510 Notices of Memoirs — G. R. Vine on Fossil Pol ijzoa. 



Trentonensis. It is well described, seeing that his specimens were 

 mere fragments. Salter has already referred to this genus — M'Coy's 

 Betepora {Phyllo-pora) Eisingeri — in his Catalogue of Silurian Fossils. 



1821 ? Berenicea, Lamaroux. 

 This genus for the present I have allowed to remain with the 

 family Diastoporidce ' — not as Diastopora, but as provisional. So far 

 as the Palasozoic species are characteristic of the genus, we may take 

 M'Coy's description.^ He says, " The cells resemble Cellepnra, but 

 are not piled," but, with more justness, " they also resemble the cells 

 of Stictopora (Ptilodictya), but are parasitic and confined to one side. 

 They differ from Biscopora by each cell being separated by a small 

 space from its neighbour." Berenicea irregularis, Lonsdale (Silurian 

 Sys.), and B. lieterogyra, M'Coy, are distinct types. The Biscopora 

 favosa, Lonsd., Wenlock Limestone, approach nearer to the Ceramo- 

 pora type of Hall and Nicholson.^ 



1828. Biscopora, Flem. ? 

 Two types of this genus, as understood by Lonsdale, are found in 

 the Wenlock series of Fossils at the School of Mines. One, B. favosa, 

 Lonsd., is a beautiful little dome-like species with cells very regu- 

 larly disposed radiating from the centre. The other is much larger 

 and marked Biscopora favosa ? Lonsd. Both are good types, and 

 they will ultimately find their proper place in our classification. 

 But as Biscopora (Patinella and Biscoporella of Busk) it will be at 

 present impossible to retain them, unless under very severe limitation. 



1849. Fenestelltd^, King. 

 After the three very able papers of Mr. G. W. Shrubsole, F.G.S., 

 it will be useless to dwell too long upon this family. With the 

 whole of Mr. Shrubsole's work I am inclined, generally, to agree. 

 He may be blamed for the limitation of species, but the fault lies not 

 with him, but with authors who have introduced into our scientific 

 literature specific names for fragments that were really portions only 

 of other species. This has already been pointed out, but much yet 

 remains to be done before the family can be considered to be com- 

 pletely revised. It may then be necessary to reintroduce one or two 

 species which are now regarded as synonyms, and also to establish 

 two or three new ones. For the present I can do no other ihan 

 report on the literature and species which have not yet found a place 

 in the revisions of Mr. Shrubsole. 



Gorgonia assimilis, Lonsd., Murch. Sil. 

 Fenestella „ Cat. Cambrian and Sil. Fos, S. of M. 

 This species has been alluded to in Mr. Shrubsole's second paper 

 (p. 247). In the above catalogue it may be found among the Caradoc 

 and Wenlock Limestone series of Polyzoa. This species has not 

 been described, and there seems to be a doubt whether it should be 

 referred to Fenestella or Betepora (Fhyllopora).^ 



1 Q. J. Geol. Soc. Aug. 1880. ~ Palfeozoic Fos. ^ Q.p^oL. Mag. 1874-5. 



* "A Review of the Carb. Fenestellidae," Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. May, 1879; 

 " A Review of the Various Species of Upper Sil. Feuestellidai," Quart. Journ. Geol. 

 Soc. 1880 ; " Fui'ther Notes on Carb. Fenestellidse," ibid. 



