68 



Canadian Record of Science. 



surface and intermingled with detached cruciform spicules. 

 These various forms may well have been the anchoring 

 and body-spicules of examples of the same species, now 

 disintegrated and compressed together. 



Hyalostelia Metissica, Dawson. (No. 2 of previous paper.) 



This species is based on detached cruciform and anchor- 

 ing spicules, the latter somewhat more robust than those 

 placed as C. Quebecensis. In the present fragmentary con- 

 dition of these forms it is impossible to give a satisfactory 

 description, and the species must be regarded as provisional 

 until better specimens are discoTcred. 



Sponges of uncertain character. (Nos. 4 and 5 of pre- 

 vious paper. 



On some of the slabs from Mdtis are small oval com- 

 pressed patches, apparently consisting of small fusiform 

 acerate spicules, sometimes parallel, at other times cross- 

 ing each other irregularly. They do not stand out definite- 

 ly as in the case of the hexactinellid sponge spicules, but 

 appear to be embedded in some raembi-ane. In two in- 

 stances, anchoring spicules, like those of Protospongia, pro- 

 ject from the base of the mass. I do not know of any mon- 

 actinellid sponge furnished, as these appear to have been, 

 with long anchoring spicules. Sir J. W. Dawson has 

 suggested a resemblance to Las>ocladia, but they do not 

 belong to this genus. 



In another specimen an elongated space about 50 mm. in 

 length by 16 in width, with well-defined margins, is covered 

 with a thin film of pyrites, which may have I'esulted from 

 the replacement of a mass of minute spicules, of which 

 traces remain in some places, but no structure whatever 

 can be recognized in it now. Sir J. W. Dawson :ms pro- 

 viwionally named the fossil Ualichondrites. 



Science, Aug., 1881, and Bulletin Am. Num. Nat- Hist, Dec, 1881), 

 tile spicules are apparently tiliform and arranged in broad longi- 

 tudinal and tranveree bundles crossing each other, and with small, 

 loose flesh-spicules in the meshes. They are therefore diflferent 

 from those of Cyathophycns, or, as it should now be called, Cyatho- 

 spongia. Hydnoceras is liable to the objection that it was intended 

 to indicate affinity to cepbalopod shells. J. W. D.] 



tiv.' •■ 



