counter-primary than in the set 1a-li or 3a-3h suggests a more advanced type, for which separation may eventually be desirable; while noting this possibility, it is thought better, for the present, to refer all the figured examples to one species only. Distribution.-Cryptophyllum hibernicum is locally abundant along a bed of limy shale, 3 or 4 inches thick, towards the base of the Lower Calp Shales at Bundoran, Donegal Bay, Ireland: the best exposures are in the sea cliff immediately north of the Bradoge River. Associated fossils are Caninia cornucopia and Cyathaxonia cornu, and in terms of Dr. Vaugham's zones the horizon approximates to C2-S1, locally developed as a y phase. In the Geological Survey Collections, London, amongst an extensive suite of Upper Tournaisian corals procured by Mr. Pringle, on the Pembrokeshire coast of Stackpole Quay, and near Blucks Pool, four specimens of Cryptophyllum hibernicum were noticed. The horizons given by Mr. Pringle range from Z2 through y to C, in all cases Caninia cornucopia, Cyathaxonia cornu, and the gens of Zaph. omaliusi were found in association.1 In Scotland, small, immature examples of Cryptophyllum are not uncommon in the shale above the Middle Skateraw Limestone at East Barns Quarry, Dunbar. One or two have also been obtained from the shale above the Acre Limestone at Ancroft, Northumberlandshire, which is probably on the same horizon. At both localities Caninia cornucopia (practically identical with Tournaisian specimens) Cyathaxonia cornu, and Zaphrentids of the omaliusi gens are associated in abundance. Zoually the level is about D. None of the specimens are fully developed: they rarely get beyond the five-septal stage, but so far as can be seen agree perfectly with C. hibernicum. It will be noted that the vertical range of the species is wide, and it is probably safe to say that C. hibernicum may be expected whenever ay phase is met with in British Carboniferous Limestone rocks. In concluding this paper, I wish to express my indebtedness to my colleague Dr. G. W. Lee, of the Geological Survey of Scotland, and to Mr. W. B. Wright, of the Geological Survey of Ireland: their assistance in the collection of specimens, during a joint examination of the Bundoran sections, proved invaluable. Dr. W. D. Lang, of the British Museum (Natural History), has very kindly helped me in the matter of nomenclature. EXPLANATION OF PLATE XI. Reductions of camera-lucida drawings of Cryptophyllum hibernicum, gen. et sp. nov., from the Lower Calp Shales (Carboniferous Limestone) of Bundoran, Donegal Bay, Ireland: intersections of tabulæ are omitted in one or two cases where they interfere with a clear presentation of the septa. Figs. 1a-j, 2a-c, 3a-h, 4a-d: serial transverse sections from four specimens. x 24. Index to lettering: H, main or cardinal septum; G, counter septum; A, alar septum; CL, counter-lateral septum. Fig. 5. External aspect of an average specimen. Nat. size. Fig. 6. Vertical section, showing tabulæ. Nat. size. 1 The registered numbers are Pg. 1715, Pl. 928, Pl. 2339, and Pl. 2432, and particulars of the exact localty are given in the Survey records. ON THE ECHINOIDEA HOLECTYPOIDA AND THEIR ALLIES. II.-MORPHOLOGICAL STUDIES By HERBERT L. HAWKINS, M.Sc., F.G.S., Lecturer in Geology, University College, Reading. THE IX.-PYRINA, CONULUS, AND ECHINONËUS. HE three genera (or generic terms) that serve for the title of this paper comprise a series of Cretaceous and Tertiary Echinoids which are morphologically similar, and, in consequence, systematically chaotic. Although the time is not yet ripe for an attempt to disentangle the nomenclature of the various genera and species from the knot in which it is involved (a condition not to be wondered at in view of the early description and variable qualities of the forms), it seems desirable to publish the following comments on the group, making use of current names for the examples quoted. Pyrina, Desmoulins, as Lambert' has shown, is typified by P. petrocoriensis, Desm., a species that might well pass for a young member of the Conulus series. Conulus, Leske, has for genotype C. albogalerus, Leske, and the forms to which that name is usually applied in this country seem sufficiently like the original figure to pass muster. The genotype of Echinonëus is of course E. cyclostomus, Leske, and there has never been serious confusion as to the application of the generic name. Under the name Galerites, Lamarck, Conulus became extended to cover practically all the Holectypoida, and to include considerable numbers of Clypeastrids and Echinolampids; but the original type has always been correctly placed, either under one of the two foregoing names or that of Echinoconus. Pyrina was more than usually unfortunate in the series of species included in it by its author. Of the seven species cited by Desmoulins, P. petrocoriensis is the only one that is either recognizable or conformable to the diagnosis, although another (Nucleolites ovulum, Lamarck) is almost, if not quite, admissible. The long rejected Globator, Agassiz, 1840, has been revived (with subgeneric rank) by Lambert (1.c.), and the latter author has proposed the name Pseudopyrina for the large number of more or less ovoid Echinoids that have usually been placed in Pyrina. Before proceeding to analyse the morphological qualities of the genera, a brief comment on this proposed taxonomy is necessary. Lambert (1.c., p. 141) shows that Desmoulins, in founding the genus Pyrina, twice emphasized the "symmetrical" character of the peristome, and even proposed to exclude Nucleolites ovulum, Lam., because of the slight obliquity of the peristome in that species. Further, Pyrina had a perignathic girdle ("système buccal interne ") analogous to that of Galerites (Conulus). It may be remarked that in Desmoulins' time, and for long afterwards, the belief was always maintained that the possession of masticatory apparatus (including the perignathic girdle) was restricted to Echinoids with "symmetrical" (i.e. circular, pentagonal, or decagonal) peristomes. Unfortunately for this belief, however, Conulus itself, which has a perignathic girdle 1 "Étude, sur les Echinides crétacés de Rennes-les-Bains et des Corbières": Bull. Soc. Études Sci. Aude, vol. xxii, pp. 66-183, pls. i-iii, 1911. in large, though peculiar, development, has an undoubtedly oblique peristome. In C. rhotomagensis, C. castanea, and C. subrotundus this character is quite marked; it is less clear in C. albogalerus, but among hundreds of specimens (of very varying shapes and sizes) that have passed through my hands, every one has shown appreciable ellipticity of the peristome. Echinoneus, in spite of the unfortunate name of its genotype, has a strongly oblique peristome when adult. As far as my experience goes, I am convinced that the "obliquity" or symmetry" of the peristome are merely relative in all the forms usually comprised under the three names in the title. Lambert says of P. petrocoriensis that its peristome "est en effet semblable à celui des Conulus"-that is to say, it must be slightly oblique. If this is so, why should not Nucleolites ovulum, Lam., whose peristome is slightly more oblique, be admitted into the genus? A yet more marked obliquity characterizes the peristome of P. desmoulinsi, d'Arch., but the difference is merely one of degree. The species last named has a "système buccal interne" sufficiently "analogue à celui de" Conulus. I have not succeeded in dissecting out the girdle of P. desmoulinsi, but by sectioning a test and its infilling matrix I have determined that a raised and thickened rim surrounds the peristome within. It has yet to be suggested that Conulus subrotundus and C. albogalerus are not congeneric, but I have studied undoubted examples of the former species in which the peristome was no less oblique than it is in P. desmoulinsi, or, for that matter, in Trematopygus. But if these two common species of Conulus are to be allowed to share the same generic name, it seems illogical to attempt a separation of the various species commonly called Pyrina on the ground of variable obliquity of the peristome. That there may be other features that would warrant the generic distinction of some of the species I am prepared to admit, but Pseudopyrina seems to me to be based on false premisses and so unacceptable. Globator, with type G. nucleus, Agassiz, included a series of forms (with relatively pronounced peristomial obliquity) that may be roughly described as "roundish Pyrinas". G. nucleus is always a little longer than broad, and a little less in height, but it is at least as "regular" in shape as, say, Holectypus depressus or many forms of Conulus subrotundus. Certainly the difference in ambital outline between Globator aud such a species as Pyrina desmoulinsi is very marked, but all possible gradations link the two species, and the species of Conulus vary but very little less in this respect. If the globular character can be shown to have any phyletic, or even stratigraphic, meaning, Globator might be recognized as a valid genus, but I am unaware that either quality has been demonstrated. As a consequence of the arguments given above, I prefer to follow the old-fashioned, and apparently natural, use of the name Pyrina, and to include in it as unnecessary or unsubstantiated groups the two so-called genera Globator and Pseudopyrina. In passing, it seems advisable to draw attention to a statement made by Lambert (1.c., pp. 142-3) concerning Pyrina houzeaui, Cotteau. "In spite of the presence in this circular species of a small, imperforate, fifth genital," Lambert does not feel justified in separating it from Globator (i.e. |