454 HE. 8. S. BTTCKMAtf ON THE BAJOCIAN [Aug. 1895, 



species has been sent to me by M. Louis Brasil, of the Faculte des 

 Sciences, Caen, from " i Mu,rcMsonozl May (Calvados)," without name, 

 I have much pleasure in dedicating this species to him. 



(e) Teeebrattjla Buckmani and T. Bttcemaniana. 



In the sections described in this paper the above names have 

 occurred with very considerable frequency. As to T. Buckmani 

 there can be no doubt— it is the elliptical, barely uniplicate form ; 

 but the term '■Buckmaniana' was originally given as a varietal name 

 to three or four distinct forms which appeared to be ' varieties ' of 

 Buchnani ; and in general usage the name has been extended to 

 include even other biplicate Buckmani-like fossils than those figured 

 by Davidson. 1 Therefore, in the foregoing sections, the term 

 ' Terebratula Buckmaniana ' should be interpreted ' biplicate forms 

 of the Buckmani-tyye.' 



When, however, a critical examination of these biplicate forms is 

 undertaken, and they are compared with the original figures of 

 Buckmaniana, it is found that they really do not agree with any 

 of them. Davidson's fig. 14 (Suppl. pi. xix.) is, by the explanation 

 of the plate, presumably from the same horizon, but neither in 

 Mr. Upton's cabinet nor my own are there any specimens of this 

 size sufficiently distinguished by biplications from Buchnani, nor 

 anything much like it, except some small specimens. Of the re- 

 maining forms, figs. 15, 16, 17, Mr. Upton expresses the opinion, 

 and I think it has considerable justification, that fig. 16 is one 

 of the globata-series, and therefore from an altogether different 

 horizon. There remains, then, the form or forms depicted in figs. 15 

 and 17: these are well-known fossils from a particular bed of Cleeve 

 Hill, and are well represented. But none of the biplicate Buck- 

 mani-like fossils found in the Buckmani-grit of the Mid- 

 Cotteswolds — none of the forms to which the term ' Buckmaniana ' 

 has been given in this paper — agree exactly with these shells ; and, 

 curiously enough, at Cleeve Hill they are not found associated with 

 the true Terebratula Buckmani. 



The date of the deposit in which they are found — that is, its 

 contemporaneity with the Buckmani-grii — is certainly very far 

 from being proved. 2 But, however this may be, it seems as if it 

 would be necessary, in order to prevent confusion, to restrict the 

 term ' Terebratula Buckmaniana' to this Cleeve-Hill form, and to 

 replace it in the foregoing sections by the phrase ' biplicate deriva- 

 tives or connexions of Buckmani, usually called Buckmaniana.' 

 To two of these, figured by Davidson under entirely different names, 

 there is now a suitable opportunity for giving distinct appellations. 



1 ' Monogr. Brit. Fossil Brachiopoda,' vol. iv. (1882) Pal. Soc. Suppl. pi. xix. 

 figs. 14-17. 



2 But see Postscript, p. 461. 



