CYPRICARDINIA. 
7 
belong to the genus Gypricardinia, and they resemble our fossils more nearly than 
they do his figure. Most probably they would be exactly like them but for their 
difi'erent state of fossilization. I have, therefore, no hesitation in identifying our 
Lummaton shells with Phillips's species. 
On one of these Berry Pomeroy specimens, which is an external cast, a fine 
oblique striation is visible, and in some lights this is seen to be crossed by other 
strise, so as to form an imperfect trellis-work ornament. It seems to me most 
probable that these markings are due to the epidermis. 
Turning next to F. A. Romer, we find him describing under the name 
Oypricardia squamifera, Phillips, a shell which seems indistinguishable from our 
fossils. (On his plate he has given it the name G. elongata, apparently by a misprint.) 
Sandberger on the other hand, points out that F. A. Romer's shell cannot belong 
to that Yorkshire species, as the latter has radiating strise. He therefore renames 
Romer's shell Gypricardia lamellosa, and figures three varieties of it. These have 
rather larger anterior margins thau most, but not all, of our specimens, and the ribs 
of two of them are rather smaller and closer; but, if Sandberger is right in 
supposing them all to belong to one species, our fossils certainly fall within its 
limits, and therefore his name becomes a synonym. In the British Museum are 
three specimens from the Devonian of Belgium, received from M. de Koninck, 
and originally labelled by him Gypricardia elegans, but now labelled G. lamellosa, 
which are certainly the same as ours. 
I have a strong impression that G. distincta, Billings, from the Canadian 
Devonian, is also identical, or at most only a Transatlantic variety. It is itself 
very variable ; and its only differences from the English shell are that it is much 
larger (35 mm. instead of 11 mm.), and that the hinge-line is longer than usual. 
The shell referred by Barrels to G. gratiosa, Barrande, is clearly the same, as it 
only difiers in being rather deeper posteriorly. Barrels remarks that the Bohemian 
form exactly agrees with his own except in having a trellis-work ornamentation, 
which he supposes to be worn off in his specimen. From our shells the only 
other distinctions I can see in Barrande' s species are that the ridges are rather 
fewer, and the posterior part rather deeper. 
Again, Clarke remarks that G. indenta, Conrad, only differs from G. lamellosa, 
Sandberger, in being trellised. This is borne out by the numerous figures of it 
given by Hall, which accurately agree in other respects with the Grerman and 
Devonshire forms. In only two of his figures is this trellisiug shown, and in them 
(as in Barrande's) it is so slight as probably to be quite superficial. It may well 
be imagined that such markings might be obliterated in our shells by so rough a 
matrix as that of Lummaton. G. lamellosa, Hall, seems to be only a young form 
of the same shell. 
It seems best, therefore, to regard both Conrad's and Barrande's names, at 
