F. R. Coicper Reed — On the Genus Conoeoryphe. 253 



noticed the resemblance of the British species to C. Dalmani 

 (Sjogren), which may be identical with G. emarginata (Linn.). 



C. coronata, Barrande (Syst. Sil. Boheme, vol. i, 1852, p. 424, 

 t. 13, f. 20-26). — This species was first described from Britain 

 by Hicks.^ The type-specimen is in a poor state of preservation, 

 and there may be some doubt if it really belongs to Barrande's 

 species ; but Salter's remark " that while Hicks' specimen possesses 

 genal spines Barrande's figure shows none, is of no importance, as 

 Barrande's figure was drawn from a specimen without the free-cheeks. 

 Genal spines are characteristic of the genus Ctenocephaliis (Corda), 

 to which C. coronatus belongs, as Matthew (op. cit., p. 103) has 

 pointed out. Ctenocephaliis is distinguished from Conoeoryphe (type 

 C. Sulzeri) by the possession of a marked protuberance — a frontal 

 lobe — in front of the glabella, and by a smaller pygidiura. The 

 number of thoracic segments is also not the same, and the course 

 of development is difi"erent. The distinction of these two genera 

 therefore appears to be well founded. 



C. {Solenopleura) depressa, Salter (Siluria, 2nd ed., 1859, p. 47, 

 Foss. 7, fig. 2 [EUipsocephalus]). — Brogger^ has expressed the 

 opinion that this species belongs to the subgenus Cijclognathus of the 

 genus Olenus. But the presence of genal spines, the more remote 

 and more backward position of the eyes, the glabellar furrows, the 

 relative shortness of the glabella itself, the possession of a rather 

 wide frontal limb separating it from the margin, and the different 

 shape of the head-shield, are opposed to this view. The form of the 

 pleurse is certainly somewhat similar, and the number of body-segments 

 is the same, while the pygidium bears a very close resemblance. 

 But a comparison with specimens of the type form Cyclognathus costatus 

 from Vestfossen presented by Professor Brogger himself to the 

 Woodwardian Museum confirms my opinion that C. depressa cannot 

 be referred to Cyclognathus. With Solenopleura its affinities are rather 

 closer. The number of body-segments is the same and the pygidium 

 and pleurae are fairly similar, but the fixed cheeks show no sign of 

 having been swollen, the genal angles are pointed and have no sub- 

 marginal spine, the eyes are rather forward, and there is no neck 

 tubercle nor granulation of the surface. Matthew, in a manuscript 

 note on the specimens of this species in the Woodwardian Museum, 

 considers it to be allied to Solenopleura. Its precise generic position 

 must for the present remain uncertain, though it must be removed 

 from Conoeoryphe. With the exception of the shape of the pleurse 

 it has many points of similarity to Olenus, sens, str., and it 

 undoubtedly belongs to the family Olenidse. 



C. ? ecorne, Ang. ? (Salter, Cat. Camb. Sil. Foss. Woodw. Mus., 

 1872, p. 12), is a species of Peltura, and shows all the characteristic 

 features of that genus. 



C. Homfrayi, Hicks (Q.J.G.S., vol. xxviii, 1872, p. 178, pi. vi, 

 fig. 12). — The type-specimen is much compressed and distorted, and 



• Q.J.G.S., vol. xxviii (1872), p. 178, pi. vi, % 11. 

 2 Mem. Geol. Surv., 2nd ed. (1881), vol. iii, p. -;99. 

 ^ Die Silur., Etag. 2 aud 3 (1882), p. 111. 



