Guppy Rp:prixt 
I^age S3 
2S5 
speciiiiens are so infiltrated with mineral matter that the ititernal 
structure is obscured. Neverthele.ss enough is seen to make 
their relationships tolerably certain. 
\^'’e original!}^ obtained the names of Orbitoides mantelii and 
the other varieties found in Trinidad, &c., and recorded in my 
Paper in the Geological Societ3'’s Journal, and elsewhere, from 
T. Rupert Jones, who published a Paper on the Orbitoides from 
Jamaica in the same Journal in 1863, page 514, and again in the 
Geological Magazine, 1864, page 1031 It was from this last 
rather than the first-named Paper that we got the names above- 
mentioned, for in m3" Paper of 1863, read to the Scientific Asso- 
ciation, and re-published in the “Geologist,” 1864, page 159, I 
did not venture to use specific names. Speaking of the Antiguan 
Orbitoides, Rupert Jones sa3's : “This large thin Orbitoides is of 
considerable interest ; it belongs to that si)ecies of Orbitoides 
which is characterized b3' having vertical partitions to its central 
la3'er of chambers, and these more or less C3"lindrical, namely, O. 
tnantelii. It is the exact counterpart of the Orbitoides I have 
lately observed in the limestone from Malta.” He further states 
that he found the same variet3" of O. mantelii in the Jamaican 
limestone mixed with O. dispansa and O. foriisii. Dali, (Proc. 
U. S. N. Museum 1896, page 329) ob.serves that in no case which 
he has examined has the West Indian species proved to be the 
true O. mantelii. Upon this Hill remarks (Geolog3' of Jamaica, 
page 144) : “It is now apparent that Dali’s recent statement * * * 
to the effect that Orbitoides mantelii has not been found in the 
West Indian species is incorrect, and we must accept the occur- 
rence of this species as identified b3" the eminent authorities T. 
Rupert Jones and R. M. Bagg.” The variation in Orbitoides 
leads me to believe that the different forms found in the Trinidad 
and other We.st Indian rocks are all reall3’ of one species. I can- 
not see an3" true and constant differences between our fo.ssils and 
those figured by Brad3" and Silvestri in the places quoted, and b3’ 
Carpenter (Introd. PI. XX). In these circumstances I do not 
feel competent to make an3' change in the nomenclature, and to 
avoid confu.sion I leave matters in this respect as the3" were be- 
