Seeing how great a resemblance there is between the recent and Cretaceous species, and how many examples there are of Tertiary diatom deposits, it is not a little surprising that the past history of these plants has not been traced to earlier periods. In 1876 Castracane[267], an Italian diatomist, gave an account of certain species of diatoms said to have been found in a block of coal from Liverpool obtained from the English Coal-Measures. The species were found to be identical with recent forms. It is generally agreed that these specimens cannot have been from the coal itself, but that they must have been living forms which had come to be associated with the coal. The late Prof. Williamson spent many years examining thin sections and other preparations of coal from various parts of the world, but he never found a trace of any fossil diatom. There is no apparent reason why diatoms should not be found in Pre-Cretaceous rocks, and the microscopic investigation of old sediments may well lead to their discovery. Prof. Bertrand of Lille, who has devoted himself for some time past to a detailed microscopical examination of coal, informs me that he has so far failed to discover any trace of Palaeozoic diatomaceous tests. [Sidenote: BACTRYLLIUM.] The genus _Bactryllium_ is often quoted in text-books as a probable example of a Triassic diatom. It was first described by Heer[268] from the Trias of Switzerland and North Italy, also from the neighbourhood of Heidelberg, and regarded as an extinct member of the Diatomaceae. Heer defined the genus as follows: “Small bodies, with parallel sides, rounded at either end, the surface traversed by one or two longitudinal grooves.” (fig. 32, C.) Several species have been figured by Heer from beds of Muschelkalk, Keuper and Rhaetic age. He describes the wall as thick and firm (fig. 32, C. ii.) and probably composed of silica, with a hollow interior. The specimen shown in fig. 32, C. was found in the Rhaetic beds, and named by Heer _Bactryllium deplanatum_; it has a length of 4·5 mm.; the surface is transversely striated and traversed by a single longitudinal groove. Stefani[269] has given reasons in favour of removing _Bactryllium_ from the plant to the animal kingdom; he points out that the specimens are too large for diatoms, and moreover that they are asymmetrical in form and possessed a calcareous and not a siliceous shell. He would place the fossil among the Pteropods, comparing it with such genera as _Cuvierina_ and _Hyalaea_. In view of Stefani’s opinion we cannot attach any importance to this supposed diatom, especially as it has generally been regarded as at best but an unsatisfactory genus.