JURASSIC. 65 
EOPHYTON MORIEREI Saporta and Marion. 
Eophyton morierei Saporta and Marion, 1881. L’Evolution du régne végétal; Cryp- 
togames, Paris, fig. 21B. 
The figure given of the species shows it to be much like Hophyton 
bleicheri Saporta. It does not appear to be a true Kophyton. 
EOPHYTON BLEICHERI Saporta. 
Eophyton bleicheri Saporta, 1882. A propos des algues fossiles, Paris, p. 66, Pl. 
VIL, fig. 6. 
This form may be Eophyton, but the illustration does not convey the 
same impression as the true Kophyton of the Lower Cambrian. It is from 
the Silurian sandstone of Hérault, in the suburbs of Vailhan. 
EOPHYTON DISPAR James. 
Eophyton dispar James (J. F.), 1891. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am., Vol. ITI, p. 40, fig. 14. 
This is an Eophyton-like trail from the Cincinnati formation of Ohio. 
EOPHYTON SAPORTANUM Crié. 
Eophyton saportanum Crié, 1881, in Saporta and Marion, ’Evolution du regne végétal; 
Cryptogames, Paris, p. 83, note. 
This species is mentioned in the above reference, but it is neither 
described nor figured. I have been unable to find other mention of it. 
FOSSIL MEDUS FROM THE JURASSIC AND THE PERMIAN. 
THE JURASSIC. 
The fossil medusze of the Jurassic are preserved as impressions, with 
the corresponding casts, on the surface of the fine lithographic slates of 
Bavaria. Their appearance and mode of occurrence suggest that the 
medusz were left by the retreating tide on a soft, clayey bottom, the 
weight of the medusa forcing it slightly down into the mud or ooze. With 
the evaporation of the watery content of the tissues the part of the animal 
substance that was preserved formed a thin film in the impression, which 
served as the plane of division between the impression and the material that 
filled it on the return of the tide. The conditions for the preservation of 
MON XXx——5 
