Notices of Memoirs — Q. R. Vine on Fossil Polyzoa. 511 



Many of the earlier specimens — Caradoc and Upper Llandovery — 

 are very indistinct, and complete identification seems to be impossible. 

 The type is a peculiar one, but after going over the specimens I can 

 make out the following characters. The zoarium is irregular and 

 dichotomously branching, no regular dissepiments or fenestr^e. The 

 frequent bifurcations of the branches, by impinging upon the lower 

 branches, are the only means by which fenestrje are formed ; the 

 number of pores oa either side of these vary from ten to thirteen. 

 I cannot therefore suppose that these earlier Fenestella assimilis of 

 the Catalogue are in any way related to Fenestella reteporata, Shrub- 

 sole, of the Wenlock Limestone. So far as I am able to judge from 

 the specimens, they are totally distinct. 



The whole of the type specimens of Upper Silurian Fenestella 

 Mr. Shrubsole has gone over carefully ; but as many of these were 

 mere fragments of the reverse, showing no cell-arrangement, he 

 found them altogether valueless for accurate definition. la conse- 

 quence of this revision the whole of the Upper Silurian Fenestel- 

 LiD^ is put down by him as follows : — 



Fenestella rigidida, M'Coy, Brit. Pal. Fos. p. 50, pi. i. C. fig. 19. 

 ,, reteporata, Shrubsole, Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. May, 1880. 



,, lineata ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, 



,, intermedia ,, ,, ,, „ ,, 



All these species are found in the Wenlock Limestone, Dudley, and 

 two of them — if not three — in the Niagara Limestone, Lockport, 

 America. 



Of the Devonian Fenestella but few species are recorded. But as 

 Professor Nicholson has published his papers in this country, we are 

 largely indebted to him for what little is known, besides those that 

 are figured and described bj'' Goldfuss and Phillips. 



1826-33. Betepora (Fenestella) prisca, Groldf.,^ Eifel. 



,, ,, „ antiqua ,, „ 



1841. Fenestella antiqua ; anthritica ; and Hemitrypa ocidata, Ph.^ 



1874. Fenestella magnifica, Nichol. Geol. Mag. 1874, PI. IX. 

 ,, ,, margmnlis, „ ,, ,, ,, ,, 



J, ,, jilijormis ,, ,, ,, ,, „ 



,, ,, Betepora (Fenestella) PMllipsi „ „ 



Many, if not all, of these species are founded upon fragments, or 

 on the reverse only of specimens ; and according to the laxness or 

 rigidness with which they are examined, their value in a scientific 

 criticism is of variable importance. They are nevertheless links in 

 the chain of evidence, and until they are displaced by better speci- 

 mens, which, of course, will allow of better work, they should find 

 a place in this Report. Nicholson, with others, uses the term Bete- 

 pora very indifferently. Speaking of B. Fhillipsi, he says, " This is 

 a genuine Betepora, and in its general form and its biserial cells is 

 closely allied to B. prisca, Goldf., whicli I have found abundantly in 



1 Petrefac. Ger. tab. 36, fig. 19, tab. 9, fig. 10. 



2 Phillips' Palae. Fos. Devon, etc. 



