Mr. 11. J. Carter on the Fossil Foraminifei'a of Scinde. 465 



hitolites, and not of Orhitolina : that the chanibers are concen- 

 tric, "making each a complete circle round the others of the 

 same form ;" by which I understand him to mean an annular 

 chamber without septa, — in fact, a hollow ring. But, so far as 

 my observation goes, the concentric ring-spaces of Orbitolina, if 

 not divided into chambers like those of 0. lenticularis, should 

 interdigitate with each other as in Patellina cojTugaia (Ray Soc. 

 Pub., Monograph by Prof. Williamson, p. 46, pi. 3. figs. 86-89). 

 This annular form, however, according to D'Orbigny, is the 

 peculiar characteristic of his Ci/clolina, viz. " circular chambers." 

 Again, as regards D'Orbigny's figures [loc. cit.), nothiug can 

 be more like the expanded flattened disk of Orbitolina lenticu- 

 laris than his horizontal view of Cyclolina (fig. 22). It has also, 

 according to the shading, an elevated centre, which, however, does 

 not appear in the lateral view (fig. 23). Again, if it were like 

 Orbitolina lenticularis, the margin should be rounded and thin, for 

 that of the latter fossil is thin and everted ; instead of which it 

 is flat and, if anything, thickened, for it obscures the rest of the 

 fossil when viewed edgewise — if D'Orbigny 's figure 23 be cor- 

 rect. If equilateral, it should have the same annular markings 

 on each side (see my figures, var. 6, &c. /. c). How, then, can it 

 be an " excessively outspread " form of Orbitolina annularis, as 

 assumed by Messrs. Parker and Jones ? It is needless to con- 

 jecture further ; for until the fossil is better illustrated and more 

 satisfactorily described, we shall never know what it is. The 

 peculiarity of "annular chambers,'' and the discrepancy in 

 D'Orbigny's figs. 22 & 23, where the former represents an ele- 

 vated centre, and the latter does not show it edgewise, while 

 there is nothing in the short meagi-e description accompanying 

 it to show that the disk was excavated, render the record almost 

 worse than useless, and show that when anything is to be de- 

 scribed it should be done satisfactorily, or a statement made to 

 the effect that the data were not sufficient for the purpose. 



EXPLANATION OF THE PLATES. 

 Plate XV. 



Fig. 1. Assillna erponens, D'Orb. {XumjnuUtes exponens. Sow.), variety b : 



a, vertical section ; b, central portion of spire, nat. size ; c, speci- 

 men of the largest chambers, magnified four times. 



Tig. 2. A. obesa, n. sp., marginal view : a, view of flat surface; b, spire; 



c, vertical section, nat. size ; d, specimen of the lai^st chamlxirs, 



magnified. 

 Fig. 3. Nummulites broachensis, Carter : a, marginal view, nat. size ; 



b, spire and chambers ; d, flat surface ; e, specimen of the largest 

 chambers : all magnified. 



Fig. 4. N. makullaensis, n. sp. : a, margtoal view, nat. size ; b, spire and 



Ann. ^' Mag, N. Hist. Ser.3. Fo/.viii. 30 



