1G4 CUETACEOUS PELECYPODA 



Ql.92.—dstar(e KonincUi and c?/pri)wides, d'Arcli., (Mom. Soc. Geol., France, 2nd ser., ii, 

 pi. xiv, figs. 4-5). The former is certainly an Eriphjla, and may be identical with the type Enph. 

 lenticularis, (Goldf.) ; the latter has also the hinge of the left valve similar to that of Eriphyla, but 

 it is not sufficiently distinct, and the shell has the lunula not excavated; it may, therefore, more 

 likely be a Cijprimer'ia. 



93. — Yenm mciformis, Miill, (Suppl. zur Monog. Petr. Aach. Kreidef., 1859, p. 13, pi. 7, 

 fie. 14) . This is a rounded, small, and rather globose, but apparently a typical species of Mercenaria. 

 Miiller's representation of the hinge-teeth of the right valve hardly gives a good idea of what they 

 really are. This valve has three teeth ; the posterior is thick, strongly elevated, provided with a shallow 

 wroove • of the two anterior the first is thin, and at the base attached to the lunular margin ; the 

 posterior or middle is thick, less oblique, and perfectly separated from the former. Were these two 

 anterior teeth uniformly built the species should be considered a Ci/primeria, but that is not the case. 

 The left valve has as usually three sub-equal diverging teeth, tlie anterior forming at its base 

 with the middle tooth an internal angle of about 75 degrees. The fulcra are in both valves strong 

 and distinctly separated from the teeth, which is also not usually the case in the left valves of 



Cijprimeria. 



94. — Venus? porreda, Miill., (ibid. p. 14, pi. 8, fig. 2,) a rather oblique, ovoid, sub-compressed 

 form ; may be a Cyprimeria, but nothing is as yet known of the hinge. 



2:^.— Venus Cleoplie, Coquand, (Monog. de I'etage Aptien, de I'Espagne, 1865, p. 103,) is 

 probably a Caryatls. 



96. — V. Rouv'dlei, Coq., (ibid. p. 104), most likely an oval Ci/primeria. 

 97._r. Cosiei, Coq., (ibid. p. 105) .^ a Caryatis. 



98, — V. si/lvatica, Coq., (ibid.) greatly resembles Uemiiapes, and also some Cytherece. 

 99. — Tapes parallela, Coq., (ibid. p. 100,) may be Tajies, but more likely a Baroila on account 

 of the smooth shell-surface. 



100. — Bosinia Argine, Coq., (ibid. p. 107,) may be -E'«j»//y^«, or a Z)o«/afa, if the lunulabe 

 excavated; it is merely said to be " coiirte, cordiform^' and with " lord palUal arrondi;" this seems 

 rather to indicate the former genus. 



] 01. — Bosinia Euterpe, Coq., (ibid.) ; tlie east gives no indication of what the shell may really be. 

 102-103. — Circe conspicua and Innata, Coq., (ibid. pp. 108-109). In external form these 

 two correspond most with Cyprimeria, 



Several of the other species described by Coquand under Cyprina and Asfarte may belong to the 

 present family, but the author does not in even a single instance indicate the form of the hinge 

 and its impression on the casts, &c. 



104. — Capsa Cenomaniensis, Gueranger, (Album Paleont. de la Sartlic, 1867, pi. xv, fig. 8,) 

 is an Icanolia, which is a sub-genus of Baroda f TAPESLW.Ej . Although there is already a species, 

 Baroda Cenomanensis, d'Orb., (vide No. 38), Guerangcr's n.ime may stand, because the sub-genus 

 is different, and if further good materials are collected, it may prove to be gcnerically distinct from 

 Baroda. 



105. — Capsa Colon/e, Guer., (ibid. fig. 10,) is slightly more elongated than the last, but 

 otherwise not very distinct. A strict comparison is difficult, because the former shell has evidently 

 suffered by pressure and is not quite perfect. I hardly think that both are specifically distinct. 



106. — Astarte circitlaris, Guer., (ibid. fig. 1 2,) could much more probably be a C^jurjweria or 

 one of the closely allied genera, than an Astarte. 



107. — Capsa concentrica, Guer., (ibid. fig. 14,) very much recalls Baroda \Icanotia\ discrepans, 

 Duj., (vide No. 79), and may not be specifically distinct from it. 



108. — Lucina Nereis, d'Orb., Guer., (ibid. fig. 15). The hinge of the right valve which 

 Gueranger figures indicates a (7y/)?7'/««7'a, for it does not show any lateral teeth; the bi-divisiou 

 of the posterior cardinal is also not distinct. 



