238 
ing the slight resemblance which it bears to the preceding fossil, I do 
not know a single instance in which I can trace the similarity between 
it and any other encrinital remains. 
I cannot, however, help concluding that these two specimens, 
although both possessing digitated processes, are of two distinct spe- 
cies. This seems probable from the much greater regularity in the 
disposition of these processes, in the specimen Plate XVI. Fig. 9, 
than in that of Fig. l6 : besides that in the specimen Fig. 9» the surface 
of the trochitae is very closely punctuated, except immediately where 
the processes are given off : a circumstance which does not exist in 
the specimen, Fig. l6. A similar but much handsomer specimen 
of this species is figured and described in the tenth volume of the 
Philosophical Transactions: the original specimen being now in the 
British Museum. 
The curiously formed fossil body, represented Plate XVIII. Fig. 4, 
must await the illustration of more perfect specimens to determine 
whether it should be considered as the remains of an alcyonium or 
of an encrinus : its form sufficiently characterizes it as a zoophyte ; 
and does, I believe, afford decided evidence of the justness of the 
opinion which I entertain of its owing its origin to some unknown 
species of the encrinus., 
The whole specimen is formed of a ferruginous, cherty substance, 
which yields sparks but sparingly with the stroke of steel, and on 
which the nitric acid manifests no action. I am unable to state where 
this specimen was obtained from ; but from its bearing several impres- 
sions of the alcyonite already mentioned, as observable on a specimen 
supposed to have been obtained from America,* and from other points 
of resemblance between the two specimens, its being an American 
fossil appears to be no ways improbable. The substance to which I 
particularly call your attention is imbedded nearly in the centre of 
* Page 150. 
