240 SEWARD: A NEW BRITISH CARBONIFEROUS FOSSIL. 
species closely approximated, in others separated by intervals half as 
wide as the diameter ; no trace - — structure or distinct sur- 
face markings visible.’ In one species, S. major, one end is repre- 
sented in the figure as to Sa sie while the evita is oe 
broken ; the specimen is 7 zz. long and 1 z#. in diamet 
In a 
ing towards each end. In speaking of the fossils, Newberry remarks 
that ‘it is possible we have nearly the entire organism, or that it was 
cme one two conical extremities.’ 
specimens are much less perfect than those described by 
sro ial Zeiller, but there seein to be good grounds for referring 
them to the same genus. If this view be taken, Newberry’s generic 
term Sfiraxis, according to strict rules of priority, ought to replace 
the more modern name of /ayo/ia 
Lester Ward’s species, Sdisaxts bivalvis, from the American 
Laramie beds is very imperfect ; it has a length of about 44 z#s. and 
shows one tapered end, the other being apparently broken ; the sur- 
face is marked by an indistinct spiral ridge ; but it would be extremely 
rash to extend nse range of Fayolia to the Laramie formation on such 
slender eviden 
The rewubiiaes of Mr. Best’s fossil to the more perfect 
specimens found in France is so close, that I am unable to 
ene — nna which would justify the institution of a new 
speci r the — then, we may refer the Stainton 
fossil zi “Feyolia her Ren eill., and if further discoveries 
afford sufficient evidence of ane distinctive characters in the Englis 
form, I would suggest that the name Fayolia besti be adopted. My 
own opinion is in favour of Reap Fayolia among fossil fishes 
rather than fossil plants; but Dr. Giinther’s unwillingness to fall in 
with this view should deter those of us who are laymen in matters 
ichthyological from giving expression to any very definite statements. 
The regularly arranged spines, as shown in Renault and Zeiller’s 
specimens (Fig. 3), are difficult to understand on the supposition 
that we are dealing with a fish’s egg-capsule, and the suggested 
comparison of these authors to pencils and ‘nerves’ is hardly 
satisfactory. It is, perhaps, worth noting that in the egg of 
Callorhynchus antarcticus,* as figured by Giinther, the margin is 
beset with a fringe of hairs ; possibly the spines of Fayolia dentata may 
represent more regularly dimpoged but similar hair-like appendages 
It is to be hoped that further search in the sandstones of Stainton 
may supply the necessary material for a more accurate determination 
of this puzzling genus. 
*The Study of Fishes, p. 169, fig. 81. 
