550 Dr. F. A. Bather — Tube-building Fossil Annelides. 



upon the evidence of a third fragment from the same quarry, which has 

 precisely the same surface structure, but has also some scales attached 

 and fnint impressions of others." There are in the Capron Collection, 

 among the specimens from Cowslip Pit, three other tubes with the 

 same surface structure as A 1574 and A 1575, namely, A 1576, A. 1577, 

 and A 1582 ; but none of these three has any scales attached or any 

 markings that I can identify as impressions of scales. There is no 

 other specimen of the kind from Cowslip Pit, so that I am unable 

 to identify the "third fragment" of Davies. It is possible that 

 he had in mind another specimen, also from the Capron Collection, 

 but labelled " Glynde ", Sussex [58253] ; since, near one end of this, 

 there are in the chalk a few fish-scales. This specimen was, in fact, 

 labelled " Terebella lewesiensis" by Davies, but the evidence that the 

 fish-scales had anything to do with the tube is not convincing. 



A fourth specimen was called as witness by Davies because he 

 believed it to retain "deep imprints of the lost scales and bones". 

 This, if it came from Cowslip Pit as alleged, must have been one of the 

 three mentioned above ; but there seems no reason for distinguishing 

 any one of those as more deeply marked than the others, nor do the 

 markings on any resemble the imprints of scales. In ordinary 

 specimens of Terebella lewesiensis it is quite easy to see the places from 

 which scales or bones have been knocked off, and there is no difficulty 

 in discriminating between such imprints and the surface ornament of 

 the tubes here in question. Tubes like A 1574/5 are quite common 

 in the Cenomanian, and first aroused my curiosity in the Actinocamax 

 plenus zone of Chilcomb Pit, near Winchester, some thirty years ago ; 

 but I have never seen any in obvious connexion with fish-scales. 



The only specimen that seems to me to lend any support to the view 

 of Davies is one to which, oddly enough, he made no reference, 

 although it was before him in the Mantell Collection [B.M. 4129]. 

 This tube is sharply bent so as to form two limbs, one of which 

 seems to sink into the chalk. This limb, 7 cm. long, is flattened out 

 to a diameter of 24 mm., and is covered with scales and small bones. 

 The other limb, which lies on the surface of the block for a length of 

 10 cm., is rounded, with a diameter of 17 mm.; except for two or 

 three small scales this limb is bare, but its surface presents some 

 irregularly disposed impressions, which maybe those of scales or bones. 

 If this specimen be considered without reference to the others, two 

 explanations of its appearance are possible. First, the bare portion 

 may have been buried in the ooze during life, and the protective wall 

 of fish-debris may have been built up round that part alone which 

 projected above the sea-floor. Or secondly, the whole tube may have 

 been furnished with a protective wall, which has been rubbed or 

 washed away from the more exposed limb, but retained on that part 

 of the tube which was longer covered by the matrix. The first 

 explanation would be quite consistent with the habits and structure 

 of some living Tubicola, 1 but scarcely seenis to harmonize with what 

 we infer from the other undoubted specimens of Terebella lewesiensis. 

 Were this tube normally provided with a ' Vorderbau ' and an 



1 See E. Mac£, " De la structure du tube des Sabelles " : Arch. Zool. Exp£r., 

 vol. x, Notes, pp. ix-xiv, especially p. x, 1882. 



