23G, pi. 7. fig. 14), while Messrs. Parker and Jones (Ann. 

 Nat. Hist. 1860, vol. vi. p. 36) consider it an "excessively out- 

 spread" form of Orhitolina, "judging from D'Orbigny's descrip- 

 tion and figures" in his ^Foram. Foss. de Vien.' p. 139, pi. 21. 

 figs. 22-25. 



In the latter view I acquiesce now, and even applied the name 

 of " Cyclolina " to one of those outspread forms of Oi'hitolina 

 (var. c. PI. XVII. fig. 6) which I found in the great deposit of 

 Orhitolina on the south-east coast of Arabia (Geol. Papers, &c. 

 p. 549), from its resemblance to D'Orbigny's figures, but wrongly 

 identified it with the " discoid fossil " of the scarp 2000 feet 

 above, now seen to be Orhitolites, — the former in company with 

 Cretacean, and the latter among a type of Eocene fossils. 



All this confusion has arisen from the imperfect way in which 

 D'Orbigny has described and figured his Cyclolina cretacea. It 

 would have been better if he had never written anything about 

 it, than just enough to mislead. 



He states that it is " equilateral ;" this is a character of Or- 



