RHYNCHONELLA. 133 
1865. TEREBRATULA PUGNUS, var. ANISODONTA, Davidson. Brit. Foss. Brach., 
vol. iii, pt. 6, p. 63, pl. xii, 
figs. 12—14. 
? 1879. — corvina, Barrande. Syst. Sil. Bohém., vol. v, pl. xxix, 
figs. 2—3 a, Et. F. 
1882. — ANIsopoNTA, Davidson. Brit. Foss. Brach., vol. v, pt. 1, 
p- 46. 
1885. — PUGNUS, var. ANISODONTA, Maurer. Abhandl. Grossh. Hes- 
sisch. Geol. Landes., vol. i, pt. 
2, p. 204, pl. viii, figs. 31, 32. 
Localities.—From Lummaton there are twenty-six specimens in my Collection, 
and two in the Woodwardian. From Barton there are two in the British 
Museum. From Wolborough there are four in Mr. Vicary’s Collection, seven in 
the Museum of Practical Geology, and one in my Collection. 
Remarks.—I adhere to my opinion’ that this shell is distinct from Rh. pugnus. 
Not only is its general form very distinctive, being very transverse and having a 
broad flat fold and very receding wings, both bearing very large and deep angular 
ribs, but it is covered by a peculiar minor ornamentation unlike anything I can 
discover on Carboniferous specimens of Lh. pugnus. This consists of minute, 
close rounded, undulating, and divaricating riblets, separated by impressed lines, 
and covers the whole surface; from ten to twenty of these riblets are on the 
space of a single rib. 
Terebratula hewatoma, Schnur,’ is possibly only a narrower variety of the 
present species. Its ribs are rather finer, longer, and more numerous. 
Camorophoria Tschernyschewi, Toll,® possesses a similar minute ornament. 
11. Raynononetta ? Oewetirensis, Davidson. Pl. XVI, figs. 5, 5a, 5d. 
1854. TrrEeBRATULA BIsUGATA, Schnur (pars). Paleontographica, vol. iii, p. 178, 
pl. xxiii, figs. 7 f—h (only). 
1865. RayNcHONELLA P OGWELLIENSIS, Davidson. Brit. Foss. Brach., vol. iii, pt. 
6, p. 69, pl. xiv, figs, 23—26. 
1882. — — Davidson. Ibid., vol. v, pt. 1, p. 44, pl. 
ii, fig. 16. 
Localities—I have thirteen specimens from Lummaton, agreeing specifically 
with the specimen figured by Davidson in his Supplement, and there are three in 
the Woodwardian Museum. 
Remarks.—Davidson had some doubt as to the distinctness of this species from 
1 1882, Davidson, ‘ Brit. Foss. Brach.,’ vol. v, pt. 1, p. 46. 
2 1854, Schnur, ‘ Paleontographica,’ vol. iii, p. 176, pl. xxii, figs. 2 a—g. 
8 1889, Toll., ‘Mém. Acad. Imp. Sci. St.-Pétersbourg,’ ser. 7, vol. xxxviii, No. 3, p. 28, pl. ii, 
figs. 1—5. 
