PART 4 .] 
Feistmantel: Eryon comp. Barrovensis. 
195 
median tubercles are smaller in proportion to the segments, than is the case in our speci¬ 
men ; the lateral tubercles are hardly marked, while they are distinct in our specimen. The 
lateral processes in Eryon llarlrnanni are more decreasing in size towards the posterior 
segments than in our specimen. The seventh segment is broader in Eryon Uartmanni, 
the lateral margins being more curved. The formation of the inner pair of the caudal 
plates in our specimen, however, agrees with the same in Eryon- Jlartnianni ; the outer 
caudal plates are not well exhibited in H. v. Meyer’s drawings. The surface of the abdomen 
shows also well the warts of the epidermis. 
Our specimen shows, however, a closer resemblance with Eryon Barrovensis, McCoy, 
when compared with H. Woodward’s restored figure (l. c.): it shows the median series of 
tubercles in the carapace, and also the lateral oblique ridges ; the median and lateral tubercles 
of the segments ; also the lateral processes are identical with those in Eryon Barrovensis, 
McCoy. The seventh segment agrees in general form also well with Mr. Woodward’s 
drawing, although this figure does not show the two longitudinal spaces, set with the minute 
holes; hut in the figure given in W. Jardine’s work (l. e.), p. 227, the seventh segment 
shows precisely the same two dotted spaces as are seen in our specimen. 
The caudal plates are of importance. One of the outer caudal plates in our specimen 
(the right in the figure) shows at the extremity, as already mentioned, a suture, which 
H. Woodward has shown also in his figure, and pointed out as an important distinction from 
the Solenhofcn specimens; and the same suture is also shown distinctly in W. Jardine’s 
figure (Z. c.) This character I consider as most important in the comparison of our specimen 
with Eryon Barrovensis, McCoy. The inner pair of caudal plates is in our specimen 
broader on tbe point of insertion than is shown in Woodward’s drawing; but in W. Jaidine’s 
figure they show almost the same condition. 
With the Eryones from the Solenhofen-Schiefer, as they are figured in Graf Munster’s 
Beitrage ” and in Dr. Oppel’s Palaeontologische Mittheilungen, our specimen cannot be 
well compared, most of these having the caudal plates more triangular ; but the want of a 
suture in the outer plates forms the chief distinction. 
The genus Eryma, Meyer, which has a somewhat similar caudal fin, can, of course, not be 
taken into consideration, the carapace being different. 
From what I have said, it would follow that we hare here a form, which has its 
closest ally in Eeyon Babbovensis, McCoy, of the English lias: in fact, our specimen 
differs from that described by Mr. Woodward only by its being a little smaller (the 
abdomen is 22 mm. shorter ), while it agrees completely in size, <f"c., with that given in 
W. Jardine’s work (l. c.); so that there is hardly any objection to consider our specimen as 
Eeyon Baeeovensis, McCoy. 
As I mentioned, our specimen is from the Sripermatur group (upper Gondwanas), west 
of Madras, which contains plants and animals, the plants being, to a great extent, of the 
type of the Eajmahal flora, which I determined to be of liassic age. 
This Sripermatur group has its immediate representative in the Bagavapuram shales, 
on the lower Godavari; and these shales, as described by Mr. King, overlie beds of the age 
of the Eajmahal group. 
Explanation of Figures 1—3. 
Fig. 1—Bepi-esents the specimen of natural size, showing a portion of the carapace, 
one leg, segments, and caudal fin. 
Fig. 2—Fifth segment twice enlarged, showing the median (m. t. i.) and lateral tuber¬ 
cular impression (1. t. i.), the dotted surface and lateral processes (1. pr.). 
