R. Etheridge, jun.—Carboniferous Tubicolar Annelida. 363 
Mr. Sowerby in 1814; but he delayed giving a figure in his 
‘“* Mineral Conchology ” in expectation of receiving more satisfactory 
examples.” 
There can be no doubt these remarks did not meet the eye of 
Mr. J. de Carle Sowerby, who continued the publication of the 
“Min. Con.” after the death of his father, for in 1829 we find him 
publishing the same fossil under the name of Serpula compressa, the 
description and figure being those of the identical specimen forwarded 
by Dr. Fleming to the elder Mr. Sowerby. This specimen, preserved 
in the Geological Collection of the British Museum, even now retains 
the original label, bearing on it this note—“Mr. Jno. Fleming, 
Mar. 22, 1814,” clearly proving it to be that spoken of by Dr. 
Fleming in his description before quoted. 
I have examined the type specimens of Serpula subcincta, Portl., 
from the white Armagh limestone, and I believe it to be identical 
with the present species. In some specimens the tapering curved 
form of the tube of the former is quite similar to that of the latter, 
the only points of difference being that the section appears to be 
more circular, although one specimen before me is decidedl1y elliptical ; 
and the surface is more strongly annulated, and has concentric 
thread-like striz. It should, however, be stated that both in the 
type specimen of S. compressa, and in another example from Scotland 
now before me, so many of the shelly layers have peeled-off that 
it is not altogether easy to assert what were the surface characters. 
They may have been, therefore, quite similar to those of Portlock’s 
species. I have refrained from placing the latter’s name in the list 
of synonyms on this account, although, if not identical, I feel con- 
vinced their relation is a very close and intimate one. 
By M‘Coy this species, although placed in Serpula with doubt, 
appeared to him to be “more allied to Serpulites than to Serpula.” 
Morris makes a direct reference to the former genus. The shelly and 
pearly nature of the tube would tend to bear out the views of these 
authors ; but if, as M‘Coy has stated, the forked, posterior termination 
of the tube is more a generic than a specific character in Serpulites, 
the species now under consideration must for the present remain in 
Serpula, because, so far as I know, this feature has not been observed 
in it. 
To whichever genus Serpula indistincta may prove to belong, it 
can be distinguished from our two Carboniferous species of Serpulites, 
S. carbonarius, and S. membranaceus, by the section, which is ellip- 
tical, by the absence of the bounding raised borders of those species, 
and by the much thicker and more shelly nature of the tube; lastly 
it is of very rare occurrence. 
According to Mr. Macleay,’ S. indistineta approaches nearest to 
the Silurian species Serpulites longissimus, Murch. 
Loc. and Horizon.—“ Limestone of the Coal formation of West 
Lothian” (Fleming and Sowerby); from the appearance of the 
matrix I should suppose this to be one of the Bathgate limestones. 
A small specimen came under my notice a few years since from the 
1 Annals Nat. Hist, 1840, iv. p. 388. 
