R. F. Tomes — Inferior Oolite Maclreporaria. 443 



cannot be said to apply to fig. 4. Tn fact the suture-line fig. 7 

 belongs to that group of shells of which the specimen of E. elegans 

 (figs. 1, 2, 3 on the same plate) is characteristic, and that by some 

 means or other an oversight has occurred and the suture-line of this 

 specimen (Harp, elegans) has been figured in mistake for the one of 

 E. ovatum. That it is no fault of delineation I feel positive, because 

 fig. 4 is characteristic of the group to which Earp. ovatum would 

 belong, while fig. 7 is characteristic of the group to which Earp. ' 

 elegans belongs. Compare for confirmation of this opinion the suture- 

 line, fig. 7, with the suture-line given by D'Orbigny (Pal. franc. Terr. 

 jurass. plate 62) to Am. primordialis— otherwise Am. opalinus 

 (Reinecke),— a very near ally of Am. elegans, or compare it with the 

 suture-line of a specimen of Am. concavu-s, Sow. These shells belong 

 to a group having a practically identical suture-line not at all like 

 that of Earp. radians. Now turn to plate 80, and at first sight the 

 evidence appears against me. Here we have in fig. 3 a suture-line 

 which I consider is of the opalinus type, called the suture-line of 

 Earp. aalense, and in fig. 5 the suture-line of apparently the radians 

 type called the suture-line of Earp. opalinum ; but let us now look 

 at his description of the suture-line of Earp. aalense, page 459, and 

 Earp. opalinum, p. 464, and we see that the descriptions do not in any 

 way agree with the figures. It is in figure 3, not 5, as stated, that we 

 find the siphonal saddle divided into two unequal portions, and the 

 auxiliary lobes large and two smaller auxiliaries, because there are 

 no auxiliary lobes in fig. 5. The fact is Wright has correctly described 

 the lobe-lines belonging to the two species, but has never noticed 

 that they were wrongly numbered, whilst on page 446 (plate 63) he 

 has described as the suture-line of Earp. ovatum a suture-line belong- 

 ing to a different group of species altogether. I have proceeded no 

 further at present, as I only happened to notice these suture-lines 

 because they were necessary to me in my own work. But having 

 noticed the errors mentioned, I have penned these remarks, not with 

 the intention of detracting in the least from the excellence of Wright's 

 monograph, but to call attention to the subject, so that it may not 

 mislead others or be the unsound basis of argument should any 

 discussion arise concerning the validity of suture-lines as a means of 

 identification. 



IV. — On Some New or Imperfectly Known Madreporaria prom 

 the Inferior Oolite of Oxfordshire, Gloucestershire and 

 Dorsetshire. 



By Eobert F. Tomes, Esq. 



(Continued from p. 398.) 



Adelastr^a consobrina, Edw. and Haime, sp. 



(not Synastrcea consobrina, d'Orb., Prodromus). 



WE are informed by M. Ferry that d'Orbigny was supplied with 

 the greater part of the Corals of his Bajocien by M. Eugene 

 Beabeau, of Langres, who has stated of the present species that it was 

 first named Calamojtiyllia glomerata by d'Orbigny, and afterwards by 

 an error Synastrcea consobrina, and further, that he at the same time 



