148 A. H. Foord — Western Australian Fossils. 



(pi. v. fig. 4) under the name of Sp. fasciger, Keyserling ? ; but I 

 partake of that author's doubts while referring the shell in question 

 to de Keyserling's Russian species. It approaches also by its shape 

 to certain examples of d'Orbigny's Sp. Condor, Sp. cameratus, Hall, 

 as well as to some exceptional British specimens of Spirifera striata ; 

 but in none of these do we perceive, nor does any author describe the 

 peculiar and beautifully regular, closely disposed, sharp, projecting, 

 concentric, undulating laminse, which resemble so closely those of 

 Sp. laminosa, and which give to the shell its beautiful sculptured 

 appearance. Sp. Moosakhailensis is common in the Punjab, at 

 Moosakhail, Chederoo, Kafir Kote, etc." 



The close resemblance of the Australian fossil to Sp. Musaklieylensis, 

 Dav. (the types of which are now before me), is at once apparent, 

 and the only difference between them is that the ornaments of the 

 Australian species are perhaps a little coarser than those of the Indian 

 one, i.e. the former has slightly larger and consequently fewer small 

 ribs (comparing together individuals of the same size) than the 

 latter, and the imbricating lamellae exhibit the same divergence of 

 character. It seems, however, scarcely necessary to regard these 

 slight differences as of more than varietal importance, especially 

 when one takes into account the variations in any large assemblage 

 of Brachiopods, as Davidson himself has so often demonstrated in 

 his plates. 



The synonymy of the present species is somewhat involved. 

 Taking first Spir if er fasciger, Keyserl., we find that it is regarded by 

 Th. Tschernyschew, 1 who had access to the type-specimen (or 

 specimens), as identical with Spirifera Musaklieylensis, Dav., and with 

 another form which he describes and figures from the Southern 

 Urals. The following is the passage in which he gives his views 

 concerning these forms: — "I find," he says, "no sufficient ground 

 for separating Spirifer tegulatus, Trautsch., from the Indian species 

 [Musaklieylensis^, and from Sp. fasciger, Keyserl." The figures of 

 the latter in Tschernyschew's plate are certainly in no way dis- 

 tinguishable from those of Waagen 2 in the "Palasont. Indica." 

 Waagen, while admitting the very close relationship between 

 Spirifer fasciger and Sp. Musaklieylensis, finds that the ornaments 

 in the former are coarser than those of the latter. In this respect, 

 therefore, Sp. tegulata approaches the present variety. Waagen also 

 obseiwes that " if we set aside the lamellose character of the striaa 

 of growth, then there is quite a number of species to which the 

 present one might be compared," and that probably Sp. fasciger is 

 the ancestral type of them all. 3 



It has been seen that Davidson failed to recognize the identity of 

 his species with Sp. fasciger, because von Keyserling's specimens 

 being only casts, one at least of the most important of the specific 

 characters was wanting in them ; but he seems to have overlooked 

 Trautschold's species, in which the lamellose, imbricated stria? are 



1 See table of synonymy. 



2 Pal. Ind.— Salt-Range Fossils, 1887, vol. i. p. 512, pi. xlv. 



3 Loc. cit. p. 515. 



