160 CRETACEOUS PELECYPODA 



6. — V. TImrmannij Lor.^ equally so. 



7-9. — V. helvetica, P. and C.^ V. ohesa, d^Orb.^ and V, Esclierij Lor._, are probably Caryates, 

 though the second^ as figured by d''Orbigny apparently with the shelly also greatly recalls a 

 Eemitapes, Eichwald (Leth. Ross.^ livr. xi^ 1867; p. 711^ pi. xxvi^ fig. 8^) describes as 

 V, obesa a species which is much less inflated and has the anterior end much longer than the 

 specimen figured by d^Orbigny. 



10-11. — V, Galdrina, d^Orb., and V, Varapensis, Lor.^ are probably Cythereee. 



12. — V. CoUaldinaj d"'Orb._, recalls some of the smoother forms of Chione. 



13. — V. sanct(B'Cnicis, P. and C.^ has somewhat the form of a Pidlastra. 



14. — F. Dupiniana, d^Orb., likewise so. 



15-16. — V, Vendoperana, (Leym.) =neocomie7isiSj d'Orb., and V. Icauensis, d'Orb., both are 

 probably CypnmericB, having a Bosinia-YskQ form without an excavated lunula, resembling in this 

 respect Circe, to which some other cretaceous species of Cyprimeria have been referred. Eichwald 

 (Leth. Ross., xi, 1867, pp. 713 and 716,) quotes both the species from the neocomien of Russia. 

 But as that author's interpretation of neocomien rocks is in some instances doubtful, his identifica- 

 tions (without exact figures) must be accepted with hesitation. He also quotes several other 

 species, as V, parallela, Miinst., Robinaldina, d'Orb., faha, Sow., Biipiniana, d'Orb., and 

 immersa, Sow., upon which it would be equally difiicult to pronounce an opinion. 



11, ---Artemis cordata may be an Eriphyla, because it has the lunula excavated, but it 

 could also be a Bosinia. 



18. — Art. ineleganSy Sharpe, is most likely a Cyprimeria, 



19-20.— r^72. Vassiacensis, d'Orb., and V. Roisii, d'Orb., are perhaps Caryates. 



21. — V. Feciensis, Forb., is very much like, and maybe identical with, Eriplyla lenticii-' 

 laris, Goldf., sp. 



22,— F.parva, Sow., (Min. Conch., pi. 518, figs. 4-6, T^ot figs. 1-3,) is evidently a small 

 Caryatis. 



23. — F, Orlignyana, Forb., is similar to the last. 



24-26.— r. Fihrayeana, d'Orb., F, llouliniana, Cott., and tenera, Sow., are probably also 

 Caryates. 



Pictet and Campiche here indicate from the '^Gault inferieur'' of Cosne several as yet un- 

 described species, most of which appear to belong to Cytherea ; judging from the references made 

 to allied forms, some few may belong to Cyprimeria. 



%1.'—F. caperata, Sow., (Min. Conch., pL 518, figs. 1—3,) is a typical species belonging to 

 the sub-genus Caryatis. 



28-29. — F. ovalis ^nd. faha, Sow., are probably identical; they very much resemble some- 

 what oval forms of Cyprimeria, and the former especially is extremely like our South Indian %>. 

 Arcotensis. 



30-31.— F. Uneolata^nd. plana, Sow., are also most probably identical. I have seen various 

 specimens from the original locality at Blackdown, but the anterior side varies, being shghtly longer 

 or shorter, and so also does the greater or lesser convexity of the shell. The same species also 

 occurs in South India, and here I observe similar variation. To prevent mistakes with the recent 

 Cytherea \_Caryatis'] lineolata, Sow., the second, to palseontologists better known name, plana ought 

 to be retained. Judging from these variations I am in doubt whether the form originally described 

 in the Pal. fran9aise by d'Orbigny under Sowerby's name plana and afterwards called sub-plana 

 is a difi'erent species. The hinge is certainly in both the same. Conrad quotes the species plana, 

 Sow., among his typical Bosiniopsis, but I have already stated that the difi^erence in the lunular 

 tooth does not seem to me to be a sufficient character for a generic or even sub-generic distinction 

 from Cytherea proper, — (for further particulars see p. 169) » 



