Vol. 58. | PROF, GROOM ON POLYPHYMA LAPWORTHI. 87 
it is conceivable that the lobes 6, c, d, and ¢ (perhaps together with 
the lobe a, which may belong either to lobe} or to lobe ¢) correspond 
with the four lobes seen in Vetradelia (and in some forms referred 
to Ctenobolbina).’ If this comparison be just, the lobes f and g 
may be extra lobes, not seen in Aledenia, Beyrichia, Ctenobolbina, 
or Tetradella, and per haps comparable with the submarginal lobes 
seen in Strepula and Polyzygia, though these differ greatly in form 
from the broad lobe f. But whatever be the interpretation, it 
appears that Polyphyma presents a combination of characters not 
seen in any other genus. Considering our ignorance of the homo- 
logies of the lobes in the majority of the genera, it appears hardly 
worth while to discuss the question further; the true systematic 
position of Polyphyma will be first understood when, by means 
of transitional stages between this form and other genera, it has 
been ascertained what parts correspond in each case. 
LY. OcctRRENCE IN OTHER Districts. 
Owing to the kindness of Prof. Lapworth, I have been enabled 
to examine specimens of ‘ Beyrichia’ obtained by him from the 
Oldbury Shales, and I find that the best example among these is 
referable to Polyphyma Lapworthi. In the Oldbury district, as in 
the Malverns, this species is found in shales beneath the zone of 
Spherophthalmus alatus, Boeckh. It seems probable that at 
Malvern the horizon is that of the uppermost part of the 
Paradoxidian ; it is, however, possible that it corresponds with 
‘the zone of Beyr ne Angelini, Barr., which in Sweden 1s situated 
above that of Agqnostus pistformis, Linn. 
‘ Beyrichia’ Angelini, originally figured without description by 
Angelin, and shortly afterwards briefly described by Barrande,’ 
was iater redescribed by Linnarsson.*’ The last-mentioned observer 
remarks that, among the variety of forms described under the name 
Beyrichia, none approach ‘ Beyrichia’ Angelini, and he regarded 
the generic position of the latter as quite uncertain. 
From Linnarsson’s description, ‘ Beyrichia’ Anyclint appears to 
prescnt some resemblance to Polyphyma Lapworthi; this is seen in 
the chitinous nature, the size, the semicircular form, the flattening 
at one end, and the subcentral position of the main tubercle, and 
perhaps in other respects. But the description is hardly full enough 
to warrant the inclusion at present of Barrande’s species in the 
genus Polyphyma. In reply to a request of mine to be furnished 
1 A. Krause, Zeitschr. Deutsch. Geol. Gesellsch. vol. xliv (1892) pp. 389, 395 
& pl. xxi, fig. 2, pl. xxii, fig. 9. 
* Angelin’s figure (pl. A, figs. 36 a & )) was apparently intended to appear in 
a supplement to the ‘Palxontologia Scandinavica,’ but was never published, 
as might be inferred from Barrande’s statement, ‘Syst. Silur. du Centre de 
la Bobéme’ vol.i, Suppl. (1872) pp. 485 & 495, though proofs of the p'ate 
containing it were privately circulated. I may add that the late Dr. Gustav 
Lindstrém informed me that Angelin’s original specimen was lost before 1876. 
* Ofvers. Kongl. Vetensk.-Akad. Férhandl. vol. xxxii (1875) no. 5, p. 40, & 
pl. v, fig. 11. 
