116 Dr. F. A. Bather—fossil Annelid Burrovws. 
loose sedimentary rock of various ages. He also referred to Zaonurus 
some traces previously placed under TZaonichnites (DMedusichnites) 
Matthew and Zoophycos Massalongo. And with all these forms he 
compared Dietyodora lebeana Weiss, Arenicolites duplex Williams, 
and Rhizocorallium Zenker (= Glossifungites Lomnicki). As regards 
the last-mentioned genus, to which he referred forms included under 
Taonurus by Saporta and others, Mr. Sarle wrote that they ‘‘ were 
produced by the packing of sediment along the radial side of 
a reclining U-shaped burrow of two openings, as it was repeatedly 
shifted and lengthened’’. The forms discussed by Professor Douvillé 
are Zaonurus ultimus Saporta & Marion, Miocene, 7. Panescorser 
Saporta and Marion, Trias, Z. Saportai Dewalque, Senonian. The 
last-mentioned, at all events, occurs on the worn surface of the 
Chalk,-and the burrows are filled with silica and glauconite from 
the overlying Landenian. Professor Douvillé regards the burrows 
as hollowed by a Spionid of large size living in the Lower Eocene 
sea. On account of their form he separates them from Zaonurus, 
and adopts the name Glossifungites Lomnicki (1886, Sprawozd.Kom. 
fizyjog. Akad.Umief.Krakowie, xx, p. (99), pl. iu, f. 64) of which 
the genotype is G. saxicava of Miocene age. If, however, this 
last is really the same as Rhizocorallium Zenker (1836, ‘‘ Historisch— 
topogr. Taschenb. v. Jena”, pp. 202-19), then that name must be 
preferred. The genetype is 2. jyenense Zenker (loce. citt.) occurring 
at the base of a thin bed of dolomite in the Bunter Marls near Jena. 
A good account of the older literature bearing on these curious 
forms will be found in the well-known memoir by S. Squinabol, 
‘‘Alghe e Pseudoalghe fossili italiene”’ (1890, Atti Soc. Ligustica, 1, 
pp. 29-49, 166-99). Most of them have generally been referred 
to a supposed Family of Algs, the Alectoruride. These have 
previously been discussed by Professor Th. Fuchs, who has recently 
accepted the views of Sarle and Douvillé (December, 1909, Mitt. 
Geol. Ges. Wien, li, pp. 335-50) and has extended a similar 
explanation to such forms as Vexillum Morrert Sap., V. Rouviller 
Sap. (= Phycodes cireinnatus Richter), V. Desglandi Rouault, 
Chondrites flabellaris Sap., and C. affinis Sternb. In short, it 
seems probable that a large number of forms previously placed by 
geologists in a convenient receptacle labelled ‘Fucoids’ may now 
be safely regarded as due to burrowing annelids. I am not, however, 
prepared as yet to agree with Professor Douvillé that those annelids 
belonged to the family Spionide. 
Mr. Linsdall Richardson, who discovered in the Rheetic conglomerate 
the bored pebble described in my previous note, seems subsequently to 
have found further examples, for he says in a report of an ‘‘ Excursion 
to the Frome District, Somerset”? (October, 1909, Proc. Geol. Assoc., 
XXi, on p. 223), that the conglomerate contains ‘ pebbles of chert and 
Carboniferous Limestone that were well bored by the Lithodomous 
Polydora ciliata (Johnston)”’. I must repeat my opinion that, " uhe 
worm .. . may well have been a Polydora, but it was not P. ciliata” 
