PRESTWICH — BRITISH AND FOREIGN TERTIARIES. 



227 



there are other causes to account for the zoological differences. Of 



the 224 species of Mollusks of the London Clay, thirty-four are like- 

 wise found in the French series, where their distribution and range 



are as follows*. 



Glauconie Lits Calcaire 



Inferieure. Coquilliers. grossier. 



Anemia tenuistriata, Desk — 



Axinus (Cryptodon) angulatus, Sow.{Heb.) — 



Beloptera Levesquei, D'Orb 



Belosepia sepioidea, Blainv 



Buccinum semicostatum, Desk — 



Calyptrsea trochiformis, Lam — 



Cardium Plumsteadiense, Sow — 



Cassidaria carinata. Lam 



Corbula Regulbiensis, Mor — 



Cytherea obliqua, Desk — 



suberycinoides. Desk , . . . . — 



Fusus angusticostatus, Mell. ? 



bulbiformis. Lam — 



Murex spinulosus, Desk 



Natica labellata. Lam — 



' patula, Desk 



sigaretina 



Nautilus zic-zac. Sow 



Nucula margaritacea. Lam. 

 Ostrea cariosa, Desk. ? . . . 



Bellovacina, Desk.. . . 



Panopaea intermedia. Sow. 

 Pholadomya margaritacea, 

 Peetuneulus terebratularis. 



Pinna affinis, Sow 



Pleurotoma colon. Sow.. . 

 elegans, Mell. ? 



Sow. . 

 Desk. 



Pyrula tricostata. Desk 



Rostellaria macroptera. Lam.. . 

 Solarium canaliculatum. Lam. 



Teredina personata. Desk 



Turritella imbricataria. Lam. . . 

 sulcifera. Desk. 



Venericardia Suessonensis, D'Arch. 



Sables moyens. 



17 



25 



14 



* In this table I confine myself, as in the other parts of this inquiry, to the 

 lists furnished by M. d'Archiac, M. Graves, and M. Melleville. It is possible that 

 to the south of the districts described in their works the distribution and range 

 of species may be somewhat different, — that species limited to one group in the 

 more northern portions of the Paris basin may be found in other groups in the 

 more southern parts of this basin. But no equally complete lists of the fossils of 

 this latter area exist, and consequently, although we know the Calcaire grossier 

 to be extremely rich in organic remains in the neighbourhood of Paris, we are 

 unable to avail ourselves of any exceptional cases, which the fauna may there 

 present, differing from that of the district which here serves us as the point of 

 comparison with our English series. I do not, however, believe that this much 

 affects our general results. In fact, although I have drawn up this and the other 

 lists with as much care as possible, they will all no doubt require correction by 

 those better acquainted with the local faunas than I am. Still, I think, the 

 general conclusions will hold good. 



R 2 



