said to be found in Carboniferous Rocks. 43 
‘little doubt” of its “‘ being the original of the figure just 
cited.” Possibly I am wrong on the last point, as I find that 
Mr Davidson does not believe Martin’s original specimen 
could have been made use of by Sowerby for fig. 3, plate 
Ixxxiii. of the “ Mineral Conchology” (Brit. Carb. Brachiop., 
pp. 113 and 114). 
The question next arises,—Is the original of Martin’s Ano- 
mites crumena a Camarophoria or a Rhynchonella?* Mr 
Davidson evidently believes that it is a species of the former 
genus; but, unfortunately, mere belief does not settle the 
point, since immature, and occasionally mature, specimens of 
some Carboniferous Rhynchonellas have so close a resemblance 
to the external form of a Camarophoria, that they might 
readily be mistaken for one. But admitting that Martin’s 
figure represents a Camarophoria, I certainly now feel con- 
siderable hesitation in believing it to represent C. Schlotheam ; 
for whether we examine specimens of the latter species from the 
_ Magnesian limestones of Durham, or the Zechsteins of Ger- 
many, they will be found to agree, allowing varietal excep- 
_ tions, in being wider, much shorter posteriorly, and in having 
more sharply angulated ribs than the shell delineated, evidently 
with much care, by Martin.t I need only refer to the figures of 
C. Schlotheimi in my “ Monograph” (plate vii. figs. 10-21), and 
to those in Mr Davidson’s (Brit. Perm. Brachiop., plate x1., 
figs. 17-22), as well as to the one by Martin (Pet. Derb., plate 
| XXXVi., fig. 4), to bear out the differences just pointed out. 
As regards the specimen which I examined in Mr Sowerby’s 
collection, although I am disposed to give it up as being the 
original of Martin’s figure, I cannot think of relinquishing it 
_as a Camarophoria.t Further, I am strongly inclined to be- 
lieve that it too is distinct from C. Schlotheimi, from the 
following consideration :—I examined the “nine specimens” 
of Carboniferous C. Schlotheimi, in the Gilbertsonian Collec- 
tion within a day or so of my seeing Mr Sowerby’s specimen. 
* IT have no doubt of the original of fig. 3, plate Ixxxiii., “Mineral Con- 
chology,” being, as stated in my “ Monograph,” a true Camarophoria. 
t Iam indebted to Mr Davidson for a careful tracing of Martin’s figure. 
{ I am sorry to learn, through Mr Davidson, that Mr Sowerby’s specimen ap- 
‘} pears to have got mislaid. 
