ing the slight resemblance which it bears to the preceding fossil, 1 do 

 not know a single instance, in which I can trace any similarity be- 

 tween it and any other encrinital remains. 



I cannot, however, help concluding that these two specimens, 

 although both possessing digitated processes, are of two distinct spe- 

 cies. This seems probable from the much greater regularity in the 

 disposition of these processes, in the specimen Plate XVI. Fig. 9> 

 than in that of Fig. 16: besides that in the specimen, Fig. 9, the sur- 

 face of the trochitae is very closely punctuated, except immediately 

 where the processes are given off: a circumstance which does not ex- 

 ist in the specimen, Fig. 16. A similar but much handsomer speci- 

 men of this species, is figured and described in the tenth volume of 

 the Philosophical Transactions; the original specimen being now in 

 the British Museum. 



The curiously formed fossil body, represented Plate XVIII. Fig. 4, 

 must await the illustration of more perfect specimens to determine 

 whether it should be considered as the remains of an alcyonium or 

 of an encrinus : its form sufficiently characterises it as a zoophyte ; 

 and does, I believe, afford decided evidence of the justness of the 

 opinion which I entertain, of its owing its origin to some unknown 

 species of the encrinus. 



The whole specimen is formed of a feruginous, cherty substance, 

 which yields sparks but sparingly with the stroke of steel, and on 

 which the nitric acid manifests no action. I am unable to state where 

 this specimen was obtained from ; but from its bearing several impres- 

 sions of the alcyonite already mentioned, as observable on a specimen 

 supposed to have been obtained from America*, from other points of 

 resemblance between the two specimens, its being an American fos- 

 sil appears to be no ways improbable. The substance to which I 

 particularly call your attention is imbedded nearly in the centre of 



* Page 150. 



