^{page 387 note 1} CfHall, J. and Clarke, J. M., “An Introduction to the Study of the Brachiopoda, etc.”: 47th Ann. Rep. New YorkState Museum, 1894, pp. 1016–17.Google Scholar

^{page 387 note 2} Buckman, S. S., “The Brachiopoda of the Namyau Beds of Burmah: Preliminary Notice”: Rec. Geol. Surv. India, vol. xlv, pt. i, pp. 75–81, 1915.Google Scholar

^{page 387 note 3} “The type of Rhynchonella, R. loxia, Fischer, is one of the Capillatœ. The acuta group, which so resembles it, belongs to the Lœves, and so must be removed. The result is that Rhynchonella, which once covered hundreds of species from Ordovician to Recent, must now be confined, so far as present knowledge goes, to one species, R. loxia” (Buckman, loc. cit.).

^{page 387 note 4} Schuchert, C., Brachiopoda in Zittel, Textbook of Palœontology, translated by Eastman, C. R., 2nd ed., 1913, p. 400.Google Scholar

^{page 388 note 1} Buckman, S. S., “Antarctic Fossil Brachiopoda collected by the Swedish South Polar Expedition”: Wissensch. Ergeb. Schwed. Südpolar - Exped., 1901–3, Bd. iii, Lief. vii, p. 11, 1910.Google Scholar

^{page 388 note 2} Chapman, F., Australasian Fossils, Melbourne, 1914, p. 167.Google Scholar

^{page 388 note 3} CfThomson, J. A., “Brachiopod Morphology: Types of Folding in the Terebratulacea”: Geol. Mag., Dec. VI, Vol. II, pp. 71–6, 1915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 388 note 4} Wagner, . Free Inst. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. iii, pt. vi, pp. 1535–6, pl. lviii, figs. 5–7, 1903.Google Scholar

^{page 388 note 5} Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. Harvard, vol. xliii, p. 441, 1908.Google Scholar

^{page 389 note 1} Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. VII, vol. xviii, pp. 322–3, 1906.Google Scholar

^{page 389 note 2} Cat. Tert. Moll. Ech. New Zealand, 1873, p. 36.Google Scholar

^{page 389 note 3} Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., vol. vi, p. 329, pl. xxviii, figs. 2, 3, 1850. The type of this species is lost, and some doubt may attach to the identification of W. sinuata, Hutton, with it. As the internal characters of the genus have been worked out on specimens agreeing with the type of the latter species, it is chosen for the genotype.Google Scholar

^{page 390 note 1} Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser, III, vol. xiv, p. 10, 1864Google Scholar; Geol. Mag., Dec. I, Vol. VII, pp. 460–1, 1870Google Scholar; Mon. Brit. Foss. Brach., pt. ii, pp. 79–80, 1855Google Scholar ; Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., vol. iv, pt. ii, pp. 168–9, 1887.Google Scholar

^{page 390 note 2} Ann. Mus. Nac. Buenos Aires, t. ix, pp. 334–5, figs. 11, a-b, 1903.Google Scholar

^{page 390 note 3} Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. Harvard, vol. xliii, p. 442, 1908.Google Scholar

^{page 391 note 1} “An Introduction to the Study of the Brachiopoda, etc.”: 47th Ann. Rep. New York State Museum, 1894.Google Scholar

^{page 391 note 2} Loc. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 391 note 3} “Antarctic Fossil Brachiopoda,” etc., p. 11.Google Scholar

^{page 391 note 4} It is probable that Buckman's species has slender dental plates, for it appears to be synonymous with H. squamosa (Hutton), in which they are certainly present. Hutton gave no figure of the latter species, and his description is meagre. An examination of the holotype shows that the species was misunderstood by Tate, who figured a much broader form under that name, and in this Buckman followed him. H. cœlata (McCoy) is a more coarsely ribbed species, while H. pyxidata, Davidson, has discrete deltidial plates.

^{page 391 note 5} King, W., A Monograph of the Permian Fossils of England, 1850, p. 68CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pl. xx, fig. 11. Schuchert speaks of these socket walls as hinge-plates, but this is opposed to the usual convention (cf.Woods, H., Palœontology Invertebrate, p. 158, fig. 65, b, 1902).Google Scholar

^{page 391 note 6} Loc. cit.