MIOCENE BEDS OF THE MALTESE ISLANDS. 523 
to discover Yerebratula ampulla, T. minor, and Terebratulina 
caput-serpentis.” He moreover, in consequence of his failure to dis- 
cover these species, supposes, as they are plentiful in the Pliocene 
of Sicily, that certain specimens described by Davidson were im- 
ported from that island and incorporated with the Maltese 
Miocene. 
With reference to the Pectens above mentioned, whilst I admit 
the possibility of confounding the broken and scarcely, at the best, 
entire specimens from the Lower Limestone with 7’. spinulosus and 
T’. costatus, so plentiful in the red or coralline bed of the Upper 
Limestone, I must aver, so far as the Brachiopoda and Hchino- 
dermata, whose distributions have just been detailed, are concerned, 
I see no reason whatever to retract any thing that I have stated, or in 
the observations made by me in the papers on these two groups, so 
ably described by my distinguished friends, Dr. Wright, F.R.S., 
F.G.8.*, and Mr. Davidson, F.R.S.r At the same time I quite agree 
with the latter that the so-called “* Maltese” Waldheimia Garibal- 
cianat has assuredly no claims to be so considered ; and I can suggest 
the probable cause of M. Fuchs’s bad fortune in not finding fossils in 
the Maltese beds where his predecessors assert they are common, by 
the cireumstance that as the majority of the specimens are obtained 
from cliff and horizontal sections, where the rock decomposing 
leaves the fossil prominently exposed, it so happened that during 
a period of nearly six years I was almost constantly engaged with 
others in making collections wherever the nature of the ground 
would permit a sound footing; so that many exposures, once 
extremely prolific of fossils, became absolutely denuded of every 
vestige of animal remains recognizable, at all events, to the 
naked eye. 
Consequent on the apparent discrepancies between the uppermost 
and lowermost beds, M. Fuchs, in his able and interesting paper 
just referred to, divides the Maltese beds into two groups, which he 
considers are ‘‘ paleontologically most sharply separated from one 
another, and have only a very few fossils in common ”—a statement 
true in some degree, but certainly not to the extent he imagines; 
nor is it so pronounced as, in my opinion, to warrant the removal 
of the uppermost beds from the other formations. 
I shall now proceed to the consideration of the vertebrate fauna 
of the formations. 
VERTEBRATA. 
MAMMALIA. 
Mastopon ANGusTIDENS? (Plate XXY. figs. 5, 5a.) 
The specimens by which the presence of remains of Mastodon in 
the lower beds of the Miocene formations of the Island of Gozo is 
established, comprehend two imperfect molars. Fig. 5 retains only 
* Op. cit. p. 474. t Ann. & Mag, Nat. Hist. ser, 3, vol. xiv. p. 5, 
t Geologist, 1862, p. 446, pl. 24. f. 19. 
