Ladue) MN Bie Perdis Ahi ol My pa eVGA EL LO rem rane ey ERAN IPS Mb he DISD ABD > Heme De a Seen ey Parabens tie in yada ay it A aneat De ere php apie en teed AYRIM SLES BIGE tL) Ma eee Le ee atte Mtoe svete fa at : ar yea Wail yet vv hd I Tare LSA ara sL atti ng TE MRAM) AN OF re pena tun ha i gp ede Deh ; » \ \ nie #) THe Reba? Bia Me vets te pal \ ayer Vad BY tesa Ph ytit PPL Eee ty coy Tides hashes tale he Ye tilaaeaae ‘es rer eaied ; FT oi dereltanhs bicnsuddvaaue Sepik Dh 14 sa havede pat aetadew vl 7 wraeh rina te im at | ri uae 6 Pw POD MONEE Hee eam wea ike et etel ¢LeR gs tobed ans eM Smope! Rien foe Lh ory ‘ if PEN OPT Vesiecrcmeiaie Hane dene pordeelh hea) Malla is Pyagiae: aerate is sti vias tah 4 rere ee Sado riper tec ave tt Tym angele ay eta: Anis Seip) nd Me A ' 5 ‘ vere Pmt iTy ermal Seton yc) rer mht anne we! aay 4 a Han ie the nes i 2) ies a ; iat " ih : je ‘ v ia ohn Pret es 4 wed at ‘ ree Aha; yh bene tad > ‘ ren Aerts ay ate ; ‘ ‘ View grt diayods bbsnaniesbouenesanghels , 4 bat hs de SEPeMaL ALLE LEU baka Gil it ae pareve aoe Oa thee ay tet ey ; 1 Pat AA elu Mivrennern ry iren Wty i (*): SENT Fb tke Leh een aitelt : tay ’ piel shat ree \ n ‘ ‘a WR Ye tah etew Hh he oe M4 beh Tt Yrensutndacte: eka vebe tedaued Hf Fog hibe thy CxOai rie Fey he bine Hat i: ’ ‘ i Rey TR erie ee j A " ype t HRM VE Nae setgits Te ys ea ' ‘ ' ron yt VaR iN bene rete de hele nn ook dt a : vitroade a's Hh, ba fame ae ital VAlvenaiegs Wiha Ny § ‘" he ve gine , hades ye eet gu te bead emt chaenghe eee Sena) nee fas A ¥ q 4 VARA hd IE ve Heid ee ama baila Te mE VAIN i ine sth iia Da tBosbe babe tey i i ' OM ee PRL Ay uteeke DMD nh ley beate pt an ecea Vat Sel pated f j FAL me ra. + Ly hae LT niLalie Fv Hey hte Pn theta bey phat eae i ( A , aia 1 ‘ » Aion tolteibmwee yma tena tel ashe eet rd Pieter LA He , WOR tyha ce te el Wid ptoanedraetes A9TVA yo aan vers \ Put > é STOPUPIELE CMP eC ines ron) Miter tats b7 uta Na mye } ‘ ' y Starts viewene Avily FF aeRe See Vem rie pete td ie de ogi ite ihe paraitane 4 1 : Mates teat As new gerber ete tell Wiehe ; . Heap dds "yes Whisks ie Tin ASLAN ela es ' Ne aia ba pid eye eal pth Siheiba be ne Hein Mite in H , < { ; 4 an eet Velen hSihbrathe heft edia pye’silath { yy 1 , ‘ BY Thee } i Aare Vlada Be) eibake sonny bel BOY ft feuke the pebe SA Man AND eg te oe eknctg hg hatte PHT NY ’ Ly Veet aw oe , rie! wero pore nr rwereet iret fi) bi wa ana PATS ibeohn nibh Pe the tenis pathy Watt’ inysgs B47 F 4 i ‘ \ wereaite Han Lee darat ety py Damage Morte he Ye Stigapheny eps t or ry ean) pve Htedy Oe ed te Heth ty Wb het neni 14 ge ln baiba eaele int ; an ; ; ; \ ite hie via io i Lifietacta san lod one Rett v ian aA ANE 9m Ott P ey ey ei ver lebsnay) Verviue pain us Ameeiy aidanielne ph Nabe f A i bt) AN tah ta dh eee Stee a ‘ vA . wav 4 ‘ shea Goda payer ot i i ’ ' ‘al bee ~ eg HEU ethene posit ' teva Lope , ch le 1 ; 7 q ieee th ete : ‘ 7 ’ "4 ' ‘y : ‘ typ ls raha ti | gb pate eda edet i ) " ’ ! a4 sham iain ro spre ss { ; H wie he yt eae tu ag ; ‘ ' ' ee Het A vrbaene bide i sae ‘i Sjauh \ ‘ \ 2b 4 " F : iseay a ' ‘ PY) : 0 he ts tog ! : mire TiS) srnaicaiie wi ae Ree ' a ’ ype raag? vrai wnert ver ierir ty “ti : Warren Teh Lents ine a pny ¥ 7 , 1 YEE SURE en) avant ad ' \ ‘ Ae Lang ebent yep MP sid UE BED IS ng 7 , Pree er Meir lItre ry oert ic. Brey: We shies 4 avin ay hes abate Anal aa } ‘ . j : evoy seed am Boeleneiry Mai) t { i 4 : mente cre nih: Cea 3 ’ at ‘4 ibeeie dt badn'beduiby tub Vi ) ‘ wen A } i 2 : "1 - ’ yet , Mea aise (994 ht \ 4 Hr bebe lately te fae Aries Pare te : 9 bytes Ap ahdly asAinite \ : oases ae) aha F, ’ ‘ stay . n ‘ i 1 rah “ a ‘ z ak) 04h & Rong dabary 4 Prater ees ay Z iw nrrperr' sty nN pe engtbaahece” sie ewes cry ee *t> - 5 : adage 4 f a ‘ ] § on” pale i ‘ ’ ’ ‘ ' J ‘ ~ +? wer ¥ mn ’ a) i P ery ve seo A ‘ ve tly ' fad , { He . ‘ ‘ ’ ’ ‘ ’ i . ‘ , ris y a ' 5 esti. 2 ! ’ J ” ‘ 1 ie toe ve ’ i : . ov ‘ ‘ : : ‘ Parr ; ‘ ed ; H 7 * tat ‘ \V ‘ Je yee ote ‘ os a ene “ * * eer y ' ” ‘ . * * fi ' oe cove bao! ' y aged e409 7 , ie 08 hh Moths “ pee igen ew Fy ‘ 4 t ’ ; Tava H Le ' 4 ' ) ‘ . 4 Pree rer ina i “ j haebe dove ® P : Lieut . mot roa peyin ebay ite rude ts eh : shee teeqeiayet 3 vor . ae bdaeuons ah , ; ‘ le 1 t ; i i : BULLETINS OF AMERICAN PALEONTOLOGY a VOL. AALX CONTENTS OF VOLUME XXIX Bulletin No. Plates 115. Notes on the Foraminifera from Bowden, Jamaica Sead Dyan ucajie) ery ah Genel xe cn) 24 eee oes els Ee UAE ia eS eA ee RUIN LC 116. Ordovician Cephalopoda of the Cincinnati Region: Part I iby Rousseau Ha delower 2202. 3-52 Licsifs Veer. item rhe Wy BO eel Stel Lk Stuer: RELY eens Rn ah Aree LUN bed Spe Ne eee A eee Pages 1-82 83-738 739-751 BULLETINS AMERICAN PALEONTOLOGY Fs VOL. XXIX * NUMBER IIS Ww+4+5 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTION IrHaca, NEw YorK De Ay BULLETINS OF AMERICAN PALEONTOLOGY Vol. 29 No. 115 ——— x NOTES ON THE FORAMINIFERA FROM BOWDEN, JAMAICA By Dorothy K. Palmer 2 January 3, L945 Paleontological Research institution Ithaca, New York LOS ae CONTENTS Page ERERISCR CEILI GLO Tiempo eects ak eerie es ne ial at ee PUM NC AU lah Autirke | po cay oe ee nes ea laan Pee tebe 3) AVES eC RATIO CL poe ee eed MRR ce Mee TAR EL MAD ea eet OHS COISMELOIN, pe eeseacte rice eter eee La cl n/a ee ee tee Pa a eT ON res ES ONES Y Ee earned reece: area eee Age and correlation CHAU Varma nS alte Lh Teen EE nee es tk 88 Species previously identified from tie typical Bowden SELLE CEACUIEI TI SII cos arse athe US oO eo DWeseription Of) SPECIES’ fot: hccntesctedeecsccn Plates A r. 90% wy ret MUPPe hn ucsct Le pas ye ms Watnie ah. in NOTES ON THE FORAMINIFERA FROM BOWDEN, JAMAICA By Dorothy K. Palmer INTRODUCTION The beautifully preserved molluscan fauna of the Bowden for- mation has been the subject cf numerous reports during the past 80 years. In 1928 Dr. W. P. Woodrine' published a_ notable monograph in which he described 610 forms from the type lo- cality. So complete was this contribution that little of importance has been added since its publication. According to a report quoted by Woodring (Publ. 366, p. 7) much of the material from which the Mollusca were described was collected by shovelling it into barrels from a 2- to 3-foot bed of loosely consclidated vravel in a ae matrix, This method of collecting furnished an unusually large number of small mol- lusks and also about a dozen species of the conspicuous larger Foraminifera. Fifteen species of Foraminifera from Bowden were listed in the Geology cf Jamaica by R. T. Ail This list and some notes on the fauna had been prepared by Dr. R. M. Bagg, Jr. In “Fossil Foraminifera from the West Indies” published in 1919, Dr. J. A. Cushman’ gave another list of species from Bowden. These com- prise the only known lists ci Foraminifera definitely stated as coming from the type locality of the Bowden formation and the total is only 36 species. The Foraminifera listed by these authors are chiefly the larger, conspicuous species and were doubtless separated incidentally to the study of the small mollusks. Since the average fossiliferous horizon in the Caribbean Tertiary usually yields about 100 spec- 1 Woodring, Wendell P.: Miocene Mollusks from Bowden, Jamaica, Carnegie Inst. Washington, Pt. 1. Pelecypods and Scaphopods, Publ. 336, 1925; Pt. II. Gastropods and Discussion of Results, Pubi. 385, 1928. “2 Hill, R. T.: The Geology and Physical Geography of Jamaica, Buil. Mus. Comp. Zool., vol. 24, 1899, pp. 146-152. 3 Cushman, J. A.: Fossil Foraminifera from the West Indies, Carnegie Inst. Washington, Publ. 291, 1919, pp. 27-29. 6 BULLETIN 115 6 ies of Foraminifera it was suspected that there were more than 36 species in the Bowden deposits and that a search of the finer ma- terial of the marly matrix would yield a census comparable to oth- er Caribbean horizons. With this in view the present paper has been prepared. MATERIAL EXAMINED In 1934 Dr. Katherine Van Winkle Palmer made collections at Bowden for Mollusca and she has generously sent me for ex- aniination two large samples of the marly matrix. In addition, the Paleontological Research Institution of Ithaca, New York, has sent two simall samples of matrix from other collections of mol- lusks from Bowden, one by Dr. A. A. Olsson in 1923 (P. R. I. Sta. No. 574) and the other by Dr. C. Rappenecker in 1933 (P. R. I. Sta. No. 1126). In 1940 Dr. H. D. Hedberg madeyarcol- iection at Bowden and also generously shared the sample. Careful examination of these four samples has yielded 171 species and varieties. ‘he samples collected by Olsson and Rappenecker were de- scribed simply as coming from Bowden. Dr. Hedberg’s sample is labelled “type locality of the Bowden formation.” The two large samples from the Bowden formation collected by Dr, Palm- er were described as follows: 1. Port Morant, Jamaica, at foot of hill where road to old Capt. Baker house turns off the main road to Bowden P. O. and the United Fruit Co. wharf. 2. About halfway up the hill, in the side of the road leading to the old Capt. Baker house. This locality is stratigraphically higher than locality 1. The material from Palmer Sta. 1 comprises a rather loosely consolidated, moderately coarse sandstone in a marly matrix with very occasional, small, well-rounded pebbles of altered igneous rock and abundant coral, bryozoan and mollusk frag- ments. The washed residue of the marly matrix is a fine sand composed largely of altered igneous rock grains and a small per- centage of subangular quartz grains and a little gray and pink- ish chert. ~] “I BowDEN ForAMINIFERA: D. K. PALMER The sample from Palmer Sta. 2 is similar to that from Sta. 1 though somewhat more firmly consolidated and containing much less shell debris. Hedberg’s sample is almost identical to that of Palmer Sta. 1 but lacks the abundant shell fragments. The other samples were small in quantity and composed largely of coarse sandstone of fine gravel. All the samples are grayish tan in color. All of the samples yielded abundant Foraminifera. The very coarse siftings contain numerous Cuneolina, Frondicularia, Lie- busella, Spherogypsina and Amphistegina angulata. The mod- erately coarse fraction is dominated by abundant smaller speci- mens of Amphistegina associated with numerous Robulus calcar, Lenticulina bowdenensis, Planulavia woodringi, Eponides cory- elli, E. parantillarum, Dentalina vertebrahs, Elphidium acvena, Cibicides lobatus, C. pseudoungevianus and pelagic species. ‘The finest fraction is characterized by abundant pelagic specimens and the numerous smaller forms listed as common to occasional in the discussion of the ecology which follows. The composition, ecology, and age of the Bowden invertebrate fauna has been very completely treated by Dr. Woodring. Only a few comments, particularly applicable to the Foraminifera, can be added. Composition—The Foraminifera from the material examined from the type locality of the Bowden formation comprises 171 species and varieties of 88 genera. it is fitting to repeat here, in order to emphasize the richness of the Bowden fauna, that in ad- dition to this foraminiferal fauna it contains 610 species of Mol- lusca of which 406 are gastropods (including 3 pulmonates and 4 pteropods), 20 scaphopods and 184 pelecypods together with 17 corals and 33 bryozoans. ‘The material examined also yielded about a dozen species of ostracodes. Occasional fragments of echinoid spines occur in the washings and it is surprising to note that no echinoids have been reported in this large invertebrate fauna. Origin.—The majority of the Bowden Foraminifera are de- scendants of Caribbean upper Oligocene and lower Miocene spec- 8 BuLuEtIN 115 8 ies. There appear to be few newcomers. Relationships to the Caribbean lower Oligocene are not conspicuous except in the case of a few lagenids and rotalids. Age and correlations——The Bowden foraminiferal fauna has a very modern aspect. The majority of the species, approximate- ly 67%, are cither still living or are close relatives of species living in the West Indies. In this connection it is worthy of note that the Bowden foraminiferal fauna contains a few species, about 3%, that do not appear in the late Tertiary or Recent Caribbean fauna but do occur in the late Tertiary or living fauna of the Pacific. That is, they became extinct in the Caribbean region after Bowden time but their descendants survived in the Pacific. Woodring made a similar observation with reference to the Mollusca and listed five species which have analogues living in the Pacific but are not represented in the Recent Carib- bean fauna. He observed :* “The most dramatic event in the history of the West Indian fauna is the wholesale disappearance of genera at and soon after the close of the Miocene time. Genus after genus, many of which are now living on the other side of Central America, then became extinct there and relatively few genera have taken their places.” The Choctawhatchee Miocene fauna of Florida® is very closely related to that of the Bowden. Two small assemblages correlated with the Bowden fauna were described by Cushman and Jarvis® from Buff Bay and Port An- tonio, Jamaica. In a recent paper discussing the late Tertiary geology of Jamaica, Dr. Trechmann’ described sections in the vicinity of Buff Bay and Port Antonio, including the localities 4 Woodring, Wendell P.: Miocene Mollusks from Bowden, Jamaica; Carnegie Inst. Washington, Publ. 385, 1928, p. 28. 5 Cushman, J. A.: The Foraminifera of the Choctawhatchee Formation of Florida, Florida State Geol. Survey, Bull. 4, 1930, 6 Cushman, J. A., and Jarvis, P. W.: Miocene Foraminifera from Buff Bay, Jamaica, Jour. Paleont., vol. 4, No. 4, 1930, pp. 353-68, pls. 32-34; Three new Foraminifera from the Miocene, Bowden marl of Jamaica, Contr. Cushman Lab. Foram. Res., vol. 12, pt. 1, 1936, pp. 305, pl. 1, figs. 11-14. 7 Trechmann, C. T.: The Manchioneal beds of Jamaica, Geol. Mag., vol. LXVII, 1930, pp. 204-5. =) BowvDEN FORAMINIFERA: D. K, PALMER 9 above mentioned, and stated that they are the Manchioneal beds and thus stratigraphically above the Bowden formation. A large fauna from the vicinity of Port-au-Prince, Haiti, described by Coryell and Rivero,’ was assigned to the middle Miocene and considered closely related to the Bowden fauna. This assemblage, as a result of the present study of the fauna of the type locality of the Bowden, is now believed to be slightly older Miocene. The resemblance of the Bowden assemblage to that of the Cuban upper Oligocene Cojimar formation suggests ecological similarity because of the presence of conspicuous large speci- mens of Frondicularia, Cuneolina, Liebusella, Nodosaria, Cris- tellaria and Amphistegina. These genera, though usually rep- resented by distinct species, are conspicuous in the Bowden fauna. Lithologically, however, there is scarcely any resemblance between the two formations. In identity of species, the only described closely related Cuban fauna is that from the late Tertiary of the Canimar River region, Matanzas Province’. This fauna carries a number of species in common with the Bowden fauna but it came from beds strati- graphically above those which have been correlated with the Powden, Summarizing the age of the Bowden molluscan fauna, Dr. Woodring made the following statements: “On the basis of percentage of living species and in terms of the standard European section the Bowden fauna is Miocene, and the evidence seems to warrant considering it middle Miocene (Vindobonian). In terms of the American section it falls at the top of the middle Miocene or at the base of the upper Miocene. 8 Coryell, H. N., and Rivero, F. C.: A Miocene microfauna from Haiti, Jour. Paleont., vol. 14, No. 4, 1949, pp. 524-44, pls. 41-44. 9 Palmer, Dorothy K.: Foraminifera of the upper Oligocene Cojimar formation of Cuba, Mem. Sce. Cubana Hist. Nat., vol. 14, No. 1, 1940. 10 Palmer, Dorothy K., and Bermudez, Pedro J.: Late Tertiary Foram- inifera from the Matanzas Bay region, Cuba, Mem. Soe. Cubana Hist. Nat., vol. 9, No. 4, 1936. 11 Woodring. Wendell P.: Miocene mollusks from Bowden, Jamaica, Camegie Inst. Washington, Publ. 285, 1928, pp, 108, 56, 57, 10 BULLETIN 115 10 “The Powden fossils are more similar to those of the Cercado and Gurabo formations (of the Dominican Republic) than to those of any other Miocene deposits. “Tt is concluded that the Bowden fossils are more like those of the Gurabo formation than like any other Dominican fossils. In view of the closer similarity of the Gurabo and Gatun faunas, .. . and in view of the presence in the Bowden formation of some Recent species not found in either the Gurabo or Gatun forma- tions, the Bowden fossils are regarded as representing a younger horizon.” Additional evidence of the close relationship of the Bowden and Gurabo faunas is found in the fact that Dr. K. V. W. Palmer collected Spondylus bostrichites (Guppy)*? at Sta. 2 of the type Bowden (see locality description above), the type of which species came from the Gurabo formation of the Dominican Re- public. Deposits subsequent to the White limestone of Jamaica, which probably comprises beds of upper Eocene to lower Miocene in- clusively, are mainly marginal. These are limestones, marls, and conglomerates. The gravelly shell marl at Bowden on the south- east coast, is by far the best known of these marginal deposits and its age, by its exceptionally large and well-preserved molluscan fauna, has been well established as Vindobonian, late Miocene. Other marginal deposits, some of them younger than the Bowden, as, for example, the Manchioneal beds of Hill and the Pteropod marl of Barrett, have been referred to in the literature as Bowden in age. This fact is of interest because in 1876 Jones and Park- er’? described 13 species of Foraminifera from a sample _ of Pteropod marl sent them by Lucas Barrett, the director of the Geological Survey of Jamaica. The sample was without locality and following the trend of correlation it has been regarded as Bowden in age. Trechmann, however, believes that the Ptero- 12 Palmer, Katherine VanWinkle: Neocene Spondyli from the southern United States and tropical America, Paleontographica Americana, vol. II, No. 8, 1938, p. 8. 13 Jones, T. Rupert, and Parker, W. K.: Notice sur les Foraminiféres vivants et fossiles de la Jamaique, Ann. Soc. Malac. Belg. vol. 11, 1876, pp. 96-98. if oo -— 11 BowDEN FORAMINIFERA: D. K. PALMER ii pod marl of Barrett is, at least, in part equivalent to the Manchio- neal beds. He has presented the correlation of the Manchioneal beds concisely in the following paragraph’: “The Mollusca and also the Corals of the Manchioneal beds show a decidedly closer affinity with those of the Bowden beds than with the living fauna, a feature I hardly expected to find in view of the position of the beds immediately under the Coral rock or Coast limestone. The number of species in the Bowden fauna closely allied to, if not actually identical with, the living forms is remarkable. Furthermore, the Bowden and Manchi- oneal formations both enter equally slightly into the tectonics of Jamaica. They never occur so far as I know in any of the inland or upland valleys, but are purely marginal in distribution. Hith- erto the Manchioneal beds have been referred by most writers to the Pliocene, presumably on account of their position rather than their fauna, which has been practically uninvestigated, Pos- sibly if they were in Europe the Manchioneal and perhaps also the Bowden beds might be placed in the Pliocene rather than the Miocene.” Possibly this slight difference in age of some of the collec- tions from the late Tertiary may explain the fact noted by Dr. Cushman" that he failed to find in his sample from Bowden a number of the species listed by Jones and Parker from the Ptero- pod marl. In the same volume in which Jones and Parker discussed the sample from the Pteropod marl, H. B. Brady described Spherogypsina (Tinoporus) pilaris from a sample sent him by C. P. Gloyne, from the Miocene limestone of Jamaica in the gorge of Hope River, back of Long Mountain, a few miles east of Kings- ton. This species has also been referred to as coming from the Bowden beds. It is conspicuous at Bowden but the locality from which it was described may or may not be the Bowden formation. Ecology.—The temperature, salinity, character of bottom and 14 Trechmann, C. T.: The Manchioneal beds of Jamaica, Geol. Mag., vol. LXVITI, 1930, p. 216. 15 Cushman, J. A.: Fossil Foraminifera from the West Indies, Car- negie Inst. Washington, Publ. 291, 1919, p. 28, 12 BuLuetin 115 12 depth of water during deposition as indicated by the molluscan fauna have been discussed by Woodring. His conclusions are 16 briefly summarized as follows?®: y - ce _ if number of genera aid species is a measure of temper- ature, the Caribbean Sea during the time when the Bowden for- mation was deposited was at least as warm as it now Is. “Aside from a few species the Rowden mollusks are such as live in the open sea in water having only a slight range of salinity. (P.20); “Tt is apparent from a glance at the faunal list that most of the Bowden mollusks represent the neritic zone, or the zone from low-water mark to a depth of 200 meters, or about 100 fathoms. A few genera, however, were suspected of representing deeper Water: (re. 32)), The study of the Foraminifera provides some detailed evidence supporting those conclusions. The Bowden foraminiferal fauna is obviously tropical in type and would be recognized as such if its geographical origin were not known. The absence of well-preserved specimens of strictly shore or estuarine species and the abundance of pelagic species is evidence of open ocean environment. As in the case cf the molluscan fauna, the foraminiferal fauna appears to have accumulated in moderately deep water. Analysis of the faunal list shows that approximately 70% of the species are still living. Of these living species 3714% are now found characteristically in water deeper than 60 fathoms, some being reported only in depths exceeding 150 fathoms and 13% range from shallow to very deep water. This figure includes 12 pelagic species, which are of course frequently carried inshore but are more normal to deep water assemblages. A considerable number of species of the remaining 50% of the fauna which points to shallow water accumulation, such as most of the Miliolide and Peneroplide, are represented in the collection by a few, frequently poorly preserved, specimens. 16 Woodring, Wendell P.: Miocene mollusks from Bowden, Jamaica, Carnegie Inst. Washington, Publ. 385, 1928. 13 BowDEN FoRAMINIFERA: D. K. PauMrEs 13 Comparison of fossil and Recent faunas, in orcer to determine the depth of water in which the former accumulated, is hampered by the fact that very little information is available concerning the species living between 6o and 150 fathoms. Norton" studied samples from the West Indian and Floridian region which ranged in depth from the beach to 2849 fathoms. He divided his ma- terial into zones on the basis of depth and temperature and pre- pared graphs to show the relationships of the farnilies to the fauna as a whole at different depths. These data are very useful but un- fortunately he did not have samples from a between 60 and 500 fathoms. The following table was prepared for comparison with the zones established by Norton. [t presents the percentages of the species in each family to the fauna as a whole. It does not agree with any of the zonal graphs given by Norton. For example, from the trend of percentages of species in Norton’s zones, the abundance in the Bowcen fauna suzgests that the Miliolide ac- cumulated in depths greater than 2000 fathoms (Zone D), the Lagenidz between 500 and 2000 fathoms (zones C and D) and the Rotaliidz between the beach and 5 fathoms (Zone A). Percentage of Species in each family compared to the Fauna as a whole expressed graphically % Textulariide Bg) || seep , Verneuilinide a , Valvulinide fof eee , Miholidze TOT) |lcersseseetssecececcosnesveentioneet inet onreastestreatceee etrcrrraere eS eaetentass / Ophthalmidiidz 6 | i Placopsilinidee 6 | fe Lagenidz TAL | ee ea earch , Polymorphinide 1 ee , Nonionidz 4.6 Peneroplide 1.2 Heterohelicide m2 eee , Buliminide ee Ellipsoidinidee | 6 \m- f 17 Norton, Richard D.: Ecologic relations of some Foraminifera, Bull. Scripps Instit. Oceanography, Tech. ser., vol. 2, No. 9, 1930, pp. 331-388. 14 BULLETIN 115 14 Rotaliidz TAG pocernnernnnnnnne ns tninnnnnnnnnnn nem has Amphisteginidee| 2.30 |--------- , Cymbaloporidze 16. ee , Cassidulinidee PNG heed ane: , Chilostomellidz ye coc , Globigerinide en ee , Globorotalidz 7 a es , Anomalinidee oa) eine eee nae , Planorbulinidee ee Co 7. Homotremidze — WG Nees! The Bowden list comprises 171 species and varieties of Foram- inifera. Some of these are very rare, a number having been identified from single specimens. ‘the following species are com- mon to occasional in the assemblage: Textulariella barrettii (Jones and Parker) Cuneoclina? angusta Cushman Liebusella soldanii (Jones and Parker) Quinqueloculina lamarekiana d’Orbigny Robulus calear (Linnzeus) Rebulus rotulatus (Lamarck) Lenticulina bowdenensis (Cushman) (Closely related to the living Cristellaria antillea Cushman) Planularia woodringi, n. sp. (Closely related to the living Cristellaria gemmata Brady) Dentalina vertebralis. (Batsch) Saracenaria cushmani, n. sp. Frondicularia sagittula Vanden Broeck Raphanulina gibba (d’Orbigny) Nonion grateloupii (d’Orbigny) Nonion pompilioides (Fichtel and Moll) Elphidium advena (Cushman) Elphidium fimbriatulum (Cushman) Virgulina punctata d’Orhigny Bolivina alata (Seguenza) Bolivina marginata Cushman var. multicostata Cushman Reussella spinulosa (Reuss) var. Cushman and Ponton Uvigerina proboscidea Schwager var. vadescens Cushman Discorbis orbicularis (Terquem) Eponides coryelli, n. sp. (Rare in the deep water off Cuba) Eponides parantillarum Galloway and Heminway Rotalia rosea (d’Orbigny) Siphonina pulchra Cushman Baggina cojimarensis Palmer Asterigerina carinata d’Orbigny Amphistegina angulata (Cushman) ay BOWDEN FORAMINIFERA: D. K. PALMER 15 Amphistegina lessonii (d’Orbigny) var. bowdenensis, n. var. Globigerina bulloides d’Orbigny Globigerina suberetacea Chapman Globigerina triloba Reuss Globigerinoides rubra (d’Orbigny) Globigerinoides sacculifera (Brady) Orbulina universa d’Orbigny Spheroidinella dehiseens (Parker and Jones) Spheroidinella dehiscens (Parker and Jones) var. immetura Cushman Globorotalia menardii (d’Orbigny) Globorotalia menardii (d’Orbigny) var. miocenica, n. var. Cibicides lobatus (d’Orbigny) Cibicides pseudoungerianus (Cushman) Cibieides spirolimbatus Galloway and Heminway Spherogypsina pilaris (Brady) (Closely related to the living Gypsina globulus (Reuss) ) All but five of the species or varieties in the above list are still living or are very closely related to living species. Analysis of the distribution of the living and closely related living forms shows that 50% (including the pelagic species) are now found chiefly at depths of 60 fathoms or more; approximately 39% are found characteristically in shallow water and 11% are found in both shallow and deep water. These percentages again point toward a probable depth habitat of the Bowden fauna of 60 fathoms or slightly more, a conclusion indicated also by the an- alysis of the living species in the fauna as a whole. The abund- ance of individuals of the species of Amphistegina—by far the most numerous forms in the assemblage—appears to contradict this conclusion. However, the living Amphistegina lessonii @Orbigny, though most common to about 30 fathoms, ranges into deep water and according to Brady'® “is found with some frequency down to depths of 300 and 4oo fathoms.” This conclusion is not what wes expected from the inspec- tion of the lithology of the Bowden deposit. Woodring like- wise noted a mixture of shallow-water mollusks with others indicating a depth of 100 fathoms or more. This association of species of diverse depth habitats has no ready explanation. 1s Drady, H. B.: Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool., vol. 9, 1884, p. 741. 15 BULLETIN 115 16 Species previously identified from the typical Bowden.— Only three of the species listed by Bagg and Cushman from the type locality cf the Fowden formation have not been found or provisionally identified with species found in the present collec- tions, The species listed by Bagg (pp. 147-148) have been identified as follows: Haplostiche soldanii (Jones aud Licbusella soldanii (Jones and Parker) Parker ) Textularia barrettii (Jones and Textulariclla barrettii (Jones and Parker ) Parker) Textularia trechus d’Orbigny D’Orbigny’s type of this species was the Cretacesus; no specimens Aires type could be identi- 3 they be immature T. bar- egested by Cuskman. Orbiculina adunca (Fiehtel and Archaias aduncus (Fichtel and Moll) Moll) Orpiculina compressa d’Orbigny Not definitely identified; specimens of Archaias are very poorly pre- served and fragmentary. Cristellaria cultrata (Montfort) Pos Es eultratus Montfort. Cristellaria cassis (ichtel and Moll) Possibly Planularia woodringi, n. sp. Gypsina globulus (euss) SL eee enee pilaris (Brady) Gypsina vesicularis (Parker and Grrsina vesicularis (Parker and Jones) ore) Cuneolina pavonia d’Orbigny eineolin: a? angusta Cushma Cuneclina, sp. perhaps new the microspreric rae of 3.4 sngusta Cushman Vaginulina legumen (Linneus) Possibly herein referred to as Va- gin me clavata Costa Nummulites ramondi d’Archiac This species was not figured by D’Areh: yiaec and cannot be “identified in the collections Amphistegina lessonii d’Orbigny Amphistegina lessonii d’Orbigny var. bowdenensis, n. var. The species listed by Cushman (p. 29) have been identified as follows: Psammosphera fusea Schultze Not identified Haplosticke dubia var. dubia v. Brk. Licbusella soldanii Nene and Par- ker) Haddonia miner Chapman Possibly the very rare ae sp. Textularia barrettii Jones and Par- Textvlariella barrett! (Jones "and ker Parker) Cuneolina pavonia d’Orbigny Cuneolina? angusta Cushman (mie- rospherie form) Cuneolina pavonia var. angusta, n. Cuncolina? angusta Cushman (meg- var. alospherie form) Bulimina ovata d’Orbigny RBulimina oveta d’Orbigny Nodosaria vertebralis Batsch Dentalina vertebralis (Batsch) Frondiewlaria alata d’Orbigny Frondicularia sagittula Vanden Braeck Cristellaria calear Linnzus Robulus calear (Linneus) nz BowvDEN FoRAMINIFERA: D. K. PALMER 17 Cristellaria calear var. aspinosa, n. var. Cristellavia bowdenensis, n. sp. Cristellaria italiea (Defrance) Cristellaria gemmata Brady Glogigerina bulloides d’Orbigny Globigerina rubra d’Orbigny Globigerina seeeulifera Brady Globigerina suberetacea Chapman in }. aTgicine eiseens Var Spheroidina de.isceus var. immatura, n. var. Disecorbis allomorpninoides (Reuss) Truncatulina precineta Karrer Gypsina vesicularis (Parker and Jones) Gypsina globulus var. pilaris (Brady ) Pulvinulina sagra d’Orbigny Ainphistegina lessonii d’Orbigny aub d’Or- bigny Quinqueloculina parkeri var. bowdenensis, n. var. Triloculina brongniartiana d’Or- bigny Triloculina tricarinata d’Orbigny Vertebralina striata d’Orbigny Quingueloeulina eriana Orbiculina compressa d’Orbigny Robulus ealear man) Lenticulina bowdenensis (Cushman) Saracenaria italica Defrance Pisuularia woodringi, n. sp. igerina balloides d’Orbigny vinoides rubra (d‘ Orbigny) (.) var. aspinosa i) (Gus! Gliebigerineies saceulifera (Brady) Clobigerina suberetacca Chapman Sy). ero:dincila dehiseens var. immatura (Cushinan) The type is from the Cretaceous of Westpnalia; probably the form here identified as Baggina Palmer “Iponides coryelli, n. sp. Gypsina vesicularis (Parker and Jones) Sprerogypsina pilaris (Brady) cojimarensis Caneris sagra (d’Orbigny ) Ainphistegina lessonii d’Orbigny var. bowdenensis, n. var. Quinqueloculina lamarckiana d’Or- bigny Quinqueloculina ‘parkeri (Brady) var. bowdenensis Cushman Triloculina brongniartiana d’Or- bigny Triloculina tricarinata d’Orbigny Possibly the poorly preserved Ver- tebralina, sp. listed here. Not definitely identified. The following forms have been described as new: Bartourinelia bermudezi, n. sp. Planularia woodringi, n. sp. Saracenaria cushmani, n. sp. Uvigerina charltone, n. sp. Ellipsonodosaria caribea, n. sp. Eponides coryelli, n. sp. Globorotalia menardii d’Orbigny var. Amphistegina lessonii d’Orbigny var. miocenica, n. var. bowdenensis, n. var. LIST OR SPECIES Textulariide 1. Spiroplectammina gramen (d’Orbigny) 2. Textularia agglutinans d’Orbigny 3. Textularia candeana d’Orbigny 4, Textularia sica Lalicker and Bermudez 5. Bigenerina nodosaria d’Orbigny var. textularioidea (Goés) Verneuilinide §. Verneuilina mexicana Nuttall 7. Bermudezina ef. B. pariana (Guppy) 8. Pseudoclavulina mexicana Cushman 9. Barbourinella bermudezi, n. sp. Valvulinide 10. Clavulina tricarinata d’Orbigny 18 iil 12. 1G 14. 15. BuuLueTIn 115 Dorothia caribeea Cushman Listerella nodulosa (Cushman) Textulariella barrettii (Jones and Parker) Cuneolina? angusta Cushman Liebusella soldanii (Jones and Parker) Miliolidee 16. Ife . Quinqueloculina ef. Q. panamensis Cushman . Quingueloculina parkeri (Brady) var. bowdenensis Cushman . Quinqueloculina ef. Q. philippi Reuss 21. Quinqueloculina ef. Q. polygona d’Orbigny '2, Massilina crenata ogee . Spiroloculina depressa d ’Orbigny Quinqueloculina collumnosa Cushman Quinqueloculina lamarckiana d’Orbigny 24. Spiroloculina poeyiana d’Orbigny . Sigmoilina ef. S. schlumbergeri A. Silvestri ; Sigmoilina tenuis (Czjzek) : Triloculina brongniartiana d’Orbigny 28. Triloeulina carinata d’Orbigny . Triloculina linneiana d’Orbigny . Triloculina quadrilateralis d’Orbigny . Triloculina transversistriata Brady . Triloculina tricarinata d’Orbigny 3. Pyrgo denticulata (Brady) var. striolata (Brady) . Pyrgo subspherica (d’Orbigny) Gpuieainidide 35. Vertebralina, sp. Placopsilinidee 36. Haddonia, sp. Lagenide 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44, 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 04. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. Robulus calear (Linneus) Robulus calear (Linneeus) var. aspinosa (Cushman) Robulus elericii (Fornasini) Robulus cultratus Montfort Robulus faleifer (Stache) Robulus cf. R. foliatus (Stache) Robulus iota (Cushman) Robulus occidentalis (Cushman) var. torrida (Cushman) Robulus rotulatus (Lamarck) Robulus submamilligerus (Cushman) Lenticulina bowdenensis (Cushman) Planularia woodringi, n. sp. Astacolus crepidula (Fichtel and Moll) Dentalina cf. D. baggi Gallowey and Wissler Dentalina vertebralis (Batsch) Lagenonodosaria, sp. Saracenaria cushmani, n. sp. Saracenaria italica Defrance Vaginulina clavata Costa Vaginulina? ef. V. peregrina Cushman Frondicularia sagittula Vanden Broeck Lagena hexagona (Williamson) var. sealariformis (Williamson) Lagena cf. L. marginata (Walker and Boys) Lagena marginato-perforata Seguenza 18 19 BowDEN FORAMINIFERA: D. K. PALMER Polymorphinide = 61. Guitulina lactea (Montagu) var. earlandi Cushman and Ozawa 62. Naphanulina gibba (d’Orbigny ) o3. Aumuliina globulifera Brady Nonionide 64. Nonion grateloupii (d’Orbigny) 65. Nonion nicobarense Cushman 66. Nonion pompilicices (Fiehtel and Moil) 67. Astrononion ef. A. stelligerum (d’Orbigny ) 68. Hliphidium advena (Cushman) 69. Eiphidium fimbriatulum (Cushman) 70. Elphidium lanieri (d’Orbigny ) 71. wiphidium poeyanum (d’Orbigny) Penerophde 72. Archaias adunecus (Fichtel and Moll) 73. Sorites, sp. Heterohelicidee 74. Bolivinella folium (Parker and Jones) 75. Plectofrondicularia floridana Cushman Suliminidee 75. Buliminella puichra Tolmachoff 77. Bulimina marginata d’Orbigny 78. Bulimina ef. ovata d’Orbigny 79. Virgulina mexicana Cushman 80. Virgulina punctata d’Orbigny 81. Bolivina alata (Seguenza) 82. Bolivina arta Macfadyen 83. Bolivina bierigi Palmer and Bermudez 84. Bolivina marginata Cushman var. multicostata Cushman 85. Bolivina pulchella (d’Orbigny ) 86. Bolivina rhomboidalis (Millett) 87. Bolivina scalprata Schwager var. miocenica Macfadyen 88. Bolivina subsenariensis Cushman var. mexicana Cushman 89. Bolivina tortuosa Brady 90. Loxostomum lLmbatum (Brady) var. costulatum (Cushman) 91. Reussella spinulosa (Reuss) 92. Reussella spinulosa (Heuss) var. Cushman and Ponton 93. Pavonina miocenica Cushman and Ponton $4. Uvigerina charltonee, n. sp. 95. Uvigerina coartata Palmer 96. Uvigerina pigmea d’Orbigny 97. Uvigerina cf. U. selseyensis Heron-Allen and Harland 98. Uvigerina proboscidea Schwager var. vadescens Cushman 99. Siphogenerina advena Cushman 100. Siphogenerina ef. §. raphanus (Parker and Jones) 101. Angulogerina carinata Cushman 102. Angulogerina ef. A. eximia Cushman and Jarvis Ellipsoidinidee 108. Ellipsonodosaria caribeea, n. sp. Rotaliidee 104, Spirillina aff. S. vivipara Ehrenberg 105. Discorbis bertheloti (d’Orbigny) var. floridensis Cushman 106. Discorbis cf. D. corrugatus (Millett) 107. Discorbis cushmani Palmer and Bermudez 108. Discorbis floridanus Cushman 109. Discorbis mirus Cushman 20) BuLuLETIN 115 20 110. Diseorbis ef. D. obtusus (d’Orbigny) 111. Discorbis orbicularis (Terquem) 112. Discorbis pileolus (d’Orbigny) 13. Lamarekina atlantica Cushman 114, Vaivulineria araucana (d’Orbigny) 115. Cibicorbis herricki Hadley 116. Gyroidina ef. G. soldanii d’Orbigny 117. Kponides coryelli, n. sp. 118. Eponices lateralis (Terquem) 119, Wponides parantillarum Galloway and Heminway 120." Eponides pulvinus Galloway and Heminway i2), Reralia becearii oa us) var. tepida Cushman 122. Rotalia i1osea (d’ poe. 24. Hotalia cf. RK. tholus Galloway and Heminway Kpistomina elegans (d’Orbigny) Siplonina pulehra Cushman Supouinelia seluta (Brady) Caneris sagra (d’Orbigny) . Baggina cojimavensis Palmer Auphisiegini dee 129. Asterigerina carinata d’Orbigny 150. Amphisi tezina angulata (Cushman) 141. Amphistegina chipolensis Cushman and Po1.ton 82. Ammphistegina lessonii d’Orbigny var. bowdenensis, n. var. Cymbaloporide 133. ‘iretomphalus atiantieus Cushman Cassidulinidee 134. Cassidulina crassa d’O rbigny 185. Cassiculiia levigata d’Orbigny var. carmata Cusaman 136. Cassidwina subglobosa Brady 137. Cassidulinoides bradyi (Norman) 138. Cassidulinoides cf. C. parkerianus (Brady) Chilostomellidee 139. Chilostomella ezizeki Reuss 140. Pullenia spheroides (d’Orbigny ) 141. Spheroidina bulloides d’Orbigny Globigerinide 142. Globigerina bulloides d’Orbigny 143. Globigerina suberctacea Chapman 144. Globigerina triloba Reuss 145. Globigerinoides rubra (d’Orbigny ) 146. Globigerinoides sacculifera (Brady) 147. Globigerinella sequilateralis (Brady) 148. Orbulina universa d’Orbigny 149. Spheroidinella dehiscens (Parker and Jones) 150. Sphzercidinella dehiseens (Parker and Jones) var. immatura (Cush- man) Globorotaliidee 151. Globetrucana, sp. (probably derived from the Upper Cretaceous) 152. Globorctalia menardii (d’Orbigny) 153. Globorotalia menardii (d’Orbigny) var. miccenica, n. var. 154. Globorotalia truncatulinoides (d’Orbigny) Anomalinidee 155. Planulina edwardsiana (d’Orbigny) var. canimarensis Palmer and Bermudez 21 BowDEN FoORAMINIFERA: D. K. PALMER 21 156. Planulina foveolata (Brady) 157. Cibicides candei (d’Orbigny ) 158. Cibicides concentricus (Cushman) 159. Cibicides lobatus (d’Orbigny) 160. Cibicides nucleatus (Seguenza) 161. Cibicides perforatus Coryell and Rivero 162. Cibicides pseudoungerianus (Cushman) 163. Cibicides robertsonianus (Brady) var. haitiensis Coryell and Rivero 164, Cibicides spirolimbatus Galloway and Heminway 165. Dyocibicides ef. D. biserialis Cushman and Valentine 166. Cibicidella variabilis (d’Orbigny) Planorbulinidee 167. Planorbulina acervalis Brady 168. Planorbulina mediterranensis d’Orbigny 169. Gypsina vesicularis (Parker and Jones) 170. Spherogypsina pilaris (Brady) Homotremide 171. Homotrema ef. H. rubrum (Lamarck) DESCRIPTION/OE)SPECIES Family TEXTUOLARIID Genus SPIROPLECTAMMINA Cushman, 1927 Spiroplectammina gramen (d’Orbigny) Vulvulina gramen d’Orbigny, 1840, in De la Sagra, Hist. Fis., Pol., Nat. Cuba, Foraminiferas, (Spanish ed.), p. 139, pl. 1, figs. 30, 31. Textularia transversaria Flint, 1897 (1899), Rep. U. S. Nat. Mus., p. 283, pl. 28, fig. 4. Not Brady. Textularia floridana Cushman, 1922, Carnegie Inst. Washington, Publ. 311, p. 24, pl. 1, fig. 7; Cushman, 1922, U. S. Nat. Mus., Bull. 104, pt. 3, p. 18, pl. 2, figs. 11, 12; Bermudez, 1935, Mem. Soc. Cubana Hist. Nat., vol. 9, No. 3, p. 152. Spiroplectammina gramen (d’Orbigny), Lalicker and Bermudez, 1941, Torreia (Habana), No. 8, p. 3, pl. 1, figs. 5, 6. Specimens are rare at Sta. 1. They attain greater size than has been indicated in the descriptions (maximum length, .83 mm.) and more closely resemble the original figure of 7. floridana Cushman (which has been placed in synonomy with D’Orbigny’s species) than either the original figure of Vulvulina gramen or the latest figures by Lalicker and Bermudez. The species has been reported by Lalicker and Bermudez from shallow water to 225 fms. (Atlantis stations) off the coast of Cuba. Genus TEXTULARIA Defrance, 1824 Textularia agglutinans d’Orbigny Textularia agglutinans d’Orbigny, 1839, in De la Sagra, Hist. Phys., Pol., Nat. Cuba, ‘‘Foraminiféres’’, p. 136, pl. 1, figs. 17, 18, 32, 34; Lalicker and Bermudez, 1941, Torreia (Habana), No. 8, p. 6, pl. 1, fig. 7 (references). Rare in the Bowden deposit; specimens agree well with the 22 BuLuetin 115 22 description and figures by Lalicker and Bermudez (1941). Yextularia candeana d’Orbigny!9 ; , ; Textularia candeana d’Orbigny, 1839, in De la Sagra, Hist. Fis., Pol., Nat. Cuba, ‘‘Foraminiféres,’’ p. 143, pl. 1, figs. 25-27; Cushman, 1919, Carnegie Inst. Washington, Publ. 291, p. 32; Lalicker and Bermu- dez, 1941, Torreia (Habana), No. 8, p. 8, pl. 2, fig. 4 (references). — Texiularia candeana d’Orbigny, Galloway and Heminway, 1941, Sci. Surv. Porto Rico, New York Acad. Sci., vol. 3, p. 328, pl. 8, fig. 5. Specimens are rare; they agree well with the figures by Lalicker and Bermudez (1941). Textularia sica Lalicker and Bermudez Yeatularia sica Lalicker and Bermudez, 1941, Torreia (Habana), No. 8, p- 16, pl. 4, figs. 5, 6. The species was described from the north coast of Cuba, “Aé- lantis’ Station 2999, 230 fathoms. It is rare at Bowden. The specimens agree closely with the original figures. Genus BIGENERINA d’Orbigny, 1826 Bigenerina nodosaria d’Orbigny var. textularioidea (Goés) Veatularia sagittula Defrance, forma Bigenerina Goés, 1882, Kongl, Svensk. Vet. Akad. Handl., vol. 19, pt. 4, p. 78, pl. 5, figs. 159, 160. Clavulina textularioidea Goés, 1894, Kongl. Svensk. Vet. Akad. vol. 25, p. 42, pl. 8, figs. 387-389; 1896, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zod6l., p. 37, pl. 4, figs. 26-38. Bigenerina nodosaria d’Orbigny var. textularioidea Goés, Cushman, 1922, U. 8S. Nat. Mus., Bull. 104, pt. 3, p. 25, pl. 5, figs. 8, 9; Cushman and Cahill, 1933, U. S. Geol. Survey, Prof. Paper 175, p. 8, pl. 1, fig. 14 (references );-Lalicker and Bermudez, 1941, Torreia (Habana), No. eh 10 ey) OLE Anite 26 Very rare. ‘The specimens are of the type figured by Cushman and Cahill (1933) but have fewer uniserial chambers. Family VERNEUILINIDA Genus VERNEUILINA d’Orbigny, 1840 Verneuilina mexicana Nuttall Vernewiina mexicana Nuttall, 1932, Jour. Paleont., vol. 6, No. 1, p. 6, pl. 2, figs. 1, 2; Palmer and Bermudez, 1936, Mem. Soc. Cubana Hist. Nat., vol. 10, No. 4, p. 242; Palmer, 1940, Mem. Soc. Cubana Hist. Nat., vol. 14, No. 2, p. 117, pl. 17, fig. 9; Galloway and Heminway, 1941, New York Acad. Sci., Sci. Survey Porto Rico and Virgin Islands, vol. III, pt. 4, p. 321, pl. 6, fig. 5. Karreriella mexicana (Nuttall), Cushman, 1937, Cushman Lab. Foram. Res. Special Publ., No. 8, p. 130, pl. 15, figs. 13, 14. Very rare. ‘The specimens are large and quite typical except that the aperture is indistinct. 19 Galloway and Heminway call attention to the fact that D’Orbigny corrected the spelling of this species to ‘‘candeana’’ in the Spanish edi- tion (1840) of the Cuba monograph. Pep! BowDEN FoRAMINIFERA: D. K. PALMER 23 Genus BERMUDEZINA Cushman, 1937 Bermudezina ef. B. pariana (Guppy) Gaudryina pariana Guppy, 1894, Proce. Zodl. Soc. London, p. 651, pl. 41, figs. 21, 22. Bermudezina pariana (Guppy), Cushman, 1937, Cushman Lab. Foram. Res., Special Publ., No. 7, p. 103, pl. 13, figs. 13, 14, 17, 18; Palmer, 1940, Mem. Soc. Cubana Hist. Nat., vol. 14, No. 2, p. 140, pl. 17, fig. 10. Rare. The biserial portion is more distinctly triangular in section than is indicated by the figures given by Cushman (1937) and the triserial portion is longer than that indicated by the fig- ure of the upper Oligocene Cojimar specimen from Cuba (Palmer, 1940). Genus PSEUDOCLAVULINA Cushman, 1936 Pseudoclavulina mexicana (Cushman) Clavulina humilis Brady, var. mexicana Cushman, 1922, U. S. Nat. Mus., Bull. 104, pt. 3, p. 83, pl. 16, figs. 1-3; Cushman and Jarvis, 1930, Jour. Paleont., vol. 4, No. 4, p. 355, pl. 32, fig. 3. Pseudoclavulina mexicana (Cushman), Cushman, 1937, Cushman Lab. Foram Res., Special Publ., No. 7, p. 117, pl. 16, figs, 5-11; Coryell and Rivero, 1940, Jour. Paleont., vol. 14, No. 4, p. 325, pl. 43, fig. 4; Palmer, 1940, Mem. Soc. Cubana Hist. Nat., vol. 14, No. 2, p. 120; pl. 18, fig, 11. Rare specimens with a very short triserial portion are quite similar to the form figured by Cushman and Jarvis from Buff Bay. Genus BARBOURINELLA Bermudez, 1939 Barbourinella bermudezi, n. sp. Plate 1, figs. la-b Test of medium size for the genus, elongated, triserial and triangular in cross section throughout; broadest in the middle, narrowing to the bluntly pointed apex and truncated apertural extremities; angles acute; sutures very slightly depressed and inconspicuous; aperture a short tube in the face of the final chamber, removed from the margin; surface finely arenaceous with much cement. Rather rare at Bowden. Length of holotype, 0.7 mm.; maximum diameter, 0.38 mm. The new species differs from B. atlantica Bermudez*® in hav- ing only slightly depressed sutures and smoothly finished surface with much cement. Holotype.—No. 20040, Paleontological Research Institution. 20 Bermudez, Pedro J.: Nuevo genero y especies nuevas de fora- miniferos, Mem. Soc. Cubana Hist. Nat., vol. 13, No. 1, 1939, p. 10, pl. 1, figs. 1-4. 24 BULLETIN 115 24 Family VALVULINID Genus CLAVULINA d’Orbigny, 1826 Clavulina tricarinata d’Orbigny Clavulina tricarinata d’Orbigny, 1839, in De la Sagra, Hist. Phys., Pol. Nat. Cuba, ‘‘Foraminiféres’’, p. 111, pl. 2, figs. 16-18; Galloway and Heminway, 1941, Sci. Surv. Porto Rico, vol. 3, New York Acad. Sci., D520, pl. vi, cigs, S. Very rare. Genus DOROTHIA Plummer, 1931 Dorothia caribea Cushman Dorothia caribaea Cushman, 1936, Special Publ., No. 6, Cushman Lab Foram. Res., p. 31, pl. 5, fig. 3; 1937, Special Publ., No. 8, p. 99, pl. Hil, wes Very rare. A single specimen from Palmer Sta. 1 agrees well with the figure of the type which came from an Adlantis station in 305 fathoms off Cabo Cruz, Cuba, Genus LISTERELLA Cushman, 1933 Listerella nodulosa (Cushman) Clavulina communis Brady, 1884, (in part), Rept. Voy. Challenger, Zool. vol. 9, p. 394, pl. 48, figs. 9-13; Cushman and Jarvis, 1940, Jour. Paleont., vol. 4, No. 4, p. 356, pl. 32, fig. 4. Clavulina communis d’Orbigny var. nodulosa Cushman, 1922, U. 8S. Nat. Mus., Bull. 104, pt. 3, p. 85, pl. 18, figs. 1-3. Listerella nodulosa (Cushman), Cushman, 1937, Cushman Lab. Foram. Res., Spec. Publ., No. 8, p. 150, pl. 17, figs. 13-19. Very rare; immature specimens are tentatively assigned to this species. They comprise an expanded fusiform apex with 3 or 4 rectilinear chambers separated by distinct, moderately de- Determination of species is unsatisfactory from pressed sutures. immature specimens; they most closely resemble the apical ex- tremity of Atlantic specimens figured by Cushman (1937, figs. 16 and 19) and are quite close to the specimens from Buff Bay, Jamaica (Cushman and Jarvis, 1940, listed as C. communis) ex- cept that the apex is regularly fusiform. Genus TEXTULARIELLA Cushman, 1927 Textulariella barrettii (Jones and Parker) Textularia barrettii Jones and Parker, 1863, Rep. Brit. Assoc. New- castle Meeting, pp. 80, 105; 1876, Ann. Soc. Mal. Belg. vol. 11, p 99, text fig.; Cushman, 1919, Carnegie Inst. Washington, Publ. 291, p. 31, pl. 6, figs. 5-7; 1922, U. S. Nat. Mus., Bull. 104, pt. 3, p. 20, pl. 3, figs. 3-6. Textulariella barrettii (Jones and Parker), Palmer, 1936, Mem. Soe. Cubana Hist. Nat., vol. 9, No. 4, p. 239; Cushman, 1937, Cushman Lab. Foram. Res., Special Publ., No. 8, p. 66, pl. 7, figs. 5-8; Palmer, 25 BowvEN FORAMINIFERA: D. K, PALMER 25 1938, Mem. Soc. Cubana Hist. Nat., vol. 12, No. 4, p. 299, pl. 23, fig. 14; Coryell and Rivero, 1940, Jour. Paleont., vol. 14, No. 4, p. 325; Galloway and Heminway, 1941, New York Acad. Sci., Sci. Sur- vey Porto Rico and Virgin Islands, vol. 3, pt. 4, p. 332, pl. 7, fig. 9. This species was common in the material examined by Cush- man. It is occasional in the Bowden samples at hand. Speci- mens resemble those figured by Cushman (1919). They are with difficulty distinguished from those believed to be immature Cuneolina? angusta Cushman. Several characters have been used in separating the two forms: specimens referred to Textu- lariella are usually slightly less compressed than those referred to Cuneolina?; the sutures are very slightly elevated and the margin of the final chamber is angled in the former while in the latter the sutures are gently depressed and the margin of the final chamber is well rounded. The constant association of Textulariella barrettu with Cuneo- lina? in the Tertiary and Recent of the Caribbean area, as well as their morphological relationship, has been repeatedly noted and it is believed that some specimens figured as Textulariella bar- rettii are actually Cuneolina? angusta C. (Palmer, 1938). There- fore not only the specific but also the generic determination should be reéxamined. Since the genotype came from the Caribbean Sea it is hoped that the study of the “Atlantis” material from this area will clarify its relationship to the living forms referred to Cuneolina., This species is widely distributed in the Caribbean area. Cush- man (1922) recorded it from 37 to 338 fathoms. Norton?’ found it at 60 fathoms and made the following comment: “Like the Textularia, this genus usually appears at shallow depths, although Flint records it off the Bahamas in 338 fathoms.” Genus CUNEOLINA d’Orbigny, 1839 Cuneolina? angusta Cushman Textularia trochus Goés, 1882, Kongl. Svensk. Vet. Akad. Handl., vol. 19, No. 4, p. 80, pl. 5, figs. 167-70; pl. 6, figs. 171, 172. Not D’Orbigny. Cuneolina pavonia Jones and Parker, 1876, Ann. Soc. Mal. Belg., vol. 11, p- 98; Hill, 1899, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., vol. 34, p. 147; Cushman, 1919, Carnegie Inst. Washington, Publ. 291, p. 34, pl. 7, fig. 1. Not 21 Norton, Richard D.: Ecologic relations of some Foraminifera, Bull. Scripps Inst. Oceanography, La Jolla, California, Tech. Ser., vol. 2, No, 9, 1930, p. 337. 26 BULLETIN 115 26 D’Orbigny. Textularia barrettii Flint, 1897 (1899) Ann. Rept. U. 8S. Nat. Mus., p. 285, pl. 30, fig. 2. Not Jones and Parker. Cuneolina pavonia d’Orbigny var. angusta Cushman, 1919, Carnegie Inst. Washington, Publ. 291, p. 34, pl. 7, fig. 2. Cuneolina angusta Cushman, 1922, U. S. Nat. Mus., Bull. 104, pt. 3, p. 53, pl. 10, figs. 1-3; 1937, Cushman Lab. Foram. Res., Special Publ., No. 8, p. 69, pl. 7, figs. 19-22; Palmer, 1938, Mem. Soe. Cubana Hist. Nat., vol. 12, No. 4, p. 296, pl. 19, fig. 5, pl. 20, figs. 15-17, 20; pl. 21, figs. 3-5; pl. 23, figs. 1-3. Cuneolina angusta Cushman var. lata Cushman, 1922, U. S. Nat. Mus., Bull. 104, pt. 3, p. 54; Palmer, 1938, Mem. Soc. Cubana Hist. Nat., vol. 12, No. 4, p. 297, pl. 19, fig. 2, pl. 23, figs. 5-7. This is one of the most conspicuous species in the Bowden samples. Most of the specimens are of average size for the Ter- tiary and Recent forms referred to this genus and are narrow in side view; occasional specimens are very large and flabelli- form, attaining 6 mm. in maximum diameter. Both of these forms were reported by Dr. Cushman (1919), the broad form being re- ferred to C. pavonia d’Orbigny and the narrow one to a new variety angusta. In the monograph of the Textulariidz of the Atlantic Ocean, Dr. Cushman (1922, p. 53) indicated his conclusion that the spec- imens in the Bowden marl were undoubtedly distinct from the Cretaceous C. pavonia d’Orbigny. The narrow form occurring at Bowden was considered the same as the living Caribbean spe- cies and consequently the name, C. angusta, was applied to both. At the same time the broad form occurring at Bowden was given a new varietal name, lata, with the note that it had not been found in the Recent material. In the revision of the Valvulinide (1937, p. 69) Dr. Cushman concluded that the flabelliform specimens from Bowden, C. an- gusta var, lata, were probably the megalospheric representative of the species and it was therefore placed in synonymy with C. an- gusta. as The genus has been living in the Caribbean area from late Oligocene time. C. cojimarensis Palmer, described from the up- per Oligocene of Cuba (1938, p. 298; 1940, p. 122), is distinct from the species living in Cuban waters, of which abundant spe- cimens are available for comparison, and also from the Cuban bo “Jj 27 : BowDEN FORAMINIFERA: D. K. PALMER Miocene species. Unfortunately, at the time this species was described the specimens from Bowden were not available for comparison but the original description and figures indicated spe- cific distinction which has been corroborated by examination of actual specimens. The specimens from Bowden have been examined with care. In spite of the fact that they are not uncommon in the collection, scarcely any can be found in which the apex is not eroded. From the partial sections prepared it has been concluded that the broad form is probably microspheric (not megalospheric as suspected by Dr. Cushman) and the narrow form is megalospheric. Both forms are therefore referred to the species C. angusta. As stated above, the species is distinct from the upper Oligocene C. cojimar- ensis Palmer. It also appears to be distinct from the living Carib- bean form as reference to the figures and discussion of the genus indicates (Palmer, 1938). This specific distinction is empha- sized by the absence of the broad member of the pair from the Recent fauna. The living specimens are being carefully studied and sectioned and the results will soon be available. Since the type of C. angusta came from Bowden the specific reference of the living form is not involved in this re-study of Bowden speci- mens. The generic reference of these specimens is not satisfactory. Cuneolina pavonia d’Orbigny, the genotype, came from the Sen- onian of France. Comparative Cretaceous material is not avail- able. However, specimens closely resembling C. conica d’Orbigny, as figured by Schlumberger, have been found in upper Cretaceous deposits in the Caribbean area (Palmer, op. cit. 1938, p. 295). These are with little doubt generically distinct from the Tertiary and Recent species which have been referred to Cuneo- lina. Also, these Tertiary and Recent species of Cuneolina? are closely related to Textulariella barrettii (Jones and Parker), the type of that genus. In fact, immature specimens believed to be C. angusta are with difficulty distinguished from T. barrettii. The revision of the generic nomenclature therefore involves not only the careful study of the Cretaceous genotype of Cuneolina but also the study of the relationship of the living species referred to Cuneolina with Textulariella barretti.. 28 BuLuetin 115 28 This species is occasional at Bowden but conspicuous because of its size. The living species of Cuneolina has been reported by Cushman as common at 100 fathoms. Genus LIEBUSELLA Cushman, 1933 Liebusella soldanii (Jones and Parker) Lituola soldanii Jones and Parker, 1860, Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc., vol. 16, p. 307, No. 184; Carpenter, Parker and Jones, 1862, Introd. Foram., pl. 6, figs. 42, 43; Jones and Parker, 1876, Ann. Soe. Malace. Belg. vol. 11, p. 98. Liebusella soldanii (Jones and Parker), Cushman, 1937, Cushman Lab. Foram. Res., Special Publ., No. 8, p. 166, pl. 20, figs. 1-11; Palmer, 1938, Mem. Soc. Cubana Hist. Nat., vol. 12, No. 4, p. 282, pl. 19, figs. 1, 3, 6, 9, 10; pl. 20, figs. 6, 7; pl. 22, figs. 21, 22 (see synonymy). Lituola soldanit Jones and Parker var. intermedia Van den Broeck, 1876, Ann. Soc. Belge Micr., vol. 2, p. 74, pl. 2, figs. 1, 3, 4, 6. Haplostiche dubia (d’Orbigny) var. intermedia (Van den Broeck), Cush- man, 1919, Carnegie Inst. Washington, Publ. 291, p. 30, pl. 6, figs. 1-4; Cushman and Jarvis, 1930, Jour. Paleont., vol. 4, No. 4, p. 354, Diese pole Liebusella soldanii (Jones and Parker) var. intermedia (Van den Broeck) Cushman, 1937, Cushman Lab. Foram. Res., Special Publ., No. 8, p. 167, pl. 20, figs. 12-14; Palmer, 1938, Mem. Soc. Cubana Hist. Nat. vol. 12, No. 4, p. 285, pl. 19, figs. 4, 7, 8; pl. 20, fig. 1; pl. 21, figs. 1, 2; pl. 22, figs. 17-20 (see synonymy). Two forms are conspicuous and abundant in the Bowden samples. The elongate form with well-depressed sutures (var. intermedia) is more abundant than the short, stout, smaller form with less conspicuous sutural depressions. Partial sections in- dicate that the var. intermedia is microspheric and the typical species is megalospheric. For this reason the variety has been placed in the synonymy. The occurrence of this species in the Caribbean area has been discussed in detail (Palmer, D. K., 1938). Specimens from the upper Oligocene of Cuba are much smaller than those from the Miocene and Recent but are otherwise typical. The specimen figured as var. intermedia by Cushman and Jarvis from Buft Bay, Jamaica, is smaller than the average microspheric specimen from Bowden and lacks the pronounced sutural depressions and is considered more probably a megalospheric specimen (Palmer, 1938, p. 287). The typical species are not listed from Bowden by Cushman in 1919 but later (1937, p. 167) he noted that it does occur there occasionally. The abundance of this species in the Bowden samples gives 29 BowvDEN FORAMINIFERA: D. K. PALMER 29 it importance as an index to the conditions under which the sedi- ments accumulated. The following are records of its occurrence in the Caribbean: Brady, H. B., (1884), 40-435 fms.?? Flint, J. M., (1897), 196-210 fms.?% Cushman, J. A., (1920), 60-210 fms.”* Family MILIOLIDA® Genus QUINQUELOCULINA d’Orbigny, 1826 Guingueloculina collumnesa Cushman Quingueloculina collumnosa Cushman, 1922, Carnegie Inst. Washington, Publ. 311, p. 65, pl. 10, fig. 10; 1929, U. S. Nat. Mus., Bull. 104, pt. Gepost pls 3 toa: A single specimen found in Hedberg’s sample resembles the type except that the aperture is not so elongate and may have been broken. Quinqueloculina lamarckiana d’Orbigny Quinqueloculina lamarckiana d’Orbigny, 1839, in De la Sagra, Hist. Phys., Pol., Nat. Cuba, ‘‘Foraminiféres’’, p. 189, pl. 11, figs. 14, 15; Cushman, 1922, Carnegie Inst. Washington, Publ. 311, p. 64; 1929, U. S. Nat. Mus., Bull. 104, pt. 6, p. 26, pl. 2, fig. 6; 1930, Florida State Geol. Survey, Bull. 4, p. 20, figs. 3-5. Only occasional but the most common of the Miliolide. The specimens may be compared with the figure of a specimen from Tortugas, Florida, given by Cushman (1929). Quinqueloculina cf. @. panamensis Cushman Quinqueloculina panamensis Cushman, 1918, U. 8. Nat. Mus., Bull. 103, Drec0, pl. ok, ng. 2: Several specimens rather closely resemble the original figures of this species from the Gatun formation except that they do not become so loosely coiled and the final chamber is not separated from the others. Ouingueloculina parkeri (Brady) var. bowdenensis Cushman Quinqueloculina parkeri (Brady) var. bowdenensis Cushman, 1919, Car- negie Inst. Washington, Publ. 291, p. 68, pl. 14, fig. 6. Occasional. Ouingueloculina cf. Q. philippi Reuss Quingueloculina philippi Reuss, 1856, Sitz. k. Akad. Wiss., Wien, vol. 22 Brady, H. B.: Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zo0l., vol. 9, 1884, p. 319. 23 Flint, James M.: Recent Foraminifera. A descriptive catalogue of specimens dredged by the U. 8S. Fish Commission Steamer Albatross. Rept. U. 8. Nat. Mus., 1897, (1899), p. 277. 24 Oushman, J. A.: The Foraminifera of the Atlantic Ocean, U. 8. Nat. Mus., Bull. 104, pt. 2, 1920, p. 34. 30 BULLETIN 115 30 18, p. 252, pl. 9, fig. 87; Galloway and Heminway, 1941, Sci. Survey Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands, New York Acad. Sci., vol. III, pt. 4, p. 303, pl. 2, fig. 4. A single specimen closely resembles the specimen figured by Galloway and Heminway and differs from the type figure in having more nearly parallel margins in side view and in having more compressed chambers. Quingueloculina cf. @. polygena d’Orbigny Quinqgueloculina polygona @’Orbigny, 1859, in De la Sagra, Hist. Phys., Pol., Nat. Cuba, ‘‘ Foraminiféres’’, p. 198, pl. 12, figs. 21-28; Cush- man, 1929, U. S. Nat. Mus., Bull. 104, pt. 6, p. 28, pl. 3, fig. 5; Ber= mudez, 1935, Mem. Soc. Cubana Hist. Nat., vol. 9, No. 3, p. 159. Very rare. The specimens have less distinctly separated cham- bers than the type and in this more closely resemble the speci- men from Tortugas figured by Cushman (1929). Genus MASSILINA Schlumberger, 1893 ? Massilina crenata (Karrer) Spiroloculina crenata KK 252 253 255 255 gat 259 259 261 262 265 264: 265 266 OD, O77 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 284 285 286 287 295 _ 297 Morogcerws: wublevatah mee eaer ys Meck Aer a yale, eee al LD Ore 299 O. sine Gi Flower, n. sp. 305 307 307 307 IV BULLETIN 116 IV O. multicameratum Flower 307 O. gracilicurvatum Flower 5308 O. triangulatum Flower 308 O. triangulatum var. cylindratum Flower 308 O. suborthoforme Flower Seren Atel hS OVe penne imei, EN Oye aie SIO (crt eeectesse ceea.ne. asserts stigctonsctsseh etna leieeecetcr 308 O. shideleri Flower, un. . 309 O. rejuvenatum Flower, 311 O. rectidomum Flower, 313 O. Paibeat Flower, n. sp. ... Les a old Cyrtorizoceras Hyatt 315 Miamoceras Pigwer. n. gen. 317 W. shideler! Mlnwer, 2. ap. i. iicsd. dana uh ae ae 318 Rizoceras Hyatt 319 R. graciliforme Flower Ly 320 R. conicum Flower b21 R. bellulum Flower, 321 Zitteloceras Hyatt. ....... x 322 Key to Cincinnatian species of ZittelOCePAS vcnvninrnennnnnn 327 Ze PUSseuy oO WER. cM STs c stvassttey:eoauncecris seca etete cet sent aaa ee enn 328 4. willlamse Flower, 0. sp. ......-.. . 330 Z. lentidilatatum Foerste, n. sp. oo Ze -shitelery JIOWeT,, We SPs. acon ae teeta eee a epee 332 Z. perexpansum I"oerste, n. sp. 333 Z. hitzi (Foerste) Ae 334 amily Valcouroceratides Hilower, Mnstonms. eieretew ene camer cree 335 Augustoceras Flower, n. gen. 343 A. shideleri Flower, n. sp. . 850 A. medium Fiower, n. s 352 A. commune Flower, 353 A. minor Flower, n. sp. 354 A. (2) vallandighami (Miller) Ee oop vs VOY 3) eats) OS i) Mp Yee ee pe Pe Aa ARE ets ERR Pe conch Oe WR ce oa 356 ASC?) sp. (2) 508 EN (CE )ig SP ee) 358 Wetherbyoceras Toerste 359 Wi COMO ale ty OW Ct Ler Las) Ry sree 500 euetaite eeleenas tegen ee areata 360 Kindleoceras Foerste : 363 ey to Cincinnatian species of Kindleoceras 364 K. kentuckiense Flower APOUS SY A (eee bree) ay Wi aren Aa eee) een MeomiC A 364 K. rotundum Flower, n. pe 365 K, cumingsi Flower, n. sp. N66 KX. equilaterale Poerste, n, Ap eOe App Manitoulincceras Poerste RES ee gS Key to Cincinnatian species of Manitoulinoceras . 373 M. williamse Flower, n. sp. 373 M. tenuiseptum cael Pibd colts cbsboresee ne ane ee att ec te e ae e 576 M. (%) triconale Flower, 1. sp. 379 Vv CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER V M. moderatum FIOWer, 1. Sp. cessssscccssssssscessssnssseseeeesensseesereenunsnnnneeessnnsssenersey 580 M. gyroforme Flower, 1. Spe sccsecssenrsnneneenmeneemetanntaanenenaee 382 M. crratioum FIOWer, We Spe cesscssccsscscssseseemseseeessseeeesusssecessansnensusseessumneeesenan 383 DM, 0. hetecscsecssncststvennectnsteiretesseeeneystebennegeracaunaeethneebotttemnmcanyantarantmceetanentan 384 MM. ultimmim Power, Wi. Sp. seesssssssssesscessssessnneeestcescseteenantectnnensnnresgsscennereeat 386 M. (?) irregulare (Wetherby) NEA UE E SRP pee ce toner 388 Staufferoceras Foerste ..... Lee a We A ete doen, Mrmr aay ty oe 389 S. subtriangulare Foorste, n. sp. ELT Ey SR Qe men serene tra ee 390 Fremily Diestoeceretida Teichert (emend.) wane OOO Dicsteceras WOerste caccscccccscsscscsseececcssssesssssssssusnsescescesssnmnesceeccesesnanssesssqaesunannssneeseseeeente 393 D. indianenre (Miller and Faber) . D. 1). Dp. D. Dp: D. eos (Hell and Whitfield) ghidelert SHOSTStC) hosesstemeer rc FM AS) (Ee) Cov ehh Sater ke foe rere re Nee attenuatum Flower, nm. sp. eyrtocerinoides (Flower) .......... warnesvillense Flower, n. sp. .... [SOURS eis ce eager eee vic Geena ca PD. (2%) edenense Flower, n. sp. ...... D. (2) betting Flower, n. sp. PD: reyersum Flower, no sp... PT fa cane cap eel st acehpette eave eeeechisnb ise tacckn D. (?) vasiforme Flower, n. sp. TD). pupa Flower, 1. Spe ccscssecessnieeesessestnnunensnnntenaemennnetenneninnnse HO AMO GETS TOG SSO TM ets es crete ceases car ta ccecdcereers ones vtensenseereretncrrcre abhor gate D. evnthianense Flower, n. sp. Du crater PIO Wer, Me Spe sees ntsssscdicnedtossecatheeanetstsenesetitetintunnton D. Dubos PVOWer, Wi. Spe osssnccsteccssscsssscessncceeesmsseececeesnranneesseonssnnssnteneeeeemsnnnte D. (?) gracile Flower. n. Spal Superfamily Diseosoroidea Flower ...... vad ac bbl hs ae raat ce eee ane A Family Ruedemannoceratidar PLOW Cr cece .. 427 Family Westonoceratide Foerste and Teichert . .. 428 Family Cyrtogomphoceratidae POW cece ene .. 433 Family Towoceratidae FUOWer ....ccccccscccenttcnteerersneneecstideesnestee .. 435 Family Discosoridee Teiebert neces recesses .. 435 Family Westonoceratide Foerste and Teichert . . 437 WVESLOMOGE TAS, MOOTRUCN etc cen rte stemen ttre ctr .. 438 W. ventricosum (Miller) . 441 ee (?%) ortoni (Meek) ........ wn. 444 ors Ne Meco A het og pene eh, Rene wd Peer ene er ec 446 SN as DSiNCaNsiCeh oh chs to ads yea ceermeer ter autores SNS Qooeee aber ne cnet maree 447 Key to species of Faberoceras .... wu. 454 FP. sonmenbergi FYOWer, 1. Spe creccescecceceencetessseesetessetsestnsernnsetamnanarnnenes 455 IBY Co (ove churlafoyag (orm JOC {eter TSC} Ory ear rsoeera tees hia eee eerie creme cree 458 F. seffordi Flower, n. sp. fs Fr, magiister (Miller) -eccscocecstcnmseerieierinsneinssiasissaeemmtntntasemiancenaneisan F. percostatum Flower, 1. Spe esreccccecscscrsesssnestsnnenmnnsnemnmnnsernssnnet 463 F. transversum Flower, n. un 467 TOM Araysdgrbovatcraemers) DONO; etl ON its] teetermeenite ies gree reel erie ea ese 468 Be shadelent MOCEGGE AIC ME LOWER vcerastermensncninqsrceeurtzetteocssnastpeenbenete 471 F. elegans Flower, n. sp. Clarkesvillia Flower, n. sp. Breviconie genera of uneertain position C. halei Flower, n. sp. Vaupelia Flower, m. gem. cscccessrernsmnnnemennnninnnnsennmnssnsnnnaenanamnnenes Vi BULLETIN 116 VI V. russelli Flower, n. sp. .. 480 V. seiberti Flower, n. sp. pndleiiesiil tent eine eC Res ian 482 IV Ao) EON CULLEN MELON VEEN AEN IDL ee acetate ee eatin Rar a eaae 482 Reedsoceras Poerste ....... Hi Alnor ath oa ool CAE SI cea Neda ett 483 R. mefarlani Flower, n. . 484 Fayettoceras Foerste _.............. 485 t. thompsoni (Miller) 486 Comedvcephalonodis) mie yee ie Dab WAGs. ale bie ren tad Aa Nee Ec 487 Family Apsidoceratida Hyait 487 Charactoceras Foerst@ ccc . 488 CAPAC TARA ONECEK hy Anny NV Osutitl CIID) pense een Sel tte ee reresc aes ere eee 489 Chamaetoceriia Hoensten ee oe eee 493 494. 496 497 501 C. (?) faberi (James) Fanily Bickmoritide TFoerste Bickmorites Foerste B. rarum Flower, n. sp. Archiae cephalopod types uc... Pell ehhh abana td cot a fe ek dito gi RAT ea Pare | 1510) Maintive Grintocaninieor ie lower: ie htt. Se ects centre eee ee Oreptio Getein areola wll Csd ave eee oa tyne spe erre Nea SRM NUS MUM Hao renee fuga (144 Ch madisonensis 4CMiMem) ec by bac RCO eee te ed aeetites ed Go pabellan MWowely seo) HM eben 4 Bech tt Bebe dna ais Le OG, LO epemnavoxuketsytrat, ESI Ra St oyh alec Aenea eens VR alle. Wi aallen ee and au tea tieelll Ke 506 C. (7) carimifera Flower, 1. sp. DOT Family Shideleroceratide: Plower, n. fern. 508 Shideleveceras lower amd MGersien ee cee arcu ctnn tenes 508 S. sinuatum Foerste, n. sp. . ochre 510 S. simplex Flower, n. sp. 512 S. gracile Flower, n. sp. 513 Suborcer Burysiphonata SR seh speek eae Recast rte tee yh: SAE Ae AY hee 514 Superfamily Actinoceroidea Foerste and Teienert oc ccceccccecennne DLA Vamily Armenoceratida 519 Armenoceras Foerste ' 519 ENSUED CLE MLONN EMIS ct nations oat oa ee ath ce sched en ALO TIOMIMON CEMSe pO LOW SLs Msn iED)s Macca ae creel tcceat eae ante cee eee ee A. madisonense Foerste and Teichert 526 Family Gonioceratide 527 Lambeoceras Foerste 527 ex Chin Omilenseie(GHOCUste)) chen. neti et ce oi enue aes 530 Navas Deu i ialtss a istaNiclen if biW Gl Sas aeae eeeteaetaoau drm nee Abadi Ueee hima heute al aatvL Dee yl 539 Troedssonoceras Foersic ..... : 535 T. turbidum (Hall and W 53 ie aanilencienp ipl Gly rune ate eee Moen csGae Seca Aeon ccs EU reat 539 Tie) mODsc umn Oline atime LOWEN lS pe mele ova cellule 540 T. rowene Flower, n. sp. 542 T. multilivatum Flower 543 T. cf. multiliratum Flower aw. OLD Hol (CUNEO NS IMMA RUN cia) ae ce culty aeree tare Melon, Zuadtreee eR RAN Reece ean e nK MnEARV (io WA AA O47 VI . Cross sections of Faberoceras CINCINNATIAN CEPITALOPODS: FLOWER VII IEEWSTRATIONS TEXT FIGURES Page Internal mold of a generalized orthoceracone .. ssaccatoes 16 Diagrammatie sagiital seetion of Nautilus V7 Shell forms in Nautiloidea ........ Patan Se ey 24 Dissected shell of a generalized orthocericone EL Sea ee : 32 Siphuncles showing role and modifications of the connecting ring a 37 Structural details of nautiloid phragmocones 3 Idealized section of a Treptoceras 46 Diagrammatie representation of Ulrich’s concept of austral and boreal invasions Of the Cimcimmati LEQUOM eee ceeccseessseeeessessnesisessnnsnnsceneenes 119 Phylogeny of the suborthochoanitie cephalopods nce 116 Structure of Cincinnatian Mixochoanites. ......... RRL e Lricceireeeeme ch UMN ae 183 Outlines of species of Oncoceras and BelOitoCeras oes 227 Ga HOUS MONGOCET ahaa ee eee tea en ine uh lou eac ce Oke eae greenies 289 slander GOmprasseds OnCOCe Tamas see ae ee a cccecte cies nsasccecreectare trates meio een 300 The principal genera of the Valeouroceratidac on..csescsscscsssssesecseesserssemneeseee 337 Block diagram of a siphuncle of AUGUStOCETAS on. ceesccssessesseseeesnneeseteneee 347 Serial sections of Augustoceras shideleri Cross sections of Augustoceras shideleri Essential characteristics of the Ordovician genera of the Discos- oroidea Phylogeny of the Discosoroidea Siphuneles of Faberoceras Charactoceras baeri (Meek and Worthen) PLATES 1—50 (Pp. 557—656) ae Sere ORDOVICIAN CEPHALOPODA OF THE CINCINNATI REGION PARE Tk By Rousseau H. Flower University of Cincinnati INTRODUCTION The Cincinnati region furnishes the type section of the Upper Ordovician of America, and its assemblage of fossils is world fam- ous, both for the prolific abundance of individuals and for excel- lence of preservation. Many, indeed most of the species of this re- gion, have been made known through the efforts of those men in Cincinnati, amateurs in the best sense of the term, whose interest was captured by the remains of these ancient organisms. For those who have come after them, however, the problems of study and identification have become acute, for the original descrip- tions are so widely scattered in the geological literature that proper identification can be attempted only by those who have access to a well-stocked library. Further, many of the old de- scriptions are today too general to meet the exacting require- ments of modern taxonomy, and revision of these species is bad- ly needed. Likewise, the stratigrapher now desires precise in- formation on the range of the Cincinnati species in terms of more than 18 members now recognized in the Cincinnati section. Likewise, much material representing undescribed species has ac- cumulated. For these reasons a complete revision of the Cin- cinnatian faunas is needed. It has been the hope of the Univer- sity of Cincinnati Museum for some years that such work could be undertaken, preferably by the individual treatment of the vari- ous systematic groups which comprise the Cincinnatian fauna as a whole. 4 BULLETIN 116 86 In initiating this projected series, the Cephalopoda are a fit- ting beginning, since they are among the best known of the fossil groups in equivalent horizons, due to the work of Foerste (1925- 33) in America, Teichert (1934) and Troedsson (1926) in the Arctic, and Strand (1934) and Teichert (1930) in northern Iurope. On the other hand, the cephalopods of the Cincinnati region are perhaps the most neglected of the systematic units comprising the Cincinnatian fauna. This is shown by the fact that of the 50 species described from the Cincinnati region prior to 1935, only 24 are included in the 163 species discussed in Part I of this paper, the remainder being new. Of these 24 described species, three are unrecognizable. Twenty-six species already named, remain to be revised in the second part of this work. Four of these are certainly unrecognizable, and still others can be rec- ognized only if the type specimens can be relocated and restud- ied. In addition, Cincinnati cephalopods have been identified in terms of 16 species described from other regions. In those cases in which the specimens forming the basis of these identifications have been relocated and restudied, the identifications have been found to be either erroneous or based upon material too poor for certain specific identification. The commonest species of Cin- cinnati cephalopods are the smooth orthoceracones, These are always fragmentary and frequently crushed. The identification of such forms from the extant descriptions and figures is virtu- ally impossible. Recourse must be had to the type specimens in order to establish upon an adequate basis the species now de- scribed. No small part of the task has been an effort to re- locate these types. One, the type of Melia cincinate* is in Paris, if it is preserved. Those in America are widely scattered, liter- ally from the Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology to the University of California. Many have not been located. The description and illustration of the species are the first re- quirement, and, where such a procedure is feasible, they are sup- plemented by keys. In many cases, however, the fracmentary nature of the remains makes the use of keys difficult if not im- possible. *Spelling as in text, D’Orbigny, Prodrome, 1850, p. 4; M. Cincinnate Index, D’Orbigny, Prodrome, p. 95.—EKds. 87 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER 5 Illustrations and descriptions are the prime requisite for the student whose main interest lies in the identification of the fos- sils in the Cincinnati region. For the stratigrapher and the stu- dent of faunal relations, this information has not in itself great value. Practically all of the species of cephalopods of the Cin- cinnati region are confined to this area and do not extend far, if at all, into other regions. or this reason, the species as such have little value in settling the problems of correlation or the tracing of faunal migrations. Correlation on the basis of the genera gives some information on faunal relationships but is an unsafe guide to correlation. Foerste (1932, ’33), found the same genera but different species inhabiting two distinct Middle. Ordovician faunas, one now regarded by Kay as of Black River age, while the other, which is certainly slightly younger, he now regards as Rockland age, basal Trenton, However, some clues to such problems may be found by the examination of the genus as a unit. Where the factual information is adequate, it should be possible to trace a genus from the primitive generalized spe- cies by which it is first represented, through later variation and expansion of the stock, the possible development of distinguish- able species groups, which often characterize its later develop- ment, to the appearance of phylogerontic forms, which some- times characterize the last survivors of the stock. By drawing upon the published information, together with knowledge of such unpublished material, notably a large Chazyan fauna of over 70 species, which is still largely undescribed, and much Middle Ordovician material, notably from Quebec, submitted to the writer for study by Mr. G. Winston Sinclair, it has often been possible to trace fairly clearly the development of the genus. Fur- ther, some light is thrown upon the problem of the interpreta- tions of the faunal changes in terms of the rather complex con- cept of alternating faunal invasions from the north and south. For example, the supposedly austral Cynthiana fauna has been feund to contain elements strikingly similar to the supposedly boreal faunas of the Vaureal of Anticosti, the Whitehead forma- tion of Gaspé, the Bighorn formation of Wyoming, and the Red River series of Manitoba. As an example of progressive 6 BULLETIN 116 88 evolution in a genus, Cynthiana species of Faberoceras present a marked contrast to the obviously more rugose, larger, and more complex species of the Leipers, while the crowded camer of the Corryville iorm marks it as phylogerontic in relation to the Leipers (l‘airmount equivalent) forbears. Again, the young- est of the species of Afanitoulinoceras, M. ultimum of the Elk- horn, is phylogerontic in relation to M. moderatum of the White- water and Saluda. On the other hand, the species of Zitteloceras are of less aid, for the Cincinnati species fall into species groups already well differentiated in Middle Ordovician time, which have showed little if any morphological advance which can be correlated definitely with the younger age of the Richmond spe- cies. The complex and bewilderingly large number of species in the Oncoceratidz has yielded to some extent to the recogni- tion of species groups, suggesting strongly the probable lines of descent among the various form genera which it is feared have little generic significance, However, these forms, on the basis oi stratigraphic evidence, arose from generalized breviconic shells close to the tenuous boundary between Oncoceras and Beloitoceras. More form types became distinct in the Middle Ordovician, and in general, bizarre types, such as the group of Beloitoceras amoenum, B. geniculatum, B. protractum, and the genera Neumatoceras, Winnipegoceras, and Digenuoceras rep- resent the last survivors of the stock in the Richmond. While it is felt that such investigations should have results which will aid materially in arriving at more accurate concepts of the inter- mingling migrations of faunas in the Ordovician, the problem has been approached with caution, largely because it was real- ized how much descriptive work remains to be done even in American Ordovician faunas. The cephalopods of the Ordo- vician formations of the Appalachian geosyncline south of New York are very largely undescribed. For this reason revisions of the concepts suggested here based upon new evidence will be gladly welcomed. Yet another problem has been the tracing of phylogeny and classification. Many of the genera now employed for Ordovician 89 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER 7 cephalopods have never received family designation. Morpho- logical study has made possible the placing in families of all ex- cept a few of the genera employed in the present work, which embraces the greater number of genera occuring in the Ameri- can Ordovician, and in many cases indications of the relation- ship of families has been found. The final section of the study of American Ozarkian and Canadian faunas appeared when this investigation had reached its final stages. While further study of these forms will doubtless add materially to the present con- cepts of both cephalopod development and faunal relations in the early Paleozoic, it must be confessed that in the present state of knowledge of many of these pre-Chazyan genera, most of which are known from chert-replaced internal molds, there is not enough information in relation to internal structure to demon- strate the relationships between these older genera and those of the post-Canadian. There has developed in recent years a need for more precise information concerning the range of the species throughout the Cincinnatian, This was brought out clearly in the discussions of Ulrich and Schuchert in relation to Ulrich’s proposed re- moval of the Richmond group to the Silurian system. Many of the previously described species of the Cincinnatian are listed as only “Hudson River group, Cincinnati, Ohio”. This is part- ly because many of the species were described at a time when this information was considered sufficient. Jt was also partly due to the keen rivalry which existed among the Cincinnati collectors, many of whom regarded localities and horizons which yielded their rarer treasures as carefully guarded secrets. In order to rectify this, both at the University of Cincinnati and at Miami University, large collections were accumulated, with an emphasis on material accompanied by careful horizon and lo- cality data. During the several years which the writer spent at Cincinnati, a special effort was made to accumulate cephalo- pods accompanied by such data for the present study. Several thousand specimens of orthoceracones were accumulated, the study of which must be reserved for Part II of the present work. It is believed that these will supply data on variation and the 8 BULLETIN 116 90 recurrence of species in the column, thereby making these, the most abundant of the Cincinnati cephalopods, a useful strati- graphic tool. Likewise, such collecting has added materially to the rarer forms, which are largely included in the present section. Because of the possibility that this work might suffer many interruptions, it was decided at an early stage that the descrip- ions should be done in small sections, sometimes a genus, and sometimes a family. In order that the work could be prepared for publication in an incomplete form at almost any stage, it was necessary that preparation of the plates should keep pace with the descriptions, While the descriptions in this section of the work have been rearranged slightly in order to comply as closely as possible with the phylogeny and classification, the piates necessarily follow an order of their own. The first plates (1-5) are devoted to the annulated orthoceracones, which are followed by the Mixochoanites (Pls. 5-7). The next plates (8-17) are devoted primarily to the Discosoroidea. However, most of these forms were large, and in order to conserve plate space the smaller brevicones of the Cynthiana and Covington were combined with them. They are followed by the Valcourocera- tidz (Pls. 18-25), then by the characteristic genera Shidel- eroceras, Zitteloceras, and Cyrtocerina. Plates 31-43 are de- voted largely to the Richmond Onoceratide, Distoceratide, and Apsidoceratide. The remainder of the plates illustrate such of the Actinoceroidea as are included in the present part of the work. Because of the writer’s departure from Cincinnati, and of un- certainty as to how soon the investigation could be resumed, it was felt wisest to divide the work into two parts. Part II is expected to include (1) the family Trocholitide (2) the smooth orthochoanitic orthoceracones, the Michelinoceratide (3) the remainder of the Actinoceroidea, which comprises insofar as now known, only the prolific genus Treptoceras Flower (1942) and (4) the Endoceroidea. These comprise groups which in- volve special problems. Proper treatment of some requires the examination of types which it has not yet been possible to lo- cate in any institution. The endoceroids involve special prob- 91 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER 9 lems because of the fragmentary nature and poor preservation of most of the Cincinnatian specimens. Part II will also contain such general remarks as the de- scription of supposed nautiloid trails and impressions in the Cin- cinnatian, revised faunal lists, and a discussion of the faunal re- lationships of the Cincinnati cephalopods and their bearing upon broader aspects of Ordovician stratigraphy and paleogeography, together with a more thorough analysis of Upper Ordovician faunas as a whole. Because Part II may be long delayed, incomplete faunal lists are included together with some remarks upon the faunal and stratigraphic problems. These subjects are expected to receive more adequate treatment in the uncompleted part of the work. Rousseau H. Flower New York State Museum January 351, 1945. Formerly of the University of Cincinnati Museum. 10 BULLETIN 116 92 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The revision of the Cincinnatian cephalopods has been based upon two major collections, that of the University of Cincin- nati Museum and the collection of Dr. W. H. Shideler, to which have been added much supplementary material. The collections of the University of Cincinnati Museum had their real begin- ning in the gift of the second fossil collection of Charles L. Faber, to which was added some material from the collections of many of his contemporaries, including S. A. Miller, James, and Schlemmer, A number of types were found among his material. More recently, this has been supplemented by two noteworthy additions, the gift of a very fine collection by the late Mr. Charles FE. Vaupel and the deposit of the fossil collection of the Cin- cinnati Society of Natural History. Much of this early ma- terial was of particular value because of the determinations, made in some instances by the describers of the species involved. However, some of it lacked all data on horizon and locality. With- in recent years additional collecting on the part of members of the museum and Geology Department, both staff and students, has brought together a large amount of material labeled with careful regard to horizon and locality, and ‘since the writer’s ar- rival at Cincinnati in 1938, a particular effort has been made to bring together cephalopod material in preparation for this study. Professor W. H. Shideler of Miami University submitted the cephalopods from his extensive and carefully made collection of Cincinnatian fossils. Not only did this material supply many species which would otherwise have remained unknown, but it presented in every case material accompanied by detailed infor- mation concerning its origin and horizon. A part of Dr. Shidel- er’s material consisted of several drawers of specimens which had been submitted to Dr. A. F. Foerste for study. Dr, Foerste had laid this material aside in order to work with Dr. Ulrich on the cephalopods of the Ozarkian and Canadian and died before he could return to the Cincinnatian study. This material was sent from the U. S. National Museum accompanied by Dr. Foerste’s labels and an incompleted manuscript consisting of the descrip- tions of about a dozen species. In the following pages these de- 93 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER i scriptions are largely quoted intact, and the species described are attributed to Foerste. The fairest course seemed to be to treat this manuscript as though it had been published material. How- ever, in some cases this proved impossible. One species was de- scribed without generic reference, save the indication that it be- longed to a new genus. It was found to be congeneric with Faberoceras, a genus which existed then only in my own man- uscript. Shideleroceras is a generic name proposed by Foerste in his manuscript, but the description of the genus was lacking. In some cases additional material has made it seem best to pre- sent a revised description of the species, while in a few instances such material has necessitated a revised concept of the species boundaries and sometimes of their generic position. These cases are noted in the discussions of the species concerned. It has eemed wisest in every instance to indicate clearly what part of the work was that of Dr. Foerste and which part has been con- tributed by the present writer, thereby eliminating possible con- fusion resulting from somewhat different viewpoints which are iargely the result of further progress in the investigation of nau- tiloid structure in an interval of eight years, since Foerste aban- doned this investigation. Significant additions to these large collections consist in se- lected cephalopod material from the collections of Earlham Col- lege, loaned through the courtesy of Dr. Francis D. Hole and Dr. Millard Markle. Additional material was loaned by the U. S. National Museum through the courtesy of Dr. Ray S. Bassler and Dr. G. A. Cooper. Material from the collections of Ohio State University was loaned through the kindness of Dr. J. W. Wells and Dr. Grace A. Stewart. Also relevant to this problem is a large collection of Ordovician material from Canada, sent by Mr. G. Winston Sinclair of Sir George Williams College. This has been of inestimable aid in the tracing of faunal relationships. It is impossible to mention all of those in Cincinnati who have contributed to this work by submitting specimens or by assisting in collecting. Practically every member of the Geology Depart- ment has aided in the accumulation of material used in this study. I wish to express my indebtedness to Miss Helen Duncan, Dr. it) BULLETIN 116 94 A. T. Cross and Mr. Robert Kosanke, for assistance in collect- ing. Dr. K. E, Caster and Mr. Robert T. Russell have made very significant contributions to our cephalopod material used in this study. There has recently come into existence an organization of am- ateur geologists in Cincinnati known as the Dry Dredgers. So many of my friends in this organization have contributed ma- terial, that I can mention only a few. Mr. H. J. Seibert: has made valuable contributions, particularly of cephalopods of the lower Maysville. Mr. Sarles and Mr. and Mrs, J. A. Dalve have contributed material from around Cincinnati. Miss Carrie Wil- liams has presented material which has served mainly as the basis of our knowledge of the varied cephalopods of the Orthoceras dusert beds of the lower Waynesville. Dr. Kelly Hale of Wil- mington, Ohio, has contributed some _ exceedingly — significant specimens from his collection. In the search for types of Cincinnatian cephalopods, practical- ly all of the major institutions in eastern North America have been consulted. Dr, Ray S. Bassler has supplied information in relation to the types of the U. S. National Museum, many of which could not be consulted inasmuch as they were in storage for the duration of the war. Dr. Carey Croneis and Mr. M. S. Chappars have supplied information concerning the specimens in the collections of the University of Chicago. Dr. Bruce L. Clarke has supplied information concerning material in the collections of the University of California, and loaned the holotype of Ortho- ceras duseri for study. For other information I am indebted to Dr. W. Wells; Dr. Harold Wy:Seott, ‘Dr A. His Sutton W. H. Easton, Dr. J. Marvin Weller, and Professor P. E. Ray- mond. Much information relevant to localities, horizons, and early collections, as well as the pursuit of many of the types, has been supplied by Dr. R. S. Bassler and Prof. W. H. Shideler, to’ both of whom I am deeply grateful for their assistance and their stead- fast interest. In the completion of this work at Cincinnati I have had the support and encouragement of Dr. John L. Rich and Dr. K. E. 95 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER 13 Caster. The Department of Geology supplied the cutting and photographic equipment so necessary to this investigation. The expense of photographic supplies and a large part of the cost of illustration were met by the Faber Publication Fund of the Uni- versity of Cincinnati Museum. This proved inadequate for the large number of plates necessary for the proper illustration of the cephalopods, and was materially supplemented by other grants as noted hereafter under “Plates’’. Many have aided in the completion of this work. For discus- sion of many of the problems I am indebted to Dr. K. E. Caster, Dr, W. H. Shideler, Dr. R. S. Bassler, Dr. Winifred Goldring, and Dr, Rudolph Ruedemann. Miss Jane Forsythe has aided in the checking and cataloguing of the types. Mrs. J. A. Dalve has assisted in the completion of some of the illustrations. Mr. Clin- ton Kilfoyle has prepared several of the figures representing the phylogeny of the suborthochoanitic cephalopods and the Discos- oroidea. I wish also to thank Dr. Winifred Goldring who gener- ously assisted in rechecking the manuscript in the final stages. For stenographic assistance I am indebted to the New York State Museum. Lastly, I wish to express my indebtedness to Professor G. D. Harris and Dr. Katherine V. W. Palmer for the thankless task of editing and also assistance in reading proof. NAUTILOID MORPHOLOGY In the last 15 years great advances have been made in the knowledge of nautiloid structure, and advantage has been taken of hitherto neglected features both in the description and in the tracing of phylogeny. For this reason, the study of nautiloids has progressed rapidly from a point at which only the gross features of the shell were taken into consideration to one at which the structures are examined to a detailed extent which is almost his- tological rather than morphological. The general knowledge of these exceedingly complex creatures has lagged far behind the outposts of research, and the structures, as well as the rather formidable system of nomenclature which is employed in their description, is a matter which is unfortunately known to relatively few paleontologists. Further, even the more recent text books 14 BULLETIN 116 96 in English have not kept pace with the recent investigations ; in- deed, most of them rely upon Hyatt’s (1900) concept of morph- clogy and classification, which has since been greatly elaborated and strongly modified. European texts are in an even worse state, and Hyatt’s classification has there been rejected for a much more primitive classification built in general upon the form of the shell and ignoring internal structural differences. (See Zittel, Grundztige der Palzontologie, 1910, Schmidt, 1910, and Schindewolf, 1942.) In order that this work may find a greater sphere of usefulness, and the information contained within it may be made more read- ily available to both the paleontologist and to the amateur, a brief survey cf the essential morphological features of the Nautiloidea is presented here together with such diagrams as are necessary for the portrayal of the essential structures. Some general dis- cussions of morphology have prefaced various of the earlier stud- ies of cephalopod faunas, in particular, Ruedemann (1906) and Troedsson (1926). Miller, Dunbar, and Condra (1933) have presented a brief and very lucid discussion of the anatomy of Nautilus together with a description of general shell terms, in which several points of shell terminology have received treatment. Their nomenclature is adopted here insofar as it pertains to the shell features under discussion. It does not, however, take into account the more recent advances into the knowledge of internal structure, the first of which (Teichert, 1933) appeared in the same year. Teichert presented a thorough and detailed investi- gation of the internal structure of the actinoceroids with special reference to the deposits of the camerz and the siphuncle, which will rightly take its place as a classic in nautiloid investigation. Tt is the first work in which the deposits were considered with reference to their growth relations and their function. Flower (1939) presented a similar investigation of the Pseudorthocer- atid, in which particular attention was given to the tissues which were responsible for their secretion. In this work Teichert’s nomenclature is followed in the main, but in several instances it has been shortened and simplified. Kobayashi (1935, 1935A, 97 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER 15 19360) has brought to light previously unsuspected variations in the structure of the endosiphuncle of endoceroids, based largely upon a study of the rich cephalopod faunas of the Ordovician of Manchuria, Flower (1941) has dealt with the details of the structure of the siphuncle wall in endoceroids and related types, while the study of the older cephalopods of America (Ulrich and Foerste, 1933, 1935; Ulrich, Foerste, Miller, and Furnish, 1942; Ulrich, Foerste, and Miller, 1942) have brought to light addition- ai structural variations not all of which are as yet fully under- stood. The following discussion of morphology is largely general. Each group within the nautiloids has developed its own special structures within the siphuncle and camere, and it has seemed best to treat these in the prefatory remarks of the groups to which they apply. GENERAL SHELL PATTERN The nautiloid shell is a cone in its simplest, though not neces- sarily its most primitive form, It differs from the cone of the gastropod shell in that it is not filled by the body mass throughout life. Instead, the shell grew so rapidly at the aperture that the visceral mass of the animal could not fill it. The animal moved forward in the shell at periodic intervals, each time shut- ting off the earlier part of the shell incompletely by a septum. In time a series of septa was built up in this way but always a nonseptate living chamber remained at the adoral end of the shell. Thus the cephalopod shell has come to be divided into two main regions, the living chamber and the phragmocone (fig. 1). In the earliest growth stage there is, of course, only a living chamber. However, once the phragmocone was developed, its growth con- tinued in such a way that the living chamber maintained about the same proportions throughout life, except where as in the ascocer- oids and the brevicones, modifications of either the shell wall or the septa interfered with this relationship. Many of the older works have insisted upon a primary divis- 16 : BULLETIN 116 98 ion of the cephalopod shell into two regions: a protoconch and a conch. It has been generally believed that the cephalopod ap- peared in a small ovoid protoconch (fig. 1 ), open at one end, and that this protoconch later had the true conch added onto its adoral end. In later growth stages the protoconch was frequent- ly lost, either because it was originally chitinous or else very poor- ly calcified, or because it was resorbed. Further, it was held that the fragile and presumably noncalcareous protoconch was one of the features which characterized the Nautiloidea and dis- tinguished it from the Ammonoidea, in which the shell began v Ser aa gees a a Mopaanannnnn = =~ | Figure 1. Internal mold of a generalized orthoceracone, viewed from the ventral side. H. Hyponomiec sinus. L. Living chamber. P. Phrag- mocone. E, Protoconch, embryonal shell. G. Gerontic camere. 8S, Suture. C. Camera. with a well calcified more or less spherical protoconch. How- ever, subsequently some protoconchs have been found in the Nautiloidea (Clarke, 1893; 1897, pl. 9, figs. 23-25; Ruedemann, 1912, p. 8, figs. 4, 16), while on the other hand the evidence at the present time suggests overwhelmingly that in the Actinoceroidea and the Endoceroidea no protoconch as such was developed. The occurrence and phylogenetic significance of the protoconch in Nautiloidea is still an unsettled problem, particularly as there is even a difference of opinion as to whether Nautilus has a pro- toconch. 99 CINGINNATIAN CEFHALOPODS: FLOWER VY / VISCERAL MASS There is no direct evidence as to the structure of the visceral mass or the main part of the body of the fossil nautiloids. All of the direct evidence bearing upon this problem is found in what is known of the only living genus of the Nautiloidea, Nautilus itself. As the last survivor of a group of nautiloids which have remained coiled throughout the Mesozoic and Cenozoic, we may suspect that Nautilus may have undergone specializations in tis- sue organization and that the present body pattern may be quite different from that of the orthoceracones which dominated the eee: A SES IG —— dpi Th Figure 2. Diagrammatic sagittal section of Nautilus showing location of main organs and relation of soft parts to shell. A. Tentacles, surround- ing the mouth, B. Beak. C. Prelingual processes. D. Radula. E. Tongue. _F. First subesophageal ganglion. G. Oesophagus. H. Supracwsophageal ganglion. F and G are a part of a circumoral nerve ring, essentially the brain. I. Crop. J. Portions of the liver. K. Gizzard. L. Space ocecu- pied by reproductive organs. M. Intestine. N. Heart. O. Nephridia. P. Ctenidia. Q. Portion of cartilage, incompletely represented, forming a eapsule in the cephalic region. R. Shell wall. S. Mantle lobe. T. Dorsal mantle lobe. Hy. Hyponome, opening of gill chamber. TM. Terminal mantle. PM. Posterior mantle. SP. Septum. SN. Septal neck. CR. Con- necting ring. CM. Cameral mantle. ST. Siphonal tissue. CS. Cameral space, occupied by liquid or gas. The tissues of the phragmocone are shown only on the four adoral camer. SC. Siphonal cecum, termination of siphuncle in apex of shell, 18 BULLETIN 116 100 Paleozoic. Some indirect evidence, bearing upon the problem in the form of trails and resting places attributed to orthocera- cones, has been found in the Cincinnatian, which will be discussed in Part II of this work. Figure 2 shows a diagrammatic sagittal section of Nautilus, de- signed to show first, the general body plan of the animal, and second, the relation of the soft parts to the shell. Dean (1901) has presented one of the very few accounts of living Nautilus in its natural habitat. The animal is essentially benthonic, though capable both of crawling on the bottom or oi swimming. This may be done either by movement of the tenta- cles or by the forcible extrusion of water from the gill chamber through the hyponome, which exerts sufficient force to propel the animal backward through the water. The whole animal is made lighter and therefore more motile by the presence of gas in the cameree. Pruvot-Fol (1935) has argued, probably correctly, that the chambers of the phragmocone are only. partially filled with gas. The gas is similar to air, but has a somewhat higher nitrogen content. As Nautilus inhabits relatively deep waters this is easy to understand, when one remembers the “bends” which affect divers and which are due to the greater solubility of nitrogen in the blood under the pressure of depth. The protruding head of Nauwtilus consists of an elaborate sys- tem of tentacles surrounding the mouth, a pair of eyes which are simpler than those of the squids, in that they lack a crystalline lens. Beneath the head lies the foot, consisting of a rolled funnel or hyponome through which water is extruded in swimming. When the animal retracts into the shell, the aperture is protected by a thick fleshy dorsal fold, the hood. The mouth is equipped with a horny or calcareous beak (fig. 2B), consisting of an upper and an under process, the whole looking much like the beak of a parrot. Behind this lie two pre- lingual processes (C), a well-developed radula (D), and a tongue (E). There follows a short tubular cesophagus, which is sur- rounded by a complex ring of nerve tissue, the dorsal portion of which is essentially a brain (H), while the remaining parts are a fusion of the visceral ganglia. The relationship between this nerve 101 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER 19 ring and the usual paired dorsal ganglia which form a brain in most molluscs, with several pairs of ventral ganglia, is strongly paralleled by the development of a similar nerve ring in the Arachnoidea from paired ganglia which predominate in the sim- pler mandibulate line of the arthropods. The cesophagus gives way to a large crop (fig. 2,1) which is followed by a stomach with thick muscular walls. Behind the stomach, the digestive glands enter into the alimentary canal. The most significant of these is a large “liver” (J) which occupies a considerable amount of space in the posterior part of the animal. There follows a tubular intestine (M) and a simple anus open- ing into a large anal chamber. Close to the intestine lie the heart (N) and the nephridia(O). The anal chamber contains the open- ings of the anus, the nephridia, the reproductive system, and in addition, is occupied by four large ctenidia or gills(P). The re- productive organs differ in the two sexes but lie in the posterior part of the animal. This is significant in view of the theory pro- posed by Ruedemann (1905) that the forward migration of the visceral mass and the disposition of a new septum might correlate with the periodic voiding of the sexual elements of the organism, a theory which it is unfortunately not possible to investigate ex- cept through studies of Nautilus which have not yet been made. The anal chamber serves also as a breathing chamber, and water must be taken in and expelled periodically. Its aperture is a funnel-like structure, the hyponome (Hy). According to the primitive molluscan pattern, the dorsal part of the animal was _ covered with a mantle, while the foot and head were ventral. In Nautilus, the head and foot, here modified into the hyponome and tentacles, judging from the embryology of the squid, are anterior, while the mantle enclosed the dorsal, ventral, and posterior parts of the animal. In the mantle it has been convenient to recognize several secreting regions (Flower, 1939) as the (1) terminal mantle, responsible for the growth of the shell at the aperture, and which is therefore a ring around the edge of the mantle (2) the posterior mantle which secretes the septa, and, in fossil nauti- loids, (3) the siphonal mantle, responsible for the secretion of any true shell structures in the siphon, and (4) the cameral mantle 20 BULLETIN 116 102 which is responsible tor the secretion of further shell material in the camere. (see fig. 2, 1M, PM, CM.). When Nautidus moves iorward im its shell to form a new septum it leaves belind a tieshy strand, once reierred to as the siphon and later renamed the siphuncie. ‘his pierces the septa and ends adapicaily in a small rounded siphonal cecum. ‘the septa turn slightly apicad about the sipnon forming septal necks. Little attention has been given the siphonal tissues of Nautilus, but it is evident that they are liberally supplied with blood. Fur- ther, it is supplied by one of the main branches of the posterior branch of the aorta, which suggests that in older cephalopods with larger and more elaborate siphuncles the blood system may have been more extensive and move elaborate. The connecting ring 1s thin in Nautilus and fragile, consisting of spicular calcite secreted within the wali of the siphonal tissues. Within the camer this tissue is continuous outside of the connecting ring with a thin layer of tissue which lines the camere. Although in Nautilus this tissue is no longer active as a source of cameral de- posits, it is clearly the homologue of the cameral mantle (Flower, 1939) as established on the basis of fossil cephalopods, which ap- parently secreted gas in the past from its inner free surface as it does today. Nautilus is reported to be attached to the shell by a median girdle, which leaves a pair of lateral muscle impressions on the sides of the interior of the shell. In addition, three aponeurotic bands are reported, which are longitudinal structures. The ven- tral two are close together and form the boundary of the region which in fossil nautiloids has been termed the conchial furrow. The dorsal band is a structure which the writer has never suc- ceeded in identifying with certainty, but which may be only that structure in the dorsal part of the mural part of the septum known as the septal furrow. In some respects Nautilus is clearly primitive, and such fea- tures as can be regarded as primitive may be assumed to have been developed in the Paleozoic nautiloids. I should include un- der this general heading such general features of body plan as the organization of the alimentary canal, the development of a 103 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER PALL gill chamber, and a hyponome. ‘The hyponomic sinus is a per- sistent though far from universal feature in Nautiloidea, and in- dicates that the hyponome was developed and probably played a role in the locomotion of the organism close to that supplied by the same organ in Nautilus. More conjectural is the condition of the tentacles. Some have assumed the numerous tentacles of Nautilus to be primitive, while other evidence leads one to be- lieve that a system of fewer and perhaps longer tentacles may have obtained. In the Corryville beds a few layers have been found characterized by a horseshoe-shaped series of discrete impres- sions. These cannot be interpreted as the markings of any other known marine organism, and in spite of the absence of any such impressions centering about the aperture of a nautiloid shell, seem to be most logically interpreted as the impressions caused by the tentacles of a Treptoceras which was either at rest on the bot- tom or was strongly attached by tentacles to the substratum, a condition in which Nautilus has been reported. If these mark- ings are the tentacular impressions of 7 reptoceras, then it is evi- dent that the tentacles were relatively large, and relatively few in number. Some impressions suggest as few as 10 arms. Others suggest more, but in any one resting position it is perfectly nat- ural that one or more of the tentacles may have been moved, thereby creating the impression of more arms than actually exist- ed. The opinion that fossil cephalopods had relatively few arms has not often been ventured in print, but is found reflected in many reconstructions, that of Goldringia cyclops (Hall) in the New York Museum being equipped with only eight arms, a condition which is not improbable, for fossil coleoids are known with fewer arms. On other questions of internal anatomy no light can be thrown. It seems probable that the two gills of the Dibranchiata repre- sent a reduced condition and that the four gills of the Tetra- branchiata are primitive. However, where in the long and some- what obscure evolution of the belemnites this change occurred is unknown, and therefore the question has been neatly avoided by those paleontologists who, instead of recognizing the Dibranch- iata and Tetrabranchiata as the main divisions of the Cephalo- 22 BULLETIN 116 104 poda, have substituted the Coleoidea for the Dibranchiata (Bath- er, 1692, 189g2a), comprising all cephalopods in which the shell is internal or secondarily lost. In this classification the Nauti- loidea and Ammonoidea are considered as major divisions of the Cephalopoda equal to the Coleoidea. ‘Lhis scheme has its advan- tages in the present state of our knowledge inasmuch as it is not yet certain whether the belemnites are to be traced to a simple orthoceracone in the Nautiloidea or whether, as is suggested by the presence of a protoconch and the structure of the siphuncle, they may have been derived from Bactrites of the simpler Am- monoidea. SHELL FORM Sixty years ago the genera of Nautiloidea which were widely recognized were distinguished mainly by the shape of the shell. ‘he system of classification was simple, but the genera were so wide ranging as to have little stratigraphic significance. Straight shells were placed in Orthoceras, slightly curved ones in Cyrto- ceras. Ifa shell was loosely coiled it was placed in Gyroceras, if tightly coiled, in Nautilus, Shells coiled eccentrically so as to develop more or less of a spire were put in Trochoceras, while gibbous shells, contracted at the aperture, were generally placed together in Gomphoceras. Only a few other genera were recog- nized widely. Some, such as Hercoceras, depended upon spec- ializations of the ornament of the shell. Others, such as Gonto- ceras and Ascoceras were admitted as convenient receptacles for rare and bizarre types. However, one finds that even as late as t910 (Schmidt, 1910, p. 103) Endoceras, Ormoceras, and Actino- ceras were sometimes regarded as subgenera of Orthoceras. Hyatt suspected that nature might not be quite so simple as all that. His researches (1884, 1894, 1900) culminated in a classi- fication built upon the premise that the fundamental development of the Nautiloidea began with the straight shell and terminated in the coiled one. However, he recognized and succeeded in dem- onstrating that the progressive coiling of the shell had occurred not once, but many times in the development of the nautiloids, and that each line could be characterized by other, and usually internal, features. Further, he recognized other byways of de- bo ~) 105 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER velopment, the development of trochoceroids, the secondary deri- vation of straight shells from coiled ancestral types, and the de- velopment of endogastric curvature, commonest among the “in- flati’ of older authors, formerly lumped under Gomphoceras. The concept of the gradual coiling of the shell and also in part, the concept of uncoiling have been severely attacked in recent years, and various other proposals have been put forward. How- ever, Hyatt’s contribution showed that the shape of the shell was not of primary importance, and that internal structures showed that externally similar forms might be only distantly related. The present stratigraphic evidence as well as common sense indicate that the “simple” orthoceracone of circular section—and in which the fundamental bilateral symmetry of the cephalopod is not al- ways evident—is not primitive. Instead, the oldest cephalopods are small cyrtoceracones with marginal siphuncles, as in Plec- tronoceras, from the Cambrian of China. The older generic names have been greatly restricted, but have given rise to a series of descriptive terms. It is convenient to re- cognize two sets, one series which may be applied to the shell as a whole, and another which may be applied only to a portion of a Shell form Portion of shell Entire shell straight orthocone orthoceracone orthoconi¢e orthoceraconic orthoceran curved eyrtocone cyrtoceracone cyrtoconie cyrtoceraconic eyrtoceran loosely coiled syrocone gyroceracone gyroconic eyroceraconic gsyroceran whorls in contact tarphycone tarphyceracone tarphyeonie tarphyeceraconic tarphyceran involute coil nautilicone nautiliconie nautilian eecentric coil trochoceracone trochoeeroid trochoceran short gibbous shells brevicone breviconie gomphoceroid 24 BULLETIN 116 106 shell. Except for the terms brevicone and breviconic, which came into use long before the appearance of such a generic name as Brevicoceras Flower (1938), these terms are derived from gen- eric names of long standing. Hyatt used the -an adjectival end- ing but this has been abandoned by most recent writers in favor of the longer -conic. The need for terms descriptive of the entire shell is at once evident, since this feature is characteristic always of the species, usually of the genus, and not infrequently through higher cate- gories, Study of the various stages of the shells will show the necessity for the other terms, those primarily applicable to por- tions of the shell. The early stages of many coiled shells show defi- nite regional differences in the development of the spiral. Litwites Figure 3. Shell forms in Nautiloidea. A. Orthoceracone. B. Cyrtocera- cone. C. Gyroceracone. D. Tarphyceracone. E. Cross section of Tarphy- ceras, showing slight development of impressed zone for the reception of the earlier whorl. F. Nautilicone. G. Trochoceroid. H. Brevicone. I. Lituiticone, nautiliconic in young, the later part ortheconic. J. Adult shell of a cyrtoceracone which is breviconic ephebically. KK. Cyrtoconie young stage of the same form. lL. Cross section of whorl of a tarphyceracone with no true impressed zone but only a slight flattening of the dorsum, bo or 107 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER (hg. 31) began life as a gyroceracone or cyrtoceracone, but later became tarphyconic for a period. ‘The last part of the shell, how- ever, is orthoconic. Many shells are cyrtoconic in early stages, but later reduce their curvature so that the adoral parts are es- sentially orthoconic. LFigs. 3j and K show two growth stages of the same species, the adult of which would be classed as a brevi- cone, while the young would be a cyrtoceracone. Yet other breviconic shells are essentially straight as in fig. 3H. When the shell is so tightly coiled that the outer whorl is ex- cavated for the reception of the inner whorl, an impressed zone is developed. This may begin as only a slight flattening of the dorsum (fig. 3L) and develop to a definite concavity (fig. 3E). Strongly involute shells (fg. 3F) may develop a very consider- able impressed zone. In general, the impressed zone is more prevalent among the younger nautiloids, and in the Ordovician 1s rarely half the height of the outer whorl. The main types of shell form are illustrated in fig. 3. Since the shape of the shell has changed many times in the evolution of the nautiloids, it is not surprising that these types actually inter- srade and cannot be separated by hard and fast boundaries. The form of the shell is constant within the species and is generally regarded as an adequate basis for the recognition of genera. However, there are some cases in which obviously closely related species differ in little besides the shape of the shell. Thus in Bickimorites the genotype is a typical gyroceracone with the whorls free, but B. marshi is a tarpnyceracone until the latest srowth stage, in which the shell becomes nearly straight produc- ig a lituiticone (fig. 31). Amomaloceras Hyatt is based upon a nautilicone with a good impressed zone, Yet closely related to this and associated with it are two other species Trochoceras tvansiens and Gyroceras munusculum, one of which is a gyro- ceracone and another a cyrtoceracone properly included in the same genus, which is unique in combining a symmetrical coil with a broadly depressed section, and simple sutures with a siphuncle markedly displaced to one side of the plane of symmetry. We cannot dispose of the old names applied to the once widely employed form genera without some mention of their present 26 BuLuLeETIN 116 108 scope. Ovrthoceras was originally applied not to a cephalopod but to a rudistid and cannot properly be used for cephalopods. (Teichert and Miller, 1936). Cephalopods which were placed in Orthoceras as defined by Hyatt (1900) are now proper- ly placed in Michelinoceras Foerste or Orthoceros Brunnich. The latter generic name is discussed by Teichert and Miller who re- commend its use but refrain from designating a genotype. Cyrtoceras Goldfuss, which should be known as Cyrtoceratites Goldfuss, since that spelling is the older, is a valid genus of Mid- dle Devonian nautiloids known only from Europe. (Foerste, 1924, p. 337; Miller, Dunbar, and Condra, 1933, p. 47; Teichert, 1939, p. 107, footnote). Gyroceras de Koninck, 1844, is an emended spelling of Gyro- ceratites von Meyer, 1831, and the older spelling should be re- tained. The genus Gyroceratites is based upon loosely coiled Devonian ammonoids closely allied to the better known Mimo- ceras (see Miller, Dunbar, and Condra, 1933, p. 58). Tarphyceras Hyatt is a valid nautiloid genus of the Canadian, based upon Tarphyceras praematurum Hyatt. Until recently subdivided (Ulrich, Foerste, Miller, and Furnish, 1942), it was perhaps the most characteristic single cephalopod genus of the Canadian in America. Nautilus Linnzus,.formerly used for all nautilicones, and some- times tarphyceracones as well, is known only from the three rec- ognized Recent species. Trochoceras Barrande is today a small genus containing shells in which the coiling is only slightly eccentric, and which is known only from the Middle Silurian of Bohemia. Gomphoceras, which strangely enough, did not yield to a cog- nate descriptive term for short rapidly expanding gibbous shells which contract to the aperture, is a valid genus recognized in England, America, and Bohemia in the Middle Silurian (see Foerste, 1924, p. 353). Most cephalopod shells are curved with the venter on the out- side of the curve. Such shells are called exogastric. A consid- erable number of genera are described which are known or be- lieved to have curved their shells in the opposite direction. None are known to be true nautilicones, but many are cyrtoceraconic. —— bo “I 109 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER Orientation of these supposedly endogastric genera has depended upon various criteria. Perhaps the most reliable is the preseice of a lhyponomic sinus on the concave side of the shell. On this basis Phragmoceras and its allies of the Silurian are considered to be endogastric. It has been found that in these cephalopods the siphuncle is close to the concave side. As a consequence, many cyrtoceracones which have the siphuncles on the concave side of the shell have been classed as endogastric without further evidence. In one case at least, that of Archiacoceras of the De- vonian of Germany (Flower, 1943), the discovery of a septal fur- row on the concave siphonal side showed that the shell was curved exogastrically, but that the siphuncle was dorsal in position. This at once raises the question as to how many of the other genera which have been classed-as endogastric may actually be exogas- tric. The problem is of particular interest in that the oldest of the known cephalopods, Plectronoceras, as well as a very consider- able group of genera in the Ozarkian and Canadian, are endogas- tric on the basis of the position of the siphuncle. In a few cases this orientation is suggested by a hyponomic sinus. In other cases the sinus is either unknown or definitely absent. The sinus is present in Burenoceras, which attains a living chamber remark- ably reminiscent of that of Phragmoceras, and appears to be pres- ent in Buehleroceras, but is not known in any of the other genera. No conchial or septal furrows have been observed in these forms. Analogy of the siphuncles with those of endoceroids make the endogastric condition fairly certain, although perhaps the ventral position of the siphuncle in endoceroids might even be questioned. However, if the siphuncle is correctly oriented as ventral in endoceroids, the piloceroids at least are endogastric. Likewise, the ventral position of the siphuncle in cyrtoconic cephalopods presumably of the general organization of Ellemmeroceras be- comes if not certain, at least highly probable. SHELL MORPHOLOGY THE CONCH The conch is, in its simplest form, a cone composed of shell material. Jt grows by addition of material to its adoral surface 28 BULLETIN 116 110 by secretion of the terminal mantle. The aperture is in general straight and transverse to the axis of the shell. However, many apertures are more or less undulate, having some regions which swing apicad, known as sinuses, and regions which project orad, known as crests, Most significant of these is the hyponomic sinus, which is always ventral in position, and marks an emargi- nation of the aperture to allow greater activity of the hyponome in swimming. The shell is composed of three layers in Nautilus, but the lay- ers of the conch are not well known in fossil nautiloids. Quite probably when more forms have been studied there will be found considerable variation in the thickness and composition of the layers, somewhat comparable to that already known for Recent pelecypods and gastropods. At the present time the layers are not significant taxonomically in nautiloids, because only rarely are specimens encountered which show even faint traces of the vatious shell layers in thin section, any original differentiation having been lost in replacement of the original shell material. (Blake, 1882, p. 20; Miller, Dunbar, and Condra, 1933, p. 21; Flower, 1939, p. 9.) The surface is variously ornamented. Prominent among the surface markings are the lines of growth which indicate former apertures. They are significant, for sometimes they show that the hyponomic sinus was developed late in life, while in other cases they show that it was present from the early growth stages. In general, the elaborate lobation of the aperture found in such phragmoceroids as Hexameroceras is a gerontic feature, while the lobation which characterizes the Lituitide is present from early youth. In the simplest cases growth lines are evenly spaced. Ruede- mann (1921, p. 319) noted a correlation between alternating regions of widely spaced growth lines and closely spaced growth lines and the spacing of the septa, from which he suggested that possibly growth of the shell was retarded at the aperture while septa were being secreted at the base of the living chamber in some species. Again, other nautiloids show distinct varices of 111 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER 29 growth, resting stages in the growth of the aperture, which are marked by prominences in the growth lines themselves, and may be further marked by frills and spines as in the Devonian Kutoceratide. Surface markings other than lines of growth have received much the same terminology as that employed for other organisms rr and need not be treated here. The commonly used terms are de- fined in the accompanying glossary. The insid2 of the conch is primarily marked only by the conch- ial furrow (Flower, 1939, p. 12) which is always mid-ventral in position (fig. 4, CF). This and the hyponomic sinus are im- portant guides in the orientation of cephalopod shells, for al- though the simpler shells may appear to be simple cones, the underlying pattern is always one of bilateral symmetry, and it is important to distinguish the dorsum from the venter. Secondary deposits on the inside of the shell wall are found only in the living chambers of gerontic shells. Most commonly the shell is thickened close to the aperture in gerontic brevicones. In orthoceracones, the mature living chamber is frequently con- stricted by an annular thickening of the shell wall a short distance before the aperture is attained. In nautilicones and orthocer- acones where such deposition has occurred, there may be left clear or obscure impressions of the shell muscles already noted in connection with the soft parts. These are generally obscure in orthoceracones, In Orthoceros, as emended by Teichert and Miller (1936), the mature living chamber bears three linear projections of the shell wall near the basal part of the living chamber, a feature also reported in the little known Ctenoceras Noetling (see Hyatt, 1900). Blake (1882) noted folds at the base of the body chamber, best developed in the brevicones (inflati of Blake and his contemporaries). These characteristic gerontic features have been given the name of basal zone (Flower, TOSS: Pe T7T). Impressed lines on internal molds have been termed runzel- schicht by Schroeder and epidermids by Barrande. Neither term is employed here since these authors have included under 30 BULLETIN 116 112 them a variety of structures, the basal zone, incipient cameral deposits, and sometimes structures of the mantle surface reflect- ed upon the thickened wall of the living chamber, which are neither. THE SEPTA The septa are secreted by a specialized part of the mantle known as the posterior mantle (fig. 2, PM), their formation fol- lowing the movement of the visceral mass forward in the shell. The septum consists of three main regions (Teichert, 1933; Teichert, 1935; Flower, 1939): the mural part of the septum (fig. 4, M) which extends forward into the living chamber when first secreted, and later often, though not always, comes to be equal to the length of a camera; the free part of the septum (fig. 4, I’) which functions as a partition, shutting off the living cham- ber from the camere, and the camerze from each other; the septal neck (fig. 4, N) which extends apicad about the siphuncle. The septum is pierced by a septal foramen through which the siphonal tissues pass. The mural part of the septum is not always simple. In Nauw- tilus, it can be readily seen that the adoral termination of this part of the septum is approximate to the length of the wall of a camera on the dorsum, but on the venter the septum thins orad, and while its tip cannot always be made out, it clearly does not extend the whole length of the camera. This may be seen quite plainly in some specimens of Nauwtilus, particularly in the later whorls. It is a matter often hard to determine from fossil remains, but in some Devonian orthoceracones, a banding of the interior of the camere shows clearly that the mural part of the septum ex- tended about half the leneth of an air chamber. The septal furrow (Flower, 1939) sometimes referred to in the older literature under the more noncommittal term of normal line (ligne normale of Barrande) is an area on the dorsum of the shell in which no mural part of the septum is developed (fig. 4, SF; fig. 6 E). This is shown clearly in Nautilus, where it is better developed in the young stages of the shell than in the adult. The ways in which this structure can be preserved in fossils are variable (Flower, 1939), but it may be clearly recognized by its appearance on every septum. Often it extends the length of the eS CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER Sill mural part of the septum, and when well preserved, is an excel- lent guide to the adoral extent of the mural part of the septum. Often, however, it does not extend apicad to the position of the suture, where the septum swings free from the shell wall to form the free part of the septum. ‘he functional and morphological significance of this structure is not known, All discussions of Nautilus, which might be expected to yield some information, fail to take the structure into account or confuse it with the anoneur- otic bands, which it does not resemble in the least. The septal furrow is probably the best criterion of orientation in nautiloids and is always dorsal. 1n contrast, the conchial furrow, which is a continuous line on the interior, is always ventral in position, Some amazing interpretations of nautiloid orientation have resulted in the past from a confusion of these utterly unrelated structures. There has also been some confusion between the septal furrow and the marginal siphuncle in supposed Bactritide. The free part of the septum shows no special structures and needs no discussion, save as it may come to be incorporated in part with the siphuncle, as noted below. The septal neck is a funnel-like projection of the septum around the siphuncle. Its form varies among the various groups of cephalopods, and upon its form and structure depended the major divisions of the nautiloids proposed by Hyatt (1900). (Fig. 4, N.) In most internal molds the most conspicuous feature is the line formed where the free part of the septum joins the shell wall. This is the suture (fig. 4, S). Its form has been taken as one of the important criteria of classification in both nautiloids and am- monoids. The simplest sutures are straight and normal to the axis of the shell. However, sutures are not infrequently lobed. Portions of the suture which project orad are known as saddles, while portions which project apicad are known as lobes. In gen- eral, the suture pattern is much simpler in nautiloids than in am- monoids, though in some of the more specialized coiled nautiloids a complex suture pattern is attained which exceeds that of the older and simpler of the ammonoids. 32 BULLETIN 116 114 Figure 4. A dissected shell of a generalized orthoceracone showing es- sential parts. The hyponomie sinus (H) and the conehial furrow (CTI) mark the mid-ventral part of the shell. Adorally the shell is eut to the cen- ter, showing the wall of the conch (C) and the three parts of the septa, the free part (F) the mural part (M) and the septal neck (N) whieh is eyrtochoanitic in this form. The first segment of the siphuncle is cut to the center and is formed by the neck suppiemented by the connecting ring (R). The next segment of the siphuncle is entire and its exterior is shown. At its base, the entire free part of the septum is retained. In the next camera, part of the mural part of the septum is preserved on the nearer side. This is complete adorally on the right side, showing the septal fur- row (SF). The entire mural part of the septum is retained in the last camera, obscuring the interior. CF. Conchial furrow. Variations in the suture pattern may be attributed to various causes. Some are the direct result of a discordance between the section of the shell and the curvature of the free part of the sep- tum. saddle of the first ascoceroid septum. The dorsal lobes are rounded and convex orad throughout. Other species have broader and more nearly flat or more concave dorsal lobes, and are generally more gibbous. Type.——Holotype, collection of Dr, W. H. Shideler, Miami University. Occurrence —Lower Whitewater formation, Little Four Mile Creek, Oxford quadrangle, Ohio. Distorted specimens, doubt- fully identical, are, one other from the same locality and another from the same horizon at Dodge’s Creek, near Oxford, Ohio. Schuchertoceras discretum var. minor Flower, n. var. Plate 6, figs. 1-3; Text fig. 1C This form resembles S. discretum in general conformation and the course of the sutures, but differs in being considerably small- er and in having the greatest diameters attained at an earlier point on the shell. The variety shows some additional features which cannot be compared with S. discretum as they are not known from the typical representatives of that species. The shell is 50 mm. in length, in contrast to the 61 mm. of typical S. discretum. The greatest height is 28 mm., the width 26 mm., which are attained 15 mm. above the base of the speci- men, at a region halfway between the first two sutures, at about the point where a slight ridge on the dorstim simulates a su- ture, and would have been mistaken for one had not the pres- ervation of the interior shown otherwise. The venter is near- ly uniform in curvature in profile, the dorsum is convex adapical- ly and straight adorally. The type has apparently been com- pressed by pressure, though only very slightly, and preservation of internal features is excellent. The first suture is strongly oblique but sinuate upon ap- 206 BULLETIN 116 288 proaching the mideventral area. On the venter two sutures are visible, 1 mm. apart. On the dorsum only two ascoceroid septa are developed. The first of these is much farther from the nau- tiloid suture than in typical S. discretum, being 17 mm, from it and only 5 mm, from the next suture. The dorsal lobes of these two septa are slightly narrower than in the type of S. discretwm. A vertical section showed two segments of the siphuncle at the base of the specimen. These are broadly expanded bicon- vex segments, such as are found in conjunction with the asco- ceroid septum, but not normally in conjunction with the basal septum. The first of these lies between the basal septum and the septum of truncation, the substance of which is not pre- served, the specimen being an internal mold, Even the mold is imperfect, the surface being poor especially on the venter where the camera was filled with calcite. A third segment of the siphuncle is not preserved. This is shorter than the other two, and lies between the two ascoceroid septa. Discussion.—This species is very similar in aspect to S. dis- cretum, but is considerably smaller, and shows differences in the narrower dorsal lobes of the sutures, the earlier attainment of the greatest width and height, and the more evenly arched dorsal lobes of the sutures. Although a considerable array of minor differences can be found, it is not certain whether they may fall within the normal range of variation within a mixo- choanitic species, or whether they represent sexual dimor- phism. Data do not exist for comparison of these forms, since the known comparable specimens, in addition to these two types, consist of only three other specimens. Two are badly flattened, while a third, though rather weathered and slightly flattened, agrees almost precisely in proportions and in the position and course of the sutures with S. discretwm var. minor. Type.—Holotype, W. H. Shideler Collection, Miami Univer- sity. Occurrence.—The type is from the lower Whitewater horizon from Little Four Mile Creek, 7 miles north of Oxford, Ohio. The only other identical specimen is from the Rhynchotrema 289 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER 207 dentata zone, upper Whitewater, from Dodge’s Creek, near Ox- ford, Ohio. Schuchertoceras prolongatum (Foerste), n. sp. Plate 6, figs. 10-11 Billingsites prolongatum, new species, Foerste, ms. Original description.—The holotype is approximately 76 mm. long. Its maximum lateral diameter, 42 mm., is located 45 mm. above its base. The lateral outline has a radius of curvature of 90 mm., shortening to 12 mm. at the base. Its dorso-ventral diameter, in the present condition of the specimen, is 34 mm. but originally was evidently greater. ‘he upper- most dorsal saddle reaches an elevation of 65 mm. (from the base of the specimen). The one next beneath reaches an elevation of 55 mm. There is room for a lower saddle, but none is distinctly outlined, at least along its crest. The suture of the septum forming the base of the specimen rises to a height of 20 mm. dorsally and is assumed to sink to an eleva- tion between 11 mm. and 13 mm. ventrally. Remarks.—This specimen is characterized by its large size and elongate form. Supplementary notes.—The clarity of the septum at the base of the specimen and its suture suggest that this species is prob- ably a Schuchertoceras rather than a Billingsites, the same phe- nomenon being demonstrated by the internal structure to have a similar significance in S. discretum var. minor. This species may be distinguished by the very deep conical septum of truncation, the large size and slender form, and the very high arched saddles of the two sigmoidal septa known, The species which is most similar to this one in general as- pect belongs not to Schuchertoceras but to Billingsites. Biulling- sites acutus Foerste (1928, p. 261, pl. 38, figs. 1-3) of the English Head of Anticosti is of somewhat similar proportions, but the septum of truncation is more strongly conical, the sigmoid su- tures are more abruptly bent laterally, the saddles are broader and are concave adorally in the center. Type.—Holotype, W. H. Shideler Collection, Miami Univer- sity. Occurrence.—Two and one-tenth miles west of Hamburg, In- diana, road metal quarry 14 mile north of road bridge, upper Elkhorn beds. Schuchertoceras cf. prolongatum (Foerste) Plate 6, figs. 9; Text fig. 10 Under this name a single specimen is described and illustrated 208 BULLETIN 116 290 which is of special interest for the internal structure preserved. The type is an internal mold, much weathered externally and incomplete adorally, and with the base of the specimen poorly preserved owing to filling with friable calcite. The shell is 63 mm, in length, expanding from a blunt apex to a height of 37 mm. and a width of 39 mm., in the basal 40 mm., and contract- ing at the adoral end to a width of 34 mim. and a height of 27 mm. he ventral profile is almost uniformly convex with a radius of curvature of 70 mm. ‘The dorsal profile is faintly con- vex adapically and still convex but less curved adorally. The lateral outlines are convex. The sutures are poorly shown at the base of the specimen, and the septum of truncation is not clearly preserved. External- ly it can be seen that the sutures are strongly oblique, sloping apicad on the venter, but the exterior does not clearly show the suture of the basal septum on the dorsum. Ventrally the basal septum can be made out, and orad of it two sutures of ascoceroid septa form shallow saddles as in many species of both Buillings- ites and Schuchertoceras. These are very obscure and fail to show in section. ‘The saddles of the two ascoceroid septa de- part from the general course of the sutures near the dorsum, be- ing only 30 mm. apart at their base, but the larger saddle attains a width, measured across the curved dorsal surface, of 70 mm. The two sutures are rounded and convex adorally. The first crosses the dorsum 46 mm. above the base of the specimen, the second 57 mm. above the base. In section, the type shows only two septa crossing the shell from venter to dorsum. Apicad of the first, which is not clear ventrally, being obscured by calcite, are two prebasal segments of the siphuncle in the usual position. These are biconvex but uot broader than high. Between the basal septum and the next is a faintly preserved segment shorter and broader and strongly ~ expanded. The last septum when traced dorsally splits to both of the ascoceroid dorsal saddles. Ventrally it fails to swing for- ward as far as the two faint adoral sutures, which may be ad- 291 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER 209 ventitious structures. Discussion.—The type, if slightly flattened vertically by crush- ing and also slightly elongated by the same process, will approach very closely in proportion to the holotype of S. prolongatum ot the Elkhorn, The spacing of the two ascoceroid septa of the two specimens agrees very closely, but the dorsal saddles are broadened in the holotype, which thus presents a rather differ- ent aspect. Nevertheless this Saluda specimen does not seem to be distinct enough to be placed in a separate species. The basal septum does not appear to be as deep but is imperfectly pre- served. Type.—figured specimen, University of Cincinnati, No. 24209. Occurrence.—-From the Saluda beds, Shera farm, near Ox- ford, Ohio. Collected by M. S. Chappars. Schuchertoceras geniculatum Flower, n. sp. Plate 7, figs. 3. 4 The mature part of this species is broad and gibbous. The basal part of the shell is detached in outline from the remainder, an unusual phenomenon, as the basal septum is usually so aligned with the rest of the shell that its suture is not evident. At the suture the shell has a width of 25 mm. and a height of 22 mm. In 22 mm. this increases to 33 mm. and 28 mm., and in the remain- ing 9 mm. the shell contracts to the incomplete adoral end with a width of 29 mm. and a height of 22 mm. The shell expands over the basal two-thirds of the living chamber, the dorsum and venter diverging and being but slightly convex in profile. At the point of gibbosity the ventral profile became abruptly bent and is then nearly straight apparently to the aperture. The basal septum is marked by a suture which is slightly but not markedly oblique. The septum itself is not so rounded as usual. It is on the basis of the suture that this species is assigned to Schuchertoceras, and it is even possible that the type may bear at its base the basal septum, and that the septum of truncation may have been lost, probably by weathering. In addition, three ascoceroid septa are preserved on the dorsum, These unite into 210 BULLETIN 116 292 a single suture laterally. These sutures are not preserved over the mid-ventral region; so it is uncertain whether, as in some other species, they separate at the mid-ventral region. The sutures form an angle where they begin their ascoceroid development on the lateral region. The first suture is transverse nearly over the dorsal half of the shell, the two later sutures form broad shallow lobes on the dorsum. Nothing is known of the internal structure of the species. An unusual feature of the type is the preservation of some of the shell near the adoral end. No surface markings are shown. Discussion.—In the form of the sutures this species is more typical of Schuchertoceras than S. obscurum. The geniculate ventral profile and the gradual expansion of the shell to a point not far from the aperture followed by a rather abrupt contraction give this species a shape unlike that of any other described species, where the form is much more evenly rounded. Type.—Holotype, collection of Dr. W. H. Shideler, Miami University. Occurrence-—From the upper Whitewater beds, Beasley Creek, just below bridge north of Camden, Ohio. Schuchertoceras rotundum Flower, n. sp. Plate 7, figs. 1, 2 The holotype is 56 mm. in length and slightly incomplete ad- orally. In vertical profile the dorsum is slightly convex, the venter more strongly curved, the curvature being apparently near- ly uniform throughout on both dorsum and venter. The lateral outline is slightly convex. The venter is partially lost by weather- ing on the type. The shell expands from a blunt apex to a width of 33 mm. and an estimated height of 30 mm. in the basal 35 mm. of the specimen; 45 mm. above the base, the shell has contracted to 27 mm. and 21 mm. at the level of the last dorsal saddle. The septum of truncation is apparently well blended with the cutline of the shell. It is weathered in the type. The suture of of the basal septum is 14 mm. above the base on the dorsum and 5 mm. above the base on the venter. This is followed by three ascoceroid septa which develop dorsal lobes which expand later- 293 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER 211 ally adorally from the lateral angle and are straight and trans- verse over the dorsal surface of the shell. The first saddle rises 11 mm. above the sutures of the basal septum on the dorsum, the second is 14 mm. farther, and the third 8 mm. beyond the sec- ond. The sutures of the last two are fused, but the suture of the first ascoceroid septum is close to but distinct from the others laterally and ventrally. The adoral dorsal saddles are wide and can be seen on the ventral side of the shell. Discussion —This species is distinctive in the very broad dor- sal saddles, a feature which will distinguish it from the associated S. discretum, S. distinctum, and S. prolongatum. S. geniculatum has similar broad saddles, but the shell is much shorter, expands to a point of greatest diameter which lies much farther orad on the shell, is shorter in proportion to its diameters, and has the lateral part of the ascoceroid septa more strongly inclined ventrad. These two species are not at all similar in aspect. No described species of Schuchertoceras is very close to this one in size or aspect. The rounded form produces a superficial resemblance between this species and Billingsites canadensis (Billings) from the English Head formation of Anticosti. That species has no basal septum and is not congeneric with Schuchertoceras. Unfortunatel, the only available representative of this species has the venter badly weathered, so much so that the siphuncle and the ventral parts of the sutures are lost. Type —Holotype, W. H. Shideler Collection, Miami Univer- sity. Occurrence.—From the upper Whitewater formation between the top of the Saluda and the Rhynchotrema dentata zone, McDill’s Mills, Four Mile Creek, near Oxford, Ohio. SECONDARILY CYRTOCHOANITIC CEPHALOPODS Superfamily ONCOCEROIDEA Flower, new name In the secondarily cyrtochoanitic cephalopods, those which show suborthochoanitic early stages followed by cyrtochoanitic segments in the ephebic siphuncle, are placed most of the cyrto- conic genera of the Ordovician. I have recognized in this group 212 BULLETIN 116 294 four main divisions which have already been noted in the discus- sion of the ancestral suborthochoanitic cephalopods. Tentatively, iamily names are employed for these divisions, even though they are of very unequal size, and one, the Oncoceratide, appears to have given rise to many other families in the Silurian and Devon- ian, while the remaining families either disappeared at the close of the Ordovician, or else gave rise to other types the relationship of which has not been established. The families may be stan- marized in their simplest terms as follows: Allumettoceratid@.—Exogastric shells of depressed section, ventral siphuncle, with segments which are cyrtochoanitic and empty. Conch faintly curved or secondarily straight. Oncoceratiae.—Exogastric shells with vantral empty siph- uncles differing from the Allumettoceratidz in a compressed sec- tion. Whereas the Ailumettoceratide tend in their development to produce longiconic shells, approaching the ‘“Orthoceras’” type except in cross section and the marginal siphuncle, the Oncocera- tide remain in the main curved shells and are frequently brevi- conic. V alcouroceratid@.—Exogastric compressed shells with ventral siphuncles, differentiated from the Oncoceratide by the develop- ment first of a thickening of the connecting ring, and finally the expansion of this thickening into actinosiphonate deposits. Diestoceratid@—Compressed straight or faintly endogastric breviconic shells with marginal siphuncles characterized by dis- crete and frequently irregular “actinosiphonate” deposits, Some of the problems involved in tracing the relationships of these families have already been discussed in connection with the suborthochoanitic cephalopods from which they are believed to be derived. Thus conclusion is based upon the prevalence of a suborthochoanitic siphuncle in the early growth _ stages of Allumettoceratide, Oncoceratide, and Valcouroceratide in the Chazyan, where, happily, a considerable number of very early stages of members of these families were found in a state of pres- ervation suitable for careful study by means of sections. General- ly such early portions of the shells are missing, and such Middle and Upper Ordovician forms as I have found retaining relatively 295 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER 213 early stages are very frequently recrystallized adapically so that the structure of the siphuncle cannot be made out clearly. There is also some indication that Mohawkian and Cincinnatian species have progressed tachygenetically beyond those of the Chazyan, so that the suborthochoanitic stages are pushed farther apicad if they are not completely lost. The suborthochoanitic siphuncles found in the early stages of the Allumettoceratidz, Oncoceratide, and Valcouroceratide, have short though not aneuchoanitic necks and thin connecting rings showing no differentiation of structure in different regions. They are essentially identical with the siphumcles found in the adult stages of the Chazyan Eorizoceras, Graciloceras, and the Canad- ian Bassleroceras, and indeed the early stages of these secondari- ly cyrtochoanitic cephalopods recapitulate the condition found in the adult, and continued so far as known, throughout the entire phragmocone, of the suborthochoanitic cyrtoceracones with ven- tral siphuncles. The suborthochoanitic types are known to ap- pear as low as the Lecanospira zone of the Middle Canadian, and are probably actually even more ancient, and to decline after the close of the Chazyan, even though Graciloceras persists to the Cincinnatian. The secondarily cyrtochoanitic cephalopods on the other hand are not known prior to Chazyan time, where each of the families is represented by simple and apparently primitive types. They attain more diversity in the boreal Black River and lower Trenton faunas, a second development in the boreal late Trenton and Richmond, with secondary and apparently minor developments in the less well-known austral upper Trenton and Covington faunas. Certainly the Oncoceratide gave rise to further specializations in the Silurian, and it is not impossible that some actinosiphonate Silurian and Devonian types may be traceable to the Valcouroceratidz. The relationship of Devonian genera is less well established, although it has been possible to trace one family, the Brevicoceratide to Silurian Oonoceras and thence to the Ordovician Oncoceratide. The ranges show that in contrast to the suborthochoanitic cephalopods, the secondarily 214 BULLETIN 116 296 cyrtochoanitic nautiloids were a relatively late development, and one which embrace most of the cyrtoconic genera of the Or- Ggovician, Silurian, and Devonian. ‘Lhe range of the two groups and the ontogenetic progression of the Chazyan cyrtochoanitic genera indicate beyond any reasonable doubt the origin of the group in the suborthochoanitic cephalopods. The next question which arises is whether the cyrtochoanitic structure is an indication of a common cyrtochoanitic ancestor of the four families, or whether parailel development might have oc- curred in various parts of the suborthochoanitic group which was highly diversified before cyrtochoanitic structure made its appear- ance. The Valcouroceratida were clearly derived from simpler compressed cyrtocones with thin-walled siphuncles, such forms as are clearly embraced in the Oncoceratide. Further, the oldest genera of each iamily are, in the adult, still quite similar in form, being exogastric brevicones inflated on or near the living chamber and more or less contracted at the aperture. More slender shells developed in each family later, he origin of the Diestoceratidz is obscure, as there is scant adult morphological evidence and the early stages have not been found in a state suitable for detailed studies such as were possible for the other families. However, the siphuncles are known to become gradually more slender when traced apicad, which suggests that they too may have had a sub- orthochoanitic origin. Further, the similarity of the one young phragmocone known to /alcowroceras suggests a close relation- ship with the simpler Valcouroceratide. As there is at the pres- ent time no evidence which seems to oppose such a view, I have derived them from the Valcouroceratide, with which they agree in the cempressed section, though their early exogastric condi- tion is not always evident. The Allumettoceratide present a different problem. Though unquestionably suborthochoanitic in ancestry, these shells show a strongly flattened section at the earliest stage observed. This suggests, though it does not necessarily prove, that they arose from some other suborthoehoanitic stock, perhaps a group of suborthochoanitic cyrtoceracones in which the section had already 297 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER 215 become broad instead of narrow. However, it is necessary to recognize that other possibilities exist. It mav be that the change in the cross section appeared ccenogenetically and dominated the whole shell suddenly. There is no evidence of a proterogenetic sequence. Further, at the present time no suborthochoanitic cyrtoceracones are known with a depressed section which are like- ly ancestors of these forms. Onychoceras of the Canadian is aneuchoanitic and has complex rings not unlike those of Cyclostomiceras, which the writer believes ceveloped primarily and possibly completely in the ecurysiphonate instead of the stenosiphonate line. Tven this concept, however, may be con- sidered open to auestion. In the diagram figure 9, the origin of the Allumettoceratide is left as uncertain, with bet! possi- bilities indicated. Although it is believed by the writer that the present classifi- cation approaches very close to the genetic relationships of the xenera concerned, nevertheless, the possibility arises that the taxonomic units may be homeomorphic. This matter is discussed in connection with the families themselves and occasionally, with reference to specific genera. Family ALLUMETTOCERATIDZ Flower. n. fam. The family Allumettoceratide is erected for secondarily cyr- tochoanitic shells which have ventral siphuncles, suborthochoa- nitic in the early stages. but cyrtochoanitic, though sometimes only slightly expanded throughcut the greater jength of the shell. In connection with the flattening of the shell, the sutures tend to develop lobes on the dorsum and venter. As the venter is com- monly more flattened than the dorsum, the sutures generally form deeper lobes there. The cyrtocenic condition of these shells is slight and is best seen in the early growth stages of Chazyan species, though still evident in even the adults of many Mohawkian forms. The shells in general tend to develop toward an ortho- conic rather than a cyrtoconic adult stage and the adoral parts of the shells may often be described as orthoconic. The cross _section is always depressed, 216 rtp BULLETIN 116 298 Only four genera are assigned to this family with certainty at the present time. Alluwmettoceras, ranging from the Chazyan into the Black River and basal Trenton, is selected as the type genus of the family because it is much better known internally, due largely to the study of undescribed Chazyan material. Specimens of the genus are depressed in section, the venter flat, the dorsum broadly arched, the sides rather narrowly rounded but not angu- lar, Tripteroceras 1s unknown in the Chazyan proper but is rather widespread in the Middle Ordovician, The genus is discussed in more detail below in connection with the closely allied Rasmus- senoceras. Typically, its section is subtriangular. As the shell is traced orad dorso-lateral grooves appear on the surface and widen until they serve to form flat or slightly concave faces separating a mid-dorsal ridge from the lateral angles, which are either so very narrowly rounded as to be subangular or actually angular. The siphuncle is not adequately described and illustrat- ed for any species of Tripteroceras. Rasmussenoceras, discussed in detail below, grades into Trip- teroceras, having a keeled Tripteroceras-like stage in the young, sometimes persisting for half the length of the shell. The adult, however, luses the median ridge and the dorsum becomes a very slightly curved surface separated from the much flatter ventral surface by lateral angles. In fact, the internal mold of this genus presents the aspect of a Lambeoceras rather than that of a Trip- teroceras, The siphuncle of the genotype (Troedsson, 1926) is narrow, longer than wide, and might almost be considered sub- orthochoanitic. This genus is known from the Middle and Upper Ordovician and appears to be strictly boreal in its distribution. Tripterocerina Foerste differs from Tripteroceras in the de- velopment of numerous longitudinal ridges separated by depres- sions on the dorsal surface. It is known only from the genotype, T. kirki Foerste, of the Fremont limestone of Colorado. No members of this family have been recognized in the Silur- ian. Some genera of similar aspect occur in the Devonian but may be only homeomorphic with the Allumettoceratide. The Devonian Tripleuroceras is an actinosiphonate genus superficially 299 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER 217 similar to Tripteroceras in gross features but distinguished by a much larger and more strongly cyrtochoanitic siphuncle and actinosiphonate deposits. (See Foerste, 1926, p. 308, pl. 32, fig. 4A-O; pl. 33, figs. 2A-B, 3A-C). Its affinities seem to be with the Jovelaniide, but the origin of this whole family is uncertain. Eudoceras Hyatt (1884), based upon E. pandum (Hall) of the Schoharie grit, is superficially very similar to Rasmussenoceras, but absolutely nothing is known concerning its siphuncle except that it must have been very small and was probably marginal. It is possible that this genus may he related to Rasmussenoceras, but it is equally possible that it may represent a case of noncon- temporaneous convergence from quite a different stock. It may even have developed from truly orthochoanitic orthoceracones. Genus TRIPTEROCERAS Hyatt Genotype.—Orthoccras hastatum Billings. Tripteroceras Hyatt, 1884, Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., Proc., vol. 22, p. 287; Hyatt, 1900, Cephalopoda in Zittel-Mastmann Textbook Paleont., vol. 1, Ist ed.; Zittel, 1884, Handb. Paleont., vol. 2, p. 370; Miller, 1897, North Amer. Geol., Pal., 2d App., p. 788; Clarke, 1897, Geol. Minnesota, vol. 3, pt. 2, p. 791; Foerste, 1924, Denison Univ. Bull., Sei. Lab., Jour., vol. 20, p. 251; Foerste, 1926, ibid., vol. 21, p. 311; Troedsson, 1926, Meddelelser om Groenland, vol. 71, p. 48; Foerste, 1929, Denison Univ. Bull., Sci. Lab., Jour., vol. 24, p. 305; Foerste, and Savage, 1927, Denison Univ. Bull., Sci. Lab., Jour., vol. 22, p. 46; Foerste, 1932, ibid., vol. 27, p. 130; Foerste, 1935, ibid., vol. 30, p. 48. Tripteroceras consists of small straight or very slightly exogas- tric sheils of broadly depressed triangular section, the venter broad and flat, lateral angles acute, and the dorsum divided by a ridge or keel in the middle; the dorso-lateral regions being flat or slightly concave. ‘The sutures describe broad rounded lobes on dorsum and venter. The siphuncle is small, close to the venter, and has been described as tubular though apparently the segments are very slightly expanded within the camere. The lines of growth are very faintly convex over the dorsum but have not been observed ventrally. Discussion.—Tripteroceras has undergone a series of restric- tions since its original description. Hyatt originally placed this Ordovician genus in the Eudoceratide and regarded this genus as a derivative of the Devonian Edoceras, from which it differed 218 BULLETIN 116 300 mainly in the slight cyrtoconic condition of the shell. He presents it as a Silurian and Devonian genus, although the genotype is Ordovician, as are all of the species, bo oO BULLETIN 116 302 No species of Tripteroceras occur in the Upper Ordovician of the Cincinnati region. Lambeoceras richmondense was originally described by Foerste at a time when he regarded Lambeoceras as a subgenus of Tripteroceras. In the manuscript descriptions of Cincinnatian cephalopods two species were described in terms of Tripteroceras by Foerste. Additional material has shown that they represent a single species, but one which shows marked and very deceptive changes in the rate of lateral expansion. On the basis of the section this species is placed in Rasmussenoceras rather than Tripteroceras. The known American species of Tripteroceras as here restrict- ed are as follows: T. hastatuim (Billings). Paquette Rapids beds, Ottawa River. T. planoconvexum (Hall). Platteville limestone of Wisconsin, also recognized by Foerste in the Chaumont of Ottawa. The Ottawa form at least is a very typical Tripteroceras. All other species appear to belong in Rasmussenoceras. Genus RASMUSSENOCERAS Foerste Genotyne.—Lambeoceras (2?) leveannulatum Troedsson (1926). Rasmussenoceras Foerste, 1933, Denison Univ. Bull., Sci. Lab., Jour., vol. 28, pp. 1-2. Conch straight, strongly flattened, dorsum and venter slightlv convex but separated by sharp lateral angles. The sutures de- scribe broad rounded lobes on dorsum and venter which are ‘sep- arated by prominent angular or subangular lateral saddles. The siphuncle is small, close to the venter, composed of small slender segments which expand only very slightly in the camere, the septal necks being essentially orthochoanitic. No deposits are known in the siphuncle or camere. Discussion—Foerste separated this genus from Lambeoceras on the basis of the form of the siphuncle. Indeed, it resembles that genus perfectly in all respects except the outline and structure of the siphuncle. Previously only the genotype has been placed here, R. leveannulatum Troedsson (1926) of the Cape Calhoun formation of northern Greenland. However, if the genus is to be recognized at all, it seems necessary to include within it, in addi- tion, a large number of those species which have formerly been 303 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER 221 placed in Tripteroceras, but which agree with Rasmussenoceras and differ from typical Tvipteroceras in that the dorsum is not divided by an angular ridge, and the section is digonal rather than trigonal. Some species which are typical in form of Rasmussenoceras, including the Richmondian species described below, show affini- ties with typical Tripteroceras in the development of a faint dorsal keel in the earlier stages of the shell. This suggsts that Ras- mussenoceras is a specialization grown out of Tripteroceras, and if this conclusion, strongly indicated by all of the available evi- dence which is, however, incomplete, is correct, there may be no natural dividing point between the two. Foerste in describing Rasmussenoceras compared it with Tripteroceras xiphias (Bill- ings) and T. schofieldi Foerste pointing out similarities with those species, though indicating no differences, stating, however, that these species were to be retained in Tripteroceras. While the di- vision between genera is often arbitrary, there seems to be no good morphological basis for arriving at Foerste’s conclusion. If Rasimussenoceras is to be recognized as distinct from Triptero- ceras, it must be used to include those species which agree with R. leveannulatum in section and differ from the genotype of Tripteroceras in having the dorsum rounded and convex, at least in the ephebic portion, but lacking a distinct mid-dorsal keel. The morphological evidence is admittedly incomplete, for the siphuncle is only very poorly known in practically all of these species which I am transferring to Rasmussenoceras on the basis of the section of the shell. In the Richmondian species described below, the siphuncle is very small, suborthochoanitic, and its walls are so thin that the structure is preserved in only one of the specimens, and even the septal foramen is only rarely and faintly indicated on the best preserved of our specimens. Rasmussenoceras may be distinguished on the basis of the very different structure of the siphuncle from the actinoceroid genus Lambeoceras, which it resembles strongly in section and sutures. It may be distinguished from Tripteroceras, as noted above, by the digonal rather than trigonal section. Greater difficulty is en- countered in distinguishing it from the little known Devonian 222 BuLuLETIN 116 304 genus Eudoceras, the type of which is Eudoceras pandum (Hall) of the Schoharie grit. This is a digonal shell with sutures and section similar to those of Rasmussenoceras and Lambeoceras. The siphuncle is very small and its structure is unknown. Until the siphuncle is known, no other species can be assigned to this species with certainty. It may be added that the preservation of cephalopods in general and this species in particular in the Scho- harie grit, to which formation it is confined, is such as to make the discovery of these essential morphological features an ex- tremely unlikely contingency. It is not impossible that Eudoceras may represent the last survival of this stock in Devonian time, but such a hypothesis cannot be demonstrated conclusively with- out more knowledge of the structure of that genus, or at least in the absence of Silurian species which mav bridge the stratigraphic sap betwden the Ordovician and the Devonian forms. The following species, formerly assigned to Tripteroceras by Foerste, are placed in Rasmussenoceras : Rasmussenoceras xiphias (Billings). (See Foerste, 1928, pl. 7, fig, 4A-C) of the English Head formation of Anticosti. R. owent (Clarke). (See Foerste, 1929, p. 306) of the Platte- ville limestone of Minnesota. R. schofieldi (Foerste, 1929). Platteville limestone, Wiscon- sin. R., sp. (Triptervoceras, sp., Foerste, 1929). Prosser limestone of Minnesota. R., sp. indet. (Triptercceras, sp. indet., Troedsson, 1926). Cape Calhoun formation, Greenland. Rasmussenoeerss variabile Flower, n. sp. Plate 48, figs. 1-8 Shell straight, very strongly depressed, the venter nearly flat, the dorsum arched, the dorso-lateral sides faintly concave in the young, but gradually merging into an evenly convex dorsum in the adult. The lateral angles are sharp as in Lambeoceras, which this species resembles strongly. The apical angle of the Jateral sides is 22 degrees up to a wicth of from 35 mm. to 40 mm. where it decreases quite rapidly to one of between 13 and 14 degrees. 305 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER 223 The smallest specimen observed increases in width from 1t mm. to 18 mm. in a length of 24 mm., and shows a well-arched dorsal surface with slight dorso-lateral concavities. These concavities are slightly more marked in a slightly larger specimen where they serve to bring out a vestigial dorsal ikeel which is, however, rounded and narrow. This shell expands from 18 mm. to 33 mm. in 38 mm, The next larger specimen shows an increase in width of from 24 mm. to 30 mm. in the basal 18 mm., while in the suc- ceeding 36 mm. the width increases only to 33 mm. The largest fragment is an incomplete living chamber which expands from 26 mm. to 43 mm. in a length of 43 mm., and originally extended considerably farther orad. At a shell width of 25 mm., the dor- sum becomes rounded and loses all trace of the dorso-lateral concavities and the mid-dorsal keel. Few specimens consist of more than the living chamber. One individual, however, shows parts of eight camere attached to a complete living chamber. The eight camere occupy a length (lateral) of 17 mm, The sutures form subangular narrowly rounded lateral saddles separating a broad rounded dorsal lobe and a somewhat narrower and more angular ventral lobe. Although septa are not uncommonly preserved, only one speci- men has been found which preserves more than the faintest indi- cation of the siphuncle. This is small, close to the venter, and the segments are scarcely expanded within the camere. The septal neck is very slightly recurved, but the connecting rings present an essentially tubular condition. The ratio of the height and width of the shell varies consider- ably, probably due as much to slight flattening as to variation within the growth stages. One shell shows a height of 6 mm. where the width is 14 mm. In the best preserved specimen the height is 11 mm. with the width of 25 mm.; farther orad in the same specimen the height is 19 mm. and the width 38 mm. The largest fragment shows a height of 18 mm, and a width of 42 mm., but this shell is apparently slightly flattened vertically. The aperture has not been clearly observed. One shell shows lines of growth which form a broad low saddle on the dorsum, 224 BULLETIN 116 306 consisting of rather coarse transverse markings as in Lambeoceras lambei as shown by Leith (1942). Discussion —This species, because of the abrupt change in the rate of expansion, presents the aspect of two distinct species, for much of the extant material consists of rather incomplete living chambers. Indeed, Foerste had described in manuscript two species based upon this material, both of which he placed in Tripteroceras’*, However, in his justification it should be stated that those specimens supplying the interval in the shell in which the change in rate of expansion occurs, were not available at the time of his uncompleted investigation. Further, evaluation of the proportions of the species is somewhat, though perhaps not great- ly complicated by the flattening to which most of the shells ob- served have been subjected. Of the 14 specimens available at the time of the present study only four seem to be reasonably free from the effects of pressure. This Whitewater species closely resembles Lambeoceras rich- mondense (Foerste) from which it can be distinguished with certainty only by the minute and elusive siphuncle. Whenever a septum of Lambeoceras is exposed the large slightly depressed septal foramen is a very conspicuous feature. This species is similar in aspect to its.congeners. The geno- type is a much larger species in which both the dorsum and venter are convex in cross section (see Troedsson, 1926). R. xiphias (Billings) has the dorsum more arched and the camere considerably deeper. It is also a species which attains a consider- ably larger size than indicated by any known specimens of FR. var- iabile. R. oweni and R. schofieldi are known from relatively adapical portions of shells. R. schofieldi at least lacks at this stage all traces of the keeled dorsum, and both are more rapidly expanding than are commensurate parts of the Richmond species. Types.—Syntypes, Earlham Collection, No. 8203; Shideler Collection, eight specimens ; two specimens in the collection of the University of Cincinnati Museum. Occurrence.—From the Whitewater beds of Richmond, Indi- ana. The species is known from the cephalopod beds of the lower 10 This was written prior to his description of Rasmussenoceras (1933). bo or 307 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER Whitewater of Dodge’s Creek, Little Four Mile Creek, Flat Fork Creek, Camden, and from the upper Whitewater of Dodge’s Creek and Camden, Ohio. Family ONCOCERATIDA Hyatt, emend. Flewer The family Oncoceratidze is here employed for secondarily cyrtochoanitic cephalopods with ventral, rather small, siphuncles which are free from any organic deposits. The shells are exogas- tric cyrtoceracones of compressed section, although a few of the genera are essentially circular in cross section, and it may prove that some depressed cyrtoceracones may be included here. The depressed Allumettoceratide may be readily distinguished, not only by the depressed section of the shell but by the faintness of the curvature and the gradual expansion of the shell to the aper- ture. Members of this family are not known to have either strong curvature or breviconic living chambers. The compressed Val- couroceratidz and Diestoceratide are both distinguished by the development of actinosiphonate deposits. The Valcouroceratidze may resemble the Oncoceratide in form, but the cross section is in general broader and tends to be more strongly flattened dorsal- ly. The Diestoceratidz are strongly breviconic, but the shells are either essentially straight or faintly endogastric in curvature. Genera in the Oncoceratide are based essentially upon the shape of the shell and the condition of the aperture. The si- phuncle shows some variation in the form of its segments among the species, but it has been described only for a small percentage of the known species, and therefore cannot be used as yet to clar- ify the classification. The present status of the genera as established upon shell form raises many perplexities, for the prolific Oncoceratide of the Ordovician contain species which appear to intergrade between the genera so closely and so frequently as to indicate that the genera in their present condition are not natural genetic units. One such chain of species between natural genera may be expect- ed, but where three or four such series can be established, as in the case of Oncoceras and Beloitoceras, it is apparent that the genera as at preseng defined are not natural groups. So close has the rela- 226 BULLETIN 116 308 tionship been between genera in several instances, that only the large number of species involved has caused me to refrain from reducing several of the generic names to synonymy. Such a step may eventually be taken, but should, in the opinion of the writer, be delayed until it is ascertained whether internal structure may not supply better clues for the division of the Oncoceratide. The siphuncles are suborthochoanitic in the early growth stages of Chazyan species of Oncoceras and Beloitoceras. Yet the adult segments of the same species may be slightly scalari- form dorsally and straight ventrally (fg. 11F), or biconvex, a condition also found in the ephebic segments of the Black River genotype of Beloitoceras (fig. 11 E). Still other variations have been noted. Some segments are clearly scalariform with angular outlines in vertical section, while others are rounded and essentially oval in form. The septal necks are always quite short and are frequently difficult to detect in opaque sections. In their present status, the genera composing the Oncoceratidee may be defined briefly as follows: Oncoceras.—Shell exogastric, a compressed brevicone, gibbous region typically located below the base of the mature living cham- ber, so that the shell contracts toward the aperture over the length of the living chamber. As shown more fully in the dis- cussions of the genera and the analysis of the species, it is difficult to determine a clear point of separation between this genus and Neumatoceras and Beloitoceras. In its present scope Oncoceras ranges from the Black River to the Richmond, while the known Chazyan species are so close to the boundary between Oncoceras and Beloitoceras that they might be placed in either genus. Beloitoceras—Shell an exogastric compressed brevicone, eith- er faintly gibbous, the dorsum straight or even faintly concave, or when more gibbous, the convexity of the dorsum lying on the liv- ing chamber rather than on the adoral part of the phragmocone. The more gibbous species are very close to Oncoceras and Neumatoceras. Beloitoceras is a very large genus in the Or- dovician, ranging from the Chazyan to the top of the Richmond. Neumatoceras.—A strongly gibbous compressed brevicone, the ventral outline humped over the dorsal end of the phragmocone, 309 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER 227 contracting rapidly toward the aperture. Dorsum straight or convex over the middle of the shell in profile. Species previously assigned to this genus appear to intergrade with both Onecceras and Beloitoceras, leading to the belief that Newmatoceras is at present only a receptacle for strongly gibbous species derived from several genetic radicles, some of which are clearly defined Figure 11. Outlines of species of Oncoceras and Beloitoceras showing genotype; intergradation of genera on basis of form; Cincinnati species and related Middle and Upper Ordovician representatives. F, J, K, and T-W are original, Others are drawn from Foerste’s illustrations. A-E. Beloito- ceras pandion (Hall), genotype of Beloitoceras, Platteville limestone, Wis- consin. A, lateral view; B, ventral view; C, cross section of aperture; D, 228 BouLuetTIN 116 310 species groups. The genus appears later than Oncoceras and Bel- vitoceras, being essentially boreal, and probably none of the spe- cies are older than the Upper Ordovician. Maelonoceras—This genus is so little known that at present only the genotype can be assigned to it. That species is known only from a living chamber which contracts gradually toward a pear-shaped aperture (fig. 11, X-Y). Formerly Foerste regard- ed such shells as fig. 11 AD as typical, but these are not congen- eric with fig. 11 X-Y, which is the specimen which Hyatt se- lected as the type of Billings’ species, Oncoceras praematurum, at the time of the description of the genus Maelonoceras. Foerste subsequently extended Beloitoceras to include such specimens as Ae bts NM cross section near base; E, vertical section of siphunecle. F. Siphuncle of an undeseribed Chazyan species, showing straight ventral and scalariform dorsal outline. Valcour limestone, Little Monty Bay, Chazy, New York. G-K. Oncoceras constrictum Hall, genotype of Oncoceras, showing size and form variation. G-H, lateral and ventral views of a type; I, lateral view of another type; J-K, lateral view of two specimens in the collection of the writer. Trenton limestone, Trenton Falls, New York. L-M. Beloitoceras baffinense (Scehuchert), Frobisher Bay, Baffin Land, show- ing extreme of vertical expansion included in Beloitoceras. N-O, Oncoceras collinsi Foerste, Black River, Ottawa. N, dorsal and M, lateral views. P. Oncoceras carletonense Foerste, English Head formation, Anticosti. Lateral view. The gibbosity of the dorsum is high for Oncoceras, approach- ing the condition found in the more gibbous Beloitoceras. Q. Oncoceras parvum Foerste, Bighorn formation. Lateral. R. Beloitoceras carvert (Clarke), Platteville limestone, Minnesota. Lateral. 8S. Beloitoceras ef. janesvillense Foerste, Platteville limestone, Minnesota. Lateral. T-U. Oneoceras foerstei Flower, Leipers formation, Kentucky, T, lateral view with section of phragmocone appended and apex restored. U. Dorsal view. From holotype. V-W. Oncoceras arlandi Flower, Leipers formation, Kentucky. V, lateral view; W, dorsal view. X-Y. Maclonoceras praema- turum (Billings), Black River limestone, LaCloche Island, Lake Huron. Living chamber, X, adoral and Y, ventral view. Z. Oncoceras (?) ornatwm (Miller), Bighorn formation. Lateral view. A-AB. Beloitoceras ner- woodi (Clarke), Platteville limestone, Minnesota, A strongly compressed species with low gibbosity, approaching Oncoceras. 17 aC ee 18 /\a is\_/ Kindleoceras a earn Augustoceros ate Mingonoceras Valcouroceras Figure 14. The principal genera of the Valcouroceratide and their re- lationship. 1-3. Minganoceras. 1, lateral view; 2, section from venter of siphunele eutting to different levels in different segments; 3, diagrammatic cross section. Based upon Minganoceras subturbinatum (Billings) of the Mingan formation, 4-12. Valcouwroceras. 4, lateral view of a typical species; 5-7, three successive sections showing the modification of the sec- tion in the phragmocone of a large mature specimen; 8, section shortly beyond the base of the living chamber of the genotype; 9, cross section near the aperture of genotype; 10, cross section of siphuncle showing sym- metry of actinosiphonate lobes; 11, suborthochoanitie stage of siphuncele, found in early stages (a on fig. 4); 12, second stage of siphuncle, found approximately in region b on fig. 4. 13. Mature segments of a typical large species, found in region ¢ as indicated on fig. 4., the only stage with well-developed rays within the siphuncle. 14-18. Augustoceras. 14, lateral and 15, ventral views of the internal mold of a typical form; 16, vertical 338 BULLETIN 116 420 section through siphuncle; 17, mature cross section; 18, compressed cross section, found only in A. minor. 19-24. Kindleoceras. 19, lateral aspect of K. equilaterale, the only species known to show a contracted aperture; 20, ventral view of a typical living chamber, from KC. cwmingsi; 21, see- tion through siphunele, showing actinosiphonate deposits; 22, eross sec- tion of K. cwmingsi; 28, eross section of I. equilaterale. Obliquity is probably due to slight distortion; 24, projection of suture, from K. equi- laterale. 25-32. Manitoulinoceras. 25, lateral aspect of a typical form, showing relative rapid expansion and deep camer of early portion, and slender later portion with shallow camere; 26-27, cross sections showing range of variation from subtriangular to a simple depressed section; 28, ventral view of living chamber, showing hyponomic sinus; 29-30, projec- tions of sutures, showing variation in development of a lobe on the venter; 31, typical siphuncle as seen in section; 32, section of a siphunele retain- » ing actinosiphonate deposits. 35-34. Staufferoceras. 33, lateral view; 34, ventral view. Differs from Manitoulinoceras in gibbosity and contracted aperture. The deep camere and the fairly rapid expansion of immature Manitoulinoceras is retained throughout the early normal growth stage. Minganoceras (text fig. 14: 1-3) is known only from M. sub- turbinatum (Billings) which insofar as the writer is aware, is known only from a single specimen. The shell is a slender cyr- tocone, broader than high, and with the venter more narrowly rounded than the dorsum, The sutures are simple and transverse, The siphuncle is broadly cyrtochoanitic and contains simple actinosiphonate deposits. The section shown in fig. 14: 2, passes nearly through the center of the siphuncle at its dorsal end, but passes obliquely closer to the margin adapically, thereby showing more clearly than would otherwise be possible the rays of the de- posit. Valcouroceras (fig. 14: 4-12) seems more complex, probably because it is better known. The shell is more curved, and the liv- ing chamber more gibbous. The sutures are usually oblique, slop- ing strongly orad from dorsum to venter. The section varies in the growth stages, being first a simple compressed section (5), later becoming flattened on the dorsum (6), and then widened (7). At or slightly orad of the base of the living chamber, the subtriangular aspect of the cross section may be lost (8), though the shell in such cases is generally compressed at the extreme aperture (9). Valcouroceras shows in the earliest growth stages compressed 421 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER 339 cyrtoconic shells with suborthochoanitic ventral siphuncles (fig. 14: 4, 5, 11). In the very earliest growth stages observed, it is not always possible to identify the genus or even the family with absolute certainty, as the condition is practically identical with that found in commensurate portions of the associated Beloito- ceras, Oncoceras, and Richardsonoceras. ‘his strong similarity of stages presents convincing evidence for a common origin of the Oncoceratide and the Valcouroceratidze from suborthocho- anitic exogastric cyrtoceracones which were probably a pre- Chazyan but apparently a post-Beekmantown development’* Later segments of Valcowroceras show a gradual increase in the degree to which the siphuncle is expanded within the camere. Further, as might be expected, there is a direct connection within any species between the growth stage of the siphuncle to be found at any point with the shell diameters at the point where a section is taken for observation. his is the condition to be expected within a species where ontogeny follows a normal tachygenetic course. However, lalcowroceras shows this correlation not only within specimens of a species, but also among the known species which vary considerably in size. Thus species which are small and in which shell growth stopped relatively early have only nar- row segments as in fig. 14: 12, and fail to attain the broader sepments which are found only in the latter part of the phrag- mocone of the larger species which underwent a longer onto- genetic development. Further, there is in these Chazyan spe- cies no fixed interval of the shell which may be called ephebic, and in which the structure of the siphuncle is uniform in outline through any appreciable series of camerz, except possibly in the latest growth stages of some of the largest species. Precisely the same relationship holds for the development of 12 The suborthochoanitie stages indicate a common origin of the fam- ilies not very much earlier than Chazyan. Indirect stratigraphie evidence in support of this is found in our failure to recognize any such cephalopods in the Canadian as yet. While this supporting evidence is purely nega-- tive, it is at least convincing in view of the well-defined retention of early suborthochoanitie stages in both the Oneoceratide and Valeouroceratids in the Chazyan. Further, such stages are less well developed in Middle end Upper Ordovician representatives of both groups and are in these periods suppressed, partially or completely by tachygenesis, 340 BULLETIN 116 422 actinosiphonate deposits with reference to the shell regions, which applies to the form of segments oi the siphuncle. larly seg- ments in the suborthochoanitic stage lack all trace of organic de- posits (ig. 14: 11). The connecting ring becomes thicker, as it is traced orad through increasingly expanding segments, and at length a stage is reached in which the thickened ring sends out lobes or rays which bring them into the form category of actino- siphonate structures (lig. 14: 10, 13). The form and significance of these deposits have been discussed elsewhere for |’ alcourocerus with proper illustrations (flower, 1943, pp. 40-43) and need not be duplicated here. Although l’alcouroceras appears from the above discussion to be much more complex than Minganoceras, this may be in part because the genus is much better known. I regard it as the more primitive of the two for two reasons. First, the broad cross sec- tion of Minganoceras is duplicated in the mature living chamber of Valcouroceras, while in the early stages V'alcowroceras has the compressed section and simple siphuncle of the simpler and al- most certainly more primitive Oncoceratide. This, of course, im- plies the assumption of tachygenesis, but aside from the fact that tachygenesis fits these morphological features and offers a clear interpretation of them, there is stratigraphic evidence. Secondly, Valcouroceras is known from strata slightly older than those containing Minganoceras. Although mainly known from the Glaphurus pustulatus fauna of the Valcour limestone, which is the equivalent of the beds carrying Minganoceras, it is also devel- oped in the middle Chazyan and possibly in the lower Chazyan.** The plasticity of the form of the segments of the siphuncle and also of the development of actinosiphonate deposits is essentially a primitive feature. Inasmuch as there is already some specializa- 13 One undescribed form is listed as lower Chazyan. This specimen is labeled as the Chazyan of Valeour Island and is in the collections of the New York State Museum. I regard the horizon as open to some question in view of Raymond’s demonstration that the Valeour Dock section of Ruedemann (1906) originally regarded as lower Chazyan, is middle Chazyan in age, a conclusion subsequently accepted by Ruedemann. This alteration in correlation may also affect supposedly lower Chazyan beds in the nearby Valcour Island section. 423 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER 341 tion in l’alcowroceras itself, it is not surprising that the correla- tion between the ontogenetic stage and actual size, as measured in terms of the height of the whorl, is not quite perfect, but de- partures from this correlation are always slight, and there is a significant absence of a long series of essentially uniform ephebic camere preceded by camerz in which there is a rapid ontogen- etic progression, The next genus of the lalcouroceratidae, Augustoceras, is more normal in its ontogenetic progression. The ontogenetic progression in the siphuncle, both in relation to the form of seg- ments and the development of the deposits, is confined to such very early stages, and such small ones, that ontogeny of the out- line of the segment has not been fully observed, and only rarely is there evidence of an adapical simplification of the actinosi- phonate deposits. Instead, throughout most of the phragmocone the actinosiphonate deposits are found in a series of uniform more or less barrel-shaped segments, which are relatively much nar- rower than any of the segments of l’alcowroceras which have ever yielded well-developed deposits. However, segments not unlike those of Aigustoceras are found in l’alcouroceras between the stages represented by subfigures 12 and 13 of text figure 14, but they never have well-developed rays. In form Augustoceras looks quite unlike ’alcouroceras. The shell is gently curved, but is fusiform rather than gibbous anteriorly. The living chamber is less strongly inflated near its base and much less strongly con- tracted orad. Indeed, some living chambers in this genus may be almost tubular. A further specialization is seen in the develop- ‘ment of a small hyponomic sinus, a feature absent in both Val- couroceras and Minganoceras. ‘The cross section is subtriangu- lar (figs. 14: 17-18) the first figure showing the condition in the genotype, in which the whorl is as broad as high, while the second shows the compressed section in the smallest of the known species, A. minor. Tendencies toward compression of the section are found in the earliest stages of A. shideleri and A, mediwn. The deposits of the siphuncle are discussed more fully below in the 349 BuLLetIN 116 424 description of the genus. Augustoceras is as yet known only from the Covington, being best developed in the Leipers but also oceurs i the equivalent Fairview. It is doubtfully developed in the itden, and rather strangely, has not been recognized in the Cynthiana or Cathys, which contains so many close relatives of Leipers cephalopods of other genera. Kindleoceras and Manitoulinoceras show a further progression toward the development of shelis which tend to be slender and es- sentially tubular adorally instead of gibbous, and iurther agree in that the ephebic segments of the siphuncle are short, and so very broad at the septal foramen that the convex connecting rings cause much less relative expansion of the segment within the camera than was the case in any of the earlier genera. Kindleoceras, which can be traced from the Cynthiana to the Richmond, is a curved, or sometimes essentially straight shell of strongly triangular section. Figure 14: 19 is a lateral view of K. equilaterale, the only species known to show any contraction of the mature aperture. ‘The cross section of this same species is shown in figure 14:23 in contrast to the broader section of K. cumingst of figure 14:22. Figure 14:21 shows the form of the segments of the siphuncle and the actinosiphonate deposits as noted in K. cumingst. The rays are shorter and more numerous than in Augustoceras. Manitoulinoceras agrees with Kindleoceras closely in the form of the segments of the siphuncle, but in other respects is clearly the result of an independent development. The shell in general tends to remain more strongly curved, The aperture is open, the section tends to become a depressed oval, and while the dorsum is always somewhat more flattened than the venter, the shell is never strongly triangular. (Figure 14:25-30.) A peculiar feature is the tendency toward suppression of actinosiphonate structure, in that actinosiphonate deposits have been observed only in two specimens of the genus, indicating that it is not only delayed un- til the approach of gerontism, a not uncommon feature in itself, but that it is apparently confined to relatively early portions of the phragmocone, and is never the universal structure that it is in Augustoceras. Kindleoceras equilaterale shows somewhat simi- lar though less strongly marked tendencies. 425 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER 343 Staufferoceras (figure 14:33, 34) is like Manitoulinoceras in cross section but is gibbous adorally. It has the deep camere and rapid expansion noted in the early stages of typical Manitoulin- oceras, but lost adorally in typical species, though retained in some others. Its internal structure is not known, and its position in the Valcouroceratidz is therefore not definitely established. I place it here tentatively on the basis of its strong affinities with Manitoulinoceras. The actinosiphonate deposits of the family consist first of all in a thickening of the connecting ring, From this arise processes in each segment extending toward the center of the siphuncle. These processes arise from a pronounced thickening of the ad- apical end of the ring within the septal foramen, thin orad, and also become shorter orad in each segment. Further details are discussed under the venus Auqustoceras, as they have been ob- served there more fully than anywhere else in the family. Indeed, the genus has provided material for a more complete examination of its siphuncle than any other actinosiphonate nautiloid up to the present time. Genus AUGUSTOCERAS Flower, n. gen. Genotype.—Augustoceras shideleri Flower, n. sp. Conch a slender exogastric cyrtoceracone somewhat fusiform in vertical outline, subtriangular in cross section. Expansion is rapid in the initial portion, gradual over the greater part of the phragmocone. The shell then becomes faintly gibbous and may contract gradually to the aperture, or the adoral end of the living chamber may be produced and essentially tubular. In section the shell is strongly flattened dorsally and the venter is subangular so that the section is subtriangular. The shell is as wide as high and may be slightly depressed ephebically. Only in the early stages of one species, A. minor, is the primitively compressed condition of Valcouroceras retained. The sutures are rather closely spaced, and they tend to slope orad from dorsum to venter, without, how- ever, the development of clear lateral lobes. The siphuncle is close to the venter. Owing to the obliquity of the septa close to the venter, the septal foramen is very slightly compressed, The septal 344 i : : BULLETIN 116 426 necks are short, recurved with free short brims. The connecting ring expands abruptly from the brims, soon attaining the maxt- mum width of the siphuncle. Thereafter the sides of the siph- uncle may be subparallel, straight or forming segments slightly concave in the middle, or faintly convex and approach each other very gradually apicad. Near the adapical end of the segment the sitphuncle contracts rapidly so that the rings meet the adapical septa with no real area of adnation, Deposits are simple ac- tinosiphonate outgrowths of the connecting rings, and their mor- phology is discussed in detail below, The living chamber is slender, elongate, contracting slightly or tubular to the aperture which is more strongly inclined orad from dorsum to venter than is the plane of the last septum. Ventrally the course of the aperture is modified by a slight hyponomic sinus. The surface of the shell bears only fine transverse some- times faintly rugose lines of growth which reflect the hyponomic sinus throughout. Discussion.—Augustoceras is closely related to Valcouroceras, from which it differs mainly in the relatively slender siphuncular segments which are combined with actinosiphonate deposits. Both features are nearly uniform throughout the greater part of the phragmocone. Externally and also in gross internal features, there are no very fundamental differences between the two gen- era, although they are not strikingly similar in aspect, owing to the fusiform rather than breviconic shape of Augustoceras, the de- velopment of a slight hyponomic sinus, and the broadening of the cross section. Wetherbyoceras Foerste, as noted under the discussion of that genus, was described on the basis of a species which cannot be recognized in the absence of the missing holotype, and which might even prove to be unrecognizable if the holotype is found. Nevertheless it is clear that the material which Foerste had in mind in describing Wetherbyoceras has all of the essential fea- tures of Auqustoceras, except that the living chamber was not known, and is clearly to be considered congeneric with the species included under this new name. TW. conoidale is essentially an un- known species, and, therefore, no other species can be placed 427 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER 345 with certainty in the genus of which it is the type. From the point of view of clarification of the species, this is not so unfor- tunate as it might at first appear. JV. conoidale and also August- oceras (7) vallandighami, both of which Foerste included in his genus, are based upon such small fragments of phragmocones, that specific identification is extremely difficult, and it would be uncertain which of the four Leipers species, known from relative- ly complete undistorted specimens, should properly be included under those names. At the present time Augustoceras is definitely known only from the Leipers formation of southern Kentucky and Tennessee and from the equivalent Fairview of Cincinnati. One small species from the Southgate shales of the Eden is doubtfully placed in Augustoceras, but is so poorly preserved internally that its generic position cannot be demonstrated, and I have included this form only as Augustoceras (?), sp. The genus attains a prolific de- velopment in the Leipers formation as exposed on the Cumber- land River of Rowena, Kentucky. Here are found “1. shidelert, A. medium, A. commune, and A. minor. In the Fairmount of Cincinnati, Cyrtoceras vallandighami is reported. I have repro- duced the original figure and description of this species, which cannot be recognized with certainty. Such material as is avail- able for Augustoceras in the Fairmount is so fragmentary and so poorly preserved internally, that specific identification is usually impossible, and in only a very few specimens are the essential features of Augustoceras demonstrable. The species vallandig- hami is very poorly known, and the name has obviously served as a receptacle for any small fragmentary cyrtoceracones from the lower part of the Covington. It is uncertain whether the Cin- cinnati specimens represent a species distinct from those of the Leipers, or whether any, or possibly all of the contemporaneous Leipers species may have drifted occasionally into the Cincin- nati region proper. The fragments do, however, suggest that more than one species is present in the Fairmount of the Cincin- nati region. Augustoceras is known at the present time only from these 346 BuuLuetin 116 428 species of the Cincinnati-Nashville region. The boreal faunas have yielded no material as yet showing the essential features of the genus. Wetherbyoceras? contractum Miller (1932, p. 287, pl. 28, figure 3) may or may not be an Augustoceras, a point which can be determined only by an examination of the interior of the siphuncle. Unfortunately the Bighorn formation which yield- ed this specimen is a very poor medium for the preservation of such morphological details. Miller reports that the segments of the siphuncle are globular, a feature which is at variance with Augustoceras and which suggests that the species in question may belong elsewhere. Morphology of actinosiphonate deposits—(Text figs. 15-17) Pl. 19, fig. 10; Pl. 20, figs, 1-7. The deposits within the siph- uncle of Augustoceras consist first of all of a much thickened connecting ring, from which there develops in each segment a series of vertical tabula which in cross section are more or less clavate, tending to be rounded and stightly inflated at their tips. These converge toward the center but always terminate without meeting. Although in many sections the rays may appear to pass from segment to segment, they are actually discrete segmental structures, as are the connecting rings from which they arise. Jn general the rays are poorly differentiated from the thickening of the connecting ring at the adapical end of the segment, essential- ly within the septal foramen, and gradually become more dis- tinct orad, being rather well separated from the main mass of the thickened ring in outline. As they are traced farther orad in the segment, they tend to become shortened and terminate where the adoral end of the ring is reached, at the tip of the septal neck. Orad from this region will be found the massive adapical end of the next adoral deposit, for it springs from the connecting ring which extends within the septal neck to or nearly to its tip. This relationship is shown clearly in the adoral end of the section on Plate 20, figure 7, in the upper two of the complete segments shown there and is better developed on the left than on the right side of the siphuncle. Plate 18, figure 10 shows the only section so far observed which cuts the planes of rays on both sides of the siphuncle. 499 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER 347 i} I TS aN Figure 15. Bleck diagram of a siphuncle of Augustoceras. At the base, part of the wall of the siphuxcle is shown. This is followed by a region whieh has been eut to a plane deep enough to pass through ihe septal foramen, but not deep enough to pass through the actual cavity of the siphuncle, passing instead through a portion of the greatly inflated cen- neeting ring. Note the sccondary fusion at this level of the originally diserete segment deposits. ‘The middle section is taken appreximately at the middle of the siphuneclo. Cn the left the plane of the section coin- cides with the plane which is the axis of one of the rays, and here as in the upper portion of Pinte 20, figure 7, the discrete nature of the deposits is apparent. On the right the section fails to coincide with plane of a ray and instead intersects one radial ray which meets it at an angle of about 20 degrees. The upper longitudinal section is slightly oblique, but nearer the center than the first section shown at the base of the diagram. The ray at the center of the cross section at the tep becomes longer adapically anit so intersects the piane of the section at the adapieal end of the seg- ment. No attempt is made to take into account additional complexities of the section due to the slightly clavate character of the rays. Because the rays of the deposits are radial, only one section, that passing through the planes which are axes of the rays on both sides of the siphuncle, will show the simplest possible condition of the rays in section. This rarely occurs unless a section is ground celiberately for such a purpose, and even then the plane will not usually cut the axes of the rays on both sides of the siphuncle. O> 48 BuLuetin 116 430 Casually made sections, whether natural or artificial, will usually cut through a number of the radially converging rays. This phenemena is well shown and alsa partially explained by the ac- companying text figure. Complications arise from the slight in- flation of the tips cf the rays. This increases the area of the tips, and therefore, increases the probability that a section will inter- sect them. Further, in any given section of a ray, the part ef the section which intersects the tip of a ray will show a broader area of organic material than that which cuts the nar- rower stem of the ray. Because the intersection of a plane alonsy which the specimen is ground with the radially converging rays, will vary in pattern much from one level to another, the aspect of sections or even of casual serial sections may produce the impression of a disorderly array ef converging elements. Such irregularitics ave shown in the three sketches of text figure 16, Figure 16. Sketches of serial sections of Augusteccras shidelerit. The three figures, A, B, and C, pass progressively closer to the center of the sipkunele. The appearance of the cross section varies with its position in the segment. At the adapical end of the deposit, within the sep- tal foramen, the organic deposit is massive and individual rays 431 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER 349 are not well developed. Jigure 16B shows such a section in which a median ventral ray flanked by two smaller pair occupies the venter, Two more irregular rays are seen on the dorsum. Tigure 160A is a section of the same specimen taken slightly farth- er orad in the siphuncle, showing the better and more equal de- velopment of the rays. Farther orad in the expanded part of the siphunele, sections are more regular radially. Such sections are lilustrated in Plate 20, figures 1, 2, and 4. Figure 3 is one taleen close to the septal foramen but actually at the point at which the segment expands rapidly. This section is somewhat oblique, the lower part, as oriented in our figure, passing through the nore expanded region, the upper part being in the constricted region at the septal foramen, Figure 17. Cross sections of Augustoceras shideleri. A. Slightly orad of center of septal foramen. B. Section at septal foramen. Note macsive deposit, in which the rays are poorly differentiated but clearer ventrally tien dorsally. No clear ontogenetic progression of the deposits has been found analogous to that noted in the development of annulosiphonate deposits in the Michelinoceratide, Pseudorthoceratidz, and Actineceroidea. In those groups owing to the serial repetition of alterable parts, the youngest adoral deposit shows the earliest srowth stage in the adoral part of the phragmocone, and as suc- cessive deposits are traced apicad, older units are encountered which show later growth stages. As noted in other actinosi- phonate deposits (Flower, 1943, also 1939) the absence of such an adoral region of growing deposits indicates that the actinosi- phonate structures must have been formed rapidly throughout the siphuncle, and in most instances, this development seems to have occurred relatively late in life and mivht even be considered an early gerontic feature. Whether this is so in Augustoceras it is impossible to say, for while abundant material was available consisting of isolated phragmocones, specimens complete enough to sbow whether they were immature were very limited. The 350 BubuetTin 116 432 almost universal occurrence of deposits throughout the series of some 60 specimens suggests that maturity here may not be an es- sential factor, for certainly some of these fragmentary specimens must have represented immature individuals. In no case was there any clear adoral ontogenetic progression. A few sections showed a faint trace of a thinning of the rays in the last two or three camera, but apparently no significant morphological varia- tions occur there. Adapically the deposits have been observed as thinning rapidly when traced to the extreme apical portion of our specimens, and at length a point is reached in which the rays are reduced, and also the lining cf the siphuncle, a thickening ei the connecting ring, is also reduced. This is shown in Plate 2o, figure 5, Evi- dently, as in Valcouroceras, the earliest segments never develop deposits. Later segments develop orly a thickening of the pri- mary ring, and in the following three or four camer there can be traced a gradual development of rays, after which the deposit is uniform over the remaining part of the phragmocone, which is the greater portion of it and the portion which is mest commonly observed. Augustoceras shideleri Flower, n. sp. Plate 18, figs. 1-10; Plate 19, fig. 14; Plate 20, figs. 1-7 This is a relatively large species which when complete was a cyrtocone about go mm. in length. Curvature is shht, the radius of the ventral profile being about 50 mm. up to a point near the base of the mature living chamber where the shell height is 23 mm., becoming less curved and then resuming its normal curv- ature to the ‘aperture, Vhershell “is “slender, ’the/stctien: 43 flattened on the dorsum at the earliest stage assigned to the spe- cies with certainty. The shell expands from 11 mm. te 19 mm. and 19 mm. in a ventral length of 35 mm. and a dorsal length of 24mm, Warther orad the shell becomes more triangular in sec- tion, the venter becoming faintly angular, and the section becomes slightly broader than high. The holotype increases from 22 mm. and 19 mm. to 25 mm. and 23 mm. in a ventral length of 36 mm. and a dorsal length of 28 mm. in the length of the phragmocone, and the living chamber in a ventral length of 35 mm. and a dorsal teats ae — 43: CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER 351 length of 22 mm. attains a height of 25 mm. and a width of 25 mm, at the aperture. The sutures are essentially straight though sloping increasing- y orad from dorsum to venter as the aperture is approached, ‘The camere occur nine in a length equal to a shell width of 16 mm., Gecreasing to seven in a length equal to the width, a condition which obtains throughout the ephebic portion of the pliragriocone from a shell width of 18 mim. to the base of the living chamber where shorter camere may develop gerontically. ‘he septa are Leatly flat throughout the greater part of the phragmocone but become more curved in the later 5 mm. The siphuncle lies close to the venter throughout the phragmo- cone. ‘The segments arise as septal necks which are very short and are recurved. Apicad, the segment enlarges rapidly attain- ing its maximum diameter in its adoral fourth. Apicad from this the ring may be faintly convex over the middle two-thirds of the segment, or it may bear a faint concavity in the middle of the segment. The segment contracts at the adapical end somewhat more gradually than at the adoral end. The siphuncle is occupied ‘by actinosiphonate deposits which arise from the connecting ring, from which they cannot be dis- tinguished, and of which they are clearly a part. In cross section the rays of the actinosiphonate deposit show some variation in number and arrangement. A cross section taken at or just orad of the foramen shows characteristically a group of three to five long slender rays springing from the ventral side, some or all of which may display clear axes. Laterally the rays, two or three on a side, are more irregularly lobed, and on the dorsum the de- posit is nearly solid, and only two short very irregular rays are developed. At the middle of the segment, however, the rays ar= all long and slender, and spring from a relativeiy slightly thick- ened connecting ring. In longitudinal sections, the aspect of the rays may vary de- pending upon the direction and the depth of the section. A sec tion through the very middle of the siphuncle may pass through rays or both the dorsum and on the venter, s~ that they appear as a thick siphonal lining, the actinosiphonate nature of which is not 352 BULLETIN 116 434 evident from such a section alone. They are thin at the septal foramen, and in some sections are not continucus from segment to serment at this point. In other sections, not attaminge the cen- ter, several rays are cut. In such cases it can be seen that some, particularly the lateral ones, are the longest and thickest near the adapical end of the segment and become thinner and shorter near the adoral end. Only rarely are the rays bifurcated or lobed, and such variations of the simple structure are always irregular both in form and spacing. The organization of the actinosiphonate de- posits is very similar to that of Valceowroceras. ‘The surface of the shell bears transverse lines of growth. These swing apicad on the venter marking the position of a rather small end shallow hyponomic sinus, Discussion.—This is the largest of the three species of lagust- oceras developed in the Leipers formation of southern Kentucky. Fragments of the early part of the shell, except for possibly the very earhest growth stages, may be distinguished from A. medruion by the somewhat deeper camerz and the much more rapid rate of expansion of the shell. Types.—Holoty pe and paratypes, Univ. of Cincinnati Museum, Nos. 24290, 24291, 24292; Shideler Collection, paratypes. Occurrence.—In the Leipers formation of the Cumberland River, at Rowena and near Belk Island. The species is found throughout the Tetradtiim reef layers and in the overlying pelecy- pod limestone but has not been noted in higher beds. Augustoceras medium Flower, n. sp. Plate 19, figs. 11-13 Conch intermediate in size between 4. commune and A, shi- deleri, very gently and uniformly curved, the radius of curvature of the venter being 85 mm. throughout the shell. The holotype in- creases in the basal 37 mm. of the phragmocone from 15 mm. in height and 16 mm. in width to 24 mm. and 22 mm., and contracts slowly toward the base of the living chamber to 21 mm. and 22° mm., 47 mm. beyond the base as measured on the venter, and 40 mm. on the dorsum. The living chamber is incomplete but has a lateral length of 23 mm. and contracts only very slightly toward the aperture. The septa are flat, the sutures inclined orad from dorsum to venter but without lateral lobes. The camere are rel- co = eo 435 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER atively deep, seven occurring in the adoral 22 mm, equal to the edoral shell height there. The siphuncle is close to the venter and typical of the genus. ‘The surface bears the usual lines of growth and in addition is faintly undulate. Discussion.—Tihis species approaches Al. s/ideleri in size but is more gibbous over the adoral part of the phragmocone. The cam- erse resemble those of al. siidelevi in depth, but the phragmocone does not expand rapidly, and the dorsum is not so conspicuously flattened. ‘The species is much larger than A. commune but resembles that species rather than 1. shideleri in general shape. ZT ype—Holotype, Univ. of Cincinnati Museum, No. 24284. Occurrence.—T rom the Tetradiuim layers and overlying pelecy- pod bed of the Leipers at Rowena, Kentucky. Augustoceras commune Flower, n. sp. Plate 8, figs. 11-13; Plate 19, figs. 1-4 Conch slender, moderate in size, faintly gibbous over the lower part of the living chamber and the upper part of the phragmocone. ‘{he radius of curvature of the venter is about 75 mm. adapically, decreasing to 40 mm. over the gibbous region, and increasing toward the aperture. The section is faintly subtriangular, the dorsum being slightly flattened, and the venter very obscurely subangular, The holotype, a remarkedly well-preserved speci- men, increases from 13 mm, and 13 mm. to 19 mm. in height and 20 mm. in width in a ventral length of 33 mm. and a dorsal length of 25 mm. and then decreases in a ventral length of 23 mm. and a dorsal length of 23 mm. to a height of 19 mm. and a width of 19 mm. at the incomplete aperture, A complete living cham- ber 24 mm. long on the venter and 19 mm. long on the dorsum has a basal width of 21 mm. and a height of 20 mm, and decreases adorally to 20 mm, and 18 mm. This specimen is probably very slightly flattened vertically by pressure. | The rate of expansion of the phragmocone is 5 or 6 mm. in a length of 20 mm. The camere are spaced nine in a length equal to a shell height of 15 mm., though this seems to vary somewhat among individuals, there being only seven in such a length on the holotype, and other specimens showing intermediate conditions. 354: BULLETIN 116 436 The septum is relatively flat. The siphuncle lies close to the ven- ter aid is apts of the genus in form and in internal structure. No differences have been found within the siphuncle which will serve to distinguish this from associated species of Augustoceras The surface bears fine lines of growth and may be obscurely undulate. On the venter a slight hyponomic sinus is develoj sed, but this is never strong or conspicuous, Discussion.—This is the most abundant Awgustoceras, and in- igs the most abundant cephalopod in the Leipers at Rowena, wentucky. Most of the specimens consist of small portions of the phragmocone and living chambers are relatively rare. The form ts a slightly variable one but may be distinguished from its associates by the size attained by the mature shell. The early portion of the phrasmocone may be distinguished from tha muiior by its slightly more rapid expansion and broader section, Al. shidelert is more rapidly expanding in the early stages and has deeper camere, becomes much larger and is nearly tubular over the middle portion instead of gibbous. Types.—Holotype, collection of Dr. W, TL. Shiceler. Paratypes, Univ. of Cincinnati Museum, Nos. 24283-5. Oceurrence.—Vrom the Cumberland River at Rowena, iven- tucky, and at Belk Jsland. The species is abundant in the Tetradium reef layers and occurs more sparingly in the overk, ine pelecypod limestone. Augustcceras minor Flower, n. sp. Plate 19, figs. 5, 6 This is the smallest and most slender of the species of ewnist- oceras so far noted in the Leipers formation. ‘The Hota De, tase most complete specimen, has a length of 65 mm. in which the re dius of curvature of the venter decreases from 95 mm, in the basal two-thirds, to about 55 mm. over the living chamber. ‘Whe section is slightly higher than wide in the basal portion and vound- ed, the dorsum not being more flattened than the venter. It is 92 aum. high and & 7 mm. wide. In the cue of tne p: ee 36 mm. on the venter and 28 mm. on the dersum, the heigut and width are equal, being 27 mm. and the dorsum ite hecume sislit- ly flattened, though the venter never attains the subanvular condi- tion of other species of the genus. ‘The living ta much weathered on the venter, appears to have a dorsal length of 17 vo or or 437 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALODODS: FLOWER mm. Laterally the aperture can be seen.20 mm. from the base of the living chamber on one side and the ventral length was prob- ably 28 or 30 mm. The sutures are straight, nearly normal to the axis of the shell near the base but strongly inclined orad from dorsum to venter at the base of the living chamber. The camere are well preserved only at the base of the specimen where the sutures are straight, nine camer occur in a length equal to an adoral shell width of 13 mm., and the siphuncle is exposed by weathering and is typical of the genus in the form of the segments and in the de- velopment of the actinosiphonate deposits, Discussion.—Although this species is represented by scant and rather poorly preserved material, it is unquestionably distinctive in its very slender form, the small size of the mature living cham- ber, as well as in the more generalized condition of the mature cross section and the faintly compressed condition of the early cross section. In association with the other three species, which together dominate the lower part of the Leipers in southern Ken- tucky to such an extent that two days collecting yielded over a hundred specimens, only four representatives of this form can be recognized definitely. The shell was apparently ex- ceedingly fragile, as most specimens are either crushed or, as in the case of the type, have lost parts of the shell by breakage or so- lution. Types.—Univ. of Cincinnati Museum, holotype, No. 24287. Paratypes, Nos. 24288-24289. Occurrence.—From the Leipers formation of the Cumberland River of southern Kentucky at Rowena, and from the Painted Cliffs at the south side of the river near the head of Belk Island, near Horseshoe Bottom. Augustoceras (?) vallandighami (Miller) Plate 28, fig. 9 Cyrtoceras valiandighami 8. A. Miller, 1874, Cincinnati Soe. Nat. Sci., vol. 1, p. 232, fig. 23; James, 1886, (pars), Cincinnati Soe. Nat. Hist., Jour., vol. 8, p. 245; Ulrich, 1880, Cat. Foss. Cincinnati Group, Cincinnati, p. 22; Harper and Bassler, 1896, Cat. Foss. of the Trenton and Cincinnati Periods, Cincinnati, p. 27; Nickles, 1902, Cincinnati Sce. Nat. Hist., Jour., vol. 20, p. 81; Bassler, 1915, U. S. Nat. Mus., Bull. 92, vol. 1, p. 857; Miller, 1889, North American Geol., Pal., p- 435, fig. 730. 356 BULLETIN 116 438 Wetherbyoceras vallandighami Yoerste, 1932, Denison Univ. Bull., Sei. Lab., Jour., vol. 27, pl. 31, fig. 5A-B; Foerste, 1933, ibid., vol. 28, p. 86. This species, like ]Vetherbyoceras conoidale, is valid, but the original description and illustration are inadequate for its recognition. The species cannot be recognized and its generic position cannot be made certain without a restudy of the holotype, which cannot be located. Original description.—Shell rather strongly curved. Section nearly cir- eular, the dorso-ventral diameter a little longer than the lateral, occasioned by an oval prolongation for the siphunecle on the dorsal margin. Surface smooth as far as observed. Siphuncle small and in contact with the shell on the dorsal side. The specimen figured has 19 septa; length in a direct line on the dorsal side, 55/60 inch; ventral side 82 /60 inch; diameter, large end, from ven- tral to dorsal side 31/60 inch; small end, 10 /60 inch; length of septa on the dorsal side, at large end, 4/60 inch; small end 2 /60 inch. The chamber of habitation has been broken from the large end, and has not been observed in other specimens. The specific name is given in honor of Mr. George Vallandigham, of Cin- einnati, an active collector, who found the specimen near the top of the hills at Cincinnati. Other collectors have found fragments and inferior speci- mens, but it may be regarded as an extremely rare species. The precise horizon of this species is very uncertain, although it is customarily included in the list of species characteristic of the Fairmount beds. Fragmentary shells of the general aspect of this species in the collection of the University of Cincinnati Museum are largely without accurate horizon data and usually without good locality data. All of the fragments which have been available for the present study have been exceedingly small. In most instances the morphological features for the recognition of the genus Augustoceras have been lacking. As it is not even certain that these all represent one species, they are described be- low as Augustoceras (?), sp. Type.—Location of holotype unknown. Occurrence.—The holotype is from “the top of the hills at Cin- cinnati’” which has been interpreted as Fairmount, Augustoceras (?), sp. (1) Plate 25, figs. 4-7, 10 Specimens formerly identified as Cyrtoceras vallandighami, which were available for the present study, are too fragmentary and often too distorted to be identified with certainty. Five of the more characteristic and best preserved specimens are illustrat- ed here, but all are too poor for specific and often generic deter- 439 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER n 3 mination. The original of figures 4, 5, Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 17164, from the Ayres Collection of the University of Cincinnati, is the least distorted of these specimens but as can be seen has slightly deeper camerz than indicated in the original figure of vallandighanu. The shell is scarcely curved and increases from S mm. and 8 mm. to a height of 15 mm. and a width of 17 mm. ina length of 17 mm. The eight camerz have sutures which are essentially straight, sloping slightly orad from dorsum to venter. The specimen is an internal mold showing clearly the molds of cameral deposits. No trace of the siphuncle remains, and the generic position is therefore uncertain, In aspect the species suggests only Augustoceras. The originals of Plate 25, figures 6, 7 are two of four specimens from the collection of S. A. Miller determined in the author’s hand writing as his species C. vallandighami. Both specimens, here illustrated natural size, are crushed laterally and show no trace of the siphuncle. The third specimen from the same suite, which was less crushed, was sectioned, and it yielded traces of a badly distorted siphuncle. No actinosiphonate deposits were found, but the shape of the segments is not inconsistent with the genus Augustoceras. These specimens are No. 10376 in the University of Cincinnati Museum. They are labeled “Cincinnati, Ohio,” with no statement as to horizon. One additional spec- men, not illustrated, is a tiny fragment of a shell somewhat com- pressed, increasing from 4 mm, and 4 mm, to 10 mm. and 11 mm. in It mm. and containing eight camerz. The sutures are simple and curvature is barely apparent. The section shows the sub- triangular form of Augustoceras at the adoral end of the speci- men, and the siphuncle, which is close to the margin, yields simple actinosiphonate deposits. The specimen, Univ. of Cin- cinnati, No. 24206, is labeled “Lorraine group, Cincinnati, Ohio.” It is of interest as the only one of these specimens which definite- ly shows the actinosiphonate structure which is the only sure means of recognizing such small fragments of phragmocones as Augustoceras. 358 BULLETIN 116 440 Augustoceras (?), sp. (2) Plate 25, figs. 1-3 Shell slightly curved, section subtriangular, slightly com- pressed, evidently by pressure, but with the venter more narrowly rounded than the dorsum. The shell increases from 4 mm, and 4 mm, at the base to 10.5 mm. and 9.8 mm. at the adoral end. The 13 camerz are subequal in length. The sutures slope slightly orad from the dorsum to venter. Upon being sectioned, however, it was found that the interior of the shell was destroyed by pres- sure, and all that remained of the siphuncle was a few obscure traces of slightly recurved septal necks. Discussion.—This form is clearly more slender, less curved than those discussed above, and also has deeper camerze. While clearly representing another species in the Cincinnati area, quite distinct from the one or ones formerly included under vallandig- hami, this fragment is inadequate to serve as a type. It fails to show any very close resemblance to the original figures of lV etherbyoceras conoidale. Figured specimen.—University of Cincinnati Museum, No. 17163, from the S. A. Miller collection, in which the specimen was determined as “Cyrtoceras conoidale.” Occurrence.—‘Maysville, Cincinnati, Ohio.’ Precise horizon and locality unknown. Augustoceras (?), sp. (8) Plate 5, figs. 12, 13 In the collections of the University of Cincinnati Museum there are four specimens of poorly preserved small cyrtocones of the general aspect of phragmocones of Augustoceras, but which are so poorly preserved that their taxonomic position cannot be as- certained with certainty. Two of these specimens are figured. One consists of a laterally flattened shell increasing in height from 9mm. to 17 mm. ina ventral length of 23 mm. and a dorsal length of 19 mm. consisting of 11 camerz, The siphuncle is not preserved. A second shell is flattened along the axis of the conch and may retain the cross section only slightly distorted. The shell is 14 mm. wide and 13 mm. high, the dorsum flattened, the venter narrowly rounded. Five camerze occupy II mm. on the yenter. Again the siphuncle is not preserved. The section is so / 441 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER 859 broad that the species is evidently either Augustoceras, which it resembles very closely, or some genus as yet not recognized by other material in the Covington, Two additional specimens are even smaller and more poorly preserved fragments and are not figured. Discussion.—While it is not possible to prove that this form is even an Augustoceras on one hand, it is impossible on the other to distinguish it from fragments of Augustoceras under somewhat similar conditions of preservation in the Leipers. Therefore, I refer the form to this genus. The specimens fail to give any clear conception of the characters of the species, or indeed, of whether this species is distinct from those of the Leipers, though judging from the restricted range, particularly of cyrtoceraconic cephalo- pods, this will probably prove to be the case should this rare form be made known from better material. Figured specimens—University of Cincinnati, No. 17167. Four specimens are included under this number, only two of which are figured. Occurrence.—Southgate formation, Eden. Hillside Flats, Cincinnati, Ohio. From the collection of Charles L. Faber. Genus WETHERBYOCERAS Foerste Genotype.—Cyrtoceras conoidale Wetherby. Wetherbyoceras Foerste, 1926, Denison Univ. Bull., Sci. Lab., Jour., vol. 21, pp. 323-325, pl. 43, fig. 4; Foerste, 1933, Denison Univ. Bull., Sci. Lab., Jour., vol. 28, p. 85. Although Foerste made it clear in his description that he based it upon certain specimens in the U. S. National Mus- eum which he considered to be Cyrtoceras conotdale, he desig- nated that species as the genotype. Under the rules of zoological nomenclature that designation must stand, and knowledge of lVetherbyoceras, therefore, depends upon knowledge of Wether- byoceras conoidale. Unfortunately there is such a wide discrep- ancy between Foerste’s photographs and the original figures of W. conoidale as to raise grave doubts as to whether the specimen which Foerste figured under that name can be properly included in that species. The matter can be determined only by an ex- amination of the original types of the species, and these cannot be 360 Buuuetin 116 442 located and indeed, are believed to be permanently lost. (Foerste, fide litt.). Until the type of Ietherbyoceras conoidale has been restudied, IV etherbyoceras cannot be regarded as possessing the characters which were attributed to it by Foreste. All that is known of the genotype at present is that it is a small cyrtocone, only the phrag- mocone of which is known, with very shallow camer and a ventral siphuncle of unknown structure. From all that is known to the contrary, the species might be based upon a phragmocone helonging to none of several previously described genera, On- coceras, Beloitoceras, and Loganoceras, to cite only a few of the more obvious possibilities. Further, the genotype cannot be recognized with certainty un- til its holotype can be located and studied, and consequently it is not possible to compare this inadequately known species with those which are possibly related and which are described in this work. There is little doubt but that, were the holotype available and properly preserved, IVetherbyoceras would be found to have essentially the scope of Augustoceras, and IW. conoidale would quite probably be found to be identical with one of the spe- cies described within that genus. Since the genotype is so poorly known that it cannot be com- pared with other species properly, and indeed, so poorly known that the essential structural features of the genus are uncertain, no other species than the genotype can be assigned to HWetherby- oceras with certainty, and it is not even certain whether the genus is valid. Wetherbyoceras conoidale (Wetherby) Plate 27, figs. 8, 11 Cyrtoceras conoidale Wetherby, 1881, Cincinnati Soe. Nat. Hist., Jour., vol. 4, pp. 78-79, pl. 2, fig. 6, 6a. Cyrtoceras vallandighami James, 1886, Cincinnati Soe. Nat. Hist., vol. 8, p. 245. C. conoidale Harper end Bassler, 1896, Cat. Fossils of the Treuton anil Cincinnati Periods, Cincinnati, p. 27; Nickles, 1902, Cineinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., Jour., vol. 20, p. 81; Bassler, 1915, U. S. Nat. Mus., Bull, 92, vol. 1, p. 350. Wetherbyoceras conoidale Foerste, 1926, Denison Univ. Bull., Sci. Leb., Jour., vol. 21, pp. 325-325. Original description.—Shell very rapidly tapering, consisting of numer- ous short septa, of equal length. The specimens which I regard as typical, 443 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER 361 fig. 6a, Pl. 11., have a’comparatively slight curvature. There are seven- teen septa in a length of one inch. The siphunele is small and dorsal. The shell seems to have been exceptionally fragile as all specimens which I have seen, except one from the Tennessee locality, are very much distorted by pressure. Remarks.—I collected this fossil on August, 1877, at ‘‘ Mt. Parnassus, ’’ Columbia, Maury County, Tennessee; in 1879, at McKinney’s station on the S. 8. R. R., Boyle county, Kentucky; and have since received it from my friend, Mr. W. M. Linney, of Harrodsburg, Kentucky who collected it in Garrard county. At Columbia it was associated with Stellipora au- theloidea, O. lanx, and Crania seabiosa, on the old redoubt excavation of ‘*Mt. Parnassus;’’ at MeKinney’s, I collected it with Streptorhynchus fili- textus, Plilodictya hitli. Murchisonia bellicincta, and undetermined corals, evidently belonging to the Cincinnati group. At the Garrard county lo- eslity, it occurs with P. hilli, and a Rhynchonella, probably a variety of R. capas. Jt has been confounded with the C. vallandighami, 8. A. Miller, from which it is entirely distinct. The body chamber being wanting in all the specimens, the diameter cannot be determined. I regard the speci- men, fig. 6, Pl. I1., as a different species, and nearly allied to C. vallandig- hami, S. A. Miller. Discussion.—Unfortunately the types of this species cannot be located, and it is greatly to be feared that they have been irretriev- ably lost. Without recourse to them it is not possible to recognize this species with certainty. The description, quoted above, is couched in terms teo general to be of much practical importance in present day usage of specific distinction based upon shell pro- portions, and from the original illustrations it is probable that beth of the specimens figured in connection with the original de- scription were somewhat crushed. The shell is a cyrtoceracone with shallow camer, a rather rapid rate of expansion, and the two figured specimens vary so much in curvature that Wetherby was probably correct in regarding them as representatives of two different species. The “dorsal” siphuncle was clearly ventral. Nothing is known of the structure of the siphurtcle and it is not certain that C. conoidale possesses the actinosiphonate structure Foerste considered an essential feature of the genus Weth- erbyoceras upon which he based this species. James (1886) considered this species a synonym of the earlier recognized species, Cyrtoceras vallandighami. The original illus- tration of C. vallandiqghami shows a shell which is more rapidly curved and possibly more rapidly expanded than Wetherby’s figure 6a, the holotype, to the exclusion of the original of his figure 6, which he considered as more closely allied to C, val- 362 : BuLuLetTin 116 444 landighami. The species are almost certainly distinct, but the types cannot be located, and it has been found to be imposst- ble to determine what the features of the species are on the basis of the original descriptions and figures. WW. conoidale is from the Leipers of Tennessee and Kentucky, but no authentic records exist of the species in the Cincinnati area. Bassler (1915) listed the species as Leipers. Nickles (1902) listed it as Fairmount, but it is uncertain that any speci- mens have ever been identified as this form from the true Fair- mount of the Cincinnati region. Such specimens which resemble conoidale superficially in the collections of the University of Cin- cinnati Museum, are labeled ‘Cincinnati, Hudson River Group,” for the most part. The horizon is not precise, and the term Cin- cinnati has a most elastic meaning, particularly when found on labels from old collections. Wetherby’s list of associated species requires some explanation, and there is some room for doubt as to the correct interpretation of some of his faunal data. The Columbia County locality could represent a,fauna of either Cathys or Leipers age. One of the species Stellipora autheloidea is listed by Bassler as Middle Or- dovician but is probably a misidentification and may have been based upon another species and genus. Platystrophia ponderosa (=O. lynx of authors) appears in the upper Leipers but is present though rare in the lower part, and an allied species from the Cathys might have served as the basis for Wetherby’s determination. The presence of Escharopora hilli (Ptilodictya hilli of Wetherby) is indicative of the Leipers age of the strata at the Boyle County locality. The Murchisonia is a Cyclonema. The Escharopora determines the Leipers age of the Garrard County locality. Unfortunately it is not even certain from which localities the original of Wetherby’s figure 6a was de- rived. The species is a valid one but one which cannot be recognized without recourse to the type. It is to be feared that the type is too incomplete to serve as a good basis for a species. Among cyrtoceracones which would probably be found to embrace C. conoidale and C. vallandighamu, there are several closely allied species which can be distinguished only with difficulty on the bas- oo 445 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER 36 is of such fragmentary material as is represented by \Vetherby’s type of conoidale and Miller’s type of vallandighami. Somewhat similar specimens in the collection of the University of Cincinnati Museum I have preferred to identify in terms of Augustoceras, sp. The section and rate of expansion are the most diagnostic special features of these cyrtoconic cephalopods, and distorted specimens cannot therefore be identified with certainty. Genus KINDLEOCERAS Foerste Genotype.—Kindleoceras reversatum Foerste. Kindleoccras Foerste, 1924, Canada Geol. Surv., Mem. 138, pp. 226, 227. Shell strongly triangular in section, the venter angled, the dor- sum strongly flattened, and with the sides forming fairly well-de- fined angles. The shell is slender, gradually expanding to the aperture, though often tubular or nearly so in the later stages of growth. The sutures are inclined orad from dorsum to venter. On the dorsal face a broad lobe is interrupted in the center by a low but well-defined median saddle in some species, The lateral faces are without distinct lobes, but the sutures rise obliquely from the lateral angles to the ventral angle. The siphuncle lies close to the venter and is composed of expanded segments con- taining actinosiphonate deposits. The aperture and lines of growth show a well-developed hyponomic sinus on the venter and form a broad low sinus over the dorsal face. The living chamber is short, nearly tubular basally, but in at least A. equilaterale, con- tracts sharply at the mature aperture. Discussion—In form this genus is best described as the inver- sion ef such a type as Tripteroceras, in which the venter is flat and the dorsum angled. In actual genetic relationship this genus is a development from lugistoceras, which is cyrtoconic and still somewhat breviconic, and through that genus from lacour- oceras, a more gibbous breviconic cyrtoceracone the section of which is less obviously triangular. The development of a more slender form and a more triangular section, seen in the transition from Valcouroceras to Augustoceras, is carried much farther in Kindleoceras, so much so, that only the structure of the siphuncle remains to show its relationship. Some species fail to show cury- ature of the shell and appear to be essentially straight. All of the 564 BULLETIN 116 446 Richmond species described below are clearly cyrtoconic, al- though the single Cynthiana species is straight, judging from the adoral portion of the shell, the only part piece Outside of the Cincinnati region Kindleoceras is known from K. reversatuin and K. triangilare (Foerste, 1924) both from the Meaford of southern Ontario. This horizon has been correlated with the Waynesville. Curiously, all Richmond Kindleoceras of the Cincinnati area occur in considerably higher strata, in the Whitewater and Saluda. The Cincinnati species may be recog- nized by the following key. KEY TO CINCINNATIAN SPECIES OF KINDLEOQCERAS 1. Section with the faces rounded, obscurely subtriamgular. eect Section strongly triangular, facos scarerly couvex and strongly rounded ae. the ventral keel! amt dorso-latovaly amlas as eae isscsiecreuacesste ontesteeaeeneree 3 2, Shell ortheeonic. seetion slightly higher than wide; sutures strongly oblique; living chamber straight and tubular ...... I. hentuchiense Shell evrteconie, sutures only slightly oblique; living lla faintly eyrtoconic, slightly contracted toward the aperture 2 Kk. rotundum 3. Beetion as high es wide; Hving chamber snort, contracted. AK. equilaterale Section broader than bi¢gh; living chamber parallel-sided to aperture... Pe Fy CONN OM ONE Org EAN CO Mr PoE en ROMIMET ohn om Seen TE Meters K. cumingsi Kindleoccras kentuckiense Flower, n. sp. Plate 14, figs. 6-8 The holotype consists of a living chamber, dorsally incomplete ana two attached camere. The shell is straight, subtriangular in section, the dorsum flattened, the venter subangulate, and the nreatest shell width dorsad of the center of the conch. The height is 16 mm. at the base, the width 17 mm., normal to the axis of the shell. The sutures are strongly oblique, sloping orad on the venter. The first camera is 1.8 mm., the second 1.5 mm., showing contraction indicative of maturity. The septum is relatively flat transversely, but slopes strongly orad on the ventral side preduc- ing considerable vertical curvature. The siphuncle is close to the venter, probably in contact with the ventral wall or nearly so when expanded within the camere. Weathering indicates that the segments are cyrtochoanitic, but no indication of the precise outline, or of the presence of any possible internal organic depos- its can be seen. The living chamber has a ventral length of 28 mm. It is cylindrical or nearly so to the aperture. The ventral profile shows a faint trace of convexity, which may or may not be original. A trace of the aperture is preserved on the venter, in- dicating the presence of a low shallow hyponomic sinus. Shell oo an Or 447 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER surface unknown. Discussion.—This species appears to be typical of Kindleoceras but differs from previously known Richmond species of Ontario in that it is less strongly depressed. Garryoceras Foerste (1928, p. 42) is rather similar in form but is orthochoanitic. Its phyletic relationship is unknown, Type.—Holotype, Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24077. Occurrence—From the Greendale member of the Cynthiana limestone, Poindexter quarry, Cynthiana, Ky. Kindleoceras rotundum Flower, n. sp. Plate 24, figs. 10, 11 Shell slender, the dorsal and ventro-lateral faces more rounded than in most members of the genus, expanding very slowly to a point shortly above the base of the living chamber, and then con- tracting faintly, though nearly tubular, to the aperture. The holo- tvpe increases in the basal 20 mm. from 15 mm. and 18 mm. to 16 mm, and 20 mm., the width being greater than the height. In the remaining portion, 28 mm. long ventrally, the shell attains an adoral width of 19 mm. and a height of 18 mm. The living chamber has a ventral length of 24 mm. The sutures are slightly inclined orad from dorsum to venter amd are essentially straight. The camere are uniform in depth, tour occuring in 9 mm. The septa are very flat. The siphuncle Hes close to the venter and is exposed by weathering on the type. The segments are broad, short in proportion to their diameter at the septal foramen, slightly expanded in the camer. The weath- ering of the siphuncle has brought out very clearly the simple actinosiphonate deposits of the siphuncle. The surface features and aperture are unknown. Discussion.—In contrast to other species of Kindleoceras the section is less strongly triangular and the sutures are less curved than in the asseciated Richmond species. K. kentuckiense has a section which is higher, and the sutures are more oblique, In the faint contraction of the living chamber this species re- calls also the more slender forms of Augustoceras, and the round- ed section is not inconsistent with placing the species in that genus. However, the contraction of the living chamber is found in Kindleoceras equilaterale also, where the strongly triangular sec- tion of Kindleoceras is developed, and the broad short segments 366 Buuuetin 116 448 of the siphuncle suggest a closer relationship to Kindleoceras than to Augustoceras. Holotype—Collection of Dr. W. H. Shideler, Miami Univer- sity. Occurrence-—From the Saluda beds above the Tetradiutm recf, Big Sains Creek, 2 1/2 miles southwest of Laurel, Indiana. Kindleoceras cuminzsi Flower, n. sp. Plate 24, figs. 1-4 This is a rare species of the Saluda which is known only from adoral portions of the conch which are very slightly exogastric though nearly orthoconic. The holotype has a maximum length of 54mm. The section is triangular, the lateral angles rounded, the ventral angle subacute. The adoral part of the shell is nearly tubular, increasing from a height of 22 mm. and a width of 26 mm. to a height of 23 mm. and a width of 27 mm. in a length of 4o mm. In this length the dorsum is very faintly concave and the venter is very slightly convex in profile. The holotype retains seven camer in a length of 13 mm. These are subequal in length, The sutures describe a mid-dorsal sad- dle flanked by a pair of lobes on the dorsal surface, and from there swing orad over the lateral faces to a saddle on the ventral angle of the shell. The septum is asymmetric in vertical curva- ture, and at least adorally, is rather strongly convex, as in the adoral segments of ugistoceras. Material does not permit a de- tailed study of the siphuncle, but it lies close to the venter, is rel- atively large, having a diameter of 4 mm. at the base of the holo- type, and contains a thick organic lining. From this spring about 17 vertical actinosiphonate rays which are, however, relatively short and blunt. The segments of the siphuncle are more tubular than those of «lugustoceras. The septal neck cannot be clearly determined, but the segments are broad, short, and are better de- scribed as suborthochoanitic than cyrtochoanitic. At the base of the type the siphuncle is 3.7 mm. wide and 3 mm. high. The surface features of the shell are not clearly shown but evidently consist of rugose lines of growth, which are impressed faintly upon the internal mold of the living chamber where they are accompanied by faint constrictions of the shell. The paratype, consisting only of a portion of a living chamber, shows clearly 449 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER 367 that the lines of growth describe a broad rounded sinus on the dorsum and curve apicad again upon approaching the venter where a hyponomic sinus is developed. Discussion.—In general aspect this form is quite similar to the genotype Kindleoceras reversatum of the Meaford of Ontario. It differs from that species in some features of shell proportions, in particular, in the greater height of the shell in proportion to its width, and in exhibiting slight exogastric curvature. Both of these differences might conceivably be more apparent than real if they are lost in K. reversatum owing to slight shell distortion. They are, however, regarded as real by the writer as the type olf K. reversatum does not seem to be flattened vertically by pres- sure, Another and more important difference is found in the conspicuous saddles on the mid-dorsal region of the sutures of K. cumingsi, a feature which is probably developed only in the later stages of growth judging from similar phenomena found in the late stages of Cincinnatian species of Manitoulinoceras. Types—Holotype and paratype, collection of Dr. W. H. Shid- eler, Miami University. Occurrence.—From the Saluda formation. Both specimens are from Cooper’s Falls, 5 miles south of Versailles, Indiana, from the upper part of the Saluda regarded as carrying the Hitz fauna, where the fine-grained Saluda lithology has replaced the upper Whitewater bryozoan and coral facies as developed farther north and east. Kindleoceras equilaterale Foerste, n. sp. Plate 24, figs. 8, 9 Shell slender, very gently curved, strongly triangular in sec- tion. The holotype is 106 mm, long adorally, The radius of curvature of the dorsum is 250 mm., that of the venter about 35 mm. on the living chamber the ventral profile becomes much more strongly curved, a condition which appears to be natural, the radius of curvature being reduced there to 30 mm. over a short interval, so that the living chamber becomes abruptly contracted in a manner suggesting a Newmatoceras. The shell has a width at the base of the type of 27 mm. and a height of 21 mm. Ina yentral length of 85 mm., at the base of the living chamber, the 368 BULLETIN 116 450 height is 28 mm. and the width is not known as one side is lost but is assumed to ‘be nearly the same as in the early portion. ‘The extant part of the living chamber is 20 mm. long. Contraction of the venter begins about 8 mm, beyond the base and is rapid so that at the apertural end the shell has a height of 20 mm. The aperture is not preserved. The sutures are obscure dorsally but appear to form shallow lobes over the whole dorsal face. No indication of a mid-dorsal saddle is present. The sutures rise orad on the lateral surfaces to a ventral saddle. The camerz are fairly closely spaced, five in 10 mm. adapically, four in 10 mm. adorally, and near the base of the living chamber four and a half in an equal length. The si- phuncle can be seen at the base of the specimen to be circular in section, very close to the venter, and 3 mm. in diameter. In cross section the wall of the siphuncle is thickened greatly, so much so that the internal cavity is less than 1 mm, across, but at this point no actinosiphonate rays are clearly apparent. The surface of the shell, shown only on the dorsum, bears rugose lines of growth which describe a broad low sinus over the dorsal face of the shell. Discussion.—This species is distinctive in the curvature of the shell, the relatively high cross section, and the contraction of the living chamber. The associated K. cumingsi is broader in section, less curved, and has the adoral part of the shell essentially tubu- lar. The lateral angles of that species are more broadly rounded, the sutures bear a mid-dorsal saddle, and the siphuncle is some- what larger in proportion to the cross section of the shell. Type.—Holotype, collection of Dr. W. H. Shideler, Miami University. Occurrence.—Saluda beds, 3/4 mile north of Mixerville, Franklin County, Indiana, Genus MANITOULINOCERAS FPoerste Genotype.—Cyrtoceras lysander Billings. Manitoulinoceras Foerste, 1924, Canada Geol. Surv., Mem. 138, p. 230; Foerste, 1933, Denison Univ. Bull., Sei. Lab., Jour., vol. 28, p. 126. Conch exogastric, cyrtoconic, depressed in section, with the dorsum somewhat more flattened than the venter. The venter in cross section may be rounded or may be more or less subangu- j 451 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER 369 lar, but the ventral keel is not ordinarily strongly developed. The shell is moderately expanding in the early stages but is very slender, in fact almost tubular, throughout the greater part of its length. The mature living chamber is nearly tubular but is not contracted at the aperture. The sutures are straight and transverse in the early stages but soon slope orad from dorsum to venter. The dorsal face often bears a low lobe, but in the late stages of MM. tenuiseptum this may be interrupted by a small but conspicuous saddle. The siphuncle is located close to the venter. The segments are broad at the septal foramen in proportion to their length and ex- pand within, the camerz being subspherical to obscurely heart- shaped in form. The septal necks are short and gradually re- curved, while the adapical end of the connecting ring meets the next adapical septum at a fairly sharp angle. Deposits are not ordinarily found in the siphuncle in the late stages of growth close to the living chamber. Such deposits as are found there con- sist of a thickening of the connecting ring which may be pro- duced toward the center of the chamber. Such deposits as are found in this part of the shell are very often irregular and seem- ingly erratic in their distribution through any considerable series of camerz and consist only of a thickening of the connecting ring inflated slightly at the septal foramen so as to suggest incipient annulosiphonate deposits, Such thickenings, however, are not similar to those of annulosiphonate cephalopods proper but sug- gest rather an incipient phase in the development of actinosiphon- ate deposits. Fragments of earlier portions of the conch, farther from the living chamber, have shown simple actinosiphonate de- posits, essentially similar to those found in the Valcouroceratide, particularly as known from Augustoceras. Deposits are not known within the camer. The surface of the shell is relatively smooth bearing only fine lines of growth. The aperture is gener- ally inclined orad from dorsum to venter but develops a clear hyponomic sinus. Discussion.—This genus may be readily recognized in the Cin- cinnatian by its very slender curved form, the depressed rounded section, the marginal siphuncle, and usually by the very shallow 370 BULLETIN 116 452 camere. ) 585 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER 50% and Furnish, 1942; Ulrich, Foerste, and Miller, 1943; Ulrich, Foerste, Miller, and Unklesbay, 1944). Meanwhile other in- vestigations have shown that the proper understanding of the structures of many of the genera not only requires study by opaque sections, but often thin section study. Therefore at the present time it is possible to recognize the two Cincin- natian genera as survivors of archaic stocks, but it is not possible to determine precisely to which of the older genera they are most closely related. Neither is it possible to determine whether these forms should be placed in the Stenosiphonata or Eurysiphonata, er whether perhaps this dichotomus division of the Nautiloidea may have to be either abandoned or supplemented by the addition of a third group for some of these archaic types. Family CYRTOCERINID Flower, n. fam. The family Cyrtocerinidz is erected for endogastric breviconic cyrtoceracones with marginal aneuchoanitic siphuncles charac- terized by septal necks which are strongly inflated within the cav- ity of the siphuncle. The structure of the only genus thus far recognized, Cyrtocerina, was described by the writer (Flower, 1942) and is summarized in the following pages. In form Cyrtocerina is most similar to Levisoceras Foerste, a genus which is confined to the equivalents of the Gasconade hori- zon in America. Levisoceras is not adequately known internally. The extant information fails to suggest that its connecting rings are thickened after the manner of those of Cyrtocerina. Speci- mens placed in Levisoceras with doubt by Ulrich, Foerste, and Miller (1943) from the Ellenberger of Texas show aneuchoanitic necks, relatively thin connecting rings, and diaphragms crossing the siphuncle. If these forms are representative of Levisoceras, it seems unlikely that the genus has any close relationship with Cyrtocerina. Ulrich, Foerste, Miller, and Unklesbay (1944) have described the genus Eothinoceras, based upon a single species, E. ameri- canum from the Rochdale limestone of southern New York. The few specimens by which this species is represented indicate that “it agrees with Cyrtocerina and with no other known genus, in the structure of the siphuncle, having the aneuchoanitic necks and 504 BULLETIN 116 586 inflated connecting rings very similar to those of Cyrtocerina in form. The shape of the shell of Eothinoccras can, however, only be inferred from the extant material, It is evident that the shell is relatively slender, although it is questionable whether the shell is straight, as its describers believe, or slightly curved. Ulrich, Foerste, Miller, and Unklesbay believe that Cyrtocerina and Eothinoceras are not closely related. The presence of Fothin- oceras only in the Canadian Rochdale limestone, and the confine- ment of Cyrtocerina to the Middle and Upper Ordovician, sug- gest, together with the differences in form which distinguish these genera, a considerable gap in relationship. However, they are identical in internal structure as far as can be ascertained, for Eothinoceras is known only from opaque sections, and are more closely related to each other than to any other genera in the light of our present knowledge. In view of the little information available concerning the siphuncles of many of the Ozarkian and Canadian genera now described, it is not impossible that some of these forms may prove to have similar structure when they are known from better material. Genus CYRTOCERINA Billings Genotype.—Cyrtocerina typica Billings. Cyrtocerina Billings, 1865, Pal. Foss., Geol. Surv. Canada, p. 178; Bar- rande, 1867, Syst. Sil. du centre de la Bohéme, vol. 2, pt. 1, p. 451; Hyatt, 1884, Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., Proc., vol. 22, p. 266; Muller, North American Geol., Pal., p. 436; Holm, 1892, Geol. Foren. Stock- holm, forh., vol. 14, pp. 126, 209; Clarke, 1897, Geol. Minnesota, vol. 3, pt. 2, p. 774; Hyatt, 1900, Cephalopoda, in Zittel-Kastmann Textb. Paleont., vol. 1, Ist ed., p. 517 (reprinted with different pagination in later editions) ; Foerste, 1924, Denison Univ. Bull, Sci. Lab., Jour., vol. 20, p. 198; Foerste, 1925, ibid., vol. 21, p. 11; Foerste, 1933, ibid., vol. 28, p. 188; Flower, 1943, Ohio Jour. Sei., vol. 43, pp. 51-54. The writer (Flower, 1943) has presented an extensive discus- sion of the morphological features of this genus, the redescrip- tion and illustration of the Cincinnatian species, and the structure and relationship of this genus. For completeness, a brief diag- nosis of the genus and of the Cincinnatian species is appended here. Conch rapidly expanding to aperture, nearly patelliform, slight- oO 587 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER 50 ly curved. The surface shows coarse lines of growth which indi- cate no trace of a hyponomic sinus. The section is compressed, the convex side slightly more narrowly rounded than the concave side. The sutures are straight and transverse adapically but may slope slightly orad from the concave to the convex side adorally. The phragmocone is distinctive in the extremely short camer and the nearly flat septa. The siphuncle is located close to the concave side of the shell, expands conically adorally through the phragmocone. The septal necks are aneuchoanitic and are sup- plemented by thick complex connecting rings which are inflated and extend into the cavity of the siphuncle so that an internal mold of the siphuncle will have an annular appearance. (Fig. 5A, p. 7-) The four Cincinnatian species are known only from the Saluda beds and the Hitz layer of Indiana. Additional material, recently received, indicates the presence of the genus in the Kimmswick limestone of Missouri and the Platte- ville limestone of Wisconsin. Primarily the genus was known only from the genotype from the Black River of the Paquette Rapids at Ontario, and the Cincinnatian species. Cyrtocerina madisonensis (Miller) Plate 28, figs. 1, 6-8; Plate 29, fig. 4; Plate 30, figs. 2, 3 Tryblidium madisonense Miller, 1894 (adv. sheets, 1892), 18th Rep. Indiana Dept. Geol. Nat. Res., p. 318, pl. 9, fig. 38. Cyrtocerina madisonense Miller and Faber, 1894, Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., Jour., vol. 17, p. 32; Flower, 1943, Ohio Jour. Sci., vol. 43, pp. 53-54, pl. 1, figs. 3-4, 12-14; pl. 2, figs. 1, 3-7, 9. Conch breviconic, compressed, the convex side more narrowly rounded in section than the concave (siphonal) side. In the pro- file the convex, and supposed dorsal side is slightly convex adapi- cally but becomes increasingly curved adorally so that the rate of expansion decreases adorally. The venter is essentially straight over the known portion, probably faintly concave at the extreme apex. Lateral profiles are faintly convex but very rapidly di- verging. The conch increases in height from 4 mm. to 26 mm. in the basal 12 mm., beyond which the increasing dorsal convexity causes the shell to expand more slowly. At a height of 29 mm. _ the shell has a width of 25 mm. The length of the living cham- ber is not known, all specimens thus far observed being incom- 506 BULLETIN 116 588 plete. Types.—The location of the holotype and the hypotypes. of Miller and Faber is unknown. Hypotypes which supply the basis for the revision of this species are Univ. of Cincinnati, Nos. 23905-60. Occurrence——F rom the Hitz layer at the top of the Saluda, Madison, Indiana. Cyrtocerina patella Flower Plate 28, fig. 4; Plate 29), figs. 7, 8 Cyrtocerina patelia Flower, 1943, Ohio Jour. Sei., vol. 43, pp. 54-55, pl. Sen Rees na Tay) This shell is very rapidly expanding initially, and the convexity of the antisiphonal side increases only very slightly adorally; the increase more delayed than in C. madisonensis. The conch expands in the basal 11 mm. to 24 mm. and 21 mm., the venter (siphonal side) straight, the dorsum only faimtly convex, the Jat- eral profiles straight and rapidly diverging. A second specimen consisting of a portion of a mature living chamber and gerontic camere expands from 22 mm, and 25 mm. to a width of 40 mm. and an estimated height of from 45 mim. to 48 mm. in a length of 23mm. The aperture is not preserved. The phragmocone shows no features strikingly different from that of the above species. The camer are exceedingly closely spaced gerontically, eight or nine occurring in the last 5 mm. of the siphuncle. The siphuncle is conical, close to the ventral side of the shell. At diameters of 22 mm. and 25 mm. it is 4.8 mm. wide and 5.2 mm. high at the septal foramen. . Types.—University of Cincinnati Museum, Holotype, No. 239067, paratypes, 23968, 23969, 2368. Occurrence—From the upper beds of upper Whitewater equi- valence, but with Saluda lithology from the road cut at the east- ern limits of Versailles, Indiana. The paratypes are from Madison, Indiana, presumably from the Hitz layer. Cyrtocerina modesta Flower Plate 28, figs. 2, 5; Plate 29, figs. 5, 6, 9 Cyrtoccrina modesta Flower, 1943, Ohio Jour. Sci., vol. 43, p. 55, pl. 1, figs. 2, 6-75. pls! 2, figs. 2; )8. This is a smaller and more slender species than the two de- 589 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER 507 scribed above, and is also relatively broad in cross section, The ventral side is obscurely flattened, the dorsal side narrowly round- ed, and obscurely ridged. Dorsal profile slightly and uniformly convex, the venter very faintly concave, nearly straight. The sheil inereases to a width of 2 mm. and a height of 24 mm. about 23 beyond the apex. At comparable distances from the apex other species are both higher and broader. The lateral profiles are slight- ly convex, though divergent to the aperture. Siphuncle close to venter, camere possibly slightly deeper than those of the other species, but with the septa still very closely spaced. Discussion.—The types of this species show some differences in proportion, due largely and perhaps entirely to distortion, The form is widely set apart from its congeners by the more gradual expansion, the more prominently ridged dorsum, and more strongly triangular section. Types.—University of Cincinnati, holotype, No. 17170; para- types, No. 23970,71. Cyrtocerina (7) carinifera Flower, n. sp. Plate 29, figs. 1, 2 This species is known only from a living chamber. It is 30 — ‘ower on the antisiphonal side than on the siphonal side. The dorsum and venter diverge at an angle of between 50 and 60 de- grees. The venter is straight, the dorsum apparently very slight- iy convex. The veuter is inclined about 40 degrees from the plane of the suture, the dorsum about 80 degrees. The sides are very faintly convex and diverge to the aperture. The living chamber has a ventral length of 28 mm., a dorsal length of 20 mm., and a lateral length of 24 mm, The ventral wall is marked by a linear rounded ridge running to the aperture, flanked by shallow fur- rows. The septal surface is moderately curved. The siphuncle protrudes from the septal surface and is extremely large, being 9 mm, high and 5 mm. wide. The surface of the shell bears regular transverse markings. These do not slope apicad on the venter to form a hyponomic sinus. Discussion.—Without information concerning the phrag- mocone of this singular form, its generic position must remain uncertain. However, the very large size of the siphuncle at the 508 BULLETIN 116 590 base of the living chamber, the rapid expansion of the conch to the aperture and the absence of a hyponomic sinus all suggest Cyrtocerina very strongly, and are features not known in any otner post-Chazyan genus of the Ordovician. The carinate venter, as well as the large size of the shell, will distinguish it froin its congeners. Holotype.—Shideler Collection. Occurrence.—From the Saluda beds, McDill’s Mills, Oxford, Ohio. — Family SHIDELEROCERATID/® Flower, n. fam. The family Shideleroceratidz is proposed for the genus Shi- deloceras which does not seem to have any close relatives. The family may be characterized as follows: conch cyrtoconic, slender, cross section only slightly depressed, sutures transverse, straight or sinuate. Siphuncle subcentral, necks aneuchoanitic, connect- ing rings thin and homogeneous in structure. Growth lines show a crest on the convex side of the shell, a lobe in the concave side, and are sinuate laterally. The orientation of the shell is uncer- tain, The aneuchoanitic necks distinguish Shideleroceras from all other post-Canadian genera thus far known except Cyrtocerina, which differs in the thickened connecting rings, breviconic form, and the marginal siphuncle. Among the pre-Chazyan genera, none are thus far known which are particularly close to Shideler- oceras, none combining the slender cyrtoconic form with a sub- central siphuncle. Genus SHIDELEROCERAS Flower and Foerste Genotype.—Shideleroceras sinuatum Foerste. Conch cyrtoconic, slender, very gently curved and presumably exogastric. Section slightly broader than high, the dorsum and venter equally rounded. The sutures may be straight and trans- verse, although the genotype is characterized by a narrow low saddle on the venter which may be strengthened adorally by the development of a very slight lobe on either side. The ventral saddle is vestigial or absent in the other known species. The si- phuncle lies between the venter and the center of the shell. The segments may be perfectly tubular or faintly concave. The septal necks are vestigial, and this genus is therefore probably to be 591 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER x“ 509 grouped with early Paleozoic aneuchoanitic cephalopods rather than with those which are properly orthochoanitic. The connect- ing rings are thin and apparently structureless. Obscure longi- tudinal markings are seen within the siphuncle, but their or- ganic nature has not yet been demonstrated, and it appears that both cameral and siphonal deposits are absent in this genus. The course of the transverse filiform markings of the surface which reflect the condition of former apertures present one of the simplest criteria for recognition of the genus. There is no hyponomic sinus. Instead, the lines of growth describe a low broad saddle over the ventral surface. Laterally they slope adapically abruptly and resume a nearly transverse course on the corsum, though this time fairly concave orad instead of convex as on the venter. Discussioi.—In forming this description the venter is assumed to be the convex side of the shell. No reliable criteria of orien- tation have been found within the genus, however, septal and conchial furrows not being observed. The genus is not closely similar to any other Ordovician cyrtoconic genus, The hypo- nomic sinus is absent in Forizoceras and that genus shows prom- inent filiform transverse markings, but the siphuncle is close to the venter and the shell is rapidly expanding, In the Chazyan Graciloceras the siphuncle is also close to the venter. Genera more closely approximating Shideleroccras in age generally show in addition a well-developed hyponomic sinus. Ehlersoceras Foerste (1932, 1933) is more similar in form than most other genera, but a hyponomic sinus is developed, and the siphuncle is again close to the venter. Shideleroceras differs from most post-Canadian cyrto- conic genera in the relatively central siphuncle. Further, its ap- parent aneuchoanitic condition suggests that it is a survival of a stock thus far known only from the Cambro-Ordovician, Un- fortunately the available material from Shideleroceras has been characterized by very poor preservation of the internal structures, for replacement is such that thin sections will be of little use in clarifying the structure of the siphuncle. The presence of obscure longitudinal elements within the siphuncle tube suggests that perhaps there may be here some structure akin to that reported, 510 BULLETIN 116 092 but not figured’*, for the Canadian genus Buttsoceras Ulrich and Foerste. On the other hand, the structures noted in Shideler- oceras may be adventitious, since in texture, color and apparently in composition, they can be duplicated within siphuncles of other genera observed in the same bed, where their adventitious na- ture is very evident since the structure of these genera is adequate- ly known from better preserved material in other horizons. The name Shideleroceras was proposed in manuscript by Dr. Ioerste, though his only use of the term was in the description of his species Shideleroceras sinuatum. The generic description is the work of the present writer. At the present time the only known species of Shideleroceras are those described below. The three species appear in a part of the section in which the invasion of arctic cephalopod types into the Ohio area is most striking, yet strangely enough nothing simi- lar to Shideloceras has been found in the arctic or Anticosti cephalopod faunas in spite of the fact that they have received very careful attention. Shidelereccras sinuatum Foerste, n. sp. Plate 25, figs. 14, 15, 20; Plate 26, figs. 17, 18; Plate 27, figs. 6-8 Text fig. 6D Conch is a slender cyrtoceracone of depressed section. The known part of the shell is very gradually expanded, slightly curved, the radius of curvature varying more between individuals than among various parts of the same specimen, from 125 mm. to 200 mm. The section is from 2 mm, to 4 mm. broader than high. On the holctype the shell increases from 20 mm. and 22 mun. and 28 mm, in the basal 50 mm.; in the next 42 mm. it in- creases to 32 mm. and 35 mm. ‘There is some variation in the size of mature individuals. The largest observed attains a width of 38 mm. and a height of 36 mm. Other specimens are somewhat smaller, a paratype which is essentially complete adorally meas- uring 34 mm. and 32 mm. The sutures are nearly straight and transverse in the adapical portion, showing as the only modification a slight ventral saddle. This becomes more conspicuous adorally owing to its narrow Figures appeared after this was written. They fail, however, to ex- plain the nature of the structures within the siphunele of Buttsocerus. (Ulrich, Foerste, Miller, and Unklesbay, 1944.) 593 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER su Ml condition and the development of very slight lobes flanking it ventro-laterally. In some early portions of the shell the ventral saddles are very inconspicuous, and the sutures appear straight and transverse. The camere vary in depth as they become more closely spaced over a considerable adoral interval of the phrag- mocone. Eight camerz occur in a length equal to the shell width adapically on the holotype at a width of 26 mm., but where the width is 35 mm., the camerz are shorter so that 11 lie in a length of 36 mm. The depth of the septum varies with the growth stage, early septa being relatively flat, while those farther orad are quite deeply curved. Ata shell height of 20 mm. the septum is 3.5 mm. in depth, but at a height of 24 mm. it has become 6 mm. deep. The siphuncle is located between the center and the venter. At a shell height of 20 mm. it is 3 mm. in diameter, 7 mm. from the venter and 10 mm. from the dorsum; 50 mm. farther orad the siphuncle is 3.5 mm. in diameter, 9 mm. from the venter and 13.5 mm. from the dorsum. The siphuncle appears to be orthochoanitic upon casual inspec- tion. The septa, however, are scarcely bent apicad at the siphuncle and the segments are formed almost completely by very thin con- necting rings which produce a tubular outline or an outline which is very faintly concave. This type of structure is aneuchoanitic rather than orthochoanitic. Within the siphuncle traces of longi- tudinal structures have been observed, but these may be inorganic, since not dissimilar phenomena have been noted within other shells from the same bed. Unfortunately the siphuncles are fra- gile, and material has not been available for the desired study of its structure by thin sections. The growth lines consist of narrow filiform raised transverse lines which follow the course of the aperture. They describe a broad low crest over the entire ventral (convex) surface of the shell. On the lateral region they are bent abruptly apicad and resume a nearly transverse condition over the dorsum, where they are very slightly concave orad. There is very faint rhythmic crowding of the growth lines. Discussion.—This species can be distinguished from the two known congeneric forms by the steeply inclined growth lines on the lateral region of the shell, the development of ventral saddles 512 Buutetmn 116 594 of the sutures, its moderate rate of expansion, and the relatively large size of mature individuals. S. gracile is a smaller and much more slender species in which the growth lines are inclined only slightly on the lateral portion of the shell. S. simplex is more rapidly expanding, but has simple sutures and is intermediate be- tween S. gracile and S. sinuatwm in size, and also in the degree of modification of the growth lines on the lateral part of the shell. Types.—Holotype and three paratypes, collection of Prof. W. H. Shideler. Occurrence ——The species is known mainly from the lower Whitewater beds at Little Four Mile Creek, near Oxford, Ohio. This single locality has yielded a suite of 14 specimens, A single specimen was obtained by the writer from the same horizon at Dodge’s Creek, Oxford, Ohio. Shideleroceras simplex Flower, n. sp. Plate 25, figs. 18, 19 Associated with S. simwatum in the lower Whitewater is an- other and a rarer species which is smaller, more rapidly expand- ing, and less curved, but which is differentiated principally by the shorter camerz and the absence of more than a vestigial ven- tral modification of the sutures. The two specimens available are both incomplete and distorted. The holotype is slightly flattened obliquely with a maximum length of 65 mm. The smaller diam- eter increases from 22 mm. to 27 mm. in 50 mm. ‘The radius of curvature of the venter is 230 mm. adorally and this is probably uniform adapically, though a greater adapical curvature appears to be developed probably as the result of distortion. The nine camere of the phragmocone occupy a dorsal length of 16 mm., so that in a length equal to the shell width probably 15 camerze would be present. The sutures are essentially straight and transverse, with only vestigial lobation on the venter. The living chamber, apparently mature, judging from the _ closely spaced adoral septa, has basal diameters of 24 mm. and 27 mi. in its present state. It has a maximum length of 43 mm., and probably this approaches very close to the aperture. The lines of growth slope apicad from the venter somewhat more gently on the lateral region than in S. simwatwm, and are concave orad over the dorsum and not so transverse as in S. sinuatum. The shell did not attain a width of over 30 mm. ‘The septa 595 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER 513 and siphuncle have not been observed. Discussion.—This species is associated with S. sinwatum in the cephalopod zone at the base of the Whitewater beds. It may be distinguished by the much smaller size of mature individuals, the less abrupt bend of the growth lines apicad from venter to dorsum on the sides, the more curved condition of growth lines on the dorsum, and by the absence of the ventral saddles of the sutures. Types.—Holotype, W. H. Shideler Collection. Occurrence.—Cephalopod zone of the lower Whitewater, from Little Four Mile Creek, near Oxford, Ohio. Shideleroceras gracile Flower, n. sp. Plate 29, figs. 16, 17 The only Shideleroceras noted in the Saluda beds is a form much smaller and much more slender, at least adorally, than either of those known from the lower Whitewater beds. The type consists only of a complete living chamber, which has been slightly crushed laterally, a process which produced a fold down the venter which the animal never had in life. The living cham- ber has a ventral length of 45 mm., and a dorsal length of 35 mm. It expands from 25 mm. and 18 mm. at the base to 25 mm. and 20 mm, at the aperture. The vertical discrepancy is partly due to vertical crushing at the base of the type, and the living cham- ber was originally very nearly tubular. An undistorted shell would probably show an adoral width of 26 mm., but lateral crushing has resulted in very slight adoral compression. The shell is preserved as a carbonaceous film, on which the growth lines are well displayed. The lines of growth are more transverse mid-ventrally than in other species, but slope apicad on the sides toward the dorsum only gradually and are faintly concave orad on the entire dorsum. The characters of the si- phuncle and septa are not shown. The lines of growth show that the species is a Shideleroceras. Discussion.—This species is smaller and more tubular than either of those known from the lower Whitewater. Further dif- ferences are found in the less oblique growth lines on the lateral region, the more transverse condition of the growth lines on the mid-ventral area, and the broadly concave lines on the dorsum. 514 BULLETIN 116 596 The condition of ornament is perhaps closest to S. simplex, but the undulations are even more gentle than in that species, which is larger and more rapidly expanding. Type.—-Holotype, collection of W. H. Shideler. Occurrence.—From the Saluda beds, Big Plum Creek, 114 miles northeast of Osgood, Indiana. SUBORDER HURYSIPRONATA The Eurysiphonata, as noted in the discussion of cephalopod phylogeny, are characterized primitively by aneuchoanitic septal necks and thick connecting rings. By Ordovician time neither feature is generally retained, but the thickening of the ring has become reduced in the Actinoceroidea, but is retained in the Endoceroidea. The septal necks have become relatively long in the generalized members of the Actinoceroidea and the [E-ndocera- tide of the Endoceroidea. For purposes of recognition the Cincinnatian lurysiphonata are best defined in terms of the two groups of which they are composed: the Actinoceroidea, characterized by a generally large cyrtochoanitic siphuncle which is characteristically filled adapical- ly by annulosiphonate deposits, leaving only a series cf canals and a perispatium in each segment. The larger of the Cincin- nati Actinoceriodea are treated in the present section. The re- mainder, together with the endoceroids, are reserved for the sec- ond part of this work. The Endoceroidea are characterized by large tubular, rarely concavosiphonate siphuncles containing endocones. Superfamily ACTINOCEROIDEA Yoerste and Teichert Space does not permit an adequate review of the treatment of the actinoceroids in the past. Modern understanding of the group may be dated from Teichert’s (1933) careful study of the structure of the group. The basis of the present classification is that of Foerste and Teichert (1930) who employ Actinoceroidea in much the sense in which Hyatt (1900) used the term Actino- ceratide. The actinoceroids are largely straight shells charac- terized by large nummuloidal siphuncles. Within the siphuncles there are heavily annulosiphonate deposits which may, where ma- ture, fill the segments except for a series of tubes which Teichert termed the endosiphoncular vascular system. These tubes con- | { } 597 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER 515 sist of a central canal from which radial canals pass toward the connecting ring. Near the ring they tend to branch and term- inate in a space clese to the ring free from the annulosiphonate ceposit, which is known as the perispatium, The pevispatium and the canal system are the essential diagnostic features of the group. There are other cyrtochoanitic orthoceracones, in par- ticular, the Pseudorthoceratide and the little understood Stereo- plasmoceratide. The only certain method of recognizing an actinoceroid is by the presence of the radial canal system and the perispatium within the siphuncle. The problem becomes particularly acute in some of the Sactoceratide. Here some shells have small and relatively narrow siphuncles in relation to other actinoceroids, and in section may resemble pseudortho- ceroids and stereoplasmoceroids quite closely insofar as the form and proportions of the siphuncle and septa are concerned. Such shells can be identified as actinoceroids with certainty only by a study of the deposits within the siphuncle. When these are lacking, as may often happen particularly if an immature shell is all that is available, or if only the adoral part of the phragmo- cone is preserved, it can be recognized only by inference as a member of one group or another. The typical actinoceroids may be recognized by the extreme- ly large and heavy siphuncles. Also, they are characterized by blunt apices. This does not apply to the Sactoceratide, how- ever, where the initial part of the shell is small and slender, and the siphuncle is relatively narrow. Indeed, so great is the con- trast, that the writer has more than once wondered whether the Sactoceratidz were related to the other actinoceroids. The classification of the Actinoceroidea, as at present recog- nized, is as follows: 1. Family Polydesmiide Kobayashi. Actinoceroids with large siphuncles, broadly expanded, thick connecting rings simulating continuations of the septal neck; radial canal system complexly branched and irregular. This contains only the genus Poly- desmia. (See Kobayashi, 1940; Flower, 1941.) 2. Family Actinoceratide Hyatt (restricted, Foerste and Teichert). Siphuncle large; septal necks and brims about equal, both very long. Actinoceras Bronn, Kochoceras Troedsson, Saffordoceras Foerste and Teichert, Troostoceras Foerstg and 516 ButLerin 116 598 Teichert. Doubtfully retained here are Leuwrorthoceras Foerste and Paractinoceras Hyatt. 3. Family Armenoceratide Troedsson. Septal necks recum- bent; length of neck less than brim, sometimes negligible. Ar- menoceras Foerste, Nybyoceras Troedsson, Cyrtonybyoceras Teichert, Elrodoceras Foerste, Megadiscosorus Foerste, Selkirko- ceras Foerste, (?) Metarmenoceras Flower, Family Huroniide Foerste and Teichert. Septal necks very short, ring broadly adnate to septum adapically but not adoral- ly, much of free part of septum incorporated into siphuncle wall ; segments of siphuncle inflated adorally, but attenuated adapical- ly. Foerste and Teichert have included here, Huronia Bigsby, Huroniella Foerste, and Discoactinoceras Kobayashi. Family Gonioceratidze Foerste and Teichert. This family contains actinoceroids internally similar to the Armenoceratide, but characterized by the flat shells, in which dorsal and ventral surfaces are separated by sharp lateral angles. It contains Gonio- ceras Hall and Lambeoceras Foerste. Family Sactoceratide Troedsson. Actinoceroids with rela- tively small siphuncles.. Sactoceras Hyatt and Ormoceras Stokes may not be generically distinct. Deiroceras Foerste and Troedssonoceras Foerste belong here. It is doubtful whether the Silurian Cyrtactinoceras Hyatt is properly an actinoceroid. I include here, however, Treptoceras Flower. The point of sep- aration of the Sactoceratidz from the Actinoceroide and Armeno- ceratide is exceedingly difficult, and rests more on the size of the siphuncle than any other feature. On the basis of range, I include the large Mississippian Rayonnoceras here rather than in the Actinoceratide. The Sactoceratidz develop radial canals which branch straight from the central canal to the connecting ring, instead of being arched or curved as in the Actinoceratide and most Armenoceratidze. Metarmenoceras Flower may belong here, as suggested by its canal system, rather than in the Armen- oceratide, as suggested by the size of the siphuncle. There has been much discussion in recent years as to the re- lationship existing between the Actinoceroidea and other cepha- lopods. Teichert (1933) suggested that they were probably more closely related to the endoceroids than to other cephalo- . 599 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER 517 pods. Schindewolf (1935) rejected this view on the supposed similarity between the apical end of Carbactinoceras, a subgenus af Rayonnoceras, and orthochoanitic orthoceracones. Kobay- ashi (1037) reported the early stages of Ordovician actinocer- olds, which were quite different from Schindewolf’s Mississ- ippian form, but, rather strangely, came to conclusions concerning the relationship which were quite similar to the views of Schinde- wolf. Tlower (1940) described the early stages of Actinoceras amd discussed the earlier papers, pointing out that a horizontal section such as exhibited by Schindewolf might pass through the wall of the first camera obliquely, completely missing the true initial chamber, which lies well ventrad of the center of the si- phuncle. On this basis, Schindewolf’s specimen was not a reli- able guide to the condition of the early stages. Kobayashi saw as significant the fact that the siphuncle of the actinoceroid was central in the early stages, and on this basis placed the actino- ceroids with the ellipochoanitic cephalopods as opposed to the endoceroids, The writer, however, pointed out that the posi- tion of the siphuncle need not be of primary importance, and that it might be more important that the siphuncle appears to be open into the whole of the space between the shell wall and the initial septum in both the endoceroid and the actinoceroid, while the tip is confined in an apical cecum in most other cephalopods. Since then, the problem of the significance of the apical ends of the siphuncles has become more complex in the light of new information on the early stages of some of the clder cephalopods. Neither the apically ventral siphuncles of Kobayashi nor the dis- tinction between siphuncles, which are open into the apical cham- ber on one hand and closed by a cecum on the other, appear to hold, Ventral siphuncles occur in some but not all of the Tar- phyceratide and Trocholitidz, as shown in part by Hyatt (1894), by Ulrich, Ioerste, Miller, and Furnish (1942) and by unpub- lished sections made by the writer. The validity of the apica cum as a criterion of the stenosipnonate line is impaired by the apparent presence of such a cecum in “Cameroceras” annuli- ferwm Flower (1941) of the Canadian of eastern New York. On the basis of these discoveries, the early stages seem too variable te serve as guides to phylogeny, or else their significance has so far not been understood, 518 BULLETIN 116 600 On the basis of adult features, it has been possible to show a plausible way in which the endoceroid, in the old broad sense in which the term was formerly used, could have given rise to the actinoceroid. This has been traced by the writer (Flower, 1941) beginning with Ellesmeroceras and passing through Bath- moceras and the primitive actinoceroid, Polydesmua. This hy- pothesis requires further study of Bathmoceras, particularly in regard to the fine structure of the connecting ring, the deposits derived from the connecting ring, and a search for possible vascu- lar structures. Unfortunately, suitable material of this genus has not been available ; indeed Holm’s earlier study of the genus was based upon the only specimen thus far found well enough pre- served to be studied by sections. However, the similarities be- tween this genus and Polydesmia are quite striking, and sug- gest an evolutionary progression involving the expansion of the siphuncle within the camere coupled with a differentiation of the thickening of the connecting ring which projects far into the cavity of the siphuncle into annulosiphonate deposits. Kobayashi, however, (1935, p. 750; 1930, p. 234; 1937) has proposed that the actinoceroids and the Stereoplasmoceratide were both derived from orthochoanitic orthoceracones. This is possible from the point of view of the outline of the siphuncle. However, it does not explain the sudden appearance of highly specialized deposits within the siphuncle, the annuli, the vascu- lar system, the perispatial deposits, nor is it particularly consist- ent with the large blunt apical ends of the actinoceroids which present a sharp contrast to the minute apices of known ortho- choanitic orthoceracones, THE ACTINOCEROIDEA OF THE CINCINNATIAN The Cincinnatian Actinoceroidea, only a part of which are included in the present work, include representatives of three families, the Armenoceratide, represented by several specimens of Armenoceras, the Gonioceratide, represented by a single spe- cies of Lambeoceras,and the Sactoceratide,represented by Troeds- sonoceras, which is confined to the Cathys and Cynthiana of the Trenton and the Maysville of the Covington but which does not persist into higher strata. The species of Troedssonoceras are included in the present volume. Treptoceras Flower, also 601 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER 519 of the Sactoceratidz, reaches its fullest expression in the Cincin- natian. To this genus belong the smooth orthoceracones which are the commonest of the Cincinnati cephalopods. This genus has its inception in the Trenton and persists throughout the en- tire section at Cincinnati. It is also represented in the Lorraine of New York, in the Cincinnatian of Ontario, but is unknown in Anticosti or in any of the boreal associations. The magnitude of the problem of identification of the several thousand specimens of this genus available for the present study and the problem of identifying the previously described species of “Orthoceras’ of the Cincinnatian, nearly all of which belong in this genus, but are so inadequately described that they are for the most part unrecognizable, have made it necessary to delay the description and discussion of these species for the second part of the work. Family ARMENOCERATIDZ Genus ARMENOCERAS Foerste Genotype.—Actinoceras hearsti Parks. Armenoceras Foerste, 1924, Univ. Michigan, Mus. of Geol., Contrib., vol. 2, p. 32; Foerste, 1924, Canada, Geol. Surv., Mem. 145, p. 73; Troeds- son, 1926, Meddelelser om Greenland, vol. 71, p. 60; Foerste and Sav- age, 1927, Denison Univ. Bull., Sci. Lab., Jour., vol. 22, p. 63; Foerste, 1929, ibid., vol. 24, p. 202; Foerste and Teichert, 1930, Denison Univ. Bull., Sci. Lab., Jour., vol. 25, p. 269; Foerste, 1933, ibid., vol. 28, Delt: Armenoceras is differentiated from Actinoceras by the seg- ments of the siphuncle, which are more abruptly expanded, so that the brim is well developed and the neck very short. The brim is sometimes free and sometimes recumbent, that is, so re- curved as to lie in contact with the free part of the septum of which it is a modified continuation, and all gradations between the two conditions exist. The segments are expanded within the camere, rounded, and generally the adapical end of the connect- ing ring is adnate to the septum. Annulosiphonate deposits are typical of the actinoceroids. The course of the radial canals varies somewhat within the genus, but consists typically of two series of arclike canals which are possibly efferent and afferent vessels, as in Nybyoceras. Teichert (1933) has discussed this type of structure most adequately. However, some species of BULLETIN 116 602 or Lo i) the genus appear to have simpler canals, and Flower (1941) has suggested that perhaps these forms are more closely allied to the Sactoceratidz, It is possible that rimenoceras and Ormo- ceras may be united by Middle Ordovician species which have been assigned to both genera, typified by sirmenoceras alliuiet- tense, in which the segments of the siphuncle are narrow, sub- spherical, the septal feramen truncating the spheroidal outline only slightly, but in which the brims are generally extensive, the necks short in species assigned to slrmenoceras, while forms showing longer necks and shorter brims have been placed in Ormoceras. Treptoceras Flower, typically developed in the Up- per Ordovician, is closely allied to this line. It is believed that Arinesioceras arose from such older Armeno- ceratide as Nybyoceras and Cyrtonvbyoceras, which appear in the Chazyan, and are characterized by a series of double arcs forming the radial canals of the siphonal vascular system. This condition is believed to be more primitive than the single series of ares in each segment developed in the Actinoceratidz, and the horizontal radial canals of the Sactoceratide, a feature which appears in some species,otherwise typical ./imenoceras on the bas- is of the outline of the siphuncle alone. Such rimenoceras spe- cies survive into the Silurian, and give rise to the Devonian Metarmenoceras Flower (1941) in which the canal system be- comes even more specialized. In general, the younger species of Armenoceras develop narrow and small siphuncles, closer to those of Ormoceras, and resemble that genus in the simple hori- zontal radial canals. A few exceptions are found in Silurian species of Anticosti, notably in 4. excentrale and 1. chicottense, which appear closer to the Ordovician types. At the present time some 36 named species and varieties of Armenoceras are known in North America. Additional forms are known from Europe, mainly in the Scandinavian area, and also from the Ordovician of Manchuria and Korea. Attempts to subdivide this overly unwieldly genus have thus far been ra- ther unsuccessful. Shimizu and Obata have attempted to sub- divide it on the basis of differences in the form of the segments of the siphuncle, but these differences cannot be widely applied and do not seem to include species which are similar on the ba- 605 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER O21 sis of other features. Part of the difficulty lies in the fact that most species are known from portions of phragmocones not al- ways enough for accurate comparison, while another group is known largely from isolated siphuncles. Further, some species have not been studied closely enough to permit close subdivision on the basis of details of the outline of the siphuncle. The radial canal system is regarded by the writer as a potential aid in clari- fying the relationships of these species, but information on the structures involved is lacking for a good many of the described species, particularly those of the American Arctic region. Cincinnati species.—Three species of Armenoceras are known from the Cincinnati region, All three belong to the group of forms characterized by short broad siphuncles which have the septal foramen nearly normal to the axis of the shell, and in which the connecting ring is broadly adnate at its adapical end. In contrast, another group of species including the genotype, shows a poor area of adnation, the septa are oblique where they join the siphuncle, and the general pattern of the segments tends to be faintly heart-shaped, suggesting that these species may be related to the forerunners of Huwroniclla, which appears in the Red River but is better developed in the Silurian. The first of the Cincinnati forms is 4. vawpeli, characterized by very shallow camere. The siphuncle is relatively small, lies close to the venter, and is made up of very short segments. A. brevicameratum Foerste and Teichert (1930) of the equivalent Cathys limestone of Tennessee is probably the only form which is very closely related to this one. The two remaining species occur in the Richmond and have larger siphuncles. In A. richmondense the siphuncle is found to he definitely moved from the venter, and this species appears to be closely allied to A. arcticum var. angustum Troedsson. A. madisonense resembles A. richmondense closely, but has a more ventral siphuncle, and differs in details of the form of the septal necks. It is evidently closer to the Maquoketa species A. cler- montense and A. iowaense. A fragment unworthy of description or illustration indicates the presence of Armenoceras in the Lei- pers beds at Rowena, Kentucky. Armenoceras vaupeli Flower, n. sp. Plate 43, figs. 2, 4; Plate 47, figs. 4-6 Conch orthoceraconic, slender, very slightly depressed in sec- tion, without definite flattening of the venter. The most com- BULLETIN 116 604 on bo Lo plete specimen expands from 31 mm. and 33 mm, to 38 mm. and 40 mim. in a length of 70 mm., and consists of 22 camera. The sutures appear transverse on the ventral side, but slope orad from venter to dorsum, the obliquity being confined to the dorsal half of the shell, a faintly sinuous pattern resulting. Thirteen camere occur in a length equal to the height of the shell of 39 min., and 12 occur on another specimen in a length equal to an adoral width of 42 mm. ‘The septa are deeply curved at a shell height of 37 mm., the curvature is 14 mm., or nearly equal to the length of three camerze. The greatest depth of the camera is slightly ventrad of the center but dorsad of the siphuncle. The siphuncle isscarcely wider than high, relatively small, and close to the venter. Adapically a segment is 3 mm. long, ex- pands from 5 mm. to 10 mm., and at its broadest portion is 5 mm. from the venter. Adorally the segment is 3.5 mm. long, expands from 6 mm, to I2 mm., and is 4 mm. from the venter. In vertical section the adapical end of the connecting ring is al- roost free dorsally and broadly adnate ventrally. At its adoral end the ring is attached broadly to the septum on the dorsum but not on the venter. The septal necks are short and appar- ently recumbent, but whether narrowly free or actually in con- tact with their septa, is uncertain. Annulosiphonate deposits are well developed and typical. The species is known only from phragmocones which range from a width of 33 mm. and a height of 31 mm. to an adoral shell width of 55 mm. Discussion.—This species is represented in our material by four specimens, three of which are badly weathered and fail to retain the dorsum. The fourth, here used as the holotype, rep- resents a portion of a phragmocone complete for a length of 70 mm. Only one form is closely allied to this species, 4. brevicamera- tui Foerste and Teichert of the Cathys limestone. Both spe- cies have short septa, sutures somewhat inclined orad on the dorsum, and a small ventral siphuncle. A. vaupeli is distin- euished from A. brevicameratwim in the stronger curvature of the septa, which are also slightly more inclined orad on the dor- sum, but mainly in that the siphuncle is considerably smaller in 605 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: F'LOWER 523 proportion to the diameter of the conch, and is considerably closer to the venter in vl. vaupelt. It is evident, although 4. vanpeli is known from portions slightly smaller than A. brevi- cameratum, which seems to be known from the single holotype only, that its siphuncle tends to become more eccentric rather than less, with increase in growth, and consequently the adoral parts of the shell are less like those of 1. brevicameratum, than are its earlier parts which are more remote from A. brevicamera- fui in actual dimensions. Consequently the two species ap- pear to be quite distinct. joth forms exhibit the bread adnation of the siphuncle on the adoral end on the dorsum, and on the adapical end on the venter, a condition characteristic of Nybyoceras. It is uncertain whether this represents a real relationship inasmuch as the con- dition is found more or less well developed in all species, in which the siphuncle lies well ventrad of the point of greatest depth of the septum. Other species of Armenoceras are not closely allied, typical forms having beth deeper camere and larger siphuncles. Types.—Holotype, Shideler Collection; paratypes, Univ. of Cincinnati Museum, Nos. 23901, 23903. Occurrence.—From the Cynthiana limestone, Cynthiana, Ken- tucky. All forms are from the Greendale member of the Cyn- thiana. Armenoceras richmondense Flower, n. sp. Plate 44, figs. 1, 2 This form is represented by shells usually fragmentary and flattened but which show that this species had a phragmocone rather similar to that of A. madisonense but differing in the more central position of the siphuncle. The holotype, selected as the least distorted although not the most complete specimen, is a portion of a phragmocone 55 mm. in length, increasing in width from 40 mm. to 50 mm. in a length of 45 mm. The shell height, decreased partly by weathering and partly by slight pressure, is 38 mm. adorally, and was probably nearly as great basally. At the adoral end of the shell the siphuncle is 14 mm, high and 21 mm. wide at the septal foramen, is 7 mm. from the ventral wall and about 18 mm. from the dorsum. At a shell width of 50 mm. the septa are equal in curvature to one and one-half 524 BULLETIN 116 606 camere. Seven and a half camere occur in a length equal to the adoral shell width. The siphuncle is always much wider than high, strongly de- pressed in section. The segments in section show a remark- ably small septal foramen, actually 9 mm. in width where it is apparently 14 mm. in width, for the septal necks are recum- bent and broadly adnate to both ends of the connecting ring, ex- tending far within the apparent minimum diameter of the si- phuncle, where they are obscured by the recrystallized annulo- siphonate deposits. The apparent expansion of the segments in the camere is slight, one increasing from 18 mm. to 23 mm., where the length of the segment is 7 mm. In section, the siphuncle shows that the septa continue iar with- in the apparent septal foramen, so that where the apparent mini- min width of the segmerit is 18 mm., the septal foramen was actually only 9 mm. wide. The condition of the necks and brims is Gbscured in most cases by recrystallization of the calcite sur- rounding and composing them, but at several points the sections show that the brim is strongly recurved, but actually does not be- come recumbent, and fails to touch the free part of the septum. Also, the adoral portion of the connecting ring remains free from the septum, although adapically a broad area of adnation is de- veloped. The radial canals are nearly normal to the central canal, but their arrangement cannot be made out clearly. The camere bear only very thin hyposeptal and episeptal deposits which are unusually thin throughout, even where the segments of the siphuncle contain mature annulosiphonate deposits. Discussion.—This form resembles A. madisonense Foerste and Teichert (1930, page 272) but may be distinguished in complete phragmocones by the position of the siphuncle which is not in contact with the venter in this form. Further, the almost straight course of the septa from the shell wall centrad and apicad to the siphuncle in the adapical part of the phragmocone seems to be characteristic of this species. Recognition on the basis of the isolated siphuncles is more difficult, but is possible if good sections can be made, for in J. madisonense the tip of the septal neck touches the free part of the septum, which is not true of A. rich- mondense. 607 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER OLD In other regions, among the many described species of Ar- menoceras, there are several other comparable forms. -(. cler- monlense Fecerste is based upon a weatnerd shell which super- ficially might represent an adoral portion of «!. richmondense. It shows the same short segments. The curvature of the septa 1s not dissimilar from that of the adora!l but not the adapical end of A. vichmondense, but the siphuncle is closer to the yenter in A. clermontense, there seems to he more pronounced flattening of the ventral side of the shell. and the segments cf the siphuncle are considerably broader in proportion to their length than would be those of 4. richmondense. A. richmondense fails to show an adoral increase in the width of the segments of the siphuncle such as would produce the wide segments of .1. clermontense when projected onto a commensurate portion of a phragmocone. ' tuwacnse \oerste, also of the Maquoketa shale, shows segments of a siphuncle which expand less rapidly orad, but differ from those of f, richimondeise in being in contact with the ventral wall. More similar to «1. richmondense are two forms from the Cape Calhoun beds of Greenland, A. arcticum Troedsson (1926) and /!. arcticum var. cngustiun Troedsson (1926). ‘The former is easily distinguished by its broader siphuncle, in which it seems to be very closeiy allied to 4. clermontense. A. ercticum var. amgustuit in the narrower siphunele is closer to the Richmond species but has a more poorly developed area of adnation at the adapical end of the connecting ring. This form is probably more closely allied to A. vichmondense than any other species. Other cemparable forms have been discussed under the generic discussion. Types.—Wolotype, Univ. of Cincinnati Museum, No. 23916. Paratypes, Univ. of Cincinnati Museum, No. 24472, and two specimens in the collection of Dr. W. H. Shideler. Occurrence —This species ranges from the Blanchester ap- parently to the top of the Liberty beds. The holotype is from the Liberty, in a road cut about three miles south of Milan, Indiana, on Indiana Route 1. The figured paratype (Shideler Collection) is from the Blanchester beds of the Waynesville, Addison’s Creek, near Oxford, Ohio. Two loose siphuncles are from the Liberty, 526 BULLETIN 116 608 one at Madison, Indiana, the other from the coral reefs of the Liberty at Bardstown, Kentucky. Armenoceras madisonense Fcerste and Teichert Plate 47, fig. 7 Armenoceras madisoncense Woerste and Teichert, 1930, Denison Univ. Bull., Sei. Lab., Jouv., vol. 25, p. 272; pl. 45, fig. LA-C; pl. 58, fig. a. Original description.—Specimen 155 mm. long, enlarging at an approx- imate angle of 5 degrees. At its base the lateral diameter is estimated at $5 mim., aud at a point 90 mm. farther up it equals 43 mm. The num- ber of camere in a length equal to a Jateral diameter of the conch varies from 6 along the lower part of the specimen to 7 near its top. The econ- cavity of the septa is about 8 mm. The sutures of the septa are not ex- posed. The siphunele is in fiattened contact with the ventral wall of the conch at the lower end of the specimen, but is 1.5 mm. distant at the up- per end. The diameter of the siphuncle enlarges from 18 mm. at the base of the specimen to 20 mm. at the top. The septal necks are extremely short, and hardly twice as long as the thickness of one septum. The septa eurve backward very sharply at the septal foramen and form a rather short brim. Along its inner part the brim is separated for a very short distance from the lower side of the overlying septum, but comes in contact with this septum along its outer half. Occurrence.—Madison, Indiana, from some unknown horizon, but apparently from the Saluda member of the Richmond. Holo- type, No. 15493, U. S. National Museum. Discussion.—This species is evidently rare and appears to be known only from the holotype. Examination of other Richmond Armenoceras has shown in the case of every specimen examined that the septal necks are longer and the brim and the adoral end of the connecting ring are free, which is not the case in A. madtsonense. These specimens are assigned to the new species A. richmondense, which is known to range from the upper Waynes- ville to the Liberty but has not been found higher in the section. This species differs further in having a siphuncle which is much farther from the ventral wall of the shell than is that of A. madi- 1SONENSE. Foerste and Teichert are somewhat doubtful concerning the age of A. madisonense, but the writer has followed them in as- signing it tentatively to the Saluda. This seems probably safe in view of the usually characteristic lithology of the Saluda, and Foerste’s intimate knowledge of the entire Cincinnatian, but even in the Saluda lithology may play strange tricks, and further veri- fication is eminently to be desired. The writer can say only that none of the Liberty or Waynesville species of Armenoceras which ba | 609 GINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER 62 have come to his attention are conspecific with the species under discussion. However, it must be admitted that had one of these forms not been collected in place, it might have been considered of Saluda age on the basis of lithology and weathering. Unfor- tunately the holotype of A. madisonense could not be re-examined for the present study with these matters in mind, as at the time of writing, it is, with other of the U. S. National Museum types, in storage for the duration of the war. Happily, the species was studied by Foerste and Teichert with their customary thorough- ness and was amply illustrated. Family GONIOCERATID Genus LAMBEOCERAS Iloerste Genotype.—Gonioceras lambei Whiteaves. Lambeoceras Foerste, 1917, Cincinuati Soc. Nat. Hist., Jour., vol. 22, p. 45; Foerste, 1926, Denison Univ. Bull., Sei. Lab., Jour., vol. 21, p. 312; Troedsson, 1926, Meddelelser om Greenland, vol. 71, p. 44; Foerste, 1929, Denison Univ. Bull., Sei. Lab., Jour., vol. 24, p. 213; Foerste, 1929, ibid., vol. 24, p. 320; Foerste and Teichert, 1930, ibid., vol. 25, pp. 207, 213, 214; Foerste, 1933, ibid., vol. 28, p. 41; Foerste, 1935, ibid., vol. 50, p. 51; Teichert, 1935, Amer. Jour. Sci., vol. 29, p. 22; Teichert, 1934, Meddelelser om Grenland, vol. 92, pp. 32-36; Leith, 1942, Jour. Paleont., vol. 16, pp. 130-132. Shell straight, very strongly depressed, with the dorsum and venter somewhat convex but strongly separated by sharp lateral angles. The sutures form broad rounded lobes, generally very deep, over dorsum and venter separated by angular lateral sad- dies. Generally the suture describes a lobe on the venter some- what more strongly curved and narrower than that of the dorsum, The sutures show only a very slight reversal of curvature toward the sides, not present in all species. The septa are strongly curved laterally but nearly flat vertically. The siphuncle is located ventrad of the center of the shell, is large, and is typical of the Actinoceroidea in its construction and deposits. Owing to the extreme flatness of the shell the siphuncle differs markedly in ap- pearance depending upon the direction of the section from which it is studied. A horizontal section shows broadly expanded seg- ments. The septa appear to approach each other where they make up part of the siphuncle and are adnate to the next adoral connecting ring but are turned slightly farther apicad than is normal. The true brim cannot usually be seen in opaque sections p28 BULLETIN 116 610 as it is very short and is usually complicated by the development of the circulus ; the whole being frequently obscured by recrystalli- zation. ‘The true structure has, however, been demonstrated by Teichert. ‘he connecting ring is neatly iree at its adoral end but broadly adnate adapically. In vertical section the septa bend abruptly apicad and appear to be orthochoanitic. They do, however, have short recumbent septal necks. The connecting ring expands rapidly, forming an inflated segment and is broadly adnate to the next septum at its adapical end. ‘The structure is faintly suggestive of that of Huronia. ‘The usual annulosiphonate deposits are developed with radial and central canals remaining. The surface features (Leith, 1942) are known for only the genotype. ‘hey consist of transverse bands which form a slight erest on the dorsum and a low broad sinus over the entire venter. Shells of this genus may attain immense size, rivaling the larger endoceroids. Discussion—This genus is widespread in strata cf the later Ordovician Arctic embayment, being known from Cape Calhoun to the Big Horns. Although present in the Richmond of Ohio, it is not known from the Maquoketa shale of the Mississipp: Val- ley, though present there in the underlying Stewartville beds. It is not known from the eastern equivalent formations, either from the Whitehead of Gaspé or irom the Ordovician of Anticosti. The range of the known species is summarized beiow: L. acutilaterale Foerste (1935). Lander sandstone, Big Horns, L. arcticum Teichert (1937). Ordovician, Iglulik Island, L. boreum Troedsson (1926). Cape Calhoun series, Greenland. L. confertum Foerste (1932). Stewartville formation, Minne- sota and Illinois. L.. cf. confertum Voerste (1935). Lander sandstone, Big Horns. L. cultrativn Miller (1932). Lander sandstone, Dig Horns. L. cf. cultratum Miller, (Foerste, 1935). Stewartville of Ilinois. _. lambei (Whiteaves, 1891), (see Foerste, 1926). Selkirk tormation, Red River, Manitoba. L. cf. lambei Foerste, (Teichert, 1937). Mt. Nautilus, Cock- burn land, am! 611 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER 520 L. landerense Foerste (1935). Lander sandstone, Big Horns. L. magnum Troedsson (1926). Cape Calhoun formation, Greenland. L. nudum Troedsson (1920). Cape Calhoun formation, Green- land. L. cf. nudum (Teichert, 1937). Ordovician, Iglulik Island. L. cf. nudum Foerste (1932-33). Ordovician, southern Baffin Land. 4 L. peculiare Miller (1932). Lander sandstone, Big Horns. L. princeps Troedsson (1926). Cape Calhoun formation, Greenland. L. cf. princeps Troedsson (Foerste, 1929). Dog Head, Red River, Manitoba. L. richmondense (Foerste) (1917). Whitewater, Richmond, Indiana, L. (?), sp. Miller (1932). Lander sandstone, Big Horns. | One other species, L. leveannulatum (TYroedsson, 1926), has been made the genotype of Rasmussenoceras Foerste (1933). In- ternal molds of this genus resemble those of Lambeoceras but the siphuncle is very slender. That genus is discussed elsewhere in the present work. Lambeoceras has been placed by Foerste and Teichert (1936) in the family Gonioceratide of the Actinoceroidea, and subse- quent morphological investigations of Teichert (1934) have tend- ed to confirm this assignment as have those of Leith (1942) who confirmed the presence of typical actinoceroid type of deposits in the genotype. Gonioceras may readily be distinguished by the course of the sutures. In that genus the broad rounded lobe of the center on both dorsum and venter reverses its curvature at the sides, so that there are rounded saddles flanking the central lobe and at the edges of the two flat surfaces sharp lateral lobes are formed. Al- though the sutures may tend to flatten out laterally in Lambe- oceras they never form true lateral lobes, and these genera al- though apparently closely related, do not intergrade. Species which in the past have been placed in 7vipteroceras _ agree with Lambeoceras in form, but have a small siphuncle, so BULLETIN 116 612 (Si) wo o small and weak that it is usually not preserved at all. Although some such species have been placed in 7vripteroceras, it has seemed wisest to remove them to /asimussenoceras, with which they agree in all known morphological features, inasmuch as they differ from typical 7Tyipteroceras in that the section is not sub- triangular, while the dorsal keel is lacking. Only one species, and that a somewhat variable one, of Lambe- oceras is recognized in the Richmond of the Cincinnati area. This may be distinguished from Rasmussenoceras by the characters of the siphuncle, and also by the somewhat larger size attained by the species. The two are, however, so very similar in aspect, so much so that I have often been in doubt as to which certain poor- ly preserved fragments, failing to show the siphuncle and septa clearly, should be placed. The apical end of Lambeoceras has not been noted. One speci- men of L. richmondense figured here fails to retain the extreme apex but indicates by the form of the external mold at the base of the shell that the apex was very rapidly expanding as in simpler genera of the Actinoceroidea. Somewhat analogous conditions are inferred from specimens of Gonioceras which approach but do not quite attain the apex of the shell. Lambecceras richinondense (Foerste) Plate 44, figs. 8, 4; Plate 45, figs. 1, 4; Plate 46, figs. 1-4 Tripteroceras (Lambeoceras) richmondensis Woerste 1917, Cineinnati Soe. Nat. Hist., Jour., vol. 22, pp. 44-46, pl. 1, fig. 3A-D; pi. 3, fig. 2. ‘Conch straight, strongly depressed in section, with the venter slightly more flattened centrally than the dorsum. The rate of expansion of the shell varies among the different growth stages, being rapid at first, and later more gradual until the adoral part of the shell scarcely expands laterally. The earliest stage ob- served shows a lateral expansion of 16 mm. to 32 mm. in 40 mm., while an external mold of a more apical portion of the same speci- men indicates that this rapid expansion began at or very near a blunt apex. At a region between a width of 34 mm. and a width of 40 mm. the rate of expansion decreases, aud the shell expands from 34 mm. to 47 mm. in a length of 80 mm. The larger speci- mens show a still more slender form in adoral parts of the conch 613 CINCINNATIAN CEPHALOPODS: FLOWER 531 One specimen (Shideler Collection, Pl. 45, fig. 4) increases from 54 mm. to 59 mm. in the 40 mm. of the phragmocone and to 65 mm. in the 75 mr, of the living chamber. A second large speci- men (Earlham Collection, No, 6422, Pl. 44, fig. 4) shows an in- crease of from 60 mm. to 66 mm. in a length of 114. The larg- est specimen observed increases from a width of 67 mm. to 7o mm. ina lateral length of 134 mm. (PI. 46, fig. 1.) The section of the shell is generally uncertain as specimens are eften subjected to crushing. However, one small fragrnent in a good condition of preservation shows a width of 31 mn. and a height of 14. mm. which increases in 31 mm. to 43 mm. and 16 mm. Flattening is more marked in more mature portions of the shell but may be augmented by distortion. The height is 20 mm. at a width of 58 mm. near the base of one of our larger specimens where the shell does not appear to be distorted. The septa are strongly curved laterally but nearly flat vertical- ly. In the central portion the septum is slightly oblique in un- distorted specimens sloping slightly orad from venter to dorsum. The sutures in early ephebic stages of growth show lobes on the venter and dorsum which are slightly different. On the venter the median lobe is deep and sharp, though rounded at its center, the appearance of sharpness being augmented by the way the suture is curved laterally, so that it becomes convex orad upon approach- ing the lateral saddle. A broad rounded lobe, broader and slight- ly shallower occupies the entire dorsum, as shown in Plate 46, figure 3. Adorally the difference between the dorsal and ventral sutures becomes less marked, the broad adoral convexity of the lateral part of the suture is lost, though in the extreme adoral portion of the phragmocone the extreme lateral part of the su- tures of the venter again becomes slightly curved apicad. This is shown clearly on our largest specimen which represents a definite- ly gerontic condition, The camerz increase in depth from 4 mm. near the apex at a width of 16 mm., to 5 mm. at a width of 4o mm. Adorally the camer tend to become shorter. The largest specimen shows camer 5 mm. deep at the center of the specimen, but only 3 mm. deep over a broad area near the base of the living chamber. An- other specimen shows camere 4 mm. deep at a width of 54 mm., BuLietIn 116 614 Ort bo and a third (Earlham Collection, No. 6422) has camere 3 mm. in depth at a width of 62 mm. In general, the depth of the lobe of the suture is equal to or slightly less than the depth of two camer in the early part of the shell, but adorally the camera are shortened and at a width of 60 mm. seven camerze occur in the linear interval of one ventral lobe, and are still more closely spaced in the extreme gerontic portion. The siphuncle lies ventrad of the center of the shell. The seg- ments are broadly nummuloidal, as can be seen in several wea- thered specimens. The form of the segments is shown clearly a the enlarged sections. Horizontal sections are typical of Lamb- eoceras as known from the genotype and the Cape Calhoun forms studied by Troedsson and by Teichert. In vertical section, how- ever, the necks are more evenly recurved and do sot extend apt cad for any considerable distance along the siphuncle but are more similar to the septal necks of Kata e i Te pitty » a ‘A Say nisi tin a> ee | “7 xb ms) vA Aas {) ; dhibeln Apt ontees Frail) ae: ah Pie sve vet te pO hee’ Fa a sey pete ji 4g 0 tile oak tis AN eae Shir: ete i A ; OER. matt Ri ¥) a ah * Mh PAN Bar of ea 558 BULLETIN 116 640 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 1 (3) (Annulated Orthoceracones) Figure Page 1. Gorbyoceras duncanw Flower, n. sp. — sd Paratype, transverse longitudinal section; 1. Lower Whitewater, Little Four Mile Creek, Oxford quad., Ohio. Shideler Coll. 2,3. Gorbyoceras hammelli (Foerste) —--.--.02000. «15 Hypotypes. 2. Vertical section; 1. Saluda beds , probably PAE: layer, "Madis ‘on, Ind. Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 241606. Early stage; <2, Hitz layer, Madison, Ind. Univ. of Gineianti, No. 24168. 4,5. Gorbyeceras, sp. aff. calvini (Foerste) —... Lis 22S 4, exterior; 1. 5. Enlargement showing division of | pri- mary longitudinal lire. Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24090. Lower Whitewater horizon, McDill’s Mills, Oxford quad., Ohio. Shideler Coll. 6. Gorbyeceras duncanz Flower, n. sp. .... _. 156 Paratype, Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24087. Vertical section; dorsum incomplete. Lower Whitewater horizon or pos- sibly upper Liberty, railroad cuts, Weisburg, Ind. 7. Gorbyoceras crossi Flower, n. sp. —. 149 Section of adapical portion of holotype; 1. Univ. of Cin. cinnati, No. 23084. Saluda beds, Versailles, Ind. 8. Gorbyeceras simile Flower, n. sp. —----. 160 Holotype; X1. Lower Whitewater beds, Little Four Mile Creek, Oxford quad., Ohio. Shideler Coll. 9. Gorbyoceras hammelli (Foerste) — 151 Hypotype; 1. Shideler Coll. Saluda beds, Big Sains Creek. Laurel, Ind. 10. Anaspyroceras williamse Flower, n. sp. 141 Paratype, Shideler Coll. Lower Whitewater horizon, , Little Four Mile Creek, Oxford quad., Ohio. PL. 3, VOL. 29 Bub, AMER. PALEONT. No, 116, Pu. 1 Figure 195 LO: 2,3. or . Gorbyeceras crossi Flower, n. sp. BULLETIN 116 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 2 ( 4 ) (Annulated Orthoceracones) \Gorbyoceras’-sorbyi, (Muller) ) 222 ee eee Hypotype, Shideler Coll., basal Whitewater horizon, Little Four Mile Creek, Oxford, Ohio; X1. Section fram apical end of specimen. . Lateral view. 10. Coneave side of same specimen. “Spyroceras” bilineatum-frankfortense Foerste ___ Holotype. 2. Enlarged. 3. Natural size. Beds of Curds- ville age, Crow distillery, south of Frankfort, Ky. (After Foerste.) Paratype, Shideler Coll. Portion of surface from near aperture of specimen shown on Pl. 3, fig. 6. Gerontic ornament. . Gorbyoceras hammelli (Foerste) Siphunele, early stage; <1. Shideler Coll, Saluda beds, “Mad- ison, Ind. Jie PDY LOCCRASS 7) Spb (ees Ole a i Ne AR hs el Only specimen known from the Fulton. From Twelve Mile Creek, Cincinnati. Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 23907. . Gorbyoceras crossi Flower, n. sp. file 8 gain Holotype; <1. Same specimen. ; as Pl. ms “fig. if Saluda, Versailles, Ind. Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24083. . Anaspyroceras williamsz Flower, n. sp. Holotype; X1; ventral (?) aspect. Lower “Whitewa ater beds, Flat Fork Creek, Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24089. 642 137 - 149 139 149 142 Buu. AMER. PALEONT. No. 116, PL. 2 Pu. 4, Von. 29 Lyi a yr ri i ath yt i Th Miu) Vl Hil Alig eat He es it i ei rh ae : Pe ay PAL \ > a Ss ' ' ° ‘ i *¢ = is 3 : t ied, BHO H breyten || | ‘ On ke . he, et 4 ner VSL, orks 1 VOCE TS aoa Sere SMa he | deena, La ate Wa, ’ * . ’ All ilbe Pr ert ee es oe | Peay bitch coe PLATE 3 (3) eet oR SO Istuaregd / tite ve BAP, Sh of Fis ; era | h (TRN ODE. tia PPD wae aera 6 epochs. saves Si Hoy wate. napedy ted 5 ; Py 7 . * . )) edb } y, Q ‘ ANU has ? £ pa Ae twa Nein MeqaSOxKOd 4 us * os ae quihytt ar: setae Jee li) yd ns a NRE | vosw lia, | oti iS onwisag dp Hee 8 ay Ma bah seater =a) oe aie wines yates te co Web el ee ea Ae, 562 BuLuLetTiIn 116 644 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 3 ( 5 ) (Annulated Orthoceracones) Figure Page 1. Gorbyoceras hammelli (Foerste) -----—-----------_-----_ —____-- 151 Hypotype, Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24166. Surface mark- ings, <2, showing exceptional development of transverse markings and surface irregularities. Same specimen as Py, vies 2. 2,3. Anaspyroceras williamse Flower, n. sp. --.---.—-----------——-----——---—- 141 Holotype, Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24089. Lower White- water, Flat Fork Creek. 2. Enlargement of one interspace showing ornament. 3. Lateral aspect, natural size. 4. Gorbyoceras hammelli (Foerste) -—~--—---—..--_---—.-------—------- _ 151 Hypotype, Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24165, Saluda of Ca- naan, Ind.; showing typical ornament of a relatively large shell; X2. 5. Gorbyoceras crossi Flower, n. sp. --.------——---—---—---——-————---—--——- 149 Paratype, Shideler Coll, Hitz layer, Saluda, Madison, Ind. 6. Gorbyoceras crossi Flower, n. sp. -...-----—---------------—--_------------ 149 Largest specimen observed, a living chamber with a faint adoral contraction. Slightly reduced. Shideler Coll. Saluda beds, 3 miles west of Cross Plains, Ind. Pu. 5, Vou. 29 Buuu. AMER. PALEONT. No. 116, Pu. 3 ay a ofiei yey Me ed d he Pian Ae ia f Ci ¢ hvala orl anne th haa 5 , ‘ its i) 4 —aws a yy, 4 ify 4 + t ry i i i> wt j p 564 BoLLeTin 116 6-46 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 4 ( 6 ) (Annulated Orthoceracones ) Higure Page 1,2,5. Gorbyoceras hammelli (Foerste) -____--__-_-_---.- 151 1. Enlargement of small shell showing normal ornament; x2. Hypotype, Univ. of Cincinnati. 2. Late stage of shell; X1. Hypotype, Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24165. 5. Hypotype, enlarged 144, showing unusual promin- enee of transverse markings. Saluda beds, Canaan, Ind. 3.-Gorbyoceras, gorbyi (Maller) 222222 eee eee 145 Earliest stage known which ean be placed in the species. Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24207. Saluda beds, Weisburg, Ind. 4:°Gorbyoceras' crossi Flower, 20 ee eee 149 Distorted specimen showing unusually clear surface. Para- type. Shideler Coll. Dodge’s Creek, Oxford, Ohio. 6:7. Gorbyoceras gorbyi (Miller) 2 4. ee eee 145 Hypotype. 6. Dorsal view. 7. Lateral view. Shideler Coll., Saluda beds, Ind. 8-11. Anaspyroceras cumberlandense Flower, n. sp, -.-..-.---------.------— 140 8. Holotype, Univ. of Cincinnati, adoral part, sectioned; «2. 9. Same; x1. 10. Same specimen, complete, before sectioning. Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24205. 11. Paratype. Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24205; x1. Tetradiwm reef, Leipers formation, Cumberland River at Rowena, Ky. 12. Gorbyoceras duncanz Flower, n. Sp. --.-.-------2--- «158 Holotype; x1. Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24086. Lower Whitewater, MeDill’s Mills, Oxford, Ohio, Pu. 6, VOL. 29 BuLuL. AMER. PALEONT. No. 116, Pu. 4 iv ey AS , A 7: 2 " Li ; VA PL i) 7 1 i 4 oe Cia nh . . ‘ i 566 BULLETIN 116 648 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 5 ( 7 ) (Annulated Orthoceracones; Mixochoanites) Figure Page 1. Schuchertoceras distinctum Flower, n. sp. — —------------___ 200 iolotype, Shideler Coll., lateral aspect; <1. Saluda beds, near Oxford, Ohto. 2,3. Gorbyoceras.curvatum Flower, n. sp. 2-44. eee Holotype: 2. Lateral aspect; <1. 3. Vertical section from base of type, enlarged. Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24088. Fort Ancient member, Waynesville, near Clarkesville, Ohio. 4.9. Gorbyoceras hammelli (Foerste) -_--.----_ 151 4. Most complete mature portion known; X1. Univ. of Cincinnati. Saluda beds, Canaan, Ind. 9. Original fig- ure of holotype (after Foerste) Hitz layer, Hanover, Ind. | - 5. “Spyroceras” mefarlani Poerste 20.2 eee eee 138 Perryville formation, south of Frankfort, Ky. Holotype, U.S. National Museum, No. 87115. (After Foerste.) 6-8. Bedyceras foerstei Flower; n: sp.) 3. eee 190 Holotype, Shideler Coll. 6. Ventral view. 7. Lateral view. 8. Dorsal view. Arnheim formation, Lebanon, Ky. Pu. 7, Vou. 29 Buu. AMER. PALEONT. No. 116, Pu. 5 ’ f i - i i iv Ut ; i * i } ha i ' 1 ie , m 1 , r pe { aaa iL \ : lit yt } ’ ee, | i \ | }ire in - | ; | j ) uPA ae] wh \ 1 an ry { ; | a uf ‘4 ‘ ined { ha At atta { at NY | Sok, ‘ he Thu Ay ty bil ! , 4 tl AV eee al f Ue mf A Nie ei | fee mule Tis i be i oe ; nuh Wer, i i i, iat 568 BULLETIN 116 G5v EXPLANATION OF PLATE 6 ( 8 ) ( Mixochoanites) igure Page 1-3. Schuchertoceras Giscretum var. miner lower, n. var. _ 205 Holotype; 1, Shideler Col]. 1. Vertical section, dorsum on left. 2. Exterior, dorsum on left. 3. Dorsal view. Lower Whitewater horizon, Little Four Mile Creek, near Ox- ford, Ohio. 4, 5. Schuchertoceras obscurum Flower, n. sp. - Holotype, Shideler Coll.; 1. on Lateral aspect, dorsum on right. 5. Ventral aspeet. Dry fork of Elk Creek, Jack- sonburg, Ohio. In the lower part of the Blanchester di- vision of the Waynesville. 6. Probillingsites lebanonensis Flower, n. sp. Dorsal aspect of the larger of the two spe¢ imens; referred to this species with doube: Arnheim, from Lebanon, Ky. 7,8. Probillingsites oxfardensis Flower, n. sp. .— Maes Shideler Coll.; x1. 6. Lateral aspect, ‘dorsum at left. 7. Dorsal aspect. Lower Whitewater horizon, Little Four Mile Creek, near Oxford, Ohio. 9. Schuchertoceras cf. prolongatum (Foerste) Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24209. Lateral aspect ; x1 Shera farm, near Oxford, Ohio, Saluda beds. 10, 11. Schuckertoceras prolongatum (Foerste) __ Holotype, Shideler Coll. 10. Lateral aspect, dorsum on left. 11. Dorsal aspect. Upper Elkhorn, near Hamburg, Ind. . 202 Jes Pu. 8, VOL. 29 Buu. AMER. PALEONT. No. 116, Pu. 6 570 BULLETIN 116 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 7 ( 9 ) (Mixochoanites) Figure Page 1,2. Schuchertoceras rotundum Flower, n. sp. -—---------.---- ee 2210 Holotype; <1, 1. Dorsal aspect. 2. Lateral aspect, ven- ter on right. Shideler Coll, Upper Whitewater, MceDill’s Mills, Little Four Mile Creek, Oxford quad., Ohio. 3,4. Schuchertoceras geniculatum Flower, n. sp... .. ........... 209 Holotype, Shideler Coll.; x1. 3. Ventral aspect. 4. Lateral aspect, dorsum on left. Upper Whitewater horizon, Beas- ley Creek, near Camden, Ohio 5-7. Probillingsites oxferdensis Flower, n. sp. 22, 9G Paratype, Shideler Coll.; X1. 5. Ventral view. 6. Lateral view, dersum on left. 7. Dorsal view. Blanchester mem- ber of Waynesville, Stony Hollow, Clarkesville, Ohio. 8,9. Probillingsites faberi Flower, n. sp. —_~--...-- 9T Holotype, Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24208. 8. Lateral aspect, venter on left. 9. Dorsal aspect. Lower Whitewater horizon, Little Four Mile Creek, near Oxford, Ohio. 10,11. Schuchertoceras discretum (Foerste) _ hi. ... 204 Holotype, Shideler Coll.; 1, 10. Lateral | view, dorsum on left. 11. Dorsal aspect. Lower Whitewater horizon, Lit- tle Four Mile Creek, near Oxford, Ohio. 12-14. Probillingsites lebanonensis Flower, n. sp. . 1938 Holotype; <1, Shideler Coll. 12. ents al view. 13. Lateral aspect, dorsum on left. 14. Dorsal aspect. Arnheim for- mation, near Lebanon, Ky. Buu. AMER. PALEONT. No. 116, Pu. 7 Pu. 9, Vou. 29 ‘ ‘ae es : 4 ‘ 4 os *y j f ‘ = ? a ‘fe , ‘ oe ae | } \ ‘4 ‘ ; ¢ * ‘ yey i : - is . A 4 i ere | f ve i i oT Ath oe PLATE 8 (10) 572 BULLETIN 116 Got EXPLANATION OF PLATE 8 ( 10 ) (Covington Cyrtoconie Cephalopods) igure Page 1. Faberoceras multicinetum Flower, n. sp. — DR ORME LS (E1e) Holotype, vertical section; 1. Univ. “of ‘Cincinnati, “No. 24210. Leipers formation, Cumberland River near Belk I., Ky. Shows ontogenctie change in form of siphuncle segments, also traces of enilocones at base of section. 2. Faberoceras saffordi ENE | 1 AD ® Paratype, ventral aspect; x1. Shideler Coll. _Cathys ‘Time- stone, Williamspert, Tenn. See Pi. 17, fig. 15. for ventral view. 3. Danoceras crater Flower, n. sp. -.. 421 Section of siphuncle, ground from Maik he about x2, Holotype, Univ. Cineinnati, No. 2422 Leipers forma- ticn, Rowena, Ky. 4. Faberoceras percostatum Flower, n. sp. i vat ale Os Nine section from base of holotype, Univ. of ‘Cincinnati, No. 24214; x1. Leipers formation, Rowena, Ky. 5. Faberoceras saffordi Toerste, n. sp. —. Banemerase PU tv ever 9 |) Paratype, vertical section; va te. “National Museum. Sathys limestone, east of Franklin, Tenn. Pu. 10, Vou. 29 Buu. AMER. PALEONT. No. 116, Pu. 8 a vit iis ys ane PLATE 9 (11) 574 BuLLETIN 116 656 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 9 ( 11 ) (Covington Cyrtoconie Cephalopods ) Figure Page 1. Westonoceras ventricosum (Miller) tL hut See 441 Paratype, Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 105. Adapical view of septum. Southgate member, Eden; Columbia Ave., Cin- einnati. (See Pl. 14.) 2. Fabereeeras multicinctum Flower, n. sp. —.....- ieee Oe a _ 468 Paratype; X1, Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24211. Leipers formation, Cumberland River, near head of Belk I. Ky. 3-5. Vaupelia -russelli, Flower, n. sp. oe eee Holotype, No. 24226, Univ. of Cincinnati. 3. Ventral view. 4. Lateral view. 5. Dorsal view. Fairmount beds, Bald IXnob, Cineimnati, Ohio. 6,7.’ Vaupelia iseiberti) Flower, no ‘sp... 2... eee 482 Holotype, Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24227. 6. Ventral view. 7. Lateral view. Mount Hope beds, Rapid Run, Cin- cinnati, Ohio. 8. Diestoceras ‘bettine Flower, n. sp. 222 22 ae eee 414 Holotype, Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24230. Fairmount beds, Cincinnati, Ohio. Pu. 11, Vou. 29 Buu. AMER. PALEONT. No. 116, Pu. 9 ; un “ oe ee ‘ hal. ts i PLATE to (12) BULLETIN 116 qr bos | [or] EXPLANATION OF PLATE 10 ( 12 ) (Leipers Cyrtocones) Figure 1,2. Danoceras crater Flower, n. sp. Holotype, Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24995, 1, Lateral as- pect, venter on left. 2. Ventral aspect. Siphuncle shown on Pl. 8. Leipers formation, Rowena, Ky. 3,4. Onesceras foerstei Flower, n. sp. agi Holotype, Univ. of Cincinnati, No, 24229. venter Rowena, Ky. 5,6. Faberoceras transversum Flower, n. sp. ~~~ Holotype, Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24219. 5. Lateral view. 6. Ventral view. Leipers formation, Boweun: Ky. 58 deel beh etl asl RD 421 ene aR nee SDs 17/5) 3. Lateral view, on left. 4. Dorsal view. Leipers formation, 467 Pu. 12, Vou. 29 BULL. AMER. PALEONT. No. 116, Pu. 10 H Aj ‘ peer ay ay AeA) a Byes 578 BuLLetin 116 660 EXPLANATION OF PuaTE 11 ( 13 (Westonoceratidee and Oncoceratide ) Figure Page 1,2. Oncoceras bassleri Flower, n. sp. - J ? prmerer ese EF, Paratype, Shideler Coll. 1. Lateral view. 2. Ventral view. Leipers formation, Cumberland River, near head of Belk hee sey: 3. Faberoceras pereostatum Flower, n.) Sp. ?—..---—4.- 463 Paratype; 1. Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24215. Leipers for- mation, Rowena, Ky. (See Pls. 8, 13, 14.) 4,5. Faberoceras ooceriforme Flower, n. sp. -—--------—-—--—---— Lt ae 458 Holotype, Shideler Coll. Cynthiana limestone, Cynthiana, Ky. 4. Vertical section; x1. 5. Lateral view of exter- ior, slightly less than x1. 6. Faberoceras shideleri Foerste and Flower, n. sp... 553 Holotype, lateral aspect, Shideler Coll. Leipers forma- tion, Cumberland River, opposite head of Belk I., Ky. Pu. 13, Vou. 29 Buu. AMER. PALEONT. No. 116, Pu. 11 4 ; a a at py’, 2 (14) ATE 1 PI 580 BULLETIN 116 662 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 12 ( 14 ) (Faberoceras) Figure Page 1,4. Faberoceras elegans Flower, n. sp. 222... eee 472 Holotype, Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 22860. 1. Vertical sec- tion, slightly greater than X11. 4. Exterior, lateral as- peet; X1. Corryville beds, Cincinnati, Ohio. 2. Faberoceras ‘saffordi® 200) eee 459 Paraytpe, vertical section (see Pl. 8, fig. 5) of siphunele, about X2.2. Cathys formation, east of Franklin, Tenn. 3. Faberoceras multicinctum Flower, n. sp. —---....------------------------— 468 Paratype, Shideler Coll. Leipers formation, Cumberland River, 2 miles above Wolf Creek, Ky. Pu. 14, Vou. 29 Buu. AMER. PALEONT. No. 116, Pu. 12 vet, i A PEATE. 13) (15) Ln yea WW m Ee Ay? } ets oe Situ aly 17 582 4,5. BULLETIN 116 664 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 13 ( 15 ) (Faberoceras Oonoceras) Page Oonoceras curviseptatum Flower, n. sp. - _.. 805 Holotype, Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 23972. ~ Cynthiana ‘lime- stone, probably from Ohio River near Cincinnati. Faberoceras percostatum Flower, n. sp. .—. Lie Ai Holotype, Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24214, Ventral aspect ; x1. Leipers formation, Rowena, Ky. (See Pl. 14, fig. 6.) Faberoceras magister (Miller) ._.. . 461 Holotype, lateral aspect, x1, Univ. of Cincinnati, ‘No. 300. Southgate, Eden, from Columbia Ave., Cincinnati, Ohio. Faberoceras sonnenbergi Flower, n. sp. -.-.-----.------ 455 4. Ventral view. 5. Lateral aspect. Paratype. Cynthiana limestone, Cynthiana, Ky. Pui. 15, Vou. 29 Buu. AMER. PALEONT. No. 116, Pu. 13 i} “ji et Vig ‘ i Lo. ul he Dy i} yi i a 7) PAu Ue b Y i vy a 584 Figure 2 3, 4. 6-8. BuLLETIN 116 666 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 14 ( 16 ) (Covington Cyrtocones) Page Danoceras cynthianense Flower, n. sp. ; _ 420 Holotype, Shideler Coll. 1. Lateral view. . Ventral view. Cynthiana limestone, Cynthiana, Ky. ibs sara ventricosum (Miller) weed 441 . Ventral aspect of a crushed paratype, ‘Univ. “of Cinein- nati, No. 105. Southgate, Eden, Columbia Ave. 4. Ver- tical section of same specimen, x21, Faberoceras magister (Miller) — 0 UU. O81 Siphunele, from holotype, Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 300. From opposite side of specimen shown in Pl. 13, fig. 3. Kindleoceras kentuckiense Flower, n. sp... ............. 364 Holotype, Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24077. 6. Adapical view. 7. Ventral view. 8. Lateral view, venter on right. Cynthiana limestone. Cynthiana, Ky. Faberoceras percostatum Flower, n. sp. alba eee Holotype, lateral aspect. Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24214. Leipers formation. Rowena, Ky. (See Pls. 8, DE Ie Pu. 16, Vou. 29 Buu. AMER. PALEONT. No. 116, Pu. 14 586 Figure 152. 5, 6. 7, 8. BULLETIN 116 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 15 ( 17 ) (Cynthiana and Covington Cyrtocones) Oncoceras arlandi Flower —__- Holotype, Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24928, ill ‘Lateral aspect, Page L252 venter on right. 2. Dorsal aspect. Leipers formation. Cumberland River at Rowena, Ky. Faberoceras sonnenbergi Flower, n. sp. 4. Dorsal aspect. Cynthiana Tinestonas! " queens Ky. Diestoceras (7?) edenense Flower, n. sp. —.. Holotype, Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 22700. 5. Lateral aspect. 6. Ventral (?) aspect. Southgate formation, Eden, Hillside Ave. Flats, Cincinnati, Ohio. Faberoceras saffordi Flower, n. sp. —- 20 NS Re ea Paratype, Shideler Coll. 7. Lateral aspect. 8. Ventral as- pect. Cynthiana limestone, Cynthiana, Ky. (See Pls. 8, 14.) Holotype, Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 23909. 3. Lateral ‘aspect. . 413 . 459 No. 116, Pu. 15 Buu. AMER. PALEONT. PL. 17, Vou. 29 4 sa an leu ) PLATE 16 (18) 588 Figure bo 4-6. BULLETIN 116 670 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 16 ( 18 ) (Cynthiana and Covington Cyrtocones) Page Faberoceras shideleri Foerste, n. sp. - 471 Paratype, Shideler Coll., vertical section. ~ Leipers forma- tion, Cumberland River, near Rowena, Ky. Oncoceras foerstei Flower, n. sp. - Vertical section, X1, of phragmocone of holotype, ‘showing three segments “Sf the siphunele. ‘The phragmocone is crushed dorsally and encrusted with alge. Univ. of Cin- cimnati, No. 24229. Leipers formation, Cumberland River at Rowena, Ky. Vaupelia seiberti Flower, n. sp. Sapa ne te Mee ALPE Vertical section of holotype, venter on right. Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24227. Mount Hope beds, Rapid Run, Cincinnati, Ohio. Reedsoceras mefarlani Flower, Bs SE es Holotype. 4. Lateral aspect. Ventral aspect. 6. Dorsal aspect. Univ. of Cincinnati, ah 23911. Cynthiana lime- stone, probably from the Ohio River near Cincinnati. Faberoceras sonnenbergi Flower, n. sp. Enlargement, X214, of oblique section through siphuncle ot paratype, Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 23908, showing an- nular phase of deposits within siphunele. Cynthiana lime- stone, Cynthiana, Ky. -. 258 . 482 489 455 Pu. 18, Vou. 29 Buu. AMER. PALEONT. No. 116, Pu. 16 J & cI : ny 4d AA agi! * re i Mig ith a iu i. t Gd ae ate W y, a) PLATE 17 (19) » LY? nh it yy. aye sie ; Hae s7 ut ae apn wn 599 Figure 7,9, 12. 11. 18, 14. 16. BULLETIN 116 672 [xPLANATION oF PuatEe 17 ( 19 ) (Bickmorites and Covington Cyrtoceracones) Page Naberoceras, See 431 Isolated siphuncle showing marked development of endo- cones, X21. Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24220. Leipers formation, Rowena, Ky. Bickmorites rarum Flower, n. sp. -.-.---- ------------ ee 50 Holotype. 2. Lateral aspect. 3. Ventral aspect, X1. Shideler Coll. Lower Whitewater beds, Little Four Mile Creek, Oxford, Ohio. Oncoceras hassteri Flower, n. sp. ..- 250 Paratype. 4. Dorsal view. 5. Lateral view. 6. “Septal view. Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24279. lLeipers forma- tion, Cumberland River at Rowena, Ky. NCO GET ASG Cl) NS one eid etcae teens eats ae - 255 Oniy known specimen. 7. Septal v view. 9. Lateral view. 12. Ventral view. Univ. ‘of Cincinnati, No. 24280. Leipers formation, Cumberland River at Rowena, Ky. Oncoceras hbassleri Flower —_.. oJ as SN) 8. Septal view of paratype, see » Pl an ‘figs. ‘1-2. Shideler Coll. Leipers formation, Belk I., Cumberland River, near Rowena, Ky. 10. Holotype, lateral aspect. Univ. of Cin- cinnati, No. 24474. Leipers formation, Cumberland River, Painted Cliffs, near Horseshoe Bottom and Belk I., Ky. Beloitoceras: faberi (Miller): 2s) ee ee 255 Lateral aspect, hypotype, Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 20805. Maysville beds, Maysville, i Westonoceras, sp. — ARG 13. Lateral view. 14. Ventral view. U.S. Nat. ‘Mus., ‘No. 48849. Southgate beds, Crawfish Run, Cincinnati. (After Foerste. ) Fabereceras saffordi Flower, n. sp. ... 459 eel int lateral aspect. Shideler Coll. Same ‘specimen a as PITS) fe. 12. Dateserns bulbosum Flower, n. sp. — nae Lateral aspect. Univ. of Cincinnati, ‘No. 24323. ~ Leipers formation, Painted Cliffs, near Horseshoe Bottom on the Cumberland River, Ky. Pu. 19, Vou. 29 Buu, AMER. PALEONT. No. 116, Pu. 17 7 ie wT gf hy yy a ef PLATE 18 (20) 592 BuuEtTin 116 674 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 18 ( 20 ) (Augustoceras ) Figure Page 1-10. Augustoceras shideleri Flower, n. sp. ~~ . 350 1. Paratype, lateral aspect (see also PI. Bry fig. ey, Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24291. 2. Dorsal aspect. 3. Lateral aspect. 4. Ventral aspect. Holotype, Univ. of Cinein- nati, No. 24290. 5. Septum, from lower fourth of figs. 7-9. 6. Septum, from adoral end of same specimen. 7. Dorsal view. 8. Lateral view. 9. Ventral view. Paratype, Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24292. Leipers formation, Row- ena, Ky. 10. Paratype, thin section, vertical, through center of siphuncle showing actinosiphonate deposits. Univ. of Cincinnati. X 6. 11-13. Augustoceras commune Flower, n. sp. : preted 2171 | Holotype, Shideler Coll. 11. Dorsal view. 12. Lateral view. 13. Ventral view. Leipers formation, Cumberland River, from exposures on the south side of the river near Belk I, Pu. 20, VOL. 29 Buu. AMER. PALEONT. No. 116, Pu. 18 Le ime ' ; i ibs ¥ vis ? iad £1 eal, Up ‘ a x, ES ay yaks e ; hy ; ¢ See Wr, SiS. th vil Seid or ; i) ikea Pu " faedg Es >) i * eericy Weg te ui (aia ry ee we, thR) ‘di ae ee ir pe aa! eels 5 i aes pide nt sin ad, aes Si 7 ie y ares, j ‘ i Ja ws oF Ps 594 Bou etn 116 é IXPLANATION OF PLATE 19 ( 21 ) (Augustoceras ) Page 1-4. Augusteceras commune Flower, n. sp. —- Renae ig 809 2)5155 1. Ventral view. 2. Lateral view. Paratype. “Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24284. 3. Paratype, lateral aspect of a portion of a phragmocone retaining portions of the sur- face of the shell, Univ. Cincinnati, No. 24285. 4. Para- type, lateral aspect of a typical specimen retaining the basal part of the living chamber, Univ. Cincinnati, No. 24283. All are from the Leipers formation, Rowena, Ky. Figure 5-6. Augustoceras minor Flower, n. sp. . 854 Holotype, a nearly complete but badly weathered individual. 5. Lateral aspect. 6. Ventral aspect. Univ. of Cincin- nati, No. 24287. Leipers formation, Rowena, Ky. . 821 7-9. Rizeceras bellulum Flower, n. sp. -- on 7. Holotype, lateral aspect, venter on 1 left, “Shideler Coll. 8. Paratype, dorsal aspect, Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24330. 9. Paratype, Shideler Coll., dorsal aspect. Lower White- water beds, Dodge’s Creek, near Oxford, Ohio. 10. Augustoceras shideleri Flower, n. sp. —.---—------- nn 350 Vertical section through phragmocone. Paratype, Univ. of Cincinnati. Leipers formation, Rowena Ky. About X3. (See also Pl. 20, fig. 6.) 11-13. Augustoceras medium Flower, n. sp. —..--..------------- B82 Holotype. 11. Dorsal aspect. 12. Ventral aspect. 13. Lateral aspect. Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24284. The middle of the phragmocone has been slightly restored. Leipers formation, Rowena, Ky. Pema AME SUN 350 14. Augustoceras shideleri Flower, n. sp. Paratype, lateral aspect, Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24291. Leipers formation, Rowena, Ky. Pt. 21, Vou. 29 Buu. AMER. PALEONT. No. 116, Pu. 19 I \ I \ \ ae ’ i nf f , / yr " gn i te / { j a 1 f y i] Maal acai ‘ i wae i : ( , , i i te y i 7) iy Nei are Ys ie _ a 1 i i P Tt Mie eel : i 4 ae Pee A hast i) ni fal et 40 h4 ; ne ree ' tS Aa ty Ae a ita hehe ; \g eps i ah | Ca wih ae ; we ae 1 } ee, Me war, nL ee hig a } 4) A hy) 596 BuLuEtTin 116 678 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 20 ( 22 ) (Thin Sections of Siphuncles) Figure Page 1-7. Augustoceras shideleri Flower, n. sp. — tEMMLBMMMNE Me ete ye Siar, 1-4. Selected cross sections. 1. Typical cross section. 2. Section showing differentiation of layers in the deposit. 3. Section tak- en close to the septal foramen, slightly oblique so that the lower side of the picture shows the section passing obliquely into the expanded part of the segment. 4. A section taken through the adoral part of the phragmocone in which the siphunele is surrounded with and filled by matrix. This section shows an unusually irregular development of the rays. About X14. 5. Longitudinal section showing the increase in prominence of the actinosiphonate deposits when traced orad. The section cuts all rays obliquely. Aboutx<12. 6. Section passing close to the center of the siphuncle adorally, but near the edge adapically; x6. 7. Longitudinal section passing nearly straight through the center of the siphunecle and cutting the rays on both the dorsum and venter throughout; 12. All seetions are from the Leipers of Rowena, Ky. and are deposited in the University of Cincinnati Museum. Pu. 22, VOL. 29 Buu. AMER. PALEONT. No. 116, Pu. 20 Ao) " We. ee ? rweniny “I ei on, . yA, we Dari Wie ob “Ye. san lke alate. .'y nit ole ieee’ dietose). uthiw yA aw , Te, > : ‘ é : 4 Than? 9 Gabe Tui ve y pe erat é wale 3 : ' . » ere Pus 46. Whee: i 4"). rarh” yan mE Re eee ve ah ait F 598 BuLLETIN 116 680 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 21 ( 23 ) (Manitoulinoceras) Figure Page . Manitoulinoceras moderatum Flower, n. sp. —...- . 3880 Paratype, Shideler Coll. early portion of phragmocone. 5 Dorsal view. 2. Lateral view. 3. Ventral view. Saluda beds, Dodge’s Creek, Oxford, Ohio. A yee Manitoulinoceras erraticum Flower, n. Sp. - . 883 Holotype, Shideler Coll. 4. Lateral view, dorsum on left. 5. Dorsal view. 10. Ventral view. Upper Whitewater beds, Dodge’s Creek, Oxford, Ohio. 6-8. Manitoulinoceras ultimum Flower, n. sp... 886 Holotype, Shideler Coll. 6. Lateral view. 7, Dorsal view. 8. Ventral view. Elkhorn formation, two miles west of Hamburg, Ind. 9,15. Manitoulineceras mederatum Flower, n. sp. SAS RUSE eS 0 9. Section, ground from venter, of a distorted specimen re- ferred to the species with doubt. Elkhorn beds, creek south of College Corners. Shideler Coll. 15. Section ground from venter of holotype; x2. See Pl. 22. 11. Manitoulinoceras tenuiseptum (Faber) — WW 376 Cross section from middle of paratype, Pl. 22, figs. 9-11. Waynesville beds, Clarkesville, Ohio. 12-14. Manitoulinoceras gyroforme Flower, n. sp. 382 Holotype, Shideler Coll. 12. Ventral view. 13. Lateral view. 14. Dorsal view. Saluda beds, small tributary of Indian Creek, near Oxford, Ohio. Pu, 23, VOL. 29 Buu. AMER. PALEONT. No. 116, Pu. 21 PLATE 22 (24) 600 BuLueETIN 116 652 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 22 ( 24 ) (Manitoulinoceras ) Figure Page 1,2. Manitoulinoceras tenuiseptum (Faber) ete latet ol a nen Syntype, Univ. Cincinnati Museum, No. 103. 1. Ventral aspect. 2. Lateral aspect. Waynesville beds, Waynes- ville, Ohio. 3-5. Manitoulinoceras erraticum Flower, n. sp. — ~ aay a ee Paratype, Shideler Coll. 38. Dorsal view. 4. Lateral view. 5. Ventral view. Upper Whitewater beds, McDill’s Mills, near Oxford, Ohio. 6-8. Manitoulinoceras trigonale Flower, n. sp. 2. ~~... 879 Holotype, Shideler Coll. 6. Dorsal view. 7. Lateral view. 8. Ventral view. Lower Whitewater beds, Little Four Mile Creek, near Oxford, Ohio. 9-11. Manitoulineceras tenuiseptum (Faber) MR mcra\ie ee NTE Hypotype, Shideler Coll. 9. Ventral view. 10. Lateral view. 11. Jorsal view. Trilobite shales of Waynesville, Sewall’s Run, Clarkesville, Ohio. 12,14. Manitoulinoceras moderatum [Flower, n. sp. — ~ i ah Holotype, Shideler Coll, 12. lateral view. 138. Ventral view. Middle Whitewater, east slope of Four Mile Valley, ravine opposite mouth of Lil Brook, near Oxford, Ohio. PL. 24, Vou. 29 BuLuL. AMER. PALEONT. No. 116, Pu. 22 eye e mast ts te joie Be ts PLATE 23 (25) 602 : BuLLeTIN 116 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 23 ( 25 ) (Manitoulinoceras) 684 ‘Figure Page 1-6. Manitoulinoceras williamsz Flower, n. sp. —--.--.------- 1. Left view. 2. Ventral view. 3. Right view. 4. Dorsal view. Paratype, slightly compressed. Univ. of Cincinnaii, No. 22861. Fort Ancient beds of Waynesville, Oregonia, Ohio. 5. Dorsal view. 6. Lateral view. Holotype. Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24293. Fort Ancient member, Waynes- ville, from Clarkesville, Ohio. Gift of Miss Carrie B. Will- jams. 7-9.. Manitoulinoceras;) sp. 202. ee eee Two flattened shells showing exceptional preservation of actinosiphonate deposits. 7. Shideler Coll., upper White- water, MeDill’s Mills, near Oxford, Ohio. 8. Shideler Coll.; upper Whitewater, Dodge’s Creek, Oxford, Ohio. 9. Same specimen as fig. 8, enlarged 2 to show details of actinosiphonate deposits. 10. Manitoulinoceras tenuiseptum (Faber) — Septal view at base of the smaller of the two syntypes. Waynesville, evidently Fort Ancient member; Waynes- ville, Ohio. Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 104. . 378 ¢ . 884 . 376 Pu. 25, Vou. 29 Buu. AMER. PALEONT. No. 116, PL. 23 ' PLATE 24 (26) _ 604 Figure 1-4 BuLLETIN 116 686 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 24 ( 26 ) (Kindleoceras and Staufferoceras) Page Kindleoceras cumingsi Flower, n. sp. —— —— epee lS Holotype, Shideler Coll. 1. Ventral view. 2. Lateral view. 3. Dorsal view. Paratype. 4. Ventral view, a portion of a living chamber showing growth lines and traces of the hyponomie sinus. Shideler Coll. Both are from the up- per part of the Saluda, at Cooper’s Falls, 5 miles south of Versailles, Ind. Staufferoceras subtriangulare Foerste, n. sp. —.................... 890 Holotype, Shideler Coll. 5. Ventral view. 6. Lateral view. 7. Dorsal view. Lower Whitewater beds, Little Four Mile Creek, near Oxford, Ohio. Kindleoceras equilaterale Foerste, n. sp. —....--.-----------. 867 Holotype, Shideler Coll. 8. Lateral view. 9. Dorsal view. Saluda beds, 3/4 mi. north of Mixerville, Ind. Kindleoceras rotundum Flower, n. sp. seas 3865 Holotype, Shideler Coll. 10. Lateral aspect. 11. Ventral aspect. Saluda beds above the 7etradium zone, Big Sains Creek, 2144 mi. southwest of Laurel, Ind. Pu. 26, VOL. 29 Buu. AMER. PALEONT. No. 116, Pu. 24 = PLATE 25 (27) Haahtik® xine -——- = ZOOL Holotype, Shideler Coll. 5. Dorsal view. 6, Lateral view. Lower Whitewater beds, Little Four Mile Creek, near Oxford, Ohio. 7. Genoceras shideleri Flower, n. sp. s Sia Se eee Holotype, Shideler Coll., lateral view. Upper Whitewater beds, left fork of Beasley Creek, north of Camden, Ohio. 8-11. Oeneceras rejuvenatum Flower, n. sp. ap iial 8. Eolotype, a slightly crushed shell showing ‘the ventral sipbunele at the extreme lefi. Paratype: 9. Ventral view. 10. Septal view. 11. Lateral view. Both specimens are in the Shideler Coll, and are from the upper Whitewater beds of Dodge’s Creek, Oxford, Ohio. PL. 35, Vou. 29 Buu. AMER. PALEONT. No. 116, Pu. 33 ‘ ME > - 7G a 3 bo gist PLATE 34 (36) 624 BULLETIN 116 706 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 34 ( 36 ) (Oncoceratidse and Diestoceratide ) Figure Page 1. Diestoceras eos (Hall and Whitfield) SOS eo re 403 A slightly flattened specimen showing the lines of growth with remarkable clarity. Very slightly reduced. Actual length 87 mm. Shideler Coll. Lower Whitewater beds, Little Four Mile Creek, Oxford, Ohio. 2. Beloitoceras cumingsi Flower, n. sp. ~~ 2 277 Holotype, lateral aspect, Shideler Coll. Lower Whitewater beds, Little Four Mile Creek, Oxford, Ohio. 3. Beloitoceras ohioense Flower, n. sp. 279 Holotype, lateral aspect, Shideler Coll. Upper Whitewater beds, Harper’s Branch, Olderburg, Ind. 4,5. Beloitoceras amoenum (Miller) ates o: LL RSeOTD 4. Lateral aspect. 5. Ventral aspect. " Hypotype, ‘Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24417. Upper Whitewater beds, Dodge’s Creek, Oxford, Ohio. 6. Diestoceras eos (Hall and Whitefield) . . 408 Hypotype, lateral aspect, venter at right. ~ Same specimen figured by Foerste (1924, pl. 26, fig. 1A-B). Shideler Coll. Lower Whitewater beds, Little Four Mile Creek, near Oxford, Ohio, Buu. AMER. PALEONT. No. 116, Pu. 34 PL. 36, VOL. 29 - 626 BULLETIN 116 708 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 35 ( 37 ) (Oneoceratide and Diestoceratide ) Figure Page 1. Beloitoceras ulrichi Flower, n. sp. _- 285 Holotype, lateral view, U. S. Nat. Mus. Elkhorn beds, Ver- sailles, Ind. 2,3. Oncoceras cincinnatiense (Miller) — 0.0 2BT 2. Flattened specimen, lateral aspect. “U. 8. National Mu- seum, No. 48356. Lorraine beds (Corryville ?), Cinein- nati, Ohio. 3. Lateral aspect of a plastotype of the holo- type. U. 8: “Nat. apo No. 67449, 4, Oncoceras (7), sp. = Mme ieeeseevipehas4 10 17-/7 2) Lateral aspect. Raieyne 2 group, “eaeshataiie “UL S. Nat. Mus., No. 48396. Probably from the Corryville. 5. Oncoceras fossatum Flower, n. sp. __.. . 247 Holotype, lateral aspect. U. 8S. National | Museum, } “No. 59481. Cynthiana limestone, Eddyville, Ky. 6. Beloiteceras cumingsi Flower, n. en er 40 Hypotype, lateral aspect, showing a specimen with an ex- tremely rapidly expanding phragmocone. Univ. of Cin- cinnati, No. 24414. Whitewater beds, Oxford, Ohio. 7. Oneoceras: faberi. (Miller) ro Soe A eee 255 Lateral aspect of plastotype, U. 8. Nat. Mus., No. 67448. Maysville (Corryville ?), Cincinnati, Ohio. 8. Beloitoceras cumingsi Flower, n. sp. _ vintage Semen Paratype, lateral view, upper Whitewater. beds, MeDill’s Mills, Oxford, Ohio. Shideler Coll. 9. Diestoceras eos (Hall and Whitfield) 403 One side of the flattened holotype, Ohio State Univ., No. 38082. Whitewater beds, near Dayton, Ohio, _—— Buu. AMER. PALEONT, PL. 37, Vou. 29 PLATE 36 (38) 628 BULLETIN 116 710 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 36 ( 38 ) (Oncoceratide and Diestoceratide ) ee Page . Diestoceras indianense (Miller and Raber) 222 = So A08 1. Exterior, lateral view. Vertical section. ~ Hypotype, Univ. of Cincinnati, Ne. 24479, Lower Whitewater beds, Little Four Mile Creek, near Oxford, Ohio. 3. Diestoceras indianense (Miller and Faber) —-.-.__. = BOD Lateral aspect of hypotype, Univ. of Cincinnati, ‘No. 24480. Lower Whitewater beds, Little Four Mile Creek, near Ox- ford, Ohio. 4. Oneoceras: duncanz \Flower, n. sip: 2. eee 262 Holotype, lateral aspect, venter on left. Univ. of Cincinnati, 24481. Upper Saluda beds, Canaan, Ind. (See Pl. 37, fig. 4.) 5. Gonoceras insuetum Flower, n. sp. . 314 Lateral aspect of holotype, Univ. of. ‘Cincinnati, “No. 24482. Saluda beds, Versailles, Ind. (See Pl. 37, fig. 8.) 6,7. Oneoceras covingtonense Flower, n. sp. - _ 248 6. Ventral view. 7. Lateral view. Holotype, ‘U.S. Nat. Mus., No. 48391. Upper beds of the Trenton (Bromley shale phase of the Cynthiana limestone), West Covington, Ky. No. 116, Px. 36 Buty. AMER. PALEONT. PL. 38, VOL. 29 - PLATE 37 (39) ~~] —_ fo 630 BULLETIN 116 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 37 ( 39 ) (Oncoceratide and Diestoceratide ) Figure Page 1. Diestoceras (?) vasiforme Flower, n. sp. eben twits 0112) One side of the slightly flattened holotype. “Orientation un- certain. Earlham College, No. 7948. Precise horizon and locality uncertain. Probably from the Saluda near Rich- mond, Ind. 2,9. Beloitoceras, (sp. 22250 ee ae ERIE 7-401 2. Lateral view. 38. Ventral view. Living “chamber, “Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24804. Lower Whitewater beds, Ox- ford, Ohio. 4, Onesceras duncanze Flower, n. sp. —... oe - 262 Ventral view of holotype. See Pl. 36. Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24481. Hitz fauna, upper Saluda, Canaan, Ind. 5, Diestoceras reversum Flower, n. sp. Reape lancet sss 5) 7: (51 Lateral view of holotype, venter on 1 right. “Shideler Coll. Saluda beds, Laurel, Ind. 6. Beloitoceras cf. cumingsi Flower —..-...-.0..2.222.-.--. peat L279) 53 Lateral view. Shideler Coll. Top of Elkhorn, ‘Harper’ 8 Branch, Olderburg, Ind. . Beloitcceras ohioense Flower, n. sp. eae) Paratype, lateral aspect, Univ. of ‘Cincinnati, No. 23914. Lower Whitewater beds, Flat Fork Creek, Ohio. 8. Oonoceras insuetum Flower, n. sp. seal ol a Ned Ventral view of holotype, Univ. of ‘Cincinnati, “No. 24482. Saluda beds, Versailles, Ind. (See Pl. 36.) 9. Beloitoceras amoenum (Miller) —. ~~ 272 Hypotype, lateral aspect, Shideler Coll. Upper Whitewater MeDill’s Mills, near Oxford, Ohio. 10. Diestoceras eos (Hall and Whitfield) —._ nee ee Hy): 15 Dorsal view of hypotype, slightly widened by ‘vertical flat- tening, Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24500, 2 Pt. 39, Vou. 29 Buu. AMER. PALEONT. PLATE 38 (40) 632 BULLETIN 116 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 38 ( 40 ) (Diestoceras, Probillingsites and Beloitoceras) Figure Page 1.) Diestoceras, shideleri Poerste 2.2) Ee eee Hypotype, an essentially unflattened shell incomplete adoral- ly. Shideler Coll. Saluda beds, MeDill’s Mills, near Ox- ford, Ohio. 2,3. Diestoceras cyrtocerinoides Flower ____.----..-.----200~----.---------—-- Holotype. 2. Portion of sagittal section; x2. 3. Adoral view of type, Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 23971. Hitz layer, Madison, Ind. (See Pl. 29, fig. 3.) 4,5. Probillingsites (?) minutum Flower, n. sp. 4. Lateral view, venter on right. 5. Dorsal view. - Holotype, Shideler Coll. Middle Liberty beds, Dodge’s Creek, Ox- ford, Ohio. 6. Beloitoceras amoenum (Miller) - 2 ee Hypotype, a typical internal mold of an isolated living chamber, lateral view. Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24916. Whitewater beds, Dodge’s Creek, Oxford, Ohio. 7. Diesteceras eos (Hall and Whitfield) - Sie Portion of sagittal section through siphuncle, about X14. Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24502. Lower Whitewater beds, Little Four Mile Creek, near Oxford, Ohio. §. (Diestoceras shideleri Poerste) (20 ee eee Lateral view of a somewhat flattened but relatively complete shell. Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24508. Lower White- water beds, Little Four Mile Creek, near Oxford, Ohio. . 195 = 212 403 Pu. 40, Vou. 29 BuLu. AMER. PALEONT, PLATE 39 (41) 654 Figure 12. Co 4,5. 8, 9. 10. . Diestoceras ef. shideleri Foerste —_.... i . Diestoceras attenuatum Flower, n. sp. BULLETIN 116 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 39 ( 41 ) (Richmond Oncoceratide and Diestoceratide ) 716 Page Oncoceras exile Flower, n. sp. 2 a Paratype, showing form of early, part, of phragmocone. 1. Ventral aspect. 2. Lateral aspect. U. 8. Nat. Mus. Hitz layer, uppermost Saluda, at Madison, Ind. Dorsal aspect, X2/3, of the only specimen observed in | the Elkhorn, a somewhat flattened shell, Shideler Coll. Mid- dle Elkhorn, Seven Mile Creek, Eaton, Ohio. Oncoceras madisonense Flower, n. sp. -----.. 0-2 ee Holotype. 4. Lateral, view. 5. Ventral view. Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24485. Hitz layer, Madison, Ind. . Beloitoceras. bucherr Flower, n: ‘sp: —2)-.-- eee Holotype, lateral aspect. Shideler Coll. Basal Whitewater, Elk Run, near Winchester, Ohio. Holotype, lateral view, venter on left. ‘Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24524. Lower Whitewater beds, Little Four Mile Creek, near Oxford, Ohio. Oncoceras madisonense Flower, n. sp. .-. vat Paratype, a shell somewhat smaller than the holotype. 8. Ventral view. 9. Lateral view. U.S. Nat. Mus., Hitz layer, Madison, Ind. Diestoceras eos (Hall and Whitfield) : Hypotype, showing a dorsal surface retaining ‘the ‘shell, ‘also the coneave outline of the early portion. Shideler Coll. Saluda beds, Madison, Ind. .. 263 . 408 - 409 264 - 403 — a = aa J = Pu. 41, Vou. 29 Buu. AMER. PALEONT. No. 116, Pu. 39 a b ih Ld a fe 4 ‘ 5 7 tl i} fF ? ligt = iy uh { A * es i ‘ \ ry } ir : ie — , aS % ; ¥ i "s 7 si \— _ t PLATE 40 (42) 636 BULLETIN 116 718 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 40 ( 42 ) (Richmond Cyrtoceracones) Figure Page 1-3. Miamoceras shideleri Flower, n. sp. —_- eee Holotype, Shideler Coll. 1. Ventral view, , showing. siphuncle exposed by sectioning. 2. Lateral view, venter on left. 3. Dorsum. Saluda beds, about 4 mi. west of Oxford, Ohio. 4,5. Graciloceras extensum Flower, n. sp. sa Holotype. 4. Weathered lateral surface. 5. 5. Opposite side, showing surface of internal mold. Shideler Coll. Lower Whitewater beds, Flat Fork Creek. The pustulose material at the extreme base of fig. 4 is a starfish arm. 6-8. Oonoceras rectidomum Flower, n. sp. --. -...--.—------------ 818 6. Lateral view, venter on right. 7. Ventral. 8. Lateral, venter on left. Holotype, Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24484. Lower Whitewater beds, above cephalopod zone, Flat Fork Creek. 9,10. Neumateceras subconicum Flower, n. sp. cee ey 9, Ventral view. 10, Lateral view, venter on left. Holo- type, Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24329. Cephalopod beds, lower Whitewater horizon, Little Four Mile Creek, Ox- ford, Ohio. 11. Oncoceras, Sn en ee 249 Lateral view of the only ‘known. ‘specimen. “Shideler Coll. Cynthiana limestone, quarry 214 mi. from Winchester, Ruckersville road. No. 116, Pr. 40 Buu. AMER. PALEONT. PL. 42, Vou. 29 ° es PLATE 41 (43) 638 BULLETIN 116 720) ExPLANATION OF PLATE 41 ( 43 ) (Richmond Cyrtoceracones) Figure Page 1,2. Whifieldcceras (?) casteri Flower, n. sp. Las Opposite sides of the slightly flattened holotype. ~ Orienta- tion uncertain. Shideler Coll. Upper Whitewater beds, McDill’s Mills, near Oxford, Ohio. 3-5. Diesteceras (pupa Flower,\n. sp... Ee eee 416 3. Right side. 4. Left side. 5. Ventral side. Holotype, Univ. of Cincinnati. 6,7. Vaupelia (?) minutum Flower, n. sp. WOU Lit 2 Ta 6. Ventral view. 7. Dorsal view. Holotype, Univ. of Cin- éinnati. Cincinnatian of Indiana. Horizon and locality uncertain. 8. Danoceras (?) gracile Flower, n. sp. _— 2 teen oa ee Holotype, lateral view, venter on right. Univ. of Cinein- nati, No. 24473. Origin uncertain. Believed to be de- rived from the lower Whitewater of Indiana. 9. Diestcceras waynesvillense Flower, n. sp . 412 Lateral view of holotype, with venter on ‘left. Shideler Coll. From the Clarkesville member of the Waynesvile, Harp- er’s Branch, Olderburg, Ind. 10-11. Diestoceras indiamense (Miller and Faber) - op thle SI 10. Sectioned specimen; X1. 11. Basal portion enlarged. Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24499. Hypotype. Saluda beds, Versailles, Ind. Buuu. AMER. PALEONT. No. 116, Pu. 41 Pu. 43, VOL. 29 PLATE 42 (44) 640 BULLETIN 116 722 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 42 ( 44 ) (Richmond Clarkesvillia and Oncoceratide) Figure Page 1. Oncoceras anomalum Flower, n. sp. —--------0------------------- 261 Holotype, lateral aspect. Shideler Coll. Dodge’s Creek, Oxford, Ohio, in the upper Whitewater beds, just below the Rhynehotrema dentata zone. 2. Beloitoceras amoenum (Miller) — 272 Lateral aspect, most perfect individual observed. Earlham College, No. 7744. From the Whitewater beds of Rich- mond, Ind. 3,4. Clarkesvillia halei Flower, n. sp. ...... as ll Se 476 Holotype. 3. Ventral aspect. 4. Lateral aspect. Waynes- ville beds, Clarkesville, Ohio. 5. Beloitoceras amoenum (Miller) —-- 272 Lateral aspect of a flattened shell showing growth lines. Flattening has given this specimen the profile of a Neu- matoceras. Upper Whitewater beds, from Halderman Mill, 2.5 mi, south of West Alexandria, Preble County, Ohio. Pu. 44, Vou. 29 BULL. AMER. PALEONT. No. 116, Pu. 42 CP atin esky! ‘4 aang Eaten 1 '? 4 Ld ined hos 642 DuULLETIN 116 724 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 43 ( 45 ) (Clarkesvillia and Armenoceras) Figure Page 1,4. Clarkesvillia halei Flower, n. sp. _ wet kl at) Ue a Holotype, Univ. of Cincinnati Museum. 1. Lateral aspeet before sectioning, showing weathered surface and appar- enily concavosiphonate siphuncle. 3. Vertical section through the same specimen. From the Waynesville forma- tion in the vicinity of Clarkesville, Ohio. Precise horizon uncertain. 2,3. Armenoceras vaupeli Flower, n. sp. —_- . 521 2. Paratype, Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 23901, “natural weath- ered section. 4. Paratype, Univ. of "Cincinnati, No. 23903, natural weathered section. Both specimens retain only the ventral part of the original shell. Cynthiana limestone, Cynthiana, Ky. Pu. 45, VoL. 29 Buu. AMER. PALEONT. No. 116, Pu. 43 Me an iy VAL pay" Me rm PLATE 44 (46) 644 BULLETIN 116 726 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 44 ( 46 ) (Armenoceras and Lambeoceras) Figure Page 1,2. Armenoceras richmondense Flower, n. sp. —..-.--------------------—--. 528 1. Seetion of holotype. Liberty beds, Route 1, about 4 mi. south of Milan, Ind., Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 23910. 2. Paratype, a naturally weathered and somewhat crushed specimen which is more complete longitudinally. Shideler Coll. Blanchester beds of the Waynesville, Addison’s Creck, near Oxford, Ohio. 3,4. Lambeoceras richmondense (Foerste) sl Le he 530 3. Lateral longitudinal section, X1. Shideler Coll. White- water beds, Beasley’s Creek, Camden, Ohio. 4. Portion of mature individual, with shells of Crania origi- nally atiached to the inside of the living chamber. Ven- tral aspect. Harlham College, No. 6422. Probably from the Whitewater beds, Richmond, Ind. Pr. 46, Vou. 29 Buu. AMER. PALEONT. No. 116, Pu. 44 * PLATE 45 (47) 646 BuLLETIN 116 EXPLANATION oF PLATE 45 ( 47 ) (Lambeoceras and Neumatoceras ) Figure 1. Lambeoceras richmondense (Foerste) -.—----------—-—- Hypotype, most complete specimen observed. The external mold obscurely preserved adapically, indicates that the ghell comes to a blunt termination at the extreme base of the portion figured. Marlham College, No. 7955. No data. evidently Whitewater, probably from Richmond, Ind. 2,3. Neumatoceras chrysalis Flower, n. SP. —---——-----— Holotype, Shideler Coll. 2. Lateral view. 3. Ventral view. Lower Whitewater beds, Little Four Mile Creek, near Oxford, Ohio. 4. Lambeoceras richmondense (Foerste) —..—-—---—_—.- = Hypotype, ventral view, of a relatively complete living chamber and a portion of a phragmocone. Shideler Coll. Whitewater beds, Beasley’s Creek, near Camden, Ohio. Note presence of extensive Clionolithes on the living cham- ber. ~] Page Masi 6555} 295 .. 530 of lt Pt. 47, Vou. 29 Buu. AMER. PALEONT. No. 116, Pu. 4 5 648 BULLETIN 116 73 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 46 ( 48 ) (Lambeoceras) Figure Page 1. Lambeoceras richmondense (Foerste) - . 5380 Hypotype, internal mold of the largest phragmeeone ob- served. Shideler Coll. Saluda beds, Harper’s Run, north- east of Oxford, Ohio. Note lateral modification of adoral sutures. 2,8. Lambeoceras richmendense (Foerste) . . _. 580 Hypotype, ventral (2) and dorsal (3) views, of an | excep- tionally well-preserved small fragment, showing difference in dorsal and ventral sutures. ‘Shideler Coll. Listed as from the Liberty formation, MecDill’s Mills, Oxford, Ohio. Possibly lower Whitewater. 4, Lambeoceras richmondense (Foerste) - if .--- 5380 Hypotype. Vertical section «214 “showing — the form of the segments of the siphunele, Shideler Coll. Upper White- water beds, from valley of Harper’s Braneh, Ind. | | : { Pu. 48, Vou. 29 Buu. AMER. PALEONT. No. 116, Pu. 46 ee ee ee a co to 650 BULLETIN 116 7 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 47 ( 49 ) ( Actinoeeroidea) Figure Page 1. Treptoceras duseri (Hall and Whitfield) ie . (Part. 11) Lateral view of an abnormal individual with distorted septa. The venter is to the right. Shideler Coll. Dusert zone, Fort Ancient member, Waynesville. From Stony Hollow, Clarkesville, Ohio. 2,3. Troedssonoceras (7?) obsecuroliratum Flower, n. sp. di hi RD Holotype. 2. Exterior section. 3. Vertical section. Holo- type, Shideler Coll. Cynthiana limestone, Millersburg phase, between Sutherland Mill and Chapman, near Bards- town, Ky. 4-6. Armenoceras vaupeli Flower, n. sp. 0.0 Holotype, Shideler Coll. 4. Ventral aspect. 5. Lateral as- pect. 6. Vertical section through sipbuncle. Cynthiana limestone, Cynthiana, Ky. 7. Armenoceras madisonense Foerste 0 2 0 526 Holotype, dorsal view. (After Foerste and Teichert.) U. 8. Nat. Mus., No. 15493. Madison, Ind., believed to have come from the Saluda beds. me Pu. 49, Vou. 29 Buu. AMER. PALEONT. No. 116, Pu. 47 SS EC ry PLATE 48 (50) ft 652 BULLETIN 116 TH EXPLANATION OF PLATE 48 ( 50 ) (Rasmussenoceras ) Figure Page 1-8. Rasmussenoceras variabile Flower, n, sp. NE Nes ey 1. Syntype, Shideler Coll., one of the most complete ma- ture living chambers observed. Ventral aspect. Basal Whitewater, Flat Fork Creek. 2-3. Ventral and dorsal views of syntype, Earlham Coll. No. 8208, showing difference in dorsal and ventral loba- tion of sutures. No data. Probably from the White- water formation of Richmond, Ind. 4, Dorsal aspect of syntype, the youngest stage represented. Shideler Coll. Basal Whitewater, Flat Fork Creek. 5. Dorsal aspect of a later growth stage showing broadening of the dorsal keel and the adoral decrease in rate of ex- pansion. Shiceler Coll. Lower Whitewater beds, Little Four Mile Creek, Oxford, Ohio. . Syntype, dorsal view of a typical ephebice living cham- ber. Shideler Coll. Lower Whitewater beds, Little Four Mile Creek. 7-8. Ventral (7) and dorsal (8) aspeets of an immature liv- ing chamber showing the characteristic neanie rapid later- al expansion. Lower Whitewater beds, Little Four Mile Creek, Oxford, Ohio. ro) ~_, © No. 116, Pu. 48 Buby. AMER. PALEONT. , Pu. 50, Vou. 29 PLATE 49 (51) 654. BULLETIN 116 EXPLANATION or PLate 49 ( 51 ) ( Troedssonoceras) 736 Figure Page 1-2, Troedssenoceras multiliratum Flower _. Ente eretanne nts WN Ne 1513) i, Section of holotype, slightly more than x1, 2. ‘Surface of holotype; <1, Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 22456, Maysville, Cincinnati, Ohio. 38. Hypotype, a more com- plete pl paged d Univ. of Ga uinaase No. 22648. Mount Elope beds, Rice St., Cincinnati. 4, 'Treedsseneceras rewenz Blower, is spi 7)" a ee 542 Paratype, vertical section; x1. Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24466. Leipers formation, Painted Cliffs, Cumberland River, Ky. -§. Troedssonoce eras turbidum (Hall and Winativela)) ih enn anal eae Hypotype, Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 3308. 5. Exterior; ae §. Section from adapical half of the same specimen. Maysville, Cincinnati, Ohio. 542 7. 'Froeéssenoceras rowene Flower. n. SD essnies! ows ESL een Helotype, 7/8 natural size. Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24465, Leipers formation, Painted Cliffs, Cumberland River, Ky. ——— a No. 116, Pi. 49 . Buin. AMER. PALEONT Pu. 51, Vou. 29 PLATE Bo. (52) 656 BULLETIN 116 738 EXPLANATION OF PLATE 50 ( 52 ) ( Troedsscnoceras ) Figure Page 1,2. Troedssenoceras cf. muitiliratum Flower _..... _. 546 Plaster east from natural external mold, Univ. “Of Cincinnati No. 24463. 1. Entire specimen, aiaeal size. 2. Adoral portion slightiy enlarged, showing detail of surface seulp- ture. Bellevue formation, English Homes, Western Hills Boulevard, Cincinnati, Ohio. 3-5 - Troedssonoceras baileyi Flower erie leh st SO) Sa Beet . Enlargement of a portion of the surface ; «2: 4. Verti- cal section from at iapical half of gee xi% Exterior of holotype, entire, x1, U. 8. Nat. Mus. 'T'ren- Be probably Cathys, Nashville, Tenn. 6. Troedssonoceras rowenz Flower, n. Sp. Benenteene |)". Paratype, vblique section; x1. Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 24467. lLeipers formation, Painted Cliffs, Cumberland River, Ky. NOTE.—On page 13 of this Bulletin acknowledgment has been made to the Faber Fund of the University of Cincinnati Museum for financial assistance in the preparation of the illustrations for this work, and it now should be stated that the Trustees of the University of Cincinnati have appropriated from the funds of the College of Liberal Arts sufficient financial aid for the completion of the necessary illustrations. Buu. AMER. PALEONT. No. 116, Pu. 50 Pu. 52, Vou. 29 INDEX Note:—Light face figures refer to the volume paging and not to the pag- ing of the separate bulletins. volume plate numbers. A Actinoceras 104, 597 Actinoceratide -..--.--.--- 597 MOLimoCerold. 139 Actinoceroidea —_.... 166, 507, 596, 600 Actinosiphonata —-......... 139 actinosiphonate --....-.. 129, 139, 428 SIGUA 139 TG os ET le ee er 139 adnation, area of —~.__-.. 125, 140 Beads sera ie 2 hs Se 139 Bir Ghamner =) 8s 140 PIbeYLOCErAS. =. 159 Alloniloceras = 162 Allumettoceras —__------ 298 Allumettoceratide — 248, 249, 297 Amphistegina angulata _ 14, 20, 62 GHipolensis, . 2 oS... 20, 62 Pm DOSE. pe eat fe 64 Rersnomite gee Se 1b, 1635 0% lessonii bowdensis = 15S Lote 20s OF anal chamber = = 99, 101 AMASDYTOCELAS | 28a 214, 221 cumberlandense —- 6 192, 216, 222 williamse____. 3, 4, 5, 199, 217, 223 anenuchoanitic — 22. 126, 140 Angulogerina carinata _— ¢- 19% 853 Cimeximiay 222. LO soe SREREREP LUT ye es 140 annilar lobe — 22: 140 BIMEMPeRDe Gs, jee 140 Annulated orthoceracones 213 Annulated orthocera- cones» range: 20. 215 Annulated orthocera- Conese REY et 217 AMM ation 140 Annulosiphonata —_---. 140 annulosiphonate ——---.... 128, 140 Sythe 7d Ip eae ee ee ee 140 Anomalina ariminensis 72 foveolata ~ = we 72 THICLCA DA re ee As 73 Anomaloceras -__--- 107 Antiplectoceras ? asker- (Ai [= | Se eR eee 582 shamattawaense -_-.- 582 ry itey 2A 0) 4: lee ae 140 aponeurotic bands __..- 102, 140 Apsidoceratidz —...._...126, 171, 569 Archaias aduncus __. 163," 19," 44 aDeulhOs: 44 Archaic cephalopods -_..-.. 584 Heavy face figures refer to the Armenoceras® 600, 601 allumettense —_.----...--. 602 arctictim) (sso 603, 607 arcticum angustum —— 603, 607 brevicameratum —_— 189, 603 Chicottense-) 22 602 clermontense) 2 == 603, 607 CXCeTtrAle (2s es kee 2 602 MEATS th, et Behe 601 LOW ACTS Ci a 608 madisonense 49, 180, 182, 201, 603, 606, 608 richmondense EEN 46, 196, 603, 605, 607 Pato pee £8 ee 192 VauUpelin) ==: 45, 49 188, 603 Armenoceratids 598, 601 Arnheim formation — 194 IANSCOGEEAS <2. 282": ee 104 Ascoceroid ie oe 140 Astacolus erepidula ae ek! 18, 37 Asterigerina carinata _. 14, 20, 62 an vulatae a8 ee eee 62 Astronion ef. stelligerum 1 19, 42 Augustoceras._.__ 119, 419, 428, 425 commune __-_. 10, 21 192, 435 med@niniwy 22. hs 8 21 192, 434 WUE pt se RE 21 192, 436 Siphuncle = 2228 2a et 428, 432 TE SS as ete OS ee 190 eS De ee ee 182 PRUs Doe CL) es eer oe 27 438 shideleri__ 20, 21, 22 192, 432 SDI (2) eee es SS 27 440 Les AS) eee 27 440 vallandighami -_— 30 190, 437 AVAOCOLAS: (sha ah! ~ 160 B Baggina cojimarensis. 14, 17, 20, 62 Baltoceras, Vas eee 155, 165 Baltoceratida) 2 165 Barbourinella bermudezi 1 Vie ee DasalyZOnen 2.2.8 ce ee 140 Bassleroceras _ 160, 169, 246, 247 Bassleroceratide ___. 155, 169 Batastoma jamesi —__ 525 Bathmoceras 119, 154, 161, 600 Bathmoceratid# 156, 166 Died kes 2 ee ares a en ees 99, 100 Beekmanoceras priscum_ 156 Bellevue member _..._ 192 Beekmanoceratide 156 VOLUME XXIX Beloitoceras -.----- 308, 317, 319, amoenum 34, 36, 39, 40, 44 182, 200, 316, 354 cf, amoenum arcticum 318, bafimense 21.2 309, ? baffinense breviposticum - [oHultGl ois yanigeesMuNeewess eee 199; carveri ..._........ 809, 318, 320, chapparsi -.... 34 200, 351, clochense.... 809, 317, 318, 820 conn lun) yee ee Pe Cormiulgen, 22 rh BAe Sy) rats ef. cumingsi 199, 200, 352, _ 89 202, 352, diserepans _. 352 fererectum 353 (?) fererectum 318 fragile 318, 351 fremontense 352 eeniculatum 3D - 199,, 358,868,371 houghtoni 818, 320, 351 huronense 318, 320, 351 isodorus — 318, 320, 351 jamesense eeemeehe 8 3852 (2), Jamesense)_.......-- 318 janesvillense ; 320, 351 ef. janesvillense -.. 3809 landerense 351 lyceum 351 magisterium wd 318, 352 murrayi eon ISH. 320, 350 norwoodi ......... 809, 318, 320, 351 ObStructume 2222 2h 318, 353 ohioense 34, 36, 39, 199, 200, 352, 361 pandion 309, 317, 351 percurvatum) 222 309, 318 plebium 352 popoagiense : 351 DProtractum (2. e 35 199, 3538, 464 Pelee nin wore eee 351 Sahomeldiaee ee ee 318 BS OU a taleted a Y MaNS SSe e C74 transiens _._......._ 34 200, 351, 366 ulrichi Eee ny Aelia LNs MM LILE Vii eee eres 352 Bermudezina cf. pariana Mie ae Bickmorites -....—--.. 107, 579 EU TATIN | a oe ee ar Le i9 199, 582, 583 Bickmoritide Vitae Bigenerina nodosaria textularioidea *22 Wie, ae Biloculina denticulata istriolata)) lo 32 ringens striolata -.-...... 32 subsphaerica Qo 33 Jail EY 6 ever Mawes at MCL ena serene 140 Blanchester member ~.- 195 Bolivina aenariensis multicostata alata FT at Pc eet cee eee seme ABN) S bierigi byramensis limbata hee aki multicos- bata, So pulchella - 5 gat rhomboidalis scalprata miocenica. 1 mexicana subs@riensis tortuosa .... Bolivinella folia - alae folium brain brevicone breviconic Breviconic genera of uncertain position +a Sa Fig EN WE De brim «ee Mi bene dials Bromley shale) 20g heey Buehleroceras bulette Bulimina marginata —._. ovata whe Sic REE ef. ovata GBuliminella Burenoceras BuUbtsoCeTas weds — eee Cc (Gro b 09 Vpeeeeioeteg. year eee oy Poe antes camera camera] - ‘i cameral deposits cameral gas __ cameral ‘mantle Ade Cameroceras annuliferum faberi proteiforme » Sp Caseoceras Cassidulina bradyi was) crassa laevigata carinata Subglobossy (ous ees (ots parkerianus aa ks Cassinoceras explanator Cathys limestone Catoraphiceras centrad central canal Centroonoceras pulchra (Oy eabers (2701 i SOR Cancris sagrats es ee 160, 130, 99, 101, 168, 169, 246, 248, 251, Charactoceras Chilostomella cezizeki Cibicidella variabilis —_ Cibicides candei - concentricus herricki kugleri lobatus _— nucleatus . DEELOMATUS : pseudoungerianus robertsonianus haitien- sis circulus —........ Clarkeoceras Clarkesville member Clarkesvillia eer) spirolimbatus | xe ..510, 514, Clavulina communis Se humilis mexicana _. qe 45 195, 557, BICATINaGA 220. oe Ie Clelandoceras __........... Clinoceras 248, 251, 252, 257, 258, @limoceratids, 169, Cuibendoceras, ..20 ab Colpoceras arcuatum ~ 176 GS SH bas RS AT RE a ee concavosiphonate Cogent bye Monen - 2 - vs geet OB ce 109), conchial ‘furrow Pinte tt, connecting ring - 102, 115, 125, Conocerina Copiceras 159, Corryville ieee Cotteroceras -....... SOR OCETAS (2a Crests .... evs 110, %Cristellaria antillea _ Cristellaria antillea _._. bowdenensis _...... nfs (212 LCE 2 ae Se a 16, calear aspinosa _ Spa i (re 13 692 NPR SO OE ES CLORIeIte pee ewe gist Creprawla) wo Se OE CHLGIAGHIS! 2 16, falcifer Spill 2 RONEN rh 13r2 hy wae ee aN Ae TL gemmata geal pie 14, V1) 2 4 [nf k> i RL a nea ACE LT, isi zo seh lll FCS "c) or: ue mae submamilligera 551) ON) SNARE DE eee OO 99, ctenidia aC) AsO VOC gD 99, Cumberloceras Cuneolina ? angusta 14, 16, 18, angusta:. lata Wa cojimarensis —_.....____ PAVONIS Soo ky is 16, INDEX pavonia angusta ___. Pdr hee Bb san 0 ae OL Curdsville Cyclendoceras 164, annulatum _. Cyclendoceratidze Cycloceras me aN Cyclostomiceras 160 Cyclostomiceratide 156 Cymbalopora bulloides Cynthiana ieee Cyptendoceras Cyrtactinoceras —.......__ Cyrtendoceras 155, PES CUI Gee at hp oe Cyrtendoceratidz - 156, CMC ONS Ss Sere Nl Ce cyrtoceracone ...._..._.105, 106, cyrtoceraconie 2. 105, CYTUOCETAN 22 o lin Cyrtoceras _.. 104, 108, 142, 313, amoenum _. 174, 175, 177, 179, baffinense mers eee conoidale 29, 176, 177, 178, 180, 182, cornulum hens Ree ry e 2S 177, ‘178, 179, pia pele ye tok ee evlamumy 22 ae 179, SG 2 tip ge 25 Pt 5 le 179, Mowehitoni 2) ee, huronense __ irregulare 176, “177, “179, 182, LSOG@OTUSY sees vou Ue lysander, 2... 178, 179) 162) lamellosum ... 404, magister 178, 174, 177, 178, 182, manitobense _. FHL CMISORT eek re MGPWOCEL oo wel CnC 8 ae a OREOMT Gees lh aT 178, sehotteldtj..2) wy Sinope! ypsk ene 40h tenuiseptum 24, 25, 177, 179, 182, 186, thompsoni auld "177, 179, 180, GYD ULGey yee vallandighami 30, 173, 174, 175, 177, 178, 182, ventricosum 178, 174, 175, 177, 178, 182, Cyrtoceratites Beret Cyrtocerina, (yt A) 158, 161, cariniferg, 22!) ys 31 200, madisonensis 30, 31, 32, 119, 177,178,179, 201, modesta Sen eee 0, 31 201, patella ase 30, 31 201, Cyrtocerinide _..._ Cyrtochoanites ____ 126, 143, 151 VOLUME cyrtochoanitic 124, 143 ecyrtoconic -..- ental 105, 148 Cyrtogomphoceras Posen sys laws spac We) Cyrtogomphoceratide 515 Cyrtonybyoceras —-—---- 598 Cyrtorizoceras Seraes 312, 315, 388, 397 ABC CLOUMIY okie ee eee 353 filosum Eee 383 D Makeoceras: 22... 158 Danoceras__.._..----. 418, 473, 474, 477 anticostiense | ;— 2 478, 501 TE We aca os 2 ki 502 proOs@enty 225 Va 502 bul postin sats 192, 504 cooperi ids, pee eee 478, 501 erater 10, 12, 192, 500, 503 cynthianense _ 16 188, 501, 502 gracile SAREE CLE 191 ? gracile _._.._...-.. 43 501, 505 Pav eee cof o Mea 499, 501 scandanavicum | pes eke | 502 GwenbDOLeli (222. es 500 Dawsonoceras annulatum 186 hammelli Apel 182, 233 Deirocerss) 225.- eS 598 capitolense 189 nashvillensey = 180, 189 Dentalina cf. baggi —— 18, 38 WEEMS mee eee 14, 18, 38 Diaphonoceras —.—__-__= 160 Dieroceras poten Es 618 Diestoceras -.....249, 254, 418, 478, 475 aleewmy tee 4719 anticostiense | PTE ae oe 478, 501 APEMIGOLOIN § yee 478 attenuatum , 199, 477, 478, 480, 491 bettine 11 191, 481, 496 brevidomum 478 carletonense: ‘-...-__._— 478 clarkei A479 GOODELL soe eee 478, 501 cornellense, 479 eyrtocerinoides 31, 40 201, 481, 492 edenense) 2s. 2) as 190, 481 ? edenense ___._.-- 17 495 eos 36, 37, 39, ‘40, 41 180, 182, 199, 202, 477, 480 fremontense ee Site Sere 479 vibbosuim 2 soe 479 indianense —-- 8, 41 180, 182, 183, 199-201, 477, 480, 428 isotelorum eke Up AAO | 480 5S h ols peat a omic EL 479 landerense® 22-2 479 Mae Coy) | Sa awes 479 misristeri te Le 479 nonilel P22 2.02 2 aes 478 eccidentale h. —. tess A479 E XXIX ornatum pupa pyriforme FEeversuniy - ue ee romingeri sealare schucherti shideleri 40, 180, 182, 199, 477, 481, shidel len 2 ray 202) _ 196, 479, 481, 481, 477, ef. , Sp. Pret. Sp. zeae staufferi. peewee ee Meh stensioi stoermerl - strangulatum a SUbZLoObOSstImT =. 22s tyrrelli vagum vasiforme walcotti waynesvillense nih 195, 477, 481, whiteavesi —__... Diestoceratide 39° 9 202, 481, 169, 248, 249,294, Digenuoceras = ee ce Sal Diphragmoceras -__._.........- Discoactinoceras : Discorbis allomophi- nolides bertheloti floridensis ef. corrugatus US eerily eee ae AMOTIGAN TIS pyrene TITUS ee es ef. obtusus orbicularis pileolus: oc. oe ee cf. pileolus 72s) se Diseocortis: “22-2. ya eee BUSTS TU ee ee DiScosoridwrs- ok sire Discosoroldea 22. ae dissepiments! 222.2223 distad Pele meee ee Dolorthoceras: 222. 2 Dorothia caribzea ——.._— dorsal ' dorsal furrow ed ol ian Ss oes Orsi | = ei oe eee Dowlingoceras ornatum_. Dresseroceras Dwightoceras ._.__-.__ Dyocibicides cf. biseri- BAYS oa OSes eee Dyscritoceras Eecdyceras foerstei 742 328 498 478 , 497 "479 A478 478 489 490 495 479 480 480 480 478 478 478 478 498 479 494 478 472 385 154 598 . INDEX Economy member .- 190 eurysiphonate 145, 153 Ectenoceras 158, 159, 245 exogastric 108, 145 Eetocycloceras 160 Exomegoceras 311, 385 iden group 189 eyelet 5. 116, 145 Ehlersoceras - 313 r Elkhorn formation 202 Ellesmeroceras Faberoceras 154, 155, 159, 165, 245, 251, 600 88, 508, 510, 511, 529, 53 Ellesmeroceratid2 507 Somali eee 531 ellesmeroceroid 144 elegans 1A 198) 532,556, bot Ellipochoanites ~._. 144 magister ellipochoanitic 121, 122, 124, 144 15, 16, 182, 190, 581, 533, 554 Ellipsonodosaria eari- 543 bea Seer At tos oe multicinctum Elphidium advena 1 1: as Se 10, 11, 14, 192, 529, 536,550 advenum Bory ame 3 ooceriforme - 18, 188, 531, 540 fimbriatulum ee AR LO aS percostatum ls ae 19, 44 10, 12, 15, 16, 192, 531, 536, 545 poeyanum) 02. 19, 44 saffordi Elrococeras —. nC 598 10, 14, 17, 19, 188, 538, 536, 541 Endoceras shideleri 104, -154, 162, 163, 190, 192, 194 12, 18, 192, 531, 536, 553 annulatum ree 175, 177, 182,185 sonnenbergi approximatum 15, 417; ae 188, 536, 537 178, 175, 177, 182, 184 transversum _ a 192, » OB 536,549 magniventrum .. 177, 178, 182, 185 troedssoni fa 534 is, 12a oe NB Aah (0 ha | ae a 191 proteiforme Fairview beds __ 191 173, 174, 175, 177-179, 182, 184 Family undesignated . 955 subcentrale PEND Lids boo, Op bavettoceras, 180, 313 Endoceratidz 155, 164 thompsoni _.. 182, 201 endoceroid — 144 Flower, R. H. on Cinein- Endoceroidea - 144 natian cephalopods __ 82 endocones 127, 144 foramen, septal - 4 146 endogastric re 144 Fort Ancient member __ 194 endosiphoblade ~....-........... 145 free part of septum ___ 113, 125 endosiphocoleon ..... 145 Frondicularia alata __ 16, 40 endosiphocone —. -_ +. d2b, 145°C. sapitiiie alee 16, 18, 40 endosiphocylinder _.__ - 135, 145 Fulton beds _..__ 190 endosipholining ——..._ 145 functional suture - 115 endosiphotube __ 135, 145 funnel - Un tepectte 146 endosiphuncle _ 145 G Endocycloceras —_. 1593 wy : Endocycloceratide —_ -~ 155 Gaudry ina *pariana 23 endogastric —_____.____ 109 Genera, key to Eorizoceras _. 169, 247 } (Nautiloiden) —..... 210 Eospyroceras 291 sills ——...__.. 99, 101 Eothinoceras —_.... 160 Globigerina seyaege a Ee americanum 584 ‘dquilateralis 68 Eothinoceratide 156 bulloides epidermids, 22 111 Aoae = db, DT, 205) 867 Va Cy 2) 6) Des ee 131 rubra ‘ Sate 17, 68 Epistomina elegans _- 20, 61 Sacculifera 17, 68 Epistomina coryelli __2 subcretacea.. 0) 1b)) WTee20és Wie ‘oo. pel feslaba 15) 120 fatevahise ee 20, 59 Globigerinella -parantillarum —. 20, 60 equilateralis Saar Seen 20, 68 pilvinus ey Vie ss 20, 60 Globigerinoides praccinevus 22} 58 uh | aoe ee 15, 17, 20, 68 Eremoceras -_........ 158, 159, 314, 316 sacculifera 15, 17, 20, 68 (OG CYECS 2: | ee eee 299, 301 Globorotalia Eurysiphonata — 145, 596 ACOH PAT 2 14, 20, 170 Lr d ‘ 45 menardii miocenica VOLUME XXIX a) ES AS LT Oe nl O truncatulinoides AO one Globotruncana, sp. —-..- PAD AU Globulina gibba Wy 41 Glyptodendron —_........ 510, 514 Gomphoceras 104, 108, 146 accep tui jo ee eee 175, 182 ecincinnatiense ..- 176, 179, 183 eos _.174, 175, 177-179, 182, 485 faberi ik 176-1795 /11835 317 hector —---. Pane 185 indianense —_....... 177-179, 188 ‘primum Danis 480 gomphoceroid __. 105, 146 Gonioceras ...... i104, 598 Tamper ee 609 Gonioceratide — 598 Goniotrochoceras twennoteli) 2220) 582 Gorbyoceras bog outle 214, 225 sp. aff, calvini NG MN UCR NO! 2A AQ. clintoni> i 226 crossl Ch YS A G20. 2a Zan eurvatum .... 7, 194, 226, 241 duncan SiGe OOM ALO eines sorbyi 4, 6, 188, 199, 201, 217, 227 hammelli Bia) Sy Gi, 1821830200, 217, microlineatum 243 simile §, 199, 217, 242 Graciloceras 247, 253, 255 extensum 42 255 Greendale limestone 188 growth relationship - 138 Guttulina cf. lactea 41 laetea earlandi 19, 41 Cypsina globulus Lea Gay Fz globulus pilaris LC eMeTTL pilamis wy 717 vesicularis DGS CMTE) ok ef. vesicularis 77 gyroceracone 105, 106 pyroceraconic 105 eyroceran 2)... 105 Gyroceras 104, 108 baeri ie ‘. 178, 179,188 Gyroceratites ....... 108 gyrocone -....._- 105 gyroconic . BN. 105 Gyroidina ef. soldanii 20,0157, H Baddonia minor)... 16 SAS anal AN MECC PNA eSclaie ta" 18, 33 Hallopora ramosa rugosa Hammelloceras” 1 oh ee hammelli — Eisen Haplostiche dubia - dubsangwdbiay) eee Soudan ye ee head hearty Hebeoceras Hercoceras AY See Herkimeroceras _.....-- Holochoanites - holochoanitie _. eri Homotrema cf. rubrum a Huronia Huroniella pa dee Piutro mia ce 7220 aa Hyperoceras twenhofeli Faryad ONO TING yates eee hyposeptall\ 22. cane ee Hypospyroceras -......— I impressed zone _............ intestine —..... ce tee: intracameral deposits Mee K Karreriella mexicana Kentlandoceras ~~ Kaindileoceras 2/2 ae cumingsi equilaterale i kentuckiense _._. rotundum Kochoceras) (eos aaa Lagena hexagona scalar- iformis ef. marginata marginato-perforata _ Lagenonodosaria, sp. _... Lamarckina atlantica _ Lambeoceras.. 298, 300, acutilaterale AMCUUGTINE eal) ee ee eee boreum confertum ef. confertum cultratum lambei landerense 20 leveannulatum (?) leveannulatum NOTA eee ee ee nudum ef. nudum 744 .._126, 121, 598, 266, 99, 248, 473, 146, 126, 21, 499, 107, 424, 200, INDEX nrineceps © 611, 615 Ge princeps. 222. 611 richmondense 47, 48, 184, 196, 199, 200, 611, 612, 614 Landeroceras 615 Laphamoceras -............._- 404, 408 BO medar ae et 408 tenuistriatum __.......... 408 lateral angle = 147 Lawrensoceras _..._.....- 160 Ly fyipe te) ss) Ee er 191 Lenticulina bowdenensis DATs 4B) Be Lenticulites rotulata - 35 Leptocyrtoceras ____.... 160 Leurorthoceras _........ 598 anticostiense __....___. 584 PPOWSOCETAS) 2.2 157, 158, 160 Liberty formation —.... 195 Liebusella soldanii _.14, 16, 18, 28 ligne normale —.__..... : 112, 147 LY GiL ct 3k EN ER eee 147 Listerella nodulosa __. 18, 24 LOTS Bs, 106 SMUMONTUS). 2 177, 183 |i VET a pee she 177; 183 PMMGHLaytist 2S 1st Noe 177, 183 planorbiformis —___. 177, 183, 185 Eatuolaysoldanh 8°... 28 soldanii intermedia 28 Hr ucto e 3 Se 99, 101 living chamber ——.______ 97; 98; 247 Rg ree sete Sl 147 fav ahead 113 Loganoceras 313 Lower Whitewater ___ 197 Lowoceratide B17 Loxostomum limbatum costulata Lk ABC 19, 48 lunette yack A 147 'M Maelonoceras 310, 316, 317, 318, 368 POLO ETE INeS Tobeces eee.) 3 317 praematurum —___......._. 309, 317, 318 TECMUNACIMD oe 351 Maelonoceratide —_..... 316 Manchuroceras __......__ 164 Manitoulinoceras 88, 313, 419, 424, 450 canadense CORO U 453 erraticum ____ a 24 200, 465 gsyrotorme 23. 200, 464 (?) irregulare Bote AOA A 9B ATO key . Beas 455 lysander hice ih 182, 450, 453 sp. aff. medium 195 ‘middlevillense _...... 453 moderatum 199, 200, 201, 202, 453 74 postumius AP SIV Ce Poke Ne tenuiseptum 24 25. ? trigonale ultimum ? warsawense williams wvykofrense mant cle : e 2 Syaie Ba Massilina crenata APRA Maysville group __.. MecMicken _... McMillan formation | BUST Mequeenoceras _.- Megadiscosorus garb Re Melia. cincinatse fo Melocerast \ auic Aa ixeneioy Meniscoceras Metaspyroceras clavatum gaspense ee Miamoceras shideleri ome 221s “a2 Michelinoceras clarkes- villense ___ PALES cf. clarkesvillense writs clarkesvillense var. (3 ISHS i Se De De Repent eae ? ivorense ludlowense sp. aff. ludlowense » Sp. Miliolina transverse- (Shifiig RE ps St are BSP ana Millepora rubra Minganoceras —__ Mixochoanites __ key me sexual dimorphism “95 182, 24 . 23, 194, 4 25 182, 194, 195, 419, _ 151, 169, 257, stratigraphic range _. Monogonoceras __.....__ Montyocerds 26s Whois Mount Auburn Mount Hope oS SAIS Multicameroceras mural MR se he ee ANA mural deposits. aah gaa Un TRy mural part of septum ua | Murrayoceras 1 muscle impressions _...... , 251, Naedyceras PV ELENIEO Petes urate KE LUN Cea noveboracum EPUB UL era a Me OR HaUbilIcone, oS nautiliconie —.. nautiloid morphole- 5 185, | VOLUME XXIX Nautiloidea a lniercetleh 213 Nautilus - . 96, 99, 104, 108 aduncus fit sob 44 calcar 33 erepidula 37 pompilioides -_——----— 42 vertebralis te 38 neck : 124, 125, 147 neck, septa! 147 nephridia 99, 101 nepionic bulb 148 Neumatoceras - 308, 320, 369 breviposticum Bel, sad,sore canyonense JN Bel eile nenlo ef. canyonense -. BPA cen disger ie chrysalis _ AT 199, 371, 377 conicum 371, 376 eontractum 321 Garton 42.5. 3871, 374 gibberosum 321, 371, 874 latilineatum 871, 374 (?) milleri Sid oo nutans ‘ ByA Bia percense —.._- 871, 375 Sy SDs ao 371 striatum | pa! ju 371, 374 subconicum ........... 42 199, 379 PPM IN aes eee ee 321 Nodosaria communis -.. 39 peregrina _.... 39 vertebralis ‘ : 16, 38 Nonion grateloupii aly: Oe ae ee nicobarense set argh 19, 42 pompilioides ._.... TAs SOs 942 Nonionina bulloides 67 grateloupii 42 sphaeroides 67 stelligera _._.- ae 42 Nummulites ramondi aielt 16 Niyibyocerds) 2.00 bei te 598 0 Oelandoceras z 158, 165 oesophagus 99, 100 Osyeoceras |) 2.2 eee 159 Onecoceras..... 308, 316, 317, 320, 322 ADMD GUM pect ee 317, 326 anomalum...._ 44, 200, 201, 328, 343 ULC EMCI ys eee 318 arlandi 17, 192, 309, 327, 334 bassleri 18, 19, 192, 327, 332, 371 earletonense | _ 809, 318, 326 carlsoni WISSe2iavoss carveri Ties OED 318 casel Hote. uate air es 320, 326 cincinnatiense — 37, 180, 1838, 198, 3817, 328, 339 collinsi LAP ETET MUS DEI AY 09, 320, 327 constrictum 309, 317, 326 309, 201, mee uly ie 201, 201, 192, 309, 183, 294, covingtonense ..... 38 (?) eurvicameratum _. delicatulum 34, 194, GOUMIASSIs e252. duncanez 38, 39, elkhornense __....... 33 exile 2... 34, 40 faberi.... 19, 37, 188, fererectum oe hoerstel. 2. 1. 12, ‘18, fossatum . 37 insuctuin 38, 39, madisonense - 4l (OMe) acy AO be eeenee Bea ae Br (7) ornatum -_ pandion : parvum pristinum pupxetorme - » Sp. 42, 188, 1 $3, é ? sp. — a3 DeSDep pee eS BES Yc tetreauvillense x tumidum Oncoceratide &8, 169, 248, 249, oneeceroid ; Oncoceroidea Oneotoceras Onychoceras Ooceras Coceratide : Oonoceras) 2.2...) Sit OUt My pees 188 ? brevidomum ee covingtonense So See ee ecurviseptatum 15 fennemani - 35 gracilicurvatum za multicameratum 188, obstructum Tease planiseptatum ar rectidomum —..._.._ 42 rejuvenatum ___ 35 shideleri ._. Are suborthoforme _._......... triangulatum ____ 188, triangulatum var. cyl- iIndratuni V2s. 02 (hee. Orbiculina adunca _____ compressa __. Orbitolina vesicularis ahd Orbulina universa Ormoceras covingtonense hitzi lay esol a A tenuifilum orthoeeracone orthoceraconic orthoceran __ 746 105, 327, 318, 328, 320, 328, 328, 328, 328, 327, 327, 386, 328, 309, 331, 330 327 344 327 344 347 341 337 353 330 529 336 346 828 309 317 827 317 326 371 587 341 326 321 516 148 293 158 160 316 316 381 389 188 189 387 390 390 389 382 INDEX Orthoceras —— 104, 108 heehory soa so) TR Sh ee albersi R71 78, 188) ‘phragmoceroid = 4! 148 amplicameratum — _.__.176, 183, 185 phragmocone __...____ _ 97, 98, 148 annellum 176 Piloceras ee wis tr ee! 154 anellus __. 2s ee 1gpe Piloceratidas) 2 ee we 156 TCO UGeprloceroid = se. 148 annulatum -....._.....176, 183, 186 Pianorbulina bilineatum _. : 179 acervalis sods 2A TG bilineatum- frankfort-— mediterranensis 21, 16 CiSit Si a eeeeeees 179, 183 Planulina edwardsiana byrnesi canimarensis 1 26 a fewer obitoy, 178, £79; 183,191 Loveolata Auei yuki 21, 72 carleyi 174-176, 178, 179, 183 Planularia (not Planu- cincinnatiensis lina as in text) 37 173-176, 178, 188, 191 Planuiaria woodringj duserio = == 94, 174-176, 179, 183 DLA AG ee Lee OT. dyeri___ 178, 175, 176, 178, 179, 183 Pleetofrondicularia florid- fosteri -2....- -. 173-176, 178, 183 SUAS See eS 45 gorbyi _....__. 177, 179, 183, 227 Plectronoceras 105, 109, 154, 156, 157 palhanum +=. 174, 175, 178, 1838 Plectronoceratide ____ 156 Ne ee 173, 174, 176, 1835 = oindexter quarry lens _ 188 Locyricny ebb ee nie 179, 183, 233 Point Pleasant beds ___ 188 harperi —.—. _173- 176, 178, 179, 183 VPolydesmia.. 154, 507, 597, 600 hindei TE TG 183, 190 Polydesmiide _ = 597 hitzi PES 2 179, 183 Poly morphina gibba _ 41 funceum ........ 176, “178, 183, 185 Foiystomella advena __ 43 ludlowense. 2.2 177, 178, 183 grobriatula, ies 44 TTECDYe | fe ee ee emanaemes! GST A ATG ANN Les eral Moar lanieri 44 milleri 179, 183 poeyanum 44 mohri 178-176, 178, 179 _ subnodosa ; 43 TCT ee eee 174, 186 Porteroceras 226, 237, 316 CATT) Sp ee eee Seen Ws En Lay be s3 intortuim meet Tree Te 480 PeaiiGhrwie ea 176 Poterioceratide 316 PELrehisorme, 20 > 215 posterior, mantle 99, 101 transversum _173-176, 178, 188, 190 pre-basal segments _____ 149 brenbonense sits bo 317 prelingual processes ____ 99, 100 turbidum Probillingsites. 22. 273 Ree G 7S, 180.0 184s |G AGIO) Pp kaberk | fs Se bb 199 Orthoceratide 155, 316 lebanonensis ____ 8, 9 194, 275 Orthochoanites -_... 126, 148, 151, 152 PBEM GURIYD So ss 196 orthochoanitic é 124, 148 (?) minutum _.._ 40 277 emungcone (2-5 22 105, 148 oxfordensis __....__ 195, 199 orthoconic _.. : 105, 148 py MSL) gS SS See eee ee ee 200 Orthorhynchula- Tinneyi 539 — Williamsportense ___ 189 Orygoceras adn ee 168, 246 Proterocameroceras _. 119 Le ae Oxfordoceras 159, 160, 168 Proterocameroceratide _ 162 Pp BEGuUUeOn Chg = Ale 8s 98, 149 Pachendoceras _............ 161 Protocycloceras __ 160, 246 Pachtoceras 473, 474 Protophragmoceras : 516 Palmer, D. K. murehisoni 516 On Foraminifera from tyriense 516 SOUL CIR Gt w= ee te Pron ncn) 1 Proximad pees 149 Misddtidacorag co. la 598 Psammosphera fusca __ 16 Paraendoceras en 161 Pseudoclavulina mexi- parietal deposits —.......... 148 cana -...______ ae Ai 2a Pavonina miocenica —... 19, 49 FPseudorthoceratide —___ 126 pendant deposits ga ty 14g pseudoseptum 131 ’ perispatial deposits —__... 14g Pullenia bulloides 67 perispatium ae 148 . Spheroides ___._._._. 20, 67 Perryville Dc actne 187 Pulvinulina Plegags ete 61 Phragmocerass 12 tio! 109 «Sara -. tee GY: 747 VOLUME XXIX Pyrgo denticulata denticulata striolata — 18, subspherica Bane ON) 18, Q Quebecoceras -.. : ae collum- pIOVSEY Ges Meee MA ee 18, lamarckiana 1A ol Be ef. panamensis —-_.- 18, parkeri bowdenensis — 18, philippi Nisha ES ee Fee of sgl af oif a) GOMieseenee ae De Ee polyeona ke ef. oe al el Sars ade tenuis gee R refeyo set balels ti ¢l2)) meet aeme mre ee mien ge radula big 99; Ramulina ‘globulifera’ ts iy Raphanulina gibba ..... 14, 19, Rasmussenoceras .. 298, 300, 302, leveannulatum __..3800, 302, DSW DIM foes scene ais BA schoteldi cise ee SS rie fee eee ee variabile _ 50 199, 200, xiphias Riayonnoceras | 2222-2 -: Reedsoceras mefarlani he reproductive organs Ny Reussella spinulosa Past am ils): spinulosa var. - We ee Rhadinoceratidz Richardsonoceras Duele beloitense Ne a 319, Pine ene epee i 319, 1G Us EN 5° PU ee Mel CRED TOMI eer ee Sehotieldi (oe SMU Lema Wigs oe ee 319) Richmond subseries | Bue Rizoceras {iihawin See Sh bigs Uy ? atlanticum ——... bellulum - 21 197, 199, 402, ? carletonense aay ae conicum teh Ro Leh _188, 401, Sheoromeab um lowe es geraciliforme -..............188, 401, ?infundibuliforme —. ? lockportense -_...... pociliformet)-. 2 Rizoceratidg, -.2 ewe Robsonoceras, .. 2 ee Robsonoceratide -_.-........- Robulus calear —..... 14, 16, 18, ecalear aspinosa -........- ney eles ClETICTI Witse ber he 18, cultmabas 20u 4 18, Pear Eiri) 2 Cie ae an 18, ROL Pes oe eee na a CLAWLOUUABUS) tae TO UAC oe eee ae eereet eee occidentalis torrida == rotulatus Rg a eee submamilligerus —....... Rosalina araucana —.— (6) 8 OAS a AA a DG les orbieularis hale os Rotalia beccarii tepida ee CNY GREEN aS Hpi MORE 2s peas Ot menardij pe eee OSC ee ee ee es (SHENG ced Ai ON Read oa al et ef. tholus ve Rotalina truncatulin-. GUGGSs a eis ee eee NE Rudolfoceras POR TRIE thtuedemannoceras ___._... Ruedemannoceratide _. runzelsehicht iS) SHEbO GETS MELE sou ae hires hii eee Sactoceratids, 22). Sactorthoceras Sactorthoceratidez saddie CRE AN Seu Les) tee Ne Saffordoceras PUCUS OMe es tL sls ae Sagrina pulchella Lene peluidan ve Ia estat eee Saluda coral beds” PRG Oy Saracenaria cushmani Ey 4; Sted La Can eae ee eaten 2 Schistochoanites Schofieldoceras _.....-. Schuchertoceras _........ daserentm sts). sg discretum var. minor L% ples distinctum __.. geniculatum _..._.. Obse@ummmi ys es ee Prolonm atm sec ei. prolongatum __. Lig OME IG 0 (PHONY pee ee Chowan dim sees a 2, sp. Secondarily eee tic cephalopods —........ Seelyoceras ——__...-....... Selkirkoceras septa septal septal septal wmnmeewayacnr . Wal RS 99, POMAMIEN es) PET OW eee) Nels, to ~ 102, 160, 508, 248, 102, 112, 113, septum ene bss septum, free part of -..... septum, mural part of sepium of truncation - Serpula marginata ... Shelbyoceras ---.-..--..- shell form i sheli morphology -...... shell pattern Shideleroceras gracile 31 200, SPT LGR ja a. aT sinuatum 27, 28, 29 197, 199, Shidelero< seratide ae sigmoid STS a Sigmoilina schlumber- geri cf. schlumberge: j enuis Sigmorthoceras Sinoeremoceras sinuses eek; Siphogenerina | advena —_ cf. raphanus _. siphon - siphonal Aa CSe St eas Moma aeee sipkhonal cecum siphonal mantle a siphonal vaseular sys- ‘tem Siphonina pulchra reticulata Siphoninella soluta siphuncele - Smithvilloceras Horites,: Sp. Le... Southgate _.—>.. Sphezrogypsina pilaris ERS cob be Spheroidina bulloides Spheroidina dehiscens _ dehiscens immatura Epheroidinella bulloides dehiscens - te dehiscens immatura Sphyradoceras ? anticos- tiense ae Spirillina aff. yivipara 3 Spiroloculina crenata __ MA UTOSsa: 8 2. 1 sy Ae poeyiana tenuis ds Spiroplectammina gra- men ze Spondylus bostrychites - Spyroceras a ROTO eek sete Seta ob hammelli t middlevillense a OlOTUB SS ee Baty 4p . 99; oy TG Fe eee, INDEX 168, 594, 199, 590, 102, 101, iW (c 214, “Spyroceras” “Spyroceras” Spyroceratidz able septum 1.) ee se st st anellus anticostiense beauportense : bilineatum-frankfor t- ense . eye ABS LST, calvini chambliense clathratum clintoni ferum geronticum Wictariann, See ey olorus paquettense DAT) ae perroti - : sp. . 4, 190, 196, sp. whitcombi _. PTE 187, StablevSubure yee ew st (ein St aufferoceras sublrigonale _. Lonoceras emtonoceratidz _ Stenosiphonata stenosiphonate mb ereoplasmoceratida stomach otrandoceras C¢ be iL soe tyriense treptoceras riatoceras SUk cao nae anitie Suborthochoa nilic cepha- Sabspyroceras Suecoceras Suecoceratidz lopeds inaequabile SaaS Ds suture Sy coceras tabule ; ar ta ta rphyce racone rphyeer raconic rphyceran Tarphyceras tar ta Teichertoceras tentacles 4 tontacular impressions . fe phycone rephyconie i : SLO; 99, 2yminal mantle Textularia agelatinana ity 749 barrettii candeana HOVIGAAy) Spe oe Polatemy 228 sd ees 216, 240, 511, 199, 99, 218 223 224 224 219 242 233 22. 231 236 230 220 224 223 233 , 242 221 225 155 115 115 , 470 , 472 , 160 155 213 153 , 254 101 516 516 316 618 124 245 215 162 184 189 156 113 316 127 106 105 105 108 107 105 512 103 103 101 45 16 21 21 45 VOLUME XXIX Textulariella barrettii obscuroliratum - 188 vy 165~ lB, 24 ? obscuroliratum 51 618, 619, 622 rhomboidalis : 47 rowene 61, 52, 192, 619, 620, 624 Feeley) Sepne ae EIR e edema Gig 05 tea turbidum transversia 21 51, 184, 191, 619, 620, 623, 626 EPOCONIS Seas 116. eD: Troostoceras : 597 Thornloe limestone, 1 new truncation shies, ei 150 formation name -...-... 519 Truncatulina candei 72 Thuleoceras Hi petehr 520 concentrica 72 Tinoporus Beas Lenuseyes 1 Te, ToODatay Aw. ce eeu, ae 72 {VCO A eat en AN EES ees Bee 99, 100 nucleata we. 22 73 Trepooceras. 0. A188. b98, 1600), juureeinctal Lee. 2 Ur, 88 albersi SE) 6M 189 pseudoungerina _ 74 (SUE he oe 194 rosea .......- 66 TQ ey ite ae eee me 201 soluta 61 perseptatum > ree ere 188 variabilis : 76 persiphonatum 188 Tryblidium madisonense 177, 587 pracnuntinmile, 2s 188 Tuyloceras 517, 532 ay SD: Pees Se 3s ESTO OZ Oe percurvatum 57, 532 transversum | Z 191 Tyrrelloceras striatum 581 SrOOStY - 2. 189 U Tretomphalus- atlanticus 20, 65 Prisealias ‘ay Saas Upper Saluda ....... ; 200 ana ee alia tS ol Uppers Whitewater beds - 200 carinata 18, 31 Uvigerina charltonz linneiana at sp Pet 18, 31 I, 175 oe linneiana caloosa- coartata Sale pS et st hatchkeensis) (2 3 eee 32 compressa uN, 51 quadrilateralis — Fo aeuaeS 18, 31 pigmea g 19, 51 transversestriata 13s sol proboscidea’ “vadescens tricarinata. - 28 aS 8. 82 14, 19, 51 Trinucleus limestone 523 raphanus liege 52 Tripleuroceras 298 cf. selseyensis 195 \ eb Tripteroceras 298, 299 Vv hastatum 302 planoconvexum 302 vacuosiphonate 150 richmondensis 179, 184 Vaginoceras 162 Tripterocerina ae 298, 300 eppletum 162 trochoceracone .......-...- 105 Vaginulina clavata £6, Lei iee trochocerany <2 105 REQUIMEM 1 Lew eb ed 16 Trochoceras .26.2...0 104, 108 ci. peregrina EM 18, 89 paver yess sce 178, 174, 184 Valcouroceras 249, 254, 418, 420 trochoceroid —...... ......105, 106, 150 Valcouroccraiide Trocholites ammonius ES Lib atiseelad 169, 248, 249, 294,417 eircularis Valvulina araucanaz 20, 57 174, 175, 177, 178, 188, 184 collis : 57 dyeri _... Bie od ata, 177, 184 pileolus) =~ 56 Pater st. ck eho eats seh 180, 189 Vassaroceras 159 minuseulus VDC ey vay eae 561 174, tes 177, 178, 184, 190 minutum yeti 2a 191 sp. ese eles) eT a lO Oe od ? minutum Aa 564 Trocholitide 171 russelli 11, 191, 561,562 Troedssonoceras seiberti Eb, 18, 191, 564 180, 598, 600, 617, 618 venter <7 150 baileyi ...04222........618, 619,'621 Verneulina mexicana LTenn2e multiliratum spinulosa : 49 51, 191, 619, 620, 625 Vertebralina, sp. 1 Lil oars ef. multiliratum _. 52, 192, 619, 627 Gyeredvoyezyt OLE ONS Se : 17 750 Virgulina mexicana - punctata eee. visceral ganglia . mass . BE RED SS Vulvulina ‘alata d mame ne ese Ww Walcottoceras —_.. 4 Waynesville formation _ Wanwanoceras ___. Westonoceras ? askerense URGCOnEFACHIM 2... deckeri ae eee EGC De Meese Ey ioe (CAE ES pia Se ES Dake, ba ees Tae AST ALS sf ee a ee JIA as Ae ast ne A oe manitobense minnesotense nelsonense ornatum ? ortoni UCU Yih oe es ? rallsense BO; ‘Bll, ? septentrionale Westonoceras, sp. BAS tumidum ____ ventricosum 1. Cee) , 182, Westonoceratide me ee Oe INDEX 46 Wetherbyoceras 14, 46 , 182, 426, 441, 99, 100 eonoidale 29 L182. 99 Whiteavesites 47 Whitewater formation 21 Whitfieldoceras 248, 252, 257, ? casteri 43, 159, 245 Winnipegoceras 5105 5 194 2, sp. 175 Woosteroceras Spe 512, 520 Z 523 Zitteloceras 321 beloitense 522 brevicurvatum 522 Vimo ae ee eee ee 522 Clarkeanumi-= 0 522 costatum 522 expansum 522 hallianum 522 hitzi 522 28, 182, 184, baat 201, 522 key to species fe ea meee, oLe lamellosunm A 522 lentidilatatum 28, 522 percurvatum __. : Bae perserpansura 22, 190,528 russelli 29, 194, 522 shideleri 28, 200, 190, 523 sinuatum 510, 519 williamsa 38, 751 End of Volume XXIX 474 , 442 , 258 196 , 259 , o14 535 159 404 407 407 406 407 408 407 407 416 409 , 405 , 413 408 , 415 , 409 7, 414 407 , 412 | { ] : ' i h ; { ee ai i ‘ J Ay wt : q i i ; " X : A Av wre. ' iy LN ‘ inh ee, iw Aga Mae Me i 4 f b4 ah hoe \ p ¥ ; aA 4 Oey : e : y ( { ay Ha Pa hy { Py ‘i ; Wied f KAS RD incncens WA ig ahd bt re ‘ / i b, : 4 een idan i. ; Ne a . ie ] ; i in | f are Poe T Mle f , Wi} f f i ; xy ’ ; f Ain OyTy Oe te i 1 i i AL aay i i) : euee | P rh ee \ ‘ ‘ cee i : , hue hit dee ‘ ray | ‘ anf ths ; ta a oy iy , ‘ f a Ny ee ry a A ore aa! rhiyay , Mant j on 4 oa / ea "f a) U4 ) ar sal } Me i yy vod na i iA hhh ‘i ; Ma Th ae | edit te f i} es Pe ay pi Lee f / Sogn i ay % ye fi oh ieee | vt ith ; <1 ’ ‘eR Awe i 1 | | . Pt iy " ooh ie) y an The eh vue ‘ ; ta ie ' } we N els j ‘ toe) | : j } { ay Rk DAE 5 AW ; ca DWE ie fl if Ba x mae eles > = = ‘ > ? ac he re es, ean a ‘ *, “ a. li teapot bent St a Pa - ane | ea Ty : * A ve , ; * . t HS 4 ? % A AY > ‘a it - ah ny I 2) ; ve , i ~2% 2 woh Ae af ee - oS it ie z EMCO, : DATE DUE 3 2044 066 wii | 50 WRK sane gta laene ma cae ed w ame ne Io Strate ‘P Peg isgey ort ait deaek. Ariba arse wrae hs meg ee ate nitrites en rs thee ih wth ee deg be shots ere ee eeriitlae RRB * sprint en batty ER E rer detente tari . ongies ARE Emel aig ee re a) wenigishene s phe kod Maen Ge hrheges oy! “eal 2 Ld Simteipnateen: Ciprarbes “ ren “ Shed oe bia Pern PE b petal ibiye gh oe fer 000 he ete rotah mate Petes HAE Pre reenunsedeheae! ita habe reuse bebe Nb * ee he ACPD b F ? AD; bel td pe wyeeen tank fel Me detprp:p sro pewehogedsntetrioh tiene sé ved ppellsher : dyed seh ST HOTBINE Me peer mened eee NAT bey donor's Piztenehearit in Ape bi bits RB avienweriaib te getinn meer trial pre eae eater ctr eet eer Petey OF ef me opener ave se Ole ‘ HOS deepen enegsieGa eRe de bal eet LAO Mime migra gre A TEED lee bien 1 OB He phelypimemerne rt rtihejian'¢ hs: Mri pal oven ed ahi renter ar eM veer reer ecrered tote | ‘ ‘ Be pe rir t AE TD eh Et , ad pee Shwe Rian tA tee ‘e P PP oh ei me dee ny satya! ; ; Keone epegeayi) Abdigers ‘w4 ‘ : ‘ Fie Leare nicl se nterat ode | eats + clef ‘ Carer ven “| Syecate poe * ter a 4st , ? 7 Ptieareccrry’ ‘ ; Py j ai aimee bear eeistee Maori ' ’ Ui eby arnedele sit toe i se ; 4 > bie. 4 ! Pe abgeee aide tertaete . 7 ' Aes t a t mtoree, 5 af «t ‘ ‘ ’ teins : te en 2 H ’ teed j 7 - ERceber ‘ , ¢<4 Hy ‘ . 44 4 ‘ : A ’ vee a ' oe wrerney Fa Si, ‘ het © 7 ® H , rn be SA Whe is wiuesk ty \ Wall eti alae els