﻿80 



BRITISH PALAEOZOIC PHYLLOCARIDA. 



Ceratiocaris ? lattts, T. B. J. and S. W. Eeport Brit. Assoc. for 1885 (1886), 



p. 351. 



— — — Monogr. Brit. Pal?eoz, Phyll., parti, 



1888, p. 63. 



— — Woods. Catal. Type Foss. Cainb. Mus., 1891, p. 134. 



Mr. Salter's figure referred to above is a restoration of five (?) body-segments, 

 which apparently had been embedded in an oblique position and crushed endwise 

 so as to be widened and shortened, with a subspiral outline, 28 mm. broad by 

 12 mm. high (the restoration gives 22 by 15 mm.). See Fig. 4 (woodcut). 



The direction of pressure must have been at right angles to the minute 

 plaiting of the matrix, obliquely crossing the compressed remains of the animal, 

 and therefore not quite coincident with the long axis of the original individual. 



These segments are probably not too broad for some such 

 individual as that to which fig. 7 of our PI. XIII belonged ; 

 but they are so narrow in their longitudinal succession, 

 though with great apparent breadth, and Salter's restora- 

 utl^tTlfleoZ^ tion makes them ta P er so rapidly, that we may conveniently 

 mS^o^Gartif se§ ' k eep s P eci fi c name given by Salter, though we prefer to 



adopt his first suggestion (in the list at p. 240, op. cit.) that 

 it was referable to Hymenocaris. 



In dark-grey flagstone, Upper Tremadoc group ; Garth, Portmadoc. Cam- 

 bridge Museum. 



VI. Genus — Lingulocakis, Salter, 1866. 



Salter, 1 Mem. G-eol. Survey,' vol. iii, 1866, pp. 252 and 294 ; 2nd edit., 1881, p. 485. 

 H. Woodward, ' Catal. Brit. Foss. Crust.,' 1877, p. 76. 

 T. R. Jones, ' Geol. Mag.,' 1883, p. 463. 



T. E. Jones and H. Woodward, ' Eeport Brit. Assoc' for 1883 (1884), pp. 217 and 223. 

 Etheridge, ' Foss. Brit.,' vol. i, Palseoz., 1888, p. 58. 



This was determined and described as a Palaaozoic bivalved Phyllopod, from 

 the Upper Tremadoc slates of Tu-hwnt-i'r-bwlch, Garth, Portmadoc, North Wales, 

 by Mr. J. W. Salter, in the ' Memoirs of the Geological Survey,' vol. iii, 1866, 

 pp. 253 and 294. His description of the generic characters is as follows : — " A 

 thin bivalve crustacean shell, with a generic form like that of a Modiola or 

 Mytilus, with scarcely prominent beaks, and no? hinge-teeth; the surface of 

 the* carapace is covered by fine, raised, concentric lines." 



