SUPPLEMENT. 
397 
p. 29), Cyrtoceras difficile, Cyrtoceras, n. sp.,”^ Cyrtoceras Ro- 
hertsii, Phragmocercis ? ungulatum, Poterioceras vasifonne (= Goin- 
pJioceras vasiforme, Whidb. Geol. Mag. dec. iii. vol. vi. p. 29), 
Poterioceras Marri {= Gomphoceras Marri, ^Yhidb. Geol. Mag. 
dec. iii. vol. vi. p. 29), Gomplioceras pocidum (? = Ortlioceratites 
suhfusiformis, d’Arch. & de Vern., not Miinster), Actinoceras 
Devonicans { = Orthoceras Ludense, Phil., not J. de C. Sowerby), 
Orihoceras eutriclium { = Orthoceras comatum, Whidb. Geol. Mag. 
dec. iii. vol. vi. p. 29), OrtJioceras Rohertsii (cf. Orthoceras irregulare, 
Miinst.), Orihoceras Vicarii, 0. Vicar ii var. eductum, Orthoceras 
dolatum (= Orihoceras tuhicinella, Sandberger, not J. de C. Sowerby ; 
and Orthoceras hastatum, Whidb. Geol. Mag. dec. iii. vol. vi. p. 29), 
Orthoceras sub tuhicinella, Orthoceras Oryx ( = Orthoceras Ibex, Phil., 
not J. de C. Sowerby), Orthoceras Champernoiuni (= Orthoceras 
imbricatum , Phil., not Wahlenberg). 
Some sections of Orthoceras contained in two small polished slices 
of limestone (Xo. C. 2167) were referred to in Part I. (p. 103) as 
possibly belonging to a Carboniferous species, 0. cylindraceum, 
Fleming ; they turn out, however, to be of Silurian age, and are 
apparently identical with fragments of unknown species contained 
in a large polished slab of Orthoceras-bearing limestone (Xo. C. 
2729), from the quarries near Kosof and Slivenec, Eohemia. The 
rocks in these places belong to Barrande’s Etage E 2. The slab in 
question is now mounted and set up in the Cephalopoda Gallery. 
Beferring again to Part I. (Supplement, p. 326) it will be noticed 
that I have placed Jovellania among “ Genera of doubtful Affinities.” 
Since the publication of that Part, M. Charles Barrois has published 
an important work entitled “Eaune du Calcaire d’Erbray (Loire 
Inferieure) ” In this work M. Barrois constitutes Jovellania a 
subgenus of Orthoceras, but without giving any description of it. 
He, however, describes a new species {J. DavyV) and compares 
another to J. Kochi, Eayser^, ranking the first (J. Davyi) in 
^ I venture to think that the author would have done well to have named 
this species, as he appears to have made out a very good case for its being a 
new one. 
2 Lille, 1889. 
^ Log. cit. p. 224, pi. xvi. fig. 1. 
^ Ahhandl. zur geol. Specialkarte von Preussen, Band ii. Heft iv. 1878, 
p 69, Taf. ix fig. 3, 
