1866,] GUPPT WEST IKDIAli BEACHIOPODA. 295 



Plate XVIII. 



Fig. 1. Venus Woodwardi, Guppy, 



2, Area inaquilateralis, Guppy. 



3. Gytherea {Ccdlista) jplanivieta, Guppy. 



p" VNeritina Woodwardi, Guppy. 



6. Fecten incsqualis, Sow. 



7. Cardium Ungua-leonis, Guppy. 



8. Natica subclausa, Sow. 



9. Eanella crassa, Eeeve. 



10. Cardita scabricostata, Guppy, 



11. Corbtda viminea, Gvi])ipj. 



12. Cardium inconspicuum, Guppy. 



13. Cy flier ea {Circe) carbasea, Guppy. 

 14 & 15. Natica sulcata, Desh. 



2. On Teetiaet Beachiopoda from Teinidad. By E. J. Lechmeee 

 ^ Guppy, Esq., Civil Service, Trinidad. 



(Communicated by the Assistant-Secretary). 



[Plate XIX., Figs. 1-3.] 



The three species of Brachiopoda which form the subject of the 

 present communication, were obtained from the gypseous marls con- 

 taining Orhitoides Mantelli and WummuUna, exposed near the town 

 of San Fernando in Trinidad*. I have alluded to these beds in my 

 papers on the Mollusca of Jamaica and on the Echinodermata of the 

 West Indies. The Gasteropoda and Conchifera contained in these 

 deposits, are for the most part in bad condition, and generally spe- 

 cifically indeterminable ; but in the papers alluded to I have given 

 the names of such species as I have been able to determine. _ I have 

 not found any form which could be referred with any degree of pro- 

 bability to recent species ; and this circumstance combined with the 

 stratigraphical position of the beds, the occurrence of EcJiinolam^as 

 ovum-serpentis, the great development of Orhitoides Mantelli, (fee. 

 have led me to believe that these strata belong to a lower horizon 

 in the Miocene series than the deposits in Jamaica, Cumana, and 

 Cuba. The evidence furnished by the Brachiopoda now described, 

 can hardly be considered to throw much new light upon the ques- 

 tion. They seem, indeed, to be suggestive of Cretaceous affinities ; 

 their resemblances to known Tertiary and recent forms not being very 

 pronounced. 



It has been suggested to me that, considering the apparent Me- 

 sozoic type of these Brachiopoda, they may be derivative fossils, but 

 I see no ground for this supposition. The specimens are not in con- 

 dition to warrant such a presumption; they do not occur near the. 

 base of the series exposed at San Fernando ; they are referable to a 

 genus still existing, and represented in Tertiary rocks. Besides 

 which, Mr. Barrett has discovered similar Brachiopoda in the Mio- 



* See ' Geologist; vol. YII., p. 159. 



