King — On Perforated SpiriferidcB, 253 



same thickness and relationsliip to the adjoining beds. "We thus 

 infer that it was deposited in a somewhat shallow sea, not much 

 varying in depth, or subjected to disturbing influences. The strata 

 in which it occurs are rightly marked uj)on the government maps as 

 " reversed," dipping, as they do, away from instead of towards the 

 adjacent Llandovery and Wenlock beds. A level which has been 

 recently driven through the beds near the base of the hill clears up 

 this seeming anomaly, for at this depth the beds are seen to bend 

 towards their true position (as seen in Figs. 1 and 2), thus showing 

 the upheaving force to have operated from the north or Llangynnog 

 side, turning up the edges of the strata, as we sometimes, with thumb 

 and finger, deflect the edges of the leaves of a book. I enumerate the 

 principal fossils found here, in my explanation^of the sections. I may 

 however note, that Phragmoceras arcuatum is here found at a point 

 much lower than its usually assigned limit, it having, I think, been 

 tabled as an Upper Silurian form only. The number of Cystideans, 

 too, which are found in the schists above the limestone, is deserving 

 of notice. There are some very nice specimens of EcMnosphcerites 

 and Caryocystites, and also a Cystidean, which to me seems identical 

 with that figured by Prof. M'Coy (Pal. Eocks and Fossils, plate 1 d, 

 fig. 6), as an undetermined Cystidean from Coniston. The country 

 around possesses many attractions for the geological rambler. 



m. — ^NoTEs ON SOME Perfobated Pal^ozoio Spiriferid^. 

 By Professor W. King. 



5PIRIFER cusPTDATUs. — As I am somcwhat committed to the 

 opinion lately enunciated by Mr. Meek,^ that this species is 

 characterized with a canal-system, I may be permitted to make a few 

 observations on the subject. 



In a foot-note appended to page 126 of my " Monograph of the 

 Permian Fossils of England," published in 1850, there occurs the 

 following passage : — " Dr. Carpenter states that Sjpirifer cuspidatus is 

 a non-perforated shell, which I suspect is an oversight." As his 

 " original determination " is still maintaiued by Dr. Carpenter,'* it 

 behoves me to adduce what I consider to be in favor of my suspicion. 



An imperfectly testiferous specimen, unmistakably belonging to 

 the species under consideration, and now in the Geological Museum 

 of Queen's College, Galway,^ displays under a hand-magnifier, here 

 and there, particularly on the protected parts — as the medial 

 furrow — patches of faint slightly -raised oval impressions : they are 

 delineated as faithfully as I could in the accompanying figure (See 

 Woodcut, Fig. 1). I do not mean to maintain that the appearances 



^ See Sillimaa's American Journal of Science, May, 1866. 



2 See " Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist.," 3rd Scries, Vol. xix. January, 1867. 



' The specimen was found in Carboniferous limestone, near 'I'uam, by Mr. John 

 Birmingham, F.R. G.S.I, (who will ever be honoured by his discovery of the 

 remarkable star " T. Coronce Borealis"), and has been presented by him to the 

 Museum. 



