216 R. Etheridge, jun— Carboniferous Tubicolar Annelida. 
temporary paleontological literature, as to refer this very well- 
defined little fossil to the Fungi. This view has been so completely 
disposed of by Dr. Dawson, Mr. Lesquereux, Messrs. Van Beneden 
and Coemans, and Dr. Goldenberg, that it becomes quite unnecessary 
for me to offer any remarks upon it. Beyond this, however, I cannot 
agree with Van Beneden and Coemans, and Dr. Goldenberg; for had 
their knowledge of the English and American literature of Miero- 
conchus, or Spirorbis carbonarius, been in any way equal to their 
acquaintance with the opinions held on the Continent, with regard to 
Gyromices, it is probable their line of argument would have been 
different. Strange to say, the former authors do not in their historical 
notice give a single direct reference to any English or American 
paper on the subject, and the latter author only does so once. 
Microconchus, Murch., and Paleorbis, Van B. and C., are without 
doubt identical, and whatever view paleontologists may take of the 
affinities of these little bodies, the former name must, by the laws of 
priority, be retained for them. The resemblance borne. by their 
Paleorbis to the recent Spirorbis evidently struck Van Beneden and 
Coemans forcibly ; but they were unable to reconcile the occurrence 
of an animal of marine habit, like Spirorbis, associated with the 
remains of terrestrial or marshy plants. “But looking at the manner 
in which the whorls are formed and arranged, the regularity with 
which their volution is effected, and again the nature and aspect of 
the calcareous tube” (gaine, a sheath), ‘‘we are led to doubt their 
Annelide affinity, and, after mature reflection, we see in Gyromices 
pulmonate terrestrial molluscs.”! Furthermore they add, “ We are 
led to regard Gyromices as terrestrial Gasteropod molluscs, allied to 
the Helicidee, and living attached to the leaves and stems of ferns, or 
other Coal-plants, in a similar manner to the existing Spirorbis upon 
marine plants and animals.” ” 
Now, in the first place, as to the occurrence of Microconchus, or 
Paleorbis. We will take for example its presence in the Wardie Shales 
of the Lower Carboniferous Series of Scotland. There, as in other 
deposits, as has been described by various authors from W. Martin 
downwards, it is found infesting various plant-remains of terrestrial 
origin, in all stages of preservation, from a frond of Sphenopteris 
afinis sufficiently perfect to justify us in considering it as not long 
torn from the parent plant previous to entombment in its argillaceous 
matrix, to the well-macerated remains of Calamites and Coniferous 
leaves. Microconchus as readily attaches itself to the one, as to the 
other; to the frond showing traces of only recent immersion in the 
Wardie Shale waters, as to the frond with frayed edges to its pin- 
nules, the Calamite with decorticated and frayed stem, and the leaves 
of Cordaites bent and broken. Is it, therefore, likely that the re- 
mains of a pulmonate terrestrial mollusc, as their Paleorbis is sup- 
posed to be, by Messrs. Van Beneden and Coemans, would be found 
in an equal state of preservation on portions of plants which had 
undergone long maceration previous to fossilization, as on those 
which appear to be of a more recent date in the same bed? Is not 
* Bull. ? Acad. R. Bruxelles, 1867, xxiii. p. 389. 2 Ibid. p. 390. 
