Bd. III; 7) ANTARCTIC FOSSIL BRACHIOPODA. 27 
Of these species the loop cannot be seen and they show no indication of the 
four internal radiating furrows which serve for the attachment of the palliai sinuses; 
and these furrows so marked in the type species Liothyrina vitrca would serve in 
fossil species as an outward index where interior details could not be seen; thus they 
show well through the test of the Chalk species assigned to Liothyrina, namely 
T. carnca, T. siibrottinda, T. semiglobosa, etc. 
Terebratula lecta, Guppy. 
Plate II, figs I, 2; Plate III, figs i a, i b. 
1866. Tercbratiila Iccta, GuPPV, Tert. Brach, from Trinidad; Quart. Journ. Geol. 
Soc. XXII, 296, PI. XIX, fig. 3. 
‘Shell suboval, smooth, sulcated by lines of growth, which are strong and well 
marked towards the margins, and which are crossed by obsolete radiating grooves; 
front edge plicate and sinuate; ventral valve somewhat compressed, especially to- 
Avards the front margin; dorsal valve convex, with a slightly raised mesial fold, beak 
scarcely incurved, truncated by a large circular foramen.’ 
This is Guppy’s description. The Antarctic specimens agree with it very closely ; 
but there are the following differences: the growth lines are distinct but hardly 
strong, the radiating grooves are distinct enough to be seen without a lens though 
their exact character would hardly be noticeable then: they are very close set, nar- 
row, shallow, and somewhat waved. 
In the smaller shell the front margin is straight, in the larger shell the front 
margin shows incipient uniplication, the fold rather broad. 
Remarks: These Antarctic fossils can only be identified provisionally with the 
Jamaican species, for there is no side or front view given of that form. They can- 
not be identified with T. vitreoides, WOODS, because of the front view which shows 
a very much stouter shell than the Antarctic specimens could be, even allowing for 
their being crushed. Terebratula Aldingæ, Tate (Austr. Tert. Pal. X, 2) has the 
beak distant from the dorsal umbo and shows conspicuous deltidial plates. Terebra- 
tula? subcarnea, Tate (Id. XI, i) is rounded, stouter and has not a labiate foramen. 
There are several other specimens of similar character whose identity with the two 
examples mentioned above is certain enough. But besides these specimens there was 
a quite small lenticular form which had the beak broken off : it looked as if it might 
be an Argyrotheca.'^ It has much resemblance to what is figured by Davidson as 
Argioper Rovaseudina (Id. Tert. Brach. XXI, 14) from Lower Miocene and Oligo- 
cène, Italy. However in shape it exactly resembles the young stage of these Tere- 
bratidcB, except that the hinge-line is more distinct: its beautiful punctuation of test 
is of the same pattern as that of these Tcrebratulee when the outerlayer is not present. 
‘ Argyrotheca Ball, 1900, for Cistdla Gray, 1853, non Cistella GiSTL, 1848. 
