from Sinai and Egypt. 217 



Scbweinfurtli, Blanckenliorn/ and Beadnell,^ on the other hand, place 

 these beds in the Cenomanian ; so also does Dacque.^ But the 

 Echinoids from these beds appear to ine to be Turoiiian rather than 

 Cenomanian. The Echinoids from this massif are few in number, 

 and they are mostly species new to the locality, so that their 

 evidence is by no means decisive. But the affinities of the Abu 

 Eoash Echinoids known to me are Turonian. The collections give 

 no evidence of the occurrence of a Cenomanian Echinoid fauna at 

 Abu Eoash. Of course, Cenomanian beds may occur, from which 

 Echinoids were not collected. 



In Sinai, on the other hand, the bulk of Echinoids are of 

 Cenomanian affinities, as shown in the table of species {infra). 

 The Sinai Echinoids include two Turonian species and a new species, 

 of which the nearest ally known to me is Turonian. This fact may 

 represent either that the species lived in both epochs or that the 

 beds of the two series occur at the same localities in Sinai. 



The Cainozoic fauna in this collection, excluding the Pleistocene, 

 is very small, and the specimens are not well preserved. The 

 most puzzling form is an Echinolampas allied to E. crameri, Lor., 

 which is reported as having been found in the raised beaches of 

 Wadi Feiran ; it is quite unlike any living Echinolampas. Professor ' 

 Jeffery Bell, the best British authority on recent Echinoids, kindly 

 examined the specimens, and tells me that they are unlike any 

 living species. The affinities of these species are Miocene or 

 earlier; possibly they were derived from blocks of limestone that 

 may have fallen from an old cliff into a recent beach. 



The Pleistocene fauna from both shores of the Gulf of Suez has 

 purely Erythrean characters. Most of the specimens are identical 

 with living species. A few specimens, however, which are badly 

 preserved, may be of an earlier age, as they may be either recent or 

 extinct species. All the well-preserved material is identical with 

 the existing Bed Sea species. There is nothing to suggest any 

 ■considerable antiquity for these raised beaches. Seven specimens 

 are somewhat doubtful, and two of them may be Pliocene or Miocene. 

 Nos. K 1660 and J 1624 are both imperfect specimens, and cannot 

 be identified, and K 1660 from the level of 380 feet in the Wadi 

 Abu Shigeli is perhaps Brissns egijptiacus, Gauthier, which is 

 assigned by its author ^ to the Miocene. 



The three specimens referred doubtfully to Schizaster gibherulus 

 are so imperfect that the determination is of no value. They may 

 be crushed casts of that species, but their generic characters are not 

 known. 



The Ecldnodiscus is quite unlike any Pleistocene species, and the 

 fragment of the Clypeaster (L 4204) described as coming from the 



1 Max Blanckenhom, Neues zur Geol. & Pal. Aegyptens : Zeit. deut. Geol. Ges., 

 1900, p. 33. 



2 BeadneU, Cret. Keg. Abu Eoash: Rep. Geol. Surv. Eg%-pt, 1900, pt. u (1902), 

 pp. 18, 19, 20, etc. 



^ Dacque, Mitth. Kreidecomplex Abu Roash : Palasontogi-., vol. xxx (1903), p. 354. 

 * Fourtau, Eevision E'ch. foss. E'gypte : Mem. Inst. E'gypt., vol. iii, fasc. 8 

 (1899), p. 718, pi. iii, figs. 11, 12. 



