174 BR. Etheridge, jun.—Carboniferous Tubicolar Annelida. 
which, he says, “is identical with that of the modern Spirorbis, and 
shows that it is a true worm shell.” Dr. Dawson describes it as 
dextral, attached throughout its whole length, and with a deep 
umbilicus. ‘These little shells,” he adds, “no doubt took immediate 
possession of submerged vegetation, just as their modern allies cover 
fronds of Laminaria and Fucus.” } 
As a sign of the abandonment of the fungoid nature of this much 
disputed little animal, we may take the opinion of Prof. Schimper in 
his “ Traité de Paléontologie Vegetal,” published in 1869. In the 
first volume Gyromices is placed amongst the doubtful Cryptogams,? 
and in the third volume the definite opinion is given, “I should see 
in it a shell rather than a fungus.” In quoting Lesquereux’s view, 
Prof. Schimper quite destroys the value of his opinion, for he causes 
the former to say he “cannot consider them as the small thick shells 
of an Annelid,” the omission of the small word «“ but” before “as” 
making all possible difference in the sense and meaning of the 
quotation.® 
My friend and fellow-labourer in the Edinburgh Paleontological 
field, Mr. C. W. Peach, gave, in 1871, an interesting account of the 
occurrence of Sp. carbonarius in the Burdiehouse limestone.! 
In 1871 Dr. J. W. Dawson® again refers to and combats the 
notion of Spirorbis or Gyromices being a fungus. He describes a 
Spirorbis infesting the leaves of a Devonian plant, Cordaites Robbit, 
which is separated from the Carboniferous form on account of the 
more rapidly enlarging tube, under the name of Sp. Erianus. Dr. 
Dawson also states that the dextral or sinistral form of the tube 
often depends on whichever side of the leaf or plant is held up. 
Messrs. Van Beneden and Coemans are supported in their views 
of the affinity of Spirordis or Gyromices, whichever the reader 
chooses to regard it, by Dr. Goldenberg, who has recently written a 
lengthy essay on this form. He compares it to Planorbis, asserts its 
molluscan affinity, and confutes the hitherto-accepted fungoid nature, 
On the whole his paper bears a very strong resemblance to that of 
the above authors; he, however, states that, from a comparison of 
specimens, he is satisfied Dawson’s Species found in America is 
identical with that occurring in the German Coal-fields. 
The. last reference to be made in the history of this much be- 
written, but little understood fossil is by myself.” In a paper pub- 
lished in 1878, on the Invertebrate Fauna of the Wardie shales, I 
briefly described S. carbonarius, and a variety to which I gave the 
name Hibberti, corresponding with the “ Nautilus” of Dr. Hibbert. 
Its occurrence throughout the Wardie shales was traced and its 
relation to the other fossils pointed out. 
(Lo be continued.) 
* Acadian Geology, 2nd ed. 1868, p- 205. 
2 VOl ate ade 3 vol. iii. p. 562. 
* Trans. Geol. Soe. Edinb. 1871, ii. pt. 1, p. 82. 
° Foss. Plants Dev. and Sil. Formations of Canada, 1871, pp. 43, 44. 
6 Fauna Sareepontana Foss. 1877, heft 2, p- 4. 
7 Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. 1878, xxxiv. p. 9. 
