| Abstract/Notes | The old question of the proper interpretation of these names, which was raised by Professors Nikitin and Pavlov, after their visit to this country for the Geological Congress in 1888 to whom no reply was made, for their conclusions could scarcely be denied, has been raised again by Miss Healy in a communication to the Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., Feb. 1904. As these conclusions do not appear to be well known, it may be as well to quote them. Nikitin says: “Having found in the British Museum the original of Am. biplex, Sow. (tab. 293, fig. 1), I assured myself that that original presented absolutely the Oxfordian form of Perisphinctes of the group of P. plieatilis, by the character of its numerous straight rounded ribs, by the mode of enrolment, by the constriction of its perfectly visible whorls, and lastly by the matrix; it showed no resemblance to the Kimmeridgian and Portlandian forms described in France and England under this name… Mr. Loriol had not seen the original of Sowerby… but having received from England, under the name of A. biplex, Sow., the Portlandian forms, he was justified in giving this name to the same form from Boulogne. On studying the English Kimmeridgian forms placed in the museums of England under the name of A. biplex I found amongst them the typical form of A. Pallasi, D'Orb.’ |
|---|
