Victorian Fossils, Fart XXIII . 88^ 



Seitularids and Cainpanularids] '* than any other of the grapto- 

 lites, first by the basal constrictions, second by the presence of the 

 paired appendages. It has repeatedly been pointed out as an im- 

 portant difference between the graptolites and the hydrozoans that 

 in the latter the point of communication betAveen the hydrothecae 

 and tube of the hydrocaulus isi more or lesS' constricted, and in the- 

 graptolites the theca i» in uninterrupted continuous communica- 

 tion with the coenosarcal canal. ... I learn from Dr. Ulrich. 

 that he also, on finding the material at once recognized its great 

 similarity to the Sertularians and its possible phylogenetic import- 

 ance." 



One of our present types, here referred to, Archaeocryptolaria 

 skeatsi, gen. et. sp. nov. might possibly be thought to show affini- 

 ties with McCoy's Protovirgulo/ria,^ and especially to Ruedemann's- 

 tentative reference of some fossils^ from the Normanskill Shale of 

 Stockport, New* York State. The only resemblance, however, 

 between those forms and the Victorian fossil are the st■raieh^ 

 slender axis and the thecae disposed at right angles to it ; but the- 

 morphological differences of those thecae are so great as to make a 

 final and close comparison impossible. Thus the thecae in McCoy's- 

 oiginal specimens are of the pennatulid type and set serially on 

 the lateral branches, whilst those in Ruedemann's fossils are simple 

 liydrothecae, etc., with extraordinary inflated apices in mauT 

 cases. Ihese latter fossils are suggested by Ruedemann to have a 

 possible affinity wuth TJKjmnoffrapfui^ fppus.^ 



For the interesting discovery ( f these lemarkable and wonderfully 

 preserved specimens we are indebted to Prof. E. W. Skeats. D.Sc. 

 They were obtained between. 1911 and 1917, and occur in a black 

 slate or shale two miles E.N.E. of North Monegetta, south of 

 Romsey. This slate also contains a brachiopod which I am able to- 

 refer to Acrofreta antipodum, Chapm., the r(M:k being wath little 

 doubt of a similar age to the Lancefieldian of the Mount William 

 and Lancefield districts, from which horizon I have lately described 

 the above-named fossil.* 



To Mr. Wm. M. Bale, P'.R.M.S., I would express my best thanks 

 for his valued opinion on the generic affinities of these interesting- 

 fossils and the corroboration of mv own conclusions. 



1 ProtorJrqiilnria dichntomn, McCoy. .\nT). anH Mas:. Nat.. Hist., str. 2, vol. vi., IS.'O, pp. 272,. 

 273. Id.. Rrit J'al. Fossil.s. 1852. p. 10, pi. iB., fijfK. 11, 12. 



2 '; PiotoDirfnilarin dichotomn, M^stJoy. KueHemami.— " (iraj^olites of New York," loc. cit., 

 pt. ii., p. 2<3, pi. X., fisr. 9; pi. xi., fi<,'s. 8, 9. 



3 Loc. (it.., p. 214 



i Proc. Roy. Soc. Victoria, vol. xxx. (n.8.), pt. ii., 1918, pp. 145-148, pi. xxvi. 



