SPIRIFERIN/L 159 



not having seen an example of it, simply quoted it on Phillips's authority without 

 expressing an opinion upon its specific value. It may prove to be only the young 

 form of Sp. Verneuilii. 



I have found two or three small shells which seem likely to be the same 

 species as Phillips's, but they are insufficient to give decided evidence on the 

 question. 



The small specimen (fig. 8) from Saunton has certainly a distinctive appearance. 

 It is a ventral valve, and looks as though it would accurately correspond with 

 Phillips's figure of the dorsal valve. 



3. Genus — Spieifeeina, d'Orbigny, 1847. 



1. Spieifeeina ceistata (ScMotheim),var. octoplicata, Soiverby. Plate XIX, figs. 10, 



11, 11a. 



1858. Spieifeeina ceistata, var. octoplicata, Davidson. Brit. Toss. Brach., 



vol. ii, pt. 4, p. 38, pi. vii, 

 figs. 37—47. 



18G4. — — — Davidson. 1 Ibid., vol. iii, p. 46, 



pi. vi, figs. 11 — 15. 



1895. — — — Wkidhorne. Proc. Geol. Assoc, 



vol. xiv, p. 376. 



Localities. — In the Barnstaple Athenaeum are specimens from Ashford Strand; 

 in the Porter Collection from Poleshill and Pilton ; in Mr. Hamling's Collection 

 from near the Kiln, Croyde ; and in my Collection from East Anstey Station, 

 Ashford Strand, and Pouch Bridge. 



Size. — A specimen measures about 21 mm. wide. 



Remarks. — This is certainly the species which Davidson figured from Looe and 

 recorded from Pilton, and it has therefore an extensive vertical range in the 

 Devonian rocks. It is a well-characterised form. It is very transverse, with a 

 narrow area, a much incurved beak, numerous (eleven to twenty-one) strong deep 

 ribs, strong, regular, distant transverse lines or flounces, and a very coarsely 

 punctated shell-structure. These puncta seem sometimes to lie in lines corre- 

 sponding; with the transverse lineations. Its fold and sinus are narrow and 

 flattened, and have respectively a very slight median furrow and rib. In the 



1 In the heading of the species Davidson omits the name octoplicata, but supplies it at p. 123 

 and in the plates. Though the same divergence occurs in the lists in his last volume, it seems clear 

 that the omission was purely accidental. 



