In a recent paper (Geol. Mag., lxxix, 1942, 272), a single specimen from Coplow Knoll, Clitheroe, which differed from the commoner forms found there, was referred to the genus Amphoracrinus under the name of A. clitheroensis. Some time after sending this paper to the editor I found in my collection a smaller specimen belonging to the same species and still later another one, together with seven specimens belonging to a distinct though closely allied species. This additional material shows that both species differ in several respects from Amphoracrinus and the new genus Pimlicocrinus is now proposed for their reception.

Whidborne gave a composite description of certain specimens from the Upper Devonian of Pilton and other localities which he grouped together and ascribed to the Carboniferous species P. (Buxtonia) scabriculus Mart. (Whidborne, 1897, 170, pi. xx, figs. 16–18, pi. xxi, fig. 12), but he considered that it was difficult to distinguish some of them from those which he ascribed to Strophalosia productoides. We cannot agree with his reference of any of them to Martin's Carboniferous species. The best preserved and first example [H. 286] which he figured (1897, pi. xx, fig. 16) is a pedicle-valve from “Smoking House Lane”. It has a transversely subquadrate shape with subrectangular cardinal angles not produced; the body is strongly arched longitudinally but only moderately convex transversely, and it has a weak median longitudinal depression, but descends steeply on each side to the smalt ears; it is covered by regular continuous rounded costae of equal size, about fifty in number, some of which bifurcate at about one-third to two-thirds their length, and very few of them show any small swellings on their course as in P. scabriulus; a few faint narrow concentric rugae are traceable on the posterior third of the body producing weak coarse reticulation; the umbo is very broad, rounded and incurved, projecting over the hinge-line; the ears, which are much depressed but not sharply marked off from the body, are triangular in shape and are crossed by a few narrow concentric rugae which bifurcate somewhat irregularly before reaching the hinge-line; a few large coarse spinose tubercles or spine-bases lie near the junction of the body with the ears. This pedicle-valve is sufficiently preserved to indicate a distinct species, for which the name porteri is proposed.

Several years ago I wrote a number of papers on the results of my investigations in a synclinal area near Megiddo, south-east of Mount Carmel, which I called “ the syncline of Megiddo ”. In the thick Eocene series of this syncline two distinct horizons of Lower and Upper Lutetian have been recognized. Above the Lutetian beds some patches of transgressive Upper Oligocene are preserved. Unfortunately the publications were based on investigations of only the north-eastern border of the whole synclinal region, further field explorations having been made impossible by the riots in 1936−39. In the summer of 1942 I renewed my fieldwork, which has led to a discovery of an Upper Eocene transgression over a probable Middle Eocene series.

The International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature aim at the “elimination of all possibilities of discussion”; and in troubled times like the present, when it is impossible to secure decision on a knotty problem by the International Commission, automatic solution of any nomenclatorial difficulty should be particularly welcome. We all know of certain genera that have caused trouble to revisers because they were based on several species, subsequently found to belong to more than one genus; likewise species have often been based on a number of differing specimens, some of which have in course of time been relegated to other species or genera. Now Opinion 88 claims that the procedure to be followed in such cases is well known, but on this point there appears to be some doubt, and I therefore propose to discuss the two species mentioned in the above title1.