SE eee
igs

BAS VU

Library of the Museum

COMPARATIVE ZOOLOGY,

AT HARVARD COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, MASS.

sasiabial eps

“eit gt
No.9 a4, he

Yun LY Ay: ee

a *

A, eat LY Me. LS Bs

a's 5

Soke es

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

ROYAL PHYSICAL SOCIETY

OF

EDINBURGH.

GLO br.

1888-90.

EDINBURGH:

PRINTED FOR THE SOCIETY, AND PUBLISHED AT
THEIR ROOMS, 18 GEORGE STREET.

*™”YDCCCXCI.

iy ak a criss Oy 1 ee ie ly, ed
‘&. ne ahs.
a FON CAa TR a oe my

YRARE

VWF OTOOL Su At ‘aa a q

FA SOOO

i ae
i. jah bys ‘A wht le
cr Ow BY ae

mov Ale PHYSICAL: SOCIETY,

LInstituted 1771. Lncorporated by Royal Charter 1778.

Office-Bearers 1891,

PRESIDENT.
XAMSAY H. Traquair, M.D., F.RB.S.

VICE-PRESIDENT 'S.
GeEOoRGE Brook, F.L.S., F.R.S.E.
JOHNSTON SymineTon, M.D., F.R.S.E.
R. Kipston, E_R.S.E., F.G.S.

SECRETARY.
WituiamM Evans, F.F.A., F.R.S.E.

ASSISTANT-SECRETARY.
JOHN Gunn, F.R.S.G.S.

TREASURER.
GEORGE LisiE, C.A., F.F.A.

LIBRARIAN.
J. ArTHur Tuomson, M.A., F.R.S.E.

COUNCILLORS.

Davip Herpourn, M.B.
A. B. HERBERT.

Rev. A. B. Morris.
Professor Sir W1LL1aAM Turner, LL.D., F.R.S.
W. Eacre Crarke, F.L.S.

Professor JAMES GrIKIE, LL.D., F.R.S.
Ropert C. Mrunar, C.A.

WILLIAM Russett, M.D., F.R.C.P.E.

J. G. GoopcuiLp, F.Z.S.

J. Berry Haycrart, M.D., F.R.S.E.

Lionet Hinxman, of H.M. Geological Survey,
THomas Scort, F.L.S.

a

. f ‘ a
. ¥ © * , mae),
‘ Pe \ hs 1
ne
f ' - ; AP)
@ 4 :
} & a *
are x
1 4 4
ie
‘ ie AG vA
>. i
-
“ .
¥ ra P
a
: a
F e
‘ - a
; .
ri
a at ~
i i ‘
iv > / : ~
4 \
B02
P '
ve
f
. \
oe
i a
4
F o
a Ds
a 7 “
‘ é
Ne et
=
& Ps
‘ ‘
\
F i
' ay
’
'
. 4
A ’ mat
’ d >
‘ ian
ay “7
ee ee ¥
Pe da
‘ ; naa Giset
> "
i ae, © f
vas
ae te
; ' ra } v
: ne” iy .
" ; \ Laat :
Ld ’ , ' , i
! . j ar ue
‘ e. Pas
« ‘ ‘ “ “ut
i seer :
. « ‘ 7
: _ i » Ty
~. : { , Po =.
: ‘ - J tah ) ‘ae
> Pte e

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

moive PHYSICAL, SOCIETY.

SESSION CXVIIL.

Wednesday, 19th December 1888.—Professor Sir WM. TURNER,
M.B., LL.D., F.R.S., President, in the Chair.

The CHatrMAN delivered the following address :

Having now completed my period of office as President of
the Society, to which, through the great courtesy of the
Fellows, I was elected three years ago, it becomes my duty,
before I resign the Chair to my successor, to say a few words
on the present position of the Society.

When I first became a Fellow, so far back as 1858, the
Society, under the fostering care of several admirable natu-
ralists then resident in Edinburgh, was discharging most
useful work, both by the reading and publication of papers,
and by the discussions on them. All of these have now
gone over to the majority, and of them I would more par-
ticularly refer to Professor John Fleming, Dr T. Strethill
Wright, Dr Andrew Murray, Dr James Macbain, Dr Spencer
Cobbold, Mr Alexander Bryson, and Dr John Alexander
Smith, the last named of whom did excellent service to the
Society for a number of years as our Secretary. Since this
now somewhat remote period, the Society has exhibited, as
is not unfrequent with such bodies, fluctuations both in the
number of its members and in the quantity and quality of

VOL, x. A

2 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

the scientific work which it discharged. The publication of
its Proceedings, which commenced in the year 1854, went
on continuously until April 1866, when they were inter-
rupted for a season. This was undoubtedly a serious dis-
couragement to the younger naturalists, who found in this
Society and in its publications a vehicle for communicating
their observations both to their fellow naturalists in the
city, and to the scientific world generally. It was therefore
thought by several members that the time had arrived when
an effort should be made to revive the publication of the
Proceedings, and to put fresh vigour into the work of the -
Society. No one felt this more strongly than the late Mr
tobert Gray, and, from the date of his appointment as Secre-
tary, the Society acquired a fresh life, and by continuing
its work with great activity has promoted the progress of
science amongst its Fellows. Since the year 1880 the
Proceedings of the Society have again been published with
regularity, and form several handsome, well-illustrated
volumes.

To go no further back than the past session, I would state
that eighteen papers were read, and a number of exhibits of
various specimens were made, by the Fellows. The papers
embodied a wide range of subjects. The anatomy of the
Flatworms was discussed by Mr W. E. Hoyle, and the same
naturalist gave an account of recent researches into the
Siphonophore. Mr F. E. Beddard, in continuation of his
researches into the minute structure of the ovary in Mono-
tremes and Marsupials, gave an account of the Graatian
Follicle in Didelphys. Mr George Brook communicated a
paper on the British species of Lepadogaster, and he, along
with Mr T. Scott, read an account of some rare or previously
undescribed Crustacea in the sea area of the Clyde.

On ornithological subjects we had communications both
from Mr John Swinburne and Mr Harold Raeburn, whilst
geological or palaeographical questions were considered in as
many as seven papers. Thus Dr Traquair described his
observations on Carboniferous Selachii; the effects of the
earthquake in the Riviera were discussed by Mr Hugh
Miller; both Mr B. N. Peach and Mr J. Bennie described

President's Address. 3
their observations on Eurypterids; whilst Mr Kidston has
given us the results of a part of his work on the Ferns of
the Coal-measures, and on the fructification and affinities of
Archeopteris hibernica. But the Society has also had the
benefit of several papers on more general subjects: thus Mr
J. Arthur Thomson gave an elaborate synthetic summary of
the influence of the environment upon the organism; Mr
G. J. Ramage contributed an account of his visit to
Fernando Noronha; and Dr Woodhead described the fittings
of the new pathological laboratory founded by the Royal
College of Physicians. This brief narrative of the papers
communicated to the Society is evidence of the activity
of its members, and affords, I hope, a satisfactory indication
that this vigorous life will be continued during the present
and many succeeding sessions.

To keep up, however, our position amongst scientific
societies, we should ever be on the look out for fresh
recruits. We must strive to enlist under our flag the
younger generation of those interested and engaged in
scientific work. In this city, which for so long has been a
ereat educational centre, and where a scientific spirit so
strongly prevails, there ought to be no difficulty in procuring
new members to fill up the vacancies in our ranks caused
either by death or through the change of residence of
members to other places.

Advances in science are made not only by the older and
more highly trained experts who bring to bear on the con-
sideration of the problems which engage their attention,
mature experience, and long continued reflection, but also
by the younger minds, fresher and perhaps more active in
their working, and less under the control of prevailing
theories and modes of thought. These can look at things
from new points of view, and can adapt themselves more
readily to those aspects of questions which are so frequently
undergoing modification in connection with new observations
and a wider range of knowledge. It is by the combination
of both the experience of maturity and the activity of youth
that real progress is to be made, and in its arrangement and
conduct of business the Society must take care that both of

4 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

these elements are retained and made use of. As regards
its membership, the Society is now in a very flourishing
state. The Ordinary Fellows number 250, the Correspond-
ing 17, and the Honorary Fellows 22, making a total of
289.

The Treasurer’s report will have shown you that the funds
of the Society are in a very satisfactory condition, much
more so, indeed, than has been the case for several years
previously. As is known to most of you, the Society, two
or three years ago, was considerably in debt, but through the
efforts of Dr Traquair during his Secretaryship, and of our
Honorary Treasurer, Mr George Lisle, not only has this
debt been cleared off, but the part of the Proceedings for
1886-87 has been paid for, the cost of removal of the library
of the Society to the new premises has been defrayed, and
the Society now possesses a substantial balance at its credit
in the bank. We owe our thanks to the Secretary and the
Treasurer for their exertions in this matter, and for placing
the Society in so satisfactory a financial position. The
Society has sustained a loss during the year, which I feel
that I ought to refer to, in the resignation, by Mr W. E.
Hoyle, of his post of Librarian. To the work of the library
Mr Hoyle gave much thought and time. His extensive
bibliographical knowledge was always at the service of the
Society. He managed the exchanges with other societies,
and the present condition of the library owes much to his
faithful services.

In resigning this chair to my successor, Dr Traquair, I
would congratulate the Society upon having secured as its
President one who for so many years has so closely identified
himself with its work, and who, during his recent tenure of
office as Secretary, has contributed so much to its usefulness
and prosperity.

Occurrence of Sowerby’s Whale in the Firth of Forth. 5

I. On the occurrence of Sowerby's Whale (Micropteron bidens)
in the Firth of Forth. By Sir WM. Turner, M.B., LL.D.,
F.R.S., Professor of Anatomy in the University of
Edinburgh,

(Read 19th December 1888. )

At the beginning of the present century Mr James Sowerby
described by the name of Physeter bidens! a male cetacean,
16 feet long, which was stranded near Brodie House, Elgin-
shire. The specific character of the animal was the posses-
sion of two teeth, one on each side of the lower jaw. Since
that time this cetacean has been known as Sowerby’s whale,
and though for many years the generic name Mesoplodon,
suggested by M. Paul Gervais, was given to it, the most recent
writers prefer to employ the older generic term Micropteron,
proposed by A. Wagner, and used by Eschricht and G.
Cuvier.

No subsequent Scottish specimen was observed until I
recognised in the Museum of Science and Art in this city a
skull which I gave an account of in 1872 to the Royal Society
of Edinburgh,? and which I thought had probably belonged
to an animal captured in the Scottish seas. In 1882 I
described 2 an imperfect skeleton obtained through the
Messrs Anderson from an animal stranded in the preceding
year at North Mavine, in Shetland; and in 1885 another
specimen, collected by the same gentlemen, and from almost
the same locality, came into my possession, and formed the
subject of another communication. A few specimens taken
on the coasts of continental Europe and in Ireland have
been described by other naturalists, but only one specimen
has been recognised on the coast of England, viz., at the
mouth of the Humber in September 1885, recorded by Messrs

1 Sowerby’s British Miscellany of New and Rare Animals, vol. i., 1806.

2 On the occurrence of Ziphius cavirostris in the Shetland Seas, and a
comparison of its skull with that of Sowerby’s Whale (Mesoplodon Sowerby?)
—Trans. Roy. Soc., Edinburgh, vol. xxvi.

3 Proc. Roy. Soc., Edinburgh, January 30, 1882, and Jour, of Anat. and
Phys., April 1882.

+ Jour. Anat. and Phys., October 1885.

OO NID x

6 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Southwell and Clarke! A specimen was also obtained in
1867 on Nantucket Island, Massachusetts, U.S.

In October 1888 the Rev. Robert J. Craig, the Manse of
Dalgety, most courteously wrote to tell me that the Earl of
Moray’s under-gamekeeper, Mr Hugh Wilkie, had just found
a bottle-nosed whale, 15 feet long, in Dalgety Bay, near
Burntisland, on the north side of the Firth of Forth.
Thinking that the specimen might be a young Hyperoodon,
which not unfrequently enters the Forth at that season of
the year, I did not ask the animal to be sent entire to the
University, but only the head. On its arrival I found
that it was the head of Sowerby’s whale. I immediately
instructed my assistant, Mr James Simpson, to go to Dalgety
and secure the rest of the carcase. Unfortunately, when he
arrived there, the blubber had been removed, but he procured
the skeleton and viscera.

The following table records the specimens which up to
this time have been described :—

TABLE I.
Sex. Locality. Date. By whom described. Where preserved.
M. Brodie House, Elgin. 1800. J. Sowerby. Oxford.
: De Blainville é
. F. Havre. Sep. 1825. {and Cuvier. \ Paris.
M. Sallenelles, Calvados. Ewa Deslongchamps. Caen.
Dumortier and ;
F. Ostend. Aug. 1835. Van Beneden. | Brussels.
M. eee Sis Mar. 1864. W. Andrews. Dublin.
Norway. 1866. Van Beneden. Christiania.
re ae 1867. Agassiz & Allen. Harvard, U.S.
M. Skager Rack. June 1869. A. W. Malm. Goteborg.
M. Brandon Bay. May 1870. W. Andrews. Dublin.
Mus. Science
F. Scotland ? 1872, W. Turner. and Art,
LA ae 1 Edinburgh.
erringholm et ae
F, Strand, Jutland. f Feb, 1880. Reinhardt. ... oo gee
M. Vanholmen, Sweden. Oct. 1881. A. H. Malm. Goteborg.
M. Shetland. Apr. 1881. W. Turner. Univ. Museum,
Edinburgh.
M. Shetland, May 1885. W, Turner. Univ. Museum,
Edinburgh.
Salté, Bohuslan, ‘a C. W.S. Auri- ‘
M. cadens. Aug. 1885. { wile, Stockholm.

. M.? Humber.
M. Firth of Forth.

Sep. 1885.
Oct. 1888.

Southwell and
Clarke,

W. Turner.

’ Annals and Mag. Nat. Hist., January 1886,

Univ. Museum,
Edinburgh.

Oceurrence of Sowerby’s Whale in the Firth of Forth. 7
Wy]

In addition to the above well-authenticated specimens, M.
Van Beneden states! that he has seen a very incomplete
cranium in the Museum at St Petersburg, but as to the origin
of which nothing was known.

Specimens of Ziphioid whales from the Southern Hemi-
sphere belonging to the genus Micropteron (Mesoplodon) have
also been described, both by the New Zealand naturalists, by
the late Dr Gray, and by Professor Flower.?. Various specific
names have been given to them. Mesoplodon layardi is
undoubtedly a distinct species,? but doubts have been ex-
pressed whether some, if not all, of those specimens to which
the specific names australis, grayt, haasti, and hectori have
been given, should be regarded as distinct species, or only
varieties of Micropteron bidens. Quite recently Mr Fredk.
W. True has described the cranium of a young Micropteron
(Mesoplodon) collected by Dr L. Stejneger in Bering Island,
in the Bering Sea, as a distinct species by the name of
Mesoplodon stejnegert.* As the skull, however, is that of a
young animal, its specific characters would be incompletely
marked, and it is possible that this also may be Micropteron
bidens.

Sowerby’s whale is obviously not so rare a species as was
at one time supposed. Table I. shows that seventeen well-
authenticated specimens have been taken during the present
century in the North Atlantic or its inlets, and of these
sixteen have been got on the coasts of Europe. No fewer
than seven specimens have been taken during the present
decennium, three of which it has been my good fortune to
obtain. Asa knowledge of the Cetacea becomes more widely
extended, we may expect to have what are usually regarded
as the rarer species more frequently recognised, and the term
“bottle-nosed whale,” under which in common speech so
many species are classed, more closely restricted to the
species to which it properly belongs, Hyperoodon rostratus.

1 Les Ziphioides des Mers d’Europe, Memoires couronnés publies par
V Acad. Roy. de Belgique, t. xli., 1888.

2 On the genus Mesoplodon, Trans. Zool. Soc., vol, x.

3 See my Report on Bones of Cetaceain ‘‘ Challenger” Reports, vol, i., 1880,

4 Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 1885.

8 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

If we look at the months in which each specimen of
Sowerby’s whale has been taken—and as a rule this has been
recorded—we shall see that the capture has usually been
during the warmer period of the year, in the summer and
autumn. February in one instance, March in another, are
the earliest dates, whilst two specimens have been obtained
as late as October, but none has been recognised in the depth
of winter. It is probable, therefore, that this cetacean, like
Hyperoodon, is migratory, and visits the coasts of Northern
Kurope in its wanderings from warmer to colder latitudes,
and vice versd. The sex has been recorded in fifteen cases,
and of these eleven were males, so that the latter sex has
distinctly predominated, and several of these have been
adults, with the ossification of the skeleton completed. In
this respect Sowerby’s whale contrasts in a marked manner
with Hyperoodon, the specimens of which that have been
stranded on our coasts have mostly been females, though
occasionally accompanied by a young male.

The animal from Dalgety Bay was a male, and had the
following measurements :—

TABLE II.
DIMENSIONS OF Micropteron bidens. Feet. Inches.
Extreme length in straight line to middle of tail, . 15 1
Girth of head round eminence in front of blow-hole, ; 3 4
Girth in plane of blow-hole, . . : i : 3 8
Girth in plane of external auditory Sa ‘ : ' 4 5
Blow-hole, transverse diameter of, . : : ; : seh 32
Angle of mouth to tip of lower jaw, : : ; : 1 12
From tooth to tip of lower jaw, ; f ; : : oo 92
From eye-slit to angle of mouth, . : : : : ++. 5)
Antero-posterior diameter of eye-slit, ; ; ; ; vie 1?
Eye-slit to auditory meatus, : , : ; ye 4h
Height of top of head from surface to arene: ; : 1 34
Mandible projected beyond rostrum, ‘ ; : : Se 3
Height of dorsal fin, . ; : : ; < 8
Antero-posterior diameter of base of dor al fin, , 2 1 0?
Weight of entire animal, ; ; : : : : 18 cwts.

Form of Head.—As the head was entire, I drew up the
following description of it. The beak was pointed, and
measured 224 inches from the centre of the blowhole to the
tip of the upper jaw. The blowhole was crescentic, and with

Occurrence of Sowerby’s Whale in the Firth of Forth. 9

the concavity forwards. It was not quite symmetrical, the
right half of the crescent being a little anterior to the left,
and more sharply curved forwards. Immediately behind the
blowhole, the contour of the head was elevated above the
plane of the blowhole for 2 inches, and then passed almost
horizontally backwards.

Profile of head of Sowerby’s whale, from a photograph by my son, Arthur
Logan Turner. The black spot a little behind the eye is the auditory meatus.

Immediately in front of the blowhole the beak was raised
as a convex eminence, which, when looked at from above
was seen to be not quite symmetrical, but projected more to
the right side of the mesial plane than to the left. In front of
this eminence the beak sloped downwards and forwards with
a gentle curve almost as far as the plane of the two mandi-
bular teeth, beyond which it extended nearly in a straight line
to the tip of the upper jaw. The side of the upper lip was
slightly indented by the mandibular tooth, and the distance
from this indentation to the tip of the beak was 9? inches.
In front of the mandibular tooth, the upper border of the
mandible was almost straight, as was also the mouth slit,
but behind it both the mouth slit and the mandible were
curved with the convexity upwards. From the angle of the
mouth a furrow in the integument passed backwards, in line
with the angle, for 5 inches on the surface of the head. It
was at first deep, but gradually became shallower until it

10 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

was lost on the surface. The eye was placed behind the
angle of the mouth, and immediately behind it the integu-
ment was depressed and corrugated. Behind the plane of
the eye slit was the aperture of the external auditory
meatus, which admitted only a fine bristle.

Only two mandibular teeth were seen. They projected
only 3ths of an inch beyond the gum, and very slightly from
between the lips when the mouth was closed. This small
amount of projection, as compared with what is shown in
Mr Andrews’ figure of the head of his specimen, gave me the
impression that my animal had not reached its complete
adult development. The vertebral epiphysial plates were,
however, for the most part ossified to the bodies.

The upper border of the mandible in front of each tooth
was grooved for about 4 inches. No rudimentary teeth pro-
jected through the gum, neither were any found buried in
its substance either in the upper or lower jaw. In this
respect the animal differed from that examined by Rein-
hardt, in which three if not four small functionless teeth
were present on each side of the upper jaw.

A pair of characteristic furrows was present in the sub-
mandibular region. About 10 inches behind the tip of the
lower jaw they were almost continuous with each other
anteriorly, the interval between them being barely $ inch.
. From this spot they diverged as they passed backwards, so
that their posterior ends, which were in the same transverse
plane as the middle of the palpebral fissure, were 9 inches
asunder. Each sub-mandibular furrow was not more than
1 inch deep, and could be opened out at its widest to
2 inch. The skin lining it was soft, and partially wrinkled.
The wrinkling of the skin and the readiness with which the
furrows could be dilated, indicated that they could be
both widened out and closed, a variation in their condition
which is possibly associated with the state of the mouth
when either full of food or empty. Mr Andrews, in his
fivure of the sub-mandibular furrow, makes the two limbs
meet anteriorly ; but in my specimen the relation between
them corresponded with the appearance figured by Carl
Aurivillius in the young male which he examined, in

Occurrence of Sowerby’s Whale in the Firth of Forth. 11

which their anterior ends were separated by a. slight
interval.

Colour of Skin—The skin of the top and sides of the
head was glossy, and of a dark bluish-grey or dark bluish-
slate colour. It was mottled with numerous dark erey spots,
some of which were almost circular in form, others more
irregular, and which varied in their diameter from } inch to
about 1 inch. The centre of each of these spots possessed
an almost white line or point. Between the diverging
furrows in the sub-mandibular region, the colour was a-light
erey, approaching white, whilst behind these furrows the
tint was a much darker grey. The margin of both the upper
and lower lips was mottled with dark grey, and from the
lower lip to the sub-mandibular region, grey was the pre-
vailing tint, though it varied in depth on different parts of
the surface. A faint wrinkling of the surface of the skin
immediately behind and to the side of the blowhole was
recognised, which was apparently due to a partial peeling off
of the most superficial layer of the cuticle, for the skin was
not wrinkled where the cuticle was still intact.

As I did not have the opportunity of observing the skin
of the body behind the head, I requested the Reverend Robert
J. Craig to note down the colour as he had seen it, and he
has written to me that whilst the skin of the back was of a
bluish slate-colour, the belly was a light slate-colour; that a
number of whitish spots were scattered over the body but
principally on the sides, and in some places these spots were
connected by narrow streaks.

Although Sowerby, in his description, speaks of his male
specimen as black above, nearly white below, yet his original
coloured figure has almost caught the tints which I saw on
the head, and which the Reverend Mr Craig recognised on
the body generally. M. Dumortier’s coloured figure of a
female stranded at Ostend in 1836, represents the animal
with a much lighter shade of blue, and in his description of
the specimen, he says that in the living state the entire body
“est du couleur brunatre plombée, a l’exception du ventre, qui
est blanchitre et cendré.” Dr A. H. Malm describes the male
specimen found dead in 1881 off Vanholmen, Sweden, the

12 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

skeleton of which is in the Géteborg Museum, as of a dark
slate-colour, with greyish white, irregularly scattered spots,
especially on the ventral aspect. Mr Thomas Anderson, who
saw the carcase of the Shetland specimen described by me
in 1881, stated that the back was dark bluish-grey or slate-
coloured, becoming lighter on the sides and whitish on the
belly, and that grey or whitish streaks and spots, often
circular, were irregularly scattered over the sides. Carl Auri-
villius, in his account? of the young male caught in August
1885 (3870 mm., 124 feet long), says that the skin on the
back and sides was black-blue passing into lead-colour, and
below it was bluish-grey but not whitish. Further, he states
that its colour corresponded more with Sowerby’s figure than
with those of Dumortier and F. Cuvier. The animal, pro-
bably a male, captured at the mouth of the Humber in 1885,
was reported to Messrs Southwell and Clarke? as being “ very
dark slate-colour, or nearly black on the top of the head
and along the back, the sides a lighter shade of slate-colour
and the under part much lighter still, but not quite white;
the end of the beak and lower jaw rather lighter in colour
than the upper portion of the head.” There can, I think
therefore, be no doubt, from the concurrent testimony of
several observers, that this animal is not of the deep black
colour on the dorsum which one sees in Hyperoodon, but that
the dark hue is dashed with a bluish tint, so that one may
describe the prevailing colour of the back as dark bluish-
erey or bluish-slate colour. The grey or whitish, almost
circular spots which were noticed by Mr Thomas Anderson
in one of the Shetland specimens, and by myself in this
animal caught in the Forth, are obviously also characteristic
markings on the skin. The belly is not white but of various
shades of grey, dashed perhaps with a bluish tint. The
tail and pectoral limbs were similar in colour and shape to
those in the specimen described by me in 1885, so that I
need not repeat their characters on this occasion. As the
dorsal fin had been cut away in that specimen, I did not
see it; but in the present animal this fin was preserved and

1 K. Svenska Vet.-Akad. Handlingar, Band 11, No, 10. October 1885.
* Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist., January 1886.

Occurrence of Sowerby’s Whale in the Firth of Forth. 13

had a well-marked falciform shape, with the concave border
directed backwards. The skin of this fin was darker in
colour than the surface of the back, and was more nearly
black. The shape of the dorsal fin is not correctly given in
Sowerby’s drawing, but is properly represented in Dumortier’s
figure. In both of these drawings the tail is incorrectly
figured as having a notch in the middle of its posterior
border, whereas, as I have shown in the drawing of the tail in
the specimen which I described in 1885,! this border was
convex at its middle, so that the entire border had a
festooned edge. The figure which Aurivillius has given of
the tail in his animal closely corresponds with my original
figure, and with the form of the tail observed in this most
recent specimen. Jeinhardt’s figure of the tail of this
animal,? though without the mesial notch, does not give a
mesial convexity, and is not therefore quite accurate.

[Nortr.— April 1889.—Whilst correcting these sheets for
the press, I received a copy of the Lvening Star newspaper,
published at Washington, U.S., April 3d, in which the capture
of a female Sowerby’s whale, 124 feet long, at Atlantic City,
New Jersey, on the 28th March, is recorded. The specimen
was secured by Professor F. W. True for the National
Museum, Washington. It is the eighteenth specimen which
has been captured in the North Atlantic, and the eighth
obtained during the present decennium.

I may also state that in the Journal of Anatomy and
Physiology, April 1889, vol. xxiii, I have described the
stomach of the specimen of Sowerby’s whale from Dalgety
Bay, and have compared it with the stomach of Hyperoodon
and several of the Delphinidee. |

1 Journal of Anatomy and Physiology, October. Plate iv., vol. xx.
2 Oversigt over d. K. D. Vidensk. Selsk. Forhdl., Copenhagen 1880.

14 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

II. Notes on the White-beaked Dolphin (Delphinus (Lagen-
orhynchus) albirostris). By Professor Sir WM. TURNER,
M.B., LL.D., FBS.

(Read 19th December 1888.)

The white-beaked dolphin, although it has for a number of
years been known to frequent the east coast of England,
has only recently been recognised as a denizen of the Scot-
tish waters. When the late Mr E. R. Alston published his
“ Fauna of Scotland ”? in 1880, its occurrence on the coast of
Scotland had not apparently been recorded.

In September 1879, whilst Mr J. Y. Buchanan was return-
ing from the closing cruise of the Northern Yacht Club, he
shot in Kilbrennan Sound, Firth of Clyde, a cetacean which
formed one of a school that came into close proximity with
his yacht.3 The animal, he wrote to me, was 7 feet 9 inches
long, 5 feet in greatest girth, and weighed 318 lbs. The
colour was white on the belly, and blackish-grey on the back,
whilst the fins and tail were leathery black. In the month
of December Mr Buchanan kindly forwarded the skull to
me, and from a comparison made shortly afterwards with
crania in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons of
England, it was obvious that the animal was an adult white-
beaked dolphin. This specimen was therefore, I believe, the
first of the species to be recognised in Scottish waters.*
In September 1880 a young male was captured near the
Bell Rock, off the mouth of the Tay, and was presented to
the Kelvingrove Museum, Glasgow. It was described shortly
afterwards by Mr J. M. Campbell,’ and is the first Scottish

1 Specimens have been described by Messrs Brightwell, J. E. Gray, Murie,
D. J. Cunningham, J. W. Clark, and T. Southwell.

2 Glasgow, January 1880.

3] may state, that whilst yachting in August 1887 at the entrance to
Kilbrennan Sound, my yacht steamed through a school of dolphins, which I
believed to be the white-beaked dolphin,

4 This animal is No. 19 in the list of specimens of this cetacean captured in
British waters, drawn up by Mr Thos. Southwell. (Trans. Norfolk and
Norwich Naturalists’ Soc., vol. iv., 1885.)

® Natural History Society of Glasgow, November 30, 1880, and Scottish
Naturalist, January 1881. The stomach and some other viscera of this
specimen are described by Professor Cleland in the Journal of Anatomy and
Physiology, vol. xviii., 1884.

Notes on the Whate-beaked Dolphin. 15

specimen an account of which has been published. Since that
time several additional specimens taken on or off the coast of
Scotland have come into my possession, and are now in the
Anatomical Museum of the University of Edinburgh. In
1881 I obtained from Mr Brotherston of Kelso the skull of
another adult, which had been caught off Berwick in July
of that year ;! and in 1883 the same naturalist forwarded to
me the skull of a young female, caught off Berwick in the
month of August, the skin of which he had stuffed for the
museum of that town. In 1885 the Rev. Dr Joass presented
to me, for the University Museum, the skull of an adult
female, taken so far north as the coast of Sutherland. Dr
Joass writes to me that the animal was found beached on the
sands of Kintradwell, seven miles east from Golspie, in May
1882. It contained a calf.

In July 1888 I purchased from one of the Edinburgh fish-
mongers an adult female and a young male, which had been
taken together off Stonehaven, Kincardineshire. The female
was evidently the mother of the younger specimen, which
was a suckling, for milk could easily be pressed out of her
nipples. The relative size of the two can be seen from the
following table of measurements :—

DIMENSIONS OF Delphinus albirostris.

Adult. Young.
P.

ft. in. ft. in.

Extreme length in a straight line, - 8 6 Sit

Circumference of body in front of dorsal fin, . 5 4 2 2

Width across tail, ; : : F 2 14 0 9
From mesial notch of tail to anus, 2 3 1 0s

Length of anterior border of flipper, 1 7 Gait

From root of flipper to angle of mouth, . 1 3 0 5
Length of mouth slit, 0 95 0 5g

From angle of mouth to eye, 0 24 Q 1

Height of dorsal fin, 1 1 0 6
From blow-hole to tip of beak, . : 1 ): 0 74
From tip of beak to anterior edge of dorsal fin, 3 5S 1 10%

Transverse diameter of blow-hole, 0 12 0 1
Eye to auditory meatus, 0 1}
From penis to umbilicus, 0 5#

1See “ Land and Water,” 16th July 1881, where it is incorrectly named
Delphinus tursio.

16 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

The following points were noted in the colour of the
skin :—In the adult female the top of the head and the back,
as far back as the dorsal fin, were black. Behind the dorsal
fin the keeled lumbo-caudal ridge of the back was greyish-
white, lighter indeed in tint than the side of the body imme-
diately below it, but not so light as the belly. The belly
generally was white, mottled with grey, but between the
pectoral limbs and in the submandibular region it was
almost pure white. The sides of the body were a dark grey,
approaching to black, about the middle of its length, but
becoming less dark towards the sides of the lumbo-caudal
region. Both surfaces of the caudal fin were black, though
with a greyish patch on the ventral keel. The dorsal fin was
black. The pectoral limb was black on both surfaces, but
with a slight greyish patch near the root of the anterior
border. The head behind and immediately below the eye
was a dark grey. The skin covering the mandible was
whitish-grey, but almost white at the angle of the mouth.
The skin of the tip of the beak, and that covering the sides
of the upper jaw, was white, though with a grey tint, and
with a darker patch at the middle of the tip of the beak. A
distinct groove, 23 inches behind the tip, differentiated the
anterior end of the beak. It extended backwards for some
distance so as to mark off distinctly an upper lip from
the side of the face. The white erey-tinted patch was not
limited to the beak in front of this groove, but extended for
about an inch behind and above it. The outline of the head
ascended in a gentle slope backwards to the blow-hole, The
mouth slit ran backwards almost in a straight line. The
falciform dorsal fin ascended from almost the middle of the
back, though its anterior border was much nearer to the tip
of the beak than to the mesial notch in the tail.

The young male in its general scheme of colour approxi-
mated to the adult female, but with certain differences. The
back for some distance behind the blow-hole was yellowish-
erey on each side of the middle line, but in the middle line
a dark brown patch extended forwards almost to the blow-
hole. The belly was almost pure white, with scarcely any
grey intermixed. The sides of the body were light-grey,

Notes on the Whate-beaked Dolphin. 17

dashed with a yellowish shade. The dorsal fin was black.
The tail was black on the dorsal surface, and dark grey on
the ventral, but the ventral keel was almost white. The
pectoral limb was black on both surfaces, and had no grey
patch on its anterior border. The tip and the sides of the
beak were differentiated by a distinct groove, and possessed a
characteristic white appearance, dashed with yellow, which
extended for a short distance beyond the groove on to the
adjacent part of the face. At the tip, and on its right side,
an elongated dark-grey patch about half an inch long was
seen. In the white part of the left upper lip four black hairs,
each about a half inch long, protruded out of distinct follicles
which opened on the surface with small orifices. The most
anterior of these hairs was 1} inches from the middle line of
the tip of the beak, and the hair follicles were about ;%,ths
of an inch asunder, and nearly 1 inch from the cleft of the
mouth. An almost similar arrangement was present in the
right upper lip, but only three hairs protruded close together,
the fourth apparently not being developed. The blow-hole
was semilunar, with its concavity directed forwards.

Head of a young male Delphinus albirostris, to show the moustache. From
a photograph by David Wallace, M.B.
VOL. X. B

18 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

The presence of a rudimentary moustache in the young
male white-beaked dolphin is interesting, as furnishing an
interesting example of a cetacean in which the hairy coat
characteristic of the mammalia generally, has not entirely
disappeared, This is not the first occasion on which hairs
have been seen in the white upper lip of this species. J. G.
Gray described? six bristles, -and both D. J. Cunningham ?
and J. W. Clark? have recorded the presence of four bristles
in each upper lip of their specimens.

Mr Clark’s example was, like mine, a young male, Dr
Cunningham’s a young female, so that the rudimentary
moustache is not a characteristic of the male sex. In the
adult female which I examined, and in the adult specimens
which have been observed by other naturalists, hairs in the
upper lip were not seen, so that their presence is a mark of
immaturity in this cetacean, in which they disappear as it
attains adult life.*

The length of the adult female, 8 feet 6 inches (2593 mm.),
establishes it as probably the longest adult female which has
yet been measured. Brightwell’s adult female was 2490
mm., and Van Beneden’s was 2330 mm. But several adult
males have been measured which exceeded it in length, as
appears from the following table extracted from Max Weber's
article® on this dolphin :—

Males.

Metres.
Moore, . : : : 2.70
Max Weber, . : : ; 2.74
A. W. Malm, ; ‘ , 2.82
Claudius, ‘ ‘ - = 2.91
Claudius, s : : 2 2.99

1 Voyage of Hrebus and Terror, p. 35, 1846.

2 Proc. Zool. Soc., June 20, 1876. 3 Ibid.

4 In the Megaptera longimana, the anatomy of which has been so elaborately
described by Professor Struthers, the stiff hairs in the lower lip varied from
#tolinchin length. Theanimal was 40 feet long, and the vertebral epiphyses
were unossified (Jour. of Anat, and Phys., vol. xxii., pp. 119, 443). Various
naturalists have described a moustache in the feetus of the following genera |
of Delphinide, viz., Delphinus, Twrsiops, Steno, Lagenorhynchus, Globice-
phalus, Phoceena ; and Eschricht has described a moustache in the foetus of
Balenoptera rostrata and Megaptera longimana. (See M. Fischer in Mélanges
Cétologiques—A ctes de la Soc. Linnéenne de Bordeaux. Nov. 1868.)

5 Tijdschrift der Nederlandsche Dierkundige Vereeniging, Leiden, 1887.

On the Skull of an aged male Hyperoodon rostratus. 19

As regards the colour of the skin, my two specimens show
that differences occur at different ages. This probably
accounts for the discrepancies in the descriptions of the
colour markings as given by several writers. Sex also may
influence the colour, though probably not to the same extent
as age. In the young male the tip of the beak was more
uniformly white, though with a dash of yellow, than in the
adult female, in which it had a whitish-grey tint. In both,
however, a darker grey patch was present at the exact tip.

Some light can now, I think, be thrown on the time of the
year when this dolphin produces its young. The adult female
obtained by Dr Joass was in calf in the month of May. The
adult female, which I purchased in July 1888, was nursing
the young male caught along with her. This whale produces
her young, therefore, in the summer, probably in the months
of June and July. My young specimen is smaller than the
young female captured in September and described by Dr
Cunningham, and that again is smaller than the young male
described by Mr J. W. Clark, which was taken in March, and
the greater size of their specimens represents the growth of
the animal during the autumn and winter months.

III. Notes on the Skull of an aged male Hyperoodon rostratus
from Shetland. By Professor Sir Wm. Turner, M.B.,
EES ERS.

(Read 16th January 1889.)

Two years ago I communicated to the Society a paper “on
the occurrence of Hyperoodon rostratus in the Scottish Seas,’
and referred to several specimens which had come under my
own observation. I pointed out that the specimens had been
almost exclusively either females or young males. Only one
British specimen of an adult male was, indeed, at that time
known, viz., a cranium in the British Museum, obtained
many years ago in the Orkneys, which, from the breadth of
the maxillary crests, it was at one time customary to name
Hyperoodon latifrons (J. E. Gray),? though it is now known

1 Proc. Roy. Phys. Soc., vol. ix., p. 25, 1886.
* Zoology of Vogage of Erebus and Terror, p. 27, pl. 4, 1846.

20 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

to be an adult and probably aged male Hyperoodon ros-
tratus.+

In the autumn of 1887 my assistant, Mr James Simpson,
whilst spending his vacation in Shetland, observed from the
cliff above the Hole of Scraada a massive skull of a Hyper-
codon lying some distance below him on the beach, and
having communicated with Mr John Anderson of North-
mavine on the subject, the skull was secured in the autumn
of 1888, and presented by Mr Anderson to the Anatomical
Museum of the University of Edinburgh. Mr Thomas Ander-
son has kindly written the following note on the animal :—
“Tt was seen floating dead off the villions of Ure in March
1883. As the sea was too rough to launch a boat, the salvors
from the rocks fixed a small anchor to it, and towed it along
the cliffs till it was opposite the entrance of the tunnel
leading from the sea to the Hole of Scraada, when it drifted
on to the beach at the upper end of the Hole. It was flenched
there, and the blubber yielded 260 gallons of oil. The whale
was newly dead, as no part of it was decayed. No record of
its dimensions or external appearance was taken, as the men
who got it were more anxious to secure the blubber than to
take measurements.”

The skull had been lying on the beach from 1883 until it was
removed for transmission to the Museum in 1888, and during
that time its surface had been to some extent rubbed on the
stones by the action of the waves, and unfortunately the slender
part of the beak and the pterygoids had been broken off.

The skull was obviously that of an aged animal, for the
sutures were obliterated, and the maxillary crests were of
ereat height and thickness. Its dimensions may be made
more evident, and the changes which age produces in the
skull, by a comparison with the young male skull from Loch

tanza, referred to in my former communication.

1See Captain David Gray and Professor Flower, in Proc. Zool. Soc.,
Deceinher 19, 1882; and Mr Thos. Southwell in Trans. Norfolk and Norwich
Naturalists’ Soc., vol. iil,, p. 476.

On the Skull of an aged male Hyperoodon rostratus. 21

Shetland. Loch Ranza,
3 Aged. 3 Juv.
Extreme length of skull, ; : ° End of beak broken off.
ft. in. ft. in.
Height of skull at occipital crests, ; ; 1 9 1 5
‘9 3 maxillary crests,! . 2 6 1 54
Greatest breadth of anterior surface of rie lore
crests, ; 0 84 0 1
Least interval Hetween upper stints ‘of feral date
crests, : 0 14 0 54
Height of maxillary rests sere Pienaar bone, 1 7 0 7
Greatest transverse breadth of skull behind orbits, 2 34 1 8?

The skull from Orkney in the British Museum has also
the end of the beak broken off. What is left of this skull is,
according to Dr J. E. Gray, 5 feet 2 inches long, whilst what
is left of my specimen is 4 feet 14 inches. Dr Gray speaks of
the maxillary crests as very thick, as nearly touching each
other in front of the blow-hole, and as much higher than the
hinder part of the skull ; but he does not give their numerical
dimensions. In my specimen the maxillary crests in the
aged skull were fully a foot higher than in the younger
specimen, and whilst in the latter the summits both of the
occipital and, maxillary crests were almost in the same hori-
zontal plane, in the aged skull the maxillary were 9 inches
higher than the occipital crests. But the differences in
breadth of the maxillary crests were equally striking. In the
younger skull they formed a ridge both on their upper and
anterior borders, which was not more than an inch wide at the
free edge; and, whilst the inner surface was almost vertical,
the outer surface bulged outwards, and the crest was thickest
about the middle.

In the aged skull each crest was almost vertical on its
outer surface; the inner surface was also nearly vertical for
about two-thirds of the distance from the summit, when it
became slightly concave, so that the interval between the
two crests, which was at the summit only 1 inch at the
narrowest spot, increased close to the intermaxille to 5
inches at the hinder end, and 44 inches in front. Whilst
the greatest breadth of the anterior surface of a crest was

1 The height of the crests is modified according as the skull is made to rest
on the mastoid processes or the pterygoids.

22 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

81 inches, that of the summit was only 5} inches. The
anterior surface was also flattened, roughly tuberculated, and
sloped downwards and forwards so as to form an angle of
58° with the horizontal plane. The right crest was some-
what bigger than the left, and projected both a little further
forward and distinctly further back, so as to approach nearer
to the ascending part of the premaxilla. The greatest
breadth between the outer borders of the two maxillary
crests was 1 foot 5 inches.

From a comparison of the relative size of the maxillary
crests and their intermediate interval in the young and aged
male skulls, it is evident that the difference between them is
mainly due to the growth of each crest inwards towards the
mesial plane, which occasions great narrowing of the inter-
mediate interval; and at the same time the vertical diameter
of these crests increases, so that they form the summit of the
skull and head.

On the left side of the head the interval between the
posterior border of the maxillary crest and the front of the
ascending part of the premaxilla was a little greater than on
the right side, and in both the young and aged skulls
measured 5 inches. The anterior nares were unsymmetrical,
the right nasal and premaxilla being broader, and projecting
more forward than the left in both skulls. In the young
male the posterior wall of the nose was almost vertical; in
the aged animal it was directed obliquely backwards, so
that on looking vertically downwards on the anterior nares
they were quite open in the young animal, but almost entirely
overlapped by the nasals and ascending parts of the pre-
maxilla in the aged skull. In the aged skull also the occi-
pital squama sloped upwards and forwards from the foramen
magnum; in the young male it was nearly vertical.

The bones of the aged male skull were dense, hard, and,
where the surface was not abraded by rubbing on the beach,
almost porcellaneous in their character. Although portions
of this skull were lost, it weighed 308 lIbs.; whilst the
younger male, also without a lower jaw, weighed only 37
lbs. The old skull, therefore, exceeds by 271 lbs. the weight
of that of the young animal, and it is probable that this great

Structure and Classification of the Asterolepidee. 23

increase of weight in the skeleton of the head is compensated
for by a great increase in the thickness of the blubber, so as
te produce the bull-formed head which Captain David Gray
has figured as characteristic of an aged male,

The period of the year (March) when the carcase of this
animal was obtained by the fishermen is not without interest.
Asarule Hyperoodon rostratus is caught on our coasts, or those
of the north-west part of continental Europe, in the autumn,
when the animal is making its annual migration from the
Arctic Ocean to the south. Lilljeborg relates+ that a female
was stranded at Landskrona, in Sweden, in April 1823; but
this aged male from Shetland is the only specimen which
has been obtained as early as the month of March. Captain
David Gray, however, states? that on the voyage northwards
in the month of March, immediately after leaving the Shet-
land Isles, these whales are occasionally met with. Probably
at that season they are migrating to the Arctic Ocean.

IV. On the Structure and Classification of the Asterolepide.
By Dr RK. H. Traquair, F.R.S., F.G.S. [Plates I,, 11.}

(Read 21st November 1888.)

Of this remarkable and problematic group of Paleozoic
Vertebrata, the genera with which I propose to deal in the
present communication are Asterolepis, Eichwald, Pterichihys,
Agassiz, Bothriolepis, Eichw., and Microbrachius, Traq. We
shall commence with

PTERICHTHYS, Agassiz, 1840.
(= Asterolepis, Pander, pars, non Eichw., non H. Miller.)

The structure of Pterichthys, sadly misunderstood by
Agassiz, was more satisfactorily discussed by Egerton (8) ;
but the writer who in former times knew most about it was
Hugh Miller. It is, indeed, strange that though Miller
published in 1841 (3) wonderfully accurate figures both of
its upper and under surfaces, Agassiz should have mistaken
the belly for the back, and should have given in his “Old

1 Memoir, translated in Royal Society’s publications, p. 247.
2 Proce. Zool. Soe., London, December 19, 1882.

24 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socvety.

Red” such an utterly bizarre and incorrect restoration, which
has, moreover, been copied and recopied into so many text-
books, down even to the present day.

A brief account of Pterichthys was given by M‘Coy in his
“ Paleozoic Fossils,” in which Hugh Miller’s ideas as to the
number and arrangement of the plates of the carapace are
corroborated. No attempt is, however, made to go into the
structure of the pectoral appendages, while as to the head he
says that it is “ covered by several irregular polygonal pieces,
the exact form of which is still doubtful.” The fin observ-
able on the tail was regarded by M‘Coy as an anal (6, p. 598
et seq.). ,

Pander, in his classical “ Placodermen” (7), has given some
figures of Scottish examples of Pterichthys, which, however,
do not help us much with those details not already known.
But assuming that Asterolepis, Eichwald, and Péerichthys,
Agassiz, are synonymous terms, he added to his elaborate
and valuable restoration of the Russian Asterolepis ornatus a
tail and dorsal fin taken from the Scottish Pterichthys (pl. v.,
fig. 10); and I must agree with Lahusen (11) in protesting
against this figure having been reproduced in various works
not only as “ Pterichthys” but even as one or other of the
species of Pterichthys occurring in Scotland.*

There is therefore abundant reason for going afresh into
the anatomy of the organisms discovered by Hugh Miller,
Malcolmson, and Stables, and named by Agassiz Péerich-
thys. The special structure of the head and limbs was
hitherto almost unknown, and there is also room for rectifica-
tion as regards the body-carapace and tail. And this
investigation is also of great systematic importance as bear-
ing on the question as to whether Pander was right in
maintaining the identity of Agassiz’s genus with Eichwald’s
Asterolepis ; for as “ Asterolepis” has the priority, the only
ground for maintaining Péerichthys, were Pander right in
his contention, would be the inadequacy of Eichwald’s
original description of Asterolepis, and then that name would

1 For instance as ‘‘ Pterichthys Milleri” in Owen’s ‘* Paleontology”
(1860), p. 121, as ‘‘ Pterichthys cornutus” in Prestwich’s ‘‘ Geology ” (1888),
Fol; 31.,"p. 80,

Structure and Classification of the Asterolepidee. 25

have to be cancelled, as it cannot legitimately be applied
to the great Coccostean, named Homosteus by Asmuss, and
familiarly known to us as Hugh Miller's “ Asterolepis of
Stromness.” With that question is also bound up that of
the distinction of Lothriolepis, Kichwald, a genus also con-
sidered by Pander to be synonymous with Asterolepis ; for
although Lahusen (11) and Trautschold (12) have given
good reasons for retaining it as valid, the latest writer on the
subject, Whiteaves, treats the question as one concerning
which certainty has not yet.been attained (15).
Head.—The cephalic shield of Pterichthys (PI. I,
Fig. 1) is of a semicircular or, rather, semi-elliptical shape,
rounded in front and truncated behind, where it joins the
body-carapace. In the centre it shows a transverse opening,
distinctly represented in Hugh Miller’s early drawing
(3, pl. 1, fig. 1), and which, though it was not mentioned
by Agassiz, is nevertheless indicated in his figures both of
Pterichthys testudinarius (4, tab. iv., fig. 2) and Lam-
phractus hydrophilus (ib., tab. iv., fig. 6, and tab. vi, fig. 2).
This opening, slightly contracted in the middle and expanded
on each side, I shall simply call the median opening, though
it has usually been regarded as an “orbit,” and more recently
Cope has put forward the view that it represents the mouth
in the Tunicata (17). It is entirely filled up by a small
plate or system of plates rarely seen in Pterichthys, but, as
we shall see further on, well displayed in many specimens
of the allied genus Sothriolepis. The nuchal region is
occupied by a plate, the median occipital (m. o.), shaped
somewhat like the conventional royal “crown,” but without
the pinnacle in the centre. Marginally it shows six aspects
or articulations—one posterior, straight, articulating with
the median dorsal plate of the carapace; two lateral, each of
which passes first forwards and then obliquely forwards and
outwards, articulating with the lateral occipital (/. 0.); two
antero-lateral, passing at an angle forwards and inwards,
articulating with the lateral plate on each side; and one
anterior, retracted in the centre, so as to form a wide
re-entering angle in which the correspondingly angulated
posterior aspect of the postmedian plate (p. m.) is received.

26 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

On each side of the median occipital is the lateral occipital
(J. 0.), of an irregularly pentagonal shape and having one
side internal, articulating with the median occipital; two
posterior, articulating with the anterior dorso-lateral (a. d. /.)
of the carapace; one anterior, articulating with the lateral
plate of the head; and one external, joined to the angular
(ag.). The latter (postmarginal, Owen) is a very small plate,
also forming part of the cranial shield behind the lateral
plate. In front of the median occipital, which it entirely
separates from the median opening, is a transversely elon-
gated plate, the postmedian (pt. m.), broadest in the middle,
narrow at each end. Its gently convex anterior margin forms
the posterior boundary of the median opening ; its posterior
margin, obtusely angulated, fills up the re-entering angle of
the front of the median occipital, while each narrow extremity
or outer margin articulates with the lateral cranial plate.

Each lateral plate (/.) is of an antero-posteriorly elongated
form, and may be described as having four margins. The
very irregular inner one articulates with the median occipital
and postmedian, is then notched to form the outer margin of
the median opening, in front of which it articulates with the
premedian (p. m.); the outer margin, slightly concave, arti-
culates with the extralateral (e. l.), the posterior with the
external occipital, while the short anterior one forms part of
the front margin of the cranial shield.

The remaining plate (e. J.) of the cranial shield is that
which in Asterolepis has been named “ opercular” by Pander,
“marginal” by Owen; but I prefer to call it extralateral.
Forming the lateral margin of the buckler external to the
lateral plate on each side, this element attains a large size
in Pterichthys, and seems to have been only loosely arti-
culated to the side of the head, as it so frequently occurs
dislocated and removed from its position, while the other
cranial plates still cohere together. In Fig. 4 I have repre-
sented it in an isolated condition, where it will be seen that
its inner margin, which must have been largely overlapped
by the lateral plate, shows a peculiar notch a little in front
of the middle. (Compare Pander’s figure of the same plate
in Asterolepis (7, tab. vi., fig. 1, No. 3).)

Structure and Classification of the Asterolepide. 27

I have seen no trace in Pterichthys of the narrow plate
which Pander figured in Asterolepis (7, tab. vi., fig. 1, No. 2)
under the name of “os terminale,” as forming the anterior
margin of the cranial shield in front of the premedian and
right and left laterals. This bone Pander admitted he had
never found perfect in the Old Red Sandstone of Livonia,
but thought that he found it 7m sitw in Scottish examples of
Pterichthys (2b., tab. vi., fig. 5). Nevertheless, on comparing
the figure here quoted with numerous examples of Pter-
ichthys, I am satisfied that the suture there indicated as
marking off the “fos terminale” is only the transverse groove,
belonging to the lateral line system, which crosses the front
part of the head.

Of the small, narrow, doubly curved ossicle designated by
Pander “ Oberkiefer” (7, tab. iv., fig. 1, No. 1) I know
nothing ; but the oblong plates which he named “ Unter-
kinnlade” or “ maxilla inferior,’ are preserved in sitw in
numerous examples of the Scottish Pterichthys. This sup-
posed lower jaw (mn., Pl. I, Fig. 2) consists of two some-
what narrow oblong plates, meeting each other in the middle
line and placed transversely on the under surface of the
head right in front of the semilunar plates (s. /.) of the ventral
body-carapace. Each is narrower at the outer than at the
inner end, and somewhat concave above; frequently they
occur displaced forwards, even to a position altogether in
front of the head. These plates may indeed have formed the
inferior (or posterior) boundary of the mouth; but it is clear
that their mode of working must have been rather different
from that of the mandible of ordinary Vertebrata.

Before leaving the head of Pterichthys, it may be well to
point out the distribution of the lateral line system on this
part. In all the Asterolepide, as well as in the Coccosteide,
this system consists of grooves, which are apt to be, and have
often been, mistaken for sutures, actual or obsolete; but they
do not occur on the inferior surfaces of the bones, and their
connexion with a similar groove running along each side of
the body amply demonstrates their true nature. In Pterich-
thys each cephalic groove (Pl. 1, Figs. 1 and 2, represented
by the double dotted lines) passes from the dorso-lateral

28 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

plate of the body on to the external occipital, where it at
once bifurcates, a transverse branch passing across over the
posterior part of the median occipital to join its fellow of the
opposite side. The main groove then runs forward on the
lateral cranial plate, and, arriving in front of the median
opening, it bends inwards to join the opposite groove on the
premedian plate, on which it forms a small backward flexure.
This course is altogether similar to that in Asterolepis; but
as we shall see, it is in some particulars different from the
arrangement seen in Lothriolepis.

Body-carapace.—This, as already shown by Sir Philip
Egerton and Hugh Miller, is nearly quite flat below, high
and vaulted above, the sides rising at right angles to the
base; as the former author says, “the contour must have
had considerable resemblance to a high-backed tortoise with
the carapace culminating near the anterior margin,” the
transverse section being “not unlike the outline of a stirrup-
iron.” It is composed altogether of thirteen plates, being
two more than the number given by Hugh Miller, but agree-
ing in this respect with Asterolepis as described by Pander.

The general form of these plates is already so well known
from the descriptions of Hugh Miller and Egerton, that I
need here only allude to certain matters of detail which
require correction, some of them, however, being of consider-
able importance. In Pl. L, Figs. 1, 2, and 3, I have repre-
sented the outlines of the body-plates as seen from the back,
belly, and side respectively, the thick black lines representing
overlapping edges, as seen on the external surface, the thin
ones those which are overlapped, and which, consequently,
are concealed externally when the plates are in situ,

The first point of importance is the presence of two small
narrow plates (s. /., Fig. 2), each of which occupies a space cut
out from the inner half of the anterior margin of the anterior
ventro-lateral (a. v. /.), and is in contact mesially with its
fellow of the opposite side. This is Pander’s semilwnar in
Asterolepis (7, pl. vi., fig. 1), and though not mentioned in
the descriptions of Hugh Miller and Sir Philip Egerton, the
space which it occupied is distinctly seen in one of Sir
Philip’s figures (8, p. 305, fig. 2).

Structure and Classification of the Asterolepidee. 29

Next, as to the anterior ventro-lateral plate itself and the
mode of articulation of the arms. Notwithstanding the con-
trary opinion of Hugh Miller and M‘Coy, Sir Philip Egerton
strongly maintained that the arms were articulated to sepa-
rate “thoracic” plates, marked off by a distinct line of suture
from the anterior ventro-lateral ; and so confident was he in
this opinion, that he went so far as to say that he was “at a
loss to conceive how Professor Pander can have been led to
assign the attachment of the arms to the ventro-lateral plates
as shown on the magnified figure on tab. vi. of his magnifi-
cent work on the Devonian fishes, although in the preceding
plate these organs are correctly drawn as appended to the
thoracic plate” (9, p. 105). Now in this matter Pander’s
accuracy cannot be impugned as far as Asterolepis is con-
cerned, for the Russian plates of this genus were found
isolated and uncompressed, and the place of articulation of
the arm can easily be verified on a specimen of the anterior
ventro-lateral plate of .4. ornatus in the British Museum
collection. And as regards Sir Philip’s appeal to Pander’s
figs. 5 and 9 on tab. v. of his work, in which the “thoracic”
plates seem to be represented in specimens of Pterichihys
from Lethen, he could not surely have read the author’s
explanation of these figures, in which it is expressly stated
that this appearance is due to fracture!

Nevertheless, accepting Pander’s description of these parts
to hold good for Asterolepis and Egerton’s for Pterichthys,
Beyrich (10), Lahusen (11), and Zittel (16) have sought
herein to find a diagnostic mark between the two genera;
but this idea I cannot corroborate. Careful study of a large
series of Scottish examples of Pterichthys has convinced me
beyond all doubt that Egerton was in error on this point, and
that his “thoracic” plates are simply parts of the anterior
ventro-laterals, separated not by a sutwre, but by an internally
projecting ridge, which, in crushed and decorticated speci-
mens, gives the false impression of a division. I may add
that the species macrocephalus, in connection with which Sir
Philip expressed his opinion so strongly, is not a Pterichthys,
but a Bothriolepis, and that isolated plates of the larger species
of the same genus demonstrate absolutely the unity of the

30 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

anterior ventro-lateral and the position upon 7 of the pectoral
articulation.

The articular fossa on the outer side of the anterior ventro-
lateral in Pterichthys, with its contained helmet-process
grasped by the articular plates of the arm, and the foramen
for the passage of the vessels and nerves to the same, seems
to be conformed exactly as in Asterolepis ; and as these parts
have been so well described by Pander from Russian speci-
mens of the latter genus, it is needless at present to enter
into detail respecting them. If the Scottish and Russian
genera are distinct, the diagnosis must be founded on some-
thing else than the articulation of the limbs.

Thirdly, as to the articulation of the body-plates with each
other. Sir Philip Egerton states that “all the plates of the
carapace, with the exception of the lozenge-shaped plate g
(of the under surface), are united by simple sutures ; this, on
the contrary, is attached to its neighbours by broad squamous
sutures, the lateral bones overlapping its margins on all
sides” (8, p. 306); but in the same paper he quotes Hugh
Miller to the effect that the two median dorsal plates over-
lapped some neighbouring ones, and were themselves over-
lapped by others. Now my observations show that all the
plates of the carapace were connected with each other by
overlapping or squamous sutures, a marginal band along the
internal surface of the overlapping plate being thinned off
to fit on to a corresponding band along the margin of
the outer surface of the one overlapped. The hexagonal
anterior dorsal plate (a. d.) in this way overlaps the ante-
rior dorso-laterals, but is itself overlapped along its
postero-lateral margins by the posterior dorso-laterals, and
also behind by the posterior median dorsal, though in
this latter case the contrary is stated by Hugh Miller (ib.,
p. 309).

The anterior dorso-lateral (a. d.l.) overlaps the posterior
dorso-lateral, but is itself overlapped by the anterior median
dorsal and by the anterior ventro-lateral.

The posterior dorso-lateral (p. d. 1.) overlaps the anterior
median dorsal, but is itself overlapped by all the other plates
with which it is in contact, viz., the posterior median dorsal,

Structure and Classification of the Asterolepidee. 31

the anterior dorso-lateral, and the anterior and posterior
ventro-laterals.

The anterior ventro-lateral overlaps the anterior and pos-
terior dorso-laterals, the posterior ventro-lateral, and the
median ventral, while the right one overlaps its fellow of
the opposite side in the mesial line.

The posterior ventro-lateral overlaps the median ventral
and the posterior dorso-lateral, but is in turn overlapped by
the anterior ventro-lateral. In the middle line the plate of
the left side overlaps its fellow.

The Arms.—These are comparatively short, as in Astero-
lepis, and I find their structure to be essentially similar to
those in that genus as described and figured by Pander.
They are hollow, divided by a tranverse joint into two
segments, proximal and distal, rather flattened above and
below, especially towards the extremities, and composed of
numerous plates, which have much the same contour above
and below. In the proximal segment (PI. L, Figs. 1 and 2)
we have the following plates:—two articular (ar), dorsal
and ventral, which grasp the helmet-process of the anterior
ventro-lateral plate ; one internal articular, only visible from
the inner side of the limb, and therefore not shown in the
figures; one external marginal (m), extending nearly along
the whole of the outer aspect of the segment; one shorter,
internal marginal, and two anconeal, or elbow-pieces (a),
dorsal and ventral, somewhat triangular in shape, their
apices directed forwards to meet the posterior extremities of
the articulars, their convexly rounded bases articulating with
the central plates of the distal segment. The distal segment
or “forearm” consists of two centrals (c), dorsal and ventral,
rhombic in shape, with the acute angles truncated, one
acutely pointed terminal (¢), and four marginals (m), of
which two follow each other on the outer aspect, and two
are similarly placed on the inner aspect of the limb.

The Tail—In most Scottish examples of Pterichthys more
or less perfect remains occur of a tail, covered with small
rounded or somewhat hexagonal, shghtly imbricating scales,
which are arranged in longitudinal rows and also in trans-
verse bands, the scales of one band alternating with those of

32 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socvety.

the next; on the dorsal aspect close behind the carapace is
also a small fin (Pl. I., Fig. 3). Along the dorsal margin the
scales are different in shape from those on the sides; in front
of the fin they seem to be in the form of a few narrow, longi-
tudinal, median plates; behind it they are elongated and
imbricating, the arrangement reminding us of the so-called
fulcra or V-scales along the extremity of the tail of an
Acipenseroid fish; but whether they are monostichous or
distichous it is hard to determine. The external sculpture of
the scales is rarely seen, and can therefore hardly be available
as a specific character. (See Agassiz’s figure of the scales
of Pt. cornutus in 4, pl. ii., fig. 3.)

The jin is triangular-acuminate in shape, and seems to
have been covered with small scales, no distinct rays being
seen. At least two specially prominent elongated scales are
placed along its anterior margin, producing an appearance
which has been mistaken for that of a spine. The position
of this fin is undoubtedly dorsal, as held by Hugh Miller,
and not anal, as supposed by M‘Coy (6, p. 599). Sir Philip
Egerton supposed that in addition to the dorsal two ventrals
were also present (9 a, p. 127); but having examined the
specimen, now in the British Museum, on which he founded
this conclusion, I find that the two supposed ventrals are
merely parts of the dorsal separated by a little fault or
dislocation in the stone.

As regards the British species of Plerichthys I have already
indicated my views in the Geological Magazine of this month.
Their characters, so far as I can see, are entirely dependent
on slight differences in the shape of the carapace and of the
terminal segment of the arm, so that I have often suspected
that after all only one “ good” species was really represented.
Were this view to be adopted, then the name Péerichthys
Miller, Ag., would include all the others as varieties.

ASTEROLEPIS, Eichwald (published April 1840).
(= Asterolepis, Agassiz, pars, non Hugh Miller ; Pterichthys, Owen,
Whiteaves, et cet. auct. pars, non Agassiz. )
We have seen that Pander maintained the identity of
Asterolepis, Kichwald, with Pterichthys, Agassiz; and as the

Structure and Classification of the Asterolepide. 33

priority lay with Asterolepis, he proposed to abolish the latter
name altogether, as being a mere synonym. We have also
seen that the attempt to base a generic distinction on a
supposed difference in the mode of articulation of the arms
cannot hold good, as Egerton’s “thoracic” plates exist no
more in the one case than in the other.

There is certainly a very remarkable resemblance in the
form and arrangement of the plates of the head and of the
arms, though as regards the former I must make a few
remarks. I have never in Plerichthys found any trace of the
“os terminale” figured by Pander in his restoration of Aste-
rolepis, and concerning which he admitted that he had never
found it perfect in the Old Red Sandstone of Livonia ; yet
its existence in the Russian form seems probable enough if,
as described by Pander, the anterior margin of the premedian
shows a sutural surface indicating the apposition of another
plate in front of it. I have seen nothing hke the “os
dubium” in Pterichthys, though it may be the central part
of an arrangement like that which closes up the “ orbit” in
Bothriolepis. Lastly, although there is in Pterichthys an
“aneular” element in the same position as that shown in
Pander’s figure of Asterolepis, it does not seem. to project
backwards in the same way from the margin of the cephalic
shield.

As the plates of the Russian Asterolepis have hitherto been
found only in a disjointed condition, it is natural that no tail
should have occurred in apposition with the body; Pander
has, however, referred to the dermal covering of this part
certain curious bodies found in the Old Red of Russia, and
with which he considered the fragments known as Psammo-
lepis, Ag., Cheirolepis splendens and unilateralis, Eichw.,
Microlepis exilis and lepidus, Kichw., and Ctenacanthus serru-
latus, Ag., to be identical. I have never had the opportunity
of examining any of these bodies, and can only say that,
judging from Pander’s descriptions and figures, there does
not seem to me to be any reason for connecting them with
Asterolepis, especially as he himself admitted that they differ
in structure from the body-plates, being composed of vaso-

dentine, while the latter are composed of true bone. It is
VOT. Xs C

34 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Soctety.

therefore clear that no comparison can be instituted between
Pterichthys and Asterolepis so far as the tail is concerned.

There remains the body-carapace. This is more depressed
than in Pterichthys, but the number and general arrangement
of the plates are the same. As regards their mode of articu-
lation Pander does not enter into any great detail either in
his figures or text; but he makes one important statement
regarding the anterior median dorsal which demands atten-
tion, namely, that its lateral margins have on the under side
narrow squamous surfaces which overlap both the anterior
and posterior dorso-laterals (“unter welche sich die beiden
seitlichen Schilder 12 und 13 unterschieben”’), a statement
borne out also by his figures of the plates in question. Now
we have seen that in Péerichthys the anterior median dorsal
plate does not overlap the posterior dorso-lateral, but is
certainly overlapped by it, so that we have in this circum-
stance a quite tangible mark of distinction between the two
genera.

I have not seen the anterior dorso-median plate of Astero-
lepis ornatus; but in the Upper Old Red Sandstone of
Nairnshire remains of a large Asterolepid are not uncommon
in which this plate certainly had the same relations to the
surrounding ones as Pander has described in the Russian
form. This is the Coccosteus maximus of Agassiz (4, p. 137,
tab. xxx. a., figs. 17 and 18), who supposed the plate in
question was a median ventral, while Hugh Miller, with a
better conception of its real nature, wished to consider it the
dorsal plate of “ Pterichthys” major. Having now got
together a very instructive set of its plates, I find that this
creature is not Pterichthys major, which is in reality a
Bothriolepis, but a species closely resembling the Pterichthys
of the lower beds in all essential respects save its depressed
form and the mode of articulation of its anterior median
dorsal plate. In Pl. II., Figs. 1 and 2, I have given outlines
of the upper and lower aspects of this plate, the articular
surfaces being shaded by horizontal lines. There it will be
observed that on the outer aspect (Fig. 1) there is no articular
surface but the one, z, at the posterior margin which is over-
lapped by the posterior median dorsal, while on the under

Structure and Classification of the Asterolepide. 35

surface (Fig. 2) the antero- and postero-lateral margins show
each a narrow surface, « and y, which overlap the anterior
and posterior dorso-laterals respectively. Isolated speci-
mens of the dorso-lateral plates show corresponding surfaces
on their outer aspects. The rest of the creature, as I have
said, resembles Pterichthys, but the carapace is more de-
pressed, the anterior and posterior dorso-lateral plates being
narrower. The limbs are short and are similar in construc-
tion to those of the last-named genus; and though I have
seen little of the head, what I have seen appears to corre-
spond. As regards the tail, as no really entire specimen of
the creature has occurred, it is difficult to speculate; but
numerous rounded scale-like bodies occurring in the same
beds may possibly be referable to this part.

I therefore propose to refer this species to Asterolepis under
the name of A.’maximus, Ag., sp., the name being fortunately
suited to its large size, as median dorsal plates sometimes
attain a length of 6 inches.

BOTHRIOLEPIS, Eichwald, 1840.
(Pamphractus, Agassiz; Homothorax, Ag. ; Asterolepis, Pander, pars ;
Pierichthys, Ag. et cet. auct. pars ; Bothriolepis, Ag., pars.)

Bothriolepis was founded by Eichwald upon certain plates
or fragments of plates occurring in the Old Red Sandstone of
Russia which differed from those of Asterolepis in having the
surface pitted instead of tuberculated. From his very brief
original description (1) it is evident that he had before him
fragments of a creature allied to Pterichthys; but unfortu-
nately he ascribed teeth to it, and imagined its scutes to be
arranged in longitudinal rows, like those of the sturgeons,
with a rough shagreened skin or smooth enamelled scales
between them. By Agassiz Sothriolepis was placed among
the “Ccelacanthi,” and though the plates figured by him
as B. ornatus, Eichw., are Asterolepid (or Pterichthyid) in
character, he gave the name of Bothriolepis favosus to an
undoubted Rhizodont. In establishing the family of Placo-
dermata to include the Cephalaspide of Agassiz except
Cephalaspis, M‘Coy (5) rightly included Bothriolepis, and
Pander went so far as to assign to it a place among the

o6 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socvety.

synonyms of Asterolepis, Eichw., along with Pterichthys, Ag.,
and many other names.

However, the dorsal plate figured later on by Eichwald
(2, pl. lvi., fig. 3) as belonging to his B. ornatus, not only
stamps it as Asterolepid, but leads us also to suspect that it
is generically different both from Asterolepis and Pterichthys,
and that this is the case was clearly shown by Lahusen (11).
Describing a head with a portion of the body attached, as
well as the two median dorsal plates and some other frag-
ments of the body and arms of a species to which he gave
the name of B. Panderi, Lahusen pointed out, first that the
course of the cephalic furrows (lateral line system) was not
the same as in Asterolepis ; second, that the postmedian plate
was different in shape; third, that there was no os terminale ;
fourth, that the articular plates of the arms were longer. But
when he speaks of the arms being more simple in structure
than those of <Asterolepis, and we compare his figures, it is
quite clear that he had before him only the proximal segment
of the limb; and it must also be noted that in some cases he
regards the grooves of the cephalic lateral line system as
sutures, or at least as former sutures, and so very considerably
increases the number of bones which he allots to the cranial
shield.

Trautschold’s contribution to the structure of Bothriolepis,
published shortly afterwards (12), consists largely of correc-
tions of Lahusen’s paper in matters of detail. He also formu-
lates the differences between the heads of Bothriolepis and
Asterolepis, laying stress on much the same points as Lahusen,
but adding that the angular and opercular elements (Pander)
found in the latter are wanting in the former genus, though,
strangely enough, the angular is represented in the diagram
which he gives of the head in Bothriolepis. Noteworthy it is
that he mentions having found in one specimen a lid or cover
to the “orbit,” and accurately fitting it. As regards the
arms, of which he had no complete specimens, he pointed out
certain differences in the arrangement of their constituent
plates, and considers it doubtful whether the limb was divided
into proximal and distal portions, as in Asterolepis.

The discovery by the officers of the Canadian Geological

Structure and Classification of the Asterolepide. 37
Survey of numerous well-preserved entire specimens of
Bothriolepis in the Upper Devonian rocks of Scanmenac Bay
enabled Mr Whiteaves to give a description (13, 14, 15),
accompanied by excellent figures, of a new species of the
genus, to which he gave the name of Pterichthys (Bothriolepis)
canadensis. These specimens are certainly the finest examples
of Asterolepid remains yet discovered, and clearly show all
the salient features of Bothriolepis in a manner never before
exhibited. Unfortunately, Mr Whiteaves does not seem to
have had complete access to the literature of the subject, as
he makes no reference to the papers of Egerton and Beyrich
on Pierichthys, or to those of Lahusen and Trautschold on
Lothriolepis, and consequently does not seem to be aware
that the identity of Asterolepis, Eichwald and Pander, and
Pierichthys, Agassiz, had ever been questioned, or that very
tangible differences between Lothriolepis and Asterolepis had
been already pointed out ; for, as regards the former, he says,
“Tt is still open to question, however, whether the genus
Lothriolepis is or is not a valid one, and sufficiently distinct
from Pterichthys” (15, p. 106).

However, he bases his reference of the Canadian species to
Bothriolepis on the sculpture of the plates, pointing out some
discrepancies in the plates of the head compared with those
in Pander’s restoration of “ Pterichthys” (= Asterolepis) ; and
noticing the absence of a tail, he contents himself with saying,
“Jt seems therefore highly probable that Lothriolepis will
prove to be distinct from Pterichthys proper.” Even as
regards the species, he seems to be in doubt as to whether or
not it is distinct from B. ornatus of Eichwald.

But if the generic distinctions between Asterolepis and
Pierichthys are but slight, nothing can be more salient than
those which distinguish Lothriolepis from both, as will be
seen from the following sketch :—

fead—The median occipital (m. oce., Pl. II., Fig. 6)
has its lateral margins more perpendicular to the posterior
one, the anterior margin shows not merely a shallow re-
entering angle for the postmedian plate, but a deep semi-
elliptical notch or excavation. The postmedian is small,
narrow, semi-elliptical in shape, and, except its anterior

38 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

margin, is entirely received in the aforesaid notch of the
median occipital, not extending on each side to join the
laterals, as in Pterichthys and Asterolepis. The laterals (/.)
are much broader, while the extra-laterals (e. 7., B in Whit-
eaves’s figure) are very small and narrow; but I have not
seen the still smaller plate which Whiteaves figures as A in
front of the last-named.

The pattern of the cephalic lateral-line grooves is consider-
ably different from that in Asterolepis and Pterichthys. No
transverse commissure unites the lateral groove of each side
across the occipital plates, as in those genera; but in front,
just at its inward flexure on the lateral plate, a conspicuous
branch is given off, which runs forwards and outwards to the
margin of the shield, while immediately behind the origin of
this branch, and on the inner side of the main groove, a small
ear-shaped mark is often, though not always, seen. On the
median occipital two slighter grooves are seen, forming an
angle with each other behind, whence, diverging obliquely
forwards and outwards, they pass also over the lateral plates
and terminate near the flexure of the great groove, close
behind the origin of its small outer branch.

These grooves are only superficial, and have nothing to do
with sutures, either present or former; nevertheless, their
having been considered as such has, as in the case of Cocco-
stews, given rise to confusion in the enumeration of the plates
of the cranial shield. Owing to this source of fallacy, Whit-
eaves, like Lahusen, has numbered, in his figure of the head
of B. canadensis, no less than seven plates more than what
really exist, namely, his No. 2 in front, and on each side his
Nos. 2 a, 3, and 9 a, though he owns that 9 a “may possibly
be a part of the postlateral” (external occipital). That is
undoubtedly the case, and in like manner 2 a and 3 are
portions of his prelateral (lateral) and 2 of the premedian.
Nos. 2 and 2a he regards as equal to the “os terminale” in
Asterolepis; but if we turn to Pander’s figure (7, tab. vi,
fig. 1) we shall find that similar divisions are marked off by
a similar groove on the premedian and lateral plates alto-
gether independently of the division between these plates
and the os terminale.

Structure and Classification of the Asterolepide. 39

The median or “ orbital” opening is in perfect specimens
of the head of Bothriolepis filled up by a system of plates,
being the “ Decke” already noted by Trautschold. Whit-
eaves describes the arrangement as consisting of four elements,
one central, like Pander’s “os dubiwm,’ one anterior, and
two lateral, of a rounded form, stating besides that the ante-
rior one shows a remarkable slender process passing from the
middle of its anterior surface right down through the head.
I have not seen these plates in B. canadensis, but the “ld”
is well shown in two specimens of B. hydrophilus in the
Edinburgh Museum, in which the rounded lateral parts are
seen to be very convex above. I cannot in these specimens
trace any separation into distinct plates; but this may be
due to mode of preservation.

Whether this median opening represents morphologically
the mouth of the Tunicata, as Prof. Cope has suggested
(17, 18), or not, the lateral convexities of the lid distinctly
indicate that it covered a paired organ or pair of organs; and
what paired organs could we more readily suppose to occupy
this position than the eyes? Butof what use could the eyes
be if covered above by an opaque bony roof? Here I would
venture a suggestion. May not the slender descending pro-
cess described by Whiteaves be for the attachment of muscles
arising from the inner aspect of the shield, which, on con-
traction, would elevate the entire lid above the level of the
surrounding cranial plates, and enable the eyes to see out
from below its margins? Ido not put forward this theory
with any notion of infallibility, but it does seem to me more
consistent with the actual arrangement of the parts than that
which supposes the median opening to be a mouth, the posi-
tion of which was, I think, more probably on the under
surface of the front of the head.

On the under surface of the head Whiteaves figures two
plates (13, pl. vii, fig. 1, No. 15), of which he says that
they “no doubt correspond to the plates which Pander calls
the lower maxille.” Except that their anterior margins
come too far forwards, these plates do remind us of the pair
seen in Pterichthys immediately in front of the semilunars,
and which Pander in Asterolepis has interpreted as “ Unter-

4() Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socvety.

kiefer.” Is it not possible that the exceeding closeness of
their anterior margins to the edge of the cranial shield in
Whiteaves’s figure may be due to a slight forward displace-
ment, such as often occurs in Pterichthys to a much greater
extent? In a specimen of B. canadensis in the Edinburgh
Museum remains of these plates occur, which evidently are
so displaced, as they are shoved forwards quite over the edge
of the cranial shield.

I have not seen the small median plate which Whiteaves
(same figure, No. 18) represents immediately behind the two
last mentioned, and concerning which he remarks, “Judging
by analogies with the Asterolepis of Hugh Miller, but not of
Pander, this may have been the hyoid plate.” Unfortunately
for this comparison, the “hyoid” plate of Hugh Miller’s
Asterolepis (= Homosteus) was, thirty years ago, determined
to be the median dorsal plate of its carapace (7, p. 76).

Body-carapace—This is more depressed in othriolepis
than in Pterichthys, has a dorso-lateral angulated margin as
well as a vertro-lateral one, and the dorsal surface is broader
than the ventral one. The median dorsal plates are not so
acutely elevated mesially as in Pterichthys ; in some species
they are only gently convex on the upper aspect. The ante-
rior median dorsal, usually rather wide in its shape, articulates
as in Pterichthys (but not as in Asterolepis), its antero-lateral
margin overlapping the anterior dorso-lateral, while the
postero-lateral margin is, on the other hand, overlapped by
the posterior dorso-lateral. The inner surface of this ante-
rior median dorsal (Pl. I1., Fig. 3) shows a sharp median
ridge, from which anteriorly two short branches are seen to
diverge at acute angles forwards and outwards. On the
inferior surface of the body the anterior ventro-laterals
(Pl II. Fig. 5) show a peculiarity in shape which dis-
tinguishes them from the corresponding plates in Pterichthys
and Asterolepis in not exhibiting in front the prominent
emargination for the senilunar plates seen in those genera.
In fact, no precisely similar semilunar plates exist, though
these seem to be represented by a single small triangular one
occupying the median notch at the union of the two anterior
ventro-laterals. This is figured by Whiteaves in B. cana-

Structure and Classification of the Asterolepid. 41

densis (tab. et fig. cit., No. 17), and it is indicated, though,
obscurely, in many specimens of B. hydrophilus (Pl. I.,
Fig. 5).

The lateral-line groove is continued on the body-carapace
from the external occipital along the dorso-lateral plates on
each side immediately below their longitudinal flexure. In
addition to this, another groove in the form of an inverted V
is seen on the dorsal surface, the apex of the V being a little
in front of the middle of the anterior median dorsal plate,
while its legs extend outwards and backwards over the
posterior dorso-lateral (see Pl. IT., Fig. 4).

Arms.—The pectoral limbs in Bothriolepis are distin-
guished from those of both Pterichthys and Asterolepis by
their greater length, which usually equals or even exceeds
that of the carapace, and this is due chiefly to the greater
proportional extent of the proximal segment of each. Con-
sequently the articular and marginal plates of that segment
are of greater length than in those two genera; but what is
more remarkable is, that the anconeal element (Pl. IL,
Fig. 4, a) is reduced to a small rounded plate on the dorsal,
and apparently entirely wanting on the ventral aspect of the
limb ; so that beyond the articulars the marginals are entirely
in contact with each other on the ventral side, and only
separated towards their extremities on the dorsal. In so far
as the proximal joint is concerned, the limb of Bothriolepis
may be said to be simpler in construction than in Pter-
ichthys ; but this is not true of the distal part, in which both
the central and marginal rows contain each at least one
additional plate.

Tail.—It is remarkable that no tail is seen in Bothriolepis,
although numerous specimens both of b. canadensis and B.
hydrophilus seem perfect in every other respect. It is there-
fore perfectly plain that, caudal scales were absent, though it
does not seem to me quite so safe to assume that no caudal
appendage was ever present; for the posterior aspect of the
carapace shows a large opening just as in Péerichthys, out of
which it is difficult to conceive that absolutely no body-
prolongation ever proceeded, and it does seem quite possible
that a tail might have existed, though unprovided with hard

42 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

parts capable of preservation. Moreover, in a specimen of
B. canadensis in the Edinburgh Museum there is to be seen,
just at the place where the tail occurs in Pterichthys, a pecu-
liar dark organic-looking film, which is strikingly suggestive
of the remains of such an appendage.

British Species of Bothriolepis.

B. hydrophilus, Ag., sp. (=Pamphractus hydrophilus and
Anderson, Ag.; Homothorax Flemingii, Ag.; Pterichthys
hydrophilus, Miller, Egerton).—This interesting form, remark-
able for its occurrence in great numbers crowded together in
the Dura Den fish-bed, was elevated by Agassiz into a genus
distinct from Pterichthys, but on mistaken grounds, as he
compared what was in reality the ventral surface of that
genus with the dorsal one of the present subject. The error
of this diagnosis having been seen by Hugh Miller and Sir
Philip Egerton, hydrophilus was restored by them to Pter-
ichthys, to which, indeed, Agassiz himself had first of all
referred it.

Recently, however, on carefully developing the specimens
on a portion of Dr Anderson’s original slab, now in the Edin-
burgh Museum, I was interested to find that this species
does not belong to Pterichthys after all, but is an unmistak-
able Bothriolepis, closely allied to L. canadensis. This is at
once apparent from the restored figure of its upper surface
which I have given on Pl. IL, Fig. 4." It differs some-
what in the sculpture of the plates, which is delicately
pitted-reticulate, while in B. canadensis it retains rather more
of a confluent tubercular character over most parts of the
carapace. The proximal joint of the arm seems also slightly
longer in proportion to the distal, and the denticulation of
its outer margin rather coarser.

It is quite obvious that, as Hugh Miller and Sir P. Egerton
have already pointed out (8, pp. 311 and 314), Homothorax
Flemingu, Ag. (4, tab. xxxi., fig. 6), is founded on a bad
drawing of the under surface of the species under considera-
tion.

B. major, Ag., sp. (=Pterichthys major, Ag.; Placothorax
paradoxus, Ag.).—This has been already referred to Bothrio-

Structure and Classification of the Asterolepide. 43

lepis by Lahusen (11), whose opinion I can amply corrobo-
rate. Its remains, as they occur at Scat Craig, near Elgin,
are very fragmentary ; but I think they are identifiable with
those which occur at Heads of Ayr ina more perfect state.
Tubercles of the surface confluent, sometimes into tortuous
ridges, more generally forming a reticulation, the stellation of
their bases often observable; limbs with the proximal joint
proportionally long and slender.

Lb. macrocephalus, Egert., sp. (= Pterichthys macrocephalus,
Egert.).—The long arms and the shape of the anterior parts
of the ventro-lateral plates clearly show that this minute
species is a Lothriolepis, and very closely allied to B. hydro-
philus, Ag., sp. This is quite evident from a glance at Sir
Philip Egerton’s figures (9); but I have also carefully
examined the type specimens in the British Museum. The
body-plates are sculptured with a delicate reticulate pitting
also resembling that of B. hydrophilus.

In the Geological Magazine for this month I have
named and briefly defined two additional species, viz.,
B. giganteus, Traq., from the Upper Old Red of Alves, near
Elgin, and J. obesus, Traq., from a similar horizon, near
Jedburgh.

MICROBRACHIUS, Traquair, 1888.

(= Pterichthys, pars, C. W. Peach ; Microbrachius, Traq., Geol. Mag.
Nov. 1888.)

The small species discovered by the late Mr C. W. Peach
in the Lower Old Red of John o’ Groat’s, and named by
him Péterichthys Dickit,: shows some peculiarities which seem
to me to be decidedly of generic value.

It is small in size, head and carapace together measuring
only about 14 inches in length. In shape it resembles Bothrio-
lepis, having the carapace generally depressed and broader on
the upper than on the under surface. On the upper surface
the anterior margin of the carapace forms a deep re-entering
angle (see Pl. II., Fig. 8) or emargination, so that the antero-
external angles of the anterior dorso-lateral plates project
considerably in front.

?

1 British Assoc, Rep., 1867.

+4 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

The anterior dorso-median is peculiarly broad in shape.
Its antero-lateral margin on each side first envelops the
anterior dorso-lateral, and is then overlapped by it, this rela-
tion of the plates to each other being thus suddenly reversed.
Behind this the postero-lateral and posterior margins of the
plate are, as in Pterichthys and Bothriolepis, overlapped by
the posterior dorso-lateral and the posterior dorso-median ;
the last-mentioned plate shows posteriorly a prominent angu-
lar point, projecting over the hinder opening of the carapace.
On the underside the median ventral plate is extremely
small. The arms are short, slender, and pointed; the plates
of the head, which is large, are not well enough preserved
to be readable. The outer surface of the body-plates is
minutely tuberculated, the tubercles often tending to con-
fluence in concentric lines.

In the form of the carapace Microbrachius resembles Bothrio-
lepis, but the arms are short, and the mode of articulation
of the anterior dorso-median plate is altogether peculiar.
Only the type species, Microbrachius Dickw, Peach, sp., is
known.

I have no material at present to enable me to enter into
the discussion of Actinolepis, Ag., or Chelyophorus, Ag., of
which the former at least is pretty certainly Asterolepid, as
already noticed by Miller and Egerton; and the discussion
of the general affinities of the group will form the subject of
a subsequent communication.

List OF WORKS REFERRED TO.

(1.) Eichwald, E. von.—*“ Die Thier- und Pflanzenreste des
alten rothen Sandsteins und Bergkalks im Novgorod-
schen Gouvernement,’ Bull. Sc. St. Pétersbourg,
April 1840.

(2.) Eichwald, E. von.— Lethea Rossica,” Stuttgart, 1860.

(3.) Miller, Hugh.—“ The Old Red Sandstone, or New Walks
in an Old Field,” 1st edition, Edinburgh, 1841.

(4.) Agassiz, L—‘ Monographie des Poissons Fossiles du
vieux Grés Rouge,” Neufchatel, 1845.

(5.) M‘Coy, F.—*“ On some new Fossil Fish of the Carboni-

Structure and Classification of the Asterolepidee. 45

ferous Period,” Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist. [2], vol. it,
pp. 1-10.

(6.) M‘Coy, F.—*“ Systematic Description of the British
Paleozoic Fossils in the Geological Museum of the
University of Cambridge,” London, 1851-55.

(7.) Pander, C. H—*“ Ueber die Placodermen des devonis-
chen Systems,” St Petersburg, 1857.

(8.) Grey-Egerton, Sir P. de M., and Miller, H.—On Prerich-
thys, contained in “ Palwichthyological Notes.—No. 1,”
Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., 1848, pp. 302-314.

(9.) Grey-Egerton, Sir P. de M.— On a Species of Pterich-
thys (Pterichthys macrocephalus, Egert.) from the
Yellow Sandstone of Farlow, Co. Salop,” Quart. Journ.
Geol. Soc., 1862, pp. 103-106.

(9a.) Grey-Egerton, Sir P. de M.—“ Remarks on the Nomen-
clature of the Devonian Fishes,” Quart. Jowrn. Geol.
Soc., 1859, pp. 119-136.

(10.) Beyrich.—* Ueber einen Plerichthys von Gerolstein,”
Zeitschr. deutsch. geol. Gesellsch., 1877, p. 754.

(11.) Lahusen, J.—“ Zur Kenntniss der Gattung Bothriolepis,
Eichw.,” Zrans. Imp. Min. Soc., St Petersburg, 1879.

(12.) Trautschold, H.—‘ Ueber Bothriolepis Panderi, Lahu-
sen,” Bull. Soc. Imp. Nat. Mosc., vol. lv., pt. 2, 1880.

(13.) Whiteaves, J. F.—“On a new Species of Pterichthys
allied to Bothriolepis ornata, Kichw., from the Devon-
ian Rocks of the North Side of the Baie des Chaleurs,”
Am. Journ. Sci., xx., August 1880.

(14.) Whiteaves, J. F—‘“ On some remarkable Fossil Fishes
from the Devonian Rocks of Scaumenac Bay, P. Q.,
with Descriptions of a new Genus and three new
Species,” Can. Nat., vol. x., No. 1, 1881.

(15.) Whiteaves, J. F.—“ Illustrations of the Fossil Fishes of
the Devonian Rocks of Canada,” Trans. Roy. Soc. Can.,
section iv., 1886.

(16.) Zittel, K. A—* Handbuch der Palzontologie,” i. Ab-
theilung, ili. Band, 1 Lieferung.

(17.) Cope, E. D.—*“<The Position of Pterichthys in the
System,” Amer. Nat., vol. xix., 1885, pp. 289-291.

(18.) Cope, E. D—“ An Interesting Connecting Genus of
Chordata,” Amer. Nat., vol. xx., 1886, pp. 1027-1031.

46 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socvety.

EXPLANATION OF THE PLATES.

(In all the figures the same letters refer to the same things. )

m. occ. Median occipital. p. m. d. Posterior median dorsal.
l. occ. Lateral occipital. a. d. 1. Anterior dorso-lateral.
ag. Angular. p. d. l. Posterior dorso-lateral.
pt. m. Postmedian. a. v. 1. Anterior ventro-lateral.
p.m. Premedian. p. v. l. Posterior veutro-lateral.
l. Lateral. m. v. Median ventral.
é. l. Extra-lateral. ar. Articular of limb.
mn. Mental plates, the ‘‘Unter- a. Anconeal of limb.

kiefer’”’ of Pander. c. Central of limb.
s. 1, Semilunar. m. Marginal of limb.

a. m. d. Anterior median dorsal.

PLatTe I.

Fig. 1. Restored outline of Pterichthys cornutus, Ag., seen from the dorsal
surface. The thin black lines in this and Figs. 2 and 3 denote the edges of
the plates which are overlapped, and therefore concealed ; the double dotted
lines indicate the grooves occupied by the lateral canal-system.

Fig. 2. Restored outline of the same species seen from the ventral aspect.

Fig. 3. Restored outline of the same species, lateral aspect.

Fig. 4. Outline of extra-lateral plate of Pterichthys, natural size.

Pratre Tl,

Fig. 1. Outline of external surface of anterior median dorsal plate of
Asterolepis maximus, Ag., sp., much reduced. The shaded area z is that
overlapped by the front of the posterior median dorsal plate.

Fig. 2. Outline of the internal surface of the same plate; « and y, marginal
areas overlapping the anterior and posterior dorso-lateral plates respectively.

Fig. 3. Outline of internal surface of anterior median dorsal plate of
Bothriolepis giganteus, Traq.; x, area overlapping the anterior dorso-lateral.

Fig. 4. Restored outline of the dorsal aspect of Bothriolepis hydrophilus,
Ag., sp., from specimens in the Edinburgh Museum. The overlapped edges
of the plates are not given here, but the lateral-line grooves are shown by
double dotted lines.

Fig. 5. Front of anterior ventro-lateral plates of B. hydrophilus ; s. l., the
single plate representing the semilunars.

Fig. 6. Outlines of the bones of the head of B. canadensis, Whiteaves,
from specimens in the Edinburgh Museum, except the plates filling the median
opening, which are copied from Whiteaves.

Fig. 7. Anterior median dorsal plate of Microbrachius Dickii, Peach, sp.,
showing its articulation with the anterior dorso-laterals,

Fig. 8. Dorsal plates of the carapace of Microbrachius Dickii seen from the
internal aspect ; the outlines of the head and of one of the arms are likewise
shown.

Homosteus, Asmuss, compared with Coccosteus, Agassiz. 47

V. Homosteus, Asmuss, compared with Coccosteus, Agassiz.
By Dr R. H. Traquair, F.R.S., F.G.S. [Plate III]

(Read 21st November 1888.)

The creature which forms the subject of the present com-
munication is the same as that which was described as
Asterolepis by Hugh Miller in his “ Footprints of the
Creator,’ and consequently its remains are at present better
known to British geologists and paleontologists under that
name. Why, then, alter a name which we have used so
long ? is a question likely to be asked by those who have
not critically studied the complicated mesh in which the
synonymy of the name “ Asferolepis” is entangled.

The genus Asterolepis was proposed by Eichwald in 1840!
for fragmentary remains of the exoskeleton of a vertebrate
organism, from the Russian Devonian rocks, allied to Pter-
ichthys, Ag. To these remains Agassiz also applied the
name Chelonichthys, which he subsequently withdrew in
favour of Asterolepis as having priority; and with them he
also identified generically certain large bones and plates from
the Lower Old Red of Dorpat, some of which were first
figured by Kutorga? as “ Trionyx” and “ Ichthyosauroides,”
and of which a considerable number, collected by Asmuss,
were reproduced in plaster and copies sent to Agassiz. A
number of these casts were figured by Agassiz? as bones
of “ Asterolepis,’ some of which are generically identical
with the creature of whose bones and cranial buckler many
fine specimens from Thurso, largely collected by Robert
Dick, came into the possession of Hugh Miller. And thus
it was that these remains came to be figured by Hugh Miller
as belonging to Asterolepis, although they had no affinity to
the creature to which Eichwald originally gave that name,
their identification with which being entirely due to a

1** Die Thier- und Pflanzenreste des alten rothen Sandsteins und Berg-
kalks im Novgorodschen Gouvernement” (Bull. Acad. Imp. St Pétersburg,
tome vii., p. 78).

” Beitrage zur Geognosie und Palaeontologie Dorpats, 1835-37.

8 Poiss. Foss. du vieux Grés Rouge, tab. xxxii.

48 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

mistake of Agassiz, misled as he was by their mere external
sculpture, consisting of small tubercles with stellate bases.

For, that “ Asterolepis” cannot be applied to any of the
remains from Dorpat represented by these casts, is uncon-
sciously shown by Agassiz himself, inasmuch as he figured
as “ Asterolepis ornata,’ Eichwald, a nuchal or median
occipital plate of unmistakable Pterichthyan character,
apparently quite unaware of the significance of its shape.
Nevertheless Agassiz, in some controversial remarks on the
subject, insisted that his Chelonichthys (= -Asterolepis) had
nothing to do with Pterichthys ! ?

Now, in 1856, Asmuss published a thesis? in which he
minutely described the Dorpat fossil bones, including the
subjects of the aforesaid casts, and made out of them two
genera, Homosteus and Heterosteuws, with many species. In
the former of these two, namely Homosteus, Hugh Miller's
fish, the so-called “ Asterolepis of Stromness,”’ is clearly to
be recognised.

Upon these facts Pander insists in his “ Placodermen,” and
not only did he propose to replace “ Asterolepis” by Homo-
steus in the case of Hugh Miller's fish, but believing
Asterolepis, Kichw., to be altogether identical with Pterichthys,
Agassiz, as the name is undoubtedly prior, he proceeded to
cancel the latter name altogether.

Naturally Pander’s views excited opposition in this
country, where the names brought into use by Agassiz and
Hugh Miller had become classic through the writings of
these distinguished men. Sir Philip Egerton, who does not
seem to me to have thoroughly understood the situation,
fiercely combated the proposals of Pander in the following
words : “ Having read both sides of the question with great
care, My Own impression is that Prof. Eichwald may perhaps
have included in his genus Asterolepis some fragments which
he subsequently ascertained (through the more perfect
Scotch specimens sent to Russia by Dr Hamel) to belong to

1 Op. cit., tab. xxx., figs. 5, 6.

* Op. cit., appendix, p. 152.

* Das vollkommenste Hautskelet der bisher bekannten Thierreiche, Dorpat,
1856.

Homosteus, Asmuss, compared with Coccosteus, Agassiz. 49

the genus Pterichthys of Agassiz, and hence discarding the
majority, namely, Asterolepis proper, assigns this name to
the minority, to the exclusion of the Agassizian name. In
the meantime Prof. Agassiz, then engaged upon his ‘ Poissons
Fossiles du vieux Grés Rouge,’ received through Prof.
Brown, from Eichwald himself, specimens of his A sterolepis,
which had no reference to Pterichthys, but were identical
with the genus Chelonichthys established upon specimens
brought over from Russia by Sir Roderick Murchison, and
of which other specimens were found in the Orkney beds.
On making ‘this discovery, he at once relinquished his own
name, Chelonichthys, and adopted Asterolepis of Eichwald.
If now itis sought to supersede Pterichthys of Agassiz by
Asterolepis of Eichwald, it is surely just that the term
Chelonichthys should be retained for Eichwald’s rejectamenta,
rather than Homosteus of Asmuss, a name of much later
date than that of Agassiz.” }

But whatever the specimens from the Orkney beds may
have been, if any one will only compare Agassiz’s own
figure of Asterolepis ornata, Eichwald (“ Old Red,” tab. 30,
fig. 5), with the plate No. 10 in Pander’s restoration of the
same species (“ Placodermen,” tab. 6, fig. 1), he will see that
this specimen at least, far from having “no reference to
Pterichthys,’ is the median occipital plate of a very closely
allied form indeed. Without injustice to the memory of
Sir Philip Egerton, to whom paleichthyological science is
indebted for so much valuable work, it is clear that he had not
sufficiently gone into this question at least, as the fact above
noted was dwelt upon by Pander himself (op. cit., p. 16).

On the Continent, however, the name Homosteus, Asm.,
has been adopted for Hugh Miller’s fish, and reasons have
also been found for maintaining Pterichthys and <Asterolepis
as distinct genera, in a supposed difference in the articula-
tion of the arms. In the Geological Magazine* for this year
I have shown that this supposed diagnostic mark is unten-
able, at the same time that I have sought to establish

1 Quart. Journ. Geol. Sec., vol. xvi., 1859, p. 122.
2 Notes on the Nomenclature of the Fishes of the Old Red Sandstone
(Geol. Mag., Dec. III., vol. v., 1888, p. 508).

VOL; 35 D

50 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Soctety.

another on the mode of articulation of the anterior median
dorsal plate.

But Agassiz’s work, in which he classified “ Asterolepis ’
among his “ Ccelacanthi,’ a group generally equal to the
Cycliferous Crossopterygii of more recent times, was the
means of drawing Hugh Miller into mistakes of much
greater importance than mere nomenclature. Accordingly,
as Pander pointed out, Miller attributed to his Asterolepis
“the teeth of Dendrodus and the scales of Glytolepis,’ and
made a very formidable creature out of it, ten to thirteen
feet in length; indeed, referring one of the large Russian
plates (Heterosteus, Asmuss) to the same genus, he calculated
a length of eighteen to twenty-three feet for the entire fish.
And his non-recognition of the true affinities of the creature
Jed also to other mistakes in the identification of bones, to
which allusion will be made in due course.

By Asmuss Homosteus and Heterostews were placed in a
family by themselves, Chelonichthyda, in a somewhat hetero-
geneous group of “Ganoidea loricata,” the other families herein
included being Spatularida, Acipenserida, Coccosteide, Pter-
ichthyda, and Cephalaspida. As regards Homosteus, though,
as Pander remarks, it is wonderful how, without knowledge
of Hugh Miller's drawings or description, he was able to fit
together the isolated plates at his disposal, yet, unacquainted
with the orbits, he supposed the cuirass to belong exclusively
to the body, and also entirely reversed its position on the
animal.

Pander, however, classified Homosteus in M‘Coy’s group of
Placodermata, and rightly gave it a place immediately after
Coccosteus, interpreting as its median dorsal plate the one
considered by Hugh Miller to be a “ hyoid,” and supposed by
him to occupy a place between the rami of the jaws. This
supposed hyoid plate was known to Hugh Miller only in an
isolated form, but it fell to the lot of the late Mr John Miller,
of Thurso, to record a specimen in which it occurred: in its
natural position on the back behind the head, and so with
absolute certainty to confirm Pander’s view of the case. Mr
John Miller’s collection having some years ago passed into
the possession of the Museum of Science and Art, Edin-

>

Homosteus, Asmuss, compared with Coccosteus, Agassiz. 51

burgh, I propose to make this, the most perfect specimen of
Homosteus which has ever been found, the text of the follow-
ing remarks on the genus.

Along with Homosteus it may, however, be as well to
re-examine the structure of Coccosteus itself as a basis of
comparison.

The reading of the cranial buckler of Coccosteus is much
complheated by the fact that certain superficial grooves
belonging to the lateral-line system are very conspicuous
and apt to be mistaken for sutures, while the true sutures
are visible with difficulty, and can only be made out in
exceptionally well-preserved examples. They seem, indeed,
to have almost entirely escaped the observation of Agassiz,
as the lines on the head indicated on his restoration of
Coccosteus (“Old Red,” tab. 6, fig. 4) belong almost without
exception to the lateral-line system. The figures given by
Hugh Miller (Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. 1859, p. 129, and
“ Footprints,” 1st ed., fig 11), in which he attempts to
reduce the plates of the cephalic shield of Coccosteus to the
same plan as that of the bones of the top of the head in the
Cod, are much better, inasmuch as many of the true sutures
are given; but it is also too plain that he also looked upon
the superficial grooves as indicating the real boundaries of
the plates which he considered as the homologues of the
cranial roof-bones in osseous fishes. Pander’s interpretation,
although his figures give both sets of lines on the upper
surface with considerable though not perfect accuracy, is
correct only as regards the hinder part of the buckler, his
reading of the anterior half being hopelessly wrong, and
consequently his elaborate comparison with the arrangement
in Asterolepis falls to the ground. By far the most correct
restoration of the cranial shield of Coccosteus is that of
Huxley, in which he omits the superficial grooves altogether,
and in which the only faults I can find are of omission, viz.,
the non-recognition of the median suture between the two
central plates which he letters as “frontal,” and of the paz
of premaxillary bones on each side of that median bone in
front, to which he applies the name “ premaxilla.”

1 Dec. Gecl. Survey, x., p. 30.

52 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socvety.

In Pl. IIL, Fig. 2, I have given a sketch of the head of
Coccosteus decipiens, Ag., the superficial grooves being given
in dotted, the sutures in continuous lines, and as regards the
names I have applied to the bony plates, I have thought it
best to use as few as possible which might lead the reader to
infer that I considered them the morphological equivalents
of the cranial bones of ordinary fishes.

Posteriorly we have the trapezoidal median occipital plate
(m. o.), flanked on each side by the triangular external occipital
(c.0.). In front of these are the two central plates (c.), external
to which and forming the antero-external margin of the buckler
are three plates, marginal (m.), post-orbital (pt. o.), and pre-
orbital (p. 0.), the two latter forming the upper margin of the
orbit. The two pre-orbitals come together in the middle line
posteriorly only for a very short distance, in front of which
they are separated by a narrow oval space open anteriorly,
and in this space is lodged, first a small elliptical plate, the
posterior ethmoidal (pt. e.) and the median limb or stalk of
the anterior ethmoidal (a. ¢.). This latter bone, the “ pre-
maxilla” of Huxley, is lke a nail-head with a broken-off
stalk attached, the head forming the anterior point of the
buckler, the stalk passing back between the pre-orbitals.
On each side of it in front are the small nasal openings (.),
each being bounded externally by a small separate bone, the
premaxilla (p. me). The orbit is bounded below by the
“ naddle-shaped ” bone (mz., Fig, 3) representing the mazilla,
which has a sort of resemblance to that in Palwoniscus, and
to the posterior extremity of which is appended a small
triangular plate (j.), the yugal or post-maxillary.

Turning now to Homosteus, we shall find that Hugh
Miller’s comparison of its cranial plates with those of Coe-
costeus is not so far amiss, of course, taking into account the
faults of his reading of the buckler of the latter genus. In
Fig. 1, I have sketched"the configuration of the specimen of
Homosteus, referred to by John Miller as having the dorsal
plate in situ. Much of the bony substance having splintered
off from the “specimen” itself, I have had a plaster impres-
sion taken from the “counterpart,” which consequently
reproduces the details of the original in a very much more

Homosteus, Asmuss, compared with Coccosteus, Agassiz. 53

perfect manner, and from this model the drawing has been
taken. And I may add that every detail of the buckler here
given is corroborated by another splendid specimen, also
from the collection of John Miller, in which, however, the
dorsal plate has got displaced to one side.

We find a wonderful correspondence in the arrangement
of the bony plates, the differences appearing almost entirely
due to the altered position of the eyes, and the assumption
by the cranial shield of an antero-posteriorly elongated
instead of a broadly hexagonal figure.

The median occipital (m. 0.), preserving its trapezoidal
shape, has become much elongated, as have also the external
occipitals (e. 0.), while the centrals (c.) have become much
smaller in proportion, and have come to take part in the
inner boundary of the orbit, more, however, on the upper
than on the under aspect; they are also in contact in front
with the posterior ethmoidal (pt. e¢.), the hinder angle of
which is inserted in a notch between their anterior ex-
tremities. The marginal (m.), also much elongated, is easily
recognised; but it is now alongside of, instead of in front of,
the external occipital, and the post-orbital (pt. 0.) and pre-
orbital (p. 0.) have altered their relation to the orbit in
a strange fashion. Separating internally, so as to allow the
central to come into the boundary of that opening, they have
thrown out processes which unite externally, and so in
Homosteus the orbits come to be entirely enclosed within the
buckler, instead of being outside it, as in Coccosteus. The
last plate to be noticed is the anterior ethmoidal (a. e.), which
occupies a position at the front of the snout exactly as in
Coccosteus, but no trace is seen either of the small pre-
maxillary, or of the nasal openings of that genus.

The lateral-line system of grooves is sparingly developed
on the cranial shield of Homosteus. On each side the lateral
groove passes along the external occipital and the marginal
on to the post-orbital, where it divides into two branches,
one of which passes outwards and forwards to the margin of
the shield, while the other passes backwards and inwards to
be lost near the middle of the central plate. If we compare
this arrangement with that in Coccosteus (Fig. 2), we shall see

54 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

that the plan is quite the same, although the extent of the
eroove-system is considerably diminished.

The facial bones of Homosteus are extremely difficult of
determination, and I must frankly confess that I have come
to no certain conclusions regarding them. In the specimen
represented in P1. III., Fig. 1, are three detached bones, A, B, and
c, on each side of the anterior part of the cranium, by which
B and © are also partly concealed, while on the right side the
bone A is seen only in longitudinal section, having stood on
edge to the bedding of the rock. When those bones are
seen in connection with examples of the buckler, they
always occur in the same order, and isolated specimens of
all of them are also in the collection of the Edinburgh
Museum.

The bone A is broadest behind the middle, narrowest at
each end, especially the anterior one. In the specimen here
figured it is seen from the internal aspect, having apparently
got turned over; but other specimens show that on the
external aspect near the middle it had a patch of the usual
tuberculation, with a short lateral-line system groove. This
bone is figured by Hugh Miller as “lateral cerebral plate,”
but as many specimens in the collection show that its
position was immediately below the edge of the antero-
lateral portion of the buckler external to the orbit, the
eroove on its surface being a continuation of the transverse
branch on the post-orbital, it is clearly the homologue of the
paddle-shaped bone or maxilla in Coccosteus (Fig. 3). If this
be the case, then we may assume that the bone B, following
and parallel to it, is the mandible; but no traces of teeth
can be found on either, or, indeed, on any bone which it is
safe to refer to Homosteus. Like the Sturgeon, it must have
been edentulous.

The bone C is figured by Hugh Miller (“‘Footprints,” fig. 45a)
as a clavicle (here he meant what we now call post-clavical) ;
but, of course, such an interpretation founded on its super-
ficial resemblance to the post-clavical of a modern Teleostean
is here negatived by its position. Hugh Miller noticed the
tuberculation of the outer side of one of its extremities, but
in accordance with his theory of its position in the animal,

Or

Homosteus, Asmuss, compared with Coccosteus, Agassiz. 5

he assumed this tuberculated portion to be its “head,” or
anterior extremity. The present specimen shows, however,
that this extremity was posterior.

The last and crowning point of interest in the specimen
represented in Pl. IIL, Fig. 1, is the exhibition of the dorsal
cuirass in situ. Five plates are here seen, one median and
two lateral, corresponding exactly to plates occupying a
similar position in Coccosteus.

The median dorsal plate (m. d.) is so well known as Hugh
Miller's supposed “hyoid,” that it requires no further de-
scription, beyond the remark that its resemblance to that of
Coccostes, except in its short broad shape and the want of
the posterior elongated peak, must be evident at the first
glance. It is here shown in position, its broad margin being
directed forwards, and lying parallel to the posterior margin
of the cranium, from which it is here separated by a narrow
gap, its obtuse point being free and posterior. Its lateral
margins overlap on each side two other bones, of which the
anterior one (a. d. J.) was figured by Hugh Miller as “non-
descript latero-hyoidal plate,” he being well aware of its
relation to the median bone, though, in accordance with his
theory of the latter, he reversed its position. Its relation to
the skull was, however, correctly represented by Pander
(“ Placodermen,” tab. 8, fig. 2a.). It consists of two parts,
one flattened above, and applied anteriorly to the outer part
of the posterior margin of the skull, by which as well as by
the median plate it is overlapped, and another, narrower,
forming a right angle to the flattened portion and running
forwards a little way along the posterior part of the outer
margin of the cranial buckler; in the angle between the two
parts is a socket for articulation with a corresponding pro-
jection of the postero-external angle of the external occipital.
Naturally Hugh Miller found himself at a loss to account
for the presence of this socket. Different as the two bones
are in shape, it 1s impossible not to recognise in this bone
the homologue of the anterior dorso-lateral in Coccosteus
(Fig. 3), though here the socket and peg have changed their
positions on the bones concerned.

Behind this anterior dorso-lateral there exists in the speci-

56 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

men figured in Pl. III., Fig. 1, another and much smaller plate
(p. d. 1.) on each side, which has not previously been
noticed. It needs no reasoning to perceive at once that this
is the posterior dorso-lateral of Coccosteus (p. d. L., Fig. 3).

It is curious that no undoubted remains of a ventral body-
carapace like that of Coccosteus have occurred in connection
with Homosteus; but, at the same time, I might mention
that the plate (“Footprints,” fig. 37) designated “palatal plate”
by Hugh Miller, looks to me as if it might well be the
anterior median ventral, so far as its shape is concerned,
though its great size may be considered as somewhat against
the supposition. At all events there is no evidence for
referring it to the palate.

There are also several other bones figured by Hugh Miller,
and contained in the Edinburgh Museum, which, from the
way in which they occur, associated with other undoubted
remains of Homosteus, clearly belong to the same fish, but
whose position in the body I cannot speculate upon. These
are the “operculum” (“ Footprints,” 5th edition, fig. 39), the
very curious bone (v0., fig. 43) spoken of by Hugh Miller as
“shoulder (ae, coracoid?) plate;” his so-called “dermal
bones” (2., fig. 44). What the bones ¢ and e¢ in fig. 46 of the
“ Footprints” are, I am also unable to determine.

But a number of the other remains figured in the “ Foot-
prints” as “ Asterolepis” belong not to Homosteus, but to
Glyptolepis paucidens, Ag., sp. These are the scales (figs. 26
and 27), the mandibles (figs. 32, 33, and 36), the sections of
teeth (figs. 84 and 35); the bone d (fig. 46), which I look
upon as the lower end of the clavicle; and the interspinous
piece (fig. 48), which Hugh Miller figured as the “ischium
of Asterolepis.” The latter is indeed a very curious bone,
and it is not at all remarkable that the author of the “ Foot-
prints” should have sought to identify it with the basal
bone of a ventral fin constructed in teleostean fashion.
Knowing that such a pelvic fin-element could hardly have
existed in either Homosteus or Glyptolepis, the bone was long
a puzzle to me, until one day I observed a very similar bone
supporting the distal set of interspinous bones of the second
dorsal fin in a specimen of G'lyptolepis leptopterus, also in the

Homosteus, Asmuss, compared with Coccosteus, Agassiz. 57

Hugh Miller Collection. A similar bone supporting three
smaller interspinous elements was described and figured by
Sir Philp Egerton in 7'ristichopterus.

As regards the species of Homosteus, which has been under
consideration, no specific name was given to it by Huch
Miller. By Morris? it was catalogued as the “ Asterolepis
Asmusw” of Agassiz, but I know not on what ground.
Certainly I can find no resemblance between the sculpture
of the surface of the plates of A. Asmusii, as given in Agassiz’s
figures, and that which characterises the present fish in
which the tubercles are small, sharply defined, with promi-
nently stellate bases, and for the most part closely placed.
Nor can it be identified with the species of Homosteus
described by Asmuss from Dorpat, and so I would propose
that for the future it be known as Homosteus Milleri.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE.
(In all the figures the same letters refer to the same things. )

m.0., median occipital. e.o0., external occipital. m., marginal. c., central.
pt. o., post-orbital. py. 0., pre-orbital. pt. e., posterior ethmoidal. a. e.,
anterior ethmoidal. p. mz., premaxillary. ., nasal opening. m. d.,
median dorsal. a. d.l., anterior dorso-lateral. p. d. l., posterior dorso-
lateral. a./., anterior lateral. vp. /., posterior lateral. 7. /., interlateral.
a. v. l., anterior ventro-lateral. p. v. 7., posterior ventro-lateral. p. im. v.,
posterior median ventral. A, B, Cc, three facial plates lying below the
margin, anteriorly of the cranial shield of Homosteus.

Fig. 1. Sketch of a specimen of Homosteus Milleri, Traq., in the John Miller
Collection, Museum of Science and Art, Edinburgh.

Fig. 2. Restoration of the top of the head in Coccosteus decipiens, Ag. The
dotted lines indicate the distribution of the grooves of the lateral-line
system.

Fig. 3. Sketch of a specimen of Coccosteus minor, H. Miller, from Thurso,
the vertebral column omitted. Hugh Miller Collection.

1 Dec. Geol. Survey, vol. x., p. 52, plate 5
* Catalogue British Fossils, p. 318.

58 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

VI. On a Tract of modified Epithelium in the Embryo of
Sepia. By WitutaM E. Hoy ie, Esq., M.A.

(Read 16th January 1889.)

On examining recently a number of serial sections of
embryos of Sepia, I was struck by the presence of certain
peculiarly modified ectodermal cells, and as the presence of
these has not, so far as I-am aware, been hitherto recorded, I
propose in the following paragraphs to give a brief notice of

the appearances presented.
The cells form a trifid tract (fig. 1) situated towards the

Fig.l.

Fig. 1. Dorsal view of an embryo of Sepia, to show the three lines of

modified epithelium.

Fig. 2. Transyerse section of an embryo at about the same stage of develop-
ment, to show the positions of the modified bands.

Fig. 3. Transverse section of one of the fins showing the lateral tract.

Fig. 4. Transverse section of the median tract.

Bi, blood vessels ; Ca, cartilage, and probably muscles also of fin ; Co, con-
nective tissue ; Lp, unaltered dorsal epithelium ; £p', epithelium of ventral
surface of fin; Z, lateral tracts of modified epithelium ; JZ. Z#., median tract ;
Sh, cavity of the shell; Y, yolk masses.

posterior aspect of the body; the three branches of which
lie, one in the middle dorsal line, and one on the dorsal
surface of each fin, about midway between its origin and its

Tract of modified Epithelium in the Embryo of Sepia. 59

free margin (fig. 2, m.e¢., 1). The middle one extends somewhat
farther forward than the other two, its anterior extremity
being about on a level with the back of the ink sac. At
their posterior ends the two branches which lie upon the
fins pass on to the body, and unite with the remaining one
in the dorsal median line.

These three ridges are clearly visible by the naked eye in
embryos 5 to 8 mm. long, and appear to have been noticed by
K@6lliker, who figures them in his classic monograph on the
“Embryology of the Cephalopoda.” + He does not, however,
appear to describe them in the text, but merely alludes to
them in the explanation of the plates in the following
words :—“ Die . . . . Doppellinien sind Leistchen, die durch
Hervorragungen der Schale bewirkt werden.” It will
abundantly appear from the sequel that this explanation
is erroneous; there are no prominences on the shell of any
kind, and furthermore two of the lnes in question are
situated not over the shell but on the fins.

When seen in section, each of the lateral branches (fig. 3)
has the form of a more or less irregular ellipse, the length
of the major axis depending upon the obliquity of the
section. The cells of which it is composed are larger in all
dimensions than those of the neighbouring epithelium, so
that the level of the body-surface is slightly elevated where
they are present. The breadth of the tract is about 0°1 mm.,
and the extreme elevation of the cells which compose it is
about 0075 mm. These are broader at the base than at the
free extremities, so that the lines bounding them converge as
they pass outwards. Their nuclei are spherical or slightly
ovoid, and in almost all cases provided with nucleoli. They
are situated almost exclusively near the bases of the cells,
though in one or two cases I obtained evidences of their
presence in the distal portions of the structure.

The contents of the cells are finely granular, and stain more
deeply than those of the normal epithelium. The cell-boun-
daries become indefinite towards the superficies, and in some
cases this part of the tract stains more deeply than the rest.

The medio-dorsal portion of the tract (fig. 4) is decidedly

1 Entwickelungsgeschichte der Cephalopoden, Taf. iii., fig. 32.

60 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

narrower than the lateral portions, its transverse diameter
not exceeding 0°05 mm.; in other respects it presented no
variations woithy of notice.

I have observed the presence of a similar organ to that
above described in sections of embryos of Loligo and Om-
mastrephes, but in them only the median portion was
observed, no trace being discoverable of the lateral portions
which extend over the fins. In the former genus the patch
of modified cells was wider than in Sepia, and seemed to
cover a considerable proportion of the posterior extremity of
the embryo, whilst in Ommastrephes it was reduced to a
mere conical plug.

With regard to the functions and morphological value of
this organ but little can be said. The nature of the cells
seems to forbid the hypothesis that it is sensory. I, as
seems most hkely, it be glandular, then arises the further
query, What are the nature and properties of its secretion ?

With respect to its homology there are only two structures
known to me with which it can be compared. The first of
these is the shell-gland, the second the invaginated gland
described at the posterior extremity of Sepiedla ; and it must
not be forgotten that these two may possibly be modifica-
tions of the same primitive apparatus. In this regard its
extension on to the fins seems remarkable if not inexplicable.
These questions and others which at once sugvest themselves
must be left in abeyance till we have further information as
to the origin and ultimate fate of the cells above described.

In conclusion, I desire to express my indebtedness to Mrs
H. L. Calder, for her kindness in making me the sections
upon which these observations were made.

VIL. A Theory of the Parasitic Habit of the Cuckoo. By
J. ARTHUR THOMSON, Esq., M.A., F.R.S.E.

(Read 19th December 1888.)

The parasitic habit of the cuckoo has for long been a
familiar subject of popular interest and of scientific inquiry,
Many mistaken observations and fallacious theories in regard

A Theory of the Parasitic Halit of the Cuckoo. . 61

to it have had their short day. That the theory at present
most current is altogether satisfactory, few will maintain ;
the following note is suggested as complementary.

I. Facts—The general facts which have to be explained
are familiar to the omniscient “every schoolboy ;” some of
the details of minor importance are still debated. The
female cuckoo shirks the brooding sacrifice usually associated
with bird maternity. But though “she is hardened against
her young ones, as though they were not hers,” she is not
“deprived of wisdom ;” by an elaborate and well-executed
trick she foists her several eggs at intervals of a few days
into the successive nests of various birds, which are usually
insectivorous and suited for the upbringing of the intruder.
The foster parents, all unconscious of being fooled, hatch the
cuckoo egg among their own. The nestling grows rapidly,
and is a dog in the manger by birth. Greedy and jealous,
he (the masculine pronoun is oftenest correct) soon asserts
his monopoly of nest and food and care by the summary
eviction of the rightful tenants, whether they be still passive
in ovo or more awkwardly assertive as nestlings. The result
is the success of the stronger.

Il. Theories.—That the above is a curious instinct, all
admit. ‘To some it appears inscrutable, to others only a
special instance of a universal method which favours selfish-
ness. Or again, one naturalist finds sufficient explanation
in certain anatomical conditions which render brooding in-
convenient ; but other birds with similar abdominal peculi-
arities duly discharge their natural duties. Another refers
to the almost unique power the cuckoo has of retaining the
eggs, instead of laying them as usual in rapid succession ;
but this by itself requires explanation, and is insufficient.
Then I find disconnected hints of the view I wish to suggest,
in reference by some to the great greed, by others to the
preponderance of males. It is necessary, however, to pass to
the theory which at present holds the field.

The Darwinian theory of the parasitic habit emphasises
its advantages, and maintains its gradual establishment by
the usual process of natural selection. What, then, are the
alleged advantages of the habit? The illustrious Jenner, in

62 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

his classic paper on the subject, was the first, I believe, to
point out the following. The bird has but a short time to
stay in its breeding area, and much to do in that short time.
“Nature,” he says, “has a call upon it to produce a numer-
ous progeny.” Yet it is an advantage to migrate early, and
thus the habit of leaving the eggs to a succession of other
birds to incubate.

Darwin supposed the habit to crop up. Why it should,
he did not inquire, but started from its occasional occurrence
as in the American cuckoo. The result was an advantage to
the parent, and also to the offspring. The former got away
sooner, the latter were better cared for. Those that learned
the trick prospered, those that didn’t were eliminated, and
in virtue of its natural or unnatural success the device passed
from being exceptional to become universal, became in fact
an inherited specific instinct. Commenting upon this, Mr
Romanes, who has made a special study of the sphere of
natural selection, says :—“ We have here a sufficiently pro-
bable explanation of the raison d'étre of this curious instinct ;
and whether it is the true reason or the only reason, we are
justified in setting down the instinct to the creating influ-
ence of natural selection.”

Objections—Now, while admitting with deference the
weight of such testimonies as the above, I wish to urge
a few objections.

(a.) What started the habit? Natural selection can
hardly “create.” Is this one of Darwin's strictly accidental
variations? Was it a mere happy freak on the part of the
ancient progenitor of our European cuckoo? To be successful
the trick must be played with some care. It is hardly ona
par with the casual use made by a partridge of a pheasant’s
nest, or by a gull of an eider duck’s. While allowing that
in its beginnings there may have been many misses before
the conditions of success were learned, one would like to
know the prompting impulses.

(b.) Are these to be found in the advantages? Do not
these appear somewhat remote—the accelerated migration,
the robuster young? Then as to the first, it does not now
seem at all evident why the bird should be in a hurry;

A Theory of the Parasitic Habit of the Cuckoo. 63

would not the necessity have been even less long ago? Food,
Macgillivray says, remains abundant, and the climate which
does not injure the young for two months longer could
hardly incommode the parents. The individual advantage
to the parent is certainly not very obvious so far as migra-
tion is concerned. Yet the advantage ought still to be
apparent, for one of our greatest modern Darwinians says
that natural selection must continually operate to conserve
and retain what it has previously gained.

Is the advantage, then, for the offspring rather than for the
parent? Did the original starters of the trick really have a
careful forethought of the best for their offspring in sending
them out to nurse? Does a memory of the comfort of its
fostered youth remain with the adult as an impulse to do the
like for its young in turn? It would be interesting to
inquire what form the memory takes in the preponderant
males. On the whole, does this not seem subtler than nature
dreams of ?

But again, if the trick be simply a freak, without any
stated impulse behind it or near-at-hand advantage in front
of it, is not the common difficulty of the combination of
happy circumstances required to ensure incipient success
unusually great? And does not the success of the plan
involve the presupposition of that monopolising tendency of
the young bird, which the theory gives no account of ? Then
the difficulty as to the inheritance of such a freak, especially
with preponderant males, is certainly appreciable. Such a
device must have something behind it, before it can be
transmitted. In short, except the direct individual gain
through saving of trouble and sacrifice, the advantages
hardly seem by themselves capable of justifying the elabora-
tion of the device into an instinct by natural selection.

(c.) Before passing from objections, I may also urge the
increased difficulty raised when we consider the occurrence
of the habit. It is not generic, that is to say it is not
practised by all the species of Cuculus. It obtains in related
genera, however. Did it arise in some common progenitor ?
But it also occurs, in varied degrees of perfectness,in the
widely separated, starling-like cow-birds. There again, there-

64 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

fore, there must have been similar combinations of happy
circumstances fostering the occasional into the constant.

III. Suggestion —The theory which I have to suggest is,
that no special theory is required. What I mean will
become quite evident in the next few paragraphs.

(1.) The general character of the cuckoo is very significant
Brehm describes it as a “discontented, ill-conditioned, passion-
ate, in short decidedly unamiable bird.” “The note itself
and the manner in which it is emitted are typical of the
bird’s habits and character. The same abruptness, insati-
ability, eagerness, the same rage, are noticeable in its whole
conduct.” The cuckoos are notoriously unsocial, even in
migration individualistic. They jealously guard their ter-
ritorial “preserves,” and verify, in many ways, the old myth
that they are sparrow-hawks in disguise. The parasitic
habit is consonant with their general character.

(2.) The species consist predominantly of males. The
preponderance is probably about 5:1, though one observer
makes it five times greater. In so male a species it is not
surprising to find degenerate maternal instincts.

(5.) Reproduction and nutrition, all authorities declare,
vary inversely. The love-impulses wane before those of
hunger. Now there is no doubt that even among greedy
birds the cuckoos hold a very high rank. They are remark-
ably insatiable, hungry, gluttonous. Even the anatomical
conditions, asserted by some to be important—the swollen,
low-set stomach, may have their influence in the cuckoo,
which has certain other peculiarities, though the same con-
ditions may be overcome in other birds which remain
perfectly natural. I might also suggest that the habit of
feeding so largely as cuckoos do on hairy caterpillars, whose
indigestible hairs form a feltwork in the stomach, may also
have its irritant, gizzard-fretting, dyspeptic influence. But
I keep to the certain fact, and say that with so strong
nutritive impulses, it is little wonder the reproductive
emotions are degenerate. There is too much hunger and
gluttony for the higher development of love.

(4.) The reproductive relations of the sexes are at a lower
level than polygamy, or rather polyandry; the males and

A Theory of the Parasitic Habit of the Cuckoo. 65

females do not pair in the strict sense; there is no keeping
company, though the males are said to be passionate during
the breeding season. Nor is the female in its adult state
externally distinguishable from the male.

(d.) The reproductive organs of both sexes are. very small
for the size of the bird. There is said to be a diminished blood
supply. Little wonder, then, that the reproductive emotions
are in degree slightly developed. The sluggish parturition at
intervals of six to eight days is also striking and significant.

(6.) The eges are remarkably small. While the adult
cuckoo is some four times the size of an adult skylark, the
eggs are about the same size. The American cuckoo, which
is only occasionally parasitic, lays full-sized eggs. I know
that the size of the egg is not always proportionate to the size
of the bird. Iam not saying that it should be. But I do
say that when a bird for constitutional reasons seems to
require all it can for itself, then it will have less to spare for
its reproductive sacrifice. To say that the small size of the
cuckoo’s egg is “ an adaptation in order to deceive the small
birds,’ seems to me to strain a theory to the breaking point.
(I shall not discuss the minor fact of the frequent similarity
between the colouring of the cuckoo’s eggs and those of its
deluded victims. Darwinians explain this also by natural
selection, and speak of an inherited adaptation of egg-colour.
It seems legitimate to suggest, that in ways yet unintel-
ligible, the mother may be influenced during parturition by
the sight of objects [ey victim’s eggs], which strongly
impress her. But this is entirely subsidiary.)

(7.) It has been usual, in discussing beginnings, to take
some cue from the young stages. It is noteworthy in this
light to emphasise the jealous cruelty of the young form—
a fit prophecy of the adult character. In the restlessness of
rapid growth, the nestling expresses the constitution of the
species in its selfish monopolising greed and _ insatiable
appetite. Observations are recorded of the persistence of
the cruel disposition into adolescence, though it usually
wanes with the anatomical peculiarity of the back, not very
long after birth. The young form at any rate exhibits the

essential character of the species.
VOL. X. E

66 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Soctety.

(8.) Some corroboration is obtained from the character of
the American cuckoo. There seems no doubt that it is
occasionally parasitic, and it is interesting to note that
observers speak of its unnaturally careless indifference for .
the fate of its young. The character in fact is less markedly
evil; the occasional parasitism is just as intelligible as the
occasional “reversion” of our cuckoo to ancestral habits,
to apparent affection, as well as observed incubation.

(9.) In the cow-birds, again, where the habit occurs in
different species in different degrees of perfection (if the
term be admissible), the character is strikingly immoral.
In one species (Molothrus cadius), a nest may be simply
stolen, or the rightful nestlings may be thrown out, or actual
parasitism may occur as an exception. In Jf. canariensis, the
egos may be dropped on the bare ground, or fifteen to twenty
from different parents may be lazily, and of course fatally,
huddled together in one nest. (T'wo cuckoo eggs are sometimes
found in one nest.) In JZ. pecoris, which is polygamous, the
crime has been evolved, and the habit is that of our cuckoo,
one ege being laid in each foster-nest. The important point
is the general immorality and reproductive carelessness which
in one species finds expression in an organised device.

Conelusion.—The general character of the birds, the un-
social life, the selfish cruelty of the nestlings, and the lazy
parasitic habit have a common basis in the constitution.
The insatiable appetite, the small size of the reproductive
organs, the smallness of the eggs, the sluggish parturition,
the rapid growth of the young, the great preponderance of
males, the absence of true pairing, the degeneration of
maternal affection, are all correlated and largely explicable in
terms of the fundamental contrast between nutrition and
reproduction, between hunger and love. Similar unnatural
or immoral instincts in other birds, in mammals, and even in
the lower animals are explicable in similar terms. The
existing theory being deficient as an account both of the
origin and development of the parasitic instinct, the present
constitutional theory is proposed as complementary. The
parasitic habit is a natural outcrop of the general character
or constitution, only one expression of a dominant diathesis.

A Theory of the Parasitic Habit of the Cuckoo. 67

Since coming to the above conclusions, I have had the
pleasure of reading Prof. G. H. T. Eimer’s recently published
work on the “Origin of Species.” According to Eimer
variations are few in number, definite in character, and
determined by the conditions of growth. This is a consti-
tutional theory of evolution. I was much pleased to find
as a minor point in this interesting and important work,
a discussion of the cuckoo’s instinct, which, in the main,
harmonises with that which I have just sketched. The
subject is both beautifully and fully dealt with, and I shall
therefore conclude by summarising Eimer’s position.

He briefly criticises the Darwinian explanation, which
appears to him to involve too many happy combinations.
He believes that what is inherited in the establishment of
the habit, is not the device itself, which one can hardly
believe, but the influence of the foster upbringing. He
maintains, and I of course agree, that the ancestral cuckoo
acted deliberately in the trick, and some of this deliberateness
of device may still persist. The explanation of the unnatural
habit he finds in the bird’s whole character and mode of life.
In this connection he emphasises (a) the vagabond, restless
habit ; (0) the looseness of the sex relations, strong in passion,
weak in love; (c) the irregular and gluttonous nutrition con-
sidered in relation to reproductive stimulus; (d) the slow
laying of the eggs, itself dependent upon nutrition, and
pointing to physiological conditions which modify even the
deeply rooted impulse and instinct to brood; (e) the
degeneration of social instincts and the preponderance of
egoism. The essential similarity of Kimer’s views with mine,
is interesting to myself, and possibly corroboratory to others.

WORKS REFERRED TO.

Breum’s Thierleben.

DAkWIN’s Origin of Species.

Eimer’s Die Enstehung der Arten auf Grund von Verer-
ben erworbener Eigenschaften nach den Gesetzen
organischen Wachsens, Jena, 1888.

RomaneEs, G. J., Animal Intelligence, Int. Sci. Ser., London,
1886,

68 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

VIII. Variation in the Plumage of the Common Rook
(Corvus frugilegus, Zinn.). By Professor Duns, D.D.,
F.RS.E.

(Read 20th March 1889. )

I had occasion recently to inquire into the seasonal
changes of colour in the varying hare (Lepus variablis), and
to review the data which some think warrant the inference
of identity with the Irish hare (L. Hzbernicus), but which
others hold to point to relationship with the common
species (LZ. timidus)—a form subject to occasional white
variation. More weight is given in the latter case to the
colour element than to features which are both persistent
and better marked. I refer to this with the view of
indicating that such variations are of no value in deter+
mining family relationship. They have no meaning beyond
the individual instance. The only question of interest
raised by them relates to the cause of departure from the
normal colour—a departure which is more frequent among
birds than mammals. But my present object is not the
explanation of the variation—it is only the statement of
it as a fact common to the Corvide, and, chiefly, to one of
the best known of the family—the Rook.

The bird now on the table belongs to Mr J. D. F.
Gilchrist, M.A., one of my students. It was shot in 1888
about two miles north of Anstruther, Fife; probably a bird
from the Rookery at Kilrenny. The colour is a bright
dark brown, with here and there, as on the wing coverts,
slight, almost doubtful, shades of black. The bill, legs, and
claws are of the same hue. This as a variation colour is
not, so far as J remember, common. I have a record of it
in the Raven (C. corax), and a fine instance in a Skylark, in
my possession.

For about six weeks in the beginning of this winter an
interesting variety of rook was frequently seen in the
gardens of Greenhill Place. It may be best described by
saying that its colours were similar to those of the Grey
Crow (C. corniz), only the head and body were black and

Variation in the Plumage of the Common Rook. 69

the wings and tail ashy-grey. The last time I saw it was
about the end of December. About the same time, a rook
with scapulars as brightly white as those of the Magpie
(Pica rustica) might often be seen feeding on bits of meat,
bread, ete., which the janitor of the New College is in the
habit of throwing out in front of it, or into the patch of
erass at the head of the Mound. White seems always to
have been the commonest variant. In Brown’s recent “ Life
of John Bunyan,” there is an interesting reference to Thomas
Archer, the rector of Houghton-Conquest, the parish next
to Elstow. “The delightful old man kept a sort of
Chronicon mirable of the little rural world in which he
spent his tranquil days—‘ Memorandum.—That in Anno
1625, on Bonion of Elstow clyminge of Rooks neasts in the
Bery Wood ffound 3 Rookes in a neast, all white as milk,
and not a black fether on them.’” The Bonion mentioned
here was Thomas, father of the author of the “ Pilgrim’s
Progress.” In Pontippidan’s “ Natural History of Norway,”
the learned author says, under Corvus :—‘“In this country
there are some, though few, that are white, and some half
white, and half black” (1753). “A gentleman of this
neighbourhood,” says the author of “The Natural History
of Selborne,’ “had two milk-white rooks in one nest. A
booby of a carter finding them before they were able to fly,
threw them down and destroyed them, to the great regret of
the owner, who would have been glad to have preserved such
a curiosity in his rookery. I saw the birds myself nailed
against the end of the barn, and was surprised to find that their
bills, legs, feet, and claws were milk-white” (1789). In
Jardine and Jesse’s Edition of Selborne, 1850, the following
notes appear :—“ The Common Rook seems to be more subject
to white variation than its other British congeners. Species
entirely white are not often seen, but individuals, with
parts of the wings and tail pure white, occur in almost
every rookery” (Jardine). “Mr Yarrell informs us that
white, pied, and cream-coloured varieties of the rook
occasionally occur” (Jesse). “Albino individuals,” says
Macgillivray, “sometimes occur either pure white, or more
frequently yellowish-white or cream-coloured, with the bill

70 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socvety.

and feet also white, and the eyes reddish. Patches of white
are also sometimes seen in individuals” (1837). And
Howard Saunders, in the “Illustrated Manual of British
Birds,” now being issued, remarks :—“ White and piebald
varieties are not uncommon” (1888). Many more illus-
trative passages might be quoted, but the foregoing are
sufficient to show that white and pied varieties are not
uncommon; that brown -varieties are rare, and that no
attempt is made to account for the variation. Macgillivray
seems to trace the milk-white forms to Albinoism. If so, we
would have a physiological variant, and some light thereby
from other departments shed on variations of this sort. But
while there may be rare instances of this, there are many
facts that tell against it. For example, starlings, black-
birds, and sparrows have been observed increasing whiter
and whiter season after season, as carefully guarded as
possible, and captured only when the varying process was
complete, or nearly so, that were not Albinos.

In conclusion, one object I had in view in submitting
these somewhat common-place notes to the Society was to
put on record some facts in connection with white variation
not unworthy of notice. The last weeks of 1860, and the
opening weeks of 1861, were marked by exceptionally
severe weather. Deep snow covered the ground, and the
frost was very keen and long continued. The birds especi-
ally had a bad time of it,—a worse time even than they
had in December 1878 and. January 1879, when the
mortality was so great among certain species, that the
occurrence of like weather in the same months the year
following would have been the disappearance of some forms,
thrushes for example, from wide districts. Now, in the
late spring and early summer the part of Linlithgowshire—
Torphichen—in which I then resided, a most unusual
amount of variation, both among birds and mammals, came
under my notice. Blackbirds, with white patches, or even
single white feathers; one sparrow, with white hind head;
another with white tail; another with pied wings; a chaf-
finch, with forehead and greater wing coverts white instead
of black; and, on a general but fair estimate, about twenty

On some Wasps’ Nests from South America, 71

per cent. of the young rooks shot that season in the Wall-
house Rookery were marked with white, for the most part
on the throat or breast. Gamekeepers were struck with
the white patches, generally on the head of common hares ;
mole-catchers had never before met with so many white,
or cream-coloured, moles; and in early summer, common
weasles were seen, which seemed as if they were under-
going a change of fur similar to that characteristic of their
congeners, the stoats. (Specimens were exhibited.)

The only inference I venture to draw from the facts now
mentioned, and the specimens now exhibited, is, that in
seeking for an explanation of these random variations, some
attention might be given to the influence of weather on
the food supply for birds, though certainly not in the line
of the folk rhyme—

‘¢ When there’s muckle snaw
There’s mony a haw.”
That, apart from weather, food itself is often the chief
variant, is well known. If a tame bullfinch be fed chiefly
on hemp seed, the plumage becomes at first dark-grey, then
almost or entirely black. I show the skin of a wild bullfinch
of this colour.

IX. On some Wasps’ Nests from South America. By
Professor Duns, D.D., F.R.S.E. (Specimens exhibited.)

(Read 20th March 1889.)

The nests of foreign Vespide present great variety both of
shape, size, material, colour, arrangement of combs, entrance
from the outside, and internal communications between the
different tiers of combs. For the most part the walls are
smooth, but in some they are rough, and in others knobbed
all over. The first specimen now submitted to the Society
is the nest of the earliest and best known of South American
forms—Chartergus nidulans, Latreille ; Vespa nidulans, Fab-
ricius. This has been fully described by these entomologists,
Cuvier, and others. It is formed of a smooth, solid, white
substance resembling pasteboard, a material well fitted to

72 - Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

keep out the rain. The combs are not, as in our wasps’
nests, suspended from the top and free all round. They are
horizontal and fixed to the walls of the nest, and the entrance
to the tiers is by a hole in the median line. The cells are
hexagonal, and open downward on the lower or slightly
convex side of the combs. The entrance to the nest is
funnel-shaped, and so is it, thoueh the funnel-is less pro-
nounced, in each layer of comb. The funnel is in the centre
of a smooth lozenge-shaped space free of cells. This space
gradually diminishes till it disappears in the topmost layer.
The greater part of the nest is, in shape, like an inverted
cone, on the upper part of which an inverted cup-like addi-
tion is placed, and by this it is suspended.

In 1841 Mr Adam White described, in the “ Annals and
Magazine of Natural History,” a new genus of honey-storing
wasp under the generic term Myrapetra—a fanciful word,”
he tells us, “compounded of the names of two cities, one in
Asia Minor, the other in Arabia ”—a good illustration of the
arbitrary if not mischievous ascription of meaningless terms
to indicate new genera. Mr White describes the nest also
of one species under this genus, Myrapetra scutilaris. The
nest now on the table was given to me by Dr H. Gunning,
so well known by his recent munificent gifts in behalf of
Scottish science. Its height is 124 inches, breadth 94 inches,
circumference at bottom 33 inches, about the middle 32
inches, and near the top 174 inches. Looked at below, the
base is horseshoe-shaped. There seems to be no doubt that
the nest is that of one member of the genus Myrapetra, but
it differs so much from the nest described by White as to
warrant its ascription to a different species. This will best
appear by setting the leading features of both in separate
columns :—

Nest in British Musewm. Nest in New College.

1. Material, white pasteboard-like. 1. Grey coloured, papery.

2. Viewed sideways, oblong. 2. Circular, broad at base.

3. From beneath, somewhat ovate. 3. Horseshoe-shaped.

4, Covered with conical knobs of 4. Many conical knobs of same
various shapes. shape.

5. Knobs in some instances ? of 5. Knobs all shorter,
inch long.

Mr Dalgleish on Birds and Eggs from Paraguay.

Nest in British Museum.
6. Knobs run irregularly in trans-
verse ridges.
7. Entrances intricately twisted (to
prevent ingress of moths).
8. Substance, dried dung.

9. The different ‘‘stories,”’ or tiers,
of combs are attached to the common
wall of the nest ; the entrances to the
compartments are at the sides, a
small irregular-shaped space being

Nest in New College.
6. Knobs run regularly in ridges
which follow the edges of the combs.
7. Entrances direct.

8. Substance same as that of British
wasps.

9. The different ‘‘ stories,” or tiers,
of comb are attached to the common
wall, the entrance to the compart-
ments being by one hole reaching
from the bottom to the top, and at

left between the comb and the wall
of the nest.

one side only; this entrance to the
layers of comb is secured by the
edges of the combs at the place not
being attached to the nest wall.

In the vacant space thus left I found that a mason wasp
had formed its nest. Two pupa cases were in the cells, from
one of which the perfect form, shown in the small glass case,
was taken. The other was left unopened, and is also shown.

X. Notes on a Collection of Birds and Eggs from the Republic
of Paraguay. By J. J. DALGLEISH, Esq., M.B.O.U.

(Read 20th March 1889.)

The Proceedings of the Society contain some Notes! read
by me upon two former occasions, descriptive of a collection
of Birds and Eggs from Central Uruguay. My former
correspondent there having some time ago left that country
and settled in the neighbouring Republic of Paraguay, I am
now enabled to make a few similar Notes upon a small col-
lection lately received as a first instalment from that locality.

Paraguay, one of the most thriving of the Spanish Re-
publics of South America, is situated, as is well known,
between the river of that name and the River Parana, both
tributaries of the great River Plate or Rio de la Plata. For
some years prior to 1870 it was much desolated by the
ravages of war, but is now fast recovering, and bids fair soon
to rival in comparative prosperity, and as a field for immi-
gration, its large and thriving neighbour, the Argentine
Confederation.

? Vol. vi.,. 232 ; ‘vol. ‘viii., 77.

74 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

If much remains to be done for the ornithology of Uru-
cuay, still more does Paraguay offer an almost untrodden
field for the naturalist. Since the time of the Spanish
traveller Azara, whose work, published between the years
1802 and 1805, contains merely the Spanish names of the
birds, but is otherwise valuable, we have only the limited
observations made by Page, a United States naval officer,
who surveyed the Paraguay in 1857, and those of a German
traveller named Rhode, whose investigations were chiefly of
an ethnological nature. The results of Page’s collections are
to be found in scattered notices in scientific serials. Of
those of Rhode, which were made from December 1885 to
February 1886, a catalogue has been published by Count
von Berlepsch in the Journal fur Ornithologie, 1887, to which
he has added a list of all the species hitherto recorded from
Paraguay, including those in Azara’s work so far as they
have been identified, and numbering 3097 in all.

The immediate locality from which the present collection
has been sent is the Estancia of Ytafiu, which is situated
about 80 miles to the south of Asuncion, the capital, and on
the bank of the River Parau, a tributary of the Paraguay,
from which latter it is distant in a direct line about 12
miles. The Estancia has a river frontage of 12 miles, and
the house stands 300 yards from the bank of the stream.
The boundary touches at one point a large lake named the
Laguna Ipoa, distant 9 miles. The Parau, which has its
primary origin in Laguna Ipoa, flows out of a great swamp
upwards of 6 miles wide, lying on the borders of the lake.
It is very winding in its course, and from the point where it
becomes a stream has a length of about 24 miles to its point
of junction with the Paraguay. Opposite Ytafiu the banks
are somewhat raised, and the channel in dry weather is only
about 20 yards wide, and from 3 to 5 feet in depth, with a
sluggish and almost imperceptible current. Elsewhere the
banks are lower and the stream wider and shallower. The
eround being flat and level, the river during the rains often
covers a width of from 500 to 600 yards. Laguna Ipoa is
believed to be about 6 miles wide, and contains some small
islands, but neither it nor the adjoining great swamp have

Ti

Mr Dalgleish on Birds and Eggs from Paraguay.

Map or PArt oF PARAGUAY.

Formosa=:=

=.

Enélish Miles.

10 20 30 40

10 ay 0

76 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

been fully explored. It is said to abound with fish of various
species, and both it and the River Parau are frequented by
numerous alligators. Before the desolating wars of Lopez
there used to be a communication through the swamp to the
towns beyond or to the east of the lake, but this is now im-
passable, the reeds and paca (a sort of coarse grass used for
thatch) having grown up so thick, as well as a species of
floating creeper, which grows from 12 to 15 yards long, and
entangles the legs of a horse, endangering the safety of the
rider. There is also considerable risk from the presence of
large snakes in the swamps, which live on the frogs which
there abound, and on the eggs of water fowl. The country
surrounding Ytafiu is flat, nor does it rise much in height
until the eastern side of the lake is reached, a little distance
beyond which it rises into mountains of some elevation, whose
tops are visible from the Estancia at a distance of 20 miles.
The immediate surroundings of the latter are possessed of
some degree of natural beauty; clumps of palms of three
different fan-leaved species, and of other varieties of trees
varying in extent up to woods of some size, are intermingled
with natural meadows or openings of a swampy nature, with
abundance of good cattle grazing. The ground below the
palms is open and grassy, but in the other woods there is a
thick undergrowth of brushwood and thorny plants. Deer
of two species, one of which is as large as the red deer and
the other resembling the roe deer, are plentiful in the woods,
coming out in early morning and at nightfall to browse on
the short pasture. They are preyed on by the jaguar, which
is still not uncommon, and at times destructive to cattle.

The nearest towns of importance are Villeta, distant 42
miles on the route to Asuncion, and Villa Oliva, distant 21
miles, both of which are situated on the River Paraguay, and
appear in most maps.

In the Notes which follow I have not thought it necessary
to repeat descriptions of the nesting habits of those species
mentioned in my Notes on Uruguay. I have given to those
species, which are common to both countries, the English
names adopted by Sclater and Hudson in their Argentine
Ornithology. I have also, as formerly, given the native name

Mr Dalgleish on Birds and Egys from Paraguay. 77

when known, and have added the name given by Azara,
as ideutified in the useful Systematic Index of Hartlaub,
published in 1847.

It will be observed that many of the nests are described
as being placed in holes in palm trees; these, my corre-
spondent informs me, are caused by the agency of the
frequent forest fires which are common in that country, and
are adapted by the various species to meet their require-
ments.

I am again much indebted to Dr Sclater for his kindness
in identifying the species.

1. Zroglodytes furvus (Gm.). Brown House Wren.—The
nesting habits of this species have formerly been described
from Uruguay.

2. Embernagra platensis (Gm.). Red-billed Ground Finch.
Local name Corichore (/abia de barado. Azara).—This bird
is found throughout Southern Brazil, Uruguay, and Argen-
tina. A ground-feeding species, it is usually met with in
damp spots, notably where the Pampas grass flourishes, on
whose sprays it is fond of perching. Hudson states that
it is disappearing along with this plant in the Argentine
Republi, before the advance of cultivation, contrary to the
usual result in the case of seed-eating birds. Like many of
the South American species it has little or no song.

A clutch of three eggs taken 30th November 1887 from
a nest placed in a bunch of grass. These, with others from
the Argentine Republic, average 12, by 2% inch in size,
and are of pyriform oval shape, and white in colour, spotted
and streaked with very dark purple, chiefly at the large end.
The egg is figured in D’Orbigny’s work on South America
(Plate 22).

~The nest is formed of withered grasses and palm fibre, is
shghtly cup-shaped, measuring 44 inches across, and 3 inches
over the opening.

3. Cassicus albirostris (Vieill.). Local name Guirangari
(Japa negro y amarillo, Azara)—This genus of birds is
remarkable for its curious pendulous nests. The present
species is not common in collections, being seemingly of
limited distribution. It is found in the provinces of Rio

78 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Grande do Sul and San Paulo in Southern Brazil, whence it
extends into Paraguay. Schomburgh records it from Guiana,
but Sclater doubts much if it reaches so far north. It feeds
on oranges and other fruits and seeds.

Clutch of two eggs taken 20th November 1887, measur-
ing respectively 1 by #8 and 33 by 28 inch. They are of
an elongated oval shape, greyish-white in colour, closely
freckled over with minute reddish-brown spots.

The nest, which was suspended from the extremity of a
branch of a tree at a considerable height from the ground,
is a long purse-like structure of a black vegetable fibre
resembling horse hair, probably of some plant growing in the
neighbourhood, the total length of which is 34 inches. The
opening is placed about 18 inches from the upper end, from
which the passage to the nest proper descends about 9 inches
farther to the latter, which then opens up in the form of a
circular bag of 5 inches in diameter, and 44 inches in depth,
and in which the eggs are placed without lining. The nest
is woven entirely by the bill of the bird, and my collector
describes the observation of the process as most interesting,
the bird permitting a close approach without alarm.

4, Aphobus chopi (Vieill.). Chopi Boat-tail. Local name
Guirau (£1 Chom. Azara).—The distribution of the Chopi
seems confined to the central part of South America, where
it inhabits Bolivia, the North-eastern part of the Argentine
Republic, most of Brazil, and all Paraguay, in which latter
it is quite common. A social species, it is generally found
in flocks like the Starling, so large as to blacken the trees
on which it alights. In Paraguay it is very destructive to
the maize fields and to gardens, which require to be watched
in consequence of its depredations. It is very sagacious, and
gives warning to other species of the approach of birds of
prey, which, although somewhat shy otherwise, it bullies with
impunity. It frequents courts and verandahs of houses, and
is often kept in captivity, being by no means an indifferent
songster. Its nest is usually placed in a hollow tree, hole
in a bank, crevice in a wall, or other similar situation, but is
sometimes found in a thick tree or bush.

Clutch of five eggs taken on 10th November 1886 from

Mr Dalgleish on Birds and Eygs from Paraguay. 79

a nest placed in the tuft of a palm tree. Another clutch of
four eges taken 27th November 1886 from a nest placed in
a hole in a palm tree.

These eggs average in size 1,4 by #9 inch, the smallest
being 38 by 28, and the largest 1,3, by 24 inch. The first
clutch varies greatly in size, while the other is nearly
uniform. They are of a delicate pale blue colour, finely
streaked with hair-like markings, and a few spots of very
dark purple, chiefly round the larger end.

The nest is formed of the points of the palm leaves and
twigs of climbers which run up the palm trees. The former
are like flat grasses and are interwoven into a cup-like nest,
which measures 43 inches across, with an opening of 3
inches, and is 1} inches in depth.

5. Myiarchus tyrannulus (Miill.). Rusty-tailed Tyrant.
Local name Guira caballero (Swirirt pardo y roxo. Azara).—
This ‘Tyrant bird is found throughout South America down
to the Argentine Republic. White found it within the
latter in the provinces of Oran and Salta, where, he says, it
takes the place of Pitangus bellicosus, and Barrow observed
it at Concepcion on the Lower Uruguay. It is rather a
solitary and silent bird, often found sitting by the sides of
paths through brushwood.

Clutch of four eggs taken on 7th November 1886 from a
nest in a hole in a palm tree. They are oval in shape,
nearly uniform in size, averaging #4 by 26 inch, and are of
a rich cream colour streaked longitudinally with greyish
lilac and dark brown markings.

The lining of the nest which accompanied the eggs con-
sisted of matted hair interspersed with small pieces of the
cast skin of a serpent.

6. Furnaris rufus, Gm. Oven Bird. Local name
Hornero (Zornero. Azara).—This fussy bird is as common in
Paraguay as in Uruguay, and its nest is of the usual form,
from which it derives its name.

7. Phacellodomus ruber (Vieill.). Red Thorn Bird. Local
name Anumbi (Anumbi roxo. Azara)—This is a species of
very retiring habits like our own hedge sparrow, although
not so active in its movements. It is not uncommon, yet it

80 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

is not easily procured owing to its keeping to the centre of
the bushes it frequents. It is never met with in large
woods, but always in clumps of brushwood and similar
situations.

Clutch of two eggs taken 28th November 1886, another
of three eggs taken 15th October 1887, and a third of
four eggs taken 13th November 1887. These are oval in
shape, of a very light cream colour, and devoid of markings.
They average in size 1 by $$ inch.

The nest, like others of the family of Thorn birds, is com-
posed of a great mass of twigs, formed with two chambers,
and laid horizontally, the inner or nesting one being lined
with hair, fine roots, and feathers. It is placed in a bush at
the extremity of a branch about 6 feet from the ground.

8. Xiphocolaptes major (Vieill.). Chesnut Wood Hewer.
Local name Ypecu (Zrepadore grande. Azara).—This species,
whose habits somewhat resemble those of our Creeper, is
found in Bolivia, the hottest part of the Argentine Republic,
and Paraguay. It is common in the forests of these regions,
where it may be seen rapidly running up the clear stem of
a tree to the top, and thence flying to the base of another to
repeat the same performance. In this they are much aided
by the stiff bristly feathers of the tail, and by their strong
and sharply hooked claws.

Clutch of three eggs taken on 14th November 1887 from
a nest in a hole in a tree, several feet from the ground;
another of two eggs from a similar position, taken on 25th
November. These are of a dull white colour, with a rough
surface, the shell being coarse in the grain, and are of a
blunted oval form. The largest measures 1322 by 1,5, inches,
and the smallest 113 by 1 inch. The nests contained no
lining save a few fragments of the wood left in the process
of excavation.

9, Chrysoptilus Cristatus (Vieill.). Red Crested Wood-
pecker. The local name of this bird is also Ypecu, under
which the various woodpeckers are known (Carpintero verde
negro. Azara).—Its nest and eggs have already been de-
scribed in my notes on Uruguay.

10. Colaptes campestris (Vieill.). Local name “ Ypecu ”

Mr Dalgleish on Birds and Eggs from Paraguay. 81

(Carpintero campestre. Azara).—This species, which inhabits
Brazil, Bolivia, Northern Argentina, and Paraguay, is, although
a woodpecker in form, seldom or ever found in woods, but
generally in the open camps or plain, in the vicinity of ant-
hills into which it digs with its powerful bill, thereafter
devouring the inmates. Very frequently several pairs are
found in the same vicinity, and a favourite perch is the
summit of an ant-hill, off which they fly with a ery of
alarm.

Clutch of three eggs taken 27th November 1886 from a
hole in a palm tree, which contained no lining whatever.
These average in size 134 by 36 inch, are of an elongated
oval form, and white in colour with a high polish similar to
the usual woodpecker type.

11. Crotophaga ani (Linn.). Black Ani. Local name Ano.
(Anno. Azara).—This bird, one of the cuckoo family, is found
throughout South America east of the Andes, and down as
far as the southern provinces of Brazil. It is also a native
of some of the West India islands, as St Vincent, Grenada,
and St Croix. It is plentiful on the Amazon, where Layard
found it at Para, about the edge of the forest and in deserted
gardens. It is usually found on open pasture ground, where
they feed on the insects disturbed by the movements of the
cattle. They also feed on fruit. They are very social birds,
going in flocks of about twenty and sometimes in company
with the next species. Their song or whistle is not un-
musical. It is known by English residents in Brazil as the
Black Parrot from a fancied resemblance in the bill to that
of a parrot. Its call resembles that of the curlew.

Clutch of three eggs taken from a nest in a palm tree on
15th November 1886. These average 115 by 2% inch, and
are of a blue colour like the ege of the heron, but are coated
over with a dull white calcareous covering similar to that on
a cormorant’s egg, but of a greatly finer texture, which is
easily rubbed off. .

The nest is a flat platform lke that of a pigeon, with
a slight cavity, and is formed of twigs and dried leaves.
It measures 6 inches across, and is about 2 inches in
thickness.

VOL. X. F

82 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

12. Guira piririgua (Vieill.). Guira cuckoo. Local name
Piririta (Piririgua. Azara)—This species, whose curious
blue eggs with their lace-like markings I have elsewhere
described,! is common in the neighbourhood of Ytanu. Its |
domestic arrangements, which partake of the nature of the
family to which it belongs, are somewhat mixed, it being by
no means uncommon for several birds to lay their eggs in
one nest, which are all incubated by one of their number.
My collector has sent me ten eggs all taken from the same
nest. It is frequently tamed, and makes a nice pet.

13. Conurus nanday (Desm.). Local name Nenday (Nendai.
Azara).—This fine parrot is found in Bolivia, the north of
Argentina, and Paraguay, where it is not rare. Like all the
family it feeds chiefly on fruit, and is very fond of oranges.
It is frequently kept as a cage bird, and becomes very tame.
Although not found near Buenos Ayres, it is often taken
there in cages, where it is considered a rarity and much
esteemed. It is said that it cannot be taught to speak.

Clutch of four eggs taken from a nest in a hole in a
palm tree, 13th November 1887. Another from a similar
situation taken on 15th December in the same year. These
average in size 1,8 by 28 inch, and are of a blunt oval in
form, white in colour, and with a slight polish.

The holes in which the eges were found contained no
lining. i

14. Conurus vittatus, Shaw. Local name Cotorra (Chiripepé.
Azara).—This species, whose principal habitat seems to be
Brazil, is also common in Paraguay. It feeds on fruit, but
is also extremely destructive to the maize fields. Like the
preceding species it is frequently tamed, but differs from it
in becoming an excellent talker. One which belonged to
the son of my collector became much attached to him. On
one occasion it was tempted to join a passing flock, and was
given up as lost, but he returned all right at dusk for his
evening meal.

Clutch of five eggs taken on 9th October, and another of
the same number taken on 14th November, both in 1887.
These average in size 3% by #9 inch, the largest being 1 by

1 Proc. Roy. Phys. Soc. Ed., viii., 87.

Mr Dalgleish on Birds and Eggs from Paraguay. 83

3° inch, and the smallest 37 by #4 inch. They are of a
dull white colour, and more rotiniked than those of the last
species.

The nest is placed in a similar position to that of the last
species, and is also devoid of lining.

15. Bubo virginianus (Gm.). Great Horned Owl. Local
name Nacurutu (Nacurutu. Azara).—This fine owl, known
to American naturalists under the subspecific name of B.
virginianus var, magellanicus, has latterly been considered
by British ornithologists as identical with the form prevail-
ing throughout North America, and is generally distributed
throughout both continents, from the Arctic circle to Cape
Horn. Throughout so extensive an area it naturally varies
a good deal in colouring, but the races thus developed must
all be referred to one species, as in habits they do not vary.
One of the most notable pecuharities of this bird is its ery,
which partakes of shrieks and barks of the most unearthly
nature, and which have always inspired the aborigines,
where it is a denizen, with superstitious fears. In Paraguay
it lives alike on birds, mice, rats, and snakes. In North
America it is particularly destructive to poultry, its depre-
dations, like that of the fox, being of course at night. It
lays from two to six eggs.

Clutch of two eggs taken on 15th October 1887. They
measure 2,5 by 133 and 2,5 by 129 inches respectively,
and, like those of owls in general, of a dull, white colour,
and rounded in form.

The nest, which was placed at the top of a high tree, was
of large size, formed of sticks and lined with grass.

16. Asturina pucherant, Sel. and Salv. Local name
Alcon.—This hawk is found in Bolivia, the Argentine Re-
public, and Paraguay. It is usually seen when sitting
motionless on the tops of high trees. Its flight is heavy and
flapping, partaking of that of the buzzard rather than the
falcon. It is sluggish and fond of seclusion. Barrow states
its partiality for the sides of streams, and that it feeds
largely if not exclusively upon fish. It is also known to
prey upon serpents, and in Paraguay, at all events, upon
mice and small birds,

84 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Clutch of two eggs taken on 20th October 1887, measuring
respectively 2,2, by 123 and 133 by 13% inches. They are
of a dingy white colour, blotched with dark purple-brown
markings like those of the buzzard.

The nest was formed of small sticks lined with a few
leaves, and was placed in a high tree.

17. Tinnunculus cinnamominus, Sw. Cinnamomeous
Kestrel. Local name Alcon para (Cernicalo. Azara).—This
small kestrel, formerly recorded from Uruguay, is also found
at Ytanu.

18. Cathartes awra (Linn.). Turkey Buzzard. (Acabird.
Azara).—The Turkey buzzard is almost as extended in its
distribution as the great horned owl. It extends throughout
almost all North America south of the Saskatchewan River,
and all South America to Patagonia. It is found in the
larger West India islands, and is very numerous in the
Falklands. A most useful bird in warm countries, where it
acts as a scavenger; it feeds on carrion and all sorts of
animal food, including fish. A specimen sent home by my
collector was found to contain a fish in its crop when being
skinned. It inhabits the cities of the Southern States of
North America, but elsewhere is generally found in rural
districts. Its sense of smell and sight are very keen. It
lays two, rarely three, eggs. Its egg is figured in D’Orbigny’s
work.

Clutch of two eggs taken on 12th November 1887. They
measure 224 by 134 and 222 by 13} inches respectively.
The ground colour is white, much mottled over, especially
at the base, in an irrecular way with rusty brown. The
mottlings in one are much smaller than in the other.

They were placed on the bare ground at the foot of a large
tree.

19. Cathartes atratus (Bartr.). Black Vulture. Local
name “Gabilan” (Jribu. Azara).—This species, found in
Uruguay, is also common in Paraguay, where it is equally
useful in clearing the camps of dead animals. Their eggs
are frequently eaten by serpents and lizards. One of two
sent me bears evidence of the visit to the nest of one or
other of these reptiles.

Mr Dalgleish on Birds and Lygs from Paraguay. 8d

20. Ardea sibilatriz, Temm. Whistling Heron. Local
name “Curabiminbe” (Flauta del sol. Azara).—This hand-
some small heron is mostly confined to Brazil, Northern
Argentina, and Paraguay, but has of late been found at
Angostura, in Venezuela, and at Concepcion, on the Uruguay
River, which has extended its known range considerably.
In the latter locality, Barrow found it by no means common,
but where he describes its habits as shy and solitary, active
by day if disturbed, and as having a more rapid flight than
any other heron of his acquaintance, flying away from the
streams to dry woods and sandhills when thus alarmed.

Two eggs, taken on 4th November 1887, measure 135 by
122 and 133 by 122 inches respectively. They are round
in form, and of a light, brownish-green colour, speckled over
with a few minute spots of reddish-purple, thus differing a
good deal from the usual type of heron’s egg.

The nest was formed of sticks, and contained no hning;
it was situated at the top of a large tree.

21. Chauna chavaria (Linn.). Crested Screamer. Local
name “Chaha” (Chaja. Azara)—The Chaha, so named
from its noisy call, is a large, fine, and somewhat striking
bird, especially if seen in a flock. It is found throughout
Southern Brazil, Paraguay, and Argentina. It frequents
swampy ground, and can swim, but is usually seen wading
when in the water. It is of powerful flight although so
heavy a bird, and is described as soaring in spirals like an
eagle, at times to so great a height that its presence is only
detected by its cry. It possesses a large number of air cells
between the skin and the lining membrane of the body,
which it can inflate at will and thus enable it to soar at
pleasure. It possesses, in common with some other birds, a
curious and powerful weapon in the form of a spur upon the
extremity of the wing bone, which enables it when wounded
to defend itself with some success, and a young one unable
to fly can with it beat off a dog. It is resident and very
common in Paraguay, and is occasionally found tame about
country houses, where, by its loud call on the approach
of a stranger, it forms a good watch. Its flesh is said by

Barrow to be hardly inferior to that of turkey. Its breeding

86 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

habits are irregular, nests being occasionally found in July
and August. It lays from four to six eggs.

Three eggs taken from the nest on 20th December 1887,
one of an elongated, oval form, and a dull, white colour; they
average 334 by 27% inches in size.

The nest was placed at the side of the river, was formed of
grasses, and slightly hollowed on the top.

22. Chamepelia talpacoti (Temm.). Talpacoti Dove. Local
name “Teruti del Monte” (Paloma roxiza. Azara).—This
beautiful little dove is found throughout British Guiana,
Brazil, Bolivia, the northern part of Argentina, and Para-
guay, and is in some parts of the first-named country very
plentiful and much esteemed for the pot. In Paraguay it is
not so common, and is found either in pairs or in small
flocks. It is occasionally kept in confinement.

Two clutches of two eggs each, both taken on 20th Novem-
ber 1886. These vary in size from 1 by #3 to 33 by 28
inch, and are oval, white in colour, and of the ordinary
pigeon type and appearance.

Both nests were placed near the top of a low palm tree,
and were formed of withered grasses and fine roots, and were
slightly hollow in the centre. One sent measures 4 inches
over top.

23. Rallus maculatus, Bodd. Spotted Rail. Local name
“Nahana” (Jaspeado todo. Azara).—The spotted rail is found
in Guiana, New Granada, Brazil, Paraguay, and the
Argentine Republic. It also occurs in the island of Cuba.
It is common in suitable localities where there are arroyos or
lagunas. Jt makes its nest among reeds about 18 inches
above the water. It usually lays up to seven eggs, but
fifteen from one nest have been recorded, probably however
the produce of more than one bird.

Clutch of five eggs taken on 12th November 1887, another
of the same number taken on the 30th of the same month.
These average in size 13% by 1,%,; inches. Both clutches are
of a rich cream colour, one being of a darker shade than the
other; the latter has a few minute reddish-brown spots
chiefly at the larger end, the former is lighter in ground
colour, with larger spots of the same, and also a few faint

Mr Dalgleish on Birds and Lygs from Paraguay. 87

greyish lilac markings appearing as if below the outer shell ;
the markings on one of the dark set, however, approach closely
to those of the lighter coloured one.

24. Aramides ypecaha (Vieill.). Ypecaha Rail. Local name
“ Pacaa” (Ipacahd. Azara).—This bird is found generally in
reed beds, coming out in the mornings and evenings to feed.
It is found throughout Southern Brazil, Paraguay, and
Northern Argentina. About the size of a barn door hen, it
bears some resemblance to that bird in manners and appear-
ance. When alarmed it goes off like a hen, with a run
breaking ultimately into flight in the same manner as the
domesticated bird. It is occasionally kept tame, and my
collector saw one going with the poultry in the court of
a hotel in Asuncion. It is a shy bird and not easily
obtained. .

Two clutches of five eggs each taken on 10th November
1886 and 9th October 1887 respectively. These vary a good
deal in size, but average 21% by 133 inches. They are
similar in colour to the lighter-coloured clutch of the last-
mentioned species, and the markings, which are larger in
proportion to the size of the egg, may also be described as
sunilar in colour and character.

The nest was merely a scraped hollow in the centre of a
raised bunch of grass.

25. Parra jacana (Linn.). The Jacana. Local name “ Agua-
peaso,” literally “walker upon water” (Aguapeazo. Azara).—
The Jacana is found throughout central South America from
Guiana to Southern Brazil. It is very common on the
Amazon. Essentially a water bird it is found on the rivers
and larger lagunas, where, with its broadly extended toes, it
easily walks over the floating plants on their surface, which
harbour the insects upon which it feeds. Like our own
water hen it is a slow and awkward flier, trailing its
legs behind in flight. In habits it is shy, keeping well out
from the shores of the lakes and rivers it frequents. Its
food is minute mollusca and water insects. Its handsome
egg is figured in De la Sagra’s Birds of Cuba.

Clutch of four eggs taken 18th October 1886. Like other
species of the same family these are very beautiful, being

88 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Soctety.

of a brownish-yellow, ground colour, minutely grained over
with black veins resembling pieces of rare and _ highly
polished cabinet wood. They are very equal in size, averag-
ing 1,3, by 2% inch. They were laid without any nest on
some floating leaves in the river.

26. Vanellus cayennensis (Gin.). Cayenne Lapwing. Local
name Terutero (Zerutero. Azara).—This plover is common at
Ytafiu and increasing there in numbers.

27. Gallinago paraguaic (Vieill.). Paraguay Snipe (Becasina.
Azara).—This snipe is closely allied to G. frenata of my
Uruguay list, and the eggs and situation of nest are very
similar to those of that species, and of the common
European snipe, G. calestis.

Three clutches of eggs of three each, the usual number laid
by this bird, taken on 6th and 30th November and 10th
December 1887 respectively, average 128 by 1% inches in
size.

28. Rhynchotus rufescens (Temm.). Great Tinamou. Local
name “ Ynanbuguaru ” (Inambu guazu. Azara).—This tinamou
has already appeared in my list of birds of Uruguay. In
Paraguay, however, they seem to lay more eggs, ten having
been sent me from one nest, while four is the usual number
in Uruguay.

XI. Additional Notes on some British Carboniferous Lycopods.
By R. Kipstoy, F.B.S.E., F.G.S. [Plate IV. ]

(Read 20th March 1889.)

The preseut paper must be regarded as an appendix to
that published by me in the Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist. in
1885.1 Since that communication was written several
important works dealing with the Carboniferous Flora
have appeared, which contain additional information regard-
ing the Carboniferous Lycopods. I have also continued
my investigations on this subject, and now wish to lay
before this Society some of the results. These are partly

1 “On the Relationship of Ulodendron, L. & H., to Lepidodendron, Sternb.,

Bothrodendron, L. & H., Sigillaria, Brongn., and Rhytidodendron, Boulay,”
vol. xvi., pp. 123-139, 162-179, 239.260, pls. iii.-vii,

Mr Kidston on British Carboniferous Lycopods. 89

confirmative of the views I previously stated and partly
correcting errors into which I had fallen.

I. Lepidodendron Veltheimianum, Sternb.

A few months ago I received for examination from the
Geological Survey of England an impression of Lepidoden-
dron Veltheimianum, collected by Mr Rhodes, one of their
fossil collectors, from the Lower Carboniferous of Lumby
Law Railway-cutting, a quarter of a mile north of Edling-
ham Church, Northumberland. It was contained in an
iron-stained sandstone, and showed on the surface of the
impression the leaf-scars and one of the large cone-scars.
Attached to this latter is the basal portion of the appen-
dicular organ, which had been imbedded in the matrix, and
from the fortunate manner in which the block containing
the specimen has split, one side of the appendicular organ
is exposed. It is directed upwards and therefore similar in
position to that of all the other specimens of the plant,
which have shown the appendicular organ im situ. Owing
to the rough nature of the matrix the minute structural
points of this organ are not shown; but the impression of
the fossil is sufficiently well preserved to enable a satis-
factory identification of the species to be made, and, further,
to confirm the opinion, that the organ in question is a
cone.

My thanks are due to Dr A. Geikie for the opportunity
of examining this fossil, which is contained in the collection
of the Geological Survey of England.

I was previously of opinion that LZ. Velthewmianum, in
addition to bearing lateral cones, which produced the large
Ulodendroid scars, might also have produced terminal
cones. Continued investigations have, however, led me to
relinquish this view, as the cones, which I formerly
believed to be the terminal cones of Z. Veltheimianum, I
have now seen attached to their parent branches, showing
that they belong to an altogether distinct and, I believe, an
undescribed species. .

Note——I wish to correct an error in the description of the

90 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socvety.

leaf-scar of Zepidodendron, which I made in the paper
already referred to. In my previous communication it was
stated on p. 173, “ Leaf-base attached to the whole area of
the leaf-scar (including the ‘field’).” That portion of the
Jeaf-scar which is known as the “field” really belongs to
the cortical system, of which it is in fact a cushion-like
elevation. The true leaf-scar is only the small shield-like
disk, which bears the vascular and the two lateral cicatri-
cules. These two “lateral cicatricules” have no connection
with the vascular system, and are probably glandular.

II. SIGILLARIA.

In my previous memoir I placed in Sigillaria, under the
name of Sigillaria discophora, Konig, sp., the plant origin-
ally figured by Konig as Lepidodendron discophorum.t This
is identical with Lindley and Hutton’s Ulodendron minus?
My reason for placing this plant in Sigillaria was the
structure of the leaf-scar, which I stated on p.178 (. ¢)
possessed, as had been figured by Sir William Dawson, a
central and two lateral cicatricules ;* and though I had not
observed them personally, I had no reason to doubt the
accuracy of this writer's observation. In reviewing my
paper, Mons. Zeiller* gives his reasons for doubting the
accuracy of the figure given by Dawson, in which the three
cicatricules were shown, especially founding his opinion on
the fact that Dawson states in the description of his species
—Lepidophloios parvus=8. discophora—that the vascular
points are obscure.

I received, however, in 1886 from the Rev. David Lands-
borough, Kilmarnock, to whom I am indebted for many

1 Konig, Icones fossilium sectiles, pl. xvi., fig. 194.

* I should say here that although this latter name is the older one, it has
been so much confused by authors, expediency almost demands that it be
subordinated to the name given by Konig, from the use of which no confusion
or misunderstanding can arise.

3 «* Acadian Geology,” 2d ed. 1868, p. 455, fig. clxx., G%.

4«*Présentation d’une brochure de M. Kidston sur les Ulodendron et
observations sur les Genres Ulodendron et Bothrodendron,” Bull. de la Soe.
Géol, de France, 3° sér., vol. xvi., p. 168 (1885).

Mr Kidston on British Carboniferous Lycopods. 91

instructive specimens of our Carboniferous Lycopods, a frag-
ment of a large specimen of S. discophora, which was
unfortunately broken into several pieces, when removing it
from the roof of the Whistler Seam, Kilmarnock. This
example shows clearly the central and two lateral cicatricules
of the leaf-scar. A small portion of the specimen is shown
in Pl. IV., figs. 1, la. This specimen conclusively proves
that the leaf-scars of S. discophora, Konig, sp. (= U.
minus, L. & H.), are provided with three cicatricules very
similar to those of Sigillaria, in which genus I believe
the plant under discussion should be placed. It is very
remarkable, that in such a common British Coal-measure
fossil the true outer surface of the bark, showing the leaf-
scars in a good state of preservation, is so seldom met with.
One reason for this is the persistence of the leaves, which
appear to have retained their attachment to the stem much
longer than in the other Coal-measure Lycopods, and it is
not uncommon to find the leaf-scars on stems of large
specimens of S. discophora entirely obliterated by the foliage
of the plant being closely adpressed to the bark.

I united U. majus and U. minus, L. & H.; but M. Zeiller
regards them as distinct species, and has since figured a
specimen which he believes to be the U. majus of Lindley
and Hutton; with which he unites S. (Lepidodendron)
discophora, Konig. From the examination of a plaster cast
of Kénig’s original specimen, which is still preserved in
the collection of the British Museum, I feel quite satisfied
that Kénig’s plant is beyond all doubt referable to U. minus,
L. & H.,, and not to their U. majus, whatever may be the
claims of U. majus, L. & H., to rank as a species. The
size of the Ulodendroid scars or of the leaf-scars is of no
specific value, and I have specimens of S. discophora in
my own collection with Ulodendroid scars ranging up to
54 inches in their greater diameter. There is no Uloden-
droid scar on the specimen of U. majus figured by Zeiller ;
of course this does not prove that his specimen does not
belong to that species, but as the case stands, I at present

1 «Flore fossile du bassin houiller de Valenciennes,” p. 481, pl. Ixxiii.,
Be. tL.

92 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

believe that U. majus, L. & H., and U. minus, L. & H., are
different ages and conditions of one species. I also feel
certain, that S. Menardi, Lesqx. (not Brongn.),! which Zeiller
unites with U. majus, is likewise referable to S. discophora
(=U. minus, L. & H.). The type of U. majus appears to be
“lost, but the counterpart of the type of U. minus is still
preserved in the Hutton Collection, Newcastle-on-Tyne, and
on the careful examination of this, my identifications have
been made.

III. BorHRODENDRON, L. & H.

Bothrodendron, L. & H., Fossil Flora, vol, ii., p. 1 (1833).
Rhytidodendron, Boulay, Le terrain houiller du nord de la France et ses
végétaux fossiles, p. 39 (1876, Lille).

In 1885 I recorded the occurrence of LRhytidodendron
minutifolium, Boulay, from Scotland, and regarded the genus
as distinct from all others; but to M. Zeiller we are indebted
for showing that Rhytidodendron, Boulay, is none other than
Bothrodendron, L. & H. To the defective descriptions of
Lindley and Hutton must be ascribed the cause of this genus
being so imperfectly known; and had it not been for the
discovery of an original specimen, communicated by Hutton
to the Museum of Natural History, Paris, the cloud that
enveloped this genus might have hung over it much longer.”

In M. Zeiller’s memoir, to which I have already referred,
he figures stems and branches of Bothrodendron punctatum,
the latter having their foliage attached. Recently I have
met with specimens of Bb. punctatum as also with addi-
tional examples of B. minutifoliwm in Britain. The latter
species I have found in several new localities, and it is
represented by stems and branches with their foliage attached.
B. punctatum I have only yet seen from the Kilmarnock
Coal-field, and for specimens of it I am again indebted to the
Rev. D. Landsborough and to Mr Blackwood, Kilmarnock.

1 Geol. Survey of Illinois, ii., pl. xliii.

21 am greatly indebted to M. Zeiller for figuring at my request the
authentic specimen of Bothrodendron punctatum, L. & H., which had been
presented to the Museum d’histoire naturelle by Hutton, and to which
reference has been made (Zeiller, 7. c., pl. viii., fig. 1).

Mr Kidston on British Carboniferous Lycopods. 93

The leaf-scars in this genus are very small and provided
with three punctiform cicatricules. On the young growing
branches the leaf-scars of some of the species are close
and surrounded by a Lepidodendroid-like “ field,” but this
entirely disappears on the larger stems where the leaf-scars
are distant; the surface of the bark between the leaf-scars
is beautifully ornamented by delicate lines and granula-
tions.

In B. punctatum the fruit has evidently been borne in
lateral cones, from which originate the two vertical rows of
large Ulodendroid scars; and one marked feature which
distinguishes the large scars of Lothrodendron from those
of the other Ulodendroid Lycopods is, that in Bothrodendron
the umbilicus of the large scar is eccentric, whereas in the
Ulodendroid Sigillarie and Lepidodendra the umbilicus is
central or approximately so.

In B. minutrfolium, Boulay, sp., the fruit is borne in long
narrow cones at the terminations of the branches. The only
specimen of the fruit of this genus which I have yet seen
was collected by Mr W. Hemingway at Monkton Main
Colliery, near Barnsley, Yorkshire, in shale over the
“Barnsley Thick Coal.” This specimen he has kindly
forwarded to me for examination. The cone is attached to
a stem, which still bears the foliage of the species.
Unfortunately the cone is imperfect in its upper part, so
its full length cannot be determined. The portion pre-
served is 34 inches long, and at its thickest part rather over
+ inch wide. The central axis in the compressed cone is
seen to give off at right angles a number of transverse bars,
which probably represent the basal portions of the bracts,
that bore the sporangia. Their leafy extension rises up at
almost right angles to their basal portion, and is therefore
nearly parallel with the axis. These bracts are closely
placed, as many as eleven being contained on the axis in
the space of half an inch. The specimen is shown nat. size
mela .; fio. 6:

I have received a very interesting specimen of a portion
of a stem of Bb. minutifolvwm from Mr Landsborough. The
lower part of this specimen is decorticated, and shows the

94 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

subepidermal leaf-scars. These are not simple as supposed,!
but when well preserved are seen to consist of two linear
elongated elevations, which are frequently connected in the
centre, as shown in figs. 5 and 5b. They are very similar to
those of Sigillaria.

The foliage of B. minutifolium and punctatum is very
small, and the ultimate ramifications of the dichotomously
divided branches have great similarity to those of recent
Lycopods, as has been pointed out by Zeiller. Their syste-
matic position is, however, probably intermediate between
Lepidodendron and Sigillaria.

The genus Bothrodendron is not, however, restricted to the
Coal-measures, for I have received from various localities in
the Calciferous-Sandstone series specimens of a species of
this genus, which I here describe.

Bothrodendron Wikianum, Kidston, n. sp.
(PL IV., figs. 2-4.)

Cf. Lepidodendron Wiikianum, Heer, Foss. Flora d. Baren Insel, p. 40,

pl. vil., Hg. T¢5 pli vii. fig: 2'c; pl. ixt, figs:

Description.—Leaf-scars distant, small, varying in size
according to the age of the branch, transversely oval. Cica-
tricules three, punctiform, situated towards the lower margin
of the scar. Above the leaf-scar is a small punctiform cica-
tricule. Surface of the bark between the leaf-scars irregu-
larly striated longitudinally, the striz bending round the
scars and leaving in their immediate neighbourhood a smooth
space.

Remarks.—The leaf-scars vary in size and distance apart
according to the age of the specimen. In my smallest
example they are about 1 millim., and in the largest speci-
men 3°5 millim. in transverse diameter. On the young
branches the little punctiform cicatricule is immediately above
the leaf-scar, and seems to rest upon it; but in the largest
specimen of the species, that I have seen, it is separated
from the leaf-scar by a short distance.

The bark is longitudinally striated, the striz being shghtly

1 Zeiller, 7. c., p. 181.

Mir Kidston on British Carboniferous Lycopods. 95

bent, especially in the neighbourhood of the leaf-scars round
which they curve, and immediately below and above the
leaf-scars they are absent, having the appearance as if they
had separated to make room for the scars. There is, how-
ever, no “ field,” as in Lepidodendron.

I have named this species “ Wiukianwm,” as there seems
to be a great probability that this plant is similar to Heer’s
Lepidodendron Wiikianum, from Bear Island! The British
specimens are not, however, referable to the genus Lepi-
dodendron, and, judging from Heer’s figures and description,
I do not think that his plant should be placed in that
genus. As, however, I have not seen any of Heer’s speci-
mens, I cannot be certain that his species is identical
with my Bothrodendron Wiuikianum, though I am strongly
inclined to believe it is. I therefore, while adopting his
specific name, place the British specimens in their proper
genus; and should it eventually be proved that these
two species are identical, it will be an easy transition to
substitute B. Wiikianum, Heer, sp. for B. Wukianum,
Kidston.

Localities —Railway-cutting between Boags Mill and Kates
Mill, Water of Leith, Midlothian; collected by Mr James
Bennie. Wardie, near Granton, Midlothian; collected by
Dr J. M. Macfarlane, F.RS.E. Little Whickhope Burn,
near first branch above Cross Sike, Northumberland ; com-
municated by Mr H. Miller, F.R.S.E.

Horizon.—Calciferous Sandstone Series.

In my “ Catalogue of Paleozoic Plants in the Collection of
the British Museum,’? I stated the belief that the leaf-scar
of Cyclostigma, Haughton, did not differ in any character
from those of hytidodendron, which is now known to be
synonymous with Bothrodendron. Last year I had the
opportunity of examining the fine collection of Kiltorkan
fossils in the Science and Art Museum, Dublin, and in the
collection of the Geological Survey of Ireland, Dublin, and

1 In Kongl. Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar, Band ix., no. 5
(Stockholm, 1871).

2"P.; 2366

3 Ann, and Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 3, vol. v., p. 443 (1860).

96 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

this has confirmed my opinion that Cyclostigma should be
merged in Lothrodendron.

The fructification of the Coal-measure Bothrodendra is but
imperfectly known, and, so far as | am aware, the only cone
identified with the Coal-measure members of the genus is
that with short bracts figured in this communication. The
cones, however, of the Cyclostigma kiltorkense are provided
with long, linear, lanceolate bracts with a subtriangular base,
on which the spores are borne. These have been figured by
Schimper as Lepidostrobus Bailyanus Their whole struc-
ture reminds one much of Sigillarian cones.

At present so little is known about the fructification of
the various species of Bothrodendron, that on this important
point a comparison cannot be made between the members
of the genus; but so long as the generic characters of
these Lycopods are founded on the structure of the leaf-
scar, Cyclostigma must be enrolled in the older genus
Bothrodendron.

I am aware that the description of the leaf-scar of Cyclo-
stigma that I now give, differs in some important points
from that given by Dr Haughton? and by Heer,’ as also
from the figures and descriptions given by this last-mentioned
author in his “ Fossile Flora der Baren Insel ;” but in many
of the specimens a certain amount of shrinkage appears to
have taken place, which may have reduced the leaf-scars to
the condition in which many of them occur. Be this as it
may, the fact remains that when well-preserved examples
are examined, it is found that the leaf-scars of Cyclostigma
contain three cicatricules similar to those of Bothrodendron.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE.

Fig. 1. Sigillaria discophora, Konig, sp., nat, size. 1 a. Leaf-scar en-
larged and showing the three cicatricules. Zoc. Shale over Whistler Seam,
Bonnington Pit, Kilmarnock; communicated by the Rev. David Lands-
borough. Hor. Lower Coal-measures.

Figs. 2-4. Bothrodendron Wiikianum, Kidston, n. sp. 2. Loc. Little

1 Traité d. paléont. végét., vol. ii., p. 71, pl. lxi., fig. 9.
56.5 0%..18.
3 Quart. Journ. Geol, Soc., vol. xxviii., p. 169, pl. iv.

On some of the Modes of Formation of Coal Seams. 97

Whickhope Burn, near first branch above Cross Sike, Northumberland ;
nat. size. 2 a. Leaf-scar, enlarged. Hor, Calciferous Sandstone Series ;
communicated by Mr H. Miller, F.R.S.E. 3. Zoc. Railway-cutting between
Kates Mill and Boags Mill, Water of Leith, Midlothian, Hor. Calciferous
Sandstone Series ; collected by Mr J. Bennie; nat. size. Specimen in the
Collection of the Geol. Survey of Scotland. 3a. Leaf-scar, enlarged. 4. Loc.
Shore, Wardie, Midlothian. Hor. Calciferous Sandstone Series ; nat. size ;
collected by Dr J. M. Macfarlane. 4a. Leaf-scar, enlarged.

Figs. 5, 6. Bothrodendron minutifolium, Boulay, sp. 5. Lov. Shale over
Whistler Seam, Bonnington Pit, Kilmarnock. Hor. Lower Coal-measures ;
nat. size; communicated by the Rev. D. Landsborough. 5 a. Leaf-scar,
enlarged. 5 6. Subepidermal cicatricules, enlarged. 6. Loc. Shale over
‘‘Barnsley Thick Coal,” Monkton Main Colliery, near Barnsley, Yorkshire ;
Middle Coal-measures ; collected by Mr W. Hemingway ; nat. size.

XII. On some of the Modes of Formation of Coal Scams
(Abstract). By J. G. Goopcnitp, Esq., H.M. Geol.
Survey, F.G.S., Acting Instructor in Geology and Miner-
alogy to the Royal Geographical Society.

(Read 17th April 1889.)

After briefly noticing the chemical and physical characters
of coal, and its relations to the strata enclosing it, the author
discussed the nature of the conditions essential for its forma-
tion. These require simply that a requisite quantity of pure
vegetable matter should be left under conditions that ensure
its fossilisation before its constituents shall have passed
entirely into the inorganic condition. These conditions may
be fulfilled in any one of many different ways. Inland, for
example, coal might be formed through the burial of peat
beneath deposits carried into inland lakes. In marine areas
it may originate through the sedimentation of inland peat-
beds that have been resorted; or it may arise through the
submergence and subsequent burial of maritime beds of peat
entombed in sitt. The burial of masses of drift timber has
been a common factor in the production of some irregular
seams of coal. The decay of marine vegetation, alge, and
the like, and of the spores emanating from these, can hardly
be left out of account. The growth, decay, and subsequent

1 Subsequently printed in the ‘‘Colliery Guardian,” and also in the
‘Geological Magazine” for July 1889,
VOL, X. G

38 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

entombment on the spot of lagoon vegetation flourishing in
the shallower swamps of deltas that are subsiding inter-
mittently and with minor oscillations of level, has very
generally been recognised as the most probable mode of
formation of coal seams. Lastly, coal may be formed through
the sub-thalassic accumulation of deciduous vegetable matter
floated seawards from riparian forests. The author regarded
each and all of these various modes as having shared in the
formation of the various coal seams known to geologists, and
especially dwelt upon this as one of the many proofs that
identical results, in the operations of natural causes, may be
brought about in a considerable variety of ways.

Leaving any further notice of those modes of formation of
coal seams that have been already fuliy recognised, the
author proceeded to discuss in some detail the mode referred
to last of all. It was pointed out that where large rivers,
draining tropical areas, are transporting, as they usually do,
a mixed burden composed of both organic and inorganic
substances, these latter, having a higher specific gravity than
the greater part of the vegetable matter, are the first to be
sedimented. This usually happens within a variable, but
generally a short, distance from the land. Animal organisms,
as a rule, are also deposited at no great distance from the
land; as are also such vegetable organisms as have under-
gone lengthy maceration, and have become water-logsed at
this point. Such floating trees, for example, as have
travelled long distances, often sink amongst the coarser
mineral sediment, root downward, and become entombed in
that position as “snags.” The smaller boughs, stems, fronds,
and leaves may float to greater distances; but may subside
through the water at a rate sufficiently high to admit of
their reaching the sea-bottom where the sedimentation of
the finer mineral matter is in progress. But the lighter
deciduous parts of the vegetation, and especially the spores
and such organisms whose chemical composition and whose
form both enable them to float long, remain in suspension
long enough to admit of their transportal to great distances,
and they are thus gradually carried by the marine currents
to zones far outside those attained by any other material

On some of the Modes of Formation of Coal Seams. 99

undergoing seaward transport from the land. The zone
where deposition of this kind is in progress must necessarily
remain constant the whole time that the relative position of
sea and land, and the physical conditions generally, remain
unchanged; so that there is practically no limit to the
quantity of material that might be sorted out and deposited
by itself in this manner.

But both the specific gravity and the power of resisting
maceration of different vegetable organisms vary within
wide limits. As a result, there is not only a constant
separation of the vegetable from the mineral matter going
on, but there is, further, an equally constant sorting out of
the different vegetable organisms themselves. Those that
become waterlogged earliest reach the sea-bottom nearest to
the land; whilst those that, from various causes, resist decom-
position longer, remain longer in suspension, and are there-
fore drifted to greater distances by the submarine currents
before they finally come to rest on the sea-bottom.

With oscillations of level, or any other causes bringing
about changes of physical conditions, the absolute position of
these various zones of deposition must necessarily change,
aud so variation in the constituents of the coal, or the sub-
stitution for it of mineral sediments on the one hand, or of
oceanic deposits on the other, may be brought about.

This mode of accounting for coal seams does not by any
means preclude any one of the others ; on the contrary, as
deltas advance seaward over areas where deeper water
conditions had previously obtained, it would be almost a
necessary consequence that lagoon vegetation of some kind
or other should prevail over the spot where, at an earlier
period, thalassic coal seams had been formed. And it is
equally clear that coals originating in any other manner
might be inter-stratified with the beds whose histery is more
especially noticed here.

It appears to the writer that this last-mentioned explana-
tion will enable us to account for the remarkably fine
lamination seen in so many coal seams; it will also explain
their freedom from admixture with impurities of inorganic
origin. We need not longer marvel at the fact that the

100 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

several layers composing coal seams should each have peculiar
structural characters of their own, which are constant over
large areas. Nor need we wonder at that curious fact, much
insisted upon by Mr E. Wethered years ago, that we hardly
ever, perhaps never, find tree trunks extending upwards
through coal seams in the position of growth; which must
necessarily have been the normal state of things in the case
of coals that have grown in sitt#. It will also enable us to
dispense with the complicated oscillations of level, and that
very delicate adjustment of the rate of growth of vegetation
to the rate of subsidence, etc., which make so many demands
on the faith of young geologists accustomed to think for
themselves.

Some observations were made upon the close connection
that exists between seams of coal and beds of ironstone and
of impure limestone. It was pointed out that where decom-
posing vegetable matter comes into contact with a solution
of sulphate of lime, this is decomposed, and carbonate of
lime is liberated, if the vegetable matter 1s in excess. In
this way the conditions suitable for the initiation of limestone
may be brought about. Where the sulphate of lime is in excess
the vegetable matter itself is acted upon; and the author was
disposed to regard the amorphous parts of coal as due to this
partial dissolution, and subsequent redeposition, of the organic
matter. Reference was made to the bearing of this fact
upon the absence of vegetable organisms from Red Rocks of
all ages.

The paper concluded with some observations upon the em-
ployment of the term Coal-measures. The author advocated
an extension of the term so as to include all productive coal-
bearing horizons in the Carboniferous rocks, qualifying the

term by reference to the age of the rocks containing the
coal.

Zoological Notes. 101

XIII. Zoological Notes. By Frank E. Bepparpd, Esq., M.A.,
F.RS.E., F.Z.8., Prosector to the Zoological Society
of London, Lecturer on Biology at Guy’s Hospital.
[Plate V.]

(Read 17th April 1889.)
is
ON SOME BRITISH SPECIES OF Pachydrilus (Pl. V.).

During the month of August 1888, I visited the Marine
Biological Laboratory at Plymouth, and occupied myself
with the study of the Oligocheta. I have already con-
tributed to the Journal of the Marine Biological Association
a short notice of such Oligocheeta as I was able to find, and
have published in the last number of the Proceedings of the
Zoological Society of London an account of the anatomy of
Clitellio arenarius and Hemitubifex benedii, which are the
two most prevalent species of Tubificidee on the shores of the
Sound. Besides these two species, I met with the genus
Pachydrilus, which is very abundant among coarse gravel at
Rum Bay. My study of the material which was obtained
from that locality, leads me to believe that there are at any
rate two species, upon which I propose to offer some notes
to the Society in the present communication.

The genus Pachydrilus was distinguished by Claparéde
(1*), by whom it was found on the shores of Holy Island in
the Firth of Clyde and the neighbourhood. He described
five species, viz., P. verrucosus, P. crassus, P. semifuscus, P.
lacteus, and P. ebudensis. Of these species, P. lacteus is
probably to be withdrawn from the genus altogether, as it
differs from the rest (and agrees with Hnchytreus) in having
colourless blood. The red or yellow coloured blood of Pachy-
drilus is one of the principal distinguishing features of the
genus which mark it out from other Enchytreide. Vejdovsky
has expressed the opinion that P. verrucosus may be identical
with Ratzel’s Lnchytreus pagenstechert. The remaining species
have never to my knowledge been reinvestigated.

* The numbers refer to the list of Memoirs cited on p. 105,

102 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Testes and Sperm sacs.

The statements of previous writers about the male gonads
and the sperm sacs are a little contradictory.

Claparéde remarked (1) that in Pachydrilus_ verru-
cosus “the testis is not single, as in the preceding species
(P. semifuscus, P. crassus). There are generally at least
eight pear-shaped testicles. They fill the ninth and tenth
segments, their pedicles converging towards the same point
on the wall of the ninth segment, where they are inserted in
common. They form then a kind of bouquet.”

Vejdovsky (3, p. 39) writes that in P. pagenstecheri “ there
are a number (6-8) of pear-shaped bodies attached to the
anterior side of the septum separating segments 10 and 11,
which when fully developed completely fill the 10th and
11th segments. They are attached to the septum, and not
to the body-wall, as Claparede states. The youngest stages
of the testes in Pachydrilus form small clear sacs out of the
inner epithelium of which the seminal cells arise. The
outer wall of these organs consists of polygonal cells, with
an obvious nucleus and nucleolus (pl. xiv., fig. 9, ep.);
under this is a feeble musculature and the inner epithelium
producing the spermatozoa. . . . Ripe spermatozoa
are set free into the body cavity by dehiscence of the
testicular walls.” Vejdovsky, in a later work (4, p. 138),
considers that the organs which were regarded by himself
(in 3) and by Claparéde as testes are really sperm sacs ;
according to this view, the testes of Pachydrilus have yet to
be found.

Dr W. Michaelsen of Hamburg, who has lately taken up
the study of the Enchytreide, and has published a number of
valuable papers upon their anatomy, has found himself unable
to agree with the later views of Vejdovsky just referred to.

Michaelsen considers (2, p. 62) that the organs in question
are after all testes, at any rate in the genus Pachydrilus.
Sperm sacs are, according to Michaelsen, only found among
the Enchytreide in Mesenchytreus.

I have found the testes to be largest in individuals not
sexually mature, where they form a bunch of divergent

Zoological Notes. 103

finger-like processes attached to both sides of the septum.
These bunches are paired, and lie close on either side of the
nerve cord. I gather from Claparéde’s description that in the
species studied by him the paired arrangement of the testes
was not apparent; it was so, however, in the examples
studied by myself. I am, so far, in accord with Michaelsen,
who, taking P. germanicus as a type of those Pachydrili
which live on the shores, and in all of which the testes are
lobate, states that the testes are paired and lie in the 11th
seoment. But I understand Michaelsen to imply that in
P. maximus, P. nervosus, and P. germanicus there is only a
single pair of testes; my species therefore agrees rather with
Claparéde’s P. verrucosus, and it seems to me to be possible
that Claparéde was in error in stating that the testes form a
single mass attached only at one point to the septum. The
observations of Claparede and Vejdovsky just referred to seem
to imply that there are ¢wo pairs of testes, but in his latest
work upon the subject Vejdovsky (4, p. 132) places the testes
of Pachydrilus in segment 11 in a table indicating the posi-
tion of the reproductive organs of the principal genera of
Oligocheeta. I have studied, by means of longitudinal
sections, four individuals of a species which I believe
to be identical with P. verrucosus, and in all of these
there were distinctly two pairs of testes attached to the
anterior and posterior surface of the septum dividing seg-
ments 10 and 11. Of P. nervosus I have studied two speci-
mens; in one (which was immature), there were two pairs
of testes occupying an identical position with those of P.
verrucosus, in the other specimen I could only find one pair
attached to the anterior septum of segment 11. It appears,
therefore, that there may be some individual variation in the
number of testes. In P. verrucosus the testes were larger in
the immature individuals, where they form bunches of long
processes as figured by Claparéde and Vejdovsky; in the
single fully mature specimen the testes were short, thick,
lobed organs; this difference is probably due to the fact that
in the latter the greater part of the testicular cells had been
converted into spermatozoa, and the organs themselves were
in consequence decreased in size.

104 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

The figure which Michaelsen (taf. i., fig. 2 f) gives of one
of the testicular lobes is rather more like what I have found
than the figures of Claparede or Vejdovsky.

I could not find any cubical epithelium covering the out-
side of the testes, but each lobe was ensheathed in a very
distinct peritoneum (fig. 7), below which are delicate fibres,
as WVejdovsky has described. It is no doubt the peculiar
nature of this sheath which led Vejdovsky to regard the
organ as being a sperm sac and not a testis; the presence
also of gregarines, which are figured by Vejdovsky within
the organ, lends some support to this view, since these para-
sites are so constantly found in the sperm sacs. The sheath
of the testicular lobes is closely applied at the base of attach-
ment (fig. 8), but towards the free extremities of the pro-
cesses if is separated (fig. 7), perhaps by the action of the
re-agents, and appears to be quite independent, thus giving
rise to a strong likeness to a sperm sac enclosing the develop-
ing spermatozoa. In spite, however, of this resemblance to
a sperm sac, I agree with Michaelsen that these organs are
testes.

It seems to me to be possible that the large size of the
testes and the stout peritoneal investment render unnecessary
the development of special sperm sacs.

DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES.

The two species differ in their size, one being considerably
larger than the other.

The larger species appears to be identical with Claparéde’s
Pachydrilus verrucosus. It agrees with that species (1.) in the
multifid testes attached to both sides of the septum separat-
ing segments 10, 11;1 (2.) in the large vas deferens funnel,
which is relatively longer than that of P. crassus, but shorter
and thicker than that of P. ebudensis ; (3.) in the characters of
the perivisceral corpuscles. Claparéde does not remark the
presence of glands surrounding the orifice of the sperma-
theca, which exist in my specimens. The only reason which

* Claparéde does not say distinctly that the testes are found on both sides

of the septum (7.¢., that there are two pairs); it is to be inferred, however,
that this is the case, from his statement that they oceupy two segments.

Zoological Notes. 105

prevents me from identifying the species with P. pagenstecheri
is the fact that, according to Vejdovsky (3, p. 53), there are
only a single pair of testes; these, however, are on another
page (p. 59) of the same Memoir said to fill segments 10 and
11; there is probably therefore an identical arrangement
with that which has been described by myself.

The different habitat of the two species is perhaps against
the identification.

The second and smaller species differs from the first (1.) in
the form of the vas deferens funnel, which is more like that
of P. crassus, and apparently also of P. germanicus and P.
verrucosus ; (2.) in the complete absence of the peculiar
perivisceral corpuscles, which are so characteristic of these
worms. In VP. verrucosus I could not find any difference
either in the structure or in the number of these corpuscles
in mature and in immature individuals. In the present
species I failed to find them either in mature or immature
individuals ; it may be regarded therefore as tolerably certain
that they do not exist. The only other species of Pachy-
drilus in which the absence of these corpuscles has been
affirmed is P. nervosus (see Michaelsen, p. 58). J am disposed
therefore for the present to regard this species as identical
with Pachydrilus nervosus ; it cannot well be identical with
any of the species described by Clapareéde (1).

Michaelsen (2) was not able to state whether the blood
of this species is red as in other Pachydrili ; in my specimens
the red or rather yellowish colour is quite apparent.

LisT OF LITERATURE REFERRED TO.

1. CLAPAREDE, E., Etudes Anatomiques sur les Annélides,
etc. Mem. Soc. Phys. Genéve, t. xvi. (1862).

2. MICHAELSEN, W., Die Oligochaeten von Siid-Georgien,
Jahrb. Hamburg Wissensch. Anstalten V. (1888).

3. VEJDOVSKY, F., Monographie der Enchytreiden. Prag,
LS 72:

4, VEJDOVSKY, F., System und Morphologie der Oligo-
chaeten. Prag, 1884.

‘106 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Soctety.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE.

Fig. 1. Diagrammatic longitudinal section through genital segments of P.
verrucosus. a, b, testes ; f, funnel of vas deferens ; c, ovary ; d, atrial aperture.

Fig. 2. Perivisceral corpuscles of P. verrucosus.

Fig. 3. Emergence of dorsal vessel in segment 14 of P. verrucosus. @, in-
testinal epithelium ; p, peritoneum ; d, dorsal vessel.

Fig. 4. Clitellar epithelium of P. nervosus. @, glandular cells ; ¢, circular ;
7, longitudinal muscles.

Fig. 5. Oviduct of P. verrucosus. jf, funnel; s, septum.

Fig. 6. Accurately median section through vas deferens funnel of P.
VErTUcosuUs.

Fig. 7. Transverse section through extremities of testicular lobes.

Fig. 8. Showing one lobe of testis and attachment to septum.

Fig. 9. Spermatheca of P. nervosus. gl, glands surrounding the orifice.

XIV. Notes on Pallas’s Sand-grouse (Syrrhaptes paradoxus)
in Scotland during the recent great westward movement
of the Species. By Witutam Evans, Esq., F.R.S.E., ete.

(Read 20th February 1889.)

As the Fellows of the Society will doubtless remember,
3ritish ornithologists were thrown into a perfect fever of
excitement in May last by the sudden appearance on our
shores of innumerable flocks of Pallas’s Sand-grouse, a bird
which, with a few trifling exceptions, had not visited Kurope
since the famous irruption of 1863. The species, I need
scarcely remind you, is an inhabitant of the vast steppes and
plains of Central Asia, being specially characteristic of the
deserts of Mongolia, in the southern parts of which it spends
the winter. According to some authorities, numbers also
winter on the Kirghiz steppes, immediately to the north-east
of the Caspian Sea, and thus at no great distance from the
confines of Eastern Europe. In the spring immense flocks
migrate to more northern localities to breed, and it is at this
season also that their periodical irruptions into Europe have
taken place. I make no attempt to explain the cause of
these sudden westward movements, and would only remark
in passing, that the theory of over-population suggested by

Notes on Pallas’s Sand-grouse in Scotland. 107

their eminent historian, Professor Newton, is not entirely
free from objection. My friend Mr Eagle Clarke thinks it
not improbable that these erratic wanderings take place only
during years of exceptional snow over some part of the
breeding area, large numbers of birds being in consequence
unable to remain in their usual haunts on their arrival in
the spring, and being thus forced to set out in search of new
quarters. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the years
1863 and 1888—exactly a quarter of a century apart—
witnessed two of these phenomenal movements on a scale
unprecedented in the annals of ornithology. As regards
numbers, the exodus of 1888 seems to have been by far the
more remarkable.

Some valuable records of Sand-grouse in Scotland during
the 1863 visitation were communicated to the Society the
following year by the late Dr J. A. Smith (Proceedings, vol.
anise; 1.78):

The records which I am about to place before you in
connection with the 1888 visitation do not claim to be even
approximately complete as a list of Scottish occurrences,
being—except in so far as relates to the Lothians—compiled
almost entirely from such of the numerous communications
to the newspapers and other publications as I have from time
to time in ordinary course observed. They are, however,
sufficiently numerous to indicate the large proportions and
wide-spread character of the visitation, and show with
tolerable certainty the dates of arrival on our coasts.

I may here state that the birds were noticed in Poland on
15th April, then from day to day, in a gradually extending
line, at localities further and further to the West, till they
appeared at Heligoland on the 8th of May. Herr Giatke’s
notes from that island, published in the Zoologist for July,
are well worth transcribing. They run as follows :—

“On 8th of May, 12 birds; 13th, a score; 14th, some;
15th, some ; 16th, flights from 5 to 20, 25 shot ; 17th, L :
early this morning, on Sandy Island, shot 18; 18th, flights
from 20 to 200 head; 19th, a few ; 20th, small flocks from
5 to 20; 21st fog, none seen; 22d, hundreds, many females ;
23d, flocks from 10 to 40; 24th, many great flights, 50 to

108 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

100; 25th” [the date of the letter], “many flights from 5 to
20, very cold northerly wind, blowing rather fresh.” Later
reports state that some were still to be seen up to July
17th, and that “most flocks flew to the West.” On 12th
May a flock of about 30, 5 of which were killed, appeared at
Listorland, in the south of Norway, not far from the Naze,
as recorded by Professor Collett in the /dzs for 1888, p. 375.
So comparatively rapid was their progress across Europe,
that before the news of their appearance on the Continent
had reached the British public through the columns of
Nature for May 17th, the birds themselves had actually
arrived on our shores.

I now submit the series of Scottish records which I have
drawn up from the materials in my possession. The
arrangement is, for obvious reasons, according to locality,
and proceeds up the East coast and down the West.

1. Foulden West Mains, Berwickshire.—A female captured
on 25th May out of a flock of twelve, and sent to the
Zoological Gardens, London, by Mr H. H. Craw,’ the tenant of
the farm—Dr Stuart, Chirnside, Scotsman, 4th June ; also Hast
Aberdeenshire Observer, 8th June, where date of capture is
given ;? and Field, 9th June, where, under additions to the
Zoological Society’s Menagerie, the sex is stated.? Dr Stuart
informs me that the bird was observed sitting in a field,
after the others took flight, by a boy, who succeeded in
getting his cap over it, and so secured it. Some days prior
to 25th May they were seen by the keeper at Edington hill;
about the same time Dr Stuart’s gardener saw four pass over
Chirnside; and on 3d June the doctor himself, when driving
home from Ayton, observed a fine male sitting in a field
within 20 yards of the road. (I may here mention that a
male, now in the museum at Berwick-on-Tweed, was shot
two or three miles south of that town on 5th June and sent
to Mr Hope, Edinburgh, for preservation.)

1 Mr Craw’s name waserroneously printed ‘‘ Cran” inthe Scotsman, and
‘‘Grane” in the Field and Proc. Zool. Soc. r

2The date given in P. Z. S., 1888, p. 291, is the 28th, but this cannot be
correct, as Dr Stuart saw the bird in Mr Craw’s hands on the 26th.

3 | have since compared the Field reports with the list of additions given
in the appendix to P. Z. S., 1888.

Notes on Pallas’s Sand-grouse in Scotland. 109

2. Oldhamstocks Mains (near Cockburnspath), East
Lothian —Two males and three females shot on 17th May
out of a flock of twenty-three by Mr C. Clarke, the tenant
of the farm, and sent for preservation to Mr G. Pow, Dunbar,
who advised me of the occurrence the following day, and in
whose hands I afterwards saw them. They were feeding in
a field of late sown barley newly seeded with grass and
clover. Dr Stuart, in his letter to the Scotsman of 4th June,
stated that four birds were killed near Oldhamstocks on the
same day (25th May) as the Foulden bird was obtained. Mr
Clarke, however, is not aware of any, except those he got on
17th May, having been killed near Oldhamstocks, and Dr
Stuart admits he must have been misinformed in regard to
the facts, as the birds he referred to were those shot by Mr
Clarke. Mr Clarke also informs me that for a week or two
after he shot the five, he on several occasions saw small parties
flying over his farm; that his brother saw seventeen cross
Redheugh Hill in a southerly direction on 23d May; and
that a day or so afterwards, a flock of sixteen or seventeen,
presumably the same birds, were seen at East Reston.

3. Stow, Midlothian—A male picked up under the
telegraph wires on 18th May, and taken to Mr Small, Edin-
burgh, for preservation. It had been dead only a very short
time when found.

4. Wester Broomhouse, near Dunbar.—Four shot by Mr
John M. Nelson on 16th May, between 4 and 5 pP.m., out of a
flock of about a dozen, while feeding in a barley field sown
with grass and clover seeds. Three of these, a male and two
females, were sent to Mr Hope for preservation, and I had
an opportunity of examining them early in the forenoon of
the 17th. The fourth bird fell in an adjoining field, and was
not found for some days. It was not preserved.

5. Belhaven Sands and adjoining Links of Westbarns,
near Dunbar.—Two males and one female shot on 16th
May, between 5 and 6 p.m., by Mr T. P. Elliot, 25 High Street,
Dunbar, out of a flock of about a score, as they rose from the
foot of the sandbank close to the rifle-range and flew over to
the Links. Early on the morning of the 17th May Mr

1 Not ‘‘ Berwickshire,” as stated in the Field and elsewhere.

110 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Elliot shot another female out of a flock of seven or eight ;
and between 4 and 6 P.M. of the same day I had the pleasure
of seeing first a flock of fourteen and then a party of four.
At same time I found a beautiful male lying dead on the
Links, where another male was picked up the following day,
and taken for preservation to Mr W. Johnson, Belhaven, in
whose hands I afterwards saw it. Both had died of gunshot
wounds. The above, with the exception of the last mentioned,
are in my collection. For two or three weeks parties, mostly
small, were from time to time seen on these Links and
neighbouring fields from Dunbar to East Linton. Near the
latter place a considerable flock was seen at Phantasie, and
likewise on Traprain Farm.

6. Castle Moffat, near Garvald, East Lothian.—A male
shot out of a covey of 5 on the Lammermoors, above this
place, on 20th May, by the Nunraw keeper. This specimen,
which is now in the possession of Mr W. W. Gray of Nun-
raw, is, I understand, the one referred to in the Haddington-
shire Advertiser of 15th June. A party of four were seen
near Whittinghame on 26th May—Miss Balfour, a Jitt.,
30th September.

7. Howden Farm, five miles south of Haddington.—Two
—probably a pair—shot on 7th June by Mr J. Catleugh,
keeper, Bankrugg. One fell into a plantation, and was not
found.—Mr G. Pow, in litt., 25th June ; also Haddingtonshire
Courier, 8th June. The bird obtained was stuffed in
Haddington. Mr Catleugh tells me it is a female, and is
in the possession of his daughter, Mrs Comb, Newton Farm,
near Dalkeith.?

8. Scoughall, on coast, midway between Dunbar and North
Berwick.—Two males and one female shot by Mr Thomas
Dale, the tenant of the farm, out of a flock of from fifteen to
twenty, on 25th May, and sent to Mr Hope for preservation.
Mr Dale tells me that two of these specimens are still in his
possession, and that the third is in the collection of Mr A.
Laidlay, Seacliffe, where another, shot by Mr Dale in the
same locality in 1863, may still be seen.

9. North Berwick West Links, and adjoining common.—

1] have since seen it.

Notes on Pallas’s Sand-grouse in Scotland. i

Flock of about a dozen observed on 24th May flying
in a westerly direction over the golf links, as I was
informed at the time by Mr J. J. Cowan, who saw thei.
On or about the same day a flight of thirty or thereby were
seen on the shore, and on the 3lst May a covey of seven
again passed westwards over the golf links—Mr W. Home
Cook, Scotsman, 2d June. On Archerfield common they were
frequently seen about this time, at first in considerable flocks,
and then in smaller parties. A male shot there on 10th
June, and received by Mr Small on 13th, is now in the
collection of Dr Crombie, North Berwick.

10. Aberlady neighbourhood.—About the middle of June
a flock was seen near Gullane Point. Towards the end of the
month and early in July, a large flock, described to me as
composed of about fifty birds, was twice seen passing over
Gosford, and once at Fernyness. I had these facts at the
time from eye-witnesses.

11. Killduff Mains, near Drem.—One shot on 7th June,
as I have been informed by Mr Ronaldson, the tenant of the
farm. The bird, which is a male, is in the possession of
Mr A. Watt, keeper, Gilmerton House, who tells me it was
shot by his son, out of a party of four. Sand-grouse were seen
in the same neighbourhood on several subsequent occasions.

12. West Fenton, near Drem.—A male shot on 11th January
1889, and sent by Mr Handyside, the tenant of the farm, to
Mr Hope for preservation. It was alone, and had been
observed in the neighbourhood for some weeks.

13. Pencaitland, East Lothian—A male killed against
the telegraph wires, 6th June. It was picked up by a party
of boys, who observed it fall: it was in company with two
others. Sent to Mr Small for preservation. Now in the
collection at Whittinghame House.

14. Dalkeith, Midlothian——One killed a short distance
to the east of the town, out of a party of four or five, early
in June, and a second obtained in the same locality three
or four weeks later. Both were stuffed by Mr J. Braid,
Dalkeith, who, judging from drawings I have shown him,
states they were females.

15. Near Balerno, Midlothian. — While rambling over

112 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Redford Moor, about three miles south of Balerno, on 26th
May, a sudden rush of wings arrested my attention, and,
looking round, I saw passing close to me a flock of fifteen
Sand-grouse. They came from the west, and having crossed
the moor settled on the adjoining field—then newly sown
with oats and grass—where for about half-an-hour I had the
oratification of watching their movements at close quarters.
On again taking wing they pursued their easterly course.

16. Dalmahoy, Midlothian.—On 16th June Mr P. Morrison,
assistant to Mr Small, saw eight on the stony slope of
Dalmahoy Hill.

17. Near Linlithgow.—On 9th June, Mr W. H. Hender-
son, Linlithgow, informed me that a small flock of birds
answering the description of Sand-grouse had been seen
near Ochiltree, a few miles south-east of Linlithgow, about
the beginning of the month.

18. Between Stirling and Alloa.—Two shot in the neigh-
bourhood of Cambus, near Alloa, out of a flock on 25th May,
as I was informed at the time by Mr W. M. Gow, Airthrey.!
Writing to me on 10th July Mr Harvie-Brown stated that
the survivors were, he believed, still on the Polmaise grounds.

19. Isle of May.—During the latter part of May the
island was visited by considerable numbers, and on the 30th
three were shot. One of them being only wounded was
placed in a cage, where it lived till the beginning of July.
For these particulars I am indebted to Mr Harold Raeburn,
who was on the island on 6th and 7th June. The bird
which died in confinement was sent to Mr Small for preser-
vation. It was a male.

20. South-east Fifeshire, Elie to Crail.—During the last
ten days of May and the early part of June, small flocks are
reported to have been repeatedly seen in this district, and
a few birds killed. Two were obtained near Anstruther
on May 26th, and one that had damaged its wing on the
telegraph wires near Crail was taken alive prior to 5th June

1 Since writing the above, I learn from Messrs Michie & Crockart, Stirling,
that four birds in all were shot about the same time and place, and that three
of these, a male and two females, were preserved by them—the two females
being now in the possession of Mr Sword, Curator, Smith Institute, Stirling.

Notes on Pallas’s Sand-grouse in Scotland. 183

—Mr J. Ross, Zoologist, 1888, p. 263; and “J. D.,”’ Field, 9th
June. On 28th May Mr Small received a male from Elie
for preservation. The Crail bird is, I presume, the same as
the female presented to the Zoological Society on 3d November
by Mr J. Duncan—f%eld, 10th November. It died on 4th
December, and was sent to the Edinburgh Museum, but being
unfit to stuff, has been made into a skeleton.

21. Tentsmuir, North-east of Fife.— Large parties are
reported to have visited this district by the beginning of
June; and, receiving the protection of the proprietors, soon
settled down: numbers were still there in November.
About August 18th five birds were captured alive in a field
of rye on Mr Speedie’s property (Kinshaldy). Two of
these, both females, were sent to the Zoological Gardens,
London—Col. Drummond-Hay, Scottish Naturalist for Octo-
ber; Field, 1st September.

22. Perthshire—In the Scottish Naturalist for October
Col. Drummond-Hay records three obtained in the county,
namely, a female killed against the telegraph wires and
picked up on the railway near Abercairney, Crieff, about the
end of May; one shot shortly after 29th May, near Castle
Menzies, Aberfeldy ; and a male shot near the head of Loch
Rannoch, out of a party of three, and presented by Sir
Robert Menzies to the Perthshire Society’s Museum. A
female received by Mr Small from Perthshire on 28th May,
and a male also received by him from the same county, on
31st May, were, I understand, the two last-mentioned birds.

23. Arbroath and Montrose, Forfarshire—One found dead
near Arbroath, 5th June; supposed to have flown against
telegraph wire—Mr R. N. Simpson, Scottish Naturalist,
October, p. 340. Considerable numbers—thirty to forty—
frequented the Links of Montrose from June to October, and
six to eight were killed. One was caught alive in a rabbit-
hole. ‘The Montrose Museum received one specimen, a male,
shot in June—Mr Rh. Barclay, in litt., Sth October.

24. Muchalls, Kincardineshire-——One shot by a farmer out
of a flock of fourteen during the last week of May—Mr G.
A. Leslie, Field, 9th June. Mr Leslie at same time mentions
that on 1st June he had seen a live bird on board the Danish

VOL, X. H

114 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

schooner “ Thor,’ then lying in Aberdeen Harbour, which
had alighted on the vessel on 29th May when halfway across
the North Sea.

25. Cruden, Aberdeenshire.—One killed out of a large
flock by a boy, with a stone. Mr J. EK. Hartine—/eld, 2d
June, and Zoologist for same month—states that this incident
took place on 17th May; and the Editor of the Scottish
Naturalist for July, probably following Mr Harting, gives
the same day; but a notice in the Hast Aberdeenshire
Observer of 8th June says it occurred on 15th May, and
adds that the specimen was being stuffed by Mr MacBoyle,
Peterhead.

26. Peterhead and St Fergus.—Two flocks seen in close
proximity to Peterhead, and two birds killed—East Aberdeen-
shire Observer, 8th June. A paragraph in Land and Water
of 4th August stated that a large number of Sand-grouse
had established themselves on the Bents at St Fergus, near
Peterhead, and alleged that they had nested there. This
drew from Mr A. Wynne Corrie, the lessee of the shootings,
a letter, which appeared in the issue of 29th September, to
the effect that he had killed four on one occasion and three
on another upon these Bents. The three last mentioned—all
females—were shot on 6th September and forwarded to
Mr Harvie-Brown. I saw them in Mr Small’s shop before
they were skinned. I gather that the four birds referred to
in Land and Water of 1st September as shot out of a pack
of between seventy and eighty “in the neighbourhood of
Aberdeen,” were those first obtained by Mr Corrie. The
same notice speaks of another pack of about thirty having
been seen the same day.

27. Fyvie and Monquhitter—Mr G. Sim, Fyvie, writing
on 4th June to the Scottish Naturalist for July, says—* These
strange visitors were seen lately in the parish of Fyvie, and
were at first supposed to be some variety of plover. They
were dispersed in groups, from single individuals up to large
flocks; their identity was proved on the 26th May, when
two males and four females were shot out of a flock of about
fifty on the Waggle Hill, Monquhitter.”

28. Links near Pitgaveny, by Elgin.— From Captain

Notes on Pallas’s Sand-grouse in Scotland. 115

Dunbar Brander’s letters in the Meld of Ith June, 14th
July, and 6th October, it would appear that eleven—one of
which was shot for identification—arrived here about 18th
May. In the course of a week or so, fifteen or sixteen more
arrived in two coveys, making, in all, twenty-five or twenty-
six on the ground. Shortly after arrival they broke up into
pairs, but after remaining thus for about a week or ten days,
they, with the exception of three or four pairs, assembled
again in one flock. Two eges, supposed to be those of Sand-
grouse, were found, but Professor Newton, to whom they
were sent for examination, expressed the opinion that they
were water-hen’s. The birds were still on this ground up
to 1st October.

Reference may here be made to an article in the Higin
Courant of 8th June, in which the writer speaks of “strong
coveys,” or “packs,” having been seen in the lower districts
of Morayshire, and mentions that several had been shot.
He had dissected two males and two females, which were
hkely to find their way to the Elgin Museum.

29. Coast near mouth of the Findhorn—On or about
23d May a number settled among the sand-hills between
Burghead and Findhorn, and were still there ten days
later — Mr R. H. Mackessack, Scotsman, 5th June. Mr
Harvie-Brown informs me that on the extensive Culbin
Sands, to the west of the Findhorn, they “ literally
swarmed” during the summer. Several hundreds were
seen, and he believes one pair at least hatched out young.

30. Nairn.—A covey of four or five seen on or about
18th May “tlying inland over the golf-course, which runs
alongside the beach”—Mr W. C. Newbigging, Field, 2d
June.

31. Fort George——One picked up inside the fort, 7th
June. It had killed itself against the telegraph wire—
Lieut. H. G. Lang, field, 16th June.

32. Between Loch Ruthven and Farr, Inverness-shire.—
One seen, 13th June, in a field by the road-side—Mr W.
D. Mackenzie, Field, 23d June. The locality is some 10 to
15 miles south of Inverness.

33. Bunchrew, a few miles west of Inverness.—Three

116 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

females received from this locality by Mr Snowie, Inverness,
between 12th and 16th June—/field, 23d June.

It may here be mentioned that, in the same paper, Mr
Snowie, under date 12th June, writes that “the first birds were
noticed [in the Inverness district, which would doubtless
include the shores of the Moray Firth, etc.] about three
weeks ago, and since then reports of others have come in
daily. Fifteen have been sent to MacLeay for identification,
and I have heard of many more.’ Mr W. Reid, in a letter
to the Scotsman of 4th June, states that he had just visited
the places of business of three birdstuffers in Inverness, and
found that each of them had received, and were receiving,
numbers of Sand-grouse. He saw upwards of a dozen.
They had been sent from Inverness-shire, Ross, Sutherland,
and Caithness.

34. The Black Isle, north of Inverness.—Two females
received by Mr Snowie between 12th and 16th June—
Field, 23d June.

39. Delny, near Invergordon, on the Cromarty Firth.—
One shot by a gamekeeper, out of a flock of twelve, early in
June—WNorthern Chronicle, 6th June.

36. Thurso.— One, which had dashed itself against a
telegraph wire, picked up on or about 17th May—Orkney
Herald, 23d May.

37. Sandside near Reay, Caithness.—A female killed by
coming in contact with the telegraph wires, 21st May; sent
to Mr Lewis Dunbar, Thurso—Mr W. Reid, Scotsman,
4th June. I learn from Mr Harvie-Brown that Sand-grouse
were abundant along the east and north coasts of Caithness
in the latter part of May and during June, and, as already
mentioned (No. 33), examples from that county were pre-
served by Mr MacLeay, Inverness.

I may here state that Mr Eagle Clarke informs me, a bird,
said to be from the north of Scotland, was exposed for sale
in the Leeds Market in December.

38. Dalvine Lodge, Strath Naver, Sutherland.—Flock of
twenty to twenty-five “passed over, . . . and pitched
on the moor opposite,” 11th June—Mr H. Griffith, Field,
23d June.

Notes on Pallas’s Sand-grouse in Scotland. 117

39. Gobernuisgach, Reay Forest, Sutherland.— A male
shot on 18th May and sent to Mr Hope for preservation.

40. Orkney Islands.—On 17th May, Mr John Gilmour,
light-house keeper, Pentland Skerries, shot four—all females
—out of a flock of twelve; three of them were sent to
Mr Small for preservation, and the remaining one to Mr I.
Dunbar, Thurso—Orkney Herald, 25d May, and Mr W. Reid,
Scotsman, 4th June. The following also passed through
Mr Small’s hands, namely: A male, received from Stronsay,
2d June; a male from Kirkwall, 4th June; a female from
Kirkwall, 20th June—had been found dead, and could not be
stuffed; a male from Kirkwall, 21st June; another from
Kirkwall, lst November; and on 18th December the skins
of a pair said to have been shot in Orkney in September.
Large numbers, it seems, visited Orkney ; and I was told, no
longer ago than 28th ulto., that some were still there.

41. Shetland Islands—A goodly number appear to have
visited these islands also. Mr Harvie-Brown received a
female from Unst, which was killed on 16th May; and
the following have come under my own notice, namely :
male and female received from Unst on 21st May by
Mr Hope, who informed me they were killed on the 18th—
the male is now in the Edinburgh Museum; male and
female, from Unst, received by Mr Hope on 29th May—
killed five or six days previously; male and female, from
Unst, received by Mr Hope on 11th June—said to have
been killed on the 4th—female now in Edinburgh Museum ;
and, finally, a female from Unst received by Mr Small on
14th June. A paragraph in the Dundee Advertiser of 14th
June, says— ‘These birds . . . have been seen and
several examples obtained in Shetland during the past three
weeks. One was secured in the island of Fetlar on the 7th
inst. . . . A group of eight birds was seen in the
vicinity of Lerwick a few days ago.”

42. Parish of Gairloch, Ross-shire—About lst June fifteen
were noticed on a remote farm near the sea-shore. During
the following week the flock broke up. Three were seen on
9th June; others, about the same date, at a place three
miles off, also near the shore—Mr J. H. Dixon, Fred,

118 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socvety.

7th July, and Jnverness Courier, as quoted in Scotsman of
4th July.

A communication, signed “M. P.,” in the Meld of 21st
July, reporting that three birds had been seen (apparently
about the middle of the month) on a Ross-shire shooting,
may here be mentioned.

43. Skye—wWriting to me on 15th June, the Rev. H.
A. Macpherson mentioned that he had just heard of their
appearance in Skye, and he has since kindly supplhed me
with the following details, namely :—A flight of fourteen
visited Duntulm in the north of the island on 28th May,
when one was winged. They were seen at Waternish, flying
for the Minch. Some interesting facts regarding the above
captive, referred to as “he,” are given in Mr Macpherson’s
paper in the Zrans. Cumberland and Westmoreland Associa-
tion, 1888, p. 63.

44, Lewis, Outer Hebrides.—Flock of thirteen observed
on the Sandhills at the mouth of the river Coll, about six
miles from Stornoway, on 7th June. They were put up
twice; the second time they disappeared inland in a north-
westerly direction—Captain T. H. Plumbe, /e/d, 16th June.
In the same newspaper of 22d September, Mr R. F. Cook
stated that several birds had visited the island of Lewis,
and that some which were shot there had been forwarded
for preservation to Mr MacLeay of Inverness in whose
possession he had recently seen them.

45. Benbecula and South Uist.—In the Jbis for 1888,
p. 492, Sir J. W. P. Campbell-Orde publishes a letter from
Dr John Mackury (erroneously printed Mackney), dated
25th May, to the effect that on or about 22d May, and two
or three succeeding days, he had observed a solitary bird on
a moor in Benbecula, and that on 25th May he had observed
on the “Machair” there, a covey of ten. The same flock
is referred to by an anonymous correspondent, “J. J. F.,”
in the Scotsman of 14th June, who, writing on 8th June,
speaks of them having been seen on the Machair since the
last week of May.

Mr A. Hogg tells me that when in Oban last summer,
he saw, in the hands of Mr Scutts, taxidermist there, a pair

Notes on Pallas’s Sand-grouse in Scotland. 119

which had been received from Loch Boisdale, South Uist,
about 18th June.

46. Mainland of Argyllshire—Mr Hogg also saw in Mr
Scutts’ hands a specimen from Glencoe, and another from
the neighbourhood of Loch Awe, both obtained about the
middle of June. Further south, at Kilberry, near Tarbert,
nine were seen flying over on 16th September—Mr J.
Campbell, Field, 22d September.

47. Island of Tiree-——Writing on 18th June, Mr Harvie-
Brown informed me that they had “turned up” here in
numbers. Among the additions to the menagerie of the
Zoological Society, reported in the Field of 25d June, are
two Sand-grouse—male and female—from Tiree, presented
by Lieut.-Col. Irby and Captain Savile Reid, who are doubt-
less the two tourists referred to in Mr J. Myles’ letter to
the Scotsman of 11th June, from which it appears that the
birds were captured prior to 8th June.’ The presentation
of this pair is alluded to in the Proceedings of the Zoological
Society for 1888, pages 413 and 675, but I can find no
mention of any having been presented by the Duke of
Argyll, as stated in the Zoologist for July, p. 261, and con-
clude the Tiree birds were meant.

48, Near Maybole, Ayrshire-——Writing under date 8th
December, Mr H. Wallace, Cloncaird Castle, Maybole, says,
“My keeper this morning brought me a Pallas’s Sand-grouse
alive. It was caught by my under-keeper, owing to the
fact of its being to a certain extent disabled, presumably by
other birds’”—F%eld, 15th December.

49. Near Stoneykirk, Wigtownshire——A small flock was
observed near Stoneykirk in the early part of June, as I have
been informed by Mr P. Adair.

50. Mouth of the Nith, near Dumfries—Large numbers
appear to have visited this district, more than sixty being
present at one time. They were first observed on 7th June,
and by 17th August only nine remained. The others had
gradually dispersed. Seven were shot, all within a few days
of their first appearance—Mr R. Service, /dis 1888, p. 491;

1 Since the above was written, I learn that the date of capture was 28th May.

120 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

and Rev. H. A. Macpherson, 7ransactions Cumberland and
Westmoreland Association, 1888.

Through the courtesy of the taxidermists in town, I was
enabled to examine in the flesh nearly the whole of the
birds sent to Edinburgh for preservation, and had thus
an opportunity of making a number of notes on measure-
ments, weights, and the condition of the birds generally,
which, together with the foregoing list of occurrences, form
the basis of the following remarks :—

I. Dates of arrival, extent of the immigration, and sub-
sequent movements of the birds.—If the statement in the Last
Aberdeenshire Observer of 8th June be correct, the earliest
date I have a note of is 15th May, when a flock is said to
have been seen at Cruden, a few miles south of Peterhead.
Anyhow, it is certain that by the 16th the birds had made
their appearance at localities so far apart as Dunbar and
Shetland. On the 17th they were detected near Cockburns-
path, at Thurso, and in the Orkneys; and on the 18th they were
seen on the coast near Elgin, and at Nairn. For a few
days there is a lull—scarcely a record, and these hardly
referable to new arrivals. On the 24th and 25th, flocks were
observed at North Berwick and elsewhere, which there is every
reason to believe were fresh arrivals, and during the next fort-
night we find them distributed in large numbers practically
along the entire east coast of Scotland. Although the data at
my disposal is, doubtless, far from complete, I think we may
fairly conclude that few, if any, of the immigrants reached the
Scottish shores before the middle of May; that about that
time considerable detachments arrived almost simultaneously
at various points from East Lothian to Shetland; and that
in the course of the last week in May and the first week in
June the greatest movement took place, hosts of birds
pouring, in wave-like fashion, on to our whole eastern sea-
board. This is very much what a reference to the Heligoland
notes, transcribed on pages 107 and 108, would lead us to
expect. By this I do not mean to infer that all, or even any
very considerable portion, of our birds came by way of that
island, for, by the time the wave of immigration had reached
the eastern shores of the North Sea, it had spread northwards

Notes on Pallas's Sand-grouse in Scotland. 121

and southwards over the greater part of Europe. A flock
of thirty, it will be remembered, had reached the south of
Norway by the 12th of May.

Some of the birds seem to have made but the briefest halt
on the coast, and then proceeded inland in continuation of
their westward flight. Thus one was obtained at Stow in
the south-east corner of Midlothian on 18th May, and on
the same day another was killed at Gobernuisgach in the
centre of Sutherland. Other records from inland localities
soon follow. As early as the 22d May a solitary example
had reached Benbecula in the Outer Hebrides, where more
made their appearance on the 25th. On the 28th a flock
was observed in Skye, and in the course of the next few
days their presence was noted in many other localities on
the west coast. I cannot help thinking that a few at least,
both at this time and later on, must have found a water y
erave in attempting to cross the Atlantic.

Wherever ground suitable to their habits and of sufficient
extent could be found, there concentration soon took place;
consequently in the course of the first fortnight of June, we
find them settled in large numbers, and with more or less
persistency, in such districts as Tentsmuir, near the mouth of
the Tay; the Links of St Fergus, on the coast of Aberdeen-
shire; the’ Pitgaveny Warrens, near Elgin; the Culbin
Sands, on the shores of the Moray Firth ; and on the Scottish
side of the Solway. In many, however, the restless spirit
seems never to have subsided even for a day, and consequently
all through the summer wandering parties, generally small,
were met with in almost every district. In some of the
settlements above mentioned, hopeful signs of true colonisa-
tion were soon visible; a breaking-up of the flocks into
pairs became more or less general, and several persons
confidently expected that, in the course of the next few days,
Sand-grouse eggs would be freely laid on Scottish soil. But
these hopes were doomed to speedy disappointment by the
sudden repacking of most of the birds. Although there may
be strong presumption that a few pairs did breed, I have not
yet seen any positive proof of the fact. The supposed eggs
obtained by Captain Dunbar Brander in Elginshire are, in

122 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socvety.

Professor Newton’s opinion, those of a water-hen ; the pair of
birds sent to the Zoological Gardens from Tentsmuir in
August, and announced in the Scottish Naturalist as young
ones, are not regarded as such by Dr Sclater, the Society’s
Secretary (in litt. to Mr Eagle Clarke, lst February); and
the three sent in September to Mr Harvie-Brown from
the St Fergus colony, in the hope that they were young
birds, were unquestionably adult females, passing through
the moult. Mr Harvie-Brown informs me, however, that
he has received evidence as to a pair having hatched
young in the north of Scotland, so strong that Professor
Newton is disposed to accept it. For the facts of this case
we must be content to await the publication of the report
on the recent Sand-grouse irruption, which the Professor
has undertaken to prepare for the Jdvs.

During late Summer and Autumn the birds were still
fairly plentiful, though much less generally distributed,
having for the most part congregated into large flocks or
packs. By the beginning of winter their numbers appear to
have been greatly reduced, but where they had gone to I am
not prepared to hazard an opinion. Some have undoubtedly
wintered in the country, and are still with us; and it is to be
hoped that the Act recently passed by Parhament for their
protection will prove an efficient instrument to that end.

Il. Numbers and Mortality —Any estimate of the numbers
that entered Scotland must, from the very nature of the case,
be to a great extent of an arbitrary character. After having
carefully analysed the list of occurrences, and made allowance
for double records and other elements of uncertainty, I have
come to the conclusion, that the number which reached
Scotland cannot have been less than from 1500 to 2000.
In the Forth district alone, fully 400 have, from first to last,
been seen, but when double records are allowed for, I scarcely
think we can claim for it more than from 200 to 250 of the
direct arrivals. As far as I can learn, the Moray Firth district
received by far the largest portion of the immigrants.

The list of killed and wounded is regrettably large. An
analysis of the records I have submitted gives a total of
about 150, but the actual number destroyed must have con-

Notes on Pallas’s Sand-grouse in Scotland. 123

siderably exceeded this figure; we cannot, I think, set it
down at less than 200. The great majority, say about 85
per cent., succumbed to the destructive power of powder and
shot, while a good many—probably not far short of 10 per
cent.—met their death by coming in contact with telegraph
wires. Inthe Forth area, where no less than 35 of these
interesting visitors are known to have been killed, I find
that in eight instances where average sized flocks were fired
into, one bird in about every five fell. In other districts,
however, the proportion killed would appear to have been
considerably less. Out of 81 cases where the sex is noted,
36 are males and 45 females.

III. Condition and Food.—Though not fat, the birds, as
a whole, were by no means in bad condition when they
arrived. My notes indicate that the average weight of
males was then about 8} oz., that of females about 8} oz.,
but individual variations were considerable. For instance
four males, weighed on 17th and 18th May, were respectively
94, 84, 84, and 8 oz., and four females, 94, 83, 84, and 7? oz.
Improvement in their condition was soon apparent. Thus,
by the middle of June, males weighing 94, 92, 10, and 10 oz.,
had passed through my hands; and three females, weighed in
September, were respectively 9, 9, and 94 oz. Heavier
examples are recorded by Mr Sim of Fyvie, who states in
the Scottish Naturalist for July, that males shot in Aberdeen-
shire on 26th May weighed 104 oz. and females 10 oz.; but
no wonder they stood the test of the scales so well, for we
are told that “the stomach of one contained 370 seeds of
barley and thousands of seeds of clover.”

As bearing on the then much discussed question,—the
probability of the birds breeding with us,—I dissected several
of both sexes, but did not find the reproductive organs in a
more advanced state than was to be expected at the season
of the year, quite apart from any serious intention the birds
may or may not then have had of nesting. The most
advanced case was that of a female—one of the earliest
victims—the ovary of which contained, in addition to the
usual mass of small ova, three measuring roughly “4, °3, and ‘2
of an inch. The writer of the article in the Elgin Courant of

124 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

8th June, states that in a female dissected by him he found
“three well-developed but as yet shell-less eggs, the largest
being what we would suppose nearly the full size; while in
the ovary there were from twelve to twenty very minute
egos, some of which were slightly developed.”

With regard to plumage, I noted that, in the case of birds
obtained at the beginning of the immigration, it was par-
ticularly clean and bright. Many of the feathers, however,
presented a more or less worn appearance at their margins,
clearly indicating that some considerable time had elapsed
since they were acquired ; but even where this was scarcely
visible, as in the case of a most beautiful male with the two
central rectrices still so short that they were hidden by the
upper tail coverts, the absence of the delicate bloom after-
wards so noticeable in newly moulted specimens, and still
present on the male shot near Drem on 11th ult., also pointed
to the conclusion, that if a spring moult takes place, it can
be only a partial one. The brilliancy and general condition
of the plumage rapidly deteriorated. A female, for instance,
shot early in June, had the first primaries worn down to the
length of the second, and soiled specimens now became the
rule. By the end of the month signs of moulting had
made their appearance, and steadily progressed throughout
the autumn, so that by October or November all the birds
were clad in completely new plumage. Three females,
examined early in September, had the new primaries and
tail-feathers well grown, though not quite fully developed.
One of them had the legs almost bare, the old feathers having
dropped off while the new ones were just bursting their
sheaths. The newly acquired plumage was not in any essential
point different from that worn by the birds on their arrival.
The orange about the head and throat, the chestnut bar on
the wing, and the lavender grey on the chest, were a shade
darker on the new feathers, and the whole plumage was
suffused with a most delicate bloom. The colour of the iris
in all I examined was very dark hazel, the bare skin round
the eye pale-blue or lavender, and the beak bluish-grey
tipped with dark-brown. Only one female showed any signs
of the pectoral band so characteristic of the other sex. In

Notes on Pallas’s Sand-grouse in Scotland. 125

full-plumaged males the average expanse from tip to tip of
the wings was a little over 27 inches; total length from
point of bill to tip of tail, fully 16; wing from flexure, 10};
projection of first primary beyond the second, 13; central
rectrices about 8 inches (the longest measured was 82), ex-
ceeding the next by about 33. In the females the average
expanse was about 24} inches; the total length fully 14,
wing from flexure, 9; projection of first primary over the
second, 1 inch; central rectrices nearly 6, exceeding the next
by nearly 2 inches. Tarsus in both about 1 inch, and foot #.

The crops of the bulk of those I dissected in May and
June were filled mainly with clover and grass seeds, mixed
with grain—either barley or oats. As a rule the clover pre-
dominated, though in a few instances little else but grain was
present. Green food was found in the stomachs of some,
particularly those from Shetland. In winter they appear to
‘have fed mostly on noxious weeds; the crop and stomach of
the bird shot near Drem on 11th ult., for instance, contained
nothing but the seeds of Atriplex and Polygonum, and these
in large quantity. Pupz of a small dipterus insect were
twice found among the contents of the crops.

IV. Habits and Call-Notes—Though I had the satisfaction
of seeing flocks of these most interesting birds on two different
occasions, the opportunities for observing their habits were
so meagre, that I have scarcely any remarks to make on this
head. The localities they chiefly affected were extensive
commons and sandhills—bents or links as they are frequently
called—on the coast. From these haunts they made daily
excursions to the adjoining arable lands, where an abundant
supply of food was readily procured. Those I fell in with on
the sandhills sat so low and motionless, that I could not
detect them till they suddenly sprang into the air and sped
away on rapid pinions. On wing they undoubtedly at the
first glance remind one of a flock of Golden Plover, as has
been so often remarked. When feeding on the newly sown
fields, I observed they, as a rule, moved all in one direction,
keeping well in line and rapidly picking up the grain very
much after the manner of a flock of pigeons. The short legs
give rise to a sort of rolling gait, but they run with consider-

126 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

able speed when they choose. When approached within
fifty or sixty yards they suddenly stopped feeding, squatted
close to the ground, and, after watching me intently for a
few moments, sprang with one accord into the air, and were
soon out of view. As they rose and flew off, I distinctly
made out two different call-notes, namely a low sharp tuck,
tuck, which reminded me somewhat of Blackgame; and a
hurried sort of purr-t, purr-t, very like the note of the
Curlew Sandpiper as we hear it on our shores in autumn.
The second note seemed to me at the time to bear some
resemblance to cne of the notes of the Snow Bunting; but
having since renewed my acquaintance with the call of the
Curlew Sandpiper, I have no hesitation in saying it gives a
still better idea of the Sand-grouse note in question.

XV. The Ancient Lakes of Edinburgh. By JAMES BENNIE, Esq.,
Geological Survey of Scotland, and THomAs Scort, Esq.,
F.L.S., Naturalist to the Fishery Board of Scotland.

(Read 17th April 1889.)

The country round Edinburch is markedly picturesque
from the combination of crag and hollow in the more rocky
parts, and of softly contoured hillocks with wide open spaces
between them, where boulder clay, the peculiar drift of
glacial periods, prevails. The crags and hillocks have often
captivated the attention of the painter and the geologist,
and their forms have been portrayed and their structure
described in pictures or essays which have made them
famous as illustrations of scenic beauty or geological
phenomena. The crags, consisting chiefly of trap-rocks,
have been taken as types of volcanic action in open eruptions
or injections of lava among sedimentary strata, and the
hillocks, composed chiefly of boulder clay, as typical of ice
action by ice-sheets or glaciers. The hollows which contain
lake marls, silts, or peats, have not been so much studied,
partly because such deposits do not obtrude on general
observers, and partly because the knowledge to understand
them is rarer and more special, But in certain moods these
lake marls, silts, or peats have also an attraction not only

The Ancient Lakes of Edinburgh. 127

for what they are in themselves, and the circumstances and
conditions they represent—still waters and green pastures—
but also for the contrast they afford to the fire-raised rocks
or the ice-laid hillocks they he among. The crags remind
us of volcanic eruptions with lava streams and clouds of
ashes, earthquakes and rock-rendings, or injections of molten
matter; and the hillocks remind us of ice in all its varied
forms and actions—ice-sheets, glaciers, and icebergs,—disrupt-
ing rocks by ice wedges, and grinding them to powder by its
pressures exerted by the weight by thousands of feet of
thickness, and its carrying powers when in motion, by which
it transports rocky débris hundreds of miles and deposits it
in these hillocks. Visions such as these, suegested by the
environments of the lakes, contrast finely with those derived
from the life-remains found in these lake marls, silts, or
peats, glimpses of quiet lakes in which the liveliest life is
that of the pond snail (Limnea), or of the water fleas
(Ostracoda),—the one creeping slowly along the surface of the
water at its proverbial pace, the other darting through it in
little leaps, or nibbling the green confervze on the leaves or
stems of pond weeds; or the still quieter life of the lake peat
period represented by the seeds found in them, which tell
only of vegetable growth which the eye cannot detect, and
we only know by a comparison of now and then.

From these remarks an idea may be had of the object of
this paper. It is intended to give brief notices of the
localities and positions from which the lake marls, silts, or
peats were obtained, and then either separate lists or a
general list of the Mollusca and Ostracoda found in each.
The notices will necessarily be brief, and confined mainly to
the acquirement of the silts or marls, without any lengthened
or detailed statement of the circumstances under which each
was deposited. But in one case—that of the marl from the
Meadows—we have a description of the lake deposits, and of
the manner of their deposition, so far exceeding any we can
of our own knowledge give, that a summary of it may be
given, referring those who wish for further details to “ Edin-
burgh and its Neighbourhood,” by Hugh Miller, pages 6-10
and 134-147. Mr Miller tells us that in 1842 the Meadows—

128 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

the site of the old Borough Loch—were laid open by a series
of deep drains, the sections of which exhibited in the “ lower
and earlier deposits a fine silt separated into laminz as thin
as pasteboard,” crowded with impressions of the common
water flag and reed, then above the silt ‘a bed of grey marl
composed mainly of lacustrine shells with an occasional
land shell.” Over this marl occurred in some parts three feet
of peat-moss, having still preserved in it the “ glossy elytra of
beetles in their prismatic tints of azure and green.” The silt
is considered to be a rain wash of clay and soil from the
ground surrounding the old lake. The marl is referred to as
the “dead exuvie of generation after generation of fresh-
water Mollusca for many ages, which at length filled up the
depths of the lakes till there was no place for the living; then
water mosses sprang up in the marly shallows, and gradually
contracted its area, until what had been open water became
unsightly morass, and the old Borough Loch was transformed
into the Meadows.” Mr Miller records two species of Cyclas,
three species of Limnea, but makes no mention of Ostracoda,
probably because in 1842 their significance as indicative of
lacustrine conditions was not recognised.

The lake marls we have examined are ten in number, and
were gathered within the last twenty years from the various
exposures which occurred during that time; not, it should be
mentioned, with the view of being described and their
organisms enumerated as in this paper, but partly as employ-
ment for leisure hours, and partly at the instance of Mr
David Robertson, who was engaged in the study of the
recent freshwater Ostracoda, and who made some use of the
material collected. It was only within the last few months
that the idea of making this use of the surplus material
occurred to us as preliminary to a more exhaustive study of
the freshwater Crustacea of the Edinburgh district which
one of us (T. Scott) intends to make. Six of the marls or
silts were obtained from within or immediately around
Edinburgh; three—those of Corstorphine, Hailes, and Redhall
—about four miles west of it; and one—that of Kethymyre—
about six miles to the north across the Forth, and is included
because it conforms, in the conditions and circumstances of

The Ancient Lakes of Edinburgh. 129

its deposits, to the most typical lakes within the immediate
range of our inquiry. The times represented by these lake
silts or marls extend from the end of last century, as in the
cases of the North Loch and the Borough Loch, back to the
interglacial lakes of Hailes and Redhall. By the end of last
century is simply meant that about that time the North
Loch and the Borough Loch became extinct as lakes. As to
the time when they first became lakes, Hugh Miller’s later
suggestion in 1854—by which he amended his first suggestion
in 1842 by extending their period from the time of the
Noachian flood about 4000 years ago to the times of the later
upheavals of the land, which in the case of the higher lying
lakes might be four times 4000 years ago—must be taken as
the nearest approach to the actual date we can at present
make. The interglacial lakes of Hailes and Redhall must
be considerably earlier in date than any of the others, which
must all be reckoned postglacial; but to put it in figures is
beyond our present intentions.

THe Nortu Locu.

The material from this lake was given to us in 1871 by
the late Mr J. Wallace Young, who obtained it from his
uncle, Mr Bell, for many years chief engineer of the North
British Railway. It was taken from the excavations for the
new arrival platforms made at that time for the trains
coming from the west. We cannot give any details of the
thickness or extent of the deposit of which it was a part, but
as it is said that the North Loch stretched from the Castle
eastward to beyond the North Bridge, it was probably
extensive, and most likely represented several diverse con-
ditions determined by the depth and exposure of the water.
The material from which the shells and Ostracoda were
obtained was not marl as in most instances, but a brown
earthy mud, which did not separate into dust or grains, but
remained in small solid pellets even after boiling a consider-
able time. It is therefore evidently from the latest deposit
ere the loch was drained dry, and the life remains are probably
not more than 100 years old. When the railway was made

VOL. X. I

130 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

in 1843, all the deposits laid down by the waters of the loch
would be thoroughly exposed; but we have not seen any
notices of the exposures at that time.

Bristo Port LAKE.

In a cutting for a sewer at Bristo Place in 1872, a deposit
of black mud was exposed, portions of which were secured and
washed. A few seeds were found in it, and a good number
of oblong bodies somewhat boat-like in shape, yellowish-
brown in colour, with two black spots or dots near the middle.
These bodies have been determined by Dr Woodward and
Professor G. S. Brady to be the epiphia or winter eggs of
Daphnia, and being such, they prove that a small lake or
water pool existed in the grounds just outside of Bristo Port.
At that time Edinburgh was a walled city, probably about
the time of Flodden, say in the fifteenth century. No
Mollusca or Ostracoda were found with them, but they of
themselves are sufficient to prove lake-like conditions.

Lake, NortH SIDE OF BLACKFORD HILL.

The material from this place was sent as a curiosity to
Professor A, Geikie in 1872 by a builder who had made
some drains in the hollow on the north side of Blackford Hill.
No particulars were given of the circumstances of the deposit,
but it is evident, from the character of the material itself,
a perfectly pure marl, that it had been deposited from the
waters of a small lake formed by, and probably drained by,
the Pow Burn, which flows through the hollow. It was
probably of long standing, as the marl was quite free from
any clay or earth, or vegetable matter, in the shape of peat,
or stems or roots of water plants; the only vegetable
remains in it being seeds of Chara, which are very numerous,
and in good preservation.

JORDANVALE LAKE.

The Suburban Railway cut through a series of recent .
deposits in the hollow between the ridge on which Morning-

The Ancient Lakes of Edinburgh. 131

side Asylum stands and that in which the Plewlands
Cemetery is situated. The Jordan Burn flows through the
hollow, and doubtless now drains off the surplus water that
once stagnated in it and formed a lake. The section cut
through was (1.) vegetable soil, 2 feet; (2.) peat, 3 feet;
(5.) marl, irregular in thickness, but generally 2 to 3 feet. In
places, however, it went down 15 or 16 feet, but in these
places it extended only 2 or 3 feet in breadth, showing that
the marl occupied deep holes or “plums” in the bottom of
the lake. The marl was free from peaty matter, but was
crowded with stems of water plants, very thin and ribbon-
like, of a yellowish-green hue. In washing they could be
easily floated off, and the animal remains secured without
any difficulty. The marl and peat extended along the
railway cutting several hundred yards from near the rock
section at Myreside to within a short distance of Morningside
Station, and its breadth was of course only shown by that of
the railway, but it probably extended from side to side of
the hollow, which might be 100 yards.

THE BoroucH Locu, Now THE MEApows, EDINBURGH.

The material examined was obtained in 1871 during
operations then in progress to level the West Meadows and
raise them several feet higher. The soil was lifted and
drains made, and rubbish from building operations in the
town laid down to the thickness of 3 or 4 feet in some places,
and in others 6 or 7 feet, and then the soil was spread over
the surface, and the grounds restored to grass again. The
depth of the marl was, I think, about 3 feet, and was topped
by peat as described by Hugh Miller in the article already
referred to. The marl washed with difficulty, and there were
comparatively few Ostracoda in it, which we suppose due to
their cast-off coverings having, through decay, lost the animal
matter interwoven in their substance. The mineral con-
stituents were resolved into white mud, which is the principal
component of these old lake marls. The lake from which
the Meadows’ marls were shed was well known as the
Borough Loch.

132 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socvrety.

Hotyroop LAKE.

In the years 1887 and 1888 a new sewer was made
through the hollow that lies between Salisbury Crags and
the slope of St John’s Hill, and several beds of gravel, clay
marl, and peat were cut into, which marked the site of an old
lake. For distinction sake it may be called the Holyrood
Lake, as, from the configuration of the ground, the lake
deposits must extend under the palace. These lake deposits
have been referred to by three of our local geologists :—
jirst by Mr Andrew Taylor in describing the strata cut into
in making a gas tank, Trans. Geol. Soc. of Edinburgh, vol. v.,
p. 44; secondly by Mr John Henderson, also in same
Transactions, vol. v., p. 407; and thirdly by Messrs J. A.
Johnston and J. Lindsay in Trans. Edinburgh Naturalist
Field Club, vol. ii., p. 185, who give a plan and section from
measurements and bores furnished by Mr J. Massie of the
Burgh Engineer’s Office. One of the bores may be quoted
entire, as it gives the strata passed through from the surface
to the rock-head—(1.) Forced material, 3 ft. 2in.; (2.) yellow
clay, 2 ft. 4 in.; (3.) peat, 3 ft.; (4.) marl, 9 ft.; (6.) mud
(white and brown), 2 ft. 6 in.; (6.) clay (blue and red), 1 ft.
9 in.; (7.) rough gravel, 4 ft. 6 in.; (8.) clay and small stones,
5 ft. 6 in.; (9.) blue clay, 7 ft. 7 im.; (10.) Blaes ;—in all,
39 ft. 3 in., 26 feet of which we may consider as deposited by
the ancient lake, proving that the lake period was a long one
from first to last. Those who wish further details may
consult with advantage the three papers to which we have
referred, especially that of Johnston and Lindsay, which is
the most minute in its descriptions. For ourselves we shall
notice roughly the section as it appeared to us while
gathering the samples of marl and clay. Lowest was a bed
of sand and gravel, the gravel being well rounded and the
sand free from clay or earth; then a bed of white clay with-
out shells, or only a few; then a marl crowded with shells,
very cohesive and felted with vegetable débris ; then upper-
most a bed of peat, brown and compact, in which twigs and
portions of wood were frequent. The shells, as usual in these

The Ancient Lakes of Edinburgh. 155

old lake marls, separated with difficulty from the white mud;
and the Ostracoda were loth to “rise again” from the charnel
dust in which they had been buried. The white clay was more
amenable to the persuasions of washing and boiling, and the
Ostracoda came forth in great numbers from the charnel
dust. There was very little vegetable matter in this clay,
merely thin ribbon-like stems of water plants, of which only
the epidermis remained. There were a few seeds of the
larger plants, and those of Chara were in thousands.

The Holyrood Lake must have been of very ancient date,
probably existing a long time before the building of the
Abbey or even the Palace—that time in sooth when the
“doe made its den” in the woods which we know once
occupied the site of Holyrood.

CORSTORPHINE LAKE.

On the farm of Broomhouse, at the distance of several
hundred yards from Corstorphine Station on the line of the
short cut railway from the Forth Bridge, it was found necessary
to make a culvert for an underground water-course, and a
cutting 7 feet in depth was made for that purpose. The
soil cué into was not boulder clay or gravel as in other
cuttings in the neighbourhood, but lake silt and peat. The
silt was crowded with freshwater shells and Ostracoda, and
the peat was composed chiefly of the stems of water plants,
being essentially a water peat. The cutting was not seen by
us, and we cannot give details of the section. From answers
to inquiries, however, we learnt from the workmen that the
peat was not lying above the silt, but interstratified with it.
The 7 feet did not exhaust the silt with shells, which was
evidently several feet more, as the culvert had to be founded
upon concrete. The ground through which the underground
water-course ran is still slightly lower than the surrounding
fields, and there can be no doubt that a small lake existed
here for a considerable time ere say 10 feet of silt and shells
could be formed, nearly every grain of which seems to have
been once organic. The plain in which this old lake occurs,
extending from Edinburgh to near Gogar, is said in the

154 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Geological Map of the district (Edinburgh, Sheet 2) to be an
old alluvial plain, and from traditions we learn that the
eastern part of it from Edinburgh to Corstorphine was
formerly a marsh difficult to cross, especially at night, and
that a beacon light used to be affixed to the gable end of
Corstorphine Church to guide benighted wayfarers safely
across it. This little lake, of which the silt and the shells are
now the only memorials, was doubtless one of many which
once studded this plain in parts with water pools, each not
many acres in extent, in which the little life which luxuriates
in plashy places dwelt for many generations through a
lengthened period ere a bed of organic silt 8 or 10 feet in
thickness could be elaborated, every grain of which silt was
without doubt once alive.

KETHYMYRE LAKE.

In making a private railway from Binnend Oil Works to
Kinghorn in 1887, an old lake marl was cut through in a low
flat hollow named Kethymyre at the foot of Rodanbraes,
about two miles N.E. of Burntisland. The section exhibited
was as follows :—(1.) Peat, 1 ft.; (2.) marl, 1 ft.; (8.) greenish
clay with shells, 3 ft.; (4.) clay without shells, 1 ft.;
(5.) boulder clay. The peat was rusty brown and very loose
in texture, and an oak tree trunk about 14 feet in diameter
stretched across it. At one place an irregular bed of sand
3 to 4 feet in thickness, and striped with bands of light and
dark red sand, seemed at one place to be upon the marl and
at another upon the boulder clay. I note this as giving a
rather ancient date for the lake of Kethymyre, but still the
name shows that it was extant during the human period.
The height of this flat space is about 150 feet above the sea,
and its situation not far from the shore of the 100-foot beach
period. These peat and marl beds are still (1889) accessible
just west of the bridge which carries the road to Kinghorn
over the railway.

ANCIENT LAKE AT HAILES QUARRY.

In the summer of 1886 a tirring in the N.E. of Hailes
Quarry exposed deposits which could only have been made

The Ancient Lakes of Edinburgh. 135

o

by the waters of an ancient lake, as the sections which I will
detail will prove. Upon the rock head lay 3 or 4 feet of
boulder clay; above this were several feet of sandy clay in
which were two layers of peat, one about two inches, the
other about a foot in thickness. What lay upon the sandy
clay was uncertain, as the ground had been much disturbed
by alterations caused by the operations of the quarrymen,
and sometimes quarry débris rested on it, and sometimes
what seemed to be natural soil, and at one place a patch
of boulder clay which, seemingly in its natural position,
would indicate an interglacial position for the old lake
silts and peat. But that this sandy clay with its layers of
peat belonged to some of the later stages of the glacial period
is certain, as in the middle of it were two trap boulders
standing side by side, each about 6 feet in height, and 2 or 3
feet in diameter, and only 4 or 5 inches apart. They seemed
as if they had been originally only one, and had been split in
two in situ. Round these boulders the sandy clay had been
deposited, and the gap between was filled with vegetable
matter which had grown in the lake, and been drifted
into the gap or slit. Now it was in the laminated
clay at the bottom of these old lake deposits that the
shells and Ostracoda were found, and within 2 feet or
so of the base of these boulders under which the laminated
clay extended.

From the washings of the peat many seeds were obtained,
25 species of which have been determined by Mr C. Reid;
and also many insect remains, chiefly beetles, nine species of
which have been determined by Mr C. O. Waterhouse of the
British Museum. There was no marl in this old glacial
lake of Hailes, and the shells and Ostracoda occurred in
silt.

There are other evidences which may be stated here that
seem to prove that the peats and silt found in the north-
east corner of Hailes Quarry were deposited in an interglacial
lake, or perhaps more correctly in the lake-like expansions
of a water-course or river. In 1886 a tirring in the south-
west corner of Hailes Quarry, directly beneath the farmhouse
of Kingsknowe, showed in section, first, upon the rock head

136 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

1 foot or so of boulder clay, then 18 inches of fine laminated
silt, then about 10 feet of sand and gravel with large waterworn
boulders of trap rock. Upon this gravel lay 20 to 30 feet of
boulder clay, with the farmhouse of Kingsknowe crowning it.
At the west end of this section the sand and gravel abutted
abruptly against the boulder clay, which then extended from
the rock head up to the farm buildings as a steep cliff more
than 30 feet in height. The eastern side of this bed of sand
and gravel was not seen, as it was covered by a mass of run
débris which had slipped down from above. Beyond this
slipped stuff, the sand and gravel was again seen resting on
the rock with a much larger proportion of waterworn blocks.
It was clear from this fact that the gravel was the débris of
a river which once occupied the hollow it now fills, and that
the quarry had cut it obliquely, exposing its western end,
while the eastern was hid by the débris. In 1886 this gravel
was free from vegetable remains, but in 1884 occurred several
small lumps of peat that had evidently been torn from a
peat bed, and carried away and deposited in the gravel
forming by the torrential action of the river. These stray
pieces of peat, when washed, were found to be merely masses
of granular vegetable débris, quite identical with peaty
matter washed from sand got in 1887 in sitw in the south-
east corner of Hailes Quarry, which consisted only of
vegetable débris and spores of Isoetes, which latter were
innumerable. Above this peaty sand were 6 or 7 feet of
boulder clay, brown and rusty from being near the surface,
and in it were some trap boulders 2 feet in diameter.
Between these gravel and peat beds on the south side of the
quarry, and the peat beds in the sandy clay in the north-east
corner, there is the great gap of the quarry, and all physical
connection is now wanting between them, but there can be
little reasonable doubt that both are parts of the same series
of deposits which took place at the same time under similar
circumstances, and, taken together, they suggest a river,
rapid and torrential in parts, and in others, slow, and with
lake-like expansions, in the quieter water of which the shells
and Ostracoda lived, and the plants grew, whose remains we
now find buried in its peats and silts.

The Ancient Lakes of Edinburgh. 137

ANCIENT LAKE AT NEW REDHALL QUARRY.

In 1874, when this quarry was first opened, a lake peat-
bed was disclosed beneath the boulder clay, and resting
partly on sand lying upon the rock and partly on a lower
boulder clay. A description and sketch of the section as
then exposed is given by Mr J. Henderson in the Z'rans. of
the Geol. Soc. of Edinburgh, vol. ., p. 391. An attempt was
made to get the plant remains found in the peat-bed named,
but it was unsuccessful. At various tirrings since 1874, the
same lake peat-bed was exposed, and, though further attempts
were made to get the plants and other things named, nothing
effective was done till 1887, when Mr Clement Reid, of the
Geological Survey of England, succeeded in naming about
46 species of plants, whose names and characters will be
found in his paper on the “Early History of the British
Flora,” published in the Annals of Botany for August 1888.
At the same time, through the kindness of Mr Reid, the
beetles found along with the seeds were submitted to Mr
C. O. Waterhouse of the British Museum, who was able to
name about 30 species. The samples of peat from the
tirring of 1887 were got from the coup, the bed in situ
having been rendered inaccessible by a landslip. In 1889,
during another tirring, access was got to the peat-bed in situ,
and many samples taken from different parts of the bed
were subjected to improved methods of research, with results
far exceeding those obtained previously. The seeds and
beetles obtained, greatly surpassed in number those got
before, and the record will be considerably extended. One
interesting addition was a number of Ostracod shells, which
come as an agreeable surprise, for it has been generally held
by experienced students that these shells, which consist,
partly at least, of limy matter, would be dissolved by the
carbonic acid of the decaying peat, and nothing left to tell of
their existence in the lakes in which the peat was formed.

The section in which the lake peat occurred in 1889
consisted of—(1.) sandy stony clay, presumably rotten boulder
clay, resting on the rock; (2.) brown compressed vegetable
matter 4 inches in thickness, with only a few seeds of the

138 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socvrety.

bogbean and many spores of Isoetes. This compressed
peaty layer was distinctly laminated, and seemed to consist
wholly of stems of reeds. It lay partly on several large trap-
boulders, and partly in the hollow spaces between them,
showing that it had been deposited on an uneven bed out of
which the boulders protruded. (3.) The next layer was a
mud or silt, three or four inches in thickness at the north
end of the section, but increasing to as many feet at the
south end—only rootlets were found in several samples of
it. (4.) A bed of peat about three feet in thickness in the
middle of the section where it was best exposed and most
typical. The peat consisted chiefly of vegetable mud or
earth felted with mosses or reed stems or simple vegetable
fibres, probably the compressed rootlets of plants. From
being felted with these it would not dissolve or separate, and
had to be crushed mechanically by the hand in waiter, which
made the washing and separating of the seeds and other
things from the matrix rather laborious, but the labour was
well repaid by the extraordinary number of seeds, insect
remains, chiefly beetles; and cases of caddis worms of two or
three forms, one of which was in hundreds or rather thou-
sands. Full lists of all, we hope, may form the subject of a
future paper, when the identification of the whole is com-
pleted. The uppermost six inches of this bed was even
more felted with mosses and reed stems, some parts consist-
ing wholly of them cemented by a little reddish-brown mud.
A small quantity of the finest portion of this mud was
examined in 1887 for Diatoms by Mr R. Kidston and
Dr J. Rae, R.N., who found in it about 40 species, a list
of which—as determined by them—is given at page 154.
Throughout the whole of this peat-bed stones were fre-
quent, mostly sandstones and trap, but a few were of
silurian grit or greywacke. (5.) Above this peat-bed stood,
in section, 10 or 12 feet of stony clay, but being nearly
covered by vegetation its character was not visible at a
glance, though there could be little doubt it was boulder
clay. Near the southern end of the peat-bed is an assemblage
of waterworn boulders with gravel, resting on the rock, and
it is likely that, as at Hailes,a river with quiet lake ex-

The Ancient Lakes of Edinburgh. 139

pansions existed here also during some part of the glacial
period.

In conclusion we wish it to be distinctly understood, that
from the furtive manner in which the material from these
old lake deposits was collected, the number of Mollusca and
Ostracoda given in our lists cannot be taken as exhaustive
for all or any of the deposits, but tentative merely, and that
new exposures of these or any other lake deposits in or
around Edinburgh would likely yield more species than we
have here recorded. In the division of labour connected
with this paper, it should be stated that the material was
collected by Mr J. Bennie, and the naming of the species
and the identification of their characters was done entirely
by Mr Scott.

Tam “< Nor hocw:’

We were able to procure from the old bed of this loch
only a small quantity of material for examination, and in it
organic remains, both animal and vegetable, were fairly
abundant. Among the organic remains were several species
of Ostracoda,—two of which, viz., Cypris prasina, Fischer, and
Candona candida (Miller), were moderately common,—and
some imperfectly preserved molluscan shells.

The following are the species of Ostracoda and Mollusca
from this deposit identified by us.

It may be stated that the site of the loch is about 2} miles
from the sea, and about 150 feet above sea-level.

MOLLUSCA.:

Pisidium pusillum (Gmelin). One valve.
Iimnea peregra (Miller). A few imperfect specimens.

OSTRACODA.

Cypria ophthalmica (Jurine). Rather scarce.

Cypris prasina, Fischer. Common.

Erpetocypris reptans (Baird). Rather scarce.

Candona candida (Miiller), ¢ $- Both forms common.
x lactea, Baird. Frequent.

Limnicythere tnopirata (Baird). Frequent.

140 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

LACUSTRINE Deposit, NORTH SIDE OF BLACKFORD HILL.

This deposit does not require any special description
beyond that already given. The organic remains observed
in the material examined are such as are usually found in
small lochs or ponds. The remains of comparatively few
Molluses were observed. The following comprise all the
species of Molluscs and Ostracods we identified in the
material examined :—

MOLLUSCA.

Pisidium fontinale (Draparnaud). Frequent.

“2 pusillum (Gmelin). Very common.
Spherium corneum (Linné). Scarce.
Planorbis glaber, Jeffreys (P. parvus, Say). Tare
Limnea peregra (Miller). Scarce.

OSTRACODA.

Cypria ophthalmica (Jurine). Not common.

, serena (Koch). Common.
Cypridopsis vidua (Miller). Frequent.
Potamocypris fulva, Brady. Common.
Candona candida (Miller). Not common.
lactea, Baird. Frequent.
pubescens (Koch). fare.

» jabeformis (Fischer). Frequent.
Tlyocypris gibba (Ramdohr). Scarce.
Limnicythere inopinata (Baird). Common.

>

LACUSTRINE DEPOSIT AT JORDANVALE.

The site of this loch is about 4 miles from the sea and
about 300 feet above sea-level. Molluscan shells, especially
Limnea peregra, were fairly abundant in this deposit, as
were also those of the more common Ostracoda. The
following species have been identified :—

MOLLUSCA.

Spherium cornewm (Linné). Rather scarce.
Pisidium nitidum, Jenyns. Scarce.
pusillum (Gmelin). Common.

”

The Ancient Lukes of Edinburgh. 141

Planorbis glaber, Jeffreys. Frequent.

. nautileus (Linné). Scarce.
Timnea peregra (Miiller). Very common.
Physa fontinalis (Linné). Rare.

OSTRACODA.

Cypria serena (Koch). Rare.
Cypris incongruens, Ramdohr. Rare.
Lrpetocypris reptans (Baird). Common.
Cypridopsis vidua (Miller). Scarce.
Potamocypris fulva, Brady. Frequent.
Candona candida (Miiller). Common.

» fabeformis (Fischer). Rare.
Limnicythere inopinata (Baird). Frequent.

THE MEADOWS.

Hugh Miller has so fully described this interesting locality,
that little more can be said about it than is stated in
“Edinburgh and its Neighbourhood.” Molluscan shells have
been observed in great abundance in the deposit, and Hugh
Miller refers to at least 9 species as having been found while
the meadows were being drained. One species of Planorbis,
described by him as having “a delicate dorsal keel,” which
was probably P. complanatus,—a species still common in
Lochend and Duddingston Lochs,—we have not seen, and
we have only been able to identify one species of Limncea ;
neither have we been able to recognise Planorbis glaber,
mentioned by R. Etheridge, jun., as having been found in
this deposit." Ostracod remains were not very abundant,
but among those observed is Darwinula stevensoni, which
has only recently been found as a post-tertiary fossil at
Whittlesea, England.

The following are the only Scotch localities where
Darwinula has been observed living: Loch Fell, Wigtown-
shire ; Lochs Aber and Ruter, and White and Borean Lochs,
Kairkecudbrightshire ; Broom Loch, Dumfriesshire; and Loch
Mack, near Oban. Darwinula seems to have been of frequent

* Trans. Geol. Soc. of Edinburgh, vol. ii., p. 223.

142 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

occurrence in the Borough Loch. The following are the
Mollusca and Ostracoda observed in the material examined
by us from this locality :—

MOLLUSCA.

Pisidium nitidum, Jenyns. Frequent.

z pusillum (Gmelin). Frequent.
Planorbis nautileus (Linné). Scarce.
Valvata cristata, Miller. Common.

» prscinalrs (Miller). Common.
Inmneea peregra (Miller). Very common.

Several variations in form occurred in the last two species,
and especially in the Limnea.

OSTRACODA.

Cypria serena (Koch). Frequent.
Erpetocypris reptans (Baird). Rare.
Candona candida (Miller). Frequent.
fe lactea, Baird. Rare.
Darwinula stevensoni, Brady and Robertson. Frequent.

Houyroop LAKE.

Though Molluscan remains were fairly abundant in this
old lake deposit, only five species have been identified by
us, and these are common freshwater species. Ostracoda on
the other hand were numerous, both in individuals and
species. No fewer than twelve species belonging to nine
genera have been observed, and one species, viz., Limnacythere
sancti-patricti, is now recorded for the first time as fossil in
Scotland. The following are the species of Mollusca and
Ostracoda observed by us.

Nore.—In a paper read at a meeting of the Edinburgh
Field Naturalists and Microscopical Society, in February
1888, by Messrs J. A. Johnston and J. Lindsay, on “ An
Ancient Lake Deposit in Queen’s Park” (here called Holyrood
Lake), two species of Mollusca, not found by us—viz., Val-
vata cristata and Planorbis nitidus,—are recorded as having
been observed in the material forming this deposit."

1 See Trans. Edin. Field Natur. and Micro, Soc., vol. ii., p, 1388 (Part 2).

The Ancient Lakes of Edinburgh. 143

MOLLUSCA.

Limnea peregra (Miller), Frequent, but many of them
fragmentary.
Planorbis glaber, Jeffreys. Scarce.
Valvata piscinalis (Miller).
Pisidium pusillum (Gmelin). Frequent often perfect.
» jsontinale.

OSTRACODA.

Cypria levis (O. F. Miller). Rather scarce.

» serena (Koch). Rather scarce.
Cypris tncongruens, Ramdohr. Rare.
Hrpetocypris reptans (Baird). Frequent.
Cypridopsis villosa (Jurine). Common.
Potamocypris fulva, Brady. Frequent.
Candona candida (Miller). Very common.

i. lactea, Baird. Rather rare.

e pubescens (Koch). Rare.
Llyocypris gibba (Ramdohr). Common.
Limnicythere sancti - patric, Brady and Robertson.

Frequent.
Cytheridea lacustris (G. O. Sars). Common.

CORSTORPHINE LAKE NEAR STATION.

This deposit is about 200 feet above sea-level, and 4 miles
from the sea; in it Molluscan remains were abundant and
in good preservation. Ostracod shells were also numerous.
The following are the species of Mollusca and Ostracoda
identified by us :—

MOLLUSCA.

Pisidium fontinale (Draparnaud). Frequent.
‘. mitidum, Jenyns. Frequent.

Planorhis glaber, Jeffreys. Rather common.
is nautileus (Linné). Rare.

Limnea peregra (Linné). Very common.
» truncatula (Miller). Not common.

144 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

OSTRACODA.

Cypria levis (O. F. Miller). Frequent.
Cypris incongruens, Ramdohr. Rather rare.
Erpetocypris reptans (Baird). Not very common.
Liyocypris gibba (Ramdohr). Frequent.
Candona candida (Miller). Common.
» pubescens (Koch). Rather rare.

Cypridopsis aculeata (Lilljeborg). Rather common.

. vidua (Miiller). Frequent.

' villosa (Jurine). Frequent.
Limnicythere inopinata (Baird). Frequent.

KETHYMYRE.

This deposit occurs between Burntisland and Kinghorn,
and is about 150 feet above sea-level, and about three-
quarters of a mile from the sea. There were few Molluscan
remains in the material from this deposit, but the shells of
Ostracoda—mostly valves—were fairly abundant. The
following are the species observed :—

MOLLUSCA.

Pisidium mtidum, Jenyns. A few specimens.

Valvata piscinalis (Miller). Several specimens—some
of them eroded as if they had been acted on
by an acid,

Planorbis albus (Miller). Two imperfect specimens.

Limnea peregra (Linné). A few specimens.

OSTRACODA.

Cypria serena (Koch). Frequent.
Lrpetocypris reptans (Baird). Rare ; valves only.
Llyocypris gibba (Ramdohr). Rare; valves only.
Potamocypris fulva, Brady. Frequent; many perfect.
Candona candida (Miiller). Frequent ; mostly valves.

» ¢ pubescens (Koch). Rare; a single valve.
Limnicythere inopinata (Baird), A few specimens ;

some perfect.

The Ancient Lakes of Edinburgh. 145

HAILES QUARRY.

The Mollusca and Ostracoda from this place were found
in silt and not in marl, and were tolerably well preserved.
In some parts of the bed a solid peaty mud has recently
been found (1889), in which occur innumerable chitinous
scales which are provisionally referred to Daphnia, also
many small brown discs which are supposed to be the
statoblasts or winter eges of freshwater polyzoa. In the
solid peaty mud of Hailes, as well as in that of Redhall,
many round black shining bodies occurred, probably the
cases of water mites—<Acaride.

MOLLUSCA.

Pisidium fontinale (Draparnaud). A few whole valves
and some fragments.

Planorbis glaber, Jeffreys. Several specimens.

Limnea peregra (Miller). Rather scarce, and imperfect.

Vertigo pygmea (Draparnaud). Imperfect. This has
very likely been washed into the deposit from
the vicinity, as it is not unusual to find this
aud other Vertigos beside freshwater lochs.

OSTRACODA.

Candona candida (Miller). Not common; valves only.
Llyocypris gibba (Ramdohr). Frequent; valves mostly.
Cytheridea torosa (Jones), var. teres. Not common.

REDHALL QUARRY.

The Ostracoda were found in the solid peat mud from
the upper layer of peat by the improved methods of washing
recently adopted, and the number of each species is com-
paratively small at present, but it is expected that the
continuation of these researches will yield an increased
number of species as well as individuals. This record of
their occurrence in peat at Redhall it is also hoped will
induce research for Ostracoda in other lake peats, as, however

VOL. X, K

146 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

unlikely it may appear that the shells of Ostracods can resist
decomposition, yet here we have proof that they have done
so. A considerable number of the freshwater foraminifer,
Deflugia, sp., also occurred along with the Ostracoda.

MOLLUSCA.

Pisidiwm pusillum (?),Gmelin. One immature specimen.

OSTRACODA.

Cypria ophthalmica (Jurvine). This species was of
frequent occurrence, but few were well pre-
served, and some had the appearance of being
coated with a ferruginous dust.

. serena (Koch). One or two specimens.

Cypris incongruens, Ramdohr. One specimen.

Erpetocypris olivacea (?), Brady and Norman. One speci-
men.

Candona rostrata, Brady and Norman. One specimen.
This is the first record of the occurrence of this
species as a post-tertiary fossil, but one of the
Authors has since found it in a somewhat
similar deposit in Ross-shire, in moderate
abundance.

Candona candida (Miller). One or two specimens.

Limnicythere inopinata (Baird). One specimen.

MOLLUSCA

Found in the various Lacustrine Deposits.

The following is a full list of the MoLLuscAN remains
observed in the various lacustrine deposits referred to in the
preceding notes :—

Spherium corneum (Linné).
Pisidium fontinale (Draparnaud).
pusillum (Gmelin).

‘; nitidum, Jenyns.
Valvata piscinalis (Miiller).
cristata, Miiller.

2)

»”?

The Ancient Lakes of Edinburgh. 147

Planorbis nautileus (Linné).
albus, Miiller.

f glaber, Jeffreys.
Physa fontinalis (Linné).
Limnea peregra (Miller).

fs truncatula ? (Miiller).
Vertigo pygmea (Draparnaud),

bb]

The following is a full list of the OsTRAcoD remains
observed in the various lacustrine deposits referred to in
the preceding notes. As considerable changes have quite
recently been made in the nomenclature of the Ostracoda,
and especially of the fresh and brackish water species, we
have considered it advisable to add a synonomy sufficiently
full to enable those not conversant with this group to more
easily recognise the various forms referred to.

OSTRACODA

Found in the various Lacustrine Deposits.
Family CyPpRIDID#.
Cypria ophthalmica (Jurine). lia.

Monoculus ophthalmicus, Jurine, Hist. des Monocles, p. 178,
pl xis tos” 16.17.

Cypris compressa, Baird, Trans. Berw. Nat. Club, vol. 1, p. 100,
pli, figs 6:

» compressa, Brady, Mon. rec. Brit. Ostrac., 372, pl. xxiv.,

Hes, N-D pl xexxvi., fie. 6;

Cypria ophthalmica, Brady and Norman, Mon. M. and Fw. Ostrace.
of the N. Atlantic and N.-W. Europe, p. 69, pl. xi.,
figs. 5-9 (1889).

Cypria levis (O. F. Miller).
Cypris levis, Miller, Entom., p. 52, pl. iii., figs. 7-9.
» minuta, Baird, Brit. Entom., p. 155, p. xviii, figs. 7, 8.
» ovum, Brady, Mon. rec. Brit. Ostrac., p. 373, pl. xxiv.,
figs. 31-34, 43-45 ; and pl. xxxvi., fig. 8.
Cypria levis, Brady and Norman, Mon. M. and Fw. Ostrae. of
the N. Atlantic and N.-W. Europe, p. 69 (1889).

148 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Cypria serena (Koch).

Cypris serena, Koch, Deutschlands Crustaceen, H. xxi., 22.
levis, Brady, Mon. rec. Brit. Ostrac., p. 374, pl. xxiv.,
figs. 6-8.
Cypria serena, Brady and Norman, Mon, M. and Fw. Ostrac. of
the N. Atlantic and N.-W. Europe, p. 70 (1889).

bP]

Cypris, Cypris incongruens, Ramdohr.

oe Cypris incongruens, Ramdohr, Ueber die Gattung Cypris; der
naturforsch. Freunde zu Berlin Magazin, 2 Jahrg
1808, p. 86.

aurantia, Baird, Brit. Entom., p. 159, tab. xiv., fig. 13.

incongruens, Brady, Mon. rec. Brit. Ostrac., p. 362,
pl. xxill., figs. 16-22 (1868).

incongruens, Brady and Norman, Mon. M. and Fw. Ostrac.
of the N. Atlantic and N.-W Europe, p. 73, pl. xi,
figs. 8, 9 (1889).

Cypris prasina, Fischer.
Cypris strigata, Baird, Brit. Entom., p. 157 (1850), (non Miller).

» prasina, Fischer, Beitrag zur Kenntniss der Ostracoden,
p. 644, pl. xix., figs. 9-13 (1855).
salina, Brady, Mon. rec. Brit. Ostrac., p. 368, pl. xxvi.,
figs. 8-13 (1868).
» prasina, Brady and Norman, Mon. M. and Fw. Ostrae. of
the N. Atlantic and N.-W. Europe, p. 78 (1889).

9

Erpetocy- Erpetocypris reptans (Baird).
pris, Brady
and Norman. Candona reptans, Baird, Brit. Entom., p. 167 (1850).
- similis, Baird, loc. cit., p. 162, pl. xix., figs. 2, 2a (pudlus).
Cypris reptans, Brady, Mon. rec. Brit. Ostrac., p. 370, pl. xxv.,
figs. 10-14; pl. xxxvi., fig. 4 (1868).
Erpetocypris reptans, Brady and Norman, Mon. M. and Fw.
Ostrac. of the N. Atlantic and N.-W. Europe,
p..84, pl. xt, fig. 27 (LS89):

Erpetocypris olivacea(?), Brady and Norman.

Erpetocypris olwwacea, Brady and Norman, Mon. M. and Fw. Ostrae.
of the N. Atlantic and N.-W. Europe, p. 89, pl. i.,
figs. 3, 4 (1889),

The Ancient Lakes of Edinburgh. 149

Cypridopsis vidua (Miiller).
Cypris vidua, Miller, Entom., p. 50.
Cypridopsis vidua, Brady, Mon, rec. Brit. Ostrac., p. 375, pl. xxiv.,
figs. 27-36, 46 (1868).

ee obesa, Brady and Robertson, Ann, Nat. Hist., ser. iv.,
vol. iii., p. 364, pl. xviil., figs. 5-7 (1869).
: vidua, Brady and Norman, Mon. M. and Fw. Ostrac.

of the N. Atlanticand N.-W,. Europe, p, 84, pl. xiii.,
fig. 27 (1889).

Cypridopsis aculeata (Lilljeborg).
Cypris aculeata, Lilljeborg, De Crust. ex-ord. trib., p. 117.
Cypridopsis aculeata, Brady, Mon. rec. Brit. Ostrac., p. 376,
pl. xxiv., figs. 16-20; pl. xxxvi., fig. 10 (1868).
aculeata, Brady and Norman, Mon. M. and Fw.
Ostrac. of the N. Atlantic and N.-W. Europe, p. 90
(1889).

Cypridopsis villosa (Jurine).
Monoculus villosa, Jurine, Hist. des Monocles, p. 178.
Cypris westwoodii, Baird, Brit. Entom., p. 156.
? Cypris elongata, Baird, loc. cit., p. 156.
Cypridopsis villosa, Brady, Mon. rec. Brit. Ostrac., p. 377, pl. xxiv.,
figs. 11-15; pl. xxxvi., fig. 9 (1868).
¥ villosa, Brady and Norman, Mon. M. and F'w. Ostrac.
of the N. Atlantic and N.-W. Europe, p. 90 (1889).

Potamocypris fulva, Brady.
Bardia fulva, Brady, Mon, rec. Brit. Ostrac., p. 474, pl. xxviii,
fig. 21 (1868).
Potamocypris fulva, Brady, Nat. Hist. Trans. Neorthum. and
| Durham, p. 366, pl. xiv., fig. 4 (1870).
2 Julva, Brady and Norman, Mon. M. and Fw. Ostrac.
of the N. Atlantic and N.-W. Europe, p. 93, pl.
xxi, figs. 13-17 (1889).

Candona candida (Miiller).
Cypris candida, Miller, Entom., p. 62, tab. vi., figs. 7-9.
Candona lucens, Baird, Brit. Entom., p. 160, tab. xix., fig. 1.
> candida, Brady, Mon. rec. Brit. Ostrac., p. 383, pl. xxv.,
figs, 1-9 ; pl. xxxvi., fig. 13; and pl. xxxvi., fig. 1

(1868).

Cypridopsis,
Brady.

Potamocy-
pris, Brady.

Candona,
Baird.

150 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Candona candida, Brady and Norman, Mon. M. and Fw. Ostrac.
of the N. Atlantic and N.-W. Europe, p. 98, pl. x.,
figs. 1, 2, and 14-23 (1889).

Candona lactea, Baird.
Candona lactea, Baird, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., p. 255, pl. xvii,
figs. 25-27.
detecta, Miller, Entom., p. 49, tab. i11., figs. 1-3.

Brady (var.), Mon. rec. Brit. Ostrac., p. 384,
pl. xxiv., figs. 35-38; pl. xxxvii., fig. 2 (1568).
lactea, Brady and Norman, Mon. M. and Fw. Ostrac. of

the N. Atlantic and N.-W. Europe, p. 100 (1889).

99 99

9)

Candona pubescens (Koch).
Cypris pubescens, Koch, Deutschlands Crustaceen, H. 11, p. 5
(1837).
setigera, Jones, Mon, Tert. Entom., p. 12, pl. i. figs.
6a-6d.
Candona compressa, Brady, Mon. rec. Brit. Ostrac., p. 382,
pl. xxvi., figs. 22-27 (1868).
albicans, Brady, loc. cit., p. 381, pl. xxv., figs. 20-25 ;
pl. xxxvi., fig. 12 (1868). (Junior.)
pubescens, Brady and Norman, Mon. M. and Fw. Ostrac.
of the N. Atlantic and N.-W. Europe, p. 101,
pl. xii, figs. 32-37 (1889).

99

9

Candona rostrata, Brady and Norman.
Candona rostrata, Brady and Norman, Mon. M. and Fw. Ostrac.
of the N. Atlantic and N.-W. Europe, p. 101,
pl. ix., figs. 11, 12, 12¢ and 6; pl. xn., figs. 22-51
(1889). :
Cypris compressa, Fischer, Ueber das genus Cypris, p. 144, pl. i,
figs. 7-12; pl. i. figs. 1-5 (1851).

Candona fabeformis (Fischer).

Cypris fabeformis, Fischer, Ueber das genus Cypris, p. 146, pl. 111.,
figs, 6-16 2 ¢ (1851).

Candona diaphana, Brady and Robertson, Ann. and Mag. Nat.
Hist., ser. iv., vol. iv., p. 18, pl. v., figs. 1-3 2 (1870).
Jubeformis, Brady and Norman, Mon. M. and Fw.
Ostrac. of the N. Atlantic and N.-W. Europe,

p. 103, pl. ix., figs. 1-4 ? d (1889).

9?

The Ancient Lakes of Edinburgh. 151

Ilyocypris gibba (Ramdohr). Ilyocypris,

Cypris gibba, Ramdohr, Mag. und Gesellsch. naturforsch, Freunde at
zu Berlin, 11, p. 91.
Brady, Mon. rec. Brit. Ostrac., p. 369, pl. xxiv.,
figs. 47-54 ; pl. xxxvi., fig. 2 (1868).
Tlyocypris gibba, Brady and Norman, Mon. M. and Fw. Ostrac.

of the N. Atlantic and N.-W. Europe, p. 107,

pl. xxi, figs. 1-5 (1889).

9 9)

Family DARWINULID&4.

Darwinula stevensoni, Bb. and R. Darwinula,
Polycheles stevensoni, B. and R., Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., ie
der ive, vol. vVi.,. p:-20;. plows fos 1-7; pl =:
figs. 4-14 (1870).
Argillecia aurea, B. and R., Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. iv.,
vol. vi., p. 16, pl. vii., figs. 4, 5 (1870).
Darwinella stevenson, B. and R., zbid., ser. iv., vol. ix., p. 50
(1872).
Darwinula stevensoni, Brady and Norman, Mon. M. and Fw.
Ostrac. of the N. Atlantic and N.-W. Europe,
p: 123; pl. x. digs. t-13'5 pl. xm, fivsoE-9 = plo xxin:
fig. 5 (1889).

Family CYTHERID 2.

Limnicythere inopinata (Baird). ee
. . . . — “¢ d To
Cythere cnopinata, Baird, Brit. Entom., p. 172, pl. xx., figs. 1, ah
la-le.

Limnicythere inopinata, Brady, Mon. rec. Brit. Ostrac., p. 419,
pl. xxix., figs. 15-18 (1868). :
tnoprnata, Brady and Norman, Mon. M. and Fw.
Ostrac. of the N. Atlantic and N.-W. Europe,
p. 170 (1889).

mopinata, Brady and Norman, loc. cit., pl. xvil.,
figs. 18, 19.

Limnicythere sancti-patricii, Brady and Robertson.
Limnicythere sancti-patricit, B. and R., Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist.,
ser iv:, vol. i11., p. 17, pl. xviii., figs. 8-11; pl. xxi.,
fig. 4 (1869).
sancti-patricii, Brady and Norman, Mon. M. and
Fw. Ostrac. of the N. Atlantic and N.-W. Europe,
p Evi, pl xvi, figs. 1, 2 (1889).

152 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Cytheridea, Cytheridea lacustris (G. O. Sars).

mesinel. Cythere lacustris, G. O. Sars, Zool. Reise i Sommeren, 1863, p. 30.

Cytheridea lacustris, Brady, Mon. rec. Brit. Ostrac., p. 427,
pl. xxvi., figs. 18-21; pl. xl., fig. 2 (1868).

lacustris, Brady and Norman, Mon. M. and Fw.
Ostrac. of the N. Atlantic and N.-W. Europe,
p. 176 (1889).

99

Cytheridea torosa (Jones), var. teres.

Candona torosa, Jones, Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist. (ii.), vol. vi.,
p. 24, pl. iu. fies.
Cytheridea torosa, Brady, Mon. rec. Brit. Ostrac., p. 425, pl. xxviii.,
figs, (ell sopl, sox, «fr. 6,
torosa, Brady and Norman, Mon. M. and Fw. Ostyrae.
of the N. Atlantic and N.-W. Europe, p. 175
(1889).

2)

TABLE I.

SHOWING DIstRIBUTION OF JMollusca MENTIONED
IN THE PRECEDING NOTES.

Distribution in Ancient Lake Deposits

here referred to. Distribution (Living) in the
Vicinity of Edinburgh.

aja ; 5 P
$ |e | 9 z x i ay |e The following Abbreviations
NAMES OF SPECIES. 4 a ae “S 2 | 4 a S| are used :—c.=common;
Bele ie es B Ele 18 J. = frequent; 7. = rare;
Ao ols ioe |e | eS ies |e S f.d. =frequent in the dis-
So Sc} SO. oe ee ala trict.
o = ar) = S) il
a | oa a
eS
Sp ik eats é) ‘anes { Lochend Loch; Canal, near Gil-
Pau ae more Place.
A _ | Pond near Blackford Hill, and
fontinale (Drap.), x ce fens * 1) Union Canal.
» pusillum (Gmel.), | * | * x | * * Canal, near Gilmore Place.
,, nitidum, Jenyns, x | * At Pond near Blackford Hill, f.d.
Valvata
piscinalis (Miill.), % % Duddingston Loch; Union C’n’l.
», cristata, Miller, . x Small Loch at Corstorphine, ce.
Planorbis
nautileus (Linné), * | * * Duddingston Loch, f.
», albus, Miller, . x Canal, near Gilmore Place, f.
; ; ( Not known to. occur in the
99 glaber, Jeffreys, 4 * ® x * * r] district.
Physa
Jontinalis (Linné), # Duddingston Loch, ec.
Limncea . .
pinta (Duddingston; Dunsappie ;
peregra (Mill.), .] x * x x x Hel * 1 Blackford, Fa: . ?
» truncatula,. . | * ; rn hay Fier pale
Vertigo pygmea, : | x Salisbury Crags, f.

The Ancient Lakes of Edinburgh. 153

TABLE II.

SHOWING DISTRIBUTION OF THE Ostracoda MENTIONED
IN THE PRECEDING NOTES.

Distribution in Ancient Lake Deposits Recent Distributi AS)
: Aston istribution (Liv-)
here referred to. in Britain. ing) in the Vicinity,

of Edinburgh.

Salemi oy |e | 3 The following Ab-
° aS) S 5 B P 2 Le To owing y)
NAMES OF SPECIES. ] 5 ze a |g fe 2/2/41] a | E | E | gS Jbreviationsare used :
S lhe | 3 |e Si eis |a1s | 8 | 2 fle=common;/.—tfre-
i) si/a/s1|3/5/3)8] 2] 8 | B [auent; r.=rare; fd.
: 2/s5/elm z rc] <i te! Z| S f=frequent through-
2|3 y= O out the district.
S
Cypridide.
Cypria
ophthalmica, .] * * * * * * Dud’gston Loch, f.
», laevis, 4 2 * * ¥ x * Duddingston Loch.
Koch rei 4 Duddingston Loch;
»» serena (Koch), . =| areca ie bho a les (natal a Corstorphine, f.d.
Cypris ie ( P’bello Brickfielis,
tneongruens, . * | ee Nt ean Caan.) We abundant, f.d.
4 ( Not yet observed
a3, PYAR, 2 * | * | * §) living in vicinity.
ears ; =. (ee _ | § Duddingston Loch;
ee al 2 lee aperitif * | * | * 1 Corstorphine, f.d.
», Ooltvacea, . ; * Dud’gston Loch, /f.
Cypridopsis
vidua, : : * | * | x | x | * Duddingston Loch.
Not yet observed
»» aculeata, . . 4s i | AMS at Dag { living in vicinity.
Pe OULOSG. ‘ lee deo il bee hese Duddingston Loch.
Potamocypris D F
: ; uddingston Loch;
Sulva, i A bs ee iirc { Corstorphine, f.d.
Candona ale
candida, . CRO a es os eae (eran Ge ee (ee a Age ( Dadaere Loch,
Duddingston Loch;
», lactea, - hee * | * Tae lays | Loanhead, pe ‘
»» pubescens,. * ey eee = hom | x i eA nar oe Loch;
» rostrata, . P * Dud’gston Loch, f.
», Jabeformis . > { Duddingston Loch;
(Fischer), > * | * | * £Q Corstorphine, f.
LIlyocypris F
i ( Duddingston Loch;
gtbba (Ramdohr), * * * * x | x * i ageben d;P’bello.|
Darwinulide.
Darwinula
Stevensoni, Brady { Not found living in’
and Robertson, “: * 1 * | * 9) the vicinity.
Cytheride.
Limnicythere |
inopinata (Baird), « * oes | oe sam nese Dud’gston Loch, f.
», sancti-patricii, | | : a ( Not yet observed
B&R, x co | te U living in vicinity.
Cytheridea
«geal (G. 0. k be [Le Union Canal.
; ( Brackish - water
», torosa, > ‘ ciel |e: * * ools on the shore
p ,
( Aberlady, c.

}

154

Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

DIATOMS From InrerGuactaAL Peat-Bep 1n Bounper Cuay,
REDHALL QUARRY, NEAR EDINBURGH.

Amphora ovalis, Ktz.
Ceratoneis arcus, Ktz.

% » var. majus.
Cymbella lanceolata, Ehr.
cistula, Hemper.

93

Navicula, sp.

Pleurosigma attenuatum, W. Sm.

Gomphonema insigne, Grev., forms
major.

Epithemia gibba, Ehr.

- gastroides, Ktz. =A », Var. ventricosa.

¥ ay var. minor. Asterionella formosa, Hassal.
Stauroneis phenicenteron, Nitz. Synedra pulchella, Ktz.

ss acuta, W. Sm. » dadanica, Ktz.

e) gracilis, W. Sm. Tabellaria fenestrata, Lyngb.

+5 anceps, Ehr. Cymatopleura solea, Sm.
Navicula major, Ktz. FA elliptica, Breb.

- nobilis, Ktz. Surirella elegans, Ehr.

ms viridis, Ktz. a spiralis, Ktz.

e gibba, Ktz. 5 biseriata, Breb.

* limosa, Ktz. Campylodiscus costatus, W. Sm.

a ovalis, Sm. Nitzschia angustata, Grun.

a anglica, Ralfs. Hantzia amphioxis, var. intermedia,

es radiosa, Ktz. Grun.

+ cuspidata, Ktz. Cyclotella comte, Ktz.

55 rhynchocephala, Ktz.

Note.—I have no doubt that further investigations would increase the list
of diatoms from this bed.—R. K.

XVI. Notes on a few Crustacea and Mollusca new to the Fauna
of the Korth, with Fxhibition of Specimens. By THoMAS
Scott, Esq., F.L.S.

if
(Read 20th February 1889. )
The Scientific Committee of the Scottish Fishery Board
have kindly agreed to allow me to exhibit the following
specimens to the Society :—

SCHIZAPODA.

Previous to the summer of 1887, four species of Schizapods
were known to occur in the Firth of Forth, viz.: Boreo-
phausia raschu, M. Sars; Nyctiphanes norvegica, M. Sars ;
Macropsis slabberit, Van Ben.; and Mysis flexuosa, Miiller.
H. Goodsir described one or two forms, but the descriptions
and figures are not precise enough to enable those forms to

Crustacea and Mollusca new to the Fauna of the Forth. 155

be ascribed to any known species. Through the investi-
gations carried on by the Fishery Board thirteen additional
species of Schizapods have been added to the Forth fauna.
Nine of these are recorded in the Board’s Report published
last year. The species which I now exhibit have been
observed since that Report was published. They are as
follows :—

Mysidopsis didelphys, Norman.
Mysis didelphys, Norman, Dredging Report, Trans. Tyne Nat. F. Club, vol.
v., p. 2/0, pl. xil., figs. 9-12.
Mysidopsis didelphys, G. O. Sars, Mon. over de ved Nor. Kyster forekom-
mende Mysider, part ii., p. 20, pl. vii. (1872).
This appears to be a rare species in the Forth. I observed
it among some tow-net material collected near Fidra during
November last.

Erythrops goésui, G. O. Sars,—new to Britain.
Mysis erythrophthalma, Goés, Crust. Decap. mar. Svec., p. 18.
Erythrops goésti, G. O. Sars, Mon. over de ved Nor. Kyster forekommende
Mysider, part i., p. 24, pl. i. (1870).

I find this species frequent all over the Forth from Inch-
keith to the May Island, as well as outside the May. How
it happens to have escaped observation hitherto may not be
easily explained. Another species, LZ. pygmwa, G. O. Sars,
which I first observed in Kast Loch Tarbert, Loch Fyne, was
also new to Britain. A third species, Z. serratus, G. O. Sars,
was discovered by Dr A. M. Norman among the Shetland
Islands. They are all small, but easily recognised, when
living, by their bright red eyes. The eyes turn whitish
after being kept in spirit awhile.

Leptomysis gracilis, G. O. Sars.
Mysidopsis hispida, Norman, Report Brit. Assoc. for the Advancement of
Science, 1868, p. 267.
Leptomysis gracilis, G. O. Sars, Mon. over de ved Nor. Kyster forekommende
Mysider, part iii., p. 31, pls. xix., xx (1879).
Several specimens of this species have been observed
among tow-net material collected to the east of Inchkeith.
Previous Scotch records for it are the Moray Firth and the
Shetland Islands.

156 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Heteromysis formosa, Smith.

Described by Professor Smith for the United States. I
noticed this species in some tow-net material collected to
the east of Inchkeith during October last year. Dr A. M.
Norman informs me that he procured two specimens of this
species at Guernsey in 1856, and that he knows of no other
British habitat for it than the two now recorded. This
species comes very near Heteromysis (Chiromysis) mucrops,
G. O. Sars.

COPEPODA.
Cymbasoma rigidum, J. C. Thompson.

I observed two specimens of this among tow-net material
collected to the east of Inchkeith. Both of them, Mr
Thompson tells me, were females. Unfortunately he found
it necessary to dissect them, so that I have only the dis-
sected parts to exhibit. Mr Thompson has the following
records of its distribution, viz.: the Canary Islands, the
Mediterranean, Jersey (Channel Islands), Lamlash Bay,
Arran, Clyde, and Loch Linnhe. It does not appear to have
been previously noticed on the east coast of Scotland.

EE.
(Read 20th March 1889.)
MOLLUSCA.

Stilifer turtoni, Broderip.—Two living specimens found by
Miss Janet Carphin (grand-daughter of the late Principal
Cunningham) on an “Lchinus brought by one of the Newhaven
fishing boats from near the Isle of May on March last (1888).

Clio borealis, Brug = Clione papilionacea, Pallas—The speci-
men now exhibited was captured by me near Inchkeith in
January last.

XVII. Notes on the Larval Stages of Motella. By GEORGE
Brook, Esq., F.L.8. [Plate VI.]

(Read 16th March 1887.)

On the afternoon of September 24th, 1886, I was fortunate
enough to meet with a large shoal of larval fishes, which

Notes on the Larval Stages of Motella. 157

subsequently proved to be young forms of Motella cimbria.
Our yacht had just dropped anchor in Whiting Bay, on the
east shore of the Island of Arran, and we were preparing to
make some tow-nettings. The sea was extremely calm, and
as the hour was shortly before sundown, I expected a rich
gathering of forms at the surface. Whilst preparing for
work, a large number of larval fishes were seen to be playing
at the surface all around the yacht, and as they darted away
from us the water appeared to be glittering all over with
silvery streaks. I hastily concluded they were young
herring, and a large number were at once secured and
placed in a carboy filled with sea water. As we extended
our observations further and further away from the yacht,
we had a good opportunity of watching the movements of
the young fishes. They were evidently feeding on the
shoals of copepoda and larval crustacea, which I presumed
to be present, and which were subsequently revealed by
means of the tow-net. Indeed, the sea was so calm at the
time, that the only motion of its surface appeared to be
caused by living organisms. The smaller species of cope-
poda were of course indistinguishable from the dingy, but
larger forms, such as Anomalocera Patersont and Calanus
jinmarchicus, were readily observed in the water. A curious
broad and intermittent ripple was caused by a larger
crustacean, which proved on examination to be the young
of the lobster. One or two species of amphipods and an
annelid were also noted at. the surface, whilst in the tow-
nets we obtained a rich and varied gathering. An examina-
tion of our collection of larval fishes showed at a glance
that I had been too hasty in supposing them to be herring
fry. The specimens varied from ? to 1} inches in leneth. The
colour of the ventral surface was a brilliant silver, which
eradually faded into a greenish-black towards the dorsal
- aspect. The outline was relatively short and thick, and
the majority of the specimens had enormous fan-like
ventrals, which at once recalled Agassiz’s drawings of the
larval stages of Motella argentea. In order if possible to
identify the species, a large number of the fry were kept
alive until we reached Rothesay, and were then transferred

158 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

to the Aquarium. As it was advisable to keep the speci-
mens under constant observation, the large tanks of the
establishment were considered unsuitable, and the majority
of the fry were placed in a series of wood hatching-troughs
similar to those used for trout ova. A few were also placed
in a glass jar, in order that their habits might be watched.
Having given instructions for the proper feeding of the fry,
I left Rothesay for two or three days. On my return I was
much disappointed to find that the whole of the specimens
placed in the wood troughs had died, whilst there had
scarcely been a death amongst those placed in the glass jar.
This was a severe lesson, and showed clearly the unsuit-
ability of wood hatching-boxes for marine forms. For fresh-
water fishes they serve very well, but unless coated with
asphalte or some similar substance, I have frequently found
them to prove fatal to delicate marine embryos. Those in
the glass jar lived well for some time, but there were occa-
sional deaths. The young fry fed freely on copepods, and
the smaller forms of amphipods. At first they swam near
the surface, and always looked upwards for food. They
could not be induced to take food at the bottom for several
weeks. Later, as the fan-like ventrals became more and
more reduced, they began to rest more at the bottom, until a
time arrived when they ceased to feed in the former manner,
and now always searched the bottom of the jar for food.
There appears hitle doubt that this change in habit is a natural
one, associated with a change in food, in which case the
large larval ventrals must be of especial use, and enable the
embryo more readily to maintain itself near the surface of
the sea during the period when its natural food is to be
found there. A similar pelagic habit is, however, common
to the larvee of most marine fishes irrespective of the con-
dition of the ventral fins, and all feed at first on small
pelagic organisms. The specimens were so far advanced by
Christmas, that the species could be recognised, and by the
end of February one specimen had assumed all the characters
of the adult, and measured nearly 2} inches in length.

The species to which they belonged—WMotella cimbria—is
usually regarded as one of the rarest of the British Motelle,

Notes on the Larval Stages of Motella. 159

and although it appears to occur all around the Scottish
coast, it is, so far as I am aware, not numerous in any
district. The occurrence of a large shoal of larve off the
coast of Arran is therefore of especial interest. The fry of
the various species of Joéella are known in the south of
England as mackerel-midyes, probably owing to the fact that
mackerel and other predaceous fishes prey upon them. Day?
states that they occur in shoals from March to June, often
at a considerable distance from land. The genera Ciliata of
Couch, and Couchia of Thompson, are founded on these im-
mature forms; whilst Giinther’s Hypsiptera is an allied form.
Liitken refers it to the genus Phycis, and more recently
Emery” has supposed Giinther’s form to be the young of
Phycis mediterranea.

The larval stages of an American species of Motella (J/.
argentea) have been studied by Alexander Agassiz, who has
published an excellent series of drawings of immature speci-
mens varying from 4 to 34 mm. in length. The earlier
stages of development have also been studied by Agassiz
and Whitman * and myself.®

The newly-hatched embryos of Motella are about 2:15
mm. in length, and are pigmented in a characteristic manner,
for the details of which I must refer to the works already
cited. At this time the paired fins exist only in rudiment,
but the pectorals soon grow more rapidly than the ventrals, and
expand into relatively large rounded transparent organs a few
days after hatching. The ventrals, on the other hand, are at
first relatively small and narrow, and soon become pigmented.
One of the most interesting points connected with the life
history of J/otella is the enormous development of the
ventrals into larval swimming organs, and their later
reduction to the normal type.

1 Day, Fishes of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. i., p. 312.

* Emery, Contribuzioni all’ Ittiologia; xv. Phycis mediterranea—Mitth.
Zool. Stat. Nap., Bd. vi., p. 159, pl. x., fig. 25.

3 Agassiz, A., Young Stages of Osseous Fishes, pt. iiii—Proc. Amer. Acad.
Sci., vol. xvii., pp. 294-296, pl. vii., and pl. viii. figs. 1-3.

4 Agassiz and Whitman, Development of Osseous Fishes, pt. i.—Mem.
Mus. Comp. Zool., vol. xiv., pp. 39-43, pl. xviii., figs. 1-6.

° Brook, Development of Motella mustela—Journ. Linn. Soc., Zool., vol.
XVill., pp. 298-307, pls. vili.-x.

160 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

The following table shows the relative length (in milli-
metres) of the head, pectoral and ventral fins, in larve of
various sizes, to which the measurements in the adult of
M. cimbria and in very early embryos of M, mustela are added
for comparison :—

M. mustela (newly- Pe ;
hatched embryo), ato iS us se
» (44 days), 2°3 "43 “B34 “13
M. cimbria, 5‘0- 6:0 1°6-1°7 O"7 2°0
F 8°0- 9:0 2°0-2°5 10-12 2°5
5 11°0-12°7 2°7-3°0 1°3-1°9 3°0
3 14°5-15°5 3°3-3°5 2°1-2°3 3°5
oy) 7-5-1973 a 1-42 2°5-3°0 4°5-4°7
¥ 200-23 °0 4:2-4:7 | 3°0-3°2 40
” 30°0 6°0 4°5 4-2
bs 31°5 70 4°8 4°5
M. cimbria (adult), 280 49 35 23

It will be seen from the table that the ventral fins must
undergo an exceedingly rapid development shortly after the
embryo is hatched. In WMotella mvustela at the time of
hatching the ventrals are only recognisable as a faint ridge.
Four or five days afterwards they are about 12 mm.
long, and form simple, oval, deeply-pigmented organs, which
are apparently still without rays. In the smallest larve of
M. cimbria which have come under my notice, the ventrals
are relatively very large, and have a length equal to a third
of that of the whole embryo. They form fan-like organs
supported by four stout rays, all of which are similar in
length. At this stage the relative length of the ventrals is
createst, and in later stages the fins become reduced in
breadth, whilst at the same time the rays are relatively more

1 The length of the newly-hatched embryo of Motella mustela is incorrectly
given as 2'25 mm. in my paper on that species already referred to. The
measurements taken at the time show a variation between 2°118 and
2°17 mm.

Notes on the British Species of Lepadogaster. 161

slender. As the larve gradually assume the specific
characters, the lower rays of the ventrals appear to undergo
a partial atrophy, and assume the relative length characteristic
of the adult (cf Pl. VL., Figs. 3 and 4),

The period at which the various barbels are developed
appears to correspond with the order of their phylogenetic
origin. The first to appear is that on the lower jaw, and
a stage is thus reached which represents the adult condition
in many Gadide. This barbel is as yet undeveloped in
larvee of Motella cimbria, 9 mm. long; it was first noticed as
a distinct papilla in larve of 11 mm. The two lateral
barbels of the snout are next developed, and in the species
under consideration arise as small papille, which were first
noticed in larve of 12° mm. This stage represents the
adult condition in Motella tricirrata and Motella macroph-
thalma. Finally the median barbel of the snout is recognis-
able as a faint tubercle in larve of 20 mm., and is well
marked in larve of 30 mm. Thus the adult condition is
reached, and it is only after the formation of this fourth
barbel that the ideutity of the species is established.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE VI.

Fig. 1. Larve of Motella cimbria, 5*3 mm. long ; lateral view.

Fig. 2. The same specimen seen from above.

Fig. 3. Later larve 17°5 mm. long, showing reduction in the larval
ventrals and the barbel on the lower jaw.

Fig. 4. Young Motella cimbria, 31°55 mm. long, showing the specific
characters.

XVIII. Notes on the British Species of Lepadogaster, and on
the Development of the Vertical Fins. By GEORGE BROOK,
Esq., F.L.S., F.R.S.E. [Plate VII.]

(Read 18th April 1888. )

It has long been admitted that the species of Lepadogaster
are subject to considerable variation, particularly in colour,
and a number of forms described as distinct are now regarded
merely as varieties. Day, in his work on the “ Fishes of Great

Britain and Ireland,” recognises only three species. He says
VOL. X. I

162 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

(vol. i, p. 189):—‘“ There appear to be only three specific
forms, and these are subject to almost endless modifications
as to colour. They may be recognised as follows :—

‘“ A. Dorsal fin continuous with the caudal.
a. Dorsal fin with more than ten rays, . . L. Gouania.

‘“B. Dorsal fin not continued on to the caudal.
a. Dorsal fin with more than ten rays (14-16), . LZ. Decandolit.
b. Dorsal fin with less than eight rays (5-7), . LZ. bimaculatus.”

Saville Kent, in his “British Marine and Freshwater
Fishes,” 1 refers to a form which he regards as a fourth
British species of the genus, a type which has been regarded
by Couch and others as a variety of Z. bimaculatus. It
occurs in the Channel Islands, and also on the Devonshire
and Cornish coasts. I am not aware that Saville Kent has
given a detailed diagnosis of his species, and the following
characters are collected from the general account of the
genus in the work already referred to (pp. 54-56) :—

Lepadogaster Couchit, Saville Kent.— General ground
colour variable; the two lateral ocelli, distinctive of JL.
bimaculatus, are never developed, “but in leu of this a
single very conspicuous dark-coloured streak is developed
along each side of the head, the eye being stationed immedi-
ately in its centre and interrupting it at this point.
Important structural differences are found to exist in the
composition of the dorsal, anal, and caudal fins, and more
especially in that of the ventral acetabulum. Finally, it is
found to affect a different habitat, for while Z. bimaculatus is
to be obtained only with the aid of the dredge at some little
distance from the shore, the form here introduced is a strictly
littoral species, obtainable beneath stones in the rock-pools at
all ordinary ebb-tides.” It is much to be regretted that the
structural differences referred to have not been more precisely
stated.

In my endeavours to identify the specimens of Lepado-
gaster which I have from time to time obtained on the west

1 Handbook issued in connection with ,the International Fisheries Ex-
hibition, London, 1883.

Notes on the British Species of Lepadogaster. 163

coast of Scotland, I have frequently noticed the occurrence
of a form which differs considerably from any of the species
described in Day’s standard work, although, like Kent’s JZ.
Couchit, it comes closest to L. bimaculatus. Ihave no certain
means at present of deciding whether Kent’s species and my
own are identical, but if so, the description of the former
omits the chief points which I regard as of specific value.
The following notes have been compiled from a comparison
of west coast specimens with those of the Channel Islands
and the Mediterranean. I am indebted to Professor M‘Intosh
of St Andrews for the loan of a few specimens from Guern-
sey; and Mr Sinel has supplied me with a number of Jersey
specimens.

1. LEPADOGASTER GOUANII, Lacép.

Day gives the following fin-formula:—D., 16-20; P.,
20-25; V., 1/4; A., 9-11; C.,19. Dorsal and anal continuous
with the caudal. In the specimens which I have examined
the formula is D., 15-18; A., 10-12; C., 19-23. The dorsal
fin appears usually to consist of 17 or 18 rays, the anal of 10
or 11, whilst in the caudal the average is 21. The latter
consists usually of 14 well-developed rays, with a variable
number of slender and more rudimentary ones at the upper
and lower margins. Apparently owing to the fact that the
part of the continuous embryonal fin immediately preceding
the caudal is not absorbed in this species, there is a tendency
for rudimentary rays to be developed beyond the usual limits
of the caudal; but as these are directed backwards they form
no support to the dorsal or anal, and should probably be
regarded as supplementary caudal rays. The head is flat
beneath, and in shape resembles a half cone. The breadth is
usually =ths of the length, reckoned from the tip of the
snout to the posterior margin of the operculum. The snout
is relatively long and spathulate; the nasal filaments are
always well marked. The general colour is extremely
variable, but carmine or purplish red usually predominates.
Three small specimens sent to me by Mr Sinel from Jersey
were quite black, with white margins to the fins. These,
after being in spirit for some time, showed the two deep

164 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

spots behind the eyes which appear characteristic of the
species. In the sixteen specimens which I have examined,
chiefly from the Channel Islands, the caudal fin was in-
variably rounded. The operculum is rounded posteriorly,
and has no marked spinous process as in L. Decandolli.

This species is common in the Channel Islands, but does
not appear frequent around the Scottish coast, although
several specimens have been recorded from various localities.
I have obtained a single specimen from the Sound of Kil-
brannan in 8 to 10 fathoms.

2. L. DECANDOLLI, Risso.

Day gives the following fin-formula :—D., 14-16; P., 25;
V., 1/4; A., 8-11; C.,18. The dorsal and anal fins reach
nearly to the caudal, but are not continuous with it. In the
specimens which have come under my notice, the variations
of the vertical fins are only slight, viz.:—D., 14-15; A,
10-11; C., 18-19. The head is much flattened, but the
upper contour is not arched as in LZ. Gouanw. A thick
fleshy ridge projects above the premaxilla, which is more
marked than in any other species. The width of the head
is ; ths, and the height 53,ths of its total length. The
operculum bears a distinct spinous process, which varies
somewhat in position. In Mediterranean specimens it is
situated near the lower border of the operculum; in a
Scotch specimen the posterior margin gradually tapers to a
sharp point, which is more nearly central in position. The
membranous portion of the unpaired fins is thick and some-
what fleshy, so that the fins stand out well in specimens
preserved in spirit. The whole skin appears to be thicker
and looser in this species than in L. Gouanw or L. bimacu-
latus. The general colour is more or less red, but the
markings are extremely variable, and none of them appear
to be constant.

A fine specimen of this species over 3 inches in length
was obtained between tide marks near Tarbert, Lochfyne, in
February 1886. This, so far as I am aware, is the first
record of its occurrence in Scottish waters. The species is

Notes on the British Species of Lepadogaster. 165

common in the Mediterranean, and extends to the Channel
Islands, Cornwall, and the West Coast of Ireland.

3. L. BIMACULATUS, Donov.

Day gives the following fin-formula:—D., 5-7; P., 17;
V.,5; A. 4-6; C, 12. From a comparison of specimens
from the Mediterranean, Channel Islands, and West Coast of
Scotland, I have obtained the following formula:—D., 6;
A., 5; C., 19-21. It is curious that eight or nine specimens
from such different localities should agree in having the
same number of rays in the dorsal and also in the anal. No
doubt a certain variation might be observed by a comparison
of a larger number of specimens, but one appears justified in
pointing out that there is usually one ray more in the dorsal
fin than in the anal. It should be noted that the whole of
the specimens included in the above summary have the two
lateral ocelli from, which the species derives its name (¢/. Pl.
VIL, Fig. 6). It seems probable that the specimens without
the pair of lateral or rather latero-ventral ocelli may not
come under the species as here defined. I have not seen
any specimens from the English Channel which do not
appear referable to the species under consideration, but
it is well known that unspotted specimens have hitherto
been included in it, and it is apparently for such types that
Saville Kent has suggested the name L. Couwchit.

With regard to the number of rays composing the caudal
fin, in which_my observations differ considerably from those
of Day,I have usually found 20 rays. Twelve to fourteen of
these are strong, whilst three or four at both the dorsal and
ventral margins are short and slender. All the species of
the genus appear to agree in this respect, but the relative
development of the marginal rays varies considerably in the
different types.

In addition to the fin-formula which I have already noted,
typical LZ. bimaculatus may be distinguished from other
species of the genus, and particularly from LZ. mierocephalus,
by the following characters :—(1.) The relatively broad and
short head, the width of which is #ths to $ths of the length—

166 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Day says 2rds; (2.) the short fusiform and rapidly tapering
body ; (3.) the unusual delicacy of the membrane connecting
the rays of the vertical fins, which may never be described as
robust or fleshy, and is certainly more delicate than that of
any other British species; (4.) the usual, if not invariable,
presence of the paired latero-ventral ocelli; (5.) the rounded
posterior margin of the operculum. I should, however, state
that in two of the specimens from Guernsey, which Professor
M‘Intosh has kindly lent me, the head is not so wide as
usual, but the fins, both in the number of their rays and
in their general delicacy, agree with typical specimens.

This species is generally distributed around the British
Islands, but, so far as my experience goes, it is not frequent
in Scottish waters, and it is possible that a number of the
specimens already on record may belong to the form next
described. I have obtained it off Ardnamurchan and also in
the Gairloch in 8 to 12 fathoms. It has also been dredged
off Colonsay by my friend Mr W. L. Calderwood.

4, L. MICROCEPHALUS, n. sp.
2 L. Couchit, Saville Kent.

The following is the formula of the vertical fins :—D., 5;
Anne C5 Lef-19.

This form bears a general resemblance to LZ. bimaculatus,
but may be distinguished by the following characters :—
(1.) the skin is thick and loose as in L. Decandolli ; (2.) the
membrane of the vertical fins is more rigid, and there is
a special fleshy thickening at the anterior extremity of the
dorsal, and also, though usually less marked, at the anterior
margin of the anal; (3.) the anal fin consists of one ray
more than the dorsal, whilst the reverse is the case in JZ.
bimaculatus ; (4.) the caudal usually contains 10 to 11
prominent rays, instead of 12 to 13 as in L. bimaculatus ;
(5.) the head is relatively narrow, its width being equal
to about two-thirds of the length ; (6.) the trunk is relatively
more elongate, and tapers gradually to the tail (cf. Pl. VIL.,
Figs. 4 and 6); (7.) the median disc of the ventral acetabulum
is narrower, and its lateral margins are nearly straight ;

Notes on the British Species of Lepadogaster. 167

(8.) the posterior margin of the operculum instead of being
rounded is distinctly angular, and is continued into a spinous
process; (9.) the paired latero-ventral ocelli appear to be
invariably absent; (10.) the general body colour is usually
a dirty greenish-brown without any very prominent mark-
ings, but dredged specimens generally have a reddish hue,
which becomes paler towards the ventral surface. It will
be seen that many of the features which distinguish this
species from the preceding are characters which it shares
in common with L. Decandolli. Such are the condition of
the skin, the rigidity of the fins, the shape of the posterior
margin of the operculum, etc. This is by far the most
abundant species on the West Coast of Scotland, and appears
to be generally distributed. I have obtained it between
tide-marks in Rothesay Bay and in Lochfyne. I have also
obtained it by means of the dredge in the Firth of Lorne
(10 to 15 fathoms), and as far north as Loch Boisdale (3 to
4 fathoms). Saville Kent thinks his form is a truly littoral
species and that in this respect it differs from LZ. bumaculatus.
I cannot say whether the species just described is the same
as that referred to by Saville Kent, but my observation
tends to show that L. microcephaius usually frequents the
off-shore waters. In certain districts large numbers of this
species come inshore in the early summer, apparently to
spawn, and they may then be taken in numbers between
tide-marks, but it is equally certain that for nine or ten
months out of the twelve, in the same localities, not a single
specimen is to be found.

Development of the Vertical Fins.

In September 1887 I obtained a few larval forms of
L. microcephalus in Loch Boisdale, together with two or three
adult specimens. They vary from 7 to 9 mm. in length, and
show an interesting stage in the development of the vertical
fins. The continuous embryonal fin still exists in larve of
7mm. - (6 Pl VIL; Fig. 1). Indaresof-9' mm. (PL VIL,
Fig. 2) the embryonal fin is divided up into dorsal, caudal,
and anal. It will be seen from the figure that the part of.
the embryonal fin which is later absorbed, remains at this

168 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

stage applied to the caudal. It is probably in this part that
the imperfect supplementary rays of the caudal are developed,
which are particularly well seen in some specimens of
LI. Gouann.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE VII.

Fig. 1. Larva of Z. microcephalus 7 mm. long, showing the continuous
embryonal fin.

Fig. 2. Larva of L. microcephalus 9 mm. long, showing the fin divided
into dorsal, caudal, and anal, together with the remnant of the intermediate
portions applied to the caudal.

Fig. 3. L. microcephalus, lateral view.

Fig. 4. LZ. microcephalus, ventral view.

Fig. 5. L. Gowanii, showing the nasal filament, and the two characteristic
dark spots behind the eye.

Fig. 6. L. bimaculatus, ventral view, showing the characteristic outline of
the head and trunk and the paired latero-ventral ocelli.

XIX. Note by WittraM Evans, Esq., F.R.S.E., on a Specimen
of the Red-footed Falcon (Falco vespertinus, L.), ex-
hibited by him at the Meeting of the Society, held
20th February 1889.

Instances of the capture of the Red-footed Falcon in Scot-
land are so rare, that the specimen exhibited is believed to
be but the third on record. It was shot on 21st June 1888,
near Swinside, a few miles from Jedburgh, and taken the
following day to Mr Robert Hope, birdstuffer, there, who kindly
sent it up for exhibition.* It is a male, as was proved by dis-
section, probably just entering its second year. Mr Hope states
that its stomach was filled with the remains of beetles. The
mixture of the plumages of the immature and adult state,
presented by the specimen, is very interesting; and as I
cannot call to mind any figure or description coinciding with
it, I give here the following details :—Upper part of head,
bluish-grey or lead colour, darkest on the cheeks, the shaft
of each feather darker, imparting to the plumage a finely
streaked appearance: back of neck, pale reddish-brown or
ferruginous: sides of neck, chin, and throat, greyish-white :
back, scapulars, middle and lesser wing coverts, and upper

1 Since the specimen was exhibited, it has been acquired by the Edinburgh
Museum of Science and Art.

Mr Evans’s Note on a Specimen of the Red-footed Falcon. 169

tail coverts, bluish-erey, with a few of the barred buff-
coloured feathers of immaturity still showing themselves
here and there: secondaries consisting entirely of worn
feathers of first plumage, pale brown, with darker bars:
primaries, and most of their coverts, well worn, and appar-
ently not moulted, dull bluish-black, the primaries with
large whitish spots on inner webs: rump, clothed mainly
with the pale ferruginous, dark-barred feathers of imma-
turity, intermixed with which are a few of the new slate-
coloured feathers: tail feathers, twelve in number, all, except
second outer on right, and second and third on left, dark
lead-colour, with still darker broad bar near the apex,
and mostly quite new and perfect ; the second on right, and
second and third on left, are those of immaturity, much worn,
dull white, suffused with ferruginous, and crossed with dark
leaden bars: scarcely any of the primaries or rectrices show
the slightest trace of the pale terminal margins seen in the
newly acquired first plumage: breast, belly, and thighs, rich
ferruginous or bay, mixed with pale bluish-grey: under tail
coverts, paler bay: little if any trace of the first plumage
exists on the under parts.

VOL. X.- M

- wllnd: Berri wih) » Whe Woe & (dahveegt bie 1 ft
h gwesletcal: sibvduia Tide ghana Pie
we “Ys rlyzidio,, pt Wvalaghe gertibaoinaes §
Reith lis ath Bip py uelg
: = ARCA hign Ry law ‘ pirevas moi) fis ssw biti
—. Mary. “sietiee See Hinld. datuld ula? Goll ane
. . Theres Dh iCloe ree ‘aay ual 6 cic ie
a pit! lg todas} Svgcenaied ean unels Bitsy: tia hieg
| otgle.waet bith To Rhee RR eit: itive beta

here aon, Lone raat Shay lvad Merit’ lion: erattagl
: Al yt} ilab iG Litrdly hie Greieas. bat Pe 1) i Posh TF
soy Gil fait 2 Daye One) I ie Cite) Meena
hie dileihte ad frereoas au) ; lovty bun Wor SiO ee
. 0 "ie coir eri) j ty web ftol ot Pere ee
Pty! Weir ff % Fj ; ver pocpisiie on ‘
mM ESOT ert Fy} ; i 5 Vind wo! ena ae
: eS ek aT at Deel t ; SH) to aed Seelial
iy ae Ti te 4 NT] Poni ionhy oe
[ ie: (ieee a? slice sae Le oe
Vie Sind iG Gnas srw Ye-s aetna
1p soOng aa
|
oe
_
‘~
. ye
ot wih
oe é om ’ as
220. : eo ~ pay Pes

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

ROYAL PHYSICAL SOCIETY.

SESSION CXIX.

Wednesday, 20th November 1889.—Dr R. H. Traquair, F.R.S.,
President, in the Chair.

Professor J. GEIKIE, LL.D., D.C.L., F.R.S., retiring Vice-
President, delivered the following opening address:

One of the most interesting questions with which geolo-
gical science has to deal is that of the evolution of climate.
Although there is no general agreement as to how former
climatic fluctuations came about, yet the prevalent opinion
is that in the past, just as in the present, the character of
the clmate must have depended mainly on latitude and the
relative position of the great land- and water-areas. This
was the doctrine taught by Lyell, and its cogency none will
venture to dispute. It is true he postulated a total redis-
tribution of oceans and continents—a view which the progress
of science has shown to be untenable. We can no longer
speculate with him on the possibility of all the great land-
areas having been grouped at one time round the equator,
and at some other period about the poles. On the contrary,
the evidence goes to show that the continents have never
changed places with the ocean—that the dominant features
of the earth’s crust are of primeval antiquity, and antedate
the oldest of the fossiliferous formations. The whole ques-

VOIX, N

172 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

tion of climatic changes, therefore, must be reconsidered
from the point of view of the modern doctrine of the per-
manency of continental and oceanic areas.

But before proceeding to this discussion, it may be well
to glance for a moment at the evidence from which it has
been inferred that the climate of the world has varied.
Among the chief proofs of climatic fluctuations are the
nature and distribution of former floras and faunas. It
is true that fossils are, for the most part, relics of extinct
forms, and we cannot assert of any one of these that its
environment must have been the same as that of some
analogous living type. But, although we can base no
argument on individual extinct forms, it does not follow
that we are precluded from judging of the conditions under
which a whole suite of extinct organisms may have lived.
Doubtless, we can only reason from the analogy of the
present ; but, when we take into account all the forms met
with in some particular geological system, we seem justified
in drawing certain conclusions as to the conditions under
which they flourished. Thus, should we encounter in some
ereat series of strata many reef-building corals, associated with
large cephalopods and the remains of tree-ferns and cycads,
which last from their perfect state of preservation could
not have drifted far before they became buried in sediment,
we should surely be entitled to conclude that the strata
in question had been deposited in the waters of a genial
sea, and that the neighbouring land likewise enjoyed a warm
climate. Again, should a certain system, characterised by
the presence of some particular and well-marked flora and
fauna, be encountered not only in sub-tropical and temperate
latitudes but also far within the Arctic Circle, we should
infer that such a flora and fauna lived under climatic
conditions of a very different kind from any that now exist.
The very presence, in the far north, of fossils having such a
geographical distribution, would show that the temperature
of polar seas and lands could not have been less than
temperate. When such broad methods of interpretation
are applied to the problems suggested by former floras and
faunas, we seem compelled to conclude that the conditions

Vice- President's Address. 173

which determined the distribution of life in bygone ages
must have been, upon the whole, more uniform and equable
than they are now. It is unnecessary that I should go
into detailed proof; but I may refer, by way of illustration,
to what is known of the Silurian and Carboniferous fossils
of the Arctic regions. Most of these occur also in the
temperate latitudes of North America and Europe, while
many are recognised as distinctive types of the same strata
nearly all the world over. As showing how strongly the
former broad distribution of life-forms is contrasted with
their present restricted range, Professor Heilprin has cited
the Brachiopoda. Taking existing species and varieties as
being 135 in number, he remarks that “there is scarcely
a single species which can be said to be strictly cosmopolitan
in its range, although not a few are very widely distributed ;
and, if we except boreal and hyperboreal forms, but a very
limited number whose range embraces opposite sides of
the same ocean. On the other hand, if we accept the data
furnished by Richthofen concerning the Chinese Brachiopoda,
we find that out of a total of thirteen Silurian and twenty-
four Devonian species, no less than ten of the former and
sixteen of the latter recur in the equivalent deposits of
Western Europe; and, further, that the Devonian species
furnish eleven, or nearly 50 per cent. of the entire number,
which are cosmopolitan or nearly so. Again, of the twenty-
five Carboniferous species, North America holds fully fifteen,
or 60 per cent., and a very nearly equal number are
cosmopolitan.” The same paleontologist reminds us that
by far the greater number of fossils which occur in the
Paleozoic strata of Australia are present also in regions
lying well within the limits of the north temperate zone.
“Tn fact,’ he continues, “the relationship between this
southern fauna and the faunas of Europe and North America
is so great as to practically amount to identity.”

But, side by side with such evidence of broad distribution,
we are confronted with facts which go to show that, even
at the dawn of Paleozoic times, the oceanic areas at all
events had their more or less distinct life-provinces. While
many of the old forms were cosmopolitan, ethers were

174 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

apparently restricted in their range. It would be strange,
indeed, had it been otherwise; for, however uniform the
climatic conditions may have been, still that uniformity
was only comparative. An absolutely uniform world-climate
is well-nigh inconceivable. All we can maintain is that
the conditions during certain prolonged periods were so
equable as to allow of the general diffusion of species over
vastly greater areas than now; and that such conditions
extended from low latitudes up to polar regions. Now,
among the chief factors which in our day determine the
limitation of faunas and floras, we must reckon latitude
and the geographical position of land and water. What,
then, it may be asked, were the causes which allowed of the
much broader distribution of species in former ages ?

It is obvious that before a completely satisfactory answer
to that question can be given, our knowledge of past
geographical conditions must be considerably increased. If
we could prepare approximately correct maps and charts
to indicate the position of land and sea during the formation
of the several fossiliferous systems, we should be able
to reason with some confidence on the subject of climate.
But, unfortunately, the preparation of such correct maps
and charts is ‘impossible. The data for compilations of
the kind required are still inadequate, and it may well
be doubted whether, in the case of the older systems, we
shall ever be able to arrive at any detailed knowledge of
their geographical conditions. Nevertheless, the geological
structure of the earth’s crust has been so far unravelled
as to allow us to form certain general conceptions of the
conditions that must have attended the evolution of our
continents. And it is with such general conceptions only
that I have at present to deal.

I said a little ago that the question of geological climates
must now be considered from the point of view of the
permanency of the great dominant features of the earth’s
crust. I need not recapitulate the evidence upon which
Dana and his followers have based this doctrine of the
primeval antiquity of our continental and oceanic areas.
It is enough if I remind you that by continental areas

Vice-President's Address. iS

we simply mean certain extensive regions in which elevation
has, upon the whole, been in excess of depression; by
oceanic area, on the other hand, is meant that vast region
throughout which depression has exceeded elevation. Thus,
while the area of permanent or preponderating depression
has, from the earliest geological times, been occupied by
the ocean, the continental areas have been again and again
invaded by the sea—and even now extensive portions are
under water. It is not only the continental dry land,
therefore, but all the bordering belt of sea-floor which does
not exceed 1000 fathoms or so in depth, that must be
included in the region of dominant elevation. Were the
whole of this region to be raised above the level of the sea,
the present continents would become connected so as to
form one vast land-mass, or continental plateau.

All the sedimentary strata with which we are acquainted
have been accumulated over the surface of that great plateau,
and consequently are of comparatively shallow-water origin.
They show us, in fact, that at no time in geological history
has that plateau ever been drowned in depths at all com-
parable to those of the deeper portions of our oceanic
troughs. The stratified rocks teach us, moreover, that the
present land-areas have been gradually evolved, and that,
notwithstanding many oscillations of level, these areas have
continued to increase in extent—so that there is probably
more land-surface now than at any previous era in the
history of our globe. To give even a meagre outline of
the evidence bearing upon this interesting subject is here
impossible. All that I can do is to indicate very briefly
some of the general results to which that evidence seems
to lead.

The oldest rocks with which we are acquainted are the
so-called Archeean schists.' But these have hitherto yielded
no unequivocal traces of organic life, and as their origin
is still doubtful, it would obviously be futile to speculate
upon the geographical conditions of the earth’s surface

1] need hardly remind geologists that some of the so-called ‘‘ Archean

schists” may really be the highly altered accumulations of later geological
periods,

176 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

at the time of their formation. Reliable geological history
only begins with the fossiliferous strata of the Palzeozoic era.
From these we learn that in the European area the Archean
rocks of Britain, Scandinavia, and Finland formed, at that
time, the most extensive tract of dry land in our part of the
world. How far beyond the present limits of Europe that
ancient northern land extended, we cannot tell; but it
probably occupied considerable regions which are now
submerged in the waters of the Arctic Ocean. | Further
south, the continental plateau appears to have been, for
the most part, overflowed by a shallow sea, the surface of
which was dotted by a few islands of Archean rocks, occupy-
ing the sites of what are now some of the hills of Middle
Germany and the Archean districts of France and the
Iberian Peninsula. Archean rocks occur likewise in Corsica
and Sardinia, and again in Turkey, and they also form the
nuclei of most of the great European mountain-chains, as the
Pyrenees, the Alps, the Carpathians, and the Urals. These
areas of crystalline schists may not, it is true, have existed
as islands at the beginning of Paleozoic times, for they were
doubtless ridged up by successive elevations at later dates ;
but their very presence as mountain-nuclei is sufficient to
show that at a very early geological period, the continental
plateau could not have been covered by any great depth
of sea. We can go further than this,—for all the evidence
points to the conclusion that, even so far back as Cambrian
times, the dominant features of the present JTuropean
continent had been, as it were, sketched out. Looked at
broadly, that part of the great continental plateau upon
which our European lands have been gradually built up
may be said to be traversed from west to east by two wide
depressions, separated by an intervening elevated tract.
The former of these depressions corresponds to the great
Central Plain which passes through the south of England,
north-east of France, and the Low Countries, whence it
sweeps through Germany, to expand into the extensive low
erounds of central and northern Russia. The southern
depression embraces the maritime tracts of the Mediterranean,
and the regions which that sea covers. To these dominant

Vice-President's Address. ia?’

features all others are of subordinate importance. The two
great troughs are belts of depression in the continental
plateau itself. The northern one is of extreme antiquity—
it is older, at all events, than the Cambro-Silurian period.
Even at that distant date, its southern limits were marked
out by ridges of Archwan rock, which, as I have said, seem
to have formed islands in what is now Central Europe.
It was probably always the shallower depression of the
two, for we have evidence to show that again and again,
in Mesozoic and later times, the sea that overflowed what
are now the central lowlands of Europe, was of less con-
siderable depth than that which occupied the Mediterranean
trough.

If we turn to North America, we find similar reason to
conclude with Professor Dana that the general topography of
that region had likewise been foreshadowed as far back as the
beginning of the Paleozoic era. Dana tells us that even then
the formation of its chief mountain-chains had been com-
menced, and its great intermediate basins were already defined.
The oldest lands of North America were built up, as in
Europe, of Azoic rocks, and were grouped chiefly in the north.
Archzan masses extend over an enormous region, from the
shores of the Arctic Ocean down to the great lake country,
and they are seen likewise in Greenland and many of the
Arctic islands. They appear also in the long mountain-
chains that run parallel with the coast-lines of the continent.
In a word, the present distribution of the Archean rocks, and
their relation to the overlying strata, leads to the belief
that in North America, just as in Europe, they form the
foundation-stones of that continent, and stretch continuously
throughout its whole extent.

We know comparatively little of the geology of the other
oreat land-masses of the globe, but from such evidence as we
have, there is reason to believe that these in their general
structure have much the same story to tell as Europe and
North America. In South America, Archean rocks extend
over vast areas in the east and north-east, and reappear in
the lofty mountain-chains of the Pacific border. They have
been recognised also in various parts of Africa, alike in the

178 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

north and east, in the interior, and in the west and south.
In Asia, again, they occupy wide areas in the Indian
Peninsula ; they are well developed in the Himalaya, while
in China and the mountains and plateaux of Central Asia,
azoic rocks, which are probably of Archean age, are well
developed. The crystalline schists, which cover extensive
tracts in Australia and in the northern island of New Zealand,
have also been referred to the same age. Thus all the world
over, Archean rocks seem to form the surface of the ancient
continental plateau upon which all other sedimentary strata
have been accumulated. And in every region where Palzeozoic
rocks occur, we have evidence to prove that at the time these
last were formed vast areas of the old continental plateau
were under water.

The geological structure of the Paleozoic tracts of Europe
and America has shown us that, during the protracted period
of their accumulation, and notwithstanding many oscillations
of level, the land-surface continued to increase. The same
growth of dry land characterised Mesozoic and Cainozoic
times,—the primeval depressions that traverse the con-
tinental plateau, became more and more silted up, and the
sea eventually disappeared from extensive regions which it
had overflowed in Paleozoic ages. This land-growth, of
course, was not everywhere continuous. Again and again,
throughout wide tracts, depression was in excess of sedi-
mentation and elevation. Even at the present time, broad
tracts of what was once dry land are submerged. But the
simple fact that the younger fossiliferous. strata do not
extend over such wide areas as the older systems, is suffi-
cient proof that our land-masses have all along tended to
erow, and to become more and more consolidated.

Reference has already been made to the remarkable fact
that no abysmal accumulations have yet been detected
amongst the stratified rocks of the earth’s crust. Ordinary
clastic rocks, such as shale, sandstone, and conglomerate—
altered or unaltered, as the case may be—form by far the
largest proportion of our aqueous strata, and speak to us
only of shallow waters. It is true that some of our lime-
stones must have accumulated in moderately deep clear seas,

Vice-President’s Address. 179

yet none of these limestones is of abysmal origin. They
prove that portions of the continental plateau have now and
again been submerged for several thousand feet, but afford
no evidence of depths comparable to those of the present
oceanic basins. The enormous thickness attained by the
sedimentary strata can only be explained on the supposition
that’ deposition took place over a gradually sinking area.
And thus it can be shown that, within the continental
plateau, movements of depression have been carried on more
or less continuously during vast periods of time—and yet so
cradually, that sedimentation was able to keep pace with
them. Take, for example, the Cambrian strata of Wales and
Shropshire—all, apparently, shallow water deposits—which
attain a thickness of 30,000 feet, or thereabout; or the
Silurian strata of the same regions, which are not much less
than 20,000 feet thick; and similar great depths of sedi-
mentary rocks might be cited from North America. Passing
on to later periods, we find like evidence of long-continued
depression in the thick sediments of the younger Paleozoic
systems. It is noteworthy, however, that when we come
down to still later ages, the movements of depression, as
measured by the depths of the strata, appear to have become
less and less extersive and profound. Each such movement
of depression was eventually brought to a close by one or
more movements of upheaval—slowly or more rapidly
effected, as the case may have been. Here, then, we are
confronted with the striking fact that the continental plateau
has, from time to time, sunk down over wide areas to depths
exceeding those of existing oceans, and yet at so slow a rate,
that sedimentation prevented the depressed regions from
becoming abysmal. It is obvious, then, that such areas are
now dry land simply because, in the long run, sedimentation
and upheaval have been in excess of depression.

And yet, notwithstanding the numerous upheavals which
have taken place over the continental plateau, these have
succeeded in doing little more than drain away the sea more
or less completely from the great primeval depressions by
which that plateau is traversed. If it be true, therefore, that
the continental plateau owes its existence to the sinking

180 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socvety.

down of the earth’s crust within the oceanic basins—if the
continents have been squeezed up by the tangential thrusts
exerted by the sinking areas that surround them—then it
follows that while lands have been gradually extending over
the continental plateau, the bed of the ocean has been
sinking to greater and greater depths.

If this general conclusion holds good, it is obvious that the
oceanic troughs of early geological times could not have been
so deep as they are now. During the Paleozoic period, the
most continuous areas of dry land, as we have seen, were
distributed over the northern parts of our hemisphere, while,
further south, groups of islands indicated the continuation of
the continental plateau. Doubtless South America, Africa,
Asia, and Australia were, at that distant date, represented by
similar detached areas of dry land. In a word, the primeval
continental plateau was still largely under water. Judging
from the character and broad distribution of the Paleozoic
marine faunas, the temperature of the sea was wonderfully
uniform. There is certainly nothing to indicate the existence
of such climatic zones as those of the present. We know
very little of the terrestrial life of early Paleozoic times—
the Cambro-Silurian strata are essentially marine. Land-
plants, however, become more numerous in the Old Red
Sandstone, and, as every one knows, they abound in the
succeeding Carboniferous and Permian systems. And the
testimony of these floras, points to the same conclusion as
that furnished by the marine faunas. The Carboniferous
floras of the Arctic regions, and of temperate Europe and
America, not only have the same facies, but a considerable
number of the species are common to both areas; while
many European species occur in the Carboniferous strata of
Australia and other distant lands. This common facies, and
the presence of numerous cosmopolitan forms, surely indicate
the former prevalence of remarkably uniform climatic con-
ditions. The conditions, of course, need not—aindeed, could
not—have been absolutely uniform. At present the various
climates which our globe experiences depend upon the
amount of heat received directly and indirectly from the
sun—oceanic and aerial currents everywhere modifying the

Vice-President's Address. 181

results that are due to latitude. It cannot have been
otherwise in former times. In all ages the tropics must
have received more direct sun heat than temperate and
Polar regions: and however much the climatic conditions of
the Paleozoic era may have differed from the present—
however uniformly temperature may have been distributed—
still, as I have said, absolute uniformity was impossible. It
was doubtless owing to the fact that the dry lands of
Paleozoic times were not only much less extensive than
now, but more interrupted, straggling, and insular, that the
climate of the globe was so equable. Under such geo-
sraphical conditions, great oceanic currents would have a
much freer course than is now possible, and warm water
would find its way readily across wide regions of the sub-
merged continental plateau into the highest latitudes. The
winds blowing athwart the land would everywhere be moist
and warm, and no such marked differences of temperature,
such as now obtain, would distinguish the Arctic seas from
those of much lower latitudes. At the same time, the
comparatively shallow water overlying the submerged areas
of the continental plateau would favour the distribution of
species, and thus bring about that wide distribution of
cosmopolitan forms and general similarity of facies, which
are such marked features of the Paleozoic faunas. It is
even quite possible that migration may have taken place
here and there across the great oceanic depression itself; for
it may well be doubted whether, at so early a period, that
depression had sunk down to its present depth below the
level of the continental plateau.

Yet, notwithstanding such facilities for migration, and the
consequent similarity of facies I have referred to, the
Paleozoic faunas of different regions have usually certain
distinctive characters. Even at the very dawn of the era
the marine faunas were already grouped into provinces,
sometimes widely separated from one another, at other
times closely adjacent, so that it is evident that barriers
to migration here and there existed. It could hardly have
been otherwise ; for local and more widely-spread movements
of elevation and depression took place again and again
during Paleozoic times.

182 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

While the younger Paleozoic systems were being ac-
cumulated, excess of upheaval over depression resulted in
the gradual increase of the land. The continental plateau
came more and more to the surface, in spite of many
oscillations of level. It is quite possible, nay, even pro-
bable that this persistent growth of land, and consequent
modification of oceanic currents, may have rendered the
climatic conditions of later Paleozoic times less uniform;
but, if so, such diminished uniformity has left no recognisable
impress on either faunas or floras. For fossils characteristic
of the Devonian and Carboniferous strata of temperate
latitudes occur far within the Arctic Circle.

Descending to the Mesozoic era, we find that the character
and distribution of marine faunas are still indicative of
uniformity. There could have been little difference of
temperature at that time between Arctic seas and those
of our own latitude. Cosmopolitan species abounded in the
Jurassic waters, but were relatively less numerous in those
of the Cretaceous period. Professor Neumayr maintains
that already, in the Jurassic period, the climate had become.
differentiated into zones. This, he thinks, is indicated by
the fact that coral reefs abound in the Jurassic strata of
Central Europe, while they are wanting in the con-
temporaneous deposits of boreal regions. Dr Heilprin, on
the other hand, is of opinion that this and certain other
distinctive features of separate Jurassic life-provinces may
not have been due to differences of temperature, but rather
to varying physical conditions, such as character of the
sea-bottom, depth of water, and so forth. Perhaps the safest
conclusion we can come to, in the present state of the
evidence, is that the climatic conditions of the Mesozoic
era were, upon the whole, less obviously uniform than
those of earlier ages, but that marked zones of climate
like the present had not as yet been evolved. At the same
time, when we consider how many great geographical revolu-
tions took place during the period in question, we must be
prepared to admit that these could hardly fail to have
influenced the climate, and thus to have induced modifica-
tions in the distribution of faunas and floras. And probably

Vice-President’s Address. 183

evidence of such modifications will yet be recognised, if
indeed the phenomena referred to by Neumayr be not a case
in point. It may be noted, further, that while, according to
many botanists, the plants of the Paleeozoic periods bespeak not
only uniform climatic conditions but the absence of marked
seasonal changes, those of late Mesozoic times are indicative
of less uniformity. The Cretaceous conifers, for example,
show regular rings of growth, and betoken the existence of
seasons, which were much less marked, however, than is
now the case.

The geographical changes of Mesozoic times were notable
in many respects. The dominant features of Europe,
already foreshadowed in early Paleozoic times, had become
more clearly outlined before the close of the Cretaceous
period. Notwithstanding many movements of depression,
the chief land-areas continued to show themselves in the
north and north-west. The highest grounds were the Urals,
and the uplands of Scandinavia and Britain. In Middle
Europe the Pyrenees and the Alps were as yet incon-
siderable heights, the loftiest lands in that region being
those of the Harz, the Riesengebirge, and other tracts of
Archean and Paleozoic rocks. The lower parts of England
and the great lowland plains of Central Europe were some-
times submerged in the waters of a wide, shallow sea, but
ever and anon elevation ensued, new lands appeared, and
these waters became divided into a series of large inland
seas and lakes. In the south, a deep Mediterranean sea
would appear to have persisted all through the Mesozoic
era—a sea of considerably greater extent, however, than
the present.

While in Europe the dominant features of the continental
plateau run approximately west and east, in North America
they follow nearly the opposite direction. In early Mesozoic
times, vast tracts of dry land extended across the northern
and eastern sections of the latter area. Over the Rocky
Mountain region, low lands and saline lakes appear to have
stretched, while further west the area of the Great Plateau
and the Pacific slope were covered by the sea. Towards the
end of the Mesozoic era, the land in the far west became

184 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

more continuous—a broad belt extending in the direction of
the Pacific coast-lne from Mexico up to high northern
latitudes. In short, before the Cretaceous period closed, the
major portion of North America had been evolved. A
considerable tract of what is now the western margin of the
continent, however, was still under water, while from the
Gulf of Mexico (then much wider than now) a broad
Mediterranean Sea swept north and north-west through
Texas and the Rocky Mountain region to communicate with
the Arctic Ocean. All to the east of this inland sea was
then, as it is now, dry land. Thus, up to the close of the
Cretaceous period, in America and Europe alike, oceanic
currents coming from the south had ready access across the
primeval continental plateau to the higher latitudes. Southern
Europe, indeed, during Mesozoic times, was simply a great
archipelago, having free communication on the one hand
across the low grounds of Central and Northern Russia with
the Arctic Seas, and, on the other, across vast regions in
Asia with the Indian Ocean.

Of the other great land-masses of the globe our knowledge
is too limited to allow us to trace their geographical evolution
with any confidence. But, from the very wide distribution
of Mesozoic strata in South America, Africa, Asia, and
Australia, there can be no doubt that, at the time of their
accumulation, enormous tracts in those regions were then
under water. The land-masses, in short, were not so con-
tinuous and compact as they are at present. And although
we must infer that considerable areas of Mesozoic land are
now submerged, yet these cannot but bear a very small
proportion to the wide regions which have been raised above
the sea-level since Mesozoic times. In short, from what we
do know of the geological structure of the continents in
question, we can hardly doubt that they have passed through
geographical revolutions of a like kind with those of Europe
and North America. Everywhere over the great continental
plateau elevation appears, in the long run, to have been in
excess of depression, so that, in spite of many subsidences,
the tendency of the land throughout the world has been to
extend its margins, and to become more and more con-

Vice-President’s Address. 185

solidated. The Mesozoic lands were larger than those of the
preceding Paleozoic era, but they were still penetrated in
many places by the sea, and warm currents could make their
way over wide tracts that are now raised above the sea-level.
Under such circumstances, approximately uniform conditions
of climate could not but obtain.

Great geographical changes supervened upon the close of
the Cretaceous period. North America then acquired nearly
its present outline. Its Mediterranean sea had vanished, but
the Gulf of Mexico still overflowed a considerably wider
region than now, while a narrow margin of the Pacific border
of the continent continued submerged. In Europe elevation
ensued, and the sea which had overspread so much of the
central and eastern portions of our continent disappeared.
Southern Europe, however, was still largely under water,
while bays and inlets extended northwards into what are
now the central regions of the continent. On to the close
of the Miocene period, indeed, the southern and south-
eastern tracts of Europe were represented by straggling
islands. In middle Cainozoic times, the Alps, which had
hitherto been of small importance, were considerably upheaved,
as were also the Pyrenees and the Carpathians; and a
subsequent great elevation of the Alpine area was effected
after the Miocene period. Notwithstanding these gigantic
movements, the low-lying tracts of what is now Southern
Europe continued to be largely submerged, and even the
central regions of the Continent were now and again occupied
by broad lakes, which sometimes communicated with the
sea. After the elevation of the Miocene strata, these inland
seas disappeared, but the Mediterranean still overflowed
wider areas than it does to-day. Eventually, however, in late
Pliocene times, the bed of that sea experienced considerable
elevation; and it was probably at or about this stage that
the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov retreated from the broad
low grounds of Southern Russia, and that the inland seas and
lakes of Austria-Hungary finally vanished.

The movements of upheaval, which caused the Cretaceous
seas to disappear from such broad areas of the continental
plateau, induced many changes in the floras and faunas of

186 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

the globe. A notable break in the succession occurs between
the Cretaceous and the Eocene, hardly one species of higher
erade than the protozoa passing from one system to the other.
In the Cainozoic deposits, we are no longer confronted with
numerous cosmopolitan species—the range of marine forms
has become much more restricted. Nevertheless, the faunas
and floras continue to be indicative of much warmer climates
for Arctic and temperate latitudes than now obtain. But, at
the same time, differentiation of climate into zones is distinctly
marked. In the early Cainozoic period, our present temperate
latitudes supported a flora of decidedly tropical affinities,
while the fauna of the adjacent seas had a similar character.
Later on the climate of the same latitudes appears to have
passed successively through sub-tropical and temperate stages.
In short, a gradual lowering of the temperature is evinced by
the character and distribution both of floras and faunas.
The differentiation of the climate during one stage of the
Cainozoic era is well illustrated by the Miocene flora. Thus,
at a time when Italy was clothed with a tropical vegetation,
in which palm-trees predominated, Middle Europe had its
extensive forests of evergreens and conifers, while in the
region of the Baltic, conifers and deciduous trees were the
prevalent forms.

When one takes into consideration the fact that, notwith-
standing many oscillations of level, the land during Cainozoic
times was gradually extending, and the sea disappearing
from wide regions which it had formerly covered, one can
hardly doubt that the seemingly gradual change from tropical
to temperate conditions was due, in large measure, to that
persistent continental growth. I confess, however, that it is
difficult to account for the very genial climate which continued
to prevail over the Arctic regions. So far as one can gather
from the evidence at present available, some of the marine
approaches to those latitudes had been cut off by the move-
ments of elevation which brought the Cainozoic era to a
close, while the Arctic lands were perhaps more extensive
than they are now. The Cretaceous Mediterranean of North
America had vanished, and we cannot prove that the
Tertiary Sea of Southern Europe communicated across the

Vice-President’s Address. 187

low grounds of Russia with the Arctic Ocean. We know,
however, that the Archipelago of Southern Europe was in
direct connection with the Indian Ocean, and it is most
probable that a wide arm of the same sea stretched north
from the Aralo-Caspian area through Siberia. Indeed, much
of what are now the lowlands of western and northern Asia
were probably sea in Tertiary times. It seems likely, there-
fore, that, even at this late period, marine currents continued
to reach the Arctic zone, across the continental plateau.
When the warm waters of the Indian Ocean eventually
ceased to invade Europe, and the Mediterranean became
much restricted in area, the climate of the whole continent
could not fail to be profoundly affected.

There is yet another line of evidence to which brief
reference may be made. I have spoken of the remarkable
uniformity of climatic conditions which obtained in Paleozoic
times, and the gradual modification of those conditions
which subsequently supervened. Now, it is worthy of note
that, in their lithological characters, the oldest sedimentary
strata themselves likewise exhibit a prevalent uniformity
which, in later systems, becomes less and less conspicuous.
The Cambro-Silurian mechanical sediments, for example,
maintain much the same character all the world over; and
the like is true, although in a less degree, of the marine
accumulations of the Devonian period. The corresponding
mechanical deposits of later Palzeozoic ages continue to show
more and more diversity, but at the same time they preserve
a similarity of character over much more extensive areas
than is found to be the case with the analogous sediments
of the Mesozoic era. Finally, these last are more or less
strongly contrasted with the marine mechanical accumu-
lations of Cainozoic times, which are altogether more local
in character. This increasing differentiation is quite in
keeping with what we know of the evolution of our land-
areas. In early Paleozoic ages, when insular conditions
prevailed and the major portion of the primeval continental
plateau was covered by shallow seas, it is obvious that
mechanical sediments would be swept by tidal and other
currents over enormous areas, and that these sediments

VOL. X, O

188 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

would necessarily assume a more or less uniform character.
Indeed, I suspect that much of the sediment of these early
seas may have been the result of tidal scour, and that
marine erosion was more generally effective than it is now.
With the gradual growth of the land and the consequent
deflection and limitation of current-action marine mechanical
sediments would tend to become more and more local in
character. Thus the increasing differentiation which we
observe in passing from the earlier to the later geological
systems is Just what might have been expected.

Summing up, now, the results of this rapid review of
the evidence, we seem justified in coming to the following
conclusions :—

1st. In Paleozoic times, Europe and North America were
represented by considerable areas of dry land, massed chiefly
in the higher latitudes, while further south groups of smaller
islands were scattered over the submerged surface of the
primeval continental plateau. The other continents appear,
in like manner, to have been represented by islands—some
of which may have reached continental dimensions. A very
remarkable uniformity of climate accompanied these peculiar
geographical conditions.

2d. In Mesozoic times, the primeval continental plateau
came more and more to the surface, but the land-areas were
still much interrupted, so that currents from tropical regions
continued to have ready access to high latitudes. The
climate of the whole globe, therefore, was still uniform, but
apparently not so markedly so as in the preceding era.

5d. In Cainozoic times, the land-masses continued to
extend and the sea to retreat from hitherto submerged areas
of the continental plateau; and this persistent land-growth
was accompanied by a gradual lowering of the temperature
of northern and temperate latitudes, and a more and more
marked differentiation of climate into zones.

Having thus very briefly sketched the geographical evolu-
tion of the land during Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Tertiary
times, and come to the general conclusion that climate has
varied according to the relative position of land and
sea, I have next to consider the geographical and climatic

Vice-President’s Address. 189

conditions of the Quaternary period. These, however, are
now so well known, that I need do no more than remind you
that, so far as the chief features of our lands are considered,
all these had come into existence before the dawn of the Ice
Age. The greater contours of the surface, which were fore-
shadowed in Paleozoic times, and which in Mesozoic times
were more clearly indicated, had been fully evolved by the
close of the Pliocene period. The connection between the
Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean probably ceased in late
Pliocene times. The most remarkable geographical changes —
which have taken place since then within European regions
have been successive elevations and depressions, in conse-
quence of which the area of our continent has been alternately
increased and diminished. At a time well within the human
period, our own islands have been united to themselves and
the continent, and the dry land has extended north-west and
north, so as to include Spitzbergen, the Faroe Islands, and
perhaps Iceland. On the other hand, our islands have been
within a recent period largely submerged. Similarly, in
North America, we are furnished with many proofs of like
oscillations of level having taken place in Quaternary times.
Is it possible, then, to explain the climatic vicissitudes of the
Pleistocene period by means of such oscillations? Many
geologists have tried to do so, but all these attempts have
failed. It is quite true that a general elevation of the land
in high latitudes would greatly increase the ice-fields of Arctic
regions, and might even give rise to perennial snow and
glaciers in the mountain-districts of our islands. But it is
inconceivable that any such geographical change could have
brought about that general lowering of temperature over the
whole northern hemisphere which took place in Pleistocene
times. For we have to account not only for the excessive
glaciation of northern and north-western Europe, and of the
northern parts of North America, but for the appearance of
snow-fields and glaciers in much more southern latitudes,
and in many parts of Asia where no perennial snow now
exists. Moreover, we have to remember that Arctic condi-
tions of climate obtained in north-western Europe even when
the land was relatively much lower than it is at present.

190 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

The Arctic shell-beds of our own and other temperate regions
sufficiently prove that geographical conditions were not the
only factor concerned in bringing about the peculiar climate
of the Pleistocene period. Then, again, we must not forget
that at certain stages of the same period genial conditions of
climate were coincident with a much wider land-surface in
north-western Europe than now exists. The very fact that
interglacial deposits occur in every glaciated region is enough
of itself to show that the Arctic conditions of the Pleistocene
could not have resulted entirely from a mere elevation of
land in the northern parts of our hemisphere.

The only explanation of the peculiar climatic vicissitudes
in question which seems to meet the facts, so far as these
have been ascertained, is the well-known theory advanced by
Dr Croll. After carefully considering all the objections
which have been urged against that theory, there is only one,
as it seems to me, that is deserving of serious attention. This
objection is not based on any facts connected with the
Pleistocene deposits themselves, but on evidence of quite
another kind. It is admitted that, were the Pleistocene
deposits alone considered, Croll’s theory would fully account
for the phenomena. But, it is argued, we cannot take the
Pleistocene by itself, for if that theory be true, then climatic
conditions similar to those of the Pleistocene must have
supervened again and again during the past. Where, then,
we are asked, is there any evidence in Paleozoic, Mesozoic,
or Cainozoic strata of former wide-spread glacial conditions ?
If continental ice-sheets, comparable to those of the Pleisto-
cene, ever existed in the earlier ages, surely we ought to find
more or less unmistakable traces of them. Now, at first sight,
this looks a very plausible objection, but it has always seemed
to me to be based upon an assumption that is not warranted
by our knowledge of geographical evolution. Dr Croll would
be the first to admit that high eccentricity of the earth’s orbit
might have happened again and again without inducing
elacial conditions like those of the Pleistocene. The objection
takes no account of the fact that the excessive climate of the
slacial period was only possible because of special geographical
conditions—conditions that do not appear to have been fully

Vice-President's Address. 191

evolved before Pliocene times. No one has seen this more
clearly than Mr Wallace,! with the general drift of whose
argument I am quite at one. In earlier ages, the warm water
of the tropics overflowed wide areas of our present continents
—most of the dry land was more or less insular, and the seas
within the Arctic Circle were certainly not cold as at present,
but temperate and even genial. If we go back to Cambro-
Silurian times, we find only the nuclei, as it were, of our
existing continents appearing above the surface of wide-
spread shallow seas. It is quite impossible, therefore, that
under such geographical conditions, great continuous ice-
sheets, like those of the Pleistocene, could have existed—no
matter how high the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit may
have been. The most that could have happened during such
a period of eccentricity, would be the accumulation of snow-
fields on mountains and plateaux of sufficient height, the
formation here and there of local glaciers, and the descent of
these in some places to the sea. And what evidence of such
local glaciation might we now expect to find? No old land
surface of that far-distant period has come down to us: we
look in vain for Cambro-Silurian roches moutonnées and boulder-
clay or moraines. The only evidence we could expect is just
that which actually occurs, namely, erratics (some of them
measuring five feet and more in diameter) embedded in
marine deposits. It may be said that a few erratics are
hardly sufficient to prove that a true glacial period super-
vened in Cambro-Silurian times, and I do not insist that they
are. But I certainly maintain that if any lowering of the
temperature were induced by high eccentricity of the earth’s
orbit during Cambro-Silurian times, then ice-floated erratics
are the only evidence of refrigeration that we need ever hope
to find. The geographical conditions of early Paleozoic times
forbade the formation of enormous ice-sheets like those of the
Pleistocene period. Extreme climatic changes were then
impossible, and periods of high eccentricity might have come
and gone without inducing any modifications of flora and
fauna which we could now recognise. We are practically
ignorant of the terrestrial life of the globe at that distant
1 See Zsland Life.

192 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

period, and our knowledge of the marine fauna is not suffi-
cient to enable us to deny the possibility of moderate
fluctuations in the temperature of the seas of early Paleozoic
times. Moreover, we must not forget that there were then no
such barriers to migration as now exist. If the conditions
became temporarily unsuitable, marine organisms were free to
migrate into more genial waters and to return to their former
habitats when the unfavourable conditions had passed away.

The uniform climate so characteristic of the Cambro-Silurian
period appears to have prevailed likewise during the later
stages of the Paleozoic era. This we gather from a general
consideration of the floras and faunas and their geographical
distribution. The dry land, as we have seen, continued to
increase in extent; but vast areas of the primeval con-
tinental plateau of the globe still continued under water,
and currents from southern latitudes flowed unrestricted
into Polar regions. During the protracted lapse of time
required for the formation of the later Paleozoic systems,
several periods of high eccentricity must have occurred.
But, so far as one can judge, the disposition of the larger
land-areas was never such as to induce a true Ice Age.
Nevertheless, we are not without evidence of ice-action in
Old Red Sandstone, Carboniferous, and Permian strata.
And it seems to me probable that the erratic accumulations
referred to may really indicate local glacial action, of more
or less intensity, brought about by such lowering of the
temperature as would supervene during a period of high
eccentricity. It is true we may explain the phenomena by
inferring the existence of mountains of sufficient elevation—
and this, indeed, is the usual explanation. But it is
doubtful whether those who adopt that view have fully
considered what it involves. Take, for example, the case of
the breccias and conglomerates of the Lammermuir Hills,
which have all the appearance of being glacial and fluvio-
glacial detritus. These deposits overlie the highly denuded
Silurian greywackés of Haddingtonshire in the north and
of Berwickshire in the south, and have evidently been
derived from the intervening high grounds—the width of
which between the Old Red Sandstone accumulations in

Vice-President’s Address. 193

question does not exceed eight or nine miles. The breccias
reach a height of 1300 feet, while the dominating point of
the intervening uplands is 1700 feet. Under present geo-
graphical conditions it is doubtful whether perennial snow
and glaciers of any size at all could exist in the region of
the Lammermuirs at a less altitude than 7000 feet or more,
But between the breccias of Haddingtonshire and the
equivalent deposits in Berwickshire there is no space for any
intermediate range of mountains of circumdenudation of
such a height. Moreover, we must remember that under the
extremely uniform conditions which obtained in Paleozoic
times the snow-line could not possibly have been attained
even at that elevation. When the Devonian coral-reefs
described by Dupont were growing in the sea that over-
flowed Western Europe, to what height must the southern
uplands of Scotland have been elevated in order to reach the
snow-line! We may make what allowance we choose for
the denudation which the Silurian rocks of the Lammermuirs
must have experienced since the deposition of the Old Red
Sandstone, but it is simply a physical impossibility that
mountains of circumdenudation of the desiderated height
could ever have existed in the Lammermuir region at the
time the coarse breccias were being accumulated. It seems
to me, then, that these breccias are in every way better
accounted for by a lowering of temperature due to increased
eccentricity of the orbit. This view frees us from the
necessity of postulating excessive upheavals over very
restricted areas, and of creating Alps where no Alps could
have existed.

When we consider the enormous thickness of the strata
that constitute any of our larger coal-fields, we can hardly
doubt that one or more periods of high eccentricity must
have occurred during their accumulation. It does not
follow, however, that we should be able to detect in these

1 It may be objected that the conglomerates were probably not marine, but
deposited in lakes, the beds of which may have been much above sea-level.
But from all that we know of the Old Red Sandstone of Scotland, it would
appear that the lakes of the period now and again communicated with the
sea, and were probably never much above its level.

194 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

strata any evidence of alternating cold and warm epochs.
So long as ocean-currents from the tropics found ready
entrance to polar regions across vast tracts of what is now
dry land, extreme and wide-spread glacial conditions were
impossible. Any lowering of temperature due to cosmical
causes might indeed induce new snow-fields and glaciers to
appear or existing ones to extend themselves in northern
regions and the most elevated lands of lower latitudes. But
such local glaciation need not have seriously affected any of
the areas in which coal-seams were being formed. For
nothing appears more certain than this, that our coal-
seams as a rule were formed over broad, low-lying, alluvial
lands, and in swamps and marshes, along the margins of
estuaries or shallow bays of the sea. Some seams, it is true,
are evidently formed of drifted vegetable débris, but the
majority point to growth in situ. The strata with which
they are associated are shallow-water sediments which
could only have been deposited at some considerable
distance from any mountain-regions in which glaciers were
likely to exist. It is idle, therefore, to ask for evidence of
glacial action amongst strata formed under such conditions.
The only evidence of ice-work we are likely to get is that of
erratics. And these are not wanting, although it is pro-
bable that most of those which are found embedded in coals
have been transported by rafts of vegetable matter or in the
roots of trees. The same explanation, however, will not
account for the boulders which Sir William Dawson has
recorded from the coal-fields of Nova Scotia. He describes
them as occurring on the outside of a gigantic esker of
Carboniferous age, and thinks they were probably dropped
there by floating ice at a time when coal-plants were
flourishing in the swamps on the other side of the gravel
embankment.

If the disposition of the land-areas in Carboniferous times
rendered such an ice age as that of the Pleistocene impos-
sible—in other words, if the effects flowing from high
eccentricity of the orbit must to a large extent have been
neutralised—the flora and fauna of the period can hardly be
expected to yield any recognisable evidence of fluctuating

Vice-President’s Addvress. 195

climatic conditions. When our winter happened in aphelion
new snow-fields might have appeared, or already existing
glaciers might have increased in size; while, with the winter
in perihelion, the temperature of northern latitudes would
doubtless be raised. But the general result would simply be
an alternation of warm and somewhat cooler conditions.
And such fluctuations of climate might readily have taken
place without materially modifying the life of the period.

The breccias of the Permian system have been described
by Ramsay as of glacial origin. Some geologists agree with
him, while others do not—and many have been the ingenious
suggestions which these last have advanced in explanation
of the phenomena. Some have tried to show how the stones
and blocks in the breccias may have been striated without
having recourse to the agency of glacier ice, but they cannot
explain away the fact that many of the stones (which vary
in size from a few inches to three or four feet in diameter)
have travelled distances of thirty or forty miles from the
parent rocks. Similar erratic accumulations, which may
belong to the same system or to the Carboniferous, occur in
India and Australia. According to Dr Blanford, the Indian
boulder-beds are clearly indicative of ice-action, and he does
not think that they can be explained by an assumed former
elevation of the Himalaya. On the contrary he is of opinion
that the facts are best accounted for by a general lowering
of the temperature, due probably to the action of cosmical
causes. Daintree, Wilkinson, R. Oldham, and others who
have studied the Australian erratic beds, have likewise stated
their belief that these are of true glacial origin.

I may pass rapidly over the Mesozoic systems, taking
note, however, of the fact that in them we encounter
evidence of ice-action of much the same kind as that met
with in Paleozoic strata. While, on the one hand, the
Mesozoic floras and faunas bespeak climatic conditions
similar to those of earlier ages, but probably not quite so
uniform; on the other, the occurrence of erratics in various
marine accumulations is sufficient to show that now and
again ice floated across seas, the floors of which were
tenanted by reef-building corals. The geographical con-

196 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socvety.

ditions continued unfavourable to the formation of extensive
ice-sheets in temperate latitudes, no matter how high the
eccentricity of the orbit might have been. The erratics
which occur in certain Jurassic and Cretaceous deposits are
admitted by most geologists to have been ice-borne. Now,
it is highly improbable that the transporting agent could
have been coast-ice, for it is hardly possible to conceive of
ice forming on the surface of a sea in which flourished an
abundant Mesozoic fauna. The erratics, therefore, seem to
imply the existence in Mesozoic times of local glaciers, which
here and there descended to the sea, as in the north-east of
Scotland. The erratics in the Scottish Jurassic are evidently
of native origin, and it is most improbable that those which
have been met with in the chalk of England and France
could have floated from any very great distance. How, then,
can we explain the appearance of local glaciers in these
latitudes during Mesozoic times? The geographical con-
ditions of the period could not have favoured the formation
of perennial snow and ice in our area, unless our lands were
at that time much more elevated than now. And this is the
usual explanation. It is supposed that mountains much
higher than any we now possess probably existed in such
regions as the Scottish Highlands. It is easy to imagine the
former existence of such mountains. So long a time has
elapsed since the Jurassic period, that the Archean and
Paleeozoic areas cannot but have suffered prodigious denuda-
tion in the interval. But, when one considers how very
lofty, indeed, those mountains must have been, in order to
reach the snow-line of Jurassic times, one may be excused
for expressing a doubt as to whether the suggested explana-
tion is reasonable. At all events, the phenomena are, to say
the least, as readily explicable on the supposition that the
snow-line was temporarily lowered by cosmical causes.
Even with eccentricity at a high value, no great ice-sheets,
indeed, could have existed, but local snow-fields and glaciers
might have appeared in such mountain-regions as were of
sufficient height. And this might have happened without
producing any great difference in the temperature of the sea,
or any marked modification in the distribution of life. In

Vice-President’s Address. 197

short, we should simply have, as before, an alternation of
warm and somewhat cooler climates, but nothing approaching
to the glacial and interglacial epochs of the Pleistocene.
These conclusions seem to me to be strongly supported
by the evidence of ice-action during Tertiary times. The
gigantic erratics of the Alpine Eocene do not appear to have
been derived from the Alps, but rather fron: the Archean
area of Southern Bohemia. The strata in which they occur
are, for the most part, unfossiliferous; they contain only
fucoidal remains, and are presumably marine. How is it
possible to account for the appearance of these erratics in
marine deposits in central Europe at a time when, as
evidenced by the Eocene flora and fauna, the climate was
warm? Are we to infer the former existence of an extremely
lofty range of Bohemian Alps which has since vanished ?
Is it not more probable that here, too, we have evidence
of a lowering of the snow-line, induced by cosmical causes,
which brought about the appearance of snow-fields and
glaciers in a mountain-tract of much less elevation than
would have been required in the absence of high eccentricity
of the orbit? If it be objected that such cosmical causes
must have had some effect upon the distribution of life,
I reply that very probably they had, although not to any
extreme extent. The researches of Mr Starkie Gardner
have shown that the flora of the English Eocene affords
distinct evidence of climatic changes. But as the geo-
graphical conditions of that period precluded the possibility
of extensive glaciation, and could only, at the most, have
induced local glaciers to appear in elevated mountain-regions,
it seems idle to cite the non-occurrence of erratics and
morainic accumulations in the Eocene of England and France
as an argument against the application of Croll’s theory
to the case of the erratics of the Flysch. I repeat, then,
that under the geographical conditions of the Eocene, all
the more obvious effects likely to have resulted from the
passage of a period of high eccentricity would be the
appearance of a few local glaciers, the existence of which
could have had no more influence on the climate of adjacent
lowlands than is notable in similar circumstances in our

198 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

own day. It is absurd, therefore, to expect to find evidence
in Eocene strata of as strongly contrasted climates as those
of the glacial and interglacial deposits of the Pleistocene,
There must, doubtless, have been alternations of climate in
our hemisphere ; but these would consist simply of passages
from warm to somewhat cooler conditions—just such changes,
in fact, as are suggested by the plants of the English Eocene.

The evidence of ice-action in the Miocene strata is even
more striking than that of which I have just been speaking.
The often-cited case of the erratics of the Superga near
Turin, I need do little more than meution. These erratics
were undoubtedly carried by icebergs, calved from Alpine
glaciers at a time when northern Italy was largely sub-
merged. The erratic deposits are unfossiliferous, and are
underlaid and overlaid by fossiliferous strata, in none of
which are any erratics to be found. What is the meaning
of these intercalated glacial accumulations? Can we believe
it possible that the Miocene glaciers were enabled to reach
the sea in consequence of a sudden movement of elevation
which must have been confined to the Alps themselves ?
Then, if this be so, we must go a step further, and suppose
that, after some little time, the Alps were again suddenly
depressed, so that the glaciers at once ceased to reach the
sea-coast. For, as Dr Croll has remarked, “ had the lowering
of the Alps been effected by the slow process of denudation,
it must have taken a long course of ages to have lowered
them to the extent of bringing the glacial state to a close.”
And we_should, in such a case, find a succession of beds
indicating a more or less protracted continuance of glacial
conditions, and not one set of erratic accumulations inter-
calated amongst strata, the organic remains in which are
clearly suggestive of a warm climate. The occurrence of
erratics in the Miocene of Italy is all the more interesting
from the fact that in the Miocene of France and Spain
similar evidence of ice-action is forthcoming.

Opponents of Dr Croll’s theory have made much of
Baron Nordenskidld’s statement, that he could find no trace
of former glacial action in any of the fossiliferous forma-
tions within the Arctic regions. He is convinced that “an

Vice-President’s Address. 199

examination of the geognostic condition, and an investiga-
tion of the fossil flora and fauna of the Polar lands, show no
signs of a glacial era having existed in those parts before the
termination of the Miocene period.” Well, as we have seen,
there is no reason to believe that the geographical conditions
in our hemisphere, at any time previous to the close of the
Phocene period, could ever have induced glacial conditions
comparable to those of the Pleistocene Ice Age. The strata
referred to by Nordenskiéld are, for the most part, of marine
origin, and their faunas are sufficient to show us that the
Arctic seas were formerly temperate and genial. If any ice
existed then, it could only have been in the form of glaciers
on elevated lands. And it is quite possible that these,
during periods of high eccentricity, may have descended to
the sea and calved their icebergs; and, if so, erratics may
yet be found embedded here and there in the Arctic
fossiliferous formations, although Nordenskidld failed to see
them. One might sail all round the Paleozoic coast-sections
of Scotland without being able to observe erratics in the strata,
and yet, as we know, these have been encountered in the
interior of the country. The wholesale scattering of erratics
at any time previous to the Pleistocene, must have been
exceptional even in Arctic regions, and consequently one is
not surprised that they do not everywhere stare the observer
in the face.

The general conclusion, then, to which I think we may
reasonably come, is simply this:—That geological climate
has been determined chiefly by geographical conditions.
So long as the lands of the globe were discontinuous
and of relatively small extent, warm ocean currents reaching
Polar regions, produced a general uniformity of temperature
—the climate of the terrestrial areas being more or less
markedly insular in character. Under those conditions,
the sea would nowhere be frozen. But when the land-
masses became more and more consolidated, when, owing
to the growth of the continents, warm ocean currents
found less ready access to Arctic regions, then the tempera-
ture of those regions was gradually lowered until eventually
the sea became frost-bound, and the lands were covered

200 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

with snow and ice. But while the chief determining cause
of climate has been the relative distribution of land and
water, it is impossible to doubt that during periods of
high eccentricity of the orbit, the climate must have been
modified in a greater or less degree. In our own day the
geographical conditions are such that, were eccentricity to
attain a high value, the climate of the Pleistocene would
be reproduced, and our hemisphere would experience a
succession of alternating cold and genial epochs.

But in earlier stages of the world’s history, the geo-
graphical conditions were not of a kind to favour the
accumulation of vast ice-tields. During a period of extreme
eccentricity, there would probably be tluctuations of tem-
perature in high latitudes; but nothing lke the glacial
and interglacial epochs of the Pleistocene could have
occurred. At most, there would be a general lowering of
the temperature, sufficient to render the climate of Arctic
seas and lands somewhat cooler, and probably to induce
the appearance in suitable places of local glaciers; and,
owing to precession of the equinox, these cooler conditions
would be followed by a general elevation of the temperature
above the normal for the geographical conditions of the
period. In Paleozoic and Mesozoic times, the effects of
high eccentricity of the orbit appear to have been, in a
ereat measure, neutralised by the geographical conditions,
with a possible exception in the Permian period. But in
Tertiary times when the land-masses had become more
continuous, the cosmical causes of change referred to must
have had greater influence. And I cannot help agreeing
with Dr Croll that the warm climates of the Arctic regions
during that era were, to some extent, the result of high
eccentricity.

In concluding this discussion, I readily admit that our
knowledge of geographical evolution is as yet in its infancy.
We have still very much to learn, and I shall be the last
to dogmatise upon the subject. But I hope I have made
it clear that the evidence, so far as it goes, does not
justify the confident assertions of Dr Croll’s opponents,
that his theory is contradicted by what we know of the

Vice-President’s Addvess. 201

climatic conditions of Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cainozoic
times. On the contrary, it seems to me to gain additional
support from the very evidence to which Nordenskidld and
others have appealed.

Norre.—The accompanying maps (Plates VIII. and IX.) require a few
words of explanation. The geology of the world (Plate IX.) is still so imper-
fectly known, that any attempt at graphic representation of former geographi-
cal conditions cannot but be unsatisfactory. The approximate positions of
the chief areas of predominant elevation and depression during stated periods
of the past may have been ascertained in a general way ; but when we try to
indicate these upon a map, such provisional reconstructions are apt to suggest
a more precise and definite knowledge than is at present attainable. For it
must be confessed that there is hardly a line upon the small maps (A, B, C,
Plate VIII.) which might not have been drawn differently. This, of course,
is more especially true of South America, Africa, and Asia, of large areas of
which the geological structure is unknown. But although the boundaries of
the land-masses shown upon the maps referred to are thus confessedly pro-
visional, the maps nevertheless bring out the main fact of a gradual growth
and consolidation of the land-areas—a passage from insular to continental
conditions. I need hardly say this is no novel idea. It was clearly set forth
by Professor Dana upwards of forty years ago (Silliman’s Journal, 1846,
p. 352 ; 1847, pp. 176, 381) ; and it received some years later further illustra-
tion from Professor Guyot, who insisted upon the insular character of the
climate during Paleozoic times (The Earth and Man, 1850). It must be
understood that the maps (A, B, C, Plate VIII.) are not meant to exhibit the
geographical conditions of the world at any one point of time. In Map A,
for example, the area coloured blue was not necessarily covered by sea at any
particular stage in the Paleozoic era ; it simply represents approximately the
region over which Paleozoic marine strata are believed to extend or to have
extended. But, as already stated, numerous oscillations of level occurred in
Paleozoic times, so that many changes in the distribution of land and water
must have taken place down to the close of the Permian period. The land-
areas shown upon the map are simply those which appear to have been more
or less persistent through all the geographical changes referred to. Similar
remarks apply to the other maps representing the more or less persistent
land-areas of Mesozoic and Tertiary times. Thus, for example, there are
reasons for believing that Madagascar was joined to the mainland of Africa at
some stage of the Mesozoic era, but was subsequently insulated before Tertiary
times. Again, as Mr Wallace has shown, there is every probability that at
some late stage of the Mesozoic era a land-connection obtained between New
Zealand and Australia. The same naturalist also points out that a chain of
islands, now represented by numerous islets and shoals, served in Tertiary
times to link Madagascar to India. Map D shows the areas of predominant
elevation and depression. The area coloured brown represents the great
continental plateau, which extends downwards to 1000 fathoms or so below
the present sea-level. The area tinted blue is the oceanic depression. From
the present distribution of plants and animals we infer that considerable

202 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

tracts which are now submerged have formerly been dry land—some of these
changes having taken place in very recent geological times. And the same
conclusions are frequently suggested by geological evidence. Thus there can
be little doubt that Europe in Tertiary times extended further into the
Northern Ocean than it does now. And it is quite possible that in the Meso-
zoic and Paleozoic eras considerable land-areas may likewise have appeared
here and there in those northern regions which are at present under water.
There is hardly any portion, indeed, of the continental plateau which is now
submerged that may not have been land at some time or other. But after
making all allowance for such possibilities, the geological evidence, so far as it
goes, nevertheless leads to the conclusion that upon the whole a wider expanse
of the primeval continental plateau has come to the surface since Tertiary
times than was ever exposed during any former period of the world’s history.

XX. Notes on Crested Birds of Prey. By J. G. Goopcni1p,
Esq., F.Z.8., M.B.0.U. [Plate X.]

(Read 18th December 1889.)

In determining what style of plumage would best suit the
particular requirements of Birds of Prey, Nature would appear
to have taken into consideration what would wear best, and
would at the same time make the smallest demands upon the
vital energies of the wearers, rather than what would form the
most striking kind of adornment. It is more than doubtful
whether the majority of these birds would gain any very
direct advantage by either assimilative or protective colora-
tion; and even sexual selection, which has played so
important a part in the development of adornment amongst
other birds, appears hardly to have affected many of the
Birds of Prey at all. Everything else seems to have been
subordinated to the particular requirements connected with
their several predatory modes of life. The colours through-
out the entire group are sober combinations of white with
various browns, greys, and buffs, which are disposed in
simple patterns, consisting of various combinations of stripes,
bars, and spots.

Almost the only feature about these birds that has any
claim to be regarded as decorative consists in the elongation
of one or the other of the various groups of feathers whose
bases are situated on the head or the parts adjoining.
Several types of such elongated feathers exist; and in the

Notes on Crested Birds of Prey. 203

remarks that follow, it will therefore be as well to distinguish
these types by employing terms for them which shall refer
to the place of insertion of the feathers in question. In
every case the remarks that follow refer to the characteristics
presented by living birds, and not by cabinet specimens, as
observations upon stuffed examples are simply worthless in
the present connection.

Nearly all Birds of Prey are able to raise the feathers
on the occiput, and on the nape, more or less; in some
even of those that have no claim to be regarded as crested,
in the ordinary sense, both the occipital and the nuchal
feathers can be raised into more or less of a crown or frill.
In many others, also, the ear coverts, the post-awricular
Sringes, and the mandibular tufts are capable of being raised
so as to stand out from the head more or less. But in certain
other forms development has gone much farther. In one of
the principal sections of the Owls (PL X., Fig. 1) there is the
pair of superciliary tufts or “horns,” a style of ornament
almost entirely confined to this particular group, and consti-
tuting, in fact, almost the sole feature of the kind under
notice that these birds possess. In most of the Diurnal Birds
of Prey a slight indication of the same feature may be
observed in a few forms. Even in the Falcons the superci-
liary feathers may occasionally be seen to be raised, as a
kind of beading, above the general level of the other feathers
of the crown. I have before me as I write several drawings
of a living example of Falco sacer that show this feature in
rather a marked manner; and I have repeatedly noticed it
more or less in making drawings from life of other falcons.
But in no case do these superciliary feathers ever become
elongated to very striking proportions in any of the Diurnal
Birds of Prey.

In the Crrcin&, the post-auricular feathers are elongated
more than in most others, and these when raised, form a
well-marked frill below and behind the eyes. In the Harpy
(Thrasaétus harpyia) (Pl. X., Fig. 2a), and in the Crowned
Hawk Eagle (Spizaétus coronatus) (Pl. X., Fig. 3a), the elon-
gation of these post-auricular tufts is carried to a much
ereater extent ; and the birds are able, under certain emotions,

NOL x P

204 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

to spread out broad, fan-shaped groups of these feathers on
either side of the head, which, as the figures show, impart
very striking characteristics to their physiognomy under
these circumstances. The feature, in less striking propor-
tions, 1s observable in a few other species.

_ The Harpy affords also a good illustration of another type.
In this the feathers originating on what (for want of a better
name) may be termed the parietal region of the skull, are
elongated in such a manner as to form a pair of postero-
lateral or parietal tufts (Pl. X., Figs. 2-6). These are capable of
erection at will, and they present, when half-raised, the form
of lateral crests—the edges of the feathers on the crown of
the head forming a hollow between them. But the bird can
spread out each tuft as well as raise it, and is able, more-
over, to completely invert these feathers in such a manner
that their free ends are directed forward over the facial
region (Pl. X., Fig. 4). As the post-auricular tufts are usually
raised also at such times, the Harpy then presents as striking
a figure as can be found throughout the whole of the Sub-
Class Aves. Spizaétus coronatus resembles Thrasaétus also in
this feature, and differs accordingly ‘from all the normal
Spizaétt.

In Dicholophus, the Cariamas (whose taxonomic position
is somewhere on the borders of the group under notice), there
is a well-developed median frontal tuft (Pl. X., Fig. 5), but
as the exact relationship of these birds to the Birds of Prey
has not yet been satisfactorily determined, I now pass it by
without further mention. At any rate, there is no such crest
amongst the acknowledged Birds of Prey.

The remaining style of crest to be noticed is that already
well known under the name of occipital crest, from the region
of the skull where it originates. In nearly all cases this crest
is median in position, although the extent to which it is
developed laterally is subject to considerable variation.
There are several forms of occipital crest. One of these is
that of the heavy, wide, plume of rounded feathers displayed
upon the head of nearly all the genera of the HErpeto-
THERINE. elotarsus, the Bateleur Eagle (Pl. X., Fig. 6),
Spilornis (Pl. X., Fig. 6a), and Polyborides (P). X., Fig. 60),

~

Notes on Crested Birds of Prey. 205

afford good examples, Another type is that of the loose
bunch of spatulate feathers (Pl. X., Fig. 7) that decorate Ser-
pentarius, the Secretary Bird. This form of crest can be
spread out radially from the place of insertion, so as to form
a wide crown (PI. X., Fig. 7a). - A third development is that
of the loose tuft of elongated feathers that decorates Lopho-
aétus, the Black Crested Eagle of South Africa (Pl X,
Fig. 8). In many individuals of this species the tuft in
question is habitually inverted, and consequently droops
forward so that the tips of the longest feathers nearly touch
the crown of the head. A fourth type of occipital crest is
represented by the neat, smart, pointed tuft seen in Laza,
the normal Spizaéii (Pl. X., Fig. 9), Harpyhaliaétus (Pl. X.,
Fig. 10), and some others.

Each of these styles of ornament may pass into, or may be
combined with, any of the others; so that living specimens
of the crested Birds of Prey present a wider range of variety
in this respect than do the others.

So far the facts. Can we discover any reasons for them ?
The features in question appear to me not to be due to sexual
selection, because the decorations are not confined to the
males, but are, in general, common to both sexes. That the
crested condition is not an independent development in each
species, connected with its own special need, is, I think,
evident from the fact that the immature forms of many
species are often as much crested as the adults; and indeed,
in some species, appear to be even more so. This fact is the
more striking, because many of these crested forms of Birds
of Prey (unlike the majority of the remainder) pass through
several changes of plumage before they attain to the mature
form. Spizaétus ornatus, for example, passes through at
least four successive changes of plumage before it becomes
adult, and yet it is crested through them all.

It appears to me, therefore, that we are fully justified in
regarding the possession of a crest as a character older than
the species. But all the species of certain genera (Spizaétus,
for example) are crested in one way or another. It is
extremely unlikely that all the species of a genus, widely
dispersed over the face of the earth, living under a great

206 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

variety of surroundings, and differing from each other more
or less in their habits, should have each evolved crests inde-
pendently. We may, therefore, conclude that the possession
of this character dates back at least as far as the differentia-
tion that gave rise to the genus. But several allied genera,
united into one sub-family by certain common points of
structure, agree also in this particular feature, and are crested
on the same type. For example, taking the HERPETO-
THERINA, we find that all the genera, Spilornis, Hutriorchis,
Helotarsus, etc., agree in possessing a great development of
broad, round-ended, occipital feathers; although the several
genera composing that sub-family are distributed over the
greater part of Huxley’s Notogea. Then again, to take
another example, all four genera ranged under the THRASAE-
TINZ are crested in one way or another. Even in the
AQUILINZ seven out of the nine sub-genera ranged under
this sub-family are crested, and of one of the remaining
genera, Aquila itself, a single species, A. desmursit, possesses
a distinct occipital crest.

These facts appear to me quite to warrant us in regarding
the feature under notice as one of great antiquity, and as
having been transmitted, with but little modification, from
the parent stock of each of the sub-families whose members
now possess such decorations. Where did those crested
ancestors originate? If we study the geographical distribution
of the existing crested genera, it seems to me that we can
obtain some kind of reply. We will take the various groups
seriatim, noting whether they contain crested forms or not ;
and, if they do, in what zoological provinces these particular
forms occur :—FALCONINA, no crested forms. ACCIPITRINA
—Lophospizias, alone: Indian Region. BUTEONINA, none.
Mitvinaz—Saza, alone: Oriental Region and N. Australia,
S.-W. Africa. Circina, none. PERNIDAE'—Macheramphus :
S.-W. Africa, Madagascar, and Malacca. Pernis (one species
of): Indian Region. GyYMNoGENINA—Polyboroides: Ethiopian
Tegion and Madagascar. HERPETOTHERINA—LHerpetotheres :

1 The Honey Buzzards and their allies appear to me to be aberrant forms,

and quite entitled to be regarded as the existing representatives of a nearly
extinet family.

Notes on Crested Birds of Prey. 207

Neotropical. Spilornis: Oriental. Dryotriorchis: Ethiopian.
Hutriorchis: Madagascar. Helotarsus: Ethiopian. Turasait-
TINA— Thrasaétus, Morphnus, Harpyopsis, and ? Harpyha-
liaétus (Pl. X., Fig. 10): all Neotropical. AQuiILINa—Spizaé-
tus : Neotropical, Ethiopian, and Oriental; one species ranges
to Japan. Lophotriorchis: Neotropical, Oriental. Spiziastur :
Neotropical? Neopus: Oriental. Of the HaA.ia&TINa,
VULTURIDA, GypoutnraciIna, GYPAETIDA, the PAN-
DIONES, and the CATHARTI, not a single form is crested ;
while the remaining section, the SERPENTARIL, is repre-
sented by the well-crested Secretary Bird of Southern and
Eastern Africa.

An examination of these curious facts of distribution leads
us at once to the generalization that, if we except the Baza
that has crossed Wallace’s Line into Australia, and the
Spizaétus that, similarly, has wandered into Japan, not a
single crested diurnal Bird of Prey ranges into the Nearctic,
the Palearctic, or the Australian Regions. If the fact stood
alone, we might be disposed to regard it as a singular coinci-
dence, and nothing more. But when it is considered in
conjunction with other facts of the same nature, brought into
more or less prominence of late years, it is seen to form an
additional link in a long chain of evidence which scientific
zoology has brought to bear upon the history of the former
changes of the earth’s surface. We now know that families,
sub-families, and even genera, of organised beings are in many
cases older than many of the larger features of the countries
they inhabit. Some appear to be older even than the conti-
nents. Weare, therefore, it seems to me, justified in supposing
that the region where crests were first developed amongst the
ancestral forms of the five sub-families that now bear them
was an area now submerged, but which, under the different
geographical conditions of former periods of the earth’s
history, was connected on its western margin with what is
now the eastern limit of the Neotropical Region. The area
may have existed somewhere between where Cape Horn and
the Cape of Good Hope are now. As the physical geography
of that old continent (or archipelago) changed, land surfaces
were propagated in the direction of the present Neotropical

208 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Region on the one hand, and on the other in that of the old
Lemuria of Dr Sclater (an hypothetical region, in whose
former existence many competent geologists and biologists
still believe). From the Lemurian continent or archipelago,
in still later times, the crested forms spread to what is now
the Oriental Region; and, later still—when the present
limits of the Ethiopian Region began to be marked out, and
Lemuria to be submerged—other forms were extended into
Madagascar and Southern Africa.

How and why the ancestral forms became crested, or
retained crests, may long remain a subject for speculation.
But I think we may safely conclude that the crests them-
selves are, as a feature, older not only than the genera or the
sub-families that bear them, but older even than the conti-
nents—perhaps (as I believe they are) older than some of the
oceans.

XXI. Zoological Notes. By Frank E. Bepparp, Esq., M.A,
E.RS.E., F.Z.S., Prosector to the Zoological Society
of London, Lecturer on Biology at Guy’s Hospital.

hale
AQUATIC EARTHWORMS.
(Read 18th December 1889.)

It is well known that many of the Oligocheeta, which are
usually found in ponds and rivers, can also live in damp
soil. The Enchytreeide, for example, appear to contain quite
as many terrestrial as aquatic forms; and even the same
species may occur in either habitat. But there are not
many instances known of earthworms which lead a partially
or entirely aquatic life; indeed the fact that these Annelids
have been generally supposed to be entirely terrestrial, has
been to some extent the cause of their having been dis-
tinguished as a separate group of the Oligocheta—Oligocheta
Terricole, So far as I am aware, there is only one species
closely allied to Lumbricus terrestris, which has been proved
to occur in rivers, as well as in the soil. In a recent number

Zovlogical Notes. 209

of Nature, Mr Benham noted the occurrence of Allurus
tetraedrus in England, and stated that his specimens had
been collected in a stream. During August of last year,
I discovered this worm to be very abundant in the river at
Bickleigh near Plymouth. The river was not at all flooded,
and as the worms were tolerably abundant, it seems to me
to be fairly certain that they were not accidentally present.
Professor Vejdovsky has also recorded the fact that Adlwrus
is found in streams in Bohemia; so there can be but little
doubt that it is partially aquatic in its habit ; it can certainly
live equally well in the soil, as I have had the opportunity
of examining some examples which Mr E. B. Poulton was
good enough to collect for me in the island of Teneriffe.
I have lately received a collection of Oligocheta from the
Falkland Islands through the kindness of Mr Dale; I had
particularly asked that gentleman to collect aquatic as well
as terrestrial Oligocheta; I received two fresh-water species
belonging to the genus Acanthodrilus, which has been
hitherto supposed to be a purely terrestrial form. One of
these species proves to be A. georgianus (Michaelsen),
recently described, from South Georgia; the other is a new
species. There is no doubt, from what Dr Dale tells me, that
these species are really aquatic.

I am not aware that any exact observations have been
made as to the length of time which various species of
earthworms can survive when placed in water; it is clear,
however, that many species can live for a long time—several
months, according. to Perrier—in fresh water. On the other
hand it is quite a usual sight, after rain, to see numerous
worms lying dead in the rain puddles; Darwin has suggested
that these are individuals in a dead or dying condition,
which have been washed out of their burrows. Mr W.
W. Smith, in an interesting paper upon the habits of New
Zealand earthworms (Zrans. N. Z. Instit., vol. xix., p. 129),
holds that these individuals are really drowned, in some
cases at least. It seems to me probable that in many eases
the dead worms lying in the rain puddles have been killed
by the sun’s rays heating the water. Although there is ne
doubt that earthworms can live in water, I am not aware of

210 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

any species, except those recorded in this note, which have
been found living in streams and ponds, unless unusual floods
have washed them into such situations. It is therefore
important to notice that there are three species which are
largely aquatic in their habits, or four, if Criodrilus be
admitted.

It may be, perhaps, a mere coincidence that in two at
any rate out of the four aquatic forms mentioned in the
present note, there is a certain approximation in structure
to limicoline genera, although this approximation is not in the
direction of any special adaptation to an aquatic life—at any
rate not as far as we can see at present.

The progress of recent investigation into the structure of
Oligocheta has broken down all the distinction between the
“Terricole” and “ Limicole” except one, which has been,
on the contrary, confirmed. That distinction is seen in the
ova. In the Naidomorpha, Enchytreide,: Lumbriculide,
Tubificide, etc., the ova are few and large, the large size being
due to the increased quantity of yolk stored up in the ovum;
in earthworms, on the contrary, the ova are minute with
a very small quantity of yolk. To a certain degree Allurus
and Acanthodrilus Dalec* are intermediate in character; the
ova are much larger than those of earthworms in general,
but are much smaller than the ova—heavily laden with yolk
—of such forms as Zubifex. Without attempting—for the
present—to decide whether the large yolk ovum is or is not
the original condition in the Oligocheta, it is clear that as
both kinds of ova occur in allied forms, one must have been
derived from the other during the evolution of the group;
and it is therefore permissible to regard the large ova of
Allurus and especially of Acanthodrilus as intermediate in
character.

1 Named after Dr Dale of the Falkland Islands Company.

On the Structure of Coccosteus decipiens, Agassiz. 211

XXII. On the Structure of Coccosteus decipiens, Agassiz.
By Dr R. H. Traquatr, F.B.S., F.G.S. [Plate XI.]

(Read 18th December 1889.)

In a paper (13) on Homosteuws published in the Proceedings
of this Society for Session 1888-89, I entered into the
structure of Coccosteus so far as was necessary for the purpose
of instituting a comparison between the two genera. In the
present communication I propose to consider the structure of
Coccosteus in greater detail.

The figure which I gave in that paper of the cranial shield
is reproduced in Pl. XI., Fig. 2, with the addition of the dorsal
cuirass. It is, I believe, accurate, and represents the result
of a close study of a very great number of heads. Compara-
tively few specimens are, however, available for the purpose,
those especially from Lethen and most of those from Orkney
being ill-adapted for following the sutures separating the
plates, while Cromarty and Edderton furnish those in which
the surface is most perfectly preserved, thus affording the
best opportunity for accurately distinguishing the true sutures
from those superficial grooves which in past times have been
so often confounded with them. Quite recently, however,
the Edinburgh Museum has acquired a small collection of
Coccosteus-remains from Stromness, in Orkney, in which the
details of the surface of the cranial plates are most beauti-
fully shown, and are entirely corroborative of the sketch
which I published a year ago.

As I have previously stated (12, p. 511), I retain only two
species of Coccosteus from the Scottish Lower Old Red Sand-
stone, namely C. decipiens, Ag., and C. minor, H. Miller, the
differences which have led to the separation of “ oblongus,”
Ag, “cuspidatus,’ Ag., microspondylus, trigonaspis, and
pusillus, M‘Coy, and Milleri, Egert., being dependent either
upon the mode of preservation or upon trivial variations in
the shape of certain plates, which are extremely common up
to certain limits. That which I find especially difficult to
understand is how Prof. von Koenen (10) should propose to

212 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

remove C. Milleri, Egert., and C. pusillus, M‘Coy, from
Coccosteus altogether, placing them in Bbrachydewrus, the fact
being that they are simply synonyms of decipiens, Ag. C.
minor, H. Miller, once mixed up with C. pusillus, M‘Coy,
may possibly have to be put into a new genus on account
of the structure of the vertebral column, which presents an
appearance as if possessed of ossified centra ;* but I can see
no reason for associating this species with v. Koenen’s
Lrachydewrus.

The following description of the structure of the bony
skeleton of Coccosteus is therefore based upon an examination
of the common and well-known species C. decipiens, Agassiz.

Head—In Pl. XI, Fig. 2, the bones forming the cranial
shield are sketched, as well as the ramifications of the lateral-
line grooves. These bones are :—one median occipital (m. o.),
two external occipitals (e. 0.), two central plates (c.), two
marginals (m.), two post-orbitals (pt. 0.), two pre-orbitals (p. 0.),
one posterior ethmoidal (p. ¢.), and one anterior ethmoidal
(a. e.), between which last and the premaxille (p. ma.) the
nasal openings (”.) are observable. I have already (13, p. 52)
explained that I have applied those names without the inten-
tion of considering any of the bones exact equivalents of
bones similarly named in ordinary fishes.

The orbit, the upper margin of which is formed by the
excavated outer edges of the post- and pre-orbital buckler-
plates, is completed below by the superior maxillary bone
(me., Fig. 1), which strongly resembles in shape that of
typical Paleeoniscide in being broadly expanded behind,
where it covers the cheek, and suddenly excavated to form
a tapering process directed forwards under the eye to the
premaxilla. To the posterior margin of the maxilla is fixed
the jugal or post-maxilla, a triangular plate with posteriorly
directed apex, which fills up the space between the maxilla
and the lateral part of the body-cuirass.

So far as I can see, the maxilla of Coccosteus decipiens does
not seem to have borne any teeth. But in a specimen from
Gamrie in the Edinburgh Museum there is distinct evidence

1 This is apparently the species ‘‘with a true bony vertebra” referred
to by Murchison in “‘Siluria,” 3rd ed., p. 504.

On the Structure of Coccosteus decipiens, Agassiz. 213

of the presence of both vomerine and palatal teeth. The
specimen lies on its back, giving a beautiful view of the
ventral cuirass, in front of which are the two rami of the
mandible converging to meet each other anteriorly, while
external to and in front of them the upper margin of the oral
cleft is seen formed by the maxillee and premaxille. No
teeth are, as usual, seen on the maxillee, but internal to them
and between them and the contiguous mandibular ramus is
seen a row of conical teeth, evidently placed on the edge of a
palatal or palato-pterygoid bone, which I have not yet seen
in its entirety. Also in front of the meeting of the mandi-
bular rami and behind the premaxillary and ethmoidal region
is a clump of five conical teeth, clearly vomerine in position
at all events. It is also clear that the whole of the dentition
of the front of the mouth is not here exposed, as the clump
referred to is on the left side of the middle line, and the
corresponding space on the right side is covered by the
anterior extremity of the corresponding mandible.

The bone representing the mandible is well known from
the description of Hugh Miller. It is an elongated, vertically-
flattened plate (Fig. 1, mn.), broader behind than in front,
with rounded posterior extremity, slightly sigmoid contour
when seen trom the side, and near the anterior extremity
sharply bent inwards towards its fellow. It is remarkable
for having two sets of conical teeth, one consisting of a row
of about half-a-dozen being situated about the middle of the
upper margin of the bone, while another row of about the
same number occupies the vertical anterior margin, which
would otherwise be symphysial. This is certainly a very
curious circumstance, and one is simply at a loss to imagine
of what use teeth could be in such a situation, or how they
worked. It was indeed the position of these peculiar
symphysial teeth that led Hugh Miller originally to compare
the working of the jaws of Coccosteus with those of an
Arthropod (2, Ist ed., p. 57; see also footnote in 4th and
subsequent editions).

There are no traces of ossified internal cranial bones, of
hyoid or of branchial arches ; consequently these parts must
have been entirely cartilaginous. I may mention that the

214 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

bones figured by Huxley as “ the chief parts of the hyoidean
arch” are in reality the ventral rami of the dermal plates
which I have termed “ interlateral.”

Body-Cuirass.—The front part of the body behind the
head is encircled by a girdle of osseous dermal plates, some-
what comparable to a shoulder-girdle, expanded backwards
dorsally and ventrally, while at the lower part of the sides
the cuirass is so deeply cut in that the dorsal and ventral
expansions were long considered to have no connection with
each other. Most of the osseous plates which form this
cuirass are well known from the writings of Pander, H.
Miller, and Sir P. Egerton, but nevertheless some correction
is still necessary.

The great median dorsal plate (Fig. 2, m. d.) is of an
elongated pentagonal figure, its short base articulating with
the median and lateral occipitals, its acute apex and elon-
gated sides articulating with the two dorso-lateral plates,
which it extensively overlaps. Its under surface shows the
well-known median longitudinal ridge, ending behind in the
“nail-head” prominence, as in the corresponding plate in
Homosteus. The anterior dorso-lateral plate (a. d. l.), the os
articulare dorsi of Pander, is of a somewhat rectangular form
when detached, though in situ it appears irregularly trape-
zoidal owing to its upper and lower margins being obliquely
overlapped by the median dorsal and by the antero-lateral
respectively; its anterior margin shows a small articular
process by which it is joined to the external occipital.
Immediately behind it is placed the posterior dorso-lateral
(p. d.l.), or the os triangulare of Pander, a triangular plate
which also articulates with the median dorsal above and the
postero-lateral below, while its oblique hinder border is
free.

The antero-lateral plate (a. /.), being the os marginale of
Pander, occupies a position below and in front at the
narrowest part of the lateral portion of the cuirass. It is
peculiarly trapezoidal in shape, or it might be described as
triangular, with the downward and forwardly directed apex
obliquely truncated. Its anterior border, gently convex in
the middle, forms part of the anterior margin of the cuirass,

On the Structure of Coccosteus decipiens, Agassiz. 215

though it is for the most part shut out from that by the
anterior dorso-lateral above and the interlateral below; its
postero-superior margin, somewhat wavy or zigzagged, over-
laps the anterior dorso-lateral besides articulating with the
small postero-lateral. The postero-inferior margin is free
and slopes obliquely downwards and forwards; the short
anterior margin is fitted on to the interlateral. This antero-
lateral plate is the one lettered “c” by Huxley (8, p. 30)
and “3” by Hugh Miller (7, p. 133, fig. 6), though he has
represented the very same plate on the preceding page
(p. 132, fig. 5, z z) as forming a part of the ventral cuirass.

The postero-lateral plate (p. /.) is a small one situated at
the posterior angulated margin of the lateral part of the
cuirass, and articulates with the antero-lateral, the anterior
dorso-lateral, and the posterior dorso-lateral, its posterior
margin being free. This plate is not noticed by Pander
or Huxley, but it is lettered 2 by Hugh Miller (7, p. 133,
fig. 6).

The interlateral plate (2. Ll.) is one of great interest, as its
form and relations have not yet been properly recognised.
It consists of two parts, lateral and ventral, united at a con-
siderable angle to each other when uncompressed, which,
however, is very rarely the case. The lateral portion, seen
in Fig. 1, forms a sort of fork, on which the short inferior
margin of the antero-lateral plate articulates, and thus is
formed that connection between the dorso-lateral and ventral
portions of the cuirass which was unknown to Pander and
Huxley, and which, so far as I am aware, has not previously
been demonstrated. The lower limb of the fork forms a
conspicuous rounded lower margin, tuberculated like the
other plates, and bears a most suspicious resemblance to
the part represented by Prof. v. Koenen as a pectoral spine
in C. Bickensis (10, pl. in, fig. 2). In C. decipiens it is, how-
ever, very much shorter than the part alluded to in C.
Bickensis ; however, in C. minor it attains a very considerable
proportional length (13, pl. ii, fig. 3, 7 2). The ventral
portion (see Fig. 3), devoid of tubercular ornament, is
elongated in shape, and, passing inwards and_ slightly
forwards to meet its fellow of the opposite side, forms

216 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

the anterior margin of the ventral portion of the body-
cuirass; to it posteriorly are articulated the anterior ventro-
lateral and the anterior median plates. This part of the
bone was known to Pander, and is represented in two of his
fizures (6, pl. ii, fig. 2, and pl. v., fig. 1, z), though in the
text he compared it with the jugular plate in Polypterus or
Osteolepis. Huxley, on the other hand (8, p. 30, fig. 21, a),
considered the bone to be hyoidean in its nature, as we have
already noticed.

Neither Pander nor Huxley seems to have recognised the
lateral portion of this bone, which serves to articulate the
dorso-lateral portion of the cuirass with the ventral; indeed,
Huxley remarks (8, p. 32) that “the ventral shield appears
to me to have had no connection with the dorsal.” But of
the connection of the two in the manner I have described
there cannot be the slightest doubt. See also my figure of
the parts in C. minor (13, pl. 1i1., fig. 3).

The plates forming the expanse of the ventral shield are
already so well known from the figures of Pander and Hugh
Miller, that I need hardly enter into detail regarding them,
especially as I have in Pl. XL, Fig. 3, accurately given their
respective shape and mode of overlap. ‘They are six in
number :—anterior median ventral (a. m. v.), posterior median
ventral (p.m. v.), two anterior ventro-laterals (a. v. 1.), and
two posterior ventro-laterals (p. v. 1). I may, however,
mention that, judging from the course of the lateral-line
groove on the anterior ventro-lateral plate, Pander has
reversed its position, putting the front end behind and vice
versa; for we shall presently see that on this plate the
sensory canal occurs on the anterior and not on the posterior
part of its surface.

Distribution of the Lateral-line Grooves—The course of
the lateral sensory canal is indicated on certain of the
dermal bones by conspicuous grooves, which, as in the case
of Pterichthys and Bothriolepis, have often been mistaken for
sutures, There is, however, no difficulty in distinguishing
them from sutures, when one by experience really comes to
know the characteristic appearance of the latter.

On the anterior half of each anterior ventro-lateral plate is

On the Structure of Coccosteus decipiens, Ayassiz. 217

seen a curved groove, starting from near the middle of the
anterior margin and then curving sharply round to proceed
to the inner border close behind the antero-internal angle.
On the median dorsal plate a groove is seen of a V-shaped
contour, the apex being in the middle line somewhat in front
of the posterior extremity of the bone, the limbs diverging
forwards towards the superior margin of the posterior dorso-
lateral plate. On the anterior dorso-lateral plate a continua-
tion of this groove runs forwards to the postero-internal
angle of the external occipital, near which it is met by a
branch coming diagonally upwards and forwards from the
postero-inferior angle of the plate. The side-canal thus
formed passes now on to the cranial shield at the point
indicated, and there at once gives off a branch running
forwards and slightly inwards, parallel with and close to the
outer margin of the median occipital, becoming lost on the
posterior margin of the central. The main groove then runs
forwards and outwards parallel with the outer margin of the
shield, giving off first a branch passing to the external pro-
jecting angle of the marginal plate, then turning forwards
and inwards still parallel to the shield-margin it passes on
to the post-orbital plate, where it gives off another branch to
the post-orbital angle. Here it bends sharply backwards and
inwards at an acute angle, runs on to the central plate,
approaching its fellow of the opposite side, and near the
middle of this plate it again turns sharply forwards, passes
on to the anterior part of the pre-orbital, and ends near the
small nasal opening in front. In some specimens a cross
commissural branch is seen on the central plates, connecting
the two main trunks at the conspicuous angles which they
make in that place.

A groove is also observable on the maxilla, apparently
continued from the second external branch of the main
groove on the post-orbital, and passing along as a sub-orbital
branch close to the hollowed-out orbital margin of the bone.
It gives off behind the eye another branch, which passes in
a curved manner downwards and backwards towards the
margin of the bone posteriorly.

Sclerotie Ring.—A specimen from Gamrie, in the Edinburgh

218 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Museum, shows evidence of a sclerotic ring such as has been
ficured by v. Koenen (10, pl. i1., fig. 2; pl. iv., fig. 2).

Internal Skeleton.—In the typical Coccosteus decipiens, Ag.,
there is no trace of vertebral centra, the space occupied by
the persistent notochord being always empty in the fossils.
Agassiz in his restored figure (1, pl. vi, fig. 3) has repre-
sented on both dorsal and ventral aspects of the notochordal
space a continuous row of distally-pointed neurapophyses and
hzemapophyses, also a dorsal and anal fin situated opposite
each other, each supported in Teleostean fashion by a series
of proximally-pointed interspinous bones, dipping down
between the neurapophyses, the supposed fin-rays being,
according to the same idea, pointed at their extremities.
Pander (6, pl. iv., fig. 1) still retains the two median fins,
with the long hemapophyses in front of the anal, though he
was more correct in making the interspinous bones articulate
end to end with the neurapophyses by expanded extremities.
But though M‘Coy had previously (5, p. 602) strongly
doubted the existence of an anal fin in Coccosteus, Pander’s
figure has been copied into almost every text-book ; Prof.
von Koenen has transferred the body-skeleton and fins as
there represented to his restoration of the allied genus
Brachydeirus, while the anal fin is also mentioned as present
by Zittel in his handbook (14, p. 160). M‘Coy was, however,
correct—there is no anal fin in Coccosteus ; but besides this
Pander’s figure is incorrect in other points, which I shall now
indicate.

It is not possible to trace the vertebral column to its com-
mencement, owing to its obscuration by the dorso-lateral
cuirass; where it first becomes visible is about the middle of
the length of the great median dorsal plate. There we find
short broad neural pieces continued obliquely backwards and
upwards into neural spines, which gradually lengthen until
we come to the dorsal fin, which commences a little beyond
the apex of the plate just mentioned. Here we have two sets
of interspinous bones articulated end to end with each other
and with the neural spines, which latter are truncated and
not pointed. In avery good specimen in the British Museum
I count about fifteen ossicles in the proximal set and twelve

On the Structure of Coccosteus decipiens, Agassiz. 219

in the distal, though probably the numbers were equal in the
perfect state, and in both sets they have the same form,
namely, they are slender, elongated, and expanded at both
extremities. It is evident from the last-mentioned circum-
stance that the ossicles of the second row are not dermal
fin-rays, but belong to the same category as those of the first ;
two rows of interspinous bones being, in fact, of constant
occurrence in the primitive Ganoids.

Beyond the dorsal fin the neural spines become very short
as well as less oblique in their direction.

On the hemal aspect of the vertebral axis no such elon-
vated apophyses occur anteriorly, as depicted in the restora-
tions of Agassiz and Pander. Immediately behind the lateral
plates of the cuirass we find small, nearly circular, hemal
pieces without spines, then spines are added which, gradually
lengthening, become longest in the region opposite the dorsal
fin, whence they again diminish towards the extremity of the
tail. It is this peculiar lengthening of the hemapophyses
under the dorsal, a fact also noticed by M‘Coy, which has
evidently given rise to the old idea of the presence of an
anal fin.

In all specimens of Coccostews where the internal skeleton
is well preserved there is found a pair of peculiar slender
bones (a), each of which is pointed at both ends and bent
below the middle at an obtuse angle in somewhat L-shaped
fashion, the long limb pointing upwards towards the verte-
bral axis, the short one forwards. These bones were noticed
by Pander (6, p. 73), who, though extremely doubtful as to
their nature, supposed that they “‘vielleicht den Extremitiiten
als Stiitzen der weichen Flossen angehorten.” Their position
is certainly suggestive of their having had something to do
with pelvic hmbs—more I cannot say.

Mr A. Smith Woodward has pointed ont to me that in
several specimens in the British Museum a small oval or
somewhat rhombic bony plate (y) is seen lying in a position
posterior to the last-mentioned bones. I have not observed
it in any other specimens than those; but its presence in a
similar position in more than one example would seem to
indicate that it was a scute placed in the ventral mesial line.

VOL. X. Q

220 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Were pectoral members present 2—I have now examined
with the utmost care a very great number of specimens of
Coccosteus decipiens in all conditions of preservation and from
all the beds and localities of the Scottish Old Red Sandstone
which have yielded such remains, including the collections in
the British Museum, in the Museum of Practical Geology, in
the Edinburgh Museum of Science and Art, the Gordon-
Cumming collection at Forres, and many others, but without
meeting with any other parts either of endo- or exoskeleton
than those I have described. And, in particular, I have not
seen the smallest evidence of the presence of any pectoral
limb, nor any trace of an articular surface on any of the
bones to which such a limb could have been articulated. It
can scarcely be believed that had such a limb been present it
would either have escaped preservation or observation in so
large a number of specimens. Nevertheless, more than one
author has been disposed to believe in the presence of such a
limb in Coccosteus.

In the restored figure of Coccosteus given by Hugh Miller
in the first edition of the “Old Red Sandstone” (2, pl. iii.),
no limb is represented, and its absence is positively affirmed
in the text. But in subsequent editions, and also in Duff's
“Geology of Moray” (3, pl. viii, fig. 1), a peculiar
‘“paddle-shaped” body is represented appended to the
head. However, Hugh Miller, in a footnote, explains that
he has ascertained that the supposed arms “were simply
plates of a peculiar form.” Of course there is not the
smallest doubt that the idea of this limb owed its origin to a
displaced maxillary bone.

But more recently, in connection with what appear un-
doubtedly to be fragments of a large and peculiar form of
Coccosteus, Trautschold (9 and 11) has described and figured
from the Old Red Sandstone of Russia certain peculiar
bodies, which he considers, though not without doubt, to
appertain to supposed large arms or “ Ruderorgane ” belong-
ing to that species, which he accordingly names Coccosteus
megalopteryx. What the fragments are to which he applies
the term “Oberarm” I have not the slightest idea, as I have
not seen them, and certainly nothing like them has ever

On the Structure of Coccosteus decipiens, Agassiz. 221

been found along with Coccosteus decipiens. But with regard
to the peculiar flat triangular bodies represented in his first
memoir on the subject (9, tab. vi. and tab. vi, fig. 2), I
have had the privilege of examining two specimens contained
in the British Museum.

In the first place there is no evidence whatever that these

bodies belong to Coccosteus at all, any more than the supposed
“ Oberarm,” as nothing in any way resembling them has ever
been seen in connection with the most perfect specimens of
C. decipiens, the type of the genus, which the Scottish Old
ted Sandstone has afforded. Prof. v. Koenen has also
expressed grave doubts (10, Supplementary Note) as to their
having belonged to Coccostews, though he thinks it not
impossible that the piece referred to as “Oberarm” may be
identical with the “stabformiges Ruderorgan,’ the existence
of which he himself maintains.

In the second place it seems to me highly probable that
they are Selachian appendages; indeed, their form and
appearance is strongly suggestive of an affinity with
Oracanthus, which is certainly Selachian, although some
years ago Mr J. W. Davis was inclined to refer it to the
Placodermi, though not as a pectoral limb. These so-called
“Flossen” are flat bodies, of a horn-shaped outline, pointed,
with one margin convex, the other concave, truncate base,
and rounded lateral edges. A great part of the surface is
sculptured with closely-set tubercles, which are occasionally
irregularly elongated, and all with stellate bases; these
tubercles being an integral part of the substance of the
appendage, the term “Schuppenhaut” applied to them by
Prof. Trautschold seems hardly appropriate. The basal
margin of the body is not tuberculated but striated, and this
striated portion extends further up on one side than on the
other.

Now, Prof. Trautschold admits (11, p. 36, note) that the
body figured by Pander as an “ichthyodorulithe” (6, pl. vii.,
fig. 22) is identical with the end of one of the supposed
“fins” of Coccosteus megalopteryx ; and if so, then its micro-
scopic structure is not that of a Coccostean bone, but of a
Selachian appendage. For here are the words in which

295 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Pander refers to the body in question:—* Fig. 22. Ein
Ichthyodorulithe, mit ausgezeichnet schonen Sternen auf
beiden Fliichen und Kanten. Die Sternchen sind dusserlich
von denen von Asterolepis, Coccosteus und Homosteus unmoglich
zu unterscheiden, aber die microscopische Structur ist ganz
verschieden. Knochenhohlen fehlen ginzlich. Die Tuberkel
bestehen aus wahrer Dentine und die ganz innere Masse aus
einem Gewebe von Markcanilen, umgeben von concentrischen
Kreisen, in der Grundsubstanz, welche von den nach allen
Seiten ausstrahlenden feinen Zahnréhrchen unter rechten
Winkeln durchschnitten werden” (6, pp. 102,105). From
this description, along with Pander’s figure of the microscopic
structure (7b. fig. 34), the true nature of these bodies is, I
think, pretty evident.

I am therefore quite unable to accept Prof. Trautschold’s
views as to the “fins” of Coccosteus.

But, as already mentioned, Prof. von Koenen has affirmed
the presence in Coccosteus of a “ Ruderorgan,’ and in his
restored figure of his “subgenus” brachydeirus (10, pl. iv.,
fic. 1) he has represented the same as a long, pointed spine
diverging backwards from the antero-inferior angle of the
antero-lateral plate of the cuirass. In tab. i1, fig. 2, of the
same work he has also represented the spine 7m sitw in a
specimen of Coccosteus Bickensis, v. Koen.; but the supposed
spine 1s here much shorter than in the restoration, and lies
horizontally just below the antero-lateral plate, in the very
spot where the outer margin of the interlateral plate occurs
in Scotch specimens of the genus. I have already stated
that the appearance here is strongly suggestive to my mind
that this “ Ruderorgan” or pectoral spine is nothing but the
outer Kante, as the Germans would call it, of the interlateral
plate. But though the corresponding part in C. decipiens is
very much shorter than that here represented, it attains a
very considerable proportional length as well as a very spine-
like appearance in C. minor, H. Miller, as is shown in my
outline figure of that species (13, pl. ii, fig. 3). That it
should also attain similar proportions in other species is
highly probable.

Of course I have not seen Prof. v. Koenen’s specimens, and

On the Structure of Coccosteus decipiens, Agassiz. 223
it is not always safe to judge from figures and descriptions
alone. This much I am, however, entitled to say—that if
such a pectoral swimming-organ really does occur in Prof.
v. Koenen’s species Lickensis, that species cannot be referred
to Coccosteus, in which no such organ is present. And, again,
if it is present in Brachydeirus bidorsatus, v. Koen., then
Brachydeirus is not merely a “subgenus” of Coccosteus, but
a genus with a very great distinction indeed.

List oF WORKS REFERRED TO.

(1.) Acasstz, L.—* Monographie des Poissons Fossiles du
vieux grés rouge.” Neufchatel, 1844-45.

(2.) Minter, HuGu.—‘“The Old Red Sandstone, or New
Walks in an Old Field.” Edinburgh, 1841, and
subsequent editions.

(3.) Durr, P.—“ Sketch of the Geology of Moray.” Elgin,
1842.

(4.) Minter, H.—‘ Footprints of the Creator, or the
Asterolepis of Stromness.” Edinburgh, 1849.

(5.) M‘Coy, F.—*“Systematic Description of the British
Paleozoic Fossils in the Geological Museum of the
University of Cambridge.” London, 1851-955.

(6.) PANDER, C. H.—* Ueber die Placodermen des devonis-
chen Systems.” St Petersburg, 1897.

(7.) Grey-Ecertoy, Sir P. p—E M—“ Paleichthyological
Notes.—No. 12. Remarks on the Nomenclature of
the Devonian Fishes,” Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. 1860,
vol. xvi, pp. 119-136. Contains also notes on
Coccosteus by Hugh Miller.

(8.) Huxuey, T. H.—* Preliminary Essay upon the Syste-
matic Arrangement of the Fishes of the Devonian
Epoch,” Dec. Geol. Survey, x., 1861.

(9.) TRAUTSCHOLD, H.-—“ Ueber Dendrodus und Coccosteus,”
Trans. Imp. Russ. Min. Soc., xv., 1880.

(10.) KoENnEN, A. von.— Beitrag zur Kenntniss der Placo-
dermen des norddeutschen Oberdevons,’ <Abh. der
kénigl. Gesellsch. der Wissenschaften zu (rottingen,
Make, LOSS.

YL Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.
Y | y y

(11.) TraurscHoLtp, H.—“ Ueber Coccosteus megalopteryz,
Trd., Coccosteus obtusus und Cheliophorus Verneuili,
Ag.,” Zeitschr. der deutsch. geol. Gesellsch. 1889, pp.
35-48.

(12.) Traquair, R. H.—“ Notes on the Nomenclature of the
Fishes of the Old Red Sandstone of Great Britain,’:
Geol. Mag. (3), vol. v., 1888, pp. 507-517.

(13.) Traquair, R. H.—* Homosteus, Asmuss, compared with
Coccosteus, Agassiz, Proc. Roy. Phys. Soc., vol. x., pp.
47-57.

(14.) Zirrer, K. A. von.—* Handbuch der Palaeontologie,”
1, Abtheilung, ni. Band, 1 Lieferung.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE.

(In all the Figures the same letters refer to the same things. )

mm. 0. Median occipital. am. d. Median dorsal.

c. 0. External occipital. a. d. l, Anterior dorso-lateral.
m. Marginal. . p. d. l. Posterior dorso-lateral.
ec. Central. a. 1. Antero-lateral.

pt. o. Post-orbital. p. 1. Postero-lateral.

p. 0. Pre-orbital. i. J. Interlateral.

pt. e. Posterior ethmoidal. a. m. v. Anterior median ventral.
a. é. Anterior ethmoidal. a. v. Median ventral.

p. mx. Premaxillary. a. v. l, Anterior ventro-lateral.
n. Nasal opening. p. v. l. Posterior ventro-lateral.
mx. Maxillary. x. Peculiar internal bones.

J. Jugal. y. Posterior ventral plate.

o. Orbit. mn. Mandible.

Fig. 1. Restored outline of the skeleton of Coccosteus decipiens, Agassiz.
The dotted lines indicate the ramifications of the lateral-line system; the
thin lines on the body-cuirass here and in Fig. 3 denote the overlapped
edges of the plates.

Fig. 2. View of the head and dorso-lateral portion of the body-cuirass
from above.

Fig. 3. View of the ventral portion of the body-cuirass from below. The
thin lines denote the overlapped edges of the plates.

bo
bo
Ot

Exhalation of Gases wander singular cirewmstances.

XXIII. On an Ezxhalation of Gases, wnder singular cir-
cumstances, from a Bog near Strathpeffer. By Huan
MILLER, Esq., F.R.S.E.

(Read 15th January 1890. )

For the information which led to my inquiries into the
facts of this curious case, I am indebted to Mr Hossack
of the Crofter Commission.

Two and a half years ago, in the summer or autumn of
1887, a curling pond was constructed in the grounds of Fair-
bairn Castle (John Stirling, Esq. of Fairbairn) on the banks of
the River Orrin, not far from Strathpeffer. The pond was
made in the heart of a peat bog. Its sides were bordered
by a stone embankment; its bottom still rested on the soft
peat, of which quantities were, of course, taken out during
its excavation. The winter came, and with it a season of
frost, but the ice was of no use whatever for skating upon.
It was found to be spotted and flawed in every direction
with multitudes of flat bubbles of every size, many of them
as large as a dinner plate or a small ashet. When these
bubbles were broken or punctured there was an escape of gas
with a slight hiss or roar. Someone thought of applying a
light to the escaping gas. Instantly there was a jet of flame,
described to me as rising with a kind of explosion, in some
cases as much as five feet into the air. Here then, it was
thought, was Will-o’-the-Wisp actually ice-bound, and the
case seems to have excited considerable interest among the
intelligent occupiers of the castle. But all prospects of a
winter’s curling were disappointed.

On the following winter when I visited, and made inquiries
on the spot, the bubbles were described as having been
much smaller, and the exhalations were supposed to be wear-
ing out, but there had been almost no frost. My visit took
place in the middle of December 1888. The pond lies
about a quarter of a mile south from the castle. The
bog, which it had partly replaced, occupied the lowest
terrace of the Orrin, only a few yards from the river, and

v

not more than about eight feet above its bed. The stream

226 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

at this point runs over gravel. There is no exposure of the
conglomerate of the Old Red Sandstone (the ‘“ Great Con-
clomerate” of my father’s writings), which probably forms
the underlying rock. The place is apparently one of these
Opener basins common on our older valleys where the hollow
is thickly lined with boulder-clay, and is easily cut into
river terraces, each covered as usual by a sheet of river-
eravel. One raw scar of grey boulder-clay showed, like the
mark of a fresh landslip, on the opposite bank; traces of
the terrace gravel of the mountain stream could be seen near
the water’s edge. The remnants of the bog surround the
walk which encircles the pond.

The peat is “young,” or raw and imperfectly formed : the
vegetation forming it appeared to be still in an actively
decomposing condition: the pools were clouded with hydrous
oxide of iron, like a suspended sediment of burnt sienna. A
string of bubbles rose now and then from the bottom of the
pond, which, when I saw it, had become green with grassy
weeds. It was plain that when prevented from breaking at
the surface by a film of ice the bubbles had been frozen-in—
imprisened, and perhaps compressed, by the formation of
new ice underneath them.

It would have been of interest to obtain samples of this gas
for analysis, and my friend, Professor Ivison Macadam, has
furnished me with an apparatus for the purpose, at present
placed in the hands of Mr Morrison, the well-known rector of
the Dingwall Academy, who has kindly undertaken, subject
to the consent of the proprietor of the castle, to visit the spot
for the purpose. But since my visit in 1888 there has been
no skating; and it is possible that, as supposed by observers
on the spot, the exhalations may be exhausting themselves.

The explosive character of the gas when issuing into the
air identifies it as largely consisting of marsh gas,—the
explosive fire-damp of the coal pits,—the cause of what is
known as singing coal, and of blowers in petroleum springs.
Mingled with it are doubtless other gases—nitrogen, carbonic
acid (unless absorbed by the water), perhaps some olefiant gas,
and probably a little sulphuretted hydrogen (which, however;
would be absorbed at once), which I have observed to be

Phlyctenaspis, a New Genus of Coccosteidee. 227

also a product of peat bogs. Whether we succeed in “sampling”
the Fairbairn exhalations or not, the circumstances of the
case at least suggest an easy method of collecting bog gases in
the future. I have heard of a Glasgow Professor of Chemistry,
in the early part of the century, I believe, who was in the
habit of taking the members of his class out with him into
boggy ground armed with bottles to catch the bubbles as they
rose in silvery little chains from the bottom of the pools.
But here we have suggested a simpler method. The bubbles
can be carried home in the ice, immersed in warm water, and
collected on liberation.

XXIV. On Phlyctenaspis, a new Genus of Coccosteide.t By
Dr Rk. H. Traquair, F.B.S., F.G.S. [Plate XII]

(Read 15th January 1890.)

In the Geological Magazine for this month (January) I
proposed to establish the genus Phlyctenius for the peculiar
Coccostean from the Lower Devonian beds of Campbelltown
in Canada, named by Whiteaves Coccosteus Acadicus. In this
paper I propose describing that form more in detail, along
with an allied, though at the same time very strongly marked,
species from the Lower Old Red Sandstone of Herefordshire,
to which on that occasion I also referred. The name Phlyc-
tenius having been found to be pre-occupied, I have altered
it to Phlyctenaspis.”

Mr Whiteaves apparently did not recognise the extent of
the differences between this species and the true Coccosteus of
the Scottish Old Red; but this I think he would have done,
had he succeeded more thoroughly in deciphering the arrange-
ment of the plates of the cranial buckler. As it is, he seems
almost to hesitate as to whether it is specifically distinct
from Coccosteus cuspidatus of Agassiz. “In some respects,” he
says, “the Campbelltown Coccosteus very closely resembles
the C. cuspidatus of Agassiz, but in others there are such

1 Appeared also in the Geological Magazine, Decade III., Vol. VII., No. 308,
p. 55, February 1890.

2 The name Phlyctenius was used in the paper as read before the Society
and printed in the Geological Magazine. It was altered to Phlyctanaspis in
a note published in the same magazine for March 1890.

228 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

marked differences between the two forms that it is thought
more prudent, for the present, to distinguish the Canadian
species by a local name.” He notices the similarity in the
arrangement of its “superficial” (ze. sensory) grooves with
those of C. decipiens, Ag., and finishes by saying: “ It would
seem, therefore, that C. Acadicus may be distinguished from
C’. decipiens by the different shape of the post-dorso-median
plate, from C. cuspidatus by the different arrangement of the
grooves on the outer surface of its cranial shield, and from
both by the peculiar sculpture of its bony plates.” 1

It is, therefore, evident that Mr Whiteaves was unaware
that C. cuspidatus is nothing but a mere synonym of
C. decipiens, and that he also makes no allowance for the fact
that Hugh Miller’s figure on plate i. of the “Old Red
Sandstone,” from which he seems to derive his information
as to the character of this supposed species, is only an im-
perfect restoration of C. decipiens executed at a time when
our information on such matters was still rather undeveloped.

The cranial shield of Phlyctenaspis Acadicus (Plate XIL.,
Figs. 1, 2) must have been considerably vaulted from side to
side, as the specimens, now much flattened, not unfrequently
present irregular longitudinal fractures. The form is broadly
ovate, truncated behind with prominent postero-lateral angles
(P.L.). In front of the postero-lateral angle the margin passes
obliquely outwards and forwards for a short distance, and
then forms another obtuse angle, the postero-external (P.E.),
succeeded by a shallow notch, in front of which is the antero-
external angle (A.E.). Immediately after this the direction
of the margin is forwards and slightly inwards to what may
be called the post-orbital angle (P.O.), whence proceeding
more strongly inwards, it forms a slightly excavated edge,
evidently equal to the orbital excavation of the shield of
Coccosteus, and bounded in front by the ante-orbital angle
(A.O.). Between the ante-orbital angles of opposite sides,
the margin of the shield is completed in front by a shallow
concavity occupied in the perfect state by the “rostral”
plate as shown by Mr Whiteaves.

Leaving the sensory groove system out of consideration for

1 Trans. Roy. Soc. Can., vol. vi., sect. iv., 1889, p. 938.

Phlyctenaspis, a New Genus of Coccosteide. 229
d

the present, it is first to be noticed that the determination of
the constituent plates of the buckler is a matter of extreme
difficulty, from the fact that they are apparently all fused or
anchylosed together in the manner in which those of the
shield of Pleraspis are in the adult form supposed to be.
Mr Whiteaves has noticed the frequent arrangement of the
tubercles in concentric rows, and this arrangement, much
more marked in some shields than in others, along with the
lines seen to radiate from the ossific centres in abraded
specimens, first led me to suspect that the form and arrange-
ment of the cranial plates differed in some material points
from what is given in Mr Whiteaves’ sketch.! Close observa-
tion by means of a good lens enables one, however, also to
observe the original lines of suture, due care being taken not
to be deceived by fractures. Though the direction of these
sutures is often indicated by depressed lines or slight grooves
free from the tubercular ornament, yet the actual suture is
not incised, but slzyhtly raised like a very fiue thread, this
being due to the manner in which the original lines of separa-
tion between the bones have become entirely filled up by
osseous matter.

The results obtained by noting these lines in connection
with the concentric arrangement of the rows of tubercles
being in all essential respects the same in all the specimens
(six) which I have examined, and being furthermore in com-
plete accordance with the information derived from the lines
radiating from the ossific centres In a specimen with the
surface rubbed off, there can be no doubt that the true form
and arrangement of the constituent plates of the shield has
been arrived at. The pattern in two shields has been repre-
sented in outline in Pl. XII., Figs. 1 and 2, and if the reader
will compare these figures with that which I have already
given of the cranial shield of Coccosteus,? the fundamental
agreement as well as the essential difference between the two
will at once be perceived.

The median occipital plate (m.0.) is more or less five-sided,
elongate, truncated behind, pointed in front, where it is

1 Op. cit., p. 93, woodcut.
* Geol. Mag., Dee. III., val. VI., pl. i, fig. 2

>t <-

230 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

wedged in between the hinder thirds of the two centrals.
Its ossific centre is near the posterior margin, and is marked
by a prominent elevation of the surface. On each side of
the median occipital is placed the external occipital (e.0.),
which, although differently shaped from that in Coccosteus,
forms, as in that genus, the postero-external angle (P.E.) of
the shield. In front of these three occipital plates, and
occupying a position in the middle of the shield rather
nearer the front than the back, are the two central plates
(c.), Whose difference of form from those of Coccosteus is
equally striking, as is the case of the median occipital.
They are more or less of an ovate-oblong, approximating to
an elongated hexagonal form, articulating in the middle line
with each other and round about with all the other plates of
the shield except the rostral or anterior ethmoidal. The
marginal plate (m.) 1s situated on the outer side of the
central in front of the lateral occipital, and forms the
antero-external angle of the shield (A.E.); in front of it is
the post-orbital (pt.o.), which forms the post-orbital angle
(P.O.), and the posterior part of the orbital margin. ‘The
front of the shield is now filled in by the pre-orbital plates
(P.O.) which meet in the middle line, form the ante-orbital
angle, part of the orbital margin on each side, as well as
the anterior median shallow excavation, in which the plate
named “rostral” by Whiteaves fits. This rostral plate is
not present in any of the specimens in the Edinburgh
Museum, but its form and position in the specimen figured
by Whiteaves,’ render it evident that it corresponds with
the anterior ethmoid in Coccosteus. |

Some amount of variation is observable in the form of
these shields as well as of their component plates. Fig. 2
represents the configuration of a specimen which is propor-
tionally shorter and broader than usual, and in which also
the median occipital plate advances further forwards between
the centrals, which are more irregular in shape, and have
their long axes divergent backwards.

The arrangement of the lateral line system corresponds in
the main with that in Coccosteus. The lateral groove com-

LOp, vit., ply ik. 5 tana

Phlyctenaspis, a New Genus of Coccosteidee. 231

mences on each side in the external occipital plate near the
postero-lateral angle of the shield. Running forwards and
slightly outwards, it passes on to the marginal plate, where
it gives off a branch backwards and outwards to the edge of
the shield just behind the postero-external angle. The main
groove then turns forwards and slightly inwards at an obtuse
angle, and on passing on to the post-orbital turns on the
middle of that bone acutely backwards and inwards, ending
on or near the centre of ossification of the central plate.
Just at the point where the backward turn commences, a
short branch is given off which ends in the post-orbital angle
or prominence.

Mr Whiteaves represents the main groove as again con-
tinued forwards at an acute angle so as to end at the front
of the shield near the ante-orbital prominence. Judging from
analogy with Coccosteus, one might expect it to do so, but
this continuation is not exhibited in any of the specimens
which I have examined.

Associated in the same deposit with the cranial shields are
found various other isolated plates, which from their sculp-
ture probably belong to the same fish. Of these the only
one which seems to be clearly identifiable is the median
dorsal plate (Whiteaves, op. cit., pl. 1x., fig. 2). The plate
which he has figured as “left pre-ventro-lateral” (2., fig. 3),
if it is so, must belong to the right side of the body, but his
“ ventro-median (?)” cannot be referable to a median position,
as 1t is unsymmetrical. The Edinburgh Museum possesses
a number of such detached plates of different forms, but I am
certainly not prepared to speculate at present as to their
position on the body cuirass. One thing is at least evident,
namely, that if those plates really belong to Phlyctenaspis,
their difference of form from those of Coccosteus certainly
gives additional emphasis to the distinctness of the genus.
No trace of the maxille or mandibles of P. Acadicus has, so
far as | am aware, been yet discovered.

Phlyctenaspis Anglicus, sp. nov.

A good many years ago a small lot of fossils from Here-
fordshire was purchased from a London dealer for the Edin-

232 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

burgh Museum, and among them I found a small cranial
shield, which, being obviously referable neither to Cephalaspis,
nor to Pteraspis, nor to Scaphaspis, was rather puzzling in its
appearance. Being, however, at the time specially engaged
with other subjects, this shield, from Cradley, lay rather
neglected, till one day I bethought me of it when examining
our collection of fish remains from the Devonian rocks of
Canada, and I was then greatly interested to find that the
English fossil was in reality a Coccostean, and a Coccostean
not of the type of Coccosteus decipiens, but of Phlyctenaspis
Acadicus. This is of special geological interest, seeing that
both in England and Canada this type is associated in the
same beds with Cephalaspis, whereas not a trace of any
Cephalaspidean has ever occurred in those northern Old Red
Sandstone deposits (Orkney, Caithness, and Moray Firth) in
which the typical Coccosteus is abundant. Nor does Coccos-
teus occur in Forfarshire, where Cephalaspis is characteristic.

At the time I made this discovery no one seemed to know
of the existence of a Coccostean in the Cradley beds, though
indeed a piece of the shield of this very species is figured by
Lankester in his “ Monograph of the Cephalaspidee” (pl. viii.,
fic. 4) asa “fragment of doubtful character” in connection
with Zenaspis Salweyi.1 However, a short time aiter com-
municating with Mr Smith Woodward on the subject, I
received a letter from that gentleman informing me that he
had since discovered, in the stores of the British Museum,
quite a number of specimens apparently identical with that
to which I had referred. He also kindly forwarded to me a
plaster cast of one of them, as well as outlines in pencil of
two others.

In P]. XIT., Fig. 3, [have given a sketch of the specimen
in the Edinburgh Museum. It measures 1? inches in
length, and in general form resembles the cranial shield of
P. Acadicus, except that at the back it is more produced
outwards, as in Coccostews, the postero- and antero-external

1Mr Win. Davies seems to have believed in the occurrence of ‘‘ Placo-
dermi” in the Herefordshire beds, as he labelled some fragments in the
British Museum ‘‘ Plerichthys.” They do not, however, belong to that
genus.

Phlyctenaspis, a New Genus of Coccosteide. 233

aneles being confluent into one of considerably greater pro-
minence. In front we have the same more anterior direction
of the orbital excavations, bounded by the post-orbital and
ante-orbital prominences, and between the latter (of each
side) we have a similar gentle concavity for the rostral or
ethmoidal plate.

It is the internal or concave aspect of the shield which is
here exhibited, and it is extremely difficult to recognise any
sutures except that separating off the median occipital, which
shows distinctly enough that this plate had the same
elongated pointed form as in the Canadian species. The
bone being considerably splintered away, especially on the
right side, some of the external markings are seen in
impression, showing that the surface was sculptured with
tubercles of a comparatively large size. The course of the
lateral-line groove may be distinctly enough seen, its dis-
position being quite similar to that in P. Acadicus—the
main groove, starting in the external occipital, passing
obliquely forwards and inwards to the ossific centre of the
plate, then proceeding forwards and slightly outwards for
a little distance, and sending a branch obliquely backwards
and outwards to the external angle of the shield, after which
it proceeds forwards and slightly imwards to behind the
postero-orbital angle. There, a ridge on the inner surface
of the shield indicates that it turns at an acute angle
backwards and inwards to the middle of the central
plate in a manner quite similar to that already seen in
P. Acadicus.

Figure 4 is a diagram-sketch of the plaster cast sent me by
Mr Smith Woodward, taken from a specimen which clearly
belongs to the same species, and which shows many points
with greater clearness than that belonging to the Edinburgh
Museum, the outer surface being here displayed. It
measures two inches in length by two in breadth, but has
a piece broken off at the posterior part of the left side, while
on the right it looks as if the prominent external angle were
covered by the matrix. The surface is covered by a coarse
pustular tuberculation, omitted in the figure, showing at
places a little, but not much, of the concentric arrangement ;

254 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

the course of the lateral-line grooves is clearly discernible,
while the form and arrangement of the constituent bones
may be pretty fairly made out, both by actual indications
of sutures as well as by radiating lines where the surface has
been abraded. It is clear also, from both specimens, that
these bones were quite fused or anchylosed together, and
in the cast now under description the sutures are sometimes
indicated by delicate raised lines as in P. Acadicus. I have
indicated in the sketch the course of the divisions between
the plates, naturally in a somewhat exaggerated manner, as
the lines themselves are only visible by a lens, and often
cannot be followed at all. But from what is seen it is quite
clear that the plates were similar in general form and
arrangement to those in P. Acadicus, and especially to those
in the specimen represented in Fig. 2, the median occipital
extending far forwards and the centrals being rather trun-
cated in front.

One of the pencil outlines sent to me by Mr Smith
Woodward shows apparently the rostral or ethmoidal plate
in situ, thus completing the generic resemblance between the
Canadian and English species.

We may therefore sum up the results of the preceding
investigations as follows :—

Genus Phlyctenaspis, Traquair. Cranial shield more ovate
than in Coccosteus: constituent plates anchylosed, except the
ethmoidal; median occipital elongated, pointed in front and
wedged in between the posterior ends of the oblong or ovate
central plates; orbital excavation looking more anteriorly
than in Coccosteus ; course of main lateral-line groove nearly
straight from the external occipital to the post-orbital, where
it is very acutely bent backwards. Plates of body-cuirass
imperfectly known.

1. P. Acadicus, Whiteaves sp. External angle of cranial
shield divided by a shallow notch into two, the postero-
and antero-external angles; surface ornamented by fine
tubercles, in most specimens showing a concentric arrange-
ment parallel to the margin of the constituent plates.
Lower Devonian, Canada. .

2. P. Anglicus, Traquair. Postero- and antero-external

The Classification and Distribution of Earthworms. 235

angeles confluent, surface covered by a coarse pustulation.
Cornstones, Herefordshire.

In conclusion, my most hearty thanks are due to Mr Smith
Woodward for the information he has afforded me regarding
the Herefordshire specimens in the British Museum, and to
Dr Woodward, F.R.S., for permission to make use of the
plaster cast taken from one of these specimens.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE.
In all the figures the same letters refer to the same things.

P.L. postero-lateral angle. P.E. postero-external angle. A.E. antero-
external angle. P.O. post-orbital angle. A.O. ante-orbital angle.
m.o. median occipital. ¢.0. external occipital. c. central. m. marginal.
pt.o. post-orbital. .o. pre-orbital. ¢. ethmoidal.

Fig. 1. Restored outline showing the arrangement of the plates and lateral-
line grooves in the cranial shield of P. Acadicus, Whiteaves sp.

Fig. 2. The same in another specimen, lateral margins of the shield
restored in dotted outline.

Fig. 3. Sketch of a specimen of the cranial shield of P. Axglicus,
Traquair, from a specimen in the Edinburgh Museum.

Fig. 4. Sketch of a plaster cast of another specimen, contained in the
British Museum, the surface ornament being omitted.

XXV. The Classification and Distribution of Earthwerms. By
Frank E. Bepparp, M.A,, F.RS.E., F.Z.S., Prosector
and Davis Lecturer to the Zoological Society of London;
Lecturer on Biology at Guy’s Hospital. [Plates XIII,
XIV.]

(Read 19th February and 18th March 1890.)

Part ].—CLASSIFICATION.

As I have taken pains—in common with most recent
writers—to point out that the Oligocheta cannot be divided
into two divisions, it may seem irrational to consider the
classification of the “ Zerricolous” forms apart from that of the
“ Timicolous.” But as a matter of fact, it seems to me that,
although it is quite impossible to contrast two such groups
as “ Oligocheta terricole” and “ Oliyochata limicolw,’ it 1s

VOI. x | R

256 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

necessary to consider the terricolous forms as forming two
eroups, which are each equivalent to various groups, such
as Tubificide, etc., into which the limicolous forms may be
suitably divided. To a certain extent, therefore, it will be
seen that my views accord with those recently expressed by
Rosa ;! but before criticising the scheme propounded by the
Italian naturalist and expounding my own, it may be useful
to give a short résumé of previous opinions.

It is impossible to commence earlier than Perrier,” whose
views were the result of the study of a larger number of
forms than had been previously investigated by any one of
his predecessors except Kinberg.?. But Kinberg’s scheme of
classification cannot be considered seriously, as it took
account only of certain external characters, the number and
arrangement of the set, and one or two other points of even
less importance. The reader is therefore referred at once to
Kinberg’s paper, or to an abstract of it, in vol. iil of the
“ Zoological Record” (p. 597).

M. Perrier, distinguishing earthworms as a group equiva-
lent to that of the rest of the Olgocheta,? divided them into
three divisions, mainly fixed by external characters, which
were believed, however, to be in harmony with internal
organisation—

(1.) Lombriciens Anteclitelliens—

Male reproductive pores iz front of clitellum.

(2.) L. Intraclitelliens—

Male reproductive pores wethin clitellum.

(3.) L. Postclitelliens—

Male reproductive pores behind clitellum.

To these three a fourth—L. Aclitelliens, to include Monili-
gaster, without a clitellum—was somewhat doubtfully added.
Later on, M. Perrier* expressed himself with regard

1 Nuova Classificazione dei Terricoli—Boll. Mus. Zool. Torino, No. 41,
vol. iii. (1888).

*Memoires pour servir 4 l’histoire des Lombriciens terrestres—Nouv.
Arch. d. Mus., t. viii. (1872).

3 Annulata nova—(Efyv. af K. Vet. Akad. Férh., 1866, p. 97.

4fitudes sur l’Organisation des Lombriciens terrestres: iv. Organisation
des Pontodrilus [E, P.]—Arch. de Zool. Exp., t. ix., 1881, p. 286, note.

The Classification and Distribution of Earthworms., 237

to the connection between the Intraclitellians and Post-
clitellians as follows :—* Hudrilus, which we have placed,
in our Recherches pour servir a Vhistoire des Lombriciens
terrestres, among the intraclitellian earthworms, appears to be
transitional between this group and that of the Postelitellians,
if we only consider the extent of the clitellum, which in our
species is prolonged beyond so as to reach the male repro-
ductive pores; in reality, their organisation is that of the
‘ Postelitellians, and we should place them at the head of that
group immediately after the Intraclitellians.”

The points to which M. Perrier refers here are chiefly
the atria, which he compares in the text to those of Ponto-
drilus.

Further researches did not tend to confirm the naturalness
of Perrier’s classification, except as regards the first and
fourth groups. I myself have pointed out that Megascolex
caruleus,? otherwise so closely allied to Pericheta, has “ intra-
clitellian” male reproductive apertures. }

Acanthodrilus is a genus of which, according to Horst,
Perrier, myself, and others, some species ought to be referred
to the second, others to the third, of Perrier’s groups as
defined above.

Other instances of a like kind show that a hard and fast
line cannot be drawn between the Postclitellians and the
Intraclitellians as regards the extent of the clitellum.

M. Perrier’s classification has been attacked, and, in so far
as he laid most stress upon the relations of the male pores
to the clitellum, justly attacked, according to my way of
thinking.

It will be noticed, however, in the course of the present
paper, that all his groups—after removing only the Eudrilidee
—are perfectly natural assemblages if they are regarded from
other points of view, to some of which, indeed, such as the
presence of atria, he refers himself. One of the principal
relations upon which I insist in this paper is the necessary

1Dr Rosa himself (Joe. cié., p. 9) regards the Moniligastride as a distinct

family.
2 On the Anatomy and Histology of Plewrocheeta Moseleyi—Trans. Roy. Soc,

Edin., vol. xxx.

238 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

association of the Acanthodrilide, Pericheetidee, and Perrier’s
genera Digaster and Pontodrilus.

Impressed by these facts, I ventured’ to contrast the
Anteclitellians on the one hand with the Intra- and Post-
clitellians on the other. Our increased knowledge of the
group does not, as it appears to me, favour such an arrange-
ment.

Professor Claus’ classification,? being essentially that of
Perrier, needs no special mention.

M. L. Vaillant® places all earthworms in one family—
Lumbricidsee—which includes, besides various rather doubtful
genera, Phreoryctes. Although this genus has undoubted
affinities to earthworms, I do not think it permissible to unite
it in the same group with them.‘

The various genera of Lumbricide which Vaillant admits,
include a number that are very doubtful, such as Helodrilus,
Hoffm., Hypogwon, Sav., Pontoscolex, Schm. As to any
further grouping of these genera, he says (p. 60), “La
division du groupe ne me parait pas devoir comporter
létablissement de familles, malgré Vopinion contraire de
M. Vejdovsky, lequel y ajoute celles des Pleurochetide,
Plutellide, Criodrilide, Pontodrilide, les caractéres sur
lesquels elles sont établies ne peuvent étre regardés comme
ayant une valeur suffisante, car ils ne conduisent pas a des
rapprochements qu’on puisse réellement regarder comme
naturels. Aussi, tout on les employant dans |’énumération
synoptique ci-contre, je ne crois pas quils puissent encore
servir a autre chose, qu’é établir un systeme pour arriver a la
détermination des genres.”

Vejdovsky ° introduced a considerable number of improve-
ments into the current schemes, although, as will be pointed
out directly, his scheme is not thoroughly in accord with our
present knowledge. His classification is as follows :—

1 Descriptions of some new or little known Earthworms—P. Z. S8., 1886,
p. 312.

* Grundziige der Zoologie, 2d ed. Marburg, 1880.
’ Histoire Naturelle des Annelés, marins et d’eau douce. Paris, 1889.

4 BepDARD, The Anatomy, Histology, and Affinities of Phreoryctes—Trans.
Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. xxxv.

® System und Morphologie der Oligocheten. Prag, 1884, p. 63.

|)
CO
we)

The Classification and Distribution of Earthworms.

Pontodrilide, Vejd.

Pontodrilus, KE. P
Criodrilide, Vejd.

Criodrilus, Hoftm.
Lumbricide, Vejd.

1. Tetragonurus, Eis.

. Allwrus, Eis.
. Dendrobena, Kis.
. Allolobophora, Eis.

=m Co LO

5. Lumbricus, L.
16. Hypogeon, Sav.
¢ 7. Alyattes, Kinb.

Budrilide, Claus (= L. intraclitelliens, Ki. P.).
. Hudrilus, BK. P.

2. Rhinodrilus, E. P.

3. Anteus, HE. P.*

4. Titanus, E. P.
5
6

oad

. Geogenia, Kinb.
. Urocheta, E. P.
i. Typheus, Beddard.
?8. Pontoscolex, Schmarda.
Acanthodrilide, Claus.
1. Acanthodrilus, E. P.
2. Digaster, E. P.
23. Mandane, Kinb.
Perichetide, Claus.
1. Pericheta (Schmarda), Beddard.
2. Perionyx, H. P.
Plutellide, Vejd.
Plutellus, E. P.
Pleurochetide, Vejd.
Pleurocheta, Beddard (? = Megascolex, Templ.).
Moniligastride, Claus.
Moniligaster, E. P.

Rosa has criticised this classification, and for the most

1 Vaillant (Histoire Naturelle des Anneldés, marins et d’eau douce, Paris,
1889, p. 183, et seg.) unites Antews and Microcheta. The very remarkable
spermathece of the latter genus, which are also found in Brachydrilus, seem
to be against such an identification. His generic definition, created for the
inclusion of these two forms, seems to me to be not sufficiently precise.

240 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

part I agree with his criticisms. But it must be remembered
that it expressed the knowledge of the time, in, as I think,
a very satisfactory fashion. I reserve further remarks until
after writing down Rosa’s scheme, which is as follows :—

Lumbricide.
Lumbricus, Eis.1
Allolobophora, His.
Allurus, Eis.
Tetragonurus, Eis.
Geoscolecide.

Geoscolex, Leuck.
Anteus, E. P.
Thamnodrilus, F. E. B.
Microcheta, F. E. B.
Urobenus, Benham.
Urocheta, KE. P.
Dacheta, Benham.
Hormogaster, Rosa.
Khinodrilus, E. P.
Geogenia, Kinb.
Tritogenia, Kinb.
Moniligastride.
Momligaster, E. P.
Acanthodrilide.
Acanthodrilus, K. P.
Trigaster, Benham.
Eudrilide.
EFudrilus, E. P.
Typheus, F. E. B.
Microscolex,. Rosa.
Photodrilus, Giard.
Pontodrilus, BK. P.
Digaster, HE. P.
Notoscolex, Fletch.?
Didymogaster, Fletch.

+ Only the generic names printed in ‘‘Clarendon” in the author’s list
are given here.

2 Notoscolex, according to Spencer (The Anatomy of Megascolides australis
—Trans. Roy Soe. Victoria, vol. i., pt. 1), should be replaced by Megas-
colides, M‘Coy.

The Classification and Distribution of Earthworms. 241

Cryptodrilus, Fletch.

Perissogaster, Fletch.
Perichetide.

Megascolex, Temp.

Pericheta, Schm.,

Perionyx, KE. P.

The classificatory scheme is completed on page 19 by a
phylogenetic diagram, which is constructed thus :—

Lumbricide.
Eudrilide.
Geoscolecide.
\ Perichextidz,
? Moniligastrida. ———— \ pee ae
hed
Acanthodrilide.

I now propose to examine this scheme in detail, and to give
my reasons for objecting to parts of it.

Rosa first of all gives his reasons for regarding a// earth-
worms as referable to a single group, Terricole, equivalent
not to a group, Limicolz, but to each of various divisions into
which the Limicole may be divided, such as Enchytreide,
Tubificide. Dr Rosa does not commit himself, and there is
no necessity for his doing so, to the precise definition of these
eroups. Vejdovsky, on the other hand, regards his families
of earthworms, such as Pontodrilide, Perichetide, as equi-
valent to families of Limicole, such as Phreoryctide, Tubi-
ficide, etc. There is thus an important difference, duly
emphasised by Rosa, between his scheme and that of
Vejdovsky.

242 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

The position that I myself take up in this particular
matter is one intermediate between that of the two natural-
ists. I do not consider it possible to retain a group Terri-
cole. I consider that earthworms fall into two groups—
(1.) Lumbrici; (2.) Moniligastres—each of which is equivalent
to any one of the various divisions, such as those enumerated
above, into which the aquatic Oligocheta fall. I do not,
however, for the present attempt to define what these groups
are. :

I define the two groups of Lumbrici and Moniligastres as
follows, my definition of Lumbrici being practically that
which Rosa applies to the Terricole :—

OLIGOCH ATA.

Brancu A, Lumbrici.

(1.) Z'wo pairs of testes in segments x. and xi. ;1 sometimes
one 1s wanting.

(2.) One to four pairs of sperm sacs, subdivided into nume-
rous chambers, variously «interconnected, sometimes
involving the testes and vas deferens funnels.

(3.) Vasa deferentia opening into the segments whach contain
the testes ; generally two (if one pair of testes, then one)

on each side, free until ther termination or partially
Sused.
(4.) One pair_of ovaries, generally in segment xili.?

1 Rosa calls attention to the anomaly in the position of the testes, etc., in
Microcheeta, as recorded by Benham (Studies on Earthworms, No. 1—Q.J.M.S.,
vol. xxvi., p. 278 et seg.). On examining a specimen of this worm (much
softened by imperfect preservation) it appeared to me that the funnels of the
vasa deferentia were in segments x. and xi. respectively, and not in ix. and x. ;
and that my original description (On the Anatomy and Systematic Position
of a Gigantic Earthworm, etc.—Trans. Zool. Soc., vol. xii., pt. 3) was so far
correct. On the other hand, I have satisfied myself that the vasa deferentia
open on to the exterior in segment xix., as Benham stated, and not on segment
xviii., as I stated. Probably, therefore, though I can make no positive
statement, the testes are also in x. and xi,

Rosa fixes the position of the testes ‘‘contro alla parete anteriore” as
distinctive. I have, however, shown that in Acanthodrilus annectens they
are attached to hind wall of segment (see On the Anatomy of Three New
Species of Karthworms, etc.—Q. J. M.S., vol. xxx.).

* One or two exceptions to this statement have been recorded. In Plutellus
(Perrier, Atude sur un genre nouveau des Lombriciens (Plutellus, E. P.)—

The Classification and Distribution of Harthworms. 243

(5.) One pair of oviducts opening internally into the xiiith,
externally on'to the xivth segment.

(6.) One pair (rarely two, as in Pericheta aspergillum) of
egg sacs, minute bodies in segment xiv.

Brancu B. Moniligastres.

(1.) One pair of testes in ix, or x.

(2.) One pair of sperm sacs in segment x., with simple undi-
vided cavity.

(3.) Vasa deferentia, one pair opening into ixth or xth
segment (according to position of testes) internally, and
on to intersegmental groove between x.-xi. externally,
by an atrium like that of the Lumbriculide.

(4.) One patr of ovaries in segment xi. (1).

(5.) One pair of oviducts opening behind the atrial pores
into segment x1,

(6.) Lgg sacs large, extending through several segments.

It seems to me impossible to regard these two groups as
resembling each other so much more closely than either of
them resembles any given group of the “ Limicole” as to
necessitate their inclusion in the same group. I do not,
however, think it worth while to recapitulate more fully than
in the above table my reasons for this belief, as I have
already discussed the matter in the papers referred to in the
footnote.'

Arch. de Zool. Exp., t. i., 1872), the ducts have been stated to open on to the
xth segment.

In Brachydrilus Benham has stated (Note on a New Earthworm—Zool.
Anz., Bd. xi., No. 271) that the ovaries lie in segment xii.—‘‘an unusual
position.” It is, if no more, a curious coincidence that this should agree
exactly with the position of the ovaries in A/icrocheta Rappii, as determined
by Benham (Studies on Earthworms, No. 1—Q. J. M. S., vol. xxvi., p. 279)
and myself (On the Anatomy and Systematic Position of a Gigantic Earth-
‘worm [Microcheta Rappii| from the Cape Colony—Trans. Zool. Soce., vol. xii.,
‘p. 75), seeing that these genera are allied in other particulars. It is true
that both Benham and I myself gave xiii. as the ovarian segment. I myself,
however, pointed out later (Descriptions of some new or little known
Earthworms, ete.—P. Z. S., 1886, p. 306) that the organ described by us as
‘*ovary ” was probably ‘‘receptaculum ovorum’”’—the ovary really lying in
segment xii. I have again looked into the matter, and can confirm the
above statements with regard to position of ovaries, ete.

1 For fuller details respecting Moniligaster, see my paper On the Strue-
ture of a Genus of Oligocheta belonging to the Limicoline Section—Trans.
Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. xxxv., and the literature therein cited.

244 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socrety.

With regard to the subdivisions of the Lumbrici, it is
clearly necessary to indicate in the arrangement their prob-
able phylogenetic relationships. This is not indicated by
Rosa in his scheme of classification, although he does do so
later in his paper in the “ Stammbaum,” which I have copied
into the present communication.

Rosa’s classification will doubtless commend itself to many
for the reason that it is based upon the total of a large
number of characters. If we exclude those which are found
in more than one family, we get the following diagnoses of
Rosa’s families :-—

Lumbricide—
Male pores in front of clitellum. Gizzard behind sexual
organs.

Geoscolecide—
Copulatory setz longer than the others, and of a different
form.

Acanthodrilide—
Four groups of penial sete (connected with the four atria).

EKudrilide—?

Perichetidea—
Setz very numerous in each segment.

All of these families cannot, as constituted by Rosa, be
diagnosed at all. Further research, particularly the discovery
of the genus Deinodrilus and the species Pericheta stuart,
has rendered it at least difficult to distinguish the Periche-
tide and the Acanthodrilide.

On the other hand, the Lumbricide and Geoscolecidze
appear, so far as we know at present, to be natural families.
It is, in fact, necessary, in order to arrive at a tabular expres-
sion of the real affinities, to combine some of the groups into
larger ones, and to split up others into smaller ones. This
is, to a certain extent, done by Rosa in his “ Stammbaum.”

He places the Acanthodrilid quite apart from the others,
and at the base of the series.

How far is this justified by our present fuller knowledge
of this group and of others ?

The Classification and Distribution of Earthworms. 245

Rosa’s reasons for regarding the Acanthodrilide as the
most primitive existing forms are the following :—

(1.) The frequent doubling of the dorsal vessel,’ which
seems, from the observations of Kowalevsky and
Vejdovsky, to be a persistent embryonic trait.

(2.) The presence in A. dissimilis? of two pairs of ovaries
corresponding to the two pairs of testes.

(3.) The comparative independence of the two vasa
deferentia of each side.

(4.) (This is queried) the presence of 8 nephridia per somite
in A, multiporus.

As regards (1.) it is undoubtedly true that a good number
of species of Acanthodrilus (four or five) show the peculiarity
mentioned. But this same doubling of the dorsal vessel occurs
in Megascolex ceruleus® and in Microcheta Rapp, in Deino- _~
drilus Benhamv® and in Teleudrilus Ragazzvi.6 It is, however,
more frequent in the Acanthodrilide than in other families.

(2.) The rudiment of a second ovary (in segment xii.)
seems, from the researches of Bergh,’ to be so often met with
in Lwmbricus, that I am not disposed to lay much stress upon
this character as indicative of the low position of Acantho-
drilus. Furthermore, I have shown some reasons for think-
ing that two fully developed ovaries are distinctive of
Hudrilus8

1 BeEDDARD, On the Specific Characters and Structure of certain New
Zealand Earthworms—P. Z. S., 1885, p. 821.

2 Ibid., p. 828.

3 BEDDARD, On the Anatomy and Histology of Plewrocheta Moseleyi—
Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. xxx., p. 481.

4 BEDDARD, On the Anatomy and Systematic Position of a Gigantic Earth-
worm from the Cape Colony—Trans. Zool. Soc., vol. xii., p. 70; and
BENHAM, Studies in Earthworms, No. I.—Q. J. M. 8., vol. xxvi.

5 BEDDARD, On Three New Species of Earthworms, etc.—Q. J. M. S.,
vol. xxx.

® Rosa, Lombrichi delle Scioa—Ann. Mus. Civ. Geneva, ser. 2, vol. vi.
(1888), pl. ix., fig. 2.

7 Geschlechtsorgane der Regenwiirmer—2Z. wiss. Zool., Bd. xliv., pl. xxi.,
ne, 10% 3,

8 Further Notes upon the Reproductive Organs of Hudrilus—Zool. Anz.,
No. 293 (1888).

246 Proceedings of the loyal Physical Society.

(3.) As to the vasa deferentia, it remains to be seen
whether there are not two distinct pairs in Bourne’s Pericheta
Stuarti.: There are certainly in Ludrilus.?

(4.) We next come to the nephridia. Rosa, in the course
of his remarks, supports my view as to the archaic nature of
the excretory system of A. multiporus, though evidently
with some doubt, as is evinced by the query which precedes
his remarks. He concludes these in the following words :—
“ Tuttavia bisogna notare que egli considera come ancora pitt
primitiva la disposizione che si ha nell’ A. multiporus alla
parte anteriore del corpo, in cui gli otto canali dei nefridii si
ramificano formando un ciclo di pori attorno ad ogni seg-
mento. I] Beddard ritiene che ognuno di questi pori corris-
pondesse originariamente ad una setola, e percid che forme
primitive avessero un ciclo completo di setole. Ma in tale
ipotesi @ difficile comprendere come una simile disposizione
non si sia trovata in nessuno dei molti Perichetidi che ci son
‘noti.”

The suggestion which Rosa quotes in the above passage
has been to a large extent confirmed by my discovery of the
relations of the nephridia in Pericheta.?

Deferring for a time the question of the nephridia, it does
not seem to me that Rosa’s views as to the primitive nature
of the Acanthodrilide can be regarded as established. They
are not so convincing to me as are reasons which will be put
forward later for placing Pericheta in the position occupied
by Acanthodrilus in Rosa’s scheme.

Turning now to the mutual relationships of the remaining
families, we find that Rosa unites the Eudrilide and Peri-
cheetidee into one group, and the Geoscolecide and Lumbricide
into another; the Moniligastride are doubtfully referred to
the latter.

The connection is presumably not regarded as a very close
one, seeing that there is no indication of it in the classifica-
tion on pp. 8-10.

1 Preliminary Notice of Earthworms from the Nilgiris and Shevaroys—
P. Z. 8. (1886).

2 BeppDARD, Contributions to the Anatomy of Earthworms, ete.—P. Z. 8.

(1887), p. 372.
* On the Presence of Numerous Nephridia, ete.—-Q. J. M. S., vol. xxviii.

The Classification and Distribution of Earthworms. 247

The first group (that of the Eudrilide and Perichtide) are
affined by the possession of a complete clitellum!' of a com-
paratively constant position; the male apertures are either
on the 17th or 18th segment, on the hinder part of the
clitellum, or upon one of the immediately succeeding seg-
ments; the presence of prostates; the presumed absence
of typhlosole. The last statement is the only one with
which I wish to find fault as being inaccurate, though I
desire to point out that Dr Rosa could not be aware of its
inaccuracy. As a matter of fact I have found a typhlosole
in some species of Pericheta; for example, in P. indica and
P. afinis® It is true that in these species the typhlosole is
small; but it is not less developed than in such Acantho-
dru as A. Nova Zelandie.

The second group (including the Lumbricidie, Geoscole-
cide, and ? Moniligastridz) presents the following char-
acters: — A saddle-shaped (incomplete) clitellum, of very
variable position and extent; male apertures inconstant in
position but always in front of the clitellum, or on the
anterior region of the clitellum; no prostates; very general
presence of a typhlosole, and (I suppose I may add) absence
of penial sete; presence of only 8 sete in each segment.

These groups are indeed, as Rosa admits, rather different.
The Acanthodrili, he thinks, serve to connect them. J append
a literal translation of Rosa’s view as to this relationship :—
“The Acanthodrilide have the male pores on the posterior
margin of the clitellum, or beyond it; and the clitellum is
constituted by a complete girdle, an arrangement which leads
to the first group, Eudrilide and Perichetide. At other
times they have the male pores in the median region, or

1A “complete” clitellum signifies one in which the glandular substance
is developed equally all round the body, instead of only upon the dorsal and
lateral regions. As will be seen later (p. 262, footnote), there are reasons,
in my opinion, against making any such use of the clitellum in classification.

21 prefer to term these structures ‘‘atria,” in order to fix their identity
with the atria in many of the aquatic genera (Cf. BEDDARD, On the Structure
of Three New Species of Earthworms, etc.—Q. J. M. S., vol. xxix., pt. 2,
pp. 117-128.

3 Contributions to the Anatomy of Earthworms, ete.—Q. J. M. S., vol.
XEK., p. 47%

248 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

even anterior region, of the clitellum, which is then ventrally
incomplete, as, eg., in L'rigaster Lankestert. This arrange-
ment leads to the Geoscolecide and Lumbricide.

“The Moniligastride can, I think, be regarded as modified
Geoscolecide. The passage between the Geoscolecide and
the Lumbricide is effected by Crizodrilus, in which the male
pores are immediately in front of the clitellum (Benham).
According to this way of looking at the matter, the least
modified forms of the Perichetide will be sought for in
Megascolez—that is to say, in those Perichetide in which
the clitellum is not limited to three segments, and in which
the sete still show median intervals. In these forms there
are no lateral intestinal cceca, and the nephridia have still
the normal form, as I have seen in MMegascolex (Pericheta)
armatus, Beddard.

“Now it is precisely in Megascolex (as thus defined) that
bundles of penial setz are still found, which are wanting in
other forms. These are found in JZ. armatus, where they
exist in relation to the male pores, and in Megascolex (Pericheta)
ceylonicus, Beddard: the latter species would appear, accord-
ing to Beddard,! to possess in front of the usual apertures, two
others which lead into a blind tube, which may be regarded
as a vestige of the first pair of male openings in the
Acanthodrilide.”

There is an obvious discrepancy here with views expressed
on an earlier page. If it be admitted that one of the reasons
for regarding the Acanthodrilide as the primitive group is the
presence of numerous nephridia per somite in A. multiporus,
it can hardly be said that Megascolex (as defined by Rosa) comes
nearest to the primitive form because it has normal nephridia
—that is, one pair per somite! Apparently, however, Dr Rosa
was of opinion that the minute nephridia of Pericheta (s. str.)
were in a degenerate condition, though he quoted (p. 19)
Benham’s paper, “Studies on. Earthworms, pt. i—Q. J. M. S.,
vol. xxvi.,” in which work Benham refers (at p. 256) to his
own and my observations upon Pericheta.

1 Notes on some Earthworms from Ceylon and the Philippine Islands,
including a description of two new species—Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist.,
ser. 5, vol. 17 (1886), p. 89.

The Classification and Distribution of Earthworms. 249

It appears to me, in fact, that the key to the classification of the
group is to be found in the modifications of the excretory system.

It is obvious that the way in which any group should be
classified is that which will indicate its course of develop-
ment. Clearly, therefore, characters should be chosen which
have a relation to lower forms from which the group to be
classified has been evolved. Characters peculiar to the
croup, however much or appropriately they may vary, can
only be regarded as of secondary importance. Where, how-
ever, it is a question of indicating the affinity of particular
species and genera, then characters peculiar to the group are
available. Hence it may be perfectly reasonable to sketch the
main outlines of a scheme of classification by the modifica-
tions of only a single character; and perfectly unreasonable to
do so by the use of even a large number of other characters.

It is a common mistake to think that several characters
are necessarily better than one.

Now it appears to me that structures like the clitellum,
the sete, the gizzard, and so forth, are so distinctively
“Oligochetous,” that it is dangerous to commence the broad out-
lines of a classification by using them as diagnostic characters.
It seems to me quite conceivable that these characters and
others like them may have changed about so greatly during
the course of the evolution of the group as to have several
times (independently) produced the same result. I do not
think, for example, that the Lumbricide and Geoscolecide are
necessarily related on account of the absence in both of atria
and penial setze, and in the saddle-shaped clitellum. Such a
modification may have occurred more than once.

The nephridia, however, are not distinctively Oligochetous
structures even in the actual form which they assume in
that group.

As long as one species of Acanthodrilus (A. multiporus)! was the
only form known with numerous nephridia per segment, it was
perfectly legitimate for Eisig to refuse? to admit this arrangement
as the archaic one. It might readily be supposed, as the Naples
zoologist supposed, that the multiplication and interconnection

1 BEDDARD, Preliminary Note on the Nephridia of a new Species of Earth-
worm—Proc. Roy. Soc., June 1885.
? Die Capitelliden in Fauna und Flora des Golfes von Neapel.

250 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Soctety.

was the result of the division of an originally single pair of
nephridia to each segment. Now, however, numerous genera,
including most of those with the largest number of species, have
been shown by myself,! by Benham,” and by Spencer,’ to possess
an excretory system of the same kind. These genera include
representatives of three out of six of Rosa’s families. As both
conditions may occur in the same genera (for example Acantho-
drilus, Cryptodrilus, Pericheta [sensu lato]), it seems clear that one
of the two conditions has been several times independently
produced. Thus, after all, it may perhaps be said that Eisig’s
objections are so far not removed, as there is a simple mul-
tiplication of instances. As a question of mere probability it
seems to me easier to suppose a reduction than a multiplica-
tion of nephridia in a segment, especially as there is at the
same time in some genera (in Pericheta and Megascolides at
any rate) a connection between the nephridia not only of,the
same segment, but also from segment to segment. In these forms,
moreover, there is no regularity in the position of the external
pores or the celomic funnels; they cannot with any approxi-
mation to the truth be called “segmental organs.” On a priore
grounds, therefore, the existence of dysmetameric organs in so
regularly metameric an animal as an Annelid suggest an inheritance
rather than a modification within the group. Another argument
for considering the dysmetameric condition as the more primitive
is afforded by the genera Megascolides and Acanthodrilus. In
the former genus Spencer® has described nephridia opening by
numerous ducts into the pharynx; in A. multiporus I have
myself found ® that the hinder region of the intestine is furnished
with numerous diverticula, which become continuous with tubes
indistinguishable from the ordinary nephridia. Now it is more

1 Preliminary Note on the Nephridia of Perichata—Proc. Roy. Soc., vol.
xliil., p. 309. The Nephridia of Earthworms—Nature, vol. xxxvili., p. 221
(1887). On the Presence of Numerous Nephridia, etc.—Q. J. M. S., vol.
Xxviil., p. 3897. On certain Points in the Structure of Urocheta, ete.—
Ibid., vol. xxix., p. 235. On the Structure of Three New Species of Earth-
worms, etc.—Jbid., vol. xxix., p. 101.

* Studies in Earthworms, No. I.—Q. J. M. S., vol. xxvi., p. 213.

’The Nephridia of Earthworms—Nature, vol. xxxviii., p. 221; The
Anatomy of Megascolides australis—Trans. Roy. Soc. Vict., vol. i., No. 1.

4 The following have or may have “ diffuse”” nephridia :—Pericheta (and its
subdivisions), Cryptodrilus, Megascolides, Digaster, Didymogaster, Dichogaster,
Acanthodrilus, Trigaster, Typheeus, Deodrilus, Deinodrilus. They include
one-half of the known species. There are 19 genera in which the nephridia
are always paired.

5 Loc. cit., pl. iii., fig. 10.

6 On the possible Origin of the Malpighian Tubules in Arthropods—Ann,
and Mag. Nat. Hist., 1889, p. 290.

The Classification and Distribution of Earthworms. 251

than probable that the anterior and posterior gut regions into which
these nephridia open are stomodeeum and proctodeeum respect-
ively, 2.e., epidermic involutions. Hence the existence of numerous
nephridial pores may be regarded as having been established
before the involution of epiblast to form the two extremities of
the digestive tract. A secondary connection seems more unlikely.

It seems therefore permissible to regard these facts: as
strengthening the justice of the view that the diffuse or
dysmetameric nephridia are the most ancient form of these
organs; and, if so, they show a decided resemblance to the
excretory system of the Planarians, some of which worms
appear to me to represent, more nearly than any other living
group, the ancestors of the Oligocheta.

This being so, I would associate together all those earth-
worms which have a nephridial system built upon the Platy-
helminth type into one group, on the assumption that the
character in which they agree must be a mark of affinity.

This group will include three of Rosa’s families, viz. :—
Perichetide, Acanthodrilide, and Eudrilide; and I term it—

Group I. ACANTHODRILINT!

Definition.—Larthworms generally with a diffuse (dysme-
tameric) nephridial system ; always provided with atria
which are either tubular or lobate ; often provided with
penial sete. Clitellum commencing in the xiith or
xilith segment, and of variable extent. Male generative
pores on xviith or xviiith segment. Spermathece always (2)
Surnished with diverticula.

This group is divisible into the following families :—

1. Family Perichetide.

Definition.—Larthworms with numerous sete per segment
arranged in a continuous ring, sometimes with dorsal
and ventral gaps, 20 to 100 in number. Nephridia nearly
always diffuse. Atria lobate or (rarely) tubular ; penia

setee generally absent.

1 Exception may be taken to this name, particularly as I regard the Peri-
chetide as the typical family. I adopt it, however, for the reason that the
diffuse nephridia were first made known in Acanthodrilus, and that the name
may be taken to express the fact that the majority of its members have penial
sete. This led Perrier to apply the name Acanthodrilus to the genus.

VOLu xX. Ss

252 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Genera—Pericheta (including Megascolex as a sub-genus) ;
Perionyx, EK. P.; Diporocheta, F. E. B.; Anisocheta,
F. E. B.; Hoplocheta, F. E. B.}

2. Family Cryptodrilide.
Sete 8 in number per segment, paired or distant. Nephridia
diffuse or paired—tf parred, symmetrical or alternate.
Atria tubular or lobate ; penial sete present or absent.

Genera—Cryptodrilus, Fletcher ; Megascolides, M‘Coy ;
Digaster, E. P. ; Didymogaster, Fletch. ; Dichogaster,
F. E. B.; ? Plutellus, E. P.; Perissogaster, Fletch. ;
Microscolex, Rosa; Photodrilus, Giard; Pontodrilus,
E. P.; Rhododrilus, F. E. B.; Pygmeodrilus, Mich. ;
Eudriloides, Mich. ; Callidrilus, Mich.

3. Family Deinodrilide.

Sete 12 in number per segment. Clitellum occupying three
segments (xiv.-xvi.); atria two pairs of tubular glands
opening on to xvil. and xix.; male generative pores on
xviii. Penal sete present ; nephridia diffuse.

Genus—Deinodrilus.

4. Family Acanthodrilide.

Setee 8 in number per segment, parred or distant. Clitellum
occupying 4 to 7 segments, xii, (xili,)—Xviil, (xXix.); atria
and vasa deferentia as wi Deinodrilide. Penial sete
usually present ; nephridia diffuse or parred—if paired,
regular or alternate.

Genera—Acanthodrilus,*? Trigaster. (Clitellum exception-
ally extended.)

1 These genera, which are very different from those into which the family
is usually divided, are defined in my paper (Observations upon an American
Species of Perichewta, and upon some other Members of the Genus—
P. Z. S., 1890, pt. ii.) upon this family. Vaillant (Histoire des Annelés,
etc., p. 63) divides Perichawta into no less than eight sub-genera, but on the.
variations of characters, which I do not agree with him in regarding as very
important. Among these are Kinberg’s five genera—itucris, Amyntas,
Pheretina, Lampito, and Rhodopis, which I had hoped had been finally laid
to rest.

2 Michaelsen (Oligocheeten des naturhistorischen Museums in Hamburg 1,
JB. Hamb. wiss. Anst., vi., 1889) has proposed to separate as a distinct
genus Benhamia those Acanthodrili with more than one gizzard with diffuse
nephridia and an ‘‘incomplete” clitellum extending beyond male pores. It
will include 7rigaster. Ina later paper (Beschreibung der von Herrn Dr F.
Stuhlmann im Miindungsgebiet des Sambesi, etc., id., Bd. vii., 1890) this

The Classification and Distribution of Larthworms. 253

Observations.—Apart altogether from the nephridia, it is
necessary to include these families in one group: they are in
every case so closely connected. The more typical Periche-
tidze seem sharply marked off from any others, but Deino-
drilus is an almost exactly intermediate form between
Pericheta and Acanthodrilus. It has more than eight setze
in each segment, and a clitellum like that of Perichata. The
male reproductive apparatus is like that of Acanthodrilus, but
in P. stuarti of Bourne '—a form which I have ventured to
distinguish generically—we have also fowr tubular atria.
Moreover, in Pericheta ceylonica,? there are indications of an
approach to Acanthodrilus, though that species requires
further investigation.

With regard to the Cryptodrilide,? such a form as Ponto-
drilus is very distinct from Pericheta, and in the absence of
any knowledge of intermediate forms would have to be
separated into a very distinct family. This has been done
by Vejdovsky ;* but, at the time when he wrote, the two
genera Microscolex and Photodrilus, as well as the Aus-
tralian genera described by Fletcher,° were unknown.
These form collectively a family, which is chiefly defined,
however, by negative characters. I exclude from this

separation is still adhered to, but the presence of more than one gizzard is
dropped out asa part of the definition. It appears to me also necessary to
omit the characters of the clitellum as a definition, since in Acanthodrilus
annectens—a species with paired nephridia—the clitellum extends beyond
segment xix. It may be useful, however, to adopt Dr Michaelsen’s separation
of Acanthodrili with diffuse nephridia into a distinct genus, as the genus is
even now getting inconveniently large.

1 Preliminary Notes on Indian Earthworms—pt. i. : On Earthworms from
the Shevaroys and Nilgiris (Proc. Zool. Soc., 1886).

2 Notes on some Earthworms from Ceylon and the Philippine Islands,
including a description of two new species—Ann. and Mag, Nat. Hist., 1886,
p. 89.

3 I name this family Cryptodrilide, though on the grounds of priority it
ought to be called Megascolidide ; after the recent discussion in Nature
(Feb. 13, 1890) about the correct writing of terms borrowed from the Greek,
I have not the courage to introduce so awkward a term, and therefore fall
back upon Cryptodrilide. This word has the advantage of being pronounce-
able, and in calling attention to the fact that Cryptodrilus is the most
prominent genus of the family.

4 Loc. cit. (on p. 238).

> Notes on Australian Earthworms—Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S. W., 1886-88.

254 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

family Hudrilus and Teleudrilus, about which something
will be said presently. This family is, however, closely
connected with the Perichetide, through the remark-
able genus Anisocheta made known by Fletcher. In this
form, which I regard as distinct from Pericheta, the sete
of the first few anterior segments are eight in number in
each segment; afterwards they increase until the normal
“perichetous” condition is reached. This genus connects
the two families in the only direction in which any con-
nection is at all necessary. Apart from the sete, it is
absolutely impossible to draw any line, however slender,
between the Cryptodrilide and Perichetide.

My family Cryptodrilide does not include Hudrilus and
the genus Teleudrilus, quite recently described by Rosa, and,
as I think, for good reasons.

These two genera are unique among Earthworms (1.) in the
structure of the female efferent apparatus; (2.) in the structure
of the male efferent ducts. There are also a number of smaller
points in which they differ from any of the Cryptodrilide.

The two vasa deferentia of each side are separate up to
their point of opening, a character hitherto confined to the
Deinodrilidee and Acanthodrilide (? as to Hoplocheta Stuarti
and Megascolex ceylonicus) ; they open into the upper end of
a structure obviously identical with the atrium of other
forms, though differing in many details of structure. In no
other case is there a connection between the vasa deferentia
and the wpper end of atrium, except in Moniligaster (which I
have already seen reasons for referring to a distinct group,
equal to that which includes all other earthworms). These
atria are connected with a terminal apparatus of a remarkable
nature, which has its nearest analogue in the Tubificide.’

1 Lombrichi dello Scioa—Ann. Mus. Civ. Geneva, ser. 2, vol. vi. (1888),
p. 571.

2 All these points are more fully treated of in the following papers by
myself :—The Reproductive Organs in the genus Hudrilus—Proc. Roy. Soc.
Edin., vol. xiii., p. 672; Descriptions of some new or little known Earth-
worms, etc.—Proc. Zool. Soc., 1886, p. 302; Notes on the Ovaries and
Oviducts of Hudrilus—Zool. Anz., No. 224, 1886; Contributions to the
Anatomy: of Earthworms—No. 1: On the Structure of Hudrilus sylvicola
(Proc. Zool. Soc., 1887, p. 372); Further Notes upon the Reproductive
Organs of Zudrilus—Zool. Anz., No. 293, 1888.

The Classification and Distribution of Earthworms. 255

The female apparatus is unique by reason of the fact that
the oviducts are highly muscular tubes, that they are con-
tinuous with the ovaries, and that the spermathecz are
diverticula of them. The ova themselves have a somewhat
peculiar structure and history.1

Teleudrilus is less peculiar than HLudrilus.

The minor peculiarities to which I have referred are (1.)
the presence of peculiar bodies in the epidermis, possibly
identical in their nature with certain problematical struc-
tures in Urocheta ;* (2.) the presence of unpaired calciferous
glands, as well as paired ones, lying beneath the cesophagus.
It is only by omitting to notice these peculiarities that Rosa
has forced this genus into his family Eudrilide (=my
Cryptodrilide minus Hudrilus and Teleudrilus).

It does not appear to me possible to include these two
genera in my group Acanthodrilini at all; they are evidently
isolated types, whose affinities at present cannot be regarded
as certain.® :

In the meantime, pending the discovery of intermediate
forms, | put them in a group by themselves, which will be
defined as follows :—

Group II. EUDRILINI.

Definition.—Harthworms with regularly paired nephridia,
furnished with atria and a terminal copulatory appara-
tus of a peculiar nature. Oviducts continuous with the
ovaries, and opening generally in common with the
spermathece.

1 On the Structure and Development of the Ovum in an Annelid (Zudrilus)
—Jour. Anat. Phys., vol. xxii., p. 9.

2 PERRIER, Arch. Zool. Exp., t. iii., 1874, p. 331.

3 Since writing the above I have received Dr Michaelsen’s most recent
paper, which contains a description of some most interesting forms belonging
to this group (JB. Hamb. wiss. Anst., vii.). I have placed the various genera
in what I believe to be the proper places in my scheme, but I make no other
alterations in the text. I do not regard Hudriloides as a link between
Eudrilini and Cryptodrilide, although its single unpaired spermatheca
is in the ovarian segment. This peculiarity is met with among the Geo-
scolecini,

256 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

1. Family Eudrilide.'
Male apertures single or paired on xviith segment. Clitellum
occupying segments xili.—xvil. ; both oviducts and sperm
. ducts with a muscular coat.

Genera—Hudrilus, Teleudrilus, Nemertodrilus, Polytor-
eutus, Stuhlmannia.

The mutual relationships of the Acanthodrilini are, I
think, fairly clear from what has been seen on the last page.
I should regard the following scheme as indicative of their
affinities :—

Acanthodrilide.
See Eudrilini.

‘ Deinodrilide. y
\ iA
\ Y

/
ie
ped

\ /
y

val oplocheta aly)

|
Perichetid. /
/

7,
/

1 These definitions can, of course, only be regarded as a preliminary

attempt. I make no serious effort to decide which are probably of family
value and which distinguish the group.

The Classification and Distribution of Harthworms. 257

I include the Eudrilini in this table, deriving them from a
very primitive stock, of which, however, I consider that they
are greatly modified members. I do this chiefly on account
of the reproductive organs, which show resemblances to those
of Leeches and Platyhelminths.

I regard the Perichztidee as the most archaic family, not
wholly on account of the nephridial system, for in Mega-
scolides at any rate, if not in other Cryptodrilid, the ne-
phridial system is nearly equally archaic. But it will be
noticed, from a consideration of the facts of the case, that the
connection between the different forms is rather easier if we
derive all from Pericheta. Moreover, the complete circle of
setee of Pericheta, as well as their wide distribution, is a
point to be urged in favour of their archaic nature. These
matters are more fully discussed in a paper communicated to
the Zoological Society of London in January of this year.

We now come to the more difficult task of classifying the
remaining earthworms. It is more difficult, because fewer
forms are known, and many of these are very imperfectly
known, eg., Anteus and Creoscolex.

We may clear the ground by at once admitting the
naturalness of the family Lumbricide, which, as Rosa says,
is generally accepted. I should have regarded them, not as
a family equivalent to, for example, the Cryptodrilde, but
as a group corresponding to that of the Acanthodrilini.

Group III, LUMBRICINI.

Definition.—LZarthworms with a paired series of nephridia
never furnished with atria or penial sete. The sete on
clitellum differing from the others by their greater length.
Clitellum commencing not earlier than the 22d segment,
and occupying 7-10 segments. Male pores upon segment
12, 13, or 15. Gizzard at commencement of intestine ;
sete 8 in each segment, f-shaped and not ornamented.

Family Lumbricide.
(With the characters of the group.)

Genera—Lumbricus, L.; Allolobophora, His.; Allwrus, Eis. ;
Tetragonurus, His.

258 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Observation—I am doubtful at present about Criodrilus.
The structure of this worm has been investigated by
Vejdovsky,! Rosa,? Oerley,? Benham,‘ and Collin.®

Is Rosa’s group of the Geoscolecidze a natural one? It
is thus defined by him :—“ Male pores within the clitellum
between the dorsal and ventral set, occupying segments,
or intersegmental spaces, very variable in position. Cl-
tellum usually saddle-shaped, varying in length and posi-
tion. Setz 8 per segment, disposed in pairs, or distant, or
in different arrangements, often varying in the anterior and
posterior segments. Copulatory sete longer than the others,
and of a different form. The gizzard (or gizzards) placed
anteriorly. Sperm sacs one or two pairs. No prostates or
penial sete.”

The following tabular scheme indicates the chief struc-
tural points which characterise the ten genera about which
alone we have any anatomical knowledge. Rosa refers Kin-
berg’s genera *—Creogenia, Tritogenia, and EKurydame, besides
Schmarda’s ’ Pontoscolec—to this group.

1 System und Morphologie der Oligocheten. Prag, 1884, passim.

2 Sul Criodrilus lacwwm Studio Zoologico ed Anatomico—Mem. R. Acc. Sci.
Torino, ser. 2, t. xxxviii. (1887).

3 Morphological and Biological Observations on Criodrilus lacuum—Q. J.
MES. volt! xxvii. (11887); 9p: 551:

4 Studies on Earthworms—III. Criodrilus lacuwm, Hoffmeister (Q. J. M.S.,
vol. xxvii., 1887, p. 561).

° Criodrilus lacuum—Zeitschr. wiss. Zool., Bd. xlvi. (1888).

6 Annulata nova—(Hfy. af K. Vet. Akad. Foérh. (1866).

7 Neue Wirbellose Thiere gesammelt auf einer Reise um die Erde, vol. ii.
(1861), p. 11.

259

“D7DYIOL | UL SB
spuvps 101eqsod
$p7MYIILA_ USB |
¥vowMd [RUTJSOIUT
*20qDYUI} “UN
UL 1N990
81) P0}0UT
UI SBS [VIUIT

(4)

‘ZI Ul SOLIVAO

(4)

‘ZI UL SOLIVAO

The Classification and Distribution of Earthworms.

*SAMNJONMS.
40410

Es

“LU

0 | dred ou é
O é é
é é é

‘BL ‘IT ‘OT ur
0 sued 9ar1qy, 0)

++

wmnwo},

*66-ST
{ podeys 4 ‘poled "SnaqUy
“9IPPeS
“SC-FL
‘ ; d
‘ podeys é Lei *00]0980049)
-3[PPes__ puv 4uvysiq
"GS-3 j ‘queysig | snjauprydhipy
ee "u@ysip 7
cSZ-ST ;
: quor1aytp BLJUOA |,
‘ podeys sausys : paired 4098 DDOULLO FT
TPPYS [es.0g
‘Gc-FT_ |
‘ qyue.leQtp ,
‘ podeys AMUSe polled "snUaqgoLyQ
-arppes DUIS
eee “UOTyey UU
oA 26ST | -euto arey} |poyuoureuso| ,
10 12°06 | ur poyxeut [sported aqag | 9224 POMUT
$ podeys a10W '
~9TPPBS
‘Spuly sory}
$ ULLOJ
i pozuatmeuIO ee aned L DIwmyoyohug
oyy W01y
Ie[NSIIIT
' 6 “481
snonuryuos| *peyueul :
66-065) |) SOHN retin de eae
“TG-9T 6 peel “poured |'snpuphyooug
*podevys *poyIpout
-a[ppes ‘poquoul =| wqosyeaquaa| ,
“GZ-ET 10 -eUlOUL) IOLay Ue DOO OM TTE
“86-01 * polled
"diy 4% pyrq
‘podeys é vepnSa.d1
-o]ppes |poajJUSWeUIO) spavmtogye | *772~Y901Q
‘6-91 + WUOIY
ul poled
"2308
wn | yng | “2128

“quosoig *polied Hi Z i}
“‘quosod *poalty, ‘aped re /
4 d pout d SUOT auo 61/81
4 é r b 82/13
8 S)) 9 ; ;
0 GT IT UE |... 7
ut poueg ~ |*TLOL UlOML! 9T/ST
aor], sared OM,
ane ‘TESOL 6) os “IOHIP “FT pues | a.
; 6 ‘8 ‘4 Ur 8 tae IL ‘OT Ut
j : ur sayed vipiydou jo SI ‘6I ut oan OG
sired 9014], Jar, ul 9uO yas A0110}UY sired OM, sated OM,
See OU Coan |e *ro1qaysod wody |. « ; ‘ST 10
oO sared 90149 ae éI-Ol Jayip serpayda (Gr TT Ur a)| “TT ol De ioreto
10 2uO S| UL OUO | Ogos aomoquy [SF GE UF OMNL) Salve OWL |<oe ey
‘g% ‘gut | cared 9 "aeqgouryds “sows JO ‘IL ‘OL ut
O 2 : UJIM vIpiiydou . 4
siivd sa1yy,| ouQ | urouO ‘puels snoonyy sired OMY, |_ Sared OAT,
"g ‘1, ‘g Ut ‘9 ~—|erpraydou peared] ‘sovs Buoy ’ 2
0 sired 9914, 0 ul oug | { pues snoonyy | Jo ared aug Tr Ure G6
ulsoyonod| 6 ‘
0 EI Sunnie a8 aoe "1 109 | ‘yuoulses Youre "IL ‘OL ‘TL ‘OT ut SI
[ea0Aag om, | aug | ursaedomy, | ursaredomy,| sated omy,
“21 TL ul 10 a ee Seale emt win ce Se oe
Pen er aC 6 ‘8 *10110380d 2 "6 UL
0 au Thanet UI OM4 ‘9 wo a1njon.14s oe ae mth ared au0 a
; 10 ‘6 UL} UL|aUO UL SULIAIp TT OT Ul) yo “or “6 ut
oynUulUL | ed ou : : sured OMI, if °
yeraAag l O yos 1OllOJUY , sared OMT,
fea “raqouryds yy
6 ‘9 ‘Zu ‘SL °9 {UDULSOS YP WLOAT saad, ‘TL ut
(0) * | ursared ‘9 ~=s |erpraydoeu poared : ; 02/6T.
sired 991, J, gaa, | ut aug |*pz 03 uo Suruado SUOT 9UO aired 9uO
spun)b snoonjy
*saLod *a000Y} “spun7b ;
qosiog | ~DUbt He aa ; pinzzZ19| “oipirydayr |"sopsusadg| 80780, Hae

“80

f Diacheta

, aS a species 0

1] describe this form, which I believe to be generically distinct

?

scopical Science.

1cro

g number of the ‘‘ Quarterly Journal of Mi

in

forthcom

ma

260 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

It results from the above table that our knowledge of this
group is still very incomplete. There are many gaps which
require filling up. There appear to be, however, a number
of characters in which all the genera agree, many of which
ihave been already mentioned by Rosa. These are as
follows :—

(1.) Paired nephridia.
(2.) Absence of atria and of penial sete.1
(3.) Spermathece without diverticula.
1 (4.) Absence of dorsal pores.
5.) Gizzard (or Gizzards) anterior in position.
(5.) P
(6.) Generative pores within the clitellum.

Considered individually these characters are not, perhaps,
very important. There seem to me to be no good reasons
why any one of them should not have been independently
acquired more than once.

Seeing, however, that they occur in all of a number of
genera, which are also interconnected in other ways, it is, in
my opinion, necessary for the present to retain this group,
which I term

Group IV. GEOSCOLECINT.

‘Definition.—Harthworms with paired nephridia ; never
furnished with atria or penial sete (? Rhinodrilus).
Clitellar setce often modified; spermathecee without diver-
ticula, No dorsal pores. Gizzard (or gizzards) anterior
in position. Sete 8 in each segment, paired or distant,
or urregular in their arrangement. Male pores within
the cletellum. |

The differences between the genera which make up this

1 Horst has described (Descriptions of Earthworms, I.— Notes Leyd. Mus.,
1887, p. 101) in Rhinodrilus tenkatet the remarkable fact that ‘‘ the ventral
sete of the 17th, 18th, and 19th segments were replaced by a fascicle of
four bristles.” This is suggestive of the persistence (and multiplication) of
penial setee, and appears in any case to be a particular point of resemblance
to Photodrilus, in which worm Giard (Sur un nouveau genre de Lombriciens
phosphorescents, ete.—Comptes Rendus, Nov. 7, 1887) has recorded similar
structures,

The Classification and Distribution of Earthworms. 261

eroup are so great, that it is requisite to divide it into several
families.

1. Family Urochetide.

Sete irregular in distribution either throughout the whole
body or after the first 10 segments or so. Prostomvwm
absent. Spermathece, three pars. Calciferous glands,
three pairs. Nephridia with sphincter... A mucous
gland present, being 1st nephridiwm.

Genera—Urocheta, E. P.; Diacheta, Benham; Onycho-
cheta, F. E. B.

2. Family Geoscolecide.

Sete paired or distant (both conditions occurring in the
same species) ; prostomium present. Nephridia all alike.

Genera—Geoscolex, Leuck. ; Hormogaster, Kosa ; ? Glyphi-
drilus,? Horst.

3. Family Rhinodrilide.

Sete paired or distant. Anterior set of nephridia different
Srom posterior.

Genera—Microcheta, F. E. B.; Brachydrilus, Benham ;
Urobenus, Benham ; Rhinodrilus, E. P. ; ? Anteus, E. P.*

I do not regard these families as in any way so satisfactory
as those of the Acanthrodrilini.

The Urocheetide is perhaps the best and most natural. I
am quite prepared to admit that the two last might possibly
be with advantage broken up still further.

1] apply this name to the little muscular cup first described by Perrier,
loc. cit. (on p. 255), which surrounds the extremity of the muscular sac of
the nephridium.

2 At present our knowledge of this evidently very interesting form is con-
fined to the briefest of abstracts given in the Procés Verbal of the Dutch
Zoological Society (Nederl. Dierh. Ver. Verslag der Vergadering vam 26
October 1889, p. 1).

3] have already pointed out (On the Structure of a new Genus of
Lumbricide, Thamnodrilus Gulielmi—P. Z. 8., 1887, p. 154) the resemblances
between dAntews and Rhinodrilus. I should not be at all surprised to learn
that they are congeneric.

262 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Rosa regards his family Geoscolecide (=my growp Geo-
scolecini) as being more nearly related to the Lumbricide than
to any of the other groups. Criodrilus, according to him, is
the connecting link. The Acanthodrilide he thinks bring
them into relations with other forms. Some Acanthodrilide
have a complete clitellum; these lead to the Perichetide.
In others, as in Trigaster Lankesteri, the clitellum is ventrally
incomplete ; this leads to the Geoscolecidee and Lumbricide.
It seems to me that Rosa lays too much stress upon the form
of the clitellum,! as of classificatory value; a strict adherence
to the principle laid down by him would necessitate the
removal of Diacheta from the Geoscolecide; for in this
genus, as Benham informs us, the clitellum “completely
surrounds the body as in Pericheta, Digaster, etc.”

The entire group Geoscolecini is, in fact, intermediate in its
characters between the Acanthodrilini and the Lumbricini, but
its relations with the Acanthodrilini are not, I believe, with
the family Acanthodrilidée, but rather with the Cryptodrilide.
The satisfactory definition of this group and of the Lum-
bricini is rendered difficult by the fact of its intermediate
character ; it shades off at one end into the Cryptodrilide, and
at the other into the Lumbricide.

One of the characteristic features of the group (which it
shares with the Lumbricini) is the modification of the
clitellar sete, and also the fact that these and sometimes the
setae elsewhere are ornamented. Among the Acanthodrilidz
nothing of the kind has as yet been described; but among
other families of the Acanthodrilini such variations in the

1The purely saddle-shaped clitellum of the Lumbricide (cf Rosa,
I lumbricidi del Piemonte, Torino, 1884, figs. 1, 4, and 5) is so far
modified in such Geoscolecide as Rhinodrilus (cf. BEDDARD, On the
Structure of a new Genus of Lumbricide, Thamnodrilus Gulielmi—P. Z. 8.,
1887, fig. 1, p. 155, fig. 2, p. 157), that the anterior part has a much
narrower ventral gland-free area than the posterior part. The next stage,
which is exemplified not only in Acanthodrilus, but in such ‘‘ Eudrilide” as
Deodrilus, shows an entire disappearance of the ventral non-glandular area in
front, but a broad non-glandular tract is still left behind. Finally, we have
the ‘‘complete”’ clitellium of Perionyx, etc. Apart altogether from clas-
sificatory difficulties which are involved if the modifications of the clitellum,
as used by Rosa, are retained, it is impossible to say where the line is to be
drawn. The clitellum of Urocheta and Rhinodrilus appears to be exactly
intermediate between those of Lwmbricus and Acanthodrilus.

The Classification and Distribution of Harthworms. 263

form of the sete are occasionally, although not very
commonly, met with. In Pericheta Houlleti the clitellar
setee are very distinctly different in form from the rest.
But the most striking resemblance is shown by Deodrilus,? in
which all the setee of the body are ornamented, though in
a way rather different from that of Rhinodrilus and other
Geoscolecine genera. It is remarkable also that among the
Cryptodrilide only—in the genera Deodrilus and Typheus—
has the prostomium disappeared :* this is a character which
distinguishes no less than three genera of Geoscolecini—
viz., Urocheta, Diacheta, and Onychocheta—and is unknown
elsewhere.

If the characters of the clitellum are by any one considered
necessary, then Deodrilus fulfils the required conditions ; for,
as I hope to point out later, the clitellum is constructed on
a plan which is exactly that of Acanthodrilus.4| The presence
of atria is one of the distinguishing features of the Acan-
thodrilini, being, without any exception, universal in that
group. Is it not possible that the so-called atria of Criodrilus °
and Greoscolex® may represent these same structures in course
of degeneration’? Unfortunately we have no histological

1 BeppArD, Contributions to the Anatomy of Earthworms—No. III.
Note on the Genital Sete of Pericheta Houlleti (P. Z. 8., 1887, p. 389). The
woodcut illustrating those sete is not so good as it might be.

2 A description of this genus, which is a native of Ceylon, will appear in g
forthcoming number of the ‘‘ Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science.”

3 [ have not myself been able to find a prostomium in this genus; but I
may possibly have failed to see one, since Bourne (On certain Earthworms
from Western Himalayas, etc., J. A. S. B., vol. lviii., p. 110) has lately
described and figured a prostomium, capable of being largely retracted in a
new species of the genus 7. Masoni.

4 Trigaster Lankesteri (BENHAM, Studies on Earthworms, No. II.—
Q. J. M. S., vol. xxvii.) has been regarded by Rosa as having an incomplete
clitellum. Benham is not perfectly precise upon this point in his paper, but
he has informed me since, that in front of the generative pores, as in other
Acanthodrilide, the clitellum is complete.

5 Rosa, Joc. cit. (on p. 258), p. 12, fig. 8, aér.

6 PERRIER, Mém. pour servir 4 Vhistoire, etc., loc. cit. (on p. 236).

7 Michaelsen’s Callidrilus appears also to be a connecting link between the
Cryptodrilide and Geoscolecini; its general organisation conforms to that of
the former group, but it has, as in Microcheta, numerous minute spermathece
in segment xiii. This is one of those facts which point to the Geoscolecini
being a composite group derived from several stocks.

264 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

data with regard to these structures, which seem also to
exist in Brachydrilus.*

I have already pointed out that in Allurus? the structure
termed atrium by Rosa,’ and therefore in all probability the
similarly termed structure in Allolobophora is really hardly
comparable to the atrium in any Acanthodrilini. It consists
merely of a thickening of the body wall, or rather of the
epidermis only, at the point of opening of the vasa deferentia,
similar in structure to the clitellum. This modification may,
however, conceivably be a last trace of an atrium; it remains
to be seen what is the structure of that of Ceoscolex,
etc.

All these reasons lead to the inference that the Geoscolecini
are connected with the Acanthodrilini, and, as it appears to
me, more nearly to the Cryptodrilide than to any other
family. But the fact that most of the genera of Geoscolecini
are much specialised in various directions, renders it difficult
to say which are the more centralised forms. No genus, to
my mind, can claim to be nearer to the base of the series
than any other. As to their connection with the Lumbricini,
that appears to be as Rosa has suggested, through Criodrilus
and Hormogaster.* The clitellum of Glyphidrilus in its position
and extent approaches that of the Lumbricide.

I conclude this part of my paper with a recapitulation of
the groups and families, and with a “Stammbaum,” which

1 Benham says of this worm (Note on a new Earthworm—Zool. Anz.,
No. 271, 1888) :—‘‘ There is no ‘ prostate’ or glandular diverticulum of the
distal end of the sperm duct; but on each side is a very large muscular
(? glandular also) ‘atrium,’ as in Criodrilus and Titanus : this occupies about
six somites (xv. to xx.), and is doubtless due, in part at least, to the con-
tracted condition of the worm, causing the dorsal wall of the above-mentioned
fossa to project inwards.”

2 On the Anatomy of Allwrus tetraedrus (Kisen)—Q. J. M.8., vol. xxviii.,
p. 365.

3JI lombrichi del Piemonte, Torino, 1884, p. 52. The species of
Allolobophora in which the presence of an atrium is specially mentioned are
A. profuga, A. minima, A. subrubicunda, A. chlorotica, A. mucosa, A.
turgida, A. alpina, A. fetida, in fact nearly all. It is also found in
Lumbricus melibeus and L. herculeus. In later papers its presence is men-)
tioned in other species.

4 Rosa, Sulla Struttura dello Hormogaster Redii—Mem. R. Acc. Torino, :
Ser. Un wt, eT,

The Classification and Distribution of Harthworns. 265

seems to me to best express their mutual relationships in the
light of our present knowledge.

Branco A—VONILIGASTRES.
Branco B—LUMBRICI.

Group I.—EUDRILINIJ.
Fam. Eudrilide.

Genera — Hudrilus, Telewdrilus, Nemertodrilus,
Polytoreutus, Stuhlmannia.

Group 11.—ACANTHODRILINI.

Fam. 1. Perichetide.

Genera—Pericheta, Megascolex, Hoplocheta, Aniso-

cheta, Aporocheta, Perronyx.
Fam. 2. Deinodrilide.

Genus— Deinodrilus.

Fam. 3. Acanthodrilide.

Genera—Acanthedrilus, Trigaster, Bernhamia.

Fam. 4. Cryptodrilide.

Genera— Cryptodrilus, Megascolides, ? Plutellus, Digas-
ter, Didymogaster, Dichogaster, Perissogaster, Micro-
scolex, Photodrilus, Pontodrilus, Rhododrilus,
Typheus, Deodrilus, EHudriloides, Callidrilus,
Pygmeodrilus,

Group III.—GEOSCOLECINI.
Fam. 1. Urochetide.
Genera—Urocheta, Diacheta, Onychocheta,
Fam. 2. Geoscolecide.
Genera—Greoscolex, Hormogaster, ? Glyphidrilus.
Fam. 3. Rhinodrilide.

Genera — Rhinodrilus, Microcheta, Brachydrilus,
Urebenus, ? Anteus.

Group IV.—LUMBRICINI.

Fam. Lumbricide.
Genera—Lunibricus, Allolobophora, Allurus, Tetra-
gonurus.

266 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Lumbricini.

Geoscolecini.

Kudrilini,

Acanthodrilide.

Cryptodrilide.

Deinodrilide.

Perichetide.

Moniligastres.

Part I].—DISTRIBUTION.

There has been no general account given of the distribu-
tion of this group, excepting a short note by Rosa! some two
years ago. Since that time our knowledge of the group has

1 Nuova Classificazione dei Terricoli—Boll. Mus. Zool. Torino, vol. iii.,
1888, No. 41, pp. 14, 15.

The Classification and Distribution of Karthworms. 267

increased to some extent, so that it seems worth while again to
collect the available data and to present them in a compact
form. The distribution of any group is worth studying as a
contribution to the general subject, but the Lumbricide are
of special interest, and for two principal reasons :—In the /irst
place they occur everywhere, and under nearly all conditions.
Accordingly, it is possible to test the influence which climate,
altitude, and other conditions exercise upon them. In the
second place, they are eminently land animals, and possess
but little power of dispersion through countries which are
separated by salt water. The animals themselves are in the
highest degree susceptible to salt water, and are killed by a
very short immersion. Darwin! particularly mentions this
fact in relation to their occurrence in Kerguelen and the
Falklands.

But in spite of this fact, which seems to be probably of
general significance, there are, here and there, exceptions.
The most marked exception is the genus Pontodrilus. The
two species of this genus—P. littoralis? and P. Marionis *°—
live habitually upon the sea-shore among the débris cast up
by the waves, but above the high-water mark. Both species
occur on the southern French coast near Marseilles, Nice,
and Villefranche.

This being the case, it is remarkable that earthworms have
not been made more use of in works dealing with geographical
distribution. Even so excellent a treatise as Professor
Heilprinn’s recently published “ Distribution of Animals”
contains no mention of the group.

The barriers on land to the dispersal and migration of
earthworms are not many. They depend, so far as we know,
upon no special kind of soil, provided only it be sufficiently
damp. Rivers would hardly interfere, as so many (? all)
species withstand immersion in fresh water for a long period.
Deserts, however, would; and it is to be noted that the

1The Formation of Vegetable Mould through Earthworms. London,
1880, p. 120.

2 GrRUBE, E., Ueber neue oder wenig bekannten Anneliden— Arch. f.
Naturg., xli., p. 127.

3 Perrier, E., Etudes sur Yorganisation des Lombriciens, ete.—Arch.
Zool. Exp., t. ix. (1881), p. 176.
VOL. 4 2

268 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

earthworm fauna of Africa is very different indeed from
that of the warm parts of Europe or of Asia. It seems clear,
however, that although special soils are not required for the
existence of worms, they affect their nwmbers very considerably.
Naturally a soil which is rich, and productive of abundant
vegetation, will harbour more worms than one which is poor.

It has been noticed by many that cultivation has a great
deal to do not only with the abundance but even the pre-
sence of worms in the soil at all. Certain districts of North
America have been stated to be entirely devoid of earthworms
until put under cultivation.

Cultivation of the land has a very marked influence on the
abundance of the worms found in it. Mr Fletcher found?
that in the neighbourhood of Burrawang, N.S.W., the average
was 10,000 per acre in virgin soil. Urquhart? gives 348,840
and 784,080 as the average in New Zealand districts which
had been seventeen years in grass; and Mr W. W. Smith?
gives an estimate for cultivated lands of 5-16 per square foot.

Before discussing some of the inferences which may be
drawn from a study of the distribution of this group of
worms, it is requisite to lay before the reader the facts.

I shall only mention those species which have been identi-
fied in a trustworthy manner, indicating others with a mark
of interrogation. The regions introduced by Mr Sclater will
be adopted, the precise habitat of the species being also
given, so far as is possible. Those which also occur in other
regions have the initial letter of that region appended, and
are printed in Clarendon type. In the case of genera occur-
ring in more than one region the generic name only is thus
distinguished, and only once for each region.!

‘ Notes on Australian Earthworms—Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. (1886),
p. 527.

On the Habits of Earthworms in New Zealand—Trans. N.Z. Inst.,
vol. xvi. (1883), p. 269.

3 Notes on New Zealand Earthworms—Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. xix.
(1886), p. 133.

* In the tables of species the term Pericheta is applied to all those species
which are included in the subgenera Perichzta and Megascolex as defined by
myself (P. Z. 8., 1890, pt. ii.). This is done for the sake of uniformity. It
would be impossible to apply the terms accurately in some cases.

The Classification and Distribution of Earthworms. 269

I. Neotropical Region, N.

rok

. Geoscolex maximus, Leuck, (= Titanus brasiliensis, K. P.).
Brazil.
. Geoscolex Forguesi, E. P. La Plata.
. Anteus gigas, E. P. Cayenne.
. Rhinodrilus paradoxus, E. P. Venezuela. O.
. Rhinodrilus (Thamnodrilus) Gulielmi, F. EB. B. British
Guiana.!
6. Rhinodrilus tenkatet, Horst. Surinam.
7. Urocheta corethrura (Fritz Miiller). Brazil, Martinique,
Bermuda. O., A.
8. Acanthodrilus georgianus, Mich. 8. Georgia, Falklands.
IN deg PAs
9. Acanthodrilus pictus, Mich. Valdivia, Chili.
10. Acanthodrilus Hilgert, Mich. Corral, Chili.
11. Acanthodrilus lttoralis (Kinberg) (=A patagonica, Kinb.).
Straits of Magellan.
12. Acanthodrilus Bovei, Rosa. Puntarenas.
13. Acanthodrilus Dalei, F. E. B. Falklands.
14. Eudrilus peregrinus, E. P.(? = 4. Lacazti and £. decipiens).
Rio Janeiro, Martinique, Bahamas. A.
15. Eudrilus silvicola, F. E. B. British Guiana.
16. Pericheta indica, Horst. O., A.
17. Pericheta affinis, Perrier. O.
18. Pericheta Houlleti, E. P. Bahamas. O.
19. Pericheta aspergillum, KE. P. Bermuda.
20. Pericheta elongata, E. P. Peru.
. Pericheta dicystis, E. P. Brazil.
. Pericheta tricystis, E. P. Brazil.
. Diacheta Thomasti, Benh. St Thomas.
Onychocheta Windlei, F. EK. B. Bermuda.
. Urobenus brasiliensis, Benh. Pedza Acu.
. Trigaster Lankestert, Benh. St Thomas.
. Allolobophora subrubicunda, Eisen. Puntarenas. P., N’.
. Allolobophora trapezoides, Duges. Corral, Chili. P.
. Allolobophora feetida, Sav. Lota, Chili. P., N’.
. Allurus tetraedrus, Sav. Valparaiso. P., N’.
31. Cryptodrilus? (?) spatulifer, Mich. Corral, Chili. O., A.
1 This worm really possesses a long retractile prostomium and ornamented

set, and should therefore be included in genus Rhinodrilus.
2 The query is that of the describer,

Ot Rm Co bo

OC SO OO OR SO So OO OE
SODMNA AF 8 WD

270 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

And the following, which need further study, and are at
present unrecognisable. Those are queried whose generic
name is even doubtfully correct :—

? Pontoscolex arenicola, Schmarda. Jamaica.

1 Hurydame msignis, Kinberg. St Joseph, Panama.
Nitocris (= Pericheta) gracilis, Kinberg. Rio Janeiro.

1 Hypogeon atys, Kinb. Buenos Ayres.

’ Hypogeon heterostichon, Schmarda. Quito.

’ Lumbricus armatus, Kinb. Buenos Ayres.

? Lumbricus alyattes, Kinb. Buenos Ayres.

1 Lumbricus tellus, Kinb. Buenos Ayres.

? Lumbricus pampicola, Kinb. Monte Video.
Mandane ( = Acanthodrilus) stagnalis, Kinb. Monte Video.

1 Lumbricus matutinus, Weyenberg. Argentine.

” Lumbricus argentinus, Weyenb. Argentine.

1 Lumbricus dissidens, Weyenb. Argentine.

1 Lumbricus corduvensis, Weyenb.! Argentine.

? Lumbricus luteus, Gay. Chili.

1 Lumbricus valdiviensis, Gay. Chili.

? Lumbricus semifasciatus, Burmeister.

II. Nearctic Region, N’.

1. Acanthodrilus (Diplocardia) communis, Garman. Illinois.
IN aes a

2. Plutellus heteroporus, E. P. Pennsylvania.

3. Pericheta sp. (in hot-houses). N., O., E., A.

4. Tetragonurus pupa, Eisen. Canada.

5. Allurus tetraedrus (?).2 Canada. P., N.

1 With regard to the species described by Weyenberg (Descripciones de
nuevos gusanos—Boll. Ac. Rep. Arg., pp. 213-218), it is clear that, whatever
they may be, the last two are not Luwmbricus, since the clitellum occupies in
L. dissidens segments 15-18, and in L. Corduvensis 18-22, or 17-21. The
former species is said to have no prostomium. ‘The first two species may be
Lumbricus, but it is impossible to identify any of them.

2 Allurus tetraedrus must be regarded as a rather uncertain North American
form. I have included it in the list on the strength of a specimen kindly sent
to me some time since by Mr Tyrrel of the Canadian Geological Survey.
{ examined this specimen by means of longitudinal sections, and identified
it with Adlurus on account of the structure of the gizzard (see BEDDARD,
On the Anatomy of Adlurus tetraedrus—-Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci., vol. xxviii. ).
But as Zetragonurus has not been anatomised, it is far from impossible that
that genus may prove to be identical in this particular with Ad/urus. The
sexual organs were not sufficiently developed to permit of any certain con-

The Classification and Distribution of Earthworms. 271

. Allolobophora beckii, Eisen. California. P.

. Allolobophora chlorotica, Hoffm. California. P.

Allolobophora fetida, Sav. Illinois, lowa. P., N., A.

Allolobophora subrubicunda, Eisen. Canada. P., N.

Allolobophora mucosa, Eisen. New England, Illinois. P.

Allolobophora trapezoides, Dugés. New England, Canada,
ete. L.

12. Allolobophora tenuis, Eisen. New England, ete. P.

13. Allolobophora tumida, Eisen. New England. P.

14. Allolobophora parva, Eisen. New England. P.

15. ‘-Lumbricus herculeus, Sav. New England. P.

16. Lumbricus rubellus, Hoffm. Newfoundland. P.

17. Lumbricus castaneus, Sav. Canada. P.

Se

—
SS ee

The following are not recognisable :-—

Lumbricus americanus, EB. P.
? Lumbricus Apw, Kinb. California.
¢ Hypogeon hirtum, Sav. Philadelphia.
Pheretima (= Pericheta) californica, Kinb. California.

III. Ethiopian Region, E.

1. Acanthodrilus capensis, F. E. B. Cape of Good Hope.
NENG, Acc iN:

Acanthodrilus Biittikofert, Horst. Liberia.

Acanthodrilus Schlegelit, Horst. Liberia.

. Acanthodrilus Beddardi, Horst. Liberia.

. Acanthodrilus verticillatus, E. P. Madagasear.

. Acanthodrilus scioanus, Rosa. Let. Marefia, Scioa.

Acanthodrilus Stuhlmanni, Mich. Zambesi.

. Acanthodrilus affinis, Mich. Zambesi.

. Pericheta capensis, Horst. Cape of Good Hope.

IND ING. Ol2 Heal

10. Pericheta robusta, E. P. Mauritius.

ll. Veleudrilus Ragazzi, Rosa. Scioa.

12. Microcheta Rappii, F. E. B. Natal.

13. Microcheta Beddardi, Benh. Natal.

14. Pygmeodrilus quilimanensis, Mich. Zambesi.

NOT wp

ome 2)

clusions, and these are the only organs at present which would enable the
question to be decided; the male apertures are on the 12th segment in
Tetragonurus, on the 13th in Allurus.

272

15.
16.
Lig
13,
19.
20.
21.

Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Eudriloides parvus, Mich. Zambesi.
Eudriloides gypsatus, Mich. Zanzibar.
Nemertodrilus griseus, Mich. Zambesi.
Callidrilus scrobifer, Mich. Zambesi.
Polytoreutus coeruleus, Mich. Zanzibar.
Stuhlmannia variabilis, Mich. Zanzibar.

Perionyx sp., Mich. Zambesi. O.

The following imperfectly characterised species have been
described from this region. The queries signify that the
generic name is not certainly correct :—

1 Geogenia natalensis, Kinb. Natal.

Pericheta rodericensis, Grube. Mauritius.
Lampito (= Pericheta) Mauriti, Kinb. Mauritius.
Pericheta Sancte Helene, Baird. St Helena.

? Lumbricus Josephine, Kinb. St Helena.

1 Lumbricus Eugenie, Kinb. St Helena.

? Lumbricus Helene, Kinb. St Helena.

t Lumbricus Hortensie, Kinb. St Helena.

t Lumbricus infelix, Kinb. Natal.

? Lumbricus capensis, Kinb, Cape Colony.

1 Lumbricus rubrofasciata, Baird. St Helena.
1 Hegisipyle Hanno, Kinb, Natal.

Inte CO oR lei NS as

io}

IV. Palearctic Region, P.

Microscolex modestus,! Rosa. Italy. Tenerife.
Photodrilus phosphoreus, Giard. N. France.
Pontodrilus littoralis, Grube. S. France.

Pontodrilus Marionis, Perrier. §S. France.
Hormogaster Redi, Rosa, Italy.

Pericheta Sieboldi, Horst. Japan. N., N’., O., E., A.

. Pericheta japonica, Horst. Japan.
. Pericheta Schmarde, Horst. Japan.
. Pericheta Houlleti. France. N’., O.

‘This species has at present only been recorded by Rosa [Jfcroscolex
modestus, n. gen. n. sp.—Boll. Mus. Zool. Torino, vol. ii. (1887), No. 19],
who received it from Genoa. That the genus occurs in Tenerife I am to state
here (for the first time), since I have examined a number of specimens kindly
collected for me in that island by Mr E. B. Poulton, F.R.S. They may
possibly belong to a distinct species, but I have not yet taken the oppor-
tunity of thoroughly working out their anatomy.

The Classification and Distribution of Earthworms. 273

. Pericheta diffringens (?=P. indica). England, France.

N’., O., N.

. Lumbricus rubellus, Hoffm. Europe. N’.

. Lumbricus melibeus, Rosa. Italy.

. Lumbricus herculeus, Sav. Europe. N’.

. Lumbricus Hiseni, Lev. Europe.

. Lumbricus castaneus, Sav. Kurope. N’.

. Allolobophora feetida, Sav. Europe. N’., N., A.
. Allolobophora rubicunda, Eisen. Europe.

. Allolobophora trapezoides, Eisen. Europe. N’.
. Allolobophora mucosa, Eisen. Europe. N’.

. Allolobophora chlorotica, Sav. Europe. N’.

. Allolobophora alpina, Rosa. Italy.

. Allolobophora constricta, Rosa, Italy.

. Allolobophora minima, Rosa. Italy.

. Allolobophora Boeckii, Eisen. Europe. N’.

. Allolobophora transpadana, Rosa. Italy.

. Allolobophora profuga, Rosa. Italy, Spain.

. Allolobophora complanata, Duges. France, Italy, Spain.
. Allolobophora Telliniz, Rosa. Italy.

. Allolobophora celtica, Rosa. Italy.

. Allolobophora veneta, Rosa. Italy, Portugal.

. Allolobophora Ninnuw, Rosa. Italy.

. Allolobophora icterica, Sav. France, Italy.

. Allolobophora gigas, Duges. France.

. Allolobophora Fraisset, Orley. Balearic Is.

. Allolobophora mediterranea, Orley. Balearic Is.
. Allolobophora Mollerz, Rosa. Portugal.

. Allolobophora tenuis, Eisen. Scandinavia. N’.
. Allolobophora Hispanica, Ude. Spain.

. Allolobophora Hermannt, Mich. Germany.

. Allolobophora neglecta, Rosa. Italy.

. Allolobophora norvegica, Kisen. Scandinavia.

. Allolobophora Nordenskioldi, Kisen, Siberia (?).
. Allolobophora limicola, Mich.

. Allolobophora subrubicunda, Eis. Scandinavia, Italy. N’,
. Allolobophora octaedra, Sav. Europe.

. Allolobophora neapolitana, Orley. Italy.

. Allolobophora longa, Ude.

. Allolobophora trapezxoides, Duges.

. Criodrilus lacuuwm, Hoffm. Europe.

274 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

50. Allurus tetraedrus, Sav. N., N’., A.
51. Allurus dubius, Mich. Germany.
52. Allurus hercynius, Mich. Germany.

The species of Allolobophora and Lumbricus, which are
given in the above lists as occurring in the Palearctic and
Nearctic regions, require some explanation.

In the first place, I have omitted the synonyms. This
was done advisedly, as the present paper does not profess to
be a revision of the two genera. In the second place, I
have accepted, without discussion, Rosa’s names so far as
possible. But in doing this, I do not necessarily imply that
in my opinion Rosa’s names are better founded than those of,
for example, Vejdovsky. Confining myself to one natural-
ist’s nomenclature, I select that of Rosa because it happens
to be more familiar to me. As my purpose is that of com-
paring the earthworms of different countries, the question of
names is obviously of no moment so long as the same name
is applied to the same species. The above list is, I am
aware, incomplete; but as there is some doubt about many
species, I do not see any advantage in mentioning a number
of more or less dubious names.!

V. Oriental Region, 0.

1. Moniligaster deshayest,? EK. P.

2. Momligaster Barwelli, F. EK. B. Manila.

3. Moniligaster minutus, Bourne. India.

4. Moniligaster sapphirinoides, Bourne. India.
5. Moniligasier grandis, Bourne. India.

6. Moniligaster uniquus, Bourne. India.

7. Moniligaster robustus, Bourne. India,

8. Moniligaster papillatus, Bourne. India.

I must, however, refer to two remarkable types recently described by
Levinsen (Om to nye Regnormslaegten fra Hgypten—Vid. Medd. nat. For.
Kjobenhaven, 1889), viz., Siphonogaster egyptiacus and Digitibranchus niloti-
cus. The latter is possibly Alma nilotica. Their affinities are uncertain.

* Whether these two species are really distinct from each other or from
some of those described by Bourne (On Indian Earthworms, ete.—P. Z. 8., 1886,
pp. 662-672) is uncertain. Horst’s Moniligaster Houteni (Descriptions of
Karthworms, No. I.—Notes Leyd. Mus., ix., p. 97) may turn out also to be
identical with one of Bourne’s species.

The Classification and Distribution of Earthworms.

9. Moniligaster ruber, Bourne. India.
10. Moniligaster Houteni, Horst. Sumatra.
11. Cryptodrilus sp. India. A., N’.}

279

12. Urocheta corethrura, E. P. (= U. dubia, Horst). Malayan

Archipelago. N., A.
13. Glyphidrilus Webert, Horst.
. Typheus orientalis, F. E. B. Burmah.
. Typheus Gammu, F. BE. B. Near Calcutta.
. Typheus Mason, Bourne. India.
. Perionyx excavatus® (1 incl. P. mintoshii, F. E. B.).

—
ee

ee
| epy (Ph

and Burmah.
. Perionyx saltans, Bourne. India.
. Pericheta cerulea,'Templ. Ceylon.

wo eK we
ee ae to 2

iw)

Pericheta armata, F. EK. B. India, Burmah, Borneo.
Pericheta Houlleti, E. P. India, Ceylon. N.
Pericheta ceylonica, F. E. B. Ceylon.

. Pericheta Lawsoni, Bourne. India.

. Pericheta biwaginata, Bourne. India.
Pericheta gracilis, Bourne. India.

. Hoplocheta Stuarti, Bourne. India.
Pericheta burliarensis, Bourne. India.

29. Pericheta hulikalensis, Bourne. India.

30. Pericheta mirabilis, Bourne. India.

31. Pericheta salettensis, Bourne. India.

He oo bo

ae

bo bs bw bo bo bo bo
1

co

India

. Pericheta affinis, KE. P. India, Ceylon, Manilla, Burmah. N.

32. Pericheta indica, Horst. India, Sumatra, Java. N., A.

33. Pericheta luzonica, E. P. Manilla.

34. Pericheta Vatllanti, F. E. B. Manilla.

30. Pericheia annulata, Horst. Malayan Archipelago.
36. Pericheta musica, Horst. Java.

37. Pericheta Hasseltt, Horst. Sumatra.

38. Pericheta sumatrana, Horst. Sumatra.

39. Pericheta biserialis, E. P. Manilla.

40. Pericheta Horsti, F. E. B. Manilla.

41. Pericheta quadragenaria, KE. P. East Indies.

42, Pericheta Fee, Rosa. Burmah.

1 T received some time since from the Botanical Gardens at Seebpore a single
example of a worm apparently belonging to this genus, Unfortunately, the

specimen is now missing.

2 I suppose that Rosa is right in uniting these two (cf. Rosa, I lombrichi

raccolti nell’ isola Nias, ete.—Ann. Mus. civ. Geneva, vol. yii., 1889).

276 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

43. Pericheta modighant, Rosa. Nias.
44, Deodrilus Jacksoni, n. gen., n. sp. Ceylon.

The following insufficiently known species are from this
region :—

Pericheta Juliana, HE. P. Saigon.
Pericheta cerulea, E. P. Manilla.
Pericheta bicincta, EK. P. Manilla.
Pericheeta leucocycla, Schm. Ceylon.
Pericheta viridis, Schm. Ceylon.
Pericheeta brachycycla, Schm. Ceylon.
Pericheta cingulata, Schm. Ceylon.
Pericheta javanica, Kinb. Java.

VI. Australian Region, A.

1. Pericheta exegua, Fl. Australia. N., O., E.
2. Pericheta monticola, FI. -
3. Pericheta canaliculata, Fl. ,,
4, Pericheta stirlingi, F). e
5. Pericheta raymondiana, FI. ,,
6. Pericheta hamiltoni, FI. -
7. Pericheta wilsomana, Fl. ,,
8. Pericheta fecunda, FI. ‘3
9. Pericheta bakeri, FI. 5
10. Pericheta dorsalis, F. -
11. Pericheta tenax, FI. a
12. Pericheta austrina, FI. 5
13. Pericheta gracilis, F\. 3
14. Pericheta barronensis, Fl. _,,
15. Pericheta queenslandica, F|. ,,
16. Pericheta darnleiensis, Fl. ,,
17. Pericheta peregrina, FI. is
18. Pericheta australis, F). ss
19. Pericheta cox, FI. BA
20. Pericheta newcombei, F.E. B. ,,

bo
—_

. Pericheta upoluensis, F. E. B. Upolu.

. Pericheta Forbesi, F. E. B. New Guinea.

. Pericheta intermedia, F. E. B. New Zealand.
. Pericheta antarctica, Baird.

b> b bo
me CoO b

99

The Classification and Distribution of Earthworms.

25. Pericheta indica, Horst. New Caledonia.
26. Eudrilus dubius,! Fl. Australia.

27. Eudrilus Boyer, F. E. B.2 New Caledonia.
28. Perrissogaster excavata, Fl. Australia.

29. Anisocheta attenuata, FI.
30. Anisocheta enormis, FI.
31. Anisocheta Coun, EI.

32. Allolobophora trapezoides, Danske N:P,
33. Allolobophora fetida, Sav. N., N’., P
34. Allolobophora profuga, Rosa. P.

9?

99

35. Cryptodrilus rwbens, Fl. Australia. O., N.

36. Cryptodrilus rusticus, Fl.
37. Cryptodrilus saccarius, F).
38. Cryptodrilus mediterreus, FI.

9)

277

39. Cryptodrilus unicus, Fl. (= C. purpureus, Mich.). Australia.

40. Cryptodrilus Fletchert, F. E. B. Australia.
41. Cryptodrilus mudgeanus, FI.
42. Cryptodrilus canaliculatus, F|.
43. Cryptodrilus Sloanei, F1.

44, Cryptodrilus oxleyensis, FI.

45. Cryptodrilus manifestus, F 1).

46. Cryptodrilus fastigatus, FI.

47. Cryptodrilus tenuis, FI.

48. Cryptodrilus mediocris, FI.

49. Cryptodrilus wlawarre, FI.

50. Cryptodrilus singularis, F.

51. Digaster Perriert, FI.

52. Digaster lumbricoides, E. P.
53. Perissogaster nunoralis, FI.

54. Perissogaster queenslandica, FI.
55. Megascolides camdenensis, F.
56. Megascolides grandis, FI.

57. Megascolides gippslandicus, M‘Coy.
58. Megascolides tasmanianus, FI.
59. Megascolides tuberculatus, F1.
60. Megascolides illawarre, FI.

61. Megascolides pymeus, FI.

99

1 This species is considered by Rosa to be a Microscolex.

* Eudrilus Boyeri is not, perhaps, very easily definable as distinct from
. decipiens, or either of the other two species of Hudrilus described by

Perrier from the New World.

278 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

62. Dichogaster Damonis, F. KE. B. Fiji.
63. Acanthodrilus awstralis, Mich. Australia. N., N’., E.
64. Acanthodrilus nove Zelandie, F. E. B. New Zealand.

65. Acanthodrilus dissimilis, F. E. B. i:
66. Acanthodrilus neglectus, F. E. B. 4
67. Acanthodrilus multiporus, F. E. B. 53
68. Acanthodrilus Rose, F. E. B. 4
69. Acanthodrilus annectens, F. EK. B. sy
70. Acanthodrilus antarcticus, F. E. B. $5
71. Rhododrilus minutus, F. E. B. i
72. Acanthodrilus ungulatus, Perrier. New Caledonia.
73. Acanthodrilus Layardi, F. E. B. 1

74. Urocheta australiensis,! F. E. B. Australia. N., O.
75. Deinodrilus Benham, F. EK. B. New Zealand.
76. Neodrilus monocystis, F. EK. B. 55

This list may be increased by the addition of the following
forms, which are unrecognisable; in many cases even the
generic naine is probably wrong; these are queried :—

Acanthodrilus uliginosus, Hutton. New Zealand.

1 Digaster levis, Hutton. is
1 Digaster campestris, Hutton. 3
t Lumbricus annulatus, Hutton. _

Pericheta sylvestris, Hutton, $5

Pericheta lineata, Hutton. %
Pheretema (= Pericheta) montana, Kinb. Otaheiti.
Pericheta taitensis, Grube. Otaheiti.
Pericheta subquadrangularis, Grube. Viti.
Pericheta eriginosa, Kinb. Guam.
Pericheta corticis, Kinb. Hawai.

2 Lumbricus tahitanus, Kinb. Otaheiti.

? Lumbricus tongaensis,? Grube. Tonga
Eudrilus sp,? (jide Benham). New Zealand.

1 Hypogeon havaicus, Kinb. Hawai.

’ Hypogeon orthostichon, Schm. New Zealand.

A glance at the above lists does not at first seem to.
permit of the deduction of any general statements respecting

1T have not yet described this species, but I believe it to be distinct from

U. corethrura.
2 Certainly not Lumbricus, as clitellum extends from xiith to xviiith segment.

? Dichogaster.

The Classification and Distribution of Karthworms. 279

the distribution of the group, except that many genera and
some species have a world-wide distribution.

This is especially the case with the genera Lumbricus,
Allolobophora, and Pericheta.*

But it is necessary, in the first place, to clear the ground
by removing from the various faunal lists those species which
have been accidentally introduced by man’s agency. This is
obviously not an easy task. The first question which arises
is, have we any right at all to suppose that this has been the
case? I content myself with urging the general probability,
owing to the importation of plants from country to country,
and to mentioning one or two instances which are only
explicable on this theory. Some years ago the late Dr Baird,
of the British Museum, described in the Proceedings of the
Zoological Society a species of Pericheta (P. diffringens)
which had been sent to him from various parts of England,
but always from conservatories or from gardens for the adorn-
ment of which plants had been imported from abroad.

In the Jardin des Plantes Perrier met with Pericheta
Houlleti, a species which has not been met with in any other
part of Europe.

Both these cases (and others might be quoted) seem to
show that the species of Pericheta are in all probability not
indigenous, otherwise they would have been met with in
other places besides the immediate neighbourhood of plants
which had been recently imported from the countries of
which the species in question are certainly natives.

Two examples which have come under my own observa-
tion may be mentioned as proving beyond a doubt (if indeed
there could be any doubt upon the point) that earthworms
may be carried from abroad to this country.

1 With the exception of the doubtful case of Lumbricus and Allolobophora,
the following are the only species which are known to occur in more than one
region :—

Urocheeta corethrura. Neotropical and Oriental.

Pericheta affinis. an -

Pericheta Houlleti. ae 5

Pericheta indica. se a and Australian.
Ludrilus decipiens. Neotropical and Australian.

280 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Mr Clarence Bartlett kindly presented me with two earth-
worms, one being an example of Pericheeta indica, which he had
found in the earth surrounding the roots of some orchids which
had been recently imported by him from South America.

A package of ferns from New Zealand contained a large
number of specimens of AJdlolobophora and Lumbricus (I have
not identified the species) which had survived the long
voyage. For these I am indebted to the same gentleman.

The next matter is to decide which forms have been
probably introduced, and which are really indigenous. It is,
of course, impossible to do more than make a reasonable
assumption, which further progress in our knowledge may
prove to be an unwarrantable assumption. Taking into
consideration what we know of the occurrence of Pericheta
in Europe and North America, it may be safely inferred that
this genus is no¢ indigenous in either of these countries, but
that it is indigenous in a portion of the Palearctic region—
viz., in Japan.?

With regard to Lwmbricus and Allolobophora, these genera
unquestionably form the predominant types in Europe and
North America. They far outnumber the other genera not
only in variety of species but in number of individuals. It
cannot, therefore, be doubted that they are indigenous to
these parts of the world. On the other hand, comparatively
few species of Lwmbricus and Allolobophora have been
recorded from other countries. In New Zealand, for example,
the genus Acanthodrilus outnumbers Lumbricus and Allolo-
bophora. In South America the many peculiar genera include
a total number of species which is greater than that of the
few Anticlitellian worms which have been recorded from
that continent. Dr Michaelsen,” in an important.contribution

1 Three species have been described by Horst (New Species of the Genus
Megascolex, etc.—Notes Leyd. Mus., vol. v., p. 182) from Japan. Ina collection
which Professor Milne made for me at the kind request of Dr Anderson, there
were examples of Pericheta which were quite as numerous as Allolobophora
fetida, the only other species contained in the collection. This is some
evidence that the genus Pericheta is common in Japan. I have not identi-
fied the species.

* Oligocheten des naturhistorischen Museums in Hamburg—J. B. Hamb.
Wiss. Anstalt vi.

The Classification and Distribution of Harthworms. 281

to the earthworm fauna of Chili, places after each of the
three Lumbricide the word “ eingeschleppt,’ and I am quite
disposed to agree with him. Moreover, many of the so-
called “ Zumbricus” which occur in South America and in
other extra-European countries, are certainly not referable to
this genus or to Allolobophora. Pending the production of
evidence to the contrary, I do not admit that the genera
Lumbricus and Allolobophora are indigenous to any countries
but Europe, Northern Asia, and North America.

It is, however, a difficult task to proceed further with the
elimination of those facts in geographical distribution which
have been caused by the direct, though unconscious, inter-
ference of human agency.

There are not many cases, fortunately, which suggest
that this explanation should be called in. The most pro-
minent is that of Hudrilus. This genus is common in
South America, and in some of the West Indian islands
(Bahamas) ; it is also apparently common in New Caledonia,
and occurs in New Zealand. It was first recorded by myself
from New Caledonia on the strength of some specimens
which I received through the kindness of Mr E. L. Layard,
H.B.M. Consul at Noumea. These specimens I described as
Hudrilus Boyert, but it may be, as Horst has suggested, that
this supposed species is not really different from Perrier’s
Hudrilus from South America. I wrote to Mr Layard to
inquire if there was such trade between these two distant
parts of the world as might reasonably account for the intro-
duction of South American forms. He informed me that
there was not, and that the chief trade was with Australia.
The genus Hudrilus has been described as occurring in this
latter country by Fletcher ; but I have not included the genus
in my list of Australian genera, for the reason that it cannot
be considered to be proved that Fletcher’s Zudrilus dubius is
really a member of the genus. Rosa! has suggested that it is
probably referable to his Microscolex. As Eudrilus occurs in
New Zealand, it may also occur in Australia, but the fauna
of these two countries differs quite as much in respect of

1 Nuova Classificazione dei Terricoli—Boll. Mus. Zool. Torino, vol. iii.,
No, -41; pe 15.

282 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Soctety.

Oligocheta as in other animals. Hudrius also is a genus
which is to a certain extent a primitive form. The opening
of the vasa deferentia into the atria, and the presence of two
pairs of ovaries and oviducts' are primitive characters. For
the present I regard the presence of Hudrius in the tropical
parts of the New World and in New Caledonia and New
Zealand as a fact of importance in the geographical distribu-
tion of the genus, not caused recently by man’s interference.”
Another doubtful case is Urocheta. This genus occurs in
South America, the West Indies, the Malay Archipelago, and
Western Australia. The fact, however, that the Australian
form is specifically different from that of America, lends
very strong support to the view that this fact of distribution
is also to be regarded as normal.
The following genera exist in more than one geographical

region :—

Pericheta, P., World-wide.

Acanthodrilus, E., N., A., N’. Cryptodrilus, A., O., N. (1?)

Urocheta, N’., O., A.

Eudrilus, N'., A.

Microscolex, P., A.

Lumbricus, World-wide.

Allolobophora, World-wide.

Allurus, N’., P., E.

while the following are limited to their region, with a wider
or more restricted range within it.

TABLE OF GENERA PECULIAR TO DIFFERENT REGIONS.

Neotropical. Diacheta. Australian. dMJegascolides.
Urobenus, ; Rhododrilus.
Trigaster. A porocheta.
Anteus. Deinodrilus.
Geoscolex. Dichogaster.
Onychocheta. Neodrilus.*
Rhinodrilus. Anisocheta.

1 BEDDARD, Contributions to the Anatomy of Earthworms, No. 1—P. Z.S.,
1887, p. 383.

* This opinion is confirmed by Michaelsen’s recent description of a closely
allied form from Africa,

3] do not consider that Fletcher’s genus, Perissogaster, is well established.
My Neodrilus is also doubtful (see Proc. Roy, Soc. Edin., vol. xiv., 1887,
p- 157).

The Classification and Distribution of Karthworms, 283

Palearctic. Hormogaster.

Pontodrilus.

Photodrilus.

Criodrilus. Ethiopian. Microcheta.
Nearctic. Tetragonurus. Teleudrilus.

Plutellus. Pygmeodrilus.

Callidrilus.

Oriental. Moniligaster. Polytoreutus.

Typheus. Stuhlmannia.

Glyphidrilus. Hudrilovdes.

Hoplocheta. Nemertodrilus.

Deodrilus.

How far is the distribution of earthworms in accordance
with Mr Sclater’s regions ?

It is perfectly clear that the Neotropical region—at least
the tropical parts of that region—is very distinct ; it contains
as many or more peculiar genera than any other region.
An American region (Andrew Murray), or a Boreal region
(including the Palearctic and Nearctic regions of Mr Sclater,
with Central and a good portion of South America), such as
that proposed by Mr Blyth, will not be at all in accordance
with the facts of this paper. Plutellus may be a Neotropical
form, which has made its way northwards, and Acanthodrilus
communis certainly has done so; but the facies of the two
faunas is very distinct. Except -Acanthodrilus, unless
Allolobophora be counted, there are no genera in common ;
and while Lumbricus and Allolobophora are the prevailing
forms of the north, we have such genera as Anteus, Eudrilus,
and Geoscolex in the south. The West Indies clearly go with
South America, though they have their own peculiarities. It
would be very interesting to have some information about
Central America. :

The Nearctic region cannot, so far as Earthworms are
concerned, be separated from the Palearctic ; although there
are genera found in one region which do not occur in the
other. The importance of this might easily be overrated.
Four Palearctic genera do not occur in the Nearctic region,
and three Nearctic genera are absent from the Palarctic
region ; but it cannot be denied that the prevailing character-

WO, U

284 _ Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socrety.

istic of the earthworm fauna of both these regions is the
abundance and prevalence of Lumbricus and Allolobophora,
amounting to an identity of species. These facts therefore
support the reasonableness of instituting an Arctogeea or
Holarctic region, as it is termed by Heilprinn. The com-
munity of the earthworm fauna of the northern parts of the
old and new worlds is of course explicable on the assumption
of a recent land connection. The distribution of certain
other animals (e.g., the glutton, beaver, and elk) is in harmony
with such a view, and there is no difficulty on the geological
side of assuming such a connection by way of Behring
Strait where the sea is shallow, and the distance from shore
to shore small.

Dr Giinther noticed that Japan differs more particularly
than any other tract of country from the rest of the Pale-
arctic region, and resembles the Oriental.

We have already seen that in Japan (and possibly ad-
jacent parts of China) alone is the genus Perichwta probably
indigenous. Here, then, is a decided confirmation of Dr
Giinther’s position.

Huxley proposed to separate New Zealand as a distinct
region, while Heilprinn distinguishes a Polynesian region
not including New Zealand. Is there anything to be said
for either of these modifications of Mr Sclater’s regions ?
We know too little of the earthworm fauna of Polynesia to
make any deductions worth putting on paper; but New
Zealand is better known. It does not show a close re-
semblance to Australia. The prevailing genus in New
Zealand is Acanthodrilus, which is there represented by five
species. This genus is certainly not common in Australia ;
in fact only one species, A. australis, has been as yet met
with. And we have the careful investigations of Fletcher ?
for reference, which must comprise a fair sample of the earth-
worm fauna of South-Western Australia—the nearest part to
New Zealand. On the other hand, our knowledge of the
earthworm fauna of New Zealand is confined to that of the

1 The Oligochetous Fauna of New Zealand—P. Z. S. (1889), p. 377.
2 Notes on Australian Earthworms—a series of papers in Proc. Lin. Soe.
N.S. W. (1886-89).

The Classification and Distribution of Earthworms. 285

Southern Island. The North Island may prove to be more
“ Australian” in its character, when it comes to be known.
If it were not for the fact that in New Caledonia Acantho-
drilus is a characteristic form, the earthworm fauna of New
Zealand would, perhaps, rather support Professor Huxley’s
view of its independence as a separate region.

This is the place to point out the very striking resemblance
that exists between many parts of the Antarctic hemisphere in
respect of their terrestrial Oligocheta.

Patagonia and the Falkland Islands have between them
four species of earthworms which are all referable to the
genus Acanthodrilus. Although other species may be met
with, this genus is hardly likely to prove anything but most
characteristic. From South Georgia only one species of
earthworm has been described (Acanthodrilus georgianus),
which also occurs in the Falklands. Kerguelen and Marion
Islands have not, perhaps, been very thoroughly explored,
but it is remarkable that the only form which has been dis-
covered should be identical in the two islands, and should
be a species of Acanthodrilus. In South Africa the genus
Acanthodrilus occurs; but although several species have been
described from the African continent, the genus cannot at
present be exactly regarded as characteristic.

It is possible that this similarity between such widely
removed parts of the earth’s surface as those enumerated
above may be caused by their nearness to the Antarctic
continent, from which they were all originally stocked. This
is more credible than the assumption by some of a former
direct land connection between New Zealand and South
America. It might, perhaps, be believed that the distribu-
tion of the genus Acanthodrilus had a relation to tempera-
ture, were it not for the fact that species have been found in
Africa near to, but north of, the Equator. The distribution of
this genus is in some respects parallelled by that of the
marine Isopodan genus Serolis, and of the Penguins and
Sheathbills among birds, and of the Coleoptera among insects."
It must surely have originated in the Antarctic continent,
and have gradually spread northwards. The species are

1 Heilprinn, loc. cié., p. 281.

286 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socrety.

decidedly more numerous the closer we get to the Antarctic
continent. In America, for example, there are four species
found in S. Georgia, the Falklands, and Patagonia, two in
Chili, and one in North America. I have mentioned a few
instances here; but Mr Blanford has lately argued with
considerable force in favour of an ancient land connection’
between these countries by the extension of the Antarctic
continent. Quoting many instances of closely-allied forms
of life, and especially laying stress upon the facts that
America and New Zealand are not separated by a depth
greater than 2000 fathoms from the southern land mass, he
also points out that there are not any soundings due south of
Cape of Good Hope; hence it is possible that the ocean here
may be no deeper.

On the other side, we have seven species in New Zealand
as against one in Australia.

The African continent does not, it is true, furnish much
evidence for this position as far as decrease of species as we
pass northwards is concerned; but, on the other hand, the
absence (?) of the genus from North Africa, and at any rate
its certain absence from Europe, shows that either the Desert
of Sahara or the Mediterranean has formed a bar sufficient
to prevent the immigration of this genus from the south
northwards.

There is an unmistakable agreement also between the
Old and New World tropics. The following generic types
are common to the two:—Pericheta, Urocheta, and Rhino-
drilus. On the other hand, the genera Diachwta, Onychocheta,
Urobenus, Trigaster, Geoscolex, and Anteus are peculiar to the
New World; while Zypheus, Perionyx, and Moniligaster are
peculiar to the Old.

There is not a marked agreement in species. Urocheta
corethrura, Pericheta indica, P. afinis, and P. Houlleti are
the only forms which are common to the Neotropical and
Oriental regions.

This resemblance is probably largely due to climatal
causes. Pericheta, although an almost world-wide genus, is
decidedly more abundant as we approach the hotter regions.

The Classification and Distribution of EKarthworms. 287

It is an old form, and has, therefore, had time to spread
widely, like the tapir and Peripatus.

But although the resemblance may have something to do
with climatal causes, the evidence at our disposal by no
means supports any theory of climatal distribution and
division of the world into faunal zones.

The Australian region, at any rate as regards the Australian
continent, has a somewhat peculiar earthworm fauna. Apart
from Pericheta and Megascolex, which occur here as in almost
all parts of the world, there is the peculiar genus Anisocheta,
which connects Pericheta with Cryptodrilus! This latter
genus is, with the exception of two species, confined to
Australia. It and Megascolides, Digaster, and Didymogaster?
which are absolutely confined to Australia, are the most
characteristic genera of that continent. Uvocheta is repre-
sented in Queensland by a distinct species. Acanthodrilus
is represented by one species, as is also Microscolex (Rosa
considers that Fletcher’s Hudrilus dubius is probably really
to be referred to that genus). The bulk of the Australian
earthworms therefore belong to Rosa’s family Hudrilide
(which, as it appears to me, is a very natural family, if
only Hudrilus itself be excluded!). Out of the remaining
eight genera of this family, three—viz., Neodrilus, Rhodo-
drilus, and Dichogaster—are confined to the Australian
region, though not inhabiting Australia itself. Of the
remaining five, Pontodrilus and Photodrilus are Palearctic,
while Zypheus is Oriental, in fact, Indian, and HLudriloides
and Callidrilus are Ethiopian.

The Australian area, especially the Australian continent,
forms, therefore, a very well-marked distributional region,
which has something—though lttle—in common with the
Oriental region.

Oceanic islands are naturally—from their origin—not

1] regard Michaelsen’s Cryptodrilus purpureus (=unicus, Fl.) as represent-
ing a new genus. I discuss the reasons for this in a forthcoming paper.

2 Fletcher’s Perissogaster does not appear to me to be a valid genus.

3I hope to show elsewhere that some examples of Urocheta, which I
described from Queensland some years ago (Observations on the Structural

Characters of certain new or little known Earthworms—Proc. Roy. Soc. Edin.,
vol. xiv., 1887, p. 160 e¢ seqg.), are distinct from U. corethrura.

288 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socrety.

inhabited by purely terrestrial animals which are not gifted
with means of crossing the ocean. There are, however,
exceptions to this rule, which are not a little puzzling—
such as, for example, the occurrence of Rana Guppeyt in the
Solomon Islands. Earthworms form another exception.
Apart from the islands of the Pacific, which are for the
most part separated from each other by such narrow tracts
of ocean that an accidental transfer of species is credible, we
have earthworms occurring in Madeira, Tenerife, St Helena,
Fernan Noronha, Marion Island, Kerguelen, and South
Georgia. Tenerife is included in the Palearctic region, and
the justice of this conclusion is borne out by a consideration
of its earthworms. Through the kindness of Mr EK. B.
Poulton, F.R.S., and Mr F. W. Headley, I have become
possessed of a number of earthworms from that island
belonging to the genera Microscolex, Allurus, and Allolo-
bophora. This resemblance, however, may perhaps be only
the result of a more active commercial intercourse with
Europe than with any other part of the world. St Helena
is inhabited by several species of earthworms belonging to
the genus Pericheta. But the most interesting occurrence
of earthworms on any oceanic islands is their occurrence in
Kerguelen and Marion Islands. On each of these islands one
species occurs, which appears to be the same. As Lankester’s
Acanthodrilus kerguelenensis was adequately described, while
Grube’s Lumbricus kerguelarum was—to avoid all semblance
of exaggeration—inadequately described, I retain the former
name, though the species are probably identical.

There is obviously not sufficient intercourse between
Kerguelen and other parts of the world to account for the
artificial introduction of this Acanthodrilus ; and, as it differs
specifically from any form hitherto described, it has probably
occupied the islands for a considerable period. Kerguelen
itself is an island of considerable age, as is evinced by the
fact that it possesses sedimentary rocks (formed, however,
exclusively out of the débris of its voleanic substructure). I
point out elsewhere that Kerguelen forms part of an Antarctic

1 Since the above was written, Mr Blanford’s ‘‘ Presidential Address”’ to
the Geological Society has appeared. I have quoted on p. 286 some other

The Classification and Distribution of Harthworms. 289

faunal area, including New Zealand and Patagonia; this is
shown in many groups, both terrestrialand marine. Probably
Kerguelen and these other countries were stocked from an
Antarctic continent which was in a comparatively recent
geological period inhabited by terrestrial animals.

TABLE INDICATING NUMBER OF GENERA IN DIFFERENT

REGIONS.
Genera. | Peculiar Genera. Percentage. |
Palearctic, . : Suilbee 8 4 50°0
Ethiopian, . ‘ : 10 7 70°0
Oriental, : : : 9 5 50°5
Nearctic, F ‘ a 5 3 60°0
Neotropical, . ; F 11 6 50°4
Australian, . : : ef 7 63°6
|

We cannot, of course, at present pay much regard to the
numbers given for the Ethiopian region, it has been too little
explored ; but of some of the other regions, particularly the
Palearctic and Australian, we have a fair knowledge. It is
noticeable that, as in Vertebrata,’ the Ethiopian, Neotropical,
and Australian regions have the largest number of peculiar
forms, and the Nearctic the smallest. The genera allowed
are those given in the faunal lists on pp. 269-278, with the
exception of the doubtful ones marked in those lists with a

query.

Chief Facts contained in the above.

(1.) The close resemblance between the Nearctic and
Palearctic regions necessitating their fusion into a Holarctic
region.

(2.) The separation of Japan from the Palearctic, and its
relegation to the Oriental region.

(3.) The great richness of South America and Australia in
peculiar types.
suggestions from this important contribution to the subject under discussion.
He remarks, with reference to Kerguelen, that it is far from clear that its

volcanic formations do not belong to the continental type.
* Wallace, Geographical Distribution of Animals, vol. i., p. 81.

290 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

(4.) The wide distribution of Acanthodrilus in the land
masses of the Southern hemisphere, which agree in the great
abundance of species of this genus and comparative rarity of
other forms.

(5.) The marked difference between New Zealand and
Australia.

EXPLANATION OF MAPs.

Pl. XIII. The distribution of the Acanthodrilide is shown in red.

Pl. XIV. The dots indicate the areas occupied by the Eudrilidz.’ The cross
lines indicate the areas occupied by the Perichetida. The dark red
patches show when Joth families occur.

XXVI. Notes upon the Marine Accumulations in Largo Bay,
Fife, and at Portrush, County Antrim, North Ireland.
By Atrrep Bet, Esq., London. (Communicated by
JAMES BENNIE, Esq.)

(Read 15th January 1890.)
LArGco Bay, FIFE.

Shortly before leaving London for Australia, Mr Robert
Etheridge, jun., a former president of this Society, suggested
to the writer that if ever opportunity served, a further
examination of the fauna in the raised beds near the Cockle-
mill Burn in Largo Bay would be desirable, as the list of
species recorded by him in his paper upon these deposits,
read before the Royal Physical Society, Edinburgh, vol. v1.
p. 105 (1881), only embraced the larger forms. Ata later
period, thanks to the kindness of Mr J. Bennie, who had
worked with Mr Etheridge, the smaller matter and floatings
came into my hands, and from these and a second parcel
from the same gentleman, and material obtained on a personal
visit, the appended lists have been compiled.

The physical features of the deposit have been so carefully
and thoroughly described by Mr Etheridge, that little can be
added. On my visit the driving sands had partly obscured
the face of the section, but not so far as to obliterate the
traces of current bedding and lamination.

Agreeing with my friend that its origin is marine rather

1] have not referred in the text to the occurrence of two new genera of
Eudrilide which I have just received from Lagos, W. Africa.

Marine Accumulations in Largo Bay, and Portrush. 291
|

than subaerial, I am reluctantly compelled to differ from him
in referring to it as a “raised beach.”

Useful as the words “raised beach” may be as a geological
term, they are not sufficiently explicit in a paleontological
sense, because beach faunas have their own peculiarities
differing in many respects from faunas accumulated under
other conditions.

The fauna of a raised beach depends upon the nature of
the beach itself. If a flat sandy shore, the sands and shells
will be swept up beyond tide mark into dunes; if bounded by
cliffs or a rocky shore, the organisms are usually much broken
or swept off by recurring tides. A true beach fauna is
confined to comparatively few species, usually Jzttorina,
Mytilus, and Cardium (species that can live out of water for
hours), except towards the verge of extremely low tides.

From the abundance of species, state of preservation, and
mode of presentation, the Largo Bay accumulation appears
to be a current-bedded sand-bank formed in the laminarian
zone, the remains being proper to that horizon, heaped up
between Kincraig on the east and Kilconquhar on the north.

One of the most important features in this deposit are the
number of mollusca (nearly 13 per cent.) not found living in
the Firth of Forth at the present time, taking the lists! of
Messrs Leslie and Herdman as a standard to go by. Further
research will probably reduce the number of missing species,
but it is certainly desirable to call notice to these, and to the
Foraminifera, of which nearly 50 per cent. do not occur in
the above lists.

This may indicate a considerable lapse of time since the
formation of the deposit, but does not carry it back to the
age of the Clyde beds, containing Zellina calcarea and Leda
pernula, whose nearest habitat is Fair Isle and the Faroes—
deposits usually called raised beaches, but are more properly
raised sea-bottoms.

The lists are still incomplete, as a further examination
shows the existence of other organisms—Entomostraca and
other things,—of which a list will be afforded at a later
period when identified.

1 The Invertebrate Fauna of the Firth of Forth. Edinburgh, 1881.
Reprinted from Proc. Roy. Phys. Soc. Edin., vol. xi., pp. 68, 201, 268.

292 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

SPECIES OBTAINED FROM THE LARGO BEDS.

Chiton cinereus, L. Aporrhais pespelicani, L.
Patella vulgata, L. Purpura lapillus, L.
Pilidium fulvum, Mill. 5 », var. imbricata, Lamk.
Helcion pellucidum, L. Buccinum undatum, L.
Tectura virginea, Mont. Nassa incrassata, L.
Emarginula fissura, L. Pleurotoma costata, Don.
Trochus cinerarius, L. Cylichna umbilicata, Mont.
as helicinus, Fabr. Utriculus obtusus, Mont.
Lacuna divaricata, Fabr. - Lajonkairii, Bast.
» pallidula, Da Costa. ay truncatulus, Brug.
” » var. neritoides, L. | Anomia ephippiwm, L.
Littorina littorea, L. », patelliformis, L.
be obtusata, Gmel. Ostrea edulis, L.
Sis rudis, Maton. Pecten opercularis, L.
a 5, var. jugosa, Mont. 55 pusio, lu.
ig saxatilis, Johnst. sy aries, Ve
- tenebrosa, Mont. Mytilus Adriaticus, Lamk.
* Rissoa abyssicola, K. F. ae edulis, L.
eG, atbella, Lov. Nucula nitida, Sow.
* ,, ‘tneonspicua, Ald. a mucous, 1s:
», parva, Da Costa. Montacuta bidentata, Mont.
a » var. discrepans, Kh, F. - Serruginosa, Mont.
» 5, var. interrupta, Ad. | Lasea rubra, Mont.
» reticulata, Mont. Lucina borealis, L.
, striata, Ad. * Loripes lacteus, L.
», wvitrea, Mont. Axinus flecuosus, Mont.
,, zetlandica, Mont. Cardium edule, L.
* Barleeia rubra, Mont. » fasciatum, Mont.
Hydrobia ulve, Penn. Diplodonta rotundata, Mont.
Skenea planorbis, Fabr. Cyprina islandica, L.
Homalogyra atomus, Phil. Venus casina, L.
Cecum glabrum, Mont. », ovata, Penn.
Turritella terebra, L. », striatula, L.
Aclis unica, Mont. Tapes pullastra, Mont.
Odostomia acuta, Jeffr. », virginea, L.
a bes elavula, Lov. Artemis lincta, Pult.
0 ee conoidea, Broce. Tellina balthica, L.

e interstincta, Mont. », fabula, Gron.
obliqua, Ald. », tenuis, Da Costa.
wih’ plicata, Mont. Psammobia férroensis, Chemn.

Zs spiralis, Mont. Mactra solida, L.

bes twrrita, Hanley. ae ,, var. elliptica, Br.
aioe truncatula, Jeffr. », stultorum, L.

a ambilicatula, Malm. ,, subtruncata, Da Costa.
*(Chemnitzia) lactea, L. Lutraria elliptica, Lamk.
er eB rufa, Phil. Scrobicularia piperata, Gmel.
Natica catena, Da Costa. Syndosmya alba, W. Wood.

,, Alderi, KE. F. ae tenuis, Mont.

Marine Acewmulations in Largo Bay, and Portrush. 293

Solen siliqua, L. Balanus balanoides.

Thracia papyracea, Poli. » erenatus.

Corbula gibba, Olivi. Echinus esculentus.

Saxicava rugosa, L. Spatangus purpureus.

*Panopea fragilis, Mont. Cellaria fistulosa.

Pholas candida, L. Sphenotrochus macandrewanus, M. Edw.
a3 crispata, Iu. Cliona.

For the accompanying list of Foraminifera I am indebted
to Mr F. Chapman, who has kindly worked them out for me.

Species so marked (*) are not in the lists of Messrs Leslie
and Herdman.

Miliolina seminulum, L. Very common.

* ,, «etrceularis, Born. Somewhat rare.
bicornis, W. and J. Very rare.

», oblonga, Mont. Very common.
Spiroloculina limbata, D’Orb. Very rare.
*Cristellaria rotulata, Lam. Very rare.
Truncatulena lobatula, Lam. Very abundant.
+ $5 variabilis, D’Orb. Rare.
Rotalia Beccarii, L. Common.

Polystomella striatopunctata, F. and M. Very common.
= re crispa, L. Common.

*

*

Sphenotrochus Macandrewanus appears to be very rare. I
have seen but one worn example. It is not referred to by
Messrs Leslie and Herdman.

To Mr Thomas Scott, F.L.S., I am indebted for the follow-

ing valuable list of Ostracoda detected by him in the finer
silt :—

List oF OsTRACODA from Cocklemill Burn, Largo Bay.

Cythere lutea, Miller. Frequent.
», villosa (G. O. Sars). Frequent.
», pulchella, Brady. Few.
», confusa, Brady and Norman. Frequent.
» angulata (G. O. Sars). Not common.
», jinmarchica (G. O. Sars).
», convexa, Baird. Rare.
,, albomaculata, Baird. Common.
», tenera, Brady. Not common.
robertsont, Brady. Rare.
Losotonchu tamarindus (Jones). Not common.
3 guttata (Norman). Not common.

294 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socrety.

Xestolebris depressa, G. O. Sars. Rather rare.
Eucythere declivis (Norman). Rare.
Cytheridea elongata (Brady). Common.

ys papillosa, Bosquet. Rare.
Cytherura undata, G. O. Sars. Rare.

oe sella, G. O. Sars. Rare.

The nearest habitat of the Mollusca no longer present in
the Forth (so far as ascertained till the present), according to
Dr Gwyn Jeffreys, is for

Rissoa abyssicola,. . . Shetland.
ay OLLI GS. . eee ee Oetland:
» tnconspicua, . . Coralline zone everywhere.
,, Zetlandica, . . Aberdeenshire.
Barlecia rubra, . . . Aberdeenshire.
Odostomia clavula, . . Hebrides.
“a conoidea, . . Coralline zone, 25 to 80 fathoms.
a plicata, . . ~S. W- England.
5 truncatula, . Plymouth.
(Chemnitzia) lactea, . . Aberdeenshire.
ae rufa, . . S. W. England. A variety occurs in
E. Scotland, 30 to 90 fathoms.
Loripes lacteus, . . . Buchan.
Diplodonta rotundata (?), Yorkshire (Whitburn).
Panopea fragilis, . . . Moray Frith.

Portrusn, County ANTRIM.

The only accumulation that can be placed on line with
the deposit just referred to, that I am aware of, is the one |
discovered but never described by the father of glacial
geology, Mr James Smith of Jordanhill, and only briefly
referred to in his collected papers (‘‘ Newer Pliocene Geo-
logy,” Glasgow, 1862, pp. 74-84). The fullest lists of the
fossils are those contained in General Portlock’s “ Geology of
Londonderry,” and in Canon Grainger’s notice (Lrit. Ass. Adv.
Sc. Reports, 1874). Mr John Kelly of the Irish Survey has
also examined these beds (Zrans. Roy. Irish Academy).

Under these circumstances, it may be permitted me I
hope to place on record as complete a list as possible of the
fauna of this raised bed, most of the species recorded by
General Portlock having been since verified by myself, and

Marine Accumulations in Largo Bay, and Portrush. 295

his synonymy, somewhat complicated, brought into harmony
with modern standards. As in Largo Bay,! all the species
are still living somewhere in British waters. Land shells
are not uncommon, but are more incorporated in the body
of the main mass than is the case with the Largo beds,
where they occur mostly in the higher portions of the
deposit. Such interlopers are by no means uncommon, as I
have collected them in the very marine quiescent beds of
the Older and Newer Red Crags of East Anglia, the Quater-
nary residue at Selsey in Sussex, and the drifts on the east
coast of Ireland and elsewhere.

FossILs FRoM PortTRUSH, CouNTY ANTRIM.

The names in brackets are those adopted in Portlock’s ‘‘ Geology of
Londonderry,” etc.)

(Terebratula cranium ?) (Mill. ) Cardium exiguum, Gmel.
Anomia ephippium, L. “5 fasciatwm, Mont.
» var. squamula, L. e nodosum, Turt.
H) ware aculeata, Mull, ‘i norvegicum, Spengl.
a — striata, VW. (C. elongatum. )
A. undulata.) Cyprina islandica, I.
Ostrea edulis, L. Astarte sulcata, Da Costa.
Pecten opercularis, L. (Crassina scotica. )
ws uso, Ts. »; btriangularis, Mont.
(P. distortus. ) (Mactra triangulata.)
ee VETS. la Circe minima, Mont.
Lima hians, Gmel. Venus casina, L.

Mytilus edulis, L. », fasciuta, Da Costa.
» var. tncurvata, Penn. », ovata, Penn.

Nucula nucleus, L. » striatula, L.

(VV. margaritacea. ) » verrucosa, L.

», tenuis, Mont. Tapes pullastra, Mont.
Arca lactea, L. Donax vittatus, Da Costa.
», tetragona, Poli. Mactra elliptica, Br.

(A. papillosa. ) », subtruncata, Da Costa.
Pectunculus glycimeris, L. », truncata, Mont.
Montacuta ferruginosa, Mont. Syndosmua tenuis, Mont.

(Mya fer.) ( Tellemya t.)
Lasea rubra, Mont. Pandora ?

(Anatina ovalis. ) Thracia papyracea, Poli.
Lucina borealis, L. Corbula gibba, Olivi.
Cardium edule, L. Mya Binghami, Turton.

1 It is likely that the land shells of Largo Bay are more recent than the
marine fauna with which they are intermixed yet.

296 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Panopea plicata, Mont.
Saxicava arctica, L.
Venerupis irus, L.
Chiton fascicularis, L.
», marmoreus, Fabr.
Patella vulgata, L.
», cerulea, L.
Helcion pellucidum, L.
(Patella p.)
re var. /aevis, Penn.
Tectura virginea, Mill.
(Patella v.)
Fissurella greeca, L.
Emarginula fissura, I.
Trochus cinerarius, L.
» magus? L.
», tumidus, Mont.
» wmbilicatus, Mont.
», ezyphinus, L.
Phasianella pullus, L.
(Turbo p.)
Lacuna divaricata, Fabr,
(Turbo canalis. )
» pallidula, Da Costa.
,, puteolus, Turton.
Littorina jugosa, Mont.

i littorea, L.
(Turbo 1.)

a neritotdes, Li.

6 obtusata, Gmel.

as rudis, Maton.

Rissoa cingillus, Mont.
(Turbo c. and Rissoa
fallax. )

», costata, Ad.

», costulata, Ald.

», crenulata, Desm.
(Cingula cimex. )

5 parva, Da Costa.
(Cingula alba. )

», var. interrupta, Ad.

», punctura, Mont.

», reticulata, Mont.

», semistriata, Mont.

Balanus porcatus.
B. balanoides.
B. communis.

Rissoa striata, Ad.
(Pyramis striata and P. discors. )

,, 2etlandica, Mont.

Barlecia rubra, Mont.
(Turbo unifasciatus. )

Hydrobia ulve, Penn.
Turritella terebra, L.
Scalaria clathratula, Ad.
Odostomia acuta, Jeffr.

BY cacavata, Phil.
a spiralis, Mont.
* turrita, Hanl.
m3 unidentata, Mont.

Chemnitzia lactea, L.
Eulima polita, L.
Natica aldert, K. F.

» catena, Da Costa.

(WV. glaucina. )
Adeorbis subcarinatus, Mont.
Cerithium reticulatum, Da Costa.
Triforis adversum.

(Murex adversus. )

»> perversum, L.
Cerithiopsis tubercularis, Mont.

(Cerithium t.)
Purpura lapillus, L.
Buccinum undatum, L.
Murex erinaceus, L.

Trophon muricatus, Mont.

(Murex m.)

Nassa incrassata, Strom.

(Buccinum macula.)

» pygmea, Lamk.
(B. minima.)
5, reticulata, VL:
Defrancia linearis, Mont.
(Murex 1.)
ne purpurea, Mont.
Pleurotoma costata, Don.
- rufa, Mont.

ss septangularis, Mont.
(Fusus s.)
x0 striolata, Seacchi.

Cyprea ewropea, Mont.

Spirorbis granulatus.
S. nautiloides.
S. sinistrorsus.

On the Viscera of a Female Chimpanzee. 297

Balanus crenatus. Serpula vernvicularis.

Verruca stromia. Vermilia triquetra.

Cellaria fistulosa (Salicornaria farciminoides), Lepralia ventricosa,
Echinus sphera, E. neglectus.

Cancer pagurus.

Pisces. Vertebre and teeth, or dermal scutes.

Caryophylla clavus, var. Smithit,

This deposit is, unfortunately, no longer accessible, being
covered over by the road round the bay.

XXVITI. On the Viscera of a Female Chimpanzee. By
J. SyYMINGTON, Esq, M.D., F.RS.E., Lecturer on
Anatomy, Minto House, Edinburgh; Examiner in
Anatomy, University of Edinburgh.

(Read 19th February 1890.)

Through the kindness of our President, Dr Traquair, I
have recently had the opportunity of dissecting a female
chimpanzee, and I propose to lay before you some observa-
tions on ‘the viscera of this animal. The literature dealing
with the anatomy of the chimpanzee is pretty extensive,
but it is mainly confined to an account of its osteology and
myology or the configuration of its brain, the viscera
generally receiving but scanty notice.

The animal I dissected was 2 feet 24 inches in height,
when measured from the top of the head to the heel. It
had all its milk teeth and the first permanent molars. It
was probably between three and four years old.

Brain.—This organ was injected through the carotids
with spirit while the brain was still in the cranial cavity.
This injection was repeated on several occasions, and on
removing the calvaria, about ten days after the death of
the animal, the brain was found to be pretty firm, so that
it could easily be removed without much danger of any
alteration in its shape. After its removal it weighed with
the arachnoid and pia-mater, 13 ounces. It was kept in
methylated spirit, and after being in this fluid for about eight

298 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socrety.

months, and having its membranes taken off, its weight was
reduced to 84 ounces.

The weight of this brain is a little less than one described
by Professor John Marshall) as in the latter it weighed
15 ounces immediately after its removal from the cranial
cavity and 9 ounces after hardening in spirit for several
months. Professor Marshall’s specimen was a male 14 inches
taller than mine, but its dentition was not quite so advanced,
as the upper first permanent molars had not erupted. My
brain probably lost an ounce or so while in the cranial
cavity by being injected with spirit, which would remove
some of its water and dissolve some of its salts. Miiller?
gives a list of the weights of the brain in nine cases,—viz. :
two by Owen, and one each by Marshall, Bischoff, Chapman,
Parker, Drell, and himself. Of these specimens Marshall’s
is the heaviest and Miller’s the lightest, the latter weighing
only 9% ounces.

In Dr Chapman’s® case the brain weighed only 10 ounces
and 10 grains, although his chimpanzee was fully as tall as
Marshall’s. In addition to the cases mentioned by Miller,
other specimens have been described by Embleton and
Bischoff, but they do not affect the general result, which
may be stated as follows :—the average weight of the brain
of a chimpanzee, with its milk teeth in position and its first
permanent molars erupted, or about to do so, and its height
between 2 feet and 24 feet, is probably not more than 12 or
13 ounces.. We have unfortunately no account of the brain
of the adult chimpanzee, all those hitherto described belong-
ing to young individuals, which may be considered to
correspond to children between two and four years of age.
The brain of the latter is about three times heavier than
that of the chimpanzee. Thus Boyd* found the average

1 On the Brain of a Young Chimpanzee—Natural History Review, vol. 1.,
1861.

2 Zur Anatomie des Chimpansgehirn—Arch, fiir Anthropologie, Bd. xvii.,
1888.

3 On the Structure of the Chimpanzee—Proceedings of the Acad. of Natural
Science of Philadelphia, 1879.

4 Philosophical Transactions, 1860.

On the Viscera of a Female Chimpanzee. 299

weight of 29 children between two and four years of age to
be 38°71 ounces.

Although we have no direct evidence as to the weight of
the brain of the adult chimpanzee, we can form a very fair
estimate by an examination of its cranial capacity. Accord-
ing to Topinard! this varied in three females from 387 c.c.
to 425 cc. Mr James Simpson, assistant in the Anatomical
Museum of the Edinburgh University, very kindly measured
the cranial capacity of my chimpanzee. He employed
Sir Wm. Turner’s method,? and found it to be 360 cc. It
thus appears that the increase in the cranial capacity of the
chimpanzee is not very great after the commencement of the
second dentition, and had my specimen lived until it was an
adult, its brain would probably have weighed about 15 ounces.
The average weight of the adult human female is about
44 ounces.

In my specimen the cerebrum completely overlapped and
extended backwards about quarter of an inch behind the
cerebellum, It is unnecessary that I should discuss this
question, even although such recent writers as Chapman *
and Miiller* describe the posterior part of the cerebellum as
being uncovered by the cerebrum, for D. J. Cunningham,’
by freezing the entire head and making sections of the brain
in situ, has conclusively demonstrated that the cerebrum
does completely overlap the cerebellum. In Miiller’s case
the cerebellum is described as projecting 3 mm. beyond the
cerebrum, but an examination of the drawings which he
gives of the brain will readily show that he has unduly
depressed the anterior part of this organ, and had he placed
the brain in the skull with the face directed forwards, he
would have found the cerebrum to reach farther back than
the cerebellum.

The fissures and convolutions of the chimpanzee’s cerebrum

1 Anthropology, 1878, p. 50.

2 “Challenger ” Reports—Zoology, pt. xxix., p. 9.

3 On the Structure of the Chimpanzee—Proceedings of the Acad. of Natural
Science of Philadelphia, 1879.

4 Zur Anatomie des Chimpansgehirn—Arch. fiir Anthropologie, Bd. xvii.,
1888.

> Royal Irish Academy—‘‘ Cunningham Memoirs,” No. 2, 1886.

W@W x x

300 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

have been frequently described, but no apology is needed for
referring to some of the principal features of my specimen,
since authorities are by no means agreed on several points,
and as the convolutions are undoubtedly subject to consider-
able variations, it is advisable that a number of cases should
be put on record in order that the average or typical condi-
tion may be determined.

SYLVIAN FissurE.—This fissure consists, as in the human
subject, of a main stem, with two branches or limbs. The
posterior limb is generally said to be more vertical than in
man, and this appears to be the case. According to Broca,*
the anterior limb of the sylvian fissure in man constantly
divides into two branches, and in anthropoid apes this
division often occurs. Bischoff,? on the other hand, holds
that two branches are rarely met with. In my specimen, it is
single, with a very faint trace of a forked arrangement at its
extremity. Muller mentions a fissure placed in front of the
anterior limb of the sylvian fissure, which is sometimes mis-
taken for it. On raising the temporo-sphenoidal lobe, the latter
fissure will be found not to be continuous with the sylvian,
but to end on the under surface of the frontal lobe. I finda
fissure of this kind in my specimen. Through the kindness
of Sir Wm. Turner I had the opportunity of examining along
with him four chimpanzees’ brains, which are in the Anatoni-
eal Museum of the University of Edinburgh. In all of them
the anterior limb of the sylvian fissure was single and short.
In some of them this was quite obvious, but in others it
appears to be continuous with the fissure, already referred to
as being in front of the sylvian. On raising the temporo-
sphenoidal lobe, however, the two were found to be separated
by a narrow bridging convolution.

FISSURE OF RoLANDO.—This fissure is very distinct in both
hemispheres of my specimen. It begins close to the great
longitudinal fissure, and runs downwards and forwards to end
a little above the posterior limb of the sylvian fissure. In its
course it is curved so as to form two anterior convexities of

1 Mémoirs cerveau de Phomme et des primates, Paris, 1888, p. 588.
* Sitzbericht der Miinchen Akad., Feb, 1871.

On the Viscera of a Female Chimpanzee. 301

about equal leneth. According to Professor Marshall, this
fissure is situated farther forwards than in man. The two
fissures form a V, and he describes the point of the V as
being situated a little in front of the transverse axis of the
hemispheres, whilst in man it is, to a still greater extent,
behind that axis. Again he writes, “Suppose the whole
length of the hemisphere to be represented by 100, then from
the forepart of the brain to the point of the V would measure
in the chimpanzee 49, and in man 57.” Various other
authors describe and figure the fissure of Rolando as being
farther forwards than in man. The anterior part of the
cerebrum, as compared with its posterior portion, is relatively
narrower, and the orbital surface of the frontal lobes more
deeply excavated than in man. These peculiarities of the
chimpanzee’s brain, with the forward position of the fissure
of Rolando, are described as combining to render the frontal
lobes relatively much smaller than in the human subject.
Indeed, Marshall, in his paper already referred to, considers
that “whereas nearly one-half of the upper surface of the
cerebrum lies in front of the fissure of Rolando in man, a very
little more than one-third is so placed in the chimpanzee”
(p. 36). I have examined my own specimen, and find that it
supports Marshall’s views in respect of the diminished
breadth and depth of the frontal lobes, but not with regard
to its length as determined by the position of the fissure of
Rolando. Of course, in measuring the position of this fissure
in relation to the anterior and posterior extremities of the
brain, it 1s necessary to decide how the brain is to be held.
In my case the brain was kept in the cranial cavity, and the
skull so placed that the orbits looked forwards. The position
ot the head nearly corresponded with that of the chimpanzee
shown in mesial section in Plates 7 and 8 of Professor
Cunningham’s work.

Fig. 1 is a life-sized drawing of a vertical mesial section of
my chimpanzee’s brain. It shows the position in which it
was placed in estimating the position of the fissure of Rolando.
The X indicates the situation of the upper end of the fissure
in relation to the anterior and posterior extremities of the

1 Royal Irish Academy—‘‘ Cunningham Memoirs,’ No 2, 1886,

o)2 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

brain. Viewed from the norma verticalis, the total length of
the cerebrum was 95 mm., and the distance from the anterior
end of the brain to the upper extremity of the fissure was

Fig. 1.

Left half of vertical mesial section of brain of chimpanzee. c. c., Corpus
callosum. co. M., Calloso-marginal fissure. P. 0., Parieto-occipital fissure.
c., Calecarine fissure. p., Pons Varolii. mM. o., Medulla. m., Middle
commissure of third ventricle.

59 mm. Calculated according to the method adopted by
Marshall, this gives an index of 62, showing the fissure to be
even farther back than in man, in whom it is estimated
ait. 57.

Gratiolet, in his “ Mémoire sur les plis cerebraux de
Vhomme et des primates,’ has a view from above of the brain
of a chimpanzee (see plate vi, fig. 1). I find that this
agrees very closely with my own specimen in regard to the
position of the fissure of Rolando, as it gives an index of 60°,
It must be remembered that these indices are only approxi-
mate estimates of the position of the fissure as seen from
above, since they are readily influenced by the position of the
brain. Thus in my specimen a rotation of the brain round

On the Viscera of a Female Chimpanzee. 303

a transverse axis, so as to depress the anterior part 10”,
makes a difference of 5 in the index of the fissure, and so
reduces it to that of man.

The fissure of Rolando passes outwards and forwards at
about the same angle as in man, and I am of opinion that its
position in relation to the anterior and posterior extremities
of the brain is practically the same as it is in the human
subject.

Parieto-Occipital Fissure—The arrangement of this fissure
in the chimpanzee has attracted the attention of numerous
anatomists, more especially since the appearance of Gratiolet’s
classical “ Mémoire,” in which the first annectant convolution
between the parietal and occipital lobes was described as
being absent in the chimpanzee, although well marked in the
orang. Further observations have not confirmed the view of
Gratiolet, and various anatomists! have recorded cases in
which the first annectant convolution was visible on the
superficial aspect of the brain. Professor D. J. Cunningham?
has recently described this convolution as constituting a
distinct barrier to the communication between the internal
perpendicular fissure as it turns outwards on the hemisphere
and the intra-parietal fissure. Its relations in my specimen
agree with Cunningham’s statement. The internal part of
the parieto-occipital fissure was separated from the calcarine
by a superficial annectant convolution. This convolution
appears to be very constant in the chimpanzee, although it is
absent or very rudimentary in man.

The calcarine fissure gave rise toa large and prominent
hippocampus minor in the posterior cornu of the lateral
ventricle.

Alimentary Canal.—The tongue is relatively longer and
narrower than in the human subject. In my specimen it
was 3 inches in leneth and 14 inch in breadth. The
circumvallate papille are described by Huxley? as being
disposed in the form of a T with the top turned forwards.

1 Marshall, Nat. History Review, 1861, p. 211; Rolleston, Jbid., 1861.
p. 309; Turner, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. v., p. 578.

2 Jour. of Anat. and Phys., vol. xxiv., p. 149.

5 Medical Times and Gazette, vol. i., 1864, p. 487.

304 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

On the other hand, Chapman! and Cavanna? represent them
as V-shaped. I examined them carefully in my specimen,
as Bischoff? refers to the question in connection with the
determination of the nature of the animal called Mafuca,
which died in the Zoological Gardens at Dresden, and
about which opinions differed, some looking upon it as
a chimpanzee and others as a gorilla. I found the papille
arranged so as to resemble the letter Y rather than V or T.
There were seven papillee—three in the middle line forming
the stem of the Y, and two on either side, representing its
limbs. Bischoff found them collected into the form of a Y
in Matuca.

The soft palate was provided with a distinct uvula, and
the tonsils were well developed. The stomach resembled
that of the human subject in its shape and position. The
small intestines were 11 feet long, and the large intestines
3 feet. Attempts have been made to show that the large
intestines, as compared with the small intestines, are rela-
tively longer in the chimpanzee than in man. Their relative
lengths, however, vary so much in different specimens, that
the question has no morphological significance. The cecum
and vermiform appendix were well developed—the former
was 24 inches in length, and the latter nearly 5 inches. On
filling the large intestines with water from the rectum, it did
not escape by ileo-czcal opening into ileum even under the
pressure of a column of water one foot high. There were no
valvule conniventes in the small intestines, but Peyer's
patches were very distinct. I counted about twenty, exclud-
ing a few very small ones. Their average size was about ? of
an inch in length, and about a 4 of an inch in breadth. The
villi were well developed, and could be distinctly recognised
by the naked eye even in the ileum. The bile and pancreatic
ducts opened by a common orifice into the second part of the
duodenum. Solitary glands were abundant in the large
intestines. There were no indications in the rectum of the
transverse folds, such as are found in man.

1 Proc. Acad. Nat. Science of Philadelphia, 1879.
* Archivio per l’antropologia, vol. ii., p. 211, 1875.
® Mittheilungen der kgl. zool. Mus, zu Dresden, Heft 2.

On the Viscera of a Female Chimpanzee. 300

The liver weighed 11 oz. Its main peculiarity, as com-
pared with the human subject, was the large size of the
caudate lobe. His has shown that in man it forms the
superior boundary of the foramen of Winslow. It was the
same here. This part of the lobe was small, and was placed
between the structures joining the transverse fissure and the
inferior vena cava. As the lobe passed towards the right
side, it became considerably enlarged. When the liver was
in situ this lobe was in contact with the right kidney, and
did not project beyond the adjacent portions of the right
lobe. Sir Richard Owen! states that “fissures rather than
lobes are added to the livers of quadrupeds,” and this seems
to be frequently the case. Portions of the liver which seem
to be very prominent when that organ is removed from the
body, do not project beyond the general surface of the liver
when it is in its natural position in the abdomen. The gall
bladder was large and slightly folded near the fundus. The
right kidney weighed 14 oz. and the left 1% oz. The
malpighian pyramids were blended together, and formed a
common ridge, which projected into the undivided pelvis of
the ureter.

The spleen had three surfaces—gastric, splenic, and renal.
There were no notches in its anterior border. Its weight
was 1# oz.

The only peculiarity of the superior aperture of the larynx
was the absence of the cuneiform cartilages in the aryteno-
epiglottidean folds. The true and false vocal cords closely
resembled those of the human subject. On passing a probe
into the saccule, this recess was found to extend upwards
above the level of the aryteno-epiglottidean folds as hich as
the lower part of the tonsil. In man the saccule seldom
extends as high as the aryteno-epiglottidean folds. On the
left side the saccule communicated with a bursa in front of
the thyro-hyoid membrane. This bursa was not much larger
than it is in the human subject. The thyroid gland was
rather small. It consisted of two lateral lobes and an
isthmus. The latter has been described by Bischoff as
absent.

1 Anatomy of Vertebrates, vol. ili., p. 483.

306 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

The right lung was divided into three lobes, and the left
into two.

The heart and great vessels presented no special peculiari-
ties. The annulis ovalis was feebly marked, and the modera-
tor band in the right ventricle was represented by several
bundles of fibres. The innominate and left common carotid
arteries arose by a common trunk, otherwise the arrange-
ment of the large vessels was the same as in the human
subject.

The inferior mesenteric vein joined the splenic about half
an inch from its termination. According to Mr Treves? this
is a feature in the higher development of animals, as in none
below monkeys does it end in this way.

Female Genitals—Our knowledge of the anatomy of the
female genitals in the chimpanzee and the other anthropoid
apes is very imperfect, and the few descriptious we have of
these organs differ on several points.

The following account is based upon the examination of
the pelvic viscera of two animals—viz., the one described in
the previous portion of this paper, and another for which I
am indebted to the kindness of Professor D. J. Cunningham.
The former specimen I received, as already mentioned, in a
fresh condition. The genitals were examined in situ, and
then removed for further dissection. The specimen I re-
ceived from Dr Cunningham consisted of the pelvis and
lower extremities of a female chimpanzee, which was some-
what younger than the one I had previously examined. The
pelvic viscera had not been removed. I decided to make a
mesial section of this pelvis, and this was done with a large
knife after the specimen had been well hardened in spirit.
Fig. 2 represents the left half of this section. While readily
admitting that this method is not so satisfactory as that of
making frozen sections of the entire animal, I believe that
the drawing illustrates very accurately the normal relations
of the structures at the lower part of the pelvis. It certainly
agrees very closely with the results obtained by an examina-
tion of the entire animal. It must be remembered that both
my specimens were young and sexually immature.

1 The Anatomy of the Intestinal Canal and Péritoneum in Man, 1885, p. 15.

On the Viscera of a Female Chimpanzee. 307

The special accumulation of fat, known as the mons
Veneris, which is found in the human subject in front of the
pubes, is generally said to be absent in the anthropoids. It

Fig. 2.

Left half of a vertical mesial section of pelvis of female chimpanzee about two
years old (life size). s. v., 1st sacral vertebra. s. p., Pubic symphysis.
r., Rectum. sBt., Bladder. y., Vagina. v., Urethra. uG., Uro-genital
canal. c., Clitoris. p., Prepuce. oe., Glans clitoridis,

is quite true that the amount of fat in this position is very
much less in the chimpanzee than in man; at the same time

308 . Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

it is worthy of note that the mesial section of the chimpan-
zee’s pelvis showed that the layer of subcutaneous fat in front
of the pelvis was about three times as thick as that on the
anterior abdominal wall. The labia majora are rudimentary,
and do not conceal the labia minora and clitoris. All autho-
rities agree in recognising the large size of the clitoris; but
there is a point in connection with the position of this organ
to which I can find no reference. The two crura are attached
to the sides of the pubic arch, and, passing forwards and
upwards, unite at the lower edge of the pubic symphyses to
form the body of the clitoris, which passes at once down-
wards and backwards (see Fig. 2). In the human subject the
two crura are prolonged upwards in front of the pubis, and
unite to form the body of the clitoris anterior to and about
midway between the upper and lower edges of the symphyses
(see Fig. 3). The clitoris thus occupies a higher and more
anterior position in relation to the symphyses in the human
female than in the chimpanzee.

In both my specimens the glans clitoridis was flattened
from before backwards, and projected considerably beyond
the prepuce. Behind the clitoris was the opening of a
distinct uro-genital canal. This passage was connected
above with the urethra and vagina, and passed downwards
and backwards. It was half an inch long in one specimen,
and three-quarters of an inch in the other,

Bischoff? stated that the female genitals in the human
subject presented numerous features in which they differed
from those of the anthropoids, and he maintained that
Huxley’s proposition that the differences between man and
the anthropoid apes were less than those between the latter
and the lower monkeys was not true so far as the female
eenitals were concerned.

There can be no question but that the differences between
the relations of the external genitals in the chimpanzee and
in the human subject are very marked. This is very evident

1 «¢ Vercleichend anatomische Untersuchungen iiber die aiisseren weiblichen
Geschlects-und Begattungsorgane des Menschen und der affen, inbesonderg
der Anthropoiden”—Abh, der konig. bay. Akad. der Wissenschaften, Bd.
xiiis, ddoAbthy e207.

On the Viscera of a Female Chimpanzee. 309

from an examination of Figs. 2 and 5, representing mesial
section of their respective pelves. That of the human
subject is from an adult, but, so far as the points under
consideration are concerned, it would do equally well for a
young child.

‘

AN
KAS

Fig. 3.

s. P., Symphysis pubis. s., First piece of sacrum. B., Bladder. r., Rectum.
u., Urethra. v., Vagina. uv.v., Uterus.

In the human subject the external .genitals show a longi-
tudinal cleft passing from just below the mons Veneris
backwards as far as the mass of tissue lying in front of the
anus. The sides of this cleft are bounded by the labia
majora, and it is not until these are separated that the
relatively small labia minora and clitoris can be seen. The
urethra and vagina pass downwards and forwards, making
with the horizon an angle of about 60°. Below they open

310 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

into the vulval cleft. When the subject is in the erect
position the glans clitoridis and the external orifice of the
urethra are in about the same horizontal plane.

In the chimpanzee the mons Veneris and labia majora are
very rudimentary, and the large clitoris and labia minora are
visible without any manipulation of the parts. Again, the
glans of the clitoris and the external urinary meatus, instead
of being in about the same horizontal plane, are so situated
that the meatus lies vertically above the glans.

In the human fcetus before the fifth or sixth month, the
parts resemble those of the chimpanzee in the slight develop-
ment of the labia majora and mons Veneris and the large
size of the clitoris and labia minora; but during the latter
months of foetal life the growth of the former is much
more rapid than that of the latter, so that by the time of
birth the labia majora usually conceal the clitoris and labia
minora.

At the upper end of the uro-genital canal of the chimpan-
zee are the openings into the urethra and vagina. At the
entrance to the vagina there are several folds of mucous
membrane, which are of interest in connection with the
question as to whether or not they represent the hymen.
Dr G. v. Hoffmann? recorded a case in which the mucous
membrane at the orifice of the vagina had two lateral
openings with a distinct median septum between them.
This, however, is not normally the case, and Hoffmann’s
specimen was obviously an example of incomplete “ duplex
vagina.” Bischoff while admitting the existence of certain
folds of the mucous membrane at the vaginal orifice, describes
the hymen as absent.

In the animal I obtained from Dr Traquair there were four
folds of the mucous membrane—two on each side. These
folds—which in shape resembled somewhat the aortic semi-
lunar valves—had their free edges directed downwards, and
they were bounded externally by recesses, 3 or 4 mm,

1Uber die weiblichen Genitalien eines Chimpansen’’—Zeitschrift fiir
Geburtshilfe und Gynikologie, 1878.

2 Untersuchungen der Eingeweide und des Gehirens des Chimpansé-
Weibchen—Mittheilungen des Kgl. Zool. Museum zu Dresden, Heft 2.

On the Viscera of a Female Chimpanzee. O11

deep, which would admit a No. 9 catheter. Into the poste-
rior pouch on each side opened a duct just admitting a hoe’s
bristle. The duct could be traced upwards at the side of the
vagina nearly as high as the external os uteri. Here it
became connected with a small mass of glandular tissue,
which obviously represented the gland of Bartholin or
Duvernoy. In my other specimen there were only two
recesses, one on each side; but on opening them up they
were found to be imperfectly divided into two compartments.
Although generally overlooked or imperfectly described,
similar recesses will generally be found in the human
subject. These pouches are situated just external to the
hymen. They are usually well marked in the fcetus, but
will be found to vary a little in their number and depth.
In one nine-months’ foetus I found four recesses, the posterior
pair receiving the ducts of Duvernoy’s glands. These
recesses are not usually quite so distinct in the adult, but
those situated anteriorly near the urethral orifice are almost
always present, and may be mistaken for that opening. The
human hymen is evidently the homologue of the folds found
at the vaginal orifice in the chimpanzee, these folds having
blended to form a continuous membrane. In the specimen
represented in Fig. 2 there was an example of a tendency to
this fusion, since there were only two folds, one on either
side. The vagina was directed downwards and backwards.
It was nearly twice the length of the uro-genital canal.
Both the anterior and posterior walls had a few faint folds
of the mucous membrane, but there were no distinct columns
or ruge. The uterus resembled very closely that of a young
child. The cervix was thicker and firmer than that of the
body. On opening into the cavity of the uterus, the folds of
its mucous membrane were seen to reach to the top of the
uterus. The only peculiarity in these folds was that the
longitudinal ones were rather better marked, and the trans-
verse ones less distinct than in the child. The length of the
uterus was } of an inch in one specimen, and = of an inch
in the other.

In the human subject the uterus retains its infantile form
and size until near puberty, when it begins to grow rapidly,

312 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

more especially in the parts corresponding to the body and
fundus. Such appears to be also the case in the chimpanzee.
Thus Wyman! found the uterus of an adult chimpanzee to
be 23 inches long, while my specimen, which had cut its first
permanent molars, had a uterus less than an inch in length,
and the general relation of its parts were purely infantile in
their character.

The ovaries and Fallopian tubes presented no peculiarity
worthy of notice.

Some of the special features of the female genitals of the
chimpanzee, such as the large size of the clitoris, the promi-
nence of the labia minora, and the direction of the urethra
and vagina, will be found to some extent in the human
foetus. Even, however, by the fourth or fifth month the
lower parts of the vagina and urethra will be found to be
directed somewhat forwards as well as downwards, and
before birth the clitoris and nymphe have acquired their
adult relations to the labia majora. A few months after
birth, the direction of the vagina is practically the same as
in the adult. On the other hand, from a cursory inspection
of the external genitals of the adult female chimpanzee
“Sally” in the Zoological Gardens of London, I am inclined
to believe that the relation of the structures at the pelvic
outlet represented in Fig. 2 will be found to persist in the
adult.

There can be little doubt as to the correctness of the
opinion of Blumenbach and Cuvier that the anthropoid apes
copulate a posteriort. Quite a number of peculiarities in the
anatomy of the chimpanzee, as compared with the human
subject, exist, which must facilitate copulation a posteriori, or
obstruct its performance ab anterior’. These peculiarities in
the chimpanzee are the marked obliquity of the pelvis, the
feeble development of the buttocks, the rudimentary condi-
tion of the mons Veneris, the large size and the position of
the clitoris, and the direction of the vulvo-vaginal and
vaginal canals.

1 Boston Journal of Natural History, vol. iv., p. 380.

Notes on a Small Collection of Fresh- Water Ostracoda. 313

XXVIII. Notes on a Small Collection of Fresh- Water Ostracoda
Jrom the Edinburgh District. By Tuomas Scort, F.LS.,
Naturalist to the Fishery Board for Scotland.

(Read 22d January 1890.)

This collection of Ostracoda comprises type-slides of
species from nine different localities, as follow :—

l. Duddingston Loch, 3 slides containing 22 species.
2. Pond near Corstorphine Hill (north side), 1 slide con-
taining 5 species.
Kinghorn Loch, Fifeshire, 1 slide containing 10 species.
. Loch Fitty, Fifeshire, 2 slides containing 18 species.
Loch Glow, partly in Fifeshire and partly in Kinross-
shire, 1 slide containing 9 species.
Black Loch (near Loch Glow), Kinross-shire, 2 slides
containing 16 species.
7. Lurg Loch (near Loch Glow), Kinross-shire, 1 slide
containing 7 species.
8. Dow Loch (near Loch Glow), Kinross-shire, 1. slide
containing 9 species.
9. Pools at Luffness Links near Aberlady, 2 slides con-
taining 13 species.

oT os

Se

As might be expected, a number of the species from the
various localities named are more or less common to all of
them, as well as being generally distributed throughout these
islands, such as for example Cypria ophthaliica, Cypria
serena, Hrpetocypris reptans, Cypridopsis vidua, Candona
candida, and some others. It is not necessary, therefore, that
these should be referred to in the following notes, more
especially as I am preparing lists, intended to be more or
less inclusive, of this and other groups of the Entomostraca
observed in the district around Edinburgh to, be submitted
to the Royal Physical Society later on; consequently I will
at present confine my remarks to those which are as yet
considered rare, or have not hitherto been recorded from any
locality near Edinburgh.

By referring to the localities represented in this collection |

o14 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

it will be observed that Duddingston Loch has as yet yielded
the greatest number of species, viz., 22, exclusive of a
Candona which differs somewhat from any previously
described; it comes nearest Candona rostrata, Brady and
Norman, but is decidedly more tumid than that form, and
so for the present it is set aside as doubtful.

While examining some specimens of this tumid form,
I noticed alongside one of the animals an object that I at
first thought might have some connection with the sexual
organs. I mounted the specimen with the object in situ and
sent it to Dr Brady, but he could not say what it was.
Possibly it is a parasite of some kind, and may, partly, be

Parasite (?) observed in one of the tumid Candone from Duddingston ;
greatly enlarged.

the cause of the more tumid form of the Candone referred to.
It is obscurely rhomboidal in outline, the base is truncate
and deeply notched ; internally aud springing from one side
of and a little above the base are six elongated, curved teeth,
having their lower part much broadened inwards, three
of them being curved inwards and three curved outwards.
My son suggests that it may be the cestocercal stage of a
species of Cestoda, whose ultimate development is reached in
some fresh-water fish, as the trout or stickleback that preys
on Entomostraca.

Cyprois flava (Zaddach), from Duddingston Loch, is an
interesting species because of its very restricted distribution.

Notes on a Small Collection of Fresh-Water Ostracoda, 315

At present it is not known to occur in any other locality in
the British Islands, unless the Cypris gibbosa recorded by Dr
Baird from a ditch in Surrey more than fifty years ago be the
same species. I have obtained it in considerable abundance
in one particular part of the loch. Comparatively it is a
moderately large Ostracod, of a yellowish colour. It is
much compressed laterally, but has the dorsal margin pro-
minently arched.

Erpetocypris olivacea, Brady and Norman, from Dudding-
ston Loch, is as yet a comparatively rare species, though in
localities where it does occur it may be fairly plentiful.
Till lately Duddingston Loch was the only Scotch locality
where it had been observed. I am now able to exhibit
specimens from Kinghorn Loch, Fifeshire, and from Black
Loch, Kinross-shire.

Erpetocypris tumefacta (Brady and Robertson). This
species, which does not appear to have previously been
recorded from anywhere near Edinburgh, is exhibited in this
collection from Duddingston Loch, pools at Luffness Links,
Loch Fitty (Fifeshire), and Black Loch (Kinross-shire), and
is of frequent occurrence in all these localities. -

Candona rostrata, Brady and Norman, not previously
recorded from the Edinburgh district, has been obtained from
Duddingston Loch, Loch Fitty (Fifeshire), Lurg Loch and
Black Loch (Kinross-shire). It seems to me that this will
ultimately be found to be a generally distributed species.

Cypris pubera, O. F. Miller. I obtained this fine species —
at Kinghorn Loch in considerable abundance. I have also
seen specimens from Kilconquhar Loch, near Largo. It has
been previously recorded from Duddingston Loch (a young
specimen from this loch is also on one of the slides
exhibited), the Town Loch near Dunfermline, and Lin-
lithgow Loch. Its distribution in Scotland seems to be
confined to the middle and eastern counties, but perhaps
when the invertebrate fauna of these islands becomes more
thoroughly worked up, C. pubera may be found to have a
wider range.

Cyclocypris globosa (G. O. Sars) was one of the more

common species in Loch Fitty, Fifeshire; it was also of
VOL. X. ¥

316 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

frequent occurrence in Loch Dow and in Black Loch,
Kinross-shire. This is the first record of it from both of
these counties.

Notodromas monacha (Miiller) was also common in Loch
Fitty and in pools at Luffness Links. This species does not
appear to have been previously recorded for the east of
Scotland; it is easily distinguished by its peculiar form and
colour (being black, or nearly so).

Candona acuminata (Fischer). Loch Fitty is the only one
of the nine localities here represented where this Candona
was obtained, though I have it from other districts. It is one
of the rarer British species, and has been observed in only a
few places in Scotland.

2 Candona hyalina, Brady and Robertson. A Candona
which seems to belong to the species named was of frequent
occurrence in Loch Fitty; it was also obtained, though not
common, in Lurg Loch and Dow Loch. I found by dissect-
ing the animal that it differed especially in the length of the
joints of the antennules and antennz from either C. kingslew
or C. fabeformis ; the form of the shell also differs from both
these species. The dorsal margin slopes upward similarly
from each end, and forms a distinct central ridge. All the
specimens examined were females. Though only the east
end of Loch Fitty was searched, no fewer than eighteen
species of Ostracoda were obtained.

Cypris obliqua, Brady. This is a rare species in Scotland,
and hitherto appears to have been observed in only four
localities, viz., Lewis, Isle of Skye, Bute, and Cumbrae,
which are all on the west coast. I am now able to add two,
though closely adjoining, localities toward the east coast for
this Cypris—Dow Loch and Lurg Loch in Kinross-shire. It
is a very neat and distinct species. The colour of the
specimens for these two lochs is a rich chocolate-brown,
similar to those recorded by Mr Robertson of Miullport from
the Isle of Man, while those from a lochan or tarn on the
hillside above Millport, Cumbrae, are bright green.

Candona ewplectella, Robertson. A reference to this species,
which when clean and in good form excels in beauty all
other European Ostracoda, will conclude my remarks on the

The Cubital Coverts of the Huronthe. O17

collection now exhibited. This appropriately named, and
delicately beautiful species was discovered by Mr Robertson
a good many years ago in Callum’s Tarn, Bute. It has
since been observed in several other places in the west and
south of Scotland, but hitherto it does not appear to have
been recorded from any locality on the east side. It is with
some pleasure therefore that I now report its occurrence in
the Dow Loch, Kinross-shire, where several specimens were
obtained by me last summer when examining the lochs
among the Cleish Hills, of which the Dow Loch is one. So
far as I know this species has not as yet been observed out-
side of Scotland.

XXIX. The Cubital Coverts of the Euormthe in Relation te
Taxonomy. By J. G. Goopcuitp, H.M. Geol. Survey,
F.Z.S., M.B.0.U. [Plate XV.]

(Read 19th February 1890.)

The birds of the present day well illustrate a class of
animals that have attained the heyday of their development.
They present, in consequence, an extraordinary number of
species, whose extremes of structural modification differ from
each other to hardly a greater extent than do even those of
certain genera amongst the lower forms of the Sauropsida.
Indeed, after the taxonomist has placed on one side the
Struthious birds, and on the other the Penguins; the
remainder, or the Euornithe, consist of many thousands of
forms, which are connected with each other by structural
ties of the most intimate nature. Even in the case of those
birds whose external characteristics differ noticeably from
the rest, closer examination reveals the existence of complex
inter-relationships and cross ties, which clearly indicate that
the Euornithe form one great natural group, as yet very
little broken up into isolated sections through the extinction
of annectant forms. The relationships of the Euornithe might
therefore be represented by a complex net-work, which no
amount of ingenuity can ever force, satisfactorily, into a
linear arrangement.

O18 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

The older taxonomists certainly proceeded on wrong prin-
ciples in their attempts at the classification of birds; as, in
nearly every case, as they selected, as the basis for their
systems, just those structural characters that are directly and
intimately connected with the well-being of the species as it
stands. at the present day. In other words, they employed
as a basis for classification the characters that have been the
latest to be acquired, and that are, in consequence, most likely
to undergo rapid changes as the species adapts itself to
changes in its environment. Some of these same character-
istics have almost certainly been independently evolved by
more than one group, simply because they happened to meet
their respective requirements.

A zoological classification, to be really natural, must be an
expression of the genetic history of the animals under notice
—the higher grades corresponding to the modification dating
farthest back in the history of the group, and the lower
grades coinciding with the differentiations of later date.
Such an ideal classification, at least in the case specially
under consideration, is as yet unattainable. All we can do
at present is to review every possible feature connected with -
birds, and to assign, generally, a low taxonomic value to those
characters that are directly connected with the present
welfare of the species, or the genus, as the case may be,
and to give a higher rank to any and every feature that
is clearly a vestige of a past condition, and has long been,
so to speak, hors de combat, so far as the struggle for exist-
ence is concerned. It is such characters as these that
may be expected to retain archaic characteristics, and will
be, therefore, of value in working out a classification of
birds based upon their genetic history. Under this cate-
gory should be classed the history of the development of
the individuals; osteological peculiarities, such as those
afforded by the character of the palate, of the sternum, or
of the nasal bones; myological facts, such as the presence
or the absence of the ambiens muscle, etc.; visceral, as in
the case of the cceca, etc.; dermal, as in the distribution
of the feather tracts, or the nature of the oil-gland. Such
features, again, as the relative precocity of the chicks, upon

The Cubital Coverts of the Euronitha. 319

which Mr Seebohm lays so much stress, or upon the number
of eggs laid, must also come under the same category. To
these must be added the grouping based upon the presence,
or the absence, of the fifth cubital remex, which Messrs
Gerbe, Wray, Gadow, Sclater, and others have described in
detail.

To these I may now venture to add, the disposition
of the Cubital Coverts, which formed the subject of a paper
read before the Zoological Society of London, and published
in the Proc. Zool. Soc. for April 1886. In this communica-
tion I contented myself with summarising a series of obser-
vations extending over the previous sixteen years, the result
of the detailed examination of many thousands of specimens
—alive, in the flesh, or as cabinet specimens. The facts and
the arguments based upon them were quite new; for although
Nitzsch had, as I found after the paper was printed, noticed
a certain amount of variation in the particular feature under
notice, yet neither I, nor any zoologist with whose opinion I
am in the least acquainted, was aware of the fact. Indeed,
in the abstract of Nitzsch’s paper, which was given many
years ago in the Proc. Zool. Soc., no mention whatever was
made of the features specially under notice. Nor does it
seem to have been observed either by Professor Flower or by
his able coadjutor Mr Wray while they were working out the
subject in connection with the beautiful series of preparations
in the Index Collection at the Natural History Museum.

Mr Wray communicated a very valuable paper on the
wings of birds, about a year after mine was published, and in
this paper a nomenclature much superior to the one I had
previously used was employed. In the present paper, there-
fore, I adopt, generally, and with some slight modifications,
the nomenclature referred to. Some of his facts and opinions
have also been embodied. In the present paper I shall
attempt to review the subject generally, so as to be able to
apply the conclusions to a scheme of classification based
exclusively upon the disposition of the Cubital Coverts.
This, of course, is proposed merely as a tentative scheme, and
is advanced solely with a view to calling attention to the
importance of this feature as a new factor, which hereafter

320 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

may be employed in its proper place amongst other data
used for classification. I take advantage of the present
opportunity also, to incorporate many new observations, as
well as to make some emendations to my former paper
suggested by a wider knowledge of the facts.

The general conclusions may be conveniently stated at this
point. They are that a particular style of overlap or imbri-
cation of the several feathers in each row of the external
Cubital Coverts, and a particular number of feathers in each
row, are absolutely constant for all the individuals of the
same species, for all the species of the same genus, and even
for all the genera in the same family or even order as this
last is understood by ornithologists in genera]. For example,
over five thousand species of Passeres, embracing the whole
of the Acromyodi, and nearly all the Mesomyodi, exhibit
absolutely the same general style of wing coverts. This
style is not only uniform throughout the entire group, but is
absolutely characteristic of it, as it is not found in any group
of birds outside the commonly-accepted limits of the Passeres.
A glance at the wing of a bird will therefore enable one to
pronounce at once whether it belongs to a Passerine bird or
not. What is true of the Passeres applies also with more or
less truth to other groups of birds: each group being charac-
terised by its own special pattern. The exceptions, so far as
I have observed them, will be separately noticed ; and it will
be seen, in most cases, that it is more than likely that these
exceptions are more apparent than real, and that they are
more likely than not to be due to the birds in question
having been wrongly placed in the systems most in vogue.

As a type Professor Flower has chosen the Wild Duck.
This is excellent of its kind; but, having regard to all the
observed variations, the wing of the Golden Plover is by far
the better type (see Fig. 18). From this wing, by successive
sight modifications in different directions, every style of
wing coverts observed in the Euornithe may be reached by
easy gradations. But, as Mr Wray has taken as his type the
wing of the Wild Duck, I have added a drawing of it (Fig. 14),
which has been carefully drawn, and has been repeatedly
compared with other examples belonging to the same

The Cubital Coverts of the Buronithe. Ja]

species. Mr Wray’s figure is not quite correct in some minor
details.

Tracing the feathers of the outer surface of the cubital
region of the wing from behind forwards, they succeed each
other as follows:—(1) the Cubital Remiges, (2) the Major
Coverts, (3) the Inframedials (or the “Supplementary Row
of Median Wing Coverts” of my former paper), (4) the
Medials, (5) the Minor Coverts, and (6) the Marginals. It
may be at once stated that the Cubital Remiges and the
Major Coverts next above them are invariably imbricated in
such a manner that they overlap distally, or so that the outer
margin of each feather lies above the inner margin of the one
next removed from the vertebral axis. The reverse order of
overlap I termed proximal. These terms have been generally
adopted by American and other writers since.

The principal seat of variation on the wing is the area
covered by the Inframedians, the Medians, and the Minors—
the variation consisting (1) in the number of rows, and also
of the number of feathers in each row; and (2) in the direc-
tion of imbrication of the several feathers, whether distal or
proximal. The outline figures accompanying this paper will
serve to make the nature of the difference in each case much
clearer than could be done by many pages of description. In
a few cases I have been unable to distinguish satisfactorily
between the Marginals and the Minors. This is especially
the case with the Pigeons, which present a very abnormal
style of wing coverts, and one so complicated as almost to
baffle description.

I. The CypsELINE StyLe—The simplest style of wing
coverts is found in the Humming Birds (Fig. 1). In these
birds, as I interpret the evidence, the cubital feathers are
(1) the Remiges, (2) the Major Coverts, and (6) the Marginals.
Both the Medians and the Minors appear to be entirely
unrepresented.

It is nota little remarkable, and is also significant, that
the birds whose wing style agrees most closely with the
Humming Bird are the Swifts (Fig. 2). In the Swifts there
is a slight approach to the Passerine style; but, judging by
this feature alone, those taxonomists are right who class the

322 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socvety.

Humming Birds and the Swifts together in one suborder.
The CY PSELIFORMES, then, present a different style of wing
coverts from the parallel groups amongst the PASSERES—
the Sunbirds and the Swallows (see Fig. 2a). The difference
in style can hardly be attributed in these cases to difference in
mode of life. tather does it appear to me to represent an
archaic feature, dating back to the remote past, when these
now-useless morphological characters served some real purpose
in the economy of the possessors.

Two other groups of birds possess much the same simple
style of wing coverts as the CYPSELIFORMES. These are
(1) the Birds of Paradise (Fig. 3), and (2) the Trogons. In
the PARADISIDA every individual I have examined showed
the whole of the feathers above the Major Coverts lying with
distal overlap, and with, generally, much the same arrange-
ment as in the CYPSELIFORMES. The number of rows,
however, is considerably increased in the group under notice.

II. The PASSERINE STYLE—The next advance in com-
plexity is represented by the great group of the PASSERES
proper. These generally possess, in addition to the Marginals
seen in the CYPSELIFORMES, one row of Minor Coverts,
with distal overlap, see figure of Skylark (Fig. 4), and one
row of Medians, whose overlap is generally proximal through-
out nearly the whole of this large group. The Corvipaé
(see Fig. 5) differ slightly from the normal type, inasmuch
as a few of their anterior Medians overlap distally. In
this respect they make an approach, superficially, to the
PARADISIDA, as they are commonly believed to do in some
other respects.

It may be said, therefore, in general terms, that almost
the whole of the birds with an egithognathous palate, with
coeca, with a nude oil-gland, with the fifth cubital remex
present, devoid of the ambiens muscle, and whose young are
hatched helpless and naked, have simply the ordinary rows
of Marginals, one row of Minor Coverts, whose edges
invariably overlap distally (which are not present in every
group), and with one row of Medians, whose overlap is
proximal in every case.

Some exceptions to the general rule have already been

The Cubital Coverts of the Ewronithe. 323

alluded to. It is significant that these should be limited to the
Mesomyodi, a group of aberrant Passeres commonly regarded
as representing annectant forms between the Passeres proper
and the true Picarian birds, to be noticed presently. The
birds referred to are the CorTincips, the Bower Birds
(Ptilorhynchus and Chlamydodera), and, possibly also, the
EURYLZMID&. In these more than one row of Minor Coverts
occur, each with proximal overlap. As this is the special
characteristic of the Picarians, it is just possible that subse-
quent research may prove that the birds in quesiton rightly
belong to that section, and are not Passerine birds at all

III. The CucuLInE StyLte.—Two lines of modification are
traceable from the Passeres. One of these passes through
the CucULIDA and the CaPRIMULGIDH. In these the number
of feather rows is greater than occurs in the Passerine birds;
and the distinction of the Minors from the Marginals cannot
be satisfactorily made out. In one section of those there is
present a group of five or six feathers projecting beyond the
rest of the median coverts, and answering to what I have
elsewhere called the Inframedials. For the present, Figs. 6
and 11 must suffice to represent this style. We shall need
to return to these sections later on.

IV. The PIcARIAN STYLE—A very simple advance upon
the Passerine type is presented by the Picarians. In these,
as the figure of the Gecinus viridis will show (Fig. 7), the
difference lies in the increased number of rows of coverts
between the Marginals and the Majors. Of these, the single
row of Medians, as well as the Minors, which occur usually
in not less than two rows, overlap proximally and without
any interruption or “faulting” whatever. This style
characterises the whole of the PICI, as well as the Aniso-
dactylous Picarians, with the exception of the STEATORNI-
THIDA, the PODARGID, and possibly the BucERrotTip#. It is
particularly well displayed by the Kingfishers, the Toucans,
and the Woodpeckers (Fig. 7).

1 Since this was printed Mr Eagle Clark has shown me a specimen of Jrisor,
which is sometimes classed with the Picarians. This bird has an unmistak-
able Passerine wing style; so that those are probably right who place this
genus near Stwrnis.

o24 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

V. The GALLINE STYLE.—The succeeding modification is
represented by the normal Gallinaceous birds. In these the
number of rows between the Mareginals and the Majors is
usually greater than in the Picarians; so that the wing
coverts occupy a still larger proportion of the cubital area.
The Medians and the Minors overlap proximally throughout
nearly their entire extent in the MELEAGRID& (Fig. 8), which
in this respect stand alone amongst the Gallinaceous birds.
In the remaining groups the inner or proximal third, or
more, of each row of Minors, as well as the Medians, overlap
distally. In the closed wing of the living birds this arrange-
ment makes the whole of the visible wing coverts appear to
have a distal overlap. In the whole of the Gallinaceous birds
I have examined there is no trace whatever of any break,
interruption, or “faulting” of the coverts. The Peristeropods
(Talegalla, Craxz, etc.) have a simpler style of wing coverts
than the Alectoropods (Gallus, Tetrao, etc.); and in many
respects approach the confines of the group next to be
described. See figure of Crax (Fig. 9) and of Phasianus
(Fig. 10).

The wing style of the Tinamous (CRYPTURID) differs in no
essential respect, I have observed, from that of the Galline.
The same observation apphes also to the HEMIPODIL.

VI. The AcciprrinE SryLe.—In all the birds previously
noticed (except the Goatsuckers in Group IIL.) the typical
number of the Cubital Remiges is present. In those now to
be considered most of the genera agree with each other in
the particular that the fifth cubital remex is absent. This
remarkable feature was first noticed by M. Gerbe, and has
since been further investigated by the late Mr Wray, Prof.
Flower, Dr Gadow, Dr Sclater, and others. At the time
my paper in the Proc. Zool. Soc. was read, | was unaware
of the curious fact referred to, and, in consequence, I failed
to perceive the true significance of the feature next to be
described, although I had described some of the phenomena
resulting from it, in detail. Notwithstanding that the fifth
cubital remex is wanting in the group now under notice,
its corresponding covert is invariably present. The reason
of so anomalous an arrangement is difficult even to guess at.

The Cubital Coverts of the Euronithe. 325

But although that particular feature had now been noticed
repeatedly in the course of dissection, it does not seem to
have occurred to any one that any external and easily-
examined evidence of the presence or the absence of the fifth
cubital remex could be traced. Yet so itis. In the original
paper dealing with the cubital coverts of birds I laid great
stress upon the fact that all the Euornithe might be
divided into two sections according to whether they did, or
did not, possess what I then termed the “Supplementary
row of Median Coverts, or Upper Wing Coverts.” I pointed
out that the possession of the feature referred to coincided
with that of several structural characteristics of considerable
importance (op. cié., p. 191). Since Mr Wray’s paper has
been published it occurred to me that there might be some
connection between the curious break in the arrangement of
the wing coverts, and the presence or the absence of the
fifth cubital remex. This has proved to be correct in so
many cases that I shall assume it to be true for all. An
examination of a large number of aquincubital wings showed
clearly that, from the point where the fifth cubital remex is
missing, up to the margin of the wing above, there is a
marked disturbance of position of all the coverts. In the
case of the homalogonatous* birds with the desmognathous?
type of palate, the displacement takes the form of a down-
throw on the side next the outer margin of the wing. The
wing coverts, in fact, are what geologists would describe as
“faulted,” and the course of the “fault” can be distinctly
traced by the disturbance of the coverts it causes right across
the wing. The Major coverts are generally displaced less
than the Medials, but there can be no doubt about the fact.
(See the figure of the Duck (Fig. 14), the Pigeon (Fig. 17), and
the Tern (Fig. 20) as illustrations of this displacement.) In
certain birds, to be noticed in more detail presently, the
line of displacement coincides with a change of direction of
overlap, usually from proximal to distal. This external
mark of aquincubitalism was made known for the first time
on the evening when the second instalment of this paper

1 See Garrod, Proc. Zool. Soc., 1874, No. viii., p. 116.
* See Huxley, Proc. Zool. Soc., 1867, No. xxvii., p. 450.

326 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

was read at the meeting of the Physical Society in March
1890.

The Accipitrine style of wing coverts closely resembles
that of the Galline; with this essential difference that,
owing to the group under consideration being without the
fifth cubital remex, a displacement of all the coverts on the
outer, or distal, side of the place of the missing feather results;
and a difference in arrangement both marked and easily
recognised is made evident. This style is common to several
large groups of birds. These are (1) the PSITTACI, the
STRIGES, the ACCIPITRES (properly so-called), the
HERODIONES (=the Herons and the Bitterns only), the
ANSERES, and the Cormorants. In reference to the last
it may be mentioned that the STEGANOPODKES, in which
the Cormorants are usually placed, embraces birds with
very diverse styles of wing coverts, and which are, therefore,
perhaps related less closely than has been supposed. The
wing of the Wild Duck (Fig. 14), in all but minor details, of
no importance in this connection, will serve as an excellent
type for every one of the groups just enumerated. It will
be observed that there are usually either five or six feathers
displaced in such a manner as to project considerably
beyond the Median proper. I call this group, for conveni-
ence of reference, the Inframedian. In Mr Wray’s paper
they are ignored as a separate group, and in his figure of the
Duck’s Wing the artist has, no doubt unintentionally,
minimised the extent of displacement.

VII. The GouriInE SrtyLe. — Reverting briefly to the
GALLIN/, we find in the Peristeropods, such as Crax,
Penelope, and Talegalla, etc., that some of the distal feathers
of the Medians show a distinct distal overlap (Fig. 9).
There is thus three variations in overlap in the same row of
feathers. In other respects the wing style is substantially
the same as that of the normal GALLINAL. As these birds
possess the fifth cubital remex, there is, in consequence, no
such dislocation as that described. But, supposing for the
moment that the fifth cubital remex were absent, and that the
coverts above were accordingly “ faulted,” as they would be,
then the wing of the Peristeropods would agree in all essen-

The Culital Coverts of the Huronithe. 327

tial particulars with that of the Crowned Pigeons, or the
Gourip&. A reference to the outline (Fig. 16) will serve to
make that clear. The Peristeropods section of the Galline
is that which makes the nearest approach to the Columbe ;
while amongst the Pigeons, it is in the GourrD& that the
eroup most approximates to the Fowls. It need hardly be
pointed out that the evidence afforded by these superficial
characteristics is corroborated by a study of other morpho-
logical details.

I do not, of course, seriously propose to include under one
Suborder, birds now so diverse in external form and in
habits as the Parrots and the Ducks, the Owls and the
Herons, the Falcons and the Cormorants; but their com-
munity of structural characteristics, especially of such struc-
tural characteristics as in no way influence the welfare of
their possessors at this period of the world’s history, seems
to point to their having had a common Sauropsidan ancestor
at no very remote geological period.

VIII. The CoLumBineE Styte.—In studying the wing
styles seen throughout the group of Cuckoos, one is led step
by step, from a slight modification of the Picarian style, to
the style seen in the Ground Cuckoos (Centropodine). The
normal Cuckoos are in this respect intermediate between the
Picarian birds and the Pigeons, while the Ground Cuckoos
approach the Peristeropods and the Gouride. In both the
CucuLi and the Peristeropod Gallinz distal overlap char-
acterises most of the wing coverts. But both of these groups
are mainly quincubital, or possess the fifth cubital remex,
and therefore exhibit no “faulting” of the coverts. Were
the flight feathers in question absent, and the “faulting”
there in consequence, the wing of either of these groups
would assume the characters of the Columb. The Pigeons
in this respect, therefore, bear the same relation to the
Peristeropods that the Accipitrine birds do to the other or
Alectoropod section of the Galline. The faulting of the
coverts in the case of the Pigeons is singularly well marked,
as an examination of the outline drawing of a Pigeon’s wing
(Fig. 17) will sufficiently show. This, as well as the other
outlines, has been drawn from careful measurements, and has

328 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

been repeatedly compared with freshly-killed examples. To
reduce it to a short description is next to an impossibility. I
would here again remark that the line of separation between
the Marginals and the Minors in the Pigeons baffles all
attempts at definition. The two groups of feathers merge
into each other by the most imperceptible gradations in the
present case ; although in most other birds there is not much
difficulty in drawing a line of demarcation between them.
Compare, for example, the wing of the Tern (Fig. 20) or that
of the Wild Duck (Fig. 14), or again that of the Skylark
(Fig. 4) with the Pigeon’s wing, and note the ill-defined
character of the feature in question in the last case.

The Domestic Pigeon is usually chosen as a convenient
and easily-obtained type of bird structure in general. It
may be so in some respects; but its wing, certainly, is any-
thing but typical, and should on no account be selected to
illustrate the arrangement of the covert feathers.

In comparing the effects of the faulting due to the absence
of the fifth cubital remex in the Pigeon with the same
phenomenon in, say, the Ducks, it will be noted that,
whereas the feathers are faulted beyond the general limit of
the coverts in the Ducks, etc., they are drawn up, or shortened
in the case of the Pigeons. In other respects the Pigeon’s
wing forms as good an illustration of the value of the external
characteristic here specially discussed, as is afforded by such
birds as the Ducks, the Parrots, the Acciptrines, etc.

It should be noted that in the Columbine style of wing
coverts the Medians, or those next above the Majors, exhibit
distal overlap from one end of the series to the other.
Distal overlap, indeed, characterises nearly the whole of the
feathers in this group.

In the Pigeon Grouse (PTEROCLID#) this last-named
feature is carried to excess. I do not see anything whatever
in the style of the wing coverts in this group to warrant its
being separated far from the true Pigeons.

IX. The GRALLINE SryLte.—This modification is well
represented by the wine of the Golden Plover (Fig. 18),
which has already been mentioned as a central type for the
whole of the EvornitH#. In this wing it will be noticed

The Cubital Coverts of the Euornithe. 329

that the Medians, to the number of six feathers, show
proximal overlap, and that the same mode of imbrication can
be easily made out for the two rows of Minors, and there are
traces of a third. Above these come the marginals, all lap-
ping outward, or in the reverse direction to those below.
These are the feathers originating on the Patagium, and they
can be easily distinguished from the Minors in this example.
The fifth cubital remex is absent. Consequently, we find all
the coverts more or less faulted; in this case, as in the fore-
going Accipitrine style, they are faulted outwards, instead of
inwards as they are in the Pigeons. The Major Coverts show
a trace of the dislocation; but in the group I have termed
the Inframedials (which, of course, represent the outer six of
the Medials faulted beyond the rest), the break is particularly
well marked. It coincides here with a change in the direc-
tion of overlap ; the Inframedials lapping distally instead of
proximally, as to the remainder. The curious derangement
of the feathers all along the line of the break, up to the
anterior border of the wing, is remarkably striking in this
case.

The distal overlap of the feathers on the outer side of the
line of break characterises the whole of the birds now re-
maining to be noticed. The chief modifications that follow
relate to the proportion of distal overlap to proximal in the
case of the Medians and the Minors on the side of the break
next the vertebral axis.

In the GRALL&, the families next mentioned have sub-
stantially the same wing style as the Golden Plover :—
OTIDA, CHDICNEMIDH, CHARADRIIDZ, SCOLOPACID (possibly
also the CARIAMIDA and the PALAMEDE#), GRUIDA, and
Tantalus. To these I feel disposed to add the CoLYMBID&
and the Atcip&. Near to the ALcIp& the style of the wing
coverts observed in many living specimens would lead me to
place (1) the Osprey, and (2) the Lemmergeter. My son has
taken considerable trouble in recording the wing style in
living examples of these birds; and the results certainly do
not appear to admit of any other conclusion. Possibly a
more detailed examination of these admittedly-aberrant
birds will reveal some other points of resemblance to the

330 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socrety.

Gralle; and show that, like the Secretary Bird and the
CATHART, these birds are raptorial forms of various
groups only distantly allied to the true Accipitres. Some of
the peculiarities of the Osprey’s wing may arise from the
absence of more than the fifth cubital remex.

X. The CicontInE StyLe.—No sharp line of definition is
possible between the GRALLINE style and that under notice.
The chief distinction lies in the fact that in most of this
eroup the entire series of feathers next above the Major
Coverts has distal overlap. The Tern (Fig. 20) shows this
type remarkably well. With slight modifications this would
equally well suit the Gulls, the Skuas, the Ibises, the Storks,
the Secretary Bird, the Spoonbills, and the Flamingoes. The
Ciconiine style is well seen also in the PERNID&.

XI. The TUBINARINE STYLE.—A progressive increase in
the number of feathers showing distai overlap leads us to
such types as Leptoptilus, where nearly the whole of the .
cubital coverts are characterised by distal overlap. Near to
these must be placed the Gannets, Plotus, and possibly the
Pelicans, the Petrels, the Albatrosses, the Frigate Birds, and,
certainly, the CATHART. So far as the wing style is
concerned, the American Vultures differ entirely from the
normal Birds of Prey, and exactly agree with the Petrels, the
Albatrosses, the Frigate Birds, and the Adjutants. This last
conclusion, derived entirely from the external characters pre-
sented by the disposition of the cubital coverts, is exactly in
accordance with the deeper-seated morphology as revealed
by dissection. This and the other facts of the same nature
I have brought forward appear to me to afford strong pre-
sumptive evidence that the variations of style which have
been noticed in this paper represent a survival of archaic
structures whose differentiation dates back to a very remote
period in the history of the Sauropsida. It is only because
they have long ceased to influence in any way the welfare of
the bearers that these various styles of wing coverts have
remained unaffected, while other parts of the bird’s organism
have gradually changed through many stages of evolution.

In conclusion, I may briefly summarise the facts relating
to the various modes of disposition of the Cubital Coverts as

The Culital Coverts of the Euornithe. ca

follows—the Euornithe being subdivided for this purpose
in accordance with this feature alone.

Tabular View of the Chief Modifications of Wing Coverts in
the Huornithe,

A. Without Median Coverts, Trocuitip# (Fig. 1), CypsELipz
(Fig. 2), TRoconip#, Parapisiip# (Fig. 3).

B. With Median Coverts, which show proximal overlap through-
out their outer and middle extent.

I. Coverts forming an uninterrupted, or unfaulted,
series, (Fifth cubital remex generally present.)
(a) Never more than one row of Minors (where
these are present) which show distal over-
lap (see Figs. 2a, 4,5). The whole of the
Passerines proper. No other birds.
(b) With two, or, at the most, three rows of
Minor Coverts. .

(1) Proximal overlap characterises all
but the inner third of each row.
All the normal Picarians (Fig.
7). For the Cuckoos and the
Goatsuckers, see below.

(2) Distal overlap predominating, only
the medial third of the Medians
and the Minors showing proxi-
mal overlap. All the CUCULI
(Fig. 6). (For the aquincubital
representatives of the Cuckoos
see under Goatsuckers, below.)

(c) Rarely less than four, sometimes with five,
rows of Minor Coverts.

(1) Proximal overlap predominating.
MELEAGRID& (Fig. 8).

(2) Distal overlap of all the inner half
of each row, the remainder over-
lapping proximally. All the
Alectoropod Galline (Fig. 10),
Pheasants, Grouse, Quails, etc.
Also the Tinamous and the
Hemipods,

VOL. X Z

DOI Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socrety.

(3) Some of the outer feathers of each
row show distal overlap. The
Peristeropod Galline (Fig. 9),
Curassows, Brush Turkeys, Mega-
pods, ete.

II. Coverts interrupted, or faulted, in consequence of
the absence of the fifth cubital remex.

(a) Corresponding to the CUCULI; with two,
or, at the most, three rows of Minor
Coverts, with the Coverts lengthened by
faulting, and the outer feathers reversed
so as to overlap distally.

(a) Predominant proximal overlap of
the Medians—Gourip& (Fig.
16).

(b) Distal overlap of the interior third
of the Medians and Minors—
most of the Goatsuckers (Fig.
Lb),

(6) Generally with more than three rows of
Minor Coverts, which, with the Medians,
show predominant proximal overlap over
all but the inner third of each row.
Usually with five Medians lengthened by
the faulting consequent upon the absence
of the fifth cubital remex. PSITTACI
(Fig. 12), STRIGES, ACCIPITRES
(Fig. 13), HERODIONES (Fig. 15),
ANSERES (Fig. 14), and the Cormorants.

(c) Distal overlap predominating, outer third
of the Medians always showing distal
overlap, and lengthened by the faulting.
All the typical GRA LL/H (Figs. 18 and
18a), also Steatornis, and Pandion (Fig.
19).

C. Medians entirely with proximal overlap.

(a2) No clear division between the Minors and the Mar-
ginals. Outer Medians shortened. Normal
COLUMBI (Fig. 17).

(6) Minors and Marginals distinctly separated. Outer
Medians lengthened. Gruip#, Larip& (Fig. 20),

On the Occurrence of the Anchovy in Scottish Waters. 333

CoLYyMBID&, PHG@NICOPTERIDA, PLATALEIDA, Z'an-
talus, CICONUD& (except Leptoptilus), Serpentarius,
PERNID&.

D, Coverts showing distal overlap over nearly the whole outer
surface of the wing. JLeptoptilus (Fig. 21), all the
CATHARTAE (Fig. 22), Pelecanus, Pregata, Sula (Fig.
23), Plotus (Fig. 24), PRocELLARIIDA.

XXX. On the Occurrence of the Anchovy (Eneraulis en-
crasicholus) a Scottish Waters. By Professor J. Cossar
Ewakt, M.D., F.B.S.E.

(Read 19th March 1890.)

Professor Ewart reported the occurrence of Anchovies in
December last in the Moray Firth, and exhibited several
specimens. A considerable number were captured off Troup
Head by the Buckie herring fishermen about the end of
December, and it was said that with fine meshed nets a large
number would have been taken. A few were also captured
near the mouth of the Forth about the end of January by
herring fishermen.!

There is only one record of the existence of Anchovies in
Scottish waters in former years. In Day’s “British Fishes”
(vol. ii., p. 207) it is mentioned that Mr Peach had taken
Anchovies from herring nets off Wick. During the present
winter Anchovies have been especially abundant off the
south coast of England, and they are said to have been
found on both the east and west coasts in larger or smaller
numbers.

1 In the end of May 1890 Mr R. Service, Dumfries, informed the Society’s
secretary that Anchovies were then abundant in the Solway, and forwarded
a specimen captured by a shrimp trawl on the 30th of that month. On 18th
June Professor Ewart received another taken in Loch Striven (Clyde)

oot Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

XXXI. Preliminary Notes on a Post-Tertiary Fresh-Water
Deposit at Kirkland, Leven, and at Elie, Fifeshire. By
Tuomas Scort, F.L.S., Naturalist to the Fishery Board
for Scotland.

(Read 16th April 1890.)

Since the publication of the paper on “The Ancient Lakes
of Edinburgh,” by Mr James Bennie of the Geological Survey
and myself) considerable additional information has been
collected (solely by Mr Bennie), relating not only to the
deposits referred to in that paper, but also to others of a
similar character, either unknown to us when the paper was
published, or our knowledge of which was not sufficiently
full to enable us to include them in it. I anticipate that
this additional information will probably be submitted to the
Royal Physical Society during the next session. Meantime
it has been considered desirable that the following notes on
various species of Mollusca and Crustacea that have recently
been observed in a post-Tertiary marl, at the Kirkland of
Leven, and in a bed of loam at Elie station, should be now
recorded.

I propose in the remarks I have to offer on these two
deposits to refer to each separately, as by doing so a clearer
idea will be had of the conditions under which each was
formed, and it will also facilitate comparison between them.
The need for this will become more obvious by an examina-
tion of the organic remains taken as a group that have been
observed in each deposit. I will refer first to the

KIRKLAND MARL.

This marl occurs in Mr Kirkby’s garden at the Kirkland
of Leven, and is overlaid by from six to seven feet of sand
and gravel, and it is owing to the fact that Mr Kirkby set
his boys to dig holes down to it (and they seem to have
entered heartily into the work) that samples of it were
procured and forwarded to me through my friend Mr James
Bennie.

1 Proc. Roy. Phys. Soc. Edin., yol. x., part i., pp. 126-154 (1889).

Notes on a Post-Tertiary Fresh- Water Deposit. 335

This marl, which is very pure, is similar to that observed
at Blackford Hill, referred to in “ Ancient Lakes.” In it are
numerous small irregular concretions of a bluish colour, which
were found to consist of carbonate of lime, mixed with a
little earthy matter and iron, the latter being possibly the
colouring agent. As far as has been ascertained, the extent
of the deposit is somewhat limited. In the portion examined,
organic remains, chiefly Molluscan and Entomostracan, were
found to be more or less abundant. It is very probable that
the fine chalk-like matrix in which the remains are imbedded
consists mainly of comminuted shell debris, and to this
source is probably also due the mineral concretions referred
to. Though Molluscan remains were common, they comprised
very few species—Pisidium pusillum, Limnea peregra,
L. truncatula, and Planorbis nautileus being nearly all the
truly aquatic forms observed. A few others, such as Succinea
putris, Helix pulchella, Vertigo pygmea, var. were also
noticed, and these were probably blown into the loch or
washed down by rain from somewhere in the vicinity. A few
seeds of flowering plants, spores of Chara, and macrospores of
Isoetes also occurred in the material examined, the last being
frequent. The Crustacea, however, are the most interesting
of the organic remains found in this deposit. Three species
of these are, so far as I know, now recorded for the first time
as fossil, viz., Hrpetocypris strigata (O. F. Miller), Hrpeto-
eypris tumefacta (Brady and Robertson), and Cyprois flava
(Zaddach). It may be stated in passing that all three are
found living in Duddingston Loch. Some time ago I
exhibited to this Society a few type-slides of species of

1 This shell, which was of frequent occurrence in the marl, is rather
smoother and more glossy than the typical Vertigo pygmea. It differs chiefly,
however, in the mouth being unfurnished with teeth. The absence of these
cannot be ascribed to erosion, for even in those shells that are in perfect
preservation no trace of teeth can be observed. In this respect it agrees with
V. edentula, but the form of the shell is certainly that of V. pygmea. From
its neat appearance I propose, provisionally, to name this variety V. pygmea,
var. concinna. [Since the foregoing note was written I have had a communi-
cation from Mr J. W. Taylor, F.L.S., Leeds, in which he states that, in his
opinion, this Vertigo belongs to a new species. In that case the name con-
cinna will become specific instead of varietal. ]

396 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Ostracoda from various lochs in the vicinity of Edinburgh,
and in my remarks concerning them I referred to Dudding-
ston Loch as being the only known British habitat for
Cyprois flava. I afterwards sent some specimens to Mr David
Robertson, F.L.S8., Millport, Cumbrae, and in a letter he sent
me later on he says, “ having these to compare by, I find that
I have one of the same from Burnside Loch, near Rutherglen.
It is one that was on my type-slide marked doubtful.”
This, taken in connection with its occurrence at Kirkland, is
interesting, as indicating the possibility of the species having
a wider distribution both in time and space than was
previously supposed, and also tends to prove that it is indi-
genous and not an introduced species, as might have been
thought had nothing further become known as to its distri-
bution in Britain, than that it was found in the loch at
Duddingston.!. Another interesting relic from this deposit is
the remains of an Amphipod, probably Gammarus fluviatilis.
Unfortunately, though the specimen is sufficiently perfect to
show undoubtedly that it is an Amphipod, it is not perfect
enough to allow of a more exact identification. It is notable
that Amphipod remains are not common in these deposits—
in fact, this is the first specimen I have observed, although
material from many and different places has been examined.
Somewhat analogous to this is the comparative rarity of the
remains of Brachyurus Crustacea in the glacial clays of
Scotland. It may, I think, be safely affirmed that these
organisms were not uncommon during the formation of the
deposits referred to, but it would appear that further investi-
gation is required ere a satisfactory answer can be given to
the question why their remains are so rarely met with in the
Scotch post-Tertiary deposits.

It appears from the nature of this marl, and from the
organisms contained in it, that it has been formed in a loch,
or rather lochan, of perhaps limited area, but of considerable
depth. The pond or lochan known as Corstorphine Loch
(to the west of Edinburgh) seems to represent fairly well
the physical conditions of the ancient Kirkland lake. The

1Jt is probable that Cypris gibbosa (Baird), recorded by Dr Baird from a
ditch near the Surrey Zoological Gardens, June 1836, is Cyprois flava.

Notes on a Post-Tertiary Fresh- Water Deposit. 337

deposit is evidently of considerable antiquity, but more
information is required ere any satisfactory statement can be
made as to its age.

The following list includes all the Mollusca and Crusta-
cean remains observed in the marl from the Kirkland
deposit :—

MOLLUSGA.

Pisidium pusillum (Gmelin), » Very common.
Planorbis nautileus (Linne). Not very common,
Linnea peregra (Miller). Very common.

- truncatula (Miiller). Rather scarce.

a palustris (Miiller). Rare.
Succinea putris (Linne). Not very common.
Zonites fulvus (Miiller). Rather scarce.
Helix pulchella (Miiller). Frequent.
Vertigo pygmea (Draparnaud). Rare.

x bs var, concinna. Frequent.

CRUSTACEA-AMPHIPODA.,

Gammarus fluviatilis? Rare.

CRUSTACEA-OSTRACODA.

Lrpetocypris strigata (O. F. Miiller). Frequent.

R tumefacta (Brady and Robertson). Not
common.
Cypridopsis vidua (O. F. Miiller). Common.
u villosa (Jurine). Not common.

Potamocypris fulva, Brady. Not common.

Cyprois flava (Gaddach). Rather scarce,

Candona candida (O. F. Miller). Very common.
5 pubescens (Koch), Very common.

I will now refer to the Elie deposit.

In 1867 the Rev. T. Brown, F.R.S.E., read a paper to the
Royal Society of Edinburgh on the Arctic shell-clay of Elie
and Errol, including some peaty layers interbedded with
blown sand of more recent origin, which had been exposed in
section during the construction of the Hast of Fife Railway

338 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

at Elie, and gives a list of some Molluscan shells he had
observed in the lowermost of the interbedded peats. I
thought at first that the deposit to which I am now to refer
was one of the interbedded peats described by Mr Brown.
Mr Bennie, who has examined it, informs me, however, that
it does not seem to have any connection with these peat beds,

and this is partly borne out by the difference of the contained
organic remains. The present deposit occurs close to Elie
railway station, and is very little below the present surface
of the land. It is therefore more accessible than the Kirk-
land marl, and for this reason a larger quantity of it has been
examined. The material of which it is composed is of a dark
brownish colour, and consists partly of decayed vegetable
tissue and partly of earthy matter. The remains observed in
it comprise the shells of land and fresh-water Mollusca, the
shells or tests of Ostracoda, the elytra and other remains of
Coleoptera, and seeds, spores, and stems of plants. In the
examination of a deposit such as this, considerable experience
is necessary, owing to the difficulty there is in determining
whether the organic remains are contemporaneous with the
deposit, or merely recent introductions; and even the expe-
rienced student finds it no easy task to discriminate satisfac-
torily what is contemporaneous with the deposit from that
which is of more recent date. Of course, the older the
deposit, the less difficult it is to determine between old and
new. In most of the post-Tertiary deposits which are at or
near the surface, or which have been for a time exposed in
section, the greatest care is required in the examination of
the contained organic remains. The presence of such remains
as the shells of bivalve Mollusca and Ostracoda, if more or
less perfect, are not so likely to be misleading as some others,
because their. habitat is a more localised one, and a very
little transportation has a tendency to separate the valves of
the dead shells of such organisms.

In the following enumeration of species obtained from this
deposit at Elie, the greatest care has been taken to include
only such as appeared to be contemporaneous with it—several,
such as Helix hispida, Cochlicopa lubrica, and others being
excluded as doubtful.

Oo
ie)

Notes on a Post-Tertiary Fresh-Water Deposit. — 3:

MOLLUSGCA.

Pisidium pusillum (Gmelin). Frequent.
Valvata crustata (Miiller). Rare.
Planorbis nautileus (Linne). Rare.

” contortus (Linne). Frequent.
LIimnea peregra (Miller). Rare.

5, palustris (Miller), Rare.

» truncatula (Miller). Frequent.
Suceinea putris (Linne). Frequent.
Zonites nitidulus (Drap.). Not very common.

» fulvus (Miller). Frequent.

Helix rotundata (Miller). Rare. >
5, pulchella (Miller). Rare.
? Rare.

99
Pupa marginata (Drap.). Rare.
fertego antivertigo (Drap.). Common.
a pygmea (Drap.). Frequent.
hy substriata, Jeffreys. Rare.
Carychium minimum, Miller. Common.

OSTRACODA.
Cypria ophthalmica (Jurine). Rare.

a serena (och)... Hare.

Scottia browniana (Jones). Frequent.
Erpetocypris strigata (O. F. Miiller). Rare.
Ilyocypris gibba (Ramdohr). Frequent.
Candona candida, O. F. Miller. Not common.

Ss kingslevt, Brady and Robertson. Rare.

Seeds representing the following orders of flowering plants
were also observed, viz., Caryophyllacee, Chenopodiacew, Poly-
gonacee, Naiadacew, and Cyperacee ; pieces of the stems of
Equisetum (Horsetail), spores of Chara, and macrospores of
Isoetes also occurred, but did not appear to be common.
The Coleoptera remains observed represent at least two
species, one of which is probably an Hlaphrus—a beetle that
frequents marshy ground.

The above list shows that the number of species of
Mollusca from this deposit is 18 (7 aquatic, 2 marsh, and 9
terrestrial), whereas only 10 species have as yet been observed

540 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

in the Kirkland marl (5 aquatic and 5 terrestrial) ; another
point deserving notice is the comparatively large number of
species not truly aquatic, and the fact that three of these—
which are almost the only common ones in the material—are
confined to marshy ground helps to give us some idea of the
conditions under which the deposit was formed. Another
point to be noted is, that though several truly aquatic species
have been obtained, they are all occasionally found in marshy
situations as well as in ponds or lochs; moreover, the species
of Ostracoda referred to in the list are as frequently found in
marshes and pools as in more open water, if not more so.
Thus all the evidence we at present possess regarding the
physical conditions of the locality, when this deposit was
being formed, tends to indicate the existence of a more or
less extensive marsh, consisting of beds of aquatic vegetation,
and intervening but comparatively shallow open water,—
among the vegetation Succinea, Vertigo antivertigo, and
Carychium would find a suitable habitat; the more open
water would shelter Pistdium, Valvata, Planorbis, and
Limnea ; while the other terrestrial species might, during
dry seasons, readily wander within the limits of the marsh,
and their shells thus become intermingled with the others in
the gradually accumulating debris.

With the information we at present possess to euide us, it
would be hazardous to attempt to make any statement as to
the approximate age of the deposit. Its organic remains con-
stitute no trustworthy guide, as they all belong to species
now living. But though that be the case, and though there
be no mass of overlying material, as is the case with the
Kirkland mar], to imply antiquity, yet the appearance of the
material seems to indicate the lapse of not a few generations
since the deposit was formed.

The occurrence of Scottia browniana (Jones) in the Elie
material is of some interest, as the following brief history of
it will show. ‘The species was first described by Professor T.
R. Jones in 1850 in the Annals and Magazine of Natural His-
tory as Cypris browniana, having been discovered in a fresh-
water deposit at Clacton in Essex by Mr John Brown, F.G.S.,
of Stanway, Colchester. In 1875 Professor Prestwich recorded

Notes on a Post-Tertiary Fresh- Water Deposit. dtl

the same species from the Island of Portland, where he had
observed it in “a bed of sandy loam” in cliff debris. More
recently, in 1882, Mr Clement Reid, F.G.5., in his paper on the
“Geology of the Country around Cromer,” Norfolk, reports it
from that district. Up till this time it had been considered
an extinct species. In November 1886, while examining the
shores of Loch Fad (to the west of Rothesay, where I was
for the time stationed), I observed in a small patch of marshy
sround on the east side of the loch, and nearly opposite
Barmore Wood, a species of Ostracod unknown to me. Pro-
fessor G. S. Brady, to whom I sent some specimens, recognised
it as Cypris browniana, Jones. Subsequently he ascertained,
from an examination of the animal, that it was not a Cypris
but the type of a new genus. It has therefore been figured
and described in the recently published monograph by Drs
Brady and Norman under the generic name mentioned in
the list. It is not at all improbable that but for the fact of
its having so recently been found living by the side of Loch
Fad, its occurrence in the Elie loam might possibly have led
to an erroneous opinion being formed as to the relative age
of this deposit. The knowledge we now possess, however, as
to its distribution in time, removes out of the way that
which might otherwise have proved a stumbling-block.

In conclusion, I have to acknowledge the kindness of
Professor G. S. Brady, F.R.S., who examined my type-slides
(now exhibited) and revised my lists of Ostracoda; also my
indebtedness to Mr J. W. Kirkby, of Kirkland of Leven, and
his boys, and to Mr David Aftleck, stationmaster, Elie, who
at considerable trouble to themselves, freely supplied me
with material for examination; and last, but not least, to Mr
James Bennie of the Geological Survey, whose disinterested-
ness and readiness to oblige are well known to all who have
the privilege of his acquaintance.

As some of the Ostracoda mentioned in the preceding
notes are not included in the “ Ancient Lakes,’ and as con-
siderable changes have been made in the nomenclature,
especially of the fresh-water species, I append a list with
synenyms of those obtained from the two deposits here
described.

Cypria,
Zeuker.

Scottia,
Brady and
Norman.

1889.

1889

Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

LIST OF OSTRACODA, WITH SYNONYMS.
Family CyPRIDID&,

Cypria ophthalmica (Jurine).

. Monoculus ophthalmicus, Jurine, Hist. des Monocles, p.

U7 8, plemix, sess 16. 17.

. Cypris compressa, Brady, Mon. rec. Brit. Ostrac., p. 372,

pl xxxvi., fic. 0.

. Cypria ophthalmica, Brady and Norman, Mon. M. and Fw.

Ostrac. of the N. Atlantic and N.-W. Europe,
Pp: 69, pl. xi, gs. 2-U.

Cypria serena (Koch).

. Cypris serena, Koch, Deutschlands Crustaceen, H. xxi., 22.
3. Cypris levis, Brady, op. cit., p. 374, pl. xxiv., figs. 6-8.
. Cypria serena, Brady and Norman, loc. cit., p. 70.

Scottia browniana (Jones).*

. Cypris browniana, Jones, Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., 2d

ser., vol. vi. p. 25, t. 3, fig. 1.

Idem., Mon. Tert. Entom., p. 13, pl. 1,
fig. 1, a-d.

Prestwich, Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc.,
ol. mex, fio. |p. a0.

C. Reid, Geol. of the Country around
Cromer, p. 66 (Mem. Geol. Survey).

Jones and Sherborn, Geol. Mag., vol.
iv., p. 409.

Brady, Fifth Ann. Rep, Fishery Board
for Scot., App. F., p. 330, pl. xix,
figs. 3, 4.

Jones and Sherborn, Suppl. Mon. Tert.
Entom. of England, p. 9.

Scottia 3 Brady and Norman, loc. cit., p. 72, pl.

ix., figs. 23, 24; pl. x1, figs. 19-25.

(Now first recorded as fossil for Scotland.)

3) 7)

1 A full bibliography to date is given for this species.

Notes on a Post-Tertiary Fresh- Water Deposit. 343

Erpetocypris strigata (O. F. Miiller).

1785. Cypris strigata, O. F. Miller, Entomostraca, p. 54, pl. iv.,
figs. 4-6.

1870. ,, ornata, Brady (non Miiller), Nat. Hist. Trans.
Northumb. and Durham, vol. ii., p.
364, pl. xiv., figs. 1-3.

1883. ,, strigata, Lilljeborg, Cat. International Fisheries
Exhibition, London, Sweden Cat., p.
147.

1889, Hrpetocypris strigata, Brady and Norman, Mon. M. and

Fw. Ostrac. of the N. Atlantic and
N.-W. Europe, p. 85, pl. viii, figs.
14, 15.

(Now first recorded as fossil.)

Erpetocypris tumefacta (Brady and Robertson).
. Cypris tumefacta, Brady and Robertson, Ostracoda and
Foraminifera of Tidal Rivers, Ann.
Nat. Hist., ser. iv., vol. vi, p. 13, pl.
iv., figs. 4-6.

1889. Hrpetocypris tumefacta, Brady and Norman, Mon. M. and

1785
1868

1869.

1889.

1820

Fw. Ostrac. of the N, Atlantic and
N.-W. Europe, p. 87, pl. viii., figs.
5-7.

(Now first recorded as fossil.)

Cypridopsis vidua (Miller).

. Cypris vidua, Miller, Entom., p. 55.

. Cypridopsis vidua, Brady, Mon. rec. Brit. Ostrac., p. 375,
pl. xxiv., figs. 27-36, 46.

" obesa, Brady and Robertson, Ann. Nat. Hist.,
ser. iv., vol. ii, p. 364, pl. xviii.,
figs. 5-7.

5 vidua, Brady and Norman, Mon. M. and Fw.
Ostrac. of the N. Atlantic and N.-W.
Europe, p. 84, pl. xiii, fig. 27.

Cypridopsis villosa (Jurine).

. Monoculus villosa, Jurine, Hist. des Monocles, p. 78.

1868. Cypridopsis villosa, Brady, op. cit., p. 377, pl. xxiv., figs.

id-15) pljxexrvi, fie. 9.

Erpetocypris,
Brady and
Norman.

Cypridopsis,
Brady.

- Potamocy-

pris, Brady.

Cyprois,
Zenker.

Candona,
Baird.

344

Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socvety.

Potamocypris fulva, Brady.

1868. Bardia fulva, Brady, op. cit., p. 474, pl. xxviiL, fig. 21.

1870. Potamocypris fulva, Brady, Nat. Hist. Trans. Northumb.
and Durham, p. 366, pl. xiv., fig. 4.
1889. iS i Brady and Norman, Mon. M. and
Fw. Ostrac. of the N. Atlantic and
N.-W. Europe, p. 93, pl. xxii, figs.
13-17.
Cyprois flava (Zaddach).
1838. (?) Cypris gibbosa, Baird, Mag. Zool. and Bot., vol. i1., p.
137, pl..v., fig. 15; Nat. Hist: aomit:
Entom. (1850), p. 156, pl. xix., fig. 8.
1844. a flava, Zaddach, Sym. Crust. Pruss. Prodr., p. 83.
1883. Cyprois dispar, Lilljeborg, International Fisheries Exhibi-
tion, London, Sweden Cat., p. 147.
LSI g; flava, Brady and Norman, Mon. M. and Fw.
Ostrac. of the N. Atlantic and N.-W.
EKurope;.p. 97, pl.. vat, fies” Tessar
pl. xii, figs. 13-21, 38.
(Now first recorded as fossil.)
Candona candida (Muller).
1785. Cypris candida, Miller, Entom., p. 62, tab. vi., figs. 7-9.
1850. Candona lucens, Baird, Brit. Entom., p. 160, tab. xix.,
fig. 1.
1868. sh candida, Brady, Mon. rec. Brit. Ostrac., p. 383,
pl xxw!, figs. 1-9 > ploxxxva.j tie las
and pl. xxxvil, fig. 1.
1889. ie © Brady and Norman, Mon. M. and Fw.
Ostrac. of the N. Atlantic and N.-W.
Europe, p. 98, pl. x., figs. 1, 2, and
14-23.
Candona pubescens (Koch).
1837. Cypris pubescens, Koch, Deutschlands Crustaceen, etc., H.
mis paws
1868. Candona compressa, Brady, op. cit, p. 382, pl. xxvi., figs.
22-27.
1868. albicans, Idem., ibidem, p. 381, pl. xxv., figs.

”?
20-25; pl. xxxvi., fig. 12 (junior).

1889

1785

Palwozore Species mentioned in “Fossil Flora.” 345

. Candona pubescens, Brady and Norman, Mon. M. and Fw.

Ostrac. of the N. Atlantic and N.-W,
Europe, p. 101, pl. xii, figs. 32-37,

Candona, kingsleii, Brady and Robertson.

. ? Cypris detecta, Miller, Entom., p. 49, tab. iii, figs. 1-3.

1870, Candona kingsle, Brady and Robertson, Ann. and Mag.

1889.

Nat. Hist., ser. iv., vol. vi., p. 17.

. : Brady and Norman, Mon. M. and Fw.
Ostrac. of the N. Atlantic and N.-W.
Europe, p. 102, pl.: ix., figs. 19-22 ;
pla, fig. 19;

(Now first recorded as fossil.)

Ilyocypris gibba (Ramdohr). Ilyocypris,
Brady and

1808. Cypris gibba, Ramdohr, Mag. und Gesellsch. naturforsch. Norman.

1868.

1889

Freunde zu Berlin, u., p. 91.
i » Brady, op. cit., p. 369, pl. xxiv., figs. 47-54;
Pl cA He: 2

. Llyocypris gibba, Brady and Norman, Mon. M. and Fw.

Ostrac. of the N. Atlantic and N.-W.
Europe, p. 107, pl. xxii., figs. 1-5.

XXXII. Notes on the Paleozoic Species mentioned in Lindley

and Hutton's “ Fossil Flora.”* By R. Kinston, F.R.S.E.,
F.GS.

(Read 16th April 1890.)

To the student of Fossil Botany, but especially to the British
palzeontologist, the species figured and described by Lindley
and Hutton should be thoroughly understood. Owing, how-
ever, to several circumstances, this is often very difficult.

This paper is an attempt to ascertain, if possible, the true
value of several of their species, which, owing to the loss of
some of their types, and the fragmentary condition of many

1The Fossil Flora of Great Britain ; or, Figures and Descriptions of the
Vegetable Remains found in a Fossil State in the Country. By John
Lindley, Ph.D., ete., and Wm. Hutton, F.G.S., ete. London. Vol. i.,
1831-33; vol. il., 1833-35; vol. ili., 1835-37.

346 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

of the original specimens which are still preserved, is a work
of considerable difficulty. Such a paper I have long intended
preparing, owing to the difficulties I have myself experienced
in past years in identifying their plants.

Two catalogues of the “ Hutton Collection”? have already
appeared. The first, entitled “Catalogue of the Hutton
Collection of Fossil Plants, including a Synoptical List of
the Chief Carboniferous Species not in the Collection,” by
G. A. Lebour, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1878,2 contains a
list of all the specimens then existing in the “ Hutton
Collection,’ with appended notes. The second is “ A Cata-
logue of Fossil Plants from the Hutton Collection, presented
by the Council of the Mining Institute to the Natural
History Society, 1883, by Richard Howse.” ?

This latter catalogue deals only with the specimens in the
museum of the Natural History Society, but contains almost
all the types and specimens now extant which belonged to
the late William Hutton, and thus practically represents his ~
collection. The catalogue also contains notes and references.
But in regard to the union of species proposed in this
catalogue, in many cases I entirely dissent, as well as to
many of Mr Howse’s identifications.

In the following notes I will confine myself to the original
work of Lindley and Hutton, and deal only with the speci-
mens figured and described by them, and make such
observations on their types and original specimens as may
be thought necessary; or, in those cases where the types are
lost, my remarks must be confined to their figures and to
other specimens which appear to throw light on the
subject.

I take this opportunity of thanking Mr T. Dinning, honorary
secretary to the Natural History Society of Northumberland,
Durham, and Newcastle-upon-Tyne, for his uniform kindness
in giving me every facility for examining the “ Hutton

1 Now in the Natural History Museum, Newcastle-on-Tyne.

2 Drawn up by order of the Council of the North of England Institute of
Mining and Mechanical Engineers.

3 From Nat. Hist. Trans, of Northumberland, Durham, and Newcastle-upon-
Tyne, vol, x., 1888.

Paleozoic Species mentioned in “ Fossil Flora.” 347

Collection” during various visits made to Newcastle with
that object.

In any criticisms on such a work as Lindley and Hutton’s
“ Fossil Flora,” the extent of the knowledge of fossil botany
at the time the book was written must be taken into
consideration.

The “ Fossil Flora” began in 1831, and was continued till
1837. Perhaps no better idea can be given of the position
of fossil botany at that time than by mentioning a few of
the works on fossil botany then existing.

Several books, in which the subject had been more or less
considered, had previously appeared in Britain. These were—
“Lithophylacii Britannici Ichnographia” of E. Luid, pub-
lished in 1699;! the “History of Rutherglen and East
Kilbride,” by the Rev. David Ure, printed in Glasgow in
1793; and the “ Petrificata Derbiensia” of Wm. Martin,
printed in Wigan, 1809. Some of the figures of these older
works are really very fair, but the books as a whole only
show—in varying degrees—that geologists were beginning
to notice fossil plants.

In 1825 Artis published his “Antediluvian Phytology ’”—
the first British work on fossil botany which treats the
subject in a scientific spirit.

On the Continent, passing over the earlier writers, the first
paper which placed fossil botany on a sound basis was
Brongniart’s “Sur la classification et la distribution des
véeétaux fossiles,” 1822.2 His “ Prodrome” appeared in
1828, followed by his great standard work, “ Histoire des
végétaux fossiles,” begun in 1828, the first volume of which
was completed in 1837—the year in which the publication
of Lindley and Hutton’s “ Fossil Flora” stopped.

Earlier, however, in 1804, Schlotheim published his
“Beschreibung merkwiirdiger Krauter-Abdriicke und Pflanzen-
Versteinerungen.” In a later and enlarged edition of this
work, which appeared in 1820, names were given to the
plants figured and described in the earlier edition.

1 The first edition, ‘*‘ Londini et Lipsiz, 1699,’ I have not seen, A second
edition was published at Oxford, 1760.
2 Mem. d. Muséum d, hist. nat., vol. viii. Paris.
VOL. X.

bo
eo

O48 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Sternbere’s “Versuch einer geognostisch - botanischen |
Darstellungen der Flora der Vorwelt” was begun in 1820,
and completed by Corda in 1838.

These were the chief works on Fossil Botany, some of
which were only being written while the “ Fossil Flora” was.
appearing. Still the point where Lindley and Hutton’s
“Fossil Flora” breaks down under critical examination
is the inaccuracy of the plates; and this charge cannot be
brought, but in a slight degree, against their contemporary
workers. It is a point difficult to excuse, and has led to
much confusion.

In regard to some of the Lindley and Hutton species, of
which the types are lost, if the figures of these are not more
accurate than many of those of which the types have been
preserved, possibly we may never be able to discover the
plant they meant to represent, even though specimens of it
may be well known and in our possession.

VOLUME IL.

Pl. i. Pryires BRANDLINGI, Witham.

Locality—W ideopen, near Gosforth, about five miles north
of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Horizon.—Lower! Coal-Measures. It occurred in the
Grindstone or Firestone bed, commonly known by the name
of “ Grindstone Post.”

Witham, Observ. upon Fossil Vegetables, 1831, p. 31, pl. iv., figs. 1-4.

Pinites Brandlingi, Witham, Internal Struct. of Fos. Veget., etc., 1833,
p. 43, pl. ix., figs. 1-4; pl. x., figs. 1, 2, 3; pl. xvi., fig. 3.

Dadoxylon Brandlingii, Endlicher, Synop. Conif. foss., p. 35.

Araucarioxylon Brandlingi, Kraus, in Schimper, Traité d. paléont.
véget., vol. ii., p. 382.

Cordaioxylon Brandlingti, Shenk, in Zittel, Handb. der Palezont., Band.
ii. Lief. iii., 1884, p. 24.

Cordaites Brandlingii, Géppert (Stenzel), Nachtr. z. Kennt. d. conifer
d. paleoz. Form., p. 12, pl. i., figs. 1-4 (in Abhandl. d. Kénigl.
Preuss. Akad. d. Wissensch. zu Berlin, 1887).

1 The term ‘‘ Lower’ is not used in reference to local geological horizons,
but to indicate the position of the Coal Field in its relation to the other Coal °
Fields of Britain.

Paleozore Species mentioned in “ Fossil Flora.” 349

Lemarks.—The above limited references to the synonymy
of this widely-distributed species gives an epitome of the
history of changes of opinion as to the affinities and position
of this plant, changes mostly brought about by the discovery
of more perfect specimens.

Grand’ Eury was the first to point out that the wood of
certain stems, which from their external and internal char-
acters were shown to belong to Cordaites, was similar in
structure to the Pinites Brandlingi, Witham.?

Since this discovery the plant has been placed in the genus
Cordaioxylon as C. Brandlingiit, and more recently Gippert
has described the wood simply as CoRDAITES BRANDLINGIL?

There is little reason to doubt the identity of Pinites
Brandlingi with the stem of Cordaites, and as showing more
clearly the true nature of the fossil, perhaps Goppert is quite
justified in the course he has taken.

But this discovery in regard to Pinites Brandlingi raises
the whole question of the other Araucarioxylon species, and
it undoubtedly favours the opinion that they most probably
are also referable to Cordaites. In the other species of
Araucarioxyion, however, absolute proof of this is, I believe,
wanting.*

Pl. u. PIniTes WITHAMI, L. and H.

Locality— Craigleith Quarry, near Edinburgh.

Horvzon.—Calciferous Sandstone Series.

ftemarks.—Schimper places this in ARAUCARIOXYLON,
Kraus.

Pl. i. PINITES MEDULLARIS, L. and H.

Locality.—Craigleith Quarry, near Edinburgh.

Horizon.—Calciferous Sandstone Series.

Remarks.—Lindley and Hutton only figure a transverse
section of this stem, but transverse, radial, and tangential

1 Renault, Cours d. botan. foss. Premiére Année, 1881, p. 83.

2 Grand’ Eury, Flore carbon. du Départ. de la Loire, ete., p. 261.

® Goppert, loc. cit., p. 12. ;

+ Since these notes were written an interesting communication on this
subject, by F. H. Knowlton, has appeared in the Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., vol.
xli., pp. 601-17 (Smithsonian Institution), 1890,

350 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

sections are given by Witham.! The species appears to be
very closely related to Araucarioaylon Withami, if really
distinct from it.

Pl. iv. LEPIDODENDRON STERNBERGIL.

Locality—Felling Colliery, near Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures. Roof of the Low Main
Coal.

Remarks.—All the plants placed under Lepidodendron
Sternbergit by Lindley and Hutton are, I believe, referable
to LEPIDODENDRON OPHIURUS, described by Brongniart in
1822.2 In 1820 Sternberg, under the name of Lepidodendron
dichotomum, figured certain Lepidodendra2 Two species
were probably included in these plates, and Brongniart, to dis-
tinguish them, named the plant on Sternberg’s plates i. and 11.
Lepidodendron Sternbergui, and that on his pl. in. Lepidoden-
dron longifolium.* Some authors still regard Lepidodendron
Sternbergti, Brongt. (= Lepidodendron dichotomum, Sternb., on
part), as distinct from Lepidodendron ophiurus, Brongt. As
far as I know the original types of Lepidodendron Sternberqu
are lost, and, in such a case, there remains only the original
figures and descriptions of the species from which to settle
the question. These do not appear to me to afford evidence
for determining this point. Or, to put it in other words,
Sternberg’s figures and descriptions do not afford sufficient
data for the formation of a clearly defined species.

But whatever view may be taken of the specific indi-
viduality of Lepidodendron Sternbergit, Brongt., one point is
perfectly clear, that the commonest Lepidodendron of our
Lowest and Middle Coal-Measures is the JLepidodendron
ophiurus, Brongt. Ido not think that any solution of the
difficulty can be found in the figures and descriptions of
subsequent authors. Future discoveries may yet satisfac-
torily show the true position of Lepidodendron ophiurus,

1 Inter. Struc. Foss.- Veget., &c., 1833, p. 72, pl. vi., figs. 5, 6,.7, 85
pl. vii., figs. 7, 8. '

2 Class. d. vegét. foss., pp. 27 and 90, pl. iv., figs. la, 10.

° Ess. monde prim., pls. 1.-ili.

4 Prodrome, p. 85, 1828.

Paleozore Species mentioned in “ Fossil Flora.” 301

Bronet., and Lepidodendron Sternbergi, Brongt., to each other
—whether specifically distinct or synonymous—but at -pre-
sent I must admit my inability to grasp the characters which
are said to distinguish Lepidodendron Sternbergu, Bronegt.,
from Lepidodendron ophiurus, Brongt.

P]. v. ULODENDRON MAJUS, L. and H.

Locality.—Jarrow Colliery, near Newcastle-upon-Tyne.,
Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures. Roof of Bensham Coal.

Pl. vi. ULODENDRON MINUS, L. and H.

Locality.—South Shields Colliery, county of Durham.

Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures. Roof of High Main
Coal. |

ftemarks.—I have already on several occasions expressed
the belief that Ulodendron majus and Ulodendron minus
are only different conditions and ages of the same species,
and to prevent further confusion have recently adopted
KGnig’s specific name for these plants, and now class them
as SIGILLARIA DISCOPHORA, Konig sp.?

The counterpart of the type of U. minus is still preserved
in the “ Hutton Collection.”

Pl. vil, fig. 1. LEPIDODENDRON AcEROsUM, L. and H.

Pl. viii, figs. 1, 2. LEPIDODENDRON (?) ACEROSUM, L. and H.
Locality (pl. vii., fig. 1)—Bensham Colliery.
Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures. oof of the Bensham

Seam. | | :

Locality (pl. viu.).—Felling Colliery, near Newcastle-upon-

Tyne.

Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures. Roof of Low Main Coal.

Remarks.—The types of these figures appear to be lost,
but from the examination of other specimens in the collec-
tion, there cannot remain any doubt that the Lepidodendron
acerosum, L. and H., is a Lepidophloios, and similar to the
plant named Lepidophloios carinatus by Weiss.”

1See Additional Notes on Some British Carboniferous Lycopods—Ann.
and Mag. Nat. Hist., July 1889, p. 61, pl. iv., figs. 1, la; also Proc. Roy.
Phys. Soc. Edin., vol. x., 1888-89, p. 90, pl. iv., figs. 1, la.

2 Flora d. jiing. Stk. u. d. Rothl., p. 155.

352 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

The type of Lepidostrobus pinaster, L. and H. (vol. i1., pl.
excvill.), in the “ Hutton Collection” is also Lepzdophlotos
carinatus, Weiss. The leaf-scars are well preserved on this
example, and the central and two lateral cicatricules are
well seen. The supposed bracts that spring from the
Lepidostrobus pinaster (which is drawn upside down, as
shown by more perfect specimens) are not organic, but
splinters in the matrix. The original is quite unlike a cone,
and it is difficult to conceive how such a figure of the fossil
could have been produced.!

Zeiller,? from the synonymy under the head of Lepido-
phlovos laricinus, appears to unite Lepidophlows carimatus
with Lepidophloios laricinus, Sternb., but I have evidence
which leads me to think that these plants are specifically
distinct. I hope presently to publish figures and descrip-
tions of the examples upon which I have formed this opinion.
The plant under discussion must now be called LEprIDo-
PHLOIOS ACEROSUS, L. and H. sp. |

Pl. vii., fig. 2. LEPIDODENDRON DILATATUM, L. and H.

Locality.— Felling Colliery, near Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures. Roof of the Low Main

Coal.
Remarks.—This is merely the older condition of Lxprbo-
DENDRON OPHIURUS, Bronet.

Pl. vii., figs. 3, 4. LEPIDOPHYLLUM LANCEOLATUM, L. and H.

Locality. Jarrow Colliery.
Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures. Roof of Bensham Seam.

Pl. ix. LEPIDODENDRON GRACILE, L. and H.

Locality—Felling Colliery, near Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures. Roof of Low Main Coal.
Remarks.—This is the LEPIDODENDRON OPHIURUS, Bronet.

Pls. x., xi. LEPIDOSTROBUS VARIABILIS, L. and H.

Locality. Jarrow Colliery, near Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures. Roof of Bensham Seam.

1 See Catal. Paleoz. Plants, p. 172.
2 Flore foss. d. bassin houil. d. Valenciennes, p. 471.

we!

Paleozoic Species mentioned in “Fossil Flora.” a0¢

ftemarks.—Under this head almost certainly the cones of
several species are included. Fig. 2, pl. x., is most probably
my Lepidostrobus spinosus,' it being apparently similar to the
cones figured by Brongniart as “ Lepidostrobus.” ?

Pl. x11. LEPIDODENDRON SELAGINOIDES. |

Locality.—Felling Colliery, near Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures. Roof of the Low Main
Coal.

Remarks.—The type of this plate, which is fortunately
preserved, is a good specimen of BOTHRODENDRON MINUTI-
FOLIUM, Boulay sp.*? The characteristic leaf-scars of the genus
Bothrodendron are well shown on the fossil. The figure is
quite misleading.

Pl: xiii. SPHENOPHYLLUM EROSUM, L. and H.

Locality.—Jarrow.

Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures. Shale above Bensham
Seam.

Remarks.—This is the SPHENOPHYLLUM CUNEIFOLIUM, Sternb.
sp. The original specimen is in the “ Hutton Collection.”

Pl. xiv. ASTEROPHYLLITES TUBERCULATA, L. and H.
(not Sternb.).

Locality —Felling Colliery, near Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures. Roof of Low Main Coal.

Remarks.—The types of this plate appear to be lost, but
the type of pl. clxxx. is still in the collection. From the
examination of this and other specimens, I believe the
Asterophyllites tuberculata, L. and H., to be specifically dis-
tinct from the Bruckmannia tuberculata, Sternb., of which
excellent figures have been given by Weiss * under the name
of Stachannularia tuberculata, Sternb. sp. Stachannularia
tuberculata is, however, now known to be the cone of
Annularia stellata, Schl. sp.

1 Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. xxxili., p. 396.

2 Hist. d. végét. foss., vol. ii., pl. xxii., figs. 2, 3, 8.

3 Rhytidodendron minutifolium, Boulay, Le terr. houil. du nord de la
France et ses végét. foss., p. 39. Lille, 1876.

4 Steinkohlen-Calamarien, part i., p. 17, pl.i., figs. 2-4 ; pl. ii., figs. 1-3 and
5 (left); pl. iii., figs. 3-10 and 12, 1876.

304 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

I therefore propose to name the Asterophyllites tuberculata,
L. and H. (not Sternb.), STACHANNULARIA (?) NORTHUM-
BRIANA, Kidston.

Pl. xv. CALAMITES NoDosus, L. and H.
Locality.—Felling Colliery, near Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures. Roof of Low Main Coal.
Remarks.—The main stem in this figure is the CALAMITES

RAMosuS, Artis. The supposed foliage branch has no con-
nection with the stem, and is a branch with cones, referable
to the genus Palwostachya. The fruit of Calamites ramosus
which is known, is generically distinct (Calamostachys) from
the Palcostachya occurring on this slab.1_ The type is in the
“ Hutton Collection.”

Pl. xvi. CALAMITES Noposus, L. and H.
Locality.—Felling Colliery, near Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures. Roof of Low Main Coal.
Remarks.—The type of this figure is also preserved in the

collection. The plate only shows one, of the remains of at
least six stems, that occur on the slab. Not having the
necessary works of reference beside me when examining the
fossil, I could not determine it further than merely to refer
it to the genus PALAOSTACHYA.

Pl. xvii. ASTEROPHYLLITES GRANDIS, L. and H. (not Sternb.).

Locality Felling Colliery, near Newcastle.

Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures. Roof of Low Main Coal.

femarks.—The type, which is in the “ Hutton Collection,”
may probably be referred to Weiss’ genus CALAMITINA (Cyclo-
cladia, L. and H.), but the specimen is not very distinctly
preserved, and the foliage is too faintly indicated to allow of
its true form being discovered.

Pl. xviii. ASTEROPHYLLITES LONGIFOLIA.
Locality.—Jarrow Coal-Mine.
Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures.
Remarks.—The original specimen appears to be lost. The

1See Weiss, Steinkohlen-Calamarien, Heft ii., 1884, p. 98, plates—but
especially v., fig. 2; vi.; and xx., figs. 1, 2.

Paleozoic Species mentioned in “ Fossil Flora.” 355

plant is placed in CALAMOCLADUS by Schimper under the
name of C. LONGIFOLIUS.

Pl. xix., fig. 1. BECHERA GRANDIS.
Locality.— Jarrow Colliery.
Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures. Roof of Low Main Coal.
fenarks.—This is probably the stem of SPHENOPHYLLUM.

Pl. xix., fig. 2. ASTEROPHYLLITES GRANDIS, L. and H.
(not Sternb.).

Locality.—Felling Colliery, near Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures. Roof of Low Main Coal.

ftemarks.—This may be a small specimen of CALAMOCLADUS
EQUISETIFORMIS, Schl. sp. Lindley and Hutton’s plant must
not be confused with Bechera grandis, Sternb. (= Calamocladus
grandis, Sternb. sp.), from which it is essentially distinct.

Pl. xixbis. LEPIDODENDRON OBOVATUM.
Locality — Jarrow Colliery.
Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures. Roof of Bensham Seam.

Pl. xx. CALAMITES ; its phragma.
Locality.— Jarrow Colliery.
Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures. Roof of Bensham Coal
Seam.

Pl. xxi. CALAMITES; a crushed portion of the stem (?).
Locality.—Jarrow Colliery.

Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures. Roof of the Bensham
Seam.

Pl. xxii. CALAMITES MOUGEOTIL.

Locality and Horizon. Sandstone of the Edinburgh Coal
Field.”

femarks.—This is clearly not the Calamites Mougeotii,
Brongt., brought from the Grés bigarré, but I am quite
ignorant as to the species to which it should be referred.

Schimper? places it amongst his “ Species dubie,” under

1See Schimper, Traité d. paléont. végét., vol. i., p. 278=Eguisetum
Mougeotit.
* Loc. ¢tt.,) vol, 1,, ps. S21.

396 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

the name of Calamites Lindleyi, given it by Sternberg to dis-
tinguish it from Brongniart’s plant.

Pls. xxiii., xxiv. PEUcE WITHAMI, L. and H.

Locality Sandstone Quarry, Hill Top, near Ushaw, about
4 miles N.-W. of the City of Durham.

Horizon.—(?)

Remarks.—Schimper places this in Cedroxylon, Kraus,
under the name of CEDROXYLON WITHAMI.

I have only met with one specimen of the plant, which I
received from Mr John Young, F.G.S., and which was sup-
posed to have come from the neighbourhood of Manchester.

Pl. xxv. ASTEROPHYLLITES FOLIOSA, L. and H.

Locality. Jarrow Colliery.

Horizon.— Lower Coal-Measures. Roof of the Bensham
Seam. |

Remarks.—\ have failed to discover any character by
which this can be distinguished from ANNULARIA RADIATA,
Brongt. (the foliage of Calamites ramosus, Artis).

The type of Asterophyllites foliosa, L. and H., is preserved
in the “ Hutton Collection.”

Pl. xxv., fig. 2. ASTEROPHYLLITES GALIOIDES, L. and H.

Locality.—Barnsley Coal Field.

Horizon.—Middle Coal-Measures.

Remarks.—I have recently received specimens of Annularia
microphylla, Sauveur; from near Barnsley (Lindley and
Hutton’s locality), collected by Mr W. Hemingway. Tull
receiving these specimens I had met with no plant that
explained the Asterophyllites galioides, and I now think that
there is little doubt as to Sauveur’s Annularia microphylla
(1848) being the Asterophyllites galioides, L. and H. (18382).
As Lindley and Hutton’s name is the older of the two, the
plant must now be distinguished as ANNULARIA GALIOIDES,
L, and H. sp.

Pl. xxvi. LEPIDOSTROBUS ORNATUS, L. and H.

Locality.—Barnsley Coal Field.
Horizon.—Middle Coal-Measures.
1 Véodt. foss. d. terr. houil. d. Belgique, ph Ixix., fig. 6, 1848.

Paleozore Species mentioned in “ Fossil Flora.” 357

fiemarks.—This species is probably founded, more on a
condition of preservation than on individual definite char-
acters. What the authors of the “ Fossil Flora” treat as the
apex is the base of the cone, and it is now well known that
the bases of the bracts bore sporangia, not seeds as originally
supposed. Lepidostrobus ornatus might be conveniently placed
under LEPIDOSTROBUS VARIABILIS, L. and H., which is a very
wide species. The form ornatus is frequent, especially in

ironstone nodules.

Pl. xxvu. SPHENOPHYLLUM SCHLOTHEIMII, L. and H.
(not Bronet.),

Locality.— Somerset Coal Field.

Horizon.— Upper Coal-Measures.

Remarks.—The plant figured here is frequent in the
Upper Coal-Measures of Somerset, but is, I believe, the
SPHENOPHYLLUM EMARGINATUM, Bronet. In Sphenophyllum
Schlothevmii,' the leaves are rounded in their upper margin
or obovate, with numerous dichotomously divided veins. I
have not yet met with Sphenophylluin Schlotheimit in Britain.

Pls. xxvill., xxix. NOEGGERATHIA FLABELLATA.
Locality.— Jarrow Colliery.
Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures. Shale over the Bensham

Seam.
ftemarks—Schimper has created the genus PsyGmMo-

PHYLLUM” for this and a few other species which were
formerly placed in Noeggerathia.

Pls, xxxi.-xxxvl. STIGMARIA FICOIDES.

Pl. xxxvil. PECOPTERIS ADIANTOIDES, L. and H.

Locality Jarrow Colliery.
Horizon—Lower Coal-Measures. Roof of the Bensham

Seam.
Remarks.—The figure of this plant is very inaccurately

1 Palmacites vertictllatus, Schlotheim, Flora d. Vorwelt, p. 57, pl. ii.,
fig. 24; Zeiller, Sphenophyllum Schlotheimii, Brongt., Bull. Soc. Géol. d.
France, 3° sér., vol. xiii., p. 140, pl. viii., fig. 4.

* Traité d. paléont. végét., vol. ii., p. 193.

398 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

drawn. In the plate the pinne are represented as being of
almost equal width throughout their whole length, and
abruptly terminated by an odd leaflet. In the specimen
which is preserved in the “ Hutton Collection,” the apices of
all the pinne are broken off, hence their termination, as
represented in the plate (which is about two-thirds natural
size), are purely imaginary. The drawing of the pinnules is
also incorrect, the plant being, in fact, merely a specimen of
NEUROPTERIS HETEROPHYLLA, Bronet.

Pl. xxxvili. PECOPTERIS HETEROPHYLLA.
Locality.— Felling Colliery.
Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures. High Main Coal.
femarks.—This is clearly the ALETHOPTERIS DECURRENS,
Artis sp.}
Pl. xxxix. SPHENOPTERIS CRENATA, L. and H.
Locality.— Jarrow Colliery.
fforizon.—Lower Coal-Measures. Bensham Seam.
Note—I deter my remarks on this species till a future
time, as there are in my hands at present specimens of this
and some allied species, which cannot well be treated of in
this communication.

Pl. xl. ODONTOPTERIS opTuSA, L. and H. (not Brongt.).

Locality.—Leebotwood, 4 miles from Church Stretton,
Shropshire.

Hforizon.— Upper (?) Coal-Measures.

femarks.—This is not the Odontopteris obtusa, Brongt. To
distinguish Lindley and Hutton’s plant from that species,
Sternberg named it ODONTOPTERIS LINDLEYANA,? under which
name it is now enrolled.

Pl. xli, NEvRoPTERIS corDATA, L. and H. (not Bronegt.).

Locality—Leebotwood Coal Pit, 4 miles from Church
Stretton, Shropshire.

Horizon.—Coal-Measures.

Remarks —A great deal of confusion has arisen in regard

1 Filicites decurrens, Artis, Antedil. Phyt., pl. xxi.
2 Ess. Fl. d. mond. prim., ii., p. 78.

Paleozoic Species mentioned in “Fossil Flora.” 359
Pp

to the Neuropteris cordata, Brongt.!. In my paper on the
“Fossil Flora of the Radstock Series,” the subject has been
fully discussed.?, I may merely mention here, that the true
Newropteris cordata, Brongt., has not yet, as far as I have
seen, been discovered in Britain, and that Lindley and
Hutton’s plant, as well as all other British specimens that I
have seen passing under the name of Newropteris cordata, are
the NEUROPTERIS SCHEUCHZERI, Hoffmann.

P]. xlii. CAULOPTERIS PRIMAVA, L. and H.

Locality.—Radstock, near Bath, Somerset.
Horizon.— Upper Coal-Measures.

Pl. xlii., fig. 3. LEPIDOPHYLLUM INTERMEDIUM, L. and H.

Locality —Leebotwood, 4 miles from Church Stretton,
Shropshire.
Horizon.—Coal-Measures.

PI. xii, figs. 1, 2. CYPERITES BICARINATA, L. and H.

Locality —Leebotwood, 4 miles from Church Stretton,
Shropshire.

Horizon —Coal- Measures.

ftenarks.—The grass-hke leaves placed under Cyperites
bicarinata are the foliage of Sigillaria, and possibly of some
species of Lepidodendron.

These fossils, as far as I have been able to observe, have
not two veins as supposed by Lindley and Hutton. The
little ledges, formed by the two sides of a flat, central, single
vein, form protected lodgments for the carbonaceous matter
of the leaf, and often, after the greater part of this substance
has been removed from the other portions of the fossil, the
prominence of these two lines of carbonaceous material,
which frequently conceal the two edges of the mid-rib, have
given rise to the erroneous opinion that the leaves contain
two veins.

Lepidophyllum trinerve, L. and H., and Lepidophyllum
binerve, Lebour, are subject to the same explanation.

1 Hist. d. végét. foss., p. 229, pl. lxiv., fig. 5.
? Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. xxxiii., p. 356, pl. xxiii., figs. 1, 2.

360 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Pl. xlv. SPHENOPTERIS AFFINIS, L. and H.

Locality—Limestone Quarries near Gilmerton, near
Edinburgh.

Horizon.—Calciferous Sandstone Series.

Remarks.—From the structure of the fructification of this
species, it is now removed from Sphenopteris and placed in
CALYMMATOTHECA, Stur. Full references to the literature of
the species are given elsewhere.?

Pl. xlvi. SPHENOPTERIS CRITHMIFOLIA, L. and H.

Locality.— Jarrow Colhery.

Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures. Roof of Bensham Seam.

Remarks.—I believe this species to be only a varietal
form of EREMOPTERIS (SPHENOPTERIS) ARTEMISLEFOLIA, Sternb.

Pl. xlvii. SPHENOPTERIS DILATATA, L. and H.

Locality.—Jarrow Colliery.

Horizon —Lower Coal-Measures. Roof of Bensham Seam.

Remarks.—This may perhaps be referable to the SPHENOP-
TERIS TRIFOLIATA, Artis sp. The species of this group are
closely related to each other, and it is almost impossible to
determine the true specific position of this specimen without
an examination of the type, which appears to be lost.

P]. xlviii. SPHENOPTERIS CAUDATA, L. and H.

Locality—(?) Jarrow Colliery.

Horizon.—(?) Lower Coal-Measures. Roof of Bensham
Seam.

Remarks.—This is referable to DACTYLOTHECA (FILICITES)
pLuMosA, Artis. There exists some doubt as to the specimen
having come from Jarrow, and therefore this record cannot
be relied on as far as the distribution of the species is
concerned. |

Pl. xlix. NEUROPTERIS LOSHII.

Locality —Felling Colliery.

Horizon.— Lower Coal-Measures.

1 Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. xxxiii., p. 145. Owing to communications
I have lately had with Dr Nathorst, it appears that Sphenopteris frigida,

Heer, and Sphenopteris flexilis, Heer, do not belong to this species, The
figures of these plants are not very accurate.

Paleozoic Species mentioned vn “ Fossil Flora.” O61

Remarks.—It is fortunate that the original of this plate is
preserved, as the figure is very inaccurate. The plant is,
however, the NEUROPTERIS HETEROPHYLLA, Brongt. (= Newr-
opteris Loshw, Brongt.).

PI. ]. NEUROPTERIS SORETIL.
Locality.—Felling Colliery.
Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures.
Remarks.—The original specimen of this plate is also pre-
served, but it is only NEUROPTERIS HETEROPHYLLA, Bronet., of
which the plate gives an inaccurate figure.

Pl. li. NEUROPTERIS ACUMINATA.
Locality.—Felling Colliery.
Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures.

Pl. li. NEUROPTERIS GIGANTEA.

Locality.—Jarrow Colliery.
Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures.

Pl. ii. SPHENOPTERIS BIFIDA, L. and H.

Locality. Burdiehouse, near Edinburgh.

Horizon.—Calciterous Sandstone Series.

ftemarks.—From its fructification, Sphenopteris bifida is
now placed in CALYMMATOTHECA, Stur.!

PI. liv. SIGILLARIA PACHYDERMA.
Locality.— Killingworth Colliery, near Newcastle.
Remarks.—The state of preservation of this specimen pro-
hibits all attempts at a specitic identification.

Pl. lv. SIGILLARIA PACHYDERMA.

Locality— Killingworth Colliery, near Newcastle.

Remarks.—The original specimen of this plate is badly
preserved, and cannot be satisfactorily determined. An
examination of the specimen led me to believe that the plant
might be Sigillaria manillaris, Brongt., but of this I could
not be certain.

1 See Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. xxxiii., p. 140.

362 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Pl. lvi. SIGILLARIA ALTERNANS.

Locality.— Cramlington Colliery, Northumberland.
Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures.

Pl. lvii. SIGILLARIA RENIFORMIS.
Locality.—* Newcastle.”
Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures.

Pl. lviii. SIGILLARIA CATENULATA.

Locality. Jarrow Colliery.

Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures.

Remarks.—PIs. lvi., lvii., lvili. represent decorticated con-
ditions of Sigilaria. I believe it quite useless to attempt
to identify such specimens, as several well-marked species in
the decorticated condition cannot be specifically distinguished.

PI. lix. SIGILLARIA OCULATA,
Locality. Killingworth Colliery, Northumberland.
Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures.
ftemarks.—The specimen figured by Lindley and Hutton
is contained in the “ Hutton Collection.” The fossil is not
well represented on the plate, but from a careful examination

of the specimen, I believe it is probably SIGILLARIA OVATA,
Sauv.!

Pl. Ixv. PoLYPoRITES BowMaANnI, L. and H.
Locality—Coal Pit, near the entrance of the Vale of
Llangollen, Denbighshire.
ftemarks.—This is a fish scale,

Pl. lxx. SIGILLARIA ORGANUM.
Locality.—Jarrow Colliery.
Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures.
ftemarks.—The preservation of this specimen is such as to
prohibit any specific determination being made.

1Sauveur, Végét. foss. d. terr. houil. d. Belgique, pl. li., fig. 2; Zeiller,

Flore foss, d, bassin houil, d. Valenciennes, p, 522, pl. Ixxix., figs. 4-7
(fig. 32),

Puleowre Species mentioned vir “ Fossil Plora.” 363

PL. Ixxi. SIGILLARIA RENIFORMIS.
Locality.— (?)
Remarks.—This is another decorticated specimen of Sigil-
laria, which cannot be specifically determined.

Pl, Ixxii. SIGILLARIA (7?) MONOSTIGMA, L. and H.

Locality.—-Sandstone Quarry, Cramlington, Northumber-
land.

Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures.

Remarks.—This is a single isolated rib of a Sigillaria in a
decorticated condition.

Pls. Ixxii.-lxxv. FAVULARIA TESSELLATA.

Locality (pls. Ixxii1., ]xxiv.).—Overlying Coal Strata, at
Garthen Colliery, near Ruabon, Denbighshire.

Locality (pl. ixxv.).—Jarrow Colhery.

Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures. Bensham Seam.

Remarks.—Not having seen the originals of these plates,
it is difficult to express any opinion on them. It is probable
that the specimens represented on plates Ixxii. and Ixxiv.
are the SIGILLARIA TESSELLATA, Bronet. I have, however,
never seen any specimens that were identical with these
figures, but the differences are probably more dependent on
the artist of the plates than the specimens themselves.

Mr Howse mentions that the original of pl. lxxv. is in the
Museum of the College of Physical Science, Newcastle, but I
have not seen it. Judging from the figure, however, I am
inchned to think their plant has been the SIGILLARIA
ELEGANS, Sternb. sp.

Pl. Ixxvi. CARDIOCARPON ACUTUM, L. and H.

Locality. Jarrow Colliery.

Horizon.— Lower Coal-Measures. Shale from the Bensham
Seam.

Remarks.——Mr Carruthers and other botanists have shown
that these seeds were borne by the fossil named Antholithes
Piteairnie, L. and H., which in turn is the fructification of
Cordaites. To show the affinities of the fossils, they are
usually now placed in Grand’ Eury’s genus CORDAIANTHUS.*

‘Grand’ Eury, Flore carb. d. Départ. de la Loire, etc., p. 227.
VOL. X. 2B

364 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socrety.

Pl. lxxvii. CALAMITES APPROXIMATUS, L. and H. (noé Brongt.).

Locality.—Jarrow Colliery.

Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures.

Remarks.—This is not the Calamites approximatus, Brongt.,
but probably the Calamites Schutzei, Stur., which I regarded
as a variety of Calamites varians, Sternb. Weiss places
Calamites varians in his Calamitina. The plant may be
denominated CALAMITINA VARIANS, var. SCHUTZEI, Stur. sp.’
The specimen figured is in the “ Hutton Collection.”

Pl. lxxvili. CALAMITES. (With roots.)

Locality.—¥rom the Newcastle Coal Field.

Remarks.—These I regard as the basal extremities of
CALAMITES SucKOWUL, Brongt. The original is in the “ Hutton
Collection.”

Pl. lxxxix. CALAMITES CANNAFORMIS.

Locality.— (?)

Remarks.—This I also believe to be the basal portion of
CALAMITES Suckowll, Bronet. In regard to Calamites
canneformis, Schl., I must confess that I do not know what
that plant is. Schlotheim’s type consists of a basal ex-
tremity of a Calamite, but so preserved that there are no
characters shown on which to found a species.

Under Calamites canneformis, Schl., botanists appear to
have been in the habit of placing any large badly-preserved
Calamite stems. The species seems to have no clearly
defined scientific position.

VOLUME II.

Pls. Ixxx.,1xxxi. BOTHRODENDRON PUNCTATUM, L. and H.
Locality (pl. \xxx.).—Jarrow Colliery.

Horvzon.—Lower Coal-Measures. High Main Coal Seam.
Locality (pl. Ixxxi.).—Perey Main Colliery.

Horvzon.—(?)

1 See Weiss, Steinkohlen-Calamarien, part i., 1876; part ii., 1884. Berlin.

(Abhandl. z. geol. specialkarte v. Preussen u. d. Thiiringischen Staaten,
Band ii., Heft. 1; Band v., Heft 2.)

Paleozoic Species mentioned in “ Fossil Flora.” 365

ltemarks.—This genus, so long thought by British botanists
to be founded on badly-preserved specimens of “ Uloden-
dron,” has been shown by Zeiller,! from a specimen presented
by Hutton to the Muséum d’histoire naturelle, Paris, to be a
true genus, with which Boulay’s genus Rhytidodendron is
synonymous.” Hven decorticated specimens of Bothrodendron
can be generally determined from the excentric umbilicus of
the large scars.

Pl. Ixxxil. ANTHOLITHES PITCAIRNLA, L. and H.
Locality—Felling Colliery.
Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures. Shale associated with
the Low Main Coal.
Remarks.—See notes under Cardiocarpon acutum.

P]. Ixxxiv. PECOPTERIS REPANDA, L. and H.

Locality.—Jarrow Coal-Mine.

Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures.

femarks.—The type of this species is not in a good state of
preservation, either for understanding the characters of the
plant or for comparing it with other species.

Pl. Ixxxiv. Hauonta (?) rortuosa, L. and H.

Locality.— Sandstone Quarry, near South Shields.

Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures.

Remarks.—This is probably only a different condition of
the fossils named Halonia regularis, which are the fruiting
branches of a LEPIDOPHLOIOS.

Pl. Ixxxvi. HALONIA GRACILIS, L. and H.

Locality—Low Moor, Yorkshire.

Horizon.—Middle Coal-Measures.

Remarks.—This is probably a LEPIDODENDRON. In the
Ironstone nodules of the Dudley Coal Field and elsewhere,
I have seen specimens of Lepidodendron, which, from
unequally developed dichotomy, have a somewhat similar
pinnate appearance.

* Bull. Soc. Géol. d. France, 3¢ sér., vol. xiv., p. 178, pl. viii., fig. 1.
* Le terr. houil. du nord de la France et ses végét. foss., p. 39. Lille, 1876.

366 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Pl. lxxxvul. CARPOLITHES ALATA, L. and H.

Locality.—Jarrow Colliery.

Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures.

Remarks. — The Carpolithes alata, L. and H., is the
TRIGONOCARPUS PARKINSONI, Brongt., enclosed in its peri-
carp. I have seen several specimens revealing this very
clearly.

Pl. xe. CYCLOPTERIS OBLIQUA, L. and H.

Locality.—Jarrow Colliery.

Horizon.— Lower Coal-Measures.

Remarks.—These large cyclopteroid pinnules were borne
on the rachis of several species of Newropteris, but trom the
figures here given it is impossible to determine the species
to which they belong. They may possibly be referable to
NEUROPTERIS HETEROPHYLLA, Bronet.

Pl. xcia. NEUROPTERIS INGENS, L. and H.

Locality.— Jarrow Colliery.

Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures.

Remarks.—This species of Newropteris is too ill defined to
enable me to identify the plant indicated.

Pie xerb: CYCLOPTERIS DINADATAS Ih. amd iH.

Locality.—Felling Colliery, near Newcastle.

Horvzon.—Lower Coal-Measures.

Remarks.—This is another Neuropteroid pinnule. The
nervation is not sufficiently indicated to determine the
species. I believe, however, that it is referable to NEUROP-
TERIS HETEROPHYLLA, Bronet.

Pl. xciv. PECOPTERIS NERVOSA.

Locality.—Jarrow Colliery.

Horvzon.—Lower Coal-Measures. Shale from the Bensham
Seam.

Remarks.— This is now regarded as a variety of Mariopteris
(Pecopteris) nuricata, Schl., and classed as MARIOPTERIS
MURICATA, Schl. sp., var. NERVOSA.

Pulwozore Species mentioned in “Fossil Flora.” 367

Pl. xcv. KNORRIA TAXINA, L. and H.

Locality —Jarrow Colliery.

florizon.—Lower Coal-Measures. Roof of High Main
Seam.

Remarks.—The Knorria taxina, L. and H., is the stem of
CorvaIres, and the form which occurs commonly in the
Lower Coal-Measures. The original is preserved in the
“ Hutton Collection.”

Pl. xcvi. CALAMITES. The base of a stem.

Locality.—Jarrow Colliery.

Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures. Roof of the Bensham
Seam.

Remarks.—This is evidently referable to CALAMITES
Suckowt, Bronet.

Pl. xevii. KNORRIA SELLONII.

Locality.—F elling Colliery.

Horizon.-—Lower Coal-Measures.

Remarks.—TVhe plant figured by Lindley and Hutton does
not appear to be similar to Sternbere’s Knorria Sellonii.
The surface of Lindley and Hutton’s specimen, which is
preserved in the “ Hutton Collection,” is covered with fine
transverse lines. When the light falls on the specimen at
right angles to the direction in which these fine lines run, a
series of rather coarser longitudinal lines is brought out.
The scars do not show any definite structure, but are
bounded by an irregular basal ridge, giving the appearance
as if some organ had been forcibly broken off. In front of
this ridge is a slight hollow, bounded by two longitudinal
depressions. I have a somewhat similar fossil from the
Radstock Coal Field, and am equally ignorant of its affinities.

Pls. xevill., xcix. LEPIDODENDRON Harcourtu, Witham.

Locality.—Hesley Heath, near Rothbury, Northumberland.
Horizon.—Coal-Measures.!

' The type is in the York Museum.

368 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Pls. c., ci. SPHENOPTERIS CRENATA, L. and H.
SCHIZOPTERIS ADNASCENS, L. and H.

Locality.— Whitehaven Coal Field.

Horizon.—Coal-Measures.

Remarks.—That the Schizopterts adnascens is an integral
part of Sphenopteris crenata is beyond all doubt. The type
specimen is in the museum at Newcastle.

I defer any further remarks on this species, awaiting the
examination of certain specimens at present in my possession.

Pl. evi. PECOPTERIS SERRA, L. and H.

Locality Whitehaven Coal Field.

Horizon.—Coal-Measures.

Remarks.—The type of this plant appears to be lost. From
the figure and description, it is difficult to form a correct idea
of the characters of the species. It is probable that it is not
specifically distinct from DACTYLOTHECA PLUMOSA, Artis sp.

Pl. eviii. ASTEROPHYLLITES CcoMOSsUS, L. and H.

Locality.—Jarrow Colliery.

Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures.

Remarks.—The type is preserved in the “ Hutton Collec-
tion.” It is too imperfect for any accurate determination.
The plate is very much more distinct than the specimen in
its present condition.

Pl. cix. SPHENOPTERIS OBOVATA, L. and H.

Locality.—Newcastle Coal Field (?).

Remarks.—The above locality is given by Gaels and
Hutton for this species, which was communicated to them
by T. Allan, Esq., Lauriston Castle, Edinburgh. I believe
this species is the same as their Sphenopteris excelsa.’ From
the fact that the specimen came from Mr Allan, Edinburgh,
and that the matrix of the type in the “ Hutton Collection”
and the plant itself is similar to specimens occurring at
Granton, near Edinburgh (Calciferous Sandstone Series), I
have no doubt there is an error in the locality given for this
specimen.

1 Vol ig, pl.cexL

Palwozoie Species mentioned in “ Fossil Hora.” 569

Pl. cx. A Fossiz Aquatic hoor.
Locality— Felling Colliery.
Horizon.— Lower Coal-Measures. Low Main Seam.
Remarks.—This is the PINNULARIA GRACILIS, Artis sp.,
which I really do not think can be separated on stable
characters from the Pinnularia columnaris, Artis sp.

Pl. cxi. PINNULARIA CAPELLACEA, L. and H.

Locality —Leebotwood Coal Pit, four miles from Church
Stretton, Shropshire.

Horizon.—Coal-Measures.

Remarks.—This is probably only a different condition of
the last. There is no doubt that roots of different plants
may assume very similar forms, but these various Pinnularia
_ so pass into one another that it is very difficult to draw a
hard and fast line between the so-called species.

Pl. exil. LEPIDODENDRON STERNBERG.
Locality (a and c).—Hebburn Colliery.
Locality (b).-—Coalbrookdale.
Horizon.—Coal-Measures.
Remarks.—All the specimens figured here are referable to
LEPIDODENDRON OPHIURUS, Bronet.

PI. exui, LEPIDODENDRON SELAGINOIDES.

Locality.—Felling Colliery.

Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures. Roof of Low Main Seam.

ftemarks.—Lindley and Hutton’s specimen I have not
seen. Their plate agrees well with Sternberg’s type figures,
but they both fail to indicate, either in the figures or descrip-
tions, any definite character by which this species can be
distinguished from Lepidodendron ophiurus, Brongt. Judging
from the figures, the specimens do not appear, from their
state of preservation, to be in a condition to afford the neces-
sary characters for a well-founded species. I do not see
therefore that we can do otherwise than class Lepidodendron
selaginoides under the head of “ Species insufficiently known.” +

1 T am aware that some authors regard Lepidodendron selaginoides, Sternb.,
asa good species. Lepidodendron selaginoides, Sternb., must not be confused
with the specimens showing structure which have been described under the

name of Lepidodendron selaginoides—as there is no evidence to show that
these structure-showing stems belong to Sternberg’s species.

370 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Soctety.

Pl. exiv. HIPPURITES GIGANTEA, L. and H.

Locality.—Jarrow Colliery.

Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures.

Remarks.—The type is preserved in the “ Hutton Collec-
tion.” The leaves appear to spring from the nodes, not as
teeth of a sheath as represented in the plate, but as free and
independent organs placed closely together. The specimen
is similar to that figured by Weiss as “ Calamites sp.,” from
the Bruckstrasse Mine, near Langendreer, Westphalia.’ The
plant figured by Lindley and Hutton may possibly be
Calamitina varians, var. insignis, Weiss.”

Pl. cxv. SPHENOPTERIS ADIANTOIDES, L. and H.

Locality.—Jarrow Colliery.
Horizon.— Lower Coal-Measures.

Pl. exvi. MEGAPHYTON APPROXIMATUM, L. and H.

Locality.—J arrow.

Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures. Roof of High Main Coal.

Remarks.—I have previously united this with AMegaphyion
frondosum, Artis. As there is, however, a difference of
opinion among botanists on this point, it had perhaps better
be treated as a distinct species until further examined
into.

Pl. exvii. MEGAPHYTON DISTANS, L. and H.
Locality.—Felling Colliery.
Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures. Shale over Low Main
Coal.
Remarks.—This is the M&GAPHYTON FRONDOSUM, Artis.
The specific name distans cannot be substituted for frondosum
on such grounds as those suggested by Lindley and Hutton.

Pl. exvili. LEPIDODENDRON ELEGANS.
Locality—Felling Colliery.
Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures.
Remarks.—\I have not seen the original of this plate, but
believe it is also referable to LEPIDODENDRON OPHIURUS, Bronegt.

1 Steinkohlen-Calamarien, part ii., 1884, pl. xvii., fig. 2, pp. 22 and 27.
2 Loc. cit., p. 63, pl. i., figs. 1-6; pl. xxviil., fig. 1.

Palwozoie Species mentioned in “Fossil Flora.” 371

Pl. exxii. PECOPTERIS LACINIATA, L. and H.

Locality.—J arrow.

Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures.

Remarks.—Pecopteris laciniata, L. and H., is the MArtop-
TERIS MURICATA, Schl. sp.

Pl. exxiii. SPHENOPTERIS MULTIFIDA, L. and H.

Locality.—Near Oldham.

Horizon.—Coal-Measures.

Remarks.—The type of this species is not preserved in the
collection. I originally thought that Sphenopteris multifida
might be referable to Urnatopteris tenella, Brongt. sp., but
recently some small fragments of a fern from South Lanca-
shire and Yorkshire, which have come under my notice, may
perhaps be Lindley and Hutton’s species, and under their
name I have recorded them. The pinnules, however, in these
specimens are almost truncate, and not pointed, as in the
enlargement given by the authors of the “ Fossil Flora.” I am
therefore still in some uncertainty as to their plant.

Pl. exxiv. ASTEROPHYLLITES EQUISETIFORMIS.

Locality—M ines of Blackwood, Monmouthshire.
Horizon.—Coal-Measures.
Remarks.—This is the ANNULARIA STELLATA, Schl. sp.

Pl. exxx. CYCLOCLADIA MAJOR, L. and. H.

Locality — Jarrow Colliery.

Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures. Bensham Seam.

Remarks.—There are several specimens in the ‘“ Hutton
Collection” which are placed under this name—amoneg which
is the type of Cyclocladia major. They belong to Weiss’
genus Calamitina,’ and the specimen figured by Lindley and
Hutton is probably CALAMITINA VARIANS, Sternb. sp., var.
INCONSTANS, Weiss, but it is too fragmentary for a satisfactory
determination. Among the specimens in the “ Hutton

1 Cyclostigma, L. and H. (not Goldenberg), is the oldest name for these
fossils, but the type is so imperfect that from it satisfactory generic characters
cannot be obtained. Goldenberg (Flora Sarpont. foss., Heft. i., p. 19, 1855)
has also used the same name for another class of fossils. Under these
circumstances it is perhaps better not to resuscitate the genus Cyclocladia.

372 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Collection,’ under the same name, and from the same
horizon and locality, is one which appears to be undoubtedly
the CALAMITINA VARIANS, var. SEMICIRCULARIS, Weiss.

Pl. cxxxiii. ASTEROPHYLLITES JUBATA, L. and H.

Locality. Jarrow Colliery.

Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures.

Remarks.—This is probably the CALAMOCLADUS LONGI-
FOLIUS, Bronet. sp.

Pl. exxxvill. SPHENOPTERIS CAUDATA, L. and H.

Locality.—Jarrow Colliery (?).

femarks.—The original specimen of Sphenopteris caudata
is in the “ Hutton Collection.” It is not in a very good
state of preservation, but I think it is the DAcTYLOTHECA
(PECOPTERIS) DENTATA, Brongt.

The locality given by Lindley and Hutton for this specimen
is subject to doubt. It more probably originates from
Somerset.

Pl. exxxix. CALAMITES VERTICILLATUS, L. and H.

Locality. Upper Series of the Yorkshire Coal Field.”

femarks.—The type of this interesting species cannot be
traced. In my “ Report on the Fossil Plants of the Yorkshire
Coal Field,” it is placed in the genus CALAMITINA.?

Pl. exl. CAULOPTERIS PHILLipsi, L. and H.

Locality —Camerton, Somerset.

Horizon.— Upper Coal-Measures. Radstock Series.

ftemarks.—Vhe type of Caulopteris Phillipsit I have not
been able to discover. In my paper on the “Fossil Flora
of the Radstock Series” it is placed under CAULOPTERIS
MACRODISCUS, Brongt., which latter species is used there as
probably including decorticated conditions of more than one
species of Caulopteris.

1 No. 6, in Catal. of Fossil Plants from the ‘‘ Hutton Collection,” 1888.
? Yorkshire Carboniferous Flora—Trans. Yorkshire Nat. Union, part 14,
p. 17. Leeds, 1890.

Paleozoic Species mentioned in “Fossil Flora.” BTA

Pl. cxli. CAULOPTERIS GRACILIS, L. and H.

Locality —*< Ketley Coal Field.”
Remarks.—This is the vascular axis of STIGMARIA.!

Pl. exliia. TRIGONOCARPUM OVATUM, L. and H.
Locality.— Ketley.
Horizon.—Coal-Measures. Pinny Ironstone Measures.

Pl. exlub. PoacitEs cocoina, L. and H.
Locality.—“ Lancashire Coal Field.”
Remarks.—The Poacites cocoina is in all likelihood founded
on fragments of Cordaztes leaves.
Without an examination of the type, it is impossible to
determine the true nature of their plant. It must, I am
afraid, be placed among the “insufficiently known species.”

Pl. exhic. TRIGONOCARPUM NOEGGERATHI.
Locality.— (?)
Remarks.—This is the TRIGONOCARPUS PARKINSONI, Bronet.

Pl. exlv. PEcoprERIs MANTELLI.
Locality.—PBritish Iron Company, Abersychan, Monmouth-
shire.
Horizon.—Coal-Measures.
Remarks.—This is the ALETHOPTERIS DECURRENS, Artis sp.”

Pl. exlvi. SPHENOPTERIS CoNWAYI, L. and H.

Locality.—Risca, Monmouthshire.
Horizon.—Coal-Measures.

Pl. exlvii. SPHENOPTERIS POLYPHYLLA, L. and H.

Locality.—Titterstone Clee, Shropshire.

Horizon.—(Middle ?) Coal-Measures.

Remarks.—The type is in the collection of the Geological
Society of London.°

1 The type is in the collection of the Literary and Scientific Institution,
Coalbrookdale.

? Antedil. Phyt.,-pl. xxi.

3 My thanks are due to the Society for the loan of this specimen.

ofA. Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Pl. exlix. SremtLarta Murcuisont, L. and H.

Locality.--—“ Knowlsbury Coal Field.”

Remarks—The type specimen appears to be lost, but
judging from the figure, the fossil was evidently in too
imperfect a condition for the creation of a species, as all
critical characters seem to have been effaced.

Pl. cl. Oropreris (?) puBra, L. and H.

Locality.—“ Sandstone of the Knowlsbury Coal Field.”

Remarks.—This is a Rhacopteris, and must be enrolled as
RHACOPTERIS DUBIA, L. and H. sp.

The rachis is very thin,—not thick as might be supposed
from the figure. The apparent thick rachis of the figure
results from a fracture of the stone—the pinnules on the
right being on a higher level than those on the left. The
thin dark line on the right of the left-hand row of pinnules,
towards the base, shows the thickness of the rachis. The
pinnules are placed in two vertical series, not spirally as
thought possible by Lindley and Hutton.

The type is in the collection of the Geological Society of
London.*

Pl. cli. SPHENOPTERIS MACILENTA, L. and H.

Locality. —Risca, Monmouthshire.
Horizon.—Coal-Measures.

Pl. clii. LEPIDOPHYLLUM TRINERVE, L. and H.

Locality Blackwoodia, Monmouthshire.

Horizon.—Coal-Measures.

Remarks.—This species is to be referred to LEPIDOPHYLLUM
mAJuS, Brongt. The supposed occurrence of three nerves in
this species is most probably an error of observation.”

Pl. cliii. PECOPTERIS LONCHITICA.

Locality.— (?)
Remarks.—Now placed in the genus ALETHOPTERIS.

1 My thanks are due to the Society for the loan of this specimen.
2 See ante, p. 359.

Paleozoic Species mentioned in “ Fossil Flora.” 379

Pl. cliv. PECOPTERIS DENTATA.
Locality‘ From a coarse micaceous shale in the New-
castle Coal Field” (?).
Remarks.—This is the DACTYLOTHECA PLUMOSA, Artis sp.
There is reason to doubt the accuracy of the locality given
for this specimen.

Pl. clvi. SPHENOPTERIS LATIFOLIA, L. and H. (not Brongt.).

Locality“ From the Bensham and Jarrow Coal Mines,
where it is common.”

Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures.

Remarks.—This is the SPHENOPTERIS OBTUSILOBA, Brongt.
(=Sphenopteris wrregularis, Sternb.).”

VOLUME III.

Pl. clx. SPHENOPTERIS CRASSA, L. and H.

Locality Burdiehouse, near Edinburgh.

Horizon.—Calciferous Sandstone Series.

Remarks —The type of this species is in the collection
of the Museum of Science and Art, Edinburgh. It has been
refigured in the Proc. Roy. Phys. Soc. Edin., vol. vii., p. 238,
pie ve, tic. 1.

PI. clxi. LEPIDODENDRON LONGIFOLIUM.
Locality.—“ From the Newcastle Coal-Measures.”
Remarks.——The specimen, which is in the “ Hutton Col-

lection,” is so imperfectly preserved, that it is impossible to

determine whether the fossil should be referred to Lepido-
dendron or Sigillaria.

Pl. elxii. LEPIDOSTROBUS Comosus, L. and H.
Locality.— Burdiehouse, near Edinburgh.
Horizon.—Calciferous Sandstone Series.

Pl. elxiii. LEPIDOSTROBUS ORNATUS, var. DIDYMUS, L. and H.

Locality.—Newhaven, near Edinburgh.
Horizon.—Calciferous Sandstone Series.

1 Hist. d. veget. foss., p. 204, pl. liii., fig. 2*.
2 Sternb., Vers., ii., p. 63, pl. xvii., fig. 4.

O16 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socvety.

Remarks.—For notes on Lepidostrobus ornatus, see under
pl. xxvi. The var. didymus is produced by the accidental
splitting of one cone, between the split portions of which a
second one has been inserted.

Pl. clxiv. PINUS ANTHRACINA, L. and H.
Locality.—* Coal-Measures of Newcastle.”
Remarks.—The type specimen is badly preserved, but it
appears to be a portion of the back of Lepidophloios. It is
certainly not a cone.

Pl. clxvi. STIGMARIA FICOIDES. (Its Anatomy.)

Locality.—Coalbrookdale.
Horizon.—Coal-Measures.

PL clxxii. BECHERA GRANDIS.
Locality.—Ironstone nodule, Coalbrookdale.
Horizon.—Coal-Measures.

Remarks.—The CALAMOCLADUS GRANDIS, Sternb. sp.

Pl. clxxiv. NEUROPTERIS ATTENUATA, L. and H.

Locality.— (?)

Remarks.—The type is very badly preserved, but it is
clearly a PECOPTERIS, though from its present state of
preservation it is impossible to identify it specifically. The
plate is thoroughly misleading and inaccurate.

Pl. clxxvil. SPHENOPTERIS HIBBERTI, L. and H.

Locality Kirkton, near Bathgate.
Horizon.—Carboniferous Limestone Series.

Pl. clxxvil. SPHENOPTERIS LATIFOLIA, L. and H. (not Brongt.).
Locality. Jarrow Colliery.
Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures. Bensham Seam.
Remarks.—The SPHENOPTERIS OBTUSILOBA, Brongt.

Pl. clxxx. ASTEROPHYLLITES TUBERCULATA.
Locality.— Jarrow Colliery.
Hovrizon.—Lower Coal-Measures. Roof of Bensham Seam.
Remarks.—See notes under plate xiv.

Paleozoic Species mentioned in “ Fossil Flora.” 377

Pl. clxxxi. SPHENOPTERIS FURCATA.

Locality.—Jarrow Colhery.

Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures. Roof of Bensham Seam.

Remarks—The original specimen is in the “Hutton
Collection.”

Pl. elxxxui. NEUROPTERIS HETEROPHYLLA.

Locality.—(?)

Remarks.—The plant figured here is not the Newropteris
heterophylla, Brongt. The original specimen appears to be
lost, and it is quite impossible to refer the figure to any
known species.

Pl. elxxxiv. PECOPTERIS ABBREVIATA.

Localiiy.— W elbatch, near Shrewsbury.

Horizon.—Coal-Measures.

Remarks.—The original of this plate is not in the “ Hutton
Collection.” Probably the plant may be the PECOPTERIS
MILTONI, Artis sp. This is one of those cases where it is
almost necessary to see the original before arriving at a
correct opinion of the fossil.

Pls. exe., exci. HIPPURITES LONGIFOLIA.

Locality.—F¥ orest of Dean Coal Basin.

Horizon.— Upper Coal-Measures.

Remarks.—The plant figured here is the CALAMOCLADUS
EQUISETIFORMIS, Schl. sp. Both plates are of the same speci-
men—plate cxe. being a portion natural size, and plate exci.
a reduced drawing of the plant.

Pl. excil. FAVULARIA NODOSA, Bowman MS. -

Locality —F lint Marsh Colliery, on the estuary of the
Dee. “From the roof of the lowest coal bed.”

Horizon.—Coal-Measures.

Remarks.—W hether this should be referred to Sigillaria
tessellata, or regarded as a distinct species, I cannot deter-
mine. The type is apparently lost.

378 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Pl. excilid. 1-4. TRIGONOCARPUM NOEGGERATHI.
Localities—Holywell Colliery, and Wilmington Colliery,
Newcastle Coal Field.
Horizon.—Coal-Measures.
Remarks.—This is the TRIGONOCARPUS PaRKINSONI, Brongt.

Pl. excilic. TRIGONOCARPUM OBLONGUM, L. and H.
Locality.—In Sandstone, Hound Hill, near Pontefract.
Horizon.—Middle Coal-Measures.

Remarks.—In those localities where Trigonocarpus Parkin-
sont occurs plentifully, there are usually associated with
them specimens very similar to those described as Z7rigono-
carpum oblongum, and which so graduate into typical
TRIGONOCARPUS PARKINSONI that I can scarcely regard them
as distinct.

PI. cxevi. CALAMITES INEQUALIS, L. and H.
Locality— Sandstone Quarry, East of Sheffield.
Florvzon.—Coal-Measures.

Remarks.—The specific character of this species 1s more
than probably dependent on imperfect preservation. I am
afraid this fossil must also be placed among the “imperfectly
known species.”

Pl. cxevii. NEUROPTERIS HETEROPHYLLA.
Locality —In shale worked for the ironstone it contains.
A little north of Whitley, on the coast of Northumberland.
Remarks.—This is the NEUROPTERIS GIGANTEA, Sternb,

Pl. exevi. LEPIDOSTROBUS PINASTER, L. and H.
Locality.—South Shields.
Horizon.—Coal-Measures.
ftemarks.—This species is founded on a small portion of
the bark of LEPIDOPHLOIOS ACEROSUS, L. and H. For additional
notes, see remarks under pl. vii.

Pl. exeix. LEPIDODENDRON ELEGANS.
Locality. —Felling Colliery.
Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures.

Paleozoic Species mentioned in “Fossil Flora.” O79

Remarks.—The original of this figure appears to be lost.
From the plate it is impossible to determine the species to
which it belongs, but if it is the same as that figured on pl.
CXVll., aS supposed by the authors, the plant is then
LEPIDODENDRON OPHIURUS, Brongt., in all probability.

Pl. ec. NEUROPTERIS HETEROPHYLLA.
Locality.— Jarrow Colhery.
Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures.

Pl. cecil. PECOPTERIS SERLII.

Locality.—Somerset Coal Field.
Remarks.—Now placed in the genus ALETHOPTERIS.

PI. cciu, LEPIDODENDRON STERNBERGIL

Locality— Jarrow Colliery.

Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures. Roof of Bensham Seam.

Remarks.—There is no data, either in the description or
figure of this fossil, by which it appears possible to refer the
specimen to any given species. The authors of the “ Fossil
Flora” identify it with their Lepidodendron Sternbergu, pl. iv.
If this identification is correct, then the specimen figured
here is Lepidodendron ophiurus, Bronet. I do not think,
however, that it is safe to refer definitely the original of
their plate ccili. to any given species.

Pl. cciv. SPHENOPTERIS HénincuHaust, L. and H. (not Brongt.).

Locality.—Felling Colliery (?).

femarks.—This is not the Sphenopteris Honinghaust,
Brongt. In my “Catalogue of Paleozoic Plants,” to distin-
guish Lindley and Hutton’s plant from Brongniart’s species,
I gave it the name of SPHENOPTERIS EFFUSA.1

There seems to be some doubt as to the accuracy of the
locality given by Lindley and Hutton.

Pl. cev. SIGILLARIA FLEXUOSA, L. and H.

Locality — Killingworth Colliery, near Newcastle.
Horizon.— Lower Coal-Measures.
ftemarks.—The type specimen is not well preserved, and

1 Page 75.
WON ae 2C

280 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socvrety.

the form of the leaf-scars indistinct. The specimen is un-
worthy of specific rank, not possessing the necessary
characters.

Pl. ccvi. LEPIDODENDRON OOCEPHALUM, L. and H.

Locality.a—Jarrow Colliery.

Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures.

Remarks.—The type of this species is not in the collection,
but being, as stated by the authors, “apparently the fructifi-
cation in an incipient state,’ the retention of the specific
name for this fossil can serve no practical purpose.

Pl. cevii. LEPIDODENDRON PLUMARIUM, L. and H.

Locality.—Jarrow Colliery.

Horizon.— Lower Coal- Measures.

Remarks.—I have little doubt that this species is founded
on a leafy branch of LEPIDODENDRON OPHIURUS, Brongt.

Pl. eexb. CARPOLITHES ALATA, L. and H.

Locality.—Jarrow Colliery.
Horizon—Lower Coal-Measures.
Remarks.—See notes under pl. lxxxvu.

Pl. cexi. ASTEROPHYLLITES RIGIDA.

Locality.—Jarrow Colliery.

Horizon.—Lower Coal-Measures.

Remarks.—The original specimen is apparently lost, and
the plate being admittedly inaccurate, no satisfactory position
can be assigned to the plant. Making the deductions from
the drawing indicated by the authors, it may possibly be the
Calamocladus equisetiformis, Schl. sp.

Pl. eexil. SPHENOPTERIS EXCELSA, L. and H.

Locality.— Newcastle Coal Field (?).

Remarks.—This may perhaps be identical to their
Sphenopteris obovata, but on this point I do not speak
positively.

It is extremely probable that their type came from the
Calciferous Sandstone Series of the neighbourhood of Edin-

Paleozoic Species mentioned in ‘Fossil Flora.” 381

burgh. Only on that horizon have I seen the species to
occur. The locality given by Lindley and Hutton for their
specimen is not thought to be correct.

Pl. ccxili. PEcoprerIs MARGINATA, L. and H. (not Brongt.).
Locality.—* Coal of the North of England.”
Ltemarks.—This is not the Pecopteris marginata, Brongt.,

as supposed by Lindley and Hutton. The authors say “a
fern of frequent occurrence in the coal of the north of
England.” I believe the- plant meant is the Mariopteris
(Pecopteris) muricata, Schl. sp., forma nervosa.

Pl. cexiv. SPHENOPTERIS CUNEOLATA, L. and H.
Locality.— Newcastle Coal Field.
ftemarks.—I\ have not seen any fern that could be identified
with this species. The type appears to be lost.

Pl. cexv. PECOPTERIS OREOPTERIDIS.

Locality.—W elbatch, near Shrewsbury.

Horizon.—Coal- Measures.

Ltemarks.—This is not the Pecopteris oreopteridia, Schl. sp.,
but most probably the Pecopreris MILront, Artis sp.

Pl. cexvi. CALAMITES APPROXIMATUS, L. and H. (not Brongt.).
Locality.—Camerton, Somerset.
Horizon.—hadstock Series. Upper Coal-Measures.
Remarks.— This is the CALAMITES CRUCIATUS, Sternb., var.
SENARIUS, Weiss.t The original is preserved in the University
Museum, Oxford.

Pl. cexvii. CYCLOPTERIS OBLATA, L. and H.

Localhity—tLittle Lever, near Bolton-le-Moor.

Horizon.—Coal-Measures.

Remarks.—The form of Cyclopteroid pinnules varies much
on the same frond, owing to their position on the rachis.
There is therefore no character in this species, as far as I
know, by which it can be distinguished from some of the
species already described in their work.

It can only be regarded as a Cyclopteroid pinnule of
N EUROPTERIS.

1 See Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. xxxiii., p. 340, fig. 1.

382 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Pl. cexviiil. BOTHRODENDRON PUNCTATUM, L. and H.

Locality.—Ketley, Shropshire.

Horizon.— Coal-Measures.

Remarks.—More probably the impression of one of the
large scars than the actual base of the cone.

Pl. cexx. CARPOLITHES SULCATA, L. and H.

Locality —Wardie Beach, near Newhaven, Midlothian.

Horizon.—Calciferous Sandstone Series.

Remarks.—These seeds are frequent in the shales of the
Calciferous Sandstone Series, in the neighbourhood of
Edinburgh.

This seed must not be confused with the Carpolithes sul-
catus, Sternb., which is an altogether different species.!

Pl. cexxi. TriGoNocarPUM Daweslil, L. and H.

Locality —Peel Stone Quarry, near Bolton.
Horizon.—Coal-Measures.

PI. cexxii, figs. 2 and 4. TrRIGONOCARPUM NOEGGERATHI.

Locality.Peel Quarry, near Bolton.

Horizon.—Coal-Measures.

Remarks.—This is the TRIGONOCARPUS PARKINSONI, brongt.,
not Sternbereg’s species.

Pl. cexxii, figs. 1 and 3. TRIGONOCARPUM OLIVZFORME,
L. and H.
Locality.— Peel Quarry, Bolton.
Remarks.—These are also referable to the TRIGONOCARPUS
PARKINSONI, Bronet.

Pl. eexxill. PECOPTERIS BUCKLANDIL

Locality—From the Neweastle Coal Field (?).

Remarks.—The original specimen is in the “ Hutton Col-
lection.” It has not come from the Newcastle Coal Field,
but more probably from Somersetshire. The fossil is clearly
a Newropteris, and I believe the NEUROPTERIS RARINERVIS,
Bunbury. The plate is therefore very misleading,

‘Sternb, Vers, ai., pl. ay fig. 8.

Paleozoic Species mentioned in “Fossil Flora.” 385

Pls. cexxiv., ccxxv. STERNBERGIA APPROXIMATA.

Localities—Somerset, Newcastle, and Halliwell Stone
Quarry, near Bolton.
Horizon.—Coal-Measures.

Pl. ecxxviia. ENDOGENITES STRIATA, L. and H.

Locality.— (2)

Remarks.—It is almost impossible to form any conjecture
of the true nature of such fossils as that here figured. One
point is however clear, that they are not the remains of
Endogens.

Pl. cexxviil. HALONIA REGULARIS, L. and H.

Localities—Halliwell Stone Quarry, near Bolton, and Peel
Stone Quarry, near Bolton.

Horizon.— Coal-Measures.

Remarks.—The fruiting branches of LEPIDOPHLOIOS.

Pl. cexxx. SPHENOPTERIS LINEARIS, L. and H. (not Sternb.).

Locality.—* In the North of England ” (?).
Remarks.—This is the upper portion of their SPHENOPTERIS
CRASSA.*

CLASSIFIED LIST OF THE SPECIES MENTIONED IN THE “ FOSSIL
FLORA” ACCORDING TO THE FOREGOING NOTES.

CALAMITES.

Group I. Calamitina, Weiss.

Calanutina verticillata, L. and H. sp.

Pl. exxxix. Calamites verticillatus, L. and H.
Calamitina varvans, Sternb. vars.

Pl. cxxx. Cyclocladia major, L. and H.

Pl. cxiv. Hippurites gigantea, L. and H.
Calametina varians, Sternb., var. Schiitzei, Stur.

Pl. Ixxvil. Calamites approximatus, L. and H.

1 See Proc. Roy. Phys. Soc., vol. vii., p. 238 (footnote), pl. v.

————o

384 — Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Group Il. Lucalamites, Weiss.
Calamites ramosus, Artis sp.
Pl. xv. Calamites nodosus, L. and H. (in part).
Calamites cruciatus, Sternb., var. senarius, Weiss.
Pl. cexvi. Calamites approximatus, L. and H.

Group IIL. Stylocalamites.
Calamites Suckowi, Brongt.
Pl. lxxviii. Calamites. (With roots.)
Pl. lxxix. Calamites canneformis, L. and H.
Pl. xcvi. Calamites. (The base of a stem.)

Calamocladus, Schimper.
Calamocladus grandis, Sternb. sp.
Pl. clxxii. Bechera grandis.
Calamocladus equisetiformis, Schl. sp.
Pls. exe., exci. Hippurites longifolia, L. and H.
(?) Pl. xix., fig. 2. Asterophyllites grandis, L. and H.
Calamocladus longifolius, Brongt. sp.
Pl. xvii. Asterophyllites longrfolva.
(?) Pl. exxxiil. Asterophyllites jubata, L. and H.

Paleostachya, Weiss.
Paleostachya sp.
Pl. xv. (in part). Calamites nodosus, L, and H.
Pl. xvi. Calamites nodosus, L. and H.

ANNULARIEA.

Annularia, Brongt.

Annularia stellata, Schl. sp.

Pl. exxiv. Asterophyllites equisetiformis.
Annularia radiata, Brongt.

Pl. xxv., fig. 1. Asterophyllites foliosa, L. and H.
Annularia galioides, L. and H. sp.

Pl. xxv., fig. 2. Asterophyllites galioides, L. and H.

Stachannularia, Weiss.
Stachannularia (?) Northumbriana, Kidston,
Pl. xiv. Asterophyllites tuberculata.
Pl. elxxx. Asterophyllites tuberculata,

Paleozoic Species mentioned vn “ Fossil Flora.” 289

SPHENOPHYLLES.

Sphenophyllum, Brongt.

Sphenophyllum cuneifolium, Sternb. sp.

Pl. xii. Sphenophyllum erosum, L. and H.
Sphenophyllum emarginatum, Brongt.

Pl. xxvii. Sphenophyllum Schlotheimii.

Pinnularia, L. and H.
Pinnularia gracilis, Artis sp.
Pl. cx. A fossil Aquatic Root.
Pinnularia capillacea, L. and H.
Pl. exi. Pinnularia capillacea, L. and H.

FILICACEA.

Calymmatotheca, Stur. »

Calymmatotheca affinis, L, and H. sp.

Pl. xlv. Sphenopteris affinis, L. and H.
Calymmatotheca bifida, L. and H.

Pl. hi. Sphenoptercs bifida, L. and H.

Sphenopteris, Brongt.

Sphenopteris obtusiloba, Brongt.

Pl. elvi. Sphenopteris latifolia.

Pl. clxxviu. Sphenopteris latifolia.

(2) Sphenopteris trifoliata, Artis sp.

Pl. xlvu. Sphenopteris dilatata, L. and H.
Sphenopteris polyphylla, L. and H.

Pl. exlvii. Sphenopteris polyphylla, L. and H.
Sphenopteris macilenta, L. and H.

Pl. cli. Sphenopteris macilenta, L. and H.
Sphenopteris Conwayt, L. and H.

Pl. cxlvi. Sphenopteris Conwayi, L. and H.
Sphenopteris adrantoides, L. and H.

Pl. cxv. Sphenopteris adiantoides, L. and H.
Sphenopteris cuneolata, L. and H.

Pl. cexiv. Sphenopteris cuneolata, L. and H.

(2) Sphenopteris obovata, L. and H.

Pl. cix. Sphenopteris obovata, L. and H.
Sphenopteris Hibberti, L. and H.

Pl. clxxvii. Sphenopteris Hibberti, L. and H.

386 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Sphenopteris excelsa, L. and H.
Pl. cexii. Sphenopteris excelsa, L. and H.
Sphenopteris crenata, L. and H.
Pl. xxxix. Sphenopteris crenata, L. and H.
Pls. c. and ci. Sphenopteris crenata, L. and H.
Pls. c. and ci. Schizopteris adnascens, L. and H.
Sphenopteris effusa, Kidston. .
Pl. cciv. Sphenopteris Hoeninghause.
Sphenopteris crassa, L. and H.
Pl. clx. Sphenopteris crassa, L. and H.
Pl. cexxx. Sphenopteris linearis.
Sphenopteris furcata, Brongt.
PL. elxxxi, Sphenopteris furcata.
Sphenopteris multifida, L. and H.
Pl. exxiii. Sphenopteris multifida, L. and H.

Rhacopteris, Schimper.

Rhacopteris dubia, L. and H. sp.
Pl. cl. Otopteris (?) dubia, L. and H.

Hremopteris, Schimper.
Hremopteris artennsiefolia, Stern. sp.
Pl. xlvi. Sphenopteris crithmifolia, L. and H.

Dactylotheca, Zeiller.
Dactylotheca plumosa, Artis sp.
Pl. xlviui. Sphenopteris caudata, L. and H.
Pl. evil. Pecopteris serra, L. and H.
Pl. cliv. Pecopteris dentata.
Dactylotheca plumosa, Artis, var. dentata, Brongt.
Pl. exxxvill. Sphenopteris caudata.

Pecopteris, Brongt.
Pecopteris Milton, Artis sp.

(?) Pl. clxxxiv. Pecopteris abbreviata.
(t) Pl. cexv. Pecopteris oreopteridia.

Mariopteris, Zeiller.
Marvopteris mwricata, Schl. sp.
Pl. exxii. Pecopteris laciniata, L. and H.
Mariopteris muricata, Schl. sp., forma nervosa, Brongt.
Pl. xciv. Pecopteris nervosa.
(t) Pl. cexiii, Pecopteris marginata.

Paleozoic Species mentioned in “ Fossil Flora.” 387

Alethopteris, Sternberg.

Alethopteris decurrens, Artis sp.
Pl. xxxviil. Pecopteris heterophylla, L. and H.
Pl. exlv. Pecopteris Mantelli.
Alethopteris lonchitica, Schl. sp.
Pl. clin. Pecopteris lonchitica.
Alethopteris Serlii, Brongt. sp.
Pl. ccii. Pecopteris Serlia.

Odontopteris, Brongt.

Odontopteris Lindleyana, Sternb.
Pl. xl. Odontopteris obtusa.

Neuropteris, Brongt.

Neuropteris heterophylla, Brongt.

P]. xxxvu. Pecopteris adiantordes, L. and H.

Pl. xlix. Newropteris Loshit.

Pl. 1. Newropteris Soretie.

Pl. cc. Neuropteris heterophylla.
Neuropteris gigantea, Sternb.

Pl. lu. Mewropteris gigantea.

Pl. exevu. Newropteris heterophylla.
Neuropteris acuminata, Schl. sp.

Pl. li. Neuropteris acuminata.
Neuropteris Scheuchzert, Hoffmann.

Pl. xii. Neuropteris cordata.

Caulopteris, L. and H.
Caulopteris prumeva, L. and H.
Pl. xl. Caulopteris primeva, L. and H.

Megaphyton, Artis.
Megaphyton approximatum, L. and H.
Pl. exvi. Megaphyton approximatum, L. and H.
Megaphyton frondosum, Artis.
Pl. exvul. Megaphyton distans, L. and H.

LYCOPODIACES.

Lepidodendron, Sternberg.
Lepidodendron ophiurus, Brongt.
Pl. iv. Lepidodendron Sternbergie.
Pl. vii, fig. 2. Lepidodendron dilatatum, L. and H.

Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Pl. ix. Lepidodendron gracile, L. and H.
Pl. exii. Lepidodendron Sternberqu.
(2) Pl. exviii. Lepidodendron elegans.
(2) Pl. excix. Lepidodendron elegans.
Pl. ecvii. Lepidodendron plumarium, L. and H.
Lepidodendron obovatum, Sternb.
Pl. xixbis. Lepidodendron obovatum.
Lepidodendron Harcouriw, Witham. /

Pls. xeviil., xcix. Lepidodendron Harcourti.

Lepidophlovos, Sternberg.

Lepidophloios acerosus, L. and H. sp.

Pl. vii, fig. 1. Lepidodendron acerosum, L. and H.

Pl. viii, figs. 1, 2. Lepedodendron (?) acerosum,

L. and H.

Pl. exeviil. Lepidostrobus pinaster, L. and H.
Lepidophlovos sp.

Pl. lxxxiv. Halonia (?) tortwosa, L. and H.

Pl. ecxxvili. Halonia regularis, L. and H.

() Pl. clxiv. Ponus anthracina, L. and H.

Lepidostrobus, Brongt.
Lepidostrobus variabilis, L. and H.
Pls. x., xi. Lepidostrobus variabilis, L. and H.
Pl. xxvi. Lepidostrobus ornatus, L. and H.
Pl.clxiii. Lepidostrobus ornatus, var. didymus, L. and H.
Lepidostrobus comosus, L. and H.
Pl. clxii. Lepidostrobus comosus, L. and H.

Lepidophyllum, Brongt.

Lepidophyllum majus, Brongt.

Pl. clii. Lepidophyllum trinerve, L. and H.
Lepidophyllum lanceolatum, L. and H.

Pl. vii, figs. 3, 4. Lepidophyllum lanceolatum,

L. and H.

Lepidophyllum intermedium, L. and H.

Pl. xliii., fig. 3. Lepedophyllum intermedium, L. and H.

Bothrodendron, L. and H.
Bothrodendron punctatum, L. and H.

Pls. Ixxx., Ixxxi. Bothrodendron punctatum, L. and H.
Pl. cexvili. Pothrodendron punctatum, L. and H.

Paleozoie Species mentioned in “Fossil Flora.” 389

Bothrodendron minutifolium, Boulay sp.
Pl. xii. Lepidodendron selaginoides.

Sigillaria, Brongt.

Sigillaria discophora, Kinig sp.

Pl. v. Ulodendron majus, L. and H.

Pl. vi. Ulodendron minus, L. and H.
Sigillaria tessellata, Brongt.

Pls. Ixxiii., xxiv. Yavularia tessellata.

(1) Segillaria elegans, Sternb. sp.

Pl. Ixxv. Favularia tessellata.
Sigillaria nodosa, Bowman,

Pl. excii. Yavularia nodosa.

Cyperites, L. and H.
Cyperites bicarinata, L. and H.
Pl. xliii., figs. 1, 2. Cyperites bicarinata, L. and H.

Stagmaria, Brongt.
Stigmaria ficoides, Sternb. sp.
Pls, xxxi.-vi. Stigmaria ficoides.
Pl. elxvi. Stigmaria ficoides.
Pl. exli. Caulopteris gracilis, L. and H.

CORDAITER

Cordaianthus, Grand’ Eury.
Cordaianthus Piteairnie, L. and H. sp.
Pl. Ixxvi. Cardiocarpon acutum, L. and H.

Pl. lxxxii. Antholithes Piteairnie, L. and H.
Stem of Cordattes.

Pl. xev. Knorria tawina, L, and H.
Artisia, Sternberg.
Artisia approximata, Brongt.

Pls. cexxiv., cexxv. Sternbergia approximata.

CYCADACES

Psygmophyllum, Schimper.
Psygmophyllum flabellatum, I. and H. sp.
Pls. xxviii, xxix. Voeggerathia Hlabellata, L. and H.

390 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

SEEDS.
Carpolithus, Sternberg.

Carpolithus sulcatus, L. and H.
Pl. cexx. Carpolithes sulcata, L. and H.
Trigonocarpus, Brongt.
Trigonocarpus Parkinsont, Brongt.
Pl. Ixxxvii. Carpolithes alata, L. and H.
Pl. exliiic. Tr2gonocarpum Noeggerathi.
Pl. exciiid, figs. 1-4. Trigonocarpum Noeggerathr.
(?) Pl. exeilic. Trigonocarpum oblongum, L. and H.
Pl. cexb. Carpolithes alata, L. and H.
Pl. cexxii., figs. 2and 4. Trigonocarpum Noeggerathi.
Pl. cexxii., figs. 1 and 3. Trigonocarpum oliveforme,
L. and H.
Trigonocarpus ovatus, L. and H.
Pl. exliia. Trigonocarpum ovatum, L. and H.
Trigonocarpus Dawesu, L. and H.
Pl. cexxi. T'rigonocarpum Dawesw, L. and H.

STEMS.
Cordaioxylon, Grand’ Eury.
Cordaioxylon Brandlingt, Witham sp.
Pl. i. Pinites Brandlnge.
Cedroxylon, Kraus.
Cedroxylon Withami, L. and H. sp.
Pls. xxiii., xxiv. Peuce Withami, L. and H.
Araucarioxylon, Kraus.
Araucarioxylon Witham, L. and H.
Pl. ii. Pinites Withami, L. and H.

Araucarioxylon medullaris, L. and H. sp.
Pl. iii. Pinites medullaris, L. and H.

SPECIES FOUNDED ON OR IDENTIFICATIONS MADE FROM IMPER-
FECT SPECIMENS, which do not afford the necessary
characters for subsequent identification, arranged in the
order in which they occur in the “ Fossil Flora.”

Pl. xvii. Asterophyllites grandis, L. and H. (not Sternb.).
Pl. xix., fig. 1. Bechera grandis.

Paleozore Species mentioned in “Fossil Flora.” out

Pl. xx. Calamites ; its phragma.

Pl. xxi. Calamites ; a crushed portion of a stem.
Pl. xxii, Calamites Mougeotii, L. and H. (not Brongt.).
Pl. liv. Sagillaria pachyderma.

Pl. lv. Sigillaria pachyderma,

Pl. lvi. Stgillaria alternans.

Pl. lvii. Segillaria reniformis.

Pl. lviii. Segillaria catenulata.

Pl. lix. Segellaria oculata.

Pl, Ixx. Sigillaria organum.

Pl. lxxi, Sigillaria reniformis.

PL. Ixxii. Sigillaria (?) monostigma, L. and H.
Pl. Ixxxiv. Pecopteris repanda, L. and H.

Pl. lxxxvi, Halonia gracilis, L. and H.

PI. xc. Cyclopteris obliqua, L. and H.

Pl. xcia. Newropteris ingens, L. and H.

Pl. xcib. Cyclopteris dilatata, L. and H.

Pl. xevii. Knorria Sellonii.

Pl. evili. Asterophyllites comosa, L. and H.

Pl. exii. Lepidodendron selaginoides.

Pl. exl. Caulopteris Phillipsti, L. and H.

Pl. exlub. Poacites cocoina, L. and H.

Pl. exlix. Sigillaria Murchisoni, L. and H.

Pl. elxi. Lepidodendron longifolium.

Pl. clxxiv. Neuropteris attenuata, L. and H.
Pl. clxxxii. Neuropteris heterophylla.

Pl. exevi. Calamites inequalis, L. and H.

Pl. eciii. Lepidodendron Sternbergii.

Pl. cev. Sigillaria flexuosa, L. and H.

Pl. cevi. Lepidodendron oocephalum, L. and H.
Pl. cexi. Asterophyllites rigida.

Pl. cexvul. Cyclopteris oblata, L. and H.

Pl. cexxiil. Pecopteris Bucklandii, L. and H. (not Brongt.).
Pl. cexxviia. Endogenites striata, L. and H.

392 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

XXXIII. Note on a Recent Exposure of a “Washout” of
Strata in New fedhall Quarry. By JAMES BENNIE, of
the Geological Survey of Scotland. [Plate XVI]

(Read 16th April 1890.)

When miners in pit-workings find a seam of coal ending
abruptly in loose sand and gravel, and passing through the
same find the coal on the same level as before, they say the
coal has been “ washed out” by a torrent of water, which has
left the sand and gravel in its place. The term ‘ washout ”
has been adopted by geologists when they find a hollow cut
out of the solid rocks, and filled in with boulder clay or the
rubbish of it, and the width and depth of the hollow is taken
as indicative of the volume of water and the time it took to
cut it out. I think this term admirably describes the appear-
ances in Redhall Quarry, to which I wish to direct attention.
In the section presently exposed, the sandstone rock is seen
to rise in a humph—flanked on either end by a hollow
occupied by 10 or 12 feet of bituminous shale, and over all
extends a mass of boulder clay 20 feet or so in thickness.
The shale on both the east and west ends of the humph has
been truncated, and the boulder clay comes down as it were
and rests upon the sandstone rock at either end of the
section. At the east end nothing remarkable is seen, but at
the west end this extraordinary phenomena is displayed.
Upon the edges of the truncated shale rest first 3 feet of
boulder clay ; then that boulder clay itself is truncated, and
against the edges of both—that is, the boulder clay and the
shale beneath—abuts a confused mass of what can only be
regarded as rubbish from the boulder clay, consisting as it
does of rough grit and gravel, shivers of shale, oblong slabs
of sandstone, and rounded boulders of trap-rock and sand-
stone. It is evident that this mass of rubbish and boulders
has been washed out of the boulder clay, which doubtless

originally extended over the truncated edges of the shale on
the west end of the section, as it still does over the east end,
by some violent torrent of water, and redeposited in the
hollow. Over this confused mass of rubbish, 20 feet or so of
boulder clay has been deposited, overwhelming the whole.

Recent Lxposure of a “Washout” of Strata. oo:

ww

The following is, I think, the sequence of events which are
represented in the west end of the section :—First, there
was the period of the lowest or first boulder clay, during
which the shale which originally lay upon the sandstone,
probably to a great thickness, was denuded till only the small
patches now visible were left; then over all—the humph of
sandstone and the two patches of shale at each end of it—
boulder clay the ground moraine of a great ice-sheet was
laid down to a thickness we have now no means of ascertain-
ing, but it was probably great. Second, through some change
of circumstances during this part of the glacial period, the ice
was partially lifted from off the land, and water in the form
of rapidly running rivers became possible, and one of these
must have run close by the west end of Redhall Quarry, and cut
into the boulder clay, and down through it to the sandstone,
exposing anew the truncated edges of the shale, washing
away the finer part of the boulder clay, and leaving the
rougher parts, the pebbles, the shivers of shale, the slabs of
sandstone, the rounded boulders of trap rock, all mixed
higelety-pigglety, as shown in the photograph. There is,
however, one regularity in this chaos. All the larger boulders
seen 7 sitw rest directly upon the slope of the truncated
edges of the shale. They took this position doubtless, though
sinking by their great weight through the eravelly rubbish
till they grounded upon the slope, and did not trundle to the
bottom of the slope, because though the gravel was quick as
a quicksand is, through being surcharged with water, their
weight was not sufficient to push the gravel aside, and over-
come at the same time the friction necessarily opposed to
their descent.

The moral to be drawn from the appearances presented by
this wash-out is that the glacial period was not simple and
uniform in its course, or short in its duration, but was varied
and even diverse in its circumstances and lengthened in its
time. Taking boulder clay to be moraine matter, the drift-
wrack of an ice-sheet then in the first boulder clay, here
represented by the denudation of the shale and the vestige of
boulder clay which still lies on the top of the slope, we have,
Jirst, a great ice-sheet overspreading the whole face of the

394 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socvety.

country, grinding it down and leaving its drift of mud and
stones behind it; then we have, secondly, water in its usual
forms and its familiar ways, of rapid rivers and quiet lakes,
cutting and carving and moulding the face of the country
anew after its own fashion; and then we have, thirdly, a
return of the ice-sheet with its concomitant drift of mud and
stones and boulders overwhelming everything.

These conclusions, drawn from the washout presently
exposed in New Redhall Quarry, are strenethened by
examples of the same phenomena which have been exhibited
in the adjoining quarries of Old Redhall and Hailes. One
of these is thus described by Dr Fleming in his “ Lithology
of Edinburgh,” page 57:—“<At the sandstone quarry of
Redhall a large deposit of stratified sand and gravel was
observed a few years ago [from 1857] resting on the
bituminous shale which covers the sandstone, and extending
a considerable space near to the place where the engine has
been since erected. The relation of this mass of sand and
eravel could not be determined to the north and west
though evidently resting in a hollow, but on the south it was
observed reposing on the sandstone for several yards, and
covered by the boulder clay which rested on the rock in other
parts of the quarry. The clay seems to have flowed over it
quietly, or to have been deposited on it without occasioning
any particular contortions in the sand.” ‘This should perhaps
be properly called a washin rather than a washout, yet it
is probably but a part of the same phenomena, and had it
been followed somewhat farther to the north, it might have
been connected with the New Redhall washout described in
this note. Dr Fleming also mentions that “in Hailes
Quarry, to the westward, a deposit of sand occurred under
boulder clay, and in a trough of the rock commingled with
some slips of the clay and peat which rendered the pheno-
mena somewhat obscure.”

Since Dr Fleming’s time we have had more emphatic
washouts exposed than he noticed. One of these was
described at a meeting of the Edinburgh Geological Society,
14th November 1864, as reported in the Geological Magazine,
January 1865, p.38. “Dr Page read a paper on the washout

Recent Exposure of a “Washout” of Strata. a9

Or

at Hailes Quarry, where the superincumbent shales and
underlying sandstone had been cut through to a depth of
60 feet, and to a width varying from 12 to 14 feet at the
surface, but gradually narrowing to only 2 or 3 feet at
bottom. It was a wedge-shaped gorge, smooth and polished
on the sides by ice and water action, and now filled with clay
and boulders, the produce of the glacial period during which
the washout had been excavated.” This washout, and others
to which he alludes, Dr Page says were in fact old river
courses of the country before and perhaps during part of the
glacial period.

I remember of seeing in 1869 or 1870 a cut out of the
sandstone exposed in the southern face of Hailes Quarry,
which had been filled in with boulder clay, and that to keep the
stones in it from falling and hurting the men working below,
a wall of masonry was built against it. The size of the cut
might be 20 or 30 feet in depth and 10 or 12 in width. It
was not wedge-shaped, but square at the bottom. It might,
however, be a portion of that described by Dr Page, in which
the wedge form had disappeared, as the sandstone was
quarried farther back from what it was in 1864. I have been
lately told by one of the foremen of Hailes Quarry that some
years ago they came upon a tunnel in the rock, formed by
water as they supposed, because in the bottom of it there
were pot-holes or whirlpools filled with stones, some of which
were large enough to be called boulders. At present (1890)
there isa space walled up same as the one I saw in 1869-70,
and the layers of sandstone above are disturbed as if they
had fallen into a hollow. This is probably the west end of
the tunnel. The whole of these washouts might be portions
of the river, I supposed, to account for the sand and gravel
bed with boulders under Kingsknowe Farm House, as
described in the paper on the “Ancient Lakes of Edin-
burgh,” page 135 of this volume.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE.

The Plate exhibits the washout in almost its whole extent, 30 to 40 feet.
Lowest bed seen is the sandstone in progress of quarrying. The plane on
which the split boulder rests is the surface of the sandstone after the shale

VOL. X. 2D

3)

396 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socvety.

has been removed, ‘The solid mass against which the long crowbar stands
is the shale which overlies the sandstone; about 10 feet is seen on the right,
which dwindles down to nothing, as shown by the row of boulders along the
slope coming down till they rest on the sandstone. Above and beyond the
boulders is seen the rubbish of the washout, very thin on the right, but
increasing to 10 feet or more on the left. In the upper part is shown the second
boulder clay, which extends about twice as much farther upwards than is
shown in the Plate.

XXXIV. Note on Pericheta indica, an Exotic Species of
Harthworm living in Hothouses in Kirkeudbrightshire.
By Robert SERVICE, Esq.

(Read 16th April 1890.)

Some months ago Mr Charles Fergusson, gardener at Cally
House in this county, incidentally mentioned in the course of
conversation, that in the hothouses under his charge there
was an abundance of a strange earthworm that he had never
seen anywhere else. He sent me a few specimens after-
wards, and when these arrived, I at once remembered that I
had seen the same species before, but where or when I could
not recollect. Suspecting it must have been in some of our
own hothouses, I instituted a diligent search, and after con-
siderable hunting discovered plenty of the same species in a
bed composed of cocoanut-fibre refuse and loam in which
plants were growing. The men who are daily working
amongst the plants declared that these worms had been there
for years ; but to show (I suppose) that they knew something
about evolution, they added that the worms were only
common earthworms that had been brought in from the
outer world with soil, and that the extra heat and moisture
had metamorphosed them into the hard, wiry, agile creatures
they prove to be when handled!

On sending some of them to Mr F. E. Beddard, that gentle-
man kindly informed me they belonged to “an unidentified
species of Pericheta, a genus of earthworms generally
distributed in the tropics of both hemispheres,” and that
they had doubtless reached this country amongst the roots of
imported plants. Since then Mr Beddard, I observe, has

Note on Pericheeta indica. 397.

exhibited the worms at a meeting of the Zoological Society,
under the name of P. indica.

The house I find these worms in is a plant stove, where
the temperature seldom falls lower than 65°, and the place
where they are most plentiful is in a bed of soil in which
plants are growing. Underneath this bed are hot-water
pipes, so that the soil is always at a higher average
temperature than the air of the house, Here the worms
seem to thrive very well, as they are met with in all stages.
Their casts appear to be quite distinctive, being of finer
mould—if one may use the term—and the casts are thrown
farther from the mouth of the boring than is the case with
other worms. They are extremely quick in their movements,
and when handled wriggle more after the manner of an eel
or reptile than what we are familiar with in any of our
indigenous species.

Looking to the fact that there has been no communication
between Cally and our place such as would have conveyed
earthworms, and that each place, so to speak, has received
these worms independently, there can be little doubt they
are of general distribution in Britain. A general search in
hothouses kept at high temperatures would, I am confident,
confirm this opinion.

Mr Fergusson sends me the following note of his experience
with these worms at Cally House :—“I first noticed these
worms shortly after I came here in the summer of 1881
in our stoves, my attention being first drawn to them by
their very lively movements when thrown out of the flower-
pots. I knew at once they were something rare, as I had
never come across them before, though I had a long experi-
ence in different parts of the three kingdoms. I showed
them to all my naturalist friends as curiosities, but could get
no information about them. Last year I sent some of them
to my friend Mr Campbell, of Kelvingrove Museum, but they
were new to him, and he sent some to the British Museum,
where they appeared to be also unknown. I am very
pleased to get them identified now. They are found in all
our houses where we keep up a temperature of 60°, but never
in any of the cooler houses; and though flower-pots in which

598 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

these worms are are constantly being removed into other
cooler houses for a time, yet after a little the worms die out
or disappear in the lower temperature. The hotter the house,
the livelier they always are; in the house where there is a
large bed of soil, with a tank of hot water under, they are
extra lively. They are far worse than the common earth-
worms for working in flower-pots, choking up the drainage,
and they seem to ramble about a great deal at night. I have
no doubt they were first introduced into the houses here in
the soil amongst the roots of orchids, or other foreign plants.
They are very numerous, but very difficult to capture, as they
are so quick in their movements. Whenever a pot is turned
out, they at once retreat into the centre of the ball of earth,
and cannot be got out without shaking out the roots of the
plant.”

XXXV. A Revised List of British Echinoidea! By WILLIAM
E. Hoyie, M.A. (Oxon.), F.R.S.E., Keeper of the Man-
chester Museum.

(Read 20th March 1889.)

The British collector has no memoir to which he can
turn for the identification of the sea-urchins he may obtain
more recent than the classic monograph of Edward Forbes,
published forty-eight years ago. The admirable revision of
the Echinodermata, drawn up in 1865 by the Rev. Canon
Norman, unfortunately stopped short of the Echinoidea, and
his numerous engagements, and the continually increasing
demands upon his time made by the charge of his invaluable
collection, have hitherto prevented him from completing the
work.

The present paper owes its existence to a combination of
circumstances. The Fellows of this Society will remember
that in 1883 I contributed to our Proceedings (vol. vill.) a

1 This catalogue was drawn up now more than a year ago, but various
circumstances have combined to retard its appearance. This delay has been
in several respects fortunate, and not least so in that it has made it possible
to utilise Prof. Martin Duncan’s ‘‘ Revision of the Echinoidea” (Journ. Linn.
Soc., xxiii, 1889).—W. E. H., June 11, 1890,

A Revised List of British Echinoidea. 399

“Revised List of British Ophiuroidea;” and Mr A. Somer-
ville, F.L.S., the energetic secretary of the Glasgow Natural
History Society, suggested that I should continue the work
which I then commenced, and kindly offered to communicate
the paper to his society.

I felt, however, that as the Royal Physical Society had
done me the honour of publishing my first work in this
direction, any further papers I might be able to write upon
the same subject ought in the first instance to be offered to
it. At the time when Mr Somerville made his suggestion,
I had just completed a series of dredgings in the Clyde sea
area, and had thus collected a considerable number of some
of our common forms; and, furthermore, I was spending some
months in London, and was thus enabled to enjoy the
inestimable privilege of being able to consult the collections
and libraries of the British Museum; whilst, to crown all, my
friend Dr Norman generously gave me access to the materials
which he had been amassing for his own projected work upon
the group.

In drawing up the present list I have naturally taken
Forbes’s handbook as a starting-point, and have endeavoured
to add to it all those species which have since been recorded
as British, and to bring the nomenclature into harmony with
the principles now generally adopted. For this latter work
the “ Revision of the Echini,” by Alexander Agassiz, is now
the standard. He has treated the synonymy so exhaustively
that to give it over again would simply be to reprint selec-
tions from his work, and would add nothing to the practical
utility of such a catalogue as the present. JI have therefore
contented myself with a reference to the original creation of
each species, and to such other authorities as are of essential
service in its identification.

The attempt has also been made to give a brief diagnosis
of each species, such as will enable the collector to identify it
on the spot; but these notes will not stand in the place of
more complete descriptions, still less can they be appealed to
as decisive in critical cases, when one of the first authorities
upon the group writes as follows :—“It seems almost hope-
less to attempt to distinguish the species of Zehinus known

400 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

as FE. elegans, E. norvegicus, H. melo, and FE. Flemingu.”+ It
will be obvious that a short differential diagnosis can only
be regarded as of provisional value, and specimens will often
have to be reserved for leisurely discrimination. Still it is
believed that the characters here given will prove satisfac-
tory in the majority of cases, so long as only British forms
are taken into consideration.

With regard to distribution, I have given the British locali-
ties pretty fully, with the names of the authors who are
responsible for them. The exact references may be obtained
from the bibliography. The British area has been accepted
as defined by Dr Norman? in his recent paper on that sub-
ject. It thus includes most of the deep water investigated by
H.M.S. “ Porcupine” and other vessels, as well as the Channel
Islands, though I am quite disposed to agree with those who
maintain that from a zoo-geographical standpoint they belong
rather to France than to England. The extra-British range
of each form is indicated generally, and in giving this I have
relied mainly upon the following authors :—Coast of the
United States, Verrill; Greenland and Denmark, Liitken ;
Norway and Sweden, Sars and Diiben and Koren; France,
Cailliaud and Fischer; Mediterranean, Ludwig and Carus ; in
addition to the comprehensive “ Revision” and “ Challenger”
Report of Agassiz.

The present catalogue contains twenty-nine species as
against twelve mentioned by Forbes, but, for reasons which
will be given immediately, the evidence for the occurrence
of some of these in British waters is so slight, that they
must be omitted from consideration in all comparative dis-
cussions.

The list of species arranged systematically, according to
the classification of Prof. Martin Duncan, is as follows :—

Order I. CIDAROIDA,
Fam. I. Ciparip&.
1. Cidaris (Dorocidaris) papillata.

2. » (Porocidaris) purpurata.

1 Agassiz, ‘‘ Blake” Echini, Mem. Mus. Comp. Zool., x,, p. 39.
2 Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., (6) v., p. 345, 1890.

A Revised List of British Echinoidea. 401

Order IT. DIADEMATOIDA.

Fam. II. Ecuinoruuriip”@.

3. Phormosoma placenta.

4, ws Uranus.

5, Asthenosoma hystrix.

6. 4 Jenestratum.

Fam. III. Ecutnometripz.

7. Strongylocentrotus lividus.
8. if dribachiensis.
9. Spherechinus granularis.

Fam, IV. EcuInipa@.

10. Hehinus esculentus.

sale ns acutus.

ze Ee melo.

13. + elegans.

14, - macrostoma.
15. 3 nNOrvegueus.
16. iy miliaris.

Order III. CLYPEASTROIDA.

Fam. V. FIBULARIID.

17. Eehinocyamus pusillus.

Fam. VI. ScuTEeLLip2.

18. Arachnoides placenta.

Order IV. SPATANGOIDA.

Fam. VII. CassIDULID&.
19. Neolampas rostellata.

Fam. VIII. Sparaneip&.
20. Schizaster fragilis.
21. Brissopsis lyrvfera.
22. Spatangus purpureus,

23. ie Raschi.
94, Echinocardium cordatum.
OH. - pennatifidum.

26. “. Jlavescens,

A02 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Fam. 1X. PourtALeEsiIID&.

é
27. Pourtalesia nuranda.
28. i Jeffreys.
29. ie phyale.

The following species should, I think, be excluded from
the list :—

1. Arachnoides placenta.

This rests only upon a single specimen, said to have been
obtained by Jameson, in very deep water, off the Island
of Foula, Shetland; for the rest the species (and indeed
the whole genus) is confined to the tropical and south
temperate regions of the old world. In default of further
evidence, it is not unreasonable to assume that some mistake
must have occurred with reference to Jameson’s example.

2. Pourtalesia miranda.

Considerable uncertainty hangs about the locality “ Shet-
land Channel” given by Agassiz for this species. The
station to which he refers? (“off Rockall, 1215 fathoms”) is
the one at which Gwyn Jeffreys dredged the two specimens
which presented characters “too undefined for satisfactory
definition,’ but which became the types of Pourtalesia
phyale.?

Of the species just enumerated, the following thirteen are
also found in Norwegian waters :—

Cidaris papillata. Echinocyamus pusillus,
Strongylocentrotus drébachiensis. Schizaster fragilis.
Echinus esculentus. Brissopsis lyrifera.
59 CUAL. Spatangus purpureus.
», elegans. | Echinocardiwm cordatum.
»» norvegicus. oe Jlavescens.
a miliaris,

The following eleven are also common to the Mediter-
ranean :—

Cidaris papillata. Echinocyamus pusillus.
Strongylocentrotus lividus. Brissopsis lyrifera.
Spherechinus granularis, Spatangus purpureus,
Echinus acutus. Echinocardium cordatum.
melo, a Jlavescens.

miliaris.

p]

1 Rey. Echin., p. 561. = “* Porcupine” Echin., p. 749.

A Revised List of British Echinoidea. 403

. All these except Echinus melo, Strongylocentrotus lividus,
and Spherechinus granularis are also in the preceding list,
so that we may conclude that one great contingent of the
British Echinoid fauna is made up of forms extending from
Norway round to the Mediterranean.

Some of them have a still more extended distribution, as, for
example, Cidaris papillata, which extends across the Atlantic
and even to the Philippines; Zchinus acutus, reported from
the United States, Ascension, and the Kermadec Islands;
Strongylocentrotus drdbachiensis, recorded from Greenland ;
and Hehinocardium pennatifidum, from the West Indies.

Another section of this fauna is derived from the deep
water of the Atlantic, and would be excluded by those who
contend that the British area should be limited by the
hundred fathom line. Such forms are—

Cidaris purpurata. Neolumpas rostellata.
Phormosoma placenta. Spatangus Raschi.
Be Uranus. Pourtalesia miranda.
Asthenosoma hystrix. * Jeffreysit.
.. Senestratum. o phyale.
Echinus microstom«a.

CIDAROIDA,

Mouth and anus central and opposite, the latter within the
dorso-central system; internal branchiz only; jaws present,
perignathic girdle discontinuous; both ambulacral and _ inter-
ambulacral plates continued beyond the peristome to the true
mouth.

CIDARID.
1. Cidaris, Klein.
Body spheroidal ; peristome and periproct subequal ; primary
tubercles very large and perforated ; spines of various forms.

Subgenus Dorocidaris, Agassiz.

1869. Dorocidaris, Agassiz, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., i., p. 253.

Ambulacral median area narrow; primary tubercles without
crenulations, surrounded by a deeply-sunk scrobicular area, formed
of close granulations ; spines very long, often twice the diameter
of the body; grooved, the ridges often consisting of rows of
tubercles ; pores disconnected,

404 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

1. Cidaris papillata, Leske.

1778. Cidaris papillata, Leske, Addit. ad Klein Nat. Disp. Echin.,
p.'61, pl. xxxix:, fig. 2.
1834. i, hystrix, Blainville, Man. d’Actinol., p. 231, pl. xxbis,
fig. 5.
LSA 1 95 3 Forbes, Brit. Starf., p. 146, cut.
18453" y5 borealis, Diiben & Koren, Ofvers. k. Vet. Akad. Férh.
for 1844, p. 114.
1872. Dorocidaris papillata, Agassiz, Rev. Echin., p. 105.
1874. Cidaris papillata, Wyv. Thomson, ‘‘ Porcupine”’ Echin., Phil.
Trans:, p. 722, pl. tix., figs. 1-13.
1874. ig. bfinis, ld: op, cit. ap. 420; pl. 1x.
1874. ,, papillata, Lovén, Etudes, pl. xx., figs. 168, 169
~ (peristome).
1884. Dorocidaris papillata, Carus, Prodr. faun. Medit., p. 98.

Diagnosis.

Oblate spheroidal; ambulacra continuous from anal to oral
regions ; spiniferous tubercles, one in each interambulacral plate,
none in the ambulacral ; spines of several forms, primaries with
ridges composed of tubercles.

Distribution.

British Seas.--Shetland (Forses). N.-W. of Lewis, warm area,
“Lightning” Exp., Station 13, 206 fms. (Tomson, 1, p. 76).
“Knight Errant” Exp., St. 1, 305 fms. (Acassiz, 4). Off Unst,
110-170 fms. (Norman, 3). Off Fair L, 70 fms. (PEarcey). Cape
Wrath, 280 fms. (“ Porcupine” Exp., fide Acassiz, 2). Off St
Kilda, 100 fms. (Hoytz, 1). W. of Ireland, “ Porcupine” Exp.
(1869), St. 17, 1230 fms. (Tomson, 1, p. 89). Forty miles off
Valentia, 110 fms. (CARPENTER, etc., p. 417). S. of Ireland,
“Porcupine” Exp. (1870), St. 3, 690 fms. (THomsoy, 1, p. 181).
Coast of Kerry (Brit. Mus.). 8.-W. Ireland, 150-315 fms.
(Bett, 3). 8. of Ireland, 200-400 fms. (Brett, 4).

Other Localities.—Norway (Sars; AGassiz, 2; Copenhagen
Mus.). Cape Sagres, 165 fms. (‘‘ Porcupine” Exp., fide AGassiz, 2).
Mediterranean (THomson, 2; Lupwie; Carus; Brit. Mus.). Red
Sea, St Helena, St Paul’s Rocks, 70-80 fms., West Indies, 390
fms. (Brit. Mus.). Florida Gulf Stream, 40-150 fms, (PouRTALEs,
fide Acassiz, 2). Florida to lat, 32° N., 100-842 fms. (AGass1Zz, 5).
La Plata, Philippines (Agassiz, 5). Canary Is., 70 fms. Off
Monte Video, “ Challenger,” St. 320, 600 fms. Philippine Is.,
“ Challenger,” Sts. 204 and 210, 100 and 375 fms, (Acass1z, 3).

A fevised List of British Echinoidea. 405

Subgenus Porocidaris, Desor.
1854, Porocidaris, Desor, Synops. Echin. foss., p. 46.
1874, as Wyv. Thomson, ‘‘Porcupine” Echin., Phil. Trans.,
p. 726.
‘“Ambulacra broad and straight; pores wide apart, united by
a groove; primary interradial tubercles with small. . . crenu-
lated mamelons.” Five diamond-shaped openings round the anal
region of the test, filled with chitinous membrane, through which
pass the oviducts ; “‘some spines flattened, with strongly serrated
edges.”

2. Cidaris purpurata (Wyville Thomson).

1872. Porocidaris purpurata, Agassiz, Rey. Echin., pp. 152, 395,
pl. i, figs. 37-41; pl. xxiv., fig. 11.

1873. > 7 Wyv. Thomson, Depths of the Sea,
p. 101.

1874. ve os Wyv. Thomson, ‘‘ Porcupine” Echin.,
Phil. Trans., p. 725, pl. lix., figs. 14,
ts pl ixt.

Diagnosis.

Buccal membrane with imbricated scales, ten double rows of
ambulacral, perforated up to the edge of the mouth, with double
pores, in continuation of the pore-areas of the corona; interambu-
lacral regions with imperforate scales.

I have not seen a specimen of this species.

Distribution.

British Seas.—N.-W. of Lewis, warm area, “ Porcupine” Exp.
(1869), Station 47, 542 fms, (THomson, 1, 2). “ Knight Errant”
Exp., St. 7, 530 fms. (Acassiz, 4).

Other Localities. —N one recorded.

DIADEMATOIDA.

EcHINOTHURIID&, Wyville Thomson.

Test thin and flexible; plates overlapping, ambulacral, and
interambulacral in opposite directions ; ambulacral pores trige-
minal, one pair penetrates the ambulacral plate itself, the others
two special accessory plates.

2. Phormosoma, Wyville Thomson.

1874. Phormosoma, Wyv. Thomson, ‘‘ Porcupine” Echin., Phil. Trans.,
p. 732.

406

Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

‘‘ Plates of the corona only slightly overlapping, and forming a
continuous shell without membranous interspaces. Ambulacral
and interambulacral areas of the apical surface of the test with
irregular rows of primary tubercles with small areole. Oral
surface of the test different in character from the apical, with the
areole. of the primary spines large and deep, occupying a large
portion of the surface both of the interambulacral and of the
ambulacral plates” (Wyville Thomson).

3. Phormosoma placenta, Wyville Thomson.

1874. Phormosoma placenta, Wyv. Thomson, ‘‘ Porcupine” Echin.,

1883.

Phil. Trans., p: 745, pl. Ixii. ; plolaames
figs. 1-8.

Agassiz, ‘‘ Blake” Echini, Mem. Mus
Comp.sZool., x.;p. s0espl. x15; plow,
figs. 3-19.

Bell, Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., (6) iv.,
pp. 486-438.

9? >

9? 39

Diagnosis.

This species is remarkable for the large tubercles of the actinal
surface, occupying the greater part of the ambulacral and inter-

ambulacral plates.

Distribution.

British Seas.—N.-W. of Lewis, warm area, “Porcupine” (1869),
St. 90, 458 fms. (THomson, 1, 2). “ Knight Errant,” St. 4, 555
fms. ; St. 7, 530 fms. (Acassiz, 4). West of Scotland and Ireland,
500-800 fms. (THomson, 2). S.-W. Coast of Ireland, 1000 fms.

(BELL, 3).

Other Localities.—-Coast of U.S.A., 458-1309 fms. (VERRILL).
Lesser Antilles, 154-1242 fms. (AGassiz, 5).

1877.

1880.
1881.

1883.

4. Phormosoma uranus, Wyville Thomson.

Phormosoma uranus, Wyv. Thomson, The Voyage of the
‘** Challenger”; The Atlantic, i., p. 146,
figs. 33, 34.

Petersii, Agassiz, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., viii.,
p. 76.

uranus, Agassiz, ‘‘ Challenger” Echin., p. 103,

49

pl. xvilic, fig. 12.
Agassiz, ‘‘ Blake” Echini, Mem. Mus.
Comp. Zool., x., p, 35, pls. x., xi.

A Revised List of British Echinoidea. 407

Diagnosis.
The test is of extreme tenuity ; the primary ambulacral plates ;
are fully as high as the corresponding interambulacral plates ;
there is but little difference between the upper and lower surfaces
of the test. “The large tubercles are not closely packed, but
irregularly arranged and limited to a comparatively narrow edge
of the abactinal surface, immediately adjoining the ambitus”
(Agassiz, 3,3p. 103).
Distribution
British Seas.—N.-W. of Lewis, warm area, “ Knight Errant,”
St. 4, 555 fms. (Acassiz, 4).
_ Other Localities.—Off Cape St Vincent, “ Challenger,” St. VL,
1525 fms. Off the Azores, St. 78, 1000 fms. (Acassiz, 3). Coast
of U.S.A., 568-1080 fms. (VERRILL). Lesser Antilles, 399-1224
fms. (AGassIZ, 5).

3. Asthenosoma, Grube.

1867. Asthenosoma, Grube, Jahresb. Schles. Ges. vaterl. Cult., p. 42.
1870. Calveria, Wyv. Thomson, in Carpenter, etc., Rep. ‘‘ Porcupine’
Exp., Proc. Roy. Soc., xviil., p. 445.

>

Test flexible, depressed ; ambulacral and interambulacral areas
composed of narrow: plates, which are expanded and overlap
extensively ; oral and apical surfaces of test not different in
character ; calcareous deposit -limited to centre of plates, which
are thus membranous at the edges; each area has a principal
vertical row of large perforate tubercles; rest of plate occupied
by similar smaller tubercles in an irregular horizontal line.

5. Asthenosoma hystrix (Wyville Thomson), Agassiz.

1870. Calveria hystriz, Wyv. Thomson, in Carpenter, etc., Rep.
** Porcupine” Exp., Proc. Roy. Soc., xviii.,
p. 445.

1872. Athenosoma hystrix, Agassiz, Kev. Echin., pp. 98, 273, pl. iie,

figs. 1-5.

1874. Calveria hystrix, Wyv. Thomson, ‘‘ Porcupine” Echin., Phil.
Trans., p. 738, pls. Ixiv., Ixv.

1883. a 58 Agassiz, ‘* Blake” Echin., Mem. Mus. Comp.
Zool,,.x.; p; 29, pls. xiil., xiv,

Diagnosis.
The characters distinguishing this species from the only other

known British form are given below. I have only seen specimens
of the present one.

408 Proceedings of the Loyal Physical Society.

Distribution.

British Seas.—Between Rockall and Rona, 547 fms. (“ Poreu-
pine” Exp., fide Acassiz, 2). 80 miles N.-W. of the Butt of
Lewis, warm area, ‘ Porcupine” (1869), St. 89, 445 fms.
(THomson, 1). West coasts of Scotland and Ireland (THomson, 2).

Other Localities.—Coast of Spain and Portugal (‘‘ Porcupine ”
Exp., fide Acassiz, 2). Straits of Florida, 138 fms, (Acassiz, 2).
West Indies, 103-373 fms. (Acasstz, 5).

6. Asthenosoma fenestratum (Wyville Thomson), Agassiz.

1874. Calveria fenestrata, Wyv. Thomson, ‘‘ Porcupine” Echin., Phil.
Traus., p. (41, pl. Ixii., figs. 9, 9a 2 ple
Ixvi. and Ixvii.

1881. Asthenosoma fenestratum, Agassiz, ‘‘Challenger” Echin., p. 210.

Diagnosis.

The overlapping portions of the plates are wider than in 4A,
hystrix, but the strap-shaped portions are narrower, leaving wide
membranous fenestrz between them ; primary tubercles fewer and
more remote than in C. hystrix; large pedicellarize with four
branches, each bearing a curiously curved disc,

Distribution.
British Seas.—Off Rockall + (THomson, 2).
Other Localities.—Coast of Portugal (THomson, 2). Off Cape
Finisterre, ‘‘ Porcupine” (1870), St. 10, 81 fms. (THomson, 1).

ECHINOMETRIDA&, Gray.
Test firm, regular ; tubercles imperforate ; ambulacral pores in
four or more pairs ; branchie oral.

4. Strongylocentrotus, Brandt.
1835, Strongylocentrotus, Brandt, Prodr, descr. anim. Mertens. obs., i.,
p. 63.

Test spheroidal, or subpentagonal depressed ; tubercles non-
crenulate, in primary and secondary vertical rows; pores in
curves of four or five (sometimes, near the mouth, three) pairs ;
perignathic girdle with high ridges and a tall arch.

7. Strongylocentrotus drobachiensis (O. F. Miller), Agassiz,

1776. Echinus Drobachiensis, O. F. Miller, Zool. Dan. Prodr., p, 285.
S28. tes subangularis, Fleming, Brit. Anim., p. 479.

1 Agassiz (5) gives the depth as 445 fms., which would correspond to St. 89
of the ‘* Porcupine” cruise of 1869.

A fevised List of British Echinoidea. 409

1841. Echinus neglectus, Forbes, Brit. Starf., p. 172, cut.
1846. Toxopneustes Drobachensis, Agassiz & Desor, Catal. raisonn.,
Ann. Sci. Nat., (3) vi, p. 367.
1848. Echinometra Drébachensis, Gray, Brit. Rad., p. 4.
1868. Yoxopneustes pictus, Norman, Last Rep. Shetland Dredgings,
p. 314.

1872. Strongylocentrotus Dribachiensis, Agassiz, Rev. Echin., pp. 162,
2 ba. Dio Ava, figsy 2. on G+
pl. ova, 1S. 9 so ple: ame
XX1v., figs. 15-24 ; pl, xxvil.,
figs. 1-5; pl. xxxvili., figs.
Tis, oA:

1874. Z'oxopneustes pictus, Lovén, Etudes, pl. x., figs. 84, 85 (peri-

stome, spheridium); pl. xvii. (test) ;
pl. xxi., figs. 171-176 (apex).

1883. ce ne Loven, Pourtalesia, pl. xi., figs. 112-115
(pedicel).
Diagnosis.

Test somewhat pentagonal ; five pairs of pores in each set from
the mouth to the anus; four or five primary spines on each inter-
ambulacral plate, but little larger than the secondaries.

Distribution.

British Seas.—Off Lerwick, 10 fms; off Scalloway ; off Strom-
ness (ForBgEs, 1). Shetland, 4 fms. (ForBrEs, 2). Bressay Sound
(Norman, 3). Sandwich Bay (Brit. Mus.). 8.-W. of Shetland,
6-75 fms. (PEarcEy). N. and W. of Scotland, 125-640 fms.
(THomson, 1). Orkneys, 7 fms. (ForBes, 2). Off Montrose,
53 fms. (BELL, 1). St Andrews (M‘Intosu). Firth of Forth,
30 fms. (Lestig and Herpman). Holy Isle (Coll. Normay) ;
Northumberland and Durham (Coll. Norman; Honee), Off
Coquet I., 25-30 fms. (Brapy). North Sea (Brit. Mus.). Fal-
mouth (Cocks).

Other Localitves.—Arctic Regions (Brit. Mus.). Spitzbergen,
Kara Sea, Iceland (Copenhagen Mus.). Greenland (Brit. Mus. ;
Copenhagen Mus. ; Coll. Norman). Norway (Sars; Griec; Copen-
hagen Mus. ; Brit. Mus. ; Coll, Norman). Denmark (Coll. Norman).
Roscoff (GruBeE). Labrador (Brit. Mus.; Copenhagen Mus.). East
Coast of U.S.A. (Copenhagen Mus.; Manchester Mus. ; Coll.
Norman); 1-640 fms. (VERRILL); 53 fms. (Acassiz,5), Off Halifax,
Nova Scotia, “ Challenger,” Sts. 48 and 49, 51 and 83 fms,
(Acassi1Z, 3). North Pacific (Acassrz, 5).

410 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

8. Strongylocentrotus lividus (Lamarck), Agassiz.

1816. Echinus lividus, Lamarck, Hist. anim. s. vert., ili., p. 50.

‘ Milne Edwards, in Cuvier, Regne anim.,
Zooph., pl. xi., figs. 2-4.
Leah 65 Forbes, Brit. Starf., p. 167, cut.
Echinus lithophagus, Leach, Phil. Mag., xxxix., p. 100 (fide
Agassiz).

1872. Strongylocentrotus lividus, Agassiz, Rev. Echin., pp. 164, 446,
pl. vb; fig. 3; pl. xxiv., fie: 25,
1884. ~ ae Carus, Prodr. faun. Medit., p. 99.

Diagnosis.

Test circular ; pores in each set diminishing towards the mouth
to four, and lastly three, pairs ; primary spines decidedly larger
than the secondary; spines usually purple, but varying from olive
to yellow.

Distribution.

Lritish Seas.—“ Peculiar to Ireland . . . chiefly found in the
south” (Forses, 1). South and west of Ireland (THompson, 2).
Jreland, Kilkee (Brit. Mus.). Kerry, Roundstone (Coll. Norman).
Loch Fyne, Tory I. (Krnanan). Ilfracombe (Brit. Mus.). Fal-
mouth (Cocks). Jersey (Coll. Norman). Jersey, Guernsey, Herm
(K@:HLER).

Other Localitues.—Norway, down to 30 fms. (M‘ANDREW and
BaRRETT).! Coast of France (CainLiaup; FiscHer; Barrots;
Copenhagen Mus.). Cape Finisterre (Brit. Mus.). Spain (Coll.
Norman, pres. by Don Pedro Antiga). Portugal (Brit. Mus.).
Mediterranean (Brit. Mus.; Copenhagen Mus.; Lupwie ; Carus).
Madeira (Brit. Mus.). Azores (Acassiz, 3; Copenhagen Mus.).
Canaries (HAECKEL). Brazil (Acassiz, 3, 5).

5. Spherechinus, Desor.
1857. Spheerechinus, Desor, Synops. Ech. foss., p. 134.

Mouth deeply notched ; pores in series of from four to eight;
perignathic girdle with low ridges and a large arch.

9. Spherechinus granularis (Lamarck), A gassiz.
1816. “chinus granularis, Lamarck, Hist. anim. s. vert., iii., p. 44.
1834. Hchinus esculentus, Blainville, Man. d’Actinol., p. 228, pl. xix.
1834, sy 54 Milne Edwards, in Cuvier, Réegne anim.,
Zooph., pl. xi., fig. 1.

1 Recorded as LEchinus neglectus; most likely Strongylocentrotus dré-
bachiensis is intended,

A Revised List of British Echinoidea. 411

1859. Spherechinus esculentus, Bronn, Klass. u. Ord, d. Thierreichs,
p. 337, pl. xxxvii., figs. 1-3, 5-14,
and 16-19; pl. xxxix. fig. 6.

1863. ie granularis, Agassiz, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., i.,
p. 23.

1884. Spherechinus granularis, Carus, Prodr. faun. Medit., i., p. 100.

Diagnosis.
Test very little depressed ; flattened below ; anal system large,
with few large plates ; spines strong, short, crowded, violet, with
a more or less extensive white tip, or altogether white.

Distribution.

British Seas.—Guernsey (Coll. Norman). Jersey (K@uHLER ;
Manchester Mus.).

Other Localities.—S.-W. France (FiscHEer). Portugal (Brit.
Mus.). Spain (Coll. Norman, pres. by Don Pedro Antiga).
Mediterranean (Copenhagen Mus.; Coll. Norman; Carus).
Madeira, Cape Verde Is. (Brit. Mus.). Azores (Brit. Mus, ;
Copenhagen Mus.). ‘ Challenger,” St. 75, 50-90 fms. (Acassiz, 3).

EcHINID&, Agassiz.

Test regular ; tubercles imperforate ; spines for the most part
short and subulate ; pores in sets of three pairs.

6. Kchinus, Linné.
Test spheroidal; primary tubercles imperforate, subequal, in
two series both in ambulacra and interambulacra ; other tubercles
small and scattered irregularly ; spines of one form.

10. Echinus esculentus, Linné.

1758. Echinus esculentus, Linné, Syst. nat., ed. x., p. 663.
1841. », spheera, Forbes, Brit. Starf., p. 149, cut.
1844, 4 esculentus, Diiben & Koren, Ofvers. Skand. Echin.,

p. 264.
1872. - ae Agassiz, Rev. Echin., pp. 122, 491.
1887. 35 7 Lovén, Echin. Mus. Ludov. Ulric., p. 61.
Diagnosis.

Test usually of a pink or reddish tinge; spines usually
pink or white, with one or two violet rings, more rarely white ;
primary spines scarcely longer than secondary, giving the appear-
ance of being evenly covered with short subequal spines; in
the denuded test the twenty meridians of primary pores are

scarcely apparent.
VOL. X. 25

412 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Distribution.

British Seas.—‘ On all the shores of Britain and Ireland.”
“From the littoral zone to that of Corallines” (Forsss, 1).
Shetland, down to the Coralline zone (Norman, 1); 15-30 fms.
(Fores, 2). Orkneys, 5-15 fms.; Hebrides (NormAN, 2). Hebrides,
4-40 fms.; N.-W. Scotland, 15-20 fms. (ForBeEs, 2). Off Montrose,
53 fms. ; off Aberdeen, 40 fms. (BELL, 1). Upper Loch Torridon
(Hoyts, 1). Loch Etive, 15-20 fms. ; Tobermory, 30 fms. ; 4 miles
S.-E. of Sanda, 30-38 fms.; between Great Cumbrae and Wemyss
Ground, 30-40 fms.; off Ailsa Craig, 24 fms.; Kilbrennan
Sound, 10-20 fms.; Loch Fyne, 80 fms. (Brit. Mus., presented
by Joun Murray). Clyde Basin, 20-40 fms. (HENDERsoN).
Inchmarnock Basin, 37-80 fms.; Loch Fyne, 30-80 fms. ; Loch
Striven, 40 fms.; Dunoon Basin, 30-40 fms.; Loch Goil and
Upper Loch Long, 30 fms.; Gareloch, 20 fms. (Hoyue, 2).
Rothesay (GriEvE, 1). Lamlash Bay (HERDMaN, 1). St Andrews
(M‘Inrosu). Aberdeenshire (Grecor and Dawson). Firth of
Forth (Foceo ; Leste and Herpman ; Brit. Mus.). Off Mull of
Galloway, 110-140 fms. (THompson, 1). Isle of Man, 7-20 fms.
(ForBes, 2). Port Erin, Hillbre L, low water; off Puffin I.
(Herpmay, 3). Off Holy I. (Brapy). Coast of Northumberland
and Durham (Hopes). Dublin Bay (Kinangan). Berehaven
(Happon, 2). Cornwall and Devon (Bats), also 20-25 fms,
Dorset and Hants, 20-25 fms. (Forpes, 2). South Devon
and Cornwall (Coucn). Mount’s Bay (TrEGELLEs). Polperro
(Brit. Mus.). Falmouth (Brit. Mus. ; Cocks). Torbay (Parrirt).
Plymouth (Parritt; Herape; Coll. Norman!). All coasts of
Ireland (THomeson, 2). 8.-W. Ireland, 50-110 fms. (BELL, 3, 4).

Other Localities.—Spitzbergen, Iceland, Norway, Sweden
(Copenhagen Mus.). Norway (Sars; M‘Anprew and BARRETT,
GrieG; Coll. Norman). Denmark (Ltrken). Fzroes (Copen-
hagen Mus.). Heligoland (WrInLAND). Holland (Maitianp).
Coast of France (FiscHer; Barrois). Coast of Spain or Por-
tugal, Naples (Brit. Mus.). Mediterranean (Carus; Brit. Mus.).

Varietves.— Var. Tenuispina, Norman. “It is very high.”
North of Unst, 110 fms. (Normay, 1).

Var. a. With red test and spines. Off Scarborough (Coll.
Norman).

Var. 8. With brownish-red spines. Norway (Coll. Norman).

Var. y. “A marked variety with a tall narrow test occurred

1 Specimen, 20 ins, equatorial circumference, 18} ins. polar circumference.

A Revised List of British Echinoidea. 413

in deep water off the Ferées” (THompson, 2). Perhaps this is
var. tenwispina, Norman.
Abnormal example (BATE).

11. Echinus acutus, Lamarck.

1816. Echinus acutus, Lamarck, Hist. anim. s. vert., iii., p. 45.

1828. % miliaris, Fleming, Brit. Anim., p. 478 (nee Miiller).
1841. » Flemingii, Forbes, Brit. Starf., p. 164, cut.
1844. ts rr Diiben & Koren, Skand, Echin., p. 266,

pl. ix., figs. 31, 32.
1872. » acutus, A. Agassiz, Rev. Echin., pp. 121, 489.
1884. 8 », Carus, Prodr. faun. Medit., p. 100.
Diagnosis.

Test subconical; principal tubercle in each plate very con-
spicuous and surrounded by secondary ones both in ambulacral
and interambulacral plates ; secondary tubercles more numerous
in-the oral than the aboral surface; primary spines much fewer
than secondary, and nearly three times as long ; colour yellowish,
often with reddish bands; spines white, with a dull green band,
changing into red at the base.

Distribution.

British Seas.—Shetland, Youghal, S.-W. Ireland (Forsgs, 1).
Feroe Channel, 400 fms. (‘‘ Porcupine” Exp., fide AGAssIz, 2).
North and West of Shetland (THomson, 1). Shetland, Outer
Haaf (Norman, 1'). Off N. Rona, ‘‘ Knight Errant,” St. 3, 53
fms. (Acassiz, 4). Hebrides (Norman'). St Andrews (M‘InTosH).
Tynemouth (Brit. Mus.). S. of Ireland, 100 fms. (‘‘ Porcupine”
Exp., jide Aaassiz, 2). §.-W. Ireland, 55-500 fms. (Brett, 3).
S. of Ireland (THompson, 2). S.-W. of Ireland, 70 fms. (BELL, 4).
Mount’s Bay (TREGELLEs). Cornwall and Devon (Bate). Fal-
mouth (Cocks; Brit. Mus.). Torquay (Parritr). Plymouth
(Heape; Coll. Norman’). Weymouth (Brit. Mus.), Budleigh-
Salterton (Coll. Norman).

Other Localities.—Norway (Sars; Brit. Mus.; Coll. Norman ;
Copenhagen Mus. ; Manchester Mus.; Grizc). Holland (Marr-
LAND). France (FiscHEr). Cape Sagres (“ Poreupine” Exp.,
fide Acassiz, 2). Mediterranean (Lupwie ; Carus; Brit. Mus.).
W. Indies (Acassiz, 1). 8S. Pacific, 520 fms. (Brit. Mus.). Off
Halifax, “Challenger,” St. 46, 1350 fms. Off Kermadec Island,
‘“‘Challenger,” St. 170, 630 fms. Off Ascension, ‘“ Challenger,”
St. 343, 425 fms. (AcassiZ, 3).

1 Specimen, 15? ins. in equatorial, 135 ins. in polar circumference.

414 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

12. Echinus melo, Lamarck.

1816. Echinus inelo, Lamarck, Hist. anim. s. vert., iii., p. 45.

1834. i, », Blainville, Man. d’Actinol., p. 226, mia,
figs. 3, 3a, 30.
VS%2=3) “as ,, Agassiz, Rev. Echin., pp. 124, 493.
1884, bs ,, Carus, Prodr. faun. Medit., i., p. 100.
Diagnosis.

Test globular; actinal opening smaller than in JZ. acutus ;
greenish-yellow in colour, red and pink in Z. acutus ; principal
row of vertical primary tubercles small; more secondaries than
in #. acutus; horizontal sutures bare both in ambulacral and
interambulacral area, forming a lozenge-shaped pattern lighter
than the main colour of the test; primary spines more closely
striated than in £. acutus, and genital openings not so near the
edge of the plates; median vertical sutures of ambulacral and
interambulacral spaces forming a distinct double zigzag line,
diminishing in breadth towards either pole.

Distribution.

Britesh Seas.—Off North Rona, ‘“ Knight Errant,” St. 3, 53
fms. (Acassiz, 4). Cornwall (ForBEs, 3).

Other Localittes.—Coast of France (Barrors). Off Portugal
(THomson, 2). Mediterranean (LUDWicG; Carus; Manchester
Mus. ; Coll. Norman). Canaries, Cape Verde Is. (AGassiz, 5).

This species is very near #. acutws, and it is very doubtful
whether it is more than a globular variety of this latter. It is
very desirable that further evidence should be obtained as to its
occurrence in British waters.

13. Echinus elegans, Duben & Koren.

1844. Echinus elegans, Diiben & Koren, Skand. Echin., p. 272, pl.
x., figs. 40-42.

1372; ‘ » Agassiz, Rev. Echin., pp. 122, 491, pl. vue,
fig. 4.

1874. = » Wyv. Thomson, ‘‘ Porcupine” Echin., Phil.
Trans., p. 744, pl. Ixviii., figs. 11-18.

1889. 48 », Bell, Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., (6) iv., pp. 441,

442, pl. xix., figs. 2, 3.

Diagnosis.
Test hemispherical, reddish, with ten red stripes extending
from the apex to the equator; twenty very distinct series of
primary tubercles, not interrupted; spines very long, acute

A Levised List of British Echinoidea. 415

brilliant red, sometimes with white tips; primaries two or three
times as long as secondaries, which do not increase either in size
or number towards the peristome.

; Distribution.

British Seas. —Off the Butt of Lewis, warm area, ‘‘ Lightning,”
St. 12, 530 fms. (Tuomson, 1). 25 miles N.-E. of Unst, Shetland,
95 fms. (Coll. Norman). N.and W. of Scotland, 125-640 fms.
(THomson, 1). East coast of Scotland (Brit. Mus.). Off Mon-
trose, 42 fms.; off Peterhead, 48-60 fms. (Bett, 1). N.-W. of
Ireland, “ Porcupine” (1869), St. 25, 164 fms. (Copenhagen Mus.).
40 miles off Valentia, 110 fms. (THomson, 1; Coll. Norman).
S.-W. of Ireland, 250 fms. (BELL, 3).

Other Localities—Norway, 150-250 fms. (Sars; Copenhagen
Mus.; Coll. Norman). Cape Sagres, 80 fms., ‘“‘ Porcupine” Exp.
(fide Acassiz, 2). Mediterranean (Brit. Mus.). Tristan da
Cunha, “ Challenger,” St. 135Fr, 1100 fms. S. of Halifax, Nova
Scotia, “ Challenger,” St. 46, 1350 fms. (Acassiz, 3). Coast of
U.S.A., 858-888 fms. (VERRILL). Off Admiralty Is., ‘‘ Challenger,”
St. 219, 150 fms. (Agassiz, 3).

Varvety.—Dr Norman’s collection contains what appears to be
an albino variety of this species.

14. Echinus microstoma, Wyville Thomson.

1874. Echinus microstoma, Wyv. Thomson, ‘‘ Porcupine” Echin.,
p. 744, pl. Ixviii., figs. 1-10.

1886. ay - Haddon, Rep. 8.-W. Ireland, P. R. Irish
Acad., (2) iv., p. 620.
1889. - 3 Bell, Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., (6) iv.,

pe 440) pl; xix; fie. 4:

Diagnosis.

At the present moment I cannot regard this species as other
than most unsatisfactory. Sir Wyville Thomson’s diagnosis is
merely provisional, and his figure “‘ by no means good.” Professor
Bell (doc. cit.) has given us a new figure, but has not ventured
upon any differential diagnosis. I have had the opportunity of
examining the specimen which Bell (Joc. cit., p. 445) says “agrees
in all essential characters” with the one which he figures. It is
certainly quite easy to distinguish that specimen from all the

1This was the first example known to have been obtained in British seas.
It has been identified by comparison with Norwegian specimens.

416 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

examples of #. elegans which I have seen, The colour is a very
dull red, diffused over the test, and not arranged in definite bands ;
the spines are white, and those on the abactinal surface have a dull
greenish band at the base, recalling the spines of #. acutus. How
far these characters would serve to distinguish the species I will
not venture to say. According to Bell’s measurements the mouth
in EZ. microstoma seems to be about one-fourth the diameter of the
test, whilst in Z#. elegans it is on the average nearly one-third.
According to Sir Wyville’s figures the jaws present some points of
distinction, though these can hardly be of general utility for
practical discrimination.
Distribution.

British Seas.—Off west coast of Scotland and Ireland, 150-400
fms. (THomson, 2). Off the mouth of the English Channel,
“Porcupine” (1870), St. 1, 567 fms., and St. 3, 690 fms.
(TuHomson, 1). Off Valentia (Coll. Norman, from ‘‘ Porcupine”
Exp.). §.-W. Ireland, 110-500 fms. (BELL, 3).

Other Localities.—Bay of Biscay (Norman, 3).

15. Echinus norvegicus, Diiben & Koren.
1844. Echinus norvegicus, Diiben & Koren, Skand. Echin., p. 268,
pl. ix., figs. 33-39.
1872. ys ie Agassiz, Rev. Echin., pp. 125, 296, 496,
pl. via, fig. 4.

Diagnosis.

Test usually not exceeding 15 mm. (06 in.) in diameter
(largest recorded 50 mm. = 2 in.) ; flattened conical in the larger
specimens ; five red broad bands or blotches surround the anus ;
rarely some or all these blotches are divided, doubling the number
of red lines; primary tubercles in ten conspicuous rows in the
larger specimens ; some of the primary tubercles have often dis-
appeared in the aboral surface ; spines of uniform colour ; primaries
much more than half the diameter of the test in specimens of
average size.

Distribution.

British Seas.—Off the Butt of Lewis, warm area, “ Lightning,”
St. 12, 530 fms. Feroe Channel, cold area, ‘“‘ Porcupine” (1869),
Sts. 62-66, 125-640 fms. (THomson, 1). “ Knight Errant,” St. 1,
35 fms., St. 7, 530 fms. (Agassiz, 4). Shetland, 40-100 fms.
(Forbes, 2). Outer Skerries Haaf, off Whalsey Lighthouse, 70
fms.; Unst Haaf, St Magnus Bay (Norman, 1). E. of Shetland,

A Revised List of British Echinoidea. 417

“ Porcupine” (1869), Sts. 67-70, 64-75 fms. (Tuomson,' 1). W.
of Shetland, “ Porcupine” (1869), St. 71, 103 fms. (Copenhagen
Mus.). W. and 8. of Shetland, 6-85 fms. (Pearcey), Off N.
Rona, “ Knight Errant,” St. 3, 53 fms. (Acassiz, 4). Off Cape
Wrath, 300 fms. (‘ Porcupine” Exp., fide Acassiz, 2). North
Sea (Brit. Mus.). W. of Ireland, ‘* Porcupine” (1869), St. 17,
1230 fms. $.-W. of Ireland, 400 fms. (Bett, 4). Off Valentia,
St. 2, 808 fms. Off the mouth of the English Channel, * Por-
cupine ” (1870), St. 3, 690 fms. (Tomson, 1).

Other Localities.—Norway, 80-450 fms. (Sars; Copenhagen
Mus. ; Coll. Norman; Grizc). Coast of U.S.A., 888-1497 fms.
(VERRILL); “ very common in 1242 fms.” (Acassiz, 5). Florida
Gulf Stream, 195 fms. (Pourraeés, fide Acassiz, 2). 58. of
Halifax, Nova Scotia, “‘ Challenger,” Sts. 46 and 47, 1350 and
1340 fms. Off Japan, Sts. 232 and 235, 345 and 565 fms. Off
Patagonia, St. 308, 175 fms. (AGassiz, 3).

Variety.—Var. rarispina, Sars, 40 miles off Valentia, 110 fms.
(Tuomson, 1; Coll. Norman).

16. Echinus miliaris, P. L. 8. Miller.

1771. Echinus miliaris, P. L. 8. Miller, in Kuorr, Delic. nat. select.,
pl. D.
1841. o os Forbes, Brit. Starf., p. 161, cut.
1844. ., virens, Diiben & Koren, Skand. Echin., p. 274, pl. x.,
figs. 43-45.
1872. ,, miliaris, Agassiz, Rev. Echin., pp. 125, 495, pl. xxv.,
fig. 11.

Diagnosis.

Test reddish, with yellow tubercles; primaries much larger
than secondaries, and forming twenty prominent rays on the bare
shell; rows of pores much less regular than in £. esculentus ;
primary spines usually with purple tips, or wholly dark green, or
dark green with brown tips. The form is more depressed than in
most specimens of Z. esculentus.

Distribution.

British Seas.—Irish Sea, west of Scotland, Orkney, North
Ireland, Guernsey (Forpes, 1). Shetland (Norman, 1; Brit.
Mus.), 15-30 fms. (Forses, 2). Off Ossa Skerry, 56 fms.
(Pearczy). Orkney (Forses, 1). N.-W. Scotland, 8-20 fms. ;
Hebrides, 4-25 fins. (Forpes, 2; Norman, 2). Upper Loch Torridon

1 A specimen from St. 67 is preserved in the Copenhagen Museum.

418 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

(Hoye, 1). Off Montrose, 53 fms. (Bett, 1). Clyde, 40 fms.
(Forses, 2). Off Sana I. [? Sanda], 40 fms. (Hynpmay), “common
from tide marks to the Coralline zone” (HENDERSON). Lamlash
Bay (Herpmay, 1). Loch Goil, 45 fms. (Hoye, 2). Whiting
Bay, Kilbrennan Sound, 10-20 fms. (Brit. Mus.). Rothesay
(Grisve, 1). St Andrews (M‘Inrosu). Firth of Forth (LEsLIz
and Herpman, Brit. Mus.). Northumberland and Durham
(HopcE). Off Coquet I. (Brapy). Off Mull of Galloway,
110-140 fms. (THompson, 1). Isle of Man (Brit. Mus.), 7-20
fms. (Forpes, 2). Port Erin; Puffin I., Penmaenmawr (HERp-
MAN, 3). Ireland, off Bray Head, 23 fms. (Happoy, 1). Dublin
Bay (Krinawan). N. Wales, 7-20 fms. (ForBes, 2). Round-
stone (Coll. Norman). Off Berehaven, 5-25 fms., Bantry
Harbour, 4-6 fms, (Happon, 2). 8. Wales, 12 fms. (ForBgs,
2). Ilfracombe (ParrFirr).- Cornwall and Devon, 7-12 fms.
(Forzes, 2). 8. Devon and Cornwall (Bate; Coucn). Mount’s
Bay (TREGELLES). Falmouth (Cocks; Brit. Mus.). Plymouth,
Weymouth (Brit. Mus.). Salcombe (Coll. Norman). Dorset and
Hants, 12-27 fms. (Forpes, 2). St Leonards (Brit. Mus.).
Hastings (Coll. Norman). Guernsey (Forsrs, 1 ; Coll. Norman).
Ireland (THompson).

Other Localities.—Iceland, Feroe (Copenhagen Mus.). Norway
and Sweden (Copenhagen Mus. ; M‘Anprew and BARRETT; SARS;
Grizc). Denmark (LirKen ; Coll. Norman ; Copenhagen Mus. ;
Brit. Mus.). Holland (Mairnanp; Horst). France (FISCHER ;
Barrois). Spain (Coll. Norman, pres. by Don Pedro Antiga).
Mediterranean (Brit. Mus.).

CLYPEASTROIDA.

Peristome central ; periproct outside the dorso-central system
in the posterior interradium; branchie external; perignathic
girdle disconnected.

‘-FIBULARIID.

7. Echinocyamus, Van Phelsum.
1774. Echinocyamus, V. Phelsum (jide Agassiz, 2),

Test small, comparatively thick ; anus near the mouth on the
inferior surface; ambulacra short, wider than the interambu-
lacral spaces ; spines short and slender.

A Revised List of British Echinoidea. 419

17. Echinocyamus pusillus (O. F. Miiller), Gray.

1776. Spatagus pusillus, Miller, Zool. Dan. Prodr., p. 236.

LE os ” ‘ Id., Zool. Dan., p. 18, pl. xci., figs. 5, 6.

1812. Echinus pulvinulus, Pennant, Brit. Zool., 2d ed., p. 140, pl.
XXXViil., figs. 1-4.

1825. Echinocyamus pusillus, Gray, Ann. Phil., x., p. 438.

1841. A + Forbes, Brit. Starf., p. 175, eut.
1872. 25 po Agassiz, Rev. Echin., pp. 111, 304, 505,
pl. xie, fig. 8; pl. xiii., figs. 1-8.
1874. fg of Lovén, Etudes, pl. xvi., fig. 139 (apex) ;
pl. xliv. (test).
1884, - - Carus, Prodr. faun. Medit., p. 101.
Diagnosis.

Test pyriform and depressed, concave below.

Distribution.

British Seas.— Most parts of the coast of Britain.” Ireland,
Guernsey (Forses, 1). Shetland (Norman, 1), 50-70 fms.
(Forbes, 2). Off Ossa Skerry, 56 fms. (PEARcEy). Off N. Rona,
“Knight Errant,” St. 3, 53 fms. (Acassiz, 4). Orkney, 7-15
fms. (ForBes, 2). Hebrides, 12-90 fms. (Norman, 2). Aberdeen-
shire (GREGOR and Dawson). Off Aberdeen, 43 fms. (BELL, 1).
N.-W. Scotland, 18 fms. ; Clyde province, 40 fms. (ForBEs, 2).
Sound of Mull (Brit. Mus.). Off Sana [? Sanda] L, 40 fms.
(Hynpman). ‘Off Cumbrae, Skelmorlie Bank, Lamlash Bay,
common, especially on a Nullipore bottom” (HENDERSON). Lam-
lash Bay (HERpMAN, 1). Firth of Forth (Lestiz and HERDMAN).
Northumberland Coast, 25-30 fms. (Brapy). Northumberland
and Durham (Hopee; Coll. Norman). Off the Mull of Galloway,
50-145 fms. (THompson, 1). Isle of Man, 20 fms. ; N. Wales, 7-20
fms. (Forpes, 2). Off Great Ormes Head, 7-8 fms. ; Port Erin,
10-20 fms.; Hilbre I., low tide (Herpman, 3). Dublin (Coll.
Norman ; Kryanan). Ireland, N., E., and 8. (THompson, 2). Off
Bray Head, 23 fms. (Happon, 1). Bantry Bay (Happon, 2).
Cornwall and Devon (BATE); also 20-25 fms, (ForBEs, 2). Mount’s
Bay (TrEGELLES). 8S. Devon (Parritt). Plymouth (Heaps).
Guernsey (Coll. Norman). Herm (Ka@uter).

Other Localities.—Iceland, Steenstrup (7de Acassiz, 2). Nor-
way, 300 fms. (Sars; M‘AnpRew and Barrett; Grize; Brit.
Mus.; Copenhagen Mus.). Denmark (Lirken ; Copenhagen
Mus.). North Sea (Marrranp). Holland (Horst). France
(Barrors). Mediterranean (Carus; Lupwic; Coll. Norman;

420 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Brit. Mus. ; Copenhagen Mus.). Azores (AGassiz, 2). Josephine
Bank (Stockholm Mus., fide Agassiz). Florida Reefs, 79-183
fms. (PourTALES, jide Acassi1zZ, 2). Florida Bank to Antilles,
98-805 fms. (Acassiz, 5). Off Brazil, ‘ Challenger,” St. 122,
350 fms. (AGAssIz, 3).

SCUTELLIDA, Agassiz.

Test very depressed; marginal incision and lunules present
or absent ; radiating partitions internally.

8. Arachnoides, L. Agassiz.
Ambulacral petals diverging ; actinal grooves straight ; no mar-
ginal cuts nor lunules.

18. Arachnoides placenta (Linné), L. Agassiz.

1758. Echinus placenta, Linné, Syst. nat., ed. x., p. 666.

1841. Echinarachnius placenta, Forbes, Brit. Starf., p. 178, cut.

1841. Arachnoides placenta, L. Agassiz, Monogr. Echin., 2me livr.,
Scutell., p. 94, pl. xxi., figs. 35-42.

Neen 5 as Agassiz, Rev. Echin., pp. 90, 530, pl.
xilid, figs. 1-4.
1874. te he Lovén, Etudes, pl. viii., figs. 77, 78

(peristome) ; pl. li. (test).

The reasons for doubting the claims of this species to a place in
the British fauna have been given above.

Distribution.

British Seas.—Foula, Shetland (Fores, 1) ?
Other Localities—“ New Zealand, Australia, East India
Islands, Burmah” (Agassiz, 3).

SPATANGOIDA.

Peristome actinal or frontal; periproct outside the dorso-central
system in the posterior interradium ; neither external branchie,
jaws, teeth, nor perignathic girdle.

CassipuLip&, Agassiz.

Mouth central or subcentral, pentagonal, oblique, or elliptical ;
no plastrons nor fascioles ; tubercles neither perforate nor crenu-
late ; pairs of pores crowded close to the peristomial margin,
forming, with the single, swollen, and ornamented interradial
peristomial plates, “ a floscelle.”

A Revised List of British Echinoidea. 421

9. Neolampas, Agassiz.
1869. Neolampas, Agassiz, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., i., p. 271.

Test thin, outline pyriform, profile arched, truncate behind ;
anal opening projecting as a tube; tubercles of uniform size over
the whole test; ambulacral system simple, without petals, reduced
to single pores between the ambulacral plates.

19. Neolampas rostellata, Agassiz.
1869. Neolampas rostellata, Agassiz, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., i.,

Dp: 2/k.

1372 s “f Id., Rev. Echin., pp. 147, 340, 551,
pl. xvii., figs. 1-12.

1874. ep a Wyville Thomson, ‘‘ Porcupine” Echin.,
Phila irans:, 7: ¢4£5, pl. dx1x:

1883. ‘i a Agassiz, ‘‘ Blake” Echini, Mem. Mus.

Comp. Zool., x., p. 44, pl. xxii,

Diagnosis.

As there is only one species known, the characters given above
will suffice for its recognition, I have not seen a specimen of the
species.

Distribution.

British Seas.—Off the mouth of the English Channel, “ Porcu-
pine” (1870), St. 3, 690 fms. (THomson, 2).

Other Localities.—Between Cuba and Florida, 100-125 fms.
(Acassiz, 1), Florida Bank, 229 fms. (Agassiz, 5),

SPATANGIDA.

Test ovoid or cordiform, longer than broad, usually with an
anterior groove; apical system with four or less perforated
plates ; anterior ambulacrum differing from the others ; periproct
in the posterior ambulacrum,

10. Schizaster, L. Agassiz.

1835. Schizaster, L. Agassiz, Prodr. Echin., Mém. Soc. Neuchatel,
for 1834, p. 185.

Test thin, elongate ; highest point posterior ; Jateral ambulacra
unequal and depressed ; anterior in a deep groove, to which the
antero-lateral petals are almost parallel; genital pores two or
three ; dorsal impression angular, near the petals ; lateral impres-
sion narrow, descending beneath the anal system, subanal fasciole
absent ; posterior oral lip prominent, recurved.

492 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

20. Schizaster fragilis (Diben & Koren), L. Agassiz.

1844. Brissus fragilis, Diben & Koren, Skand. Echin., p. 280,
pl. x., figs. 47-49.

1847. Schizaster fragilis, L. Agassiz, Catal. raisonné, Ann. Sci. Nat.,
(8) viii., p. 22.

1872. * Ar Agassiz, Rev. Echin., pp. 157, 368, 612,
pl. xxi., fig. 3; pl. xxvi., fig. 42.
1874. ig o Lovén, Etudes, pl. xii., fig. 102 (apex) ;

pl. xx. (Gest).
1874. Tripylus fragilis, Wyville Thomson, ‘‘ Porcupine” Echin.,
Phill irans., -p: 100:
1883. Schizaster fragilis, Lovén, Pourtalesia, pl. x., fig. 100 (pedicel).
1883. 5 Agassiz, ‘‘ Blake”? Echini, Mem. Mus. Comp.
Zool., x., p. 74, pl. xxviii., figs. 8-14.

Diagnosis.

Test cordate oval, keeled behind, depressed in front, highest
point far back; groove, deep and long; mouth near margin ;
antero-lateral petals three times as long as posterior; pairs of
pores in the anterior ambulacrum thirty-three, in the lateral
thirty-five, in the posterior fifteen.

Distribution.

British Seas.—N. and W. of Shetland, 400-500 fms. (THomson,
2).
Other Localities.—Off Godthaab, 410 fms., ‘‘ Valorous” Exp.
(Norman, 4). Off Halifax, Nova Scotia, “Challenger,” St. 49,
83 fms. Off the Cape of Good Hope, St. 142, 150 fms. (Acassiz,
3). Norway, 30-150 fms. (Sars; M‘ANpRew and Barrerv ;
Copenhagen Mus.). Gulf of St Lawrence (WuHITEAVES). Straits
of Florida (PourtaLis, fide AGassiz, 2). U. S. Coast, 37-321
fms. (VERRILL). New England Coast, 71-362 fms., “quite a
common species near the 100-fathom line” (AGassiz, 5).

11. Brissopsis, Agassiz.
1840. Brissopsis, Agassiz, Cat. Syst. Ecty., p. 16.

Test thin, more or less ovoid; highest point nearly central ;
ambulacral petals unequal; anus terminal; subanal fasciole
subterminal and complete; dorsal impression complete and sur-
rounding the ambulacral petals.

21. Brissopsis lyrifera (Forbes), L. Agassiz.

1841. Brissus lyrifer, Forbes, Brit. Starf., p. 187, cut.
1844, Pe »» Diiben & Koren, Skand. Echin,, p. 280, pl. x.,
fig. 46,

A Revised List of British Echinoidea. 423

1847. Brissopsis lyrifera, Agassiz & Désor, Catal. raisonné, Ann. Sci.
Nat., (8) viii., p. 15, pl. xvi., fig. 12.
1872. if rr, Agassiz, Rev. Echin., pp. 95, 354, 594, pl.
Ses figs, 1 pis EX, tees by 2* pl,
XXXVili., figs. 36-38.
es ¥: Lovén, Etudes, pl. i., fig. 1 (living animal),
figs. 10, 17 (spheridia) ; pl. ii., figs. 27-31
(nervous system); pl. lii., fig. 32 (peri-
stome); pl. xii., figs. 100, 101 (apex) ;
pl. xxxvii. (test).
1883. xa nf Lovén, Pourtalesia, pl. viii., fig. 66 (mon-
strous pedicel); pl. ix., figs. 80-90 (pedicel);
pl. xii., fig. 143 (peripodium); pl. xix.,
figs. 223-231 (calyx).

1874,

1883. _ = Agassiz, ‘‘ Blake” Echini, Mem. Mus. Comp.
Zool., x., p. 69, pl. xxvi., figs. 7-18.
1884, oe — Carus, Prodr. faun. Medit., i., p. 103.
Diagnosis.

Test depressed, truncate behind ; dorsal impression lyre-shaped
and most distinct behind; ambulacral petals depressed ; anal
system circular; subanal system elliptic, transverse, concave
towards the anal system ; inferior spiniferous area lanceolate.

Distribution.

British Seas.—Mud, 10-15 fms., in the estuary of the Clyde
(Forbes, 1). Feeroe Channel, cold area, ‘‘ Porcupine” (1869), Sts.
62-66, 125-200 fms. (THomson, 1). Shetland, 70-90 fms. (ForBEs,
2). Unst Haaf, Whalsey Skerries Haaf, St Magnus Bay (Norman,
3). Off Samburgh Head, 75 fms. (PEARcEY). Hebrides (NorMAN, 2).
N.-W. of Scotland, 30 fms. (Forspes, 2). Aberdeenshire and
Moray Firth (M‘Grecor and Dawson, 1 and 2). Off Montrose,
42 fms. (Bett, 1). Hebrides, 100 fms. (Forses, 2). Upper
Loch Torridon (Hoyts, 1). Loch Duich, 60 fms. ; Loch Hourn,
70 fms. (Brit. Mus.). Clyde province, 6-100 fms. (ForBEs, 2).
Brodick Basin, 50-90 fms. ; Kilbrennan Basin, 22-80 fms. ; Inch-
marnock Basin, 37-104 fms. ; Cumbrae Basin, 50 fms. ; Dunoon
Basin, 30-42 fms. (Hoye, 2). Off Gourock and Largs (GrRiEvr).
Lower Loch Fyne, 80 fms. (Brit. Mus.). Off Skate I., Loch
Fyne, 105 fms. (Hrenperson). Off Arran and Cumbrae, and
Kilbrennan Sound, 22 fms. (Brit. Mus.; HeEnperson). Off
Sanda I. and Ailsa Craig (Brit. Mus.). Isle of Man (Gray).
Northumberland and Durham (Hopce; Coll. Norman). Off

424 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Tynemouth, 25-35 fms. (BRapy). S.-W. .of Ireland (Kinanay).
Off Great Skellig, 70-79 fms.; Berehaven (Happon, 2). Off
Valentia (‘“‘ Porcupine” Exp., jide Acassiz, 2). S.-W. Ireland,
55 fms. (BELL, 3), Off the mouth of the English Channel, “ Por-
cupine” (1870), St. 3, 690 fms. (THomson, 1). Down to 2090
fms., small specimens (THomson, 2),

Other Localitees.—Greenland (Forses). Norway (Sars; Copen-
hagen Mus.). France, 180 fins. (Fiscoer and Foun). Cape
Breton, Bay of Biscay, 35-80 fms. (Coll. Norman). Mediter-
ranean (Lupwic; Carus). Cape of Good Hope, shallow water ;
and ‘‘ Challenger,” Sts. 141 and 142, 98 and 150 fms. (Acassiz, 3).
Coast of U.S.A., 55-156 fms. (Agassiz, 1); 65-1555 fms. (VER-
RILL). Gulf of Mexico to Antilles, 118-1394 fms. (Agassiz, 5).

12. Spatangus, Klein.
1734. Spatangus, Klein, Nat. disp. Echin., p. 33, pl. xxiii., a, B.

Test cordiform, depressed; broad ambulacral petals ; anterior
one ina broad more or less deep groove; periproct transverse ;
subanal fasciole only, including a broad plastron beneath the
periproct.

22. Spatangus purpureus, O. F. Miiller.

1776. Spatagus purpureus, O. F. Miiller, Zool. Dan. Prodr., p. 236.
1777. Echinus lacunosus, Pennant, Brit. Zool., iv., p. 69, pl. xxxv.
1777. Spatagus purpureus, O. F. Miiller, Zool. Dan., pl. v.

1834. 8 3 Blainville, Man. d’Actinol., p. 202, pl. xiv.

. a fe Milne Edwards, in Cuvier, Régne anim.,
ple xlods fio, ls pl. xvil.t ies

1841. Spatangus purpureus, Forbes, Brit. Starf., p. 182, cut.

372: ‘ss sis Agassiz, Rev. Echin., pp. 158, 565, pl.
xi7., figs: 19-22; Bpl- xiva, fi. soe
xixe, figs. 5, 6; pl. xxvi., figs; Sta
pl. xxxi, figsso17, 183 plane
figs. 3,4; pl. xxxvii., fig. 16; pl. xxxviii.,
figs. 34, 35.

1874. % = Lovén, Etudes, pl. i., figs. 20-22; pl. ii,
figs. 23-26 (spheridia) ; pl. xxxvi. (test,
etc. ). :

1883. ef 5 Lovén, Pourtalesia, pl. x., fig. 109

(pedicel); pl. xi., fig. 145° (pen-
podium); pl. xviii, figs. 209-219
(calyx).

1884. " es Carus, Prodr. faun. Medit., i., p. 102.

A fevised List of British Echinoidea. 425

Diagnosis.

Test broadly cordiform, truncate behind; posterior petals
closed; anterior longer than the posterior; anal impression ovate ;
subanal broadly reniform, with an incurrent angle below the anal
system. On the inferior surface the spineless areas are narrower
than the central spiniferous one.

Distribution.

British Seas.— Rare in England, Firth of Forth, Isle of Man,
Wicklow, Weymouth (Forsss, 1). ?N.-W. of the Butt of Lewis,
“ Knight Errant,” St. 6, 530 fms. (Acassiz, 4). Shetland, down
to 100 fms. (Norman, 3); 5-80 fms. (ForBEs, 2). W. of Shet-
land, 55-76 fms. (PEARCEY), Off N. Rona, “ Knight Errant,” St.
3, 53 fms. (Acassiz, 4). Orkneys, 5-40 fms. (ForBEs, 2).
Aberdeenshire (GREGOR and Dawson). Off Aberdeen, 38-43 fms. ;
off Peterhead, 58 fms. (Brett, 1). Clyde province, 40 fms.
(Forses, 2). Off Sana [? Sanda] I., 40 fms. (Hynpman). Cum-
brae Basin, 50 fms. ; Upper Loch Fyne, 36 fms. ; Dunoon Basin,
40 fms. (Hoye, 2). Off Cumbrae, Skelmorlie Bank, Lamlash
Bay, Garnock Beacon, 35 fms.; Little Cumbrae, low water
(HENDERSON). Lamlash Bay (HERDMAN, 2). Kilbrennan Sound,
Sanda Sound, 22 fms. (Brit. Mus.). Firth of Forth (Leste and
HeErpMAN). Northumberland and Durham (HopcE; Coll. Nor-
MAN). 950-80 miles E. of Tynemouth, 25-35 fms. (BRApy). Off
the Mull of Galloway, 50-140 fms. (THompson, 1). Isle of Man,
20 fms. (Forbes, 2). Port Erin, 15 fms. (HEeRpman, 3). N.
Wales, 12° fms. (ForBEs, 2). Beaumaris, low water (HERDMAN,
3). Ireland, N. and E. (THompson, 2). Dublin Bay (Kinanay).
Mouth of Bantry Bay, 35-40 fms. (Happon, 2). S.-W. Ireland,
50-60 fms. (Brut, 3). Devon and Cornwall (Bate; Coucu, 1) ;
20-25 fms. (Forses, 2). Mount’s Bay (TREGELLES). Plymouth
(Parritt; HEArE). Weymouth (Coll. Norman). Jersey, Herm
(KaHuer), 8.-W. of Ireland, 70-400 fms. (BELL, 4).

Other Localities.—Iceland, Bergen, Cattegat (Copenhagen Mus.).
Norway (Sars; Coll. Norman; M‘Anprew and Barrett; Grize).
Denmark (LirKen). Holland (Marrtanp; Horst). France
(FiscHER ; Barrols). Portugal (Brit. Mus. ; “‘ Porcupine” Exp.,
jide Acassiz, 2). Spain (Coll. Norman, pres. by Don Pedro
Antiga). Mediterranean (Lupwic ; Carus; Brit. Mus. ; Copen-
hagen Mus.). Off the Azores, ‘‘ Challenger,” St. 75, 450 fms,
Off Bermuda, 100 fms. (AGassiz, 3).

4.26 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

23. Spatangus Raschi, Lovén.

1868. Spatangus meridionalis, Norman, Last Rep. Shetland Dredging,
p. 315,

1869. a Raschi, Lovén, Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., (4) iv.,
p. 220.

1870. 5 oO Lovén, Ofvers. k. Vet. Akad. Forh. xxvi. for
1869, p. 733.

Loo: ‘. a Agassiz, Rev. Echin., pp. 159, 567, pl. xxv.,
fig, 255) pli xxv, fig. 28.

1889. A 4B Bell, Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., (6) iv., pp.
442-444,

Diagnosis.

In this species the test is more elevated than in the last; the
anus is subinferior, and the anal tract small ; subanal tract incon-
spicuous; petals narrower and less depressed than in S. purpureus ;
spines short and slender, and their tubercles correspondingly less
conspicuous than in the form just mentioned. On the inferior
surface the lateral spineless areas are wider than the central
spiniferous one.

Distribution.

British Seas.—W. and N. of Shetland, “ Porcupine” (1869)
(THomson, 1). Shetland (Barrerr; Brit. Mus.); 25-35 miles
N.N.W. of Burrafirth Lighthouse, 100-140 fms. (Norman, 3).
Off St Kilda, 100 fms. (Hoye, 1). 40 miles off Valentia,
‘‘ Porcupine” (1869), 110 fms. (THomson, 1; Coll. Norman).
Kerry (Brit. Mus.). 40 miles 8.-W. of Ireland, 30-90 fms. ; off
Great Skelligs, 110-120 fms. (Happon, 2). S.-W. Ireland,
100-180 fms. (BELL, 3).

Other Localities. Scandinavia, 200 fms. (Rascu, fide AGAssiz,
2). Azores (Breslau Mus., fide Acassiz, 2). Portugal (Brit.
Mus.). Off the Cape of Good Hope, ‘ Challenger,” St. 142, 150
fms, ; Agulhas Bank, 100 fms. (AGassiz, 3).

13. Echinocardium, Gray.
1825. Hchinocardiwm, Gray, Ann. Phil., x., p. 430.

Test cordate, thin; ambulacral petals more or less triangular ;
anterior ambulacrum in a more or less distinct fossa, with small
pores; anal system vertically truncate ; subanal depression ovato-
cordate; terminal, with branches ascending round the anal system;
dorsal impression within the ambulacral petals ; inferior spines
spatulate ; the rest slender and silky.

A Revised List of British Echinoidea. 427

24. Kchinocardium cordatum (Pennant), Gray.

1777. Echinus cordatus, Pennant, Brit. Zool., iv., p. 58, pl. xxxiy.,
fis 70

1825. Hehinocardium pusillus, Gray, Ann. Phil., x., p. 430.

1825. ? Spatangus canaliferus, Foggo, Edin. Journ. Sci., ii., p. 78.

1841. Amphidotus cordatus, Forbes, Brit. Starf., p. 190, cut.

1848. Hchinocardium ,, Gray, Brit. Rad., p. 6.

1872. Ff cordatum, Agassiz, Rev. Echin., pp. 109, 349,
pl. xix., figs; 10-17; ‘pl. xx,,, fies.
5-7.

1874. i a Lovén, Etudes, pl. i., figs. 2-7; pl.

ill., fig. 38 (spheridia); pl. xii.,
fig. 107 (apex) ; pl. xxxix. (test).
1883. f aie Loven, Pourtalesia, pl. viii., figs. 57,
58; pl. xi., figs. 120-126 (pedicels) ;
pl. xii., fig. 148 (peripodium).
1884. ‘9 ee Carus, Prodr. faun. Medit., p. 102.

Diagnosis.

Test most elevated posteriorly ; dorsal ambulacral depressions
deep ; dorsal impression ovate, pointed behind ; the posterior pore
row of the antero-lateral series and the anterior of the postero-
lateral form an even curve ; in the antero-lateral the anterior row
has six to nine pairs of pores, the posterior eleven or twelve; post-
oral spiniferous space broadly ovate.

Distribution.

British Seas.—“ The commonest of all the Heart-Urchins. . . .
Tt abounds in all our sandy bays” (Forses, 1), Shetland (Norman,
3). Off Sumburgh Head, 75 fms. (PEarcey). Rothesay (GRIEVE).
Cumbrae (Coll. Norman). Lamlash Bay (Herpmay, 1). Firth
of Clyde, “‘common in sand at low water, and dredged in sandy
ground in shallower water” (HENDERSON). Aberdeenshire (GREGOR
and Dawson). St Andrews (Brit. Mus.). Firth of Forth (LEsLIEe
and HrrpMAN ; Focco!?). Northumberland and Durham (HopcE;
Coll. Norman). Dublin Bay (Kinanan). Southport (Brit. Mus.).
Penmaenmawr to Southport, low water (HERDMAN, 3). Devon
(ParFitT). Mount’s Bay (TREGELLES). Scilly Is. (Coll. Norman;
Brit. Mus.). Ireland (THompson, 2). Salcombe, Hastings (Coll.
Norman). Plymouth (Heaps). Guernsey (K@uHLER).

Other Localities.—“ Found throughout the seas of Europe”
(Forpes, 1). Norway (Sars ; Copenhagen Mus. ; M‘Anprew and
BarReETT; GRieG; Coll. Norman). Denmark (LirKen ; Copen-

hagen Mus.). Holland (Mairtanp; Horst). France (FIscHer ;
VOL. xX. ZF

428 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Barrois). Spain (Coll. Norman). Mediterranean (Lupwic ;
Carus; Brit. Mus.). United States Coast (Acassiz, 2). Bahia
(Mus. Godeffroy, jide Acassiz, 2).

25. Echinocardium pennatifidum, Norman.
21857. Amphidotus gibbosus, Barrett, Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., (2) xix.
p. 32, pl. vii., fig. 2 (nec Agassiz).
1868. Echinocardium pennatifidum, Norman, Last Rep. Shetland
Dredgings, p. 315.

1872. % ce Hodge, Cat. Echin. Northumbher-
land and Durham, p, 142, pl. v.,
figs. 1-5.

1872. a re Agassiz, Rev. Echin., pp. 111,
60. ply ck, tesa eee

1886. i < Bell, Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist.,

(5) xvil,, pp. 516, Sive
Diagnosis.

Test having the general appearance of EH. cordatwm, owing to
the point of greatest elevation being posterior, though not so con-
spicuously as in that form ; the ambulacral areas are very slightly
depressed ; the deep anterior groove of 1. cordatum being absent ;
in the antero-lateral petal, the anterior row has four to nine pairs,
the posterior thirteen or fourteen pairs of pores; some of the
pedicellarie have jaws expanded towards the tip, round which
are six or more denticles. (This character suggested the specific
name. )

Distribution.

British Seas.—Shetland, 8. of Bressay I., 25 fms.? (BARRETT).
St Magnus Bay (Norman, 3). Off North Rona, “ Knight
Errant,” St. 3, 53 fms. (Agassiz, 4). Off Cumbrae (Robertson,
fide Hunperson). Off Holy I. (Brapy, 2). Northumberland
and Durham (Hopcr). Jersey (BELL, 2). Herm (Coll. Norman).
Scilly Is. (Brit. Mus. ; Coll. Norman).

Other Localities—West Indies and Florida, 79-121 fms.
(AGASSIZ, 2).

26. Echinocardium flavescens (O. F. Miiller), Agassiz.

1776. Spatagus flavescens, O. F. Miiller, Zool. Dan. Prodr., p. 236,
1841. Amphidotus roseus, Forbes, Brit. Starf., p. 194, cut.
1844, a ovatus, Diiben & Koren, Skand. Echin., p. 283,
pl. x., fig, 50.
1872. Echinocardiwm flavescens, Agassiz, Rev. Echin., pp. 110, 351,
pl, xx., figs. 3, 4,

A Revised List of British Echinoidea. 429

1874. Echinocardium flavescens, Lovén, Etudes, pl. iii., figs, 33-37
(peristome, ete. ).

1883. ‘s ad Lovén, Pourtalesia, pl. xi., figs. 127-
130 (pedicels) ; pl. xv. (anat. juv.) ;
pl. xvii. (calyx).

1884, — Mi Carus, Prodr. faun. Medit., p. 103,

Deagnosis.

Test ovate, most elevated in the middle; ambulacral depressions
shallow ; dorsal impression escutcheon shaped; the posterior pore-
row of the antero-lateral petal forms an angle with the anterior
row of the postero-lateral petal; in the antero-lateral petal the
anterior row has four or five pairs of pores, the posterior nine or
ten ; post-oral spiniferous space lanceolate.

Distribution.

British Seas.—Shetland, Leith Sands, St Andrews, Isle of Man,
Belfast, Dublin, Youghal, Cornwall (Forses, 1). Shetland,
40-140 fms. (Norman, 1); 15-90 fms. (Fores, 2). Off N. Rona,
“ Knight Errant,” St. 3, 53 fms. (Agassiz, 4). N.-W. of Scot-
land (Forses, 2). Off Cape Wrath (‘‘ Porcupine” Exp., fide
Acassiz, 2). Orkneys, 35-40 fms. ; Hebrides, 7-40 fms. (ForBEs, 2).
Hebrides (Norman, 2). Off Aberdeen (GREGOR and Dawson). Off
Peterhead, 48, 58, and 60 fms.; off Aberdeen, 38 and 40 fms.;
off Montrose, 42 and 53 fms. (BELL, i). Clyde province, 40 fms.
(Forses. 2). “ Loch Striven, 30-40 fms. ; off Garnock Beacon,
35 fms. ; Skelmorlie Bank, 5-16 fms. Not uncommon in deepish
water” (HENDERSON). Firth of Forth (LEstiz and HErpMaN).
Coast of Durham, “deep water” (Coll. Norman). Northumberland
and Durham (Brapy, 1; Hopes). Off the Mull of Galloway,
110-140 fms. (THompson, 1). Isle of Man, 20 fms. (Forszs, 2).
Port Erin, 15-20 fms. (HERDMAN, 3). N. Wales, 12 fms,
(ForBEs, 2). Ireland (THompson, 2). Off Great Skellig, 70-79
fms. ; mouth of Bantry Bay, 35-40 fms.; Berehaven, 5-25 fms.
(Happon, 2). 8. of Ireland (“ Porcupine” Exp., fide Acassiz, 2).
Cornwall and Devon (Coucu ; Parrirr) ; 20-25 fms. (Forsss, 2).
Herm (K@uHLER),

Other Localities—Norway (Sars; M‘Anprew and Barrett;
Coll. Norman ; Grigec). Denmark (Escuricut ; fide Acassiz, 2).
Cape Breton, Bay of Biscay, 35-80 fms. (Coll. Norman). France
(Barrors). Mediterranean (Lupwic ; Carus). Coast of U.S.A.
(Acassiz, 2). Off Cape of Good Hope, “Challenger,” St. 142,
150 fms. (AGaAssiz, 3).

430 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socrety.

PoURTALESIIDA.
14, Pourtalesia, Agassiz.
1869. Pourtalesia, Agassiz, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., i. p.°272:

Test elongate bottle-shaped, thin and transparent; mouth at
one extremity, terminal, in a deep groove ; anus supramarginal,
at the other; posteriorly a process projecting beyond the anus;
smaller spines spatulate ; four genital openings ; ambulacral pores
extend as simple rows from apex to mouth.

27. Pourtalesia miranda, Agassiz.
1869, Pourtalesia miranda, Agassiz, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool.,i., p. 272.
1872. 4 ia Id., Rev. ' Echin., ‘pp. 152,; 345, 56%,
pl. xviii.
Diagnosis. |

This species may be distinguished by the superior surface being
almost straight as seen from the side, the inferior gently convex ;
the oral notch is small and narrow.

As above indicated, there is an uncertainty regarding the
occurrence of this species in the British area which I have not
the means of clearing up. Sir Wyville Thomson says, “ Both of
the two specimens procured by Mr Gwyn Jeffreys at a depth of
1215 fathoms in the Rockall Channel are immature, and their
characters are too undefined for satisfactory description.” Agassiz
(“ Rev. Echin.,” p. 152) quotes this locality and depth under the
habitat of P. miranda with a (!), which signifies that he had
himself seen the specimens, and satisfied himself regarding their
identification. This would seem to indicate that Agassiz regarded
the types of P. phyale as referable to P. miranda. We find,
however, that in his ‘‘ Challenger” Report (p. 138) he still regards
P. phyale as a valid species, and devotes half a dozen figures to
its elucidation, whilst in his distribution table (p. 217) he quotes
this locality and depth both for P. miranda and P. phyale. Is it
possible that of the two specimens one belonged to each species ?

British Seas. —[Off Rockall, 1215 fms., Shetland (“ Porcupine”
Exp.), fide AGassiz. |

Other Localities.—Florida Gulf Stream, 349 fms. (Pourtaleés,
fide Acassiz, 2). East Coast of U.S.A., off Havana, 242-576
fms. (AGASSIZ, 5).

28. Pourtalesia Jeffreysi, Wyville Thomson.
1874. Pourtalesia Jeffreysi, Wyv. Thomson, ‘‘ Porcupine” Kchin.,
Phi Trans., p. (27, pls: lxx.,, dex,
1883. 45 5 Lovén, Pourtalesia, pls. i.-v,; pl. xii.,
fig. 149.

9?

A Levised List of British Echinoidea. 431

Diagnosis.

Comparatively short and stout; the post-anal process short ;
superior surface evenly arched, sloping gradually downwards
from the centre to the anal notch; seen from above the test
narrows anteriorly, and the oral notch is comparatively small.

I have not seen a specimen.

Distribution.

British Seas.—Feroe Channel, cold area, “‘ Porcupine” (1869),
St. 64, 640 fms. (THomson, 1, 2). “Knight Errant,” St. 8,
540 fms. (Acassiz, 4).

Other Localities.—Bay of Biscay (Norman, 5). U. S. Coast,
843-1555 fms. (VERRILL).

29. Pourtalesia phyale, Wyville Thomson.

1874. Pourtalesia phyale, Wyv. Thomson, ‘‘ Porcupine” Echin.,
Philly Vrans.5 p.7 49, pl. oxx, no. i
1881. 5 phiale, Agassiz, Rep. ‘‘Challenger” Echini, p.

183, pls, xxdio CMa,

Diagnosis.

Comparatively large and compressed laterally ; post-anal process
long; superior surface very slightly .arched, and descending
suddenly to the anal notch ; seen from above the test at first
narrows towards the anterior end, but expands at the extremity
by reason of the everted lips of the large triangular oral
depression.

Distribution.
British Seas.—S.-W. of Rockall, “Porcupine” (1869), St. 28,
1215 fms. (THomson, 1, 2).
Other Localities.—Southern Ocean, “ Challenger,” St. 156, 1975
fms. (Acassiz, 3). Kerguelen, Australia (AGassiz, 5).

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

Acasstz, A. (1), Preliminary Report on the Echini and Starfishes dredged in
Deep Water between Cuba and the Florida Reef, by L. F. de Pourtales,
Assistant U.S. Coast Survey. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., 1., pp. 253-308,
1869.

(2), Revision of the Echini—Illust. Cat. Mus. Comp. Zool., No.

viil., 1872-74, pp. 762, 94 plates.

432 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Acassiz, A. (8), Report on the Echinoidea dredged by H.M.S. ‘‘ Challenger ”
during the years 1873-76, ‘‘ Zool. Chall. Exp.,” vol. iii., part ix., 321
pp-, 65 plates, 1881.

(4), in Murray, J., and T. H. Tizarp, Exploration of the Faroe

Channel during the Summer of 1880 in H.M.’s hired ship ‘‘ Knight

Errant,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Edin., xi., pp. 697, 698, 1882.

(5), Reports on the Results of Dredging, under the Supervision
of Alexander Agassiz, in the Gulf of Mexico (1877-78), in the Caribbean
Sea (1878-79), and along the Atlantic Coast of the United States (1880),
by the U.S. Coast Survey Steamer ‘‘ Blake,” Lieut. Com. C. D. Sigsbee,
U.S.N., and Commander J. R. Bartlett, U.S.N., commanding, xxiv.,
part. i., *f Report on the Echini,”’ Mem. Mus. Comp. Zool., x., 1, 94 pp.;
32 pls., 1883.

Barrett, L., On two species of Echinodermata new to the Fauna of Great
Britain, Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., (2), xix., pp. 32, 33, pl. vii., 1857.

Barros, T., Catalogue des crustacés podophtalmaires et des Echinodermes
recueillis & Concarneau durant les mois d’aout-septembre 1880. Lille,
1882.

Bates, C. 8., and others, Report of the Committee appointed to Explore the
Marine Fauna and Flora of the South Coast of Devon and Cornwall,
No. 1, Rep. Brit. Assoc. for 1865, pp. 51-56. No. 2, op. cié. for 1867,
pp. 275-287.

Bett, F, J. (1), Report on the Echinodermata collected by Mr Francis
Day in H.M.S. ‘‘ Triton” off the Eastern Coast of Scotland in July 1882,
Journ. Linn. Soc. (Zool.), xvii., pp. 102-104, 1883.

(2), On a Species of Echinocardium from the Channel Islands,

Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., (5), xvii., pp. 516, 517, 1886.

(3), Report of a Deep-Sea Trawling Cruise off the S.W. Coast of

Ireland, under the direction of Rev. W. Spotswood Green, M.A.,

F.R.G.S., “Echinodermata,” Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., (6), iv,, pp. 432-

445, pls. xviil., xix., 1889.

(4), Notes on the Echinodermata collected by Mr Bourne in Deep
Water off the South-west of Ireland in H.M.S. ‘‘ Research,” Journ,
Marine Biol. Assoc., N.S., 1., pp. 324-327, 1890.

Brapy, G. S. (1), Report on the Echinodermata, in Report of the Dredging
Expedition to the Dogger Bank and the Coasts of Northumberland,
Trans. Tyneside Nat. Field Club, v., pp. 33-37, 1863.

(2), Deep-Sea Dredging on the Coasts of Northumberland and
Durham in 1864, Rep. Brit. Assoc. for 1864, pp. 189-193.

CaILLiAuD, F., Catalogue des Radiaires, des Anneélides, des Cirrhipédes et des
Mollusques du département de la Loire-Inférieure, Ann. Soc. Acad.
Nantes, Xxxvi., pp. 1-247, 1865.

CARPENTER, W. B., J. G. Jerrreys, and C. WyvILLE THomson, Preliminary
Report of the Scientific Exploration of the Deep Sea in H.M. Surveying-
vessel ‘‘ Porcupine,” during the Summer of 1869, Proc. Roy. Soc., xviii.,
pp. 397-492, pls. iv.-vii., 1870.

Carus, J. V., Prodromus Faune Mediterranee, i. Stuttgart, 1885, 8vo.
[Echinoidea, pp. 97-104.]

Cocks, W. P., List of Echinodermata procured in Falmouth and Neighbour-

A Revised List of British Echinoidea. 453

hood from 1848 to 1849, Rep. Penzance Nat. Hist. Soc., 1. for 1849, pp.
292-294, 1851. [1851 is the date of the complete volume; this paper
was probably issued in 1850. |

Coucn, J. (1), i Report of the Committee appointed to Explore the Marine
Fauna and Flora of the South Coast of Devon and Cornwall, No. 2,
Rep. Brit. Assoc. for 1867, pp. 275-287, 1868.

Disen, M. W. von, & J. Koren, Ofversigt af Skandinaviens Echino-
dermer, K. Vet.-Akad. Handi. Stockholm for 1844, pp. 229-328,
pls. vi.-xi. [Echinoidea, pp. 255-286. ]

Fiscurr, P., Echinodermes des cotes de la Gironde et du sud-ouest de la
France, Actes Linn. Soc. Bordeaux, xxvii., pp. 358-376, 1869.

, and Marquis de Foun, Exploration bathymétrique de la fosse du
cap Breton, Comptes rendus, Ixxvi., pp. 582-585, 1873.

Foaco, J., Notice of the Echinodermata of the Frith of Forth, Zdin. Journ.
Seu, i., pps 77-79, 1825.

Forses, E. (1), A History of British Starfishes, and other Animals of the
Class Echinodermata. London, 1841, 8vo, 270 pp.

(2), Report on the Investigation of British Marine Zoology by

means of the Dredge—Part I., The Infra-littoral Distribution of Marine

Invertebrata on the Southern, Western, and Northern Coasts of Great

Britain, Rep. Brit. Assoc. for 1850, pp. 192-263, 1851. [‘‘ Echinoidea,”

pp. 211, 212, and 240. ]

(3), On the European Species of Echinus, and the Peculiarities
of their Distribution, Rep. Brit. Assoc. for 1850, pp. 123, 124.

Gray, J. E., An Attempt to Divide the Echinida, or Sea Eggs, into Natural
Families, Ann. Phil., x., pp. 423-431, 1825.

GreEGor, W.,! and R. Dawson, Report on Dredging the Coast of Aberdeen-
shire, Rep. Brit. Assoc. for 1865, pp. 142-145.

Grizc, J. A., Undersdgelser over dyrelivet i de vestlandske fjorde—
II. Echinodermer, Annelider, etc., fra Moster, Bergens Mus. Aarsber.
for Uses; Lie pps ple, leo:

GRIEVE, J., Notes on some of the Marine Invertebrata of the Firth of
Clyde, with a Notice of the most suitable Localities for Dredging in the
Bay of Rothesay, Proc. Nat. Hist. Soc. Glasgow, i., pp. 57-66.

Gruss, E., Mittheilungen iiber St Malo und Roscoff und die dortige Meeres-
besonders die Annelidenfauna, Abhandl. Schles. Ges. vaterl. Cultur,
1869-72, pp. 75-146, pls. i., i1., 1872. [Hchinoidea, p. 143.]

Happon, A. C. (1), Preliminary Report on the Fauna of Dublin Bay, Proce,
Roy. Irish Acad., (2), iv., pp. 523-531, 1886.

(2), Echinodermata, iz First Report on the Marine Fauna of the
South-West of Ireland, Proc. Roy. Irish Acad., (2), iv., pp. 599-688,
1886. [Echinoidea, p. 620. ]

Hrare, W., Preliminary Report upon the Fauna and Flora of Plymouth
Sound, Journ. Marine Biol. Assoc., ii., pp. 153-193, 1888. [Echinoidea,
p. 168. ]

HenpERsonN, J. R., The Echinodermata of the Firth of Clyde, Proc, Roy,
Phys. Soc. Edin., ix., pp. 328-337, 1887,

1 This seems to be the same as MACGREGOR and Dawson below,

454 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

HerpMan, W. A. (1), On the Invertebrate Fauna of Lamlash Bay, Proc.
Roy. Phys. Soc. Edin., v., pp. 193-219, 1880. [Echinoidea, pp. 201-
202. ]

(2), Additional Notes on the Invertebrate Fauna of Lamlash Bay,

Proc. Roy. Phys. Soc. Edin., vi., pp. 17-380, 1881. [Echinoidea, p.

22. |

(3), Report upon the Crinoidea, Asteroidea, Echinoidea, and Holo-
thuroidea of the L.M.B.C. District, in First Rep. Fauna Liverpool Bay,
Liverpool, pp. 186-138, 1886; also in Proc. Lit. Phil. Soc. Liver-
pool, xi.

Hoper, G., Catalogue of the Echinodermata of Northumberland and Durham,
Nat. Hist. Trans. Northd. and Durh., iv., pp. 120-150, pls. i.-ill., v.,
1872. [Echinoidea, pp. 139-143.]

Horst, R., Naamlijst der tot de Nederlandsche Fauna behoorende Echino-
dermata, Tijdschr. Nederl. Dierk. Ver., (2), i., pp. 69-76.

Hoyir, W. E. (1), Report on the Biological Investigations on the Sea to
the West of Lewis during July and August, Rep. Fishery Board for Scot-
land for 1887, pp. 215-222, pl. xv., 1888.

(2), On the Deep- Water Fauna of the Clyde Sea-Area, Journ. Linn. Soc.
(Zool.), xx., pp. 442-472, pl. 29, 1889.

Hynpman, G. C., Note of Species obtained by Deep Dredging near Sana
Island, off the Mull of Cantire, Rep. Brit. Assoc. for 1842, p. 71.

Kinanan, J. R. (1), On the Distribution of the Irish Echinodermata, Nat.
Hist. Rev., vi., pp. 368-371, 1859.

(2), Report of the Committee appointed to dredge Dublin Bay, Rep.
Brit. Assoc. for 1860, pp. 27-31.

Kq@uter, R., Contribution a l’étude de la faune littorale des iles Anglo-
Normandes (Jersey, Guernsey, Herm, et Sark), Ann. Sci. Nat. (6), xx.,
4, 62 pp., 1 pl.; translation—On the Littoral Fauna of the Anglo-
Norman Islands, Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., (5), xviii, pp. 229-243,
290-307, 351-367, 1886.

Lestir, G., and W. A. HeErpDMAN, The Invertebrate Fauna of the Firth of
Forth, Part I., Proc. Roy. Phys. Soc. Edin., vi., pp. 68-95, 1881.
[Echinoidea, pp. 938, 94. ]

Lovin, S. (1), Etudes sur les Echinoidées, K. Svensk. Akad. Handl., xi.,
7, 53 pls.

(2), On Pourtalesia, a Genus of Echinoids, A. Svensk. Akad. Hand.,
Kix, 90 Pp. 2k pls. Less:

Lupwic, H., Die Echinodermen des Mittelmeeres, Mitth. Zool. Stat. Neapel,
i., pp. 523-580, 188 .

LirKen, C. F., De ved Danmarks Kyster levende Pighude, Vidensk. Medd.
Nat. Foren. Kjdbenhavn for 1856, pp. 88-110, 1857.

M‘AnprReEwW, R., List. of the British Marine Invertebrate Fauna, Rep. Brit.
Assoc. for 1860, pp. 217-236. [Hchinoidea, p. 230.]

, and L. Barrett, List of the Echinodermata dredged between Dron-
theim and the North Cape, Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., (2), Xx., pp.
43-46, 1857.

Maccrecor, W., and R. Dawson, Report on Dredging in the Moray Firth,
Rep. Brit. Assoc. for 1866, pp. 211, 212.

A Revised List of British Echinoidea. 435

M'‘Intosu, W. C., On the Invertebrate Marine Fauna and Fishes of St
Andrews, Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist , (4), xiv., pp. 68-75; 1874; also
separately, London.

MAITLAND, Descriptio systematica animalium Belgii septentrionalis, ete.—
Pars I. Animalia radiata et annulata Cuvierii. Lugd. Bat., 1851, 8vo.

Norman, A. M. (1), On the Crustacea, Echinodermata, and Zoophytes
obtained in Deep-sea Dredging off the Shetland Isles in 1861, Rep.
Brit. Assoc. for 1861, pp. 151, 152.

— — (2), Report of the Committee appointed for the purpose of Exploring
the Coasts of the Hebrides by means of the Dredge—Part II. On the
Crustacea, Echinodermata, Polyzoa, Actinozoa, and Hydrozoa, Rep.
Brit. Assoc. for 1866, pp. 198-206. [Echinoidea, pp. 196 and 199. ]

(3), in, JEFFREYS, Norman, M‘INTosuH, and WALLER, Last Report

on Dredging among the Shetland Islands, Rep. Brit. Assoc. for 1868.

[Echinoidea, pp. 314-316, 344. ]

(4), im, JEFFREYS & CARPENTER, The ‘‘Valorous” Expedition

Reports, Proc. Roy. Soc., xxv., pp. 177-237, 1876.

(5), Notes on the French Exploring Voyage of ‘Le Travailleur’ in the
Bay of Biscay, Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., (5), vi., pp. 430-436, 1880.

PARFIIT, E., The Fauna of Devon, viii., Echinodermata, Zrans. Devun
Assoc., V., pp. 352-370, 1872.

PEARCEY, F. G., Investigations on the Movements and Food of the Herring,
with additions to the Marine Fauna of the Shetland Islands, Proc. Roy.
Phys. Soc. Edin., viii., pp. 389-415, pl. xx., 1885.

Sars, M., Oversigt af Norges Echinodermer. Christiania, 1861, 8vo, 160 pp.,
16 pls.

Tuompson, W. (1), Results of deep Dredging off the Mull of Galloway.
By Capt. Beechy, R.N., Rep. Brit. Assoc. for 1842, pp. 72-75.

——— (2), Report on the Fauna of Ireland, Div. Invertebrata, Rep. Brit.
Assoc. for 1843, pp. 245-291. [Echinoidea, p. 279. ]

THomson, C. WYVILLE (1), The Depths of the Sea. London, 1873, 8vo.

(2), On the Echinoidea of the “Porcupine” Deep-sea Dredging
Expeditions, Phil. Trans., clxiv., pp. 719-756, pls. lix.-Ixxi., 1874.
TREGELLES, G. F., Notes on the Echinodermata of Mount’s Bay, Zrans.

Penzance Nat. Hist. Soc., 1887-88, 9 pp.

VerriLi, A. E., Results of the Explorations made by the Steamer “ Al-
batross”’ off the Northern Coast of the United States in 1883, Rep. U. 8.
Fish Comm. for 1883, pp. 503-699, 1885. [Echinoidea, pp. 539 and 540. ]

, and 8. I. Smiru, Report upon the Invertebrate Animals of Vine-

yard Sound and Adjacent Waters, Rep. U. S. Fish Comm. for 1871, pp.

295-747, pls. i.-xxxviil., 1874.

INDEX.
Page Page
Amphidotus— Arachnoides, : ‘ : 420
cordatus, : , 427 placenta,.—. 420
gibbosus, ; : : 428 | Asthenosoma, . 407
ovatus, : : : 428 fenestratum, ; ‘ 408

Toseus, ‘ i ‘ 428 hystrix, p ; ‘ 407

436 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Brissopsis, .
lyrifera,
Brissus—
Fragilis,
lyrifer,
Calveria,
Jenestrata,
hystrix,
CASSIDULIDA,
CIDARIDA,
Cidaris,
affinis, .
borealis,
hystrix,
papillata,
purpurata,
CIDAROIDA,
CLYPEASTROIDA, .
DIADEMATOIDA, .
Dorocidaris,
papiliata,
Echinarachnius—
placenta,
ECHINIDA, .
Echinocardium,
cordatum,
flavescens,
pennatifidum,
pusillus, 3
Kchinocyamus,
pusillus,
Echinometra—
dribachensis,
ECHINOMETRIDA,
EcHINOTHURIIDA,
Echinus, , :
acutus, .
cordatus,
drébachiensis,
elegans,
esculentus,
esculentus,
Jlemingit,
granularis,
lacwnosus,
lithophaqus, .
lividus,
melo, .
microstoma, .

400, 414

400, 413

Page
422
422

422
422
407
408
407
420
403
403
404
404
404
404
405
403
418
405
403
404

420
411
426
427
428
428
427
418
419

: 409
, 408
" 405
411

413

427

408

411
410

410
424
410
1) 2400
400, 414
415

Echinus—
miliaris,
miliaris,
neglectus,
norvegicus,
placenta,
pulvinulus,
sphera,
subangularis,
ViTens, .

FIBULARIIDA,

Neolampas,
rostellata,

Phormosoma,
petersii,
placenta,
uranus,

Porocidaris,
purpurata,

Pourtalesia,
jeffreysi,
miranda,
phiale,
phyale,

POURTALESIIDA,

Schizaster,
fragilis,

ScUTELLIDA,

Spatagus—
jlavescens,
purpureus,
pusillus,

SPATANGIDA,

SPATANGOIDA,

Spatangus, .
canaliferus, .
meridionalis,
purpureus,
raschi,

Spherechinus,
esculentus,
granularis,

Strongylocentrotus,
drohachiensis.
lividus,

Toxopneustes—
drobachensis,
pictus, ,

Tripylus—
Sragilis,

Page
417
413

409, 410
400, 416
420
419
411
408
417
418
421
421
405
406
406
406
405
405
430
430
430
431
431
430
421
422
420

428
424
419
421
420
424
427
426
424
426
410
411
410
408

408, 410

410

409
409

Census of Scottish Land and Fresh-Water Mollusca. 437

XXXVI. Census of Scottish Land and Fresh-Water Mollusca.

~ By Wm. Denison Roesucxk, F.LS., Recorder to the

Conchological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.
(Communicated by the SECRETARY.)

(Read 19th February 1890. )

During the past twelve years, under the auspices of the
Conchological Society of Great Britain and Ireland, a scheme
of authentication and registration of specimens of the land
and fresh-water Mollusca inhabiting the various counties and
vice-counties of the British Isles has been very successfully
carried out. The object being the accumulation of carefully-
verified and therefore trustworthy data for ascertaining the
actual geographical range of the British terrestrial Mollusca,
specimens to the number of many thousands have been
submitted to and carefully examined by Mr John W. Taylor,
F.LS., of Leeds, referee to the Society, and in the case of
slugs by myself. A few specimens have at times been
authenticated by other members of the Society’s duly-
appointed Committee of Referees, but the great bulk of the
records have been under the personal examination of Mr
Taylor, than whom no one has had a wider experience or
more numerous opportunities of studying the land and fresh-
water Mollusca of the British fauna. The essential requisite
of the authentication system adopted being the personal
examination of all specimens sent in by competent and duly-
appointed referees, it is obvious that no relaxation of the rule
can be allowed without tending to impair the value of the
ultimate results, and that no book-records, however trust-
worthy, or personal notes unaccompanied by specimens,
however reliable the authority, can be entered in the Record-
Books.

The subdivision of the British Isles adopted is the well-
known system of counties and vice-counties devised by the
late Hewett Cottrell Watson, which is so familiar to every
topographical botanist, and which for various cogent reasons
is perhaps the most convenient and useful subdivision of the
British Islands yet promulgated. We do not dispute that the

458 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socvety.

river-basin division proposed for Scotland by Dr F. Buchanan
White is theoretically more scientific, but for practical
convenience—quite apart from the very considerable diffi-
culty of adapting it to England and Ireland, and the necessity
of having a special map for its explanation—it does not
divide Scotland into areas small enough and numerous enough
for the purpose of showing detailed distribution.

In pursuance of the system of which I have thus spoken,
no less than 28,669 distinct locality-records, each based upon
at least one and oftentimes numerous examples, had been
authenticated from all parts of the British Isles down to the
end of the year 1889.

The object of this communication is to summarise the
records that have so far been authenticated for Scotland, to
bring before Scottish naturalists an account of the work which
is being done, and to endeavour to enlist their sympathies and
their active co-operation in completing it in as short a period
as practicable. For this purpose is given under the head of
each species all the counties for which it has been authenti-
eated by specimens, stating the locality and the name of the
person to whom the Society has been indebted for the privi-
lege of inspecting the voucher-specimens. In this respect we
are placed under great obligation to the numerous individuals
whose names appear in this communication.

The number of records from Scotland has hitherto been
comparatively small. Of the total 28,669 records made to
the end of 1889, no less than 24,210 were for England and
Wales, and only 2187 for Scotland, and still fewer for
Treland. Of course the potential numerical richness in
species of an average Scottish county is much inferior to that
of an average English county, for climatological and other
reasons; but quite apart from this, considerably less attention
has been paid to Scottish than to English land and fresh-water
Mollusca. This is shown by the average number of specves
given in our books. The 72 counties and vice-counties
of England and Wales average no less than 56 species per
county, and two of them have actually had 103 and 102
species respectively authenticated for them. The average for
the 41 counties of Scotland only reaches 33 species per

Census of Scottish Land and Fresh-Water Mollusca. 459

county, and there was not at the end of 1889 a single Scottish
comital area which (in our Record-Books) had then attained
to what was the general Enelish average.

During the present year (1890), however, a marked change
has been effected, thanks to the energy and perseverance
which my friend Mr William Evans, the hon. secretary of the
Royal Physical Society, has shown in collecting (and causing
to be collected) shells in various parts of Scotland for the
express purpose of rendering this paper more complete before
printing. The records which I owe to him have increased
the comital average for Scotland from 21 species (at which it
stood in our Record-Books at the end of 1889) to 33 species
per county. Through his endeavours too, the number seen for
Edinbureghshire has reached 72 species, for Haddington 66,
and for Fife with Kinross 65. I am also indebted to Mr L.
Hinxman of the Geological Survey of Scotland, to Mr Thomas
Scott, F.L.S., of Edinburgh, Mr Alex. Shaw of Glasgow,
and others, for assistance in this regard during the year
1890. In fact, Scottish naturalists generally have shown a
hearty interest in the work of verification and record, and I
have to express my heartiest gratification and best thanks
for the assistance we have received. Whilst the report was
actually passing through the press, I was placed under great
obligation to the veteran naturalist, Rev. Dr Gordon, for the
privilege of inspecting the shells placed in the Elgin Museum,
and which are of peculiar interest as being illustrative of the
Moray list which he published in the Zoologist in 1854.
I have also to express my sincere thanks to my friend Mr
Charles Ashford, for assistance in the determination of the
specimens. The great majority of the specimens have been
verified by Mr Taylor, but Mr Ashford has laid us under
deep obligation for assistance rendered at a critical period of
over-pressure of work. [This paragraph was written in
November 1890.]

As for the remarks upon geographical distribution which
the Scottish records suggest, they are more of a negative than
of a positive character. Scotland cannot, like Ireland, lay
claim to the possession of species not found in England,
while, on the other hand, the number of species whose range

440) Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

in Great Britain falls short of the northern kingdom, or which
in Scotland are confined to a few scattered stations, is
considerable.

The total number of species—103, excluding Neritina and
Paludina—here recorded for the whole of Scotland does no
more than reach the total of 103 recorded for an English
vice-county situate so far north as Mid-West Yorkshire, and
the total we give includes fourteen additions to the list
published in 1873 by Dr White,! which is the only general
catalogue for Scotland of which we are at present aware. The
number he recorded was 93, to which we add two species of
Arion, one of Limax, one of Amalia, two of Testacella, two of
Zonites, one of Helix, two of Vertigo, and three of Pisidiwm.

The distribution of fresh-water shells in Scotland is
apparently marked by considerable limitations of northward
range. There are not many of them that occur in more than
a few scattered stations in the highland counties, and these
mainly along the eastern coast, while the proportion of them
which reaches the northern coast-line is very small.

The distribution of Scottish land shells is, on the contrary,
strikingly wide. There are only about three instances of
absolute restriction to or decided predilection for the western
side of the kingdom—(Helix rufescens, H. ericetorum, and
Bulimus acutus), and but one of apparent predilection for the
eastern coast in Bulimus obscurus. Restrictions of range
in the northward direction are ikewise remarkably few, and
it is quite possible that they may be more apparent than real,
and arising from lack of information. It would be a matter
of considerable interest to ascertain in this respect whether
Helix nemoralis, H. concinna, and H. hispida find in reality
their northern limits in Westerness and Kincardineshire, as
would so far appear.

I have now only to say that no attempt to deal with the
distribution of varietal forms has been made beyond carefully
recording under each species the varieties included in the
examples seen by our referees; that it is very desirable that
records for such places as Perth, Aberdeen, Queensferry,
standing on the borders of counties or vice-counties, should

1 Scottish Naturalist, Oct. 1878, and Jan. 1874, pp. 163-169, and 205-209,

Census of Scottish Land and Fresh-Water Mollusca. 441

be confirmed or re-investigated, with a view of determining
the rightful vice-county to which each record should be
credited, and to say that when I use such terms as “ universally
distributed” I mean to imply no more than that it occurs, or
will most probably occur, within each and all of the vice-
comital areas.

Arion ater (L.).
Although this conspicuous and well-known slue is of
universal range in Scotland, it has as yet been authenticated
for 34 counties only, out of 41.

Dumfries.—Outskirts of Dumfries (W. Evans).

Kirkcudbright.-—Castle Douglas (W. Evans).

Wigtown.—Springbank near Stranraer (W. Evans),

Ayr.—Var. succinea, coast near Skelmorlie (W.D.R.). Maybole (W. Evans).

Renfrew.—Inverkip Road and Shielhill Glen, near Greenock (W.D.R.),.

Lanark.—Cadder Wilderness (W.D.R.).

Peebles.—Walkerburn ; Leadburn ; Earlyburn; var. pallescens, Leadburn
and Riddenlees ; var. braunnea, Leadburn (W.D.R.).

Selkirk.—Thornielee, with var. alba (W.D.R.).

Berwick.—Fans (R. Renton). Dryburgh; var. padlescens, Cowdenknowes
(W.D.R.). Pease Dean near Cockburnspath ; var. nigrescens, Cockburns-
path (W. Evans).

Haddington.—Aberlady (W. Evans).

Edinburgh.—Braidburn, also var. nigrescens (W. E. Clarke). Balerno and
Bavelaw ; Caroline Park near Granton (W. Evans).

Linlithgow.—Forth Bridge (W.D.R.). Linlithgow (W. Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—St Andrews; Crail; Dura Den (W. Evans).

Stirling.—Falls of Inversnaid (B. Hudson). Polmont (W. Evans).

Perth South with Clackmannan.—Callander (A. Somerville),

Perth Mid.—Birnam (W. Evans).

Perth North.—Spittal of Gleushee ; Blairgowrie (W. Evans).

Forfar.—Montrose (W. Duncan). Outskirts of Dundee (W. Evans). Var.
marginata, Den of Airlie (C. B. Plowright).

Kincardine.— Banchory (W. Evans).

Aberdeen South.— Braemar (W. Evans). Drum Woods, Deeside, with var.
nigrescens (C. B. Plowright).

Aberdeen North.—Haddo House (G. Muirhead).

Easterness.—Inverness (A. Somerville). Kincraig by Kingussie (W. Evans).

Westerness.—Glenborrodale (J. J. Dalgleish).

Main Argyle.—Loch Goil Head (M. E. and G. W. Mellors). Dunoon ;
Ardenadam ; Hunter’s Quay (W.D.R.).

Dumbarton.—High Mains near Dumbarton (W.D.R.). Vars. succinea
and nigrescens, Garscadden (Alex. Shaw).

Clyde Isles.—Loch Ranza, Arran; Loch Fad and Barone, Bute; var.
nigrescens, Loch Greenan (W.D.R.). Rothesay (T. Scott),

Cantire.—Tarbert (T. Scott), also var. nigrescens.

442 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Ebudes S.—Port Charlotte, Islay (W. Evans).

Ebudes Mid.—lIona (A. Somerville and J. E. Near ite)

Sutherland East.—Golspie Burn; Loch Brora; The Mound, ete. ; var.
brunnea, The Mound; var. plwmbea, Mound Rock and Loch Brora; var.
nigrescens, Loch Brora and the Blue Rock ; var. albolateralis, Golspie Burn
(W. Baillie).

Sutherland West.—Tongue ; Halladaile River (W. Baillie). Stoer; Dur-
ness; Erribol (J. E. Somerville).

Caithness.— Dunbeath River (W. Baillie).

Hebrides.—Castlebay, Isle of Barra (J. E, Somerville), also var. brunnea.

Shetland.—Colla Firth, Yell Sound (Rk. W. J. Smart), also var. brunnea.

Arion subfuscus (Drap.).

This species does not find a place in Dr White’s list, unless
indeed the A. flavus Miill., of which he makes mention, is to
be included wholly or partially in the synonymy of A. sub-
Juscus. In all probability A. suwbfuscus will eventually be
found to inhabit every Scottish county, though never in
numbers so great as those of its congeners.

Dumfries.— Moffat (W. Evans).

Kirkcudbright.—Castle Douglas (W. Evans).

Lanark.—Cadder Wilderness (W.D.R.).

Peebles.—Leadburn (W.D.R.). Near Peebles ; West Linton (W. Evans).

Selkirk.—Holylee (W.D.R.). Var. cinereofusca, near Selkirk (W. Evans).

Berwick.—Var. cinereofusca, Dryburgh (W.D.R.).

Haddington.—Luffness Links (W. Evans).

Edinburgh.—Braidburn (W. Eagle Clarke). Craiglockhart (W. Evans and
W.D.R.). Balerno and Bavelaw ; Caroline Park, near Granton (W. Evans).

Linlithgow.—About Linlithgow (W. Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—Otterston ; Dura Den (W. Evans).

Perth N.—Blairgowrie (W. Evans).

Kincardine.— Banchory (W. Evans).

Aberdeen S.—Drum Woods, Deeside (C. B. Plowright). Aberdeen Links
(W. Evans).

Main Argyle.—Dunoon; Ardenadam (W.D.R.).

Clyde Isles.—Rothesay (T. Scott). Loch Greenan (W.D.R.).

Cantire.—Tarbert (T. Scott).

Ross W.—Ullapool (A. Somerville).

Sutherland E.—-Little Ferry, Dornoch; Blue Rock, Brora (W. Baillie).

Arion hortensis Fer.

Range probably universal, and the species may be expected
to occur in every county. It frequents cultivated land, and
may be recognised by its dark colour and orange or yellow
foot-sole.

Census of Scottish Land and Fresh-Water Mollusca. 443

Dumfries. —Outskirts of Dumfries ; Moffat (W. Evans),

Kirkcudbright.—Maxwelltown (W. Evans).

Wigtown.—Springbank near Stranraer (W. Evans).

Ayr.—Girvan (W. Evans).

Renfrew. —Shielhill Glen (W.D.R.).

Lanark.—Possil Marsh (W.D.R,).

Peebles.—Earlyburn (W.D.R.). Peebles ; West Linton (W. Evans).

Selkirk.—Thornielee (W.D.R.). Selkirk (W. Evans).

Berwick.—Kirklands near Earlston (W.D.R.). Near Berwick-on-Tweed
(W. Evans).

Haddington.—Falside ; Drummore (W.D.R.). Longniddry (W. Evans).

Edinburgh.—Salisbury Crags; Duddingston Loch; var. subfusca, Salisbury
Crags (W.D.R.). Dreghorn (W. Evans).

Linlithgow.—South Queensferry (W.D.R.). Linlithgow (W. Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—North Queensferry (W.D.R.). St Andrews; Crail;
Dura Den (W. Evans).

Stirling.—Var. subfusca, Falls of Inversnaid (B. Hudson). Polmont (W.
Evans).

Perth Mid.—Glen Tilt (H. Coates).

Forfar.—Outskirts of Dundee (W. Evans).

Banff.— Macduff (A. Robertson).

Easterness.—Nairn (J. E. Somerville). Glen Feshie (W. Evans).

Westerness.—Glenborrodale (J. J. Dalgleish).

Main Argyle.—Hunter’s Quay (W.D.R.). Crinan (J. E. Somerville).

Dumbarton.—High Mains near Dumbarton (W.D.R.). Garscadden (Alex.
Shaw).

Clyde Isles.—Ardbeg Point, and Barone, Bute (W.D.R.).

Ebudes N.—Dunvegan, Skye, with var. swbfusca (W. Evans).

Ross W.—Ullapool (A. Somerville). Loch Broom (J. E. Somerville).

Sutherland E.—Var. subfusca, Golspie Burn (W. Baillie).

Sutherland W.—Stoer (J. E. Somerville).

Caithness.—Dunbeath River; also vars. subfusca and rufescens (W. Baillie).

Hebrides.—Stornoway, Lewis (A. Somerville).

Orkney.—Harray (D. Johnston, per W. Evans).

Arion bourguignati Mab.

This species—only recently distinguished, but of perfectly
valid specific rank—is additional to Dr White’s list, is com-
mon everywhere, and may be expected to occur in every
county. It frequents the open fields in preference to culti-
vated lands and gardens, and may be readily distinguished
from Arion hortensis, to which it 1s comparable in size, by
the opaque whiteness of its foot-sole.

Dumfries.— Outskirts of Dumfries ; Moffat (W. Evans).

Kirkcudbright.—Near Maxwelltown (W. Evans).
VOL. X. 2a

444 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Wigtown.— Springbank near Stranraer (W. Evans).

Ayr.—West Kilbride (A. Somerville). Girvan (W. Evans).

Renfrew.—Shielhill Glen (W.D.R.).

Lanark.—Possil Marsh (W.D.R.).

Peebles.—Walkerburn; Leadburn; Eddleston (W.D.R.). Slipperfield
Loch near West Linton (W. Evans).

Selkirk.—Thornielee; Holylee (W.D.R.). Near Selkirk (W. Evans).

Roxburgh.—Eildon Hills (W.D.R.).

Berwick.—Earlston; Dryburgh Abbey (W.D.R.). Berwick; Cockburns-
path; Coldingham Loch (W. Evans).

Haddington.—Falside; Drummore (W.D.R.). Aberlady; Longniddry ;
Dirleton Common near North Berwick (W. Evans).

Edinburgh.—Salisbury Crags; Levenhall (W.D.R.). Pentlands, above
Dreghorn; Balerno and Bavelaw (W. Evans).

Linlithgow.—Dalmeny Park (W.D.R.). Linlithgow (W. Evans).

Fife and Kinross.— North Queensferry (W.D.R.). St Andrews; Crail
(W. Evans).

Stirling.—Polmont (W. Evans).

Perth South with Clackmannan.—Callander (A. Somerville).

Perth Mid.—Loch Tay side (J. E. Somerville).

Perth N.—Blairgowrie (W. Evans).

Forfar.—Var. swhfusca, Montrose (W. Duncan).

Kincardine.—Banchory (W. Evans).

Aberdeen S.—Drum Woods, Deeside (C. B. Plowright). Aberdeen Links
(W. Evans).

Banff.—Tomintoul (L. Hinxman).

Elgin.—Elgin (G. Gordon).

Easterness.—Nairn; Glenurquhart (J. E. Somerville). Inverness (A.
Somerville). Glen Feshie; Kincraig by Kingussie (W. Evans).

Westerness.—Glenborrodale (J. J. Dalgleish).

Main Argyle.—Dunoon; Hunter’s Quay (W.D.R.).

Dumbarton.—Dumbarton Castle Rock; High Mains (W.D.R.). Garscad-
den (A. Shaw).

Clyde Isles.—Barone, Bute (W.D.R.).

Ebudes S.—Port Charlotte, Islay (W. Evans).

Ebudes Mid.—Iona (J. E. Somerville).

Ebudes N.—EHigg (W. Evans).

Sutherland E.—Golspie Burn; Mound Rock ; Little Ferry, Dornoch; var.
subfusca, Little Ferry, Dornoch (W. Baillie). ,

Sutherland W.—Durness; Strathy; Farr (J. E. Somerville).

Hebrides.--Stornoway (C. Ashford). Eye Churchyard, near Stornoway
(A. Somerville).

Orkney.—Harray (W. Evans).

Arion minimus Simroth.

This is the latest addition to the list of British slugs, made
by Dr R. F. Scharff in the Jowrnal of Conchology for October

Census of Scottish Land and Fresh- Water Mollusca. 445

1890 (published December 11), p. 267. It is a form which
is very recognisable when adult by its small size, pale colora-
tion above, yellow foot, and its capability of assuming the
hemispherical contraction so well known in A. ater. The
form is one which I have for some years met with, and been
unable to satisfactorily refer to any of our British species,
although I did not venture, in the absence of a knowledge of
its anatomical characters, to assign to it specific rank. The
Elgin specimens have been confirmed as to determination by
Dr Simroth, the original describer. The species is a common
one, and may be expected to occur in every Scottish county.

Dumfries.— Moffat (W. Evans).

Ayr.—Coast near Skelmorlie (W.D.R.).

Berwick.—Cowdenknowes (W.D.R.).

Haddington.—Dirleton Common near North Berwick (W. Evans).

Edinburgh.—Near Colinton ; The Bush near Penicuik (W. Evans).

Linlithgow.—South Queensferry (W.D.R.).

Perth North.—Persie Inn, Glenshee (W. Evans).

Elgin.—Near Elgin (G. Gordon).

Main Argyle.—Hunter’s Quay (W.D.R.).

Clyde Isles.—Loch Greenan (W.D.R.).

Ebudes N.—EHigg (W. Evans).

Orkney.—Harray (W. Evans).

Amalia gagates (Drap.).

This species—though as yet reported from three counties
only—is likely to be found in other maritime counties,
especially in the south and west of Scotland.

Berwick.—Cockburnspath, type and var. (W. Evans).

Edinburgh.—Levenhall, numerous and fine (W.D.R.). Garden at Morn-
ingside (W. Evans).

Clyde Isles.—Common about the Aquarium, Rothesay (T. Scott),

Amalia carinata (Leach).

This species also may be expected to turn up in other
maritime counties of the south and west than the four from
which it has been authenticated.

Renfrew.—Greenock (T. Scott).

Edinburgh.—Meggatland near Edinburgh; Morningside (W. Evaus).
Fife and Kinross.—North Queensferry (W.D.R.).

Clyde Isles.—Rothesay, common (T. Scott),

446 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Limax maximus ‘“L.” Auct.

This species is probably of general range.

Kirkcudbright.—Near Maxwelltown (W. Evans).

Wigtown.— Var. fasciata, Springbank near Stranraer (W. Evans).

Ayr.—Var. cellaria, Glen App near Ballantrae(B. Hudson). Var. fasciata,
Maybole (W. Evans).

Renfrew.—Greenock (Andrew Scott). Vars. cinerea, celluria, and fasciata,
Shielhill Glen (W.D.R.).

Peebles.—Var. cellarvia, Eddleston ; var. fusciata, Walkerburn (W.D.R.).
Peebles (W. Evans).

Selkirk.—Vars. ferussaci, fasciata, and maculata, Thornielee (W.D.R.).
Var. fasciata, Selkirk (W. Evans).

Roxburgh.—Var. cel/aria, near Melrose Abbey (W.D.R.).

Berwick.—Fans near Earlston (R. Renton). Cockburnspath (W. Evans).

Haddington.—Drummore; var. cinerea, Falside (W.D.R.). Aberlady (W.
Evans).

Edinburgh.—Levenhall (W.D.R.). Colinton; Meggatland near Edin-
burgh; vars. johnstont and fasciata, Dreghorn Woods near Colinton; Har-
mony near Balerno, type and var. cinerea (W. Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—Cupar-Fife (T. Scott). Crail; type and var. fasciata,
St Andrews (W. Evans).

Stirling.—Polmont (W. Evans).

Perth Mid.—Var. fasciata approaching aldrovandi, Annat Lodge, Perth
(H. Coates).

Perth North.—Var. fasciata, Bridge of Cally; var. maculata, Blairgowrie
(W. Evans).

Forfar.—Broughty Ferry (A. Somerville). Montrose, with var. cellaria
(W. Duncan). Var. fasciata, outskirts of Dundee (W. Evans).

Aberdeen N.—Vars. cinerea and fasciata, Haddo House (G. Muirhead).

Westerness.—Glenborredale, with var. cellaria (J. J. Dalgleish).

Main Argyle.—Vars. cinerea and fasciata, Dunoon (W.D.R.).

Dumbarton.—Near Forth and Clyde Canal by Maryhill (Alex. Shaw).

Clyde Isles.—Var. fasciata, Rothesay (T. Scott).

Ebudes §.—Var. fasciata, Port Charlotte, Islay (W. Evans).

Sutherland E.—Var. cinerea, Brora, and Golspie Burn (W. Baillie).

Limax cinereo-niger Wolf.

This is one of the scarcest of the British slugs, having only
occurred in but few localities throughout the British Isles,
and only singly or in twos and threes anywhere. It may be
expected to turn up casually in any part of Scotland. The
species may be known from L. maximus by its foot being
trifasciated longitudinally in colour, the mid band being
white and the side ones coloured, by its shield being uniform

Census of Scottish Land and Fresh-Water Mollusca. 447

in colour and not spotted, and by the comparative coarseness
of its sculpture, the largeness of the rugosities giving the
slug a superficial resemblance to Arion ater.

Forfar.—Den of Airlie, one (C. B. Plowright).

Easterness.—Nethy Bridge, one, July 1887 (J. E. Somerville).

Sutherland E.—The Blue Rock near Loch Brora, etc., several times (W.
Baillie).

Limax arborum B.-Ch.

This is the species which Dr White calls LZ. marginatus.
It is probably universal in its range in Scotland, and should
be found not uncommonly in every county.

Peebles.—Cademuir near Peebles (W. Evans).

Selkirk.— Var. nemorosa, near Selkirk (W. Evans).

Berwick.—Fans near Earlston (R. Renton). Var. nemorosa, Coldingham
(W. Evans).

Haddington.—Aberlady; var. alpestris, North Berwick Law (W. Evans).

Edinburgh.—Dreghorn near Colinton; Balerno and Bavelaw, with var.
nemorosa; Caroline Park near Granton (W. Evans),

Fife and Kinross.—Var. nemorosa, St Andrews Bay (H. E. Prince). St
Andrews (W. Evans).

Stirling.—Polmont (W. Evans).

Perth Mid.—Glen Tilt (H. Coates).

Perth North.—Var. alpestris, Blairgowrie (W. Evans).

Kincardine.—Var. nemorosa, Banchory (W. Evans).

Aberdeen N,—Var. nemorosa, Haddo House (G. Muirhead).

Easterness.—Kincraig by Kingussie (W. Evans).

Sutherland E.—Loch Brora; Golspie Burn; the Blue Rock near Loch
Brora; rock south of the Mound (W. Baillie).

Caithness.—Dunbeath River (W. Baillie).

Limax flavus L.

This species—restricted to cellars and the vicinity of
human habitations—has only been authenticated from four
counties, but should be looked for in all towns and large
villages.

Renfrew.—Greenock, abundant at sugar refineries, with var. grisea (T.
Scott).

Edinburgh.—Gardens, Edinburgh (J. M‘Murtrie).

Fife and Kinross.—Crail (W. Evans).
Elgin.—South College, Elgin (G. Gordon).

448 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socicty.

Agriolimax agrestis (L.).

This is the common field slug, which is an agricultural
pest throughout the British Isles, and should be found to
occur everywhere. We have seen it from at least one locality
in each of the forty-one Scottish counties. It is at once dis-
tinguishable from every other slug by its milk-white slime.

Dumfries.—The Grey Mare’s Tail (J. Madison). Type and var. sylvatica,
outskirts of Dumfries ; Moffat (W. Evans).

Kirkcudbright.—Near Maxwelltown (W. Evans).

Wigtown.—Vars. sylvatica and nigra, Springbank near Stranraer (W.
Evans).

Ayr.—West Kilbride (A. Somerville). Largs (G. W. Mellors). Skelmorlie
(W.D.R.). Var. sylvatica, Girvan (W. Evans).

Renfrew.—Greenock, with var. sylvatica (A. Scott). Shielhill Glen
OWeDoR:):

Lanark.—Var. albida, Cadder Wilderness (W.D.R.).

Peebles.—Leadburn and Walkerburn; var. sylvatica, Walkerburn (W.D.R.).
Var. sylvatica, West Linton (W. Evans).

Selkirk.—Thornielee and Holylee; var. sylvatica, Thornielee (W.D.R.).
Var. sylvatica, Selkirk (W. Evans).

Roxburgh.—EHildon Hills; Melrose Abbey; Leader Water side; vars.
sylvatica and tristis also in the last-named locality (W.D.R.).

Berwick.—Fans near Earlston (R. Renton). Dryburgh; Earlston; Red-
path; Kirklands; var. sylvatica at Cowdenknowes (W.D.R.). Vars. reticulata,
sylvatica, and tristis at Fans (R. Renton). Type and var. obsewra, Cockburns-
path; Berwick, with var. sylvatica; var. sylvatica, near Coldingham Loch
(W. Evans).

Haddington.—Drummore and Falside (W.D.R.). Longniddry; vars.
nigra and sylvatica, Dirleton Common, near North Berwick (W. Evans).

Edinburgh.—Duddingston; Levenhall; Wallyford (W.D.R.). Braidburn
(W. Eagle Clarke). Var. sylvatica, Balerno and Bavelaw (W. Evans).

Linlithgow.—Near Cramond Bridge; South Queensferry (W.D.R.). Lin-
lithgow (W. Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—North Queensferry, with var. sylvatica (W.D.R.).
St Andrews Bay (E. E. Prince). Dura Den; St Andrews; Crail (W. Evans).

Stirling.—Var. sylvatica, Polmont (W. Evans).

Perth S. with Clackmannan.—Var. reticulata, Callander (A. Somerville).

Perth Mid.—Var. sylvatica, Loch Tay side (J. E. Somerville).

Perth North.—Blairgowrie (W. Evans).

Forfar.— Montrose, with vars. rufescens, sylvatica, and filans (W. Duncan).
Den of Airlie (C. B. Plowright). Outskirts of Dundee (W. Evans).

Kincardine.—-Banchory (W. Evans).

Aberdeen S.—Drum Woods, Deeside (C. B. Plowright). Aberdeen Links
(W. Evans).

Aberdeen N.—Haddo House, with var. sylvatica (G. Muirhead). Peter-
head (J. Manson).

Banff.—Var. sylvatica, Tomintoul (L. Hinxman). Macduff (A. Robertson).

Census of Scottish Land and Fresh- Water Mollusca. 449

Elgin.—Var. sylvatica, Elgin (G. Gordon).

Easterness.— Nairn; var. sylvatica, Nairn and Glenurquhart (J. E. Somer-
ville). Glen Feshie, and Kincraig by Kingussie (W. Evans).

Westerness.—Glenborrodale, with var. sylvatica (J. J. Dalgleish).

Main Argyle-—Dunoon; Glen Morag; Ardenadam; Hunter’s Quay ;
var. sylvatica, Hunter’s Quay, Dunoon, and Glen Morag (W.D.R.). The var.
at Crinan, and at Beregonium, an ancient capital of Dalriad Scots, Bender-
loch, between Lochs Etive and Creran (J. E. Somerville).

Dumbarton.—High Mains near Dumbarton; var. sylvatica, High Mains
and Crosslet near Dumbarton (W.D.R.).

Clyde Isles.—Rothesay (T. Scott). Loch Greenan and Barone, Bute
QWabsk.))

Cantire.—Tarbert (T. Scott).

Ebudes S.—Var. sylvatica, Port Charlotte, Islay (W. Evans).

Ebudes Mid.—Iona (A. Somerville). Var. sylvatica, lona (J. E. Somerville),

Ebudes N.—Dunvegan, Skye, with var. sylvatica ; EKigg (W. Evans).

Ross W.—Ullapool (A. Somerville). Gairloch, sea-coast ; var. sylvatica,
Loch Carron (J. E. Somerville).

Ross E.—Invergordon (J. E. Somerville).

Sutherland E.—Golspie Burn; Mound Rock; var. albida, Golspie Burn ;
var. sylvatica, rock above Loch Brora; the Blue Rock ; Mound Rock ; var.
tristis, Mound Rock ; var. sylvatica, Little Ferry, Dornoch (W. Baillie).

Sutherland West.—Halladaile River (W. Baillie). Stoer; Strathy ; Farr ;
var. sylvatica, Durness and Erribol (J. E. Somerville).

Caithness.—Var. sylvatica, Dunbeath River (W. Baillie).

Hebrides.—Stornoway, Lewis (A. Somerville).

Orkney.—Harray, with var. sylvatica (D. Johnston, per W. Evans).

Shetland. — Type and var. sylvatica, Unst; Fetlar; and Mainland
(R. W. J. Smart).

Agriolimax levis (Miill.).

There is but little doubt that this species—which is our
smallest slug, and frequents moist situations — will be
found in many more Scottish counties than the sixteen from
which specimens have been seen by our referees. It is a
very active, lively little creature, and may be known by the
uniformity of its colour (brown both on the foot and above),
its predilection for marshy spots, and its great activity.

Dumfries.— Moffat (W. Evans).

Renfrew.—Near old castle, Inverkip Road, Greenock (W.D.R.).

Peebles.—Slipperfield Loch near West Linton; near Peebles (W. Evans).

Haddington.—Lutfiness Marshes ; Quarry near Gullane (W. Evans).

Edinburgh.—Pentlands, between Hillend and Boghall; also between
Bavelaw Castle and Loganlee; plantation above Dreghorn; Balerno; Kirk-

newton; Roslin; Dalhousie ; The Bush near Penicuik (W. Evans).
Linlithgow.—Philpstoun Loch (W. Evans).

450 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socrety.

Fife and Kinross.—St Andrews; Dura Den; Tentsmuir; Otterston
(W. Evans).

Perth N.—Loch of Clunie, between Blairgowrie and Dunkeld (W. Evans).

Aberdeen S.—Cluny Pass summit (W. Evans).

Easterness.—Nairn (J. E. Somerville). Kincraig by Kingussie (W. Evans).

Main Argyle-—Dunoon (W.D.R.).

Clyde Isles.—Loch Greenan, abundant (W.D.R.).

Cantire.—Tarbert ; West Loch Tarbert (T. Scott).

Sutherland E.—Loch Brora; Golspie Burn; rock near the Mound ;
Little Ferry, Dornoch (W. Baillie).

Sutherland W.—Mouth of Halladaile River (W. Baillie).

Caithness.—Dunbeath River (W. Baillie).

Testacella haliotidea Drap.

This is an addition to Dr White’s Scottish list, and has
only been found in one Scottish locality.

Kirkcudbright.—Maxwelltown (R. Service).

Testacella scutulum Sow.

This also—a distinct species from the last—is an addition
to Dr White’s Scottish list, and has only been found in
nursery gardens in one Scottish locality.

Fife and Kinross.—Kirkcaldy (W. D. Sang).

Succinea putris (L.).

There is a great gap in our knowledge of the Scottish
range of this species, for, with the exception of a single
record from Elgin and another from Caithness, we have no
authentication for counties farther north than Renfrewshire
on the west and Kincardineshire on the east side of the
kingdom.

Kirkcudbright —Twynholm, on Tarff side ; Hermitage Bank at Tongland ;
Tarff (F. R. Coles), Castle Douglas ; Maxwelltown (W. Evans).

Ayr.—Largs (Alex. Shaw).

Lanark.—Possil Marsh (F. G. Binnie).

Renfrew.—The Cloch by Greenock (T. Scott).

Peebles.—Near Peebles (A. Somerville).

Selkirk.— Banks of Ettrick, above Tushielaw (W. Evans).

Roxburgh.—Hilliesland Moss near Hawick (W. G. Guthrie).

Haddington.—Gosford Ponds; Luffness Links, ‘‘inner corner” and
‘farthest marsh ” ; Dirleton Common near North Berwick (W. Evans).

Edinburgh.—Stream behind Lothianburn; var. swbglobosa, near Edinburgh,
1883 (W. Evans).

Census of Scottish Land and Fresh-Water Mollusca. 451

Fife and Kinross.—Cliffs of St Andrews Bay (E. E. Prince). Kinkell
Braes near St Andrews (W. Evans). Var. subglobosa, Lindores Loch
(T. Scott).

Perth North.—Near Perth (H. Coates).

Forfar.—Mains of Usan near Montrose ; Loch Rescobie (W. Duncan).

Kincardine.—Stonehaven (W. Turner).

Elgin.—Near Elgin (G. Gordon),

Clyde Isles.—Port Bannatyne (A. Shaw). Loch Fad (T. Scott).

Caithness.—Near Wick (T. Scott).

Succinea elegans Risso.

Although one of its varieties has been recorded (by
Dr Jeffreys) for Shetland, this species has not been authen-
ticated by our referees for localities farther north than North
Perthshire and Clyde Isles.

Kirkcudbright.—Tarff, Free Kirk reach (F. R. Coles).

Haddington.—Var. ochracea, common at both ends of Luffness Links
(J. M‘Murtrie). Pond, Luffness Links (W. Evans).

Edinburgh.—Var. pfeiferi, Canal bank near Slateford (J. W. Young,
per W. Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—Burntisland (W. Evans).

Perth N.—Loch of Clunie, between Blairgowrie and Dunkeld (W. Evans).

Clyde Isles.—Var. pfeigferi, Arran (British Museum).

Succinea oblonga Drap.

For this extremely rare British species we know of two
Scottish stations only, one of them the historic Bathgate.

Ayr.—Quarry near Dalry (J. Steel, per T. Scott).
Linlithgow.—Bathgate (Alder Collection, Newcastle Museum).

Vitrina pellucida Miill.

This is one of the species which range commonly through-
out the kingdom, and should be expected to occur in every
county. Records are still required for six counties, viz.,
Aberdeen N., Westerness, Cantire, Ebudes S., Ebudes N., and
Shetland,

Dumfries.—Dumfries ; Moffat (W. Evans).

Kirkcudbright.—Castle Douglas (W. Evans).

Wigtown.—Springbank near Stranraer (W. Evans).

Ayr.—Skelmorlie (W.D.R.). Largs (A. Shaw).
Renfrew. —Greenock (T. Scott).

452 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Lanark.—Falls of Clyde near Lanark (B. Hudson). Blantyre (Alex.
Shaw).

Peebles.—Walkerburn (W.D.R.). Soonhope; Rosetta near Peebles ;
Cademuir (W. Evans).

Selkirk.—Holylee and Thornielee (W.D.R.). Haining Woods near Sel-
kirk (W. Evans).

Roxburgh.—Hildon Hills (W.D.R.). F

Berwick.—Fans near Earlston (R. Renton). lEarlston and Kirklands
(W.D.R.). Pease Dean ; Cockburnspath (W. Evans).

Haddington.—Drummore (W.D.R.). Aberlady; Athelstaneford ; Ballin-
erieff; Longniddry ; Dunbar; North Berwick; Gullane Point; Gosford
Woods (W. Evans).

Edinburgh.—Blackford Hill and Bonaly (W.D.R.). Arthur’s Seat
(R. F. Scharff). Craiglockhart Hill; Salisbury Crags ; Duddingston House ;
Braid Hills; Pentlands near Hillend; Braidburn; Roslin Castle ; Dalmahoy ;
Redford and Harmony near Balerno; Kirknewton; near Dalhousie ; above
Dreghorn ; Lothianburn ; Penicuik (W. Evans).

Linlithgow.—Philpstoun ; Linlithgow (W. Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—Aberdour (B. Hudson). North Queensferry (W.D.R. ).
Crail; St Andrews; Dura Den; Strathtyrum; Kinkell Braes; Raith ;
Otterston ; Aberdour; Earlshall near Leuchars (W. Evans).

Stirling.—Polmont (W. Evans).

Perth South with Clackmannan,—Callander (A. Somerville).

Perth Mid.—Loch Tay side (J. E. Somerville).

Perth N.—Near Perth (H. Coates). Blairgowrie (W. Evans).

Forfar.—Den of Airlie (C. B. Plowright). Craigs and Links, Montrose
(W. Duncan). Douglas-field near Dundee (J. Ramage). Outskirts of
Dundee (W. Evans).

Kincardine.—Stonehaven (W. Turner).

Aberdeen S.—Couler railway bank, Deeside (C. B. Plowright). Braemar
(W. Evans).

Banff.—Tomintoul (L. Hinxman). Macduff (A. Robertson).

Elgin.—Near Elgin (G. Gordon).

Easterness.— Nairn (J. E. Somerville). Glen Feshie (W. Evans).

Main Argyle.—Oban (A. Somerville). Glen Morag; Dunoon (W.D.R.).
Crinan, and along Kerrera Sound, Oban (J. EK. Somerville).

Dumbarton.—High Mains and Crosslet near Dumbarton (W.D.R.).
Garscadden and Duntocher (Alex. Shaw). Cardross (Hilderic Friend).

Clyde Isles.—Ardbeg, Bute (W.D.R.). Loch Fad, Bute (T. Scott). Port
Bannatyne and Ettrick Bay, Bute ; Loch Ranza, Arran (Alex. Shaw).

Ebudes Mid.—Tiree Island ; Iona (J. E. Somerville).

Ross West.—Loch Carron; Gairloch ; Balmacarra; Loch Broom (J. E.
Somerville).

Ross East.—Between Bonar Bridge and Edderton (W. Baillie). Inver-
gordon ; Tain; Glenurquhart ; Kincardine ; Resolis (J. E. Somerville).

Sutherland E.—Loch Brora, abundant (W. Baillie). Helmsdale (J. E.
Somerville).

Sutherland W.—Mouth of Halladaile river (W. Baillie), Stoer; Strathy;
Farr; Durness ; Erribol (J. E. Somerville).

Census of Scottish Land and Presh-Water Mollusca. 455

Caithness.—Lybster ; Thurso (J. E. Somerville), Near Wick (T. Scott).

Hebrides.—Callernish, Isle of Lewis ; Loch Boisdale, in South Uist (J. E.
Somerville).

Orkney.—Dirsay (A. Isbister, per W. Evans).

Zonites draparnaldi Beck.

This species is a southern one, and it is possible that the
Kincardineshire and Bute specimens are unusually fine and
large examples of the next species. Otherwise the species’
constitutes an addition to Dr White’s list.

Fife and Kinross.—St Andrews (W. Evans).
Kincardine.—Stonehaven, one (W. Turner).
Clyde Isles.—Rothesay, probably this species (Alex. Shaw).

Aonites cellarius (Miill.).

A generally distributed and common species, records of
which for seven Scottish counties, viz., Aberdeen N., Wester-
ness, Ebudes S., Ebudes N., Sutherland W., Orkney, and
Shetland, are still wanting.

Dumfries.—Dumfries ; Moffat (W. Evans).

Kirkcudbright.—Kirkcudbright (Wm. Thomson). Tongland Hill; Tarff
side, etc. (F. R. Coles). Castle Douglas; Maxwelltown (W. Evans).

Wigtown.—Port Logan ; Springbank near Stranraer (W. Evans).

Ayr.—Fairlie Glen (M. E. and G. W. Mellors). Skelmorlie (W.D.R.).
West Kilbride (A. Somerville). Largs (A. Shaw). Maybole (W. Evans).

Renfrew.—Shielhill Glen ; Greenock (T. Scott). Carmunnock (Alex. Shaw).

Lanark.—Glasgow (W. Nelson). Blantyre (A. Shaw).

Peebles.—Walkerburn (W.D.R.). Neidpath Castle ; Cademuir ; Dawick
(W. Evans).

Selkirk.—Var. albinos, several at Thornielee (W.D.R.).

Roxburgh.—EKildon Hills (W.D.R.). Near Hawick (W. G. Guthrie).

Berwick.—Fans near Earlston (R. Renton). Redpath; Dryburgh Abbey
(W.D.R.). Cockburnspath (W. Evans).

Haddington.—Drummore ; Falside (W.D.R.). Aberlady ; Dunbar ; North
Berwick ; Gullane Point (W. Evans).

Edinburgh.—Edinburgh; Arthur’s Seat (R. F. Scharff). Gardens in Edin-
burgh (J. M‘Murtrie). Braid Hills ; Hillend ; Salisbury Crags ; Roslin Castle ;
Dalmahoy ; near Dalhousie; Craiglockhart Hill; Redford near Balerno ;
Kirknewton near Midcalder; above Dreghorn; Lothianburn ; Duddingston
House ; Penicuik; var. alba near Fairmilehead (W. Evans).

Linlithgow.—South Queensferry (W.D.R.).

Fife and Kinross.—Cupar (T. Scott). Aberdour (B. Hudson). Cliffs near
St Andrews (E. E. Prince). Pettycur Links; Dairsie; Kinkell Braes near

454 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socvety.

St Andrews ; Strathtyrum near St Andrews ; Dura Den; Crail; Burntisland
(W. Evans).

Stirling.—Polmont (W. Evans).

Perth S. with Clackmannan.—Callander; Pass of Leny (W. Evans).

Perth Mid.— Loch Tay side (J. E. Somerville). Birnam (W. Evans).

Perth N.—Near Perth (H. Coates). Blairgowrie (W. Evans).

Forfar.—Buddon Cliffs near Montrose; Usan (W. Duncan). Broughty
Ferry (Alex. Somerville). Douglas-field near Dundee (J. Ramage), Out-
skirts of Dundee (W. Evans).

Kincardine.—Stonehaven (W. Turner).

Aberdeen S.—Aberdeen, Prof. Macgillivray (British Museum). Braemar
(W. Evans).

Banff.— Macduff (A. Robertson).

Elgin.—Near Elgin (G. Gordon).

Easterness.—Glen Feshie (W. Evans).

Main Argyle.—Loch Awe; Dunstaffnage Castle, Oban (A. Somerville).
Glen Morag near Dunoon; Hunter’s Quay (W.D.R.). Lismore (J. E.
Somerville).

Dumbarton.—Crosslet near Dumbarton (W.D.R.). | Garscadden; Forth
and Clyde Canal at Maryhill (Alex. Shaw). Dunglass (J. E. Somerville).
Var. albinos, Forth and Clyde Canal at Maryhill (A. Shaw).

Clyde Isles.— Barone, Bute (W.D.R.). Rothesay Castle (M. E. and G. W.
Mellors). Rothesay (J. Whitwham): Loch Fad ; Rothesay (T. Scott). Port
Bannatyne, with var. albinos (Alex. Shaw).

Cantire.—Tarbert (T. Scott). Machrehanish Bay; Island Davaar ; Kil-
kerran Bay; var. albinos, Machrehanish Bay (A. Shaw).

Ebudes Mid.—lIona and Tiree (J. E. Somerville).

Ross W.—Ullapool (A. Somerville). Gairloch; Loch Carron (J. E. Somer-
ville).

Ross E.—Tain (J. E. Somerville).

Sutherland E.—The Mound near Brora (W. Baillie).

Caithness.—Dunheath Castle (W. Baillie).

Hebrides.—Eye near Stornoway; Lewis; Isle of Barra (A. Somerville).
Callernish in Lewis; Loch Boisdale, 8S. Uist (J. E. Somerville).

Zonites alliarius (Miill.).

Another generally distributed and commonly occurring
species, for which records are required for six counties, to
wit, Stirling, Kincardine, Aberdeen N., Westerness, Ebudes
S., and Ebudes N.

Dumfries.— Moffat (W. Evans).

Kirkcudbright.—Castle Douglas (W. Evans).

Wigtown.—Springbank near Stranraer (W. Evans).

Ayr.—Fairlie Glen (M. E. and G. W. Mellors). Skelmorlie (W.D.R. ;
Alex. Shaw). West Kilbride (A. Somerville).

Renfrew.—Shielhill Glen (W.D.R.).

Lanark.—Blantyre (Alex. Shaw).

Census of Scottish Land and Fresh- Water: Mollusca. 455

Peebles. —Walkerburn ; Leadburn; Riddenlees (W.D.R.). Slipperfield
Loch near West Linton ; Rosetta near Peebles (W. Evans).

Selkirk.—Elibank ; Holylee (W.D.R.). Haining Woods near Selkirk
(W. Evans).

Roxburgh. —Hildon Hills (W.D.R.).

Berwick.—Earlston ; Kirklands ; Dryburgh (W.D.R.). Cockburnspath ;
Pease Dean (W. Evans).

Haddington.—Drummore (W.D.R.). North Berwick ; var. viridula, Bass
Rock, where it is commoner than the type (J. M‘Murtrie). Aberlady ;
Longniddry ; Dunbar ; Dirleton Common near North Berwick ; Gullane Point
(W. Evans).

Edinburgh. —Salisbury Crags(W.D.R.). Pentlandsnear Hillend; Braid Hills;
Dreghorn ; Blackford Hill ; Harmony near Balerno, with var. viridula ; near
Dalhousie, with var. viridula; Roslin Castle ; Dalmahoy, with var. viridula;
Kirknewton, with var. viridula (W. Evans).

Linlithgow.— Linlithgow; Dalmeny Park (W. Evans),

Fife and Kinross.—Queensferry, Fife (R. F. Scharff). North Queensferry
(W.D.R.). Isle of May; St Andrews; Aberdour; Earlshall near Leuchars
(W. Evans).

Perth S. with Clackmannan.—Strathyre near Callander (W. Evans).

Perth Mid.—Near Kenmore (T. Scott). Loch Tay side; Kenmore; on an
island in Loch Dochart (J. E. Somerville).

Perth North.—Near Perth (H. Coates). Persie Inn, Glenshee (W. Evans).

Forfar.— Montrose (W. Duncan). Den of Airlie (C. B. Plowright).

Aberdeen §.—The Links, Old Aberdeen (C. B. Plowright). Braemar
(W. Evans).

Banff.—Tomintoul (L. Hinxman),

Elgin.—Near Elgin (G. Gordon),

Easterness.—Nairn; Strathglass ; Glenurquhart (J. E. Somerville). Glen
Feshie ; Kincraig by Kingussie (W. Evans),

Main Argyle.—Wood alongside Kerrera Sound, Oban ; also var. viridula
(J. E. Somerville).

Dumbarton.—Crosslet near Dumbarton (W.D.R.).

Clyde Isles.—Ardbeg and Barone, Bute (W.D.R.). Rothesay Castle ruins
(M. E. and G. W. Mellors). Rothesay ; Loch Fad; var. vwiridula, Loch Fad
(T. Scott). Ettrick Bay, Bute (A. Shaw).

Cantire.—Tarbert (T. Scott). Machrehanish Bay; near Campbeltown
(Alex. Shaw).

Ebudes Mid.—Tiree Island (J. E. Somerville). Jona (A. Somerville).

Ross W.—Gairloch ; Loch Broom; Balmacarra (J. E. Somerville).

Ross E.—Between Bonar Bridge and Edderton (W. Baillie). Resolis;
Invergordon (J. E. Somerville).

Sutherland E.—Brora(W. Baillie). Rosehall; Strathoyke (J. E. Somerville).

Sutherland W.—Stoer; Durness; Erribol; Strathy; Farr (J. E. Somer-
ville). P

Caithness.—Dunbeath Castle (W. Baillie). Thurso; Lybster (J, E.
Somerville).

Hebrides.—Callernish, Isle of Lewis; Loch Boisdale, South Uist (J. E.
Somerville).

456 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Orkney.—Birsay, with var. viridula (W. Evans).
Shetland.—Shetland (A. Merle Norman).

Zonites glaber (Stud.).

This has so far been reported from three western counties
only, and is additional to Dr White’s list.

Ayr.—Largs (Alex. Shaw).
Dumbarton.—-By Forth and Clyde Canal at Maryhill (Alex. Shaw).
Clyde Isles.—Port Bannatyne, Bute (Alex. Shaw).

Zonites nitidulus (Drap.).

A generally distributed and common species, of which
records for ten comital areas (Selkirk, Aberdeen N., Kaster-
ness, Westerness, Ebudes Mid, Sutherland E. and W., Hebrides,
Orkney, and Shetland) are still deficient.

Dumfries.— Moffat (W. Evans).

Kirkcudbright.—Castle Douglas (W. Evans). Tongland Hill; Skirney;
Dee at Tongland; Skesney on Tarff side (F. R. Coles).

Wigtown.—Springbank near Stranraer (W. Evans).

Ayr.—Skelmorlie (W.D.R.; Alex. Shaw).

Renfrew.—Greenock; The Cloch (T. Scott). Shielhill Glen (W.D.R.).
Houston near Paisley (H. Nelson). Carmunnock (Alex. Shaw).

Lanark.—Blantyre and Summerston (Alex. Shaw). Var. nitens, Falls of
Clyde near Lanark (B. Hudson).

Peebles.—Soonhope; Neidpath Castle; Cademuir; Dawick (W. Evans).

Roxburgh.—Near Hawick; Wellogate, Hawick (W. G. Guthrie).

Berwick.—Earlston (W.D.R.). Cockburnspath (W. Evans).

Haddington.—Drummore; Falside (W.D.R.). Var. nitens, Dunbar (J.
M‘Murtrie). Aberlady; Dunbar; Gullane Point; Gosford Woods; Luffness
Links; between Longniddry and Ballincrieff (W. Evans).

Edinburgh.—Arthur’s Seat (R. F. Scharff), Blackford Hill and Levenhall
(W.D.R.). Braid Hills; Braidburn ; Salisbury Crags; Pentlands near Hillend ;
Fairmilehead; Kaimes; Roslin Castle; Dalmahoy; near Balerno; Kirknewton ;
near Dalhousie ; Castle Rock, Edinburgh ; Davidson’s Mains ; Craiglockhart
Hill; Lochend (W. Evans).

Linlithgow.—South Queensferry (W.D.R.). Linlithgow; Philpstoun (W.
Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—North Queensferry (R. F. Scharff). Dura Den; Strath-
tyrum; St Andrews; Crail; Aberdour (W. Evans).

Stirling. — Near Bardowie Loch (Alex. Shaw). Polmont (W. Evans).

Perth S. with Clackmannan.—Callander (Alex. Somerville).

Perth Mid.—Loch Tay side; Kenmore (J. E. Somerville).

Perth North.—Near Perth (H. Coates). Blairgowrie (W. Evans).

Forfar.—Douglasfield near Dundee (J. Ramage). Craigs (W. Duncan).
Broughty Ferry (A. Somerville). Den of Airlie (C. B. Plowright). Outskirts
of Dundee (W. Evans).

Census of Scottish Land and Fresh-Water Mollusca. 457

Kincardine.—Stonehaven, with var. nitens (W. Turner).

Aberdeen §.—Var. nitens, The Links, Old Aberdeen (C. B. Plowright).

Banff.—Tomintoul (L. Hinxman).

Elgin.—Near Elgin (G. Gordon).

Main Argyle.—Dunstaffnage Castle, Oban (A. Somerville). Hunter’s
Quay; Glen Morag; Dunoon; Ardenadam (W.D.R.).

Dumbarton.—Crosslet near Dumbarton (W.D.R.). Dunglass (J. E.
Somerville). Duntocher; near Shandon, Gareloch; Garscadden; by Forth
and Clyde Canal at Maryhill (Alex. Shaw).

Clyde Isles.—Barone, Bute (W.D.R.). Rothesay Castle ruins (G. W. and
M. E. Mellors). Loch Fad; var. nitens, near Rothesay Aquarium (T. Scott).

Cantire.—Tarbert (T. Scott).

Ebudes S. or N.—A specimen or specimens in coll. A. Merle Norman, are
labelled ‘‘ Oronsay, Isle of Skye ;” it or they are of the var. nitens.

Ross W.— Ullapool (A. Somerville).

Ross E.—Between Bonar Bridge and Edderton (W. Baillie). Dingwall (J.
E. Somerville).

Caithness.—Dunbeath Castle (W. Baillie).

Zonites purus (Ald.).

A species of apparently general distribution and not un-
common occurrence in Scotland, which may be looked for as
a possible component in every county list. The variety
appears to be more prevalent than the type.

Dumfries.— Moffat, with var. margaritacea (W. Evans).

Kirkcudbright.— Var. margaritacea, Tongland (F. R. Coles).

Ayr.—Var. margaritacea, Largs (M. E. and G. W. Mellors). Skelmorlie
(Alex. Shaw).

Renfrew.— Var. margaritacea, near Cloch (F. G. Binnie).

Roxburgh.—FEildon Hills (W.D.R.).

Berwick.—Var. margaritacea, Karlston (W.D.R.). Var. margaritacea,
Pease Dean (W. Evans).

Haddington.—Var. margaritacea, Binning Woods (J. M‘Murtrie). Red-
house near Longniddry ; Gosford Woods (W. Evans).

Edinburgh.—Blackford Hill; var. margaritacea, Braid Hills; var. mar-
garitacea, Braid Hermitage; near Dalhousie, with var. margaritacea; Kirk-
newton; Dalmahoy; Roslin Castle ; Redford near Balerno; between Bavelaw
and Loganlee; Lothianburn, with var. margaritacea (W. Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—Var. margaritacea, Aberdour (B. Hudson). Var. mar-
garitacea, Dura Den; Kinkell Braes near St Andrews, with var. margaritacca ;
Earlshall near Leuchars; Otterston (W. Evans).

Perth §S. with Clackmannan.—Callander (A. Somerville). Var. mar-
garitacea, Pass of Leny, Callander (W. Evans).

Perth Mid.—Var. margaritacea, Birnam (W. Evans).

Perth N.— Var. margaritacea, near Perth(H. Coates). Blairgowrie(W. Evans).

Forfar.—Buddon ; Montrose (W. Duncan). Den of Airlie, with var.
margaritacea (C. B. Plowright).

458 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Kincardine.—Var. margaritacea, Stonehaven (W. Turner).

Elgin.— Var. margaritacea, near Elgin (G. Gordon).

Easterness.—Glenurquhart; var. margaritacea, Strathglass (J. E. Somer-
ville).

Westerness.—Var. marguritacea, sea-coast at Arisaig (J. E. Somerville).

Main Argyle.—Along Kerrera Sound, Oban (J. E. Somerville). Var. mar-
garitacea, at Oban (British Museum) ; Glen Shira, Inveraray (F. G. Binnie).

Dumbarton.—Near Shandon, Gareloch (Alex. Shaw).

Clyde Isles.—Loch Fad (T. Scott). Var. margaritacea, near Rothesay, and
in Skeoch Woods, Bute; Loch Ranza, Arran (Alex. Shaw).

Cantire.—East Loch Tarbert; var. margaritacea, Tarbert (T. Scott).

Ross W.—Var. margaritacea, sea-coast, Gairloch (A. Somerville).

Sutherland E.—Golspie Burn; Brora; var. margaritacea, Brora (W.
Baillie).

Caithness.—Var. margaritacea, Dunbeath Castle (W. Baillie).

Zonites radiatulus (Ald.).

This species appears to range from south to north of the
kingdom.

Dumfries.— Moffat (W. Evans).

Renfrew.—Greenock (T. Scott). Shielhill Glen (W.D.R.).

Lanark.—Kenmuir Bank (F. G. Binnie).

Edinburgh.—Edinburgh (British Museum). Salisbury Crags (W.D.R.).
Dalmahoy; Fairmilehead; Lothianburn; Blackford Hill; Braid Hermitage ;
Braid Hills; Loganlee, Pentlands; Gorebridge (W. Evans),

Linlithgow.—Dalmeny Park (W. Evans).

Fife and Kinross,—Tentsmuir (W. Evans).

Perth §. with Clackmannan.—Callander (A. Somerville). Pass of Leny
near Callander; var. viridescenti-alba, Strathyre near Callander (W. Evans).

Perth North.—Near Perth (H. Coates). Blairgowrie (W. Evans).

Forfar.—Broughty Ferry (A. Somerville).

Aberdeen S.—The Links, Old Aberdeen (C. B. Plowright).

Elgin.—Near Elgin (G. Gordon).

Easterness.—Kincraig by Kingussie (W. Evans).

Main Argyle.—Oban (Janet Carphin).

Clyde Isles.—Loch Fad (T. Scott). Rothesay (Alex. Shaw).

Cantire.—Tarbert, also var. viridescenti-alba (T. Scott).

Caithness.—Dunbeath Castle (W. Baillie),

Zonites nitidus (Miill.).

A species affecting moist situations, reported as yet from
but three counties.

Perth North.—Butterston Loch near Dunkeld (W. Evans).
Easterness,—Kincraig by Kingussie (W. Evans).
Clyde Isles.—Shores of Loch Fad (T. Scott).

Census of Scottish Land and Fresh-Water Mollusea. 459

Zonites excavatus (Bean).

This species is restricted in its range, and has so far been
authenticated from five counties only. Dr White mentions
several other counties; from these our referees would be
pleased to see examples.

Wigtown.—Knockeglass near Stranraer (W. Evans).

Renfrew.—Abundant in Shielhill Glen; The Cloch near Greenock (T.
Scott).

Perth S. with Clackmannan.—Strathyre near Callander (W. Evans).

Stirling.—Cumbernauld Glen (F. G. Binnie).

Clyde Isles.—Isle of Cumbrae (A. Merle Norman). Skeoch Woods near
Rothesay (A. Shaw). :

Zonites crystallinus (Miill.).

This small and not uncommon species appears to range
throughout Scotland, and may be confidently looked for in
all its comital areas.

Dumfries.— Moffat (W. Evans),

Kirkcudbright.—Tongland ; Twynholm; banks of Tarff (F. R. Coles),
Castle Douglas (W. Evans).

Wigtown.—Springbank near Stranraer (W. Evans).

Ayr.—Skelmorlie (W.D.R.). Largs (A. Shaw).

Renfrew.—Shielhill Glen; The Cloch (T. Scett).

Lanark.—Small form, Blantyre (Alex. Shaw). Falls of Clyde near
Lanark, small form (B. Hudson),

Peebles.—Peebles (A. Somerville). Standalane Braes near Peebles; Cade-
muir; Dawick (W. Evans).

Selkirk.—Small form, Thornielee (W.D.R.). Haining Woods near Selkirk,
with var. contracta (W. Evans).

Roxburgh.— Wellogate, Hawick (W. G. Guthrie).

Berwick.—Earlston; Redpath; Kirklands; var. swbterranca, Earlston,
Cowdenknowes, Dryburgh Abbey (W.D.R.). Pease Dean; Cockburnspath
(W. Evans).

Haddington.—Binning Woods; var.contracta, Binning Woods(J. M‘Murtrie).
Dunbar; Aberlady; North Berwick ; Redhouse near Longniddry (W. Evans),

Edinburgh.—Edinburgh (British Museum), Pentlands near Hillend; var.
contracta, Roslin Castle; var. contracta, Balerne; Gorebridge; between Bave-
law and Loganlee; var. contracta, Craiglockhart Hill Wood; Kirknewton,
with var. contracta; Braid Hermitage, with var. contyacta ; Dalmahoy, with
var. contracta ; Lothianburn, with var. contracta; near Penicuik (W. Evans).

Linlithgow.—Var. contracta, near Linlithgow; Philpstoun; Dalmeny
Park (W. Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—Var. subterranea, Aberdour (B. Hudson). Var. con-
tracta, Cambo near Crail; Kinkell Braes near St Andrews; Dura Den;
Otterston (W. Evans),

VOL. X. 2H

460 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Stirling.—Polmont (W. Evans).

Perth S. with Clackmannan.—Callander (A. Somerville). Var. contracta,
Pass of Leny, Callander (W. Evans).

Perth Mid.—Kenmore (A. Somerville).

Perth N.—Blairgowrie (W. Evans).

Forfar.—Montrose (W. Duncan). Den of Airlie (C. B. Plowright).

Kincardine.—Stonehaven (W. Turner).

Banff.—Tomintoul, with var. contracta (L. Hinxman).

Elgin.—Near Elgin (G. Gordon).

Easterness.—Strathglass (J. E. Somerville). Var. contracta, Glen Feshie
(W. Evans).

Main Argyle.—Oban (British Museum). Along Kerrera Sound, Oban (J.
E. Somerville).

Dumbarton.—High Mains near Dumbarton (W.D.R.). Garscadden ;
by Forth and Clyde Canal at Maryhill; the small form at Duntocher, and
near Shandon, Gareloch (Alex. Shaw).

Clyde Isles.—Loch Fad (T. Scott). Skeoch Woods, Rothesay (A. Shaw).

Cantire.—Tarbert (T. Scott).

Ross W.—Sea-coast, Loch Broom (J. E. Somerville).

Sutherland E.—Golspie Burn and Brora (W. Baillie).

Caithness. —Dunbeath Castle (W. Baillie).

Zonites fulvus (Miill.).

Although still unauthenticated for fifteen counties, it
is probable that this species will yet be found to range
throughout the kingdom, and to occur in every area.

Kirkcudbright.—Castle Douglas (W. Evans).

Wigtown.—Springbank near Stranraer (W. Evans).

Ayr.—Largs; Skelmorlie; Dalry Road, Largs (Alex. Shaw).

Renfrew.—Greenock (T. Scott). Cloch; Shielhill Glen (W.D.R.).

Lanark.—Blantyre (Alex. Shaw).

Peebles.—Cademuir; Dawick ; Soonhope (W. Evans).

Selkirk.—Haining Woods near Selkirk (W. Evans),

Berwick.—Pease Dean (W. Evans).

Haddington.—Luffness (J. M‘Murtrie). Gosford Woods; Luffness Links
(W. Evans).

Edinburgh.—Edinburgh (British Museum). Kirknewton near Midcalder;
Pentland Hills near Hillend; Blackford Hill; Braid Hermitage; Gorebridge ;
Dreghorn; Roslin Castle (W. Evans).

Linlithgow.—Philpstoun (W. Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—Dura Den; Kinkell Braes near St Andrews (W. Evans).

Perth 8S. with Clackmannan.—Pass of Leny, Callander (W. Evans),

Perth Mid.—Kenmore (A. Somerville). Birnam (W. Evans).

Perth North.—Near Perth (H. Coates). Loch of Clunie, between Blair-
gowrie and Dunkeld (W. Evans).

Forfar.—Montrose (W. Duncan). Den of Airlie (C. B. Plowright).

Census of Scottish Land and Fresh-Water Mollusca. 461

Kincardine.—Stonehaven, scarce (W. Turner).

Elgin.—Near Elgin (G. Gordon).

Main Argyle.—Oban (British Museum),
Dumbarton.—-Garscadden (Alex. Shaw).

Clyde Isles.— Barone, Bute (W.D.R.). Loch Fad (T. Scott).
Cantire.—'T'arbert (T. Scott).

Ross W.—Sea-coast, Loch Broom and Gairloch (J. E. Somerville),
Sutherland E.—Brora (W. Baillie).

Sutherland W.—Durness and Erribol (J. E. Somerville),
Caithness.—Dunbeath Castle (W. Baillie).

Helix lamellata Jeff.

Of wide range, and probably not uncommon in many
Scottish localities, though as yet it has only been authenti-
cated for eight counties,

Kirkcudbright.—New Abbey (J. M‘Murtrie).

Ayr,—Skelmorlie (Alex. Shaw),

Stirling.—Craigquarter Wood, Howietoun near Stirling (T. Scott).
Perth Mid.—Birnam (H. Coates),

Main Argyle.—Inveraray (B. Sturges Dodd).

Clyde Isles.—Skeoch Woods, Bute (Alex. Shaw).

Ross E.—Between Bonar Bridge and Edderton (W. Baillie).
Sutherland E.—Golspie Burn (W. Baillie). Brora (A Somerville).

Helix aculeata Miill.

Also a wide-ranging species, which will be found in
scattered localities throughout the kingdom by painstaking
collectors.

Kirkcudbright.—Near Castle Douglas (W. Evans).

Ayr.—Maybole, common (H. Nelson). Skelmorlie (Alex. Shaw).

Renfrew. —Greenock (A. Somerville).

Selkirk.— Haining Woods near Selkirk (W. Evans).

Berwick.—Pease Dean (W. Evans).

Haddington.—Luffness (J. M‘Murtrie). Gosford Woods (W. Evans).

Edinburgh.—Braid Hermitage; Dalmahoy; Gorebridge; Craiglockhart
Hill wood (W. Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—Dura Den (W. Evans).

Perth N.—Near Perth (H. Coates). Requires confirmation as to county.

Forfar. —Montrose (W. Duncan).

Elgin.—Cothill on the Findhorn (G. Gordon).

Main Argyle.—Oban (British Museum). Along Kerrera Sound, Oban
(J. E. Somerville). Oban (Janet Carphin).

Sutherland E.—Golspie Burn and Brora (W. Baillie).

Caithness.—Found high up the Dunbeath River (W. Baillie).

462 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Helix aspersa Mill.

A species apparently of nearly universal range in Scotland
by the coast, and occurring in many inland localities also.
Apparently wanting in the extreme northern counties.

Dumfries—Moffat (W. Evans).

Kirkcudbright.—Close to Kirkcudbright (W. Thomson).

Wigtown.—Stranraer ; Port Logan (W. Evans).

Ayr.—Skelmorlie (W.D.R.). Maybole; outskirts of Ayr (W. Evans).
Largs (A. Shaw).

Renfrew.—Common about Greenock; m. scalariforme, Crawford Street,
Greenock (T. Scott).

Peebles.—Neidpath Castle (W. Evans).

Roxburgh.—Kelso (W. G. Guthrie).

Berwick. —Cockburnspath ; Coldingham ; Berwick-on-Tweed (W. Evans).

Haddington.—North Berwick; Bass Rock (J. M‘Murtrie). Haddington
(W. Turner), Drummore (W.D.R.) Vars. undulata, zonata, flammea,
aff. nigrescens and aff. ebscwrata at North Berwick (J. M‘Murtrie).

Edinburgh.—Braidburn (W. E. Clarke). Levenhall; Bonaly (W.D.R.).
Craigleith ; Granton (W. Evans).

Linlithgow.—Dalmeny Park ; Linlithgow (W. Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—-North Queensferry (W.D.R.). Aff. wndulata, St
Andrews; Raith; aff. zonata, Crail (W. Evans).

Perth North. — Kinnoul Hill near Perth (H. Coates). Blairgowrie
(W. Evans),

Forfar.—Montrose (W. Duncan). Arbroath (A. Somerville).

Banff.— Banff (W. Baillie).

Elgin.—Near Elgin (G. Gordon).

Westerness.—Ardtornish Castle, Sound of Mull (B. Hudson).

Main Argyle.—Dunoon and Hunter’s Quay (W.D.R.).

Dumbarton.—High Mains near Dumbarton (W.D.R.).

Clyde Isles.—Rothesay Castle ruins (M. EK, and G. W. Mellors). Ardbeg
and Rothesay (W.D.R.). Var. wndulata, Rothesay Castle ; var. aff. globosa,
St Blane’s Chapel; Loch Ranza, Arran (A. Shaw). Var. depressa, near
Rothesay (T. Scott).

Cantire.—Old Castle of Tarbert, etc. (T. Scott). Island Davaar; Kilkerran
Bay ; Machrehanish Bay; var. wndudata, Machrehanish Bay (Alex. Shaw).
Var. zonata, Tarbert (T. Scott).

Ebudes S.—Port Charlotte, Islay (W. Evans).

Ebudes Mid.—lIona Cathedral walls (T. Scott). Common at Iona (A.
Somerville).

Hebrides. —Isle of Barra, plentiful (A. Somerville ; J. E. Somerville).

Helix nemoralis L.

This species is apparently absent from the more northern
counties, where its place is occupied by the next species.

Census of Scottish Land and Fresh- Water Mollusca. 463

South of Argyleshire and Easterness it is, however, probably
universal in its range and of common occurrence.

Dumfries.—Vars. castanca and libellula at The Grey Mare’s Tail; vars.
libellula and rubella at Moffat (J. Madison; W. Evans). Var. rubella,
Dumfries (W. Evans).

Kirkcudbright.—Dee at Tongland (F. R. Coles). Vars. libellula and
rubella, Kirkcudbright (W. Thomson). Var. rubella, Castle Douglas
(W. Evans).

Wigtown.—Springbank near Stranraer, vars. libellula and rubella (W.
Evans).

Ayr.—Var. libeliula, Skelmorlie (W.D.R.). Myremill Holm at Maybole ;
Crossraguel Abbey (H. Nelson). Fairlie Glen (M. E. and G. W. Mellors).
Largs (Alex. Shaw). Var. rubella, Maybole ; Myremill Holm near Maybole
(H. Nelson). Largs (A. Shaw). Skelmorlie (W.D.R.). Ardrossan and
Largs (A. Shaw). |

Renfrew. — Var. Jibellula, Greenock; Dunroad Siding; var. rubel/a,
Greenock (T. Scott).

Lanark.—Vars. libellula and rubella, Summerston (A. Shaw).

Peebles.—Vars. libellula and rubella, Walkerburn (W.D.R.). Vars.
libellula and rubella, Neidpath Castle (W. Evans).

Selkirk.—Var. libellula, Thornielee and Holylee ; Tweed side at Peel near
Galashiels ; var. castanea, Holylee (W.D.R.).

Roxburgh.—Vars. Jibellula and rubella, Melrose Abbey walls (W.D.R.).
Both vars., Minto near Hawick (W. G. Guthrie).

Berwick.—Var. dibeliula, Fans near Earlston (R. Renton). Redpath
(W.D.R.). Var. rubella, Fans (R. Renton). Dryburgh (W.D.R.). Vars.
carnea and libellula, Cockburnspath (W. Evans).

Haddington.—Var. rubella, Falside (W.D.R.). North Berwick, vars.
libellula aud castanea (J. M‘Murtrie). Aberlady, several vars. (W. Evans).

Edinburgh. —Var. Jibellula, Braid Burn (W. E. Clarke). Near Craigleith
Station; Blackford Hill; Bonaly; Torduff Reservoir (W.D.R.). Var.
rubella, Braid Burn (W. E. Clarke). Near Craigleith Station ; Bonnyfield ;
Bonaly ; Craiglockhart (W.D.R.). Var. carnea, Braidburn (W. Evans).

Linlithgow.—Var. Jibeliula, Dalmeny Park (W.D.R.). Linlithgow (W.
Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—North Queensferry ; St Andrews (R. F. Scharff). Var.
libellula, Links at Elie; Cupar Fife; var. rubella, Links at Elie; Cupar
(T. Scott). Var. castanea, North Queensferry (W.D.R.). Links at Elie
(T. Scott). Var. libellula, Crail ; numerous varieties, including roseolabiata,
‘St Andrews (W. Evans).

Stirling.—Var. Jibellula, near Bardowie Loch; Balmore; var. rubella,
Balmore, Summerston, and near Bardowie Loch (Alex. Shaw). Yar.
libellula, Polmont (W. Evans).

Perth Mid.—Var. Jibellula, Balgowan (F. B. White). Kenmore; Styx
by Kenmore (T. Scott). Var. rubella, Balgowan (F. B. White). Styx by
Kenmore (T. Scott).

Perth N.—Var. rubella, Dunkeld ; vars. rubella and libellula, Blairgowrie
(W. Evans).

464 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Forfar. —Var. Jibellula, The Links, Montrose (W. Duncan). Gallie Burn,
Dundee ; near Trottick Kirk ; Stannergate, Dundee ; Douglasfield ; Pitkerro
Road, Dundee; and railway side between Dundee and Broughty Ferry
(J. Ramage). Arbroath (A. Somerville). Den of Airlie (C. B. Plowright).
Var. rubella, Hill Street, Dundee ; Gallie Burn, Dundee (J. Ramage). Dundee
(W. Evans). The Links, Montrose; var. castanea, Montrose (W. Duncan).

Westerness.— Var. rubclia, Foyers, Loch Ness (B. Hudson).

Main Argyle.—Var. rubella, Innellan (A. Somerville). Hunter’s Quay
(W.D.R.). Var. Jibellula, Lismore; Kerrera Island (A. Somerville).
Hunter’s Quay (W.D.R.).

Dumbarton.—Var. Jibellula, Duntocher ; Forth and Clyde Canal at Mary-
hill; near Garscadden (A. Shaw). Var. rubella, High Mains near
Dumbarton (W.D.R.). Duntocher; near Shandon, Gareloch ; Forth and Clyde
Canal near Garscadden, and at Maryhill (Alex. Shaw). Cardross (H. Friend).

Clyde Isles.—Aquarium at Rothesay ; Loch Fad (T. Scott). Var. rubella,
Port Bannatyne (A. Shaw). Var. libelluwla, Barone, Bute (W.D.R.). Loch
Fad and Rothesay ; Ardbeg, Bute (A. Shaw).

Cantire. — Var. Jlibellula, Tarbert (T. Scott). Campeltown; Island
Davaar (Alex. Shaw). Var. rubella, Tarbert (T. Scott). Campbeltown
(A. Shaw). Var. castanea, Tarbert (T. Scott).

Ebudes S.— Var. /ibellula, Islay (R. Scott Skirving).

Ebudes Mid.—Iona (A. Somerville). Var. Jibellula, Island of Coll
(T. Scott).

Hebrides.— Var. ibelluda, churchyard of Eye near Stornoway (A. Somer-
ville).

Helix hortensis Miill.

Of wider range than H. nemoralis, and is to be found in
all probability in every comital area.

Kirkcudbright.—-Var. Jutea, Kirkcudbright (W. Thomson ; F. R. Coles).
Var. lutea, Castle Douglas, and near Maxwelltown (W. Evans).

Ayr.—Var. lutea, Dalry (T. Scott). Laigh Culzean near Maybole
(H. Nelson). Largs; Ardrossan (A. Shaw).

Renfrew.—Var. dutea, Scott’s Glen near Greenock (T. Scott).

Lanark.—Var. incarnata, near Glasgow (R. Standen). Var. lutea, Falls
of Clyde (B. Hudson). Stonehouse (T. Scott), Summerston and Blantyre
(Alex. Shaw).

Roxburgh.—Var. Jutea, Hassenden near Hawick (W. G. Guthrie).

Berwick.—Fans near LEarlston (R. Renton). Var. Jutea, below Pease ‘
Dean (W. Evans).

Haddington. — Var. lutea, North Berwick (J. M‘Murtrie). Dunbar
(B. Hudson).

Edinburgh.—Var. roscolabiata, Cramond Island (T. Scott). Roslin Castle,
var. lutea (W. Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—Var. Jutea, Aberdour (B. Hudson). Cliffs of St Andrews
Bay (KE. E. Prince), Dura Den; Kinkell near St Andrews (W. Evans).

Stirling. —Var. Jutea, Summerston (Alex. Shaw).

Census of Scottish Land and Fresh-Water Mollusca. 465

Perth Mid.—Var. Jutea, Balgowan (H. Coates).

Perth N.—Var. lutea, Glen Tilt (F. Buchanan White). Var. lutea,
Blairgowrie (W. Evans).

Forfar.—Var. olivacea, Arbroath (A. Somerville). Var. lutea, Links at
Montrose (W. Duncan). Den of Airlie (C. B. Plowright). Arbroath (A,
Somerville).

Kincardine. —Stonehaven, dwarf (W. Turner). Var. lutea, Banchory
(W. Evans).

Aberdeen S.—Var. lutea, Couler railway bank, Deeside (C. B. Plowright).
Var. lutea, Braemar (W. Evans).

Banff. —Tomintoul (L. Hinxman). Craighalkie (G. Gordon).

Elgin.—Near Elgin (G. Gordon).

Easterness.—Var. Jutea, Glenurquhart (J. E. Somerville).

Westerness.— Var. lutea, Ardtornish Castle, Sound of Mull (B. Hudson).

Dumbarton.— Var. Juteaw, between Luss and Tarbert (Marcus Calder),
Dunglass (J. E. Somerville),

Ebudes Mid.—Var. Jutea, Iona (T. Rogers; A. Somerville), Tobermory,
Mull (W. Evans).

Ross East.—Var. lutea, Tain (J. E. Somerville),

Sutherland E.—Var. olivacea, Mound near Brora; var. dutea, Rock south
of the Mound; Mound; Loch Brora; Gull Island, in Loch Brora ; Lothbeg
(W. Baillie).

Sutherland W.—Var. olivacea, Tongue (W. Baillie). Var. Jutea, Strathy
(J. E. Somerville). Tongue ; mouth of Halladaile River (W. Baillie).

Caithness.— Var. Jutea, Latheronwheel (W. Baillie).

Hebrides.—Var. Jutea, Barra Island (A. Somerville).

Helix arbustorum L.

Though somewhat local, is apparently a species which is
to be found throughout Scotland, and may be expected to
occur in every county.

Dumfries.—-Grey Mare’s Tail (J. Madison). Var. aff. rudis, and var. fusca,
Bell Crag Wood, Moffat (Miss F. M. Hele).

Ayr.—Largs (A. Shaw).

Renfrew.—Greenock, common; var. cincta, Greenock; var. alpestris,
Shielhill Glen (T. Scott).

Lanark.—Glasgow (H. Nelson). Near Summerston, with vars. cincta,
alpestris, and poiretia (Alex. Shaw).

Roxburgh.— Howden Burn near Hawick (W. G. Guthrie).

Haddington.—At foot of Traprain Law; North Berwick, plentiful, with
vars. major, alpestris, flavescens, and cincta (J. M‘Murtrie). Canty Bay
(W. Evans).

Edinburgh.—Var. alpestris, banks of Water of Leith, about four miles
above Balerno (W. Evans).

Linlithgow. —Queensferry (Greville Collection, Edinburgh Museum). Hope-
toun Woods, with var. alpestris (W. Evans).

466 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Fife and Kinross.—St Andrews (R. F. Scharff). Cliffs of St Andrews Bay
(E. E. Prince). Dura Den, with var. flavescens; St Andrews (W. Evans).

Stirling.—Type and var. cincta, near Summerston (Alex. Shaw).

Perth Mid.—Craig Callaich near Killin (T. Rogers). Kenmore, with var.
flavescens (T. Scott).

Forfar.—Scurdyness ; Craig; var. flavescens, Craig Farm near Montrose
(W. Duncan). Arbroath, coast sandhills (A. Somerville).

Kincardine.—Stonehaven (W. Turner).

Aberdeen §S.—Braemar (W. Evans).

Banff.—Tomintoul (L. Hinxman),

Elgin.—Elginshire (G. Gordon).

Main Argyle.—Innellan (A. Somerville). Lismore Islands (J. E. Somer-
ville). Dunoon (W.D.R.). Oban (W. Evans).

Dumbarton.—High Mains near Dumbarton(W.D.R.). Dumbarton% var.
trochoidalis, near Shandon, Gareloch (A. Shaw).

Clyde Isles.—Rothesay (T. Scott). Port Bannatyne (Alex. Shaw).

_ Cantire.—Arin Gillan ; West Loch Tarbert ; White Shore; Tarbert; var.
trochoidalis, Arin Gillan; vars. cincta and marmorata, Tarbert (T. Scott).
Campbeltown ; var. flavescens, Kilkerran Bay (Alex. Shaw).

Ross W.— Ullapool (A. Somerville). Gairloch; Loch Broom (J. E. Somer-
ville).

Ross E.—Between Bonar Bridge and Edderton (W. Bailhe).

Sutherland E.—Near Loch Brora; The Mound; Golspie Burn; var. mar-
morata, Golspie Burn, Mound, etc. ; var. flavescens, Golspie Burn, and Kin-
tradwell; var. fusca, Loch Brora, and Golspie Burn; var. baylei, Loch
Brora (W. Baillie).

Sutherland W.— East of Kyle of Tongue (W. Baillie). Strathy, with var.
alpestris (J. E. Somerville). Var. jlavescens, East of Kyle of Tongue;
var. cincta, Tongue ; var. fusca, Assynt ; var. baylet, Kast of Kyle of Tongue
(W. Baillie).

Caithness.—Near Dunbeath Castle; Brawl Castle; Latheronwheel ;
Thurso; var. marmorata, Latheronwheel and Thurso (W. Baillie).

Orkney.—Birsay (W. Evans).

Shetland.—Var. fusca, Lunna (A. M. Norman). Var. flavescens, Shetland
(E, Collier).

Helix rufescens Penn.

The range of this species appears to be restricted to South-
Western Scotland, where it inhabits a compact group of
counties round the Firth of Clyde, one county on the English
border, and one on the shores of the Irish Sea.

Kirkcudbright.—Castle Douglas, with vars. rubens, albocincta, and albida;
Maxwelltown (W. Evans),

Renfrew.—Greenock, with vars. albida and minor (T. Scott).

Roxburgh.—Near Hawick (W. G. Guthrie).

Census of Scottish Land and Fresh-Water Mollusca. 467

Main Argyle.—Kilchurn Castle, Loch Awe (A. Somerville). Inveraray
(W. Turner). Hunter’s Quay, with vars. rwbens and albida (W.D.R.). Oban
(W. Evans).

Dumbarton.—Dunglass (A. Somerville). Helensburgh (J. E. Somerville).

Cantire.—Campbeltown (Alex. Shaw).

Helix concinna Jeff.

This species, which is probably a variety of the next, has
not been authenticated from any counties farther north than
Kincardineshire on the east and Main Argyle on the west of
Scotland.

Kirkcudbright.—Kirkcudbright (W. Thomson ; F. R. Coles),

Ayr.—Skelmorlie (W.D.R.). Largs (Alex. Shaw).

Lanark. -—Glasgow (H. Nelson). Confirmation needed ; county uncertain.

Peebles.—Kidston Mill; Neidpath Castle (W. Evans),

Berwick.—Cockburnspath (W. Evans).

Haddington.—North Berwick (J. M‘Murtrie). Aberlady (W. Evans).

Edinburgh.—Caroline Park near Granton ; Poet’s Glen near Currie (W.
Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—Pettycur Links, with var. minor ; St Andrews; Largo
(W. Evans).

Stirling.—Summerston ; Balmore (Alex. Shaw). Polmont (W. Evans).

Perth N.—Perth (F. Buchanan White ; H. Coates).

Kincardine.—Stonehaven (W. Turner).

Main Argyle.—Dunoon (W.D.R.).

Dumbarton.—Dumbarton (Alex. Shaw).

Clyde Isles.—Ardbeg, Bute (W.D.R.). Rothesay Castle ruins (M. E. and
G. W. Mellors). Rothesay ; Port Bannatyne (TI. Scott).

Helix hispida L.

Like the last, this species has not been authenticated
farther north than Kincardineshire and Main Argyle. South
of these it is, in all probability, of universal range.

Kirkcudbright.—Kirkcudbright (W. Thomson). Tongland Hill (F. R.
Coles). Castle Douglas (W. Evans).

Ayr.—Irvine (J. Whitwham). Skelmorlie(W.D.R.). Largs (Alex. Shaw)

Renfrew.—Greenock, with var. swhrufa (T. Scott).

Lanark.—Summerston ; Blantyre (Alex. Shaw). Var. subrufa, East Kilbride
(T. Scott).

Peebles.— Walkerburn (W.D.R.). Macbiehill; Neidpath Castle (W. Evans).

Selkirk.—Thornielee ; Holylee (W.D.R.).

Roxburgh.—Near Hawick (W. G. Guthrie).

468 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Berwick.—Dryburgh Abbey; Dryburgh; Kirklands (W.D.R.). Cock-
burnspath (W. Evans).

Haddington.—-Drummore (W.D.R.). Dunbar; var. minor, North Berwick
(J. M‘Murtrie). Longniddry; Aberlady; Ballincrieff; North Berwick ; Dunbar
(W. Evans).

Edinburgh.—Levenhall; Wallyford; Bonaly; Salisbury Crags (W.D.R.).
Braid; Fairmilehead and Kaimes with var. subrufa; Roslin Castle ; near
Dalhousie ; Edinburgh Castle Rock with var. alba; Craiglockhart Hill;
Braidburn ; Blackford Hill (W. Evans).

Linlithgow.— Linlithgow, close to town (W. Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—St Andrews ; Dura Den; Kinkell Braes; Strathtyrum ;
Dairsie ; Crail ; Aberdour (W. Evans).

Stirling.—Near Bardowie Loch (A. Shaw). Polmont (W. Evans).

Perth Mid.—Kenmore (T. Scott ; J. E. Somerville).

Perth N.—Near Perth (H. Coates). Blairgowrie (W. Evans).

Forfar.—Buddon and Craigs, near Montrose (W. Duncan). Broughty
Ferry (A. Somerville). Den of Airlie (C. B. Plowright). Douglasfield near
Dundee, with var. subrufa (J. Ramage). Outskirts of Dundee (W. Evans).

Kincardine.—Stonehaven (W. Turner).

Main Argyle.—Dunoon ; Ardenadam ; Hunter’s Quay (W.D.R.). Isle of
Lismore (J. E. Somerville). Var. albida, Dunoon ; var. subrufa, Glen Morag
near Dunoon (W.D.R.)

Dumbarton.—Duntocher and Garscadden ; var. depilata, Duntocher ; vars.
albida and subglobosa, Garscadden (A. Shaw).

Clyde Isles.—Near Rothesay (T. Scott). Ardbeg, Bute (W.D.R.). Rothe-
say Castle ruins (M. E. and G. W. Mellors). Loch Fad ; Port Bannatyne
(A. Shaw).

Cantire.—Var. fusca, Campbeltown (Alex. Shaw).

Helix sericea Mill.

The authenticated records of this species are, with one
exception, limited to a belt of midland counties of Scotland,
and it has not been submitted for the more northern and
a large proportion of the lowland counties.

Ayr.—Skelmorlie (T, Scott), Largs (Alex. Shaw).

Renfrew.—Tower Hill at Gourock (T. Scott).

Edinburgh.—Banks of the Gore, below Gorebridge (W. Evans).

Forfar.—Buddon, near Montrose (W. Duncan).

Kincardine.—Stonehaven (W. Turner).

Elgin.—Banks of the Findhorn (G. Gordon).

Main Argyle.—Kilchurn Castle, Loch Awe (A. Somerville).

Clyde Isles.—Port Bannatyne (Alex. Shaw).

Cantire.—West Loch Tarbert (T. Scott), Campbeltown (Alex. Shaw).
Var. cornea, Old Castle of Tarbert (T. Scott).

Ebudes Mid.—Abundant near the Inn, Iona (A. Somerville).

Census of Scottish Land and Fresh-Water Mollusca. 469

Helix fusca Mont.

This most interesting species will, when carefully searched
for, probably be found to occur throughout Scotland, and
may be expected from nearly every area.

Dumfries.— Moffat (W. Evans).

Kirkcudbright.—Tarff Braes and Tongland (F. R. Coles).

Ayr.—Skelmorlie (W.D.R. ; T. Scott ; A. Shaw). Largs (Alex. Shaw).

Renfrew. —The Cloch; Shielhill Glen (T.. Scott). Hills above Greenock
(F. G. Binnie).

Lanark.—Falls of Clyde (J. E. Somerville).

Peebles.—Dawick (W. Evans).

Roxburgh.— Melrose (A. Merle Norman).

Edinburgh.—Edinburgh (British Museum). Habbie’s Howe in Pentland
Hills ; Gorebridge (W. Evans).

Perth Mid.—Heugh of Caul (J. Whitwham).

Forfar.—Den of Airlie (C. B. Plowright).

Aberdeen S.—Couler railway bank, Deeside (C. B. Plowright). y

Main Argyle.—Glen Shira, Inveraray (F. G. Binnie). Oban (Janet Carphin).

Clyde Isles.—Port Bannatyne ; near Rothesay (Alex. Shaw). Loch Fad
(T. Scott).

Cantire.—Kilkerran Bay (Alex. Shaw).

Ross E.—Between Bonar Bridge and Edderton (W. Baillie).
’ Sutherland E.—Bonar (W. Baillie).

Helix virgata DaCosta.

This species is lhmited to one single locality in Scotland.
It is additional to Dr White’s list.

Ayr.—Troon, with var. alba (A. Somerville). Troon, with vars. alba,
albicans, subdeleta, and maritime (Janet Carphin).

Helix caperata Mont.

A species which apparently ranges throughout Scotland,
and especially the maritime counties, for most of which it
ought eventually to be placed on record.

Wigtown.—Port Logan (W. Evans).

Ayr.—Maybole (H. Nelson). Largs (Alex. Shaw). Skelmorlie (T. Scott).
West Kilbride (A. Somerville), Ayr, with var. fudva; Maybole (W. Evans).
Ardrossan (A. Shaw).

Lanark.—FEast Kilbride (T. Scott).

Berwick. —Berwick-on-Tweed ; Cockburnspath (W. Evans).

470 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Haddington.—North Berwick ; also var. major (J. M‘Murtrie). Dirleton
Common near North Berwick ; Aberlady ; near Longniddry ; Gullane Point
(W. Evans).

Edinburgh.—Salisbury Crags (British Museum). Blackford Hill (W.D.R.;
W. Evans). Var. ornata, evenhall and Blackford Hill (W.D.R.).

Linlithgow. — Queensferry (Greville Collection, Edinburgh Museum).
Dalmeny Park (W. Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—North Queensferry (R. F. Scharff). Crail (W. Evans).

Stirling.—-Polmont (W. Evans).

Forfar.—Hedderwick Quarry (W. Duncan). Broughty Ferry (A. Somer-
ville).

Aberdeen §.—Aberdeen (J. MacGillivray in Brit. Mus.). The Links, Old
Aberdeen (C. B. Plowright).

Elgin.—Elginshire, with vars. ornata and major (G. Gordon).

Dumbarton.—Dumbarton (Alex. Shaw). Cardross (Hilderic Friend).

Clyde Isles. —Kttrick Bay, Bute (A. Shaw).

Cantire.—Machrehanish Bay and Campeltown ; var. ornata, Campbeltown
(A. Shaw).

Sutherland E.—Rock near the Mound; Little Ferry Links, about 9
miles 8. of Brora (W. Baillie).

Sutherland W.—Mouth of Halladaile River (W. Baillie).

Helix ericetorum Miill.

To judge by the authenticated records here given, this
species would appear to have a strong predilection for the
western counties.

Fife and Kinross.—Links at Elie, with vars. alba and minor (T. Scott).
Largo (W. Evans).

Westerness.—Ardtornish Castle, Sound of Mull (B. Hudson).

Clyde Isles.—St Ninian’s Bay, Bute (T. Scott).

Cantire.—Machrehanish Bay, with vars. monozona and obliterata (Alex
Shaw).

Ebudes Mid.—Mull; Tiree (J. E. Somerville). Jona (A. Somerville).
Coll (T. Scott). Var. minor, Iona ; var. lewcozona, Iona (A. Somerville),
Tiree (J. E. Somerville). Var. wionozona, Iona (A. Somerville). Var. alba,
Coll (T. Scott). Var. instabilis, Tiree (J. E. Somerville).

Sutherland W.—Mouth of Halladaile River; east of Kyle of Tongue,
with vars. obscura, alba, leucozona, and minor; vars. alba and leucozona also
near mouth of Halladaile River (W. Baillie). Sutherlandshire (Alder Collec-
tion at Newcastle). W. Baillie speaks of a colony at Brora, East Sutherland,
probably introduced by himself.

Caithness.—Near Castlehill, Olrig (C. W. Peach, per G. Gordon).

Hebrides.—Isle of Harris (Alder Collection at Newcastle Museum). Barra
and South Uist (J. E. Somerville), Churchyard of Eye near Stornoway
(A. Somerville), Var. Jewcozona, Isle of Harris (J. Stark in Alder
Collection). Var. instabilis, Barra (J. E. Somerville).

Census of Scottish Land and Fresh- Water Mollusca. A471

Helix rotundata Miill.

A species of apparently universal range and abundant
occurrence, of which records for seven counties (Aberdeen N.,
Banff, Kasterness, Ebudes §., Hebrides, Orkney, and Shet-
land) are still needed.

Dumfries.— Dumfries ; Moffat (W. Evans).

Kirkcudbright.—High Boreland; Tongland Hill; Dee at Tongland ;
Tarff Bank, Twynholm (F. R. Coles). Castle Douglas; Maxwelltown
(W. Evans). :

Wigtown.—Springbank near Stranraer ; Port Logan (W. Evans).

Ayr. —Skelmorlie (W.D.R.). Fairlie Glen; Largs (M. E. and G.
W. Mellors). West Kilbride (A. Somerville). Largs (A. Shaw).

Renfrew. — Common about Greenock (T. Scott). Inverkip; Shielhill
Glen (W.D.R.). Houston near Paisley (H. Nelson). Carmunnock
(Alex.. Shaw). Var. alba, The Cloch; var. pyramidalis, Shielhill Glen
(T. Scott).

Lanark.— Falls of Clyde near Lanark (B. Hudson). Summerston ;
Blantyre (A. Shaw).

Peebles.— Walkerburn (W.D.R.). West Linton; Neidpath Castle; Dawick
(W. Evans).

Selkirk.—Thornielee ; Elibank ; Holylee (W.D.R.). Haining Woods near
Selkirk (W. Evans).
~ Roxburgh.—Hawick (W. G. Guthrie).

Berwick.—Earlston; Kirklands; Redpath; Dryburgh; var. alba, Dryburgh
Abbey (W.D.R.). Pease Dean ; Cockburnspath (W. Evans).

Haddington.—Drummore and Falside (W.D.R.). Dunbar; var. alba,
Bass Rock; var. turtoni, North Berwick (J. M‘Murtrie). Dunbar; North
Berwick ; Aberlady ; near Longniddry (W. Evans).

Edinburgh.—Arthur’s Seat, with var. alba (R. F. Scharff). Salisbury
Crags; Levenhall ; Wallyford ; Bonaly ; Blackford Hill(W.D.R.). Cramond
Island (T. Scott). Craiglockhart Hill (W. Evans). Roslin Castle; Pentlands
near Hillend; Duddingston; Dalmahoy; Kirknewton near Midcalder ;
Balerno; near Dalhousie; Castle Rock, Edinburgh; Braid; Davidson's
Mains (W. Evans).

Linlithgow.—Dalmeny ; South Queensferry (W.D.R.). Linlithgow, close
to town ; Dalmeny Park ; Philpstoun (W. Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—North Queensferry; St Andrews (R. F. Scharff),
Cliffs of St Andrews Bay (E. E. Prince). Aberdour (B. Hudson). Crail;
Strathtyrum near St Andrews; Dura Den; Dairsie; Raith; Aberdour
(W. Evans).

Stirling.—Balmore ; near Bardowie Loch (Alex. Shaw). Polmont (W.
Evans).

Perth 8. with Clackmannan.—Callander (A. Somerville). Pass of Leny
near Callander (W. Evans).

Perth Mid.—Balgowan (H. Coates). Kenmore (T. Scott). Loch Tay side
(J. E. Somerville), Island in Loch Dochart (A. Somerville).

Perth N.—Near Perth (H. Coates), Dunkeld; Blairgowrie (W. Evans).

472 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Forfar.—Usan Woods near Montrose (W. Duncan). Broughty Ferry
(A. Somerville). Douglasfield near Dundee (J. Ramage). Den of Airlie
(C. B. Plowright). Outskirts of Dundee (W. Evans).

Kincardine.—Stonehaven (W. Turner).

Aberdeen S.—Aberdeen, Prof. MacGillivray (British Museum).

Elgin.— Near Elgin (G. Gordon).

Westerness.—Ardtornish Castle, Sound of Mull (B. Hudson). Arisaig
(J. E. Somerville).

Main Argyle.—Oban and Loch Awe (A. Somerville). Dunoon; Glen
Morag; Ardenadam; Hunter's Quay (W.D.R.). Wood along Kerrera
Sound (J. E. Somerville).

Dumbarton.—Castle Rock, Crosslet, and High Mains near Dumbarton
(W.D.R.). Dunglass (J. E. Somerville). Cardross (Hilderic Friend).
Duntocher ; Shandon, Gareloch ; by Forth and Clyde at Canal Maryhill, and
near Garscadden (A. Shaw). Var. alba, Crosslet (W.D.R.).

Clyde Isles.—Ardbeg and Barone, Bute (W.D.R.). Rothesay (J. Whit-
wham). Rothesay Castle (M. E. and G. W. Mellors). Loch Fad (T. Scott).
Port Bannatyne (Alex. Shaw). Var. minor, near Rothesay (T. Scott).

Cantire.—Tarbert (T. Scott). Machrehanish Bay; Kilkerran Bay (Alex.
Shaw). Var. alba, Tarbert (T. Scott). Var. twrtoni, Machrehanish Bay
(A. Shaw).

Ebudes Mid. —Jona (A. Somerville).

Ebudes N.—Higg (A. Somerville).

Ross W.—Loch Broom ; Loch Carron ; Glenelg (J. E. Somerville).

Ross E.—Between Bonar Bridge and Edderton (W. Baillie). Kincardine ;
Glenurquhart (J. E. Somerville).

Sutherland E.—Golspie Burn and Brora (W. Baillie), Creich (J. E.
Somerville).

Sutherland W.—Strathy ; Farr; Durness; Erribol (J. E. Somerville).

Caithness. —Very common in Caithness (W. Baillie).

Helix rupestris Drap.

Apparently restricted to two localities on the eastern side
of Scotland.

Edinburgh. — Wall at Duddingston Loch (W. Evans).
Perth N.—Near Perth (H. Coates).

Helix pygmea Drap.

This minute species is probably reported from the few
counties we cite, more by reason of its being difficult to find
than really scarce. It is reported from widely-separated
areas, and to the farthest northern verge of the mainland of
Scotland.

Kirkcudbright.—Near Castle Douglas (W. Evans).
Ayr.—Skelmorlie (A. Shaw),

Census of Scottish Land and Fresh-Water Mollusca. 473

Peebles. —Soonhope ; Standalane near Peebles ; Dawick (W. Evans).

Berwick.—Pease Dean (W. Evans).

Haddington.—Luffness (J. M‘Murtrie). Gosford Woods (W. Evans).

Edinburgh.—Blackford Hill; Bush near Penicuik (W. Evans).

Fife.—Kinkell Braes near St Andrews; Earlshall near Leuchars (W.
Evans).

Stirling.—Polmont (W. Evans).

Perth S. with Clackmannan.—WNear Pass of Leny, Callander (W. Evans).

Perth N.—Near Perth (H. Coates). Blairgowrie (W. Evans).

Aberdeen N.—Loch Strathbeg near Fraserburgh (T. Scott).

Dumbarton.—Near Luss, Loch Lomond (F. G. Binnie),

Clyde Isles.—Ardmalish Point near Port Bannatyne (T. Scott). Loch
Ranza, Arran (A. Shaw).

Sutherland E.—Golspie Burn (W. Baillie).

Sutherland W.—Tongue Wood (W. Baillie).

Ross W.—Ullapool (A. Somerville).

Caithness.—Dunbeath (W. Baillie).

Helix pulchella Mill.

This pretty little species is widely distributed in Scotland,
and in all probability will eventually be found to inhabit
every comital area. Its range so far seems to be restricted
to the eastern coast counties, and three of those on the west.
Records are deficient for all inland and western lowland
counties.

Berwick.— Var. costata, Dryburgh Abbey ruins (W.D.R.).

Haddington.—Luttness (J. M‘Murtrie). Gosford; Dirleton Common; Aber-
lady, with var. costata; Longniddry; North Berwick; Gullane Point (W.
Evans).
. Edinburgh.—Salisbury Crags; Blackford Hill (W.D.R.). Braid Hills ;

Lothianburn (W. Evans).

Linlithgow.—Queensferry (Greville Collection in Edinburgh Museum).
Requires confirmation as to county.

Fife and Kinross.—North Queensferry (R. F. Scharff). Crail (W. Evans).

Perth N.—Near Perth (H. Coates; F. Buchanan White). Blairgowrie
(W. Evans).

Forfar.—Broughty Ferry (A. Somerville).

Kincardine.—St Cyrus, with var. costata (W. Duncan).

Elgin.—Burghead (G. Gordon).

Easterness.—Nairn (J. E. Somerville).

Clyde Isles.—Ardmalish Point near Port Bannatyne (T. Scott), Ettrick
Bay (A. Shaw).

Cantire.—Machrehanish Bay (Alex. Shaw).

Ebudes N.—Higg (A. Somerville).

Sutherland E.—Brora, plentiful (W. Baillie).

AT4 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Helix lapicida L.

Restricted to one single locality in Scotland, and now
extinct there.

Roxburgh.—Formerly at Weensland Road, Hawick—locality now destroyed
by the extension of building operations (W. G. Guthrie).

Bulimus acutus (Miill.).

A strictly littoral species, confined to the western or
Atlantic sea-board, but ranging there from extreme north to
south.

Wigtown.—Galloway, W. Bean (Greville Collection, Edinburgh Museum).

Ayr.—Troon (F. G. Binnie). With var. strigata, Troon (Janet Carphin).

Cantire.—Machrehanish Bay, with vars. inflata and strigata (Alex. Shaw).

Ebudes Mid.—lIona (A. Somerville). Mull and Tiree (J. E. Somerville).
Coll (T. Scott). Vars, alba and strigata, Iona (H. H. Slater). Var. bizona,
Tiree (J. E. Somerville). Iona (W. Evans).

Ebudes N.—Eigg (A. Somerville).

Sutherland W.—North coast of Sutherlandshire (J. Backhouse). Durness
(Edinburgh Museum).

Caithness.—Near Duncansby Head (G. Gordon). Near Castlehill, Olrig
(C. W. Peach, per G. Gordon).

Hebrides.—Churchyard of Eye near Stornoway (A. Somerville). Ben-
becula Island; South Uist (J. E. Somerville). Var. articulata, Barra
Island (A. Somerville).

Bulimus obscurus (Miill.).

All the counties from which this species has been authen-
ticated are situated (with the single exception of Lanark-
shire) on the eastern side of the kingdom, from Elginshire
southwards.

Lanark.—Falls of Clyde near Lanark (B. Hudson).

Berwick.—Dryburgh (W.D.R.). Cockburnspath (W. Evans).

Haddington.—North Berwick (J. M‘Murtrie). Gosford Woods; Canty
Bay near North Berwick (W. Evans).

Edinburgh.—Salisbury Crags (British Museum). Edinburgh (R. F.
Scharff). Arthur’s Seat close to Duddingston ; between Fairmilehead and
Kaimes; Craiglockhart Hill (W. Evans),

Linlithgow. —Queensferry (Greville Collection, Edinburgh Museum). Re-
quires confirmation as to county.

Perth Mid.— Kenmore (J. E. Somerville).

Perth N.—Near Perth (H. Coates).

Census of Scottish Land and Fresh-Water Mollusca. 475

Forfar. —Buddon Cliffs near Montrose (W. Duncan),
Kincardine.—Stonehaven (W. Turner).
Banff.—Tomintoul (L. Hinxman),.

Elgin.—Cothill on the Findhorn (G. Gordon).

Pupa ringens Jeff.

A local species, authenticated from nine counties only,
but of possible occurrence in several others.

Ayr.—-Skelmorlie (A. Shaw),

Renfrew.—Shielhill Glen near Greenock, with var. pallida (T. Scott).
Near the Cloch, with var. pallida (F. G. Binnie).

Fife.—Kinkell Braes near St Andrews (W. Evans).

Kincardine.—Stonehaven (W. Turner),

Main Argyle.—Oban (Janet Carphin),

Cantire.— Var. pallida, north shore of East Loch Tarbert (T. Scott).

Ross E.—Between Bonar Bridge and Edderton (W. Baillie).

Sutherland E.— Bonar (W. Baillie).

Sutherland W.—East of Kyle of Tongue (W. Baillie).

Pupa umbilicata Drap.

A species of apparently universal distribution in Scotland,
which will in all probability be added eventually to every
comital list.

Dumfries.— Moffat (W. Evans).

Kirkcudbright.—Near Kirkcudbright (F. R. Coles). Castle Douglas (W.
Evans).

Wigtown.—Port Logan (W. Evans).

Ayr.—Maybole (H. Nelson). West Kilbride (A. Somerville). Skelmorlie
(W.D.R.). Largs (A. Shaw).

Renfrew.—Shielhill Glen, with var. albina (T. Scott). Var. edentula,
Houston near Paisley (H. Nelson). Hills above Greenock (F. G. Binnie).

Peebles.—Rosetta near Peebles (W. Evans).

Roxburgh.—Darnlee near Melrose (W.D.R.). Kyles Moss near Hawick
(W. G. Guthrie).

Berwick.—Earlston and Cowdenknowes (W.D.R.). Pease Dean; Cock-
burnspath (W. Evans).

Haddington.—Drummore (W.D.R.). Luffness; North Berwick, with var.
edentula (J. M‘Murtrie). Aberlady; Dunbar; Gullane Point; Gosford
Woods; Redhouse near Longniddry; Dirleton Common (W. Evans).

Edinburgh.—Arthur’s Seat (Rk. F. Scharff). Salisbury Crags; Blackford
Hill; Bonaly (W.D.R.). Craiglockhart Hill; var. curta, Salisbury Crags;
Roslin Castle; Balerno; Dalmahoy; near Dalhousie; Castle Rock, Edin-
burgh; above Dreghorn ; Davidson’s Mains; Lothianburn ; Pentland Hills
near Hillend, with var. edentula; Braid Hills (W. Evans).

Linlithgow.— Near Linlithgow (W. Evans).

VOL. X. 21

476 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socvety.

Fife and Kinross.—North Queensferry (R. F. Scharff). Near Cupar
(T. Scott). Dura Den; Kinkell Braes; Crail; Aberdour; Earlshall near
Leuchars (W. Evans).

Stirling.—Polimont (W. Evans).

Perth S. with Clackmannan.—Strathyre and Pass of Leny, both near
Callander (W. Evans).

Perth N.—Near Perth (H. Coates).

Forfar.—The Links, Montrose (W. Duncan).

Kincardine.—Stonehaven (W. Turner).

Banff.— Tomintoul (L. Hinxman).

Elgin.—Near Elgin (G. Gordon).

Westerness.—Lismore (A. Somerville).

Main Argyle.—Oban; Innishail Island on Loch Awe (A. Somerville).
Wood along Kerrera Sound at Oban (J. E. Somerville). Dunoon (W.D.R.).
Inveraray and Glen Shira (F. G. Binnie).

Dumbarton.—Tarbet by Loch Lomond (M. E. and G. W. Mellors). Near
Shandon, Gareloch (A. Shaw).

Clyde Isles.—Ardbeg, Bute (W.D.R.). Rothesay Castle ruins (M. E. and
G. W. Mellors). Loch Fad; near Rothesay (T. Scott). St Blane’s Chapel,
Bute; Port Bannatyne; Ettrick Bay, Bute (Alex. Shaw).

Cantire.—Campbeltown; Machrehanish Bay (Alex. Shaw).

Ebudes Mid.—Tiree Island (J. E. Somerville). Var. edentula, Iona (A.
Somerville).

Ross W.—Ullapool (A. Somerville). Glenelg; Loch Carron (J. E.
Somerville).

Ross E.—Between Bonar Bridge and Edderton (W. Baillie).

Sutherland E.—Brora, rock south of the Mound, etc. (W. Baillie). Helms-
dale (J. E. Somerville).

Sutherland W.—Durness; Erribol; Stoer; Strathy, with var. edentula ;
Farr, with var. edentula (J. E. Somerville). Var. edentula, east of Kyle of
Tongue (W. Baillie).

Caithness.—Thurso (J. E. Somerville).

Hebrides.—Castlebay, Barra Island; Eye Churchyard near Stornoway (A.
Somerville). Benbecula Island; Loch Boisdale, South Uist (J. E. Somerville).

Pupa marginata Drap.

The few stations hitherto reported for this species are
situate in the immediate vicinity of the coast.

Haddington.—Aberlady ; Dirleton Common near North Berwick (W.
Evans). North Berwick, with var. edentula (J. M‘Murtrie).

Edinburgh.—<Arthur’s Seat (Hilderic Friend). Var. edentula, Braid Hills;
Gorebridge (W. Evans).

Fife.—Crail; St Andrews (W. Evans).

Kincardine.— Var. edentula, Stonehaven (W. Turner).

Elgin.—Near the sea, Elginshire (G. Gordon).

Clyde Isles.—Var. albina, Millport (T. Scott).

Sutherland W.—Mouth of Halladaile River (W. Baillie).

Census of Scottish Land and Fresh-Water Mollusca. 477

Vertigo antivertigo (Drap.).

Close search in suitable (7.¢., moist) situations will doubt-
less reveal the presence of this minute species in numerous
localities. Those already on record range from north to south,
and from east to west.

Berwick. —Berwickshire (Alder Collection at Newcastle Museum).
Haddington.—Luffness (J. M‘Murtrie). Luffness Marshes (W. Evans).
Elgin.—Lesmurdie Cottage near Elgin (G. Gordon).

Clyde Isles.—Loch Ascog and Loch Fad (T. Scott).

Ross E.—Between Bonar Bridge and Edderton (W. Baillie),
Sutherland E.—Golspie Burn (W. Baillie).

Vertigo pygmea (Drap.).

As with the last-named species, this one—the recorded
localities for which range over the length and breadth of the
kingdom—will most probably be found of universal dis-
tribution.

Ayr.—Skelmorlie (W.D.R. ).

Renfrew.—Shielhill and Rottenburn Glens (T. Scott).

Peebles.—Standalane Braes near Peebles (W. Evans).

Selkirk.—Thornielee (W.D.R.).

Haddington.—North Berwick Law (J. M‘Murtrie). Longniddry; Water-
works, North Berwick (W. Evans).

Edinburgh.—Arthur’s Seat (R. F. Scharff). Salisbury Crags; Blackford
Hill (W.D.R.). Near Duddingston Loch; Blackford Hill (W. Evans).

Kincardine.—Stonehaven (W. Turner).

Elgin,—Near Elgin (G. Gordon).

Clyde Isles.—Near Ardmalish Point, Kyles of Bute; Loch Fad (T. Scott).

Ross W.—Ullapool (A. Somerville).

Sutherland E.—Golspie Burn (W. Baillie).

Caithness.—Dunbeath (W. Baillie).

Vertigo substriata (Jeff).

Authenticated for three counties only, though Dr White
speaks of it in his list as a common and widely spread species.
It would be of interest to verify this statement.

Clyde Isles.—Loch Fad, Bute (T. Scott).
Fife and Kinross.—Kinkell Braes near St Andrews (W. Evans)
Sutherland E.—Brora (W. Baillie).

478 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socrety.

Vertigo pusilla Mill.
This is an addition to Dr Buchanan White’s list, and has
hitherto been authenticated from two counties only.

Kirkcudbright.— Banks of the Clouden near Maxwelltown (R. Rimmer).
Ayr.—Largs (W. Templer ; specimens in collection of A. Merle Norman).

Vertigo angustior Jeff.

This scarce species—authenticated from one county only—
is also additional to Dr White’s list.

Sutherland E.—Strathbrora (W. Baillie).

Vertigo edentula (Drap.).

This species will probably be found to be of general dis-
tribution, its already-authenticated stations ranging from
south to north, and from east to west.

Ayr.—Dalry Road, Largs (A. Shaw).

Renfrew.—Cloch near Greenock (T. Scott).

Peebles.—Cademuir; Dawick (W. Evans).

Berwick.—Cowdenknowes (A. Merle Norman). Pease Dean (W. Evans).

Haddington.—Luftness (J. M‘Murtrie). Longniddry; Gosford Woods (W.
Evans).

Edinburgh.—Gorebridge; Braid Hermitage; Craiglockhart Hill Wood (W.
Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—Kinkell Braes near St Andrews; Dura Den (W. Evans).

Stirling.—Near Milngavie (F. G. Binnie).

Perth S. with Clackmannan.—Pass of Leny, Callander (W. Evans).

Perth N.—Near Perth (H. Coates).

Forfar.— Near Montrose (W. Duncan).

Kincardine.—Stonehaven (W. Turner).

Main Argyle.—Wood along Kerrera Sound, Oban (J. E. Somerville).

Clyde Isles.—Cumbrae (A. Merle Norman). Loch Fad (T. Scott). Rothe-
say and Port Bannatyne (A. Shaw).

Cantire.—North shore of East Loch Tarbert (T. Scott).

Sutherland E.—Golspie Burn, with var. columella (W. Baillie).

Sutherland W.—East of Kyle of Tongue; var. colwmella, Tongue (W.
Baillie).

Caithness.—Dunbeath or Latheronwheel (W. Baillie).

Vertigo minutissima (Hartm.).

This minute and very local species has been as yet authen-
ticated from two counties only. Dr Buchanan White speaks

Census of Scottish Land and Fresh- Water Mollusca, 479

of its having been found at Balmerino in Fifeshire, a locality
which it is desirable should be re-investigated.

Haddington.—North Berwick Law, one; North Berwick beach, cast up
in shell sand (J. M‘Murtrie).

Edinburgh.—Arthur’s Seat (Edward Forbes, in Alder Collection at New-
castle Museum). Salisbury Crags (J. M‘Murtrie). Craiglockhart Hill
(W. Evans).

Balea perversa (L.).

This species is apparently of universal distribution—though
local—in Scotland, although records for numerous counties
are still wanting.

Kirkcudbright.—Tongland (F. R. Coles). Castle Douglas (W. Evans).

Ayr.—Skelmorlie (T. Scott; A. Shaw). Largs; Dalry Road, Largs (Alex.
Shaw).

Selkirk.—Near Selkirk (J. Madison).

Roxburgh.— Hawick (W. G. Guthrie).

Berwick.—Cockburnspath (W. Evans).

Haddington.—Canty Bay near North Berwick ; Gullane Point (W. Evans).

Edinburgh.—Arthur’s Seat (W. Nicol, in Alder Collection at Newcastle).
Craiglockhart Hill; Blackford Hill; Lothianburn ; Salisbury Crags; Caroline
Park near Granton; walls, Craighouse and Colinton Road (W. Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—Kirkcaldy (W. Evans).

Stirling.—Campsie Glen (F,-G. Binnie).

Perth Mid.—Moncrieff Hill (F. G. Binnie).

Perth N.—Near Perth (F. Buchanan White; H. Coates).

Kincardine.—Stonehaven (W. Turner).

Banff.—Tomintoul (L. Hinxman),

Elgin.—Near Elgin (G. Gordon).

Main Argyle.—Kilmun (Andrew Scott). Inveraray (F. G. Binnie).

Clyde Isles.—Rothesay; Port Bannatyne (A. Shaw). Loch Fad (T. Scott).

Cantire.—Tarbert (T. Scott). Campbeltown (Alex. Shaw).

Sutherland E.—Golspie Wood (W. Baillie).

Caithness.—Dunbeath (W. Baillie).

Clausilia rugosa (Drap.).

A species of apparently universal range in Scotland, which
may be confidently looked for in every one of the comital
areas, though as yet it remains unauthenticated for fourteen
of them.

Kirkcudbright.—Close to Kirkcudbright (W. Thomson). Dee, Tongland

(F, R. Coles).
Wigtown.—Port Logan (W. Evans).

480 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Ayr.—Largs (M. E. and G. W. Mellors; A. Shaw). Skelmorlie (W.D.R.).
Var. tumidula, Largs; Skelmorlie (A. Shaw).

Renfrew.—Gourock (Thos. W. Bell). Greenock, common (T. Scott). Monst.
decollatum, Inverkip Road and near Dunroad Siding at Greenock (T. Scott).

Lanark.—Near Glasgow (W. Nelson). Falls of Clyde near Lanark (B.
Hudson).

Roxburgh.—Hawick (W. G. Guthrie).

Haddington.—Canty Bay near North Berwick (W. Evans).

Edinburgh.—Arthur’s Seat (R. F. Scharff), Salisbury Craigs; Roslin
Castle (W. Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—Cliffs of St Andrews Bay (E. E. Prince). Var. tumidula,
Newburgh (W. H. Heathcote). Aberdour Woods; St Andrews; Raith ;
Dura Den, with var. dubia (W. Evans).

Stirling.—Stirling (Jenyns, in Greville Collection at Edinburgh Museum).

Perth S. with Clackmannan.—Callander (W. Evans).

Perth Mid.—Near Perth (H. Bendall). Kenmore (T. Scott). Island on
Loch Dochart (A. Somerville). Head of River Tummel, with var. gracilior
(J. R. Hardy).

Perth N.—Near Perth (H. Coates). Blairgowrie (W. Evans).

Forfar.—Buddon near Montrose (W. Duncan). Den of Airlie (C. B. Plow-
right).

Kincardine.—Stonehaven (W. Turner).

Banff.—Tomintoul (L. Hinxman).

Elgin.—Near Elgin (G. Gordon).

Westerness.—Lismore (A. Somerville), Arisaig (J. E. Somerville).

Main Argyle.—Oban (R. D. Darbishire). Dunstaffnage near Oban ; Loch
Awe (A. Somerville). Inveraray ; Wood along Kerrera Sound at Oban (J. E.
Somerville). Dunoon; Glen Morag (W.D.R.). Var. twmidula, Loch Awe
(A. Somerville).

Dumbarton.—Near Dumbarton (Alex. Shaw). High Mains near Dum-
barton, with var. parvula (W.D.R.).

Clyde Isles.—Rothesay (J. Whitwham). Rothesay Castle ruins (M. E. and
G. W. Mellors). Port Bannatyne and St Blane’s Chapel, Bute (Alex. Shaw).
Ettrick Bay, Bute, with var. twmidula (T. Scott).

Cantire.—Tarbert (T. Scott). Campbeltown ; Island Davaar; Machre-
hanish Bay ; var. twmidula, Campbeltown (Alex. Shaw).

Ebudes Mid.—Iona (H. H. Slater).

Ross W.—Ullapool (A. Somerville). Balmacarra; Loch Carron (J. E.
Somerville).

Sutherland E.—Dunrobin Woods; Golspie Burn; Mound; Brora (W.
Baillie).

Sutherland W.—Ruins of Castle on Loch Assynt (W. Baillie).

Caithness.—Dunbeath (W. Baillie), Dunnet Sands near Thurso (W.
Evans).

Clausilia laminata (Mont.).

Very rare and local. It is very singular that its solitary
Scottish locality should be so far removed from the northern

Census of Scottish Land and Fresh-Wuter Mollusca. 481

limit of its English distribution. It is essentially a shell of
the English type of distribution, ranging throughout England
even to Cumberland and Northumberland, and practically
absent from Scotland, Wales, the Cornish peninsula, and
Ireland.

Perth N.—Near Perth (H. Coates).

Azeca tridens (Pult.).

Of this very local species—which Dr Buchanan White
records as having been found at Bridge of Allan and in
Dumfriesshire—specimens have as yet been authenticated by
our referees from the former locality only.

Perth S. with Clackmannan.—Var. nouletiana, near Bridge of Allan
(Hunterian Museum, Glasgow, per John Young).

Zua lubrica (Miill.).

A species of universal distribution in Scotland, records of
which are still wanting for the following five counties :—
Perth S., Aberdeen N., Ebudes 8., Ebudes N., and Orkney.

Dumfries.— Moffat (W. Evans).

Kirkcudbright.—Tongland (F. R. Coles). Castle Douglas (W. Evans),

Wigtown.—Port Logan ; Springbank near Stranraer (W. Evans).

Ayr.—Skelmorlie (W.D.R.). Largs (M. E. and G. W. Mellors). West
Kilbride (A. Somerville). Var. lubricoides, Skelmorlie (W.D.R.). Largs
(Alex. Shaw). Maybole (W. Evans). Largs; Skelmorlie (A. Shaw).

Renfrew.— Houston near Paisley (H. Nelson). Cloch; Greenock (T. Scott).
Shielhill Glen (W.D.R.)

Lanark.—Possil Marsh (W.D.R.). Blantyre (Alex. Shaw).

Peebles.—Earlyburn (W.D.R.). West Linton; Neidpath Castle and
several other localities close to Peebles (W. Evans).

Selkirk.—Thornielee (W.D.R.).

Roxburgh.—Peasehill (W.D.R.) Kyles Moss near Hawick, with var.
lubricoides (W. G. Guthrie).

Berwick.—Kirklands; Redpath; Earlston; var. Jwbricoides, Kirklands
(W.D.R.). Pease Dean ; Berwick-on-Tweed ; Cockburnspath (W. Evans).

Haddington.—Drummore, with var. lubricoides (W.D.R.). Luffness, with
‘var. lubricoides (J. M‘Murtrie). Aberlady, with var. ovata ; Dunbar ; North
Berwick ; Gosford Woods; Gullane Point; Redhouse near Longniddry ;
Dirleton Common near North Berwick (W. Evans).

Edinburgh.—Salisbury Crags; var. ovata, Blackford Hill (W.D.R.).
Braid Hills; above Dreghorn ; Davidson’s Mains; Redford near Balerno,
with var. Zwbricoides ; near Dalhousie ; Caroline Park near Granton (W. Evans).

482 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socvety.

Linlithgow. —Philpstoun (W. Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—North Queensferry (W.D.R.). St Andrews ; Strath-
tyrum ; Kinkell Braes ; Crail (W. Evans).

Stirling. —Balmore (Alex. Shaw). Polmont (W. Evans).

Perth Mid.—Kenmore (T. Scott). Island in Loch Dochart (A. Somer-
ville). Var. lwbricoides, Kenmore (J. E. Somerville).

Perth N.—Near Perth, with var. lwbricoides (H. Coates). Dunkeld ; Blair-
gowrie (W. Evans).

Forfar.—Broughty Ferry (A. Somerville), Douglasfield near Dundee
(J. Ramage). Den of Airlie (C. B. Plowright). Usan Woods near Montrose,
with var. lwbhricoides (W. Duncan).

Kincardine.—Stonehaven (W. Turner).

Aberdeen §.—Couler Railway Bank, Deeside (C. B. Plowright). Braemar,
with var. lubricoides (W. Evans).

Banff.—Tomintoul, with var. dubricoides (L. Hinxman).

Elgin.—Near Elgin (G. Gordon).

Easterness.—Glen Feshie ; Kincraig by Kingussie (W. Evans).

Westerness.— Pictish tower at Glenelg (A. Somerville).

Main Argyle.—Oban (A. Somerville). Glen Morag near Dunoon (W.D.K.).
Isle of Lismore (J. E. Somerville). Var. viridula, Dunoon (W.D.R.).

Dumbarton.—Garscadden ; Duntocher; by Forth and Clyde Canal at
Maryhill (A. Shaw).

Clyde Isles.—Rothesay (W. Nelson). Barone and Ardbeg, Bute (W.D.R.).
Loch Fad (T. Scott), Port Bannatyne (Alex. Shaw). Rothesay Castle ruins,
with var. lubricoides (M. E. and G. W. Mellors). Var. duwbricoides, Loch Fad ;
Ettrick Bay, Bute (A. Shaw).

Cantire.—Machrehanish Bay ; var. ovata, Kilkerran Bay (Alex. Shaw).

Ebudes Mid.—lona (A. Somerville). Tiree Island (J. E. Somerville). Var.
lubricoides, Iona (A. Somerville).

Ross W.— Ullapool (A. Somerville). Gairloch ; Loch Carron (J. E. Somer-
ville).

Ross E.—Invergordon (J. E. Somerville).

Sutherland E.—The Mound; near Brora; var. lubricoides, Mound (W.
Baillie).

Sutherland W.—East of Kyle of Tongue (W. Baillie). Durness; Erribol ;
Strathy ; Farr (J. E. Somerville).

Caithness. —Brawl Castle (W. Baillie).

Hebrides. —Loch Boisdale, South Uist (J. E. Somerville).

Shetland.—Shetland (British Museum).

Carychium carychium (Mont.).

This minute species will doubtless be found to occur in
every area, its authenticated distribution ranging throughout
the kingdom.

Kirkcudbright.—Colly Wall and Twynholm, bank of Tarff (F. R. Coles).
Maxwelltown; Castle Douglas (W. Evans).

Census of Scottish Land and Fresh-Water Mollusca. 483

Wigtown.—Springbank near Stranraer (W. Evans).

Ayr.—Largs; Skelmorlie; Dalry Road, Largs (Alex. Shaw).

Renfrew.—Cloch; near Greenock (T. Scott).

Lanark.—Blantyre (Alex. Shaw).

Peebles.—Standalane Braes near Peebles: Dawick (W. Evans).

Selkirk. —Haining Woods near Selkirk (W. Evans).

Berwick.—Pease Dean (W. Evans).

Haddington.—Binning Wood (J. M‘Murtrie). Quarry near Gullane; Luff-
ness Links; Dunbar; Gosford Woods (W. Evans).

Edinburgh.—Gorebridge; between Bavelaw aud Loganlee; Redford near
Balerno; Kirknewton near Midcalder; Braid Hermitage; Fairmilehead ; near
Penicuik (W. Evans).

Linlithgow.—Dalmeny Park (W. Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—Kinkell Braes near St Andrews; Dura Den; Cambo
near Crail; Raith; Otterston (W. Evans).

Perth S. with Clackmannan.— Pass of Leny near Callander (W. Evans).

Perth N.—Near Perth(H. Coates). Butterston Loch near Dunkeld; Blair-
gowrie (W. Evans).

Forfar.—Montrose (W. Duncan). Broughty Ferry (A. Somerville). Den
of Airlie (C. B. Plowright).

Kincardine.—Stonehaven (W. Turner).

Elgin.—Near Elgin (G. Gordon).

Main Argyle.—Oban (British Museum).

Clyde Isles.—Loch Fad (T. Scott). Skeoch Woods, Bute (Alex. Shaw).

Cantire.—North shore of East Loch Tarbert (T. Scott).

Sutherland E.—Brora (W. Baillie).

Acme lineata (Drap.).

This very rare and local species has been found in Lanark-
shire, Main Argyle, and Ebudes N. according to Dr White,
but hitherto specimens have been submitted for authentication
from two counties only.

Renfrew.—The Cloch near Greenock, one found (Andrew Scott).
Ayr.—Skelmorlie (A. Shaw).

Neritina fluviatilis (L.).

Although Dr Buchanan White’s words seem to imply that
this shell is Scottish, it cannot be regarded as such; both
the authenticated records are for accidental importations with
river ballast from England or abroad.

Renfrew.—Greenock, among ballast sand (T. Scott).
Orkneys.—Orkney Islands (EH. Forbes, in British Museum),

484 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Paludina vivipara L.

We have, through the kindness of Rev. Dr Gordon, seen
the original specimen recorded in his Morayshire list from
the mouth of the Findhorn. It is evidently a ballast-shell,
being bleached, much worn, and broken.

Bythinia tentaculata (L.).

Rare and local in Scotland. In addition to the five
counties from which specimens have been sent for authenti-
cation, Dr White mentions its having occurred at Fraser-
burgh, Aberdeenshire.

Kirkcudbright.—Carlingwark Loch, Castle Douglas (W. Evans).

Renfrew.—Paisley Canal (J. Conacher). Glasgow and Paisley Canal, with
var. producta (T. Scott).

Lanark.—Coatbridge Canal, an operculum only (Hilderic Friend).

Edinburgh.—Canal between Edinburgh and Slateford, with m. decollatum
(W. Evans).

Linlithgow. —Canal at Linlithgow (W. Evans).

Valvata piscinalis (Mill.).

This species is sparingly distributed over the south-eastern
half of Scotland, within which area it should be looked for in
other counties than those stated below.

Kirkcudbright. —Tarff, Free Kirk reach; Tongland (F. R. Coles). Max-
welltown ; Castle Douglas (W. Evans).

Renfrew.—Glasgow and Paisley Canal (T. Scott).

Haddington.—Gosford Ponds (W. Evans).

Edinburgh.—Edinburgh (W. Turner). lLochend, R. 8. Ed. 1859 (Greville
Collection in Edinburgh Museum). Lochend; Duddingston Loch (W. Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—Lindores Loch (T. Scott). Raith Lake (W. Evans).
Loch Leven; Kirkcaldy (T. Scott).

Stirling.—Loch Coulter (T. Scott).

Perth N.—Near Perth (H. Coates).

Forfar.—Dun’s Ditch near Montrose (W. Duncan).

Valvata cristata Mill.

Recorded from eight counties only, but will probably be
found to occur in others.

Census of Scottish Land and Fresh-Water Mollusca, 485

Kirkcudbright.—Dee ; Black Stockton (F. R. Coles).
Lanark. —Possil Marsh (‘I’. Scott).
Haddington.—Gosford Ponds (W. Evans).
Edinburgh.—Marsh near Davidson’s Mains (W. Evans).
Fife and Kinross.—Otterston Loch (W. Evans).
Forfar.—Rescobie Loch (W. Duncan),

Ross E.—Loch Achnacloich near Invergordon (T. Scott).
Orkney.—Head of Harray Loch (T. Scott),

Planorbis nitidus (Miill.).

Authenticated from six areas only, though Dr White
speaks of it as “ widely distributed.”

Renfrew. —Paisley Canal (T. Scott).

Berwick.—Coldingham Loch (W. Evans).

Haddington. —Lutfness Marshes (W. Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—Lindores Loch; Kilconquhar Loch near Elie (T. Scott).
Elgin.—Loch of Spynie (G. Gordon),

Ross E.—Loch Achnacloich near Invergordon (T. Scott).

Planorbis nautileus (L.).

The authenticated distribution, which is mainly of an
eastern character, ranges as far north as Orkney.

Kirkcudbright.—High Boreland (F. R. Coles).

Renfrew.— Var. crista, Glasgow and Paisley Canal near Elderslie (T. Scott).

Lanark.—Hogganfield near Glasgow (A. Somerville).

Selkirk. —Var. crista, Haining Lake near Selkirk (W. Evans).

Haddington.—Presmennan Lake near East Linton (W. Turner). Luffness
Marshes; Gullane Quarry; Gosford Ponds (W. Evans). Gullane Links (T.
Scott).

Edinburgh. —Duddingston Loch (W. Evans),

Fife and Kinross.—Lindores Loch (T. Scott). Raith Lake; Tentsmnir (W.
Evans).

Forfar.—Rescobie ; near Montrose; var. crista, Montrose (W. Duncan).

Aberdeen N,—Loch Strathbeg near Fraserburgh (T. Scott).

Elgin.—Both levigate and imbricate forms, Duffus (G. Gordon).

Easterness.—Pond near Inverness (T. Scott).

Clyde Isles.—Little Cumbrae; pool beside Loch Ascog, Bute (T. Scott).

Orkney.—Head of Harray Loch (T. Scott).

-Planorbis albus Mill.

Of this—which Dr White speaks of as a “ common and
widely-distributed species ””—the authenticated records carry

486 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socrety.

its range as far north as Sutherlandshire and Renfrewshire
on the two sides of Scotland.

Kirkcudbright.—Black Stockton; Free Kirk reach, Tarff; Tongland ;
Dee (F. R. Coles). Castle Douglas ; Maxwelltown (W. Evans).

Renfrew.— Paisley Canal (T. Scott).

Selkirk.—Haining Lake near Selkirk (W. Evans).

Berwick.-—Coldingham Loch (W. Evans).

Haddington.—Presmennan Lake near East Linton (W. Turner). North
Berwick (W. Evans).

Edinburgh.—Davidson’s Mains (W. Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—Lindores Loch (T. Scott). Raith Lake (W. Evans).
Loch Leven (T. Scott).

Stirling.—Loch Coulter (T. Scott).

Perth N.—Butterston Loch near Dunkeld (W. Evans).

Forfar. —Dun’s Ditch near Montrose (W. Duncan).

Clyde Isles.—Loch Fad (T. Scott).

Sutherland E.—Brora (W. Baillie).

Planorbis parvus Say.

This scarce British species—very local anywhere in Britain
—has been authenticated from six Scottish counties, one
of them the most northerly on the mainland. Dr Jeffreys
speaks of it as occurring on Unst.

Berwick.—Coldingham Loch (W. Evans).
Haddington.—Presmennan Lake near East Linton (W. Turner).
Edinburgh.—Duddingston Loch (W. Evans).

Forfar.—Loch Rescobie (W. Duncan).

Elgin.—Near Elgin (G. Gordon).

Sutherland W.—Loch,near Stair Lighthouse (W. Baillie).

Planorbis spirorbis Miill.

This species is—as Dr White says—widely diffused, its
authenticated records carrying its range to the northern verge
of the Scottish mainland.

Kirkcudbright.—St Mary’s Isle (F. R. Coles).

Renfrew.—Crosslee near Paisley ; near Port Glasgow (T. Scott).
Haddington.—Bleachfield, Dunbar (T. Scott). Dunbar (W. Evans).
Edinburgh.—Marsh on Braid Hills (W. Evans).
Stirling.—Coltenhave Dam (T. Scott).

Perth N.—Near Perth (H. Coates).

Forfar.— Near Montrose (W. Duncan).

Census of Scottish Land and Fresh- Water Mollusca. 487

Aberdeen S.—Aberdeen (British Museum). Bridge of Don, in stomach of
Shoveller (W. Evans).

Aberdeen N.—Loch Strathbeg near Fraserburgh (‘T. Scott).

Elgin.—Loch of Spynie (G. Gordon).

Ebudes Mid.—Tiree Island (J. E. Somerville).

Ross E.—Loch Achnacloich near Invergordon (T. Scott).

Sutherland W.—Loch near Stair Lighthouse (W. Baillie).

Planorbis vortex (L.).

Dr White speaks of this as occurring in Perthshire, Aber-
deenshire, and Kireudbrightshire, and he further describes it
as widely diffused. It has, however, only been submitted for
authentication from two counties.

Forfar.—Dun’s Ditch near Montrose (W. Duncan).
Caithness.—Loch Hempriggs near Wick (T. Scott).

Planorbis carinatus Miill.

Confined to one single Scottish locality, into which (as Dr
White suggests) it has been perhaps introduced. This is the
pond in the Edinburgh Botanic Garden. In England, Durham
and Lancashire form its northern limit of range.

Edinburgh.—Edinburgh (W. Turner, per 8. C. Cockerell).

Planorbis marginatus.

This species has only been authenticated from three
Scottish counties. Its English northern range attains to
Cumberland and Northumberland, so that it may be looked
for throughout the southern part of Scotland.

Kirkcudbright—Babington’s Loch, Maxwelltown (R. Service). Maxwell-
town (W. Evans).

Haddington.—Luffness Marshes (W. Evans).

Edinburgh.—Edinburgh (J. Stark, in Alder Collection at Newcastle
Museum). Lochend (W. Turner, per S. C. Cockerell). Lochend (W. Evans).

Planorbis contortus (L.).

This species has, according to Dr Buchanan White, been
found in Shetland, south of which it is widely diffused,

488 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Soctrety.

although its actually authenticated localities are compara-
tively few.

Kirkcudbright.—Tarff at Tongland; Argrennan mill-dam; Loch Finn;
Black Stockton; Free Kirk reach of Tarff (F. R. Coles). Castle Douglas;
Maxwelltown (W. Evans).

Peebles.—King’s Meadows, Peebles (W. Evans).

Berwick.—Coldingham Loch (W. Evans).

Haddington. —Luffness Marshes (W. Evans).

Edinburgh.— Lochend; Duddingston Loch (W. Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—Lindores Loch; Kirkcaldy; Loch Leven (T. Scott).
Otterston Loch; Raith Lake (W. Evans).

Stirling.—Loch Coulter; Bannockburn (T. Scott).

Perth Mid.—Loch Dochart (A. Somerville).

Perth N.—Near Perth (H. Coates). Butterston Loch near Dunkeld; Rae
Loch near Blairgowrie (W. Evans),

Forfar.—Near Montrose (W. Duncan). Broughty Ferry (A. Somerville).

Aberdeen S.—Aberdeenshire (W. Turner, per 8. C. Cockerell). Requires
confirmation or further specification of locality.

Elgin.—Loch of Spynie (G. Gordon).

Easterness.—Loch Morlich (J. E. Somerville).

Clyde Isles.—Loch Greenan, Bute (W.D.R.). Loch Fad (T. Scott).

Ross E.—Loch Achnacloich near Invergordon (T. Scott).

Caithness.—Loch Hempriggs near Wick (T. Scott).

Physa hypnorum (L.).

A very local species, which has been authenticated from
four counties, and which Dr White records as having been
found in Perthshire also.

Berwick.—Fans near Earlston (R. Renton).

Haddington.—Bleachfield, Dunbar (T. Scott). Dunbar (W. Evans).

Elgin.—Loch of Spynie (G. Gordon).
Ebudes Mid.—Tirce Island (J. E. Somerville).

Physa fontinalis (L.).

This species will probably be found to occur throughout
Lowland Scotland, and occurs on the east coast as far north
as Forfarshire.

Kirkcudbright.—Tarff, Tongland (F. R. Coles). Castle Douglas; Max-
welltown (W. Evans).

Wigtown.—Ardwell (W. Evans).

Renfrew.—Cemetery Pond at Greenock (T. Scott), Paisley Canal near
Glasgow (H. Nelson).

Census of Scottish Land and Fresh- Water Mollusca. 489

Lanark.—Glasgow and Edinburgh Canal (J. Whitwham). Possil Marsh
(W.D.R.). Coatbridge Canal (Hilderic Friend).

Berwick.—Coldingham Loch (W. Evans).

Haddington.—Luffness Marshes; Gosford Ponds (W. Evans).

Edinburgh. —Duddingston Loch (W.D.R.). Loch at foot of Arthur’s Seat
(Hilderic Friend). Lochend; small marsh near Davidson’s Mains; Canal
between Edinburgh and Slateford (W. Evans).

Linlithgow. —Canal at Linlithgow; Philpstoun Loch (W. Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—Lindores Loch; Kirkealdy ; Loch Leven (T. Scott).
Otterston Loch (W. Evans).

Perth N.—Near Perth (H. Coates).

Forfar.—Dun’s Ditch, Montrose (W. Duncan).

Clyde Isles.—Loch Fad (T. Scott).

Limnea peregra (Miill.).

This universally diffused, extremely common, and very
variable species ranges throughout the kingdom of Scotland,
although as yet there remain six counties (Kincardine,
Westerness, Dumbarton, Ebudes S., Ross E.,, and Orkney)
for which authenticated records are wanting.

Dumfries.— White Loch, Rockcliffe (Jessie Hele). Var. burnetti, Loch
Skene (Miss F. M. Hele).

Kirkcudbright.—St Mary’s Isle; Grange Pond; Free Kirk reach of Tarff;
Ingleston mill-dam at Twynholm; Bigloch at Langbarns; stream running
out of Argrennan mill-dam; Argrennan ditch (F. R. Coles). Var. ovata,
High Clachan Loch (F. R. Coles). Maxwelltown; Castle Douglas (W. Evans).

Wigtown.—Stranraer; Lochnaw; Larbrax (Edinburgh Museum). Stranraer;
Port Logan (W. Evans). Chippermore near Port William (P. Adair).

Ayr.—Dunure; Auld Brig 0’ Doon at Alloway; Myrenhill; Dalrymple;
Irvine; Minneshant near Maybole (H. Nelson).

Renfrew.—Greenock (T. Scott). Var. ovata, mill-dam in Baker Street,
Greenock (Andrew Scott). Greenock; Glasgow and Paisley Canal (T. Scott).
Paisley, small (W. Nelson).

Lanark.—Glasgow and Edinburgh Canal (J. Whitwham). Possil Marsh
(W.D.R.). River Kelvin at Summerston; and Hillhead (Alex. Shaw). Coat-
bridge Canal (Hilderic Friend). Var. ovata, Blantyre; var. ovata (small)
and var. aff. dacustris, in River Clyde above Rutherglen (A. Shaw).

Peebles.—River Tweed west of Holylee; var. ovata, River Tweed at
Walkerburn (W.D.R.). Ditch by Tweed, Peebles; Lyne Farm (W. Evans).

Selkirk.—River Tweed at Holylee (W.D.R.). Haining Lake near Selkirk
(W. Evans).

Roxburgh.—River Tweed at Melrose (W.D.R.). Netherhall near Hawick

(W. G. Guthrie).

- _Berwick.—Greenlaw ; Fans near Earlston (R. Renton). Cockburnspath ;
Coldingham Loch (W. Evans).

490 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Haddington.—Pools, Dunbar (T. Scott). Presmennan Lake near East
Linton (W. Turner). Pond on Rhodes Farm at North Berwick; var.
acuminata, pond on Rhodes Farm at North Berwick; var. maritima,
pond on Luffness Links (J. M‘Murtrie). Aberlady; Gosford Ponds (W.
Evans).

Edinburgh.—Duddingston Loch ; Dunsappie Loch; Penicuik, etc. (Greville
Collection, Edinburgh Museum). Pond in Botanic Garden at Edinburgh (W.
Evans). Abundant in Braid Burn near Morningside (W. Eagle Clarke). Loch
at foot of Arthur’s Seat (Hilderic Friend). Var. ovata, Duddingston Loch
(W.D.R.). Loganhouse Burn, Pentlands; near Balerno; lLochend ; var.
inflata, Canal at Slateford (W. Evans).

Linlithgow.—Newliston (Edinburgh Museum). Linlithgow Loch; Canal
at Linlithgow ; Philpstoun Loch (W. Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—North Queensferry (R. F. Scharff). Var. lacustris,
Lindores Loch (T. Scott). Raith Lake; stomach of Shoveller shot at Loch
Leven; Strathtyrum near St Andrews; var. fontinalis, Dura Den; Otter-
ston Loch; Burntisland (W. Evans). Kirkcaldy; Kilconquhar Loch near
Elie; Loch Leven (T. Scott). |

Stirling.—Stirling (Greville Collection in Edinburgh Museum). Polmont
(W. Evans). Coltenhave Dam; Loch Coulter ; Bannockburn (T. Scott).

Perth S. with Clackmannan.—Ochil Hills and Allan Water (Edinburgh
Museum).

Perth Mid.—Near Perth (H. Bendall). Crianlarich; var. ovata, small
form, Loch Dochart (A. Somerville).

Perth N.—Var. ovata, near Perth (H. Coates). Rae Loch near Blairgowrie;
var. lacustris, Loch of Clunie, between Blairgowrie and Dunkeld (W. Evans).

Forfar.—Mill-dam, Den of Fullartoun; Scurdyness; mill pond at Nether
Dysart ; Montrose; var. ovata, Scurdyness; Montrose (W. Duncan).

Aberdeen S.—Monst. decollatuwm, Aberdeen (W. Nelson). Braemar (W.
Evans).

Aberdeen N.—Loch Strathbeg near Fraserburgh (T. Scott).

Banff.—Tomintoul (L. Hinxman).

Elgin.— With var. ovata, near Elgin (G. Gordon).

Easterness.—Nairnshire (A. Somerville). Loch Morlich (J. E. Somerville).
River Spey at Kincraig by Kingussie; dub by roadside between Kincraig and
Kingussie, with monst. decollatum (W. Evans).

Main Argyle.—Pool near Loch Awe; var. picta, Oban (both from Capt.
Bedford, A. M. Norman). Var. Jabiosa, pond near Loch Criran (A. M..
Norman).

Clyde Isles.—Rothesay (W. Nelson). Loch Fad (T. Scott). Var. ovata,
Loch Greenan (W.D.R.).

Cantire.—Ditch and rivulets close to East Loch Tarbert (T. Scott).

Ebudes Mid.—tTiree Island (J. E. Somerville). Iona (A. Somerville). Var.
acuminata, Mull (from Capt. Bedford, A. Merle Norman).

Ebudes N.—Higg (A. Somerville).

Ross W.—Var. ovata, freshwater loch near Loch Maree (A. Somerville).

Sutherland E.—Var. acuminata, Mound (W. Baillie).

Sutherland W.—Stoer (J. E. Somerville). Small moorland loch near Loch
Inver, small and thin specimens (A. Somerville).

Census of Scottish Land and Fresh-Water Mollusca. 491

Caithness.—Dunnet Sands near Thurso (W. Evans). Wick River; Loch
Hempriggs (T. Scott).

Hebrides.—Loch Boisdale, South Uist (J. E. Somerville). Abundant in
lochs, South Uist (A. Somerville).

Shetlands.—Shetland (W. Nelson). Var. dabiosa, Shetland ; var. lacustris,
Unst; monst. decollatwm, Lerwick (A. Merle Norman).

Limneza auricularia (L.).

Authenticated from several Lowland counties, and also
from Fifeshire and Elginshire. The two localities which Dr
White cites—Abercorn Park and Monkland Canal—have
not as yet been verified by specimens submitted for authen-
tication.

Kirkcudbright.—Bigloch, Langbarns (F. R. Coles).

Renfrew.— Paisley Canal (Greenock Museum).

Berwick.— Var. acuta, Greenlaw (R. Renton, per 8. C. Cockerell).

Haddington.—Presmennan Lake near East Linton (W. Turner).

Edinburgh.—Canal at Edinburgh (W. Turner). St Margaret’s Loch
(J. Whitwham). Duddingston Loch (W.D.R.). Var. acuta, St Margaret’s
Loch (J. Whitwham). Canal near Slateford (W. Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—Lindores Loch (T. Scott).

Elgin.—Elginshire (G. Gordon).

Limnea stagnalis (L.).

Found in three localities only in Scotland, so far as yet
known.

Lanark.—Old Quarry at Possil by Glasgow (T. Scott ; A. Somerville).
Roxburgh.—Branxholm Loch near Hawick (W. G. Guthrie).
Haddington.—Luffness Marshes near Aberlady, small (W. Evans).

Limnea palustris (Miill.).

This species ranges southwards from Elginshire on the
east and Renfrewshire on the west side of Scotland.

Kirkcudbright.—Argrennan ditch; near bridge at Glox, Tarff(F. R. Coles).
Castle Douglas (W. Evans).

Renfrew.—Kilmalcolm ; near Port Glasgow (T. Scoit).

Lanark.—Possil Marsh (T. Scott).

Haddington.—Luffness Marshes ; near North Berwick (W. Evans).

Edinburgh.—Pond at Duddingston House (W. Evans).

Linlithgow.—Philpstoun (W. Evans).

VOL X.

bo
A

492 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socvety.

Fife and Kinross.—Lindores Loch; Loch Leven (T. Scott).

Perth Mid.—Near Perth (H. Bendall).

Perth N.—Near Perth (H. Coates). Loch of Clunie, between Blairgowrie
and Dunkeld (W. Evans).

Forfar.—Rescobie Loch (W. Duncan).

Aberdeen S.—In stomach of Shoveller Duck shot at Bridge of Don
(W. Evans).

Aberdeen N.—Huntly (J. Conacher). Loch Strathbeg (T. Scott).

Elgin.—Loch of Spynie (G. Gordon).

Limnea truncatula (Miill.).

This species will probably be ultimately found in every
comital area, though so far it has been authenticated from
twenty-five counties only. The records, however, show that
it ranges throughout the kingdom, and Dr White describes it
as “common and widely distributed.”

Kirkcudbright.—Black Stockton (F. R. Coles). Castle Douglas (W. Evans).

Ayr.—Dalrymple by Ayr; Maybole Castle ; Drumbain (H. Nelson). Largs
(A. Shaw).

Renfrew.—Dam in Baker Street, Greenock (A. Scott). Pools in Garvel
Park, Greenock (T. Scott).

Lanark.—River Clyde above Rutherglen (Alex. Shaw).

Peebles.—Cademuir (W. Evans).

Selkirk.—Near Newark Castle (J. Madison).

Roxburgh.—Stirches near Hawick (W. G. Guthrie).

Haddington.—Ditches on Luffness Links ; ditches, Gullane Hill; Dirleton °
Common near North Berwick (W. Evans). Pools, Dunbar (T. Scott).

Edinburgh.—Ditch at Morningside ; var. minor, Loganlee; Lothianburn;
Marchbank near Balerno ; Duddingston Loch (W, Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—North Queensferry (R. Scharff). Var. minor, Kinkell
Braes near St Andrews; Dura Den, with var. oblonga; Burntisland (W.
Evans).

Stirling.—Coulter Burn, Howietoun ; Bannockburn (T. Scott).

Perth S. with Clackmannan.—Strathyre (Janet Carphin).

Perth N.—Near Perth (H. Coates).

Forfar.—Mains of Usan near Montrose (W. Duncan).

Kincardine.—Stonehaven (W. Turner).

Aberdeen §.—In stomach of Shoveller shot at Bridge of Don; Braemar
(W. Evans).

Banff.—Tomintoul (L. Hinxman).

Elgin.—Var. minor, near Elgin (G. Gordon).

Clyde Isles.—Rothesay (J. Whitwham). Pools beside Loch Ascog (T, Scott),
Var. minor, Holy Island, Arran (W. Turner).

Cantire.—Ditches and rivulets close to East Loch, Tarbert (T. Scott).

Ebudes Mid.—Tiree Island (J. E. Somerville).

Census of Scottish Land and Fresh-Water Mollusca. 493

Ebudes N.—Eigg (A. Somerville).

Sutherland E.—Mound ; Brora (W. Baillie).

Sutherland W.—Extends over nearly all Sutherland (W. Baillie). Confir-
mation needed.

Caithness.—Dunbeath Castle (W. Baillie). Loch Hempriggs (T. Scott).

Limnea glabra (Miill.).

This species is, as Dr White describes it, rare and local.
Of the two stations which he mentions, however, speci-
mens have only been seen from one. The Perthshire record
still remains to be authenticated.

Lanark.—Frankfield Loch near Glasgow (T. Scott).

Ancylus fluviatilis Mill.

This is a species which may be expected ultimately to be
found in every comital area, ranging, as the records already
show, throughout Scotland.

Kirkcudbright.—Culdoch Burn; Tongland Dam; Tarff at Ringford ;
var. albida, Tarff (F. R. Coles). Castle Douglas (W. Evans).

Wigtown.—Piltanton burn near Stranraer (W. Evans).

Ayr.—Myrenhill by Ayr; Crossraguel Abbey; Minneshant by Maybole
(H. Nelson). Largs (A. Shaw).

Renfrew.—Cut flowing into dam, Baker Street, Greenock (Andrew Scott).
Ditches and rivulets about Greenock (T. Scott).

Lanark.—Coatbridge (Hilderic Friend).

Peebles.— Near Peebles (A. Somerville). West Linton ; Eddleston Water
(W. Evans).

Selkirk.—River Tweed at Holylee and Elibank (W.D.R.).

Berwick.—Coldingham Loch (W. Evans).

Haddington.—Stream at Ballincrieff near Aberlady ; North Berwick (W,
Evans).

Edinburgh.—Braidburn near Edinburgh; Logan burn, Pentlands; near
Balerno (W. Evans).

Linlithgow.—Stream entering Linlithgow Loch ; var. gibbosa, Linlithgow
Loch (W, Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—St Andrews; Strathtyrum near St Andrews; Raith
Lake ; Burntisland (W. Evans).

Stirling.— Bannockburn (‘I’. Scott).

Perth N.—Near Perth (H. Coates).

Forfar.—Usan near Montrose (W. Duncan).

Aberdeen S.—Aberdeenshire (W. Turner), Braemar (W. Evans),

494 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socvety.

Elgin.—Near Elgin (G. Gordon).

Main Argyle.—Glen Morag near Dunoon (W.D.R.).
Dumbarton.—Crosslet by Dumbarton (W.D.R.). Garscadden (Alex. Shaw).
Clyde Isles.—Brodick, Arran (A. Somerville). Loch Fad, Bute (T. Scott)
Cantire.—North side of West Loch, Tarbert (T. Scott).

Ebudes N.—Eigg (A, Somerville).

Sutherland W.—East of Kyle of Tongue (W. Baillie),

Ancylus lacustris (L.).

This species is local. It is recorded by Dr White for three
counties (Edinburghshire in Duddingston Loch, Perthshire,
and Aberdeenshire), from one of which specimens have not
as yet been submitted for authentication.

Kirkcudbright.—The Tarff at Ringford (F. R. Coles).

Lanark.—Possil Marsh (F. G. Binnie).

Haddington.—Gosford Ponds ; near North Berwick (W. Evans).

Edinburgh.— With vars. albida and moquiniana, marsh near Davidson’s
Mains (W. Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—Lindores Loch (T. Scott). Otterston Loch (W. Evans),

Forfar.—Loch Rescobie (W. Duncan).

Aberdeen N.—St Fergus Canal near Peterhead (W. Dawson, per G. Gordon).

Spherium corneum (L.).

This species ranges throughout the kingdom, even as far as
Shetland. Two counties mentioned by Dr White (Aberdeen-
shire and Inverness-shire) have as yet not been represented
by authenticated specimens.

Kirkcudbright.—Loch Finn; Argrennan ditch (F. R. Coles). Castle
Douglas ; Maxwelltown (W. Evans).

Renfrew.—Paisley Canal (J. Conacher). Glasgow and Paisley Canal
(T. Scott).

Berwick.—Fans near Earlston (R. Renton). Coldingham Loch (W. Evans).

Haddington.— Luffness Marshes (W. Evans).

Edinburgh.—St Margaret’s Loch (J. Whitwham). Lochend; Braid Hills ;
Marsh near Davidson’s Mains; Canal near Slateford, with var. flavescens ;
Duddingston Loch (W. Evans).

Linlithgow.—Canal at Linlithgow, with var. flavescens (W. Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—Loch Leven; Raith Lake; Burntisland; Otterston
Loch (W. Evans). Kirkcaldy ; Loch Leven (T. Scott).

Stirling.—Loch Coulter (T. Scott).

Perth Mid.—Near Perth (H. Bendall).

Census of Scottish Land and Fresh- Water Mollusca. 495

Perth N.—Near Perth (H. Coates). Butterston Loch near Dunkeld (W.
Evans).

Forfar.—Dun’s Ditch near Montrose ; Loch Rescobie ; var. nucleus, Dun’s
Ditch (W. Duncan).

Elgin.—Near Elgin (G. Gordon).

Caithness.—Loch Hempriggs near Wick (T. Scott).

Shetland.— Var. flavescens, Lerwick (A. Merle Norman).

Spherium lacustre (Miill.).

This species has been placed on record for near Glasgow,
in addition to the four counties from which we have seen
specimens. It is evidently very local and rare.

Haddington.—Gosford Ponds (W. Evans). Barryhill Quarry near Dunbar
(T. Scott).

Edinburgh.—Specimen in British Museum labelled ‘‘near Edinburgh”
(J. W. ‘Taylor).

Fife and Kinross.—Burntisland (W. Evans).

Ross E.— Invergordon (T. Scott).

Pisidium amnicum (Miill.).

This species—described by Dr White as widely distributed
—has so far been authenticated for four Scottish localities
only.

Renfrew.—Glasgow and Paisley Canal (‘T. Scott).

Stirling.—Loch Coulter (T. Scott).

Perth S. with Clackmannan.—The Allan, Dunblane (Janet Carphin).
Dumbarton.—Loch near Forth and Clyde Canal, Maryhill (A. Shaw).

Pisidium fontinale (Drap.).

Of this species—spoken of by Dr White as being common
and widely distributed—we have authenticated records for
sixteen counties.

Kirkcudbright.—Black Stockton mill-dam (F. R. Coles). Maxwelltown
(W. Evans).

Peebles.—Pond on Lyne Farm (W. Evans).

Berwick.—Cockburnspath (W. Evans).

Haddington.—Gosford Ponds (W. Evans).

Edinburgh.—Duddingston Loch; near Balerno; Craiglockhart Skating
Pond (W. Evans).

496 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

Linlithgow.—Linlithgow Loch; var. pallescens, Canal at Linlithgow (W.
Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—St Andrews; Raith Lake ; Burntisland, var. pallida ;
Otterston Loch (W. Evans). Kirkcaldy ; Kilconquhar Loch near Elie (T.
Scott).

Stirling.—Loch Coulter (T. Scott).

Perth N.—Butterston Loch near Dunkeld (W. Evans).

Forfar.— Montrose; mill pond at Nether Dysart (W. Duncan).
Aberdeen S.—Braemar (W. Evans).

Elgin.—Near Elgin (G. Gordon).

Cantire.—Loch na Kenna near Tarbert (T. Scott).

Ross E.—Loch Achnacloich near Invergordon (T. Scott).
Sutherland W.—East of Kyle of Tongue (W. Baillie).
Caithness.—Loch Hempriggs near Wick (T. Scott).

Pisidium pulchellum Jenyns.

This form—not mentioned by Dr White—has been authen-
ticated for seven counties.

Kirkcudbright—Maxwelltown (W. Evans).

Wigtown.—Ardwell (W. Evans).

Peebles.—Pond on Lyne Farm (W. Evans).

Haddington.—Luffness Links ; Gosford Ponds (W. Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—Raith Lake (W. Evans). Loch Leven (T. Scott).
Perth 8. with Clackmannan.—Airthrey, Bridge of Allan (Janet Carphin).
Forfar.—Dun’s Ditch near Montrose (W. Duncan).

Pisidium cinereum Ald.
This form has been submitted from two counties.

Renfrew.—Glasgow and Paisley Canal (T. Scott).
Fife and Kinross.—Raith Lake (W. Evans),

Pisidium pusillum (Gmel.).

This is probably the commonest species of the genus, and
ranges throughout Scotland. It should be looked for with
prospect of success in nearly every comital area.

Kirkcudbright.—Black Stockton mill-dam; Argrennan mill-dam (F. R.
Coles). Castle Douglas ; Maxwelltown (W. Evans).

Peebles. —Banks of a hill stream near Peebles (A. Somerville). Ditch on
the Meldons near Peebles (W. Evans).

Berwick.—Fans near Earlston (R. Renton).

Coldingham Loch ; Cock-
burnspath (W. Evans).

Census of Scottish Land and Fresh-Water Mollusca. 497

Haddington.—Luffness Marshes ; Gullane Quarry ; Gosford Ponds ; North
Berwick (W. Evans).

Edinburgh. —Pond in Botanic Garden, Edinburgh; marsh on Braid Hills ;
Lothian Burn ; Marchbank near Balerno ; Duddingston (W. Evans).

Linlithgow.—Linlithgow Loch (W. Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—St Andrews ; Raith Lake (W. Evans).

Stirling.—Loch Coulter (‘l’. Scott).

Perth 8. with Clackmannan. —Strathyre (Janet Carphin).

Forfar.—Near Montrose ; Rescobie Loch (W. Duncan). Gallie Burn near
Dundee (J. Ramage). Outskirts of Dundee (W. Evans).

Aberdeen §.—F rom stomach of Shoveller shot at Bridge of Don, also var.
obtusale ; Braemar (W. Evans).

Elgin.—Near Elgin (G. Gordon).

Cantire.—Tarbert (T. Scott).

Ross E.—Loch Achnacloich near Invergordon (T. Scott).

Ross W.—Ullapool ; fresh-water loch near Loch Maree (A. Somerville),

Sutherland E.—Bonar (W. Baillie).

Sutherland W.—East of Kyle of Tongue (W.. Baillie).

Caithness.—Loch Hempriggs near Wick (T. Scott).

Pisidium nitidum Jen.

This species is mentioned by Dr White as ranging through-
out, but local, and he cites one county (West Ross) from
which as yet our referees have not seen specimens.

Dumfries.—Mill-dam at Moffat (W. Evans).

Haddington.—Gosford Ponds (W. Evans).

Edinburgh.—Marsh on Braid Hills (W. Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—Lindores Loch (T. Scott). From stomachs of Shovellers
shot at Loch Leven; Tentsmuir; Otterston Loch (W. Evans).

Perth N.—Butterston Loch near Dunkeld (W. Evans).

Aberdeen §.—From stomach of Shoveller shot at Bridge of Don; Brae-
mar (W. Evans).

Banff.— Banffshire (A. Merle Norman).

Elgin.—Near Elgin (G. Gordon).

Shetland.—Var. splendens, Lerwick (A. Merle Norman).

Pisidium roseum Scholtz.

This species appears to be of more frequent occurrence in
Scotland than it is south of the border; specimens have been
submitted from ten counties.

Kirkcudbright.— Maxwelltown (W. Evans).

‘Selkirk.— Haining Lake near Selkirk (W. Evans).

Haddington.—Pond, Luffness Links (W. Evans). Luffness Links, shallow

marsh near the sea (J. M‘Murtrie).

498 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socrety.

Edinburgh.—Marsh, Braid Hills; Duddingston Loch (W. Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—Lindores Loch (T. Scott). From stomachs of Shovellers
shot at Loch Leven; Otterston Loch (W. Evans).

Perth Mid.—Loch Dochart, alt. 500 feet, at roots of Chava; Crianlarich (A.
Somerville).

Elgin.—Near Elgin (G. Gordon).

Easterness.—Loch Morlich, Inverness (J. E. Somerville). Pond near In-
verness (T. Scott).

Ross E.—Loch Achnacloich near Invergordon (T. Scott).

Orkney.—Head of Harray Loch (T. Scott).

Unio margaritifer (L.).

This is one of the very few instances of Mollusca with a
northern range—being common and widely distributed in
Ireland and Scotland, and restricted in England to a few
stations in the northern counties and in Wales.

Renfrew.—River Gryfe near Kilmalcolm, a single example dug up about a
foot deep in the bed of the river (Greenock Museum).

Lanark.—River Clyde near Cambuslang (T. Scott).

Perth 8. with Clackmannan.—Trossachs (Thomas Rogers).

Perth Mid.—River Tummel (J. Hardy, sen.). River Tay, Perth (T. Rogers).
River Lyon (T. Scott).

Forfar.—River Pow, Kinnard House Farm, half a mile from South Esk (W.
Duncan).

Elgin.—Elginshire (G. Gordon).

Easterness.—River Spey at Kincraig by Kingussie (W. Evans).

Main Argyle.—River Onchy, near where it flows into Loch Awe (A.
Somerville).

Sutherland W.—Var. sinuwata, near Stair Point, Assynt (W. Baillie).

Anodonta cygnea (L.).

Local in Scotland, The Perthshire locality mentioned by
Dr White is one from which our referees have not yet seen
examples.

Renfrew.—Glasgow and Paisley Canal near Elderslie; var. radiata, Paisley
Canal (T. Scott). Var. éncrassata, Paisley Canal (Greenock Museum).

Edinburgh.—Lochend (W. Evans).

Fife and Kinross.—Raith Lake (W. Evans). Loch Leven (T. Scott).

Forfar.—A slow deep running stream near Montrose (W. Duncan),

Elgin,—Elginshire (G. Gordon).

Census of Scottish Land and Fresh-Water Mollusca. 499

Anodonta anatina (L.).
Authenticated for two localities only.

Haddington.—Gosford Ponds (W. Evans).
Edinburgh.—Near Edinburgh (W. Turner). Lochend (W. Evans).

Dreissena polymorpha (Pall.).
Local. Confined to canals near Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Renfrew.— Paisley Canal (A. Somerville).
Lanark.—Forth and Clyde Canal near Glasgow (T. Scott).
Edinburgh.— Union Canal at Meggatland near Edinburgh (W. Evans).

I will conclude the paper by a table showing at a glance
for what counties each species has been authenticated, how
many species have been recorded for each county, and how
many counties for each species; and by asking Scottish
naturalists to co-operate in submitting specimens for every
county and species marked with a dash in the table. It is
desirable that particular attention be paid to sending living
slugs for identification, as there are no existing text-books in
which these are correctly described.

[TABLE SHOWING DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIES.

NAME OF SPECIES.

Arion ater, .

A. subfuscus,

A. hortensis, |

A. bourguignati,
A, minimus,
Amalia gagates,

A. carinata, '
imax maximus, .
L. cinereo-niger,
LI. arborum,

L. flavus,

Agriolimax agrestis, :

A. levis.

Testacella haliotidea,

T. scutulun,
Succinea putris,
S. elegans,

S. oblonga,
Vitrina pellucida,
Zonites dr aparnaldi,
Z, cellarius,

Z. alliarius,

Z. ylaber,

Z. nitidulus,

4. purus,

Z. radiatulus,
Z. nitidus,

Z. cxcavatus,

Z. crystallinus,
Z. fulvus,
Helix lamellata,
. aculeata,

. aspersta,

. nemoralis,
hortensis,

. arbustorum,
. TUPESCENS,

. concinna,

. hispida, .

. sericea,

H, fusca,

Hi. virgata, .
HI. caperata,

H, ericetorum, .
H. rotundata,
HH. rupestris,

HT. pygmea,

HT, pulchella,
H. lapicida,
Bulimus acutus,
B. obscurus,
Pup ringens,
P. umbilicata, .

TSSRRSRVS

Carry forward,

Sy SS Say
bo bw bd be
“I
(Ju)
“I
ne

West Lowlands.

East Lowlands.

Xe

73 Kirkcudbright.
7 Lanarl

74 Wigtown.

lta
76 Renfrew,

72 Dunttries.
(omayits

7

“TIT
i
i
at
~I
[=p

Sy
So SO
SE) SI)
~IsTNINI

“I

Oo

~I

=
~JI~1I “T |

72

1 or or Or

|
|
|
|

StS
Lo)
ba |
we

|
“I
Sy)

|

|

|

|

1
plist’ 4
|

|

|

Go vs
|
|
|

| ~JI ~7
bm bw
|
|
bP PS
Or Or Or OV OV
|
|

“ISIN
bo bo bw
wo
|
DD D
|

|
~I ~I
eS) co
eae
TMINT NIST |
X Orr Gr Or Ox
“TI
for)
|

TA TD

~I
i)
~I
oo
|
ISIS NI

72 73

ay ad BP OEP Sp
fee2aes
SHRED ES
am me of eg
OSs) 1S) rt! (GQ Ga) Ss
I~) (GO) "60! G0) .G0) 0G.
7879 — 81 82 83 84
7879 — 81 82 83 84
7879 — 81 82 83 84
78 79 80 81 82 83 84
Bee = Gilg 63 84
yee ah et gat
sh ge We ae es gar
78 79 80 81 82 83 —
7879 — 818283 —
Ee ys + eke ee Biay o=
7879 80 81 82 83 84
78 os 192 83184
7879 80 — 8283 —
ny MOn Caen Rogau
Beer Sa 84

78 79 80 81 82 83 84
78 79 80 81 82 83 84
78 — 80 81 82 83 84
— — 8081 6283 —
So = = = 83 84

8 79 80 81 82 83 84

7879 — 81 82 83 84
—/9 — 51982°83 =
78 — 80 81 82 83 84
78 79 80 81 82 83 84
— — 80 81 82 83 —

— 80 — 82 83 84
Se es (ee eee
Co = Oleez ean
78 79 80 81 82 83 84
35 Ue a ee Sou
78 — 80 = — 83 =
~ — 81 82 835 84
78 79 80 81 82 83 84
oi aR ee
78 (= = 81:62:83 =
— — — 81 82 83 84
ae gee oe
- - _ 81 82 83 84
78 — 8081 92 83 84

East Highlands.
4 os ive f
leg tee 38 8 g
a. 2 ag Be a
ois = Sogo
oa ga oo ‘oO iC) pom omo ras}
Rneanes a fea
ID © t= WM SO SO eS Ais so
Oaononon DO SD FDS S&S a
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93
85 — — — 89 — 91 92 —
85 86 — 88 — 90-— — =
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 —
esse . . 2922S
85 —- — —- —- = = = = = = =
85 86 — 88 89 90 — — 935
roe 6 ee og. Are
85 86 — 88 89 — 91 — 93
85 —- —- —~- = - - =~ = =
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93
85 — — — 89 — = 92 —
85 - - - —- =~ = = - == =
85 — — — 899091 — —
85 —- —- —- 89 - - = =~ = = =
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 —
85 - - —- - - 91 - - —~ —- =
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 —
85 — 87 88 89 90 — 92 —
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 —
85 — 87 88 89 90 91 — =
8&8 — 87 — 8990 —B2 —
a. = 20 Se
- 86 8/ — — = eee
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 — —
85 — 87 88 89 90 91 — —
—- 86 = 88 = =) =] ee
85 — — =—(6990) a
8 — — — 8990 —
85 86 — 88 8990 —- — — — — =
85 86 — 88 89 90 91 92 —
85 86 — 88 —.90 91 92 —
85 86 — — 89 - 91 —- —- —- - =
85 86 — — 88 89 90 91 —
-----=- 9091 -— -
— — — 88 — 90 — 92 -
85 86 — — — 90 — 92 —
85 - —- —- —- —- === - =
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 —
— 2 = 4 89 = eS eee
85 86 87 — 89 — — — 98
85 — — — 899091 — —
—- — — 88 899091 —- —
8 ---- - 91 --—- -—- -

85 86 87 — 89 90 91

20 28 18 33 30 22

23 17 20 28 31 38 24

36 21 15 21 31 28 23 15

5 13 23 16

Census of Scottish Land and Fresh-Water Mollusca.

West Highlands.

97 Westerness.
98 Main Argyle.
99 Dumbarton.
100 Clyde Isles.

101 Cantire.

100 101

100
100
99 100
100
99 100 101

99 100 101
99 100

99 100 101
100 101
100
100
99 100 101
99 100 101
100

99
99 100 101
99 101
99100 —
99 100 101
100 101
100 101

99 100 101
100 101
99 100 101

99 100
a08 101

101

~ 98 101
97 98 99 100 101

12 29 24 88 25

102 Ebudes S.

99 100 101 102

103 Ebudes Mid.

99 100 101 102 103

99 100 101 102 103
99 100 101 102 103

103

105
103

North Highlands.

104 Ebudes N.

104

104

104

104

8

mE
Sees a
ee ca el on
Yor} Leo} I™ [o 8)
— Oo (=; con)
re =! ri i=:
= = [07 96
105 - 107 —-
105 — 107 108
=O elOS
= = 7 =
= = 107/ =
= = i007 =
105 106 107 108
= — 107 108
105 106 107 108
Os A06 107 =
105 106 107 ae
105106 -—- —
Os =
Los = 107 =
LOS OW a
— 106 107
- - 107 -
— 106 107 108

105 106 107 108

106 107

= 108
‘108
108

107
105 106 107
— 108

105

107
107

108

— 106 107
105 106 107

108
108

14 7t> 26, 17

109 Caithness.

109°

109

109,

109

109 |

109,

109
109
109

109
109

109
109
109

109
109

109
109

109

109

109

22

Isles.

110 Hebrides.
111 Orkneys.

110

eae et
LLOwTet
ae laleih

110 111
110

TO PE tea

110
110
110

110° =

13458

112 Shetlands.

102

111 112

NAME OF SPECIES.

|

Arion ater,

A. subfuscus, .
A. hortensis,

A. bourguignati,
A. minimus, .
Amalia gagates, .
A. carinata,
Limax maximus,
L. cinereo-niger, .
L. arborum,

L. flavus, .

2, Agriolimazx agrestis,

A. levis,

34 counties.

Testacella hal iotidea, 1

T. scutulum, .
Succinea putris,
S. elegans, .

S. oblonga,

Vitrina pellucida,
Zonites draparnaldi,

L COHATCUS, - .
. alliarius,
glaber, .

. nitidulus, .
purus,
radiatulus,

. nitidus,
excavatus, .
. crystallinus,
Z. fulvus, .

NNNNNNNNN

Helix lameliata, :

aculeata,
aspersa,
nemoralis,
hortensis,
arbustorum,
Trupescens, .
concinna, .
hispida,
sericea,
Susca,
virgata,
caperata, .
ericetorum,
rotundata,
. rupestris, .
H. pygmea,
H, pulchella, .
H. lapicida,
Bulimus acutus, .
B. obscurus,
Pupa ringens,
P. umbilicata,

RE RRRERRSERRRE

16

Go oO (J)
CW Ore WwW OLUN &

501

NAME OF SPECIES.

Brought forward,

Pupa marginata,
Vertigo antivertigo,

V. pygmea,

V. substriata,

V. pusilla,

V. angustior,

V. edentula,

V. minutissima,
Balea perversa,
Clausilia rugosa,

Cl. laminata,

Azeca tr idens, .

Zua lubrica, :
Carychium car yehinan,
Acme lineata,
Bythinia tentaculata, .
Valvata piscinalis,

V. cristata,. :
Planorbis nitidus, .
Pl. nautileus,

Pl. albus,

Pl. parvus, .

. spirorbis,

. vortex,

. carinatus, .

. marginatus,

Pl. contortus,

Physa hypnorwm, .
P. fontinalis,
Limnea peregra, .
L. auricularia,

L. stagnalis,

L. palustris,

L. truncatula, .

L. glabra,

Ancylus fluviatilis,

A. lacustris, ;
Spherium corneum, .
S. lacustre, .
Pisidium amnicum, .
P. fontinale, .

P. pulchellum, .

P. cinereum,

P. pusillum,

P. nitidum, .

P. roseum,

Unio mars garitifer,
Anodonta cygnea, .
A. anatina,

Dreissena pol ymor phat,

Total,

Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

West Lowlands.

+
“ep
g5G . .
Ex#tmo: GE
Sah Ps OD a
AMeFad eH
No +H 10 ON
I~ ~~ & i i i
20 28 18 38 30 22
—- -— -— 7576 —-
—- 73 - 75 - -
— — — 7576 -
— 73-75 - -
— 73 74 75 76 77
V2 ome fo WOdd
Oa To Ok:
Se eG, =
ee
yee ee
ES perros os OF
anes EY 5
ies ELIOT?
Sa ee
en ee
fs te
nee Pay ona
— 7374 - 7677
V2 OA LOU.
—- 73 -— — 76 -
----- 77
—- 73 —- -— 7677
— 73 — 75 7677
----- re
— 737475 76 77
—-73- - -77
—- 73 - -— 76 -
SS SS HS
a — a
— 7374 - - -
SOS SS SaaS
— (3 - — = —
7?2-----
Sets SoS —
—- —- — = 7677
S058 3 (GS
—- —- -— - 7677

23 53 25 44 54 38

East Lowlands.

78 Peebles,

79 Selkirk,

80 Roxburgh.
81 Berwick.

82 Haddington.
83 Edinburgh.
84 Linlithgow.

28 31 38 24

81 82 83 —
— 8283 -
81 82 83 —
— 8283 —

ee en — se)

81 82 83 84
81 82 83 84

81 82 83
81 82 83
— 82 83

— 8283 -
81 82 83
S625.
81 82 83 84
81 82 83 84
81.82 83 =

81 82 83 84
— 8283 -
81 82 83 84
— 82 83 —

i Ae a

— 8283 -

34 27 26 45 66 72 34

85 Fife and Kinross.
87 PerthS. & Clkm’n.

86 Stirling.

=a oi

87

East Highlands.

2 gue
Sis SEER HS
= Oe See eee
o 008 — = S
(oe er ~-fee |
DROHAMDWOE
0° eS ae
21 31 28 2815 518 23a
_- - = 3) eee
_ . 2a 95 —
- - 49) =e
— 89:90:91. 22 a
88 89 — 91 — — 94 95mm
88 899091 — — 9495 =
- 89 4. 2 =n |
88 89 90 91 92 — 94 95 96
— 899091 —- — — 95mm
-----------§
_ 3990 = = = aaa
. - 902 23 ee
_ . 2 95 =
~ 4 $0 2/290
- 8990 2 = -
- . 00 =) nn
— 89 90 — 9293 — 95 =
~- - 02S 3
88 89 90 — 92 — — 95
~+ =. | 95
— §990 = == eee
88 89 90 — 92 98 94 95
ees 95
88 89 90 — 9293 — 95
—~ 89 90 9192 — 94 95
— 8990 =.92)— em
_.— 90-0
88 89.90 =) ae
— 8990 — 9202)
—~ « 90 2S eee
~ - 90 =995= ee
—~ 89 — — 92 - 9495
88 = - —_ =e 95
88 — 90 —) eee
- ~ 90 - =n

65 36 25 30 49 52 31 25 10 19 48

Census of Scottish Land and Fresh-Water Mollusca. fy ave

West Highlands. North Highlands. Isles.
- 2 Sa = = =
Seo wales . a E Bile ¢ © NAME oF SPECIES.
Peeees 2 tle e a ee els & S
Mee = Sele ee Be el|B ES
Peers = 5/5 6 6-8 Be |e a 8
mero OF Fi & me wnm OO] O @
CO Os © seal N ion) =H Yor) No) I [o.@) lor) ‘> rt N
> Oo SO O&O S) oS =) S) So fom) fo) S&S oO re re a
b | ri ri ri ri ri re ri rei — ri a re
meg 24 38 25 7 14 Seta 12) 26 dr 22 | Rae i 4 ear
- —-100 - - -—-}- = = = 108 - | — -— -— |Pupamarginata, . 7 counties.
— — 100 - = — 106107 —- —|- — -— | Vertigo antivertigo,. 6 Ae
— — 100 —- -—- —- | -— 105 -— 107 — 109} —- - - | V. pygmea, Ske 4
oo — — — | — = = 107 = = | = = = |S. subsiriata, .« . 8 ie
= =—- —- =—- -—- =—- Jf - =~ = = = =| = = = | V. pusilla, 2 ‘5
- -— = = =]— = =~ 107 —- -'| — = = | V. angustior, 4 ] i
98 — 100 101 - - = = — 107108109) — = -— |V. edentula; . . . 18 Pe
- - = ea fee a ae = LV. maiissima,... +. 9 2 53
— 98 — 100 101 = =—-{= - — 107 — 109| — - = | Balea perversa, 19 a
87 98 99100101 —- 103] — 105 - 107108109} - — -— | Clausilia rugosa,, . 27 oe
—~-- - = - -~-f- = = = = =] = = = | Cl. laminata,. 1 ‘>
eS Se Ee Oe KH hh KrmhUhcrmhUmcrhUlUcrhUhurhLh]TL H©hUhK lh | ABecen tridens, 1 Pe
97 98 99100101 — 108) — 105106107 108 109;110 — 112|Zua lubrica,. . . 36 Zo
98 — 100101 - - - - - 107 - = = = = Carychium cary ychiwm, 21 e
a ie Se Sa aS = Meme tinediag . ~ (5 =
== = - =- -}]=- = = = = =) = = = | Bythiniatentaculata, 5 a
= -—- -—- = = =} Fe Fe Fe Fe = = - ~- -— | Valvata piscinalis,. 8 oe
—-—- —- —- -—- =~]- - 106 —- - - |] - 111 - | PV. cristata, 8 Me
Se = = —- =] = =~ 106 —- = = | = - = | Planorbis nitidus, 6 oe
=—— 100 —- = |] =’ = = = = = | = 111 — | PL nauiileus, 13 3
eee ee SS = OF CU Ld] Khu Khu Ll als, 12 -
ee He Ul hd108 S| CU CU CP peers, oO 3
ee = S038) — = 106 — 108 = | = = = | Pl. sptrorbis,. . , As 6
| a ee = T09-—- — = |) Pivorter): eet a
SSeS Se a el ee SU ECU 8S | Uc COU CO | RP. crn, 1 i
m— - - - = = = - -=- -—- = =~-—-|=- =- = | Fl. marginatus, . 3 Ms
=—— 100 — -—- = |'=— = 306 — = 109| = — = | Pl. contortus, . 16 e
ne C0 ee Sm a (2 OT RL 4 Be
ae 00s = — | —- = = = = = |.= =: = ||P. fontinals, . 12 9
= 98 — 100101 — 103/104105 — 107 108109)110 — 112) Limnea peregra, . 35 PP
Mme = - - - + f- - me = = =- [= -, = |Z. auricularia, a s
Me = = -e H-l He He = == = | - = = | Shagnalis,. . . 8 Ps
ees - - = sae Ne VW OLLUUSEP ESS) te eg et ns
eee LOOTO! — 108 104 —- - 107 108 109 = = => |Z. iruncatula, . . B45 oe
| — = oe ee Ne OUCOTE. see, ee ok 53
- 98 99 100 101 - = 104 - - = 108 — | - -— — |Ancylus fluviatilis,. 23 we
(- - - - = Se a eS a Ae Vacusias:... s- ,2 7 5
—--- - = = =} =- = = = = 109} — — 112] Spheriwm corneum, 14 3
- - - = = = = - - 106 - - - = A ees AOL CUSETC.. ok te ee ne
i- —-99 - - - = =e SS Sp = - -— — | Pisidiwm amnicun, 4 as
-—- — — lol —- - = — 106) = 10s0o\— = — Ps fontmaie; . . . 16 ie
Pm -- - - = = i ee = =) — |. pulchellum, .. . 7 aS
A -— - - =—- = = — - = = \ ee ee OONETEUND, x 3 Gl *
ee — — 101 — — | —- 105 106 107 LOSs09 | — =e — iP. gusdlum, < . . is 33
P— -- - - - =] = a eee te * eS alee! 2 ce nb a8 a5
> = eS ee 106 = =— = }.— 111 — ||P. roseum, . os
Bw 98 —- - —- -—- = = Se = 108 =) = =.= | Gnto margaritifer, , 9 ee
= Se Ss SS —- -=- = = - = —- — — |Anodonta cygnea, . re

y A ONMLEIED. 9. os a5
iit a a ee = le Se Dreissena polymorpha, 3 55

wor2o 54 35 7 20) 11 19 22 39 29 34) 15 10 8 = 1335

JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS.

SESSION CXVIII.

Wednesday, 21st November 1888.—Dr G. Sims WoopuEaD, }.R.C.P.E.,
Vice-President, in the Chair.

The following communications were read :

**On the Structure of Pterichthys and its Allies.” By Dr k. H. Traquatr,
F.R.S.

2. “*On Homosteus, Asinuss (Hugh Miller’s Asterolepts of Stromness).” By

Drke BH? Traquair, FR:

3. ‘*The Seal in Fresh Water.” By J. A. Harvis-Brown, Esq.

4. Mr Grorce Brook, F.L.S., exhibited a Specimen of the Roller (Coracias
garrula) shot at Lochbuie, Mull, on 8th September 1888.

Dr Traquarr exhibited a Skeleton of the Great Auk (Alca impennis),
recently added to the Natural History Department of the Museum of
Science and Art.

=

OX

Wednesday, 19th December 1888.—Professor Sir WrtL1AM TuRNER, LL.D.,
F.R.S., in the Chair.

The following gentlemen were elected Ordinary Fellows of the Society :
W. Eagle Clarke, Esq., F.L.S.; P. D. Coghill, Esq. ; Alfred Hutchinson,
Esq., B.Sc. (London); George Porter, Esq.; Philip J. White, Esq., M.B.,
C.M.

Reports were submitted by the Secretary, the Treasurer, and the Librarian.

The following Office-Bearers were elected :

President—RamMsay H. Traquair, M.D., F.RB.S.

Vice-Presidents — Professor JAMES GEIKIE, LL.D., F.R.S.; G. Sims
WoopHeEaD, M.D., F.R.S.E.; Grorer Brook, F.L.S., F.R.S.E.

Secretary— WILLIAM Evans, F.R.S.E.

Assistant-Secretary— JOHN GUNN, F.R.S.G.S.

Treasurer—GEORGE LISLE, C.A., F.F.A.

Librarian—WI.uLiAM RuSSELL, M.D., F.R.C.P.E.

Councillors—Johnson Symington, M.D., F.R.S.E.; John Falconer King,
F.C.S.; J. A. Harvie-Brown, F.R.S.E.; G. Lovell Gulland, M.A., M.B.;
ne Kidston, SBR Soi, (FAG IS; sol: a .Spracuey MAL, ER.S. Bes
T. Wemyss Fulton, M.B., C.M.; J. Gibson, Ph.D., F.R.S.E.; David
Hepburn, M.B.; A. B. Herbert; Rev. A. B. Morris; Professor Sir
William Turner, LL.D., F.R.S.

506 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

The following communications were read :

1. ‘* Remarks on the present Position of the Society, and the Work of the
past Session.”” By Professor Sir W1LL1AM TurNeEr, LL.D., F.R.S.

2. ‘On the Occurrence of Sowerby’s Whale (Mesoplodon Sowerbyi) in the
Firth of Forth.” By Professor Sir WiLL1AM Turner, LL.D., F.RB.S.

3. ‘On some new Resins from Coals.” By W. Ivison Macapam, Esq.,
F.R.S.E.

4, ‘*A Theory of the Parasitic Instinct of the Cuckoo.” By J. ARTHUR
THomson, Esq., F.R.S.E.

5. Professor Sir WILLIAM TuRNER exhibited, with Remarks, a Specimen
showing a Moustache in a young Delphinus albirostris.

6. Mr Gunn, on behalf of Mr Srump, exhibited, with Remarks, Photographs
of a Travelled Boulder dug up near Owens College, Manchester.

7. Mr Guyn exhibited a series of Photographs taken by Mr Puitip SEWELL
during his late Expedition to the Kara Sea.

Wednesday, 16th January 1889.—Dr R. H. Traquair, F.R.S., President,
in the Chair.

The following gentleman was elected an Ordinary Fellow of the Society:
P. STEVENSON, Esq., 23 Royal Park Terrace.
The following communications were read :
1. ‘£On the Skull of an aged Male Hyperoodon rostratus found in Shetland.”
By Professor Sir WILLIAM TuRNER, LL.D., F.R.S.
2. **On a new Species of Dipterus, with Remarks on the Affinities of the
Family Dipteride.” By R. H. Traquair, Esq., M.D., F.R.S.
3. ‘*Photo-Micrographic Apparatus and its Use.” By P. D. Cocurut, Esq.
4. ‘* Note on a Tract of modified Epithelium in the Embryo of Sepia.” By
W. E. Hoyuez, Esq., M.A., F.R.S.E.

Wednesday, 20th February 1889.—Dr R. H. Traquair, F.R.S., President,

in the Chair.

The following gentlemen were elected Ordinary Fellows of the Society:
Robert C. Millar, Esq., C.A.; W. Lewis Martin, Esq., M.A.; Thomas Scott,
EKsq.; G. Carrington Purvis, Esq., M.B., C.M.

The following communications were read :

1. ‘‘ Notes on several new or rare British Crustacea, etc., from the Firth of
Forth,” with Exhibition of Specimens. By Tuomas Scott, Esq.
Communicated by the SECRETARY.

2. ‘* Notes on Pallas’s Sand-Grouse (Syrrhaptes paradoxus) in Scotland during
the recent great Westward Movement of the Species.” Specimens
exhibited. By Wit.i1Am Evans, Esq., F.R.S.E.

3. ‘* Preliminary Note on a Series of Temperature Observations on the Thurso
River.” By JoHn Gunn, Esq., F.R.S.G.S.

4, Dr Traquarr exhibited a Specimen of the Boar-Fish (Capros aper, L.),
captured near the Isle of May in August last.

5. Mr Evans exhibited a Specimen of the Red-footed Falcon (Falco vesper-
tinus, L.), shot near Jedburgh on 21st June last.

Journal. 507
Wednesday, 20th March 1889.—Dr R. H. Traquarr, F.R.S., President,
in the Chair.

The following gentleman was elected an Ordinary Fellow: Professor C.
Drieberg.
The following communications were read :
1. ‘‘Notes on a Collection of Birds and Eggs from Paraguay.” By J. J.
DALGLEISH, Esq., M.B.O.U.
2. ‘* Additional Notes on the Carboniferous Lycopods.” By Ropertr
KipsTon, Esq., F.R.S.E., F.G.S.
3. ‘*Note on Variation of Plumage in the Common Rook,” with Exhibition
of Specimens. By Professor Duns, D.D., F.R.S.E.
4. ‘On some Wasps’ Nests from South America.” Specimens exhibited.
By Professor Duns, D.D., F.R.S.E.
5. ** A Revised List of British Echinoidea.” By W. E. Hoyur, Esq., M.A.,
Jl PASI
6. ‘*On the Occurrence of the following Molluscs in the Firth of Forth, viz.,
Clione borealis, Brug., and Stilifer turtoni, Brod.,” with Exhibition of
Specimens. By Tuomas Scorr, Esq.
. Mr Kinston exhibited, with Remarks, fruiting Specimens of Sphenophyllum
cuneifolium, Sternb. sp.
. Mr Evans exhibited a Specimen of the Lesser Shrew (Sorex minutus, L.)
captured at Cramond on 14th ult.

“I

oe)

Wednesday, 17th April 1889.—Dr R. H. Traquair, F.R.S., President,
in the Chair.

The following gentlemen were elected Ordinary Fellows of the Society :
J. G. Goodchild, Esq:, F.Z.S., M.B.O.U.; J. Berry Haycraft, Esq., M.D.,
D.Sce., F.R.S.E., Edinburgh University.

Messrs T. B. Sprague and R. C. Millar were appointed auditors of the
current session’s accounts.

The following communications were read :

1. ‘* Notes on some of the Modes of Formation of Coal.’’ By J. G. GoopcHitp,
Esq.
. ‘*Contribution to the Anatomy of Pachydrilus.” By FRANK E. BEDDARD,
Ksq., M.A. Oxon.
3. ‘*The Ancient Lakes of Edinburgh.” By JAmEs BENNIE, Esq., and
THomas Scott, Esq.

i)

SESSION CXIX.

Wednesday, 20th November 1889.—Dr R. H. Traquair, F.R.S., President,
in the Chair.

The following gentlemen were elected Ordinary Fellows of the Society :
A. B. Urmston, Esq. ; John Mackie, Esq.
An Opening Address was delivered by Professor JAMES GEIKIE, F.R.S.,
retiring Vice-President, on ‘‘ Geological Climates. ”
VOL. X. 21

508 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

The SEcrETARY exhibited :
1. A Spoonbill (Platalea leucorodia, L.), juv. g, killed in Westray, Orkney,
on the 10th ult. ; and
2. A & hybrid between the Wild Duck (Anas boscas, L.) and the Pintail
(Anas acuta, L.), shot at Newton Hall, near Gifford, Kast Lothian, on
7th inst. Sere
Wednesday, 18th December 1889.—Dr R. H. Traquair, F.R.S., President,
in the Chair.

The following gentlemen were elected Ordinary Fellows of the Society:
William Black, Esq., S.S.C.; R. C. Elsworth, Esq., M.B., C.M.; James
Musgrove, Esq., M.D.; James Tweedy, Esq.; Fortescue Fox, Esq., M.D.
Lond.

Reports by the Council, the Library Committee, and the Treasurer for the
past Session, were submitted.

The following Office-Bearers were elected :

President—Ramsay H. Traquair, M.D., F.R.S.

Vice-Presidents—G. Sims WoopHeEAD, M.D., F.R.S.E.; Grtorae Brook,
F.L.S., F.R.S.E. ; Jounson Symrineton, M.D., F.R.S.E.

Secretary—WILLIAM Evans, F.R.S.E.

Assistant-Secretary—JOUN GUNN, F.R.S.G.S.

Treasurer—GEORGE Lise, C.A., F.F.A.

Librarian—J. ARrvHUR THomson, M.A., F.R.S.E.

Councillors—R. Kidston, F.R.S.E., F.G.S.; T. B. Sprague, M.A., F.R.S.E. ;
T. Wemyss Fulton, M.B., C.M.; J. Gibson, Ph.D., F.R.S.E.; David
Hepburn, M.B.; A. B. Herbert; Rev. A. B. Morris; Professor Sir
William Turner, LL.D,, F.R.S.; W. Eagle Clarke, F.L.S.; Professor
James Geikie, LL.D., F.R.S.; Robert C. Millar, C.A.; William Russell,
MED RCP she

The following communications were read :

1. ‘‘ Notes on Crested Birds of Prey.” By J. G. GoopcuiLp, Esq., F.Z.S.,

MBO:
2. ‘*On the Fossils found at Achanarass Quarry, Caithness.” By Dr R. H.
TRAQUAIR, F.R.S. ;

3. ‘*On the Structure of Coccosteus.”” By Dr R. H. Traquatr, F.R.S.

‘*On Aquatic Earthworms.” By Frank E. BEppDARD, Esq., M.A., F.Z.S.

5. ‘*The Reproduction of Bees: Suggestions towards the Solution of an old

Problem.” By J. ARTHUR THoMsoN, Esq., M.A,, F.R,S.E.

a

Wednesday, 15th January 1890.—Dr R. H. Traquair, F.R.S., President,
in the Chair.
The following gentlemen were elected Ordinary Fellows of the Society :
Robert W. Felkin, Esq., M.D., F.R.S.E.; John J. Rogerson, Esq., M.A.
The following communications were read :
1. ‘fOn an Exhalation of Gases under singular circumstances from a Bog near
Strathpeffer.” By Huen MILurr, Esq., F.R.S.E.
2, ‘On Phlyctenius, a new genus of Coccostean Fishes.” By R. H.
TrRAQUAIR, Esq., M.D., F.R.S,

Journal. 509

3. ‘*Notes upon certain Marine Accumulations in Largo Bay, Fife, and
Portrush, County Antrim.” By ALFreD Bet, Esq. Communicated
by JAMES BENNIE, Esq.

4. Mr Tuomas Scort, F.L.S., exhibited a small Collection of Ostracoda from
Lochs and Ponds in the Edinburgh District.

5. Mr Wo. Evans exhibited a Specimen of the Bank Vole (Arvicola glareolus)
captured at Cramond in March 1889,

Wednesday, 19th February 1890.—GrorcE Brook, Esq., F.L.S., one of the
Vice-Presidents, in the Chair.

The following gentlemen were elected Ordinary Fellows of the Society :
Frank Gascoigne Bainbridge, Esq.; Professor Saxton, M.R.C.V.S.; William
Wilson, Esq., M.A.

The following communications were read :

1. “The Geographical Distribution of Earthworms.” By Frank E.
BEDDARD, Esq., M.A., F.R.S.E.

2. ‘The Viscera of a Female Chimpanzee.” By Dr JoHNSON SYMINGTON,
F.R.S.E.

3. **The Wing-Coverts of Birds in relation to Classification.” PartI. By
J. G. GooDcHILD, Esq., F.Z.8., M.B.O.U.

4. ** Report on Scottish Land and Fresh-Water Mollusca.” By W. DENISON
RoeEguck, Esq., F.L.S. Communicated by the SECRETARY.

5. Mr Brook exhibited a Grey Phalarope (Phalaropus fulicarius), and a
Little Auk (Mergulus alle), obtained last month at Lochbuie, Mull.

Wednesday, 19th March 1890.—Dr R. H. Traquair, F.R.S., President,
in the Chair.
The following gentleman was elected an Ordinary Fellow of the Society :
R. C. Mossman, Esq., F.R. Met. Soc.
The following communications were read :
1. ‘*The Classification of Earthworms.” By Frank E. BEepparp, Esq.,
M.A., ERS: E.
2. ‘On the British Species of Pterichthyide.” By Dr R. H. Traquartr,
F.R.S.
3. ‘*On the Occurrence of the Anchovy (Zngraulis encrasicholus) in Scottish
Waters.” By Professor J. Cossan Ewart, M.D., F.R.S.E. |
4, ‘On the British Rats.” Specimens of Mus alexandrinus (from the
** Devastation” at Queensferry), I. rattus, M. decumanus, and
M., hibernicus, exhibited. By W. EaciE Ciarke, Esq., F.L.S.
5. ** The Wing-Coverts of Birds in relation to Classification.” Part Il. By
J. G. GoopcH ILD, Esq., F.Z.S., M.B.O.U.
6. Dr Traquair exhibited a Specimen of the Bergylt (Sebastes norwegicus),
caught outside the May Island last August.

510 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Soctety.

Wednesday, 16th April 1890.—Rev. A. B. Morris in the Chair.

The following gentleman was elected an Ordinary Fellow of the Society :

John D. Williams, Esq., M.B., C.M.

Messrs T. B. Sprague and R. C. Millar were appointed auditors of the

current session’s accounts.

bo

The following communications were read :

. ‘* Notes on the PaleozoicSpecies mentioned in Lindley and Hutton’s ‘ Fossil

Flora.’” By Rosert Krpsron, Esq., F.R.S.E.

‘*The Wing-Coverts of Birds in relation to Classification.”” Part III. By
J. G. GoopcHILD, Esq., F.Z.S., M.B.0.U.

‘* Preliminary Notes on a post-Tertiary Fresh- Water Deposit at Kirkland,
Leven, and at Elie.” With exhibition of Molluscan, Entomostracan,
and other Remains. By Tuomas Scort, Esq., F.L.S.

‘*Results of Observations made to determine the Period occupied by
different Birds in the Incubation of their Eggs.” By W1LL1AM Evans,
Esq., F.R.S.E. [Incorporated in paper to the /bis for January 1891. }

“‘Note on a Recent Exposure of a ‘ Washout’ of Strata in New Redhall
Quarry.” Photographs shown. By JAMES BENNIE», Esq.

‘On the Decomposition of Solutions of Sulphates by Carbonaceous
Matter.” By W. Ivison Macapam, Esq., F.R.S.E.

“* Note on Periceta indica living in Hothouses, Kirkcudbrightshire.” With
Exhibition of Specimens. By Roperr SEervice, Esq.

LIST OF SOCIETIES WHICH RECEIVE THE

SOCIETY’S “PROCEEDINGS.”

Those Institutions from which Publications have been received in return are

BIRMINGHAM, .
Do.
CAMBRIDGE,
Do. ;
CIRENCESTER,
DURHAM,
HALIFAX,
LEEDS,
LIVERPOOL,
Do.
Do.
LONDON,
Do.

MANCHESTER, .

Do.

Do.
NORWICH,
OXFORD,
TRURO,
WATFORD,

ABERDEEN,
COCKBURNSPATH,
EDINBURGH,

Do.

Do.

indicated by an asterisk.

ENGLAND.

*Philosophical Society, King Edward’s Grammar School.
*Natural History Society, Sir Josiah Mason’s College.
*Philosophical Society.

University Library,

*Editor of the Agricultural Students’ Gazette.

University Library.

*Yorkshire Geological and Polytechnic Society.

*The Conchological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.
*Biological Society, University College.

*Literary and Philosphical Society.

*Engineering Society, Royal Institution.

British Museum Library.

*British (Natural History) Museum, South Kensington.
*Royal Society, Burlington House, Piccadilly, W.

Chemical Society, Burlington House, Piccadilly, W.
*Geological Society, Burlington House, Piccadilly, W.
*Linnean Society, Burlington House, Piccadilly, W.
*Royal Microscopical Society, King’s College.

Museum of Economic Geology, Jermyn Street.

Editor of Nature, 29 Bedford Street, Covent Garden.
*Editor of Sczentific News, 138 Fleet Street, E.C.
*Zoological Society, Hanover Square.

*Geologists’ Association, University College, W.C.

*Geological Society, 86 George Street.

*Literary and Philosophical Society, 36 George Street.

*The Qwens College.

*Norfolk and Norwich Naturalists’ Society, The Museum.
Bodleian Library.

*Royal Institution of Cornwall.

*Hertfordshire Natural History Society and Field Club.

SCOTLAND.
University Library.
*Berwickshire Naturalists’ Field Club, Old Cambus,
Advocates’ Library.
University Library.
*Royal Society,

512 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society.

EDINBURGH, . . Royal Medical Society.
Do. ; . *Royal Scottish Society of Arts.
Do. : . *Royal Scottish Geographical Society.
Do. : . *Botanical Society. :
Do. ; . *Highland and Agricultural Society.
Do. : . *Geological Society.
GLASGOW, ; . *Philosophical Society.
Do. : . *Natural History Society.
Do. : . *Geological Society.
Do. : . University Library.
PERTH, 5 . Perthshire Society of Natural History.
St ANDREWS, . - University Library.
IRELAND.
BELFAST, : . Natural History and Philosophical Society.
DUBLIN, . : . *Royal Irish Academy,
Doe = 5 . *Royal Dublin Society.
Do, 7% : . *Royal Geological Society of Ireland.
HOLLAND.
AMSTERDAM, . . *De Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen.
LEYDEN, F . *Museum van Naturlijke Histoire.
UTRECHT, : . Provinciaal Genootschap an Kunsten en Wetenschappen.
SWITZERLAND.
BASLE, . 3 . *Die Naturforschende Gesellschaft.
* Allgemeine Schweizerische Gesellschaft fiir die gesammten
BERN, . ; : | ;
Naturwissenschaften.
Do. : ; . *Die Naturforschende Gesellschaft.
GENEVA, : . *Société de Physique et d’Histoire Naturelle.
NEUFCHATEL, . . *Société des Sciences Naturelles.
ZURICH, . : . *Die Naturforschende Gesellschaft.
GERMANY.
BERLIN, . ; . *K6nigliche Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Do. >. : . *Deutsche Geologische Gesellschaft.
Do:— ; . *Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde.
BONN : *Naturhistorischer Verein der preussischen Rheinlande,
: Westfalens, und des Reg.-Bezirks Osnabrtick.
BREMEN, 5 . *Verein fiir Naturwissenchaft.
BRESLAU, . . *Schlesische Gesellschaft fiir Vaterlindische Cultur.
BRUNSWICK, . . *Naturwissenschaftlicher Verein.
DRESDEN, : . Konigliche Sammlungen fiir Kunst und Wissenschaft.
Do, *. . . *Der Verein fiir Erdkunde.
ELBERFELD, . . ™Naturwissenschaftlicher Verein.
ERLANGEN, . . University Library.
FRANKFORT-ON-MAIN,*Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft.
Do { *Deutsche Malakozoologische Gesellschaft, Dr Kobelt,
; Schwanheim.
FREIBURG, i. B., . Die Naturforschende Gesellschaft.
GOTTINGEN, . . *K6nigliche Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften.

HALLE, . ; . *Kaiserliche Akademie der Naturforscher.

JENA,
LEIPZIG, .

MonIcH,

STUTTGART,
WURZBURG,

AGRAM, .

HERMANNSTADT,

PRAGUE,

TRIESTE,

VIENNA,
Do.

BOLoGnNa,
MILAN, .

Dos <a
MODENA,
NAPLES,.

PADUA, .
RoME,

TRIESTE,
TURIN,

MADRID,
Do.

COIMBRA,
LISBON, .

BorDEAUX,

CaEN,

CHERBOURG, .

PARIS,

BRUSSELS,

Do.
Do.

oN)

List of Socreties, ete. 51

*Medicinisch-naturwissenschaftliche Gesellschaft.
*Konigliche Sichsische Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften.
Naturforschende Gesellschaft.
Editor of the Zoologischer Anzeiger.
*Konigliche Baierische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
*Verein fiir Vaterlandische Cultur in Wiirttemberg.
*Physikalisch-medicinische Gesellschaft.

AUSTRIA.

*Societas Croatica Historico-naturalis.

*Siebenbiirgischer Verein fiir Naturwissenschaft.
Konigliche-bohmische Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften.
Societa Adriatica di Scienze Naturali.

*K.k. zoologisch-botanische Gesellschaft.

*K.k. Naturhistorisches Hof-Museum.

PEAT.

*Accademia delle Scienze dell’ Istituto.
*Reale Istituto Lombardo di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti.
Societa Italiana di Scienze Naturali.
Societa dei Naturalisti.
Editor of the Zoologischer Jahresbericht, Zoological Station.
panna Veneto-Trentina di Scienze Naturali residente in
Padova.
*Reale Accademia dei Lincei.
Societa Adriatica di Scienze Naturali,
*Reale Accademia delle Scienze.

SPAIN.

*Real Academia de Ciencias exactas, fisicas e naturales,
Sociedad espafiola de Historia natural.

PORTUGAL.

Bibliotheque de I’ Universite.
*Academia Real das Sciencias.

FRANCE.

La Société Linnéenne.
Société Linnéenne de Normandie.
*Société Nationale des Sciences Naturelles,
*Académie des Sciences de |’ Institut.
*Société Géologique de France, Rue des grands Augustins, 7.
*Société Zoologique de France, Rue des grands Augustins, 7.
Societé de Biologie.
Ecole des Mines.

BELGIUM.

*Académie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres, et des beaux
‘ Arts.

*Société Royale Malacologique de Belgique.

*Société Belge de Microscopie.

514

BERGEN, .
CHRISTIANIA, .
Do. ‘
COPENHAGEN, .
Do.
STOCKHOLM,
UPSALA,.
Dos 2

DORPAT, .

KEEV Ect.

Moscow,

St PETERSBURG,
Do.

ALBANY, N.Y.,
BALTIMORE,
Boston, .

Do.

BROOKVILLE, IND., .

CAMBRIDGE, MASS.

Do.
CHICAGO,
CINCINNATI,

NEWHAVEN, CONN.,.

Do.

New YorK,
OHIO, :
PHILADELPHIA,

Do. :
SAN FRANCISCO,
St Lovls,
WASHINGTON, .

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

MEXICO, .

Do. ‘. ‘

HAMILTON,
KINGSTON,

y)

4

Ly

|

{ *Sociedad Cientifica, ‘‘ Antonio Alzate,’’ Osservatorio Mete-

Proceedings of the Royal Physical Socvety.

SCANDINAVIA.

*The Museum.

*Den Naturhistoriske Forening.
Universitets Bibliothek.

*Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab.

*Naturhistoriske Forening.

*Kongliga Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademie.

*Kongliga Vetenskaps-Societeten.

*Observatoire Météorologique.

RUSSIA.

*Naturforscher Gesellschaft.
*Natural History Society.

*Socicté Impériale des Naturalistes.
*Académie Imperiale des Sciences.
*Imperial Botanic Garden.

AMERICA.
UNITED STATES.

*New York State Library.
*Johns-Hopkins University Library.
*American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
*Society of Natural History.
*Brookville Society of Natural History.
' *Harvard University Library.
*Museum of Comparative Zoology.
* Academy of Sciences.
*Society of Natural History.
*Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Yale College Library.
*New York Academy of Sciences.
*Mechanics Institute.
*Academy of Natural Sciences.
*Wagner Free Institute.
*California Academy. of Sciences.
*Academy of Sciences.
*Smithsonian Institute.
Philosophical Society.
*United States National Museum.
*United States Geological Survey.

United States Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries.

MEXICO.

Meteorologico.

orologico Central.

CANADA.

*The Hamilton Association.
*Queen’s University.

*Ministerio de Fomento de la Republica, Osservatorio

MANITOBA,
MONTREAL,
OTTAWA, .
Do. P
TORONTO,

HALIFAX,
Rio DE JANEIRO,

CaPE TOWN,

BATAVIA, .

CALCUTTA,
SHANGHAI,
TOKIO, JAPAN,

ADELAIDE,
MELBOURNE,
SYDNEY,

Do.

Do. P ;
WELLINGTON, .

Or

List of Societies, ete. a1

*Historical and Scientific Society, Winnipeg.
*The Natural History Society.

*Canadian Geological Survey.

*Royal Society of Canada.

*The Canadian Institute.

Nova Scortra.

*Nova Scotia Institute of Natural Science.

BRAZIL.

Museu Nacional.

AFRICA.
Sonth African Philosophical Society.

ASIA.

_§ *Koninklijke Natuurkundige Vereeniging in Nederlandsch

Indie.
Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal.
*China Branch of the Asiatic Society.
*Imperial University of Japan.

AUSTRALASIA.

*Royal Society of South Australia.
*Royal Society of Victoria.

*Royal Society of New South Wales.
*The Australian Museum.

*Linnean Society of New South Wales,
*New Zealand Institute.

7 WY 9: ro ;
: a! aa Ne
viene yy hie Pai

re a 1” et

4 i by tive in 5
h. yey rye Peis ¥

sey

ae OV ize

tin

=§

hay hy ey

Date of

Election.

1356.. *Anderson, J., M.D., LL.D., F.R.SS. L. & E., F.L.S., F.Z.8S., F.AS.,
71 Harrington Gardens, London, S. W.

1872. Anderson, James, 135 Mayfield Road.

1880. Anderson, J. M., S.S.C., Strathearn Lodge, 1 Strathearn Place.

1881. Andrew, George, 8.S.C., 3 Hope Street.

1888. Ap Iwan, Mihangel, M.B., C.M., Independent College, Bala, N. Wales.

1884, Armitage, J. A., B.A., 15 Waterloo Road South, Wolverhampton

1884. Baildon, Henry Bellyse, B.A., Duncliffe, Murrayfield.

1884. Baily, Edwin, M.B., C.M., Victoria Crescent, Oban.

1890. Bainbridge, Frank Gascoigne, Museum of Science and Art.

1886. Ballantyne, John W., M.D., F.R.C.P., 50 Queen Street.

1885. Barbour, A. H. F., M.A., B.Se., M.D., 24 Melville Street.

1885. Barrett, W. H., M.B., C.M., 21 Learmonth Terrace.

1886. Barry, J. Houston, 53 George Street.

1884. Beaumont, Alfred, 153 Hither Green Lane, Lewisham, Kent.

1880. *Beddard, Frank E., M.A., Zoological Gardens, London.

1875. Bennie, James, Geological Survey, George IV. Bridge.

1881. *Berry, W., of Tayfield, Newport, Fife.

1880. Bird, George, 24 Queen Street.

1883. Black, Alexander, M.B., M.R.C.P.E., 8 St Vincent Street.

1889. Black, Wm., S.S.C., 38 Hanover Street.

1883. Bowie, A. F., 16 Duncan Street, Newington.

1885. Brook, George, F.L.S., F.R.S.E., The University.

1876. Brown, J. A. Harvie, F.Z.S., F.R.S.E., Dunipace House, Larbert.

1885. Brown, J. Macdonald, M.A., F.R.C.S., Apsley Lodge, Grange.

1860. *Brown, R., M.A., Ph.D., F.L.S., F.R.G.S., Ferslev, Rydal Road,
Streatham, London, S. W.

1876. *Bruce, W. P., Kinleith Mill, Currie.

1882. Bryson, Wm. A., Consulting Electrical Engineer, 5 Bentick Street,
Kelvingrove, Glasgow.

1878. Buchanan, J. H., 4 Doune Terrace.

1885. Buckley, T. E., B.A., F.Z.S., Rossal, Inverness.

1885. Burt, Robert F., 124 Stroud Green Road, Finsbury Park, London, N.

1881. Cadell, H. Moubray, B.Sc., F.R.S.E., of Grange, Bo'ness.

LIST OF FELLOWS,

As at lst November 1890.

Those marked * are Life Members.

518 List of Fellows.

Date of
Election.

1887. Calderwood, W. L., Craigrowan, 7 Napier Road.

1886. Campbell, Andrew, Burmah Oil Company, Rangoon.

1877. *Carmichael, Sir W. H. Gibson-, Bart., Castlecraig, Dolphinton.
1876. *Carmichael, T. D. Gibson-, Melrose.

1858. Carruthers, W., F.R.S., British Museum, London.

1880. _ Carter, W. A., C.E., 5 St Andrew Square.

1881. Christie, W., jun., Ardveich, Liberton.

1887. Clarke, E. Wearne, B.Sc., M.B., C.M., Kilhlean House, Chesterfield.
1888. Clarke, W. Eagle, F.L.S., 2 Braidview Terrace.

1888. Coghill, P. D., Royal Veterinary College, Camden Town, London.
1881. Cook, C., W.S., 11 Great King Street.

1887. *Corke, H. C., F.R.S., 178 High Street, Southampton.

1883. Cowper, J., Havelock House, Shanklin, Isle of Wight.

1850. Crole, D., 1 Royal Circus.

1877. *Dalgleish, J. J., 8 Atholl Crescent.

1885. Dendy, Arthur, B.Sc., c/o Dulau & Co., 37 Soho Square, London, W.
1887. Denholm, George, 38 Great King Street.

1879. Denton, A. N., M.D., State Lunatic Asylum, Austin, Texas, U.S.A.
1883. Dickson, G. W., M.B., M.A., Dunkeld.

1889. Drieberg, Principal C., Agricultural College, Colombo, Ceylon.
1880. Drummond, W., 8.S.C., 4 Learmonth Terrace.

1886. Duncan, James, 8 Ainslie Place.

1885. Duncan, J. Barker, W.S., 6 Hill Street.

1883. Dunn, Malcolm, Palace Gardens, Dalkeith.

1864. *Duns, Professor, D.D., F.R.S.E., 14 Greenhill Place.

1888. Edington, Alexander, M.B., C.M., 44 Great King Street.

1863. *Edmonston, A., Heath Bank, Pitlochry.

1889. Elsworth, R. C., M.B., C.M., 10 Lauriston Park.

1880. Erskine, W., Oaklands, Trinity Read.

1880. Evans, Wm., F.F.A., F.R.S.E., 18a Morningside Park, Secretary.
1883. Ewart, Professor Cossar, M.D., The University. |

1890. Felkin, Robert W., M.D., F.R.S.E., 20 Alva Street.

1884. Fenton, Gerald H., Bellary, Madras, India.

1882. Ferguson, J., 18 Clyde Street.

1884. *Ferguson, James A. E., M.B., Castraes, St Lucia, West Indies.
1885. Ferguson, James Haig, M.D., M.R.C.P.E., 25 Rutland Street.
1887. Ferguson, R. M., Ph.D., 12 Moray Place.

1874. Ferguson, William, F.R.S.E., of Kinmundy, Mintlaw.

1889. Fox, Fortescue, M.D., Strathpeffer Spa.

1887. Fulton, T. Wemyss, M.B., C.M., 23 Royal Crescent.

1877. Galletly, A., Museum of Science and Art.

1884. Geikie, Professor, D.C.L., F.R.S., The University.

1883. Gemmill, Wm., M.D., Albert Villa, Beith.

1883. Gibson, E., 1 Eglinton Crescent.

1881. Gibson, J., Ph.D., F.R.S.E., 15 Hartington Gardens,

1880. Glover, J., 8.S.C., 1 Hill Street.

1889. Goodchild, J. G., F.Z.S., F.G.S., Museum of Science and Art.
1877. Grieve, S., 159 Dalkeith Road.

List of Fellows. 519

Date of

Election.

1886. Grieve, Symington, 1 Burgess Terrace.

1885. Gulland, G. Lovell, M.A., B.Se., M.D., 6 Randolph Place.

1887. Gunn, John, F.R.S.G.S., The Geographical Institute, Park Road.

1887. Hailes, Dr Clement, Clifton, Bristol.

1883. Hallen, J. H. B., Pebworth, near Stratford-on-Avon.

1883. Hamilton, J. C., Woodside, Champfleurie, Linlithgow.

1881. Hamilton, R., Trinity Lodge, Trinity.

1889. Haycraft, J. Berry, M.D., F.R.S.E., The University.

1883. Henderson, Professor, F.L.S., Christian College, Madras.

1883. Hepburn, David, M.B., The University.

1871. Herbert, A. B., 13 Polwarth Terrace.

1879. Herdman, Professor, F.R.S.E., University College, Liverpool.

1884. Hinxman, Lionel, Geological Survey, George 1V. Bridge.

1882. Hogg, A., 94 George Street.

1886. Horn, Wm., Advocate, 20 Belgrave Crescent.

1878. Horne, J., F.G.S., 41 Southside Road, Inverness.

1886. Howden, Robert, M.B., C.M., University of Durham College of
Medicine, Newcastle-on-Tyne.

1884, Howell, Henry H., Geological Survey, George IV. Bridge.

1883. Hoyle, W. E., M.A., F.R.S.E., The Owens College, Manchester.

1880. Hunter, James, F.R.C.S.E., F.R.A.S., Craigmillar Villas.

1874. Hunter, John, F.C.S., Minto House, Chambers Street.

1878. *Hunter, J. R. S., LL.D., Daleville, Braidwood, Lanarkshire.

1885. Hunter, Wm., M.B., C.M., St John’s College, Cambridge.
1888. Hutchinson, Alfred, B.Sc., Hilda House, Middlesborough.
1850. *Jenner, Charles, F.R.S.E., Easter Duddingston Lodve, Portobello.
1877. Joass, C. Edward, 1 Rankeillor Street.
1880. Johnstone, J. A., Haddington Place.
1886. Kelso, J. E. H., M.B., C.M., High Street, Kincardine-on-Forth.
1881. Kemp, D. W., Ivy Lodge, Trinity.
1869. *Kennedy, Rev. J., M.A., B.D., 36 Gillespie Crescent.
1878. Kidston, Robert, F.G.S., Victoria Place, Stirling.
Kilpatrick, H. G., 104 South Bridge.
1869. King, J. Falconer, F.C.S., Chambers Street.
1880. Laughton, W., Gordon’s Mills, near Aberdeen.
1884. Laurie, Malcolm, Nairne Lodge, Duddingston.
1883. Lawson, G. R., Banker, Golspie.
1885. Leith, R. F. C., M.A., M.B., B.Se., 129 Warrender Park Road.
1879. Leslie, Dr, Falkirk.
1884. Lindsay, R., Curator, Royal Botanic Garden.
1886. Lisle, George, C.A., F.F.A., 5 N. St David Street.
1861. Logan, A., Register House.
1881. Lumsden, J., of Arden, Alexandria, N.B.
1870. Lyon, F. W., M.D., 5 N. Charlotte Street.
1855. *Macadam, Stevenson, Ph.D., Surgeons’ Hall.

1885.
1881.

Macadam, W. Ivison, F.C.S., F.R.S.E., Surgeons’ Hall.
Macalpine, A. N., B.Se., Minto House.
Macconochie, A., Geological Survey, George IV. Bridge.

520

Date of

Election.

1886. M‘Cracken, Professor, Hawthorn Buildings, Nantwich.

1882. *M‘Donald, L. M., of Skaebost, Skye.

1885. Macgregor, John, Te R.C.P., Rashcliff, Huddersfield.

1878. Mackay, J. Sutherland, M.A., M.D., 16 Townsend Terrace, Kirkcaldy.

1885. Mackenzie, W. Cossar, 6 Martinrea Gardens.

1889. Mackie, John, 97 M‘Auslan Street, Glasgow.

1878. Maclauchlan, J., Albert Institute, Dundee.

1883. M‘Laren, J., Wingate, Co. Dublin.

1887. MacMunn, Charles A., M.A., M.D., Oakleigh, Wolverhamptom.

1884. Macpherson, Rev. H. A., 20 Cecil Street, Carlisle.

1882. M‘Vean, C. A., C.E., Killiemore House, Pennyghael, Oban

1886. MacWatt, R. Charles, M.A., M.B.

1880. Marsden, R. 8., D.Sc., Malton, Yorkshire.

1889. Martin, W. Lewis, M.A., 16 Warrender Park Terrace.

1885. Melle, George James M‘Carthy, Blanche Villa, Pretoria.

1873. Millar, R. K., 13 Lennox Street, Eton Terrace.

1889. Millar, Robert C., C.A., 8 Broughton Place.

1881. Miller, Hugh, F.R.S.E., Geological Survey, George IV. Bridge.

1883. Mitchell, Robert, 14 Marchhall Road.

1876. Moffat, A., 5 Scone Gardens.

1884. Morris, Rev. A. B., 18 Eildon Street.

1890. Mossman, R. C., F.R.Met.S., 10 Blacket Place.

1880. Muirhead, G., Mains of Haddo, Aberdeen.

1882. Murdoch, J. B., Capelrig, Mearns, Renfrewshire.

1881. Murdoch, T. Burn, M.B., C.M., 31 Morningside Road.

1874. Murray, D. R., M.B., C.M., 41 Albany Street, Leith.

1877. Murray, John, Ph.D., LL.D., F.L.S., F.R.S.E., 28 Douglas Crescent.

1884. Murray, R. Milne, M.A., M.B., 10 Hope Street,

1889. Musgrave, James, M.D., 10 Lauriston Park.

1880. Nicholson, Professor, Aberdeen.

1887. Norman, Rev. Canon, D.C.L., Burnmoor Rectory, Fence Houses.

1884. Oliphant, J. C., M.A., 50 Palmerston Place.

1887. Oliver, John S., 12 Greenhill Park.

1886. *Panton, George A., F.R.S.E., 73 Westfield Road, Edgbaston,
Birmingham.

1870. Peach, B. N., F.R.S.E., Geological Survey, George IV. Bridge.

1880. Pearcey, F. G., The Owens College, Manchester.

1888. Porter, George, 14 Thirlstane Road.

1883. Pullar, Alfred, M.D., Leonard Bank, Beulah Hill, Upper Norwood,
London, S. E.

1879. Pullar, R. D., Ochil, Perth.

1889. Purvis, G. Carrington, M.B., C.M., 13 E. Preston Street.

1885. Raeburn, Harold, The Elms, Eastern Road, Romford.

1881. *Ramsay, Major Wardlaw, Whitehall, Rosehill, Midlothian.

1884. Rattray, John, B.Sc., F.R.S.E., 196 Haverstock Hill, London, N.W.

1881. Richardson, T,, 5 North West Circus Place,

1886. Roberton, E., M.B., C.M., M.R.C.S.

1861. *Robertson T., c/o J. Nisbet & Co., 21 Berners Street, London, W

List of Fellows.

List of Fellows. 521
Date of
Election.
1883. Robertson, W. W., Wardie Bank.
1890. Rogerson, John J., LL.B., Merchiston Castle.
1880. Rowland, Professor, M.A., M.D., The University, Salem, Oregon,
U.S.A.
1887. Russell, William, M.D., F.R.C.P.E., 46 Albany Street.
1890. Saxton, Professor, M.R.C.V.S., Colonial College, Hollesley Bay,
Suffolk.
1889. Scott, Thomas, F.L.S., 14 Lorne St., Leith Walk.
1884. Scott, W. Sawers, M.D., Royal Medical Society, Melbourne Place.
1886. Service, Robert, Laurieknowe, Maxwelltown.
1886. Shand, Alexander, Physical Laboratory, The University.
1883. Sherriff, George, Woodcraft, Larbert.
1882. Simpson, John, Anatomical Museum, The University.
1869. *Skirving, R. Scot-, 29 Drummond Place.
1877. Smith, J. A. J., F.R.C.S.E., Kimberley, South Africa.
1886. Somerville, Wm., B.Sc., F.R.S.E., of Cormiston, 1 Braid Crescent.
1880. Sprague, T. Bond, M.A., F.R.S.E., 29 Buckingham Terrace,
1880. Stark, A. C., M.B., C.M., Whiteparish, Salisbury.
1889, Stevenson, P., 23 Royal Park Terrace.
1882. Stewart, R., 7 E. Claremont Street.
1882. Stirling, J., of Garden, Stirlingshire.
1861. *Struthers, J.. M.D., 22 Charlotte Street, Leith.
1886. Stuart, J. Moody, Briton, Medical, and General Life Association,
London.
1888. Stump, E. C., 26 Parkfield Street, Moss Lane East, Manchester.
1887. Sturman, E. A., M.A., LL.D., 160 Holland Road, Kensington,
London, W.
Surenne, D. J., 6 Warriston Crescent.
1882. Swinburne, J., 21 Saumarez Street, St Peter’s Port, Guernsey.
1879. Symington, J., M.D., 2 Greenhill Park.
1881. Tanner, S. T., 9 Montague Street, Portman Square, London, W.
1851. Taylor, A., 11 Lutton Place.
1887. Thomson, J. Arthur, F.R.S.E., 30 Royal Circus.
1876. *Thomson, John.
1874. *Thomson, R., LL.B., 6 Shandwick Place.
1885. Tomlinson, Henry T., M.B., C.M., Nuneaton.
1859, Traquair, R. H., M.D., F.R.S., Museum of Science and Art.
1885. Turnbull, Perey M., Oakdale, Leytonstone, Essex.
1858. *Turner, Professor Sir Wm., 6 Eton Terrace.
1889. Tweedy, James, Solicitor, 14 Hartington Road, Stockton-on-Tees,
1889. Urmston, A. B., San Pedro, Janos, Canton Galeana, Chihuahua,
Mexico.
1882. Wallace, Professor R., The University.
1887. Wallace, Samuel W., The University.
1887. Watson, G. W., L.D.S., 3 Walker Street.
1884. Watson, Wm., M.D., Lockarton, Slateford.
1884. Webster, A. D., M.D., 20 Newington Road.
1887. Webster, Hugh A., F.R.S.E., The University.

522 List of Fellows.

Date of
Election.

1884. White, J. Martin, of Balruddery, Dundee.

1888. White, Philip J., M.B., C.M., University College, Bangor.

1878. White, T., S.S.C., 114 George Street.

1890. Williams, John D., M.D., Treadserth, Llangaff, Anglesey.

1886. Williams, P. Caradoc, Bonnington Sugar Refinery, Leith.

1885. Williams, W. Owen, M.R.C.V.S., Gayfield Square.

Wilson, A., L.D.S., 2°-N. Charlotte Street.

1885. Wilson, Alfred C., F.C.S., Exchange Buildings, Stockton-on-Tees.

1882. Wilson, J. L. G., Geological Survey, George IV. Bridge.

1890. Wilson, Wm., M.A., Physical Laboratory, Merchant Venturer’s
School,. Bristol.

1886. Wood, George E., M.B., C.M., Baileyfield, Portobello.

1883. Woodhead, G. S8., M.D., F.R.S.E., Beverley, Nightingale Road,
Balham, London, S.W.

1881. Young,.F. W., F.C.S., High School, Dundee.

1882. Young, J., 64 Hereford Road, Bayswater, London, S.W.

est
bo
es)

List of Fellows.

CORRESPONDING.

Date of
Election.

Andrew, Rev. J., Newbury, Fifeshire.
1875. Coughtrey, Millen, M.D., Prof. Anat. and Physiology, University of

Otago, New Zealand.

1858. Duncan, Rev. J., Denholm.
1870. Fraser, Rev. Samuel, Melbourne.
1861. Gordon, Rev. G., LL.D., Birnie, Elgin.
1871. Grieve, A. F., Brisbane, Queensland.
1852. Howden, J. C., M.D., Montrose.
1874. Joass, Rev. J. M., LL.D., Golspie.
1874. Jolly, William, Inspector of Schools.
1879. Lapworth, Professor Charles, F.G.S., Birmingham.
1885. Lindstrém, Professor Gustav, Stockholm.
1871. Macdonald, John, 8.8.C., 19 York Place, Edinburgh.

Mushet, David, Gloucester.
1885. Nathorst, Professor A. G., Surveyor-General, Geological Survey of

Sweden, Stockholm.

1867. Robb, Rev. Alexander, Old Calabar.
1874. Stewart, Rev. Alexander, LL.D., Ballachulish.

HONORARY.
1886. Beneden, P. J. van, Louvain.
1857. Chevrolat, Auguste, Paris.
1865. Colloredo-Mannsfeldt, Prince, Vienna.
1857. Dohrn, C. A., Stettin.
1857. Fairmaire, Léon, Paris.
1883. Geikie, Archibald, Director General of the Geological Survey (Ord.

Memb. 1878), Olim Preses.
1857. Gerstaecker, A., Greifswald.
1857. Guenée, Achille, Chateaudun.
1857. Javet, Charles, Paris.
1857. Kraatz, G., Berlin.
1886. Lacaze-Duthiers, H. de, Paris.
1888. Lankester, Professor E. R., F.R.S., University College, London.
1869. Liitken, Chr., University Museum, Copenhagen.
1857. Lenectere, Marquis de Laferte, Tours.
1858. Motschoulsky, Count Victor, St Petersburg.
1857. Macquerys, Emile, Rouen.
1857. Obert, M., St Petersburg.
1857. Reiche, M., Paris.
1888. Vines, Sydney H., M.A., F.R.S., Christ’s College, Cambridge.

Fellows are requested to intimate change of Address to the Assistant Secretary,
Mr GUNN, Geographical Institute, PARK Roan, EDINBURGH.
VOL. X. 2M

INDEX.

Alea tiimpennis, Skeleton of, 505.

Anchovy in Scottish Waters, 335.

Ancient Lakes of Edinburgh, 126.

Aquatic Earthworms, 208,

Arvicola glareolus at Cramond, 509.

Asterolepide, The Structure and
Classification of, 23.

Asterolepis, 32.

Auk, Great, Skeleton of, 505.

Auk, Little, in Mull, 509.

Bank Vole at Cramond, 509.

Beddard, Frank E., 101, 208, 235.

Bell, Alfred, 290.

Bennie, James, 126, 299, 334, 392.

Bergylt near May Island, 509.

Birds and Eggs from Paraguay, 73.

Boar-Fish from near May Island,
506.

Borough Loch, 131.

Bothriolepis, 35.

Bothrodendron, 92.

Bothrodendron Wiikianum, 94.

British Hehinoidea, Revised List of,
398.

Brook, George, 156, 161, 505, 509.

Capros aper from near May Island,
506.

Chartergus nidulans, 71.

Chimpanzee, The Viscera of a Female,
297.

Clarke, W. Eagle, 509.

Climates, Geological, 171.

Clio borealis, in Firth of Forth, 156.

Coal Seams, Modes of Formation of,

‘ie
Coccosteus, 47, 211.
Coracias garrula in Mull, 505.
Crested Birds of Prey, 202.
Crustacea from the Kirkland Mar],
337.
Crustacea new to the Firth of Forth,
154,
Cubital Coverts of Huornithe, 317.
Cuckoo, Parasitic Habit of the, 60.
Cymbasoma rigidum, 156.

Dalgleish, J. J., 73.

Delphinus (Lagenorhynchus)
rostris, 14.

Diatoms from Redhall Quarry, 154.

Distribution of Earthworis, 269.

Dolphin, The White-Beaked, 14.

Duns, Professor J., 68, 71.

albi-

Earthworm, Exotic, in Kircudbright-
shire, 396.

Karthworms, Aquatic, 208.

Earthworms, The Distribution and
Classification of, 235.

Echinoidea, British, Revised List of,
398.

Engraulis encrasicholus in Scottish
Waters, 333.

Epithelium, A Tract of Modified, in
the Embryo of Sepia, 58.

Erythrops goéssii, 155.

Euornithe, Cubital Coverts of, 317.

Evans, William, 106,168,507,509, 510.

Ewart, Professor, 333.

Falco vespertinus near Jedburgh, 168.

Fins, Vertical, of Zepadogaster, De-
velopment of, 167.

Foraminifera from Largo Bay, 293.

Gases, Exhalation of, from Bog near
Strathpeffer, 225.

Geikie, Professor J., 171.

Geological Climates, 171.

Glaciation, 198.

Glow, Loch, 313.

Goodchild, J. G., 97, 202, 317.

Great Auk, Skeleton of, 505.

Heteronvysis formosa, 156.

Homosteus, Asmuss, compared with
Coccosteus, 47.

Hoyle, W. E., 3, 58, 398.

Hybrid between Wild Duck and
Pintail, 508.

Hyperoodon latifrons, 19.

Hyperoodon rostratus, Skull of an
Aged, 19.

526

Incubation, Periods of, in Birds, 510.

Kidston, Robert, 88, 345, 506.
Kirkland Marl, 334.

Lakes, Ancient, of Edinburgh, 126.
Land and Fresh-Water Mollusca,
Census of Scottish, 437.
Largo, Marine Accumulations at, 290.
Lepadogaster bimaculatus, 165.
Lepadogaster Decandolli, 164.
Lepadogaster Gouanti, 163.
Lepadogaster nvicrocephalus, 166.
Lepadogaster, The British Species of,
161

Lepidodendion Veltheimianum, 89.

Leptomysis gracilis, 155.

Lesser Shrew at Cramond, 507.

Lindley and Hutton’s Paleozoic
Species, 345.

Lycopods, Carboniferous, Notes on
some British, 88.

Marine Accumulations in Largo Bay,
and at Portrush, 290.

Mergulus alle in Mull, 509.

Microbrachius, 48.

Micropteron bidens, 5.

Miller, Hugh, 225.

Mollusca from Ancient Edinburgh
Lakes, 139, ete.

Mollusca from Elie, 339.

Mollusca from Kirkland Marl, 337.

Mollusca from Largo Bay, 292.

Mollusca, Land and Fresh-Water,
Census of Scottish, 437.

Mollusca new to the Firth of Forth,
154,

Motella, The Larval Stages of, 156.

Mus alexandrinus from the ‘‘ Devas-
tation,” Queensferry, 509.

Myrapetra, 72.

Mysidopsis didelphys, 155.

North Loch, 129.

Ostracoda from Edinburgh District,
139, 293, 313, 339.

Pachydrilus, British Species of, 101.

Paleozoic Species mentioned in
Lindley and Hutton’s ‘‘ Fossil
Flora,” 345.

Pallas’s Sand-Grouse in Scotland, 106.

Paraguay, A Collection of Birds and
Eggs from, 73.

Pericheta indica in Kirkeudbright-
shire, 396,

Periods of Incubation in Birds, 510.

Index.

Phalarope, Grey, in Mull, 509.
Phiyctenaspis, a New Genus of
Coccosteidce, 227.
Platalea leucorodia in Orkney, 508.
Portrush, Fossils from, 295.
Post-Tertiary Fresh-Water Deposits
from Kirkland and Elie, 334,
Presidential Address, 1, 171.
Pterichthys, 23.

Rats, The British, 509.

Red-footed Falcon near Jedburgh, 168.

Redhall, New, Quarry, ‘‘ Washout ”
at, 392.

Roebuck, W. Denison, 437.

toller in Mull, 505.

Rook, Variations in the Plumage of,
68.

Sand-Grouse, see Pallas’s Sand-Grouse.

Scott, Thomas, 126, 154, 293, 73i3,
504,

Scottish Land and Fresh- Water Mol-
lusea, Census of, 437.

Sebastes norwegicus near May Island,
509.

Sepia, A Tract of Modified Epithelium
in the Embryo of, 58.

Service, Robert, 396.

Shrew, Lesser, from Cramond, 507.

Sigillaria, 91.

Sorex minutus from Cramond, 507.

Sowerby’s Whale in the Firth of
Forth, 5.

Sphenophyllum cuneifolium, Fruiting
Specimens of, 507.

Spoonbill from Orkney, 508.

Stilifer tortont, in Firth of Forth, 156.

Symington, Dr, 297.

Syrrhaptes paradoxus in Scotland,
106.

Thomson, J. Arthur, 60, 508.

Traquair, Dr, 23, 47, 211,:227, 505;
506, 509.

Turner, Prof. Sir William, 1, 5, 14,
19.

Tepes a by

Vespa nidulans, 71.
Viscera of a Female Chimpanzee, 297.
Vole, Bank, at Cramond, 509.

‘* Washout” of Strata in New Redhall
Quarry, 392.

Wasps’ Nests from South America, 71.

Whales, 5, 19.

Wing-Coverts of Birds, 317.

Zoological Notes, 101, 208.

M‘Farlane & Erskine, Printers, Edinburgh.

i) Py \
STS
<> VT
Wren flor
a TSG
as) t
ie ic
Kay <>
Es pa
ak RA

ic

——=
Cf CC

vay
ee

STR
ae

ne ag ge

—

Puate |.

Royal Physical Soctely, Ldinburgh.

\A

' >
| Bs, ~\|% ‘
mis <
LT Te 3
Vici axl
\ Sed) he
| ba
ies ae
4. gies
a
77

>
»
Se
& SOO
XA

=
scaau
{

‘aan ” » 5 — 5
Pe J 8 ‘ wt i 5 = i

Prats IL.
Vol. X Royal Physical Soccety, Ldinburgh.

SRS Pe ee ee a LE

eaves IE
Vol. X. Royal Physical Society, Ldinburgh.

ey)
N

wardhth.

qa

] ~ nC ~ ron > ant = Ta + a5 >
Mini @nma@ Stems. ao -COSCCOSteus.

— — oa

—— - ” en! oe .

*Edimn*

th®?

ane & Erskine. Li

ari

MIF

Loyal Fhystcal Sociely, Lilinburgh.

2-4. BOTHRODENDRON WIIKIANUM, Kidston, n. sp.

PLaTE IV.
5-6. BOTHRODENDRON MINUTIFOLIUM. Boulay. sp.

1. SIGILLARIA DISCOPHORA, Konig, sp.

R. Kidston, del.

“~

Oe Lees 6 eee. eee eee oe —- - ~\ 7 = ae ee ee - ae ee ee a Te ee ee oe ee ee eee. ee ee eee ee ee eee

PrAte Vv

feoyal Physical Society, kdinburgh.

Vol. A.

M‘Farlane & Erskine, LithTS Edint

EE.

Puate VI.
Vol. X froyal Physical Society, Ld mnbuurgl.

x3

F.G. Binnie, del, MSFarlane & Erskine, Lith®? Eda®

‘Tep ‘ eruurg 'H ‘Ff

stIpa SSIET (@us[sag Y OUeLTE TSN

SKETCH-MAPS ILLUSTRATING THE GEOGRAPHICAL EVOLUTION OF CONTINENTAL AREAS
BY PROFESSOR JAMES GEIKIE, LL.D., D.C.L., F.R.S.

renin

Zansiber

|

MAP SHOWING THE

Area OF CONTINENTAL PLATEAU] |

OCCUPIED BY SEA IN

PALAOZOIC TIMES.

MAP SHOWING THE

AREA OF CONTINENTAL PLATEAU
OCCUPIED BY SEA IN

MESOZOIC TIMES.

to

MAP SHOWING THE

|| AREA oF CONTINENTAL PLATEAU

OCCUPIED BY SEA IN

MAP SHOWING THE

AREAS oF DOMINANT DEPRESSION

AND ELEVATION.
Below & Above the 1000 fathom Contour Hine)

Meh = = i
Jolinf artholamew & Co.

un

ee,
a

Royal. Physical Society Edin, Plate IX Vol. X- ILLUSTRATING PROFESSOR GEIKIES PAPER

pon

sy on oe
aaa ieadd >

eee 1

GEOLOGICAL SKETCH MA
OF

THE WORLD

J. G. BARTHOLOMEW, F.R.S.E.,
after Berghaus, Marcou, and other Authorities.

On Galls Stereographic Projection

ut it

Pep eer ORLA PAN D SECONDARY OR fee) TEETIARY On | Se) PORT TERTIARY OF eae YOUNGER ERUPTIVE ROCKS. eS Sandy Wastes, Desert-Sands, Gravel, &c Regions Geologically unknown are left white.
Old Massive Crystalline Rocks. MESOZOIC. ___| camozore, | QUATERNARY. peel)

165 10 1s0 2 75 45 = 5 a ah 60
DS LLL — — — Ss | | |— olomew & &
The Edinburgh Geographical Instituse Tokn Bartholome

aa y 4
7 ,

fs AY tap ;

v

ABs;
ihe ae
y

\

;

P
‘

uy
-~

;

ee a i

foyal Physical Society, Ldinburgh.

els)
a
“e) | e~
‘on
5 \ \ ae
\)
Bee

Vol. X.

$ Edin?

M‘Farlane & Erskine, Lith®S

Goodchild, del.

eer ay ne Mart

ee ay oN ee
*

Pi Ame ox,

Leoyal Physical Soerety, Ldinburgh.

Vol. X.

EN ALLL

SS)

a ean SERS
QS SSS

By

\_
oy

Zi! =

ees

BE Peta mtn iy TRS Tm ar

Edin™

MSParlane & Erskine, Lith"?

R.H. Traquaar, del.

of

Poate All.
Vol. A. royal Physical Socvety Lidinburgh.

R.H. Traquair _ del

PHLYCTANASPIsS.

ROYAL PHYSICAL SOCIETY. : Plate xi.

T LAND

F iMte — Jvanm
SP/TZBERGEN eh =

GREENLAND *| pg, yore hoa

¢ ; BRITISH ]
% wo . ° ISLES
00 “oe

‘all aes EWFOUWDLAND = : a Gee ee 3
NOVA Vopra 2 My te a | ARINES

.

SAN |FRANCISCO

i : | OF MEXICO A TLAWIIC Z CEA: ;

Ae mt 2 U6A |
WOWICH J5 —— ZLWEST INDIES
CEAN CENTRAL AMER (AM/BEEAN SEA | *

EQUATOR

POLYNESIA):

eo 3

OF LAPRICORH

4 CIE{C

om

Ay

CHART orm: WORLD

ON MERCATORS PROJECTION

MVTARCTIC | OCEAV

Scott & Ferguson, Edinburgh.

4
v

rt
}

7 Ceetiiietiiecie iki. ike

¢
1
‘“
ody
~
®
Lar, )
ie
Tar, |

Pah a!)
an

eee ee 8 eel
ir

a

Dh
ny

7 ee

» Oe a

«

Se "Sg 8
ial iat ~~“?

% 4

oy —

| : Plat E
ROYAL PHYSICAL SOCIETY. _ Plate xIv

120

ARCTIC OCEAN WE. SP/TZBERGEN y
bye Sri ‘ GREENLAND *

é

mee 4 . SEA
5 ‘
L US A
4 Se!
i Jd : BRITISH |
“4 ; oa

|
| 2 ALEUTIAN : ° i, amas

| 1 +L : Sage : : pool i oo oh be eseznee

= fate eka ag ree.) meee Wes | (CHINESE EMPIR
Sanit AN |. NORTH k — s aia

A a 7 . y oy : LA 5 77
‘ : A CLT 0 JAPAN

2°

PACIFIC ATLAWITC

ree eh he aL LTE Lie rere Ronee

I “ Ss j Ms mo, Saaeqeny, ie L
= WA VORA —— DE x =
eae ss CS BAG? EST SNDIES nS ; ie SS ae
: : rae 4
CEAM CENTRAL AMERICA ANLBBEAN $64 | * NY . yes 83
~

EQUATOR

POLYNESIA) = ee: = a INDIAN OCEAN

ee an ‘ ee
©. TROPIC \OF CAPRICORN i Ls } pee A A CI A erred =
Y
ee U cabey #
t eLONY
PORT ELIZABETH

| 3
CHART or we WORLD

ON MERCATOGRS PROJECTION

PEALAND

OLEAN ;

ANTARCTIC VROLE

YNTARCTIC

Scott d° Ferguson, Edinburgh.

ne ae

Ry So

Froyal Physical Society, Kdinburgh.

PLATE XV.

TEX
SS

3 FNS
ce) C
= oS St
\ a SX
Re} IN SI
nw s

1

AIS
Ww

ry

wee
Nites
\\

D
cA

iicge
arg
ay;

ce
ve

¢ &
&
c;
Si
kK

2

SS

S
ee

M'Parlane & Erskine, Lith™* Edin®

Goodchild, del.

{ >
i 5
i
¢
oe
¥ “
4
,
a ay
¢

. ton
‘

2 i Ely pak | ibs a ~veng« ie ; 3

-_—

6Q9l asnsny wer “AMUVNAD TivHagy

SUIT (ay atT “@uMsag op auepe ssw dO uey ‘Aoaang ‘Toog ‘uunqy yf

audJSpueg « uLo4j0
ye
sreplnog
yam
AMO-YSBM |
AS
oe
\ |
ket yerqany
replnog aamo'y
fo worztsog
AeTyg an
Eee Jeplnogd
aodd rp) ee

TAG Shea]

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

ROYAL PHYSICAL SOCIETY.

SESSION 1888-89.

EDINBURGH: M‘FARLANE & ERSKINE.
1889,

PRICE OF THE “PROCEEDINGS.

Vol. . I. Part 1 (1854-56), out of print, . see

Do., Part 2 (1856-58), out of print, . 5 - Oy } Te
Vol. II. Part 1 (1858-61), owt of print, . . . WHOS \ 15/
Do., Part 2 (1861-62), out of print, . ; aa? |
Vol. III. Part 1 (1862-63), out of print, . ‘ ie <5)
Do., Part 2 (1863-64), out of print, . oi 20/
Do;, Part 3 (1864-65), owt of print, . : ae)
Do., Part 4 (1865-66), out of print, . é oy
To the Fellows. To the Public.
Vol. IV. Part 1 (1874-75), out of print, . 3/6 5/
Do., Part 2 (1875-76), out of print, . 3/6 5/
Dyes Part 3 (1876-78), out of print, . 5 7/6
Vol. Vz. Part 1 (1878-79), : st tay 5/
Dos, Part 2 (1879-80), : e Ehy6 10/
Vol’ Vi. (1880-81), oS 10/

Title and Index of this Vol. issued
with Part 1, Vol. VII.

Vol. VII. Part 1 (1881-82), ie ey 5/
Do., Part 2 (1882-83), NG 3/6
Vol. VIII. Part | (1883-84), out pee SOUS 10/
Do., Part 2 (1884-85), Lee SANG 10/
Vol. IX. Part 1 (1885-86), - A0/ 12/6
Do. Part 2 (1886-87), . 3/6 5/
De: Part 3 (1887-88), ; 2 9 -AY6 6/
Vol. X. Part 1 (1888-89), LO), 7/

The following may also be had of the Honorary Librarian ;

Memoirs of the Wernerian Society, Vol. VL., . iy Se
Do. do., Vol, VEE. Parils). sie au

= Sra aoe OR
7 os.

CONTENTS.
SESSION CXVIII.

puede Address, by Professor Sir Wm. bth M.B., LL.D., F.R.S.,
President, : é

On the occurrence of Siar s Whale Ee taecperin bidens) in the Firth

of Forth, by Sir Wm. Turner, M.B., LL.D., F.R.S,, Professor of
Anatomy i in the University of Edinburgh, ; p ;
Notes on the White-beaked Dolphin (Delphinus (Lagenorhynchus) albi-
rostris), by Professor Sir Wm. TurNER, M.B., LL.D., F.R.S., 3

Notes on the Skull of an aged male Hyperoodon rostratus from Shetland,
by Professor Sir WM. TurneER, M.B,, LL.D., F.R.S.,

On the Structure and Classification of the Adertepide by Dr R. H.
Traguarr, F.R.S., F.G.S. [Plates I., IL. ],

Homosteus, Asmuss, compare with Ry Asi, by Dr He H.
TRAQUAIR, F. R. S., F.G.S8, [Plate III.],

On a Tract of modified Epitheliam in the ise of ane by V We bie
E. Hoynir, M.A., ;

A Theory of the Parasitic Habit of the Cuckoo, by J. ARTHUR Teonedee.
M.A., F.R.S.E.,

Variation in the Plumage of the Common Rook cor fr piles, Linn. ;
by Professor Duns, D.D., F.R.S.E.,

On some Wasps’ Nests from South America, by Professor Doss D.D.,
F.R.S.E. (Specimens ex" ibited),

Notes on a Collection of Birds and BGs from the Republi of Paraguay,
by J. J. DAueiErsH, M.B.O.U., “

Additional Notes on some British Gay ianteoes Lyeopas as R. real
F.R.S.E., F.G.S. [Plate IV.],

On some of the Modes of Formation of Coal Seams (Abstract), es J.'G.
GoopcHILD, H.M. Geol. Survey, F.G.S., Acting Instructor in echoes
and Mineralogy to the Royal Geographical Society, :

Zoological Notes, by Frank EK. Brepparp, M.A., F.R.S.E., F.Z. S.,
Prosector to the Zoological Society of London, Lecturer on Biology
at Guy’s Hospital. [Plate V.], 3 :

- Notes on Pallas’s Sand-grouse (Syrrhaptes paradoxus) in ae during

the recent great westward movement of the Species, by WILLIAM
Evans, F.R.8.E., ‘

The Ancient Lakes of Edinburgh, _ JAMES Risser Geological sae
of Scotland, and THomas ips F.u.8., Naturalist to “the ops
Board of Scotland, "

Notes on a few Crustacea and ites new to av Fauna of the Forth,
with Exhibition of Specimens, by THomAs Scort, F.L.S., F

Notes on the Larval Ber of Motella, by GEORGE FRO F.L.S.
[Plate VI. ]},

Notes on the British Species of Edad and on a Levaanede
of the Vertical Fins, by GrorcE ape F.L.S., F.R.S.E.
[Plate VII.], . :

Note by WILLIAM Bae F.R.S.E., on a ae of the Red. footed
Falcon (Falco vesper tinus, L.). Exhibited to the Society 20th
February 1889, : : : : 4 c

PAGE

101
106

126
154

156
161

168

: 395)

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

ROYAL PHYSICAL SOCIETY.

SESSION 1889-90.

EDINBURGH: M‘FARLANE & ERSKINE.
1891.

PRICK OheTHE “ PROCEEDINGS.

Vol. I, Part 1 (1854-56), out of print, . ; joi ait j 17/6
Do. Part 2 (1856-58), out of print, . : SOY

Vol. II. Part 1 (1858-61), owt of print, . F -, tO a, fe
Do. Part 2 (1861-62), out of print, . a) at

Vol. III. Part 1 (1862-63), owt of print, . 4 HO
Do. Part 2 (1863- 64), out of print, . s a2) | 20)

Do. Part 3 (1864-65), out of print, . : 5 aay
Do, Part 4 (1865-66), out of print, . : ee) |
Yo the Fellows. 10 the Public.

Vol, IV. Part 1 (1874-75), owt of print, . 3/6 5/ 4
Do. Part 2 (1875-76), out of print, . 3/6 5/ F
Do. Part 3 (1876-78), out of ae 4 7/6 :

Vol. __-V. Part 1 (1878-79), eG 5/ ;
Do. Part 2 (1879-80), : a a6 10/ 1

Nronwale (1880-81), ad 10/ |

Title and Index of this Vol. ieeiied | bi

with Part 1, Vol. VII.

Vol. VII. Part 1 (1881-82), eae 5/
Do. Part 2 (1882-83), : a 2h6 3/6
Vol. VIII. Part 1 (1883-84), out of print, . 7/6 10/
Do. Part 2 (1884-85), ; ae 10/
Vol. IX. Part 1 (1885-86), Bly: 12/6
Do. Part 2 (1886-87), 2) 3/6 i)
Do. Part 3 (1887-88), ‘ 4/6 6/
Vol. X. Part 1 (1888-89), : eo) 7
Do. Part 2 (1889-90), ; sty 12/6

The following may also be had of the Honorary Librarian :

Memoirs of the Wernerian Society, Vol. VI., ; S27,
Do. do., Vol. Villy Partials eet)

Forms of Application for Fellowship may be had from the Secretary.

Entrance Fee, : : ‘ ; 10/6
Annual Subscription, ‘ d é 12/6

CONTENTS,

. SESSION. CXIX.

Ae Address, by Professor J. Gurxre, LL.D., D.C.L, F.R.S.,

Vice- President. [Plates VIII., IX.],

2 Notes on Crested Birds of peers by J. G. GooDcHILD, » Baty F.Z.8S.,

=. M-B.O.U. [Plate X.],

Zoological Notes, by Frank E, Bepparp, Sie: . M.A., F-R.S.E., F.Z8.,

Prosector to the Zoological Society of London, Lecturer on ‘Biology
at Guy’s Hospital, : : ; : : ;

On the Structure of Coccosteus decipiens, ose by Dr R. H. TRAQUAIR,

FR.S., :G.S. [Plate XJ.], .

On an Exhalation of Gases, under uohiee eenauruntances, from a Bog
ear: Strathpeffer, by Huca Mitter, Esq., F.R.S :

On Phlyctenaspis, a new Genus of Seng AS by Dr R H. pea.

F.R.S., F.G.S. [Plate XIL.J, -

The Classification and Distribution of Earthworms, ce Frank E.

BepparD, M.A., F.R.S.E., F.Z.8., Prosector and Davis Lecturer to
the Zoological Society of London ; : Lecturer on Pooky at Guy’s
Hospital. [Plates XIII., XIV.], > ~ : : :

Bo Notes upon the Marine sonia ilition in Largo ne Fife, and at.

Portrush, County Antrim, North Ireland, by ALFRED BEL, op :
London. (Communicated by JAMES BENNIE, Esq.),

On the Viscera of a Female Chimpanzee, by J. SYMINGTON, Bie. M. D.,
F.R.S.E., Lecturer on Anatomy, Minto House, Edinburgh ; Examiner
‘in Anatomy, University of Edinburgh,

Notes on a Small Collection of Fresh-Water Octracoda from the

Edinburgh District, by THomAs Scort, F.L.S., Naturalist to the
Fishery Board for Scotland,

| The Cubital Coverts of the Euornith in vr to eee = J. G.

GoopcuiLp, H.M. Geol. Survey, F.Z.S., M.B.0.U. [Plate XV.],

s On the Oecurrence of the Anchovy (Engraulis encrasicholus) in Scottish

W aters, by Professor J. CossAar Ewart, M.D., F.R.S.E,,

Preliminar y Notes on a Post-Tertiary Fresh-Water Deposit at Kirkland,
Leven,.and at Elie, Fifeshire, by THomAs Scort, B L.S., Naturalist
“to the Fishery Board for Scotland, ; j ; :

Notes on the Paleozoic Species mentioned in, Lindley and Hutton’s
_ ‘* Fossil Flora,” by R. Kipsron, F.R.S.E., F.G.S.,

Note on a Recent Exposure of a ‘‘ Washout” of Strata in New Redhall.

Quarry. by JAMES Bennie, of the Genigerea! Survey of Seotland.
[Plate XVI,], _ ; . 2

Rote on Pericheta ae an Exotic Species of Earthworm living in

Hothouses i in Kirkeudbrightshire, by Roper Servicer, Esq.,

oe Fivieea List of Hc Echinoidea, by WriiLtrAM E. Hoyus, M.A.

{Oxon.), I. RS. K., Keeper of the Mauchester Museunt, 2

Censns of Scottish Land and Fresh-Water Mollusca, by Wm. DENISON
-RorsucK, F.L.S., Recorder to the Conchological Society of Great
Britain and Ireland. (Communicated by the Srcrerary),

171

202

208
21k
225

2274

235

290

297

437

a ore

4

~ Pade Che

ae

an

AVDA

3 2044 106 278 666

Date Due

»> 2» >» >

>> DD — 2