BERENICE A. 
113 
Liastopora Clementina, Tine, 1893. Compl. Eep. : Eep. Brit. Assoc. 
1892, p. 329. 
Berenicea ,, d’Orbigny, 1854. Bry. Cret. p. 865. 
nan ,, ,, von Beuss, 1872. Bry. unt. Plan. : Palaeontogr. 
Tol. XX. pt. 1, p. 109, pi. xxvi. fig. 8. 
? M M Tine, 1891. Cret. Polyz. : Eep. Brit. Assoc. 
1890, p. 387. 
Distrib. — England — Gault : Folkestone and Cambridge. Upper Greensand : 
Cambridge (recorded by Tine). 
Foreign — Ehodanian : Gurgy, Tonne; La Grange an Eoi, Tassy. 
Xeocomian: St. Croix, Taud. 
Aff. — As originally described and figured by d’Orbigny, this 
appeared to be a well-marked species characterized by a reni- 
form zoarium with very flat upper surface, very low peristomes, 
strongly corrugated zooecia, and the apertures spaced at about 
the same distance as in the original figure of B. gracilis 
(M. Edw.). 
Pergens has, however, refigured a specimen, which is pre- 
sumably d’Orbigny’ 8 type. He shows that the peristomes are 
sometimes raised, and the walls often plain, and though the 
apertures are occasionally rather crowded, there does not seem 
to be any very definite distinction between this form and the 
typical variety of B. gracilis ; the zooecia in the latter may 
be larger, but that may be only a question of age, as the 
difference in the diameter of the zooecia is only between *14 mm. 
and • 1 8 mm. 
As, however, M. Pergens has had the opportunity of studying 
d’Orbigny’ s type the species is not definitely merged. 
Vine has recorded the species from the Cambridge Greensand, 
but I have not found the specimen on which the record was 
based. He likewise quotes a record of its occurrence in the 
English Gault, also based on a specimen that cannot be found. 
Vine’s Prohoscina Clementina was stated at its foundation to 
be different from Berenicea clemeyitina ; ^ but the name was 
omitted from Vine’s complete list in 1893, as though it were 
included in d’Orbigny’s species. 
^ Tine. Addit. Cret. : Proc. Torks. Geol. Soc. vol. xii. (1892), p. 154, pi. vi. 
fig. 5. 
I 
