Revieivs — Cretaceous Pelecypoda of Egypt. 37 



XII. — Ckexaceoxjs Pelecxpoda. of Egypt. 

 Catalogue des Invrktebees de l'Kgypte eepresentes dans les 



COLLECTIONS DU MuSEE DE GeOLOGIE ATJ CaIKE. Par 11. POUIITATJ. 



Terrains Cketaces. 2™« Partie : Mollusques Lamellibranches. 

 4to ; pp. viii4-109, pis. 7. Cairo: Geological Survey of Egypt, 

 Palgeontological Series, ~^o. 3. 



rnHE rich collections of Egyptian invertebrate fossils contained in 

 _|_ the Museum of the Geological Survey of Egypt, at Cairo, have 

 for some time past been submitted to Monsieur 11. Fourtau for 

 determination and description, with the result that three important 

 monographs have now been published, elaborately illustrated by 

 lithographic drawings designed by F. Gauthier, the preparation of 

 which reflects the greatest credit on the author, and also on Dr. W. F. 

 Hume, the Director of the Survey, under whom the work has been 

 accomplished. 



No. 1 of this series, issued in 1913, describing the Eocene 

 Echinoidea, was reviewed in the Geological Magazine for that year, 

 and No. 2, pt. i, devoted to the Cretaceous Echinoderms, was noticed 

 in this journal for 1914. The present memoir, No. 3, forms the 

 second part of the Cretaceous group of fossils. 



The memoir figures and describes 170 different forms of 

 Pelecypoda, Neumayr's classification being adopted with modifica- 

 tions from the works of Munier-Chahnas, Bernard, H. Douville, 

 and Pervinquiere, and the genera and families are arranged under 

 the groups Taxodonta, Anisomyaria, Schizodonta, Heterodonta, 

 Desmodonta, and Pachyodonta. Among the species referred to the 

 following' are regarded as new: Leda perdita, Conrad, var. sincea, 

 Area cegijptiaca, A. coquandi, Ostrea isidis, 0. roachensis, Cardita 

 roachensis, Lucina doivsoni, Siliqua humei, and Corhula peroni. 



Following the various descriptions, the author gives a good 

 analysis of the studies of previous observers, and freely criticizes, 

 when necessary, their determinations and nomenclature. He is of 

 opinion that the name best known for a fossil should be preferred 

 even if it be a nomen nttdtwi, in illustration of which Zittel's Pecten 

 farafrensis of 1883 may be noted. This fossil, except as a list-name, 

 was without history so far as literature was concerned until 1898, 

 when Mr. 11. Bullen Newton described and figured Pecten mayer- 

 eymari, from the Esna Beds of Egypt, which afterwards was 

 acknowledged to be the equivalent of P. farafrensis ; therefore the 

 name of P. mayer-eymari must be adopted for the Zittelian shell, 

 although German palfeontologists have thought differently, Wanner 

 having introduced the old nomen nudum in his memoir of 1902, which 

 is now adopted by M. Fourtau. 



In the introduction to his work the author presents us with his 

 views on zoological nomenclature, from which the following may be 

 quoted: "En ce qui concerne la nomenclature, j'ai estime qu'en 

 depit de la loi de priorite, on ne saurait s'en prevaloir contre des 

 denominations peut-etre moins anciennes, mais connues de tons et 

 constituant pour le fossile nne sortede possession d'etat-civil, que tons 

 les codes civilises reconnaissent aux personnes. Ces exhumations 



