216 C. E. Beecher — Koninckina and related Genera. 



ida? for the single genus Koninckina. The same author, in 

 1884, published a tabular classification in the General Summary 

 to the British Fossil Brachiopoda, p. 354, in which, under the 

 family Spiriferacea, the subfamily Konmckinidae is given con- 

 taining the three genera Anoplotheca, Koninckina, and Kon- 

 mckella. 



Woodward, in the Manual of the Mollusca (1854), placed 

 Koninckina as a sub-genus under Strophomena in the family 

 Orthida?, and also include Davidsonia in the same group. 



Dall, in 1877,* included Koninckina, Anoplotheca, and pro- 

 visionally Davidsonia, iu the family Atrypida?. 



The classification of Waagenf resembles that proposed by 

 Dall, but under the Atrypidse he includes Koninckina, Ano- 

 plotheca, and Koninckella in the sub-family Koninckininm. 



Zittel;}: arranges Anoplotheca, Koninckina, and Thecospira 

 under the Ivoninckinidse, and also places Amphiclina and 

 Davidsonia with the Strophomenidse. 



Finally, (Ehlert, in 1887 (loc. cit, p. 1291, et seq.), adopts 

 the family Koninckinidse, putting it between the Strophomen- 

 idas and Spiriferidae, and including the genera : ? Davidsonia 

 Bouchard-Chautereaux, 1817; Koninckina Suess, 1852; s. g. 

 Anoplotheca Sandberger, 1856 ; Koninckella Munier-Chalmas, 

 1884; '(Amphiclina Laube, 1866; 1 Thecospira Zugmayer, 

 1880; and % Cmlospira Hall, 1863. 



This grouping is the most comprehensive of those cited, as 

 it adopts all the genera which have previously been placed in- 

 timately with Koninckina, and besides, it includes the addi- 

 tional genera Amphiclina and Ccelospira, although the former 

 was thus correlated by Davidson, but not included in his gene- 

 ral tabular classification as the presence of spires had not then 

 been shown. 



In treating the various members of this family as defined 

 and limited by (Ehlert, we believe that the general idea of the 

 group, as expressed by the characters of the leading genus, is a 

 comprehensive one, but there are yet some discordant and un- 

 certain elements. Also, a more discriminating diagnosis may 

 now be given, and the relations of the family (or sub-family) to 

 other important groups become more apparent while its genetic 

 history is more or less clearly indicated. 



Of course, much depends upon the taxonomic value which is 

 to be allowed to the various features of the shell, and in the 

 present instance we shall endeavor, in the main, to follow the 

 rank generally adopted by recent authorities. 



* Bulletin U. S. National Museum, Xo. 8. Index to the names which have 

 been applied to the subdivisions of the class Brachiopoda, p. 78, 1877. 



f Geological Survey of India. Carboniferous fossils of the Salt Range, p. 447, 

 1883 



\ Handbuch der Palseontologie, I Bd., p. 680, 1876-80. 



