96 THE FOSSIL ECHINOIDEA 



beaxitiful floscelle and the posterior median line of cribriform structure. The posterior 

 development of the test separates the species from all others of the genus. 



The genus Paralampas recalls parts of the generic distinctions of both Rhynchopygus 

 and Catopygus. The forms included within it are very perplexing in a classificatory 

 sense ; and, much as we regret having to devote a new generic title to them, we do not 

 consider that they can be associated with any genus of the Cassidulids hitherto de- 

 scribed. The remarkable peristome and its associated simple floscelle, the shape of the 

 test, the shape and position of the periproct, the absence of the median pitted line on 

 the concave actinal surface, the small petaloid ambulacral rosette with equal pores, 

 and the homogeneous nature of the ornamentation of the actinal tuberculation are very 

 distinctive. 



Another Catopygian alliance is seen in the remarkable forms which are included 

 in the genus Neocatopygus. The shape of the test, the small ambulacral rosette, tlie 

 single series of the extrapetalous pores, and the character of the floscelle separate the 

 genus very well from the Catopygus of Mesozoic age. 



It is very remarkable that the only representative of the genus Echinanthus (Brey- 

 nius) found in the Ranikot series should be a very anomalous one. The shape of the 

 test, the highest part being eccentric in front, and the dwarfed anterior odd ambulacrum 

 are very characteristic. 



The genus Eolampas has an aborted anterior odd ambulacral petal, an anterior 

 position of the apical system, and an open peristome with a very faint floscelle. It 

 occurs also in the Khirthar series, which overlies the Eanikot group of strata. It might 

 be said to represent the genus Echinolampas in the Eanikot series ; but no true species 

 of this genus are found therein, although they predominate in the higher groups. 



The number of specimens of Eurhodia Morrisi, d'Archiac and Haime, sent to us 

 renders it probable that it is a very common species. It is characteristic of the Eanikot 

 series. The magnificent floscelle, the dimensions of the test, and the curious inequality 

 of the breadth of the poriferous zones of the ambulacra cause the form to be very readily 

 recognized. For such a large form the small size of the ambulacra is remarkable; 

 but they are placed well forward. As the specimens now in the possession of the 

 Geological Survey of India are far more perfect than those which were described by 

 MM. d'Archiac and Haime, it has been necessary to redescribe the species to a certain 

 extent. 



There is no doubt about the presence of a fine Prenasfer in the Eanikot series. 

 The antero-lateral ambulacra have both of their poriferous zones developed; so 

 the form cannot come within the genus Agassizia. The nearest alliance of the form 

 is with Prenaster Desori, Cotteau ; but there are good specific difierences between 

 them, 



A well-defined species of Hemiaster and a very doubtful one are in the collection. 

 The shape of Hemiaster elongatus, which is a very common fossil, is remarkable ; and 

 its structural details separate it from others. The presence of only two generative pores 



