CRITICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY. 



33 



Conocardium fusiforme, Achepol. 



„ elegans, Achepol. 



Anthracosia Beyrichi, Achepol. 

 Terebratula planosulcata, Achepol. 

 Anthracosia gracilis, Achepol. 



„ caudata, Achepol. 



„ minor, Achepol. 



,, ScJiliiteri, Achepol. 



,, batilliformis, Lud. 



„ Decheni, Achepol. 



,, Serloi, Achepol. 



„ rectangularis, Achepol. 



,, Hauchecornei, Achepol. 



,, species ? Achepol. 



„ minima, Achepol. 



„ Berendti, Achepol. 



„ Fabricii, Achepol. 



,, Rbmeri, Achepol. 



„ Harzii, Achepol. 



,, crassa, Achepol. 



„ naviformis, Achepol. 



,, obtusa, Achepol. 



,, brevis, Achepol. 



„ cassiformis, Achepol. 



„ concentrica, Achepol. 



„ conocardium, Achepol. 



,, Geinitzi, Lud. 



,, Lottneri, Lud. 



Anthracosia ovalis, Achepol. 

 Mytilus eduliformis, Achepol. 

 Anodonta angulata, Achepol. 

 Dreissena Romeri, Achepol. 

 „ Schliiteri, Achepol. 



Not to be recognised. 

 Evidently Naiadites. 

 Carbonicola aquilina. 

 Naiadites ? said to have umbones. 



Photography and figures too poor. 



G acuta in Supplement. 



C. aquilina. 



C acuta. 

 G aquilina. 



Too fragmentary. 



G. aquilina. 

 G. acuta. 

 C. aquilina. 

 Anthracomya. 

 Carbonicola robusta. 

 Anthracomya ? 

 Not Ludwig. 

 Anthracomya ? 

 O. turgida. 

 G aquilina. 

 Carbonicola, crushed. 



G aquilina. 



Naiadites carinata. 

 Anthracomya. 



Naiadites carinata. 



The figures of specimens described as Dreissina, Mytilus, Terebratula, and 

 Conocardium are evidently those of Naiadites. The figures given in the four 

 supplemental plates are better, but no reference is given in these to the specimens. 

 Looking critically through these plates, I can find little or nothing new. 



The specimens figured as A. Goldfussi, A. naviformis, A. brevis, A. Harzii, 

 and Anodonta angulata are evidently Anthracomyge. 



The real merit of the work lies in the careful record of the fossils (plants and 

 mollusca) which each bed contains ; and it is a great pity that more care was not 

 taken to compare the shells with the superabundant forms already named. I have 

 given by the side of the list the proper equivalents, as far as I can judge from the 

 figures and descriptions. 



5 



