532 Miscellaneous. 



from other species by the shortness of its snout. He raontions 

 one other mutilated skull found near Poitiers, and there is a third 

 in the Museum de la Faculte des Sciences at Caen, Two skulls 

 have recently been obtained by Mr. A. N. Leeds, F.G.S., from the 

 Saurian zone of the Lower Oxford Clay, in the neighbourhood of 

 Dogsthorpe, Peterborough. No other parts of the skeleton were 

 found with them, even the mandibles being missing. The two 

 specimens belong to the same species, and after comparison with 

 descriptions, figures, and photographs of the specimens above men- 

 tioned, they have been referred to Metnorhynclms hrachyrhynclius. 

 This is believed to be the first recorded occurrence of the species 

 in England ; and the specimens help to throw additional light on 

 the cranial osteology of the species, especially in the parts which 

 are wanting in the type-specimen. They are, therefore, described 

 in order to amplify Deslongchamps's description. The skulls are 

 neither of them perfect, but one fortunately supplements the other, 

 and both are perfect in one of the most interesting parts — the 

 frontal region and the part from the nasals to the premaxilla-. 

 The specimens are compared and contrasted throughout with 

 M. siiperciliosus. It is found that these specimens possess the main 

 characteristics determining Deslongchamps's species, although the 

 prefrontals, which are in keeping with the general massive develop- 

 ment of the skull, are wider than he sujjposed ; and it is possible 

 to reconstruct with almost absolute certainty the region of the 

 posterior nares, showing the bifurcated opening with the vomerine 

 element running back almost to the sphenoid, a feature which the 

 Author thinks will prove to bo common to all species of Metrio- 

 rliynchus. 



MISCELLANEOUS. 



The Type of Cidaris. 



To the Editors of the ' Annals and Magazine of Natural History.' 



Gentlemen, — May I have space for a word in reply to Dr. Bather's 

 article in the March ' Annals ' concerning the type of Cidaris ? 

 He maintains that the type can and should be selected by the rule 

 of " type by tautonomy " ; but this seems to me simply impossible. 

 Linne's species cidaris is a composite, equivalent undoubtedly to 

 Leske's composite, papillata, but not by any means equivalent to 

 papilJata s. str. Indeed, there is no evidence that Linne ever saw 

 papillata s. str., for there is no specimen of that cidaroid among the 

 Linnean Echini, and Loven simply assumed that Linne had seen it. 

 I do not object to accepting E. cidaris, L., or C. papillata, Leske, as 

 the type of Cidaris, simply because it will upset Dorocidaris (the 

 motive Dr. Bather attributes to me), but because neither of those 

 species is identifiable. 



