58 Prof. H. L. Hawkins—Hchinoids from Shenley Hill. 
present time, while delay in publication of the report would in some 
measure defeat the object in view. 
3. “ Pyrina”’ sp. nov. This is a remarkable and fairly well- 
preserved specimen, which I am unable to refer to any form hitherto 
described ; it is improbable that it can belong to Pyrina, however 
that genus be interpreted. At first sight it gave the impression 
that another specimen of the rare Holectypus bistriatus Wright had 
turned up ; even now it is impossible to examine it without recalling 
H. hemisphericus from the Inferior Oolite. However, the characters 
of the apical system, tuberculation and adoral surface show 
clearly that it possesses more attributes of the ill-defined series 
usually called Pyrina than of the Holectypide. The inflation of 
area 5 between the periproct and peristome is the only superficial 
feature distinguishing the form from an Holectypus with marginal 
periproct, for the peristome is not displayed. While convinced that 
the species is undescribed, I prefer to await opportunity for figuring 
and fully analysing it before giving it a name. This I hope to do 
in the course of a few months. 
4. Pyrina sp. This ill-preserved specimen agrees in proportions 
with the Senonian species P. atacica Cotteau, but shape 1s an almost 
valueless feature in specific determination of the Hchinonéide. 
No. 5 is probably the same form. 
6. Pyrina cf. inflata d@Orbigny. A thick, subglobular Pyrina 
that may be a truncated variety of this Cenomanian species. 
T7and 8. These are both rather broader than typical specimens of 
P. desmoulinsi, but otherwise seem to agree with that species. 
9. Pyrina aff. levis Agassiz. Undoubtedly the form so named by 
Wright. Both specimens under No. 11 are similar in proportions, 
while No. 12 (the best-preserved specimen in the collection) is again 
Wright’s P. levis. 
4-12. It may be remarked that all the specimens of Pyrina are 
probably shape-variants of a single species; the forms attributed 
to P. levis being immature. Their range of variation is not so great 
as that shown in the modern analogue, Echinonéus cyclostomus Leske 
(see Westergren, 1911). 
13. Catopygus columbarius Agassiz. There can be no doubt that 
the larger of the two specimens is a short form of this common 
species. The smaller one might be ascribed to Caratomus, but its 
bad preservation mades definite determination impossible. In either 
case no stratigraphical difference would be involved. 
14. Nucleolites lacunosus Goldfuss. This is one of the few confident 
identifications in the series. 
15. “‘ Echinospataqus”’ murchisonianus (Mantell). A small, 
quite uncrushed specimen in which all surface ornament has been 
destroyed in extracting the test. The species to which it is referred 
is the only one to which it bears any resemblance, and the similarity 
is very close. I do not know the correct generic name for the form, 
so use that employed by Wright; there is no doubt as to the affinity 
