164 CEETACEOUS PELECYPODA 



91-92. — Astarte KonincJm and c^prinoides, d^Arch,^ (Mem. Soe. Geol._, Pranee^ 2nd ser. ii 

 pi. xiv; figs. 4-5). The former is certainly an Briphyla^ and may be identical with the type Eriph. 

 lenticiilaris J (Goldf.) ; the latter has also the hinge of the left valve similar to that of Briphylaj but 

 it is not sufficiently distinct, and the shell has the lunula not excavated; it may, therefore, more 

 likely be a Cyprimerla, 



^^.— Vemis nuciformis, MiilL, (Suppl. zur Monog. Petr. Aach. Kreidef., 1859, p. 13, pi. 7, 

 fig. 14) . This is a rounded, small, and rather globose, but apparently a typical species of Mercenaria, 

 Miiller's representation of the hinge-teeth of the right valve hardly gives a good idea of what they 

 really are. This valve has three teeth ; the posterior is thick, strongly elevated, provided with a shallow 

 groove ; of the two anterior the first is thin, and at the base attached to the lunular margin ; the 

 posterior or middle is thick, less oblique, and perfectly separated from the former. Were these two 

 anterior teeth uniformly built the species should be considered a Cypnmena, but that is not the case. 

 The left valve *has as usually three sub-equal diverging teeth, the anterior forming at its base 

 with the middle tooth an internal angle of about 75 degrees. The fulcra are in both valves strong 

 and distinctly separated from the teeth, which is also not usually the case in the left valves of 

 Oyprimena. 



d4^.— Fenusf parrecta, Miill., (ibid. p. 14, pL 8, fig. 2,) a rather obhque, ovoid, sub-compressed 

 form ; may be a Cyprimeria, but nothing is as yet known of the hinge. 



db.— Fenus Cleoplie, Coquand, (Monog. de Fetage Aptien, de TEspagne, 1865, p. 103,) is 

 probably a Caryatis. 



96, — V. Rouvilleij Coq., (ibid. p. 104), most likely an oval Cyprimeria, 



97.— r. Costei, Coq., (ibid. p. 105) / a Caryatis. 



98. — ^. sylvatica, Coq., (ibid.) greatly resembles Hemitapes, and also some Cytlierece. 



99. — Tapes parallela, Coq., (ibid. p. 106,) may be Tapes, but more likely a Baroda on account 

 of the smooth shell-surface. 



100. — Dosinia Argine, Coq., (ibid. p. 107,) may be ^fi^%/^a, or a Z>^<y?;zz^, if the lunula be 

 excavated; it is merely said to be '' courte, cordiforme" and with '' hord palleal arrondi) '' this seems 

 rather to indicate the former genus. 



101. — Dosinia &terpe, Coq., (ibid.) ; the cast gives no indication of what the shell may really bco 



10^-103.— (7?V(?^ conspicua and lunata, Coq,, (ibid. pp. 108-109). In external form these 

 two correspond most with Cyprimeria, 



Several of the other species described by Coquand under Cyprina and Astarte may belong to the 

 present family, but the author does not in even a single instance indicate the form of the hinge 

 and its impression on the casts, &c. 



\^^^.—Gapsa €enomaniemiSy Gueranger, (Album Paleont. de la Sarthe, 1867, pi. xv, fig. 8,) 

 is an Ica7iotia, which is a sub-genus of Baroda (tapesiNuEJ. Although ther^ is already a species,, 

 J^aroda Cenomanensis, d'Orb., (vide No. 38), Gueranger's name may stand, because the sub-genus 

 is different, and if further good materials are collected, it may prove to be generically distinct from 

 Baroda. 



l^h.—Capsa Colonm, Guer., (ibid. fig. 10,) is shghtly more elongated than the last, but 

 otherwise not very distinct. A strict comparison is difficult, because the former shell has evidently 

 suffered by pressure and is not quite perfect. I hardly think that both are specifically distinct. 



106. — Astarte circularise Guer., (ibid. fig. 12,) could much more probably be a %??n'Mm^ or 

 one of the closely allied genera, than an Astarte. 



107. — Capsa concentrica, Guer., (ibid. fig. 14,) very much recalls Baroda [Icanotia'] discrepans, 

 Duj., (vide No. 79), and may not be specifically distinct from it. 



108. — Lucina Nereis, d'Orb., Guer., (ibid. fig. 15). The hinge of the right valve which 

 Gueranger figures indicates a (7^^nw,m(2, for it does not show any lateral teeth; the bi-division 

 of the posterior cardinal is also not distinct. 



