254 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society. 



(20-24) in the Falkland Island S. antarcticus, there is very 

 little difference between this species and S. Orhignii. But 

 seeing (as I have stated above) that the type specimen of 

 S. antarcticus has only eighteen ribs, or at most twenty 

 ribs, the chief if not the only grounds for retaining the two 

 names fails. Under these circumstances it is the name 

 S. antarctica which must be used, as was pointed out by 

 Mr Eeed, who also called attention to Professor Kayser's^ 

 opinion, that >S'. antarctica and aS'. Orhignii are one and the 

 same species. Mr Ivor Thomas ^ has likewise united these 

 two forms under the one name. 



2. Leptoco&lia flahellites (Conrad), (PL X. Figs. 11-14). 



The Brachiopod shell figured and described by Morris and 

 Sharpe from the Falkland Islands as a new species under 

 the name of Atrypa palmata, is represented in Mr Bruce's 

 collection by several examples similar to those figured by 

 Morris and Sharpe (loc. cit., pi. x. fig. 3), as well as the 

 broader forms from South Africa figured by the last-named 

 author (loc. cit., pi. xxvi. figs. 8, 9). Besides these, there are 

 a few examples of a smaller shell resembling the broad form 

 in shape, but with only three or four ribs on each side of the 

 median fold, which, I think, must be referred to the same 

 species. 



The Atrypa ijalmata, M. and S., is now regarded as 

 specifically identical with that called Atrypa flabellites 

 by Conrad,^ and is referred to the genus Leptocoelia. 



L. fiabellites was abundantly represented in the " Chal- 

 lenger " collection, and has been recognised in South Africa. 

 Mr F. R C. Eeed has given a full description and synonymy 

 of this species in his account of the Brachiopoda from the 

 Bokkeveld beds, and has alluded to the occurrence of the 

 same species on the continent of South America, in Devonian 

 rocks in Bolivia, Argentina, and Brazil. Mr Ivor Thomas 

 includes this among his Argentina forms. 



1 Zeitsch. Deutsch. Geol. Gesclls., vol. xlix., 1897, p. 297, t. ix, figs. 1-4. 



2 Loc. cit., 1905, p. 261. 



3 Fifth Ann. Rep. N.Y. Geol. Surv., p. 55, 1841. 



