388 Dr. H. Woodward — New Pakeozoic Phyllopod Crustaceans. 



veneris when compared with C. Bcemeri. For whilst the latter 

 is nearly twice as long as it is wide, the former is nearly as 

 wide as it is long. In C Boemeri the greatest breadth of the 

 shield is measured across the angle at the base of the V-shaped 

 cervical suture ; in C veneris the greatest breadth, is in front, 

 measured across the summit of the V-shaped suture. 

 Dimensions of three specimens of C. veneris : — 



Pig. 8. Breadth in front 23 mm., length 30 mm. 

 Fig. 11. „ „ 10 „ „ 15 „ 



Fig. 10. „ „ 15 „ „ 20 „ 



3. Cardiocaris lata, mihi, sp. nov. Plate IX. Fig. 13. 

 I have ventured to separate this from the preceding species on 

 account of its broader and rounder contour, and the more obtuse 

 angle of the cervical suture. There is no trace whatever of any 

 dorsal suture, the concentric striae of the carapace pass completely 

 round the shield in unbroken lines. Breadth of carapace 18 mm., 

 length from anterior border to back of shield 20 mm., length from 

 angle of cervical suture to back of shield 14 mm. This form ap- 

 proaches most nearly to Discinocaris from the Moffat Shales, but 

 the anterior angles of the cervical suture are more rounded in the 

 Eifel specimen and the striation is coarser. 



4. Cardiocaris bipartita, mihi, sp. nov, Plate IX. Figs. 14 and 15. 



The two forms I have here distinguished are very near to 

 C. Boemeri, but they have a tolerably well-marked dorsal suture 

 which that species lacks ; tliey are also widest in front. The depth 

 of the V-shaped fold of the cervical suture is rather more than one- 

 third the length of the shield, whereas in G. Boemeri it occupies 

 considerably less than one-third. 



The concentric strite are distinctly marked, but no radiating stri^ 

 are visible. 



Fig. 14. Breadth 15 mm. Length 25 mm. 



Fig. 15. „ 17 „ ,, 30 ,, 



II. Pholadocaris, gen. nov. 



5. Pholadocaris Leeii, mihi, sp. nov. Plate IX. Fig. 16. 



This singular shield differs greatly in form fi'om every Phyllopod 

 hitherto noticed.^ In its narrowness it resembles Caryocaris Wrightii 

 of Salter from the Skiddaw Slates (see Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. 

 vol. xix. 1862, p. 139, fig. 15) ; and but for the fact that the two 

 sides of the shield are united behind by a wedge-shaped dorsal portion, 



1 Whilst these notes were passing through the press my attention was ohligingly 

 directed by my colleague, Mr. R. Etheridge. jun., to a singular form of Phyllopod- 

 shield recently described by Mm, in Part II. of a " Monograph of the Silurian 

 Fossils of the Girvan District," 1880, pp. 207-210, pi. xiv. figs. 17-20, which is 

 singularly like our Eifel fossil. It is named by him Flnnocaris. It differs chiefly in 

 its much greater breadth in fi-ont, and in being shorter in proportion, and the dorsal 

 line is straighter than in Fholadocaris. Another form named Solenocaris strigata by 

 Meek (see Geology of Ohio, Columbus, 1875, Palajontology, Part II., p. 321, pi. 18, 

 figs. 4: a b c) is equally narrow, but the striae are differently arranged, and render this 

 form quite distinct. Solenocaris was already preoccupied by Mr. J. Young for a Scottish 

 form from GiiTan in 18C8 (see op. cit. p. 207). 



