32 
s. s. BUCKMAN. 
(Schwed. Südpolar-Exp. 
from the Pliocene of Europe is not of much value. However there is nothing in 
the Southern Hemisphere with which it can be compared. Then the Boiicliardiæ 
give no help in the matter of direct zoological comparison. 
The BoucJiardiæ^ however, may be looked at from another aspect — the biolo- 
gical: their stage of development may be considered. In this respect they are inter- 
mediate between the Bonchardice found in the Patagonian and in the Oligocène of 
New Zealand on the one hand, and the living Bouchardia rosea on the other: in 
fact they are, so far as biological development is concerned, much more advanced 
than the Patagonian-Oligocene species, and much nearer in development to the pre- 
sent day form. 
The character of the Bouchardiæ is wholly against their being earlier than the 
Bouchardiæ of the Patagonian. Biologically speaking, the Bouchardiæ of the Pata- 
gonian are earlier than the Antarctic Bouchardiæ^ for they agree with the young 
stage and differ from the adult stages of these shells. Then the Bouchardiæ of 
New Zealand Oligocène are certainly still further removed from the Antarctic formst 
they appear to be biologically earlier than the Patagonian species. 
It is difficult then to imagine these Antarctic Bouchardiæ as being earlier in 
date than the Patagonian-New Zealand forms; they are not of the same date be- 
cause the fossils of Loc. 13 are that; and therefore it is reasonable to suppose that 
they are later. And this fits in with their general likeness to the Recent Bouchardia 
rosea: they have much more affinity with that than with any of the fossil species. 
The geological or stratigraphical evidence may now be considered. On this 
evidence the Glauconitic Bank would be earlier than the strata of Loc. ii; for Dr. 
Andersson found it apparently intercalated in sandy beds, which seemed to be 
connected on both sides with indubitable Cretaceous strata — Snow-Hill sediments, 
that is Senonian or older (Andersson, 41). However the Brachiopod fauna nega- 
tives any Cretaceous date: the evidence for its Tertiary character is overwhelming; 
and, therefore, it is only possible to suppose that the Glauconitic Bank was deposited 
directly on an eroded or faulted Cretaceous floor. 
The geological evidence, then, points to the Glauconitic Bank being the oldest 
Tertiary deposit, much older than the strata of Loc. 11; for that is not only sepa- 
rated from the Senonian strata of Loc. 9 by the Tertiary Plant-beds of Loc. 10, 
but its geographical position, some 2 kilom. from Loc. 9, seems to indicate that it 
is much younger than a deposit like the Glauconitic Bank, which is in actual con- 
tact with Senonian strata. 
So far, all the evidence, Brachiopod-faunal, biological, geological, geographical points 
to the conclusion that the Glauconitic Bank is of earlier date than the strata of Loc. 
1 1 ; but Dr. Andersson has drawn my attention to this fact, that “Loc. 1 1 and its 
immediate surroundings is the place where we collected the fauna {Lahillia augtilata, 
