DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

GEORGE OTIS SMITH, DIRECTOR 

PRO.l<'ESSIONAI, PAPER 58 

THE 

GUADALUPIAN FAUNA 

BY 

GEORGE H. GIRTY 

WASHINGTON 

GOVERNJUEN'r PRINTING OFFICE 

1908 

BUREAU OF MINES LIBRARY .............. --

CONTENTS. 

Introduction ....... __ ...... _._._. __ ...... _ ..... __ .. _ ... _ ... ____ .... _. _ .................... . 

Descriptions of species ..... _ ...... _ ...... __ .... __ . _ .. _ . __ .. _ .. _ .. __ .... _ .................. . 

Protozoa_ . _ ... _____ ... _ . _ ... ____ ...... _ ............. _ .. _ ....... -.................... - -

Foraminifera .. __ .. _ . . . ...... _ ...... __ ..... __ ... _ . ·_ ... _ ......... _ , ...... _ ........ . 

Spongi~oe. __ . _ ... ____ ...... __ .. _ ... _ ............. _ . _ ... __ ........ _ ... _ ........ _ ....... . 

Silicispongire .... _ .. _ .. __ ............... _ ........................... _ ............. _ 

Lithistida ... _ ....... __ .... -.. - -. - -. - - -..... -........... -. -..... - -.. -. -- -... -. -

Tetracladiua ..... _ ..... : ................ _ : ..... _ .... _ .. _ ..... _ ........... . 

Hexactinellida ............ _ ............. _ .... __ .. _ .. _ ...... __ ...... _. _ ... __ . _ .. 

Dictyouina ............ _ ............. _._ .......... _ ... _. ____ .... _. _ .. _. ___ .. 

Calcispougire ..................................................................... . 

Sycoues ....... _ . __ ·- ..... _ . _ . _ ..... _ .. ______ . ___ . __ . _ . _ . _________________ . ____ _ 

Ccelenterata ................................................... _ . ____ .... _ ... _ . __ ..... _ 

Tetracoralla ...... _ ..................................... _ ... _ . ____ ...... _ . _ . ____ . _ . _ 

Hexacoralla ...... _ ........... _ ...... _ .... _. _ .... ___ ..... _ ...... ___ .... ____ .... _ ... . 

Echinodermata ... _ ................................... _ ............................... . 

Cystoidea ....................... _ .... ___ .... · .. _ .. _ .. __ •... _._._ .. ____ .. ·. ____ ... _. __ . 

Echinoidea ................................................................ -........ . 

Vermes ............................................................................... . 

Mollus(;oidea .................... _ . ____ .... _ . _ ... _ .. _ ............ ~ __ ..... ___ ..... __ . __ _ 

Bryozoa .... _____ ...... ___ ._. ___ . ______ .. _. __________ . ________ . ____ . ______ ... _______ _ 

Brachiopoda ............................... _ ........................................ . 

Crauiidre. _ .. _ ... _ ............... _ ..................... _ ............. _. _. 

Strophomenidre .... __ ....... _ ..... __ .... ___ ...... _ ...... _ ..... __ .... ___ . 

Thecideidre ......... _ ...... _ ...... _ .... _. _ ............................ . 

Productidre .. , ...................................................... _ . 

Richthofeuiidre .............. _ ........... _ ............... __ ...... _ ... _ . 

Orthidre. __ . _ .... ___ .... __ ... _. __ ...... _ ........... _ . _ ..... __ .. _ .... _. _. 

Peutameridre .... __ .. _ .... _ ............................. _. .. _ . _ ....... _ .. ·. 

Rhynchouellidre ...................................................... . 

Terebratulidm ....................................................... _. 

Spiriferidre ............................................................ . 

Athyridre. _ ...... ____ .. ___ : . .. ____ ... _. _ ............. _ .... ___ .. _ .. __ .. . 

Retziidm. _ ..... ___ ...... _ ............. _ ......................... _. _ .. . 

Mollusca .. _ .............. : ............ -............. -. -. -.. - -..... -...... - - -.. -.. - . -... . 

Pelecypoda ................................................. _ ............. _ .... __ _ 

Scaphopoda ....................................... -...... -- ..... -...... -- ... -..... . 

Amphineura ............................................................. _. _. _ ... _. 

Gasteropoda ...................................... _ ......... _ ..... ___ .... __ ..... __ .. 

Cephalopoda ........... -......... -....... -............. - -.... - -.................... . 

Arthropoda .. _ ..................................... -...... -- ... -.----- .... -- ..• -- -.. -- .. 

Crustacea .. _ .................................................. -....... - ........... . 

Trilobita .................................. _ ............... _ ...... _ ...... _ ... _._ 

Ostracoda ............................ _ .... _· __ .. ___ ... ___ . ________ . ______ . _____ _ 

Register of localities ..................... -......................... --- .... -...... -......... . 

Plates IV-XXXI. ... · ... -.-.- .. ------.----------- .. --.-.------:--------------·- .. ---------. 

Index ....... _ .... - - - - - - - ----- - - --· - - - - - - -· · - - -· · · · - -· - -· - - - -· -· · : · · · -· · · · · -· · · · · · · · · · · · -· · 3 

Pag~. 

5 

56 

56 

56 

70 

71 

71 

71 

76 

76 

79 

79 

93 

97 

102 

105 

108 

110 

112 

112 

112 

156 

156 

156 

210 

216 

280 

286 

300 

304 

324 

339 

't383 

390 

399 

399 

449 

450 

451 

490 

503 

503 

505 

509 

511 

513 

627 
ILLUSTRATIONS. 

PLATE I. Map o[ Salt Basin and parts of the bounding ranges ................................. . 

II. View of Guadalupe Point, showing topographic and geologic features ................ _. 

III. A, B, Two views of Guadalupe Point ............................................. . 

IV. Fossils: Miscellaneous; Capitan formation, Guadalupe Mountains ............ _ ....... . 

V. Fossils: Capitan formation, Guadalupe Mountains ..................... _ ............ . 

VI. Fossils: Capitan formation, Guadalupe Mountains .............. _ .... _._._. __ ... __ .. . 

VII. Fossils: Capitan formation, Guadalupe Mountains ................... _ .............. . 

VIII. Fossils: Capitan formation, Guadalupe Mountains .................................. . 

IX. Fossils: Capitan formation, Guadalupe Mountains ....................... __ ........ _. 

X. Fossils: Capitan formation, Guadalupe Mountains .................................. . 

XI. Fossils: Capitan formation, Guadalupe Mountains ................. _ ... _ .... _ .. _._ .. . 

XII. Fossils: Capitan formation, Guadalupe Mountains .................................. . 

XIII. Fossils: Capitan formation, Guadalupe Mountains ................... _ .... , .... _._ .. . 

XIV. Fossils: Capitan formation, Guadalupe Mountains ............................. _ ... · .. 

XV. Fossils: Capitan formation, Guadalupe Mountains ......•.•........ _ ..... _ ... _._ .... . 

XVI. Fossils: Capitan formation and "dark limestone,'' Guadalupe Mountains ..... _ ...... . 

XVII. Fossils: "Dark limestone," Guadalupe Mountains ... : .............................. . 

XVIII. Fossils: "Dark limestone,'' Guadalupe Mountains .................................. . 

XIX. Fossils: "Dark limestone," Guadalupe Mountains .................................. . 

XX. Fossils: "Dark limestone," Guadalupe Mountains ............................. _ ... .. 

XXI. Fossils: 11 Dark limestone" and Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Mountains. 

XXII. Fossils: Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Mountains ....................... . 

XXIII. Fossils: Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Mountains ..... · .................. . 

XXIV. Fossils: Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Mountains .............................. . 

XXV. Fossils: Basal black limestone and Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Mountains; Delaware Mountain formation, D.iablo Mountains ........................... . 

XXVI. Fossils: Delaware Mountain formation, Diablo Mountains .......................... . 

XXVII. ·Fossils: Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains ................ . 

XXVIII. Fossils: Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains ................ . 

XXIX. Fossils: Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains ................ . 

XXX. Fossils: Delaware Mountain formation, Glass Mountains ............................. . 

XXXI. Fossils: Delaware Mountain formation, Glass Mountains ............................. . 

4 

Page. 

6 

8 

12 

516 

520 

524 

526 

530 

534 

538 

542 

546 

550 

554 

558 

564 

568 

572 

576 

578 

582 

588 

592 

598 

602 

606 

608 

612 

616 

620 

624 
THE GUADALUPIAN ~FAUNA. 

By GJWHGE H. GIRTY. 

TNTRODUCT lON. 

The first descriptions of the Guadalupian fauna· were publlshed nearly fifty 

years ago. This early account of Shumard's was meager enough, but gave promise 

of a facies interesting and novel a"nwng the known Carboniferous faunas of North 

America. The following pages add largely to our knowledge of Guadalupian life, 

and I believe more than make good any promise contained in the previous account. 

Nevertheless, even the collections of the Guadalupian fauna here described fail to 

do justice to its richness and diversity, and the present report is completed with 

the hope of returning to the subject after another visit to the Guadalupe 

Mountains. 

Although a description of this range and the adjacent region can be found elsewhere, a repetition of the more important facts will conduce to a better understanding 

of the geologic relations of the fauna described herein and will serve to illustrate the 

references to localities and horizons necessarily involved in the paleontologic 

discussion. 

. The Guadalupe Mountains are situated chiefly in southeastern New Mexico, but 

extend across the border for a short distance into the trans-Pecos region of Texas. 

Save only for this southern extreme both their geology and their topography are 

practically unknown, and it should be understood that anything hereafter said of 

them relates only to that portion. 

These mountains form a north-south range of considerable height, which rises 

abruptly from an arid and treeless plain, stretching westward to more mountainous 

elevations, the Cornudas Mountains and the Sierra Tinaja Pinta. This plain is 

locally known as Crow Flats and forms a part of the Salt Basin (Pl. I). It is now 

used as cattle ranges, water being raised by windmills. The only permanent surface 

water consists of salt lakes-broad, shallow po9ls incrusted with saline deposits, 

which in the early days were extensively sought for domestic use. This water is of 

5 
6 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

course unfit for consumption, but cattle seem as a rule not to mind the less highly 

impregnated waters brought up by the pumps. These vary considerably in the 

amount and character of their saline contents, but even the best is unsatisfactory for 

human use. · 

On the east side, from the foot of the mountains the land slopes gradually 

eastward and merges with the plains of Texas. There are springs of sweet water and 

perennial streams on this side of the range, such streams being in this region, as a 

rule, associated only with the highest mountains. Usually the canyons and sandy 

channels serve merely to carry off the occasional·torrential rains, and this is the case 

for the most part even with the perennial streams, which almost immediately on 

striking into the plain are drunk up by the soil. Beyond their debouchure from the 

mountains their course is merely a dry sandy channel. There are, however, flowing 

streams east of the Guadalupes, one such being Delaware River. In seasons of rain 

this watercourse is formed by the confluence of numerous small tributaries-some 

leading back into the mountains-which pour their sudden waters through channels 

usually dry; but the source of the perennial stream seems to be a very definite point 

situated some distance east of the Guadalupes and generally referred to as the 

"headwaters of the Delaware." This expression would naturally be taken to have 

a more general significance, but Shumard uses it, I believe, in this local sense, and as 

it is often difficult to fix references to local geography it seems desirable to make the 

present record of the fact. At this point, which is also known as Huhling's ranch, 

three springs, one of them strongly charged with sulphur, break out close together 

in the bed of the Delaware, which below this point is a permanent watercourse. 

The Guadalupe Mountains are formed by uplifted strata, consisting of a thick 

limestone series above and a thick sandstone series below. The abrupt termination 

of the limestone in an almost sheer precipice of practically its entire thickness not far 

south of the New Mexico border marks the termination of the formation and of the 

Guadalupe Mountains proper. The sandstone, however, continues southward, 

forming a westward-facing escarpment, which with the adjacent foothills and outliers 

is known as the Delaware Mountains. 

The southern branch of the old Santa Fe trail passed up Delaware River and 

close around the base of Guadalupe Point, as the abrupt, precipitous Lermination of 

the range is commonly designated. The ruined walls of a blockhouse situated near 

the mouth of Pine Spring Canyon bear witness to the days when a stage route passed 

this way. Now, however, the· trail has been long unused, and heavy washouts have 

rendered it in places impassable, so that a traveler approaching from the west would 

be compelled to make a considerable detour to the south if, as in our own case, he 

was necessarily hampered by wagons. After again coming nearly abreast of Guadalupe Point the road passes up Guadalupe Canyon (Pl. II), which penetrates the 

mountains in a direction nearly north and south and contains toward its head a little 

spring called Guadalupe Spring. Before reaching the spring, however, the trail turns 

to the east and, rising to the level of the plateau by a short though steep ascent, . 

extends northward past the ruined caravansary which stands at the mouth of Pine 

Spring Canyon. This canyon is situated almost on the flank of El Capitan, the spur 

which bounds it on the south forming the most satisfactory if not the only avenue of 
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER NO. 58 PL I 

I r 

I 

) 

I 

\ 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

--------~~.- 1 0 :;0 ----------------------------------------~~~----~31 104°30' 

5 o 5 10 15miles 

S=~~====~==~==== 

MAP OF SALT BASIN AND PARTS OF THE BOUNDING RANGES. 
INTRODUCTION, 7 

ascent to that peak. Near this spring was the site once, probably in the old staging 

days, of an encampment of regulars, evidences of whose occupancy are not rare-a 

brass button or an empty cartridge being the least frequently found. Nearly every 

adjacent peak is surmounted by a cairn, probably raised by their hands, while on an 

eminence near by, from which a sweeping view can be had across the eastward plain, 

a number of small tumuli, containing, it is said, only ashes, appear to mark the stands 

of outposts or sentries. A hint of the occasion for the presence of troops at this point 

is furnished by a stone erected beside the road in Guadalupe Canyon, which bears 

a date somewhere in the early sixties, I believe, and above two crossed arrows an 

inscription commemorating the death of a Mexican guide at the hands of Indians. 

The party to which I belonged camped at Pine Spring, and during the eleven 

days of our stay were made the different trips that furnished the collections on 

which the present report is principally based. The other collections from the 

. Guadalupe Mountains included in this report are comparatively unimportant, but, 

on the other hand, I am entirely indebted to my colleagues for valuable collections 

from other areas. 

In view of the highly fossiliferous character of some of the strata, our. collections, though considerable, are less extensive than would be expected if the fruits 

of eleven days' work in some other fields were used as a standard. Owing to the 

height and steepness of the mountains themselves and the broken character of the 

country at their base, it is in many places no easy matter to reach points comparatively near by, and 'it will probably be necessary for those who purpose to visit the 

Guadalupe Mountains with the intention of collecting fossils to calculate on expending more than the usual time and labor. 

The lowest beds in the Guadalupe section are limestones, very black in color 

and formed in rather thin and even beds. These are exposed in some dry canyons 

south of Guadalupe Point to a thickness of perhaps 200 feet, the base not being 

seen. These iimestones are succeeded by a heavy series of variable beds, chiefly of 

sandstone. There are also. strata of calcareous sandstone, of dark shale, and of 

dark- and light-colored limestone. The conditions of deposition appear to have 

been fluctuating, not only vertically but laterally, prominent beds of sandstone 

seen in cliff sections dying out and appearing with rather remarkable abruptness. 

Including the black limestone, this portion of thesection was found by Richardson 

to attain a thickness of about 2,225 feet, and he gave it the name Delaware Mountain formation. A bed of dark limestone above the sandstones and below the white 

limestone deserves especial mention because of references in the literature to it 

and because of the distinctive fauna which it contains. The succeeding formation, 

called by Richardson the Capitan limestone, consists of massive limestone measuring about 1,800 feet in thickness. The color of these beds is in general white, but 

they are in places tinged with red and yellow. Much of the rock is a pure limestone, 

but at least one considerable stratum is dolomitic, having the structure of pisolite; 

and other beds, especially in the lower part, have a sandy texture, which may be 

due to the same cause. 

The Guadalupe Mountains are a structural range with a precipitous western 

escarpment which has been ascribed to faulting, but which at its southern extremity, 
8 TilE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

as Richardson has shown, can be explained as an unsymmetrical broken fold. At 

all events, in the main range the beds dip to the east at a rather high angle, their 

abrupt termination on the west forming the mountain's side in that direction. It 

must not be thought, however, that the Guadalupe Mountains are, like the Delawares, really a plateau with a gradual descent toward the Pecos from a level near the 

top of the Capitan limestone. On the contrary, the eastern slopes are difficult and 

rugged. Erosion in this direction has cut away the Capitan and part of the Delaware Mountain formation, and the present surface of the plateau at Guadalupe 

Pass is formed, loc.ally at least, by a bed of limestone, such as has already been 

mentioned, occurring about two-thirds of the way up in the Delaware Mountain 

formation. · 

In its eastern spread the Capitan limestone has been limited by erosion, and 

probably owing to the same cause its southern extension abruptly terminates in a 

bare and lofty crag. Mounted as it is upon the entire thickness of the Delaware 

Mountain formation, this bold headland has an appearance singularly monumental. 

It is known pretty generally as Guadalupe Point or Guadalupe Peak. Although 

the most imposing, this is not the highest point of the range, for just beyond it to 

the north rises another which overlooks it. 'l'his peak has been called El Capitan, 

and I have, when called on to refer to it, retained this name, which is further perpetuated in the Capitan limestone (Pis. II, III). 

Owing to the conditions of structure and erosion above described, the general 

level on the west side of the fold and fault, where the streams sb'ow several hundred 

feet of the basal black limestone, is lower than on the east, where erosion has cut 

down only part way through the overlying sandstones. While the Capitan limestone terminates precipitously at Guadalupe Point, these sandstones continue in a 

long southward extension, their westward-facing escarpment being lmown as the 

Delaware Mountains, from which drcumstance they have received the name of the 

Delaware Mountain formation. West of the Delawares and some distance south 

of Guadalupe Point rise the Diablo Mountains, formed by an elevated block of the 

Hueco formation, t() which reference ~'ill be made later. 

The first accoun,ts of the geology and paleontology of the Guadalupe Mountains 

were published by the two Shumards in 1859 and 1860.a As geologist of the expedition under Captain Pope, dispatched to discover artesian waters in the arid lands 

of tne Southwest, George G. Shumard obtained some collections of fossils from the 

south end of the Guadalupes, which'were subsequently described by his brother. 

Shumard docs not give a clear account of the structure of the Guadalupe Mountains, 

but his section is as follows: b 

Section of Guadalupe Mountains (Shumard). 

1. Upper or white limestone ............................... ______ ... ______ ... _. ___ .. __ 

2. Dark-colored, thinly laminated, and foliated limestone ............... : ............... . 

3. Yellow quartzose sandstone .................... ____ ................................ . 

4. Black, thin-bedded limestone ..... __ .. __ ._ .. ___ .................... _ ............... . 

Feet. 

1,000 

50- 100 

1,20Q-1,500 

500 

a Trans. St. Louis Acad. Sci., vo!. 1, 185&-1860, pp. 273-297, ~87-403. b Idem, p. 280. 

,, 
U. 8. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER NO. 58 PL II 

GUADALUPE POINT, EAST SIDE, VIEW NORTH UP GUADALUPE CANYON . 

The massive crag exposes 1,200 feet of the Cap itan formation ; the softer beds be low are the Delaware Mountain formation. (From a photograph by R. T. Hill.) 
INTRODUCTION, 

The sequence of the formations in this region is obvious and in the more recent 

accounts remains practically as described by Shumard, although more accurate. 

measurements have since been made, the upper limestone and the sandstone proving 

to be even thicker than indicated by him, while no subsequent observer has reported 

so much of the basal black limestone. Fossils were obtained from the three upper 

members of Shumard's section, those from the two limestones being later 

described by B. F. Shumard and proving to have each a rather distinct facies. The 

two formations were distinguished ~ the paleontologic account as the "dark lime~ 

stone" (bed 2) and the "white limestone" (bed 1). Apparently the "white limestone," 'the "da~k limestone," and the sandstone were regarded by Shumard as 

belonging in the Permian. 

For many years after Pope's expedition this immediate region does not figure 

in geologic literature, although one of the main routes of travel, the Santa Fe trail, 

passed around Guadalupe Point. 

The next observer on record is R. S. Tarr, who in 1892 published a paper in 

which he describes the geology of the southern part of the Guadalupes.a This author 

gives the fo_llowing section as measured at the point of the mountains (Guadalupe 

Point) :b 

Sectio71; at Guadalupe Point ( Tarr). 

1. Upper or white limestone ......................................................... . 

2. Dark-colored limestone ........................................................... . 

3. Yellow clayey sandstone, with numerous bands of black and white limestone ........ . 

4. Black limestone, shale, and slate ................................................... . 

Feet. 

1,200-1,500 

50 

1,200 

200 

A detailed section partly through the white limestone at McKitterick Canyon is 

also given by Tarr. He clearly states the monoclinal structure of the range and 

describes its precipitous western scarp as probably due to faulting. His tentative 

conclusions regarding the correlation of the Guadalupian section with that of central 

Texas is supported by too little and opposed by too much evidence to warrant adoption. He found that there was nothing in the Guadalupian section to correspond 

lithologically with the Permian ("Red Beds") of Texas, and concluded that the 

Guadalupian section lay below the Permian and was probably of the age of the "Upper 

Coal Measures" of Texas. and the Mississippi Valley. In view of the completely 

different fauna of the Guadalupian, this question must still be regarded as unsettled. 

Some time later R. T. Hill visited this region, but he has not yet published an 

account of his observations. The year following (1901) B. F. Hill and I made a trip 

as nearly as possible over Shumard's old routE:\, but from the west eastward, and 

therefore in an opposite direction. The present work is a final report of that trip, 

being an amplification of the short paper which I wrote at that time on the geology 

and paleontology of the Guadalupes.c Meanwhile G. B. Richardson has made a 

general reconnaissance of the Guadalupe Mountains and adjacent regions, and to his 

a Dull GeoL Survey Texas No.3, 1892, pp. 9-39. 

b Idem, p. 29. 

cAm. Jour. Sci., 4th ser., voL 14, 1902, pp. 363-368. 

BUREAU OF MINES LIBRARY 

· DENVER 
10 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

account a the reader should refer for more' authoritative information regarding points 

here only lightly touched. 

In my brochure 6f 1902 the thickness of the upper limestone, including Shumard's" dark limestone," was given at 1,700 to 1,800 feet, that of the underlying sandstone as 2,000 to 2,500 feet, and that of the basal black limestone as 500 feet exposed. 

The chief point made was in relation to the faunas, which were shown to be very different frorri anything known elsewhere in America. On this account" Guadalupian" 

was introduced as a regional term, provisionally to include the entire rock series 

exposed near Guadalupe Point, but more specifically centering about the upper portion, the white and the dark limestones. Note was also made of, the resemblance 

of the GU:adalupian fauna to certain faunas of Asia and Europe. 

Although Richardson made only a reconnaissance, his report on the region under 

consideration is the most accurate and colilplete which we yet have, for the formations were described and mapped over an extensive area. The highest member of 

the series he named the Capitan limestone and the underlying beds the Delaware 

Mountain formation. The latter name includes both Shumard's "dark limestone," 

the great sandstone series, and the bas~l black limestone. Richardson st.ates that in 

view of the small extent of the black limestone in the area mapped (it is exposed only 

in the immediate vicinity of Guadalupe Point), it W(l.S thought best for the time being 

to regard it as a member of the Delaware Mountain formation rather than as a distinct formation. The fauna of this bed, however, at present appears to have a rather 

distinctive facies and is kept separate in this report. With somewhat less reason the 

upper limestone of the Delaware Mountain formation (Shumard's" dark limestone") 

has been distinguished from the main body of the formation, which in the vicinity of 

Guadalupe Point consists chiefly of sandstone. The fauna of this upper limestone 

appears to have a rather well-marked facies, while lithologically in this immediate 

region the lime~tone is distinguishable both from the sandstone below and from the 

Capitan limestone above. Furthermore, for the purpose of correlating my horizons 

with Shumard's, it is desirable to recognize this zone; and it is as yet a little uncertain 

whether the fauna is more closely related to that of the· Capitan or that of the Delaware Mountain sandstone. Accordingly, in the Guadalupian section I distinguish 

the basal blaqk limestone, the Delaware Mountain format~on, the "dark limestone," 

and the Capitan limestone, all but the last being comprised in the original Delaware 

Mountain formation. The basal black limestone, however, is not known t<;> occur 

elsewhere than in the vicinity of Guadalupe Point., while in the southern Delawares 

the "dark limestone" can not be recognized as a separate member. In this connection I may recall that Richardson's observations indicate that, whereas in the vicinity 

of Guadalupe Point the sandstones•greatly predominate in the Delaware Mountain 

formation, these rocks become largely replaced by gray limestones to the south. 

In point of thickness Richardson found that only 200 feet of the basal black 

limestone are exposed. At its greatest exposure the Delaware Mountain formation 

ranged to about 2,300 feet, but its base was there concealed by the Salt Basin depos-

-its. At Guadalupe Point he measured 2,025 feet exclusive of the basal black limea Bull. Univ. Texas Min. Survey No.9, November, 1904,119 pp., 11 pis. 
INTRODUCTION, 11 

stone. The Capitan limestone he gives at 1,700+ feet at the scerp of Guadalupe 

Point; our own measurement was 1,800 feet to the top of the still higher peak, El 

Capitan (Pl. III). . 

As to structure, Richardson's conclusions seem to be that the uplift was a fold 

in the southern part of the field visited by him, passing into a fault in the northern 

part, the zone of transition apparently occurring in the vicinity of Guadalupe Point. 

Since the scheme of mapping employed by the Survey demands that the Guadalupian series be called categorically either "Permian" or" Pennsylvanian," it seemed 

best to refer it to the Permian, because of the very different and at the same time 

younger facies of the faunas, even that of the basal black limestone, as compared 

with the Pennsylvanian of the Mississippi Valley region, and because the underlying 

Hueco formation has a fauna more nearly comparable to that of the Russian 

Gschelstufe, which underlies the Russian Artinsk and Permian. 

Neither Richardson nor any other observer has determined what immediately 

precedes or immediately follows the Guadalupian series, and this remains one of 

the important problems awaiting investigation in this region. It is true, Tarr says 

that above the massive limestone is another series of limestones and sandstones 

which are found only on the highest points in Texas, but which farther to the north, 

in New Mexico, are well. developed and form the bulk of the mountains. He made 

no section of these beds, but states that they can not be less than 1,000 feet in 

thickness,a and agairi: "The total section exposed in the Guadalupes, approximately stated, can not be less than 4,000 feet, including the New Mexico series, 

which exist above the white limestone." a I do not know what rocks are intended 

by tlus indefinite statement. The Capitan limestone is not lmown in Texas, so far 

asi am aware, save in the Guadalupe Mountains and the foothills adjacent, where 

no overlying series is exposed. It must of necessity extend northward into New 

Mexico, unless faulted out, but all our faunas from New Mexico, so far as I have 

examined them, show an altogether different facies, one more suggestive of the beds 

which there is every reason to believe really lie below the Guadalupian. 

The formation underlying the GuadaJupian is the Hueco. The typical exposures 

of this formation are in the Hueco Mountains and the higher beds are uplifted to the 

east in the Cornudas Mountains and the Sierra Tinaja Pinta. Still farther east the 

Hueco beds are concealed by the Salt Basin deposits, and in the Guadalupe Mountains we have an altogether different series, even the basal member of the Guadalupian having a fauna widely different from that in any zone of the Hueconian. 

The structur:~ in the vicinity of the Guadalupe Mountains, the stratigraphic relations 

of the Hue·co beds with underlying formations, and the biological character and 

relations of the Guadalupian fauna all point to the position of the Guadalupian series 

as overlying the Hueco formation. By how large an interval the highest known 

exposures of the Hueco are separated from the lowest known exposures of the 

Guadalupian can not be told, but at present it is not supposed to be great. 

We owe our first account of the Guadalupian fauna to B. F. Shumard, one or two 

of the bryozoan forms having, however, been turned over for description to Prout. 

a Bull. Geol. Survey Texas No.3, 1892, p. 31. 
12 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

The following table shows the species cited by Shumard and the names under which 

they appear in the present report: 

Fossils from Guadalnpe ~Monntains deseribed by B. F. Shnmard. 

Shumard's list.n Equivalents in the present report. 

~------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- Chaetetes maekrothii Geinitz ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Undetermined, possibly Leioclema shumardi. 

Chaetetes sp. ? ........•.............. Campophyllum? texan urn n. sp ........ . 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U nuetermined, possibly Fistulipora grand is var. americana. 

Campophyllum texanum? 

Polycoclia ? .................................................. . Lindstrcemia penniana. 

Phillipsia pcrannulata Shumard....... . .................. . nairdia sp. ? . • • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... . Fcncstella popeana Prout ....•............................... Acanthocladia americana Swallow ........................... . Fusulina elongata Shumard. ____ ... _ ........................ _ Productus calhounianus Swallow ............................ . 

A nisopyge perannulata. 

Not recognized. 

Not recognized; see Fen estella popoana. 

Probably Acanthocladia guadalup<msis. Fusulina clongata. 

Undetermined; possibly Prodnctus semireticulatus var. capitanensis. Product us mexican us Shumard ....... __ ..... _.... . . . . . . . . .. . . Not recognize(]. Productus pileolus Shumard.................................. l'roductus ? pileolus. 

Productus semireticulatus var. antiquatus Martin ........ _.. Probably ..Productus setnireticulatus vn.r. eapitanensis. Productus popei Shumard ........... _ ..................... _.. Productus popei. Prodnctus norwoodi Swallow ................................. Not recognized. l'roductus leplayi ? Verneuil. _: .......................... _.... Possibly l'roductus semireticulatus v1tr. capitaneusis. Strophalosia (Aulosteges) guadalupensis Sbumaru .......... , Aulostcgcs gnadalupensis. Chonetes permiana n. sp .............. __ . _. _.................. Chonetes permian us. Chonetes !lemingi ? Norwood and Pratten ....... _... .. . . .. . . Probably Chonetes hillanus. 

Spirifer mexican us Shun1ard .... _ ............................. Spirifer mexicanus. 

Sptrifer guadalupensis n. sp ........ _ .... _ .......... ~ ...... _.. Squamularia guadalupensis. 

Spirifer sulciferus Shumard ............................. _ ..... Not recognized; see Spirifcr sulci fer. 

Spirifer camcratus Morton ........ __ ......................... _ Spirifer sp. b. 

S pinferma billingsi Shumard ..... _ ..... _ .. __ ....... . . . . . . . . . . Spiriferina billingsi. 

Terebratula elongata Schlotheim .................. _.......... Possibly Dielasma spatula tum. Terebratula per in !lata n. sp ........ _ ........................ ·\ Not rccogn~zed; see Dielasmina perinflata. Rhynchonella guadalupae Shumard._._ .... _ ..... _........... Not recogmzcd; see Rhyncbonella guadalupro. Rhynchonella indentata n. sp ......... _ ...... _ ... _ ......... _. RhynchoneUa indentatv .. Rhynchonc!la texana n. sp •••.•....................... _ .. _.. . Not re,cognized; see Rhyncbonclla texana. Hhynchonella sp. ? ............... _ .... _ ............... _ ...... Not recognized. Camerophoria bisu!cata Shumard .............. _ ........... _. l'ugnax bisulcata. 

Camerophoria swalloviana n. sp ..................... _ .... _ ... Pugnax swallowiana. 

Camero phoria schlotheimi? Buell ..... _. _ .............. _.... . . Not recognized. Retzia papillata Shumard .................................... IIustedia papillata. Retzia rneekiana Shumard ...... __ ............................ Hustedia meekana. 

Streptorhynchus (Orthisina) shumardianus Swallow ........ Not recognized. Orthisina sp. ? ............................. _ ... _.............. Probably Ortbotctcs guadalupensis. Crania penniana n. sp ............................ _. _ .. _...... Richthofenia permiana. Myalina squamosa Sow ....................................... Probably Myalina squamosal Myalina recta Shumard ..................... _ .......... _ ...... Not recognized. Pleurophorus occidentalis Meek and Hayden ..... _._ .... _ .... Not recognized. 

Mono tis speluncaria Schlotheim........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not recognized. 

Mono tis sp. ? . . . .. . • • .. . . .. .. . .. .. .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . Not recognized. Axinus sccurus n. sp. _ ....... __ ............................... Schizodus securus. Edmondia semiorbiculata Swallow ........................... Not recognized. Cardiomorpha sp. ? ... _ ................... _ ................... Not recognized. Turbo guadalupensis n. sp .. _ ....................... _ ......... Not recognized; see Turbo guadalupensis. 'l'urbo helicinus ? Schlotheim .................... , ........ _. __ Not recognized. Straparollus sp. ? .. _ ...................... .' ...... _ ! . .......... Not recognized. BeUerophon sp. ? ........... _ ....................... _ ......... Not recognized. l'leurotomaria halliarm n. sp ......... _ ............... _ ...... _ Not recognized; see Euconospira halliana. 

Chemnitzia swalloviana n. sp ............. _ ... __ . __ .... . . . . . . . Zygopleura swallowiana. 

Nautilus sp. ? ................................................ _ Not re,cognized. Orthoceras sp. ? .............................................. Notrccogniwd. 

a Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, vol. 1, 1859, p. 387. 

Shumard recognized 54 species among the fossils collected at that time, 26 of 

which were described as new. As based on recent collections made in the Guadalupe 

Mountains and adjacent regions the Guadalupian fauna now known contains 326 

forms, and the resources of the fauna at present appear to be almost inexhaustible. 

Collections which did justice to its richness and importance would greatly enhance 

the number distinguished in this report. The 326 forms at present constituting the 

Guadalupian fauna belong to the different zoological groups in the following quotas. 
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PA0 ER NO. 58 PL. Ill 

A. GUADALUPE POINT FROM A GREATER DISTANCE AND MORE DIRECTLY FR O~ THE SOUTH . 

The Delaware Mountain formation is well shown underlyi ng the massive Capitan limestone. ( FrOm a photograph by 

G. B. Richardson .) 

B. GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS FROM THE WEST. 

In the foreground are the salt deposits of the Salt Basin, from which rises the bokl profile of the range, At the right is 

the prec ipitous front of Guadalupe Point 1 and back of it the loftier summit of El Capitan. ( From a photograph by 

G. B. Richard•cn.) 
I 

INTRODUCTION. 13 

Zoological groups represented in the Guadalupianjo:una. 

Species. Species. 

Protozoa. ______ . _________ . __ .. _. ___________ . 9 Pelecypods. __ . _________ . ___ . ____ . _________ . 45 

Sponges. ____________ . ____________ .__________ 24 Scaphopods. ____ . _____ . __ .. ____ . ______ . __ . _ 1 

Ccelenteratcs ______ . _. __ ... _. ____________ ~ _ _ 10 Amphineura .... __ . ___ . __ ._. __ . _______ .______ 1 

Echinoderms. ___________ .. __ ._._.___________ 7 Gasteropods. ____ . ___ . _. __ . _. ___ . ___ .. _. _ _ _ _ 42 

Vermes_ ..... _ .. _ .. _ .. ___ .. _ ..... ____ ....... _ l Cephalopods .. ____ ... _ ..... ___ .. _ ...... ___ . _ . 9 

Bryozoa._ .. __ .. _ .... _____ ....... ____ ._ .. _.. 44 Crustacea ......... _. __ ..... __ . ___ .... _. ___ ._. 5 

Brachiopods._._._ .. __ ... -... _ ........... __ ... 128 / 

326 

As shown by this list the Guadalupian fauna manifests an unusually symmetrical 

development, for while it is true that the brachiopods predominate, the other groups 

also are represented in a proportion which is seldom equaled. It is also an extremely rich fauna, for it should be borne in mind that our collections are not exceedingly extensive. In few other regions would an equal amount of material have furnished so great a variety of species, a fact due in part no doubt to the unusual thickness of the Guadalupian section. -

The Guadalupian speCies are mostly small as compared with those. of other 

regions and with the average in the groups to. which they belong. An exception, 

striking because of its isolation and degree, is found in Fusulina elongata, one of the 

most abundant and char~cteristic Guadalupian species and probably the largest 

Fusulina that science has yet brought to notice. Aside from this, the Foraminifera 

are rather poorly represented in comparison with some late Paleozoic faunas, though 

they are probably less completely studied than any of the other groups. 

The sponges, if certain peculiar forms be allowed to remain under that designation, are, on the other hand, unusually abundant and varied, developing some novel 

and characteristic types of structure. · 

Ccelenterates are more rare, small, and poorly differentiated. The absence of 

forms like Lonsdaleia, Michelinia, and the stromatoporoids, such as are found in some 

of the Asiatic faunas, is worthy of note, as is also the presence of Oladopora, which 

is a rather characteristic fossil of some of the lower beds. On the whole, however, 

the ccelenterate fauna is rather meager and colorless. 

Echinoderms are rare, the most noticeable being a new genus of cystidians. The 

presence of crinoid stems, however, shows that the true crinoids, such as occur in 

some of the related faunas, are present, though none of the heads have been found. 

Except for one or two types the Bryozoa are rather scanty, and contain little 

that is striking or highly novel. The series of forms which I have assembled under 

Domopora is so important an exception to this statement, however, as almost to contradict it. These forms, which find their closest allies apparently in the Mesozoic, 

rather than in the Paleozoic, occur nowhere, so far as I have been able to discover, 

except in the trans-Pecos region. They form one of the most abundant and one of 

the most characteristic features of the Guadalupian bryozoan fauna. Acanthocladia guadalupensis is equally abundant but less peculiar. 

Among the Brachiopoda, which demand a somewhat mote detailed consideration than the other groups, the strophomenoids show an unusual generic differentiation, in which the presence of the rare genus Geyerella and of several species of Streptorhynchus is noteworthy. Orthotetes guadalupensis, a characteristic species of the 
14 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

Capitan, is likewise a unique type. The presence of Richthofenia and Leptodus also· 

forms a novel and important feature of the Guadalupian fauna. 

The Productidre, while fairly numerous, are not so highly differentiated as in 

many other faunas. We note the comparative absence of large species of the semireticulatus group, and the entire absence of thefimbriati, a group which includes such 

common forms as Productus punctatus, P. humboldti, or our own P. nebraskensis. 

No forms related toP. horridus of the European Permian have been brought to light, 

while the JJ1.arginifera group also appears to be wanting. There are a few singular 

types, such as P. l:imbatus, P. pileolus, etc., while the development in the ''dark 

limestone'' of a group of small, strongly arched shells with deep sinus, of the general 

type of P. semireticulatus, though with more or less faint ribs and wrinkles, may be 

mentioned; but as a rule the Chonetes and Producti do not stand out in strong·relief . 

.Aulosteges, however, is rather remarkably differentiated, though I have not found it 

in any abundance. 

The Orthis group is rarely encountered. No other type is yet known than 

Enteletes, and with one exception the species all belong to the ventrisinuate group. 

The dorsisinuati, which develop such peculiar species in the faunas of India .and the 

Carnic Alps, are represented by only one imperfect specimen. In the upper beds of 

the Guadalupian (Capitan formation) this group appears to be absent. 

Compared with some faunas the Pentameridre are p~rly represented. To some 

extent this is true of the Rhynchonellidre also, since they present less variety, both in 

species and genera, than, for example, the Salt Range faunas. In the group of Pugnax bisulcata, however, the Guadalupian possesses a feature which is both character-:-

istic and abundant. The absence of Uncinulus, Terebrat1tloidea, Rhynchopora, etc., 

may here be noted. , 

The Terebratulidre are highly differentiated and present at least one new generic 

type. 

The Spiriferidre are represented by a number of genera, but show less variety in 

their specific representation. In the genus Spirijer especially we miss group after 

group which is found in faunas more or less related, the representation being 

restricted practically to Spirijer mexicanus and its allies. 'l'he Spiriferinas, on the 

contrary, show a high differentiation. Many of the species belong to the group of 

S. billingsi, which is rather characteristic of the Guadalupian. S. welleri is also a 

marked species. · 

The Athyridre and the Retziidm call for little comment. Like .Ambocmlia, 

Oomposita is rather an American genus, though not exclusively so, and it is also 

rather abundant in the Guadalupian fauna, where it is represented by a novel and 

interesting type. The absence of Oleiothyridina is perhaps deserving of mention. 

The remaining groups may be passed over with less comment, for while not 

meanly developed they show few peculiarities of note. Among the pelecypods a 

unique Guadalupian type is the group of speeies referred to the genus Camptonectes, 

which seems to have an analogue nowhere else in the Carboniferous, so far as I have 

.discovered. The remainder of the Guadalupian pelecypods, while new in their 

speei:fic characters, are more like the generality of Carboniferous faunas .. The 

Pterias seem to be unusually differentiated, and we notice the absence or rarity of 

certain types common in many other Carboniferous faunas, such as the large Myalinas, the Edmondias, and the genus Pseudomonotis. Shumard, it is true,· cites 
INTRODUCTION. 15 

Monotis speluncaria in this fauna, but it is uncertain what form he actually had in 

hand, and in this, as in other ins.tances, my comparisons are made exclucively with 

the collections which I have been able to study. · 

The gasteropods show few points of note. The development of the Pleurotomarias is perhaps a little extraordinary~ as is the sl1ght representation of the Bellerophons, which include, however, what is probably a representative of the Indian 

genus Warthia. 

The Cephalopoda are evidently of the late Paleozoic type, but show less differentiation than might have been expected. Indications are not lacking, however, 

that at favored localities, which I was personally not fortunate enough to discover, 

the group is very plentiful, and that subsequent collections will show the Guadalupian Cephalopoda to have been highly differentiated. 

The Crustacea are, with the exception of the trilobites, poorly represented. 

Decapods, which Gemmellaro found in some abundance in his Sicilian faunas, are 

unknown, and Ostracoda, which are apparently rather common in the Permian of 

Europe, are rare. The trilobites, not the least interesting section of this group, are 

however, fairly abundant, and show a construction which apparently is typical of a 

new genus. 

The highest horizon at which Guadalupian fossils were obtained is the top of 

El Capitan, which by our barometric measurements is 1,800 feet above the base of 

the Capitan limestone .. Here, from the summit and just below, I collected the following species (station 2905) : 

Fusulina elongata. Guadalupia cylindrica. 

Fusulinella sp. a. Guadalupia cyli:wlrica var. robusta. 

Endothyra sp. a? Guadalupia? sp. 

Spirillina aff. S. plana. Cystothalamia nodulifera? 

. Virgula rigida? Fcnestella capitanensis. 

This fauna, it will be observed, consists almost exclusively of Protozoa and 

sponges. A considerable thickness of white limestone carrying the large Fusulina 

elongata so thickly packed and so uniformly laid down in one direction as almost 

to appear as if arranged by hand, is an interesting feature of this locality. At 

what appears to be the same point Richardson obtained the following (station 

2966): 

Fusulina elongata. 

Guadalupia cylindrica. 

Cystothalamia nodulifera. 

Amblysiphonella guadalupensis. 

Sollasia? sp. 

Domopora? ocellata? 

Fistulipora grandis var. guadalupensis. 

Fistulipora guadalup1.e. 

Stcnopora polyspinosa var. richardsoni. 

Leioclema shumardi? 

Fenestclla spinulosa? 

Acanthocladia guadalupensis? 

Derbya sp. b. 

Composita emarginata. 

Rhynchonella guadalup1.e? 

Dielasma spatuiatum? 

Notothyris schuchertensis var. ovata .. 

Heterelasma shumardianum. 

Pteria guadalupensis. 

Patella capitanensis. 

This fauna is more varied than that which I obtained, and has, consequently, 

more of the typical Capitan facies, but my own efforts at collecting were limited by 

stress of time to picking up a few specimens on the way down. 

By far the best point which we found for collecting in the Capitan formation 

was halfway up Capitan Peak (station 2926), midway in the formation which bears 
16 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

its name. Here the fauna is extensive and varied, as shown by the following list 

of species collected by B. F. Hill and myself: 

Anthmcosycon ficus var. capitanense. 

Virgula neptunia. 

Virgula rigida. 

Virgula rigida var. constricta. 

Pseudovirgula tenuis. 

Guadalupia zitteliana. 

Guadalupia zitteliana var. 

Guadalupia cylindrica. 

Guadalupia cylindrica var. concreta. 

Guadalupia favosa. 

Cystothalamia? sp. 

Steinmannia americana. 

Sollasia? sp. 

Lindstrcemia permiana. 

Campophyllum texanum? 

Domopora? terminalis. 

Fistulipora grandis var. guadalupensis. 

Leioclema shumardi? 

Fenestella cap.itanensis .. 

Acanthocladia guadalupensis. 

Acanthocladia sp. 

Goniocladia americana. 

Crania sp. 

Strcptorhynchus gregarium. 

Derbya sp. a. 

Orthotetes guadalupensis. 

Orthotetes declivis. 

Orthotetes distortus. 

Orthotetes distortus var. campanulatus. 

Geyerella americana. 

Orthothetina sp. 

Chonetes hillanus. 

Productus waagenianus. 

Productus semireticulatus var. capitanensis. 

Productus occidentalis. 

Productus latidorsatus. 

Productus? pileolus. 

Productus pinniformis. 

Aulostcges medlicottianus var. americanus. 

Richthofenia permiana. 

Spirifcr mexicanus. 

Spirifer mcxicanus var. compactus. 

Martinia rhomboidalis. 

Martinia shumardiana. 

Squamularia guadalupensis. 

Squamularia guadalupensis var. subquadrata. 

Squamularia guadalupensis var. ovalis. 

Amboccelia planiconvexa var. guadalupensis. 

Spiriferina billingsi. 

Spiriferina billingsi var. retusa. 

Spiriferina evax. 

Spiriicrina sulcata. 

Spiriferina pyramidalis. 

Spirifcrina welleri. 

Composita emarginata. 

Composita emarginata var. affinis. 

Hustedia mcekana. 

Hustedia meekana var. trigonalis. 

Pugnax? bisulcata var. seminuloides. 

Pugnax swallowiana. 

Pugnax elegans. 

Pugnax shumardiana. 

Rhynchonclla indentata. 

Rhynchonella longreva. 

Camarophoria venusta. 

Dielasma spatulatum. 

Diclasma cordatum. 

Dielasma sulcatum. 

Dielasma? scutula tum. 

Dielasmina guadalupensis. 

Notothyris schuchcrtensis. 

Notothyris schuchertensis var. ovata. 

Heterelasma shumardianum. 

Heterelasma venustulum. 

Leptodus guadalupcnsis. 

Oldhamina? sp. 

Edmondia? bellula. 

Parallclodon multistriatus? 

Parallelodon politus. 

Pteria guadalupensis. 

Myalina squamosa? 

Schizodus securus? 

Camptonectes? papillatus. 

Camptonectes? sculptilis. 

Camptonectes? asperatus. 

A viculipecten infclix. 

A viculipecten laqueatus. 

Aviculipecten sublaqueatus? 

Euchondria? sp. 

Peruipecten obliquus. 

Plagiostoma dcltoidcum. 

Limatulina striaticostata. 

Myoconcha costulata. 

Cypricardinia? contracta. 

Pleurotomaria mica~ 

Pleurotomaria putilla. 

Pleurotomaria discoidea. 

Pleurotomaria neglecta. 

Euconispira obsoleta. 

Trochus? sp. 

Zygopleura swallowiana. 

Foordoceras shumardianum. 

Anisopygc perannulata. 
iNTRODUCTION. l7 

This may be regarded as the typical Capitan fauna, and the fact that in so short 

:a time and in relatively so small an amount of material we were able to obtain over 

a hundred species attests the riclmess and variety of life during the Capitan epoch. 

About the same horizon, or one a little higher, was visited on the peak above 

Pine Spring, on the north side of Pine Spring Canyon, but this locality (station 2902) 

did not prove fru~tful. I obtained only the following species: 

Virgula neptunia? 

Virgula rigid a'? 

·Guadalupia cylindrica. I 

Guadalupia digitata. 

Guadalupia sp. 

AmbocCElia planiconvexa var. guadalupensis. 

The facies of tllis fauna recalls that obtained at the top of El Capitan (station 

2905). 

The lo'iver beds of the Capitan furnished fossils from two widely separated stations. One of these is the hill southwest of Guadalupe Point (station 2906), where 

a detached block of the Capitan limestone is faulted to a much lower level than that 

·on the crest of the range. At this locality fossils are plentiful, but their preservation 

_is poor, as the rock appears to be more or less altered and many of the specimens 

are crushed or distorted. The fauna obtained here, which comes from immediately 

above the "dark limestone," has almost identically the facies of the middle portion. 

ln the brief time at my disposal I obtained the species named below: . Amplcxu~ sp. '? 

·Claclopora spinulata. 

Domopora tcnninalis. 

·nomopora ocellata. 

Leioclema shumardi. 

. Aeanthocladia guadalupensis. 

. Derbya sp. a. 

·Orthotetes guadalupensis. 

Orthotetes declivis. 

·Chonetes subliratus. 

Produetus semireticulatus var. capitanensis. 

:Strophalosia eornelliana. 

. Spirifer mcxieanus. 

.. Martinia rhomboidalis . 

. Martinia shumardiana? 

Squamularia guadalupensis. 

Squamularia guadalupensis var. ovalis. 

Spiriferina evax. 

Spirifcrina wellcri. 

Composita emarginata. 

Hustedia meekana . 

Hustedia 1i1eekana var. trigonalis . 

Hustedia papillata'! 

Pugnax elcgans. 

Rhynchonclla longreva '! 

Leptodus amcrieanus. 

Avieulipecten sul?laqueatus. 

Pleurotomaria? sp. c . 

Anisopyge pcrannulata . 

The other point at which fossils were obtained from the lower Capitan was in 

McKitterick Canyon (station 2932). The rock, a dense white limestone, lies conven-

.:iently at stream level, and the horizon appears to be in the lower part of the formation. Fossils proved scarce, and almost no tinie could be given to the search for 

them, so that I obtained only two species-Spiriferina sulcata? and Dielasma pro-

.Zongatum. 

The character and status of Shumard's '' dark limestone '' are somewhat uncertain 

to me~ The cliff at Guadalupe Point contains at its base an undetermined thickness a 

of dark limestone, wllich was presumably the bed referred to by him, but the preci-

. pice was too abrupt to scale and no fossils were obtained. Again, on the hill southwest of Guadalupe Point, beneath a wllitish limestone (station 2906) having the 

lithology of the Capitan and a fauna closely related to that collected from the middle 

a Fifty feet, according to Richardson. 

3(>95-No. 58--08---2 
t 

18 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

of the formation (station 2926) occurs llo not very thick series of dark limestones 

(station 2924), which are also supposed to represel}t the "dark limestone" of Shumard. I obtained here the following forms: 

Fusulina elongata. 

Claclopora spinulata. 

Domopora? terrninalis. 

Fistulipora granclis var. guaclalupensis. 

Fenestella sp. c. var. 

Acanthocladia guaclalupensis. 

Procluctus popei? 

Spirifer mexicanus var. 

Husteclia meekana. · 

On both occasions when we ascended Capitan Peak, as nearly as possible the 

same route being selected, the contact between the Capitan and Delaware Mountain 

formations was concealed by talus. My notes contain no reference to the rocks of 

this horizon in the vicinity of Pine Spring, but from loose ·blocks on the north side 

of the canyon (station 2930) I collected a considerable amount of material which 

probably belongs to the "dark limestone." The following list represents the fauna. 

ob-tained from this source: 

Fusulina elongata. 

Endothyra sp. a. 

Endothyra sp. b. 

Spirillina, aff. S. plana. 

Polysiphon mirabilis .. 

Steinrnannia americana. 

Linclstrmmia perrniana·. 

Lindstrcemia permiana var. 

Lindstrcemia cylinclrica. 

Lindstrcemia sp. 

Cladopora spinulata. 

Arch:Eocidaris sp. c. 

Arch:Eoclclaris sp. d. 

Domopora? terminalis. 

Domopora? ocellata. 

Domopora? constricta. 

Domopora? vittata. 

Fistulipora grandis var. guaclalupensis. 

Stenopora granulosa. 

Stenopora sp. 

Leioclema shumarcli. 

Fenestella guadalupensis. 

Fenestella guadalupensis var. 

Fenestella spinulosa? 

Polypora mexicana? 

Polypora sp. c? 

Acanthocladia guadalupensis. 

Acanthoeladia sp. 

Crania sp. 

Derbya sp. a. 

Chonefes permianus. 

Chonetes hillanus. · 

Chonetes subliratus. 

Pro.ductus .semir~ticulatus var. capitanensis. 

Productus popei. 

Productus popei var. opimus. 

Productus inclentatus. 

Productus occiclentalis. 

Productus? pileolus? 

Productus limbatus. 

Productus sp. d. 

Aulosteges guadalupensis. 

Richthofenia permiana. 

Spirifer mexicanus. 

Spirifer mexicanus var. 

Spi~ifer sp. a. 

Spiriferina billingsi. 

Spiriferina laxa. 

Spiriferina hilli var. polypleurus. 

Spiriferina welleri? . 

Composita emarginata'! 

Hustedia meekana. 

Husteclia meekana var. trigonal is. 

Hustedia papillat9,. 

Hustedia bipartita? 

Pugnax bisulcata. 

Pugnax bisulcata var. seminuloides. 

'Pugnax bisulcata var. gratiosa. 

Pugnax swallowiana? 

Pugnax osagensis? 

Pugnax bidentata. 

Pugnax pinguis. 

Pugnax sp. a. 

Rhynchonella? indentata. 

Dielasma spatulatum. 

Dielasmina guadalupensis. 

Notothyris schuchert<msis var. ovata?· 

Myalina squamosa? 

Aviculipecten guadalupensis. 

A viculipeeten sp. a. 

Euomphalus sulcifer. 

Euomphalus sulcifer var. angulatus .. 

Anisopyge perannulata. 

Cythere~ sp. 
INTRODUCTION. 19 

The position of this loose material was such that little if any could have come 

from high in the Capitan, and little if any from below the top of the Delaware .Mountain formation. The rock is a limestone partly dark colored and partly a light 

brown. The fauna shows rather marked differences from that obtained midway in 

the Capitan formation, species occurring in one which are not found in the other, or 

being abundant in one and rare in the other. On the other hand, there is a considerable community of forms. Some of the more distinguishing characteristics of 

this ''dark limestone'' fauna are the abundance of Fusulina elongata, which, though 

occurring in the greatest profusion at the top of the Capitan (station 2905), seemed 

to be absent from the point where our typical Capitan fauna was obtained (station" 

2926), the greater abundance of cup corals, the presence of Oladopora spinulata, the 

greater abundance of ·the Domoporas and other Bryozoa, the presence of Chonetes 

permianus and 0. subliratus, the abundance of small Producti of the semireticulatus 

group, such asP. popei, P. indentatus, etc., the presence of Aulosteges guadalupensis 

and Spiriferina laxa, the abundance of the group of Pugnax bisulcata,a the presence 

of Aviculipecten guadalupensis, and of Euomphalus sulcifer and its variety angu.latus, 

and the abundance of Anisopyge perannulata. An equal number of distinctive 

forms might be named on the part of the Capitan fauna. The faunas of stations 

2926 and 2930 are marked by about the same differences which originally distinguished Shumard's "dark limestone" from his "white limestone," but our more 

extensive collections show more differences than his rather meager ones. I believe, 

therefore, that our collection 2930 is Shumard's "dark limestone" fauna, and that it 

is represented stratigraphically by a not very thick series of dark-colored limestones 

occurring at the junction of the Delaware Mountain formation with the Capitan. 

The Capitan fauna, as exemplified by the collections obtained in its middle portion 

at station 2926, and the fauna of the" dark limestone" show well-marked differences, 

and suggest the question whether the latter should be grouped as a lower division of 

the Capitan, as a distinct member, or as a portion of the Delaware .Mountain formation. 

For purposes of stratigraphy it would perhaps be more convenient to divide the 

two series in the vicinity of Guadalupe Point at the top of the sandstones, but lithologically the "dark limestone" shows greater resemblance to the dark-colored calcareous members of the Delaware .Mountain formation in which Richardson has 

included it, than to the white limestone of the typical Capitan. 

Faunally, if we consider only the colle<;tions made in the sandstones of the 

Delaware Mountain, the "dark limestone" is quite different from that division and 

would probably have to be regarded as a distinct series, or, better, as a subdivision 

of the Capitan. Evidence will appear in its t.urn, however, which indicates that the. 

"dark limestone" is really a part of the Delaware Mountain formation. .. 

Before turning to the discussion of the typical Delaware Mountain fauna it will 

be desirable to comment on some collections from the upper series made by R. T . . 

Hill. They were obtained at the south end of the Guadalupe Mountains; at a horizon described merely as the "upper limestone." They may, consequently, have 

a Only a single specimen of this .species is contained in our collection from station 2926, and the lithology suggests that 

it may really have come from the" dark limestone." 
20 THE GUADALUPIAN l!'AUNA. 

come from either the "dark limestone" or the Capitan. The species identified are 

as follows: 

Fusulina elongata. 

Endothyra sp. a. 

Fusulina elongata. 

Fistulipora grandis var. guadalupcnsis. 

Acanthocladia guadalupensis. 

Lindstrremia permiana? 

Lindstrremia sp. 

Zaphrentis? sp. 

Amplexus sp. 

Cladopora spinulata. 

Archooocidaris era tis? 

Domopora? terminalis. 

Archooocidaris sp. a. 

Lindstrremia permiana var~ 

Domopora? terminalis. 

Domopora? occllata? 

Fistulipora grandis var. guadalupcnsis. 

Lindstrremia pcrmiana var.? 

Cladopora spinulata. ·· · • 

Domopora? terminal is. 

Domopora? ocellata. 

Fistulipora grandis var. guadalupensis. 

Leioclcma shumardi. 

Fenestclla hilli. 

Station 3762. 

I Productus semireticulatus var. capitanensis. 

Station 3762a. 

I 

Spiriferin.a welleri var. a. 

Hustedia meekana. 

Station 3762b. 

D·ornopora? ocellata. 

Fistulipora grandis var. guadalupcnsis. 

Acanthocladia guadalupensis. 

Chonetes permianus. 

Richthofenia permiana. 

Hustedia mcekana. 

Station 3762c. 

I Acanthocladia guadalupensis. 

Station 3762d. 

Leioclema shumardi? 

Acanthocladia guadalupensis. 

Hustcdia meekana. 

Diclasma spatulatum? 

Station 3762e. 

Polypora mexicana? 

Acanthocladia guadalupensis. 

Acanthocladia sp. 

Richthofenia pcrmiana. 

Spiriferina laxa? 

Hustedia bipartita? 

In no instance do these lists indicate the fauna obtained from the middle portion of the Capitan limestone, and several appear to present the fauna of the" dark 

limestone." Lots 3762b, 3762d, and 3762e are the most clearly indicative of the 

"dark limestone" and 3762 and 3762c the most ambiguous. From the manner in 

which the Fusulinas are preserved in lot 3762, I am disposed to believe that it came 

from the highest beds of the Capitan. It has been provisionally assigned to this 

. horizon in the records published here, and the other collections have been placed in 

the "dark limestone." 

From the sandstones of the Delaware Mountain formation I obtained material 

at only three points, and since fossils are not so abundant or so well preserved in. 

these sandstones as at other horizons my collections are a little meager. From 
INTRODUCTION. . 21 

about 250 feet above the base of the formation (station 2919) the following forms 

have bel:ln identified: 

Fusulina elongata. 

Fistulipora grandis var. guadalupensis. 

Enteletes sp. d. 

Chonetes subliratus. 

Productus waagenianus var. 

Productus texanus? 

Productus sp. a. 

Productus guadalupensis. 

Spirifcr sp. b. 

Martinia rhomboidalis. 

Squamularia guadalupensis. 

Composita emarginata? 

Hustedia papillata. 

The two other collections were obtained at about the same level, approximately 700 feet up in the formation. One of these (station 2903) furnished the 

following species: 

Fusulina elongata. Productus texanus. 

Fusulinella sp. a. Productus sp. a. 

Chonetes sp.. · ·< Productus latidorsatus. 

Productus waagenial'fils var. Productus walcottianus . 

. ,·1if.· 

At the othlf~~(station 2931) I obtained the forms named in the following list: 

Fusulina clongata. 

Chonetes sp. 

Productus guadalupensis. 

Productus meekanus. 

Productus signatus. 

Productus signatus var. 

Productus sp. c. 

Productus subhorridus var. rugatulus? 

Productus walcottianus. 

Richthofenia permiana. 

Spiriferina billingsi? 

Pugnax osagensis? 

Leptodus americanus. 

Edmondia? bellula? 

Edmondia sp. 

Nucula sp. b. 

Parallelodon multistriatus. 

Parallelodon politus. 

Bakewellia? sp. 

Pteria richardsoni? 

Pteria sp. 

Myalina permiana? 

Camptonectes? papillatus. 

A viculipecten delawarensis. 

Acanthopecten aff. A. ca~·bonifcrus .. 

Pernipccten obliquus. 

Myoconcha costulata var. delawarcnsis. 

Astartella nasuta. · 

Pleurophorus delawarcnsis. 

Cleidophorus pallasi var. delawarensis. 

Plagioglypta canna? 

Plcurotomaria multilineata. 

Pleurotomaria SJ!. d. 

Pleurotomaria ouglyphea. 

Pleurotomaria strigillata? 

Plourotomaria aronaria. 

Plcurotomaria? planulata. 

Pleurotomaria? dHlawarensis. 

Pleurotomaria? carinifera. 

Bucanopsis sp. 

\Varthia americana. 

Naticopsis sp. 

Pseudomelania 'sp. a. 

Bulimorpha chrysalis var. delawarensis. 

Macrocheilina? sp. a. 

Orthoccras guadalupense. 

Gastrioceras s·crratum. 

A nisopyge perannulata. 

To these may be added a collection made by Mr. Elder froni one of the limestone members in the Delaware Mountain formation not far above the last two. 

Here (station 2963) he obtained five species, as follows: 

Fusulina elongata. 

Stromatidiurn typicale? 

Cladopora spinulata. I 

Fistulipera grandis var. guadalupcnsis. 

Stcnopora polyspinosa var. richardsoni? 
22 THE GUADALUPIAN .FAUNA. 

In the same region, but from a somewhat higher horizon (station 2968), Mr. 

Richardson collected the following species: 

Lindstrremia pcrmiana var. 

Paraceltites clcgans. 

I Gastrioceras sp. 

As disclosed by these collections, the fauna of the Delaware Mountain formation presents many differences from either that of the "dark limestone" or that of 

the Capitan formation. . The chief positive difference consists in the development 

of a relatively extensive suite of Pelecypoda and Gasteropoda, in the main very 

unlike those which succeeded them. Negatively, the Brachiopoda are less abundant 

and well differentiated. Consequently many of the forms characteristic of the 

series next above are wanting. The brachiopods which are present are in part the 

same, but the Productus fauna of this division seems to be distinct from that of 

either the "dark limestone" or the Capitan. 

The black limestone at the base of the Guadalupe section is not as a rule highly 

fossiliferous, but would surely furnish an interesting and extensive series of forms 

if carefully collected. I had time to essay the black limestone at only one point. 

It was not found to be fossiliferous there except near the top (station 2920), where 

I obtained. the following species: · 

Anthracosycon ficus. 

Anthracosycon? sp. 

Enteletes sp. c. 

Orthotetes? sp. a. 

Chonetes sp_. 

Productus latidorsatus var. 

Richthofenia permiana. 

Composita mexicana var. guadil:luptmsis. 

Hustedia meekana. 

Pugnax nitida. 

Pugnax osagensis. 

Pugnax bidentata. 

Rhynchonella longmva? 

Leda sp. 

Plagiostoma deltoideum? 

Pleurotomaria strigillata. 

Plcurotomaria arenaria var. monilifera. 

Euomphalus sulcifer. 

Foordoceras shumardianum var. prmcursor. 

Peritrochia erebus. 

Bairdia aff. B. plebeia. 

A collection from a:bout the same locality and horizon (station ~967) brought 

in by Mr. Elder presents to a considerable extent a different facies, as follows: 

Stenopora gran uiosa? 

Enteletes sp. c. 

Meekella attenuata. 

Meekella multilirata. 

Aulosteges sp. a. 

Aulosteges sp. b. 

Richthofenia permiana. 

Spirifer sp. b. 

Composita mexicana var. guadalupcnsis. 

Hustedia meekana. 

Hustedia pap illata? 

Pugnax? pus ilia. 

Solenomya? sp. 

Clinopistha? cf. C. radiata var. lmvis. 

N ucula sp. a. 

Nucula sp. b? 

Y~ldia sp. 

Aviculipcctcn sp. a? 

Plcurotomaria strigillata. 

Naticopsis sp. 

Loxonema? inconspicuum. 

Macrocheilina? modesta. 

Foordoceras shumardianum var. proocursor. 

Agathoceras texanum. 

Paraceltites elegans. 

Anisopyge perannulata. 

Anisopyge? antiqua. 
INTRODUCTION. 23 

This fauna is unusually well balanced, containing· Brachiopo-da, Pelecypoda, 

-Gasteropoda, and Cephalopoda in nearly equal proportions, besides a ·corresponding 

share of other groups. At this horizon, in fact, the ammonoids appear from. our collections to be more abundant than at any other in the typical Guadalupian section. 

It is interesting to note that they have a Permian· aspect, an indication which is 

corroborated by the presence of Richthofenia and Aulosteges. While uQmistakably 

related to the overlying faunas, that of the basal black limestone has an individual 

facies. It is widely different from any of the known faunas of the Hueco formation, 

and without doubt is to be regarded as a member of the Guadalupian series. It may 

be remarked that neither as a lithologic nor as a faunal unit is t}1is limestope known 

to occur except in the 1ni.hwdiate region of Guadalupe Point. . . -

In the section exposed at the sou.th end of the Guadalupe Mountains there are, 

.according to our collections, four rather well-marked faunas, which· occur in the 

basal black limestone, the Delaware Mountain formation, the ''dark limestone," 

and the Capitan formation. _ 

As already remarked, in the Delaware Mountain formation, which even in the 

vicinity of Guadalupe Peak is more or less interspersed with dark limestone, the 

calcareous component appears to become more and more important as the strata are 

followed southward into the southern Delawares, where almost the whole Of the 

·.section is composed of limestone beds. This area was not visited by me, but collections were made by Mr. Richardson and Mr. Elder from a number of different 

localities and horizons. From a point 7 miles north of Marley's ranch (station 2935) 

Mr. Richardson obtained the following collection: 

Martinia rhomboidalis. 

Pernipecten obliquus. 

Pleurotomaria putilla'l I 

Euconospira sp. 

. Bellerophon crassus. 

I 

From the low hills west of Marley's (station 2936) the two following species were 

collected: Chonetes permianus and Ambocmlia planiconvexa var, guadalupensis. 

A collection made 1! miles east of M;arley's ranch (station 3501) contains four 

forms, as follows: 

"Enteletes sp. d. 

Derbya sp. a. I 

Meekella skenoides. 

Spirifer sp. h. 

At another point, about 15 miles north of Marley's (station 3500), the following 

species were collected: 

Fusulina elongata. 

Lindstrrernia permiana. 

.Archroocidaris sp. d. 

Domopora? terrninalis. 

Dornopora? ocellata. 

Fistulipom grandis var. guadalupensis. 

Stenopora polyspinosa var. richardsoni? 

Acanthocladia guadalupensis. 

Derbya? crenulata. 

Composita emarginata var. affinis? 

Ilustedia rneekana. 

Ptlgnax bisulcata var. seminuloides. 

Gastrioceras serratum'l 
24 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

At about the same locality as the foregoing was obtained the largest of ail the 

faunas collected in the southern Delawares (station 2969). 'The following species 

have been identified: 

Fusulina elongata. 

Fusulinella sp. b. 

Fusulinella sp. c. 

Stromatidium typicale. 

Lindstrcemia permiana? 

Lindstrcemia permiana var. 

Cladopora spinulata. 

Cladopora tubulata. 

Aulopora sp. 

Ccenocystis richardsoni. 

Archreocidaris sp. b. 

Archreocidaris sp. b var. 

Archooocidaris sp. d. 

Spirorbis texanus. 

Domopora? terminalis. 

Domopora? ocellata. 

Dolnopora? vittata. 

Domopora? incrustans. 

Fistulipora grandis var. guadalupensis. 

Stenopora polyspinosa var. richardsoni. 

Leioclema shumardi? 

?Fenestella spinulosa? 

Fenestella texana. 

Fenestella sp. a. 

Fenestella sp. b. 

Fcnestella sp. c. 

Fenestella sp. e. 

Fcnestella sp. f. 

Fenestella sp. f? 

Polypora sp. a. 

Polypora sp. b. 

Polypora sp. c. 

Polypora sp, d. 

Acanthocladia guadalupensis. 

Rhom bopora? sp. 

Goniocladia americana. 

berbya? crenulata. 

Derbya sp. h. 

Orthotetes guadalupensis? 

Chonetes permianus. 

Producttis walcottianus? 

Productus? pileolus. 

Productus sp. d. 

Strophalosia sp. 

Spirifer mexicanus var. 

Spirifcrina billingsi? 

S piriferina sulcata? 

Spiriferina laxa. 

Spiriferina pyramidalis? 

Spiriferina hilli var. polypleurus. 

Spiriferina welleri? 

Spiriferina welleri var. b. 

Composita emarginata var. affinis? 

Hustedia meekana. 

Hustedia bipartita. 

Pugnax bisulcata var. seminuloides. 

Dielasma prolongatum. • 

Notothyris schuchcrtensis var. ovata. 

Heterelasma shumardianum. 

Heterelasma vcnustulum. 

Leptodus amcricanus. 

Nucula sp. c. 

Parallelodon politus? 

Pteria richardsoni. 

Myalina sqtiamosa? 

Protrcte texana. 

Cymatocliiton? texanus. 

Plcurotomaria texana. 

Pl curotomaria cf. P. plan ulata. 

Pleurotomaria elderi. 

Murchisonia? sp. a. 

Murchisonia? sp. b. 

Warthia americana? 

Turbo? sp. 

Pscudomelania? sp. h. 

Anisopygc perannulata. 

A rgillcecia sp. 

At station 2957, which is situated 45 miles south of El Capitan, the following. 

species were collected: 

Fusulina elongata. 

Fusulinclla sp. a. 

Zaphrcntis? sp.? 

Domopora? occllata. 

Fistulipora grandis var. guadalnpensis. 

Acanthocladia guadalupensis. 

Rhombopora? sp. 

Productus popei. 

Strophalosia sp. 
INTRODUCTION. 

About 20 miles north of the railroad station called Plateau (station 2962) Mr .. 

Elliott collected the following: 

·cladopora spinulata. 

Domopora? ocellata. 

Fistulipora grandis var. gnadalnpensis. 

Acanthocladia guadalupensis. 

Actinotrypa? sem. 

Streptorhynchus pygma>um? 

Streptorhynchus pe'rattenuatum. 

Dcrbya Rp. a.. 

Orthotetes guada.lupensis? 

~fartinia rhomboidalis. 

Squamularia. gua.dalupensis. 

Dielasma spatulatum? 

In a collection made 10 miles northwest of Kent (station 2964) the following 

species were identified : 

Fusulina elongata. 

Endothyra sp. c. 

Lingulina.? sp. · 

Guadalupia? sp. var. 

Cystothala.mia nodulifera. 

Lindstr<Emia permia.na? 

Richthofenia periJ.lia.na. 

Pugna.x osagensis. 

Plenrophorus sp. 

Pleurotomaria. richardsoni? 

Plenrotoma.ria? ca.rinifera var. 

Bcllerophon crassus. 

Macrochcilina.? sp. b. 

Finally, a small collection made 35 miles northeast of Van Horn (station 2965) 

furnished Pugnax? bisulcata var. seminuloides and Waagenoceras cumminsi var. 

guadalupense. 

These collections from the limestones of the southern Delawares have a fauna 

which is somewhat ambiguous. In the main it seems to be that of the "dark 

limestone" of the Guadalupe Mountains. This is suggested by the· Bryozoa and 

corals and by the abundance· of Pugnax bisulcata var. seminuloides, Chonetes permianus, etc. In no instance is there a recurrence of the characteristic fauna found 

near the middle of the Capitan formation, yet in a good many of these collections 

Capitan species have been identified which in the Guadalupe section have not 

been found in the "dark limestone.'.' I refer to Goniocladia americana, Prodvctus? 

p·ileolus, Heterelasma shumardianum, H. venustulum, and a few others. The sandstones of Guadalupe section have to a considerable extent different species. Nevertheless, in view of the facts that we still know the Guaclalupian faunas very 

incompletely, that lithologically these limestones of the southern Delawares resemble those of the typical Delaware :Mountain sections, that from observations in 

the field they appear to replace and represent the sandstones of that formation, 

that the conditions .of limestone deposition on· the one hand and of sandstone 

deposition on the other would probably influence the character of the faunas, and 

that our collections from the sandstones of the Delaware Mountain were made 

chiefly in the lower half of the formation, while in the southern Delawares they 

were probably. made in the upper portion-in view of these facts I am ready to 

believe that these southern faunas do not represent any horizon of the typical 

Guadalupe section above the "dark limestone." It is unfortunate that we kno'v 

so little of the forms which occur in the limestones of the Delaware Mountain 

formation in the Guadalupe sections. I neglected them entirely, and the two 

collections brought in hy Richardson's party are too meager to be of much 

serviCe. The faunas from the southern Delawares seem to show that at least some 
26 THE GUADALUPIAN .l!'AUNA. 

of the Capitan species range .lower than is indicated by our data from Guadalupe 

Point. These faunas are so· closely allied to that of the "dark limestone" as to 

suggest that the latter belongs with them rather than with the Capitan for:rp.ation.· 

This may not mean the elimination of the "dark limestone" as· a distingt1ishable 

faunal facies, for it may characterize the upper portion of the' Del~ware Mountain 

formation while the lower portion. also has a facies of its own. 

Although the Guadalupian series is supposed not to occur in the Diablo Mountains, this memoir involves a small suite of fossils which are rep.~rted' to have come 

from that range. They were found among the collections of the National Museum, 

having been received from E. T. Dumble in 1892. On internal evidence I have 

divided this material into two parts. One of these appears to consist of collections made by Von Streeruwitz and mentioned in his report,a althoughthe different 

lots are now intermingled so that notlfing can be exactly located. This fauna is 

that of the Hueco formation, which Richardson found to be the dominating if not 

the only Carboniferous formation in the Diablo Mountains. 

The remaining portion of the material differs lithologically from the other. 

In the niain the fauna also is widely different, not only from· that of the other 

assemblage of forms, but from anything since obtained in the Diablo Mountains, 

<>r from the Hueco fauna as a whole. It contains some striking types, such as 

Leptodus, which are supposed to be characteristic of the Guadalupian, and yet it 

is not identical with any of the known Guadalupian faunas. While of too inter-

·esting a nature to be omitted from the present report, a twofold uncertainty, 

therefore, surrounds this material, since a question may be raised not only as to 

whether it belongs to the Guadalupian fauna, but as to whether it was obtained 

from the Diablo Mountains. As some of the striking forms were not mentioned 

by Walcott, who I believe dete~mined the fossils for Von Streeruwitz' s report, it 

is possible to' suppose that the collection was not made in the Diablo Mountains, 

but was sent in at the same time, possibly from the same general region, and 

thrown in with the Diablo forms. As to the other point, the Guadalupian fauna 

:Seems to be so extensive, and as yet so imperfectly known, that it is, theoretically at 

least,. quite possible for local collections from a distinct area to present an individual facies and yet to belong to the same period. 

The following species are present in the fauna determined in this way (station 

.3764), and it will be seen that the facies is considerably different from any of the 

faunas of the Guadalupe section or of the southern Delawares: 

Lindstrremia permiana. 

{Jladopora tubulata. 

"Thamniscus digitatus. 

Acanthocladia guadalupensis. 

Enteletes dumblei. 

. Enteletes angulatns. 

Bntcletes sp. e. 

Derbya nasuta. 

Derbya? crenulata. 

Meekella attenuata. 

Leptodus americanus . 

Two more. collections are included in this report which show considerable indi-

-viduality of facies and yet without much doubt belong to the Guadalupian series. 

They were made by R. T. Hill in the vicinity of Marathon, Tex., nearly 150 miles 

.southeast of the Guaclalupes. One of them was obtained in the Glass Mountains, 

a Ann. Rept. Geol. Survey 'l.'exas for 1892, 1893, p. 170. 
INTRODUCTION. 27 

) 

17 miles northwest of .Marathon (station 3763). From this point I have identified 

the following species:· 

Fusulina elongat"a. 

Guadalupia zitteliana. 

Cystothalamia nodulifera. 

Lindstrremia permiana. 

Zaphrentis? sp. 

Amplexus sp. 

Cladopora spinulata. 

Domopora? ocellata. 

Domopora? hillana. 

Fistulipora grandis var. guadalupensis. 

Fistulipora sp. 

:M:eekopora sp. 

Acanthocladia guadalupensis. 

Enteletes globulosus. 

Enteletes sp. a. 

Enteletes sp. b. 

Entdeies sp. d ?. 

Streptorhynchus pygmrcum. 

Streptorhynchus? sp. a. 

Orthotetes guadalupensis? 

Orthotetes distortus. 

Orthotetos? sp. a. 

:M:eekella skenoides. 

:M:eekella difficilis. 

Pmductus sp. c. 

Productus guadalupensis var. comancheanus. 

Productus meekanus. 

Productus subhorridus var. mgatulus. 

Strophalosia hystrieula. 

Richthofenia permiana . 

. Spirifer "sp. b. 

Squamularia guadalupensis. 

Spiriferina billingsi '! 

Spiriferina hilli. 

Composita emarginata var. amnis? 

Composlta mexicana. 

Hustedia meekana. 

Hustedia papillata. 

Hustedia bipartita. 

Camarophoria venusta. 

Notothyris sp. 

Leptodus americanus. 

Parallelodori multistriatus. 

Parallelodon? sp. 

Pteria squarnifera. 

, Ayiculipe~ten sp. b. 

Aviculipecten sp. b var. 

Aviculipecten sp. c. 

A viculipecten sublaqueatus. 

Astartella nasuta. 

Pleurotomaria richardsoni? 

The other locality (station 3840), which is described merely as the ''mountains 

northwest of Marathon,"· has furnished the following species: 

Fusilina clongata. 

Platycrinus? sp. 

Phyllopora? sp. 

Thamniscus sp. 

Septopora aff. S. robusta. 

Rhombopom aff. R. lepidodendroide~. 

Rhombopora? sp._ 

Acantl~ocladia guadalupensis. 

Fistulipora grandis var. guadalupensis. 

Meekella difficilis. 

Produetus subhorridus var. rngatulus. 

Aulosteges magnicostatus. 

Spiriferina welleri? 

These two faunas are evidently related to one' another and in a general way to 

those of the Guadalupe and Delaware mountains. Their resemblance to any of the 

facies manifested in those areas is far from being so close that they may be called 

identical, but is greater to the fauna of the Delaware Mountain sandstone than to 

that of the Capitan lim~stone, or even to that of the " dark limestone." Accordingly, 

I have provisionally regi~tered these forms as from the Delaware Mountain formation. 

Thus different degrees of uncertainty are involved in the faunal relation of 

these collections to the Guadalupe section, and in some cases in their geographic position as well, and it seems best to refer to this matter here and to omit for the most 

part fmm the account of range and distribution that follows each species the marks 

of query really needed to express the modified certainty with which some of the 

assignments are made. As a rule where an interrogation point is used it refers to the 

identification of the species. 
28 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

In view of the different localities and different horizons represented by the subject-matter of this report the determination of the best method of arranging the illustrations of species has been a matter of some concern. Since the ultimate purpose 

here, as in my other work, is faunal, the use o:t' a zoological arrangement which 

would obscure the original assemblages of formational or regional groups of species 

seemed objectionable. On the other hand, when trying_ to compare several species, 

or to consult the illustrations of only one, I have found it highly annoying to be compelled to refer to several plates. Still, the grouping to the eye of forms associa~ed 

in nature seems to me too important to be lightly dispensed with, ~tnd the loss of this 

instructive arrangement the greater of the two evils. An attempt to ameliorate the 

trouble occasioned· by having kindred forms distributed on several plates has been 

made in connection with the arrangement of the figures on the plates themselves, so 

that they have rather rigidly been placed in serial order. This militates against a 

balanced appearance of the plate, which is very agreeable; but in some works, a class 

of which those of Gemmellaro may be cited as instances, the illustrations are so artistically distributed that it is almost impossible to find them. After losing much 

time over Gemmellaro's plates and others like them, it has seemed to me that this 

is a matter in which 'utility outweighs beauty as a desideratum. Consequently the 

·plates in this report will be found arranged according to the stratigraphic and geographic groups in which the different collections. ~ave been considered above. 

Although this method does not misrepresent the natural grouping, it fails to represent it completely, because I have not sought to figure the common or recurrent 

forms in each set of plates. 

Although in one particular the present report adds considerable to the available 

knowledge of the Guadalupian fauna, in another its contribution is small, for geographically the fauna is restricted, so far as known, to the general region where it was 

first discovered. It is quite unlike the faunas of eastern North America and almost 

equally unlike most of those of the West which I have seen. Of the latter a very 

few suggest the Guadalupian in some degree, but for one reason or another, because 

our material is very scanty or the resemblance remote, it has seemed best to reserve 

these instances for future discussion. This limited distribution of the Guadalupian 

need not indicate an extremely local development of ·a fauna contemporaneous, per-. 

haps, with others of a different facies which we already know, but it may be due to 

several causes-to our incomplete knowledge, especially of western faunas; to the 

fact that the Guadalupian beds may be represented elsewhere by strata which do not 

contain invertebrate fossils, such as red beds; or to the removal by erosion of a part 

of the Guadalupian deposits; which were formerly more extensive. Probably all 

three causes contribute to limiting the present knowledge of the Gu.adalupian territorially. · 1 

. 

The difference m.anifested by the faunas of the Guadalupe Mountains from those 

of the rest of North America, though not necessarily, at least in fact involves a resemblance to certain Asiatic and European faunas. Rather careful bomparisons have 

been made with these alien faunas, but although evidently related to some of them 

the Guadalupian seems, as indicated farther on, to maintain a highly individual 

facies. 
INTRODUCTION. 29 

Aside from the species which Shumard had described, most of the Guadalupian 

forms appeared to be new. So different are the Guadalupian and Pennsylvanian 

faunas that in most cases the species of the one have no related species in the other, 

but the Pennsylvanian literature has been searched with care for kindred forms, 

and where found the usual comparisons have been instituted. It has been found 

necessary, however, to import few names of Pennsylvanian species into the Guadalupian fauna. Still fewer have been introduced from foreign literature, though I 

have been careful to note instances where it s.eemed that a relationship existed. 

But in the latter case particularly, even when the relationship seemed rather close, 

the Guadalupian form has generally been given a ·new name, because the data were 

not at hand by :which I could reach a conclusion as to their identity or distinction. 

It is reasonably safe to depend on descriptions and figures for an identification 

·of species where the geographic separation is not wide and where the faunal association is essentially the same, but, otherwise, characteristic specimens are necessary 

for a satisfactory comparison. In the present case all these conditions were conspicuously absent. The most nearly related foreign faunas were separated by a terrestrial quadrant. They prove to have in the main a very different facies, to be related 

jn one species and different in twenty, and I was practically without -foreign material 

with which to make comparisons when comparisons were most desirable. 

It has been said not less truly than often that it is easier to combine two species 

that have been injudiciously discriminated than to disengage two species that have 

been injudiciously combined, and it is also true that loose discriminations and loose 

identifications lead to loose correlations. I have felt under obligation to other 

workers in this field to leave a species whose relationship I was unable to determine as 

unentangled as possible, and to establish the nomenclature on a reasonably independent and permanent basis. Consequently, in doubtful cases I have leaned 

·consciously to the side of species making, nor would I feel deeply concerned should 

it prove on just evidence not now accessible to me that some of my names are 

:synonyms. 

It has been my intention to go over the literatJJre with some thoroughness in 

comparing the Guadalupian with other faunas, but so wide is the field and so rich 

the accumulation of literature that it was evidently necessary to contract and elimi-

.nate in order ever to bring such an attempt to completion and to make the result at 

all commensurate with the cost in time and labor. My object being to obtain the 

broad and general facts as to faunal and specific relationship, it seemed safe to refer, 

.so far· as possible, to monographic works, omitting the smaller contributions of 

which they were the culmination, even though such omission might entail some loss in 

minutire. The literature of Asia, Africa, etc., by reason ot its still limited quantity 

was not unmanageable, and that of North America I had already pretty well in 

hand; but the works on European Carboniferous shells, even though my survey was 

restricted to the more important, were so numerous as to be impracticable for my 

purpose. The obvious faunal relations and the geologic position of the Guadalupian beds, however, are such that only a part of these reports were significant in 

this connection, and these were found to be a much more manageable quota. Ev:en 

.after selection of thi.s sort the labor of comparing the Guadalupian fauna was not 
30 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

trivial, some of the incidental difficulties aside from those of a quantitative nature 

being the various languages in which these investigations were couched, with some 

of which I am unacquainted, and the lack of uniformity in classification and nomenclature. 

In order to avoid the repeated citation of the same authorities hereaft.cr, it 

has seemed best to give in brief resume the most important works used in making 

comparisons of the Guadalupian fauna. Were other important works within my 

knowledge I would of course have had reference to them, and it is probable that some 

which would have furnished valuable data have been overlooked. In commeneing this 

literary survey I may begin with the admirable work of W aagen on the fauna of the 

Productus limestone of the Salt Range of India,a since this fauna is geographically 

about as near as any which is related to the Guadalupian, and since 'Vaagen's 

monograph, both in magnitude and thoroughness, is second to none with which I 

have ha<l to deal. The earlier and partial aecounts by Davidson, De Koninck, and 

others being passed over, this work is the only authority which I have employed as 

representing the Carboniferous fauna of the Salt Range. 

The faunas of the Himalaya are much less completely known than those of the Salt 

Range, and for them I have had recourse chiefly to Diener's reports, not neglecting, 

however, brief accounts by Davidson and Salter. The latter in 1865 b issued a 

pamphlet in connection with Blanford, in which a limited fauna is deseribed from 

Niti. in the northern part of the Himalayas. In the same work a few forms are citerl 

from Spiti Pass, a locality which yielded Diener also some material. Davidson published in 1866 two short papers, appearing consecutively in the Quarterly Journal, 

one dealing with some Brachiopoda from Tibet and the other with representatives 

of the same group from Kashmir.c 

Faunas from Kashmir and Spiti (see above) were in 1899d made the subject of a memoir by Diener, who discussed the Spiti fauna again in 1903.e. Another 

memoir by the same author treats of the ''Permo-Carboniferous'' fauna of Chitichun 

No. 1,e and to this fauna also he had occasion to return in 1903/ A third memoir 

by Diener, published in 1897, deals with the Permian fossils of the Productus shales 

of Kumaon and Gurhwal;Y and, lastly, that put out in 1903 contains, in addition to 

a discussion of the Spiti and Chitichun faunas, accounts of some Pei'm1an fossils from 

the neighborhood of Malia Sangcha, from the Productus shales of the Lissar·Valley 

(J ohar), and from the Permian Product us shales of Byans. h The same author has 

given us an account of a geologic expedition in the central Himalaya, i _accompanied 

by lists. of fossils; but this work did not seem especially to concern the present. investigation. 

a Waagcn, W., Salt Range fossils: Mem. Geol. Survey India, Pal. Indica, ser. 1:!, vol. 1, 1887. 

bSalter, J. W .. and Blanford, H. F., Palreontology of Niti, in the northern Ilimalaya, etc., Calcutta, March, 1865 ... 

c Davidson, .T., Jour. Geol. Soc. London, vol. 22, 1866, pp. !31\ et seq. 

d Diener, C., Himalayan fossils· Mem. Geol. Survey India, Pal. Indica, ser. 15, vol. 1, pt: 2, 1899. 

<Idem, vol. 1, pt. 5, 1903, p. 133. 

fidem, vol. 1, pt. 5, 1003, p. 3. 

g Idem, vol. 1, pt. 4, l897. 

h Idem, vol. 1, pt. 5, 1003, pp. 62, 100, 114, respectively. ,·_,., 

i Dcnkschr. math.-natunviss. Klasse, K. Akad. Wiss., Wlen, vol. 62, reprint, 189~··.: !-:::; 

",• ')"'-' 
INTRODUCTION. 31 

The explorations of Kraffta and of Obrutschewb in Bokhara have furnished 

information of slight moment so far as the present investigation is concerned . 

. Their reports contain lists of a few Carboniferous species in no way·indicating any 

special relationship to the Guadalupian fauna. 

Carboniferous fa).lnas occur also in Turkestan, hut the only literature which 

relates to them is a report by Romanowsky published in 1880.c Romanowsky 

seems to have had a number of rather meager faunas, representing possibly several 

geologic perio<ls. None of them shows much relationship with the Guadalupian, 

but I have included them pretty consistently in my comparisons. 

Suess and Frech d give a few rather restricted lists of Carboniferous species 

occurring in central Asia and Pamir, but although a few forms are figured there is 

little available for comparisons with the present fauna, and nothing to indicate that 

· a comparison would prove very profitable. 

Our knowledge of the Chinese Carboniferous is regrettably scanty. First in time 

and first probably in celebrity are the accounts by Kayser and Schwager in the 

paleontological volume of Richthofen's China.e 'l'he only Carboniferous fauna, to 

use the term strictly, which is here described, however, is that from Lo Ping. 

Fliegel somewhat revised the LoPing fauna in 1901/ in connection with another 

work, to be mentioned later. Of equal importance are the. accounts by Loczy, 

Lorenthey, and Frech on the Carboniferous faunas collected during the journey of 

Count Bela Szechenyi in eastern Asia. u These faunas also are for the most part 

rather meager, and like that from Lo Ping the most extensive one has recently 

been reviewed by Fliegel. h Another expedition into eastern Asia-that made by 

Futterer and Holderer---,-appears to have obtai.Q.ed collections of Carboniferous material. I infer that a report on this. material is in preparation, or has been completed, 

but I have been unable to obtain a copy of it, if it has appeared in print. The only 

account that has come to hand consists in a smail brochure by Schellwien, entitled 

"The Trias, Permian, and Carboniferous in China. " i It contains very little which 

is concerned in the present investigation. The recent Carnegie .expedition into 

China obtained a small amount of Carboniferous material, a brief report on which 

is now in process of publication. These faunas, however, are so fragmentary and 

so unlike those of the Guadalupe Mountains that it did not seem necessary to include 

them in the comparisons which I have undertaken. Douville on two occasionsi has 

given short lists of Carboniferous fossils from China, but in neither case does the 

fauna appear to he closely related to that of the Guadalupe Mountains. The only 

other information regarding the Carboniferous faunas of China which I have come ------------------------··------------ a Krafft, A. von, Denkschr. math.-naturhist. Klasse, K. Akad. Wiss., Wien. vo!. 70, 1901, pp. 49 et seq. 

b Obrutscbew, V., Materialicn zur Geologie von Russland: K. min. Gesell., vo!. 13, 1889, pp. 167 et seq. In Russian; no 

faunal lists. 

<Romanowsky, G., Matcrialien zur Geologic von Turkestan, pt. 1, St. Petersburg, 1880. 

dSuess, E., and Frech, F., Denkschr. K. Akad. Wiss., Wien, vo!. 61,1894, pp. 431 et seq. 

•Kayser, E., and Schwager, C., in Richthofen, F. von, China, vo!. 4, Berlin, 1883. 

/Fliegel, G., Palreontographica, vo!. 48, 1901, p. 125. 

uLoczy, L., Lorenthey, E., and Frech, F., Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der Reise des Gralen Bela Szechenyi in Ostasien, Wien, vol. 3, 1899. 

h Fliegel, G., Palreontographica, vol. 48, 1001, p. 134. . 

i Schel!wien, E., Sonderabdmck aus den Sohriften qer Phys. okon. Gesell. zu Konigsberg i. Pr., 1002. 

i Douville, H., in Jourdy, E., Dull. Soc. geol. France, 1886, p. 448; and (independently) Comptes-rendus Acad. sci., Paris, 

vol. 130, 1900, p. 592. · 

PROPERTY OF IJ 

-:..t BUREAu OF MINES 
32 THE 'GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

upon consists of some notes and lists by ·Frech a based on material collected by 

Richthofen but not included in Kayser's report. As the species are neither 

described nor figured, it did not seem practicable to compare the Guadalupian. 

fauna with those which they constitute. Our knowledge of the Carboniferous 

faunas of China as conveyed in these reports appears to be highly fragmentary and 

:scattered, much more so than that of the Himalayan faunas, which in turn is much 

less complete than that of the faunas of the Salt Range. . 

Regarding the Carboniferous faunas of the northern part of eastern Asia, the 

literature contains almost nothing. The only da;ta which I have been able to dis~ 

·cover are in a short notice by Tschernyschew b of a small collection from the 

vicinity of Vladivostok. 

Carboniferous rocks occur in Korea, but little is known of their faunas. Y a bee 

has recently identified species of Fusulina, Stacheia, Bigenerina, and Lagena from the 

vicinity of Phyongyang. Gottsche, Credner, and Fliegel are also said to have 

reported the occurrence of Carboniferous fossils in this state (fide Yabe). 

Carboniferous rocks appear to have but a limited distribution in Japan, and 

their faunas are largely restricted to the Foraminifera. Schwager's account of this 

group in Richthofen'sChina has already been referred to, and Yabed also has devoted 

.especial attention to 'them. The either groups of fossils are not well represented in 

these beds and have apparently not been carefully studied. Gottsche lists a few 

species from Akasaki, and similar brief lists are to be found in two works by Harada.e 

Aside• from the Foraminifera too little is known of the Japanese Carboniferous 

fauna to warrant a comparison with the Guadalupian. A noteworthy entry in the 

Japanese lists is the genus Leptodus ,lLyttonia), which is a striking member of the 

Guadalupian as well. The Foraminifera of the two faunas, however, appear to 

present very different facies. 

The Carboniferous is known to occur in French Indo-China, with Lonsdaleia and 

Schwagerina>· and from Tenasserim, in Burma, Noetlingl has cited a list of eleven 

.species combining .a relationship to the Carboniferous faunas of India on the one 

hand and of Sumatra on the other, but none at all, or one only, showing even a 

remote kinship to that of the Guadalupe Mountains. 

Rather more complete than anything which we have about eastern Asia is our 

knowledge concerning the Carboniferous of the Indian Archipelago. The earliest. 

account was that written by Beyrich, published in 1865/ on a rather extensive 

suite of fossils from Timor. A few additions were made to this fauna by Martin in 

1881,h and in 1892 it underwent revision by Rothpletzi from new collections, the 

species in many cases being redescribed and refigured. In 1880 Roemeri described 

a Kohlenkalk fauna from the west coast of Sumatra, which was revised by Fliegel in 

a Frech, F., Neues Jahrbuch, 189.5, vol. 2, pp. 47 et seq. 

bTschernyschcw, Th., Bull. Com. geol., St. Petersburg, vol. 7, No. 22, 1889, p. 353. 

c Yabe, Y., Jour. Coil. Sci., Imp. Univ. Toky(/, vol. 21, art. 5, 1006, pp. 28 et seq. 

d Idem, pn. 10 et seq., and other works in Japanese. 

• Hs.rada, ·r., Die japanisehen Inseln, Berlin, K. jap. geol. Reichsanstalt, 1800, pp. 63 et seq.; Outlines of the geology of 

.Japan, Imp. Geol. Survey Japan, Tokyo, 1902, pp. 34 et seq. Several works in Japanese also probably refer to the Carboniferous faunas. 

t N oetling, F., Records Geol. Survey India, vol. 26, 1893. 

g Beyrich, E., Abhandl. K. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 1864, vol. 1, 1865, pp. 61 et seq. 

h Martin, K., Sammlungcn Geol. Reichs-Museums in Leiden, ser. 1, vol. 1, 1881, pp. 1 et seq. 

i Rothpletz, A., Palooontographica, vol. 39, 1892, pp. 57 et seq. 

i Roemer, F., P~tlooontographicu, vol. 27, 1~0, pp. 4 et seq. 
INTRODUCTION, 33 

190l.a In making comparisons of the Sumatran fauna, Fliegel also revised those of 

:Lo Ping and Tengtjancsing, as mentioned above. In 1904 W. Volz b published 

a rather extensive account of the geology of Sumatra, with lists of species and 

descriptions of a few Foraminifera and corals. Both groups present a non-Guadalupian facies. 

The Carboniferous faunas of the Australian region have been the subject of several important memoirs and a number of shor-ter papers. Among the latter may 

be mentioned a report by Etheridge, senior, c on some Queensland fossils, one by Eth-

-eridge, junior ,don some fossils from the Bowen River coal field, and one by Frech e 

on marine Dyassic Brachiopoda. There is also of course Dana's classic account of 

;some Carboniferous faunas from New South Wales obtained by the Wilkes exploring 

expedition/ but for data relating to these faunas I have relied chiefly on two summary works. One of these is De Koninck's memoir, entitled "Recherches sur les 

fossiles paleozoiques de la N ouvelle-Galles du Sud," conveniently translated into 

English and republished by the Geologica! Survey of New South Wales.u The other 

is the account of the geology and paleontology of Queensland and New Guinea by 

Jack and Etheridge." Although other reports on the same faunas have appeared 

.from the pens of Sowerby, Lonsdale, McCoy, Morris, D'Orbigny, and others, I have 

felt that they could justly be superseded by the two monographs mentioned, especially since the Australian faunas appear in no essential way related to those of the 

·Guadalupe Mountains. 

From Persia Moller t cites some small suites of Carboniferous fossils, chiefly 

Foraminifera, with such brachiopods of Productus semireticulatus and Orthotetes 

crenistria. So far as one can tell from the very inadequate data, this region contains 

no fauna comparable to the Guadalupian. Schellwien also has published an account 

of some Carboniferous fossils from the Egypt-Arabian desert) The fauna is very 

limited and manifests scant relationship to the Guadalupian. 

A very interesting memoir appeared in 1878 from the pen of Abich,k consisting 

.of a description of a late Carboniferous fauna from Djoulfa, in Armenia, which was 

again discussed and revised in 1900 by Arthaber and Frech. 1 The same year 

Enderle described a Carboniferous f~tuna from Bali a Maaden, in Asia Minor. m 

The Carboniferous is known to oct;ur on the island of Chios, but only a few 

species have been cited by Stachen and Teller. 0 

a Flie~el, G., Paheontographica, vol. 48, 1901, pp. 91 et seq. 

h Volz, W., Zur Geologie von Sumatra: Geol. und pal. Abhandl. Jena, 1904, pp. 1-112. 

c Etheridge, R., sr., Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. London, vol. 28, 1872, pp. 317 ct seq. 

d Etheridge, R., jr., Proc. Royal Phys. Soc. Edinburgh 1878-80, 1880, p. 263. 

e Frech, F, Zcitschr. Deutsch. g~ol. GeseU., vol. 50, pp. 176 et seq. 

/Dana., J.D., Geology: U.S. Expl. Exped. 1838-1842, under command Charles Wilkes, U.S.N., vol. 10, Philadelphia, 

1849, pp. 681-730. ' 

g De Koninck, L. J., Mem. Geol. Survey New South Wales, Paleontology, No.6, 1898. 

hJack, R. L., and Etheridge, R., Geology and palreontology of Queensland and New Guinea, Brisbane and London, 1892. 

i MiiUer, V., Jabrb. K.-k. geol. Reichsanstalt, vol. 30, 1880, p. 573. 

i Scbellwien, E., Zeitschr. Deutsch. geol. Gesell., vol. 46, 1894, pp. 68 et seq. 

k Abich, H., Geologische J<'orschnngen in den Kaukasischen Liindner, pts. I and 3 (pis. 1-5), Wien, 1878. Part 3, which 

was not accessible to me till1907, contains, of matter germane to this report, only thefive plates without any descriptions 

whatever. 

z Arthaber, G., and Frech, F., Ueber das Palii.ozoicum in Hocharmenien und Persien: Beitrii.ge zur Pal. und Geol. Osterreich-Ungams, etc., Wien und Leipzig, 1900, vol. 12, heft 3, pp. 209 et seq. * m Enderle, J., Ueber cine anthracolithische Fauna von Balia Maaden in Kleinasicn: Beitrage zur Pal. und Geol. Oster- · 

·reich-Ungams, etc., vol. n, heft 2, pp. 49 et seq. 

n Stache, G., Verhandl. IC.-k. geol. Rcichsanstalt, Wien, 1876, p. 3il. 

o Teller, F., Denkschr. math.-naturhist. Klasse K. Akad. Wiss., Wien, vol. 40, p. 344. 

3695-No. 58-DS--3 
34 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA .. 

The Russian section is of especial interest to the description and correlation 

of the Guadalupian fauna, because it contains the typical Permian. I did not, 

however, feel at liberty to neglect entirely the lower portion of the section, though 

paying especial attention to its upper members. The Productus gigantens zone, 

however, was regarded as being practically beyond my purview. 

An extensive literature has grown up about the Russian geologic and faunal 

sequence, only part of which I could hope to include with profit in the comparisons 

undertaken here. Some papers were intentionally passed over in favor of others of 

a more comprehensive scope, my object, as elsewhere, being to make a general 

survey rather than an exhaustive one, but some works which would have served my 

purpose well have doubtless been unintentionally omitted. The papers which I 

have consulted on this subject group themselves in three categories-(!) those 

which describe the rocks and faunas of a single geographic or political province; 

(2) monographs of certain faunas or parts of faunas, and (3) monographs of certain 

groups of fossils. As belonging to the latter category I have used of course Moller's 

monograph on the Russian Foraminifera,a Stuckenberg's account of the corals and 

Bryozoa of the Carboniferous limestone of upper middle Russia/ Tschernyschew's 

memoir on the Gschelian Brachiopoda of the Urals and Timan,c Amalizky's account. 

of the Anthracosias of the Perm-formation of Russia/ Karpinsky's monograph on 

the Ammonites of the Artinskstufe,e Jakowlew's account of the Cephalopoda and 

Gasteropoda of several upper Paleozoic terranes of Russia! and Tzwetaev's discussions of the cephalopods of the Russian Carboniferous limestone.g 

In the way of monographs of certain stratigraphic zones use was made especially of Trautschold's monograph of the Moskovian,h also in the Gschelian of 

Tschernyschew's brachiopod monograph and in the Artinsk of Karpinsky's Ammonite monograph, reference to both of which has already been made. There is also 

Krotow's geologic and paleontologic monograph of the sandstone of the Artinsk,i 

a work chiefly in Russian, with but few of the numerous species figured, or discussed 

or described in German. The Permian fauna was viewed chiefly through the pages of 

Tschernyschew,i Netschajew,k and Golowkinsky, 1 including of course Amalizky's 

discussion of the Permian Anthracosias. 

Amalizky has also given an necount in Russian of the Permian of the Volga 

and Oka basins,m but the species a.re merely listed and the work, for my purpose, 

has been of little service. 

The general discussions which were actually employed might have been largely 

increased in number without probably increasing the available data in anything --------- a Moller, v.; Mcm. Acud. imp. sci., St. Petersburg, 7th ser., vol. 25, No.9, 1878; vol. 27, No.5, 1879. 

b Stuckenberg, A., Mem. Com. gcol., St. Petersburg, vol. 5, No. 4, 1888. 

c Tschernyschew, Th., Mem. Com. geol., St. Petersburg, vol. IG, No.2, 1902. 

a Amalizky, W., Paheontographicn, vol. 39, 1892, pp. 125 et seq.; also printed in Russian the same year. 

e Karpinsky, A., Mem. Acad. imp. sci., St. Petersburg, 7th ser., vol. 37, No.2, 1889. 

f Jakowlew, N., Mem. Com. geol., St. Petersburg, vol. 15, No.3, 1899. 

g Tzwetaev, M., Mem. Com. geol., St. Petersburg, vol. 5, No. 3, 1888. 

h Trantschold, H., Die Kalk.briiche von Mjatschkowa, Moscow, 1874-1879. 

i Krotow, P. I., Kazan Obshchestvo Estestvo-Ispytatelei, 'l'rudy, vol.13, 188.S. 

i Tschernyschew, Th., Verhandl. Russ. k. mineral. Gesell. St. Petersburg, 2d ser., vol. 20, No.9, 188.5, p. 265. 

k Netschajcw, A., Kazan, Obshchestvo Estcstvo-Ispytatelci, Trudy, vol. 27, 1894. 

· z Golowkinsky, N. A., Verhanlll. Huss. k. minernl. Gesell. St. Petersburg, vol. 1, 1869, p. 273. 

m Amalizky, W., Deposits of the Permian system in the basfn of the Volgn. 11m! Oka, St. Petersburg, 1887. 
INTRODUCTION. 35 

like a corresponding degree. Foremost among the works used should probably 

be mention~d Murchison, De Verneuil, and Keyserling's account of the geology of 

Russia and. the Ural Mountains, a which is now valuable chiefly, at least in the 

matter of Paleozoic paleontology, for its excellent figures. Keyserling's "Reise in 

das Petschora-Land "b must not be overlooked, though I recurred to it but seldom. 

Stuckenberg's partially illustrated account of the Gschelian and Artinskian faunas 

(of sheet 127 of the Russian Survey)c added valuable data to those which I was 

able to gather in relation to these faunas from other sources. Krotow gives a brief 

illustrated account of the Carboniferous faunas of the western slopes of the Urals.d 

Tschernyschew lists some other· Carboniferous faunas and summarizes the Artinskian brachiopods -in connection -\vith his geologic report on sheet 139 (western 

slope of the central Urals).e The same author gives extensive lists of the Gschelian 

fauna in connection with his brachiopod monograph. Lists are also given by 

Nikitin in his paper "Artesian wells in the. vicinity of Moscow,"/ as well as a 

description of a rather small fauna of Gschelian age. Sibirzew has likewise given 

rather extensive -lists of .Moskovian, Gschelian, Artinskian, aml-:f?ermian faunas,n 

to which I have had occasionaJ recourse, but as a rule it· has not seemed practicable 

to use bare faunal lists; since, aside -from- such question as might legitill1ately surround identifications .without the· vouching afforded by descriptions and figtires; 

rises the task, discouraging enough for one not too familiar with the literature and 

synonymy of Russian species, of pursuing the identified species to their sources. 

So distantly related to the Guadalupian are most of the Carboniferous faunas 

of continental Europe and the British Isles, and so extensive is the literature which 

relates to them, that I have not felt called on to convoke most of it to my comparisons. An ·exception has been made, for reasons previously stated, in the case 

of the Russian section. Faunas very important to the present investigation have 

been described; however, -from the province of Palermo, in Sicily, from the Carnic 

Alps, .and from the Permian of Germany and· England. I have also undertaken 

to include in my comparisons some of the scantily known Arctic faunas. 

Gemmellaro has described in parts an extensive and interesting fauna from 

Palermo, but the several numbers of his work are to be had with difficulty, if my 

experience is a criterion. Many bibliographic references to them appear to be 

misleading, indicating that they were private publications. Some 'parts may have 

appeared independently, but such as I have been able to obtain h~ve been published either by the Palermo Scientific Society or the Royal Academy of Sciences 

of Naples. Whether he obtained and described the lower invertebrate classes I 

have been unable to discover; all the parts seen by me relate to the Brachiopoda, 

the Mollusca, and the Crustacea. 

The brachiopods, so far as the volumes which 'r have seen are concerned, are 

not completely described. In 1897h he gave an account of two genera (Scacchi-

"Murchison, R.I., De Verneuil, E., and Keyserling, A. von, Paleontologie, London and Paris, vol. 2, pt. 3, 1845. 

b Keyserling, A. von, Wissenschaftliche ncobachtungen auf einer Reise in das Petschora-Land, St. Petersburg, 1846. 

c Stuckenberg, A., Mlim. Com. geoL, St. Petersburg, vol. 16, No.1, 1898, pp. 193 et seq. 

d Krotow, P. I., Mom. Com. geol., St. Petersburg, vol. 6, 1888, pp. 468 et seq. 

e Tschernyschew, 'f'h., Mem. Com. goo!., St. Petersburg, vol. 3, No.2, 1886, pp. 338, et seq. 

1 Nikitin, s., Mem. Com. geol., St. Petersburg, vol. 5, No. 5, 1890. 

g Sibirzcw, N·., Mem. Com. gcol, St. Petersburg, vol. 15, No.2, 1896, pp. 233 et seq. 

h Gemmcllaro, G. G., Gi<;>rn. Soc. sci. nat. ed econ. di Palermo, vol. 21, 1897, pp. 113 et seq. 
THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

nella and Megarhynchus) from the· Fusulina limestone of Palermo, besides mentioning a number oi other associated generic types. In 1899 a he descriped a large 

number of species found in the Sicilian fauna, but evidently only a- part of the 

brachiopod representation. Streptorhynchus, Derbya, Strophalosia, Aulosteges, Marginella, Richthofenia, and Lyttonia, mentioned in the preliminary notice, are omitted, 

and if he has elsewhere published descriptions of the species belonging to these 

genera I have been unable to find them. The pelecypods were described in 1897 b 

in the same volume which contained the preliminary notice of the Brachiopoda. 

Part but not perhaps all of the Gttsteropoda were qescribed in 1890, the same volume 

containing also the description of the nautiloid division of the Cephalopoda and a 

considerable appendix to· the Ammonoidea.c The main portion of the Ammonoidea was described in 1888.d The descriptions of the Crustacea were publish~d 

in another series in 1890.e In addition to being incomplete, Gemmellaro's description of the Sicilian fauna is an_noyingly faulty in. another particular. Most, or 

pr?bably all, of the copies lack plates re~err~d to in the text. s~~al instances of 

thts sort occur, and too frequently the mtatJOns of figures on the iftes have to be 

corrected. ~ 

Somewhat similarly incomplete have been the data which I h~e been able to 

gather relating to the fauna of the Carnic Alps. The earlier Carbo~erous faunas of 

the region are out of relation with the Guadalupian, and conse8uently I have 

neglected De Koninck's monograph on Carboniferous fossils from Bl'mberg, in Carinthia/ The Brachiopoda of the younger faunas were described by Schellwien first in 

1892, in a paper entitled ''The fauna of the Carnic Fusulina limestone," u and later, 

in 1900, in an article upon the fauna of the Trogkofelschichten.h He described the 

Foraminifera in 1897, i and apparently projected a discussion of the other groups, but 

I have been unable to find any evidence tnat he carried the purpose into execution. 

Several invertebrate faunas from the Carnic Alps not closely related to the Guadalupian have recently been described by Gortani/ and he cites other works on 

the same subject by himself, Angelis d'Ossat, and others. For some reason many of 

these citations appear to be incorrect. As an instance, for a work by himself in which 

Fusulina '(Llpina var. communis is cited with synonymy, Gortani refers k to "I, 

Paleontogr. Italica, X, 1904." My copy of that work contains no paper by Gortani and no paper dealing with the Carboniferous of the Carnic Alps. The same is 

true of the volumes for the four or five years adjacent. I have, however, found a 

work by Angelis d'Ossat on the corals and Bryozoa of the Carnic Nps,Z but the 

species, though described, are not figured. 

a Gemmellaro, G. G., Giorn. Soc. sci. nat. ed econ. di Palermo, val. 22, 1899, pp. 95 et seq. 

b Idem, vol. 21, 1897, pp. 9 et seq. 

c Idem, val. 20, 1890, pp. 53 et seq., pp. 37 et seq., and.pp. 9 et seq., respectively. 

d Idem, vol. 19, 1888, pp. 1 et seq. 

< Gemmellaro, G. G., Reale accad: sci. fisiche e mathematiche, Napoli (reprint?), 1890. 

f De Koninck, L. J ., Recherches sur les animaux fossils, pt. 2, Brussels, 1873. 

g Schellwien, E., Palreantagraphica, vol. 39, 1892, pp.1 et seq. 

h Abhandl. K.-k. geol. Reichsanstalt, vol. 16, heft 1, 1900. 

i Palreontographica, vol. 44, 1897, pp. 237 et seq. , 

J Regny, P. Vinassa de, and Gortani, M., lJ'ossili Carboniferi del M. Pizznledel Pianodi LanzanelleAlpi Carniche, Rome, 

190.5; Rivista italiana di paleontologia, anno ix, fasc 1, 2, Bologna, 1903 (?); Atti Reale accad. Lincei, ser. 5, vol. 11, 1902, 

p.316. . 

k Fossili Carboniferi del M. Pizzul e del Piano di Lanza nelle Alpi Carniche, 1905, p. 529. 

z Angelis d'Ossat, G.de, Classe sci. fisiche, mathematiche e naturali, Atti Reale accad. Lincei, Mem., ser. 5, vol. 2, 1898, pp. 

242 et seq. 
INTRODUCTION. 37 

I must not fail in this connection to speak of the fauna of the Bellerophon limestone. This interesting fauna from southeastern Tyrol, which has been described by 

Mojsissovics, Stache, and Gilmhel,a shows almost no resemblance to the Guadalupian. 

Its facies is in fact so unusual for the Carboniferous that Gum bel held its geologic age 

to be lower Trias, while Stache was led to believe that it was upper Permian. The 

stratigraphic occurrence seems to indicate a horizon close to the top of the Paleozoic, 

if not even beyond the division plane which separates that terrane from the Mesozoic. 

Very recently Schellwicn and Kossmatb have reported a fauna from the Bellerophon 

limestone which establishes its age as Paleozoic, and by indicating a correlation with 

the Salt Range Carboniferous fauna of India tends to prove that the latter is Permian. 

throughout, instead of largely Artinskian, as claimed by Tschernyschew. · In the 

preliminary statement of Schellwien and Kossmat only a few, the most significant 

types, are mentioned, such as Richthofenia aff. lawrenciana, Productus indicus, P. 

abichi, Marginifera ovalis; and Lonsdaleia indica, and they suggest a somewhat closer · 

resemblance to the Guadalupian than would have been inferred from the earlier 

known fauna. 

For the Permian faunas of Germany and England I have contented myself with 

consulting the well-known works of Geinitz c and King.d 

The first account of the Carboniferous faunas of Spitzbergen appears to have been. 

given by De Koninck in 1850,e but he had only a few species. In 1874 Toula published an account of,some Carboniferous fossils from the south point of Spitzbergen/ 

followed in 187 5 by another on some Kohlenkalk and Zechstein fossils from the 

Hornsund,u on the western coast of Spitzbergen, and by a description of PermoCarboniferous fossils from the western coast of Spitzbergen (Axel Island) and the 

cape between the two arms of North FjorcJ.h More recently (1887) Lundgren i published an account of some Permian fossils from Spitzbergen, and Goes.i describes a 

species of Fusulina from the same island. Of tl;te Carboniferous of Nova Zembla 

Toula's work dealing with a Carboniferous limestone fauna from the Barents Islands k 

is the only one which I have found. Andersson 1 has listed some Carboniferous species 

from Baren Island, which is not the same as the foregoing in spite of the similarity of 

name and location. 

Other works on Arctic faunas have been considered to some extent, as, for 

instance, one by Haughton,m another by Etheridge,n a third by Salter, 0 etc., but as a 

a Frech states (Lethcea Geognostica, p. 551) that the nautiloids were described by Mojsissovics. the Ostracoda and Foraminifera by Giimbel, the ammonoids by Diener, and the Mollusca by Stache. I have been unable to locate tile papers by 

Giimbel and Mojsissovics, but Stache describes the nautiloids and gasteropods in the J ahrb. K.-k. geol. Reichsnnstalt, vol. 

27, 1877, pp. 271-318, and the pelecypods and brachiopods in the same series, vol. 2R, 1878, pp. 93-168. Diener's account of the 

ammonoids appears in the Sitzungsber. math.-naturhist. Classe, K. Akad. Wiss., Wien, vol. 106, pt.!, pp. 61-76. 

b Schellwien, E., and Kossmat, F., Zeitschr. Deutsch. gcol. Gesell., val. 57, heft 4, 1905, pp. 357-359. 

c Geinitz, II. B., Animalischen Ucbcrreste der Dyas,_ Leipzig, 1860. 

d King, w., Monograph of the Permian fossils of England,Palceontographical Society, 1850. 

e De Koninck, L. J ., Bull. A cad. roy. sci. Belgique, val. 16, pt. 2, 1850, p. 632 · 

I Toula, F., Sitzungsber. math.-naturwiss. Klasse, K. Akad. Wiss., Wien, val. OS, 1S74, pp, 267 et seq. 

g Idem, vol. 70, pt. 1, 1875, pp.133 et seq. 

h Ncues Jahrbuch, 1875, pp. 22!i et seq. 

i Lundgren, n., Bihangti!l Kong!. svensk. Vet.-Akad. Hand!., vol.l3, afd. 4, No.l 1 1887, pp.1 et seq. 

JGoes, A T: von, Oefvers. Vet. Akac!., Forhandl. for 1883, No.8,1884,pp.29etseq. 

k Toula, F., Sitzungsher. math.-naturwiss. Klasse, K. Akad. Wiss., Wicn, vol. 71, pt.1, 1875, pp. 527 et seq. 

l Andersson, J. G., Bull. Geol. Inst. Upsala, vol. 4, pt. 2, No.8, 1900, p. 243. 

m Haughton, S., Jour. Royal Dublin Soc., 1857, ·pp. 183, 239-250. 

n Etheridge, H., Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. London, val. 34, 1878, pp. 568 et seq. 

o Salter, J. W., in Belcher, E .. Last of the Arctic voyages, vol. 2, 1&15, pp. 3~7 et seq. 
38 THE GUADALUPlAN FAUNA. 

rule the known faunas are too poor and fragmentary to yield anything of interest in 

connection with the Guadalupian, besides being, so far as can be determined, only 

remotely related. 

Stachea recorded several Carboniferous faunas in the West Sahara, to which, 

though they show no close relationship with the Guadalupian, I have assigned a place 

in my comparisons. 

Relatively little is known of the Carboniferous of South and Central America. 

The earliest and perhaps on the whole the most widely known account is that by 

D'Orbigny,b in which he described several Carboniferous faunal occurrences, 

chiefly in Bolivia. Salter c a score of years later listed and partially figured a 

small suite of fossils from Lake Titicaca, in Bolivia, and Toulad not long thereafter described a small Carboniferous fauna from the vicinity of Cochabamba; 

in the same country. The only record of the occurrence of Carboniferous in 

· Peru which I have come upon was made by Gahb,e and includes only four or five 

species. On the Brazilian Carboniferous faunas f we have primarily Derby's 

admirable memoir! in which, however, only the Brachiopoda are discussed. A 

recent publication by Katzer g gives a resume of the Brazilian faunas as a whole. 

They appear to bear a remarkably close relation to those of the typical Pennsylvanian 

and consequently are widely different from the Guadalupian. Although there are 

a few types which are unknown in the Pennsylvanian, such as some of the species 

'described by Derby, a large humber appear to be the same in both faunas. Katzer's 

figures are in part copies from Derby, in part copies from Meek, Geinitz, and others, 

and in part original drawings from Brazilian specimens. Of the latter some appear 

to be new species, figured but not described. 

Carboniferous strata occur also in. Guatemala, where they were reported by 

Sapper.h This author lists a small number of species from each of four provinces; 

but the faunas appear not to be clpsely related to those of the Guadalupe Mountains. 

With this my South American citations come to a close. 

To canvass the extensive literature dealing with the Carboniferous of North 

America would he impracticable at this place, nor is it called for. My comparisons, 

in truth, have been made less specific in the case of the North American faunas than 

in some others, partly because the faunas· are so extensive and the literature so 

scattered that to do otherwise would be a serious task, partly because, being fairly 

familiar with the literature and the faunas, I could select what seemed most appropriate; and partly because the Guaclalupian fauna differs so widely from either the 

Pennsylvanian or the "Pern1ian" of the eastern section that no more than general 

comparisons seem to be for the most part necessary. Such comparisons as I have 

made, however, have been with the faunas of the Mississippi and Ohio valleys, the 

Appalachian region, and central Texas. The ·faunas of the West are for the most 

a Stache, G., Denkschr. matb.-naturwiss. Klasse. K. Akad. Wiss., Wien, vol. 46, 1R&1, pp. :!69 et seq. 

bD•Orbigny, A., Voyage dans !'Amerique meridionale, vol. 3, pt. 4,1842. 

<Salter, J. W., Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. London, vol. 17, 1861, p. 64. 

d Toula, F., Sitzungsber. math.-naturwiss. Klasse, K. Akad. Wiss., Wien, vol. 59, pt .. I, '1869, pp. 4~3 et se<J. 

•Gabb, W. M., Jour. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 2ll scr., vol. 8, 1874-1881, p. ~02. · 

/Derby, 0. A., Bull. Cornell L"niv., Science, vol. 1, No.2, 1874 .. 

g Katzer, ~'., Gmndziige der Geologie des unteren Amazonas Gehietes, l 003. 

h Sapper, C., Petermann's Mittheilungen, Erganzungshefte, No. 113, 1894. 
INTRODUCTTON. 39 

part so imperfectly known and correlated and so different from the Guadalupian 

that I have systematically left them out of consideration. 

In general comparisons of the Guadalupian with the upper Carboniferous 

faunas of central and eastern North America I have referred back to Weller's useful 

bibliography.a Such additions as have been made since that work appeared do 

not materially alter the combined data of previous publications. In describing 

the Guadalupian species, however, I have intended to keep in view all the more 

recent literature. 

The wo.rks cited in the foregoing n3sume are of course only a part of those 

actually consulted in the course of my study of the Guadalupian fauna, but they 

.are the ones which were used most frequently and which seemed most important 

to consider in connection with it. . 

In all these faunas there is none, I regret to say, with which the Guadalupian 

can really be considered closely allied·. The nearest are probably those of the Salt 

Range and Himalaya, in India, and of the Fusulina limestone of Palermo, in Sicily; 

but in this judgment, in the case of the Indian faunas especially, I may have been 

too strongly influenced by the occurrence of those two singular brachiopod types 

Richthofenia and Leptodus. The fact is perhaps without especial significance, 

but it may be noted that the occurrences of this faunal facies, or at least the occurrences of these genera, in the three instances mentioned, occupy closely corresponding positions with regard to the earth's equator, and may indicate a zonal development in the late Carboniferous. · 

The resemblances shown by the Guadalupian fauna to even the most similar 

·Of those brought into comparison are sporadic and almost immediately offset by 

differences as great. In number and importance the differences outweigh the 

resemblances. My comparisons accordingly indicate that the Guadalupian has 

a very individual facies among known fanuas, though it is probably related to several 

·of them. Such differences would perhaps be expected from their widely separated 

geographic positions and doubtless from the greater freedom of migration as well 

as the greater susceptibility to environmental conditions possessed by some types. 

It is somewhat surprising, how~ver, to find the Guadalupian· fauna so .completely 

different from anything known in the Mississippi Valley, ~hose geographic position 

isrelatively so close. The differences are so great and so pervading that I shall not 

attempt to name them in detail, for they must be patent to the f!J-OSt superficial 

im~estigation. The position maintained in 1905 b seems fully justified-that if the 

Guadalupian fauna is Permian then the Kansas ''Permian" is not, for they differ 

too greatly for both to belong in the same epoch, or, if it should prove they were 

in part cmitemporaneous, for the same name to be applied to them. · At present 

I believe that the Guadalupian, defined below by its oldest known fauna, is younger 

. than the Kansas "Permian" and that it belongs to a different epoch. 

Its correlation with the Russian section is, unfortunately, ambiguous. In 

spots it resembles the Gschelian, the Artinskian, and the Permian. As I pointed 

out in the paper just cited, the resemblances between the underlying Hueco forma-

"Weller, S., Bibliographic index of North Amcricun Carboniferous invertebrates: Bull. U.S. Geol. Survey No.153, 1898. 

b l'roc. Washington Acad. Sci., vol. 22, 1905, pp. 29-2.5. 
40 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

tion and the Gschelian are so, much more important and complete as to exclude· 

from the probabilities a correlation of any part of the Guadalupian with any part, 

of the Gschelian. The abundance and character of the ammonoid development in 

the lower and middle portions of the Guadalupian contain some suggestion of the 

Artinsk fauna, and the abundance and character of Streptorhynchus, Strophalosia, 

or Aulosteges in the middle and upper Guadalupian suggest the Permian of Russia 

!:tnd Germany, so that probably the best correlation is that of the Guadalupian on 

one hand with the Artinsk and Permian on the other; but, intrinsically, the Russian 

and American faunas appear to me to have but little in common. 

·At this point I may well mention a recent paper by Prof. Charles Schuchert a 

dealing wit~ the same general topics. It came into my hands after the present. 

work had been completed and transmitted for publication, and on this account it is 

, not ·perhaps receiving such ample consideration as it deserves. I have not been 

compelled, however, to alter my views on account of this addition to the literature, 

because I find them in close accord with those expressed by Schuchert, whose paper 

to a certain extent anticipates the enunciation of the opinions here set forth. 

I would gladly evade, if I could do so, a discussion at this time of the relationship of the Guadalupian with other faunas, both at home and abroad, for such a 

discussion must necessarily involve the question of the so-called Permian of Kansas;. 

and it seems to me that one can venture to express few positive opinions on this 

subject. The short paper published in 19Q5b gave my views with a freedom which 

I may sometime regret, and it would possibly be well to let matters rest without 

recurring to them here, but my studies of the past year have added a few considerations which I believe to be new, and a recent paper by Mr. Prosscr,C which, among 

other things, comments on the aforesaid opinions, places matters in a light in which 

I do not wish them to remain. Mr. Prosser has the appearance of refuting the 

opinions and at the same time convicting me of the use of very bad reasoning or no 

reasoning at all. His line of argument, as I make out, is this: The Guadalupian is 

upper Permian; the underlying Hueco formation is equivalent to the Pennsylvanian below the Kansas "Permian" and does not include the latter; consequently 

my statement that "if the Capitan fauna is Permian, certainly that of Kansas is 

not," does not follow at a~l. Mr. Prosser is right. It do~s not follow at all. But 

this is Mr. Prosser's argument, not mine, and to construct it he has taken first a 

preliminary cm;relation which I made four years ago and to which I no longer 

adhere, then a correlation of his own which he will find it difficult to maintain, and 

as a conclusion half of a sentence from my recent paper which has in the context a 

somewhat more qualified meaning than that which is obvious in its fragmentary and 

isolated condition. 

I used the term "upper Permian" in the title to a preliminary paper which 

appeared four years ago,d and to this Mr. Pros.ser refers in the first of his premises. 

Indeed, as was clearly intimated at that time, th(.l expression "upper Permian" was 

used because, on the supposition that the Kansas" Permian" was properly so called, 

the Guadalupian fauna (chiefly characterized by station 2926, in the middle portion 

a Am. Jour. Sci., 4th ser., vol. 22, 1906, pp. 2!}-46, 143-158. 

b Proc. Washington Acad. Sci., vol. 7, 1905, pp. 1-2.5. 

cProsser, C. S., Notes on the Permian formations of Knnsas: Am. Geologist, vol. 36, September, 1905, pp. 142 et seq. 

a Am. Jour. Sci., 4th ser., val. 14, 1902, p. 363. 
INT~ODUCTION. 41 

of tha Capitan formation) is so widely different from it; because the Guadalupian is 

so similar in certain striking particulars to Indian faunas which competent authorities regarded as of Permian age, and because it was stratigraphically so high in the 

Carboniferous, situated as it is at the top of the extensive trans-Pecos section . 

. Subsequent studies have led me to believe that it was ill advised to call the Guadalupian fauna upper Permian even in the title of a {>reliminary paper, and that. it 

would be unwise at present to correlate the Guadalupian series with any definite 

stage of the Russian section. The qualification of my earlier inference was rather 

clearly indicated in my 1905 paper,awhere I called attention to a resemblance between 

the Guadalupi11n fauna and that of the Fusulina limestone of Sicily, which Tschernyschew correlates with the Artinsk. The Artinsk, I need hardly recall, underlies 

the typical Russian Permian and is by some Russian authors included under the 

same designation, but by others is distinguished under ·a separate name as PermoCarboniferous. In the same connection, regarding the Guadalupian I said: "Several circumstances leave me still of the opinion that this bed may be Permian." It 

seems to me that to anyone reading the paragraph in which these passages occur it 

must ·be apparent that I no longer hold to the assignment of the Guadalupi"an to the 

upper Permian. I would infer that Mr. Prosser read this paragraph, from the fact 

that he honors me by quoting from it, so that if for purposes of argument he calls 

the Guadalupian upper Permian, it is on his own responsibility, and he is liable to 

be called on to support the opinion, in which it is hoped the present work will be of 

some assistance. 

In the second of Mr. Prosser's premises he says that my lists of the Hueco fauna 

indicate that it is not related to any of the Kansas formations above the top of the 

Chase stage. From this he appears to infer that the Kansas "Permian" is younger 

than the Hueco formation, but in this case it is Mr. Prosser's inference that does not 

follow, for the Hueco fauna in some of its zones is so different from anything 

known in the Mississippi Valley that he would find it no easy task to show that the 

Kansas "Permian" is not represented there under a different faunal aspect. Besides, he seems to have overlooked the fact, at least once appearing in print, b that a 

gap, of undetermined though probably no very great extent, occurs between the 

highest known beds of the Hueco formation and the base of the Guadalupian. But 

supP,osing it to 'have been sh~wn that the horizon of the Kansas "Permian" is in the 

upper part of. the Hueco formation, c on its own merits one would be compelled to 

dass the "Permian" with the Hueco fauna, rather than with the Guadalupian, for 

I doubt very much whether l\fr. Prosser would venture, on the strength of the faunal 

evidence now avail!lble, to trace much relationship between either the lowest fauna 

of the Guadalupian (that of the basal black limestone) or the ·overlying Delaware 

Mountain sandstones and the Kansas "Permian." The third possibility, that of 

recognizing a Permian fauna of the Kansas type as an independent division, does not 

appeal to me at present with favor, but I shall refer to this point later. 

a Proc. Washington Acad. Sci., vol. 7, 1005, p. 22. 

b Bull. Univ. Texas Min. Survey, No.9, 1904, pp. 35, 40. 

c The hypothesis in this case places its correlate above the hit;hest known fauna of the Hueco, but presumably in what 

should be regarded as p·art of the same formation. Of course now and at all times the hypothesis is held in reserve that the 

two sections· may have been more or less contemporaneous, though with very different faunas. Under those circumstances, 

however, it is in my judgment ahnost futile eveu to discuss their rela'ionship on the strength of any evidence now In hand • 

.. 
42 THE GUADALUPIAN FAL:~~\. 

In regard to the third stage of the argument, the passage which lVIr. Prosser 

quotes from me as if it were a deduction from the two premises just passed in review 

really has no connection withhisline of reasoning, andembodies a different meaningin 

the connection in which I wrote it from what is apparent in the connection in which 

he places it. The remaining half of the sentence quoted by Mr. Prosser, together 

with the context, is as follows: ''If the Capitan fauna is 'Permian,' then certainly that 

·Of Kansas is not, for two Carboniferous faunas could scarcely have less in common. 

While it is possible that the so-called Kansas 'Permian' is a provincial phase of the 

Guadalupian, this is yet to be demonstrated, and it is questionable whether for two 

faunas so essentially unlike, even if proved to have been contemporaneous, the same 

name could with propriety be used." For my own part, I do not see how any other 

meaning can be drawn from these two sentences save that while I am not certain that 

the Kansas "Permian" may not have been contemporaneous with the Capitan, the 

two faunas are so different that the same name should not be applied to both. What 

I wished to state was that, the question whether Capitan time was contemporaneous 

with the time of deposition of the Kansas "Permian" being waived, the Capitan 

fauna is so different from the fauna of the Kansas "Permian" that the same name 

.should not be applied to both. ~1y discussion, in. other words, had especially to do. 

with terminology, while Mr. Prosser unfortunately makes it appear that I assert that 

if Capitan time was contemporaneous with the Permian epoch, then that of the 

Kansas beds was not, the faunas being so unlike. In point of fact I am ready· to 

admit that two marine faunas may have a very different facies and still be contemporaneous. But at present I believe that the Capitan and the Kansas "Permian" 

were not contemporaneous, and that any two marine faunas difiering as widely as 

the Guadalupian and the Kansas "Permian" should be distinguished by regional 

names. . 

Such investigations as I have made regarding the subject have left me positive 

on but few points. Two of these, however, have just been mentioned-that the 

Guadalupian fauna is entirely different from the Pennsylvanian and fro·m the "Permian" of the Mississippi Valley, and that whether they are contemporaneous or not 

it woulcl be a blunder to employ for both the same designation, either Permianor 

Guadalupian. Few will, I think, differ with me on these points. For the most part, 

however, I find myself seeing grave objections to the views maintained by others 

without being able to offer anything positive in the way of substitute, and entertaining a number of alternative hypotheses with no more than an opinion, more or less 

temporary, as to which the facts are likely to substantiate. 

The two main points of lVIr. Prosser's holding carry for me some serious difficulties, though while I can not yet accept them I do not wish to be understood as too 

positively maintaining opposite views. He finds the Kansas "Permian" fauna 

much more distinct from the underlying Pennsylvanian than appears to me warranted, and he correlates it· too confidently with the Russian Permian. On neither 

point does it seem to me that very satisfactory evidence has been adduced. It is 

true that on the question of the Permian age of the Kansas beds he has canvassed 

professional opinion pretty extensively, and that at present the· ayes seem to have 

it; but the ballot system, while not without value, has certain obvious shortcomings 

as a means of settling scientific questions. 
INTRODUCTION. 43 

I have never been able to see marked faunal changes in p,assing from the Pennsylvanian to the "Permian" of the Kansas section, and the lists which I prepared 

for Adams's bulletin on the Kansas formationsa do not indicate any important 

differences between the two. It is true that the lists are preliminary, and that 

their imperfections, failure on my own part to discriminate between related forrns, 

and possible incorrect assignment by Mr. Adams of collections to one formation or 

another, would tend to obscure faunal changes which really exist; but on the whole 

I doubt if they seriously misrepresent the range of species or the facies of successive· 

faunas. To me the Kansas faunal succession appears to be. a gradually progressive 

{me, modified of course by the passage of time and toward the end by the development of conditions which first banished or destroyed most of the brachiopod life 

and finally extinguished invertebrate life altogether. It is doubtful, if the question 

of·the representation of the Permian in this eountry had never eome up, whether 

the upper beds of the Kansas section would ever, on their merits, have been separated from the subjacent ones. The difference between the" Pennian" and Pennsylvanian faunas of Kansas is to me by no means comparable to the difference between 

the Mississippian and Pennsylvanian faunas, but rather to the difference between 

some of the subdivisions of the Mississippian. Consequently, if the Kansas "Pern~ian" really is Permian, then, so far as the facts are at present known: and so far 

as this section is concerned, it appears to me doubtful whether more than two~ubdivisions arc justified--the Mississippian and the Pennsylvanian-the "Permian" 

being no more than one of several members of the Pennsylvanian. 

Regarding the correlation of the Kansas "Permian" with the Russian Permian 

I have not seen any very explicit or satisfactory statement of evidence. The questioh, it appears to me, should be considered both in the relation of the Kansas 

fauna and the Permian fauna as individual and detached entities; in the relation of 

the entire faunal sequence of Kansas to the sequence of the Russian faunas; and, 

finally, in the relation of the collateral evidence which the faunas of other sections 

bring to the discussion. 

The chief arguments which Mr. Prosser has advanced for the correlation seem 

to be these: The great developrnent of Fusulina in the Russian section just below 

the Permian, paralleled by the development of the same group precedent to the 

"Permian" of the Kansas section; the development of Bak:ewellia in the Kansas 

"Permian" and the typical Permian of Russia; and the development in the same 

beds of the Pseudomonotis group of shells. As to Pseudomonotis, the genus was 

introduced in the Kansas section considerably before the " Permian." The abundance in which it occurs at about the horizon of the Kansas "Permian" appears to 

me a subordinate matter. Again, after critically examining the best specimens of 

Bak:e?Ltellia which could be obtained I have been brought to entertain. serious doubts 

as to their generic identity with the Bakewellias of the English Permian as represented in King's monograph. The dentition appears to be different and they seem 

to lack the characteristic series of external ligamentary pits. 

It might also be pointed out that just below the Artinsk a zone in the Russian 

section is characterized by a profusion of Schwagerina occurring in association with 

·Fusulinas. Now Schu,agerina has never been reported from the Mississippi Valley, 

a Adams, G. I., Bull. U.S. Geol. 'Survey No. 211. 1903, pp. 77 et seq. 
44 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

while I have recently~ offered reason for believing that the Fusulinas of the Kansas 

section, if they do not belong to a different genus, at least show important differences 

from the typical Fusulinas. These facts seem to destroy Mr. Prosser's argument 

so far as this item of evidence is concerned. At the same time these very forms 

furnish more stable evidence looking somewhat in the same direction. 

In a paper just received Mr. Yabe expresses the opinion that the generic term 

Triticites, which I introduced for the type of Fusulina found in the Mississippi 

Valley, is a synonym not of Fusulina but of Schwagerina. It should be remarked 

at this point that Mr. Yabe regards Fusulina sensu stricto, Schwagerina, Doliolina, 

and Neoschwagerina as subgenera of Fusnlina in the broad sense. \Vith l\fr. Yabe's 

opinion regarding the relationship between Schwagerina and Triticites I am disposed 

in the main to agree. When studying the Kansas Fusulinas I did not fail to consider the genus Schwagerina, but unfortunately employed Schwager's work. on the 

Chinese Foraminifera as my authority relating to the genus which bears his name. 

Not hwing had the opportunity to examine the Asiatic species at first hand, nor 

having been led by my studies to more than a casual acquaintance with the literature of these difficult forms, I was unaware that Schwager had included two distinct 

types under Schwagerina, for one of which Schellwien had in 1897 introduced the 

name llfollerina, which be subsequently (in 1 902) changed to Doliolina. I saw that 

Trit\cites differed widely from the Doliolina structure, which has its inception in the 

basal skeleton of the Chinese Schwagerinas, and concluded that the two were distinct. Nor did. I fail to note that Triticites did not differ greatly from our western 

Schwagermas (e. g., Schwagerina _robusta of California), .but the inference from this 

naturally was (still using Schwager's Schwagerina as a point of departure), not that 

Triticites was a Schwagerina, but that the western Schwagerina was not a true representative of the genus, but more probably related to Triticites. With the misleading 

Doliolina craticulffera removed; Triticites becomes• very closely similar to Schwagerina. 

As the case now stands, therefore, with the Kansas form cited under Schwagerina there appears to be some. authority for ·correlating the upper part of the 

Kansas section with the Schwagerina zone of Russia. On this basis, however, the 

beds above would correlate not with the Permian but with theArtinsk, and the 

propriety might legitimately be impugned of separating on internal evidence the 

beds overlying the abundant occurrence of Schwagerina in the Kansas section and 

of correlating them with the Artinsk rather than assigning to the Artinsk some of 

the nonfossiliferous bee's still higher in occurrence, since the rather thin series above 

the Schwagerina horizons (for the genus ranges practically throughout the Kansas 

section) neither shows any great difference from the fauna below 'nor any marked 

affinity with the fauna of the Artinsk or Permian, while the higher nonfossilifcrous 

horizons at least have the virtue of potentiality in the way of convineing evidence. 

After all, the evidence created by the transfer of the Kansas Fnsulinas to Schwagerina is not very strong, and Mr. Prosser's argument is retroactive, since if the 

beds below the Russian Permian arc so eharaeterized by the abundance of Fusulina 

the total ·absence, of this gentls (now Schwagerina) in the Kansas section may not 

a Am. Jour. Sci,, 4th ser., vol. 17, 1904, pp. 234-240. 
INTRODUCTION. 45 

be Without its sigmficance, while the Kansas Schwagermas certamly belong to a 

distinct group from the typical ones, whose zone IS helow the Artmsk, the Kansas 

forms being distingmsherl by therr fusiform instead of globular shape, the1r thickenerl mstead of slender septa, and the absence of any trace of a basal skeleton. 

Anyone acquainted with the Carboniferous faunas of Kansas who examines 

Genutz's work on the Dyas must be struck by the resemblance hetween the AmerICan and the German faunas It is this resemblance probably whwh led Geinitz to 

correlate the two, but the Dyas is not the Russian Permian, though doubtless closely 

alhed to It, and the American fauna which it especially resemhles is not Mr Prosser's 

Permian, but an antecedent one Of course, a fortiori, if the underlymg heds are 

Dyas the Kansas "Permian" is Penman if the Dyas is Permian, but at the same 

time the resemblance indicates what has already been stated as my opimon-that no 

marked break divides the Kansas "Permian" from the Pennsylvanian, an(l that If 

the formm IS to be correlated with the Russian Permian there is no reason why an 

indefimte thickness of the underlying measures should not be considered Permian 

also, and no reason why the ''Permian" m Kansas should be distinguished as a separate system or epoch ranking with the Mississippian. 

The relationship between the Dyas and the Kansas faunas lies chiefly in the 

pelecypods, the Bryozoa and the Gasteropoda showing somewhat less important 

resemblances The latter group especially is apt to furnish rather unsatisfactory 

correlative evidence, since generic characters of the first importance are not preserved in the Paleozoic at all ancl the mmor generic characters ar~ frf'quently 

destroyed or concealed Comparisons, therefore, have often to be made with uncertainty as to whether forms do or do not belong to the same genus, and depend,not 

infrequently on rather superficial or subordinate characters 

Even among the pelecypods, however, one can not but ohservc some :p.oteworthy differences, such as the presence in the German fauna of L1ebea hausmanni, 

Plagiostoma permiana, and several species of Bakeu•ellia doubtfully congeneric with 

Bakewellia parva of the Kansas "Permian.'' Other points might also be noted, 

such as the abundance of Chiton in the Dyas, but in the main the resemblance is 

certaml,v striking. It is important to observe, however, that tho resemblance is not 

restricted to the higher faunas of the Kansas sectwn, but continues to exist when 

the earlier Pennsylvanian horizons of the Mississippi and Ohio valleys are held in 

VIeW 

The most marker! differences, however, are to be found among the Brachiopoda, 

a group which is of special importance because of their general abundance and good 

preservation, the precision with wluch genera can be determined, and often the 

relatively bnef range of specific and generic types a The Brachiopoda of the Kansas 

"Permian" are surviVals of those of a previous horizon, an(l they are very different 

from the brachiopods of the Dyas. There is nothmg in the entu·e Kansas section to 

compare with the Dyas species of Streptorhynchus, Productus (P horndus, P. latirostratus, P. gPinitzianus, P. hemispluerium, and P. mbertianus), Strophalosia, Spirifer 

(S. curvirostrts and S schrenki) and Oamarophoria. Some of the types mentioned 

a Th1• '"· I am aware, contrary to what has often been mamtamed, but 1t seems to me that m the Carbomferous at 

least genera and spee1es of brachiopod• are d1stmgmshed on more valid and better established data, and they have a bnefer 

range, than other groups 
46 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

appear to be abundant in and characteristic of the Dyas, so that the Brachiopoda 

of the two faunas appear to contain wide and important differences. The types 

which are held in common date from an earlier stage in both areas and have an 

almost world-wide distribution. 

In Tschernyschew's account of a P~rmian fauna from Kostroma there are few 

striking differences when compared with the Kansas "Permian," and most of these 

occur among the brachiopods, such as Gamarophoria, Strophalosia, and Aulosteges, 

genera not known in the Kansas section. The resemblances, howevel', are not 

especi:tlly with the Kansas "Permian," but rather· the reverse, and consist of types 

which range well down in the Pennsylvanian section. Much the same is true of the 

Permian fauna described by Golowkinsky. The greatest differences here are shown 

among the Brachiopoda (Strophalosia horrescens, Productus cancrini, P. hemisplueriurn, and Spiri.fer rugulatus); hut the resemblances are by no means with the 

Kansas "Permian:' as distinc.t from the Pennsylvanian. Also, in the extensive Permian fauna described by Netschajew, aside from the Brachiopoda, which are for 

the most part very unlike any phase of the Kansas faunas, there are few marked 

differences which can be pointed out. One important exception, however, consists 

of the Permian Anthracosias (Palreomntela, Oligodon, Naiadites,· and· Anthracosia), 

of which Netschajew cites 40 species. Amalitzky distinguishes 60 species of this 

group, which is, so far as known, entirely absent from the Kansas series. In this 

case also the resemblances do not point to a relationship between the Russian Permian and that of Kansas as distinguished from the Kansas Pennsylvanian, but 

appear to be equally great with the latter. I would not, however, interpret this to 

indicate that the Kansas ."Permian" is younger than the Russian Permian." The 

Kansas "Permian" appears to me to represent the last stage of a fauna which was 

bein~ somewhat modified, indeed gradually annihilated, by conditions which were 

adverse to it. The meager representation· of the final stages naturally affords a less 

satisfactory basis for comparison with the highly differentiated Russian Permian 

(Nctschajew cites 249 species of invertebrates), presenting fewer points of resemblance and more points of negative difference. 

I have, however, considered only the features in which the Russian Permian 

fauna differs from the Kansas "Permian," and even in this rapid and very general 

survey have neglected a number of inst.nnces which are worthy of notice.. A more 

critical and det.ailed comparison of the two faunas would, I venture to say, still 

more increase the sum of difference. Nor have I considered elements in the Kansas 

"Permian" which arc absent from the Russian Permian. On the intrinsic. characters of the two faunas it seems to me that no more than a very provisional correlation 

is justified. 

The paleobotanical evidence which has recently been brought forward a to 

identify as Permian part of the Kansas section is not unimportant, but if I may 

do so without appearing to try to prove that the Kansas beds are not Permian, 

rather than merely to examine critically the evidence for believing that they are-, I 

would point out several considerations in relation to this line of evidence. In the 

first place, here and elsewhere in speaking of the Kansas "Permian" I refer to the 

n Kansas Univ. Quart .. vol. 9, 1900,·pp. 63, 64, 18Q-189; vol.lO, 1901, pp. 1-12; Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci., vol. li, 1901, 

pp. 208, 209. 
INTRODUCTION. 47 

Chase and Marion formations, but not to any of the higher beds, as I believe that 

the only practical method of correlating terranes so widely separated as those of 

Kansas and Russia is b~ paleontologic evidence; and since the evidence of invertebrate paleontology only is that which I am in a position to understand and weigh, 

it is natural that any statement of mine must apply to that portion of the Kansas. 

section where invertebrate fossils are found, and can not consistently apply to formations overlying the Marion, where invertebrate evidence appears to be absent. 

Furthermore, unless otherwise indicated, in speaking of .the Permian I refer primarily 

to the Russian Permian exclusive· of the underlying Artinsk or" Permo .. Carboniferous. ·' 

Now, regarding the plant evidence, it appears that the horizon from which it. 

was obtained is not as yet definitely fixed, but is regarded as being at the top of the 

Marion or the base of the Wellington, or, in other words, in the highest strata of the 

Kansas "Permian" if not above that series. On the other hand, the correlation by 

paleobotany is not with the Russian Permian but with the German, and not with th~ 

Zechstein,· whose fauna seems most to resemble the typical Permian, but with the 

Rothliegende, which underlies it and may belong to a different epoch. 

It is instructive to compare the entire series-of Russian faunas with that found 

in Kansas in its bearing on the age of the Kansas "Permian." Whoever examines 

Trautschold's monograph on the Moskovian, the lowest terrane of the Russian 

Carboniferous above the Mountain limestone, must be struck by its resemblance tq 

the ordinary Kansas fauna. The resemblance is to the Pennsylvanian of Kansasr 

however, rather .than to the "Permian," but, as I see it, the Kansas "Permian" 

c!iffers from the lower beds more by elimination than by any positive qualities. 

The Gschelian, the next succeeding fauna of the Russian section, shows considerabl~ 

that is different from the Moskovian, and it varies widely from the Kansas faunas as 

a whole or from the fauna of any particular hed in the section. If 50 Gschelia11 

species were found in the Mississippi Valley, probably 49 of them would be recognized as new and the whole as constituting a fauna having a facies '\Videly different 

not only from anything in Kansas but also from anything in eastern North America, 

so far as known. In my judgment the difference between the Gschelian fauna and 

any of the Kansas faunas is far greater than that between the Kansas "Permian" 

and the underlying Pennsylvanian. A thoughtful inspection of Tschernyschew's 

monograph on the Gschelian Brachiopoda will, I am convinced, bear out this statement. The Artinskian fauna, most interesting on account of its ammonoids, but 

otherwise rather closely allied to the Gschelim~ so far as I could make out from the 

literature, is also unrepresented in Kansas. Above the Artinsk is the Russian 

Permian, which we are told is equivalent to the "Permian" of Kansas. 

No one would seriously hypothetize a gap between the Pennsylvanian and 

"Permian" of Kansas during which the Gschelian a'u.d Artinskian beds were being 

put down. The alternative hypothesis is that, while comparable at first, the 

Russian faunas went through very different metamorphoses, the American faunas 

remaining more nearly uniform, and both concluding in a similar vein. This 

hypothesis would also account for the important differences which seem to me to· 

exist between the Russian Permian and that of Kansas, but if the differences are 

admitted the particular difficulty making need for the hypothesis is eliminated.· 
48 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

It is necessary finally to consider the evidence which a few other faunas contribute to this question. That which Beede obtained from the red beds of Oklahoma a is too scanty to prove more than that Carbonifero,!ls faunas extended considerably higher into the red beds than is shown by the Kansas s;eetion. The beds 

at Whitehorse Springs are, I believe, supposed to be several hundred feet above the 

top of the Marion. Their limited fauna is related to that of the Kansas "Permian," 

but shows at the same tirrie some differences suggestive of a different and younger 

facies. The diffey;ences from the Kansas "Permian," however, are notreselllblances 

to the Russian Permian, the close relationship to which of either fauna seems to me 

rather questionable. · 

The ammonoid fauna of Texas appears to be related not to the Russian Permian, to which period American writers have usually assigned it, but to the Artinsk~ . 

This fauna does not occur in the Kansas section. The· position there of the 

Wichita is not definitely known. I have imagined it to be no older than the Kansas 

"Permian," and possibly younger. b This would make the "Permian" of the Kansas 

section, if not older than the Artinsk, older than the Russian Permian. Tscherny-

.schew correlates part but not all of Prosser's" Permian'' with the Artinsk. Prosser's · 

extension of the term "Permian" to cover the Marion, if this correlation is correct, 

is quite justified by the precedent of some of the Russian geologists, who include the 

Artinsk in Lhe Permian, as previously noted. This does not, in my view, constitute 

the best usage, "for, as I understand the matter, the Permian as originally defined 

·did not include the Artinsk, and there is no peremptory faunal evidence demanding 

a departure from the original meaning. On the basis of this doubtful correlation 1t · 

would appear that even the Marion is older than the typical Permian. 

The faunas of the trans-Pecos section also bear on the present question, for 

in some of them I believe there can be traced a distinct relationship with some of 

those of the Russian section, while it is possible if not to determine at least to 

approximate the stratigraphic relationship which they bear to the Kansas section. 

As stated in my recent paper,c the fauna of the Hueco formation which underlies 

the Guadalupian, appears to me closely related to the Russian Gschelian, while a 

different fauna which lies below the Hueconian may tentatively be correlated with 

the Moskovian stage. The ammonoids of the lower Guadalupian are very suggestive 

.of the Artinsk, but aside from this I must confess that there appear but broken 

analogies between the Guadalupian and. the Artinskian or the Permian. Faunally 

the Guadalupian is quite unlike any.of the faunas of eastern North America. The 

Hueco fauna, though still considerably different, shows decidedly greater resemblance to the Kansas faunas, while the faunas beneath the Hueco are perhaps least 

·different of all. To trace thetrans-Pecos section into the Mississippi Valley by the 

south is at present impossible. In passing northward it appears that the Hueco . 

beds, typically consisting of dark limestones, change their color and lithology, and 

are represented by red beds interspersed with limestones. In the Grand Canyon 

:section they appear as the Aubrey sandstone and limestone, while in Utah the Weber 

a Beede, J. W., Am. Geologist, vol. 28, 1001, pp. 46-47; Adv. Bull. First Bien. Rcpt. Okla. Geo!. Survey, 1002, 9 pp. 

b Cummins states (Trans. Texas Acad. Sci., vol. 2, 1897, p. 98) that the upper portion of the Wichita division of Texas in 

which White's ammonoid fauna Nas found is the same as the Fort Riley horizon of Kansas, whose position is in the middle 

~! the Chase group. 

c Proc. Washington Acad. Sci., vol. 7, 1905, p. 20. 
INTRODUCTION. 49 

·quartzite seems to be equivalent to them. These correlations are at present provisional. With still greater reserve are the red-beds faunas of Wyoming correlated 

·with the Weber on the one hand and the upper part of the Kansas section on. the 

other. Their relationship with the eastern fauna is far stronger than with the west-: 

·ern. At present I see no eviden.ce of their being younger than the Weber, but they 

may be older. Conservatively they may be placed in the same epoch. If we accept 

this correlation of the Hueco formation with the Gschelian on the one hand and the 

Kansas CarboniferC?us on the other, the Guadalupian would consequently correspond 

to the Artinsk or to the Artinsk and the Permian. This would, agree with the correlations of some European writers, for the Guadalupian fauna is more nearly related 

to that of the Fusulina limestone ·of Palermo than to any other European fauna, 

and the Sicilian beds are correlated with the .Artinsk by some writers or with the 

Permian by others. Or, if, as Prosser claims, we assume that the upper part of the 

Kansas section is younger than the Hueco formation, or the known fossiliferous 

portion of it, it would follow, if the Kansas "Permian" is Artinsk, as Tschernyschew 

believes,a that the Guadalupian is presumably Permian; but in this case the difference between the faunas of the Kansas "Permian" and any part of the Guadalupian 

is so great that in North America at least the Guadalupian as Permian must be 

sharply distinguished from the Kansas "Permian" as Artinsk, and the Murse 

adopted by some geologists of uniting both divisions under the Permian would not -

._answer for the North American series. The relationship between the fauna of the 

Kansas "Permian" and those of the underlying beds is so close that the Kansas 

"Permian" as Artinsk would have to be regarded as forming a part of the Pennsyl-: 

·van1an. 

Or, if we still assign the Kansas "Permian" to a position above the known faunas 

-of the Hueco formation though.presumably below the Guadalupian, but suppose it 

now to be equivalent not to the Artinsk but to the Permian of the Russian section, 

then it must follow that, if not strictly all, at any rate· most of the Guadalupian 

series i£> a new group younger than the Permian. This does not seem at first sight 

at all probable, and yet on deeper consideration it is not entirely impossible. 

It does not seem to me necessary ~o regard the Russian Permian as the last 

-chapter in the Paleozoic history. Apparent gradation is a dangerous criterion in 

determining whether sedimentation was continuous, since an encroaching sea reworking the detritus of much older deposits could and apparently sometimes does form 

to the eye continuous series of sediments. Faunally the Permian does not seem to 

me to be at all strongly suggestive of the Mesozoic, but to be djstinctly Paleozoic in 

its facies. The ccelenterates, the echinoderms, the bryozoans, the brachiopods, the 

pelecypods, and, less strikingly, the gasteropods and cephalopods (including those 

-of the Artinsk) are in my view distinctly Paleozoic, with but slight inclination to the 

Mesozoic facies. The decline of the brachiopods in the Permian has sometimes 

been cited as foreshadowing the advent of the Mesozoic, but brachiopods are abundant in the lower Mesozoic of Europe, and the groups which are being extinguished 

in the Permian are the wrong ones for this deduction. The types especially differentiated in the Mesozoic are the Rhynchonellas, the .Spiriferjnas, the Terebratulas, and 

the Thecidiidre. These four groups are rather notable in the Permian by the poverty 

a Mem. Com. geol., St. Petersburg, vol. 16, No.2, 1902, pp. 395, 706. 

3695--No.58--DS----4 
50 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

of their development, the most. abundant forms being apparently the distinctly 

Paleozoic strophomenoids and productoids. In the faunas of Palermo and of the 

Guadalupe Mountains the strophomenoids and productoids are also well developed, 

but the Rhynchonellas, the Spiriferinas, and the Terebratulas are differentiated to 

a high degree and thus contain an intimation of the Mesozoic. . Other similar 

features could be noted wherein these faunas more than the Permian appear to be 

anticipatory of the subsequent epoch. Finally, the important differences in facies 

which are shown by the faunas of Palermo and the Guadalup_e Mountains when 

compared with the Permian may indicate differences in age almost as much as. 

differences in environment. In closing this argument, however, I may say"that I 

have elaborated it not so much because I believe that the relations are so, as. 

because I believe that they may be so, from which perhaps it will be gathered that. 

the measure of my credence is rather large. 

Thus far I have considered the relations which would exist if the Kansas section 

were equivalent to the Hueco formation. That it overlies the Hueco formatio~ 

seems at present, from data in hand, too little likely to engage discussion. Less 

improbable is it that the Kansas beds underlie the Hueco. In the light of the present 

. insufficiency of facts or supposed facts this hypothesis is not without substantiatory 

evidence. We have the facies of the Hueconian fauna different from but related to 

· that of the Kansas beds, a relationship which lends itself to the interpretation of 

being due to succession in tinie as well as to a contemporaneous but different environment. There is evidence for believing that the Hueconian is a red-beds fauna, in 

spite of the different lithology of the typical section. A series of beds below those 

carrying the typical Hueco fauna have an assemblage of forms much more like the 

Pennsylvanian than the Hueco fauna itself-that is, it has fewer non-Pennsylvanian 

types. Thus we have in each area a group of rocks with lik~ faunas followed by a. 

series of red beds of Carboniferous age. The red beds of the Kansas section are 

unfossiliferous, save for the fauna from Oklahoma, which Beede described and . 

which is not very distinctive. The Hueco fauna consists largely of brachiopqds and 

gasteropods, and so is out of touch with that from Oklahoma. Perhaps the most 

noticeable feature of the latter is the Dielasma, distinct from the Pennsylvanian 

Dielasmas and rather suggestive of the western t'ypes. This hypothesis also makes 

the Mississippi Valley faunal sequence analogous to that of Russia. The Kansas 

beds and pre-Hueconian beds would correspond to the Moskovian in faunal aspect, 

the Kansas red beds and the Hueco formation to the Gschelian, and the GuadaJupian 

to the Artinsk and Permian. Of course in this case the Kansas·" Permian" could be 

no younger than the Gschelian. 

While this hypothesis should not be overlooked, it seems to me more probable 

that the upper Carboniferous of the Mississippi Valley represents not the preHueconian alone of the trans-Pecos and New Mexico section, but the pre-Guadalupian 

as a whole, the eastern faunas having remairied almost uniform throughout, but the 

western faunas having in the latter half of the period represented taken on a new 

facies. Whether the· enrichment of the fauna during this epoch was by differentiation or by immigration I do not see any way of determining, nor, in the latter event, 

whether the m!gration was from America to Asia, from Asia to America, or to both 

from a third region. 
INTRODUCTION, 51 

It remains to express the heavy obligations under which· I stand to various 

friends and colleagues in the preparation of this report. . As the work, owing to 

frequent and prolonged interruptions, has extended through several years, some acts 

of kindness and of aid have probably been overlooked. I have frequently advised 

with Mr. Charles Schuchert and Mr. R. S. Bassler on scientific points and with Mr. 

T. W. Stanton, Mr. David White, and Mr. G. B. Richardson on more general matters. I have also on several occasions consulted Mr. E. 0. Ulrich. Dr. J. H. Britts, 

of Clinton, Mo., kindly loaned me some specimens collected and identified by the 

Shumards. To all these gentlemen my sincerest thanks are extended. To the 

United States National Museum I am, as always, indebted for facilities and for· the 

use of specimens, partly as the subject-matter of this paper and partly for purposes 

of cmp.parison. Nor am I forgetful of those whose efforts contributed to build up 

the collections which form the basis of the investigations here reported-Mr. R. T. 

Hill, Mr. G. B. Richardson, Mr. B. F. Hill, and Mr. E. H: Elder. 

Range and distribution of the Guadalupian species. 

-~-- --------------- ---- ------------;----c-----c---

... 

~ . ·~ 

Guadalupe Mountains. § 

0 

::E 

0 

~ A 

----.----;-----.---1------

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 

------------------c-------c----1----------------

Fusulina elongata ................................... ·............................ X X X. . . . . . . X . . . . . . X 

Fusulinella sp. a................................................................. X . .. ... X ...... X ........... . Fusulinella sp. b .............................................................. : .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X ........... . Fusulinella sp. c................................................................. . ...... ..... .. .. .. .. .... X ............ . Endothyra sp. a ........................................................ : . . . . . . . . X X ............................. . Endothyra sp. b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X ............................. . Endothyra sp. c....................................................................... .. . ... ...... . ..... X ........... . Spirillina all'. S. plana............................................................ X X ............................. . Lingulina? sp... .. .... .. .. . . . .. .. . ...... .. .. ...... .. ...... ... . . . .. .. ... .. . . ...... . . ... . ...... .. ... . ... ... X ........... . Anthracosycon ficus ................................................................ :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . X ................. . 

r~~gt~::I:,~f77 · < n ··i· n ••~•• < •••··•• •••••• ~t~~d!.~~~~~~ti~fi~'i:'i~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .. x .. :::::: .. <?. :::::: .. ~ .. :::::: ··x·· 

Guadalupia zitteliana var....................................................... X ................................... . 

8~H:!~~!HH!~~~~~h!(~g~~~1t.:.~~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 

Guadalupia favosa ... · ........................................................... ·. X ................................... . 

&~:~:~~~~: ~b~i:~:~.·.·.·.: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ :::::: :::::: :::::: :::::: :::::: :::::: &~:~:l~gt:i ~~ .. ~._.,_._._.: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .. ~ .. :::::: :::::: :::::: ··x · · :::::: :::::: 

m~~t\~i~~~~~;~~~~~~i/:.:.:.·//HTHHHH··/// ··r :~~:: :~/ ~H~ ::\ .~/ ;;~;; SLL~,:nnll dda;s\tiarr~"mJi,fipp-ee~~!~!-~~~ _::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .. ~ .... X .. :::::: :::::: .. X .... X .... X .. ~ X X ...... X ..•.....••.• Lindstroomia cylindrica ............. , ............................................. ·..... X ............................. . Lindstrremia sp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X ............................. . 

if~~i~~i~i~t~±;~-~-~-~·LH//f!:~H/HT!HH// ::w:: ::~:: ~:~:: !!/ ::~:: ~~J\:~:: 
52 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

Range and distribution of the Guadalupian species-Continued. 

Guadalupe Mountains. 

--------- --- 1. _2.13.- 4. 5. _G. 7. 

~~1~¥~i{ft~~~~t~~,;~::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::: :: ~: :': ::::: :::::: . -~ .. :::::: :::::: ~E~~g~~~~m :l t~:~~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::: ::~:: ::::>::::: --~ ·· ::::~:: ::::: !~~~;:;~~~~:~t~ ~K L: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::: Q ::::::/:::::: ··;:· · :::::::::::: 

fgf~g~!~~t~~i~-:-:~ ~:::: ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:::; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~: ~: < <:: ~:::: ~ ~: .. :: ~ ~~:: ~ ~~ :: ~:: .. ~-. ~ ~~ J~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j .. :::::: : :~-. Domopora?vittata ..... _______ --··-···---·-X X·-·········· 

Domopora?hillana ........... --····-·------······-·- -----····-··--· -····- -- X 

Domopora? incrnstans ..... ····-.-. --- .. ---.- ... --- ... --- .. -- .. ---- ... ---···· --· -- .... -- ............... - X --- -·· ..... . Fistnhpora grandis var. guadalupensis ... ---- __ -... -- ..... _--- .. -... --·-- ---. ... X X X X X 

'Fistulipora guadaluprn ........ -.... -... --.- ....... _--- ..... -- .. -.-- .... -- X ---.- ...... _ ... __ . _ .... _ -.. -....... . 

~~:~~~::~c:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::------ ~ Stenopora granulosa .... -. --. -... ---. -. -- .... -... --...... --, .... -..... ---.. -- ... -. -. -- X . -.. -- .... _ . - -......... __ Stenopora granulosa? ...... ------.... -. -. -. -- .... -..... --.... ----- . -- -... -- ----- ----. - ----- - --- .. - X ------ -- -.. - Stenopora polyspinosa var. richardsoni. ............. _ ......... __ ... _- _ ... : ___ .. X ("I) X ___ .. _ ... __ . 

~~1ggfc:!:E~m.a."r<iC:.·.-::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ·-;:-· Q ::::::::::::--<""h .. ::::::::::_ Fen estella popeana ......... ___ . __ ...... -... __ .... _ ... ____ .... _ ... ___ ..... __ .. _ .. _ ..... ___ .. _ ..... __ .. __ . __ .... _ .. __ ._ .... _ . 

Fenestella hilli. .. ··- .... -----. -·-- ..... ---···- ........ --· ----- .... -- ... -- -·· .. --- . ----- X ----- ... --- .... -- .... ··- -- ··-. 

i~~~~ii!iH~ll;~i;~~~~-~;<~~~~::~~~~~:~:~~~~~:~~~~~~~::::~~::~~~~::·:~~-:~~~ ::::: --~-- ::~-:~ :~~~~~ ::(:?:):: :::~~~ ~~~--: Fenestella texana .. -·-·· ··'· -··· ... --- .. --- .. --.---- .. -... -···-· -- .. --····---- --. ---- ... ----- ... --- -.. --- X . -- ... -·-··· 

ii~iHi~~H~t:::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::: ~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::: :::::: :::::: :::::: ~ :::::: :::::: 

Fenestellasp.cvar ................. _____________________________________________ X -····· -··--- ----·· ··--·· -·--·-

fi~J~t~l~JJikji~ ~ ~~: ~: ~ ~:: ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~: ~: ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~::: ~:: ~ ~: ~ ~ ~: ~:: ~: ~::: ~ ~ ~~ ~ :. :: ~: :: ~:: : ~:::: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: -- ~. -...... --- .. 

~~~~J.JL :•·••••• ,,••••••••••·•}••~••··~·· H~~~~~imn~~~-~i~~~~~is:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ____ l 9--~-~-- -:·::: ::::::- x.·l:.x.:: J 

Septoporaaft'. S.robusta ....... -:-·-·····----··----····--·-·--·--····------·····i- -··· -····· -- .. --·· X 

Rhomboporaaff. R.lepidodendrmdes .......................... -----------------'·---- __ ....... -·· ·····- .. X 

Rhombopora? sp ........... -.-- ... ---- ... -- ........ ---- .. --· .. --------- -·-- ---- t----·------ · ----·--- --- X X 

~~ifgc:~Jff~::rL~~i: :::: ::::~~~~:::~ :~ :~~:~~~~:~ :::~ :: ::~~~~ :::~ ::::~ ~~~~ --;--:: ;: :: -~:~~ < ~ ~ }:: ·::~~~ ~ ~~-:: Streptorhynchus pygm.-cum ..... _- _ .. -- ... ---· .. _ -- __ .... __ . __ .... _ .. __ .. _ ----. . . . ... . . . ... (?) X 

Streptorhynchus perattenuatmn ..... -......... _ .. _ ....... _ .. _ ... _.-- ... -.. --- _. __ ... _ -.... - _ .. - _ _ X . _ ..... __ .. . Streptorhynchus? sp. a .... _-- .. -- .•.. -._ .. , ... -...... __ ... _- ..... __ ... _-- .... -._ -. -.- ...... _ .. _ ........... _.. X 

Derbya nasuta .. _ .... _. _.- ..... _.- .. -- .... -...... _ .. __ .... __ -... -_ ..... _-- .. -- ... - ____ - _--- ..... _ .. _ .... _ ... __ . X 

DerbJra? crenulata .. _. _. ____ ................ _ ........ _ .......... _. _ .......... _ .............. _ .. _ ........ _ X X • Derbya sp. a_____________________________________________________________________ X X ...... ...... X .......... .. 

8~f~~f~mi~ar~~~p·~~!~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: g :::::::::::::::::: (:: .. :::::: ::~-?::: Orthotetes distort us._ . _ ...... __ . _ . ___ .... __ .. ___ ...... _ ... __ ..... __ . _ .. __ .... _. . x ___ ..... _ .. _ ... _ .. _ . _ ... __ .. . X 

Orthotetes distortus var. campanulatus ......... _. __ ..... _ ......... _ .. _. _. _.... X _ .. _ .. ___ .... __ ... _ .... - ........... . Orthotetes? sp.a ....................... --------------------------------·--···--- -----· ............ X ___ ......... X 

~ii~I!:a:lr~1~!r_:_:_:_:_:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::: :: ~:: :::::: :::::: 1:: ~:: ::; :: :: ~:: --;--

Meekella difficilis ... _ ..... _ ............. _ ............ ___ ................ _ ..... -... _. __ ...... __ .. _ ....... _ .. .. .. .. .. .. X 

~~~~i~e~~t~~~~:~·.:-.:: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: . -X.- :::::: ::::::.-~--: ::::::::::: :::::: 
INTRODUCTION. 53 

Range and distribution of the Guadalupian species-Continued. 

Guadalupe Mountains. 

____ 1. ~~~- _4_ _,_ 6. I 7. 

Lcptodus americanus .. ·--- ........................... __ .. .. ........ .... .. . . . . X X X X X 

g!%~~fe1~!JE~~::-~-~~~;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: J .. ;:: ::::::::: ------------- ······ 

Chonetes hillanus ........ _ ... __ .................. _............................... X X . . . . . . . . x_. :::::: :::::: Chonetes snbliratus.............................................................. X X X .................. . Chonetes sp................................................................... X X ................. . Product us waagcnianus...... .. .. .. . . . . . ... .. .. .. . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . . .. .. . . .. .. . X ....................... . Product us waagenianus var ............................................................. - X .........•........• Productus semireticulatus var. cupitanensis....... .. . . . . .. . . .. . .. . . ... .. . . .. . . X X ................. . Product us mexican us .......... ___ ...................... -------.................. . .. . . . . . ........... . ....... _ ..... _ ..... . 

im~~mr~l{~~~ ~~~~-~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:-: ::::: ~:: ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~:: ~::- ~ :: ~: ~ ~: :: ~ -:--~: : -~- -:::: ~: ~: ~ ~ ~ _ ; ~: -: ~ ~ ::- <:: 

Productus texanus ................................................................... - . . . . . X ....................... . Product us sp .. n. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X .......... _ .. Product us guadalupensis ............ _........................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . X ....................... . Productus guadalupensis var. conumcheanus ................................................................ _ X 

Productus occldentnlis........................... . .................... - X X ....... -............... . Product us meekanus ...................... ----- .................... ---- ............. -- . . ... . X . ----- . ..... ... . . . X 

~~g~~~~~Hlt'~!~i;~;~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::~:: ::::·· ~ ------ ------ ------ --·--· 

Product us latidorsatus var ......... ---- -·- · ··- ·· ···- · ·· · · ··· · ···-- · ·· ··- · · · · · ·· · ·· ·· · · · ···· · ··X :: ~ :·_ :_:_(~-?:_)~_:_1 ~:~::_-- :::_:_ ·:_ ~~~ ~~~ i~~~~t~H§~~i[j~i~.~~~~ ~:'~~~~~~;,~:-:-:-:::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~:: ::: <J_l . -. .. X 

Productus? pileolus ................................................. -.... .. . . . .. . X (?) .. . .. . .. . . . . X 

~~~~~~i~: R~b~~~~~·-·_·_:: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::. X .. X-.::::::::: : :::::: ........... . Productus sp. d ... ____ -·--·-·······-··································· ...... X ............ X 

Stropha!osia hystricul!t.......................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X 

Strophalosia cornelliana......................................................... X ................ . Strophttlosia sp ................................................ _................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X 

Aulosteges guadalupensis. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X .......... . Aulosteges medlicottianus var. americanus..................................... X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... _ ....... . -Aulostcges magnicostatus....................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . X 

~~&i~~!I~~~J.~i-~~~:-~-~-: -~ ~: ~:: ~ ~ ~: ~.::::::::.:.:.:.:::: ~. ~ ~ ~ ~. ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:: ~: ~ ~:::: :: ~:: :: ~. X ~ .. ; . . . . . . . X 

Enteletes dumblei..,..... .. . . . .. . ...... ... _ .. __ .... :::.::: ::: ::~ ::::.. · ···· · · · x · X 

Enteletes angulutus........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. -.- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X 

Entelctessp.a ...................................................................................... ~-- .. ..... X 

~~i:l:i:~ ~~: ~.".".":: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::"': ::::::::: ::::::::: :·. : .. -~- .. . . . .. . . .. . . X 

~£:~~v~~~~~1~~~~~:: .: ::::::::. ::·:: .. ::.:::::.:::::::::::.::: .. :::: ·::::: :·. : :~:. ::~.. ~ :· <: _:_: r: :: ~ -_:- >·_?)'_·: 

Pugnax? bisulcutn. var. gratiosa .... --------- .. -- · ·-. · · · · ·- ·--- · ·- ·- · · ·- · · · ·- · · · · ·.· · · · X · · · · · · · · · · · I 

Pugnax? bisulcata var. seminuloides .......................................... - x ______ x ____ .. __ .. X . __ x_ ... -_-_·_·_·_·_ ·_·_·_·_·_·_ Pugnaxnitida ........ : ........................................................... . 

r,~rn~~ ~~~~~~~~·-~a:.- -... -.-. -.. -.-. -:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ . -~~). :::::: ::::.:::::::: ::: .. - ~=~ ~:;;~;?~~~": :::::::::::::: ·· · · · · ·· · · · · ·· · :::::::::::::::::::::::: ... --~-. <il .. .. (il. ;· .

1 

.. x .. :·:: :· :. :::: 

Pugnax bidentata.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . ................................... -.. X X . . . . . . . . . -.... -

~~:~.r~~m~---_-_·_-.-: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::: ... ~ _ -- · -->< -:_- :._- __ -_: __ -: __ :_: __ -:_-- :_ ._-_: ._·:_:_ 

Pugnax sp. a ........... ·....... . ....... :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X 

Rhynchonella?indentata ....................................•................. X X ., ................ . Rhynchonclla? longawa......................................................... X . . . . . . (?) : ................ . 

Rhynchonella? guadalupre....................................................... X .................. 

1 

................. . 

Rhynchonella?texanu ........................................................... ······ ··;·· :::::::::::: --(ii. :::::::::::: 

g:~:~~: ~~~fg~~~~fi·_·_-_·_·: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ . . . . . .. . . . .. . .. . x ........... . Dielasma cordatnm.-.. . . -... -- ......... --.-.................................. X ............. --... . . . ............. . 1Dielasma sulcatmn. ..... ..... ................................................ ... X 

1

...... ..... . .................. . 

Dielasma? scutula tum- ....... -.----.-........................................... X .. -... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . 

~t~~;~~~~ ?JJ~c~!~:::~:-_-·:::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: J · :-- :: ~:: :::::: :::::: :::::: :::::: :::::: 

'· 
·' 

54 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA, 

Range ana distribution of the Guadalupian species-Continued. 

Guadalupe Mountains. I 

0 

~ 

"' 

.. "' 

a r~-,---,----,----r~- ----

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 

------·-----------------~-- ---------:-

Notothyris schuchertensis var. ovata . . . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. X (?) .. .. .. .. .. .. X ......... .. N otothyris sp .................................................. ___ .................. -.. . X 

Heterelasma shumardianum ................................... ___ .. .. . . .. .. . . .. . X . . . . .. .. . . . .. . X .......... .. 

:§I;i~lf':~a~,d;:,;>~:~~==._'_·_-_-_ :::::::::::::::::::::: ·: :::::::::::::::::::::::::-::- ~ X ------ ------ -~-- ------ ------

•Spiri!er mexlcanus var. compactus ........................... ___ ............... X . . . . . . .. . . . . ___ .. __ ........ . -Spirifer mexican us var ......................................... _ __ .. . . . .. .. . . .. . . . X _X_ 

iJEl~itj:~~~~~i~~ ~~ ~ ~: ~ ~~:: ~: ~: ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~::::::: ~: ~: ~ ~:::: >: ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~:: :: ~:: ::::. ~ X ~-- : ~ ~ ~ ~: -~ L 

Martinia shumardiana ......................................... ___ .. ... . ...... .. . X ... -.. I..--- ........ -.-- .... ---

.Squamularia guadalupensis .............................. : ..... ___ ..... X X X X 

;S<:[uamularia guadalupensis var. subquadrata ................. __ ..... ____ ....... X ............................ .. Squamularia guadalupensis var. ovalis-. __ .......... _. ~ ~. _. __ .... _ ....... _. _.... X _ ..... _ .. ___ ..... . Am~?oc?elia !Jl~nic<;mvexa var. guadalupensis . ::::::::::.: .... __ . __ ....... . .. . . X _. _... . .. . . . .. . .. . X ........... . ;Spinfenna bilhngst. .......................... --- ------------------------------ X X (?): : ... :. (?) (?) 

lllli~ ·Composita 

Hustedia 

Hustedia 

meekana 

meekana 

mexicana ........................ 

var. 

var. 

trigona 

guad•tlupensis 1~·················································· lis ............................. ........................................... 

--.-----... ... ..... . ...... 

_ .. . . .. 

.. .. 

. . .. 

.. . 

. 

.. 

. . . 

. .. 

. . . 

. 

••i•· 

X X 

X X 

__ . ··~· _ .... _ .,, . .. . . 

•••••••• . x· 

X 

.......... 

___ ! 

X 

........ ••••••• .. . ··~· X 

~~~i:~l:!:tf~~;!tli:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: __ <_?_J __ }~) --~-- .. \

1

? .."")("" ------ 9 -~?!~~~~&';. ?':fr."c:·ia:.iiaia·.;,.iti--:!.e~;~---_-_-:::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::; :::::: 9 :::::: :::::: 

Edmondia? bellula .. .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. . . .. . .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . X ... __ . ( ?) ....... __ ........ . Edmondia sp ................. -~- ................... --..... ... . .. . .. .. . . .. .. . . .. . . . . .. . ... .. . X ................ . Nucula sp. a ...................................................... , ......... :.... ... . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . .X ................. . 

m~~:ii~:~:~.,l.· !r~t~rg!i~~~;~~~~--.-:--:-::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ••••••••••••••••••••• /·•·······~·· :x: :::::: HI~ ::~:: :::::::::::::::::: •• ~ •• r,••••••··~·· ::;:: ~WiF~;~;fi:_-:_:_:_: _: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~::: ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ > ~: : ~ ~:: --~)-- :::::: ) :: ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ X 

X 
INTRODUCTION. 55 

Range and distribution of the Guadalupian species-Continued. 

Guadalupe Mountains. 

1--;------c:---i-------

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 

---------------------------------

Astartella nasuta................................................................ ...... ...... X ...... ...... ...... X 

·¥ffu~~~h= ~~f~~~~~~~iS _· _- _- _-:::::::: ~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::: ::: : :: : _. ~ ___ .. -.. --X -. --- -. --:: :: : : :: : :: : :: : :: 

6t!~~of~orr~s ;rtlftSi ·,:~1~--d~iawarensis~---_-_-_·:: :·::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::: :::::: ··X·· :: ~~::-- ~-- :::::: :::::: 

Protrcte texana ......... ------ .................. ---- ....... --- .... --------.-- .... ---- .. -- --·. -.. --- X . ----- .. ---- Plagioglypta canna"/ ................ -- ............ ---- ....... -............ -........ --- X --- ...... -.. -.......... . 

-~!WJ~ ~~\~~~e~ort~~~~s_._-_-_-_-_-_: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::-·X-- :::::: :::::: :::::: __ x ___ :::::: :::::: Pleurotomariarichardsoni. ...................................................... X --------- (?) (?) 

Pleuroton1aria :mien ... _._ .... _.................................................. X ........... - .. ----. -.--- -.-· ........... . 

~t~~~~~~::~~ ~~m!t~~~~~::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :_ ::::::: --><-- :::::: _ ~~ __ ::::::--(?Y- ------ ------

!!m~~~i:~ln:!~~~::~::_::_:_:::-::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ ---::: :: ~:::::::: :::::::::::: :::::: 

Pleurototnaria strigillata ........................ -........................... (?) X -.--- .... -....... -

Plenrotomaria texana ......... --- ...... -- ...... -- ........... -.. -.. -....... -..... : . . -...... -. -- -.. - . -. -. - X ... --. -- --. - Pleurotomaria neglecta .................. -......... -- -- ... -...... -.. -..... -- . -.. . X --. -. - -- --... -- -. - . -. -. - . -. -•• Pleurotomaru1 sp. d ............ -............ -.. --- ...... -......... -- ... -. -- .. . . . .. . . . . . .. .. . X .. --. - --- --... -- ....... - Pleurotomaria arena ria ......... -- .................. -. -...... -.... -......... -......... -... -.. - X .. -.... -- . -- ........ -. -. Pleurotomaria arena. ria var. rnonilifera .. .................... --.- ................ _ .. .. . . .. ... X ................. . Pleurotomaria? planulata ........................ -.. -... -......... -.- ..... -..... . .. .. . .. .. .. X . -- .... --.- .... -.- . -... . Pleurotomaria cf. P.? planulata .. __ .... -... -~ ~- ...... ___ ... -- .... -- ..... _. __ ................. -- .. -- .. - _. X ... -- ...... . . Pleurotomaria? delawarensis ......... __ . __ .............. -- _ ..................... _..... .... .. X . --- ........ -.. -- ...... . P)eurotomaria? cnrinifera .......... _ ........ _ ......................... _ ................ _.... X -........ -... . Pleurotomaria? carinifera var ....... _ . _ ................ _ .... _ .. .. .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. . .. .. X ......... -.. Pleurotomaria '! elderi. ................... _ ......................... _ ............ __ ............... _ . . .. . . . X -.. -...... .. Euconospim obsoleta .......... ---- ........................ _ .... ---------........ X .-............ -- ... -- ........... -.. .. Euconospira halliana ............................. -_. _ .................... -......... -.......... -- .. -..... -.. -......... -- ... . Euconospira sp ....... __ ........ ---- .......................... _ ................... _ ............... __ .-..... X .......... .. Murchisonin? sp. a ............................... -................ -..................... _ ....... -.... -.. . X ........... . Murchisonia? sp. b ............................................... -......... _ .. _. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . X .... -...... . Bellerophon crassus ......................................... _ ...... ·............. .. .. .. .. X .......... .. 

~~~~~ro;;;:,~¥ic;.~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::: ~ :::::: --(i)-- :::::: :::::-; 

!~~:~:l~tt~~~=fs-~~-~:-~:~~~,~~t~~-::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::: } __ :::::: ::~:: :::::::::::::::::: 

Turbo? sp ............................... -- ..... _ ...... , ....... -- .... ----- ........ _.. --- . . . .. . . . . . .. X ........... . ·Trochus? sp ............................. -........... -.................... -. -. .. . X ........ -..... -.... -....... -...... .. 

[l!i~J;]1I"Sl"~· I ~ I ~ I ~ : ' H I 

Paraceltites clegans ............................... -- . -... -..... _ ..... _ ..... _ . _ .. __ ....... _ . . . X X ........ -.... -. -.. ·Gastrioceras? serra tum ...................... -.......... -.... -... _ ........ __ ..... __ .. .. . . . .. . X . ( ?) .......... -. 

~::;11~l~Ja~fi,~~~~~~;--~~~:i~~i~~:~~~~~~:_:_:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::: :.~-- ::~:: ::~:: :::::::::::: 

Anisopyge perannula ta ....................... -... -- -- -- ............. _ ... _ .... __ . X X X X X .......... .. 

~~~3[!!~;~~:~:;~-:-:-:-:::::::_:_:_:_:_::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::: ::x.:: :::::: <-- :::::::::::: ::-:::: 

Argilloocia sp ........................... ---- .. -- ...... --.................... _ ........ _ .. _ ....... _... .. . .. . X .......... .. 

I. Species from stations 2905, 2966, 2926, 2902, 2906, 2932, 3762, representing the Capitan formation. 

2. Species from stations 2924, 2930, 3762a, 3762b, 3762c, 3762d, 3762e, representing the "dark limestone." 

3. Species from stations 2919, 2903, 2931, 2963, 2968, representing the Delaware Mountain formation. 

4. Species from stations 2920, 2967, representing the basal black limestone. 

5. Species fro.m stations 2935, 2936, 3501, 3500, 2969, 2957, 2962, 2964, 2965, supposed to represent the Delaware Mountain for-

·mation. ' 

6. Species from station 3764, supposed to represent the Delaware Mountain formation. 

7. Species from stations 3763, 3840, supposed to represent the Delaware Mountain formation. 
DESCRIPTIONS OF SPECIES. 

PROTOZOA. 

FORAMINIFERA. 

The known foraminiferal representation of the Guadalupian is meager compared with that of some regions to which reference will be made. It comprises only 

· nine species, distributed as follows: 

Species. 

Fusulina. ____ .......... . _ ..... _. ___ ......... _ ... __ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

Fusulinclla _ .............................................. ____ . _ . _ . _ . _ . . . . . . 3 

Endothyra .......................................... -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 

Spirilliria ......... _ .. __ ...... __ .. _. __ .. _ ................ ·_ ............... _ . . . . . . 1 

Lingulina? .. · ___ ......... __ .... _ .......... _ ............. ·_ .................. _ . . 1 

· Fusulina elongata is large and abundant, while the other types are much smallerand much more rare; .so much so in fact that except a couple of silicified examples 

of Fusulinella none have been seen macroscopically. They occur, where noted, here 

and there in thin sections. In this condition, owing to the small number of observations, the fortuitous orientation in which they. appear, the generally altered or 

obscured microscopic structure, and, I may add, my own too slight familiarity witb. 

the group, I have been able to determine their generic relations only somewhat 

· unsatisfactorily, and have identified them specifically not at all. Persistent effort 

in sectioning would probably bring to light many other forms and lead to a more 

exact determination of them, but I am fain to believe that Foraminifera, aside from 

Fusulina, are considerably less abundant in the Guadalupian than in some other 

Carboniferous faunas. 

For the Foraminifera, somewhat at variance with the scheme adopted for other 

groups, I have not introduced any family headings, as I find that the authorities 

who have been consulted disagree very widely in their family groupings and I am 

myself unable to deter:m:ine the matter on its merits. . 

In the Salt Range of India Schwager found four species of Fusulina, one of Fusulinella, one of Lingulina, one of Involutina, and.one of Margaritina. Among the 

Fusulinas there is nothing to compare with F. elongata of the Guadalupian, and it. 

will thus be seen that the two faunas show very little relation to one another in this 

particular at least. . 

From China and Japan (in Richthofen's China) Schwager cites a still more 

extensive and varied fauna, consisting of 15 species, representing 8 genera, as 

follows: 

Species. Species. 

Fusulina .. _. __ ......................... __ .. 4 Tetmxis ......... __ ......................... i 

Schwagerina .. : ............. :. ____ ...... __ :. 4 Endothyra ... __ .... _ ......... _............. 1 

Fusulinella ................ _ . __ . ____ ... __ .. 1 Valvnlina .................... _ .. _ ....... _... 1 

Lingulina ... _ . _ . ___ ............. -. -...... . 1 Climacammina .................... : ..... _... 2: 

56 
PROTOZOA. 57 

Here again there is nothing to compare with Fusulina elongata, and the whole 

fauna has a different· complexion from the Guadalupian, though, as I have before 

remarked, a more perfect knowledge of the Guadalupian Foraminifera is likely to 

increase its generic resemblances, at least, to the other more abundant faunas. 

Lorenthey also record_s an extensive protozoan fauna from China. He obtained 

the following types: 

Species. Species. 

Fusulina.... ... . .. .. .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Lingulina .......................... . 2 

2 Val vulina ........................... _ .. _ .. _ 

~~~:~:~:~~~a-.-_-_-~·: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 2 TetraJ>is ... _ ...... __ ... _ . ______________ . __ . _ 

Arch:::eocliscus ....... ____ . ____ . __ . __ .. _. __ .. _ l Climacammina . _ ........ _ . _ .______________ .. . 

Spirillina. __ . ___ . __ . _ . _ . _ . _ . ____ . _ : ____ .. __ 5 Enclothyra ..... ___ . _ . _ ............ _ . _____ . _ Nodosaria_ .... ___________________________ _ l Braclyina ........... _______ ....... _____ .. _ . _ 

Noclosinclla .......... _. _. _. _____________ _ : __ l Cribrospira _____ . _________ . ___ .. _ ... ___ . _ ... 

I 

2 

4 

4 

l 

I 

This fauna, which comprises 14 genera and 31 species, is of course much more 

extensive than the Guadalupian. Most of the· Guadalupian genera, however, are 

found among those cited by Loren they. Among the non-Guadalupian genera. 

especial importance attaches to Schwagerina. 

The Indian Archipelago has furnished but a small record, one or two species of 

Fusulina, Moellerina, and Schwagerina being all that I have encountered. 

· In Moller's monograph on the Russian Foraminifera no. fewer than 43 species 

are discriminated, representing the following genera: 

Species. Species. 

Nummulina .. _____________________ .. _...... I Spirillina .. _________________ . ________ . _ .. _ _ 4 

Fusulina................................... 6 Cribrostomum ... __________________ .. _ _ _ _ _ _ · 8 

Schwagcrina .... : ................... _________ _ l Tetraxis ., .... : . . · ....... __ .. _ ... _. _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2 

Hemifusulina .... _ ... _ .. _ .................. . N oclosi nella ..... __ . ____ .. _ . _ .. __ ... ____ . _ . _ . 3 

Braclyina ... _. _ ·.- .. _ .. _ .. _ .. _____ . _ .. _ .. _. _ _ 2 Arch:::eodiscus ........... _ ............ ____ .. _ I . 

Cribrospira .................... ___ . . . . . . . . . . . . I Fusulinella..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 

Endothyra ............ _.................... 5 Stacheia ................................ __ .. 2 

Already in the Moskovian this group was fairly abundant. Trautschold cites 

the following: 

Species. Species. 

Nummulina ................ · ...... _ ...... _.. 1 I Enclothyra....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 

Fusulina ..... _. _ .. _ ........ _ .. _.. . . . . . . . . . . I Fusulinella .......................... , . . . . . 2 

Bradyina .............. _ .. ___ ............... 1 Bigenerina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 

Moller also names the following genera from the" Lower Carboniferous," 

which I take to be a corresponding horizon: 

Species. Species. 

Bradyina. _____ . __ . _ . ___ . _ .. __ . __ . _ .. _ . I Tetraxis .................. ·_....... . . . . . . . . . . 2· 

Cribrospira ... _. _ ... ____ . _ .. _ ......... __ .... I Nodosinclla................................. 3 

Endothyra .. ___ . ___ . __ . __ . ___ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Arclueodiscus............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 

Spirillina _____________________ . _ . __ . __ . _ . _ _ 4 Fusulinella ......... _ . ___ . __ ... _ . . . . . . . . . . . I 

Cribrostomum ........ _____________ . _.......... 6 Stacheia ................... _ ................ 2(?) 

They are, perhaps, especially abundant in the Gschelian, where one genus is 

regarded as a diagnostic fossil, the Schwagerina zone being named after it. It is 

of importance to note that Schwagerina is not known in the Guadalupi11n series. 

Where it does occ'ur in western North America, its horizon is, so far as can be determined, lower and its associated fauna different. If it occurs in the trans-Pecos. 

section, as is very likely, its position is in the Hueco, below the Guadalupian. 
58 THE GlJADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

To return to the Russian section, the number of species in the Artinskian is still 

considerable. Moller cited only Fusulina verneuili and Schwagerina princeps, but 

Stuckenberg records Fusulina verneuili, F. cf. longissima, together with two undetermined species of the same genus, as well as Cribrostomum gracile and 0. cf. commune. Krotow is authority for the occurrence at this horizon of Cribrostomum 

gracile, Cribrostomum sp., Fusulina verneuili, Fusulina 3 sp., and Schwagerina 

princeps. 

In the Russian Permian the class is still present in force, for although other 

authors give but scanty mention, Netschajew records four species of Nodosaria, one 

species of Endothyra?, one species of Cribrostomum?, and two species of Spirillina. 

Enderle cites from Balia ~laaden, in Asia Minor (as identified by Schellwien): 

Species. 

ModlPrina................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 

Schagwerina ....................................................... _ ....... _ . 1 

Fusulina ................................................................. __ . 2 

Miliola .............................................................. _ . . . . . . . l 

I do not know whether Gemmellaro described any Foram.inifera from the Fusulina limestone of Palermo, but this name indicates that the genus Fusulina, at least, 

was abundant. Schellwien described a very considerable foraminiferal fauna from 

the Carnic Alps, of which the following is a summary: 

Species. Species. 

Fusulina ..... _ .... _ . ___ . ___ . ___________ . _ . _ _ 9 AmmodiscuR. ____ ............ _ .. ___ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2 

Schwagerina .. _. __ .. _____________ . ___ . _...... 2 Textularia ____________ ._. _____________ .____ 2 

FusulinPlla. ___ . _. _ ........ __ .. _. _ .... _ ... ___ . 2 Bigenerina .. ____ ._. __ ... _. ______ .. __________ :3 

Endothyra .. ___ .............. ____ . _ . ____ . . . . 2 Tetraxis ___ .. _ . _ . ________ ... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2 

Stacheia ............. ___ ... __________ . ______ _ 

Gortani also found forms belonging to this group in the Carnic Alps, to wit: 

Species. 

Nodosinclb ..... _ .. _. ____ . ___ ........ ____ ........ _ ...... ___ ........ ____ . _. __ . l 

Fusulina .................... ___ . __ .... _. ______ . __ .......... __ . ____ .... _ _ _ _ _ _ 3 

Scll\VagPrina _. _. __ .. __ ... ______ ... __ . _. ____ ... _ ...... _ ... ____ ..... ________ .. . 

The German Dyas is not without this class of organisms, Geinitz citing them 

under the following genera: 

Specif's. 

Nodosaria._._._._. ___ ._._._._ ..... _._ .... _. ______ ._._._ ....... _____ .. _______ . 6 

Dentalina ............... _ . _______ .... _____ ............. _____ . _ .... ____ .... _ _ 2 

Textularia ... _ .. _ . _ ...... _____ .. __ .... ______ .. _ . _ .. _________ ... _ . _____ . _ . _.. . _ _ 4 

In the Permian of England, King cites three species of Dentalina, two of Textularia, and one of Spirillina. Brady" quotes four species of Trochammina, one species 

of Nodosinella, one species of Nodosaria, two species of Dentalina, and two species of 

Textularia from this horizon. He also cites distribution for other areas, his entire 

work involving 62 species and 20 genera; but as he excludes the Fusulinas, and as 

the Permian horizon is that which chiefly interests this discussion, it does not seem 

necessary to consider his other data. 

a Brady, li. B., Carboniferous and PPrnlhtn Forarninif(~ra: Mon. Pal. Soe., London, 1870, pp.1-W6, pls.l-12. 
PROTOZOA. 59 

I have not found recorded any representatives of this dass from the Arctic 

region, from New South Wales, or from South America. 

The survey of the foraminiferal development of the upper horizons of the Carboniferous, thus hastily made, seems· to bring out several facts of at least seeming 

significance. The different types aside froni Fusulina can not positively be said to 

be less well represented, rather than less well known, in the Guadalupian, but I 

believe that they really are less well represented than in certain favored areas in 

other parts of the world. Fusulina elongata, the characteristic Guadalupian foraminifer, is unique the world over for its robust growth and elongate shape. The conditions which proved so salubrious for Fusulina may have been adverse to the de vel-· 

opment of other types, so that they are, as already noted, somewhat scarce. In the 

typical Russian Permian, the Dyas of Germany, and the Permian of England, while 

other foraminiferal types· persist the genus Fusulina is made notable by its absence. 

It is represented in the Artinsk by two species; F: verneuili and F. longissima. These 

two Russian species, together with several from India, where F. longissima is also 

found, are especially similar to F. elongata by reasondf their long slender shape, a 

configuration . which seems to be rather significant of late Carboniferous horizons, 

of a faunal province, or of both. 

If references in literature furnished an accurate index of the distribution of fossils, one would be justified in inferring that except for the fusulinoids Foraminifera 

:were much less numerous and well differentiated in the Carboniferous of North 

America than In other parts of the world, since there have been obtained in England, 

j.n continental Europe) in India, and in China a large number of genera, such as Fusulinella, Stacheia, Psammophis, Hemidiscus, .Archreodiscus, · Spirillina, Nodosinella, 

Lingulina, Climacammina, Bradyina, Oribrospira, · Oribrostomum, Moellerina, and 

others, which are as yet unknown in the two American continents. 

Compared with this list our own representation is meager indeed, including 

little besides the fusulinoids. Endothyra is plentiful at certain localities in the 

typical Mississippian, and a species has also been cited. from probably the same 

general horizon in the Rocky Mountains. Bagg, furthermore, has given a list of 

genera not, for the most part, recorded elsewhere, observed in a Mississippian 

limestone of Colorado. a A species of Nodosinella has been !J,lso described from· the 

Carboniferous limestone of Windsor, Nova Scotia, but these occurrences are also, 

so far as known, in the lower Carboniferous. 

In the upper Carboniferous we have five species of Valwlina from the Mississippi Valley, which have never been rediscovered since their first description, and 

the following list, which Spandel b has recently described from the Pennsylvanian 

of Kansas: .Ammodiscus · cf. filum, .Ammodiscus concavus, Bigenerina cf. eximia, 

Monogenerina atava, Monogenerina nodosariiformis, Textularia gibbosa, Tetraxis 

conica var. lata, Nodosaria postcarbonica, Geinitzina postcarbonica, Dentalina bradyi, 

Fusulina cf. regularis,c and Fusulina sp. There are, in addition, the Fusulinas, 

a Mon. U.S. Geol. Survey, vol. 31, 1898, p. 29. 

b l')pandel, E., Festschr. Natur-hist. Gesell. Niirnberg, 1901, p. 174. 

c Schellwien also cites this species from the Pennsylvanian of the Mississippi Valley region, (Palreontographica, vol. 44, 

1897, p. 2.'\1). He notes (p. 280) ti!at though Fusulina cylindTica is cited with the greatest frequency from this region, the 

identifictttions are, in many cases at least, incorrect. 
60 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA, 

which are so abundant that they occur almost everywhere. In this general reference are also included fossils of the genus Schwagerina which are found only in the 

far western areas of this continent, so that the foraminiferal representation of the 

typical Pennsylvanian with these few exceptions is restricted, one might almost 

say, to the genus Fusulina itself. But the Fusulinas of the Mississippi Valley for the 

most part belong to a single type, for which I recently introduced the name Triticites. Triticites ranges well westward, but the typical Fusulinas with fluted walls 

appear to be rare in the Pennsylvanian and so-called Permian of the Mississippi 

Valley.a 

If one compares the foraminiferal fauna of the Guadalupian with that 'of the 

Pennsylvanian the greatest difference is apparent. Not only does the Guadalupian 

contain 11: larger and more varied representation, but where there is common ground 

the differences are really remarkable. Fusulina elongata both belongs to a different 

and more complex group of the fusulinoids than Triticites secalicus, and is even 

unique among the Fusulinas themselves. 

When fossils strike the eye they are collected, and when collected they are 

described; but they escape observation not only by reason of rarity but by smallness 

of size as well, and the Fusulinas owe their frequent citation to excellence in both 

particulars, since, though smaller than most fossils, they are readily visible as individuals, and in many places they occur in incalculable profusion. The other types 

are, for the most part, of less robust proportions, and while they might thus more 

readily escape observation and owing to difficulty be neglected in researth, it is 

pretty safe to conclude that they are really far less plentiful than the Fusulinas. 

Therefore it is probable that a well-directed and persistent search would show that 

the Pennsylvanian foraminifera1 fauna was fully as diversified as the Guadalupian, 

and that the Guadalupian itself was much more varied and extensive than we now 

know it. 

Thus while it is likely that the Foraminifera of the Guadalupian are really no 

·more varied than those of the Pennsylvanian, I can not but lay stress on the great 

difference manifested by the single type which they possess in common, and express 

the expectation that, in view of this difference and that of the associated fauna, the 

·remaining Guadalupian and Pennsylvanian Foraminifera, when they shall have 

become better known, will prove to be ahno8t equally distinct. 

Although the true Fusulinas, of which F. elongata is a representative, occur in 

western North America, they are quite distinct from the latter specifically and are, 

so far as known, associated with very different faunas. The only exception which 

need be made to tllis statement is a large elongate species occurring in the highest 

Paleozoic rocks of California, which, though I have not examined it microscopically, 

by its shape and size is very suggestive of F. elongata. The associated fauna, however, contains little that recalls the Guadalupian. 

Schwagerina, at least the l!trge rotund type, appears to be restricted to the 

western portion of the continent, its horizon in California being below the elongate 

Fusulina just mentioned. This genus is not known in the Guadalupian fauna, its 

position in the trans-Pecos section--if it ·really occurs there, which I can not positively assert-being in the Hueco formation, which lies below the Guadalupian beds. 

a That they_ do occur there, howcYer, appears to be shown by the citation by Spandel and Schellwien of Fu.sulina regularis, as aboYc noted. · 
PROTOZOA. 61 

Genus FUSULINA Fischer de Waldheim. 

This genus is represented in the Guadalupian fauna, so far as known, by but 

one species, that described by Shumard nearly fifty years ago as Fusulina elongata,· 

but while apparently possessing the structural characters of typical Fusulina, 

F elongata is unique among known members of the genus in the relatively gigantic 

proportions which it attains. It is found in the profusion in which shells of this 

class are wont to occur, whole strata being practically composed of it. 

It has this abundance in the highest known horizon of the Capitan limestone, 

where, with the exception of sponges, it dominates the faunal representation ~o the 

exclusion of other types.a It is absent in the middle portion of the Capitan, however, where the most prolific molluscan fauna was found. · In the "dark limestone" 

and in other portions of the Delaware Mountain formation it is also abundant, 

associated with trilobites, mollusks, etc. It is not known in the black limestone at 

the base of the Guadalup.e section, however, but has been obtained from the soutl~ern 

Delawares and probably from the Glass Mountains. 

Although, as before-remarked, -but one species has at present been discriminated 

in all this wide range and distribution, it is possible that local conditions of preservation may have operated to conceal the presence of relateq forms, although unrelated species, unless very rare, probably do not occur. In the Guadalupe Mountains 

these fossils are not found free and with the detailed characters brought out by 

weathering. On the contrary, at some horizons, before they were covered over and 

solidified into the hard Capitan limestone, each organism became the center of a 

thick dolomitic envelope, which effectually conceals everything except general proportions. Thus, for the most part, instead of using macroscopic characters for the index 

of specific discrimination, this has to be reached much more laboriously by thin sections of individuals selected more or less at random. While, as already stated, similar species may from these causes have been passed over, obviously distinct ones, 

such as have a notable difference of proportion, must be absent or rare. 

_ F elongata possesses the structures of typical Fusulina, but differs importantly 

from the Pennsylvanian forms, which commonly pass as representatives of this genus. 

This fact led me to introduce the term Triticites b for the Pennsylvanian type. 

While in Fusulina the radial walls are so fluted as to form with one· another a division of each longitudinal chamber into a great number of little chamberlets, in 

Triticites the radial walls are straight, except in the terminal regions, and the chambers practically continuous from end to end. All the structural features which I 

noted in Triticites had already been described by Schellwien for Fusulina,c and the 

main differential character lies in the plication of the radial walls. Although Doctor 

Schellwien writes me that, as I had already surmised, an intergradation is found 

between these two types, and expresses the opinion that Triticites on this account is 

not a valid term, I venture to hold to the belief, having due regard to his extensive 

knowledge of this group, that where the extremes are as widely divergent as· in the 

present case they should not be placed in a single genus. A distinguishing name 

will do good service in recording differences, both in dispersion and geologic range. 

a At least ~here I collected it, at statfon 2905. 

bAm. Jour. Sci., 4tl_l ser., vol. 17, 1904, p. 234. 

c Palroontographica, vol. 44, 1897, p. 238. 
62 THE GUADALUPIA.N FAUNA. 

FusuLINA ELONGATA Shumard. 

Pl. V, figs. l to 5; Pl XVII, figs. 1 to 8; Pl. XXII, figs. 7 to 9; Pl XXVII, figs 1. 2. 

1858. Fu.~uhna elongata. Shumard, Trans Acad. SCI. St. Louis, vol l, p 297 (date of volume, 1860). 

Whtte [Penman] limestone, dark limestone, anq sandstone· Guadalupe Mountams. New Mexico 

and Texas 

1859. F11sttlina elongata. Shumard, idem, p. 388. 

Whttc [Permian] limestone and underlying sandstone: Texas and New Mexico 

Shell nearly cylindncal, very slender and mu('h elongated, pointed at the extremities, which are 

slightly curved; chambers very numerous, aperture very narrow, linear, cxtendmg th11 entire length. 

Surface covered with fine, somewhat flexuous strire. 

Dimensions.-Length, from 1 to 2 inches, width, from 1 to 2 lines. This species ts at once distinguished from F cylindrica by its remarkable length. 

Occurs in the white limestone, dark limestone, and sandstone of the Guadalupe Mountains of New 

Mexico and Texas. 

Shumard's rather brief characterization of this species, which is quoted above 

in full, leaves considerable to be added in the way of detail and somewhat in the way 

of correction. Probably the most remarkable feature of F. elongata is its length and 

slender proportions. Shumard gives the length as from 1 to 2 inches (25 to 50 mm.), 

and the width as 1 to 2lines. About 5 mm. is the maximum diameter observed by 

me, and the average is perhaps 3 to 3~ mm., while many examples are still smaller. 

I also, in a brief preliminary announcement of this fauna, said that Fusulina elongata 

probably attained a length of 2 inches. This is perhaps an overestimate, as no 

specimens have come to hand exhibiting these dimensions. These fossils show an 

unexpected tendency to break up into short sections, and also to exfoliate spirally. 

This is especially true of examples from the Delaware Mountain formation and 

from the "dark limestone," where probably the largest individuals occur. It is rare 

to find specimens complete, even in the matrix, at these lower horizons, and I have 

never seen one of the larger specimens complete. Fragments measuring 30 mm. 

are rare. One is, moreover, liable to be misled in estimating the original length 

from fragments, for, instead of tapering gradually to a point, many examples, espe-· 

cially large ones, terminate rather abruptly with bluntly rounded ends. It seems 

to me not improbable, however, that some large examples did reach nearly to the 

dimensions indicated-50 mm. 

The shape is usually more or less contorted, sometimes once curved, less often 

in several directions. The sutures are as a rule flexuous, and sometimes their course 

is very irregular. They are also occasionally confluent, in which case of course the 

chambers do not extend the entire length of the shell. The sutures are somewhat 

depressed and are closely disposed. They number 36 to 39 in a large volution, as 

indicated by the partitions seen in transverse sections. In addition to the longitudinal markings produced by the sutures there are also to be clearly seen in some 

specimens transverse rings, which are close together and are undoubtedly to be associated with the division of the chambers into chamber lets. The number of volutions 

in this species is uncertain, and of course varies in proportion to size. It is difficult 

if not impossible to count those in the extreme center. Certainly ten or eleven 

turns are completed in some instances. 

Although several authors, niore recently Schellwien in particular, have described 

the structural features of Fusulina with much care, some observations on the stru.cture of F. elongata seem in this connec~ion deserving of recoru. The _initial cell is 
PROTOZOA, 63 

well shown in a number of the sections studied and is of unusually large size. 

What may be regarded as the mature. condition seems to have existed during the 

formation of most of the shell. Growth was effected by the addition of chambers 

extending usually from end to end of the axis. The back and floor of each chamber· 

· are formed by earlier portions of the test, the top and front by a new mural growth 

which at first has a spiral direction and later by a sudden bend becomes radial. 

Thus what superficially in cross sections has the appearance of a contmuous revolv- · 

ing wall, and has sometimes been represented as such, is in reality made up of many 

discrete sections, each of which is directly connected with a radial partition. Neither 

the spiral nor the radial walls which constitute the two structural elements are 

simple or continuous as a whole. They are mutually continuous, but are discriminated by a change in structure accompanying a change in direction. Almost always 

it is possible to make out, and in most cases to do so clearly, an outer layer, which 

is thin and opaque, and an inner portion, quite distinct from the crystalline calcite 

that .usu,ally fills the chambers, which is translucent and relatively much thicker; 

That the dark line which bounds the outer half of each chamber does not simply 

mark a plane against which organic material·was .deposited from two directions is 

shown by the fact that it defines the outline of the final volutions.. It is true, however, that on the inner volutions secondary deposits of testaceous material are 

sometimes made. This layer forms a plane of dehiscence along which the volutions 

separate, but it remains with the older volution of which it formed the external 

·surface. 

There is also a structure which has caused the shell in this genus to be described 

as perforate. In brief, the wall seems to be intersected by innumerable tubular 

pores, or if solid by rods, whose direction is normal to the two surfaces. As these 

have the same appearance in sections perpendicular to the axis as in those parallel 

to it, they can safely be saidto be cylindrical, though, as they can often be distinctly 

seen to contract toward the outer side of the wall, their real shape is rather that of 

an elongated cone. They are dark when seen in section, like the outer superficial 

layer. with which they appear to connect. This circumstance, together dh the 

fact that they a~e evidently not continuous with or of the same substance as .the 

crystalline calcite with which the chamberlets are filled, leads me to doubt that they 

were ever hollow tubes. This structure seems to be limited to the revolving wall, 

the radial wall being solid and homogeneous. 

Just after the wall is flexed from a spiral to a radial direction it becomes regularly and strongly fluted transversely to its length. Each of the partitions is so 

arranged with regard to those adjacent that the concave folds of the one are opposite 

and adnate to the convex folds of the other, so that each long longitudinal chamber 

is in this way cut up into many chamberlets. It is the absence of this structure in 

Triticites which distinguishes that genus from Fusulina. Practically no intimation 

of this structure is retained upon the exterior, where a straight, linear, longitudinal 

furrow marks the suture between each two chamberlets; but if.the outer wall is 

removed the anastomosing partition walls are seen forming a regular network whose 

openillgs have a quincuncial arrangement and extend in spiral lines. Almost 

equally marked evidence of the same structure can often be seen at the aperture in 

the columnlike fluting of the partition wall. Indications less striking appear in 
64 THE GUADAI,UPIAN FAUNA. 

sections in the loops and lines which the partitions make when cut in different 

directions. . 

Probably no single chamber is completely inclosed by its partition wall, which 

many sections, both in Triticites and Fusulina itself, show to be incomplete-that 

is, it is seen not to extend quite to ~he revolving wall beneath. In a. transverse 

section the partitions appear to be sometimes complete and sometimes incomplete, 

. and as it often happens that for a whole volution or two they are the one, and then 

for an equal distance the other, it seems rather probable that little openings are left 

at the base of the partition wall, and that these are somewhat regular in their distribution, appearing more or less consecutively in a linear way in concentric lines. 

It was through these openings, and not probably through the pores, that the protoplasm issued to feed and to secrete new chambers. 

Shumard cites the range of this species as being extended from the yellow sandstone through the "dark limestone" and into the "white limestone" above. This 

statement is corroborated by later observations, and I have not been able to discriminate specifically between the lowest and the highest occurrences of this form. 

While maintaining about the sa~e proportions throughout this range it is possible 

that a discrimination can be effected on certain microscopic differences. For 

example, in cross section the specimen from the Delaware Mountain formation 

represented by fig. 8 of Pl. XXII shows the shell to be more loosely coiled; or, in 

other terms, the quotient of revolution to be different from that found in :figures of 

specimens from the "dark limestone" and from the top of the Capitan formation.· 

My studies have not yet progressed sufficiently for me to state whether this difference· 

is constant between forms occurring at the two horizons, or whether it can possibly 

come within the limits of specific variation. 

Fusulina elongata is frequently found in extreme abundance. Calcareous bands 

are produced in the sandstone by its occurrence, and thick strata in the limestones 

are composed almost entirely of it. It is especially abundant in the very highest 

strata seen in the Capitan formation,a where the fauna seems to consist almost 

wholly of these Fusulinas and of calcareous sponges. At this horizon, where considerable beds are almost entirely made up of these organisms they show a marked 

tendency to assume uniform orientation, as if arranged by current action, so that 

when the rock is broken in one way only transverse sections are exposed, and in 

another only longitudinal. 

Near the base of the Capitan, in what is probably Shumard's" dark limestone," 

they are again very abundant, but are here associated with a considerable brachiopod 

fauna. The main Guadalupian f~tuna described in these pages, which was obtained 

about midway between these two horizons, is not associated with Fusulina . . In the 

Delaware Mountain sandstone these fossils occur at several horizons in great abundance, but they have not yet been found in the basal black limestone. 

In addition to localities in the immediate vicinity of Capitan Peak-we have 

Fusulina elongata from points many miles to the south, where it occurs in limestones 

supposed to represent the Delaware Mountain sandstone of the typical Guadalupian 

section, as well as from the same horizon (provisionally) far to the southeast, near 

a Station 2905. The statement is not tme of the collection made by Mr. Richardson at presumably the same locality 

and horizon (station 2966). 
PROTOZOA; 65 

Marathon. A large, much elongated, and slender species, probably identical with 

this, is found in great profusion in California, on McCloud River, in the upper 

beds of the Carboniferous section above the McCloud limestone, which· carries 

.Omphalotrochus and Schwageriria-i. e., in the Nosoni formation, or, as it was formerly 

called, the McCloud shales-and also in other areas. 

Horizon and locality.-Top of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (stations 2905, 

2966, 3762); "dark limestone," station 3762a, Pine Spring (station 2930) I and hill 

southwest of Guadalupe Point (station 2924); Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (stations 2903, 2919, 2931, and 2963), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. 

Delaware .Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (stations 3500, 

2969, 2957, and 2964). Delaware Mo1.1ntain formation, Comanche Canyon, Glass 

Mountains (station 3763). and mountains northwest of Marathon (station 3840), 

·Texas. 

Genus FUSULINELLA Moller. 

FusuLINELLA sp. a. 

Pl. V, fig. 6. 

Although much less abundant than the Fusulinas, the Foraminifera belonging 

to other genera hardly form a negligible quantity in the Guadalupian fauna. For 

the sake of completeness.! have felt constrained to give them a cursory treatment, 

although with much diffidence. On the one hand, I have nothad previous occasion 

to give these forms much attention, and consequently approach the subject, with 

but little experience; and, on the other, the study of the Guadalupian Foraminifera 

is peset with something more than the ordinary difficulties. Tho.ugh the Fusulinas 

occur in great profusion, I have been unable to find the other forms in the gross, 

owing to their small size and much less abundance, and it is necessary both to discover and to study them by aid of thin sections. This means, of course that no 

examination can be made of their external characters and that the orientation of the 

sections is entirely a matter of chance. Furthermore, in most cases the ·original 

substance of these organisms has been so altered that the detail of their structure 

has been impaired if not altogether obscured. 

Although, as I have said, they are very rimch less numerous than the prevailing 

Fusulina elongata, as also very much smaller, a number of organisms of foraminiferal 

nature are shown in the sections which I have had made; but for the most part the 

few cells are arranged in so irregular a manner that the sections evidently depart widely 

from the critical orientations ~respect to which the structure of the organism can 

be intelligently studied. I regard it as possible, therefore, that the sections examined really represent a more varied foraminiferal development than I have been able 

to discriminate; an,d, on the other hand, that some of the forms discriminated may 

really be one and the same. 

In the highest horizon of the Guadalupe Mountains, associated with Fusulina 

elongata, though much less abundant, is a form which I think should be referred to 

Fusulinella.. One. section especially shows a regularity of arrangement indicating 

that it is oriented in accordance with one of the axes. It is represented by fig. 6 

Qf Pl. V. It seems to be directed at right angles to the axis of revolution and to be 

3695-No. 58-0S--5 
66 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

situated rather near one of the ends. Other sections which can probably be referred 

to the same species appear to have cut the.shell more at random. The general 

shape of the organism, so far as can be ascertained from my very imperfect data, 

was spheroidal, much flattened through the axis. There are about 24 chambers in 

the final volution, as near as can be counted. The walls appear to be double and 

imperforate, but the minute structure of many of these forms has been obscured or 

even perverted by preservation. These characters seem to warrant the provisional 

assignment of this shell to Fusulinella, but my material is too imperfect to justify 

me in describing it as new or attempting to identify it with species known. 

Horizon and locality.-Top of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2905); 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (statio11 2903), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas 

(station 2957). 

FusuuNELLA sp. b. 

Pl. XXVII, figs. 5 and 5a. 

This species is represented by a single silicified specimen from the southern 

Delawares. Only the exterior is accordingly known. The shape is ·compressed 

spherical, the axial diameter being about half that in the plane of revolution. The 

latter measures about 1 i mm. There are, as well as can be counted, 26 chambers 

in the last volution. The partitions are simple and straight. Either the sutures 

·are very deep or, more probably, what is presented for study is not the shell itself 

but a silicified mold of the interior, and what appear to be the sutures are really 

the cavities left by the walls. 

There are no American species with which to compare this form save Fusulinella 

sp. a of the Capitan, and as the present form is known only macroscopically and 

Fusulinella sp. a only in thin sections, which are, moreover, for the most part oriented at random and have the structures but poorly shown; the conditions ,are not 

at hand for a very satisfactory comparison. The present form appears to demand 

recognition as a distinct species because it is much larger and has, for the size, less 

numerous chambers. · 

It hardly seems profitable to compare with foreign species the form under discussion, because the conditions under which it is studied would prevent a satisfactory 

conclusion in any event. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 

FusuLINELLA sp. c. 

This species, like the foregoing, is represented by a single specimen and, though 

found in association with it, appears to belong to a distinct species, or at all events 

a distinct variety. The number of chambers and other characters are ·about the 

same in both, the only obvious difference being ·that of proportion, the present form 

having about twice the axial diameter of the other, resulting in a nearly spherical, 

instead of a flattened, shape. Owing to their size and shape it seemed probable 
PROTOZOA, 67 

that this and the preceding form were Fusulinellas rather than Schwagerinas, it 

being impossible to resort to thin sections for the determination of this point. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware 

Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 

Genus ENDOTHYRA Phillips. 

ENDO'I'JIYRA sp. a. 

Pl. XVll, fig. ll. 

One of my slides shows a shell referred with some doubt to the genus Rndothyra. 

The section does not pass through the test with a critical orientation, but somewhat. 

obliquely. For a short distance it nearly coincides with the ·plane of one of· the 

partitions, probably the outer partition, and partially shows an interestll,J.g feature, 

namely, that this wall was pierced by relatively large round pores. How many of 

these there were and whether they had any definite arrangement are at presentunanswerable questions. . They appear to have been few. 

The obliquity of the section which enables this character to be seen distorts 

the remaining parts so that the facts that would be shown in a section normal to 

the center of ,the axis can not be definitely ascertained. There must have been 

from 15 to 20 chambers in the last volution, and the partitions can be inferred to 

be strongly convex. As so often occurs in the Guadalupian rocks, the original 

composition of the shell seems to have been altered and the present appearance 

can not be entirely trusted. There is a thin dark-colored outer layer and a thicker, 

less dense inner one which shows very indistinct traces of having been perforate. 

The appearance of this section is shown by my figure. The general character 

seems to agree best with Rndothyra. The number of chambers is perhaps a little 

high for that genus, and much too high for Bradyina or Cribrospira. The impor:.. 

tant feature presented by the perforated outer partition is, to be sure, rare in Endothyra. Moller has found it in a few species, where it seems to occur chiefly in the 

final chambers when they assume a rectilinear instead of the usual spiral direction. 

It is much more common in Bradyina and Cribrospira, but so far as can be 

inferred the pores are larger and less numerous in the forin under consideration 

than is characteristic of those genera. 

Horizon and locality.-Top of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (stations 29051, 

3762); "dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. 

ENDOTHYRA sp. b. 

Pl. XVII, fig. 10. 

My figure shows the appearance of the form on which the present· division is 

based. I judge that the section is not quite perpendicular to the axis and that It 

lies a little to one side of the center. Some of the partitions are incomplete and 

some appear to be complete. The line of growth in the final volution of the shell 

·seems about to be changing from a spiral to a rectilinear direction, a feature some-
68 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

times found in Endothyra but rare in other genera. The final volution appears to 

have consisted of about 18 chambers. 

The microscopic structure is obscure, but appears in the main to be like that 

of the foregoing species, with a thin dark outer and a thick light inner layer, but 

in places the walls seem to be divided by a line of nearly transparent material, so 

that they have the semblance of being double, as was described by Moller for 

Fusulinella and as is. seen in the figured specimen of Fusulinella sp. a. To this fact 

but little weight can attach, as owing to alteration a similar appearance can occasionally be noted in F'usulina elongata, and as Schellwien regards this apparent 

structure to be adventitious even in typical Fusulinella. Indeed, the discrimination 

between Fusulinella sp. a and· these two species of Endothyra;,-rests on uncertain 

evidence. The figured specimens of the Endothyras have of course peculiar characters, which are not to be found in the other sections referred to the same species. 

These differ from Fusulinella sp. a in being larger and having, for their size, fewer 

chambers. But if the figured section of Fusulinella sp. a were supposed to be taken 

near an extremity of the axis, a section through its center would give at the same 

time a larger size and no greater number of chambers. Such a section would present 

no marked differences, so far as I can see, from most of those referred to Endothyra 

sp. a and Rndothyra sp. b without, however, necessarily possessing the peculiar 

features of what may be called the typical specimens of either. But unless situated 

at the very extremity of the axis, and unless very nicely oriented to it, the :figured 

section of Fusulinella sp. a could hardly fail to cut some of the earlier volutions 

and consequently .to present a different appearance from what is really the case. 

It seems probable, therefore, that the forms placed with Fusulinella sp. a are different even from the nontypical shells referred to Endothyra, being neither pecul-· 

iarly located sections nor small and immature specimens. As the number of chambers pervolution increases with size, in the latter event the number in mature shells 

of the Fusulinella would be greater than in the corresponding size of the Endothyra. 

If really congeneric with the types, the other specimens Feferred to Endothyra 

sp. a and E'ndothyra sp. b can hardly be Fusulinellas, even if they prove not to belong 

properly to Endothyra)· while if not congeneric they may be Fusulinellas, but they 

~re as distinct from Fusulinella sp. b as from Fusulinella sp. a, being much smaller 

and for the same size more highly chambered. 

Horizon and locality.-" Dark limestone," Pine Spring, Guadalupe Mountains, 

Texas (station 2930). 

ENDOTHYRA sp. c. 

Pl. XXVII, fig. 4. 

Unlike the two other types which I have referred to this genus, that under consideration is represented by a section which is nearly parallel with, instead of nearly 

perpendicular to, the axis. I have not thought it to be the same species as they, 

however, because it is much smaller and composed of a larger number of cells than 

they would have had at the same size. The general character of this form is shown 

by my :figure, to which I am unprepared to give any additional data. 

The other species were referred to Endothyra with some doubt, but the appear-= 

ance of the present section is more characteristic and the generic reference is made 

with greater confidence. 
PROTOZOA, 69 

While the four different types of coiled shells which I have discriminated as 

J1usulinella sp., Endothyra sp. a, Endothyra sp. b, and Endothyra sp. c are quite 

. distinct in the oriented sections on which they are based and in some others, the 

many views fortuitously cutting these organisms present, naturally, very varied 

appearances, and many of them I find it impossible to refer with any confidence to 

to one type or the other. Of such assistance as might be afforded by the minute 

structure of the test I have been -deprived, as the structure has in most cases been 

lost through alteration. 

Ilorizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware 

Mountains, Texas (station 2964). 

Genus SPIRILLINA Ehrenberg. 

SPIRILLINA aff. S. PLANA Moller. 

Pl. XVII, fig. 9. 

This species is based essentially on the little specimen a section through which is 

shown by fig. 9 of Pl. XVII. It appears to be related to S. plana Moller, but t'o be 

probably a distinct speci~s. The rate of expansion is considerably less than in 

Moller's species, the walls relatively thinner, and the number of volutions greater. 

The walls do not show the closely perforate structure represented in Moller's 

figure, appearing in fact to be nearly structureless, but this is probably the effect of 

alteration. I am not certain that my specimens do not belong to the group for 

which Schellwien recently introduced the name Hemidiscus: · 

Beca:use my·material is so limited and its characters so imperfectly known I 

have, as in .other cases, refrained from proposing a specific term for this form. 

Horizon and locality.-Top of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2905); 

"dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. 

Genus LINGULINA D'Orbigny. 

LriwuLINA? sp .. 

Pl. XXVII, fig. 3. 

The figure on Pl. XXVII shows all that is known of this form, .. which occurs, 

however, in several slides from this station. It appears to. consist of a rectilinear 

series of flattened, subspherical, more or less embracing chambers, which gradually 

increase in size from one end to the other. The microscopic structure has been 

entirely obscured, and the section does .not show whether the chambers were connected by large oral apertures: The general appearance is rather suggestive of 

Lingulina szechenyii Lorenthey,a but the generic and the specific relations are at 

present a matter of uncertainty. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain .formation, southern Delaware 

Mountains, Texas (station 2964). · 

a Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse dcr Reise des Grafen Bela Szechenyi in Ostasicn, Wien, )899, vol. 3, p. 280. 
'70 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

· SPONGIJE. 

The sponges of the Guadalupian form a remarkable feature of the fauna, both 

in abundance, variety, and peculiar development. This group is apt to be neglected, in the field as well as in the laboratory, and in the present case no special 

effort was made when collecting to obtain material. In fact, attention was particularly centered on the brachiopods and mollusks;- yet the sponges have proved not _ 

the least novel and varied element of the fauna. 

The preservation of my,specimens leaves in many cases much to be desired, 

and often it has been irnpossible to refer them even to the genus with certainty. 

The two types of Silicispongire and Calcispongire have been recognized, not because 

of any difference in their present mineral composition, but by reason of apparent 

structural affinities. "In the white limestone of the Guadalupe Mountains, where 

sponges are especially abundant, both types lack the original siliceous composition 

which one of them is supposed to have possessed. It is chiefly at this horizon alone 

that the Calcispongire, so far as known, are found. In the lower beds of the Guadalupe section and at some of the outlying localities the Silicispongire still retain their 

siliceous nature, thou:gh probably not the original siliceous material or form. 

_ Owing to the aberrant character of some of the organisms here referred to the 

sponges, their determination as belonging to the Lithistida of the Silicispongiro or 

to the Calcispongire is still debatable. Steinmannia, Amblysiphonella, etc., which 

seem by common consent to be grouped with the calcareous sponges, have com- · 

pletely lost the spicular structure of their walls, and the types from the Capitan in 

which this has happened, especially those that manifested an appreciable analogy 

in their organization to the genera named, have been placed with the same group, 

as indicating apparently the best disposition which it is at present possible to make 

of them. 

O~ing partly no doubt to their real scarcity, but in some degree probably to their 

unattractive character and the little promise of return which they hold out, sponges 

have been described in but few of the works with which it seemed desirable to compare 

the. Guadalupian fauna. One of the exceptions is, of course, Waagen's monograph 

on the faunas of the Salt Range of India. In this work species belonging to the 

genera Amblysiphonella and Steinmannia are described, showing an agreement, so 

far as they go, with the Guadalupian fauna, which possesses, however, a much 

greater abundance 'and variety of these organisms. In his paper on the Chitichun 

-fauna No. 1 Diener cites a species of Amblysiphonella and a problematicum which 

may prove to be one of the Calcispongire, though of a genus different from any 

of the Guadalupian types and probably new. 

Among the scattered references in which sponges of this period are treated, perhaps the most noteworthy, aside from that of W aagen, are several which deal with the 

European Permian. In the Russian Carboniferous series these organisms would 

appear to be very rare. Netschajew, however, in his account of the Permian faunas 

of eastern Russia figures two specimensa representing a type which is rather sug-

.gestive of some of the Guadalupian genera (Guadalupia cylindrica). Whether tlris 

resemblance is entirely superficial or has some real basis in structure can not be told. 

a Netschajew, A., Kazan Obshchestvo Estestvo-Ispytatelei, Trudy, vot 27, 1894, Pl. I, figs. 27, 36. 
SPONGIJE. 71 

In his monograph on the Dyas, Geinitz cites a number of sponges, most of them, 

it is true, quoted from Kmg. The two Gernian species which he fig1,1res are, too 

imperfectly known for me to ascertain their relationship to the Guadalupian forn,is. 

King's monograph, already referred to, contains the citation of five species _Qf 

sponges, which he distributes among the genera Tragos, Scyphia, and Mammillopora. 

·The form figured as Scyphia tuberculata is very suggestive of that which in the Guadalupian has been named Cystothalamia nodul~fera, but here again the means are not 

at hand for determining whether the resemblance is accidental or intrinsic. The 

four other species do not recall anything in the Guadalupian fauna, although the 

form referred to Mammillopora mammillaris may be related in point of structure, 

though less so in growth, to Virgula neptunia . 

. . Hind's catalogue of sponges in the British Museum shows a rather limited list 

·of species, and one which manifests very little resemblance to the Guadalupian. 

Among the monactinellids he cites one species of Reniera? and one of Ilaphisteon; 

among the tetractinellids one species of Geodia and one of Pachasterella; among the 

lithistids one species of Doryderma; and among the hexactinellids two of Hyalostelia 

.and four·of Ilolasterella. Mortiera vertebralis, a type of unknown affinities, is also 

recorded. We note here the large development of hexactinellids and the absence of 

·Calcareous sponges, almost the reverse of what is found in the Guadalupian. 

I should not neglect to mention in this connection the fauna collected by Barois 

from Sebargas, Spain, in which Steinmann described the genera Sebargasia, Amblysiphonella, and Sollasia. I do not know what the associated fossils were, nor the age 

they indicate, but in the abundance of sponges, and to a certain extent in the 

.diaracter of those present, though probably but one of the genera found in Spain is 

represented in the Guadalupian, a certain affinity is shown with the fauna of the 

Ci ·Guadalupe Mountains. . . 

· Lastly, in North America we have five genera of sponges in the Pennsylvanian, 

only one of which-Amblysiphonella-is common to the Guadalupian. 

Lacking in conclusiveness as these comparisons probably are, they certainly 

-show to some degree the uimsually prominent place these organisms take in the 

·Guadalupian fauna, and the unique struotural types by which that fauna is distinguished. 

SILICISPONGIJE. 

Order LITHISTIDA. 

Suborder TETRACLADINA. 

In the Guadalupian fauna three generic types are referable to the lithistid 

sponges (Anthracosycon, Virgula, and Pseudovirgula), and according to the best of 

my present knowledge they have been placed with the Tetracladina. The intimate 

spicular character and construction of these sponges has not been determined with 

ease or certainty, for the spicules are small and so completely consolidated that it is 

practically impossible to tell where one begins and the other ends. 

· · While these genera have been placed with some oonfidence among the Lithistida, 

.and less confidently among the Tetracladina, I have avoided entering on the subject 

.of assembling them into families, not only because of uncertainty or incompleteness 
72 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

of information, as above recorded, but also from a doubt as to what should constitute a family among these forms. It appears, at all events, that Anthracosycon 

should be referred to a different family from Virgula and Pseudovirgula, and possibly 

these two genera also should be placed in different families, a decision depending on 

the presence of certain characters which are as yet doubtful. 

Genus ANTHRACOSYCON n. gen. 

Shape turbinate or pyriform; attached by the smaller end, without a peduncle 

or with but a small, ill-defined one. Cloaca represented by a slight depression on the. 

upper surface, from which descend several (three or four) tubular openings through 

the axial region of the sponge. Ostia small and numerous. The spicular structure 

consists of minute, regular tetraxons, more or less digitate toward the extremities of 

the arms 0), where they unite with one another to form a rigid skeleton. Loose 

monaxial spicules associated with typical specimens may belong to the same genus. 

·Not having found any Carboniferous genus to which this sponge could consistently be referred, I have erected a new one for it. Its systematic position seems 

to be clearly with the Lithistida, and I would be disposed to place it among the 

Tetracladina. 

Type.-Anthracosycon ficus. 

ANTHRACOSYCON FICUS n. sp. 

Pl. XXIV, figs. 1, 1a, and 2. 

• Shape turbinate or ficiform, more or less oblique, attached at the small end. 

Peduncle small or absent; Cloacal depression slight. Ostia small, averaging about 

one-half millimeter across, circular, closely arranged at distances from one another !i 

of about their own diameter. They tend to be connected, especially in the upper 

portion, by channels whose general direction is radial from the cloaca. 

The spicules are very small, apparently regular tetraxons, more or less branching at their ends, by which they are cemented to form a rigid skeleton. With these 

sponges are associated numerous loose monaxial spicules, which, if they belong tothe same organism, probably had a dermal position. 

The type specimen of this species, which was obtained in the black limestone 

south of El Capitan, is of medium size, having an axial length of 18 mm. and a 

greatest diameter of 24 mm. It is strongly oblique and much flattened above, with 

a scarcely perceptible cloacal depression. There are slight constrictions of growth 

parallel to the upper surface. 

Horizon and locality.-Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point, Texas (station 

2920). 

ANTHRACOSYCON FICUS var. CAPITANENSE n. var. 

Pl. VII, fig. 10. 

When I first descril'>ed the species Anthracosycon ficus, with the typical specimen, which was obtained from the black limestone at the base of the section, was 

placed one from the white limestone of the Capitan. The two are very similar in 

external form-much more nearly identical than would be expected from their wide. 
SPONGI..E, 73 

separation in geologic horizon, the chief difference being that the typical specimen 

is strongly oblique and that from the Capitan more nearly erect. Another difference 

consists in the fact that the Capitan example, which is considerably smaller, has 

distinctly larger ostia, while more careful comparisons seem to show that the 

spicular structure is also coarser. Some latitude must be allowed to the last statement, for it is just possible, though I do not believe it to be the case, that in the 

typical A. ficus we have not the original spicular structure of the sponge, but a 

fibrous, siliceous mass .retaining only the general arrangement. . 

On account of these differences of structure, for that manifested in the inclination of the axis is probably only an individual character, it seemed necessary to 

separate the Capitan specimen from those obtained at a lower horizon. Another 

specimen from the Capitan subsequently came to hand, much smaller than the first, 

which on being broken lengthwise shows a group of several relatively large tubes 

occupying the axial portion and apparently representing several cloacre debouching 

in the depression which occupies the upper end of the sponge. 

Ilorizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). 

ANTHitACOSYCON 1 sp. \ 

Associated with portions o'f a sponge which have been refe~ed to Anthracosycon 

ficus was found a little group of consolidated spicules, distinguished from them by 

having a distinctly coarser mesh. On more careful examination the component 

spicules appear to be of the four-rayed type and to have the arms, or at all events 

three of them, considerably branched. It did not, therefore, seem appropriate to 

place this form with Anthracosycon ficus because of tpe larger sized and more conspicuously branched spicules, and even the assignment to the same genus is attended 

with much uncertainty, since the construction of the sponge body as a whole is 

yet unknown. More exact knowledge as to the character of the spicular elements, 

as well as. of the general structure, will be needed before the affinities of this form 

can be determined. · 

Horizon and locality.-Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas 

(station 2920). 

Genus VIRGULA n. gen. 

Sponges belonging to this genus are rather abundant in the Guadalupian and 

can be differentiated into several species. The spicular mesh is rigidly consolidated, 

and it is very difficult to determine with certainty the character of the typical individual spicules, since there is no definition between them. It is inferred to be a 

regular tetraxon, with the arms but little divided, if at all. From the distinct 

outline in rock sections of certain of these sponges a dermal layer of some sort may 

be inferred, but its character can not be determined from the material in hand. 

The general shape in which these organisms grow is subramose, sometimes in 

relatively slender stalks with few branches, and at others irregularly and frequently 

branching. There is in some SP.ecimens a tubul!tr cloaca extending part way 

through the center of the sponge, but this has not been demonstrated as a permanent 

feature. Ostia appear to be absent. 

Type.- Virgula neptunia. 
74 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

VIRGULA NEPTUNIAn. sp. 

Pl. VII, figs. 11 and 12. 

While this species is fairly abundant in the Capitan limestone, it so happens 

that in the most perfect specimens, those which best show the shape, the structure 

is obscured, while the specimens in which the spicular architecture i$ especially well 

preserved are fragments. The general shape seems to be more or less irregularly 

cylindrical, rather frequently bifurcating or putting out short branches. It seems 

very probable tha~ in the upper ends of the branches there was a tubelike cloaca of 

greater or less depth, but this can not be affirmed positively. The branches sometimes attain a diameter of 10 mm. and rarely exceed it to any extent. Usually 

these bodies are seen on the broken surface of the dense limestone, nearly circular 

when the section is transverse, more or less elongate when otherwise directed, and 

irregular when near the branching point. When the preservation is good the 

outline is fairly distinct and entire, indicating, it would appear, that there was a 

thin dermal layer, the spicular structure of which .. however, has not been made out. 

Wh~re well preserved· the skeleton is seen to consist of a rigid complex of 

cemented spicules, which are of rather large size. This complex is not easily analyzed into its constituents elements. So seldom do four rays diverge from a point, 

and so often three, that it seems highly probable that the spicular unit was a tetraxon. 

Absolute regularity is not maintained in this respect, however, and one or two specimens, which appear to be for the most part composed of tetraxons, show part of the 

structure as if made up of continuous parallel rays with cross arms at right angles to 

them, a type of structure which is most naturally associated with the Hexactinellida. 

Nevertheless, I am fairly satisfied ~hat tlus sponge belongs with the Lithistida. 

· These fossils are liable to be poorly preserved, and instead of appearing composed of distinct spicules the structure is sometimes represented merely by a fine 

mottling of opaque and semitransparent whitish dots, or the structure may be lost 

altogether, the definition of the sponge as a whole, nevertheless, remaining fairly distinct. When poorly preserved, it is of course difficult to distinguish this form from 

even such types as Guadalupia cylindrica and Cystothalami£L nodulifera, which, though 

widely different in structure, have a similar growth, and it is possible that some of 

the obscure specimens placed under this name may be of a bryozoan nature; in their 

present condition it is impossible to be sure. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926), 

and peak north of Pine Spring (station 2902 ~), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. 

VIRGULA RIGIDA n. sp. 

Pl. VII, fig. 13. 

·I am a little uncertain as to the proper position of the specimen on which this 

subdivision is chiefly based. As will be seen from the figure, it consists of two 

straight cylindrical branches connected at their bases and marked by irregularities 

due to growth. The spicular network is largely obliterated, but seems to he the 

same as in V. neptunia. There is no cloaca. The external surface is seen to be 

reticulated more finely than a spicular framework like that of typical V. neptunia 
SPONGI.lE. 75 

would produce. It may be the dermal layer. In a general way one notices that the 

dominating system of lines in this superficial network is longitudinal. 

A number of other specimens have been assigned to this species, but the reference 

is more or less uncertain in proportion to their very imperfect preservation. They 

consist, so far as known, of simple cylindrical stems without bifurcations. Typical 

.specimens of V. neptunia are short, often tapering, with a tendency to send out 

imperfect branches. On account chiefly of these differences in the mode of growth 

it seemed best to keep the present forms distinct from V. neptunia .. 

Horizon and locality.-Top of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2905 ~); 

middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926), and peak north of Pine 

Spring (station 2902 ?) , Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. 

VIRGULA RIGlDA var. CONSTRICTA n. var. 

Pl. VII, figs. 14 and 15. 

This variety is based on some slender specimens which have a diameter of 7 mm. 

· ·or less and are distinguished by somewhat contorted growth and by more or less pronounced constrictions, which are n~ither parallel to one another nor equal distances 

apart. These constrictions are purely external and are independent of structures 

within. They do not mark internal partitions, the spicular skeleton being uninterrupted by them. 

The spicular structure is similar to that of V. neptunia. A deep tubelike eloaca 

.seems to be a constant feature. 

This form is distinguished from T7. rigida. by its smaller size and more pronounced 

·constrictions. 

Fig. 15 of Pl. VII represents a speCimen which has been referred here with some 

doubt. Weathering has caused it to show clearly the reticulate surface, due most 

probably to spicular framework. In this particular it has a different appearance 

from the typical examples, which have been broken from unweathered rock. Aside 

from this and one or two trivial differences, the only other point of disagreement is 

the complete absence of a cloaca, a structure which is present in the typical examples. 

. Horizon and locality.-1fiddle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). 

Genus PSEUDOVIRGULA n. gen. 

This term is introduced for a species which I originally placed with the genus 

Virgula, but which on reconsideration it seems desirable to refer to a distinct group. 

'The general appearance, as cylindrical stemlike growths, is similar, and the character 

and arrangement of the spic:ules also resemble those of Virgula. On the other hand. 

Pseudovirgula tenuis is provided 'Yith large ostia, structures which have not been 

observed in the other group. Inside the dermal layer, between it and the consolidated spicular- median portion, is an·empty or hollow zone, which if a real character 

(this being very doubtful) would constitute an important distinction between the 

form in question and those subsumed under the title Virgula. Again, Pseudovirgula 

tenuis is somewhat obscurely divided off into structural segments. The presence of 
76 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

large ostia is the only difference subsisting between Pseudovirgula and Virgula which 

can perhaps be called real and constant, but in view of the indications of the additional differences mentioned it hardly seems a sound course to place both types in 

the same genus. 

Type.--Pseudovirgula tenuis. 

PsEUDOVIRGULA TENUIS n. sp. 

Pl. VII, figs. 16, 16a, and 17 .. 

This species forms small, more or less irregular, cylindrical branches, which 

probably sometimes divide. The branches seem to vary in diameter from 2 to 4 mm. 

The spicular skeleton is as in Virgula neptunia, but considerably finer. The spicules 

are arranged so that in tangential section one axis tends to form, with others similarly arranged, continuous, longitudinal lines. In cross section no particular arrangement is noticeable. Individual spicules can not be distinguished, so complete is. 

the cementation of the framework, but as frequently three axes diverge from a point 

the typical spicular element is interpreted as being a tet,raxon, though it is possibly 

a hexact. In the typical example the spicular structure· does not continue quite 

to the sharplydefined perimeter of the sponge body, but leaves a somewhat irregular 

zone, which would appear to have been hollow; I suspect, however, that the spicular 

framework actually did connect with the dermal layer and that its peripheral portions have been obliterated. In the typical specimen the outer surface is furnished 

with a number of relatively large, somewhat tubularly projecting mouths, or ostia, 

and in another specimen these structures arc seen to penetrate the spicular network as wall-less tubes. In one example in which a longitudinal section is seen, 

the sponge body appears to be obscurely divid!:ld off as if by several cessations and 

renewals of growth. Some specimens have the spicular mesh finer than in others. 

In its general mode of growth and spicular structure this form resembles V. 

neptunia, so that one would at first be disposed to refer them to the same genus,. 

but the presence of large ostia is a character not known in any species of Virgula. 

It is certainly not present in the form described as F. rigida, and could hardly fail 

of preservation if it had been present. 

· Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe . 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). 

Order HEXACTINELLIDA. 

Suborder DICTYONINA. · 

The hexactinellid sponges are represented in the Guadalupian fauna by a single 

species of so unusual a character that it clearly belongs to a new genus and probably 

to a new family. I have not, however, introduced a family designation for this 

form, awaiting more complete and exact data as to the proper character of its 

organization before essaying to fix its relations and affinities with others of the 

Hexactinellida. 
SPONGIJE. 77 

Genus STROMATIDIUM n. gen .. 

This name is introduced for a new. genus of siliceous sponges whose general · 

shape and construction are as yet unknown, but whose spicular structure has been 

definitely ascertained. It is mainly made up of layers of spicular retic':llations, 

separated and held together by pillarlike rays. The. spicular elements are believed 

. to belong to the hexactinellid system, one ray being aborted, one constituting the 

pillar ray, and the four others forming the mural layers. These mural rays apparently branch, probably several times, all of the elements lying in the same plane 

.and inosculating with one another and with adjacent spicules so completely that 

the constituent arms can no longer be differentiated. The more or less regular 

mesh which results appears to be quite continuous and homogeneous. Associated 

with fragments having the foregoing structure are great numbers of loose spicules, 

which may belong to the same sponge, fulfilling the function of flesh or dermal 

spicules. A few of these are hexacts but most are monacts, some short, curved, 

and tapering to blunt points, others much longer and very slender, sometimes nearly 

if not quite straight. 

While it -w·ill appear from what has been said that these sponge fragments 

probably belong to the Hexactinellida, the difficulty of discriminating individual 

,spicules in the mural layers is such that the individual elements may possibly have 

been normal tetracts and the systematic position really with the Lithistida. If 

a hexactinellid, this is dearly an aberrant forin, and while it probably belongs to 

the Dictyonina, is of doubtful family position. 

Type. -Stromatidium typicale. 

STROMATIDIUM TYPTCALE n. sp. 

Pl. XXVII, figs. 7, 8, Sa, 9, 10, and lOa. 

The size and general shape of the entire sponge in this species are unknown, 

the parts which are preserved permitting only an adumbration of these characters. 

The nature and arrangement of the spicules, on which the species is accordingly 

based, are, however, well shown by the typical specimens. The spicular skeleton 

consists of more or less regular, superimposed layers, which are connected by pillars 

having a radial direction. These slender connecting pillars are evidently single 

rays of spicules, whose other rays lie in a plane normal to them and inosculate with 

one another to form the superimposed reticulated layers. The reticulation of the 

latter is so complete that it is impossible, in the specimens examined, to discrimin~~:te 

individual spicules. Spicular centers are often indicated by broken ends of the 

pillar rays, the initial number of mural rays proceeding from which is usually four, 

meeting rather regularly at angles of 90°; but these rays appear to branch and to 

inosculate with one another and with those of adjacent spicules to form a more or · 

or less regular mesh, the apertures of which are approximately circular, but of 

variable sizes. · The pillar rays are apt to be rather far apart, so that if some of 

them have not been destroyed without leaving any very perceptible traces, the 

mural rays may. branch several times before meeting those of adjacent spicules. 
78 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

I regard this structure as being made up of hexacts, the sixth ray in each case, 

being aborted (for the pillars do not seem to be continuous from layer to layer) and 

four of the five other rays branching and inosculating to form the mural reticulations. This belief finds additional support in the discovery of loose normal hexactinellid spicules associated with this sponge, and of one of them in fact apparently 

forming an integral part of the skeleton. In this connection mention must be made 

of loose spicules, mostly monacts, which occur in really great numbers, associated 

with fragments of this sponge. Many of these are small, slender, slightly curved, 

and tapering to a point at both ends. Others are nearly or quite straight, very 

much longer, though equally slender, and either gently tapering or truncated, in the 

latter case probably being merely broken segments of long acicular forms. .The 

spicules usually show clearly the fine central canal, a structure, the retention of 

which, taken in connection with the present siliceous composition of the spicules, 

suggests that the original material was also siliceous. 

Considerable intervals, to speak relatively, are left among the sparse pillar rays 

and the spicular layers which they connect. This space may have been occupied by 

the loose spicules of which mention has already been made. One large hexact does 

in fact occupy some such position, as already noted, though its location in the sponge 

at all may be accidental. 

Owing to the arrangement above described, the anastomosing mural rays form 

a much more firm and solid structure than their union with one another by means of 

the pillar rays, so that it is common to find thin scalelike fragments of the mural 

reticulation which retain but little evidence of the pillar rays that originally united 

them. These fragments are usually more or less strongly curved, indicating that. 

aside from irregularities in the layers themselves the shape was probably more 

spherical than planate. Doubtless a canal system, of which no trace is found in the 

small pieces thus far examined, was originally present, but its character is unknown. 

Another feature of this sponge which must not be overlooked consists in the 

development of numerous small spines or papillre upon the mural rays. These occur 

in varying degrees of eminence and are usually more striking on one side than on the 

other. In one example, one side of which is apparently smooth, the other side, as a 

result, it would seem, of an unusual development of these apophyses, is covered by a 

complete entanglement of fine branching structures like an adherent layer of delicate 

inosculating spicules. This is interpreted as being part of the same sponge to which 

the other fragments belong, representing perhaps some specialized portion of the 

anatomy. in a corresponding manner the pillar rays also, though to a limited extent, 

bear spinelike developments. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2963 ~). Delaware Mountain formation, southern 

· Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 
SPONGIJE. 79 

CALCISPONGI.AJ;. 

Order SYCONES. 

The sponges of the Guadalupian fauna comprise some very remarkable types 

referable to the Calcispongire. First in interest among these is the genus Guadalupia, 

which embraces forms so peculiar that it has seemed necessary to regard them as 

representing not only a genus but a family which is new. Scarcely less remarkable 

is the genus Polysiphon for which also the establishment of a new family seemed to 

be demanded. Standing less aloof from types previously described is Oystothalamia, 

a group which though more obviously related to existing genera I have nevertheless 

felt compelled to regard also as a new genus and family. To the previously described 

genus Amblysiphonella, representing the Sphrnrosiphoniidre, the Guadalupian furnishes one new species. The Sphrnrocreliidre also are represented in the Guadalupian by species in one instance belonging to the genus Steininannia and in 

another referred, with much hesitation, to Sollasia. These five families, with their 

six genera, I" am at present placing in the order Sycones. 

Family GUADALUPIIDJE n. fam. 

Although several species have been discriminated as belonging to the genus 

Guadal1tpia,, I find much difficulty in framing a description of this new family, 

because since only one genus is known it is impossible to separate family characters 

from those which are solely generic. The distinctive features suggested by the 

species of Guadalupia are the growth, usually in lamellar expansions, and the construction of the walls, which are composed of tubes having a direction normal to the 

two surfaces, the superficial layers being reticulated and apparently formed of large, 

mutually consolidated spicules. A cioaca, strictly so called, seems to be absent, 

tho.ugh possibly the whole organism may be analyzed into .a colony of cylindrical 

individuills having some of the characters of the Sphrerosiphoniidre. In this case 

the cavities of the tubes would be cloacre. The surfaces, while porous, probably 

have nothing corresponding to ostia. 

Genus GUADALUPIA n. gen. 

This generic name is introduced for a structural type which is fairly common in 

the white limestone of the Guadalupe Mountains, but while·a number of specimens 

have been obtained they are so liable to be fragmentary and to have the more 

minute structure obscured that their study has been pursued under some difficulty 

and attended with incomplete success. These organisms are believed to belong to 

the class of Spongirn, but they are sufficiently obscure and aberrant to make their 

exact zoological position a matter of some doubt. They assume a variety of shapesmassive, cylindrical, frondlike-the walls being of considerable thickness and of 

unusual construction. The most striking feature, and one which is most largely 

developed, occupying the greater portion of the mural body, consists of a series of 
80 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

cylindrie~il tubes parallel to one another and perpendicular to the two walls which . 

they connect. These tubes are rather closely arranged, usually almost in contact. 

· Their walls are substantial, yet at the same time a considerable caliber is left within. 

They contract somewhat at either end, and are gently curved. They are also 

intercepted at very variable intervals by straight, flat diaphragms, which may be 

close together or, on the other hand, almost absent, though the continuity of the 

tube is generally more or less interrupted close to the point where it terminates. 

The structure of the surfaces in which the mural tubes terminate has not been 

ascertained in its details. It consists of a rather open but moderately fine mesh, 

which is probably composed of large spicules, the exact shape of which it has not 

been possible to make out. It is not certain that both walls had the same structure, 

though such is not improbably the case. 

Various shapes are assumed by the organisms, which possess, in the main, 

this sort of structure, but it is probable that they may have had initial stages very 

much alike. Such a condition appears to be presented by the young specimen 

figured on Pl. VI, which is attached below by a thickened and rather dense basal 

portion. Its growth has begun to form an explanate shape, the tubes being perpendicular to the plane of expansion. The upper wall is thin and has a reticulate 

structure. This specimen is provisionally referred to G. zitteliana, which in its 

mature stages is a branching frond, and it is evident that the mode of growth in 

which this young example started to develop would have to be changed iri order 

to produce the configuration of the mature sponge. Similar modifications of ·growth 

must be supposed if the mature shape is that of G. cylindrica. 

The spicular structure of these organisms has been to a considerable extent 

obscured. The dermal layer,. as already remarked, seems in many cases quite 

clearly to be the result of large c;nsolidated spicules, while the mural tubes frequently appear to be entirely structureless. It seems probable, however, that they 

also are made up of interlocking spicules of large size, for in some thin sections 

their walls are seen to be marked with rather" regularly distributed dots, which 

probably represent sections through the ar~s of spicules. At the same time, these 

darkened spots in the walls of the mural tubes have, so far as observed, always a 

circular shape, while it would be expected that in some cases at least the direction 

of the section would coincide with the longer axis of the spicular rays. 

In some respects the structure of this sponge suggests the geologic.ally much 

older genus Receptaculites, and one might be tempted to interpret the mural tubes 

as the axes of large spicules, but the analogy soon ends, as there is nothing to corre-

.spond to the other rays of such spicules, while the occurrence of transverse partitions dividing the tubes entirely negatives the interpretation of th~m as spicules. 

Type. -Guadalupia zitteliana. 

GUADALUPIA ZITTELIANA n. sp. 

Pl. VI, figs. 1 to ld, and 2 to 2b. 

This species occurs in. the form of broad, gently convex fronds, which, as in the 

typical specimen, are sometimes branching. One of the largest fragments referred 

to this species is about 45 mm. square. The thickness seldom equals 10 mm. and 
SPONGilE. 81 

averages perhaps but 6 or 7 mm. It diminishes somewhat toward the margins of 

the frond, which are rounded. The fronds are marked with transverse irregularities 

and wrinkles, which presumably represent stages of growth. The mural tubes 

average 1 mm. in diameter, or perhaps a little less, and the partitions by which they 

are crossed vary much in frequency in different cases. The dermal mesh is much 

finer than the tubes, but at the same time is rather coarse and made up of large 

spicular clements. 

A small specimen which appears to belong with this species has a small 

peduncular attachment, the main portion of the organism being explanate, with 

a flattened upper surface, to which the mural tubes are perpendicularly directed. 

While the growth in this specimen is approximately symmetrical, it is to be supposed that one side would have expanded at the expense of the other, to pr~duce 

the frondlike shape which distinguishes mature forms like the type specimen. 

It is a little surprising that this species has a convex instead of a flat shape, 

since the first inference is that it is represented by fragments of what was originally 

a cone or a cylinder, but the structure is so fuiishcd at the margins as to furnish 

evidence that this was not the case. 

Horizon and locality.~Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). Delaware Mountain formation, Comanche Canyon, Glass Mountains, Texas (station 3763). 

GuADALUPIA ZITTELIANA var. 

In this form, which is lmown only from limited and imperfect material, the 

mode of growth is in flat lamellar expansions hav~ng a thickness of 4 mm. or a little 

more. The mural tubes come about eight or nine in a distance of 5 mm. They are, 

therefore, considerably smaller than in typical G. zitteliana, and tllis constitutes at 

present the chief reason for distinguislling the two forms. It is possible that this 

is the same species as G. zitteliana, by reason of being not younger or undeveloped 

portions of a frond, but merely a more delicate variety connected by interrp.ediate 

stages not yet discovered. · On the other hand, it is possible that with the small 

proportions are associated other differences which in my imperfect material it is 

impossible to make out. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). 

GUADALUPIA CYLINDRICA n. sp. 

Pl. VI, figs. 3 to 3c. 

The type specimen of this species has a somewhat cylindrical shape, tapering 

gradually at one end, and with the cross section approximately circular. The 

largest diameter is about 13 mm. and the length is estimated at 40 mm. The outer 

surface is obscured, but other specimens referred to the same specl.cs are marked by 

gentle swellings and constrictions, due to irregularities of growth. 

Guadalupia cylindrica not only has a cylindrical form, but is hollow, the internal 

cavity not improbably corresponding to the cloaca of. other sponges. In the typical 

36!)5-No. 58-08--G 
82 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

example the thickness of the walls is about 3 mm. The mural tubes have essentially 

the same size as in G. zitteliana, about five or six occurring in a linear distance of 5 

mm., and their direction is of course normal to the two surfaces which they connect. 

They are intercepted by tabular partitions, as in G. zitteliana, and, as in that species, 

the dermal layer is composed of large spicules whose character has not yet been 

determined. The walls of the mural tubes sometimes show dark spots, which appear 

to represent sections through spicular rays, and from this it may perhaps be inferred 

that the tubes also were composed of consolidated spicules, as in the dermal.layer, 

though in most sections the tube walls appear to be structureless, even when the 

spicular mesh is obvious"in the latte,r. · . 

It is only in a sense that this species can be said to be hollow. In the type 

specimen the mural tubes terminate some distance before reaching the axis, their 

ends forming a rather irregular inner boundary whose ragged outline contrasts with 

the regular exterior one, but what would otherwise be a hollow cavity is partially 

filled by cysts. (See figs. 3 and 3a of Fl. VI.) Whether these form part· of the real 

sponge body, or their presence is adventitious, I have been unable to determine, 

but they have in a general way some of the structural features of the sponge with 

which they are associated. Some of the specimens referred here appear to be without the central cavity, but as it was probably confined to the upper portion of the 

organism it is not necessary to suppose that they were entirely without it. 

All the specimens at present referred to this species are single stalks, which have 

not divided to form branches; but one individual shows on its upper margin what 

seems to be the inception of a small bud, although it is possible that it is the commencement of a new and alien individual. 

Nine or ten specimens have been referred to. this species, and they show considerable diversity in appearance, but this is due in part to the alteration which has 

to a greater or less degree affected all the Guadalupian sponges and made it extre.mely 

difficult to identify many of them even generically. 

Horizon and locality.-Top of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (stations 2905 

and 2966); middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926) and peak 

n?rth of Pine Spring (station 2902), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. 

GUADALUPIA CYLINDRICA var. CONCRETA n. Var. 

Pl. VI, figs. 4 to 4b. 

The specimen which has been separated under this title appears to .. have arisen 

not so much by gemmation as from a natural lateral expansion, or possibly from the 

amalgamation of two or three separate individuals which have independent but 

contiguous points of origin, and since they developed in contact became organically 

confluent. On the upper portion, at all· events, there are separate "cloacrn" and 

the mural tubes are directed in a measure toward independent centers. This is only 

to a certain extent true of the specimen, for though at one end there appears to be a 

circular "cloaca" of about the size and character of that in Guadalupia cylindrica, 

followed laterally by two other similar but much smaller ones, for the rest the growth 

seems to have assumed a bifoliatc arrangement, without any central opening at all. 
SPONGilE. 83 

If this colony originated by gemmation from a single original individual the budding 

or fission took place at a very early stage. 

In other respects this form is closely allied to the type specimen of G. cylindrica, 

having an external spicular layer and mural tubes of about the same diameter. It 

is possible that· it may have arisen from a typical example of G. cylindrica by some 

unusual process of increase. 

Ilorizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). 

GuADALUPIA UYLINDRICA var. ROBUSTA n. var. 

Pl. V, fig. 12. 

Several specimens are subsumed under this title. Their preservation is very 

unsatisfactory, but they seem to have the essential structures of Guadalupia cylindrica. At the same time the epidermal spicular layer, though presumably present, 

has not been observed. The size is considerably greater. The specimen figured is 

branched, but the internal structures have been obscured, so that intrinsically one 

can not determine whether it actually belongs to Guadalupia or not. Another 

example shows the characteristic mural tubes, but the central cavity seems to be 

lined with a relatively thick, dense layer which the mural tubes do not penetrate. 

In another part the same specimen appears to be filled up centrally by this secretion, 

a "cloaca" being absent. A third example has a diameter of 33 mm. and remarkably large mural tubes. The "cloaca" appears to be open, and I am not prepared 

to affirm definitely the presence or absence of an inner layer. The specimen is rereferred here with doubt. 

Ho1izon and localit11.--Top of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2905). 

GUADALUPIA FAVOSA n. sp. 

Pl. VII, .fig. fJ. 

This species is based on a small, apparently massive, somewhat irregularly 

shaped specimen, whos~ greatest diameter is about 24 mm. The mural tubes have 

a small diameter, and while approximately circular are in close contact. About 

six or seven occur in a linear distance of 5 nun. I am not sure that the dermal laver 

has been observed, but what ~ppears to be this portion is full of small openings, m~re 

or less uniform in size and regular in distribution, whicl). may be circumscribed by 

the arms of large-sized spicules. This layer is rather thin and t~1e pores are small, 

being about one-fourth the diameter of the tubes. 

In this specimen the walls of the tubes show a singular structure not noted elsewhere. They are now represented by dolomite(?), but this material has the appearance of being very finely porous, resembling in appearance the shells of some punctate brachiopods. This structure is probably rather secondary than organic. 

The irregular massive growth and the small size of the mural tubes distinguish 

this form from the others here described. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). 
84 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

GuADALUPIA DIGITATA n. sp. 

Pl. V, fig. 13. 

This name is proposed for a specimen which is rather regularly cylindrical in 

the lower part, where it has a diameter of about 11 mm., gradually expands above,· 

and is terminated by an umbel of rather stout, equal branches. Four of these are 

developed on the side of the specimen which is exposed to view, and if symmetrical 

there must have been about eight in all. The lower part of the body is solid, while 

the branches have cylindrical "cloacre." • . 

· The structure in this specimen is largely obscured, but the branches show not 

only the "cloacre" but traces of mural tubes. The main part of the stem, moreover, 

is covered with regular little elevations or monticules, which may have had the same 

ongm. These are considerably smaller than the mural tubes in other species of the 

genus, and also smaller than the mural tubes in the branches of the same specimen. 

They might be thought to represent the inner diameters of the tubes, but are too 

closely arranged to be so interpreted. 

There might at first seem to be some question as to whether the digitate end 

were not really the basal end, and the branches really roots. The fact, however, 

that the branches are clearly hollow-i. c., occupied by "cloacre," while the opposite 

end is solid, seems adverse to such a view, while other members of the genus are 

known to attach themselves merely by cementation, without developing rootlike 

processes. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, peak north of Pine Spring, 

Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2902). 

GuADALUPIA sp. 

Pl. VI, fig. 5. 

Fig. 5 of Pl. VI represents a specimen, probably belonging to the genus Guadalupia, whose specific position at least is uncertain'. It appears to have been an 

elongate, generally cylindrical body composed of tubes having an approximately 

· radial direction. In cross section the tubes, instead of being circular, are crescentic 

or shield shaped. They taper in size toward the center, where they appear to be 

rather small, and are gently curved either upward or downward, it is impossible to 

tell which. None of the finer structures are preserved. . 

I am disposed to believe that this may be the same species as G. cylind:rica var. 

robusta, differences in preservation causing these forms to present considerable 

difference in appearance. It is true that the typical example of G. cylindrica is 

hollow; yet, as other examples apparently representing the same species are solid, 

this difference probably would not hold .. The mural tubes in G. cylindrica are normally, perhaps always, circular in cross section, yet the rhombic shape of those of 

the present example may be distorted by compression or by mutual crowding. This 

specimen is considerably larger than the type o~ G. cylindrica, but not so large as an 

example provisionally referred to the variety robusta, and it is not conceived that 

this difference would have much weight if an ag{'eement were found to exist in other 

particul~rs. · 
SPONGIJE. 85 

A -second specimen referred to this species is much smaller and with finer tubes. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, peak north of Pine Spring, 

Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2902). 

GuADALUPIA? sp. 

Pl. V, figs. 7 to 11. 

In the highest fossiliferous horizon of the Capitan limestone oecurs a form 

whose zoological affinities are obscure. Several sections are represented by figs. 7 

to 10 of Pl. V. The original shape seems to have been short-cylindrical, open at 

·one end and closed by a rounded wall at the other. It is true that most of the 

sections are nearly circular, from which a spherical shape would be inferred, but 

some are elliptical and several are elliptical with one end open. If the latter are 

not broken or misshapen my interpretation as to the real configuration would 

'appear to be demanded. . 

These bodies are of appreciable size, with a diameter of 1 ~ ·mm. or less. The 

walls are rather thick and pierced by large circular pores extending through to the 

inside. Somewhat depends, however, on the interpretation of the sections. Some 

of these appear as hollow rings and some as disks having a rather coarsely reticulate 

structure, .the "pores" b~ing round. Intermediate conditions are found, showing 

clearly that the reticulate sections merely represent more tangential views through 

the same organism. Nearly always there is an outer envelope of dark-colored material to be distinguished alike from the surrounding rock and the included transparent 

calcite, which' represents, as I suppose, the original test. At this horizon the large 

Fusulinas, and doubtless the smaller organisms, are completely covered by a coating, more or less thick, composed probably of dolomite deposited about them before 

they were buried by the calcareous sediments. In sections which show a reticulate 

structure the filling of the openings is of the same clark (dolomitic) material of which 

the outer coating is composed. Where the section shows an annular structure there 

is usually an inner as well as an outer coating of dolomite. If these sections were 

exactly perpendicular to the axis they would doubtless show alternating radial bands 

of light and dark, representing walls and pores, respectively, but this has rarely 

been observed. Almost always, owing to obliquity of sections, the pores are represented merely by regular scallops, sometimes on one but usually on both sides of the 

ring-shaped section, which very seldom pierce quite through the transparent testacoons or probably pseudotestaceous inaterial. 

Just what place in the animal kingdom these bodies occupy is a matter of 

doubt. That they are not foraminiferal is clear. I doubt that they are radiolarian; 

not only because of their supposed shape but because of their large size. It is 

possible that they may prove to be something in the nature of calcareous algre, but 

the most probable hypothesis seems to be that they are calcareous sponges related 

to Guadalupia or possibly belonging to that genus. Their very small size is unfavorable to such a hypothesis, as is ·also the absence, so far as known, of any spicular 

structure or of a spicular outer layer, as in Guadalupia. 

The form and structure of these small bodies somewhat recalls Schwager's 

genus Margaritina. Several important differences are, however, at once noted, 

. , 
86 THE GUADALUPIAN l!'AUNA. 

since the Guadalupian form is smaller, is not inflated, and appears to have one end 

rounded and closed, with the other open. Even were the resemblance still closer 

it would not resolve the doubts in which its zoological relations are involved, since 

the position of Margaritina is not known with certainty. 

Fig. 11 of Pl. V represents a similar though much more delicately constructed 

organism, which appears to have had a conical shape. Whether this should be 

regarded as belonging to the same or a different type can not be told. The small 

size and correspondingly diminutive construction of this body render the probability 

much greater than in· the other case that it niay be a radiolarian. 

Horizon and locality.-Top of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2905). 

GuADALUPIA? sp. vat. 

Pl. XXVII, figs. 11 and 12. 

The form which I have referred to merely as Guadalupia? sp. occurs near the 

top of the Capitan limestone, where it is assoc-iated with abundant Fusulina elongata 

and with sponges. At another somewhat distant locality, belonging probably to a 

different horizon, and in a different faunal association, since Fusulina elongata does 

not. occur there, is found a form which much resembles Guadalupia? sp·. The fossils 

from the latter station (2964), while in very close agreement with the others, show 

.certain intrinsic differences, of a minor character, it is true, but such as for the 

present indispose me to refer both without reserve to the same species. While individual specimens can be selected in which these differences are not found, yet as a 

rule the forms under consideration differ in having the walls thicker and the· length 

greater. No section, for example, like that shown by fig. 11 of Pl. XXVII, was 

·obtained from the Guadalupe Mountains, where, in fact, most of the sections were 

nearly circular. This circumstance is possibly tC? be accounted for through drifting 

of the specimens by current or wave action, as a result of which the Fnsulinas, as 

already mentioned, occur with their axes more or less parallel. · 

This form, by reason of its thicker walls and more pronounced cylindrical shape, 

resembles Margaritina still less than the foregoing species. 

· Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware 

Mountai~s, Texas (stat~on 2964). ' 

Family POLYSIPIIONID.JE n. fam. 

While it is difficult in the case of the only species which is known of this genus 

and family to distinguish the specific characters from the generic, it is still more 

difficult to give a family diagnosis which may be expected to stand, and to discriminate the family characters from those which are generic and specific. Probably 

all types which could be referred to this family would have a conical or cylindrical 

shape, a thin outer wail, porous possibly but without ostia, and an internal.structure 

consisting of tubular canals, some of which run lengthwise and some in a radial 

direction. 
SPONGIJE. 

Genus POLYSIPHON n. gen. 

The characters of the singular form on which this genus and family are based 

are so unique that it is difficult, in the case of the singie species known, to distinguish the generic characters from those which are more purely specific. Nevertheless, I would briefly note here some of the structural features which would 

. presumably be present with some modification in all species of the genus. 

The shape and general appearance of this form remind ·one of a zaphrentoid 

coral, as the shape is conical, with a depression in the upper or larger end semblable to a calice. Internally the structures consist of tubular canals, one of 

which occupies a central position, the others being arranged regularly about it. 

In the typical species the peripheral tubes are five in number. These bifurcate 

and by this 'means connect with one another, and they also connect with the axial 

tube by radially directed tubular ducts, which are developed at the same level. 

The outer wall and those of the tubes are thin; the tubes and intervening spaces 

are hollow. 

At first I was disposed to regard this as a singularly preserved coral, but it 

would indeed be a peculiar preservation which· would metamorphose the typical 

structure of a zaphrentoid coral into that of the organism above described. We . 

can probably eliminate the corals entirely from the list of possibilities. 

There is another group which I must mention in this connection, though its 

relationship at first seems so remote that I almost hesitate to introduce it-the 

Echinodermata. Pentameral symmetry is rather persistently maintained by this 

elass of organisms, and in a silicified fragment which I think must be regarded as 

the proximal end of a·n eehinoid spine somewhat similar struetures are shown. 

Aside fr~ri1 strueture, however, the size "and shape of the speeimens whieh form 

the subjeet of the present deseription are sueh that it seems to me rather unlikely 

that they belonged to a erinoid or ·an eehinoid, although it ean not be said that 

such an origin is impossible. 

On the whole, the calcareous sponges of the order Syeones can best be made to 

receive this form, whose position would probably lie in the vicinity of Cystothalamia and Ouadalupia, but scareely in the same family. A new family must' be provided, which may be called the Polysiphonidre. 

It is h11rdly necessary to give in detail the family characters which distinguish 

this singular type. The family Polysiphonidre is quite distinct from . the other 

families of the Sycoiles, the nearest being doubtless the Cystothalamiidre. From 

this the Polysiphonidro differ in having ·a solid instead of a perforated outer wall, 

in being without ostia, and in having a definite and peculiar arrangement of the 

internal tubular structures, the tubes in Cystothalarnia being more numerous, imperfect, chiefly radial in direction, and without and definite order of arrangement. 

Type.-Polysiphon mirabilis. 

PoLYSIPHON MIRABILIS n. sp. 

Pl. XVI, figs. 11 to llb. 

This species is based on two specimens, which may originally have belonged 

to the same individual. In general they look much like. a zaphre.ntoid coral, and I 
88 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

temporarily placed them with the rugos:r, attributing to some peculiarity of preservation the internal structures, which are quite unlike those of the ccclenterates. 

From the outside, however, they show differences from the corals, because the 

exterior is smooth, without annular growth lines, and more especially without the 

fine longitudinal ribs which are connected with the development of the septa. On 

the interior the structure is still more unlike that of the corals, but it is also so 

different from the normal sponge structure that my reference to the sponges is not 

made without misgivings. There is a thin conical bounding wall, and in the larger 

specimen a depression in the upper end corresponding to the calice. Within, however, instead of plates we find tubes: There is an axial tube, which is closed at 

the top and makes an elevation or boss in the center of what presumably should 

be considered the cloaea. Around this there are in the present speeimen five other 

tubes, which are in part free and in part adnate to the outer wall. Toward the 

top these tubes bifurcate, and thus connect with one another. They also connect 

with the axial tube by large radial ducts, developed at the same level just below 

the point of bifurcation. In the present specimen these tubes, excent the central 

one, are open around the edge of the cloaca, but it is impossible to' tell whether 

this is the original condition or whether the rim of the cloaca has been broken off 

and with it the upper or terminating portion of the tubes. The walls are· thin, 

without at present any perceptible traces of spicules. The tubes themselves and 

the intertubular spaces are empty. 

These structures have been described as if they were perfectly regular, and 

they are in fact remarkably so, but slight deviations from the ideal scheme above 

described do occur, and they are represented in my figures. 

Jlorizon and locality.-"Dark limestone," Pine Spring, Guadalupe Mountains, 

Texas (station 2!)30). 

Family OYSTOTHALAMIID~ n. fam. 

The difficulties which were met with in the case of the Polysiphonidre in defining the family characters when only one species is known occur again with the 

Cystothalamiidre. Genera so related to Oystothalamia as to be referable to the 

same family would probably have a cylindrieal or conical form, the upper end 

depressed into a more or less profound cloaca, which does, not, however, persist to 

the bottom. The external wall is thin and perforated by pores of two sizes and 

by ostia. The internal cavity is occupied by cysts, which have a more or less 

irregular arrangement, and in especial are not grouped into separate rings, as in' 

the Sphrerosiphoniidre arid the Sphrerocmliidv-. It is the absence of this character, 

as well as the presence of others, which distinguishes the three families of Guadalupian Sycones here discriminated and named from those mentioned above. 

They are so distinct from one another and from such. other zoological families as 

I have found distinguished among the Sycones that it has hardly seemed necessary 

to indicate specifieally the characters on account of which they are believed to 

demand separate recognition. 
SPONGI.lE. 89 

Genus CYSTOTHALAMIA n. gen. 

-This genus grows as rather slender, cylindrical, branching stems. It is probable, but not certain, that a more or less profound cloaca was present in the upper 

end. The internal structure consists of vesicles, which toward the periphery assume 

to a greater or less degree regularity of size and shape, while toward the interior they 

are more irregular, but they do not form regular superimposed chambers or tiers of 

chambers, as in the Ccelosiphoniidre. Being built up by aggregations of vesicles, 

the exterior usually, perhaps normally, h.as a mammillate surface. The vesicles 

communicate with one another by means of circular openings and to some _extent 

by tubelike canals. With the surrounding medium, they communicate by means 

of numerous small, regularly arranged openings in the outer walls and also probably 

by a series of larger and less numerous pores, or ostia, which sometimes project as 

little .tubes. 

The walls are thin and, at present, apparently structureless, but doubtless originally consisted of an entanglement of spicules. 

I have felt compelled to propose a new family mime for this genus, because 

' among the imperfectly known Paleozoic -Calcispongire I have been unable to find one 

described in which it could appropriately be located. It can not be placed in the 

Sphrerosiphoniidre or the Sphrerocceliidre, because it is not made up of a series of 

rings or segments, nor, in spite of a certain analogy, can it be placed with the Guadalupiidre, because it is not composed of discrete, separate-walled tubes and because 

it lacks 0) an outer spicular or fibrous layer. The most significant features of the 

Cystothalamiidre at present appear to be the absence of a persistant tubular axis, the 

continuous nonsegmented augmentation, and the camerate structure, consisting of 

apparently hollow cystiforrn chambers. 

Type.-Oystothalamia nodulifem. 

0YSTOTHALAMIA NODULIFERA n. sp. 

Pl. VII, figs. 1 to 3; Pl. XXXI, figs. 20 to 20b. 

This species grows in irregularly cylindrical, more or less contorted forms, having a diameter of 7 to 10 mm~ or more. That these stemlike bodies are sometimes 

forked is indicated by several specimens. In a silicified example there is a centra.! 

tube extending part way down the organism, which 'would seem to be a cloaca, 

although I am not sure that this is a constant feature. Many specimens do not show 

this structure, which, however, would be confined to the terminal portion of branches. 

Externally, the surface is covered with small rounded elevations or monticules, and 

in one specimen by spoutlike tubular projections. In this case the stem is large and 

probably old, and it lacks, over this part of the surface, the little monticules which 

smaller branches show. This appearance may be accounted for by supposing it to 

_belong to old age, the branches having been thickened so as to obliterate the monticules and to prolong into short tubelike projections the ostia soon to be described. 

The surface is covered with numerous small circular openings, rather regular in 

size and distribution, separated by intervals about two, but sometimes one or three 

times their own diameter. There are also other openings, which, as seen in a silicified specimen, may possibly be holes broken through the wall, but are, I judge, really 
90 THE QUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

ostia and proper features of the sponge. In old portions they appear to be extended 

into tubes, as above described. 

The internal structure consists of cysts, more or less equal in size, regularlv 

arranged around the periphery. They maniFest no tendency to an arrangement in 

circular series, and wherever regularity is shown the series are more diagonal than 

transverse. In cross sections, so far as observed, there is no uniformity in their size, 

shape, or arrangement. In tangential sections, however, they tend to be rather regular in these particulars, having somewhat of a rhombic or, more exactly, a shieldshaped outline, especially near the surface. From this, however, they pass locally 

and probably regularly toward the middle into cavities of larger size and irregular 

shape. The walls in section are frequently incomplete, showing that the chambers 

communicate freely, and in the silicified specimen above referred to the chambers 

are seen to open into one another by rounded pores, while here and there a few tubes, 

whose direction is approximately axial, though more or less slanting, probably served 

as an additional means of circulation. It is the outer walls of these cysts which produce the mammillate surface of the sponge already noted. 

While it may be supposed that this organism was composed of spicules, absolutely no trace of such structures remain so' far as my observations go. 

A first examination of this sponge conveys the impression that it is very widely 

different from the genus Guadalupia, while an axial view of the tangential section 

might mislead a casual observer into confusing them. The two sponges may, however, be really somewhat more nearly related than at first appears, while they are 

far from belonging to the same genus. The outer surface of Oystothalamia, with its 

monticules and little pores, as seen in the silicified specimen, ·certainly does not resemble the reticulate spiculous surface of Guadalupia. Specimens from the Capitan 

formation referred here show, in fact, no superficial structure at all, neither the spicules 'of one form nor the pores of the other. The internal structure also at first seems 

to possess as little resemblance, but if one considers the cysts as modified in shape so 

as to form tubes, or the tubes, in view of their being separated by diaphragms, as 

composed of several cysts arranged in linear series, a structure not far removed from 

Guadalupia would be produced. Of course there still remain some perhaps fundamental differences, such as the intercommunication between the chambers of Oystothala.mia and the fact that the tubes in Guadalupia h~ve complP-tP and separate 

walls, while in Oystothalamia the chambers have only partial walls, the upper surface 

of one partition answering for the lower part of the next, or, at least, such appearing 

to be the case. 

In spite of this very doubtful analogy between them, I am not including Oystothalamia and Guadalupia in the same family-that of the Guadalupiidre-although 

it may be that such a course should be followed. While related to .Amblysiphonella, 

Sollasia, etc., Oystothalamia differs from the Sphrerosiphoniidre in not being made up 

of regular superposed chambers or systematic annular groups of chambers. 

Horizon and locality.-Top of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (stations 29051 and 2966). Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, .Texas (station 2964). Delaware Mountain formation, 

Comanche·Canyon, Glass Mountains, Texas (station 3763). 
SPONGIJE. 91 

CYSTOTHALAMIA ~ sp. 

Pl. VII, fig. 5. 

This species is represented by the single specimen illustrated on Pl. VII. It 

consists of a complex or more or less spherical bodies arranged about an axis so that 

·they form an approximately straight stem. Their outward portions a-re regularly 

curved, but toward the axis they are deformed by mutual contact. The minute 

structure of this organism is Iio longer preserved. Portions of the surface seem to 

be covered with small rounded ele~ations or tubercles, which may be taken for ostia. 

Through the nongranular calcite which composes the bulk of the organism small 

opaque spots, probably of dolomite, are distributed, but it can not be told whether 

these are inorganic grains or represent fine tubular or porous structure~ Similar 

appearances have been noted where it was difficult to tell whether the substance 

·was of organic or inorganic nature. 

In a preliminary account of the Guadalupian fauna I Teferred this organism to 

Mammillopora, or at least to the type which King includes under that name in his 

account ofthe Permian fossils of England. That it is not cohgene:r;ic with M. mammillaris, however, I am•now fairly assured, for it consists of an aggregate of several 

discrete spherical bodies, while Mammillopora appears to be a single homogeneous 

organism, growing, however, in a more or less m?-mmillate shape. Moreover, Mammillopora consists of a solid spicular network, while the form under consideration 

was, I suspect, made up of hollow shells, the present fossil, which is solid, being a 

filling up of these chambers, and its apparent structure. no.t really organic. It is 

only on the latter supposition that this form can be even prov.isionally placed with 

Cystothalamia. Should the interpretation adopted be correct, however, there might 

· well be some doubt as to the propriety of placing this spop.ge in that genus. Its 

proper position may be in the Sphrerocceliidre, somewhere near Sollasia. In fact, it 

might with equal propriety be placed with that genus, but it is doubtful if it really 

belongs to either. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). 

Family SPHJEROSIPHONIIDJE Steinmann. 

Genus AMBLYSIPHONELLA Steinmann. 

AMBLYSIPIIONELLA GUADALUPENSIS n. sp. 

Pl. VII, figs. 7 to 8~. 

This species grows in the usual cylindrical shapes, reaching a diameter ot about 

16 mm., and so far as known it occurs 'in single stalks and not in colonies .. The 

cloaca has a diameter of 4 mm. The exterior is more or less marked by constrictions, 

but the superposed rings of which the organism is constructed do not, as such, show 

clearly upon the exterior, which appears to be irregular or verrucose. The interior 

of the structural rings is divided into simple cysts, which are large and no~ very 

numerous. The walls arc thick, and at present appear dense and structureless, the · 

outer and inner walls being perhaps a little heavier than those 'of the cysts. 
92 TIIE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

But two specimens have come to hand, both of which are represented in my 

figures. That furnishing a natural longitudinal section may be taken as the type, 

as it best shows the structures characterizing the genus. The other specimen affords 

a better idea of the configuration, though possibly misleading in appearing to be 

verrucose on the exterior. From this example was cut the thin transverse section 

which is illustrated by my figure. It can not be determined that this specimen 

belongs to the same species as the type, hut this is believed to be the case. 

The only American species of Amblysiphonella kriown at tl:ris time is A. prosseri 

Clarke, from the Pennsylvanian of the Mississippi Valley. From this species A. guadalupensis is clearly distinct; by reason of its greater diameter, less strongly p,nnulated 

shape, lower chambers, and thicker walls. 

A. guadalupensis is a smaller form than any of the four species described by 

Waagen from the Salt Range, but it most nearly resembles that to which he gave 

the name A. multilamellosa. The much less numerous and much thicker walled· 

cysts of the American form distinguish it. It differs from the other Indian species 

not only in smaller size, but in relatively smaller cloaca, more massive walls, and more 

equal vesicle and tube walls. In some respects it more closely resembles the typical 

species A. barroisi,a differing, however, in having a relativel'~ smaller cloaca, thicker 

walls, less strongly annulated exterior, and more copious vesiclesO). 

Horizon and locality.-Top of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2966). 

Fami~y SPI-IlEROCCELIIDlE Steinmann. 

Genus STEINMANNIA Waagen and Wentzel. 

STEINMANNIA AMERICANA n. sp. 

Pl. VII, figs. 4 and 4a. 

Of tl:ris interesting form there has come to hand only one specimen. It has a 

subcylindrical shape, somewhat regularly interrupted by gentle constrictions, and is 

slightly curved. It is incomplete at both ends, the present length being 23 mm. 

The diameter of the larger end is 9 mm. and that of the smaller 7 mm. The constrictions correspond in a general way to internal partitions, which arc p,bout 3 nim. apart. 

There is no central cloaca, and the presence -of a small osculum· in the center of each 

partition has not been ascertained. The flattened segments made by the gently 

curved partitions .are apparently not entirely hollow, hut the defu,lition of the thick 

walls and of whatever internal structures are present is not very distinct. There is 

certainly a much less extensive development of vesicular tissue than in the Indian 

specimens belonging to this genus. 

The ·surface is perforated by small, round openings, while the structure of the 

test as a whole appears to be finely porous. Ostia are apparently absent. The 

larger pores, and.probably the smaller ones also, appear to be a structural feature of 

the partitions as well as of the outer wall. 

a Neucs Jahrbuch, 1882, vol. 2, p. 16:), pl. 16, figs. 1-1d. 
C<ELENTERATA. 93 

I have been in some uncertainty whether to place this species with Waagen's 

genus Steinmannia or with Steinmann's Sollasia,· but the data at hand seem distinctly to favor a reference to the former. The structures in my specimen are not 

very clear, the test and the infilling whitish matrix being of about the same color and 

without any sharp boundaries between them. Such partitions as may be said to 

divide the otherwise hollow chambers have an appearance less of vesicles, as presented by my specimen, than of divisions more or less parallel to and near the upper 

or lower wall: Because of the probable presence of internal walls, although they are 

few, and the absence of ostia, it seemed best to place the Guadalupia~ species with 

Steinmannia. It is, however, strongly distinguished from the Salt Range species by 

the flattened or discoidal instead of spherical shape of the segments. The larger 

pores are of greater size in the Ameri'can form, though it is really a smaller species 

and they are relatively much larger than the smaller pores. 

From the exterior this form might be mistaken for a weathered example of. 

Guadalupia cylindrica, but the tangential section shows the structure to be very 

different. 

Ilorizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Pea:k (station 

2926) ;· "dark limestone," Pine Spring (st~tion 2930 ?) , Guadalupe Mountains, 

Texas. 

Genus SOLLASIA Steinmann. 

SoLLASIA? sp. 

Pl. VII, fig. 6. 

This division includes three small spongoid bodies, one from station 2926 and 

two from station 2966,. both in ·the white limestone of the Capitan. They have a 

linear, somewhat moniliform shape, but the swellings in the specimen shown by fig. 6 

of PI. VII are unusually elongate. In the other specimens the nodes are more nearly 

spherical. In both cases what seems to be the filling of an original, rather thinwalled capsule is structure_less, and the walls themselves are represented by fibrous 

or granular dolomite·. No spicular structure can be now made out, and the obscure 

structures which at present replace the original walls I prefer to regard as inorganic. 

These small bodies in their general nodular or moniliform shape strongly suggest 

Steinmann's genus Sollasia, but they do not show any evidence of being provided 

with ostia, nor, furthermore, of being divided at the constrictions by partitions, thus 

failing to conform in one essential particular to the Sphrerocmliidre. :r'hey probably 

belong to the Calcispongire, but, as I have already indicated, are very doubtful representatives of Steinmann's genus. 

Horizon and locality.-Top of Capitan formation (station 2966), middle of Capitan formation (station 2926), Capitan Peak, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. 

CCELENTERATA. 

The Guadalupian corals are inferior in interest to the other groups. The genera 

recobTJlized ·are Lindstrmmia, Zaphrentis, Amplexus, Campophyllum, Cladopora, and 

Aulopora. Most of these types range upward from much earlier horizons, and in the 
94 THE GUADALUPIAN l!'AUNA. 

case of Oladopora this is, I believe, the first recorded occurrence at so· late a period. 

Nevertheless, the Guadalupian Cladoporas, in one instance at least, afford no adequate ground in my opinion for separating them from the earlier types. 

Certain genera which Waagen and Wentzel included with the cmlenterates but 

which I would place with the Bryozoa being omitted, the corals of the Salt Range 

fauna include Aneopora, Pachypora, Michelinia, Lonsdaleia, Amplexus, Oarteri~a, 

Disjectopora, Irregulatoporar and Oircopora, comprising in all 19 species. The corals 

would therefore seem to be not only far better represented in the Salt Range fauna, 

but to have largely a different character. The genus A-mplexus is all that our lists 

show the faunas to have in common, although it is possible that the forms which 

Waagen and Wentzel have referred to Pachypora and those which I have placed with 

Oladopora may be congeneric. An interesting feature of the Salt Range fauna consists in the development of cert;tin. stromatoporoid corals belonging to four new 

. genera. All these types are quite foreign to the cmlenterate representation found in 

the Guadalupian, though some of W aagen's and Wentzel's figures are certainly 

strongly suggestive of the sponges rather than of the cmlenterates. It is singular 

that these' authors should have selec~ed the specific name placenta for one of their 

species of Michelinia, as the name was preoccupied by an American species, although 

now the latter is placed with the genus Leptopora. 

In his first paper on the Chitichun fauna No. 1 Diener cites a species o.f 

Amplexus and one of Lonsdaleia, and in his later paper on the same fauna a species 

of Amplexus, one of Zaphrentis, one of Olisiophyllum, one of Dibunophyllum, and one 

of Plerophyllum. It is evident that the cmlenterates of the Salt Range and of the 

Himalaya are not closely allied to those of the Guadalupian. 

Kayser cites only two varieties of Lophophyllum and a species of Michelinia 

from the Carboniferous fauna of LoPing. From the neighborhood of Kantsehoufu 

Loczy mentions an undetermined species of Hallia, from the neighborhood of 

Batang an undetermined species of Lonsdaleia, from Talischau in the province of 

Yi.innan a species of Favosites and one of Ilallia?, and from Youngtschangfu a species of Zaphrentis. The Carboniferous faunas. of China also, so far as known, would 

appear from this to show no very close relationship with the Guadalupian. 

Beyrich's corals from Timor afford more analogies with the Guadalupian than 

almost any other fauna. Among the forms distinguished by him there belong to 

this group certainly three species-Zaphrentis? sp., Oyathophyllum? sp., and Olisiophyllum australe. The latter species particularly recalls the forms which I have 

placed with Lindstrmmia. A fourth form, which Beyrich calls Oalamopora sp., 

appears to have too large cells for a bryozoan and strongly suggests the Guadalupian 

species which I have cited under Oladopora. Martin cites from Timor a number of 

species of corals belonging perhaps to several faunas. These comprise a ne.w species 

of Lophophyllum, three varieties of Lithostrotion, a species of Favosites, and one of 

Amp?exus, a cmlenterate group certainly not closely allied to that from the Quadalupe Mountains. Rothpletz, in describing the faunas of Timor and Rotti, distinguishes a considerable list of species, including the genera Pachypora (2 species, one 

of which will perhaps prove to be a bryozoan), Polycmlia (1 species), Zaphrentis (1 

species), Amplexus (2 species), Dibunophyllum (1 species), and Olisiophyllum (4 

species). A certain resemblance to the Guadalupian fauna is shown, which may be 

increased by the possibility that the forms which I have placed with Lindstrmmia and 
CCELENTERATA. 95 

those referred by Rothpletz to (J[isiophyllum are in some cases congenerip; but at 

all events the resemblance is not close. 

Roemer cites a species of Olisiophyllum and one of Lithostrotion from Sumatra 

and Fliegel a species of (J[isiophyllum and one of Lonsdaleia from Padang. 

. In the Russian section corals appear more or less abundantly in every division, 

and persist into the Permian, where Netschajew cites Petraia (1 species), Zaphrentis 

(2 species), Polyccelia (1 species), and an undetermined form. Probably this r·epresentation c:ould be much augmented by collating different lists, and really large numbers of species names could be gathered from other horizons in the samem~nner. 

Among works in which fossils of this group are described and figured, that by Trautschold on the fauna of Mjatschkowa contains representation of a good many species. 

Stuckenberg's monograph on the corals and Bryozoa of the Russian Kohlenkalk 

treats of still more. Netschajew's work on the Permian contains a few others, as 

already, noted, and so does the monograph by Murchison, De Verneuil, and Keyserling; but in no case is Q,ny special resemblance to the corals of the Guadalupian manifested, so that to consider the matter in detail would be unprofitable as well as laborious: Som~ comment on the genus Ohcetetes, however, will not be out of place, for 

it is a form readily determinablg and in many places abundant. Stuckenberg 

records three species in the upper Kohlenkalk of middle Russia, Trautschold two 

species in the Moskovian, and Stuck(mberg one in the Gschelian. In his monograph 

on the Gschelian Brachiopoda, Tschernyschew also cites Ohcetetes at that horizon. 

The absence of this genus from the Guadalupian seems to establish a difference 

between it and the lower formations of the Russian section and an agreement with 

the Artinskian and Permian, where it appears to be absent. 

Abich recognizes 5 species of Amplexus, 2 of Olisiophyllu,m, 2 of Zaphrentis, 1 of 

Lophophyllum, and 1 of Michelinia in his fauna from Djoulfa, in Armenia, an 

assemblage which certainly possesses little in common with that of the Guadalupe 

Mountains. Arthaber, who subsequently worked over much the same fauna, discriminated Amplexus (1 species), Zaphrentis (1 species), .Fwposites (1 species), and 

Michelinia (1 species). 

In the fauna from Bali·a Maaden, in Asia Minor, Enderle found only 2 species of 

Lonsdaleia and 1 of Amplexus. 

I do not know whether Gemmellaro published an account of the corals belonging 

to the fauna from Palermo, b'ut if so I have been unable to examine a copy of his 

. work; nor have I been able to find.whether Schellwien has described this group as it 

appears in the fauna of the Trogkofelschicliten. 

Gortani has noted a few corals from the Carnic Alps which he refers to the genera 

Zapkrentis (1 species), Oyathophyllum (1 species), Monilipora (1 species), and Syringopora (1 species). We apparently shall not find here any close analogy with the 

Guadalupian cmlenterates. 

The Dyas of Germany would appear to contain merely Oalophyllum (or Polyccelia) profundum and a doubtful Dingeria depressa. 

The corals of the Permian of England seem to be equally scanty. King cites 

Oalophyllum donatianum and Petraia profunda. 

In the Spitzbergen fauna likewise the corals play a subordinate part, but Toula 

cites two species of (Jlisiophyllum from the cape between the two arms of North 

Fjord. Among the Nova Zembla fossils this author cites 1 species of Oampophyllum, 
96 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA . 

. 1 of Zaphrentis, 3 of Lithostrotion, 1 of Michelinia, 1 of Chcetetes, and 1 of Clisiophyllum. · 

Stache cites a number of species from localities in theW est Sahara, but they arc 

of different genera from the Guadalupian types (Favosites, Cyathophyllum, Hadrophyllum?, Amplexus?, and Duncania?), and for the most part probably belong to an 

older fauna. 

The "Permo-Carboniferous" beds of Queensland and New Guinea contain, 

according to Etheridge, only a few corals-Zaphrentis (1 species), Cyathophyllum (2 

species), and Cladochonus (1 species)-a rather meager and characterless list, but 

one which, as far as it goes, is quite different from the Guadalupian. 

De Koninck's account of the Carboniferous fossils of New South Wales contains 

descriptions of an extensive suite of corals, viz, Axophyllum? (1 species), Lithostrotion (2 species), Cyathophyllum (1 species), Lophophyllum (2 species), Amplexus 

(1 species), Zaphrentis (4 species), Cyathaxonia (1 species), Cladochonus (1 species), 

Syringopora (2 species), and Favosites (1 species). This list seems to indicate a 

more primitive facies than the Guadalupian, and certainly a very different one. 

From the associated data I judge that all were obtained from the lower beds of the 

Australian section, and it would accordingly not J:>e to the purpose to consider them 

further here. Syringopora reticulata appears to be cited from the upper as well 

as the lower beds and to form an exception to the first part of the preceding remark 

but not to the last. . 

The only coral which I have found noted from the Carboniferous of South 

America is from Bolivia. D'Orbigny cites Turbinolia striata, a zaphrentoid species 

which will have to be redescribed before one can tell much about it. 

The Guadalupian corals, so far as they are known, contribute but little toward 

endowing the fauna with an individual or nov~l character, and yet they d~ not 

manifest any Inarked affinities with the other faunas with which comparisons have 

been made. 

The coral fauna of the Pennsylvanian is much less extensive than that of the 

Mississippian. According to vVeller's bibliography, the western forms, as usual, 

being rejected, the Pennsylvanian comprises only the following species: 

Species. Species. 

Axophyllum......... .. . . . . .. . . . . .. .. . .. . .. . 2 Michelinia ......................... _. __ . . . . 2 

Campophyllum............................. 2 Millepora ... .' ............. __ .. ___ .·. ________ _ 

Chootetes................................... 1 Syringopora ................. _ ............. _ 1 

Cyathaxonil1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Trachypora .................... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 

Lophophyllum............................. 1 Zaphrentis ............................. _. __ _ 1 

Of these, Campophyllum, Lophophyllum, and Chcetetes are perhaps the most 

abundant and characteristic. If the list of Guadalupian species be compared with 

this it will appear that the generic repres~ntation of the corals is very different in 

the two faunas, that they have in fact only two genera in common-Campophyllum 

and Zaphrentis-while the Guadalupian forms doi.1btfully placed with Campophyllum are very different from the common Pennsylvanian Campophyllum torq_uium. I am satisfied that Lindstrmmia permiana is not congeneric with the characteristic Pennsylvanian species Lophophyllum profundum, nor does it belong to 

Axophyllum, which includes another Pennsylvanian species. Thus it would seem 

that in its corals, not less than in the other groups, is the Guadalupian fauna different 

from the Pennsylvanian. 
C<ELENTERATA. 97 

TETRACORALLA. 

Family ZAPHRENTIDJE Milne-Edwards and Hahne.' 

'Genus LINDSTR<EMIA Nicholson. 

LINDSTR<EMIA PERMIANA n. sp. 

Pl.· XVII, figs. 13 and 14 .. 

?1859. Polywlia(?). Shumard, Trans. Acad. Sci. St. 'Louis, vol. 1, p. 388 (date of volume, 1860). 

Dark [Permian] limestone: Guadalupe Mountains. ·· 

Corallum of medium size, conical, gently curved, v~rying somewhat in the 

rapidity of its expansion, which is seldom either unusually rapid or unusually 

gradual. The exterior is sometimes marked by constrictions due to unequal growth 

and by numerous rather regular longitudinal ribs or ridges, the distinctness of 

which varies in different specimens. They are usually rather faint. These are 

grouped in such a way that the periphery is divided into three unequal parts. One 

longitudinal line of division, formed by the convergence of the ribs, is situated on 

the concave side of the corallum and the two others are about 90° of arc from it. 

In estimated length the largest specimens probably do not exceed 40 mm., 

while the greatest diameter is about 18 mm. 

The calice is very deep; the septa are m1merous and closely arranged and number from 48 to 56, of which half are primary and half secondary. This relation, 

however, is seldom apparent except in the calice, where sometimes the septa are 

regularly alternating, and in special instances in the lower part of the epitheca. 

The septa for the most part extend to the center and unite in a pseudocolumella. 

The pseudocolumella is large when compared with that of Lophophyllurn, but it is 

small when compared with the corresponding structure in Axophyllum. It appears 

not to be solid like that of Lophophyllum, but to consist of the interlocked ends of 

some of the septa. It often has the aspect of being solid, however, because the 

interstices are filled with a stereoplasmic deposit. I am uncertain about the existence of a fossette. Tn some specimens such a structure appears to be present (by 

the atrophy of one or two of the septa) and in others not; at all events it is not 

conspicuous. If it does exist it seems to bear no relation to the curvature of the 

corallum. Dissepimental tissue is present in moderate abundance, but tabulre are 

absent. In longitudinal sections the dissepiments are seen to ascend steeply to 

the pseudocolumella. 

Considerable variation is shown by coralla referred to this species. In some 

specimens the longitudinal strire are much less distinct than in others, and, correspondingly, the annular strire and constrictions are much more· pronounced in 

some. The difference in expansion has also been a subject of comment, and this 

exercises an influence on the internal as well as the external appearance, for since 

the number of septa remains fairly constant their arrangement in the narrow forms 

is more crowded than in the spreading forms. A difference in silicified specimens 

in the extension toward the center of septa in the calice can in some cases be definitely 

ascribed to the fact that their inner extremities were not silicified. The length of 

3695-No. 58-08--7 
98 THl!J GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

the secondary septa also varies, as well as their arrangement, since they are occasionally situated to one side of the interseptal spaces or are bent over to unite with 

the principal septa. 

In the calice, which is floored by dissepimental tissue, even the primary septa 

do not extend to the pseudocolumella, but at lower levels, as shown by sections, they 

extend to and unite with it. 

In young specimens referred to this species the number of septa is proportionally 

less, according to their size, and the secondary septa proportionally smaller. 

This species appears to be represented at several different horizons and at a · 

number of localities. While the sum total of specimens is considerable, not many 

have been obtained at any one station. Therefore in considering the material as a 

whole, the danger that it may not all belong to the same species is somewhat increased. 

Many of the specimens are fragmentary and the preservation is unsatisfactory. In 

but few instances do these fossils retain their original calcareous composition. In 

most cases they are silicified, but sometimes, as in the "dark limestone," the silicification, while sufficient to render sectioning laborious and unsatisfactory, is not 

complete enough to give a faithful replacement of the original body, while sometimes, as in the Glass Mountains, the matrix also is highly siliceous, so that etching 

does not serve to free the corallum. Thus all the characters described can not be 

made out on any one specimen, and the. danger resulting from a confusion of 

more than a single species becomes more grave. However, this circumstance has 

been kept in view and care taken to avoid error as far as possible. 

Of the generic position of this form I am somewhat in doubt. It can hardly be 

referred to .Axophyllum and appears in fact much more nearly allied to Lophophyllum. 

The fact that the· columella is composite, not simple and solid, and that it is connected with many of the septa, perhaps sometimes with all of them, seems to debar 

that genus also. The presence of dissepiments is likewise a distinguishing character 

of some value, though I have found that Lophophyllum possesses these structures, 

contrary to many descriptions of the genus. The development in Lophophyllum, 

however, is always scanty. 

The paper in which the name Lindstrmmia was firstproposed was published as 

an abstract, and I have not come upon a subsequent characterization of the genus, 

though Nicholson discusses it at some lcngt:J,t in his manual of paleontology. The 

original abstract, however, contains a rather full generic diagnosis, which can be 

supplemented by the remarks contained in the manual. With the first description 

the Guadalupian form agrees in most particulars. The chief points of divergence 

seem to be that the diagnosis calls for a small coral, while this species, though small 

in comparison with many Devonian and even some Carboniferous species, is near 

the average of Carboniferous forms. Neither can it be said of the pseudocolumella, 

though it is relatively larger than that of Lophophyllum, that it occupies a large portion of the visceral chamber.. These differences can, it is true, hardly be regarded 

as generic, but it is possible that in structures not described in detail by Nicholson, 

especially that of the columella, differential characters would be found. Furthermore, the type species of Lindstrmmia (L. columnaris) is a Devonian fossil and the 

genus is reported by Nicholson as being especially abundant in the Ordovician and 

Silurian rocks, though he notes finding it in the Carboniferous also. In the manual· 

~. ~ . .. ~.. ,. .,,; 
C<ELENTERA.TA. 

of paleontology above referred to Nicholson gives some additi01ial characters which 

Iiave a bearing on the generic reference of the present species. He remarks that 

the septa are pinnate in their arrangement and that the symmetry is bilateral, though 

a fossula seems not to be present. It has already been said that a certain trimeral 

arrangement of the external ridges has been observed in the Guadalupian form, 

though I doubt if all the specimens show even this, and no such arrangement is 

apparent in the interior, where a general radial symmetry prevails. As already 

stated, there is some uncertainty about the possession of a fossula by the Guadalupian form, and I believe that a structure of this nature is not a constant feature. 

In this character it is apparently in agreement with Lindstrrxmia. While the maximum develop~nent of the genus, as recorded by Nicholson, is much earlier than the 

present occurrence, the fact that Waagen has found corals such as Michelinia, and 

stromatoporoids, in the "Permo-Carboniferous" of India, affords some sort of a 

precedent for extending the range of Lindstrrxmia to the Guadalupian beds of Texas 

and New Mexico. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 

2926); "dark limestone," Pihe Spring (station 2930), and Guadalupe Point (station 

3762b ~); Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2919 ~), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (stations 2964 ~' 2969 ?, 3500). Delaware Mountain formation, Diablo 

Mountains, Texas, as reported (station 3764). Delaware Mountain formation, 

Comanche Canyon, Glass Mountains, Texas (station 3763). 

LIN DSTR<EM lA PERMIAN A var. 

Pl. XVII, fig. J.s. 

Associated with the typical Lindstrrxmirt permiana is a form resembling it in a 

general way but possessing this obvious difference, that it is smaller and has somewhat fewer septa. The difference in size seems to me not such but that coralla 

belonging to L. permiana would have had more numerous septa when of similar 

dimensions. The number of primary septa in this form is 19 or 20, the total number 

of septa in a corallum being, therefore, 38 or 40. It hardly seemed justifiable to 

place these fossils immediately with L. permiana, and at the same time the difference 

does not at present seem sufficiently important to warrant proposing a new name 

for them. 

Horizon and locality.-" Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930) and Guadalupe Point (stations 3762e ?, 3762d), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. Delaware 

Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (stations 2968 and 2969). 

LINDSTR<EMIA CYLINDltiCA n. sp. 

Pl. XVII, figs. 16 and l6a. 

Corallum rather small, subcylindrical, strongly curved. The entire length is 23 

mm., the diameter at the aperture 8 mm. When the typical specimen had reached 

a length of i1 mm. it had nearly attained its full diameter and was a straight cone. 

The remaining growth was in shape cylindrical and in a different direction from the 

BUREAU OF MINES LIBRARY 

DENVER 
100 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

original one. The ex~erna1 surface is marked by distinct longitudinal ribs and by 

rather prominent transverse bands, due to irregular and interrupted growth. The 

calice is rather deep, but not so deep as often seen in Lindstrmmia permiana. It 

contains 16 septa, all of which are primary. No secondary septa appear. In the 

calice the septa do not extend to the center,. the unoccupied space between their inner 

ends being floored by dissepimental tissue, from the midst of which the rather small, 

low pseudocolumella projects. A similar appearance has been observed in L. permiana also, but it is probably misleading as to the real structure beneath, and is 

doubtless calicinal in character, later growth adding to and altering -the structures 

before the soft parts were withdrawn and partitioned off. In part, too, this appearance is due to silicification, the septa in partially etched specimens being sometimes 

much shorter where free than where· embedded in the portions of limestone remaining in the bottom of the calice. Thus tne septa in the calice may have extended in 

reality nearly if not quite to the pseudocolumella, just as they do below, showing one 

of the distinctive structural characters of the genus. 

The somewhat unusual conformation of the only specimen yet found belonging 

to this species is probably of little value in determining its specific relations, ::mel 

may be entirely an individual character. The fact that no secondary septa are 

shown in the calice and that the primary septa number but 16, instead of 24 to 28, 

as in L. permiana, distinguish this species from the one last mentioned. 

Horizon and locality.-"Dark limestone," Pine Spring, Guadalupe Mountains, 

Texas (station 2930). 

LINDST.R<EMIA sp. 

Under this title are included two specimens, each from a different locality, 

which should not, I feel, be referred to either of the species recognized in this fauna. 

They are rather small and of a cylindrical shape. Their diameter is 4 mm. and their 

length 8 mm .. ')'he septa number 29 or 30. In one specimen the septa are distinctly separable into primary and secondary, the primary septa extending to the 

center and uniting with a large axis. In the other specimen the primary and secondary septa can scarcely be distinguished by difference in length. 

In its shape this species resembles Lindstrremia cylindrica, but the number and 

arrangement of the septa are different, while. not only in its smaller size and shape 

but also in the number of septa does it differ from L. permiana. It is true that young 

specimens of L. permiana have fewer septa than the large ones, but as a rule fewer 

also than the form under consideration. Besides, judged by its shape the latter has 

apparently reached its final or mature condition, while the small corals referred to 

L. permiana have a different shape and one which from its nature admits of or almost 

necessitates augmentation in the number of septa, etc., in process of enlargement. 

Horizon and locality.-" Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930), and Guadalupe Point (station 3762b), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. 

Genus ZAPHRENTIS Rafinesque. 

ZAPIIRENTIS? sp. 

After removing the coralla referred to Lindstrremia and Amplexus, a residual 

group, somewhat varied, yet having a certain amount of unity, remains. These 
C<ELENTERATA. 101 

fossils closely resemble L. permiana, but appear to be without the pseudocolumella 

of that group. The septa are numerous. In an example having a diameter of but 

6 mm. 35 were counted. The primary and secondary septa ani not readily distinguished and the plates are distorted. They are connected by moderately abundant 

dissepimental tissue. In a larger example, having a diameter of 10 mm., there 

appear to be 40 septa, primary and secondary, but they are not very distinct, and I 

.believe that some were overlooked, their irregular growth aiding in making a precise 

count very difficult. In some of the specimens assigned to this group a pseudocolumella seems to be absent, in others the evidence on this point is lacking, and of no 

example probably can it be said that the corallum was certainly without a pseudo~ 

columella. 

Horizon and locality.-" Dark limestone," Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 3762b). Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware 

Mountains, Texas (station 2957 ~). Delaware Mountain formation, Comanche Canyon, Glass Mountains, Texas (station 3763). 

Genus AMPLEXUS Sowerby. 

AMPLEXUS sp. 

The specimens which clearly possess the structure of the group for which the 

name Lindstrmmia is here used being withdrawn, there remains in our collection a 

heterogeneous assemblage, consisting of examples which appear more or less clearly 

to have a different structure and of those whose structure is imperfectly shown. 

From these coralla has been subtracted a group distinguished. by being rather 

small, slender, and cylindrical and by having; so far as could be observed, the kind 

of structure characterizing the genus Amplexus. It seems necessary to distinguish 

two subordinate divisions, one of them represented by specimens from the Glass 

Mountains and the other by specimens from the Guadalupes. In the former the 

diameter is 7_ to 10 mm. and the subcylindrical corallum is marked by numerous 

fine longitudinal ridges, likewise by transverse constrictions. There are· about 26 

primary and the same number of secondary septa. None of the septa reach to the 

center, and the large axial space thus left was probably crossed by tabul:B. No 

columella was present.· More or less sparse dissepimental tissue occurs around the 

outer margin. ·Enough divergence can be noted in the length and character of the 

septa to indicate the possibility of two species among the fossils of this division, but 

as my material is scanty, silicified, and difficult to study it did not seem warranted 

to subject it to the final analysis. 

The specimen especially representing the second division has a diameter of 4.5 

mm. The growth is irregular, the exterior is marked by a number of angular transverse ridges, but the longitudinal ribs are obscure. There are 15, possibly 16, rather 

long primary septa. The secondary septa are mere ridges between the primary 

ones, and dissepimental tissue seems to be absent. This specimen has the appearance of being young or pathologic. 

Horizon and locality.-Base of Capitan formation, hill southwest of Guadalupe 

Point (station 2906 ~); "dark limestone," Guadalupe Point (station 3762b), Guada- -

lupe Mountains, Texas. Delaware Mountain formation, Comanche Canyon, Glass 

Mountains, Texas (station 3763). -

.1 
102 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

Family CYATHOPHYLLIDJE Milne-Edwards and Haime . 

. Genus CAMPOPHYLLUM Milne-Edwards and Haime. 

CAMPOPHYLLUM TEXANUM Shumard.~ 

Pl. VII, fig. 18. 

1859. Campophyllum (?) Tcxanum. Shumard, Trans. Acarl. SCi. St. Louis, vol. 1, p. 388 (date of volume, 1860). 

White [Permian] limestone: Guadalupe Mountains. 

Shumard gives the foregoing name to a form· from the white limestone, his 

description of which is so inadequate that the name itself is practically invalid. He 

says of this form: 

This is. a long, subcylindrical, flexuous species, having a diameter above of about one-third qf an 

inch. It is covered with a thin epithelium. The interior structure is unknown. I place it provisionally in the above genus until I can have an opportunity of examining better specimens. 

Locality.-White limestone, Guadalupe Mountains. 

In our collection there is only one specimen from the same horizon as Campophyllum texanum which can with any probability belong to it, and it is represen~ed 

by fig. 18 of Pl. VII. It agrees with the original description in all of the characters 

designated except that the diameter is· nearly twice as great, and yet ·I doubt 

whether it really represents Shumard's species. It is, however, so far as I can 

make out-for it is imperfect and somewhat crushed-a true Campophyllum. 

There are about 50 septa, which did not reach to the center. There is a marginal 

region intersected by dissepiments, while the central or axial cavity is partitioned 

by rather distant tabulre. 

As, however, the interior of the real Campophyllum texanum was not known to 

Shumard, the latter may have belonged to quite another genus and have been a 

form like Lindstrcemia cylindrica, which, though from a slightly different horizon, 

had the same diameter and other characteristics much like C. texanum. It may 

even have been one of the sponges which are not uncommon in the Capitan formation, such as Guadalupia cylindrica, Virgula rigida, etc. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). 

HEXACORALLA. 

Family FAVOSITID1E Milne-Edwards and Haime. 

Genus CLADOPORA Hall. 

CLADOPORA SPINULATA n. sp. 

Pl. XVII, figs. 17 and 17a. 

This species forms cylindrical, simple, or branching coralla, the diameters of 

which vary from 4 to 8 mm. The proportion of large and small corrallites varies 

widely in different coralla. The larger apertures have a nearly uniform diameter of 

0.75 mm. The corallum is covered with projecting, spinelike processes, usually 
CCELENTERATA. 103 

lost in weathered specimens, which seem as a rule to originate from the angle where 

three corrallites come into contact. The mural pores are large, though rather 

scarce. Septa are represented by internal spinules which appear to be arranged in 

longitudinal rows. I have not been able to ascertain by observation the exact 

number of these rows, but estimate that there were nine or ten. 

This species and the one following recall especially two middle Paleozoic genera, 

Oladopora and Striatopora, the latter rather because of the forms which have from 

time to time been referred to it than from the character and appearance of the 

genotype. The type species of Oladopora and Striatopora do in fact differ strongly 

in general aspect, and the Guadalupian species resemble Oladopora seriata rather 

than Striatopora .flexuosa. According to Rominger, however, the two genera are 

really very similar, and certainly the groups of sp.ecies at present included under 

the~e generic titl'es have much in common. One of the important structural characters indicated in Hall's original description of Oladopora is the absence of diaphragms. Rominger reports having observed these structures, though usually 

they are absent. According to the definitions of the author last mentioned, the 

distinctive characters of the two genera as compared with one another are the thickened and striated apertures inStriatopora and the abundant development of mural 

pores. In Oladopora the apertures are not thickened, tabulre are absent or rare, 

and pseudosepta rudimentary or absent. 

In Oladopora spinulata the apertures of the cells are not thickened and striated, 

and therefore the 'general appearance is more that of Oladopora than of Striatopora. 

Diaphragms seem to be absent as a rule from both of the genera mentioned, and 

none have been observed in 0. spinulata. The comparative rarity of mural pores 

is likewise a pointjn common with Oladopora, whereas the rows ofspines constituting 

what may be called pseudosepta tend to ally it rather with Striatopora. It is not 

stated in Rominger's description of Striatopora that these structures extend from 

the aperture where they are most obvious into the interior of the tube, but it is 

presumed that this is the case. In Oladopora spinulata they can be seen only below 

the aperture. This species, therefore, is not entirely in agreement with either of 

. Hall's genera and the recurrence of this type in the Permian is rather suggestive 

that its characters w:ill be found too far modified for admission into either of the 

earlier groups. This seems to a certain extent to be the fact in the matter of the 

septal development of Oladopora spinulata and more especially in the case of Oladopora tubulata. Both from the scantiness and from the silicified condition of my 

material I am unable to pursue the study of either species so far that an accurate 

generic diag:r:tosis would be possible, and it seems safer to refer them to Oladopora, 

to which they are clearly allied and where they may really by rights belong. 

I have referred to this species some specimens from station 2963 which are 

differently preserved and show somewhat different characters from the others. 

The others, in brief, are silicified while these, though fragmentary, are calcareous. 

They are composite coralla, in general respects like the silicified examples. The 

rather thick walls are pierced by occasional mural pores. Tabulre appear to be 

absent, but a striking feature consists of what resemble long septa, which though 

often much thicker near the walls are very variable in size, in length, and in arrangement. · Some of the longer ones extend to the center or beyond, while the others 
104 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

are much shorter. They are not only unequal distances apart, but sometimes as 

much as half the circumference of a corallite will be unprovided with them. Indeed, 

in some specimens none at all appear to be present. Owing to the small size of the 

corallites and the imperfect or partial development of the septalike structures it is 

difficult to give an exact number for those present. Eight or nine can be counted 

in several instances and in others there may be four or five fragmentary ories in addition. 

So far as I have been able to discover, these septa are not plates but spines, and 

they are best developed in the interior parts of the corallum and least developed in 

the peripheral parts. It is of course the latter which are seen in silicified specimens, 

where septal spines can sometimes be. detected, though they do not form a striking 

feature, and thus I believe it highly probable that these calcareous examples, which 

at first look very different because of their apparently well-developed septa, are 

really the same species as the silicified ones. · 

Horizon and locality.-Base of .Capitan formation, hill southwest of Guadalupe 

Point (station 2906); "dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930), near Guadalupe 

Point (stations 3762b and 3762e), and hill southwest of Guadalupe Point (station 

2924); Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2963), Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas. Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, 

Texas (stations 2962 and 2969). Delaware Mountain formation, Comanche Canyon, 

Glass Mountains, Texas (station 3763). 

CLADOPORA ~ TUBULATA n. sp. 

PLXXV, figs. 5 and 5a. 

In this species the corallitcs form small, more or less branching coralla, which 

seem to broaden out at the base or on occasion and become somewhat incrusting. 

The corallites are nearly of equal size and have a diameter of about three-fourths of a 

millimeter. They are not very thickly clustered and their apertures are sometimes 

separated by considerable intervals. They are strongly inclined to the axis, so that 

the aperture is semicircular or crescentiform, with a projecting lower lip, yet individual corallites contrive to elevate themselves above the general surface as short, · 

'separate tubular cells. The walls are thick, and I have ascertained that in a few 

instaiices they are pierced by mural pores, but these str~ctures seem to be only 

occasional. No septa or tabulre have been observed. 

The general resemblance of this fossil to Oladopora spinulata, which occurs at 

nearly if not quite the same horizon, seems to warrant a reference of both to the 

same genus, but while the latter appears to have nearly all the characters of a true 

Oladopora, the present species must certainly be regarded as a peculiar and aberrant 

form.· 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Diablo Mountains, 

Texas, as reported (station 3764): Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 
ECHINODERMATA. 105 

Family AULOPORID.l.E Nicholson. 

Genus AULOPORA Goldfuss. 

Auv)PORA sp. 

Growing upon an indeterminable species of Fenestella there was found at station 

2969 an Aulopora which presents no appreciable differences from much older types of 

the genus. Portions of three corallites in a linear series are present, and the whole 

has a length of only 6t mm., so that the species is a very smail one. The length of 

each corrallite was probably about 21 to 3 mm. and the greatest diameter 1 mm. or a 

little less. Each corallite appear:s to have been a regularly enlarging cone slightly 

curved, if at all, developing a single offshoot by gemmation when it had attained 

two-thirds or three-fourths the full size. 

These data, however, can not be made exact, owing to imperfections in the 

material. . 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 

ECHINODERMATA. 

Echinoderms are "usually rare at the later horizons of the Paleozoic, and in the 

Guadalupian fauna they form but an insignificant factor. Crinoids are represented 

only by fragments of stems, which occur in many of the collections, though never in 

abundance. Of the cystoids our material has furnished a single form of considerable 

interest, representing both a genus and a species which are new. Echinoids occurring as dissociated plates and fragments of radioles arc rare and of small size. Six 

varieties apparently can be discriminated, but the material is so imperfect that 

nothing has been described as new in this group. 

Although the echinoderm remains of the Guadalupian are so scanty, it will be of 

interest to see how this class is represented in other faunas and wherever possible to 

make comparisons. The true crinoids, of which our collections furnish only stem 

fragments, are rather unusually well represented in the Salt Range fauna, where 

Waagen described 4 species of Cyathocrinus, 1 of Hydriocrinus, 2 of Poteriocrinus, 

and 1 of Philocrinus. No cystoids were found and only one species of echinoid, 

occurring as loose spines and plates. This was placed by W aagen in the genus 

Eocidaris and is not closely related to the corresponding Guadalupian types. The 

crinoid stems which Diener ci1ies from Mall a Sangcha and from Chitichun No. 1 may 

well be omitted ~rom consideration, and the fact be. pointed out-so far as it has 

significance when based on such imperfect data-that the Guadalupian fauna differs 

widely from those of the Salt Range and Himalaya with respect to this class of 

organisms. 

In China remains of the Echinodermata are rare, the only record I have found 

being by Loczy, who notes fragments of stems and an occasional plate belonging to 

the Crinoidea. 
106 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

Almost the same may be said of the Carboniferous of the Indian Archipelago. 

Roemer cites some crinoid steins from Sumatra and Martin docs the same for Timor. 

From Timor, Beyrich not only obtained the usual crinoid stems, but described a new 

gc.nus and species of cystoid (Hypocrinus) _of considerable interest in this connection, · 

sin.ce it appears to be related to the Guadalupian Cmnocystis. In his treatment of 

the faunas of Timor and Rotti Rothpletz discusses at some length the fragments of 

crinoid stems, which his collection seems to have contained in considerable abundance. He likewise obtained a fragment of a radiole of an echinoid and an additional 

species of Hypocrinus. 

In the Russian section the Moskovian contains a rather abundant echinoderm 

fauna. We have first, according to Trautschold, the echinoids Arch;:eocidaris 

rossica, represented by a variety of parts, and Lepidesthes ltevis,· among the starfish, 

so rarely found in the Paleozoic, Palceaster rnontanus, Calliaster rnirus, and Stenaster 

confluens. The crinoids are cited as Poteriocrinus originarius, P. multiplex, P. 

bijugus, Hydriocrinus pusillus, Crornyocrinus simplex, C. geminatus, C. ornatus, 

Phialocrinus patens, P. urna, Sternmatocrinus cernuus, Forbesiocrinus incurvus, and 

Platycrinus sp. This unusually extensive and varied fauna is entirely dissimilar to 

the much more meager representation of the Guadalupian. . 

Much less common appears to be the occurrence of this group at higher horizons. 

From the Gschelian Sibirzew lists radioles and plates of Arch;:eocidaris (like A. 

rossica Von Buch) and fragments of Poteriocrinus and Cyathocrinus. Stuckenberg 

notes about the same assemblage, Cyathocrinus sp., Poteriocrinus sp., Archceocidaris 

sp., and Palceechinus par-adoxus. 

From the Artinskian Stuckenberg cites Palceechinus sp., Archceocidaris sp., and 

'Cyathocrinus sp. The two echinoids resemble Archceocidaris cratis and Archceocidaris sp. a of the present report. The Kungurstufe furnished this author only 

Cyathocrinus sp. Sibirzew lists from the Artinsk Arch;:eocidaris and Cyathocrinus. 

From the Russian Permian Tschernyschew cites Cyathocrinus rarnosus, Sibirzcw 

the same, Netschajew Cyathocrinus cf. rarnosus and Poteriocrinus q_uenstedti, and 

Golowkinsky Poteriocrinus guenstedti. In some of these, at all events, though not 

in the last, the identification is based on fragments of stems. 

So far as comparisons can be made on this scanty evidence, the Guadalupian 

echinoderms do not resemble the Russian species to any extent. The absence from 

the fauna of determinable crinoids is worthy of some notice, though where there are 

stems there must of course have been cups. The presence of the cystid is also noteworthy. 

In the fauna from Djoulfa Abich cites only Poteriocrinus, represented by stem 

fragments, and Arthaber recognized qyathocrinus cf. rarnosus, Cyathocrinus cf. 

virgalensis, and Poteriocrinus? sp. in reviewing Abich's fauna, the identifications in 

every case being based on stems alone. Only stems were found by Enderle also 

among his fossils from Balia Maaden. 

Of data bearing on the representation of these types in the interesting fauna 

from Palermo, described by Gemmellaro, and in the related one from the Carnic 

Alps which Gortani and Schellwien have partially described I have found no trace; 

but in the German Dyas the echinoderms are again noted. Geinitz cites Eocidaris 

keyserlingi, Asterias biturninosa, and Cyathocrinus rarnosus. To the two latter the 
ECHINODERMATA. 107 

Guadalupian fauna presents nothing comparable. Arch::eocidaris cratis and Arch::eocidaris sp. a resemble the radioles of Geinitz's Eocidaris keyserlingi, but apparently 

the two species belong to different genera. 

From the English Permian, King cites Cyathocrinus ramosus and Arch::eocidaris 

verneuiliana (Pal::eechinus in the description of plates). The echinoid is of the same 

general .type as Arch::eocidaris cratis and Arch::eocidaris sp. a, but we have as yet 

nothing which can be compared with the crinoid. 

Toula's papers on the Carb~niferous faunas of Spitzbergen contain references 

to crinoid stems alone, while from Nova Zembla he noted only an indeterminable 

species of Arch::eocidaris and Cyathocrinus sp., together with stem fragments. · From 

two areas in the West Sahara, Stache obtained abundant crinoid stems, which he 

studied in great detail. Only fragmentary remains of the same group are recorded 

from South America. Gabb notes them from Peru, and Salter and Toula from 

Bolivia. 

In De Koninck's account of the Carboniferous fossils of New South Wales a 

number of echinoderm species were noted belonging to the genera Synbathocrinus, 

Poteriocrinus, Actinocrinus, Platycrinus, Tribrachyocrinus, Cyathocrinus, and 

Pal::easter. All appear to have come from the lower beds except the Tribrachyocrinus, the Cyathocrinus, and the Pal::easter. Nothing at all resembling these species 

is known from the Guadalupian. 

In the "Permo-Carboniferous" of Queensland and New Guinea: echinoderms 

are unusually abundant-much better represented, at all events, than in the Guadalupian. Etheridge cites Actinocrinus (1 species), Platycrinus (1 species), Poteriocrinus (2 species), besides fragments of other forms; also, among the blastoids, 

Mesoblastus? (1 species), Granatocrinus? (1 species), and Tricmlocrinus? (1 species), 

while the echinoids are represented only by a sil_lgle plate of Arch::eocidaris. There 

seems to be here scarcely any common ground with the Guadalupian. 

Relating to the present discussion, I find listed in Weller's bibliography of 

North American Carboniferous invertebrates, species representing the crinoids and 

echinoids alone, the cystoids, blastoids, and asteroids being at present unknown. 

All species of lower Carboniferous (Mississippian) age have of course been eliminated from this list, and all such as have a purely western distribution. 

Crinoids, while as a rule rare in the Pennsylvanian, in the aggregate co~stitute 

an extensive fauna, comprising 14 genera and 47 species, as follows: 

Species. Species. 

Acrocrinus................................ 1 Graphiocrinus .................. ,........... 1 

Agassizocrinus............................. 1 Hydreionocrinus............................ 8 

Ceriocrinus .......................... ·...... 6 Lecythiocrinus............................ 2 

Cromyocrinus ............................ . 1 Phialocrinus............................... 6 

Cyathocrinus .......... _. .................. . 

Erisocrinus ............................... . 

Eupachycrinus ............................ _ 

2 Poteriocrinus .............................. . 

2 Rhodorrinus ............................. . 

9 Zeacrinus ................................. . 

3 

1 

4 

The echinoids, while more plentiful, are much less varied. The only genera 

known are Arch::eocidaris and Eocidaris, the former with seven and the latter with 

one species. Since the publication of Weller's bulletin, from which the foregoing 

data were derived, a few additional species of echinoids and crinoids have been 

described, but they do not modify to any extent the previously lmown fauna. 
108 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

One might easily be led too far in comparing the Guadalupian and Pennsylvanian faunas in point of their echinoderm representation, but so far as known the 

Guadalupian is without determinable crinoids, while cystoids, which, of a single type, 

are fairly abundant at one station in the Guadalupian, are unknown in the Pennsylvanian. As for the echinoids, ~ group which is represented in both faunas, it 

seems to be true that those of the Guadalupian are rarer and of smaller size than the 

Pennsylvanian representatives. 

CYSTOIDEA. 

Family CRYPTOC.RINIDlE Zittel. 

·Genus C<ENOCYSTIS n. gen. 

The genenc description of Orenocystis is included in the description of the 

specific characters of Orenocystis richrl,rdsoni, which is taken as the genotype. 

CmNOCYSTIS RICHARDSON! n. sp. 

Pl. XXVII, figs. 19 to 22. 

The lower half of the cup in this interesting species is composed of a calyx-like 

group of consolidated plates, representing apparently two serial rows. ·what may 

be regarded as the basal plates consists of an elongated cone, which is nearly solid 

or only partly calibrated, apparently formed by the consolidation of several plates 

whose line of juncture is now entirely lost. This conical basal portion is followed 

by a hemispherical expansion formed by five pentagonal primary plates of equal 

size. They are firmly joined with one another laterally, though the suture is distinctly marked by a depressed line. ·with the basal portion, however, they are so 

closely ankylosed that they appear for the most part to be continuous. Although 

there seems to be an obscure basal outline to this second series of plates, I suspect 

that this is rather a phenomenon than a reality. The contiguous upper angles of 

two adjacent plates of this series are deeply excavated for the relatively large anal 

pore. Similar pores appear to be symmetrically developed on the four remaining 

lines of suture, but these are much smaller. They have not been observed on the 

· outside, but regularly appear as channels transversely cutting the thick basal cup. 

(See fig. 20 of Pl. XXVII.) 

There may be some question whether the solid basal portion of this structure 

consists of two series of plates, according to the above interpretation, or of but one, 

t~e lower portions being more completely merged with one another than the upper; 

but the explanation here adopted appears to be the more natural one. 

The five pentagonal plates here regarded as representing the second series are 

arranged with one side downward and two at the top. They are succeeded by 

another row of large, apparently loose plates, which probably have twoshortsides 

meeting at an obtuse angle below, and two long sides meeting at an acute angle 

above. They are so arranged that the point of the basal outline fits into the reentrant angle at which two plates of the preceding se-ries meet, and vice versa. The 

upper portion of the few specimens which have come to hand is obscured, so that I 
ECHINODERMATA. 109 

can not tell whether there is a{l additional series of small oral plates, or whether the 

series last described continues to the oral aperture. 

One or two additional points are necessary to complete the description of this 

form. One feature of it is the very small size which even the largest of our specimens presents. Another has to do with the upper or roofing portion, whose plate 

structure is not completely known.· This roofmg disk is marked by· five regular 

diverging angulations, following the lines of juncture of the upper series of plates. 

These lines are continuous with ·very obtuse dihedral angles which are formed longitudinally along the· center of the series of pentagonal plates just below. These 

angular lines, thus almost continuous from top to bottom, are obscure in one specimen, 

but rather strong in another which· is probably immature. The latter possessesthe additional character of having a deep dimplelike depression about midway along 

each of these angles, situated apparently at the apex of each of the pentagonal 

plates regarded as forming the second series. 

One specimen, somewhat differently preserved from the others, shows a feature 

·in them obscured. In this e;.ample the outer and inner surfaces alone appear to 

have been silicified, so that when the specimen was freed by etching, a thin outer 

and inner shell was left to represent the original thick plates. The outer shell in 

this case has been broken away and the inner one shows five elliptical elevations 

radiating from the mouth, apparently corresponding to depressions on the interior. 

The only genus with which I can think to compare this curious cystoid is 

Hypocrinus Beyrich; but it is evidently so distinc.t from that type that it scarcely 

seems necessary to point out the differences in detail. If we suppose that there are 

no little plates around the mouth, and accept the interpretation here adopted as to 

the basal cup, the cystid is composed of three rings of plates, but the basal ring, 

instead of consisting of three distinguishable plates, is formed of an uncertain number 

of completely ankylosed ones, to which, in turn, those of the second series are 

ankylosed. , 

I have referred this form to the cystoids instead of the blastoids, because of the 

absence of large, regular, ambulacral areas and the presence of a. large eccentric anal 

pore. At the same time a certain affinity with the blastoids is shown in the small 

number of plates, together with their very regular size and arrangement, while the 

five structures of undetermined function which radiate from the mouth on the inside 

of the test superficially suggest the ambulacral areas of Pentremi.tes, etc. 

'Vhile certain features of this species remain.unascerta.iiled, it is so clearly a new 

genus, and withal so interesting, that I feel justified in introducing a new generic 

name. At present I include Cmnocystis, with Hypocrin'l_.ls, among the Cryptocrinidre. 

Horizon and ZocaZity.-Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware 

Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 
110 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

ECHINOIDEA. 

Family ARCHZEOCIDARIDlE McCoy. 

Genus ARCHJEOCIDARIS McCoy. 

ARciilEOCIDARIS ORA TIS White~ 

The Guadalupian specimens referred to this species are fragmentary, representing the median portion of three radioles parallel arid almost in contact. They 

·are cylindrical, the largest example having a diameter of about 2 mm., without any 

perceptible taper. The length of the fragments is only about 11 mm. The spinules 

are rather small and very scattering, the general appearance suggesting a species 

closely allied to Archceocidaris cratis. · 

Horizon and locality.-" Dark lin1estone," east of Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe, 

Mountains, Texas (station 3762b). 

ARCHJEOCIDARIS sp. a. 

This very minute form is represented by a single radiole, which has a cylindrical 

shape, with a diameter of scarcely more than half a millimeter and a length of 5! 

mm. It is incomplete at the upper end. There are a few large spinules at relatively long intervals, and the general character is very much as in Archceocidaris 

cratis, alth6ugh the size is greatly inferior. 

Owing to its minute dimensions and rather imperfectly silicified condition it 

is impossible to determine definitely the character and distribution of the spinules. 

Horizon and locality.-" Dark limestone," GuadalupeMount~J,ins, Texas (station 

3762c). 

ARCH.lEOCIDAms sp. b. 

Pl. XXVII, figs. 18 and !Sa. 

This form, which is very imperfectly known, is based on two specimens. One 

of these shows the distal end of the radiole, which is seen to expand rather abruptly 

from a very slender shaft having a diameter of about three-fourths mm. into a subspherical end which has a diameter of 2 mm. The terminal portion and the shaft 

adjacent appear to be armed with short spinules. 

Associated with the foregoing is the proximal portion of a radiole,. showing a 

long, slender, smooth, cylindrical shaft, which has a diameter of about three-fourths 

mm., with the usual subterminal collar near the lower end. It is very probable that 

this and the foregoing fragments belong to the same species, one which is characterized by its small size, long, slender, smooth shaft, and terminal spinose knob. 

The Pennsylvanian species which most resembles this is Archceocidaris spiniclavata, which is still very different~ 

Horizon and ZocaZity.-Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware 

Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 
ECHIN.ODERMATA. 111 

ARCHlEOCIDARIS sp. b var. 

Associated with the foregoing is the distal portion of a radiole of a very 

similar type. The terminal knob in this case is relatively larger and somewhat 

differently shaped. The end is in some degree pointed, and has midway a subangular 

zone above which it is covered with little spines, but below which it is smooth, like 

the shaft connected with it. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware 

Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 

ARCHlEOCIDARis sp. c. 

The material on which this division is based consists of fragments of radioles, 

some of them representing distal ends and some proximal, but nothing to show the 

length or character of the shaft between. The proximal ends have the usual configuration, with a subterminal milled collar. The distal end consists of a nearly 

spherical enlargement covered with little elevations or nodes. Of the two specimens representing this portion the larger has a diameter of 5 mm. One can not, of 

course, be sure that these fragments belong to the same species, but it seems not 

unlikely. · 

This form resembles that which I have designated Archa:ocidaris sp. b, but is 

very much larger. In view of this fact, especially since it was found at a different 

locality and since it is impossible to determine whether it is similar in other respects, 

such as the arrangement of spinules, etc., it seemed advisable to discriminate them 

provisionally as distinct species. 

Horizon and locality.-" Dark limestone," Pine Spring, Guadalupe Mountains, 

Texas (station 2930). 

ARCHlEOCIDARIS sp. d. 

It seems best to group under tlris title a number of plates, some of which are 

associated with the radioles above described and probably belong to the same species; 

but the preservation of my material is too unsatisfactory to determine with any 

strong degree of probability, by studying the tubercles and the bases of the radioles, 

wlrich radioles and plates belong together. 

At station 2969, where Arch:eocidaris sp. b and Arch:eocidaris sp. b var. were 

found, five of these plates were obtained, each of them presenting more or less 

marked differences in size and configuration, so that unless some evidence were 

available to indicate that such was the case, I·would hardly feel justified in referring 

any two to the same species. A single fragmentary plate from station 3500 agrees 

fairly well with one of those from station 2969. Five plates collected at station 2930 

represent two somewhat distinct types, neither of which has the same characters as 

the others mentioned. · 

Consequently, if I were to divide these specimens on mtrinsic characters, I would 

have to recognize seven species of Archmocidaris, based on the configuration of 

plates; this would demand more space and consideration for my scanty and fragmentary material than it at all merits. . 
112 THE GUADALUPJAN FAUNA. 

Thus, Archreocidaris sp. d probably comprises more than a single species, possibly as many as seven, some ·of which, however, it seems very likely belong with 

the spines that have been entered above under separate titles. 

Horizon and locality.-"Dark limestone," Pine Spring, Guadalupe Mountains, 

Texas (station 2930). Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (stations 2969 and 3500) . 

. VERMES. 

Genus SPIRORBIS Daudin. 

SPIRORBIS TEXANUS n. sp. 

Pl. XXVII, fig. 6. 

The specimen which forms the subject of this description is somewhat incomplete, but, on the other hand, is very well preserved, so that all the essential characters are readily ascertained. The shell is small, and irregularly and very loosely 

coiled. It is ~arked by numerous strongly projecting lamellose collars, which are 

rather regularly and closely arranged. They are not perpendicular to the surface, 

but project forward somewhat strongly. There are also very delicate longitudinal 

line, which are not entirely regular and not continuous between the different stages 

of growth marked by the annular lamellm. 

This species resembles Spirorbis imbricatus Ulrich. It is much smaller and 

more delicately constructed. The annulations are relatively a little more crowded, 

while the interspaces instead of being marked by concentric lirm show delicate radiating ones. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware 

Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 

MOLLUSCOIDEA. 

BRYOZOA. 

The Guadalupian Bryozoa, so far as known, comprise 14 genera and 44 species, 

as indicated in the following list: 

Species. Species. 

Domopora? ........... ." ... , ............ __ . 6 Phyllopora? ..... __ ......... _ ........ __ . . . . 1 

Fistulipora ................. ___ .... __ . . 3 'l'hamniscus .. __ . _ .. .. .. .. .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . 2 

Meckopora .... _ ......... _ ... ___ ...... __ . . . 1 Acanthocladia ............... _. _ .... _____ . . . . 2 

Stenopora ........... _ ....... _ ... __ . _...... 4 Septopora ................. ___ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

• Leiodema ............ -.... _ .............. _ . 1 

Fen estella ........ · ......... ___ ... __ . . . . . . . 14 

Rhornbobora ..... _. _ .- .. _ ... _ ......... _ ... _. 2 

Goniocladia ...... _ ... _ .. _ ....... _ . __ . . . . . . 1 

Polypora ..................... __ ....... _ . . . . 5 Actinotrypa .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 1 

For the most part this group has proved rather surprisingly scanty, and my 

meager material would hardly have yielded so respectable an array of forms without 

the skillful manipulation of my friend Mr. Bassler, who made the sections which I 

studied and gave valuable aid in. their investigation. The most abundant type 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 113 

is probably Acanthocladia guadalupensis, with the interesting group which I have 

placed under Domopora ver:y nearly as plentiful. The greatest variety of species is 

found among the Fenestellas and Polyporas, which are more rare in the Guadalupe . 

section itself than in the southern Delawares. Most of the types discriminated, 

however, are. based on mere fragments. All the other forms, except po·ssibly Fistulipora grand is var. guadalupensis, are rare. 

In addition to being fragmentary, the Guadalupian Bryozoa proved unsatisfactory for study ~n another particular. A good deal of the material is silicified and 

thus unfitted for sectioning, while the structure was often found more or less 

obscured where siliceous replacement had not taken place. 

In some·cases the study of thin sections is le~s essential to the determination of · 

:.Species. Among the Domoporas I have discriminated species on external characters, 

and etched specimens, unless too coarsely silicified, were very favorable to this 

treatment. The Fenestellas, on the other hand, mostly proved to be too coarsely or 

too imperfectly replaced by silica to yield satisfactory results. 

The Guadalupian Bryozoa differ considerably from thosP, of the Salt Range. 

Many of the Indian forms which I should be disposed to place with the Bryozoa and 

compare with the present fauna Waagen and "\Ventzel have assigned to the crelen-

. terates. Such are the following: 

Species. Species. 

. ~~~~~·;.:.~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ Hcxagonella . _______________________ . _ _ _ _ _ 3 

Dybowskiella _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2 

Geinitzella. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2 Fistulipora________________________________ 1 

.Stenopora. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4 

Among the Bryozoa cited are the genera named below: 

Species. Species. Rhombopora______ ____ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ __ _ _ _ 2 Synocladia __________ .. ______ ... _ . _____ . . . . 1 

Fen estella. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3 Goniocladia . ____________________________ . _ 1 

.Polypora ... ------------ ___ --.- _ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ 8 Thamniscus. _ ---------------------------- · 2 

.Phyllopora _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3 Acanthocladia. ______ -_____________ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 

This list must be further modified by replacing Geinitzella by Baiostomella, of 

which Waagen's genus is probably a synonym, and enlarging Fistulipora so as to 

include and eliminate Dybowskiella. 

The two faunas have in common the genera Fistulipora, Stenopora, Fenestella, 

Polypora, Phyllopora?, Acanthocladia, Thamniscus, Rhombopora,, and Goniocladia,· 

while the Guadalupian contains species of Domopora, Meekopora, Leioclema, and 

Actinotrypct not found in the Salt. Range, and the latter fauna contains jJ;lonotrypa, 

Orbipora, Batostomella, Hexagonella, and Synocladia not found in the Guadalupian. 

There are thus a considerable number of generic types which are peculiar to each. 

Of these, foremost in importance on the part of the Guadalupian are without doubt 

the Domoporas, which form so abundant and striking a feature of that fauna. There 

appears to be no single genus which plays the same role in the Salt Range fauna, but 

Batostomella (Geinitzella) and Synocladia are somewhat important, and Ilexa-

.gonella is sufficiently abundant and striking · to dest'rve special mention, while 

Phyllopora and Thamniscus are rare in the Guada1upian and more or less unsatisfactorily identified. 

· 3605-No. 58-08--8 
114 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

Among the points of resemblance represented by the possession of types in 

common Goniocladia is perhaps the most noteworthy, 'for that genus, first described 

from Scotland, was for a long time known elsewhere only in India. Later it was 

obtained in the Guadalupe M.omi.tains, and about the same time specimens werebrought back. from Alaska. AcanthocladicL is to a less degree important, but aside -

from these the bryozoan genera which are common to the two faunas are such as. 

have a wide dispersion and a long range and might be contained in almost any two 

faunas of late Carboniferous age. · 

Some of the species are also related, but the types are not so peculiar or the 

affinity so intimate as to be especially noteworthy. Perhaps the most important. 

instance of specific relationship is to be found in Fistulipora grandis var. guadalupensis, which represents the type of fistuliporoid for which Waagen and Wentzel 

introduced the generic term Dybowskiella, and is closely .allied to Dybowskiella or 

Fistulipora grandis. One may remark, on the other hand, in this connection the 

large development of Polypora in comparison with Fenestella, rather the reverse of 

what is indicated in the American fauna. 

On the whole, therefore, the bryozoan faunas of the Salt Range and Guadalupian 

do not seem to me to indicate any marked relationship. 

But scanty mention of Bryozoa has been found in literature dealing with the 

Himalayan region. Diener records a species of Fenestella in his first paper on 

Chitichun No. 1, and in· that on anthracolithic fossils from Kashmir and Spiti 

two species of Fenestella, one of Protoretipora, and one of Acanthocladia. In a subsequent paper on the Spiti fauna he .cites one species of Fenestella arid one of Protoretipom from the lower horizon and no Bryozoa from the upper. 

The record from China is equally meager. Kayser identified Synocladia sp., 

Polypora sp., Rhombopora lepidodendroides, and Fistulipora tuberosa from Lo Ping. 

Froll). Kantschoufu Loczy notes Rhabdomeson cf. rhomb~ferum; from the Lantsankiang Valley Polyporafastuosa, Polypora sp., Septopora biserialis, Acanthocladia cf. 

anceps, and Callopora or Fistulipora sp.; and from Pupjao, in the province of 

Yiinnan, Polypora koninckiana, Polypora cf. gigantea, and Fenestella or Polypora 

sp. These Chinese faunas certainly resemble the Guadalupian, in a general way, but 

are not sufficiently extensive to form a satisfactory index of relationship . 

. If we may assign Calamopora sp; to the corals, the only Bryozoa cited by Beyrich 

from Timor seem to be those which he identifies as Alveolites mackloti and Ileliolites 

mulleri. The latter is presumably a Fistulipora, possibly of the type on which 

Dybowskiella was founded, and which is represented by F. grandis var. guadalupensis 

in our fauna. The Alveolites probably belong to the same genus, the vesicular 

tissue between the cells not being visible. It may even belong to the same species, 

or at least to a closely related one. In the apparent absence of vesicular interspaces 

this form somewhat suggests those which I have placed with Domopora, but the cells 

are not circular, and prominent star-shaped maculre appear to be absent. Rothpletz, in his paper on the faunas of Timor and Rotti, cites several Bryozoa, namely,. 

Fistulipora mulleri, Fistulipora? mackloti, Fenestella virgosa, and Polypora sp. · The 

two former are the species which have already been mentioned in connection with 

Beyrich's report. ·Somewhat in contrast to Beyrich's figure, Rothpletz represents. 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 115 

F. miilleri as having circular zocecia. If he is exact in this particular the species certainly does not belong to the group of Dybowskiella, as I had supposed. On the 

other hand, as Rothpletz's figures rep~esent the zocecia not only as circular, but 

without a lunarium and with interrupted walls, there is some legitimate doubt 11s to 

whether the form is a Fistulipora at alL It rather suggests the Guadaluptan form 

which I have referred to Actinotrypa. Rothpletz's Polypora has unusually coarse 

fenestration, and the branches instead of being persistent are represented as anastomosing. These characters suggest to me that the generic relations are really 

rather with Goniocladia or perhaps with Phyllopora. 

The "Permo-Carboniferous" (?f Queensland and New Guinea contains rather 

numerous representatives of the Bryozoa. Etheridge distinguishes 1 species of 

Monticulipora, 4 species of Stenopora, 4 species of Fenestella, 1 species of Phyllopora, 

3 species of Protoretipora, 1 species ·of Glauconome, 1 species of Rhombopora, and 

1 species of Myriolithes. Aside from a few types of wide distribution and long range 

this fauna and that of the Guadalupe Mountains have very little resemblance, though 

it is difficult to tell much about the Australian fossils, owing to their poor condition 

and unsatisfactory illustration. 

The Australian Bryozoa described from New South Wales by De Koninck com-· 

prise 1 species of Penniretipora, 1 species of Dendricopora,. 6 species of Fenestella, 

1 species of Protoretipora, 1 species of Retipora?, and 1 species of Polypora. All these. 

seem to have come from the lower beds except a· couple of Fenestellas and Protoretipora ampla, a fauna too meager to denote much relationship with the Guadalupian, 

even if it existed. I have not referred any form to Protoretipora, but it is to be noted 

that De Koninckregards Polypora mexicana, which I have provisionally identified 

in the "dark limestone," as belonging to that genus. 

Owing to the fact that most of the older writers and some of the more recent 

ones have failed to study their bryozoan faun~ts by means of thin sections, and that 

even among authors of the present day there is considerable variation of usage 

in the employment of generic terms, it is less possible with the bryozoans than with 

almost any other group to trust to mere lists unaccompanied by descriptions and 

especially by figures. On this account a good deal of the data contained in the Russian reports which I have consulted is rather unsatisfactory for the present purpose. 

Stuckenberg's paper ·on the corals and Bryozoa of the upper mid-Russian 

Kohlenkalk is a notable exception, but in this case I find it almost impossible to 

distinguish the horizon of the different forms. This author cites only one species' 

of Fistulipora, apparenpy of the general type of F. grandis var. guadalupensis. 

Fenestella is represented by 6 species, Polypora by'4, Oarinella by 1, Penniretipora by 

1, Ooscinium by 1, Rhabdomeson by 1, Ascopora by 1, Orbiporaby 2, and Arch:eopora 

by 1-20 in all. The generic representation is almost entirely different from the 

Guadalupian and need not be discussed. Aside from Fistulipora the only genera 

possessed in common are Fenestella and Polypora. 

The position of many of these species seems to be in the Moskovian. Trautschuld cites from this horizon Fenestella veneris, Polypora martis, P. irregularis, 

P. dendroides, Ascopora rhomb~fera, Oeriopora iru.equabilis, Ooscinium sell~forme, and 

0. michelinia. · 
116 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

In his monograph on Gschelian Brachiopoda, Tschernyschew lists the following 

Bryozoa among the associated fauna: Dybowskiella, Geinitzella, Stenopora, Fenestella, Archimedes, Polypora, Ooscinium, 'Thamni~cus, $ynocladia, Phyllopora, 

Archimedipora, and Penniretipora. The commonest to occur and the best repre-

-sented in species appear to be Fenesiella, Polypora, and Archimedes. The last 

genus, as I hardly need to inention, is found in eastern North America only in 

the Mississippian. Jn the western portion of the continent the horizon seems 

to be, in the few instances in which it has been found at all, in the upper Carboniferous, making this region in this particular, as in some others, comparable to the 

Russian section. This singular genus is of course not known in the Guadalupian 

nor in the underlying Hueco formation. In Utah, where I have found it in the 

upper Carboniferous, its associated fauna is such as to indicate a correlation with 

the Hueconian much more· than with the Guadalupian series. 

A good many genera are common to the Gschelian, as illustrated by Tschernyschew's list, and the Guadalupian, but they are such as are world-wide in distribution and very long in range, and do not necessarily indicate for the two 

faunas any very close relationship. Stuckenberg lists from this zone 15 species 

of Fenestella, 1 of Ptilopora, 12 of Polypora, 1 of Goniocladia, 2 of Penniretipora, 

1 of Thamniscus, 1 of Synocladia, 1 of Ramipora, 2 of Dybowslciella, and 2 of Geinitzella. This list, as well as that of Tschernyschew, shows a considerable percentage 

of common genera. Perhaps the inost significant of the genera which occur in 

·both faunas is Goniocladia. 

Passing over less copious notices of Gschelian Bryozoa, I find that Stuckenberg 

-cites a somewhat less extensive list of the same group from the Artinsk, namely: 

Species. Species. 

Fenestella ................. _______ .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 5 Penniretipora. ______ ........................ 2 

Polypora..................................... 6 Dybowskiella ....... __________ ............... 1 

:Synocladia. __ .. __ .... __ .•................... · 1 Geinitzolla ......................... __ ....... 1 

Goniocladia ............. _................... 1 Rhombopora ..... ____ . _.................... 2 

Ptilopora ... _ . _ ............ _ . _ . _ .. __ ..... _ . _ 

In the Kungurstufe the number is still less, consisting of only 3 species of 

Fenestella, 2 of Polypora, and 2 of Geinitzella. These lists indicate about the same 

community of generic types with the Guadalupian as those of Gschelian forms. 

The absence of Domopora from the Artinsk and of Geinitzella and Synocladia from 

the Guadalupian are deserving of remark, tho'ugh there are a number of less important Guadalupian gener!} not found in the Russian beds. 

Krotow's monograph on the fossils of the Artinskian sandstone contains reference to a number of bryozoan species, hut unfortunately none of them is figured. 

He cites 6 species of Fenestella, 11 of Polypora, 2 of Phyllopora, 2 of Ptilopora, 2 of 

Penniretipora, 1 of Ooscinium, 1 of Monticulipora, 1 of Stenopora, 1 of Rhombopora, 

and 5 of Vincularia. This list discloses a bryozoan fauna which is of a considerably 

different complexion from the Guadalupian. 

From the Permian of Kostroma, Tschernyschew cites only Synocladia virgu- . 

lacea, Fenestella retfformis, Stenopora columnaris, and Fistulipora lahuseni. 'The 

Permian Bryozoa cited by Netschajew consists of Fistulipora permiana (poorly 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 117 

figured but possibly not a Fistulipora at all), Geinitzella columnaris, and G. crassa 

together with 5 species of Fenestella, 9 species of Polypora, and 3 of Phyllopora. 

Golowkinsky cites Stenopora columnaris, Phyllopora sp., and Ji'enestella ~p. In 

proportion as the bryozoan fauna of the Russian Permian has become reduced 

"to a relatively few generic types of universal distribution it has lost character 

altogether. It lacks a number of genera, some of which are rather important in 

the Guadalupian, besides containing some which are non-Guadalupian, such as 

Bato~tomella and Synocladia. On the whole it can not be said that the faunas of 

the Permian of Russia and the Guadalupian show any marked relationship in 

point of the Bryozoa which they contain. 

The only bryozoan cited by Abich from Djoulfa, in Armenia, is Polypora fastuosa, 

and by Enderle from Balia Maaden a species of Phyllopora and one of Fenestella. 'fl. 

I do not know. whether Gemmellaro described the Bryozoa of the Sicilian 

fauna from Palermo, but if so, I have been unable to consult the work. Likewise, 

Schellwien's account of the· Bryozoa of the Carnic Alps, if he prepared one, has 

escaped me. Angelis d'Ossat has published a report upon the corals and Bryozoa 

of the Carnic Alps, but the species while discussed are not figured. The following are recorded among the Bryozoa, constituting a fauna 'which has very little in 

common with the Guadalupian: 

Species. Species. 

Monticulipora .. ·............................ .. 21 Penniretipora...................... ... . . . . . . . 1 

Fen estella ...... ·............................ 2 Geinitzella.; ....... -........................ 1 

Polypora..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Arch>eopora ......... _.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

Gortani, who also fails to figure his forms, cites from this region a fauna closely 

related to that of Angelis d'Ossat: 

Species. Species. 

Mo?t.iculipora.................... . . . . . . . . . . . 1 I Fen estella......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 

Gemttzclla ................................ ·.. 1 Polypora................................... 1 

Rhabdomeson................................ 1 Pennirctipora............................... 1 

From the Dya~ of Germany Geinitz cites the following: 

Species. Species. 

Stenopora colunmaris........................ 1 Synocladia .............. ." ......... ·.......... 1 

Fen estella ........................... _. . . . . . 3 Acanthocladia ....................... , . . . . . . 2 

Polypora .................. _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Hippothoa.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

Phyllopora ................... _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

While most of these genera occur in the Guadalupian also, it is doubtful whether 

this fact should be regarded as very significant. The absence from the latter 

fauna of Synocladia ·and Batostomella (Stenopora columnaris), and the presence 

of Domopora are deserving of notice. -

The Bryozoa of the English Permian are cited by King under the following 

titles: 

Calamopora mackrothi. 

Stenopom columnaris. 

Alvcolites buchianus. 

Fenestella rctiformis. 

Synocladia virgulacea. 

Phyllopora ehrenbergi. 

Thamniscus dubius. 

Acanthocladia anceps. 
118 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

This list, almost the counterpart of that of the Dyas, shows a moderately close 

relationship with the Guadalupian, but here again the absence from the latter of 

Synocladia, which seems to be something of a feature of the European Permian, is 

worthy of note. 

From the south point of Spitzbergen, Toula cites Stenopora sp.; from Axel 

Island, Fenestella (1 species), Polypora (3 species), Ramipora (1 species), and Phyllopora (1 species); and from the cape between the arms of North Fjord, Stenopora 

ramosa, Stenopora tubulosa, Fenestella sp .. , and Polypora sp. Lundgren records only 

Stenopora columnaris. In these faunas from- Spitzbergen I recognize no special 

affinity with the Guadalupian. 

A rather extensive series of bryozoan forms is recorded by Toula from Nova 

· \ Zembla, but this also seems but remotely related to the Guadalupian. 

Species. Species. 

Glauconome ............ -... _ . _ ........ _ . . . 1 Stenopora columnaris var. ramosa ........... · 1 

Polypora ........................... _ ... _ . 8 Rhombopora bigemmis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 

Archimedes .... : . ...... _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Millepora oculata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

Fenestella ........... _ ... -: ... _ .. _ ....... _ 7 Callopora arctica .... _ ............ _._ . . . . . . . 1 

The occurrence of Archimedes in this Arctic fauna at an upper Carboniferous 

horizon is of considerable interest, connecting it with the occurrences in Russia 

and Utah. · 

From the West Sahara (Igidi) Stache cites only 2 species of Fenestella, 1 of 

Ascopora, and 1 of Stenopora?, and the associated fauna is probably much older 

t!J.an the Gmidalupian. 

Gabb cites Retipora from Peru and D'Oi-bigny Oeriopora ramosa _and Retipora 

jlexuosa from Bolivia. 

After withdrawing species of western distribution, the Bryozoa of the typical 

American Pennsylvaillan, according to Nickles and Bassler's catalogue, comprise 

· 14 genera and 49 species, as follows: 

Species: 

Acanthocladia ...... _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 

Chainodictyon .................... ·. . . . . . . . 2 

Cystodictya . : : _ ....... _ .......... _ ... _ . . . . 1 

Diploporaria ..................... _ . . . . . . . . . 1 

Fenestella ..... _ ....... _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 

Fistulipora. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 

Pinnatipora. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 

Species. 

Polypora ............. :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 

Prismopora. -------------------:........... 3 

Rhombopora............................... 4 

Septopora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 

Stcnopora. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . 5 

Streblotrypa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

Thamniscus ... _ ............... _ . . . . . . . . . . 2 

Other species have since been added, but these do not materially affect the 

matter in hand. I may note, however, that Meekopora is now known in the Pennsylvanian as well as in the Mississippian. 

Comparing this list with that of the Guadalupian we find that the two faunas 

have in common Fistulipora, Meekopora, Stenopora, Fenestella, Polypora, Acanthocladia, Thamniscus, Septopora, and Rhombopora, while the Guadalupian has Domopora, Leioclema, Goniocladia, Phyllopora?, and Actinotrypa?, not found in the Pennsylvanian, and the Pennsylvanian has Ohainodictyon, Oystodictya, Diploporaria, 

PinnatojJOra, Prismopora, and Streblotrypa, not found in the Guadalupian. As to 

the genera which are present in both faunas, it is to be noted that _in almost every 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 119 

:instance the species representing them are different in each. Seldom, however, 

are the types so well marked and peculiar that the two faunas do not contain 

species more or less closely allied. In regard to the genera not held in common 

by the Guadalupian and Pennsylvanian faunas, the most significant on the part of 

the former are unquestionably Domopora? and Goniocladia, which lend the fauna 

a decidedly non-Pennsylvanian aspect. Actinotrypa and Leioclema, as is well 

known, are represented in the typical ·Mississippian, and the extension of their 

range into the Pennsylvanian may possibly be looked for, and would certainly be 

less of a novelty than the appearance of Domopora or Goniocladia. 

Over half the Pennsylvanian genera have not been found in the Guadalupian, 

but in view of the still very partial knowledge which we possess of the latter fauna 

this number stands to l:>e considerably diminished. 

On the whole, I regard the bryozoan faunas of the Guadalupian and Pennsylvanian as rather closely related, probably more closely than the Bryozoa of the 

·Guadalupian and any foreign fauna with which comparison has been made. They 

are, however, rendered very distinct both by the presence throughout of different 

species, though often of the same genus, and the presence in the Guadalupian of 

some novel and peculiar types, such as Domopora? and Goniocladia. I have found 

nothing comparable to the former genus in any of the Paleozoic faunas which have 

been consulted. 

Family CERIOPORIDJE Busk? 

Genus DOMOPORA D'Orbigny? 

In the Guadalupian series, especially in the lower beds of the Capitan formamation, occurs an interesting and beautiful bryozoan type, which I have placed 

provisionally with D'Orbigny's genus Domopora. Although the position of the 

Carboniferous forms will probably prove to be in the taxonomic neighborhood of 

Domopora, it is not certain that they will find place directly with that genus. 

Nevertheless, I am not at present prepared to demonstrate their distinctness and 

to establish them as a new genus, for although the material examined is fairly 

plentiful, little of it is in a condition suitable for the study of zoarial structure. 

The majority of the specimens are silicified, and while it is. thus possible by means 

·of acid to obtain them free from inclosing rock, the processes of replacement have 

usually. been such as to obscure or alter the details of structure in some degree. 

In specimens which have not been replaced by silica, -moreover, the original test 

seems to be represented by dolomite, which has equally obscured the structure. 

Nevertheless, a certain amount of knowledge has been obtained of the microscopic 

.structure of these forms from such examples, and occasionally from calcareous ones. 

The zooocia consist of cylindrical cells of nearly uniform ~ize, which here and 

there at the surface tend to become confluent or to be connected by short grooves, 

especially in lines radiating from the maculre. The zooocia are interrupted by occasional tabulre, though these structures are usually rare. They have no peristome 

nor any lunarium. Large maculre having usually more or less of a stellate shape 

are a striking feature. At the surface the zooocia are separated merely by the thick-

.ened walls, without either acanthopores or mesopores. In thin sections, so far as 
t 

120 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

can be judged from our·material, the thickened walls are not moniliform, as in Stenopora, but appear to be structureless or else with but small, dense granules, which 

may possibly represent obsolete acanthopores. 

In some respects the form thus characterized may be compared to Batostomella, 

to Stenopora, and to Fistulipora, or, perhaps better, to Oyclotrypa. If in the latter 

genus the interspaces, instead of being occupied by mesopores, were filled with solid 

deposit, the structure would be like the forms under consideration. Similarly, that 

group of Stenopora which has thickened but not moniliform walls and few tabulre, 

with sometimes very small if numerous acan,thopores, .s~e:r;ns but a step removed 

structurally from the group under discussion. >LikeWise, hi Batostomella, if the transmutation of the mesopores into solid tissue were carried still farther, and followed 

by the gradual loss of acanthopores . which replace them, one might imagine the 

present type to be related to Batostomella or even descended from it. A more complete knowledge of the minute structure of these Guadahipian forms, however, is 

necessary to such questions, as well as the discovery and investigation of intermediate 

types. 

Although it is at present impossible to reach a satisfactory conclusion as to the 

relation of the present forms with D'Orbigny's genus, certain differences may yet 

be pointed out. Among the more obvious, the comparison being based on D'Orbigny's description and figures,a are the absence of series of large cells, often emerging 

along elevated rays (the present forms showing cells of but a single size), and the 

fact that colonies seem not to be formed by superimposed layers, though sometimes 

a few interruptions can be seen. Furthermore, in typical Domopora there appear to 

be no maculre, at least of-the type which is such a striking feature in the forms under 

consideration; but it is possible that Domopora should· be reviewed on the basis of 

characteristic material from European beds. 

Domopora? shows a rather extensive specific development in the Guadalupian, 

as well as an abundance of individuals. The characters used for discrimination are 

less those of mensuration of parts than those of structure. In fact there often 

appears to be no more variation in the size of the zocecia and their distance from one 

another in different species than in different individuals of the same species. The 

mode of growth, both of the zoarium as a whole and of its individual zocecia, especially in relation to the macular areas, seems to form a practical and satisfactory 

method of discriminating species in this group. 

This type of bryozoan, which appears to be rather Mesozoic than Paleozoic in 

its character, is not known in the Carboniferous except in this one area, faunas in 

other regions which are supposed to represent about the same horizon being, so far 

as known, without representatives of it. It therefore forms an individual feature, 

of the Guadalupian fauna, and one which contributes considerable to its ncoPaleozoic facies. 

DOMOPORA? TERMINALIS n. sp. 

Pl. VII, figs. 19 to 21a; Pl. XVIII, figs. 1 to 6a. 

The zoaria belonging to this species usually come in small subspherical masses,. 

rounded above, somewhat prolonged and contracted below into a short, stout stalk .. 

a Animaux invert., Terrain Cr~tac6: Pal. fran<;aisc, vol. 5, Bryozoaires, 185Q-1852, p. 986. 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 121 

The upper portion of the zoarium is poriferous; the lateral portions are closed. 

Such forms, however, though in our collection by far the;nost numerous, are perhaps 

only a partially mature condition, for some colonies have been found, with but little 

question developed from the type just referred to, which have an elongate or sub-

' cylindrical shape, produced by a considerably more extensive prolongation of the 

·stalk. The small bulbous colonies are usually symmetrical, but they are sometimes 

rendered irregular by the character of the object to which they were affixed. Occasionally one side is developed more extensively than the others, as if the projections 

thus produced were the.beginning of a bifurcation, but no really branched examples 

have been noted. The imperforate condition of the lateral areas is without much 

question a modification of a porous condition, the zorecia having been closed over ' 

and apparently having received an additional testaceous coating. The lateral pores 

are less completely closed iii the long cylindrical colonies than in the short spherical 

ones. 

The terminal portion of the growing end in each zoarium is occupied by a 

macula, that is, an area upon which no cells are developed. The apertures extend 

in more or less regular rows from theborders of the macula; which projects rays of 

noncelliferous surface among them. The apertures are small, circular, separated 

by intervals of about their own diameter, and they come about eight in a space of 

2 mm. in a radial d.~ii~ction. They vary somewhat in size in the same specimen and l< . •.• . 

also in different specimens. 

To a certain and somewhat limited extent the macula is a variant with the age 

of the colony, at least the large zoaria possess it in a high degree of development, 

while one or two specimens in which the feature is fairly obsolete are rather small. 

If it does vary appreciably with the age of the colony it at least is usually a recognizable feature in very young zoaria. In different specimens the maculre also present certain variations in shape and in their relation to the rows of pores with which 

they interdigitate. This structure seems to be formed, in some cases at least, by an 

overarching platform, which conceals but does not entirely close the pores below; · 

for in some examples it is possible froin the side to look under this covering and 

see the cells, which are concealed when viewed from above. In one example from 

which the end has been broken, as would be expected, an earlier macula is exposed, 

apparently similar and subjacent to that which was doubtless terminal in the perfect 

condition; 

The cells, as has been.remarked, are circular in section without, so far as can 

be seen, any mesopores. By a thickening of the walls they are often separated at 

the surface at considerable intervals by a dense undifferentiated deposit. Under-

. neath this outer flooring they are sometimes seen as tubes, which are not in contact; 

nor are the intervening intervals occupied in any manner except here and there by 

a small tube, which is probably a young cell. This may be the original condition, 

but of this I entertain some doubts, as. the appearance might easily be due to the 

incomplete repl~cement to which these objects have been subjected. The interzorecial spaces may have been solid below, as well as at the periphery, and all but 

the superficial silicified portions may have been removed by etching. The zoaria 

appear not to have been interrupted by tabulre. They are nearly straight, with 

but a slight outward curvature, and slope strongly outward from an ·axial line. 
122 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

As might be inferred, these colonies originate in an explanate zoarium having 

its external surface covered with an epitheca and cemented to some external object. 

When the object of attachment is large and regular a symmetrical colony usually 

results; where it is small and irregular an unsymmetrical colony; but irregularities 

.also often occur from apparently intrinsic causes, such as the incipient branching, 

or what appears to be such, mentioned above. The basal portion is as a rule more 

or less expanded where attached, narrowing above and fmally expanding to form 

the subspherical bulb bearing the zomcia. 

In point of size few colonies reach a diameter of 5 mm. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 

2926); base of Capitan formation, hill southwest of Guadalupe Point (station 2906); 

"dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930), hill southwest of Guadalupe Point 

(station 2924), Guadalupe Point (stations 3762b, 3762d, 3762e), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas 

{stations 3500 and 2969). 

DoMOPORA ~ OCELLATA n. sp. 

Pl. VIII, figs. 7 and 7a; Pl. XVIII, figs. 7 to 10; Pl. XXVII, figs. 13 to 14a. 

This species occurs in the form of elongate cylindrical stems, which occasionally 

'fleem to manifest a disposition to bifurcate, though no branching ·specimens have 

yet been found. The largest stems have a diameter of about 5 mm., and they occur 

as small as 3 mm. or less. This form, unlike Domopora? terminalis, does not have 

the· lateral zomcia closed, nor does it develop a single terminal macula. Instead, 

the entire surface, except possibly the point of attachment, has open zomcia, among 

which, especially on the sides, are distributed large well-marked maculre. The 

latter have a stellate shape and are characterized by the entire absence of zomcia. 

They are arranged about 3~ mm. apart from center to center. 

The zomcia are similar to those of Domopora? terminalis. They vary somewhat 

:in size in the same colony, those nearest the maculre being proportionately larger 

than the more distant ones. They are separated, as a rule, by intervals about equal 

to their own diameter, sometimes more and sometimes less. The interzomcial 

integument appears to be solid, no traces of mesopores having been noted. 

The internal structure, so far as it can be made out, without thin sections, from 

silicified specimens, is similar to that of D.? terminalis. The zomcia bend outward, 

however, much more strongly, and a cross section of a bra_nch shows two more or 

less distinct zones, an inner one, in which the tubes are transected niore or less 

crosswise, and an outer one, where the course of the section is. more or less longitudinal. 

Well-preserved and characteristic specimens of this species are readily distin- · 

guished from Domopora? terminalis,, but unfortunately many specimens are neither 

one nor the other. No especial profit would accrue from considering the obscurities 

which unquestionably arise from preservation, but it is sometimes not possible to 

discriminate with certainty between intrinsic and extrinsic characters. Our material seems to show that in the older portions of large colonies the zomcia tend to 

.dose up through the thickening of the walls, thus solidifying the same and obscuring 
MOLLUSUOIDEA. 123 

not only the arrangement of the zorecia and. rnaculre, but their presence as well. In 

connection with the more terminal portion such occurrences would occasion little 

difficulty, but as all the large colonies are more or less. fragmentary it is usually 

impossible to dispose of such examples satisfactorily. 

Another difficulty arises from the opposite source. Very young colonies before 

they have become elongated stems, have very much the appearance of colonies of 

Domopora? terminalis of similar size. The lower portion is often similarly covered 

with a dense investment, and the length is scarcely sufficient to afford room for the 

lateral maculre. The absence or presence of a terminal macula might serve as a 

practical criterion, but I am not sure that this is invariably present in an appreciable degree in D.? terminalis, and of course where only imperfectly developed it 

would so much the more easily be effaced by imperfect preservation. 

One or two specimens represent another type which has been placed here with 

some hesitation. They are in the shape of irregular hemispherical masses having 

but a small diameter. They possess no distinct stalk or annular nonporiferous area, 

and the zorecia are interspersed with large stellate maculre, as in Domopora? ocellata. 

I have regarded these as representing a young stage of a rather large cylindrical 

colony. They might, however, be considered as belonging to an incrusting species. 

Horizon and locality.-Top of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2966 ?) ; 

base of Capitan formation, hill southwest of Guadalupe Point (station 2906); "dark 

iimestone," Pine Spring (station 2930), Guadalupe Point (stations 3762b, 3762d ?, 

and 3762e), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. Delaware Mountain formation, southern 

Delaware Mountains, Texas (stations 2957, 2962, 2969, and 3500). Delaware 

Mountain formation, Comanche Canyon, Glass Mountains, Texas (station 3763). 

DoMOPORA? coNSTRICT A n. sp. 

Pl. XVIII, fig. 11. 

This form, which is represented by several specimens, is related to Domopora? 

ocellata, but is distinguished chiefly by having the zoarium crossed by constrictions, 

which are located with reference to the maculre, passing across their centers. In 

the type specimen the constriCtions seem not to surround the cylindrical colony, 

but to be confined to the general region of macular development. Maculre on the 

other side, not on the same circumferential line, seem not to be accompanied by constrictions. Aside from the feature just mentioned, there is little to distinguish this 

form from D.? ocellata, and I doubt whether it can be properly considered more than 

a variety of the other. · 

Horizon and locality.-" Dark limestone," Pine Spring, Guadalupe Mountains, 

Texas (station 2930). 

DoMOPORA? VITTATA n. sp. 

Pl. XVIII, figs. 12 and 12a; Pl. XXVII, figs. 15 and 15a. 

Associated with Domopora? ocellata, and apparently derived from it, occurs ·a 

form which very much resembles D.? hillana. It attains this appearance by reason 

of the mac'ulre, which occur rather regularly alternating in two rows, taking on a 

lunate or fillet-shaped instead of a stellate configuration. The maculre are usually· 
124 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

elevated, as in D.? ocellata, but sometimes depressed. To make the resemblance 

to D.? hillana even greater the branches are sometimes more or less flattened or 

compressed. A difference which seems to me quite fundamental, however, is found 

in the method of cell construction. In D.? hillana the zomcia spring from a median 

plate, while in the form under consideration they are directed radially. In addition to the structural difference the somewhat more compressed branches and 

slightly larger zocccia of D.? hillana· should serve as an additiQ;nal means of distinguishing the two forms. . · · · · ·· 

Horizon and locality.-"Dark limestone," Pine Spring, Guadalupe Mountains, 

Texas (station 2930). ·.Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 

DoMOPORA ~ HILLANA n. sp. 

Pl. XXXI, fig. 19. 

This handsome species is distinguished from its associates in the same genus 

by its growth more than by structural characters, the size of the cells, etc., being, so 

far as one can tell without thin sections, essentially as in Domopora? ocellata. Domopora? hillana, however; is a bifoliate form, which grows in rather slender, frequently 

bifurcating, flattened branches. So far as examined these seldo~ have a width of 

more than 2.5 mm., while the thickness is about 1.5 mm. This dimension dimin~ 

ish~s toward the top of the branches. The .zomcia originate from a median plate, 

which is distinctly seen forming the long diameter of the branches, and extend 

somewhat obliquely forward. Large maculre are developed along the edges of the 

fronds, extending onto both faces. Instead of being circlJlar, they are fillet-shaped, 

the central and broader portion being situated on the edge of the frond and more 

proximal than the ends which point backward. The maculre also as a rule form a 

depressed or constricted area, so that, quite additionally to' branching, the edges of 

the frond present a notched or dentate outline. · 

This is a' very pretty and strongly characteristic species. With good specimens. 

it ought not to be possible to confuse it with any of the species yet discovered in the 

Guadalupian fauna. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Comanche Canyon, Glass 

Mountains, Texas (station 3763). 

DOMOPORA ~ INCRus;ANS n. sp. 

Pl. XXVII, figs. 16 to 16b. 

The type and only specimen of this species formed a small elliptical expansion 

bent along its longest diameter around some object which has now disappeared and to 

which it was attached, so that at present it possesses an annular shape. Its inner 

and lateral surfaces are covered by an epitheca, and its outer surface is poriferous. 

T.he zoarium is about 1! mm. thick in the thickest portion. 

The size ofthe apertures in general appearance is similar to that seen in Domopora? ocellata, but there are no stellate maculre. This feature is represented by nonporiferous rays diverging from certain points on the margin of the zoarium, as if 

from maculre whose centers lay without the present complete limits of the zoarium. 
I 

MOLL USCOIDEA. 125 

The relations of this form are doubtful. It is possibly but a very aberrant initial colony of D.? ocellata, but it differs so much from such mature or even youthful 

colonies as are known to me (or of D.? terminalis as well) that it did not seem justifiable, without further evidence, to refer both to one species. 

Horizon and Zocality.-Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 

Family FISTULIPORID£ Ulrich. 

Genus FISTULIPORA McCoy. 

FISTULIPORA GRANDIS var. GUADALU~ENSIS n. var. 

Pl. XVII, fig. 18; Pl. XXV, fig. 7; Pl. XXVII, fig. 17. 

This form usually occurs as cylindrical masses of various dimensions, which 

sometimes attain a diameter of 20 mm. but are often smaller. The longest fragment 

yet noted is about 50 mm. in length. It is evident that these vertically elongated 

masses must have arisen from an initial fiat expansion, and in fact specimens having 

this shape are also found possessing apparently all the characters of the cylindrical 

examples. Some of these explanate specimens have a greater diameter than any of 

those which are cylindrical, and it seems not unlikely that the latter may have been 

attached by expanded bases, or that the shape may have varied from cylindrical 

elevations to rather thic~ fiat expansions having nodular areas rising above the main 

mass. Cylindrical specimens frequently have the lateral surface more or less completely covered with an exterior investment resembling an epitheca. In places this 

is sufficiently heavy to completely mask the cells beneath. In places also the cells 

are partially visible, while elsewhere they appear to have been open and functional. 

In transverse sections the zoarium is seen to consist of the usual autopores and 

mesopores, in the arrangement of which there is the greatest latitude. The zorecia 

vary somewhat in size, but usually are about two-fifths of a millimeter in diameter. 

They are characterized by a very strongly marked lunarium, which surrounds about 

half of the zorecial tube, or a little more. The zorecia usually run about four to four 

and a half in a distance of 2 mm., but may occur in as great number as five and a half. 

In macular areas, however, they are of course farther apart, and in these regions 

spaces of 2 mm. can sometimes be measured in which none at all are found. The 

mesopores vary greatly in size. Occasionally they reach as large dimensions as the 

zorecia, but usually they are about half that size. They occur ·as a rule in one or 

two rows between the zorecia, but, as already remarked, in maculre they are much 

more abundant. Usually the zorecia are situated from one-half to a full diameter 

apart, but sometimes they are almost in contact. 

In longitudinal section corresponding variations are shown. The mesopores 

exhibit. a wide range, not only in the number which intervene between adjacent 

zorecia, but also in the size and frequency of tabulation. From 10 to 24 tabulre 

occur in 2 mm., and the structures may make segments which are twice as wide as 

long; or, on the other hand, twice as long as wide. The zorecia are rather sparsely 

and irregularly tabulate. In places, especially near the surface, they are often 
126 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

uninterrupted for as much as 2 mm. or more, but below, three or four tabulre may 

occur at distances of one-fourth of a millimeter apart or less. 

This ·species is readily distinguishable from the two known species of the 

American Pennsylvanian. From F. carbonaria it differs in its mode of growth, in 

its more abundant mesopores, and in its larger and more highly developed lunarium. 

From F. nodulifera it differs in its mode of growth, its larger cells, and its more 

extended lunarium. 

Several species have been described from India which are also related to this. 

The growth is similar to F. grandis. Minot differences connected with the size of 

the zoarium, of the individual cells, of the abundance of maculre, etc., might be 

pointed out, but the most striking distinction is to be found in the much larger and 

more embracing size of the lunarium in the American form. About the same difference exists between the latter arnd F. expansa, and there is the additional one of 

mode of growth, F. expansa, as the name suggests, forming flattened expansions. 

F. parasitica W aagen and Wentzel forms incrusting lamellre similar to the American 

F. nodulifera and has the lunarium less well developed. · 

Waagen and Wentzel included the first two species in their genus Dybowskiella. 

When that name was first introduced the genus. F~:stulipora was imperfectly understood, and Dybowskiella would seem to have been well established; but at present 

the weightiest authorities seem to regard Dybowskiella a synonym of McCoy's genus, 

a conclusion which my own judgment entirely sanctions. 

F. grandis var. guadalupensis is, with possibly one exception, the commonest 

bryozoan of the Guadalupian fauna, having been recognized at a large number of 

localities representing the horizons of the Delaware Mountain sandstone and the 

Capitan limestone, both Shumard's" dark limestone'' and his white. A good many 

of these identifications, however, have been made on silicified material, which is 

not only refractory in making sections but has also been more or less altered in appearance in the processes of replacement. 'Where the silicification is good the lunarium 

projects as a strongly elevated spine, which on examination is seen to have a 

crescentic shape. Sometimes the cells appear to be mo~e or less completely closed 

over in a sort of pustular elevation. This last may in fact truthfully represent the 

original calcareous condition, but there are various other aspects which are more 

clearly accidental to fossilization. 

Horizon and locality.-Top of Capitan formation (stations 2966 and 3762a) and 

middle of Capitan formation (station 2926), Capitan Peak; "dark limestone," Pine 

Spring (station 2930), hill southwest of Guadalupe Point (station 2924), Guadalupe 

Point (stations 3762b, 3762e, 3762d); Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe 

Point (stations 2919 and 2963), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. Delaware Mountain 

formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (stations 2957, 2962, 2969, and 

3500). Delaware Mountain formation, Comanche Canyon, Glass Mountains (station 

3763), and mountains northwest of Marathon (station 3840), Texas. 

FISTULIPORA GUADALUP./E n. sp. 

PL VIII, figs. 5 and 5a. 

This species grows in thin incrusting expansions of undetermined extent but 

very small height. In the specimen studied the latter dimension is less than 2 mm. 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 127 

The zocecia are very various in size, the average among the smaller ones being 

only about 0.1 mm., while they range up to 0.2 mm.a They are also variously disposed, being sometimes 0.1 mm. or less apart and at others probably as much as 0.3 

mm. There seems to be a certain compensation in these arrangements, the larger 

cells being close together and the small ones far apart. The cross section of the 

zo_cecia is nearly circular. A lunarium is fairly well developed, but does not materially indent the outline. It embraces less than half of the zocecium. The spaces 

between the zocecia are occupied by two or more series of rather small vesicular 

mesopores. Tabulm seem to be wanting in this form as seen in longitudinal sections. 

The external surface is strongly undulating, by reason of numerous closely set, 

rather strong monticules. . 

This species is distinguished by its incrusting lamellar habit of growth, very 

.small zocecia, and prominent, closely arranged monticules, characters which, so far as 

known; are not found combined in any other American species. 

Horizon ani! locality.-Top of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2966). 

FISTULIPORA sp. 

This form is represented by a small silicified specimen which permits the determination of only a few of its distinctive characters. The growth is in highly contorted laminre a little over 2 mm. in thickness. 

This species is at once distinguishedfrom F. gra.ndis var. guadalupensis by the 

small size of its zocecia, which are separated by distances equal to one or two zocecial 

diameters. About six occur in a distances of 2 mm., but the conditions are such 

that an accurate count is difficult. So far as can be made out the lunarium also, 

which is so strongly developed in the other species, is here inconspicuous. Further 

particulars are not furnished by the material in hand. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Comanche Canyon, Glass 

Mountains, Texas (station 3763). 

Genus MEEKOPORA Ulrich. 

MEEKOPORA sp. 

Pl. XXXI, figs. 18 to l8b. 

This species is represented by a single specimen, which is fragmentary and silicified. Thin sections have not been made, and some of the characters have not been 

determined. 

Owing to the fragmentary condition of the specimen the shape and general 

nature of the frond can not be described. It appears to have been at least stoutly 

constructed, as the specimen has a diameter of a little over 4 mm. 

The zocecia are distributed rather evenly on the surface and quite up to the edges. 

Maculre are small and not very conspicuous. The zocecia vary considerably in size 

and shape, and while in a general way their distribution is regular they also vary in 

the distance which separates them. Four apertures and three interspaces, or sometimes four apertures and four interspaces, occur .in 2 mm. in nonmacular areas. 

a The figure is drawn from a portion of the section where the zocecia are of the smaller size and nearly uniform. 
128 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

They usually stand about their own diameter apart, but may be confluent or sepa· 

rated by one and one-half times their own diameter. They average about 0.3 to 0.4 

rom. in diameter, as well as can be determined. In the present specimen the apertures possess no peristome, and it is doubtful whether there was an appreciable 

lunarium, though this is by no means certain. The number of mesopores is likewise 

uncertain, but there appear to have been three or four rows between the zorecia. 

The zorecial tubes slope gently but distinctly in both a distal and a lateral direction. 

They appear 'to have had a few tabulm situated more toward the base of the tubes 

than near their mouths. Probably not more than OTle or two were developed i 1. each 

ZO<BCIUnl. 

This is clearly distinct from Meekopora prosseri, the only "Coal Measures" species 

as yet described from American rocks. It is also with but little question distinct 

from the lower Carboniferous species of the genus, though the differe'l.ces, which are 

quite obvious on comparison, need not be recited here. The Guadalupian form 

therefore !tppears, as might have been expected, to be an undescribed species, but it 

has not see~ned desirable to distinguish it as yet by a new'name, because its characters are hardly known with sufficient fullness and certainty to discriminate it from 

more closely related forms whose discovery is probable. 

Horizon and locality.- Delaware Mountain formation, Comanche Canyon, Glass 

Mountains, Texas (station :1763). 

F~mily BATOSTOMELLIDJE Ulrich. 

Genus STENOPORA Lonsdalj!. 

STENOPORA GitANULOSA n. sp. 

Pl. XIX, figs. l tole. 

This species grows in thin lamellar expansions consisting of one or two layers 

of zorecia, each of which has a thickness of about 0.5 mm. or less. The zorecia 

· rise with strong obliquity to the lower surface, and have occasional or moderately 

frequent mesopores. As a rule they arc separated by rather thick walls, which 

have on an average a diameter of one-third to one-fourth that of the zomcia themselves. The outline of the latter in transverse section is usually curvilinear, the 

thickness of the walls taking up most of the difference between the regularly curved 

and the polygonal figure. Acanthopores are fairly numerous, and all are of the 

granular type, none of the normal concentrically b!1nded kind having been observed. 

Usually they are scattered and situated in the triangular thickening of the wall 

where three cells corner, or side by side where a thick wall separates two adjacent 

zomcia, but occasionally they form relatively broad continuous bands through the 

center of the thick walls, the individual acanthopores being in<listinguishable. 

Tabulm seem to be completely wanting. The zorecia are not readily followed in 

straight lines, but seven, or sometimes eight, come within a linear distance of 2 mm. 

This species is especially characterized by its delicate lamellar growth, by the 

absence of diaphragms, and by the peculiar structure of the walls. It 'belongs to 

a section of the genus, well developed in Pennsylvanian time, of which Stenopora? 

signata is a representative form. It is of course very distinct from S.?. signata, 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 129 

having a different mode of growth, more numerous mesopores, no acanthopores of 

the normal type, and differently arranged ones of the granular type, since those of 

.S:? signata are more regularly distributed, are usually more numerous, and seem 

never to lose their identity in forming continuous granular bands, even when 

most closely arranged. 

In its mode of growth as well as other characters this seems to be dit,ltinct from 

any of the species recognized in the s·alt Range of India. It is true, however, that 

W aagen and Wentzel do not give very complete descriptions of these species, not 

mentioning, for example, whether the acanthopores are granular or concentric, etc. 

Horizon and locality.-"Dark limestone," Pine Spring, Guadalupe .Mountains, 

·Texas (station 2930). 

STENOPORA GRANULOSA n. sp. ~ 

Pl. XXIV, figs. 3 to 3c. 

The form for which this identification is employed is known from very scanty 

material. In its mode of growth and structure it comes in many respects close to 

Stenopora granulosa. Some differenc~s of moment can be pointed out, but as it is 

not clear that they may not be due to different stages of growth it seems best not 

to introduce for it a new name, on the one hand, or to confuse it with typical S. 

granulosa, on the other. 

The mode of growth is essentially the same as the species with which it is provisionally identified, but the cells are somewhat smaller, nine, or even ten, occurring 

in 2 mm. in a not entirely straight line. . The cell walls are eonsiderably thicker 

averaging about one-half of a zomciaJ diameter, or even more. :Mesopores seem 

to be entirely lacking. A few acanthopores of the concentricallyconstructed type 

.are. scattered here and there. A few granular acanthopores seem to be equally 

·disseminated, while the median portion of the thick walls i;> rather profusely granular. 

The somewhat finer construction of this form may possibly indicate. a specific 

·distinction, but the thick walls and consequently smaller zomcia, the absence of 

mesopores, and the presence of concentric acanthopores, with a slightly different 

construction of the walls themselves, are differences very marked in· the two specimens studied, though th~y may be the result of difference in maturity. This form 

is still more like Stenopora? signata than is typical S. granulosa, but differs in the mode 

of growth, smaller zomcia, thicker walls, less numerous· and smaller normal acan-. 

tho pores, and the more· generally granular condition of the walls as distinguis~ed 

from the individual granular acanthopores of the Pennsylvanian species. 

Horizon and locality.-Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe 

.Mountains, Texas (station 2967). 

STENOPORA POLYSPINOSA var. HICHAUDSONI n. var. 

' 

Pl. VIII, figs. 6 to 6b. 

This species forms cylindrical branching ( ?) zoaria, that of the type specimen 

having a diameter of 3 mm. The maximum diameter noticed is 5 mm. The 

macroscopic characters are unknown.. The zomcia are subangularly polygonal in 

3695-No. 58-{)8--D 
130 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

outline, and separated by walls from one-fourth to one-half their own diameter. 

Six zocecia occur in a linear distance of 2 mm. Mesopores are very rare. Acanthopores arc numerous, small, and apparently of but a single size, though a certain 

amount of variation is shown· in this particular. Some doubtful instances, however, of acanthopores two or three times as large as the usual size have been noted. 

The distribution of the acanthopores is irregular. In many specimens they are 

about their own diameter apart and occur in· single rows, but in others their distance is somewhat less or greater, sometimes much greater, while occasionally a, 

considerable space is left without any at all. Again, where the wall is especially 

thick, they are fairly numerous, but so irregularly disposed that no expression can 

be formulated as to how many rows they constitute. 

In longitudinal section the walls are seen to be somewhat thickened in the 

mature region, but the characteristic nodose structure is wanting. Small points of 

greater density, whose arrangement is more or less regular, are a striking feature 

of the mature region, a character which has been noted also in Stenopora signata. 

Tabulre are very scantly developed, practically absent. 

This species is related to Stenopora signata, but is clearly distinct, having 

considerably larger zocecia and smaller and more numerous acanthopores, which 

if not altogether of one size are yet very nearly so, the large ones being extremely 

rare. It is also related to Stenopora spissa, a significant and well-marked difference 

being found, however, in the thicker walls and la;rger acanthopores of Rogers's 

species. Much more closely related, however, is Stenopora polyspinosa, described_ 

by Condra, and I am unc~rtain how far· the differences shown by the Guadalupian 

species, which is known from very scanty material, would be increased or diminished 

by more complete information regarding it, and by actual comparison of specimens. 

In view of the widely different fauna with· which it is associated I feel disposed to 

give due weight to such as have been noted. It appears to have had less numerous, 

somewhat more widely separated and irregularly distributed acanthopores, of which 

there are fewer of the large size, and perhaps also fewer mesopores, which Condra. 

describes as being one-fourth as numerous as the zocecia. At present these differences are real enough, though not very great in degree; otherwise the two species,. 

so far as known, possess almost identical characters. 

A strongly developed specimen from station 2969 has the walls in the mature 

region considerably thickened so that they average one-third to one-half the diameter 

of the zomcia, which have quite lost their polygonal outline. The other characters 

are the same. 

A silicified specimen from station 3500 has been placed here with doubt. In 

the main it possesses the characters outlined above, differing only in having tabulre· 

·which if not numerous are relatively so. 

Horizon and locality.-Top of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2966). Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (stations 29631, 2969, 3500 -~). 

STENOPORA sp. 

This form was found as an incrustation upon a small cylindrical or spinelike 

object, and apparently formed a zoarium by means of thin superimposed layers. 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 131 

The typical specimen, however, consists of only one such layer having a maximum 

thiclmess of not over 1 mm. The macroscopic characters are unknown. In tangential section the zomcia are seen to be small and circular, with thick walls. The:r:e 

are usually about ten zomcia in the space of 2 mm., and the interval between two 

adjacent ones is usually about one-half a zomcial diameterl though sometimes considerably less. Mesopores are practically absent. Large ayanthopores are situated 

in the angles between three zomcia. Usually along the mesial line ofthe walls connecting the acanthopores is a row of granules, which may represent small acanthopores, though they are of small size, irregular, and indistinct. 

In sections passing longitudinally through the zomcia these are seen to be. 

short, having the walls highly thickened but not moniliform from the point where 

they bend into an upright position. Tabulre appear to be practically absent. 

So small a fragment was obtained. of this species that it is feared it does not 

show the mature and eharaeteristic condition of the colony. It appears, however, 

to be an undescribed form, and is distinguished by its mode of growth, very small 

zomcia, thick walls, absence of mesopores, etc. · 

Horizon and locality.-" Dark limestone," Pine Spring; Guadalupe Mountains, 

Texas (station 2930). . 

Genus LEIOCLEMA Ulrich. 

LEIOCLEMA SHUMARD! n. sp. 

Pl. XIX, figs. 2 to 2d. 

This species grows in cylindrical, sometimes bifurcating branches, which seldom 

exceed 3.5 mm. in diameter, and arc often smaller. 

The apertures show no serial arrangement in any direction, but appear in 

general to be rather regularly distributed. Nevertheless, when examined critically 

they are seen to vary in their relations to one another. Usually the distance from 

one zorecium to those which are nearest is from one and one-half to two zorecial 

diameters, but it is not difficult to find linear intervals which are as much as· three 

or four times the ordinary. These interspaces arc occupied by mcsopores, of which 

there are usually three or four rows between adjacent zorecia, and by acanthopores. 

The mesopores vary much in size, some being as large as the zorecia, but as a rule 

they have only one-half or three-fourths the diameter of the latter. The average 

diameter of the zorecia is from 0.15 to 0.20 rom. About five zorecia and five interspaces occur within a distance of 2 mm. 

The zorecia are rather closely tabulate, though the tabulre are usually separated 

by intervals greater than a zorecial diameter. The mesopores are also abundantly 

and irregularly tabulate, the distance between these structures being sometimes 

greater and sometimes less than the diameter of the mesopore. 

This form is well distinguished from the several Mississippian species of the 

genus, no species of Pennsylvanian age having thus far been described from American 

rocks. The most closely related species is unquestionably L. punctatum of the 

Keokuk, a comparison with which shows that in L. shumardi the zorecia, while of 

about the same size, are in the mature region placed at wider intervals-that is, 

there are more rows of mesopores between them. The acanthopores are at the same 
132 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

time less numerous and of distinctly larger size. The tabulation of the zomcia is 

also more abundant. 

Leioclema shumardi is perhaps more nearly related to the species from India 

and Europe which Waagen and Wentzel figure as Geinitzella coluinnaris, especially 

that form which they designate as var. ramosa multigemmata. From this, however, 

the Guadalupian species is distinguished by the large size and great development of 

the mesopores and by the wide spaces which separate the zorecia. The authors 

mentioned above give no direct measurements of the species in question, but from 

their figures and the magnification which they are said to show there are many more 

zorecia in a given distance, in fact well-nigh twice as many. 

These authors place in the synonymy of Geinitzella columnaris S~hlotheim. 

Geinitz' s species Stenopora mackrothi, which under the name of 0hr£tetes mackrothi 

Shumard cites from the "dark limestone" of the. Guadalupe Mountains. It seems 

probable that the form thus referred to by Shumard is the one under present consideration. 

The typical specimens of this species were obtained in the "dark limestone." 

From the white limestone of the Capitan formation a few examples of Leioclema have 

come to hand which present in the n:iain the same characters as L. shumardi and yet 

show certain differences of apparently minor importance. For the present, therefore, these later representatives are placed in the same species with those which they 

succeed. When both are better known their relations can be better determined. 

Horizon and ,locality.-Top of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2966 n; 

middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, (station 2926 ~); base of Capitan formation, hill southwest of Guadalupe Point (station 2906); "dark limestone," Pine 

Spring (station 2930), and Guadalupe Point (stations 3762d~, 3762e), Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas. Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, 

Texas (station 2969 ~). 

Family FENESTELLIDJE King. 

Genus FENESTELLA Lonsdale. 

In our collections the genus Fenestella forms but an insignificant factor in the 

Guadalupian fauna, although when the material was gathered this class of fossils 

was by no means neglected. It is true that thirteen types have been discriminated, 

indicating that the genus was present in variety if iwt in abundance, and it is even 

possible that at favorable localities and horizons abundant material also could be 

obtained. 

Most of the specimens ·at present known from this horizon are in a silicified condition and were obtained by etching. They are mostly small fragments, and in general not well preserved. Under ordinary circumstances it would have been permissible to pass over with some g~neral mention a part of the fauna in such condition, 

but so much adventitious inter_est attaches to even this small and imperfect element, 

by reason of the novel character of the whole, that it appeared to me desirable to 

afford it more careful attention. On the other hand, the data obtainable in many of 

the forms was too incomplete to permit satisfactory treatment from a specific standpoint. Thus, while it has been possible to identify only one of these varieties with 
MOLL USCOIDEA •. 133 

species which have already been described, I have felt justified in describing only 

two or three as new, an unfortunately large number being merely described, so far 

as description was possible, in an anonymous manner. · 

It might be inferred frqm the very individual 9haracter of the associated fauna 

that the Guadalupian Fenestellas would present altogether novel types when compared with those found with Pennsylvanian faunas of the Mississippi Valley. This 

has not proved to b.e the case: . While it may be said with some confidence that 

nearly if not quite all the Guadalupiah species are different, they present no especially striking developments nor, so far as I have been able to ascertain, any marked 

individuality considered as a whole. The only significant fact which my study of 

these forms seems to develop is that, like the rest of the fauna, they are different 

from Pennsylvanian forms of the interior region, though much more analogous than 

is the case with the brachiopods. As a rule the Guadalupian species are rather fine . 

. regular forms; often delicate but sometimes more solid. 

The exploration of Shumard in this general region brought to light, as is well' 

known, a small number of forms which were described by Prout nearly fifty years 

ago. Only one of these was obtained at the locality and from the horizon at which 

my collections were made, and it is unfortunately not included with them, Prout's 

description being neither very complete .nor accompanied by figures. As will be 

expected, most of the species described by him from this region, since they were 

collected at much lower horizons than the Guadalupian, prove to be distinct from 

anything in this report. As a rule they are larger and more robust, types, and will 

doubtless be found in the Hueconian fauna (to which horizon they belong), which I 

hope .later to describe. 

Waagen discriminated only two species of F'enestella in the Salt Range, from 

which it, would appear that the genus is even less well represented than in the American fauna. Neither of Waagen's two species appears to be identical with those from 

the Guadalupe Mountains, which really find closer analogies in the Pennsylvanian 

rocks of the Mississippi Valley, a circumstance not altogether surprising in view of 

the much greater number and variety of species found there. It may be mentioned 

that one of the two species discrimin.ated by Waagen is identified by him as F. elegans,. 

which Meek described from Nebraska. The identification appears to be very close. 

FENESTELI1A POPEANA Prout. 

1858. Fenestella Popeana. Prout, Trans. Acad .. Sci. St. Louis, vol. 1, p. 229 (date of volume, 1860). 

White Permian limestone: GuadaJupe Mountains, New Mexico. 

1859. Fenestella Popeana. Shumard, Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, vol. 1, p. 388 (date of volume, 1860). 

· White and dark [Permian] limestone: Guadalupe Mountains. 

Corallum most probably campanulate, rapidly curving outward from frequent bifurcation. Longitudinal rays or interstices subangular, striated as seen by the impression on the cortical envelope of the 

reverse; keel obsolete; bifurcations frequent, mostly about one line apart, large near the base, nearly as 

wide as the fenestrules. Dissepiments moderately large, round, expanded at junctipn with interstices. 

Fenestrulcs ovate or quadrangular, rounded at the angles, five m the space of two lines longitudinally, 

about five transversely. Cells large, ovate, directed upward and outward to the axis of interstices, 

alternate on the two sides of the lo~gitudinal ray, three to each fenestrule, rarely four, caused by asupernumerary placed at the angle of bifurcation. 

This beautiful species is dedicated to Capt. John Pope, whose indefatigable labors in the service of 
134 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

his country and whose zeal and devotion tO the interests of science deserve the compliment. It was 

·collected, with other specimens, from tho Guadalupe Mount~ in, by Dr: George G. Shumard, and is classed 

by our worthy president, Dr. B . .F. Shumard, as a Permian species. The description is drawn from a 

fragment of one side of the expansion; but its form, we think, can be inferred as campanulate. Only a 

.small portion· of the poriferous side is preserved, tho fracture being mostly down to tho cortical portion of 

the reverse; sufficient, however, can be' made out to identify it as a new species. 

Comparisons.-It resembles very nearly F. patula (McCoy), but the latter has larger interstices, 

with a strongly marked keel. It is only half as large as tho F. Popeana, and, besides, the latter has 

fencstrules nearly double as wide as the interstices, being at the same time strongly corticated, at least 

on the reverse. 

It resembles the F. antiqua(Gold. sp. McCoy), but differs by the thickness of its interstices, as well 

as by the greater length and fewer number of fenestrulos in a g~ven space. 

Locality.-Permian white limestone, Guadalupe.Mountain, New Mexico. 

The foregoing is Prout's original description of this form, which seems to be 

·distinct from the single species in our collection from the same locality and horizon 

and has not been recognized among the fragments thus far obtained from other 

·localities and horizons in the Guadalupian. 

FENESTELLA HILLI n. sp. 

Pl. XIX, figs. 3 and 3a. 

This species consists of a fine regular mesh composed of straight branches and 

·stout dissepiments, which are not depress!:)d below the nonporiferous surface. The 

fenestrules are about twice as long as wide, and vary in shape from subelliptical to 

subquadrate. There are about four rows (and five branches) and longitudinally 

four fenestrules (and thr()e dissepiments) in a distance of 3 mm. 

On the nonporiferous side the branches seem to be smooth. On the obverse 

they are traversed mesially by a high carina, with an expanded top, along whose 

center is a row of small perforations,_apparently about 'three opposite each fenestrule. 

The zomcial apertures are not well shown, but they appear to be arranged one opposite each dissepiment, with two intermediate. A variation from this arrangement 

places three of them opposite each fenestrule, without any opposite the dissepiments. 

Of species found in. the Mississippi Valley this form is perhaps most closely 

similar to Fenestella wortheni, from which it may be distinguished by its more robust 

proportions. F. hexagonalis also is related, hut clearly distinct. Under the name 

·of F. corticata Prout has described a form somewhat similar to that under discussion, 

but having more zomcial apertures to the fenestrule, and apparently a row of nodes 

down the back of each branch. 

Horizon and locality·.-" Dark limestone," Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station· 

3762e). 

FENESTELLA CAPITANENsrs n. sp. 

Pl. VIII, figs. 4 and 4a. 

This species includes a single specimen from the white li~estone (Capitan), of 

which the nonporiferous face is exposed to view. 

The zoarium had a shape more or less approximating to that of a portion of an 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 135 

inverted cone. The length of the frond as represented by the specimen is 17 mm . 

. and the width about the same. 

Branches and dissepiments, while the latter are distinctly smaller, are nearly of 

one size. The dissepiments expand at their junction with the branches, giving the 

fenestrules a rounded outline, which rarely becomes noticeably quadrate. The 

width of the dissepiments, while sometimes nearly equal to the length, is as a rule 

distinctly less. There are five rows (and six branches) in the space of 3 mm., and 

-longitudinally four fenestrules (and five dissepiments) in the same distance. 

The surface of-the branches is smooth on the nonporiferous side, except that~ 

distinct tubercle seems to have been developed where the dissepiments and branches 

intersect. The p9riferous side, as already remarked, is not well shown. The 

arrangement of the zorecia appears to vary considerably. Sometimes they are 

·placed one opposite each dissepiment, with another intermediate, ahd sometimes 

there are as many as three intermediate ones, with all gradations hetween.-

A. common arrangement is for three apertures to open against a fenestrule 

without any opposite the dissepiments. As already intimated, the characters of 

the celluliferous face are largely obscured. A carina, if present, 'was probably low. 

At the same time there is evidence ·of a row of distant spines dividing the two series 

of pores. These statements, however, are tentative, needing future confirmation. 

This species is very' near the proportions of the form designated Fenestella sp. a, 

·but is somewhat more massive in ·its construction, with more rounded fenestrules, 

and with the nonporiferous face tuberculate instead of smooth. What additional 

differences would appear if both forms.were completely known can not be conjectured. 

While comparable in some respects to several forms found in the Pennsylvanian 

of the Mississippi Valley, this species is distinguished from most of those which it 

resembles in other respects by its solid, compact structure, resulting from the relatively 

thick dissepiments, and by the presence of nodes on the reverse face. Its nearest 

·.allies seem to be F. conradi .and. the variety compactilis. It is a little more robust 

than F. conradi, with somewhat thinner dissepiments and with more elongate 

fenestrult)s, which have more numerous apertures opposite them. The reverse face 

of F. conradi is also smooth. 

·n is evidently distinct from F'. jJOpeana, as represented in Prout's description, 

.a species which apparently was found at about the same locality and horizon. The 

sculpture is very different and the proportions somewhat so. 

Horizon and locality.-Top of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2905), 

.and middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. 

FENESTELLA GUADALUPENSIS n. sp. 

Pl. XIX, fig. 5. 

This form consists of a rather coarse, somewhat irregular network. The 

branches are straight, slender, round, and separated by nearly equal intervals of 

two to three times the width of tlieir own diameter. The dissepiments are slender, 

round, aad distinctly smaller than the branches, but approximately equal to them. 

They are depressed and irregularly disposed, both as to distance and direction. 

·The fenest.rules consequently ar~ of different sizes and shapes,· occasionally wider 
136 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

than long, usually longer than wide, but always distinctly quadrangular in outline .. 

There are three rows of fenestrules and four branches in a distance of 3 mm., and 

two or three fene.strules (and four dissepiments) or less in the same distance longitudinally. 

The nonporiferous side is smooth. On the poriferous side the branches had a 

median angulation, which may have been a distinct through certainly not a high 

keel. The apertures are small and give rise to a wavy outline on the margins of the 

branches. There is usually one aperture opposite each dissepiment, and intervening between these from two to four, depending somewhat on the length of the 

fenestrule. · 

Of species found in the Mississippi Valley this form is clearly most nearly related 

to Fenestella delicatula. The description of that species would indicate that the· 

two forms were similarly constructed, but that from the Guadalupe Mountains 

when compared with a somewhat fragmentary example from Seville, Ill., proves to 

be more rubust in its growth, the dissepiments especially being relatively stronger. 

The surface of F. delicatula, furthermore, is ornamented by fine granulose line, no 

trace of which is found upon the form under discussion. 

Three species from the same general region, though from a lower horizon, 

demand comparison. I refer to F. albuquerqu.eana, F. intermedia, and F. variabilis, 

the first-named species, recently described by Bendrat, being probably a synonym. 

for the older one founded by Prout (F. variabilis). These two, with their striated 

surface and prominent carina, are safely distinct from. the present species. While 

I have little doubt that the latter is distinct from. F.'intermedia also, it is not easy,. 

without specimens of that species, to point out differences which should distinguish 

them. It would appear, however, that there were fewer fenestrules to a given distance longitudinally in Prout's species. 

It might be expected that this form would be the same as F. popeana, described 

from essentially the same locality and horizon, but .while showing characters in· 

common it is unlikely that the two species will prove to be the same. That described 

by Prout would appear to be more regular, with fewer fenestrules (longitudinally) in 

a given distance and fewer zomcial apertures to a fenestrule. 

Horizon and locality.-:-"Dark limestone," Pine Spring, Guadalupe Mountains, 

Texas (station 2930). 

FENESTELLA GUADALUPENSIS var. 

This species is represented by a single specimen in a thin section. Three rows. 

and three branches occur in a distance of 3 mm. transversely, and two a~d onehalf fenestrules and two dissepiments in the same distance longitudinally. The 

branches arc about twice as wide as the dissepiments an'd about two-thirds as wide 

as the fcnestrules. The latter are subquadrate and _about· twice as wide as long. 

Apparently three cells lie opposite each fenestrule. In addition to the usual finely 

porous character of the test the noncelluliferous side of the present species was pierced 

by rather large-sized pores, in a general way so distributed that one is opposite to a 

dissepiment and one intermediate. 

In its measurements this form is in close agreerl;lent with Fenestelz'a guadalu-· 

pensis. The chief differences recognized consist in the relatively narrow branches, 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 137 

while the large-sized pores, if, as seems not unlikely, they are the result of nodes or 

spines upon the exterior, clearly discriminate the present form. If the pores are 

due to nodes or spines, this form recalls F. capitanensis and Fenestella sp. fin this 

particular more than any other Guadalupian species, but the proportions are very 

different. · 

Horizon and locality.-"Dark limestone," Pine Spring, Guadalupe Mountains, 

Texas (station ?930). __ , 

FENESTELLA SPINULOSA Condra? 

Pl. XIX, figs. 4 and 4a. 

1902. Fenestella spinttlosa. Condra, Am. Geologist, vol. 30, p. 343, pl. 21, figs. 4, 5. 

"Coal Measures:" Roca and Dawson, Nebr. 

1903. Fenestella spimtlosa. Condra, Nebraska Geol. Survey, vol. 2, pt. 1, p. 55, pl. 10, figs. 1-5. 

"Coal Measures:" Roca and Dawson, Nebr. 

This species consists of a regular, fine network of straight branches and dissepiments. There are five rows of fenestrules (and six branches) and longitudinally five 

fenestrules (and six dissepiments) in the sp~ce of 3 mm., or possibly a little less in 

both cases. 

The dissepiments arc considerably slenderer than the branches and somewhat 

depressed below the level preserved by their upper surfaces. The fenestrules are 

usually a little longer than wide, their outline as a rule being more or less distinctly 

quadrate. 

The outer surface of the branches appears to be smooth. The inner surface is 

raised into a rather thin, high, median carina, which seems to develop a row of 

median nodes disposed in much the same manner as the zomcial apertures. The 

latter are usually so arranged that one occurs opposite each dissepiment, and one 

halfway between; but occasionally an aperture occurs on either side of the dissepiment without an intermediate one. 

Such characters arc retained by the small but rather well-preserved fragment. 

Another small example has been referred to the same species, though it departs in 

certain details from that on which the description depends. The proportions are 

almost the same, but the construction is distinctly .heavier; the branches and dissepiments are thicker, and the fenestrules are less quadrate. The poriferous side of 

this example is imperfect. It appears to have had two zomcial openings opposite 

each fenestrule, but the arrangement may prove to he as in the first specimen. 

Here has also been referred a specimen from the Capita.n formation (station 

2966), which is embedded in limestone and shows only the obverse face. It is somewhat exfoliated and obscured. The dimensions are essentially the same as those 

of the specimen from which the first description was drawn. The dissepiments 

appear to be a little larger, but this may easily be due to their difference in preservation. The apertures are· as a rule so arranged that two of them are opposite each 

fenestrule. Occasionally there is also one opposite a dissepiment, but such cases 

are single, none having been observed where they regularly occur two opposite .each 

fenestrule and one opposite each dissepiment. 

In some of its characters this species can be compared with a number of Penn-
138 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

sylvanian forms from the Mississippi Valley, but it appears most· to resemble Fenestella par1Yipora, F. perelegans, and F. spinulosa. The first-mentioned species 

hardly demands careful comparison, and the second, which is imperfectly known, 

is said to have the carina nearly obsolete. With P. spinulosa, however, as described 

and figured by .Condra, the agreement is very close. Perhaps the only difference 

at present available is that the Guadalupian form seems to lack the faint strire which 

F. spinulosa is described as possessing. So different, however, are the faunal associations of the former that it seems little likely to prove identical with Condra's 

species could well-preserved examples of both bl:l brought into comparison. Fenestella shumardi, a species described from the same general region as the one under 

consideration, but from a different horizon, shows many points of similarity, but 

it can safely be concluded that this is not the species which Prout was describing. 

Horizon and locality.-Top of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2966); 

"dark limestone,"Pine Spring (station 2930), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2969~). 

FENESTELLA TEXANA n. sp. 

Pl. XXVIII, figs. 9 and 9a. 

A rather small fragment is all that remains of this species; it shows the following 

characters: 

The growth is fairly even and regular. About three and one-half rows of fenestrules (including four branches) occur in a distance of 3 mm., and about the same 

number in the same distance in a longitudinal direction, including also four dissepiments. The branches and dissepiments are slender, and more nearly of the same 

size than is usual, the branches being naturally somewhat larger. The fenestrules 

are slightly longer than wide, being angular on the nonporiferous side and more 

rounded on the other side. The dissepiments are slightly depressed. 

The outer surface of the branches is marked by fine, obscure, interrupted strire. 

On the poriferous side they are traversed by a high carina, not very greatly expanded 

at the top, which is wavy and nodose. Along the center of each is a row of little 

spinules, which are often arranged so that one is oppQsite ea~h dissepiment and two 

are intermediate. Opposite each dissepiment is an aperture, while two others are 

intermediate along the sides of the fencstrules. 

F. texana has a fine regular mesh, like ~everal of tr~e other forms described, 

but is distinguished at once by the slenderness and nearly equal size of the dissepiments and branches and the nearly square shape of the fenestrules. Other differences also appear in individual cases. 

This species is probably new, but I have hesitated, because of the small amount 

of my material and the imperfect information regarding some of its details, to give 

it a new name. It is· related to Fenestella binodata, F. corticata, F. delicatula, 

F. modesta, and F. subretijor1nis, but is more. or less strongly distinct from any of 

them. It is perhaps especially close to F. modesta, but differs in its more regular 

growth, in having a more elevated carina, and possibly in other characters. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware 

Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 139 

FENESTELLA sp. a. 

Pl. XXVIII, fig. 6. 

A small specimen, about 5 rom. square, is all that our coilection co~tains of 

this species. It is silicified and at present free from adhering rock, but some of the 

most important characters have been lost. So far as may be judged from material 

in hand the zoarium was a large, flat, regular frond. 

The growth is very uniform. Five rows of fenestrules and their inclosing 

branches (or a little less) occur in 3 mm. transversely, and fpur fenestrules with 

their inclosing dissepiments occur longitudinally in the same distance. The fenestrules arc nearly twice as wide as long .. They are elliptical in outline on the poriferous face and somewhat quadrate on .the opposite one. The dissepiments are onehalf the width of the branches, or in some cases less, and usually lie even with their 

surface on the nonporifcrous side, but are depressed on the poriferous side. The 

back of the frond appears to be entirely smooth, but delicate sculpture may have 

been lost in the process of silicification. This process has apparently obscured the 

zorecial structures, whose number and character c·annot Iiow be determined. There 

appears to have been a carina, but details as to its height, etc., can not be ascertained. 

This form resembles several found in the Pennsylvanian strata of the Mississippi 

Valley, but it is ~oubtful if it prove to be the same specifically, even if all its characters were known, for those which have been determined do not entirely agree 

with any of them. It is as near Fenestella remota as any, hut that species is striated 

on the reverse side. F. parvipora is another related species. 

Horizon and Zocaz.ity.-Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware 

Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 

FENESTELLA sp. b. 

Pl. XXVIII, fig. 10. 

This species is similar to that discriminated as Fenestella sp. a, but has a distinctly coarser mesh. 

What may be taken as the typical example shows four fenestrules transversely 

and three longitudinally in a space of 3 mm., "'ith the inclusive branches and dissepiments. The fenestrules are. about twice as long as wide, and the branches about 

twice the diameter of the dissepirnents. On the nonporiferous side the dissepiments 

are on the same plane as the branches, but they are depressed on the poriferous side. 

The fenestrules are strongly quadrate on the nonporiferous side, but more elliptical 

on the other. 

The nonporiferous side appears to be without ornamentation of nodes or strire. 

The character of the poriferous side has been obscured during silicification, so that 

even the number of apertures can not be made out. 

This form resembles in a general way several species found in the Pennsylvanian 

of the Mississippi Valley, especially F. b1:nodata and F. subrudis; but the final comparisons for determination of the actual degree of difference and resemblance can 

not be made. It may be no more than a coarse variety of that discriminated as 

Fenestella. sp. a. 
140 THE GUADALUPlAN FAUNA. 

In addition to the fragment on which the foregoing description is chiefly based, 

several others having essentially the same character have been placed in this species. 

Ilorjzon and locality.-Delaware Moun.tain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 

FENESTELLA sp. C. 

Pl. XXVIII, fig. 7. 

This form in many respects resembles the forego~ng CPenestella sp. b), but differs 

in several points. While constructed on about the same scale and with about four 

rows of fenestrules ·in 3 mm., the fenestrules themselves are a" little more elongate, 

there being only from two and one-half to three in a space of 3 mm. The growth 

is considerably less regular. The dissepinierits are often depressed on the nonporiferous side. The fencstrules are oval. This side of the frond (the nonporiferous) 

appears to be ornamented with fine longitudinal strire not shown in my figure, but 

t.his may be due to imperfect silicification of the fibrous skeleton. 

The poriferous side is not satisfactorily preserved, being more or less eroded, 

but the apertures seem to·have numbered about three to a fenestrule. 

This species is related to several from the "Coal Measures." of the Mississippi 

Valley, especially to F. binodata, F. kansasensis, F. modesta, F; ovatipora, and F. subrudis, but especially resembles F. modesta. The ·preservation is, however, scarcely 

competent to a careful determination of its specific relations. · 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 

FENESTELLA sp. c. var. 

This form is represented by a single specimen whos~ characters bring it close to 

Fenestella sp. c., but as it was obtained from a different locality and presents some 

differences of import,ance it did not seem advisable to refer it to the same species 

without further evidence of intergradation. 

The poriferous side of this specimen is uppermost, the opposite side being embedded in rock. Exfoliation has removed all superficial characters of the exposed 

portion. The branches are straight and about equal distances apart. The dissepiments, however, stand at varying intervals from one another, so that the fenestrules 

range in length from two and one-half to one and one-half times their own width. 

They are subquadrate in shape. The dissepiments are slender and depressed, in 

width about half that of the branches, which are in turn about half as wide as the 

fenestrules. Five rows and ·six branches come in' 3 mm. transversely and two and 

one-half fenestrules in 3 mm. longitudinally. Four cells, or in some cases three, 

occur opposite each fenestrule. 

The chief differences manifested between this form and typical Fenestella sp. c 

are the su,bquadrate shape of the fenestrvles (which may be due to their being viewed 

chiefly on the opposite side), their slightlynarrower width, so that more rows occur 

in a given distance, and the larger number of cells which lie opposite each fenestrule. 

It appears to be closely allied to Fenestellct sp. b also, perhaps more nearly than to 

the present form. · 

Hm·izon and locality .. -" Dark limestone," hill southwest of Guadalupe Point, 

Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2924). 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 

' FENESTELLA sp. e. 

Pl. XXVIII, figs. 5 and 5a. 

141 

Like the foregoing, this is a small species and discriminated on very fragmentary 

material. The branches are straight and extremely heavy. The dissepimerits, on 

the other hand, are as a rule short and thin. The fenestrules are elongate elliptical. 

Sometimes the dissepiments are much thicker at the expense of the fenestrules 

which they separate, but in any event, being sunk beneath the level of the thick, 

strong branches, they play in appearance a subordinate part in the construction of 

the zoarium. There are about three rows of fenestrules and four branches, or a 

little over, in a distance of 3 mm. Longitudinally, there are three fenestrules (and 

four dissepiments), or a little less, in the same distance. 

The nonporiferous side is without much doubt artificially varicose from heavy 

silicification, the origi,nal ornamentation, if such there was, being concealed. On 

the obverse side the apertures are arranged about as in Fenestella hilli, namely 

one opposite each dissepiment and two intermediate. There is in addition a high 

carina, much expanded at its top, upon which are set, in regular arrangement, a 

number of large nodes or spinules. These occur about six to a fenestrule, arranged 

alternately, three on each side of the broad summit of the carina, to which their 

enlarged bases, practically in contact, lend a sinuous outline. It may be that these 

structures also have been exaggerated by heavy silicification, but whether this is so, 

~r to what degree, it is impossible to say. I think, howeve1·, that the real appearance may have been appreciably altered by exaggeration in this manner. 

This species also is probably new, but for the reasons mentioned in the foregoing 

case a distinctive name has not been applied to it. 

It is related to several forms which have been described from the "Coal Measures" of the Mississippi Valley and in the proportional measurements to Fenestella 

dentata and F. kansasensis; but from these it differs considerably in other details. 

In the structure of the carina a parallel form is found in F. binodata, but there are 

minor differences in the carina itself besides those of proportion, which forbid joining the Guadalupian form with that species. In the Guadalupian itself we have 

F. popeana, which shows much the same dimensions, but possesses an obsolete 

carina instead of a highly developed one. Fenestella subretiformis described from 

the Organ Mountains is related in a somewhat similar manner, and besides possessing important structural differences is believed to hold a much lower horizon than 

the form under consideration. 

Horizon and. locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 

FENESTELLA sp . .f 

Pl. XXVIII, fig. 8. 

This species resembles the foregoing in having the branches relatively massive 

for the dissepiments, but is somewhat more delicate in construction. There were 

probably four rows of fenestrules and five branches in 3 mm. and about five fenestrules and five dissepiments longitudinally. The fenestrules are elliptical and from 

one and a half to two times as long as they are wide. The dissepiments are some-
142 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

what depressed on both sides of the frond and the fenestrules elliptically elongated. 

I am not sure whether the nonporiferous side was ornamented or not, but the branches 

appear to have been somewhat nodose at their junction with the dissepiments, and 

there are strong indications of other nodes of smaller size. On the poriferous· side 

there was probably a high carina, whose character can not be made out in detail. 

The zomcial apertures are so arranged that one of them is placed opposite each dissepiment and one in an intermediate position. . · 

The disparity between the branches and the dissepiments is less marked in this 

species than in the foregoing, and the proportions, as well as the arrangement of the 

zooocia, are also different. 

Of this form too little is known to determine its relationship to existing species, 

but it appears to be as yet undescribed. It sho.ws some resemblance to Fenestella 

shumardi and F. spinulosa, but is clearly distinct from them. One of its most peculiar features is the large number of fenestrules relative to the number of rows in a 

given distance. This relation is not very well shown by the specimen, however, and 

the statement made above may represent an extreme case. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 

FENESTELLA sp. ~~ 

The specimen referred to by this title very closely follows the characters of the 

typical variety save in one important particular. There are four rows and four 

branches in 3 mm. transversely and four fenestrules and five dissepiq1ents in the 

same disanee longitudinally, these particulars being thus very similar to but not 

identical with those of the type. The dissepiments are much depressed on the nonporiferous side and very thin-one-third to one-fourth the diameter of the branches. 

The latter are not as strong as in the type, but are as wide or slightly narrower than 

the fenestrules. The latter average one and one-half times as wid~ as long and have 

a more or less quadrate shape. 

The cells are so arranged that one is opposite each dissepiment and one opposite 

the center of each fenestrule. They are separated by a high carina, expanded "at its 

top. 

The nonporiferous side is marked by fine, linear, longitudinal strire and possibly 

by nodes, though the presence of the latter is not a positive character. 

The most marked difference which seems to separate this form from Fenestella 

sp. f is the striated surface and the much less numerous and less obviously developed 

nodes. There are perhaps very faint traces of strire in the latter form which may 

have been obscured by coarse silicification, and the fact that it probably represents 

an older portion of the zoarium may account for the more strongly developed nodes. 

Horizon and locality.~-Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 

Genus POLYPORA McCoy. 

This genus, somewhat in contrast to Fenestella, is better represented, in both 

species and individuals, in the Salt Range than in the Guadalupian fau~a. Waagen 

and Piehl recognize eight species, some of them fine, robust types and represented, it 

would appear, by large, well-preserved fronds. My material shows representatives 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 143 

of what may be four species; but these occur for the most part as small fragments, 

often silicified or otherwise poorly preserved. Where it seemed to be dem0;nded, 

comparison has been made with Pennsylvanian forms from the "Coal Measures'' of 

the Mississippi Valley; but the character of my fossils seems scarcely to warrant 

careful comparisons with Salt Range species, as such comparisons could hardly be 

anything but unprofitable. 

PQLYPORA MEXICAN A Prout~ 

Pl. XIX, figs. 6 to 6b. 

1858. Polypora Mexicana. Prout, Tl.'ans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, vol. 1, p. 270 (date of volume, 1860). 

Permian: Jornada del Muerto, New Mexico. · 

1859. Polypora Mexicana. Prout, idem, p. 451, pl. 16, figs, 2-2b. 

Of this species but three specimens have come to hand, two of them mere fragments. While it has been possible to free them from the inclosing matrix so that 

both surfaces are presented to view, the silicification which rendered this practicable 

is not so perfect but that some of the more delicate details have been obscured or 

misrepresented. 

The zoarium in this specimen is rather large and heavily constructed, and 

shows irregularity in many details. Instead of being planate or infundibuliform, 

it is strongly undulated or contorted. The branches are of nearly equal size, except 

at points of bifurcation; but bifurcation seems not to occur at regular or rhythmic 

intervals. The dissepiments, on the other hand, when viewed on the poriferous 

face, vary in size from equality with the branches to a width one-half or one-third 

as great. The fenestrules, while as a rule of rather constant width, vary much in 

length, and range in shape from subcircular to elongate .. The zocecial apertures are 

rather evenly distributed, but are not con-spicuously arranged in rows, either vertical or oblique, but of the two a vertical arrangement is more obvious. In some 

cases the dissepiments are celluliferous and in others not. The branches which are 

rather thick through, are slightly narrower on the nonporiferous than on the poriferous face; but this is far more marked in the case of the dissepiments, which 

appear much thinner and are depressed below the level formed by the back of the 

branches. · · 

Measured on the poriferous face. there are from two to two and one-half 

fenestrules (and three dissepiments) in a space of 5 mm.; measured transversely 

there are from two fenestrules· and three branches to four . fenestrules and four . 

branches in the same distance. 

The zocecial apertures are small and separated by intervals more or less nearly 

equal to their own diameter. The number lying ·opposite a fenestrule naturally 

varies considerably with the size of the fenestrule, but it seems to range from three · 

or four to six, without counting those immediately opposite the dissepiments. 

"They come in four to six or seven longitudinal rows, but, as before remarked, this 

arrangement is not very conspicuous. Both faces of the zoarium appear to be 

without ornamentation, except that the lower portion of the rim of many of the 

apertures seems to project as a little lip or spine; but this may be merely an effect 

of preservation. The nonporiferous side appears to be quite smooth. 
144 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

A large number of species have been considered in the effort to identify this 

form, but none of them possesses more lines of approximation than Polypora .· 

mexicana Prout, which, moreover, was described from the same general region, 

though from a horizon which at present appears to be somewhat lower. The points 

of resemblance are sufficient to have encouraged me to make the identification; the 

points of difference have caused me to feel some doubt of it. 

The chief differences are as follows: The zoarium in the typical specimen is· 

regular in its curvature and structure, while the form under· consideration is contorted, its fenestrules arc of unequal size, and its structure in general is somewhat 

more irregular than that represented in ~rout's figures and description. While 

radial measurements in the two specimens give the sam'e result, the present example 

seems to be a little more expanded in a transverse direction. The size of the zocecial 

apertures and their number in a given interval appears to be about the same; but 

in the type the apertures are said to be regularly distributed in oblique rows, an 

arrangement not often very obvious in my form. Prout, furthermore, represents 

the apertures as emerging from little elevations, the bases o_f which are well nigh in 

contact, the actual apertures, on the other hand, being farther apart than in my 

specimen. It is doubtful if the details of this face were sufliciently preserved in the 

original example to bear out Prout's figures, especially as he docs not describe this 

appearance in the text. Several important features are left unknown in Prout's 

descrip.tion, especially those of.the nonporiferous face; and it is quite possible that 

the differences already noted are indices of still greater ones that would appear 

were the full details of both forms available for comparison.· 

Prout cites this species from the Permian and gives as a locality the Jo~nada 

del Muerto. It is very doubtful if the Guadalupian occurs in that region, the real 

horizon of P. mexicana being, therefore, the Hueco formation. This constitutes an 

additional reason for doubting the identity of the present form with Prout's species. 

Several American species resemble Polypora mexicana more or less closely, but 

besides showing differences of character they are from distant areas and from different faunal associations. One of these is P. burlingtonensis, a species in fact closely 

similar in a general way but more regular in structure and less sturdy in growth. 

P. simulatrix also shows some resemblances, but is not sufficiently close to make 

comparisons necessary. Of much nearer relation, however, is the imperfectly 

known P. crassa, which differs at least in this particular, that the fenestrules are 

regularly more elongate. Of the species from our western States, aside from that 

with which the specinten under_ consideration has been identified, none possesses 

characters sufficiently close to admit confusion. The same is true of most of the 

Indian species described by Waagen and Piehl, many of which are characterized 

by very robust growth. One of the·most similar is doubtless P. sykesi De Koninck, 

which is readily distinguished, however, by its large size, more regular growth, less 

elongate fenestrules, and heavier dissepiments. The same differences distinguish · 

P. ornata, which, moreover, possesses a system of ornamentation unknown in the 

American species. 

De KoninQk a has placed P. mexicana in the genus Protoretipora, I know not on 

what evidence, but he is clearly mistaken if the present identification is anywhere 

near correct. 

---·----· --------------~-----------------------------------------

nMem. Geol. Survey New South Wales, Pal., No.6, 1898, p. 137. 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 145 

Horizon and locality.-" Dark limestone,'' Pine Spring (station 2930) and 

· . .:hadalupe Point (station 3762e), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. 

PoLYPORA sp. a. 

Pl. XXVIII, figs. 1 and la. 

Of this form our collection contains a fr.agment, which is well preserved on 

neither side. It is a moderately robust form, of fairly regular growth. The 

branches are straight and strong, highly rounded on the reverse side. They 

e,xpand considerably at their junction with the dissepiments, which are narrow in 

the middle and also considerably expanded. The dissepiments are much depressed. 

The fenestrules are elliptical in outline, about twice as long as wide, and with 

a width slightly greater than that of the branches. There are four rows (and five 

branches) in a space of 5 mm., and three to three and one-half fenestrules (and 

four dissepiments) longitudinally in the same distance_. The surface of the reverse 

is rendered rough by the nodular silicification, but there appear to be tracgs of an 

originally striated sculpture. The present nodular surface is probably not an 

original character. 

The surface of the obverse base is eroded, so that the cell walls are exposed. 

Consequently its superficies can not be determined. The cells in this preservation 

are rhomboidal and regularly arranged. At present the diagonal instead of the 

longitudinal rows, of which there are 11sually four, are most noticeable. There are 

about four opposite each fenestrule. Sometimes one stands opposite a dissepiment, with three intermediate. · 

This species is of finer and more regular growth than the form referred to, 

Polypora mexicana?, a specimen of which is found at the same locality, and it 

probably has a striated instead of a smooth reverse side. The latter character, if 

it prove a real feature instead of an appearance due to silicification, would aid in 

. discriminating this form from several Mississippi Valley species which it resembles. 

In this category may be mentioned P. bassleri, P. cestriensis, P. dietincta,_ P, stragula, 

and P. ulrichi. These are all more or less closely related, but even if the sculpture 

of the reverse of the form under consideration is found to be illusory it hardly agrees 

exactly with any one of them, and is likely to prove a new species. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 

PoLYPORA sp. b. 

Pl. XXVIII, fig. 2. 

A number of fragments belonging to this species have come to hand, but they 

are all small· and .f?Oorly preserved. They show an irregular and coarsely reticulate form, the branches of which are moderately stout, flexuous, and frequently 

bifurcating. When, at unequal intervals, the branches come close to one another, 

they are connected by short but moderately strong dissepiments. Often the 

resulting network looks as if through their irregularities the branches have actually become connate without any connecting dissepiments. 

3G95-No. 58-08--10 
146 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

The branches are strongly rounded on both sides, so that a cross section is in 

a general way circular: The superficial character of both surfaces has been altered 

by imperfect silicificatio-n. The revers{/ is irregular and nodos~, due, I feel no 

doubt, to chalcedonic replacement, and a similar feature may be noted in some 

cases on the obverse. The latter surface is thickly covered with apertures, which 

have no well-defined interspaces and are disposed in five rows, sometimes a greater 

number. Their linear arrangement is not striking, and that in an oblique direction is possibly rnore · noticeable than in a longitudinal. They appear to open 

obliquely and to have an elliptical outline, tlie interspaces, which seem to represent 

the thickened zomcial walls, being about the width of their shortest diameter. 

The general appearance of these zomcia resembles irregular growths of Acanthocladia guadalupensis, whose branches are connected by dissepiments. 

Owing to the large size of the mesh and the small size of the fragments it is 

impossible to give measurements in the ordinary way. I_~arge branches have a 

diameter of about 1 mm. or a little over, but there have been referred here fragments, supposed to be terminal in position, which are considerably more slender. 

A long fenestrule is about 3 mm. in length, the width, which is usually about that 

of the intervening branches, being about one-third. In shape the fenestrules often 

taper almost to a point at one or both ends. 

This species appears to be nearest related to P. eras sa, of the "Coal Measures" 

forms of the Mississippi Valley, but both species are too imperfectly preserved to 

render possible a determination of their relationship. It is unlikely that they are 

specifically the same. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 

PoLYPOUA sp. c. 

Pl. XXVIII, fig. 3. 

This species is represented by a very small fragment, whose characters ally it 

in some degree to Polypora sp. a. It is, however, a considerably coarser form. 

There are about three rows and three branches in 5 mm. and about two fenestrules 

and one dissepiment in the same distance. The branches are about 0.75 mm. in 

width, straight, somewhat expanding at their juncture with the dissepiments, 

slightly narrower than the fenestrules. They are flattened and apparently striated 

on the reverse and rounded on the obverse. The dissepiments are slender (about 

one-third the branches), somewhat depressed, expanding. The fenestrules are subelliptical to subquadrate, about twice as long as wide. 

The apertures lie in about seven rows, the arrangement being more noticeably 

diagonal than longitudinal. They are about their own diameter apart. Five are 

opposite a fenestrule, with sometimes an additional one opposi~e a dissepiment. 

In addition to the small silicified fragment on which the foregoing characterization is based, there has been provisionally referred here an equally fragmentary 

example from station 2930, embedded in limestone, with the poriferous face exposed. 

The network is of about the same degree of coarseness as the fragment whose characters have just been set down, but the celluliferous face, which probably comes 

from one of the early or initial portions of the frond, has been so thickened with 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 

testaceous deposit as to present characters probably quite different from those 

which really belong to the species.· It is possible that these two specimens have 

been incorrectly grouped together. 

This for!ll answers very well to Prout's description of P. mexicana. It differs, 

however, from the form here provisionally identified as that species in its riwre 

regular growth, thinner disscpiments, and somewhat coarser reticulation. It may 

prove to be the same, but this is rather unlikely. 

It would appear to be not unlike P. reriwta, though showing marked differences 

in some respects, such as the much closer arrangement of pores on the obverse and 

the striated sculpture on the reverse. It must be conceded, however, that in both 

these particulars the imperfect preservation of the Guadalupian species may have 

led to misinterpretation of the real characters. Another similar species is P. submarginata, but it likewise shows distinct differences in certain points, such as the 

central row of nodes on the reverse. 

Horizon and locality.-"Dark limestone," Pine Spring, Guadalupe Mountains, 

Texas (station 2930?). Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware .Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 

PoLYPORA sp. ·d. 

Pl. XXVIII, fig. 4. 

Two small and poorly preserved fragments are all that represent this species, of 

which it is impossible to give a description at this time. In most of its characters 

it rather closely resembles the form here provisionally placed under Polypota 

mexicana, but the reticulation is distinctly coarser and the fenestrules of very 

unequal sizes. In the proportions of its reticulation and in some pa.rticulars it 

resembles the form designated as Polypora sp. c, but besides being somewhat more 

heavily constructed, a difference which under the circumstances would not necessarily be very important, it is much more irregular in the size and shape of its 

fenestrulcs, which are also, as it were in compensation for the heavier branches, 

somewhat smaller. It may be that the species c and d will prove to be the same, 

since the fragments of both forms at present known are so small as to hardly justify 

an unqualified inference that they are representative of the entire. zoarium. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation,· southern Delaware 

Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 

Genus PHYLLOPORA King. 

PHYLLOPORA? sp. 

Our collections contain but one fragmentary specimen of this form, regarding 

whose generic position I am in some doubt whether it belongs to Phyllopora or to 

Polypora. The branches, which seem to be fairly straight, have a width of 1 mm. 

or a little less, and this is slightly greater than the width of the fenestrules. The 

latter are two to three times as long as wide, elliptical, narrowing strongly at either 

end. What would necessarily he regarded as dissepiments if the form is a Polypora 

. are well nigh as broad as the branches, sometimes depressed, sometimes celliferous. 

The zorecia appear to occur in four to six rows. The nonporiferous side is without 

ornamentation. 
148 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

From the small silicified fragment which we have of this species it is impossible 

to place it satisfactorily. 'l'he branches are almost too distinct from their connections for Phyllopora, while the dissepiments are almost too broad and indistinct as 

.such to make this a typical Polypora. 

· Horizon and Zocality.-Delaware Mountain formation, mountains· northwest of 

Marathon, 'l'ex. (station 3840). 

Genus THAMNISCUS King. 

THAMNISCUS DIGITATUS n. sp. 

Pl. XXV, figs. 6 and 6a. 

This species forms small, branched, more or less palmate colonies, which are 

attached by a short peduncle. Several branches spring from the peduncle, and these 

themselves divide, especially a short median main branch, which gives off a few 

secondary branches pinnately, the whole growth being in a general way irregular 

yet not especially unsymmetrical. The branches are about 2 mm. in diameter, 

stout, short, and dactyloid. All bend upward, forming a shallow cup-shaped colony 

about 13 mm. long and 11 mm. wide. Along the center of the upper side of each 

branch extends a band of small zorecial openings which appear to be in about six 

longitudinal rows and to have more or less of an oblique arrangement also. As 

weE as can be counted seven occur in a distance of 3 mm., longitudinally. In 

mature or old colonies the zorecial band is strongly elevated and narrower than the 

branch, occupying only part of its upper surface. Toward their bases the branches 

are still more expanded, spreading out on each side into a sheet, which becomes 

confluent with similar expansions of adjoining branches. 'l'he back of the frond 

appears to be smooth. 

Several specimens of this species have come to hand among the silicified material 

from the Diablo Mountains. Although I originally supposed that they might be 

old specimens or basal portions of colonies of Acanthocladia guadalupensis, this now 

hardly seems to me a tenable hypothesis, and I have decided to introduce a new 

name for them, referring them to the different but kindred genus Thamniscus. 

'l'his form seems to be closely related to Thamniscus palmatus of Condra. A 

numher of differences can be named between my typical specimen and Condra's 

.description and figures, but the other Guadalupian specimens fail to show some of 

the characters of the type, which is probably an old colony. It differs from T. palmatus somewhat in its manner of developing the zorecium, but principally in having 

much thicker branches and with expanded and confluent basal portions. 

Horizon and ZocaZity.-Delaware Mountain formation, Diablo Mountains, Texas, 

as reported (station 3764). 

'l'HAMNJSCUS sp. 

Pl. XXXI, fig. 16. 

Of this species our collection has furnished but a single example, which is distinguished by its delicate construction. 'l'he branches have a diameter ·of only 0.5 

mm., and they divide at intervals of about 3 mm. 'l'he nonporiferous side appears' 

to have been smooth and the zorecia on the poriferous side seem to have been 
\ 

MOLL USCOIDEA. 149 

arranged in four to six longitudinal seri.es, but the silicification which these specimens 

have undergone has more or less obscured the character of both surfaces. 

This is without much doubt a species new to the American Carboniferous at 

least, but it seems that its characters should be determined on better and more extensive material before it is described under a new name. 

Horizon and locality.---Delaware Mountain formation, mountains northwest of 

Marathon, Tex. (station 3840). 

Family ACA.i~THOCLADIID.J.E Zittel. 

Genus ACANTHOCLADIA King. 

ACANTHOCLADIA GUADALUPENSIS n. sp. 

Pl. VIII, fig. 1; Pl. XVIII, figs. 13, 13a, 14, 14a, lG to 16b; Pl. XXII, figs. 10 and lOa. 

?1859. Acanthocladia Americana. Shumard (non Swallow), Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, vol. 1, p. 388 

(date of volume, 1860). 

Gray [Permian] limestone: Guadalupe Mountains, Texas and New Mexico. 

This is one of the most abundant Bryozoa of the entire Guadalupian fauna, and 

numerous examples have been examined. The following description is derived 

from the typical specimen, which was obtained at the horizon of Shumard's "dark 

limestone." Much of the material is less complete and less perfectly preserved than 

the typical specimen, and shows certain departures from it to which reference will 

later be made, but which do not enter into the specific diagnosis. 

Zoarium robust, consisting of three somewhat sinuous branches lying in the 

same plarne. 'fhe two lateral branches are nearly opposite and directed at an angle 

of about ·60° or less to the median one, which is persistent.· ·The branchlets make, 

with the branches, a nearly flat frond, but stand at various angles to them. Usually 

the angle is slightly less than 90°, and it varies to about 60°. The branchlett> also 

present considerable variety in length, the longer ones being themselves branched. 

They are a gooddeal smaller in diameter than the branches; otherwise the forked 

branchlets might themselves be considered branches. The branchlets attain an 

extreme length of 5 mm., but usually are shorter. The shortest, which have without 

much doubt .been broken, are just prominent enough to be recognized. Probably 

3! or 4 mm. would cover the length of the majority of perfect ones. The average 

width of these is from 0.75 to 1 mm. The thickness of the branches ranges from 

H to 2 mm. 

On the poriferous face of the zoarium, especially on the branches, the apertures 

are grouped along a central zone, which is usually much elevated. The expansion 

of the branches below the celluliferous portion seems to be a rather striking character 

in all the specimens seen. On the branchlets this does not occur or· is much lesE: 

obvious. On this portion of the frond the apertures extend far down on the sides. 

They are small, only one-sixth to one-eighth of a millimeter across, and open somewhat obliquely lengthwise of the axis, so that their shape is rather elongated. The 

distal margin projects upward into a spiniform lip, which in well-preserved specimens like the type is a striking feature. The spines cover the poriferous surface, 
150 T.HE GUADALUPIAN l•'AUNA. 

which they ornament in a beautiful manner. ·Those on the sides appear to be longer 

tha.n the rest and tend to form a lateral row of especial prominence. The apertures 

are separated from one another by rather thick walls, their average distance apart 

being about the same as their average diameter. On the poriferous face I have been 

able to detect no auxiliary pores, no raised or depressed lines, pustules, or ornamentation other than the spines, which abundantly cover the surface. The apertures 

are not obviously arranged iri rows, but appear for the most part rather promiscuously 

crowded together. The eye follows them along diagonal rather than longitudinal 

lines, of which, loosely considered, there may be four or five, with a slightly narrower 

band on the branchlets. · 

On the reverse side the branches are well rounded. The branchlets, also fairly 

round, are much depressed. The nonporiferous surface of the typical specimen is 

obscured by the coarse plates of ·chalcedonic silicification, but another example, so 

closely associated with the typical one that I am not sure that they did not belong 

to the same zomcium, shows the reverse side to be covered by very delicate, moderately strong, somewhat flexuous and inosculating longitudinal lirre, which gives 

this surface an exceedingly handsome appearance. These markings are too fine 

to be represented in my figures. 

I have identified this species at a number of localities, and referred to it most 

of the material belonging to the genus which has come into my hands. In most cases 

the fossil is silicified, and by etching is obtained in a free condition. While this is in 

some ways an advantage, the silicification is often rather coarse or chalcedonic and 

the specimens are fragmentary. Considerable variation is shown. A rather constant character is the presence of a broad elevation along the median portion of the 

main branches, to which the zomcial apertures are restricted. While the distance 

between the pinnules and their general arrangement remain fairly constant, considerable difference in size and some in appearance is produced by age. As the zoarium 

grew older it increased in size, not only in a lengthening of the branches (the pinnules 

appaFently remaining more nearly constant) but also in a thickening of them, chiefly 

over the back. Layer after layer was added to the nonporiferous side, making a 

thick, strong basal plate, and at the'same time producing a gibbous arching of the 

surface which elevates it far above the plane of the pinnules. In specimens which are 

not silicified these plates of shell peel off in concentric exfoliation. Thickened specimens sometimes reach a di3;meter much greater than that of the types and indicate 

that these colonies attained a considerable size. Another effect apparently produced 

by thickening was to straighten the branches, which near their terminations are 

slender and have a zigzag course in relation to the development of the pinnules. 

Whether it also caused the pinnules to appear less distinctly alternating than is 

perhaps the rule, I am in doubt. Several examples occur, however, in which these 

branchlets originate nearly opposite each other. To the same cause may perhaps 

be attributed the absence in some specimens of the fine striation which was seen on 

the back of one of the types. Other specimens from the same station fail to show 

this sculpture, and it is conceivable that it is not developed on later testaceous 

deposits. A character which occasionally appears in thickened examples consists 

of a few irregularly distributed nodes along the median line of the back of some of 

the pinnules. (See fig. 16a, Pl. XVIII.) 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 151 

The poriferous face also appears to have received testaceous deposits, though 

to a less extent than the other. The tendency in this case appears to be the closing 

of the zomcial openings and the obscuring or burying of the spines which project 

from them. Wllile as a rule the branches and branchlets lie in nearly the same 

plane, in some examples the pinnules bend backward so that the nonporiferous faces 

m~ke an angle of less than 180°. Under such circumstancC1s the pinnules do not of 

course appear depressed on the reverse side. · 

The little spines, which are a striking feature of the poriferous surface of the 

type specimen, have been observed only here and there, and the fine lirre seen on a 

specimen accompanying the type in no other instance. Much of the material seems 

to have been more or less worn, the pinnules occasionally reduced to short stumps 

cut obliquely across. Tills usage would of course tend to destroy pri111arily the little 

. spines on the front and also the strire on the back of the zomcium. Silicification has· 

also done its part in affecting the appearance of these organisms. Usually it is of a 

chalcedonic nature and tends to give them a wrinkled or warty loqk and to obscure 

all structures. Any delicate sculpture on the back would almost certainly be obliterated. On the front it operates to close the zomcial openings and generally to 

obscure them, perhaps sometimes to replace them by small spinelike projections, 

though I think that the spines on the typical specimen are not due to this cause. 

It is possible, however, that the very delicate striation noticed on the auxiliary specimen, but in no other instance, may have resulted from this process. While as a rule 

more or less obscured, some silicified specimens were almost certainly smooth on th~ 

nonporiferous side. 

Thin sections, where the preservation is good, show that the test is very finely 

tubular. The tubules are generally normal to the outer surface, but their direction 

from the zomcial apertures is radial. 

I am not altogether satisfied that all the specimens identified with Acanthocladia guada~upensis whlch show the variation mentioned above belong to the same 

species as the type. Could I be sure that the differences noted are not due to imperfect preservation and to unequal age a separation into several species would seem 

to be demanded, though under present conditions impossible to· be satisfactorily 

carried out. On the other hand, the factors tending to produce such apparent diffcrencel'l are certainly operating, and it has seemed to me more appropriate to refer all 

to one species. . 

Acanthocladia guadalupensis is so unlike .A.. americana, A.fruticosa. A. pinnata, 

A. anceps, or any of the species known to me that a detailed comparison is unneces:-

sary. I may recall, however, that Shumard suggested the name americana for a 

form from Kansas, and tha~ a year later he identified the same species in the Guadalupe Mountains. It seems altogether likely that the Guadalupian form whlch he 

refers to A. americana is that described here. There is little likelihood of A. guadalupensis occurring in the Mississippi Valley, and little also of its being the same as 

A. americana, which though imperfectly described is nearly related to A. anceps 

Schlotheim. , · 

Horizon and locality.-,-Top of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (stations 2966 ~ 

and 3762a); middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926): base of 

Capitan formation, hill southwest of Guadalupe Point (station 2906); ''dark lime-
152 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

stone," Pine Spring (station 2930), hill southwest of Guadalupe Point (station 2924), 

Guadalupe Point (stations 3762b, 3762c, 3762d, and 3762e); Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2903), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. Delaware 

Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (stations 2957, 2962, 

2969, and 3500). Delaware Mountain formation, Diablo Mountains, Texas, as 

reported (station 3764). Delaware Mountain formation, Comanche Canyon, Gl:::ss 

Mountains (station 3763), and mountains northwest of Marathon (station 3840), 

Texas. 

AcANTHOCLADIA sp. 

Pl. VIII, figs. 2 and 2a; Pl. XVIII, figs. 15 to 15b. 

I ha.ve been unable to refer to Acanthocladia guadalupensis several fragments 

found in the Capitan formation and the "dark limestone." The size and mode of 

growth of this form are not well known, but apparently do not differ materially from 

those of the common species. The cells do not, however, open from a central raised 

zone. In fact, the poriferous surface is rather markedly flattened, and the apertures 

distributed all over the obverse side of the branches and branchlets. The intervals 

between them, .furthermore, are wider than in the common type, and the arrangement into rows, especially diagonally, is a little more obvious. The general appearance is not unlike that of Acanthocladia anceps Schlotheim. It is possible, however, 

that both these peculiarities-the absence of a raised zone and the wider spacing of 

the apertures-may be the result of a deep exfoliation of the poriferous face. I 

hardly think, however, that this has occurred. The nonporiferous side, in the single 

instance where it has been possible to observe it, is quite smooth; but, as. in the case 

of other silicified specimens, possible ornamentation of some sort has been lost, either 

by erosion or during the process of silicification. · 

Horizon ancllocal·ity.-Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926); "dark 

limestone," Guadalupe Point (station 3762e), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. 

Genus SEPTOPORA Prout. 

SEPTOPORA aff. S. ROBUSTA Ulrich. 

Of this species but two specimens have come to hand and the fragments are so 

small and the silicification so imperfect. that the proposal of a new name hardly seems 

justified. 

The form under consideration is characterized by the slender branches, which 

have about the same diameter as the dissepiments, and by the quadrate proportions 

of the fenestrules. Two branches and one fenestrule seem to come in 2 mm. in a 

transverse direction. The branches have a diameter of half a millimeter and the dissepiments are as a rule equal to them. The fenestrules vary from somewhat longer 

than wide to somewhat wider than long, and the shape is quadrate. 

It is difficult to give data regarding the zorecia from my material. They seem 

to occur in two rows, with a slight carina between, but sometimes there are three, 

especially near the junction with the dissepiments. Three or possibly four zorecia 

occur opposite each fenestrule, with two opposite each dissepiment. 

•. 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 153 

The nonporiferous side seems to be without ornamentation, but is pierced by 

rather large, somewhat widely spaced auxiliary pores, more or less irregularly ranged 

in three alternating series. 

This form appears to be quite closely allied to Septopora robusta of the Pennsylvanian, but my material is too imperfect to permit a comparison in all points. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain forrnation, mountains northwest of 

Marathon, Texas (station 3840) . 

. Family RHABDO:MESIDJE Vine. 

Genus RHOMBOPORA Meek. 

RHOMBOPORA aff. R. LEPIDODENDROIDES Meek. 

PI. XXXI, fig. 17. 

To determine satisfactorily just what are the characters and affinities of Rhombopora lepidodendroides Meek would be a very difficult matter, seeing that the typical 

specimens can not be definitely fixed upon and the ramifications of the subject are 

extensive and intricate; but it can at least be said that the form under consideration 

is extremely similar to Meek's figures in his report on the paleontology of eastern 

Nebraska. 

The fragmentary example which alone represents this species, having a length 

of 5 mm., is but It mm. in diameter. The cylinder thus defined is crossed externally 

by two sets of strongly oblique ridges going in opposite directions, marked with nodes 

where they meet and with granules on the intervening portions. The rhombic 

depressions which they form, constituting the vestibular portion of· the zoceciai 

tubes, narrow down in such a way that the apertures of the zocecia are elliptical, 

very narrow, about two or three times as long as wide. About three rhombs or a 

little less occur longitudinally in 1 mm. 

It has been impossible to study this form by means. of thin sections, since only a 

. single specimen has been found, and that is silicified. In view of the fact that neither 

form can be said to be satisfactorily known, I feel indisposed to place the Guadalupian one. unreservedly with Rhombopora lepidodendroides, especially since the 

associated faunas are so unlike, and since certain differences appear to exist between 

the Guadalupian specimen and Meek's figure, such as the greater obliquity of the 

rows of cells and the more elongate shape of the zocecial apertures. 

Horizon and locality.-Delawam Mountain formation, mountains northwest of 

Marathon, Texas (station 3840). 

RHOMBOPORA? sp. 

Under this title are included three specimens from two localities, which appear 

to belong to the genus Rhombopora. They are small fragments and are silicified; 

The range of diameter of the branches is from 2 to 3 mm. The smallest specimen 

has the cells obviously arranged in diagonal rows, in which they are about their own 

diameter apart. Longitudinally they are a little more than their own diameter 

apart, and about four cells and four intervals occur in a distance of 2 mm. The 

zocecia are circular, and the vestibule appears to have essentially the same shape; at 

least it is not conspicuously rhombic or elliptical, nor does the outer surface appear 

to have been studded with tubercles. If Rhomboporas, therefore, these hardly 
154 THE GUADALUPTAN FAUNA. 

belong to the lepidodendroides group. ln the larger specimens the spiral arrangement of the zocccia is much less rigid and extensive, which, taken with some slight 

deviation in their size, suggests that the larger examples belong possibly to another 

species, or even to another genus. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (stations 2957 and 2969). 

Family CYSTODICTYONID.1~ Ulrich. 

Genus GONIOCLADIA Etheridge. 

GoNIOCLADIA AMERICANA n. sp. 

Pl. VIII, figs. 3 to 3c. 

Waagen and Piehl relate that they had but a single specimen with which to 

carry on their studies of Goniocladia indica, and a supply of material equally limited 

circumscribes my observations on the American form. While I have little doubt 

that the latter is distinct from the Indian species, as well as from G. cellulifera, the 

only other member of the genus known to me, it is with some hesitation that I have 

described it as new, because of the rather imperfect knowledge which it has been 

possible to obtain of it. 

Goniocladia americana consists of a more or less flat expansion formed by interlocking branches, producing a more ot less regular network. In the single specimen 

known it is impossible to trace the constituent arms into continuous branches. 

Still less is it possible to distinguish any arrangement of branches and disscpimcnts. 

The thickness of the branches is as a rule considerably greater than their width 

from side to side. The nonporiferous face is sharply angulated, the surfaces which 

slope away from the central line being more or less flattened. Aside from this 

angulation, the nonporiferous side seems to be without ornamentation. The poriferous side is not shown by the specimen, but appears to be strongly rounded without 

any distinct carination. There seems to be a median plate from which the cells . 

diverge. It is quite distinct along the nonporiferous side of the frond, but has not 

been seen on the porifcrous half of the structure. Ncar their point of origin the 

cell walls are rather thin, but they rapidly become thicker with advancing length, 

so that their apertures on the poriferous side are separated from one another by 

intervals considerably greater than their own diameter. The width of the branch~s 

is frequently 2 mm. and sometimes 2! mm.; it is sometimes also less than 2 mm. 

The fenestrules vary so greatly in size and shape that it is difficult to make a statement in regard to them which will be at once specific and true. They seldom have 

a length of 6 mm. and are frequently smaller. The width of the fcnestrulcs is still 

more variable than their length, though they are seldom as long as wide, and sometimes are very narrow. 

The characters which seem satisfactorily to distinguish the American form from 

that described from India are these: Our species is distinctly more robust, with 

heavier branches and larger fenestrules. The outlines of the fencstrules are not so 

strikingly serrated as shown by W aagen and Piehl's figures, though possibly no 

great difference exists in this particular; The poriferous side of the American form 

appears not to be carinated, though possibly. on this point also but little stress 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 155 

should be laid, as my observations are imperfect and unsatisfactory. G. americana 

also apparently lacks the striated surface ornamentation of the Indian form. Waagen, 

and Piehl do not describe the great thickening of the cell walls as they approach 

the poriferous surface, a character which is well marked in the specimen from the 

Guadalupe Mountains. As their figures show the apertures ofthe cells to be separated by considerable intervals, it may be inferred that in G. indica also the walls 

become heavier near the celluliferous surface. Furthermore, W aagen states that a 

lamella can usually be seen on the poriferous side of the zoarium in G. indica, which 

is quite in keeping with the carinated condition of this surface. In G. americana, 

on the other hand, the plate is seen only near the nonporiferous side. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 

Family ACTINOTRYPIDJE Ulrich. 

Genus ACTINOTRYP A Ulrich. 

AcTINOTRYPA? SERA n. sp. 

Pl. XXVIII, figs. 11 to llb. 

This interesting form is known from material so fragmentary that only a small 

tangential section has been obtained. From tlus the following description is taken. 

The zoarium consists of zocecia and mesopores. The former arc circular and 

come about four in a linear distance of 2 mm. They stand at intervals from one 

another varying from one-half to the same as their own diameter, or sometimes even 

more. The mesopores are very irregular in size and shape. They range in diameter 

from one-fourth to one-half that of the zocecia. Apparently they are of a more or 

less cystose nature, being sometimes angular and sometimes rounded, not infrequently partly one and partly the other. The walls of the zocecia possess a singular 

and characteristic structure, seeming to be rather regularly interrupted, or, better, 

to be subject to more or less regularly distributed areas of densification. These 

spots in thin section are of about the same intensity of shade as the walls of the 

mesopores, while the intervening spaces are much lighter, though as a rule they can 

be distinguished from the calcitic filling of the zoarium and can be traced in their 

complete circumference. These spots are densifications and not tluckenings. They 

do not form, so far as observed, denticles projecting into the zocecial interior, though 

more or less doubtful traces of such structure have been observed in one or two 

instances. They are of varying length, are not often conspicuously circular, and 

occur at varying intervals apart. 

In almost the majority of cases the mesopore walls when directed so as to 

intersect that of a zocecium do not impinge upon a densified segment of the wall 

but upon one of the translucent segments, and occasionally appear to fall short of 

contact. Tills form at first strongly suggests the genus Actinotrypa, and in fact the 

differences noted may possibly be due to difference in the maturity of the specimens 

where the section was taken. 

Actinotrypa,? sera should be readily distinguished from A. peculiaris. One wellmarked difference is the continuous, dense, denticulate zocecial wall of the latter 
156 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

species and the interrupted nondenticulate wall of the former. If it is a real difference 

(and the denticulate condition begins at an early stage in A. pecultaris) it is such as 

possibly to demand even a generic separation,· but if, as suggested above, this difference. is merely a matter of maturity there are still others by which they can be discriminated. The zorecia in A.? sera are considerably larger and not quite so many 

occur in a given distance. The mesopores appear to be actually smaller, and relatively the mesopores and interzorecial distances are distinctly smaHer. 

Horizon and ZocaZity.~Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware 

Mountains, Texas (station 2962). 

BRACHIOPODA. 

Family CRANIIDJE King. 

Genus CRANIA Retzius. 

CnANJA sp. 

Under this title arc subsumed two very imperfect specimens, one from the white 

limestone of the Capitan, the other from Shumard's" dark limestone." The former 

is the better preserved, though smaller. It is nearly circular in outline, with a diameter of about 5 mm. or a trifle less. The shape is depressed-conical and the apex 

is situated about one-third the diameter from the posterior margi"(l. The thick 

shell is deeply exfoliated, but retains suggestions of rather strong sublamellose 

concentric markings. 

The specimen from the" dark limestone" is somewhat hirger,having a diameter 

of 8 mm. and a height of about 2 mm. The apex appears to be subcentral, but the 

marginal outline is very indefmite. The surface has been much exfoliated, but 

was probably marked by faint concentric lines. 

Provisionally it seems necessary to refer both specimens to the same species. 

Their generic position is a little uncertain, hut probably lies with Crania. The 

shell seems to lack the phosphatic. constitution which would indicate that it was a 

discinoid, such as Lingulidiscina; nor do I believe that it is a patelloid gasteropod. 

This species is clearly distinct from Shumard's Crania perminna, which is without much doubt a Richthofenia, though it is not without resemblance to Crania 

modesta White 1111d St. John. 

Horizon and locality.--Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 

2926); "dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930), Guadalupe Mountains, 

Texas. . 

Family STROPHOMENIDJE King. 

During the Carl,>oniferous epoch one branch of the Strophomenidre, the Orthotetinre,a underwent numerous and interesting developments of structure and cona I have chang~d the form of this name to agree with the corrected spelling of the generic term from which it is derived. 

I am in doubt about the propriety of retaining this subfamily name. It can hardly be employed so as to have as its central 

idea the group of species to which the name Orthotctes no longer applies, and I am uncertain how far precedent will wa~­

rant shifting the central conception to another group. However, since Orthotetimc will connote the same genera with 

either Orthotetes (in its revised sense) or Schuchertella as the central iden, and since there is some doubt as to whether this 

case has any established precedent, I have consulted my own preferences nnd retained the familiar term. 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 157 

figuration. The structural peculiarities chiefly relate to the ventral valve. The 

structures of the dorsal valve, either because they did not undergo corresponding 

modifications or are less easy of observation, are less distinctive for .classification. 

The ventral valve shows variation in the degree of development of the septum and 

dentallamellre, and in their relation to one another. In one type both septum and 

dental plates are wanting; in another the septum is well developed, but the dental 

plates are more or less obsolete; in a third both dental plates and septum·appear, 

but the dental plates converge and unite with one another and with the septum in a 

Y -shaped structure, the dental plates and pseudodeltidium forming a pyramidal 

chamber on the back of the shell; in a fourth a septum is absent and the dental 

plates are extended in a discrete condition to the convex shell wall. With these 

variations in ventral structure are sometimes associated others in the dorsal valve 

relating to the cardinal process and the development of socket plates. The variation in configuration consists largely in the development in certain groups of species 

of more or less strong radial plications. There is an almost complete parallel\sm 

between structure and configuration, most of the structural types including plica ted 

and. unplicated species, the unplicated forms appearing earlier in point of time. 

Waagen has remarked this circumstance, and commented on it at some length. 

He says:a 

A fact that has already occurred three times to our observation, and which can not be passed in 

silence, is that in several groups of the forms more or less nearly related to Streptorhynchus the geologically 

younger species attain more or less distinctly radially plicated valves. This peculiarity we had occasion 

to observe in tho genus Streptorhynclms itself, whore the form occurring with or above Strept. pelargonatus, 

viz, Strept. pectinijormis and distortus, are strongly radially plicatod. Quite the same occurs in the genus 

Meekella, the Mountain limestone species, M .. oliveriana, Vern., being smooth, "while the species from the 

Coal Measures and tl;te Upper Carboniferous limestone, M. striatocostata, Cox, and M. eximia, Eichw., 

have a strong radial plication. Another instance is. tho section of tho "Camerati," within tho genus 

Derbyia, where the geologically oldest species, Derb. correna, Derb., i~ not plicated; while the Permian 

forms, Derb. eusarkos, Abich, and De:rb. peregrina, A b., arc .more or less distinctly radially plicated. 

Lastly, in· the section "Septati" of the genus Derbyia a similar peculiarity prevails, though in a much 

less degree. The geologically older species like Derb. senilis, Phill., Derb. grandis, IV., and De:rb. regularis, W., are smooth, wijhout a trace of a radial plication; Derb. plicatella, on the contrary, which occurs 

in the Cephalopoda bed of ·Jabi, has tolerably strong traces of such a plication. It is now in many 

instances very highly.probable that the plicated forms are the descendants of the smooth ones, but if this 

be the case it is at the same time very improbable that a character which occurs in absolutely the same 

manner over the whole world should have been caused' by external influences, as climate, food, etc.; 

there must have existed within these organisms an innate law according to which they were forced to 

assume with the progr~ss of time, sometimes sooner, sometimes later, a radially plicated shape under 

most widely different external circumstances. 

Many of the types have received names, some of them generic, some subgeneric; 

and it seems to me that each structural type can appropriately be esteemed of generic rank with the plicated varieties distinguished as subgenera. 

Among strophomenids in which the ventral valve has neither dental plates nor 

septum two divisions have been recognized. For one of these Kiq.g ·proposed the 

name Streptorhynchus, the other was first discriminated and characterized by 

Waagen, who revived for it the. name Orthothetes (properly Ortlwtetes) Fischer de 

Waldheim; but I find that Fischer de Waldheim's description of Ortlwtetes and the 

type species with which the name must be associated have the characters of that 

a Waagen, W., Salt Range fossils: Mern. Geol. Survey India, Pal. Indica, ser. 13, vol. 1, 1887, p. 594. 
158 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

group for which Waagen simultaneously proposed the name Derbya. The term 

Orthotetes, therefore, passes to the group (or part of it) at present called Derbya, 

leaving anonymous that now passing under the name of Orthothetes. For this group 

the name Schuchertellaa has been proposed, and Streptorhynchus lens White designated as the type species. Schellwien b employs the term Orthothetes to designate a 

group of Devonian and early Carboniferous species having two short, strongly 

diverging dental plates in the ventral valve. The shells which W aagen called Orthothetes, and for which the name Schuchertella has been substituted, Schellwien refers 

to Streptorhynchus. I hold to the groups used by Waagen in this instance, though 

not to his nomenclature, for the term Orthotetes can not be retained, either in the 

sense in which Waagen or that in which Schellwien employed it. 

In Schuchertella growth is usually regular and symmetrical, the width at the 

hinge line being equal to or greater than that in front. The two valves meet along 

a plane which is as a rule nearly perpendicular to the cardinal area. There is no 

me.dian septum in the ventral valve, and dental plates are also absent, though the 

edges of the .delthyrium may be more or less thickened. The dorsal valve has for 

the family a rather high area. The cardinal process is bilobed, and in some species 

of large size. It expands at its base into two winglike supports, which are short and 

not prolonged so as to surround the muscle scars. This genus begins in the Silurian, 

but seems to attain its greatest development rather late in Devonian and early in 

Mississippian time, being more or less completely replaced later on by Derbya and 

Orthotetes. No North American species of Schuchertella are known in the upper Carboniferous, though one South American form (Streptorhynchus tapajotense) is found 

at that horizon, and it may be that some of the upper Carboniferous forms referred 

to Streptorhynchus crenestria really belong here. W aagen describes one species 

(Orthothetes semiplanus) from the Permian of India. This species Schellwien now 

places in Streptorhynchus. The Mississippian forms of Schuchertella do not possess 

dental plates, and the genus can not contain the shells having this structure, for 

which Schellwien uses the name Orthothetes. 

I am not entirely sure that the group of shells with which Waagen and also Hall 

and Clarke associate the name Orthothetes is distinct from Streptorhynchus. Schellwien, as already noted, throws them together. The differences recognized by 

W aagen reside chiefly in the dorsal val,ve. He describes Streptorhynchus as having a 

large septum supported by two crural plates which partly surround the muscular 

impressions. In "Orthothetes" he records that the cardinal process is small and not 

supported by crural plates. He also mentions a low median dorsal septum as usually 

present.c The dorsal septum is very rare in the forms seen by me. The cardinal 

process, though often faidy constant in specimens of the same species, yet varies so 

much, both in size and shape, in different species as to indicate that the value which 

has been assigned to this structure in discriminating Schuchertel(a (Orthothetes) and 

Streptorhynchus has been overrated. 'l'he figures given by Hall and Clarke of the 

cardinal process of Streptorhynchus hallianum show much variability in that structure, both as to size and conformation. I am convinced, however, that more than a 

a Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., val. 27, 1904, p. 734. 

b Neues Jahrbuch, Jahrg. 1900, vol. 1, 1900, pp. 6 ct seq. 

c Waagen, W., Salt Range ~ossils: Mem. Geol. Survey l)ldirt, Pal. Indica, "er. 13, vol. 1, 1887, p. 576. 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 159 

single species is represented by these -figures. It seems p~obable that, like other 

areas of muscular attachment, the cardinal process is subjected in old age to excessive 

shell secretion, not only increasing its size, but by strengthening its muscular features 

also modifying its shape, so that the process varies much in both particulars, owing 

to difference in age. My own observations lead me to doubt if any constant differ,.. 

ence exists in this structure available for discriminating Schuchertella from Streptorhynchus. The absence of crural plates in Schuchertella seems to be a constant feature, but I doubt if their presence is so in Streptorhynchus. In Streptorhynchus pelargonatus, the type of the genus, as represented by Davidson's -figures or as observed 

by myself in specimens, the structure of the hinge plate does not differ from that of 

Schuchertella. The dorsal area of Schuchertella seems to be as a rule higher than in 

Streptorhynchus, though I doubt if this is.constantly the case, or is true in more than 

a comparatively slight degree. The con-figuration of the genotype, Streptorhynchus 

pelargonatus, is peculiar. Its strongly elevated and somewhat twisted ventral valve, 

narrow hinge line, and curved area of valve junction all distinguish it from the common type of Schuchertella, but these peculiarities of configuration are by no means 

persistent throughout the forms referred to Streptorhynchus. Among species known. 

to me Streptorhynchus hallianum and Schuchertella tapajotensis do not differ materially in configuration nor in the matter of dorsal area, in b.oth of which they are more 

like Schuchertella than Streptorhynchus pelargonatus,· yet Streptorhynchus hallianum 

has the crural plates characteristic of Streptorhynchus, while these are absent from 

Schuchertella tapajotensis. 

There is another character which I do not recall having seen mentioned in that 

connection, but which may, if not always an aid in discriminating the two genera, at 

least serve to show that they are really distinct. Two of the three species of 

Streptorhynchus noted in tllis report were attached not by a pedicle issuing from 

between the two valves, but by.., cementation of the apex of the ventral valve. The 

third Guadalupian species was probably attached in the same manner, and some at 

least of the foreign species, though I have not been able to examine them to ascertain 

this fact. There is no reason to believe, however, that any species of Sqhuchertella 

departed from the normal peduncular attachment. One can not but believe that 

atrophy of the pedicle accompanied attachment by cementation, entailing with it 

muscular and other organic modifications, such as must demand a discrimination 

of Streptorhynchus from Schuchertella on the soft parts, ever~ if the test sometimes 

fails to show variations to correspond. On the other hand, some of the Derbyas 

almost certainly practiced cementation, yet they appear to manifest no modi-fications· of structure resulting from it, nor woul4 I advocate separating them on this 

account from the normal type. 

I do not know, therefore, of any characters which can always be relied on to discrinlinate these two genera, though possibly those already mentioned will be found 

to serve in a majority of cases. However, the great expansion of the Schuchertella 

group in the upper· Devonian and lower Mississippian, and its practical extinction 

. thereafter, taken ·with the development of Streptorhynchus in the late Carboniferous 

and Permian, show to some extent that the stock is not the same, even if the distinctive characters caiJ. not yet clearly lJe designated. In suggesting the term Schuchertella for the species left without a name by the diversion of Orthotetes to the 
11?0 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

camerate Derbyas, I h~vc not altered the existing group, but only made some necessary changes in the nomenclature. 

Streptorhynchus as at present defined includes both plicated and unplicated 

shells, though the type species is of the latter sort. I think that a valid subgenus 

might be established for the plicated shells, which Waagen is satisfied with calling the 

plicati, to distinguish them from the typical series, which he terms the simplices. 

The fact that the Schuchertella group of forms does not develop a plicatcd series of 

species might also be taken as indicating a difference in the origin of the two genera. 

But two North American species of Streptorhynchus have been described up to the 

present-Streptorhynchus ulrichi Hall and Clarke and Streptorhynchus williamsi 

Weller,a both of them from the lower Carboniferous rocks of the Mississippi Valley, 

though W aagen b believed the genus to be confined to the Permian. The Guadalupian fauna contains three species which seem to belong to this genus, but so far all 

the American forms are of the unplicated type. Waagen,C however, mentioned having seen specimens from Nebraska in the Royal Paleontological Museum in Munich, 

in which these septa seem to be aqsent. I suspect that if really from America, the 

specimens were Meekellas, which by some accident failed to show their proper structure. 

For strophomenids with a median septum in the ventral valve Waagen has 

proposed the name Derbya. 'fwo variations of this type are found. In one the 

dental plates appear merely as columnar thickenings terminating below in the hinge 

teeth, with which they arc continuous. They never are extended into distinct 

places, and since they have about the same degree of development as the corresponding structures in Streptorhynchus, it might with equal truth he said that here also 

dental septa are absent. These projections vary in degree from being practically 

absent to appearing as moderately high ridges, and their direction is vertical to the 

area, or often somewhat diverging. At the apex ~ the shell the septum connects 

with the areal wall; but may or may not do so below. The septum and dental ridges 

come into union only at. the apex, where, however, there is sometimes a solid deposit 

of shelly fllatter uniting the internal structures with the inclosing walls. To this 

division Waagen gave the name septati.d In the other, which he calls the camerati, 

the cardinal teeth are supported by short dental plates, which converge and unite 

with the septum, forming a small, prismatic chamber in front of the pseudodeltidium. 

In this group the septum extends no farther than its junction with the dental plates, 

and only touches the areal wall at the apex. The differences of structure of the 

camerati and septati is both striking and sustained among the later developed types, 

but in the Mississippian epoch these septiferous shells show much variabili'ty in 

structural development, some examples of the same series appearing to belong to 

the camerati and others to the septati. In these forms the dental lamellre do not 

unite with the septum for their whole length, and though converging do not completely inclose a chamber where they are free. The ,duration of their union varies 

greatly in different individuals. Often, too, the apex of the shell is filled to varying 

a I am not satisfied that these species arc not survivors of the group Schuchertella, rather than harbingers of Strepto- · 

rhynchus. 

b Waagen, W., Salt Range fossils: Mem. Geol: Survey India:, Pal. Indica, ser. 13, vol. 1, 1887, p. 576. 

c Idem, p. 578. · 

d Idem, p. 591. 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 161 

lengths with a solid shelly deposit. In some forms the chamber is rather long, and 

either open or filled with calcareous matter. In others it is so small and closed with 

shell that the specimen might without much violence be placed with the septati. 

The plates in this case of course converge, whereas I have never observed them to 

have this direction in the real septate group. It may be that the direction of these 

dental ridges will prove of some importance. The genus Derbya Waagen, as originally defined, includes both,the septate and camerate types of structure, though the 

genotype, D. regv}nris, is one of the septati. The genus Orthotetes Fischer de Waldheim, though misconceived by Waagen to connote the group of shells for which the 

name Schuchertella is here substituted, really seems to be exactly coextensive with 

Derbya, though the genotype, 0. radiatus, belongs to the camerati. The camerate 

and septate types of structure, where well differentiated, present differences so 

striking that I at one time contemplated proposing a new name for the camerate 

division, not being at that time aware of the true significance of Orthotetes. Tllis 

idea was_ later abandoned because of the ambiguous Mississippian forms referred to, 

but I shall be glad to avail myself of a name already in the literature. By restricting 

Der~ya and Orthotetes to the phase of structure exemplified by the typical species of 

each, the name Derbya, which conveys a compliment so well deserved, can be retained 

as well as Orthotetes, which has a long priority; and since the true Derbyas are much 

more numerous than the camerati, comparatively few changes in nomenclature will 

be entailed. 

Among both the camerati and the septati Waagen points out species, some of 

which have a smooth and others a radially plicated surface.· Of the plicated Derbyas 

Waagen mentions only D. plicatella, from the "Cephalopoda bed" of Jabi, and 

no other species having this character has come to my knowledge. The plications in 

this species, however, are so faint and irregular as to be far from striking. As 

instances of plicated shells of the camerate group (Orthotetes) Waagen mentions 

Streptorhynchus crenistria var. eusarkon Abich and S. peregrinum Abich. Mter 

examining specimens of these species, however, Schellwien states that instead of 

having a single median septum they have two nearly parallel dental plates. He 

refers them, therefore, to his genus- Orthothetina, but if they have a plica ted surface, 

as represented by Abich, they would probably be more correctly placed with Meekella. Shells having radially plicated exterior joined with the internal structure 

characterizing the genus Orthotetes do occur, however, and Schellwien has recently 

proposed for them the generic name Geyerella a (type Geyer ella gemmellaroi Schell.). 

The admission of this name with the rank of genus makes an inconsistent and irregular classification if the groups of Streptorhynchus called plicati and simplices are 

borne in mind. 

The fact that Derbya does not develop a group of species having well-marked 

radial plications may be considered as having some bearing in estimating the propriety of distinguishing the septati and the camerati as two separate genera. · 

The genus Derbya is well represented in the ¥ississippian and Pennsylvanian 

rocks of North America, but no species of Orthotetes have been recognized with the 

exception of the ambiguous Mississippian species referred to above. In fact, shells 

a Neues Jahrbuch, Jahrg. 1900, voL 1, 1900, pp. •1, 12. 

:ifi!)5- -No. 58-08--11 
162 THE GUADALUPTAN FAUNA. 

having the distinctive characters of Orthotetes well developed appear not to have come 

in until after the genus Derbya had been long established .. In the fauna described 

here several species of Derbya are found, hut in the Capitan formation Orthotetes 

occurs in abundance, with the characteristic structure strikingly developed and with 

a rather peculiar configuration and sculpture. All the American species of Derbya 

are of the unplicated type. 'l'he plicated division of Orthotetes for which Schellwicn 

has recently proposed the name Geyerella, though previously unknown in the western 

hemisphere, is represented by a species fTom the Capitan formation for which the 

name Geyerella americana will hereinafter be proposed. · 

Both the plicated and unplicated kinds of surface are found among shells 

having two strong dental plates uniting the anterior and posterior walls. For one. 

of these (the plicated type) the well-known term Meelcellri has been used, and for 

the other Schellwien has introduced the name Orthothetina.a There ·appear to be 

two groups of unplicated forms having this biseptate structure, one of them, found 

in the European Devonian, in which the septa are short and diverging, the other 

widely distributed in the upper Carboniferous and Permian, in which the septa 

are long and more nearly parallel. It is apparently for t.he latter group only ,that 

the term Orthothetina is employed by. Schellwien, and for the septate Devonian 

forms he uses the name Orthothetes. Species having the structure of Orthothetina 

are at present not known from North America, though I have an undescribed form 

from the Permian ( n of Kansas, and a species with converging, closely proximate 

septa is described below from the Guadalupe Mountains. Nor is the type to which 

Schellwien misapplies the term Orthothetes known here. The group of species which 

abounded in this region at the corresponding geologic epochs is characterized by 

having the dental plates virtually absent (Schuchertella). Schellwien subsequently 

seems to have concluded that the more recent septiferoi.1s shells should not.be separated from the early ones, and accordingly he employs the term "Orthothetes" for 

the whole, abandoning Orthothetina. But Fischer de Waldheim's name clearly can· 

not be used for shells having extended dental plates but no septum, and accordingly Orthothetina should be recognized. I am, however, by no means content 

that the early Carboniferous biseptate shells should be referred to the same genus 

as the late ones, and at the sarrie time it is inappropriate to place them with 

Schuchertella. Perhaps a new name should be introduced to cover them. 

The genus Meelcella is abundant in the upper Carboniferous of the Mississippi 

Valley, no Mississippian forms being known. Several new species occur in the 

Guadalupian. W aagen did not find in the Salt Range shells which possessed the 

structure of J.vfeelcella, and having remarked a specimen from Nebraska in which 

the dental plates were apparently absent and which at the same time possessed 

the exterior of Meelcella striaticostata, he expressed himself as doubtful whether 

that genus ought not for the most part to be merged in Strept.orhynchus. I have 

not myself observed, nor seen noted by others, any specimen like that mentioned 

by W aagen, and the oecurrenee of this type in the Mississippi Valley must be rare. 

Most American identifications of Meelcella striaticostata with little doubt are at 

least congeneric with that species. The plicated shells without dental lamellre in 

a Neues Jahrbuch, Jtthrg. 1900, voL 1, 1900, p. 8. This is the earliest use of this term to which I have found reference, 

but it is. not defined in 11 lonna! manner, neither is it accompttnicd by >tny indication that this is the first time that it 

has been employed, nor is any citation of original place of description appended. 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 163 

the ventral valve, if such really occur here, cah not of course be referred to Meekella stria.ticostntn or to the genus Meelcelln at all. 

The Orthotetinre in their later development show numerous lines of modification. One of the :first changes is the loss of an area in the dorsal valve. This 

structure is well marked in Schuchertelln, but seems to be missing in the other 

Carboniferous divisions, if one may trust the current generic diagnoses. It does 

occur sporadically in several genera, as I have observed it in Derbyn cymb1tla and 

Streptorhynchus hnllinnum. · It is probable that this structure is relatively broader 

in Schuchertelln, but that it is never entirely absent. 

A very striking character occurri"ng in nearly all the later groups is the development of radial plications. The extension of the ventral valve into exaggerated, 

high, and distorted shapes is still another feature. Some forms are also cemented 

to other bodies by the apex during part of their life. This has been observed in 

Streptorhynchus and in the young of Derbya. Accompanying these other developments is often a shortening of the hinge line, which appears to be a rather constant 

character in some groups. Perhaps a line of retrograde development is found in 

Streptorhynchus, in which the absence of dental plates is accounted for by Schellwien as being an atavistic trait. 

In his interesting and suggestive paper on the Strophomenidre a this author 

repeatedly states that the median septum is a development of the dental plates. 

To my mind these are entirely independent structures, though all converge and 

unite at the apex of the ventral valves, where they often merge in a solid shelly 

mass. I have not seen evidence that the septum was developed from the dental 

lamell::e any more than the dentallarnellre were developed from the septum. Both 

structures act with almost entire independence. Hall and Clarke have recently 

described a species of Derbyn in which this is especially marked. · Derbyn cymbuln 

has· as a character a distinct groove down the center of the high pseudodeltidium. 

This groove is caused by the attachment of the septum to the pseudodeltidium, 

which continues for a considerable distance, probably 10 mm. or more in some 

cases. On either side of. the septum, yet. independently, the rather high dental 

ridges project. Only at the apex have they any eonnec.tion. The structures of 

Geyerella, however, where the long converging dental plates and the septum form 

a triradiate figure, lends some color to Schellwien's hypothesis, and may, indicate 

that the septum in all types of structure is not formed in the same way. Still, 

even here the septum may simply unite with the dental plates, instead of being 

formed from them. Another fact which also rn~ght be invoked to support Schellwien's claim is that nowhere (except perhaps in Geyerelln and Ortlwtetes) are the 

dental lamellre and septa simultaneously developed in strength. Both structures 

may be absent, as in Schu.chertelln and Streptorhynchus, but in other forms either 

the septum is well developed and distinct dentallamellre are absent, or the dental 

.ridges are extende'd into plates and the septum is absent, unless, as above 

remarked, they unite to form a three-rayed figure. Yet somewhat differently 

viewed, these facts might better be construed as evidence that the septum and 

dental plates were supplementary but independent. If the septum·in Geyerella is 

the result of the welded denta.l plates, and if, on the other hand, the septum in 

a Beitriige zur Systematik der Strophomeniden des oberen Palreozoicum: Neues Jahrbuch, Jahrg. 1900, vol.1, 1900, pp. 1-15. 
J64 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

Derbya, as I am inclined to believe, is an independent structure, the course adopted 

here of distinguishing as independent genera the two original divisions of Derbya 

is justified, for the structure of Orthotetes is so like that of Geyerella as to leave 

little doubt that it arose in the same way, and consequently the septum in the two 

groups, Derbya and Orthotetes, would have had a very difierent ongm. Another 

circumstance possibly favoring the same discrimination is that Derbya does not 

devolve into plicated forms, while Orthotetes qoes so (Geyerella). 

The following table shows the structural modifications of the Carboniferous 

Orthotetinre and the nomenclature employed: 

Classification of Carbon:iferou.~ Orthotetinx. 

Shells having neither septa nor dental lamelhe in the ventral valve. 

1. Ventral valve mostly high, distorted, sometimes, possibly generally, attached by cementation. 

Dorsal valve with large cardinal process and well-developed socket plates. Area obsoleto 

in the dorsal valve. (Schellwien makes no distinction between this group and 2.) 

a. Duplicated forms ....... _ ... _______ . Typical Streptorhynchus; Waagen's group of simplices. 

b. Plicated forms. __ .No distinct generic name; Waagen's group of plicati under Streptorhynchus. 

2. Ventral valve low, regular. Attachment peduncular. Dorsal area narrow but distinct. Cardinal process usually small. Socket plates absent. No plicated species known. Wa~;­

gen erroneously uses for this group the name Orthothetes. Schellwien assembles these 

with la, and uses the name Streptorhynchus _. _ .. ___ . __________ . _________ .Schuchertella. 

Shells having a well-developed median septum in the ventral valve, with the dcntallamellre more or 

less completely atrophied, and discrete from the septum except at the apex. This group 

formed the division of Derbya which Waagen designated as the septati. It is also the 

group to which Derbya regularis Waagen, the type of the genus, belongs. Derbya as 

originally defined included also another division, called the camerati, to which the genotype of Orthotetes belongs. If the term Derbya can be retained at all, it will only be by 

separating the camerate and septate divisions as two distinct genera or subgenera and 

restricting Orthotetes to one and Derbya to the other. This course is here adopted. 

3. a. Shells unplicatcd _ .. __ .. _ ......... __ .... _ ......... -.- ................ · ... Typical Derbya. 

b. Shells plicatcd. Only one species known. It has obscure and irregular plications. Not 

discriminated by a distincti vc name from 3a. 

Shells having moderately developed dental plates in the ventral valye, which converge and unite, 

inclosing with the pscudodeltidium a triangular pyramidal chamber. At their union 

with one another the dental lamellre unite also with the median septum, with which 

they form a triradiate figure. These shells, together with 3, constitute Derbya Waagen, 

of which the present group forms the section (•alled camerati. 

4. a.' Shells unplicated .. ___ .. _______ ....... __ ....... ___ ........... -- _ ............ __ Orthotete.~. 

This is the typical section to which the genotype Orthotete.~ rad·iatus belongs, and to 

which the namH Orthotetes may be rHstrictcd. 

b. Shells plica ted _______ .. _ . __ .... __ .. ____ , _ .. _ . __ .... -..... - -. - - ___ . _ .......... Geyerella. 

Shells in which the ventral valve is provided with two more or less long parallel dental plates without 

a median septum. The plates arc prolQnged -to meet the anterior or convex wall of the 

shell. 

5. Dental plates long and parallel. Dorsal area absent (?). Species mostly Permian and "PermoCarboniferous." 

a. Shells unplicated. _ ... ____ . _______ . _______ . ___ .. _ . __ . _ . ________ . __ .... __ ... Orthothetina. 

Proposed by Schellwien as a subordinate group under Orthothetes (not Orthotetes 

Fischer de Waldheim, nor Orthothetes ·waagen and later abandoned. 

b. Shells plica ted ____ ... ___________ ._._.'. __ .... __ .. _. _____ . __ ... _____________ .. _ Meekella. 

6. Dental plates short and. diverging. Dorsal area present (?). Species mostly Devonian and 

early Carboniferous. Supposed by Sclrcllwien to be the same as Orthotheles Waagcn 

( =Schuchertell.a). Probably distinct from Ortholhetina, which Schellwien proposed as a 

subdivision .. · ...... _ ... ___ ........... _ ..... _ .. _. _ .. __ .. __ ....... No distinctive name. 
MOLLUSCOTDEA. 165 

Of these divisions la (Streptorhynchus), 3a (Derbya), 4a (Orthotetes), 'lb (Geyerella), 5a (Orthothetina), and 5b (.Meekella) have been fmmd either in the typical 

Guadalupian or in beds in adjacent areas supposed to be equivalent. · Ib, 2, 3b, 

and 6 are the only divisions unrepresented in the fauna. 

It may well be questioned whether the different groups in the foregoing table 

which are b'ased on structure are of equal value. Probably they are not so, but the 

differences seem to be of insufficient importance to have been recorded in the nomenclature. Schellwien apparently recognizes no distinction between groups 1 and 2. 

Practically all authors place 3 and 4 under the same generic term, but ·waagen, at 

least, recognizes them as subordinate groups. I at one time proposed in manuscript 

a distinctive name for the camerate division, intending to recognize it as a genus, 

but subsequently suppressed the name. Some doubt still remains as to the advisability of recognizing the camerati and the septati as independent genera, and I would 

not venture to carry out this purpose by proposing a new name, though I avail 

niyself of the existence of two appropriate ones already in the literature to · tentatively establish this classifieatio.r:. It is true that as originally proposed Orthotetes 

and Derbya included both shells having a camerate and those having a septate structure; hut the type species of Orthotetes belongs to one and that of Derbya to the other 

division, and it is proposed to restrict each ,name to the division to which its type 

species belongs. This course has the additional advantage that it will conserve the 

terminology as largely as possible in its present form, since the hame Derbya has 

received wide acceptance, and since, comparatively few species of Orthotetes. being 

known, it will continue in use mainly for the group for which it is· now in vogue. 

While there is~room for doubt as to the equality of the different divisions of 

strophomenids here recognized, there can he little question, I think, as to the irregularity of existing .nomenclature for them. For example, Geyerella is distinguished 

from Orthotetes and Meek ella from Orthothetina merely by having a plica ted surface; 

but the plicated group of Streptorhynchus which has the same relation to the simplices is not distinguished as even a subgenus. It is apparent that with a few exceptions each of the structural types recogniwd above contained species which have 

simple and those which have plica ted shells. A notable exception to this rule is the 

group Schuchertella, which so far as known is without plicated species. Another 

instance is the group of Devonian and early Carboniferous shells for which Sehellwien erroneously employs the name Ortlwthetes. As a similar case, may possibly be 

instanced the genus Derbya in its restricted sense. Only one plica ted species of this 

group is known up to the present, and in it the character is so indistinct and irregular 

that the question might be raised whether it should be really considered a plicated 

form. In the case of Geyerella, however, the kindred group Orthotetes has a wellmarked plica ted division. This difference may be used as an argument justifyingthe 

recognition of Derbya as distinct from Orthotetes. 

I am much in doubt as to what taxonomic importance should attach to the 

plicated shell in this family, but convenience and logic demand that a similar 

importance should be given to it in each case. From the facts as known it certainly 

seems lacking in both to retain Meekella and Geyerella as genera and leave thf! plicated Streptorhynchus as a group of less value than a subgenus. There would probably be few who would advocate giving the plicated groups full generic rank. On 
166 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

the other hand, not many would consent to the reduction of Meekella, for example, 

to the same rank as the.plicati of Streptorhynchus. An intermediate course, which 

would perhaps more accurately express the relationship of these shells, would be to 

recognize the plicated groups of species as subgeneric to the simple ones. The 

genera which would, in' my view, be appro.priate for recognition are Streptorhyncluus, 

Schuchertella, Derbya, Orthotetes, and Orthothetina. Possibly an additional group 

of equal rank should be made of the shells which Schellwien calls Orthothetes in 

distinction from Orthothetina. 

The Carboniferous Orthotetinre are widely distributed over the earth, and in 

many places occur in very great abundance. They present variations in certain 

particulars, such as fineness of ·liration and height and inclination of the area, to 

rather wide limits, while maintaining otherwise a rigid adherence to a general type 

of expression. Here and there a striking and apparently well-marked variety 

occurs, of which Orthotetes guadalupensis of the present work is an example, but as 

a rule the different varieties melt into one another so completely that it is extremely 

difficult to distinguish them, so much so that some of our best known authors have 

in despair referred all the unplicated types to a single species. This was for the 

most part before an investigation of internal structures had made much progress, 

and serves to point another circumstance-that different groups now recognized 

as genera by reason of structural differences are essentially alike in external expression. In fact, practically 'the only well-marked external. difference which these 

shells develop consists in whether the surface is simple or plicated, a feature which 

has been used more for generic than for specific definition.. As a result, in comparing the Guadalupian strophomenids with those of other faunas it has been found 

more practicable to do so rather on the basis of their generic than on that of their 

specific differentiation, so little individuality being as a rule manifested by the 

smaller groups. 

Considerable variation is shown in the distribution of these higher groups, 

which can be brought. out to better advantage if the comparisons are made in one 

place; and they can be more briefly and conveniently made in that way than if 

distributed under the different· generic headings. Accordingly, I shall proceed to 

discuss this matter at the present point. 

Strophomenids are represented by numerous structural and specific types in . 

the Salt Range of India. Of Streptorhynchus Waagen recognizes no less than seven 

species, four of which have unplicated shells and belong to the division which he 

has called simplices, and three belong to the plicati, a group which is entirely without 

representation in the Guadalupian fauna. Probably all the Guadalupian species 

would belong to what W aagen calls the group of Streptorhynchus pelargonatus 

among the simplices. The rather striking group of S .. capuloides has no representatives in the American fauna. The form here described as Orthotetes guadalupensis is strikingly similar in external appearance but entirely unlike in internal 

structure. 

The type of structure which characterizes Waagen's group of the camerati 

under his genus Derbya is not known in the Productus limestone fauna, but .has 

several fine and characteristic representatives in the Guadalupian. They are here 

distinguished under the name of Orthotetes. Plicated shells having the camerate 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 167 

structure, for which I have adopted from Schellwien the distinctive term Geyerella, 

though represented by a characteristic species in the Guadalupian, arc not found 

in the fauna of the Productus limestone. Of the septate division of Derbya, here 

called Derbya sensu stricto, Waagen recognizes six species. "While extremely variable in a few characters, the Derbyas seldom deviate far from a primal typical expression, and as a result the Guadalupian species are in a general way very similar to 

those of the Productus limestone. In the Capitan formation, however, this group 

is to a considerable extent replaced by Orthotetes, the most characteristic Derbyas 

being from lower horizons. They appear to be less numerous, less varied, and less 

robust than the Indian species. All the American forms are unplicated. W aagen 

describes one plicated Derbya, but from his figure the plications are so obscure and 

irregular as to leave one in doubt whether the form really deserves to be so desig-

·nated. 

Under the name of .Orthothetes subplanus Waagen describes a species which 

Schellwien later assigned to Streptorhynchu.s. As a mere matter of synonymy this 

form should go to my genus Schuchertella, if it has the characteristics which Waagen 

ascribes to it, and not to Streptorhynchus. In the Guadalupian I have found no 

species which it seemed to me could properly be placed in Schuchertella. 

Of strophomenoids with two long dental plates, for which the term Meekella 

has been employed in the case of plicated shells, and Orthothetina in that of unplicated shells, no species· are known from the fauna of the Productus limestone. 

Several well-characterized species of Meekella have been obtained from the Guadalupian, and one doubtfully belonging to Orthothetina .. The latter was found in the 

Capitan formation; but the horizon of the Meekellas is in the Delaware Mountain 

sandstone. 

Another. strophomenoid type, very different from the foregoing, which W aagen 

recognizes in the Productus limestone fauna and doubtfully identifies with Leptcena, 

is unknown in the G.uadalupian. · 

From this brief survey,it appears that the strophomeiwids of the Guadalupian 

on the whole possess but little in common with those of the Salt Range. 

In the case of the Himalayan faunas also the resemblance is, so far as known, 

very slight. In neither of Diener's papers dealing with the "Permo-Carboniferous" 

fauna of Chitichun No. 1 are any strophomenoids cited, nor in that which describes 

the Permian fauna of Kumaon and Gurhwal, nor again in the one dealing with the 

fauna of the Productus shales of the Lissar Valley and of Byans. From Malia 

Sangcha he has described a species under the title of ()rthothetes kra:fti,a which by a 

synonymic change should perhaps be written Orthothetina krafti, but the figures 

show a species so remarkably orthoid in expression as to create a feeling that they 

really represent a Bchizophoria or an Orthotichia, although they do not show the 

median ventral septum of the latter genus. Nothing similar to this form is known 

among the Guadalupian strophomenoids. In his paper on anthracolithic fossils of 

Kashmir and Spiti Diener recordsStrophomena analoga and Derbya cf. senilis. The 

former, instead of the characteristic lower Carboniferous species here associated 

with an upper Carboniferous fauna, I have suggested to be the dorsal valve of a 

Productus of the P. aagardi group. The other shell is of doubtful generic position. 

a Tile generic name being !Jere employed as Scllellwien proposed. 

fliDP£Rry OF . . ~ 

U.S. b 

Ul(tliu u·· t MINFs. 
168 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

Writing subsequently on the fauna of the anthracolithic beds of Spiti, Diener figures 

from the lower beds a shell which also has no analogous species in ·the American 

fauna.· He identifies it as "Derbyia cf. senilis," but it seems to be quite different 

from the species cited under that title in the previous paper. Not long ago Professor Schuchert called my attention to this form, which, he wrote, looked to him 

like an .Atrypa, a resemblance that to me also ·is singularly close. The form in 

question occurs in beds which contain a spiriferoid of the genus Syringothyris 

(described as Spirifer curzoni), a fact which would indicate an early fauna, of the 

Carboniferous, and although Atrypa is not, I believe, definitely known from Carboniferous strata, it is possible that still earlier faunas occur at the locality. Diener 

mentions other shells belonging to "Derbyia," some of which he thinks resemble 

D. crassa of our American Pennsylvanian. From the upper horizon he obtained 

one of the plicated species of Streptorhynchus, cited as Streptorhynchus cf. pectini~ 

formis, a type which is notable by its absence from the Guadalupian. It is perhaps 

this same species which as a. small plica ted and· striated dorsal valve Davidson figures 

from Kaslunir under the title Streptorhynchus? sp. An unplicated shell is figured as 

Streptorhynchus crenistria. 

From Turkestan Romanowsky figures one of the ordinary Orthotetinre which 

might belong to one of several genera, so far as can be determined from the text and 

figures. It is identified as Streptorhynchus crenistria. 

From China, in the LoPing fauna, Kayser cites only'Streptorhynchus crenistria 

var. senile Phillips and Meelcella striaticostata Cox?. It is a rather singular form, or 

group of forms, which is figured as Streptorhynchus crenistria var. senile, and a 

reexamination of Kayser's material by Schellwien and by Fliegel has resulted in 

subdividing it into several genera and species. Fliegel rec.ognizes no less than five, 

viz, Streptorhynchus lcayseri, 8. subpelargonatum, Orthothetes [Orthothetina] circularis, 

Orthothetes [Orthothetina] kayseri, and Derbya sp. Streptorhynchus lcayseri, from its 

large size and configuration, is rather distinct from the Guadalupian representatives 

of the genus. The species 8. subpelargonatum, which is not figured, would perhaps 

have more in common with them. The single specimen of Orthothetina from the 

Guadalupian is too imperfectly known to stand for much in the way of comparison, 

but so far as one can tell it docs not differ widely from 0. circularis and 0. lcayseri, 

which arc closely related to one another. The undetermined species of Derbya 

found in the Lo Ping fauna does not form a practicable basis for comparison with 

congeneric types in the Guadalupian. Kayser's Meelcella striaticostata is almost 

cer.tainly not our common Pennsylvanian species, and it may be doubted whether it 

is a Meelcella at all, instead of one of the other types having a similarly plicated 

exterior but different internal structure. Indeed, Fliegel states that the plication 

in this specimen is by no means as distinct as represented in Kayser's figure and that 

it may well be a representative of his species Orthothetina lcayseri. 

In the various imperfectly known faunas described by Loczy from the Carboniferous of China, strophomcnoids are cited in but two instances, and in each case 

they arc identified as Orthothetes crenistria. One of the localities furnishing this 

species was Tcngtjantsching and the other Youngtschangfu. Loczy appears to 

have followed the, classification introduced by Waagcn, and if so his shell would 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 169 

probably be a Schuchertella, a group which I have not found represented in. the 

Guadalupian fauna. 

From the Carboniferous of Padang but two strophomenoid species are at present 

known, one of which Roemer cited as Streptorhynchus crenistria var. senile. This 

has later been determined by Fliegel to be a new species, and has been called by him 

Orthothetes [Orthothetina] politus. The other is briefly char-acterized under the title 

Orthothetes [Orthothetina] sp. The Guadalupian representative of this group is too 

poor to permit a comparison. 

From the so-called Permian of Timor and Rotti, in the Indian Archipelago, 

Rothpletz cites two strophomenoids which he calls Streptorhynchus cf. crenistria 

Phillips and Streptorhynchus beyrichi n. sp. I am unable to determine whether the 

generic name Streptorhynchus is here used in the general or the restricted sense. 

The fragmentary specimen of Streptorhynchus beyrichi, which alone is figured, is of 

the ordinary type. 

Beyrich had previously identified and figured these species as Streptorhynch·us 

crenistria? and Streptorhynchus radialis. Externally they belong to the usual 

unplicated type, and there is no clue as to their internal structures. 

Martin cites from Timor as Streptorhynchus cf. pectiniformis Davidson a small, 

rather strongly plicated species, presumably a Meekella, but possibly a true Streptorhynchus. In the former case it appears to be of the usual type and is related 

to several Guadalupian species. If a Streptorhynchus, the Guadalupian contains 

nothinglike it. 

The Strophomenidre of New South Wales as described _by De Koninck comprise 

only two species-Strophomena analoga and Orthotetes crenistria. The horizon of 

both species seems to be in the lower part of the Carboniferous section, which is probably much older than the Guadalupia·n. 

The Strophomenidre of the "Permo-Carboniferous" of Queensland and New 

Guinea comprise, according to Etheridge, but two species-Strophomena rhomboidalis var. analoga and Derbya senilis. In several other instanc,es where Leptcena 

rhomboidalis was cited from some of the higher beds of the Carboniferous, I have 

tholight there was some reason to believe that the identification v.ras based on the 

dorsal valve of some productoid, such as Productus aagardi, or P. waagenianus of the 

present memoir. Some at least of Etheridge's figures seem to represent real Leptrenas, and I can not avoid the suspidon, since that genus is restricted in its upward 

range in the United States, and in Europe so far as I am aware, to the lower portion 

of the Mississippian or sub-Carboniferous, that these Australian formations (the 

Star and the Gympie, but not the Dowen River) are not "Permo-Carboniferous," 

but much older. The suspicion is based not on this one snecies alone, but on the 

generality of them. 

If we may depend on the figures, which are freely given, Derbya senilis is not a 

Derbya, but a Streptorhynchus. It is represented as without a septum or dental 

plates and with two well-developed socket plates. It is, however, evidently not 

closely related to any of the Guadalupian species of Streptorhynchus. ., 

Etheridge, senior, described Streptorhynchus davidsoni from Queensland, and 

also cited from a different locality Strophomena rhomboidalis var. analoga. The 
170 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

Streptor'hynchus is certainly not one of the common strophomenoids if reliance may 

be placed on the figures, and its generic relations appear to be doubtful. 

As to the range of this group in the Russian section, I can not hope to have 

gained complete data, yet from the works which have come under my observation 

probably the most important facts can be gathered. From these the Carboniferous 

strophomenoids seem to· have reached their maximum development in the "Upper 

Carboniferous" or the Gschelian. From the Productus giganteus 7.one I have seen 

cited only Str'eptorhynchus radialis and S. crenistria, the term Streptor'hynchus here 

probably being used in its comprehensive sense, so that one might expect almost any 

of the common types of Schuchertella, Derbya, Orthotetes, etc. 

From the Spirifer mosquensis :wne I have fou.nd cited Orthotetes cr'enistria, 

Derbya grandis, Derbya sp., Meekella eximia, and Meelcella sp. It is this fauna. for 

the most part which is treated by Trautschold in his work on the fauna of Mjatschkowa. In this work Trautschold discusses Orthis Cr'enistria, Orthis senilis, and 

Or'this eximia, which belong to the Strophomenidre, besides some true representatives 

of the Orthidre. The figure of 0. crenistria given by Trautschold clearly belongs to 

Waagen's genus Derbya, but whether it shows the septate structure (Derbya sensu 

stricto) or the camerate (Orthotetes) can .not be determined with absolute certainty. 

It appears to belong to the camerati, however, and may be a representative of Fischer 

de Waldheim's species Orthotetes radiatus, the genotype of Orthotetes. If so, it is not 

like the Guadalupian representatives of Or'tlwtetes, which, with the exception of the 

doubtful form from the base of the section, are distinguished by having tall, conical 

ventral valves. Much more similar in this respect is the apparently smooth form 

which Trautschold iigur~s as Orthis senilis. It is impossible to tell in what division 

to place this shell. Orthis [ Meekella] eximia is one of the ordinary types of Meekella, 

and does not depart so widely from the American Pennsylvanian or Guadalupian 

speCies. 

From the Gschelian I have found listed a large number of strophomenoids, to 

wit: Orthotetes Cr'enistria, Derbya senilis, Meekella eximia, Meelcella striaticostata, and 

Meelcella cf. eximiiformis. Tschernyschew in his monograph on the Brachiopoda of 

this fauna distinguishes a much greater variety. In the genus Streptorhynchus he 

identifies S. pelargonatum, S. hallianum, and S. aff. tapajotense. S. hallianum is one 

of the plicated group of Streptor'hynchus, a type not yet known from the Guadalupian 

while S. pelar'gonatum and S. tapajotense, although I believe them to be distinct 

·specifically from the Guadalupian species, arc yet more nearly of the same general 

character. Of Derbya this author identifies two of W aagen's Indian species, D. regularis and D. grandis, together with D. crassa., our common American Pennsylvanian 

form. I notice that he includes Orthis crenistria Trautschold, to which I have 

referred above, in the synonymy of D. regularis. These species are of the same general type as the Guadalupian ones, and, in fact, more or less similar species are found 

at different horizons the world over. Of Meekella Tschernyschew distinguishes no 

less than seven species; but I am not sure that he does not include among them some 

which wou~dmore properly be placed with Orthothetina. Meekella ufensis, M. baschkirica, and M. uncitoides have shells so slightly folded that one can in the figures 

detect it with difficulty, if at all. If we except these from Meekella, no very marked 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 171 

differences can be pointed out between the Gschelian and the Guadalupian representatives of the genus. Perhaps the Guadalupian species M. dijjicilis, with its angular 

plications and almost obsolete liration, might be cited as an exception to this statement, which is, however, further borne out by Af. attenuata, in which the plications 

are inclined to be faint, and by Orthothetina sp., which has a smooth shell, but with 

the internal structures of Meekella. Tschernyschew also describes a species of 

Orthothetes (0. simensis) from these beds, the generic term being employed in the 

sense used by W aagen. 0. simensis is represented as possessing faint radial plications near the margin, a feature not before noticed in this group, so far as I am aware. 

I find myself a little disposed to follow Schellwien in referring the Permian shells 

which have tllis structure to Streptorhynchus. . 

From this or possibly lower horizons De V erneuil has described and figured 

strophomenoid shells, which he calls Orthis arachnoidea, 0. eximia, and 0. olivieriana. 

The first mentioned may possibly be a Schuchertella; the second is Meekella eximia 

of Tschernyschew's and other reports; and the last-named species one would not 

hesitate to call, from De Verneuil's figures, a characteristic representative of Orthothetina. 

In view of Tschernyschew's extensive memoir on the brachiopods of this fauna, 

the other references to Gschelian strophomenoids can well be passed over, especially 

as they are for the most part citations in lists, without descriptions or illustrations. 

From the Artinsk Stuckenberg cites Streptorhynchus crenistria and from the closely 

related Kungurstufe Streptorhynchus crenistria and Meekella eximia. Krotow also 

records only Streptorhynchus crenistria from the Artinsk. Tschernyschew is authority for the citation of Streptorhynchus pelargonatum, and he has figured specimens 

from this horizon. We thus have the genera Streptorhynchus and Meekella in the 

Artinsk, and probably Derbya or Orthotetes, though it is impossible to tell what is 

intended by the name Streptorhynchus crenistria. 

From the Permian Netschajew has figured a small, imperfectly p~cserved shell, 

wlllch he calls Streptorhynchus cf. pelargonatum. One can tell little about this form 

from the poor figures, and the text is in Russian. 

The sudden suppression of the strophomenoids, along with most of the other 

brachiopodous groups, before, the commencement of the Artinsk, leaves the greatest 

show of resemblance bet,veen the Gschelian faunas of the Russian section and the 

Guadalupian. This resemblance is in some respects rather close. In both is found 

a considerable differentiation of the genus Meek ella. In both the type of Orthothetina 

isprobablyrepresented,in the Guadalupian byan undetermined species, in the Russian beds by 0. olivieriana, and perhaps by some of Tschernyschew's species of 

Meek ella. Derbya, in the sense that that term is here employed, is present in both 

faunas and of the same general type. . Orthotetes is represented in the Russian section 

by at least one species, 0. radiatus. ·In the Guadalupian fauna camerate shells are 

also developed, the nearest allies to the Russian form being in the lower part of the 

section. The Russian faunas certainly contain, so far as known, nothing analogous 

to the conical, hlghly characterized Guadalupian species, especially to Orthotetes 

guadalupensis and its allies, nor do they contain any plicated examples of this type 

(Geyerella), a representative of which is known in the Capitan fauna. On the other 
172 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

hand, the Russian faunas contain both plicated and unplicated types of Streptorhynchus, while in the Guadalupian only the plicated type is known, though it occurs at 

widely different horizons. Lastly, Tschernyschew describes one species of "Orthothetes," a type which, if the same as Schuchertella, as Waagen appeared to think, has 

no Guadalupian representatives. On closer inspection of these data it appears, in 

a general way, that the resemblances are strongest between the Delaware Mountain 

fauna and the Gschelian stage and the differences strongest between the Capitan 

fauna and the Gschclian, though this may not be uniformly the case. In this connection one may recall that Orthotetes, of the guadalupensis group, and Geyerella are 

found only in the Capitan division, not in the Delaware Mountain fauna nor in the 

Gschelian, while the Meekellas are in. the Guadalupian section confined to the Delaware Mountains, nor do they extend above the Gschelian in Russia. On the other 

hand, we have in the Guadalupian section Streptorhynchus of the same general type 

in both the Delaware Mountain and Capitan formations, and, likewise, in Russia 

Streptorhynchus occurs in the Artinskian and Permian, as well as in the Gschelian. 

Enderle found only two types representing this group in the Carboniferous fauna 

of Balia Maaden, in Asia Minor. One of these he cites, without figures, as Orthothetes 

sp., comparing it with 0. subplanus of the Salt Range of India; the other he calls 

Streptorhynchus cf. pelargonatum. The shell which he figures under this name is 

distinct from any of the corresponding species in the Guadalupian. 

In the Armenian fauna described by Abich from the vicinity of Djoulfa, members 

of this group seem to occur in considerable abundance, and Abich recognizes no less 

than twelve types, which he describes as varieties of Streptorhynchus crenistria or 

of Streptorhynchus peregrinum, a new species. Streptorhynchus is here employed in 

a general sense, and some of these types are now known to belong to other genera. 

Waagen refers three of them (StreptorhyJJ,chus crenistria var. eusar·kon, Streptorhynchus crenistria var. incurvum, and Streptorhynchus peregrinum) to his genus Derbya,, 

supposing them to be representatives of the camerate division thereof, a but Schellwien has shown that in Streptorhynchus crenistria var. eusarkon the two dental plates . 

do not unite with the median septum, hut remain parallel and distinct, as in Meekelln. 

He refers this species, therefore, to his genus Orthothel'i,na, although Abich represents 

it as having a plica ted shell. Arthaber later redescribed this Armenian fauna, recognizing in his work three species of Orthothetes (Orthothetina), 0. armeniacus n. sp., 

0. eusarkos Ahich, and 0. peregrinus Abich, in the synonymy of which most of Abich's 

names appear. Orthothetina seems to have reached a special degree of development 

in this Armenian fauna, for elsewhere it is as a rule rather rare. The single Guadalupian specimen which can be referred to this genus unfortunately does not permit 

comparisons with the Armenian forms. While rich in Orthothetinas, the Armenian 

fauna contrasts with the Guadalupian in lacking, so far as known, the more varied 

strophomenoid differentiation. In association with Arthaber, Frech studied the 

lower faunas of the Paleozoic section, among which he cites Orthothetes crenistria and 

0. crenistria var. lcellii from the earlier Carboniferous deposits at Arpatschai, but 

this fauna does not concern us. 

I am unfortunate in being unable to consult that portion of Gemmellaro's work 

in which he treats of the strophomenoids of the Fusulina limestone of Palermo, for 

a Waagen, W., Salt Range fossils: Mem. Gcol. Survey India, Pal. Indica, ser. 13, vol. 1, 1887, p. 592. 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 173 

one might expect from the resemblance shown b}· other groups that comparisons of 

this one would prove of considerable interest. . · 

Schellwien recognizes three species of strophomenoids in his paper on the fauna 

of the Carnic Fusulina limestone. They are identified as Orthothetes semipla·nus, 

Derbya waageni, and Derbya expansa. To the first the Guadalupian appears to contain no analogous species, but the two Derbyas resemble the Guadalupian representatives of the genus. Gortani cites from the same region Orthothetes crenistria, 0. 

crenistria var. senilis, Orthothetes expansus?, Streptorhynchus semiplanus, Derbya 

grandis, Derbya altistriata, and Neelcella vinassai. His figures of the last-named 

species, which indicate that the original specimens were poor, do not represent the 

surface as plicated, and consequently the species would appear to belong to Orthothetina, rather than 31eelcella. The Derbyas appear to be of the ordinary type and 

not materially different from the Guadalupian Derbyas. I judge that Streptorhynchus semiplanus, which Schellwien first described as .an Orthothetes (in Waagen's 

sense), is really not a Streptorhynchus, strictly speaking; but a Schuchertella and consequently a member of a group not found in the Guaclalupian. N on-Guadalupian 

also are probably the species of Orthothetes, for I believe Gortani is using. this term as 

Schellwien interprets it, for species having two short diverging dental plates but no 

septum. 

In his paper on the fauna of the Trogkofelschichten Schellwien finds strophomenoid species belonging to the genera Streptor·hynchus, .Meelcella, and Geyerella. It is 

surprising to note the absence of both groups of vV aagen' s genus Derbya in this fauna, 

for these shells are usually abundant. Schellwien cites but two species of Streptorhynchus-S. pelargonatum and S. cf. operculatum. Both belong to the unplicated type of the genus, and are not very unlike the Guadalupian forms, though I 

have not recognized among the latter representatives of the group of S. capuloides, 

to which S. operculatum belongs. Of the genus .Meelcella the Trogkofelschichten 

contain five species, agreeing in this respect with the Delaware Mountain formation 

of the Guadalupian, but contrasting with the Indian Salt Range fauna and the Guadalupian Capitan. The Meekellas are said to constitute an important element in the fauna 

of the Trogkofelschichten, ·and they form a rather well-marked group, to which those 

of Lhe Guaclalupian are not closely allied. Schellwien's species in general are distinguished by being large, with numerous small and more or less indistinct plications. 

Strongly in contrast to them is such a shell as Meelcella dijfir,ilis of the present work. 

Of Geyerella Schellwien cites but a single species. He had already described a species 

from Sicily, which stands as the type of the genus, and I infer that there are others 

from the same area. Thus the Guadalupian fauna shares with that of Palermo, of 

Trogkofcl, and of Auernig the only lmo,vn representation of the genus. On the 

whole, though showing some notable points of difference, especially in the matter of 

Derbya and Orthotetes, the American fauna appears in its strophomenoirl representation rather closely allied with the Alpine one. In the Upper Carboniferous of the 

same area Schellwien describes two new species of Der·bya, of the depressed-convex, 

regular type, and identifies Orthothetes subplanus, a species 'vhich he subsequently 

assigned to the genus Streptorhynchus. The absence of such groups as Orthotetes 

sensu stricto, Meelcella, Geyerella, Orthothetina, etc., is noteworthy. 
174 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

The fauna described by De Koninck from Bleiherg, in the Carinthian Alps, little 

concerns the.present discussion, as it is a different and older fauna. 

Geinit?-, in his mon~graph on the Dyas, recognizes only one species belonging 

to the Strophomeniclre, the well-known Streptorhynchus pelargonatum. ·while some 

of the Guadalupian types of Streptorhynchus probably belong to the same gro,up with 

S. pelargonatum, none can rightly' be placed in the same species. Of course the 

American fauna has a much more varied strophomenoicl representation than that of 

t.Q.e Dyas. . 

The Carboniferous faunas of Spitzbergen and Nova Zembla concern us little.· 

The latter contains but two. forms demanding attention. Strophomena depressa may 

he supposed to be the same as Lept&na rhombo·idalis, but it looks like a Prod·uctus. 

Orthis eximiiformis, cited also from the Russian section, is probably a Meekella. 

It is founded on a fragmentary dorsal valve. 

Toula cites from the south point of Spitzbergen a shell >yhich his figures show 

to be without much doubt a Derbya of the common type. This form is identified as 

Streptorhynchus crenistria. AsS. crenistr"ia var. macrocardinalis he describes a species 

from the cape between the two arms of North Fjord which is probably of a different 

genus, as it apparently has no. septum, and seems to be >vithout Guadalupian allies. 

Lundgren cites Streptorhynchus pelargonatus from the Permian of Spitzbergen. 

Altogether the Spitzbergen faunas are rather indifferent in their relationship to the 

Guadalupian. 

The Permian of England, like that of Germany, seems to contain but a single 

representative of this group, and it is the same species, Streptorhynchus pelargonaturn, so that no additional comments are necessary. 

The fauna which Stache describes from the "Test Sahara appears to be much 

older than the Guadalupian, and so far as known contains but two species of the 

Strophomenidm, identified as Streptorhynch1ts crenistria and S. pusillus. "Streptor·hynchus" seems here to be employed in the general rather than the restricted 

sense. If, as seems probable, the African forms belong to Schuchertella, there is 

nothing in the Guadalupian which can be compared with them. 

In the Brazilian fauna, which Derby describes with such ability, he recognizes 

in _all three strophomenoid species, which he calls Streptorhyn£;hus correanum, Streptorhynchus hall-ian·um, and Streptorhynchus tapajotense. W aagen has already discussed these species, caUing attention to the fact that the first possesses the structure 

of his camerate group of Derbyas, the second belongs to the plicatcd group of Streptorhynchus, sensu stricto, while the third is one of the septate Derbyas. In this fauna 

we note that Meekella, Geyerella, Orthothetina, and the group of Streptorhynchus 

called simplices are wanting. These arc found in the Guadalupian, which lacks, on 

the other hand, the plicated Streptorhynchus. Both faunas possess similar types of 

Derbya and Orthotetes, but the striking group of 0. guadalupensis is peculiar to the 

North American. 

The upper Carboniferous strophomenoids of the Mississippi Valley and Appalachian region, so far as known, appear to be divided between the genera Meelcella 

and Derbya. Many of these shells were originally described as belonging to Streptorhynchus, but that genus is apparently not known in this fauna. Waagen, it is true, 

mentions having seen in Munich a specimen from Nebraska identified as· Meekella 
MOLLUSOOIDEA. 175 

' stFiaticostata, in which the characteristic dental plates were not developed. But 

I can not help thinking either that there was a mistake in the locality, or that the 

dental plates had somehow been destroyed. Othenvisc the shell noted by vV aagen 

would be one of the plicated group of Streptorhynchus, a type otherwise unknown 

from North America. I should remark, however, that frow California I have seen 

a plicated shell which seemed to belong to Streptorhynchus. · It is an internal mold, 

somewhat weathered, and the impression of the plates may have been lost. Mention may also be made of an undescribed species· of Orthothetina from the upper 

Carboniferous of the Mississippi Valley and Wyoming. Of Derbya perhaps eight 

species in all are known from the upper Carboniferous of central and eastern United 

States; all of which belong to the septate division, or to Derbya proper. Some of them, 

as well as the single species of Meelcella, at present recognized from this area, have 

Guadalupian representatives more or less closely related. Orthotetes, Geyerella, 

and Streptorhynchus, however, are found in the Guadalupian, but not in faunas with 

typical Pennsylvanian facies. This statement may, however, be only partially true 

of Streptorhynchus, and is made with the qualification ·rendered· necessary by 

Waagen's observation noted above.· 

Genus STREPTORHYNCHUS King. 

Schellwien employs the term Orthothetes for a group of shells for which Waagcn 

did not provide-those having two strong dental plates -\vithout a median septumwhile the group for which W aagen used Orthothetes he unites with the genus under 

discussion. Both W aagen and Schellwicn are in error in their employment of the 

term Orthothetes, as I have elsewhere attempted to show; but it is surprising that 

these two authors, using the same species as a type, should have arrived at two 

different sorts of structure for the genus. W aagcn' s conception of Streptorhynchus crenistria was undoubtedly influenced by if not derived from Davidson, who 

probably knew what the characters of the species really were; but Schellwien also 

invokes Davidson as representing Streptorhynchus crenistria with two dental plates, 

just as Waagen implies that he represents it without any. I must confess that 

Davidson's fig. 5., Pl. XXVI; which represents the interior of a ventral vaJvc, appears 

to me to be without the strong dental plates claimed by Schellwien. As for the small 

dental or rostral plates which Davidson, as Schellwien points out, certainly does 

describe as strengthening the hinge teeth, these a,re as likely to be ridges, like those 

of Streptorhynchus, as plates such as Schellwien represents in his figures. Indeed, 

Davidson uses almost the same words, "dental ridge or plate," a in describing the 

interior of Streptorhynchus as based on S. pelargonatus that he does in the case· of 

Schuchertella (Streptorhynchus) crenistria. 

As elsewhere set forth, I have found it necessary to divert the name Orthotetes 

from the group for which Waagen used it, and to substitute the new term Schuchertella for it, naming for the type of Schuchertella the well-known Streptorhynchus lens 

from the Kinderhook of Missouri. This species is characteristic of a certain group 

of species found in abundance in our American lower Mississippian rocks. The 

dental plates in these shells are represented only by a thickening, souwtimes very 

slight, of the edges of the delthyrium, and the dorsal valve contains no socket plates 

a Mon. Permian Brachiopoda, 18.)8-18G3, p. 30. 

, 
176 THE GUADALUPIAN l•'AUNA. 

except very short, stout, curved ridges. If &reptorhynchus crenistria shows these 

characters, as Davidson's figures and description indicate, it belongs to Schuchertella_. 

If it shows those represented by Schellwien's figures it does not, qut can probably be 

referred to Orthothetina, which I would provisionally extend to include these forms. 

Schuchertella is exactly equivalent to the Ortlwthetes of Waagcn and of Hall and 

Clarke, and includes. shells which Schellwien merges with Str~ptorhynchus. With 

the procedure of Schellwien I can not agree. Schuchertella was developed chiefly 

in early Carboniferous time; Streptorhynchus ncar the end of it. In Schuchertella 

the ventral valve is mostly low, regular, and unattached; in Streptorhynchus it is 

mostly high, distorted, and probably attached. In Schuchertella the hinge line is 

usually long; in Streptorhynchus it is usually short.a In Schuchertella the dorsal 

valve has a distinct area hut no socket plates; in Streptorhynchus the dorsal valve 

has no area/ rather strong socket plates, and a more deeply grooved and a somewhat differently shaped cardinal process. While it is doubtless true, as Schellwien 

claims, that considerable variation is manifested in these particulars, I think that 

the differences will be found numerous enough and constant enough to demand 

the recognition of both groups. 

Yvaagen recognizes two divisions of this genus in the Salt Range, one of which he 

calls the "simplices" and the other the" plicati." The former, as the name indicates, 

.embraces species having a smooth and the latter those having a plicated shell. In 

the Salt Range, according to this author, the simplices are restricted to the lower and 

middle divisions of the Productus limestone, while the plicati occur chiefly in the 

upper division. In North America only two species of Streptorhynchus are knownB. ulrichi and S. williamsi. To these may be added S. hallianum from Brazil, and 

three species, to be described later, from the Guadalupe Mountains. All of these 

species belong to \Vaagen's division of the simplices, the plicati not being known in 

either of the Americas, so far as I am aware. Waageri, c however, states that he ha~ 

seen a specimen, apparently from Nebraska, in the Royal Paleontological Museum 

of Munich, which has the exterior of Meelcella striaticostata, but which appears to lack 

in the ventral valve the septa characteristic of Meek ella. If this occurrence is authentic, the plica ted group would appear to be represented in the "Coal Measures" of the 

Mississippi Valley. This one would hardly expect from its occurrence at the top of 

the Salt Range section associated with very different genera and species. Furthermore, so many specimens of ~~feekella striaticostata from the Mississippi Valley have 

been observed by other paleontologists, and I have myself seen so many, that while 

possible, it seems not altogether probable that this representative of what must be a 

very rare type should find its way into a foreign collection, none being known in this 

country. Therefore \Vaagen's suspicion that the genus Meelcella ought to be in 

large part merged with Str·eptorhynchus is unfounded so far as the citations in American literature and the occurrence in American formations are concerned. The range 

of this genus in the Carboniferous of North America is somewhat peculiar. S. williamsi and S. ulrichi are both from the Mississippian series of the Mississippi Valley, 

and no representatives of the genus are known from the Pennsylvanian or so-called 

a That is, shorter th·an the width in front. 

b According to Hall and Clarke, who describe it as linear. Davidson (Mon.l'ermian Brachiopoda, 1858-1863, p. 30) says 

that there is a small, narrow rndimentary area. It is probably not absent, but as a rule narrower than in Schuchertella .. 

cWaagen, W., Salt !lange fossils: Mem. Geol. Survey India, Pal. Indica, ser. 13, vol. 1, 1887, p~ 578. 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 177 

Permian beds of the same area. Its reappearance in the Guadalupian fauna is therefore of some interest. 

Still further novelty would be added to the range of the genus if the plica ted type 

~supposed to be a later development of the simple one, were really, as Waagen claims, 

found in the "Coal Measures." The peculiarities of range in American rocks which 

might be taken as evidence against referring S. gregarium to Streptorhynchus are 

;equally or even mon~ cogent against assigning it to Schuchertella. 

This genus is sparingly represented in the Guadalupian fauna. W aagen found 

.seven species in India and Schellwien two in the Carnic Alps. The :fineness of the 

radiating lirre of the Guadalupian species (exceptS. pygm[£um), a character which it 

:shares with representatives of related genera associated with it, invites remark. In 

this particular, though not in form, comparison can be made with Waagen's Strepto-

·rhynchus operculatus. 

If one were asked to divide the Guadalup!an species of Streptorhynchus into sub-

·ordinate groups he would probably at once placeS. gregarium and S. perattenuatum 

in one subdivision, since they have lofty ventral valves and :fine sculpture, and into 

another S. pygm[£um, which has a low ventral valve and relatively coarse liration. 

With S. pygm[£um appears to go the imperfectly known species Streptorhynchus sp. a. 

Such at the present time appears to be the natural grouping of these species. 

STREPTORHYNCHUS GHEGARIUM n. sp. 

Pl. XI, figs. 3 to 7. 

This form is fairly abundant in the Guadalupe Mountains, and can not be passed 

'over unnoticed, though I have not been fortunate in obtaining complete specimens on 

which to base descriptions and figures. Much of my material came froin a single 

.fragment of limestone, of rather small size, in which the different specimens were 

crowded together, and their mutual attitude in some cases suggests that they may 

have been attached one to another. The matrix, in this case a gray, compact lime-

.stone, adheres closely to the fossils, and is, moreover, both hard to the tool and difficult to distinguish from the shell substance. The following description is drawn up 

from a number of specimens, no one of which shows all of the characters. 

Shell small. Ventral valve high, conical. Growth usually extremely irregular 

.and contorted. Area flat transversely, more or less concave longitudinally, and 

inclined backward at an angle of 135° or less to the plane of the edge; more or less 

poorly defined from the convex portion of the shell. Pseudodeltidium broad and 

divided into three parts, the central of which is strongly convex and elevated. 

'The lateral portions, which are more nearly on a plane with the rest of the area, represent the internal ridges supporting the hinge teeth. These do not run out into septiform plates, and in one specimen appear to be tubular. 

The dorsal valve is moderately or decidedly convex. The shape is subcircular, 

but varies greatly to correspond with the irregular form of the ventral. The hinge 

line is almost always shorter than the shell below. The beak is small, but the umbo 

·is sometimes tumid. There is frequently a slight fold in this valve corresponding to 

.a faint sinus in the other, chiefly noticeable on the anterior margin, where they pro-

;duce a distinct sinuosity. 

3695-No. 58--QS--12 
178 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

The surface is marked by very fine radiating line, which are thin and sharp,. 

though but little elevated, and rather distant. They come about 18 or 1 9 in the. 

space of 5 mm. 

Internallv the ventral valve is without septiform plates of any sort, though the. 

hinge teeth ;re supported by strong ridges. The interior of the dorsal valve is. 

imperfectly known to me. There is a distinct median septum, but socket plates have 

not been observed. The generic position of this form, therefore, is not conclusively 

ascertained, but the possibilities are reduced among known genera to StreptorhynchU8 

and Schuchertella. To a certain extent in the presence of a dorsal septum, but much 

more in the absence of socket plates, if they are indeed absent, the affinities appear to 

be with Schuchertella, but the general expression is so much more that of Streptorhyrvchu8 that it has been assigned to the latter genus. 

There is scarcely a feature in which this species does not show considerable 

variation, and I have been forced to assign to it wider specific limits than might be 

wished. I feel that more perfect material might permit me to make assurance. 

of the presence or absence of characters where now I am in doubt. In general 

appearance this form much resembles that which I have described as "Orthotete8 

di8torta," but the presence in the latter of dental plates and the extravagant median 

septum remove the two forms not only into different species but into different. 

groups. 

Associated with the form whose more important characters have just been 

enumerated is another, represented by a single incomplete ventral valve, which 

should probably be distinguished as a distinct variety. It differs from the other 

specimens chiefly in being depressed and more rapidly expanding. The growth is 

irregular and asymmetrical. The width, which was probably greatest at or near 

the hinge' line, must have approached 20 mm; the height probably did not exceed 

5 mm. The surface ornamentation consists of regular, sharp, low, radiating 

strire, about 22 in 5 mm. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan 'Peak, Guadalupe. 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). 

8TREPTORIIYNCllUS PYGM1EUM n. sp. 

. l'l. XXX, figs. 3 to 6b. 

This species is fairly abundant at station 3763, but while a considerable number· 

of dorsal valves have been found only three ventrals have yet come to hand. The 

size is very small, a large dorsal valve having a width of about 7 mm. and a length of 

6 mm. The ventral valve is high, erect; and subconical. The aperture contracts 

posteriorly, is as a rule slightly wider than long, and, owing to a tendency in the lateral 

outlines to make straight lines near the hinge, is somewhat imperfectly polygonaL 

The area is high and flat and makes an angle of about 90° with the aperture. Its 

width is slightly less than that of the shell in front, and it is defined by an angle· 

from the curved antero-lateral wall. The large and strongly elevated pseudodeltidium occupies about one-third of the entire area. Two of the three ventral valves 

are attached by cementation over a considerable part of the antero-lateral surface 

and the remaining individual shows a large scar of attachment over this area. This 
MOLL US CO IDEA. 179 

seems to demonstrate a persistent habit, which probably accounts for the relatively 

large number of free dorsal valves which have been found. For the same reason the 

surface characters are obscured over most o~ the orna;mented area, and are best 

studied in the accompanying valve. On the interior the progression of the hinge 

teeth is m~rked by two prominent ridges, which are not, however, prolonged as 

plates, while anything in the nature of a median septum is quite absent. 

The dorsal valve is very small and subcircular in outline, the growth more or less 

irregular and af)ymmetrical, the convexity moderate to great. The hinge line is 

shorter than the width below. The surface is marked by comparatively strong, thin,. 

high, more or less irregular; alternating, spaced lirre, crossed by strong but irregular 

crenulations. Lamellar varices of growth seem to be a common feature of the external 

suiface. The hinge plate and cardinal process are large and massive, projecting from 

the shell at nearly right angles to the plane of its edges. A low median septum is usually 

more or less plainly developed. The high convexity of this shell and .its relatively 

massive thickness would indicate that these arc mature and not ungrown specimens, 

an inference which is supported by the general uniformity in.size of the specimens 

collect~d. With the thickness of the shell appears to be connected the more obvious 

development of the ~eptum, since it seems to be one of the results of calcareous 

deposition produced by old age. 

I have been in some uncertainty whether to place this form with Streptorhynchus or with Schucher~ella, which is very similar in general structure. Schuchertella in this continent is practically confined to the earliest beds of the Carboniferous, 

types with a well-developed median septum soon succeeding it. Streptorhynchus, 

on the other hand, seems to be mostly.a late Carboniferous development, and in its 

distribution to have been confined largely to European and Asiatic waters. Nevertheless, certain forms, presumably congeneric with Schuchertella, have, under the 

name of" Orthothetes," been cited from late Carboniferous strata of India, etc., while 

in the United States the only accepted species of Streptorhynchus are found in 

Mississippian horizons. 

Aside from stratigraphic and geographic occurrence, the main differences 

between the two genera seem to be (1) that of configuration, the ventral valve of 

Streptorhynchus being high, contorted, and contracted at the hinge, instead of low, 

regular, and \'iith quadrate cardinal angles; and (2) that of stmcture, the cardinal 

process of Streptorhynchus being perhaps· somewhat differently shaped and the 

socket plates, according to Waagen, prolonged so as partly to s<irround the muscular 

area of the dorsal valve. Different species, however, appear to have varied essentially in the stmcture of the cardinal process, while figyres of interiors of Streptorhynchus seldom show much.difference from Schuchertella in the prolongation of the 

socket plates. In the case of the present species I can distinguish no difference in 

the stmcture of the hinge plate from that found in typical examples of Schuchertella, 

while the configuration of the shell is distinctly in better agreement with that uf 

Streptorhynchus, but a more essential difference seems to subsist in the fact that 

Schuchertella, like Derbya and Orthotetes, was attached by a pedicle issuing from 

beneath the lower edge of the pseudodeltidium, while the present species was almost 

certainly attached by cementation u·pon the other side of the valve. Whether this 

very marked difference from Schuchertella is one of agreement wi'th Streptorhynchus . 
180 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

I am uncertain, but have some reason to believe that it is. In such case this character indicates a most important diff~rence in structure and habit from Schuchertella, whether it can be detected in every specimen or not, since such cementation,. 

as above described, can only coexist with atrophy of the pedicle. At least such an 

inference seems at present to be unavoidable. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Comanche Canyon, 

Glass Mountains, Texas (station 3763). Delaware Mountain formation, southern 

Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2962 ~). 

STREPTORHYNCHUS PERATTENUATUM n. sp. 

Pl. XXIX, figs. 3 to 3c. 

Shell very small.. The shape of the ventral valve is subelliptical, contracting at 

the hinge line, and having the longitudinal dimension greater than the transverse. 

The convexity is rather low and the beak smalL and depressed. The ventral valve 

is very high and conical. The aperture is subelliptical and the hinge line shorter 

than the width in front. The area is rather sharply defined from the sides. The 

pseudodeltidium is broad, not much elevated, and it occupies fully one-half the 

width of the area, which is strongly inclined backward. This valve is attached not 

by a pedicle issuing from between the two valves, but by cementation of the apex of 

the ventral shell. The growth is irregular. The surface seems to be obscured on 

the ventral valve, which is nearly smooth. The dorsal valve, however, shows 

strongly defined line, which are somewhat thick and rounded and separated by deep 

strire of about the same width as themselves .. The lirre are rather fine, coming about 

five or six in the space of 1 ~m. Crenulations are obscure or absent. 

This description is based on the typical specimen, and enough material has 

not been examined to gage the extreme of variation from it. The few additional 

specimens which have thus far come to hand, however, do not show any notable 

departures. 

I am not sure that this species is more than a much-dwarfed variety of Streptorhynchus gregarium. It comes from a different area, and besides being much 

smaller has a somewhat different surface ornamentation. The liration is a little 

finer and the lirre themselves thickened at the expense of the· intervening strire, so 

that instead of being thin and separated by relatively wide interspaces the line and 

:strire arc about equal. Such an appearance, however, is sometimes due to crowding, 

especially in old shells, and to a certain extent may be produced by silicification. 

Horizon and ZocaZity.-Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2962). 

STREPTORHYNCHUS ~ sp. a. 

Pl. XXX, fig. 7. 

This type is represented by but a single specimen, and as it is a dorsal valve its 

generic position is of course considerably a matter of doubt. 

In size it is small, having a length of only about 5 mm. The shape ascribed to 

it must depend somewhat on the restoration made, as a guide to which either varices 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 181 

of growth or concentric strire are almost entirely lacking. The right-hand, side, as 

seen in the figure, appears to be nearly the natural outline, and restored thus the 

shape would be strongly contracted at the hinge and the width somewhat less than 

the length. The growth is irregular. The sculpture consists of slender elevated. 

lirre, which are irregular and more or less alternating. Crenulating concentric lirre 

are faint or absent. The cardinal process is small and the socket plates not 

prolonged. 

The outline, contracting at the hinge, and the internal characters are suggestive 

of Streptorhynchus and of the species recognized in this report Streptorhynchus? sp. a 

roost closely resembles S. pygmreum, with which it is associated. It does not seem 

advisable to place it with that species, however, because of several differences. The 

line, while similar. in a general way, are thinner and higher, and crenulations and 

varices of growth appear to be absent. The cardinal process is smaller. The test 

instead of being massive and mature is thin and possibly immature. 

The liration is suggestive of Orthotetes? sp. a, to which an associated specimen 

has been referred, but the lirre are more irregular and the shape is different. . The 

shape, the sculpture, and the internal structure combined are not found in any other 

Guadalupian species. Among the specimens from station 2969 identified as Derbya 

crenulata some approach closely to the form in hand.· Most of these have a more or 

less similar outline, and one has the crenulations very faint or absent, so that it has 

a pretty close resemblance to the present specimen. Perhaps the example from 

station 2969 should be withdrawn from Derbya crenulata and placed here, but it 

does not seem justifiable to assign the present specimen to D. crenulata on its proper 

characters. 

Horizon a??,d locality.-Dclaware Mountain formation, Comanche Canyon, Glass 

Mountains, Texa~ (station 3763). 

Genus DERBYA Waagen (emend.). 

Waagen proposed the term Derbya in 1884, distinguishing two sections which 

possess in extreme cases rather striking differences of structure. These are the septati, to which the genotype D. regularis Waagen belongs, and the camerati. Though 

Waagen uses the term Orthotetes for quite a different group, I find that it was originally employed by Fischer de W aldheim for the same shells for which W aagen proposed Derbya. Fischer even included both types of structure in Orthotetes, though 

the type species, 0. radiatus, belongs to the camerate division. I had been in some 

doubt as to the advisability of including these two types of structure under a single. 

generic term, and finding two names already in the nomenclature have availed 

myself of this fact to retain both, the name in each case being restricted to the division to which its genotype belongs. Should a different conclusion be adopted, Orthotetes must clearly supersede Derbya. For this reason Derbya is here used in a. 

restricted sense, as applying only to the septate division of the original generic content, while Orthotetes is employed for the camerati·alone. I am, however, in some 

doubt as to the wisdom of separating the septati and the camerati under distinctive 

names, and have some misgivings lest I may have ventured too far in trusting to 

the accuracy of Fischer de Waldheim's rather explicit description of the structure 
182 THE GUADALUPIAN .FAUNA. 

of Orthotetes radiatus~ The boldest course would perhaps have been the most prudent one, to have eliminated the term Derbya entirely by placing it as a direct synonym of Orthotetes. The course adopted aims to conserve the present terminology 

as far as possible with adherence to fact. 

To Derbya belong the following species described in this report: D. nasuta, 

Derbya sp. a, and Der·bya sp. b. The position of D. ? crenulata is doubtful. Several 

of these types have characters which render them rather striking. D. nasuta is 

remarkable for the height of the septum and the great size of the cardinal process, 

and D.? crenulata is conspicuous among the forms treated here for the coarseness 

of its surface ornamentation. A natural grouping of these species is not obvious. 

No one would thinkof putting D.? crenulata and D. nasuta into the same group, 

but Derbya sp. a and Derbya sp. b are not so easily to be disposed of. In fact, 

Derbya sp. a is itself probably too composite to be at present handled satisfactorily. 

The representation of this genus, especially in its most distinguished types, 

is chiefly outside of the Guadalupe Mountains, in beds supposed to be equivalent 

to the Dela,vare Mountain formation. A few examples have been found in the 

Capitan formation, but there its representation is distinctly subordinate. Orthotetes, 

which is not known at the lo\ver horizon, is much more abundant. 

The Qrthotetes of the Guadalupian fauna are in a general way distinguished 

froni tlie Derbyas by the character and fineness of the liration. Many of the 

Derbyas do not differ materially in these respects from the common Mississippian 

and Pennsylvanian species of the Mississippi Valley. Some, however, have :fine 

. lir~; and no contrast with the Orthotetes can he drawn which is persistent and 

absolute. 

DERBY A N AS UTA n. sp . 

. Pl. XXVI, figs. 6 to 6c. 

I have taken for the type of this species a rather imperfect speeimen showing 

portions of both valves in conjunction, together with some interesting structural 

features. From this the following description can be framed: 

Shell large. Ventral valve semieonical, inclined baekward so that the cardinal 

area makes a rather strongly obtuse angle with the plane of the edge. Area high, 

flat transversely, with a strong concave curvature longitudinally; width, .50 mm., 

height, 25 mm. Width of the delthyrium at its base 11 mm. The pseudodeltidium 

is divided into three distinct portions, the median of which is strongly convex, the 

lateral portions concave and slightly depressed below the rest of the area. Its 

lower portion is erossed by imbricating transverse lamellro. The lateral portions of 

the area are again subdivided by two diagonal lines situated somewhat nearer the 

outer edges of the area than the edges of the delthyrium. 

The dorsal valve ·is rather strongly convex and the umbo considerably inflated. 

"'I'he width at the hinge line is .50 mm., but the outline expands rapidly below, and 

the greatest diameter could not have been much less than 00 mm., while the length 

must have been not far from 75 mm. Both valves show many irregularities and 

.distortions, due to unequal growth. 

The interior of the ventral valve is provided with a long, high median septum, 

which apparently is not ·in contact with the pseudodeltidium, except possibly 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 183 

near the apex. The hinge plate and cardinal process of the dorsal valve are extraordinarily large and massive. Their general chara.cter is shown in the accompanying 

illustration (Pl. XXVI, :fig. 6c). The most marked peculiarity consists in the 

;strongly diverging and much produced apophyses, which receive between them 

the septum of the ventral shell. Their general direction is nearly parallel to the 

plane of the shell edge. 

The surface is crossed by moderately thin and high radiating lirre, increased 

by implantation and having a more or less irregularly alternating arrangement, 

because of the imperfectly developed intermediate lirre. The spaces between them 

:are about equal to the lirre themselves. The lirre number 8 to 11, usually 10 or 11, 

in 5 mm., according to the number of young and intermediate ones present. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware :Mountain formation, Diablo Mountains, 

·Texas, as reported (station 3764). · 

DEHHYA ~ CRENULATA n. sp. 

Pl. XXVI, figs. 5 to 5d. 

Sheli of medium size, subsemicircular. Ventral valve .rather low. Growth 

regular. Surface from apex to front and sides nearly plane. Area directed at 

.about right angles to the plane of the edge. Pseudodeltidium rather strongly 

·Convex, narrow, not well defined., Width of area, 30 mm.; height, 5 mm. 'Vidth 

of pseudodeltidium at its base, 2.5 mm. Length of valve from apex to anterior 

margin, Hl.5 mm. 

Dorsal valve moderately convex. Beak small, strongly incurved. Umbo 

rather inflated. Length from beak to front, 18.5 mm. 

· Surface marked by rather coarse, thin, strongly elevated lirre separated by rath~r 

narrow, deep grooves. The lirre come about six or seven in the space of 5 mm., and 

are crossed by strong crenulations. New lirre are introduced by intercalation, and 

until they attain full size are somewhat alternating. At intervals also certain of 

the lirre will sometimes be larger and more prominent, ·with three to :five apparently 

full-grown but smaller ones bet\veen them. 

This; the typical specimen, shows strong old-age characters in the superimposed marginal lamellre. In its· youthful stages the hinge extremities were not 

projecting; at maturity they were very materially prol'onged at one side, while the 

.senile stages returned to a form having a quadrate cardinal margin. The interior 

of the shell is unknown, so that it is impossible to assign it to either the septate 

ot camerate groups, or even 'vith certainty to the genus Derbya. It differs from 

the common D. crassa of the Mississippi Valley upper Carboniferous in showing a 

tendency to extension of the cardinal extremities, in having a coarser and stronger 

lirre and crenulations, and in possessing a somewhat higher area and proportionately 

narrow pseudodeltidium. 

In addition to the type we have specimens apparently belonging to this species 

from two other localities. Aside from the fact. that. they are very much smaller, 

it seems rather probabl,e that they belong to Derbya crenulata. The liration is about · 

the same, though the individual lirre are perhaps a little thinner, and crenulations 

.are very strong. 'fhese are all dorsal valves, and do not, therefore, furnish any 
184 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

collateral evidence as to whether Derbya crerl/u.la.ta has a septate or camerate· 

structure. 

Horizon and ZocaZity.--Delaware Mountain formation, Diablo Mountains, 

Texas, as reported (station 3764). Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (stations ~069 and 3500). 

DERBY A sp. a. 

Pl. XI, fig. l; Pl. X, fig. 11, lla. 

Under this heading is included an assemblage of forms which with complete 

material might be found to represent more than a single species, but which at present. 

it did not seem advisable to subdivide. In size these specimens present various 

degrees, from the large dorsal valve, represented on Pl. XI, fig. 1, to diminutive 

examples having a width of only 6 or 7 mm. The latter are of course presumed to· 

be but immature representatives, whose adult growth would have brought them 

to the dimensions found in the others. 

Generally speaking, the dorsal·valves have a low convexity, with the hinge line 

equal to the width b(;)low. Ventral valves have a· similar outline. The a:rea is not 

as a rule very high. While in some specimens it is about perpendicular to the 

margin of the valve, in others it is inclined backward, and in still others forward. 

Growth appears to have been more or less irregular, though some specimens are 

symmetrical. The pseudodeltidium is broad and not strongly elevated. 

The surface ornamentation consists of rather fine lirre, of which about 18 to 20 

occur in a space of 10 mm. The lirre are naturally thin and separated by relatively 

wide strire, but by exfoliation they are liable· to appear rounded and somewhat 

obscure. Crenulat~ng concentric lirre are faint, if present. 

On the inside the ventral valve .has a strong median septum, which appears. 

to be normally distinct from the dental plates and which in no specim(;)n has been 

observed to be connected with them so as to form a well-defmed chamber. In the 

dorsal valve the cardinal process is relatively small and the socketplates somewhat 

stout and prolonged. 

The representation of this species is scattering, and in no instance have a ventral 

and a dorsal valve been found in conjunction. 

The large dorsal represented by my figure has a length probably exceeding 57 

mm., while the greatest width must have been 80 mm. or more. The shape is transverse, subelliptical, the width at the hinge being as great as at any point below. 

Convexity is only moderate. 

The surface ornamentation is largely obscured by exfoliation, but the lirre appear 

to be fine and not very distinct. A small area in a better state of preservation 

shows them to be moderately thin and high, with interspaces of about the same 

width. There are about 17 to 19 in a space of 10 mm. 

The cardinal process is bilobed, moderately extended, and directed somewhat 

downward when the shell is viewed from the convex side. 

The size of this specimen and the surface ornamentation are suggestive of the 

form here described as Derbya nasuta, but it is of more regular growth, shorter 

at the hinge line, and with a much shorter and smaller cardinal process. It also-
MOLL USCOIDEA. 185 

recalls Derbya robusta Hall, but it is larger, less strongly convex, jj,nd wider at the 

hinge. 

Associated with this was found another smaller fragmentary dorsal valve, and 

a small ventral valve which is represented by figs. 11 and 11a of Pl. X. Here the 

size is rather small and the growth unequal and unsymmetrical. The area is generally flat, moderately high, and backward inclined. Its width is about 12 mm., considerably less than that of the shell in front, and the height is 4.5 mm. The pseudodeltidium is elevated,_somewhat flattened, 2 mm. wide at its base. The length of 

the shell from apex to anterior margin is 19 mm., fr_om cardinal line to anterior 

margin slightly less. Width 21 mm. The septum has a length of only 8 mni. 

The surface is marked by more or less angular and spaced, rather strongly 

elevated radiating line, of which 11 or 12 occupy the space of 5 mm. The lirationr 

though perhaps imperceptibly finer, gives the exterior of the shell an appearance so· 

exactly like that of the large dorsal valve with which it was found associated that 

it seems not wise to separate them, yet the contraction of the outline at the hinge 

causes me to doubt the propriety of placing it with the other. This shell differs 

from Orthotetes guadalupensis and its allies in the coarser liration and also its lower 

area, broader pseudodeltidium, etc. Other ventral valves placed here have relatively wider hinge lines and in some cases more regular growth. 

Horizon and ZocaZity:c-:c-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 

2926); base of Capitan formation, hill southwest of Gu-adalupe Point (station 2906; 

"dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. Dela-

. ware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (stations .2962 

and 3501). 

DERBYA sp. b. 

Pl. X, fig. 12. 

This species is primarily represented by a single ventral valve from the Capitan 

limestone. The shape is elevated, conical. The area is sharply d~fined from the 

anterolateral curvature and generally nearly flat. Its width is 16 mm. and its 

height about 12 mm, The pseudodeltidium is wide (about 4.5 mm. at its base) 

and moderately convex. 

Because the anterior part of the shell is imperfect the shape of the aperture can 

not be definitely determined, but it appears to be semicircular an9. strongly transverse. Restored as nearly as possible, the plane of the aperture-is .perpendicular to . 

that of the area, and its length is about 10 mm., its width being of course the same 

as the width of the area, or 16 mm. The .growth is irregular. 

The surface is marked by varices of growth and by rather coarse concentric 

strire. The line are distinct and sharp, but low, the intervening strire being shallow, 

rounded, and traversed by the concentric strire. There are about 9lirre in 3 mm. 

The internal structure of this shell indicates that it should be considered one 

of the septate Derbyas. The septum is high and independent of the low dental 

lamellre. It has some appearance of being composed- of two plates, which are in 

contact and cemented one· to the other for most of the way, but separate a little 

near the anterior wall. One might possibly be justified in regarding this shell as an 

abnormt:!-1 Orthothetina, though that view is not adopted here. 
186 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

This form recalls Orthotetes guadalupensis, but the lirre are too angular and the 

pseudodeltidium too wide. In the latter respect it resembles Orthotetes distortus, 

but the lirre are much too coarse. Indeed, it does :riot seem to possess the camerate 

structure which is found in this group of forms. It seems to be clearly distinct from 

Derbya sp. a and from Derbya crenulata, nor do I feel that it could safely be united 

with Derbya nasuta. 

I have also referred to this species a small silicified shell from station 2969. It 

is fragmentary, but in every particular, so far as its characters are shown, it agrees 

with the original specimen ,from the Capitan limestone. Perhaps one difference 

may be found in the fact that the well-developed septum.consists_of a single homogeneous plate. This shell possesses the featqre-rare for a Derbya-of showing a 

large and .unmistakable scar left by apical cementation. As the apex of the original 

specimen is broken, however, this may be a character of identity rather than a 

character of difference between them. 

This specimen is associated at station 2969 w:ith certain small shells of somewhat similar dimensions, which have been placed with Derbya crenulata. The cir-

.cumstance that they occur associated is suggestive that they may represent the 

same species, but the ventral valve here under consideration has finer, rather 

obscure, and apparently uncrenulated line, 'from which I am led to infer that it is 

not conspecific. If it does belong with the dorsals, the latter can not be referred to 

Derbya crenulata, where I hitve placed them, nor probably to the present species. 

Horizon and locality.-Top of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2966). Delaware Mountain formation, southern Dela-. 

ware Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 

Genus ORTHOTETES Fischer de Waldheim. 

It seems almost certain, after careful examination into the history of the names, 

that Fischer de W aldheim' s term Orthotetes, which W aagen employs with quite a 

different force, was originally applied to shells having the characters that distinguish Waagen's genus Derbya. The history of this genus, so far as it is known to 

me, is as follows: 

The term Orthotetes "'as first introduced in the year 1829.a The following is a 

-complete reproduction of the original description of this genus_: 

TRAVAUX. 

Lo diroctour a dissorte sur quelques fossiles du gouve~nement de Mosco.u. · 

?Gryphooa biceps. an Inoc6rame Brongn. '?. 

Strigocephali spec. 

Strophomenoo spec. 

Il a rendu surtout attentif sur une coquille bivalve que Mr. Evans a trouvee a Pakhrino et qu'il 

-croit cl'un genre nouveau, qu'il a nomme: Orthotetes, du grec op~rm:r1>; droiture, parce que la charniere 

presente uno impression transversale, droite et lineaire. On n'en connait malheureusement qu'une 

valve. 

Voici les caractcres generiques qu'illui assigne: 

Coquille libre, subreguliere, plate, subequivalve, sub6quilaterale. Charniere droite et transversale. 

La valve operculaire, offre une impression·articulaire clroite interrompm~ au milieu par un enfoncement 

a Bull. Soc. imp. des naturalistes de Moscou, vol. 1, 1829, p. 375. 
, 

MOLLUSCOIDEA. 187 

profond, qui est couvert par un prolongement de la charniere comme par un toit qui avance mi\me au 

dela du plan de la valve et parait s'adaptcr a la valve superieure. 

Cette apophyse on [ou] ce prolongement avance en dedans de la coquille en une ari\te droite et 

canaliculee. · 

L' enfoncement pour !'attache du muscle est tres grand, circulaire et rayonne. Le dos de la charniere 

et [est] applati, lisse et comme scie et poli. 

· · Cette coquille offre quelquc resscmblance avec les genres Placuna, Pedum, etc. Il y a mi\mc un 

canal crcus6, dans le dos de la charnierc, ce qui peut montret [ montrer] quelquc analogie avec la derniere. 

Elle est au reste presque aussi mince qu'une Anomie, mais tres reguliercment aplatie et rayonnee. 

This description was unaccompa~ied by figures, and no ~pecies were cited under 

the genus thus newly established. 

The year following, Fischer de W aldheim published another reference to the 

genus a in the form of three figures, which are reproduced in Pl. IV (figs. 1, 1 a), of 

the present work. The only t"ext relating to these figur~s which can be connected with the publication of the previous year is the following, the description 

of Pl. 20, fig. 4: 

4. Orthotetes, nouveau genre de coquilles bivalves. v. Bulletin de la Soc. imp. des Ii.aturalistes 

de Moscou, 1829, p. 375. 

The next reference to the genus was in a later edition of the work last cited, 

published in 1837. b · 

I have seen it claimed in a book catalogue that the current statement that there 

are two editions of this work is erroneous, and that it appeared in parts or fascicles 

from time to time. The actual truth, as is so often the case, probably occupies 

halfway ground. Two copies of this work are fou_nd in the library of the United 

States Geological Survey. One bears as the date of imprint the year 1830. It 

contains an advertisement by Fischer de Waldheim dated March 23, 1830, plates 

to the number of 66 (maps and cuts, Pls. A-G; fossils~ Pls. 1-44; natural history, 

Pis. 1-15), and brief explanations relating to them, but no text. The imprint of 

the other volume is dated thus: "1830 = 1837 ." It contains a similar advertisement, somewhat ehanged, but over the same date, a table of contents (pp. xi-xvii), 

descriptive text (pp. 1-189), explanations of plates (pp. 191-195), an index (pp. 

196-202), 7 maps and cuts (Pls. A-G), and 51 plates of fossils (Pis. 1-51), those on 

1 natural history having been omitted, presumably to make the contents properly 

fit the title. There have. been not only additions, however, but changes. The 

advertisement has been set up afreshi the typography is different, the pagination 

is different, and the matter, while repeated word for word for the most part, has at 

least one important textual change. The description of the plates has also been 

changed, being now arranged on the page in two columns instead of one, and some 

of the matter itself has been altered. Two of the plates even have been changed, 

by the insertion of additional figures, one instance of this be).ng important to the 

subject in hand. The conclusions which I draw from these facts is that the bulk of 

the plates, with explanations but without text, were published in 1830; that additional plates and parts or all of the text were issued during the succeeding seven 

years; and that in 1837 was published a final revised edition of the whole. 

a Oryctographie du gouvernement de Moscou, 1830, pl. 20, figs. 4a and 4b. 

b Oryctographie du gouvernement de Moscou, 1830-1837, pl. 20, figs. 4a, 4b, and 4c. 
188 THE GU~DALUPIAN FAUNA. 

In this volume figs. 4a and 4b are reproduced from the edition 0f 1830, and an 

additional figure (4c) is inserted, which appears as fig. lh of Pl. IV in the present 

work. The explanation of the. plate reads: 

PL. XX. 

1. 2. :~. Inoceramus concentricus, BRONGN., p. 177. 

4. Orthotetes, n. g., p. 133. valve inferieure de l'interieur ... 

(a) charniere applatie vue en dessus, 

(b) canal dorsal de la meme valve, 

(c) valve superieure. 

5. 6. Strophomcna Pecten, p. 145. 

Orthis Pecten, DALMANN. 

7. 8. Strigocephalus Defrancii, p. 145. 

Sphrera corrugata, Sow., Pl. IV, .P· 335. 

The complete text--relating to this genus, which, it may be remarked, Fischer 

de vValdheim includes along with Clwnete8 among the pelecypods, is as follows: 

ORTHOTETES. 

Pl. XX, f. 4, a, b, c. 

Coquille bivalve libre, subequivalvc, incquilaterale; charni~re dfoitc, transverse, lisse. 

La valve operculaire presente unc impression droite, qui est interrompue par un avaneement de Ia 

charniere, en forme de tablettc carree, creuse interieurement, prolonge, interieurement par nne apophyse mcdiane et droite. 

Deux impressions rnusculaires presque circulaires a cote de l'~pophyse rnediane. 

Orthotetes, FrscHER. Bulletin de la Soc., 1829, tome I, p. 375. 

Le nom est deduit du grec, op~or'fi>, droiture, faisant allusion ala forme droite de la charnierc. 

Je nc connais rien de-semblable a cettc forme de la charniere, difficilc a rcndre claire par Ia description. On peut dire que la·forme totale pent rappeler celle d'un peigne sans ailcs, qu'elle est rayonnec 

commc une Strophomi!ne, qu'clle a nne impression dorsale sur la valve operculaire commc Pedum, et 

qu'elle est presqu'aussi minee cornrnc nne Anomie. 

La forme de la charniere avec scs apophyses interieures parait rapprocher cette coquille des Brachiopodes. 

Ccttc coquille sc distingue de toutcs lcs autres bivalves, par Ia eharniere droite, mince et edentee 

dont lc sillon en dcssous re<;oit lc bord mince de la valve opposee. Le prolongement carre du milieu 

depasse de beaucoup la charnierc ct cohere dans l'interieur de la coquille avec nne longue apophyse 

droitc, qui partage lc creux musculairc. La valve opposee ou dorsale n'a qu'un endroit bombe pres de 

Ia charnie.re, elle est au reste plate dans tout son pourtour. M. EvANS a trouvfi cette coquille lc premier 

dans le calcaire de Kalouga; je l'ai retrouve dans celui de Podolsk. 

The fourth important ·publication relating to the genus appeared in 1850. a 

This is quoted in full as follows, and the accompanying figures are reproduced in 

Pl. IV. 

ORTIIOTETES. 

Genre de Ia Famille des Brachiopodes restitue par G. Fischer de Waldheim, avec Pl. X. 

Lorsquc j'ai produit le genre Orthotetes en 1829 (Bulletin de la Soc., I, p. 375), mes connaissances 

n'etaient pas assez claires pour en fonder les caracteres generiques. J'ai reproduit ce genre dans l'oryctographie de Moscou, accompagne d'une figure (1837, 133, Pl. XX, f. 4), mais j'avoue franchement que 

je n'y .ai rien ajoute ala vraie connaissance du genre. 

Maintenant, grace aux recherches geologiqucs de ~- Vosinsky qui a trouve dans Ic district de 

Serpoukhof de notre gouvernement uric scconde cspi'ce, je suis a mllme de completer les caracteres de ce 

genre. 

a Bull. Soc. imp. des. naturalistes Moscou, vol. 23, pt. I, 1850, pp. 491-494. 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 189 

l\L d'Orbigny dans le second volume de l'.ouvrage sur la Russie de Murchison a place cette coquille 

sons le.genre Orthis. Il faut convenir que les deux genres presentent nne grande affinite. Mais l'Ortho. 

tetes se disVngue deja exti\rieurement de l'Orthis, par la grandeur, par la compression totale de ses valves, 

et par la forme arrondie depuis la:charniere jusqu'au bord oppose, par les stries €levees rayonnantes et 

surtout ensuitc par sa charniere. 

Caractcres generiques du genre Orthotetes. 

Testa bivalvis, subooquivalvis: plana valde compressa cardine dentato, dentibus binis latis acuminatis, f. l. 

Area recta, loovis, plus minusve lata, deltidio ohlongo, apice obtuso, f. 2. 

Valve dorsalis intus appendicibus donata. 

La forme large et deprimee de la eharniere la distingue au premier coup d'<:eil de l'Orthis. L'ime 

des especes ne montre qu'une petite elevation ou bosse sous la eharniere, qui depend d'une espeee de 

charpl:mte interieure et quadrangulaire. Cette petite eaisse est eollee ala valve, ainsi que l'appendice 

longitudinale mediane. Cette appendiee est accompagnee de deux autres obliques, qui forment avec 

Ia mediane une espece de croix. Dans l'autre espece l'appendice mediane est simple, sans les branches 

laterales. 

Voici la description de ces deux especes. 

I. Orthotetes radiata. 

Pl. X, f. 3. 

Testa plana striata, striis elevatis radiatis. 

C'est cette espece qui montre a l'interieur ces appendices dont il est question plus haut. Elle est 

tres comprimee et ne montre=que sous la charniere une petite bosse qui couvre cette charpente carree 

interieure. Deux sillons circulaires se trouvent pres du bord et le suivent dans son contour. 

Orthis arachnoidea, d'Orbigny:Murchison. Geologie de la Russie, If, p. 196-197. Pl. 10, f. 18, 

a, b'. Pl. II, f. 1, a, b. 

La description en est faite de main de maitre et il faut la comparer. C'est la meme coquille. Mais 

l'Orthis on Strophomena Pecten de l'Oryctographie (Pl. XX, f. 5, 6) en est differente; elle s'en distingue 

par sa charniere dilatee et par son epaisseur. Elle se trouve dans les couches superieures d'un calcaire 

ferrugineux de DorogomilOff pres de Moscou. 

L'orthotetes rayonne existe isolement dans les couches inferieures du calcaire carbonifere de Podolsk 

du Gouvernement de Moscou et pres de Medine du Gouv. de Kalouga. 

2. Orthotetes soc:ialis. 

Pl. X, f. 4. 

Testa plana valde compressa, tennis fere papyracea, striata: striis tenuissimis radiatis. 

Cette coquille est plus petite que la premiere. La hauteur depuis la charniere jusqu'au bord est 

d'un ponce six linges; la largeur de !'Area comprend un ponce quatre lignes. 

l\L Vosinsky, membre de notre Societe, connu parses recherches geologiques, a trouve cette espece 

dans les couches inferieures du calcaire carbonifere dans le district de Serpoukhoff, a Lisenki, propriete 

de l\1:. le Prince Wiazemsky (Gonvernelllent de Moscou). Elle est repandue dans un calcaire schisteux 

qui s'etcncl a plusieurs verstes et s'y trouve l'une couchee contre !'autre, ou souvent l'une couvrant 

l'autre. Elle est tellement mince que les deux valves ne depassent pas l'epaisseur d'une ligne. 

Les stt·ies sont extrE\mement fines et rayonnees. On y observe quelquefois deux sillons parallcles 

an bore!. 

These four publications of Fischer deW aldheim include, so far as I am aware, all 

the authentic data relating to the genus Orthotetes. ·Lacking the typical specimens, 

we must try to decide from these four works what the characters of the genus really 

are, and to this consideration I now proceed. The other publications relating to 

. this genus, which will be briefly considered later, are important chiefly for historical 

reasons. It is possible that one of these (Tr.autschold) actually dealt with the same 

species which Fischer de W aldheim investigated, but the others offer discussions of 

Orthotetes apparently based upon spec'es belonging to other genera. 
190 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

The opinion seems to have been common (Waagen and Trautschold) that Evans 

was the real author of this genus, and that Fischer de W aldheim acted only as an 

agent in adopting or introducing the name. The point is not a material one, as 

in any event there could hardly be any questions as to the technical authorship. It 

seems to me, however, entirely unnecessary so to interpret the statement in the publication of 1829. I understand that nothing more than the finding of the specimens was ascribed to Evans, and that "croit" and "nomme" do not refer back to 

"Mr. Evans," but to the subject of the whole sentence, "le directeur," Fischer de 

Waldheim. _ 

It is evid~nt also, from the derivation cited by Fischer de W aldheim, which 

should be written opfJoT17S, that the only correct orthography of this name is "Orthotetes," and not, as usually seen, "Orthothetes." 

It is also evident that Fischer de W aldheim did not at first give an adequate 

description of the genus according to present ideas; that not only was his description inadequate, but that he did not name a type or cite any species from which a 

type could be selected; an9- that he even misconceived the structures which his fossils showe9-. What these characters really were appears with progressive clearness 

in subsequent publications by the same author., and it is to the consideration of this 

point that I shall now proceed. 

One can safely say that in Fischer's own mind many of the characters of the 

genus were not clear, ap.d that from this circumstance, from his misconceptions and 

false analogies, and from the lack of a definite terminology, many of his statements 

convey either an untrue meaning or no meaning at all. At the same time I feel satisfied that from the first description this genus was founded on a ventral instead of a 

dorsal valve, as has usually been declared, and that it contained a septum which 

probably connected with the dental plates to form the typical structure of Waagen's 

camerate division of "Derbya." 

, One must bear in mind that in these earlier publications Fischer de W aldheim 

thought this to be a pelecypod genus. Had he known both valves it is less probable 

that he would have entertained this idea, and in fact he states in the first description 

that only one valve is known. His comparison of either valve with Anomia and 

Placuna, at least as these genera are now understood, shows what a very imperfcet 

and fantastic conception the author must have had, both of Orthotetes and of those 

types as well. The key to the whole matter seems to me to rest in his comparison 

with Pedum, a pectinoid genus having a large cardinal area with an elong!lte median 

pit for the ligament. There can be no question which valve of a strophomenoid 

brachiopod presents the closest similarity to this structure. It is true that in 

"Derbya" and its allies the cardinal structures of the dorsal valve are analogous to 

those of the ventral. The dorsal area, however, is always extremely narrow. It 

has no proper delthyrium a and chilidium. By the reduction of the area the delthyrium is reduced in size~ and it is closed by the development of a large cardinal 

process, at the base of which, on its outer side, the chilidium occurs as two little 

ridges more or less connected into a continuous transverse band. The presence of a 

septum in the dorsal valve is, according to my observation, very rare, and it is usua I can not find that this strncture in the dorsal valve h·as ever received a separate name, and have been forced to employ 

a term which seems to pertain to the ventral. · 
MOLL USCO~DEA. 191 

_ally obscure. It seems to me that these structures in the dorsal valve are so inconspicuous as to have escaped any but a closer scrutiny than it is probable Fischer de 

Waldheim ever gave to his specimens, while in the ventral valve they could hardly 

be overlooked. · 

See how his description answers to this interpretation. The shell is described 

as "flat," an expression much more appropriate for the ventral than for the dorsal 

valve. At the same time his remarks here see~ to apply to the genus as he supposed it to be in its entirety, both valves combined, for he immediately proceeds 

to discuss the "lower" valve. So I understand his expression "operculaire" ( operculated, or provided with a cover), and in fact he subsequently figures his specimen 

as a "lower" valve. This, he says, has a straight cardinal area "impression articulaire ") interrupted in the middle by a delthp:ium (" enfoncement pro fond") 

covered by a prolongation of the hinge "com)lle par un toit," which must be a 

pseudodeltidium. The area again seems to be referred to in the words "dos de la 

charniere,", and "arHe droite" is evidently a median septmm whose relation to 

the pseudodeltidium is misconceived and not clearly described. The distinction is 

perhaps made between the cardinal line (" charniere "), described as "lineaire," 

and the area, for which the expression "impression articulaire" is used. Had 

this been a dorsal valve such a description· could hardly have been given. The 

adjective "lineaire" is not applied, as I interpret it to the cardinal area, nor, I 

believe, can the term "apophyse" be taken to mean a cardinal process (which 

· would immediately settle the status of the valve under discussion), since it projects 

inward and connects with the septum. · 

These interpretations are fully borne out by the illustration published in the 

Oryctographie the year following. Here we are clearly shown from the. view of 

the interior that the shell had a strong median septum,. and from the elevation 

above that it had a high area and pseudodeltidium entirely incompatible with the 

identification of thi~ as a dorsal valve. The figure leaves much to be desired in 

representing the relation of the septum to the area and pseudodeltidium, but this 

ambiguity is quite· in harmony with that of the language employed the year previous in describing the same structures. Certain features are clearly out of drawing in the illustration 4a, and the other cut (4b) is almost unintelligible, though it 

may represent the area, septum, and flabelliform muscular scar. In the edition of 

. 1837, however, this is described as being the "dorsal canal," whatever that may 

signify. These figures at least make it clear that Fischer de Waldheim had in 

hand a ventral and not a dorsal valve, and that it belonged to the group for which 

Waagen.proposed the name "Derbya," having within a single strong median plate 

or septum. Here again it will be noted that the figured specimen is not identified 

specifically, so that the genus is still without a quotable type. · 

The same is true of the publication of 1837, in which the genus is defined in 

about the same words as seven years previously. It would, indeed, appear, as· 

Fischer de W aldheim remarks, that the structures of the hinge are "difficile a 

rendre claire par la description," but in his words "impression· droite" I recognize 

the. cardinal area interrupted by "une avancement de la charniere" (pseudo_deltidium covering the delthyrium). This ("en forme de tablette carree, creuse interieurement "), "prolonged within by a straight median apophysis" (which is a 
192 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

median septum), describes, if I am not much mistaken, the structure of Waagen's 

camerate group of Derbya. It will be remarked that his comparisons to the pelecypod genera Pedum, Placuna, and Anomia are less insisted upon. Placuna is 

omitted altogether. The resemblance to Ped11:m would seem to rest on its dorsal 

muscular impression and to Anomia on its delicate shell. Resemblance to the 

structures of brachiopods is noted. The figures, two of which were reproduced 

from the first edition, yield less additional knowledge than the text, w:here some 

~hanges were in fact made. The third figure is a cut of what is called the "uppet 

valve," which is described as being flat except for an inflated region near the 

hinge. This might be said either of the dorsal valve or of a not quite regularly 

developed ventral, but the figure looks like the latter. As at this time .Fischer de 

W aldheim regarded the genus as belonging to the Pelecypoda, and therefore being 

nearly equivalve, it would not be ~nnatural for him to assume two som~what differently shaped ventral valves to be one the upper and the other the lower shell 

of his supposititious genus, especially since one was known only from -the outside 

and the other from the inside. 

In Fischer de Waldheim's final discussion of the genus it will be observed that 

at last two species are described and definitely referred to Orthotetes. The usual pro-

~edure would be to use for a type that called Orthotetes radiatus, no type being named 

and that species standing first under the description. Of the four figures accompanying this publication only two are cited in connection with any specific name, 

the two others being mentioned in connection with the generic description. Thus 

fig. 3 represents Orthotetes radiatus and fig. 4 0. socialis, while fig. 1 is supposed to 

.show the hinge teeth and fig. 2 the cardinal area. Anyone comparing the figure 

·of 0. rad:iatus (fig. 3) with the original figures of the Oryctographie, for which an 

opportunity is here presented, must become convinced that it is merely a more 

faithful representation of the same specimen, while fig. 2 is evidently but an 

improvement of another of the original figures, that showing the cardinal area of 

the same specimen. It beyond question accompanies fig. 3 in belonging to Orthotetes radiatus. It seems to me clear, therefore, that 0. radiatus, which would naturally be used for the genotype of Orthotetes, is based on the same specimens which 

furnished the original description and figures of the genus before any species 

belonging to it had been given names. That 0. radiq,tus is really the species originally used by Fischer de W aldheim in describing Orthotetes is shown by the remark . 

that by means of a second species, found in the district of Serpoukhoff, he was 

able to supplement the characters of the genus. The second species thus referred 

to is 0. social is, found by M. V osinsky in the "Lower Carboniferous"" limestone- of 

the district of Serpoukhoff, while 0. radiatus is the original species, as the figures 

indicate. 

For the species which must be taken as the type of Orthotetes Fischer de Wald-

.heim uses the name 0. radiatus, but it is somewhat· doubtful whether this name can 

be so applied. In the first edition of the Oryctographie, on the same plate as the 

Orthotetes figures, this author represents a shell from Dorogomilov, near Moscow, 

under the name Strophomena radiata. In the 1837 edition these figures are reproduced, but because he believed his shell to be the same as Dalmann's Orthis pecten 

he drops his own name, Strophomena radiata, and cites the species as Strophomena 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 193 

:pecten, but later he says, as quoted above, that Strophomena pecten from Dorog-

·oniilov is distinct from the type of Orthotetes, and that it occurs in higher beds. It 

is evident, therefore, that this form from the Russian "Coal Measures" is ge-

.nerically distinct from the Ordovician species Orthis pecten Dalmann, and that for its 

specific name we must fall back on.radiata, used for it in the first edition of the 

Oryctographie. Unfortunately, as it has already been seen, Fischer de Waldheim 

revives this specific name for the type species of Orthotetes, which he says is distinct 

from Strophomena? radiata. The appearance of his figures is exactly that of an 

Orthotetes or a Derbya, but might be equally. well an Orthothetina or a Schuchertella, 

.etc. · Of comse if Strophomena radiata Fischer de Waldheim 1830 is found to belong 

in the same genus as Orthotetes radiatus Fischer de Waldheim 1850, another nam~ 

will have to be proposed for the type of Orthotetes, unless an available one can be 

found in the synonymy. .AB to this I ani not sufficiently familiar with the synonymy 

-of Russian forms to reach a conclusion, and doubtless recurrence would have to be 

made to original specimens, which for me is of course impossible. I therefore use 

the name 0. radiatus for the type species of Orthotetes, conditionally on the contingencies above defined. 

In the public~tion under consideration (that of 1850) figs. 2 and 3 belong to 

Orthotetes radiatus>· fig. 4 is definitely ascribed to Orthotetes socialis, with which fig. 1 

also should probably be associated, a point to which I shall recur. On the other · 

hand, while the twin figures which appear in the Oryctographie merely as fig. 4a are 

represented in the later publication as figs. 2 and 3, fig. 4c, which purports to repre-

·sent the "upper valve," has been suppressed (possibly because it is really a ventral), 

which is also the fate of 4b, described as the'' dorsal canal" of the "lower valve," unless 

it appears as fig. 1, which I have otherwise disposed of as belonging to 0. socialis. 

Let us now consider what are· the characters of Orthotetes as based on the latest 

and most intelligent authentic account of the genus. Two types of structure are 

.here discriminated by Fischer de W aldhcim. One species is described as having 

the median septum (" appendice longitudinale mediane") connected with two other 

plates oblique to it,· forming a sort of internal quadrangular chamber (" caisse ").a 

In the other species the median septum is simple, without lateral branches. This 

language, while not technical, is quite plain and clearly describes in the first instance 

the type of structure on which W aagen based the camerate division of his genus 

Derbya, while the other describes his septati. Since under 0. radiatus, described 

immediately thereafter, Fischer de W aldheim says "It is this species which shows 

-on the inside the lamellre [' ces appendices,' by which term are designated both the 

:septum and dentallamellre in the remarks quoted] referred to above," it seems clear 

'that it is 0. radiatus which possesses the internal chamber, a structure which is 

imperfectly represented also by his figures of that species, while 0. socialis has the 

:structure of the septati. It is clear that the interior of the latter species was known 

to Fischer de W aldheim, because one of his first remarks is t_hat it permits him to 

a It is this structure, here for the first time described and figured in a fairly intelligible manner, which is referred to as an 4 'apophyse" or "prolongement" of the pseudodeltidium (toit, vide context), prolonged within as a median septum (arete 

droite et canaliculec), and which is somewhat correspondingly represented in the 183o' edition of the Oryctographie. The 

.{)amera combined with the pseudodcltidimn is evidently meant by the words of the 1839 edition,' 'un avancement de Ia char· 

ni~re, en forme de tablettecarrec," and in the work under consideration is first mentioned as' 'une petite elevation ou bosse" 

·,beneath the hinge, being described more fully immediately thereafter. 

3695--~0.58--08----13 
194 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

complete his generic diagnosis, and because he proceeds to give characters belonging 

to the internal structure. It would be natural, therefore, that he should illustrate 

the interior of 0. socialis, as well as the exterior, which is shown in fig. 4, and it seems 

highly probable that fig. 1, which is not ascribed to either of the species, and which 

appears to represent a shell belonging to the s~ptati, really serves this purpose, and 

goes with fig. 4 as illustrating 0. socialis. 

To consider now the work of certain other authors as it bears on the history 

or the proper understanding of this genus, the remarks of De V erneuil in the "Geology of Russia" (1845) fir~t call for comment. This author places Orthotetes among 

the Brachiopoda, so that when this step was taken by Fischer de W aldheim five 

years later he was merely accepting the views of the distinguished Frenchman, but 

De Verneuil confuses the group with Orthis, of which genus he makes Orthotetes a 

synonym. Indeed, he places both Orthotetes Fischer de Waldheim and Strophomena pecten in the synonymy of Orthis arachnoidea Phillips. His description of the 

interior seems to be based on Fischer's figures as much as on actual specimens, and 

apparently applies to the "septate" type of structure. To his description, however, much weight can not be attached so far as it stands against Fischer de Waldheim's, unless it is shown to have been derived from more authentic or more accurately identified material than would appear to be the case. Fischer, as we have 

seen, while acknowledging the correctness of De Verneuil's description as a whole, 

yet maintained the independence :from Orthis of his genus Orthotetes, as was quite 

justified, and deseribed as new the two species Orthotetes radiatus and O.socialis. 

. We find in 1873 a De Koninck accepting Orthotetes as a valid genus distinct 

from Orthis, but his knowledge of the great diversity of forms which he assigns to· 

it under a single specific designation seems to be restricted to the external configuration, not having extended to the structure of the dental and septal plates. He 

therefore uses Orthotetes to replace Streptorhynchus and overlooks all the internal 

differences which .have since been used for generic discrimination among the unplicated Orthotetinro. In recognizing Orthotetes as distinct from Orthis, De Koninck 

makes no advance, however, since Fischer maintained the same distinction in his 

work last quoted, while English paleontologists had for many years separated the 

shells under the name of 8treptorhynchus, which, as we have just seen, De Koninck 

regards as the same as Orthotetes. 

In 1876, or three years after De Koninck's description, Trautschold,b in describing the Carboniferous fauna of Mjatschkowa, had occasion to discuss some of the 

species oil which Fischer de W aldheim worked. He places Orthotetes radiatus in the 

synonymy of Orthis crenistri.a and represents that species by a figure which one 

would say clearly showed the structure of the camerate group of "Derbya." Schell-· 

wienc refigures Trautschold's specimen as Derbya sp. The somewhat better figure 

given by Schellwein is not altogether unambiguous, but I have little doubt that it 

represents one of the .septati. Mjatschkowa is the locality from which this specimen 

was obtained. Orthotetes radiatus was first cited from Pakhrino, a smali hamlet 

a Monogmphie des fossils Carboniferes de Bleiberg, en Carinthie: Recherches sur les animaux fossiles, pt. 2, 1873,. 

p. 42. 

· b Die Kalkbriiche von Mjatschkowa, Mo'scow, 1876, p. 63. 

cNeues Jahrbuch, Jahrg. 1900, vo!. 1, 1900, pl. 1, fig. 9. 
MOLLUSCOID EA. 

south of Moscow. In the publication of 1850 Fischer de Waldheim mentions as the 

locality Podolsk, a larger tmvn near Pakhrino and somewhat west of it. Pakhrino 

is situated about midway between Podolsk and Mjatschkowa. It is not improbable· 

therefore that Trautschold's specimens _actually belong to Orthotetes radiatus, 

A great step in advance was marked by Waagen's monograph on the Salt Range· 

fossils,a in which he employs septal structures for the classification of this group of 

shells. As we have seen, even after the later description of Orthotetes, which, 

indeed, if not quite adequate was sufficient to distinguish it from Orthis, Fischer de 

Waldheim's genus did not find general acceptance and apparently was for the most 

part quite overlooked or where recognized was confused with Orthis, as by De. 

Verneuil and Trautschold; or made to include most of the Orthotetinre, as by De· 

Koninck. 

W aagen' s remarks on this genus are as follows: 

Genus: Orthothetes, Fischer v. Waldheim. 

Though this name has been quoted as applied by Evans to certain forms already in the year 1829,. 

yet the genus can not be considered as fairly established before the year 1830, when in the first edition 

of the "Oryctographie" the interior of a dorsal valve was distinctly figured and the genus definitely 

transferred to the Brachiopoda by Fischer v. Waldheim. In the edition of 1830 only the interior of the 

dorsal valve was figured, whilst in the edition of 1837 an external view of a ventral valve is added. 

In both cases there can not remain the slightest doubt that the name was applied to a shell very 

nearly related to Streptorhynchus crenistria, Phill., and which chiefly in the internal characters of the. 

dorsal valve is generically identical with Phillips's species. The name must thus be restricted to those· 

forms and the genus may be characterized in the following manner: 

The external shape of the shells belonging to this genus is in no way characteristic and it is only by 

the internal characters that the genus can be recognized. 

In tho dorsal valve a cardinal process of moderato dimensions exists, which is generally bifid and 

comparatively broad. Laterally it is joined to the walls of the dental sockets. These latter are not 

very large and not supported by shelly lamellre, so that the diverging septa which are characteristic of 

the preceding genera· are absent in the present one. Instead of these, however, there seems to be not 

rarely a median dorsal septum developed wLich is immediately joined to and takes its origin at the 

cardinal process. This median dorsal septum appears on Fischer v. Waldheim's original figure as well 

as on Pl. XXVII, fig. 6, of Davidson's Carboniferous monograph. 

In the ventral valve as far as my experience goes every kind of septum is absent. 

The muscular impressions of both valves have boon excellently described by Mr. Davidson·, but. 

they are in their general arrangement very similar to the muscular impressions of other genera. 

There can be no doubt that Strept. crenistria, Phill., belongs to this genus oven if it should be proved 

that Fischer v. Waldheim's original specimen did not belong to the same species. Also the species or 

varieties St. radialis, PhilL, and St. arachnoidea, Phill., perhaps, too, the typical St. eylindrica, McCoy, 

will have to be connected to it. Otherwise not much is known of species of the genus. 

There can be ho question that the spelling of the name "Orthothetes," which. 

appears. to have originated with Waagen is without authority or argument. The 

implication that the name was first employed by Evans also seems to me unwarranted. It is, furthermore, quite clear that the genus was not recognized by Fischer · 

as belonging to the Brachiopoda in ~830 nor in 1837, but much later, in 1850, after 

it had been· so determined by De V erneuil. W aagen also commits an error which 

seems to have begun with De Koninck, in saying that Fischer's original figures represent a dorsal valve. A careful comparison of Fischer's·texts and figures, as I have 

aMem. Geol..Survey India, Pal. Indica, ser. 13, val. 1, 1887, pp. 575 et seq.· 
196 THE GUADALUPIAN l!'AUNA. 

attempted to show, must convince an impartial student that the shell was a ventral 

valve. This misapprehension on the part of \V aagen is so fundamental that for 

once this excellent paleontologist has been led quite astray and his diagnosis based 

on Streptorhynchus cre'»,istria and its allies is erroneous. 

Hall and Clarke, the latest contributors to the history of the genus, unfortunately follow Waagen, without having referred to the original sources. Indeed, 

these publications are so rare that but few opportunities for making the necessary 

·comparisons exist in this country. These authors give an excellent discussion of 

the group of forms to which Waagen misapplies the name Orthotetes and under 

Derbya an equally adequate discussion of the group to which it more properly 

belongs, but naturally add nothing to the present subject. They do indeed call 

attention to the fact .that in his 1850 publication Fische;r de Waldheiin figures a 

.species of Orthotetes which shows the structures of "Derbya," but they fail to note 

that this is the typical species of Orthotetes and that the figures are drawn from the 

.same specimens from which the original description of the genus was derived. 

It seems to me that the. evidence submitted shows almost beyond dispute that the 

.shell first described by Fischer de Waldheim was a ventral valve; that the same 

.specimen was used later to illustrate his improved diagnosis of Orthotetes and to found 

his species 0. radiatus; that he was consistent in describing a second species of 

Orthotetes possessing essentially the same structures; that though he took cognizance 

chiefly of structures calculated to distinguish Orthotetes from the Orthidre, and failed 

to lay stress on such as would distinguish it from other groups of the Strophomenidre, 

these distinctive characters are more or less clearly described in his text a~d repre-

.sented by his figures from first to last; and that while Waagen proposed the name 

Derbya for the structural type to which Orthotetes really applies, he employs the 

name Orthotetes for a group having the structures neither as described by Fischer de 

Waldheim, nor as shown by the type species 0. radiatus. Thus Derbya of Waagen 

becomes, strictly speaking, a synonym of Orthothetes and the group which Waagen 

discriminated under the name Orthothetes becomes anonymous. For this group I 

proposed the name Schuchertella, in honor of my one time colleague, taking for 

the type of the genus the Kinderhook species Orthoteteslens \Vhite. As I shall elsewhere (p. 198) have occasion to remark, there seems to be some doubt as to the 

structure of Orthotetes? crenistria, the spec~es commonly employed as the genotype 

·of Orthotetes, so that Phillips's species could not safely be selected for this office. On 

the other hand, the interior of Schuchertella lens is accurately known from specimens 

undeniably belonging to that species. The characters of the group for which the 

name Schuchertella was proposed have been described not only by Waagen, but more 

recently by Hall and Clarke, a who also illustrate the type spe"cies S. lens. . 

It would appear that as 0. radiatus seems to represent. the camerati and 

0: socialis the septati, the genus Orthotetes in its original content is precisely equiva- . 

lent to Derbya. But the typical species of Derbya is one of the septatib while the 

•Nat. IIist. New York, Pal., vol. 8, pt.l, 1892, p. 253. 

b While Waagen had Derby and his Brazilian species especially in mind, in naming the genus Derbya, the only Indian 

shells which he discovered belonged to the septate division; and shells of this type were for a long time the only ones which 

were well known. Waagen did not designate a type species for Derbya, and probably the first one described under that genus, 

Dcrbya reuularis, should be used. 'fhis species has been employed in this sense by Hall and Clarke, and as it lmlongs to the 

.septate division the name Derbya may safely be confined to this type of structure. 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 197 

typical species of Orthotetes is one of the camerati. Since the difference between the 

camerate and septate structures when characteristically developed is somewhat 

striking, I avail myself of this circumstance, by restricting each name to the division 

which its typical species represents, at the same time to give independent existence 

to these two groups of shells and to retain both of the current names. The term 

Orthotetes, therefore, is here employed only'for ·the camerate division of the original 

genus Derbya, while Derbya is. restricted to its typical div!sion~"tlle septati. 

While I think there can be but little question that the shells from which the first 

description of the genus Orthotetes were drawn belong to the group for which Waagen's 

term Derbya is now in use, there might possibly be a difference. of opinion as to the 

date which should be give:q for the establishment of the genus. Fischer de Waldheim's first description is not very clear, but it certainly implies structures the possession of which warrants the discrimination of Orthotetes from the other strophomenids. 

On the other hand, no figures accompany it, nor any list of species, one of which 

might be taken as a type. Figures were given in the Oryctographie (edition of 1830), 

but only such as represent the interior. No specific name was connected with the 

figures, in which are no intrinsic means for specific identification. The later edition, 

in 1837, contained a figure of the exterior of a dorsal valve, but again without a 

specific name or adequate means of identification with a known species. It was 

apparently these figures which were identified by De VerneJiil (not D'Orbigny, as 

stated by Fischer, nor Bronn, as stated by Dall) with Orthotetes arachnoides, which 

Davidson regards as merely a variety of Streptorhynchus crenistria Phillips. This 

opinion has received general acceptance, and in tpis way the type species of Orthotetes is sometimes cited as Orthis crenistria, e. g., Hall and Clarke. Waagen's interpretation of Orthotetes was also determin.ed by this species, and by the figures of the 

interior of Streptorhynchus crenistria which Davidson has furnished. He remarks: 

"There can be no doubt that Strept. crenistria, Phill., belongs to this genus, even if it 

should be proved that Fischer v. Waldheim's original specimen did not belong to the 

same species." a Streptorhynchus crenistria may have had no septum in the ventral 

valve, as it is described by Waagen and Davidson, or it may have had two septa (dental plates), as Schellwien represents it; but apparently it did not have a single median 

septum on any count. Thus it can not belong to the same speci()s, nor, according to 

present ideas, to the same genus, as Orthotetes radiatus. 

With the publication of 1850 we first have a thoroughly intelligible description of 

Orthotetes associated with the description of a species which might be taken for a 

genotype. Some might take the ground that the genus was adequately founded 

only at this time, the generic name being bound up with 0. radiatus as its type. 

Were this all, I would even yet incline to recur to the earlier description of 1829, 

though a type was not associated with it until later, because that description does, 

after all, indicate the essential points, and clearly is in agreement with the 1850 

description. The probability, amounting almost to certainty, however, that the 

specimens figured in 1830 were the same as those on which 0. radiatus was based in 

1850, and on which the generic description of that date depends, seems to strengthen 

the argument for going back to the earlier date. 

· a Waagen, W., Mem. Geol. Survey India, Pal. Indica, ser. 13, vol. 1, 1887, p. 607. 
198 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

Some argument, too, might be made in favor of retaining Waagen's name Orthothetes, even if Orthotetes does replace Derbya, on the ground that the two words are not 

the same, letter for letter; but they are near enough to occasion much confusion, in 

view of the close biqlogical relationship of the two genera and the association of 

the names in taxonomy. I am also disposed to attach ill).portance to the common-

.sense argument that Waagen was not proposing a new genus in using Orthothetes, but 

was clearly redefining a group to which he believed Fischer deW aldheim had half a 

century earlier applied the name Orthotetes. · 

Reference has already been made to the uncertainty about the internal structures 

·of Streptorhynchus crenistria. The interiors figured by Davidson can probably be 

taken as belonging to Phillips's species. If so, they c:,.n certainly be placed in the 

-genus Schuchertella.. Schellwien, however, :figures specimens identified as Ortho-

'thetes crenistria, which have two long septiform dental plates. It is evident· that 

these shells do not bcl~ng to the same species, and probably not to the same genus, 

as those :figured by Davidson and embraced in Waagen's definition of "Orthothetes." 

Apparently Schellwien held the same view, for he excludes from this group of bisep-

. tate shells, for which he employs the name "Orthothetes," a species which Waagen 

ascertained to be without ventral plates, and so to belong to" Orthothetes" as understood by him. This form, p. subplanus, Schellwienplaces in Streptorhynchus, apparently disregarding the· difference in other respects which distinguish Streptorhynchus 

from Waagen's "Orthothetes," unless, indeed, he ascertained characters which showed 

Waagen's reference to have been an error. For the later representatives of this 

biseptate group, which differ from the earlier ones in having the dental plates par-

. allel or converging, instead of very strongly diverging, Schellwien suggests the term 

Orthothetina. It is clear to me that these biseptate shells can not be placed in any 

of the subdivisions previously recognized; and I also doubt the advisability of distinguishing the earlier from the later types, unless other characters can be assigned 

than difference in the direction of the dental plates. Though it seems probable that 

these differences exist and will yet be ascertained, it is deemed best for the present 

to extend the term Orthothetina so as to embrace both forms. 

The genus Orthotetes, its known representation the world over being considered, 

is much rarer than Derbya. W aagen found it to be lacking in the faunas of the Salt 

Range, while, strangely enough, Schellwien observed neither genus in the Alpine 

Permian fauna. The forms described by Abich from Armenia, which Waagen conceived to belong to Orthotetes, Schellwien has stated to be representatives of Orthothetina. The South American species Orthotetes correanus is a classical example of 

. this group, and it is almost certain that the genotype; 0. radiatus of Russia, was one 

. of the carnerates. Under the title of Orthis crenistria Trautschold has figured a 

Russian species which appears to have the camerate structure. A better illustration 

of the same specimen by Schellwien, however, makes it very doubtful whether it is 

·not one of the septati. The interpretation ofthe figure depends largely on the inclination at which the view is supposed to be taken. If the view is foreshortened the 

structure may well be the septate type. But the outline of the specimen as a whole 

indicates that there is no foreshortening, and if the view is perpendicularly downward the structure would appear to be of the camerate type. In that case it may 

belong to 'Orthotetes radiatus, the type of Orthotetes. Schellwien's remark, however, 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 199 

that this specimen" zcigte die Merkmale vonDerbyia in vortreffiicher Weise und diirfte 

mit den hier in Text abgebildeten Exemplaren von der Indiga specifisch iiberein-

·stimmen," a seems. to settle the matter, for the text figure referred to clearly repre-

.seilts one of the septati. 

In North America species possessing the camerate type of structure have not as 

yet been noted. Such as occur are probably rare, or possess the characteristic septal arrangement in an inconspicuous degree. The latter is true of Orthotetes keokuk, 

which seems to belong to this group. No post-Mississippian representatives of Orthotetes, however, are lmown to me, with the exception of the Guadalupian species 

described hereafter. Of these the forms discriminated are five in number-0. guadalupensis, 0. declivis, 0. distortus, 0. distortus var._ campanulatus, and Orthotetes sp. a. 

The four species named first are all found in the Capitan limestone, and show the 

.characteristic camerate structure in a high degree of development, so that, with the 

exception of Orthotetes sp. a, whose generic affinities are doubtful and whose horizon 

is the basal black limestone, the development of this genus appears to have taken 

place in the higher measures of the Guadalupian section. 

The Guadalupian representatives of Orthotetes, and also of Derbya, are distin-

.guished from the Pennsylvanian species, and I suspect from many of those of foreign 

areas as well, by their extremely fine liration. One species (0. guadalupensis) is 

peculiar in having the lirre smooth, flattened, and crowded, instead of sharp, crenulated, and spaced, a type of surface which probably belongs also to 0. declivis and 

-differs from anything I have before seen in these shells. All things considered, this 

type constitutes a rather individual feature of the American fauna. 

0. guadalupensis and 0. declivis may be taken to represent one group which is 

-distinguished from another, composed tlf 0. distortus and 0. distortus var. campanulatus, by having broad, rounded lirre, instead of thin, sharp ones, though the distinction is not easily enforced, because exfoliation is apt considerably to obscure this 

feature. These two groups are distinguished from Orthotetes sp. a, by having a much 

more elevated ventral valve. 

0RTHOTETES GUADALUPENSIS n. sp. 

Pl. X, figs. 1 to 5. 

1859. Orthisina, sp. (?). Shumard, Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, vol. 1, p. 395 (date of volume, 1860). 

White [Permian] limestone: Guadalupe Mountains. 

Shell small, planoconvex, subpyramidal. Dorsal valve transverse, subcircular, 

-or subelliptical. Hinge line straight, much narrower than the width below. Anterior margin straightened; lateral margins strongly and evenly rounded, merging 

into the anterior, b~t joining the cardinal margin with a faint angulation. Convexity moderate. U:rnbo rather prominent. Beak small, not projecting beyond 

the hinge line. Cardinal area apparently linear. Dental lamellre long and n:ot 

strongly diverging, making an angle of less than 90° between them. 

Ventral valve high-conical. Area high, well defined, flat, divided by the delthyrium into two equal portions, each of which is again divided by a diagonal line 

running from the apex to the cardinal margin and situated somewhat farther from 

a Neues Jahrbuch, Jahrg. 1900, vol. 1, 1900, p. 10. 
200 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

-the outer edge of the area than from the edge of tlJ_e delthyrium. The inner portion 

of each side of the delthyrium is somewhat raised and indistinctly striated longitudinally. The outer portion oh either side bears conspicuous transverse strire. The· 

delthyrium is narrow and covered by a rather strongly convex pseudodeltidium, 

which extends almost to the cardinal line and is distinctly, though finely, cross 

striated. Longitudinally the area is sometimes flat, but more often somewhat concave. Occasionally the curvature is considerable, and sometimes the apex is more· 

or less bent to one side or the other. The area usually seems to make a slightly 

obtuse angle with the plane on which the edges of the two valves unite. The expansion of the shell was, as a rule, symmetrical and regular, but rugosities now and thim 

occur. Usually the line from apex. to edge of the shell is nearly straight, occasionally 

somewhat concave, and when the apex is distinctly bowed is somewhat convex. 

This valve often has a faint sinus and the other an indistinct fold; but this feature 

is hardly to be perceived, except on the joined edges of the two valves, where it. 

produces a faint sinuosity. 

Surface marked by fine, regular, equal, radiating lirre, of which 16 or 17 are· 

found in the space of 5 mm. Toward the. hinge line they are somewhat curved. 

Increase is by implantation; and where some of the lir.re are small and young the 

number given above is considerably in.creased. The lirre are depressed, rounded, 

not separated by relatively large intervals; neither are they alternating nor ci'enulate, as in so many strophomenoids, but rather resemble those of Orthis. This 

character, together with their fineness, makes this shell noticeable among the related 

forms in our collection. 

Up to the present this shell is practically unknown save at the El Capitan. 

locality (station 2926), where, however, it 'is abundant. A single specimen from 

station 2906, southwest of Guadalupe Peak, agrees closely with dorsal valves froin 

the typical locality, and though in size it somewhat exceeds the types, a large 

ventral valve from the same station indicates about equal dimensions. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station_ 

2926); base of Capitan formation, hill southwest of Guadalupe Point (station 2906); 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2963 ~), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains,. 

Texas (stations 2962 ~ and 2969 n. 

0RTHOTETES DECLIVIS n. sp. 

Pl. X, figs. 6 to Sa. 

The following description is taken from the type specimens__;_a ventral and a 

dorsal valve found in the Capitan formation of the Guadalupe section. Variations shown by other specimens will be described thereafter. 

Ventral valve high, conical. Area flat, moderately hlgh, probably strongly 

inclined backward. Width of area at least 30 mm.; height 13 mm. Pseudodeltidium 

about 51 mm. wide at base, rather convex, marked by fine transverse lines. Othercharacters as in Ortlwtetes guadalupensis. Shape probably transversely semicircular, more or less strongly contracti.qg at the· hinge. A line drawn on the 

surface from the apex to any point in the periphery would be nearly rectilinear, very 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 201 

slightly convex. Surface as in 0. guadalupensis, with very fine flattened lirre separated by narrow grooves. 

Three dorsal valves associated with the ventral described above have been 

referred to the same species. None of them is sufficiently perfect to show the shape, 

which is probably nearly semicircular, contracted at the hinge. The convexity is 

considerable; the beak small, depressed, and projecting but little beyond the cardinal line. Surface as in 0. guadalupensis. The cardinal process is long and bilobed, 

and its direction is-heady at right angles with the plane of the shell edge. The 

dentallamellre are long and mutcially directed at an angle of about 60°. 

In the foothills southwest of Guadalupe Peak, where the Capitan limestone is 

faulted down to a much lower level, a form occurs in considerable abundance, though 

imperfectly preserved, which seems to be conspecific with the types. The ventral 

valve in some specimens is proportionately a little narrower and higher; in others 

a little broader and lower. · The type specimen is peculiarly regular and symmetrical; these others are more or less distorted and uneven. It is impossible to ascertain the real shape of these specimens, because the anterior portion is in every case 

broken away, but the dorsal valves appear to have normal proportions: The dorsal 

valves with which these ventrals are associated agree with those from the main range, 

except that the dental plates are less lengthy than in the somewhat extreme example figured. A dorsal from this locality, of the usual type, is represented in Pl. X, 

fig. 8. The type ventral valve does not show the character of the septum and den 

tal plates, but others demonstrate the presence of a large chamber. 

The most nearly related species is evidently Orthotetes guadalupensis, which 

occurs in the same beds. From this form 0. declivis is distinguished in several ways. 

It is a much larger shell, and the ventral valve has a -lower and broader area. The 

shape does not contract as rapidly near the area as in the smaller form. The dorsal 

valve closely resembles that of 0. guadalupensis, but is larger and has proportionately longer dental lamellre. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 

2926); base of Capitan formation, hill southwest of Guadalupe Point (station 2906), 

Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. · 

0RTUOTETES DISTORTUS n. sp. 

Pl. X, figs. 9 to 9c. 

Of this species but a single specimen has been obtained, and it presents differences from Orthotetes guadalupensis, with which it is associated, so marked that they 

can hardly be referred to the same specific group. 0. distortus is a small shell, much 

inferior in size to 0. guadalupensis. The maximum width is only 11 mm. Both 

valves are highly unsymmetrical and distorted. The hinge line is narrower than 

the shell in front. The dorsal valve is moderately convex; the ventral is relatively 

high, measuring about 6 mm. · The area, about 6 mm. in width, is flat, and the 

pseudodeltidium convex, but broad, low, and not well defined. In this regard it is 

in marked contrast to 0. guadalupensis. It also bears a longitudinal callosity that 

is narrow and almost linear. . The surface is m~rked by extremely fine sub equal 

lirre, of which 35 or more occur in the space of 5 mm .. The liration is thus "seen to 
·' 

202 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

be much finer than in 0. guadaZ.upensis, and is, in fact, but little .more than just 

visible to the naked eye. 

In my preliminary list I referred this shell to Derbya bennetti ?. The general 

.aspect is rather similar to that species, but the Guadalupian form is much smaller 

and mor~ finely striated, besides possessing the structural peculiarities of the camerate 

group. 

To this species has provisionally been assigned a small, fragmentary, silicified 

example from the Glass Mountains. It is distinguished primarily by its extremely 

fine liration, in which it agrees with 0. distortus, itself unique among Guadalupian 

strophomenoids in this particular. The lirre, however, are a little thinner, . With 

relatively wider strire between. The hinge plate is large, With a tendency to extend 

-downward into the valve as if when fully grown it might have surrounded a muscular 

area. The fragment has a length of scarcely 5 mm., but this appears to be nearly 

the original dimensions. 

It is of course highly uncertain whether this specimen belongs with the Capitan 

species. No other identification, however, appears equally promising. 

Horizon and Zocality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). ·Delaware Mountain formation, Comanche Canyon, 

Glass Mountains, Texas (station 3763). · 

0RTHOTETES DISTORTUS var. CAMPANULATUS n. var. 

Pl. X, figs. 10 to lOc. 

Of this form a single specimen has been obtaine.d-a ventral valve, It resembles 

Orthotetes distortus in a general way, and yet presents some marked differences, and 

being ·uncertain whether it would with propriety be thrown With that species, on the 

one hand, or made the type of a new one on the other, I have chosen what may be 

-considered as a middle course and distinguished it from 0. distortus merely as a 

variety. Only the ventral valve of this species is known, and from it the following 

-description has been drawn up: 

Shell rather small, high, conical, campanulate. Growth irregular and asymmetrical. Area narrow, high, nearly flat, but twisted and slightly concave. It is 

poorly defined from the convex walls of the shell. Its general direction to the 

plane of the shell edge is nearly vertical or slightly inclined forward. Hinge line 

'7 mm., much shorter than the width infront, which is 16 mn1: Length of aperture 

17 mm. Nearly all of the ~rea (about 5 mm.) is occupied by {he pseudodeltidium, 

which is convex, and by the greatly thickened edges of the dental plates. The latter 

are rather long, uniting with the septum, which extends well nigh to the edge of the 

.shell. The lirre are very fine, equal, regular, subangular, and depressed, separated 

by intervals about equal to their own thickness. 

In its irregular growth and rapid expansion near the aperture this shell develops 

several distinct plications, which might possibly warrant the assignment of it to the 

genus Geyerellar. It appears, however, that this is but an accidental feature. The 

.larger _size, greater relative height, and narrower area should distinguish this form 

from 0 .. distortus. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains; Texas (station 2926). 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 203 

0RTHOTETES? sp. a. 

This division is introduced for a type occurring in the black limestone which 

forms the basal member of the Guadalupian series. Only a single ventral valve has 

been found, and on it the following description has been based: 

The area is low, flat, and either at right angles to the plane of the edge or 

slightly inclined forward. Width about i2 mm., height about 3 mm. The pseudodeltidium is mpderately convex, about 3 mm. wide at the base. The shape of the 

shell is depressed, subconical. The growth is symmetrical, but somewhat irregular. 

The maximum width is about 18 mm., the length uncertain. The line number 

about 20 in a space of 5 mm., the measurement of necessity being taken not far from 

the apex. They are slender, moderately high, and separated by intervals greater 

than themselves. ·Fine concentric line of considerable strength can also be noted, 

and at present are confined to the flat interliral spaces. The septum is long and 

thin, and probably unites with· the dentallamellre. It is seen to be continuous with 

the plate on one side, but that on the other side appears to be missing. 

As it is not clear to which of the two ·great groups of Orthotetes (Orthotetes sensu 

stricto or Derbya) this form belongs, it seems hopeless to attempt to fix its specific 

position. Its most noticeable features are its low altitude, small size, and fine, 

sharp l~rre. The latter feature at once distinguishes it from the group of Orthotetes 

guadalupensis. It is in fact more similar in superficial appearance, and possibly in 

internal structure, to Derbya sp. a, but appears to differ in having more regular 

growth and a relatively lower and more upright cardinal area, and besides being 

much smaller, it has finer lirre and occurs at a lower geologic horizon. 

To this same group I have provisionally assigned an imperfect dorsal valve 

from the Glass Mountains, which is distinguished by having very fine, slender, 

somewhat spaced, and occasionally alternating lirre, long, straight socket plates, and 

.a long cardinal process directed nearly at right angles to the plane of the edge. The . 

size attained was upward of 20 mm. in transverse diameter. The sculpture in this 

.specimen is largely obscured, but appears to be very similar to the ventral valve 

from the black limestone, though possibly somewhat finer. The prolonged and 

strongly elevated socket plates are suggestive of the form described as Orthotetes 

declivis. The chief positive difference resides in the lirre, which are broadly rounded 

in declivis, though they appear more angular when exfoliated, their usual condition. 

As the Glass Mountain specimen is silicified, however, this explanation can not be 

invoked in order to unite them. Except for this circumstance I would have tenta-

-tively placed this shell with 0. declivis. 

Horizon and locality.-Basal"black limestone, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2920). Delawar.e Mountain formation, Comanche Canyon, 

:Glass Mountains, Texas (station 3763). 

Genus GEYERELLA Schellwien. 

Geyerella is another name introduced by Schellwien, and is valid for the_group to 

which it was applied, though hardly, it appears to me, in a full generic sense. .The 

·shells which it includes are especially distinguished by their plicated surface and by 

the internal structures of the ventral valve, where the long dental plates converge · 
204 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

and unite with the median septum. This is precisely the internal structure of the 

camerate group of Derbya, a fact to which Schellwien does not, in my view, give 

sufficient weight-indeed, I do not know that he calls attention to it at all. Geyerella then stands in the same relation to Orthotetes that Meekella does to Orthothetina, 

and that the plicated group of Streptorhynchus does to t4e.simple one. I can not 

accord these plica ted shells full generic rank, nor am. hvili:iii~ to tedu~e them to mere 

divisions. In any event, it appears to me that all should be treated alike. 

The only American representative of this genus at present known to me is the 

species described below. It apparently does not possess any marked traits by which 

it is strongly distinguished from the European species. 

GEYERELLA AMEIUCANA n. sp.a 

Pl. XI, figs. 2 to 2b. 

' This species is represented in our collections by a number of specimens, all of 

which, unfortunately, are extremely fragmentary. The most complete example is 

represented by the figures, and even tha:t is better for showing generic characters 

than specific. It consists of part of the ventral valve of a large"sheU; the dorsal valve 

of which is missing. The height when complete must have been about 40 mm.; 

the length from the anterior margin to the center of the area is also about 40 mm. 

The shape is thus seen to be rather elongate conical. The area makes nearly a right 

angle, possibly a somewhat acute angle, with the opening of the shell. The delthyrium is rather broad, and the convex pseudodeltidium is probably somewhat depressed 

below the surface of the area. 

The surface is marked by about 26 strong but irregular plications, which become 

obsolete on both sides near the area. A few of the plications bifurcate. The superficiallirre with which the surface is covered are almost obliterated by exfoliation; 

but they appear to be fine and equal, and manifest a tendency to curve upward from 

the sides of the plication onto their crests, just as in the genus Meekella. 

Geyerella americana finds its closest ally in G. gemmellaroi)· but as Schellwien 

figures that species b without, so far as I have been able to discover, describing it, 

and especially as I have not been able to examine any speCimens belonging to it, I 

find· it impossible to make a close comparison. The present species shows more 

strongly marked plications than G: distorta or G.? eusarkos. 

Shumard ci~es from Guadalupe Peak a form ·which he calls Streptorhynchus-

(Orthisina) shumardianum, a name now generally regarded as a synonym of Meekella 

striaticostata. It is possible that the form mentioned may have been a representative of this species, or it may have been a true Meekella, though not probably one 

conspecific with Cox's species. 

This type of structure and surface combined is entirely unknown in the faunas 

of the Mississippi Valley, and this first citation of Geyerella from either of the Americas 

is attended with some interest. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of dapitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). 

a In the preliminary notice of this species I referred to it a~ Mcekella n. sp. 

b Neues J ahrbuch, J ahrg. 1900, vol. 1, Separat-Abdruck, 1899, pl. 1, figs. 7a, 7b. 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 205 

Genus MEEKELLA White and St. John. 

This genus is distinguished from Orthothetina very much as Geyerella is distingu~shed from Orthotetes, and both groups can hardly be allowed full generic rank. 

The distinguishing features of Meekella are its plicated surface and its long, nearly 

parallel dental plates. A remarkably well-preserved example in the Guadalupian 

fauna possesses structures compelling a doubt, however, as to whether these septa 

are really dental plates. They do not meet the area along the margins of the delthyrium, but considerably to the sides, while from the delthyrial margins, where 

the dental plates should originate, a pair of small platelike structures arise, bend 

outward, and unite with the two septa. (See fig. 10, Pl. XXX.) Indications of 

a similar structure have been noted in Meekella striaticostata. What interpretation should be placed on these observations is doubtful, but they may mean that 

the two septal plates correspond to the single septum of Derbya and Orthotetes, and 

that the real dental plates join but are not continuims with them. 

It is perhaps rather striking that this genus has been found only in the lowest 

beds of the Guadalupe section~ It is true, however, that Shumard cites Streptorhynchus shumardianum Swallow ( = Meekella striaticostata Cox) from the sandstones 

near the base of the Guadalupe Mountains. Whether this was a Geyerella or a 

Meelcella will probably never be known. From the black limestone at the base of 

the section we have M. attenuata and M. multilirata. 

The three other species distinguished in this paper were obtained in other areas, 

but probably from the horizon of the Delaware Mountain sandstone, and it may be 

one of them that Shumard fomid in the Guadalupe Mountains. These four species 

of Meelcella are rather closely rel'ated to one another, and do not lend themselves 

readily to separation into different groups. Perhaps the best subordinate classification would assemble Meelcella attenuata, M. slcenoides, and M. multilirata in one 

group, and leave M. dijficilis by itself to represent another. 

MEEKELLA ATTENUATA n. sp. 

Pl. XXIV, figs. 7 to 9a; Pl. XXV, figs. 4 to 4d. 

Shell small. Ventral valve high, subconical, inclined backward, so that the 

area makes an angle of -not far from 135° with the plane of the shell opening. Area 

well defined, generally plane, but more or less contorted; width about 7 mm., height 

about 6~ mm. Pseudodeltidium apparently rather broad, nearly flat, and not well 

. -defined. The growth of this valve is marked by constrictions and contortions. 

Dorsal valve subcircular, outline regularly rounded, with somewhat straightened 

and converging sides. Width of hinge 7 mm.; width below 10 mm.; length 10 mm. 

Convexity moderate. Growth rather unequal and irregular. 

Surface marked by nine or ten plications, which are low and not very distinct, 

reaching but a short distance back from the anterior margin and not extending to 

the sides. The linn, which furnish the only ornamentation over much of the shell, 

are, for its size, comparatively coarse. They are more or less alternating, but tend 

to become finer over the plicated portion of the valves. 

This species is distinguished from either Meelcella skenoides or M. dijficilis 

by the coarseness of its line and the faintness of its plications. The separation 
206 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

recorded here is that which seems to be demanded· by the material studied, but 

this is scanty and in some instances incomplete. The relationship to one another 

of these three species is more or less close, and owing to the w:ell-known variability 

of shells belonging to Meekella it is possible that some of the differences, though 

now rather striking, will be bridged over by intermediate forms. 

In the basal black limestone of the Guadalupe section (station 2967) occurs 

in abundance, though in a poor state of preservation, a species of Meekella which 

with our present knowledge it seems unavoi4able to refer to M. attenuata, although 

necessitating some minor change in the limitation of the species. This change is 

connected with the configuration, in regard to which Meekellas are never very 

constant. The specimens from the black limestone attain a size considerably 

greater than the specimen described, and exhibit variations, both in the elevation 

of theventral valve and the angle at which the area extends to the plane defined 

by the margin of the shell. On the other hand, the black-limestone specimens 

agree in having the liration equally coarse, in having the earlier stages unplicated, 

and in having the plications, when they do appear, relatively faint and fine. It is 

unfortunate that the specimen from the Diablo Mountains, from which the description is taken, is not accompanied by enough material to show the range in size and 

other characters which this species manifests. 

Comparisons of the typical specimen with the common M. striaticostata of the 

Mi&sissippi Valley are scarcely necessary, but the larger, more mature examples 

from the black limestone present a much closer resemblance. The two species 

should be readily discriminated by their sculpture, for the line in M. at~enuata are 

rounded, crowded, and coarser than in M. striaticqstata, in which they are thin and 

separated by relatively wide strire. M. pyramidalis Newberry and M. occidentalis 

Newberry are too imperfectly known to make comparJso.o.s of much value. They 

are much larger species than those described here, and probably from a different 

geologic horizon. It is interesting to note that W aagen describes no species 

belonging to this genus from India, nor does Abich figure any from Armenia. In 

the Carnic Alps, however, Schellwien found a number of forms, some of them of 

large size. None of these seems specifically identical with those described here, 

nor have I the material at hand for adequate comparison, except in the case of 

M. irregularis, which seems to be distinct. . 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Diablo Mountains, Texas, 

as reported (station 3764). Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2967). · 

MEEKELLA SKENOIDES n. sp. 

Pl. XXX, figs. 8 to 9. 

Shell small. Ventral valve high, symmetrical, subconical, leaning backward, 

so that the area makes an obtuse angle with the plane of junction of the valves. 

Area well defined, high, flat transversely, slightly concave longitudinally; width 

8 mm., height 9 mm. Delthyrium of medium size, about 2 mm. 'in width at its 

base. A line following the shell from apex to anterior margin would be gently 

convex; to the lateral margins it would be slightly concave. 
MOLLUSCOIDEAI' 207 

;Dorsal valve transverse, subcircular. Outline regularly rounded below, contracting at the hinge line to 8 mm.; width below, 13 mm.; length 11 mm. Convexity moderate, with umbo rather gibbous. 

Surfa<;e marked by 11 or 12 plications, which .are high and thin over most of 

the shell, but die out as the cardinal area is approached. The superficial line are 

fine, subequal, and persistent over the whole surface. They appear to be more or 

less interrupted or nodose, but this may result, in part at least, from the coarse 

silicification which the shell substance has undergone. 

The foregoing description is based on the type .specimen alone, which can 

readily be distinguished from the type of Meekella d~fficilis by reason of its smaller 

size and more lofty ventral valve, making a proporti(mately narrower and higher 

area, and by the persistence of the striation over the whole surface. To the same 

species, however, I have referred certain other shells, for the most part more or 

less fragmentary, which if actually conspecific, as they appear to be, introduce 

certain modifications of the characters above set down. These are chiefly dorsals,. 

and indicate a width of 20 mm., or even greater in one instance. All, however,. 

are conspicuously lirated, the li.rre toward the front curving upward from the bot-· 

tom of the sulci. One. small ventral valve has a lower and broader area, with the 

apex bent to one side. · 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Comanche Canyon, Glass 

Mountains, 'fexas (station 3763). Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 3501). 

MEEKELLA DIFFICILIS n. sp. 

Pl. XXX, figs. 10 to lOg. 

Shell of medium size. Ventral valve subconical; height about 13 mm., width 

24 mm. Area well defined; flat in a transverse direction; slightly concave longitudinally. Pseudodeltidium narrow, slightly convex, poorly defined. An indistinct line dividing the lateral portions of the area about midway indicates the: 

attachment of the dental lamellre. These structures converge toward the shell 

wall, which they join in nearly parallel lines, somewhat diverging anteriorly and 

reaching a little· less than halfway from the apex to the front edge. Twb other 

shelly plates, originating one on each -margin of the delthyrium, bend strongly to 

the sides, so that they are nearly parallel to the plane of the area, and become 

adnate with the two septa just. before they join the latter. It seems as if we 

should call these the true dental plates and the others independent structures. 

If the large septa are really the dental plates and these small htminre merely 

auxiliary, the relation of the latter to the pseudodeltidium and of the pseudodeltidium to the whole area is hard to account for. Surface from beak to front 

somewhat convex; from apex to sides slightly concave. Cardinal process long and 

four pronged. · 

Dorsal valve moderately convex; shape transverse, broadly rounded, somewhat contracted toward the hing~ line, which is a little narrower than the shell below. 

Surface marked by 11 or 12 strong angular folds, which become less and less 

distinct laterally. Toward the apex also the plications subside and resolve into 
208 THE G"GADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

moderately coarse subequallinc. An intermediate stage exists in which the bottoms 

of the sulci are occupied by lirre considerably smaller than the incipient ridges. Over 

most of the shell, except at the sides, where the plications are obsolete, the lirre 

appear to be completely absent, though they may be somewhat obscured by the 

coarse silicification which the specimen has undergone. 

The development of the dental plates in this species, to which reference has 

already been made, is peculiar. As in most strophemenoids, the area is intersected 

on each side by an oblique line, extending from the apex to the hinge, which divides 

more or less equally the triangular surface defined by the edge of the area, the hinge 

line, and the delthyrium. The two areas on each side of the delthyrium arc symmetrical and marked by hatchings extending in one case longitudinally and in the 

other transversely. In the present species the two plates are directed, not toward 

the margin of the delthyrium, from which at the hinge line the cardinal teeth presumably project, but to the oblique inter~ecting line. From the edge of the delthyriurn, however, two other plates originate, one on each side, which diverge 

strongly from one another at an acute angle with the area wall, and become consolidated with the septa not far· from where they meet the latter. The interpretation 

of this singular construction is not entirely obvious, but it .may indicate that, to 

speak strictly, the septa are not dental plates but independent structures. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Comanche Canyon, Glass 

Mountains (station 3763), and mountains northwest of Marathon (station 3840), 

Texas. 

MEEKELLA MULTILIRATA n. sp. 

Pl. XXIV, figs. G to flh. 

Shell rather small. Length from back to front 21mm., width 25 mm. Height 

of ventral valve 12 mm. 

The shape of the ventral valve is subcircular at the aperture, much contracted 

at the hinge line, which has a width of but 14 mm. The area, which is not very 

sharply defined, is slightly concave longitudinally and strongly inclined backward. 

The delthyrium occupies about one-third of its width, being 5 mm. wide at its base 

and 13 .mm. high. 

The surface is marked by 10 or 11 moderately strong, simple, rounded plications 

. and by very fine, rounded, radiating linB. The latter have been largely exfoliated, 

but where preserved come about 6 in the space of 1 mm. They run up from the 

bottom of the sulci on the sides of the plicatioris in the manner often found in and to 

a considerable extent distinctive of this genus. . 

This species is based on the ventral valve represented by my figures, the dorsal 

valve being unknown. In discriminating this species reliance has been placed not· 

so much on the configuration as on the very fine liration. It occurs associated with 

shells identified as Meelcella attenuata, and resembles them ii1 shape rather closely, 

but is somewhat larger, and above all is much more finely striated. In a general 

way this shell resembles M. dijjicilis; it differs, however, not only in the finer features 

of its surface but in having the plication and sulci lower and much less angular. It 

is more nearly related to M. striaticostata than the associated shells referred to 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 209 

M. attenuata, and I am not satisfied that it will not prove to be identical with our wellknown Pennsylvanian species. At present it seems to be distinguished by its less 

well-defined area, wider pseudodeltidium, and less strongly plicated surface-characters all liable to modification by exfoliation, to which the Guadalupian specimen 

has been subjected-and to some extent py the sculpture, though this also has been 

largely lost by exfoliation. The lirre are possibly no finer than in characteristic 

M. striaticostata, but they appear to be low, rounded, and closely arranged. In the 

Pennsylvanian species they tend to be thin, spaced, and more or less alternating. 

Horizon and locality.-Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2967). 

• i 

Genus ORTHOTHETINA Schellwien. 

Schellwien's interpretation of the genus Orthotetes so far differs from Waagen's, 

and indeed from that of the original author, that he employs the name for shells 

having two elongated dental plates like septa in the ventral valve. W aagen, 

equally wide of the author's real meaning, uses it for shells without any partitions 

whatsoever. Both-erroneously, it may be said-employ for the type species 

Streptorhynchus crenistria Phillip~>; but Schellwien's material was specifically-! can 

not but think generically~distinct from Phillips's species, while Davidson's specimens, from whose illustrations Waagen's conception of the structure of S. crenistria 

was doubtless in part derived, are more probably correctly identified. Schellwien 

found that in the upper Carboniferous and Permian forms which have this structure 

the dental plates are parallel and close together, while in the Devonian and early 

Carboniferous forms "they are strongly diverging. For the former Schellwien suggested the term Orthothetina.a The manner in which this name was put forward 

was apparently merely a suggestion, the first use being found on pages 8 and 13 of 

Beitrage zur Systematik der Strophomeniden des oberen Palaeozoicum,b and later 

he appears to have abandoned it altogether.c 

I have attempted to show on page 198 that Streptorhynchus crenistria can not be 

employed as the type of Orthotetes, and that the name itself can not be applied 

either to the group for which Waagen or to that for which Schellwien used it. For 

Orthothetes Waagen (non Fischer de Waldheim) I have proposed the name Schuchertella. For Orthothetes Schellwien (non Fischer de Waldheim) Schellwien's name 

Orthothetina, though by him applied only to a portion, may be used. If it should 

prove, on further investigation, that the late Carboniferous species must be separated 

from the Devonian and early Carboniferous ones, it is to the former that the name 

Orthothetina will att~ch. No American representatives of Orthothetina are known, 

though I have one or two undescribed forms in addition to the one whose description 

is given below without a name. This s~ems to be a veritable Orthothetina, but it 

is so imperfectly preserved that but little can be said as to its specific relationship. 

a The form in which the author wrote this name was Orthothetina, but as the name is evidently derived from Orthothetes 

it seems that it should be changed to Orthotetina, in accordance with the corrected spelling of that name. If written Orthothetina, however, it is less liable to be confused with Waagen's subfamily term Orthotetinrn.-

b Neues Jahrbuch, Jahrg. 1900, vol. 1, Separat-Abdruck, 1899. 

c Abhandl. IC.-k. geol. Reichsanstalt, vol. 1G, heft 1, 1900, p. 16. 

3695-No. 58--08--14 
210 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

The internal structures of this group are precisely those of Meekella, so far as known, 

the only ascertained difference being that it has a smooth shell instead of a plicated 

one. This difference is hardly generic in degree, but the two names can probably 

be retained, one as a subgenus of the other. It might be thought that Meekella 

was a later development of Orthothetina, but the occurrence of the two genera in 

America appears to refute. this supposition, and to indicate that they originated 

independently, or that Orthothetina was a retrograded form of Meekella, for the 

latter genus appears early in our upper Carboniferous series, while the Orthothetinas, 

so far as known, came in somewhat later, though while Meekella still survived. 

0RTHOTHETINA sp . .ll, 

The shell on which this type is based is a ventral valve found, along with 

Orthotetes guadalupensis, on the east side of El Capitan (station 2926), in the 

Guadalupe Mountains. It is a type less small and delicate in construction than its 

associates. Unfortunately, its condition is now too imperfect to permit a full 

description and a discussion of its specific affinities. It appears to have been semicircular in shape, probably somewhat transverse, with the hinge line nearly as wide 

as. the shell below. The area appears to have been high, generally flat, though considerably warped, and rather strongly inclined backward:. Its width was probably 

about 40 mm. and its height not much less than 25. mm. The maximum width of 

the pseudodeltidium appears to have been about 10 mm., a good portion of which, 

however, was ?Ccupied by greatly thickened deiitallamellre. These structures are 

long and converging, and they join the vaulted anterior wall just before the point 

of their union with one another. There is thus no septum in this valve. 'l'he surface ornamentation has been largely lost through e.xfoliation, but appears to consist of slender, spaced, radiating lirre. 

This genus has not previously been recognized in America, and it is to be regretted 

that the present example is too imperfect for illustration. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). 

Family THECIDEID.M Gray. 

' Subfamily LYTTONIINJE Waagen. 

When Waagen described the subfamily Lyttoniinre but two generic groups 

were known to belong to it-Leptodus (Lyttonia) and Oldharnina. Tschernyschew 

has recently introduced a new generic name (Keyserlingina) for a smaller and 

simpler type, which nevertheless without much doubt belongs to the same subfamily. 

For many years the Lyttoniinre were, so far as known, restricted in their distribution 

to eastern Asia, Leptodus'being found in India, at Timor in the Indian Archipelago, 

and in China, and Oldharnina only in India. Keyserlingina has at present been 

recognized in the Carnic Alps and in Russia. It is of some interest, therefore, to 

note thL occurrence of this peculiar brachiopod type in the United States, and it 

should be remarked that the forms which occur here distinctly resemble the Asiatic 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 211 

rather than the European group of species, and lend a decidedly Asiatic or nonPennsylvanian aspect to the Guadalupian fauna. 

Although for a long time Leptodus appeared to be restricted in distribution to 

southeastern Asia, the occurrence in the Guadalupe Mountains is not the first 

instance that is known of its appearance far from the region of its discovery, for I 

learn from Diener that Gemmellaro has determined the genus in his fauna from 

Palermo. Unfortunately, I have been unable to obtain a copy of Gemmellaro's 

paper, and consequently can do no more than note the fact, of which there are 

many of a similar sort, that· the Sicilian and the Guadalupian faunas possess this 

singular type in common. 

I have cited both Oldhamina and Leptodus from the Guadalupian, and while 

the presence here of the former type is .a matter of some doubt so far as my material 

is concerned,· it can be said with assurance regarding the latter that the two species 

which have been recognized are congeneric with Waagen's Lyttonias. Specifically 

there can be no question that both are distinguished by important differences from 

the two Indian species. It seems probable that they are more closely related to the 

Chinese form L. richthofeni, but the latter is so imperfectly known that it is impossible to determine how close the relationship really is. 

So far as the Lyttoniinre are concerned, therefore, the Guadalupian fauna may 

be said to be related to those of the Salt Range, of th_e Himalaya,a of China, and of 

Palermo, rather than to those of the Carnic Alps and of Russia; and if, as Professor 

· Schuchert has suggested to me, the relative complexity of the septal ridges may be 

used as some sort of an index of chronologie sequence, the Guadalupian fauna, so 

far as this type is concerned, may be younger than the Gschclian stage of the Russian fauna. . 

Tentatively, in view of the their specific characters, the Guadalupian forms 

are possi~ly more closely related .to the Lo Ping occurrence than. to the species of 

the Salt Range and the Himalaya, the Sicilian type being for the time left out of 

account. ~·· 

Genus LEPTODUS Kayser. 

The generic name which should be employed for these shells is a matter of some 

uncertainty. Kayser in 1882, thinking that the fossil was a fish tooth,,named it 

Leptodus. This name Waagen rejected, on the ground that it is inappropriate, and 

in 1887 he proposed instead the term Lyttonia, which has found general acceptance. 

About the inappropriateness of the term Leptodus and the incorrectness of 

Kayser's conception in regard to it there can be little doubt. Yet this is not generally regarded as a valid argument for substituting a new name for one already 

proposed. On the other hand, though the name Leptodus in its literal form has not 

been preoccupied, we have Leptodes Dej. 1833, Leptodes Swains. 1839, Leptodon 

Raf. 1820, Leptodon Sund. 1835, and Leptodon Gaudry 1860. The first of the names 

mentioned was applied to a beetle, the second to a fish, the third to a mollusk, the 

fourth to a bird, and the last to a mammal. 

a In the Himalaya Lcptodus has been cited by Diener from Kashmir, from '' Chitichun No.1,'' and from Malia Sangcha 

the species being, so far as can be told, similar to those of the Salt Range. · 
212 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

As to its derivation, Leptodon has the same source as Leptodus. Leptodes Dej. 

is differently derived, while the derivation of Leptodes Swains. is not known to me. 

Leptodus and Leptodes are certainly _different words, and in one case at least, as has 

just been seen, have different derivations_. As they were proposed for very different 

groups of organisms there is little or no danger of confusion, and it seems that 

Kayser's name can safely be retained so far as Leptodes is concerned. Leptodon, 

though having the same origin as Leptodus, is still more different from the latter 

than is Leptodes, and like Leptodes, except in the case of Leptodon Rafinesque, applies 

to very different zoological groups. It seems to me·, therefore, that none of the 

circumstances related can be considered as interfering with the validity of Leptodus 

Kayser, which is here adopted. 

LEPTODUS AMERICANUS n. sp. 

Pl. IV, figs. 8 to Sb; Pl. XXV, figs. I to 3a. 

Shells belonging to Leptodus have been found in the Guadalupe, Glass, Diablo, 

and southern Delaware mountains. Those from the Diablo Mountains are silicified, 

and it has been possible to ascertain their characters with much greater completeness than in other collections, where the preservation is for the most part imperfect. 

These specimens show a rather small species, more the size of L. tenuis Waagen 

than L. nobilis Waagen. Its greatest length can hardly have been greater than 50 

inm. The largest fragments in our collection are only about half that. But little. 

can be said in regard to the shape, which was probably narrow, truncated at 

the posterior end and expanded in front. As a rule ventral valves appear to have 

been more or less flat longitudinally and curved transversely, having what may be 

called an irregular scoop-shaped configuration. They were attached for a varying 

but small portion of their extent· at the posterior end. The outer surface is marked 

by obscure transverse folds and by finer strire. These do not conform altogether 

to the direction of the septa on the inner side, and if the anterior outline followed 

their direction it must have been broadly and gently curved. 

On the inside there is a low, narrow median septum, with lateral septa. The 

.latter are extremely variable, depending considerably on the distortion of the shell. 

They may be either nearly straight or strongly curved, the convex side directed 

toward the hinge; they may be either normal to the median septum or strongly 

inclined to it; they may be high or low, and are variously shaped. Usually they 

are thin and high at the inner end, becoming low and flattened at the outer, where 

they are crowned by a double row of pustules. In other specimens, or even other 

parts of the same specimen, they have a very diiierent character, consisting of double 

ridges uniting into a loop at the inner end. This is perhaps the primitive form, 

later shell deposits elevating and unifying the constituent ridges exc(;lpt at the 

outer ends. Sometimes the median septum also is double. The shell was probably 

normally extended beyond the septate portion into broad lateral expansions more 

or less upturned. The entire inner surface is covered with papillro, but these are 

more abundant and noticeable on the lateral expansions. 'l'hey occur in double 

rows on the crests of the septa, as previously remarked. 

The dorsal valve is small and pinnate in shape. Apparently the lateral branches 

do not unite into a solid rim. On one side (the inner) there is -a median elevated 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 21S 

· ridge or septum, which is made double by a groove ~own the center. Farther forward the groove develops into a fissure, so that the valve becomes bilobate. The 

lateral branches are concave, with an elevated rim which follows the sinuous margin 

The other (outer) side of the dorsal valve is distinguished principally by its strongly 

pustulose surface. It has a slight mesial groove and the different branches· are 

convex. Waagen states that it is the outer side of the dorsal valve which is pustulose, and I have oriented my specimens accordingly. I would have thought, but 

for this, that the pustulose side was the inner one, since the inner surface of the 

other valve has this character. I have not observed the dorsal valve in place, 

however, and of the two small imperfect dorsals which have been observed, though 

both are nearly flat, one is more or less concave and the other slightly convex. 

No specimen has come to hand from the ''dark limestone" and only a single 

fragment from the sandstone.s of the Delaware Mountain formation. This fragment, 

preserved as an internal mold of the ventral valve, shows what would be a smooth 

central band, along the middleof which ran a median septum and at the sides of 

which began the lateral septa. These were simple, thin, and high, and the general 

appearance must have been that of the Diablo rather than that of the Guadalupe 

specimens. I have accordingly identified this form provisionally with L. americanus. 

Horizon and locality.-Base of Capitan formation, hill southwest of Guadalupe 

Point (station 2906); Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 

2931), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. Delaware Mountain formation, Diablo Mountains, Texas (station 3764). Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware 

Mountains, Tex.as (station 2969). Delaware Mountain formation, Comanche Canyon, Glass Mountains, Texas (station 3763). 

LEPTODUS GUADALUPENSIS n. sp. 

Pl. IV, figs. 6 to 7. 

In the white limestone of the Guadalupe Mountains Leptodus is fairly abundant, 

.though few specimens are well preserved. The ventral valve usually presents itself 

as an internal mold, more or less of the shelly substance adhering to it. The dorsal 

valve is mostly very fragmentary. Unlike the form from the Diablo Mountains, 

specimens in this region as a rule occur singly, and apparently seldom grew in groups 

cemented to one another. The largest fragment observed measures 40 mm. and 

when entire probably reached 50 mm. or more. The width is much less, the shape 

being elongate, gently tapering toward the posterior end. Longitudinally the shell 

was nearly flat; transversely it wa,s gently convex at the bottom, with the sides 

upturned and irregularly folded inward. 

On the interior a median septum was present, at least in some examples. 

Seen in the reverse, as partial molds, the lateral septa present the following appearalice: There is a series of rather slender raised ridges arranged pinnately to the, 

median line, connected by curved continuations at alternate ends, so that the 

whole makes a more or less connected series of closely arranged sigmoid curves. 

The inner curves occur at short and regular distances from the mesial line, the 

outer near edge of the shell, where the upturned margin begins. These elevated· 

ridges are studded with a single row of pustules, which are probably not altogether 

clue to weathering, though they may have been exaggerated by it. Partly sur-
214 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

rounding each of the lobes thqs formed is a depressed line or channel. These pairs 

of pinnate channels are united at the outer but not at the inner end and thus make 

narrow U-shaped figures. The channels evidently correspond to the septa of the 

silicified specimen (of L. america nus), the eleva ted loops being the depressions 

by which they are separated. We haye here, however, a distinct elevation in the 

center. 

An example showing these characters is represented by fig. 6, Pl. IV, while 

:fig. 6a is an artificial impression representing the real configuration of the interior 

of the same shell, except for the accidents of preservation. Here we see an ele-

-vated .central band bearing a low median ridge or septum. Extending pinnately 

from the central area are loop-shaped grooves, the bottoms of which are conspicuously marked by rather large pits. The centers of the loops are gently elevated, 

and they are separated by high, rather thin, ridges, which are connected at their 

outer ends by less prominent curved continuations. Toward the front the structure at first appears to be very different, but a careful comparison shows that in 

fact it is constructed on the same plan, though with some modification. The 

diverse appearance seems to be due to an increased prominence of the area inclosed 

by the loop-shaped groove, so that it equals or dominates the ridges dividing the 

grooves from one another, which more posteriorly stood relatively liigher. 

This specimen has the sides much extended beyond the septate portion, rolled 

up, and irregularly arched over. It seems to me probable that this was the normal condition in this species. The slight protection to the animal parts afforded 

by the semiobsolete dorsal valve would apparen,tly need to be augmented by these 

expansions of the ventral shell. Their apparent absence in many cases would be 

amply explained by the breakage due to their thinness and lack of support. 

The specimen and impression on which the foregoing description is based are 

from the Capitan limestone at station 2926. Other specimens from the same station are more imperfect and less well preserved. The central idea of the lateral 

septa seems to be a loop-shaped ridge bounded within by a groove having the. 

inclosed band gently elevated. 

Several examples, somewhat differently preserved, have been obtained froni 

the same horizon at station 2906. Two of these retain the shell, but are more or 

less exfoliated, so that their assignment to Leptodus is not confined to the evidence 

of the outside. They have a broadly triangular shape, flattened over the back, 

but turned up at the sides. Here again the lateral lobes of the septa consist of 

a loop-shaped ridge followed within by a groove surrounding a gently elevated 

central band. At this locality was found a specimen which with little doubt 

represents a. very young example of the same species. It is a small, triangular, 

scoop-shaped shell, having a length of 6 mm. It is cemented at its posterior end 

to a branched bryozoan. The outside is somewhat irregular, but generally smooth. 

The inside is partially covered by the dorsal valve, which in this instance is fourlobed or four-rayed, being divided into two main branches, each of which again 

subdivides. The four branches fit into four depressions in the ventral valve, the 

remainder of which is unprotected. This. specimen shows the character of the 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 215 

articulating structure. ,. The dorsal valve terminates in two lateral projections, 

which are surrounded by an inflection of the shell of the ventral valve, thus effecting a crude sort of hinge, one very different from the normal brachiopod structure. 

It should be noted. that the exterior of this valve is not papillose, but, on th~ 

other hand, the specimen is so immature that the exposed portions of the inner 

surface of the ventral valve are very slightly papillose, if at all. 

From the Glass Mountains only two fragments have been examined. One of 

these shows a longitudinal median ridge, having indications of a faint septum. 

The lateral septa terminate at this with a strong backward bend, and their outer 

eiJ-ds are connected by curved prolongations. Intermediate between two of these 

prominent ridges is another fainter one, which is nearer the proximal than the 

distal· of the two septa between which it lies. The grooves separating the ·ridges 

seem to be marked by comparatively large pits. 

I originally united all the occurrences of Leptodus into a single species, but 

became far from satisfied with the course. Apparently two groups can be distinguished-one represented by specimens from the Capitan formation of the Guadalupe Mountains and from the Glass Mountains, the other comprising specimens 

from the Delaware Mountain formation and from the Diablo Mountains. The 

septal lobes in the former appea~ to be less distinctly formed, to be somewhat more 

closely arranged, to lack pustulous ornamentation on the crests of the ridges, and 

to contain pits at the bottom of the grooves not found in the other. These characters are all connected with the septal ridges, but there are also other differences 

in the configuration and mode of growth found at least in the typical specimens. 

These forms manifest such variation in the character of the septa, however, not 

only in specimens from the same locality, but in the same individual, that I feel 

some doubt about trusting to the differences which appear to exist without more 

extended observations than my present material permits. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). 

Genus OLDHAMINA Waagen. 

0LDHAMINA~ sp. 

Two fragmentary specimens from the Capitan formation of the Guadalupian 

are distinguished from Leptodus guadalupensis and Leptodus americanus, which are 

fairly constant in being nearly flat longitudinally, by having a strong curvature in 

that direction. Otherwise the char.acters appear to be essentially the same. 

The inrolled shape, together with the massive hinge plate, discriminates Oldhamina from Leptodus. The hinge in my specimens has not been made out, but 

because they possess the marked longitudinal convexity they have been provisionally referred to Oldhamina. 

Horizon and locality.-Middl~ of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). 
216 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

Family PRODUCTIDJE Gray. 

In most faunas of Carboniferous age the Productidre are represented principally; often to the exclusion of all other types, by the gre~t genera Chonetes and 

Productus. This is much the case in the Guadalupian fauna, though we have in 

addition to the genera mentioned two others, Strophalosia and Aulosteges. The 

group of shells separat~d by Waagen under the title" Marginifera," which usually 

occurs more or less abundantly in the later faunas of the Carboniferous, appears to 

be absent from the one under consideration. Several Guadalupian types have 

much the external appearance of the Marginiferas, but so far as known lack the 

characterizing internal structures, while one species which shows some suggesti;n 

of the characteristic submarginal ridges is more or less aberrant in point of other 

internal characters and of configuration. It has therefore seemed inadvisable to 

refer any Guadalupian species to Marginifera. 

I have discussed the Chonetes and Producti under special captions, and propose 

here to pass in review the remaining Guadalupian Productidre, as well as those 

which were found in other faunas but are lacking in the Guadalupe Mountains. 

In the Salt Range fauna Waagen recognizes, in addition to Chonetes and Productus, the genera Strophalosia, Chonetella, Aulosteges, and Marginifera. Of Strophalosia he distinguishes eight species, as against two in the Guadalupian. While 

in a general way the Strophalosias of the two faunas are similar to one another, it 

would appear that they are much less numerous as well as less differentiated in the 

Guadalupian. No forms corresponding to the group of S. leplayi Geinitz, represented by S. costata, are known in the American fauna. 

Aulosteges occurs in the Productus limestone in two distinct types, each represented by a single species, and a rather marked correspondence can be noted between 

them and the Guadalupian representatives of the genus. Shumard's species .Aulosteges guadalupensis corresponds to the Indian A .. dalhousii, while the Indian medlicottianus appears to be represented in Texas by A. medlicottianus var. americanus 

and Aulosteges sp. The latter two, though to all appearances closely related to one 

another, occur ·at widely different horizons in the Guadalupe Mountains. Two 

other Guadalupian types, represented by .A. magnicostatus and Aulosteges sp. b, 

seem not to occur in the Salt Range. 

The genus Ohonetella, which is represented in the Salt Range by abundant 

individuals though by only a single species, is not found in the Guadalupe Mountains. 

Marginifera also probably does not occur there, while Waagen found six species in 

the Productus limestone fauna. It is true that some Guadalupian species of Productus externally resemble certain of Waagen's Marginiferas, but so far as it has 

been possible to determine they do not belong to the same genus. Thus the Indian 

shells assigned to the group of Marginifera splendens may be compared with Productus popei, P. indentatus, and P. texanus,· Marginifera transversa, representing 

the group of M. helica, with Productus latidorsatus,· and Marginifera ovalis, of the 

group of M. spinosicostata, with Productus subhorridus var. rugatulus. 

In his paper on fossils from Kashmir and Spiti, in the Himalaya, Diener described Marginifera and Strophalosia, in addition to Chonetes and Productus. Marginifera himalayensis n. sp., the only representative of the genus, has no cognate 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 217. 

form in the Guadalupian fauna, though superficially it is of the general expression 

of certain of tho Producti~the smaller ones of the semireticulatus type. Of the 

two Strophalosias one, Strophalosia aff. 8. costata, has no corresponding form in 

my fauna, but Strqphalosia cf. ? tenuispina Waagen is more nearly of tho same general type. In his later paper on the Spiti fauna, in which he discriminates between 

an upper and a lower horizon, this author cites M. himalayensis, above referred to, 

and Aulosteges gigas from the upper division. The latter appears to resemble 

A. guadalupensis Shumard. 

The Chitichun fauna as represented in Diener's earlier paper, aside from Productus and 0/wnetes, contains the genera Marginifera and Aulosteges. Marginifera 

is represented by the Salt Range form M. typica, and is, so far as known at present, 

absent from the Guadalupian. Aulosteges tibeticus, the single species of Aulosteges 

cited, is closely related to A. magnicostatus of the Guadalupian. Tho later paper 

on Chitichun contains no additional species. 

The fauna from Malia Sangcha contains of this gro]..lp, aside from Productus and 

Ohonetes, only two species of Marginifera~M. typica and M. helica. If these have 

any corresponding forms in the Guadalupian it must be among species which I have 

felt constrained to refer to the genus Productus. ·The same applies to M. himalayensis, cited from the Productus shales of the Lissar Valley, the only species aside 

fron1. Ohonetes and Productus belonging to the Productidre known from this locality. 

Marginifera typica has the same relation in the fauna from Byans. 

On the whole it can not be said that the Guadalupian fauna, either in its Producti and Ohonetes, which have been considered elsewhere, or in the other Productidre, 

is very closely related to those of the Salt Range and the Himalaya, though both 

the resemblances and the differences are interesting. Too much stress should not 

be laid on the apparent absence of Marginifera from the Guadalupian fauna, for 

the shells which might be supposed to represent this genus are not always preserved 

so as to show the distinctive characters. If what appears proves actually to be the 

case, however, the absence of Marginifera, as of Chonetella, will be among the most 

important differences, and the most striking resemblance will be found in tho genus 

Aulosteges, which is, however, much better developed in the American fauna. 

Kayser distinguishes two species in the Lo Ping fauna, which he refers to 

Strophalosia, although it is possible that they really belong to Aulosteges. His 

figures, ill fact, may include three species, none of which is closely related to those 

of the Guadalupian fauna, so far as the 1atter are known. One of Kayser's speCies 

of Productus can probably be placed with Marginifera, namely, Productus nystianus. 

var. lopingensis. 

In the fauna from Kantschoufu Loczy cites a little productoid as Productus 

(Marginifera) longispinus Sowerby, which is probably a small Productus of the 

semireticulatus group, not very unlike some of the Guadalupian species, though 

apparently.belonging to an older fauna. The forms cited as Chonetes or Daviesiella sp. nov. and Chonetella dubia n. sp. have no related forms in the Guadalupian .. 

The form from the "Permo-Carboniferous" of Ba tang which Loczy compares with 

M. ovalis Waageri suggests some of the Guadalupian Producti, e. g., Productus, 

latidorsatus. The form from the Lantsankiang Valley, described as Marginifera 

desgodinsi, in which the submarginal band is very pronounced, has no Guadalupian 
. 218 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA, 

representative. The "Permo-Carboniferous" fauna from Tschungtjen, in the 

province of Yunnan, contains a species which appears to be clo"sely related to 

Aulosteges rnedlicottianus var. arnericanus. Loczy cites it as Aulosteges aff. rncdlicottianus. 

Compared with that of the Productus limestone of the Salt Range, the other 

Asiatic faunas, even those of the Himalaya, are known in a relatively scanty and 

imperfect manner. In so far as they involve the minor genera of the Productidre 

they show no marke~ affinity with the Guadalupian fauna; indeed, rather the 

reverse. 

Etheridge senior recorded two species of Strophalosia from Queensland (one 

of them as a Productus), and Etheridge junior also recognized two from the 

Bowen River coal field of the same province. The latter are Strophalosia gerardi 

King and S. clarkei, one of those which the senior Etheridge had described as a 

Productus, as above noted. The other form mentioned by the latter is cited merely 

as "Productus" or" Strophalosia." It appears to be of the general type of Aulosteges· guadalupensis, though not closely related to it. The imperfectly known 

S. clarkei is apparently related to A. rnedlicottianus var. arnericanus, while the shell 

referred to S. gerardi seems to have no corresponding form in the Guadalupian, 

unless perhaps Aulosteges sp. b proves to resemble it. 

In the earlier faunas of the Russian section the Productidre are represented 

by the genera Productus and ·Chonetes (and Daviesiella), with an occasional occurrence of Marginifera. In the Gschelian, among the less prominent members of the 

family Tschernyschew recognizes one species of Aulosteges-A. dalhousii, which 

is closely related to A. guadalupensis Sliumard. Proboscidella claims three species.· 

This group appears to be absent from the Guadalupian fauna, though some of the 

Guadalupian Producti of the semireticulatus group arc like immature stages of 

the Gschelian species. Eight species are assigned to Marginifera. This group 

also seems to be missing from the Guadalupian fauna, and although some of the 

Guadalupian Producti resemble the Russian Marginiferas (chiefly small members 

of the sernireticulati, like Prodvctus popei, P. indentatus, and P. texanus), they 

are without the characteristic subrnarginal ridges, so far as known. Marginifera juresanensis looks something like Productus latidorsatus, but here again the 

·Guadalupian species seems to be a true member of Productus. The Guadalupian 

productoid which seems most likely to prove a Marginifera (Productus? pileolus) 

is unlike the Gschelian Marginiferas, of which the nearest is unquestionably 

M. juresanensis. 

From the Artinsk Sibirzew cites Strophalosia sp: and Tschernyschew Marginifera typica and Marginifera? spitzbergiana. Krotow found a greater variety 

in the Artinsk than the other authors consulted, identifying Strophalosia horrescens?, S. rnorrisiana?, and three species of Ghonetella. The latter name was subsequently changed to Ghonetina, Waagen having published the same name in the 

same year. It is perhaps not safe to express an opinion without having had access 

to specimens, but the generic diagnosis of Ghonetella Krotow and the figures of the 

species leave one very doubtful of the validity of the name ev.en as a subgenus. 

Strophalosia horrescens? is probably related to S. guadalupensis, butS. rnorrisiana? 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 219 

is presumably without a Guadalupian representative. In the Peqnian Stropha-

}osia [ Aulosteges?] horrescens and Aulosteges wangenheimi seem to be .most often 

present among the minor productoid genera, and N etschaj ew describes also 

Strophalosia fragilis and Aulosteges gigas. Aulosteges gigas and Strophalosia 

[Aulosteges?] horrescens may be compared with Aulosteges guadalupensis, and 

Strophalosiafragilis w~th S. cornelliana and S. hystricula. The types represented 

by the Guadalupian forms Aulosteges medlicottianus var. americanus, Aulosteges 

magnicostatus, and Aulosteges sp. b seem not to occur in the Russian Permian. 

The Russian A. wangenheimi seems to be usually in poor condition, and I am in 

doubt as to what its specific characters really are. 

In the case of these minor genera the Guadalupian fauna appears to be 

related to the later faunas of the Russian section-perhaps more to the Russian 

Permian than to earlier horizons. I do not know whether especial importance 

should be attached to the dying out of the Marginiferas above the Gschelian stage, · 

in which respect a Guadalupian peculiarity is suggested, or whether this should be 

regarded merely as a phase in the general decline of the brachiopod representation. 

From Balia Maaden, in Asia Minor, Enderle cites a form under the title 

"Strophalosia? aff. horrescens," which he is uncertain whether to call a "Productus" or a "Strophalosia." If it is not a Productus it may be compared with 

Aulosteges guadalupensis. 

Among the Armenian forms which Abich refers to Productus are a number 

that Waagen and later authors have recognized as belonging. to Marginifera. 

These in many cases closely resemble Guadalupian types which I have referred to 

Productus (P. latidorsatus, P. subhorridus var. rugatulus, and P. walcottianus). 

It cannot be stated definitely that these Guadalupian species are without the submarginal ridges of Waagen's genus, but I have seen no evidence for beliBving that 

they possess them. In the Armenian species these ridges are extremely. well 

developed. 

The fauna of the Carnic Fusulina limestone seems to contain, according to 

Schellwien, only Marginifera pusilla to represent the minor Productldre. This 

form is not closely similar to any Guadalupian species, even if some of them 

should prove to be Marginiferas. In the Trogkofelschichten he distinguishes Marginifera longispina, M. longispina var. lobata, M. pusilla, and M. carniolicus. 

The figures of Marginifera longispina and the variety naturally resemble certain 

of the Guadalupian Producti. So also do part of the figures of M. pusilla, the 

others being different and more like the original figures of the species. In M. 

carniolicus can be traced a rather distant resemblance to Productus? pileol".ts, the 

Guadalupian shell, which at present seems to show most liability of being a Marginifera. Schellwien also figures as ?Aulosteges tibeticus Diener, a specimen which 

is closely related to Aulosteges magnicostatus. 

In the Dyas the remarkable diminution in Productus forms 'is in a measure 

compensated by the great development of cognate genera. Geillitz recognizes 

eight species of Strophalosia, most of which may prove to belong in Aulosteges. In 

addition, the figures of Productus latirostratus are certainly-suggestive of Aulosteges . 

. It is probable that several of the Dyas species are of the same general type as A. 
220 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

guadalupensis. Some of Gcinitz's figures of Strophalosia morrisiana seem to warrant a comparison with Aulosteges medlicottianus var. americanus and Aulosteges 

sp. a, although others are very different. Indeed, the appearance of these forms 

is as various as their manner of preservation. Strophalosia lamellosa seems to 

belong to the same type as my Aulosteges sp. b, but Productus latirostratus, if, as I 

. suspect, it is an Aulosteges, appears to have no corresponding Guadalupian form. 

The Permian fauna of England, closely r~lated to the Dyas of central Europe, 

is likewise distinguished for its abundance of Strophalosias. King discriminates 

four species and figures many specimens. The prevailing forms seem to be of the 

same general type as Aulosteges guadalupensis, but Strophalosia morrisiana may be 

compared in certain particulars with Aulosteges medlicottianus var. americanus. 

In the Arctic faunas of Spitzbergen, Nova Zembla, etc., the Productidre are in 

the main restricted to the two genera Productus and Chonetes. It is true that some 

· of these forms may prove to belong to the subsequently established group of Marginifera, but in this case, as in others, the fact can hardly be determined from the 

evidence at hand. In several instances, however, Toula has cited species of Strophalosia among these forms. One of these is an undetermined species from the 

south point of Spitzbergen, which is more similar to Aulosteges guadalupensis than 

to any other Guadalupian type, but at best is only in a general way like it. ·From 

the Hornsund he cites Productus (Strophalosia) cancrini and Strophalosia leplayi. 

The latter, if not a Productus, is probably closely allied to Aulosteges magnicostatus. 

The other shell seems to be a true Strophalosia, having, however, a sculpture much 

resembling Productus cancrini, which I take to be a Productus as originally described. 

Strophalosia cancrini of Toula therefore would seem to be related to S. morrisiana of 

the Dyas and to be somewhat similar to Aulosteges medlicottianus var. americanus of 

the Guadalupian. 

In the South American faunas the only genus besides Chonetes and Product1ts 

(unless among the latter there prove to be representa,tives of Marginifera), the 

citation of which appears in the volumes consulted, is Strophalosia, and the only 

recorded species Strophalosia cornelliana, a form which has two cognate species in 

the Guadalupian. S. cornelliana was described by Derby from Brazil and he is 

also the author of several species of Productus which may prove to belong to the 

subsequently defined genus 111arginifera. P. rhomianus. is the one most likely to be 

transferred. 

In North America the minor genera of the Productidre appear only in Aulacorhynchus, Strophalosia, and Marginifera. The rare genus Aulacorhynchus is, so 

far as known, confined to the Pennsylvanian of the Mississippi Valley and Appalachian region. The only Pennsylvanian species of Strophalosia, S. spondyliformis, 

is related in a general way to the Guadalupian Strophalosias, but the four Guadalupian species of Aulosteges find no types at all corresponding to them in the Pennsylvanian. Marginifera constitutes an element of greater persistence than variety 

iJJ the Pennsylvanian faunas, and the representatives of the genus resemble some 

of the Guadalupian species of Productus in which the characteristic internal features 

of Marginifera appear to be lacking. The only Guadalupian species which at 

present seems likely to prove a Marginifera is very unlike any Pennsylvanian member of the genus. · 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 221 

Except for the genus Marginifera, which is scantily developed, if at all, in the 

Guadalupian but well developed elsewhere, the Guadalupian fauna in its minor 

productoid genera more closely resembles that of the Salt Range and of the higher 

Paleozoic terranes of Russia and central Europe than any fauna of the Mississippi 

Valley. 

Genus CHONETES Fischer de Waldheim. 

Waagen justly directs attention to the differentiation shown by this genus in 

the Productus limestone fauna, in which he recognizes as many as 14 species, the 

development being in some respects no less singular than it is varied. Some estimation of this really remarkable differentiation may be ~cached by recalling that 

in the Guadalupian fauna but 4 species have so far been distinguished. 

Waagen divided the Salt Range species into three groups, which he distinguishes 

as the lr:eves, the striati, and the grandicostati. Of these the group of grandicostati, 

represented by six species, is practically confined to the Himalayan region. The 

Guadalupian species seem about equally divided between the striati and the lr:eves, 

· for I would place Chonetes subliratus and Chonetes sp. in the former group, while 

Chonetes permianus and C. hillanus probably belong to the latter. In certain conditions of preservation or over certain portions of the surface there is an ambiguity 

about these forms which renders them difficult to place, for owing probably to the 

development of rows of radiating punctre, they sometimes appear to be obscurely 

lirated. Thus, while C. permianus usually appears entirely devoid of radiating 

ornamentation, marginal portions of some specimens show obscure lirre. ·In this 

case the appearance may be due to weathering. In C. hillanus, also, obscure liration 

is developed by exfoliation and sometimes seems to be present toward the margin 

where unexfoliated. In the latter case the radiating lines may be due not so much 

to unevenness in the outer surface as to internal structures, such as rows of spinules' 

or of punctm. 

As already remarked, the singular group of the ?Jrandicostati is not represented 

in the Guadalupian and the striati are represented by but two species. The only 

determinable Guadalupian species of the latter group, C. subliratus, has no counterpart in the Productus limestone fauna. A closer correspondence, however, is shown 

by the lr:eves, C. ambiensis being represented in the Guadalupian by C. permianus 

and C. trapezoidalis by C. hillanus, although the latter is more like our common C. 

geinitzianus than any of the Salt Range species. The singular C. bipartitus has no 

analogous form in the Guadalup_ian. 

In the Permian fauna from Kumaon and Gurhwal Diener distinguished but two 

species, both of the striate group. The Zreves of the Guadalupiari are, therefore, so 

, far as known, not represented there, while C. subliratus, of the striati, finds no analogue among Himalayan shells, which are more nearly like Chonetes sp. In the 

Himalayan region, further, the genus"seems to be unrepresented at Chitichun and at 

Malia Sangcha. 

From the Productus shales of the Lissar Valley Diener identities Chonetes cf. 

uralica Moller, one of the striati related to Chonetes sp. of the present work. Again 

from the Produetus shales of Bvans he identities C. lissarensis and C. transitionis 

Krotow, both of which, if they have any representatives in the Guadalupian, find 
222 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

them among shells referred to Chonetes subl·iratus and. Chonetes sp. Diener describes 

the surface of C. transitionis as consisting of very numerous radiating lines crossed 

by more distant concentric striro, remarking, further on, that this eombination of 

radiating and eoncentric sculpture is so peculiar .that a new group name-striaticoncentrici-must be introduced. Most of the American species which I have 

supposed should be placed with the striati. possess what appears to be this same 

type of sculpture, though as a rule the crenulating concentric lirro are considerably 

finer than the radiating ones. This feature is frequently omitted in descriptions, 

but I had supposed it to be present in all well-prese~ved representatives of this 

group. . 

From the upper Anthracolithic beds at Spiti only C. lissarensis is eited in 

Diener's second paper dealing with this fauna, but in that on fossils from Kashmir 

and Spiti he distinguishes four species of Chonetes. Two of these-Chonetes cf. 

lissarensis and C. austenianus-are referred by him to the striati, and the two othersC. grandicostatus and C. bantsiensis-to the grandicostati. ~r aagen conside~ed C. 

austenianus also a representative of the grandicostati, a group which, as already 

remarked, appears to be unrepresented in ·the Guadalupian fauna. In any event, · 

tho only Guadalupian species which are related to them are those here designated 

Cfhonetes subliratus and Chonetes sp. 

This Kashmir fauna had been partially described by Davidson as early as 1866. 

He found some of the species afterwards cited by Diener, as well as certain others. 

The species of Chonetes recognized by Davidson are, among the lr.eves, Chonetes 

lr.evis itself, most nearly related to C. permianus Shumard; among the striati, C. 

hardrensis var. thibetens·is, similar in a general way to C. subliratus, and, among the 

grandicostati, C. austenianus an(i C. barusiensis. The latter was described as a 

Spir~fer. C. austenianus, as above noted, is placed by Diener among the striati, but 

it is doubtful if either of these imperfectly known forms has a cognate species in the 

Guadalupian. 

From Niti Pass, in the ndrthern Himalaya, Salter describes only one species of 

Chonetes-C. vishnu, a coarsely ribbed type with a deep sinus, to which the most 

closely related Guadalupian forms are C. subliratus and Chonetes sp., though the 

relationship is rather remote. 

In the Carboniferous of Turkestan Romanowsky distinguishes four species of 

Chonetes- C. hemisphericus Sem., C. variolatus D'Orb., C. lcutorganus Sem., and C. 

glaber Geinitz. The thr;ee first-mentioned belong to the striati, and find analogous 

· species in the Guadalupian in C. subliratus and Chonetes sp., though in fact·many of 

'the striati, even though from different horizons and different faunas, are in a general 

way very similar to one another. C. glaber finds a nearly related form in C. permianus. The shell from Turkestan,. it may be remarked in passing, is probably distinct from C. glaber= C. geinitzianns, of the Pennsylvanian of America. 

Rich tho fen mentions no species of Chonetes in the Lo Ping fauna of China.· In 

· the fauna from the vicinity of Kantschoufu Loczy identifies a number of Chonetes 

forms, besides a species which he refers to Chonetella. and one 'which he thinks 

may belong to Da.vie8iellq. The two latter have no analogous Guadalupian species, 

but the Chonetes representation is more similar. Among the stria.ti he recognizes 

C. pseudova.riola.tus Nikitin, C. uralicus var. pygmr.eu8 Loczy, C.flemingi var. gobicus, 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 223 

and Chonetes cf. buchirinus. These· are related to C. subliratus and Chonetes sp. of 

the Guadalupian, C. subliratus being especially comparable to C. uralicus var. pygmceus. The remaining species cited by Loczy, Chonetes cf. politus McCoy, is one of 

the lceves and resembles C. permianus. 

The other Chinese faunas described by Loczy are less completely known, and in 

only one is the genus Chonetes represented-that from Y oungtschangfu-in which he 

cites C. papilionaceus. No species comparable to this very finely !irate form is 

known from the Guadalupian. 

In the upper Carboniferous fauna of ·Padang, described by Fliegel, the genus 

Chonetes fails of representation,. as also in that from the west coast of Sumatra, 

described by Roemer. In the Permian of Timor and Rotti, in the Indian Archipelago, Rothpletz cites Chonetella nasuta, a type unknown in the Guadalupian, but 

no representative of Chonetes. The genus fails to occur also in the small collection 

from Vladivostok described by Tschernyschew . 

. From Queensland and New Guinea Etheridge cites five species of Chonetes, only 

one of which is identified. All are of the striated type, whieh is imperfectly represented in the Guadalupian by Chonetes subliratus and possibly by Chonetes sp. 

Among the Carboniferous faunas of New South Wales described by De Koninck 

but two species of Chonetes are recogBized, both of which appear to occur in the 

lower beds of the Carboniferous section. 

From the younger Carboniferous faunas of Armenia, which Abich and later 

Arthaber discussed, no representatives of Chonetes are known, although Frech cites 

C. hardrensis from a younger fauna, which, however, ha.s little interest to our present 

comparisons. Also in the fauna of Dalia Maaden, described by Enderle, this genus 

appears to be without representation. 

In the Russian Carboniferous section Chonetes shows a fairly large and varied 

representation. From the Productus giganteus zone I have found three species cited, 

but t]?is fauna does not especially concern us. From the Spirifer mosquensis zone 

Trautschold cites only Chonetes variolatus of the striati. C. pseudovariolatus (possibly the same species) has also been cited from this horizon. The Chonetes manifest their greatest differentiation, however, in the Gschelian and Artinsk, while in the 

Permian, like so many of the Brachiopoda, none have yet been found. In the 

Gschelian Tschernyschew recognizes no less than 12 species. Five of these would 

probably be assigned to the division lceves-C. alatus, C. morahensis, C. trapezoidalis, 

Chonetes cf. geinitzianus, and C. mesolobus. Of these the second and third were originally described from India and the last two from North America. The identification 

of C. geinitzianus, of which Tschernyschew himself was in doubt, is almost certainly in 

error. The shape is unlike that of our American species, and in the figures the surface appears to have delicate radiating strire. Furthermore, unless Tschernyschew's 

figure is poor, one can hardly accept the original of the other species as belonging to 4c. mesolobus. ·Instead of having a median fold in the ventral valve, bounded on 

· each side by deep furrows, Tschernyschew's figure seen1s to show only a broad 

ill-defined sinus. It is true that in some American specimens the lobation is less 

distinct than in others, although in typical examples it is of cot~rse very strong. 

Of the lreves identified by Tschernyschew, that referred to C. trapezoidalis, more 

than the other species, seems to have a related form in the Guadalupian, C. hillanus 

PROPERTY OF u · - ~BUREAU OF MINES 
224 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

var. infiatus being very similar to it. The remaining seven species, with one exception, belong to the striati, a group, accordingly, which is better represented in the 

Russian fauna than in the American. Two of the names cited by 'l'schernyschewC. granulifer and C. flemingi---are well-known Pennsylvanian species, and the Russian 

figures, so far as can be told, indicate a much more nearly exact identity than in the 

·case of the two types belonging to the lxves just mentioned. In the Guadalupian 

this group of the striati is represented only by Chonetes subliratus and Chonetes sp. 

C. uralicus is, perhaps, nearest to C. subliratus, while the remaining Gschelian species 

are more similar to the imperfectly knowh Chonetes sp. The last of Tschernyschew's 

Chonetes-C. timanicus-bas a surface, so far as I am aware; unique in the genus, and 

repre~ents a distinct division coordinate with the striati, the lxves, etc. Nothing like 

it is known from the Guadalupian. 

In the Artinsk this genus appears to have flourished and to have been extensively differentiated. Stuckenberg cites C. variolaris, C. variolatus, C. uralica, 0. pi'oductoides., C. alatus, C. solidus, C. transitionis, Chonetes cf. capitolinus, C. sinuatus, 

and C. artiensis. Of these ten species only two are figured, and only two or three 

are cited from the preceding Gschelian. In the succeeding Kungurstufe only C. variolaris was identified by Stuckenberg. C. alatus appears to be one of the lreves, 

and its peculiar shape renders it almost unique in the genus. No Guadalupian 

species can· be compared with it. C. productoides, however, is one of the normal 

striati, like C. variolaris, C. variolata, C. uralicus, and others. Krotow also cites a 

number of Artinskian Chonetes, viz, C. variolaris, C. variolatus, C. uralicus, Chonetes 

sp., C. solidus, C. capitolinus, Chonetes sp. nov., and C. transitionis, as well as Chonetella minima, Chonetella artiensis, and Chonetella sinuata. Chonetes uralicus, C. solidus, and C. transitionis, which are the only ones figured, are modifications of the 

common striate division. To this group probably belong also the three species of 

Chonetella (a name preoccupied by Chonetella W aagen and later changed to Chonetina), for I am of the opinion that Krotow' s genus is not valid on the characters mentioned by its author. Tschernyschew cites from the Artinsk only Chonetes variolaris 

and 0. transitionis, the latter remarkable for its very fine liration. On the whole, the 

Guadalupian Chonetes are comparable to the development of the genus in the Russian 

section, especially to that of the Gschelian stage. On account of the large representation of the grandicostati in the Salt Range fauna, the resemblance of the latter 

to the Guadalupian, in point of this genus, is somewhat inferior to that of the 

Gschelian, where this group is absent and the other singular type represented by 

C. timanicus is very rare. 

I regret that of the fauna of the Fusulina limestone of Palermo, which in the main 

seems to be so closely related to the Guadalupian, that portion represented by the 

genera Chonetes, Productus, etc., as described by Gemmellaro, has proved inaccessible 

to me. 

Schellwien found but two species of Chonetes in the fauna of the Trogkofelschich..f! 

ten, one of which ·he identified as C. strophomenoides and the other as C. sinuosus. 

C. strophomenoides, as one of the striati, is more closely similar to Chonetes sp. than to 

any other Guadalupian form, while C. sinuosus is far removed from any known 

species of that fauna. Indeed, Schellwien includes it in the group of Chonetes mesolobus, a fact of some surpris.e, since in the Pennsylvanian the range of this type is in the 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 225 

lower part of the Pennsylvanian section. On more careful consideration of C. sinuosus, however, it appears that it is marked with fine radiating ribs, while C. mesolobus 

is smooth. Thus, though alike in configuration, one species belongs to the striati and 

the other to the lreves. · 

In his paper on the fauna of the Carnic Fusulina limestone, besides the species 

discussed in the foregoing remarks (Chonetes sinuosus, there described under the 

name Chonetes lobatus), Schellwien recognizes also C. papilionaceus var. rarispina, 

C. granulifer (probably distinct from the American species), C. latisinuatus, and 

C. obtusus. With the exception of the last, all these species belong to the striati, 

and, so far as they have Guadalupian representatives, are related to Chonetes sp. and 

to C. subliratus. C. obtusus seems to be one of the lreves, and is of the general type 

of C. permianus. 

Go.rtani, in the fauna which he recently described from the Carnic Alps, identifies Chonetes variolatus, C. molleri var. carnicus, and C. strophomenoides. All belong 

to the striati, a group which has perhaps no typical representatives in the Guadalupian fauna. C. molleri·var. carnicus appears to be related to the species from the 

Trogkofelschichten which Schellwien describes as C. sinuosus. 

The older Carboniferous fauna described by De Koninck from this same general 

region contains a representation of this genus, but in general it is too unlike the 

Guadalupian, and of clearly too different a geologic age, to make further comparisons 

profitable. · 

In the Dyas of central Europe, as well· as in the closely related Permian of 

England, the genus Chonetes seems not to occur, a peculiarity which these faunas 

share with the Permian of Russia. • In his papers on the Carboniferous of Spitzbergen Toula cites a number of 

species of Chonetes, such as C. verneuilianus var. spitzbergianus, G. granulifer, G. 

hardrensis, and C. papilionaceus. These all belong to the striati and are more or less 

. related to the Guadalupian species of that group, though it is probable in this case, 

l1S in others, that the Guadalupian species C. subliratus would be found to differ 

from those which have a similar configuration, in the imperfect and faint development of the line. Toula also described from Spitzbergen Chonetes capitolinus, one of 

the lreves, a fine large species with slightly developed fold and sinus. C. permianus 

seems to be the most closely related Guadalupian form. From Nova Zembla also 

this author cites two Carboniferous species of Chonetes-C. variolatus and C. rotundatus. The former is one of the striati, and is perhaps related to Chonetes sp. of this 

report. The other belongs to the lreves, and is of the general type of G. permianus. 

Stache, in describing several imperfectly known faunas from the West Sahara, 

representing apparently a number of different periods in the Carboniferous, cites 

Chonetes aff. tuberculatus McCoy from one of them. This species, though it is one of 

the striati, has no very close Guadalupian allies,· and it probably belongs in an older 

fauna. · 

Salter did not identify this genus from Bolivia, but Toula obtained three species, 

which he identified as C. tuberculatus McCoy, C. mucronatus Meek and Hayden, and 

C. glaber Geinitz ( = 0. geinitzianus). 0. tuberculatus and 0. mucronatus, the latter 

generally regarded as a synonym of 0. granulifer Owen, belong to the striati, whiie 

0. geinitzianus is one of the lreves. The related species in the Guadalupian fauna have 

3695-No. 58-08-~15 
226 THE GU ADAL UPIAN :FA UN A. 

already been indicated. D'Orbigny also, in his material from Bolivia, described a 

species belonging to this genus-the much-cited C. variolatus. It is one of the 

striati, and if it has a related form in the Guadalupian fauna it is Chonetes sp. 

In his work on the Brazilian faunas Derby distinguishes two species of Chonetes, 

both belonging to the lceves. One he calls C. amazonicus and the other C. glaber. It 

is doubtful if the shell identified as C. glaber (=C. geinitzianus) is really the same as 

theN orth American species; it appears to be closely related to C. amazonicus. These 

forms seem to be in a measure intermediate between C. permianus and C. hillanus. 

The only other South American country from which the Carboniferous is known, 

so far as I am aware, is Peru, and in this imperfectly known fauna Gabb recognized 

no species belonging to the present genus. 

It is uncertain how many species of Chonetes should be recognized in the upper 

Carboniferous of North America. In his valuable bibliography Weller lists nine, 

although other names have been introduced which he relegates to synonymy. 

Most of these species are modifications of the striate type, which is much less well 

developed in the Guadalupian. While the striati were persistent from the Devonian 

until the genus ceased to exist, the lceves I have come to regard as a subsequent 

development and as conditionally indicating rather late Carboniferous time. At 

least such seems to be the case in the American sequence, so far as known. Perhaps 

an exception should be noted in the case of C. mesolobus, which I think we must 

regard as a member of this group, but the configuration of this species is so peculiar 

as to render it almost sui generis, the foreign identifications being, so far as I have 

surveyed them, very questionable. Some of these striate Chonetes of the Pennsylvanian naturally resemble the Guadalupian forms, just as similar types can be picked 

out in very many faunas. The lceves comprise among the Pennsylvanian Chonet~s, 

aside from Chonetes mesolobus, only C. geinitzianus, whose most closely related 

Guadalupian species is C. hillanus. The western form described by White as 

C. platynotus is also probably one of the lceves, although it shows traces of radiating 

lines. In configuration and surface it is distinct from either C. geinitzianus or 

C. mesolobus and more nearly allied to the Guadalupian group, especially to C. 

permianus. 

CHoNETES PERMIANUS Shumard. 

Pl. XX, figs. 1 to 3a; Pl. XXIX, figs. 1 and 2. 

1859. Chonetes Permiana. Shumard, Trans. Aead. Sci. St. Louis, vol. 1, p. 390 (date of volume, 1860). 

[Permian]: Conglomerate at mouth of Delaware Creek, Texas. 

Shell small, subsemicireular, widest at the cardinal border, width one-third greater than the length, 

nont and sides rounded. Ventral (receiving) valve moderately convex, without mesial sinus; cardinal 

margin sloping gently from beak to extremities and marked with five or six spines; ears mucronate, 

gently convex, and separated from the vault ·by a gentle depression. Ventral valve and area unknown. 

Surface marked with extremely fine concentric strioo of growth. 

I have several specimens of this species before me, none of which exhibit any traces of longitudinal 

stri::e. 

· Found in the conglomerate at the mouth of Delaware Creek, Texas. 

The foregoing description, which is taken complete from Shumard, conveys an 

adequate idea of the characters of this shell, and I am able to add little to it and to 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 221 

change but little. It seems nearly certain, however, that Shumard inadvertently 

used "ventral" for "dorsal" in the sentence "Ventral valve and area unknown." 

His statement that the cars are mucronate is difficult to understand, if my fossils 

rightly belong to his species, -for the cardinal angle .in them seems to be regularly a 

right angle, seldom extended, and never produced into mucronate points. The 

largest specimen in my collection measures 14 mm. across, several measure 11 mm., 

while the average is somewhat smaller. I find that in some examples the width 

is a little . more than one and one-third times the length. The other characters 

mentioned agree so closely with my specimens, which differ from the other Chonetes 

found at the same general horizon in just those particulars_:___i. e., the subcircular 

shape, absence of sinus, and absence of radiating lirre,a together with the presence 

of faint concentric ones-that the identification certainly appears to be correct. 

Shumard's specimens came from pebbles in the conglomerate at the mouth of 

Delaware Creek, the source of which probably was the limestones of the Guadahi:. 

pian. In my collections from the Guadalupian section this form occurs only in 

Shumard's" dark limestone." It has been subsequently found by Mr. Richardson at 

several points considerably south of the south end of the Guadalupe Mountains, a 

fact which probably has some significance with reference to correlation. 0. permianus is evidently related to C. ambienSis Waagen, though probably not identical 

with it. At aU events Shumard's name long antedates that used for the India species. 

Chonetes permianus is very suggestive of a species which was later described 

by \Vhite as C. platynotus. That form, however, shows a slight sinus and possesses 

radial markings that are either very faint lirre or the effect produced by the linear 

arrangement of the interliral pores. 

Another American species which is related to this is C. geinitzianus Waagen.b 

A manuscript footnote in Meek's copy of Geinitz's "Carbon formation und Dyas in 

Nebraska" suggests a comparison of that species with C. permianus. The resemblance is certainly marked, but does not extend to specific identity, for the Nebraska 

shell is more trans\rerse and more mucronate; there is always a well-marked sinus, 

and the cardinal spines are more numerous, since Meek mentions 8 or 10 to 12 or 14, 

while Shumard records but .5 or 6 in C. permianus, apparently for the whole area, 

an., observation which is in accord with my own specimens. These seem to indicate 

also tha.t the concentric growth lines are more apparent in C. permianus, in which 

they are pronounced and strongly lamellose near the margins, with the small punctoo 

mentioned by Meek as occurring in C. geinitzianus either absent or restricted to the 

anterior'portions of the shell; but these characters arc so minute as to be greatly 

affected by preservation, and I am unwilling to maintain this difference without 

examining more material under different conditions of' preservation. However, I 

feel little doubt that C. permiam~s is distinct from C. geinitzianus. 

· Horizon anillocality.-11 Dark limestone," Pine Spnng (station 2930), and east 

of Guadalupe Point (station 3762b), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. Delaware 

Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (stations 2936 and 2969). 

a In some large specimens near the margin, especially on the under layers of the shell, the presence of line can be distinctly made out. 

bIt se9ms clear that this name should be employed k>r the species described by Gcinitz as C. glaber, since the latter name 

is preoccupied by C. glaber Hall. 
228 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

CHONETES HILLANUS n. sp. 

Pl. XI, figs. 8 to 10. 

1859. Chonetes Flemingi (?). Shumard (non Norwood and Pratten), Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, 

vol. 1, p. 390 (date of volume, 1860). 

White [Permian] limestone: Guadalupe Mountains. 

Shell rather large,. very transverse, subtriangular.· Ventral valve somewhat 

strongly convex. Sinus well marked; hinge line much produced, alate. Wing 

depressed, defined by a broad, obscure sulcus, which is stronger on the inner but 

indistinct on the outer side. Area rather high. Number of spines not known. In 

young specimens the convexity is less strong, 'the .shell more transverse, and the 

sinus less deep. · 

Dorsal valve known only as an external mold. It is transverse, strongly concave, 

and in other respects resembles the ventral. 

Surface marked by very fine indistinct lirre, which are broad and flat, their tops 

flush with the general curYature of the shell, defined by fine obscure strire. 

It is probably this species which Shumard cites as Chonetes jlemingi?, remarking:a 

The fossil from the white limestone of the Guadalupe Mountains corresponds pretty well with the 

figures and description of the above-cited species, though I can see minor points of difference which 

leave me in doubt as to whether it is really identical. 

·.It seems to me that there can be no doubt as to the distinctness of this shell 

from C. jlemingi. It is more transverse and alate, with a stronger fold and sinus. 

The ventral valve is more convex. The lirre are fainter and appear to lack the 

tubulose-spinose character of . C. jlemingi. 

In my original list of this fauna a certain resemblance between this form and 

0. trapezoidalis.Waa.gen is suggested. The resemblance, however, was more in the 

shape and general appearance than in detail. A close comparison is hardly necessary, but C. hillanus· has lirre, though very faint ones, shallow sinus, and no lateral 

plications. 

I take pleasure in naming this species for my friend Mr. B. F. Hill, who aided 

me in the collection of this fauna. 

This species is hcst represented in the Capitan formation of the Guadalupian 

(station 2926), where it is fairly abundant. Two .specimens possibly belonging to 

it were found near the base of the series, in Shumard's "dark limestone," associated 

with Chonetes subliratus. 

Horizon and local·ity.----:-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 

2926); "dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930), Guadalupe Mountains·, Texas. 

CHONETES SUBLIRATUS n. sp. 

Pl. XX, figs. 4 to 7. 

Shell of medium size, transverse, alate, ·tumid. Sinus strong. The • shell 

rises, as it were, into two plications, one on either side of the sinus, falling with a 

rapid descent to the wings, which are depressed and convex. Number of spines 

not ascertained. 

u Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, vol. 1, 1856-1860, p. 390. 
MOI.L USCOIDEA. 229 

Surface marked by moderately fme ribs, which are depressed and indistinct, 

crossed by fine, rather strong, somewhat irregular concentric line. The sculpture 

in brief recalls that of G. ornatus of the Kinderhook, but. it is on a much smaller 

scale. 

As compare~ with 0. hillanus, the greater convexity, more subquaclrate shape, 

and stronger sinus make the general appearance of well-characterized spectlnens 

very different. The ribs are somewhat more distinct, more numerous, and not so 

flattened, and the concentric liration is stronger. 

In young specimens the sinus is less strong and the convexity more moderate. 

The chief clifferei1ce in configuration between them and similar stages of G. hillanus 

is that they are more quadrate and less transverse. In the very young example 

represented by fig. 7 the sinus is practically absent, yet the convexity i~ considerable. 

The typical examples of this species were obtained from Shumard's ''dark 

limestone" (station 2930), where they are associated with G. hillanus. . A single 

specimen from nearly the same horizon was obtained at station 2906, southwest 

of Guadalupe Peak, and another from 'the Delaware Mountain formation, at station 

2919. The identity of the last two examples is somewhat doubtful. That from 

station 2906 has the alate, subquadrate, inflated valves and general configuration 

of the typical examples, but with the sinus faint or reduced to a mere flattening. 

The terminal spine at the end of the hinge is very long, slightly curved, and directed 

to the cardinal line at an angle of about 135°. The configuration of the specimen 

from the Delaware Mountain formation, which is that of the typical examples, 

though less strongly marked, may be the result of compression. The real affinities 

of this shell are possibly with Chonetes sp. 

There seems .to be a tendency in these shells toward an evanescence of the 

sinus and a lowerillg of the general convexity. Therefore some of them simulate 

Chonetes hillanus in general configuration, but the sculpture should serve to distinguish them if it is not obscured. The Guadalupe specimens are apt to be exfoliated, and I have referred to G. hillanus several examples from the ''dark limestone" 

which may really belong here. One of them especially is very similar to the original 

of fig. 3 on Pl. XX, but is less convex ·and with a fainter sinus. In 0. hillanus 

the ribs are relatively broad and flat, separated by obscure strim or possibly only 

by rows of pores. In 0. subliratus the ribs are also faint, but they are thin, 

with relatively wide strire between, and the concentric lirre are stronger than ill 

G. hillanus. 

Horizon and locality.-Base of Capitan formation, hill southwest of Guadalupe 

Point (station 2906); "clark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930); Delaware 

Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2919), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas; 

CHONETES sp. 

In the yellow sandstone of the Guadalupe section at station 2931 were obtained 

a few specimens of Chonetes whose preservation as internal casts makes it impossible to ascertain their relation to other species. Apparently they can not be referred to 

the other species recognized in this report. The width of one specimen was 18 mm. 

and the length 11 mm. Of another, more fragmentary example, the width must 

have been 22 mm. and the length 13 mm. The shape was semicircular, the hinge 
230 THE GUADALUPIA~ FAUNA. 

line as long as or a little longer than the shell in: front. The convexity was slight 

and regular, there being no sinus. The cardinal spines appear to have been rather 

numerous, probably 6 to 8 on each side. The surface is unknown. The rows of 

internal spinules may or may not indicate a striated surface. If striated, the lirre 

were probably rather fine. . 

A specimen from about the same horizon, from station 2903, has also been 

referred to this species. It is slightly more convex, but otherwise the configuration 

is similar, and .it is ornamented with distinct though fine ribs. It is possible that 

another specimen from station 291 9 which I have referred to C. subliratus may also 

belong to this species, the greater convexity and different configuration being the 

result of lateral compression which it has evidently undergone. I have referred 

here also a fragment from the black limestone at the base of the Guadalupe section. 

So little is known about either of the forms involved that their specific relationship 

to one another can not be ascertained. 

The low convexity of this shell, comparatively short hinge, and absence of fold 

and sinus distinguish it from typical C. hillanus or 0. subliratus. For all that is 

known it might belong to C. permianus, but the much greater size is suggestive 

that if the exterior were preserved other distinctive characters would be found. 

Though hardly so mucronate, this species is suggestive of young examples of 

c. granulifer, but besides being smaller and lacking cardinal extensions, it has a 

much larger septum than Owen's species. 

Of course if the striated specimen from station 2919 really belongs to this 

· species the presence of ribs would at once distinguish it from C. permianus and to 

a less degree from C. hillanus and C. subliratus. 

Horizon and locality.-Dclaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (stations 2903 and 2931); basal black limestone, Guadalupe· Point (station 2920), 

Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. 

Genus PRODUCTUS Sowerby. 

The faunas of the Carboniferous are characterized by no other type so highly 

as by the genus Productus. These shells are usually present in abundance, and 

they manifest the greatest diversity of sculpture and configuration. Considered 

as a whole the group has shown unusual placticity, developing not only widely 

different types, all referable to the same genus, but also abundant intermediate 

stages between what one would suppose to be wholly distinct species. In consequence, specific discrimination among the Producti has always been a difficult matter, 

and authors have shown wide differences of opinion as to where the limits of species 

should be drawn. In spite of a frequent tendency to group really unlike forms 

under a single specific title because of transitional varieties, a large number of specific 

types have been recognized and named. In his monograph on the genus Productus,a De Koninck in 1847 listed 64 species, based to a considerable extent on 

European types/ and he did not cover all the ground. Probably at the present 

time this number would have to be trebled. 

a Recherches sur Jes animaux fossiles, pt. 1, Liege, 1847. 

h Whether first described from European areaa or not, only 5 of tbe 64 classified species were cited as non-European. 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 231 

Because of the great number of mutations which the group affords and the 

uncertainty as to what in most cases should really be included in the limits of a 

single species, a comparison between the Guadalupian fauna and those of other 

areas will best be made in terms of more or less distinct groups which have been 

recognized within the genus. 

In the work above referred to De Koninck proposed a classification of the 

Producti, an effort rendered necessary even at that time by the importance of the 

genus and its copious specific representation, and he was so far successful that his 

scheme, more or less modified, is still in usc. It is perhaps better regarded as a 

key than as a classification, and appears to possess the imperfections usual to 

keys if considered as classifications. Species subsequently described from epochs 

or areas whose faunas were unknown or little known when his monograph was 

written do not in all cases fall readily into it. Several instances have been met 

with in the present fauna, as one of which I would regard those strongly ribbed . 

shells which are closely related to the semireticulati, but whose posterior portion is 

more or less completely without concentric wrinkles.a Another comprises shells 

which have a posterior portion crossed by strong concentric wrinkles, but are without ribs.b 

Another defect in De Koninck's classification, though this is less demonstrable 

and more a matter of personal opinion, is that it is in some respects at least artificial, assembling unrelated forms and separating related ones. Thus our western 

species Productus multistriatus and the Russian form P. mammatus, which resembles it, fall .into De Koninck's division striati, but to me they certainly do not 

appear to be related to P. cora. On the other hand, Productus pertenuis a~d certain other species which really do seem to be related to P. cora would have to be 

assigned to the spinosi . 

• Finally, the divisions appear to be of very unequal importance. The caperati 

and horridi are distinguished merely by the presence. or absence of a sinus, a feature which often varies greatly between individuals belonging to the same species. 

My point is made if the relation between these two groups is compared with that, 

say, between the semireticulati and the striati. 

It is far from my thought to invent a new classification for the Producti, but 

were I to do so I would endeavor to establish it on certain family, or perhaps I 

should say gentile, differences, 'yhich are sometimes well marked in this group. 

In some instances these relations have been observed in De Koninck's classification 

and make, the permanent part of it. Possibly they form the basal idea of a whole, 

an idea which has bcpn obscured by a too brief characterization of some of the 

groups, and if one adhered more to the spirit and less to the letter of the matter 

the faults w.hich I have mentioned, with the exception of that of incompleteness, 

would be remedied. Thus the caperati of De Koninck chiefly comprise Devonian 

and early Carboniferous shells for which Hall established the genus Productella, 

and they are quite distinct from the Permian Productus horridus, which probably 

a These would, I suppose, go with Productus cora and P. giganteus among the striati, but the association would hardly 

be a natural one. 

b De Koninck himself puts a species of this type (P. sublrevis) with the semireticulati, but this is not in conformity with 

the wording of his classification. 
232 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

gave name and conception to the horridi, but De Koninck's fundamentum divisionis, or his'statement of it, is such that some of the Productellas, and ·some of 

the Marginiferas, too, would be grouped with P. horridus. 

Nevertheless, a classification of some sort is a great convenience, and De 

Koninck's, in spite of what seem to me imperfections, is the best available, so I 

have employed it here, with certain modifications introduced by Waagen, following in a few cases, however, what I take to be the leading of the natural relations 

rather than the literal description of his divisions. 

In the Guadalupian fauna 25 varieties of Productus have been recognized, 

which may be distributed somewhat as follows: 

LINE AT!. 

Group of Productus n~ffedievi. 

Productus waagenianus. Productus waagenianus var. 

SEMIRETICUI>A'l'I. 

Group of Prod1wtus semireticulatus. 

Productus semireticulatus var. capitanensis. 

Productus mexicanus. 

Productus sp. c. 

Productus popei. 

Productus popei var. opimus. 

Productus indentatus. 

Productus guadalupensis. 

Productus occidcntalis. 

Productus meekanus. 

Productus signatus. 

Productus latidorsatus. 

Productus latidorsatus var. 

Group of Productus popei. 

Productus tcxanus. 

Productus sp. a. 

Group of Productus guadalupensis. 

Productus guadalupensis var. comancheanus. 

Group of Productus occidentalis. 

SPINOSI. 

Group of Productus cancrini. 

Productus signatus var. 

If OR IUD I. 

Group of Productus latidorsatus. 

Productus sp. e. 

Group of Productus walcotticnus. 

Productus subhorridus var. rugatulus. · Productus walcottianus. 

CAPJo~RATI. 

Group of Productus? pileolus. 

Productus? pilcolus. 

IRREGULARES. 

Group of Productus striatus. 

Productus pinniformis. 

PRODUCTI OF UNDETERMINED POSITION. 

Productus limbatus. Productus sp. d. 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 233 

The largest number of species belong to the semireticulati, but I have referred 

to that division types in which. the wrinkling of the posterior portion is so indistinct 

that I suspect De K9ninck would have placed them ·with the striati. Their relationship with P. semireticulatus certainly appears much more close and essential 

than with P. cora or P. waagenianus. To the group of P. semireticulatus itself but 

three species have been referred, so that even with the somewhat broad limits with 

which that group is here interpreted the development of the typical semireticulati is 

rather slight compared with that in other faunas. Productus semireticulatus var. 

capitanensis is a typical example of this group, to which the imperfectly known 

Productus sp. c also probably belongs, as well as Productus mexicanus Shumard, 

although the exact form which Shumard had in hand is still a matter of doubt. 

Productus semireticulatus var. capitanensis is the only large Productus known to me 

from the Guadalupian, the representatives of the genus in this fauna being rather 

small and somewhat restricted in differentiation. 

P. popei stands as the representative of another division of the semireticulati 

to which I have referred the largest number of species. In these shells the ribs are 

for the most part well defined, except over the posterior portion. The concentric 

wrinkles are obscure, so that the visceral area is bi1t faintly marked by any sort of 

sculpture. These species are, furthermore, distinguished by their srnall size, high 

convexity, and generally deep sinus. 

P. guad(Llupensis represents another type believed to be of the semireticulati, though the evanescence of the concentric wrinkles over the visceral region 

might be regarded as debarring it. 'l'his species resembles the group of P. popei, but 

is much larger. 

A fourth type of the semireticulati is represented by P. occident(Llis, distinguished 

by a general evanescence of the characteristic features. Over the anterior portion 

especially the ribs become large and obscure. 

To the horridi have been referred in all five Guadalupian species, which may be 

divided into two groups, one typified by P. latidors(Ltus and the other by P. walcottianus. To the former group belong P. latidorsatus, P. l(Ltidorsatus var., and possibly the imperfectly known Productus sp. e, while to the latter may be referred 

Productus subhorridu8 var. rug(Ltulus, and Productus W(Llcottianus itself. As these 

forms possess a sinus, more or less distinct, they could not by definition be' placed 

with the caperati, and indeed the impropriety of assigning them ~o a group corresponding especially to Hall's Productella is rather o.bvious. But they certainly are 

not closely related to P. horridus even in the most favorable instance (P. l(LtidorS(Ltus), while the least favorable (P. walcotti(Lnus) is very different indeed. They are 

not typical representatives of the horridi, because of the tendency of the spine bases 

to pass into continuous ribs and the presence of more or less distinct concentric 

wrinkles over the posterior portion. It might perhaps be urged that these· five 

species do not make a homogeneous assemblage, and this appears· true if ·only the 

extremes are regarded, but the intermediate forms are so linked one with another 

as to require careful discrimination. This row of forms seems in fitct to occupy 

intermediate ground between the semireticulati and the horridi, one extreme, P. walcotti(Lnus, being related to the former and the other, P. l(Ltidorsatus, related to the 

latter. · 
234 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

One species has been referred to the caperati, but in this instance also the reference is doubtful. Prod1Lctus pileolus could be placed in the genus Marginifem with 

greater propriety than any Guadalupian species known, but it has not seemed to me 

that the facts warranted doing so: On the other hand, though it must needs be 

referred to either the caperati or the horridi, from the latter it is debarred by its 

obvious lack of a sinus, while I feel very doubtful about placing it in a group made 

up for the most part of Productellas. 

Belonging to the spinosi and apparently closely related to Productus cancrini, 

the Guadalupian fauna furnishes P. meekanus, P. signatus, and P. signatus var. 

Here again the assignment of these species is attended with difficulty. For my 

own part I imagine them to be a development of the cora group, but to place them 

with the lineati is, under the definition, quite impossible. P. meekanus especially, 

and P. signatus, which is closely related to it, are more or less completely covered 

with concentric wrinkles. This would seem to warrant referring them to the 

undati, but the undati are not supposed to be covered with spines, which are a 

feature in the present forms still more marked than the wrinkles. It is this character, together with their resemblance to certain of the recognized spinosi, such as 

P. cancrini, that has led me to place these species in that division, although the 

spinosi are not characteristically wrinkled to any great extent. 

Representing the striati we have in the Guadalupian P. waagenianus and P. 

waagenianus var., and belonging to Waagen's group of the irregulares only P. pinniformis. 

The disposition of two species affords more than the usual difficulty. One of 

these is Productus sp. d, which but for the reflexed margin might belong to the group 

of P. popei, among the semireticulati, and the other is the singular and imperfectly 

known Productus limbatus, whose relations are possibly with the same group. 

Though the genus Productus is represented in the Guadalupian fauna by a considerable number of species, its development is conspicuously inferior to that of the 

Carboniferous fauna of the Salt Range of India, where it is so abundant, so large, 

and so diverse as to have given name to the whole Productus limestone. Though 

smaller and less varied, the Guadalupian Producti are of interest no less for what is 

present than for the types which are lacking. 

Of the lineati W aagen represents two groups among the Salt Range species, one 

the group of Productus nejfedievi (represented by P. lineatus) and the other the 

group of P. corrugatus (represented by P. cora). In the Guadalupian P. cora has no 

near representative. P. waagenianus may be the Guadalupian representative of 

P. lineatus, but its small size and the very distinct character of the dorsal valve which 

seems to belong to it renders the relationship a remote one. It is possible that 

P. guadalupensis should be placed with the lineati, in which case it would probably 

belong in the group of P. neffedievi, along with P. lineatus. 

Waagen recognizes seven Salt Range species among the semireticulati, mostly 

allied to Productus semireticulatus and P. costatus. This group of large shells is represented in the Guadalupian by only two species (P. semireticulatus var. capitanensis 

and Produr;tus sp. c), while the other groups of the semireticulati, that of,P. guada~ 

lupensis, of,P. occidentalis, and of P. popei, find no closely related forms in the Salt 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 235 

Range fauna. This is perhaps less true, however, of the group of P. occidentalis 

than of that of P. popei, since some of the forms included by Waagen under P. gratiosus are very suggestive of some of those included in the group of P. popei, though 

they have a considerably more distinctly reticulated visceral area. They may prove 

· to be closely allied to the imperfectly known P. mex·icanus of Shumard. 

The spinosi are represented in the Guadalupian by three species related to 

P. cancrini, and in the Salt Range by only P. asperulus. In neither case are the 

forms found in one related to those found in the other fauna. 

Of thefimbriati Waagen recognizes six species, and perhaps no greater difference 

between the Producti of the two faunas can be pointed out than in this instance, 

for this group, so far as known, is not represented in the Guadalupian at all. 

Waagen distinguishes two groups among the Salt Range representatives of the 

horridi. P. opuntia, of the group of P. gein,itzianus, finds its Guadalupian representative in P. subhorridus var. latidorsatus. Neither the Guadalupian group of P. walcottianus nor the Indian one of P. lciangsiensis is quite characteristic of the horridi, 

and they are also rather unlike one another. 

Among the irregulares the Guadalupian and Salt Range faunas have related 

species in P. pinnijormis on the one hand and P. compressus and P. mytiloides on 

the other. 

The two Guadalupian types whose affinities have not been satisfactorily settled, 

P. limbatus and Productus sp. e, seem to have no allies in the Salt Range. 

On the whole, therefore, while the two fttunas have some rather striking points 

of resemblance in the Productus representation, the points of difference are more 

numerous and more important. 

The faunas of the Himalaya seem in a general way to be related to those of the 

Salt Range, but certain features brought out in Diener's papers may be given comment. These will chiefly have to do with types not found by Waagen. · 

In the paper on the Permian fossils from Kumaon and Gurhwal Diener finds five 

species of Productus, three belonging to the fimbfiati, a group which, as already 

pointed out, though well represented in the Salt Range, is absent from the Guadalupian faunas, and two species belonging to the spinosi. The latter represent the 

group of Productus cancrini, a type which has Guadalupian representatives also and 

which is. absent in the Salt Range, although the section of the spinosi occurs there. 

In his first paper on the Carboniferous fossils from Kashmir and Spiti Diener 

distinguishes no less than 11 species of Productus, which he distributes among eight 

divisions of the genus-the lineati, the undati,. the semireticulati, the spinosi, the 

fimbriati, the caperati, and the irregttlares. The for_m which he refers to P. cora, 

among the lineati, is suggestive of that which I have described asP. waagenianus, 

and probably is wrongly identified with P. cora. In this connection attention may 

be called to a shell which he :figures as Strophomena analoga. This type, of 

which Lepftena rhomboidalis is the most familiar representative, docs not, so far as 

I am aware, range above the lower portion of the Carboniferous; yet the shell from 

Kashmir was found associated with Productus abichi, Marginifera himalayensis, and 

Ohonetes grandicostatus, representing a fauna which Diener is inclined to call Permian. This shell so much resembles the dorsal valve of P. waagenianus that it seems 
236 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNM 

permissible to suggest that it may represent this portion of the form referred by 

Diener to P. cora, the dorsal valve of which was not thought to occur in Diener's 

collection. 

The division of the undati seems to be absent from the Guadalupian fauna, and 

the form referred by Diener to P. undatus has no Guadalupian representative. As 

belonging to' the semireticulati Diener cites only P. semireticulatus and Productus cf . 

.Zongispinus. The former has a representative in the fauna under discussion in 

P. semireticulatus var. capitanensis, and Productus sp. c, and the shell referred to 

Productus cf. longispinus seems· to be related to P. texanus and possibly P. mexicanus. The other groups of the semireticulati found in the Guadalupian are apparently absent from Diener's fauna. 

Two species are placed by Dien<-ir among the spinosi. Productus cf. scabriculus 

seems to have no representative in the GuadaJupian fauna, while Productus cf. 

spinulosus may be represented, somewhat remotely, it is true, by P. latidorsatus, 

though I have placed the latter species among the horridi. The American shells 

belonging to the group of P. cancrini, among the spinosi, seem to be unrepresented 

in the fauna described by Diener. 

The jimbriati, of which Diener cites three species, are, as already remarked, 

absent in the Guadalupe Mountains. 

I have found only one Guadalupian species which seemed referable to the 

caperati, to which Diener refers the shell identified as Productus aculeat-us. These 

two forms do not appear to be related to one another to any very marked extent, 

but perhaps the Guadalupian shells which I have called P. walcottianus and P. subhorridus var. rugatulus are really more closely allied than would appear from their 

having been placed in another division. 

Lastly, among the irregulares the species described by Diener as Productus mongolictts is clearly allied toP. pinniformis. In fact, the irregulares are as a rule much 

more nearly related to one another than are the members of the other groups. The 

horridi, to which I have referred certain Guadalupian species, have not been recognized in this fauna, but in some cases they probably find related forms in species 

which Diener has placed in other divisions. 

These fossils seem to have been derived more from Kashmir than from Spiti. 

Davidson had long before described a suite of fossils from Kashmir in which he 

recognized nine species of Productus, viz, Productus semireticulatus, P. cora, P. scabriculus, P. humboldti, P.longispin1ts?, P. striatus?, P. spinulosus?, P. l;:evis n. sp., and 

Productus sp. Davidson allowed greater latitude to specific limits than is in my 

estimation justified, and as som!l of his identifications are not illustrated it is impracticable to compare such instances with the fauna of the Guadalupe Mountains. It 

is safe to say, however, that P. scabriculus, P. humboldti, and probably P. spinulosus 

have no analogues in the Guadalupian, though some of the forms which I have 

placed with the horridi are perhaps distantly related. The little shell which Davidson describes as P. l;:evis seems to resemble P. latidorsatus. 

In a later paper Diener discusses the fauna of Spiti, dividing it into two stratigraphic sections. The lower fauna contains P. lineatus (perhaps repn~sented in the' 

Guadalupian by P. waagenianus, possibly even by P. guadalupensis), Productus sp. 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 237 

inclet., of the group o~ semireticulatus (also represented in the Guadalupian), Productus undatus (seemingly without any related form in my fauna), P. scabT'iculus 

(also without a Guaclalupian representative), and P. nystianus var. lopingensis. 

The latter species resembles the form from the Delaware Mountain formation which 

I have called Productus sp. e, but the Guadalupian form is too imperfectly known 

to admit of .a ·safe comparison. To some extent Productus subhorridus var. rugatulus 

is a related form, and to a considerably less extent P. latidorsatus. From the upper 

fauna at Spiti Diener cites only one species of Productus-P. gangeticus, a type as 

yet unknown in the Guadalupian fauna. 

Diener twice treats of the Carboniferous faunas of Chitichun. In the first paper 

are listed nine species of Productus, which he assigns to the lineati, semireticulati,· 

spinosi, fimbT'iati, and irregulares. The types which he refers to P. lineatus and to 

P. cora appear from his figures to be the same spc.cies, which I can not but believe 

to be distinct from P. cora, at least the form which in North America it is customary to identify with that species, though truly it is not altogether safe to trust 

figures in such comparisons. 

The semireticulati of the Chitichun fauna, like those of the Salt Range, show 

in the main the same large species related to P. sernireticulatus and P. costdtus, of. 

which P. semireticulatus var. capitanensis and Productus sp. c arc the only Guadalupian representatives. In a series of specimens referred toP. gratiosus, however, a 

species which is represented in the Salt Range by a number of mutations, we have. 

some forms closely related toP. popei and its allies. The Indian forms for the most 

part are larger, with less distinct sinus, and by reason of stronger corrugations 

over the. visceral region more clearly deserve to be assigned to the semi.reticulati. 

They are perhaps closely allied to the imperfectly known P. mexicanus, but one 

of the specimens figured by Diener, which is small, highly arched, and with a deep 

sinus, might almost have been drawn from a specimen of P. popei. As in the 

Guadalupe ~fountains, so at Chitiehun, the spinosi are represented only by species 

of the group of P. cancrini. In the Salt Range, it will be remembered, the grqup 

of P. cancrini is not found, and the spinosi are represented by a quite different type. 

The .fimbT'iati, which are not known in the Guadalupian fauna, are represented 

at Chitichun only by the Salt Range species P. abichi. 

The Productus faunas of the Guadalupe Mountains and Chitichun show a community in the representation of their Producti irregulares in the related species P. 

pinn·iformis on the one hand and P. mongolicus on the other. With this terminates 

my comparison of the Guaclalupian with the Chitichun Producti, for only the same 

species appeared among the material on which Dimier's second paper was based, 

and he does not describe them again. 

The same author distinguishes six species in the Permian fauna of Malia Sangcha. 

Productus abichi of course has no Guadalupian equivalent, and, on ~he other hand, 

. many Guadalupian types seem to be unrepresented in the Himalayan fauna. The 

large coarsely ribbed shells belonging to the semireticulati which form so noticeable 

a f~aturc of the Productus limestone fauna, .and are represented in the Guadalupe · 

Mountains by P. semireticnlatus var. capitanensis and Prodnctus sp. c, sPem :to be 

missing in the collections from Malia Sangcha, their place being taken by P. chiti-
238 THE GU ADAL UPIAN l<'AUN A. 

chunensis, a species which has no very close relative in tho Guadalupian. Of tho 

latter fauna the group of P. popei, also belonging to the semiretimdati, seems to be 

represented by P. gratiosus, a Salt Range species which Diener says is the commonest 

in his collection and shows groat variability. Some of the forms appear to be very 

similar in configuration to the American ones, but I have not been able to ascertain 

whether they have the strong corrugations over the visceral region, thl:l absence of . 

which seems to be a peculiarity of our group of shells. Shumard's P. mexicanus 

is also more or loss closely allied to P. gratiosus. The remaining species cited from 

this fauna are P. mongolicus, one of the cora group, P. undatus, without Guadalupian 

representatives, and P. planohemispherium, a small, somewhat nondescript species 

without, so far as known, any corresponding form in the Guadalupian, unless possibly it be P. waagenianus, which is more or less similar, though I doubt if N etschaj ew' s 

species belongs to the lineati. 

From the Lissar Valley Diener cites only two species of Productus, both belonging to the .fimbriati, a group not found in the Guadalupian fauna. One of these 

again is cited from the Productus shales of Ryans, the only other Productus obtained 

being P. cancriniformis, whose Guadalupian representatives arc P. meelcanus and 

P. signatus. 

In describing the fauna from Niti Pass Salter distinguished but two species 

of Product·u8-P. purdoni, one of the fimbriati, and a little shell which he calls 

P. flemingi Sowerby?. The figure is not very good, but appears to represent one 

of the spino8i, of the cdncrini group, similar to P. meelcanus. 

The faunas of the Salt Range and of the Himalaya, being considered together, 

in view of their representation of tho genus Productus show many points of resemblance and some of marked difference when compared with the Guadalupian. The 

most striking differences seem to be the great abundance l:md variety in the Indian 

faunas of largo shells related to P. semireticulatus and P. costatus, which are represented in a much inferior manner in the Guadalupian, and tho presence of -QUmerous 

species belonging to the fimbriati, a group, so far as known, which is lacking in the 

Guadalupian fauna altogether. 

Romanowsky distinguished 11 species of Productus in his material from Turlmstan, some of them of rather unusual· type. Productu8 8triatus has an analogous 

species in the Guadalupian in P. pinniformis. It is. somewhat doubtful if the shell 

identified as P. cora really belongs with that species, and the most closely related 

form in the Guadalupian is P. waagenianu8. The specimen which Romanowsky 

figures under the title of P. giganteus does not appear to me really to be Martin's 

species. If it is, its horizon must needs be considerably older than the Guadalupian and older than that of some of the other species of the same report. There 

is no corresponding form in the American fauna. Of the semireticulati he discriminates four species-P. semireticulatus, P. deruptus Rom., P. boliviensi8, and probably P. reticulatu8 Rom. It should be remarked that the· latter name had been 

long preoccupied by Gabb for a shell from Peru. These semireticulati, especially 

the first three, find analogous speci~s in the Guadalupian in P. semireticulatus 

var. capitanensis and Productus sp. c, but the other Guadalupian members of the 

semireticulati seem to be unrepresented in Romanowsky's fauna. He identifies two 

of thefimbriati (P. punctatu8 and P.fimbriatus), however, a group which, as already 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 239 

pointed out, appears to have no representatives in the Guadalupe Mountains. 

Romanowsky :figures a species which he identifies asP. spinulosus and which accordingly should be one of the spinosi, but as it is represented without ribs, though with 

concentric wrinkles and spines, it is also probably one of the fimbriati and without' 

any closely related Guadalupian form. The last species, described as P. vlangalii, 

with its heavy radiating costre and spines, presents a singular appearance, but can 

. probably be placed in the spinosi. This species also has no analogous form in the 

Guadalupian, and as the latter contains types not found in Romanowsky's collection, ·e. g., the group of P. canr;rini, it seems to be only distantly related to the 

faunas of Turkestan, much less nearly than to those of the Salt Range and <?f the 

Himalaya. 

Thirteen species of Productus were distinguished by Kayser in the Lo Ping collections.· The semireticulati are represented by a variety of forms, some of which 

appear to be closely related to those of the Guadalupe Mountains. To this group 

belong the species cited asP. semireticulatus, P. sinuatus?, P. costatus, P. mexicanus, 

P. plicatilis, and P. longispina; but Kayser's figures show that he included under 

some of these titles what I would regard as several species. Some. of the larger 

forms, like P. semireticulatus and P. costatus, arc more or less closely related to 

P. semireticulatus var. capitanensis and Productus sp. c, while the group of P. popei 

resembles in the Chinese fauna P. mexicanus and P. longispina. · I do not know if 

P. plicatilis is correctly identified, but the type called by that name does not occur 

in the American fauna. The dorsal valve of P. waagenianus somewhat suggests the 

Chinese shell. 

The form which Kayser call.s P. cora is clearly not the common Pennsylvanian 

shell which we are accustomed, and rightly I believe, to refer to D'Orbigny's species. 

It will subsequently appear that the Chinese shell is really of a different type, with-. 

out any corresponding Guadalupian form. 

Under the name of P. aculeatus Martin, Kayser figures what I would regard as. 

several species, exhibiting characters that might warrant assigning some of them 

to the caperati, where De Koninck places P. aculeatus. These forms are comparable 

to the Guadalupian species which I have described asP. subhorridus var. rugatulus 

and P .. walcottianus, perhaps even to' P. latidorsatus, but not to the single Guadalupian representative of the caperati, P. pileolus. The American species, it will be 

remembered, I have placed with the·horridi, doubtfully in the case of P. ·walcottianus, 

·but the distinction between the caperati and the horridi is an artificial one. Another 

Chinese species which should perhaps be placed close toP. aculeatus is that described 

asP. lciangsiensis, but as Kayser's :figures show .a distinct or even rather high area 

it seems possible that this form may be a Strophalosia. 

The shell described as P. pustulosus var. palliatus seems to be one of the 

fimbriati, a group whose absence from the Guadalupian has already been noted. 

P. nystianus var. lopingensis may possibly also belong to tllis group, though the figure 

suggests that the species may really be a Marginifera. The typical P. nystianus is 

one of the Proboscidei. Kayser also figures a form which he identifies asP. undatus, 

a type thus far- unknown in the Guadalupian. The same is true of the form called 

P. carringtonensiEd. 
240 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

The Lo Ping fauna has been revised by Fliegel and others, with numerous 

· changes in the nomenclature and the speeific divisions, but these affect the foregoing comparisons in but one instance. The form which, under the name of Productus cf. cora, Kayser figures so that it somewhat resembles P. pinniformis of the 

present work, is, according to Fliegel, the same as that which Kayser called 

P. undatus, for which Diener has proposed the name· P. mongolicus. So interpreted 

it is of course very different from P. pinniformis, and indeed from any Guadalupian 

species yet found. On the whole, while there is a broad resemblance between the 

Productus fauna of the Guadalupe Mountains and that of Lo Ping in some particulars, the differences are perhaps still niore marked. 

As might be expected, this genus plays an important part in several of the 

faunas which Loczy described from different points in China. Nine species are 

cited from the vicinity of Kantschoufu, only one of which probably, the ubiquitous 

P. semireticulatus, has a closely allied form in the Guadalupian. In fact, it is 

probable that the Chinese fauna represents an older stage in the Carboniferous. 

Some of the species cited by Loczy belong to groups'which are apparently absent 

from the Guadalupian, e. g., the undati and the jimbriati. A distinctly greater 

agreement, at least in the absence of forms alien to the Guadalupian, is shown by 

the Permian fauna from the vicinity of Datang. Three small species of the semireticulatus type were found there, one said to be allied to P. gratiosus, another to 

P. semireticulaius, and the third unidentified. These appear to be more or less 

like P. popei and its allies, or like P. mexicanus, while the only remaining form, 

which is cited as Productus cf. ovalis Waagen, somewhat recalls Productus sp. e. 

No very close relationship is shown by the five species from the valley of the 

Lantsankiang. A figure of a fragmentary example cited as Productus aff. pustulosus is suggestive of P. signatus, though the latter is certainly not very closely 

·related to Phillips's species. Another shell compared with P. scabriculus belongs 

,to a type not found in the Guadalupian, but Loczy suggests that his specimen may 

really be an Aulosteges. The Productus semireticulatus is more or less like its 

Guadalupian congeners (perhaps Productus sp. c especially), but a little shell referred 

to P. tumidus appears not to be represented by any form in the American fauna. 

An entirely unidentified specimen,a however, is rather suggestive of P. walcottianus, 

although a more complete knowledge might lessen the resemblance. 

Only twb species are cited from the "Permo-Carboniferous" of Tschungtjen, in 

the province of Yiinnan. One of these, referred toP. semireticulatus, a small, finely · 

ribbed variety, is a little like P. semireticulatus var. capitanensis of the Guadalupe 

Mountains. The other is identified asP. aculeatus, and recalls two widely different 

types of the Guadalupian, P. mexicanus and P. subhorridus var. rugatulus. The 

lack of exact data in the description and figures of the Chinese form prevents a 

decision as to which group it represents, without reference to the original specimen.· 

But two species were distinguished from Talischau. The small finely ribbed 

Productus of the sernireticulatus type similar to the foregoing is only in a general way 

like P. semireticulatus var. crtpitanensis or Productus sp .. c. A little shell cited 

merely as Productus sp. is apparently related toP. latidorsatus and Productus sp. e. 

a Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der Reise des Grafen Bela Szechenyi in Ostasien, Wien, 1899, pl. 4, fig. 7. 

,, 

I 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 241 

The fauna obtained near Youngtschangfu appears to show little resemblance to 

the Guadalupian, in which there is nothing at all closely related to the three species 

of Productus cited from that locality. 

In the Carboniferous fauna which Roemer described from Sumatra he discriminates five species of Productus-P. sumatrensis, P. pustulosus, P. cora, P. longispinus, and P. lceyserlingianus. But one of these species is accompanied by figures, 

and so far as one may judge without this accessory they do not constitute a Productus fauna very similar to that of the Guadalupian. The same conclusion must 

be reached from a consideration of the representation of the genus in practically the 

same fauna as revised by Fliegel. This author cites P.lineatus (P. cora of Roemer), 

P. sumatrensis, P. semireticulatus, P. longispinus, P. ovalis (P. lceyserlingianus of 

Roemer), and P. punQtatus (P. pustu.Zosus of Roemer). . 

Beyrich cited two species of Productus from the Carboniferous of TimorP. semireticulatus and P. punctatus? There really appear ·to be three species represented by Beyrich's figures, none of which can properly be referred to either 

P. semireticulatus or P. punctatus, if the latter arc reasonably restricted. One of the 

shells figured as P. semireticulatus appears to be rather closely related to P. texanus 

of this work, but the others are without Guadalupian representatives. 

Martin seems not to have found the genus in the collections from Timor studied 

by him, but Rothpletz cites six species in his work on the Permian fauna of Timor 

and Rotti. Two of these, P. abichi and P. waageni, belong to the fimbriati, a group 

which, as I have several times had occasion to remark, is not found in the Guadalupian. The same is true of P. asperulus, which has no very close ally in that 

fauna. The semireticulati include the three remaining species of Productus recognized by Rothplctz-P. semireticulatus, P. gratiosus, and Productus n. sp. The 

resemblance of P. gratiosus to the group of P. popei and toP. mexicanus has already 

been commented on in connection with faunas from India, and the type here 

receiving that identification (P. gratiosus) is without doubt the same as that identified 

by Beyrich as P. semireticulatus, whose similarity to P. texanus has also already 

been remarked. · " 

De Koninck recognized 12 species of Productus in his discussion of the Carboniferous faunas of Ne)V South Wales. None shows many analogies with the Guadalupian Pr.oducti, and indeed most of them o.ccur in the lower series of the Carboniferous, and may well be regarded as beyond the bounds of the present discussion. A 

few species occur in both divisions, as, for instance, P. clarlcei, which is cited both 

from Burragood, one of the lower horizons, and from Branxton, which, as it is not 

recorded in the list of localities where the lower series occurs, may be regarded as 

belonging to the upper. 

Of the Producti which were obtained from the upper horizons P. clarlcei, 

P. brachyth<erus, and P. undatus are perhaps the most important. P. clarlcei was: 

originally described as a Strophalosia, and has been considered elsewhere. De 

Koninck, according to his own account, saw no specimens of this species, and his 

assignment of it to Productus can not, therefore, be regarded as trustworthy. I 

·repeat that I see but ·the most elementary resemblance between the Producti 

described by De Koninck and those of the Guadalupian fauna. 

3095-No. 58-08--16 
242 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

The genus Productus is represented in the "Permu-Carboniferous" of Queensland 

and New Guinea by something like 12 species, as discriminated by Etheridge, but 

a large number of these are not identified; and many are not figured in his report. 

Productus cora is not found in the Guadalupian, and in fact Etheridge's figures from 

. Australia do not seem to me to belong to that species. The one most neariy resembling P. cora is a dorsal valve from the Mount Britton gold field. Productus brachythrerus, P. subquadratus, and P: undatus are non-Guadalupian, though the figure of 

the latter, said to be a ventral valve, suggests the dorsal valve of P. waagenianus. 

P. semireticulatus is not figured, but presumably resembles P. semireticulatus var. 

capitanensis and Productus sp. c. P. longispinus? is more or less semblable to the 

Guadalupian species of the group of P. popei. The remaining Producti are unidentified, and with one or two exceptions appear to belong to non-Guadalupian types. 

Productus sp. d and Productus sp. ,/, however, are probably related to the Guadalupian shells of the group of Productus popei, the former more toP. popei itself and 

the latter to P. texanus. , 

In the Russian section the,genus Productus shows a remarkable differentiation, 

reaching its acme in the Gschelian, where Tschernyschew recognizes the extraordinary number of 43 species. In the Artinskian the number is much less, while in 

the Permian I have found recorded but five. It would protract this discussion 

needlessly to compare the Guadalupian Producti with those of the Productus giganteus and Spiri;fer mosquen8is faunas, but 1 may remark in passing how much the 

Productus fauna of the Moskovian resembles that of our };fississippi Valley Pennsylvanian. 

Tschernyschew divides his 43 species of Gschelian Producti into 20 groups, the 

first of which, the group of P. boliviensis, comprises five species of the semireticulatus 

typ8. This group of forms is represented in the Guadalupian only in a general 

way. Nearest perhaps are P. guadalupensis, which resembles P. multistriatus Meek 

var. of Tschernyschew's report, and Productus sp. c., which resembles P. boliviensis 

and r. gruenewaldti. As to the identity of the Russian spe~ies with our American 

form, the resemblance is certai~ly very close, although Meek does not mention or 

figure the visceral area as being marked by concentric corrugations, the absence 

of which would preclude the assignment of this form to the 8emireticulati. • Rather 

faint concentric folds are shown in Tschernyschew's figuie. It should -be noted 

that P. multistriatus is a distinctly western form in the American Carboniferous 

faunas, no corresponding type, so far as I recall, being found in the Pennsylvanian 

of the Mississippi Valley. I have been tentatively correlating the horizon of 

P. multistriatus with beds below the Guadalupian. 

The next group, that of P. semireticulatus itself, has three species. Like the 

foregoing, this group finds representation in a general way in the Guadalupian 

·fauna, in this case. especially by P. semiretieulatus var. capitanensis. One of the 

members of this group Tschernyschew identifies with our little-known American 

species P. inflatus. Among the most typical semireticulati there is so strong a 

common resemblance and so many intermediate forms that it is difficult to determine and maintain specific limits. I have riot seen specimens which could without 

hesitation be placed with P. inflatus, and feel doubtful as to the reference of the 

Russian specimens. 
l\WLL USCOIDEA. 243 

The third group comprises a single species, Productus molleri, one of the semireticulati of the usual type. 

All these spee,ies are more or less closely related to Productus semireticulatus 

var. capitanensis, Productus sp. c, and P. g·uadalupensis. · 

The fourth group is .represented by P. lobatus arid P. mexicanus White (Shumard 1). These two forms are small speeies of the semireticulatus group, a type 

which is well represented in the Guadalupian. The Guadalupian forms, however, 

all have a deep sinus, while the Russian species are represented without this feature. 

P. mexicanus was described from the "white limestone" of the Guadalupe Mountains, and unfortunately I have been unable to identify it among my material. 

This ·is the more to be regretted since Shumard's description was not accompanied 

by figures. I am doubtful as to the correctness of White's identification. His 

species is considerably smaller, and its oceurrence appears to be at a lower geologic 

horizon, since I am tentatively assigning it to a position below the Guadalupian. 

Tschernyschew's Russian specimens certainly resemble \Vhite's identification. It 

will be remembered that this species has also been identified in China. P. mexicanus 

in North .America is distinctly western. So far as I can recall, it has no closely allied 

representatives in the Pennsylvanian faunas of the Mississippi and Ohio valleys. 

Productus sp. a. resembles the Russian shell figured as P. mexicanu-s "White 

(Shumard ?) . 

The next group, comprising only P. tartaricus, represents the type which has 

so many Guadalupian representatives, among which P. popei and P. texanus are 

conspicuous. 

The sixth group, that of P. stuclcenbergi, contains but P. stuclcenbergi itself, 

another small species similar toP. popei and P. texanus, but having a strongly corrugated visceral area. · 

\Vith these the division of the semireticulati comes to an end, although it apparently is resumed at a later point. In a general way it may be said that the Russian 

series of forms resembles the Guadalupian rather cl~sely, but shows a greater differentiation of large species closely related to the typical p, semireticulatus. The 

absence of species of the type of P. occidentalis from the Russian faunas may also 

. be noted. 

The group of P. spinulosus (No. 7) comprises seven species. These seem to 

have Guadalupian representatives in P. latidorsatus and P. subhorridus var. rugatulus. The re~emblance in some cases is rather strong, as between P. subhorrid·us 

var. rugatulus and the Russian shell identified as P. wallacianus, and between 

P. latidorsatus and P. tastubensis, while some of the Russian forms havl') no very 

analogous types in the Guadalupian, as, for example, P. pustulatus Keyserling. 

The next group, that of P. hwmboldti, has two Russian representatives and 

none at all in the Guadalupian. The same is true of the ninth group, called that of 

P. nebraskensis. One of the two forms is doubtfully referred to our common American species P. nebmskensis. The Russian.specimen figured seems to be so poor that 

the identification may well have been held in doubt. 

The next group includes representatives of the striati to the number of three. 

The shell figured asP. cora certainly seems to be the same form which D'Orbigny 

described from South America and which is abundant in the Pennsylvanian faunas 
. 244 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

of the Mississippi Valley. This type, ho:wever, does not occur characteristically in 

the Guadalupian. The little shell identified by Tschernyschew asP. aagardi Toula 

.is suggestive of P: waagenianus, but the dorsal valve ·appears to lack the pecuLiar 

,configuration of the American species. 

The eleventh group is composed of three species, two of which appear to be 

<closely related to Productus cora. The third is less so, but none has a closely comparable form in the Guadalupian. 

The next two groups, each with a single species, represent types more or less 

closely related to P. cancrini, and find representation in the Guadalupian in 

P. meekanus and P. signatus. · 

Productus pseudomedusa, the singular species on which Tschernyschew's fourteenth group is based, has no 'corresponding form in the Guadalupian fauna. 

In P. artiensis and P. mammatus, whi9h represent the fifteenth group, we again 

find species related to Guadalupian forms, the former to P. popei, the latter more 

' or less to Productus guadalupensis, or possibly to Productus sp. d. 

The group of P. punctatus (No. 1 6) comprises two species, neither of which 

has any related type in the Guadalupian. It is perhaps worthy of note that 

Tschernyschew's identification of P. punctatus is quite unlike the American form 

commonly referred to this species, which, however, is very similar to P.fasciatus, 

the other member of the group of P. punctatus in the Russian work. 

The seventeenth and eighteenth groups, the former with one and the latter 

with two species, have no representatives in the Guadalupian. The corresponding American species occur at horizons which I regard as older than the Guadalupian and associated with a very different fauna. These are western fo:r;ms, 

without closely allied .representation in the Pennsylvanian of the Mississippi 

Valley. The shells which Tschernyschew figures under the name of P. longus are 

so different from Meek's figure of that species that the identification must be 

regarded as at least doubtful. · 

P. timanicus, which alone constitutes .the nineteenth group, finds a representative in the Guadalupian fauna in the related P. latidorsatus. The resemblance 

is not very striking, consisting more in sculpture than in configuration, and 

mature specimens are rather strongly different. 

The twentieth group comprises but two species, P. anomalus Keyserling, 

whose Guadalupian representative is P. pinniformis, and P. ischmensis, which has 

no corresponding species in the American fauna .. 

To take the Producti as a whole the Guadalupian fauna, in paradoxical language, may be said to resemble the Gschelian more closely than the Gschelian 

does the Guadalupian. In other words, :while most of the Guadalupian species 

find Gschelian types more or less closely related, the latter fauna contains much 

that is unrepresented in the Guadalupian. Some of these forms may be regarded 

as survivors from earlier faunas, as, for instance, species closely related toP. p·unctatus, P. cora, and P. nebraskensis. In many cases these non-Guadalupian species ~ 

have similar or identicaJ American representatives, but as a rule the latter occur in 

our western areas and in association with faunas markedly different from the 

Guadalupian, and found, I believe, at distinctly lower horizons. 

Tschernyschew's accou.nt may fairly be taken as giving a representative exposition of the Gschelian Productus fauna, and while otger reports in which this 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 245 

fauna ha:s been discussed have come before me, they can well be neglected in the 

present discussion, whose scope is more general than particular. 

In attempting to ascertain the character of the Artinsk fauna so as to compare. with it that from the Guadalupe Mountains, instead of a single volume in 

which the species are all figured, as in Tschernyschew's work on the Gschelian, I 

have had to consult several in which the fauna was for the most part listed. The 

largest Productus fauna in the Artinsk seems to be that discussed by Stuckenberg, 

who lists 21 species. In spite of the fact that but four of these are figured, it is 

possible to point out that a considerable number have allied species in the Guadalupian. Many of these either occur in the Gschelian or are represented there by 

cognate forms. Seven of the Artinskian species belong to the sernireticulati. 

P. sernireticutalus, P. boliviensis, Productus cf. spiralis, and P. rnodleri are large 

types more or less closely related to P. sernireticulatus var. capitanensis and Productus sp. c in the Guadalupian, while P. iongispin'l!>s, P. stuckenbergianus, and 

Productus cf. artiensis are small species more or less comparable toP. texanus and 

P. popei. Productus cora and the related P. teny,istriatus are not represented in 

the Guadalupian by forms closely allied to them. P. lconinclcianus and P. cancrini find aHied species in P. rneekanus and P. signatus. The following have no 

related Guadalupian species and in some cases none belonging to the same section: P. sti}briculus, P. punctatus, P. silvmanus, P .. firnbriatus, and P. granulosus .. 

P. aculeaffut.s may have a somewhat distantly connected form in P. walcottianus. 

P. tuberculiltus rather suggests P .. latidorsatus, with which P. tirnanic11,s may also· 

be in some respects compared. P. lcrasnopolskyanus presents an appearance not. 

unlike P. subhorridus var. rugatulus. 

How closely related are the Productus faunas of the Gschelian anfl the Artinskian appears from the fact that of the 20 species which Stuckenberg cites from 

the Gschelian 13 run up into the Artinskian, while of. the 21 from the Artinskian 

the same number of course come up through the Gschelian. So far as this report 

is concerned, therefore, practically the same remarks which were made regarding 

the Gschelian may be repeated of the Artinskian Producti in their relation to those . 

of the Gu11dalupe Mountains. Most of the Guadalupian species have forms in the 

Artinskian to which a correspondence can be traced, intimate in some cases but 

remote in others, while in the Artinskian are a number of types which have allied 

forms in the Hueco formation and correlated 'beds but none in the overlying 

Guadalupian. 

Tschernyschew also gives a list of Artinskian Brachiopoda, many of them 

figured, in whi<{h he cites 12 species representing about the same type of fauna as 

Stuckenberg's list, many of the species being identical. 

Krotow also lists a large number of species from the Artinsk sandstone, only 

a few of them, unfortunately, being figured. The list comprises 23 species, four 

of them unidentified, and includes eight which Tschernyschew identifies in the 

Gschelian. Among the types found by Krotow are large species of the semireticulatus group, as well as small ones several of which are closely 11llied to Guadalupian species such asP. popei, P. texanus, P. indentatus, etc. The Russian forms 

especially in mind are P: longispinus and P. stuclcenbergianus. There are also 

P. lconinclcianus and P. cancrini, which appear to be related toP. meelcanus and 

P. signattts. On the other hand Krotow cites P. cora, together with a number of 
246 THE GUADALUPIAN l!'AUNA. 

the fimbriati, such as P. humboldti, P. fimbriatus, P. punctatus, a group whose 

absence from the Guadalupian has already called for comment. 

From the Permian Stuckenberg obtained but few invertebrates. and no brachiopods, but Netschajew cites four Producti-P. cancrini Vern., P. hemisphxrium Kut., 

P. hemisphxroidalis Stuck., and P. planohemisphxrium Stuck. P. cancrini finds 

related species in the Guadalupian in P. meelcanus and P. signatus, but there are no 

Guadalupian forms closely resembling the three others. About the same species 

(P. cancrini and P. hemisphxrium) are recorded from the Permian by Golowkinsky, 

while from the province of Kostroma Tschcrnyschew cites only P. cancrini, but 

his figures represent a form which I would think more nearly related to P. cora. It 

appears to lack the regular .distribution and elongate bases of the spines, which are 

a striking character of De Verneuil's figures. Sibirzew cites P. cancrini and the 

related Productus · aff. lconinclcianus from the lower Permian series and P. cancrini 

from the upper, while in the original work on the Permian De Verneuil describes 

P. cancrini and P. leplayi, the latter being one of the semireticulati. 

From these data it would appear that there is a great difference between the 

Producti of the Russian Permian and of the Artinsk, manifested, however, more in 

the defection of old types, with a general falling off in the representation, rather than 

iri the introduction of new ones. Exception· may perhaps be found in the three 

species recognized by Netschajew, but while they are poorly figured and apparently 

rather characterless types, I believe that they are to be considered rather survivors 

than newly introduc;ed. It is hardly necessarY. to comment on th!;l Guadalupian 

Producti in this connection. They contain much that the Russian Permian docs 

not, but the dominating types of the greatly diminished Productus fauna of the latter 

arc in the main to be found in the Guadalupian. 

The fauna described by Enderle from Balia Maaden, in Asia Minor, need not 

long detain this discussion, though it contains, according to this author, Producti to 

the number of 21. Four of these are placed with the lineati-P. lineatus, Productus 

cf. cora, Productus cf. rnargaritaceus, and P. mysius. To the two latter especially 

the Guadalupian fauna contains no corresponding forms, although Productus cf. 

rrw-rgaritaceus seems to me to be referred to the lineati with doubtful propriety and 

tci be more probably a poorly charaeterized type of the semireticulati. To the two 

former, though P. lineatus is not figured, the Guadalupian species P. waagenianus is 

somewhat distantly related. 

Nine species represent the sernir'eticulati, according to this author, over against 

which there is about an equal number of Guadalupian varieties. In a general way 

the semireticulati of the two faunas present many correspondences. . It could hardly 

be otherwise; but. the large types are prevalent in the fauna from Balia Maaden 

and the small ones in that from the Guadalupe Mountains. The differences are not 

very marked, the latter fauna, for instance, lacking a corresponding form toP. semi-

·reticulat'lls var. bathylcolpus, and the former being without anything closely related 

to P. guadahtpensis and P. occidentalis. 

To the Proboscidei Enderle refers a shell identified as p. nystianus De Kon., 

though I can not but doubt profoundly either the direct reference to the species or 

the implied one to the genus Proboscidella, provided the figure be correct. The 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 247 

form in question appears in fact 'to be very similar to that called "Productus cf. margaritaceus," both types being more probably small examples of the semireticulatus 

section, related, though not necessarily very closely, to P. texanus and its allies. 

"Productus aff. undati" (unfigured) finds a related form in the Guadalupian, if at 

all, in P. meelcanus. P. punctatus, representing the fimbriati; P. scabriculus, representing the spinosi; and Productus cf. tumidus, incorrectly, I believe, referred to the 

horridi, have no related -Guadalupian species. The same is true of P. aculeatus?, 

referred to the caperati and not figured, unless Productus pileolus or P. subhorridus 

var. rugatulus prove to resemble it. P. subhorridus var. ru.ga.tulus is also comparable 

in some ways to the little shell which Enderle identifies as P. curvirostris, but 

P. pileolus is far more elosely related. The third species referred to the caperati, 

P. troianus, is quite unlike any Guadalupian types of Productus. This unusual form 

in fact rather suggests some species of Aulosteges. On the whole the Producti of the 

Balia Maaden fauna show no very close relationship with the Guadalupian species. 

Much more nearly related in some respects is the fauna from Armenia described 

by Abich. The most striking feature of the Producti of this fauna is the great development of species having a general resemblance to P. latidorsatus, P. subhorridus 

v.ar. rugatulus, and P. walcottianus. Abich cites members of this group under 

different names, but one would be disposed· to refer to it the forms called P. intermedius, P. intermedius var. planicorwexus, P. intermedius var. helicus, P. spinosicostatus, P. spinosicostatus var. cariniferus, P. spinosicostatus var. expansus, P. spinosicostatus var. incurvus, besides P. martini, P. aculentus, and P. spinulosus. These 

appear to be related, some of them very closely and others remotely, to the three 

Guadalupian species mentioned above, but unfortunately it has subsequently been 

shown that all except P. intermedius, P. intermedius var. planiconvexus, and P. mar-

• tini belong to Waagen's genus "l1arginifera, the structures characterizing which 

have not been observed in the Guadalupian species and appear in some cases to be 

absent. If, therefore, we except these forms, in which the resemblance, it would. 

seem, is only apparent the relationship between the Armenian and the Ameri.can 

faunas in point of the genus Productus is not very close. . 

Abich regards P. intermedius as a member of the semireticulati and Arthaber, 

who subsequently reworked the fauna, takes the same position, even-referring to the 

same species P. intermedius var. planiconvexus Abich and P. martini Abich non Sow. ; 

but I can not see any justification for this, for while the visceral area is marked by 

concentric. corrugations, both authors represent the form in question as entirely 

without ribs. In my view they should be placed with the horridi or caperati, 

although these groups are described as typically without concentric corrugations. 

They appear to resemble, in a general way, the Guadalupian spe9ies which I have 

called "P. lntidorsntus." With the foregoing exception the great group of the 

semireticulati would appear to be unrepresented in the Armenian fauna, a really 

surprising .circumstance, since these shells arc seldom absent where the genus 

Productus occurs at all. 

The remaining Armenian species of Productus belong to the lineati and the 

fimbriati. To the latter, a group, it will be remembered, which does not occur in the 

Guadalupe Mountains, are referred P. scabriculus, to which as identified by Abich 
248 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

Waagen subsequently gave the name P. abich·i, and P. hwmboldti, for which, in like 

manner, the name P. waageni was later substituted by Rothpletz. The lineati comprise three species which Arthaber refers toP. hemisph&rium Kut. (P. hemisph&rium 

var. armeniacus in the description of plates), but which Abich distinguishes asP. striatus Fischer, P. striatus var. sph&ricus, and P. undatus. Some of Abich's figures, 

especially that of P. striatus, are very suggestive of our Productus cora, and one 

would be inclined to think that Abich may have two species, instead of one. Arthaber places these forms with the "irregulares, but they seem to belong more properly in 

the lineati. If they have any Guadalupian representative it is P. waagenianus or 

P. waagenianus var. 

Arthaber recently redescribed Abich's fauna, introducing many changes, some 

of which have already been noted. He also introduced one new specific name, that of 

P. mytiloides, of which P. pinn~j'ormis would probably be the Guadalupian representative: On the whole, if the group of shells which Arthaber withdraws to the 

genus Marginifera is eliminated, the Armenian fauna from Djoulfa does not, in its 

Producti, show any marked resemblance to the Guadalupi,an. 

Gemmellaro's report on the Producti of the Sicilian fauna from PaJerrno being, 

unfortunately, inaccessibl~, I must next examine those by Schcllwien on collections 

from the Carnic Alps. In his paper on the fauna of the Fusulina limestone this 

author cites ten species. Three of these belong to the lineati-P. lineatus, P. cora; 

and P. cancriniformis. The first is perhaps rarther remotely related toP. waagenianus, but it is doubtful if P. meekanus should be considered as the representative of 

P. cancriniformis. The semireticulati, comprising P. semireticulatus, P. semireticulatus var. balhykolpus, P. gratiosus var. occidenta1is, and P. longispinus, have allied 

forms in the Guadalupian, P. sem·ireticulatus var. bathykolpus in P. semireticulatus 

var. capitanensis and P. gratiosus var. occidentalis, and P. longispinus in Productus 

sp. c, P. pope·i., P. texnnus, and cognate species. P. punctatus, however, has no cor-

. responding type in the Guadalupian, but P: aculeatus var. may possibly be compar.ed with P. walcottianus and P. subhorridus var. rugatulus. These forms aiso 

resemble in a general way P. curvirostris, to which, however, a little shell that may 

possibly belong to the genus Mnrginifern has a still closer superficial resemblance. 

On the whole Schellwien's fauna seems in its Productus content to be rather similar 

to the Guadalupian, though the latter contains some types which do not occur in the 

Alpine fauna (e. g., P. occidentalis and P. latidorsatus). 

In the fauna of the Trogkofelschichten the same author cites 14 species, in many 

cases the same as those of the preceding one. The group of P. cora contains only 

P. cora itself, distantly related to the Guadalupian species P. wangenianus. The 

group of P. cancr~ni consists of P. cancriniformis and P. cancrinij'ormis var. sinuatus, 

the former comparable toP. meekanus and P. signatus. The group of P. semireticulatus comprises P. semireticulatus, P. semireticulatus var. bathykolpus, and Productus cf. spiralis. They are more or less closely related to Productus semireticulatus 

var. capitanensis and Produc,tus sp. c. The group of P. grijjithianus is represented 

by P. gratiosus, which save for its strongly wrinkled visceral area is very suggestive 

of the group of P. popei. P. aculeatus, representing the group of that name, is related \ 

toP. walcottimius. P. spinulosus, P. tuberculatus, and Productus sp., belonging to the 

group of P. spinulosus, are similar, though not very closely similar, toP. latidorsatus, 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 249 

P. subhorridus var. rugatulus, and their allies. P. curvirostris, somewhat related to 

t)le same species, is much more similar to a little shell described by Shumard as 

Productus. pileolus, which is possibly to be referred .to Marginifera. P. elegans .and 

P. incisus have no Guadalupian species closely allied to them. The Guadalupian 

Producti, however, in their general facies are rather comparable to. those of the 

Trogkofelschichten. 1 

Gortani also described a fauna from the Carnic Alps, but one which I take to be 

older than that of the Trogkofdschichtcn. Fifteen species are distinguished by this 

author. The three varieties of the cora group have, so far as known, no immediate 

relatives in the Guadalupian. One species is referred, somewhat doubtfully, to 

P. giganteus, a type which would hardly be looked for in this faunal association. The 

figures suggest a cast of the dorsal valve of Derbya or some other strophomenoid. 

The larger semireticulati are identified as P. semireticulatus, P. semireticulatus var. 

transversalis, and P. semireticulatus var. bathylcolpus. These correspond in a general 

way toP. ·semireticulatus var. capitanensis; Productus sp. c, and, P. guadalupensis of 

the Guadalupian. The smaller types, such as P .. gmtios1ts, P. longispina, and 

P. longispinus var. lobatus, though not figured, are probably comparable to P. popei 

and its allies. It is true, however, that Gortani cites P. longispina as a Marginifera, 

though W aagen has stated that typical P. longispina does not belong to that genus. 

The remaining species, P. punctatus, Productus cf.jasciatus, P. elegans, P. humboldti, 

and P. abichi, appear to have no Guadalupian allies, and indeed the whole Productus 

fauna appears to have a different facies. 

In the Dyas of Germany Geinitz recognizes five species of Productus~P. cancrini, represented in the Guadalupian by P. meelcanus and P. signatus,· P. he,misphxrium, perhaps not properly belonging in the -fauna and without closely related 

Guad'alupian species; P. latirostraws, possibly an Aulosteges and without a Guadalupian representative; P. horridus, appearing to be represented in the Guadalupian 

by the not very closely related species P. latidorsatus,· imd P. geinitzianus, possibly 

to be correlated with the form just mentioned, though in some respects comparable 

also toP. walcottianus and toP. occidentalis. Perhaps I should also include a shell 

, placed by Geinitz in the genus Strophalosia and identified with De Verneuil's species 

Productus leplayi, which I believe is by its author correctly regarded as a Productus. 

By way of illustration Geinitz produces a figure copied from De Koninck but evidently originally derived from De Verneuil's illustration of Productus leplayi. 

While comparable in some respects the Producti of the Dyas fauna ~re specifically much less varied than those of the Guadalupian. Except for P. leplayi, above 

mentioned, we miss the great group of the semireticulati, and especially the small, 

arched, deeply sin used forms of· the Guadalupian fauna. We miss also the cora 

group and the irregulares of W aagen. The absence of other types, such as the 

fimbriati, is shared by the Guadalupian fauna. 

In the Permian of England, closely related to that of Germany, King recognizes but one species of Productu8 (P. horridn8), P. umbonillatus, as King suggests, 

being probably an Aulosteges. 

From Spitzbergen De Koninck cites four species of Productus-P. horridus, P. 

leplayi, P. cancrini, and P. robertiCLnus. The first of these, unless an imperfect 

specimen_ or figured very badly, is not a characteristic example of the species to which 
250 THE GUADALUPlAN FAUNA. 

it is referred. It is not very unlike P. latidorsatus or even P. subhorridus var. 

rugatulus. P. cancrini and P. leplayi correspond in a general way to the Guadalqpian forms P. meekanus or P. signatus, and P. semireticulatus var. capitanensis or 

Productus sp. c. The little shell called P. robertianus is certainly not like any ordinary type of Productus. In fact, from the figures one might be excused for mistaking it for a Spir1fer. I suspect, however, that it will be found to be a Chonetes, 

belonging to the group of the grandicostati. 

In his paper on fossils from the south point of Spitzbergen Toula cites six 

species of Productus. P. payeri and P. weyprechti probably, and P. humboldti certainly, have, so far as known, no Guadalupian representatives. The shell referred 

toP. koninckianus is somewhat similar toP. meekanus and P. signatus. The two 

undetermined species are not figured and can not enter into a comparison. 

In describing later a fauna from the Hornsund, on the west coast of Spitzbergen, 

this author cites seven species of Productus, to which should perhaps be added a 

fragmentary specimen identified as P. leplayi De Vern. and referred to- the genus 

Strophalosia. P. weyprechti, which in the preceding paper had been figured from an 

internal mold, is here shown to be one of the semireticulati, together with P. spitzbergianus, which Toula, I can not but think with little reason, compares with P. 

horridus. P. weyprechti seems to be most nearly related toP. guadalupensis of our 

American fauna. Another of the semireticulati, P. wilczeki, strikingly resembles P. 

popei and its allies, some of which a.~;e comparable to the shell that Toula identifies 

as P. longispinus, perhaps also to the unfigured P. longispinus var. acutirostratus. 

The form referred to Productus cf. prattenianus ( =P. cora) is said to be without 

spines, and therefore it is perhaps more nearly allied to P. lineatus. There is no 

Guadalupian species very similar to it. The form identified as P. undatus is not 

figured. If it is the same as typical P. undatus,. no species in the Guadalupian can 

be compared to it, except, very loosely, P. meekanus. 

From Axel Island Toula cites three varieties of P. horridus, P. cancrini, Productus cf. humboldti, P. weyprechti, Productus sp., P. semireticulatus, P. aagardi, and 

P. impressus, Of the modifications of P. horridus one a has much the configuration 

of P. guadalupensis and is represented as being marked, especially toward the front, 

by obscure ribs. The other forms appear not to be striated and can be compared, 

though but partially, with P. latidorsatus and P. subhorridus var. rugatulus. P. 

impressus, Productus cf. humboldti, and P. weyprechti appear to be without Guada- · 

.lripian representatives. P. cancrini (not figured) is perhaps analogous to P. meekanus and P. signatus, P. semireticulatus to P. semireticulatus var. capitanensis and 

Productus sp. d, though not very similar, and P. aagardi toP. waagenianus. 

From the cape between the two arms of the North Fjord Toula cites P. horridus 

var. spitzbergianus, P. cancrini, P. humboldti, Productus cf. scabriculus, and P. longispinus var. setosus. P. horridus var. spitzbergianus seems to be the same species 

which this author described from the Hornsund asP. spitzbergianus and from Axel 

Island asP. horridus. It is possibly related toP. guadalupensis. The form referred 

to P. cancrini is perhaps related to P. meekanus and P. signatus, though Toula's 

specimen appears to have been in an imperfect state of preservation. Possibly the 

same cause would account for differences between Toula's figures and those of 

a Toula, F., Neues Jahrb., 1875, pl. 5, fig. 2. 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 251 

typical P. scabriculus. This form, together with P. humboldti and P. longispinus 

var. setosus, appears to have no closely related species in the Guadalupian. The last 

named is possibly the species which De. Koninck described from Spitzbergen as 

P. robertianus, and if so my surmise that P. robertianus is one of the grandicostate 

Ohonete§ must be in error. It more nearly resembles P. popei and related forms 

than any other Guadalupian species. · 

Lundgren cites only Productus ? sp. as occurring in his Permian fauna from 

Spitzbergen, and it may be said in general, though with here and there an exception, 

that the Producti of the Spitzbergen faunas are not very similar to tl1e Guadalupian 

ones. 

This is still more true of the fauna from the Barents-Inseln, Nova Zembla, from 

which Toula cites P. cora, P. semireticulatus, P. costatus, P. punctatus, P. hum.boldti, 

P. aculeatus, and P. obscurus. P. obscurus and P. aculeatus may in a general way 

correspond to P. subhorridus var. rugatulus and P. latidorsatus, and P. semireticulatus and P. costatus toP. semireticulatus var. capitanensis and Productus· sp. c. I, 

can not repress a suspicion that Tonia's figure of Strophomena depressa represents 

a dorsal valve of a Productus of the cora type, rather than a Leptcena. 

From the Productus limestone of the Wadi-Draa in the vVest Sahara Stache has 

brought to notice a remarkable Productus fauna, consisting of numerous mutations 

of what appear from figures. to be a single primal form. They all show more or less 

close relationship toP. hemisphcerium and P. margaritaceus, the great groups of the 

semireticulati, fimbriati, etc., being entirely unrepresented. One species, it is true, 

P. devestitus, Stacho refers to the group of P. sublcevis, but it is certainly not a normal 

representative of the semireticulati. In the Guadalupian the only species which 

may be compared with these is P. waagenianus, and the relationship is probably not 

close. Stache distinguishes 13 species in tllis series, only two of which need occasion 

further remark. One of the now names introduced by Stache is P. semistriatus, the 

combination used by Meek for an. American shell in 1860. The form called Productus ? tripartitus, both from the figures and the structures which it is said -to 

possess, I suspect to belong to another genus-:-: to be, in fact, a dorsal valve of a· 

strophomenoid. 

Stache als·o Gites two species of Productus (Productus aff. margaritaceus and 

Produdus sp.) from the "Sandsteinschichten der Mittelrcgion" of the West Sahara 

and four from Igidi; hut as these forms have little to do with the Guadalupian 

fauna I shall not delay over them, pausing only to comment on numerous mistakes 

in plate references which occur in this work and cause labor and uncertainty to 

anyone wishing to consult them. It seems as if examples of all possible errors could· 

be furnished in text, plates, and descriptions of plates, including incorrect citation, 

duplication, and omission of numbers. 

From Bolivia Toula cites only Productus cf. cora and P. semireticulatus. Salter 

cites only P. semireticulat,us and P. longispinus (P. capacii of D'Orbigny), the latter 

very similar to P. texanus of the Guadalupian. In D'Orbigny's volume, however, 

we find nine species described .. One can easily trust too far to D'Orbigny's figures, 

but it is safe to say that no species of the type of P. humboldti aie as yet known in 

the Guadalupian. P. villiersi appears to correspmid to P. meelcanus. P. cora is 

without a closely corresponding fo'rm. P. andii has been shown by De Koninck 
252 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

to be an orthoid ( =Orthis buchii) .. P. capacii is closely similar toP. texanus, and 

P. inca, P. peruvianus (fide De Koninck), P. boli1Jiensis, and P. gaudryi (figured but 

not described) are large species of the sernireticulatus type :q10re or less allied to 

P. semireticuZatus var. capitanensis and Productus sp. c~ Upon the whole the known 

Peruvian faunas are not very similar to those of the Guadalupian in point of the 

genus Productus, and I am tentatively holding that they represent an earlier epoch. 

In his Peruvian material Gabb distinguishes only three species of Productus, 

one a small form neither described nor figured, the two others large species belonging, 

it would appear, to the sernireticulati. 

The Brazilian fauna which Derby described includes seven species of Productus. 

P. semireticulatus, P. chandlessii, P. batesianus, and P. rhomiamts (if the latter does 

not after all belong to the genus Margin~fera) can all be referred -to the semireticuZati, without, however, being very similar in any instmicc to the Guadalupian species 

P. sernireticulatus var. capitanensis. They appear to be nearer to the imperfectly 

·known Prod1fctus sp. c. P. chandlessii and P. batesianus, however, have cognate 

species in P. guada,lupensis, and P. rhornianus possibly in P. texanus and its allies. 

P. cora has no very close ally in the North American fauna. P. clarkianus bears 

comparison with P. rneelcanus, and P. wallacianus to a certain extent with P. lati-

'. 

dorsatus and P. subhorridus var. rugatulus. Though I am tentatively regarding the ,,, 

Brazilian fauna as older than the Guadalupian, the Producti show considerable 

resemblance. 

In his valuable bibliography Weller recognizes upward of 50 species of Productus 

from the Upper Carboniferous rocks of North America. Fifteen of these are distinctiy western forms, the remainder being for the most part restricted to the Mississippi Valley and Appalachian regions. To treat the Pennsylvanian Producti as 

I have attempted to do in the case of foreign faunas would be impo&siblc, since many 

of them have not been figured; and the need of detailed comparisons is less imperative, since all who arc familiar with the Pennsylvanian faunas will at once recognize 

that they are very unlike those of the Guadalupe Mountains.· Suffice it to recall in 

this connection that the Producti of the Pennsylvanian commonly belong to five 

types which occur again·and again, whether collections be made at different localities 

or different horizons. We have Marginiferas such as J1{. wabashensis and J(. muricata, and species of Productus more or less closely related to P. semir-eticulatus and 

P. costatus, toP. cora, toP. nebraslcensis, and toP. punctatus.. Of these the greatest 

variation is shown by the sernireticulati. None of the Guadalupian species ·of 

Productus is, so far as I am aware, identical with a Pennsylvanian form.a Some 

of the semireticulati have analogous forms in the two faunas, but the z/unctatus and 

nebraslcensis types are entirely alien to the Guadalupian, and P. cora nearly as 

much so, being represented only by the distan.tly connected P. pinniformis and 

P. waagenianus. 

Species of J{ar-gin~fera more or less compl,etely identical with M. wabashensis 

and .M. rnuricata are a rather constant factor in most Pennsylvanian faunas. The 

genus Marginifera is, so far as known, entirely lacking from the Guadalupian. 

a Shumard cites P. norwoodi from the Capitan formation, l!ut I am at.a loss to k;ww with what he had to do. If not 

an Aulcisteges the form in question would appear to be one of the jimbriati, a type which, at least in our collections, seems' to 

be unrepresented in the Guadalupian. · 
MOLL USCOTDEA. 253 

Productus pileolus, the species which seems from its structure most)ikely to belong 

to that genus, is of an altogether distinct type from the Pennsylvanian 1\tfarginiferas. 

On the other hand, the forms which superficially most resemble the Pennsylvanian 

Marginiferas, such as Productus subhorridus var. rugatulus and ce:I:tain shells belonging 

to the group of Productus popei, seem to be without the characteristic ~Marginifera 

structure. 

Among the rarer Pennsylvanian Producti one at least seems to have. a related 

type in the Guadalupian, P. pertenuis being unquestionably related toP. meekanus, 

but it can ·be stated without qualification that the Guadalupian Producti are markedly different from the Pennsylvanian forms. Nor will it be necessary· to devote 

much time to the scattered species which have been described from theW est. In 

no instance, I believe, are they identical with Guadalupian species, and the associated 

faunas in every case, so far as I am aware; arc different and probab1y older. 

In thus hastily surveying the representative of this most characteristic Carboniferous genus in the difiercnt faunas of the world it has become apparent that 

the Guadalupian in this particular is an individual entity. Its affinities with certain 

faunas are marked, but almost invariably it presents equally marked differences, so 

that it can not be said to be identical \vith· any of them. 

PRODUCTUS WAAGENIANUS n. sp. 

Pl. XII, figs. 6 to 7a. 

. Shell small. Ventral valve much inrolled, gradually spreading· transversely. 

Beak inflated, pointed, strongly incurved, slightly projecting. Ears small, depressed, 

quadrate, flattened. Sinus absent. Toward the margin the shell develops a few 

low folds. 

Dorsal valve nearly planate, with a narrow geniculated portion around the front 

· and sides. Beak small, indistinct. Ears undefined. 

Surface marked by· radiating line; concentric lirre, concentric :wrinkles, and 

spines. Lirre very fine, about 14 in 5 rom.; low, rounded, separated by intervals as 

wide or wider than themselves. Concentric linn rather coarse but indistinct .. 

Wrinkles faint, distant, covering more than half the surface; strong on the ears. 

Visceral portion with a few rather large nodes, which may have been bases of spines, 

some of which appear to have b~en located on the ears, especially near the hinge line. 

The foregoing description, so far as it relates to the surface, is based on the ventral valve. The surface of the dorsal valve is marked by concentric wrinkles (and 

presumably concentric lirre) and radiating line. The wrinkles on this valve are very 

strong, regular, subimbricating, and rather distant, covering the surface as far as the 

geniculation. The shape and ornamentation are such as to simulate certain varieties 

of Leptcena rhomboidalis. The wrinkles are so much stronger than those of the ventral valve as to suggest that the two shells do not belong together; but the other 

characters are similar, they arc associated in the same beds, and nothing has thusfar 

come to hand which in either case could be taken for the supplementary valve. I 

have at present little doubt about their relationship. Were it not for the peculiar 

character of the dorsal valve it might perhaps have been possible to refer this form 

to the common P. cora; but with the present association it is out of the question. 
254 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

P. waagenianus is .related to the Arctic species P. aagardi Toula not only in a 

general way but in the plicated condition of the dorsal valve. It is distinguished, 

however, by its much finer liration. . 

Hon:z~n and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guad,alupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). · 

PRODUCTUS WAAGENIANUS var. 

The typical specimens of P. waagenianus were derived from the white limestone 

of the Gu3;dalupe section. From the sandstones of the Delaware Mountain formation a few ventral valves of a similar type have been obtained, though I doubt if 

they can properly he referred to the same species. Nevertheless the fossils so far 

observed are really too poorly preserved ~o warrant the introdtict:on of a new name. 

The convexity of these shells is variable, though generally broad and low. The ears 

are large, flattened, and undefined. The surface is marked by rather strong thin 

lirre, with rounded intermediate grooves. There appear to be no wrinkles, except 

faint ones on the ears, ·and a few small spines can be observed in the same region. 

The dorsal valve is not known. 

The main points of difference from P. waagenianus consist in the coarseness of 

the lirre, in which the Delawarian specimens show some differences among themselves. The finest of them, however, has but eight or nine in the space of 5 mm., 

a distinctly coarser liration than in P. waagenianus proper. This form resembles 

P. cora, but even if the dorsal valve is not constructed as in the typic~l variety, the 

absence of large spines over the surface should serve to distinguish them. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe ·Point, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (stations 2903 and 2919). 

PRODUCTUS SEMIRETICULATUS var. CAPITANENSIS n. var. 

Pl. XII, figR. 1 to ::lb; Pl. XX, figs. 8 and Sa. 

1858. Productus semireticulatus. Shumard (non Martin), Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, vol. 1, p. 292 

(date of volume, 1860). 

White [Permian] limestone: Guadalupe Mountaim. 

1859. Productus semireticulatus var. antiquatus. Shumard (non Martin), idem, p. 389. 

White L Permian] limestone: Guadalupe ·Mountains. 

Shell large. Ventral valve strongly arched. Beak ·moderately full. Ears· 

probably large and projecting. Sinus profound, angular, and extending nearly to 

the beak. 

Dorsal valve with strongly flattened visceral region; anterior and lateral portions uniting in an abrupt geniculation and at an angle somewhat less than 90°: 

Sinus faint over the visceral region, stronger below the geniculation, Ears large, 

. defined by a groove, somewhat arched. Both valves exhibit a tendency to develop 

along the margin into large, loose folds and irregular growths. 

The surface is marked by moderately fine ribs and regular concentric wrinkles 

of about the same size. The wrinkles are restricted to the visceral area, and produce 

regular nodes where they cross the ribs. Some of the nodes are more prominent than 

the rest, and formed the bases of small sp~nes. The ribs increase by bifurcation, and 
MOLLUSCOIDJ£A. 255 

those nearest the sinus exhibit a marked tendency to run down from the sides into it. 

They come about four or five in 5 mm. The distribution of the spines has not been 

ascertained. 

While the dorsal valve, and doubtless the ventral one also, had much-pl·oduced 

ears, it is noticeable that the growth lines and wrinkles contract at the hinge. The 

sinus is remarkably deep and angular and reliance is placed on this and other peculiarities in the configuration and ornamentation to distinguish this form from the 

varieties of P. semireticulcdus found in the Mississippi Valley,· and also from the typical English species. This is undoubtedly the variety which Shumard mentioned in 

his original list of fossils from this locality, referring to it as Productus semireticulatus. 

His remarks are as follows: a 

This widely distributed 8pecies is contained in Captain Pope's collection from the white limestone 

of the Guadalupe ;Mountains. The specimens resemble most the variety r. ant·iquatu:s, but the sinus of 

the receiving valve is more profound and narrower than in the example figured by De Koninck, which 

are generally marked with a broad shallow sinus. One of our fossils exhibits a group of 15 tubes on a 

smooth space just under the reticulated portion of the sides, arranged as represented in De Koninck's 

figures of some examples from Vise, Belgium. (Monog. Prod. et Chon., Pl. IX, fig. 1b, c.) 

In his later listb the form appears as P. semireticulatus var. antiquatus Martin. 

The spines which Shumard describes as being numer6us just under the reticulated 

portion have not been observed by me, on account of the imperfect condition of my 

material. 

This variety is found not only in the white limestone, from which Shumard 

cites it, but also in the dark limestone. 'l'he only difference which my material 

shows between examples found at the two horizons is that the type from the white 

limestone is a little more finely ribbed than the other. 

This form is by no means rare in the Capitan limestone, but all my material 

is more or less fragmentary. So extreme a range in size is indicated by the specimens that I suspect several varieties could be discriminated did not their imperfect condition render ineffectual an attempt to do so. 

Horizon and locality.-Top of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 3762); 

middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926); base of Capitan formation, hill southwest of Guadalupe Point (station 2906); "dark limestone," Pine 

Spring (station 2930), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. ... PRoDUCTUS MEXICANUS Shumard. 

1858. Productus Me:dcanus. Shumard, Tran8. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, vol. 1, p. 2Q1 (date of volume, 

1860). 

White [Permian] limestone: Guadalupe Mountains. 

1859. Product·us Mexicanus. Shumard, idem, p. 389. 

White [Permian] limestone: Guadalupe ·Mountains. 

?1877. Productus Mexicamls? White, U. S. Geog. Survey \V. lOOth :Mer., Rept., vol. 4, p. 120, pl. 8, 

figs. 6a to 6c. 

Carboniferous: Camp Cottonwood, old Mormon road, Lincoln County, Nev.; near Salt Lake, 

New Mexico. 

?1883. Productus Mexicanus. Kayser, Richthofen's China, vol. 4, p. 182, pl. 28, figs .. 7a~7b. 

Upper Carboniferous: Lo Ping, China. 

a Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, Vol. 1, 18,j6-1860, p. 292 . 

. b Idem·. p. 389. 
256 THE GU!\DALUPIAN FAUNA. 

?1902. Productus 11fe:ricanns. ''l'schJ~rnysdww, M6m. Com. geol. St. Petersburg, vol. 16, No. 2, p, 2\i4, 

pl. 52, iig. 10 .. 

Schwagcrina zone: Ural Mountains. 

Shell of medium size, subrectangular, width greater than the length; dorsal valve elevated, 

strongly arched, marked with a brwd, very slight mesial depression, which is scarcely developed into 

a sinu.s; sides rounded, falling abruptly to the margins, front very gently convex; beak small, point"ed, 

convex, moderately prominent; surface ornamented with from 18 to 24 prominent, rounded, longitud"inal ribs, their munber somewhat im:reased by implantation or bifurcation. The ribs are separated 

from each other by spaces as wide as themselves, and both ribs and spaces are crossed at somewhat 

irregular intervals by rounded concentric folds, which give to the ribs at the points of crossing a handsome subnodulose character. The concentric folds are not as prominent .as the ribs except on the 

sides, where, in one of the specimens before us, two or three of those nearest the border are developed 

into strong wrinkles. Ventral valve unknown. . 

Dimensions.-Length, O.G4; width, 0.70; height, 0.54. These proportions were taken from a young 

specimen on account of its being more perfect than the others. The collection contains fragments of 

full-grown shells, which, if perfect, would perhaps measure one-third greater. 

White limestone of the Guadalupe Mountains.'t 

The foregoing are Shumard's. description and remarks on this species, which, 

unfortunately, seems to be without representation in our collections. I know .of 

no form having the large ribs and coarse wrinkles called for by Shumard, not to 

mention the specifications as· to size and sinus. ' 

White identifies this species from points in Nevada and New Mexico, and 

although his form agrees closely with Shumard's description in most respects except 

size (it being considerably smaller), it is probable that if representative specimens 

of P. mexicanus were at hand the two would not be found to be the same species. 

The form most similar to P. mexicanus in the present collection is that designated Productus sp . . a, which is from a different horizon. It seems to be closely 

related to P. mexicanus as identified by ·white, except that the ribs are coarser; 

but many characters of Productus sp. a are not well shown by. the single imperfect 

~pecimen at hand. P. walcottianus resembles perhaps still more closely White's 

identification of Shumard's species. It has, however, stronger wTinkles over the 

visceral area, with more numerous spines and less regular and continuous· ribs. 

PRooucTus sp. c. 

This division is made primarily for a single ventral valve from the Glass Mountains (station 3763). The posterior portion is enveloped in chert, so that the char-· 

acters of this portion can not be made out. It is evidently nearer to Productus 

guadalupensis than to any of the other species recognized in this report, .but differs 

in being somewhat larger, in having slightly coarser and stronger ribs, and in being 

less arched and inflated in the post.erior portion. The ears appear to be large. 

The distribution and character of the spines has not been ascertained. 

It differs from the large form of P. semireticulatus var. capitanensis in being 

smaller, and from both large and small forms in having a broader and shallower 

sinus and less prominent ribs. Its general shape is that of a species recently 

described by me as P. semireticulatus var. hermosanus. It is, however, slightly 

smaller, has a somewhat deeper sinus, and is more strongly arched in an anteriorposterior clirection. The ribs are of about the same degree of coarseness, but it 

can not be told whether the posterior portion is crossed by wrinkles or not. 

a Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Lonis, vol. 1, 1856-1860, p. 291." 
MOLL US CO IDEA. 257 

I have also provisionally referred here another ventral from the same locality, 

only the posterior portion of which has been preserved. The size and shape are 

such as might ally it with the foregoing. The ribs are peculiarly thin and high 

and separated by broadly rounded grooves "\vider than the ribs themselves. There 

are also fine concentric strire, and concentric wrinkles which make· nodes where 

they cross the ribs, and ridges between them, and are somewhat farther apart than· 

the ribs themselves. The character of the costre is not exactly that which would 

be expected to go with the larger specimen, in which the posterior portion is concealed, but not such as to preclude the association altogether. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Comanche Canyon, Glass 

Mountains, Texas (station 3763). 

PRODUCTUS roPEr Shumard. 

Pl. XX, figs. 9 to llb. 

1858. Productus Popei. Shumard, Trans. A cad. Sci. St .. Louis, vol. 1, p. 290 (date of volume, 1860) 

[Permian: New Mexico and Texas.] 

1859. Productus Popei. Shumard, idem, p. 389, pl. 11, figs. Sa, Sb. 

White [Permian]limestone: Guadalupe Mountains. 

Shell of medium size, subquadrate, wider than long, greatest width at tho cardinal border. Dorsal 

valve (receiving valve) gibbous, very strongly arched, somewhat inrolled, flattened convex near the 

beak; anterior prolongation of moderate length, forming a gentle curve from the visceral region to the 

front; sinus commencing near the beak, where it is very shallow, but it soon increases in depth, and 

becomes very profound on the anterior prolongation, so as to give this portion of the shell a very marked 

bilobed appearance; surface with from six to ten unequally rounded, coarse ribs on each side of the 

sinus, their number sometimes increased by division and implantation. These ribs are usually quite 

prominent and broad on the anterior prolongation, but on the posterior third of the shell they become 

obsolete, leaving a nearly smooth surface for some distance before the beak; sides falling abruptly to the 

margin~, near which they are usually marked with a series of eight or nine rather strong tubes, which 

extend from the beak to the front. Besides these, most of the specimqs exhibit a few smaller tubes, 

sometimes scattered promiscuously over the surface, but generally ranging in oblique lines across the 

dorsum of the shell; beak small, pointed, slightly incurved, and passing a little beyond the cardinal 

margin. Ventral valve elliptico-subquadrate, gently concave or flattened on the visceral disk, its 

sicles with a row of spines, which, with other surface ornaments, correspond to those of the opposite 

valve. 

We dedicate this, one of the most beautiful species of the American Productus, in compliment to 

Capt. John Pope, of the United States Corps of Topographical Engineers, whose expedition has tho 

honor of having first procured paleontological evidence of the existence of Permian strata in New Mexico 

and Texas.a 

The foregoing is Shumard's original description· of this species, quoted i:n full, 

in which I find it necessary to make few alterations. My specimens appear to 

have possessed less numerous spines than Shumard mentions, and in especial 

they lack any well-marked series of these developments on the sides. In fact the 

spines appear to be scattered, and are for the most part of small size, except the 

lateral ones. Shumard's statement that there are six to ten ribs on each side of 

the sinus is not very satisfactory, since the sinus in Productns can not be said to 

have any well-recognized limits. My specimens have about 20 ribs in all, those in 

the sin'.ls being indistinct. 

"Trans. A cad. Sci. St. Louis, vol. I, 1856-!860, p. 290. 

3695-No. 58-08--17 
258 THB GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

The description of the dorsal. valve reads very much as if it were framed from 

observations of a flattened ventral, especially in the presence and arrangement of 

the spines. The only dorsal in our collection is similai· to the ventral shells, but 

is flatter and with a less elevated and projecting beak. One specimen associated 

with the oth~rs of this species se~ms to mark a somewhat distinct variety, being 

narrower and :with weaker ribs. It is represented by figs. 11, 11 a, and 11 b of Pl. XX. 

On page ·389 of the volume which contains the description ,quoted above, 

Shumard again remarks of this species: . 

A number of specimens of this species are in the collection, all of them from the white limestone of 

the Guadalupe Mountains. There are two distinct varieties; ·one having a remarkably deep sinus with 

5 to 7 costm on eaither side, and the other with a less profound sinus and from 8 to 13 costm. The latter 

variety I at first regarded as a distinct species, but a more thorough examination of a number of specime~s has led to the opinion that it sl~ould not be separated from the species above cited. 

Shumard's figures are not so good but that a certain doubt remains in my 

mind that this may not after all be P. popei, yet it is nearer than any other species 

in our collections. His figures show a narrower form, with more 'sloping sides; 

As to what the variety referred to in his later note may be, I arh uncertain:, unless 

it is the slightly larger but very similar species which I ·have described as P. 'popei 

var. opimus. 

The shells here discriminated as P. popei and P. occidentalis are very similar 

to one another. Only minor differences exist, and larger collections may be expected 

to bridge them over. P. popei is smaller, with stronger and somewhat finer ribs. 

It is more strongly arched longitudinally, the posterior portion being flattened, 

with the rostral and umbonal areas depressed. . 

Horizon and locality.-"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930), and 

hill southwest of Guadalupe Point (station 2924 ?), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 

2957). 

PRODUCTUS POPEl var. OPIMUS n. var. 

Pl. XX, figs. 12 to 14a. 

Associated with Productus popei in the "dark limestone" is a type that· is 

related so closely to it that I am able to point out few characters save that of size 

by :which they are distinguished; yet as the difference in size is rather marked, with 

few if any intermediate conditions, I am unwilling to refer them to the same species 

without some qualification. The following characters have been noted: 

. The shell is of medium size. Ventral valve transverse, the visceral portion 

· flat, a~d the curvature strong and abrupt. Ears small, depressed, and probably 

· ~lightly extended. Sinus rather deep and narrow, but undefined. Ribs moderately strong and coarse; about 21 on the type specimen. Spines few, large, 

chiefly on the lateral portion of the shell near the ears. In one specimen several 

occ,ur iri. a row approximately defining the ears on each side. 

Dorsal valve much like the ventral, but lower and with less elevated beak. 

The figured specimen has more regular and equal ribs than some of the others 

referred .to. the same species. 
MOLL USCOJDEA. 259 

The shape of these shells is that which usually distinguishes dorsal valves of 

other species, and they might easily be mistaken for dorsals of P. occidentalis, 

which they resemble very closely. The chief difference seems to consist in the 

slightly greater prominence of the beak and slightly increased fineness of the ribs: 

The presence of spines on the convex sides of some·of these shells, however, is conclusive evidence, in spite of their configuration, that they are ventral valves. 

This form is readily distinguishable from P. occidentalis by its flattened shape 

and lower elevation. Some of the associated dorsal valves, however, are with difficulty assigned to one or the other species, the chief difference being that they are 

much lower than P. occidentalis. 

Practically the only character which distinguishes this form from P. popei is 

that it is distinctly larger. The configuration is practically the same. The ribs 

have almost the same prominence and degree of fineness, but as the shell is larger 

more of them are to be counted around the circumference. 

Horizon and locality.-" Dark limestone," Pine Spring, Guadalupe Moun.:. 

tains, Texas (station 2930). 

PRODUCTUS INDENTATUS n. sp. 

. Pl. XX, figs. 15 to 16b. 

Shell small, transverse. Ventral valve rather strongly arched, the visceral 

9-nd anterior portions being more or less flattened, of yqual length, and nearly at 

right angles to one another. Beak small, pointed, and. sl~g.ht}y transgressing the 

hinge line. Ears large, flattened, projecting. Sinu~ .~~:I:row, shallow over the 

visceral portion, and deep anteriorly. , . , 

Shape of dorsal valve like that of the ventral, save that it is lower, with flatter 

visceral portion and less prominent beak. 

Surface marked by radiating ribs of moderate strength and coarseness, or 

somewhat less, a few of which bifurcate about halfway forward from the beak. 

The bases of a few rather small spines occur on the ventral valve. . 

This form has about the size and something of the expression of the Marginiferas of the Mississippi Valley section; but such evifjence as to its internal 

character as I have been able to gather would indicate that it is not a },;Jargin1fera. From the common Marginifera wabashensis or longispina of the .Mississippi Valley it differs in having a deeper sinus, coarser and often stronger ribs, 

and fewer spines. I believe, howev!'lr, that instead of being a Marginifera it is a 

Productus of the tye of P. popei et al. 

Horizon and locality.-" Dark limestone," Pine Spring, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2930). 

PRODUCTUS TEXANUS n. sp. 

Pl. XXI, figs. 25 to 26b. 

Shell rather small. . Ventral valve strongly arched longitudinally, subquadrate transversely, with a distinct but not very deep sinus and abruptly descending 

sides. Cardinal line extended. Ears rather large, convex. 
260 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

Dorsal valve very transverse, beak apparently small and depressed. Ears 

large, projecting, defined by grooves, and upturned. Visceral portion flattened 

and marked by a narrow obscure sinus, which becomes deeper toward the anterior 

margm. 

The surface is covered by strong, fine ribs, about five in 5 mm., which are 

obscure over the posterior portion. This area is nearly smooth, without either 

distinct ribs or distinct wrinkles. Toward the front of the ventral valve the ribs 

tend to become less pronounced and somewhat coarser, owing apparently to the 

fact that in some cases the older ribs unite or are replaced several by one. The 

spines are large and few in number, confined chiefly to the sides near the ears. 

This shell somewhat recalls Marginifera wabashensis, but when compared 

with that species it proves to be larger, \vith coarser and stronger ribs. The dorsal valve is more transverse, with flatter visceral portion, larger ears, and deeper 

sinus. Indeed, the present species probably does not possess the characteristic 

structures of Marginifera. 

It also resembles Productus indentatus, but is larger, less highly convex, with 

stronger ribs .and shallower sinus. It stands rather close to Productus sp. d, with 

which it occurs in association at one locality. Its larger size and stronger, somewhat coarser ribs are its distinguishing characters, but if Productus sp. d has the 

reflexed border shown by a specimen supposed to belong to it, P. texanus is 

undoubtedly distinct. 

Another closely related species is P. walcottianus. Considered on the basis 

of their type specimens, P. texanus is larger, with shallower sinus, larger and much 

less numerous spines, and nearly smooth instead of wrinkled and spinous visceral 

area. When only the anterior portion is examined the two species have a 

strong resemblance, but the posterior portions are sowewhat different. While 

these differences rather strongly distinguish the typical specimens, it will be 

impossible to satisfactorily refer imperfect examples and casts. 

In P. capacii D'Orbigny has described 11 shell related to the one under consideration. There is a slight difference in shape, the South American species contracting more rapidly above. The ribs appear to be finer and the surface more 

thickly covered with spines, but the two species are certainly closely related, and 

a comparison of specimens may prove them to be identical. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point, 

Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (stations 2903 and 2919). 

PRODUCTUS sp. a. 

Pl. XXI, figs. 24 to 24c. 

This form is represented by a single small ventral valve having a width of 

about 16 mm. and a length of 13 mm. The sinus is rather strong toward the 

front, but indistinct on the posterior half of the shell. 'l'he ears are small, and 

ill defined. Beak rather inflated. Visceral area somewhat flattened. 'l'his portion of the shell is nearly smooth, though the more marginal areas arc marked 

by coarse prominent ribs, about 13 or 14 in number. A few large spines are 

found on the sides and the cars. 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 261 

This shell is about the same size. as the Pennsylvanian species .Margin·ifera 

wabashensis, but is easily distinguished by its stronger sinus and much coarser 

ribs. It more neU:rl_y resembles Productus indentatus of the present fauna, from 

which it is distinguished by its shallower sinus and considerably coarser ribs; 

Its general appearance is that of a diminutive example of popei. 

'l'hmigh from a considerably lower horizon, this is nearer to P. mexicantts 

Shumard than any other of the species recognized. It differs from the specimen 

identified and figured by White asP. mexicanus in being less strongly wrinkled on 

the visceral region and in having coarser ribs. All the characters, however, are 

~ot satisfactorily shown by the single example so far found. 

Ilorizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point, 

Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (stations 2903 and 2919). 

PRODUCTUS GUADALUPENSIS n. sp. 

Pl. XXII, figs. l to 3a. 

Shell of medium size, inflated, transverse. Ventral valve strongly arcuate 

longitudinally. Beak small, slightly projecting. Ears depressed, gently convex, 

extended. Sinus strong, narrov.-, and undefined. Surface marked by rather fine 

ribs, about five in the space of 5 mm., which are not very distinct and apparently 

die out altogether toward the anterior margin. They are indistinct over the poste- · 

rior portion also, which is not crossed by well-marked concentric wrinkles, although 

this area has an obscurely nodose appearance. Spines comparatively large, few 

in number, and scattered over the more marginal portions of the surface. Dorsal 

valve not known. 

This species has the general configuration of Productus multistriatus Meek, but 

it is more highly arched and has coarser. ribs. Perhaps even more similar are the 

two South American species P. chandlessi and P. batesianus, both described by 

Derby. P. guadalupensis is somewhat smaller than P. chandlessi, with a stronger 

sinus, more projecting ears, and coarser ribs. It is somewhat larger than P. batesianus, with more projecting ears and finer ribs. 

The typical examples of this species were found in the yellow sandstone of the 

Delaware Mountain formation at station 2919, and a single somewhat doubtful example was obtained from the same horizon at station 2931. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (stations 2919 and 2931). 

PRODUCTUS GUADALUPENSIS var. COM:ANCHEANUS n. var. 

Pl. XXXI, figs. _5 to 5b. 

This form occurs in the Glass Mountains, and it so much resembles that which 

is found in the sandstones of the Delaware Mountain formation that I originally 

identified them as the same species. Their configuration is about the same, though 

the present form is perhaps a little more strongly arched, and it also has distinctly 

coarser ribs. The variety comancheanus, therefore, suggests Productus multistriatus 

much less than the typical one. 
262 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

With but a single specimen of the present form and rather imperfect material 

representing the other, it is impossible to tell whether these differences are mere 

variations or are constant and associated with others. Consequently the present 

form has been introduced as a variety, and the matter left standing so for decision 

by fresh and more perfect material. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Comanche Canyon, Glass 

Mountains, Texas (station 37 63). · ' 

PRODUCTUS OCCIDENTALIS Newberry. 

PL XII, figs, 4 to 4c. 

1858. Productus r.o.~tatus. Marcou (non Sowerby), Geology of North America, p. 46, pl. 5, fig. 5. 

Cai·boniferous: Cedar Creek, Mogollon Mountains; tr}butary of Gila River; sources of the Colorado 

Chiquito. 

1861. Productus occidentalis. Newberry, Ives's Colorado Expl. Exped., Rept., p. 122, pl. 2, figs. 9, 10. 

Upper Carboniferous (cherty limestone): Banks of Cascade River ncar junction of Great and Little 

Colorado. 

This species is very abundant in the upper portion of the Aubrey, whose typical 

outcrops are found in northern Arizona, and it presents many variations, to not all 

of which the original definition of Newberry strictly applies. One of these varieties 

occurs in the white limestone of the Guadalupe Mountains, though but a single 

specimen, representing a ventral valve, has so far come to hand. Three rather imperfect specimens from the" dark limestone," which possibly do not belong to exactly 

the same varietal group, have also been collected. The more perfect example from 

the white limestone may be described as follows: 

Shell of medium size, narrow, highly arched. Ears moderately large, flattened, 

depressed, more or less extended. Sinus strong, but broad and undefined. Ribs 

coarse and irregular, separated by rather wide intervals; not very strongly elevated, 

more or less nodulose and bifurcating. The spines for the most part -are small and 

scattering, but on the sides near the ears a few large ones occur. The specimens from 

the "dark limestone" have ribs of nearly the same size, but more numerous and 

moi:e closely arranged. 

As previously remarked, this shell can be almost exactly matched by specimens 

from the Aubrey ·whicl1 I identify with Productus occidentalis. Of the different 

American forms which have been referred toP. costatus probably none approaches 

Sowcrby's species more closely than does the one under discussion. Yet if P. costatus·bc restricted to the type with which the name was first associated none of these 

forms deserves to be referred to it. P. occidentalis has not been cited by name in 

paleontological papers since it was :first described by Newberry, but it is probable 

that the form described and figured \>y Marcou as P. costatus is the same species. 

Marcou's. figures appear to represent a dorsal valve, if one may judge by the apparently flattened posterior portion and absence of spines. He states that he had larger 

and better specimens, and his description appears to be based on a ventral valve. 

The resemblance of his figures to dorsal valves of P. occidentalis is striking, and the 

geologic occurrence which he cites is also favorable to their being the same species. 
MOLLUSCOJDEA. 263 

Marcou's figures, however, represent the visceral portion of the valve as m.arked by 

concentric wrinkles, which is rarely the case with characteristic P. occidentalis. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926); 

''dark limestone,'' Pine Spring (station 2930), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. . ' 

PRouucn;s MEEKANUS ·n. sp. 

Pl. XXX, figs. 13 and 13a. 

Shell small. Ventral valve moderately convex. Beak small,· inconspicuous. 

Ears small, quadrate, undefined. Sinus absent. Surface marked by concentric 

wrinkles, spines, and lirre. The wrinkles, which are strong on the sides and ears but 

fainter and somewhat interrupted elsewhere, cover practically all the surface. The 

spines are rather large, numerous, regularly arranged, and projecting strongly downward and forward, so that their bases have a "tear-drop" shape. The radiating 

lirre are fine and rather faint, tending to be interrupted by the spines, which form the 

most obvious feature of the surface ornamentation. Where preserved as internal 

molds in the yellow sandstone of the Delaware Mountain formation, specimens 

belonging to this species show little besides the spines, a few wrinkles near the ears, 

and the impressions of a few internal spinules about the margins. 

P. meekanus is probably closely related to Pmductus signatus, but is constructed 

on a smaller and more delicate pattern. Its nearest representative in the Mississippi 

Valley is P. pertenuis Meek, although there can be no doubt that the two species are 

not identical. It is as if the spines, which are subordinate to the lirre and wrinkles 

in P. pertenuis, had in P. meekanus come to dominate them. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2931). Delaware Mountain formation, Comanche 

Canyon, Glass Mountains, Texas (station 3763). 

PRO DUCTUS SIGN ATUS n. sp. 

Pl. XXII, figs. 4 to 4b. 

Shell of medium size, transverse. Ventral valve moderately arched, i'atlter, 

rapidly expanding. Dorsum broad and flattened, without a median ~in us; fallii}g 

off rapidly at the side. Ears apparently smaU, depressed, and rounded(~)~ Dorsal 

valve not known. 

Surface covered with spines mounted on narrow elongate bases, which· make 

up a sort of 'coarse, irregular, and discontinuous ribbing. There are also moderately fine, somewhat indistinct, transverse wrinkles covering nearly the whole shell. 

0~ the internal mold, the preservation in which this fossil occurs, the surface between 

the spine bases is marked by fine, discontinuous, longitudinal lirre, especially on the 

·anterior parts, and by pits produced by numerous small spinules on the inner sur,. 

face of the shell. These fine lirre, like the spinules, m!Ly be entirely internal structures, but they may also be and more probably are the expression on the inside of 

fine intermediate lirre, like those on the surface of Productus meekanus. 

.. 
264 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

An external mold of a dorsal valve is marked by moderately fine concentric 

wrinkles, fine, interrupted radiating lirre, and numerous slender spines, a feature 

not very common for the dorsal valve even when they occur on the opposite one. 

This species is allied to P. opuntia W aagen, but can be distinguished by the 

more elongated character of the spine bases, from the middle of which the spines 

anse. 

It is closely related to P. meekanus, but the sculpture, while of the same general character, is on a much larger scale. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2931). 

PRODUCTUS SIGNATUS var. 

Associated with the form which I have described as Productus signatus is 

· another very similar to it, which, while considerably smaller in size, has the surface 

ornamentation of the same character and on about the same scale. The internal 

spinules are much more numerous on the anterior and lateral portions of the shell. 

The width of the specimen for which this division is made is about 25 mm. 

and the length from the anterior margin to the point of greatest convexity· 22 mm. 

The size, therefore, is considerably smaller than that of P. signatus, and about that 

of P. meekanus, but the surface ornamentation, in the wider spaces at which the 

spines stand, rather resembles the former species. 

Too little is known of these forms to permit a conclusion as to their actual 

affini tics. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2931). 

PRODUCTUS LATIDORSATUS n. sp. 

Pl. Xl, figs. 11 to 13b. 

Shell rather small, thin, transverse. Ventral valve moderately convex, the 

anterolateral curvature being stronger than the transverse. Beak small, ineurved, 

not projecting far beyond the hinge line. Ears small, depressed, somewhat arched, 

proba.bly slightly projecting. Sinus shallow, ill defined. 

Dorsal valve moderately convex, with flattened visceral region. Beak inconspicuous. Ears small, depressed, somewhat arched, arid slightly projecting. 

Surface nearly smooth. Traces of ribs can be seen on most specimens, but 

they are usually faint. Equally or somewhat more indistinct concentric wrinkles 

also are found, and rather strong growth lines. Spines are numerous and small over 

the posterior portion of the shell, rather scarce and larger over the front, lateral portions, and ears. The ribs in many cases, especially where at all well marked, ·are 

more or less discontinuous, and originate severally at the. bases of the larger spines. 

This species is related to P. wallacianus Derby, but it is distinguished by having a more or less distinct sinus and much less numerous spines. It is also allied 

to P. subhorridus Meek, but before comparing the Guadalupian form with that 

species it will be necessary to define the latter .a little more .closely than Meek has 

done. 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 

Meek apparently figures two specimens of P. subhorridus.a One specimen was 

probably the original of figs. 3 and 3b, and another of fig. 3a. The description 

of plates seems to indicate that 3 and 3b represent different specimens, but the 

undoubted original of 3b corresponds exactly to fig. 3, whereas no other specimen 

in the type lot is at all like it. But the surface of the specimen which undoubtedly 

stood as the original of 3b is unlike the illustrations of either 3b or 3. It is in fact 

largely exfoliated, and the .spines represented on both figures arc not found on the 

specimen. I have been able to find traces of less than ten on the entire surface, and 

it is safe to say that they a're much less numerous than represented. Furthermore, 

on parts of the shell, and especially on ~ small area on the sides where exfoliation 

appears not to have touched, the surface is marked by very fine, regular, equal, 

radiating lirre. I can not be sure, without other specimens, of the validity of these 

observations as applying to the real surface ornamentation, but these differences, 

taken with the ·more slender form and deeper sinus, indicate rather strongly that the 

original of figs. 3 and 3b does not belong to the same species as that of fig. 3a. To 

the latter it is proposed to restrict the name P. subhorridus, because to it belong most 

of the type lot of specimens, and because the name subhorridus and the description 

clearly apply to this type. Perhaps the only character in Meek's description which 

is taken from the original of figs. 3 and 3b is the strong sinus which is ascribed to 

P. subhorridus, a character which is far from distinct in shells having the abundantly spinose surface of fig. 3a. 

From P. subhorridus thus restricted P. latidorsatus differs in being shorter and 

broader, with much fewer spines. 

This specie!? is plentiful in the white limestone, though apparently it was not 

represented in Shumard's collections. No specimens have been found belonging to 

it in the "dark limestone," but to the same species has been referred, with some 

doubt, an imperfect specimen from the Delaware Mountain formation. This 

example is similar to immature stages of latidorsatus, but has rounded cardinal 

angles and appears to be without sinus, ribs, or spines. The preservation, however, 

'Is so imperfect that these characters might be largely lost. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 

2926); Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2903), Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas. 

PRODUCTUS LATIDORSATUS var. 

A few specimens from the black limestone of the Guadalupian section are related 

to Productus subhorridus, P. subhorridus var. rugatulus, and P. latidorsatus, but my 

material is too insufficient and imperfect to permit me satisfactorily to ascertain in 

what degree. These examples can not be precisely identified with any one of the 

three types mentioned. They possess the size and general expression of P. subhorridus var. ruga,tulus, but have a fainter sinus or none at all, lack the posterior 

wrinkles, and have numerous small spines over the lateral and posterior portions, 

with a few large ones near the ears. So far as can now be told they agree in every 

essential particular with P. latidorsatus except that they are considerably sm,a.Iler. 

On this account and because of the wide difference in stratigraphic occurrence I feel 

aU. S. Geol. Explor. 40th Par., vol. 4, 1877, p. 75, pl. 7, figs. 3, 3a, and 3b. 
266 THE GUADALUPlAN FAUNA. 

indisposed to unite them directly with P. latidorsatus, and it is probable that more 

abundant material will show that they are a distinct species. 

In the Aubrey beds of Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico is found a ser:ies of closely 

connected varieties which probably embraces P. subhorridus Meek, together with 

the form figured by Newberry as P. costatoides Swallow, and of whose members 

some more or less closely resemble P. latidorsatus, P. latidorsatus var., P. subhorridus 

var. rugatulus, and P. walcottianus. A rather hurried review of this material indicates that its range of variation approaches thoughit does not include P. latidorsatus 

and'P. ·walcottianus. Some types come very close toP. subhomdus 1var. rugatulus, 

but few· if any of the Aubrey forms show the wrinkled posterior surface of that 

species. 

While this almost uninterrupted s~ries embraces P. subhomdus also, I would 

be unwilling to subsume the Guadalupian form under Meek's species as strictly 

identical with his types. The more careful discussion of the Aubrey forms and 

their relation to the species in hand is reserved for another occasion. 

Horizon and locality.-Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2920). 

PROJJUCTUs sp. e. 

Pl. XXII, figs. 5 and 5a. 

This division is established for a dorsal valve which I am unable to refer to any 

of the.species recognized in this report. It has a subquadratc shape, with the hinge 

a little longer than the width below. The front and sides are somewhat rectilinear, 

but unite in a strong curv:iture. · The ears are small, depressed; defined by grooves, 

slightly upturned. The beak is small, prominent; the sinus moderately strong. 

The surface is marked by a number of small prominences (seen as such on molds) 

and small ~pines (seen as holes). No ribs are visible, and only extremely faint 

traces of concentric markings. 

These notes being based on a mold of the exterior, the characters as described 

would in reality of course all be reversed. 

This specimen was associated with Productus signatus and P. signatus var., but 

from its size, surface ornamentation, and sinus it can hardly belong to either of them. 

It was also associate<! with specimens some of which have been identified with 

P. subhorridus var. rugatulus and P. walcottianus. Typical dorsal valves of the 

former are marked by fine but very distinct wrinkles, and are withotlt spines on the 

exterior, so that the specimen under consideration can hardly be referred to the 

same species. The dorsal valve Gf typical P. walcottiamts is not known, but it 

could hardly fail to show faint indications of ribs. Dorsal valves that seem to 

belong with the ventrals from station 2931 that have been referred toP. walcottianus differlfrom the specimen before me in having numerous concentric wrinkies, 

together with finer and much more numerous spinules. If they properly belong·to 

P. walcottianus, as I somewhat doubt, this certainly does not. It is perhaps 

nearest to P. latidorsatus, hut it is not probable that the dorsal valve of that 

species is provided with spine8. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2931). 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 267 

PRODUCTUS SUBHORRIDUS var. RUGATULUS n. var. 

Pl. XXX, figs. 11 to 12c. 

Shell small, transversely subquadrate. Ventral valve moderately convex. 

Beak rather prominent and projecting. Ears small, depressed, inconspicuous, 

and undefined; not extended. Sinus usually present, but variable in strength, 

sometimes well marked. 

Dorsal valve shallow, gently con~ave over the visceral area, more strongly bent 

toward the margins. Ears small and undefined. 

Surface of the ventral valve marked by numerous concentric wrinkles, which 

are sometimes moderately strong over the visceral region, but are evanescent toward 

the anterior margin. Numerous strong growth lines are also present, more or less 

completely graduating into wrinkles. There are no well-defined radiating strim, 

but coarse, .indistinct ribs originate at the bases of the spines, and maintain themselves some distance. The spines are rather large, long, and-scattered. The surface 

of the dorsal valve is marked by numerous fine wrinkles and by a number of large 

shallow pits answering to the spines on the surface of the other valve. On the 

interior of the ventral valve the line along which the ears would be separated from 

the body of the shell is marked by a crenulated ridge, as in Marginifera,· but the 

dorsal valve does not possess the beveled submarginal band characteristic of that 

genus. 

This species has been obtained at several points, but the typical examples were 

collected in the Glass Mountains (station 3763), where it is especially abundant and 

perfect. I have referred to it, though with some hesitation, a few specimens from the 

yellow calcareous sandstones of the Delaware Mountain formation (station 2930), 

where the fossils occur as molds. The abundant form at this locality appears to belong 

to Productus walcottianus, and I have not been able to satisfy myself, in the imperfect 

condition of the shells placed with this species, that they are not extreme variations of 

the other type, whose characters have been obscured and modified by their preservation: They have about the size and configuration of P. subhorridus vai'. rugatulus, and 

the spines and coarse indistinct ribs of that species. There is, however, little or no indication of a sinus or of concentric wrinkles on the posterior portion. The latter feature, as I have suggested in the case of the associated fossils referred to P. walcottianus, which also has a wrinkled posterior portion, is doubtless partly obscured by 

their preservation as• melds. It can not be seen on the inner side of typical examples 

of P. subhorridus var. r:-uydtulus. It is evident, however, that variations are indica~ed 

by the material of ·which ·I have not been able to take cognizance on account of poor 

preservation, and that there will be difficulty in the case of ill-preserved or imperfect 

specimens in discriminat1ng between P. walcottianus, P. snbhorridus var. rngatnlus, 

and possibly P. latidorsatns.-

This species is similar in many ways to certain of the forms belonging to Marginifera, but lacks some of the internal structures characterizing them. A form 

almost identical is found in a collection from Lake Titicaca, Bolivia. It resembles 

alsoP. latidorsatus, but can be distinguished by being very much smaller, with sinus 

slightly more marked, relatively larger and more numerous spines, coarser ribs, and 

stronger wrinkles. Certain small and narrow varieties of P. sub horrid us, which runs 
268 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

through numerous variations, resemble this form very closely, but it can usually be 

distinguished by its more strongly wrinkled posterior surface. From typical P. 

subhorridus it is distinguished by being much smaller, by having the posterior portion crossed by fine wrinkles, and by having much fewer spines. 

It would be desirable to compare this form with P. costatoides if it were possible 

to do so. Swallow describes but does not figure his species, so that I am placed at a 

disadvantage in attempting to compare the two forms. His description indicates a 

species of the general character of Marginifera wabashens'is, M. splendens, and their 

allies, and, indeed, his comparisons are with them. In spite of the fact that Swallow 

remarks that P. costatoides has not the flat band of M. splenden8, I suspect that it 

belongs to the same group. In many of the Margin~fer::e this is not a conspicuous 

character. The rugre, strire, spines, and pits described by Swallow are, however, 

somewhat different from the ordinary type of M. splendens and .M. wabashensis, and 

if accurately set down indicate a species distinct from them. The form must at the 

same time be a rare one, as it has never since been recognized, nor do I recall having 

seen it among the very numerous representatives of that and related groups which 

have passed under my observation. Newberry identifies and 'figures P. costatoides 

from the Grand Canyon country, but it is doubtful if his identification should carry 

weight of absolute authority. The form figured by him is merely one phase of a very 

variable series whose members are common in the Aubrey of Arizona, Utah, and 

New Mexico, and of which some aspects will probably include the type which Meek 

described asP. subhorridus. 

The variety of the latter species here under discussion resembles these shells 

very closely, but seems to be distinguished by the fine wrinkles by which the visceral 

region of both valves is covered. Its affinities with the typical·P. costatoides can 

not be definitely determined until specimens of the latter are obtained for comparison. The two forms seem to be closely related, but differences as well as resemblances are indicated by Swallow's description. P. subhorridus var. rugatulus is 

apparently a somewhat larger form than P. costatoides. The visceral region of the 

ventral valve is not flattened; the sinus, which Swallow describes as deep and broad, 

is less well marked; the ears are smaller; and the costre are fainter. In view of the 

fact that the ~estern form probably occurs at a higher horizon than P. costatoides, which 

is not even referred to the Permian, but to the upper coal measures, and of the differences just noted, there is a reasonable probability that if it is ever ascertained just 

what form Swallow had in hand-which can not be satisfactorily told from his 

description alone-it will be found to be distinct from that here called P. subhorridus 

var. rugatulus. At all events, until P. costatoides is better known, it seems to me 

that it will be advantageous to leave it in abeyance, so that the descriptive side of 

the discussion may be on as stable a footing as possible. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2931 ?). Delaware Mountain formation, Comanche 

Canyon, Glass Mountains (station 3763), and mountains northwest of Marathon 

(station 3840), Texas. 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 269 

PRODUCTUS. W ALCOTTIANUS n. sp. 

Pl. XXI, figs. 27 to 28b. 

Ventral valve small, narrow, high, very convex, the summit of the curvature 

being about two-thirds the distance back from the anterior margin. Anterior and 

posterior slopes flattened. Dorsum broad and planate, with a rather strong sinus. 

The sides descend rapidly. The ears are probably rather small and not much 

extended. Beak somewhat large and tumid, though passing but little beyond the 

hinge line. The visceral portion is strongly but irregularly rugose and thickly 

covered with rather large spine bases, giving it a pustulose appearance. The anterior 

half of the shell is marked by rather strong and coarse but not very regular ribs. 

The spines are especially abundant on the visceral and lateral portions of the shell, 

but are scattered over the entire surface, becoming less and less numerous toward 

the anterior margin. Dorsal valve unknown. 

This species is primarily based on a unique but well-preserved ventral valve 

found at station 2903, in the Delaware Mountain formation. At station 2931, also 

in the Delaware Mountain formation, though at a different horizon, occurs, in considerable abundance, a similar form, which I have with some hesitation referred to 

the same species. Satisfactory comparison of the two is difficult, because in the one 

case· the specimens appear as internal molds, and in the other they retain the shell. 

Certain departures from the .type specimen can be ma~ out. In some instances the 

outline contracts more rapidly above, instead of having nearly parallel sides. The 

surface of some of the molds is also nearly smooth, indicating that the ribs were not so 

strong as in the type. Evidence of the same thing appears on molds of the outside, 

and numerous small spines arc seen to be mounted on the ribs. 

Dorsal valves from this station seen as molds show a low elevation and are 

either almost regul~rly curved or flattened with a stronger marginal bend. Sinus 

rather faint. Surface marked by more or less strong concentric wrinkles, with 

numerous small depressions leading down to the cavities left by spines, which are 

arranged in concentric rows. 

This species has about the size and configuration of P. subhorridus var. ruga··. 

tulus, but the ornamentation is di!Ierent. The concentric wrinkles are coarser and 

stronger and the spines more numerous. While it is improbable that there will 

ever he much difficulty in discriminating the two forms when fairly good specimens 

are in question, I have b(len troubled to dispose of the fossils from the sandstones 

of station 2931 in a manner satisfactory to. myself. These are mostly internal 

molds, and besides imperfectly representing the surface characters of the original 

shell seem to indicate a certain amount of modification in the characters which 

distinguish the· two forms. I have ·referred to P. subhorridus var. rugatulus, though 

with considerable hesitation, a few specimens from this station having a nearly 

smooth surface, with a few coarse plications. 

This species shows many points of resemblance with White's identification of 

P. mexicanus Shumard. It differs in having larger and more numerous spines, 

· discontinuous ribs, and stronger wrinkles over t4e visceral area. .Even therefore 

if White's identification proves correct, as seems rather doubtful, P. walcottianus 

can hardly be referred to the same species. 
270 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (stations 2903 and 2931). Delaware Mountain formation, 

southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2969 ?). 

PIWDUCTUS? PILEOLUS Shumard. 

Pl. XII, figs. 8 to 15a; Pl. XXIX, figs. 5 to 7a. 

1858. Productus pileolu8. Shumard, 'l'rans. A cad. Sci. St: Louis, vol. 1, p. 291 (date of volume, 1860). 

White Permian limestone: Guadalupe Mountains. · 

1859. Productns pileolns. Shumard, idem, ·p. 389. 

White [Permian]limestone: Guadalupe Mountains. 

Shell small, strongly arched, gibbous, outline approaching to subquadrate, length greater than the 

width, widest at the cardinal margin. Dorsal valve gibbous, without mesial sinus, sides and fron't 

rounded, terminating below in a projecting band or rim, which is rounded and extends to the cardinal 

edge; umbo prominent, somewhat flattened anterior to the beak, slopes falling rather abruptly to the 

cars; beak prominent, rounded, strongly incurved, passing beyond the cardinal border; ears triangular, 

of medium size, incurved at the cardinal edge, convex in the middle and depressed at their junction 

with the umbones; surface of visceral region marked with several slightly elevated, concentric fold.s, 

which are most prominent on the sides and are continued on the ears, where they are directed backward 

and become obsolete before reaching tho cardinal edge; anterior prolongation smooth or marked with 

very obscure concentric folds. · 

The collection contains but one specimen of this little species and this ,is partially deprived ohts 

test. 

Dimensions.-I"ength, 0.36; width, 0.32; height, 0.24. 

Occurs in the white Permian limestone of the Guadalupe Mountains. a 

The foregoing is Shumard's original description of Productus pileolus. The 

shells which on revision I have placed with this species I originally described as 

new because of certain departures w:hich they show from the characters as defined 

above. Imprimis, I think that we must conclude that through some oversight 

Shumard wrote "dorsal" for "ventral" valve in his description, for that the single 

specimen on which he based the species was really a ventral is pretty clearly shown 

by its convexity (given in figures as nearly equal to the width), by the prominence 

of the umbo, and by the fact that the beak is described as passing beyond the hinge 

line. The determination of this fact is of some importance both in the matter of 

specific identification and in the interpretation of the structure, which Shumard 

describes as a projecting band or rim. If his specimen was a ventral valve the 

nature of this feature is somewhat obscure. It suggests a configura'tion resembling 

Productuslimbatus or Productus sp. d. In the dorsal valve one would feel warranted 

in identifying it as the characteristic $tructure of Marginifera. 

On the ventral valve of this species, in some cases at least, is found a feature 

. which is rather unusual and of which I do not understand the significance. After 

flattening out on the ears as in all species of the genus, on reaching a certain stage, 

which must mark the limit of width of the hinge line, the shell again assumes a 

downward direction of growth, a change which of course is imperceptible at the 

front but becomes more and more obvious toward the cardinal line. The specimen 

represented by fig. 15 has this character well developed and other specimens have 

more or less distinct traces of it which have not been shown in my figures. It is 

probably this structure which Shumard refers to in the passage just discussed. 

a'l'rans. Acad. Sci., St. Louis, vol. 1, 1856-1860, p. 201. 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 271 

The fact that my specimens did not altogether agree with Shumard's description 

' has already been remarked. That they nevertheless belong to the same species is 

rendered probable by the following considerations. They represent a not uncommon species in the Capitan fauna, and it is probable that Shumard's collection 

would contain one· or more specimens. Again, they agree in a great many points 

with Productus pileolus; and, finally, some material probably belonging to the same 

species which was received subsequent to my original studies bridges over some of 

the diiierences at first noticed. My specimens differ considerably in proportion, 

but as a rule they are distinctly elongate. Shumard described the shape as widest 

at the hinge, but much of my material from the Capitan limestone appears to contract toward the cardinal line, and this is especially noticeable in dorsal valves. 

Considerable variation, however, is manifested in this particular, and in the recently 

obtained fossils from the southern Delawares (station 2969) the width of the hinge 

is a 11oticeable feature. Yet I can not consent to separate these later examples 

from those from the Capitan limestone. 

Shumard's description of the projecting band or rim is still difficult for me to 

comprehend, though some of my specimens show suggestions of a marginal prolongation, which may be what he observed.· The concentric folds which Shumard 

mentions as a feature of this species are prominent on one or two specimens, but 

as a rule are obscure or absent. The surface otherwise appears to have been smooth, 

Without a sinus, without ribs, and practically without spines, though in several 

cases the base of a large spine was seen on one side about halfway toward the front. 

Productus pileolus is very similar to the shell from the Trogkofelschichten · 

which Schellwien described asP. curvirostris, but it differs in configuration as well as 

in having less numerous spines. In any event the Guadalupian species has long 

priority of publication. Indeed, it is not certain that the two species belong to 

the same genus, for Schellwien refers P. curvirostris to Productus, while the species 

under consideration contains traces of submarginal ridges, which may make it 

necessary to refer it to Marginifera. In that event it would probably belong in a 

group the same or related to that which W aagen calls the group of Marginifera 

spinosicostata. It is very different from our Pemisylvanian Marginiferas of the 

Mississippi Valley. 

Shumard's species came from the Capitan limestone of the Guadalupe Mountains, and the specimens which I especially place in the same species. came fr:)m the 

same locality and horizon. A single example from Shumard's ''dark limestone" has 

also been placed here. It is not very perfect, but is a narrow form, more highly 

arched, and with a more prominent beak and umbo than those from the Capitan. 

If it should prove to be typical of a series· of forms at this horizon, I would be disposed to regard it as a distinct variety or even species. This specimen has very 

nearly the configuration of P. curvirostris, but has fewer spines and no traces of ribs. 

Some silicified specimens obtained south of the Guadalupe Mountains, at a 

horizon supposed to be about equivalent to the "dark limestone," are unfortunately 

mostly dorsal valves, the characters of which arc very suggestive of this species. 

The only difference which I can at present pomt out is a relatively wider hinge line, 

the very point in which typical Productullf pileolus is reported as differing from my 

specimens. It has not seemed expedient to distinguish these older shells from 
272 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

those from the Capitan formation, though better material may render such 'a course 

necessary. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of the Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 

2926); "dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930?), Guadalupe Mountains, 

Texas. Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas 

(station 2969). 

PRODUCTUS PINNIFORMIS n. sp. 

Pl. XII, figs. 5 to 5b. 

Shell small, spatulate. Sides more or less straight, and diverging at an angle 

of somewhat less than 90°. Lateral outline merging with the anterior in a broad, 

full curve. Convexity moderate; greatest near the beak, which is curved downward somewhat abruptly. Length 20 mm.; greatest width 18 or 19 mm. 

The entire surface is marked by rather strong but irregular concentric wrinkles 

and by very fine radiating ribs, of which from 9 to 11 occur in the space of 2 mm. 

They are wavy, and increase somewhat irregularly by implantation, so that the 

number to be counted within a given linear distanee is not everywhere the same. 

They are rounded and separated by rounded intervals of about their own thickness. 

No spines have been observed. 

This species is most nearly allied to P. compressus W aagen, which it resembles 

bbth in configuration and sculpture. It is, however, a much smaller form and considerably less elongate and apparently more finely ribbed. In view of these differences, of the fact that I have no specimens of P. compressus to furnish the final 

evidence, and of the fact that the American fauna contains so few identical species, 

though many similar to those in the Salt Range, it has seemed best to assign to 

the Guadalupil:m form a new name. I have but a single specimen of this speciesapparently a ventral valve-and it is, moreover, rather imperfect; but it forms a 

rather interesting feature of the Guadalupian fauna. 

Horizon and locality.--Middlc of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak,.Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). 

PRODUCTUS LIMBATUS n. sp. 

Pl. XX, figs.l7 to 18. 

Shell of medium size, transverse, shortest at the hinge line. 

Ventral valve of rather low convexity, flattened over the visceral portion, 

suddenly curved around its margin. Beak low, pointed, not projecting. The ears 

are depressed, flat, and extended as a sort of band part way down the sides. 

Dorsal valve similar to the ventral, but with flatter visceral area and less 

distinct beak. 

Surface nearly smooth. It is marked marginally by faint, moderately fine 

ribs, which extend to a greater or less distance up onto the visceral area before dying 

out, but are not found on the ears. Except for faint concentric strim the posterior 

portion of the shell in both valves is practically smooth. A few rather small spines 

spring from the lateral portions of the ventral valve. 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 273 

Productus limbatus resembles P. pileolus Shumard, but as he describes that 

species as being strongly arched and widest at the hinge line, it seems unlikely that 

the two forms can be the same, especially asP. pileolus is much smaller. The fact 

that P. limbatus contracts strongly at the hinge line renders it almost unique among 

the species which have come under my observation. 

This is a rare form, only two examples having so far been obtained, and it 

appears to be confined to Shumard's "clark limestone." 

Horizon and locality.-" Dark limestone," Pine Spring, Guadalupe Mountains, 

Texas (station 2930). 

PRODUCTUS sp. d. 

Pl. XX, figs. 19 to 2la; Pl. XXIX, figs. 4 to 4b. 

This is another of the Producti having a flattened visceral portion surrounded 

by an abrupt, strong curvature amounting in some cases almost to geniculation, 

a type of shell rather distinctive of the Guaclalupian fauna; but, unlike many of 

the species, the present one docs not possess a deep, narrow sinus. It appears to 

be new, but as my material is unsatisfactory no distinctive name is proposed for it. 

'The following description has been drawn up: 

Shell ratper sma!l, subquadrate, ti·ansverse. The ventral valve is not· very 

convex, the visceral portion being somewhat flattened. The front and lateral 

margins are low, and likewise flattened, the curvature strongest about the edges 

of the visceral area. The beak is moderately elevated and slightly projecting (?). 

The ears are small, depressed, and quadrate. A shallow undefined sinus begins 

toward the front of the visceral area. 

The dorsal valve has much the character of the ventral, except that the visceral 

:area is flatter and the beak scarcely at all elevated. 

The surface over the visceral region is almost smooth, without either distinct 

rib~ or concentric wrinkles. The front and sides are marked by fine, somewhat 

faint, ribs, which begin toward the margin of the visceral area. They number about 

six or eight in 5 mm. The ventral valve for the most part appears to be without 

spines, though a few of large size are found on the ears near the cardinal line. 

The ventral valve of this form is much like the dorsal valve of Marginifera 

wabashensis, and of course consicleraqly different from ventral valves of that species. 

The dorsal valve is correspondingly different from the dorsal valve of M. wabashensis. In addition to the difference in configuration, the ribs as a rule are coarser and 

stronger and the spines are less numerous. VVhile there is a certain superficial resemblance to Norwood and Pratten's species, I have not been able to find the distinctive 

submarginal ridges, so that it probably can not be referred to Marginifera at all. It 

may belong to the group of Productus popei, and it resembles P. indentatus, from 

which it is distinguished by being larger and ;more finely ribbed and by having a 

shallower sinus. 

I have also referred to this species ·an interesting but fragmentary specimen 

from a locality considerably south of the typical quadalupian section (station 2969). 

It is represented by fig. 4 of Pl. XXIX. Although so imperfect, this example is 

36fl5-~ 0. 58-08--18 
274 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

clearly a ventral valve, for the convex side is marked by fine, indistinct ribs, still 

less obvious on the concave surface, which is, moreover, provided with little spinous, 

projections, such as frequently .cover portions of the inside of Productus shells: This 

example possesses the rare feature of having, as represented in the figures, a strongly 

recurved margin. This rim looks at first like part of another valve closed upon the· 

less fragmentary portion, but not only is it continuous with the latter, but it shows 

spinules on its convex surface, and in view of the fact that the rest of the specimen 

is a ventral valve, it could have no other interpretation than that adopted here, 

unless the rim were supposed to be part of another individual. This, however, is~ 

entirely out qf the question. If this specimen really belongs to Productus sp. d, 

there can be little doubt that the latter is an undescribed form and one which on 

account of this singular feature can not be assembled in the group of P. popei. 

Slight indications are foundin other examples that they also have a reflexed margin. 

Horizon and locality.-" Dark limestone," Pine Spring, Guadalupe Mountains, .. 

Texas (station 2930). Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, 

Texas (station 2969). 

Genus STROPHALOSIA King. 

I can not but feel that the genera Strophalosia and Aulosteges are at present on 

an unsatisfactory footing, although I have nothing to add to the situation likely to 

improve it. There seem to be in the Carboniferous faunas two types of shells which 

have a productoid expression and yet possess a more or less elevated area in both. 

valves. One of these consist,s for the most part of small forms with low, imperfectly 

developed area, which are either cemented to some larger organism or marked by a. 

distinct scar of attachment. The other is larger, with a high and well-developed 

area in many species, and without evidence of attachment. This form is apt to 

have a long and pointed beak, while the other, by reason of its lower area and its 

habit of cementation by this part of the shell, is apt to have the posterior extremity 

rounded or truncated. The internal structures of these forms are often impossible 

to determme, and where ascertained the different species seem to show great variability. Hall and Clarke appear dispo~ed to regard the habit of attachment peculiar 

to one group of forms as the most important or at all events the most practical 

differentiating character, and they use the term Strophalosia for the cemented and 

A ulosteges for the uncemented forms. This seems to conform with the common 

usage in this country, where, w:ith the exception of Shumard's little-known Guadalupian species Aulosteges guadalupensis, the type called Aulosteges does not occur. 

When, however, I consider the typical species with which the names Aulosteges· 

and Strophalosia must be associated, I confess to feeling some doubt as to whether 

they are not the same thing and are not, coincidentally, distinct from the shells 

which we have been accustomed to place with Strophalosia. ,This opinion is almost 

exclusively formed on the literature, for these types are either entirely lacking to· 

our faunas or rare and imperfect. Figures of Strophalosia excavata, the typical 

species of Strophalosia, and of Aulosteges wangenheimi,. the typical species of Aulosteges, certainly show the same general character and expression, one in a measure. 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 275 

distinct from the small cemented American shells, which, for the most part of an 

earlier geologic period, it has been the practice to place under Strophalosia. Nor 

does .it seem to me that the structural differences which have thus far been pointed 

out between the Permian Aulosteges and Strophalosias are sufficiently constant and 

well marked adequately to distinguish the two genera. It would rather appear to 

me, therefore, from an imperfect ·acquaintance with the subject that the small shells 

commonly assigned to Strophalosia. may prove a di~?tinct and possibly a new genus, 

and that typical Aulosteges and Strophalosia are really the same, Strophalosia being 

the older name. I have not, however, had sufficient confidence in this conclusion to 

act on it and have continued to follow the authorities in using Strophalosia for the 

small attached forms, although it involves what seems an inconsistency, since necessarily included with them are the apparently different typical Strophalosias of the 

European Dyas and Permian, which are at least very closely similar to the typical 

Aulosteges. 

In the Guadalupian these two groups are fairly distinct in: point of configuration, although the determination of internal or structural characters has not been 

possible. The small attached shells which I have called Strophalosia hystricula n. sp. 

and S. cornelliana Derby represent one type and the imperfectly known Aulosteges 

guadalupensis another. A. medlicottian'U:S var. americanus, A. magnicostatus, Aulosteges sp. a, and Aulosteges sp. b are different from either ofthese forms in sculpture 

and configuration, but because of intrinsic character as well as of relation to foreign 

species it has seemed best to place them also with A1Jlosteges. , 

STIWPHALOSIA HYSTRICULA n. sp. 

Pl. XXX, figs. 14 and 14a. 

Shell rather small, subcircular. Convexity moderate. Beak rather elevated. 

Hinge line shorter than the shell below. Ears small, undefined. Area low. Delthyrium narrow. Dorsal valve not known. 

Surface covered by large tubular spines, most of which are straight and bent 

forward so as to be tangent to the surface. A few distributed over the surface, 

especially on the ears, arc erect and sinuous. There are also a few irregular nonpersistent concentric wrinkles. · 

This species finds its nearest ally probably inS. cornelliana Derby, from which it. 

can be distinguished by having a more distinct and elevated beak and larger and 

ess numerous spines, fewer of which are reclining. It also appears to lack the lamellre described by Derby. 

Strophalosia hystricula likewise resembles the form figured by Hall and Clarke 

as Strophalosia spondyliformis White and St. John. ·The real S. spondyliformis is a 

tiny shell, and so inadequately described and figured that comparisons can not be 

undertaken without specimens on which to base further observations. It is by no 

~eans certain that Hall and Clarke's identification in the work above cited is correct. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Comanche Canyon, Glass 

Mountains, Texas (station 3763). 
276 THE GU ADAL UPIAN FA UN A. 

STROPHALOSIA CORNELLIANA Derby. 

Pl. l V, figs. 4 to 5. 

1874. Strophalosia Cornelliana. Derby, Bull. Cornell Univ., vol. 1, p. 45, pl. 3, figs. 28, 30, 32, 33, 35-38; 

pl. 4, fig. 5; pl. 8, fig. 17; pl. !J, figs. 10, 11. 

"Coal Measures:" Bomjardin, Brazil. 

1892. Strophalosia Cornelliana. Hall and Clarke, Nat. Hist. New York, Pal.,.vol. 8, pt. 1, pl.15R, figs. 

36, 37. ' 

''Coal Measur~s: '' Bomjardin, Brazil. 

Only a single imperfect example has so far been obtained, the origin of which 

was in the white limestone of the Capitan formation southwest of Guadalupe Peak. 

It has no marked characters, except the surface, which is thickly covered with small 

spines. Many of these lie flat and are nearly tangential. There are also concentric 

wrinkles more or less concealed by other superficial markings. 

So far as its characters arc demonstrated by the specimen before me, this form 

is so closely related to S. cornelliana, a figure of which is introduced for comparison, 

that it seems necessary to refer it to Derby's species. 

Horizon and locality.-Base of Capitan formation, hill southwest of Guadalupe ' 

Point, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2906). 

STIWPHALOSIA sp. 

Under this title I am subsuming two small and somewhat imperfect shells whose 

generic relations are evidently with Strophalosia cornelliana. They appear to be 

related to it specifically also. One of these specimens is copiously covered with large 

spines, all of which are erect, instead of being, as in S. cornelliana, in part appressed. 

The surface between the spines is very irregular, marked both by fine, discontinuous, 

concentric wrinkles and fine discontinuous ribs leading down from the spine bases. 

The other specimen has similar erect spines, but only a few of them, most of the surface having an uneven warty appearance. This may not be the normal sculpture, 

however, so provisionally the two forms have been left under the same caption. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, ·southern Delaware 

Mountains, Texas (stations 2!)57 and 2969). 

Genus AULOSTEGES Helmersen. 

As noted in connection with the genus Strophalosia, I am using that term and 

Aulosteges in a different sense from that which, from a necessarily imperfect knowledge, really appears to me proper. It appears to me in fact that typical Strophalosia and Aulosteges are the same, and that Strophalosia, which is the older name, 

should be employed for the pre~ent forms to the exclusion of those which, as species of 

Strophalosia, have been recognized in the Guadalupian fauna. The latter seem to 

be congeneric with species of much older geologic periods-for example, with some 

which occur in the Mississippian of the Mississippi Valley; but the present group, 

here called Aulosteges and believed to include the typical Strophalosias of the European Permian, appears to be restricted to the latest faunas of the Paleozoic. 

There can be little doubt that Shumard was correct in referring to this genus 

Aulosteges guadalupensis. Four other species contained in our recent collections 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 277 

with scarcely less certainty belong here. These species, five in all, are the only ones 

at present knownfrom either of the Americans. As the genus is regarded as a typical Permian one, its presence in the Guadalupian fauna is interesting from a stratigraphic point of view, especially since it occurs in the earliest as well as the latest 

beds of the series; but the material thus far obtained is too scanty and too poorly 

preserved to add anything in the way of biology or structure. 

The ·five species found in the Guadalupian fauna represent four rather distinctly 

marked types. To one of these belongs only the form which Shumard described so 

many years ago, Aulosteges guadalupensis. The second comprises A. medlicottianus 

var. americanus and Aulosteges sp. a. The third is represented only by the imperfectly known Aulosteges sp. b, and the fourth only by A. magnicostatus. 

AULOSTEGES GUADALUPENSIS Shumard. 

Pl. XX, figs. 22 and 22!a. 

1858. Aulosteges Guadalupensis. Sl).umard, Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, vol. 1, p. 292 (date of volume, 

1860). 

White [Permian] limestone: Guadalupe Mountains, New Mexico and Texas. 

1859. Strophalosia (Aulosteges) Guadalupensis. Shumard, idem, p. 390, pl. 11, figs. 5a, 5b. 

White [Permian] limestone: Guadalupe Mountains. 

1890. Strophalosia? Guadalupensis. Beecher, Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 40, p. 241. 

Ventral valve large, outline subelliptical, gibbous, .flattened convex at the umbo, enlarging rapidly 

from beak to front and forming a pretty regular curve in the same direction; greatest width about the 

middle of the valve; lateral margins rounded, front slightly sinuate; a broad, shallow sinus commences 

some distance in advance of the beak and continues to the front in one of the specimens, and in the other 

the sinus is somewhat profound and narrow on the umbonal region and becomes shallow toward the front; 

beak elongatcd.,::flattened, straight or slightly curved upward at the extremity, which is pointed; area, 

triangular, very;much elevated; lateral edges sharp and strongly defined. Surface marked with numer-· 

ous slightly prm,ninent, radiating, interrupted ribs, crossed by obscure, rounded, concentric ridges, which 

give to the former a subnodulose character; intervals marked with small circular pits, probably the 

points of attachment for spines. Dorsal valve unknown. · 

Dimensions.-Length of ventral valve, 1.40; width, 1.48; height, about 0.59. 

This shell is very interesting as no species of the genus has heretofore been observed in American 

strata. In Europe it has not been found below the Permian. 

Geologic position and locality.-White limestone of the Guadalupe Mountains, New Mexico and~ 

Texas.a 

There can be little doubt that the fossils in hand belong to Shumard's speciesr 

which seems to be fairly common in the Guadalupian fauna, since four examples,. 

none of them, however, very perfect, have come to hand. Shumard's desGription} 

together with the figures, will afford an adequate notion of this form and I find it 

unnecessary to make many additions or changes of moment. The obscure, rounded, 

concentric ridges, however, mentioned by this author arc certainly not obvious on 

my specimens, the ornamentation of which consists of short, slender elevations like 

interrupted ribs, which are often more prominent at their anterior end and sometimes carry short 0) spines. The arrangement of the ridges into longitudinal or 

diagonal rows is not very striking or persistent. The intervals between frequently 

contain little pits or dimples from which spinules project into the inside of the shell. 

a Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, vol. 1, 1856-1860, p. 292. 
278 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

and these are represented on internal molds as small holes somewhat irregularly distributed. The surface ornamentation is not unlike that ascribed to Productus norwoodi, especially in imperfect conditions of preservation, and as Shumard cites that 

species from the "dark limestone" of the Guadalupian it is possible that the specimens so identified may have really belonged here. 

Horizon and locality.-" Dark limestone," Pine Spring, Guadalupe Mountains, 

Texas (statiqn 2930.). 

AULOSTEGES MEDLICOTTIANUS var. AMERICANUS n. var. 

Pl. XII, figs. 16 to 16b. 

Shell small, transverse, semicircular. Hinge line slightly shorter than the 

width in front. Convexity regular. Area moderately high, Delthyrium apparently very wide. Beak small and undefined. Dorsal valve not known. 

Shell substance thick, marked by fine lirre, about eight in 2 mm., whichbecome 

indistinct on the sides near the hinge line, and by concentric irregularities of growth, 

which are especially abundant and strong near the Inargin. The shell substance, 

even on the area, is pierced by numerous small holes, more or Jess regularly distributed, from which probably proceeded hollow spines. 

Thi.s form has so distinct an aspect and is represented by so fair a specimen that 

after some hesitation I have. given a description and figures of it. Yet its affinities 

are so uncertain that I would on this ·account have refrained from doing so. The 

fact that the apex is partially broken away might indicate that this was not an 

Aulosteges but an attached form like Strophalosia, but the other characters are less 

like Strophalosia than Aulosteges. The uniform size and distribution of the perforations would seem to indicate that they were an original feature, yet no trace of 

spines has been observed. They may have been produced by some boring animal, 

a hypothesis for which the surprising thickness of the shell might be pointed to as 

evidence. In that case the form would probably be a Streptorhynchus, as no internal plates are present. 

This species possesses certain points of marked similarity with Aulosteges medlicottianus Waagen, and yet there are some important differences, since it is smaller, 

without a sinus, longer at the hinge line, apparently with a wider delthyrium, and 

without ears. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). 

AULOSTEGES MAGNICOSTATUS n. sp. 

Pl. XXXI, figs. 4 to 4b. 

The typical specimen is diminutive in size, b.ut from the strong convexity probably represents a mature shell. The length of the ventral valve is 9 mm., the length 

of the dorsal valve 7 mm., and the width at the hinge line, which exceeds that below, 

8mm. 

The ventral valve has an extended instead of an incurved beak, which gives it a 

shield-shaped outline. The posterior portion consequently is flattened longitudi-
MOLL USCOIDEA. 279 

-nally, rising gradually toward the front, where, and at the sides; it is ·strongly 

deflected. The area in the typical specimen is about 2 mm. in height, flat, and 

symmetrical. · The pseudodeltidium is narrow. . 

The -dorsal valve is transversely semielliptical in shape, flattened over th~ visceral area, strongly curved at the front and sides. Beak small, inconspicuous. 

The surface of the dorsal valve is marked over the visceral area only by fine, 

·somewhat irregular, concentric wrinkles~ Toward the front and sides the wrinkles 

die out and are replaced by relatively coarse radiating costre, which are faint at 

first but become strong later. 

The ventral vaJve is more or less broken and the sculpture lost. It probably 

·agreed with the dorsal valve in this particular, as it is known·to do over the more 

peripheral· portions, where it is marked by coarse, strong costre. In the typical 

.specimen both valves, but especially the ventral, seem to terminate in a narrow, 

concentric, raised band, in whose elevation the costre lose themselves, so that the 

band is smooth, except for a very distinct row of coarse spines, one for each costa. 

"There is a row of such spines along the margin of both the dorsal and ~entral valve. 

The singular feature last mentioned is certainly a eharacter of the specimen 

under description, but it is as yet doubtful whether it can be regarded as a specific 

character or only an individual peculi!Jxity. · 

In its general expression this form. resembles certain shells which have more 

-or less of the appearance of Productus semirecticulatus, but have been placed by different authors in the genus Strophalosia. Producius leplayi is one of these, but in 

this case at least the generic position, I judg~, is almost certainly with Productus, 

.and it may possibly be the same in the others. 

Horizon and locaiity.-Delaware Mountain forma.tion, mountains northwest 

-of Marath~n, Tex. (station 3840). 

AULOSTEGES sp. a. 

This species is based on two specimens whose original position was in the 

black limestone at the base of the Guadalupe section. They appear to be closely 

related to Aulosteges medlicottian1ts var. americanus, but their widely different 

stratigraphic position and faunal association are presumptive evidence that they . 

belong to a different species, and, in fact, certain specific differences are indicated, 

though a satisfactory discrimination is not at present entirely possible, owing to 

their imperfect condition. They are smaller than the figured specimen of Aulos-

;teges medlicottianus var. guadaluz!enl'lis, hut their general shape is nearly the same. 

They have a thick fibrous shell perforated by many small rounded tubes and appar-

·ently marked externally by rather fine radiating lirre. It thus appears that they 

are very similar to the typical specimen from the Capitan limestone, but the perforations or tubes are much smaller and more numerous. Owing to the imperfect 

condition of these specill).ens, however, it is possible that they are. only morbid 

exainples of Enteletes sp. c, which is found associated with them. 

Horizon and locali-ty.-Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2967). 
280 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

AuLOSTEGES sp. b. 

This form is represented by a single specimen from which the shell has been 

largely removed. It is a ventral valve. The shape is subcircular. The greatest 

width is 18 mm. and the length of the aperture 14 mm. The hinge line is a little 

shorter than the width in frpnt. The area is flat, sharply defined, inclined backward at rather a strong angle, and 6 min. in height. The pseudodeltidium is 

narrow (1.5 mm.) and strongly eleyated. 

The surface is marked by rather faint concentric undulations, which can be 

seen on the mold of the interior and where the shell is retained at one side near the 

hinge, by somewhat irregular, fine, lamellose concentric lines. The area is profusely covered with perforations left by the hollow spines. So far as can now be 

told, these are much more rare on the remainder of the shell. 

From the facts at present obtainable, this form is of a somewhat different type 

from those recognized in this report, but I hardly feel justified in view of the poor 

condition of my specimen and the imperfect data which it furnishes in giving it a 

distinctive name. 

Horizon and locality.-Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2967). 

Family RICHTHOFENIIDJE Waagen. 

Genus RICHTHOFENIA Kayser. 

The _genus Richthofenia has been found in only a few limited areas, but these 

taken together constitute for the genus a wide distribution. We have one species 

in the Salt Range of India and another at LoPing, in China. Gemmellaro's papers 

are, unfortunately, in part inaccessible to me, but I learn from Schellwien that he 

has identified Richthofenia among the fossils from Palermo in Sicily. Lastly, the 

appearance of a species belonging to this genus in southwestern United States lends 

to the Guadalupian fauna a feature of peculiar interest. 

While in most essential respects and in many trivial ones Richthofenia permiana 

is in close· agreement with the Indian and Chinese species, one or two differences 

. appear to be of considerable moment. In R. permiana there is a much less extensive 

development of the cystose tissue, but this may probably be reckoned a character 

of specific rather than generic difference. The feature which I had especially in 

mind in the foregoing comment, however, was the absence of the three structures 

which W aagen calls septa, extending along the inner surface of the area in the 

ventral valve. R. permiana shows what may be called two dental callosities or 

ridges, which occupy the position of the two lateral septa of Waagen's shell, but 

they are by no means of such a character as would warrant calling them septa. 

This term is much more appropriate to the structures represented in Waagen's 

figures. The median septum of Waagen's shell, on the other hand, seems to have 

no corresponding part in the Guadalupian species. There is, it is true, a sort of 

longitudinal ridge or septum on the opposite or anterior side of the ventral valve, 

and it is possible that thin sections through the lower portion would show that this 

ridge was connected with the development of a median septum, as in the Indian 
; 

MOLL USCOIDEA. 281 

species, and that it might also bring to light two corresponding lateral septa possibly embedded in the cystose tissue; but the available material was too scanty and 

imperfect to warrant consuming it for sections. In natural sections and exposures, 

however, these three septal structures appear to be entirely absent from R. permiana. 

The median septum seems to play a much more important part in the structure 

of the Sicilian species of Richthofenia, and still more in Scacchinella, which Sch~llwien regards as a related genus. Scacchiiwlla occurs with Richthofenia in the Sicilian 

fauna, and appears to replace it in that of the Carnic Alps, where Richthofenia, so 

far as known, is missing. A species from Malia Sangcha, in the Himalaya, has been 

referred to Scacchinella by Diener, but from his figures and description I can not 

but feel that the reference is a very doubtful one. The genus Scacchinella therefore, 

so far as at present known, is restricted to the three or possibly two localities above 

mentioned, while Richthofenia forms a rather striking bond· between the Guadalupian fauna and those of the Salt Range, of Lo Ping, and of Palermo. Of course 

there is nothing at all comparable in the Carboniferous faunas of the Mississippi 

Valley. 

Waagen regarded this genus as representing a distinct family, the Richthofeniidre, and a distinct suborder, the Coralliopsida; but in this I believe he has somewhat overestimated the really remarkable characters of this type. Most subsequent 

authors, I believe, have failed to recognize Waagen's suborder. Schuchert places 

the Richthofeniidre beside ·the Productidre, which is in 'accordance with my own 

view. Hall and Clarke include Richthofenia among the genera incertre sedis. Schellwien seems in doubt whether the greatest affinities are with the Productidre or 

with the Strophomenidre. In weighing the evidence he omits one factor, which, 

though present in the American and Indian shells, may be absent from the Sicilian 

species-the development of tubular spines as a part of the surface structures: 

This is eminently a fe'ature of the Productidre, in distinction from the Strophomenidre. Indeed, speaking now solely of the American species, I seem to see in 

Richthofenia permiana a distinct relationship with Productus, through Strophalosia 

and Aulosteges. The general character of the sculpture-spiniferous, without ribs, 

but with strong growth lines-immediately recalls certain Producti; the high area 

and pseudodeltidium are found in Aulosteges, while the little ridge which stands. 

opposite to the area on the inside of Richthofenia finds, in some cases at least, an 

apparently analogous structure in Strophalosia. (See the figures of S. cornelliana. 

on Pl. IV.) 

In the Sicilian form, as described by Schellwien, both in its own structure and 

in its relation to Scacchinella, one might be pardoned for: believing he found a different. 

generic type, perhaps much more closely allied to the Strophomenidre. It appears, 

in the first place, that instead of having two dental callosities, as in the American. 

form, and to some extent as in that from India, the Sicilian type has a single large 

pyramidal column, the axis of which is a good-sized median septum. This solid 

column extends· along the back of the valve arid well down toward the apex, and 

contains embedded in it a sort of primordial shell, the like of which is entirely 

unknown as yet in other species. It would appear also, from the fact that they are 

not mentioned in Schellwien's description, that the surface was not furnished with 

spinous projections, but I have observed what I regard as the scars of small spines. 
'282 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA, 

on the surface of species of Scacchinella from the Trogkofelschichten. Thus the · 

Sicilian shell departs rather widely not only from the Guadalupian but from the 

Salt Range species. The latter has a small septum, according to Waagen, the 

greater d~velopment of which in the Sicilian form may have given rise to the modification of the cardinal structures observed in it. · It occupies in some respects an 

intermediate position between the Guadalupian and the Sicilian species, having the 

septum of one and the spinous surface of the other; but on the whole it seems to 

me that Richthofenia permiana is closer toR. lawrenciana, and therefore to typical 

Richthofenia (though R. sinensis should really be considered the type species), than 

is the Sicilian form. 

The Richthofeniiclre evidently afford ·an attractive field for further research in 

.case other species or better preserved material are obtained, especially if the different 

forms supposed to belong to the group could be collated. 

The little specimen represented by figs. 10 and lOa of Pl. XXIV seems to be a 

young example of this genus and to throw some light on the early stages of development. The growth, instead of being regularly conical, appears to be schematically 

that of a strongly curved triangular plane bent around so that the two edges meet in 

a sort of suture, indicated more by deflections of the growth lines and by a notch in 

the upper margin than by a callosity. Apparently at a very immature stage, it may 

be almost immediately after cementation, by a luxuriant development of the mantle 

.of the ventral valve, the shell was so deposited that the sides extended backward 

until they met behind, thus enveloping the posterior portion of the valve of which 

they form a part, which instead of being without an area, as in Productus, was prolonged upward with the lofty area and normal pseudodeltidium of AuZosteges. The 

intervening portion between the area and the enveloping sides was filled in with cyst-

.ose shelly matter, which in certain conditions of .!?reservation peels off, leaving an 

area and pseudodeltidium much resembling the productoid genus above mentioned. 

It is possible that the little shell which suggested this explanation of the origin 

·of some of the singular features of Richthofenia does not really belong to that genus, 

although I believe that it does; hut such a contingency does not necessarily invalidate the explanation itself, which is a little more specific than any I have seen offered 

.elsewhere, though not differing from them in principle. 

If the specimen in question does not belong to Richthofenia it would probably 

·go with Tegulifera, a genus which Schellwien introduced as a member of the Productidre. Tegulifera appears to have been developed by much the same process 

which I have hypothetized for Richthofenia, except that the area remained n:arrow 

in Tegulifera, which accordingly stands in about the same relation to Productus that 

Richthofenia as here interpreted does to Aulosteges. 

Schellwien places Tegulifera in the Productidre, but apparently does not believe 

that Scacchinella and Richthofenia have such relationship. His doubts in regard to 

these forms from the Trogkofelschichten may be justified, and while I seem to see on 

the part of my Guadalupian representatives of Richthofenia a greater resemblance to 

the Productidro than is found in those from the Trogkofelschichten, it seems inadvisable to place Richthofenia' and Tegulifera in the same family. 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 283 

RICHTHOFENIA PEltMIAN A Shumard. 

Pl. XIV, :figs. 27 to 27d; Pl. XX, fig. 23; Pl. XXII, figs. 6 to 6b; Pl. XXIV, :figs. 10 and lOa; Pl. XXXI, 

figs. 1 to 3. 

1859. Crania Permiana. Shumard, Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, vol. 1, p. 395 (date of volume, 1860). 

White [Permian] limestone: Guadalupe Mountains. 

Shell large, somewhat variable in form, upper or larger valve very much elongated, subconical, 

·expanding most rapidly ltoward the base; transverse sedion elliptico-subquadrate; anterior side flattened; sides rounded and in some specimens subangulated posteriorly; posterior side fiat or very gently 

-convex, showing, when the exterior crust is exfoliated, a long, narrow pseudodeltidium, marked with 

-distinct arched st~ioo; apex nearly or quite marginal, obliquely truncated and sometimes excavated in, 

front. Surface marked with concentric lines, crossed by irregular, interrupted longitudinal (not very 

distinct) rugoo, which arc most prominent, and assume a somewhat varicose appearance, ncar the base . 

. Smaller valve very gently concave, surface markings obliterated. Interior characters unknown. 

Dimensions.-Height of larger valve about l~ inches; width at base, about l inch. 

Locality.-White limestone, Guadalupe Mountains. 

I have very little doubt either that the material before me belongs to the species 

for which Shumard proposed the name Crania Permiana, or that it actually belongs 

to Kayser's genus Richthofenia. Examples belonging to this genus are represented 

from a number of localities and horizons, and though all have been r'eferred to a single 

species, since I am uncertain in what characters and within what degrees to fix the 

limits of specific variation, it will be better to give a brief notice of each occurrence, 

both as to superficial and as to structural characters. 

Shumard describes R. permiaria from specimens obtained in the white limestone 

Df the Capitan formation, and our fossils from that horizon can therefore be regarded 

as representing the typical form of the species. The shape is generally conical, but 

much varied as to detail. The transverse section ranges from circular to oval, and 

-one side or another may be more orless flattened. These specimens are not greatly 

-distorted, bu,t their rate of expansion varies in different individuals, and often in the 

.same individual at different places. Thus often arise transverse ridges, which are 

very irregular imd s~ldom extend through a complete circumference. Scattered 

over the surface are here and there perforations which originally-extended as hollow 

stolonous spines. The largest specimen measures 25 mm. in length, and is incomplete at its base. This is the condition of many specimens, and doubtless resulted 

from their habit of attachment. The broken apex seldom fails to show the characteristic cystose structure. In the Indian species the conical interior is subdivided 

by a transverse cystose partition. In these American specimens the cysts appear to 

·occupy the apex of the cone. If there was a chamber below them it must have been 

small. 

The operc~lar upper valve is represented by several examples. It is flat and 

marked by very delicate concentric strire. O~e specimen especially shows its position and character. The ventral valve in this case is elliptica.l in transverse outline, 

and distinctly flattened on the cardinal side. The dorsal valve is elliptical and 

:smaller than the external circumference of the ventral, the inner wall of the ventral 

.s.hell being separated from !he outer by the cystose layer. This layer is rather thin 

.along the froqt, but increases irregularly toward the cardinalline,'where the greatest 
284 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

thickness occurs. Here, however, it is cut rather squarely off, to form a broad longitudinal groove, into which fits a quadrate projection from the opercular valve. This 

projection, which docs not expand at the cardinal line, as in the Indian species, 

reaches almost to the outer wall, or, rather, the inner wall of the ventral valve retreats 

at this point almost to a union with the outer one. 

From the "dark limestone" seven specimens have been obtained. They show 

excellently the superficial characters, the unequal growth, the concentric strire, and 

the tubular spines.. Two examples are partly exfoliated toward the apex and 

exhibit the structure which Shumard with· much acumen calls the pseudodeltidium, 

in specimens similarly preserved. What, considered from the inside, appears as a 

·deep, broad groove, in the exfoliated condition is a corresponding ridge which bears 

along its center another much narrower but strongly elevated ridge, having the 

appearance of a pseudodeltidium. No groove corresponding to this was observed 

in the other specimen described in some detail, but this structure seems to be 

restricted to 'the portion of the ventral valve below the opercular valve. 

Practically the same features are shown by a specimen from the Delaware Mountain formation-the only one found-which occurs as an internal mold. The posterior or cardinal side is flattened and bears a central broad, flattened ridge, which dies 

out toward the apex. This ridge in turn has a strongly elevated, narrow central ridge, 

which disappears also toward the apex, toward which it does not extend as far as 

that upon which it is borne. It is probable that both would likewise die out before 

reaching the mouth of the shell if the specimen were complete. 

In the black limestone at the base of the Guadalupe section three specimens 

were obtained, one mature and the others very small, No internal structures are 

shown, but externally they have all the characters of Shumard's species. The two 

small examples, one of them especially, show a rather significant feature, namely, 

a distinct notch on what is probably the posterior side of the upper margin, accompanied by a corresponding deflection of the growth lines. This apparently indicates 

the union of the lateral portions of the shell which have been prolonged. backward so 

that they meet behind the area, thus enveloping this posterior portion. It has not 

been possible to make observations on all my specimens in this particular, but t.his 

deflection of the growth lines is certainly found in other specimens, though some 

appear to be without it. That the characteristic internal structures are developed at 

an early period is shown by some very young specimens in our collections. Cystose 

tissue seems at this stage to be entirely lacking, but the dental callosities have already 

appeared. They are small and delicate, however. The occurrence of this significant form at this lowest horizon known in the Guadalupe Mountains is important as 

mdicating the thickness of the Guadalupian series at this point. 

A few specimens have also been obtained from the Glass Mountains, and as they 

are silicified a favorable opportunity is afforded for studying their internal structure. 

One somewhat imperfect example must have had a length of 50 mm. The chamber 

of habitation extends almost.to the base in these examples, as it appeared to do in those 

from the Guadalupe Mountains,.the cellular tissue being confined to a small amount 

on the back and sides. The cardinal side is especially thi,t:kened in this way. Here, 

as has been described from other specimens, is excavated a rather deep, broad groove 

having another narrow groove along its median line. On either side the shell stands. 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 285 

<mt in a ridgelike projection. At a certain point 7 mm. below the top in the large 

specimen previously mentioned, the cellular tissue abruptly ceases, producing a sort 

·of circumferential shelf or groove, probably the position of the smaller valve. Opposite the cardinal groove a longitudinal thickening of the shell occurs, varying in 

extent in different specimens but forming in every case an appreciable ridge. The 

inside of the shell below the opercular valve is uneven, though fairly smooth, the 

·chief feature of mark being the presence of a few small tubes parallel to the wall and 

partly sunk in it, the upper ends of which are open and directed toward the aperture. 

These without much doubt arc connected with the hollow tubular spines. Above 

the position of the dorsal valve the interior of the shell is rough, being pustulose and 

pitted. The pits are the same size as the perforations of the spines, but apparently 

they do not extend to the outer surface. The general character of the outer surface 

has already been described. Only this remains to be added, that above the plane 

·of the dorsal valve the perforations caused by the tubular spines appear to cease, 

only irregular lines and ridges being present. The three vertical septa described by 

Waagen have not been observed, and it hardly seems that they could have been 

developed. The pallial impression has apparently not been retained on my 

specimens, though Waagen noted it in his Indian shells. 

From the southern Delawares (station 2969) about ten specimens and fragments 

have been obtained. They agree in most respects with the material gathered elsewhere. The chief difference is that these shells tend to be a little more slender and 

to develop a somewhat greater amount of the cystose tissue, which now deeply fills 

the lower portion and, extending up around the sides in a thicker layer, choh:es the 

cavity into a more contracted· chamber. I do not say that this is true in every case, 

however. 1 

. I have found it impracticable to distinguish more than one species in the material examined without assigning considerable importance to characters which seemed 

either more or less trivial or else very 'variable. On the other hand, with the characters said to be present in the Asiatic species but apparently lacking in this, and those 

present in this but apparently lacking in the other, there can be but little doubt that 

R. permiana is distinct from R.lawrenciana and R. sinensis. In any event, the American form antedates either of the names just mentioned. In fact some of the struc-. 

tural differences which appear to subsist between the American and Asiatic forms 

have the appearance of bei~g so important as to suggest the co~side~ation whether 

they really belong to the same genus. The general appearance is so strikingly similar, however, and the type of structure so peculiar in every way, that I would prefer 

to reserve the consideration of this point until a wider knowledge of the specific and 

generic variation will afford a juster conception of the importance which must attach 

to different lines and degrees of variation. There seem in fact to be but scant possibilities for variation in these forms except in rather trivial or else rather essential 

characters, and it may be that differences of structure such as exist between the 

Indian, the Alpine, and the American representatives of the group will have to be 

used for specific rather than generic discrimination, as would perhaps be the case in 

other types. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 

2926); "clark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930) and Guadalupe Point (stations 
286 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

3762b and 3762e); Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931); 

basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (stations 2920 and 2967), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas 

(stations 2!)64 and 2969). Delaware Mountain formation, Comanche Canyon, Glass 

Mountains, Texas (station 3763). · 

Family ORTHIDJE Woodward. 

The Orthidre are a declining group in the later horizons of the Carboniferous, 

showing but limited variation along generic lines and represented often scantily in 

individuals. Enteletes, the most characteristic and abundant representative of the 

family at these horizons, is the only type which has been found in the Guadalupian 

fauna, though other genera occur in some of the faunas with which comparison has 

been made. In the Guadalupian, indeed, this genus is restricted, so far as known, 

to the earlier portion of the series, none of the Orthidre having thus far been found 

in the Capitan formation. 

Seven species of Enteletes are recognized .in the present report, all of them, with 

one exception, probably belonging to the commoner division of the genus, the 

ventrisinuati. ' 

In India, in the Salt Range, Waagen recognizes seven species of Orthis, which 

may now be distributed into the groups of Rhipi.domella, Schizophoria, and Orthotichin, none of which, of course, is represented in the Guadalupian fauna so far as 

known. Of Enteletes he finds two species of the ventrisinuati and five of the dorsisinuati. E. knyseri is perhaps comparable to E. dumblei, at least in configuration, 

while E. lrevissimus may bt=l compared with Enteletes sp. c. The dorsisinuati, on 

the other hand, contain some singular and striking types, such as E. pentameroides 

and E. latisinuatus, but nothing which closely resembles the Guadalupian E. globosus.a The Indian fauna thus comprises a number of orthoid genera not found 

in the Guadalupian and a rich diversity of the dorsisinuate type of Enteletes, while 

it contains but two rare species of the ventrisinuati, a condition very nearly the 

reverse in every way of that which, at the time of writing, appears to exist in the 

Guadalupian fauna. 

In the Himalayan region, at Chitichun, Diener found a species of Enteletes, 

one of the ventrisinuati, whicl~ he described as new, under tne title Enteletes tschernyschewi. 1t is of the same general type as E. dumblei and Enteletessp. d of the 

Guadalupian. In hi.s second paper on th.is fauna Diener cites E. tschernyschewi, E. 

wnageni Gemm., and E. subxg_uivnlvis Gemin., E. wangeni comprising part of the 

original material of E. tschernyschewi. E. tschernyschewi and Enteletes cf. elegnns 

Gemm. are cited from Malla Sangcha. All of these forms appear to be· closely 

allied to the two Guadalupian species mentioned above. Salter also cites Orthis 

sp. from Niti Pass, and Davidson Orthis sp. from.Tibet. 

From the Carboniferous of Turkestan Romanowsky figures a small Orthis, 

probably incorrectly identified as 0. resupinata, but cites no Enteletes and nothing 

similar to the Guadalupian orthoids. 

a It may be noted that practically all the types with extreme gibbosity, large plications, and generally extravagant 

development seem to belong to the dorsisinuates. This group, as before remarked, is almost absent from American faunas, 

and this, the only known species, is relatively modest and normal in its development of characters. 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 287 

In the fauna from Lo Ping, in China, we have a species of Orthis and one of 

Enteletes, which Kayser identified with Rhipidomella pecosi and Enteletes hemiplicatns, respectively. The Chinese forms occur associated with Richthofenia, Lep-

. todns, and a generally different fauna from that of the Pennsylvanian of the Mississippi Valley, where in America these species are most commonly found. E. hemiplicatus Kayser, however, is considerably different from the American H. hemiplicatus, and W aagen, recognizing this fact, gave to the Chinese species, which he 

identified also in India, the name E. kayseri. The identity with Marcou's species 

of the form from Lo Ping called by Kayser Orthis pecosi had been questioned by 

both W aagen a and Schellwien, b and in 1901 Fliegel introduced for it the specific 

name subquadrata. E. kayseri is a member of the ventrisinuate group, and the 

typical form from China more closely resembles E. hemiplicatus than does the. 

Indian E. kayseri figured by W aagen. Of the Guadalupian species, E. dumblei is 

comparable ·to the Chinese form in general configuration, though clearly a distinct 

species. Enteletes sp. c is probably still more closely similar, though it is doubtful 

whether when of the same size as Kayser's figures it would have had equally st:cong 

plications. 

Among the numerous more or less imperfectly known faunas described from 

China by Loczy, orthoids are for the most. part absent. ·The only instance where 

the group is. ·represented is in the collection from the vicinity of Kantsdwufu, 

whereLoczy cites an unnamed species of Orthis which he compares to 0. lyelliana 

(non De Koninck) of the Moskovian of Russia and to 0. pecosi of the Pennsylvanian of the United States, and an Enteletes which he identifies as E. lamarcki of the 

Russian Moskovian. The latter is more nearly related to a variety of our Penn-. 

· sylvanian E. hemiplicatus than to any species yet known from tne Guadalupian. 

The report by Schellwien on the paleontological collections obtained by Pro· 

fessor Fiitterer in an exploring expedition through Asia has not come to hand, 

and the only account of these faunas known to me is a short paper by Schellwien, 

which contains no citations suggestive of the Guadalupian fauna. 

In the fauna from Padang, in Sumatra, described by Fliegel, occur two orthoid 

types, which he describes, one as new, under.the t~tle of Dalmanellafrechi, the other 

provisionally assigned to Dalmanella michelini. The former species, which alone is 

figured, is probably an Orthotichia, an opinion whi·ch is supported not only by its 

configuration but by what is said of its internal structure (reported to possess in. 

both valves a median and two lateral diverging septa), and by the fact that it is 

stated to be closely related to Orthis derbyi Waagen. Nothing similar to these 

forms, of course, is known in the Guadalupian. 

From the Permian beds of Timor and Rotti, in the Indian Archipelago, no 

orthoids have been cited, so that a comparison with the Guaclalupian fauna is 

impossible in point of this branch of the Brachiopoda, but the absence of such 

types is a matter of agreement with the fauna of the Capitan formation of the 

Guadalupian. 

Roemer figures a large orthoid from the west coast' of Sumatra, which he 

identifies as Orthis resupinata. It would appear to be a Schizophoria or anOrthotichia, 

and has no allied Guadalupian form. 

a Mem. GeoL Survey India, PaL Indica, ser. 13, voL 1, 1887, p. 574. 

b Paleontographica, voL 39, p. 35. 
288 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

Among the Orthidre of the "Permo-Carboniferous" of Queensland and New 

Guinea Etheridge records only two species of Schizophoria, a type which is unknown 

in the Guadalupian. It is surprising to find Enteletes absent from the Australian 

faunas. 

The Orthidre discussed in De Koninck's account of the Carboniferous faunas of 

New South Wales comprise only two species-0. resupinata and 0. michelini. Both 

species seem to belong to the lower horizon and are not germane to the present 

consideration. 

The so-called Lower Carboniferous of the Russian section, comparison of which 

with the Guadalupian can be hoped to yield but little profit, being disregarded, the 

next succeeding formation is the" Middle Carboniferous" or Moskovian. It is in this 

division that I seem to see especially close faunal relations with the Pennsylvanian of 

the Mississippi Valley, perhaps more with the lower portion than with the upper. 

This is the horizon of occurrence of Enteletes lamarclci, which appears to be chiefly 

allied to our own E. hemiplicatus. E.lamarclci may be described as a ventrisinuate 

Enteletes which has an incipient plication on the fold and sinus, and may thus possibly 

be regarded as a passage form to the dorsisinuati. Shells having this configuration 

are also accompanied by others which have a similar shape but lack the mesial plication, and are thus true ventrisinuates. The same condition occurs in E. hemiplicatus, 

biit there the true ventrisinuate type is dominant, while in Russia that having a 

mesial plication appears to be most characteristic. No Guadalupian species yet 

known possesses the latter character, but with the other variety, E. dumblei, and, to a 

less degree, E. angulatus, show some general similarity. In addition to Enteletes, the 

Moskovian fauna contains species of Rhipidomella, and also of Schizophoria. 

From the Gschelian stage, which next succeeds, Nikitin cites Enteletes lamarclci 

and another species of Enteletes which is not identified. In Tschernyschew's recent 

work on the "Upper Carboniferous'' brachiopods of the Urals and Timan, in which the 

term "Upp~r Carboniferous" appears to be used as exactly equivalent to "Gschelian," he cites no species of Enteletes, a condition of affairs which is similar to that 

prevailing in at least the Capitan formation of the Guadalupian; but he recognizes 

two species of Rhipidomella, two of Schizophoria, and one of Orthotichia, types which 

are thus far not known in the Guadalupian and may indicate an earlier age for the 

Russian beds. 

The fauna of the Artinsk ("Permo-Carboniferous") and that of the true Permian 

contain, as is well known, but relatively few brachiopods, and among them no representatives of Enteletes. From the Artinsk, however, Tschernyschew figures a 

species of Schizophoria, which he designates as Orthis cf. 0. indica, and Stuckenberg, 

while recording no representatives of the family from the Artinsk, notes Schizophoria 

resupinata in the accompanying Kungur beds. Krotow also cites Schizophoria 

resupinata from the Artinsk, but from the Russian Permian the family is, so far as I 

am aware, unrepresented. 

From Armenia Abich cites of this group only a small form, which with doubtful 

propriety he identifies as Orthis resupinata. This fauna, therefore, affords nothing 

which invites· comparison with the Guadalupian orthoids. The same is true of 

Rhipidomella michelini, which Frech identifies from the upper " Lower Carboniferous," and Schizophoria indica, which Arthaber cites from the" Upper Carboniferous" 

of the same principality. 

\ 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 289 

The fauna of Balia Maaden, in Asia Minor, contains but one orthoid, according 

to Enderle, who identifies it as Orthis aii. resupinat<e Martin. Whether this form is a 

Schizophoria, as indicated by Enderle, or an Orthotichia, does not concern us: It is 

remote from the Guadalupian orthoicls at present known. 

In his work on the Ftisulina limestone of Palermo, Gemmellaro mentions no 

.species of Schizophoria, Orthotichia, etc., but describes no less than ten of Enteletes, 

all belonging ·to the ventrisinuate group, except possibly E. microplocus, the small 

•. size and considerable number of whose plicatioris do 1}-0t permit it to be assigned 

definitely. In this particular, accordingly, the Sicilian fauna is comparaole to that 

-of the Guadalupe Mountains, and a number of species are analogous. 

. In the character of its species of Fnteletes, as well as in its apparent absence of 

other types of Orthidre, Gemmellaro's fauna is 'especially like the Guadalupian. 

In the Carnic Alps Schellwien discriminates one species of Schizophoria and 

.seven of Enteletes,a of which four belong to the ventrisinuati and three to the dorsisinuati. The latter group is much better represented than with us, and contains. the 

.st,riking species Enteletes suessi, but nothing very similar to our E. globosus. The 

ventrisinuates do not compare very closely with Guadalupian species of the same 

group. 

The Dyas of Germany and the closely related ~ermian of England appear to be 

without representatives of this family, and agree ,in this particular with the typical 

Russian Permian. Although the Guadalupian contains but little which positively· 

.suggests these faunas, the Capitan formation is in agreement with them in lacking 

this group of brachiopods. 

From the Carboniferous of Spitzbergen nothing is yet known which can be compared with the orthoids -of the Guadalupian fauna. It is true that from the south 

point of Spitzbergen Toula cites 0. lceyserli.ngiana. and from Axel Island Orthis 

resu.pinain, of whieh the latter, from his figures, is suggestive rather of a Spirifer or 

an Athyris; but these types, so far as lmo'\\c'li, are not encountered in the Guadalupian. Orthis eximiiformi.~, described from Nova Zembla by the same author, as 

.indicated by the nomenchiture which he himself uses, would, in our present classificatioils, be· a _Meel.:ella; but a restoration of his imperfect specimen somewhat 

.different from that whieh he adopts might make it an Enteletes. 

Stache records three small species of Orthis from the West Sahara (Igidi), but 

they resemble nothing in the Guadalupian, and the associated fauna is probably 

much earlier. De Koninck cites Schizophorin resupirwta and Rhipidomella michelini 

from New South Wales, but the genus Enteletes seems not to occur there. 

From Bolivia D'Orbigny described two species of Enteletes (E. andii and 

E. g(ludryi), which from his figures are only in a general way comparable to the ventrisinuate species of the Guadalupian. He also describes Orthis cora (probably a 

Rhipidmnella) and Orthis buchii, neither species having, so far as known, a corre-

:sponding one in the Guadalupian. Toula described Orthis resupinata var. latirostrata 

fron1 the same country, the correct generic reference probably now being to Schizophoria. Salter cites Orthis resupinnta? and Orthis andii also from Bolivia. His 

figure of the latter species resembles our common Pennsylvanian Enteletes hemiplia As noted below, Schellwien lnclndes Orthotichia with his Enteletes. 

:=:G\15-~o. 58:--08--l!:l 
/ 

• 

290 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

catus and several of the Guadalupian species much more than the original figures of 

D'Orbigny. Gabb cites Enteletes andii from Peru. 

Enteletes was not found by Derby in Brazil, but he cites two unplicated orthoids. 

as 0. penniana and 0. morganiana, the latter being now the typical species of Hall 

and Clarke's genus Orthotihcia. Neither of thes~ has, so far as known, any related 

Guadalupian species. 

In the typical Pennsylvanian the Orthidre are represented by three genera, each 

containing a single species: RhipidomeZla pecosi, 8chirophoria resupinoides, and 

Enteletes hemiplicatus. The first two types are, so far as known, unrepresented in 

the Guadalupian. Between the Enteletes of the Guadalupian and Pennsylvanian 

there are some important if not striking differences. At least one of the Guadalupian 

species belongs to the dorsisinuate section, which has no Pennsylvanian representa-

. tives. Among the ventrisinuates also certain points deserve comment, such as the 

greater differentiation of the Guadalupian types and the fact that none of them can 

strictly be identified with the Pennsylvanian E. hemiplicatus. 

Genus ENTELETES Fischer de Waldheim. 

Waagen has made a division of the Enteletes into two groups,a one of which he· 

calls the dorsisinuati and the other the ventrisinuati. In one of these groups, as the 

name indicates, the dorsal valve bears· a sinus, and in the 'other the ventral. To 

the ventrisinuati belongs our common E. hemiplicatus Hall: Of the dorsisinuati no· 

North American species have up to the present been found. To this statement some 

exception must be made, in that W aagen a refers to the dorsisinuati ·a shell from 

Nebraska City figured by Geinitz as Rhynchonella angulata; but I feel satisfied that 

the form figured by him is our common E. hemiplicatus, and either that some misunderstanding has produced the present confusion, or that Geinitz uses the terms 

''kleinere Schale" and "grossere Schale" as equivalent to dorsal and ventral, irrespective of the fact that in Enteletes the dorsal valve is usually the larger. 

Schellwien b points out another and more probable instance of a dorsisinuate 

form in the Mississippi Valley Pennsylvanian faunas in a shell which has several 

times been figured as E. hemiplicatus, but differs from the typical phase of that species 

in having an incipient plication on the fold and sinus. The fact of the occurrence 

of this partially developed plication in no wise obscures the real character as such 

of the fold and sinus, so that from this point of view the form in question would 

still remain a ventrisinuate type. While, on the one hand, it is possible to conceive 

of the dorsisinuates and the ventrisinuates as having sprung directly from a common 

orthoid prototype (Orthotichia?), which developed a primary fold in one instance on 

the dorsal valve and in the other on the ventral, the dorsisinuates may have come 

indirectly through the ventrisinuates by the development of a median plication on 

the fold and sinus. This has already been suggested by W aagen. c If this inflection 

of the fold of the ventrisinuate shell were carried to such a point that it equaled in 

size or exceeded the lateral plications, the real character of fold and sinus would 

be obscured and the ventrisinuate shell would become dorsisinuate, not to be distinguished from dorsisinuates derived directly from the unplicated shell, if there are 

any such. Many circumstances tend, however, to confirm the opinion that the 

a Salt Range fossils: Mem. Geol. Survey India, Pal. Indica. ser. 13, vol. 1, 1887, p. 552. 

bAbhandl. K.-k. geol. Reichsanstalt. vol. 16, part 1.1900, p. 7, footnote. 

<Salt Range fossils: Mem. Gcol. Survey India, Pal. Indica, scr. 13, vol. 1,1887, p. 562. 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 291 

dorsisinuates are derived from those having a ventral sinus, in the manner above 

indicated. In the first place, Schizophoria and Orthotichia, from which Enteletes is 

supposed to have been derived, comprise shells which with the reversal in dimensions 

of the two valves have, so far as I have been able to ascertain, the sinus and fold, 

where these structures are appreciable, on the ventral and dorsal valves, respectively. 

There is no orthoid, .so far as I am aware, which by its characters, external and 

internal, might present claims to be the ancestor of Enteletes, that has a dorsal sinus, 

and might be the stock from which the dorsisinuate group is directly derived. There 

is likewise the fact of geologic occurrence; the dorsisinuates apparently coming in 

only in the late Carboniferous or Permian, while the ventrisinuates appeared earlier. 

Waagen also calls attention to the significant fact that the geologically oldest species 

of the Salt Range is the one which is most nearly related to the American "Coal 

Measures" forms. a 

Furthermore, we have in E. lamarcki Fischer de Waldheim and the forms 

rp.ferred to E. hemiplicatus Hall, species representing the very transitionary stage 

between the two groups. Schellwien has already pointed out that the American 

form with an incipient median plication can not properly be referred to E. hemiplicatus. It occurs in association with the true E. hemiplicatus, which it so closely 

resembles in all other characters that I doubt if this new form should be given 

more than varietal rank. · 

In regard to the affinities of these shells and their position in the two groups 

recognized by Waagen, it appears that the latter author refers E. lamarcki to the 

ventrisinuates,b while Schellwien refers that species, along with the above-mentioned variety of E. hemiplicatus, to the dorsisinuates. Perhaps the logical position 

would be to refer species to the dorsisinuati on the first introduction of the plication 

on fold and sinus; but because of the obvious close relationship of one having this 

configuration to E. hemiplicatus, a ventrisinuate type, and the imperfect development of the median plication, I am disposed to retain them in the ventrisinuati. 

The fact that there is some divergence of opinion as to the group to which some.of 

the Enteletes types belong indicates how closely related are the two branches discriminated by W aagen, although they appear at :first so distinct. 

Schellwien includes in Enteletes shells which by other authors are distinguished 

as a distinct division, under the name of Orthotichia, or in some cases retained as 

Orthis pars. It will be remembered that Orthotichia was introduced by Hall and 

Clarke c for the type of orthoid structure characterizing those forms which W aagen d 

had called the group of Orthis morganiana. The introduction of a new name for 

this type was in effect the carrying out of a suggestion made by Waagen, that the· 

three groups or divisions of Orthis recognized in his' work might be of subgeneric· 

rank. The species after which W aagen named this group or division was by Hall 

and Clarke taken as the type of their Orthotichia. As pointed out by W aagen, and 

later by Hall and Clarke, this group is intermediate between Orthis (Schizophor.ia)· 

and Enteletes>· and Schellwien e has merged it with· the latter genus for the reason 

a Waagen, W .. Salt Range fossils: Mcm. Geol. Survey India, Pal. Indica, ser. 13, vol. 1, 1887, p. 557. 

b Idem, p. 562. 

cNat. Ilist. New York, Pal., vol. 8, pt. I, 1892, p. 213. 

d Op. cit.. p. 564. 

• Abhandl. K.-k. geol. Reichsanstalt, vol. lG, part l, 1900, p. 3. 
292 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

that if Orthotichia be placed with Orthis the only difference distinguishing Orthis 

from Enteletes is the absence of plications. Schellwien also points out a possible 

danger in the use of Orthotichia, which, as defined by Hall and Clarke, would include 

both shells that were in the process of evolution from Schizophoria to Enteletes and 

also such types of Enteletes as have lost their plicated surface and retain only the 

characters of the transition forms (Orthotichia proper), though a distinct intermediate stage (Enteletes) exists between them. He also remarks that although Hall 

and Clarke call Orthotichia a transitional development between Schjzophoria and 

Enteletes, the type species, Orthis morganiana, possesses the characters which he 

regards 'as distinguishing the relapsed or atavic type of Enteletes structure." He suggests that the possession of an inflated dorsal valve and closely arranged septa in the 

ventral are characteristic of the later forms, the earlier of which he refers to Orthis. 

He prefers, therefore, an unwieldy or somewhat heterogeneous grouping to one 

which tends to misrepresent fac.ts of phylogeny. This objection seems to me in some 

~egards to be well taken, for I would be far from advocating a reference to the same 

genus both of types which were developing into and of those developing out of Enteletes>· and if Orthotichia, as based on 0. morganiana, does, as suggested by Schellwien, 

stand for the latter stage, I would favor another name for that which is intermediate 

in development between Schizophoria and Enteletes. 

The objection to the use of Orthotichia, which $chellwien advances, seems to be 

academic, rather than real. According to accepted theory, species which are in 

process of evolution from Schizophoria (or Orthotichia) to Enteletes would have the 

posterior portion smooth and the marginal portions plicated. A similar line of 

reasoning would lead one to expect that in species which are reverting-from Enteletes, a condition which Schellwien thinks is manifested in Orthotichicvmorganiana, 

the shell would have to pass through an Enteletes stage, so that the-'posterior or 

median parts would be plicatcd and the lateral ones smooth. This~·condition is 

certainly not present in Orthotichia morganiana, and I do not recall haviong seen any 

specimens or figures illustrating this condition. It is conceivable, however, that 

instead of passing through an Enteletes stage the reversional tendency might manifest itself in the gradual loss of the power to fold the mantle at all stages of growth. 

·Thus this argument loses much of its force. 

Evidence based on the occurrence of species in geologic time presupposes a 

knowledge of these data and a correlation of beds so much more complete and accurate than that which we at present possess that I am disposed to accept it with much 

reserve. It may be more or less true according to our present knowledge, as urged 

by Schellwien,b that the oldest typical Enteletes are strongly plicated, while the 

faintly plicated forms are especially abundant in Permian strata, yet, at the same 

time, it is reasonable to believe that smooth and faintly plicated forms must have 

preceded those with sharply folded shells. In regard to the occuri·ence of faintly 

plicated types in the younger deposits of the Carboniferous, I do not see that it is 

possible to tell whether it is a case of persistence of the faintly plicated stock in 

association with the strongly plicated one (Enteletes) to which .it gave rise, or a 

persistence of the strongly plicatcd type with the reverted shells of faint plication 

which descended . from it. Neither hypothesis is at present susceptible of very 

a Abhandl. K.-k. gcol. Rcichsanstalt, vol. 16, part J, 1905, p. 5. bldem, p. 4. 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 293 

strong direct evidence, and as the former is more simple I am prepared to employ 

it until better reasons are adduced for supposing that any of the shells having the 

appearance Qf Orthotichia possessed Enteletes as an ancestor. 

If I und~rstand Schellwien aright, he proposes to place the intermediate species 

with Orthis ';}J.d to merge with Enteletes the relapsed ones, abolishing the name 

Orthotichia, tii.e type of which, he thinks, belongs to the latter group. My position l"! 

is somewhat. .that of an agnostic on the question of the:re being a relapsed group, 

and I doubt whether Orthotichia really belongs to it if there is orie, but I will go so 

far with Scli'~ilwien as, while recognizing Orthotichia, to place it as a subgenus of 

Enteletes rather than of Orthis. This comes in practice very near to following 

Schellwien in this matter without, however, accepting the opinions on which his 

course of action is based. · 

In the present paper seven species of Enteletes are distinguished, and they will 

be referred to as E. globosus, E. dumblei, r;. angulatus, l!:nteletes sp. a, Enteletes sp. b, 

Enteletes sp. c, and Enteletes sp. d. Of these, E. globosus belongs .to the dorsisinuati, 

and as such is of considerable interest, since Enteletes has up to the present time 

been known to be represented in North .America only by the ventrisinuati type. A 

minor subdivision of the Guadalupian ventrisinuate species, none of which seem to 

be identical with our common E. hemiplicat·us, can be made, although but provisionally, as so much of the material is fi.agmentary. 

· E. angulatus represents one group, and with it should perhaps be associated 

the well-known form of the Mississippi Valley Pennsylvanian, E. hemiplicatus; E. 

dumblei would appear to deserve- a position in a distinct group by reasori of the 

unusual character of its minute surface sculpture. The little-known types Enteletes 

sp. a, Enteletes sp. b, and bnteletes sp. d probably belong together, being characterized by having numerous small angular plications. · Enteletes sp. c probably 

represents a group by itself, and is of interest because it apparently belongs to that 

type of Enteletes which has obsolescent plications and which, appearing in special 

abundance after the strongly plicated forms had been dominant, represents, as 

Schellwien thinks, a retrogression of the genus from a plica ted to a smooth condition. 

On the assumption that the Guadalupian specimens are mature, they represent a 

stage about equal to hnteletes dieneri Schellwien and a little less unplicated thap_ 

Enteletes derbyi var. demissa Schellwien. However, young specimens of the size of 

the latter species would have been equally unplicated. If the Guadalupian form 

really does beiong to a retrograde series, its position at the base of the section is 

surprising, but may be logically connected with the entire absence of the' orthoid 

group in the Capitan formation. 

One may not be certain that some, perhaps all, of the shells forming Enteletes 

sp. c do not belong to the group of Orthotichia, or that, if grown to a larger size, they 

would not have been distinctly plicated. This uncertainty often arises when the 

specimens collected are few in number and of small size, and in surveying the literature I have come upon a number of instances in which forms that I was led to 

suspect inight be young Enteletes have been placed with Orthis or Orthotichia. In 

the present case also the uncertainty as to whether these small shells are young or 

mature, and, indeed, whether they have as immediate ancestors plicated or unplicated forms, makes it dangerous to speculate on their biologic or stratigraphic 

significance. 
294 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

In the Guadalupian section in the immediate vicinity of Guadalupe Peak the 

orthoid group is surprisingly rare. Fairly abundant in the black limestone at the 

base of the section, where it is represented by Enteletes sp. c, but one specimen has 

come to hand from the Delaware Mountain formation overlying (Enteletes sp. d), 

while in the Capitan formation the genus, and indeed the entire family, is not 

known to occur at all. In areas contiguous, and in association with faunas in some 

cases doubtfully and in others satisfactorily correlated with the Delaware Mountain 

formation, the chief collections by which this group is represented in the present 

report have been obtained. · 

There are, in almost every group of fossils, a number of poorly characterizedor one may say primitive-species, which if not actually identical the world over 

can nevertheless scarcely be discriminated in the different provinces in which they 

occur., Aside from such forms the Guadalupian Enteletes, so far as known, are more 

similar to those of the Permian ( 1) of Palermo than to other groups of species whose 

descriptions are known to me. 

DORSISINUATI. 

ENTELETES GLOBOSUS n. sp. 

PL XXX, figs. 1 and la. 

Shell rather small, globose. Ventral valve moderately convex. Dorsal valv~ 

very convex. Outline subcircular. Surface of dorsal valve marked by a broad 

sinus of moderate depth, bounded by large plications, on either side of which are 

three small plications. The plications on the ventral valve correspond, so that 

there are a median sinus and four lateral plications on the dorsal valve and a median 

fold and four lateral plications on the ventral valve. The fold and bounding furrows of the ventral valve, and the sinus and bounding ridges of the dorsal valve 

are larger ~nd more prominent than the other grooves and ridges. The superficial 

lirre appear to be rather coarse, equal, and regular; but their character has been 

obscured by silicification.\ The lirre appear to be considerably coarser than in 

Enteletes hemiplicatus. 

It is only after much hesitation that I have decided to base a new species on 

a specimen as disfigured as the one described; but it shows many important characters, though some have been obscured. This form, moreover, is one of especial 

interest, since it belongs to the group of Enteletes which W aagen has called the. 

dorsisinuati, and is probably the :first representative of this group to be noticed 

from North America. Fortunately the presence of three septalplates close together 

in one valve distinguish it immediately as the ventral, while the opposite one bears 

a median sinus corresponding to the somewhat crushed fold of the septate valve. 

This species presents a certain superficial resemblance to Enteletes mhlerti Gemmellaro,a which was first found in Sicily and has subsequently been identified by 

Schellwien b in the Carnic Alps, but it readily develops from a more careful scrutiny 

that E. mhlerti belongs to the ventrisinuati, while E. globosus is a dorsisinuate. 

a Giorn. Soc. di sci. nat. ed econ. di ·Palermo, vol. 22, 1899, p. 139. pl. 29. figs. 11-15. 

b Abhandl. K.-k. geol. Reichsanstalt, val. 16, part 1, 1900, p. 11, pl. 1, figs. 11-13. 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 295 

Among the dorsisinuati I have not found any described species with which 

E. globosus would be liable to be confused. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Comanche Canyon, Glass 

Mountains, Texas (station 3763). 

VENTRISINUATI. 

ENTELETES DUMB LEI n. sp." 

'Pl. XXVI, figs. 4 to 4b: 

Shell large, orbicular. Ventral valve moderately convex, subcircular, somewhat contracting at the hinge line; width 26 mm., length about 22 mm. The area 

is flat, except at the apex, and well defined, making an angle of about 90° with t_he 

plane of the shell margin. It is 16 mm. wide, 4! mm. high, and transected by a 

delthyrium which is 4! mm. wide at its base. The. beak is small, pointed, and 

incurved, and it overhangs the area. This valve bears a median sinus, on either 

.side of which are four subangular plications and a fifth smaller and less distinct. 

The sinus is larger than the sulci between the lateral plications. . 

Dorsal valve highly inflated. Shape like that of the ventral valve. Beak comparatively large and overhanging the low area. Surface with a median fold and 

five lateral plications, th,e outer of which is small and indistinct. 

The surface is marked by fine, radiating lirre, just visible to the naked eye. 

'They are thin and ridgelike, though low and faint, the spaces between them being 

wider than the lirre themselves. About the same number of lirre would occur in a 

given distance in this species as in E. hemiplicatus; but in the latter they are more 

distinct, broadly rounded, and with linear interspaces, while in E. dumblei they are 

thin, narrow, and with wide interspaces. 

This shell evidently belongs to the ventrisinuati group of W aagen, which 

includes also our common E. hemiplicatus, along with a large number of foreign 

species: Enteletes dumblei can be distinguished from E. hemiplicatus by its broader 

and higher cardinal area, more numerous plications, and different surface ornamentation. It is related to several foreign species, but to none more nearly than to E . 

. elegans Gemmellaro.b Gemmcllaro's figures show a strong resemblance in configura-

. tion, but whether this similarity is persistent, and whether· the Italian species pos-

·sesses the rather peculiar striation of the American one, can hardly be determined 

without a comparison of the shells themselves. 

Horizon and locality.:-Huecoa formation, Diablo Mountains, Texas, as reported 

.(station 3764). . 

ENTELETES ANGULATUS n. sp. 

Pl. XXVI, figs. 3 and 3a. 

The ventral valve is all that has been obtained of this species. It presents the 

following characters: 

Shell large, transverse, strongly inflated. Width 30 mm., length 25 mm. 

Beak small, incurved, and overhanging the area. The latter appears to be flat 

a Information obtained after this paper was in type indicates that this species and the following were obtained not 

>from the Guadalupian but from the upper beds ol the underlying Hueco formation. 

I> Gioru. Soc. di sci. nat. ed ecou. di Palermo, vol. 22, 1809, p. 141, pl. 29, figs. 0;-10. 
296 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

transversely, slightly concave longitudinally. Its width is 17 mm., its height 6 mm., .. 

and the delthyrium is 5 mm. wide at its base. There is a large median sinuswith 

three obvious and one obscure plication on each side. The sinus is somewhat 

larger than the furrows between the plications, and the sinus, furrows, and plications are strong and angular. 'The more minute surface ornamentation appears to 

resemble that of Enteletes dumblei, and to consist of narrow, obscure, threadlike lirre 

separated by comparatively broad interspaces. The convexity of this valve, in 

view of the fact that it is a ventral, is remarkable. That it is a ventral, however, is 

clearly shown by the presence of two proximate dental plates and one intermediate, 

septal plate. 

This species is especially characterized by its highly arched ventral valve, by the 

strong, large, angular plications, and also probably by the fine, narrow, and sharp· 

line which mark the surface. The character of the Iiration is not especially noted in 

many descriptions nor represented in figures, but Enteletes angulatus is distinguished. 

from most of the foreign species which, in the literature, have come to my notice, by 

the configuration of the shell, as above mentioned. It appears to be most closely 

related to certain forms from Palermo described by Gemmellaro, especially to E. 

waageni var. umbonatus.a It must remain for an actual comparison of specimens to· 

determine what are the relations between these two species. 

Enteletes angulatus should be readily separable from E. dumblei by reason of its 

fewer, stronger, and more angular plications. I regard it as distinct from E. hemiplicatus, because the ventral valve is more gi~bous, the cardinal area larger, the. 

plications stronger and more angular, and extended farther toward the beak. If the 

surface ornamentation is of the character which it appears to have, this also should 

furnish an excellent means of distinguishing the two species. 

Horizon and locality.-Hueco formation, Diablo Mountains, Texa,s, as reported 

(station 3764). '· 

ENTELETES sp. a. 

Pl. XXX, figs. 2 and 2a. ,. 

This species is represented by a fragment the general character of. which is 

shown by fig. 2 of Pl. XXX. The internal structures of this specimen Cal'). not be 

made out', but the configuration appears to be that of a ventral rather than of a 

dorsal valve. On this point, however, it is impossible to reach a satisfactory conclusion. The convexity is remarkably slight, if the shell be supposed a dorsal 

valve. The beak is rather prominent and somewhat incurved. No distinct area 

can be observed, the. curvature being uninterrupted to the point where the shell is 

terminated by a wide delthyrium. There is a median sinus and on each side of it 

three distinct plications, with possibly a fourth, which is very faint. The sinus is 

but little larger than the sulci, and the plications are subangular. The fine superficiallirre are faint, except for rather numerous and equally distributed tubular ones, 

which are prominent. The others are indistinct, even when viewed with a glass, and 

are practically invisible without.· 

If this is a dorsal valve it evidently belongs to the dorsisinuati, and E. globosus 

is the onlyGuadalupian form with which it is necessary to makecomparison. From 

a Giorn. Soc. di sci. nat. ed. econ. di Palermo, vol. 22, 1899, pl. 29, flgs. 22, 23. 
· MOLL USCOIDEA. 297 

the latter it appears to differ in having the lirro much finer and more indistinct and 

the convexity very much less. Of the other species of Enteletes here described, in 

configuration it most nearly resembles E. dumblei, but the different character of 

the liration distinguishes them at once. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware M€>untain formation, Comanche Canyon, 

Glass Mountains, Texas (station 3763). · 

ENTELETES sp. b. 

Associated with the foregoing is a fragment of what probably represents a 

distinct species. The fragment is nearly <>quare and measures 13 mm. in either 

direction. There is a median plication somewhat larger than the others. Of the 

latter, three on each side and part of the fourth arc preserved, and the incomplete 

condition and gradual curvature of the fragment indicate that there were additional ones on portions of the shell now missing. The iarger (median?) plication is 

about 6 mm. wide, the others about 4 mm., and their diminution in size within the 

limits of the shell preserved is very slight. They are well defined, but neither very 

high nor very angular. The superficiallirro are fine but strong. 

The plications and lirro are those of Enteletes rather than of Meekella; but it 

is impossible to determine whether the specimen is a dorsal or a ventral valve and 

consequently whether it belongs to the dorsisinuati or the ventrisinuati. The size 

of the fragment is considerable and the complete dimensions must have been rather 

exceptional. The shell representing Enteletes sp. a is likewise so slightly convex 

that a large.coinplete size is indicated; but the lirre in one case are faint and in the 

other distinct, so that I have felt that they should not for the present be referred 

tb the same species. The silicification of the form under consideration, however, is 

coarse and may hav~ exaggerated this character. . 

This species is probably related to E. microplocus Gemmellaro,a but is certainly 

distinct from that species by reason of its larger and presumably less numerous 

plications. The presence of a well-marked mesial plication of larger size than the 

lateral ones is also a distinguishing feature . 

. H01izon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Comanche Canyon, 

Glass Mountains, Texas (station 3763). 

ENTELETES sp. C. 

Pl. XXIV, figs. 4 to 5a; Pl. :XXVI, figs. 1 to 2b. 

In the black limestone at the base of the Guadalupe section occurs a species of 

Enteletes which deserves mention, both because of the scanty fauna at present 

known from th~t horizon and because of its biologic relations. Though the form 

is not a rare one no perfect examples have been found and for this reason, and since 

I am not sure but that certain of the peculiarities exhibited are due to immaturity, 

I have refrained from proposing a new name for what .is probably a distinct and 

undescribed species. 

All the specimens seen are small. The largest size indicated, which several 

examples approach, is 18 mm. in length and probably but little less than 25 mm. in 

'width. The configuration and striation are practically the same as in E. hemia Giorn. Soc. sci. nat. ed econ. di Palermo, vol. 22, 1899, p.l47, pl. 28, figs. 40, 46. 
'298 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

plicatus. The socket plates are also about as in that ~pecies, but there is a low 

though very distinct median septum in the dorsal valve. The ·septum and dental 

lamellre of the ventral valve do not differ materially from those of the species mentioned. The dorsal valve has a mesial fold and the ventral a corresponding sinus, 

.so that the form can be referred to the ventrisinuate group. A lateral plication on 

each side (possibly two on the ventral valve) can also be made out, but they are 

very faint. 

The faintness of the plications and the late period in the shell growth at which 

they appear are the chief features that distinguish this form from E. hemiplicatus 

in which the plications are much more strongly developed in shells of equal size. 

'The different character of the liration, and to a less degree the obsolescent plications, likewise distinguish it from E. dumblei. 

A number of faintly plica ted species of Enteletes have been described in the higher 

·Carboniferous terranes of Europe and Asia, in regard to certain of which there 

may well be some doubt as to whether they are really based on mature specimens. 

:Some of these, like E. sublrevis W aagen, belong to the dorsisinuati, but others admit 

of more or less satisfactory eomparison, so far as general appearance is eoncerned, 

with the form under consideration. This is especially true of two species from 

:Sieily described by Gemmellaro (E. tschernyschewi and E. Waageni), to one or the 

.other of which Enteletes sp. c may perhaps ultimately be referred as immature 

or partially developed individuals. . This can be ascertained, however, only by 

comparison of the specimens themselves, to determine both whether the superficial 

resemblance shown by the figures actually exists, and whether it is borne out by 

.correspondence in the more minute surface sculpture. 

A repetition of shells of this size and character in the black limestone would 

naturally be taken as indicating a mature stage. If so, they might belong either 

to the group of late Permian species whieh are supposed to be losing the plieated 

configuration of Enteletes and returning to a condition similar to Orthotichia, or, on 

the other hand, to the other group of similar appearance which is in the course of 

development from the smooth Orthotichia stage to the plicated condition of Enteletes. 

·The horizon of occurrence at the base of the Guadalupe section is somewhat surprising on one hypothesis, and the abundance of the strongly plicated Enteletes 

hemiplicat1u: in the "Coal Measures" of the Mississippi Valley almost equally difficult. 

of explanation on the other. 

With the exception of a single specimen of Enteletes from the Delaware Mountain formation, this is the only occurrence of' any branch of the family known up 

to the present time in the Guadalupe section, and the complete absence of Enteletes, 

-or, in fact, of orthoids of any sort, in the higher beds is noteworthy. 

In addition to specimens from the black limestones, on which the foregoing 

.description is based, I have subsumed under this title a dorsal and a ventral valve 

belonging to the same individual obtained in the Diablo Mountains. These specimens, whieh have unfortunately been lost since the drawings were made, are figured 

on Pl. XXVI of the present volume. Save for an indistinct folP, and sinus they are 

entirely without plications, and as they possess the internal structure of Orthotichia as well as of Enteletes, I originally referred them to the former genus. I do · 

:not, however, see that it would be possible to distinguish them from small examples 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 299 

·of the present species or some related form of Enteletes. Compared specifically 

with the form under discussion there are few differences by which they may be distinguished. The liration of. the shell from the Diablo Mountains is of the same 

general character, but much fainter than that of well-preserved specimens from 

the black limestone. This lack of distinctness, however, I suspect to be due in some 

measure to siliceous replacement. The dorsal valve is perceptibly less convex, 

but this as a rule must be regarded as a character of inferior importance. Dorsal 

valves from the black limestone, inoreover, show a distinct cardinal area, and 

though the structure is absent in the delicate silicified specimens from the Diablo 

Mountains, it may well be supposed to have bee,n broken away. These silicified 

specimens, which, as above noted, are less tumid than the others, appear to be 

related to a species described by '\Vaagen as Orthis derbyi,a and more especially to a 

variety of this described bySchellwien, with a change of generic designation, as Enteletes derbyi var. demissa.b From the latter it can probably be distinguished by being 

more nearly equivalve and by the' faintness of its striation. No specimens of the 

Eur~pean form, however, are available for comparison. The specimens from the 

Diablo Mountains occur in association with several species of Enteletes, but any one 

·of these, at the size which they have reached, would have developed lateral plicS:-

tions, no sign of which appears on the specimens under consideration. 

The specimens from the black limestone also present considerable external 

resemblance to Orthis derbyi, but like those from the Diablo Mountains they show 

within three high, thin, subparallel septa in the ventral valve, different from the 

low curved ridges surrounding the muscular imprints in the Indian species. Because 

·of these struetures the Guadalupian fossils have been placed in a different genus, 

namely, in Enteletes. 

Horizon and locality.-Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (stations 2920 and 2967). Delaware .Mountain formation, 

Diablo Mountains, Texas, as reported (station 3764). 

ENTELETES sp. d. 

Pl. XXI, fig. 23. 

From the yellow sandstones of the Delaware ~fountain formation has come 

to hand a single dorsal ( ~) valve of Enteletes whose preservation is imperfact, so 

that many characters can not be made out with certainty. It is strongly inflated 

and has a subcireular shape. The length is 20 mm. and the width, if complete, 

probably not less than 25. mm. There are certainly seven plications, and possibly 

·one or two more, and a considerable area at the sides is unplicated. The plications 

are not so large or so sharp as in E. hemiplicatus, but the liration appears to be 

·of about the same size and chara.cter. It is impossible to tell from the present 

specimen whether it belongs to the dorsisi1.·uati or to the ventrisinuati. 

This form is undoubtedly distinct from our common E. hemiplicatus, and it is 

also clearly distinct from E. globosus and E. angulatus. It has less coarse plication 

than 'E. dumblei, as well as different striation, and probably can be distinguished 

a Salt Range fossils: Mem. Geol. Survey India, Pal. Indica, ser. 13, ,-ol. 1, p. 565, pl. 56, figs. 2, 5, 6. 

b Abhandl. K.-k. geol. Reichsanstalt, vol. 16, part 1, p. 8, pl. 1, figs. 4-7. 
• 

300 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

from any of the three unnamed forms already described in this report. It most 

closely resembles the form denominated Enteletes sp. b, but in configuration is not 

dissimilar to Enteletes sp. a, differing, however, in having the lirre more distinct and 

equal, seemingly without the prominent spiniferous ones. Of foreign species, probably E. elegans Gemmellaro is most closely allied. 

I have also provisionally placed with this species some fragmentary crushed 

material from station 3501. These specimens,_if complete, would probably be of 

considerable dimensions. Two examples, showing only the apical portion, have a 

length of 16 mm. The lirre are moderately fine, rounded, and among the ordinary 

ones portions of the surface show others of greater prominence, which were doubtless 

the bases of small spines. Plications on these fragments are not very distinct, but 

small, and apparently rather numerous. On the more mature areas the plications 

were correspondingly more pronounced. This form appears to belong to the same 

group as Enteletes sp. a, Enteletes sp. b, and Enteletes sp. d. In the unequal character 

of its lirre it suggests the type constituting Enteletes sp. a. 

The general character of this form is especially suggestive of the shell from the 

Delaware Mountain formation on which Enteletes sp. dis founded, the chief .difference 

being in that the plications in the latter extend farther toward the beak. The shell 

from station 3501, however, has apparently been considerably worn. In the faint 

development of plications, at least over the umbonal area, these shells suggest the 

form fr<?m the black limestone here designated Enteletes sp. c. ·The plications are 

somewhat more distinct, and are smaller than I judge they would be in the latter 

species. 

A very young shell from station3763, the horizon of which is probably equivalent 

to some ·portion of the Delaware Mountain formation, has also been placed in this 

group. This specimen, which is of course entirely without plications, might be 

either a Schizophoria, an Orthotichia, or an Enteletes, but from the strength of the 

three septal plates I judge that it belongs to the latter genus. Its specific relations 

are of course largely speculative. . 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point, Guada-. 

lupe Mountains, Texas (station 2919). Delaware Mountain formation, Comanche 

Canyon, Glass Mountains, Texas (station 3763 ?). Delaware Mountain formation, 

southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 3501). 

Family PENTAMERIDJE McCoy. 

In the Carboniferous the family of the Pentameridre is restricted to the single 

genus Oamarophoria, and in the Guadalupian the genus is represented by but a 

. single species. Oamarophoria is much more abundant at a lower horizon (in the 

Hueconian), and it is more abundant in the Salt Range, from which· W aagen recognized no less than five species. The Guadalupian form probably belongs to what 

Waagen calls the group of 0. crumena, in which three Salt Range species are included. 

The group of 0. rhomboidea, comprising two Salt Range forms, is unknown in the 

Guadalupian. 

Diener recognized three species of Oamarophoria in the Chitichun fauna No. 1, 

of which one, identified as Oamarophoria sp. indet. aff. 0. crumena; is unlike the 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 301 

Guadalupian form. The two others, however, belong to the same general type. As 

an immature stage of 0. crumena, Diener figures a little shell which, if the same genus, 

certainly appears to belong to a different species. It is altogether different from 

the Guadalupian species of Oamarophoria, and looks as if it might be a Pttgnax of the 

general type of P. utah, etc. In his second paper on this fauna Diener cites, in 

addition to 0. purdoni var: gigantea, which is related to the Guadalupian species 0. 

venusta, Oamarophoria cf. semiplicata, possibly the same as the small specimen commented on above, and 0. globulina. The two latter are of an altogether different. 

type from 0. venusta. 

In his paper describing the Anthracolithic fossils from Kashmir and Spiti this 

author mentions only Oamarophoria cf. purdoni, related in some degree to the Guada-. 

lupian species. His later discussion of this fauna mentions only Oamarophoria 

n. sp. from the lower beds, a form not related to. 0. venusta, but makes no record of 

the genus in the upper beds. Diener cites 0. purdoni from Malla Sangcha also. 

Like the rhynchonelloids, the Pentameridro ·appear to be conspicuously rare in 

the Carboniferous faunas of China and adjacent areas. Kayser records none from 

the Lo Ping locality, and Loczy cites only Oamarophoria purdoni from the Lantsankiang Valley, among the different Chinese Carboriiferous faunas which he describes . 

. This form is related toP. venusta. Oamarophoria crumena is cited by Beyrich from 

Timor, the form illustrated being of the same general shape as 0. venusta. In his 

paper on fossils from Timor and Rotti Rothpletz cites Oamarophoria pinguis, which, 

to judge from his figures, is somewhat remotely related to the Guadalupian species. 

Tschernyschew cites 0. crumena and 0. margaritovi from Vladivostok.· 0. 

margaritovi is described as a new species and is less closely allied to 0. venusta than is, 

presumably, 0. crumena, which is not figured. 

In the Russian section Oamarophoria is represented in the Moskovian stage by 

two species, which Trautschold identifies as 0. crumena and 0. plicata. 0. crumena, 

which alone is figured, does not resemble the Guadalupian form very closely. In the 

Gschelian this type shows a remarkable differentiation, Tschernyschew recording no 

less than 15 species. The 5 species included in the group of 0. crumena show individuaUy rather wide variation. Some of the forms included there appear to be distinctly related to 0. venusta, others very slightly so. Some of them have much more 

the configuration of certain of the Guadalupian species of Pugnax. The group of 

0. applanata, which consists only of the species of that name, js also related to 

0. venusta, but the group of 0. isorhynchus, with three species, the group of 0. rhomboidea, with four, and the group of 0. sella, with two species, have little to do with 

the single known Guadalupian form. These groups show wide variations of configuration, some of which are remarkably dissimilar to 0. venusta. 0. superstes is suggestive, in configuration at least, of Pugnax bisinuata, and 0. globulina of Pugnax 

bidentata, but, so far as known, they are essentially different. 

Stuckenberg records from the Gschelian 0. plica, 0. purdoni, 0. sella, 0. biplicata, 

and 0. triplicata. Some of these forms, as already remarked, such as 0. plica and 

0. sella, are only very remotely related to 0. venusta. In some 'of the others the re~ationship is more obvious. Nikitin also records 0. purdoni from this horizon, and his 

ligures show a form in a general way comparable to the Guadalupian species. 
302 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

From the Artinsk Tschernyschew cites only 0. plica, a species belonging to a. 

different group from 0. venusta. Stuckenberg recognized 0. duplicata and 0. purdoni.from this horizon, two species which if not very closely allied to 0. venusta are 

·more so than 0. plica. One of the same forms ( 0. purdoni) is recorded from the 

Kungurstufe. 

N etschajew found six species of Oamarophoria among his Permian fossils from 

eastern Russia. C. superstes, 0. waageni, and 0. globulina are not closely allied to 

. the Guadalupian Oamarophoria venusta, but C. humbletonensis, 0. purdoni, and 

Oamarophoria cf. schlotheimi probably belong to the same 6rroup. The species last 

named is not figured, however, and Ne.tschajew's specimens of the two others were so 

poor that a trustworthy conclusion is impossible. Tschernyschew found in the Permian of the government of Kostroma only the species Camarophoria superstes, a 

form altogether dissimilar superficially to 0. venusta and having much the configuration of Pugnax bisinuata. De V erneuil in his classic work on the Russian Permian 

recognized only C. schlotheimi and 0. superstes, two species which are unlike the 

Guadalupian representatives of the genus. In configuration they suggest, respectively, Pugnax bisinuata and P. swallowiana, as I have already had occasion to 

remark, although the fact is apparently without significance save as an instance 

of parallel development. 

In a general way there is more resemblance shown between the Guadalupian 

representatives of Camarophoria and those of the Russian Permian than between the 

Guadalupian Camarophorias and those of the Russian Gschel fauna. This is perhaps due rather to negative than to positive elements-to the diminished occurrence 

of the group in the Permian and the presence of fewer forms which are very unlike 

the single Guadalupian species. The genus is better represented, both in abundance 

of individuals and different!ation into species, in the upper beds of the Hueco formation, which underlies the Guadalupian. 

Oamarophoria seems to be absent in the Armenian fauna described by Abich 

and reviewed by AFthaber, but it appears among the fossils from Balia Maaden, in 

Asia Minor, which Enderle described. Enderle identified his fossils as 0. globulina, 

and his figures do not indicate a close relationship with 0. venusta. 

Gemmellaro distinguished five species among the Silician Camarophorias, all of 

which belong to different groups from 0. venusta. Most of them have the superficial 

aspect of our American Pugnaces · (C. ajjinis of Pugnax rockymontana and some of 

the others of P. utah, P. swallowiana, etc.). 0. acuminata, however, is more like the 

Guadalupian species referred to Rhynchonella. · 

In the fauna of the Carnic Fusulina limestone Schellwien found three species of 

Camarophoria which he describes as 0. alpina, 0. sanctispiritus, and 0. latissima. 

There is no question of identity with these species, hut the Guadalupian form is of 

the same general type. · This author recognized three species also in the fauna of 

the Trogkofelschichten. In contrast to those recorded in his earlier report, the 

three Trogkofel species only remotely resemble the Guadalupian 0. venusta. 

The Dyas of Gerinany contains a considerable series of forms belonging to this 

genus all of which are included by Geinitz under the title of C. schlotheimi. Most of 

them are altogether different in general appearance from C. venusta, but a few are less 

remotely related. · 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 303· 

The Permian of England furnishes a greater variety and King recognizes three 

species. By far the most closely allied to 0. venusta is the English form identified as 

0. multiplicata. The relationship is less distinct in the case of 0. schlotheimi and 

remote in the case of 0. globulina. . 

Toula cited 0. crumena (without figures) from the south point of Spitzbergen,. 

and a little later reported the same species from the Hornsund, his figures in the 

latter case showing a form belonging to a different. group from the Guadalupian 

speetes. 

The only reference to this genus in the several works consulted which deal with. 

the Carboniferous of South America is found in Derby's account of Brazilian fossils. 

He there mentions fragments of a small species of Oamarophoria too imperfect fordescription. 

The absence of Camarophorias in the typical Pennsylvanian faunas constitutes: 

one of their marked peculiarities. The genus is somewhat sparingly represented in 

the Mississippian, but so far as known does not in the eastern region range into the 

upper beds. In the West we have Oamarophoria thera, which is different from 0. 

venusta, and Oamarophoria bisinuata, described by Shumard from the present fauna, 

which has proved to belong to an entirely different group. In the Hueco formation 

the genus is better represented than in any of the horizons and areas mentioned. 

In California and Alaska at horizons tentatively correlated with the Russian Gschelstufe, the genus is also found i'n relative abundance. 

Genus CAMAROPHORIA King. 

CAMAROPHORIA VENUSTA n. sp. 

Pl. XXXI, figs. 6 to 6c. 

Shell rather large, subtriangular. Length and breadth nearly equal. Ventral 

valve shallow. Beak elongate, pointed, slightly incurved, and ·apparently without 

deltidial plates. . Sinus moderately deep and well defined; distinguishable about 

halfway back from the front margin. There are five plications in the sinus and 

about six on either side. 

Dorsal valve strongly convex, fold moderately high and well defined, surmounted by six plications, in addition to which there are about six lateral ones on. 

each side. 

The plications are rather slender and strongly rounded or subangular. The 

lateral ones are lower, rounder, and less distinct than those on the fold and sinus. 

I have identified this species, the type of which was found in the Glass Mountains, somewhat doubtfully in an imperfect specimen from the wnite limestone of 

the Guadalupe Mountains. The chief difference to be seen at present is that the 

Guadalupe specimen has somewhat coarser and therefore fewer plications. Thisexample shows a fine large spondylium in the dorsal valve. Aside from this the 

generic position is not well determined and rests chiefly on the general expression 

and apparent relation to other species belonging to Camarophoria. 0. venusta is. 

evidently the representative of 0. purcloni and C: humbletonensis of the Salt Range 

fauna. The last-named species, it will be remembered, is found also in the Permian 

strata of England. 
304 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

Horizon and ZocaZity.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan. Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). Delaware Mountain formation, ·Comanche 

Canyon, Glass Mountains, Texas (station 3763). 

Family RHYNCHONELLID~ Gray. 

According to my present knowledge the Rhynchonellidre of the. Guadalupian 

fauna are represented by some 16 species, which have been assembled under two 

generic titles. So far as known, however, the two groups differ more in configura-

_tion than in structure. In both the ventral valve is provided with a pair of more or 

less well-developed dental plates, while the dorsal has a low but distinct median 

septum. As to configuration, however, the shells placed with Pugnax have a.few 

large plications which reach only part way to the beak, those on the sides tending 

to be obsolete. · The fold and sinus are well developed and distinctly defined, and 

occupied by more pronounced plications than the lateral ones. The forms referred 

to Rhynchonella?, on the other hand, have numerpus relatively fine plications, 

which reach quite to the beak and often increase by bifurcation. The fold and 

sinus are well developed, but by reason of the occurrence of plications on their sides 

are not always sharply defined. 

Even among the shells referred to Pugnax two rather distinct groups .are found, 

one represented typically by P. bisulcata, with very gibbous growth, subcircular outline, and rounded, almost obsolete plications, the other with triangular or pentagonal 

outline and ribs sharp and strong, especially on the fold, though not persistent. 

W aagen distributed his Salt Range rhynchonelloids among the genera Terebratuloidea (4 species), Vncinulus (3 species), and Rhynchonella (3 species). It .would 

thus appear that the only generic group whidt is shared by the Guadalupian fauna 

is Rhynchonella, the Salt Range fauna being without Pugnax and the Guadalupian 

without Terebratuloidea and Vncinulus~· nor can it be said that the specific development of Rhynchone.lla in the two faunas shows much parallelism. 

In his first paper on the Chitichun fauna No. 1, Diener recognizes only one species 

of rhynchonel.loid, which he identifies as Vncinulus timorensis. Nothing yet known 

in the Guadalupian appears to be related to this. His later paper on this fauna cites 

Terebratuloidea cf. depressa and Uncinulus jabiensis, neither of which from our 

present knowledge can be correlated with any Guadalupian species. 

Diener did not find any representatives of this family among the collections on 

which was based his paper describing the Anthracolithic fossils from Kashmir and 

Spi~i, but Davidson described three species from Kashmir under the titles Rhynchonella pleurodon var. davreuxiana, R. barusiensis, and R. lcashmiriensis. The latter 

may be compared with the Guadalupian speciesPugnax pinguis and the form which 

I have identified asP. osagensis, but the two other species do not possess related types 

in the Guadalupian. In a later paper on the Spiti Anthracolithic fossils Diener cites 

Rhynchonella confinensis and Rhynchonella cf. wynnei from the lower beds, but no 

species from the upper. R. confinensis more closely res.embles some of our Mississippian species of Oamarophoria than any Guadalupian form, and Rhynchonella cf. 

wynnei also seems to be without any closely related Guadalupian species. The same 

author among his fossils from Mall a Sangcha recognized Vncinulus timorensis, V. jabi-
MOLLUSCOIDEA, 305 

ensis, and Rhynchonella sp. indet. ex aff. R. hofmanni, none of which, however, appears 

to be allied to Guadalupian species. 

From Turkestan Romanowsky -recognized four rhynchonelloids, which he distinguished as Rhynchonella daleidensis Roem., R. turanica n. sp., and two species 

undetermined. One of the latter suggests by its form a Pugnax related toP. swallowiana and P. osagensis, but the three, other species appear to be unrelated to 

anything in the Guadalupian. 

A brief eonsideration of the Carboniferous faunas of the Salt Range and of the 

Himalaya, and of the probably older (in part, at least) faunas of Turkestan, shows 

that they have no very close resemblance to the Guadalupian fauna in point of 

the Rhynchonellidre. 

Kayser found no representatives of the Rhynchonellidre among his fossils from 

·Lo Ping, but Loczy cites Uncinulus timoren.<:is from the Lantsankiang Valley. The 

general appearance of this form, as presented by his figures, is not unlike some of the 

forms which I have referred to Rhynchonella (such as R. indentata and R. longceva), 

but presumably they are not essentially related. 

Roemer cites Rhynchonella cf. R. pleurodon from the west coast of Sumatra, and 

Beyrich describes Rhynchonella timorensis from Timor. The last-named species in 

its configuration strongly suggests a relationship with the form from the black limestone, which I have described as Pugnax? nitida. Subsequent authors, however, 

have placed Beyrich's species in the genus Uncinulus, to whieh group, even as it was 

defined by Vi aagen, the Guadalupian shell probably does not belong. Furthermore, 

Rothpletz's figures of this species in his paper on the fauna of Timor and Rotti 

do not so much resemble P. nitida. This author cites from Timor and Rotti, in 

addition to Uncinulus timorensis, a species which he describes as Rhynchonella 

wichmanni. It appears to be related toR. indentata and R. longceva. 

The Rh_ynchonellidre of this geographical group of faunas also do not show 

much affinity with the Guadalupian representatives of the family. Rhynchonelloids seem in fact to be rather rare and to be lacking in many of the characteristic 

Guadalupian types. An American paleontologist would perhaps be especially struck 

by the absence in these faunas and in those of India of any representatives of the type 

so characteristic of the Pennsylvanian of North America, which is commonly identified 

as Pugnax 1ltah. 

Only two Rhynchonellas are mentioned by De Koninck in his account of the 

Carboniferous faunas of New South Wales .. One of these seems to belong in the 

earlier horizon and the other has been shown to be a Dielasma. 

The only rhynchonelloids which are recorded by Etheridge from the "PermoCarboniferous" of Queensland and New Guinea are Rhynchonella pleurodon and 

Rhynchonella sp. indet., the latter not figured. 

In comparing the Guadalupian Rhynchonellidre with those of the Russian section it has seemed best to disregard such references as are unaccompanied with 

descriptions, and especially with :figures. This course was judged advisable, not only 

because owing to the great variability of these shells very different types have sometimes passed as the same species, but also because there is very little uniformity, even 

in the generic terminology. 

3G95-No. 58-08--20 
306 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

Trautschold in his monograph on the Moskovian fauna recognized only one 

species of rhynchonelloid, if we may suppose the two forms placed with Camarophoria 

to be really members of the Pentameridre. The species identified as Rhynchonella 

pleurodon is presumably a Pugnax, and, if so, appears to be more nearly allied to 

P. shumardiana than to any other Guadalupian representative of this group. 

In the Gschelian fauna Tschernyschew refers his rhynchonelloi~s to the genera 

Rhynchonella (3 species), Terebratuloidea (2 species), Pugnax (8 species), Vncinulus 

(1 species), and Rhynchopora (3 species). This fauna contains many for.ms that 

are not found in the Guadalupian~in the present case representatives of the genera 

Terebratuloidea, Vncinulus, and Rhynchopora. Some of Tschernyschew's figures 

of Vncinulus wangenheimi suggest the forms here placed with Rhynchonella, but I 

am unable to refer the Guadalupian shells to Vncinulus. The three species which 

Tschernyschew refers to Rhynchonella are not very similar to those which I have. 

placed with that genus, appearing in fact in one case to resemble superficially some 

of the Guadalupian Pugnaces. R. granulum at least suggests Pugnax? pusilla of 

the present work. 

A number of Tschernysehew's species of Pugnax appear to be related to the 

Guadalupian forms referred toP. swallowiana and P. osagensis. Such are P. osagensis, P. swallowiana, P. kayseri, Pugnax sp., and Pugnax n. sp. P. connivens is in 

part comparable toP. bidentata, but it almost appears as if two species were figured 

under that name. P. keyserlingi and P. granum have no known representatives in 

the Guadalupian fauna, while, on the other hand, the group of P.? bisulcata, together 

with P. nitida and probably also P. ~humardiana,. P. elegans, and P. pinguis, as 

well as the Guadalupian Rhynchonellas, have no corresponding forms in the Russian 

fauna. 

Nikitin cites among the Rb;ynchonellidre only Rhynchopora nikitini from the 

Gschelian horizon and Stuckenberg only Rhynchopora nikitini and R. variabilis. 

From the Artinsk Stuckenberg records Rhynchopora nikitini and Rhynchonella 

sp. (not figured), and from the Kungurstufe Rhynclwpora variabilis. Tsehernyschew 

cites from the Artinsk only Rhynchopora nikitini and Rhynchonella hofmanni (not 

figured). The only Rhynchonellas cited by Krotow in his paper on the Artinsk 

fauna are Rhynclwnella pugnus, Rhynchopora pleurodon, and Rhynchopora geinitziana. None of the identification~:> i:s figured and it would be hazardous to do more 

than again recall that two at least of the species belong to a genus which is absent 

f~:om the Guadalupian fauna. 

In the Permian of the Government of Kostroma the only rhynchonelloid found 

by Tschernyschew is identified as Rhynchopora geinitziana, and in the Permian of 

eastern Russia Rhynchopora nikitini. The same species are recorded by N etschajew. 

Considered as a whole the Guadalupian rhynchonelloids are not closely related 

to those of the Russian section, but are nearest to those of the Gschelian zone. In 

the Russian Permian the only genus representing the Rhynchonellidre appears to 

be Rhynchopora, a type whose absence from the Guadalupian fauna is rather remarkable. The Guadalupian species called Pugnax pinguis suggests Rhynchopora in its 

configuration, but appears to have an impunctate shell. Rhynchopora and Rhynchonella, one species of which (Rhynchonella hofmanni) has no corresponding Guadalupian form, seem to constitute the entire rhynchonelloid development of the Artinsk. 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 307 

Even in the fauna of the Gschelstufe the resemblance to the Guadalupian consists 

principally in the presence of certain types of Pugnax related to P. osagensis, P. 

swallowiana, etc. At the same time it contains generic groups ( Uncinulus, Terebratuloidea, and Rhynchopora) not found in the Guadalupian, besides types of Rhynchonella and Pugna.x which are not known there. On the other hand, the Rhynchonellas of the Guadalupian are not closely related to the Gschelian representatives of that genus,. while several types of Pugnax found here, such as P. bisulcata, 

P. nitida, and P. pinguis, are not known in the Russian fauna. 

Among the fossils from Djoulfa, in Armenia, Abich recognized Rhynchonella 

pleurodon, and fig,ured two somewhat different specimens under that title. One of 

them suggests the Guadalupian species which I have described as Pugnax pinguis. 

The other also has somewhat the same resemblance. The latter, but not the former, 

was subsequently included by Arthaber in his work on this fauna, in the species 

Uncinulus wichmanni. Arthaber's figures, however, remind one somewhat of the 

Guadalupian Pugnax nitida. Arthaber also cites Uncinulus jabiensis, figuring two 

specimens which certainly do not appear to be the same species. Superficially the 

larger of the two specimens so identified somewhat resembles Pugnax shumardiana 

and the smaller P.? pusilla. 

The only rhynchonelloid from Asia Minor which Enderle recognized in his paper 

on the fauna of Balia Maaden is cited by him as Rhynchonella cf. triplex .McCoy. 

In configuration it ·is suggestive of the Pugnaces, and Nay be compared, in this 

particular, at least, especially to P. elegans. ~ 

Gemmellaro referred his rhynchonelloids of the Fusulina limestone of Palermo 

to the genera Rhynchonella, Uncinulus, and Terebratuloidea, the former comprising 

7, the second 3, and the ·latter 1 species. Gemmellaro's Rhynchonellas seem to 

belong to two groups, one of which is certainly very suggestive of the forms which 

I have placed with Pugnax, and the other of those which I also have called Rhynchonella. His Rhynchonella negrii, R. sosiensis, and R. adrianensis appear to be 

related to. the Guadalupian shells cited as Pugnax swallowiana, P. bidentata, and P. 

osagensis. Rhynchonella withei resembles, though certainly rather remotely, P. 

nitida. Rhynchonella salinasi, however, rather suggests Rhynchonella indentata of 

the Guadalupian, but Rhynchonella carapezzce probably has no corresponding form. 

Rhynchonella acuminata, also, has no Guadalupian species at all related, so far as I 

am aware, nor does the Sicilian fauna contain species which are really close to. P. 

bisulcata, P. bisulcata var. seminuloides, and P. nitida, or possibly also to P. pinguis 

and P. shumardiana. 

None of the Guadalupian rhynchonelloids can, in my opinion, be properly 

referred to the genus Uncinulus, but some of the Sicilian species of Uncinulus show 

a superficial resemblance to some of the Guadalupian species of Rhynchonella and 

Pugnax-e. g., Uncinulus amor to Pugnax? nitida; Uncinulus velifer and Uncinulus 

siculus to Rhynchonella indentata, R. longceva, etc. This is not true of the Sicilian 

species of Terebratuloidea, for there is nothing in the Guadalupian similar to it. 

In his paper on the fauna of the Carnic Fusulina limestone Schellwien recognizes two species of rhynchonelloids which he refers to the genus Rhynchonella 

itself. One of these, R. grandirostris, has the general expression of the genus PU(Jnax 

and may be related to the Guadalupian types referred to P. · swallowiana and P: 
.. 

308 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

osagensis. The other species is unlike anything at present known from the Guada· 

lupian beds. 

The rhynchonelloids of the Trogkofelschichten are referred by Schellwien to the 

genera Uncinulus, Rhynchonella, Pugnax, and Terebratuloidea. The single representative of Uncinulus in this fauna, U. vel~fer, suggests by its configuration the 

.Guadalupian shells referred to Rhynchonella. Schellwicn's Rhynchonella confinensis, 

as already remarked, has no species in the Guadalupian at all related. The two. 

species representing the group of Rhynchonella pleurodon~R. wynnei and Rhynchonella aff. sosiensis~have somewhat the expression of the Guadalupian Pugnax 

osagensis and P. pinguis. Only one Trogkofel form has been referred to Pugnax. It 

is related to the Guadalupian species of the type of P. swallowiana, but it is especially semblable toR. shumardiana. In configuration, at all events, the two Alpine 

species of Terebratuloidea are less unlike the Guadalupian rhynchonelloids than 

most of the foreign representatives of that genus. They have somewhat the expression of the Guadalupian Pugnax swallowiana, P. osagensis, etc. 

The relationship between Schellwien's fauna and that from the Guadalupe 

Mountains seems to me rather slight. One can not but be struck by the differentiation in the American fauna of shells of the type of P. osagensis, and their relative 

scarcity in that of the Carnic Alps. The latter has also nothing to compare with P. 

bisulcata, P. nitida, etc., and but little apparently to be correlated with the Guadalupian Rhynchonellas. On the other hand, the Guadalupian fauna is without Terebratuloidea, flnginulus, etc. The Guadalupian rhynchonelloids appear to me more 

closely allied to those of Palermo, and yet the correspondence in this group of shells 

is not particularly striking. 

Gortani cites the Pennsylvanian species Rhynchonella osagensis from the Carnic 

Alps. It is not figured, but is presumably related to Pugnax osagensis and P. swallowiana of the present :(auna. 

In the German Dyas the only rhynchonelloid recorded by Gei.11.itz is referred to 

Rhynchopora geinitziana Vern. In the reduction of .the rhynchonelloid representation practically to this genus the Dyas resembles the typical Russian Permian, while 

in the English Permian, so far as King's monograph is conclusive, the entire group 

is wanting. In this respect, as in certain others, the Guadalupian fauna presents a 

distinct point of difference from either of these Permian facies. 

· Among the fragmentary faunas described from Spitzbergen the only mention of 

representatives of this family which I have come upon are Rhynchonella cf. pleurodon 

from Axel Island and Rhynchonella sp. indet. from the cape between the two arms 

of North Fjord. These two forms are closely related, perhaps the same species, but 

it is doubtful if they have any corresponding Guadalupian types. Toula cites the 

same species, but without figures, from Nova Zembla. 

. Stache found Rhynchonella cf. trilatera and Rhynchonella aff. carringtonensis at 

two stations in the West·Sahara, but the associated faunas are probably older, arid 

the forms themselves, at all events, have little in common with any Guadalupian 

species. 

Salter cites from Bolivia a species of Rhynchonella which he compares to R. 

pleurodon. It is probably a Pugnax, and at all events has a configuration which 

~uch resembles that of P. shumardiana, P. swallowiana, and P. osagensis. Under 

the title of Rhynchonella pleurodon Toula also cites a similar species from Bolivia . 
MOLL USCOIDFlA. 309 

Its relations appear to be with the same group of species, perhaps with P. 

shumardiana. 

The only rhynchonelloid found by Derby among his. Brazilian species was 

described as new, under the title Rhynchonella pipira. From certain characters set 

down in his description it seems likely that this form belongs to the group of shells 

for which Waagen and a number of European authors have employed the term 

Uncinulus. This group appears to be unrepresented in the Guadalupian fauna. In 

a general way Rhynchonella pipira might perhaps be compared to Pugnax pinguis 

of the Guadalupian, and perhaps to other forms, but probably none of them is 

closely related to it. 

If we eliminate certain western species, especially those which have been 

described from the fauna under consideration, and a few forms from the Mississippi 

Valley described without figures and consequently pretermitted except in catalogues 

and bibliographies, the upper Carboniferous or Pennsylvanian rhynchonelloids of 

North America, so far as lmown, resolve themselves into four groups representing 

two generic types. Rhynchopora illinoisensis is rather rare, and Pugnax rockymontana is also seldom found. The only species which can be looked for at this 

horizon to appear frequently and in abundance is the form, or group of forms, for 

which the name Pugnax utah Marcou is most often used. A related species is the 

form which Hall and Clarke have incorrectly identified as Pugnax swal/owiana. 

The genus Rhynchopora is unknown in the .Guadalupian fauna, and Pugnax rockymontana, or any form like it, does not occqr there. Species related to P. osagensis 

and P. swallowiana, however, form nearly the most abundant rhynchonelloid type. 

On the other hand, the group of P. osagensis presents modifications not found in the 

Pennsylvani~p. fauna, such as appear in the species P. bidentata, P. shumardiana, P. elegans, P. pusilla, and P. pinguis, nor is anything at all resembling P. 

bisulcata, P. bisulcata var. seminuloides, or Rhynchonella indentata, R. longEf3va, etc., 

. known from 'the Pennsylvanian. Except for a few species of very wide dispersion, 

of the general type of P. utah (P. osagensis), therefore, the Guadalupian Rhynchonellidre and those of the Pennsylvanian have nothing in common and a great' deal 

which is peculiar to each. 

Genus PUGNAX Hall and Clarke. 

In all, 12 Guadalupian species have been referred to this genus, and they comprise two rather distinct types. One of these is exemplified by our common PugnfJIX 

osagensis (P. utah auctorum). It has a few strong angular plications, which as a 

rule extend only about halfway back from the margin. In the other group the 

plications are fainter and stillmore marginal, practically obsolete on the sides and 

obsolescent on the fold and sinus. In this latter group are included only Pugnax 

bisulcata, P. bisulcata var. seminuloides, and P. bisulcata var. gratiosa. The eight 

remaining species belong to the group of P. utah, but even among these some sort of 

subdivision can be effected. P. pinguis· and P. pusilla are distinguished from the 

six other species by the more rounded and persistent nature of the ribs, but the 

form identified asP. osagensis is intermediate in some degree and these two groups 

are not as distinct from one another as is the group of P. bisulcata from either of 

them. 
310 THE GUADALUPIAN J<'AUNA. 

Structurally these groups, so far as I have ascertained, present but slight differences from one another or from the series of species which I have placed with the 

genus Rhynclwnella sensu stricto. In all these forms there are present two welldeveloped dental plates, and in the dorsal valve a low but distinct median septum. 

The upper Carboniferous Pugnaces, like P. osagensis, have a better developed dorsal 

septum than is generally credited to them, so that in this particular, as well as in 

configuration, no disagreement is evinced with the Pennsylvanian forms. One 

structural difference seems to exist between the shells of the group of P. osagensis 

and those of P. bisulcata and its allies, namely, the less extensively developed and 

differently shaped hinge plate of the latter; and I am not sure but that this circumstance, taken in connection with the difference in configuration, would have made 

it warrantable to assign them to different genera. 

The shells referred to Rhynchonella have, so far as ascertained, similar internal 

structures to those placed with Pugnax. The singular feature observed in one 

example of Rhynchonella of a perforated hinge plate may serve as an index of other 

differences that will be manifest when the two types are perfectly known. Externally the Guadalupian Rhynchoncllas are distinguished by having numerous fine, 

sometimes bifurcating plications, which extend quite to the beak, instead of a few 

large incomplete ones. These differences, although of configuration . alone, arc 

sufficiently marked to render the relationship of species entirely unambiguous. 

The Guadalupian shells referred to Pugnax seem to be distinct from many of 

the different rhynchonelloid genera which have been discriminated in the Carbonif-

·crous faunas of Asia and Europe. They are without the punctate shell structure of 

Rhynchopora. They have l~ss persistent plications than Terebratuloidea, lack the 

truncated beak and round foramen of that genus, and possess different internal 

structures, since they have a median septum and dental plates. 

From Vncinulus they differ in having much fewer and larger ribs, which are 

not furrowed along the top. Internally the structure appears to be about the same, 

save that the Pugnaces do not possess the thickened ventral shell near the septum 

far from the apex of the ventral valve. 

Rhynchonella as usually identified comprises shells having a similar mternal 

organization but finer, more numerous, and more persistent plications. There is 

not entire uniformity among authors in the usage of these terms, however, especially · 

in that of Rhynchonella. Gemmellaro, for instance, includes in that genus forms 

which seem to me to have the general expression of Pugnax. 

' 

PuGNAX ~ BISULCATA Shumard. 

Pl. XXI, figs. 11 to 12. 

1858. Camarophoria (?) biHulcata. Shumard, Trans. Aead. Sci. St. Louis, vol. 1, p. 296 (date of 

volume, 1860). 

Dark Permian limestone: Guadalupe Mountains; conglomerate at the mouth of Delaware Creek: 

1859. Camarophoria bisulcata. -Shumard, idem, p. 394, pl. 11, figs. 2a to 2d. 

Dark and white [Permian] limestone: Guadalupe Mountains; conglomerate at the mouth of 

Delaware Creek. 

Shell variable, outline varying from nearly circular io subpentagonai, with angles obtusely rounded, 

sometimes very gibbous and sometimes moderately so, usually a little transverse, sides always rounded, 

front sinuate; shell structure fibrous. Ventral or receiving valve very depressed, gently convex, 
MOLL USCOIDBA. 311 

greatest convexity near the beak; cardinal margins forming an obtuse ang~e; mesial sinus broad at the 

front, scarcely reaching the middle of the valve, shallow or rather deep, perfectly smooth or bearing 

from two to five obscure, munded ribs; tongue of sinus moderately produced, broadly truncate at extrem· 

ity, and curved upward, sometimes at nearly a right angle with the general surface of the valve; beak 

imperforate, pointed, in curved nearly in contact with the opposite valve. Dorsal valve strongly rounded 

in most specimens, much more gibbous than the opposite valve, ~arked with a broad, shallow depression 

or false sinus extending from beak to front, which is bounded on either side by a ridge very obscure on 

the rostral half of the shell, but forming together a broad mesial fold to~vard the front, which is smooth, 

or marked with two or more slightly prominent plications; beak rounded, obtuse, extremity usually 

hidden by the beak of the opposite valve. 

Dimensions of an average specimen: Length, 0.58; width, 0.63; height, 0.35. 

Resembles Terebratttla Sttperstes Verneuil, from whi~h it is distinguished by the greater convexity 

of the dorsal valve and its more flattened ventral valve. 

Restricted to the dark limestone of Permian age at the base of the white limestone of the Guad~lupe 

Mountains; found also abundantly in the conglomerate at the mouth of Delaware Creek, New Mexico. a 

Shumard's description, which is quoted in full above, includes three varieties, 

two of which I shall describe as new, under the names Pugnax? bisnlcata var. seminuloides, and P.? bi.sulcata var. gratiosa. As indicated by our collections, the variety 

seminuloides is by far the more abundant; but because Shumard figured only the 

plicated form I retain for it the name originally applied to all three. So similar are 

the three varieties in general appearance, however, that it becomes necessary to 

modify Shumard's description but little, in spite of the shells which have been with-

. drawn from it. I propose to restrict P.? bisulcata to shells having the fold marked 

by four or five· narrow plieations, and to use the varietal names seminuloides and 

gratiosa for those in which the fold is unplicated and marked by two or three broad 

plications, respectively. 

The shape of P .? bisulcata is usually subcircular, and somewhat transverse. The 

ventral valve is rather shallow, the dorsal frequently very gibbous. The ventral 

beak is small and strongly incurved, not erect, as represented in Shumard's figures. 

The fold is high, but its limits are not sharply defined, and it can be observed only a 

short distance back from the front. From three to five plications have been noted 

on the fold, and a corresponding number on the sinus. I scarcely understand 

Shumard's description of the dorsal valve as having a shallow false sinus. My 

specimens, which are, unfortunately, somewhat crushed, show no peculiarity of this 

sort. The sides arc apparently smooth, although very ra,rely a few evanescent ribs 

oceur on either side near the fold. 

Shumard remarks on the occurrence: ''This species was found very abundantly 

in the dark limestone beneath the white limestone of the Guadalupe Mountains and 

very sparingly in the white limestone. It is also quite common in the conglomerate 

at the mouth of Delaware Creek, Texas."b My material is entirely from the'' dark 

limestone," though I have a single specimen of the variety seminuloides from the 

white limestone. I shall discuss the generic position of the species when considering 

this variety, of which my material is more abundant. 

The forms assembled under this title are, by applying the same fundamentum 

divisionis which is used in other rhynchonelloids, susceptible of division into a number of species or varieties. Some have lateral plications and some none, while a good 

a Trans. Acad. Sci. St, Louis, vol. 1, 1856-1860, p. 296. b Idem, p. 394. 
312 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

deal of variation (shown hy tbe illustrations to some extent) is manifested in the 

number, size, and sharpness of the plications. For the present, however, it seems 

best, while not ignoring these differences, to make them the basis of varietal names 

only. 

Horizon and locality.~"Dark limestone," Pine Spring, Guadalupe Mountains, 

Texas (station 2930). 

PuGNAX? BISULCATA var. GRATIOSA n. var. 

Pl. XXI, figs. 10 to lOc. 

This variety is associated with typical P.? bisulcata, and resembles it closely in 

most particulars. The chief di!Terence, as in the variety seminuloides, concerns the 

plications on the fold and sinus. The present variety, as based on the typical specimen, h~s three obscure, broad plications on the fold; P.? bisulcata has four or five 

narrow ones; and P.? bisulcata var. seminuloides has none at all. 

That Shumard included the present variety in the description of his Rhynchonella bisulcata there can be little doubt, but his figures seem intended to depict the 

variety of which the original of my fig. 12 of Pl. XXI is a representative specimen. 

I think that the latter may be regarded as the typical variety, and that the name 

bisulcata may be restricted to it. It seems hardly desirable, however, to include the 

form represented by fig. 10 without any dis.tinction under Shumard's species, and 

I have accordingly discriminated it as a ,variety. 

Horizon and locality.-"Dark limestone," Pine Spring, Guadalupe Mountains, 

Texas (station 2930). 

PUGNAX? BISULCATA var. SEMINULOIDES n. var. 

Pl. XXI, figs. 13 to 16; Pl. XXIX, fig. 9?. 

Shumard, as already remarked, includes this form with Pugnax? bisulcata. 

When well-marked examples are kept in view it would seem that surely here must be 

two distinct species. On the other hand, the plications of P.P bisulcata become so 

faint in some specimens that the probability of complete intergradation must be 

admitted. :Nevertheless, one is seldom at a loss, if a specimen is at all well preserved, in assigning it to one group or the other. On this account, while refraining 

from giving both forms full specific rank, as I was at first disposed, it seems to me 

best to distinguish the unplicated one as a distinct variety. So close is the resemblance in general configura.tion of the variety seminuloides to Shumard's species that 

no separate description is nece;ssary, the discriminating feature being the absence 

of plication on the fold or, indeed, anywhere on the shell. There seems to be a 

tendeney, likewise, for the fold to be broader, lower, and with less sharply defined 

limits, though this is not invariably the case. A gentle mesial depression is sometimes present, which has perhaps been described by Shumard as a false sinus in the 

dorsal valve of this species. I have not observed it in all nor even in a majority of 

the specimens, and it appears to be very occasional in its oceurrence .. 

The ventral beak in mature exampleR is small and strongly incurved. In one 

young specune~, in which the convexity of both vulves is slight, and possibly in 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 313 

others, the beak is erect and there is a small area, probably with deltidial plates. A 

preparation exhibiting the interior, referred to this variety merely because it is more 

abundant than the nominal form, shows the presence of a long, slender, but low 

median septum in the dorsal valve and two dental plates in the ventral. The dental 

plates arc thin. Their collocation is so far apart and their direction so divergent 

that they are at no point far from the apical walls, and in a specimen preserved in 

any other way might readily escape. notice. The hinge plate is small and scarcely 

deserves the name, consisting of but little more than a thickening of the margin 

between the two dental sockets. The crura are short and strongly curved. They 

originate close together and rapidly diverge. At first they are directed nearly 

parallel to the plane of the valves, but later their curvature brings their tlirection 

nearly at right angles to it. 

The structure of the area shown by the young specimen previously described is 

suggestive of Terebratuloidea, but the shell in that genus is plicated, the beak erect 

in mature forms not small and appressed, and the ventral valve is without dental 

plates. The internal structures are not far from those of Rhynchonella but this 

shell has no false area and has an incmved and appressed ventral beak 

The configuration of this and the related varieties is suggestive of p,J,qnax, and 

especially of those species which occur in the earliest Carboniferous time, no less 

in the general absence of plications than in the incurved beak. From the type 

represented by Pugnax osagensis they differ in these same characters. On the inside, 

however, they have a low septum and in this respect are much more like P. osagensis 

than the early Mississippian forms. The large indented hinge plate of Pugnax and 

Hypothyris is lacking. This form is not therefore in complete agreement with any 

of the three genera with which it appears most closely allied, and probably the institution of a new group would be justified did not the multiplicity of varitttion in . 

exterior and structure shown by these forms demand a more extended investigation 

than I am able to undertake. 

This variety and the species to which it is related are rather abundant in the 

"dark limestone," but only one specimen, which represents the variety, has so 

far come to hand from the Capitan formation. From this fact and from the litho!- . 

ogy I um led to entertain some suspicion of the eorrectness of the loeality label. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 

2926); "dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (stations 

2965, 2969, 3500). 

PuGNAX NITIDA n. sp. 

Pl. XXIV, figs. 15 to 15c. 

Shell small, transverse, subpentagonal. Ventral valve shallow over the poste-· 

rior portion, strongly upturned in the anterior, which includes nothing but the 

smus. The latter is broad and shallow. Its limits are not well marked over the 

posterior half. It is, however, defined along the margin by an angulation, the extension in front of which makes up all the anterior half of the. shell. Beak small and 

erect 0). 
314 THE GUADALUPIAN l!'AUNA. 

Dorsal valve very transverse, nearly flat longitudinally, strongly arched transversely. · Fold broad and high, not well defined, except along the margin, where 

there is a sharp upturning of the edge. The fold and sinus contain five or six 

plications, which are very indistinct at the margins and can not be seen at all 

farther back. . There are no lateral plications, unless the indistinct grooves on the 

dorsal valve and the ridges on the ventral by which the fold and sinus are defined 

be considered as such. 

The internal structures, so far as ascertained, consist of two dental plates in 

the ventral valve and a median septum in the dorsal. The generic identification, 

therefore, is not well established, but is probably li1nited to Pugnax and Camarotcechia. ·The configuration, however, is distinctly that of Pugnax. 

The general appearance of the species is such as to lead one to imagine it the 

ancestor of the Pugnax? bisulcata group of the "dark limestone," but it is not yet 

safe to assert that they belong to the same genus. I have not seen in the literature any other species with which it is necessary to compare this one, though some 

of the figures of Camarophoria globulina given by Davidson resemble it. 

Horizon and locality.-Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Poil1t, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2920). 

PUGNAX SWALLOWIANA Shumard. 

Pl. XV, figs. 8 to 12d; Pl. XXI, figs. 17 to 19 ?. 

1859. Camerophoria Swalloviana. Shumard, Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, vol. 1, p. 394, pl. 11, figs. 1a 

to 1c (date of volume, ~860). 

White Permian limestone; Guadalupe Mountains, Texas and New Mexico. 

1897. Pugnax swallovana. Schuchert, Bull. U. S. Geol. Survey No. 87, p. 295. 

Shell small, subpentagonal, flattened or quite gibbous, width equal to or greater than the length, 

widest ncar the front. Dorsal valve much more elevated than the ventral, but degree of elevation 

very variable; in some specimens a distinct depression in front of the beak, and sometimes one on 

either side forming two small lobes; mesial fold rising ~ear the middle of the shell and becoming 

prominent in front, variable in width and height according to the number of ribs. Surface marked 

(in the specimen figured) with seven prominent subangular ribs, which commence about the middle 

of the valve and extend to the front; of these, three arc situated on the mesial fold, and two on either 

side. Ventral valve gently rounded on the umbo, and marked on either side by a depression, which 

extends from the beak to the middle of the lateral edges; mesial sinus confined to the anterior half of 

the shell, broad in the middle and becoming narrow at the extremities, ornamented with two or more 

rounded plications, which are not as prominent as those limiting the sinus; beak elongated, sharply 

pointed, and slightly curved; shell structure distinctly fibrous. 

This species is very variable in its characters. Some examples are extremely gibbous, and others 

much flattened. The ribs on the sides are quite distinct in some specimens and nearly obsolete in 

others. This species resembles in many respects C. globulina of Phillips, but it may be distinguisl;wd 

easily by its more elongated and sharply pointed beak and the less angular form of its ribs. 

Dedicated to Prof. G. C. Swallow, State geologist of Missouri. 

Formation and locality.-Permian rocks of the Guadalupe Mountains in Texas and New Mexico. 

It is one of the most abundant and characteristic species of the upper white limestone. 

The foregoing is the original description of this species, which is one of the 

common forms in the Capitan limestone. Shumard calls attention to many of 

the variations, and they are quite as numerous as in its congener P. osagensis. 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 315 

The shape varies from subtriangular to pentagonal. There are usually three plications on the fold and two in the sinus, but in rare examples only two are found 

on the fold and one in the sinus. In a number of specimens the median plication 

is lower than those on each side of it. Of the lateral plications there arc often 

three on each side, the final one being faint, especially on the dorsal valve, but 

sometimes only two appear to have been developed. The plications are usually 

high and angular, but are sometimes lower and rounded, the lateral ones being as 

a rule weaker than those on the fold and sinus. This tendency is carried so far in 

one specimen that thougl{ plainly marked by teeth on the li:ne of junction the 

sides are entirely unplicated. Some of the specimens are explanate and have a 

triangular shape. Others are more contracted, globular, and with an acuminateovate form. Between these all gradations occur. As a rule the globular specimens have faint, rounded plications al).d the explanate high, sharp ones. I do not, 

however, at present regard these variations as deserving recognition. 

The internal structures of this species consist of two short, stout dental plates 

in the ventral valve and a distinct though low septum in the dorsal. There is no 

spondylium, and Shumard's reference of the species to Camarophoria is evidently a 

mistake. The external characters are strongly those of our common Pugnax 

osagensis, so much so that there is some doubt of the validity of Shumard's species. 

I retain P. swallowiana, however, because of its different faunal association, its 

larger size, and its plications, which are for the most part not so deep, while of those 

on the fold the central one tends to be smaller than the others. Furthermore, the 

septum is usually stronger. P. osagensis also frequently has a septum in the dorsal 

valve similar to the one in P. swallowiana, and this feature is perhaps more common 

in the genus, especially in Pennsylvanian species, than Hall and Clarke's diagnosis 

would lead one to infer. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 

2926); "dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. 

PuGNAX ELEGANS n. sp. 

Pl. XV, figs. 13 to l4a. 

Though originally including this form under Shumard's term Pugnax swallowiana, on revising the subject I find it desirable to discriminate it, and a separation of the specimens proves relatively easy. Shumard's figures fortunately 

leave but little doubt as to the variety to which the term swallowiana should attach, 

although his figures certainly are not very reliable. 

The present form has a very spreading triangular shape, with a prominent 

fold and sinus. The plications in number and arrangement resemble those of 

P. swallowiana. There are three angular ones on the fold and two lateral ones on 

either side. It frequently happens that the median plication of the fold is distinctly smaller and lower than those adjacent to it. The lateral plications are 

rounder and fainter than those on the fold and are more distinct on the ventral 

valve than on the dorsal. 
316 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

This species is distinguished from P. swallowiana by its more spreading, triangular shape, and by the more pronounced tendency of the median plication of the 

fold and sinus to be aborted. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 

2926); base of Capitan formation, hill southwest of Guadalupe Point (station 

2906), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. 

PUGNAX SHUMARDIANA n. sp. 

Pl." XV, figs. 15 to 17c. 

Shell large, triangular, gibbous. Ventral valve rather flat though much 

turned upward toward the front. Sinus, as exhibited by a depression in the shell, 

broad, shallow, and somewhat well defined. Beak erect, acuminate. Sinus with 

four plications. There are three distinct lateral plications; the fourth is indicated 

chiefly by a denticulation at the margin. 

Dorsal valve strongly convex. Fold, as an elevation of the surface, not very 

high, distinct toward the front, hut merging into the general convexity about halfway hack. It is occupied by five plications. Lateral plications on each side three 

in number, with often a fourth indistinct one. 

None of the plications extends to the beak, a feature rather characteristic of the 

genus. They are high and angular, those on the sinus being stronger and more persistent than the lateral ones. While the fold and sinus are not prominent as flexures 

of the shell they are very distinct and strong in the f~ont view. 

Internally this shell bears a low median septum and two rather stout, short 

dental plates. 

I can not regard this as the same species with P. swallowiana. It is much 

larger, and has five instead of three plications on the fold. 

The above description is based on four somewhat imperfeet specimens from 

the Capitan limestone. A fifth example, probably a young specimen, is represented 

by figs. 17 to 17c of Pl. XV. It is instructive in many ways. The fold has five 

plications, the central of which is strongest and most extended. Those on each 

side are less prominent and the final ones are shortest and faintest of all. Those in 

the sinus correspond. Although the shell is ratller large there are no lateral plications. The fold and sinus are practically undeveloped and to be detected only by a 

slight deflection of the contact of the valves in front. Both valves are very flat. 

This example well shows that the distinctive characters, except the plications of the 

fold and sinus, are of a late development, the convexity, lateral plications, and 

· fold appearing as the shell nears maturity. 

To this species I have referred with hesitation another somewhat fragmentary 

example from the same beds showing departures from the description given above. 

The plications are finer and more numerous. There are at least five on the fold, 

with five lateral ones on each side. It is possible that this may belong to a different 

species. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). 
.· -r 

MOLLUSCOIDEA. 317 

PuGNAX OSAGENSIS Swallow. 

Pl. XXIV, figs. 16 to 16b. 

1852. Terebratula pugnus. Roemer, Kreid (non Martin). von Texas, p. 89. 

Carboniferous: San Saba Valley, Texas. 

1858. Rhynconella (Camarophoria) Osagensis. Swallow, Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, vol. 1, p. 219 

(date of volume, 1860). 

Upper "Coal Measures:" Missouri and Kansas. 

1859. Rhynchonella uta. Meek and Hayden, Proc. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., p. 27. 

Upper "Coal Measures:" Manhattan, Kans. 

?1861. Rhynchonella sp. Salter, Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. London, vol. 17, p. 64, pl. 4, fig. 5. 

Carboniferous: Isthmus of Copacabana, Lake Titicaca. 

1865. Camarophoria globulina. Geinitz, Carb. nnd Dyas in Nebraska, p. 38, pl. R, fig. 5. (Not C. 

globulina Phillips.) 

Upper "Coal Measures:" Bennetts Mill and Nebraska City, Nebr. 

1872. Rhynchonella Osagensis. Meek, Final Rept. U. S. Geol. Survey Nebraska, p. 179, pl. 1, figs. 

9a, 9b; pl. 6, figs. 2a, 2b. 

Upper "Coal Measures;" Nebraska City, Nebr. 

"Coal Measures:" Iowa,. Missouri, K:lnsas. 

Upper, middle, and lower "Coal Measures:" Illinois. 

1873. Rhynchonella osagensis. Meek and Worthen, Rept. Geol. Survey Illinois, vol. 5, p. 571, pl. 26, 

fig. 22. 

"Coal Measures:" Danville and Fulton County, Ill. 

1884. Rhynchonella uta. White, Thirteenth Rept. Geol. Survey Indiana, p. 132, pl. 25, fig. 6. 

"Coal Measures:" Indiana. 

1891. Rhynchonella1<ta. Keyes, Proc. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., p. 247. 

Lower" Coal·Measures:" Des Moines, Iowa. 

1893. Pugna:c Uta. Hall and Clarke, Nat. Hist. New York, Pal., vol. 8, pt. 2, p. 204. 

(Ad vance distribution in fascicles.) 

"Coal Measures:" Manhattan, Kans. 

1894. Pugna:c uta. Hall and Clarke, Int. Study of Brach., pt. 2, pl. 44, figs. 17-19. 

"Coal Measures:" Manhattan, Kans. 

1895. Rhynchonella uta. Keyes, Rept .. Missouri Geol. Survey, vol. 5, p. 103, pl. 41, fig. 7. (Date of 

imprint, 1895.) 

Upper ''Coal Measures:" Kansas City and Lexington, Mo .. 

1895. Pugna:c Uta. Hall and Clarke, Nat. Rist. New York, Pal., vol. 8, pt. 2, p. 204, pl. 60, figs. 39-42. 

"Coal Measures:" Manhattan, Kans. 

1896. Rhynchonella uta. Smith, Stanford Univ. Publ., Cont. Bioi. No. 9, p. 30. 

Upper "Coal Measures:" Sebasti~n County, Ark., and Poteau Mountain, Ind. T. 

1896. Rhynchonella uta. Smith, Proc. Am. Phil. Soc., vol. 35, p. 30. 

Upper "Coal Measures:" Sebastian County, Ark., and Poteau Mountain, Ind. T. 

1900. Pugna:c Utah. Beede, Rept. Univ. Gcol. Survey Kansas, vol. 6, p. 93, pl. 12, figs. 7-7c. 

Upper "Coal Measures:" Bronson, Bourbon County, Kansas City, lola, Olathe, Lawrence, 

Lecompton, Topeka, Beaumont, Grand Summit, Kans. 

190a. Pugna:c utah. Girty, Prof. Paper U. S. Gcol. Survey No.l6, p. 412, pl. 7, figs. 14-14b. 

Maroon formation: Crested Butte district, Colo. 

This species occurs in considerable abundance in the black limestone at the base 

of the Guadalupe section, and appears to be identical with the common Pugnax osagensis of the Mississippi Valley Pennsylvanian. The shape is rather constant and is 

what may be described as triangular, with rounded basal corners. The fold and sinus 

are moderately strong and the plications are more or less blunted and rounded. 

There are regularly three on the fold and three on each side, the last lateral plication 

being rather faint. However, two specimens have been found with two plications 
·, 

318 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

on the fold, and one with four, though these are fragmentary and may not have been 

really conspecific with the others. The dorsal septum is faint and in some cases 

possibly absent. · 

I can not refer this species to P. swallowiana, from which it is without doubt 

varietally distinct. It has blunter plications, less variety in shape, and a fainter 

dorsal septum. In these characters it agrees with P. osagensis, though somewhat 

larger than the average of that species. 

I have also referred here a single dorsal valve from the Delaware Mountain 

formation obtained at station 2931. It is slightly larger and more inflated than 

specimens from the black limestone. The plications are rounded. There are three 

on the fold and three on the sides, the finaf one being very faint. A distinct but 

probably not very high median septum occurs in this shell. 

American paleontologists have for many years regarded Swallow's Pugnax osagensis as the same species as Marcou's Pugnax utah, and there is probably little doubt 

that they are closely related forms. Tschernyschew has recently, and I believe 

rightly, questioned the advisability of this cours~. If we accept Marcou's description 

.and illustrations at their face value, and if we are prepared to make fine discriminations of species in this group, it must be admitted that the common Pennsylvanian 

Pugnax, to which the specific term osagensis was applied, is distinct from Marcou's 

figures of P. utah. Now, I think it highly improbable that Marcou's figures are to 

be relied on, but in view of the considerable difference of facies shown by the Utah 

fauna it seems to me inadvisable to continue to combine the two forms without some 

evidence that they are really the same. Consequently I am following Tschernyschew in reviving Swallow's species. 

Horizon and locality.-'' Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930 ?) ; Delaware 

Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931?); basal black limestone, 

Guadalupe Point (station 2920); Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. Delaware Mountain 

formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2964). 

PUGNAX BIDENTATA n. sp. 

Pl. XXI, figs. 20 to 20c; Pl. XXIV, figs. 17 to 17c. 

Shell small. Ventral valve rather strongly bent longitudinally and inflected at 

.the sides. Sinus broad and deep, occupying most of the valve; defined by a rather 

sharp angulation, which forms, even where undefined, the line along which the shell is 

inflected. A slight groove lateral to "the angulation adds to its prominence and is the 

only indication of lateral plication. The sinus contains a low median rib not visible 

except toward the front margin. Beak apparently rather large, high, and erect. 

Dorsal valve strongly convex. Fold high, broad, occupying most of the shell; 

defined at the sides by an angular groove, which is succeeded laterally by a low ridge, 

making one indistinct lateral plication on each side. The fold bears a rather strong 

median sulcus, so that its summit is divided into two plications. The plications of 

both valves are subangular and moderately strong, but disappear a slight distance 

from the margin. 

The typical example of this pretty species was found in the black limestone at 

the base of the Guadalupian section. Another very similar though somewhat 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 319 

larger example was found in the "dark limestone" at a much higher horizon. It 

shows some points of difference, as, for example, the presence of more distinct and 

more numerous lateral plications, but on the whole appears to belong to the same 

species as the other. There seems to be but little intergradation between P. bidentata of the black limestone and P. osagensis, ~ith which it is associated; but of the mutation of P. swallowiana found in the" dark limestone" P. bidentata, occurring with it, 

might be considered as a mere variety. It would not surprise me, therefore, if 

further collecting would produce forms which arc intermediate between P. osa~ 

gensis, P. bidentata, and P. swallowiana. 

P. bidentata is closely similar to some of the forms :figured as Camarophoria globulina. While I am by no means sure, I believe that the species under discussion is a 

Pugnax, in which case further comparisons with Camarophoria globulina will be 

unnecessary. 

Horizon and locality.-" Dark limestone," Pine Spring· (station 2930); basal 

black limestone, Guadalupe Point (station 2920), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. 

PUGNAX PINGUIS n. sp. 

Pl. XXI, figs. 21 to 2lc. 

This species is proposed for a specimen from Shumard's "dark limestone" which, 

though similar to other species of the fauna, is yet too unconnected to permit its 

union with them. The shell is rather large, the length being 13 mm. and the width 

14.5 mm. It has a subtriangular shape, with rounded basal angles. The ventral 

valve is rather shallow; beak small and erect; sinus broad, shallow, and distinctly 

. defined, but not perceptible far back from the anterior margins. 

Dorsal valve flattened over the central portions, strongly curved near the margins. Fold low, not distinct, except near the front. Plications rather thin and high, 

but rounded, dying out about halfway from the margins. There are four on the fold 

and three in the sinus, with four lateral ones on each side in the dorsal valve and :five 

in the ventral, the :final one in each case being faint. 

This species is most closely related to Pugnax osagensis from station 2920 in the 

black limestone, but is larger and has more numerous plications. 

Horizon and locality.-" Dark limestone," Pine Spring, Guadalupe Mountains, 

Texas (station 2930) .. 

PUGNAX? PUSILLA n. sp. 

Pl. XXIV, figs. 18 to l8b. 

The following description is based on the single specimen which our collection 

contains. The small size of this specimen suggests that it is immature, but this 

inference is contradicted by its convexity and ,by the full development of its fold and 

sinus. The shape is broadly oval, the length somewhat greater than the breadth. The 

plications are narrow, high, and angular, extending completely to the beaks. There 

are three on the fold and four on each side. The fold and sinus arc fairly well developed, especially in the anterior view. 

The strength of the plications and their persistence to the beaks distinguish this 

form from most of those here referred to Pugnax. The nearest in this respect is 
320 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

P. p'inguis, but the plications are much coarser, broader, and rounder in that species. 

In regard to the character of the plications, Rhynchonella longr£va is perhaps nearer 

than any other Guadalupian species, but there arc important differences in their 

number and arrangement. 

Horizon and locality.-Basal black_ limestone, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2967). 

PuGNAX sp. a. 

This species is represented by a single imperlect ventral valve whose characters do not permit it to be referred to any of the species recognized. In size and 

shape it is similar to Pugnax 8Wallowiana, with which it is associated, but the shape is 

somewhat less triangular and the plications are finer and more numerous. They are 

rounded and die out before reaching the beak. There are two in the sinus and five 

on each side. The difference in size and arrangement of the plications does not 

permit this form to be placed with P. pinguis, unless intermediate stages not represented in our collection should prove to exist. 

Horizon and locality.-"Dark limestone," Pine Spring, Guadalupe Mountains, 

Texas (station 2930). 

Genus RHYNCHONELLA Fischer de Waldheim? 

Internally the shells subsumed under this title do not. differ materially from 

those which have been placed with Pugnax. They possess a pair of well-developed 

dental plates and a median dorsal septum, but if we overlook the single somewhat 

doubtful instance of an obscure cruralium and perforated hinge plate in the dorsal 

valve of one of the Rhynchonellas there arc no practicable discriminating characters within it, so far as known. Externally a well-marked difference of configuration 

exists, the Rhynchonellas having numerous fine, persistent, somewhat bifurcating 

ribs, while in Pugnax the ribs arc few, lacge, evanescent, and simple. 

The Guadalupian Rhynchonellas are distinguished from the Carboniferous 

shells which foreign authors have assigned to Uncinulus chiefly by external characters, for though there are some differences in internal structure (such as the thickened 

ventral shell in Uncinulus, etc.), and perhaps indications of others, the·mainintcrnal 

characters (the presence of a median septum in the dorsal valve and of dental plates) 

remain about the same in both. The plications in both genera are numerous and 

fine, but in Uncinulus they are more or less restricted to the margin and are indented 

by sulci, a character not known among the Guadalupian Rhynchoncllas. The 

latter differ from Terebratuloidea in internal structure as well as configuration, since 

they have both dorsal septum and dental phttes, possess finer and more numerous 

plications, and are without the round foramen and truncated beak of Waagen's 

genus. No comparison is necessary with Rhynchopora, since the Guadalupian 

Rhynchoncllas possess 11 fibrous and not a punctate shell. Alt.hough there is considerable variance shown by authors in the employment of the generic term Rhynchonella, the Guadalupian shells seem to agree in most points with the species so 

identified. 
MOLLUSCOID EA. 321 

In all, four Guaualupian species are included in this group, three of them 

already described by Shumard and the fourth ~pparently new. Two of the Shumard 

species have not been recognized in the more recent collections from the Guadalupe 

Mountains, and the four constituent types are at present so imperfectly known that 

I shall not attempt to assemble them into subordinate groups. 

RnYNCHONELLA ~ INDENTATA Shumard. 

Pl. XV, figs. 20 to 20c. 

1859. Rhyncltonellaindentata. Shumard, Trans. A cad. SCi. St. Louis, vol.l, p. 393 1 date of volume, 1860). 

White [Permian] limestone: Guadalupe Mountains. 

Shell variable, subovate, gibbous, length and breadth about equal, sides converging rapidly from 

the middle of the shell to the beak, and rounded toward the front, which is slightly indented. Dorsal 

valve strongly arched, much more elevated than the ventral valve; umbo flattened, broadly and rather 

deeply excavated in front by the tongue of the opposite valve; mesial ridge slightly elevated, and in some 

specimens scarcely perceptible except at the front; lateral margins very sinuous, being deeply indented 

at the cardinal margin on either side of the beak by the false area of the opposite valve; beak flattened 

and closely incurved. Ventral valve convex in the umbo and sides, scarcely gibbous, having a broad 

shallow sinus, which becomes obsolete on the umbo; false area well developed, distinctly defined, 

depressed below the plane of the dorsal valve, and marked with fine strire; beak acute and moderately 

incurved. Surface marked .with fine strirn of growth and from 20 to 25 rounded radiating costre, which 

become obsolete on the umbo; costre in the mesial fold and in the sinus. 

Dimen8ions.-Length, 0.55; width, 0.50; thickness, 0.40. 

Locality.-White limestone of the Guadalupe Mountains. 

Of this interesting species I have but four specimens. Two of these are from 

the "white limestone" and two from the "dark limestone." The latter are rather 

small and fragmentary. One of the other examples is also fragmentary, but the 

third is, fortunately, very perfect. There can be no doubt that the two examples 

from the white limestone belong to Shumard's species, and they permit me to· add 

somewhat to his in the main faithful description. The figured specimen has about 

25 plications, nine of which arc on the fold and the rest lateral. There are five 

plications on the top of the fold and two on each side of it. Nevertheless this feature 

can be said to be moderately high, quadrate, and well defined. The surface is 

crossed at regular intervals by sublamellose concentric lines, of which no mention is 

made in Shumard's description. The beak is erect and appears to have a rounded 

foramen, dosed below by deltidial plates. The flattening of the umbo of the dorsal 

valve is a striking character and appears'at first to be artificial, but is repeated in 

all the specimens. The false area of the ventral valve is also important. It is 

defined by a distinct angular line. The dorsal valve has a somewhat corresponding 

flattened lateral area, but it is narrower and not distinctly marked off from the rest 

of the shell. 

The internal characters have not been entirely made out. It has been ascertained, however, that the ventral valve possesses two slender, rather short dental 

plates, and the dorsal a long, slender, but not very high median septum. It is 

evident that the internal structures of this species prove Shumard's original assignment to Rhynchonella to be very nearly correct. Though the structure of the ventral beak suggests Terebratuloidea, that genus is without dental plates, and the 

3695-No. 58-0S--21 
' 322 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

general expression of the plications,. surface ornamentation, false area, and erect 

beak are rather those of the true Rhynchonellas. Though the type of Rhyn.chonella, 

according to I-iall and Clarke, is without a septum in the dorsal valve, vVaagen 

names this as one of the characters in his definition of that genus, and it is only in 

the sense that 'Waagcn used the name that this species can be referred to it. 

The concentric striation, erect beak, flattened umbo, and false area, taken in 

connection with the internal structures, give this species marked individuality, and 

appear not to exist in combinatwn in any of the described genera. It is possible 

that R. indentata is representative of a new group. This, however, will not admit of 

satisfactory determination until the internal charn.cters are better known. 

The smaller specimens from the "dark limestone'' have a less distinct false area, 

and one of them shows but four plications on the top and but one on the sides of the 

fold. There are about eight lateral plications on either side. 

Hm'izon and Zocaz.ity.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 

2926); "dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930), Guadalupe :!\fountains, Texas. 

RHYNCHONELLA ~ LONG2EVA n. sp. 

Pl. XV, figs. 18 to 18b, 19 to 19c. 

My material representing this species is rather fragmentary, though it is without 

much doubt dis'tinct from anything so far known from the Guadalupe Mountains. 

The following characters have been ascertained: · 

The .shell is small and subtriangular. The lateral and front margins are nearly 

straight; the anterolateral angles broadly rounded. The 'ventral valve is comparatively shallow, turning up strongly in front in a broad, ill-defined sinus. The beak 

is probably erect and pointed. The dorsal valve 'is rather gibbous. Fold not well 

defined, except at the front. Plications 17 to 20 in number, rather angular, high, 

and reaching to the beaks, increasing by bifurcation. About four plications occur 

on the top of the fold and one on each of its sides. There are six or' seven lateral 

plications on either side. 

Tn the interior of the ventral valve there are two dental plates not united into a 

spondylium but diserete, as in Pugnax. The general expression, however, is very 

different from that of Pugnax, and the cxaet position which this form should 

assume among the Rhynchonellidre is uneertain. 

In general appearance this species is not unlike Rhynchonella indentata.; though 

it is conspicuously smaller and lacks the false area and flattened dorsal umbo which 

are such marked characters of that type. Similarly, it can not be referred to 

other species which I have placed with Rhynchonella? ·Compared with Camarophoria venusta it is much smaller, somewhat differently shaped, and has deeper and 

stronger plications. 

'l'he foregoing description is based on a few imperfect examples from the Capitan 

limestone obtained on El Capitan Peak. 'l'o the same species has been somewhat 

provisionally referred a single, rather crushed, example from about the same horizon 

on the foothills southwest of Guadalupe Peak (station 2906). Still more doubtful 

is the identification of two small specimens from the black limestone at the base of 

the Guadalupe section. They seem to have somewhat coarser and less numerous 
MOLLUBCOIDEA. 323 

plications, and I suspect may .be representatives of the genus Pugnax, though distinct 

from any of the species so far discriminated. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 

2926); base of Capitan formation, hill southwest of Guadalupe Point (station 2906 ~); 

basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (station 2920 ~), Guadalupe Mountains, 

Texas. 

RHYNCIIONELLA ~ GUADALUP 1E Shumard. 

Pl. XVI, figs. 10 to lOb. 

1858. Rhynchonellii GuadaltLpre. Shumard, Trans. A cad. Sci. St. Louis, vol. l, p. 295 (date of volu~e, 1860). 

White [Permian] limestone: Guadalupe Mountains. 

1859. Rhynchonella Guadalupre. Shumard, idem, p. 392, pl. 11, figs. 6a to 6c. 

White [Permian] limestone: Guadalupe Mountains. 

Shell subtriangular, with the angles rounded, convex, wider than long; lateral margins nearly 

straight, converging at an angle of about 85°; sides presenting a large, well-defined, elliptical, concave, 

or fiat, smooth area, which is carinated at the commissure of the valves and extends from the beaks· 

nearly·to the front; front strongly or slightly sinuate. Ventral (receiving) valve not as prominent as the 

opposite one; umbonal region flattened convE1X, having a broad, shallow mesial sinus extending from 

beak to front, lateral edges gently <trcuate; beak flattened convex, rather strongly incurved. Dorsal 

valve presents a regularly convex and rather gentle curve from beak to front and a low, broad mesial 

elevation, which is scarcely perceptible except near the front; beak de.pressed, gently convex and 

closely incurved. Surface marked with numerous, rather coarse, rounded, radiating strioo, their number 

increased by bifurcation and insertion. The bifurcations generally take place near the beak. At the 

border the number of strioo amount to from 30 to 35 on each valve. 

Dimensions.-Length, 0.58; width, 0.76; thickness, 0.48. 

A handsome species and quite characteristic of the white limestone of the ·Guadalupe Mountains 

of New Mexico and Texas. 

This form is evidently related to Rhynchonella? indentata and R.? texana, and, 

like the latter, does not occur in· our collections from the Guadalupe Mountains. 

Fortunately, Shumard has left a number of figure~ which ought to supplement his 

description and aid in the identification of it. The figures are reproduced on PL 

XVI of the present work. 

Although no authentic material has come to hand which could be referred to 

this species, a single specimen from the Glass Mountains has been somewhat hesitatingly placed here. This specimen I have been so unfortunate as to lose, but as it 

presented some structural features of considerable interest I shall.venture to give 

a brief account of it from memory. The specimen was silicified and represented only 

the posterior portion of a dorsal valve. Externally the shell was covered with a 

large number of very fine, flat, radiating ribs. Their general character recalled the 

sculpture of Orthotetes guadalupensis and differed so much from that of either 

Rhynchonella? indentata orR.? longreva that I felt unwilling to identify it with them. 

On the other hand, it was very suggestive of Shumard's figures of R.? guadalupx. 

On the interior the apical.portion was closed by a rather small horizontal hinge 

plate. From the bottom of the valve rose a thin, moderately high median septum, 

whose posterior portion subdivided above to form a very small cruralium. This 

little channel along the upper edge of the septum would naturally be blocked by the 

hinge plate, through which, however, it was continued by a small circular perforation. This perforation of the hinge plate is a character which has, I believe, seldom 
324 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA, 

been observed in any group of brachiopods and should not, I thought, fail to be noted 

here, in spite of the imperfect and unfortunate character of my observations. 

Horizon and locality.___:Top of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2966?). 

RHYNCIIONELLA? TEXAN A Shumard. 

1859. Rhynchonella Texana. Shumard, Trans. Acacl. Sci. St. Louis, vol. l, p. 393 (date of volume, lSGO.) 

Dark [Permian] limestone: Guadalupe Mountains; conglomerate at the mouth of Delaware Creek, 

Texas. · 

Shell small, ovate, moderately gibbous, front rounded or slightly indented; anterolateral margins 

rounded, converging posteriorly to the beak at an angle of G3°. Dorsal valve as broad as long, convex, 

more elevated than the ventral valve, smooth on the umbo and having a distinct mesial elevation in 

front, bearing usually three prominent subangular ribs, on either side of which are two or three less 

prominent ribs; cardinal edges rather cl'eeply indented by the false area of the opposite valve. Ventral 

valve gently convex, most prominent about the middle, marked in front with a moderately deep mesial 

sinus, which becomes obsolete on the umbo and bears two or more subangular ribs; beak prolonged 

acute gently; foramen narrow, triangular; false area rather strongly developed, not very distinct!; 

defmecl. 

Dimensions.-Length, 0.35; width, 0.30; thickness, 0.22. 

Fo1'mation and locality.-From the clark limestone forming the base of the Guadalupe Mountains, 

and from the conglomerate at the mouth of Delaware Creek. 

This description represents a form in some ways so similar to Pugnax osagensis 

that it might be thought the shells from the "dark limestone" which I referred to 

that species really belong to this. Shumard, however, associates R. texana with R. 

indentata in the same genus, and some parts of his description seem to justify this 

association. It is evident, at least, that R.? texana had a false area similar to R. 

indentata, a character which is quite foreign to the group of Pugnax. I especially 

regret that my collections fail to contain this species, since Shumard .neglected to 

figure it, and except for his description it is practically unknown. 

Family TEREBRATULIDJE Gray. 

The Guadalupian Terebratulid::e have been assembled into four generic groups. 

One of these it has seemed necessary to describe as new, under the title Ileterelasma. 

Another has been referred with some reservation to Notothyris, while the other two 

have been assigned to Dielasma and Dielasmina. Among the Dielasmas two groups 

can be distinguished, one of which is represented by Dielasma? scutulatum, the refer-

.ence of which to Dielasma, or even to the Terebratulid::e, is open to more or less question. The other group includes four species, and might itself be subdivided, did such 

.a· c9urse seem desirable. 

If this representation is compared with that of the Salt Range of India very considerable differences appear. Waagen recognizes Dielasma, DMlasmina, Hemiptychina, and Notothyris, Hemiptychina being absent from the Guadalupian fauna and 

Heterelasma from that of the Salt Range. Including doubtful species, I have found 

only seven varieties of Dielasma in the Guadalupian, whereas W aagen recognizes ten 

jn the Salt Range fauna. Of these, D. guttula, representing the group of D. sacculus, 

and D. elongatum and D. nummulus, representi~g the group of D. gillingense, seem t~ 
MOLLUSCOIDE.A. 325 

be unrepresented in the Guadalupian. The group of D.ficus, with three species, is 

probably represented by D. spatulatum and D. prolongatum. Waagen's D. truncatum seems to be somewhat intermediate between the two Guadalupian species mentioned, while. D. itaitubense is rather different from either. The group of D. biplex: 

with its four-1spccics, has somewhat the configuration of the 'species belonging to 

Heterelasma, but there are no Guadalupian Dielasmas with which it can be compared. On the other hand, D. sulcatum and D. cordatum, together with the doubtful 

form D.? scuf!ulatum, have no closely related Indian species. 

Dielasmina guadalupensis resembles to a considerable extent D. plicata of the 

Salt Range, but the American species is less abundantly plicated, and should probably be considered as racially somewhat immature. 

In contrast to the Guadalupian, which contains only three varieties of Notothyris, 

Waagen found no less than eight species in the Salt Range; Notothyris simplex and 

N. injlata are most nearly related to the Guadalupian N. schuchertensis. The other . 

Salt Range species are more or less widely different, and are perhaps more highly 

developed representatives of the genus. There is nothing in the Indian fauna which 

resembles Notothyris sp. found in the Glass Mountains. 

In his first report on the Chitichun fauna No. 1 Diener recognizes one species of 

Dielasrna, three of Hemiptychina, and two of Notothyris. The Dielasma is more or 

less related to D. spatulatum,-but the single species of Notothyris of which figures are 

given (N. triplicata) differs considerably from the Guadalupian representatives of the 

genus. 

In a subsequent paper on this fauna Diener distinguished one species of Hemiptychina, three of Dielasma, and four of Notothyris. His figure of lfotothyris triplicata,a prepared to show internal structures, clearly represents what I think inust be 

two dental plates, the presence of which would debar this species from Notothyris 

without doubt. The two species N. mediterranea and N. exilis appear to be closely 

related to N. schuchertensis, but the singular form described as N. walkeriis unlike 

not only the Guadalupian species hut also the typical form of the genus. The configuration somewhat suggests Oryptacanthia. The three species of Dielasma qo 

not seem closely allied to the congeneric Guadalupian forms. They are nearest to 

D. spatulatum and D. prolongatum. The form called Dielasma sp. indet. aff. liastt£-

forme and D. elongatum suggest, in configuration at least, the doubtfully placed 

· D. scutulatum. 

The paper by this author on the Anthracolithic fossils from Kashmir and Spiti 

contains references to but one species of the TerebratuJid::e, which is identified as 

Dielasma hastatum. It is probably somewhat related to D. cordatum, but not closely. 

When treating this fauna subsequently Diener recognized no terebratuloids in the 

lower fauna and only Dielasma latouchei in the upper. The Permian fauna from 

Kumaon and Gurhwal contains but an undetermined species of D~elasma, which 

somewhat suggests D. spatulatum. 

From Malia Sa:rigcha, Diener cites one species of Hemiptychina and five of Notothyris. N. mediterranea is the most closely allied to N. schuchertensis of these forms, 

and N. triplicata and N. minuta the least. There seems to be nothing comparable t() 

Notothyris sp. ~---~-~-----

a Mem. Gcol. Survey India, Pal. Indica, ser. 15, vol. 1, pt. 5, 1903, pl. 2, fig. 12. 
326 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

Dielasma latouchei, the only tercbratuloid from the Lissar Valley, is quite unlike 

any Guadalupian representatives of the genus. The same species is recorded from 

Byans. 

Two species were cited by Davidson from Kashmir as Terebratula sacculus Martin and T. austenian'a n. sp. Neither seems to be comparable to any of the Guadalupian terebratuloids. 

Considered as a whole, the terebratuloids of the Salt Range and Himalaya seem 

to me to show no very close relationship to the Guadalupian ones. The genera represented are in part different, and where the genera are the same many of the species 

belong to different groups, yet to say that they are not related at all will be going 

too far. • · . 

The on:ly terebratuloid found by Kayser among the Lo Ping collections· was 

referred to Terebratula hastata. It seems to have no closely allied Guadalupian 

. form. From Kantschoufu, Loczy cites Dielasma vesiculare, represented by a little 

shell which does not seem closely related to any of the Guaclalupian terebratuloicls. 

Rothpletz cites a species of Hemiptychina in his paper on the Permian of 

Timor and Rotti, calling it Terebratula himalayensis var. sparsiplicati. His figures 

show a form having the general appearance of Notothyris schuchertensis, but apparently the two species are not generically related. 

From this it would appear that the Terebratulidre are surprisingly scarce among 

the faunas of eastern Asia, and display no very marked resemblance to their Guadalupian congeners. 

The Terebratulidre of the" Permo-Carboniferous" of Queensland and New Guinea 

comprise, according to Etheridge, only four species of Dielasma. They are of the 

usual siinple type, and though or:e or two of the GuaduJupian Dielasmas resemble 

thsm, only a very remote relationship can be inferred from this group of 

Brachiopoda. . 

The Carboniferous Terebratulidre cited from New South Wales by De Koninck 

comprise only two varieties, to which must be added the form described as Rhynchonella inversa. One of these forms was found only in the lower portion of the 

series; another, Terebratula hastata, which resembles in a general way Dielasma 

prolongatum, appears to have been found in both series. The third form, described 

as a Rhynchonella, also belongs to the earlier fauna. 

From the Moskovian of Russia Trautschold records only one species, which he 

identifies as Terebratula sacculus. If we assume that it is a Dielasma, it has somewhat the specific charactei:s of D. prolongatum without being very close either to 

that species or to D. spatulatum. 

The terebratuloids of the Gschelian fauna arc subdivided by Tschernyschew into 

the genera Dielasma, Hemiptychina, Notothyris, Aulacothyris, and Waldheimia. Of 

these, Hemiptychina, Aulacothyris, and Waldheimia are not known :from the Guadalupian, while Heterelasma and Dielasmina of the latter appear to be absent from 

the Russian horizon. 

No less than 14 

Gschclian Dielasmas. 

and D. mmlleri, shows 

species, according to Tschernyschew, occur among the 

The group of IJ.. sacculus, including D. supracarbonicum 

distinct relationship to D. prolongatum. The group of D. 
MOLLUSCOID EA. 327 

gillingense, to which Tschernyschew refers sever. species, also resembles D. prolongatum, though less closely, while some of the .Russian forms can be compared to 

D. spatulatum: One species (D. plicatum) even re~embles D. sulcatum. The group 

of D .• ficus contains two species. D. truncatum shows some resemblance to D. prolongatum and D. itaitubense to D. scutulatum, but in neither case is it very close. 

Lastly, the group of D. biplex, comprising three species, seems to be unrepresented 

in the Guadalupian. All the Guadalupian species, with the exception of D. cordatum, seem to find more or less related forms in the Gschelian, only one group of 

three species being strictly peculiar to the Russian fauna. Among the species 6f 

the group of D. gillingense Tschernyschew recognizes the two American types D. 

millipunctatum Hall and D. bovidens Martin. I agree with Tschernyschew in discriminating these two species, which are united by most American paleontologists, 

for Hall's figures certainly show important differences from typical D. bovidens, 

and it is probable that the pifferences are real ones;· but I must confess that, to 

judge by his figures, the Russian form which Tschernyschew calls D. bovidens does 

not seem to me by any means specifically identical with the Pennsylvanian species. 

Tschernyschew recognizes four species of Hemiptychina in the Gschelian, only 

one of which, that identified as Jlemiptychina aff. pygmaxh appears to me to have 

the expression of veritable Hemiptychina. This type seems·to be wanting in the 

Guadalupian, and I need not dwell on the group save to notice how much some of 

Tschernyschew's figures of H. orientalis recall the Guadalupian species Dielasma 

sulcatum in certain respects. D. sulcatum, furthermore, can not be certainly 

assigned to Dielasma. 

Three species represent the genus Notothyris in the Gschelian fauna. N. nucleolus especially resembles the Guadalupian N. schuchertensis, the two other species 

less so. Some of the figures of N. nucleolus, however, somewhat suggest Notothyris sp., which is probably widely different from N. schuchertensis. 

· To Aulacothyris Tschernyschew assigns two Gschelian species. This author 

suggests that Aulacothyris Douville and Oryptacanthia are one and the same. If 

his references of the Gschelian species to Aulacothyris is correct, this opinion is 

probably well founded, for A. uralica in its peculiar configuration is strikingly suggestive of Oryptacanthia compacta. It is hard to believe that the resemblance is 

merely one of parallel development. This type is entirely lacking to the 

Guadalupian. 

The species identified as Waldheimia pentagonalis is also quite unlike any 

known Guadalupian form. 

The other papers relating to the Gschelian fauna which I have examined add 

so little to what Tschernyschew has given in regard· to the Terebratulidre that I 

shall pass them by and proceed to the consideration of the AJ:tinskian terebratuloids. 

Tschernyschew cites from the southern Urals only Dielasma prolongatum, a 

species which the Guadalupian D. spatulatum·and D. prolongatum somewhat resem- · 

ble. Stuckenberg cites D. plica, D. elongatum, D. uralicum, D. sacculus, D. seminula, and Dielasma sp., all of them, with one exception, unfigured. I will not, 

therefore, make individual comparisons with Guadalupian species, merely calling 

attention to the fact that we·seem to have here only two genera represented, Die-
328 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

• lasma and Aulacothyris (as Dielasma uralicum), the latter of which is not found in 

the Guadalupian, which has, on the other hand, Jleterelasma, Notqthyris, Dielasmina, and certain types of Dielasma which do not occur in the Artinskian. From 

the Kungurstufe Stuckenberg cites only Dielasma plica and D. elongatum. Krotow 

records from the Artinsk almost exactly the same series of species as Stuckenberg, 

viz, Terebratula plica, T. hastata, T. elongata, T. sacculus, T. vesicular-is, and T. 

uralica, and the same remarks apply to them. Krotow's identifications also are 

unfigured. Sibirzew mentions as occurring in the Artinsk D. vesiculare and D. 

elongatum. 

From the Permian of Russia, Tsche1;nyschew records only Dielasma elongatum 

and D. sacc·ulus, two species whose nearest allies in the Guadalupian are probably D. 

prolongatum and D. spatulatum. ~etschajew from this horizon cites D. elongatum 

and D. angustum, of which the latter seeins to be without any closely related 

Guadalupian species. Sihirzew mentions D. elongatum, D. s1Jjflatum, and Dielasma 

ef. sacculus from the lower beds of the Permian and D. elongatum from the upper. 

Golowkinsky cites only Terebratula elongata. 

To judge by the records which I have seen, the Terebratulidre of the Russian section are reduced from very numerous species belonging to a number of genera in the 

Gschelian to a relatively few species, representing but two genera, in the Artinsk, 

while in the Permian only the germs Dielasma remains, represented by two or three 

simple, poorly characterimd types. In the ample differentiation of its terebratuloids 

· the Guadalupian fauna, certainly possesses most points of comparison with the Gschelian, though many of the generie and speeifie types are different. The Permian terebratuloids resemble those of the Guadalupian only in the presence of a few simple 

forms of Dielasma, most of the Guadalupian genera and species being unrepresented 

in the Russian Permian. 

From Djoulfa, in Armenia, Abich eites only Notothyris djou~fensis, a species quite 

distinct from the Guadalupian representative of the genus, though not unrelated to it. 

Gemmellaro divides his Sicilian terebratuloids into the genera Rhcetina, Ilemiptychina., and Rostranteris. Curiously enough, the almost universally distributed 

genus Dielasma seems to be absent from this fauna. Only a single species is referred 

by Gemmellaro to Rhcetina, and though it presents striking analogies in configuration 

to the Guadalupian species Ileterelasma shumardianum, I am forced to believe that 

they possess no intrinsic relationship, since Heterelasma shumardianum has the 

structures of neither valve as defined by W aagen for RhC£tina . 

. Five Sicilian species of Hemiptychina are discriminated. Unfortunately, this 

genus is at present unknown in the Guadalupian fauna. Rostranteris, which Gemmellaro describes as a new genus, seems now to be generally regarded, by those who· 

are in a position best to know, as a synonym of Notothyris. Gemmellaro recogRizes 

ten species. Several resemble Notothyris schuche1·tensis and N. schuchertensis var. 

ovata, especially Rostranteris injlatum, but many of them belong to distinctly different groups. Two or three (e. g., Rostranteris ovale) to a certain extent recall the 

imperfectly known Notothyris sp. of the Guadalupian. 

Somewhat in contradiction to \vhat appears to be the case in other groups, the 

Terebra.tulidm of the Guadalupian have but little in common with those of the fauna 

from Palermo. 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 329 

In his paper on the fauna of the Carnic Fusulina limestone Schellwien recog-

. nizes only two terebratuloids, which he designates as Dielasma? carinthiacum and 

Dielasma? toulai. The former is a simple type, somewhat resembling D. prolongatum, 

but the latter appears to be unlike any of the Guadalupian species. The family 

seems to be much better represented in the Trogkofclschichten, where Schellwien 

recognizes eight species and four genera. To .Notothyris he refers two species, both 

of which more or less resemble N. schuchertensis, especially N. ovalis. Dielasma is 

.represented by only a single unidentified species of the general type of D. prolongatum, and in this fauna, as in the closely related Sicilian one, the scarcity of Dielasma 

is a somewhat noteworthy feature. Hemipty'china is accorded four species. This 

genus is not at present known in the Guadalupian, but H. carniolica of the Alpine 

fauna in configuratiorf strongly suggests the form which I have described as Dielasmina guadal1tpensis. The last generic type from 'the Trogkofel is identified with 

White and St. John's genus and species Or·yptacanthia compacta.. The identification 

is queried; but the resemblance, it must be confessed, is close. Nothing of the sort 

is known in the Guadalupian. In general the Guadalupian Terebratulidre seem to~ 

show no very close resemblance to those of the Trogkofclsehichten. Gortani cites 

from the Carnic Alps only Notothyris epilis and Dielasma elongatum, both of them 

unfigured. . 

In his monograph on the German Dyas, Geinitz cites only Di.elasma elongatum, 

the paueityiof terebratuloids in this fauna allying it with the typical Permian. Iri 

the description of plates, the series of forms included under this general title are subdivided as D. elongatum, D. elongatum var. suJflatum, and D. elongatum var. latum and 

complanatum. D. elongatum itself resembles D. ·prolongatum and D. spatulatum of 

the Guadalupian, but the varieties latum and complanatum have no closely related 

species in that fauna, being perhaps nearest to D. spatulatu.m. 

King identifies his terebratuloids from the Permian of England as Epithyris 

elongata and E. sujffata. Both seem to be simple forms of Dielasma, related, but 

only in a general way, to D. prolongatum and D. spatulatum. . 

In the reductimi of the terebratuloids to the· single genus Dielasma, and the 

restriction of that genus to primitive and slightly differentiated forms, the Permian 

. of England, the Dyas of Germany, and the typical Russian Permian are in agreement 

with one another, but in sharp contrast to the Guadalupian. 

Among his fossils from the south point of Spitzbergen, Toula mentions a species 

of terebratuloid which he identifies as Terebratulct hastata. It may be compared 

especially to Dielasma prolongatum among Guadalupian forms, but is probably not 

closely related. Lundgren also records an unidentified species from Spitzbergen, 

which he cites merely as Terebratula? sp. but does not figure. No other notices of 

the occurrence of this group in Arctic works have come under my observation. 

Under the title Terebratula cf. gillingensis Stache cites a species from a fauna in 

the West Sahara which is probably considerably older than, as it is considerably 

unlike, the Guadalupian. The species as figured is only remotely related to any 

Guadalupian form. 

From Bolivia, Tonia cites Terebratula hochstetteri, his figures representing a form 

more or less resembling Dielctsma spat1.dat-um and D. prolongatum. In Terebratula 

titicacensis, which Gabb described from Peru, I do not see a close relationship with 
330 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

any Guadalupian species. The general out.line is something like Dielasma? scutulat1tm, but it is doubtful if the two species are related even generically. 

Derby records from Brazil two species of terebratuloids which he cites as Terebratula itaitubensis and Waldheimia coutinhoana. The former has already been 

recognized as. a Dielasma, but is not like any of the Guadalupian representatives 

of the genus. The Waldheimia also appears to be non-Guadalupian. 

If we disregard a few species which are quite unknown save for the first description, unaccompanied by figures, the terebratuloids of the typical Permsylvanian. 

consist of only two species of Dielasma and one of Cryptacanthia. The Pennsylvanian species D. bovidens is comparable to D. spatulatum of the Guadalupian, 

though quite distin~t specificaJly. · D. obovatum, on the other luind, seems to have 

no allied Guadalupian species. The genus Cryptacanthia is li~wise, so far as known, 

alien to the Guadalupian fauna. The Guadalupian terebratuloids contrast with 

those of the Pennsylvanian not only in the more varied generic differentiation, but 

also in the greater differentiation of the single genus which tliey possess in common, 

· ~and in the occurrence of different species in each. 

Genus DIELASMA King. 

' ' 

The generic positwn of the species referred to this genus has in no instance 

been completely demonstrated. For the most part the general expression and the 

presence of dental plates render the reference to Dielasma at least a very probable 

one, but in the case of Deilasma? scutulatum the entire uncertainty as to internal 

structure and the additional doubt as to the punctate character of the shell render 

this species an extremely problematical member of the group. 

Four species are with considerable confidence placed with Dielasma, and they 

might perhaps with advantage be subdivided into as many groups, as they show 

considerable difference in character. 

DrELASMA SPATULATUM n. sp. 

· Pl. XVI, figs. 3 to 4c. 

?1859. Terebratnla· elongataa Shumard (non Schlotheim), Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, vol. 1, p. 392 

(date of volume, 18GO). 

[Permian]: Guadalupe Mountains. 

Shell rather large and spatulate. Greatest width near the anterior margin. 

Ventral valve shallow in its transverse curvature, more strongly bent longitudinally. 

About midway the shell, which has been convex in its posterior r,egion, becomes 

slightly concave, producing a broad, shallow, undefined sinus, which toward the 

front occupies most of the width. Beak probably large and projecting. 

Dorsal valve nearly flat longitudinally, gently· and evenly arched transversely. 

There is no fold aside from the regular curvature of the shell, a circumstance which, 

conjoined with the broad sinus of the opposite ;valve, produces a truncation of the 

front margin. 

On the interior the dorsal valve shows a median septum, with which are probably associated the other plates of Dielasma. The ventral va:lve has two strong 

dentallamellre. · 

a A specimen from Shumard's coJiection identified, probably by him, as Tcrebratula elongata var. wfftata is the dorsal 

valve of Squamularia guadalupensis. 
MOLLU8COIDEA. 331 

This spemes resembles D. try,ncatum Waagen, but can hardly be the same 

thing. 

Horizon and locality.-Top of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2966 n; 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926); "dark limestone," Pine Spring 

(station 2930), Guadalupe Point (station 3762d ~), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. 

Pelaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 

29621). 

DIELASMA PROLONGATUM n. sp. 

Pl. XVI, figs. 5 to 5c. 

Shell rather large, elongate-ovate. Greatesi; width about one-third the length 

back from the front margin. Ventral valve strongly bent longitudinally. Transverse curvature convex over the posterior third, gently concave farther forward .. 

Toward the front the depression deepens and strengthens into a strong but illdefined sinus. Both valves, but the ventral one especially, have a flattened reflex 

rim along both sides. 

Dorsal valve nearly fiat longitudinally, rather strongly convex transversely, 

with a flattened rim or margin at the side. No fold distinct from the general curvature. Owing to the configuration of the two valves, the front end is somewhat 

emarginate. The posterior end is long and pointed, with the beak hardly perceptible as a distinct feature. 

This form at first seems to be very distinct from D. spatulatum by reason of 

its flattened margins, more elongate shape, and deeper sinus; but the former char-

. acter rather suggests that the individual may represent a senile condition. The 

growth lines of the specimen are unfortunately not visible to serve as evidence, but 

it seems probable that at a somewhat earlier period the specimen might not have 

differed greatly from D. spatulatum. Should this prove to be the case, the present 

form would probably be no more than a variety of that species. In its present 

development, however, it appears to be more nearly related to D. sulcatum, but 

should be readily discriminated by reason of its larger size, more regularly ovate 

shape, 3.nd broader and rounder sinus. 

Horizon and locality.-Oapitan formation, McKitterick Canyon, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2932). Delaware Mountain f'ormation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 

DIELASMA CORDATUM n. sp. 

Pl. XVI, figs. 2 to 2c. 

The typ;_cal specimen of this species has the dorsal valve nl.uch depressed or 

flattened, especially over the anterior half of the shell, so that the space between 

the two valves is unusually slight. In the ventral valve the sinus, which extends 

less than half the shell length back from the front margin, is, though not perceptibly 

deeper than in D. spatulatum, much narrower, producing a distinct indentation in 

the anterior outline. Otherwise, except where the expression is altered by the 

variations mentioned, it is much like that of D. spatulatum. The narro,\r sinus and 

the emargination which it produces are very suggestive of D. prolongatum, and in 
.. 

332 TI-IE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

a less degree of D. sulcatum. These four forms are evidently related, but my collections are not complete enough to indicate how close. I can by no means at present 

regard any two of these forms as specifically the same. . · 

Dielasma cordatum simulates some varieties of Oomposita emarginata very closely, 

but of course the resemblance is extremely superficial. 

Horizon and locality.-Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe Mountains, 

Texas (station 2926). 

DIELASMA SULCATUM n. sp. 

Pl. XVI, figs. 1 to lc. 

Shell of medium size, subpentagonal. Ventral valve moderately convex. 

Beak as usual in the genus. Greatest width about two-fifths the length back from 

·the anterior margin. The sinus can be traced nearly to the beak as a depressed 

line, but near the front it rapidly expands, becoming deep and subangular. 

Dorsal valve moderately convex. There is no distinct fold, but the valve as a 

whole has the shape of a dihedral angle, the sides of which are more nearly plane 

toward the front, producing a distinctly peaked shape. Farther back the shell is 

more arched and the angulation is lost. The ventral sinus is so strong that a 

well-marked emargination is produced at the front margin. 

The interior of the species is not known and its generic position is therefore 

uncertain. The punctate shell and configuration demonstrate its relation to the 

terebratuloids and it can probably be placed with Dielasma. . 

Horizon and locality.-Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe Mountains, 

Texas (station 2926). 

DIELASMA 1 SCUTULA TUM n. sp. 

Pl. XV!, figs. 8 to 9b. 

Shell small, elongate. Ventral valve shallow, most strongly convex in the 

posterior half. Beak small, produced, rather strongly incurved. Shape rhombic, 

greatest width about midway. Posterior end pointed and tapering; anterior contracted and strongly rounded. • 

Dorsal valve shallow but more convex tha~ the ventral. The curvature across 

the shell is less than that lengthwise. The dorsal valve has not an appreciable fold 

nor the ventral a perceptible sinus, but a flexure of their plane of union at the 

anterior margin indicates that these features are present if not obvious. 

The surface appears to be smooth and the shell substance fibrous, doubtfully 

punctate. 

I harclly know· where to place this little shell generically. Only three specimens, one of them somewhat imperfect, have come to hand and it has not been possible to ascertain any of the internal structures. The general expression, and especially the configuration of the ventral valve, strongly suggest a relationship with 

the terebratuloids. The shell substance, however, is distinctly fibrous, instead of 

foliaceous, and it is uncertain whether it is punctate or solid. Certain local areas 

have the appearance of being obscurely punctate, but I tun not altogetlier sure that 
' 

MOLL USCOIDE.A. 333 

this appearance is not cotmected with the prismatic fibrous structure of the shell 

substance. At one time I doubtfully placed these forms with Spirigerella, but the 

beak in none of the specimens is sufficiently perfect to show plainly whether it is 

truncated by a large foramen or incurved and pointed The preservation in the 

Guadalupe Mountains is such as sometimes to obscure the invertebrate shell structure, and it has seemed less liable to be erroneous to place this species with the 

terebratuloids, though its position is still subject to revision. The general shape 

of this species is that of a young aiHl elongate specimen of 31artinia rhomboidalis, 

but the form of the beak seems to preclude any possibility of its being a Martinia. 

Horizon a"Ul locality.-Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe Mountains, 

Texas (station ~926). 

Genus DIELASMINA Waagen. 

This genus differs from Dielasma, so far as known, only in configuration, for 

instead of having a well-marked fold and sinus on the dorsal and ventral valves, 

sometimes modified by the development of a subordinate mesial sulcus and plication, Dielasmina possesses a series of nearly equal submarginal plications without 

any distinct fold or siJ,lus. The shape of the one type is apt to be flattened and of 

the other globose. 

Dielasmina guadalupensis seems to meet these conditions in every respect. 

· While it differs from the genotype, D. plicata, in having the plications larger, fewer, 

and more marginal, it appears to be much more closely allied to D. plicata than to 

the usual type of Dielasma, and I have placed it with some confidence in vVaagen's 

genus. The relations of Dielasmina? perinjlata are much more uncertain, for 

Shumard's species has never been figured and its general character is imperfectly 

known. 

DIELASMINA GUADALUPENSIS n. sp. 

Pl. XVI, figR fi to 7a; Pl XXI, figs. 22 and 22a 

Shell of medium size, inflated, ovate. Ventral valve strongly convex. Beak 

large, much incurved. In mature specimens there is a well-marked median sulcus, 

on each side of which is a smaller sulcus separated by a subangular plication, beyond 

which, on the type specimen, still another low plication is seen. The plications and 

sulci are practically marginal and can be traced but a short distance back from the 

edge of the shell. 

The dorsal valve is moderately convex.. Its plications correspond to those of 

the ventral valve. It has a strong mesial plication bonded by two subangular sulci, 

beyond which on each side is a less distinct plication followed by a very indistinct 

sulcus. 

Of this species I have seven specimens-none of them very perfect--two 

from the Capitan limestone and five from the "dark limestone." In the plications, 

which constitute the most striking feature of this species, considerable variation is 

exhibited, depending largely on difference in si11e. A large ventral valve from the 

Capitan limestone shows only a shallow median sinus, its two bounding folds, and 

a shallow depressiOn on either side, while in a smaller individual only the sinus is 
334 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

developed. In this condition it is practically impossible to distinguish specimens 

from young Dielasma sulcatum. In a general way these shells are very suggestive 

of some of Waagen's figures of Dielasma biplex and Dielasma problematicum; but, 

unfortunately for comparison, the ventral valve of my specimens has a median 

sulcus, instead of a median plication. It is more loosely and less abundantly plicated than the Indian species of Dielasmina. I am, however, in some doubt as to 

whether this may not really be Shumard's D. perinjlatn. It is evident from 

Shumard's description that his form did not have the plication developed to anywhere near the degree shown in D. gundnlupensis, but this feature varies considerably in D. gundnlupensis, so that D. perinjlntn may be based on small or imperfectly 

developed specimens of my species. It seemed to me more prudent, however, to 

employ for the present group a distinct name, leaving it to be settled from further 

collections in what relation it stands to D. perinjlntn. 

Horizon nnd lowlity.-Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926); "dark 

limestone,'' Pine Spring (station 2930), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. 

DIELASMINA ~ PERINFLATA Shumard. 

1859. Terebratula perin,/lata. Shumard, Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, vol. l, p. 392 (date of volume, 

1860). 

White [Permian] limestone: Gua,dalupe Mountains. 

Shell ovate, very gibbous, width and thickness about equal, one-third longer than wide in fullgrown specimens; front subtruncate or slightly omarginato; sides rounded anteriorly and converging 

posteriorly to the be!1k at an angle of about 55°. Dorsal valve varying from circular-ovate to subcircular, convex, forming usually a regular curve from lJeak to front; old specimens marked with a slight 

mesial elevation in front and an obscure fold on either side, which becomes entirely obsolete before 

reaching tho middle ~f the valve; cardinal edges rather deeply indented by the false area of the ventral valve. Ventral valve strongly convex, more elevated than the opposite valve; front marked with 

a shallow sinus, which usually becomes obsolete before reaching the middle of tbe valve; beak 

extended considerably beyond that of the dorsal valve, >:cute and strongly incurved; surface marked 

with fine concentric stria! of growth. Dimensions of a full-grown specimen: Length, 0.67; width, 0.52. 

Formation and locality.-White limestone of tho Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. It appears to be 

quite rare, only two specimens having been found. 

This description, quoted from Shumard, does not altogether agree with any of 

the forms recently obtained from the Guadalupe Mountains. The species most 

nearly in agreement appears to be one which I have described as new, under the 

title of Dielnsmina gundnlupensis. A difference seems to exist in the plications, of 

which D. perinflata possessed in old specimens a well-marked mesial ele~ation on 

the dorsal valve and an. obscure fold ~n either side, while the type specimen of 

D. gundnlupensis has one well-marked and one obscure fold on either side 0f the 

mesial elevation. Other examples of D. guadalupensis lack the obscure plication, 

but there is in almost every case a plication on each side of the mesial fold which 

is well marked. Were it certain that no other difference existed, the name guadalupensis would not have been proposed, but a description without figures· is so 

imperfect a manner of defining a species that in view of the confusion which a wrong 

identification in this case might introduce, it seemed unwise to make one which 

would he at least doubtful. 

.L 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 335 

Genus NOTOTHYRIS Waagen. 

This genus, hitherto unknown in North America, is even in the present instance 

somewhat doubtfully identified. ·The chief facts which have been ascertained bearing on its generic position (for I have not felt justified in sacrificing much of my 

very scanty material to this end) are these: The configuration impresses one as 

terebratuloid. There are a fairly distinct fold and sinus, which are not strongly 

elevated in themselves and in addition are somewhat masked by bearing a median 

sulcus and a median rib, respectively. The sinus and fold do not occupy the usual 

positions, but occur, the former. on the dorsal and the latter on the ventral valve, 

respectively, so that the species must be considered as belonging to the antiplicatre. 

The plications are few, rounded, and submarginal. 

The shell structure is probably punctate, but is composed of minute fibers, 

which are finely fluted, thus conveying an impression of punctation which may be 

misleading. 

Of the internal structures but little definite is known, for the specimens which 

show the interior are so imperfect that their specific relations are not quite certain. 

In the identifiable specimens the ventral valve appears to be without dental plates. 

and there is little doubt that if present they would show through the exfoliated 

shell. The dorsal valve also appears to be without septa, but in this case their 

absence can not be so surely predicated as a probability. A silicified specimen 

referred to N schuchertensis var. ovata, but not cieterminable with certainty, shows 

the absence not only of dental and septal plates in the ventral and dorsal valves, 

respectively, but the absence of a hinge plate in the latter, the short discontinuous 

(possibly broken) crura springing immediately from the sides of the shell near the 

hinge. This iS rather against a reference to Notothyris, but is perhaps to . be 

regarded as an abnormal or accidental feature. Another example, a silicified dorsal valve, specifically belonging to a very different group from the foregoing, has 

the normal Notothyris structure. Septal plates are absent, but there is a welldeveloped hinge plate pierced at its upper extremity by a rounded foramen. 

It is almost certain that the type of structure found in N schuchertensis can not 

be placed with the rhynchonelloid genus Terebratulo·idea, which it resembles in some 

respects, because of the rounded submarginal plications and the presence of the fold 

and sinus in a reverse relation to the valves. Much more essential is the connection 

with the terebratul~ids, especially with the genera Notothyris and Hemiptychina. 

The absence of dental plates, as it appears, clistinguishes it from Dielasmina, and the 

absence of septal plates from Hemiptychina. Even if differences based on somewhat doubtful septal structures be eliminated, the character of the plications, especially as regards the .fold and sinus, distinguish it from both the genera named, 

while not only this character, but also the internal structure, so far as known, ally it 

with Notothyris. . 

Two closely related varieties of this type have been recognized in the Capitan 

limestone of the Guadalupe section. They are allied to but not identical with 

Asiatic and European representatives of the genus. A third but very different 

type specifically has been obtained from the southern Delawares. 
336 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA, 

NoTOTHYRIS scnycrrERTENsrs n. sp. 

Pl. XV, figs. 25 to 25c. 

Shell small, rotund, rather broadly ovate, with a straight_ened anterior outline. 

Ventral valve strongly convex, especially in the posterior portion. Beak large and 

much incurved. The surface is smooth, except toward the margin,. where it is gently 

plicatecl. There is a low median fold, imperceptible except along the line of junction of the valves, and still further obscured by a faint median sulcus, so that the 

fold is surmounted by two plications. It is followed on each side by a sulcus, a lateral fold, and another slight sulcus. Both plications and sulci are rather strongly 

rounded. . 

Dorsal valve moderately curved. Along its anterior margin are a few plications 

corresponding to those on the opposite valve. These consist of a broad, low sinus 

with a central plication determined on each side by a rather high plication. 

The internal characters have not been satisfactorily made out, but there are 

probably no dental plates in the ventral valve and possibly no plates in tl~e dorsal. 

The shell structure is not foliaceous, as in Dielasma and most terebratuloids, but 

fibrous, yet at the same time appears to be punctate. The fibers seem to be finely 

wrinkled, conveying the appearance of punctation, even if this structure does not 

exist. Specimens of Pugnax swallowiana from the same horizon have a similar 

fibrous structure, but the fibers are not fluted or wrinkled. Furthermore, many 

internal molds from this horizon have a minutely papillose surface, due, it seems 

probable, to the obliquely fibrous structure of the shell. Many of these specimens 

are filled by crystalline calcite, and the appearance referred to may also be due to 

tiny crystals lining the inside. This appearance is very suggestive of a punctate 

shell structure. I am therefore doubtful whether the species under discussion 

really possesses this character. The form of the beak and foramen, however, is that 

of the terebratuloids and unlike that of any other gtoup to which the species might 

reasonably be referred, except, perhaps, Terebratuloidea, and the configuration is 

against referring it to that genus. 

This species and the variety ovata arc related to N. simplex and N. injlata of the 

Salt Range fauna, to N. exilis and N. mediterranea as identified by Diener in the 

Himalayan region, toN. nucleolus of the RussianGschelian fauna, and toN. [Rostranteris] injlata of Gemmellaro's Sicilian fauna, but I can not consider them specifically 

identical. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle ·of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). 

NOTOTIIYRIS SCHUCIIERTENSIS var. 'OVATA n. var. 

Pl. XV, figs. 26 to 26c. 

This variety differs from the original species in being narrower and having the 

point of greatest width nearer the center of the shell. The plications are the same 

as in Notothyris schuchertensis. The median plication on the dorsal valve appears to 

be a little smaller than those lateral to it. 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 337 

I have referred to this variety an imperfect specimen from the ''dark limestone" 

(station 2930), the anterior portion of which is missing, so that the specific characters can not be satisfactorily determined; at least there is no apparent reason why it 

should not be placed with this species. Special mention, however, would not need 

to be given to this example save that it shows internal characters which seem t oa 

certain extent to corroborate Waagen's more or less tentative diagnosis of the genus. 

Dental plates are entirely absent in the ventral valve. In the dorsal valve the loop 

is short and incomplete, but it may be broken. Septal plates seem to be absent in 

this valve also, and in fact a hinge plate of any sort if not absolutely wanting is rudimentary, the crura being attached directly to the two sides of the shell near the umbo. 

Horizon and locality.-Top of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2966); 

middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926); "dark limestone," Pine 

Spring (st:ttion 2930 ?) , Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas· (station 2969). 

N OTOTHYRIS sp. 

Pl. XXXI, fig. 7. 

This name is introduced for an imperfect specimen which is interesting chiefly 

for the generic characters which it shows. It is a dorsa] valve, and though a fragment it shows a well-marked median sinus. Consequently it belongs to the antiplicata;. On the inside the apical portion is crossed by a well-developed hinge plate, 

which is not, however, supported by septa. Its posterior portion is perforated by a 

rounded or elliptical foramen, as described byWaagen. From its front margin project the crura, which are in this case broken off. 

It seems fairly certain that this is a representative of Waagen's Notothyris, corroborating his description in a number of important particulars. In its specific relations it is very different from the two other Guadalupian types. It also presents 

wide ·differences, so far as can be determined, from any of Waagen's Indian species. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Comanche Canyon, Glass 

Mountains, Texas (station 3763). 

Genus HETERELASMA n. gen. 

This group of shells, which appears to constitute an undescribed genus, is represented in the Guadalupian fauna by two species, of which Ileterelasma shumardianum 

is taken as the type. This species has several rather striking peculiarities of configuration, such as the very compressed shape, which.leaves only a narrow distance 

between the two valves, and the sma11 appressed beak of the ventral valve; but as 

these features are less well marked in the second species, they would best not be 

included in the generic description. In regard to configuration, it can probably be 

said with safety, however, that, as in the Dielasmas, a more or less strong sinus was 

developed on the ventral valve and a corresponding fold on the dorsal, but in the 

case 'of Heterelasma a reverse plication is subsequently developed, more obvious on 

the dorsal than on the ventral valve, which produces an emargination of the front 

margin more or less pronounced, as the case may be. 

36!)5-No. 58-08--22 
338 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

On the interior the ventral valve b·ears two rather short dental plates, a feature 

very common among the Paleozoic terebratuloids, and in addition there appears to 

have been a low median septum. In the dorsal valve, however, a median septum is 

rather well developed. It is moderately high, and extends well forward. Septal 

plates are entirely absent, and even the hinge plate is rudimentary, being reduced 

to a thickening of the rim of the dorsal valve under the beak, at which the crura 

originate. The character of the loop is not known. . 

The shell substance has of course the usual punctate and foliaceous structure. 

The configuration, and especially the internal structure, of: these shells makes 

it impossible to refer them to any of the known genera, at least of Paleozoic forms, 

and in fact I do not know of any to which they are very closely allied. 

HETERELASMA SHUMARDIANUM n. sp. 

Pl. XV, figs. 21 to 22b; Pl. XXIX, fig. 10?. 

Shell rather small,a flat, subpentagonal. Ventral valve moderately curved 

longitudinally, nearly flat transversely. Greatest width about three-fourths the 

length back from the front margin. Posterior lateral slopes g_ently curved, meeting 

at an angle Of approximately 90°. Sides gently curved, slightly converging toward 

the front .. Anterior outline· strongly emarginate. The beak is small, wide, and 

incurved; flattened on the foramina! side into hooded expansions. The transverse 

curvature is slightly concave except near the posterior end. There is the merest 

suggestion of a mesial fold toward the front. 

The shape of: the dorsal valve is l.ike that of the ventral, but with a more obtuse 

posterior angle. The longitudinal outline is nearly straight; the transverse strongly 

convex. Beak small and prominent. Near the posterior end the transverse curva- "' 

ture is angular and gablelike, but this elevation is truncated below by a mesial sinus 

of increasing strength, which is deep at the front. A reentrant angle in the anterior 

outline is thus produced, on either side of which are projections made by the two 

plications .. 

On the' interior there are two short dental plates in the ventral valve, with a 

long median thickening, like a low septum. The dorsal valve also has a median 

septum. 

This species evidently resembles Dielasma problematicum W aagen, from which, 

however, it is at once distinguished by the absence of a fold in the ventral valve, as 

well as by the general configuration. Waagen refers his species to Dielasma. 

Gemmellaro refers to Hemiptychina species, which have a close resemblance to this. 

It is evident that H. shumardianum, since it possesses dental plates, can not be a 

Hemiptychina. 

Associated with H. shumardianum at station 2926 were found a few smaJI 

scalelike shells having a punctate structure and other characters indicating more 

or less close specific relationship. I have provisionally included them in the same 

species, as they have the expression which H. shumardianum would probably have 

presented in its younger stages. The immaturity of these shells is suggested by 

a A subsequent addition to our collection shows that, in addition to being relatively broad and flat, like the type specimen, this species may be narrower and much thicker. 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 339 

their slight convexity, as well as by the beak, which seems to be unusually erect 

for the genus. They have been placed with H. shumardianum in preference to 

H. venustulum because of their slight convexity. The fact that the two specimens 

found are of one size and that no examples intermediate between them and mature 

H. shumardianum have been found brings this procedure into some question. 

Horizon and locality.-Top of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2966); 

middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926), Guadalupe Mountains, 

Texas. Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas 

(station 2969). 

HETERELASMA VENUSTULUM n. sp. 

PI. XV, figs. 23 to 24b. 

Shell small, convex, subpentagonal. Greatest width at about the mid-length. 

Ventral valve gently flexed longitudinally. The posterior portion is rather strongly 

convex, the anterior half flattened. Beak of medium size, much incurved. 

Dorsal valve moderately curved longitudinally, strongly curved transversely. 

No fold distinct from the subangular shape of the valve as a whole. At the front, 

and very restricted in its extension, is a well~marked median depression, giving rise 

to two short, low plications. . 

The form is related to H. shumardianum, and, like it, possesses in the ventral 

valve, besides the two dental lamellre, a long median septum, which can be traced 

almost to the front margin. The dorsal valve has, likewise, a short median septum, 

but whether it is connected with,other plates, as in Dielasma, I have not been able to 

ascertain. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 

Family SPIRIFERIDAli King. 

In scarcely any group of brachiopods is the difference between the Guadalupian 

fauna and that of the Salt Range more pronounced than in the family of Spiriferidre. 

The generic representation is pretty much the same, both faunas possessing members 

of Spirijer, Spirijerina, Martinia, and Sq_uamularia)· but the Guada:lupian fauna has 

Ambocmlia and the Productus limestone fauna Martiniopsis, not found in the other. 

The eight species of Spirifer known from the Productus limestone are divided 

by Waagen into five groups. The group of S. striatus has no representatives in 

the Guadalupe Mountains so far as I am aware. Waagen refers to it two species, 

S. striatus and S. marcoui, remarking of the latter that it is a characteristic species 

of the American "Coal Measures." In this he is quite in error, for so far as my experience goes it is entirely absent from the "Coal Measures" of central and eastern 

United States, where most of our paleontologic work has been done. It is in fact a 

distinctly western type, which occurs in the Hueco formation below the Guadalupian. 

The group of S. tegulatus, ·also embracing two species, is present in the Guadalupian 

in the form or group of forms which I have called Spirifer sp. b, represented in our 

collection by but a few fragmentary specimens. The group of S. duplicicosta, to 
340 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

which S. wynnei of the Productus limestone belongs, is probably represented in my 

fauna by S. mexicanus and its two varieties and by Spirifer sp. a. There are, however, strong differences in the configuration of S. mexicanus, which make its relationship to S. wynnei rather remote, while some of the forms which I have placed in the 

same group with S. mexicanus are still less similar. Spirijer oldhamianus, S. alatus, 

and S. niger of the Indian fauna have, so far as known, no allied types in that of the 

Guadalupe Mountains, just as S. sulcifer of S}mmard has none in the Productus 

limestone. On the whole the Spirifers of the Productus limestone are much more 

like those of the Hueconian than of the Guadalupian. In this entire section, however, including both its divisions, this genus is rather sparingly developed, in point 

of differentiation as well as abundance. In both particulars the Alaskan Carboniferous faunas are more fortunate. 

Of Martinia W aagen distinguishes five species. The groups of Martinia glabra 

and M. corculum, each represented by a single species, appear to be absent from the 

Guadalupian fauna; but the g.roup of M. warthii, conwrising the three remaining 

Salt Range species, will perhaps embrace the only two types at present known from 

the Guadalupe Mountains, though the resemblance between the Guadalupian and 

the Indian species is not very great, considering how small the limits of variation 

really are within the group. 

As would be expected, the Squamularias of the Guadalupian fauna resemble 

those of the Salt Range somewhat closely. I have contented myself with recognizing 

but three varieties in the Guadalupian. Waagen discriminates three species from 

the Productus limestone, and apparently his Reticularia lineata and R. elegantula 

correspond to the Guadalupian Squamularia guada(upensis and R. indica to S. guadalupensis var. subg_uadrata without any Indian equivalent for S. guadalupensis var. 

ovalis, but there may be intrinsic differences of sculpture, etc., which contradict the 

resemblances observable in configuration. 

Between the Spiriferinas of the indian and the American faunas I find it difficult 

to make a satisfactory comparison: The minute characters of sculpture, not easily 

described or represented by figures and very apt to be lost or obscured by preserv~­

tion, have been destroyed in some of my Guadalupian shells and apparently in some 

of the Indian specimens also. I regard these as of much importance in discriminating and grouping species, and consequently will not venture to make extensive nor 

indeed more than tentative comparisons. In the Guadalupian fauna Spirijerina 

billingsi and its allies seem to form a rather well-defined group. These may be rep~ 

resented in the Salt,Range by Waagen's group of S. insculpta, to which S. ornata is 

referred. This species appears to l:Je very closely related to S. billingsi itself. S. evax, 

which I have placed in the same group with S. billingsi, is suggestive of the Indian 

shell which Waagen identifies as S. multiplicata Sow. Waagen does not place 

S. multiplicata in the same group asS. ornata, but with S. cristata, and if this disposition of the species is correctS. multiplicata and S. evax are not so similar as at first 

appears. In any event the type of S. billingsi apparently shows a. wider range of 

variation in the Guadalupian fauna than has been founcJ. in India. S. cristata, as 

identified in the Indian fauna, is perhaps represented by the imperfectly known 

S. hilli and the other Guadalupian forms whicli appear to be allied to it. Perhaps 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 341 

all three species which Waagen assigns to the group of 8.lima, viz, S. cristat,a, S. multiplicata, and•S. nasuta, have here their only Guadalupian allies. In spite of its 

strongly lamellose surface, I believe that S. nasuta Waagen is not allied to S. billingsi, because it has a median plication in the ventral sinus and very coarse punctation. Perhaps its closest Guadalupian type is 8. hilli and related species. 

S. vercheri of vVaagen probably has no allied form in the Guadalupian, for he refers it 

to the group of S. transversa McChes. and S. transvers·a has none. On the other hand, 

S. pyramidalis, S. laxa, and S. welleri seem to be without representatives in the Salt 

Range faunas. 

In his paper on the Carboniferous faunas of Kashmir and Spiti, Diener distinguishes among the Spiriferidre the foUl' genera Spiriferina, Spirifer, Martiniopsis, 

and Syringothyris, the latter belonging probably to a different and earlier fauna. 

Martiniopsis, as I have already had occasion to remark, is not found in the Guadalupian, which contains the types Martinia, Squamularia, and A,hbocmlia, not recognized by Diener. The only species of Spiriferina is one cited as Spiriferina cf. 

lcentuclcyensis, and while the Himalayan form is without much doubt distinct from 

our Pennsylvanian one, it represents a type which appears to be absent among the 

·numerous species in the Guadalupian fauna. Thus in point of the genus Spiriferina 

the faunas are widely different, so far as known. Only slightly less different are the 

Spirifers of which Diener cites ten species. The group of S.jasciger, comprising 

three species, is probably represented by the rare and imperfectly known species or 

. group of speeies whieh I have cited merely as Spirijer sp. b. The group of S. trigonalis, that of S. pinguis, and that of S. alatus, each containing one species, and the 

group of S. clarlcei, with two, have no related forms in the Guadalupian fauna so far 

as known. Spirifer rajah and Spirifer undet. aff. rajah, constituting the group of 

Spirifer rajah, ~how considerable diversity of character. Some of Diener's figures 

seem to represent a species related to S. sulcifer Shumard, while others are in a measure comparable with S. mexicanus Shumard, though the resemblance is somewhat 

distant. With this possible exception the group of S. mexicanus, the most abundant 

and characteristic Spirifer of the Guadalupian, does not occur in Diener's faunas, 

while most of his Spirifers are either absent from the G1~adalupian or, in part, doubtfully represented by rare and little known species. 

In Diener's second paper on Spiti fossils the Spiriferid.re from the lower beds 

appear under the titles Spirijer cf. strangwaysi, S. curzoni, Spirifer sp. ind. ex aff. 

Spirifer curzoni, Spirifer (Ambocmlia ?) sp. ind. aff. fusiformis, and Martiniopsis cf. 

subpentagonalis. None of these species seems to bear much resemblance to any in" 

the Guadalupian, and, in fact, the fauna to which they belong is probably a much 

older one. Spirifer curzoni has proved to be a Syringothyris. The species which 

Diener thinks is probably closely related to S. curzoni is almost certainly very different, as it has plications on the fold and is compared to the Devonian form 8. disJUnctus var. sulcifer. The Spirifer related to S. fusiformis, to judge by the configuration shown by his figures, is probably not an Ambocmlia. It is somewhat surprising to find the "genus Martiniopsis associated with a fauna which is probably either 

very late Devonian or early Carboniferous in age. Although the punctation of the 

shell might possibly be an appearance due to the bases of old spines, the form in 
342 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

question ca,n hardly be a Reticularia, as one might surmise, because it has two dental 

plates in the ventral valve, while Reticularia has in addition a median septum. 

The Spiriferid::e of the upper fauna of Spiti, according to Diener, are confined to 

five species of Spirifer, the other genera found in the Guadalupian being, so far as 

known, absent. The shells referred to Spirifer distejanii much resemble in their 

configuration Spirijerina evax of this report, but I have no species of Spirifer which 

is like them. If S. marcoui, S. jasciger, and S. nitiensis have any related species in 

the Guadalupian, it is in the imperfectly known Spirifer sp. b. The resemblance 

between S. rajah and S. sulcifer Shumard has already been commented upon. 

Among the Spiriferid::e obtained in the limestone crag of Chitichun, Diener cites 

Spirijerina, Spirifer, Martinia, and Sq_uamularia, all of them Guadalupian genera, 

which include, also, Ambocmlia. The only Spiriferina is identified as S. cristata 

var. octoplicata Sow., and it seems to be similar in configuration to S. billingsi, 

described by Shumard, 'though concentric ornamentation is said to be absent. No 

further account of the sculpture is given, and as this feature accordingly appears to 

be unknown it is impossible effectually to compare the Himalayan form with those 

from the Guadalupe Mountains. 

A rather strong and unexpected resemblance between the Spirifers of the two 

regions appears to exist. S. musakheylensis, if represented in the Guadalupian, is 

represented in the very fragmentary material· which I have call~d Spirifer sp. b. 

Spirifer wynnei, however, is closely allied to S. mexicanus, while S. tibetanus is very 

similar to S. mexicanus var. compactus, S. mexicanus var., and possibly also to · 

S. sulcifer. 

Diener distinguishes six species of Martinia in the Chitichun fauna, several of 

which are closely related to the two Guadalupian species. · M. elegans and M. acutimarginalis correspond to },f. rhomboidalis and M. shumardiana, respectively; but the 

less elongate types, such as M. semiplana and },;f. contracta, have not been found as yet 

in the Guadalupian fauna. The last-named species was originally described from 

the Mississi,ppian of the United States, the genus not being known, in fact, in the 

Pennsylvanian of the Mississippi Valley and Appalachian region. Wnite's identification of }IL contracta in the upper Carboniferous of Nevada is based on a species 

of Sq_uamularia. I must call attention in this connection to one of Diener's figures referred to Martinia elegans.a It has a different shape from the other specim~n 

figured on the same'plate, though not so different from the specimen figured on his 

Pl. IX. It hardly seems likely that Diener has fallen into this error, but the figure, 

in its configuration, sculpture, and even in its shell punctation, certainly is very 

suggestive of a large orthoid, such as Schizophoria or Orthotichia. 

It would be expected that the form 'Vhich Deiner calls Reticularia lineata would 

closely resemble that which in our fauna Shumard described as Spirifer guadalupensis, 

but such is not the case. One of the varieties figured resembles Sq_uamularia guadalupensis var. subq_uadrata, but the others have a configuration distinctly different 

from any of the Guadalupian forms. · 

In his second paper on the Chitichun fauna Diener recognizes two species of 

Spirijerina-S. margarit!£ Gemm. and S. octoplicata var. fastigata Schell. The latter 

a Mem. Geol. Survey India, Pal. Indica, scr. 15, vol. 1, pt. 3, 1897, pl. 8, fig. 2. 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 343 

is the form which he had previously called S. cristata var. octoplicata. In so far as I 

can judge, this form possesses neither the regular lamellose sculpture of the billingsi 

group nor the small spines which cover the surface of S. laxa and its allies. If, therefore, it has a related species in the Quadalupian, it must be inS. hilli, though I have 

provisionally placed that form with the spinosce. S. margaritce, however, seems to 

be extremely similar, both in configuration and in sculpture, to S. billingsi. Certain 

types related to S. billingsi, found in the American fauna, and others, such asS. laxa, 

S. pyramidalis, and S. welleri, are not known from the Chitichun crag. 

Of Spirijer Diener cites only one species, S. tibetanus, whose resemblance to 

S. mexicanus var. compactus has already been referr-.d to. He also distinguishes three 

species of Reticularia ( = Squamularia), and if I deemed it advisable to apply sin1ilar 

rather trivial distinctions to the Guadalupian shells, possibly several species could 

be made out among them as well. I am not sure, however, that such small variations may not be warrantably seized upon in this group, for in it the lines of discrimination are very few and restricted. 

The Spiriferidm of the fauna which Diener described from Kumaon and Gurhwal 

include only the genera Spirifer and Martinia. In the Guadalupian we find, in addition, Spiriferina, Squamularia, and Ambocdia. Diener calls attention to the fact 

that of the six species of Spirifer, which he discriminates, the majority belong to the 

group of B. jasciger. In point of fact, none of the Spirifers of this fauna have any 

Guadalupian representatives, unless it be in Spirijer sp. b, and they recall much more 

strongly the Spirifcrs of the underlying Hueco formation. Conversely, of course, 

the dominating and characteristics types of Spirifer in the Guadalupian do not occur 

in Diener's fauna. Equally little resemblance is sho,vn in the genus Martinia, the 

single Himalayan species belonging to a different group from the two Guadalupian 

ones. 

In the fauna from Malia Sangcha the Spiriferidm are represented by the genera 

Spirijerina, Spirifer, Martinia, and Squamularia, about as in the Guadalupian, which 

has in addition a species of Ambocmlia. The only Spiriferina is cited as Spiriferina 

cf. octoplicata var. fastigata Schell., but Diener is in doubt as to its real affinities. 

The configu~ation suggests a somewhat aberrant example of S. billingsi. Of the 

Spirifers, 8. wynnei and S. tibetanus closely resemble S. mexicanus and S. mexicanus 

var. compactus, as has already been pointed out. S. fasciger and Spirijer sp. ind. ex 

afl'. Sp. marcmli, the two other Spirifers noted by Diener, are represented in the 

Guadalupian by Spirifer sp. b. The resemblance of Martinia acutimarginalis and 

M. elegans to the two Guadalupian species 111. rlwmboidalis and M. shumardiana 

has already been remarked in connection with another fauna. The two other 

Martinias cited by Diener are not nearly related .to the Guadalupian forms. Of 

the three species of Squamularia which have been recognized in the fauna of Malla 

Sangcha-Reticularia cf. lineata, Reticularia cf. pulcherrima, and Retimtlaria (Squamularia) cf. dieneri-the two former are possibly similar to the Guadalupian representatives of the genus, but we have nothing which closely resembles S. cf. dieneri. 

The Spiriferidm of the Productus limestone of the Lissar Valley are confined, so 

far as known, to the genus Spirifer alone, of which Diener cites six species. One of 

these, Spirifer rajah, as already mentioned in another connection, appears to be 

related to Shumard's species Spirifer sulcifer. The five remaining types, if they 
344 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

have any related Guadalupian forms, frnd them in the scantily known species or 

group of species which it has seemed best to denominate merely Spirijer sp. b. 

From the Productus shales of Byans Diener cites only three species of Spirifer. 

S. rajah may be considered as representing S. sulcifer and Spirifer cf. ravana, and 

S.fasciger as provisionally representing Spirifer sp. b. of the Guadalupian fauna. 

Among the fossils described from Tibet by Davidson only the genus Spirifer was 

found as belonging to the Spiriferidre. One indeterminable form and another 

which has since proved to be a Chonetes of the grandicostate division being omitted, 

there are four species but slightly related to the Spirifers of the Guadalupian. 

Davidson's figure of S. rajah Salter depicts a form by no means very similar to any 

of those of the present work, yet Salter's original figure and those of Diener appear 

to represent one related to S. sulcifer and to some extent to S. mexicanus var. compactus. Spirifer vihianus, and probably S. kashmerianus, have no related Guadalupian species, so far as known, and S. musakheylensis is represented, if at all, by the 

shells here grouped under the title Spirifer sp. b. 

The Spiriferidre of the Salt Range and Himalaya, while related to those of the 

Guadalupian, present many points of difference. On the whole, pending a detailed 

study of our collection, they are more closely allied to the faunas of the Hueeo formation. In the case of Chitichun (No. 1) and the Lissar Valley, however, the resemblance to the Guadalupian Spirifers is rather striking, one point of difference being 

the much. greater differentiation in the latter of the· genus Spiriferina, anoth~r the 

presence of A.mbocmlia, which seems to be absent from all these Asiatic faunas. 

The fauna from Turkestan described by Romanowsky contains species belonging to Spirifer, Spiriferina, Martinia, and probably Reticularia of the Spiriferidre, 

but they have scarcely anything in common with those of the Guadalupian, a~d 

probably belong to a much older fauna. I will not, consequently, stop to discuss 

them in detail, but proceed to speak of the ·more nearly related faunas of eastern 

Asia. 

In the fauna which Kayser described from Lo Ping the Spiriferidre cut a rather 

poor figure. The genus ,Spirifer as now restricted is, so far as known, entirely 

absent, the types which Kayser cites as such being distri"butable among the genera 

Sq_uamularia and Martinia. The large Sq_uamularia from Lo Ping which he identifies with Spirifer lineatus resembles some of the large shells which I have called 

S. guadalupensis var. ovalis, and the smaller ones referred to the same species resemble S. guadalupensis var. subq_uadraia. The large species from Tschantien identified as Spirifer lineatus also resembles Sq_uamularia guadalupensis var. subq_uadrata 

more than any other form. The form which he cites as Spirifer lineatus? is the 

same to which Loczy subsequently gave the name Reticularia waageni (fide Fliegel) 

and appears to have no Guadalupian representative. I suspect Kayser's Spirifer 

ellipticus to be a Martina, and his Spirifer glabra? presumably belongs to the same 

group. If so, th.e former species appears to be closely related to ·Martinia subq_uadrata of the Guadalupian, but the latter is probably unrepresented there. The 

two faunas appear to resemble each other so far as t~ey have common ground for 

comparison, but the absence from Kayser's fauna of the genera Spirifer and Spiriferina is noteworthy. 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 345 

The fossils which Loczy examined from Kantschoufu repFesent a different and 

probably considerably older fauna than the Guadalupian, and the Spiriferidro present among them, such as three species of Spirifer and one of Reticularia (Squamularia ?) , have little in common with the' American forms. . 

Among the "Permo-Carboniferous" fossils from the Lantsankiang Valley Loczy 

distinguishes only three species among the Spi:riferidro, designated as ?Spiriferina 

sp. indet. aff. Spirifer (Martinia) planiconvexus Shumard, ?Spinfer sp. indet., a;nd 

Reticularia waageni. The form which Loczy compares with Ambocmlia planiconvexa is of uncertain affinities, as is evident from the author's method of citation. 

The peculiar character would appear to be its configuration, taken in connection 

with the presence of dental plates and a median septum in the ventral valve. There 

can be but little doubt that the form is not an Ambocmlia nor, I believe, a Spiriferina, as Loczy suggests. The configuration is that of a Reticularia or Sq_uamularia, 

and the septal arrangement is precisely that which is present in Reticularia. It 

would therefore appear probable that the form in question will prove to belong to 

that genus. One contradictory fact is that in other areas, so far as I am aware, the 

genus Sq_uamularia is restricted to the earlier faunas of the Carboniferous. Loczy's 

species can hardly be a Martiniopsis, for Martiniopsis is without a septum. The 

second of Loczy's species is t.oo imperfect to form a subject of comparison. He suggests that it may belong to Spirifer striatus, a relationship which certainly would 

not be inferred from his figure. The last form is a Sg_uamularia described as a new 

species under the title Reticularia waageni and is not distaritly related to S. guadalupensis var. subq_uadrata of the American fauna. Fliegel placed Spirifer lineatus? 

Kayser (non Martin) in the synonymy of this species, but the figures seem hardly to · 

admit such a disposition. · · 

From Tschungtjen Loczy cites Martinia cf. M. glabra Martin, and from Talischau Spirifer cf. alat118 Schlott., Spirifer sp. indet., and Spirifer sp. indet. None 

of these forms shows much affinity with those 'of. the Guadalupian, and in general 

the Spiriferidro of the Chinese faunas, at least in their imperfectly known condition, 

are noticeable for their scanty representation and differentiation ·and are unlike 

rather than like those of the Guadalupian. 

In the Carboniferous fauna described by Beyrich from Timor he d~stinguishes 

Spiriferidro belonging to the genera Spirffer, Sq_uamularia, and Spirfferina. The 

only species of Sq_uamularia is identified as S. lineata. In their more elongate shape 

and stronger and more distantly arranged fimbriate bands, Beyrich's figures appear 

to represent a different species from S. guadalupensis and its allies. The form 

identified as Spirffer musakheylensis is represented in my fauna, if at all, by Spirifer 

sp. b. Spirifer tasmanianus Morr; var.? appears to have no corresponding form in 

the American fauna, while S. kupangensis is perhaps remotely related to S. fasciger. 

The single species of Spirfferina is identified with S. cristata. By its configuration 

it rather suggests S. hilli and its allies. Martin also described some fossils from 

Timor, arnong which are Sq_uamularia (or Reticularia) lineata, Martinia glabra, and 

Spirijer timorensis. The figures of the first two are so poor that an attempt to 

compare them with the Guadalupian types would be futile. Spirffer timorensis 

belongs to the cameratus group, and is represented in the Guadalupian, if at all, by 

Spirijer sp. b. 
346 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA, 

Rothpletz in revising the faunas of Timor and Rotti distinguished three species 

of Spirifer, one of Martinia, one of Squamularia, and one of Spirijerina. His 

figures of Spirifer interplicatus, the same form which Beyrich had called S. tasmanianus var., suggest S. fasciger and S. mexicanus var. compactus, etc., a little more 

than the original ones, but the relationship at most would appear to be remote. 

Somewhat closer is that of S. kupangensis, as already remarked. The third species, 

cited as Spirijer musakheylensis and said to be the same as Martin's S. timorensis, 

appears to be allied to some of the imperfectly known types which I have been 

forced to group under the title Spirifer sp. b. Martinia nucula is not very closely 

related to the Guadalupian M. rhomboidalis, while Reticularia lineata is for the genus 

considerably different from S quamularia guadalupensis. Indeed it would be a pardonable mistake for one examining the figures to take the species for a Martinia. 

Spiriferina cristata, representing the genus Spir~ferina, is not figured, and if it has 

any representative in the Guadalupian, which seems a little doubtful, some of the 

shells allied to S. hilli furnish this relationship. 

In the "Upper Carboniferous" fauna of Padang, which Fliegel has described, 

only one type of the Spiriferidre was found. Fliegel cites it as Reticularia lineata, 

but does not figure it or describe it except in a few general terms. 

The small fauna which Tschernyschew lists from. Vladivostok furnishes three 

species of Spiri:fer-S. str.iatus, S. fasciger, and S. alatus. The latter type is not 

represented in the Guadalupian fauna, and the two former only by the rare and 

imperfectly known Spiri:fer sp. b. 

The '' Permo-Carboniferous'' Spiriferidre of Queensland. and New Guinea are 

abundant and well differentiated. Etheridge cites representatives of 8piri:fer, 

· Spir~ferina, Reticularia," Martinia, and Martiniopsis. The Spirifers comprise 16 

species. These fossils, originally preserved as molds and more or less distorted, are 

not very satisfactorily shown in the :figures. This is, however, a much better representation than that of the Guadalupian, and it is also very different. Most of the 

species belong to types which are rare in the Guadalupe Mountains, being represented only by fragments which I have grouped under the caption Spir~fer sp. b. 

Several forms have no Guadalupian representatives, such as Spirifer pinguis 

(probably), 8. bicarinatus, and S. strzeleckii. On tl_1e other hand, the common and 

characteristic Guadalupian species Spir~fer mexicanus, not to mention S. sulcifer, 

belong to groups which appear to be absent from the Australian fauna. 

Spirijerina duodecimcostata and an undetermined species are the only represeiJ.tatives of Spir~ferina recorded by Etheridge. The figure of the former species 

does not suggest a cl'ose relationship with any Guadalupian form, but no safe inference can be drawn in the case of this genus. · The specimens which Dana identifies as 

Spiri:fer duodecimcostatus are tru,e Spirifers of a non-Guadalupian type. They seem 

closely related to Spiri:fer darwini. 

Reticularia is represented, according to Jack and Etheridge, by Reticularia 

lineata and R. urei. The latter is presumably an Ambocmlia, but as neither form is 

figured comparisons are impossible. 

The singular form described as Martinia? productoides is quite unlike any 

known Guadalupian species of Martinia. 

Martiniopsis receives three species in Etheridge's account, but one of them 

( Martiniopsis darwini) I believe to be not a Martiniopsis but a Spiri:fer. This 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 347 

author says that if Spirifer subradiatus is correctly placed in Martiniapsis, Spif'i:fer 

darwini will also fall into that genus, as their internal structure is on the same plan. 

If I understand the matter aright, the chief distinction between Martiniapsis and 

Spir1fer is to be found in the configuration. The presence of dental plates, which 

occur in many Spirifers, especially the Carboniferous ones, distinguishes Martiniapsis from Martinia. I have examined the forms referred by Dana to Sp~f'i:fer 

darwini and feel no hesitation in placing them with $pir1fer rather than Martiniapsis. They appear to be the same species which Etheridge identified as Martiniapsis darwini. Spirifer darwini is of a type unknown in the Guaclalupian. The 

two other forms also have no equivalents in the Guadalupian, as Martiniopsis is 

not known in that fauna. 

According to De Koninck, the Spiriferidre of New South Wales show an extensive variation. Aside from Spi~ferina, he described 16 species, some of which 

would now be referred to other though related genera. 

Spi~fer lineatus and S. crebristriatus probably correspond to the Guadalupian 

Squamularia. The ,horizon of S. crebristriatus is the lower beds of the Carboniferous, 

while S. lineatus seems to occur in both the lower and the upper (Muree quarry). 

The latter station is not mentioned in the list of known Carboniferous (as distinguished from" Permo-Carboniferous,n by which term the upper beds are designated) 

localities, but probably the inference is not justified that all stations not found in 

the list are" Permo-Carboniferous." In point of fact, many speciqs which occur at 

the known Carboniferous horizons are citeu from the Muree beds also. There is 

no telling what horizon furnished the figured specimen of S. lineatus, but in any 

event it is a widely different species from Squamularia guadalupensis. 

Spirifer glaber and S. darwini, which appear to have been found in New South 

Wales onJy in the "Permo-Carboniferous" (Muree quarry among other localities), 

have been shown to belong to Waagen's genus Martiniapsis. There are no corresponding forms known in the Guadalupian. 

· Most of the true Spirifers appear to have come from the "Permo-Carboniferous" 

series. Such are S. avifarmis, which has sometimes been referred to Martiniapsis; 

S. duadecimcastatu8, which has been referred to Spiriferina; S. strzeleckii, S. clarkei, 

S. canvalutus, S. vespertilia; S. bisulcatus, .which occurs, it would appear, at both 

horizons; and S. tasmaniensis. The ''Permo-Carboniferous'' Spirifers are throughout 

distinguished b3r their robust size, as are most of the brachiopods. They are much 

more diverse than the Guadalupian representatives of the genus, and for the most. 

part belong to entirely different groups, I can suggest no comparisons that would 

not seem fanciful. I do not see in these fo.rms any relationship with the Guadalupian Spiriferidre worth considering. 

De Koninck recognized only two species of Spiriferina in his account of the 

Carboniferous faunas of New South Wales, both from the lower beds of the system. 

He also cites a species of Oyrtina from a practically unknown locality and horizon. 

Nothing like the latter is known in the Guadalupian. 

I need not take time to consider the fauna of the Praductus giganteus zone of 

the Russian section, and though some additional species are given in lists, will confine my comparison with the Spiriferidre of the Moskovian fauna to Trautschold's 

· monograph. From this work it would appear that the family is represented at this 

horizon by the groups Spirifer, Spiriferina, Martinia, and Squamularia?. In regard 
348 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

to thelatter genus I would remark that Trautschold's figures are suggestive rather 

of a Oleiothyriidina than a Reti'cularia or a Sg_uamularia. The Spirifers, embracing 

S. mosq_uensis, 8. trigonalis, 8. strangwaysi, and 8. angustivolvatus, have little in common with the Guadalupian Spirifers, and evidently belong to a much earlier fauna, 

being, in fact, more appropriately compared with those of what are at present considered the lower beds of the Hueco formation. Martinia glabra and Spiriferina 

cristata are imperfectly figured and described, but theF>e two genera doubtless show 

the same relationship as the Spirifers. . 

In the Gschelian Tschernyschew recognizes Spiriferidre belonging to the genera 

Spiriferina, Spiriferella, Spirifer, Martiniopsis, Martinia, and Sq_uamularia. Eight 

species are referred to Spirijerina. Spiriferinasimensis, the only representative of the 

groi.1p of that name, is not represented in the Guadalupian fauna·, although S. sulcata 

may be compared with it in some respects. At best the relationship is only distant. 

The group of S. -insculpta, which includes the two Gschelian species S. ornata and 

8. holzapfeli, is represented in the Guadalupia.n by 8. billingsi, which is especially 

comparable to 8. ornata. Tschernyschew places three species .in the group of S. 

cristata. In configurationS. cristata and S. panderi somewhat.suggest S. laxa and 

S. hilli, while the Guadalupian fauna contains nothing similar to the third species, 

8. expansa. But the sculpture of S. laxa and its allies is such that I am disposed 

to believe the group of S. cristata to be absent from the Guadalupian f3;una, unless_ 

it is represented by S. hilli. The group of S. laminosa, comprising S. laminosa var. 

sterlitamalcensis and 8. pymmidalis, is represented in the Guadalupian, if at all, by 

S. billingsi and its allies. The Guadalupian species S. pyramidalis, while similar 

in configuration, appears to be entirely different in surface-ornamentation, though 

this statement is only provisional, the ornamentation of one of the Russianspecies 

being unknown. The subgenus Spiriferella, comprising four species, is, so far as 

known, wanting in the Guadalupian fauna, though some of the species superficially 

sugg€st the form which I have designated merely asS. mexicanus var. 

Of Spirifer Tschernyschew distinguishes no less than 24 species, most of which 

arc absent or scantily represented in the Guadalupian fauna. He places six species 

in the group of S. striatus, which, so far as they have any corresponding Guadalupian forms, find them in the rare and imperfectly known Spirifer sp. b. They are 

nearly allied to Spirifers in the underlying Hueco formation. From Tschernyschew's figures I would doubt whether the form he calls S. cameratus was correctly 

identified. Characteristic S. cameratus is more likeS. fasciger in configuration, and 

never, so far as I am aware, passes into forms with high flat areas, like that shown 

by Tschernyschew's fig. 3 of Pl. XL The groups of S. clarkei and S. alatus, comprising between them three species, appear to be entirely absent from the Guadalupian fauna. The group of S. lyra, which includes three Gschelian species, is 

more closely related to the forms grouped with S. mexicanus than to S. mexicanus 

itself. S. lyra and S. tibetanus are similar in many ways to S. mexicanus var. 

compactus, ancl S. interplicatus var. baschkirica to S. mexicanus var. To the group 

of S. mosq_uensis Tschernyschew refers three species which can be compared to S. 

mexicanus. This is particularly true of S. nikitini, some figures of which resemble 

the Guadalupian species very closely. 'fhe group of S. ventricosus with one species, 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 349 

that of S. trigonalis with one, that of S. melissenis with one, that of S. irltegricosta 

with five, and that of S. triradialis with one, are probably unrepresented in the 

Guadalupian fauna~ · 

, The genus Martiniopsis, which contains six Gschelian species, is not found in 

the Guadalupian fauna. Two of Tschernyschew's species possess a feature which 

I believe to be unprecedented in this group, viz, an unusually distinct fold and 

sinus and well-marked lateral ribs. The figures of 1!1. aschensis and ·~M. baschlcirica are very suggestive of Spirifcrs of the lyra and mosquensis groups. The 

American forms S. mexicanus and S. mexicanus var. compactus, which are supposed 

to be related to the Gschelian ones, possess large and very distinct dental plates, 

while the presence of plates in the dorsal valve (a distinguishing feature of Martiniopsis) docs not seem to have been ascertained by Tschernyschew. Thus, except 

for the minute sculpture, it would seem to me that these two aberrant types of 

Martiniopsis might possibly be Spirifers of the lyra and mosquensis groups. The 

surface characters are lost in the American shells supposed to represent these groups 

and appear to have been destroyed in some of the Russian shells also, as in several 

instances they are not mentioned by Tschernyschew. 

· Fifteen representatives of Martinia are included in Tschernyschew's Gschelian 

fauna. This is a rather remarkable representation, and when I say that it consists 

for the most part of types which are alien to the Guadalupian fauna, the statement 

is made relatively to the very slight differences on which alone the distinction of 

species in this group is for the most part practicable. It may at least be said 

positively that the plicated forms of Martinia, of which Tschernyschew cites three 

species under the title "Group of Martinia linguij era," are not found in the Guadalupian fauna. These well-ribbed species depart so far from the characteristic Martinia expression that one can not banish a feeling that they should be referred to 

some other genus. The group of M. polymorpha, which includes but a single Gscheliail species, is represented in the Guadalupian also by one species, M. shumardiana, 

which seems to be closely related to the Ru~sian form. The remaining Russian 

species, however, are in some cases readily distinguishable from either of the Guadalupian types, and in any event are represented in the American fauna only by the 

form which I have called lYI. rhomboidalis. Unfortunately,, the minute superficial 

characters of the two American species can not be determined. · 

Like the Martinias, the Squamularias hold very closely to a single type, and the 

Squamularias of the Gschelstufe-appear· from Tschernyschew's figures to be closely 

related to those of the Guadalupian. The form identified as Reticularia lineata especially, but also those identified as Reticularia sp. cf. elegantula, and Reticularia sp. aff. 

caroli suggest Squamularia guadalupensis. Reticularia rostrata propably has no 

Guadalupian and the two varieties of Squamularia guadalupensis no Gschelian representatives. I am assuming that 'J'schernyschew's forms are without dental plates, 

like the Guadalupian shells, and that they do not belong strictly to Reticularia, 

where he places them, but probably to Squamularia, which Gemmellaro established 

on 'quite other characters. 

Among the Amboccelias Tschernyschew distinguishes two species, of which that 

referred to A. planiconvexa is clearly the more closely allied to the Guadalupian 
350 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

species. The two are in fact highly similar, both to one another and to the Pennsylvanian form A. planiconvexa. Like the Squamularias and Martinias, the Ambo~ 

crelias possess but few and limited lines of differentiation, and while not much stress 

can be laid on the specific resemblance in these three occurrences, the fact of the generic presence is of some interest, as Ambocmlia appears to have a somewhat restricted 

distribution and to be absent from many faunas where it would he looked for. 

In considering the Spiriferidrn of the Gschelian fauna of the Ural and Timan in 

·relation to those of the Guadalupian many differences become apparent. These are 

due more to types which are found in the Qschelian but not in the Guadalupian than 

to such as are found in the Guadalupian and not in the Gschelian. Least true is this 

in the case of the genus Spiriferina, for apparently the spinose types, such asS. Zaxa, 

S. pyramidalis, etc., do not occur in the Gschelian fauna, nor anything comparable 

to S. welleri.. It is especially true of the Spirifers and Martinias. These groups show 

a differentiation in the. Gschelian fauna, with which the Guadalupian can exhibit 

nothing to compare, while the few Guadalupian species fmd for the most part what 

may be considered equivalent types in the Gschelian. The latter fauna, especially 

in the case of Spirifer', contains numerous species which are either entirely iacking in 

the Guadalupian or represented by forms so rare and imperfectly known that nothing definite can be stated as to their relationship. An exception must be made in 

the case of the genus Mar'tiniopsis, which is unknown in the Guadalupian fauna. 

The Squamularias and Ambocrelias, however, are closely similar, the Gschf)lian containing, as usual, some types peculiar to it. In these genera not much stress can be 

laid on the resemblance in specific characters. The presence of Ambocmlia as a genus 

in the t:vo faunas, however, may not be without significance, for it appears to be 

more restricted in distribution than Squamularia, which is found almost everywhere 

at these horizons. 

I will not pause over Nikitin's and Stuckenberg's papers on the Gschelian Spiriferidrn, for with one or two exceptions all the species which they quote are found in 

Tschernyschew's work, but will pass on to comparisons with the Artinskian fauna. 

In his paper on the Artinskian brachiopods of the southern Urals Tschernyschew 

cites species of Spirijer', Spir'iferina, Reticularia, and Mar'tinia (?): They seem to 

be on the whole much the same as those of the Gschelian, though less varied. The 

Spirifers includeS. fasciger, S. wynnei? and S. marcoui (represented in the Guadalupian possibly by Spirifer sp. b.), S. alatus (without any Guadalupian representative), and S. waageni. The latter species appears not to be found in the Gschelian, 

and is related in some respects to Spir'ifer' sulcijer' and evenS. mexicanus var. Spir'-

iferina cristata is represented by S. hilli, etc., if at all. Spirijer'ella saranx has no 

corresponding type in the Guadalupian, unless perhaps Spir'ifer' mexicanus var. may 

rather distantly resemble it. Reticularia lineata may of course be compared with 

Squamular'ia guadnlupensis and Mar'tinia? subplana to a very limited extent with 

M. rhomboidnlis. 

In his work on the fauna of the Artinsk sandstone Krotow cites nine species of 

Spirifer' and seven of Spiriferinn. Among the Spirifers we may distinguish Spirifer' 

sensu stricto, S quamularia (S pirij er' lineatus), Martinia (S piri fer' glaber), ali 'd. Ambocmlia (Spirifer clannyanus). Among the Spiriferinas are also included representatives of Tschernyschew's genus Spir'ifer'ella (Spirijerina snmnre). The only species 

: ";: I ·~ I 

• ~ '. ·i, 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 351 

which Krotow :figures is Spiriferina acutirostris n. sp., which resembles Spiriferina 

sulcata of the present report. 

While the genera of Stuckenberg's fauna are practically the same as those which 

occur in the Guadalupian, it is doubtful if any essential relationship exists between 

them. He cites from the Artinsk Spirifer poststriatus, S. crassus, and Spirifer sp., 

probably without representatives ·in the Guadalupian. So are also Spiriferella 

artiensis and Spiriferella sarance. Spiriferina subconica, S insculpta, and S. hoferiana are not :figured. Reticularia lineata, Reticularia (Ambocmlia?) clannyana, and 

Martinia glabra, also not :figured, correspond in some degree at least to Sq_uamularia 

guadalupensis, Ambocmlia planiconvexa var. guadalupensis, and Martinia rhom-. 

boidalis. From the Kungurstufe Stuckenberg cites Spirifer poststriatus (possibly 

related to Spirifer sp. b), S. triangularis (non-Guadalupian, so far as known), Spiriferella saranao (probably non-Guadalupian), Spiriferina panderi, S. insculpta (whose 

relation with Guadalupian Spiriferinas is not to be determined), Reticularia lineata 

(comparable to Sq_uamularia guadalupensis), and Ambocmlia planiconvexa (similar to 

A. planiconvexa var. guadalupensis). The Spirifcrid~e of the Artinsk, considered in 

this imperfect way, impress me as rather less closely allied to the Guadalupian 

species than those of the Gschelian. The Artinsk fauna seems to be much less rich 

than that of the Gschelian, and it consequently lacks mimy types of Spiriferid~e 

which, absent in the Guadalupian !llso, constitute an element of difference between 

the Guadalupian and the Gschelian. It lacks, as well, types which are found both 

in the Guadalupian and in the Gschelian and consti~ute a bond between them. One 

interesting feature of the Guadalupian Spiriferid~e is the differentiation of the genus 

Spiriferina, fully equal to that of the Gschelian, whose Spirifers far surpass the 

Guadalupian representation, and much greater than that of the Artinsk. So far as 

I may judge, the brachiopods of the Artinsk fauna are a decimated survival of the 

Gschelian, with some new forms introduced; but my means of gaining a survey of 

the Artinskian species are so fragmentary and imperfect that in the case of the 

Spiriferid~e, as in that of some other families, I feel incapable of forming a just 

conception of their relation to the Guadalupian, especially when such a relat1on is 

set off against that of the more extensive and apparently better known Gschelian. 

The Permian Spiriferid:.e from the government of Kostroma, as determined by 

Tschernyschew, seem to be reduced to a single species, Spiriferina cristata, which 

may be represented by S. hilli and its allies, but may be without a parallel form in 

the Guadalupian fauna. Relatively much more extensively developed docs this 

group appear in Netschajew's paper on the Permian fauna of eastern Russia. Three 

species of Spirifer cited by this author appear to be without Guadalupian relatives; 

the fourth, if considered in the light of De Verneuil's good :figures instead of Netschajew's poor ones, seems to be closely allied to the form from the "dark limestone" 

which I have designated Spirifer mexicanus var. · Spiriferina cristata is possibly to 

be compared· with S. hilli and the forms related to it, but may not be represented in 

o'ur fauna at all. The shell :figured as Reticularia c'annyana is probably an Ambocmlia, and in configuration much resembles A. planiconvexa var. guadalupensis. 

The little shell called Reticularia nucella also suggests a species of Ambocmlia in its 

configuration, but the convexity of the dorsal valve is unusually great. . If really a 

Reticularia or Sq_uamularia its different shape places it beyond comparison with 

Sq_uamularia guadalupensis. 

fiOPERTY OF U. S. BUREAU OF MINES -
352 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

The only species of Spiriferidre cited in Golowkinsky's paper on the Russian 

. Permian are Spirifer rugulntus and Spiriferinn cristntn. The former has no Guadalupian Spir~fer at all resembling it, and the latter, while possibly related to Spirijerinn hilli, is considerably different from S. billingsi and the dominant group of 

Guadalupian Spiriferinas. 

Among the Permian Spiriferidre described by De Verneuil Spir~fer blnsii, as 

before remarked, is suggestive in general expression of the Guadalupian form which 

I have called S. mexicnnus var. It also is very like certain round-winged varieties 

of S. cnmemtus from the Pennsylvanian of the Mississippi and Ohio valleys. The 

other Spirifers, S. hystericus?, Spirifer sp., and S. curvirostris, are so far as known 

without Guadalupian representatives. 

Of the different types of the Spiriferidre found in the Russian Permian Spirifer, 

Spirijerinn, Ambocmlia, and possibly Squnmularia occur in the Guadalupian as well, 

while the American fauna contains Mnrtinin and possibly Squamularia, which are 

absent. from the typical Permian. The Spirifers of the Guadalupian compare with 

those of the Permian of Russia somewhat as with those of the Gschelian and Artinsk, 

as the Russian fauna possesses a number of types not known in the Guadalupian. 

The Guadalupian Spiriferinas reverse th,e matter, showing a greater differentiation 

than either the Artinsk or Permian, and so far as I can judge containing types which 

are absent from any of the Russian faunas. In view of the representation of these 

groups in the Mesozoic, the decline of the Spirifers and the rising differentiation of 

the Spiriferinas in the Guadalupian would not be without significance. So far as I 

grasp the facts and estimate from them, the Guadalupian in its Spiriferidre is only 

moderately related to either the Gschclian, Artinsk, or Permian fauna of the Russian 

section, and possibly a little less to the Artinsk than to the Permian and Gschelian. 

A remarkable feature of the fauna frmn Djoulfa, in Armenia, which Abich 

described, is the complete absence of the Spiriferidre, a family so widery present in 

the Carboniferous and often so well differentiated and abundant. The collection 

studied by Abich was apparently not quite representative in this respect, however, 

for in a subsequent paper by Arthaber a collection from what appears to be about 

the same locality and horizon shows the group to be present, at least so far as the 

genera Spiriferina, Ambocmlia, and Reticularia are concerned. The ~bsence of 

Spirifer still remains an anomaly, a corresponding condition to which is also evidenced in another direction by the absence of Producti of the semireticulatus group. 

Of Spiriferina, the only species cited by Arthaber is S. cristata, which is possibly 

represented in the Guadalupian by S. hilli et al. To Ambocmlia is referred a single 

Armenian species, identified as A. planiconvexa, but referred to the genus JYJartinia. 

Arthaber states that the external surface of his shell has clearly a punctate structure, 

from which I am led to suspect that his form really is a Martinia, and consequently 

not referable to Ambocmlia. planiconvexa. He also distinguishes three species of 

Reticulnrin. That identified as Reticularin cf. pulcherrima Gemm. · is probably 

absent from the Guadalupian fauna, but R. waageni and R. indica are very similar 

to Squarfl,ularia guadalupensis var. subquadrnta and S. gundalupensis var. ovalis, 

respectively .. There seems to be nothing to compare to S. guadalupensis itself. 

The Spiriferidre of the Armenian fauna, therefore, show but little connection with 

the Guadalupian. 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 353 

The fauna from Balia Maaden, in Asia Minor, contains, according to Enderle, 

Spiriferidre belonging to the genera Spirfferina, Spirffer, Martiniopsis, Martinia, 

and Sq_uamularia. If Spirf(erina? baliensis really belongs to the genus indicated, 

it is a remarkable type and comparable ·only to S. welleri of the Guadalupian fauna. 

It has the general appearance of a Spirffer of the keokuk group. Only dorsal valves 

are known. The punctate structure is not mentioned, and on what the reference to 

Spiriferina is really' based does not appear. Of Spirff~r the five species, S. striatus 

var., Spirffer cf. duplicicosta, Spirf(er sp., Sq supramosq_uensis, and S. melissensis, 

have no very close allies in the Guadalupian, espe'cially the last two. S. striatus var. 

and Spir~fer cf. duplicicosta are perhaps remotely related to .the form which I have 

called S. mexican us var. 

Martiniopsis subpentagonalis, representing the genlis Martiniopsis, has no related 

type in the Guadalupian. Martinia nucula is allied, though not very closely, to 

M. rhomboidal is. . The shell referred to M. planiconvexa Shumard though not figured 

may be inferred to be an Amboccelia and related to A. planiconvexa var. guadalupensis. Reticularia lineata and R. indica, which are not figured, presumably resemble 

Sq_uamularia guadalupensis, but this is not true of the crushed specimen figured as 

Reticularia caroli?. Though a general resemblance can be traced between the fauna 

from Balia Maaden and that from the Guadalupe Mountains, it does not appear to 

me to be at all close .. 

The Spiriferidre in the fauna from Palermo described by Gemmellaro comprise 

the genera Cyrtina, Spirfferina, Spirffer, Martinia, $quamularia, and Reticularia. 

Cyrtina josephinre, the only representative of Cyrtina, has no corresponding species 

in the Guadalupian. Spirf(erina pyramidalis resembles it to some extent in configuration, but so far as known belongs to a different· genus. In Gemmellaro's fauna 

there are recorded eight species of Spiriferina. On account of their peculiar surface 

ornamentation, though they are more or less similar in configuration, I judge that 

S. papillosa and S. elegantissima have no corresponding forms in the Guadalupian. 

S. margaritm appears to me unquestionably the representative of S. billingsi Shumard, and S. rupicola, S. salamonensis, and S. toulai appear to be modifications of 

it. A modification similar to the last of these, at least, is as yet unknown in the 

Guadalupian fauna; but, on the other hand, the Guadalupian contains S. sulcata, 

which is without a parallel among the Italian species. So far as I have ascertained, 

the spinose group S.laxa, S. pyramidalis, etc., as well asS. welleri, are not represented 

in the Italian fauna, and probably S. hilli et al. are also without a representative. 

S. schellwieni seems to represent a· type which does not occur in the Guadalupian, 

butS. tornata can possibly be correlated with S. evax. 

Gemmellaro distinguishes 14 species of Spirifer, most of ·which appear to be 

without correspondence in the Guadalupian. Spir~fer battu can apparently be correlated with S. sulc~fer, but S. siculus (though it may be distantly connected with 

S. mexicanus), S. trigonalis, and S. distefanii may fairly be said to be non-Guadalupian types. While some of the figures of S. siculus remotely resembleS. mexicanus, 

others somewhat suggest Spirffer sp. b. 

In the genus Martinia Gemmellaro distinguishes 17 species, discriminated, as it 

must appear to one who knows only the figures, on rather slight differences. Probably the Guadalupian Martinias would by a smaller scale of differences admit of 

3695-No. 58-()8--23 
354 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

greater subdivision, but even if desirable so many of my specimens are imperfect or 

consist of separate valves that I doubt whether it would be practicable. At all 

events, the Sicilian species appear to have furnished a much greater representation 

in individuals and also a greater differentiation than the Guadalupian. Some of the 

Sicilian forms represent types at present unknown in the Guadalupian (e. g., 

M. polymorpha, M. bisinuata, etc.), and some are very closely related to the two 

species which I have recognized. Thus M. rupicola and M. dist~fanoi may be compared to M. rhomboidal is, and M. cor'fb,elia and M. bittneri to M. shumardiana. The 

remaining forms from Sicily are less similar to the two Guadalupian types. 

It is doubtful if there is anything in the Guadalupian to correspond with Gemmellaro's two species of Sg_uamularia. It is almost certain that there is not if they 

are generically distinct from the group that he called Reticularia, to which all the 

Guadalupian species belong and to which, since I believe it to be different from true 

Reticularia, I have extended the generic name "Sq_uamularia." Gemmellaro recognizes six species of Reticularia, distinguished by differences as slight as some of those · 

between his Martinias seem to be. The majority of the Guadalupian Reticularias, 

all of which I have identified as Sq_uamularia guadalupensis, resemble Gemmellaro's 

figures of Reticularia lineata, while S. guadalupensis var. subg_uadrata resembles 

Reticularia affinis and R. caroli. The remaining Sicilian species have no Guadalupian equivalents, and S. guadalupensis var. ovalis is unrepresented in the Sicilian 

fauna. 

Considered as a whole, the Sicilian Spiriferidre appear to me more closely related 

to the Guadalupian than most of the faunas with which comparisons have been 

made. The Guadalupian fauna contains Amboccelia and the Sicilian Sg_uamularia 

sensu stricto, genera in each case not found in the other. A similar condition holds 

true of the Spirifers and Spiriferinas, each fauna having certain types peculiar to it. 

The Squamularias and especially the Martinias from Palermo are more highly differ-

, entiated than those from the Guadalupe Mountains. and contain types at present 

unknown in the Guadalupian fauna. 

In his paper on the fauna of the Carnic Fusulina limestone Schellwien cites the 

genera Retic'ularia, Martinia, Spirifer, and Spiriferina belonging to the Spiriferidre. 

The form referred to Reticularia lineata probably is cognate to the Guadalupian 

species Sq_uamularia guadalupensis. Martinia frechi of Schellwien is almost cer-. 

tainly an Amboccelia related to A. planiconvexa var. guadalupensis. Martinia semiplana and Martinia cf. glabra appear to be without corresponding forms in the · 

Guadalupian, which, on the other hand, contains M. shumardiana, not represented 

in the Carnic Fusulina limestone. M. carinthiaca of the latter probably corresponds 

to M. subg_uadrata, but it appears to some extent to be intermediate between the 

two Guadalupian species. · 

The Carnic Spirifers show many differences from the Guadalupian species. 

Spirijer cf. striatus and S.Jasciger are probably represented by Spirijer sp. b., while 

the remaining members of the genus, S . .fritschi, S. carnicus, S. carnicus var. grandis, 

S. trigonalis var.lata, S. zitteli, and S. zitteli var., probably are without representatives 

in the Guadalupian unless in the same imperfectly known species. 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 355 

Spiriferina coronce belongs to the spinose group of Spiriferinas, which seems to 

be rare except in North America, and it is to be compared to S.laxa and S. pyramidalis, although specifically quite distinct from either. In configuration S. hilli 

and the forms grouped with it are probably even more similar, and it may be that 

they had a similar type of sculpture. 

Distinctly more closely related than .the foregoing are the Spiriferidm of the 

Trogkofelschichten. In this fauna Schellwien recognizes species belonging to 

Spirifer, Spiriferina, Martinia, Ambocmlia, and Sq_uamularia. The group of Spirifer striatus, comprising the single species S.fasciger, is represented in the Guadalupian, if at all, by Spirifer sp. b. To the group of S. mosq_uensis, also represented by 

a single species, there is probably no corresponding type in the Guadalupian. Some 

forms, referred to S.fritch{,a it is true, are very suggestive of S. mexicanus. The 

group of S. trigonalis, with thr!:le species, has, so far as known, no similar Guadalupian forms. The group of S. duplicicosta, containing three species, is represented 

in the Guadalupian by S. mexicanus and its allies, Spirifer wynnei and S. tibetanus var. occidentalis answering to S. mexicanus and S. mexicanus var. compactus, 

though the resemblance is not perhaps very close. The group of S. battu appears to 

be closely related to S. sulcijer Shumard. The group of S. trigonalis, with two 

species, is probably alien to the Guadalupian fauna, and the same is true of 

S. q_uadriradiatus, representing the group of S. triradialis. The form which Schellwien describes as Spirifer bistritzce resembles Spiriferina pyramidalis in configuration, but appears to have no closely related form among the Guadalupian Spirifers. 

-The only Spiriferina in Schellwien's fauna is referred by him to S. cristata var. 

fastigata. The configuration is suggestive of S. billingsi, but the surface seems to be 

without the regular strong concentric lamellm of Shumard's species. 

The form identified by Schellwien as Spirifer (Reticularia) lineatus is closely 

allied to Sq_u,amularia guadalupensis var. subq_uadrata, but to Spirifer (Reticularia) 

sp., so far as known, there is no corresponding Guadalupian type; nor to Spirifer 

(Reticularia) dieneri, whose configuration is much the same as that of some of the 

shells which I have placed with Shumard's Sq_uamularia guadalupensis, but with a 

different sculpture. Spirifer (Reticularia?) stachei seems to be quite distinct from 

any Guadalupian species. . 

Of the three species of Martinia recognized in the fauna of the Trogkofelschichtcn, two-Spirifer (Martinia) sp. undet. aft'. contractus and Spirifer (Martinia or 

Reiicularia?) sp. indet.-in their configuration somewhat suggest Martinia rhomboidalis, but the third species, Spirifer (Martinia) macilentus, is without Guadalupian 

representatives, while nothing corresponding to the Guadalupian Martinia shumardiana is found in Schellwien's fauna. 

Schellwien places two of his species with Ambocmlia, but they are not, for the 

genus, closely related to Ambocmlia planiconvexa var. guadalupensis, and they lack 

to a considerable extent the usual configuration of the American Amboccelias. 

On the whole, while a resemblance certainly exists between the Guadalupian 

Spiriferidm and those of the Trogkofelschichten it does not seem to me to be very 

close. 

a Abhandl. K.-k. geol. Reichsanstalt, vol. 16, part 1, 1900, p. 72, figs. 10, 11. 
356 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

Gortani cites the following Spiriferidre from the Carnic Alps: Spirifer striatus, 

S. trigonalis var. bisulcatus, S. carnicus, S.lyra, S.lyra var.alpinus, "Reticularia lineata, 

1)1artinia semiplana, and Spiriferina cristata var. fastigata. The three Spirifers first 

mentioned appear to belong to types not found in the Guadalupian, and evenS. lyra 

and the variety alpinus, as represented by Gortani's figures, carry but slight suggestion of Spirifer mexicanus. Reticularia lineata naturally resembles Srj_uamularia 

guadalupensis, but it is doubtful if Martinia semiplana is closely related to either of 

the Guadalupian Martinias. The Spiriferina, as figured by Schellwien, has much 

the configuration of Spiriferina billingsi, but may not be really related to it. 

In the Dyas of Germany} as described in Geinitz's well-known nronograph, the , 

Spiriferidre are represented by Spirifer, Spiriferina, and Ambocmlia; · Squamularia 

and Martinia of the Guadalupian being missing. Spiriferina cristata, if represented 

in the Guadalupian at all, appears to be related to S. hilli and its allies. Spirifer 

alritus is, so far as known, unrepresented in the Guadalupian, and so are also 

S. schrenki and S. curvirostris. The same is perhaps true of S. rugulatus, but. 

S. blasii probably corresponds to S. mexicanus var. Ambocmlia clannyana is related 

to 'the Guadalupian Ambocmlia. 

In spite of the resemblances which have been pointed out, the Spiriferidre of the 

Guadalupian do not seem to be closely allied to those of the Dyas. The family is 

much better developed in the American fauna, and the types which the two possess 

in common are less numerous and considerable than thosewhich are peculiar to each. 

The same holds true of the Permian fauna of England, which is so closely related 

to the Dyas of Germany. Spiriferina cristata and probably S. jonesiana are without Guadalupian representatives unless it may be among the imperfectly known 

S. hilli and the forms related to it. S. multiplicata can probably be correlated with 

S. billingsi. 

Spirifer alatus, S. undulatus, and S. permianus, the three species of S]Yirifer 

which King recognizes, have no Guadalupian representatives. King describes these 

shells as having a punctate structure, but as subsequent writers have not placed 

them with Spiriferina, but Spirifer, it has seemed necessary to consider them here 

as belonging to the latter genus. Martinia clannyana and M. winchiana of King 

are probably both Ambocmlias. A. clannyana is more closely related to A. planiconvexa var. guadalupensis than A. winchiana. 

De Koninck cited, from Spitzbergen, in 1847, a Spirifer identified as S. alatus 

and a Spiriferina referred to S. eristata. The latter is possibly related to S. hilli and 

the other species of the same group; but the former is of a type not found in the 

Guadalupian. 

From the south point of Spitzbergen Toula in 1874 cited five species of Spirifertwo undetermined, one identified asS. striatus, and two described as new under the 

titles S. striatiparadoxus and S. Wilczeki. So far as these Spirifers are represented 

in the Guadalupian it is in the imperfectly known form Spirifer sp. b. 

From the Hornsund Toula later cited Spiriferina hoferiana, Spirijer wilczeki, 

and S. striatus, together with Squamularia lineata and S. lineata var. elliptica?. 

The last two may probably be compared with Squamularia guadalupensis. The 

two Spirifers are to be correlated with Spirifer sp. b, if at all. Regarding the 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 357 

Spirijerina but little can be said with safety. It seems to be more ne!trly of the 

type ofS. hilli than of S. laxa and S. pyramidalis or of S. billingsi. 

From the west coast of Spitzbergen Toula, in another paper, cites Spirifer cf. 

a]atu,s, S. cameratus, S. wilczelci, and S. draschei. The first species probably stands 

without any allied form in the Guadalupian. S. cnmeratus and S. wilczelci appear 

to be of the same type as the little known and possibly composite Spirifer sp. b. 

S. draschei, which possesses the general expression of the shells comprising Tschernyschew's genus SpirifereUn, has certain broad points of resemblance to S. mexicanus var., but it can hardly be said that they represent each other in the different 

faunas in which they occur. In the same publication, from a point on the cape 

between the two arms of the North Fjord, Toula cites Spirifer striatus, S. striatiparadoxus, and Spiriferina? sp. The two Spirifers are possibly represented by 

Spirifer sp. b, but as to the Spirijerina nothing can be ventured. 

On the whole, it can not be said that the Spiriferidre of the faunas from Spitzbergen show more than a distant relationship to those of the Guadalupia.n. 

The same is true of the fossils from Nova Zembla which Toula identified at 

about the same time. Of the seven Spirifers, S. wilczelci and S. cameratus are probably allied to "Spirifer sp. b, butS. mosquensis var., S. trigonalis, S. triangularis, and 

S. laminosus appear to belong to types not found in the Guadalupian. · S. duplicicostata? (not figured) may prove to be more or less closely related to S. mexicanus. The shell figured as Spirifer lineatus var. presents some resemblance to 

S. mexicanus var. compnctus, but if, as one would infer from Toula's identification, 

it is a representative of Squnmularia or Reticularia its generic relations are quite 

different, though, on the other hand, it can not be compared with Squamularia 

guadalupensis. I venture to say nothing relative to the form cited without description or figures as Spiriferina cristata var. octoplicata save that it may prove to·be in a 

general way the representative of S. hilli and its allies. 

Under the caption "Fossils from the shaly sandstone of the middle region" 

Stache cites, from the West Sahara, four species of Spirifer, but the fauna is evidently so much older than that under consideration and the four species are so 

unlik;e the Guadalupian forms (so far as their poor condition admits comparison ·at 

all) that I will pass them by without further notice. Nor do the few imperfect 

forms from Igidi merit in this connection more careful consideration. 

Among the fossils from Peru described by D'Orbigny the Spiriferidre are represented only by the genus Spirifer, to which two species are referred, S. condor and 

S. pentlandi. Neither appears to have related forms in the Guadalupian. 

Toula also published a report on some fossils from the Carboniferous of Bolivia, 

citing Spirifer striatus var_. multicostatus and Spiriferina octoplicnta among the 

Spiriferidm. These are possibly related to Spirifer sp. b and Spiriferina hilli, 

respectively. 

In the Brazilian fauna which Derby described the Spiriferidre are represented 

by the genera Spirifer, Spiriferina, Squamularia, and Ambocmlw. The two species 

of Spirifer cited are identified asS. cnmeratus and S. opimus. The former is probably 

represented by the Guadalupian Spirifer sp. b, but to the latter there is no corresponding type in the Guadalupian fauna. Squamularia perplexn and Ambocmlw 
358 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

planiconvexa are related to the Guadalupian species S. guadalupensis and Amboccelia · planiconvexa var. guadalupensis. Spirijerina transversa of Derby is but 

distantly related to the nearest Guadalupian species, S. billingsi, but S. spinosa is 

somewhat more close to S. laxa and S. pyramidalis. 

These Brazilian Spiriferidre do not indicate any close relation~hip with the 

Guadalupian fauna. In fact they rather suggest an affinity with Pennsylvanian 

or even Pottsville faunas of the Mississippi Valley. Nor do the other South American 

Spiriferidre present more than a remote resemblance to those of the Guadalupian. 

Too scanty for the establishment of more than a provisional opinion, they appear to 

be more similar to the Hueconian than to the Guadalupian representatives of the 

family. 

In the typical Pennsylvanian fauna of North America this family is characterized at the same time by its slight differentiation and its persistence. In great 

contrast to the highly differentiated Spirifers of the" Lower Carboniferous," collections 

from the Pennsylvanian contain, as a rule, but a single species, S. cameratus, usually 

present and often abundant. In the lower beds S. opimus ( = S. rockymontanus) is 

also found. S. cameratus is probably represented in the Guadalupian by Spirijer 

sp. b, but S. opimus has no corresponding species. The imperfectly known S. 

boonensis and the very rare S. fultonensis are more or less allied to S. opimus, ·and, 

like it, are without Guadalupian representatives. S. multigranosus ar.d S. texanus, 

closely related to each other, are also extremely rare. They probably have no corresponding type in the Guadalupian. I have omitted from consideration some 

western forms, five or six in number, which occur in association with faunas whose 

stratigraphic position with relation to one another is not known and whose facies 

is more or less different from the characteristic Pennsylvanian. These faunas are 

also, so far as known, different from the Guadalupian, and the species themselves 

differ from the Guadalupian Spirifers. 

Of the Pennsylvanian Spiriferinas almost the same may be predicated as· of the 

Spirifers. Practically the only species which occurs in the Pennsylvanian faunas of 

the typical area is S. kentuckyensis. Spirijerina spinosa, or a form extremely 

closely related, is found in the upper Carboniferous of the West, and it ranges at 

least into the Pottsville faunas of the typical Pennsylvanian. S. spinosa is somewhat closely related to S. laxa and S. pyramidalis, but the relationship between 

S. lcentuckyensis and S. billingsi is certainly remote. In the West, aside from species 

more or less closely allied to S. spinosa and S. kentuckyensis, we have the large and 

striking species S. pulchra, quite distinct from any Guadalupian form yet discovered. 

All the western species, so far as known, occur in a different faunal association from 

the Guadalupian. 

Squamularia perplexa, which represents S. guadalupensis in the Pennsylvanian 

fauna, is, for the genus, not closely allied to it. The same may be said of the correlated species Ambocmlia planiconvexa and A. planiconvexa var. guadalupensis. 

Martinia is conspicuous by its absence in the Pennsylvanian faunas. A species of 

Martinia occurs, though rarely, in the upper Mississippian, and the same species 

has been identified at a much higher horizon in the West. The originals on which 

the latter citation is based, however, prove on examination to belong to· the genus 

Squamularia. 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 359 

In view of their relatively close geographic position the . Spiriferidre of the 

Guadalupian fauna show really remarkable differences when compared with the 

Pennsylvanian .. Even in the two genera Ambocmlia and Sq_uamularia, where discriminable species are rare, there can be little doubt as to the different representatation in the two faunas·. Martinia, a fairly common form in the Guadalupian, is 

unknown in the Pennsylvanian. The common Guadalupian species of Spirifer 

have nothing even of the same general type in the Pennsylvanian, but it is in the 

genus Spiriferina that the most striking diff~rences appear. Not only is this genus 

much more richly differentiated in the Guadalupian fauna, but many of the types 

(such as S. billingsi, S. evax, S. sulcata, and S. welleri) are without any species even 

related to them in the typical Pennsylvanian. 

Genus SPIRIFER Sowerby. 

The difficulty of properly grouping the Guadalupian Spirifers is enhanced by 

the fact that all but a few species, which are abundant and closely related to one 

another, are imperfectly known. For the present it seems best to recognize only 

three groups among them, one of which may be distinguished as the camemtus 

group, another as the sulcifer group, and the third as tlte mexicanus group. 

To the cameratus group has been referred only the form here designated as 

Spirifer sp. b, and the association of these fossils with S. cameratus is open to some 

challenge. The salient characters of S. cameratus are these: It has a transverse 

shape and prolonged cardinal angles; the ribs are grouped into raised fascicles and' 

crossed by sets of fine radiating and concentric lirre, producing a surface which; 

owing either to varying preservation or to real variation, in some specimens appears 

to be marked by radiating and concentric rows of elevated points or papillre; there 

are well-developed dental plates in th~ ventral valve, which, however, are obscured 

by an extensive apical callosity. As elsewhere explained, it is possible that three 

varieties are embraced under the title Spirifer sp. b. All are known from very 

fragmentary material, but probably agree in having the fasciculated ribs and the 

transverse alate shape of Spir1fer cameratus. Their internal structure is unknown. 

The sculpture is retained in only one example, where it appears to consist only of 

very faint concentric lines, and thus to be somewhat different from S. cameratus. 

To the group of Spirifer sulc1fer belong S. sulc1fer itself and possibly also 

Spirifer sp. a. S. sulc1fer is probably more closely related to S. mexicanus than a 

casual inspection of well-characterized examples would indicate. To a certain extent 

Spirifer sp. a is intermediate between them, while young examples of Spirifer mexicanus var. are very suggeo;tive of S. sulc1fer. 

'fhe group of Spirifers, of which S. mexicanus is a representative form, is interesting and in many respects peculiar. Internally these shells are characterized by 

possessing in the ventral valve remarkably large dental plat~s. It is probably 

true, as stated by Hall and Clarke, that these structures have comparatively little 

taxonomic value in this group of forms. Dental plates seem to have been developed 

in many species in which their presence is concealed by a shelly deposit which has 

filled the whole apical region. The absence of any such callosity in S. mexicanus 

allows the plates to be seen in their complete force, and makes them a rather striking 

if not a very important feature. 
360 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

Externally, both on account of their configuration and also of their surface ornamentation, the.shells of the mexicanus group differ widely from any American representatives of the genus hitherto known. Related as they probably are to certain 

groups of Asiatic and European forms, the Guadalupian species are nevertheless 

somewhat peculiar. The sculpture consists, macroscopically, of bifurcate and 

fasciculate ribs, and while this character would appear to ally these shells wjth S. 

cameratus, their configuration belies the relationship. The fasciculation differs 

from that of S. cameratus in that the ribs are raised or bundled only near the hinge 

line. Their grouping into fasciculi over the rest of the shell depends rather on 

spacing and community of origin than on elevation of the fascicles. The finer surface ornamentation in most specimens has been lost by exfoliation, but to judge by 

a few external molds and silicifications it probably consisted of concentric linB, which 

aTe abundant and strong only near the anterior and lateral edges. These shells 

have a short hinge line and an ovate shape, the lateral passing into the cardinal 

outline almost without interruption. There is a deep though not sharply defined 

sinus in the ventral valve, but no corresponding elevation on the dorsal. The real 

limits of the fold, however, are clearly indicated by the spacing of the ribs. From 

these peculiarities it will be seen that if related to S. cameratus the type as seen in 

S. mexicanus is greatly modified. 

In the group of Spirffer mexicanus I am including at present, aside from S. 

mexicanus itself, chiefly S. mexicanus var. compactus and S. mexicanus var. There 

is some uncertainty as to the proper disposition of the imperfectly known form 

which is here designated as Spirijer sp. a. In some respects it shows declared 

relationship with S. mexicanus through the variety compactus, and on the whole it 

has seemed best to place it in the present group, but, as before remarked, it may 

possibly prove more nearly allied to S. sulcifer than is at first plain. 

SPIRIFER MEXICANUS Shumard. 

Pl. XIII, figs. 1 to 6a. 

1858. Spirijer Mexicanus. Shumard, Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, vol. 1, p. 292 (date of volume, 1860). 

White Permian limestone: Guadalupe Mountains. 

1859. Spirifer Mexicanus. Shumard, idem, p. 390, pl. 11, figs. 4a, 4b. 

White [Permian] limestone: Guadalupe Mountains. 

Shell rather large, broad ovate, moderately gibbous in young age, extremely so in full-grown specimens; greatest gibbosity near the middle; length and breadth nearly equal; cardinal margin considerably less than the greatest width, which is found near the middle of the smaller valve; lateral margins 

rounded; front sinuate. Ventral valve (receiving valve) regularly arched, much more prominent than 

opposite one, having a deep, narrow sinus extending from beak to front; sides rounded; cardinal margin 

equal to about one-half the width of the valve; cardinal angles rounded and obtuse; beak prolonged, 

elevated, incurved, pointed at extremity; area small, triangular, concave, arcuated, longitudinally 

striated, sides forming an angle of about 76°, deltoid opening a little wider than long. Dorsal valve 

broad elliptical, regularly convex, gibbous. in full-grown specimens; beak small, pointed, incurved, and 

slightly passing the cardinal border; area narrow, its margin gently arcuate. Surface marked with 

rounded, irregular, radiating, usually trifurcate ribs, which are indistinct on the lateral margins; they 

are separated by shallow furrows, and the number on the border amounts to from 18 to 24 on each side 

of the mesial sinus. 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 361 

The dimension of a young specimen are: Length and width, 0. 76; thickness, 0.48. Of a full-grown 

individual: Length and width, about 1.34; thickness, 0.98. 

Abundant in the white Guadalupe limestone of Permian age, Guadalupe Mountains, New Mexico 

and Texas.a 

The foregoing is Shumard's original description of this species, to which the 

material in my possession permits me to add few details. One rather striking 

feature of this shell is the absence of an elevated mesial fold on the dorsal valve, a 

circumstance which, conjoined with the strong angular sinus of the opposite valve, 

produces a deep indentation on the front margin. Although not elevated above 

the rest of the surface, the li~its of the fold are indicated by sulci somewhat broader 

than those dividing the other ribs. The latter, while frequently bifurcated, are not 

grouped in elevated bundles or fascicles, except perhaps occasionally in young shells 

(Pl. XIII, fig. 6). In large examples this arrangement is inconspicuous. ·The 

minute surface ornamentation has been destroyed in my material. The best 

preserved surfaces have only a frosted appearance, without radiating or concentric 

strire or pustules. · 

Spirijer mexicanus is not uncommon at station 2926 in the white limestone, 

from which most of my collection was obtained. But few of the specimens reached 

a size as great as the largest mentioned by Shumard, which was probably somewhat 

above the average. 

The most distinctive features of this speci!=JS are its short hinge and rounded 

cardinal angles; its rather flat dorsal valve, almost without an elevated fold, a fact 

which combined with the deep sinus of the ventral valve produces a strong emargination of tlie anterior outline; and the rather obscure ribs (more so on the dorsal than 

on the ventral valve), which, though grouped by reason of bifurcation, are scarcely 

bundled into elevated fascicles. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 

2926); base of Capitan formation, hill southwest of Guadalupe Point (station 2906); 

"dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas: 

SPIRIFER MEXICANUS var. COMPACTUS n. var. 

Pl. XIII, figs. 7 to 9. 

Associated with typical Spi'f"i;fer mexicanus, though in somewhat less abundance, 

are some shells which I think should be discriminat~d as a variety; though they are 

more or less connected with the common type arid ·probably do not constitute a 

distinct species. These fossils are more narrow and elongate in shape, with a 

stronger convexity. The ribs are somewhat coarser, and are usually simple. 

Except for the type, the specimens referred to this variety are more or less fragmentar:y, bU:t show departures from it along several lines. Some of them surpass it 

considerably in size. In some the sinus is shallower and less strongly marked, and 

in others the ribs are fainter and almost obsolete. I should not fail to remark that 

the ribs of the dorsal vaive are different from those of the ventral, are in fact almost 

the reverse of them, for while 1the ventral ribs are low, broadly rounded, and with 

a Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, vol. 1, 1856-1860, p. 292. 
362 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

shallow, angular sulci, those on the dorsal valve are low, subangular, and with 

shallow, curved sulci. This character, as well as the others, is shown in the accompanying figures. 

Horizon and lo.cality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). 

SPIRIFER MEXICANUS var. 

Pl. XXI, figs. l to lb. 

The collection made at station 2930, which probably consists chiefly of fossils 

from the "dark limestone," contains a form which departs in· some ways from the 

typical Spir~fer mexicanus, but my material is too scanty and imperfect to permit me 

to give a satisfactory diagnosis of it. Suffice it to say that it resembles Shumard's 

species in general appearance, differing chiefly in having the ribs grouped in raised 

fascicles, as in S. cameratus, and in having a larger delthyrium, with narrow areal 

borders. Possibly other distinctions sufficient to characterize a new species might 

be discovered if my material were more abundant and more perfectly preserved. 

Although the fasciculate surface of this shell is suggestive of S. cameratus and S. 

texanus, the short cardinal margin distinguishes it immediately from the former and 

emphasizes its apparent relation to the latter. The absence of an elevated fold on 

the dorsal valve and the presence of discrete dental plates in the ventral distinguish 

it, as well as the other forms of this group described from the Guadalupian fauna, 

from either of the species mentioned. In the bundling of the ribs this form is like 

the small specimen of Spir~fer mexicanus represented by. fig. 6 of Pl. XIII, but it 

retains this character to a much larger size. 

Horizon and locality.-"Dark limestone" Pine Spring (station 2930) and hill 

southwest of Guadalupe Point (station 2924), ·Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 

SriRll<'ER sp. a. 

Pl. XXI, fig. 2. 

Associated with Spirifer mexicanus var. at station 2930 is a dorsal valve which I 

can not content myself by identifying with any of the distinguished forms and which 

is at the same time almost too imperfect to justify description as a new species. 

The shape is subcircular, "the length being 13 mm. and the greatest width, 

which occurs about. midway, 16.5 mm. The cardinal line is short. The plications 

are low, rounded, and separated by wide intervals. The fold is low, broad, and 

defined rather by other characters than by its elevation, though it is slightly elevated. It occupies nearly one-third of the shell. It has four plications, the two 

median ones being closer together than the lateral ones. The plications and intervals on the fold are somewhat finer than on the sides. There are about four lateral 

plications on each side, which, as well as the intervals of separation, decrease rapidly 

in size toward the hinge line. Surface ornamentatio1l, so far as observed, consists of 

fine-growth lines. 

Of the three species of Spir~fer of the mexicanus group Spiri(& sp. a is evidently 

closest to S. mexicanus var. compactus. It differs, however, chiefly in the small 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 363 

number and coarseness of its plications. In this respect it invites comparison with 

S. sulcffer, which Shumard describes from the Capitan limestone. 

Horizon and locality.-"Dark limestone," Pine Spring, Guadalupe Mountains, 

Texas, (s~ation 2930). 

SPIRIFER suLCH'ER Shumard. 

Pl. XIII, figs. 10 to lOb. 

1858. Spirifer sulcifera. Shumard, Trans. A cad. Sci. St. Louis, vol. 1, p. 293 (date of volume, 1860). 

White [Permian] limestone: Guadalupe Mountains. 

1859. Spirifer sulciferus. Shumard, idem, p. 391, pl. 11, figs. 3a, 3b, 3c. 

White [Permian] limestone: Guadalupe Mountains, Texas and New Mexico. 

This appears to be a very pretty little species, but, unfortunately, it is not represented in our collections. I can, therefore, only reproduce Shumard's figures and 

his original description, which is as follows: 

Shell rather small, ovate, subpe~tagonal; length about one-fifth greater than the width; great~st 

transverse diameter near the middle; cardinal extremities slightly auriculated. Ventral valve (receiving valve) gibbous, more prominent than the opposite one, greatest convexity a short distance behind 

the beaks; mesial sinus distinct, commencing at the point d tho beak and increasing gradually in 

breadth and depth to the front; area broad, triangular; lateral margins sharply rounded; deltoid aperture 

rather largo, triangular; surface marked with six broad, rounded, prominent folds, those next to the sinus 

being "double the size of the others; ribs bearing one or more shallow longitudinal sulci, which become 

entirely obsolete before reaching the beak; intervals marked with obscure longitudinal striw. Dorsal 

valve semielliptical, convex, a little longer than wide; mesial fold moderately elevated, having a distinct median groove extending its whole length and on either side a broad sulcus, which bears one or 

more slender, slightly prominent, rounded ribs; intervals marked with longitudinal striw, as in the opposite valve. Under a magnifying glass the surface exhibits very fine concentric lines of growth. 

Dimensions.-Length, 0.66; width, 0.57; height, 0.39; length of dorsal valve, 0.48; height of same, 

0.16. 

Geologtc position and locality.-White Guadalupe limestone occupying the same geological position 

as the preceding species. 

While it is unfortunately true that no form referable to this species has been 

found in our collections, especially from the Capitan formation, which supplied the 

·typical specimens, certain small examples which are varietally related to S. mexicanus show in some respects an unexpected resemblance. 

I do not know to what extent a varietal name may be said to be preoccupied by 

a previously described species of the same genus, but Hall and Clarke's Spirffer 

disjunctus var. sulcffer bears that rather compromised relation to Spirifer sulcifer 

Shumard. 

SPIRIFEH sp. b. 

?1859. Spirifer ·cameratus. Shumard (non Morton), Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, vol. 1, p. 391 (date of 

volume, 1860). 

[Permian] sandstone and white limestone: Guadalupe Mountain. 

Under this title are included perhaps three varieties. One of these, from the 

Delaware Mountain formation of the Guadalupe section, has the appearance of 

Spirifer cameratu8, of that type which has prominent fascicles of rather fine strongly 

raised ribs. The surface characters in this material have been lost. The shape was 

probably triangular and the hinge extended, tho1,1gh the cardinal angles may have 

been somewhat rounded. The largest specimen obtained had a transverse diameter 
364 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

of about 45 mm. If the fine smface sculpture now destroyed were the same as that 

of Spirifer cameratus, I do not see from the specimens at h~nd that the two forms 

can be distinct. 

Among the silicified specimens from the Glass Mountains two types s~em to be 

indicated. One of these, represented by a single specimen, resembles the form 

already described. It was transverse with an extended hinge line and probably 

pointed cardinal angles. This specimen, if complete, would have measured about 

45 mm. across. Silicification has obscured the sculpture. At present neither 

radiating nor concentric lines can be seen, though toward the front margin there are 

traces of strong, regular, concentric lamellm. 

The third form, also from the Glass Mountains, may have had a subquadrate 

shape with a relatively short hinge line. Fasciculation is pronounced, and the ribs 

are subangular with broad somewhat flattened grooves between. The surface, 

which appears to be fairly well preserved in a silicified condition, shows only numerous 

faint, not very regular, concentric lines. Even if the shape of this. shell proves to 

be the same as that of Spirifer cameratus it must be considered a distinct species, 

both on account of the character of the ribs and of the surface ornamentation. The 

character of the two other forms is too uncertain to permit so secure a judgment, 

but if the first is the same as Spirifer cameratus, which I am disposed to doubt, 

though solely because of the very different faunal association, it is improbable that 

it is the same as the third form. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point, 

Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2919). Delaware Mountain formation, 

southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (stations 2967, 3501). Delaware Mountain 

formation, Comanche Canyon, Glass Mountains, Texas (station 3763). 

Genus MARTINIA McCoy. 

The Guadalupian Martinias, while fairly abundant, seem at present referable 

to but two species, each of which, if it were necessary to divide them into groups, 

would have to be referred to a separate division. 

The generic determination is based on the configuration, conjoined to the 

absence in the interior of either valve of anything in the nature of septal plates. All 

of my specimens are more or less deeply exfoliated and are without any present 

evidence of possessing the characteristic punctate outer layer. -

Many of the Guadalupian spec-imens occur as dissociated valves, some of which 

are difficult to distinguish from Oomposita. In the case of ventrals this distinction 

can be effected with some certainty by uncovering the area, but the discrimination 

in the case of dorsal valves is a much more delicate matter. 

MARTINIA RHOMBOIDALIS n. sp. 

Pl. XIII, figs. 11 to 14c. 

Shell of medium size, length equal or greater than the breadth, according to 

age, young specimens being more elongate. Ventral valve strongly convex in the 

posterior· portion, more flattened anteriorly. Hinge much shorter than the width 

below. Umbo inflated. Beak strongly elevated and incurved. General outline 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 365 

rhombic. Area well defined, not very high, chiefly occupied by the very wide 

foramen. Sinus extremely faint, often indicated by an indistinct linear depression, 

Dorsal valve subcircular to subquadrate. Beak small, strongly incurved. 

Umbo inflated. From the cen~ralline the shell falls away rapidly, leaving a rounded 

subangular fold. 

Surface apparently smooth, though the inner layers at least are marked by 

numerous more or less regularly distributed indistinct radiating strire, which 

probably do not have tho nature of surface ornamentation. . 

Among the Indian Martini as this species is most nearly like M. elongata W aagen. 

It is, however, a much larger shell, and has a pointed instead of a quadrate fold. 

Certain also of the many species described by Gemmcllaro from Palermo resemble 

it, though few have the angular sinus of M. rhomboidalis. Martinia variabilis 

Gemmellaro, however, has this kind of a sinus and resembles M. rhomboidalis 

closely in other ways. 

Horizon and Zocality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Captain Peak (station 

2926); base of Capitan formation, hill southwest of Guadalupe Point (station 

2906); Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2919), Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas. Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, 

Texas (stations 2935, 2962). 

MARTINIA SHUMARDIANA n. sp. 

PI. XIII, figs. 15 to 15d. 

Shell of medium size. Shape elongate, sub pentagonal. Ventral valve highly 

convex, especially in the posterior portion. Beak elevated and incurved. Hinge 

line much shorter than the shell below. Area conca~e, moderately high, and well 

defined. Foramen extremely large. No perceptible sinus is found on the ventral 

valve, though the front is strongly produced. 

Dorsal valve moderately convex, shape hexagonal. Beak small, elevated, 

incurved, projecting but little beyond the hinge line. Central portion elevated 

into a fold which is quadrate toward the front. Sides falling away rapidly and 

marking the "limits of the fold by angular projections situated about one-third of 

the distance back from the anterior margin. 

Surface probably smooth, but marked underneath by fine radiating raised lines. 

The type specimen of this species is quite unlike Martinia rhomboidalis, though 

I expect to find intermediates. I have, indeed, referred to this species several examples which would better perhaps have been joined with the other. The length of 

one of these-a ventral valve-is 15 mm., while by another a length of 20 to 25 

mm .. is indicated. They differ from M. rhomboidalis chiefly in having a stronger 

fold and sinus, with the appearance of a more quadrate shape for these features. 

These are separate valves adhering to the matrix, more or less imperfect or crushed. 

For making comparisons, however, only shells retaining both valves in position, so 

that front and side views may be obtained, are adequate. It thus happens that it 

is frequently impossible, especially without laboriously uncovering each specimen, 

to satisfactorily discriminate the Martinias, Compositas, and Squamularias if the 

fossils are not very characteristic, or are imperfect, while in the young stages Ambocmlia is another factor of doubt. 
366 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 

2926); base of Capitan formation, hill southwest of Guadalupe Point (station 

2906 ?) , Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. 

Genus SQUAMULARIA Gemmeilaro. 

' As I have elsewhere pointed out,a Gemmellaro sought to establish the genus 

Sq_uamularia on certain peculiarities observed by him in the brachia and in the surface ornamentation of some of his Sicilian forms. The surface ornamentation is 

said to consist of flexuous lamellose expansions; and apparently Sq_uamularia bears 

the same relation to Reticularia in the matter of its surface ornamentation that 

Athyris does to Oleiothyridina. I am not convinced of the importance of the internal 

differences by which Squamularia is said to be distinguished from Reticularia, and 

Schellwien refers the genus to Reticularia as a synonym; but it is a fact that Sq_uamularia is without dental plates, which, though the circumstance seems generally 

to have been overlooked, are extensively developed in Reticularia. All these differences combined seem to me satisfactorily to distinguish Squamularia from the true 

Reticulari:;e. But Reticularia has been incorrectly used by most writers for species 

devoid of internal plates. In a recent paper I assigned these aseptate shells, which 

seem to belong entirely in the upper Carboniferous series, to Gemmellaro's genus, 

desiring rather more to emphasize their distinction from true Reticularia than to 

assert their identity with Sq_uamularia. If the difference in external ornamentation between Sq_uamularia and Reticularia is, as would appear, as marked as that 

between Athyris and Oleiothyridina, I believe that these upper Carboniferous forms 

can not properly be assigned to Sq_uamularia; but as I have no material to represent the latter genus, the decision of this point will have to be left to others. For 

the present, therefore, I employ Sq_uamularia in the sense in which Reticularia has 

usually been used. It woold, then, include our common Spirifer perplexus as well 

asS. guadalupensis, also Reticularia lineata, R. indica, and R. elegantula of the Salt 

Range, and in general the upper Carboniferous Reticularire of most authors. It 

would appear, however, that these forms belong to a group distinct from the typical 

S q_uamularia. 

But one species of Sq_uamularia is known in the Guadalupian fauna, of which 

it is one of the most abundant types. It differs from most members of the genus 

so far known in that the spines are very small and appear to have been simple or 

even solid, instead of double-barreled. This form undergoes more or less variation, and possibly might be forced to represent several species; but the degree and 

character of, difference seem to me to fail in warranting such discrimination. ·It 

will probably be advisable, however, to distinguish as varieties two deviations .from 

the common type. 

~Prof. Paper u.S. Geol. Survey No. 16, 1903, p. 387-. 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. -367 

SQUAMULARIA GUADALUPENSIS Shumard. 

PL XIV, figs. 4 to lla. 

1859. SpirijerGuadalupensis. Shumard, Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, voL 1, p. 391 (date of volume, 1860). 

White [Permian] limestone: Guadalupe Mountains. · 

Shumard's description of this species is as follows: 

Shell of medium size, ovate, longer than wide, quite gibbous in full-grown specimens; hinge line 

less than the greatest width, which is found about the middle of the shell. Dorsal valve varying from 

elliptical to circular, evenly convex, exhibiting no trace of a mesial fold; beak incurved; passing a 

little beyond the cardinal margin. Ventral valve convex, much more gibbous than the opposite valve, 

without sinus, but in very old specimens flattened near the front; cardinal angles rounded; umbo 

prominent, rounded; beak prolonged, rather acute, in curved; area contracted, elevated, not very sharply 

defined; aperture large, triangular; length of sides and base nearly equaL Surface marked with 

moderately distinct concentric strire, the edges of which were probably fringed with piliform spines, 

as inS. lineata. 1 

This species may be compared with S. lineata, from which it differs in being much more gibbous, 

and in the absence of either sinus or mesial fold. The same characters will also distinguish our shell 

from S. setigera, Hall. 

Locality.-White limestone, GuadaJupe Mountains. 

This is probably the most abundant species of the Guadalupian brachiopod 

fauna. As a large number of specimens have been passed in review, it is natural 

that a considerable amount of variation has been observed, and some paleontologists would have taken advantage of these deviations to distinguish a larger number 

of species than I have done. Shumard describes the length as greater than the width. 

In the prevailing type the length and width are nearly equal, while in some examples the width is the gre,ater. Difference in these proportio!J.s, however, is usually 

compensated by difference in convexity, especially narrow specimens l>eing more 

than ordinarily gibbous and especially transverse ones rather flat. An elongate 

shape seems to be produced in certain large and presumably old specimens by natural processes of growth, enlarging the shell more rapidly along the front than at the 

sides. Such a large elongate example is represented by figs. 1 and la of Pl. XIV, 

and I have discriminated it as a distinct variety. At the ·same time the younger 

stages of this specimen, as indicated by growth lines, do not depart from the usual. 

This particular example, in addition to its shape, possesses a rather unusually high 

ventral beak, but the direction and elevation of the ventral.beak are characters in 

which no little variation is shown by different specimens. 

A type which perhaps still more than the foregoing deserves recognition as a 

distinct species is represented by the subquadrate specimen shown by figs. 2 and 2a 

of Pl. XIV. This peculiarity of shape is largely dependent on the development of 

the sinus, which is entirely absent in some specimens, represented by a, mere flattening in others, as described by Shumard, and very distinct though shallow in still 

others. It can often be detected on the front margin, even if apparently absent 

where only the curvature is observed. This type, also, I have thought best to discriminate as a distinct variety. 

The area is small and usually not very well defined, except by strong longitudinal striations, and the delthyrium is large. The spires are rather long and slender 

and are directed almost vertically toward the hinge line. 
368 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

The outer layer of the shell upon which the more delicate surface characters 

were formed is very thin and appears to have had a different structure from the rest, 

as it is ofte~ differently preserved. It usually exfoliates and is ret~ained upon the 

matrix. It is difficult, under these circumstances, to determine precisely the nature 

and range of variation of the sculpture. Sometimes the .exfoliated surface is marked 

by narrow, regular concentric bands. defined by distinct grooves or strire. Usually, 

however, concentric marking is inconspicuous, in some cases perhaps entirely absent. 

In a few .instances the exfoliated shell is marked instead by fairly regular, fine, continuous, raised radiating lines. What the significance of this appearanc.e may be 1. 

am at a loss to say. 4 small number of specimens retain the outer layers of the shell, 

and in these the surface is covered by more or less regular concentric su blamellose 

bands, from whose edges projected fringes of spines generally tangent to the curvature. The spines arc very slender and closely crowded. From their small size it 

seems probable that they were not double-barreled, and in thin sections they appeU:r 

to be solid. This type of surface ornamentation is distinctly different from that 

possessed by the Pennsylvanian species, Squamularia perplexa, which has much 

larger, less crowded, hollow, and compound spines not mounted on lamellose fillets. 

It is possible that this is the type of surface on which Gemmellaro's genus, Squamularia, was founded, for the concentric lamellro are said to be short and to give rise to 

fimbrire of spines. Gemmellaro's figures, however, represent them as distant and 

flexuous. It is not certain that all the Guadalupian shells possessed this kind of sur-

. face, but it can provisionally be ascribed to such exfoliated specimens as have strong 

concentric bands. Some of the others retain markings which may be interpreted as 

scars left by rather large spines arranged in concentric rows, as inS. perplexa. These 

markings degenerate in some cases into irregularly reticulating lines whose general 

direction is radial. They are quite distinct, however, from the continuous straight 

lirre mentioned above. 

The size attained by this species is considerable. The largest ventral valve 

obtained, one belonging to the variety ovalis, must have had a length of 45 rom. 

and a width of 38 rom. A large dorsal valve has the length and width about 

equal-40 rom. This represents the maximum size of the species, so far a.s my 

observations extend. 

Squamularia guadalupensis seems almost restncted to the white limestone of the 

Guadalupe Mountains. A single example, clearly belonging to the genus and probably to the same species, has been found in the Delaware Mountain sandstones below, 

and with it were associated a number of specimens whose imperfect condition and 

preservation render it impossible to determine whether they belong to Squamularia, 

Martinia, or even Composita. 

In a general way this is a much larger species than our commonS. perplexa of 

the Mississippi Valley, and usually it is less transverse. Specimens which are not 

readily distinguished by these characters are, however, not difficult to find. It is 

almost invariably true that the ventral beak of S. guadalupensis is smaller and less 

inflated and the foramen larger. A more important difference, at least in some cases, 

is found iii the surface ornamentation, as already pointed out. In others this char-

. acter has been obscured or appears to be the same. It is doubtful whether any of 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 369 

-the forms making this group is specifically the same asS. perplexa, and unquestionably most of them are different. 

· S. guadalupensis appears to be the American representative of W aagen's 

Reticularia indica . . Waagen's species is larger than the American form and probably would show other differences were it possible to make comparison directly by 

specimens. At all events, ourS. guadalupensis has long priority of description. 

Squamularia guadalupensis also more or less resembles several species of 

Reticularia described by Genunellaro, which are distinguished by not very important differences of conformation. Somewhat similar differences appear among the 

numerous examples referred to S. guadalupensis, but it did not seem to me desirable 

to distinguish them as distinct species, even if that were practicable. 

Horizon· and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 

'2926); base of Capitan formation, hill southwest of Guadalupe Point (station 2906); 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2919), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas 

{station 2962). Delaware Mountain formation, Comanche Canyon, Glass Mountains, 

'Texas (station 3763). 

SQUAMULARIA GUADALUPENSIS var. SUBQUADRATA n. var. 

Pl. XIV, figs. 2 to 3a. 

This variety is fairly well distinguished from what, after some consideration, 1 

think should be regarded as the typical form of Squamularia guadalupensis, by the 

·development of a broad, moderately distinct sinus in the ventral valve, causing the 

:shape to be somewhat more quadrate than oval. The dorsal valve docs not develop 

an appreciable fold to correspond to the ventral sinus. Our specimens are too 

imperfectly preserved in that particular to indicate whether any differences in 

sculpture accompany those of configuration, but probably such is not the case. 

This fo.rm resembles Reticularia caroli and R. a:.ffinis of Gemmellaro's Sicilian fauna. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle o( Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 

2926); base of Capitan formation, hill southwest of Guadalupe Point (station 2906), 

·Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. 

SQUAMULAlUA GUADALUPENSIS var. OVALIS n. var. 

Pl. XIV, figs. 1 and la. 

This variety is perhaps a little more doubtful than the subquadrata, becatise 

there is some question as to whether it is really distinct from what I am now regarding as typical Squamularia guadalupensis, and also as to whether it is not itself 

typical S. guadalupensis. Shumard's description fits either form fairly well, but 

.seems to exclude the variety subquadrata, because he distinctly states that a fold 

and sinus are absent. ·His description calls for a shell which is longer than wide, a 

feature found in the present form, but not in that which I am regarding the typical 

variety. On the other hand, what I have chosen for the typical variety is very 

much more common than any other and agrees more with the type of shell which 

,Shumard's comparisons indicate that he Was describing, since, for example, he says 

3695-No. 58-08--24 
370 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

that S. guadalupen8is differs from Reticularia setigera in being more gibbous and' 

without either a fold or a sinus. It seems hardly probable that if Shumard had had 

a large elongate species like the type of S. guadalupensis var. ovalis he would have. 

found no other difference from Reticularia setigera. 

If, then, we disregard the probability that the common Guadalupian type, which 

differs from Reticularia setigera in being more gibbous and· in lacking a fold and 

sinus, is that which Shumard described asS. guadalupensis, it still remains to consider whether the type represented by the specimens shown in my figure is distinct. 

from it or not. It is larger and more elongate, to be sure, but the growth lines 

indicate that its younger stages would not differ in either size or shape. Another 

notable feature is the high, erect beak, but in the elongation and curvature of the 

beak considerable variation is shown by S. guadalupensis. It will be observed that 

exfoliation has brought to light certain fine radiating lines on the surface of the 

typical specimen of the present variety. This peculiarity is developed on a number 

of specimens and is not singular to the present form. I have been·unable to determine whether this is connected with any particular variation in the sculpture of the 

exterior or is correlated with any peculiarities of configuration. 

It hardly seems appropriate to regard the present form as identically the same 

as the smaller, more circular, variety, yet I have introduced a distinctive name with 

some hesitation. Squamularia guadalupensis var. ovalis is related to Squamularia_ 

(Reticularia) waageni Loczy, although I do not regard them as the same. 

Horizon and locality.-1fiddle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 

2926); base of Capitan formation, hill southwest of Guadalupe Point (station 2906),. 

Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. 

Genus AMBOC<ELIA Hall. 

AMBOC<ELIA PLANICONVEXA var. GUADALUPENSIS n. Var. 

Pl. XIV, figs. 12 to 14a. 

Shell rather long for the genus, ventral valve having length and breadth about 

equal. Hinge li~e shorter than the width in front. Area well defined, moderately 

high, strongly concave, directed to the plane of .the shell edge at angles varying from 

90° to about 135°. Delthyrium higher than wide. Convexity high. Curvature, 

more or less flattened out along the anterior and lateral margins. Beak attenuate, 

prominent, strongly incurved. Sinus absent. 

Dorsal valve very transverse, nearly flat. Hinge line long, straight. Sides and 

front evenly curved. Cardinal angles somewhat flattened. Beak depressed,. 

obscure. Crural plates rather long, high, and prominent. Character of the area not. 

ascertained. Surface characters unknown. 

This form is very close indeed to our common Ambocmlia planiconvexa of the, 

Mississippi Valley, and I am not satisfied as to the propriety of distinguishing it on. 

the characters noted. The fact that this genus presents so few lines of specific· 

differentiation, however, would tend to enhance the value of even slight variations, 

where found. The Guadalupian form averages.slightly larger-than Ambocmlia planiconvexa, though large specimens of the latter do not differ materially in this respecL 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 371 

It is in the main more transverse; but here again is sometimes equaled by the Pennsylvanian type, young specimens of both being narrower and more subcircular than 

the larger ones. Perhaps the more constant and important· difference~ consist in 

the fact that the area of the Guadalupian form is a little lower than in Ambocmlia 

planiconvexa, and the crural plates a little longer, stronger, and more closely proximate. In our collections this form is restricted to the limestones of the Guadalupi~n 

series, where, however, it is not rare. Shumard appears not to have found it; at 

all events he ·does not mention it. The largest specimen seen-a ventral valvemeasures 11.5 mm. in length and 12.5 mm. in width. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 

2926) and peak north of Pine Spring (station 2902), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2936). 

Genus SPIRIFERINA D'Orbigny. 

Among the Spiriferinas thus far known in our American Carboniferous faunas 

two types can be distinguished. One of these is represented by S. spinosa, while to 

the other S. trans~ersa, S. kentuckyensis, et al. belong. The differences are largely 

external, though Hall and Clarke remark a of S. spinosa that there is a solid calcareous deposition in the umbonal cavity of the apical valve, adding, however, that 

this probably occurs in other species also. 

As is .~,~ll known, ~he surface in one group is. marked by regular transverse, 

imbricating lamellre and by delicate hairlike spinules, in varying abundance and 

arrangement. In the other form concentric lamellre are practically absent. When 

present, they are irregular and distant and occur chiefly near the margin. The surface in this case, however, is covered with relatively large spines, which,.craterlike, 

seem to have been open at the top. The shell structure in this type is coarsely 

punctate, but there is an outer layer in S. spinosa rather thin, which is dense and 

impunctate and marked by delicate concentric lines. The development of the 

spines is possibly connected with this layer, because in the majority of cases when 

the latter is missing the spines also are gone, leaving the surface very smooth, even 

in the sulci, where they would be protected from erosion if it were supposed that the 

removal of the epidermal layer were due to this cause. Here and there, in shells 

whose outer layer has been lost, punctre larger than the others are seen dotting the 

surface. I have not ascertained that these are connected with the spines, and they 

are usually less numerous than the spines in average specimens. 

In the spinosa type, furthermore, or at least in S. spinosa itself, the plications 

are few and large, the fold and sinus being but slightly more prominent than the 

lateral plications and likewise simple. In the lamellose group, on the other hand, 

the plications are small and numerous, the fold and sinus strongly specialized, and 

the occurrence of a small but distinct mesial impression on the fold and a corresponding elevation in the sinus is so frequent as almost to establish a rule. The punctation 

inS. spinosa has already been described as coarse and spongy. In the other group 

considerable variation exists both as to size and abundance of perforations, and I 

a Nat. Hist. New York, Pal., vol. 8, pt. 2, p. 53. 
372 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA, 

believe that this will be serviceable as a specific character. It seems probable that 

the epidermal layer, which is readily seen in well-preserved examples of S. spinosa, 

exists also in the lamellosc forms; but, if so, it is not readily observed, being masked 

by the concentric lamellre and the abundant spinules. All the forms which have 

co.me under my observation can be assigned to one group or the other; but it is 

possible that forms more intermediate in character than any I ·am aware of will be 

found. 

Hall and Clarke derive the Spiriferinas from the lamellose-septate group of 

Spirifers," and certa:inly a very close similarity exists, both in internal structure and 

external expression, between that group of Spirifers and Spirijerina transversa, S. 

kentuckyensis, and their allies, the chief difference lying in the punctate shell structure of the Spiriferinas. The other group of Spiriferinas (S. spinosa and S. campestris) show a much greater resemblance to certain of the ostiolate Spirifers, some of 

which are distinguished by a character noted by the same authors inS. spinosa, 

namely, an apical callosity. A different origin for these two groups of Spirijerina is 

thus suggested, but the ostiolate Spirifers are without the ventral septum, a very 

important character in Spirijerina. To attempt to derive the spinose group from 

the ostiolati, would therefore be rather fanciful. 

Another but little known group of Spirifers having a spinose surface seems to 

come in with the early Mississippian. I refer to Spirijer aciculifer and S. schucherti,· 

but it is not known whether they are septate and punctate and are the antecedents 

of Spirijerina spinosa,. aseptate and impunctate and the survivors of the ostiolate 

Spirifers, or septate and impunctate, true Spirifers, but the stock from which 

Spirijerina spinosa was derived. It thus remains in doubt as to whether the spinosa 

group drew its ascent from the same or different stock from Spirijerina transversa 

et al. 

No Devonian species of Spiriferina are known in North America, but the genus 

is abundant in rocks of Carboniferous age. The spinosa type does not appear below 

the Genevieve group (as defined by H. S. Williams) of the Mississippian, but continues into the Pennsylvanian, where it is represented by Spiriferina campestris 

White and S. gonionotus Meek, species which if not identical with .s. spinosa are 

certainly very closely related. A number of species belonging to the lamellose 

· group have been described from the Mississippian, but in the Pennsylvanian the 

representation seems to be reduced to Spiriferina kentuckyensis alone. 

Both types of shells occur in,the Guadalupian. Belonging to the same group as 

S~ transversa and S. kentuckyensis is the common formS. billingsi, already described 

by Shumard, together with its allies, among which must be ranked S. evax and S.' 

sulcata. To the spinosa group belongS. laxa and S. pyramidalis. 

Several other Guadalupian species of Spiri.ferina are not so readily referred. 

B. hilli in its general appearance and in the development of a low plication in the 

ventral sinus seems to be.allied to S. kentuckyensis. It does not possess the strongly 

and regularly lamellated surface of that species, and ought not, therefore, to be 

!},ssigned immediately with the lamellosce. It really seems to be more similar to S. 

cristata Schlotheim. The surface of that species appears to be finely papillos~, and 

it is crossed by concentric lamellre, which are, however, neither very regular nor conuNat. Hist. New York, Pal., vol. 8, pt. 2, p. 53. 
MOLL USC.OTDEA. 373 

spicuous. This finely papillose appearance which is borne by the best specimens of 

8. cristata may be the result of preservation upon the punctate shell structure, or it 

may be due to the presence of minute spinules. At all events, I have not observed 

in that species either the large spines and impunctate outer layer of the spinos::e or 

the regular concentric imbrications of the lamellos::e. W aagen suggests of the Indian 

representatives of this species that only the outer layers are porous, the inner being 

solid. The general appearance of 8. cristata is perhaps more like 8. spinosa than 

8. lcentuclcyensis>· but if the structure described by W aagen is true it can be grouped 

with neither of the species mentioned, and would probably form the nucleus of a 

different section, .to which, on the whole, Spiriferina hilli would best be assigned. 

The surface of 8. welleri is, unfortunately, unknown, but in its configuration it 

appears to be almost unique among Carboniferous Spiriferinas in having the fold 

and sinus plicated, although it is true that a tendency to develop a biplicate fold is 

a character of 8. lcentuclcyensis and its allies. While deep exfoliation has destroyed 

the surface of the very few examples of this species thus far obtained, it seems 

rather probable that if the surface had been strongly lamellose an intimation of the 

fact would be retained. On this account, and because of the rather coarsely punctate shell structure, I shall assign this species to the spinose group. 

The latter character, though in the case of S. campestris ( = 8. spinosa?) and 

S. lcentuclcyensis sufficient to. distinguish the two species without considering any 

other, cap. not be accepted without reserve as evidence between the two groups in 

question, though 8. biUingsi and S. laxa are distinguished in the same way, the 

former by having very fine punctation, the latter by coarse. While S. laxa and 

S. pyramidalis can without any very great incongruity be grouped with 8. spinosa, 

a new element of importance is induced inS. welleri, which ought not to be placed 

in very close proximity toE. spinosa, because of its plicated fold and sinus. In the 

same way, while 8. billingsi et al. resemble 8. lcentuclcyensis in their lamellated surface, they differ so much in size and configuration that it hardly seems suitable to 

assemble them in the same group. 

These forms under consideration might· provisionally be divided into three 

sections-the spinos::e, the lamellos::e, and the papillat::e. The spinos::e would include 

the spinosa group, comprising 8. spinosa, 8. campestris, S. gonionotus (=S. campestris?), 8. laxa, and S. pyramidalis, and the welleri group, consisting solely of the 

species of that name. The lamellos::e would include the billingsi group, consisting of 

S. billingsi, 8. evax, and S. sulcata, and the transversa group, to which belongS. trans-

· versa, S. lcentuclcyensis, and most of our Mississippian Spiriferinas. From these,. 

, however, must be excepted S. concentrica, which besides some not very ·essential 

peculiarities of configuration and ornamentation seems to have possessed a shell 

structure resembling that of S. cristata. The outer layers in this species are rather 

sparsely punctate, while the inner ones, comprising most of the shelly substance, 

appear to be fibrous. This important difference should remove the species to a 

different groupif not to a different section. The papillat::e, comprising those species 

having a papillose surfaceO) with subordinate lamellose bands, would include the 

cristata group (8. cristata, together with the other species placed by Waagen in 

this group, namely, 8. multiplicata and 8. nasuta) and also probably my 8. hilli. 

.. 
374 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

The shell structure of S. cristata itself is, according to Waagen, impunctate, 

except for the outer layers, and the same condition, according to my observation, 

exists in S. concentrica, which I have referred provisionally to another group, viz, 

the lamellosa;. Possibly a more substantial arrangement of these species could be 

made on the basis of this character, two types of whicl~ arc aiready apparent (one 

with impunctate outer portion and punctate inner-i. e., the papillatE£, and the 

other with impunctate inner and punctate outer portion), and it is possible that 

these divisions would depart somewhat from those here suggested by configuration 

and sculpture; but neither material nor time is at present available to me for the 

prosecution of this study. 

Waagen groups his Indian shells under three divisions, hut these are subordinate to those here under consideration. His group of S. cristata I have already 

mentioned as belonging to the papillatx. I can not but believe that his association 

of S. vercheri under the title of the group of S. transversa is erroneous, for while S. 

vercheri has the shape of S. transversa, to judge by both his description and figure 

it lacks the heavy, regular, closely arranged, concentric lamellre of McChesney's 

species, the ornamentation being in fact not unlike that of S. cristata. For this 

reasonS. vercheri would more appropriately be transferred to the same division as 

cristata, but, in accordance with Waagen's judgment, to a different group. S. 

ornata, which alone represents his group of S. insculpta, is closely allied to S. billingsi, 

and can probably be assigned a position near it in the lamellosx. 

The abundance and variety of shells of this genus seem to be rather characteristic of the Guadalupian fauna. Waagen, as we have just seen, recof,rnizes a number of species in the Productus limestone of India, but they show less variety than 

is observed in the American series of forms. The representation of the genus in 

the fauna of the Carnic Alps is altogether insignificant, but Gemmellaro describes 

a great diversity from the province of Palermo. It is a significant fact that S. 

billingsi, the most abundant species of the genus in the Guadalupe Mountains, has 

a close ally in the Indian Permian (S. ornata), while several of the forms described 

by Gemmellaro appear to be variants of this same type. The surface ornamentation in some specimens, and the configuration in others show points of difference 

more or less striking, but the family resemblance of his species with S. ornata W aagen 

and S. billingsi Shumard can not fail to be remarked. 

SPIRIFERINA BILLINGS! Shumard. 

Pl. XIII, figs. 16 to 19d, 21 to 21b, 24 to 24c; Pl. XIV, figs. 15 and 16. 

1858. Spiriferina Billingsii. Shumard, Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, vol. 1, p. 294 (date of volume, 1860). 

White and dark [Permian] limestone: Guadalupe Mountains, and conglomerate at mouth of 

Delaware Creek, New Mexico. 

1859. Spiriferina Billingsii. Shumard, idem, p. 391. 

White and dark [Pennian]limestone: Guadalupe Mountains. 

Shell of moderate size, wider than long, gibbous, cardinal line less than the width of the shell, extremities rounded. Ventral valve gibbous, strongly arched, marked with a deep, moderately broad, 

angular sinus, extending from tip of beak to front, sides convex; beak prominent, prolonged, rather 

sharply incurved, extremity pointed; area well developed arcuate, broad triangular; lateral edges 

rounded, deltoid aperture large. Surface with from six to eight prominent rounded ribs on each side of 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 

the sinus; they are simple and gradually enlarged- from the beak to the margins. Dorsal-valve SE)flli-. 

elliptical, convex, having five or :Six prominent ribs on each side of the mesial fold, which is ang~lated,. 

Tather broad, and toward the front much elevafed above the general convexity; cardinal line straight or 

very slightly angulated; beak scarcely passing the cardinal line. The surfaces of both valves are thickly 

Btudded with extremely fine granul~ and delicate lines of growth. 

Dimensions.-Length, 0.74; width, 0.90; thickness, 0.58. Length of dorsal valve, 0.44; thickness 

of ventral valve, 0.36. 

This species is very similar to S. cristata (Schlot. sp.), to which we at first were disposed to refer it. 

Our shell is, however, larger, the beak more elongated, and the area narrower and higher. 

The specimens in the collection obtained by Dr. G. G. Shumard·are from the white limestone of the 

·Guadalupe Mountains, the dark limestone subordinate to the white limestone, and the Quaternary conglomerate at the mouth of Delaware Creek, .New Mexico. · 

Dedicated to E. Billings, esq., paleontologist of the Geological Survey of Canada. 

-'l'his is one of the more common species in the white limestone, yet the material 

-obtained is less perfect than in the case of many of less abundance. Shumard's 

description, quoted above in full, is adequate, except in one point that it gives an 

-erroneous conception of the surface, which is really marked by regular, strong, imbri-

-cating, concentric lamell::e, of which from 7 to 13 are found within the space of 5 mm. 

Some specimens indicate that the whole was covered with fine hairlike spines or set::e, 

which were especially abundant on the edges of the lamell::e. The entire ornamentation is usually lost by exfoliation, and is retained only in a few examples and on local 

.areas. The granules mentioned by Shumard ar~ simply the papill::e due to punctate 

shell structure, while the growth lines are probably lamell::e which have been nearly 

destroyed by exfoliation. 

Shumard suggests a resemblance of this species with Spirijerina cristata Schlot., 

bnt a comparison is hardly necessary. The large size of the American form, its proportionately finer lateral plications, and the relatively great size of the fold and sinus 

distinguish it· immediately. For similar _reasons comparisons are hardly necessary 

with our common Spiriferina kentuckyensis. Spiriferina billingsi is quite similar to 

S. ornata Waagen, found in the Productus limestone of the Salt Range, but the 

American species, which in any event would have priority of elate, should be distinguished with ease by reason of its smaller and more numerous lateral plications. 

Gemmellaro also has described from the province of Palermo a large number of spe-

-cies which resemble S. billingsi more or less closely. The Sicilian form, however, 

-seems to be more richly modified even than the Guadalupian. Some of the species 

have no analogues in the latter fauna, showing developments partly of configuration 

not known there, and partly of surface ornamentation, which in some species, as the 

result of intersecting lines, takes on a tuberculose sculpture. S. rr}argarit:e Gemmellaro, however, might readily pass for the American species. 

S. billingsi proves to be a variable species, marked deviations from the dominant 

form manifesting themselves along several lines. Variation in the frequency of the 

imbricating lamell::e has already been mentioned. Some specimens have distinctly 

-finer plications than the common form; others have them less prominent; and 

another group shows a tendency toward an abbreviation of the cardinal line, a 

subcircular form resulting therefrom. I have not found it practicable to distinguish 

many of these variations of the less degree from the ms,in type. A few variations, 

represented usually by single specimens, have departed so widely from the central 
376 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

type that I have described them separately. Their connection in most cases with_ 

S. billingsi is obvious; but it is equally obvious that they should not be referred tothe same species. 

. Horizon and locality.---Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926); 

"dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930); Delaware Mountain formation, 

Guadalupe Point (stat!on 2931 ~), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. Delaware Moun--

tain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2969 ?) . Delaware 

Mountain formation, Comanche Canyon, Glass Mountains, Texas (station 3763 ?) . 

SPIRIFERINA BILLINGS! var. RETUSA n. var. 

Pl. XIII, figs. 20 to 20d. 

This form is associated with typical S. billingsi, but represents a variety which can 

be satisfactorily distinguished, though I at first included it with the normal type. 

While the beak of typical S. billingsi is produced arid curved back over the area, in 

the present form it is short and erect. In addition to these peculiarities the costre 

are considerably less strongly expressed. 

Horizon and locality.--Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). 

SPIRIFERINA. EVAX n. sp. 

Pl. XIII, figs. 22 to 22d. 

Shell rather large. Ventral valve high. Area small, moderately high. concave, 

inclined backward at an angle of about 135°, defined by distinct ridges. Foramen 

large, occupying much of the area. Beak large, strongly incurved._ Sinus large, 

deep, angular. Plications three, and possibly one or two additional very obscure 

ones, on either side. 

Dorsal valve moderately convex, somewhat inflated in the posterior portion. 

Shape transverse, elliptical. Beak small, inconspicuous, strongly incurved, and not 

projecting. Fold large, high, and angular. Traces of about six large plicationscan be seen, all except three of them on each side being very faint. · 

Surface mostly exfoliated, but showing faint traces of regular concentric bands, 

indicating an ornamentation similar to that exhibited by Spiriferina billingsi. 

This form is an extreme variation from typical S. billingsi, but can be distinguished by its contracted shape, large, faint plications, etc. Though I have referred 

to S. billingsi forms, with narrow shape and faint ribs, none have these characters 

combined and to so marked a degree as the specimen from which this description 

was taken. 

Ilorizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan peak (station 2926) ;. 

base of the Capitan formation, hill southwest of Guadalupe Point (station 2906),. 

Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. 
MOLL USCOIDEA. i377 

SPIRIFERINA tjULCATA n. sp. 

Pl. XIII, figs. 23 to 23b. 

This species is typically represented by a ventral valve, which shows the following characters: 

Shell of medium size, strongly elevated. Shape, as determined by the outline 

of the margin, transverse, semicircular. Cardinal angles rounded. Area high, concave, much narrower than the shell in front; defined at the sides rather by difference 

in marking than by any sudden change in the direction of the inflected· edges of the 

shell. Foramen large, occupying much of the areal surface. Beak strongly 

incurved. Sinus very narrow and relatively deep. There are about nine lateral 

ribs, which are so faint as to be inconspicuous. 

Surface ornamentation largely lost by exfoliation. At present the surface 

appears nearly smooth, except for some delicate overlapping lamellre near the anterior margin. Very faint traces of regular concentric lamellre can be observed elsewhere on the surface, and it is probable that the ornamentation was similar to that 

of Spiriferina billingsi. 

This form is evidently an extreme variety of the species last named, but the 

degree of difference is such that the two should hardly be referred to a single specific group. S. billingsi presents variations from the normal type in the way of 

narrower forms and those with finer or fainter ribs, but none having these characters combined or in the degree in which they are seen inS. sulcata. 

I have provisionally referred to this species some small dorsal valves fr.om station 2969, in the southern Delawares. They are somewhat coarsely silicified and do 

not show the punctation, which in the original specimen is very fine. They are 

subcircular in shape, with the width slightly exceeding the length in varying degrees. 

The plications are all rather fine and faint. The fold is simple, larger than the lateral plications, but not much elevated, though bounded by broader sulci. The 

surface is crossed by regular, fine, concentric lamellre. 

These shells appear to present a species of the general type of Spiriferina billingsi 

and rather closely allied to S. sulcata, but a satisfactory determination can not be 

made without more complete material. , 

Several very fragmentary specimens associated with them have been placed 

with S. hillingsi for the time being. They indicate larger size, with more strongly 

developed fold and sinus and coarser concentric lamellre. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926); 

lower portion of Capitan formation, McKitterick Canyon (station 2932?), Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas. Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, 

Texas (station 2969 ~). 

SPIRIFERINA LAXA n. sp. 

Pl. XXI, figs. 3 to 3b. 

This species is based, primarily, on a ventral valve from the "dark limestone" 

0) of the Guadalupe Mountains, and part of a dorsal valve from the same horizon 

is provisionally referred to the same species. The following characters have been 

noted: 
378 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

Shell large; shape, as determined bY. the aperture of the ventral valve, trans-

. verse, semicircular. Width greatest at the hinge· line or just below. Convexity of 

the ventral valve slight. Area rather high, nearly flat, strongly inclined backward,· 

defined by angles from the rest of the surface. Cardinal angles slightly rounded.· 

Foramen rather large; height greater than width. Beak at its extremity strongly 

bent over the area. Four large lax plications are found on either side of the sinus, 

separated by sulci of about equal force. The plications and sulci decrease rapidly . 

in size and depth toward the sides, so that the final ones are very faint. The sinus 

is deeper than the sulci, but not strikingly so. 

The surface is of the type of Spiriferina spinosa. The inner layers are very 

coarsely punctate. The superficial layer, which is, in this case, uncommonly thick, 

has a dense structure and is penetrated by pores terminating on the surface in 

spines or papillre. These pores are somewhat larger than those of the shell beneath 

and very much less abundant. The difference in structure of the two layers is 

manifested by the fact that the inner one is silicified, while the outer still remains 

calcareous. A thin intermediate layer, which has delicate concentric markings, is 

indicated also. 

Horizon and locality.-" Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930) and Guadalupe Point (station 3762e ~), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. Delaware Mountain 

formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2969~). 

SPIRIFERINA PYRAMIDALIS n. sp. 

Pl. XIV, figs. 20 to 21b. 

This interesting form is known· from but two somewhat imperfect specimens, 

although a few fragmentary and doubtful ones have been placed here. The shell is 

rather small and the shape transverse, semicircular, widest at the hinge line. The 

ventral valve is high, conical, the area broad, high, nearly flat, strongly defined by 

angles at its junction with the sides of the shell, nearly perpendicular to the plane 

·of the edges or slightly inclined backward. Delthyrium large, much higher than 

wide. Sinus only slightly larger than the lateral sulci. There are four plications 

on each side of the sinus, the fmal one heing smaller than the others. The plications and sulci are strong and subangular. 

The dorsal valve. is strongly convex and inflated at the umbo. The beak is 

small and depressed, strongly incurved. The cardinal angles are flattened and 

pointed. The fold is but slightly larger than the lateral plicatio:ris, and all are strong 

and subangular. There are three lateral plications. 

The surface is covered by a dense epidermal layer, which when not exfoliated 

conceals the punctate structure beneath. The punctre are rather large and often 

separated by relatively long distances. The outer layer is marked by fine, closely 

and somewhat irregularly arranged lamellose concentric strire. It seems to have 

been pierced by scattering pores of large size, which may have projected as spines or 

pustules similar to those of Spirijerina spinosa. 

The shape of this shell and to a certain extent its structure strongly suggest 

the genus Oyrtina, but the absence of any deltidial covering removes the possibility 

of such a generic reference. The punctate shell and large septum prove its affinities 

to be with Spiriferina, in spite of the unusual configuration. · 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 379 

It is possible that I may have founded this species on young examples of 

S. laxa, to which it is certainly related in some ways, and of which the growth lines in 

the youthful stages indicate a resemblance in configuration. The two examples of 

S. pyramidalis so far found have nearly the same size, which is very much smaller i 

than that of S. laxa. Botli specimens are from the Capitan limestone, whileS. laxa 

is represented in our collections only from the "dark limestone." The lateral 

extremities are angular and projecting, while those of S. laxa are rounded, and the 

ventral valve is relatively higher and more erect. The differences pointed out are 

not so striking in fact as the enumeration of them may suggest; but they are too 

important to warrant uniting the two forms until a greater connection between them 

is demonstrated than now appears. · 

Rather greater, however, is the resemblance which tllis species carries to the 

small specimen from the same horizon which I have considered. as a young example 

of S. 'Welleri. It differs in the flatter area and much more coarsely punctate shell 

structure; also, to a mmor degree, in the character ?f the plications. 

Horizon and locality.--Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware 

Mountains, Texas (station 2969 ~). 

SrnuFERIN A HILLI n. sp. 

Pl. XXX, figs. 15 to 15b. 

Shell small, transverse. Ventral valve elevated. Area high, varying somewhat 

in its backward inclination to the edge of the shell; concave, clearly dcfmed. Foramen rather narrow and high. Beak incurved. The sinus is broad but not very 

deep, and contains a low median plication. The lateral plications are four in number, the outer one on either side being indistinct. 

Dorsal valve transverse, widest at the hinge line, moderately convex. Beak 

small, somewhat prominent, incurved. Fold slightly larger than the lateral plications, of which there are three on each side, and possibly a fourth that is very faint. 

The only dorsal valve observed is a small specimen which has a fold somewhat flattened, perhaps, but without a distinct groove. · 

Surface apparently smooth or slightly papillose and marked by a few strong 

lamellre produced by unequal growth. 

This shell is closely allied to Spiriferina cristata, but differs in several points, 

smce the latter usually has higher, thinner plications and is without a median plication in the sinus. The specimen figured is higher and narrower than Schlotheim's 

species, but it is also higher and narrower than other specimens with which it is 

associated. 

The foregoing description is based on a fossil from the Glass Mountains-the 

only specimen which is at present known to represent the species. 

Horizon and Zocality.-Delaware Mountain formation,Comanche Canyon, Glass 

Mountains, Texas (station 3763). 
•J 

380 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

SPIRIFERINA HILLI var. POLYPLEURUS n. var. 

Pl. XXI, figs. 4 to 4c. 

A eonsiderable number of specimens in our collection, mostly small and many 

of them fragmentary, have much the general aspect of Spiriferina hilli, and, like the· 

type specimen, they are silicified and have been freed from the matrix by etching. 

The surface ornamentation seems to have been destroyed by this process, for at 

present the exterior shows only the porous shell· and an oecasional irregularity of 

increment. The loss of the sculpture has much enhanced the difficulty of determining the affinities of these forms, and they have been referred to their several species, 

often with considerable doubt. · The sculpture of S. hilli itself is a matter of uncertainty---whether it had the dense Otlter layer 'of S. laxa and its allies, which seems 

usually to have escaped silicification and to have been lost in the etching process 

or possessed the superficial characters of S. cristata. Any consideration of S. billingsi 

and its allies is rendered almost unnecessary, for apparently they retain the characteristic lamellose sculpture in a- silicified condition. The configuration of S. h-illi at. 

least suggests an affinity with S. cristata. -

The different specimens above referred to, while having much the general 

expression of S. hilJi, show variations more Qr less distinct in the character of the 

plications, and with one exception fail to possess any evidence of a median plication 

on the fold and sinus, a character whose presence in S. hilli tends to distinguish it 

more or less sharply from the spinosx group and to ally it in some measure with 

S. cristata. On this account it has seemed best to refer most of these shells, 1riore 

or less unsatisfactorily, it is true, to other groups. 

- If we adhere strictly to the characters possessed by the typical specimen of 

S. hilli, the representation must be at present confined to it alone; but, as before, 

intimated, there is at least one other type which seems to be closely related, and in 

especial to be distinguished by possessing a median plication on the fold and sinus. 

A specimen of this sort is represented by figs. 4 to 4c of PI. XXI. This example islarger than typical S. hilli, has a more transverse shape and more strongly marked, 

and slightly finer plications. -Though it apparently stands in close relationship to 

S. hilli, I have found it necessary to regard the present specimen, in view of these 

differences, as representing a distinct variety. Besides the figu~ed specimen this -

type is represented only by a young and doubtfully identified individuaL 

Horizon and locality.-"Dark limestone," Pine Spring, Guadalupe Mountains, 

Texas (station 2930). Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 

8PIRIFERIN A WELLER! n. sp. 

Pl. XIV, figs. 17 to 19b. 

Ventral valve large, transverse, elevated. Shape, as determined by the aperture, transversely semicircular; widest at the hinge line. Area probably strongly 

inclined backward, well defined, high, concave above, nearly flat below. Foramen 

probably large, but higher than broad. Beak slender, incurved, especially at the tip. 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 381 

Sinus broad and rather shallow. Lateral plications five on each side; moderately 

coarse and strong, but growing smaller and fainter toward the cardinal angles. The 

csinus bears a low plication on either side. 

What appears to be the dorsal valve of this form is known chiefly from the artiiicial cast represented by fig. 18 of Pl. XIV. It is moderately convex, transverse, 

.semicircular. Beak small, depressed. The fold is .broad, marked by a strong 

central plication and two small depressed ridges branching from it, one on either 

:side. Lateral plications seven in number. 

Shell substance rather coarsely P"':lnctate. Surface ornamentation unknown, 

but probably consisting of an impunctate outer layer, with a few concentric lamellose 

;gtrire and possibly scattered poriferous pustules. 

8piriferina welleri is established principally on two shells, the one a dorsal and 

the other a ventral valve. The most obvious point of disagreement is in the number 

\ ·of lateral plications. 

Since the description was formulated, however, there has come to hand an imperfect specimen retaining both valves in conjunction and preserving the surface 

characters in good condition. ·The width is 22 mm. and the length of the dorsal valve 

13 mm. The dorsal valve has three rounded lateral plications, the early ones strong 

and the final ones faint. The fold and sinus are very high and angular, and bear on 

·each side a small but very distinct lateral rib. The shell substance is coarsely punctate. There is a thin impunctate epidermal layer marked by fine concentric strire 

.and numerous large spiniform pustules. Toward the front a few subimbricating 

Jamellre are developed. 

8piri{erina welleri appears to be somewhat rare in the white limestone of the 

'Guadalupe Mountains, but is represented in our collection by a number of specimens, 

all of which are, unfortunately, more or less fragmentary and doubtfully identified. 

It is associated with 8. billingsi, but it is not difficult to distinguish between the two 

:species,,even in fragments, since the punctation is much coarser in 8. welleri. Of 

·course the configuration and surface characters of mature forms distinguish them 

at once. 'l'he · coarse punctation and the spi11ose surface distinguish this species 

from 8. kentuckyensis and its allies and indicate that it belongs to an entirely different 

group. In some particulars it resembles 8. laxa, but there should be no difficulty 

in distinguishing them if typical specimens are at hand. 

A number of small examples, one of which is represented by figs. 19 to 19b of 

Pl. XIV, have been referred to this species. The specimen figured has almost 

precisely the characters of typical 8. welleri in the immature portion of the shell. 

It was found at the same locality as typical 8. welleri, but the typical form is not 

known in association with the other examples. Thus assembled, 8. welleri includes 

a rather motley assortment of forms. First there are one or two specimens showing 

the typical characters; then there are a few small individuals from the same locality 

which represent, presumably, immature stages; and, finally, there is a series of small 

:specimens from other localities more or less closely resembling the yo1-1ng stages but 

unassociated with typical mature shells. In the last category may be mentioned 

a poor specimen from station 2906, which may possibly belong to 8. hilli var. poly-

_pleurus. It also includes a number of specimens· from stations 2930 and 2969. 
382 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

These niuch resembleS. hilli var. polypleurus, but differ in having coarser ribs and 

no median plication on the fold and sinus. They also resembleS. pyramidalis, but 

differ in being more finely punctate, in having the fold more prominent and the beak 

somewhat more tapering and more incurved. I am not sure but that these small 

forms, both from station 2926 and from the other localities, but especially from the 

latter, would better have been regarded as a distinct species, since it is not unlikely 

that a less incomplete knowledge would show differences now almost obscured. 

Most of the silicified specimens (from stations 2969 and 2930) have lost all trace of 

the original sculpture, but in one instance some large spinules are retained similar 

to those of S. laxa and S. pyramidalis. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926); 

base of Capitan formation, hill southwest of Guadalupe Point (station 2906); "dark 

limestone," Pine ~pring (station 2930~), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. Delaware 

Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2969 ?). · Delaware Mountain formation, mountains northwest of Marathon, Tex. (station 3840 ?). 

8PIRIFERINA WELLER! var. a. 

Apparently from the upper beds of the Capitan formation a single large, somewhat crushed, specimen has come to hand which resembles typical S. welleri in all 

characters that-can at present be observed, save that the fold and sinus seem to be 

unplicated. It appears not improbable that this may prove a distinct species, to 

which, and not to S. welleri itself, may belong some of the little shells referred to in 

the preceding description, but for the present no conclusion can be reached on this 

point. 

This form is distinguished from S. laxa by its narrower, deeper, and more 

numerous plications. 

Horizon and locality.-Top of Capitan formation, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas 

(station 3762a). · · 

8PIRIFERINA WELLER! var. b. 

This variety is founded on a small dorsal valve from Shumard's "dark limestone." The shape is semicircular, the width 10 mm. and the length 7 mm. The 

hinge line is just a little shorter than the width below. The configuration is marked 

by the exceedingly high, narrow character of its plications. The fold is not conspicuously larger than the lateral plications, of which there are three on each side and 

a fourth very faint one near the cardinal line. The surface ornamentation of this 

shell and apparently the outer layer have been lost, and it is impossible to determine 

just where its affinities most strongly lie. It is associated with the small shells doubtfully referred to S. welleri, but is distinguished by its very narrow, high plications. 

Its strongly elevated fold and fine punctation distinguish it from S. pyramidalis. 

It also, but remotely, resembles S. hilli and its variety polypleurus. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2969 ?) . 
MOLLUSCOID EA. 383 

Family ATHYR.IDA<: Phillips. 

This family is represented in the Guadalupian fauna only by the genus Composita,a which comprises but four not very easily discriminable varieties. · 

The most characteristic Guadalupian species differs remarkably from the 

form, or group of forms, for which the name Oomposita subtilita is used in our Pennsylvanian faunas. Like the majority of brachiopods, the earlier Carboniferous 

Compositas, as is well known, have a more or less deep sinus in the ventral valve 

and a corresponding fold on the dorsal. In the Guadalupian fauna, however, 

a type is developed which has a sinus on the dorsal valve, as well as on the ventral, 

a circumstance which produces an emargination of the anterior outline. This 

condition. is very striking in some specimens, though less marked in others, while 

a few examples have the relation of parts the same as in Composita subtilita. 

These I have discriminated as a variety distinct both from C. emarginata and 

from C. s1tbtilita, which they closely resemble. The four species recognized in 

this report might, therefore, be divided into two groups, one characterized by 

having a sinus in the dorsal valve and including only c. emarginata, while the 

second, which might again be divided, would include C. emarginata var. affinis on the 

one hand and C. mexicana and C. mexicana var. g1tadalupensis on the'other. 

Thoroughly characteristic specimens of C. emarginata have been obtained only 

near the middle of the Capitan limestone. Even there, however, as well as in the 

"dark limestone" and the Delaware Mountain formation, by far the largest number of specimens are more or less intermediate between typical G. emarginata and 

G. emarginata var. affinis. 

In the Salt Range Waagen recognized the genera Spirigerella and Athyris, the 

latter itself cpmprising two groups, subsequently distinguished by Hall and Clarke 

as distinct genera under the titles Semimtla (Gomposita) and Cleiothyris (Gleiothyridina). Thus it appears at the outset that the genera Spiri.gerella, comprising ten 

Salt Range species, and Gleiothyridina, with seven, have no corresponding types in 

the Guadalupian. 

In general appearance Spirigerella is much like Compositn, and some of 

Waagen's species strongly resemble our common C. subtilita and its almost 

numberless mutations. The distinguishing characters from C·omposita seem to 

consist in a peculiar configuration of the ventral beak and a difference in the 

cardinal process and the way the primary lamellre are attached to it. Not all of 

W aagen' s species possess the distinctive configuration of the ventral beak to an 

equal degree, and I have been unable to investigate the internal structures of the 

Guadalupian species, which have, however, the outward expression of Composita. 

vVhile the foregoing statement, therefore, may possibly be open to correction, it 

prohably corresponds closely, if not exactly, to the facts .. · 

The t.wo Salt Range species which can be referred to Composita, are not, for the 

genus, closely allied to the Guadalupian forms. On the other hand, the striking 

Guadalupian speeies, Composita emarginata, has no corresponding type either 

among the two species of Salt Range Compositas or in general configuration among 

. the species referred to Spirigerella. 

a In this report the generic terms Composita and Cleiothyridina are substituted for Semfnula and Cleiothyris, as suggested in a recent paper by Mr. Buckman (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., 7th ser., vol. 18, 1906, pp. 321-327). 
384 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

In the Himalaya Diener cites from the "Permo-Carboniferous'' fauna of Chitichun No. 1 three species of Cleiothyridina and three of Spirigerella. Some of the 

latter are not unlike certain of the Guadalupian Compositas in general expression, 

but I ha~re no grounds for contradicting Diener's assignment of his material to 

Spirigerella. In his second paper on this fauna Diener cites a single athyroid, 

probably a C7eiothyridina. 

The faunas of Kashmir and Spiti as described by Diener comprise three 

athyroids, two probably belonging to Cleiothyridina and the other identified as 

Composita subtilita. The latter may be compared with Composita ernarginata 

var., affinis and with some of the varieties of the Pennsylvanian species with 

which Diener has identified it. In. a subsequent paper on the faunas of Spiti 

the same author cites from the lower division a small athyroid under the title 

Spiriger'a (Athyris) cf. roissyi, which I would judge to be a Oomposita, though not 

one closely connected with the Guadalupian types. From the upper beds he cites 

two athyroid species, one apparently a Cleiothyridina and the other a Gomposita. 

related to G. mexicana. . 

The Permian faunas of Kumaon and Gurhwal furnished, according to Diener's 

investigations, of the Athyridre only species, two or three in all, belonging to the 

genera Spirigerella and Cleiothyridina. The same is true of the fauna from Malia 

Sangcha, in which a species of Gleiothyridina and one of Spirigerella arc mentioned. 

In the Productus shales of the Lissar Valley but a single a thyroid is known. This 

singular species, described-by Diener as Spirigera (Athyris) gerardi, is found in both 

the faunas of Kashmir and Spiti and of Kumaon and Gurhwal. Whether it is a 

Cleiothyridina or an Athyris sensu stricto, as may possibly be the case, there is as yet 

nothing known in the Guadalupian fauna which at all resembles it. The same 

species, based on a very imperfect specimen, is doubtfully identified in the Productus 

.shales of Dyans. 

Salter identifies Athyris roissyi, probably a Cleiothyridina, from Niti Pass and 

Davidson cites Athyris subtilita from the valley of Kashmir. The latter species is 

rather suggestive by its configuration of a Spirigerella, but if a Composita it may be 

compared with C. emarginata var. ajfinis. . 

From probably a much older horizon of the Carboniferous in Turke·stan 

Romanowski cites Spirigera ambigua and 8. expansa. The former, probably a 

Composita, resembles 0. mexicana var. guadalupensis, while the latter is very likely 

a Cleiothyridina. 

Considering the Athyridre of the Salt Range and Himalayan regions as a whole, 

·One can not say that much resemblance is shown to the faunas of the Guadalupe 

Mountains. Cleiothyridina and Spirigerella seem abundant and well differentiated 

in many places, whereas Gomposita, the only Guadalupian athyroid, is rare and often 

represented by types which are different from. the Guadalupian Compositas and 

which in especial contain nothing comparable to C. emarginata, the only striking 

Guadalupian species. · 

From LoPing, in China, Kayser cites only Athyris globularis. Presumably the 

Chinese form is a Oomposita,a instead of a Spirigerella or a Cleiothyridina, and if so 

it somewhat resembles Composita rriexicana var. guadalupensis. From the vicinity of . 

a Fliegel in revising thiN fauna places it under Spirigera. 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 385 

Kantschoufu Loczy cites a species of Oleiothyridina and from the vicinity of Batang 

a species of Spirigerella. Thus the various imperfectly kno\"\'n faunas of China present little resemblance to the Guadalupian in respect to this family of brachiopods. 

From Timor Beyrich cites a species of · Oleiothyridina and one presumably of 

Oomposita which; identified as Seminula glodularis, is nevertheless extremely like our 

common American Oomposita subtilita. Perhaps Oomposita mexicana of the Guadalupian species comes nearest, but the resemblance is not close. Under the title 

Spirigera protea var. subtilita Martin eites from Timor a form which may be the 

same as the foregoing, but the specimen figured is so imperfect that one may not 

safely hazard an opinion. Roemer cites from the west coast of Sumatra Terebratula 

~ubtilita, the only athyroid found in his collection, and as Martin includes this citation in the synonymy of his form from Timor it seems likely that all three belong to. 

the same species, one closely allied, if not identical, with Oomposita subtilita. In his 

paper on the fauna of Padang Fliegel subdivides the Terebratula subtilita of Roemer 

above referred to into Spirigera cf. subtilita, Spirigera damesi n. sp., and S. pseudodielasma n. sp. Neither Roemer nor Fliegel figures the form whieh Roemer refers 

to Hall's species, so that the general character can on1y be inferred. Probably the 

Sumatran shells exhibit the plasticity which is so troublesome a character of the 

American ones, and this may account for the great dive;sity shown by Fliegel's figures of both Oomposita damesi and 0. pseudodielasma. A figured specimen referred 

to the ·former might very well pass as a narrow variety of Oomposita subtilita, while 

the two other figured specimens, each possessing apparently distinctive characters, 

present types which are more or less completely unlike any American varieties of 

0. subtilita. They also have no closely related Guadalupian species. In the case of 

Oomposita pseudodielasma also, one specimen might pass as a somewhat aberrant 

variety of (Jomposita subtilita, but hardly the two others. Here too the Guadalupian fauna does not contain any form which may be called a correlated type, 

though the resemblance is closer than in the other species. 

Rothpletz, in his work on the faunas of Timor and Rotti, cites Spirigera roissyi 

and S. timoremis as the only representatives of the At.hyridre. The former is a 

Oleiothyridina and the latter is certainly very suggestive of a Spirigerella. Even 

if a Oomposita, however, it is not especially close to any of the Guadalupian species. 

In this ·group of Asiatic faunas Oomposita seems to be a frequent and abundant 

factor, but Spirigerella and Oleiothyridina also occur. Many of the Compositas 

appear to be of the general character of 0. subtilita rather than of. the Guadalupian 

species, but, on the other hand, present modifications which are not found in North 

America, so far as known .. 

The athyroids are represented in the Carboniferous fauna of New South Wales, 

according to De Koninck, by but a single species, identified as Athyris planisulcata. 

Its horizon in the Australian section seems to be in the lower beds. 

Etheridge discriminates only three species belonging to the Athyridre in the 

"Permo-Carboniferous" fauna of Queensland and New Guinea. He refers them to 

the genus Athyris. A. roissyi is.a Oleiothyridina, and possibly the two other species 

belong to the same genus, in which case they represent a type as yet unknown in 

the Guadalupian. Athyris randsi, however, has the configuration of a Oomposita, 

3005-No. 58-0S--2fi 
386 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

and indeed it is compared by Etheridge to Oomposita subtilita of the Pennsylvanian. 

Oomposita mexicana of the basal Guadalupian most resembles it, if it is a Oomposita. 

In the Russian section the fauna of the Productus giganteus zone may be safely 

neglected. The Moskovian fauna contains, so far as I have seen, only Athyris 

ambigua, which as represented by Trautschold's monograph is apparently a species 

of Oomposita related to, though probably distinct from our 0. subtilita. It is about 

equally near 0. mexicana also. The Athyridre of the Gschelstufe show a surprisingly 

slight development. Tschernyschew cites only four species, three belonging to 

Oleiothyridina and the fourth referred to as Athyris (Actinoconchus) planosulcata. I 

do not know in what sense Tschernyschew is employing the term Actinoconchus, but· 

his figures appear to represent a form which is not a Oomposita. Stuekenberg cites 

in addition Athyris cf. ambigua, which probably belongs to Oomposita. 

Practically the same representation ranges up into, the Artinsk. Tschernyschew mentions A. pectiniferd, A. roissyi, and A. planosulcata, all found in the 

Gschelian also. Krotow cites A. planisulcata, A. concentrica, ·and A. roissyi, but 

other lists which I have seen supply no additional species. · 

. From the Permian of Russia the only athyroids which I have seen recorded are 

three species of Oleiothyridina by Tschernyschew, Golowkinsky, and Netschajew. 

From this it would appear that the only type of a thyroid which is found in the Guadalupian is either entirely absent from the Russian section or confined to the lower 

beds, while Oleiothyridina, which is so common in Russia and India, is so far as 

known entirely absent from the Guadalupian fauna. This absence of Oleiothyridina 

is in fact rather peculiar, since it is, so persist~nt and often so abundant in other 

faunas, as will subsequently appear. 

In strong contrast to the Russian athyroids are those of the fauna from Djoulfa, 

in Armenia, described by Abich. The group of Oleiothyridina is probably entirely 

lacking, for while Abich cites Atlw;ris roissyi in this fauna, I believe that the shell 

called by that name belongs to a different group. A possible exception may also 

exist in the case of Spirigera epigona, which certainly has not the configuration of 

a Cleiothyridina, but in its lamellose growth lines contains a suggestion of the 

Oleiothyridina sculpture. The smooth athyroids, however, seem to be very abundant and to present an almost endless number of mutations. Abich distinguishes 

ten varieties, by separate headings in his text, including A. epigona and A. roissyi, 

and still others by subheadings or in the description of plates. Most of these species 

are represented with the appressed ventral beak characteristic of Spirigerella, but 

a few have the large, more erect beak and open foramen of Oomposita. It may be 

that both types are present. One or two species have a general configuration 

strongly resembling our Oomposita subtilita, nor are forms simulating Guadalupian 

species absent. · The characteristic feature of 0. emarginata, the possession of a 

well-marked sinus on both valves, appears in many of the Armenian forms, but so 

combined with other peculiarities that in no case can I find what I am able to regard 

as specific identity. On the other hand, many varieties occur in Armenia which 

are unknown in either the Pennsylvanian or Guadalupian faunas. Arthaber in 

reworking Abich's fauna made some changes in nomenclature and introduced. some 

new matter, but the few remarks ventured above hold good in this connection also. 

Arthaber regards Spirigerella as only a subgenus of Oomposita, and while I have not 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 387 

read through his nine specific descriptions, he does not indicate in any conspicuous 

· manner whether the Armenian species are to be considered as belonging to Spirigerella or.not. His figures represent them as having the configuration of Composita. 

rather more than those of Abich. If they are really Compositas, as seems not 

unlikely, the differentiation which this fauna manifests is certainly noteworthy. 

In the fauna obtained at Balia Maaden Enderle has only one a thyroid, which he 

identifies as Spirigerella grandis?. It has somewhat the appearance of Composita 

mexicana var. guadalupensis, but if a Spirigerella is, of course, quite a different thing. 

That portion of Gemmellaro's work on the faunas of Palermo, in Sicily, which 

treats of the Athyridre, has not come into my hands. In his paper on the fauna of 

the Carnic Fusulina limestone Schellwien identifies only one species of Athyris, 

which he cites as Athyris? cf. planosulcata. If really an athyroid, this little shell 

is probably a Composita, but not allied to any of the G~adalupian species. The 

fauna of the Trogkofelschichten contains, according to the same author, only Spirigerella sp. indet. afi. pertumida Diener. Even if a Composita, this form is hardly 

to be considered closely allied to any Guadalupian species, though it is nearest to 

a. mexicana. 

The Dyas of Germany, like the Russian Permian, contains only two species of 

Oleiothyridina, as represented in Geinitz's monograph; and, similarly, Oleiothyridina (one species being cited by King) seems to be the only athyroid type of the 

English Permian. 

This family has not been recoginzed, so far as I am aware, in the different 

collections which have been brought back from Spitzbergen, but Toula cites Athyris 

ambiguaand A. subtilita from Nova Zembla, both species apparently being Compositas, 

and the former at least somewhat comparable to 0. mexicana and 0. mexicana var. 

guadalupensis. 

From the Wadi-Draa, in the vVest Sahara, Stache cites Athyris cf. subtilita, 

Athyris d. archimedes, and AthyTis cf. ambigua, all small and possibly young forms,. 

whose identification, even as athyroids, might, so far as the figures are concerned, 

be called in question. That compared with Athyris ambigua resembles the corresponding (dorsal) valve of Oomposita mexicana. What is apparently a species of 

Cleiothyridina-called ?(Spirigera) Athyris cf. planosulcata-is also cited from Igidi. 

D'Orbigny has described from Bolivia Oomposita z!eTUviana and Oleiothyridina 

roissyi. The former is very similar to our Oomposita subtilita, and has often been 

regarded as identical with it. Probably the same species is cited by Salter and Toula 

from Bolivia under the name of Oomposita subtilita. This form also to a considerable 

extent resembles 0. mexicana. 

Derby identified his Brazili1.1n athyroids with Oomposita subtilita and Cleiothyridina sublamellosa, the former, of course, being related more or less to both 

0. mexicana and 0. emaTginata var. affinis. 

In the Pennsylvanian of North America two types of a thyroids are of common 

occurrence, a very variable Oomposita, to which Hall's term Oomposita subtilita is 

usually applied, and much less frequently a small Cleiothyridina which is most often 

calle~ 0; suborbicularis. Several specific appellations have been introduced for 

both types, and are in more or less current use, but merely as a matter of synonymy 

and not to designate distinct things. It is indeed possible, however, that more than 
388 '!:HE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

a single species is included among the Pennsylvanian varieties of Composita subtilita, but their intergradation is so complete that no one, so far as I am aware, has 

been successful in discriminating them. Some of these varieties very closely 

approximate those of the Guadalupian fauna, with the exception of C. emarginata. 

In view of the fact that the different forms of C. subtilita are so slightly differentiated, 

C. emarginata, with its strongly marked characters, constitutes a notable feature 

in the Q-uadalupian fauna. The absence of Cleiothyridina, though its significance 

is at present uncertain, is also a peculiarity of the latter, to which attention has 

already been called, and which also forms an element of difference from the 

Pennsylvanian. 

Genus COMPOSITA. Brown. 

COMPOSITA EMARGINATA n. sp. 

Pl. XV, figs. 1 to 5a. 

Shell of medium size. Shape suboval to subpentagonal. Dorsal and ventral 

valves moderately and about equally convex. Ventral valve often. marked by a 

shallow, depressed line, which can sometimes be traced to the beak. Toward the 

front it becomes lost in or spreads out into the sinus, which is broad, shallow, and 

somewhat quadrate. The dorsal valve also bears a sinus, which varies from a wellmarked depression similar to that of the opposite valve to an indistinct flattening. 

Where the sinus is strong, a depressed line is sometimes seen in its upper portion 

and toward the beak. The effect of the double sinus is. to produce an emargination 

of the front which is sometimes very striking. The ventral sinus is usually stronger 

than the dorsal, so that a slight fold is sometimes seen in a view of the front end. 

The surface was probably for the most part smooth, with a few lamellose con-

. centric elevations toward the front. Many specimens show, when exfoliated, rather 

distinct raised lines or lirre, which are sometimes easily seen, but usually.are faint 

or absent. On the inside there is a low median septum in the dorsal valve, and two 

rather large discrete dental plates in the ventral. 

This species is fairly abundant in the white limestone of the Guadalupe section. 

Well-characterized examples are clearly distinct from our common Composita subtilita, but they graduate more or less completely into forms which would probably 

be assigned to tha:t species, so wide have its limits now become. Composita shows 

so few lines of specific evolution that differences, if at all well marked or constant, 

may be given unusual weight in the discrimination of species. For this reason, and 

because of the difference in the associated fauna, I have with some confidence 

described this as a new species. In addition to the configuration which distinguishes 

C. emarginata from C. subtilita, the size and distinctness of the dental plates may 

prove to be helpful in discriminating them, since in C. subtilita the apex is usually 

partly filled with shelly matter, uniting the septa with the lateral walls, and thickening the wall above. In the present species, as in C. subtilita, it is possible to 

distinguish several types, one of which is longitudinally and another transversely 

elongated, while in another the shell is more convex than usual. It is in these 

specimens that the dorsal sinus is most strongly developed. 

I have also referred here a few specimens from the "dark limestone," but this 

material is too incomplete to render the determination satisfactory. This is still 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 389 

more true of the fragmentary collection from the yellow sandstones of the Delaware 

Mountain formation. . Some of these fossils, from their broad shape, might be dorsal 

valves of Sg_uamularia guadalupensis, rather than of Composita, but their surface is 

apparently smooth. . 

Horizon and locality.-Top of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2966); 

middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak '(station 2926); base of Capitan formation, hill southwest of Guadalupe Point (station 2906); "dark limestone,"' Pine 

Spring (station 2930 n; Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 

2919?), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. 

CoMPOSITA EMARGINATA var. AFFINIS n. var. 

Pl. XV~ figs. 6 to 7b. 

This form graduates more or less completely into Composita emarginata, but ean 

hardly with propriety be referred to that species without some distinction of name. 

Practically the only difference that can be assigned is that the variety affinis is without any sort of a sinus on the dorsal ~alve or the emargination characteristic of the 

other form. There is no dorsal fold distinct from the regular transverse arching of 

the shell, nor is there any evidence of a sinus, or even of a mesial flattening. 

In practice there are many specimens which, in view of their imperfect condition or their intermediate character; it is impossible to assign with confidence, either 

to Composita emarginata or its variety, but I have placed with the variety only such 

examples a,s show.ed a distinct. upturning of the line of contact of the valves along 

the front margin, and at the same time were without the emargination which gives 

name to the other type. Thus determined, but comparatively few specimens have 

been placed with the variety aj}inis, and all of them are from the white limestone, 

while a large number of poorly characterized or transitional specimens are left with 

C. emarginata. It is possible that this spe_cies is represented in the material from 

the "dark limestone" and from the yellow sandstone below it, but the fossils at 

hand are too imperfect to permit nie to determine their affinity to my satisfaction. 

Had this form been found associated with the familiar fauna of the "Coal 

Measures" of the Mississippi Valley it would probably have been referred to Composita subtilita without any criticism of the identification; but it is not quite the 

same as. typical Composita subtilita, and I am not without hope that the heterogeneous group of forms now referred to that species can be broken up .along 

stratigraphic if not biologic lines. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2969? and 3500 ?) . Delaware Mountain formation, 

Comanche Canyon, Glass Mountains, Texas (station 3763 ?). 

CoMPOSITA MEXICANA Hall. 

1857. Terebratula Mexicana. Hall, Emory's Rept. U.S. and Mex. Boundary Survey, vol. 1, pl. 20, fig. 2. 

Hall gave no descriptjon of this species in his first publication nor later, hut his 

figures were not bad. The following description is based on the typieal specimen !1Ud 

not on that from the Glass Mountains, which closely resembles it. 

P.'R . . 0P£Rry DF U . 

~BURfAu OF MINEs 
390 THE GUADALUPIAN. FAUNA. 

The size is small and the shape subpentagonal. The widest point is about twofifths the length back from the front. The ventral beak is rather large and inflated; 

the sinus is narrow above, shallow and undefined below. The dorsal valve is rather 

convex, wi.th the sides strongly reflexed so as to leave a rather narrow, very.high fold. 

Although the spires have not been seen, there can be little real doubt that 

Terebratula mexicana is a Seminula (Oomposita), as suggested by Schuchert. 

This form, though related to 0. subtilita, is rather more marked than most of the 

varieties which are united with that species. It seems to be abund'ant in the upper 

beds of the Hueco formation, and I have recognized it in the. Guadalupian at a 

much higher level. 

. In this case it is represented by only one specimen from the Glass Mountains; 

this is in not very perfect condition, but aside from being somewhat less tumid agrees 

very closely with Hall's type. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Comanche Canyon, 

Glass Mountains, Texas (station 3763). 

00MPOSITA MEXICANA var. GUADALUPENSIS n. var. 

Pl. XXIV, figs. 11 to 13b. 

Of Hall's species I have only the type specimen with which to make comparison, 

but the form from the Guadalupe Mountains is represented by a number of specimens. 

These differ from Oomposita mexicana in being almost invariably less tumid, with the 

fold and sinus less strongly elevated. The fold is proportionately a little wider and 

not so strongly marked by a deflection of the shell on either side, so that the outline 

is less quadrate and more ovate. The difference in shape seems to be the result of 

the coincidental circumstances that the shell is flatter and the fold lower than in the 

original form. In these points it seems to differ from the Glass Mountains specimen 

identified as Composita mexicana. 

Composita mexicana var. guadalupensis is perhaps the m~st abundant species 

in the black limestone at the base of the Guadalupe section. It is clearly distinct 

from C. emarginata of the Capitan limestone, but is more nearly related to the 

variety ajfinis, to typical 0. subtilita, and to 0. mexicana, especially to the latter. 

Loosely identified it might be referred to any of them. 

Horizon and locality.-Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (stations 2920 and 2967). 

Family RETZIIDJE Hall and Clarke. 

The family Retziidre is represented in the Guadalupiari fauna by the single 

genus Hustedia. To that genus I have referred two readily distinguishable types of 

shells, one represented by Hustedia meekana and H. papillata and the other by H. 

bipartita. II. meekana has in every way the characteristic configuration of Hustedia, and the internal structures also are in agreement, so far as they have been 

made out. H. papillata is doubtfully distinct specifically from H. meekana, and 

H. meekana var. trigonalis is possibly only an abnormal young form. H. bipartita, 

on the other hand, departs rather strongly from the usual configuration of Hustedia, but nevertheless with but little doubt belongs to that genu$. · 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 391 

' In the Salt Range the Retziidre have been discriminated by Waagen into two 

genera, one of which he describes as new, under the title Uncinella. It contains 

but a single species. Shells 'of the other group, comprising two species, are referred 

by W aagen to Eumetria, a genus at the time he wrote imperfectly known, but they 

can with safety be placed under the more recently founded Hustedia. Uncinella 

is not known in the Guadalupian fauna, but the two species of Hustedia correspond 

very closely to H. meekana and H. papillata. Indeed, it is possible that H. indica 

should not be regarded as a distinct species from H. meekana. If a distinction 

exists it may be found in the angularity and roundness of the plications. Th~ 

Indian shells show on the interior the same character which is represented in Shumard's figures of Hustedia meekana, these being evidently based on much exfoliated 

specimens. I refer to the sulci, which appear flattened and striated on internal 

molds, while on the e~terior they are deep and angular without striation. The 

third Guadalupian species, H. bipartita, has no correlated form in the Salt Range 

fauna. 

In his second paper on the fauna of Chitichun No. 1 Diener records both 

Hustedia and Uncinella. H. grandicosta is apparently represented in the Guadalupian fauna by H. papillata, but Uncinella cf. indica has nothing to correspond. 

This author cites only Hustedia cf. grandicosta in his paper on the anthracolithic 

faunas of Kashmir and Spiti, but .the form is very doubtfully identical with Davidson's species, and certainly distinct, so .:liar as one may judge in view of its probable 

immaturity, from either H. meekana or H. papillata. 

Were it not for the Guadalupian species Hustedia bipartita, like which there is 

JlOthing, so far as I am aware, in the faunas of the Salt Range or Himalaya, and 

the genus Uncinella, which is restricted to the latter, the Indian Hustedias would 

appear to present strong analogies to those- of the Guadalupe Mountains, though 

the amount of significance which should attach to this circumstance is a different· 

matter, seeing that Hustedia presents so few lines and such restricted limits of 

specific differentiation. 

Kayser identifies with H. compressa Meek the Hustedia which occurs in the 

Chinese fauna from Lo Ping. It resembles H. meekana and H. papillata, but is 

probably distinct from either, especially from the former. Loczy cites what is 

probably the same species from Kantschoufu. He identifies it provisionally with 

H. gmndicosta, and the figures would indicate a resemblance with II. papillatq, 

more than with H. meekana. Referred by Rothpletz to the same species is a form 

from Ajermati which much resembles H. meekana, especially certain small specimens from the "clark limestone," one of which is figured on Pl. XXI. 

Among the "Permo-Carboniferous" fossils from .Queensland and New Guinea 

described by Jack and Etheridge are two species representing the RetziiclreRetzia radialis and R.? lilymerensis. The former is rather to be compared with 

IIustedia papillata than with H. meekana of the Guadalupian types. Retzia? lilymerensis certainly suggests by its configuration our Mississippian species of Eumetria. Etheridge, however, is in doubt whether the shell is punctate, and the 

absence of this structure would clearly debar it from the Retziidre. He compares 

it with Hemiptychina, Notothyris, and Dielasmina of the Salt Range faunas, but to 

me it has more the appearance of Uncinella, which also simulates our Mississippian 
392 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA . 

.. 

Eumetrias. Etheridge, however, mentions the occurrence of three septal plates in 

the ventral valve, which is an arrangement suggestive of some of the terebratuloids and unlike Hustedia or Uncinella, especially the former. No species resembling Retzia? lilymerensis is known in the Guadalupian. 

It is something of a surprise to find no species of Hustedia in the Moskovian 

fauna of the Russian section, which in most particulars shows so strong a resemblance to our Pennsylvanian. In the Gschelian, however, the g;nus seems to be 

not uncommon. Tschernyschew cites H. remota and II. indica, both of them 

related to the shells which I have assembled under the title H. meekana. Several 

of the figured specimens of H. remota suggest the exfoliated condition of Shumard's species with flattened interspaces and small intermediate ribs. One specimen referred to the same species also shows suggestion of a .distinguishing character 

of H. bipartita. Nikitin cites H. grandicosta and H. pseudocardium from the same 

horizon, the two species being comparable to H. meekana and H. papillata, respectively, though it can hardly be said that we as yet know very well what H. papillata really is. A figure of an internal mold of II. grandicosta shows the same sort of 

broad striated intercostal spaces as H. meekana. Stuckenberg cites from this 

horizon H. grandicosta and Hustedia cf. indica, which would appear to correspond 

to H. meekana and H. papillata, respectively. I do not know on what ground 

Stuckenberg identified his fossils with the Indian species whose relation to the two 

Guadalupian ones, at least so far as the number and coarseness of the ribs is concerned, seems just the reverse of that indicated by the correspondingly named 

forms from the Gschel. Stuckenberg cites H. grandicosta from the Artinsk also, 

and from the Kungurstufe he notices H. grandicosta, Hustedia cf. indica, and Hustedia permocarbonica, the latter a new species which has no correlated Guadalupian 

form. Except for Hustedia bipartita of the Guadalupian, which even in view of 

the partial resemblance suggested by one of Tschernyschew's specimens can fairly 

be said to be without a corresponding Russian species, the Retziidm of the Gschel 

and Artinsk appear to be distinctly related to those of the Guadalupian fauna. 

In the Russian Permian no shells belonging to the Retziidm appear to be present. 

The Sicilian fauna which Gemmellaro described from Palermo contains only one 

representative of the Retziidre, Hustedia ambigua. While without much doubt a 

qistinct species, H. ambigua is closely allied to II. bipartita, and is in fact the only 

type closely correlated with that species which I have come upon anywhere. 

In his account of the fauna of the Trogkofelschichten, Schellwien cites of the 

Retziidre only a single species of Hust~dia, which he- compares with H. grandicosta. 

It seems to resemble II. mormoni of our Pennsylvanian fauna and H. papillata of the 

Guadalupian species rather .than II. meekana. In both the Dyas of Germany and 

the closely related Permian of England, species belonging to this family are, so far 

as I have seen, absent. 

The absence of the Retziidre from the Permian of Russia, the Dyas of Germany, 

and the Permian of England may to a certain extent be taken as evidence for assigning the Guadalupian fauna in which they occur to a different horizon. I can not 

but feel that the presence of the unusual type represented by H. ambigua in the 

Sicilian fauna and H. bipartita in the Guadalupian is another instance of the strong 

analogy which ~xists in many respects between these two faunas. 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 393 

From Balia Maaden, in Asia Minor, Enderle cites only Hustedia cf. grandicosta, 

which if his identification is· close would most likely be of the general type of 

H. papillata. 

No fossils belonging to the Retziidre are mentioned in the accounts which I have 

seen of fossils from Spitzbergen and Nova Zembla, except in a report on a fauna 

regarded as of Permian age, where Lundgren describes Hustedia nathors~i, which seems 

to be very closely related to H. meelcana. 

Of the accounts of the faunas of Central and South America the only one in 

which I have found note of any Carboniferous Retziidre is that by Derby on Br:azilian 

fossils. The form which he obtained is identified as Retzia punctulifera Shum!J,rd, 

a species which is generally regarded as a synonym of Hustedia mormoni Marcou. 

The Brazilian form certainly seems to be very closely related to the common Pennsylvanian species, and if it is to be compared at all to those from the Guadalupe 

Mountains is nearest to H. papillata. 

Aside from the Guadalupian types, the North American upper Carboniferous 

species of Hustedia, which alone represents the Retziidre at this horizon, are two in 

number-H. mormoni and H. compressa. H. compressa is restricted in its distribution to the Pacific coast, and is as yet imperfectly known, though probably more 

closely related to H. meelcana than to H. mormoni. The latter species is very abundant in the Pennsylvanian rocks of the Mississippi Valley and has also a considerable 

western distribution. In view of the fact that Hustedia is l).Ot a genus which manifests much specific variety, the differences which exist between H. mormon:!, and 

H. meelcana and H. bipartita are great and significant. II. papillata and H .. mormoni 

arc much more of a kind, though still probably distinct species. 

Genus HUSTEDIA Hall and Clarke. 

I have recognized three species of Hustedia in the Guadalupian fauna, two of 

which had already been described by Shumard. These arc Retzia papilkita and 

Retzia meelcana.' Hustedia meelcana as originally described possessed the character, 

altogether unique in this genus, of having small subordinate plications on the sides 

of the principal ribs, which distinguished it at once from any known species of 

Retzia, Eumetria, or Hustedia. Our material, however, has conclusively demonstrated that this character belongs to the inside of the shell and is seen only where 

deep exfoliation has taken place. With this feature eliminated H. meelcana becomes 

quite of the normal type and proves to be rather closely allied to H. papillata. 

H. meelcana, however, is by far the commoner species and most of the fossils in our 

collections have been referred to it. Though some of the numerous examples belonging to H. meelcana show more or less distinct deviations from the typical form, it 

did not seem to me practicable to employ these differences for the discrimination of 

other species, though a certain variety probably composed of abnormal individuals 

appeared deserving of mention if not of name. The type described as H. bipartita, 

however, is a new and· rather striking species, though obviously related to H. meelcana. 

The hinge plate and crura have been observed in one specimen of H. meelcana, 

the characters proving to be those of Hustedia. 
394 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

HusTEDIA MEEKANA Shumard. 

Pl. XIV, figs. 22 to 26a; Pl. XXI, figs. 5 to 8a; Pl. XXIV, figs. 14 and 14a; Pl. XXIX, fig. 8; Pl. XXX, 

· figs. 16 and 17. · 

1858. Retzia (?) Meekana. Shumard, Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, vol. 1, p. 295 (date of volume, 1860). 

White and dark [Permian] limestonB: Guadalupe Mountains; conglomerate at the mouth of Delaware Creek. 

1859. Retzia Meek·iana. Shumard, idem, p. 395, pl. 11, figs. 7a, 7b. 

White and dark limestone: Guadalupe Mountains; conglomerate at the mouth of Delaware Creek. 

1897. Hustedia (?) meekana. Schuchert, Bull. U. S. Geol. Survey No. 87, p. 231. 

1Shell rather small, ovate, gibbous, length slightly greater than the width, valves nearly equally 

convex, umbonial slope flattened, anterior portion of sides and front regularly rounded, surface of each 

-valve marked with from eight to ten prominent, radiating plications rounded for some distance from 

the beak, but becoming subangular toward the front; they expand very gradually from their origin to 

the borders and are separated by rather deep sulci, as wide as themselves. 'l'he sides of the ribs arc each 

marked with three or more small ribs, which are usually quite distinct at the borders of the valves, but 

become obsolete before reaching the beaks; shell structure finely punctate. Ventral valve (receiving 

valve) without any trace of mesial sinus, greatest convexity ncar the middlH; area very small; beak 

moderately prolonged, rounded, incurved. Dorsal valve elevated near the beak; umbo rounded, sides 

somewhat flattened; cardinal margin short; beak moderately prominent, strongly incurved. 

Dimensions.-Lcngth, 0.46; width, 0.42; height, 0.36. 

Geologic position and locality.-The specimens of the collp,ction are marked, white limestone, Guadalupe Mountains; dark limestone under white limestone, Guadalupe Mountains, and conglomerate ncar 

mouth Delaware Creek, New Mexico.a 

Shumard cites this species from both the light and the dark limestone, and 

there can be little doubt' that the form before me, which is very common in the white 

limestone of the Capitan formation, belongs to it. Husted'ia meekana has always been 

anomalous in having lirre on the sides of the plications or on the bottoms of the 

grooves between them. Most of the specimens in our collections show this character 

rather strongly, and it will doubtless at first seem hardly credible that it is entirely 

the result of exfoliation. That all the specimens possessing striated ribs are deeply 

exfoliated there can be no doubt, while in a number of examples the thick shell 

has been broken away over only a part of the surface, which there exhibits the line, 

while the portions over which there is little or no exfoliation are simply plicated.b 

The best preserved surfaces show, aside from the plications, only faint incremental 

lines and occasional varices of growth. The plications are rather large, lax, and 

subangular, the grooves between them being the reverse of the plications themselves. 

In exfoliatecj. specimens the grooves become flattened and broad toward the front, 

while the plications which rise between them are somewhat narrowed. Frequently, 

owing to the slightly ,deeper depression at the edges of the plication, the bottoms 

·of the furrows are convex, resembling depressed alternating ribs. On the sides of 

the exfoliated plications are to he seen from one to three bifurcated lirre. There 

are as a rule nine plications on the dorsal valv~ and ten on the ventral. In this 

species, as in H. mormoni, the median rib in the dorsal valve becomes depressed 

toward the hinge line, so that in the umbonal region and in immature specimens the 

.shell had to .a certain extent a bilobate appearance. 

Shumard does not compare his species with any other, and under his misconception as to the real surface characters comparisons were hardly necessary. There 

a Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, vol.1, 1856-1860, p. 295. 

b The same peculiarity of shell structure which has a simple plica ted exterior and a plica ted and striated interior is shown 

in some of >Vaagen's figures of Eumetria, and in figures oy other authors of shells of this group. 

I 

I 
MOLL USCOIDEA. 395 

can be no doubt that H. meekana is distinct from H. mormoni, as indeed the exfoliated shell would indicate. It is longer, with fewer, coarser, and broader plications. The beak is probably more elongate and pointed, and it is certainly more 

.erect. Shumard's figures, which arc not very accurate, misrepresent the shape 

of this species, which does not differ from that of H. mormoni. No specimens have 

been observed with the peculiar fanlike contour of his illustrations. 

I have identified Hustedia meekana at several horizons and at a number of 

localities. The local lots present differences which give the species some range of 

variation, and it will be best to note the several occurrences separately. At nearly 

·every horizon these variations tend to pass off without any appreciable break into 

types which it seems more or less inadvisable to regard as identically the same 

.species as H. meekana, and which I have accordingly discriminated under distinctive 

titles. In some cases the types distinguished appear to me no more than abnormal 

individuals, but in others the differences are perhaps varietal or even more, for in a 

type so restricted as Hustedia it is necessary to assign more than ordinary importance 

to small variations in order to discriminate species at all. 

H. meekana is very abundant in the "white limestone," where what may be 

regarded as the typical form ~~curs, and it has been obtained at three localities. It 

is probable that the specimens figured by Shumard were derived from this horizon. 

To examples preserved as they are, his description is particularly applicable, and 

upon them the foregoing observations are based. 

The majority of our specimens from the'' dar~ limestone" are small, a length of 

9 mm. being about the maximum. There are seven, sometimes nine, plications on 

the dorsal valve, and eigh~ or sometimes ten on the ventral. The plications are 

rather lax and subangular. Variation occurs in the curvature of the beak and in the 

proportions, broad and narrow varieties being found. Exfoliated shells show the 

same lateral striation as those from the white limestone. So far as I have made 

·comparisons, these small specimens agree in every way with small examples of the 

typical H. meekana. 

Associated with them are a few examples of a much larger size, which .have a 

length of about 17 mm. They show large, rather lax plications, which when exfoliated have lateral strire. Unfortunately, my specimens are fragmentary, and it is 

impossible to give accurately the number of plications. I think there are ten on the 

ventral valve. The size attained by these shells is distinctly greater than the form 

in the white limestone, of which 13 mm. represents perhaps the maximum length; 

but the other characters, so far as I have ascertained, are the same, and there is no 

justification under the evidence known to me for considering them distinct. At the 

same time comparisons are rendered difficult and unsatisfactory, both on account 

of the imperfect condition of part of my material and because that from the ''dark 

limestone" is silicified and retains the external form, whereas most of the specimens 

from the white limestone have the thick shell exfoliated, whereby the character of 

the plications and sulci is materially changed. Similar large varieties occur in the 

Olass Mountains, as will subsequently be ;mentioned. 

Hustedia meekana has not been identified in the Delaware Mountain sandstone. 

The single specimen of Hustedia found at that horizon has been referred to 

H. papillata. 

·' 
396 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

·In the black limestone at the base of the section Hustedia is fairly abundant. 

Some of the specimens represent a narrower form with somewhat fewer plications, 

and I at one time sought to distinguish them as a separate variety. More careful 

comparisons, however, have convinced me that such a distinction would not be 

justified. 

The species is represented in abundance and variety in the Glass Mountains. 

Specimens attain a size of 16 mm.-nearly as great as those from the "dark limestone"-and range down to very immature dimensions. The plications are strong 

and subangular. Usually there are nine on the dorsal valve, but in a few instances, 

which have been referred to H. papillata, there are more. Exfoliated surfaces 

show indications of internal strire. The beak varies from nearly erect to moderately 

incurved. There is no appreciable difference in specimens of the same size from 

this locality and from the white limestone of the Guadalupe Mountains. 

Schuchert places this species with the genus Ilustedia, and some of the specimens which have come to hand verify this reference. 

Horizon and-locality.-Top of Capitan formation (station 3762a); middle of 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926); base of Capitan formation, hill 

southwest of Guadalupe Point (station 2906); "dark limestone," Pine Spring 

(station 2930), Guadalupe Point (stations 3762b and 3762d), hill southwest of 

Guadalupe Point (station 2924); basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (stations 

2920 and 2967), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. Delaware Mountain formation, 

southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (stations 2969 and 3500). Delaware Mountain formation, Comanche Canyon, Glass Mountains, Texas (station 3763). 

HusTEDIA MEEKANA var. TRIGONALis n. var. 

Pl. XVI, fig. 12; Pl. XXI, figs. 9 to 9b. 

Under this title I am including a few specimens indicating a rather scattered 

distribution, which are probably somewhat abnormal examples of H. meekana. 

They are all rather small, the longest being but little over 6 mm. in length. The 

shape -is relatively very narrow and the ventral beak long and erect. The median 

rib of the dorsal valve is not smaller than the lateral ones, but it is almost undeveloped, its place being occupied by a deep longitudinal depression like a furrow, 

which produced an emargination of the anterior outline. There are about three 

lateral ribs. The ventral valve carries six to eight ribs of nearly equal size, but the 

median sulcus is often a little broader than those between the other ribs. 

The long, erect ventral beak which is found in these shells is rather a character 

of immaturity, as is the nearly obsolete median rib of the dorsal valve. I am disposed to believe, therefore, that the representatives of this group are really only 

abnormal specimens of H. meekana, which have retained neanic characters to an 

unusually advanced period and at the same time developed into a narrow or 

elongate form. 

While I am doubtful about the real validity of this group as'a distinct species 

or variety from H. meekana, it seems best. provisionally to distinguish it. 

This form somewhat suggests in its shape the Russian species H. permocarbonica, but here the resemblance' ceases, as that type has a sinus in the ventral valve, 

with a small rib in it, almost the reverse of what is found in the Guadalupian form. 
MOLLUSCOIDEA. 397 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926); 

base of Capitan formation, hill southwest of Guadalupe Point (station 2906); 

"dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. 

HUSTEDIA PAPILLATA Shumard. 

Pl. XXX, figs. 18 to 18b. 

1858. Retzia papillata. Shumard, Trans. Acad. Sci. St .. Louis, vol. 1, p. 2ll4 (date of volume, 1860). 

Dark [Permianj limestone: Guadalupe Mountains. · 

185ll. Retzia papillata. Shumard, idem, p. 395, pl. 11, figs. 9a-9c. 

Dark [Permian] limestone: Guadalupe Mountains. 

1897. Hustedia (?) papillata. Schuchert, Bull. U.S. Geol. Survey No. 87, p. 232. 

Shell small, ovate, longer than wide, gibbous, front and sides rounded, valves nearly equally convex; surface marked with numerous extremely fine papilh:e, each valve having 11 or 12 well rounded, 

prominent ribs, those on the sides curving rather stroi.Jgly to the margins and their number increased 

by insertion; intervals between the ribs rather deep and as wide or wider than the ribs. Ventral valve 

without sinus, regularly convex, most prominent between the beak and the middle; cardinal edge 

.straight and very short; area small, slightly arcuate, well defined by a sharply angulated margin; beak 

clongatecl, incurved extremity truncated, having a large circular foramen. Dorsal valve broad ovate, 

.strongly and pretty regularly arcuate from beak to front; cardinal margin very short, straight, forming 

an obtuse angle with the sides; beak small, strongly incurvecl, and passing a little beyond the cardinal 

!~e. I 

Dimensions.-Length, 0.40; width, 0.32; thickness, 0.27. Length of dorsal valve, 0.36. 

This shell differs from the Rctzia punctillifera (nobis) in having fewer ribs, and a smaller cardinal 

area. 

Its geological position is in the clark limestone immediately under the white limestone of the 

Guadalupe Mountains, New Mexieo and Texas. a 

Shumard cites this species only from the "dark limestone," at which horizon 

he also identified II. meekana. He does not institute comparisons of H. papillata 

with H. meekana, but with Retzia punctillifera, a form which is now generally con-

.sidered a synonym of II. mormoni. The only characters distinguishing. the two 

.species that can be taken from Shumard's descriptions are the striated surface of 

H. meekana as contrasted with the papillose superficies of H. papillata and the number of plications, which are said to be 8 to 10 in the former species and 11 or 12 in 

the latter. The normal number in typical H. meekana is 9 on the dorsal and 10 on 

the ventral valve. Shumard's illustrations are represented by lines, and his R. 

papillata appears to have intermediate strire equally with R. meekana. From the 

fact that he does not mention anytl).ing of the sort under R. papillata, and at the 

.same time compares it with R. punctillifera, it is clear that these must have been 

absent. But in H. meekana, as I have elsewhere stated, this character is certainly· 

the result of exfoliation. The papillose surface ascribed to Hustedia papillata is, 

without much doubt, the result of its punctate shell structure, and can not safely 

be used as a discriminating character. No surface of this sort not the result of 

.structure has· been observed on any of the specimens examined. 

As a rule the brachiopods of the "dark limestone" are more or'less silicified and 

do not easily exfoliate. Our specimens from this horizon, therefore, agree very well 

with Shumard's description, quoted above, except that the plications are fewer. 

a Trans. A cad. Sci. St. Louis, val. 1, 185!>-1860, pp. 294-295. 
398 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

They number the same as specimens from the w:hite limestone. Even the two large 

specimens from this horizon do not show as many plications as H. papillata, and 

they are much larger than that species, which, as Shumard's measurements indicate, 

is somewhat smaller than H. meekana. A very few examples-two, to be more 

exact-can be distinguished from the others by having somewhat less deep and 

spreading and therefore more crowded and numerous ribs. They correspond very 

closely to Shumard's description and consequently have been referred to H. papillata, 

though I am in some doubt as to whether they should properly be considered more 

than a variety. · 

Some of the smaller silicified specimens from the Glass Mountains which are not 

exfoliated and in which the dorsal valve has 11 plications and the ventral 12 also 

answer Shumard's description of H. papillata almost exactly. 

A single ventral valve from the Delaware Mountain formation appears to 

have the same characters as those from the "dark limestone" and has likewise been 

identified as H. papillata. 

It may be that Shumard based his two descriptions on shells belonging really £o 

the same species, in the case of H. meekana on specimens from the Capitan limestone, 

which are for the most part deeply exfoliate.d, and in the case of H. papillata on 

silicified and unexfoliated specimens from the "dark limestone." In this event 

Hustedia papillata would seemingly have to be used, as it precedes H. meekana on the 

page. This, however, is probably not the case. 

So far as my observations go, my identifications being held closely to Shumard's 

descriptions, H. papillata is by far the rarer form. 

Horizon and locality.-Base of Capitan formation, hill southwest of Guadalupe 

Point (station 2906 ~); "dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930); Delaware 

Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2919); basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (station 2967 ?), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. Delaware Mountain 

formation Comanche Canyon, Glass Mountains, Texas (station 3763). 

HusTEDIA BIPARTITA n. sp. 

Pl. XXX, figs. 19 to 20a. 

In discussing the species Hustedia meekana mention was made of the fact that in 

the dorsal valve a plication always occupied the median position, and that as it did 

not appear until later than those lateral to it, a slight depression is produced in the 

umbonal region by its imperfect development. In most examples the median rib 

becomes early in the growth of the shell as large as those beside it. In one line of 

evolution, however, it remains only slightly developed, probably until the shell 

reached mature size. This is the case in a few specimens from the Glass Mountains, 

in which the aborted development of the median plication is a rather striking feature. 

Correspondingly, on the ventral valve the two median plications retain their duplicate 

character for a long distance. Specimens having these characters appear to reach 

but a small size and have a rotund shape. The plications are coarse, high, and thin. 

There are nine on the dorsal valve and eight or ten on. the ventral. The beak is 

rather small, pointed, and erect. 
.. 

~-

MOLLUSCA. 399 

This form is closely allied to that described by Gemmellaro as Retzia ambigua, 

which is also probably a Hustedia. 

Viewed as a final result, this form certainly merits recognition as a. distinct 

species, while if looked at as a process, as the persistence of an immature condition to 

a mature size, it may perhaps appear worthy of only varietal distinction. 

The occurrence of H. bipartita, as indicated by our collections, is sporadic, and.in 

scarcely any place does it develop quite the typical variety, which is that.found in 

the Glass Mountains. Some specimens referred here appear to be somewhat inter-. 

mediate with Hustedia meekana var. Others seemingly are related to the typical 

variety in much the same manner that H .. papillata is related to H. meelcana, i. e., 

they have somewhat more numerous ribs. Incidentally the shape is less transverse 

and the ribs more rounded as well as more numerous. 

Horizon and locality.-"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930~) 'and 

Guadalupe Point (station 3762e ~), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. Delaware Mountain for~ation, sbuthern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2969). Delaware 

Mountain formation, Coman'che Canyon, Glass Mountains, Texas (station 3763). 

MOLLUSCA. 

PELECYPOD A. 

The Guadalupian pelecypods show considerable diversity. I have discriminated 

no less than 45 species, representing 23 genera, as follows: 

Species. Species. 

Solenomya. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l A viculipecten . . .. . .. . .. . . .. .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 9 

Acanthopecten.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

Euchondria?..... .. . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . l 

Pernipecten? ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 

Clinopistha. . . . . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. l 

Edmondia.......... ..... ..... .. .. .. .. ... . .. 2 

Nucula ................................. . 

Leda ...................................... . 

Yoldia .................................... . 

Parallelodon ............................... . 

Bakcwcllia? .............................. . 

Ptcria ..................................... . 

Myalina .................................. . 

Schizodus................. . .......... . 

Camptonectes? ............................. . 

3 

l Plagiostoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 

1 Limatulina . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 1 

3 Myoconcha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 

l Protrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 

5 Astartella. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 

2 Cypricardinia? . . . . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . 1 

1 Pleurophorus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 

3 Cleidophorus.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

As is usual in the case of Paleozoic material, it has been possible to observe 

generic characters in extremely few cases, and often' more or less valid reason 

has been recognized for doubting the generic identification. The uncertainty 

which exists in this particular naturally renders comparisons with other faunas 

unsatisfactory. 

One of the most noticeable features of the Guadalupian Pelecypoda is the 

differentiation exhibited by the Pectinidre, which exceeds that of arty of the faunas 

with which comparison has been made. . 

The Salt Range fauna described by Waagen shows a still more varied pelecypod 

differentiation than that of the Guadalupian, for he distinguishes 67 species, repre-
400 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

senting 33 genera. In relatively few cases do the pelecypods of the American and 

Indian faunas agree even generically, only about 9 out of the 23 Guadalupian or 

the 33 Salt Range genera being common to both. The genera recorded by Waagen' 

are as follows: 

Species. Species. 

Spengleria .................... ·............. 1 Macrodon· ......... _ ........ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

Euchar~ . . . . . . . _________ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Dolabra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . 2 

Cardiomorpha ............. _.: ......... _ . . . . . . . 1 Septifer ....... __ ........... _ ........... __ . 

Allerisma ............ _ ...... : ........... :... 4 Lithodomina .................... _ ......... . 

Paheanatina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Lithodomus ........ _ ..................... . 

Sphooriola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Modiola .................................. . 

Lucina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Mytilus ....................... _ . _ .. _ ..... . 

Loripcs ... _ .... _............................ 2 Atomodesma ............................... . 

Cardium ............. __ ............•......... 1 Pseudomonotis ............................. . 

Astarte ................. __ .................. 1 Oxytorna ........... _ ........... :· ......... . 

Gouldia .................... _ .. _ .......... . 1 Avicula ................................. .. 

Pleurophorus ................. _ ........... . 4 Liebca ........ __ ......................... . 

Cleidophorus ............................. . 2 Lima ............................... : ...... . 

Schizodus .............................. · .. . 4 A viculipccten ............................. . 

Myophoria ............. · ..... _ ...... __ ...... . 3 Pecten .................................... . 

Nuculana ................. : ................. . 1 E"uchondria .............................. __ . 

Nucula ................................... . 2 

1 

1 

l 

l 

6 

1 

1 

l 

9 

5 

l 

The fu·st 11 genera have, so far as known, no corresponding types in my fauna, 

though it is possible that Waagen's Oardiomorpha indica and the Guadalupian form 

doubtfully referred to Olinopistha may prove to be related. The absence of Allerisma 

from the Guadalupian fauna is a matter of note. The Salt Range shells do not 

present the most characteristic aspect of the genus (as seen in our Alle.risma subcuneatum, etc.), and it may be that some of our Guadalupian types, such as Edmondia? 

bellula, are congeneric with them. 

The presence in both of the widely spread genus Pleurophorus establishes a 

certain relationship in spite of the fact that the Guadalupian shells are in part too 

poorly· preserved to stand a specific comparison. One can not determine in them 

the distinctions on which Waagen differentiates his division identified as Oleidophorus, yet, relying on resemblances to species which have been referred to one 

type or the other, both have been provisionally recognized. On the strength of 

their configuration one would be disposed to say that Pleurophorus delawarensis of 

the Guadalupian corresponded to P. imbricatus and Oleidophorus trapezoidalis; 

Pleurophorus sp. to Pleurophorus subovalis, and Oleidophorus aff. 0. pallasi to 0. 

striatulus, while the India~?- P. acutiplicatus is quite without any Guadalupian 

analogue. The shell which I have described as Protrete texana, though of much 

.smaller size, is somewhat suggestive of Pleurophorus imbricatus, but the resemblance 

is probably only superficial, as the doubtful Lithodomus appears to possess structures which indicate an entirely different generic relationship. 

Schizodus securus can be compared rather with S. rotundatus than with the 

-other Indian species of Schizodus, but .is really not very close to any of them. It 

is probably better compa;red with the related group of species which Waagen places 

under Myophoria, though I doubt this relationship for the Gu~dalupian species, and 

my material is too scanty to permit me to determine the matter one way or the 

-other. It greatly resembles Myophoria cordissa of Waagen in general outline. 
MOLLUSCA. 401 

Nuculana subacuta may be compared in a general way with the Guadalupian 

~ representative of the genus. The three Guadalupian Nuculas are more or less 

similar to the Indian shell which Waagen refers to Nucula ventricosa Hall. The 

other Indian representatives of the genus seem to be of a type at present not lmown 

in our fauna. 

The single Indian species of Macrodon, with its very coarse ribs, represents a 

type which is apparently absent from the Guadalupian. Dolabra, which has two 

Indian representatives, also appears to be wanting, though Edmondia? bellula may 

possibly prove congeneric. Anything like Septifer squama is likewise alien to our 

fauna. Lithodomina has not been recognized among the Guadalupian fossils which 

I have studied, though it is possible that representatives of this genus may have 

been present among them, the imperfectly known Pleurophorus sp., for instance. 

While one species belonging to the Guadalupian fauna has been referred to the 

genus Lithodomus, the form so called is apparently not closely related to L. atavus 

of the Indian fauna and may turn out to have entirely different generic relations. 

Nothing resembling Modiola transparens is known in the Guadalupian, but it is not 

unlikely that Waagen's Mytilus and my Myalina may prove to belong to the same 

genus and to be not unrelated specifically. Atomodesma or any other form resembling A. indicum is alien to the known Guadalupian fauna. 

Of Pseudomonotis W aagen recognizes 6 species, and speaks of its being greatly 

developed in the Salt Range; but after all the genus appears to be poorly represented, in individuals at least, when compared with the deposits called Permian in 

the Mississippi Valley. As compared with the Guadalupian, however, the genus 

may truly be said to be greatly developed, for in that fauna it is as yet entirely 

unknown. 

Nothing like Qxytoma atavum is known.from the Guadalupian fauna. Avicula 

chidruensis appears to be of the same general type ~s Pteria richardsoni, one at 

least of the two other Guadalupian species having no correlated form in the Salt 

Range. Liebea or any closely related type is unknown iil the Guadalupian fauna, 

and Limatulina striaticostata is r~ther slightly connected with the single Salt Range 

Lima. y 

W aagen recognizes 9 species of Aviculipecten and 5 of Pecten in the Salt Range 

fauna, but the differences on which the two genera have been discriminated it has 

been impossible to establish among the fragmentary Guadalupian fossils,· all of 

which have been placed with Aviculipecte'n. In several particulars a correspondence 

can be traced between the Gua!,lalupian and the Indian forms: Aviculipecten 

jabiensis suggests A. delawarensis,· Pecten prototextorius suggests Aviculipecten sp. b 

andAviculipecten sp. c,· Pecten squamula is possibly related to Aviculipecten infelix, 

etc. Shells of the type of Aviculipecten derajatensis and A. pseudoctenostreon, Pecten 

asiaticus, etc., arenot found in the Guadalupian, while Aviculipecten laqueatus, not 

to mention Acanthopecten and Oamptonectes, are not known in the Salt Range. 

Each of the two faunas contains a single species of Euchondria, and these resemble 

each other considerably, as must almost necessarily be the case in a genus whose 

species have so scanty a field of variation. In fine, the faunas of the Productus 

limestone and of the Guadalupe Mountains have a surprisingly limited common 

ground. 

36~5-No. 58-08--26 
402 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

In his earlier paper on the fauna of Chitichun No. 1 Diener cites only one 

species of pelecypods, Aviculipecten aff. jabiensis, too small and characterless to be ' 

\vorth much in making comparisons. His later paper contains no mention of this 

group. 

Only slightly more abundant were the forms in the faunas from Kashmir and 

Spiti studied by the same author. In his first paper on this fauna he cites Modiola? 

sp·. incl., Aviculipecten sp. incl., and Pecten sp. incl., each of which has forms in the 

Guadalupian more or less comparable, so far as can be determined. In his second 

paper Diener cites from the lower division only four pelecypod species, but a much 

more abundant fauna from the· upper division. Two of the lower forms are not 

figured. The Myalina cited as Myalina sp. incl. aff. recurvirostris, and the Aviculipecten cited as Aviculipecten sp. incl. ex aff. A. hiemalis, do not especially resemble 

Guadalupian species, though they are such as might appear at almost any horizon. 

From the upper beds Diener cites 9 species, only a very few of which, however, arc 

related to those of the American fauna. Oxytoma lat·icosta.tum is non-Guadalupian, 

Aviculipecten sp. is indifferent, Modiolopsis teplofl is nearest to Cleidophorus aff. 0. 

pallasi, and Solemya biarmica may represent our Pleurophorus delawarensis/ but 

Mytilus sp. incl., Conocardium sp. incl. aff. siculum, Goniomya sp. incl. aff. G. kasanensis, Myophoriopsis?kraffti, and ~Megalo(Jus sp. are all types unknown in the 

Guadalupian, except possibly Myophoriopsis?krajfti, which is not without suggestion of relationship to Schizodus securus. 

Among the fossils from the Productus shales of Kumaon and Gurhwal the only 

pelecypod cited is Aviculipecten hiemalis. It is not a species with marked peculiarities, and is suggestive of several Guadalupian types, such as A. guadalupensis 

and Aviculipecten sp. a. ' 

The same species is cited from Malia Sangcha, along with Leiopteria sp. (not 

figured) and Lima sp. incl. aff. retifera. The latter is not closely allied to Li,matulina 

striaticostata. 

Only three species are cite<l from the Productlis shales of Byans. Leda cf. 

speluncaria is not unrelated to the Guadalupian Leda, but the Goniomya and the 

Liebea ar.e alien types. ~ · · 

It is not necessary to particularize the few Carboniferous pelecypods cited from 

Turkestan by Romanowsky, for they are quite different from the Guadalupian representatives and are in quite different faunal associations; nor will it be necessary to 

mention especially the single pelecypod described by Salter in his paper on the 

fossils from Niti Pass, for Aviculipecten hiemalis.has already been spoken of in connection with Diener's papers, and is one of those types which are without ind;ivicluality save as to detail. 

Kayser found 11 pelecypod species in his Lo Ping fauna. The 4 species of 

Aviculipecten, for Avicula sp. is probably to be reckoned in this group, do not offer a 

very satisfactory basis for comparisons with the Guadalupian fauna. Aviculipecten 

sublaqueatus is suggestive, in the general style of its sculpture, of the form referred by 

Kayser to Aviculipecten mccoyi. The other pectinoicls are less like Guadalupian 

types. Nothing resembling Myalina trapezoidal is or Pinna confutsiana is known in 
• 

MOLLUSCA. 403 

our fauna, while the shell identified as ilfacrodon carbonarius is not closely allied to the 

Guadalupian Parallelodons. Schizodus wheeleri as identified by Kayser is more like 

Schizodus securus than the other Chinese representative of the genu~, S. lopingensis .. 

Allerisma and Lucina are unknown in the Guadalupian fauna, and the Lo Ping representatives are so imperfect that so far as one can tell from the figures they might 

belong to quite differen£ genera. The Lucina, for example, suggests the pectinoiJ 

genus Streblopteria. 

Loczy records a few pelecypod species in the fauna which he described from the 

vicinity of Kantschoufu. The form cited as ?Lima cf. haueriann is not especially 

close to Limatulina striaticostata. That cited as ?Aviculipecten cf. exotica appears 

to be related to .Acanthopecten carboniferus of the Pennsylvanian fauna, a species 

which has been doubtfully recognized in that of the Guq,dalupe Mountains also. 

Euchondria tenuilineata as identified by Loczy resembles .Aviculipecten? injelix and 

Euchondria? sp. of the Guadalupe faunas. Gervilleia aff. Zanga from Kantschoufu is 

probably congeneric with the Guadalupian species of Pteria, but specifically it is not 

closely related to them. The Macrodon resembling M. tenuistn:atus of Meek is in a 

general way similar to Parallelodon multistriatus, and the Oardiomorpha is perhaps 

congeneric with the Guadalupian form resembling Olinopistha radiata var. l;evis, but 

is different in its specific characters. · 

Among his "Permo-Carboniferous" fossils from the Lantsankiang Valley Loczy 

cites only one pelecypod, identified as Pseudomonotis? sp. indet. aft'. P. deplanata 

Waagen. It is a very imperfect fragment, but the sculpture at least is of the same 

general type as in A viculipecten subla.queatus. 

Loczy also cites a few species of pelecypods from faunas of doubtful geologic age. 

Such are Posidonomya sp. indet., Allerisma? cf. perelegans, Anoplophora sp. indet. 

aff. brevis, and ilfyophoriopsis? sp. The form compared with Allerisma elegans is 

suggestive of Edmondia? bellula, but the others appear to be unrelated to Guadalupian types. 

In his paper on the faunas of Timor and Rotti Rothpletz cites only three species 

of pelecypods, all referred to the single genus .Atomodesma. The only species figured 

is entirely unlike anything in my fauna. 

Roemer cites from Timor two species of Pecten (not figured), one species of 

Pinna, one of Oonocardium, and one of Sanguinolites, in all cases types not known in 

the Guadalupian. 

Roemer's two species of Pecten were recorded by Fliegel as new, under the titles 

Aviculipecten waageni and A. verbeclci. They are of the usual type, which has 

representatives in many provinces and at many horizons, such as A. guadalupensis 

and Avicultpecten sp. a of the Guadalupian fauna. A third species of Aviculipecten is 

also mentioned by this author, who again discusses Roemer's Pinna, together with 

his Oonocardium, as well as another species of the same genus. Roemer's Sanguinolites is probably correctly placed under Allerisma, and another Allerisma is described, 

but these additions rather increase than diminish the differences which are manifested 

with the Guadalupian fauna. 
404 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

The Pelecypoda of New South Wales, recorded in De Koninck's monograph, are 

of great variety and usually of extraordinary size. Not many of them, however, 

:show any relationship with those of the Guadalupian fauna. With but few exceptions from the lower Carboniferous they were found, so far as I can ascertain, in the 

'"Permo-Carboniferous" series, seldom in both, and while touching somewhat hastily 

<On these I may disregard the others entirely. • 

Scaldia? lamellifera ls probably non-Guadalupian, but it somewhat resembles 

Edmorulia sp. Five Australian "Permo-Carboniferous" species are referred to Sanguinolites, most of them entirely dissimilar to anything known in the Guadalupian. 

Olarlcia myiformis is non-Guadalupian. The two species of Oardiomorpha have 

nothing in the Guadalupian which appears to resemble them. Edmorulia, with 

three species, is represented in the Guaclalupian series, but for the most part by 

widely different forms. Oardin·ia .fragilis is unlike anything known from the 

Guadalupian fauna. Pachydomus has not been recognized in the Guadalupian, and 

the eight Australian species arc entirely unlike anything in that fauna. The same is 

true of the genus Mceoni(],, with three species. The three species of Pleurophorus are 

unlike the Guadalupian Pleurophorus. Oonocardium (one species) is not known in 

the Guadalupian, nor Tellinomya (one species), nor Mytilus (two species). 

The "Permo-Carboniferous'' Aviculipectens of New South Wales comprise about · 

11 species, some of which, at all events, belong to Etheridge's genus Deltopecten. It 

could hardly be otherwise than that many of these pectinoid shells should be of the 

same general type in both faunas. Aside from a few forms which appear to be in 

poor condition and whose position among the pectinoids appears to be rather questionable, the most striking feature of the Australian representatives of the group is 

their large size. Perhaps the most noteworthy departure from the usual is found in 

A. cingerulus, which is unlike anything in the Guadalupian. On the other hand, A. 

laqueatus, A. subl(],queatus, not to mention Acanthopecten, Pernipecten, and Oamptonectes, have no kindred types in the "Permo-Carboniferous" of New South Wales. 

Aphania, with two Australian species, is entirely non-Guadalupian, so far as 

known. Of the two species of Pterinea, P. macroptera, subsequently made the type 

of the genus Merismopteria, is non-Guadalupian, and P. lata only rather remotely 

resembles the Guadalupian Pterias. Avicula sublunulata somewhat suggests 

Avicula sp., but A. decipiens and A. intumescens are quite unlike any Guadalupian 

species, so far as known. ' 

Although not properly mentioned here, the" Permo-Carboniferous" of New South 

Wales includes several species of Oonularia, a genus unknown in the Guadalupian. 

Considered as a whole, the "Permo-Carboniferous" pelecypods of New South 

Wales manifest surprisingly little relationship with those of the Guadalupian fauna. 

Not only are the genera largely different, but when cited under the same name the 

species appear to be unrelated. Even in point ofsize the two faunas are at opposite 

extremes, the Australian forms being of almost unprecedented largeness and the 

Guadalupian unusually small. 
MOLLUSCA. 405 

Etheridge discusses a large pelecypod fauna in his account of the "Permo-Carboniferous" fossils of Queensland and New Guinea, comprising 34 species, distributed 

as follows: 

Species. Species. 

Entolium .................................... 1 Pleurophorus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

Euchondria ................... : .............. 1 Astartella ................................. ~ . . . 1 

A viculipccten ................................. 5. Cypricardella ................................. 1 

Deltopecten ................................. . Astartila ................................ ·. . . . . . 1 

Pterinopecten ................................ l 

Merismopteria............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

Eurydesma...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 

Conocardium ................................ · .. 1 

Mytilops? .................................... 2 Chamomya .................................... 4 

Modiomorpha?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 · Edmondia?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

Parallelodon ................................... 1 Sanguinolites .................................. 1 

Nucula ....................................... 1 Pachydomus ........ , ........................ 1 

Nuculana ....................... ·_ ............ -. 1 M::eonia ...................................... 2 

Solemya ..................................... 1 

The sin~le undetermined species of Entolium in a general 'way resembles Pernipecten obliquus of the G~adalupian. Etheridge's Euchondria is not figured, nor are 

three of the five species of Aviculipecten. All of the latter appear to have been of 

the usual type, more or less related to A. guadalupensis and AViculipecten sp. a. 

When I described the genus Limipecten a year or two ago I had not come upon 

Etheridge's description of Deltopecten,' which seems generally to have been overlooked, at least in the works which I have consulted. It appears from Etheridge's 

description that Deltopecten and Limipecten were designed for the same pectinoid 

type, and the latter, accordingly, must, so far as is now known, give place to the 

name proposed by Etheridge. I still regard this as a good genus, contingent on 

Aviculipecten· having the structures which have -been ascribed to it. The longitudinal cartilage furrows of the hinge area which Etheridge mentions I would regard 

merely as accidental irregularities of growth. The hinge structures are not shown 

on Dana's specimens of Pecten illawarensis, the genotype of Deltopecten, but they are 

well exhibited on P. leniuscul1u, having all the characteristics of my Limipecten. 

It is expected that many other species now referred to Aviculipecten will prove to 

belong to Deltopecten. D. illawarensis is also one of the ordinary rib bed pectinoids 

which are found in most upper Paleozoic faunas. It appears to have a few large 

ribs and therefore to be more like A. delawarensis than A. guadalupensis. Pterinopecten devisii, on the other hand, is not like any of the Guadalupian species. 

Merismopteria macroptera and the two species doubtfully referred to Mytilops 

have, so far as known, no Guadalupian equivalents. . 

Modiomorpha? daintreei and Modiomorpha mytiliformis contain suggestions of 

the Guadalupian forms referred to Pleurophorus delawarensis and Oleidophorus sp. 

aff. 0. pallasi De Verneuil, but they may be really quite unrelated. Parallelodon 

costellatus is probably allied to Parallelodon multistriatus. The undetermined 

Nucula seems not to be closely related to the Guadalupian Nuculas, but NuculaM 

sp. is comparable to Leda sp., and Solenomya sp. to the Guadalupian Solenomya. 

Pleurophorus randsi probably has no corresponding Guadalupian form. Astartella? rhomboidea is somewhat similar to A. nasuta, but Cypricardella jackii, Astartila 

cytherea, Eurydesma cordatum, E. sacculus, Oonocardium australe, Oh::enomya? 
406 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

etheridgei, 0.? carinata, 0.? acuta, 0.? bowenens'is, Edmondia? obovata, Sanguinolites 

concentricus, Pachydomus globosus, Mreonia carinata, and Mceonia recta have no corresponding forms in the Guadalupian fauna. In general, while a number of resemblances among the pelecypods can be pointed out, I doubt whether these indicate 

any real relationship between the two faunas. 

Pelecypods are an important factor in the Russian faunas and dominate the 

later ones especially, almost to the exclusion of other types; but even in the Moskovian they are fairly well represented, if one may judge by Trautschold's description of that fauna. 

Allerisma regulare, which closely resembles our A. subcuneatum or terminale, is 

unlike anything in the Guadalupian fauna, the absence from which of this familiar 

and common Pennsylvanian type is one of its peculiarities. Apparently the forms 

-identified ai? Sanguinolites undatus and S. tetraedrus are also non-Guadalupian. 

Anatina? attenuata, A.? deltoidea, Oonocardium uralicum, and Area argo resemble 

none of the Guadalupian species yet known. Modiola teplofi can be compared with 

Pleurophorus delawarensis, but Pinna jlexicostata again is a ncin-Guadatupian type. 

That the three Pectens cited by Trautschold should have corresponding types 

in the Guadalupian is not to be wondered at. The one with unequal ribs and squamose concentric lamellre (Pecten segregatus) is suggestive of Aviculipecten sublaqueatus. The costate type (P. plicatus) is comparable in a general way with Aviculipecten guadalupensis and Aviculipecten sp. a. The smooth form (Pecten ellipticus) 

suggests Aviculipecten? infelix and Euchondria? sp. Trautschold's Avicula evanescens appears to be a little pectinoid of the general type of Pecten plicatus of the same · 

fauna. 

In the Gschelian a pelecypod fauna in the aggregate large and varied seems to 

be present. The chief genera which I have found cited are Pecten, Aviculipecten, 

Lima, Streblopteria, Entolium, Pseudomonotis, Placunopsis, Pseudoplacunopsis, 

Avicula, Myalina, Pteria, Balcewellia, Pinna, Schizodus, Myophoria, Allerisma, 

Edmondia, Pleurophorus, Cypricardinia?, Lithodomus, Macrodon, Astarte, and 

Oonocard'ium. Generically, at least, this list represents a fauna in a general way 

very similar to that of the Guadalupian, although some groups are found in each 

which are absent from the other. I have not found it practicable to compare the 

two faunas in point of their specific differentiation, because in most of the works 

consulted the pelecypods have been only listed. Stuckenberg, however, describes 

a fauna in which upward of 40 species are cited and which is perhaps representative 

of th~ horizon generally. The pectinoids, including Pecten and Aviculipecten, are 

rather unusually developed, comprising altogether 14 species. In the main they 

are pretty well connected with the Guadalupian representatives of Aviculipecten, 

Streblopteria, and Euchon_dria, though some types in each are peculiar, and in espE;lcial there is nothing among Stuckenberg's forms to compare with the Guadalupian 

species placed under Camptonectes. The three species of Lima are of a different type 

from Limatulina striaticostata. There is nothing in the Guadalupian to suggest the 

three Gschelian species of Avicula, which are probably not congeneric with our 

Pterias. This relation, however, may exist between the latter and Stuckcnberg's 

Pterinea aviculiformis, which resembles the form from the Delaware Mountain formation called merely Pteria sp. Bakewellia antiqua is not figured, but presumably 
MOLLUSCA. 407 

it resembles the Guadalupian shell doubtfully referred to Balcewellia and cited as 

Bakewellia? sp. The two species of Pseudomonotis and the two species of Modiola 

probably have no Guadalupian analogues, though Pseudomonotis cf. tesselati somewhat suggests Aviculipecten sublag_ueatus, and Modiola gigantea resembles Cleidophorus sp. cf. C. pallasi,· and I am not certain that Myalina lamellosa is very closely 

allied to M. permiana? or M. squamosa? of the Guadalupian fauna. Macrodon 

kungurensis seems to be related to Parallelodon multistriatus, but the six other 

Gschelian Macrodons probably have no corresponding forms. Allerisma regularis 

and Allerisma sp. belong to types rrot found in the Guadalupe Mountains. Conocardium cf. hibernicum and the two Gschelian species of Cardiomorpha are probably 

without Guadalupian equivalents, while the Guadalupian form nearest to Solen sp. 

is 'solenomya sp., found in the black limestone at the base of the Guadalupian section. 

Stuckenberg describes in the Artinsk a series of forms almost equally extensive. He discriminates 8 species of Pecten and Aviculipecten, most of which belong 

to groups that are represented in the Guadalupian also. Aviculipecten kungurensis 

of the one fauna and A. lag_ueatus ofthe other appear to belong to types which are 

not possessed in comrnon. The two species of Lima are probably closely related to 

Plagiostoma deltoideum, but the two Artinskian A viculas are quite distinct from the 

Guadalupian Pterias, even if they are congeneric with them. Much more closely 

allied to the latter, in general appearance at least, are Stuckenberg's Bakewellias, 

especially the one w4ich he describes as B. artiensis. Even this, however, is not 

closely related in its specific characters, and if they really belong to Bakewellia 

their only representative in the Guadalupian is probably Bakewellia? sp., which is 

most closely similar, so far as one may infer, to the unfigured species identified as 

Bakewellia antig_ua. Liebea hausmanni and the two species of Pseudomonotis are 

non-Guadalupian. Modiolopsis pallasi is presumably related to Cleidophorus aff. 

C. pallasi. Of the Macrodons, of which three species are cited, I will speak particularly only of Macrodon? cf. parvulus, which alone is figured. The illustration represents a form having an expression considerably different from that typical of the 

genus,· and apparently the Artinskian species belongs to at least a different group 

from the Guadalupian Parallelodons. 

Stuckenberg cites four species of Nucula, two of which are not figured. N. arti-

' ensis seems to belong to a different series from the Guadalupian species, but the 

others are more nearly related. Leda speluncaria, however, differs considerably 

from the imperfectly known Guadalupian Leda. Stuckenbcrg's three species of 

Cardiomorpha are represented by very imperfect material. I have referred no 

Guadalupian species to this genus, yet, as previously suggested, the form cited 

under Clinopistha may really belong there, in which case it would more nearly 

resemble C. silvce than either of the· other types figured by Stuckenberg. His 

Schizodus sp. is not much likeS. securus of the present report, and ·the Guadalupian 

shell most resembling Cardinia ~artiensis and C. plana (but more particularly the 

former) is that which I have placed under Clinopistha, without any very important 

evidence for so doing. 

From the Kungurstufe Stuckenberg also cites a considerable pelecypod fauna; 

comprising 22 species. Of the pectinoids, both Pecten and Aviculipecten are represented by one species, the two forms in question apparently being more or less closely 

allied to Guadalupian types (c. g., Aviculipecten infelix and A. sublag_ueatus). Lima 
408 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

kazanensis is much less nearly allied to Limatulina striaticostata than is the other 

Russian Lima, Plagiostoma permianum, to P. deltoideum. Bakewellia has not been 

certainly recognized in the Guadalupian fauna, but the single putative species is 

probably more closely related to the B. antiq_ua, which Stuckenberg cites, than to the 

other species of Bakewellia. Pterineopsis, of which Stuckenberg cites one species, 

is non:-Guadalupian. He recognized three species of Modiolopsis and one of Modiola. 

The corresponding Guadalupian shells are probably those which I have placed under 

Pleurophorus and Oleidophorus. Modiolopsis teplowi is very suggestive of Pleurophorus delawarensis, and Modiolopsis pallasi is probably equally near Oleidophorus 

sp. aff. 0. pallasi, but· M. globosa is different from any known Guadalupian species. 

Stuckenberg cites four species of Macrodon, but figures only two of them. ~Macrodon 

sp. appears to be closely related to Parallelodon multistriatus, but M. cf. striatilamellosus 

is alien to the American fauna. 

The form identified as Nucula trivialis is not unlike one or another of the 

Guadalupian Nuculas, but Leda speluncaria, Schizodus rossicus, S. truncatus, and 

S. obscurus are all unlike the Guadalupian species of Leda and Schizodus. The genus 

Allerisma is not known in the Guadalupian fauna, and while the two Russian 

shells referred to it are far removed from the typical expression they also appear 

to have no corresponding types among the Guadalupian fossils. 

Krotow has described an extensive pelecypod fauna from the Artinsk, one 

which comprises in fact no less than 79 species. Unfortunately for my purpose, 

most of Krotow's identifications are unfigured. Many of the species, however, 

have already been considered. Under Lima are included two species, L. permiana, 

which is of course closely allied to Plagiostoma deltoideum, and Lima artiensis, 

which has no known Guadalupian ally. Pecten receives J 3. species, only two of 

which are figured. Neither of the latter recalls any of the Guadalupian pectinoids. 

Aviculipecten and Streblopteria are employed by Krotow as subgenera. The latter 

is cited with but one species and appears to be a non-Guadalupian type. To 

Avicula are referred nine species, mostly unidentified and all except one unfigured. 

That one, cited under Pseudomonotis as a subgenus, is unlike any Guadalupian 

form. Krotow places five species under Bakewellia, three of them unidentified 

and none of them figured. B. antiq_ua presumably resembles Bakewellia? sp. of the 

fauna under discussion, ·and the others most likely have the configuration at least 

of some of the Guadalupian Pterias. Aucella is represented by one species, now 

known as Liebea hausmanni. This type is unrepresented in the Guadalupian. The 

same is probably true of the two species of Posidonomya which Krotow cites without 

figures. As in the Guadalupian, the Myalinas seem to be imperfect.ly represented. 

Krotow cites only one unfigured species. Pinna, a genus which has not been found 

in the Guadalupian fauna, is represented "in Krotow's Artinskian fauna by one 

species. Area; of which Krotow useslvl.acrodon as 11 subgenus, comprises nine species, 

unfigured save in two instances. Parallelodon may be presumed to be the Guadalupian eqJ.livalent of these forms. Of the figured species Area s.ubstriata somewhat 

suggests Parallelodon sp., but A. substriata var. geinitziana has no corresponding 

form ~n the Guadalupian. Krotow places four species under Nucula. · N. ufimskiana, 

the only one figured is quite unlike any Guadalupian form. Leda receives two 

species without any figures. Jn Sch.izodus five species arc placed. They arc not 
MOLLUSCA. 409 

figured, but at least the representation of the genus is much more extensive than in 

the Guadalupian. Unio castor, the single representative of the genus, is not figured, 

but presumably it has no Guadalupian representatives. Oardinia has four unfigured species. Solemya embraces two unfigured species more qr less related, it may 

be supposed, to the Guadalupian Solenomyas. Oleidophorus pallasi, which alone 

represents Oleidophorus, probably is closely related to the Guadalupian shell called 

Cleidophorus sp. aff. 0. pallasi. Astarte is the recipient of two species. A. vallisneriana, the only one figured, is not closely related to Astartella nasuta. Lucina, 

with two species, seems to be a type which is not found in the Guadalupe Mountains. To Oypricardia are referred two species. -Oypricardia is not lmown in the 

Guadalupian, and the only species figured is not like a.ny member of that fauna. 

Goniomya, with one species, is non-Guadalupian. Oardiomorpha has five species, 

none of which is figured. Probably the nearest related Guadalupian form would 

p·rove to be that which has been provisionally referred to Clinopistha, Edmondia 

includes but two species, neither of which is figured. Sanguinolites has two species 

and appears to be a type as yet unknown in the Guadalupe Mountains. 

So little of Krotow's material is placed in an available form that it is difficult 

to estimate the real character of the fauna or to compare it with the Guadalupian. 

The resemblances impress me as being for the most part superficial or general without necessarily implying any intimate relationship. 

Among the works consulted which deal with the Russian faunas several others 

treat of the A.rtinsk, but only to the extent of listing the species. Although some 

other genera and a good many additional species might have been obtained from 

these sources, it seemed best not to give consideration to data presented in this way. 

The Permian· fauna of Russia appears to be distinguished by its large and 

varied pelecypod representation, though this is to some extent an appearance 

relative to some of the other groups, such as the Brachiopoda! Tschemyschew 

cites 18 species in his paper on the Permian of the government of Kostroma. Two 

are referred to Allerisma and although they do not· represent the most typical form 

of the genus they probably are not to be correlated with anything in the Guadalupian. Edmondia murchisoniana is of the same general type as E. bellula though 

distinctly different. Astarte permocarbonica closely resembles Astartella nasuta, 

but may not be closely related to it. Probably Pleurophorus costatus and Pleurophorus? simplus are less closely allied to Pleurophorus delawarensis than is Solemya 

biarmica. Leda speluncaria in a general way is comparable to the undetermined 

Leda from the· Guadalupian, and Macrodon lcinganus is possibly the Permian representative of Parallelodon politus. Modiolopsis pallasi and Modiola simplicissima 

are to be compared with Oleidophorus sp. aff. C. pallasi, the former much more than 

the latter. Balcewellia cerathophaga belongs to a genus which I have only doubtfully recognized in the Guadalupian fauna. • Its shape suggests Pteria sp. perhaps 

more than Balcewellia? sp. Tschemyschew cites one species of Aviculipecten and 

three of Pecten, all of which appear to be more or less closely related to Guadalupian 

types. Pseudomonotis speluncaria is also among the species cited by Tschemy-' 

schew, but the genus Pseudomonotis is not known in the Guadalupian fauna . 

.Much more abundant and varied is the lamellibranch fauna cited by Netschajew 

from the eastern part of European Russia, which includes over 100 species. Ostrea 
4.10 THE GUADALUPIAN :J!'AUNA. 

matercula and ProszJondylus Ziebeanus are entirely unlike anything known from 

the Guadalupian. Lima retiferiformis and L. kasanensis are somewhat similar to 

Limatulina walcottianus, and L. permiana is closely related to Plagiostoma deltoideum. 

Five species are referred to Pecten and six to Aviculipecten. Practically all of 

these can be compa.red with one or another of the Guadalupian Aviculipectens 

except possibly Pecten sericeus. Netschajew discriminates six species of Pseuqomonotis, none of which, so far as known, have ariy Guadalupian representatives. 

The. form described as P. laticostata, however, is almost surely an Oxytoma, while 

that called P. elegantula looks more like a brachiopod than a pelecypod. The 

genus Liebea is not known to occur in the Guadalupian fauna. Netschajew cites 

two species and if they have any rclat~d form there, which is rather unlikely, it 

must be looked for with Myalina. Bakewellia accommodates six of Netschajew's 

species, which at least simulate the forms referred by me to Pteria. Bakewellia 

antiqua is suggestive of the Guadalupian type cited as Bakewellia? sp. Several 

greatly resemble the form from the Delaware Mountain formation which I have 

called Pteria sp., and also Pteria guadalupensis from the Capitan formation; 

but one, Bakewellia sulcata, is more like Pteria richardsoni. In a general way the 

Permian Modiolas (one species) are suggestive of the Guadalupian shells which I have 

referred to Pleurophorus and Cleidophorus. Modiolopsis teplovi and .M. pallasi show 

the greatest resemblance and Modiolopsis globosus the least. Two Macrodons form 

a feature of the fauna, identified as M. striatus and M. kinganus, but neither of them 

is very closely allied to Guadalupian species of Parallelodon, as one appears to be 

not quite smooth and the other to have pretty coarse ribs. The two Nuculas do 

not differ materially from the Guadalupian representatives of the genus. Leda 

kasanensis, rather than L. speluncaria, resembles the imperfectly known Guadalupian Leda. To Palreomutela Netschajew refers no less than 21 species. T_his type, 

like several others occurring in the Russian Permian, forms a peculiar group of shells 

not represented in the Guadalupian. Oligodon, which includes but three of Netschajew's species, is another of these. Dolabra? mackrothi seems to have no Guadalupian 

equivalent, and none of the three species of Schizodus appears to be at all related to 

S. securus. Another type alien, so far as known, to the Guadalupian fauna is Naiad·ites, to which N etschajew refers 18 of his Permian species. Still another of these 

peculiar shells is Anthracosia, though in this case the genus includes only a single 

species. Netschajew refers three speCies to Solenomya, only.onc of which (S. normalis) indicates much connection with the .single Guadalupian species. Pleurophorus simplus i.s hardly a close relative of P. delawarensis, which, as already 

remarked, more nearly resembles the Russian Modiolopsis. Astarte perniocarbonica 

and A. wallisneriana are probably represented in the Guadalupian by Astartella 

nasuta, which is much more nearly allied to the former than: to the latter. The two 

Russian species of Cardiomorpha appear. to have no corresponding Guadalupian 

types. Three species are referred by Nctschajew to Edmondia. · Edmondia a:ff. 

striata rather strongly suggests E.? bellula, but the two others seem to have no 

related Guadalnpian species. Solenopsis parvulus is probably without a Guadalupiari ally, though possibly related to Solenomya sp. Goniomya is an entirely nonGuadalupian type, so far as known, and so is Crassiconcha, of which one Permian 
MOLLUSCA. 411 

species is described. Attention has already been called to the absence of Allerisma 

in the Guadalupian fauna, and the four Permian species cited by N etschajew are 

without representatives there. 

Golowkinsky also clcscribes a Permian fauna from Russia wherein 15 species are 

discriminated, most of which have also been cited in the works already discussed. 

Soiemya biarmica, Panop<£a lunulata, and Osteodesma lcutorgana are non-Guadalupian 

types. The two specie~ of Schizodus are rather unlike S. securus. Nucula beyrichi 

and Area lcingiana are related, but not closely, to Guadalupian species of Nucula 

and Parallelodon. A great variety of forms are referred by Golowkinsky to Oleidophorus pallasi, one or two of which are suggestive of Pleurophorus delawarensis and 

others naturally of Oleidophorus sp. aff. C. pallasi of the Guadalupian. Modiola sp. 

probably has no Guadalupian analogue. Aucella hausmanni is now recognized as 

belonging to the genus Liebea and is without any corresponding form in the Guadalupian fauna. The three species of Gervillia comprise the Permian Bakewellias and 

suggest the type which I have cited as Pteria. Tw9 of them, G. ceratophagus and 

G. antiqua, more nearly resemble Pteria guadalupensis and Pteria sp. or Bakewellia? 

sp., respectively, while Gervillia sulcata can be compared with Pteria richardsoni. 

The species cited as Avicula speluncaria is generally regarded as a Pseudomonotis, a 

genus which has·no known representatives in the Guadalupian. The shell identified . 

as Pecten sericeus is so imperfect that it is impossible to compare it satisfactorily 

with the Guadalupian pcctinoids. 

It· will hardly be necessary to consider in detail the Permian pelecypods 

described in the reports of Keyserling (Petschora-Land) and of Murchison, De 

Verneuil, and Keyserling, most of which have been cited. in the works already discussed, but there must not be passed over without brief notice another reference to 

a group of forms which seems to be entirely unrepresented in the Guadalupian, but 

which constitutes an important clement in the Permian fauna of Russia. I refer to 

the Anthracosiidm and Amalitzky's monograph on the Russian Permian forms. 

This work discusses 13 species of Oarbonicola, 6 species of Anthracosa, 27 species of 

Pal<£omutela, 3 species of Oligodon, and 12 species of Naiadites. These genera, with 

the 61 species included under them, have no equivalents, so far as known, in the 

American fauna. 

Even aside from this extensive and peculiar group of forms, however, the Permian pelecypods of Russia seem to me to present as a whole no very close analogies 

with those of the Guadalupian fauna. Perhaps an almost equal degree of resemblance is shown by any of the preceding Carboniferous faunas. of the same section. 

The fauna described by Abich from Djoulfa, in Armenia, has thus.far furnished 

but one species of pelecypod. Abich cited it as Pecten aff. "tortilis Semen., but 

Arthaber has recently referred it to Pseudomonotis. It is doubtful if the Guadalupian fauna has any closely related form. 

From Balia Maaden, in Asia Minor, Enderle has cited 4 species of pelecypods, 

namely, Aviculipecten? sp., Schizodus sp., Pachydomus? sp., and Edmondia bittneri. 

Only the Schizodus and the Edmondia have been figured. The former belongs to 

quite a different type from Schizodus securus, and the other is equally different from 

Edmondia? bellula or Edmondia sp.; in fact, it rather suggests so remotely related a 

species as ~Myoconcha costulata. 
412 THE GUADALUPTAN FAUNA. 

The Sicilian fauna from Palermo described by Gemmellaro comprises an extensive and varied suite of pelecypods. Forty-eight species are described, referred to 

the follo~ing genera: 

Species. Species. 

Edmondia. _____________ .. , --- .'--.- _. _. _ _ _ _ 3 A vicula . ____ . ___ .- _____________ . __ . ·- . _ .. _ . _ 1 

Sanguinolites .. _. _______________ . __ . _____ . _ . . 1 Leiopteria. ________ . ____ . _ . _ .... __ .. __ . __ . _ 

Conocardium '*' . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2 Rutotia __ . __ . ___ .. _ .... _ .... _ ... _ . _ . _ . __ . _ 

Allerisma ____ -_ : : : !. : :: : : : : : : : : : : : : : --·- .. -. - 2 Pinna - - -- -- -- - - - . - . -.- . - . -.. - . ~ .. - -- . -.. 1 • -

Clcidophorus ..... _ .. _. ________ . __ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3 A viculipecten . __ ... _______ .. _. _ .... _. _. __ .. 

Geinitzia _ . ___ . _______ .. ___ . _ . _ ... _ . __ . _ . _ _ 2 Streblopteria ... _ . _ . _ .. ___ .... _ .. __ . _ .... _ . 

Macrodon _________ .. _ . _ .. _ ..... _ ... __ . ___ _ 4 Limatulina ___ . ___________ ............ _ ... __ 

Area _______ --- ....... · ... -- .. --.--.·--·---- 2 Pecten ____________ .. _ ... _ ............ _ .. _ . 

Pseudomonotis. ____ ....... _ .. _ .... _ . __ . _ . _ . 4 Lima. _____ .... _ ... · ... --.- .. -.... --- ... -· · · 

Bakcwellia ............ _ .. ___ . _·_. _. ____ . ___ _ 1 Anomia . _____ . ___ ....... _ ...... _ .. _ . -... --

Lie bea? ___________ .. ___ . __ . _ . _ . ____ .. _ _ _ _ _ 1 

4 

1 

2 

6 

3 

2 

1 

2 

l 

Gemmellaro' s three species of Edmondia are of the general type of the Guadalupian form cited merely as Edmondia sp. · He has nothing to compare ·with Edmondia? bellula. Sanguinolites shumardii is, so far as known, entirely alien to the fauna 

discovered by the geologist whose name it bears, and the genus Oonocardium is also 

non-Guadalupian. I have not identified the genus Allerisma in the Guadalupian 

fauna, and while Gemmellaro's two species do not belong to the most characteristic 

section of the genus, neither appears to have a Guadalupian ally. I have identified 

the genus Oleidophorus among my fossils, but the single species recognized appears 

to belong to an entirely different group from Gemmellaro's. The genus Geinitzia is 

unknown in our fauna, but a certain resemblance, perhaps only superficial, appears 

to exist between the Geinitzias (not to mention Gemmellaro's peculiar species of 

Oleidophorus, which considerably resemble his Geinitzias) and the imperfectly 

known Guadalupian shells which I have referred to .Myoconcha. Of Gemmellaro's 

four species of Macrodon, M. whitei and .1tl.. latisinuatus are quite different from the 

Guadalupian forms. His figures of M. comptus suggest the imperfectly known 

Parallelodon sp., and Jf. multilamellat1L~, with its almost invisible strire, appears to 

be related on the one hand to Parallelodon politus, which is quite smooth, and on 

the other to P. multistriatus, which is finely lirate. Gemmellaro's two species of 

Area resemble nothing yet found in the Guadalupian. I have not referred any Guadalupian species to Pseudomonotis, a genus which finds four representatives in the 

Sicilian fauna, but one of Gemmellaro's species (Pseudomonotis fimbriata) .is suggestive of a form which it seemed best to me to identify with Aviculipecten. I refer to 

A. sublaqueatus,· and A. laqueatus itself may possibly belong in the comparison. 

The single Guadalupian type doubtfully referred to Bakewellia is quite distinct from 

B. elegans, which suggests no relationship, either, with the Guadalupian Pterias. 

Liebea? mediterrana and Avicula josephince are non-Guadalupian. 

It has not seemed to me appropriate to refer any Guadalupian shells to Leiop--

teria, but Gemmellaro's species have similar if not related forms in the Guadalupian 

fauna. The Guadalupian forms in question have been referred to the genus Pteria, 

but only the unidentified one fr()m the Delaware Mountain sandstone much resembles 

the Sicilian Leiopterias, which to a limited extent have the configuration of Bakewellia? sp., which was also obtained from the Delaware Mountain.· Rutotia thyrrena 
MOLLUSCA. 413 

is not figured. The genus Pinna has as yet failed to appear among the Guadalupian 

faunas. 

The Sicilian Aviculipectens are not very suggestive of those of tJ:e Guadalupe 

Mountains. A. sicanus, A. bertrandi, A. densistriatus, and A. nitidus probably have 

no closely related forms. A. acanthicus looks like our Pennsylvanian Acanthopecten 

carboniferus, which I have identified in the Guadalupian fauna also, and A. janus 

has points of resemblance with the same species as well as with A. sublaqueatus. 

Gemmellaro's Streblopteria pusilla and S. antinorii resemble the Guadalupian 

species identified as Euchondria? sp. and Aviculipecten infelix, but may have no real 

relationship. 

The two Sicilian species of Limatulina have little to do with the single Guadalupian species, and I am doubtful as to their belonging to that genus. L. consanguinea especially suggests to me one of the Pectinidre, rather than the Limidre. 

Among the Guadalupian pectinoids Aviculipecten sp. a most resembles it. Pecten 

politus has no closely allied Guadalupian species, so far as known. Lima connectens 

may be compared with Plagiostoma deltoideum, but probably is not closely related 

specifically. Lima subretifera, however, is far removed from the Guadalupian 

Limatulina striaticostata, while Anomia prisca is quite unlike any type known to 

occur in the Guadalupian. 

Although the Sicilian fauna and that from the Guadalupe Mountains seem to 

have a considerable number of common genera they evince but little actual relationship. In-many cases though the genus is the same the species belong to altogether 

different groups, while there is after all considerable difference in the generic types. 

On the part of the Guadalupian mention may be made of Solenomya, Olinopistha, 

Nucula, Leda, Yoldia, Pteria (in part), JJfyalina, Schizodus, Oamptonectes (which 

has no parallel in any of the other faunas considered), Lithodomus?, Astartella, and 

others, depending on how accurately the generic titles indicate the exact relations 

of forms whose generic characters can often be only imperfectly deciphered. Some 

of these identifications of Guadalupian forms are decidedly open to question, but the 

absence from the Sicilian fauna· of such characteristic Carboniferous genera as 

Nucula, Leda, },fyalina, Schizodus, and Astartell(L is certainly worth remarking. 

On the 'other hand, this fauna contains a. number of types which are alien to the 

Guadalupian, some more, some less, among which may be mentioned Sangu.inolites, 

Oonocardium, Al.lerisma, Geinitzia, Area, Pseudomonotis, Liebea, Rutotia, Pinna, 

and Anomia. 

I have been led to infer that Schellwien has never described this elass of organisms as it occurs in the fauna of the Carnic Alps, but in a recent paper by Gortani 

from the- same region a number of species belonging to this group have been cited. 

· To the genera Pecten and Aviculipecten are attributed eight species, some of which 

are not figured. In view of this fact and of the rather unsatisfactory character of 

the illustrations it is difficult to make comparisons, but apparently there is little of 

a marked character in the Alpine pectinoids to distinguish them from the Guadalupian Aviculipectens. One of the species cited is 4viculipecten carboniferus, a 

characteristic species of our Pennsylvanian, which seems to have an identical or 

kindred form in the Delaware Mountain formation of ·the Guadalupian also. Aviculipecten incarojanus is a peculiar form for the genus, and rather suggests the type 

• 
• 

414 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

· which I have placed with Pteria, resembling more or less Pteria. sp. or Pteria guadalupensis. The form referred to Pecten (Streblopteria) sericeus De Verncuil is not 

figured, but presumably resembles one of several smooth pectinoid species in the 

Guadalupian fauna. Pecten (Entolium) cf. aviculatus, also not figured, is presumably related to Pernipecten obliquus. Lima retiferiformis appears to be rather widely 

different from the Guadalupian representative of the Ll.matulinas. Liebea hausmanni and .'JI,fyophoriopsis? carbonifera are non-Guadalupian, so far as known, and 

Schizodus pinguis though not figured is considerably different from S. securus. 

So poor arc the figures of the· two species of Astarte recognized in the report of 

Gortani that their characters are as much concealed as depicted, but they may be 

presumed to be more or less closely allied to Astartella nasuta. Oonocardium, to 

which Gortani refers one species, is not known in the Guadalupian. 

· A pelecypod fauna of eonsiderable extent is described by Geinitz from the Dyas 

of Germany. Allerisma is represented by Allerisma elegans King, but Geinitz's 

figures represent possibly two species. The type is not known in the Guadalupian. 

Two, possibly three, species appear to be represented by Geinitz's figures of Panopt£a 

lunulata. One of them is suggestive of Edmondia? bellula, but no Guadalupian 

shells like the other forms are yet known. Panopt£a maclcrothi is suggestive of an 

Edmond/La, of the same general type as Edmondia sp. of the Guadalupian. Tellina 

dunelmensis is not figured, but apparently it resembles Edmondia? bellula, superfieially at least. Solenomya biannica is related, though not closely, to the Guadalupian representative of the genus, but the type of S. normalis appears to be absent· 

in our fauna. Several species of Vnio and Anodonta may also probably be called 

non-Guadahipian. Lucina minuta is not figured, but is likewise an alien type. 

Astarte vallisneriana and A.? tunstallensis are presumably more or less related to 

Astartella nasuta, but the three species of Schizodus show wide differenees from 

S. securus. ArcaEngianaseemstocorrespond toParallelodon politu_s, but Area striata, 

while of the same general type as Parallelodon multistriatus, is considerably different. 

The two Nuculas cited by Geinitz, but more N. beyrichi than N. wymmensis, are not 

markedly different from the Guadalupian Nuculas, and Leda speluncaria exhibits a 

similar general resemblance to Leda sp. of our fauna. Edmondia elongata is hardly 

a nearly related form to E.? bellula, resembling rather Edmondia sp. More than a 

single species seems to be figured under each of the titles Olidophorus pallasi, 

0. hollebeni, and Pleurophorus costatus, and most of the types are not found in the 

Guadalupian. They resemble Pleurophorus delawarensis to only a limited degree, but 

0. pallasi espeeially is similar to Oleidophorus sp. aff. 0. pallasi. One of Geinitz's 

figures of Clidophor-us paliasi somewhat recalls Myoconcha costulata. Aucella hausmanni, now known to belong to the genus Liebea, is an unknown type in tlie Guadalupian. Avicula speluncaria, which is now generally cited as a Pseudomonotis, is 

also non-Guadalupian, and nothing resembling A. lcasanensis has been obtained 

from that fauna. A. lorata is imperfectly known, as is also A. lceyserlingi, though 

Keyserling's figures certainly suggest a form like· our A.canthopecten carbon1ferus, 

which though described from the Pennsylvanian appears to occur in the Guadalupian 

fauna also. A. pinn1formis, however, is a non-Guadalupian type. 

Geinitz refers four species to Gervillia. Some at least of these belong to the 

genus Bakewellia, to which some of the Guadalupian Pterias which they suggest in 
MOLLUSCA. 415 

general expression appear not to belong. G. ceratophagus and G. sedgwickiana are the 

species which especially resemble the Guadalupian Pterias, particularly Pteria sp. 

from the Delaware Mountain formation, and Pteria guadalupensis. GerviZZ.ia antiqua 

is more like the Guadalupian form described farther on as Bakeweltia? sp. G: murchisoni is unlike any Guadalupian species, so far as I am aware, but suggests one 

from the Pennsylvanian which White described as Anthmcoptera polita and which I 

subsequently thought might be a Monopteria . . The Pectens appear to be much less 

multifariously represented, both in genera and species, in the Dyas. Geinitz cites 

three species of Pecten and one of Lima. Only one of the Pectens is a costate type, . 

the others being smooth. P .. kokscharofi resembles several Guadalupian species. 

P. pusillus and P. sericeus, by their lack of sculpture, also resemble several Guadalupian species, such as Aviculipecten ir~felix and Euchondria? sp., but whether there 

is any real relationship I am somewhat in doubt. The Guadalupian equivalent of 

Lima permiana is Plagiostoma deltoideum. 

A very similar fauna is that of the Permian of England, from which King 

described a considerable number of pelecypods. The first two cited are Pecten 

pusillus and Lima permiana, which have just been mentioned. All the costate types 

of Pecten or Aviculipecten seem to be absent. Pseudomonoiis, however, is represented by P. speluncaria (under which are included a great variety of forms and possibly several species), P. radiata, and P. gar:forthensis. None of these types is known 

to occur in the Guadalupian. Mytilus squamosus, however, is represented in that 

fauna by a form so closely related that I think them to be not improbably the same 

species, but M. sept~fer seems to have no corresponding type, unless possibly Myoconcha sp. proves to be such. Edmondiamurchisoniana somewhat recalls E.? bellula. 

King's species of Bakewellia, of which there are five, very strongly suggest the 

Guadalupian shells which I have referred to Pteria, although I have been unable 

recognize the characteristic structures of Bakewellia in my specimens. B. ceratophaga 

resembles to a greater or less degree Pteria sp. and-P. guadalupensis, and B. bicarinata 

is similarly like Pteria richardsoni. B. antiqua rather strongly resembles the Guadalupian shell described as Bakewellia? sp., and in fact it was because of tlus resemblance that the reference to Bakewellia was made. B. tumida is less like any known 

Guadalupian species, while on ·the other hand no English Permian form seems comparable to Pteria squam~(era. 

King uses Bissoarca for the genus that is here called Parallelodon. B. striata and 

B. tumida arc very much more coarsely ribbed than Parallelodon multistriatus, while 

B. kingiana, instead of being smooth, as described by De Verneuil, and therefore 

closely related to Parallelodon politus, is stated by King to be marked with incipient 

ribs. Nucula tateiana which is not figured, can hardly be considered different from 

the Guadalupian Nuculas, but Leda vinti certainly differs widely from the imperfect 

Leda known from that fauna. Of the two species of Janeia, J. phillipsiana may perhaps be compared with Solenomya sp., but .J. biarmica is less distinctly related .. 

King's Cardiomorpha mod.ioliformis suggests no Guadalupian species so much as 

that which I have described as Oleidophorus sp. aff. 0. pallasi, or to a less degree 

Jl1yoconcha costulata. Pleurophorus costatus is represented generically in the Guadalupian fauna but not by a species of the same group. None of King's four Permian 

species of Schizodus possesses a close specific relationship with the singularS. securus. 
416 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

The two Astartes presumably are congeneric with Astartella nasuta,, and Astarte 

tunstallensis resembles the Guadalupian species considerably in shape though not in 

sculpture. Allerisma elegans ls a type, so far as known, which is non-Guadalupian. 

The l?crmian shell which King cites as Psammobia? subpapyracea has a general superficial resemblance to Edmondia? bellula, but it is doubtful whether any real relationship exists. 

From the south point of Spitzbergen Toula citbs four species of Aviculipecten. 

They show no marked departures from Guadalupian types. Aviculipecten wilczelci, 

which he described from the Hornsund, seems to be of the same general" character as 

A. laqueatus . . From Axel Island he cites two species of Gervillia, that which is figured 

resembling the Guadalupian species which I have called Bakewellia? sp. Aviculipecten draschei from the same locality is of a type which is common everywhere and 

at many horizons in the Carboniferous, so far as is now apparent. 

Lundgren cited a considerable pelecypod fauna from the Permian of Spitzbergen, but unfortunately many of his species are unfigured. The fauna includes 

tw.o species of Pecten and six of Aviculipecten, one of Avicul~, two of Pseudomonotis, one of Gervillia, two of Bakewellia, two of Leda, one of Myalina, and one of 

Allerisma. Such of the Pectens and Aviculipectens as are figured have more or 

less nearly related types in the Guadalupe Mountains. Avicula? s"p. is not figured, 

nor is one of the species of Pseudomonotis. The other impresses me as much more 

apt to be an Aviculipecten than a Pseudomonotis, but if correctly placed it would, 

so far as known, be without any corresponding Guadalupian form. Gervillia? sp. 

is unidentified and unfigurcd. Bakewellia antiqua a~d Bakewellia cf. sedgwickiana, 

also not figured, are related to the Guadalupian Pterias and to Bakewellia? sp. if 

to anything in that fauna. Leda sp. and Leda? sp. are not figured. Myalina 

degeeri is unlike the Myalinas of the Guadalupian, and Allerisma? sp., though not 

figured, is also probably non-Guadalupian. 

From the Barents Islands, near Nova Zembla, Toula cites a number of pelecypods, two species of Avicula, three of Aviculipecten, one of Mytilus, one of Leda, 

one <Of Schizodus, one of Allerisma, one of Pleurophorus, one of Sanguinolaria, one 

of Edmondia?, and one of Astarte, but as they have little to do with the Guadalupian pelecypods and are associated with a different fauna, I will not comment on 

them in detail. · 

From Igidi, in the West Sahara, in association with a fauna which I take to 

be considerably older thap the Guadalupian, Stache cites a few spec;ies of pelecypods, as Pecten cf. P. mactatus De Koninck, Pecten sp.,? Gervillia sp., and ?Anthracosia sp. The two latter arc not figured, and only the first ment~oned is suitable 

for consideration. The form in question resembles Aviculipecten laqueatus in its 

sculpture, but the shape is different. 

Certainly our knowledge of South American pelecypods of the• Carboniferous 

is very imperfect. I have found citations of only two species, which D'Orbigny 

described from Bolivia as Pecten paradezii ~J,nd Trigonia antiqua, the latter probably being closely related generically and specifically to our American Astartella 

vera. The Pecten is of the same general type as some of the Guadalupian Aviculipectens, but the Astartella is widely different from Astartella nasuta. 
MOLLUSCA. 417 

The typical Pennsylvanian fauna as it stands in W elle!"'s valuable bibliography 

contains slightly over 200 species of pelecypods, representing 48 different genera. 

A considerable number of these, it is true, have never been figured, and if they 

were known to-day would doubtless be found to belong to other genera than those 

under which they were first described and are now cited, and in some cases to be 

synonyms for other species. On the other hand, there have not been included in 

this enumeration a few species and genera which have been introduced since the 

bibliography was published. 

The Guadalupian fauna contains but few generic types which do not occur in 

the Pennsylvanian, although the specific representation is so profoundly different. 

In fact, only four instances can be named-Lithodomus, Plagiostoma, Gamptonectes?, and Myoconcha-in which it has been deemed necessary to refer the Guadalupian types entirely to non-Pennsylvanian genera. Yet it is rather likely that 

the difference is somewhat greater than this, for it should be remembered that the 

real ge~eric characters have seldom been observed in Guadalupian forms, most of 

them having been referred, on the strength of configuration and general expression 

alone, to the genera with which I was familiar and to which they seemed in these particulars most closely related. As the genera familiar to me were naturally such as 

occur in our Pennsylvanian and· Mississippian rocks, the generic list necessarily 

simulates that of our normal Pennsylvanian fauna, yet in some cases, where the 

specific type shows exceptiona~ differences, ,it seems likely that if the generic characters could be known the forms would prove to belong to distinct if related 

genera. Schizodus securus is a case in point, and I rather expect that at some 

day data which are not now at hand will show that the genus is not Schizodus, but 

possibly Myophoria or some other. 

The number of Pennsylvanian genera \vhich are not found in the Guadalupian, 

to estimate which is a siinple matter, amounts to something like 28, or over 50 per 

cent, but this fails to convey a tme idea of the relations of the two faunas. Some 

of the genera,· as, for instance, Area, would almost certainly disappear from the 

enumeration if the Pennsylvanian forms representing them were at all known, 

while certain types are of such rare occurrence, even in the Pennsylvanian, that 

they can hardly. be regarded as characteristic genera whose absence from the Gua-· 

dalupian has any significance. It would not be unprofitable, however, to consider 

some of the fairly abundant and characteristic Pennsylvanian types whose absence 

from the Guadalupian may be regarded somewhat insignificant. 

The first of these, alphabetically at least, is Allerisma. A. terminale, or A. 

subcuneatum, is a common and very characteristic species of our Pennsylvanian, 

and the entire absence of this type from the Guadalupian is certainly noteworthy. 

Neither the typical division of the genera nor those other species, some of which 

I have withdrawn into the newly erected genus Pleurophorella, have so far as 

knowp. any representatives there. Shells belonging to the genera Aviculipinna 

and Pinna are not uncommon in local collections from the Pennsylvanian, and the 

absence of this type also is worthy of note. Bakewellia has not been certainly 

recognized in the Guadalupian, while shells referred to this genus are sometimes 

abundant in the later Carboniferous deposits of Kansas and Nebraska. Yet, just 

3695-N o. 58-08--27 
418 'l'HE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

as I have been unable to detect the characterizing structures of Bakewellia in the 

Guadalupian Pterias, I ·have b~1en unable to detect. them in the common Pennsylvanian Bakcwcllias also, so that it is not improbable that Pteria (at least in part) 

of the one fauna corresponds to Bakewellia of the other. Cnrdiomorpha and Clinopistha are very abundant at certain horizons of the Pennsylvanian, frequently 

occurring in association. One or the other type, I am not entirely sure which, 

though I have identified it as Clinopistha, is represented in the lowest strata of 

the Guadalupian, but the other is not known there. Conocardium is not abundant 

in the Pennsylvanian, but its absence from the Guadalupian should not be overlooked in this place. Monopteria is another Pennsylvanian type which appears to 

be absent, and while it is not very common as a mle, it may be said to be one of 

the characteristic genera. Pseudomonotis, with which can almost certainly be 

included some of the types recorded as M~onotis, is rather abundant at some of the 

higher horizons of the Carboniferous in the Mississippi Valley, and its absence in 

the Guadalupian, so far as known, is rather remarkable. Chienomya and Sedg-

. wickia, closely related genera to Allerisma, though less abundant in the Pennsylvanian, show, with that genus, the fact of nonappearance in the Guadalupian. 

Althqugh in the main the generic representation of the Guadalupian and 

Pennsylvanian faunas appears to be nearly the same, but very few species occur in 

common, while in a few cases the specific types are very different. The single Guadalupian species of Astartella is not sufficiently different from the Pennsylvanian ones 

to cause much remark, and the same is true of the Pennsylvanian Aviculas, which 

with the Bakewellias may provisionally be regarded as equivalent to the Guadalupian Pterias. The type seems to be much more abundant in the Guadalupian, 

however, being, so far as my experience goes, for the most part rather rare in the 

Pennsylvanian. Among the pectinoids the representation in the main presents 

few striking differences, save that they are rather more abundant and highly differentiated in the Guadalupian. Euchondria, Pernipecte'fl,, Aviculipecten, Acanthapecten, and Limatulinn occur in both faunas. The absence of Pseudomonotis from 

the Guadalupian has already been commented on, while the introduction of the 

singular type referred to Cnmptonectes? is one of this fauna's individual features. 

The specific representation of these genera, while different in the main, is too similar 

to evoke comment, except perhaps in the case of Limatulina strinticostata, which is 

widely different from the Pennsylvanian Limntulina retifera. The smooth type of 

Lima (Plagiostomn), represented in the Guadalupian by P. deltoideum, is, so far as 

known, absent from the Pennsylvanian. This type is a feature of the Permian faunas 

of Russia, Germany, and England. Clinopisthn has closely allied types in both 

faunas, so far as can be made out, but the Guadalupian shell may not belong to the 

genus at all. Cypricardinin calls for no comment. Rdmondin is apt to be pretty 

common in the Pennsylvanian, the prevailing type there being represented in the 

Guadalupian by a single imperfect specimen. No marked differences are shown 

by the genus Parallelodon, but Myalina again is a significant factor, as shells belonging to this genus are often common and of large size in the Pennsylvanian, but in 

the Guadalupian they are rare and small. The common Pennsylvanian type 

M. subquadrata is not represented in the other fauna. Nucula and Nuculana offer no 

striking differences, nor docs Pleurophorus to any great extent, though the genus 
MOLLUSCA. 419 

appears to be more plentiful and varied in the Pennsylvanian rocks, presenting 

certain types which are absent from the Guadalupian. Schizodus contains as marked 

elements of difference as almost any genus cominon to the two faunas. Schizodus 

is abundant and well differentiated in the Pennsylvanian, but in the Guadalupian 

only one rare species has come to hand, and it is so different from the Pennsylvanian 

types that I have a suspicion that it may belong to a different genus .. Solenomya · 

has furnished many more species to the Pennsylvanian fauna, but it is far from a 

common Pennsylv.anian type, and the single imperfectly known Guadalupian species 

docs not show any marked peculiarities. The same is true, though to a less degree, 

of the genus Y oldia. 

In brief, for two faunas so closely situated geographically the Guadalupian 

fauna and that of the Pennsylvanian, together with the so-called Permian of the 

Mississippi Valley, show unusually marked differences, which must connote corresponding ones of geologic age, of environment, or of both. Possibly their proximity .. 

in geographic position finds yxpression in the generic similarity, while the strong 

specific unlikeness may be interpreted as due to chronologie succession. Although 

the Guadalupian pelecypods, as just said, unquestionably show important differences from the Pennsylvanian forms, their relationship to that fauna appears to me 

to be as close, perhaps even closer than to an:y other of the faunas which have come 

under observation. 

Family SOLENOMYIDJE Gray. 

Genus SOLENOMY A Lamarck. 

SOLENOMYA? sp. 

This type is represented by two very fragmentary specimens from the blac~ 

limestone at the base of the Guadalupe section. So far as can be ascertained, the 

shape and other characters indicate a relationship to the Solenomyas of the Pennsylvanian, but particularly to the form which: Herrick described as S. subradiata. 

The shape is rather more symmetrically rounded behind than in the related species 

S. radiata, and the radiating lines are more indistinct. In one specimen, in fact, 

they can hardly be observed at all, and in the other they are also very faint though 

unmistakable. They are rather closely arranged and more numerous than in Herrick's species S. subradiata, so that if it prove to be really a member of this genus 

the form under consideration is very probably a new species. 

Horizon and locality.-Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2967). 

Genus CLINOPISTHA Meek and Worthen. 

CLINOPISTHA? cf. C. RADIATA var. LlEVIS M. and W. 

. This type is represented by a specimen from the lowest horizon of the Guadalupe section. Its generic characters are entirely unknown, and even the shape 

has been more or less obscured by crushing. So far as can be determined, however, 

it is extremely suggestive of Clinopistha radiata, especially the variety which Meek 

and Worthen described as lcevis. Radiating sculpture is entirely lacking and the 
420 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

thin shell is covered only by fine concentric striaJ and. occasionally others of greater 

breadth. 

Horizon and locality.-Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2967). 

Family GRAMMYSIID.lE Fischer. 

Genus EDMONDIA De Koninck. 

EDMONDIA ~ BELLULA n. sp. 

Pl. IX, figs. 22 to 22b. 

Shell small, transverse, elliptical. Posterior end somewhat higher than the 

anterior. Beak of moderate size, subcentral, but distinctly anterior to the median 

line. 

Surface nearly smooth; marked by a few rather faint but large concentric ridges. 

This species most nearly resembles Edmondia glabra Meek, but besides being 

very much smaller it is somewhat differently shaped, and has smaller and less projecting umbones. It is perhaps the form cited by Shumard from this locality as 

Edmondia suborbiculata. This species Shumard gives to Swallow, but Swallow's 

species is named Edmondia semiorbiculata, and it is evident that suborbiculata was a 

clerical error on the part of Shumard, who also gave the page reference incorrectly 

(20 instead of 190). It would hardly be necessary to refer to these matters were it 

not for the fact that Weller's cataJogue, though for the most part accurate, cites 

suborbiculata as Shumard's species, a circumstance which tends to give currency to 

a somewhat obvious error. 

Edmondia semiorbiculata is certainly a similar species to that in hand, though I 

doubt if it be really the same. It is, however, impossible to arrive at a certain conclusion until both species are better lmown, especially that of Swallow, which has 

never been figured. The latter is evidently related to Edmondia glabra, and being 

near the same horizon may prove to be the same thing. 

· Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 

2926); Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931 ~), Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas. 

EnMONDIA sp. 

From the Delaware Mountain formation there is in our collection a single 

imperfect specimen of an Edmondia, which seems to belong to a species related toE. aspinwallensis; E. nebraslcensis, E. ovata, and E. subtruncata. The shape is somewhat transverse and elliptical, the umbo inflated and projecting, and the surface 

marked by rather prominent, somewhat regular concentric ridges. The present 

material is inadequate to ascertain the specific relations. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2931). · 
MOLLUSCA. 421 

Family NUCULID~ Adams. 

Genus NU~ULA Lamarc~. 

N ucuLA sp. a. 

Pl. ·XXIV, fig. 22. 

This form is represented by three rather imperfect specimens from the lowest 

beds of the Guadalupe section. The size is rather small, the largest e:iample having 

a width of only about 7 mm. The proportional height varies somewhat in different 

specimens, but is usually.two-thirds to three-fourths the width. The beak is small 

and not very prominent. The posterior outline below the umbones projects rather 

strongly and is well rounded. The lower outline is gently convex, the anterior end 

strongly rounded, and the upper margin, more or less rectilinear, slopes strongly 

downward. The surface is marked by concentric strire which are moderately fme, 

faint, and regular. 

This little form resembles that which Meek found at Nebraska City, and which 

he hesitatingly identified as Nucula beyrichi. .It is somewhat larger and perhaps a 

little more elevated in proportion to the width. 

Horizon and locality.-Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2967). . 

NucuLA sp. b'< 

Pl. XXIII, fig. 8. 

-The specimen on which this species is established is an internal lll.old from the 

Delaware Mountain formation. It is somewhat small and tr~nsverse, the wi~lth 

being 6! mm. and the height 4 mm. The beak is rather large and projecting, situated about one-fourth the width from the posterior margin. The upper and lower 

borders contract behind, the anterior and posterior ex;tremities being strongly 

rounded. 

The anterior teeth are rather numerous; about 14 can be counted. Sculpture 

unknown. 

In addition to the specimens from the Delaware Mountain sandstone on which 

the foregoing description is based another example from the underlying black limestone has been assigned here. It is in a measure intermediate between the present 

species and Nucula sp. a, with which it occurs in association, being not quite as transverse as the one and distinctly more transverse than the other. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 

2931); basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (station 2967~), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. 

N UCULA sp. c. 

' Pl. XXIX, fig. 11. 

This form is represented by 'a single somewhat imperfect specimen from the 

southern Delawares. The shape is subquadrate ~ the beak, situated almost terminally, is small and not much projecting. The superior margin is gently convex; 

0 
/ 

422 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

the posterior margin is nearly straight and directed almost perpendicularly to it. 

The lower margin is strongly bowed, and joins the anterior and posterior outlines in 

rather abrupt turns. 

The surface is unknown, but probably was nearly smooth. 

The type specimen is a left valve, and shows on the inside about 9 anterior 

and 6 posterior teeth. 

This form is nearest that distinguishe~ as Nucula sp. a, hut is clearly a different 

species. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 

Family LEDIDJE Adams. 

Genus LEDA Schumacher. 

LEDA sp. 

In the black limestone at the base of the .Guadalupe section has been found a 

single specimen of a species of Leda. It is an internal mold, and represents a small 

shell, which is very transverse, elongate, and tapering. The shape is suggestive 

rather of the variety attenuata than of the form commonly identified as Leda bellistriata, hut it is even more attenuate. The length of the only specimen obtained is 

12 mm., of which 8 mm. is anterior to the beak. The greatest height-that at the 

umbo-is 5.5 mm. 

Horizon and locality.-Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2920). 

Genus YOLDIA Moller. 

YoLDIA sp. 

A single specimen represents this species, the source of which was in the black 

limestone at the base of the Guadalupe section. It is unfortunately too imperfect for illustration or description, but appears to be generically related to Yoldia 

subscitula and to resemble it in specitic characters also. As compared with Meek's 

figure of Y. subscitula in his work on the paleontology of eastern N cbraska, the 

Guadalupian shell appears to be somewhat inore broadly rounded behind and to 

have the anterior extension more tapering and less distinctly truncated. A shallow 

sinus indents the shell, beginning at the umbones and slightly sloping forward. 

Horizon and locality.-Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2967). · 

Family P ARALLELODONTIDJE Dall. 

Genus P ARALLELODON Meek. 

This.generic name has been but little adopted by American writers, the shells 

which belong to it almost universally passing· under Macrodon Lycett. When 

Lycett introduced the term.for the molluscan type in 1845, however, it had 

already been· preoccupied by Macrodon Muller, 1842, a genus of fishes. Meek 
MOLLUSCA. 423 

called attention to this fact in 1866,a and suggested Parallelodon as a substitute. 

Parallelodon was taken up by De Koninck, but by few other authors, though 

recently it has again been revived by Hind.b 

Macrodon is based on a type from the English Lias, and according to Hind 

shows certain subordinate differences of dentition from the Carboniferous Parallelodons, of which P. delicatus of the American Pennsylvanian must probably 

be taken as the type. Both because the term _Macrodon was preoccupied, because 

Macrodon was based on a Mesozoic and Parallelodon on a Paleozoic type, and because 

they show certain differences in dentition, though these may be small, it seems 

to me highly advisable, especially in the case of Paleozoic species, to use the term . 

Parallelodon. 

'l'he Guadalupian Parallelodons are three in ·number, and each species must 

probably be regarded as belonging to a distinct group. The two forms which can 

with reasonable certainty· be included in the genus are quite distinct from the 

Pennsylvanian species, without, however, exhibiting any marked departures from 

the types prevalent in that period. 

PARALLELODON MULTISTRIATUS n. sp. 

Pl. XXXI, figs. 13 to 14a. 

Shell of medium size. Configuration as in other members of the genus. Surface marked by a few lamellose, concentric lines and by numerous extremely fine 

radiating line. · Of the latter about ten occur in the space of 2 mm. over the mesial 

third of the surface, but they increase in coarseness bothposteriorly and anteriorly. 

The types of this species are silicified shells from the Glass Mountains, both 

of them being unfortunately incomplete in the posterior portion. The configuration in this genus is so constant and the part that remains in the present specimens 

is so characteristic that I feel that the validity of the species is but little affected 

by the circumstance of their incompleteness. The configuration so far as known, 

for the reason given above and because it is well shown by the illustration, has not 

been . described in detail. The generic characters and general aspect are those 

of Macrodon. 

A single example from the Delaware Mountain formation has been identified 

with this species. In this case also only the ant'erior half of the shell is preserved. 

In the white limestone of the Capitan formation still another specimen has come 

to hand which is even more imperfect, and therefore has been referred here with 

some doubt. The surface i~ well shown, and presents about the anterior third 

to view. The striation of the anterior end of the portion preserved is relatively 

rather coarse, while that of the posterior end is scarcely to be seen without the aid 

of a glass. This specimen is large, and may not be specifically the same as those 

from the Delaware Mountain formation or as those from the Glass Mountains. 

Parallelodon multistriatus is distinguished from P. tenuistriatus by the fine 

strire which completely cover the surface. On the type specimen of P. tenuistriatus 

the upper posterior portion has a few moderately coarse ribs, the rest of the shell 

being without radiating sculpture, except for faint strire near the lower margin, 

a Proc. Chicago Acad. Sci., 1866;p. 17. b British Car b. Lam., Pal. Soc., 1896-1900, p. 125. 
424 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

especially toward the middle and toward the anterior end. Parallelodon o'bsoletus 

is very close to P. tenuistriatus, and is distinguished by the same characters from 

the Guadalupian form. Very faint traces of fine radiating strire can be seen near 

the lower margin of the type specimens of P. obsoletus also, and I doubt if it will be 

practicable to retain both species. 

Horizon and iocality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 

2926 ~); Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931), Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas. Delaware Mountain formation, Comanche Canyon, Glass Mountains, Texas (station 3763). 

p ARALLELODON POLITUS n. sp. 

Pl. IX, fig. 25. 

Shell of medium s1ze, transverse, strongly arched. Anterior end pointed, 

projecting. Posterior end obliquely truncate. Lower margin convex, gently 

curving upward at the posterior extremity, strongly curved at the anterior. 

Surface without radiating strire, but showing usually concentric ones of varying 

prominence and regularity. 

The upper Carboniferous Parallelodons do not exhibit much diversity in shape, 

the distinguishing character being chiefly that of surface ornamentation. In this 

respect the present species differs from others of the genus, since it is entirely 

without traces of radiating sti·ire. An approach to this character is seen in Parallelodon obsoletus, in which the obvious strire are confined to the area near the hinge 

line behind the umbones. Even in this species,· however, very faint traces of ribs 

appear ·on other portions of the shell, though the absence of them was supposed 

by Meek to serve as a distinguishmg character from P. tenuistriatus. 

The type specimen of the species was derived from the Capitan formation. In 

the Delaware Mountain formation also some specimens were found in which no 

radiating strire have been discovered, and it is supposed that these examples belong 

to the same species. The Delawarian specimens attain a considerable size, the 

largest having a transverse diameter of not less than 40 mm. These examples are 

preserved as partial internal molds, and it cannot be asserted positively that the 

surface was entirely smooth, as in the specimens from the white limestone. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926); 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station, 2931), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas 

(station 2969 ~). · 

p ARALLELODON ~ sp. 

Pl. XXXI, fig. 15. 

The general character of this form is shown by the figure. It is supposed to 

represent a species of Parallelorlon, though the specimen is too imperfect to allow 

this fact to be made evident, while some features are a little unfavorable to such an 

identification. 

The posterior wing is depressed and rather sharply defined from the elevated· 

umbonal ridge, a condition whieh carries a eertain suggestion of the Pteriidre. The 
MOLLUSCA. 425 

rather large ribs are coarsely crenulated, which gives them a nodulose appearance. 

This tendency is, however, not uncommon to Parallelodon, in which the ribs often 

have an interrupted look, especially where, as frequently happens, they become 

faint over the median third of"the shell. 

The nearest related species to the present one among our known Pennsylvanian 

forms is evidently Parrallelodon obsoletus, from which it appears to be distinguished 

by the strength of the umbonal ridge and the very marked crenulation of the ribs. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Comanche Canyon, Glass 

Mountains, Texas (station 3763). 

Family PERN IDlE Zittel. 

Genus BAKEWELLIA King. 

BAKEWELLIA ~ sp. 

Under this title are included a few imperfect specimens fTom the Delaware 

Mountain formation, which in a general way resemble the associated shells referred 

to Pteria richardsoni, but appear to differ from them (for of some of the differences· 

I can not be quite sure) in being slightly less oblique, in having a smaller, less distinct 

and rounded anterior lobe, and in lacking a posterior alation. Instead, the posterior 

outline is nearly straight, meeting the cardinal line at an obtuse but distinct angle. 

The hinge characters are best shown in a right valve preserved as an internal 

mold. There appears to have been a long linear posterior ~rrow, defined by projections both above and below. Of cardinal teeth there appear to have been: two, 

with sockets possibly for three on the opposing valve. The anterior sockets were 

two in number, the upper one short and parallel to the hinge, the lower longer and 

strongly inclined downward. They inclose between them a prominent tooth, and 

connect behind with two of the cardinal sockets. In the left valve the only structure preserved is a posterior furrow similar to that in the other valve. It seems 

probable, therefore, that this structure indicates the position of a resilium rather 

than standing for a posterior tooth and socket. 

Aside from being somewhat less oblique, this form much resembles Bakewellia 

antig_ua as figured by King.a It has a similar rounded anterior end and is likewise 

. not extended into a mucronate alation behind. The dentition also resembles that 

figured by King.b On the other hand, the condition of my material is not such as 

to permit me to determine whether any ligamenta! pits were present or not. · 

From present knowledge it seems hardly probable that this form belongs with 

the Pterias of the Guadalupian, though it resembles them superficially, and it is 

even regarded as not impossible that it is related to A1yoconcha costulata var. delawarensis, Pleurophorus delawarensis, or Oleidophorus aff. pallasi, diverse as they are. 

Whether the relationship is that ·of belonging to the same genus, of being a variety 

of the same species, or of being young, abnormal, or imperfectly preserved individuals 

can not now be told. 

a King, W., Monograph of the Permian fossils of England,.Palreontographical Society, 1850, pl.14, figs. 28, 29. 

b Idem, f:g. 34. 
426 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

While this material probably differs even generically from the several species 

of Pteria, it has been difficult to distinguish it from the associated form referred to 

P. richardsoni, since most of the material is imperfect. It resembles Bakewellia 

parva in its configuration, but is less oblique and possesses so different an articulus, · 

so far as can be made out, that it probably belongs to a different genus. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2931). 

:Family PTERIIDJE Meek. 

Genus PTERIA Scopoli. 

Shells of this type are unusually plentiful and varied in the Guadalupian fauna 

if that of the Pennsylvanian be taken as a standard. Four species have been 

obtained, whereas in an equal amount of Pennsylvanian material it is doubtful if one 

would have been present. This is not quite true, however, if the so-called Bakewellias of the Pennsylvanian be taken into account, since they are sometimes fairly 

abundant, though presenting but little variety. . 

In fact the Guadalupian shells which are here included under Pteria superficially 

resemble very closely some of the European species of Bakewellia, just as some of the 

smaller examples placed with Pteria sp. much resemble the small, poorly characterized Pennsylvanian Bakewellia parva. In the case of the latter species the 

best evidence I have been able to obtain indicates that the hinge is constructed 

differently fronl. that in typical Bakewellia. Hinge structures are hardly to be 

observed in the Guadalupian shells, but in no case has the· typical Bakewellian 

articulus been made out, and in some it appears to be absent. 

On this account I have not felt justified in referring my species to Bakewellia, 

in spite of their resemblance in some cases to the European Bakewellias and the significance which by reason of their differentiation and abundance they might have 

in correlating the Guadalupian fauna. it is possible that this significance may yet 

be shown either by the present forms proving to be Bakewellias or by some of the 

European ones proving to belong to other genera. 

PTERIA GUADALUPENSIS n. sp. 

Pl. lX, figs. 20 and ?.Oa. 

• 

This species is based on a left valve whieh has the following characters: 

Shell small, very oblique. Anterior auricle small, defined by a shallow depression produeing an inflexion in the growth lines and a sinus in the anterior outline. 

The body of the shell is much prolonged and is strongly convex transversely. It 

is abruptly and deeply depressed on the upper side of the umbonal ridge to the level 

of the posterior wing, which is flattened, produced, mucronate, and with a deep 

emargination below., · 

The surface is marked by fine, strong, and somewhat irregu.lar concentric 

lamellre. · 

This species most nearly resembles Avicula tonga Geinitz,a from which it does 

not differ materially in outline. In this regard my specimen does not depart fara Car b. und Dyas in Nebraska, Dresden, 1866, pl. 2, fig. 15. 
MOLLUSCA. 427 

ther from Geinitz's figure of A. longa than does Meek's figure of the same species. a 

Geinitz, however, describes A. longa· as nearly smooth, while the Guadalupian form 

is marked by rather strong lamellre. 

Horizon and locality.-Top of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2966); 

middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926), Guadalupe Mountains, 

Texas. 

PTERIA SQUAMIFERA n. sp. 

Pl. XXXI, figs. 11 and lla. 

This species is founded on a left valve which has the following characters: 

Shell small, strongly oblique. Umbonal ridge elevated, subangular, making 

an angle of 30° with the hinge line. Posterior wing large, flattened. Posterior 

outline between the umbonal ridge and the mucronate cardinal extremity deeply 

concave. The termination of the umbonal ridge is sharply rounded, the anterior 

outline gently curved, and the anterior superior angle rounded. A small groove, 

sharply defined and angular on its posterior side, limits an otherwise inconspicuous 

auricle and makes. a. slight sinus in the anterior outline. 

The surface is marked by small convex scalelike projections which have a rather 

obvious concentric arrangement, being perhaps something in the nature of interrupted concentric laminre. An obscure radiating arrangement can also be seen. 

On the posterior wing after becoming transformed into lamellose lirre, with a direction parallel to the outline, they die out almost entirely. They are abruptly revived 

on the hinge line, however, ·which is strongly crenulated. The anterior auricle 

seems to be without ornamentation, except irregular wrinkles. 

The peculiar surface ornamentation of this species, in conjunction with the 

shape, render unnecessary comparisons with other American species. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Comanche Canyon, 

Glass Mountains, Texas (station 3763). 

PTERIA RICHARDSON! n. sp. 

Pl. XXIX, fig. 14. 

Shell small, strongly oblique. Posterior ear depressed, moderately wide, prolonged, pointed, defined in outline by a deep sinus. Umbonal slope subangular, 

slightly curved, addressed to the cardinal line at an angle of about 45°. Body of 

the shell narrow, strongly produced backward, limited in front by an angular rib 

nearly perpendicular to the hinge line, and abruptly raised on the anterior side by 

reason of a depressed area which it serves partially to define. The depressed area 

continues anteriorly for nearly half of a quadrant, when there is another abrupt 

elevation directed at about 45° to the hinge, the remaining portion of the anterior 

end being well rounded. 

Surface where well preserved marked by more or less irregular, elosely arranged, 

squamose concentric lirre. 

This form is related to Avicula sulcata Geinitz.b The shape is rather similar 

but is. less flattened below, while Geinitz's species has three costre in front instead 

of two. 

a Final Rept. U.S. Geol. Survey Nebraska, etc., 1872, Pl. IX, fig. 9. 

b Carb. und Dyas in Nebraska, Dresden, 1866, pl. 2, fig. 16. 

• 
428 TilE GUADALUPTAN FAUNA. 

The typical specimens were collected by Mr. Richardson in the limestones of the 

southern Delawares, but apparently the same species occurs in the Delaware Mountain formation of the Guadalupe section. 

The forms so identified occur associated with the large specimens which have 

been described as Pteria sp., and I am not sure but that some of them are young shells 

of that species. At first I took them to be representatives of the genus Bakewellia, 

and, indeed, the question for all the Guadalupian Pterias, whether they should be 

referred to Pteria or Bakewellia, is in some dubitation, but what little of their structure is known does not agree especially well with Bakewellia. 

These small Guadah:~-pian forms range in size to a length along the umbonal 

ridge of 5 mm. or less. They vary somewhat in different characters, and especially 

in the degree in which the anterior lobe is defined by an abruptly sunken area. 

There is a suggestion in this that more than one species is represented, though intergradation is present to some extent, but my material is difficult to deal with owing 

to its imperfect and fragmentary condition. Some examples resemble our wellknown Bakewellia parva. · 

I venture to record in this connection the observation of structures in Balcewellia parva which render it very doubtful if that species is really a repFesentative 

of King's genus.· Bakewellia is described by King as dimyarian, with a high area 

and plurality of cartilage pits, and several linear anterior and posterior teeth, like 

Oucullxa. The area is usually rather low in Balcewellia parva. In several instances 

I have ascertained the presence of a coinparatively large triangular cartilage pit in 

each' valve beneath the beak, but no trace of other similar structures has been seen 

along the cardinal line. The if]>ecimens most favorable for studying these characters were preserved as molds. In this condition on the right valve are to be found 

a long linear posterior ridge parallel to the hinge line, bounded by furrows, and a 

similar short one anterior to the umbones. These indicate on the shell itself a long 

posterior groove bounded by raised ridges, and a short anterior one of the same 

nature. Correspondingly, in the left valve there appear to have been a strong 

short linear anterior tooth and a long linear posterior tooth. The muscular equipment consists of a single large, strongly impressed scar similar in position to the 

anterior scar of Bakewellia. The pallial line traced backward from this bec;omes 

fainter until no longer seen, nor does it seem to lead to any posterior scar, the 

presence or position of which is unascert~tined. It seems probable, however, that· a 

faint posterior scar rea11y does exist, effecting a muscular arrangement analogous to 

that of Balcewellia. 

Zittel's text- book of paleontology, American edition, gives a defmition of 

Balcewellia which departs in many particulars from that of King. It is assigned to 

the Pernidm, and should therefore be monomyarian, with the anterior adductor 

absent in the adult, with three to four denticulations under the beak, and a serial 

multivincular ligament. It is evident that B. parva is altogether different from 

this .description. It is nearer the type of structure defined by King as Balcewellia, 

but I strongly distrust the propriety of leaving it. with that genus at all, because it 

is alivincular instead of multivincular and because the denticulation is somewhat 

different and more simple. If, as I suspect, in spite of the fact that only one muscle 
MOLLUSCA. 429 

scar has been observed, Bakewellia parva is dimyarian, it can hardly be placed with 

the Pteriidre, where it would be natural to refer it. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2931 ?). Delaware Mountain formation, southern 

Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 

PTERIA sp. 

Pl. XXIII, fig. 1. 

In the yellow sap.dstone of the Delaware Mountain formation a large aviculoid 

occurs, which Is, however, too imperfectly known to permit its satisfactory discrimination, though probably it is new. The general shape is that of Avicula longa 

Geinitz, though the size is much greater and the posterior wing larger and possibly 

less extended'(?). The surface ornamentation is not known. The present surface, 

which is that of a compressed mold, retaining in some degree both internal and exter-

~al markings, shows only fine concentric strire, which in some places give evidence 

of having been rather coarse, rounded, regular, and strong. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2931). 

Family MYALINIDlE Frech. 

Genus MYALINA De Koninck. 

This genus, the only Guadalupian representative of the Myalinidre, is poorly 

represented, both in species and individuals, in our fauna. Two or three specimens 

of a very small species closely related to M. squamosa of the European Permian, 

and two large fragmentary examples of the general type of M. permiana of the 

Pennsylvanian, are all that have been found. In considerable contrast stand the 

Pennsylvanian and "Permian" of the Mississippi Valley, where the genus is often 

plentiful and the individuals of robust dimensions. · 

MYALINA SQUAMOSA Sowerby?. 

Pl. :x;v1, fig. 22; Pl. XXIX, fig. 15. 

1829. Mytilus squamosus. Sowerby, Trans. Geol. Soc. London, 2d ser., vol. 3, p. 120. 

[Permian]: Ferry Bridge, England. 

1850. My til us squamosus. King, Mon. Perm. Foss. England, Pal. Soc., p. 159, pl. 14, figs. 1-7. 

Permian: Ferry Bridge, Hampole, Tunstall Hill, Dalton-le-Dale, Humblcton Quarry, and Silksworth, England. · 

1859. Myalina squamosa. Shumard, Trans. Aead. Sci. St. Louis, vol. 1, p. 396 (date of volume, 1860). 

·white [Permian] limestone: Guadalupe Mountains. · 

This form is found equally in Shumard's dark and in his light limestone, though 

it seems to be more abundant in the latter. We have six specimens from the Capitan 

limestone, but they are all very fragmentary, while the single specimen from the 

dark limestone is more complete, and has therefore been used for illustration. It 

more nearly resembles certain Mississippian species, so far as its characters are 

known, than the common "Coal Measures" forms. It might pass for a young 

example of 1.1. perattenuata, but seems especially near M. squamosa Sowerby as 
430 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

figured by King from the Permian of England. There seems to be no essential 

difference in shape, though the American species may have had a more nearly 

smooth surface, lacking perhaps the lamellose strire which give name to the English 

one. Of this, however, I can not be certain, lacking English material with which 

to make comparison and being in some doubt about the normal type and range of 

variation shown by the American form because of its imperfect preservation. 

From the wide difference in the associated faunas in each case it seems a little improbable that there should be actual specific identity in this instance. 

Two specimens from the southern Delawares have also been referred to this 

species. One of them has lost its surface characters, but the other, which is represented by fig. 15 of Pl. XXIX, is crossed by strongly projecting concentric lamellre 

arranged at regular but ever increasing intervals. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 

2926); "dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern· Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 

"MYALINA PERMIANA Swallow~ 

185$. Nytilus (ilfyalina) Permianus. Swallow, Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, vol. 1 (date of volume, 

1860) p. 187. 

Permian ( ?) : Kansas. 

1864. Jlyalina permiana. Meek and Hayden, Pal. upper Missouri, Smithsonian Cont. Know!. No. 172, 

p. 52, pl. 2; figs. 7a-7c. 

Permian: Smoky Hill Fork of Kansas River and Cottonwood Creek, Kansas. 

?1877. Myalina Permiana. Hall and Whitfield, Rept. U.S. Geol. Explor. 40th Par., vol. 4, p. 276, pl. 6, 

fig. 7. 

' "Permo-Carboniferous:" Foothills southeast of Salt Lake City, Wasatch Range, Utah. 

?1881. 11Iyalina perrniana. White, Rept. U.S. Geog. Surv. W. JOOth Mer., vol. 3, Suppl., Appendix, 

p. XXV, pl. 3, figs. 1a-1d. 

Carboniferous: Coyote Creek, New Mexico. 

1891. Jfyalina perrniana. White, Bull. U. S. Geol. Survey No. 77, p. 28, pl. 4, figs. 16-19. 

Permian: God,vin Creek and Military Crossing, Baylor County, Tex.; Camp Creek, Archer 

County, Tex. 

From the Delaware :Mountain formation two specimens of J.11yalina have come to 

hand; but they arc in a much crushed and imperfect condition. The larger and 

more complete specimen closely resembles the shell figured by White as M. permiana 

and represented by fig. 18 of Pl. IV of his report on the Texas Permian,a but my 

material is so poor that I can not vouch for the identification. White identifies 

.ill. aviculoides, M. perattenuata, and .ilf. permianain this report, but I am disposed to 

question whether there was really more than one species in his material; certainly, 

whether the division made by him is correct. White's fossils are nearer to Meek's 

interpretation of M. permiana than to either of the other species with which heidentifies them, but I am not altogether satisfied of the identity even in this case. My 

specimen, in having an extremely slight swelling of the outline under the beak, 

resembles White's examples of M. perattenuata more than Meek's, in which the shell 

recedes so that its outline seen from above overhangs the actual margin. 

Horizon and local·ity.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe .Mountains, Texas (station 2931). 

a Bull. U.S. Gcol. Survey No. ii, 1891. 
MOLLUSCA. 431 

Family TRIGONIIDiE Lamarck. 

Genus SCHIZODUS King. 

This genus, which is rather common at many localities in the upper Carboniferous of the l\Essissippi Valley, is represented in the Guadalur>ian by a single specimen, 

which is, moreover, of a strongly marked character, altogether different from the 

usual Pennsylvanian types. 

Scinzouus SECURUS Shumard? 

Pl. IX, fig. 24. 

1859. Axinus securus. Shumard, Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, voL l, p. 397 (date of volume, 1860). 

White [Permian] limestone, Guadalupe Mountains. 

Shell compressed, length and height nearly equal; anterior margin gently curved, and about onethird shorter than the basal margin, which is gently rounded; posterior extremity rather sharply angu-· 

lated; posterior slope obtusely subangular. Surface markings unknown. 

Resembles A. rotundatus, Brown; but the valves of our species are more flattened, the buccal margin 

longer and not so strongly arched, and the beak is situated nearer the anterior extremity. 

Local-ity.-White limestone, Guadalupe Mountains. 

The foregoing is Shumard's characterization of this species, and it must be confessed to be rather incomplete, in view of the fact that it was not supplemented by 

figures. In the more recent collections but a single specimen has come to hand 

which can be said with any probability to represent Axinus securus, and this is, 

unfortunately, imperfect, owing to which circumstance, in connection with the briefness of the description, it is impossible to verify the irlentification or to amplify the 

description. So far, however, as Shumard "does define the characters of his species, 

my specimen is in fairly complete agreement. The most marked feature of this 

form, whose general character can be seen from the illustration, is the sharpness of 

the umbonal ridge, the posterior face of which is actually concave toward the beak. 

This character is found to some extent in most members of the genus, but in none of 

our American species, so far as I am aware, to the same degree. .Shumard appears 

to refer to this feature as the posterior slope, which he defines as "obtusely subangular," an expression which hardly seems to do justice to the fact, if my specimen 

belongs to his species. 

This species would probably best be assigned to the weJl-known genus Schizodus. 

Horizon and locality.~Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). 

Family PECTINIDJE. 

The Pectinidre are unusually well differentiated in the Guadalupian, perhaps 

not so much so as in the Pennsylvanian as a whole, but more than in most Pennsylvanian faunas of equal extent. The family comprises the genera Oamptonectes?, 

A viculipecten, Acanthopecten, Euchondria, and Pernipecten, types all of which occur in 

the Pennsylvanian also, with the very important exception of Oamptonectes?. That 

singular and elegant type is an important element of individuality in the pelecypod 

fauna of the Guadalupian, whether comparisons are made with the Pennsylvanian or 

with known Carboniferous faunas of other parts of the world. The other genera 
432 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

whose presence in the Guadalupian is a matter of community with the Pennsylvanian are for the most part, doubtfully determined. Acanthopecten is known but 

as a fragment, Euchondria has not been proved in its generic characters, and 

Pernipecten has by no means a typical expression. In the case of Aviculipecten, in 

both faunas there occur a number of forms whose internal structures are unknown 

and whose generic position with Aviculipecten, ·as against Pecten, Deltopecten, and 

possibly other genera, is yet to be demonstrated. 

Genus CAMPTONECTES Agassiz? 

This title is used for a peculiar group of forms which occurs in abundance in 

the Capitan formation of the Guadalupian series. Among its distinguishing characteristics the most striking are its forward obliquity, the large anterior and small 

. posterior ear, the lack of definition of the posterior ear, and the surface ornamentation. The latter character proves to be very variable. It seems to consi~t pri-

·marily of nodes ot papillre which are arranged in curved diagonal lines outwardly 

. concave. These nodes, which distinguish the .surface of C.? papillatus, appear to 

have been connected with tubules traversing the shell at a strongly acute angle with 

the surface, and probably were continued outward into spines, which lay nearly 

fiat along the shell in a radial direction. 

With this character is probably connected an observation made on a shell 

related to those under consideration. In this instance the test was S'een to be 

minutely and abundantly punctate, somewhat as in Terebratula or Eumetria. This is 

the only'example in which punctation was observed, and it is on a much finer scale 

than the tubules in C.? papillatus,· but as will later appear, this group shows wide 

variations in the scale of its ornamentation. Toward the circumference the rows 

of nodes tend to pass into continuous lirre, a circumstance which connects this species 

with C.? sculptilis. There the lirre tend to diverge pinnately from ·a median line, 

curving outward as they go. In C.? asperatus the two types of surface are more or 

.Jess combined, but on a greatly reduced scale and with some modifications. Minute 

tubulous papillm cover the surface, but over the peripheral portions tend to form 

continuous lirre, which, however, are not in two sets w.ith a pinnate arrangement, 

but in multiple groups and with a zigzag direction. It is probably with an ornamentation of this type that the punctate shell above referred to is niost easily to 

be compared. Another factor which may be of importance is that on internal molds 

of the right valve the anterior ear shows obscure traces of radiating ribs, which are 

not seen on the exterior. · 

These shells in some respects can be appropriately compared with McCoy's 

genus Streblopteria. The forward prolongation of the shell is a rather striking character of both, and still further agreement can be traced in the fact that the anterior 

ear is defined and the posterior undefined. On the other hand, the type species of 

Streblopteria is smooth, while these Guadalupian shells have the peculiar ornamentation above described. Furthermore, typical Streblopteria has a large posterior 

and a small anterior ear. This is one of the diagnostic characters mentioned by 

McCoy. Unfortunately, in the case of Streblopteria., as well as in Camptonectes?, no 

comparison can be made in the matter of internal characters. 
MOLLUSCA. 433 

Oamptonectes seems to agree with the Guadalupian forms in having a large, 

well-defined anterior ear and small, undefined posterior ear. In some species, at least, 

it has the same forward prolongation. The characteristic external feature of Oamptonectes consists, however, in the mdiating line which diverge along a median line. 

This peculiar style of sculpture is repeated in 0,? sculptilis, but the singular surface 

features of the other Guadaiupian forms which are manifestly closely related to 

0.? sculptilis are unknown in Oamptonectes proper. The punctate structure, which 

can hardly prove an erroneous observation, is altogether an anomalous character. 

Of the two genera considered, the Guadalupian forms appear to present points of 

closer similarity witlf Oamptonectes. If the observations recorded here are established by further research, it seems certain, however, that they belong to a genus 

yet undefined. 

These anteriorly projecting pectinoids have much in common with certain of 

the Pteriidre, which will have to be brought into closer comparison when revision is 

made. One marked difference found in the Guadalupian shells is that they are 

rather conspicuously equivalve, while the Pteriidre have one valve characteristically 

smaller than the other. 

CAMPTONECTES? PAPILLATUS n. sp. 

Pl. IX, figs. 3 and 3a. 

The type specimen of this species is a left valve, and from it the following 

description is taken: 

Shell small, rather oblique, and inclined forward. Convexity low and broad, 

hinge line short. Posterior ear probably small and undefined, anterior ear large and 

defined both by a notch in the outline and by being sharply depressed below the 

curvature of the body of the shell. The axis is curved, concave toward the anterior 

side. The surface is ~arked with papillre, which increase in size proportionally to 

the dimensions of the shell. Over the upper half they are small, and the surface 

appears to be almost smooth. They have a sort of quincunx arrangement such that 

they tend to form two sets of curved lines intersecting at an acute angie. These 

lines are concave toward the anterior and posterior sides of the shelL Their curvature is greatest near the margins, especially near the lateral margins. In this region 

also the linear arrangement is more strongly marked, and tends to develop into connected ribs. The papiiire appear to have been the bases of small spines pointing 

radially and almost tangential to the surface. 

In addition to the type specimen, four other examples have come to hand, all 

left valves. They are small and more or less imperfect both as to shape and surface 

ornamentation, and it can not be told with certainty whether they belong here or 

with 0.? sculptilis. The right valve is unknown, though probably among a number 

of right valves whose surface has been destroyed by exfoliation representatives of 

this species are found. It is probable that the right valve is the counterpart of the 

other in surface and configuration. 

Horizon and locality.-.Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926); 

Deiaware .Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. 

3695-No. 58-08--28 
434 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

0AMPTONECTES 1 SCULPTILIS n. sp. 

Pl. IX, figs. 4 to 5a. 

This species is manifestly related to Camptonectes? papillatus, and differs from it 

chiefly in having more strongly developed surface ornamentation: This is characteristically shown by the imperfect right valve serving as the original of fig. 4, and 

consists of two sets of curved line apparently developed pinnately along the median 

line. The lirre are not unlike the rows of pustules which form the surface ornamentation of C.? papillatus, and it will be recalled that in the latter they tend to develop 

into 'lirre near the margins of the shell. There can be no doubt, however, that the 

surface in the two typical examples under consideration is widely different, though it 

seems likely that intermediates occur.· Several other specimens from the same 

horizon appear to have a surface marked like the imperfect example already mentioned, rather than like C.? papillatus, and they probably belong to the same species. 

Besides differing in surface ornamentation from C.? papillatus, they are more elongate 

and have the anterior ear somewhat differently shaped. These are, however, young 

examples, with somewhat obscured surface characters, and it is not certain that they 

represent the same species as the large and strikingly: sculptured but imperfect 

specimen. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). 

0AMPTONECTES? ASPERATUS n. sp. 

Pl. IX, figs. 1 to 2. 

This species much resembles Camptonectes? papillatus, the chief difference being 

in the surface ornamentation. The shape appears to be almost identically the same, 

but as the typical examples are right valves there is a deep notch under the anterior 

ear. The surface is of the same character ~sin C.? papillatus, but on a very much 

finer scale. Apparently two types of surface· are f9und to occur on the same shell, 

one consisting of intersecting rows of papillre and the other of intersecting lirre. I am 

inclined to believe that the two kinds of surface are more or less alternating. The 

scale is so small in the pase of this species that it is difficult to tell whether the lines 

are continuous or interrupted; and it seems probable that preservation might alter 

the appearance to some degree. The lines have a more or less zigzag appearance on 

a portion of the surface. 

All of these specimens are right valves, and as they occur in the same beds with 

C.? papillatus, which is represented by left valves, the presumptive evidence is certainly considerable that they belong together. On the other hand, the surface ornamentation though of the same general. character as in C.? papillatus is yet so different 

in effect that the greater probability seems to favor regarding them as distinct. 

Furthermore, in C.?' sculptilis both valves seem to have the same and not different 

ornamentation, though this fact, which would be important if proved, can not be 

insisted on, because some uncertainty exists as to whether all the shells referred to 

sculptilis really are of the same species. 
MOLLUSCA. 435 

The fossils representing these species indicate that the two valves are practically 

equal, and that they have similar if not the same surface ornamentation. They 

contrast with Avicnlipecten, where, as is well known, the right valve is distinctly 

flatter than the left and is frequently almost without ornamentation. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). 

Genus AVICULIPECTEN McCoy. 

This gen.us is well represented in the Guadalupian fauna, nine varieties having 

been discriminated. In no instance have the generic characters been observed, so 

that I am unable to say definitely that any one species actually belongs to A vicnli- · 

pecten and not to Pecten, to Deltopecten, or to some other. The reference to Avicnlipecten has therefore been made solely on general resemblances and probabilities. 

Waagen and so"me other authors have attempted to distinguish between the 

Carboniferous Pecten and A1ncnlipecten by the relative size of the ears, whether the 

anterior ear was larger than the posterior, or the reverse; but the decision in regard 

to this point naturally hinges on the matter of orientation, in determining which I 

have noted much difference of procedure among different authors, or even in different 

decisions of the same author. I have tried to base my own determinations on the 

rule that the byssal notch is under the anterior ear of the right valve. Where the 

byssal notch is well developed this rule has worked well, but sometimes, owing to 

imperfections in the specimens or to the ambiguous character of the notch itself, there 

has been much uncertainty. It seems to be true that in most of the Carboniferous 

pectinoids the right or lower valve, in addition· to having the byssal sinus, is also 

distinguished from the upper one by its less convexity and different sculpture, 

being as a rule nearly smooth or but imperfectly marked. Consequently, when I 

found a shell with strongly· developed sculpture and the usual convexity I have called 

it a left valve, especially if there was no byssal notch or only an ambiguous sinus 

under the anterior ear. 

The sculpture, however, seems not to hold as a distinguishing character for some 

of the Guadalupian Pectinacea. The shells placed under Oamptonectes?, while having 

a deep byssal notch in the lower valve, are apparently equivalve, both in convexity 

and sculpture, and the Limas have both equal convexity and sculpture and are without the byssal sinus. 

From the foregoing remarks it will be apparent that the generic position of none 

of the Aviculipectens can be regarded as definitely determined, and therefore with 

this qualification I have omitted the query which should perhaps be placed after the 

generic title with all of them. These references to the genus, however, are probably 

as credibly based as is usual among Carboniferous pectinoids, where it is impossible, 

save in exceptional cases, to get at the hinge characters. 

If I were to assemble these Guadalupian A viculipectims into groups it would 

almost be necessary to assign each to a separate position. It would hardly be appropriate to refer A. laqneatns and A. snblaqneatns to the same group in the present state 

of our knowledge regarding them. The relations which A. gnadalnpensis, Avicnli-
436 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. I 

pecten sp. a, Aviculipecten sp. b, Aviculipecten sp. b var., and Aviculipecten sp. c 

bear to one another can not be precisely determined, since in the first two the shape 

but not the detailed sculpture is known and in the last three the detailed sculpture 

but not the shape. Provisionally, therefore, A. guadalupensis and Aviculipecten 

sp. a may be placed in one group and Aviculipecten sp. b, Aviculipecten sp. b var., 

and Aviculipecten sp. c in another. A. delawarensis and A. irifelix would also have 

to be regarded as representing separate groups. 

A VICULIPECTEN GUADALUPENSIS n. sp. 

Pl. XVI, figs. 20 and 20a. · 

Of this species but two specimens have come to hand, the smaller and more 

perfect of which is selected as the type. Its characters of surface configuration 

and size are shown by the figures. The other example is considerably larger, and 

its length must have been not less than 32 mm. Both specime;s are alike in having 

a large (anterior) ear without abyssal sinus. The other ear is more or less imperfect 

in both cases, but probably is as represented in the figure-narrow and without any 

trace of a sinus. This fact, together with the strong convexity, highly raised sculpture, and sharp demarcation of the ear which is preserved, indicate that the valve 

is a left one, in spite of the circumstance that this identification places the prolongation on the anterior instead of the posterior side. Oriented in this way Aviculipecten 

guadalupensis has the foilowing characters: 

Shell ·elongate. Hinge line long, but less than the width below. Convexity 

strong. Posterior car probably' consisting of a narrow lateral band, undefined by 

a sinus in the outline. Anterior ear marked off by an angular groove rapidly 

increasing in depth to-\vard the margin. The cardinal line is of course on a level with 

the rest of the surface, so that this ear is inclined at a strong angle to the general 

plane of the shell. The anterior side is larger and more projecting than the posterior. The surface is marked by moderately coarse, sharply defined ribs, separated 

by interspaces of about the same size. They increase by implantation, and where 

new ones exist an 3Jternating arrangement is apparent. There are about 20 in all. . 

They diminish in size and strength toward the sides, but two or "three large and 

strong ones occur on the anterior ear. The finer surface ornamentation is not 

known. 

I rely on the ap.terior prolongation found in this form and· the curious oblique 

position of the anterior ear to distinguisl;l it {rom other species. 

Horizon and locality.-"Dark limestone," Pine Spring, Guadalupe Mountains, 

Texas (station 2930). · 

AvwuLIPECTEN sp. a. 

Pl. XVI, fig. 21. 

Only the right ( 1) valve is known of this species, and it shows the following 

characters: 

The size is rather small, the convexity moderate, the shape elongate, slightly 

oblique, and projecting forward. The posterior ear is depressed, rather strongly 

defined on the surface, probably without a distinct sinus in the outline. The anterior ear is la'rger than the posterior, well defined on the surface and in the outline. 
MOLLUSCA. 437 

The surface is crossed by moderately _fine ribs, which bifurcate and occur in 

pairs. The interspaces, which have about the same width as the ribs, are not 

strongly depressed. The finer. ornamentation is unknown. 

The orientation of this shell is a matter of uncertainty. I have described it as 

a right valve, because what would be the anterior ear, though not very perfectly 

preserved, appears to be defined below by a rather deep sinus, not, however, as profound as is often the case. On the other hand, the strength of the sculpture, the 

convexity, and the inclination of the axis all suggest that it is a left valve. If it is a 

right one, however, it differs sharplyfrom most Aviculipectens, since with them the 

axis inclines backward and the right valve is almost flat and almost smooth. 

This shell was found associated with Aviculipecten guadalupensis, and if really 

a right valve may prove to be the complement of the type of that species. The 

configuration rather lends itself to that interpretation, but the character of the 

sculpture is more or less unfavorable. . 

Horizon and locality.-" Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930); basal 

black limestone, Guadalupe Point (station 2967 ~), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. 

A VICULIPECTEN DELA W ARENS IS n. sp. 

Pl. XXIII, figs. 2 and 2 a. 

The configuration of this specimen, which is without any well-marked byssal 

sinus, indicates that it is a left valve. On this supposition the following description 

is based: 

The shell is small and the curvature well rounded. The hinge line is long, but 

not so long as the greatest width. The posterior ear is undefined, the surface being 

merely flattened, without being crossed by a-limiting groove. The anterior ear is 

strongly depressed and sharply defined by a groove. The outline gently contracts 

on this side from the extremity of the hinge to the line of depression which marks 

the ear, below which it widens strongly again. A rather marked anterior expansion 

is thus produced. 

The surface is crossed by large, low, ill-defined and widely spaced ribs, and by 

faint, more or less irregular concentric lin{' resembling strong growth lines. There 

is some evidence indicating that toward the ~a~s these are strengthened. at nearly 

equal intervals into low ridges. 

This shell is similar to Aviculipecten? laqueatus, but the hinge line is relatively , 

shorter, the posterior ear is differently shaped, and the sculpture lacks the concentric 

ridges which cancellate the surface of that species. It is possible that it may prove 

to belong to a different genus. It has much the configuration of typical Streblopteria, but I hesitate to refer it to that genus because of its plicated surface, though 

it is true that McCoy includes radially ribbed species with Streblopteria l:evigata. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2931). 

AvwuLIPECTEN sp. b. 

Pl. XXXI, fig. 8. 

This species is discriminated on the basis of a fragment-which shows the surface 

ornamentation almost perfectly, but from which the original shape can only be 
438 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

surmised. It was probably rather elongate and narrow beneath the auricles. The 

surface is well exhibited by the illustration and need not be described in detail, 

The ribs are relatively coarse and strongly elevated, nearly equal, but slightly alternating. .About seven occur in 10 rom. On their crests are prominent vertical scalelike projections, six in 5 rom. The spaces between the ribs are deeply depressed, 

and have the same width. They are marked by rather regular, somewhat imbricating concentric lamellose lirre, which are much smaller than the scales surmounting 

the ribs, and entirely independent of them. A few small intermediate ribs of the 

same general character occur at the side of the larger ones. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Comanche Canyon, Glass 

Mountains, Texas (station 3763). 

AVICULIPECTEN sp. b var. 

Pl. XXXI, fig. 9. 

This species is evidently related to Aviculipecten sp. b and was found associated 

with it. The fragment representing it indicates a smaller and more highly arched 

species. The ribs, and especially the concentric rows of scales which occur upon . 

them, are finer. There are more abundant indications of fine intermedia.te ribs, and 

therefore the intercostal spaces are filled by radiating lines of little scales obscuring 

the concentric lirre, which probably mark them, as in the other variety, and form 

the bases from which the scales are developed. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Comanche Canyon, Glass 

Mountains, Texas (station 3763). 

AVICULIPECTEN sp. C. 

Pl. XXXI, fig. 10. 

The ornamentation of this species is a development of the same character as in 

the two preceding ones, but somewhat removed from them. The ribs are in groups 

of three for the most part, the middle one much raised, with a smaller one on each side. 

The concentric rows of scales which surmount the ribs are smaller and less prominent, and the concentric lirre on the interspaces appear to consist of much smaller 

scales, which form fine radiating rows. The general ,character of the surface is 

shown by the figure. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Comanche Canyon, Glass 

Mountains, Texas (station 3763). 

A VICULIPECTEN INFELIX n. sp. 

Pl. IX, figs. 9 to 10. 

Of this type only five specimens are known. They all have essentially the same 

shape, so far as their preservation, which is for the most part poor, permits a comparison, and appear to represent the same valve, which I take to be. the right one. 

On this supposition the following description can be given. ' 

Shell small, length greater than breadth, erect or slightly inclined backward, 

cardinal line rather short. Ears nearly equal, quadrate, or somewhat extended. 
MOLLUSCA. 439 

They. are defined by reentrant angles on the outline and by grooves on the surface. 

The groove dcfming the anterior ear is more marked than that of the posterior. 

While without the deep byssal notch and specialized configuration of the anterior ear 

which is found in some species, the one ear is considerably more sharply defined than 

the other, and on this account I have regarded it as being the anterior ear of the 

right valve. The convexity is low. The inferior margin is broadly rounded. 

Except for indistinct concentric markings, the suiface is plain, without radiating ribs on any portion. 

The generic and specific relations of these shells are alike uncertain. Their 

erect shape, smooth surface, and nearly equal ears are unlike the typical characters 

of either Pecten or Aviculipecten. Either car is too small and well defined to be the 

·larger car of' Streblopteria. Possibly their closest allies are to be found in Pseud~ 

amusium and Syncyclonema. They are readily distinguished from the forms described 

under Camptonectes? by their outline, low convexity, and smooth surface. They 

more strongly resemble·Pernipecten? obliquus, from which at first I did not successfully distinguish them. By reason of their somewhat different configuration and 

because they always· lack the upturned superior lateral margins, which are so distinctive of Pernipecten and are more or less well shown in P.? obliquus, they appear 

to differ from the latter species. 

H.orizon and locality.-Middlc of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). ' 

A VICULIPECTEN LAQUEATUS n. sp. 

Pl. IX, fig. 11. 

Only one specimen of this species has come to :hand, which appears to be a left 

valve. Its characters are as follows: 

The size is about medium, the convexity moderately high. The hinge line is 

long, as wide or a little wider than the width below. The ears are large, the anterior somewhat larger than the posterior, more strongly defined, and differently 

shaped. ThP- outline 1s retracted below the ears, but widens again, especially on 

the anterior side, which. appears to be somewhat projecting. 

The surface is marked by regular, strong, concentric and radiating ridges, somewhat widely spaced, the concentric ones being more distant than the radiating. 

The effect of this ornamentation is to diviqe the surface into depressed panel-like 

areas, of which the length, especially toward the margins, is considerably in excess of 

the width. There are also sublamellose conc'entric lirre closely but somewhat irregularly arranged. 

From the character of the ears this can hardly be a right valve. As a left 

valve it differs from typical Aviculipecten in having the anterior ear larger than the 

posterior, in having an anterior prolongation of the body of the shell, and in the 

character of its surface ornamentation. The anterior ear is unusually depressed 

and sharply defined, the limiting groove being so strongly reentrant that the body 

of the shell overhangs the oral angle. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). 
440 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

AVICULIPECTEN SUBLAQUEATUS n. sp. 

Pl. IX, fig. 12. 

The shape and general expression of this species are very like those of 

Aviculipecten laqueatus, but the size, as indicated by our fragmentary specimen, 

is much greater and there are important differences in the sculpture. 

. Only the left valve is known. The hinge line is long, the ears large and 

depressed, the anterior smaller than the posterior, and defined by both a deeper 

and a more abrupt descent from the arched portion of the shell. There is but a 

gentle sinus under the posterior car. 

The surface is marked by moderately strong ribs, spaced at nearly equal but 

wide intervals from one another. In the figured specimen there are but six of 

these, and they probably remained constant in number throughout the entire 

growth. Intermediate between the large ribs are other much finer ones. . These 

increase in number with the size of the shell. There are also concentric lines somewhat more closely arranged than the larger ribs, so that the surface is divided into 

transverse panels. On th~ figured specimen, which is an internal mold, these 

concentric markings are distinct strire, which have the upper side slightly more 

elevated than the lower. On the external cast they are seen to be produced not 

so much by lamellre as by steplike differences in elevation of the shell surface, 

which are produced into squamose spines where they cross the ribs. The latter 

at such points tend to become nodose. 

A large fragment referred to this species indicates a length of not less than 

50 mm. It is conspicuously crossed by three rapidly diverging ribs, which at the 

margins are 15 mm. apart. They are coarse and marked at intervals of about 7 

:..nm. by strong nodes. Between two of the large ribs there are from 10 to 20 more 

or less wavy radiating lirre of very much smaller size. In smaller specimens the 

radiating lirre are only five or six in number, and probably when very small they 

are reduced to a single one and are indistinguishable from the real costre. 

The nearest Guadalupian species to the present form is unquestionably A. 

laqueatus, which is distinguished by h'aving more numerous ribs and concentric 

instead of radiating lirre. The concentric lirre are so distinct that it seems impossible that radiating ones, had they ever been present, could have been destroyed. 

. A. sublaqueatus resembles A. mccoyi somewhat closely, but is distinguished by 

its broader posterior' ear and finer, more numerous and equal intermediate ribs. In 

these particulars it resembles Acanthopecten carboniferus, but of course is readily 

distinguished by its less numerous costre. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 

2926 ~); base of Capitan formation, hill southwest of Guadalupe Point (station 

2906), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. Delaware Mountain formation, Comanche 

Canyon, Glass Mountains, Texas (station 3763). 

Genus ACANTHOPECTEN Girty. 

AcANTHOPECTEN aff. A. CARBONIFERUS Stevens. 

In the yellow sandstone of the Delaware Mountain formation (station 2931) 

was found a specimen representing part of a mold of the exterior of a shell probably 
MOLLUSCA. 441 

belonging to a type closely allied to Acanthopecten carboniferus Stevens. The species 

was apparently considerably larger than A. carboniferus, with larger an·d more 

numerous ribs, of which about two came in the space of 5 mm. in the fragment 

preserved. The spinous concentric lamellre, however, were more closely arranged, 

being from 2 to 2z mm. apart. No further details are shown by the imperfect 

example. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain . formation, Guadalupe Point, 

Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2931). 

Genus EUCHONDRIA Meek. 

EucHONDRIA? sp. 

Pl. IX, figs. 8 and Sa. 

Only one specimen of this form has thus far been found, and its general character is shown by the illustrations. It is uncertain whether it is a right or a left 

valve, as one of the ears is imperfect. The general appearance is that of right 

valves of Camptonectes? papillatus and C.? asperatus; and because the imperfec-. 

tion above alluded to may have destroyed the character which distinguishes right 

valves of those species, there is no way of telling that it is not·one of them. The 

present specimen is nearly or quite an internal mold, so that the surface can not be 

used as a criterion. If it is a right valve, the posterior ear is distinctly larger and 

better defined in proportion to its size than that of typical examples of the species 

mentioned, though as the specimen is a very small and probably a young one, 

these departures from the typical character may really be due to immaturity. 

On the other hand, if the valve proves to be a left one, as its axial inclination might 

suggest, it is probably a Euchondria and related to the little shell which Waagen 

described as E. subpusilla. 

In view of this uncertainty about very fundamental points I do not feel justified in giving this form a name, though if it is really congeneric with E. subpusilla 

there is little doubt that it represents a new species. . 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). 

Genus PERNIPECTEN Winchell. 

PERNIPECTEN? OBLIQUUS n. sp. 

Pl. IX, figs. 13 to 14a. 

Shell small, elongate, nearly flat. Hinge line shorter than the width below. 

In the left (?) valve the two ears are nearly equal, small, and moderately well 

defined both in outline and by grooves on the surface. The shell expands considerably below them, and is gently inclined backward ( ?). The superior portion 

is more or less turned upward at the sides along two converging lines. 

The surface is rather regularly marked by delicate concentric striro. 

Only one valve seems to be represented in our collections, and the foregoing 

description is applicable to about half a dozen specimens from the Capitan limestone, but all of them are, unfortunately, imperfect. The smooth surface, the low 
442 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

convexity, and the upturned margins of these shells seem to ally them with Entolium 

and Pernipecten}· but the obliquity of the axis and the small extension of the ears, 

if, indeed, the shape is that which seems to be indicated by my imperfect material, 

are unusual among those forms. · 

The low convexity of these shells would distinguish them from any of the other 

pectinoids of this horizon except" Aviculipecten infelix, even if the sculpture and 

conformation did not offer additional characters for di~?crimination. 

A single imperfect example from the Delaware Mountain formation has been 

provisionally referred to the same species. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 

2926); Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931), Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas. Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, 

Texas (station 2935). 

Family LIMIDJE Fischer. 

This family is represented by two rather distinct types of shells. They are 

alike in having a high convexity, in being equivalve both in curvature and in sculp-

. ture, and in having a byssal sinus in neither valve. They differ in the fact that one 

is perfectly smooth and the other is adorned with radial sculpture, though the 

lateral portions are smooth. Both can be referred to the genus Lima, the former 

to the group which has been called Plagiostoma, the latter to Limatulina. Strictly 

speaking, Plagiostoma and Limatulina must be considered subgene·ra of Lima, but 

I have, for the sake of brevity, cited them independently, as if of full generic rank, 

a course which certainly would not have been adopted had the present work more 

of a systematic and less of a stratigraphic or faunal purpose. 

To Limatulina will also have to be assigned our characteristic Coal Measures 

species Limatulina retifera. Plagiostoma is not yet known in the Pennsylvanian, 

but seems to be a frequently recurring factor in the German Dyas and the English 

Permian. 

Genus PLAGIOSTOMA Sowerby. 

PLAGIOSTOMA DELTOIDEUM n. sp. 

Pl. IX, figs. 15 to 16a. 

The two valves of this species are so alike that a description of one of them 

applies equally well to another, the necessary allowance being inade for the reversal 

of the parts. · 

The general appearance of these shells is that of a Nucula, but the presence of. 

two inconspicuous ears shows that the generic relations are widely different. The 

ears are not defined in any way, being merely a flattening and extension of the 

otherwise arched shell. The posterior ear especially is extremely small and ill 

defined. The anterior and posterior outlines are nearly straight, the latter being 

much longer than the former. The lower margin is broadly curved, and the axis 

is rather strongly inclined to the cardinal line. The surface is nearly smooth, 

being marked only by very obscure concentric strire. 

Two right and three left valves from the Capitan formation represent this 

species, while a single left valve from the black limestone at the base of the section 
MOLLUSCA. 443 

has been provisionally referred to it. The latter specimen has a length of 10 mm., 

and is considerably larger than anything yet obtained from the Capitan. Its characters are imperfectly known, but it agrees with P. deltoideum in many points, the 

only differences detected being apparently unimportant. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 

2926); basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (station 2920?), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. 

Genus LIMATULINA Wood. 

LIMATULINA STRIATICOSTATA n. sp. 

Pl. IX, figs, 17 to 19. 

Although my material is both scanty and fragmentary, I have ventured to 

describe this species and give it a new name, because it is so interesting and pretty. 

Shell small, rather strongly oblique, narrow, Hinge line short. Anterior side 

nearly straight, posterior side probably very inuch rounded. 

The surface is marked with moderately strong, more or less angular plications, 

having broad, flattened spaces between them. Four or five plications occur within 

the linear distance of 2 mm., and the entire shell probably contained not far from 

25. The whole is crossed by delicate, rigid, superficiaJ, radiating lirre, and concentric markings, more or less obscure, which partake of the nature of growth lines. 

Both anterior and posterior sides are smooth, lacking plications and also, probably, 

superficial lirre. · 

Both valves appear to have the same characters of configuration, though of 

course in some cases reversed by being symmetrical. 

This species resembles L. retifera in having a band on both sides devoid of 

plications. On this account, and also because there is little evidence that the valves 

gap behind, these species seem more closely allied to Limatulina than to Lima sensu 

stricto. At the same time I have not seen any traces of the area which distinguishes 

both of these genera. In fact, in some examples this structure seems to be wanting. 

L. striaticostata is distinguished from L. retifera and many other members of 

·the genus by the fine radial striation surmounting the ribs. The small specimen 

represented by fig. 19 shows these strire very well preserved, but they are somewhat finer than in the other examples, a fact which, joined with this other-that the 

plications a:lso are somewhat different-may indicate a varietal or even a specific 

difference. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mou11tains, Texas (station 2926). 

Family MODIOLOPSIDJE Fischer. 

Genus MYOCONCHA Sowerby. 

Thi.s genus is represented by two species, only one of which is at all well known, 

and even of it our knowledge is only partial. Their reference to Myoconcha, therefore, is not made ·with any degree of confidence. Indeed, owing to the lack of 

definite knowledge on several features of importance I seem to see resemblances to 
444 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

two very distinct groups of pelecypods. The supposed relationship to the Modiolopsidre is expressed in the generic reference above, but I am not sure that the 

affinities of these forms are really not with the Pleurophoridre. They are more 

rapidly expanding than most species of Pleurophorus, which as a rule have the 

upper and lower margins more or less parallel, and their costre are developed on 

the anterior instead of on the posterior half of the shell; but in so,me respects, both 

external and interna~, they are very suggestive of Pleurophorus. 

MYOCONCHA COSTULATA n. sp. 

Pl. IX, figs. 21 to 2lb. 

In the Capitan limestone two specimens belonging to this species have been 

fomid. They seem to be alike in all characters observed, and the left valve, which 

is in better preservation, is taken as the type. 

Shell small, subovatc, strongly convex, very oblique, and inequilateral. Hinge 

line long, straight, shorter than the height, which is in turn shorter than the greatest 

diameter; that is, along the diagonal. Anterior and posterior sides nearly rectilinear, 

parallel, and 'directed to the hinge line at an angle of about 130°. Posterior-inferior 

outline broadly rounded. Umbo nearly terminal, but with a small anterior lobe. 

The surface is crossed by a few coarse, obscure, radiating plications, which .. are 

largely confined to the anterior third of the shell. As the specimen is an internal 

mold, this feature was probably more distinct on the outside. Two angular lines of 

flexure radiating from the umbo divide the shell into three more or less equal parts. 

In the anterior one, two small and. two large ribs occur, while the large, sharply 

defined muscle scar probably indicates a small anterior lobe. The middle division 

has a few almost inv;isible costre, while the upper is without this feature altogether. 

In the mold there is a flattened, depressed band along the hinge line sharply separated 

from the rest of the shell. This band narrows gradually toward the umbo, and in a 

large specimen to be mentioned later it c~ntains the impression of a long posterior 

tooth havrng a groove above it. I have seen no evidence of a cardinal tooth, a 

structure which real examples of the genus ought to possess. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe· 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). 

MYOCONCHA COSTULATA var. DELAWARENSIS n. var. 

Pl. XXIII, fig. 3. 

In the Delaware Mountain formation several specimens have been found which 

are evidently related generically to Myoconcha costulata, and they also rese~ble it 

in some specific characters. Two specimens especially deserve consideration, a 

third being too imperfect for further notice. Their shape would not distinguish 

them satisfactorily from M. costulatn, but all three have a distinctly lower convexity 

and lack the radiating ribs of that species. In the larger specimen especially it 

would be expected that the ribs would be indicated had they ever been present, for 

the preservation is not so much that of an internal mold as in the one from the 
MOLLUSCA. 445 

white limestone, and even clearly shows traces of irregular concentric strire, though 

nothing in the nature of ribs can be detected. It is probable that other characters 

will appear when better examples are studied, and that even the shape of the 

variety delawarensis will be found to be distinguishable; but at present the ·low 

convexity and lack of ribs are relied on to discriminate this variety from M: costulata. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2931). 

Family PLEUROPHORIDJE Dall. 

Genus ASTARTELLA Hall. 

AsTARTELLA NASUTA n. sp. 

Pl. XXIII, figs. 6 to 7a; Pl. XXXI, figs. 12 and 12a. 

Shell rather small. Shape, exclusive of the anterior projection, nearly square, 

the upper and lower margins being approximately parallel, the posterior almost 

perpendicular to them, and all three nearly equal in length. The lower part of the 

anterior end is strongly projecting. 

The surface is lllarked by strong, closely arranged, rather regular lamellre. The 

internal characters are as. in Astartella vera. 

The typical specimen is a left valve from the Glass Mountains, but we have also 

two left valves from the Delaware Mountain formation of the Guadalupe section, 

which appear to belong to the same species. The shape is similar, and the surface, 

though preserved as an internal mold, is crossed by concentric corrugations, indicating 

the presence on the outside of projecting lamellre. The surface ornamentation of 

this species is not unlike that of A. concentriccL Conrad,a though for its size rather 

coarser and more crowded. It is distinguished from most species of Astartella, however, by its narrow shape, more nearly parallel superior and inferior margins, and its 

projecting or nasute anterior extremity. It more nearly resembles in shape A. 

gurleyi, from which it differs in being larger, more nasute, and in having the lamellrn 

of the surface much coarser and more projecting. 

a Five species of Astartella arc listed in Weller's catalogue, to which must he added a sixtb.-Nuculites concentricus Conrad 

(Jour. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., 1st scr., vol. 8, 1842, p. 248). '!'his was correctly referred to Astartella by Meek as long 

ago as 1875 (Paleontology of Ohio, vol. 2, p. 341), but Conrad's publication being rare it seems to have been but little cited. 

Several of the six species are clearly valid, but others are more doubtful. '!'here can be but little doubt in regard to Astartella 

varica and A. gurleyi. Recently (Prof. Paper U.S. Geol. Survey No. 16, 1903, p. 45) I suggested that the latter species 

might he a Microdon. An examination of characteristic examples from Danville has convinced me that that suggestion 

was without foundation in the case of the typical form, wnatcver may be said with reference to the one from Colorado in · 

connection with which the ol.)servation was made. A. concentrica Conrad, A. concentrica McChesney, A. neu;berryi Meek, 

and A. vera Hall are more in doubt. A. concentrica McChesney seems to be distinct from the other species, partly because 

of its shape, but more especially because of the surface ornamentation which McChesney describes. As the name was preoccupied by Conrad, Astartella mcchesneyi is proposed to replace it. Meek regarded A. neu;berryi as distinguished from 

A. concentrica Conrad by certain points in its configuration; but I believe that the two species will prove to be in fact the 

same. A. concentrica, A. neu;berryi, and A. vera resemble one another closely in shape, but probably a valid distinction 

can be based on the character of surface ornamentation. Hall's description applies equally well to the two other species 

m.entioncd, but it at once differs from his figures and from the observation of Meek, who compares A. neu;berryi with A. vera. 

In a varied collection examined by me a few shells agree with Hall's figure and differ from the majority of material in having 

the lirro more irregular and not so prominent, the points in which Meek states A. vera to differ from A. neu;berryi. It seems 

to me therefore that A. vera can be accepted as valid, on account of its surface characters. A. concentrica and A. neu;berryi 

will probably prove to be the same; and to tho former, which has priority by many years, the rest, and by far the major 

portion, of our collection would belong. It is not impossible, ho\yever, that A. concentrica, A. mcchesneyir A. neu;berrrti, 

and A. vera will be resolved into one or into varieties of one species. 
446 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

This species appears to be closely related to Astarte permocarbonica Tschernyschew of the. Russian Permian.a 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2931). Delaware Mountain format!on, Comanche 

CaRyon, Glass Mountains, Texas (station 3763). 

Genus CYPRICARDINIA Hall. 

CYPRICARDINIA ~,CONTRACT A n. sp. 

Pl. IX, figs. 23 and 23a. 

Shell small, highly inflated, subcuneate. Hinge line straight, about as long as 

the posterior margin, which is gently curved and merges at either end With the upper 

and lower borders. Beak near the anterior extremity, but with a very marked 

lobelike projection anterior to it. 

Surface marked by regular, heavy, concentric, imbricating lamellre, eacli of 

which bears indications of an independent set of coarse radiating ribs. 

Of the interior of the shell but little is known. There was a relatively broad, 

flattened, more or less lamellar area along the hinge line, and a large deep muscle 

scar on the anterior lobe. . 

The general appearance of this· shell somewhat suggests Cypricardinia, though 

the shape is more cuneate than in typical forms. The surface ornamentation, consisting of heavy overlapping lamellre, with radial markings, is also very like Cypricardinia, but it is not probable that these markings are cancellate, as is frequently 

the case in that genus, nor do the internal characters agree very well with Cypricardinia, though they are too imperfectly known to be trusted. On the whole it 

seems rather unlikely that this shell will be found to be a true Cypricardinia, but it 

is impossible with the material at hand to ascertain its generic position. In its 

specific relations it is evidently quite distinct from C. carbonaria, the only Pennsylvanian member of the genus known at this time. 

The type specimen of this species is a right valve from the white limestone of 

the Capitan formation, but two other specimens probably representing the same 

speCies-also right valves-have been found in the Delaware Mountain formation. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). 

Genus PLEUROPHORUS King. 

PLEUROPHORUS DELA W ARENSIS n. sp. 

Pl. XXIII, fig. 4. 

Shell large, very transverse. Upper and lower margins contracting toward the 

anterior end. Post'erior superior angle about 130?. Posterior outline nearly straight 

above, broadly rounding to the lower margin. The latter is nearly straight, with 

perhaps a gentle sinus forward of the middle. Umbo moderately elevated. Anterior end below the beak projecting. Convexity (which may have been diminished 

by compression) low. 

a Verhandl. Russ. k. min. Gesell. zu St. Petersburg, 2d ser., vol. 20, 1885, p. 276, pl. 15, fig. 10. 
MOLLUSCA. 447 

Surface without radial angulations, marked by fine concentric strire. 

The left valve on which this description is based is preserved as a partial interrial mold, retaining some of the external as well as the internal characters. Since 

some of the concentric strire are shown it is unlikely that radial ribs or angulations; 

had they ever been present, would have failed of preservation. 

This species resembles both Pleurophorus oblongus and P. subcostatus. It is, 

however, much larger than either, and differently shaped, having also different surface characters from the species last mentioned. · 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2931). 

PLEUROPHORUS sp. 

At station 2964, in the southern Delawares, what is probably a species of Pleurophorus appears to be fairly abundant. My specimens are very imperfect, however. 

The form appears to resemble P. calhouni Meek and Hayden, but the specific as 

well as the generic relations are as yet almost conjectural. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2964). ' 

Genus CLEIDOPHORUS Hall. 

There seems to be much diversity of opinion regarding the affinities of this 

genus.· Perhaps the majority of writers have regarded it as related to Pleurophorus, 

and this was, I believe, the opinion of Hall himself. Dall, in the American Zittel, 

places it among the Ledidre. Whatever may be the position of typical Cleidophqrus, 

I am not without excellent precedent for referring to tliat genus the type of shell 

which is here placed there, and that, there can be no question, is not one of the 

Ledidre. 

CLEIDOPHORUS PALLAS! var. DELAWARENSIS n. var. 

Pl. XXIII, figs. 5 and 5a. 

This form is represented by a small specimen from the Delaware Mountain formation preserved as an internal mold. The general shape is subtriangular. The 

cardinal line is slightly convex. The inferior outline is gently concave, or perhaps 

sigmoidal, and directed to the cardinal outline at an angle of about 45°. The posterior outline is also gently curved, very oblique, joining the inferior outline in a 

strong curve, and gradually merging into the cardinal outline. The anterior extremity is abruptly rounded, modified by the almost terminal beak and the small anterior -

lobe. The convexity is considerable, the umbonal ridge being near the lower border 

and the slope above much less abrupt than that below. 

The surface appears to have been marked by concentric strire, but ribs were 

probably absent, for they do not appear on the internal mold, as.they probably would 

had they been present, since the shell appears to have been thin and delicate. 

The character of the dentition is only partially known. The shell appears to 

have been thickened along the hinge line a:ttd to have borne a longitudinal groove, 

probably for a ligament. Posteriorly, parallel to this, and just below it, was a deep, 

narrow socket for a linear posterior tooth borne upon the left valve. 
448 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

This form appears to be related to Oleidophorus pallasi De Verneuil from the 

Russian Permian, but is distinguished by slight differences in shape, which in 

view of its geographical and faunal occurrence seem to me to demand at least a 

varietal discrimination. The resemblance appears especially with De Verneuil's 

figures, other authors, such as Netschajew and Golowkinsky, having referred forms 

to that species in which the resemblance is less apparent. Some of Geinitz's 

figures of 0. pallasi represent a shell with radiating ribs. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point, 

Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2931.) 

INOERTJE SEDIS. 

Genus PROTRETE n. gen. 

After much hesitation it has s.eemed necessary .to introduce for the Guadalupian type here described a new generic name, for to have retained it under either 

of the several genera with which I thought at different times to assemble it would 

have been confessedly a makeshift. 

The shape is more or less .modiliform, very transverse, slightly higher in front 

than behind, but with subparallel upper and lower margins. The beaks are nearly 

terminal. The two valves are equal and closed all round. Just under the beaks, 

however, there is a tubular perforation excavated in the substance of both valves. 

The dentition is not known with certainty, but there appear to be neither cardinal 

nor anterior teeth. In the left valve the long. hinge line is thickened and longitudinally indented by a median groove. ·This may be the position of a resilium. At 

the £arne time there is an,obscure estucheon on the outside of the cardinal line, as 

if for an external ligament. 

I had some thought that the tube which opens beneath the beaks in this form 

might be a depressed lunule, such as I have observed in Pleurophorella, but it 

seems to be a real opening into the interior of the shell. Even if it were a depression metely I would feel indisposed to refer this form to Pleurophorella, because of 

the absence of the characteristic sculpture of radial ribs and of papillm. · 

Superficially this type resembles some of the Paleozoic shells which it has been 

customary to place with Lithodomus, but the anterior opeil.ing distinguishes it from 

that genus as well as from all others suggested by its shape. There is but little 

likelihood, however, that it belongs ·with Lithodomus, which is now regarded 

as a synonym of Lithophagus. 

PuoTRETE TEXANA n.sp. 

Pl. XXIX, figs. 12to 13. 

Shell small, very transverse. Height of the typical specimen a little less than 

4 mm., width a little more than 8 mrn. Upper and lower margins subrectilinear, 

subparallel. The upper one is slightly convex and the lower slightly concave, and 

they converge gently toward the front. Anterior end abruptly rounded, posterior 

end very obliquely truncated, the outl~~e above merging gradually into that of the 

cardinal line, below abruptly rounding into· coincidence with that of the inferior 
MOLLUSCA. 449 

margin. Umbones small, incurved, nearly terminal. Convexity greatest in front, 

flattening behind. Umbonal ridge poorly defii1ed. 

Surface marked by a few strong imbricating lamellre. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain. formation, southern Delaware 

Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 

SCAPHOPODA. 

This group, while beginning early in geologic time, is rare among most Paleozoic faunas and possesses little significance, not only on this account, but because 

the minute characters of the smaller end, on which chiefly the classification is 

based, can be observed in few specimens from that period. 

In the Guadalupian fauna only one species of this group has come to hand. 

Its horizon is restricted to the Delaware Mountain formation, where it is moderately abundant. No sculpture is shown by the Guadalupian specimens, and it is 

not a certainty -that they belong to Wb.ite's species. There is, furthermore, some 

doubt as to whether Dentalium canna, as based on the typical specimens, is a 

Lcevidentalium or a Plagioglypta. It is almost certainly not a Dentalium in the 

strict sense. 

Scaphopods appear only very sporadically in the faunas with which I have 

compared that from the Guadalupe Mountains. In the Salt Range W aagen found 

one species of Entalis and fragments of two species of Antale?. The Entalis might 

well belong to the same genus as the Guadalupian form, except for the fact that it 

is slightly curved. It is distinguished by its gigantic size. Enderle found the 

same species at Balia Maaden. Stuckenberg cites Dentalium sp. from the Gschelian, but does not figure it. From the Artinsk he cites Dentalium speyeri, apparently a Lcevidentalium or a Plagioglypta not closely related to the Guadalupian 

form. Krotow cites from the Artinsk, without. figures, Dentalium priscum and D. 

vancosum. Netschajew cites D. speyeri and Entalis cf. prisca from the Russian 

Permian. Both species seem to resemble Plagioglypta canna in a general way, 

and Entalis cf. prisca may prove to be a Plagioglypta. Gortani cites this species 

(Entalis prisca) from the Carnic Alps. His figure is rather poor, but appears t.J 

represent a species related to P. canna. In the Dyas Geinitz found Dentalium 

sorbii and D. speyeri .. The latter, which alone is figured, seems to be a smooth 

form like P. canna, but small and curved. King described from the English 

Permian Dentalium sorbii, apparently another form belonging to Plagioglypta 

or Lcevidentalium. 

In the Pennsylvanian a similar type of shell seems to be found in Plagioglypta 

meekana, but it is somewhat uncertain whether if the Guadalupian form were 

better known the relationship would be . unquestioned. I have identified the 

' GuadaJupian species with P. canna, a type which is abundant in the Aubrey sandstone of Arizona and New Mexico, but the identification is a rather doubtful one. 

The Guadalupian specimens are poorly preserved and some of the characters 

of P. canna are not recognizable on them. The associated faunas are so different, 

furthermore, as to make me offer the identification with reserve. 

3695-N o. 58-08--29 
450 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

Family DENTALIIDJE Gray. 

Genus PLAGIOGLYPTA Pilsbry. 

PLAGIOLGYPTA CANNA White~ 

Pl. XXIII, figs. 11 to 13. 

This species ii' fairly common in the Delaware Mountain formation, but thus far 

has not been obtained from any other horizon. The figures afford an idea of the 

. characters shown by our specimens. It is a 'gradually tapering shell, nearly if not 

quite straight, and complete examples must have been of considerable size; The 

largest diameter shown is 9 mm. The surface was nearly smooth. None of the 

external molds show markings, and 'in this point they differ from the typical specimens, though the delicate sculpture found on the latter may easily have failed of 

. being retained by the sandy matrix in which the Guadalupian specimens are held. 

Otherwise the Guadalupian form has every character of the types. 

White restores this species as very distinctly curved, but the type specimens 

are seemingly straight, while the Guadalupian specimens, if they are correctly 

assigned to the species, indicate that the curve, if present at all, was imperceptible. 

White also both figures and describes the shell as superficially marked by obscure 

longitu~inallines. These markings, if present on the types, are at least so obscure 

that I can not sec them. The slightly oblique encircling lines are plain, but I can 

detect no longitudinal markings which it would be safe to interpret as sculpture. 

On this account it would be well to remove this species from the genus Dentalium. 

In 1903 I referred it somewhat doubtfully to Plagioglypta, and in retaining the 

same usage in this place I retain also the same doubts. It may be a Lmvidentalium. 

· Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2931). 

AMPHINEURA 

Family GRYPHOCHITONIDJE Pilsbry. 

Genus CYMATOCHITON Dall. 

The Amphineura are usually rather rare in the Paleo.zoic, and consequently do 

not serve an important function in characterizing or correlating horizons. They · 

seem to be abundant in the late Carboniferous of Europe, however, and with the 

latter the Guadalupian form serves as some sort of a link. 

Stuckenberg and Krotow cite Chitonellus antiq_uus Howse from the Artinsk, but 

I have not seen the group recorded from the Russian Permian. In the Dyas of Germany, however, it appears to be represented. Geinitz cites four species of Chiton 

and three species of Chito1wllus. The latter are entirely unrepresented in the known' 

Guadalupian fauna, and the Chi tons are not closely related to Cymatochiton? texanus. 

The English Permian has furnished Chiton loj~usianus, a form which is probably 

not congeneric with that from the Delaware Mountains. The latter, I may add, is 

doubtfully referred to Cymatochiton. The large size of the suturallaminre, in addition 

to other peculiarities, makes its reference to that, or, in fact, to any of the· genera 
MOLLUSCA. 451 

known in the Carboniferous, somewhat questionable. With only a single plate, 

however, the determination of its generic relations can not be successfully accomplished. 

In the Pennsylvanian fauna no Chitons have as yet been discovered. 

iliMATOCHITON ~ TEXANUS n. sp. 

Pl. XXIX, figs. 21 and 2la. 

Of this type, which seems to be so common, relatively speaking, in the Permian 

of Europe, the Guadalupian collections have furnished but a single specimen. The 

shape is transversely pentagonal, the sides being short and nearly parallel. The 

·two upper margins are slightly sigmoidal in outline and meet in an angle of about 90°. 

The lower margin also consists of two lines, nearly rectilinear, but slightly sigmoidal, 

and meeting in a gentle projection. Longitudinally the curvature of the plate is very 

slight, transversely it is rather strongly convex, the convexity, however, being in the 

na.ture of a dihedral angle whose sides are nearly fiat. The suturallaminre are very 

long. The surface appears to have been smooth. 

The group of forms to which this species belongs is not at present known from · 

the American Pennsylvanian, but is fairly abundant in the European Permian. 

From the species of the latter fauna which I have seen the present form differs in 

being less transverse and in having much longer suturallaminre. 

Horizon and.locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 

GASTEROPODA. 

While far less abundant than the brachiopods, gasteropods show an unusual 

diversity and play an unusually important role in the Guadalupian fauna. Forty· 

two varieties have thus far been distinguished, and as each new collection contains 

specimens which, thougbi usually few in number, belong for the most part to undescribed species the measure of variations presented by this group has not yet been 

taken. The Pennsylvanian fauna in the aggregate also contains a large number of 

gasteropod species, but in individual collections they are certainly no more abundant 

than in the Guadalupian and tend much more to repeat a few common types. 

The known Gasteropoda of the Guadalupian have been assigned to 15 genera, 

but by far the larger portion belong to the Pleurotomariidre. According to the 

generic determinations made below, some of which are recognized as being doubtful, 

this group, embracing the genera Murchisonia, Ruconospira, and Pleurotomaria 

itself (under which title are probably included representatives of several subgenera, 

although the information obtained regarding many of the forms is not such as to 

favor further subdivision) comprises 24 out ?f the 42 species. The Bellerophons, 

with three species belonging to the genera Bellerophon and Bucanopsis, and Warthia 

are unusually poorly represented. The remaining forms have been referred, one or 

two to each, to the following genera: Patella, Naticopsis, Macrocheilina, Bulimorpha, 

Pseudomelania, Trochus?, Turbo?, Loxonema, and Euomphalus. 

The material examined· naturally presents many degrees of preservation and 

affords a knowledge of the essential characters of species in varying measure. It 
~52 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

has seemed to me desirable to make; so far as practicable, an adequate presentation 

of this division of the fauna, and so far as the data were at hand accounts more or 

less complete have been given of about 40 species, as previously remarked. At the 

same time a few varieties have been passed over. A considerable percentage of the 

species described have been left unidentified and unnamed, the data at hand in my 

judgment indicating differences from described spE)cies without conveying facts 

adequate for the establishment of new ones. Even in some cases where new names 

have been proposed, the specific characters have not been shown as clearly or as 

completely as I could wish. 

In the Salt Range fauna Waagen recognized 34 gasteropod species, representing 

16 genera, but in great contrast to the Guadalupian fauna nearly two-thirds of these, 

or 23 species, belong to the Bellerophontidre. 

In general the Salt Range and Guadalupian faunas have very little in common, 

most of the genera even being different. The two Salt Range species of Euomphalus are not very closely related to the two Guadalupian ones. The genus Holopella seems to be absent from the Guadalupian fauna. Waagen's Macrocheilus is the 

same as mY Macrocheilina, and the single Indian species in its essential characters 

is not so very different from those of my fauna, though this genus at best does not 

show any very great differentiation. The genus Naticopsis finds one Guadalupian 

representative, which, specifically at all events, is distinct from either of the Salt 

Range species, but is somewhat related to N. khurensis. It is rather more suggestive 

of the single species which Waagen described under Platystoma. Neritomopsis, of 

which W aagen recognized two species, is not known in the Guadalupian, and the 

same is. true of the genera Phasianella and Margarita. The four Pleurotomarias 

of the Salt Range fauna are related to certain of the numerous varieties from the 

Guadalupe Mountains, which present, however, many that are different. The 

single Salt Range species of Murchisonia also resembles in a very general way the 

two imperfectly known Guadalupian ones. 

Waagen found nine species of Bellerophon in the Salt Range fauna, as against 

one in the Guadalupian. All are naturally of the same general type, some of the 

Salt Range species resembling the Guadalupian B. crassus more particularly and 

others less. Four species of Bucania are found in the Salt Range, comprising in part 

at least the same group for which I have employed the name Bucanopsis. B. kattaensis,B. integra, and B. angustifasciata appear to be of the same general type as the 

Guadalupian species. The fourth, B. ornatissima, has no Guadalupian equivalent. 

The peculiar Salt Range genera Mogulia and Stachella, together with Euphemus, a 

common type in our Pennsylvanian, are not known in the fauna of the Guadalupian 

Mountains, but the Salt Range genus Warthia has been identified there. On the 

other hand, the Guadalupian fauna contains representatives of Patella, Bulimorpha, 

Pseudomelania, Turbo?, Trochus?, and Loxonema, besides several types of Pleurotomaria not known in the Salt Range. Thus the comment with which this hasty 

comp~rison of the two faunas set out seems to be justified, for they do not appear to 

show a close relationship in point of the gasteropod class. The most noteworthy 

differences are the much greater development of the Pleurotomarias in the Guadalupian. and the much greater development of the Bellerophons in the Salt Range 

fauna. · 
.. 

MOLLUSCA. 453 

Gasteropods seem to be rare in the Himalaya, for Diener's reports contain 

scarcely any mention of them. I find ari unidentified species of Naticopsis noted in 

his second paper on the Chitichun fauna No. 1, and a few species are cited from 

Malia Sangcha, the Lissar Valley, and Byans, as follows: From Malia Sangeha he 

records Naticopsis khurensis, Bellerophon sp. ind. aff. polito Waagen, and Pleurotomaria (Mourlonia) hunica. The two former seem to have no closely related 

~pecies in the Guadalupian, but with the third Pleurotomaria euglyphea of the Delaware Mountain fauna may be compared. From the Lissar Valley Diener obtained a 

species of Pleurotomaria allied to P. punjabica, an undetermined species of Naticopsis, and an undetermined species of Bellerophon. The Naticopsis and Pleurotomaria seem to have related species in the Guadalupian, but this is less true in the 

case of the Bellerophon. From Byans only an undetermined species of Pleurotomaria is cited. 

Among the fossils which Romanowsky described from Turkestan are a few 

Carboniferous gasteropods representing the genera Bellerophon, Porcellia, Euomphalus, and Pleurotomaria. For the most part these have themselves but little to do 

with any known Guadalupian species and are associated with different and apparel)tly older faunas. In the case of Euomphalus pentangulatus there is at least some 

resemblance shown to the species which I have described as E. sulcifervar. angulatus . . 

· In the Chinese fauna from Lo Ping the gasteropods appear to be surprisingly 

scarce. Kayser cites but a single species (Macrocheilus cf. angulifer White), with 

the possible exception of another identified as Nautilus or Warthia. The former 

probably has no allied Guadalupian form, but the latter may prove, when generically 

determined, to be correlated with the Guadalupian Warthia. 

Loczy cites from the vicinity of Kantschoufu six gasteropods as Bellerophon? 

(Bucania) incertus, Bellerophon (Tropidocyclus) sp. indet., Bellerophon (Euphemus) 

cf. urei, Straparollus cf. placidus, Loxonema szechenyii, and Macrochilina kreitneri. 

Tropidocyclus sp~ indet., Bellerophon cf. urei, and Straparollus cf. placidus appear to 

have no related species in the Guadalupian, but the three others at least show some 

superficial resemblance to the Guadalupian species of Bucanopsis, Loxonema, and 

Macrocheilina. From the Lantsankiang Valley this author cites an undetermined 

species of Pleurotomaria whose relation to Guadalupian types of the genus can 

not be determined. 

Contrasting with the rarity of this group in the Chinese faunas is its representation in that from Padang as described by Fliegel. This author found no less than 

25 species, which he refers to the genera Patella (1 species), Bellerophon (5 species), 

Euomphalus (2 species), Pleurotomaria ( 6 species), Murchisonia (1 species), Trochus 

(1 species), Naticopsis (5 species), Macrocheilus (3 species), and Loxonema (1 species). 

Patella anthracophila is probably only remotely related to the Guadalupian species of 

Patella, if at all. The same is true·to a certain extent of the Bellerophons as well, 

though the species are either not figured or else are represented by molds. B. subcostatus is somewhat clearly unrelated, or remotely related, to anything in the Guadalupian. The two species of Euomphalus have also little to do with the two found in 

the Guadalupian. The Pleurotomarias figured by Fliegel represent rather large types 

and do not show any noteworthy relationship to those of the American fauna. The 

single species of Murchisonia from Padang is too imperfectly known to furnish the 
454 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

basis for an opinion. If it resembles any of the Guadalupian shells, it is more like 

some of those which I have referred to Pleurotomaria than those placed under 

Murchisonia. The form identified as Trochus? antliracophilus has no related form in 

. the Guadalupian fauna, unless possibly among some of the species placed with 

Euconospira. Naticopsis subovata, and to a less extent N. sumatrensis, may be compared with the Guadalupian Naticopsis sp., but N. trautscholdi has no allied forms 

in our fauna. The other species of Naticopsis are not figured. N. elegantula, at least,. 

seems, likeN. trautscholdi, to be non-Guadalupian. Two of the species of Macrocheilus 

resemble the Gwidalupian Macrocheilinas, but the third, Macrocheilus (Polyphemopsis) 

nitidulum Meek and Worthen, is, so far as known, non-Guadalupian. The single 

species of Loxonema also seems to have only a general relationship with the Guadalupian shells referred to Loxonema. The gasteropods of the Padang fauna are not . 

presented in such a way as to make comparisons either easy or satisfactory, but 

they do not appear to show any essential relationship with those of the Guadalupe 

Mountains. 

The same fauna had been previously described by Roemer, who identified 11 

species of gasteropods, which he assigned to the genera l!.'uomphalus, Pleurotomaria, 

Trochus, Macrocheilus, Murchisonia, Naticopsis, Patella, and Bellerophon. Euomphalus sumatrensis is only remotely related to either of the two Guadalupian species 

of the genus. Pleurotomaria orientalis is probably not closely allied to any of the 

Guadalupian Pleurotomarias. Trochus? anthracophilus reminds one also of a Euconospira, and if it should prove to belong to the Pleurotomariidre may be compared 

to Euconospira obsoleta. Of the two species of Macrocheilus only one is figured. This 

is the form which Fliegel subsequently identified as Macrocheilus (Polyphemopsis) 

nitidulum M. and W .. It resembles the Guadalupian species cited as Bulimorpha 

chrysalis var. delawarensis in some measure; but it is probably not a Bulimorpha, and 

is distinct from the Guadalupian Macrocheilinas. The single species of Murchisonia 

recorded by Roemer is likewise not figured. The two Sumatran species of Naticopsis 

are represented in the Guadalupian, but not closely, by Naticopsis sp. It appears 

to be nearer to Naticopsis brevispira. Roemer's Patella? anthracophila I can not but 

suspect is not a Patella but a brachiopod, a Crania, or possibly a discinoid. At all 

events it is quite unlike the Guadalupian Patella capitanensis. Bellerophon asiaticus 

is too imperfectly known· to enter into a comparison of the Guadalupian with the 

Sumatran gasteropods, which whether viewed. through the pages of Roemer's report 

or those of Fliegel's appear to have no essential relationship with the American fauna. 

The only species of gasteropod mentioned by Rothpletz in his paper on the fauna 

of Timor and Rotti is compared by him to Straparollus permianus, a type which seems 

to have no related form in the ·Guadalupian fauna. 

A considerable number of gasteropods enter into De Koninck's account of the 

Carboniferous faunas of New South Wales, only a moiety of them being from the 

upper(" Permo-Carboniferous") beds. The others it will not be necessary to consider. 

Platyceras altum and P. tenellum are found in the lower beds and possibly in the 

upper. Nothing resembling them has been discovered in the Guadalupe Mountains. 

A number of species are placed with Pleurotomaria and Murchisonia. As might 

be expected, a general resemblance exists between this group and the Guadalupian 
MOLLUSCA. 455 

Pleurotomarias, but nothing either sufficiently close as a whole or sufficiently marked 

in any particular to establish a relationship between the two faunas or any presumption of such. Euomphalus oculus and E. catillus are entirely unlike the Guadalupian 

species of Euomphalus. I find no trace of essential relationship between the two 

faunas in point of their gasteropod content. 

Sixteel). species of Gasteropoda are discriminated by Etheridge in the "PermoCarboniferous" faunas of Queensland and New Guinea, referred to the following 

genera: 

Species. Species. 

Naticopsis ............................ _ _ _ _ _ __ 3 Yvania ...................... ___ .... __ . _ -.- _ 1 

Loxoncma ......................... _________ 1 Luciella?...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

Euomphalus ...... , ................ --------- 1 Murchisonia ......... : ......... · .......... ~. _ _ 1 

Platyschisma ............ ___ . _ .. _. ___ . ___ . _. _ 2 Bellerophon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

Ple)lrotomaria ......................... __ . __ . 1 Bucania ........... ·............ .. . .. . . .. .... 1 

l\fourlonia ............................ ____ . _. 2 Porcellia................................... 1 

Etheridge's three species of Naticopsis are not figured (except a fragment of one 

of them), and in the Guadalupian also we have only imperfect specimens. Loxonema 

sp. appears to be related, though not closely, to the Guadalupian Loxonema swallowianum. Of Euomphalus the Queensland representation appears to have been very 

meager and, so far as I can make out, different from the Guadalupian species. Probably nothing as yet known in the Guadalupian can be compared with the two Australian species of Platyschisma, unless it be the imperfectly known form referred to 

Naticopsis. In configuration at least, Pleurotomaria carinata, as identified by Etheridge, resembles Pleurotomaria discoidea of the Guadalupian; but. there is nothing in 

the Guadalupian which I would wi~h to compare with Etheridge's two species of 

Mourlonia. His figure of Mourlonia? coniformis is very bad, but represents perhaps 

a Euconospira. The poorly preserved Yvania konincki more or less resembles several 

Guadalupian types .(perhaps Pleurotomaria richardsoni as much as any), but nothing 

very closely. ~uciella? grayi is too imperfect and too poorly figured for the present 

comparisons. Murchisonia carinata probably is not closely allied to any Guadalupian 

form. Bellerophon stanvellensis, a type which recurs in so many faunas, is represented in the Guadalupian by Bellerophon crassus?. Bucania textilis is probably 

allied to the undetermined Guadalupian Bucanopsis; but to Porcellia pearsi I know 

of no corresponding Guadalupian· form. On the whole I see but little real relationship between the Gasteropoda of the Guadalupian fauna and those described by 

Etheridge. 

The gasteropods of the Moskovian are divided by Trautschold among the genera 

Cerithium, Pleurotomaria, Murchisonia, Euomphalus, Macrocheilus, Chemnitzia, 

Nerita, Natica, Capulus, and Bellerophon. As would naturally be expected, this 

fauna does not resemble that of the Guadalupian to any marked degree. The 

Moskovian species called Cerithium ignoratum by Trautschold is only remotely 

related to our Loxonema swallowianum. The identification. of the two Pleurotomarias is queried, and neither species is figured.- The only Murchisonia is likewise not 

:figured. Of the two species of Euomphalus, one identified as E. tabulatus Phillips may 

be coq1pared with one of the Guadalupian types. The single species of Macrocheilus 
456 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

is not similar to the corresponding Guadalupian Macrocheilinas. Nerita ampliata, 

which is not figured, and Natica omaliarw, probably have no Guadalup.ian representatives, unless in Naticopsis. The genu~;; Oapulus (or Platyceras) is ·not known in the 

Guadalupian, and the three Moskovian species seem to be without answering types. 

Only one of the four species of Bellerophon is figured, but that form, identified as 

B. costatus, is not closely related to the Guadalupian representatives of the genus. 

B. urei, another Moskovian species, belongs to a type which appears to be entirely 

lacking in our fauna. 

Regarding the gasteropods of the Gschelstufe I have succeeded in procuring but 

a relatively small amount of data of a sort that could be used in the comparisons 

undertaken here. Stuckenberg cites 7 species of Pleurotomaria, 1 of Murchisonia, 1 of 

Bellerophon, 4 of Straparollus, 1 of Euomphalus, 1 of Oapulus, 2 of Naticops·is, 1 of 

Loxonema, and 1 of Macrocheilus. While there are a number of pleurotomarioid types 

. in the Guadalupian which are not represented among Stuckenberg's seven species, 

there are few of the Ia tter which have not in the Guadalupian one or two species more 

or less closely related. The single representative of Murchisonia in Stuckenberg's 

fauna is less like the Guadahipian shells referred to that genus than certain of the 

Guadalupian Pleurotomarias, especially a poorly preserved form not mentioned 

specifically.· Bellerophon hiulcus is not figured. Straparollus seems to be absent 

from the Guadalupian fauna. The single Gschelian Euomphalus is neither identified 

nor figured. Oapulus is unknown in the Guadalupian, but Naticopsis sp. is more or 

less similar to one at least of the Gschelian forms and even shows a certain measure 

of resemblance to Stuckenberg's species·of Straparollus and Oapulus. The single 

Gschelian species of Loxonema is not at all like L:swallowianum, but the undetermined 

Macrocheilus from the Gschel very closely resembles Macrocheilirw, sp. a of the 

present report. 

Nikitin's account of a Gschelian fauna comprises but a single gasteropodEuomphalus canaliculatus-which is not closely related to either of the Guadalupian 

species. A few other generietypes are recorded in lists, and one of1hese (Omphalotrochus) is important, since it seems to be sufficiently characteristic of one of the 

zones of the Gschelian to give a name to it. Omphalotrochus is not known in the 

Guadalupian fauna, but types, if not congeneric at least closely related, form a 

striking feature of one of the faunal zones of the underlying Hueco formation. 

In his account of the Artinskian fauna Stuckenberg cites 28 species of gasteropods, belonging to the genera Patella, Pleurotomaria, Murchisonia, Bellerophon, 

Straparollus, Oapulus, Natica, Naticopsis, Loxonema, Macrocheilus, Turbo, and 

Vermetus. Stuckenberg's Patella artiensis rather suggests to me a OraniaJ· at all events 

it is not related to the Guadalupian Patella. The three which are figured of the five 

Pleurotomarias present no marked departure from Guadalupian types. The single 

species of Murchisonia, the five species of Bellerophon, and the single species of Straparollus are not figured. The only Guadalupian representative of the Gschelian 

Natica and Naticopf!is appears to be Naticopsis sp., which is more similar in a general way to Natica cf. minima than to any of the others. Only two of the four species 

of Loxonema are figured, and they present no close relationship with L. swallowianum. 

Indeed, I am somewhat doubtful of the correctness of the assignment to this genus of 

Loxonema conicum. The figures rather suggest a Pseudomelania not unlike the 
MOLLUSCA. 457 

Guadalupian species, or a Polyphemopsis. The single Artinskian species of Macrocheilus is rather closely related to Macrocheilina. sp. a of the present work. The shell 

referred to Turbo obtusus Brown is not figured. Vermetus tschernyschewi represents 

a type at present unknown in the Guadalupian. 

From the Kungurstufe, Stuckenberg cites 3 species of Pleurotomaria, 2 of Murchisonia, 2 of Bellerophon, 3 of Straparollus, 1 of Euomphalus, 1 of Natica, and 1 of 

Loxonema. The Pleurotomarias would scarcely appear alien if they were found in 

the Guadalupian fauna. Neither of the Murchisonias is figured, and the single cut 

representing one of the two species of Bellerophon tells very little. Straparollus is not 

known in the Guadalupian, and the three species cited by Stuckenberg are unfigured. 

Euomphalus sp. has little to do with the Guadalupian representatives of the genus, 

so far as one can determine from the inferior illustrations; and, finally, Loxonema 

phillipsi is not figured. 

Krotow described a rather extensive gasteropod fauna from the sandstones of 

the Artinsk, but.unfortunately his text is in Russian and his citations for the most 

part unaccompanied by figures. His list embraces the following species: 

Species. 

Natica.................... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 

Capulus................................... 5 

Loxonema. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 9 

Subulites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

Macrocheilus............................... 3 

Species. 

Straparollus.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 

Bellerophon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 

Porcellia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

Pleurotomaria.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 

Murchisonia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 

Actooonina ................................ . 1 Patella................................... 2 

Turbo .................................... . 2 

Of the six species of Natica three are figured, but none of them exhibits any but a 

very slight relationship with Naticopsis sp., which must be regarded as the corresponding Guadalupian genus. The species of Oapulus are all unfigured, bu"t as the genus has 

not been recognized in our fauna, they are probably to be reckoned among the nonGuadalupian forms. Only two of the Loxonemas are figured. One of them is 

related to L. swallowianum, though remotely. The other, of an altogether different 

type, is marked with spiral line and would probably more correctly be placed with 

Orthonema or some other· genus than with Loxonema. We probably have nothing in 

the Guadalupian to compare with it. 

_Subulites sp. is not figured, nor is either of the two species of Macrocheilus. Act;.eonina sp. nov., however, is not very dissimilar to my ~!acrocheilina ~P- a in general 

appearance. Both species of Turbo are without figures, but it may at least be said 

that the genus probably occurs in both faunas. All the species of Straparollus are 

unfigured, with the exception of S. variabilis. This form seems to be congeneric 

with the Guadalupian species of Euomphalus, but to be very different in its specific 

relations. The Bellerophons are unfigured, with the exception of three species. 

B. chaldinensis may be compared with Bucanopsis sp., and Bellerophon sph!f3roidalis 

and B. compressus certainly suggest Warthia americana, though no real relationship may exist. Some of the unfigured Bellerophons are non-Guadalupian, such as 

B. urei and others. Porcellia artiensis also has no corresponding form. The only 

figured species of Pleurotomaria are P. orientalis and P. dimorpha. Both in a general 

may resemble some of the Guadalupian Pleurotomarias. Of the two species of 
458 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

Murchisonia one is figured. It resembles neither the Murchisonias nor the Pleurotomarias of the Guadalupian. Only one of the two species of Patella is figured, 

and I suspect that it may possibly be a Crania. It has, at all events, nothing to do 

with Patella capitanensis. 

In his account of the Permian fauna of the government of Kostroma Tschernyschew includes notices.of only five gasteropods, most of which appear to have been in 

an imperfect condition. · Chemnitzia volgensis and Straparollus permianus represent 

types which are apparently absent from the Guadalupian fauna. Some of the 

Guadalupian species referred to Pleurotomaria suggest Tschernyschew's Turbo? 

burtasorum in a general way, much more than does the Guadalupian form. referred 

to the same genus. Bellerophon der;ussatus is probably nmi.-Guadalupian, but Murchisonia subangulata is not unlike some of the Guadalupian Pleurotomarias, especially an unrecorded species, though possibly it is not related to the forms which I 

have here placed with Murchisonia. 

Netschajcw, however, found an abundant gasteropod fauna in eastern Russia, 

comprising no less than 44 species. Lepetopsis golowkinskyi appears to resemble 

the shell here described as Patella capitanensis, and they may prove to be congeneric 

also, as the interior of the Guadalupian species is not known. Seven species are 

referred to Pleurotomaria, but the Murchisonias, of which five species arc recorded, 

also represent such types as I have included'under that genus. While some of the 

Guadalupian Pleurotomarias belong to types not found in Netschajew's fauna, and 

some of his species, especially of Murchisonia, are types as yet unknown in the 

Guadalupian, the Permian Pleurotomarias and Murchisonias of Russia in a general 

way appear to resemble the Guadalupian Plcurotomarias very closely. Some of 

Netschajew's.spe~ies of Turbo also resemble certain Guadalupian forms referred with 

more or less dou\>t to Pleurotomaria. Of the five species of Bellerophon two at .least 

appear to be non-Guadalupian types (B. urei and B. piktorskyi), but B. elegans may 

be related to the imperfectly known species of Bucanopsis. As to the two remaining 

species 'nothing can be said, the figures being poor and the text in Russian. The 

genus Turbo, to which N etschajew refers six species, is represented in the Guadalupian 

by only one doubtfully determined species, which is much more closely related to 

T. burtasorum and T. angulatus than to the four other species. Straparollus permianus, 

Euomphalus pawlowi, and Naticop.si.s permica arc types like which no Guaclalupian 

species are known; but Natica minima suggests Naticopsis sp. of the present paper. 

Naticopsis sp. also resembles in some respects the form cited by Netschajew as Capulus 

permocarbonicus. This author refers twelve species to'Loxonema, among which four 

different types, representing possibly as many different genera, can be discriminated. 

A few are of the normal Loxonema type, the whorls marked by strong longitudinal 

furrows. One of these resembles L. swallowianum. The majority of these Permian 

forms, however, appear to be entirely without. sculpture, and such I would hardly 

approve. of placing in the genus Loxonema. I have myself, however, provisionally 

placed in Loxonema a shell of tllis type which much resembles some of the Russian 

forms (e. g., L. phillipsi Howse). Another type (Loxonema sp.) is marked by 

revolving lirre and may prove to be an Orthonema, while still another (Loxonema 

ornamentarium) is ornamented with nodes and spiral lines. If the last two have 

any Guadalupian equivalents they will be found among the shells which I have 
MOLLUSCA. 459 

placed with PleurotomaTia. Of the two Permian species of Macrocheilus, M. permicus appears to be closely related to Macrocheilina sp. a, M. globosus being as yet 

without a known equivalent. Subulites permianus also appears to be not remote 

from Bulimorpha chrysalis var. delawarensis. 

Golowkinsky also includes some gasteropods in his paper on the Russian Permian fauna, citing six species. The single Bellerophon, an undetermined form, is 

too poor for comparison. Turbinella volgensis is probably non-Guadalupian, but 

Turbo burtasorum also, though its configuration is very suggestive of some of the 

Guadalupian Pleurotomarias, is probably to be compared only to Turbo? sp. of 

the Guadalupian, without apparently any close affinity. Pleurotomaria divesouralica is a type not found among t~e Guadalupian representatives of the genus; but 

Murchisonia subangulata is not unlike some of the Guadalupian Pleurotomarias. 

Emarginula? sp .. suggests Patella capitanensis. · 

In conclusion I feel much hesitation at expressing a judgment regarding the 

relationship of the Guadalupian Gasteropoda with those of the Russian section. 

It appears to me neither very close nor very remote, greater perhaps with the 

Permian than with any of the other subdivisions. 

In addition to the shells referred to above, Jakowlew has described an extensive 

series of gasteropods from the Donetz basin, including in fact over 50 species. The· 

Bellerophons comprise but three species. Euphemus aff. nodocarinatus is, so far 

as known, a non-Guadalupian type. Bucaf"ia makatikhre can be compared with 

Bucanopsis sp., but the other Bucania is unidentified and unfigured. lVortheniopsis claims five species, one of them unfigured. Of the others, three spec~es rather· 

strikingly resemble certain of the Guadalupian Pleurotomarias, such asP. richardsoni, 

P. arenaria, and P. delawarensis. The remaining one, lV. netschajewi, has no 

closely amed species in my fauna. Two species are assigned to Rhaphistomella 

and these also are in a general way like species of Pleurotomaria in the Guadalupian. Pleurotomariais employed for six species, one of them unfigured. P. antrina and 

P. kingi seem to be alien types to the Guadalupian fauna, but P. baranowkensis, 

P. prceplatypleura, and P.? sibirtzewi are more like Guadalupian species. Rhineoderma nikitowkensis is possibly to be compared with Euconospira sp. of the present 

work. To Murchisonia Jakowlew assigns nine species. These types are somewhat less common in the Guadalupian than those with lower spire, and I also have 

referred them to Pleurotomaria. Probably the subgenus which he distinguishes as 

Glyphodeta is not represented among the Guadalupian forms, but the other types 

may find more or less closely related species there. Straparollus is represented by 

but one species and is a type not known in the Guadalupian, but EuomphcLlus includes 

three not especially like those of our fauna. Sosiolytes? vassilievlcensis is non-Guadalupian and probably Turbonellina chatzepetovkensis, ·unless some of the doubtful 

Guadalupian Pleurotomarias prove to have that relationship. Portloclcia rotundata 

and P. kamenkensis have a superficial resemblance to the form which I have called 

Pleurotomaria elderi, but they may be quite unrepresented in my fauna. Trachydomia wheeleri, Naticopsis kokeni, and Naticopsis tschernyschewi are non-Guadalupian. 

Tretospira, of which Jakowlew recognizes two species, has not yet been discriminated 

in the Guadalupian fauna. The Russian fossil identified as Loxonema peoriense 

may be compared with L. swallowianum. The other Russian Loxonema is unfigured. 
460 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

Of the two species of Zygopleura that which is figured might be regarded as congeneric 

with the imperfectly known Loxonema swallowianum, though not closely related 

specifically. Macrocheilina intercalaris as identified by Jakowlew, though very 

much larger, appears to be closely allied to the Guadalupian Macrocheilina sp. b. 

Tuberculopleura, represented by five Russian species, is probably alien to the Guadalupian, as are also the single species of Omphaloptycha and the genus Promathildia, 

to which Jakowlew refers four species, though possibly some of the Guadalupian 

shells provisionally assigned to other genera may show a closer relationship when 

they are better understood. In fact Promathildia aff. kasanensis, P. biseri&tuber:.. 

culata, and P. anomala in a general way are suggestive, respectively, of the Guadalupian shells cited under Pleurotomaria sp. d, Pll3urotomaria elderi, and Trochus? sp. 

The Guadalupian gasteropods are known in too little detail to make satisfactory 

comparison with those of the Donetz basin, where finer distinctions are drawn 

than it has seemed practicable to make among the indifferently preserved specimens 

from the Guadalupe Mountains, and I hesitate to place on record any expression of 

opinion on this point. While· they undoubtedly have a number of features in 

common I can not feel that they are more than moderately allied. 

The only gasteropod found by Abich among his fossils from Djoulfa was an 

undetermined species of Macrocheilus (Buccinum in the ~ext). It is a much larger 

species than Macrocheilina sp. a, but is almost too imperfect to compare in other 

particulars. Arthaber when he reworked this fauna identified this form as Macrocheilus avellanoides De Koninck without figuring it. 

A somewhat more extensive gasteropod fauna was found by Enderle in Asia 

Minor, six species being recognized. They are in every case characterized by relatively 

enormous size. It seems probable from Enderle's figures that Bellerophon attalicus 

is a Mogulia, or possibly a Warthia, but even in the latter event it is only remotely 

related to Warthia americana of the present fauna. Pleurotomaria? anatolica, if a 

Pleurotomaria at all, may be compared in a general way at least to some of the very 

much smaller species of the Guadalupian. Murchisonia stachei is probably nonGuadalupian. Murchisonia pergamena is more like some of the Guadalupian species, 

but Euomphalus sp. and Naticopsis arthaberi have no corresponding forms. 

A very extensive gasteropod fauna was that described by Gemmellaro from the 

Fusulina limestone of Sicily. It comprises, in fact, no less than 79 species, or almost 

twice as many as are at present known from the Guadalupian. They arc distributed 

among the following genera: 

Species. Species. 

Cylindritopsis ........................ ·.... . . 5 Chrysostorna.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 

Loxonema........... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 7 Turbinilopsis ............................... _ 1 

Strobcus....................... ... . . . . . .. . . . l Turboncllina .. ___ .............. _ . ___ . __ .. _ . _ 2 

Macrocheilus .............. _. __ ............. . 

Fossariopsis ........................... _ . __ .. 

Naticopsis ........ _ ~-- .. __ . _ .... ____ . _ .. ___ __ 

Nerita .......... _ ..... _. _ .... __ .. _. _ .. _ .. __ _ 

Platychcilus .............. _. _____ . ____ . ___ .. 

Trochus ................ _ ... ______ . __ . _. _ .. _ 

Sosiolytes ......................... _ ..... _ .. _ 

9 Portlockia ........................... _ . .. . . .. . l 

~ ~:~~~;:~~::::·_·_-_-_·_·:::: ::::::::::::::::::: 

2 Ternnotropis ...... _ ..... _ . ______ . _ .......... · 

3' M urchisonia ................. _____ .... __ .... . 

3 

2 

2 

1 

1 Pleurotomaria ................. _. . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 

1 Bellerophon ................. ____ ..... _____ .. 9 
MOLLUSCA. 461 

It is not known whether the Guadalupian shells agree in the essential or generic 

characters, but some of them are certainly very suggestive of Gemrriellaro's genus 

Cylindritopsis. I refer especially to Macrocheilina sp. band Bulimorpha chrysalis 

var. delawarensis, which resemble Cylindritopsis ovalis or C. i~fiata and 0. conica, 

respectively. As to Gemmellaro's genus, it seems to me it should be compared more 

closely with Soleniscus and Bulimorpha. 

The genus Loxonema shows a much greater differentiation in Gcmmellaro's fauna 

than in the Guadalupian, and the specific representation is very different in each, 

the Sicilian forms comprising nothing comparable to L. swallowianum and very 

little which resembles L. inconspicuum. Gemmellaro's Strobeus elegans resembles 

no Guadalupian species so much as Bulimorpha chrysalis var. delawarensis. That 

species also closely resembles his Macrocheilus subulitoides. Gemmellaro has 

subdivided his Macrocheilus very closely, and most of his species more or less 

resemble either Macrocheilina sp. a or M. modesta. Macrocheilina sp. b, which has 

already been compared to his Cylindritopsis, seems to be out of this range. A few 

of his species, such as Macrocheilus barroisi, are fairly distinct from any known 

Guadalupian f<;>rms. The two forms ref7rred to the genus Fossariopsis arc probably 

non-Guadalupian, the only species which at all resemble them being pretty remote. 

Gemmellaro has also made. a close division of his species of Naticopsis. They 

naturally do not exhibit very wide limits of variation, and while none of them departs 

very far from the imperfectly known Guadalupian species, only one or two closely 

resemble it. Nerita palxomorpha is probably non-Guadalupian, and so are Nerita 

prisca and the three species of Platycheilus. Trochus adrianensis is very different 

from the doubtful Guadalupiari Trochus and different from anything in the fauna. 

Sosiolytes also is non-Guadalupian, as are the three species of Chrysostoma. Turbinilopsis planorbiformis and.Portlockia decorata are not figured in my copy of Gemmellaro's work. The two species of Turbonellina are not related to any of the 

known Guadalupian species, and Trachyspira, with its three species, is also quite 

alien to the Guadalupian fauna. 

· Among the Pleurotomarias Gemmellaro recognizes a large number of species, 

and having more perfect material than the Guadalupian rocks have yet furnished 

he was able to make finer discriminations of genera or subgenera than I have found 

practicable. Trochotoma, to which he assigns two species, appears to be unrepresented among the Guadalupian Pleui'otomarias. Pleurotomaria discoidea most 

resembles the two Sicilian shells which Gemmellaro has placed with Temnotropis. 

Murchisonia sosiensis is probably more or less related "to several of the Guadalupian 

forms. Gemmellaro 's Pleurotomarias, including the subgenus Plocostoma, have 

really but little in common with the Guadalupian Pleurotomarias. There are not 

many striking forms in either fauna, but I remark in that from Sicily the absence of 

Euconospira or anything comparable to Pleurotomaria euglyphea, P. strigillata, and 

many others, and in the Guadalupian the absence of types resembling the Sicilian 

P. catherinx and P. isomorpha, while of the less conspicuous types the generality 

are considerably different in both faunas. An instance of rather marked resemblance seems to be found in P. retroplicata of the Sicilian and P. richardsoni of the 

American fauna; 
462 THE GUADALUPIA,N FAUNA. 

Gemmellaro divides his Bellerophons into Bellerophon, Waage'(l-ella, and 

Bucania: Most of his species are, unfortunately, not figured in the copy of his 

work to which I have access. The Bellerophons arc probabiy more or less like 

B. crassus, but B. lamellosus is rather different from and B. cylindricus is altogether 

unlike any Guadalupian form. Bucania, in like manner, presumably corresponds 

to Bucanopsis, b_ut B. sosiensis, the only Sicilian species whose figure has been 

seen, is considerably different from Bucanopsis sp. of the Guadalupian. Waagenella 

has not been recognized in the Guadalupian fauna, and, on the other hand, Warthia 

seems to be unknown in the other. 

On the whole I find but little resemblance between the Guadalupian gasteropods and those of the Sicilian fauna from Sosio. The latter, as just pointed out, 

contains a number of group~ which, so far as known, are absent from the Guadalupian. On the other hand, some of the Guadalupian types are absent from the 

Sicilian fauna. The most notable of these is Euomphalus)· but I may also mention 

Patella, Euconospira, and Murcliisonia (not the name but"the corresponding type). 

Where the same types occur in both faunas the Sicilian shells are in several instances, 

of which Naticopsis is a good example, much more plentiful and highly differentiated. In the case of the Pleurotomarias, which are extraordinarily differentiated 

in both but proportionately much more in the Guadalupian, the general representation in each is largely peculiar and distinct from the other. 

Schellwien, as is well known, treated only the brachiopods and Foraminifera in 

his reports on the faunas of the Carnic Alps.· Gortani, however, discusses upward 

of 30 species from this region in a paper recently published. Unfprtunately, many 

of the species identified by this author are not figured, and the figures of the others 

are very unsatisfactory. Since the fauna, so far as can berdetermined, has very little 

in coronion with that of the Guadalupe Mountains, I will not pause to consider it in 

detail, resting content with pointing out a few of the more general differences, such 

as the presence of Bcllerophons of the type of B. de-angelisi, Mogulia? sp., and 

Euphemus (2 species), the predominance of the high-spired over the low-spired 

Pleurotomarias, the presence of Straparollus, Phymatifer, and Trachydomia, and the 

differentiation of Loxonema, 5 species being noted, several of which, in point of 

their slender, many-whorled shape, are comparable with L. swallowianum, though 

I have not satisfied myself that they have the same sculpture. 

· In his monograph on the Dyas, Geinitz distinguishes 17 species of gasteropods, 

which are distributed among the following genera: Paludina (1 species), Turbonilla 

( 4 species), Turbo ( 4 species), Natica (1 species), Straparollus (1 species), Pleurotomaria (4 species), and Murchisonia (2 species). ,The shell identified as Paludina 

zwickaviensis is non-Guadalupian, but Turbonilla symmetrica suggests Macrocheilina modesta)· T. phillipsi and T. altenburgensis suggest Loxonema inconspicuum)· 

and Turbonilla roessleri is more or less closely related to Loxonema swallowianum. 

Turbo obtusus is non-Guadalupian, but the three remaining species of this genus 

possess a superficial resemblance at least to certain of the forms which I have seen 

more or less reason for referring to Pleurotomaria. They do not show much resemblance to Turbo? sp. Straparollus permianus seems to have no related Guadalupian form. Geinitz's Pleurotomarias and Murchisonias are in part not figured 
MOLLUSCA. 463 

and in part poorly figured, but most of the six species included·in these two genera 

appear to have types more or less closely related in the Guadalupian. 

From the Permian of England, King cites 19 gasteropod types, referred to 

the genera Turbo (5 species), Rissoa (3 species), Loxonema (3 species), Macrocheilus 

(1 species), Euomphalus (1 species), Natica (2 species), Pleurotomaria (4 species). 

The five species of Turbo, with one exception (T. permianus), have among the 

Guadalupian Pleurotomarias species of the sam~ general character which may possibly prove on better knowledge more closely related than might be inferred from 

the present generic assignment. Turbo mancuniensis is also related to Turbo? sp. 

of the present work. The three Rissoas are probably non-Guadalupian. Loxonema 

fasciatum, but more specifically Loxonema geinitzianum, suggests the Guadalupian 

Loxonema? inconspicuum, while the imperfectly known L. swedenborgianum is comparable in a general way to L. swallowianum. The English species of Macrocheilus, Euomphalus, and Natica, however, appear to be without any closely allied 

form. The Pleurotomarias of the English Permian, while much less. varied, have 

a few analogous forms in the Guadalupian, but on the whole it seems to me that 

only a moderate degree of relationship can be traced between the gasteropods of the 

two faunas. 

From the south point of Spitzbergen, Toula cites an unidentified species of C!hemnitiza and a small Euomphalus, neither of which is figured. From the cape between 

the two arms of North Fjord he cites Pleurotomaria arctica and an undetermined 

Euo.mphalus. The Pleurotomaria resembles P. carinifera of the present paper. 

Lundgren· cites Natica? sp. and De Koninck a species of Pleurotomaria which he 

identifies asP. verneuili. This group accordingly appears to be rather sparsely represented in this Arctic fauna and to show no special relationship to the Guadalupian 

gasteropods. A much more extensive series was described by Toula from Nova 

Zembla, amounting in all to 22 species. The genera Natica (1 species), Naticopsis 

(1 species), Chemnitzia (2 species), Loxonema {1 species), Euomphalus (1 species), 

Pleurotomaria (5 s-pecies), Murchisonia (2 species), Capulus (3 species), and Bellerophon (5 species) are recorded. Natica omaliana more or less resembles Naticopsis 

sp. of the Guadalupian, but probably the Naticopsis has no corresponding form. 

Ohemnitzia hoferiana, which alone of this genus is figured, suggests Loxonema inconspicuum, but Loxonema breVis is only remotely related to L. swallowianum. The 

single Euomphalus is not allied to the Guadalupian representatives of the genus. 

Such of the Pleurotomarias and Murchisonias as are figured show only slight relationship with Guadalupian species. Two of the species referred to Capulus arc nonGuadalupian. The third is unfigured, while the fourth to some ext~nt resembles 

Naticopsis sp. Bellerophon hiulcus and B. decussat'll;s probably correspond to 

B. crassus and Bucanopsis sp., but B. pulchellus of Toula still more suggests the latter 

species. B. carbonarius is an unknown type in the Guadalupian. 

Among his fossils from the West Sahara, Stache found only 2 species of gasteropods, one identified as Pleurotomaria sp. and the other as '!Straparollus sp. cf. 

permianus King. 

But few gasteropods are kllown from the Carboniferous of South America. 

Salter reported from Bolivia only a Euomphalus and a Euphemus, neither of Wihic,h 
464 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

has allied forms in our fauna. From the same region D'Orbigny cited 5 species. 

Solarium antig_uum and Euomphalus perversus are not especially close to the Guadalupian representatives of Euomphalus. Pleurotomaria angulosa is suggestive of 

P. discoidea, and Natica buccinoides and N. antisiensis are not closely related to the 

Guadalu pian Naticopsis. 

In the aggregate the American Pennsylvanian fauna shows a great diversity of 

gasteropod types, though as a rule in local collections they constitute one of the 

minor features. Rather in contrast to what was found in the Guadalupe Mountains, 

the Bellerophons are apt to be more common than the other gasteropods. In all, 

the Pennsylvanian fauna comprises over 150 species, distributed among 27 genera, 

but only a very few genera have 10 species or over. These are Bellerophon (including the groups Euphemus, Patellostium, etc.), Loxonema, Murchisonia, Pleurotomaria, 

and Soleniscus. On the other hand, 9 genera are represented by but a single 

species. All of these latter, together with some of the more extensively represented 

Pennsylvanian genera, are not known from the Guadalupe Mountains, but all those 

which in the typical Pennsylvanian areas are represented by numerous species 

occur also in the Guadalupian fauna. Among the more common Pennsylvanian 

types which are not known in the Guadalupian, mention may be made of Euphemus, 

Patellostium, Capulus, Orthonema (though some of the Guadalupian shells referred 

to other genera may belong there), Sphrerodomus, and Trachydomia. In view of the 

fact that only Patella (1 species), Warthia (1 species), Trochus? (1 species), and Pseudomelania (1 species), are peculiar to the Guadalupian in this relation, it can not so 

much be said that this fauna is generically different from the Pennsylvanian as 'that 

it is less highly differentiated . 

. Perhaps in the case of two faunas so closely situated geographically, faunal 

differences are to be looked for rather in the degree of species than in that of genera, 

and I find that in only one instance have I been able to cite a Pennsylvanian gasteropod from the Guadalupian fauna .. Although the faunal difference is thus strongly 

marked, the peculiarity of the Guadalupian fauna appears to Ille less noteworthy 

in the case of its gasteropod representation than in the case of its brachiopods. 

Very few of the Guadalupian gasteropods if they should be found in the Pennsylvanian fauna would appear especially alien to it, whereas if this should happen with 

very many of the brachiopods they would almost immediately be recognized as 

strangers. This may, however, be due to the fact that brachiopods are so much 

more abundant and completely known that their measure in the standard Pennsylvanian faunas may be said to be pretty well taken. 

A considerable number of gasteropods have been described from the western 

areas of the United States, but they are too scattered geographically and stratigraphically to c~:mstitute in any sense what may as yet be spoken of as a fauna. 

The Guadalupian forms are as different from these, so far as known, as from the 

Pennsylvanian species. 
MOLLUSCA. 465 

Family P ATELLIDJE Carpenter. 

Genus PATELLA Linnreus. 

pATELLA CAPITANENSIS n. sp. 

Pl. VIII, figs. 8 to Sb. 

' The typical and only known representative of this species is a small specimen 

having an elliptical aperture and a generally conical shape. The altitude is rather 

high and t\i.~ apex about centra~ .. Length 5 mm., _width 4 ~m., height 3.5 m~. 

·The surface 1s cancellated by radmtmg a:rtd annular lure, of wh1ch the latter are distinctly finer. The radiating lirre are so_metimes alternating and are more closely 

arranged on the ends than on the sides of the shell. On the ends they are separated 

by intervals nearly equal to those between the annular lirre. On the sides the intervals are considerably greater. 

The generic position of this shell is a matter of some uncertainty, for I suppose 

that it might be a Crania nearly as well as a gasteropod. The rather strong elevation, the centrally situated and erect beak, and to some extent the sculpture are 

rather more suggestive of the gasteropod than of the brachiopod type. It seems 

probable, therefore, that the genus to which it belongs is Patella or a type closely 

related to it. 

Horizon and locality.-Top of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2966). 

Family PLEUROTOMARIIDJE D'Orbigny. 

Genus PLEUROTOMARIA Defrance. 

Most of the Guadalupian shells referred to this genus are small, and to determine in them the presence of the characteristic slit band would require rather perfectly preserved material, so that the notch on the unbroken margin or the deflection of the growth lines could be made out. In the Guadalupian specimens these 

·conditions are rather conspicuously lacking, since many of the forms are from the 

sandstone of the Delaware Mountain formation and are known only as molds of the 

interior, with which can be associated artificial impressions of tho external mold .. 

In many of the forms included under this title the presence of a slit band can be 

affirmed with some confidence, in others it is uncertain, and in still others it is 

rather doubtful. I suspect, therefore, that in addition to true representatives of 

the Pleurotomariidre I may have included under this genus species which will sub-

.sequently find place among the Pyramidellidre (or Pseudomelaniidre), the Turbinidre, the Trochonematidre, or other families. 

It. may perhaps be asked why I did not withdraw the doubtful forms to the 

stations where my suspicions indicated that they should be placed. Several 

attempts to do so were in fact made, but in most cases it was possible to trace a 

·connection, apparently a real connection, almost immediately into species in which 

the s_lit band was. a fairly certain feature. It seemed best, therefore, to abandon 

such distinctions as I had sought to make, and to conclude that the data for a satisfactory or even a practicable treatment of these forms was not at hand. I would 

3695-N o. 58-08--30 
THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA, 

in fact have gladly relegated the investigation of them to another occasion, furnished, let us hope, with more adequate material, but that course was not seriously 

to be contemplated. 

The genus Pleurotomaria in its broad sense has of recent years been greatly subdivided into generic or subgeneric groups. The Guadalupian shells referred to 

Pleurotomaria present certain broad variations which enable their separation into 

groups of related species, but if serious difficulties existed in the way of assigning 

these forms to the genus Pleurotomaria the determination of their subgeneric relationship was a still harder task, and only in the case of the more easil~ recognized 

Eucono8pira has it been attempted. 

The classification of the Guadalupian Pleurotomarias which has commended 

itself to me, though at present it is only provisional, is as follows: 

Pleurotornaria richardsoni. 

Pleurotoinaria mica. 

Pleurotomaria multilineata. 

Pleurotomaria euglyphea. 

Pleurotomaria discoidea. 

Pleurotomaria strigillata. 

Pleurotomaria texana. 

Pleurotomaria sp. d. 

Pleurotomaria? arenaria. 

Group of Pleurotomaria richardsoni. 

Group of Pleurotomaria carbonaria. 

Pleurotomaria put.illa. 

Group of Pleurotomaria euglyphea. 

Pleurotomaria? sp. c. 

Group of Plenrotomaria discoidea. 

Group of Pleurotomaria strigillata. 

Pleurotomaria neglccta. 

Incertm scdis. 

Group of Pleurotomaria? arenaria. 

Pleurotomaria? arenaria var. monolifcra. 

Plcurotomaria? planulata. 

Pleurotomaria? cf. P.? planulata. 

Group of Pleurotomaria? delawarensis. 

Pleurotomaria? delawarensis. 

Group of Pleurotomaria? carinifera. 

Plcurotomaria? carinifcra. Pleurotomaria? earinifera var. 

Group of Pleurotomaria? eldel"i. 

Pleurotomaria? elderi. 

It is the last four groups especially whose relationship to the Pleurotomariidre 

is in doubt. 
MOLLUSCA. 467 

PLEUROTOMARiA RICHARDSON! n. ·sp. 

Pl. VIII, figs. 9 and 9a. 

This species consists of about four volutions. The spire is rather low, the body 

whorl occupying nearly two-thirds of the height. The exterior of the peritreme 

is divisible into three zones, on the basis of sculpture. The most prominent 

portion is a broad carina situated slightly above the peripheral line, on which was 

located the slit band. It is strongly elevated, defined above and below by distinct 

channels, the one beneath being somewhat the larger, and indented by a gentle sulcus. The two rims of the carina make sharp revolving linB. The space between 

the channel which forms the upper limit of the carina, and the suture of the preceding volution, is convex and occupied by a row of large circular nodes, which are, 

however, lacking on the final portion of the body chamber. Below the carina the 

peritreme is also convex and ·is marked as far as visible by strong rounded linB, 

about nine in number, separated by deep rounded sulci of approximately the same 

width. The volutions are embracing to the extent of concealing all of the revolving 

lirre except the uppermost-that which is just below the carina. 

Height of typical specimen 6! mm; diameter slightly less than 5 mm. 

This seems to be one of the commoner gasteropods of the Capitan Fmestone, 

for although it did not occur in our earlier collections a small lot obtained by Mr. 

Richardson at a later date contained four or five specimens. It is closely allied to 

Pleurotomaria subsinuata Meek and Worthen of the Pennsylvanian. It is a much 

smaller form and differs in at least one detail rather markedly, since just below the 

suture it carries a single row of large nodes, while the Pennsylvanian form is represented as having a double row of small ones. · 

Horizon and locality.-Top of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2966). Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2964 ~). Delaware Mountain formation, Comanche 

Canyon, Glass Mountains, Texas (station 3763 ~). 

PLEUROTOMAltlA MICA n. sp. 

Pl. VIII, figs. 12 to 12c. 

This species is represented in our collection by a single specimen. Its size is 

extreme(y small, since it has a transverse diameter of but 3.5 mm., but the number of volutions (three) and the well-developed surface ornamentation indicate 

that it is nearly if not quite mature. The spire is low and the umbilicus probably partly closed. The band is concave and rather narrow. · It is situated above 

the middle of the peritreme, perhaps one-third the way down from the suture. It 

is crossed by coarse transverse crenulationsO). Above and below the band the 

surface is traversed by fine, coarsely arranged, revolving lirre. The peritreme 

section is nearly circular, and each volution embraces the preceding one nearly up 

to the slit band. 

This species belongs to the carbonaria group, and its nearest ally in the present 

fauna is Pleurotomaria multilineata. I am unwilling to refer it to that species, 
468 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

however, because the peritreme section is more nearly circular, the spire lower, the 

size much smaller, and the band crenulated. In shape it much resembles P. beclcwithana, but the spire is lower and the band situated above the median line and 

crenulated. Of all the species known to me the lower Carboniferous P. subglobosa 

presents perhaps the closest resemblance. It has a lower spire and probably shows 

other differences which the figures alone of Hall's species do not permit me to 

distinguish. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). 

PLEUROTOMARIA MULTILINEATA n. sp. 

Pl. XXIII, figs. 25 to 25d. 

Shell rather small. Spire low, consisting of four or five volutions. Umbilicus 

small, partly closed. Peritreme .section generally transversely elliptical, somewhat 

flattened on the upper exterior side and concave on the upper interior side. The 

flattening produces a sort of angulation, beneath which is a shallow sulcus. This 

occupies. a nearly median position and is apparently the slit band. 

The surface is marked by a large number of fine revolving lirre. These are 

thin and sharp, with interspaces wider than the lirre themselves. . One or two slender 

revolving lines can be seen on the slit band also. There are about seven above the 

slit band, and probably not less than 15 or 20 below it. They become much finer 

toward the umbilicus. 

This species apparently belongs to the group which includes Pleurotomaria 

broadheadi, P. beclcwithana, P. carbonaria, P. newportensis, and perhaps other 

American Pennsylvanian species; but it seems to be distinct from any yet described. 

P. broadheadi, P. carbonaria, and P. newportensis are larger species, and all have a 

higher spire, a somewhat differently ~haped peritreme section, and more or less 

different ornamentation. As a rule the band is farther from the suture, and has 

many more lirm intervening. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2931). 

PLEUROTOMARlA PUTILLA n. sp. 

Pl. VIII, figs. 11 to llb. 

Shell 'Very small. Spire high, consisting of five or six volutions. Umbilicus 

probably closed. Peritreme section nearly circular. Strongly concave on the upper 

inner side by reason of adjustment to the preceding volution; gently concave about 

halfway between the outer median line and the suture. Convex above and below. 

Surface marked by moderately distant, sharp, revolving lines. These do not 

become appreciably finer in the umbilical region, but are fainter and perhaps finer 

in the depressed portion of the peritreme above the peripheral line. I am not sure 

that this form possessed a slit band, but if so its position was probably in this region. 

I have observed nothing in the revolving lirre elsewhere that indicates that the 

spaces between them served this function. 

·. 
MOLLUSCA. 469 

This description was drawn up from the typical specimen, which was obtained 

near the middle of the Capitan limestone. An additional example has come to 

hand from the southern Delawares. If really belonging to different species these 

two specimens, in spite of certain minor differences, are so closely similar that a 

specific separation would under the existing evidence be quite unjustifiable. The 

position of the slit band, which is obscure in the typical specimen, is clearly shown 

in the other. It consists of a sulcus, rather large for the size of the specimen, 

situated well up from the peripheral line, not far. below the suture. A gentle concavity and the absence of revolving lirre have been noticed in the typical specimen 

at about this position. 

Of the species recognized in this report Pleurotomaria? strigillata is in general 

appearance one of the closest to the present form. The mere difference in size 

would appear in this case sufliciently great to be of importance, and this is further 

augmented by such differences as the position of the slit band above the peripheral 

line. The persistence in arrangement and size of the strire of the smaller form seems 

also to mark a difference. This shell is probably a Pleurotomaria of the carbonaria 

type, but it is so similar to Cyclonema leavenworthanum of the St. Louis group of 

Hall that where the slit· band is obscured it might almost be taken for the same 

. ~pecies. I know of no upper Carboniferous form which calls for serious comparison. 

Horizon and locality.~Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2935?). 

PLEUROTOMARIA EUGLYPHEA n. sp. 

Pl. XXIII, figs. 22 to 23b. 

Shell rather large. Spire low, consisting of five or six volutions. Umbilicus 

large, open. Peritreme section transversely oval; somewhat concave on the upper 

inner side. There is a median concave band whose position is peripheral. It is 

bounded above by a heavy, flat-topped revolving ridge, just above which, separated 

by a shallo.w depression, is a revolving line. The lower margin of the band is 

formed by an elevation which enters belo\V into the regular clJ_rvature of the peri- .: 

treme. The surface above the slit band is marked by more or less regular, tran£?-

verse, angular folds, which are slightly convex and strongly inclined backward. 

Below the ·band the surface is marked by fine, somewhat crowded, revolving linl' 

and by equally fine transverse lirre, which appear to pass upward onto the band, and' 

·possibly also onto the ridge above it. 

So far as I have been able to ascertain, this species has no closely allied forms 

in the upper Carboniferous of the United States. Perhaps the species most suggestive of it is Pleurotomaria swal~owiana of the St. Louis group of Hall, but the 

resemblance is too slight and the difference of horizon too wide to occasion any 

possibility of their being confused. P. valvatiformis of the "Lower Coal Measures" 

also remotely suggests it, but the resemblance is slight, the Guadalupian form seeming in fact to be a nearly unique type. 

Horizon and locality.~Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2931). 
470 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

PLEUROTOMARIA? sp. C. 

This division is established for a small shell from the Capitan limestone preserved as an internal mold. The general shape is discoid. The diameter is 7 mm. 

and the height about 4 mm. The spire, which consists of four volutions, rises 

gradually about as in Pleurotomaria euglyphea, or a little less rapidly. The umbilicus 

appears to have been large and open. The peritreme section approaches the circular, 

but is wider than it is high. It is concave on its upper portion just inside the suture, 

owing to apposition with the preceding volution. The upper part of the peritreme 

exterior to the suture in mature volutions is flattened and inclined downward. The 

peripheral portion is also slightly flattened, its direction being nearly parallel with 

the axis, though slightly inclined away from it. The under portion, which is likewise somewhat flattened, slopes ·gradually upward to the axis. The specimen, 

which seems to be preserved as an internal mold, retains no strire or other surface 

ornamentation and has no marked angulation. The flattened areas merge into one 

another, so that the pe:ritreme seems at first sight to be round, and the specimen is 

suggestive of a small Straparollus, such as S. quadrivolvis of the St. Louis group of 

Hall. The rise of the spire, however, is distinctly greater than it is said to be inS. 

quadrivolvis. 

Since all the upper Carboniferous euomphaloids known to me are complanate, 

it seems rather more probable that the present specimen was a Pleurotomaria, to 

which supposition the shape of the peritreme is not unfavorable, although no slit 

band can be seen in its present preservation. It may possibly be an Omphalotrochus. 

Horizon and locality.-Base of Capitan formation, hill southwest of Guadalupe 

Point, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2906). 

PLEUROTOMARIA DISCOIDEA n. sp. 

Pl. VIII, figs. 13 to 13d. 

Shell small. Spire low, consisting of three or four volutions. Umbilicus probably small and partly closed. Pcritreme section transversely elliptical, somewhat 

pointed at either end. In the older portion of the peritreme, however, there is a 

tendency for the outer end to become inflated, broader than the interior, and with a 

flattened periphery. The inner superior surface is gently concave. The outer 

superior surface is gently convex near the suture and gently concave below. There 

is a median carina, which appears to bear a row of nodes. Below the carina the 

curvature is broad and regular to the subangular inner margin, but its lower limit is 

fixed by a rather narrow sulcus, which probably carries the slit band. The surface 

above the carina appears to have been fairly smooth. That below it, including the 

.sulcus, is marked by somewhat indistinct closely arranged revolving lines. 

I know of no species with which this can profitably be compared. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). 
MOLLUSCA. 47.1 

PLEUROTOMARIA STRIGILLATA n. sp. 

Pl. XXIV, figs. 21 and 21a. 

Shell of medium size. Spire high, consisting of six or seven volutions. Umbili-

·cus small 0). Peritreme section concave on the inner superior side; otherwise 

nearly circular. 

Surface marked by rounded revolving channels separated by sharp and slender 

ridges. The median channel is larger than the others, and along its center runs a 

.sharply elevated line. Below the median one occur about thirteen others, which 

become increasingly narrow toward the umbilicus. The sculpture of the upper part 

·of the peritreme to the suture seems to consist of three rather large channels, with thin, 

·sharp intervening ridges. The lowest of these, that just above the Piedian channel, 

probably represents the slit band, for here the growth lines are stronger than over 

the rest of the surface and have a concave or reentrant direction. Elsewhere they 

.are faint and transverse or convex. Just below the suture there was developed a 

row of elongated nodes. There are traces of these on the typical specimen, which is 

-defaced at this point, and they form a prominent feature of other associated specimens pr~bably belonging to the same species. 

Like some other Guadalupian types, this has species in the American upper 

·Carboniferous allied to it, but I have found none with which it can with propriety 

be identified. Among the similar forms may be mentioned Pleurotomaria gi:ffordi, 

P. humerosa, and P. subsinuata, of which P. humerosa is by far the ne.arest. P. 

humerosa shows, however, a lower spire and has the revolving ridges somewhat differ-

·ently arranged. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 

2931 ~); basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (stations 2920 and 2967), Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas. 

PLEUROTOMARIA TEXANA n. sp. 

Pl. XXIX, figs. 17 to 17c. 

Shell small, consisting of about five volutions. Spire moderately high, approximately equal to the height of the body whorl. Umbilicus rather large and open. 

Peritreme section nearly circular and marked by a number of high, thin revolving 

lirre. The slit band apparently occupies a deep, broad sulcus, which traverses the 

peripheral line and is divided by a raised median lira, smaller in every way than those 

.on the rest of the surface. Above the slit band and sulcus three of the lirre are found, 

and below, seven. The channels which divide the uppermost lira from the suture on 

·one hand and from the second lira on the other are wider than those between others 

of the lirre. 

Pleurotomaria texana recalls P. strigillata more than any other Guadalupian 

;Species, and is distinguished chiefly by the much lower elevation of the spire. It also 

recalls P. richardsoni in its general proportions, but the details of the sculpture are 

so distin~t that it is hardly necessary to point out the differences. Among Pennsyl-

-vanian species, P. humerosa is probably the most closely related. P. texana differs 
472 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. , 

from it in the arrangement of the line, which cover all the surface and of which one· 

on the peripheral line is more or less atrophied. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 

PLEUROTOMARIA NEGLECTA n. sp. 

PI. VIII, figs. 10 to lOc. 

Shell small. Spire moderately high, consisting of about five volutions. Umbilicus probably dosed.' -Peritreme section nearly circular, except for deformation 

resulting from apposition with the preceding volution. ·Surface marked by revolving sulci, separated by angular lirre. One of the former, distinctly wider and deeper 

than the others, occurs just below the peripheral line, and probably represents the 

slit band. Below the slit band are five or six relatively coarse revolving lirre, and 

above it about the same number of finer, less distinct ones. 

This species is manifestly related to Pleurotomaria strigillata, and I hesitated 

considerably about separating them. In view, however, of the widely different 

horizons which they hold, and certain differences which appear to exist between 

them, it did not seem desirable to group both under OJ;l~rli.P,ecific name. Shells of the 

present species having the same number of volutions ar.e much smaller than P .. strigillata, and the spire is perhaps a little more depressed., - Th~ slit band is slightly lower, 

and is not divided by a median line. The strire above a11d below the band arc relatively more heavy. The ornamentat~on of the smaller form, however, is very fine, 

and, especially above the band, is not clearly shown by my specimens. While it is 

possible that a complete knowledge would do away with some of the differences 

noted, I believe it would indicate still others and estal>lish a specific distinction. 

This form also resembles Pleurotomaria putilla, but it is much larger, has a some-

· what more rapidly expanding spire, a distinct slit band, and relatively much coarser· 

revolving lirre. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). 

PLEUROTOMAmA sp. d. 

Shell rather small. Spire high, consisting of about five volutions. The peritreme section is in general nearly circular, but is concave on the upper portion inside 

the suture conforming to the previous volution. There is a broad, well-defined, flattened or more or less concave revolving band, whose center is on or perhaps a little 

below the peripheral line and whose direction is nearly parallel to the axis. This is 

probably the characteristic slit band. The distance between the upper limit of this 

zone and the suture is nearly twice as great as .the width of the zone itself and the 

shell there is distinctly flattened. Each whorl embraces the preceding one so far 

that the width of·the peripheral band is greater than the distance between its lower 

edge and the suture of the embracing volution. This lower portion also may be 

flattened or slightly concave. The whole surface is marked by sharp, slender, rather 

distant revolving lines. Two prominent ones, close together, on the upper margin 

of the peripheral zone may contai'n between them the slit band. 
MOLLUSCA. .473 

This form in some ways resembles Pleurotomaria multilineata, but is much more 

tapering. ·It has some points in common with P.? arenaria. It is more tapering 

than that species also, and has a much more nearly circular peritreme section. The 

closest species, however, is P. delawarensis. The only prominent difference is that 

the present form has not a revolving groove below the broad vertical band. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2931). 

PLEUROTOMARIA? ARENARIA n. sp. 

Pl. XXIII, figs. 26 and 26a. 

Shell of medium size. Spire rather high. Umbilicus probably small, possibly 

deep. Peritreme section approaching the hexagonal. Upper exterior face gently 

concave, sloping downward. Lateral face gently concave, parallel to the axis. 

Upper interior surface concave, sloping downward. The remainder of the perimeter 

is completed by a semicircular curve. The external suture is at or a little below the 

lower limit of the vertical or lateral face, the lateral outline of the spire showing a 

series of steplike descents, the upper surfaces sloping downward and the angles well · 

marked. The juncti<:>n of the upper and lateral' faces on the exterior is marked by 

a fairly prominent carina, and another carina less strong and less persistent marks 

the junction of the lateral and lower faces. 

The upper exterior face is crossed by sharply elevated, threadlike revolving 

line, of which there were about eight or ten. Those near the suture are stronger 

and more distant from one another than the lower ones, and are strongly nodulose, 

the corresponding nodes on adjacent line sometimes being connected, so that prominent though short-lived ribs are formed extending downward from the suture. The 

lateral face carries about four revolving line, with apparently a low lira midway 

between each two more elevated ones, and the lower surface was probably traversed 

with rather coarse revolving lines. · 

This species is found in moderate abundance in the sandstones of the Delaware 

Mountain formation, from which the typical specimen was derived. A similar form 

occurs also in the black limestone beneath, but it appears to be a distinct variety. 

Pleurotomaria? arenaria shows some points of resemblance with P. brazosensis, P. marcouiana, P. grayvillensis, and P. subconstricta, but I have not been 

able to find among the described American species any one with which it·can be 

identified. It possibly belongs to the group of Pleurotomarias for which the term 

Phanerotrema has been proposed; but the height and irregular outline of the spire 

are rather foreign to that genus. Further than this its generic position is uncertain. 

This species appears to be closely related to Pleurotomaria strigillata of the 

underlying black lim:Cstone, and it is not always easy to distinguish specimens, 

which are usually presented in the form of molds. The two fornis are, however, 

believed to be distinct. The present form is more strongly carinate and has fainter 

and finer revolving line and less distinct transverse ribs descending from the suture. 

By analogy with P. strigillata the slit band, if present, is situated not on the principal 

carina, but just above it. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point,. 

Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2931). 
474 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

PLEUROTOMARIA? ARENARIA var. MONOLIFERA n. var. 

This variety occurs in the same beds as Pleurotomaria strigillata, but though 

resembling it to some extent appears to be more nearly related to P.? arenaria. 

The revolving lirm are perhaps a little stronger, the elongated ends or short wrinkles 

which descend from the suture are apparently absent, while the upper carina is 

ornamented by a row of strong nodes or tubercles. 

My material_ of this variety is hardly suitable for illustration, but apparently 

shows· the characters mentioned so unmistakably that it has seemed best to discriminate it under a distinct varietal name. Analogizing P.? arenaria with P. strigillata I was led to conclude that the zone immediately above the upper carina 

was the most probable position for the slit band in the latter species. If the present 

variety is indeed closely related toP.? arenaria, the occurrence of the row of nodes 

·On the carina is hardly compatible with the occurrence of the slit band also on 

that feature, and to a certain extent supports the belief that it follows along its 

. upper margin. 

Horizon and locality.-Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2920). 

PLEUROTOl\fAiUA? PLANULATA n. sp. 

Pl. XXIII, figs. 27 to 27c. 

Shell rather small. Umbilicus closed (?). Spire low, consisting of about three 

volutions. Peritreme section in the mature portion subtriangular. The upper 

surface is broad, flattened, and nearly horizontal. The lateral portion is gently 

convex, nearly parallel to the axis. Its junction with the upper surface is formed 

by an angulation, and a-similar sudden change of direction accompanies its return 

to the axial line. The lower surface consists of an area which is nearly parallel 

to the upper surface, and one which toward the axis has a more rapid upward 

direction. The inner portion of the upper surface is somewhat impressed by the 

volution against which it lies. 

The upper and the lower surfaces are marked by heavy, sharp, rather distant 

revolving ridges, of which six or seven occur on the upper and probably an equal 

or somewhat greater number on the lower. The lateral portion is traversed by 

two, possibly three, revolving sulci, of which the lowest is indistinct. By these it 

is divided into four (or possibly but three) large rounded line, inclusive, of course, 

of those which bound it above and below. 

Of the Guadalupian species thus far discovered, this in a general way most 

resembles Pleurotomaria discoidea. It can readily be distinguished, however, by its 

different peritreme section (especially because it has a flattened peripheral portion), and its heavier revolving lirm, which have, moreover, a different arrangement. Its real relations are probably with P. arenaria, although its much lower 

spire gives it at first an altogether different appearance. I know of no Penn- . 

sylvanian species with which it is likely to be confused. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point, 

Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2931). 
MOLLUSCA. 475 

PLEUROTOMARIA cf. P. ? PLANULATA. 

Under this title is included a small and imperfect specimen from the southern 

Delawares which in general appearance is very similar to Pleurotomaria planulata. 

The spire is a little more elevated and the angle between the upper and lateral surfaces less rounded. The chief distinction, however, is found in the fact that the 

.specimen under consideration, which I see no warrant for calling an internal mold, 

is without revolving lirre. Traces of the lirre are distinct on the typical specimen, 

which is certainly an internal mol!l in sandstone. Were it not for the apparent 

lack of sculpture upon the present specimen it might be provisionally identified 

asP. planulata. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware 

Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 

PLEUROTOMARIA? DELA W AREN'SIS n. sp. 

Pl. XXIII, figs. 28 to 30. 

Shell small. Spire high, consisting of about six volutions. Umbilicus probably small. Peritreme section subpolygonal, with flattened peripheral surface. 

Slightly inflated just below the suture, then gently concave to the first angulation 

or carina. This is followed by a rather broad concave band, succeeded by a second 

carina. The second carina is followed by another, somewhat narrow concave band, 

then a third angulation, indistinct on its lower side, after which the convexity is regular to the upper interior surface, where it is strongly concave. The upper exterior 

portion slopes rapidly downward, the· two sulci on the lateral surface being nearly 

parallel to the axis. The suture of each whorl with that which succeeds it, seems 

to fall on or a little below the line of the third carina. A little below the suture 

a strongly raised revolving line is found, and another just a little above the first 

·carina. In each of the two lateral sulci one. or two fine lirre appear to be developed, 

while a considerable number of similar ones appea~ on the lower portion. The 

slit band, if present, may have been situated just above the upper carina, between 

the latter and the revolving line which follows immediately above. This, however, 

is merely a surmise. 

In many ways this form may be looked at as a lofty variety of Pleurotomaria? 

planulata, which is probably its nearest related Guadalupian species. 

Pleurotomaria? delawarensis appears to have no very close allies in the American 

"Coal Measures," except perhaps among those species which can not be handled to 

· advantage until they have been authoritatively figured. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2931). 

Pu]UROTOMARIA? CARINIFERA n. sp. 

Pl. XXIII, figs. 24 to 24b. 

Shell rath~r small. Spire moderately high, consisting of four volutions. 

Umbilicus probably small or closed. Peritreme section somewhat rhombic. There 
476 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

is a large, high carina situated slightly above the median line. Immediately above· 

and below the carina lie broad, shallow smlci, the surface resuming its convex 

curvature toward the axis in both directions, so·that both external surfaces have a 

sigmoid curve in cross section. The up{)er inner side is strongly concave and the 

remainder of the surface around to the sulcus below the carina nearly regularly 

curved. The surface, so far as known, is without revolving lir:B. 

This species is quite distinct from any of the other Guadalupian forms, nor can 

I find anything in the Carboniferous faunas of the Mississippi Valley with which it 

is necessary to make comparison. It seems to be nearest allied to Pleurotomaria 

discoidea, found in the Capitan limestone, but has a higher spire, a stronger carina, 

and a more gibbous peritrel{le section. It is also without revolving lirre. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2931). 

11 

PLEUIWTOMARIA? CARINIFERA Var. 

Pl. XXIX, fig. 19. 

This variety is represented by a single imperfect specimen apparently closely 

related to Pleurotomaria carinifera, but how near, or to what degree the differences 

are constant and important, it is impossible at present to determine. Like the 

typical specimen of P. carinifera, that under consideration is an internal mold, but 

·while the other was a mold in sandstone the present one is a mold in limestone. The 

number of volutions and the elevation of the spire can not be determined, but the 

spire may have been a little more elevated ·than in the typical variety. The peritreme section in its essential particulars is the same in both, but in the present 

specimen the carina is much more angular and defined above and below by much 

fainter sulci. In fact the surface above the carina is nearly flat and but slightly 

sigmoidal. Below the carina there is a broad and very slight depression, separated 

by an extremely faint angulation from the regular convexity of the lower portion. 

On an unexfoliated fragment of the shell near the suture line are preserved two 

widely spaced, narrow though very slightly elevated revolving lirre, and possibly 

other portions of the surface were similarly ornamented. While no revolving lines 

have been preserved on the single external mold of Pleurotomaria? carini(era thus 

far found, I am not altogether satisfied that they were entirely absent. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2964). 

PLEUROTOMAUIA? ELDER! n. sp. 

Pl. XXIX, fig. 18. 

This type is represented by a single small individual which has a height along 

the axis of about 6 mm., though the rather large oblique aperture increases the 

total length appreciably. The spire is gradually tapering and the apical angle is 

about 45°. There are about seven volutions. The umbilicus is closed. The peritreme section is nearly circular. A revolving sulcus, broader than any others which 

traverse the surface, probably marks the position of the slit band. It is situated 
MOLLUSCA. 477 

:about on the median line. Above the sulcus, between it and the preceding suture, 

occur three rather prominent revolving lirre. These and the one which forins the 

lower limit of the sulcus made by the slit band are rather strongly and relatively 

·coarsely nodose. The upper one is smaller than the others and relativeiy widely 

distant from them. The lower portion of the peritreme is marked by five or six 

revolving lirre, which probably diminish in size and prominence, leaving the lowest 

parts almost smooth. 

This form appears to be distinct from any of the other Guadalupian species. 

It is possible that it does not possess the characteristic slit band of Pleurotomaria 

and that its relations may be with an altogether different genus. .Pleurotomaria? 

elderi is somewhat on the general plan of the Pennsylvanian .Murchisonias, but differs 

from any species known to me from the Pennsylvanian, whether belo~ging to that 

genus or not. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Moun-

.tains, Texas (station 2969). 

Genus EUCONOSPIRA Ulrich. 

EucoNOSPIRA OBSOLETA n. sp. 

Pl. VIII, figs. 14 to 14b. 

Shell large, spire low, consisting of four or five volutions, or possibly more. 

Umbilicus rather large. Pcritreme rhombic in section. The upper external surface 

gently convex and sloping downward. The upper internal surface gently concave 

and sloping downward. The lower surface at first sloping downward and later 

resurgent. Slit band narrow, peripheral, distinct, not concealed by succeeding 

volutions, though the suture occurs immediately below. 

Surface nearly smooth. Entirely without revolving lines, but having faint, 

regular, transverse lirre. These are rather coarse, though obscure on the upper 

:surface, where they are gently convex and swung strongly backward from the 

,suture. On the under side they are minute, regular, and resemble growth lines. 

Here also they are directed backward from the slit band, but are several times 

gently flexed. . 

While this species agrees in many of its characters with Euconospira, I doubt 

if it is correctly referred to that genus. Its general expression rather recalls a much 

earlier type-the genus Liospira. The absence of revoiving strire and the comparatively large umbilicus are distinctly alien to Euconospira. Nevertheless I feel 

hardly justified in referring th1s species to Liospira, which seems to have become 

extinct long before Carboniferous time, and its real affinities in the Pleurotomariidre 

are still a matter of doubt. 

Horizon and locality.-Middlc of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Gt~adalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). 
478 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

EucoNOSPIRA HALLIANA Shumard. 

1859. Pleurotomaria Halliana. Shumard, Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, vol. 1, p. 399 (date of volume, 

1860). 

White [Permian] limestone: Guadalupe Mountains. 

Shell depressed, conical, tapering rapidly to the apex; spire short; spiral angle 90°; volutions five 

or six, convex, slightly depressed below the middle and gently expanding at base; last volution occupying more than half the total length, gibbous, its exterior edge sharply carinated, under surface flattened convex;· umbilicus deep infundibuliform; form of aperture unknown. 

The under surface of the body volution is marked with several sharp revolving, threadlike lines; 

other surface markings unknown. 

Resembles in general form P. Verneuilii of Geinitz. 

Dimensions.-Length, 0.35; width, 0.38. 

Locality.-White limestone, Guadalupe Mountains. 

This species, Shumard's description of which is quoted above, has not been 

recognized among the more recent collections from the Guadalupe Mountains, and 

is probably distinct from Euconospira sp. from the southern Delawares. 

EucoNOSPIRA sp. 

This species is represented by a single specimen having a somewhat broadly 

conical shape. The basal diameter is 5! mm., the height 4 mm. or a little over. 

The base is rather strongly concave. The sloping external side of each volution. 

·is gently convex, and consequently the suture is slightly depressed. The lateral 

surface of the peritreme is marked by seven moderately coarse, strong, revolving 

linB. The same sort of sculpture appears to extend to the introverted basal portion. The position of the slit band has not been observed, but it probably lies on 

the angle between the basal and lateral areas of the peritreme. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2935). 

Genus MURCHISONIA.D'Archtac et De Verneuil?. 

Murchisonia is often employed to include the high-spired slit-bearing spiral 

gasteropods, just as the low-spired species are distinguished as Pleurotomaria in 

the broad sense. While to a certain extent convenient, this is hardly a satisfactory way to divide that extensively diversified group; and, furthermore, if restricted 

to its typical species Murchisonia represents a type which is very different from 

most of the forms referred to it and which, without having seen specimens, I would 

be disposed to doubt as belonging with Pleurotomaria at all. 

The shells for which the name Murchisonia is here used are very different from 

typica~ Murchisonia, and my only excuse for employing that term for them is that 

they are different from the Guadalupian Pleurotomarias, that they are doubtfully 

slit-bearing, and that others have used Murchisonia in the same sense. 

MURCHISONIA? sp. a. 

Pl. XXIX, fig. 20. 

Under this title are included two small specimens, the larger of which has a 

length of 8 mm. and a diameter below of a little over 2 mm. The shape is thus • 
MOLLUSCA. 479 

very slender and tapering and consists of about eight volutions. The most obvious feature is a very prominent rounded carina, which seems to occupy a median 

position on the outer periphery of the peritreme. Aside from this the lateral surface is much flattened and the volutions so closely joined that they appear to form 

a continuous elongated cone. Between the recurrences of the carina the surface 

is marked by fine lirm, of which there appear to be five or six. The umbilicus is 

closed. So far as I can make out from the material at hand, the lower half of each 

volution, which is rounded and of some height, is enveloped by the succeeding one 

as far as the carina. 

This species resembles Murchisonia terebra 

American species, but is clearly distinct from it. 

in the Pennsylvanian, so far as I am aware. 

probably more· than any other 

There is no closely related form 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 

MuRCHISONIA? sp. b. 

The material representing this form is very imperfect, and I can do no more 

than make a brief mention of it. In a general way it is similar to the foregoing, 

but is less gradually tapering. The height is 5 mm. a~1d the diameter at the base 

is 2 mm. The volutions number four or five. There appears to be a well-marked 

carina, as in Murchisonia? sp. a; but the other characters of sculpture are unknown. 

Not only is the spire in the present form less elevated, but the lower portions of 

the whorls are more prolonged. 

Horizon and ZocaZity.-Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 

Family BELLEROPHONTIDJE McCoy. 

Genus BELLEROPHON Montfort. 

BELLEIWPHON ·CRASs us Meek and Worthen. 

Pl. XXIX, fig. lo. 

1860. Bellerophon crassus. Meek and Worthen, Proc. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., p. 458. 

Lower "Coal Measures:" Pittsburg, St. Clair County, Ill. 

1866. Bellerophon crassus. Meek and Worthen, Rept. Geol. Survey Illinois, vol. 2, p. 385, pl. 31, figs. 

16a, 16b. 

Lower "Coal Measures:" Pittsburg, St. Clair County, Ill. 

1875. Bellerophon crassus. White, Rept. U. S. Geog. Survey W. 100th Mer., vol. 4, p. 157, pl. 12, 

fig. 1a. (Whole volume published in 1877.) 

Carboniferous: Camp Cottonwood, near Spring Mountain, Nev. 

1884. Bellerophon crassus. White, Thirteenth Rept. Geol. Survey Indiana, p. 157, pl. 33, figs. 1, 2. 

Upper "Coal Measures:" Sullivan and Posey counties, Ind. 

1886. Bellerophon crassus (var.)? Heilprin, Ann. Rept. Second Geol. Survey Pennsylvania for 1885, 

p. 457. 

Upper "Coal Measures:" Mill Creek limestone, Wilkes barre, Pa. 

1886. Bellerophon crassus (var.)? Heilprin, Proc. and Coll. Wyoming Hist. and Geol. Soc., vol. 2, 

pt. 2, p. 277. 

Upper "Coal Measures:" Mill Creek limestone, Wilkesb;:trre, Pa. 
:. 

480 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

?1887. Bellerophon (d. crassus). Herrick, Bull. Sci. Lab. Denison Univ., vol. 2, p. 20, pl. 5, fig. 6. 

"Coal Measures:" Flint Ridge, Ohio. 

1891. Bellerophon crassus. ·white, Bull. U. S. Geol. Survey No. 77, p. 26. 

Permian: Military Crossing, Baylor County, Tex. 

1895. Bellerophon crassus. Keyes, Rept. Missouri Geol. Survey, vol5, p. 151, pl. 50, figs. la, lb., (Date 

of imprint 1894,) 

Upper "Coal Measures:" Kansas City and Lexington, Mo. 

1896. Bellerophon crassus. Smith, Leland Stanford Junior Univ., Publ. Cont. Biol. Hopkins Seaside 

Lab., No. 9, p. 39. 

Lower "Coal Measures:" Conway County, Ark . 

. 1896. Bellerophon crassus. Smith, ·Proc. Am. Phil. Soc., vol. 35, p. 249. 

Lower "Coal Measures:" Conway County, Ark. 

1897. Bellerophon crassus. Ulrich, Final Rept. Geol. Nat. Hist. Survey, Minnesota, vol. 3, pt. 2, p. 853. 

" Coal Measures." 

1899. Bellerophon crassus. Girty, Nineteenth Ann. Rept. U. S. Gcol. Survey, pt. 3, p. 592. 

1903. Bellerophon crassus. Girty, Prof. Paper U. S. Geol. Survey No. 16, p. 468. 

Hermosa and Rico formations: San Juan region, Colo. 

Maroon formation: Crested Butte district, Colo. 

Weber formation and Robinson limestone: Leadville district, Colo. 

In spite of differences in the associated fauna so great as to establish an a priori 

probability that the form under consid~ration is distinct from that which is found 

in the Pennsylvanian of the Mississippi Valley, I do not feel justified from the evidence in hand in referring i£ to a different species. It is true, however, that Bellerophons of this type seem to possess few lines of differentiation and that we find species very closely similar to one another occurring at the widest geographical intervals 

.and at very different horizons in the Carboniferous 

In the case of the Guadalupian material our collections contain but three specimens, only one of which is in a fairly perfect state. of preservation. The outer surface is very regularly arched and the aperture .is almost exactly twice as wide as 

high, having an elliptical shape with broadly curved ends. The slit band is narrow, about 1 mm. wide or a little more, and considerably elevated and rounded. 

The surface is marked by rather strong, regularly arranged, sublamellose transverse 

lirre, which are slightly curved, with the convex· side forward. They are nearly 

transverse and perpendicular to the slit band, only very slightly bending backward 

in its vicinity. In crossing the slit band they are as strongly elevated as on the 

lateral areas. About nine occur in a distance of .5 mm. 

Bellerophon crassus is not a very rare species in the typical Pennsylvanian, but 

well-preserved specimens are seldom to be had, the ordinary method of occurrence 

being as internal molds. I have had but a limited number of specimens with which 

to compare the Guadalupian forms, but such as have been sech indicate a considerable 

range of variation, part of which is without much doubt a matter of maturity in the 

specimens. The shape seems to be fairly constant, though the external curvature 

is perhaps more broadly rounded, in mature and more acutely arched in young individuals. In some specimens the transverse lirre are nearly perpendicular to the slit 

band; in others they ar11more oblique to it or make a deeper reentrant angle in the 

outline of the lip. The slit band is apt to be depressed, especially in older speciTilens, but it may be fairly elevated and rounded. It is sometimes nearly smooth 

and at others crossed by lamellre equally with the sides. 
MOLLUSCA. 481 

The Guadalupian form, unless it develops similar variations, which I have no 

means of ascertaining, differs from certain forms of B. crassus in having the slit band 

more elevated and crossed by strong sublamellose lirre and in having the lirre and 

growth lines more directly transverse. From other specimens it presents no appreciable differences which I have been able to ascertain. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (stations 2935 and 2964). 

Genus BUCANOPSIS Ulrich. 

BucANOPsrs sp. 

Pl. XXIII, figs. 14 to 14b. 

Bellerophons, belonging apparently to the genus Bucanopsis, are not rare in the 

Ouadalupian fauna, but so· far none has been ol,>tained except in the Delaware 

Mountain formation. The fossils from this horizon,, especially the. gasteropods and 

pelecypods, are preserved as molds in such a manner that often, probably through 

·compression, external sculpture is retained mot\ or less clearly upon the internal 

mold. This is the condition of the Bellerophons under consideration. Their external characters are seldom, if ever, clearly shown upon the internal mold, however, 

and I find on examination that an inadequate number of external molds have been 

preserved to properly study this group. N everthele~s, two very distinct species 

have been discriminated, one of which, that at present under consideration, appears 

to belong to the genus Bucanopsis. It has a broad flattened dorsum and large open 

umbilici. The aperture flares but slightly and is indented above by a deep notch. 

The slit band is slightly elevated and rather broad. The surface is marked by very 

numerous fine revolving lirre, separated by intervals wider than themselves. No 

transverse decussating lirre have been observed, yet the revolving lirre have a nodose 

appearance and may, in fact, consist of rows of small elevations instead of continu-

·ous lines. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2931). 

Genus W ARTHIA Waagen. 

W ARTHIA AMERICANA n. sp. 

Pl XXIII, figs. 15 to 17b. 

This species is a narrower form than the foregoing, and the larger specimens 

·obtained are considerably smaller. .In young examples, especially, the dorsum is 

pointed or helmet-shaped. The shell does not appear to have been much expanded 

at the sides, and the umbilici were probably closed. The aperture was strongly 

·emarginate above, the reentrant angle terminating in a not very distinct notch. 

. The surface appears to have been devoid both of transverse and revolving lirre 

and of a slit band. No trace of sculpture or slit band can be found on either external 

·Or internal molds. Furthermore, a small silicified specimen from the southern 

Delawares, which probably belongs to the same species and without much doubt to 

3G95-:Ko. 58-0S--31 
482 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

the same genus, also presents only a smooth surface to the eye, without' either lirre 

or band.· 

It seems very probable, therefore, in spite of the unsatisfactory preservation of 

my specimens, that we have here a form which departs widely from the type of 

Bellerophons common in our ·Pennsylvanian faunas. I think that it can with 

reasonable assurance be assigned to Waagen's genus Warthia. It seems 'to differ 

from Mogulia, which also is without a slit band, in having the outer lip with a deep 

angular notch and the surface smooth instead of crossed by heavy transverse bands. 

Of the Indian W arthias the present species most resembles W. polita, but is 

still narrower. It is rather more closely allied to the form from New South Wales 

originally described as a Bellerophon, but subsequently placed by De Koninck under 

Goniatites because he could fmd no slit band. This species,. Bellerophon micromphalus, will probably prove to be a Warthia. W. americana appears to have a relatively wider aperture and to be more expanded near the umbilici. 

Mention has already been made of a small specimen from the southern Delawares: 

which probably belongs with Warthia america:na. It differs somewhat distinctly 

being more flaring at the sides in the umbilical region, but as probably all the specimens from Guadalupe Point are more or lel§s broken, particularly on the most projecting portions, I am disposed to believe that the best of them more or less misrepresents the shape of the aperture .. A relatively small amount broken from the shell 

as it projects near the umbili.ci would cause an appreciable difference in the outline. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point, 

Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2931). Delaware Mountain formation~ 

southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2969~). 

Family EUOMPHALIDJE De Koninck. 

Genus EUOMPHALUS Sowerby. 

EuoMPHALus SULCIFER n. sp. 

Pl. XVI, figs. 23 to 24a. 

Shell rather small, nearly complanate, consisting of four or five volutions. 

Upper surface almost flat or slightly concave, lower surface moderately concave. 

The upper surface of the peritreme is generally flat. Near the outer margin it 

is abruptly indented by a deep, narrow sulcus, the marginal portion of the upper 

surface forming a strong carina, which has, however, a nearly vertical direction. 

The suture is "'ell defined. Peripherally the peritreme is flattened and inclined 

inward from the upper rim. It seems· to bear ip. the older whorls a shallow indistinct 

depression. The under side is more convex than the upper and converges with it in 

the direction of the axis. The peripheral rim is somewhat angulated and just within 

the. angulation runs a shallow groove. The under side of the peritreme therefore 

resembles the upper, but with characters less strongly marked. These modifications 

of the surface are, however, nearly all due to thickening of the shell, the internal 

sections being to all intent circular. The surface is also marked by rather strong 

transverse lines and toward the aperture by indistinct, more or less regular annulations. 
MOLLUSCA. 483 

I have assigned this species to Euomphalus, though it seems to display many 

transitional characters to the genus Discohelix. 

Eumnphalus sulcifer and the variety next to be described are quite different 

from any known Pennsylvanian representatives of the genus. 

Horizon and locality.-" Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930); basal 

black limestone, Guadalupe Point (station 2920), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. 

' 

EUOMPIIALUS SULCIFER var. ANGULATUS n. var. 

Pl. XVI, figs. 25 and 25a. 

This variety is distinguished from the shell figured on the same plate. It 

differs from the normal type by having the channel which traverses the upper surface of the peritreme expanded and bounded on its inner side by a sharp carina, the 

inner upper portion of the peritreme being co:ricave. This channel also slopes downward so that the peripheral carina, instead of being vertical, is directed more nearly 

outward. 

The variety angulatus has the appearance of being very distinct from Euomphalus sulcifer, to which at the same time it is obviously related. My series of 

specimens, being rather limited; does not permit me to determine how far the two 

types pass into one another, and I have described the second merely as a variety of 

the first. 

There seems to be little danger of confusing these forms with any known species 

of Euomphalus or Straparollus. The only one known to me which rese~bles them 

at all closely is E. exortivus Dawson, from the Carboniferous limestone of Nova Scotia. 

Pawson's species is rather nearer the variety angulatus, but the wide difference in 

geologic age and the sharp angular carina of the Guadalupian form serve as adequate 

distinctions. · 

Horizon and locality.-" Dark limestone," Pine Spring, Guadalupe Mountains,. 

Texas (station 2930). 

Family TURBINIDJE Adams. 

Genus TURBO Linnreus. 

TuRBO GUADALUI'ENSIS Shumard. 

1859. Turbo Guadalupensis. Shumard, Trans. A cad. Sci. St. Louis, vol. 1, p. 398. (date of volume, 1860) .. 

'Dark [Permian] limestone: Guadalupe Mountains. 

Cast elongate ovate;. spire conical, tapering more gradually to the apex than we usually find in 

species of this genus; spiral angle, 470; volutions four or five, moderately convex, last one slightly ventricose, longer than the spire; suture linear, distinct; aperture ovate (?); surface maiked with numerous. 

obscure, closely set, revolving lines, which are wider than the spaces between. 

Dimensions.-Length, 0.85; width, 0.48 .. 

The collection contains merely a single finely preserved cast of this species. In general form, it. 

resembles some of the recent species of Limna;a. 

Locality.-Dark limestone, Guadalupe Mountains. 

The above is Shumard's description of this species, which appears not to have 

been obtained in the more recent Guadalupian collections. 
484 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

TuRBO~ sp. 

This type is represented by a single imperfect specimen having much the proportions and general appearance of Pleurotomaria richardsoni, but with somewhat 

.different sculpture and apparently without a slit band. The body whorl occupies 

over half the entire height. The spire is rather low and the umbilicus closed. The 

·outer half of the peritreme s~ction may be compared to a similar portion of a regular 

hexagon. A deep channel traverses the median line, bounded above by a carina 

which for the size of the shell is strongly elevated and broadly rounded. The carina 

corresponds in position to the carina of Pleurotomaria richardsoni, but instead of 

being flattened on top and bearing the slit band, it is sharply rounded and marked 

by coarse and somewhat oblique crenulations. The carina is followed above by a 

:strong sulcus, between which and the suture appears to be a raised band with verti-

·cally elongated nodes. A carina nearly equal to that·above the median sulcus defines 

its lower limit, beneath which are about four strong lirro diminishing in size and 

prominence toward the axis. Part of the lower portion, and probal1ly the whole, is 

·Crossed by moderately coarse, strong, sharply elevated, oblique 1lirro, probably continuous with the crenulations on the top of the carina. · 

This form, of which the principal characters, so far as shown by mY not 

very perfect specimen, have been hastily sketched ·above, is clearly distinct•·from 

P. richardsoni, though mtich resembling it in a general way. It is possible, however, 

that it may be one of the Pleurotomarias, though this seems at present less probable. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware ]\toun-

-tains, Texas (station 2969). 

Family TROCHID.lE Adams. 

Genus TROCHUS Linnreus. 

TROCHUS ~ sp. 

From the white limestone of the Capitan formation has been obtained a single 

;specimen, very imperfect, which at the same time differs strongly from any of the 

forms described from this horizon and yet is too imperfect to establish as new. 

'The spire was high, but the approximate number of volutions can not be ascertained. 

The diameter of the largest whorl is 5 mm. and its height about 2.5 mm. The under 

.side of the peritre.me is flattened and slightly inclined downward £rom the axis, causing the l<?wer side of the shell to be slightly concave. The lateral surface of the ' 

peritreme is distinguished from the basal by an acute angulation, and is itself 

slightly dihedral. The lower half is nearly flat, not quite parallel to the axis, but 

inclined toward· it. The upper half is also nearly flat and inclined to the axis at 

.an angle of about 45°. The union of the two surfaces is marked by a sharp revolving ridge, between which and the basal angulation another sharp ridge.is found with 

an intermediate position. The lower half of the lateral surface of the peritreme, 

therefore, appears to be marked by three nearly equal revolving angular lirro. 

No other surface ornamentation has been preserved besides the three ridges, 

.and it is uncertain whether or not either of the two depressed bands between them 
MOLLUSCA. 485 

functioned as a slit band. I am very doubtful about this species belonging to the 

Pleurotomarias, and it seems at present to be more nearly related to Trochus. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). 

Family NERITOPSIDJE Fischer. 

Genus NATICOPSIS McCoy. 

N A TICOPSIS sp, 

Pl. XXIII, figs. 18 to 19b. 

Thi~ form is represented in our collections by but two specimens, both from 

the Delaware Mountain formation. One of them is rather small, and as both are 

· preserved as molds and the larger is distorted by pressure I feel that it would not be 

safe either to identify them with known species or to describe them as new, especially in a genus where the discrimination of species depends to so large a degree 

on configuratibn. · 

The general character can be seen by the illustrations, for the form is one of 

those in which few mark~d peculiarities exist. The size is rather small, the spire 

low, the peritreme rapidly enlarging, and the final ~olutions large and inflated .. 

This form seems to resemble Naticopsis dispassa Dawson, bu.t the figure of 

that species given by its author is so wretched that only the general character can 

be asce.rtained from it. It also resembles anotlier lower Carboniferous species, 

Naticopsis carleyana, but differs in having the body whorl broader and not so high. 

By a similar character it differs from Naticopsis nana, having a less inflated body 

whorl. Some of the other species of Strophostylus are of the same general type; 

but their much greater size renders it difficult to compare my fossil with them. I 

am uncertain whether this form is rightly a Naticopsis or a Strophostylus. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 

2931); basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (station 2967), Guadalupe Mountains, 

Texas. 

Family PYRAMIDELLIDJE Gray. 

Genus ZYGOPLEURA Koken. 

ZYGOPLEURA SWALLOWIANA Shumard. 

1859. Chemnitzia Swalloviana. Shumard, Trans. A cad. Sci. St. Louis, vol. 1, p. 399 (date of volume, 

1860). 

White [Permian] limestone: Guadalupe Mountains. 

'Shell subulate, very gradually tapering to the apex; spinal angle 12°; volutions about 15 (?) very 

gently convex; suture well marked, excavated; surface of volutions ornamented with longitudinal, 

arched folds which do not cross the suture; aperture unknown. 

The collection contains but a single specimen of this shell, which is imperfect. 

Locality.-White limestone, Guadalupe Mountains.a 

My material of this species is somewhat imperfect, and were it not that' the form 

defined by Shumard, whose description is not very full, is characterized by the 

extremely large number of volutions, I would feel much doubt about referring my 

shells to it. 

a Trans. Acad. Spi. St. Louis, vol. 1, 1856-1860, p. 399. 
486 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

· The larger of the two specimens at hand has a height of 13 mm. The diameter 

at the base is 4 mm. and at the top about 0.5 mm. The spire is thus seen to be very 

high and tapering. There are about 12 volutions existing, while several ~re clearly 

missing at the top. The suture lines are nearly horizontal. The peritreme section 

is about circular, the shape being little if at all modified in each volution by the apposition of those above and below. The diameter of the peritreme at the larger end is 

slightly in excess of 2 mm. The surface may have been smooth, or differently 

marked, but appears to have possessed rather narrow vertical corrugations, of which 

a considerable number occur on a single volution. · 

The smaller specimen has a height of but 7.5 mm., with a basal diameter of but 

2 mm. The apex is produced nearly to· a point, and there are about ten volutions. 

The surface of this specimen is not preserved. 

The foregoing notes are taken from specimens which are preserved for the most 

part as internal molds. The sutures, therefore, appear much more deeply indented 

than it was probable was really the case. I believe, however, that the suture line 

was really distinctly depressed. 

There can be little· doubt that neither the shell described by Shumard nor that 

here subsumed under the name proposed by him, if they are not the same, is a Chemnitzia. They appear to be congeneric with or at least to resemble the group of upper 

Carboniferous species for which the name Loxonema is used. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). 

Genus LOXONEMA Phillips: 

LOXONEMA ~ INOONSPICUUM n. sp. 

Pl. XXIV, fig. 19. 

I have but a single specimen of this form, of which, on account of its small size 

and not very perfect preservation, a complete description can not be given. The 

size is small and the shape long and slender, the length being 3 mm. and the width 

of the lowest whorl 1 mm. or a little less. The volutions number six, or possibly 

seven. The convexity of the whorls is considerable. The peripheral line is situated 

from one suture about one-third the entire distance to the next below, and at this 

point the outline is in fact rather abruptly deflected. The suture is depressed. 

The surface appears to be entirely smooth. . 

This species resembles Loxonema cerithiiforme, but the whorls are higher and 

less numerous, and there are no little nodes along the lines of suture. It is also 

related to L. peoriense, but is much smaller and with a larger apical angle. 

Horizon and locality.-Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2967). 

Genus PSEUDOMELANIA Pictet. 

PsEUDOMELANIA sp. a. 

. This species is represented by a mere fragment, which it would scarcely be 

worth while to mention separately, except that it is rather exceptional in its characters. Of the two volutions preserved, one has a height of a little less than 5 mm., 
MOLLUSCA. 487 

while that above it is a little over 3 mm. The whorls are without ornamentation, 

almost flat laterally. What may be discriminated as the lateral and lower portions 

are about equal in height and are distinguished by an angulation marking the limit 

to which each volution is enveloped by that which succeeds it. The suture is very 

slightly depressed. The larger diameter is about 5 mm. and the taper very gradual. 

The spire, therefore, must have been extremely high and in shape regularly conical, 

.and the riumber of volutions was without doubt large. The body whorl appears to 

have been relatively small. The general appearance of these fragments is that of a 

Pseudomelania, a genus which is thought to extend back into the Carboniferous 

period. 

This shell is quite unlike anything else in the collection, and I can recall no form 

resembling it among our Carboniferous faunas. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2931). 

PsEUDOMELANIA ~ sp. b. 

I include here only a single small, imperfect specimen which appears to possess 

the following characters: 

The shape is very small and slender, with many volutions. Height about 6 mm., 

diameter below a little less than 2 mm. ,Volutions about nine in number. The 

peripheral surface of the volutions is so flattened and their line of union so ill defined 

that in my poorly preserved example they are individually indistinguishable. The 

lower part of the peritreme is nearly flat, so that the volutions are but very slightly 

embracing. In this respect, as in size, the present form is in distinct contrast to the 

foregoing one. 

It very closely resembles in a general way the smaller of the two specimens identified as Loxonema swallowianum, but seems to have a much flatter lateral surface and 

somewhat less rounded basal portion. ·It also appears to be without the sculpture 

which is presumably a character of the small example of Loxonema. I am somewhat 

in doubt whether this .may not be an imperfect example of the form cited as Murchisonia? sp. a. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 

Genus BULIMORPHA Whitfield. 

BULIMORPHA CHRYSALIS var. DELAWARENSIS n. var. 

Pl. XXIII, fig. 2L 

This variety, of which our collection contains but a single specimen, is in general 

form spindle-shaped, the moderately high spire consisting of five or possibly six volutions, and the body whorl occupying about half the whole length. In configuration 

it appears to be intermediate between Bulimorpha bulimiformis of the "Lower Carboniferous" and B. chrysalis of the "Upper Carboniferous." It seems to be a little 

less elongate than the Mississippian species, the spire especially being not quite so 

tapering. On the other hand, the body chamber is a little more inflated than in 

the Pennsylvanian form. The difference, however, is not large, and had the form 

• 
488 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. ' 

under consideration been found in association with the usual fauna of the "Coar 

Measures" of the Mississippi Valley I would probably have neglected it. . 

Horizon and. locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2931). 

, Genus MACROCHEILINA Bayle? 

The few imperfect shells included under this title are probably congeneric with 

_those with which Phillips's term Macrocheilus is comnionly associated. When 

Phillips introduced Macrocheilus in 1841, the name had already been anticipated 

by Macrocheilus Kirkby, 1838, proposed for a genus of insects. Long afterwards, 

in 1879, Bayle, on the strength of this fact, wished to replace Macrocheilus Phillips. 

by the term Duncania, but :finding that also preoccupied for a. genus of corals, 

fmally, in 1880, substituted Macrocheilina. While most authors have retained the 

more familiar name, I do not at present see how that course can be justified. 

When first suggesting the term Macrocheilus, Phillips did not give a generic 

description, but only introduced it tentatively for some shells which had previously 

been included under Buccinum. The first species mentioned and the first species 

described in <?onnection with Macrocheilus is M. brems, which must probably be 

taken as the type. 

Now, most of the Buccinidre are highly ornamented species and Macrocheilug 

brems has a. row of large nodes near the suture, with apparently other nodes on 

the body whorl, presenting, in fact, an appearance very different from the Carboniferous shells which it is customary to refer to Macrocheilus. Bayle's Duncania 

was associated with Buccinites arculatus Schlotheim as the typical species, and in 

this case, ·also, no description was given. Macrocheilina was simply substituted 

for Duncania. a . 

Buccinites arculatus is a large shell in Schlotheim's figure, with a shoulder just 

below the suture and a suggestion of nodes along it, in configuration considerably 

different from m~st of the shells from the American Carboniferous referred to 

Macrocheilus. 

. So far as I have investigated the subject, it seems to me that Macrocheilus 

must in any event yield place to Macrocheilina; but, on the other hand, it seems 

doubtful if more than a very few of the Carboniferous species of Macrocheilus can 

properly be retained vnder Macrocheilina. As, however, I am in no position to 

indicate the proper disposition of the shells which I would exclude from Macrocheilina, including, of course; the Gu!dalupian species at present under consideration, I have retained Bayle's name for them, but in a provisional manner. 

The three species included under Macrocheilina in the present instance are 

imperfectly known, and it is not certain that they are congeneric with one another. 

Macrocheilina? modesta and Macrocheilina sp. a are inore comparable to M. 

arculata, while Macrocheilina sp. b, with its low spire and large and deeplyembracing whorls, appears to belong to at least a different group of species. 

a Jour. de Conch., ser. 3, vol. 20, p. 241. 
MOLLUSCA. 489 

MACROCHEILINA ~ l\IODESTA n. sp. 

Pl. XXIV, fig. 20. 

Our collections contain only one specimen of this shell, which is of very small 

size and fusiform spape, rather rapidly enlarging. The length is slightly less than 

3 mm. and the width below about half the length. The volutions number four to 

four and one-half. The whorls are moderately convex and the suture depressed. 

The aperture is oval, longer than wide, and nearly parallel to the axis. The surface is smooth. 

Hori~on and locality.-Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2967). 

MACROCIIEILINA? sp. a. 

Pl. XXIII, fig. 20. 

Shell of medium size, consisting probably of seven or eight volutions. Spire 

moderately high, the body whorl comprising about half the entire length. The 

volutions are somewhat flattened, and the final one is rather elongated. The 

sutures are moderately depressed. It is uncertain whether this shell possessed 

the fold on the columella, which is one of the characters of Soleniscus, for the preservation is that of an internal mold and the aperture is complicated by crushing, 

but if this character was present it was probably strongly marked. 

This species resembles several found in the "Coal Measures" of the Central 

and Eastern States, but the single specimen preserved in our ·collections is so imperfect that its relations to other forms can not be precisely ascertained. It is somewhat like S. altonensis, but the spire was probably higher and the body whorl not 

so large. S. fusiformis also resembles it, but probably has a higher spire. S. hallanus appears to he very similar indeed, and· I would feel disposed to refer the 

Guadalupian shell to that species pending a fuller knowledge of its characters 

were it not. that the entirely different faunal association in which it occurs would, 

a priori, afford evidence against its being the same species. S. humilis has a pro-

. portionately larger body whorl, though in general rather similar. S. newberryi is 

another closely related species. It probably h.as a higher spire, but this portion 

of my specimen being lost this character can only be surmised. S. paludiniformi~ 

is similar, but only in a general way, and as the Guadalupian form, all of whose 

characters are not known, occurs at a different horizon and is associated with a 

very different fauna the propriety of ignoring these differences is· doubtful. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2931). 

MACROCHEILINA? sp. b. 

The only specimen representing this species is very small, with a large body 

·whorl. The general shape of the whole is fusiform, regularly tapering at both 

ends. The entire height is only about 3 mi:n., of which the spire, consisting of 

three volutions, occupies only one-fifth. The width is a little less than 2 mm. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware 

Mountains, Texas (station 2964). 
·490 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

CEPHALOPODA . 

.The Cephalopoda form an interesting and characteristic, often an abundant, 

Jeat'ure of the later epochs of the Paleozoic. The small number which it has been 

possible to include in the present report has accordingly been somewhat of a disappointment. It seems probable, however, that this group may be even abundant at 

some horizons and some localities of the Guadalupian, for Mr. Richardson, limited 

as to time and conveyance, obtained a far more plentiful and varied representation 

than our party, with its more leisurely movements and its more primary purpose of 

making collections. It is a rather singular fact that none of the ammonoids, to 

which group the foregoing remarks chiefly apply, have as yet been found in the 

upper or Capitan formation of the Guadalupian. All the material thus far obtained 

is from the basal black limestone and from the Delaware Mountain formation of'the 

·Guadalupian section, and from corresponding beds in the southern Delawares. 

Known Cephalopoda of the Guadalupian comprise only the following genera: 

Among the Nautiloidea, Orthoceras (1 species), Foordoceras (2 species); among the 

Ammonoidea, Gastrioceras (2 species), Paraceltites (1 species), 'Agathoceras (1 species), 

Peritrochia (1 species), and Waagenoceras (1 species). 

The Sait Range fauna has furnished, according to Waagen, 4 species of Ortho-

·Ceras, 1 species of Gyroceras, 9 species of Nautilus, 2 species of Sageceras, 2 species 

.of Xenodiscus, 2 species of Arcestes, and 1 species of Oyclolobus. The ammonoids 

of the Guadalupian are almost entirely different from those of the Salt Range fauna, 

having, in fact, not one genus in common. The nautiloids form a less satisfactory 

medium of comparison. In the Salt Range the order was more highly differentiated and many of the species more robust: Foordoceras shumardianum probably 

belongs to the same group as the t~o Indian species, Nautilus wynnei and N. transitorius. The other Salt Range groups appear not to be represented here. The 

Gyroceras is non-Guadalupian, as are the two species of annulated Orthoceras. The 

two smooth species are more like that from the Delaware Mountain formation. 

In his first paper on the Carboniferous of Chitichun Diener cites only Popano-

.ceras trimurti, which is of course non-Guadalupian. In his second paper on this 

fauna he records Nautilus hunicus, Xenaspis carbonaria, and Oyclolobus walkeri. 

No appreciable relationship with the Guadalupian is indicated by these forms. 

In his second paper dealing with the Spiti fauna Diener cites from the upper 

·division Xenaspis cf. carbonaria, Oyclolobus cf. oldhami, Oyclolobus insignis, 0. 

kraffti, 0. haydeni,. Orthoceras sp., and Nautilus sp. The only point of contact 

between the Cephalopoda of this fauna and those of the Guadalupe Mountains is in 

the Orthoceras, for the species of Nautilus probably belong to different groups. 

The only cephalopod which Diener found in his fauna from Kumaon and Gurhwal is Orthoceras sp. It is of the same general type as Orthoceras guadalupense. 

A number of cephalopods are known from the Permian Productus shales of· 

:Byans. Diener mentions Hyattoceras nov. sp. ex aff. H. cummingsi, Adrianites sp. 

ind., Gastrioceras sp. ind. ex aff. G. marianum, Brancoceras? sp. ind., Nomismoceras 

smithi, Pericyclus sp. ind., and Lilinthicoceras sp. ind. This list of forms is generically far different from the Guadalupian. The species of Hyattoceras (which may 
MOLLUSCA. 491 

possibly be congeneric with Waagenoceras cummingsi) and Gastrioceras are not 

related specifically to the Guadalupian species of Waagenoceras and Gastrioceras. 

On the whole only a remote.relationship appears to exist between the Guadalupian Cephalopoda and those of the Salt Range and Himalaya. The Guadalupian 

forms, so far as known, may be somewhat less abundant, varied, and possibly more 

primitive. 'It seems probable, however, that further collecting would modify some 

of these conclusions and perh~ps all of them. Both faunas contain this group in 

less abundance and variety than some which enter into these comparisons. 

The only cephalopods cited by Romanowsky from Turkestan are Nautilus dnnganensis and Goniatites crenistria. Neither species appears to have any related 

Guadalupian form. . 

The Lo Ping fauna contains, according to Kayser, only four species of Nautilus 

and three species of Orthoceras. The absence of ammonoids is a noteworthy circumstance. One of the Nautili is possibly a Bellerophon ( Warthia), and the others 

are not closely related to the Quadalupian species of Foo~doceras. Of the Orthocerata two species belong to the annulated type and are, so far as known, nonGuadalupian. The other is.possibly a Dentalium, and at all events its relation to 

the Guadalupian species of Orthoceras can not be made out. 

Loczy found few cephalopods and no ammonoids among the Chinese faunas 

which he studied. From Kantschoufu he records Oyrtoceras an Orthoceras sp. indet., 

'l Nautilus (Discites) sp. indet., ? Nautilus kayseri, and Nautilus ( Temnocheilus) 

waageni. These forms appear not to be related to the Guadalupian Ammonoidea, 

and this is the only Carboniferous fauna in which Loczy found any cephalopods 

at all. 

Roemer's paper on the Carboniferous fauna from the west coast of Sumatra 

dtes the following: Nautilus tuberosus, Nautilus sp., Orthoceras undatum, and Goniatites listeri. None of these appears to be related to the Guadalupian Cephalopoda. 

In writing about this fauna in 1901 Fliegel cites these forms as Orthoceras orientalis, 

Temnocheilus hayi, Pleuronautilus sumatren8is, and Pleuronautilus loczyi. 

Beyrich ·cites no Cephalopoda, but Rothpletz describes from Timor and Rotti 

Orthoceras sp., Nautilus sp., Arcestes megaphyllus Arcestes tridens, and Arcestes persulcatus. They seem to be unrelated to the Guadalupian representatives of this 

class. 

The Cephalopoda of the "Permo-Carboniferous" of Queensland and New Guinea 

as described by Etheridge are rather few in number and are referred to Nautilus 

(2 species), Orthoceras (several species), Gyroceras (1 species), and Goniatites ( 4 spedes). Only one of the speCies of Nautilus is :figured. As its sutures are unknown 

and as· its sculpture and configuration are so much more like the ammonoids than 

the nautiloids, it would with greater probability have been placed with the latter 

group. It resembles several Guadalupian ammonoid species, but as its sutures, and 

therefore its generic position, are unknown, further comparison need not be made. 

Only two of the :five or six species of Orthoceras are :figured. One belongs to an 

:entirely different group from the Guadalupian form, but the other is of the same 

general type, though much larger. The form· described as Gyroceras dubium n. sp. 

resembles some of the Guadalupian ammonoids, but like the Nautilus its su'ture is 

unknown and its generic position problematical. Among the Goniatites recognized 
492 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA, 

by Etheridge is G. micromphalus, originally described by Morris as a Bellerophon. 

Apparently no specimen thus far found shows any traces of septa, but De Koninck 

referred it to Goniatites, because he was unable to discover traces of a slit band, a 

feature usually determinable on most Bellerophons, even when preserved as molds. 

In the Salt Range of India, however, Waagen obtained a type of Bellerophon in 

which that structure is missing ( Warthia). It is probable, therefore, that Morris's 

species must be returned to the Bellerophontidre, and it may even prove to be a 

representative of the genus Warthia. ~n general appearance this form, which was 

obtained from the Bowen River coal field, is suggestive more of Warthia americana 

than of any other Guadalupian type. The remaining species of Goniatites are 

imperfectly known. Their suture lines have not been determined and their generic 

position is consequently uncertain. No effective comparisons can therefore be 

made with the Guadalupia11 ammonoids, and I see no relationship between them, 

the Australian forms apparently representing older, or at all events more primitive,. 

types, so far as can be determined. 

In his monograph on the Carboniferous f~unas of New South Wales, De Koninck 

recognizes only two species of Goniatites, both from the."Permo-Carboniferous" division. G. micromphalus, as suggested above, is probably a. Bellerophon, to which 

genus it was originally referred. The same may in fact be true of the second 

. species, for its suture is not known, nor in ·fact is it certain that it was divided by 

partitions. Orthoceras is represented by 0. striatum, a· species perhaps of the same 

general character as 0. guadalupense. . 

Trautschold identifies only a few cephalopods in· the Russian Moskovian, 

referring them to Nautilus tuberculatus, N. clitellarius, N. subsulcatus, N. eccentricus, 

N. oxystomus, Orthoceras ovale, and 0. polyphemus. None of these is related to the 

Guadalupian species except Orthoceras polyphemus. 

The only records of the occurrence of this group in the Gschelian stage have 

bee~ in lists, where I have seen recorded three or four species of Orthoceras and three 

or four species of Nautilus, together with the ammonoid genera Agathoceras and 

Pronorites. The ammonoids appear to be much less well.developed than those of 

the Guadalupian, but further comment than this would not be justified. 

In considering the cephalopods of ~he. Artinsk one recurs at once to Karpinsky's 

monograph on "Die Ammoneen der Artinskstufe." By title this work of course 

excludes the Nautiloidea. It treats of 3 species of Pronorites, 3 species of 

Parapronorites, 4 species of Medlicottia, 2 species of Propinacoceras, 6 species of 

Gastrioceras, 1 species of Glyphioceras, 1 species of Paralegoceras, 3 species of 

Agathoceras, 13 species of Popanoceras, 2 species of Thalassoceras, and 1 species 

of Paraceltites. This lis~ indicates a facies considerably di;fferent from the 

Guadalupian, the only genera in common being Agathoceras, Paraceltites, and 

Gastrioceras. Agathoceras' texanum is closely related to A. uralicum, but the 

Guadalupian species of Gastrioceras belong to a different group from those 

treated by Karpinsky. The most abundantly represented of the Russian genera 

(Popanoceras) does not occur among the known Guadalupian cephalopods, and 

there ~eems to be slender relationship between the two faunas in this respect. 
MOLLUSCA. 493 

Stuckenherg, besides listing several species of Gastrioceras, Pronorites, Popanoceras, and Medlicottia from the Artinsk and the associated Kungurstufe, cites also 

. Nautilus and Orthoceras. These last when figured do·not appear to be closely allied 

to the Guadalupian Orthoceras and Nautilus. 

Krotow's account of the fauna of the Artinsk sandstone notes 4 species of 

Orthoceras, 1 species of Oyrtoceras, 3 species of Nautilus, 11 species of Goniq,(ites, 3 

species of Waagenia, and 3 species of Medlicottia. Of the two figured species of 

Orthoceras one resembles 0. guadalupense and one does not. The species of Oyrtoceras is not figured, but presumably is non-Guadalupian, as is the only illustrated 

species of Nautilus. Krotow uses Gastrioceras, Glyphioceras, Popanoceras, and 

Pronorites as subgenera of Goniatites. Gastrioceras jossce appears to be more or 

less closely related to the Guadalupian species of Gastrioceras, but otherwise the 

Guadalupian ammonoids and those recorded by Krotow from the Artinsk are 

different. 

The cephalopods of the Russian Permian seem practically confined to the 

Nautiloidea. Tschernyschew cites from the Government of- Kostroma Nautilus 

freieslebeni and N .. cornutus. The former, which alone is figured, appears to be 

unlike the Guadaluplan Foordoceras. N. cornutus is the only cephalopod cited 

from the Permian by Golowkinsky, and is also not closely allied to the Guadalupian 

Nautiloids. Netschajew records the same species, together with unidentified and 

unfigured ones. . 

In addition to the works above discussed, which deal with the Russian 

-cephalopods, it remains . to speak of a few others. Marie Tzwetaev, in 1888, 

described the cephalopods of the upper portion of the Carboniferous limestone of 

<Jentral Russia, recognizing 1 species of Gastrioceras, 16 species of Nautilus, and 

4 species of Orthoceras. The single Gastrioceras does not belong to the same group 

as the Guadalupian species. The only Nautilus which can be compared with the 

Guadalupian Foordoceras is N. tschernyschewi, and many of the others are widely 

different. Of the Orthocerata none is really close to Orthoceras guadalupense, the 

nearest being probably 0. laterale. 

Jakowlew also desc.ribed some Russian Cephalopoda, namely, 2 speCies of 

Metacoceras, ~ species of, Temnocheilta;, 1 species of Pteronautilus, 1 species of 

Asymptoceras, 1 species of Omlonautilus, 1 species of Discites, and 1 species of 

Orth'oceras. Metacoceras variabile and M. trigonotuberculatum are not unlike the 

Guadalupian forms which I have referred to Foordoceras. The remainder of the 

Nautili, together with the single species of Orthoceras, are not related to the 

Guadalupian representatives of these groups. . 

Lastly, De Verneuil, recording no cephalopods froin the Permian, describes as 

from the Carboniferous 2 species of Orthoceras, 4 species of Nautilus, and 10 species 

Df Goniatites. Both the Orthoceratites are of the same general type as o._guadalupense, but none of the Nautili is closely related to the Guadalupian Foordoceras. 

Goniatites joss;e and to a less degree G. marianum are somewqat closely related to 

the two Guadalupian species of Gastrioceras, but the other Goniatites have no corresponding forms. 

. . '; f:·~· .. 
494 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

In conclusion, the Cephalopoda do not indi~ate a close relationship between 

the Guadalupian fauna and that of any horizon of the Russian section. Because 

no ammonoids are known from the Russian Permian, the relationship, such as is 

manifested at all, is rather with the Artinskian stage. 

This group appears well represented in the fauna from Djoulfa, in Armenia, 

described by Abich. This author cites Goniatites striatus, Ceratites djoulfensis, C. intermedius, C. tropitus, C. trochoides, C. pessoides, Nautilus eccentricus, N. propinquus, 

N. parallelus, N. convergens, N. concavus, N. dolerus, N. dorso-armatus, N. pichleri, 

N. tubercularis, N. dorsoplicatus, N. armeniacus, Orthoceras annulatum, 0. cribrosum, 

0. transversum, 0. bicinctum, 0. margaritatum, and 0. turitellum. The form identified as Goniatites striatus does not seem to be closely allied to the Guadalupian 

species of Gastrioceras, while the five species of Ceratites are widely different from 

anything in that fauna. Among the numerous species which Abich places under 

Nautilus the only ones which are comparable to the Guadalupian Foordoceras are 

Nautilus tubercularis and to a less degree N. pichleri. Some of the other species 

are widely different.· Nearly all of the six Armenian varieties of Orthoceras belong 

to the annulated type, which is unknown as yet in the Guadalupian. 

When Arthaber discussed the Djoulfa fauna, a few years ago, he made a number 

of changes in the generic appellations, but added relatively few new species to those 

described by Abich, although combining some of them. Thus, instead of Nautilus 

alone, he gives us Nautilus, Pleuronautilus, and Cmlonautilus, while muong the 

ammonoids we have Gastrioceras, ifungarites, and Otoceras. In its ammonoids the 

Armenian fauna is widely different from the Guadalupian, for the species of Gastrioceras in each are not closely related. The Orthocerata and the nautiloids are 

. more varied and in the main considerably different. 

The Fusulina limestone of Palermo has furnished a much more extensive cephalopod fauna than the Guadalupian is known to contain. Gemrnellaro has distinguished among the nautiloids no less thllill 18 species, representing the genera 

Trematodiscus (l species), Pleuronautilus (l species), Endolobus (l species), Gyroceras (l species), and Orthoceras (14 species). The nautiloids are but distantly 

related to those of the Guadalupian fauna. Gemmellaro's species of Orthoceras 

for the most part resemble 0. guadalupense in being small, gradually enlarging, 

without constrictions, and with a centrally situated siphuncle. They show more 

or less extensive differences in the height of the chambers and in the sculpture, a 

character which I have been unable to observe, my specimens occurring as molds. 

Some of Gemmellaro's species, such as 0. adrianense, 0. paternoi, and 0. subtriangulare, are non-Guadalupian, so far as known.· Two species (0. obliquesulcatum 

and 0. mhlerti) are not figured in my copy of Gemmellaro's report, but the latter is 

also non-Guadalupian. Though some of the Sicilian Orthocerata doubtless resemble 

the Gu.adalupian species rather closely, they are in strong contrast with the latter, 

by reason of their much greater abundance and differentiation. The nautiloids, on 

.the other hand, while possibly no more abundant, are more varied and different. 
MOLLUSCA. 495 

In his first paper on the Sicilian ammonoids Gemmellaro discrfminated in all 

54 species,_ belonging to the following genera: 

Species. 

Waagenoceras............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 

Hyattoceras..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 

Popanoccras... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 

Stacheoceras............ .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ll 

Adrianites.......................... . . . . . . . . . 6 

Mcdlicottia....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 

Propinacoceras... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 

Parapronorites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

Sicanites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 

Species. 

Daraelites ................... _-_............. l 

Thalassoceras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 

Paraceltites ..... ·........................... 2· 

Agathoceras ......................... _ .. __ .. 3 

Doryceras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4· 

Clinolobus ......................... _.. . . . . . . 1 

Gastrioceras................................ 3. 

Glyphioceras.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2· 

In an appendix published subsequently he discusses or describes the following: 

Species. Species. 

Waagenoccras ...................... ~.. . . . .. . . 1 Paraccltites ............... ·_ . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 2 

Hyattoceras.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Agathoccras ........ : ............. _ . .. . . .. . . 1 

Popanoccras .............................. . Doryceras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

Stacheoccras ....................... '...... . . . 1 Gastrioceras ................... _ .... '_ .... _.. 1 

Adrianites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Brancoceras. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

The two Guadalupian species of Gastrioceras belong to the same group as the 

Sicilian forms G. zitteli and G. roemeri. G. sosiense and G. waageni have as yet no 

cognate Guadalupian species. Paraceltites elegans is closely allied-to several Sicilian 

species of Paraceltites. Agathoceras texanum, however, presents several points of 

difference from the Sicilian for~s, so as to raise some doubt whether they do not 

at least belong to another section of the genus. The single Guadalupian species of 

Waagenoceras is related to the Sicilian representatives of the genus. Although, so 

far as Imown, much less varied, the Guadalupian Ammonoidea appear to be closely 

related to those from Palermo, more closely than to any fauna yet brought to light. 

With the exception of Peritrochia all the Guadalupian genera occur in Sicily. · 

The cephalopods of the Trogkofelschichten have not yet, so far as I have discovered, been described, and the only record from that section which I have come 

upon was made by Gortani, who cites from the Carnic Alps only Orthoceras cf. calamusDeKon. 

·In the Dyas, as in the Russian Permian, the cephalopods .are represented only 

by the Nautiloidea. Geinitz cites two species of Nautilus and one of Orthoceras. 

The two nautiloids are quite unlike those 6f the Guadalupian fauna, but the Orthoceras is of the same general type. Similarly, in the English Permian King records 

only two species of Nautilus, and both belong to different groups from the Guadalupian Foordoceras. • 

The only Arctic cephalopod which I have seen mentioned is Orthoceras sp. cited 

by Toula from·Nova Zeinbla. It resembles 0. guadalupense. 

From Igidi, in the West Sahara, Stache cites an undetermined Orthoceras of a. 

different type from 0. guadalupense. 

No records of this group having been found from South or Central America. 

from horizons which concern the present investigation, it remains only to speak of 
496 ;. THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

the cephalopo'ds of the Penn:;;ylvanian anq Permian of North America. 

lists the Pennsylvanian Ammonoidea under.fthe following genera: 

Weller 

Species. Species. 

Asymptoceras.- ___ ·_------ _- _----- _--- _----- 3 Metacoceras ________ . _ - ________ -- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6 

·Coloceras ________ - __ -_-- ___ -- - - --- . - -- -- - -- 1 Nautilus ____________________________ --· ___ ·16 

Cyrtoceras ____ - ___ - -- --- - _ - _ - - - - _ - -- - -- - -- - 4 Orthoceras. ____ . ___________________ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 12 

Discites __________ . _____________ - _ - -- - _ - -- 1 Phacoceras _____ - __ .. _____________ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 

Domatoceras _____ - --- __ - _ --- - _ - -- -- - _ - _ -- - 5 Tainoceras. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3 

Endolobus. _______ - _______ - ______ ---------- 1 Temnocheilus ____________________ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6 

Ephippioceras __________________ - __ - _---- _ 2 Thrincoceras. _--------- ---- _- _------- '_- _-- _ ? 2 

To offset these, the Guadalupian fauna, so far as known, presents but two 

:species of Foordoceras and one species of Orthoceras. Orthoceras guadalupense 

belongs to a group which is found the world over, at various horizons. 0. rushense 

may be mentioned as a related Pennsylvanian species, and there are others. The 

genus Foordoceras, to which the Guadalupian species have been referred, is chiefly, 

Indian in its distribution and has not been recognized in the Pennsylvanian. It 

may prove, however, that Foordoceras shumardianurn has cognate sp,ecies in the 

Pennsylvanian, especially among the unfigured types of Nautilus. 

The ammonoids of the Pennsylvanian include the following genera, according 

to the recently published monograph of J. P. Smith: 

Species. Species. 

Pronorites __________ -. -.- __ . _- -. _- -.------ _- 1 Gonioloboceras. _ · ____________ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 

Medlicottia _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 Dimorphoceras. ___________________________ _ 

Schuchcrtites __ _' ___________________ -.- ___ - _- 1 Millerocer~s? ____ : _- _- _________ - ___________ _ 

Prolecanites _____ - _______________________ _ 

Glyphioceras .. _____________________ -.-- ____ _ 

Goniatites __________ - _________ - ____ . ______ _ 

Gastrioceras _____________________________ _ 

Paralegoceras ____ - __ - _____________ - . -- ____ -

.Schistoceras ___ -. _ - -- _ - _ - -- _____ . _______ : __ 

1 Agathoceras _______ . __________ ~ ____________ _ 

1 Popanoceras _ . _______ ., ___________________ _ 

3 Shumardites ______________________________ _ 

12 

4 

4 

Waagenoceras. ___________________________ _ 

Neoicoceras· ____________________________ .. __ 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

2 

1 

There are in addition three species whose generic position could not be determined. From this list· it would appear that the ammonoids of the Guadalupian 

fauna are much less differentiated than those of the Pennsylvanian and not very 

different generically, three out of the five Guadalupian. genera occurring in the 

Pennsylvanian also: As regards the former point, except possibly for the higher 

beds of the Carboniferous in Texas, m,y experience would show that ammonoids 

are much more abundant and varied in the Guadalupian than in a corresponding 

amount of material' from the Pennsylvanian. Regarding the other particuJar, the 

generic comparison is perhaps a little misleading, for while the Guadalupian species 

-of Waagenoceras is closely related to W. cumminsi, the Guadalupian Gastrioceras 

and Agathoceras probably belong to different specific groups from the Pennsylvanian congeners. · 

On the whole, the Cephalopoda of the Guadalupian do not seem to indicate 

a close relationship with the Pennsylvanian. Such as is suggested lies distinctly 

between the Guadalupian and the younger beds of the Carboniferous as developed 

in the Texas region. 
MOLLUSCA. 

Family ORTHOCERATIDJE Broderip. 

Genus ORTHOCERAS Breynius. 

0RTHOCERAS GUADALUPENSE n. sp. 

Pl. XXIII, figs. 10 to lOb. 

497 

Shell circular in cross section, small, slender, gradually tapering. Siphuncle 

rather large, central. Septa moderately concave, about 2 mm. apart. 

The single fragmentary specimen obtained has a length of 11 mm., with a 

diameter of about 5.5 mm. above and 4.75 mm. at the lower end. · Five chambers 

are included within this measurement of 11 mm., together with the convexity of 

one chamber. The surface was possibly marked by faint concentric strire, but 

appears on casts of the exterior to be smooth. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation. G:uadalupe Point, 

Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2931). 

Family TAINOCERATIDJE Hyatt. 

Genus FOORDOCERAS Hyati. 

FooRDOCERAS SHUMARDIANUM n. sp. 

Pl. IX, figB. 26 to 27a. 

Shell rather small, somewhat rapidly enlarging. The transverse section is 

more or less that of a rectangle, with the width slightly greater than the height. 

The sides are flattened and nearly parallel. They are marked by well-defined 

pilre, which appear to be slightly curved, with the concave side directed toward 

the aperture. The pilre terminate above in nodes and the distance between them 

is about the same as their own length. The ventral arch is broad, the chief curvature occurring at the abdominal angle. There is also a distinct llmbilical shoulder 

which, where the shell is not exfoliated, is marked by an abmpt change in direction. 

The angle thus produced is emphasized by slight depressions above and below. 

The depressed zone is narrow, not so broad as either the umbilical or lateral zones, 

which are about equal in width. 

The venter is marked by fine but distinct transverse lines, the direction of 

which indicates the presence of a rather deep, broad hyponomic sinus. On the 

lateral and umbilical zones these appear to become slightly stronger, more regularly 

arranged and sublamellose. On these areas also they are crossed by revolving 

lines, which are both fainter and finer than the transverse ones. 

· The flexures of the sutures are all gentle. · The entire ventral area is occupied 

by a broad, shallow lobe; a low saddle falls ·upon the abdominal shoulder; a· 

second shallow lobe occurs on the lateral zone, while from the umbilical shoulder 

to the edge of the depressed zone the suture is practically straight. 

The siphuncle is nearly central in the mature portion of the 'shell, but becomes 

more ventral' in the earlier stages. 

3695--~0.58--08----32 
498 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

This species seems to belong to the group for which Hyatt proposed the term 

Foordoceras, and which is found chiefly in the Salt Range of India. It probably 

is a member of the Goliathus section, as recognized by Hyatt, but differs in having 

a proportionately narrower venter and a more distinct umbilical shoulder. The 

shape is in fact more like the transitorius section, but it does not have the depressed 

median belt along the venter which characterizes that division. The Indian shells 

are not described as having the surface ornamentation possessed by the present 

species, but the revolving lines which are its most peculiar feature are confined 

to the sides, where they J;D.ight easily be concealed. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2926). 

FOORDOCERAS SHUMARDIANUM var. PRJECURSOR n. var. 

Pl. XXV, figs. 15 to 15b. 

This species is related to the preceding and has, in fact,· about.cthe same general 

aspect. A careful inspection, however, reveals differences which render it impossible to consider them the same. The septa are somewhat more closely arranged. 

There is no sharply defined umbilical shoulder, and the growth lines, which are 

clear and very elegant over the small aref:!, of surface preserved in my specimen,. 

show a considerably deeper hyponomic sinus. Like the foregoing, this species is 

marked on the umbilical and lateral zones with transverse and revolving lines, 

which produce a reticulated surface ornamentation. 

Horizon and locality.-Basal black limestone, Guad~lupe Point, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (stations 2920 and 2967). 

Family PRONORITIDlE Smith. 

Genus PERITROCHIA n. gen. 

This term is proposed for a shell from the black limestone, whose generic 

characters appear to be the following: Shell subglobose. Whorls deeply embracing, 

so that the umbilicus is nearly or quite closed. Aperture indented to nearly half 

its height by the preceding volution, and strongly lunate. Of the suture, the 

ventral lobe is bifid, possibly trifid. The lateral lobes are numerous, at least four 

on each side. The first lateral lobe is bidentate;_ the other lobes and saddles are 

simple, with rounded ends. The ffilrface is without nodes or keels and apparently 

with only obscure growth lines. 

It is with much hesitation that I have introduced a new generic name for this 

Guadalupian type and Qnly after many comparisons with known genera. The 

most closely related genus is Pronorites. The suture of Pronorites is almost exactly 

that of Peritrochia, save that there is a tendency in the lobes toward a pointed, 

linguiform shape. The shape of the shell in Pronorites1 however, is discoidal and 

the whorl section elongate and subquadrate, while the shell in Peritrochia is globose 

and the whorl section transverse and lunate. The umbilicus in one is wide and in 

the other closed·. 
MOLLUSCA, 499 

PERITROCHIA EREBUS n. sp. 

Pl. XXV, figs. 9 to 11. 

· Shell small, compressed-spherical. Whorls highly arched, deeply embracing. 

Abdomen somewhat narrowly rounded. Aperture lunate. Umbilicus minute or 

closed. Surlace smooth, apparently without either strire, nodes, or carinre .. Ventral lobe bifid, possibly trifid. The :first lateral lobe is bifid; the remaining lobes 

and saddles small, rounded, rather deep, with straight sides. There are five lateral 

saddles on each side, and possibly a sixth small one in the extreme umbilical region. 

The character of the ventral lobe is not known with certainty. 

This specier;; is common in the black limestone, but has not yet been fmind at 

any other horizon. 

Horizon and locality.-Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2920). 

Family PROLECANITID.lE Hyatt. 

Genus PARACELTITES Gemmellaro. 

p ARACELTITES ELEGANS n. sp. 

Pl. XXV, figs. 12 to 14. 

The general shape of this species is discoidal, much compressed. The growth 

is extremely evolute, each whorl embracing the preceding one to the extent of 

only about one-sixth. The general shape of a section across one of the volutions 

is elliptical, with the length about twice the breadth. The outer end is, however, 

slightly narrower than the inner, which, in addition to being expanded, is indented 

below by contact with the preceding whorl. The largest specimen noted is 25 mm. 

in diameter. 

· The sutures are rather simple. There is a siphonallobe whose character has 

not been completely determined. In some specimens it appears to be merely flattened, in others to be slightly elevated at its base and indented so as to form two 

deri.ticles. Again, it sometimes appears to have three denticles. Probably there 

are two denticles, for the best preserved and clearest specimens seem to have this 

structure, the other appearances being due to preservation. There are two lateral 

saddles and two lateral lobes, both lobes and saddles being simple and rounded. 

The saddles are a little broader than the lobes, and all decrease in strength laterally. 

Owing to the small area of contact between the volutions, the internal sutures are 

simple. There is a lateral saddle, half of which is external and half internal, and 

an antisiphonal lobe, which is narrower than the siphonal one and possibly not 

denticulate. 

The surface is entirely devoid of revolving lines and is probably smooth except 

for rather regularly arranged transverse plications, which begin at the umbilicus 

and extend nearly to the ventral surface. Sometimes they have a slightly sigmoid 

curvature. The plications vary somewhat in closeness of arrangement in different 

specimens and on the mature or senile portions appear to become at the same time 

finer, more closely arranged, and less strongly marked. 
500 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

There can be no doubt that the present form belongs to the genus Paraceltites, 

and it is even closely related to Gemmellaro's species. The resemblance is strongest 

with P. hoeferi and P. halli, but P. elegans can hardly, I believe, be regarded as 

identical with either of them. One difference which can be named is the more 

nearly transverse direction of the plications in P. elegans, while in the Sicilian 

species they slope forward. 

· Horizon and locality.-Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2967). Middle of Delaware Mountain formation, Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2968). 

Family GLYPI-IIOCERATID.lE Hyatt. 

Genus GASTRIOCERAS Hyatt. 

GASTRIOCERAS ~ SERRA TUM n. sp. 

Pl. XXIII, figs. 9 to 9d. 

Shell small, discoidal. Umbilicus wide, open. Ventral surface broad and 

flattened, aperture subelliptical, gently concave below, sHghtly embracing the 

preceding whorls at the sides. 

Surface markeQ. laterally by very prominent, oblique, somewhat curved 

angular ridges. . The majn portion of the ventral surface is free from these projections, but is crossed by a number of fine revolving strim, which extend onto the 

lateral ridges. There are also annular constrictions, about three in a volution-, 

which are not straightly transverse, but are gently concave across the venter, then 

bent sharply backward at the sides, following the oblique direction of the lateral 

ridges. 

The suture has been made out with some precision, but yet is not known in 

every detail. The siphonal saddle is small and presumably bidentate. There are 

two lobes and two saddles on each side, both lobes and saddles being rounded and 

rather weak. The second lateral lobe occurs at the margin of the ventral surface, 

the rather narrow side of the whorl being occupied by a lateral saddle. The lobes are 

conspicuously narrower than the saddles. The sutures appear to be independent 

of the lateral ridges, the second lateral saddle occurring just in front of or just 

behind a ridge indifferently. 

In its specific relations this form is clearly distinct from any American species 

as yet described, and is more closely allied to types which occur in the late Carboniferous or Permian of Europe. 

Horizon and Zocality.-Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point, 

Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2931). Delaware Mountain formation, 

southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 35001). 

GAsTRIOCERAS sp. 

Pl. XXIX, figs. 22 and 22a. 

The adult form is discoidal, the whorls probably moderately evolute and crescentic in cross section. The umbilicus is large and open. The sutures are unknown. 
MOLLUSCA. 501 

The sculpture consists of strong, transverse plications which extend a short distance up from the umbilicus, and strong, coarse, revolving linn which arc chiefly 

developed over the ventral surface. In the specimen figured, \vhich has a diameter 

of 35 mm., there· are three plications in 5 mm. and about five revolving line in the 

same distance. The line are strong and abruptly elevated. Constrictions appear 

to be wanting. 

As the sutme- is not known, there is still some doubt as to the generic position 

of this form, though with great probability it can be assigned to Gastrioceras. It 

resembles several Pennsylvanian forms, especially G. branneri, but differs from 

any of them in having the-strong revolving line. In this respect it resembles some 

of the forms described by Gemmellaro from the Sicilia.n Permian. Although probably a new species, I feel that it will be unwise to Jesignate it by a new name 

without better material and.more complete data. . 

Horizon and locality.-Delawarc Mountain formation, southern Delaware 

Mountains, Texas (station 2968). 

Family POP ANOCERATIDJE Hyatt. 

Genus AGATHOCERAS Gemmellaro. 

In this generic group but one species is included, the relations lying more 

with Agathoceras than with any genus with which I have made comparisons. 

There are several important differences, however, between the present form and 

typical Agathoceras. One of these resides in the sculpture, in which respect the 

Guadalupian species, while possessing a certain sort of revolving liration, has 

nothing of this nature to compare with the strong revolving line of the Sicilian 

species. Again, as to the sutures, w~ile the lobes and saddles are about the same 

in number in both types, and simple, both the flexures are rounded in A. texanum, 

whereas in typical Agathoceras the lobes are linguiform and pointed, only the 

saddles being rounded. · 

Forms more like the present have been figured by Karpinsky from the Russian Artinsk. Several of his species are represented with the lobes as well as the 

saddles rounded, and A. lcrotowi is figured with one less saddle than typical 

Agathoceras, a condition which appears to exist in the present species. Finally, 

the sculpture in A. stuclcenbergi seems. tp be more like the Guadalupian A. texanum 

than that of the Sicilian forms. 

AGATIIOCERAS TEXANUM n. sp. 

PI. XXV, :figs. 8 and Sa. 

The shell in this species is rather thick, discoidal, strongly involute, with a 

·small umbilicus. The whorls are broadly crescentic in cross section and deeply 

embracing. Constrictions are apparently absent. There is a rather high, narrow, 

siphonal saddle, followed by three lateral saddles and three lateral lobes, a fourth 

lateral lobe lying just on the umbilical shoulder. The internal sutures are unknown. 

The lobes and saddles are all simple and all rounded, though perhaps not quite 

symmetrically so. The siphonal saddle is lower and narrower than the other 
502 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

saddles, and the adjacent lobes are narrower than the other lobes, but otherwise 

the lobes and saddles are approximately equal, gradually losing in height and 

becoming relatively broader toward the umbilicus. 

The surface is without transverse plications or strong revolving lines. It 

has, however, a delicate sculpture, different from that of typical Sicilian .Agathoceras, but somewhat resembling that of a species from the Artinsk. It is crossed 

transversely by delicate, very finely zigzag lines, from which discontinuous line 

extend alternately forward and back, uniting corresponding points in the adjacent 

transverse lamellre. There results a surface somewhat suggesting that of a tile 

roof. 

Horizon and locality.-Basal black limestone, Guadalupe .Point, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2967). 

Family CYCLOLOBIDJE Zittel. 

Genus W AAGENOCERAS Gemmellaro. 

WAAGENOCERAS CUMMINGS! var. GUADALUPENSE n. var. 

Pl. XXIX, figs. 23 to 26. 

This species appears to be abundant at station 2965, in the Delaware Mountains, but unfortunately our material is in such a condition that to study it satisfactorily is not possible. Although preserved in limestone, the original shell substance appears to have been macerated in a way which is frequently observed in a 

shaly matrix, with the result that the sutures are not as a rule preserved, and not 

only is this true of the outside of specimens which have weathered out from the 

rock, but even when these are broken open nothing is seen. One or two specimens 

in which the sutures are preserved are either worn, crushed, or immature. 

The general shape appears to be that of the genus Waagenoceras, specimens 

having a flattened, subglobose shape, with crescentic whorl section. The whorls are 

strongly embracing, leaving but a narrow umbilicus. Evidently the suture was 

strongly complicated, but in the best specimens it is difficult to follow the individual 

sutures consecutively. There appear to have been six saddles and seven lobes, or 

possibly more, on the external portion of mature shells. All the lobes and saddles 

appear to be strongly digitate. ' 

The shell having in every instance been removed the character of the surface 

can not be determined. No evidence of sculpture of any description remains, not 

even of constrictions, a fact which is somewhat against the identification as Waagenoceras, and it is doubtful if this feature could have been lost in all instances through 

erosiOn. 

The Guadalupian form appears to be rather closely related to Waagenoceras 

cummingsi White. It is a smaller form, with narrower umbilicus and certain appreciable differences in the suture. The sutures are more closely arranged, the lobes 

and saddles probably more numerous, the lobes less deeply digitate, and the saddles 

more symmetrically rounded. 

Ilorizon and ZocaZity.-Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2965). 
THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 503 

ARTHROPODA. 

CRUSTACEA. 

Crustacea are poorly represented in the Guadalupian, a condition which is apt 

to prevail in the higher faunas of the Carboniferous. I have found only one species 

of Bairdia, one of the Argillmcia, and one of Oythere( ~) among the ostracods, and 

two species of trilobites (Anisopyge perannulata and A. antiqua). The latter representatives of a primitive group are in general of more than usual interest, and these 

Guadalupian forms particularly so, since they appear to constitute a hitherto unrecorded modification of the type. They are, furthermore, rather abundant at the 

horizon which they especially characterize. 

It is a matter of some interest that this group is very rare in the fauna of the 

Salt Range in India. Thus far no trilobites are known from that region, and only 

one specimen representing the ostracods, referred to the genus Oythere, has been 

obtained. 

Trilobites are known in the Himalayan region, however, as Diener cites a 

species of Phillipsia in his paper on the fauna of Kashmir and Spiti. It is very 

different from the Guadalupian trilobites. Again, from the Chitichun fauna No.1 a 

new species of Phillipsia and a new genus and species, Oheiropyge himalayensis, were 

described by the same author. Neither form is related to fue trilobites of the 

Guadalupian. 

In the Lo Ping fauna Kayser described Phillipsia obtusicauda, a singular type, 

very different from the Guadalupian trilobites. In the fauna from Kantschoufu 

Loczy found Phillipsia kansuensis, and in that from Tschungtjen, province of Yiin~ 

nan, Phillipsia sp. indet. Neither of these forms, so far as can be told, shows any 

significant relationship with the two Guadalupian species of Anisopyge. · 

Beyrich found a small trilobite amongst his fossils from Timor and Rotti, which 

he described as Phillipsia? parvula. Roemer described Phillipsia sumatrensis from 

Padang, on the west coast of Sumatra. This species belongs to Gemmellaro's 

recently established genus Pseudophillipsia, and is strongly different from Anisopyge. 

It was placed by Fliegel in the genus Grijjithides, and appears to be rather common. 

When compared with those of Roemer, Fliegel's figures show some differences in 

the configuration of the glabella which seem important. 

Etheridge cites but a small number of Crustacea from the "Permo-Carboniferous" 

of Queensland and New Guinea, the list comprising one ostracod (Beyrichia varicosa) 

and of the trilobites three species of Phillipsia and one of Grijjithides. These forms 

are not related, save in the most general way, to the Guadalupian Crustacea. 

The Crustacea of the Carboniferous fauna of New South Wales consist of ostracods and trilobites. The ostracods comprise but two species, referred to .the genera 

Polycope and Entomis, neither of which has been recognized in the Guadalupian. 

The three species of trilobites came from the lower portion of the Carboniferous 

series and do not concern this discussion. 

Trautschold's monograph on the fauna of the Russian Moslmvian contains 

citation of three species of Phillipsia, related in no instance to the Guadalupian 

trilobites. 
504 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

From the Gschelian Phillipsia or Griffithides gruenewaldti is cited by several 

authors. Stuckenberg records Phillipsia gruenewaldti, Phillipsia cf. roemeri, and 

Brachymetopus sp. 

In the Artinsk Stuckenberg found Phillipsia gruenewaldti, Phillipsia cf. roemeri, 

and Bairdia curta. The Kungurstufe furnished him only Bairdia sp. Krotow 

cites from the Artinsk Oythere sp., Estheria subconcentrica, Estheriella trapezoidalis, 

and E. oblonga. In another paper this author cites Phillipsia gruenewaldti, Oythere 

curta, and Kirlcbya permiana from the Artinsk. 

From the Permian of Russia Netschajew records only Ostracoda and Phyllopoda, including 6 species of Bairdia, 6 species of Oythere, and 1 species of Leaia. 

It would appear, so far as one may judge from these incomplete data, that in the 

Russian section trilobites of the ordinary Carboniferous type persisted into the 

Artinsk and were replaced in the Permian by bivalve Crustacea, which, though of 

sporadic occurrence at lower horizons, are there much more numerous. Very different are the conditions in the Guadalupian, where the trilobites are fairly common, but are not of the ordinary Carboniferous type, where ostracods are rare and 

where phyllopod Crustacea, which seem to be abundant in the Russian Permian, 

are not known at all. This di;fference, however, may be taken to indicate difference of environment as well as, or instead of, difference of geologic age, for Estheria 

and Leaia usually occur in impure or brackish-water sediments, a set of conditions 

which is also strongly implied for the Permian by the abundance of nonmarine 

pelecypods. 

The Guadalupian Crustacea present important differences from those of the 

fauna which Gemmellaro described from Palermo. The Sicilian Crustacea, in 

fact, are much more extensively developed and play a much more important part 

in the fauna than do the Guadalupian forms. Of the trilobites Gemmellaro cites 

2 species of Proetus, 4 of Phillipsia, 1 of Grijjithides, and 1 of Pseudophillipsia. 

The macrouran decapods are also represented by the genus Palt:eopemphix (3 species), and the brachyourans by Paraprosopon (1 species), and Oonocarcinus (3 

species). Of the ostracods, Gemmellaro cites Oypridinella (2 species), Oypridellina 

(1 species), Oypridella (2 species), Oypridina (4 species), Philomedes (1 species), 

Entomoconchus (1 species), Entomis (2 species), and Beyrichia (1 species). No 

matter whether we consider the trilobites or the ostracods, they are much less differentiated in the Guadalupian fauna, while the decapods are not known there at all. 

. I have failed to find any account of the Crustacea of the Carnic Alps, save 

that given by Gortani, and his fauna is, I believe, older than that of the Trogkofelschichten, which is especially interesting in the present comparisons. Unfortunately the Trogkofel Crustacea have not been described. Gortani cites a species 

of Phillipsia, one of Grijjithide8, and one of Brachymetopus. His figures are poor, 

but the species appear to have no close connection withAnisopygeof theGuadalupian. 

In the German Dyas again the Crustacea are an important factor in the fauna. 

Geinitz cites Hemitrochiscus (1 species) and Prosoponiscus (1 species) ·among the 

decapods Much more abundant are the ostracods, of which 26 species are cited, 

25 being referred to Oythere and 1 to Kirkbya. 

In the English Permian trilobites have not been found, but ostracods are 

fairly abundant. King recognizes ten species of Oythere, Bairdia, etc. He also 

... 
ARTHROPODA; 505 

describes two species of phyllocarid Crustacea under the titles Dithyrocaris permiana and D. glypta. The Guadalupian fauna differs from the English Permian 

in the presence of trilobites, the absence of phyllocarids, and the more rare occurrence of ostracods, although the character of the latter is, so far as it goes, much 

the same. 

From Nova Zembla Touia cites Phillipsia gruenewaldti,· that species, however, 

is but remotely related to the Guadalupian 'Anisopyges. 

Stache found only Oythere sp. in the Carboniferous limestone of the West 

Sahara (Igidi). 

A great variety of Crustacea have been described from the American Pennsylvanian, although they are seldom abundant or varied at any one place. Among 

the trilobites there have been discriminated 3 species of Gri.ffithides, 5 of Phillipsia, 

and 1 of Proetus. Apparently these are all generically distinct from the Guadalupian trilobites. The other groups of Crustacea, according to Weller's bibliography, 

subsequently described forms being neglected, make up a long list, as follows: 

Species. 

Acanthotelson.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 

Anthrapalll.'mon ........ ,................... . . 1 

Belinurus.................................... 1 

Beyrichia...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

Ceratiocaris .................... -.............. 1 

Cryptoziie.................................... 1 

Cyclus ...................................... 1 

Cythere ....................... :.............. 2 

Species. 

Dipeltis... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

Dithyrocaris........ ...... .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

Eury-pterus ................... ·............... 5 

Leaia....................................... 2 

. Paleocaris_................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

Prestwichia................................. 3 

Rachura.................................... 1 

This is very different from the Guadalupian fauna, although chiefly in the 

way of greater differentiation. The phyllocarids, the limuloids, and the decapods, 

all represented in the Pennsylvanian, are lacking in the Guadalupian, although as 

they are but rarely encountered in the former their apparent absence in the latter 

does not carry much weight, at least until the Guadalupian has been far more 

extensively collected. 

Order TRILOBITA. 

Family PROETIDJE Barrande. 

Genus ANISOPYGE n. gen. 

This seems to be one of the last survivors of the trilobite group, and while it 

can almost certainly be referred to the Proetidre, it probably represents a genus 

distinct from any of those at present recognized as belonging to that family. From 

among the numerous peculiarities already shown by our imperfect knowledge of 

this form it is difficult to discriminate precisely the characters of generic importance from those which are specific and individual. Some of the seemingly more 

important, however, which may·be regarded as discriminating it in a generic way, 

are here set forth. In the cephalon are to be noted the low convexity, the wide 

border, the glabella much enlarged in front and divided by strong marginal furrows, and the absence of genal angles. These characters appear singly in other 

genera of the Proetidre, but not, I believe, in combination. A character which_ 

seems to be peculiar to the present form is the limitation of the fixed cheeks to the 
506 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

eye lappets. In the pygidium the folding under of the border, the development 

of a smooth band along the edges of the axis, the great number of the axial lobes 

and their independence of the lateral lobes, are the important characters, unknown, 

so far as I am aware, at least to the degree here present, in others of the Proetidrn. 

The entire lack of connection between the lateral and axial lobes shown by the 

large and variable number of the one and the small and constant number of the 

other, the separation of which by the development of an unsegmented band on the 

axis must perhaps be regarded as a correlated phenomenon, is au interesting case 

of specialization in this organ. 

Without much doubt Phillipsia is the nearest related of the Proetidrn to the 

present type, and I am not sure to what degree the latter is entitled to discrimination. In the cephalon the glabella is distinctly more pyriforrh than in typical 

Phillipsia or in the majority of species, and the fixed cheeks are more reduced in 

size, but the lines of the facial suture are essentially the same and also the furrows 

of the glabella. The failure to extend the genal angles into spines is not unknown 

in Philli.psia, though most o.f the species seem to have spines. I do not know to 

what extent the structure of the eye, which appears to be solid on the exterior side 

and faceted only on the interior, will afford distinctive characters. It may prove 

important. Phillipsia has . 9 thoracic segments and the present genus, so far as 

known, but 7, a difference, even if corroborated, of no very great degree. In the 

pygidium the differences are perhaps as 1narked as anywhere. The axial and the 

lateral segments in Phill-ipsi.a are very nearly the same in number, and they are in 

fair correspondence. It is only toward the tip of the pygidial axis that the segments 

multiply more rapidly than the lateral ones. Wood\vard describes the axis of the 

pygidium of Phillipsia A.S composed of 12 to 16 segments. The axis of the typical 

species of A..nisopyge contains about 30 segments, and there is a very striking 

discrepancy between the segments of the axis and those of the pleural regions, a 

discrepancy emphasized by the presence of an unsegmented band along either side 

of the axis. · 

On account of these differences it did not seem desirable to retain under Phillipsia Shumard's Guadalupian fossil described asP. perannulata. Pseudnphillipsia, 

which Gemmellaro d('scribed from a fauna in many ways much resembling that of 

the Guadalupe Mountains, is a still more strongly differentiated genus. 

In one respect Anisopyge is very similar to the Himalayan genus Cheiropyge, 

i. e., in the very unequal segmentation of the axial and lateral portions of the 

pygidium. The faet that in Anisopyge the pygidium is surrounded by a broad, 

smooth band, while in Oheiropyge the lobes are extended so as to give this number a 

denticulate outline, is an important difference. Comparisons of other portions of 

the carapace are impossible because only the pygidium of the Himalayan form is 

known. It is evident, however, that the two types do not represent the same genus. 

ANISOPYG:m PERANNULATA Shumard: 

Pl. XVI, figs. 14 to 19. 

1858. Phillipsia pe:rannulata. Shumard, Trans. A cad. Sci. St. Louis, vol. 1, p. 296 (date of volume, 1860). 

White [Permian] limestone: Guadalupe Mountains, New Mexico. 

1859. Phillipsia perannulata. Shumard, idem, p. 388, pl. 11, fig. 10. 

White [Permian] limestone: Guadalupe Mountains, Texas and New Mexico. 

• 
ARTHROPODA. 507 

1887. Phillipsia perannulata. Vodges, Ann. New York Acad. Sci., vol. 4, p. 84. 

Carboniferous: Guadalupe Mountains, New Mexico. 

Pygidium deltoid, as wid"e as long, elevated; border narrow, smooth, inflected behind, outer edge 

sinuate, inner edge obtusely subangulated, the anterior two-thirds marked- with a shallow furrow; 

posterior extremity narrow, very strongly arched; axial lobe elevated, nearly as wide as one lateral lobe, 

tapering very gradually from front to posterior extremity, which is bluntly rounded and nearly terminal; 

axial rings from 28 to 30, rounded, distinct on the dorsum, becoming obsolete on the sides, margins 

sinuate, surface of each ring studded with a single row of 4 or 5 granules, the granules of 1 ring alternating 

with those of the adjoining ones, transverse furrows much narrower than the rings and not deeply 

impressed; lateral lobes arched, somewhat flattened superiorly; segments 8, subangulated, simple,· 

gently arched forward, posterior ones directed obliquely backward, the last one being nearly parallel 

with the longitudinal axis; transverse furrows deep and rather broad; surface of rings garnished with a 

row of distinct granules. · 

Dirnensions.-Length and width, 0.74; height, 0.28. 

Geologic formation and locality.-White limestone of Guadalupe Mountains, New Mexico. The 

collection of the expedition contains several examples of the pygidium of this species. 

Shumard based this species on the only part known to him, the pygidium, 

his description of which is quoted above. From more or less perfect material 

recently collected it is possible to add to his description that of the cephaJon and 

the probable number and character of the thoracic segments. 

The general shape of the cephalon is semicircular. The suture is as usual in 

this family, except as specified below. The glabella is moderately convex and 

strongly expanded in front, occupying almost the whole cranidium. The border 

is wide, narrow--ing at the sides; separated from the glabella by a distinct though not 

deep furrow, which indents the otherwise even-curve made by a longitudinal section 

through the glabella and border. The neck ring and the posterior portion of the 

glabelht are strongly depressed. The fixed cheeks are limited to the rounded, 

flaplike projections at the sides of the glabella near its posterior end, which fit into 

the concave side of the ocular crescent. These flaps are in this species suberect. 

The glabella bears three, possibly four, marginal furrows, which are slightly curved. _ 

Beginning v.--ith the posterior one, which is strongly inclined backward, the furrows 

decrease in length, strength, and obliquity toward the front.- The triangular spaee 

inclosed between the first lateral furrow and the neek furrow, i. e., the first lobe of 

the glabella, is elevated centrally i.nto a pointed node or pustule. The second 

lateral lobe is narrow. It terminates in a second projeetion, similar to the first, 

though larger. The third lateral lobe terminates in a third monticule of about the 

size of the first, but less pointed and less clearly defined. Just in front of the end 

of the third lateral furrow a fourth small, low elevation is to be seen, with possibly 

a fourth short indistinct furrow, marginally in front of it. Loeated centrally in a 

transverse line with the knob$ which terminate the second lateral lobes, another· 

strongly elevated knob occurs. Behind the line thus formed, the glabella is much 

depressed. The neck ring is broad and is produced laterally into t\vo rather strong, 

slender, tapering strips. The surface of the border is marked hy' lines running 

parallel but not conforming to its margins. The surface of the rest of the cranidium 

is nearly smooth, being marked hy rather indistinct, scattered pustules, which are 

obvious only on the posterior half, especially on the neck ring. 

The free cheeks have a generally triangular shape. They arc cut squarely 

off at the genal angle, not prolonged into spines. The eye is large, reniform, and 

strongly elevated. Its facets are obscure on the outside but strongly marked on 
508 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA, 

the inside. A broad border surrounds the posterior and lateral side of the free 

cheek. On the inner side of the lower margin the border becomes gradually 

narrower, leaving room for the strip which projects froni the neck ring. The border is rather strongly convex, as is also the inner portion, the two areas being 

defined by strongly marked furrows parallel to the margins. In the case of the 

lower furrow it is parallel to the margin of the cephalon as a whole, the suture, 

which forms the lower outline of the free check, be'ing oblique to it. The inner 

area defined by the furrows has an approximately triangular shape, its inner angle, 

however, being strongly truncated by the eye with its surrounding grooves. The 

lateral border of the free cheek is marked by longitudinal lines, the inner area by a 

few pustules of rather large size. In one specimen these are restricted to the portion of the area anterior to the eye, in others they are distributed more evenly, 

though rather sparsely, over the whole. 

The pygidium has already been described by Shumard. Some additional 

facts are furnished by our material. As indicated by his description, the border 

of the pygidium is somewhat peculiar. Toward the front it is flat and spreading, 

forming part of the regular transverse expansion. Toward the back its lower 

border rather_ suddenly begins to turn inward, so that at the extremity it is doubled 

under the rest of the shell. In the process about halfway down the side the 

border often becomes somewhat concave, with a ridge above and one blow. The 

upper ridge becomes more and more pronounced, as the lower part of the border 

becomes more and more restricted, until at the posterior extremity it forms 

the real terminus of the shell. Viewed from above, therefore, the posterior end 

appears to be without a border, it having been turned under and concealed by the 

parts lying above. This allows the axis to reach. nearly or quite to the posterior 

outline and gives this end a pinched and pointed ~itppearance. Another feature 

mentioned by Shm'nard is that the axial segments did not persist to the primary 

. dorsal furrows, but are regularly limited by a depressed line parallel to these furrows, so that the axis is edged by a rather distinctly defined plain band. There 

are eight lateral lobes, the number on large and small specimens alike seeming 

to be constant. The number of axial lobes seems to vary according to size, though 

this may be only apparent, as in small specimens the terminal ones become so 

minute and faint that it is impossible to count them with accuracy. 

In only one specimen, and that a rather young one, is the number of thoracic 

segments indicated. In this case the pygidium is preserved with seven of the 

free segments attached to it, but as the cephalon is missing some of these segments 

may have been lost with it. 

Horizon and locality.-Middle of Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 

2926); base of Capitan formation, hill southwest of Guadalupe Point (station 

2906); "dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930); Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931); basal black limestone, Gua;dalupe Point 

(station 2967), Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. Delaware Mountain formation, 

southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 
ARTHROPODA. 509 

ANISOPYGE ~ ANTIQUA n. sp. 

Pl. XXIV, figs. 23 to 26. 

This species, which is discrimin'ated especially for some specimens obtained 

from the black limestone at the base of the Guadalupian section, is less completely 

known than A. perannu.lata. In the present case we have a number of pygidia 

and an imperfect head shield. 

The cephalon is almost too imperfect for detailed description. So far as 

known it does not differ materially from that of A. perannulata. The glabella 

appears to be pyriform, and it has three distinct lobes, with possibly a fourth 

obscure one. 

The pygidium i.s subsemicircular, wider than long, strongly arched. The 

axis is very strongly elevated, divided into about 16 well-marked segments, each 

of which is crossed by a row of pustules. The segments lose distinctness along 

the margins ·of the axis, where there occurs a moderately well-defined band on 

which they are rather obscure. The lateral segments are not as strongly marked 

as those on the axis and appear to number but seven. There is a broad smooth 

band around the whole pygidium, which narrows and becomes more vertical 

behind, so that the end of the axis is almost terminal. 

This species is readily distinguishable from A. perannulata by the greater 

width of the pygidium, which has much fewer segments on the axis. The lateral 

segments also stand more perpendicular, those of A. perann]tlata, especially the 

posterior ones, pointing strongly backward. 

Horizon and locality.~Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2967). 

Order OSTRACODA. 

Family OYTHERIDJI<~ Zenker. 

Genus CYTHERE Muller. 

0YTHERE ~ sp. 

Pl. XVI, figs. 13 and 13a. 

Our collections contain only one specimen of this species, and it is somewhat 

broken. The general shape is oval, a little higher at one end than the other. The 

lower margin is convex, somewhat more strongly rounded behind. The upper 

margin is more nearly straight, especially in the middle, more curved at the ends, 

and slightly converging forward with the base. The convexity is high, being 

especially inflated just posterior to. the middle, behind which it is well rounded, 

but descends more rapidly to the anterior extremity. The surface appears to be 

delicately roughened or pitted. 

More perfect material representing this species will be necessary before a 

complete and accurate description can be framed, the foregoing being, however, 

the best that I could make under the circumstances. 

Horizon and locality.-" Dark limestone," ·Pine Springs, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas (station 2930). 
.510 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

Family CYPRIDJE Zenker. 

Genus BAIRDIA McCoy. 

BAIRDIA afi. B. PLEBEIA Reuss. 

Pl. XXV, figs. 16 and 16a. 

This species also is represented in our collections by a single silicified specimen, 

apparently a right valve. The size is small, about 1! mm. in width, and the height 

is less than half that amount. The shape is irregular, pointed at both ends, but 

more acute and produced behind than before. The upper outline is strongly convex in the middle and slightly concave at both ends. The lower margin is nearly 

straight in the middle, bending upward at both ends but more at the anterior than 

at the posterior, and meeting the upper outline more or less abruptly. The convexity is rather strong and inflated toward the middle, with the ends depressed: · 

The surface is apparently smooth. 

This species resembles Bairdia plebeia Reuss of the German and English Permian more than any with which I have compared it. It seems to be different, but 

with only one valve of the Guadalupian shell and no specimen of the European one 

with which to compare it, I feel·unable to arrive at a conclusion on this point. 

Horizon and locality.-Basa1 black limestone, Guadalupe Point, Guadalupe 

Mountains, Texas (station 2920). 

Genus ARGILL<ECIA Sars. 

ARGILL<ECIA sp. 

Pl. XXVIII, figs. 12 and 12a. 

Of this species our collection contains only one valve, which has so symmetri:Jal 

a shape that I am unable to determine which end is anterior and which posterior, 

and whether it is a right or a left valve. It so much resembles the English Carboniferous form which Jones and Kirkby described as Argillmcia a:qualisa that I 

have provisionally referred it to the same genus, though it is clearly distinct in its 

specific relations. · 

The shape is regularly elliptical, with broadly and equally rounded ends. The 

width, which is almost exactly 2 mm., is about twice the height. , What must be 

regarded as the lower margin is nearly straight, while the upper is gently convex. 

The two margins diverge very slightly toward one end. The convexity is moderate, 

rather flattened over the mesial portion, and strongest about the margin. The 

shell is flexed somewhat more abruptly along the lower than the upper border, which 

occasions the straight outline in the one and the curved outline in the other. 

Transversely, however, the convexity appears to be symmetrical, without one end 

higher than the other. The surface is smooth. 

Horizon and locality.-Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains, Texas (station 2969). 

a Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 5, vol. 18, 1886, p. 263, pl. 9, figs. 6a, 6b. 
REGISTER OF LOCALITIES. 

2902. Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. Peak on north side of Pine Spring Canyon. Well up in the 

Capitan limestone; probably the lower portion of the upper third. 

B. F. Hill and G. H. Girty, October 5, 1901. 

2903. Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. Escarpment on east side of road at the entrance to Guadalupe 

Canyon. About 700 feet above the basal black lime_stone in the Delaware Mountain sandstone. 

G. H. Girty, September 29 and October 31, 1901. 

2905. Gua,dalupe Mountains, Texas. Summit 'of El Capitan and just below. Top of tho Capitan 

limestone. 

G. H. Girty, September 27, 1901. 

2906. Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. In foothill ridge about 3 miles southwest of Guadalupe Peak; 

about one-fourth mile northwest of No. 2924 and 150 feet higher up. Lower portion of the 

Capitan limestone. 

G. H. Girty, October 2, 1901. 

2919. Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. Near station 2920 and 300 feet above it, in a notch in a long ridge. 

About 250 feet above the basal black limestone, in the Delaware Mountain sandstone. Calcareous phase of sandstone. 

G. H. Girty, October 1, 1901. 

2920. Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. Small canyon among foothills about 2 miles south of Guadalupe 

Peak. Ncar top of the basal black limestone. 

B. F. Hill and G. H. Girty, October 1, 1901. 

2924. Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. In foothill ridge about 3 miles southwest of Guadalupe Peak. 

Upper portion of the "dark limestone." 

G. H. Girty, October 2, 1901. 

2926. Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. Just below knob on crest of spur running northward from El 

Capitan. Part of material from horizon above or below. About 1,000 feet below summit of 

El Capitan and the iop of the Capitan limestone. 

B. F. Hill and G. H. Girty, September 22 and 27, 1901. 

2930. Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. Chiefly float, almost entirely from north side of Pine Spring Canyon, from two spurs embracing the spring. Supposed to be from the "dark limestone" immediately above the sandstones of the Delaware Mountain formation; some of it in place. 

G. H. Girty, September 26 and October 6, 1901. 

2931. Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. West side of road at entran<!e to Guadalupe Canyon. Lower half 

of the Delaware Mountain sandstone; opposite to station 2903 and at about the same horizon, 

possibly above. 

G. H. Girty, October 3, 1901. 

2932. Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. McKitterick Canyon, about 10 miles northeast of Pine Spring. 

Low down in the Capitan limestone. 

G. H. Girty, October 4, 1901. 

2935. Van Horn quadrangle. One-half mile south of tank in draw that cuts the southern Delawares; 

about 7 miles north of Jones's ranch. Delaware Mountain formation. 

G. B. Richardson, Septemb~r 21, 1903. 

2936. Van Horn quadrangle. Low hills one-half mile west of Jones's ranch. Delaware Mountain 

formation. 

G. B. Richardson, September 21, 1903. 

2957. Top of the Delaware Mountains, 27 miles northeast of Van Horn. Delaware Mountain formation. 

G. B. Richardson, October 16, 1903. . 

2962. Van Horn quadrangle, 2~ miles east of tank in draw that cuts the southern Delawares. Delaware Mountain formation. 

G. B. Richardson, September 22, 1903. 

511 
512 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

2963. West front of Delaware Mountains, about 2 miles south of El Capitan. 750 feet above the basal 

black limestone in the Delaware Mountain formation. 

E. H. Elder, August 14, 1903. 

2964. Limestone Mountain, southern extremity of the Delawares,_ 10 miles northwest of Kent and 

15 miles northeast of Plateau. Delaware Mountain formation. 

G. B. Richardson, October 13, 1903. 

2965. Van Horn quadrangle. Top of Delaware Mountains, 30 miles northeast of Van Horn. Delaw<J,re 

Mountain formation. 

G. B. Richardson and E. H. Elder, October 16, 1903. 

2966. Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. Top limestone of El Capitan. Same as station 2905. 

G. B. Richardson, August 13, 1903. 

2967. Low hills, about 2 miles south of El Capitan. Basal black limestone below Delaware Mountain 

sandstone. 

E. H. Elder, August 14, 1903. 

2968. Base of Hogue trail up Delaware Mountains. West base of mountains 18 miles south of Capitan 

Peak. Black limestone near middle of the Delaware Mountain formation. 

G. B. Richardson, October 28, 1903. 

2969. Van Horn quadrangle, about 30 miles northeast of Van Horn, in the Delaware Mountains. 

Same as station 3500. Delaware Mountain formation. 

G. B. Richardson, September 23, 1903, 

3500. Van Horn quadrangle. About 15 miles north of Jones's ranch, Delaware Mountains, 4800-foot 

hill. Same locality as station 2969. Delaware Mountain formation. 

G. B. Richardson, September 23, 1903. 

3501. Van Horn quadrangle'. Limestone ridge H miles east of Jones's ranch, about 9 miles north of 

Plateau. Delaware Mountain formation. 

G. B. Richardson, September 24, 1903. 

3762. "Trans-Pecos, Texas. Guadalupe Mountains. Upper limestone." Supposed to be the top of 

the Capitan limestone. 

R. T. Hill, August 13, 1900. 

3762a. "Trans-Pecos; Texas. Guadalupe Mountains. Upper limestone." Supposed to belong m 

the "dark limestone." 

R. T. Hill, August 13, 1900. 

3762b. "'£rans-Pecos, Texas. One mile east of Guadalupe Peak. Altitude 6,000 feet." Supposed to 

belong in the "dark limestone." 

R. T. Hill, August 13, 1900. 

3762e. "Trans-Pecos, Texas. Guadalupe Peak. Upper limestone." Supposed to belong in the 

"dark limestone." 

R. T. Hill, August 13, 1900. 

3762d. "Trans-Pecos, Texas. Guadalupe Mountains." Supposed to belong in the "dark lhncstone." 

R. T. Hill, August 13, 1900. 

3762e. "Trans-Pecos, Texas. Guadalupe Mountains. Upper limestone." Supposed to belong m 

the "dark limestone." 

R. T. Hill, August 13, 1900. · 

3763. "Big Bend, Texas. Comanche Canyon, Glass Mountains, 17' miles northeast of Marathon, Tex." 

Supposed to represent the Delaware Mountain formation. 

R. T. Hill, November 3, 1899. 1 

3764. The recorded locality is the vicinity of the Diablo Mountains, Texas, but this is probably a mistake. The material to which this label actually applies and with which the present lot is 

probably mixed appears to be that mentioned in Von Streeruwitz's report (Ann. Rept. Geol. 

Survey Texas for 1892, 1893, p. 170), and sent to the National Museum by E. T. Dumble, 

January 18, 1892. 

3840. "Big Bend region. Mountains northwest of Marathon, Tex." Supposed to be the same horizon 

as station 3763 and to represent the Delaware Mountain formation. 

R. T. Hill, September 25, 1899. 
PJ_JATES IV TO XXXI. 

3695--~0.58--08----~3 513 

.. 

.. 

PLATE IV. 

515 
.. 

PLATE IV. 

MISCELLANEOUS. 

0RTHOTETES Fischer de Waldheim (pp. 186 et seq.). 

FIG. 1. This is fig. 4a of Fischer de Waldheim's Oryctographie (1830 cd., pl. 20), and was repeated in 

the 1837 edition (pl. 20, fig. 4a). In the first instance the legend was merely Orthotetes, but 

in the second there was added the statement that it was the interior of the lower valve, the 

cut above being the flattened hinge plate seen from above. (For the original description of 

the figures see pp. 186-189 of the present report.) This figure has usually been referred 

to as representing a dorsal valve, but when taken in connection with the hinge plate, with 

the descriptions, and with subsequent figures, it is quite evidently a ventral valve. 

FIG. la. This was fig. 4b of pl. 20 in both editions of the Oryctographie. In the first edition there was 

no description relating to it, but in the 1837 edition it was said to be the dorsal canal of the valve 

shown by 4a (l of this plate). 

FIG. lb. This figure does not appear in the 1830 edition of the Oryctographic, but was introduced in 

the 1837 edition. It was there described as the upper valve of Orthotetes n. g., and constituted 

fig. 4e of pl. 20. In view of the configuration one can not help believing that this also is a veQtral valve, an interpretation which would fit well with Fischer's conception of the genus at 

that time. He conceived it, in fact, to be a pelecypod related to Pedum. It is probable that 

he had two ventral valves in mind, rather than two dorsals, or than a dorsal and a ventral, 

because the latter combination shows too conspicuously the incquivalve character of the shell 

for Fischer to compare it to Pedum, which is of course one of the Pectinidre, while Pedum has 

a high area and cartilage pit, not at all like the structure or the configuration of the dorsal 

valve of Orthotetes, but superficially not dissimilar to the ventral valve. Fischer's description and figures seem to bear out these inferences. This figure and lb are not reproduced in 

Fischer's treatise of the year 1850. 

0RTHOTETES RADIATUS Fischer de Waldheim (pp. 189 et seq.). 

FIG. 2. This figure was fig. 3 of pl. 10 of Fischer's final discussion of the genus in 1850 (seep. 189 of the 

present work). This is evidently a better drawing of the original of fig. 1 (4a of the Oryc~ographie), with which the genus Orthotetes wa~ first illustrated. In this place, for the first time, 

the generic term is supplied with a ~pecific name. Orthotetes radiatus is, therefore, the species 

on which the genus was originally based, and it had the internal structures of Waagen's Derbya, 

probablY'of his camerate division (see Fischer's descriptions). 

FIG . .la. This figure was not named or described by Fischer in 1850, but it evidently represents the upper 

cut of fig. 1 (fig. 4a of pl. 20 in the Oryctographie), and without much question belongs to Orthotetes radiatus. 

0RTHOTETES SOCIALIS Fischer de Waldheim (pp. 189 et seq.). 

FIG. 3. This is a reproduction of the figure used by Fischer in 1850 to illustrate his species Orthotetes 

socialis (it was there fig. 4 of pl. 10), which from his description apparently belongs to the septate G.~vision of Waagen's Derbya. 

FIG. 3a. This was fig. l of pl. 1.0 of Fischer's work on Orthotetes published in 1850. lie gave no name 

or description for it at that time, but it seems probable that it represents the area and interior 

of Orthotetes social is. (Sec pp. 189 et seq. of the present work for Fischer's text and a discussion 

of it). 

516 
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER NO, 58. PL IV. 

2 

4 

X2 

5 X2 I 

gb 

sa 8 

6 
THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

STROPHALOSIA CORNELLIANA Derby (p. 276). 

F:ws. 4 and 4a. A representative ventral valve f'rom Brazil. 

4. Exterior view, X 2. 

517 

4a. Interior view, X 3. On the inside of the shell is shown a peculiar thickening which suggests 

that of Richthofenia permiana Shumard. · ' 

"Coal Measures:" Itaituba, Brazil. 

CAPITAN FORMATION, GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS. 

STROPHALOSIA CORNELLIANA Derby (p. 276). 

F:w. 5. A ventral valve from Texas referred to this species. 

Exterior, seen from above, X 2. 

Capitan formation, hill southwest of Guadalupe Point (station 2906). 

LEPTODUS GUADALUPENSIS n. sp. (p. 213). 

FIGs. 6 to 6b. A ventral valve. The specimen represented by this figure is a mold of tho interior, the 

shell having been more or less completely removed by exfoliation. This is the usual condition 

in Capitan specimens. 

6. View of th(llowor side. 

6a. Impression of the same, presenting the parts in their natural topographic relations. 

6b. Side view, showing how the lateral expansions tend to arch over the interior of the shell. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

FIG. 7. A portion of the shell showing tho papillose or punctate surface. 

Seen from above, X 2. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926), 

LEPTODUS AMERICANUS n. sp. (p. 212). 

FIGs. 8 to Sb. A young example of this species attached to a branching bryozoan (probably Acantha. 

cladia), showing both valves in conjunction. · 

8. Soon from above, X 3. 

Sa Seen from below, X 3. 

Sb. Seen from the side, X 3. 

Capitan formation, hill southwest of Guadalupe Point (station 2906). 

PLATE V. 

519 
PLATE V. 

CAPITAN FORMATION, GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS. 

FusuLINA ELONGATA Shumard (p. 62). 

FIG. ·1. A specimen of the normal character. 

Section taken longitudinally, but somewhat oblique, showing the appearance usually seen in thin 

sections made•at random, X 10. • 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2905). 

FIG. 2. A small or young specimen broken at one end, as is often the case. 

Longitudinal section passing through the large initial cell, X 10. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2905). 

FIG. 3. A medium-sized specimen somewhat larger than the last. 

Transverse section through the large initial cell, X 10. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2905). 

FIG. 4. Rock fragment showing occurrence. 

Seen from above. This is a natural weathered surface and shows not only. how abundant the 

organisms really are, but how they are oriented alike, for all the sections arc transverse. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2905). 

Fm. 5. Reck fragment showing occurrence. 

Seen from above. In this view the specimens are seen longitudinally and their abundance and 

tendency to point in the same direction are shown similarly to fig. 4. · 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2905). 

FusuLINELLA sp. a (p. 65). 

Fw. 6: A small foraminifer supposed to belong to the genus Fusulinella. 

A thin section probably perpendicular to the' axis,"but situated near one ·end of it, X 10. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2905). 

GUADALUPIA ~ sp. (p. 85). 

FIG."7. An organism of small size, rather abundant at this horizon and doubtfully spongoid. 

Thin section transverse to the axis (if the initial shape was cylindrical), X 10. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2905). 

FIG. 8 .. Another example similar to the last. 

Transverse section, X 10. This section, like the preceding, illustrates how most of the fossils at 

this horizon are enveloped in a coating of dolomite(?). 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2905). 

FIG. 9. Another appearance seen in thin sections; supposed to belong to the same organism as the foregoing. 

A section more nearly tangential, X 10. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2905): 

FIG.10. A thin section oriented like the preceding, X 10. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2905) 

520 
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER NO. 58. PL. V. 

3 

7 

4 X10 

8 

X10 

9 

X1 0 

10 11 

12 13 
THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 521 

FIG. 11. A small organism having .a structure resembling the foregoing but 'on a much more minute scale. 

It may_be a radiolarian. 

Section partly tangential and partly through the organism, X 10. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2905). 

GuADALUPIA OYLINDRICA var. ROBUSTA n. var. (p. 83). 

FIG. 12. A specimen in which the structure is larg~y obscured. 

Side view. · 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2905). 

GUADALUPIA DIGITATA n. sp. (p. 84). 

FIG. 13. The typical and only specimen. 

Side view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2902). 

PLATE VI. 

523 
PLATE VI. 

CAPITAN FORMATION, GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS. 

GUADALUPIA ZITTELIANA n. sp. (p. 80). 

FIGs. 1 to ld. The typical specimen. The convexity suggests that this sponge is a cylindrical bocly 

broken at the sides, but while broken away above for an indefinite distance the lateral outlines 

are very nearly those of the entire organism. 

1. Side view. 

la. Tangential section through the outer layer, X 5. 

lb. Tangential section through the outer layer, X 5. The section is more or less diagonal. Along 

the upper margin a spicular network is shown, more distbct than in la. In the center are the 

transversely cut ends of several mural tubes. 

lc. Tangential section through the mural tubes, X 5. 

ld. Section longitudinally through the mural tubes, X 5. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

FIGs. 2 to 2b. A small specimen referred with doubt to this species. Both upper and lower surfaces are 

retained. 

2. ·Side view. 

2a. Upper side from which the dermal layer has been partially eroded. 

2b. Lower side showing thickened area of attachment. 

<Japitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

GuADALUPIA CYLINDRICA n. sp. (p. 81). 

FIGs. 3 to 3c. The typical specimen. 

3. Transverse section across the organism, cutting the mural tubes more or less longitudinally. 

The interior is partially filled by an irregular cystose growth which is probably intrinsic. 

The dark dots in the walls of the mura.l tubes may be sections through spicules, X 5. 

3a. Longitudinal section through the organism, longitudinal also through the mural tubes. Here 

too is shown the partial filling of the interior by irregular cystose structures. A few of th& 

tubes ih this, as in the preceding section, will lte 9bsenred to be crossed by diaphragms, X 5. 

3b. Tangential section very near the periphery. The spicular network of the outer layers is 

shown and the transversely cut ends of some of the mural tubes, X 5. 

3c. Side view of the nearly characterless specimen from whose upper end the foregoing sections 

were made. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

GUADALUPIA CYLINDRICA var. CONCRETA n. var. (p. 82). 

FIGs. 4 to 4b. The typical specimen. 

4. Side view . 

. 4a. End view, showing the area of attachment to some striated organism, possibly a Productus. 

4b. Vi3w of upper surface, showing the tubes in part bifoliate and in part radiating from different 

centers. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

GuADALUPIA sp. (p. 84). 

FIG. 5. An organism of doubtful affinities embedded in rock. 

Side view. 

Capitan formation, peak north of Pine Spring (station 2902). 

524 
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER NO. 5B. PL. VI. 

2 

4 

sa X5 

.......... 

5 

3C 30 X5 
PLATE VII. 

525 . 
PLATE VII. 

CAPITAN FORMATION, GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS. 

CYSTOTHALAMIA NODULIFERA n. sp. (p. 89). 

FIG. 1. A specimen embedded in rock. 

Polished section through a branch nearly parallel to the axis and near the surface, showing the 

irregularly cystose internal structure, X 3. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2966). 

FIG. 2. Fragment of a specimen with ostia and nodular surface. 

Side. view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2966). 

FIG. 3. A larger specimen with prominent spoutlike ostia and less distinctly nodular surface. 

Side view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2966). 

8TEINMANNIA AMERICANA n. sp. (p. 92). 

FIGs. 4 and 4a. The typical and only specimen. 

4. Side view showirig the annular growth and porous structure. 

4a. Opposit~ side, forming a natural section somewhat diagonal but in a general way longitudi'nal. 

The construction of superposed discoidal chambers is well shown. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

CYSTOTHALAMIA ~ sp. (p. 91). 

FIG. 5. A specimen which is apparently an internal cast, referred to this genus with much doubt. 

Side view. · 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

SoLLASIA ~ sp. (p. 93). 

FIG. 6. A specimen referred with doubt to this genus. 

Side view, X 2. • 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

AMBLYSIPHONELLA GUADALUPENSIS n. sp. (p. 91). 

FIG. 7. The typical specimen embedded in limestone. 

Natural section longitudinally through the specimen, showing the distinctive characters. 

Capitan formation, C3;pitan Peak (station 2966). 

FIGs. S and Sa. Another specimen referred to this species, from the same locality as the type. 

S. Transverse section. 

Sa. Side view of exterior. The surface characters may be in part extrinsic. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2966). 

GuADALUPIA · FAVOSA n. sp. (p. 83). 

FIG. 9. The typical specimen, from which the outer· layer has been largely removed. 

Side view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

ANTHRACOSYCON FICUS var. CAPITANENSE ll. var. (p. 72). 

FIG. 10. The typical specimen. 

Side view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

526 
THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

VIRGULA NEPTUNIA n. sp. (p. 74), 

Fro. 11. Specimen embedded in limestone. 

Fracture surface, X 5. , 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

FIG. 12. A partly weathered specimen which may be taken as the type. 

Natural section more or less transverse, X 5. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

VIRGULA RIGIDA n. sp. (p. 74). 

FIG. 13. The typical specimen. 

Side view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

VIRGULA RIGIDA var. CONSTRICTA n. var. (p. 75). 

FIG. 14. The typical specimen. 

Side view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

FIG. 15. A specimen placed with doubt in this variety. 

Side view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

PsEUDOVIRGULA TENUIS n. sp. (p. 76). 

Fro. 16 and 16a. The typical specimen, a small fragment embedded in limestone. 

16. Side view showing the large ostia, X 5. 

527 

16a. Transverse section showing the spicular network. of the central portion and an irregular 

· outer zone, probably adventitious, in which the spicular structure is not developed, X 5. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

FIG. 17. Another specimen referred with some doubt to this species. 

Section in part longitudinal and in part transverse, X 5. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

CAMPOPHYLLUM TEXANUM Shumard? (p. 102). 

FIG. 18. A crushed specimen, the only one of the sort found. It is referred with doubt to Shumard's 

species. 

Side view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926) . 

. DOMOPORA? TERMINALIS n. sp. (p. 120). 

FIGs. 19 to 19b. A colony showing the construction of superposed layers .. 

19. Longitudinal section, X 20. 

19a. Tangential section through a portion of the same specimen, X35. 

19b. Tangential section, X 20. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

FIGs. 20 and 20a. A globose specimen. 

20. Viewed from above,· X 4. 

20a. Side view, X 4. 

Capitan formation, hill southwest of Guadalupe Point (station 2906). 

FIGs. 21 and 21a. A more slender elongate specimen. 

21. Viewed from above, X 4. 

21a. Side view, X 4. 

Capitan formation, hill southwest of Guadalupe Point (station 2906). 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

PROFESSIONAL PAPER NO. 58. PL. VII. 

8 

2 4 

5 

3 

9 10 

15 14 13 

21 

20 

X4 X4 18 X2 0 
PLATE VIII. 

3695-No. 58-08-::14 529 
PLATE VIII. 

CAPITAN FOR.MATION, GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS. 

AcANTHOCLADIA GUADALUPENSIS n. sp. (p. 149). 

Fw. 1. A very robust specimen referred to this species. The poriferous side is concealed, though a row 

of spines down the sides of the pinnules can be seen. 

Nonporiferous side. ' 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

ACANTHOCLADIA sp. (p. 152). 

Fws. 2 and 2a. A small specimen belonging to an undetermined species, but one apparantly different 

from A. guadalupensis. 

2. Poriferous side, natural size in outline. 

2a. Same, X 4. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

GoNIOCLADIA AMERICANA n. sp. (p. 154). 

Fws. 3 to 3c. A large fragment of a frond, exposing the nonporiferous side. 

3. Zoarium, natural size. 

3a. Section across the frond where several branches become confluent, X 3. 

3b. Tangential section about halfway through the frond, X 3. 

3c. Portion of the nonporifcrous side enlarged to show the shape of the highly angular branches, 

X3. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

FENESTELLA CAPITANENsrs n. sp. (p. 134). 

FIGs. 4 and 4a. The type specimen, a frond with the poriferous face embedded in rock. 

4. Side view of frond, X 2. 

4a. Portion of the same, X 8. Though more or less clamaged by exfoliation the small nodes 

developed at the junction of the branches and dissepiments can here and there be seen. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

FISTULIPORA GUADALUPJE ll. sp. (p. 126). 

Fws. 5 and 5a. The type speCimen. 

5. Longitudinal section, X 20. 

5a. Transverse section, X 20. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2966). 

STENOPORA POLYSPINOSA var. RlCHARDSONI n. var. (p. 129). 

F!as. 6 to 6b. The type specimen. 

6. Longitudinal section, X 20. 

6a. Transverse section, X 35. 

6b. Transverse section, X 20. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2966). 

530 
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER NO. 58. PL. VIII . 

6 

B X3 sa X3 sb xa 7a X4 

co 8 

12b 1QC 

X3 12 12C 12a 10b 10a 

ga 9 

6 ~ ((_~ 11b 13a 

13d 

11a 

10 

13C 13 14 
THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 531 

DoMOPORA? OCELLATA n. sp. (p. 122).· 

Fras. 7 and 7a. Terminal portion of a branch. There are two maculre opposite !3!1.Ch other, but not a 

terminal one. 

7. Side view showing one of the macula•, X 4. 

7a. Side view of the adjacent quadrant, showing sides of two maculre, X 4 .. 

Capitan formation, hill southwest of Guadalupe Point (station 2906). 

PATELLA CAPITANENSIS n. sp. (p. 465). 

FIGs. 8 to Sb. A small specimen serving as the type. 

8. Seen from above, X 3. 

8a. Side view, X 3. 

Sq. End view, X 3. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2966). 

PLEUROTOMARIA RICHARDSON! n. sp. (p. 467). 

FIGs. 9 and 9a. ·A well-preserved specimen selected as the type. 

9. Seen from above, X 3. 

9a. Side vie)V, X 3. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2966). 

PLEUROTOMARIA NEGLECTA n. sp. (p. 472). 

FIGs. 10 to lOc. Specimen preserved as a partial mol<l of the interior. 

10. View of the under side, X 3. 

lOa. Side ·view, X 3, showing the aperture. 

lOb. Side view, X 3. 

10~. Same, natural size in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

PLEUROTOMARIA PUTILLA n. sp. (p. 468). 

Fras. 11 to llb. The typical specimen. 

ll. View of the lower side, X 4. 

lla. Side view, X 4. 

llb. Same, natural size in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

PLEUROTOMARIA MICA n. sp. (p. 467). 

~J.as. 12 to 12c. The typical specimen. 

12. View of the upper side, X 4. 

l2a. Side view, X 4. 

12b. Same, natural size in outline. 

12c. View of the lower side, X 4. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

PLEUROTOi\IARIA DISCOIDEA n. sp. (p. 470). 

Fras:. 13 to l3d. A somewhat imperfect specimen on which the species is founded. 

13. Side view, showing the aperture, X 2. 

13a. Same, natural size in outline. 

·13b. View of the lower side, >< 2. 
.532 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

Fw. 13c. View of the upper side, X 2. 

13d. Same, natural size in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

EucoNOSPIRA OHSOLETA n. sp~ (p. 477). 

Fws. 14 to 14b. A rather well-preserved fragment. 

14. Seen from above. 

14a. Seen from below. 

14b. Side view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 292G). 
PLATE IX., 

533 
PI,ATE IX. 

CAPITAN FORMATION, GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS. 

CAMPTONECTES? ASPERATUS n. sp. (p. 434). 

Fws. 1 to lb. A right valve. 

1. Side view, X 5. 

la. Same, natural size in outline. 

lb. Same, X 2, for comparison with figs .. 3 and 3a. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

Frc. 2. An imperfect right valve with well-preserved surface. 

Side view, X 5. 

Capitan forma~ion, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

CAMPTONECTES ~ PAPILLATUS n. sp. (p. 433). 

Frcs. 3 and 3a. A left valve. 

3. Side view, X 2. 

3a. Same, natural size in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

CAMPTONECTES? SCULPTILIS n. sp. (p. 434). 

Frc. 4. An imperfect right valve having well-preserved surface ornamentation. 

Side view, X 2. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

Fws. 5 and 5a. A young left valve partially exfoliated, supposed to belong to the same specieg. 

5. Side view, X 2. 

5a. Same, natural size in-outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

CAMPTONECTES? sp. (pp. 433-434). 

Frcs. 6 and 6a. An internal mold of a left valve belonging probably either to C.? asperatus or C.? 

papillatus. 

6. Side view, X 2. 

6a. Same, natural size in outline. 

Capitan fornmtion, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

Frcs. 7 and 7a. An internal mold ·of a right Vl\lve belonging probably either to C.? asperatus or G.? 

papillatu,q, 

7. Side view, X 2. 

7a. Same, natural size in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

EucnoNDRIA? sp. (p. 441). 

Frcs. 8 and Sa. Probably a young speeimen and of doubtful affinities. 

8. Side view, X 4. 

Sa. Same, natural size in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

534 
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER NO. 58. PL. IX, 

5a 2 

5 

4 

0 u 0 

sa 0 

6a 9a 10 

6 ?a 8 

7 9 11 

a a D 

15a 

13a 14a 

14 15 16 

12 13 

0 <=:s 

17a 2oa 

20 

17 18 19 

22 24 

21 

25 

27 

26 
THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

AvwtrLIPECTEN INFELIX n. sp. (p. 438). 

FIGs. 9 and 9a. A small, left? valve. · 

9. Side view, X 4. 

9a. Same, natural size in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

FIG. 10. A larger left? valve. 

Side view, natural size. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

AVICULIPECTEN LAQUEATUS n. sp. (p. 439). 

FIG. 11. A left valve. 

Side view, natural size. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

AviCULIPECTF.N SUBLAQUEAT'Us n. sp. (p. 440). 

FIG. 12 .. Imperfect left valve preserved as an internal mold. 

Side view. 

Capitan formation, hill southwest of Guadalupe Point (station 2906). 

PERNIPECTEN? OBLIQUUS n. Sp. (p. 441). 

FIGs. 13 and 13a. A left? valve, larger than the original of fig. 14 and less complete. 

13. Side view, X 2. 

13a. Same, natural size in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

Fws. 14 and 14a. A small left? valve in which the ears are defective. 

14. Side view, X 2. 

14a. Same, natural size in outline. , 

Capitan formation, Capita11 Peak (station 2926). 

PLAGIOSTOl\IA DELTOIDEU!If n. sp. (p. 442). 

Fws. 15 and 15a. A right valve. 

15. Side view, X 3. 

15a. Same, natural size in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

Fws. 16 and 16a. A left valve. 

16. Side view, X 3. 

16a. Same, natural size in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

LIMATULINA STRIATICOSTATA n. sp. (p. 443). 

Fws. 17 and 17a. A left valve. 

17. Side view, X 3. 

17a. Same, natural size in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

FIGs. 18 and 18a. A broken right valve showing the characters of this species. 

18. Side view, X 3. 

18a. Same, natural size in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

535 

FIG. 19. Fragment of another left valve which has the surface well preserved. The sculpture is somewhat finer than on the foregoing and the species may possibly be different. 

Side view, X 3. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 
536 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

PTERIA GUADALUPENSIS n. sp. (p. 426). 

Fws. 20 and 20a. A left valve. 

20. Side view, X 2. 

20a. Same, natural size in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926), 

MYOCONCHA COSTULATA n. sp. (p. 444). 

Fws. 21 to 2lb . .A.- left valve. 

21. Side view, X 3. 

2la. Anterior view with the specimen somewhat tilted backward, X 3. 

2lb. Side view, natural size in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

EnMONDIA? ·nELLULA n. sp. (p. 420). 

Fws. 22 to 22b. A left valve .. 

22. Side view, X 3. 

22a. Anterior view in outline, X3. 

22b. Side view, natural size in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

0YPRICARDINIA? CONTRACTA ll. sp, (p. 446). 

Fws. 23 and 23a. A right valve somewhat broken about the beak. Like most of the pelecypods from 

this horizon the preservation is that of an internal mold which yet retains some of the external 

characters. 

23. Side view, X 4. 

23a. Same, natural size in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

Scmzonus sEcunus Shumard? (p. 431.) 

Fw. 24. An imperfect right valve referred to Shumard's species. 

Side view, natural size. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2fl26). 

PARALLELODON POLITUS n. sp. (p. 424). 

Fw. 25. A fragmentary right valve having the shell in part preserved. 

Side view, natural size. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

FOORDOCERAS SHUMARDIANUM n. sp. (p. 497). 

F:ws. 26 and 26a. A fragment of nearly complete size. 

26. Side view. 

26a. Transverse section through two whorls. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2fl26). 

F:ws. 27 and 27a. A small and somewhat imperfect specimen. 

27. Side view. 

27a. View of the ventral surface. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 
U. S. GEO'-OGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER NO. 58. PL. X. 

1C 

2 

3 

8 sa 

ya 

9 ga 

11 

12 gb 

gc 
PLATE X. 

537 
PLATE X. 

CAPITAN FORMATION, GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS. 

0HTHOTETES GUADALUPENSIS n. sp. (p. 199). 

Fws. 1 told. The type specimen retaining both valves in conjunction. All the figures X 1!. It was 

not found possible to represent quite faithfully the fineness of the liroo and their rounded shape.· 

1. Ventral view. 

la. Dorsal view. 

lb. Anterior view. 

lc. Posterior view. 

ld. Side view. 

Capitan formation,, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

FIGs. 2 to 2b. A similar but somewhat irregular specimen retaining both valves. All the figures X 1~. 

2. Side view. · 

2a. Posterior view. 

2b. Dorsal view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak .(station 2926). 

FIG. 3. A dorsal valve from which the shell has been largely exfoliated, so that the socket plates can be 

seen. 

Seen from above, X 1~. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

FIG. 4. A ventral valve with the apex ground down to show the septal arrangement, X 3. · The typical 

camerate structure is seen, but as the specimen was somewhat distorted the septum is not quite 

central. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

FIG. 5. Fragment of a ventral valve which has be.en broken along the dental plates and septum. x, 

Pseudodeltidium; y, y, converging dental plates; z, median septum. 

Specimen viewed obliquely downward and to the right, X 3. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

0RTHOTETES DECLIVIS n. sp. (p. 200). 

Fws. 6 to 6b. A ventral valve taken as the type of the species. The figures of this species are not 

erilarged, so that its size relative to the preceding type is misrepresented. 

6. Seen from above. 

6a. Posterior view. 

6b. Side view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). . 

Fws. 7 and 7a. A fragmentary dorsal valve supposed to belong to this species, with the shell partially 

removed to show the long socket plates. 

7. Seen from above. 

7a. Side view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capita~1 Peak (station 2926). 

Fras. 8 and Sa. A somewhat imperfect dorsal valve referred to this species. 

S. Seen from above. 

Sa. Side view in outline. 

Capitan formation, hill southwest of Guadalupe Point (station 2906). 

53S 
THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 539 

0RTHOTETES DISTORTUS ll. sp. (p. 201). 

FIGs. 9 to 9c. The type specimen preserving both valves in conjunction. The extremely fino liration 

can not be accurately represented on figures of· this size. All figureR nearly X 2. 

9. Posterior view. 

9a. Side view. 

9b. Anterior view. 

9c. Dorsal view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

0RTIIOTETES DISTORTUS var. CAMPANULATUS n. var. (p. 202). 

Fms. 10 to lOc. A ventral valve; the typical specimen. All figures X 1!. 

10. Anterior view, showing the great length of the septum. 

lOa. Side view. 

lOb. Seen from above. 

lOc. Posterior view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

DERBYA sp. a (p. 184). 

Fws. 11 and lla. A ventral ·valve provisional1y referred to this species. The shell has been much 

exfoliated, partialiy obscuring the sculpture. 

11. Seen from above. 

lla. Side view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

DERHYA sp. b (p. 185). 

Fw .. 12. A fragmentary ventral valve. 

Posterior view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2966): 

.. 

PLATE XI. 

541 
PLATE XI. 

CAPITAN FORMATION, GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS. 

DERBYA sp. a (p. 184). 

FIG. 1. A large dorsal valve considerably exfoliated and broken around the edges. 

Seen from above. The cardinal process, owing to its direction, is considerably foreshortened in 

this view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

GEYERELLA AMERICANA ll. sp. (p. 204). 

FIGs. 2 to 2b. An imperfect ventral valve which has lost part of the left side, the fracture passing along 

the dental plate and septum. 

2. Anterior view. 

2a. Posterior view. 

2b. Side view, in which the dental plate and septum are exposed by the fracture. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

STREPTORHYNCHUS GREGARIUM n. sp. (p. 177). 

Fws. 3 and 3a. An imperfect spectmen rctammg ootn valves in position. 

3. Side view. 

3a. Posterior· view, X 2. Owing to the fracture there can here be seen the dental callosities, 

without real dental plates or septum. 

Qapitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

Fics. 4 to 4c. An imperfect specimen with both valves. 

4. Posterior view, somewhat tilted backward. 

·4a. Anterior view, somewhat tilted forward. 

4b. True front view in outline. 

4c. Side view, in outline. . 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

Fws. 5 to 5b. A spedmen having a low altitude and regular growth. 

5. Anterior view in outline. 

5a. Side view. 

5b. Dorsal view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

Fws. 6 to 6b. A small distorted ventral valve. 

6. Side view. 

6a. Front view. 

6b.' Front view, X 2. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

Fw. 7. An elongate specimen of irregular growth. 

Side view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

542 
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURV EY PROFESSIONAL PAPER NO. 58. PL. XI. 

2 

3 G 

4 4a 4b 

d 

5 5a 

ob 

3a 

6 5a 

6b 7 

11 9 

a 

gb 8 

11a 10 

sa 
THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

CHONETES HILLANUS n. sp. (p. 228). 

FIGs. 8 to 8b. A rather large ventral valve. 

8. Seen from above. 

8a. Posterior view. 

8b. Side view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926) . 

. Fw. 9. A somewhat smaller ventral valve. 

Seen from above. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

FIG."10. A cast taken from an imperfect natural mold of a dorsal valve. 

Seen from above. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

PRODUCTUS LATIDORSATUS n. sp. (p. 264). 

FIGs. 11 and 11a. A slightly imperfect ventral valve. 

11. Side view. 

lla. Anterior view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

543 

Fms. 12 to 12b. A ventral valve of the usual size and configuration. Some examples show finer and 

more distinct ribs. 

12. Posterior view. 

12a. Seen from above. 

12b. Side view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

Fws. 13 to 13b. A dorsal valve showing for the most part the inside of the shell. This specimen is 

marked by rather fine, obscure costre. 

13. Anterior view. 

13a. Seen from above. 

13b. Side view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

PLATE XII. 

3695-No. 58-08-35 545 
PLATE XII. 

CAPITAN FORMATION, GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS. 

PRODUCTUS SEMIRETICULATUS var. CAPITANENSIS n. var. (p. 254). 

FIGs. 1 and la. An imperfect ventral valve of rather small size. No restoration has been made in these 

figures. 

l. Seen from above. 

la. Side view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

FIG. 2. A somewhat imperfect dorsal valve. 

Visceral area. 

·capitan formatio"n, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

Fms. 3 to 3b. A somewhat imperfect dorsal valve of the usual type. 

3. Seen from above. 

3a. Seen from the front so that the flattened visceral surface lies in the plane of sight. 

3b. Side view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

PRODUCTUS occmENTALIS Newberry (p. 262). 

Fms. 4 to 4c. A ventral valve referred to this species. 

4. Seen from above. 

4a. Posterior view. 

4b. Anterior view. 

4c. Side view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

PRODUCTUS PINNIFORMIS n. sp. (p. 272). 

FIGs. 5 to 5b. A specimen showing part of the ventral valve and, wliere it is broken away, probably part 

of the dorsal valve beneath. 

5. Seen from above, in outline. 

5a. Same, X 2. 

5b. Side view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

PRODUCTUS WAAGENIANUS n. sp. (p. ?53). 

Fws. 6 to 6c. A ventral valve. It was not possible in these figures to represent the liration as sufficiently 

fine. 

6. Seen from above. 

6a. Anterior view. 

6b. Posterior view. 

6c. Side view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

Fws. 7 and 7a. A dorsal valve. 

7. Specimen seen from above. 

7a. Side view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

54(f 
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

4 

5a 

~ 

· 10 

14 

5 

(J 

1Qa 

D 

14a 

4a 

[j 6 

5b 

7 7a 

8 

11 11a 

15 15a 

PROFESSIONAL PAPER NO. GS. PL. XII. 

2 

3 

4b 4C 

6a 

6b 6C 

d J sa ga 9 

12 12a 13a 13 

16b ~ 16 16a 
THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 547 

PRonucTus? PILEOLUS Shumard (p. 270). 

FrGs. 5 and Sa. An imperfeet ventral valve largely reduced to an internal mold which shows traces of 

structures similar to the submarginal callosity of Marginife:ra. 

8. Seen from above, X 3. 

Sa. Side view in outline, X 3. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

Fros. 9 and 9a. A dorsal valve preserved almost as an external mold. 

9. Seen from above, X 3. 

9a. Side view in outiine, X 3. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

Fros. 10 and lOa. A ventral v·alve. 

10. Seen from above, X 3. 

lOa. Side view in outline, X 3. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

Frfls. 11 and lla. Interior of dorsal valve, showing indications of structures suggesting the submarginal 

ridges of Marginifera. 

11. Seen from above, X 3. 

lla. Side view, X 3. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

Fros. 12 and 12a. A dorsal valve preserved more or less as a mold of the outside. 

12. Seen from above, X 3. 

12a. Side view in outline, X 3. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). · 

Fws. 13 and 13a. A dorsal valve referred with some doubt to this species. The preservation is to some 

extent that of an external mold. The characters of most of the surface are external, but a hand 

around the margin shows internal markings. 

13. Seen from above, X 3. 

13a. Side view, X 3. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

Fws. 14 and 14a. An imperfect ventral valve. 

14. Seen from above, X 3. 

l4a. Side view in outline, X 3. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

Fws. J 5 and 15a. A ventral valve which shows a peculiar downward prolongation of the lateral portions 

of the 8hell, best seen in figure 15a. Traces of the same structure appear to be retained in the 

case of the specimen represented by figures 14 and 14a, and may have been lo~t from other 

examples. 

15. Seen from above, X 3. 

15a, Side view, X 3. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

AULOSTEGES MEDLICOTTIANUS Var. AMERICANUS n. var: (p. 278). 

FIGs. 16 to 16b. The typical and only specimen, a ventral valve. 

16. Seen from above. 

16a. Side view in outline. 

16b. Posterior .view. 

Capitan ~ormation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

PLATE XIII. 

549 
PLATE XIII. 

CAPITAN FORMATION, GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS. 

SPIRIFER MEXICANUS Shumard (p. 360). 

Fws. 1 and la. A ventral valve of medium size. 

1. Seen from above._ The "ribs are represented as a little too strong, and their assemblage into 

groups is not quite clear enough. 

la. Side view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

FIGs. 2 to 2d. A characteristic specimen of medium sizl_l. 

2. Dorsal view. 

2a. Ventral view. · 

2b. Side view in outline. / 

2c. Posterior view. 

2d. Anterior view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926) . 

. Fras. 3 and 3a. A small specimen similar to the last. 

3. Dorsal view. 

3a. Side view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

Fws. 4 to 4b. A small specimen. 

4. Dorsal view. 

4a. Ventral view. 

4b. Side view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

Fras. 5 and 5a. A small specimen. 

5. Ventral view. The ribs are represented as a little too strong. 

5a. Side view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

Fws. 6 and 6a. A small specimen, with the ribs more fasciculate than usual. 

6. Dorsal view. The ribs arc represented as too strong. 

6a. Ventral view. The ribs are scarcely represented as sufficiently fasciculate. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

SPIRIFER MEXICANUS var. COMPACTUS n. var. (p. 361). 

FIGs. 7 to 7d. The typical specimen. 

7. Anterior view. 

7a. Posterior view. 

7b. Side view.· ' 

7c. Dorsal view. The ribs are represented as a little too distinct. 

7d. Ventral view. Here also the ribs are a little too distinct. 

Capitan formation, Capitan P(mk (station 2926). 

FIGs. S and Sa. A large ventral valve referred with some doubt to this species. 

S. S~en from above. 

Sa. Side view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

·Fw. 9. A small dorsal valve. 

Seen from above. The ribs are shown as somewhat too strong. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

550 
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER NO. 58. PL. XIII. 

, 

1a 

~~~ . ~~~ ~,1, \\1.\, .. · 

2 

Q) 

3 sa 4 

6 

7 ]C yd 

14C 

11C 10 10a 10b 9 

11d D cv sa 8 

13 13a 

ro 11b 12 12a 

11 

15b 15 

19 17 17a 15C 

11a 

19a 15d 

0 ~ ~ 15a 

. 

20 19d 

/': 

16 15a 18 1sa 21 21a 21b 

~ 8 i) 

22 24 24b 2oa 20b 20d 24a 24C 2QC 

0 

22a 22b 22C 22d 23b 23 23a 
THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

SPIRIFER SULCIFER Shumard (p. 363). 

FIGs. 10 to lOb; Copies of Shumard's figures of this species. 

10. Dorsal view. 

lOa. Ventral view. 

lOb. Side view. 

Capitan formation, Guadalupe Mountains. 

MARTINIA RHOMBOID,ALIS ll. sp. (p. 364). 

551 

Fms.- 11 to lld. A medium-sized and representative specimen. The radiating strire which result from 

exfoliation arc represented as too distinct in the different views where they appear. 

11. Dors>!-1 view. 

lla. Ventral view. 

llb. Anterior view. 

llc. Posterior view. 

nd·. Side view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

FIGs. 12 and 12a. A ventral valve of somewhat smaller size. 

12. Seen from above. 

12a. Side view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 292fi). 

Fms. 13 and 13a .. A young specimen with both valves. 

13. Dorsal view. 

13a. Side view in outline.· 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

Fws. 14 to 14c. A very young example. 

14. Ventral view. 

14a. Dorsal view. 

14b. Anterior view in outline. 

14c. Side view in outline. . 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

MARTINIA SHUMARDIANA ll. sp. (p. 365). 

Fws. 15 to 15d. The type specimen. . 

15. Ventral view. In this figure and i1~ figure 15c the striation found on the inner layers of tha 

shell is represented as somewhat too distinct. 

15a. Dorsal view. 

15b. Side view in outline. 

15c. Anterior view. 

15d. Posterior view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

SPIRIFERINA BILLINGS! Shumard (p. 374). 

Fws. 16 and 16a. A characteristic ventral valve. 

16. Seen from above. 

l6a. Side view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

FIGs 17 and 17a. A characteris-tic dorsal valve. 

17. Seen from above. 

17a. Side view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

FIGs. 18 and 18a. A somewhat larger and different dorsal valve. 

18. Seen from above. 

18a. Side view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 
552 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

Fms. 19 to 19d. A rather small specimen retaining both valves in conjunction. 

19. Dorsal view. 

19a. Ventral view. 

19b. Posterior view. 

19c. Anterior view. 

19d. Side view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

SPIRIFERINA BILI;INGSI var. RETUSA n. var. (p. 376). 

Fms. 20 to 20d. The typical specimen. 

20. Posterior view. 

20a. Ventral view. 

20b. Dorsal view. 

20c. Side view in outline. 

20d. Anterior view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

· SPIRIFERINA BILLINGSI Shumard (p. 374). 

FrGs. 21 to 2lb. A small specimen. 

· 21. Ventral view. 

21a. Dorsal view. 

2lb. Side view in outline. 

Capitan form'1tion, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

SPIRIFERINA EVAX n. sp. (p. 376). 

FIGs. 22 to 22d. The typical and only specimen. 

22. Ventral view. 

22a. Dorsal view. 

22b. Side view. 

22c. Posterior view. 

22d. Anterior view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

SPIRIFERINA SULCATA n. sp. (p. 377). 

FIGs. 23 to 23b. The typical specimen, a ventral valve. 

23. Seen from above. 

2:h. Posterior view. 

23b. Side view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

SPIRIFERINA BILLINGSI Shumard (p. 374). 

FIGs. 24 to 24c. A young specimen, 'in which the concentric lamell::e are not regularly developed. 

24. Dorsal view. 

24a. Anterior view. 

24b. Side view in outline. 

24c. Posterior view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 
PLATE XIV. 

553 
PLATE XIV. 

CAPITAN FORMATION, GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS. 

8QUAMULARIA GUADALUPENSIS var. OVALIS n. var. (p. 369). 

Fws. 1. and la. A large but imperfect specimen representing an unusual type. 

1. Ventral view. 

la. Side view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

8QUAMULARIA GUADALUPENSIS .var. SUBQUADRATA n. var. (p. 369). 

Fros. 2 to 2b. A specimen representing another variety characterized by having a perceptible ventral 

sinus and a subquadrate shape. · 

2. Ventqtl view. 

2a. Dorsal view. 

2b. Side view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

Fws. 3 to 3b. Another speci!llen with n. sinus, somewhat intermediate between the foregoing and the 

usual type. 

3. Ventral view. 

3a. Dorsal view. 

3b. Side view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

SQUAMULARIA GUADALUPENsrs Shumard (p. 367). 

FIGS. 4 and 4a. A specimen of the usual type. 

4. Dorsal view. 

4a. Side view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

Fw. 5. A malformed individual. 

Dorsal view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

Fros. 6 to lla. Specimens of diverse sizes and proportions. The original of fig-. 10 is unusually transverse and that of figs. 11 and lla unusually convex. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

AMBOC<ELIA PLANICONVEXA var. GUADALUPENSIS n. var. (p. 370). 

Fws. 1.2 to 12b. A characteristic specimen. 

1.2. Dorsal view. 

12a. Side view in outline. 

12b. Ventral view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

554 
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER NO. 58. PL. XIV. 

2 

4 

3 

8 g 10 11 11a 

6 7 

0 _1) 5 

12b 12 12a 4a 

14 14a 13 13a 13b 

17 .. ~ 

~ 18 18a 

CI7 ~ 15 

20 20a 21a 19 19a 19b 

@ 

20b 

21b 21 __ _I J 

22b 22a 22 

23a 

26 23 27 

24 X2 

X2 

25 25C 27C 
THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

Frcs. 13 to 13b. A somewhat smaller though still representative specimen. 

13. Ventral view. 

13a. Side view in outline. I . 

555 

13b. Dorsal view. The exfoliation of the ~hell in this, ~sin the preceding specimen, has brought 

to view ri:lore or less distinct traces of the internal structure. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

Frcs. 14 and14a. An unusually narrow specimen which has more the configuration of Ambocmlia planiconvexa itself. 

14. Dorsal view. 

14a. Ventral view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

SPIRIFERINA BILLINGS! Shumard (p. 374). 

FIG. 15. Portion of the surface, X 4. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

FIG. 16. Portion of the surface of another specimen, X 4. The sculpture here is seen to be a little finer 

than in fig. 15. Traces of setal, not shown in the figure, are preserved along the edges of the 

lamellffi. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

8PIRIFERINA WELLER! n. sp. (p. 380). 

FIGs. 17 and 17a. An imperfect ventral valve. 

17. Seen from above. 

l7a. Side view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

Fws. 18 and 18a., Dorsal valve. An impression from a natural mold which, as the matrix is limestone, 

still retains some of the shell adherent. 

18. Seen from above. 

18a. Side view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

FIGs. 19 to 19b. A specimen retaining both valves in conjunction, supposed to represent a young stage 

of this species. 

19. Ventral view. 

19a. Side view in outline. 

19b. Posterior view. 

Capitan·formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

SPIRIFERINA PYitAMIDALIS n. sp. (p. 378). 

Frcs. 20 to 20b. A characteristic ventral valve. 

20. Side view. 

20a. Posterior view. 

20b. Seen from above. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

Frcs. 21 to 21b. A specimen retaining both valves in place. 

21. Dorsal view . 

.21a. Side view in outline. 

21b. Posterior view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 
556 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

HusTEDIA MEEKANA Shumard (p. 394). 

Fms. 22 to 22b. A characteristic specimen preserved in, the same way as Shumard's type. The thick 

shell has been exfoliated so that the condition is almost that of an internal mold. 

22. Dorsal view, X 2. 

22a. Side view, X 2. 

22b. Anterior view, X 2. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

FIGs. 23 and 23a. A smaller, somewhat differently shaped specimen preserved in the same way. 

23. Dorsal view. 

23a. Same, X 2. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

Fras. 24 and 24a. A spccimeri in part of which the shell is almost perfect, showing large, simple plications, and in part almost completely exfoliated, showing smaller striated plications. 

24. An oblique side view, X 2. 

24a. Anterior view, X 2. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

FIGs. 25 to 25c. A specimen in which the shell has been exfoliated little if at all. 

25. Ventral view. 

25a. Same, X 2. 

25b. Side view. 

25c. Anterior view. The plications in this case are rounder and a little lower than in the foregoing specimen. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

FIGs. 26 and 26a. A small, rotund example having the shell only partly exfoliated. 

26. Ventral view. 

26a. Anterior view, X 2. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

RrcnTiiOFENIA PERMIANA Shumard (p. 283). 

Frus. 27 to ?.7d. A short, rapidly expanding example preserving the dorsal valve in place. Others 

are much more slender. 

27. Side view. 

27a. Anterior view. 

27b. Posterior view. 

27c. Lower side, showing cysts. 

27d. Upper side, showing dorsal valve. 

Capitan formation, ()apitan Peak (station 2926). 
PLATE XV. 

557 
PLATE XV. 

CAPITAN FORMATION, GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS. 

CoMPOSITA EMARGINATA n. sp. (p. 388). 

FIGs. l to lc. A strongly characterized example of this species. 

1. Ventral view. 

la. Dorsal view. 

lb. Side view in outline. 

lc. Anterior view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

FIGS. 2 to 2c. A specimen similar to the foregoing, but with the characterR less strongly developed. 

2. Dorsal view. 

2a. Ventral view. 

2b. Side view in outline. 

2c. Anterior view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

FIGs. 3 to 3b. A slightly malformed specimen in which the sinus of the dorsal valve is very faint. There 

is an obscure emargination of the front outline. 

3. Dorsal view. 

3a. Side view in outhne. 

3b. Anterior view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

FIGs. 4 and 4a. A specimen in which a well-marked sinus is developed in neither valve. The dorsal 

valve is flattened and slightly depressed medially, and the anterior outline is straight. This 

form departs strongly from typical C. emarginata as shown by figs. 1 to lc, at least in degree, 

and differs to no great extent from the variety affinis. Varieties of C. subtilita do not materially 

differ from it. 

4. Dorsal view. 

4a. Side view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926.) 

FIGs. 5 and 5a. A young example in which the two sinuses are represented by slightly depressed 

lines. The front outline is somewhat straight, but in the front view there is no fold and sinus. 

5. Dorsal view. . 

5a. Front view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

CoMPOSITA EM .• mGINATA var. AFFINIS n. var. (p. 389). 

FIGs. 6 to 6c. A large and somewhat imperfect example. 

6. Ventral view. 

6a. Anterior view in outline. 

6b. Dorsal view. 

6c. Side view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

FIGs. 7 to 7b. A smaller specimen having similar characters. 

This form does not differ materially from varieties of C. subtilita. 

7. Dorsal view. 

7a. Ventral view. 

7b. Side view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

558 
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAP ER NO. 58. PL. XV, 

(LJ 1C 

1b 2b 2 2a 

1J 5 

2C 

/; 

:....._...- 3 ) ?b 

3a 

/ 

?a \) 3b 

7 

6 

6a 

6 

6C 6b 

4 

d/!!} 

11b 1Qa 11a 11 gb 10 

sa 9 ga 8 

~ (fffjj ~ 12a 12b 

14 12 13b 13C 14a 

G 

13 13a 

12C 12d 16 15a 

15C 

15a 15b 15 

~ 20b 20C 18b 16C 18 1sa 16b 17a 17b 17 

17C G (]) 

20 20a 19C 19 19a 21b 24 21 21a 

21C 

0 L.. 25 25b 25a 26 

OJ 

22b 24a 26a 22n 22 

26C 25C 24b 23b 23C 26b 

23 

23a 
THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

PuGNAX SWAT.LOWIANA Sh~mard (p. 314). 

F:!as. S and Sa. A characteristic specimen. 

S. Dorsal view. 

Sa. Anterior view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

Fws: 9 to 9b. Another similar specim~n. 

9. Dorsal view. 

9a. Side view. 

9b. Anterior view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

Fras. lO and lOa. A somewhat differently shaped specimen with faint lateral plications. 

10. Side view. 

lOa. Dorsal view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

559 

Fws. 11 to llb. A specimen similar to the last, with rounded outline and less distinct and angular 

plications. 

ll. Dorsal view. 

lla. Front view in outline. 

lib. Side view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

FIGS. 12 to 12d. A specimen referred to this species with only two plicatious on the fold. · 

12. Dorsal view. 

12a. Ventral view. 

12b. Side view. 

12c. Anterior view. 

12d. Posterior view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

PUGNAX ELEGANS n. sp. (p. 315). 

FIGs. 13 to 13c. A characteristic specimen. 

13. Ventral view. 

13a. Dorsal view. 

13b. Side view in outline. 

13c. Anterior view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

Fws. 11 and l4a. Another similar specimen. 

14. Dorsal view. 

l4a. Anterior view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

PuGNAX ~HUMARDIANA n. sp. (p. 316). 

FIGs. 15 to 15c. A specimen naturally deformed but otherwise nearly perfect. 

15. Dorsal view. 

15a. Ventral view. 

l5b. Side view in outline. 

l5c. Anterior view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

Fms. 16 t.o l6c .. A small tumid specimen referred to the same species. 

16. Ventral view. 

16a. Dorsal view. 

16b. Side view. 

lGc. Anterior view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 
560 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

FIGs. 17 to 17c. A young specimen referred to this species. 

17. Ventral view. 

17a. Dorsal view. 

17b. Side view in outline. 

17c. Anterior view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Pea,k (station 2926). 

RHYNCHONELLA~ LONG1EVA'll. sp. (p. 322). 

FIGs. 18 to 18b. The typical specimen, somewhat imperfect but showing both valves in conjunction. 

18. Dorsal view. 

18a. Ventral view. 

l8b. Side view. 

·Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

Fws.·19 to 19c. A young example from the same locality, supposed to belong to the same species. 

19. Dorsal view, X 2. 

19a. Same, natural size in outline. 

19b. Anterior view, X 2. 

19c. Side view in outline, X 2. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

RnYNCHONELLA~ INDENTATA Shumard (p. 321). 

Frus. 20 to 20c. A specimen from the same horizon as Shumard's type and answering very closely to his 

description. 

20. Ventralview. 

?Oa. Dorsal view. 

20b. Anterior view. 

20c. Side view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

HETERMLASMA SHU.MARDIANUM: n. sp. (p. 338). 

FIGs 21 to 2lc. The type specimen. 

21. Ventral view. 

21a. Dorsal view. 

2lb. Side view in outline. 

2lc. Anterior view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

Fws. 22 to 22b. A small specimen supposed to be a· young example of this species. 

22. Dorsal view,· X 2. 

22a. Ventral view, X 2. 

22b. Side view in outline, X 2. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

HETERELASMA VENUSTULUM ll. sp. (p. 339).' 

FIGs. 23 to 23c. The typical specirn.en. 

23. Anterior view, X 2. 

23a. Side view, X 2. 

23b. Dorsal view, X 2. 

2Rc. Ventral view, X 2. 

Capitan formation, Capitan feak (Rtation 2926). 

FIGs. 24 to 24b. A larger and relatively broader specimen 

24. Ventral view, X 2. 

24a. Side view in outline, X 2. 

24b. Anterior view, X 2. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 
THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

NOTOTHYRIS SCHUCHERTENSIS n. sp. (p. 336). 

Fws. 25 to 25c. The typical specimen. 

25. Ventral view, X 2. 

25a. Dorsal view, X 2. 

25b. Side view in outline, X 2. 

25c. Anterior view, X 2. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

NoTOTHYRIS SCIIUCIIERTENSIS var. OVATA ll. var. (p. 336). 

F:!os. 26 to 26c. The typical specimen. 

26. Ventral view, X 2. 

26a. Dorsal view, X 2. 

26b. Side view in outline, X 2. 

26c. Anterior view, X 2. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

3695-N o. 58-08--36 

561 

PLATE XVI. 

----·------- ____ , 

563 
PLATE XVI . 

. CAPITAN FORMATION, GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS. 

DIELASMA SULCATUM n. sp. (p. 332). 

Fws. 1 to lc. The ventral beak is somewhat crushed, causing it to appear probably a little bruader and 

less erect than normal. 

1. Dorsal view. 

la.· Ventral view. 

lb. Side view in outline. 

lc. Anterior view. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

DIELASMA CORDATUM n. sp. (p. 331). 

Fws. 2 to 2c. The flattening of the anterior half of the dorsal valve has been a little exaggerated by 

compression. 

2. Anterior view. 

2a. Ventral view. 

2b. Dorsal view. 

2c. Side view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

DIELASMA SPATULATUM n. sp. (p. 330). 

Fws. 3 to 3c. The typical specimen. 

3. Dorsal view. 

3a. Ventral view. 

3b. Side view in outline. 

3c. Anterior view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

Fws. 4 to 4c. A small specimen provisionally referred to this species. 

4. Ventral view. 

4a. Dorsal view. 

4b. Side view in outline. 

4c. Anterior. view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

DIELASMA PROLONGATUM n. sp. (p. 331). 

Fws. 5 to 5e. A somewhat imperfect specimen serving as the type. 

5. Ventral view. 

5a. Side view. 

5b. Anterior view. 

5c. Dorsal view. 

Capitan formation, McKitterick Canyon (station 2932). 

DIELASMINA GUADALUPENSIS ll. sp. (p. 333). 

Fws. 6 to 6b. The type specimen, retaining both valves but somewhat distorted by crushing. 

6. Ventral view. 

Ga. Side view in outline. 

Gb. Anterior view. Owing to breakage and perhaps compression, the right side of the specimen 

is thicker than the left, as shown here. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

G64 
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER NO. 58. PL. XVI, 

1C 

3 

2 

5 

4C 3b ga 

4 

7 8 a a 9 ga 

6 

19 X2 

25 17 X2 

16 

22 X2 

24 23 21 20 
THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

FIGs. 7 and 7a. A ventral valve with more persistent sinus. 

7. Seen from above. 

7a. Side view in outline. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

DIELAS:M:A? SCUTULATUM n. sp. (p. 332). 

FIGs. 8 to 8e. The typical specimen. 

8. Dorsal view, X 2. 

Sa. Ventral view, X 2. 

Sb. Side view in outline, X 2. 

Sc. Anterior view in outline, X 2. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

Fws. 9 to 9b. A second specimen of somewhat different shape. 

9. Dorsal view, X 2. 

9a. Side view in outline, X 2. 

9b. Anterior vi\iW, X 2. 

Capitan formation, Capitan Peak (station 2926). 

RHYNCiiONELLA ~ GUADALUPlE Shumard (p. 323). 

565 

FIGs. 10 to lOb. The typical specimen, from which the anterior portion has apparently been broken 

away (after Shumard). 

10. Dorsal view. 

lOa. Ventral view. 

lOb. Posterior view. 

Capitan formation, Guadalupe Mountains. 

"DARK LIMESTONE," GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS. 

PoLYSIPHON MIRABILIS n; sp. (p. 87). 

FIGs. 11 to llb. A silicified specimen used as the type. 

11. Seen from above, X 3. 

lla. Seen from below, X 3. 

llb. Side view, X 3. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

HUSTEDIA MEEKANA var. TRIGONALIS n. var. (p. 396). 

Fw. 12. Fragment of the apical portions of the two valves, showing the internal structures. 

View looking obliquely downward upon the interior, X 10. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

CYTHERE~ sp. (p. 509). 

Fws. 13 and 13a. An imperfect right valve. 

13. Side view, X 10. 

13a. Ventral view in outline, X 10. 

"Dark limestone,"'Pine Spring (station 2930). 

ANISOPYGJ<J PERANNULATA Shumard (p. 506). 

Fws. 14 and 14a. An imperfect pygidium. 

14. Seen from above, X 2. The uncompensated fragment at the top (left side of figure) appears 

to be one of the pleura. 

14a. Side view, X 2. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 
566 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

Fros. 15 and .15a. A small but nearly perfect pygidium. 

15. Seen from above, X 2. 

15a. Side view, X 2. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

FIG. 16. An unusually widci pygidium, probably rendered so by compression. 

Seen from above, X 2. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

Fro. 17. A fairly perfect cranidium. 

Seen from above, X 2. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

FIG. 18. An imperfect free cheek. 

Seen from above, X 2. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

Fw. 19. A nearly perfect free cheek. 

Seen from above, X 2. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

AVIGULlPECTEN GUADALUPENSIS n. sp. (p. 436). 

Fws. 20 and 20a. A left valve, about half mature size. 

20. Side view, X 2. 

20a. Same, natural size in outline. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

AvrcuLIPECTEN sp. a (p. 436). 

Fw. 21. A loft (?) valve. If a right valve instead of a left, this may be the complementary valve of 

tho foregoing species, 

Side view, X 2. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

MYALINA SQUAMOSA Sowerby~ (p. 429). 

Fw. 22. A left valve preserved for the most part as an internal mold 

Side view. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

EuoMPHALUS SULCIFER n. sp. (p. 482). 

Fros. 23 and 23a. An imperfect specimen. 

23. Upper side, X 2. 

23a. Same, natural size in outline. 

"Dark limestone," .Pine Spring (station 2930). 

Fws. 24 and 24a. A second specimen showing the lower side. 

24. Lower side, X 2. 

24a. Samn, natural size in outline. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Sp~ing (station 2930). 

EUOMPHALUS SULCIFER var. ANGULATUS n. var. (p. 483). 

Fms. 25 and 25a. Tho type specimen. 

25. Upper side, X 2. 

25a. Same, natural size in outlin,o. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 
•. 

PLATE XVII. 

567 
PLATE XVII. 

"DARK LIMESTONE," GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS. 

FusuLINA ELONGATA Shumard (p. 62). 

FIG. 1. A specimen broken at one end. 

Side view, X 3, showing the bluntly rounded shape of the ends. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

FIG. 2. A specimen incomplete at both ends. 

Side view, X 3, showing the closely arranged and somewhat irregular sutures. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

FIG. 3. A somewhat large, complete, symmetrical specimen. 

Side view, natural size. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

FIG. 4. A smaller, much distorted specimen, also practically complete. 

Side view, natural size. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

FIG. 5. A large, somewhat contorted specimen. This and some of the preceding specimens illustrate 

the tendency of these forms to exfoliate concentrically and to break up into segments. The 

latter is not necessarily connected with fracture of the rocks, for many specimens are broken 

in situ. 

Side view, natural size. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

FIG. 6. Transverse section, X 20. This section does not pass through the initial cell. It seems to 

• indicate that the specimens were eroded or exfoliated before fossilization. The wall structure 

and method of formation of the shell are unusually well shown. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

FIG. 7. Longitudinal section, X 20. The section does not pass through the initial cell and is of course 

incomplete at both ends. The highly contorted character of the partition walls is shown. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

FIG. 8. Transverse section through the initial cell, X 10. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

SPIRILLINA aff. 8. PLANA Moller (p. 69). 

FIG. 9. Section through or parallel to the axis, X 20. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

ENDOTHYRA sp. b (p. 67). 

Fm. 10. Section somewhat oblique to the axis, X 10. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

ENDOTHYRA sp. a (p. 67). 

FIG. 11. Section oblique to the axis, showing the perforated partition which closes the aperture, X 10. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

568 
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER NO. 58. PL. XVII. 

2 

3 

4 

5 7 

X20 

9 

10 X10 

11 X10 

14 

X4 

16 15 13 
THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA, 569 

SroNGE, undetermined. 

FIG 12. A bo_dy having fairly distinct outlines in thin section and apparently a spicular constitution to 

a considerable extent. The spicules are uniaxial and are not very distinct in the figure. 

Thin section, X 5. 

"Dark limestone,'' Pine Spring (station 2930). 

LINDS'fR<EMIA PERMIANA n. sp. (p. 97). 

FIG. 13. A somewhat rapidly enlarging specimen. 

Side view. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

FIG. 14. View of the calice, which in this case happens to be double by reason of a cessation and later 

a renewal of growth. The calice is really considerably deeper than it has been possible to represent in this view. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

LrNDS'fR<EMIA PERl\IIANA var. (p. 99). 

FIG. 15. A pathologic specimen. A small example is growing attached at the right and may have 

occasioned the abnormal condition of the larger individual, which began to contract in size 

from the point at which the small one became attached. 

Side view. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

J.JINDS'fR<EMIA CYLINDRICA n. sp. (p. 99). 

FIGs. 16 and 16a. The type specimen. 

16. ·Side view. 

16a. View of the calice, which is really deeper than it has been possible to show in the figure. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

CLADOPORA SPINULA'fA n. sp. (p. 102). 

FIGS. 17 and 17a. A specimen with well-preserved spines. 

17. Side view of corallum. 

17a. Part of same, X 4. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

FISTULIPORA GRANDis·var. GUADALUPENSIS Il. var. (p. 125). 

FIG. 18. The typical specimen. (For tangential section see Pl. XXV, fig. 7.) 

Longitudinal section, X 20. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

PLATE XVIII. 

571 
PLATE XVIII. 

"DARK LIMESTONE," GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS. 

DoMOPORA? TERMINALIS n. sp. (p. 120). 

FIGs. 1 and la. A small but characteri8tic specimen. 

1. Seen from above, X 4. 

la. Side view in outline, X 4. 

"Dark limestone," Guadalupe Point (station 3762b ). 

FIG. 2. A specimen in which the terminal macula is obscure. This is probably due to the fact that the 

outer portion of the zoarium has been broken away. 

View of the upper end, X 4. 

"Dark limestone," Guadalupe Point (station 3762b). 

Fws. 3 and 3a. A characteristic specimen. 

·3. Seen from above, X 4. 

3a. Side view, X 4. 

"Dark limestone," Guadalupe Point (station 3762b). 

FIGs. 4 and 4a. A budded specimen in which the second growth has twin maculre. 

4. Seen from above, X 4. 

4a. Side view, X 4. 

"Dark llmestone," Guadalupe Point (staMon 3762b ). 

FIGs. 5 and 5a. A specimen in which budding is unusually pronounced. 

5. Side view, X 4. 

5a. Seen from above, X 4. 

"Dark limestone,'' Guadalupe Point (station 3762b ). 

FIGs. 6 and 6a. A specimen with triple maculm, referred with some doubt to this species. It may be 

an initial colony of D. ocellata. 

6. Side view, X 4. 

6a. Seen from above, X 4. 

"Dark limestone," Guadalupe Point (station 3762b ). 

DOMOPORA? OCELI,ATA n. sp. (p: 122). 

FIG. 7. A fine ·and very characteristic specimen, apparently showing incipient bifurcation; 

Side view, X 4. · 

"Dark limestone," Guadalupe Point (station 3762b). 

FIG·. 8. A characteristic specimen representing a portion. of a branch. 

Side view, X 4. 

"Dark limestone," Pme Spring (station 2930). 

FIG. 9. A specimen with projecting maculre, a condition which is possibly connected with silicification 

and etching. 

Side view, X 4. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

FIG. 10. A tumid specimen referred to this species. The shape is possibly due to incipient branching. 

Side view, X 4. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

572 
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER NO. 58. PL. XVIII. 

0 

X4 

3 2 

l .. Jt. 

I

n, 

' . 

' ~ . . 

.;,;,.( . 

~· I 

-·" ' ·-~-

4 

6 X4 X4 

X4 

9 X4 X4 

8 X4 

11 15 7 

X4 

X4 

X4 

10 

14 16 

13 

___ I 

16b X4 
THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 573 

DoMOPORA ~ CONSTRICTA n. sp. (p. 123). 

Fm. 11. The typical specimen. I am not certain whether the apparent branching is a real feature 

or is due to a parasitic growth. 

Side view, X 4. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

DoMOPORA ~ VITTATA n. sp. (p. 123). 

FIGs. 12 and 12a. A fragment from near a oranching point. 

12. Side view, X 4. 

12a. Side view, X 4. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

ACANTHOCLADIA GUADALUPENSIS n. sp. (p. 149). 

FIGs. 13 and 13a. The typical specimen, silicified and etched. 

13. Poriferous side. 

13a. Portion of the same, X 4, showing the spinose surface. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

FIGs. 14 and 14a. Another specimen similarly preserved. 

14. Nonporiferous side. 

14a. Same, X 4. The irregularities of surface seen in this view seem to be the result oJ chalcedonic replacement. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

AcANTHOCLADIA sp. (p. 152). 

FIGs. 15 to 15b. A silicified specimen of uncertain affinities. 

15. Nonporiferous side. 

15a. Same, X 4. 

15b. Poriferous side, X 4. 

"Dark limestone," Guadalupe Point (station 3762e). 

ACANTHOCLADIA GUADALUPENSIS n. sp. ~ (p. 149). 

FIGs. 16 to 16b. A large specimen showing only the nonporiferous side. 

16. Nonporiferous side. 

16a. Same, X 4, showing the nodose pinnulcs. 

16b. Cross section, X 3, showing the heavy basal plate. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

PLATE XIX. 

575 
PLATE XIX. 

"DARK LIMESTONE," GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS 

STENOPORA GRANULOSA ll. sp. (p. 128). 

Fias. 1 to lc. The typical specimen. 

1. Tangential section, showing granular bands in walls, X 20. 

la. Same, more highly magnified, X 35. 

lb. Tangential section, showing granular acanthopores, X 20. 

lc.· Vertical section, showing the irregula.r moniliform character of the walls and the absence of 

tabulffi, X 20. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

LEIOCLEMA SHUMARD! n. sp. (p. 131). 

Fms. 2 to 2d. The typical specimen . 

. 2. Tangential section, showing zorecia, mesopores, and acanthopores, X 35. 

2a. Same, X 20. 

2b. Vertical section through spreading base, showing tabulated mesopores, X 20. 

2c. Vertical section of a branch, showing tho thickened tissue on the walls in the mature region 

which has obscured the tabulated mesopores, X 20. 

2d. Vertical section of walls, showing tabulated acanthopores, X 50. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

FENESTELLA HILL! ll. sp. (p. 134). 

Fms. 3 and 3a. A silicified specimen. 

3. Nonporiferous side, X 8. 

3a. Poriferous side, X 8. 

"Dark limestone," Guadalupe Point (station 3762e). 

FENESTELLA SPINULOSA Condra 1 (p. 137). 

Fms, 4 and 4a. A silicified specimen resembling this species. 

4. Nonporilerous side, X 8. 

4a. Poriferous side, X 8. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

FENESTELLA GUADALUPENSIS n. sp. (p. 135). 

Fm. 5. A silicified specimen. 

Nonporiferous side, X 8. 

~·Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

PoLYPORA MEXICANA Prout? (p. 143). 

Fws. 6 to 6b. A silicified specimen referred to this species. 

6. Nonporiforous side, natural size. 

6a. Poriferous side, X 5. 

6b. Nonporiferous side, X 5. 

"Dark limestone," Guadalupe Point (station 3762o). 

576 
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER NO . SB. PL. XIX . 

5 
PLATE XX. 

BG85-No. 58-08-37 577 
PLAT·E XX. 

"DARK LIMESTONE," GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS. 

CHONETES PERMIANUS Shumard (p. 226). 

Fms. 1 and la. A ventr:;tl valve of medium size. 

1. Seen from above. 

la. Side view in outline. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

Fws. 2 and 2a. A small specimen. 

2. Dorsal view, showing area of the op.posite valve. 

2a. Side view in outline. 

"Dark limestone,'' Pine Spring (station 2930). 

F:ras. 3 and 3a. A small ventral valve. 

3. Seen from above. 

3a. Side view in outline. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

CHONETES SUBLIRATUS n. sp. (p. 228). 

Fms. 4 and 4a. A somewhat imperfect ventral valve taken as the type of this species. 

4. Seen from above. 

4a. Side view. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

F:ras. 5 to 5b. A younger example referred to the same species. The sinus and convexity· arc less 

marked, but the shape is even more quadrate. 

5. Seen from above. 

5a. ·Side view in outline. 

5b. Posterior view in outline. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

Fras. 6 and 6a. A young ventral valve referred to this species. 

6. Seen from above. 

6a. Same, X 3. The concentric lines which are a feature of the original do not appear upon this 

figure. . · 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930).' 

Fm. 7. A still younger ventral valve referred here. 

Seen from above, X 3. The concentric line found on the original are not shown by this figure. 

"Dark limestone,'~ Pine Spring (station 2930). 

PRODUCTUS SEl\IIRETICULATUS var. CAPITANENSIS n. var. (p. 254). 

Fws. 8 and Sa. A large ventral valve which has been considerably deformed by compression. 

8. Seen from above. 

Sa. Side view in outline. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

578 
U, S. GEOL::JGICAL SURVEY PROF~SSI ON AL PAP ER NO, 58. PL. XX. 

__ D 

,a 2 2(1 3 31 5 5a 

7 4a 4 

!)b 

6 

9 

X3 

6a 

81 8 

ga 

10C gb 

..._ I 16b 0 

110 11 1Qa 10b 10 11 a 

15C D D 

15 15a 16 16a 12C 12 

15b 

Q 12a 12b 

19 19a 13 

13C 

20 
THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

PRODUCTUS POPEI Shumard (p. 257). 

Fws. 9 to 9c. A characteristic ventral valve of the type referred to Shumard's species. 

9. Seell from above. 

9a. Posterior view. 

9b. Side view. 

9c. Anterior view. 

"Dark limestone,". Pine Spring (station 2930). 

Fws. 10 to lOc. Another ventral valve similar to the last. 

JO. Seen from above. 

lOa. Posterior view. 

lOb. Side view in outline. 

lOe. Anterior vww. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

Fws. 11 to llb. A ventral valve referred to this species with some doubt. 

11. Seen from above. 

lla. Side view in outline. 

llb. Anterior view. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

PRODUCTUS POPE! var. OPIMUS n. var. (p. 258). 

Fws. 12 to 12e. A somewhat imperfect ventral valve selected as the typical specimen. 

12. Seen from above. 

12a. Anterior view. 

12b. Posterior view. 

12c. Side view. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

579 

FIGs. 13 to 13c. A ventral valve somewhat deformed by compression, which has exaggerated the depth. 

of the sinus. 

13. Seen from above. 

13a. Anterior view. 

13b. Posterior view. 

J3c. Side view in outline. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

Fms. 14 and 14a. A dorsal valve belonging to this species. 

14. Seen from above. 

14a. Side view in outline. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

PRODUC'l'US INDENTA'l'US n. sp. (p. 259). 

~ 

FIGs. 15 to l5c. A typical ventral valve. 

15. Seen from above. 

15a. Side view in outline. 

15b. Anterior view. 

15e. Posterior view. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

Fms. 16 to l6b. Another ventral valve showing the chara<;ters of the species. 

16. Seen from above. 

16a. Side view in outline. 

16b. Anterior view. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 
580 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

PRODUCTUS LIMBATUS n. sp. (p. 272). 

FIGs. 17 and 17a. An imperfect specimen showing both valves. 

17. Seen from above. 

17a. Side view in outline. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930); 

FIG. 18. Another ventral valve, referred to this species. 

Seen from above. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930).-

PRODUCTUS sp. d (p 273). 

FrGs. 19 and 19a. A dorsal valve referred to this species. 

19. Seen from above. 

19a. Side view in outline. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

Fms. 20 and 20a. An imperfect ventral valve. 

20. Seen from above. 

20a. Side view in outline. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

FIGs. 21 and 2la. Another imperfect ventral valve, slightly larger than the last and somewhat more 

closely ribbed. · 

21. Seen from above. 

2la. Anterior view. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

Am.osTEGES GUADALUPENSIS Shumard (p. 277). 

FrGs. 22{nd 22a. An imperfect ventral valve resembling that upon which the species was founded. 

22. Seen from above. 

22a. Side view in outline. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

RICIITIIOFEN"IA PERMIANA Shumard (p. 283). 

Fw. 23. A specimen which, has been reduced by exfoliation almost to thE) condition of an internal mold. 

Posterior view, slightly tilted. Above is the dorsal valve; below, the cystose portion; in the 

center, the pseudodeltidium and other structures exposed by exfoliation. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 
============== ··-

., . 

PLATE XXI. . 

581 
PLATE XXI. 

"DARK LIMESTONE," GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS. 

8PIRIFER MEXICANUS var. (p. 362). 

Fms. 1 to lb. An exfoliated and otherwise imperfect ventral valve. 

1. Seen from above. The fasciculation is hardly distinct enough in this figure. 

la. Side view in outline. 

lb. Cardinal view in outline. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (slation 2930). 

SPIRIFER sp. a (p. 362). 

Fm. 2. A dorsal valve of uncertain nilations. 

Seen from above. In this figure the ribs are represented as somewhat too distinct. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

8PIRIFERINA LAXA n. sp. (p. 377). 

,lilfGs. 3 to ilb. A ventral valve. The greater portion of the shell preservc!=l consists only of the punctate, 

silicified inner layer, to which are adhering fragments of the de11se outer layer and more extensive areas of an intermediate layer. 

3. Seen from above. 

3a. Side view in outline. 

3b. Cardinal view. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

SPIRIFERINA HILLI var. POLYPLEURUS n. var. (p. 380). 

FIGs. 4 to 4c. A ventral valve. 

4. View of the interior. 

4a. Side view in outline. 

4b. View of the exterior. 

4c. Cardinal view. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

HusTEDIA MEEKANA Shumard (p. 394). 

FIGs. 5 and 5a. A small specimen. A much larger size is attained by others from the same locality. 

5. Dorsal view. 

5a. Side view in outline. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

Fws. 6 and Ga. A similar specimen. 

6. Dorsal view. 

6a. Side view in outline. . 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

Fws. 7 and 7a. A narrow specimen. 

7. Dorsal view. 

7a. Side view. 

"Dark limesto:r;w," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

582 
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER NO. 58. PL. XXI. 

4 4a 4b 

3 3a 

1a 4C 

1b I.... 3b 

5 5a 6 

2 8 sa 

10a 7a 7 6a 9 9a 9b 

10 10b 1QC 

14b 15 

11 11a 14a 

11b 11C 12 14 

CD 13C 20a 14C 16 

13 13a 13b 

2QC 

17 17a 17b 20 21 21a 

18 1sa 

~ 18b 19 20b 22 22a 21b 21C 

24 24C 

23 

26 27 

28 

25 25C 
THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 583 

Fms. Sand Sa. A silicified ventral valve figured to show the difference of character in the two sides. 

S. External view, X 2, showing the large simple plications. 

Sa. Interior view, X 2, showing the ribs flattened on top and striated at the sides. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

HUSTEDIA MEEKANA var. TRIGONALIS n. var. (p. 396). 

FIGs. 9 to 9b. A specimen with pronounced characters. 

9. Dorsal view, X 2. 

9a. Side view in outline, X 2. 

9h. Ventral view, X 2. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

PUGNAX? BISULCATA var. GRATIOSA n. var. (p. 312). 

Fms. 10 to lOc. A perfect specimen with three large indistinct ribs on the fold. 

10. Ventral view. · 

lOa. Anterior view. 

lOb. Dorsal view. 

lOc. Side view. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

PuGNAX? nrsuLCATA Shumard (p. 310). 

Fms. 11 to llc. A slightly crushed specimen which has four indistinct plications in the sinus. Those 

on the fold can hardly be seen at all. 

11. Ventral view. 

lla. Anterior view in outline. 

llb. Dorsal view. 

llc. Side view in outline. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

FIG. 12. A distorted specimen in which the plications are rather sharp. 

Dorsal view. 

"Dark limestone,"? Pine Spring (station 2930). 

PUGNAX? BISULCATA var. SEMINULOIDES n. var. (p. 312). 

Fias. 13 to 13c. A characteristic specimen. 

13. Dorsal view. 

13a. Side view in outline. 

13b. Ventral view. 

13c. Anterior view in outline. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station.2930). 

FIGs. 14 to 14c. A small specimen with a quadrate fold, partly preserved as an internal mold. 

14. Dorsal view. 

14a. Ventral view preserving some ofthe muscular impressions. 

14b. Anterior view in outline. 

14c. Side view in outline. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

FIG. 15. Posterior portion of a ventral valve referred to this variety with doubt. 

View of the interior. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

Fm. 16. A prepamtion showing the interiors of both valves, X 2. The low septum and crum of the 

dorsal valve are very plain, but the two- small dental plates of the ventral valve are not well 

shown.· · 

View of tho interior. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 
584 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

PuGNAX swALLOWIANA Shumard~ (p. 314). 

FIGs. 17 to 17b. A specimen from the "dark limestone" provisionally referred to Shumard's species. 

17. Dorsal view. ' 

17a. Side view. 

17b. Anterior view.' 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

FIGs. 18 to 18b. A specimen of slightly different shape. 

18. Dorsal view. 

18a. Side view in outline. 

18b. Anterior view in outline. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930) . 

.FIG. 19. An imperfect specimen probably belonging to the same species. 

View of the interior, X 3, slightly tilted backward and to one side. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

PUGNAX BIDENTATA U. sp. (p. 318). 

Fms. 20 to 20c. A specimen referred with some doubt to this species. It may be only an aberra 

example of the foregoing. 

20. Dorsal view. 

20a. Side view in outline. 

20b. Ventral view. 

20c. Anterior view. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

PUGNAX PINGUIS U. sp. (p. 319). 

FIGs. 21 to 21c. A somewhat crushed example. 

21. Dorsal view. 

2la. Ventral view. 

21b. Anterior view. 

2lc. Side view in outline. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

DIELASMINA GUADALUPENSIS U. sp. (p. 333). 

Fras. 22 and 22a. An example apparently belonging to the same species that occurs in the Capitan. 

22. Dorsal view. 

22a. Anterior view. 

"Dark limestone," Pine Spring (station 2930). 

DELAWARE MOUNTAIN F~RMATION, GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS. 

ENTELETES sp. d (p. 299). 

FIG. 23. A specimen supposed to be a dorsal valve. 

Seen from above. . 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2919). 

FIGs. 24 to 24c. A ventral valve. 

24. Posterior view. 

PRODUCTUS sp. a (p. 260). 

24a. Specimen seen from above. 

24b. Anterior view. 

24c. Side view. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2919). 
THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

PRODUCTUS TEXANUS n. sp. (p. 259), 

Fras. 25 to 25c. A ventral valve. 

25. Specimen seen from above. 

25a. Side view. 

25b. Anterior view. 

25c. Posterior view. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2903). 

Fws. 26 to 26b. A dorsal valve referred to this species. 

26. Seen from above. 

2Ga. Side view in outline. 

26b. Anterior view. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2903). 

PRODUCTUS WALCOTTIANUS n. sp. (p. 269). 

Fws. 27 to 27b. A ventral valve. 

27. Seen from above. 

27a. Side view. 

27b. Posterior view. 

585 

Delaware Mountain, formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2903). 

Fws. 28 to 28b. An imperfect speci~en preserved as an internal mold. Though obtained from nearly 

the same horizon as the type, it is referred to the same species with doubt. 

28. Seen from above. 

28a. Posterior view. 

28b. Side view in outline. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931). 

PLATE XXII. 

587 
PLA T;E XXII. 

DELAWARE MOUNTAIN FORMATION, GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS. 

PRODUCTUS GUADALUPENSIS n. sp. (p. 261). 

FIGs. 1 to 1c. The typical ventral valve. 

1. Anterior view. 

]a. Posterior view. 

lb. Side view in outline. 

1c. Seen from above. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2919). 

FIGs. 2 and 2a. Another ventral valve, imperfect but having the characteristic shape. 

2. Posterior view. 

2a. Side view. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2919). 

FIGs. 3 and 3a. Internal mold of a ventral·valve referred to this species with some doubt. 

3. Seen from above. 

3a. Side view. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931). 

PRODUCTUS SIGNATUS ll. sp. (p. 263). 

FIGs. 4 to 4b. An imperfect ventral valve preserved as ·an internal mold. 

4. Specimen seen from above. 

4a. Anterior view. 

4b. Side view in outline. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931). 

PRODUCTUS sp. e (p. 266). 

FIGs. 5 and 5a. External mold of a dorsal valve, all that at present is known of this form. 

5. Specimen seen from above. 

5a. Side view in outline. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931). 

RICHTHOFENIA PERMIANA Shumard (p. 283). 

Fws. 6 to 6b. A specimen preserved as an internal mold. 

6. Anterior view, showing the impression of the "septum." 

6a. Posterior view, showing the impression of the pseudodeltidium. 

6b. Side view in outline. · 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931). 

FusuLINA ELONGATA Shumard (p. 62). 

Fw. 7. A section, X 10, probably situated near ·the center of a specimen, for at the right is what appears 

to be the initial cell, but strongly oblique, since the length is so short relative to the width. 

Labyrinthine structure like that found near the ends is, however, shown. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2903). 

588 
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

2 

6 

4 

7 X10 

10 X30 

PROFESSIONAL PAPER NO. 58. PL. XXII. 

sa 

. , 

·_: ·.. '. ·--·,. 

. I>J 

_,_ 

·.~.',, .. ' :',_' 

..-..:::::;--

3 

X10 

8 

9 X5 
T:S:E GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 589 

FIG. 8. A. transverse section through the initial cell, X 10. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2903). 

F:ro, 9. A fragmentary specimen, showh1g the fluted walls. 

Side view, X 5. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931). 

ACANTHOCLADIA GUADALUPENSIS ll. sp. (p. 149). 

F:ros. 10 and lOa. A specimen from the Delaware Mountain sandstone apparently belonging to this 

species. 

10. Section about midway between the two surfaces, showing finely tubulose test, X 30. 

lOa. Section parallel tc and just below the celluliferous surface, showing the radiating and 

transverse tubules, X 30. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guad~lupe Point (station 2903). 

PLATE XXIII. 

591 
PLATE XXIII. 

DELAWARE MOUNTAIN FORMATION, GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS. 

PTERIA sp. (p. 429). 

FIG. 1. An imperfect left valve. 

Side view. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 29S1). 

A VICULIPECTEJN DELA w ARENSIS n. sp. (p. 437). 

Fms. 2 and 2a. A left valve. 

2. Side view, X 2. 

2a. Same, natural size, in outline. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931). 

MYOCONCHA COSTULATA var. DELAWARENSIS n. var. (p. 444). 

FIG. 3. A large left valve somewhat cru.shed and imperfect. 

Side view. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931). 

PLEUROPHORUS DELA W ARENSIS ll. sp. (p. 446). 

FIG. 4. An internal mold of a left valve. 

Side view. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931). 

CLEIDOPHORUS PALLAS! var. DELAWARENSIS n. var. (p. 447). 

FIGs. 5 and 5a. A right valve. 

5. Side view, X 2. 

5a. Same, natural size, in outline. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931). 

AsTARTELLA NASUTA n. sp: (p. 44,5). 

FIGs. 6 and 6a. Internal mold of a left valve. 

6. Side view, X 2. 

6a. Same, natural size, in outline. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931). 

FIGs. 7 and 7a. Internal mold of a right valve. 

7. Side view, X 2. 

7a. Same, natural size, in outline. 

De!aware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931). 

NucULA sp. b (p. 421) .. 

FIG. 8. Internal mold of a left valve. 

Side view, X 2. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931). 

592 
THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

GASTRIOCERAS ~ SERHATUi\f n. sp. (p. ·.500). 

Fras. 9 to 9d. A mold in fine sandstone. 

9. View of ventral surface, X 2. 

9a. Opposite view, X 2. One of the sutures is seen above at the left. 

9b. Side view, X 2. 

9c. Same, natural size, in outline. 

9d. Suture line, X 2. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931). 

0RTHOCERAS GUADALUPENSE n. sp. (p. 497). 

Fws. 10 to lOb. The typical specimen. 

10. Side view. 

lOa. Opposite side, eroded and showing concavity of sutures. 

lOb. End view. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931). 

PLAGIOGLYPTA CANNA White~ (p. 4.50). 

Fla. 11. A large speeimen which tapers very little. 

Side view. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931). 

FIG. 12. A smaller specimen in which the taper is more apparent. 

Side view. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931). 

Fla. 13. A small specimen with gradual hut obvious taper. 

Side view. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931). 

BUCANOPSIS sp. (p. 481). 

Fws. 14 to 14b. A partial internal mold, somewhat distorted by compression. 

14. Front view. 

14a. Side view. 

593 

14b. Impression taken from a natural mold, showing the surface of one of the earlier volutions. 

The mold was not very good and the sculpture of the impression is probably less distinct than 

the original surface, X 2. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931). 

WARTHIA AMERICANA n. sp. (p. 481). 

Fins. 15 and 15a. A partial internal mold of a large specimen. 

15. Side view. 

15a. Anterior view, somewhat tilted backward. 

Delaware Mountain formation, 'Guadalupe Point (station 2931). 

Fins .. 16 and 16a. A specimen of the usual si?.e preserved as a mold of the interior. 

16. Outline of apertural view. 

16a. Side view. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931). 

Ji'ms. 17 to 17b. A very young specimen preserved as a mold of the interior. 

17. Side view, X 4. 

17a. Same, natural size, in outline. 

17b. Apertural view in outline, X 4. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931). 

::!695-Xo. 58---DS--38 
594 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

NATICOPSIS sp. (p. 485). 

Fws. 18 to 18d. A young specimen supposed to belong to this species. It is preserved aB a mold of 

. the interior and has not been compressed. 

18. Apertural view, X 2. 

18a. View of opposite side, X 2. 

ISh. Same, natural size, in outline. 

I8c. Seen from above, x.2. 

18d. Same, natural size, in outline. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931). 

Fws. 19 to 19b. A larger specimen similarly preserved and somewhat distorted by pressure. 

19. Seen frilm above. 

l9a. Side view. 

19b. Apertural view. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931) . 

.iVIAClWCHEILINA sp. a (p. 489). 

Frc. 20. Specimen preserved llB a partial internal mold. 

Side view. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2fl3l). 

BuLIMORPHA CHRYSALIS var. DELAWARENSIS n. var. _(p. 487). 

Frc. 21. Specimen preserved as a mold of the interior. 

Side view. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931). 

PLEUROTOMARIA EUGLYPHEA ll. sp. (p. 469). 

Fws. 22 to 22c. An impression made from a mold of the exterior. 

22. Side view, X 2. 

22a. Same, natural size, in outline. 

22b. Seen from above. 

22c. Same, natural size, in outline. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931). 

Fros. 23 to 23b. A partial internal mold of the same specimen. 

23. Seen from above. 

23a. Seen from below. 

23b. Side view. 

Delaware Mountain fmmation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931). 

PLEUROTOMARIA? CARINIFERA n. sp. (p. 475) 

Fros. 24 to 24b. A specimen preserved as a partial internal mold. 

24. Side view, X 3. 

24a. Same, natural size, in outline. 

24b. Seen from above, X 3. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931). 

PLEU~OTOMARIA )fULTILINEATA n. sp. (p. 468). 

Fws. 25 to 25d. A specimen preserved as a partial internal mold. 

25. Seen from above, X 2. 

25a. Same, natural size, in outline. 

' 
THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 595 

FIG. 25b. Side view, X 2. 

25c. Same, natural size, in outline. 

25d. Umbilicus and adjacent surface from an impression of the external mold of the same 

8pec:imen, X 2. 

Delaware .Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (8tation 2931). 

PLEUROTOMARIA ARENARIA n. sp. (p. 473). 

FIGs. 26 and 26a. A nearly perfect specimen preserved as a partial internal mold. 

26. Side view. 

26a. Enlargement of portion of the surface of the same specimen, taken from an impression of 

the external mold, X 3. The area presented is the upper portion of one of the whorls with 

the side of that above. 

Delaware .Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931) .. 

PLEUROTOMARIA? PLANULATA n. sp. (p. 474). 

FIGs. 27 to 27c. A specimen preserved as a partial internal mold. 

27. Side view, X 3. 

27a. Same, natural size, in outline. 

27b. Seen from above, X 3. 

27c. Seen from below, X 3. 

Delaware .Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931). 

PLEUROTOMARIA? DEt,AWARENSIS n. sp. (p. 475). 

FIGs. 28 to 28b. A specimen preserved as a partial internal mold. 

28. Side view, X 2. -· 

28a. Same, natural size, in outline. 

28b. Artificial impression from the external mold of thl/ same specimen, showing part of the 

lower whorl, X 3. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931). 

FIGs. 29 to 29b. Another specimen similarly preserved. 

29. Side view, X 2. 

29a. Same, natural size, in outline. 

29b. Artificial impression of an external mold of part of same, X 3. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931). 

Fm. 30. An impression of part of an external mold of another specimen, which shows revolving lines 

on the upper portion of the peritreme, a character which seems obscured in the others. 

Side vi·ew, X 3 .. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2931 ). 

PLATE XXIV. 

597 
PLATE XXIV. 

BASAL BLACK LIMESTONE, GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS. 

ANTHRACOSYCON FICUS n. sp. (p. 72). 

Fws. 1 and la. The type specimen. 

1. Side view. 

la. View of the upper surface. 

Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (station 2920). 

Fw. 2. Portion of a fragmentary specimen showing the spicular structure more dearly than the type, 

X 10. 

Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (station 2920). 

STENOPORA GRANULOSA 11. sp. ~ (p. 129). 

Fws. 3 to 3c. A specimen doubtfully referred to this species. 

3. Transverse section, X 20. 

3a. Portion of same more highly magnified, showing the concentrically constructed acanthopores, 

. and the granular band through the median portion of the walls, X 35. 

3b. Portion of same somewhat more ~ighly magnified to show the structure of the wall~, X 40. 

3c. Longitudinal section, X 20. 

Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (station 2967). 

ENTELETES sp. c (p. 297). 

Fws. 4 and 4a. A rather large dorsal valve in which the pli<'ation is still indistinct. 

4. Seen from above. 

1a. Seen from the side. 

Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (station 2920). 

Fws. 5 and 5a: A small dorsa,l valve sh()wing incipient plications. 

5. Seen from above; X 2. 

5a. Same, natural size. 

Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (station 2920). 

MEEKELLA MULTILIRATA n. sp. (p. 208). 

Fws. 6 to 6b. A decorticated ventral valve. 

6. Seen from above. 

6a. Side view. 

6b. Posterior view. 

Basal black lirne~tone, Guadalupe Point (station 2967). 

MEEKELLA ATTENUATA 11. sp. {p. 205). 

Frp. 7. An imperfect dorsal valve. 

Seen from above. 

Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (station 2967). 

Fw~<. Sand Sa. A young ventral valve in which the plications have just begun to develop. 

S. Seen from above. 

Sa. Side view in outline. 

Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Poi1it (station 2967). 

59S 
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

2 

7 g X2 

6 

9 9a 

7a 

13 

10 12 14 

11 

16 

17 13 

20 

24 25 

27 

27C 28 

18C 

22C 

25C 

X3 

2sb 

9b 

29 

PROFESSIONAL PAPER NO. 58. PL. XXIII , 

5 

4 

5a 

~~J 9C 9d X2 

15 X2 

23 

26 X3 

30 X3 

f_ROPERTY OF U 

-.:.!_BUREAU OF MINES 
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER NO. 58. PL. XX IV. 

2 X1 0 

X20 

3 

X35 

X20 

6 

7 4 5 

6a ga 8 5a 9 ga 

10 

cv 0 

14a 14 12a 12 12b 11b 11" 11 

10a 

15 15a 15b 15C 

13b 11C 

18b 

13 1sa 

15a 16 16b 17a 17 

13a 

X2 18 

X2 

17C X5 25 X5 26 23a 17b 19 20 

X2 

24 X2 X2 

23 22 X2 21 
THE GUADALUPJAN FAUNA. 599 

FIGs. 9 and 9a. A larger ventral valve with more angular plications somewhat more early developed. 

9. Seen from above. 

9a. Side view in outline. 

Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (station 2fl67). 

RICHTHOFENIA PERl\HANA Shumard (p. 283). 

FIGs. 10 and lOa. A very young example referred to this siJecies. 

10. Seen from below, showing the cystose structure when exfoliated, X 3. 

lOa. Posterior view, X 3. The sinus in the outline of the shell looks less like a break in the orignal than in the figure, and is probably very nearly the actual margin, as indicated by growth 

lines. 

Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (station 2fl67). 

CoMPOSITA 'MEXICANA var. GUADALUPENSIS n. var. (p. 390). 

Fms. 11 to llc. A specimen of the usual size and character. 

11. Dorsal view. · 

lla. Ventral view. 

llb. Side view in outline. 

llc. Anterior view. 

Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (station 2fl20). 

F:ws. 12 to 12b. A small specimen similar to the last. 

12. Dorsal view. 

12a. Side view in outline. 

12b. Front view in outline. 

Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (station 2920). 

FIGs. 13 to 13b. A large, not very characteristic specimen. 

13. Dorsal view. 

13a. Side view in outline. 

13b. Front view in outline. 

Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (station 2920). 

HusTEDIA MEJ!IKANA Shumard (p. 394). 

FIGs. 14 and 14a. A narrow variety, rather characteristic of this horizon. 

14 .. Ventral view. 

14a. Side view. 

Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (sta.tion 2920). 

PuGNAX NITIDA n. sp. (p. 313). 

Fws. 15 to 15c. The type specimen. 

15. Dorsal view. 

15a. Side view in outline. 

15b. Ventral view. 

15c. Anterior view. 

Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (station 2920). 

PuGNAX OSAGENSIS Swallow (p. 317). 

Fws. 16 to 16b. The type from the black limestone referred to this species. 

16. Dorsal view. 

16a. Anterior view. 

~6b. Side view. 

Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (station 2920). 

\ 
600 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

PuGNAX BIDENTATA n. sp. (p. 318). 

J!1Gs. 17 to l7c. The typical specimen. 

17. Dorsal view. 

l7a. Side view. 

l7b. Ventral view. 

17c . .Front view. 

Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (station 2920). 

PuGNAX? PUSILLA n. sp. (p. 319). 

Fws. 18 to 18b. The type specim<Jn. 

18. Dorsal view, X 3. 

18a. Side view in outline, X 3. 

18b. Anterior view, X 3. 

Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (station 29()7). 

LOXONEMA? INCONSPICUUl\I n. sp. (p. 486). 

FIG. 19. The type specimen. 

Side view, X 5. 

Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (station 2967). 

MACROCHEILINA? MODESTA 11. sp. (p. 489). 

Fw. 20. The type specimen. 

Side view, X 5. 

Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (station 2967). 

PLEUROTOl\IARIA STRIGILLATA 11. sp. (p. 471). 

Fws. 21 and 21a. The typical specimen, the upper portion more or less restored from a second 

specimen. 

21. Side view. 

21a. Lower whorl enlarged to show sculpture, X 3. 

Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (station 2920). 

NucuLA sp. a (p. 421). 

Fw. 22. A left valve whose proportional height is above the average. 

Side view, X 2. 

Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (Rtation 2967). 

ANISOPYGE? ANTIQUA n. sp. (p. 509). 

F:ws. 23 and 23a. A large but imperfect pygidium. 

23. Seen from above, X 2. 

23a. Side view, X 2. 

Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (station 2967). 

Fws. 24 and 24a. A medium-sized pygidium. 

24. Seen from above, X 2. 

24a. Side view, X 2. 

Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (station 2967). 

Fro. 25. A small, imperfect pygidium. 

Seen from above, X 2. 

Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (station 2967). 

F:w. 26. Fragment of a cranidinm. 

Seen from above, X 2. 

Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (station 2967). 
PI .. 1-l_TE XXV. 

===========---=-=======-:=-- ----

601 
PLATE XXV. 

DELAWARE MOUNTAIN FORMATION, DIABLO MOUNTAINS. 

LEPTimus AMERICANUS n. sp. (p. 212) . .. Fros. 1 and 1a. A cluster of several specimens growing attached to one another, 

1. Seen from below. 

1a. Seen from above. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Diablo Mountains (station 3764). 

Fms. 2 and 2a. An isolated ventral valve. 

2. Seen from above. The changing structure of the brachial ridges is well shown in this 

example. 

2a. Seen from below. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Diablo Mountains (station 3764). 

FIGs. 3 and 3a. A dorsal valve. 

3. Outer (?) surface. 

3a. Inner (?) surface. 

Del.aw~re Mountain formation, Diablo Mountains (station 3764). 

MEEKELLA ATTENUATA n. sp. (p. 205). 

FIGs. 4 to 4d. A slightly imperfect silicified specimen used as the type. 

4. Ventral view. 

4a. Dorsal view. 

4b. Side view in outline. 

4c. Anterior view. 

4d. Side view, X 2, showing through the break the dental plates of the ventral valve and the 

cardinal process of the dorsal valve. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Diablo Mountains (station 3764). 

CLADOPORA ~ TUBULATA n. sp. (p. 104). 

Fms. 5 and 5a. Fragment of a zoarium. 

5. Side view. 

5a. Same, X 2. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Diablo Mountains (station 3764). 

'fHAMNISCUS DIGITATUS n. sp. (p. 148). 

FIGs. 6 and 6a. Specimen attached to a colony of Fistulipora. 

6. Seen from the side, X 2. 

6a. Seen from above, X 2. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Diablo Mountains (station 3764.) 

DELAWARE MOUNTAIN FORMATION, GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS. 

FISTULIPORA GRANDIS var. GUADALUPENSIS n. var. (p. 125). 

Fm. 7. The typieal specimen (see Pl. XVII, fig. 18.) 

Transverse section, X 20. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Guadalupe Point (station 2919). 

602 
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

i ~, 

I . I , I 

:, l, 

r r~· 

t t 

3 sa 

6 

16 X20 

X20 

14 X2 

12 

2. 

4 

' I . ' ' \!.--~' 

7 X20 

15 

PROFESSIONAL PAPER NO. 58. PL. XXV. 

5 

9 ga 

. Y'rJ\<iflf'\_.,, 

A" ( '. 

sa v'' \ J \..t 

11 X2 

,-, 

) \ I ~-..... . ' I \ " 

8 108 gb 

10 
THB GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

BASAL BLACK LIMESTONE, GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS 

AGATHOCERAS TEXANUM 11. sp. (p. 501) 

FIGs. 8 and Sa. The type specimen. 

8. Side view. 

Sa. Sifture. 

Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (station 2967). 

PERITitOCHIA EREnus n. sp. (p .. 499). 

Fws. 9 to 9b. A rather small specimen. 

9. Apertural view, X 2. 

9a. Side view, X 2. 

9b. Same, natural size in outline. 

Basal black limeetone, Guadalupe Point (station 2920). 

Fws. 10 jtnd lOa. The largest specimen found. 

10. Side view, X 2. 

lOa. Same, natural.size in outline. 

Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (station 2920). 

Fro. 11. The type specimen. 

Suture line, X 2. 

Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (station 2920). 

PARACELTITES ELEGANS 11. sp. (p. 499). 

F:rGs. 12 ancll2a. An exfoliated Rpeeimen. 

12. Side view, X 2. 

12a. Ventral view, in out\ine, X 2. 

Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (station 2967). 

FIG. 13. Fragment of another specimen. 

Cross section of a whorl, X 2. 

Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (station 2967). 

Fw. 14. Another 'specimen. 

Suture line, X 2. 

Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (station 2967). 

FOORDOCERAS SHUMARDIANUM var. PRJECURSOR .11. var. (p. 498). 

FIGs. 15 to 15b. The typical specimen. 

15. Dorsal aspect of fragment .. 

15a. Side view. 

15b. Ventral aspect. 

Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (station 2920). 

BAIRDIA aff. B. PLEBEIA Reuss (p. 510). 

FIGs. 16 and 16a. A silicified right valve. 

16. Side view, X 20. 

16a. Ventral view in outline, X 20. 

Basal black limestone, Guadalupe Point (station 2920). 

603 

· PLATE XXVI. 

60.5 
PLATE XXVI. 

DELAWARE MOUNTAIN FORMATION,' DIABLO MOUNTAINS. 

ENTELETES sp. c (p. 297). 

Fros. 1 to lb. A small ventral valve referred to this species. 

1. Exterior. 

la. Side view in outline. 

lb. Interior, X 3. 

Delaware Mountatin formation, Diablo Mountains (station 3764). 

FIGs. 2 to 2b. Dorsal valve of figs. 1 to lb. 

2. Exterior. 

2a. Side view in outline. 

2b. Interior, showing dental plates, cardinal process, etc., X 3. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Diablo Mountai~ (station 3764). 

ENTELETES ANGULATUS n. sp. (p. 295). 

FIGs. 3 and 3a. A somewhat incomplete ventral valve. An imperfection on the umbo discloses the 

closely arranged septum and dental plates. 

3. Seen from above. 

3a. Side view in outline. 

Hueco formation, Diablo Mountains (station 3764). 

ENTELETES DUMBLEI n. sp. (p. 295). 

FIGs. 4 to 4b. An imperfect but well-preserved example showing both valves in position. 

4. Posterior view. The specimen was here posed so that the ventral valve was below. 

4a. Ventral view. 

4b. Side view in outline. 

Hueco formation, Diablo Mountains (station 3764). 

DERBY A~ CRENULATA n. sp. (p. 183). 

FIGs. 5 to 5d. A well-preserved specimen retaining both valves in position. 

5. Dorsal view. 

5a. Ventral view. 

5b. Posterior view. 

5c. Surface, X 5. 

5d. Side view in outline. 

Delaware Mountain formation. Diablo Mountains (station 3764). 

DERBYA NASUTA n. sp. (p. 182). 

FIGS. 6 to 6c. An imperfect specimen with both valves in position. 

6. Posterior view. 

6a. Side view. 

6b. Ventral view. 

6c. View of the interior from the front backward. Above is the ventral valve with its median 

septum; below, the dorsal valve with its hinge plate and cardinal process. The cardinal process is deeply divided, the septum of the ventral valve passing between the two forks. The 

cardinal process in this case is a little asymmetrical, and this feature is enhanced in the drawing by the view being taken slightly to one side. Upon the left the tooth and socket are shown, 

partly concealed by portions of the hinge plate which project before and above them. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Diablo Mountains (~tation 3764). 

606 
!..1 . S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

PROFESSIONAL PAPER NO. 58. PL. XXVI, 

2 3 

4 

5 

sc lC5 

6 
PLATE XXVII. 

. 607 
PLATE XXVI L 

DELAWARE MOUNTAIN FORMATION, SOUTHERN DELAWARE MOUNTAINS. 

FusuLINA ELONGATA Shumard (p. 62). 

FIG. 1. A silicified specimen so preserved as to show the fluted and interlocking radial walls. 

Side view, X 4. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2957). 

Fw. 2. A silicified specimen more nearly perfect than the foregoing. 

Side view, natural size .. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2957). 

LrNGULINA? sp. (p. 69). 

Frr;. 3. A thin section supposed to cut longitudinally through the organism, X 10. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2964). 

ENDOTHYRA sp. C (p. 68). 

Frc. 4. A thin section supposed to pass through the s.xis, X 10. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2964). 

FusuLINELLA -sp. ?> (p. 66). 

FIGS. 5 and 5a. A silicified specimen. 

5. Side view, X 10. 

5a. View perpendicular to the axis, X 10. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2969). 

8PIROHBIS TEXANUS n. sp. (p. 112). 

FIG. 6. Portion of a loosely coiled or irregularly sinuous specimen. 

Side view, X 4. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2969) .. 

8TROMATIDIUM TYPICALE ll. sp. (p. 77). 

Fw. 7. A specimen with several layers connected. 

Side view, showing the pillar rays and the edges of the walls, X 10. In the middle of the upper 

portion of the figure a large hcxact appears to he in place. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2969). 

FIGs. Sand Sa. A group of amalgamated mural rays. 

S. View of one side, showing a covering of entangled spicular outgrowths, X 10. 

Sa. View of the other side, which is slightly nodose, X 10. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2969). 

FIG. 9. Another group of consolidated spicules. 

Side view, showing nodose surface, X 10. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2969). 

FIGS. 10 and lOa. Material provisionally referred to this species. 

10. Loose acicular spicules associated with this species and possibly belonging to the same organism, X 10. Assembled with other material as freed by etching. 

lOa. Another thin section of st'naller sized spicules similarly prepared, X 10. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern· Delaware Mountains (station 2969). 

60S 

.. 
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER NO. 58. PL. XXVII. 

3 X10 6 X4 

5 

2 

9 

11 X5 

10a x1o 

10 X10 12 X5 

X2 

X35 

14 X20 

13 

21 

19 20 

X4 16 X4 15 X4 

X4 

17 
THE GUADALUPJAN FAUNA. 

GUADALUPIA ~ .sp. var. (p. 86) 

.FIG. 11 . .Fossil of doubtful affinity provisionally referred to this genu;. 

Thin section through a stem somewhat oblique to the axis, X 5. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2964) . 

.FIG. 12. Another specimen similar to the last. 

Thin section through a stem strongly oblique to the axis, X 5. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2964). 

DoMOPORA ~ OCELLA1:A n. sp. (p. 122) . 

.FIG. 13. A specimen referred to this species but not identified with certainty. 

LongitiH;linal section, X 20. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2957) . 

. .FIGs. 14 and 14a. A specimen referred to this species, possibly the same as the foregoing. 

14. Tangential section, X 20. 

14a. Same, X 35. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2957). 

DoMOPORA ~ VITTATA n. sp. (p. 123) . 

609 

.FIGs. 15 and 15a. Terminal portion of a branch in which the maculoo are somewhat less prominently 

developed than the type. 

15. Side view, showing the ends of two sets of rnaculoo, X 4. 

15a. Side view, showing the elongated maculm, X 4. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2969). 

DoMOPORA ~ INCRUSTANS n. sp. (p. 124) . 

.FIGs. 16 to 16b. The type specimen. 

16. Side view, showing the junction of the two ends, X 4. 

16a. Upper side, showing the surface covered with an epitheca, X 4. 

16b. Opposite side to 16, X 4. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountairis (station 2969). 

FIS!ULIPORA GRANDlS var. GUADALUPENSIS n. var (p. ·125) · 

.FIG. 17. An unusually elongated specimen, showing the form in which this species usually grows. The 

surface is more or less overlaid with a aelicate investment which tends to cover and conceal 

the zomcial apertures. 

Side view. 

Delaware Mountain forma~ion, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2969). 

ARcHlEOCIDARIS sp. b (p. 110). 

Fws. 18 and 18a. Fragments of radioles possibly belonging to the same specimen. 

18. Distal portion, X 2. · 

l8a. Proximal portion, X 2. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2969). 

C<ENOCYSTIS RICHARDSON! n. sp. (p. 108). 

FIGs. 19 and 19a. A specimen in which the outer and the inner surfaces were silicified, the intervening 

portion h9,ving been removed by etching. The outer layer has largely broken away, showing 

some of the internal structures. 

19. Side vie:w, X 4. 

19a. View of the upper end, X 4. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 29G9). 

3695-No. 58-08--39 
610 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

FIGs. 20 and 20a. Basal cup of & large specimen. 

20. View of the upper surface, showing the large channel of the· anal pore and the four smaller 

channels of the auxiliary pores, together with depJessions on the apices of the five pentagonal 

plates, X 4. 

20a. Side view, showing the almost completely consolidated plates, X 4. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2969). 

FIG. 21. A small, nearly perfect specimen. 

View of the anal side, X 4. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2969). 

FIG. 22. A -small specimen. 

View of the anal side, showing the obscurely pentahedral" shape of the dome and the dimples at 

the bases of the dihedral angles and the summits of the pentagonal plates. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2969). 
,, 

I 

PLATE XXVIII. 

611 
PLATE XXVIII. 

DELAWARE MOUNTAIN FORMATION, SOUTHERN DELAWARE MOUNTAINS. 

PoLYPORA sp. a (p. 145). 

Fms. 1 and 1a. Part of a silicified frond. 

1. Nonporiferous side, X 5. The sculpture is for the most part the result of chalcedonic replacement, partly concealing the longitudinal strire. 

1a. Poriferous side, X 5. The zoarium is of course deeply decorticated. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2969). 

PoLYPORA sp. b (p. 145). 

Fm. 2. Part of a silicified frond. 

Nonporiferous side, X 5. The nodular surface is due to silicification. 

Delaware Mountain forQiation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2969). 

·' 

POLYPORA sp. c (p. 146). 

FIG. 3. A small silicified fragment. 

Nonporifcrous side, X 5. In this case also the striated sculpture has been more or less masked 

by chalcedonic replacement. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2969). 

POLYPORA sp. d (p.147). 

FIG. 4. A small silicified fragment. 

Nonporifcrous side, X 5. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2969). 

FENESTELLA sp. e (p. 141). 

FIGs. 5 and 5a. A silicified fragment. · . 

5. Poriferous side, X 8, showing the high keel with its two alternating rows of large nodes. 

These arc possibly exaggerated by silicification. 

5a. Nonporiferous side, X 8. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2969). 

FENESTELLA sp. a (p. 139). 

FIG. 6. A fragment of a silicified frond. 

Nonporiferous side, X 8. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2969). 

FENESTELLA sp. C (p. 140). 

FIG. 7. Fragment of a silicified frond. 

Nonporiferous side, X 8. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2969). 

612 
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

PROFESSIONAL PAPER NO. 58. PL XXVIII. 

5 

6 

9 xa 

7 xa ga 

~~~ .

~ . ~~/' .... ~ 

I' . " 

12 X10 

. 

X35 

X20 X35 

11 
THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

FENESTELLA sp. j (p. 141). 

FIG. 8. Fragment of a silicified frond. 

Nonporiferous side, X 8. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2969). 

FENESTELLA TEXANA n. sp. (p. 138). 

Fws. 9 and 9a. A small silicified fragment. 

9. Nonporiferous side, X 8. . 

9a. Poriferous side (the position being accidentally inverted in the illustration), X 8. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2969). 

FEN ESTELLA sp. b (p. 139). 

Fw. 10. Fragment of a silicified frond. 

Nonporiferous side, X 8. By an oversight the specimen was posed upside down. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2969). 

AcTINOTRYPA~ SERA n. sp. (p. 155). 

Fws. II to lib. Thin section of the only fragment found. 

II. Transverse section, X 20. 

lla. Portion of same, X 35. 

613 

lib. Another portion of same, X 35. The single cell shown in this figure more nearly resembles typical Actinotrypa, but it is of unusual construction; the others are as represented by 

the other drawings. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2962). 

ARGILL<ECIA sp. (p. 510). 

Fws. 12 and 12a. A silicified specimen. 

12. Side view, X 10. 

12a. Outline of transverse curvature, X 10. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2969). 

PLATE XXIX. 

615 
PLATE XXIX. 

DELAWARE MOUNTAIN FORMATION, SOUTHERN DELAWARE MOUNTAINS. 

CnoNETES PERMIANUS Shumard (p. 226). 

FIG l A sthctfied spectmPn showmg some of the spmes 

Doroal vww, X 4 The roughneos of the surface IS due to the cnlmgcment of ohght tmperfPctwns 

m the sthctficatwn 

Delaware Mountam founatwn, southem Delaware Mountams (statwn 2936) 

FIG 2 A large sJltctfied speCimen 

Ventral vtew 

Delaware Mountam fmmatwn, southPm Delaware Mountams (statwn 2936). 

8TREPTORHYNCHUS PE;~ATTENUATUM n. sp. (p 180). 

FIGs 3 to 3c Specimen rPtammg both valves m con]unctwn and attached by 1ts apex to another 

orgamsm 

3 Antenor vtew, X 2 

3a Postenor vtew, X 2 The opecnnen m th1s figure and the precedmg one IS represented m a 

detached conditiOn 

3b Dorsal vww, X 2 

3c Side view, X 2 

Delaware Mountam tormatwn, southem Delaware Mountams (statwn 2962). 

PRO DUCTUS sp. d (p. 2n). 

FIGs 4 to 4b Ventral valve of a specimen Ieferred to tlns species ThP refiexed portwn IS part of the 

sanw valvP 

4. Seen from above 

4a Antenor vtew 

4h S1de view 

Delaware Mountam tormatwn, southem Delawa1e Mountams (statwn 2q69) 

PRODUCTUS? PILEOLUS ShumarJ (p 270). 

FIG 5 A stbctfied d01sal valve 

Vtew of the mtPnor, X 3 

Delaware Mountam formatwn, southern Delaware M:ountams (~tatwn 2969) 

FrGs fi to 6c AnothPr othctfted dorsal valv<' 

(i VIPW of the extenor, X 3 Tlw megulantiPS of the surface are due to chalcedomc Ieplaccment 

fia V1ew of the mtcn01 showmg the omgular museular unprmts, X 3. 

bh SHlP vtew m outlme, X 3 

fie Poste1101 VIew, X 3 

Delaware Mountam tormatwn, oouthem Delawmc Mountams (otatwn 2969) 

Fws 7 and 7a An Imperfect ~pecimcn 1etammg both valve> m conJunctiOn 

7 Ventral vtew, X 3 The surface markmgs arc the result of rhalcedomc ~Ihctficatwn 

7a Stde v1ew, X 3 

Delaware Mountam formatwn, southern Delawme Mountams (otatwn 2969) 

616 
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

2 

4 

3 X2 

7 10 

12 X2 

X2 X4 

11 12a 

13 X2 

X3 

1/C 

I. 

24 X2 22~ 

22 

23 26 

14 

?a 

b XJ 

17 

X2 

PROFESSIONAL PAPER NO. 58. PL. XXI X. 

5 

6 

6b 6-1 

L 6C 

3 

.. I 

15 20 X2 

17 

21 

) -

25 
THE GUADALUPIAN :FAUNA. 617 

HusTEDIA MEEKANA Shumard (p. 394). 

Fro. 8. A very young specimen. 

Dorsal view X 2. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2969). 

PUGNAX ~ BISULCATA var. SEMINULOIDES n. Var. '? (p. 312). 

Fm. 9. Posterior portion of a dorsal valve. 

Interior vie\v, X 2, showing the character of the hinge plate. The crura are broken off. Different individuals show slight modifications of this structure. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2969). 

HETERELASMA SHUMARDIANUM ll. sp. ~ (p. 338). 

Fw.· 10. A silicified dorsal valve whose specific position is somewhat doubtful. 

View of the interior, X 2. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2969). 

NucuLA sp. c (p. 421). 

FIG. 11. An imperfect left valve. 

Side view, X 2. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2969). 

PROTRETE TEXANA ll. sp. (p. 448). 

Fws. 12 and 12a. A specimen retaini~g both valves In conjunction. 

12. Side view, X 2. 

12a. Anterior view, X 4, showing the small opening just below the beaks. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2969). 

FIG. 13. A fragmentary lEift valve. 

View of the interior, X 2. The ligamenta! groove shows above, and at the front the channel of 

the little anterior aperture. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2969) 

PTERIA IUCHAIWSONI n. sp. (p. 427). 

Fm. 14. A fairly perfect left valve. 

Side view, X 2. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 29G9). 

:MYALINA SQUAMOSA Sowcrby1 (p. 429). 

Fra. 15. A silicified left valve preserving the surface. 

Side view, X 2. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware ]\fountains (station 2969). 

BELLEROPHON CRAssus :Meek and Worthen (p. 479). 

FIG. 16. The least imperfect specimen found. 

Apertural view. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2935). 
618 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

PLF.UlWTOMAJUA TEXANA n. sp. (p. 471). 

FIGs. 17 to 17c. A nearly perfect silicified spcci;nen. 

17. Side view, showing aperture, X 3. 

17a. Side view, X 3. 

17b. View from above, X 3. 

"17c. View from below, X 3. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Routhern Delaware Mountains (station 2969). 

PLEUROTOMAHIA? ELDER! ll. sp. (p. 476). 

FIG. 18. A silicified specimen selected as the type. 

Side view, X 3. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2969?). 

PLEUROTOMARIA? CARINIFERA var. (p. 4 76). 

FIG. 19. A fragmentary specimen. 

Side view, X 2. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2964). 

MuRCHISONIA? sp. a (p. 478). 

·FIG. 20. An undetermined fragment. 

Side view, X 2. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2969). 

CYMATOCHITON? TEXANUS n. sp. (p. 451). 

FIGs. 21 and 2la. One of the valves. 

21. Seen from above. 

2la. Side view in outline. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2969). 

GASTRIOCERAS sp. (p. 500). 

FIGs. 22 and 22a. A considerably eroded specimen. 

22. Side view. 

22a. Portion of the ventral surface. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2968). 

WAAGENOCERAS CUMMINS! var. GUADALUPENSE ll. var. (p. 502). 

FIG. 23. A medium-sized but eroded and flattened specimen. 

Side view, X 2. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2965). 

Fms. 24 and 24a. A small specimen. 

24. Suture line, X 2. 

24a. Front view in outline, X 2. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southeFn Delaware Mountains (station 2965). 

Fms. 25 and 25a. A young specimen. 

25. Side view, X 2. 

25a. Suture line, X 2. This appears to be less mature than the suture from 24, which was of 

about the same stage or smaller. Possibly a slight amount of erosion has served to decrease the 

depth of the convolutions. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2965). 

FIG. 2p. Another specimen. 

View of the inner side of a fragment showing the internal sutures, X 2. 

Delaware Mountain formation, southern Delaware Mountains (station 2965). 
PLATE XXX. 

619 
PLATE XXX. 

DELAWARE MOUNTAIN FORMATION, GLASS MOUNTAINS. 

ENTELETES GLOBOSUS n. sp. (p. 294). 

FIGs. 1 and la. A crushed sfecimen retaining both valves, which clearly show its dorsisinuate character. 

l. Dorsal view. 

1a. Side view. 

Delaware Mountain'formation, Glass Mountains (station 3763). 

ENTELETES sp. a (p. 2!)6). 

FIGS. 2 and 2a. A fragmentary ventral valve. 

2. Seen from above. 

2a. Side view in outline. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Glass Mountains (station 3763). 

STREPTORHYNCHUS PYGl\ilEUl\f n. sp. (p. 178). 

FIGs. 3 to 3c. A large dorsal valve of moderate convexity. 

3. Interior view, X 4. Here are to be seen the powerful cardinal process, median septum, and 

cren{llated margins, all of which seem to indicate shell thickening and advanced age. 

3a. View of the exterior, X 4. 

3b. Posterior view in outline, showing the cardinal process, X 4. 

3c. Side view in outline, X 4. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Gla.ss Mountains (station 3763). 

·FIGs. 4 to 4b. A small dorsal valve of moderate convexity. 

'4. Interior view, X 4. 

4a. Exterior view, X 4. 

4b. Side vi'ew in outline, X 4. 

Delaware Mou~tain formation, Glass Mountains (station 3763). 

FIGs. 5 to 5b. A small dorsal valve of irregular growth and great convexity. 

5. View of the interior, X 4. 

5a. View of the exterior, X ·1. 

5b. Side view in outline, X4. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Gl;J.ss Mountains (station 3763). 

1<1:GS. 6 to 6b. A ventral valve which very plainly shows a large scar of attachment. 

6. Seen from above, X 4. 

6a. ·Posterior view, X 4. 

6b. Side view in outline, X 4. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Glass Mountains (station 37ti3). 

Sec also fig. 11. 

STREPTORHYNCHUS? sp. Ct (p. 180). 

Fm. 7. A small dorsal valve of undetermined species. 

View of exterior, X -1. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Glass Mountains (station 3763). 

620 
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

~ .. ·· ..• : .. Ill\'' ·~,. 

sb 

10 

1Qa 

10C 

16 18 

17 

sc 

9 

10b 

CS .... 13a 

1sa 

19 

2 

5 

.. ..l 

10d 

10f 

14 

13 

1Sb 12 

PROFESSIONAL PAPER NO. 58. PL. XXX. 

3 

5a 5b 

6b 

X3 

10e X3 7 

X3 11 11a 

10g 

14a 11b 11C 

12a 12b 11d 

15 15a 15b 12C 

19C 20 
THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 621 

MEEKELLA SKENOIDES 11. sp. (p. 206). 

Fws. 8 to Sc. The type specimen, which is smaller than some fragments associated with lt and probably 

belonging to the same specie~. 

8. Side view, X 2. 

Sa. Dorsal view, X 2. The plications arc hardly represented as sufficiently angular. 

Sb. Posterior view, X 2. 

Sc. Anterior view, X 2. 

Delaware Mountain f<irmation, Glass Mountains (station 3763). 

FIG. 9. A small dorsal valve from the s,uue station as the foregoing, which shows the surface characters 

more perfectly. 

View of the exterior, X 2. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Glass Mountain~ (~tation 3763). 

MEEKELLA DIFFICILIS . n. sp. (p. 207). 

Fms. 10 to lOg. The type specimen preserved in a silicified condition. 

10. Interior of the ventral vnlve, showing the two dental plates and what look like two additional 

plates almost parallel to the area. 

lOa. Front view of both valves. 

lOb. Ventral valve, seen from above. 

lOc. Side view of both valves. 

lOd. Cardinal process supposed to belong to this specimen, seen from the lower or internal side, 

X 3. 

lOe. Same, seen from the upper or external side, X 3. 

lOf. Terminal view, X 3. 

lOg. Side view, X 3. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Glass Mountains (statwn 3763). 

PRODUCTUS SUBHORRIDUS var. RUGATULUS n. var. (p. 267). 

Fms. 11 to lid. A specimen retaining both valves in conjunction. 

11. Dorsal view, showing an attached ventral valve of Streptorhynchus pygm:cum. 

lla. Ventral view. 

llb. Side view. 

lle. Posterior view. 

lld·. Anterior view. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Glass Mountains (station 3763). 

FIGs. 12 to l2c. A ventral valve freed by etching. 

12. View of the interior. 

12a. View of tne exterior. 

l2b. Side view. 

12c. Posterior view. 

Delaware Mountain form<ttion, Glass Mountains (station 3763). 

PRODUCTUS l\IEEKANUS n. sp. (p. 263). 

FIGs. 13 and l3a." A fragmentary but otherwise well-preserved ventral valve. 

13. Seen from above. 

l3a. Side view in outline. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Glass Mountains (station 3763). 

8TROPHALOSIA HYSTRICULA 11. sp. (p. 275). 

Fws. 14 and l4a. The only specimen found, a ventral valve. 

14. Seen from above. 

14a. Anterior view. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Glass Mountains (station 3763). 
622 THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

8PIRIFERINA HILLI n. sp. (p. 379), 

FIGs. 15 to 15b". A ventral valve. 

15. View of the exterior. 

15a. Side view in outline. 

15b. View of the interior. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Glass MountainR (station 3763). 

HusTEDIA MEEKANA Shumard (p. 394). 

FIG. 16. A small, somewhat crushed specimen. 

Dorsal view. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Glass Mountains (station 3763). 

FIG. 17. A large silicified specimen. 

Dorsal view. 

Delaware Mountain formation, GlaRs Mountains (station 3763). 

HusTEDIA PAPILLATA Shumard (p. 397). 

FIGs. 18 to 18b. A rather small specimen referred to this species. 

18. Dorsal view. 

18a. Ventral view. 

18b. Side view in outline. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Glass Mountains (station 3763). 

HUSTEDIA BIPARTITA n. sp. (p. 398). 

FIGs. 19 to 19c. The typical specimen. 

19. Dorsal view, X 2. 

19a. Side view, X 2. 

19b: Ventral view, X 2. 

19c. Anterior view, X 2. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Glass Mountains (~iat;on 3763). 

FIGs. 20 and 20a. A dorsal valve similar to the last. 

20. Seen from above, X 2. 

20a. Same, natural size. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Glass Mountains (station 3763). 
PLA r_rE xxxro 

623 
PLATE XXXI .. 

DELAWARE MOUNTAIN FORMATION, GLASS MOUNTAINS. 

RrmrTHOFENIA PERMIAN A Shumard (p. 283). 

FIGs. 1 and la. A silicified ventral valve deformed by compression. 

1. External view, somewhat oblique to the posterior side. 

la. View looking obliquely into the interior against the cardinal side. At the back near the 

center is seen the inner side of the area and pseudodeltidium. On either hand are two longitudinal ridges or "dental callosities.'' which end naturally at about the same level, indicating 

the position· of the opercular dorsal valve. In the present suecimen the thinner portions of 

the shell above have mostly been broken away. In front, opposite the pseudodeltidium, is 

the rather broad ridge which forms the septum, if so it may be called. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Glass Mountains (station 3763). 

FIGs. 2 to 2b .• '\.nother ventral valve similarly preserved. 

2. Exterior view of the posterior side. 

2a. Side view in outline. 

2b. View of the interior looking obliquely downward against the posterior side. The parts 

shown are the same as in la. Symmetrically placed at the back arc the two dental callosities 

ending above a.t the same level. Between them are the area and pseudodeltidium, while in 

front, directly opposite, is the "scptuni." 

Delaware Mountain formation, Glass Mountains (station 3763). 

FIG. 3. Another similar specimen. • 

View looking obliquely downward into' the interior against the left side. In this case the broadly 

rounded "septum" is at the right. At the left and in the background is a dental callosity 

with its naturally finished upper end. A projection at this level can be traced more or less 

clearly to the opposite side. In the foreground, at a much lower elevation and consequently 

at an earlier and lees developed stage, is the second dental callosity, with the area and pseuclodelticlium between them. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Glass Mountains (station 3763). 

AULOSTEGES MAGNICOSTATUS n. sp. (p. 278). 

FIGs. 4 to 4b. An imperfect silicified specimen showing both valves. 

4. Dorsal view, X 2. 

4a. Ventral view, X 2. 

4b. Side view in outline, X 2. 

Delaware Mountain formation, mountains northwe~t of Marathon (stalion 3840). 

PRODUCTUS GUADALUPENSIS var. COMANCIIEANUS· 11. var. (p. 261). 

Fms. 5 to 5b. A ventral valve. 

5. Seen from above.· 

5a. Posterior view. 

5b. Side view in outline. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Glass Mountains (station 3763). 

624 
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER NO. 58. PL. XXXI. 

2 

3 

6b 

6a 6 

__ _ _I 

4 X2 

4a 4b 6C 5b 

5 

8 X2 

9 10 X2 

7 X2 

12a 

12 11a 

11 

18 18a 14a 13 

X6 

17 

20b 20 
THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

CAMAROPHORIA VENUSTA n. sp. (p. 303). 

FIGs. 6 to 6c. The type specimen, preserving bC!th valves in conjunction. 

6. Ventral view. 

6a. Side view in outline. 

6b. Antm;ior view. 

6c. Dorsal view. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Glass Mountains (station 3763). 

NoTOTHYRIS sp. (p. 337). 

FIG. 7. An imperfect dorsal valve. 

View of the interior, showing the perforated hinge plate, X 2. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Glass Mountains (station 3763). 

AVICULIPECTEN sp. b (p. 437). 

FIG. 8. An imperfect left (?) valve. 

View of the exterior, showing the sculpture. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Glass Mountains (station 3763). 

AVICULIPECTEN sp. b var. (p. 438). 

FIG. 9. An imperfect left (?) valve. 

View of the exterior, X 2, showing the sculpture. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Glass Mountains (station 3763). 

AVICULIPECTEN sp. c (p. 438) . 

. FIG. 10. Fragment. of a left (?) valve. 

Exterior view, X 2, showing sculpture. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Glass Mountains (station 3763). 

PTERIA sQUAMIFERA n. sp. (p. 427). 

FIGs. 11 and lla. A somewhat imperfect left valve. 

11. Seen from above, X 2. 

lla. Same in outline, natural size. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Glass Momita:ins (station 3763). 

ASTARTELLA NASUTA n. sp. (p. 445). 

Fws. 12 and 12a. An imperfect left valve, silicified and etched. 

12. Seen from above, X 2. 

12a. Same in outline, natural size. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Glass Mountains (station 3763). 

PARALLELODON MULTIST'RIATUS n. sp. (p. 423), 

FIG. l'3. An imperfect left valve. 

Seen from above. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Glass Mountains (statirm 3763). 

Fws. 14 and 14a. A smaller left valve. 

14. Seen from above, X 2. 

14a. Same in outline, natural size. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Glass Mountains (station 3763). 

3695-No. 58-08----40 

625 
TliE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA. 

PARALLELODON~ sp. (p. 424). 

FIG. 15. An imperfect right valve of doubtful affiniti<;Js: 

Seen from above. • 

Delaware Mountain formation, Glass Mountains (~tation 3763). 

TIIAMNISCUS sp. (p. 148). 

FIG. 16. A silicified specimen. 

Poriferous side, X 2. 

Delaware Mountain formation, mountains northwest of Marathon (statian 3840). 

RHOMBOPOHA aff. R .. LEPIDODENDROIDES Meek (p. 153). 

FIG. 17. A silicified specimen. 

Side view, X 6. 

Delaware Mountain formation, mountains northwest of Marathon (station 3840). 

MEEIWPORA sp. (p. 127). 

FIGs. 18 to 18b. A fragmentary specimen. 

18. Seen from the side. 

18a. · Seen edgewise. 

18b. Side view, X 3. 

Delaware Mountain· formation, Glass Mountains (station 3763). 

DoMOPORA? HILLANA n. sp. (p. 124). 

FIG. 19. Frond. 

Seen from the side, X 4. . 

Delaware Mountain 'formation, Glass Mountains (station 3763). 

0YSTOTHALAMIA NODULIFERA n. sp. (p, 89). 

FIGs. 20 to 20b. Two silicified specimens. 

20. Seen from the side. 

20a. Same, X 3. 

20b. A natural section obliquely across one of the specimens, X3. 

Delaware Mountain formation, Glass Mountains (station 3763). 

·. 
'\..-, 

INDEX. 

Names in italic ar<i synonY!"s; figures in black face refer to descriptions; figures in italic denote illustrations. 

A. rage. 

Abich, H., on Armenian fossils . .' .. 33, 95,106,117,172,198,219, 

223, 247-24&, 288,302,307, 328,352,3R6, 411,400,494 

Acanthocladia .............. 112,113,114,117,118, 149-152,517 

anceps .................. _ ................. 114,117, tbl, 152 

americana ....... _ ............................ _ 12,149,151 

fruticosa ...... _. _ ........ .... ... .......... ... . .. .. . 151 

guadtllupensis .... __ .. : ___ ........... 12, 13, Hi, 16,17, 18, 20, 

23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 52,11:1, 146,148, 149-152,530,673,689 

pinnata .................. _ ............... __ .... ... . .. 151 

sp. _______ ... _ .. _ ........ _ ....... _ 16, 18,20,52, 152,530,573 

Acanthocladiid::e ................ _ .. ___ ............... ·149-153 

Acanthopecten ....... ___ .... 399,401,404,418,431,432,410-441 

carbonlferus ....... .' .. _ ..... _ ..... 21,54,414,440,440-441 

Acanthotelson ........................... -----.......... 505 

Access to region, routes for ................. _.......... V-7 

Ac!..-nowledgrnents to those aiding ............... _..... 51 

Acrocrinus........ ..... ..... .. ... ... .. . ..... . . ... ... ... 107 

Act::eonina... .... . .. .. .. .. .... .. ........ ... .. . . 457 

sp ........ _. _ ..... __ .... ___ ................ _ .... ___ . 457 

Actinoconchus phlnosulcata............................ 386 

Actinocrinus ......... :.... .... ..... . . . . . . . ... . . ... .. . . . 107 

Actinotrypa ...... _ .............. 112,113,115,118,119, 1iia-156 

peculiaris .......................... _ ..... _ ....... _ 155-156 

sera .... ___ ............................ 25,52,155-156,613 

Actinotrypid::e ....................................... 155-156 

Adams, G. L, on Kansas Permian..................... 43 

Adrianitcs ..... .... .. .. .. .. .... ... .. . . ... .. ............. 495 

sp .. ---------- .. -- .. ----------.---------- .. -- .. ----- -mo Agassizocrinus. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 

Agathoceras ....................... 490,492,495,496, 501-502 

tcxanum .................. 22, 55,492,495,501,501-502,608 

uralicum .. ·. ............... ... ... .. . ... .. .. . . ... . .. . 492 

Ajermati, fossils from.................................. 391 

Allcrisma ___ . 400,403,406,408,409,411,412,413,414,410,417,418 

elegans ................................... , ... 403,414,416 

perelegans .......... _ ................ -----. ......... 403 

regulare:........................................... 406 

regularis............................................ 407 

subcuneatum .. ---- .. ---- .... -- ...... -- .. · .. -.. 400,406,417-

terminale ......................................... 406,417 

sp ...... _ ........................ _ ................ 407,416 

Alps. See Carnic Alps; Carinthian Alps. . 

Alvcolites ...................................... -........ 114 

buchlanus ....................... -- ..... , . .... .. .. . . 117 

mackloti............................................ 114 

Amalizky, W ., on Russian (Permian) fossils ....... 34, 46,411 

Amblysiphonelht' .......................... 70, 71, 79,90, 91-92 

barroisi.. ......... :................................. 92 

guadalupensis .................. ' ......... 15,51, 91-92,526 

multilnmellosa.......... ... . . . .. .. .. . . .. .. .. ... . .. . 92 

prosser!............................................ 92 

Page. 

Amboccelia .... _ ................. 14,339,341,342,343,344,345, 

349-aso, 351,352,353,354,355, 35o, 357,359, 370-371 

clannymm ... _ ................... _ ............... _ 351,356 

fus!forrnis .. _ .......... __ .... _. _ .. __ .... __ . _ .. ____ .. 341 

planiconvexa.-----.---------- 345, a49, 351,352,357-358,370 

ViLr. ?uadalupcnsis ............................. l6,17, 

54,351,353,354,355,356,358,370-:171' 554,555 

winchiana .. ------------ ... -.. ----- .... ------ ...... - a56 

Ammodiscus ......... _ ................ _ ........... _ .. _ . 58 

concavus .......................................... _ 59 

mum .. ____ ......... : .......... ----- _____ ....... ___ . 59 

Ammonoiden .............................. 36,490,491,494,496 

Amphinenm .............. _ ........... _ .... _. _ .. 13, 4f>0-451 

Amplexus .................................. 93, 94, 95, 100, 101 

sp ...................................... _ 17,20,27,51,100 

Anatinn attenuata....................................... 406 

deltoidea ... _ .. _ ....... _ ... _ .. _ ....... _ .. _ .. .. .. .. .. 406 

Andersson, J. G., on Baren Island fossils .. _ ........ _.. 37 

Angelis d'Ossat, G. de,on Alpine fo"'ils ..... _ .. _ .. _ .. 36,117 

Anisopyge,_ ..................................... 5o4, 505-509 

antiq un ................................ 22, 55,503, 509, GOO 

pP-rannuluta. _ ........... _ ................. ___ .. __ .: 12, 

16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 55,503,506-608,509,1565,666 

Anodontn.............................................. 414 

Anomia ............ -.......... _-.. . .. .. .. . 188, 190, 192, 412, 413 

prisca ................................... _.......... 413 

Anoplophora brevis ... _ ............................. _.. 403 

Antnln ........ _ .. _ ........................ ___ .......... 449 

Anthracoptem polita .......... · ............. _ ... ,...... 415 

Anthracosia .................................... 4, 6, 410,411 

sp. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. . 416 

Anthracosiid::e .................................. _ .. _... 411 

Anthracosycon .................................. 71-72,72-73 

ficus .......................... : .......... 22,51, 72,73,598 

var. capitanensc .................... 16,51, 72-73,526 

sp ............. -------- ......................... 22,51, 73 

Anthrapal::emon ....... .'.. ..... .... . .... ........ .... ... 505 

Aphania ............................................ --< 404 

Appalachians, fossils of. .................. 38,174-175,220,252 

Arabia, fossils from ......................... _.......... 33 

Arreopora.............................................. 94 

Area ......................................... 408,412,413,417 

argo................................................ 406 

kingiana ......................................... 411,414 

striata............................................. 414 

substriata .................... ,_ ................ :.. 408 

var. geinitziana .... ___ ...... .......... ......... 408 

Arcestcs .......... ---------..... ..... ......... ......... 490 

megaphyllus.................................... ... 491 

persulcatus ................... ·...... ...... .. .... .. . 491 

tridens.... .... . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ...... ... ... 491 

627 

• 
628 INDEX. 

Page. 

Archooocidaris ................. __ ...... -- ... 106,107,110-112 

cratis. ______ .... __ ........ · ..... _ ........... 20,52, 107,110 

rossica .. _ ............. __ ............. _............. 106 

spiniclavata .... _ .............. _. _ ..... _ ....... _.... 110 

vemeuiliana _____ . _ ...... __ .: .. ___ ... __ ............ 107 

sp .................... 18,20,23,24,52,106,107,110-112,609 

Archooodiscus ............. __ ........................... 57,59 

Archooopora ....... _ ................... _ ... _ ......... 115,117 

Archimedes .................. _ .. __ ..... _ ... _ ...... __ . 116,118 

Archimcdipora ...................... _ .......... _....... 116 

Arctic faunas, study of ................................ 37--38 

Argillmcia ..... _ ........................... __ ... _ ... _ 503,510 

ooqualis ··············-······--·····-···-····-········ 510• sp .. _ .................... ___ .... __ ......... 24,55,010,613 

Arizona, fossils of._ ................. _ .. _ ............ c 266,449 

Armenia, fossils from ............. 33,95, 106,117,172,198,219, 

223,247-248,288,302,307,328,352,386,411,460,494 

Arthaber, G., on Armenian fossils ................... 95,106, 

172,223,247,248,288,3.7 411,460,494. 

Arthaber, G., and Frech, F., on Armenian .,·,..·33,172 

Arthopoda ......... _. .................... Y'"; . ;"_. 503-510 

Artmsk1an, corrclatwn of ··············t· 39--40,44,47--49,50 

fossils of. .... _ ...................... _ .............. 58,59 

See also Karpinsky; Krotow; Stuckenberg; 

Tschcryschew; SibirizW. 

Ascopora ... _ ........................................ 115,118 

rhombifera......................................... 115 

Asia, central, fossils of. .......... _... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 

Asia Minor, fossils from ....... 33,58,95,106,117,172,219,223, 

246--247' 289' 302' 307' 353' 387; 393' 411' 449' 460 

Astarte ............ _ .. : .................. 400, 40G,409,414, 416 

permocarbonica.: ........ , ....................... 409,410 

tunstallensis ............................... : ..... 414,416 

vallisneriana ..................... _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409, 414 

wallisneriana...................................... 410 

Astartella ...... _ .... _ .............. 399,405,413,418,441i-446 

concentrica........................................ 445 

gurleyi.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445 

rncchesncyi. ............... .-............ ·... . . . . . . . . . 445 

nasuta ........ 21,55,405,409, 410,414,416,446--446, 59.~,6e5 

ncwberryi........... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 445 

pcrmocarbonica ................................. _. . 445 

rhomboidea. c .... _ .•.... , .•....•............• _ .... _ 405 

varica ... _ .... _ .............................. _. __ . 445 

·vera .............................................. 416,445 

Astartila............................................... 405 

cythera ..................................... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 405 

Asterias bituminosa................................... 106 

Asymptoceras ............. -......................... 493,496 

Athyridro .................. -..................... 14,383-390 

Athyris ..................... -............ 289,366,383,384,385 

ambigua ............................. _ ...... __ ... 386,387 

archimedes ........ : ..... -................... ___ . __ . 387 

conccntrica .............................. _ ........ _ 386 

gerardi. ........................................... _ 384 

globularis ............................. _ .. ___ . _ .. _. _ 384 

pectinifera ............................ _ ..... __ .. __ . 386 

planisulcata ................................. __ .. _ 385,386 

planosulcata ............................ , ... ___ . _ 386,387 

randsi .......... • ............................. _____ 385-386 

~~~:~:i~:::::::::::: :::::::::::: :.:~ :::::::::-~84:~85,~:~ Atomodcsma .................................... 400,401,403 

indica.-----·------------------------·--.--------.--~ r 401 

Atrypa .... -- ......... -·-· .... ---....................... 168 

Aubrey sandstone, fossils of. ......... _ .. _ ...... ,. ___ 266,449 

Ancella .............................................. __ . 408 

hausmanni ...................................... _ 411,414 

.. 

Page. 

Aulacorhynchus ............................ __ ... __ _ _ _ _ 220 

Au!~.:~~:.::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::_ ~~6,_ ~27,:~ Aulopora ... : ..................................... __ . 93,105 

Aul~~~~jd,;;::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: _ ~~: 52g~ Aulosteges .... -................... ____ . 14, 23,36, 40,216,217, 

219,220,240,247,249,252,274-275,276-280,281 282 

d~lhousii .... ____ ... _ ........................ _____ 216:218 

::;~~~;~~~i~::: -_-_-_ -_ -_ -_ ·_. -_ -_ ·_ ·_ ·_ ·_·_ ·_ ·_·_ ·_ ·_ ~ ·_ ·_ ·_ -_ ·_ ·_ ·_. i2: is~i~,~~ 

216,218, 219-!j20, 274,275,276,277,277-278,580 

horrescens .... _ ..... __________ . _. _. ______ . _.. . . . .. .. 219 

ma~costatus .... 27,531 216,219,220,275,277,278-279,624 

medhcottianus ..... __ :. _ ..................... 216, 218, 278 

vur. america nus_ ........... ___ . _. _ ... ___ ....... _ 16, 

53,216,218,219,220,275,277,278,279,547 

var. guadalupensis. _ ........ _. ___ . _ ..... ___ .. _ 279 

tlbetlcus ....... ___ . _ .. _ _ _ _ ___ . _ . .. . . . .. . . . 219 

wangenheimi. .................. _ _ _ _ _ 219,274 

sp. -_- ..... -- ... ---. 22, 53,216,218,219,220,275,277, 279-280 

Austraha, formations of.. ___ .......................... 169 

fossils of ....... _ .... _. ______ ._ ............. 33, 96, 107, 115 

See also Queensland; New South Wales. 

Avlcu~a- .... :·· ... -............. --- .. 400,406,407,408,412_.416 

ch1druens!s ___ ....... ___ .... _ ....... _ . __ . _______ .. .. 401 

decipiens ... ___ . __ ...... _____ ......... ________ . .. . . . 404 

evanescens. _ .............. ___ .. _ ... _ ...... _ _ __ __ _ __ 406 

~!::~:~~~:::: :::::::::::::::::::::: ... -:: :::::::_ :~ kasanensis .............. _ ..... ___ . ___ ........... _ _ _ 414 

keyserlingi. ...................... __ . ____ . _ ...... _ _ _ 414 

tonga .................................. __ ......... 426--427 

~~:~~~,:,;;i~---_·_·:: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::- !~! speluncaria ... _-_ .............. , ........ ____________ 411, 414 

subhmulata .............. __ ...................... _ _ 404 

sulcata ...... ____ . _. ___ ... __ .... ... .... .. .. . ... .. .. . 427 

sp ................... ---.......................... 402 

Aviculipecten............ 399,400,401,402,405,406,407,408, 

409,410,412,413,415,416,418,431,432,435,435--440 

acanthicus ......... ___ ... __ _ _ __ ... ______ ... ____ .. 413 

bertrandi... _ ............. __ . ____ . _ ....... _ _ _ 413 

carboniferus .. _ .......... __ _ 403,413 

cingendus .... _ .............. _ _ _ _ _ _ 404 

delawarensis .... - ............. 21, 54,401,405,436,437,592 

densistriatns ... __ ................ _______ .. ________ . 413 

derajatensls ......... --- ....... ____ ........... __ _ _ __ 401 

draschei. ............................... _ . _ _ _ _ _ 416 

exotica .............. -....................... _ .. ____ 403 

guadalupensis . .- .... -........................ _ .. ___ 18,19 

54,402,403,405,406, 43[>--436, 436,437,566 

hiemalis ... __ . . ................... ___ ... _ _ 402 

incarojanus ......... -. - -................. ____ .. _ _ _ 413--414 

infelix ..... _ ..... -. - -. -- ............... _ . _ _ 16, 54, 

401,403,406,407,413,415,436,438--439,442,535 

jabensis ........... -... --- -- ............... _ _ 402 

janus ... __ ......... -·--·.-- ............. __ ._ 413 

kungurensis .... -.. --· .. -... ---............ 407 

Iaqueatus .. 16, 54,401,404,407,412,416,435,437,439,440,535 

mccoy!. .. : ...... -.... --·--· ...... -.· ....... __ ..... 402,440 

nitidus ........ ---- .............. --·-·.. ... .... ... .. 413 

pseudoctenostreon .. : ........................... _ _ _ 401 

sicanus ......... ------ ................ -- .. . .. . .. .. .. 413 

sublaqueatus ............................. _ ... _____ 10, 17, 

27, 54,402,403,404,406,407,413,435,440,535 

verbecki ....... __ ..... -- .... ----- .......... _. _ .. _. __ 403 
INDEX. 629 

rage. 

A viculipecten waageni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403 

wi!czeki... .. . . . . . . .. .. . .. .. . . .. . 416 

sp.......... . .... 18,22,27,54,401, 

402,403,405,406,411,413,435-436, 136-438,566,625 

Aviculipinna.... 417 

Axel Island. See Spitzbergen. 

Axinus rotundatus. _ ... 

securus. _ 

431 

..... 12,431 

Axophyllum ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96, 97, 9X 

B. 

Bagg, R. M., on Colorado fossils....................... 59 

Bairdia...... . .......... 503, 504, 510 

curta.. 504 

plebe.ia..... .. 22, 55,510, U08 

sp. . . . . . .. _ 12. 504 

Bakewellia....... . . . . . . . . . . . 399,406,407,408, 

409,410,412,414-415,416,417-418,425-426,426,428 

anti qua.......... 406-407,408,415, 41ti, 425 

artiensis ... __ .... _ 407 

bicarinata. 

cera thophaga .... 

elegans ........ ________ . __ .. 

parva. __ . _______ . 

sedgwickiana .... _. _ ... 

sulcata ... . 

tum ida ... . 

415 

409,415 

412 

.......... 45, 426, 428, 4::9 

................. 416 

410 

-.. --------------- 415 

sp ... 

Bali a Maad<'n. 

21, 43, 45, 54,407, 408,411' 41.5, 416,425-426 

See Asia Minor. 

Biiren Island. See Nova Zemhla. 

Barents Island. Sec Nova Zemhla. 

Barrois, C., fossils eollected !Jy ... _ .... _ .... 71 

Bassler, R. S., aid of_ 51,112 

Ba.tang, fossils of_ ..... _...... 94,240,:385 

Ba tostomella. _ ... _ ..... __ . _ . . 113, 117, 120 

Batostomellid>e... 128-132 

Beede, J \V ., on Oklahorna fossils.... 4S 

I3elinunm. . . . . . . . . . 505 

Bellerophon........ 15, 4.r"il, 452, 453, 4G4, 4ti.\ 45(), 

467, 458,459, 4()0, 462, 4ti3, 4fi4, 479-481, 4'S2, 491' 492 

asiaticns .. _. .. .. .. .. 4[)4 

attalicus...... 4CO 

carlloll;Jrius ........ . 

chaldinensiR .. _ 

e01npressus. 

eostatus ... 

erassus ........ . 23, 25, 05, 452, 455, 4ti~, 4H:i, 4 7H-481, 617 

cylindricus .... . ............ 4G2 

de-a:ngelisi.. __ ... . 

decussatus .... . 

elegans ....... . 

hiulcus. . . . . ............ . 

ineertu::; ...... . 

lamellosus .. _ ...... . 

micromphalus ... _... . ................ . 

piktorskyi. ..... .. 

polito ........... .. 

pulchellus ...... ~ 

4G2 

4tlS, 4(i:i 

45H 

45H, 4C;) 

45:i 

4fi2 

482 

458 

453 

463 

sphmroidalis...... . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ......... 457 

stanvellensis ....................... . 455 

suhcostatus .................... ---- ......... . 453 

urei. .. __ ............................ _ .... 4tJ3, 45{), 457, 458 

sp. . . . . ......... _ . . . . . . . . . 12, 453 

Bellerophon lin1estone, fossils of................ 37 

See also Tyrol, fossils of. 

Bellerophontidm... . ........ ~ ....... 452,4 79-482, 492 

Beyrich, E., on Timor fossils ......•.. _ .. _ .. _ 32, 94, 

106, 114,169,241,301,305,345, 385,503 

Page. 

Beyrichia. . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 504, 505 

varicosa .................... _. __ ..... _ ... ______ . _. _. .103 

Bibliography, discussion of._ .......................... 29-39 

Big Bend, Tex., fossil localities at..................... 512 

Bigenerina......... ··············------------ 32,57,58 

eximia ... ___ ............ ______ .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . 59 

Bissoarcn ... _. _. 

kingiana ....................... ___ . _ ........ . 

striata ...... . 

tumida .. 

415 

415 

415 

415 

Black limestone, correlation of........................ 10 

fossils from....... . ......... 22-23,603 

See also Dela,vare }fountain formation. 

Blandford, II. F., and Salter, J. W ., on Indian fossils. 30 

See also Salter, J. W. 

Bleiberg. See Carinthian Alps. 

Bokhara, fossils of...... . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . 31 

Bolivia, fossils from ....... 38, 96,107, 118, 174, 225-22!l, 243--244, 

251-252,267,289-290,308,357,387, 416, 4G3~464 

Bowen ssils from...... . . . . . 33,218,391, 4U2 

Brach!t> 13-14,22,23,30, 3fr-36, 3R, 4.>-47, 49, 50, 1;}6-:l99 

Bmchym ,. . . .. . . . . . . 504 

Brady, H. B., on inglish fossils... .... . ... 5H 

Bnulyina .... __ ... " .... 57, 59, Gl 

Brancoceras .... _ .. _.. 495 

sp.......... ............................. 490 

Brazil, fossils from ............................. __ ... 38,1761 

220,226,252,290,303, 357-35~, 387,393 

Britts, J. II., aid of ... _. 51 

Bryozoa ....................... 13,19,25,45,49,94,112-156 

Bucania. _. . ............................ 402, 4.1)5, 459, 462 

angustifasciata.......... . ----.._~-................ 452 

······-.;.··········· incertu.s. _. _. 

integra ......... 

kattacnsis. 

........................ : ........ _ ..... 

45a 

452 

452 

459 

452 

462 

405 

makatikhm ... . 

orna.tissin1a .... . 

sosiensi.s. _ .... _ .. 

textilis._ ... . 

Hucanopsis... . .......... _ ....... 451,453,455, 45S, 462,4-81 

Rp...... .. . . .. . . .......... 21,;);), 459,462,403, 4-81,5,GJ 

Bnccinidm. __ ..... __ ... . ... _........... . . . . . . . . . . . 488 

Buccinih~s arculatus ........ _. 488 

Bucdnurn... ........... 488 

Bucknwn, S. S., on Athyridm _... :i8:1 

Bulinwrpha...... .. ...... 451,452, 4-"4, 4G1,-lS7-4S8 

lmlimifonnis. . . . . . . . . . . . 487 

ehrysnli:... ..... 487 

yar. Lkb w~<rC'n~i:-; ..... 21, 55, 4.54, 459, 4Gl, 4-87-488,5.94 

Burma, fos:-<ils fron1. .. . . . --- ·-- .. --... 32 

Byans, fos~il.-: of ..... _ .. :m, n1-222, 238,344,402,453, 490~491 

c. 

Calmnopora. _ ........... _ ... _ .. . 94 

117 

114 

rnackrothi .... __ . _ .. 

sp .... 

Calcispongia::. 

Calliastnr Jnirn s ... 

............................... 70,79-93 

................................ lOG 

Callopom arctica ........................... _. . .. .. .. .. 118 

sp..... ............................. 114 

Calophyllum..... ............................ 95 

donatLnum.......................... ............. 95 

profundurn ............................... _ ....... _. 95 

Camara phoria ............... 45,300,301, 303~:!04, :J04, 306,315 

.wuminata .... _ ................................... _ 302 

alfinis. . . .. . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . .. . 302 

alpina. .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. . 302 

applanata...................................... 301 
630 INDEX. 

. Page. 

Camara phoria biplicata .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. . . .. . 301 

bisinuata. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 

bisulcata............ .. . . . .. . .. .. . . .. .. . .. .. .. . . ... . ·310 

crumcna ............. __ ......... __ ........... 300,301,303 

duplicata .......•. __ ...... . ........... ... .. . .. .. .. . 302 

globulina .... _ .. ___ .............. _ 301,302,303,314,317,319 

humbletonensis. _ ......................... ------- 302,303 

isorhynchus ...... _ ......... _. _ ................ ____ . 301 

latissima ..................... _..................... 302 

margaritovi. .... __ .... _____ ............. _ ......... _ 301 

rnultiplicata ....... ___ ............................ _ 303 

Osagensis .... ................... __ .... :. . . ......... 317 

pinguis ........ ·---. ___ ........ __ .... ...... ... ...... 301 

plica ................... __ ...... __ ................ 301,302 

plicata ......... _ .. _ ......... _ .................... __ 301 

purdon!. .... ___ .. _ ... ~ ..... _ .. _ ... _ .......... 301,302,303 

var. gigantca ............... _. ... . .. . . ... .. . ... 301 

rhomhoidea ..... __ .............................. _ 300,301 

sanctisplritus .... : . .......... ____ ............. _. 302 

schlotheimL ........................ _ .... _ ....... 302,303 

sella ................................ :............ 301 

simplicata .................................. _ .... _ _ 301 

superstes .. _ ...................................... 301,302 

them ........ __ ... _................................. 303 

triplicata ........... '.... ............. ..... ... .. .... 301 

vcnusta ..... _ ...... 16, 27, 53,301,302,303,303-304,322,625 

waageni............................................ 302 

sp. _ ......................... -.. . . . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . 301 

Camarotmchia ................... _ .... _ .... _ .... _ .. _... 314 

Camero phoria hisulcata .................... _ ......... _ 12 

· schlotheimi. . . . . . . .. .. .. .. . . .. . . .. .. . .. . .. .. . . . . .. . 12 

8Wallowiana ..... _ ................................. 12,314 

Carnpophyllum ................................ _ 93, 95, 96,102 

tcxanutn .... _ ..... _ .......... ' .......... 12, 1G,51, 102,527 

torquium..... .... .. . .. .. .. . .. .. . . .. . ... .. .. . .. .. . . 96 

·Camptonectes .. _ .... _.................................. 14, 

399,401,404,406,413,417,418,431,432-435,43.1,439 

asperatus ............ __ . _. __ .. 16, .54, 432,134-435,411,534 

papillatus ......... _ ........ 16, 21, 54,432,433,434,441,534 

sculptilis ...................... 16, 54,432,433,434,434,534 

sp .............. _ ................. -.. -. 534 

Capitan limestone, fossils from .......... 15-17,19-20,517-5611 

occurrence and character of ............. _ .. _ ... __ . 7,8,11 

Capulus ......... _ ........................ 455,456,457, 4G3, 464 

permoearhonicus................................... 458 

Carbonicola .......... __ .. ... .. .. .. .. . .... . .. . . . . .. . ... . 411 

car~;~~;t~~~~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: _ ~o1, !~~ plana ........... __ ................................. 407 

·Car~ioJ_Uorpha ..... __ . _ .......... 400,403,404,407,409,410,418 

mdwa ..... __ ....................... -.... : _ . .. .. .. .. . 400 

modioliformis .... : ..... _... ... . . ................... 415 

sp ............... -.... ... .. .... .. .... .. ...... .. .. . . . 12 

·Cardium ............ _.................................. 400 

Carin ella ............ __ ................................ _ 115 

Carinthian Alps, fossils of ........................ _ __ _ 36, 17 4 

Carnic Alps, fossils of. ... __ ................ 36, 58, 95, 106, 117, 

173,177,206,210,219,225,248-249,280,289,294,302, 

307,329,355-356,387,392, 413-414, 449, 462, 495,504 

Carterina ......................... -.......... _......... 94 

Central America, fossils of...................... 38 

Cephalopoda ........................ 13, 15, 23, 36, 49,490-502 

Ceratiocaris .... ___ .......... --.--...................... 505· 

-Ceratites djoulfensis .... __ .................. __ ...... __ . 494 

intermedius .. .' ................................ : __ .. 494 

pessoides .. _ .................. -. - -............ ___ . _. 494 

trochoides ...................... .,. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. 494 

tropitus ........................................ ,, 494 

Page. 

Ccriocrinus............................................. 107 

Ccriopora_lnrequabilis .................. , ........ ____ ... 115 

ramosa .. _ ............ _.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 

Cerioporidw. __ ...... ___ ....... ____ ...... __ ... __ ...... 119-125 

Ccrithium. ____ ...................... _ .. _ .. __ ........... 455 

ignoratum. _ ........ __ ...... , _ ............ __ .. ::... 455 

Chrenomya .. __ ....... __ .... _______ .. _____ ... ______ ... 405,418 

acuta .. _ .... __ '· ....... __ . __ ..... ____ . ~- ________ ... 406 

bmvenensis .. __ ..... __ . .. . . .. .. .. . . .. . ... ......... .. 406 

carinata ... "--"--"---"".--".""." ""." .. -- 400 

etheridgci. . _ .. _ ... ____ ........ __ .. ___ ... ____ .. .. . 405-406 

Chaetetes ..... ____ . ______ .......... _ .. _ .... __ ....... , ... 9.1,96. 

maekrothii. _____ . ____ .......... _ .. ___ ... __ ..... __ . 12,132 

sp ............. ____ ... __ ........... __ .. .. .. .. . .. .. . . 12 

Chainmlictyon __ ................ _ .. _ .. _................ 118 

Cheiropyge .. __ .................. _ .. _................... 50.6 

hima.layense ..... _ ..... _________ ...... __ .... __ ...... 503 

Chemnitzia_ ................. _______ ............. 455,463,486 

hoferiana ............. _ .. _ ....... _ . _ ........... .'. __ . 463 

swalloviana . ......... __ ....................... __ .. 12, 485 

volgensis ........ __ . _ ...... __ .. _ ....... __ ... __ . ____ . 458 

China, fossils of. .................. 31-32, 5V-57,59, 94,105,114, 

. 168-169,210,217-218,222-223,239-241,280,287,301, 

305, 326, 344, 346, 384-385, 391, 402-,403,453,491,503 

See al8o Kantschoufu; Lantsankiang Valley; Lo 

Ping; Pupjao; Batang; Talischau; 

Tschungtjen; Youngtschangfu; Tschanticn. 

Chios, fossils from ............ _ ................ _....... 33. 

Chitichun, fossils of. .... _ .. 30, 70, 94,105, 114,217,237,286,300-

301,304,325,342-343,344,384,391' 402,453' 490, 503 

Chiton ............................... __ ........ __ .. ___ 45,450 

loftusianus .................. _ ................ __ __ __ 450 

Chitonellus ........................................ _.... 450 

antiquus. _ .. __ .. _________ ................... _...... 450 

Chonetes ........ -.... 14, 188,216,217,218,220,221-230,250,251 

alatus ................................... _ ........ 223,224 

ama.zonicus ................... _. _ ... ___ ............ 225 

:~~~~i~~::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -~21,~;~ austenianus ..... _ .. __ ......... __ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 222 

harusiensis ..................... __ ................ _ . 222 

bipartitus .. _. _ .......... ______ ..................... 221 

buchianus. ___ . __ ... __ . ____ .. .. . .. .. .. . . . .. .. .. .. . .. 223 

capitolinus . --- .... ______ ........................ 224,225 

flemingi ....................................... 12,224,228 

var. go biens __ .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 222 

glabor ........................... _ ............ 222,225,226 

geinitzianus ............. : .. _. _ ... 221,222,223,225,226,227 

grandicostati (group) ..... __ ._ ....... 221,222,224,250,344 

grandicostatus-- ........... _ .............. ___ . ___ 222,235 

· granulifer ..................... _ .............. ____ 224,225 

hard rensis ............ __ .......... : _____ ....... __ 223, 225 

var. thibetensis ... _ ........ _____ ...... __ .... __ . 222 

hcmisphericus ......... _ .. _ ..... __ ............. _.... 222 

hillanus .......... 12, 16, 18, 21, 53,221,226,228,229,230,543 

vi1r. inflatus ...................... __ ......... 223-224 

kutorganus .......... _ .. _ ...................... _ . . . 222 

lreves (group) ............. __ ..... 221,222,223,224,225,226 

Jatisinuatus ........................... __ .. __ . .. .. . . 225 

lissarensis ................ _. ........... __ .. __ .. . .. 221, 222 

lobatus ... ~ ...................... ______ ............ 225 

mesolobus. ___ ............ ____ .. __ ....... 223,224-225,226 

mOlleri var. camicus . ............................ _.. 225 

mucronatus........................................ ·25 

morahensis ...... _ ....... _ ........................ -- 223 

nasnta ........ __ ................................... 223 

obtusus ..... --..................................... 225 
INDEX. .631 

Page. 

<:honctcs papilionaceus ....................... :. . . . . . . 223, 225 ! 

var. r1uispina .... -.- ....... --. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 225 

permiana ......................................... 12,226 

permianus. __ ............. _ ..................... 12, 18, 19, 

20, 24,25, 53,221,222,223,225,226,226-227,578,616 

pigmmus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 

platynotus ....................................... 226,227 

politus ................ :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 

productoides. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 224 

pseudoviolatus ................................... 222,223 

rotundatus .... :................................... 225 

sitltlatus .................................. __ .:..... 224 

.sinuosus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224-225 

.solidus .......................... ·.................... 224 

·striati (group) ................... 221,222,223,224-225,226 

.strophomenoides ................................. 224,225 

.subliratus _ ... _ .......... _ ... _ ... ;.· ................... 17, 

18, 19, 21,53, 221,222,223,224,225,228,228-229,230,578 

·timanicus .................................. . _....... 224 

transitionis ............... __ ... ~ ...... : ...... 221,222,224 

trapczoidulis ................................. 221,223,228. 

tuberculutus .... ........................ __ . ____ ..... 225 

uralica .................................... : . ..... 221,224 

uralicus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 

yar. pygrmeus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 

variolaris. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 

variolatus ............................ 222,223,224,225;226 

verneulianus var. spitzbergianus......... .. . .. . ... 225 

vishnu............................................. 222 

sp .......... 21, 22, 53,221,222,223,224,225,226,229,229-230 

··Chonet.ella ............................... 216,217,218,222,224 

artiensis........................................... 224 

dubia.............................................. 217 

JlliililllU . .................................. _. . . . . . . . 224 

sinuat&............................................ 224 

·ChorH'tina ................................. , .......... 218,224 

·Chrysostoma ........................................ 460,461 

Cireopora ............................ :................. 94 

Cladochonus ................................. ,......... 96 

·Cladopom ................................... 13, 93, 94,102-104 

seriata.... .. .. .. .. ....... ... .... ........ .. ... . .. .. . 103 

spinulat11. ....... 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27,51,102-104,569 

tubulata ...... .- ... · ................. 24, 26,51, 103,104,002 

·Clarkia myiformis..................................... 404 

-Cleidophonrs ................... 399, 400,408,410,412,H7--H8 

pallasi ....... 400,402,405,407,408,409,411,414,415,425,448 

var. delawarensis.~-----------: ... 21,55,447-448,592 

striatulus.......................................... 400 

trapezoidal is ....................... ."............... 400 

· Cleiothyridina. . . . . . . . . . . . 14,348,366,383, 384,385,386,387,388 

roissyi. ....................................... .-.... 387 

sublamellosa.... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 387 

suborbicularis .. .'.................................. .387 

·Cleiothyris ........................................... .-. 383 

Chdophorus hollebeni. ............................ ·.·... 414 

pallasi........ .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414 

·Climacammina ...................................... 56,57,59 

Clinolobus ............................................ . 

·Clinopistha ................. 399,400,407,409,413,418,419-420 

radiata............................................. 419 

var. hcyis ......................... 22,54,403,419-420 

silvre........................ .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 407 

Clisiophyllum ....................................... 94,95,96. 

australe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 

· ·Cochabamba, fossils from. See Bolivia. 

·Cmlcnterata..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,49, 88, 93-96 

·(;mlonautilus ......................................... 493,494 

Page. 

Cmnocystis ..................................... 106,108-109 

richardsoni ....................... 24,52,108-109,609,610 

Coloccras. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496 

Colorado, fossils from ................................ .".. 59 

Composita ...... ·. 14,~64,368,383,384,385,386,387,388-390,390 

. cmarginata· ....... .......... ----·· _____ .. 15, 16,17,18;21, 

23, 54,331' 383,384,386, 387' 388, 888-389,389' 390, 558 

VELr. affinis ....... 16, 24,27,54,383,384, 387,389,390,558 

mexicana ......... 27, 54,383,384,385,386,387,389-390,390 

var. guadalupensis ........ 22,54,383,384,387,390,599 

peruviana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387 

pseuUodielasma .. ----------- __ .. . . .... .. .. .. . .. . . .. 385 

subtilita ............... :. 383,384,385,386,387,388,389,390 

sp............. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384 

ConocardiunL ............... 403,404,405,406,412,413,414,418 

austrnle ... . · ....................... _................ 405 

hibcmicum ................. ." ............. ,.. .. .. ... 407 

siculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402 

uralicum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406 

Conularia..... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404 

CorRJliopsidre.......................................... 281 

Coscinium ............................................ 115,116 

michelinia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 

selliforn1e .......... ·................................ 115 

Crania .............. ." ...... : ............. 156,4.14,456,458,465 

modesta. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 

permiana ..... .................................... 12,1(16 

-sp .......................................... 16, 18,52,156 

Craniidre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 

Crassiconcha ......................................... 41(}-411 

Credncr, H., on Japanese fossils........................ 32 

Cribrospira ..... .................................... 57,59,U7 

Cribrostomum ............. ........... _ ..... _ ...... _ .57,58,59 

commune........................................... 58 

gracile............................................. 58 

sp. ................................................. 58 

Crinoidea ......................................... 13,105,108 

Cromyocrinus.......................................... 107 

geminatus......................................... 106 

ornatus ...... · ................................... '... 106 

simplex. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 

Crustacea ............................... 13,-15,35,36, 503-510 

Cryptacanthia ................................... 325;327,330 

compacta.: ........... c .•••••••••.•.....•••.•••.• 327,329 

Cryptocrinidre .......................... · ............ 108-109 

Cryptozoe.............................................. 505 

Cuculma ................................. :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428 

Cyathaxonia........................................... 96 

Cyathocrinns .................... , ............... 105,106,107 

ramosus ......................................... 106,107 

virgalensis......................................... 106 

Cyatlrophyllidre ............................... :........ 102 

Cyathophyllum ..................................... 94;95,96 

Cyclolobid.re........... .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502 

Cyclolo bus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 490 

hayden!. ................ ." .................... ·...... 490 

insignis.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 490 

kraffti. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 490 

oldhami ........................... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 490 

walkeri. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 490 

Cyclonema leavenworthanum ....................... .-.. 469 

Cyclotrypa.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 

Cyclus..... .... .... .. .. ...... .... .. .... .... ........... .. 505 

Cylindritopsis ........................................ 460,461 

conica. ... ... .. .. .. .......... ............ .. .. .... ... 461 

inflata .... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461 

ovalis................... .. . .. . . . ... .. .. .. . . .. .. .. . . . 461 
632 INDEX. 

Page. 

Cymatochlton ............ ___ . __ ---·-. ___ ............ 450-461 

texanus. __ .. _. ________ . _. ___ .. _ ....... 24,55, 450,461,618 

Cypricar<lella ............ __ .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405 

jackii. ....... _ .. _ .... _ ... . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405 

Cypricardia .. _ ........................ •................. 409 

Cypricardinia ... _. __ ........................ 399,406,418,446 

carbonaria......................................... 446 

contracta .... _ .. _ ..... _ .. _ ..... __ . _ ....... _ 16,55,446,536 

Cypridre................................................ 510 

Cypridella....................... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504 

Cypridellina.................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · 504 

Cypridina.. .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504 

Cypridinella..................... .. . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . 504 

Cyrt!na .... _ ....... _ .... _ ..... _ .... , .... _ ......... 347,353,378 

josephinre ....................... __ ............ __ ... 353 

Cyrtoceras ........................................... 493,496 

sp .. __ ................. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491 

Cystodictya ..... _ ..... _ ..... _ .................... _..... 118 

Cystodictyonidm .. _. _ ......... _ ............... ~ .... 154-155 

Cystoidea ...................................... 105, 108-109 

Cy_stothalamia ............................ 71,79,87,88, 89-91 

nodu!ifera .................. 15,25,27,5!, 74, 89-90,526,626 

sp ........................ -................... 16,51,91,.?26 

Cystothalamiidre .................................. 87, 88-91 

Cythere ... _. _ ............... _ .. .-.. _. _. : .. ... _ 503, 504,505,609 

curta ........................................ :...... 504 

sp __ ....... _ .... _ .. ___ ... _. _. _ ......... 18,55,505, 509,565 

Cytheridre ........................................... __ . 509 

D. 

Dalmanella frechi. _ ......... _ .......... : ............ __ . 287 

michelini. .......... _ .. _________ ... _.... . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 

Dana, J.D., on Australi11n fossils...................... 33 

Daraelites ......................................... :.... 495 

Dark limestone, correl11tion of ...................... _ .. 10,19 

fossils from ...... _ .......................... 17-20,568-585 

See also Delaware Mountain formation. 

Davidson, 1.'., on Kashmir and 'ribetfossils ............... 30, 

222, 236, 286, 304, 326, 344,384 

on Strcptorhynchus .......................... 175,176,198 

Daviesiella ................... __ .......... , _. _ ... _. _ .. 218,222 

sp.................................................. 217 

Decapoda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . 15 

De Kohlnck, L. J ., on Carinthian Alps fossils ...... 36,.174, 225 

on Orthotetes ........................... ·.. . . . . .. .. . 194 

on Productus .. _ ............... _ .................. 23G-231 

on Proioretipora........... ... . . .. . .. . .. .. .. . . .. .. . 144 

on New South Wales fossils ....... 33,96,107,115,144,169, 

223,241,288,289,305,326,347,385,404,454-455,492 

on Spitzbergen fossils ............. 37,249-250,251,356,463 

Delaware Mouutains formation, fossils of. ...... 19-27,588-625 

Delaware Mountains formation, members of............ 10 

occurrence and character of. ..................... 8,10-11 

Delaware Mountains, fossils from. 20-26, 51-55, 511-512, 608-fJ!S 

location and character of...... . . .. .. .. . . . . . .... .. .. . 8 

Delaware River, description of......................... 6 

Deltopecten ..... _. __ ... _ .... __ .... _ .......... 404,405,432,435 

Dcndricopora... ................ .............. .... .. ... 115 

Dentalidrn ........... __ .. __ ...... .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450 

Dentalina ............................................. : 58 

bradyi.. ... _. ___ . _. _. _. __ ........................... 59 

Dentallum ....... _. __ .. __ . _ ... _ .... _ ... _ .......... 449,450,491 

canna ........ _ ... ____ ............................... 449 

priscum ............ _ ..................... ·........... 449 

sorb!!..._ .. _._ .. _ ... · ..... __ ......................... 449 

speyeri. •..... __ . __ . _ ..... : . . __ .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449 

varicosum ..... _ .. _. _ .............. __ ............... 449 

Page. 

Dcrby,.O. A., on Brazilian fossils..................... 38, 

174,226,252,290,303,330,358,387,393 

Derbya ............... 36,157, l.IR, 160,161,162, 1C3, 164,165,166, 

167,170,171,172,171,175,179,181-186,186,190, 

191' 192, 193,196, 197,198,199,203,204,205,249,516 

~tltistriata..... ............................ ......... 173 

bennett!....................................... 202 

camerati (group). 100,161,165,166,181,193,194,196,197,516 

correna........... ... .. . . .. . .. . .. .. . . . 157 

crassa ..... . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . ...... 170, 1~ 

crcnulata ............. 23, 24, 26, 52,181,182, 183-184, 185, 60/f 

cymbula .......................... __ ................ 163 

eusarkos ........ _ .... _ ... : _. _ .... __ ..... _. . . . . . . . . . 157 

expansa................................... ......... 173 

grandis ....... -- ............................. 157,170,173 

nasuta ........................ 26,52, 182,182-183,184,606 

peregrina.......................................... 157 

plicatella ......... ~ ............................... 157,161 

regu1aris ......................... 157,161,164,170,181,196 

senilis ... -.... ___ .. _ ........... _ ...... 157,167,168,169,170 

scptati (group) .................. 100,161,16.5,181,193,196 

waageni............................................ 173-

sp .............................................. 1.1,16,17, 

18,23,24,25, li2, lft8, 170,182,18.1-186,194,539,542. 

Derbyia ............................................... 168,199 

crassa.............................................. 168 

senilis............................................... 16S 

De Vernrmil, E., on Orthotetcs ... _____ ... _.... ... ..... 194 

on Russian (Permian) fossils ... _ 171,194,246,302,352,493 

See also Murchison, De Verneuil, and Keyserling. 

Diablo Mountains, fossils from ......... 26,51-55,512)02,606 

location and character of. .. _ ......... _............ 8 

Dibunophyllum ...... _................................. 94 

Dictyonina ............................................. 76-78 

Dielasma ......................................... 50,30.5,324, 

325,326,327-328, 330, 3:!0-333, 333,335,339,391 

angustum.......................................... 328 

biplex ........................................ 325,327,334 

bovidens ...... __ ................................. 327,330 

carinthiacum........................ 329 

cordatum ..... _ ............... 16, .53,32.5, 327,331-332,504 

elongatum ..... ___ ............ . . 324,327,328,329· 

var. complanatum. _. ... . . ... 329 

Yar. Ia tum......... . . . ... .. .. .. 329 

var. sutllatum............... . . . . . .. . . .. . .. .. 329 

ficus ........................................... _ .. 325,327 

gillingense ..... : ...... _ ................ __ .... 324,32o-327 

guttula............................................ 324 

hastreforme. __ ... _ .. _. _. _ ........ _ ...... _.......... 325 

hastatum.......................................... 325 

ita.itLJbense: ..................................... _ 325,327-

latouchei. ....................................... _ 325,326. 

millipunctatum ___ ................................. 327 

moclteri................... .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. .. 326 

nummulus ..... ............... ____ . ______ . _ ... _. _ .. 324 

obovatum................................. ........ 330 

plica .... __ ........................... 327,328 

plicatum................................. 327 

problomaticum. _____ . .. .. .. . . ..... 334,337 

prolongatum ... 17,24,53,325,326,327,328,329,331,331,564 

sacculus ......... _....................... 324,327,328 

scutula tum_ .. ___ .... ~ 16,53,324,325,327, 330, 3:!2-3:!3, 565 

seminula ........ ·................................... 327 

spatulntum .............................. 12,15,16,18,20, 

25, 53,325,326,327,328,329,330, 330-331, 331, 564· 

suftlatum..... .. .............. ............ .. .. .. ... 328 
INDEX. 633 

Page. 

Dielasma supracarbonicuni ................ _. . . . . . . . . . . . 326 

sulcatum .............. 16,53,325,327,331,332,332,334,564 

toulai........ .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 329 

truncatum ................................... 325,327,331 

· uralicum ......................................... 327,328 

vesiculare ....................... , .. .. .. .. . .. .. . . .. 326 

sp.................................................. 327 

Dielasmimt .. ....... __ .. __ .. ____ ............ __ ... 324,:126,328 

guadalup(msis........ . .. . .. .. .... .. .. . . .... ... 16, 

18,53' 32fi,329, 333, 333-334' 334,564,565' 584 

perinflata ............................. 12,.<;3,333,334,334 

plicata ..... · ...................................... 325,333 

Diener, C., on Him~tlayan fossils ... 30,70,94,105,114,167-168, 

211,216-217,221-222,236-237, 281, 286, 300-301,304-

305, 325-326, 341-S44, 384,391, 402,453,490-491,503 

Dimorphoceras ............................... ,........ 496· 

Dlngeria dcpressa.. . . . .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . 95 

Dipeltis. . . .. . . .. . .. . . . .. . . .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . S05 

Diploporaria. ... .... .. .. . . . . .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .... . .. . 118 

Discites ........................................ : .. ... 493,496 

sp................................. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491 

Discohclix..................... .... ..... ..... .. ... ..... 483 

Disjectopora .... · ...................................... . 94 

Dithyrocaris .......................................... . 505 

glypta ............................................ . 505 

permiana......... ................................. 505 

Djoulfa, fossils of. See Annenia. 

Dolabra .............................................. 400,401 

macrothi........................................... 410 

Doliolir1a .............................................. . 

craticulifera ....................................... . 

44 

44 

Domatoceras. . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. . 496 

Domopora ............. 13, 19,42, 113,114,117,118,119, 119-121) 

constricta ................................. 18,52,123,573 

hillan!L............. .. ....... 27,52,123,124,626 

incrust!Lns... .... . .. , __ ........ 24,52,124-125,609 

ocellata ............... ~- ....................... 15, 17, 18, 

20,23,24, 25, 27, 52, 122-123,124,125,531,572,609 

termlnalis .. 16,17, 18, 20, 2.1, 24,52,120-122,123, 125,527,57!! 

vittat!L ......................... 18,24,52,123-124,573,609 

Donctz basin, fossils from........ . ........ 45!1-460 

D'Orbigny,A., on Orthotetes ....... ·........ 189 

on Bolivian fossils ... _ ... ___ ....................... 38, 

96,226,243-244,251-252,260, 28!1-290, 387,416, 464 

on Peruvian fossils . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. :157 

Doryceras.. ... .. . . . . . .............. ..... ............... 195 

Doryderma............................................ 71 

D'Oss!Lt. See Angelis d'Ossat. 

Douville, H., on Chinese fossils._ ..... _.,._............... 31 

Dumble, E. F. T., fossils supplied by................... 26 

Duncania.. . . . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. 488 

Dy!Ls, correlation of................................... 45 

fossils of. .................... :.. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. 45-46, 17 4 

See also Germany. 

Dybowskiella ............................ 113,114,115,116,126 

E. 

Echinoidea ................................. 105,108,110-112 

Echinodermata ............................... 13,49,105-108 

Edmondia ... 14,399, 400,404, 405, 406, 409, 410,412, 416,418,420 

aspinwallcnsis. . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. . .. .. 420 

bellula ............................................. 16,21, 

54,401,403,409,410,411,412,414,415,416,420,536 

elongata ....................... , ...... :.. . .. . ... .. . 414 

gl!Lbra... ... . . .. . .. .. . . ........ .. .... .. ... ..... ..... 420 

murchisoniana.... . .......................... 409,415 

nebraskensis .... __ . ____ .. _____ ............ __ . __ ... 420 

Page. 

Edmondia obovata.......... ......... ................. 406 

OVllta.............................................. 420 

semiorbiculata.......... .... .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. . 420 

striata. . . . .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 410 

suhorbiculata .. ------- .. ____ . ___ .................. 12,420 

suhtruncata....... ... .............. ............ ... 420 

sp ............................. 21,54, 404,411,412,414,420 

Egypt, fossils from.............................. 33 

El Capitan, fossils from ............................ 15, 16,512 

location and character of.......................... 8 

Elder, B. H., fossils collected by ............ 21-23,51,511-512 

Elliott,~-, fossils collected by....................... 25 

Emarginula sp . . . . . .. ..... . .. .. .. . .. . . .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. . 459 

Enderlc,J., on Asia Minor fossils ... 33,58, 95,106,117,172,219, 

223,246-247,289,302,307,352,387,393, 411, 449, 460 

Endolobus................................... 494,496 

Endothyr!L ............................ 56, 57, 58, 59,67-69,568 

sp ....................... .' ...... 15, 18, 20, 25, 51, 67-69,608 

England, fossils of..................................... 37, 

5S, 59, 71, 95, 107, 117-118, 17 4, 220, 249, 289, 303, 307 

329, 356, 387, 392, 416-416, 449, 450, 463, 495, 504-505 

Entalis................................................. 449 

Enteletes ................ 14,279,286,287,288,289,290,290-300 

andii............................................... 289 

angulatus ................. 26, 53, 2AA, 293, 295-296,299,606 

derbyi var. demissa................................ 293 

dieneri. .......................................... , . 293 

dorsisinuati (group)............................... 286, 

288,289,290,291,293,294-295,296,297,298 

dumiJlei .... :....................................... 26, 

27, 53, 286, 287, 288, 293, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 606 

elega.ns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2S6, 295, 300 

gaudryi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 

glo bosns. . . . . .. . . . . . . . 53, 286, 289, 293, 294-29o, 296, 299, 020 

hemiplicatus . 287,288,289-290,291,293,295,296,297-298,299 

ka.yseri. .......................................... 286,287 

lrevissimus ........ __ ........ _ ...... _ .. _. _. ___ ... _.. 286 

lamarcki. .. , ............................ :.. .. 287, 288, 291 

latisinuatus........................................ 286 

microplocus ............. .'.... .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 297 

cehlerti... . .. .. . .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 294 

pentameroides.... .... ......................... ..... · 286 

subrequivalvis .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 286 

sublrevis........................................... 298 

subquadrata . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 287 

suessi. . . . . . . . .............. ___ . __ ...... _. . . . . . . . 289 

tschernyschewi. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. 286, 298 

ventrisinuati (group) ....... 286, 2S9, 290,293,294,290-300 

wa~tgeni. . .. .. .. : ............... , .. .. .. .. .. .. . 286, 298 

sp .· 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 53, 286, 293, 294, 296-300, 584, 598, 606, 620 

Entolinm. . . . . .. .. . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. 405, 406 

aviculatus....... .... . .......... .............. ..... 414 

EntOTIJ..is ............................................. 503,504 

Entomoconchus ....... ....................... ___ .... _. 504 

Eocidaris. . . . . . .. . .. . . .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 107 

keyserlingi. ...................................... 106, 107 

Ephippioceras . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 490 

Epithyris elong!Ltum................................... 329 

sumatum .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. . 329 

Erisocrinus. . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 107 

Erosioi1, effects of._ .......... ___ ........ __ ............ . 

Estheria oblonga .. ; .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 504 

subconcentrica...................................... 504 

trapezoidalis. ... .... .. ...... .. .. .. .. ... ... .. .. ..... 504 

Etheridge, R., jr., on Bowen River (Australia) fossils.. 33, 

218, 391' 492 
634 INDEX. 

Page. 

Etheridge, R., sr., on Queensland fossils._ .... _ 33,96,107, 

115,169-170,218,223,242,288,305, 326,34G347,38G-386,391-392, 40S, 45S, 491-492, 503 

Etheridge, R., and Jack, R. L., on fossils of Queensland 

and New Guinea.·----·----··------·-· 33,346,391 

Eucllaris .... ______ .. ____ .. ___ . __ . _. 400 

Euchondria ______ .... ___ 399,400,401,405,406,418,431,432,441 

subpusilla _____ .. ___ ... ____ . _ .. _-' .. _ . ______ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ 441 

tenuillneata. __ .. ______ . ___ ·--- __ .. _. __ . ___ .. ___ . ___ 403 

sp ________ . _. __ . ______ . ____ 16,54,403,406,413, 415,441,534 

Euconospira ........ __ ...... 451,454,455,459,461,402,4 77--478 

halliana. ____ --· .. ________ ------- __ ___ 12,5.5,478 

obsolet,L. __________________ -.- __ .... __ .. 16,55, 454,-li7 ,532 

sp. ____ .. _. ___ -------- __________ . _. ___ . ___ ..... 23,55,478 

Eumetria. ________ -·-- ___ ----------- .. _ .. -. __ 391~392,393,'.32 

Euomplutlidao. ___________ . ________ .. ___ . __ ... _. _. _. 482-483 

.Eumnphalus ..... _ ......... ··;·· _ ..... ________ ... _ .. 451,452, 

453,454,455,456, 4.17, 459,460, 4G2, 463-404,482-483 

canaliculatus ....... _ .. _ .... _ ....... _. __ . _. _........ 456 

catillus __ .. ____ . _ ... ________ . _______ . ___ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 455 

exortivus __ ................... _ ... _. _ ............ _ _ 483 

oculus __ ._ .. __ . ______ ·--._. ________________________ . 455 

pawlowi. ________ ·- ___ . __ . ------- ___ ____ _ _ ___ __ _ ___ _ 458 

pentangulatus. _. ______ .. __________ .. __ . ________ . _ _ 453 

perversus _____ ·- _ .. _. ___ . __________________ . . . . 464 

sulcifer ___ . ____ . _. __ . __ . ____ 18,19,22,55,·l82-t83,4S.3,5G6 

var. angulatus .......... __ ..... 18, 19,5;),45il,483,566 

smnutrensis. _. __ .... _ ......... _ ... _. _.. 454 

tabulatus ...... ·.· ... _. ____ ....... _..... 455 

sp .................. ____ ...... ____ .. . . ... 4:j/ 1 {63 

Eupachycrinus. ____ . _____________________________ . _ _ _ _ _ 107 

Euphemus. _. __________ . -------- __ .. ____ ..... 4b2,462,463,4{)4 

nodocarinatus __ . ___ ...... _ .. __ ... _ ..... _. _. __ .. _. _ 459 

urei .. _ .. __ ... _. _ ... _ .... _. __ . _ .. _. __ ~. _. ____ .. __ ... 453 

Eu~ope, fossils of. __________________________________ .__ 35 

Eurydesma ___ -- _- _. _____ -________________ · _____ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 405 

cordatwn. _- -----. __ ----. __ ----------- __________ . _. 405 

St1CCU}US ••••••••.•..•• ___ •• __ ••••• _. _ •••• _ •••. __ •• _. 405 

·F. 

Favosi\;es ___________ .. ____ . ------- ___ ·----- ____ . _. _____ 94,96 

Favositidre. _________________ . __________ . ______ . ____ 102-104 

Fenestella. ________ . 105,112,113,114,115, 11G, 117,118, 132-142 

albuquerqueana __ . __________________ . _ _ _ 136 

antiqua. ________ . ___________________ . _______ . _ _ _ _ _ _ 134 

biriodata _________________________________ 138,139,140,141 

capitancnsis. ______________ _- ___ 15, 16,52, 13-l-135, 137,530 

corr1pactilis .. - ......... - -___ ..... _ ..... ___ . _ . . . . . . . 135 

conradi ... _.-. ·----- --------- ---· ............... __ _ 135 -corticata. _ -----· ____ ------ ______________________ ' 134,138 

delicatula __ - - ------ __ ---- _____________ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 138 

dentata. ___ --------- __ ----- ·-- ------ ____ _ _ __ ___ _ __ _ 141 

elegans. _______ -·--- _ :_ ·----- ------ __ -·-- _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ _ 133 

guadalupensis ________________________ 18,o2, 13i>-186,576 

Vl1f------ ---- ..• ----------- -·-- -----.- 18,52, 136-13_7 

hexagonalis- ___________________ . ____ . _ _ _ _ _ 134 

"hilli_---.---------------- --------------- 20,52, 134,141,576 

intcrmcdia. __ ------- __ -------------- _______ . _ _ _ _ __ _ 136 

kansasensis. ___ ----- __ ------ __ ------ ________ . ____ 110,141 

·modesta. _________ -------------. _______________ .. 138,140 

ovatipora. __ ------- _ ------ __________________ . _. _ __ _ 140 

parvipora. -------------------- __ , ___ .. ___________ 138,139 

patula ___________________________________ . ___ . _ _ _ _ _ 134 

perelcgans. ______ --- ______ --------. _ .. __ . _. __ . ___ . _ 138 

po11eana. ____ -- _______________ 12,52, 133-13-l, 135, !36, 141 

-remota. ________ ---- _________________________ ---_.-- 139 

retiformis ___ • __ ·-- ___ --·- _ •• ________________ --. _ 116,117 

Page. Fenestella shumardi _______ . ___________ _,. __ . ___ . ____ . 138,142 

spinulosa. ____ .- ___ . ________ 15, 18,24,52, 137-138,142,57_6 

subrudis ___________ . ______________ . __ . _ . ________ . 139, 140 

subrctiformls ________________ .. __________________ 138,141 

texana. ___________ ------- __________________ . __ 24,52,138 

vttriab!lis ______________ . _____________ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 136 

veneris _____________ . ___________________ . _________ ._ 115 

virgo sa. _______ · ______________ ._.____________________ 114 

worthcni_ ____ . _____________ · _____________ . _______ .. _ 134 

sp ______________ 18, 24, 52,117,118, 135,137, 13!1-142, 612,613 

Fencstellid:cP ________ . __________ . __ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 132-14!1 

Fistulipora __ . ______ . ____ ._. 112,113,114,115,118,120,12.>-127 

carbon aria ____________________ . _______ . _____ .. ___ . _ 126 

expansa _________ . __ . ___ . _______________ .. _. ·-- ___ 114,126 

grand is _______ . _______ ·-- ___ . ______ ._._. _____ 114,126,569 

vn.r. amcricn.na .. _. _ .......... __ ...... _ ....... _ _ 12 

var. guadalupcnsis. _. _ ...... _ ........... 1.5, 16,18,20, 

21, 23, 24,25, 27,52, 113,114, 11.1, 125-126,602,609 

guadalupm .. ---. _____ ---- _. _ _ 15,.52,126-127,527 

lahuseni_ ________ . __ . __________________ . _______ .... _ 116 

macklotL _____________________ . ~ ____ . ___ . ___ . _ _ _ _ 114 

mullerL _______ . ________ . ___ ~ _______ . _. ___________ 114; 115 

nodulifera ... -.--- ____ _- __ . ___________ . _______ . __ . ___ _ 126 

pttrasitlca.-- __ --- __ . ___ : _________ . _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 126 

permiana _ - - __ - - . ___________ . _________ . _________ .. _ 116 

tnberosa. ___________________ -·-- __ -.- __ . _. _. ____ .. _ 114 

SP-----·---·---·----------------------------·--- 27,.\2,114 Fistuliporidao. ____ . ______ .... ____________ . ___________ 125-128 

Fliegel, G., on Chinese fossils. ______ 31,32-33,168,240,287,453 

on Sumatra fossils __ - __ 33, 95,169,223,287,346, 38.5, 403,491 

Foordoceras ________ - ___ . _______ 490,491,493,495,496,497-498 

goliathus.---- __ ---- _-- __ . ____________________ --· _ _ _ _ 498 

shumardianum.-- _-.- ________ 16,_55, 490,496,497-498,536 

var. pr<ecursor__- -- __ --- ---- __________ 22,55,498,603 · 

transitorius. __________________ . __________ . ______ .. _ 498 

Foraminifera. ... _ ... _ ..... :!._. __ ...... _ ... _ 32,33,66-69,462 

Forbesiocrinus incurvus ... __ ....... _ .. _ ...... _. lOG 

Fossariopsis __________ .. - __ .. _. _____________ . _ _ 460,461 

Fossil localities, register of _______ .. ____ . _______ ._. __ 511-512 

Frech, F., on Armenian fossils _____________________ 172,288 

• on Australian fossils _______________________ . _ 33 

on Chinese fossils_,_-- ____________ . ___________ . ___ . 31-32 

See also Suess and Frech; Arthaber and Frech; 

Loczy, Lorenthey, and Frech. 

Fusulina ___________ -- .. - 13, 20, 32, 43-44, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61-65 

alplna var. communis. ____________ ._-- ______ ._____ 36 

cylindrica. ____ -· _____ ----- _ .· .. -· ______ , __ __ 59 

elongata ____________ - __ . _ 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 2( 25, 

27, .51, 56, 57, 59, 62-65,65,68,86,520, 568, 588, 589, 608 

longissima. ____ ---.---- _ .. _. ___ ·- ___ . _ .. _ __ _ _ 58,59 

regularis __ . ____ ' -- - _-- _ .. _______________________ . _ _ 59-eo 

verneuli ___ - ___ --- --- -- _ . __ - - - __ . ___ . ___ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 58, 59 

sp _________ .. ___ . _. __ -- _______ ... _. ____ . 15, 21, 24, 37, 51, 59 

Fusulina limestone, correlation of. ________ ., __ .. ______ 49 

fossils oL ____________ . __ . ___ 35--36,39,172-173,224,225,289 

See also Palermo; Carnic Alps. 

Fusulinella ... ----- _________ ,. ___ .. ________ 56, 57,58,59, 65-6< 

sp. _______ .. ___________ . ______ .. _____ 65-67,68,69,520,608 

Fii tterer .and Holderer, on Chinese fossils-·_ - - - ___ -. - _- 31 

G. 

Gabb, W. M., on Peruvian fossils __ --_ 38,107,118, 2.52, 290,329 

Gasteropoda ____________ - _. 13, 15, 22, 23, 36, 45, 49, 50,451-489 

Gastrioceras __ . • ____ . ____ 490,491,492,493,494,495,496, o00-501 

branneri . _ . ____ . _ . __ .......... _ ........... - . . . . . . . . 501 

jossre. ______ - ___ .--- __ - ____ -_- __ .---- _------ _-. __ --- 493 

martartum _ .......•....... · ... ----------------·-·· .. 490 roemerL _____________ - _______ ---- _________________ . 495 
INDEX. 635 

. Pa.ote 

Gastrioceras serratum •......... : ...... · .... 21, 23, 55, fiOO, 593 

sosiense ...... _ ...................... _ ............. _. 

\vaageni ................................. ___ ...... -. 

495 

495 

zitteli.... ..... .. ... ....... ........ ... ... .. . .. . .. ... 495 

sp .................................. 22,55,490,f>Oo-501,-6J8 

Geinitz, H. B .. correlation by ... ____ ................... 45 

on Gern1an foSsils ... __ . _ . _ . __ . _ ... _ . _ . _... . . . . . 37, 58, 71, 

106,117,174,219-220,249,290,302,308,329, 

356, 386, 414--415, 449,450,462-463,495,504 

Geinitzella.... .. . ............................ 116,117 

columnaris ....................................... 117,132 

''ar. ramosa multigemmata.... .......... .... .. 132 

crassa. ....... ...................................... 117 

Geinit7.it1 .......................................... 113,412,413 

postcarbonica . . . .. . . . . .. .. . . . . .. . .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . 59 

Gcmtnellaro, G.' G., on Palermo fossils_ . _ ... _ .... _ . . . . 35-36, 

95,106,172,211,289,302,307,310,328,353-

3M; 374,387,392,412,460-462,494-495, 504· 

on Sqnamularia ................................... 366,368 

Geodia. .......... .................................. 71 

Gertnany, fossils of .. _ _ _. _ ... _ ... _ ....... _ ...... 37, 58, 59, 71, 

95, 10&-107, 117, 219-220,249,289, 302,329, 

356, 387, 392, 414-415,462-463,495,504, MO 

fossils of, reslmblance of Ka.nsas fauna and........ 45 

Gervillia ..................................... 411,414-415,416 

antiqua ............................... , ........... 411,415 

ceratophagus .................................... 411,415 

longa ....................... ·........................ 403 

murchisoni. ....................... ·................. 415 

sedgwlckiana .......................... .' .......... ' 415 

sulcata............................................. 411 

sp ............ :..................................... 416 

Geyerella.... .. ............................... 13,161, 162, 

163,164, 165,167, 171,172,173,174,175,202,203-204,205 

americana .. : ....................... .' .. 16, 52,162,204,542 

distorta. .. . . .. . . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . .. .. 204 

eusarkos. . . . .. . . . . .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . 204 

gemmellaroi. ........ , ....................... • .... 161,204 

Girty,G. H., fossils collected by ....... , .... ; ........ 511~512 

Girty, G. H., and Tiill, B. F., exploration by.......... 9 

Glass Mountains, fossils from ........... 2&-27, 51-55, 62()-626 

Glyphioceras ................................ 492,493,495,496 

Glypllioceratidre ... : ................................ 60()...501 

Glyphodeta.......... . . . . .. . ... . .. ... .. .. ..... .. .... 459 

Goes, A. T. von, on Spitzbergen fossils................ 37 

Golowkinsky, N. A., on Russian (Permian) fos'sils ... 34,46, 

lli6, 246,352,386,411,459,493 

Gonhttites ................................... 482,491-492,493 

crcnestria. . . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. 491 

jossae....... ....................................... 493 

listeri.... .......................................... 491 

marianum .................................. · .... , .. 493 

micromphalus..................................... 492 

striatus............................................ 494 

Gonioloboceras .................................. , .. ~.. 496 

Goniocladia ............. 112,113,114,115,116,118,119, lM-165 

americana ...................... 16,24,25,52,164-165,530 

cellulifera. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . . . . 1M 

indica. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . 1M, 155 

Goniomya ....................................... 402,409,410 

kasanensis . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . .. . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. 402 

Gortani, M., on Carnic Alps fossils ............... : 36,58,95,. 

106, 173,225,249,308,329,346,413-414,449,462,495,504 

Gortani, M., and Regny, P. V. de, on Carnic Alps fossils. 36 

Gottsche, C., on Japanese fossils...................... . 32 

Gouldia ............ :.. . .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. . .. . 400 

Grammysiidre .......................................... 420 

Page. 

Granatocrinus......................................... 107 

Graphiocrinus... .. ................................. ... 107 

Griffithides ............... : ...................... 503,504,505 

gruenwaldti .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 504 

Gryphochitonidre ................................... 45()...451 

Gschelian fauna, correlation of. .............. 39-40,47-49,50 

fossils of.. .. . .. .. . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. .. .. . . .. . . . . . .. . . · 57 

See also Tschernyscbew; Nikitin; Keyscrling; Ts-

. cheryschew; Sibirizew. 

Guadalupe Mountains, description of.................. 5-6 

fossil localities in ................................ .>11--512 

fossils of. ............................ ·.. .. .. .. . .. .. . 5-55 

detailed descriptions of. ...................... 5&-512 

figures showing .......................... 513-600,603 

geology of.......................................... !\-7 

sections of ........................... .'.......... 8,9 

south end of, fossils fronL ........ _ .... __ . 19-20,23,51-55 

structure of. ....................................... · 7-8 

Guadalupe Point, description of. ......... ·........... 6,8 

fault at .................... :....................... 17 

fossils from........................................ 17 

Guadalupia .............. .' ...................... 79-86,87,90 

cylindrica ... 15, 16,17 ,51, 74,80, 81-82,83,84,93,102,521,624 

var. concreta ..................... 16,51,70,82-83,524 

var. robusta ......................... : ... 15,.11,83,84 

digitata ..................................... 17,51,84,521 

favosa ...................................... 16,.11,83,526 

zitteliana ......................... 16,27,51,8()...81,82,524 

var ......................................... 16,51,81 

sp ..................... 15,17,25,51,84-86,520,521,524,609 

Guadalnpian fauna, collection of...................... 7 

numberol.......................................... 12 

range and distribution of. ......................... 51-55 

zoological groups in................................ 13 

Guadalnpian series, correlation of ..................... 40-43 

introduction of term............................... 10 

reference of. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11 

Guad~tlupiidre ...................................... 79-86,90 

Guatemala, fossils from............................... 38 

Gumbel, C. W., on Tyrolese fossils..................... 37 

Gurhwal. See Kumaon and Gurhwal. 

Gyroceras ... · .. : .. ................................ 490,491,494 

dubium............................................ 491 

II. 

Hall, James, on Cladopora .......... , .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. . 103 

on Tcrebratula ....... :............................. 389 

Hall, James, and Clarke, J. M., on Derbya .......... 163,196 

on Enteletes ............................ .-.......... 292 

on Orthothetes.................................... 196 

on Richthofeniidre...... ..................... ... ... 281 

on Streptorhynchus .. _. .......................... 158,176 

on Strophalasla. .... .. .. .. ......................... 274 

rrallla.................................................. 94 

naphisteon............................... ... . .. .. .. ... 71 

Harada, T., on Japanese fossils........................ 32 

Uaughton, S., on Arctic fossils........................ 37 

Hellolites muller!...................................... 114 

Hemldiscus ................ · ............................ 59,69. 

Hcmifusulina.......................................... 57 

Hemitroch!scus... ...... .. .. ...... .... . ..... .. .. .... .. . 504 

Hemyptychlna ........... 324,325,326,327,328,329,335,338,391 

carnicola........ .............. ............... ... .. . 329 

orientalis. . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . . 327 

pyg:rnooa ...... _____ .. -- .. -----. : .. _ .•...... _. ____ ... _ 327 · f 

sp ................. : ... ,............................ 338 
6B6 INDEX. 

Page. 

Heterelasma ........................ 3241325,326,328,337-339 

shumardianum ........ :.. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 15, 

·16, 24,25,54,328,337' 338-339,339,560,617 

venustulum .... , ................ 16,24,2.''i,54,339,339,560 

Hexacoralla ... : . ................................... 102-108 

Hcxactinellida ......................................... 76-78 

Hcxagonella. . . . . . . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. 113 

Hill, B. F., aid of...................................... 51 

fossils collected by ............................... "511-512 

Hill, B. F., and Girty, G. H., exploration by........... 9 

Hill, R. T., exploration by ............................ . 

fossils collected by ................... 19-20,26,51,511-512 

Hima1aya Mountains, fossils of ...... ~ .. 30,39,70,94,105,114, 

167-168,211,216-217,221-222, :!;!5-238, 285, 286,300-J01, 

304-305, 325-326, 341-344, 384,391, 402, 453, 496-491,503 

See also Niti; Spiti Pass; Tibet; Kashmir; Chitichun; Kumaon and Gurhwa); Malia Sangcha; Lissar Valley; Byans. 

Hinde, G. J., fossil catalogue by ......... -.. . .. .. .. .. .. 71 

Hippothoa.. ... . .. . . .. .. .............. ................. 117 

Holasterella ....... _. __ ...... _ ............... _ .......... 71 

Holderer and Fiitterer, on Chinese fossils . . . . .. .. .. .. 31 

Holopella ............... _____ ........... .... .... ...... . 452 

Hornsund. See Spitzbergen. 

Hueco formation, correlation of ....................... 48-49 

fossils from ............... -........................ 26 

occurrence and character of... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. 1 11 

See also Guadalupian series. 

Hungarites........... ............ ...... ...... ......... -494 

Hustedia .......... -- ........... -... 390,391,392,393,393-399 

ambigua ....... :................................... 392 

bipartita ..... 18, 20, 24, 27, 54,390,391,392,393,398-399,622 

compressa .. , ............................. _ ...... 391,393 

grandicosta .................................. 391,392,393 

indica ................................... __ . ___ ... 391,392 

meekana .. 12, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 27, 54,314,390,391,392, 

394-396,396,397,398,399,556,582,583,599, 617;622 

var. trigonalis ....... _-. ·16, 17, 18, 54,396-397,565,583 

mormoni .................. -.............. 392,393,394,395 

nathorsti. ..................... -.......... _.. 393 

papillata ........ _ ......... -- ... -........ . ___ 12, 17, 18, 

21, 22, 27, 54, 390, 391, 392, 393, 395, 396, 397-398, 622 

permocarbonica ...... -... -.- -........... _. . . . . . . . 392, 396 

pseudocardium .................................. _ _ 392 

remota ................ -............................ 392. 

Hyalostelia. .... ....................................... 71 

Hyattoceras ........ -............ ·. ...... . . ..... ........ 495 

cummingsi... ... . ... ...... .. ... .............. .... . 400 

Hydreionocrinus.. .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . .. . . .. ... . . 107 

Hydriocrinus....... .. . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 105 

pusillus. . . . . .. .. .. .. . .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 106 

Hypocrinus ............. ------ ....................... 106,109 

Hypothyris .................... -....................... 313 

I. 

lgidi, fossils of. ...................... 251,289,357,416,495,505 

Illustrations, arrangement of. ...... _.................. 28 

India. See Salt Range; Himalayas. 

Indian Archipelago, fossils of. .................... __ .. 32-33, 

57, 94,106,114,169,210,223,287 

See also Timor; SUlllatra. 

Indo-China, fossils of. ............................... .. 32 

Inoceramus concentricus. . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. 188 

lnvolutina ........ -... -- .... -.. -....................... 56 

Irregulatopora......................................... 94 

_ Italy, fossils of.. .................................... 35--36,39 

See also Palermo; Tyrol. 

_ . J. Page. 

Jack, R. L., and Etheridgti, R., on Australian fossils.. 33,. 

346,391 

Jakolew, N., on Russian fossils ............... 34,459-460,493 

Janeia................................... .... . . .. .. . . . . . 415-

biarmica. . . . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 415-

phillipsiana. . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. . 415-

Japan, fossils of ........................... ~ ............ 32,56 

K. 

Kansas, fossils of. .............................. _ 39, 40-50, 59 

Kansas Permian, correlation of. .................... 39, 40, 50· 

Kantschoufu, fossils of ......... ___ .............. 94,114,217, 

222, 240, 287, 326, 345, 384-385, 391, 403, 453, 491, 503 

Karpinsky, A., on Russian (Artinskian) fossils ...... 34,492 

Kashmir, fossils from.............. _ _ 30, 114, 167,216, 

222,235--236,301,304,325,326,341,384,391,402,503 

_Katzer, F., on Brazilian fossils .............. _ 38 

Kayser, E., on Chinese fossils.... 94,114,168,211,217,239-241, 

287,301,305,326,344,384.391,402-403,453,491,503 

Kayser, E., and Schwager, C., on Chinese fossils .. _.... 31 

Kent, fossils from near ............ _ .. __ .............. _ 25· 

Keyser ling, A. von, on Russian fossils .. _ . _ . .. . . .. .. .. . 411 

See also Murchison, De Vemeuil, and Keyserling. 

Keyserlingina. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . ..................... __ . 210 

King, W ., on English fossils ........ _.... .. .. .. .. .. . .. . 37, 

43, 58, 71, 91, 95, 107, 117-118, 220, 249, 303, 308, 

329, 356, 387, 415-416, 428, 449, 463, 495, 504-505' 

Kirbyia ....... __ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 504 

permiana ................................... __ ..... 504 

Kohlenkalk, fossils from ............................. 95,115 

Korea, fossils from ...................... · ......... __ ... 32 

Kossmat, }'., and Schellwein, E., on Bellerophon limestone .. ,.................................... 37 

See also Schellwein. 

Kostroma, fossils from ............... 46,246,302,351,409,493 

Krafft, A. von, on Bokhara fossils.................... 31 

Krotow, P.l., on Russian (Artinskian) fossils ....... 34,35, 

58, 116, 171,218,224,245-246,288,300,328 

350-351' 386,408-409, 449, 450, 457, 493, 504 

Kumaon and Gurhwal, fossils of...................... · 30 

221' 235,325,343,384, 402,490 

Kungurstufe, fossils, from ... 106, 116,224,328,407-408,493,504 

L. 

Lffividentalium ....... : .............................. 449,450 

Lagena .......................... --..................... 32 

Lantsankiang Valley, fossils of. ..... 114,301,305,345,403,453 

Leaia ................................................ 504,505· 

Lecythiocrinus......................................... 107 

Leda ........................ 399,408,409,410,413,415,416,422 

attenu~ta.......................................... 422 

bellistriata, . .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. . . . .. .. .. 422 

kasanensis ............................. -- . . .. .. . .. 410 

speluncaria ...................... 402,407,408,409,410,414 

vinti........ ........................... ... . . .. .. .. . 415 

sp ............................. 22,54,405,407,414,416,422 

Ledidffi .............................................. 422,448 

Leioclema .......................... 112,113,118,119,181-132 

puncta tum ........................ -................ 131 

shumardi. .......... 12, 15,16, 17, 18,20,24,52,131-132,576 

Leiopteria ...................... -...... --- -- -- .... -.. -- 412 

sp.................................................. 402 

Lepetopsis go!owkinskyL............................. 458 

Lepidesthes lffivis ..................... :. .. .. .. . . .. . .. .. 106-

Leptffina ......................................... 167,169,251 

rhomboidalis ............................. 169,174,235,253-
• 

INDEX. 637 

Page. 

]Aptodes ................. _ .... ____ .. ______ ..... _ .. ___ 211-212 

Leptodon ...... __ ....... -..... ____ . ________ . _ .. ______ 211-212 

Leptodus ....... _ ... _ ....... 14,26;32,39,210,211,211-215,287 

americanus. _. 17,21,24,26,27,53,212-213,214,215,517,602 

guadalupensis .......... --- _______ 16,53,213-215,215,517 

nobilis. _____ .......... __ ·--- _ ------- ________ ·------ 212 richthofeni. ______ . ___ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 211 

tenuis ___ . ____________ . __________________ .. ______ . _ _ 212 

·Leptopora._ ... ___ .-- __ --------- __ -.------- __ ------_____ 94 

Liebea. ___ . __ .. _________ . ____ 400,401,402,409,411,412,413,414 

hausmanni. ____ ---- .. _______ ----- _____ -·-- 45,407,408,414 

meditcrrana. ___________ --------- _____ ..... -------- 412 

L!linthioccras sp. _____________________________ -------·- 490 

Lima. _______ ... _____________ , 400,401,406,407,412,415,418,442 

artiensis. _ ·: ________________________ ----------·--·- 408 

conncctcns. _________________________ ---·--- ---·--·- 413 

haueriana .. ___________ ---- __________ ---·-------- ... 403 

kasancnsis . ___________ .. ________ .. ____ . ________ .·. _ 410 

kazanensis ____________ .. ________ .. __ .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 407-•108 

permiana ...... _________________ ... _____ ----- 408,410,415 

retifera. _________________ . _________ . ___ . __________ . _ 402 

retiferiformis ___________ . _____________ . __________ 410,414 

subretifcra ........ ---------------------------------. 413 ~Limatulina .. ________________ . _______ 399,412,413,418,442,443 

consanguinea. ______ .. ------ ______________ ------ ... __ 413 

retifera. __ . __ . _____________ : __________________ 418,442,443 

striaticostata .. 16,54, 401,402,403,406,408,413,418,443, 5S5 walcottianus. ___________ . ___ .. _________ . ___ . ____ .. _ 410 

Limestone, correlation of. ______________ . ___ .. _. ______ . 10 

See also Black limestone; Dark limestone; White 

limestone. 

Limestone, occurrence and character of ___ . __ .. _. _ _ _ _ _ 7 

Limidm. ___________ -----------··- -·------ _______ 413,442-443 

· Limipccten. ___ . ___ . ___ .. ____ . __ .. __ . -- _____ ... _. __ ... _ _ 405 

Limnma ... ----- __ .. _ ------ ---------· ---- _ --·---··- ____ _ 483 

Lindstrmmia. _______ ... ___ .-. __ .. ____ . ______ .. _ 93,94, 97-100 

columnaris ..... ___ ------------ __ ---- _ ------- ----·-- 98 cylindrica. ____ . ___ .. ________ . ____ . _ 18,51, 99-100,102,569 

perrniana. _________ . __________ . ___ . _______ . ________ 12,16, 

18,20,22,23,24,25,26,27,51, 96,97-99,100,101,569 

var. ________ ------------ ___ .... ___ 18,20,24,51,99,569 

sp.' __ . __ --·- __ -------- ____________ ------·- _ 18,20,51,100 

·Lingulidiscina. _. ____ ... -------- ____ .. -------· __ .... ... 156 Lingulina. ____________ .. ____________ .. ______ .... _ 56,57,59,69 

szechcnyii. ________ . ______________________ . ___ . ____ . 69 

sp. ______ ---· _ .. ___ ------ ____________ -----·· 25,51,69,608 

Liospira ________ . _____ . ______ _ : ___________________ . _ _ _ _ 477 

·Lissar Valley, fossils of. ______ 30,221,238,325,343-344,384,453 

Lithistida .. ------. _ .. ---------.--------. ------·- 70, 71,71-76 Lithodomina. _________ . _________ . _________________ . __ 400,401 

Lithodomus. ________ .. ________ .. __ .. 400,401,406,413,417,448 

atavus. ___ .. ______ -- ________ ---- ____ ~----- _ ___ ___ __ 401 

Lithophagus. ___ .. ___ -- __________ ----- ___________ . __ ___ 448 

.Lithostrotion. ________ ---.------- ___ . _ ------- ______ . 94,95,96 

Loczy, L., on Chinese fossils _____ . _______ . ___________ 94, 105, 

114,168--169,217-218,222-223,240,287,301, 

305, 326,344-345,385,391, 403,453,491,503 

Loczy, L., Lorenthey, E., and Frech, F., on Chinese 

fossils._ ............. _ ........ _ ..... _ .. ____ . 31 

Lonsdaleia ______ .. _ ... ____ . ___ .. _ .... ________ .- .. 13, 32, 94,95 

indica .. _·---------- ___ ---- __________ -- __ ---------.. 37 

·Lophophyllum. ___________ ---- ________________ 94,95,96,97,98 

profundum. __ ·--- ___________________ ------- ____ ... _ 96 

LoPing, fossils of. .. ________________ . __ ---------- _____ 31-32, 

114,168,211,217,222,239-240,280,287,301, 

305, 326,344,384,391, 402-403,453,491,503 

_Lorenthey, E., on Chinesefossils...................... 57 

See also Loczy, Lorenthey, and Frech. 

Page. 

Lori pes. ___ ..... _ .... __ ... _ ... __ ...... · .. __ .... _ ....... _ 400 

Loxonema ........ _______ . ____ . ___ . _ .. ___ . _ .. 451,452,453,454, 

455,456,457,458,459,460,461,462,463,464,486,486,487 brevis .... ________________________________________ .. 463 

cerithiiforrne. _____ ... _________________ .. ___ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 486 

conicum ... __ -- -----·-- _________ ----- -----· ·---··-- _ 456 fasciaturn. ________________ .. ___________________ ... _ 463 

geinitzianum. __ ... ___________________________ . ... .. 463 

inconspicuum ___ . _________________ 22; 55,461,463,486,600 

omamentarium. _____________________________ ... _ _ _ 458 

peoriense .. _______________________________________ 459,486 

phillipsi. __________ .... ___ .. _____ ... __ . ___________ 41\7,458 

swallowianum. ___ 455,456,457,-458,459,460,461,462,463,487 

swcdenborgianum. ___ . _____ --------- _ ____ ____ ___ _ _ 463 

szechenyii . .... ____ ....... _ ........ _ .... _ _ _ _ _ 453 

sp ...... -.... __________ . __________________________ 455,458 

Luciella. _ .. _____ . ______________________________ . ____ . _ _ 455 

gray! ........ _ .... ________ .. __ ... __________________ . 455 

Lncina ___ . ___________________________________ . ___ 400,403,409 

minnta .. ________ ---- __ ------- _______ -------- ---· .. _ 414 

Ltmdgren, B., on Spitzbergen fossils. ___ .. ____________ 37 

118,174,251,329,393,416,463 

Lyttonia .. - _ ....... __ .... __ ... _. __ .. __ .. __ ... _. 32,36,210,211 

Lyttoniinre. __ . -- ___________ . ____ . ___________ . ______ 210-215 

M. 

McKittrick Canyon, fossils from .. ___________ ._________ 17 

Macrocheilina. _______________ .. _ 451,453,454, 451)-457,488-489 

angu_l!fer .... ___ .. ________ .. ____ . _____________ ... _. _ 453 

intercalaris. _ .. __ ... ___________________________ . _ _ _ 460 

kreitneri ___ . __ . ____ ... _______ . _. _________ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 453 

modesta. __ .......... -.......... _ .. 22,55, 461,488,489,600 

sp ............. -- _ .. -- ... --. 21,25,55, 460,461,488,489,594 

Macrochcilus. ____ 452, 41J3, 454,455-456,457,459,460,461,463,488 

avellanoides. _______________________________ . _. __ _ _ _ 460 

barroisi.. __ . _________ . ___ .. ______________ . _____ .. _ _ 461 

brevis_: _______________ . ______________________ . ____ . 488 

globosus. _ .. __ ... _ -- .. ___ . ____________________ ... _ _ 459 

nitldnlurn .. ____________________ . _. ____ . ___________ . 4.54 

permicns. _ .. ______ ... _____________ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 459 

subnl!toides. ______ ... _______________________ . _ _ _ _ _ _ 461 

Macro don .. _ .... _ ... __ .-- .... 400, 401, 403. 406, 408, 412, 422, 423 carbonarius ___________________________ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 403 

comptus ...... __ . ___ ---------- -----·---- .... ____ ... · 412 

kinganns ... ___ . ___ .. ------- ____ ... _______________ 409,-410 

knngurensis _______ . _- ___ .. _________________ -·- _ _ _ _ _ 407 

lalisinuatus _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 412 

multilameiiMus _. __________________________ . _. ___ .. 412 

parvulus ... _______ ... __ ... ________ _ : ___________ . _ _ _ 407 

striatilamellosus. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 408 

striatus ......... __ . ___ .... __ ... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 410 

tenuistriatns .. ____________________________ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 403 

whitei. .... -..... __ ... ____ . _________ . ___ . _____ .. _ _ _ _ _ 412 

sp- .. --------- -·----------------- .... ___ ' .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 408 

Mmonia .... ------------------- ____ ---------- ... _ ... __ 404,405 carinata. ____________ . _________________________ . _ _ _ _ 406 

recta. ________________ ----·-- __________ ---·- ____ --·. 406 

Malia Sangcha, fossils of.. ______________________ . ____ 30,105, 

167,217,237-238,286,304-305,325,343,384,402,453 

Mammilopora ____________________ ----- __________ ------ _ 71,91 

mmnrnillaris ... ----------- _____________ ------------ _ 71,91 

Marathon, Tex., fossils from near_. _______________ .. __ 36 

Margarita .. , ... _______ .. _____________________ .. _ .. _____ 452 

Margaritina. __________ ----- __________ -------·----- ___ . 56,86 

Marginella. ____ ··--- ------- ··--·---· __________ ----·· .. . 36 

Marginifera .... ___ . ____ . ____ .. __ 216,217,218,219,220,221,232, 

234,247,248,249,252-253,259,260,268,270,271,273 
638 INDEX. 

l'age. 

Marginifera camiolicus ..... .... --.. .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . 219 

dcsgordinsi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 

helica ............................................ 216, 217 

himalayensis ................................. 216,217,235 

juresanensis......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 

Iongispina.. .. . . . . . .............. 219,259 

var. lobata.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 

Iongispinus .... .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 

magnicosta............. .. . . . . . . . . . 217 

muricata...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252 

ovalis ... _ .. __ _ __ .... ! .. _ ...... 37,216,217 

pusilla....... . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . 219 

spitzbergiana...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 

spinosicostata .................................... 216,271 

splendens ....................................... 216,268 

subhorridus... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 

transversiL. _ ... _ .. _ ............ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 

typica... ................. . ............... 217,218 

wabashensis.............. 252,259,260, 2Gl, 268,273 

Martin, K., on Timorfossils ....... 32, 94, 106, 169,241,345,385, 

Martini a ............. 333,339,340,341,342,343,344,346,347,348, 

349,350,352,3.53-354,355,356,358,359, 364-366,368 

acutimarginalis..... . ....................... 342,343 

bisinuata.......... . . . . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. 354 

bittneri. ...... . 

carinthiaca ... _ 

354 

354 

clannyana.. . .. . . .. . .. .. .. . . . .. . . .. .. .. .. . .. . .. 350 

contractus. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. .. . . .. . . . . .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. 355 

cornelia .. _._ .. __ ........ _ ............ _ ....... _ ... :.. 354 

contracta..... ... .... . ... .. . . . . . . .. .. . .... .. . . . .. . . 342 

corcultlm ...... ..... __ ... .. . . ... .. ... . .. . ... ... ... .. 340 

distefanoi. . . .. .. . . .. . .. .. . . .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. . . 354 

elegans ........................................... 342,343 

frechi............................................... 3.14 

glabra ................................ 340,345,348,351,354 

Iinguifera.. . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . .. .. . . . .. .. .. . . . . . .. . .. .. 349 

macilentus... ... . . . ... .... .. ... . ..... .. .. . .. ... ... . 355 

nucula.............................................. 346 

planiconvexus. .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. .. . . . .. . . . . .. . .. 345 

polymorpha......... .. .. .. .. . .. ............... 349,354 

productoides.................... .. . . . .. . . . . .. . 346 

rhomboidalis................ .. ....... 16, 17, 21, 23, 25, 

54,333,342,343,346,349,350,351,354,364-366,552 

rupicola. .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . 354 

semi plana................................ . . 342,354,356 

shumardiana ....... · 16, 17, 54,342,343,354,355,365-366,551 

sub plana. .. . .. . . . . .. . .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. . . . .. .. . . . .. .. 350 

subquadrata.... . ............................... 344,354 

variabilis. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 365 

warthiL.. . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. .. .. .. . . . . .. . . .. .. .. . . .. . . 340 

w!nchiana... . .. . . . .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. . . . .. .. .. . .. .. . 356 

Martiniopsis ............. 339,341,345, 34&-347, 348,349,360,353 

aschensis... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349 

baschkirica. .. . . . .. . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . . 349 

darwin!. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346 

nucula.... .. . ... .. ... .. ... .. .. .. . ................... 353 

oriforrnis.... ... . . .... ... . .. .. ... .. ... ......... .... . 347 

planiconvexa .......................... •... .. .. . .. .. . 353 

rhomboidalis....................................... 353 

subpentagonalis .................................. 341,353 

Medlicottia ................................... 492,493,495,496 

Meekella ..... 157,160,161,162,163,164,165, 166,167, 168,169,170, 

171,172,173,174,175,176,204,205-209,210,289,297 

uttenuata .. 22, 26, 52, 172, 205, 206-206, 208, 209, 598, 599, 602 

baschklrica. ... .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. . . . . .. .. . . 170 

difficills ........... 27, 52,171,173,205,207,206-208,208,621 

exemia ....................................... 157,170,171 

• 

Pug e. 

Meekella eximiforrnls...... .................. 170 

multilirata ........................ 22, 52, 205, 208-209,598 

occidentalis .......... :.......................... 20& 

olivieriana ............. , . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 

pyramidalis.... . . . .. . .. .. .. . . . . . .. .. . . . . . 206 

skenoides .... · ................... 23, 27, 52, 205, 206-207, 621 

striaticostata.. .. .. .. .. .. .. · 162, 

163, 168, 170, 174-175, 176,204,205,206,208,209 

striatocostata . . .. .. .. . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . .. . . 157 

ufusis . .. _ ... __ ... __ .. __ .. __ .... __ _ 

uncitoides_ 

170 

170 

vinassai. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 173 

sp.............................. 170 

Meekopom.. ... . . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. . . . . . .. 112.1l3, 118, 127-128 

prosser!........................ 128 

sp ..................................... 2i, 52, 127-121'1, 626 

Megalodus sp....... . . . . . . .. .. . 402 

Megarhynchus............. ... .. . . . . ..... . . . . 36 

Merismbpteria ..... __ ................................ 404,405 

macroptera. . . . . .. .. . .. . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . . . . .. . .. .. .. . 405 

Mesoblastus... . . . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. . . .. .. .. .. .. 107 

Metacoceras ......... :. .. .. . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 493, 491i 

trigonotuberculatum............................... 493 

vatiabile . .". . .. . . . . .. .. .. .. . .. . .. . . . . ·l93 

Michelinia .................................... 13,94,95,96,99 

Microdon.............................................. 445 

Miliola................................................ 58 

Millepom.............................................. 96 

oculata................ ... .. .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. .. .. 118 

Milleroccras. .. . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 496 

Mississippi Valley, fossils of. 38, 39, 59-60; 134,135,136,137,139, 

141, 146, 1.11,174-175,176, 183,220,252,255,290,293,393 

Mjntschkowa, fo9'ils of ............................ 95,194-195 

Jlfodiola ...................................... 400,402,407,408 · 

gigantea ................... ,............ ........... 407 

simplicissima.. __ .. _ ......... ---------- ...... :.. .... 409 

teplofi.. . . . .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . . . .. . .. .. .. .. .. . 406 

transparcns .................................... :... 401 

sp.................................................. 411 

Jlfodiolopsidrn ........................................ 443-445 

Mud;~;~~::.·_·_-_-::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::·. ~8, :~ globosus........................................... 410 

mytiliformis . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . . . . . .. . .. .. .. 405 

~:~:~~!!·.-.-.·.·.::::: ::::::::::::::::::: ...... 407,408,409, :~ teplowi.... .... ..... .. .. . ...... .. . . . ...... 402,408 

Modiomorpha.......................... 405 

daintreei............................ .. .. .. .. .. . 405 

:Mogulia.. . .. .. .. .. . .. . .. . . .. .. .. .. .. . . . .. . . .. . 452, 460, 482 

sp .............. ·.................................... 462 

Moller, V., on Fusulinella. ...... ............ .... .. .. .. . 68 

on Persian fossils.................................. 33 

on Russian fossils ...................... 34, 57, 58, 67, 68,69 

:Mollcrina ......................................... 44,57,58,59 

Mollusca .............................................. 35 

Molluscoidea .. , ................ : .................. ". 112-166 

Monactellidrn................................. 71 

:Monilipora ........................... : ................ . 95 

Monogenarina nodosariiformis .. ......... __ . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 

:Monopteria. . . . . .. .. . .. .. . . .. .. . .. . .. . .. .. .. .. . . . . .. . 415, 418 

Monotis. ... .. . . ... .. ... .... .... ... .. .. .. .. . . .. .. . . .. .. . 418 

speluncariu ........................................ 12,15 

sp ............................................... ~.. 12 

Monotrypa..................................... 113 

Monticulipora .... , ............................... 115,116,117 

:Mortiera vertebralis................................... 71 
INDEX. 639 

Page. 

Mourlonia _____________ ........ ------ ............ -.. __ . _ 455 

coniformis _____ . ___ -. -.. ---.---- -........... -. _ _ _ _ _ 455 

bunica _ . ____________ .... -.- .... -. - _ .. ___ ... , _ .. _ . _ _ _ 453 

Murchison, R.I., De Verneuil, E., and Keyserling, A. 

von, on Russian· fossils ..... _ .......... _ 35, 95,411 

Moskovian fatina, correlation of------_._._ .. -... - __ 47, 48,50 

See also 'rrautschold; Sibirizew. 

Murchisonia _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 451, 452, 453, 454-455, 

456,457-458,459,460,461, 462-463, 464, 478-479, 487 

carinata. _. __ .......... -------· ... -- ... . . . . . . ... . .... 455 

pergamena ___ .. _________ --------------.------- _ __ _ 460 

sosiensis . . __ ... _ . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461 

stachei. ____ . ___ -.-----------------:.---------------:. 460 

subimgulata ______ . ________ ................... __ . 458,459 

terebra .. __ . ________________ . ____ --------- _ ------ ___ 479 

sp ____ . ___ : _______________ . _. _. _. _. ___ 24, 55,478-479,618 

Myalina. ________ 14, 399, 401, 406,408,410,413,416,418,429-430 

aviculoides. ____ . ______ ------------------------- _____ - 430 

degeeri. _____ . __________________ .. ______ . _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 416 

lamellosa. ______ . ______________ . _ .............. ___ : _ 407 

perattenuata. _________________ ...... -.-.- .... - _ _ _ _ 430 

permiana. __ . ____ . __________ ----- __ ---- 21,54,407,429,430 

Per1nianus ..... __ ..... _. _.......................... 430 recta _____ . ____________ .____________________________ 12 

recurvirostris ... _ ....... _ ..................... _. __ . 402 

squamosa. _______ 12, 16, 18,24, 54,407,429,429-430,566,617 

subquadrata. _____ .... ___ . ______ -- ____ : --.----- _ .. _ 41F 

trapezoidalis .. ____________ .......... -.-.---- --.. . . . 402 

Myalinidre. ______________ . __ . _______ ------- _________ 429-4:!0 

Myoconcha. ________________ ----- _____ .. 399,412,417,443-445 

costulata. _____________ 16, 54, 411, 414, 415, 444, 444-445,536 

var. delawarensis .. ________ . _. 21, 54,425,444-445,592 

sp _______ . ___ . __________________________ .. ____ . __ ... 415 

Myophoria _____________________ . ____ . ____________ 400, 406, 417 

cordissa. _____ . ________ ------ __ -------- ___ --- ___ _ __ _ 40Q 

Myophoriopsis carbonilera ........ _. _______________ . . . 414 

kraiiti ____ . _____________________ . _. ___ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 402 

sp. ________ .. ___________________________________ . __ . 403 

Myriolithcs ..... _. _: _. _ ... _ ....................... _ _ _ _ _ 115 

Mytilops. _____ .. __________ ------------ ____ ----- ___ ----- 405 

Mytilus. _____ .. _. ________ ....... _____________ 400,401,404,416 

Permianus ... _____ .... __________________________ . _ _ 430 

setifer _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ 415 

squamosus _ ----- _______ --------------- ___ :. ______ 415,429 

sp. _ ----- _ ----- _________ ------------------------- ___ 402 

N. 

Naiadltes. _________ . _ ... ____ . _. ____ . ___________ . __ 46,410,411 

Natica. ____ ------. __ ------------ _________ 455,456,457,462,463 

antisiensis ____________ ...... ___ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 464 

buccinoides .. _________________ . _. _ .. _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ 464 

minima .. _. __________________ : ____ ... _____________ 456,458 

omaliana. ____ . ___________ . ___ ..... _. _______ . _____ 456,463 

sp. ___ . __________ .... ___ ........................... _ . 463 

Naticopsis ..... _ .... _ ... __ ............ _ ......... _ .. __ .. 451, 

452,453,454,455, 456, 457, 460; 461,462,463,464,485 

arthaberi.. ... _ ...... _ .. __ ...... , .. _ .. __ ....... _.... 460 

brevispira ......... ____ . __ ........... _ .. __ .. _ ... _. _. 454 

carleyana ... _. __ .... _ .. __ ... _. __ ............... __ . _ 485 

dispassa ....... _ ......... ----. _ .. _. __ . _...... .. . . .. . 485 

elegantnla .. _. __ .. _____ .. _ .... _ .. _. __ .. _. _____ , __ .. . 454 

khurensis .. _ .. _ .. _____ .. ----. _ .. _ ...... _ ... _ ..... 452,453 

kokeni. ......... _: ....... --- ........ ___ ... ___ . _ ... _ 459 

nana .............................................. . 

permica. ~ __ ... _ .. ______ . _ ............... ____ .. ____ . 458 

subovata ..... -.... _ ... __ . ____ .. ___ . __ . _______ ...... _ 454 

suma,trensis ....... ____ .... ·-- ____ . __ . __ ......... ... ~54 

Pngc, 

Naticopsis trautscholdi. ..... ____ .. _ .... _ ......... _.... 454 

tschernyschewi. ................ _ ..... __ .......... _ 459 

sp ... - ___ . ____ --· _ ...... 21,22,55,454, 456,458, 463,48&,"694 

Nautiloidea .... _._ ......................... _ ..... 490,493,494 

Nautilus ... _. __ ......... _ .... _._. 453, 490,491,492,493, 495, 496 

armeniacus _ . _ ........ _ .. __ ..... _ ........... _. . . . . . 494 

clitellarius......................................... 492 

concavus ....... ___ .................... ___ ---·. .. ... 494 

convergens ....... _ .. _ ... __ .... _ ..... _ ..... _ .. _. _... 494 

cornutus .. -- ........ ···-·-··--·- ···---· .... -.. ·--·- 492 dolerns .. _ ... __ ........ __ . _ ... _ . ___ . ________ .. __ . . . . 494 

dorso-nrmo.tus: .......... _ ... __ .. _. __ . ___ . _ .. _..... 494 

dorsoplicatus ... _ ..... _ .... _____ . _. _. _____________ . 494 

dunganPnsis .... _ ....................... _.. .. . . . . . . . 491 

eccentricus _. ___ . _ ....... _ ....... _ ...... _ ......... _ 492,494 

freics~cheni. _. __ ....... _ ......... _ .. _ ............ __ . 493 

l1unicus.. -------------·--·--------------------- 490 k~tyseri..... .. __ .......... _______ .......... _ .. ... 491 

oxystomus ............ _. _ .. _ .... _.................. 492 

parallel us .. _ .. _ ................ _ .. __ . ___ . . . . . . . . . . . 494 

pichleri. ................... _ ......... ____ . ____ ... __ . 494 

propinquus ..... __ .. _ .... _ .... ___ .. _ .. . . . . . . . . ... . . 494 

snbsulcatus ............... _. _ .... _. _. __ ......... _. _ 492 

transi tori us. _ ........... _ ... _ .. ___ . _ . ___ ... ___ .. . . . 490 

tschernyschewi. _. _ ....... __ . __ .. __ .... __ . _ .. _. __ .. 493 

tubercnlaris. _ ............ _ ... ____ .. __ ........ _. _... 494 

tnberculatus .... _____ .... ___ . _. __ .. _. _ ....... _. _. _ _ 492 

tuberosns. _ ......... _ .......... _ ... ___ ...... _...... 491 

waageni .......... _ ...... _ ....... _ ...... _ .... _. _. .. . 491 

wynnei _ ....... _ ........... _ ..... __ .... __ .... _ ..... _ 490 

sp. _ . ___ ........ _ . _ ............ _ .... _ .... __ .. _ . 12, 490, 491 

Nebraska, fossils from .......... _._ ..... _. __ . 162,174-175,176 

Neioceras .......... _ ... _ .. _ ... ------.---- .......... __ .. . 496 

Neoschwagerina. _ ...................... __________ ---·- 44 

Nerita ..... _ ... _____ . _ ........................... 455,460,461 

ampliata ...... _____ ......... __ .... _. _ ..... __ . _. _... 456 

palreomorpha ....................... _.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 461 

prisca ................................... _, _ .. _..... 461 

Neritomopsis.......................................... 452 

Neritopsidro .. ___ ....... _ .............. _ ... __ .. .. ...... 485 

Netschajew, A., on Russian (Permian) fossils .. _ .. 34, 46, 58, 

70, 95, 106, 116-117, 17i; 219, 246, 302, 306, 

328, 351, 386, 409-411, 449,458-459,493, 504 

New Guinea, fossils of .... __ . ____ 33, 96, 107, 115, 169, 223, 242 

288, 326, 346, 385-386, 391,405-406, 458,491-492, 503 

New Mexico, fossils of. ___ . ________________________ ._ 266, 449 

Guadalupe Mountains in........................... 5 

New South Wales, fossils of ...... _. __ . 33, 96,107,115,169,223, 

241, 288, 289, 305, 326, 347, 385,404,454-455,492,503 

Nicholson, H. A., on Lindstroomia ___ ........... _ ..... 98-99 

Nikitin, S., on Russian (Gschelian) fossils ............... 35, 

288,301,306,392, 456 

Niti, fossils of. ..................... _ ...... 30,222,238,286,384 

Nodosaria ......... ___ ....... _ ..... ___ ... __ ..... _ ...... 57,58 

postcarbonica .................. _ ............... _ .. _ 59 

Nodosinella ...... _ ................. __ . _. _ ... _ .... _ ... 5_7, 58,59 

Noetling, F., on nurmese fossils._._._ .... _ ........... _ 32 

Nomenclature, method followed in._.................. 29 

Nomismoceras smithi. ....... _ .. _. _ ..... __ . _ .. : . ... _ .. . 490 

North America, fossils from._ .. --·--··-· .............. 38-39 

See also Mississippi Valley; Ohio Valley; Appalachians; Texas. 

Notothyris ... ___ ....... 324,325, 326, 327, 328, 329,335-337,391 

antiplicatre (group} .. ----_ ..... __ .. _. __ . __ ..... _ .. _ 335 

djonlfensis. ____ .. ___ . __ . ___ .. _. ___ .... __ . _ .. _ ..... _ 328 

epilis ... __ .................... ____ . __ ... _. _____ ...... 329 

exilis.- .... -.- .. ---.- .. ---------- .. -.-.-- .. ----.-. 325,336 
640 INDEX. 

Page. 

Nototbyrls iriflata .......•..........................• 325,336 

inflatum.............. .. . . . . .. ... . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 336 

mediterranea ............. --------· ... ----··· .... ~~5,336 

minuta ..........................•................. ,

0 325 

nucleolus .......................... 0 •••••••••••••• 327,336 

ovalis ............................. 0... .. . . . . . . .. . . . 329 

schuchertensis ......... ....... :. . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . 16, 

53,325,326,327,328,329,335,336,336,561 

var. ovata ... 15, 16, 18, 24, 54,328,335,336,336-337,561 

simplex .................................... 0 •• 0 •• 325,336 

triplicata ....... -----------------------0.... ....... 325 

triplicatum ............................. _.......... 325 

walkeri. ........................................ :... 325 

sp ............................. 27,54,325,327,328, 337,625 

Nova Scotia, fossils fronL ........................... _ 59,220 

Nova Zembla, fossils from .. 0. 0 0 •••••••••••••••••••• 37,95-96 

107,118, 174,225,251,289,357,387,393,463,495,505 

N ucula .......................................... 0 • _. • • • 399, 

400, 405,407, 408,410,411, 413,414, 418,421-422,442 

artiensis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407 

beyricbi ...................................... 4ll, 414,421 

tateiana .. 0 •••••••••••••••••••••• ----............... 415 

tri valis .......................... -- .... 0 •••• 0 • • • • • • • 408 

ufimskiana .............................. __ ......... 408 

ventncosa ....... -------------------..... ... .. ..... 400 

wymmensis .... -----------------.... ... . . . .. . . .. ... 414 

sp. __ .................... 21,22, 24,54,421-422,59£,000,617 

Nuculana ....... -----------------------------0 ... 400,405,418 

subacuta ............................... 0 ••••••••••• 401 

sp........................... .. . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405 

Nuculid::e ............................ --- ............ 421-422 

Nuculites concentricus.... .. . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 445 

Nummulina............................................ 57 

0. 

Obrutchew, Yo, onBokbarafossils.................... 31 

Ohio Valley, fossils of ............ --.. .. . . . . . . . . . . ..•.. 38 

Oka basin, fossils of.................................... 34 

Oklahoma, fossils from................................ 48 

Oldhamina ....................................... 210,211,215 

sp ............................................. 16,53, 216 

Oligodon .......................................... 46,410,411 

Omphaloptycha ............... 0....................... 460 

Omphalotrochus ........................... 0 0 ..... 65, 456,470, 

Oonocarcinus.... .... .......................... ... .. . . . 504 

Orbipora ............................................ 113,115 

Ortbidre ........................................ 170,286-:100 

Orthis ........................ 14,189, 194, 19.'i, 286,287,291,293 

andii... ..... ...... .. .................. .... . ... .. .. . 289 

arachnoidea ...................................... 171,194 

bnchii. ....................................... 251-252,289 

cora ................... ___ ....................... _.. 289 

crenistria . . . .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . . . . 170, 194, 198 

<!erbyi. ........................................... 287,299 

varo demissa................................... 29\l 

eximia . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. . 170, 171 

eximiiformis ..................................... 174,289 

indica ................................ 0 ... • .... .. ... 288 

keyserlingiana..... ... .............. ........ .... .. . 289 

lyelliana. .... ...................................... 287 

michelini.. .............. ........ ...... ... . .. .. .. . . . 288 

morgu.niu.na ........... ...................... _ 290,291,2~12 

olivierin.nu..... ..... .. ..... ... ... ... ... .. . .. .. .. . . . 171 

pecosi ............................ -----............. 287 

penniana........................................... 290 

pecten ............................. -.. .. .. . .. .. .. 188, 192 

Page. 

Orthis senilis .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . 170 

resupinata. 0 ............................. 286,287,288,289 

varo latirostrata............................... 286 

resupinatre.............. .. .. .. . .. . . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . 289 

sp ................................ -------- ..... .. .. 286 

Orthisina sh nmardianus. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 12, 204 

Orthisina sp ............. __________ ........ __ ........... 0 12 

Orthoceras .................. 490,491, 492,493, 494, 495,496,491 0 

adrianense......................................... 494 

annulatum ....................... ,................. 494 

bicinctum ............................. __ ........... . 494 

calamus............................................ 495 

cribrosum .......................... ____ ............ 494 

guadalnpense...... 21, 55, 490, 492, 493, 494, 495, 496, 4 97, 5o93 

later ale ..................... 0..... .. • .. .. .. .. .. .. .. • 493 

margaritatum. . . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 494 

obliquesulcata .................... ________ ......... 494 

mhlerti. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. 494 

orientalis.......................................... 491 

ovale ..... 0 ................................ 0 • • .. • • .. 492 

paternoi. ............ __ ............................. 494 

polyphemus ................... :.................... 492 

rushense ........ ______ ............... 0 ....... __ • __ • 496 

strisotum. . .. .. . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. . .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 492 

transversum .......................... __ .. .. .. .. .. . 494 

tnritellum ........... __ .............. ____ ...... 0 .. .. 

0 

494 

snbtriangulare .................................... 0 494 

undatum........................................... 491 

sp ......................................... 12,490,491,495 

Orthocerata ................. 0 ..................... __ • 0 494 

Ortboceratidre ............. 0..................... 497 

Orthoceratites ........... ___ .. ____ : ........... 0 •• _..... 493 

Orthonema ...... 0 ..... ____ ..... _____ ....... 0 0 457,458;464 

Orthotetes .. 156,157,158,159,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,170, 

171, 174, 175, 179, 181,182,186-203,204, 20o5, 209,516 

197 

168 

correanns ........ __ ........ 0 ............ 0 ... __ • .. • • 198 

crenistria ......................... 0 0.' 33,169,170,196,198 

declivis .................... 16, 17, 52,199,200-201,203,538 

distortns ....... : ... 16, 27, 52, 178,186,199,201-202,202,539 

varo campanulatus ....... 0 ....... 16, 52,199,202,539 

guadalnpensis .... _ ............ 12, 13, 16, 17, 24, 25, 52, 166, 

171,172,174,185,188, 199, 199-200,200,201' 210,323,538 

kayseri. ..... 0 0 ••• ____ ........ __ ....... 0 _ • • 168 

keokuk ............... _ .............. __ ...... 0 .. • • • • 199 

lens .............. ______ .. 0.... .... . . . .. .. .. . . . . ... . 196 

rad'ata ................... 0 __ .................. 0.... 189 

radiatus ....... _, ___ .. ______ 0 ......... 0 _ ......... !61, 164, 

170,171,181-182,192,193,194,195,196,197,198,516 

socialis. ,.: .. ...... 0. _____ ... __ ••••• __ 189,192, !93, 194,516 

subplanus ...... _____ . __ .......... 0 _ .......... 0 .. • 167, 198 

sp .......... 0 ...... 0 ................... _ 22,27,52,199,203 

Ortb~tetina ......................... 0............. 209 

Orthotetinre ..... 0 ..................... 0 .. 156, 163,164,166,168 

Orthothetes ............. ____ .... 0 .. 0............ 157, 

158,164,166,172, 175,179,190, 195,196,198,209 

armeniacus ... __ .. _ .". __ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 

crenistria .............................. 0 ...... 0 .. 168,172 

varo kellii. .......................... 0.......... 172 

var. senilis ------------------------------------ 173 eusarkos . . __ .... _ .. _ . _. __ . _ ........... _ ... _ ..... •.. . 172 

expausus ........ __ ............... 0................. 173 

kraft! ............... _ . . .. . .. . . .. .. . .. .. .. . . . . .. .. .. 167 

peregrinns ........... __ ....... __ .. .. . .. .. . . .. .. . . . . 172 

politus............................................. 169 

osemiplanns .............. ________ ................. 158,173 
INDEX. 641 

Page. 

-Orthothetes simensis._ ...................... ,. .. .. . .... 171 

subplanus. ... . . .. . .. ... ... ... .. ......... .... ... .. .. 172 

sp. ·.····· ......................................... 169,172 

•Orthothetina ................................ 161,162,164,166, 

167' 171,172,173, 174,175, 176,185,198,204,205,209-210 

circularis.. ... . . . . .. ... . . ... .. . ... . . .. . .. .. .. . .. . . . . 168 

kayseri............................................. !68 

kralti.............................................. 167 

olivieriana.............. ... .. . . .. .. ..... .. .. . .. .. . . 171 

politus ......................... _... .. .. .. . .. .. . . . . . . 169 

sp ............... -.................. · ........ 16,52,171,210 

·Orthoticbia ...... 167,286,287,288,289,290,291-293,298,300,342 

OsteodesnHt kutorgana.............................. 411 

·Ostracoda ................................... 15,503,fi09~fi10 

·Ostrea matercula .... : ............................... 409-410 

·Otoceras............ ...... ...... .... ..... ...... ....... 494 

·Oxytoma ............................................ 400,410 

at;tvum............................................ 401 

laticostatum....................................... 402 

P. 

Pacbasterella. . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. . .. 71 

Pachydomus ......................................... 404,405 

globosus. . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. .. .. . 406 

sp .................. ·................................ 411 

Pachypora............................................. 94 

Padang. See Smnatm. 

Pal::eanatina.................. ............. ............ 400 

Pal::easter................................ ..... . .. .. .. . .. 107 

montanus:......................................... lOG 

·paJ>ePchinus........................................... 107 

paradoxns. . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . .. . . . .. . .. . .. .. . .. .. . . . .. 106 

Pal::eomntela ...................................... 46,410,411. 

Palrnopemphix.............. .... . . . ... .. .. ..... .. ..... . 504 

Paleocaris........... .... . . .. . .. .. . .. .... .. ... .. ... .. . . . 505 

P8Jenno, fossiis oL ........... •................... 35---36,39, 

50, 58, 95,106, 117,172-173,211,224,280,281-282,289, 

307, 328, 3o3, 374,387,392,412,460-462, 4n4-495. 504 

Palwlina. .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . .. .. . .. .. . . . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . 462 

zwickaviensis .. ~ ............... _ ................ _. _ 462 

Pamir,fossilsof. ...................................... 31 

Panoprna lunulata ................................... 411,414 

mackrothi. .................. ,................... 414 

·Parnceltites............................ 490,492,495, 49!1-fiOO 

elega ns ............................ 22, 55,495,499-500, C0.9 

balli................... ......................... 500 

hoefe.ri............................................. 500 

:Paralegoceras ........................................ 492,496 

:Parallelodon ............ 399,405,408,410,411,415,418,422-425 

costellatus.......... .............. ..... ..... .. . .... {05 

delicatus ... , .......................... .'............ 423 

ellipticus... ... .. .. ... .. . . ............. ..... . .... ... 406 

multistriatus .............................. · ........ 16,21, 

27' 54, 403' 405, 407' 408, 412,414,415, 423-424,625 

obsoletus ........... , ..... .' ............. , ..... .- .. 4;l4,425 

politus .............. 16, 21, 24,54, 409,412,414,415,424,536 

tenuistriatns ......... ' ............................ 423,424 

sp ........................... 27,54,408,411,424-425,626 

Parallelodontidrn ................................... 422-42() 

Parapronoritcs ...................................... 492,495 

Paraprosopon.......................................... 504 

Patella .............. 451,452,453,454,456,457,458,462,464,465 

anthracopbila .................................... 453,454 

artiensis. . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 456 

capitanensis ................... 15,551 454,458,459,465,531 

:Patellidrn.............................................. 465 

·patellostium........................................... 464 

2G~5--~o. 58--08----41 

Page. 

Pecten ............................ ; .............. 400,401,403, 

406,407,408,409, 410, 412,413, 415, 416, 432,435' 439 

asiaticus.... ...... . . . . .. .. .. .. ........ .... ... . .... . 401 

aviculatus......................................... 414 

illiwarcnsis .... -- ........ -- .... ·........ .. . . . . . . . . . . . 405 

kokscharofi .......................... ·........ . .. .. . 415 

leniusculus ............... .'.. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405 

mactatus. .• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416 

paradczii.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416 

plicatus. . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. 406 

politus.... .... ............ .......... ...... ......... 413 

prototextorins.. .... .. .. .............. ........ ..... 401 

pusillus. . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . 415 

scgregatns. . . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. .. 406 

scriceus .................................. 410,411,414,415 

squamula .......................................... '401 

tortilis............... ... .. .. .. ...... . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 411 

sp ................................................ 402,416 

Pectinidrn ........... , ....................... 399,413,431-443 

·Pednm ..................................... · .. 18S,l90,192,516 

Pelecypoda ............. 13, 14-15,22,23,36, 45,49, 192,839-449 

Pennirctipora .................................... 115,116,117 

Pennsylvanian, relation between Guadalupian and ..... 38,60 

Pentameridrn ................................ 14,300-304,306 

Pcntremites..................... ... .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. 109 

Pcricyclus sp.... ... .. . ........................ ...... ... 490 

Peritrocbia ................................. 490,495,498-499 

ere bus ..................................... 22,5.>,499,603 

Permian, relation between Guadalnpian and ....... .- ... 38-50 

Pernid::e ............................................ 425-426 

Pernipecten ................. 399,404,418,431,432,439,441-442 

obliquus. ~ .......... 16,21,23,54,405,414,439,441-442,635 

Persia, fossils from. . . . . . .. .. . .. .. .. . . .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. . 33 

Peru, fossils of. .......... .- 38,107,118,226,252,290,329-330,357 

P~traia profunda....................................... 95 

Petschom, fossils of................................... 35 

Pbacoceras ............................................ .- 496 

Pbanerotrema..... ... ..... ... .. .... . ..... .. .... .. .... . 473 

Pbasianella....... ...... .. ....... ..... ............ ..... 452 

Pbialocrinus........................................... 107 

patens .... ,........................................ 106 

urna............................................... 106 

Phillipsia .................................... 503,504,505,506 

gruenwaldti. .................................... 504,505 

kansuensis......................................... 503 

obtusicauda........................................ 503 

pa~v:1:a............................................ 503 

perannulata ....... ................................ 12,506 

roemeri ......... _ ............................. _.... 504 

smnatrcnsis......................................... 503 

sp.................................................. 503 

Philocrinus...... ... .. ... ....... .... .... .. ...... ....... 105 

Philomcdcs.. ... ....................................... 504 

Phyllopora ..................... 113,115,116,117,118,147-148 

ebrenbergi........ ..... ..... .... ...... ...... .. . . .. . 117 

sp .......................... _, ......... 21,s2, 111,147-148 

Phymatifer............................................ 462 

Pine Spring, encampment at.......................... 7 

Pine Spring Canyon, fossils from...................... 17 

Pinna ............. .- .................. 403,406,408,412,413,417 

confutsiana ......... ~................. . . .. .. .. . . .. . 402 

flexicostata ........................... :.. .. .. .. .. .. 406 

Pinnatipora ............. :.............................. 118 

Placnna .............................................. 190,192 

Placnnopsis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406 

Plagioglypta. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4411, 450 
642 INDEX. 

Page. 

Plagioglypta canna .......•................ 21,55,449,450,593 

meekana .............. ------------ ....... .. . . ...... 449 

Plagiostoma ........................ 399,417;418,442,442-443 

deltoideum ................. -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 

22, 54, 407' 408, 410,413' 415' 418, 442-443' 535 

permiana........ ..... .... ... . .. . . .. .. .. . . .... .. ... 45 

permianum...... .... .... ... .. .... ........ .. .... ... 408 

Plateau, fossils from near .. · ........................... ·. 25 

Platyceras ......... :................................... 456 

altum.............................................. 454 

tenellum...... .. .... .... ..... ..... ... ... . .......... 454 

);'latycheilus ............ .. : . ......................... 460,461 

Platycrinus sp .................................... 27,106,107 

Platyschisma ............................. :. . . . . . . . . . . . 455 

Platystoma.,.......................................... 452 

Plcrophyllum... .. .. .... ... . .... ...... .. .. .. .. .. .... .. . 94 

Pleuronautilus ........................................ 494 · 

loczyi.............................................. 491 

sumatrensis........................................ 491 

Pleurophorida; ........................ : ............. 445-448_ 

Pleurophorella. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417, 448 

Pleurophorus.......................................... 399, 

400, 404, 401i, 406,408, 410, 416,418-419' 444, 446-44 7 

acutiplicatus....................................... 400 

calhouni. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447 

costatus ...................................... 409,414,415 

delawarensis ..... ~- ___ ............... ___ .......... 21,55, 

400,402,405,406,408,409,410,411,425,446-44 7,592 

imbricatus......................................... 400 

oblongus ......................................... ,_ 447 

occidcntalis..... ... ... .... .... .... .. .... .... ....... 12 

randsi ...... -.-- ............. ~-......... .. .. . . . . . . . . . 405 

simplus ................................... : ...... 409,410 

subcostatus ................. ,...................... 447 

:;~~v-al:~:::::_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-,-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- 25-,55-, 4oo-, 4(n,4~~ 

Pleurotomaria .............. __ ....... 15,451,452,453-455,456, 

457, 458, 459, 460,461,462-463, 464, 465-477, 478,484 

anatolica ..... _. .. .. . . .. .... .. .. ... . . . .. .. .. .. .... .. . 460 

angulosa... ........ .. ... .... .. .... .. . ... .. . . ....... 464 

antrina....... ..... .. . .. ...... .... .. . .. . .... ..... .. 459 

arctica ........... ,. .. ... ..... .... . .... .. . . . . 463 

arcnaria ....................... 21,55,459,4Gti,473,473,474 

var. monilifera ........................ 22, 55,466,474 

baranowkensis..................................... 459 

beckwithana.... .... .. ...... .. ... . .. .. .. .. .. ..... .. 468 

brazoscnsis ... _ ...................... -·-... .. . . . . . . . . . 473 

broadhea<li.. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 468 

carbonaria ............................... 466,467,468,469 

carinata ........................ ·.................... 455 

carinifera .............. 21,25,55,463, 466,'475-476,476, 594 

var .................................... 25,55,476,618 

catherime ...................... , .. :. .. . . .. .. .... .. . 461 

delawarensis .... ............... 21,55,459,466,473,4'UJ,595 

dimorpha.......................................... 457 

disr.oidea ...... 16,55,455,461,464, 466,470,474,476,531,532 

divesouralica ....................................... · 459 

elderi. .................... 24,55,459,460,466,476-477,618 

eug1yphea ................. 21,55,453,461,466,469,470,594 

giffordi. ............ ·................................ 471 

grayvillcnsis....................................... 473 

halliana .. ..................... ------- ............. 12,478· 

humerosa ...... : . ................. --- .... : ...... -. . 471 

hunica .............. --------------------........ .. . 453 

isomorpha .................... -.- . -- -......... -- -.- 461 

~~~~~~i;;~~:::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::: :~: mica ..... ____ ..................... 16,55,466,467-468,531 

multilineata ............... 21,55,466,467,468,473,594,595 

Page. 

Plcurotomaria.IJeglecta .................... 16,55,466,472,531' 

ncwportcnsis ............................... _....... 468-

orientalis ................................. _ .... _. 454,457 

prreplatypleura ................................. ·... 459 

planulata .................. 2I,24,5.1,4GG,·!74-47a,4i5·,595 

punjabica... ..... ..... .. .... ... . . .. ... ... . . . ....... 453 

putilla ..................... 16,23,55,466,468-469,472,531 

retroplicata .................................. _ ... _. 461 

r~chardsoni. ........ 2.5, 27,55, 455,459,461,466,467,471,484 

stbtrtzcwt .......... · ...... _ .............. _ ..... _.... 459· 

strigillata ...... ~1,22,55,461,466,469,471,471,472,473,600 

subconstricta..... ... . .. .. .... ... . .. . . . . .. .. . ...... 473 

subglobosa.. .. .. ... . .. . ... .. .... ... . .. .. .. . . ... .... 468. 

subsinuata ......................... -.-- ,_ ......... 467,471 

swallowiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 469 

texana ................... _ ........ 24,55,460,471-472,618' 

valvatiformis ................................ ___ ,_. 468-

verneuli.. ... .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. ........ ...... .. . .. .. 463 

verneuilii._ ................ :......................... 478 

sp .......................... 17,21,55,453,460,466,470,472 

Pleurotomarii<lrn ............................... 454,466-479• 

Plocostoma ................ _.__ .. . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. .. 461 

Polyca;lia......... ..... .. . . .................. 12,94,95 

profundum ........ . 'f..... . . .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .. 95 

Polycope. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 503 

Polyphemopsis niti<lulum...... . ............... _ 454 

Polypora..... .. .. .. . 112,113,114,115,116,117,118,142-147 

bassleri. ............................. _.. . . . . . . . ... . . 145 

burlingtonensis ......................... --~- .. .. . . . 144 

cestriensis~. ___ . _ ....... _ ...... _ ... _ ............... _ 

crassa. _ .... · ............. _ ........ __ 

distinctt1 . ............. _ .. _. _ .... __ 

dendroi<les .................... __ .. . 

fastuosa ............................. ·. __ .......... . 

r:::g'::~:~;;_-_- _-_-_·::: :::::: :·::::::: ::::::::::::::::::: 

koninckiana .. _ .... _. _ .... __ ..... _ .......... __ .... __ 

145 

146 

145 

115 

114 

li4 

115 

114 

martis ....... ................ _..... ... .. .. . . .. . .. . . 115· 

mexicana ................... 18, 20, 52,115, 143-14;;, 147,576 

ornata .................. _ 144 

reinota ................. . 

simulatrix ............. . 

stragula. 

submarginata .......... . 

sykesi. ................. . 

ulrichi. ...................... . 

147 

144 

145 

147 

144 

145 

sp ....................... · ... 18,24,52,114, 118, 145-1!7,612 

Polysiphon.............................. 70,87-88 

mirabilis............................ 18, 51,87-88,565 

Polysiphonidrn........................... 86-88 

Popanoceras ........ ---- .. ---- ........... 491,492,493,495,496-

Popanoceratida;... .......... .. . . .. . . . . . . . . ... a01-a02 

Pope, John, expedition of........................... 9· 

Porcellia .... _ .. ~.. . ........ : _ ................... 453,455,457 

artieusis.----- -- .... ---------- _-___ ----.---.----- 457 

pearsi ... .... _________ .......... ·------- ....... _ 

Portlockia ................................... _. _ 

decorata ................................. . 

kamenkensis . .. _ .... __ ................. __ .. . 

rotun<lata .................. · ............•.... 

455-

460 

461 

459 

459• 

Posi<lonomya ........ -...... · .. ---------- ... --. 408 

sp .......................... -----.. ... ............. 403 

Poteriocrillus ................... -- .. -- -- ..... -.. . 105, 106, 107 

bijugus ............... · ............. --- ... . ... .. .. 106 

multiplex........................................ 106 

originarius. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106-

quenstedti. · ................................ ~. 106 

Prestwichia .......... -- ......... -- .. ---- .... -- . -.. . 505-
INDEX. 643 

Page. Page. 

Prismopora............................................ 118 Productus intermedius ............................ :... 247 

J>roboscidella ................................... _ _ _ _ _ 218, 246 

Productella ....... __ --····-·------_._. ________ . __ 231-232,233 

Productidre.:. _. _. __ ·---- .. ____ .. ___ . 14,50;216--2RO, 281,282 

Productus ...... _______________ ...... _____ .- --- ____ --- 14, 19, 

22, 167, 174,216, 217,218,219,220,230-274,281,282 

aagnrdi.· .. ___ . _____________ .. _. _. ________ 167, 169,244,250 

ahichi. ________________ ------- _____ 37,235,237,241,248,249 

aculeatus ... _. _. ________ .... - 236,239,240,245,247,248,251 

andii. _. _________ ------------ __ __ _ _ _ _ __ ____ ____ _ _ __ _ 251 

anomalus .. _. _ .. ____ .. -.----. ___ .- .. -.- ...... ___ .--- 244 

artiensis. _ ...... ______ . _. ________ .... _____ .. ____ . 244,245 

asperulus .. _. _ .... _. __ ... ·. ____ ...... ____ ---. _. __ - 235,241 

batesianus .... ____ .. __ .... -.- .. __ ---- ... _ ---.-- _.- 252,261 

boliviensis. _ .. __ .. _. __ . _ .. _______ .. _. _. _- 238,242,245,252 

brachythrerus.· .. ________ . _____ ------ __ . _. _. ______ 241,242 

calhounianus. __ ... _ ....... __ .......... __ .: _ ... _ ... -. 12 

cancrini. .... _ ................. ~- _. _ ... _ -~ .... _. _. 46,220, 

232, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 244, 245, 246, 249, 25G 

cancriniformis ...... ____ --.- -. __ -- -- -- __ --. _____ - 238, 248 

var sinuatus ...... _ ------ _ ---- ____ ----------- 248 capacii. ___ .. _________________________________ 251-252,260 

caperati (group) ________ . 231,232,233,234,235,236,239,247 

carringtonensis ... . • ......... _ ... : .............. _ .. . 239 

chandlessii. _ .... _______ . _. ______ . _____ . _ -- .. ____ - 252,261 

chitichunensis ... _____ . _. ____ . ___________ .-. _. _. _. _ 237-238 

clarkei. __ . _. ____ ---· __ ---·---- ____ ---------- ----·- _ 241 

clarkianus ...... --·- __________ --------- _ ----------- 252 

compressus. __ ... -·- _______ --- ____ -- ________ ----- 235,272 

com. ____________________ ---- 233,234,235,236,237,238,239, 

240,241,242,243,244, 24!i, 246,248,249,251,252,253,251 

corrugatus. _________ ------------ __ -- ____ ---- ____ --- 234 

costa to ides. ______ --- ... --.-- -- ___ - _____ .---- _ _ _ _ _ 266, 268 

costatus ____ . ____ .----- ...... - 234,237,238,239,251,252,262 

curvirostis. ____ . _ .... -.. _.- ... ___ - ______ - 247,248,249,271 

deruptus.- ---------- -.· --- ... ---- ---·-------- __ __ ___ 238 

elegans. ___ -- ---- __ -----· -· ------------- _ ---- _;_____ 249 

fascia.tus _ - - -. ____ .-- ___ . _.-. _____ -.-- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 244, 249 

funbriati (group) .... _____ ----_____________________ 14, 

235,236,237,238,239,240,241,246,247,249,251,252 

fimbriatus. _. __ . ____ :. _ ---·· ______ ----- ______ 238,245,246 

flemingi. __ ------ _- --------------------- ---··---- ___ 238 

gangeticus. ____ ... ____ ---·---- __ .. : .... ·---- ------ _ 237 

gaudryi. __ . ___ -- __ ---------- ______ ·--- ______ _ _ __ __ _ 252 

geinitzianus _________ .. __ .. ______ -. __ ... ____ .. 45,235, 24g 

giganteus.-- .... --- ... __ .-- ... - __ -- .. _______ 238,242,249 

granulosus. _________ ..... -----. __ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 245 

gratiosus. _______ . ______ ... --. 235,237,238,240,241,248,249 

var. occidentalis ....... ------------------------ 248 griflithianus _______________________ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 248 

grucnwaldti. ______ --- ____ ---- ... _ .... __ . _. ________ . 242 

guadalupensis ____ -- ______________ ----. _. ___ 21, 27, 53,232, 

233,234,236,242,243,244,246,249,250,252,261' 588,622 

var. comancheanus.,. _. ______ - _: _ 27, 53, 232, 261-262 

-hemisph>erium. ________ .. --- .. ---.- 45, 46,246,248,249,251 

var. armeniacus. _.............................. 248 

hemisphreroidalis.--. -·- -------- ··--'·---- -- _ ___ __ _ 246 

horridi (group) _________ ... --- 232,233,234,235,236,239,247 

horridus. ____ .. ___ . ____ . ___ - ___ 14,45,231-232,233,249,250 

vf}r. spitzhergianus .. _ .... -- --·-- --- _ _ 250 

humboldti _ .. ___ .. _____ . __ 14,236,243,246,248,2491 250, 251 

impressus. _ -·- ______ -·-- ---· ------------ ________ ... 250 

inca.-------- ______ ---------------------- ______ ----- 252 

incisus.-.- .... ________________ ------ ____ ----------· 249 

indentatus .. 18, 19, 53,216,218,232,245, 259,260,261,273,579 indicus .. _______________________________________ .. _ _ 37 

inflatus.-- ........ ----- __ .. ______ : ____________ . __ -·- 242 

intermedius var. helicus. __ ... __ ... _ ... ____ . _ ..... _ _ 247 

var. planiconvexa ..... _ ... _ ....... _............ 247 

irregulares (group) ___ --- -- _ _ _ 232, 234, 235, 236, 237, 248, 249· ischmensis _____ . _________ . ___________ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 244 

keyserlingianus _. ___ ... --. _ ... _ .. ____ . ________ . ___ . 241 

kiangsiensis. _- ---- ___ - _. _ ... _ .. ______ ... __ . ___ . _ _ 235, 239 

koninckianus ... _ ... ________ .... _____ . __ . _. __ 24.'i, 246, :iw 

krasnopolskyanus .... _____ . _-. _. ____ .. __ . _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 245 

lrevis _-- _. ________ ---· _________ . ______ -----·- __ _ _ _ _ _ ,236. 

latidorsatus __ .. ______ . _______ . __ . ____ . _: _ 16, 21, 22, 45, 53, 

216,217,218,219,232, 233,.236, 237,239,240,243,244,245, 

247, 24s; 249, 250, 251, 252, 26!-265, 265, 266, 267, 543 var .. __ . _-- -- -- __ . ____ .- __ . _ _ _ _ 22, 53, 232, 233, 265-266 

latirostratus.- ________________ ----- ______________ 220,249 

leplayL .. - ___ -- __ -·------ ____ -- ____ . __ 12,246,249,250,279 

limbatus ___________ 14,18,53,232,2.14,235,270, 272-273,580 

lineati (group)._ .. ________ 232,234,235,237,238,246,247,248 

lineatus.- ____________________ 234,236,237,241,246,248,250 

lobatus. _________ ------ ____ .. _ _ __ _ _ __ __ ____ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ 243 

longispincL. ____ . _. _________ . _____ . _____ . __________ 239,249 

longispinus. ____ . ______ - __ 217,236,241,242,245,248,250,251 

var. <:cutrostratus ..... _. _________ . _ . _______ ·- _ _ 250 

var. lobatus .. --------------- ______ . ---·- __ _ ___ _ 249 

'~ar. setosus ..... __ ...... _ ...... _ ............ _ 2b0,251 

longus _________ ---_--_---------. _____ ---·__________ 244 

mamn1atus . ....... ·----------------. ...... .. ... ... . 244 

margaritaceus .. : ________ . ____ . ____ . _. __ . _____ 246,247,251 

martini.. ________________________ -·-- _____ _.______ 247 

meekanus. __ . _. _________ . ______ 21,27,53,232,234,238,244, 

245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 252, 253, 263, 2&1, 264, 621 

tnexicanus .. _ .... _ ....... _ .. _ ... _ ... _ .......... 12, 53,232, 

2.13, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 243, 2fifi-2fi6, 269 

m6lleri.-.-- ___ --- _--------.------.- _.-.---- _____ . 243,245 

mongolicus. ________ ----- .. ·--- ------ __ ------ _ 236,237,240 

multistriatus. ______ -.. -- .......... _ .. __ ... _. _. _. _ 242,261 

mysius. - . ______ . ___ --- -- -.. __ :. __ ...... __ . _____ . _ _ _ 246 

mytiloidcs __________ ---- --· .... __ ---· ___ . ---- _____ 235,248 

nebrn.skcnsis. ______ - __ -. _ ..... _ ...... -. ___ 14,243,244,252 

neffidicvi. ____ . ______ -_.- .. _ .... __ . ___ . ____ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 234 

norwoodL ......................................... 12,252 

nystianus ....................................... 239,246~ 

var. lopingensis- - _- _. _. _____ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 217,237, 239 

obscurus. _______________ ---· .. __ _ __ _ __ _ _____ _ __ _ __ _ 251 

occidentalis .. -----····················---· 1G,l8,53,232, 

23J, 234, 235, 243, 246, 248, 249, 258, 259, 262-263, 546 

opuntia .... ... _ .. __ ------- --·-- ...... _ ..... _ ... _ .. 235,264 

ovalis .. _-.-- ___ - ____ .----.-.--.. - ____ .- ___________ 240,241 

payeri. . ___________ .. -.- -- .. ___ -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 250 

pertennis ____ . __ . ______ -_. _. __ .. _. ________________ . _ 253 

peruviJ.nils. _______ --·---- ______ ----- _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ 252 

pilcolus. _______________ ... _ .. _ .. 12, 14;1u,18,24,25,53,218, 

219, 232, 234, 239, 247, 249, 253, 270-272, 273, 547, 616 

pinnifonnis .. __ .. _ ............. __ .. __ . ____ . _ _ _ _ _ 16, 

fi3, 232,234,235,236,237,238,240,244,248,252, 2i2,546 

planohemispherinm ... -_ ---------- _______________ 2381246 

plicatilis. ________ . _______ . _. ___ . ___ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 239 

popci.. -- _______ - _______ -. __ 12, 16, 18, 19, 24,53,216,218,232, 

233, 234, 23.5, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 

248,249,250, zb1, 253,257-258,259,261,273,274, 57.9• 

var. opimns. _______ -- ________ . 18,53,232, 258-259,679· 

prattenianus ________ · __ -_. _ .. __ . ________ . ______ . _ _ _ _ 250 

pseudomedusa ... ______ ------- _ ... _______ ·--- _ __ ___ _ 244 

punctatus- ____ 14,238,241,244,245,246,247,248,249,251,252 

purdoni ..•. _. _. ___ ... _ ......... _. ___ . _. _. __ .. _ _ _ _ _ _ 238 

pnstulosus .... __ ..... _ ....... _ .... _ .. _ ... _. __ 240,241,243 

Yar. palliatns --·------------------·------------ 239 
INDEX. 

Page. 

Productus rcticulatus.................................. 238 

rhomianus ........................................ 220,252 

robertianus ................................ 45,249,250,251 

scabrlculus ........................... 236,237,245,247,250 

semireticulati (group) ... 231,232,233,234,235,236,237,238, 

239,241,242, 243, 245, 246, 247' 248,249,250, 251,252,352 

.semireticulatus ........... 33,217,218,233,236,237,238,23\1 

240, 241, 242, 245, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 254, 255, 279 

var. antiquatus ......................... ... 12,254,255 

var. bathykolpus ........................ 246,248,249 

var .. capitanensis ... __ . _ ........... __ ..... 12, 14, 16,17. 

18, 19, 20, 53, 232, 233, 234, 236, 237' 238, 239, 240, 242, 

243, 245, 248, 249, 2so, 251, 2s2, 2a4-255, 256, 5{6, 578 

var. hermosanus........ ...... .. .. .. .. .... .... . 256 

var. transversalis.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 249 

.semireticulatus... . . . .. .. . . . . .. . .. .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . 254 

semistriatus ................ ,....................... 251 

.signatus ............................ 2L53,232,234,238,240, 

244, 245, 246, 248, 249, 250, 263, 263-264, 264, 266, 588 

var.. ........................... 21,53,232,234, 264,266 

.silveanus .. __ ................ _. _. _ ...... _ . __ ..... _ . _ 245 

.sinuatus............................................ 239 

spinosi (group) .............. 232,234,235,236,238,239,247 

.spinosicostatus .. . .. .. . .. . . . . .. .. .. . .. . . .. .. . .. . . . . 247 

var. c:1riniferus .......... -.-..................... 247 

var. expansus.... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 247 

var. incurvus .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 247 

.spinulosus ............................ 236,239,243,247,248 

.spiralis ........................................... 245,248 

spitzbergianus .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. . . . . . 250 

striati (group) ........................... :m,232,233,243 

.striatus ...................................... 236,238,248 

var sphrnricus........... . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. 248 

·.stuckenbcrgi ....................................... · 243 

stuckenbergianus................................... 245 

.subhorridus .......................... 264-265,266,267,268 

var.latidorsatus............................... 235 

var. rugulatus .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 21, 

27, 53,216,219,232,233,236,237,239, 240,243,245,247 

248,249,250, 251,252,253,265, 2fl6, 267-268, 269,621 

'sublrovis . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. 251 

subquadratus ............................. ,......... 242 

sumatrensis........................................ 241 

tartaric us. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . .. 243 

tastubensis......................................... 243 

tenuistriatus....................................... 245 

tcxnnus ........ ............. _ ... _ .......... 21,53,2Hi,218, 

232, 236, 241, 242, 243, 245, 247,248, 252, 259-260, 585 

timanicus ... .... __ ............................... 244,245 

tripartitus......................................... 2!jl 

·troianus .................................... :. . . . . . . 247 

·tuberculatus ..................................... 245,248 

tumid us .......................................... 240,247 

umbonillatus ........ .' ............................. .- 249 

undatl (group) ....................... 234,235,236,240,247 

undatus .............. 236,237,238,239,240,241,242,248,250 

villicrsi............................................. 251 

vlangalii.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 239 

waageni. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . 241, 248 

waagenianus ............ : .. 16;21,53,169,232,233,234-235, 

236, 238,239, 242, 244, 245,250, 251, 2.)2, 253-254, 546 

var ............................ 21,53,232,234,248, 254 

walcottianus ........... 21,24,53,219,232,233,235,236.239, 

240, 245,247, 248, 249, 256,260, 266,267, 269-270, 585 

wallacianus ................................... 243,252,264 

weyprechti. ............. , .. .. . .. .. .. .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . 250 

Page. 

Productus wilczeki.. .................................. 250 

sp ............ 18, 21,24,27 ,53,232, 233,235,236, 2.17, 239,240, 

241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252,256, 2()6-

257, 260-261, 266, 270, 273-274, 580,586, 588, 616 

Productusgiganteus zone, fossils oL ............. 34,170,223 

Productus shales, fossils oL .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 30 

Proetidro ............................................ 50i>-509 

Proetus ............................................ _. 504,505 

Prolccanitcs ............................................ · 496 

Prolccanitid<e ....................................... 499-600 

.Promathildia............................ ... .. .. .. .. . .. 460 

anomola ..... , .................................... ·. 460 

biscri<etubcrculata . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. 460 

kasancnsis......................................... 460 

Pronorites ................. : .. ........ , ...... 492,493,496,498 

Pronoritidre ......................... : .............. 498-499 

Propinacoceras ...................................... 492,495 

Prosoponiscus . . ___ . _ .. _ .. _ ......... _ ............. _ . _ ; . 504 

Prospondylus liebeanus................................ 410 

Prosser, C. S., on Kansas Permian ................. 40-43,49 

Protoretipora ................................... 114,115,144 · 

ampla.............................................. 115 

Protozoa ...................................... ·.. .. . 13, 66-69 

Prot rete ........................................ 399, 448-449 

texana ............................ 24,55,400,448-449,617 

Prout, IL A, on Fenestclla .......................... 133-134 

on Polypora ..................................... 144,147 

Psammobia subpapyracea ........................... .'. 416 

Pscudomelania ................. 451,452,456-457,464,486-48 7 

sp ...................................... 21,24,55, 486-487 

Pseudomclaniidrn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465 

Pseudamusium. . . . . . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. . 439 

Psammophis. .. .. . .. .. . . . . .. . .. .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . 59 

Pseudomonotis ................................... 14,43, 400, 

401,406,407,408,409,410,411,412,413,414,415,416,418 

dcplanata.......................................... 403 

elcgantula.......................................... 410 

fimbriata.......................................... 412 

garforthensis. . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. . .. .. . . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. 415 

laticostata......................................... 410 

radiat<L ................ ----.------ ................ . 415 

spcluncaria ...................................... 409,415 

tesscl!tti. ........ :.................................. 407 

Pseudophillipsin ................................. 503,504, 50G 

Pseudoplaeunopsis..................................... 406 

Pseudovirgula .................................. 71-72,75-76 

tenuis ... : ............................... 16, 51, 75, 76, G27 

Pteria ................ , ....................... 14,399,403,406 

407,409,410,412,413,414-415,416,418,426,426-429 

guadalupensis ..... 15, 16, .54, 410,411,414,415,426-427,536 

richnrdsonL. _ .... __ .............. ---··· ... . .. .. ... 21, 

24, 54, 401,410,411, 415,425,426,427-429,617 

squamifcra ............................ 27,54,415,427,625 

sp. __ ...... _ ........ 21, 54, 406,411,414,415,426,428,429,592 

Pteriidro ........... ~ ........................ 424, 426-429, 433 

l'terinea ............................ _................... 404 

aviculiformis ... ·.................................... 406 

lata................................................ 404 

macroptcra. . . . . .. .. .. . .. . .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. 404 

Pterineopsis...................................... .... .. 408 

l'terinopectcn... . .. .. . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. 405 

devisii.... . .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. 405 

l'teronautilus. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. . 493 

l'tilopora.............................................. 116 

Pugnax ............. 301, 302, 304, 306, 307, 308, 309-320, 320, 322 

bidentata .......... 18, 22, 53,301,307,309,318-319,584,600 
INDF.X. 645 

Page. 

Pugnax bisinuata .................................... 301,302 

bisulcata ..... · .................................. 12, 14, 16, 

18, 19, 24, 53,304,306,307,308,309,310,310-313,314,583 

v11r. gratiosa .................. 18,53,309,311,312,583 

var. seminul0ides .. __ ....... _ ..... _ ... ~ ....... - 18, 

23, 25, 53,307,309,311,312,312-313,583,617 

elegans ................ 16, 17, 53,306,307,309, 315-316,559 

granum............................................ 306 

kayseri.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306 

keyserlingi................................ 306 

nitida ................. 22, 53,305,306,307,308, 313-314,599 

osagensis . . . . . . . . . . 18, 21, 22, 25, 53, 304, 305, 306, 

307-308,309,310, 313,314,315,317-318,319,324,599 

pinguis ............ 18, 53,304,306, 307,308,309,319,320,584 

pus ilia .................... 22, 53,306,307,309,319-320,600 

rockymontanus .................................. 302,309 

shumardiana .............. 16, 53,306,308,309,316,559,560 

swallovana... ... . .. .... ... ............ ........ ... . . 394 

swallowiana ........................ 12, 16, 18,53, 302,307, 

308, 309,314-315,315,316,318,319,320,336,559,584 

utn............................. . ......... 317 

utah ............................. 301,302,305, 309,.317, 318 

sp ......................... : . . . . . . .. .. . .. .. 18, 53, ago, 320 

Pupjao, fossils of...................................... 114 

Pyrawidellidre... . . . . . . . . . . . 465, 485-489 

Q. 

Queensland, fossils of ..... 33, 96,107, 1!5, 169-170,219,223,242, 

288, 326, 346, 385-386, 391-392, 401>-406, 455, 491-492, 503 

R. 

Rachura. . . . . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. .. . 505 

Ramlpora.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116, 118 

Raphistomella .. · ........ ·. . . .. . . . . . .. . . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. 459 

Regny, P. V. de, and Gortani, M., on Alpine fossils.... 36 

Reniera .... ... _ .......... __ .. .. . .. .. . ... . . . . .. . . . . ... . . . 71 

Reticularia...... ... . . . . . . .. . . . . .............. 342, 

.. 343,344, 345, 346, 348,350, 351,352,353, 354, 357, 366 

aflinis ..... _ ...................................... 354,369 

caroli...... . .. .. . . .. . . ............. 349,353,354,369 

clannyana.......................................... 351 

dieneri ........................................... 343, 355 

elegantula .................................... 340,349,366 

indica ................................ 340,352,353,366,369 

lineata .... 340,342,343,345,346,349,350,351,353,354,356,366 

lin~a tu s . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . 355 

nucella....... ................... .... 351 

pulcherrima ........................ . 

rostrata ...................... . 

setigera ................... . 

stllchei ....................... . 

. ... ' ... 343,352 

349 

370 

355 

urei................................................ 346 

waageni. ................................. 344,345,352,370 

sp ............... -....................... _............ 355 

Retipora.................................... . .. 115, 118 

flexuosa. . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . .. . . .. .. . .. . . . .. .. .. .. . . . 118 

Retzia........................................ 393 

ambigua ............. ,........................ 399 

lilymerensis.................................. 391,392 

meekana ....................................... 12,393,394 

papillata............................... 12,393,397 

punctilifera.. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 397 

punctulifera....................... 393 

radialis.... . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 391 

Retiiidre............................... 14,390-399 

Rhabdomesidre ...................................... 153-154 

Page. 

Rhabdomeson................................. 115,117 

rhombiferum:.. . . . .. .. . .. . .. . . . .. .. . . . . . 114 

Rhretinll................ ... .. . . . . .. .. ..... .. . . . . .. . .. .. 328 

Hhineoderma nlkitowkensis .... ,...................... 459 

Rhipidomella ............ _ ........................ 286,288,289 

michelini.. . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. .. . . 288, 289 

pecosi.................... . .... 287,290 

Rhodocrinus ..................... _........... 107 

Rhombopom ....................... 112,113,115,118,153-154 

bigemmis. . . . . . . . . 118 

lepidodendroldcs............. . .... 27, 52, 114, 153,626 

sp .................................... 24,27,52,153-154 

Rhynchonella ..... 49, 50,302,304,306,307,308,310,320-:124,326 

acuminata..................................... 307 

adrianensis ... .. . . . . .. . .. . . .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . .. .. .. .. . . 307 

angulata... ... ... . . . ... . . .. .. .. .. .. . . .... . .. . . . . . . . 290 

barusiensis.. . . .. .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. .. . .. . . 304 

bisulcata.............. .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. .. . 310 

carapezzre....... . . .. . .. .. .. . . .. . .. . . 307 

carringtonensis. . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . .. . .. . .. .. .. 308 

confincnsis......... . ............................ 304,308 

daleidensis. . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . .. .. . .. .. 305 

erandirostris . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. .. .. . .. . . .. . . .. .. . .. . . 307 

granulum . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. . .. . . . . 306 

guadalupw ........................ 12, 15, 53,323-324,565 

hoffmanni....... . ............................ 305,306 

indcntata....... ...... ... ........ 12, 

16, 18, 53,305,307,309, 321-322,322,323,324,560 

inversa..... -------- . ........... 326 

kashmiriensis . . .. . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . .. .. .. .. .. 304 

longreva ..... 16, 17, 22, 53, 3Q5, 307,309,320,322-323,323,560 

negrii. .. .'. . .. . . .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. 307 

Osagensis ... . .. .. .. .. . . . . . .. .. . . .. ... . .. .. .. .. .. . .. 317 

p!pi~a..... ................................ 309 

pleurodon. .. . . . . . .. .. . . . .. .. .. . . .. .. . .. . . 305, 306, 307, 308 

var. davreuxian11. ... .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . 304 

pugnax............................................. 306 

salinasi. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. .. .. . . . . .. .. . .. .. .. . . .. . . .. 307 

sosiensis. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. .. .. . .. . .. . .. .. . . . . .. . . : 07, 308 

texana .............................. ~-- .. 12, 53,323,324 

timorensis........ .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. . 305 

trilatera........................................... 308 

triplex ................................... :......... 307 

turanica.. . . . .. . . . . . .. . .. .. . . . . .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. . . . . . . 305 

uta................................... 317 

wichmanni . . . . . .. .. . . .. . . .. .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. .. .. . . . 305 

withei ................ -.... ... .. .. .. ..... . .. . . . ... . .. 307 

wynnei. .. . . . . .. :. . . .. .. . .. .. .. .. . . .. .. . . .. . 304, 308 

sp ..................................... 12,305,306,308,317 

Rhynchonellida; ................................. 14, 304-324 

Rhynchopora ......................... 14,306,307,309,310,320 

geinitziana .................................... · ... 306,308 

illlnoisensis...... ... . ... ... . ...... ........ .. ....... 309 

nik!tini.. . . .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 306 

pleurodon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306 

variabilis ...... '................................... 306 

Rhynconella Osngensis ................................... 317 

Richardson, G. B., aid of.............................. 51 

fossils collected by .................. 15, 22, 23,490,511-512 

on Gnadaiupe Mountains ....................... 7-8,9-11 

on IIneco formation....................... 26 

Richthofen, F. von, on Chinese fossils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 

Richthofenia. . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . .. .. .. . 14, 23, 36, 39, 156, 280-286 

hwrenciana ................................... 37,282,285 

permiana ...... _. ----- ... ----- .. 12,16,18,20,21,22,25,27, 

53,280,281,282,283-286,517,556,680,588,599,624 

sinensis. . . . . .. .. . . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . . . . . 282, 285 
646 INDEX. 

Page. 

Richthofeniidre ...................................... 2&J-.28G 

Rissoa ..................... : . ............. ."............ 463 

Roads, description of. ... ·.............................. 607 

Roemer, F., on Sumatra fossils........................ 32, 

95,106,169,223,241,287, 30.'i,385, 403,454,491,503 

Rotl'anowsky, G., on Turkestan fossils................ 31, 

168,222,238-239,286,305,344,384,402,453,491 

Rominger, C., on Cladopora............. ... . .. .. . . . . .. . 103 

Rostranteris........................................... 328 

inflata. __ ...... _. _ .. _ ... _. _ ...... __ ........ __ ..... _ 336 

inflatum.~ ......................... .'...... .... . .. . . 328 

ovale............................................... 328 

Rothplctz, ,A., on Timor and Ratti fossils.......... 32, 94, 

106,114,115,169,223,241,248,301' 

305, 326, 346,385' 391' 403, 454, 491 

Ratti, fossils from ...................•.... 94-95,106,114,169, 

241,287,301,305,326,346,385,403,454,491,503 

Russia, fossils of. ............................ 34-35,57-59,70, 

95, 106, 115-117, 170-172,218-219,223-224,242-

246,288,301-302,305-306,325-327,346,347-352, 

386, 392, 405-411, 449,455-460,492--494,503-504 

See also Ural Mountains; Vladivostok; Petschoraland; Kostroma; Timan; Donetz basin. 

Russian Permian, correlation of ................. 39-40,43-50 

Rutot!a .............................................. 412,413 

thyrrena.. . . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. . . .. .. .. . .. 412--413 

s. 

Sageccras..... .. .. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 490 

Sahara, West, fossils from ........................ 38, 96, 107, 

118,174,225, 251,, 289,308,329,357,387,416,463,495 

See also Igidi; Wadi-Draa. · 

Salter, J. w., on Arctic fossils......................... 37 

on Bolivian fossils ................ 38,107,251,308,463-464 

on Himalayan fossils ............. 30, 222, 238, 286,384, 402 

Salter, J. W., and Blandford, H. F., on Himalayan 

fossils...................................... 30 

Salt Range, India, fossils of.. ......................... 30,39, 

56, 70, 92, 94,105,113-114,129,133,142,144,165-

'1.67' 177,216,221,234,280,286,300,304,305,324-

325, 339-341, 383,391,399-401,449,452,490,503 

Sandstone, occurrence and character of... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 

Sanguinolaria:.. ... .. ......... ..... .. . .. .. .. .. . ... . . .. . 416 

Sanguinolites ........................ 403,404,405,409,412,413 

concentricus ... :. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . . .. . 406 

shumardii... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412 

tetraedrus ........ _ . .. .. _.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 40G 

undatus ................... ....... :................. 406 

Sapper, C., on Guatemalan fossils..................... 38 

Seacchinella .................................... 35-36,281-282 

Scaldia lamellifera. . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . . . . . .. . 404 

Scaphopoda ..................................... 13,449-450 

Schellwein, E., on Carnic Alps fossils ................. 36, 58, 

106,173,176,200,219,224-225,248-249,289 

294, 302,307-308,329,355,387,392,413,462 

on Chinese fossils ................... · ........... 31,44,287 

on Egypt-Arabian fossils ....................... 33, .58, 95 

on Entcletes ................................. 290,291-293 

on Fusulina ............................ · ............ 62,68 

on Gcycrella ............ · .............. 161,162,163,203-204 

on Mississippi Valley fossils .............. 59, GO, 01, 62,68 

on Orthothetes ................... 158,175,194,198-199,209 

on Orthothctina .................. 161,162,163,164,172,198 

on Palermo fossils ..... · ................... , .. 280,281-282 

on Richthofcniidrn .............. _.................. 281 

on Streptorhynchus .......................... 164,172,176 

on Strophomenidre ................................ 163 

Page. 

Schel!wein, E., on Trogkofelschichten fossils........... 36, 

173,219,224,248-249,271,302,306,329,355,387 

Schel!wein, E., and Kossmat, 1<'., on Bellerophon limestone....................................... 37 

Schistocems.: ........................ . :.. ............. 496 

Schizodus.......... ...... ... ..... . . .. .. ................ 399, 

400,406,408--409,410,413,414,415, 41G, 419; 431 

lopingensis ..................................... _.. . 403 

obscurus........................................... 408 

pinguis.. .... .. ... . .. . . .. .. . .. .. . . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . 414 

rossicus ..... __ ...................... ..... .. . . . .. .. .. 408 

rotundatus......................................... 400 

securus ..... . ___ ..... _ .... _ ........ _ ...... _ . . . . . . . . . 12, 

16, 54,400,402,403,407,410,411,414,415,417,431,536. 

truncatus.......................................... 408 

whee!eri. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403 

sp .................... , ............................ 407,411 

Schizophoria ...... _ ........... 167,286,287,288,289,291,300,342 

indica .............................................. 288 

resupinnta ........................ ·................. 289 

resupinoides ............ _ .......................... _ 290 

SchucJ:ertel!a ........................................ 156,158, 

159,160,161,162,163,164,166,167,169,170,171, 

172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,196,198,209 

crenistria. . . . . . .. .. . .. .. . . .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . . . 175 

lens .......... : .................................... : 196 

tapajotensis........................................ 159 

Schuchert, Charles, aid of ............................. 51,211 

on Guada!upian fauna ............................ 40,390 

Schuchertites....... .. . . . . .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . . .. . . . 496 

Schwager, C., on Chinese fossils ........................ 44,56 

on Japanese fossils................................. ~2 

on Salt Range fossils.... .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 56 

Schwager, C., and Kayser, E., on Chinese fossils....... 31 

Schwagerina ....................... ~. 32,43-45,56,57, 58, 60,65 

princeps............................................ 58 

· robusta............................................ 44 

Scyphia............ ... .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. . ... . . .. .. ... .. . . 71 

tubcrculata .... ............. :...................... 71 

Sebargas, fossils from .............. ·.................... 71 

Sebargasia............................................. 71 

Sedgwickia.... .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. . 418 

Seminula .............................. ' .. •. .. .. . .. . . 383, 390 

globularis.·.......... ............................... 385 

Septifer. . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. ... .. .. .. .. . . . .. . . . .. .. . 400 

squama............................................ 401 

Septopora.. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . 112, 118,-1,52-153 

biserialis ....................... ·........... ......... 114 

robusta ................................... 27,52,162-163 

Shumard, B. F., fossils determined by ............... _ 11-12, 

15, 62, 64, 133, passim 

Shumard, G. C., and ll. F., on Guada!upian fossils... 5,8, 

255, 258, 271, 283,311, passim 

Shumardites... ..... .... .. . . .. .... .. .. .... ............. 496 

Sibirzew, N ., on Russian (Artinskian) fossils .. 35,106, 21R, 328 

on Russian (Gschelian) fossils ..................... 35,106 

on Russian (Moskovian) fossils.................... 35 

on Russifm (Permian) fossils ................. 35,106,246 

Sicanites............................................... 495 

Sicily. See Palermo. 

Silicispongire ....................................... 70, 71-78 

So!ernyn. .............................................. 405,409 

biarmira ..................................... 402,409,411 

Solen sp... ... . ....................................... 407 

Solcniscus ......................................... 461,464,489 

altonensis .. _ ........ -~ ............ -~-- ............. · ·489 

fusiformis ........... ·.............. ... . . . . ... .. ... . . 489 

.. 
INDEX. 647 

Page. 

:Soleniscus hallanus.................................. 489 

humilis ......................................... ·.... 489 

newberryi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489 

paludiniformis..................................... 48U 

.solenomya ....................... 399, 405, 409,410,413, 41.5, 419 

hiarmica. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 414 

normalis .................................... · ..... 410,414 

radiata .................................... , . . . . . . . . 419 

submdiata.. .. . .. .. . . . . . . . ... . .. . . . . . . . ... .. . . ..... 419 

sp .. ____ ........ ___ .. ___ .. _ ... __ ... 22,54,4f}5,407,415,4H> 

:Solenomyidm ....................................... 419-420 

-Soleqopsis parvulus............................... ..... 410 

.Sollasia ............ .- .................. : ......... 79, 90, 91,93 

sp .................................... 15,16,51, 71,93,526 

.Sosiolytes ............................................ 460,461 

vas,silievkensis . ........ _____ . ___ .. _ ..... ___ .. _... . . 459 

.. South America, fossils of. See Peru; Bolivia; Brazil. 

Spain, fossils from. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 

.Spandel,E.,on Knnsas fossils .. _. .............. ." ....... 59,60 

.Spenglena.............................................. 400 

Sphrera corrngatil....................................... 188 

:Sphreriola................... .... .. . .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. 400 

.Sphmrocceliidre .......................... 79, 88, 89, 91,92-93 

Sphrr•odoma............................................ · 464 

Sph:erdsiphoniidre ....... ._ .................. 79, 88, 89, 91-92 

.Spirifer ................... 14,250, 2R9, 339,341,342,343,344,345, 

346,347,348,350,352,353,355,356,357,309,369-364 

aciculifer........................................... 372 

alatns ................... 340,341,345,346,348,350, 3e6, 31:7 

angustivolvatus........ .... ... .. ... ...... ...... ... 3{8 

battu ...... .... : ___ .............. · ... __ .. ----- .... 353,3£:5 

bicarinatus......... .............. .... . . .. .. .. .... . 3c6 

bistritz>e........................................... 355 

bisulcatus ......................................... . 347 

blasii........ ............................... 356 

boonensis ...................................... ·.... 358 

cameratus ......... 12, 34.1, 348,352,357,358,359-360,363,364 

.caruicus .......................................... 354,306 

var. grandis.................................... 354 

. clannyanus. ~ . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . . . .. . . . . . . . 3W 

clarkei. ...................................... 341,347,348 

condor. . . . .. . . . .. . . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. . . 357 

-contractus ..................................... : .. . 

-convolutus ....................................... .. 

31:5 

347 

-crassus __ . _ ..... __ ................... _ .. _____ ..... ~. 351 

·crebristriatus.... . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . . . .. . . .. .. .. . 347 

·curvirostris. . . .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 45, 352, 356 

-curzoni.. ............... · .......................... 168,341 

darwini. . . . . .. .. . .. . .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. . 34&-347 

-dieneri..... .... .. ... .. ... ... . . .. ... .. . .... ......... 355 

disjunctus va r. sulcifer .......................... 341, 363 

distefanii... .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 342, 353 

draschei............................................ 357 

duodecimcostatus ................................ 346,347 

duplicicosta .......................... 339-340,353,355,357 

-ellipticu~....... ... .... ... ...... . .. . . .. .. .... . .. ... . 344 

fasciger. . . . . . . . . 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 348, 350, 354, 355 , 

fri tchi. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . . .. .. ·. .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . 354, 355 

fultonensis................ ... .. ... .... .. ... . . . ..... 358 

fusiformis....... .... .. .. .. ..... .... . . ..... .... ..... 341 

_glaher ............................................ 347,350 

glahra. .. .. ...... ... . .. .. . . .. . ... . ... .. . ... .. .. ..... 344 

-guaoolupensis.............. .. ..... 12,342,358,366,367 

var. ovalis ............................... .' ... 344, 354 

var. subquadrata ........................ 344,345,354 

"hystericus.......................................... 352 

integricosta. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . 349 

!'age. 

Spirifer interplicatus .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 346 

interplicatus var. baschkirica ..................... , 348 

kashmerianus. ... . .... .. .. .. ... . . . . . .... .. ......... 344 

keokuk ....................... :..................... 353 

kupangensis ....... .' ............................. 345,346 

laminotus ... _ .. _ .................... __ .. __ .... _ .. _. 3.17 

lineatus................. 344,345,347,350,355,357,367 

lyra .............. :.. .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . 348, 349, 356 

var. a! pinus.................................... 356 

Inacilentus ....................... ........ _ ....... _ _ 355 

rnarconi. .................................. 339,342,343,350 

tnelissensis ... ....................... _. _ .... ___ ~ _. ·349, 353 

mexicanus ... __ ................................. 12, 14, 16, 

17, 1],24, M,340, 341,342,343,346,348,349,353, 

355, 35tl, 3.17, 3.19-360, 360-361, 361,362, 550,582 

var. cmnpactus ... -..... ---- ....... 16, 54,340,342,343, 

344,346,348,349,355,357, 360,361-362,362,550 

var. . .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. . . .. .. .. .. . 16, 18, 54, 340, 

34~, 348,350, 3.11, 352, 3."3, 356,357,360, 362 

rnosquensis ............ ; ...................... 348,349,355 

var ................ :............................ 357 

rnultigranus....................................... :iss 

musakheylensis .......................... 342,344, 34S, 346 

niger ...................... :.. . .. . .. . . . . . .. .. . . . .. .. 340 

nikitini.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348 

nitiensis............................................ 342 

oldhamianus...... .... .. .... . . . . . . . . . .... .... .. ... . 340 

opimus ........................................... 357,358 

ostiolati (group) . . . . .. . .. .. .. . . . . .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. . . 372 

oviforrnis ... _. ___ ..... _________ ...... ________ ... __ _ 

penniariUS . .. _ . _ . _ .... ____ . _ .. _ ...... _ . ____ . _ .. _ .. _ 

pentlandi. ........................................ . 

perplcxus _ ..... _ .. _ .. ____ . ___ . _. ___________ .... _ .. " 

347 

356 

357 

366 

~:~~i~~;~~~~~--·.·.·.- .. :::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::. ~41,~:~ poststriatus........................................ 351 

quadriradiatus..................................... 355 

rajah .... , .. . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . . .. . . .. .. . 341, 342, 343, 344 

ravanna ............................................ · 344 

rockymontanus.................................... 358 

regulatus .......... :.. . .. .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. 46, 352, 356 

schrenki. .......................................... · 45, 356 

schucherti. .. . .. .. . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . . . . .. .. . . .. .. . 372 

setigera ............................ ·-. .... ... . .... . 307 

siculus............................................. 353 

stachei. .......... · . . .. . . . .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . . .. . . .. .. .. . 35.5 

strangwaysi. ...... ·........... . .......... 341,348 

_striatiparadoxicus .... ....... --- .... ___ .. ___ ..... 356,357 

striatus .............. 339,345,346,348, 3c3, 354,355,356,357 , 

var. multicostatus............................. 357 

var........................................... 353 

strzeleckii. .. .. . .. . . . .. .. .. . . .. . . . .. . .. .. . . .. . . . .. 346, 347 

subradialis. ...... ... .. . . . . .. . . . . . ... .. . . . . . ... . . . .. 347 

snlcifer ... 54,340,342,343,344,346, 3:.0, 353, 355, 359;360, 551 

sulcijera_ ......................... :. .. . . .. . 363 

sulcijerus. . . . . . .. .. . . .. . .. . . . . . .. .. . . .. . .. . .. .. .. . 12, 363 

supru.mosquensis .. :. ............... _______________ . 353 

tasmanianus var.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345, 346 

tasmaniensis . . _ .. ___ ............ _ . __ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · 347 

tegulatus................. .... . .. ... .. . . ...... .. ... 339 

texanus ............................... :. .. .. .. .. .. . 358 

tibetan us. . . . . . .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . 342, 343, 348 

var. occidental is............................... 355 

timorensis- ...................................... 344, 346 

triangularis........................................ 357 

trigonalis .................... 341,348,349,351,353,355,357 

var. bisulcatus...... .............. ...... ....... 356 
648 INDEX. 

Page 

Spirifertrigonalis var.lata ....... : .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354 

triradialis ........................................ 349,355 

undulatus.......................................... 356 

ventricosus .... _. ............................... --.. . 348 

vespertilio .............. ~. .. . . . . .. . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . 347 

vihianus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344 

waageni.. __ ................... 350 

wilczeki. . . . . .. .. . . . . . . .. .. .. .. . . ............ 356,357 

wynnei. ------- ....... __ ..... __ 3S0,3.C.2,3t~3,350,355 

zit(~li............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354 

Var __ .: .... _ ... ___ .. _. _ _ .... -..... _. _ . . . . 354 

sp .. 12, 18, 21, 22, 23; 27, 54,339, 3c0, 341, 3c2, 343, 3c4, 3c5, 346, 

348, 350, 351, 352, 353, 3M, 355, 357,358,359, 362-3M, 382 

Spirifer mosquensis zone ............................. 170,223 

Spiriferella .... ___ ._._ ............ : ............... 3<R, 350,357 

artien sis ............................ ---... --. . . . . . . 351 

saran::e .... ___ .. ____ . _ .. _ .................... _ .... 350,351 

Spiriferidrn ...................................... 14,339-382 

Spiriferina ..... 49, 50,339, 3c0, 341,342,343,344,345,346,347,348, 

350,351,352,353,354,355,356-357,358,359,371-382 

acutirostris .... ... _ ......... -~- ... -- -· ------ ..... .. 351 

baliensis. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. 353 

billing'L __ .... ____ . _ ............ 12, 14, 16, 18,21,24,27,54, 

340, 341,342,343,348,352,353,355,356,357,358,359, 

372,373,374,374-376,376,377,380,381,551,552,555 

var. retusa ............................ 16,54,376,552 

blasii ...... ____ ... ... . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. .... .. .. 352 

campcstris ....................................... 372,373 

concentrica ...................................... 373,374 

corona;_ ........................................ _ .. . 355 

cristata ..................................... 340,341,345, 

346, 348, 350, 351, 352, 356, 372, 373,37 4, 375, 379, 380 

var. fastigata ................................ 355,356 

var. octoplicat•t. ......................... 342,343,357 

duodecimcosta ta ....... ' ......................... 346, 347 

elegautissima ..................................... . 353 

evax ..... _ .......... 16, 17, 54,340,342,353,359,372,376,552 

expansa. ~ ............ -............................ . 348 

gonionotus ....................................... 372, 373 

holzapfcli.......................................... 348 

hilli. ... -- ..... ' ............ 27, 54,340, 341,3(3, 345,346,348, 

350,351,3S2,35o, 356,357,372,373,:179,380,382,622 

var. polypleurus ........... 18,24,54,380,381,382,582 

hoferiana ........................................ 351, 356 

insculpta ................................. 340,348,351,374 

jonesiana ........................... ,-- .... -....... 356 

kentuckyensis. _ ... _ .......... 341,35S,371,372,373,37f,,~sl 

lamellosre (group)---- ................ 372,373,374 

laminosa. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. .. . . . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . 348 

var. sterlitamakensis.......................... 348 

laxa .......................... 18, 19, 20,24, 54,341,343,348, 

350,353,355,357,358,372,373,377-378,379,382,582 

lima ............................ --- ... --............ 341 

margaritrn ............................... 342,343,353,375 

multiplicata ............................. 340,341,356,373 

nasuta ........................................... 341,373 

octoplicata ................................... 342-343,357 

var. fastigata.................................. 343 

ornata ....................................... 340,348,374 

pander!. ......................................... 348,351 

papilla too (group) ................................ 373,374 

papillosa .................................... .'...... 353 

pulchra. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . 358 

pyramidalis ............................ 16,24,54,341,343, 

348,350,353,355,357,358,372,373,378-379,382,555 

rupicola .......................................... ·_. 353 

sall;,rnonensis ............ :.......................... 353 

l'age. 

Spiriferna sarame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 350 

schell\vieni. ...... _ ....... _ .... _ .. _ ... _ . _ ...... __ .. _ 353 

simensis............................................ 348 

spinos::e (group) .............. 343,358, 371-372,-373, 378,380 

subconica .. ....... _ . __ . _. _. _ ... __ ...... _ .... _...... 351 

sulcata ...... 16, 17, 24, 54,348,351,353,359,372,373,377,552 

tornata........................................ ... . 353 

toulai. ... ,. . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . .. .. . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 353 

trnnsversa ....................... 341,358,371,372,373,374 

vercheri............................ . ......... 341,374 

welleri............................. 14, 16, 17, 18,20, 24, 27, 

54,341,343,350,353,359,373,379,380-382,382,555 

var. . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . 24, 54, 382 

sp ................................... . 

Spiriferinm. _ ........ _ .. _ ... __ ... ___ ...... ___ . 

Spirigera ambigua ........... _ .......... _ .. __ 

damesi .. ____ .. __ .... __ .. ___ ..... _____ _ 

epigona.: ........................... . 

345,357 

14 

384 

385 

386 

expansa. . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . .. 384 

gerar~ L .............................. __ ... _. . . .. . . . 384 

grandis .............................. __ .. __ ....... 387 

roissyi _____ ..... _ .... ____ ...... - . -- .... ----- 384,385 

pertumida ...................... . 

nlanoeulcata ......... : ......... . 

protea var. subtilita .............. __ ....... _ 

pseudo<liclasma ....... _ .... _. __ ....... __ _ 

subti!ita .. _ ... · ...... __ ... __ . _ .. _ ....... _. 

387 

387 

385 

385 

385 

timorensis. _ .... _ ........... ___ .. . . . . 385 

Spirigerella .......................... :l33, 3S3, 384,385,386, 387' 

Spiri!lina ..................................... 56,57,58,59,69 

Spi:;;,~:: _- _- _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_·_ -_-_-_-_ ._._-_ ._._-_ ._._ ._._ :_ ._._ -~-- ___ 15, 18, 52, 69,::: 

irnbrieatus .......... ,_ ..... :. .. ... .. . . . . .. 112 

texanus.................................. 24, 52, 112,608 

Spiti, fossils of............................. 30, 114,167,216, 

. 222,235-237,301,304,325,341-342, 384~ 391,402,490 

Spitzbergen, fossils of........ 37, 95, 107, 118, 174, 220;225, 249, 

250-251,289,303,308.329,356-357,387,393,416,463 

Sponge . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . 569 · 

Spongire ............................................ 13, 70-71 

· Squamularia ........ 339,340,341,342,343,344,345,346,347,348, 

349,350,351,352,353,354,355,356,357,358,359, 366-370· 

diener!. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 343. 

guada!upensis ........................ .'. . .. .. . . . 12, 16, 17, 

21, 25, 27, 54,330,340,345,346,347,349,350,351,352, 

353,354,355,356,357,358,367-369, 3e9, 370,389, 551,. 

var. ovalis.... 16, 17,54,340,3fi2,3fi8,369-370,1ilif, 

var. subquadrttta. __ .... _ ..... __ . _ ..... 16,54, 

340, 342, 344, 352, 355, 369, 551, 

lineata. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . 345, 356 

var. elliptica .......................... __ ....... 356-

perplexa. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . 357, 358, 368, 369 

waageni. ............. __ . . .. . . . . . . . .. .. . . . 370 · 

Stache, G., on C!1ios fossils.................... 33 

on.'l'yrolese fossils.......................... 37 

on West Saharan fossils .......... _ ............ 38, 96,107, 

118, 174,225,251,289,308,329,357,387,416,463, 495· 

Stacheia ................... _. ......................... 57, 58,59 

Stach ella............................................... 452· 

Stacheoceras ................ ·..... ... .. .. .. .. .. . .. . ..... 495· 

Stanton, T. W., aid of................................. 51 

Steinmann, G., on Spanish fossils..................... 71 

Steinmannia .................................... 70, 79,92-93 

americana........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 18, 51, 526 

Stemmatocrinus cernuus....... .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 106-

Stenaster confluens .................................. _ 106-

Stenopora ................ , . 112, 113, 115,116,118,120, 128-131 
INDEX. 649 

Page. 

Stenopora columnaris ... _____ . __ ........... __ ........ 116,117 

columnaris var. ramosa ........ ----.. ..... .. . . . . . .. 118 

mackrothi. ... __ .. _ .. _ ....... _ . _ ... _ ........ ____ .. .. 132 

granulosa ...... _ ... ___ ....... _____ 18,22,51,128-129,576 

polyspinosa .... _ _ _ _ .. _ .. _ . _ .. __ .. __ .. _ _ 130 

var. richardsoni ......... 15,21,23,24,52,129-130,530 

ramostt ..... ___ . __ .. _ ...... _ ......... _.... 118 

signata .......... _______ _ ______ 128,129 

spissa.. ................ 130 

tubulosa ........ ----- _ _ --- ....... - _ .. _ _ 118 

sp .... __ .. _ ........ _ ................. _ .. ___ 18,51,130--131 

Straparollus .. _ ....... _ ....... ___ . _ .. 456,457,459,462,470,483 

permian us .. _ ......... _ ... ____ .. _____ . __ .. 454, 458, 462, 463 

placid us ... _ .. _ ......... _ .. ___ ..... _ ....... ___ ..... _ 453 

quadrivolvis ...... __ .. _ .. _ .. _____ . ___ .... _ . _ . __ .. .. 470 

variabilis ... _ .. _. .......... _ .. _ .. ______ .. ___ .... _ .. .. 457 

sp ________ ...... ... ...... ...... .... .. .... .. .. ...... 12 

Streblopterla .. ___________ .... 4o3, 406,408,412,413,432,437,439 

antinorii. ......... __ .. _ ............. _ .. _. _ _ 413 

lawigata ........... __ .... _ .......... _ ___ _ _ _ _ ___ _ 437 

pusilla .. _ _ .. _ .. ___ . __ .. _ .. _______ ...... __ .... __ .. 413 

sericeus ....... ___ ...... _______ .... _ ..... _ _ _ _ ___ ___ 414 

Streblotrypa ... _____ .. __ . _ . ___ .. ________ .......... _.. .. 118 

Streptorhynchus. _... _____ .. _. _ .... _. _ .... ____ 13, 36, 40, 45, 

. 11\7,158, 159, 160,161,162,163,164, Hi5, lUG, 167,168, 

169,170,171,172,173,174,175, 17ii-181, 194,198,278 

araehnoidea .. _. _ ...... · ...... _ _ _ ....... __ . _ .... _ 195 

beyrichi. ..... _ ................... ___ ...... _______ .. 169 

capuloides .... _ ... _ .. _ ...... ___ . . . __ ........... _ 166, 173 

- correanum .............. _ ........ _ .. _ ...... _ ...... _ 174 

crenestria .... _____ ... _ ... __ ....... _ . _ .... _ . . . . . . . . . 158, 

168,169,170,171, 172,174,175, 176,195, 197, 198,203 

var. eusarkon .. ___ . __ .. __ ...... ___ ... _ .... ___ 161,172 

var. incurvum ... _. . . _ .... _ ............. ___ 172 

var. macrocardinalis .... _ ...... __ .............. 174 

var. senile ................ _ ..... _ ...... _ ..... _ 168, 169 

davidsoni. . __ ....... _ .. _ . _ .. __ ......... _ ..... _ . .. .. 169 

distortus ............ _ . _ ....... _ ........... _ ..... _ . _ 157 

gregarium ................... _ 16, 52, 177, 177-178, 180,542 

hallianurn ... __ .............. _ .... 158,159,163,170,174,176 

kayseri. . _ ...... _ ................. _ ..... _ .. _ ..... _ . . 168 

lens ........ __ ......... ____ ....... __ .......... _. __ 158,175 

opercula tum ... _ .......... _ ... _ ..... _ .......... __ .. 173 

pectiniformis.. . ... _ ....... _. __ ..... _ ........ 157,168, 169 

·pelargonatum ........ _ ....... __ .. _ ....... 170,171,172,173 

pelargonatus ........... _ ... _ ......... 157, 159,166,174,17S 

perattcnuatum .... -------------------· 25,52,177,180,616 

peregrinum ..... ______ ........ __ .................. 161,172 

pllcati (group) .. _ ................ 160,161,164, 16(), 176,204 

pusillus .. ___ ................. _ .. __ .. _.............. 174 

pygrnreum .. _ ........ _. _ ... 25, 27, 52, 177, 178-180,181,6£0 

radialis ... _ .......... _ ...... __ .... _ .. _ . . . .. . . . 169, 170, 195 

semi planus ... __ .................. ______ ... _ ........ · 173 

shumardianus ................... _ ... _ .. . . . 12 

shumardianum ..... _ ... _ ... _ ..................... 204,205 

simplices (group) ............ 160,161, 1U4, 166,174,176,:004 

subpelargonatum _ .............. _ ......... _ .... __ .. 168 

tapajotense .................. _ ............... 158,170,174 

ulrlchi. ...... _ . .' _ ............. _ .............. _ ... _ 160, 176 

williamsi. .... _ ...... _ .... _ ...... _ . _ ............. _ 160, 176 

sp. __ .............. _ .... _ .... _ ..... 27,52, 168,180--181,6£0 

Striatopom ..... _ ....... _ ....... _ .. . .. . . . .. . .. .. .. .. .. . 103 

flexuosa ...... _ ...................... _.. .. . . .. .. . . .. 103 

Strlgocephalus ................ · ............ _ .......... _ . 188 

Strobeus ........ _ ...................... _ ...... _ ...... _. 460 

elegans ........................... -.. : ..... _ ~ _....... 461 

Stromatidium ........................................ 77-78 

typical e._ ............................ 21, 24, 51, 77-78,608 

Page. 

Stropbalosia ............... _ ..... _ ............. 36, 40, 45,216, 

218,219,239,241,249,250,274-276,276.278,279,281 

cancrini. __ .. : .. _ ....... _ ...... _.. ... ... .. .. . .. . .. .. 220 

clarkci. .............. -. _ ...... _ ............ _ ...... _ 218 

cornelliana .. ___ ...... _ 17,1i3,?19,220,275, 276,276,281,517 

costata ............... _ .. --- ... ___ ..... _____ ...... 21G,217 

excavata .. ----- ................... ------------..... 274 

fragilis. _ ........ ___ ... __ .. _ ... _____ ........ _... .... 219 

gerardi. --- ,_ ----.--- ............................. _. 218 

guadalupens-is .. .. _ ..... _ .... _ .. _ .............. __ .. 12, 218 

horrescens ..... : ............. _ .... _ .... _ ...... 46, 21~, 219 

bystricula. _ .................. _ .... 27, .53, 219,275,271\,621 

lamellosa. _ .. ·_- _ ...... _. __ ............ __ . _ ........ _ _ 220 

leplayi. .. _ .... _ : ................ _ . .. .. .. .. . . .. . .. 216, 220 

morrisian:t. ..... __ .......... _ ...... _ ......... 218--219,220 

spondyliformis ................................... 220,275 

tenuispina ........... · ....................... _ .... _. 2\i 

sp~ .................... ____ ........... ___ . _ 24,53,218, 2i6 

Strophomena ... _ ....................... _ .. _ ...... _ .. . . 188 

analog••- .... --- ___ ----. _ ............. .. : ... __ 167,169,235 

deprcssa ......................................... 174,2131 

pecten ..................... _ ...... _ ...... 188,192-193,194 

radiata .... ___ .......... ____ .. _ ................... 192,193 

. rhomboidal is var. analoga .... _.................... 169 

Strophomenill"'- ___ .............. _ .......... 50, 11)6--210, 281 

Strophostylus ........... _ .......... _ .................. · 485 

Stuckenherg, A., on Russian (Artinskian) fossils_ .... _ 34, 

3.5, 58, 106, 116, 171' 224, 24.5, 302, 306, 

351, 392, 407, 449, 450, 456--4,;7, 493,504 

on Russian (Gschelian) fossils..................... 34, 

35, 95, 106, 116,301, 3a2, 406--407,449, 456,504 

on Russian (Kohlenkalk) fossils .................. 95,115 

on Russian (Kungurstufe) fossils ............. _... 106, 

116,224,328,407-408,457, 493,504 

on Russian (Permian) fossils...................... 24fl 

Suhulites .... _ .... __ .................... _............... 457 

permian us ......................... _ ......... _... . . 459 

sp .................................. _ ....... _.. . .. .. 457 

Suess, E., and Frech, F., on Central Asia and Pamir 

fossils_ ....................... _ ..... _ .. .. .. . 31 

Sumatm, fossils of ............ _ ............ _ .. _........ 95, 

106,169,223,241,287,305,346,385,453-454, 491,503 

See also Indian Archipelago. 

Swallow, G. C., on Productus ........... _ .......... _.. 268 

Sycones. _ ........ _ .... _ ......... _ ..... __ ......... _ .. _ _ 79-93 

Synhathocrinus _. .. .. _ .. _ ..... _ ............. : .. _.. 107 

Syncyclonema ......... _ .................. __ ·_ .. _ .. .. .. . 439 

Synocla.dia ...... _ ....... __ ....... _ .. _ ........ 113,116,117,118 

virgulacca .................... _ .............. _ .... 116,117 

Syri:~~~~~---_-_·:::::::::: :::: :·::::::::::::::::::::::::: 95~~: reticulata. _ .............................. , .... ..... 96 

Syringothyris ..... _ .... _ .......... _ .............. -~ .. 168,341 

Szechenji, Bela, on Chinese fossils..................... 31 

T. 

Tainoceras .. _ .......................... _ .... _.......... 49() 

Tainoceratid"'- .......................... _ ..... _ .... 497-498 

Talischau, fossils of. .. _-_ ................ _ ...... _ .. 94,240,345 

Tarr, R. S., on Guadalupe Mountains ..... : .......... : 9,11 

Tegulifera ............... _........ ...... .. .... . . .. .. .. .. 282 

Teiler, F., on Chios fossils............................. 33 

Tellina dunebnensis .. _ ... _.... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 414 

Tellinomya ... _ .................... _.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. 404 

Temnocheilus ...... _ ............................. 491,493, 49fl 

bayi .. _ ...... __ .. _ ... _ .... _ .................. _...... 491 

Temnotropis ...... _ ... _ .. _ ........................... 460,461 

Tengtj antsching, fossils from ......................... - 168 
650 INDEX. 

Page. 

Terebratuht ........................................ 49,50,432 

austenianus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326 

elongata .............. ; ........................ 12,328,330 

var. suffiata................................... 330 

elongatum.............. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. . . . 328 

gillingense.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329 

hastata ....................................... 326, 328, 329 

himalayensis var. sparsiplicati . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326 

hochstetteri.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329 

itaitubensis ......................... _............... 330 

mexicana ......................................... 3~9, 390 

pcrinjlata ..... .................................... 12,334 

plica ................................... ·............ 328 

pugnax. ............. .. . ..... .. .. .. . . .. . ... .. .. .. .. . 317 

sacculus .......................................... 326,328 

subtilita .............................. : . ..... :. . . . . 385 

superst<is ............................... , . . . . . . . . . . . 311 

titicaensis ........................................ •.. 329 

uralica .. _ ........... _ .............. -.. --.---------- 328 

vesiculare ............ :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328 

sp.. .... ... ........ .. . .. .... ... . ... . . .. ... . .... .. .. . 329 

Terebratulid::e ...................................... 324-339 

Terehratuloidea ... 14,304,306,307,308,310,313,320,321,335,336 

depressa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304 

Tetmcladina .......................................... 71-76 

Tetracoralla ......................................... 97-102 

Tetractinellid::e...... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 

Tetraxis .. _ ...... __ ................................. 56,57,58 

coniea var. lata.................................... 59 

Texas, central, fossils of. .............................. 38,48 

Textularill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 

gibbosa..... .. ...... .. . .. . ..... ... . . .. .. . . ... ... .. . 59 

'l'halassoceras.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 492, 495 

'l'hamniscus ........................ 112,113,116,118, 148-149 

digitatus.............. . .. · ....... 26, 52, 148,602 

dubius .................. , . . . . . . .. . .. . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. 117 

palmatus ...................................... ·.,.. 148 

sp ..................................... 27,52,148-149,626 

Thecidlidm ....................................... 49,210-216 

Thrincoccras. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496 

Tibet, fossils from ................................ 30, 286, 344. 

Timan, fossils of. .................................... 288, 350 

Timor, fossils from ................. ·32, 94-95,106,114,169,210, 

223, 241, 287, 301, 305, 326, 345, 34G, 385, 403, 454, 503 

Bee also Indian Archipelago. 

Toula, .E'., on BoJivianfossils.......................... 38, 

107,118,225-226,250,251,329,357 

on Nov& ?:embla fossils ................ _ .... _...... 37, 

95-96,107,118,174,225,2.11,357,387,416,495,505 

on Peruvian fossils ......................... "..... 357 

on Spitzbergen fossils ......................... 37, 95, 107 

ll8, 174,220,225, 20()-~51, 289,303,329, 35G-357, 4Hi, 463 

Trachydomb.. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . . . . . .. .. . . .. .. .. . . . ... <:62, <:C4 

wheeleri. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459 

Tracbypom.. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . .. .. . . .. . . .. . . . .. . 96 

'l'rachyspira ............. , ............................ 460,461 

Tragos ......................... :. . .. .. .. . . .. . '11 

Trans-Pecos, fossil localities of. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. 513 

Trautschold, H.,,on Orthotctes .................. 194-195,198 

on Russian (Moskovian) fossils ................ 34, 47, 57, 

95, 106, 115,170, 194-195,198,223-224,301, 

306,326,347-348,386, <OG, 455--i5G, 492,503 

Trematodiscus. ... .. . ... . ................. ...... .. . . .. . 494 

Tretospira ................. .'............. ... .... .. . . . .. 459 

'l'ribrachyocrinns .... ....... ------ ...... __ . ___ ...... __ . 107 

Triccelocrinus: ..... .'.............................. 107 

Trigonia antiqua...................................... 416 

Page. 

Trigonlid::e .. . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431 

Trilobita ........................................... 505-609 

Triticites .................................. · .... 44,60,61,63,64 

secalicus ........ , ...... ·. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . 60 

Trochammina ................................... ·....... 58 

Trochid::e ........................................... 484-486 

Trochonematid::e....................................... 465 

Trochotoma ......................................... 460,461 

'l'rochus. . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. . 451, 452, 453, 460, 401, 464, 484-486 

adrianensis. . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. .. . . . 461 

anthracophilus..................................... 454 

sp ........................................ 16,5.5,484-486 

Trogkofelschicbten, fossils of ................. 36,173,219,224, 

248-249,271,282,302,308,329,355,387,392,495,504 

Tropidocyclus sp .................... , __ .... .... .. ..... 453 

Tschantien, fossils from............................... 344 

Tsehemyschew, Th., on Key&erlingia........... ....... 210 

on Russian (Artinskian) fossils.................... 35, 

171, 218, 224, 245, 288, 302, 306,327-328, 350,386 

·on Russian (Gschelian) fossils ................. 34,35,95, 

106, 116, 17()-172, 210, 218, 223-224, 242-245, 

288, 301' 306, 326-327, 328, 348, 386, 350,392 

on Russian (Permian) fossils...................... 46, 

106,116,246,302,306, 328,35~, 386,409,458,493 

on Vladivostok fossils ............................ 32,346 

on Ural fossils ............................ 35,288,327,350 

'l'schurigtjen, fossils of. ...................... 218,240,345,503 

Tubereulopleura.... .... .. .. .. . . . . ...... .. .. .. . . . . .. ... 460 

'l'urbinidre. . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . .. .. .. . .. . . .. . . 465, 483-484 

Turbinilopsis. . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . . .. . .. . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . 460 

planorbiformis. ... . . .. . ... .. ................ ...... 461 

Turbinolia striata..................................... 96 

Turbo. . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . . 451, 452, 456, 457, 458, 462, 463, 488-484 

angulatus ....................... :.................. 458 

burtasorum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458, 459 

guELdalupensis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 55, 483 

helicinus... .. ... ........... ... . . . . .. . . . .. . .. ....... 12 

mancnniensis. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . 463 

obtusus .......................................... 457,462 

permianus...... ...... ... . . . .. .. .. ........ .... .. .. . .463 

sp ................................. 24, 55, 459, 462, 463, 484 

Turbonilla. •. ......... .... .. .. .. .. . . .. .... .. .. .... . ... . 462 

altenburgensis... .... .. . ... .. .. .. ... .. . . ... .. ...... 402 

phillips!. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402 

roessleri... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462 

symmetrica. .. ... ..... .... .. .. . .. . ... .. . . .... .. .. .. 462 

volgensis .......... ·.... .. .. .. .. . . . .. .. .. . .. . . . .. . 462 

Turbonellina. . . . .. .. .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. 460, 461 

chapzepetovkensis............... .... . .. . .... . ..... 459 

Turkestan, fossils of................................... 31, 

168,222,238-239,286,305,344,384, 402,453,491 

Tyrol, fossils from ................... , ............... ·... 37 

Tzwetaev, Marie, on Russian fossils......... 34,493 

li. Ulrich, E. 0., aid of......... .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. 51 

Uncinella ............................................ 391,392 

indica. . . . . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . 391 

Uncinulus ................. 14,304,305,3001307,308,300,310,320 

amor ... ,................. ............. 307 

jabiensis . ................ _ . ".. .. .. .. .. .. .. 304-305, 307 

siculus ........... __ .... __ ................... 307 

tirnorensis......... ... . . ..................... 304,305 

ve!ifer........................ . ............... 307,308 

wangenheimi. .. .. . . .. . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . . . . .. . 306 

wiclnnannL ....... _ .. _ . _ "' ..... _ ..... . l .. _ ...... _ . 307 

Unio .... --------------~---·······---········· 

castor . .. _ ........... _ ......... ___ ...... _ .. _ .... _. __ 

414 

409 
I 

INDEX 651 

Page 

Ural Moun tams, fosstls of. ................... 35,288,327,350 

See aha Tschernyschew 

Utah, fosstls of. ................................... 116,266 

v 

Valvuhna.... . ........................ 56,57,59 

Van Horn, foss•h.. frotn near........................ 25 

Van Horn quadrangle, fosstls from ................. 511-512 

Vermes........ . ........................... 13,112 

Vermetus...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 45b 

tschernyschewt.............................. . . . . 457 

Vmcularta ....... _ .. 116 

Vugula ......... ____ ..................... 71~72,73-70,76 

ncptuma.. . .... _ _ _ ... 16,17, 51, 71, 73, 74:,75, 76,5£7 

ngtdn. . . . . . . . . . . 15, 1b, 17, 51, 74-75,76,102,527 

var constncta. . ....... __ lb,51,70,527 

Vladtvostok, !osstls from.... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 32,346 

Volga hasm, fos .. ls of. . . . 34 

Volz, W, on Sumatru fosstls........ . .... . 33 

Von Streeruwttz. W H , fosstls collected by . 26 

Waagen. W, on Derhya ... . 

on Entelete, ......... .. 

w 

16()-161, 167,174, 1~1, 191,196 

290 

on Meekella !rom Nebraska... . lfi2, 174-173,176 

on Orthothetes ...... 157-158,165, 167,175,176, 195-100,'209 

on Productus. .. .. . .. 248 

on Rtchthofenndre . . . ;!81 

on Salt Hauge fosstls. . . 30, 

70, 94, 99,105,133, 157-1~, 16()-161, 164, 1bb-167, 172, 

176, 177, 195,211,216,221,234-235,286,287,291,300, 

304, 324-325. 33G-341, 38J, 391' 39G-401, 449, 452,490 

on Spmferma. .. . .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. 37 4 

on Streptorhynchus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16()-166 

Waagen, W . and Ptchl. J , on Salt Range fosstls...... 142, 

144, 1M, 155 

Waagen, W, and Wentzell, J., on Salt Range fosstls .. 94, 

113, 114,126,129. 130 

Waagenana.. ...... ............... . . .......... ... 493 

Wuagenel!a.. ........ ................ ..... .... ... . 462 

Waagenoceras.. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . 490, 491, 4%, 496, o02 

CtilllT!llOSL . . . . . . . . . ...... ! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496, 502 

var guadalupense ................ 25,55,491,502,618 

0 

Page. 

Wadt-Draa, fossils of. ............................. 251,387 

Waldhetm, F. de, on Orthotete, ................... 18&-194 

'Valdhetmta.... .. ... ... 326,330 

coutmhoana...... .... .. ... . 330 

pentagonuhs...... .. . 327 

Warthta ............ 15,451,452, 45.1, 460,464,481-482,491,492 

amencanu........ .. 21,24, 55, 4;;7, 400,~81-482, 492,593 

pohta...... ... . ... 482 

Water supply ciiuracter of.. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . 5-6 

Weber quartztte, correlatton of.. . . 49 

Weller, S, on North ~mencan f'!sstls.. .. .. .. . .... .. 39, 

96,107,226,252, 417,445 

Whttc, Dand, atd of... . .. .. .. .. .. .. . 51 

Whtte hme•tone, correlatwn ot........ 19 

See Captt>Ln formatiOn 

W!Chtta fauna, corr~latwn of............. 48 

Worthemops'"-- ...... '...... .... .. .. .. ...... ..... 459 

netscha]ewt .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. 459 

Wyommg, red beds m, correlatwn of.............. 49 

X 

Xenasp1s eft rbona rta. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... _ .. 

Xenodtscus. . . .. . .. .. .. . . .......................... .. 

y 

490 

490 

Yabe, F. on Japanese fos<tls.... ................ ...... 32 

on Korean fo·;stls........................ . .. . .. . .. 32 

on 'l'flttcttes...... .... .. .... ... .. .. .. ...... .. 44 

Yoldm .... ..... .... .... . . . . 3q9,413,419,422 

snhsmtula. .. .. .. .. . .. . . .. . ... 422 

sp.. ...... .. ............. .... . .. .. 2?,54,422 

Youngt•chnnfn. fosstls of. ..................... 168,223,241 

Yvama komnckt . . .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . 455 

z Zaphrenttdll' ..................................... 97-101 

Zaphentts.... .. ..... 93, 94, 95.96,100-101 

sp.. . ................. 20,24,27,51,100-101 

Zeacrinns .. _ 107 

Ztttel, K. A. von, on Bakewelhu......... . . . . . . .. 428-429 

ZoologiCal groupH hst of... . .. .. .. .. .. .. . 13 

Zygopleura.......... ... .. .. 460,·18ii-486 

swallowtana .......................... 12, 16, 55,485-486