If you do not need this publication after it has served your purpose, please return it to the 

Geological Survey, using the official mailing label at the end

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

SOME LINGULOID SHELLS FROM

THE LATE DEVONIAN AND EARLY

CARBONIFEROUS ROCKS OF

PENNSYLVANIA AND OHIO

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 193—C

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Harold L. Ickes, Secretary

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

W. C. Mendenhall, Director

Professional Paper 193—C

SOME LINGULOID SHELLS FROM THE

LATE DEVONIAN AND EARLY CARBONIFEROUS

ROCKS OF PENNSYLVANIA AND OHIO

BY

GEORGE H. GIRTY

Shorter contributions to general geology, 1938-39

(Pages 47-67)

UNITED STATES

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1939

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C. --_-._ _..-. Price 10 cents
CONTENTS

Page 

Introduction._________________________________________________________________________________________________ 47

Systematic descriptions.__-__________-___-___-___-_._„___-_________________-__--_______-__-_-_--___-_______-__-_ 47

Genus Lingula Bruguiere.__________________________________________________________________________________ 47

Genus Trigonoglossa Dunbar and Condra____--_________-_______-___---_--__--__--___--------_-----_---_--.-_-- 53

Index..-__._._.-_.....__.___...__.__.__.___.___..._._.._.._.____..___._.._..____.____.__.___.__.--..-.__._._. 67

ILLUSTRATION

Page 

PLATE 9. Late Devonian and early Carboniferous linguloids._______________________________________________________ 64

II
SOME LINGULOID SHELLS FROM THE LATE DEVONIAN AND EARLY 

CARBONIFEROUS ROCKS OF PENNSYLVANIA AND OHIO

By GEORGE H. GIRTY

INTRODUCTION

In the closing years of the last century I spent considerable time in Ohio collecting from the fWaverly 

rocks * and studying their faunas. Somewhat later, 

at the suggestion, as I recall, of M. R. Campbell, I 

crossed the State line and did some work in northwestern Pennsylvania. As that work progressed it 

became clear that there was a series of rocks about 

500 feet in thickness which was unrepresented by 

name hi the geologic time scale.

When the term "Kinderhook" was proposed for the 

oldest unit of the Carboniferous in this country, the 

fWaverly group of Ohio was explicitly included in the 

Kinderhook, along with the typical Kinderhook rocks 

of the Mississippi Valley. On the other hand, the 

Chemung of the New York section was, I believe universally, recognized as the final unit of the Devonian. 

The work of I. C. White in Crawford and Erie Counties, Pa., had established the fact that between the 

Chemung, as he recognized it, and the base of the 

fWaverly group in Ohio there were several intervening formations. For this interval I introduced the 

name "fBradfordian series." Some of the things 

which at that time I proposed to do were (1) to check 

White's identification of the Chemung in northwestern 

Pennsylvania, (2) to determine the base of the Mississippian in terms of the typical Kinderhook of the 

Mississippi Valley, and (3) to describe the faunas of 

the fBradfordian rocks. It became evident to me 

before very long that to carry out these objectives 

would require the concentrated effort of many years, 

and the realization of this fact, together with the 

intervention of other duties and other interests, led 

me gradually, if reluctantly, to abandon those purposes.

I did, however, prove to my own satisfaction that the 

probable base of the Mississippian in Pennsylvania in 

terms of the Mississippian type section is the Corry 

sandstone, which is correlative in a general way with 

the Berea sandstone in Ohio, and I made a start in 

describing the faunas of the fBradfordian beds. The 

present small paper is part of that descriptive work. 

The descriptions have, of course, been revised, and a 

few fWaverly species have been added that seemed

• A dagger (t) preceding a geologic name indicates that the name has been abandoned or rejected for use in classification in publications of the Geological Survey.

to be interesting or germane to the general subject. 

Several of the species discussed are definitely of Carboniferous age, and some if not all of the others are 

probably Devonian.

Regarding the third of my original objectives, toward 

which I had made no appreciable advance, I may add 

that the work of several able geologists has shown 

that the typical Chemung of New York occurs in 

northwestern Pennsylvania at a horizon considerably 

below the Chemung of White. Obviously, the fBradfordian series in its original conception would extend 

below White's Chemung to the true Chemung of Chemung Narrows, New York, and to its correlative in 

northwestern Pennsylvania.

Grateful acknowledgments are due to the United 

States National Museum for the use of collections, 

especially the extensive Randall collection, covering 

many localities in the vicinity of Warren and elsewhere 

in northwestern Pennsylvania.

Acknowledgments are also due to my friend, Wilbur 

Stout, now State geologist of Ohio, who, some 40 years 

ago, conducted me to localities near SciotovUle, and 

to whom I owe much of my best material from that 

region. Nor should I fail to remember another old and 

valued friend, Thomas Piwonka, of Cleveland, Ohio, 

a keen amateur geologist and an enthusiastic collector. 

He assisted in making many of my collections from 

Ohio and Pennsylvania and freely donated specimens 

from his own.

SYSTEMATIC DESCRIPTIONS

Genus LINGULA Bruguiere 

Lingula arcta Girty, n. sp.

Plate 9, figures 1-4

Shell of medium size, or less; width and length varying but little from a ratio of 1:2. Outline elongatesubelliptical. Sides almost straight or very slightly 

arched and almost parallel, rounding together above 

and below, so that the anterior end is somewhat truncated and the posterior end takes the form of a blunt 

point. The pedicle valve was probably more pointed 

than the brachial valve, but if both valves are present 

among my specimens they have not been definitely 

distinguished. What appears to be the brachial valve 

shows upon exfoliation a well-defined muscular area of

47
48 SHORTEK CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENEEAL GEOLOGY, 1938-39

large size though distinctly less than one-half the total 

length; it has the usual cordate shape and a finely, 

strongly, more or less regularly corrugated surface.

The sculpture consists of very fine, sharp concentric 

striae, some of which at rather remote and regular 

intervals are stronger than the rest, marking stages of 

growth.

This species has been recognized at several more or 

less widely separated localities representing possibly 

several different horizons. It seems to be rather abundant in the Chagrin shale of northeastern Ohio. Figure 

1 represents a slab containing one complete specimen 

and parts of three others, all single valves and all exfoliated. Figure 2 represents a fifth specimen, also 

from the Chagrin shale; it is larger than the others but 

appears to belong to the same species. Though it has 

been deformed by pressure, it is included among the 

types because of its well-preserved sculpture. Another 

specimen (fig. 3) was collected at Union City, Erie 

County, Pa., at what may be essentially the same 

horizon as the types. It occurs in a fine sandstone and 

is exfoliated. It is somewhat larger and somewhat 

more elongate than the specimens from the Chagrin 

shale, but the differences are hardly sufficient to warrant 

a distinction. Another specimen (fig. 4) was collected 

near Warren, Pa., at a horizon which has not been 

determined with reference to the others. Its specific 

relations are also less definite, for it is imperfect at the 

posterior end, but if not the same species it is clearly a 

related one. This specimen also occurs in a matrix of 

fine sandstone and is exfoliated. Mention should also 

be made of a specimen figured by Hall and Clarke (pi. 9, 

fig. 18) under the designation Lingula sp. ? cf. L. cuyahoga. 

It is cited as from the Chemung formation at Panama, 

N. Y., but the term "Chemung" here must be taken in 

the broad sense. In size and proportions this specimen 

is closely comparable to the one from Union City represented by my figure 3.

The specimen from New York and consequently 

authentic L. arcta do appear to resemble L. cuyahoga, 

as is indicated by the formula under which the specimen 

figured by Hall and Clarke is cited, but there is some 

doubt as to how L. cuyahoga should be interpreted. 

Hall described the species as having the length and 

width in the proportions of 5:3, thus indicating a much 

broader shell than his figure and one that is decidedly 

broader than L. arcta. Lingulas are abundant at Cuyahoga Falls and Akron, the localities from which L. 

cuyahoga is cited, and I have numerous specimens but 

none that is comparable to Hall's figure; Herrick, however, figures a specimen of similar proportions. From 

this same general locality and horizon Herrick cites L. 

atra, n. sp., and L. meeki, n. sp., besides L. cuyahoga as 

above. L. cuyahoga as described by Hall (though not as 

figured) would appear to be similar to L. atra. My specimens from Cuyahoga Falls vary appreciably in shape, 

some being comparable to L. atra, others to L. paracletus

Hall and Clarke, which should also be brought into 

this galaxy. Lingulas of similar character are also 

abundant in northwestern Pennsylvania in tie Orangeville shale member of the Cuyahoga formation and 

some of the higher formations, and it will be difficult 

to apportion them among the species recognized in the 

Ohio fWaverly. Indeed, it would seem doubtful if 

there could be so many as six valid species of Lingula 

in the same region at horizons which come within a 

somewhat narrow range. I refer to L. atra, L. cuyahoga, 

L. gannensis, L. melie, L. paracletus, and L. membranacea, all cited from the fWaverly group of Olio. From 

all these species, not even excepting L. cuyahoga, L. 

arcta is clearly distinct. It is more elongate than either 

Hall's figure or Herrick's, and to any intrinsic difference 

the difference in horizon and faunal association would 

give added significance. There can be no question 

whatever if L. cuyahoga has the proportions ascribed 

to it in Hall's description; in that case L. cuyahoga 

would apparently resemble L. gannensis or some one 

of the other related forms.

A species very similar to L. arcta occurs in tie Bedford 

shale, L. herrickana of these notes. The differences 

shown are not marked and may not be constant, the 

fact being at present impossible to determine, as both 

species are rare. The circumstance that the faunas of 

the Chagrin and Bedford are so different a-* a whole 

casts a shadow over the probability that ever the same 

species of Lingula occurs in both.

L. louisianensis, a species at present known only in 

the Mississippi Valley, is somewhat comparable to 

L. arcta. If found together they might be hard to distinguish, though L. arcta is the more slender form. The 

wide geographic separation between the localities at 

which these species are known and the great unlikeness 

in the faunas associated with them make it unwise in 

this case also to assume that the proper differences, 

however slight, are without importance.

Horizon and locality: Chagrin shale; Bedford, Ohio (station 

3554), Brecksville, Ohio (station 3555); and an urdetermined 

horizon below the Knapp formation (fsub-Olean cor glomerate), 

\Yz miles northeast of Warren, Pa.

Lingula eriensis Girty, n. sp.

Plate 9, figures 5-9

Shell of medium size, rather regularly ovate in outline, though somewhat truncated in front. Length 

IK to 1^ times the width. Convexity very low.

The test is thin, and the inner layers, at least, are 

highly phosphatic and lustrous. Inconclusive observations suggest that the exterior may have be3n dull or 

finely roughened. External molds show that the outer 

layer was nearly smooth, marked only by very fine, 

somewhat irregular incremental lines, which tend to 

become fasciculate over the marginal parts, especially 

toward the posterior end. On the interior tl e cordate
LINGTJLOID SHELLS FROM DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS ROCKS OF PENNSYLVANIA AND OHIO 49

visceral area is rather distinctly shown by curved 

transverse striae.

The pedicle valve is scarcely distinguishable from 

the brachial valve in shape. It is somewhat more 

pointed at the posterior end, but some specimens 

cannot be satisfactorily identified by that means.

L. eriensis is closely related to a species found in the 

Bedford shale, from which it may be distinguished by 

its more oval shape, for it contracts more strongly 

above and has a proportionally greater width. It also 

resembles L. ligea of the Hamilton group, but it is 

less elongate. In the fWaverly group it resembles 

L. meeki. That species, however, besides occurring 

considerably later in geologic time, appears to be more 

distinctly striated than the nearly smooth L. eriensis, 

for the surface is described as being "marked with the 

usual concentric striae." In the early Carboniferous 

faunas of the Mississippi Valley no species closely 

comparable to this has been described.

So far as known, L. eriensis is restricted to the 

Chagrin shale, and it is found there in considerable 

abundance, though mostly at localities where other 

fossils are rare. The two valves are likely to occur 

together and to lie obliquely to the bedding, both 

circumstances carrying a suggestion that these shells 

were buried where they lived and at most were not 

transported far.

L. eriensis occurs in association with L. arcta, but the 

species are quite distinct, not only in shape but also, 

apparently, in their surface markings. Those of L. 

arcta are well shown and consist of exceedingly fine 

but sharp and regular growth lines. Nothing comparable to this is shown by my specimens of L. eriensis, 

in which the concentric lines are much coarser, much 

farther apart, and much less regular in size and spacing.

Figure 5 represents a specimen from McKean Comity, 

Pa., referred to the species only provisionally. It is 

apparently a dorsal valve preserved as a mold in sandstone, and it has been somewhat distorted by lateral 

compression. It does not differ markedly from figure 

6, and the difference may, in part at least, be due to 

distortion.

Horizon and locality: Chagrin shale, Paines Creek (station

3552), Big Brook, Orange Township, Cuyahoga County (station

3553), Brecksville (station 3555), Bedford (station 3556), all in 

Ohio. 70 feet below the Olean conglomerate member of the 

Pottsville formatibn, Bingham, Pa. (station 3492).

Lingula papyracea Girty, n. sp.

Plate 9, figures 15-18

Shell rather large, spatulate. Length about 1% 

to 1% times the greatest width. Sides gently convex; 

more strongly curved above and below, contracting 

somewhat toward the posterior extremity. Extremities 

rounded, the anterior extremity more broadly than 

the posterior. Specimens vary in the posterior outline; 

those which are more bluntly rounded are presumably

dorsal valves. The shell substance is thin, and th?, 

valves are almost flat. These characters may be due 

to maceration and compression, but it should be borne 

in mind that Trigonoglossa irvinensis in the same 

beds has not been similarly affected. That specie^1 

has a stout shell, and its convexity appears to be 

normal.

The surface is almost smooth except for what appear 

to be fascicles of growth lines, though the growth lines 

themselves are exceedingly faint. The fascicles ov 

low ridges are spaced at rather regular and close 

intervals; they are consequently numerous and on 

some specimens rather conspicuous. This may read 

as if the surface markings were similar to those of 

Trigonoglossa irvinensis, but there is no real resemblance 

between the species.

More species of Lingula have been described from or 

identified in the fWaverly rocks of Ohio than can be 

readily distinguished. Specimens from the same locality often show material differences in shape, and 

though some of these differences may by surmise be 

ascribed to their function as dorsal and ventral valves, 

the real nature of the valves can rarely be established, 

and some of the differences cannot be so attributed. 

If it is granted, as I believe it must be, that the difference in shape between the valves of the same individual 

is sometimes as great as the difference in shape upon 

which certain species have been founded, it would 

seem that in this genus more than in many anothe1* 

emphasis should be laid upon regional and fauna 1 

differences, unless, of course, pronounced intrinsic 

differences render such emphasis superfluous.

Lingula papyracea, by individual specimens, resembles several Waverly species. One of these is L. 

paracletus Hall and Clarke, which was described 

from the Cuyahoga shale at Chardon, Ohio. As 

linguloid shells of similar character are very abundant 

in the Orangeville shale member of the Cuyahoga, it 

may be inferred that L. paracletus came from that 

horizon. Specimens from that unit, as at Orangeville, 

have much the shape of L. paracletus, but they are 

materially smaller. The holotype of L. paracletus has 

a length of 16 millimeters, and the figure given by Hall 

and Clarke is enlarged 3 diameters. Specimens from 

the Orangeville shale member which have a length of 10 

millimeters are exceptional. Aside from a difference 

in horizon and faunal association, I am not able to name 

any signal difference between L. papyracea and L. 

paracletus if certain specimens only are taken into consideration. L. papyracea, it may be inferred, is a somewhat larger species, and it has a thinner shell, for Z. 

paracletus retains distinct muscular imprints, which it 

could hardly do if the shell were not rather massive; 

and it is said to have notably broad margins of contact, 

though this expression may mean that the valves are 

rather convex but shelve outward at the sides. No 

specimens that could be referred to L. paracletus witl
50 SHOKTEK CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENEKAL GEOLOGY, 1938-39

complete assurance, however, are available for comparisons.

Some specimens of L. papyracea resemble L. cuyahoga; 

they are not so slender as Hall's figure but are more 

slender than is indicated in his description. I do not 

recall a single specimen from the general locality and 

horizon which furnished the type specimens of L. 

cuyahoga that has the slender shape of Hall's figure, 

though Herrick and Meek have figured specimens having similar proportions. My specimens from the same 

horizon have more the proportions specified in Hall's 

description and resemble Herrick's L. atra. Meek's 

specimen, which came from Harts Grove, in Ashtabula 

County, was identified as L. membranacea Winchell. 

It not only resembles Hall's figure of L. cuyahoga but 

is even more similar to Herrick's figure of L. gannensis. 

If by any chance Meek's specimen actually belongs to 

L. membranacea and if Hall's figure gives the actual 

proportions of L. cuyahoga, it would be difficult indeed 

to find any specific distinctions, from the figures at least. 

It might also be difficult to determine which name has 

priority, as both were published in 1863. L. membranacea was described from the Kinderhook group at 

Burlington, and Winchell also cites it from the late 

Devonian or early Carboniferous rocks at Shafers, Pa., 

but no one knows what sort of a shell he had. His 

specimens from Shafers were apparently contained in 

the Andrews collection, which cannot now be located. 

Authentic L. membranacea does not concern this 

discussion. Winchell himself did not figure the species, 

but Weller gives a figure of the holotype. The specimen is imperfect and the species hardly recognizable. 

Weller says that specimens from the fWaverly which 

have been identified with L. membranacea by Winchell, 

Meek, and Herrick are all specifically different. Just 

how the statement could be substantiated with regard 

to Winchell's identification at Shafers it is hard to see; 

nevertheless it is probably true.

Of the species of Lingula known from the typical 

Mississippian faunas, L. papyracea resembles L. 

varsoviensis and L. indianensis, especially the former, 

but it would be unprofitable to pursue this subject 

further.

L. papyracea requires no comparison with its associates in the Bedford shale. It is, however, more or 

less closely related to L. eriensis of the Chagrin shale. 

The differences are not great, but as at present known 

L. eriensis is smaller, more elongate, less pointed at the 

posterior end, and nearly smooth, or at least not so 

distinctly marked by fasciculate growth lines.

This discussion should not terminate without mention 

of a peculiar feature shown by one of the specimens 

(figs. 12 and 12a), apparently a dorsal valve. In this 

specimen some of the later additions to the shell are 

carried completely around the posterior end, so that the 

beak, which had the normally terminal position at a 

stage just antecedent, has it no longer. The form of

construction is in a measure comparable to that of the 

dorsal valve of Orbiculoidea, except that th°- beak, or 

apex, in Orbiculoidea was at no stage terminal. It is 

not clear how this singular feature could have been 

produced accidentally by a flattening out of the shell at 

the posterior end; it certainly is not due to the projection there of the complementary valve, and it seems to 

be a pathologic or else an old-age character.

L. papyracea is rather abundant in the Bedford shale 

of northern Ohio but is not yet known from that formation either in central Ohio or in Kentucky.

Horizon and locality: Bedford shale, Bedford (station 721), 

Blue Rock Springs (station 952), and Euclid (stat'on 953), all 

in Ohio.

Lingula limatula Girty, n. sp.

Plate 9, figures 10-12

Shell of medium size. Length about 1% times the 

greatest width. Outline subelliptical, tending to pentagonal, with subparallel faintly arched sides and with 

the front regularly rounded or somewhat truncated. 

Posterior end in the ventral valve rather abruptly terminated by the two arched cardinal slopes, which meet 

in a very obtuse angle; in the dorsal valve this outline 

is a low regular curve. Convexity slight longitudinally, 

stronger transversely.

Surface marked by weak concentric undulations due 

to irregularities of growth and roughened by innumerable minute papillae of uniform size and distribution. 

The papillae are almost in contact and in places are 

confluent, forming short raised lines with ragged or 

papillose crests, which are in a general way conformable 

to the growth lines but are wavy and more or tess inosculating. The shell is thick and where exfoliated appears 

to be regularly and rather coarsely punctate, but where 

exfoliated surfaces and external surfaces can be seen in 

juxtaposition it becomes clear that the "punctae" are 

but an expression of the papillae on the inner layers of 

the shell. They are really raised points wl ich correspond individually with the papillae of the exterior but 

are smaller and consequently farther apart. They are 

readily seen where exfoliation is slight but become less 

distinct as it goes deeper and on the inmost layers are 

very faint if not absent altogether. The shell does not 

seem to be punctate, therefore, in the same way that the 

terebratuloid shell is punctate.

This species belongs, by reason of its punctate shell, 

in the genus Lingulipora, but I have come to doubt 

whether punctate shell structure has the same significance in the Lingulas that it has in some other brachiopods—and consequently to doubt the utility of Lingulipora as a generic name. Indeed, punctate shell structure is not invariably given generic significance; some 

species of Syringothyris, for instance, are highly punctate, but others are essentially or entirely impunctate.

In shape L. limatula resembles several species of 

Lingula, some in the Devonian, others in the j Waverly,
LINGTJLOID SHELLS FROM DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS ROCKS OF PENNSYLVANIA AND OHIO 51

but the character of the surface is distinctive, and also 

the strongly "punctate" structure of the shell, if they 

are not the same thing. The species first called to 

mind in this connection is L. punctata of the Hamilton. 

The sculpture of L. punctata, however, on close examination proves to be altogether different from that of 

L. limatula, and the shell, judged from the few specimens 

I have examined, is not "punctate." L. limatula somewhat resembles L. randalli of this report, but the surface 

ornament is entirely different; the ornament of this 

species is essentially papillose, that of L. randalli 

purely lirate. In shape it closely resembles the 

fWaverly species L. atra, but here again the surface 

characters are wholly different.

The collection contains five more or less fragmentary 

specimens on two small slabs accompanied by a label 

reading "Venango group, Union City, Pa." Two of 

these are here figured (figs. 13 and 14). It also contains 

several specimens from the Chagrin shale which belong 

to the same or to a closely related species. The one 

figured, which is a dorsal valve, is a larger and somewhat 

broader shell, but it has a similar quadrate shape and a 

similar punctate or papillose surface. It is this specimen that gave warrant for noting the difference in shape 

between the dorsal and the ventral valve. It occurs 

on a small slab which also shows the posterior end of a 

ventral valve belonging evidently to the same individual.

Horizon and locality: An undetermined horizon in cliffs 4}£ 

miles northwest of Union City, Pa.; and more or less doubtfully 

from the Chagrin shale at Bedford (station 3556) and Brecksville 

(station 3555), Ohio.

Lingula herrickana Girty, n. sp.

Plate 9, figures 13-14

Shell rather small, elongate, sub elliptical. Length 

twice the width or a little less. Sides very gently 

convex in the median part, more strongly curved above 

and below. Anterior end strongly rounded; posterior 

end of nearly the same shape as the anterior but slightly 

more pointed, probably, in the ventral valve. Surface 

marked by very fine but sharp, somewhat wavy inosculating lirae.

Lingula herrickana is especially close to L. arcta of 

this report. The difference in shape, however, is regarded as sufficient to dintinguish them, and this difference, though not great, is given added weight by a difference in geologic occurrence and faunal association. 

Of species from the same faunal province already in the 

literature, L. herrickana will probably first call to mind 

L. melie, though much depends upon whose representation of the different fWaverly species is used. The 

authoritative figures are of course of prime importance. 

L. melie is very abundant at Chagrin Falls, Ohio, the 

locality that furnished the types, and specimens from 

that locality show rather wide variation. Many of 

them, and these perhaps represent the more common

form, are broader than L. herrickana and more bluntly 

rounded across the anterior end. Specimens can be 

selected, however, that do not differ materially. The 

concentric striation also appears to be a little coarser in 

L. melie, though this difference is doubtfully constant 

and is not likely to be useful in distinguishing the two 

species. L. herrickana differs from Hall's original 

figures of L. melie in much the same way as it does from 

these specimens. Herrick figures as L. melie 2 a specimen which came from the same locality and horizon as 

mine and which as restored might belong to the same 

species. This specimen apparently is the only Lingula 

that he found at Central College and is rather fragmentary. On the other hand, I found two species at Central College which are very unlike, and as T. irvinensis 

is abundant and L. herrickana rare, the probabilities 

are that Herrick's specimen belongs to T. irvinensis 

and that it is incorrectly restored. Even with the 

shape given it in Herrick's figure it might be a very 

slender specimen of T. irvinensis.

A knowledge of the surface markings of Herrick's 

specimen would resolve all doubts, for in that character 

L. herrickana and T. irvinensis are far apart.

Comparisons with L. cuyahoga are hardly called for, 

even if the species is interpreted on the basis of Hall's 

figure, still less if it is interpreted on the basis of his 

description, which indicates a broader shell. Herrick's 

figure of L. cuyahoga, however, rather closely resembles 

L. herrickana: so does Meek's figure of L. melie from 

Johnson, Trumbull County, Ohio, and Herrick's 

figure of L. membranacea from Loudonville, Ohio. 

So far as shape is a factor, all three specimens, from 

the figures, might readily belong to the same species.

It hardly seems profitable, either, to carry these comparisons over into the Mississippi Valley, for, if the 

faunas generally are a criterion, that region forms a 

faunal province distinct from that to which Ohio 

belongs. If found in the same faunal province L. herrickana might be difficult to distinguish from L. gorbyi or 

L. louisianensis.

In one of the cotypes (fig. 17) the sides contract 

slightly toward the front, but this is probably accidental. 

In other specimens, though they are but few and all 

more or less imperfect, the sides appear to be nearly 

parallel.

At present this species is known only from the Bedford shale of central Ohio, where it is somewhat rare.

Horizon and locality: Bedford shale, Central College, Ohio 

(stations 726, 726a).

Lingula randalli Girty, n. sp.

Plate 9, figures 19-24

Lingula randalli is an unusually robust species, 

which shows marked variation in shape and in proportions. Some of the variation can be seen from the

* Herrick, C. L., Denison Univ., Sci. Lab., Bull., vol. 4, pi. 9, fig. 1,1888.
52 SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENERAL GEOLOGY, 1938-39

specimens figured. In these the length ranges from 

about 1.7 to almost 2 times the width, and the shape 

from subelliptical to subovate. The anterior end is 

strongly rounded, the posterior end pointed in some 

specimens, bluntly subangular in others. It seems 

probable that the pointed specimens are ventral 

valves; as such they would also be a little more elongate 

than the dorsal valve. Specimens that are especially 

blunt at the posterior end are presumably dorsal 

valves; some, however, have neither one shape nor the 

other and might be somewhat pointed dorsal valves 

or somewhat obtuse ventral valves. The shell is thick, 

as becomes a species of so large size, and the surface 

is marked by very fine but also very sharp raised lines, 

which in a general way conform to the outlines of the 

shell but are more or less wavy and inosculating.

Thus the narrow pointed specimen (fig. 20) is supposed to be a ventral valve; it has been laterally compressed, though not greatly, and it is consequently 

narrower and more convex than it was originally. 

The broad specimen (fig. 19) is supposed to be a dorsal 

valve; it apparently retains its original shape and convexity. The specimens represented by figures 21 and 

22 are somewhat intermediate in shape; the original 

of figure 21 has been somewhat compressed laterally. 

All these specimens occur at essentially the same locality 

and the differences in shape and proportions, though 

certainly pronounced, hardly denote even varietal 

differentiation, at least of an effective sort.

I can hardly doubt that it was this species which 

Caster wished to identify as Lingula delia Hall, and 

possibly that identification may prove to be correct. 

On the data furnished by the original description and 

by the figure of the holotype, however, it is at least 

doubtful. I may note in passing that Caster's figure 

purports to be a copy of one given by Hall and Clarke 

in their brachiopod monograph. Hall and Clarice's 

figure is an enlargement to 2 diameters of the holotype, 

which was originally figured by Hall in the natural size. 

Caster's figure, however, has been greatly reduced from 

Hall and Clarke's, so that it is at the same time much 

smaller than the latter and much larger than the specimen itself.

The reasons for doubting that the form here described 

as L. randalli is identical with L. delia are these: 

L. randalli has a thick shell, whereas that of L. delia is 

said to be thin; the holotype of L. delia appears to be 

a dorsal valve and is twice as long as it is wide; L. 

randalli regularly (almost, if not quite) is a broader 

shell. Of the specimens of L. randalli chosen for 

types the only one that has essentially the same proportions as the holotype of L. delia is the original of 

figure 20, but that specimen is a ventral valve instead 

of a dorsal valve, and at the same time it appears to 

owe its narrow shape, in part at least, to compression. 

If the holotype of L. delia is a dorsal valve, the corresponding ventral valve would be still more elongated;

if it is a ventral valve it has a different shape from the 

ventral valve of L. randalli, at least from the specimen 

that has most nearly the same proportions. The two 

species may also differ in sculpture, but I have no 

immediate way of arriving at the facts. On the other 

hand, the median septum which is regarded by Hall 

as a distinctive character of L. delia is present also in 

L. randalli (fig. 20), though a certain amount of thickening along the median line is not uncommon in fossil 

Lingulas. To the distinctions just mentioned may 

be added the fact that L. randalli is a much larger 

species than L. delia and occurs at a much higher 

horizon, but the intrinsic differences may disappear if 

comparisons are given a wider range and net confined 

on the part of L. delia to the holotype.

L. randalli also more or less resembles certain species 

from the fWaverly group of Ohio, especially a form 

which Herrick figured under the title L. membranacea 

(he gives the horizon as above conglomerate II). Herrick's form, it should be noted, is entire!;^ different 

from the one which Meek called L. membranacea from 

Ashtabula County, to judge by the figures.

In the Mississippi Valley L. gorbyi (as figured by 

Weller) has much the same shape as L. randalli, but 

it is so much smaller (only about half the s?ze) and in 

every adventitious character so different, that detailed 

comparisons would serve no good purpose. Nevertheless, through the courtesy of the University of Chicago. 

I have been able to examine two excellent sp ^cimens of 

L. gorbyi, and from them L. randalli differs not only 

in its larger size but in having concentric lirae that are 

at the same time somewhat finer and much more 

flexuous and inosculating. The shape of L. randalli 

shows such variation that a general comparison in that 

category leads to no determined relation. Some specimens agree with L. gorbyi rather closely, and others disagree as widely, but all are very much larger.

I at one time identified L. randalli at a number of 

localities near Warren and also at Union City, Connellsville, and Tidioute, Pa., but as it has rot seemed 

profitable to verify these identifications, it is here 

definitely cited from only the two localities that 

furnished the types.

Horizon and locality: An unidentified horizon, 1% miles south 

of Warren, Pa., and 4 miles southeast of Warren, Pa. (cliffs of 

Brown Run).

Lingula ligea Hall?

Plate 9, figures 25-29

1867. Lingula ligea Hall, New York Geol. Survey, Paleontology,

vol. 4, p. 7, pi. 1, figs. 2a, 2b. 

1930. Lingula ligea. Caster, Bull. Am. Paleontology, vol. 15,

no. 58, p. 147, pi. 31, figs. 14, 16 (p. 5, pi. 10 of no. 58).

I have identified this species at several localities, at 

some of which it is very abundant. All tl °> localities 

are in the vicinity of Warren, Pa., and all but a few 

represent the horizon described on the lab 3! as upper 

Chemung where the phyllopod Crustacea vrere found.
LINGULOID SHELLS FROM DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS ROCKS OF PENNSYLVANIA AND OHIO

The shells identified appear to have been thin and 

fragile, and most of them are more or less deformed by 

pressure. On this account their true shape and proportions are, up to a certain point, a matter of inference. 

As a further consequence a close discrimination of 

species, which even with the best of specimens is dimcult, has here not been possible. The species has 

therefore been given a rather wide range in the characters ascribed to it, and consideration may well be 

centered on the specimens selected for illustration, which 

are among the best of those examined. With regard 

to these, I make note that the original of figure 29, 

which appears to be a pedicle valve, is highly arched 

transversely, and its natural width has been reduced 

by lateral pressure. The same is true of the specimen 

represented by figure 25, which appears to be a brachial 

valve. The original of figure 26 is believed to retain 

its original shape and proportions; its dimensions are 

approximately, width 4.5 millimeters, length 8 millimeters. The original of figure 28 also appears to hold 

its shape unchanged; its dimensions are, width 4.5 

millimeters, length 8.5 millimeters. Both of these 

specimens are thought to be ventral valves. The 

original of figure 27, which appears to be a dorsal 

valve, has a width of 4.5 millimeters and a length of 

8 millimeters, but the length has been diminished by 

pressure.

The specimens figured, which are fairly representative, are mostly smaller than those figured by Hall and 

a little more slender. One or two, except for size, are 

closely comparable to his figure 2b, which in turn is 

almost exactly like his figure 1, an enlarged representation of a specimen of L. spatulata. The specimens 

from Warren, therefore, might almost as well be 

identified with L. spatulata as with L. ligea.

Caster cites L. ligea from the late Devonian or early 

Carboniferous rocks of Pennsylvania, but apparently 

only as "reported by Carll and Randall from the 

Chemung group at Warren, Pa." Caster also gives 

what purport to be reproductions of Hall's original 

figures, but the reproductions are so much larger than 

the originals and so inaccurate as to shape that one 

would hardly suspect that lineage. Note should be 

made that Caster's figure 15 is ascribed to Lingula 

cuyahoga in the text but to L. ligea in the description 

of plate 31. I believe that the plate description is 

correct, that figures 14 and 16 were intended to reproduce Hall's figures 2a and 2b of plate 1 (Lingula ligea) 

while figure 15 was intended to reproduce Hall's figure 

8 of plate 2 (Lingula ligea var.). Note should also be 

made of a dual numbering both of the pages and the 

plates, one set for Caster's report (no. 58), and another 

for the volume as a whole (vol. 15). I am using the 

latter.

It seems to me somewhat improbable that the same 

species survived from Hamilton tune, in which L. ligea 

lived, to that in which the present species flourished;

47445—39———2

much rather, in consideration of our limited means of 

distinguishing species in the genus Lingula, the two 

forms are actually distinct but yet indistinguishable I y 

the means at hand.

Comparisons with L. melie are in point more ly 

reason of the great range in shape allowed to the species 

as shown by Hall's two figures than by any real agreement of the specimens from Warren with specimens 

from Chagrin Falls, where L. melie occurs in abundance, 

yet my figure 26 is closely comparable to Hall's figure 

3. On the average L. melie seems to be a broader 

shell than the one here referred to L. ligea.

I am in no position to examine critically the syronymy of L. ligea given by Schuchert or to bring it up 

to date. Only Hall's description and Caster's recent 

publication are therefore cited as being mainly to tl ^ 

point.

This species appears to occur at numerous localities 

near Warren but always at the same horizon. It has 

not been expedient to corroborate these identifications, 

which were made many years ago, and the only locality 

mentioned specifically is the one that furnished tl e 

figured specimens.

Horizon and locality: Phyllocarid horizon, hill at west end of 

Warren, Pa.

Genus TRIGONOGIOSSA Dunbar and Condra

1932. Trigonoglossa Dunbar and Condra, Nebraska Geol. Survey Bull. 5, 2d ser., p. 35.

There seems at first no basis for disagreement with 

Dunbar and Condra in their proposal of the new genus 

Trigonoglossa to receive certain linguloid shells that 

have of late rather generally been referred under 

Glossina, but if one looks into the matter it becomes 

more involved. These authors have explained how 

Hall and Clarke revived Phillips' term "Glossina" ard 

how Cockerell replaced "Glossina" with Paleoglosci 

(which they at first misprint "Paleoglossina") upon tl Q, 

certain grounds that it was a homonym of Glossira 

Wiedmann. The genotype of Paleoglossa obviously 

holds over as that of Glossina Phillips, and all must 

agree that the genotype of Glossina Phillips is his species 

Lingula attenuata.

The passage in which Phillips introduces the tern 

"Glossina" is quoted by Dunbar and Condra and need 

not be repeated here. The points that seem to 1 °, 

significant are that Phillips mentioned two species, 

L. attenuata and L. crumena, and that neither of them 

is specified as the typical one. The distinction between "Glossina" and Lingula was made to rest upon 

whether the shell of "Glossina" was equivalve or inequivalve, and Phillips said that he had been able to 

establish the facts only with regard to Lingula attenuata. 

L. attenuata on that account undoubtedly must be taken 

as the type species of "Glossina." Apparently Phillips 

was under the impression that Lingula was equivalve, 

and he sought to distinguish "Glossina" on the grounds
54 SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENERAL GEOLOGY, 1938-39

that it was not. As a matter of fact, all or nearly all 

species of Lingula are also inequivalve, and the Glossina 

of Phillips or the Paleoglossa of Cockerell must rest for 

its validity on other grounds.

It would seem as if Hall and Clarke, in reviving 

Phillips' term Glossina, rested its distinction from Lingula upon its supposedly triangular shape, for they 

speak of "the group of subtrigonal forms constituting 

Glossina," and this interpretation has been rather widely 

followed by authors, including Schuchert in his brachiopod bibliography. Now L. crumena, which is admirably 

figured in the work in which the genus "Glossina" is 

proposed, is a typical example of "Glossina" as interpreted by Hall and Clarke. It is a large, elongate, 

cuneate shell which, however, varies considerably in 

shape and proportions. Lingula attenuata, on the other 

hand, which was the only other species mentioned under 

"Glossina" but was not figured at the time, does not 

come satisfactorily under Hall and Clarke's interpretation of the genus, although it is unquestionably the 

genotype; it is a small species and rather on the ovate 

order as to shape. From these facts one would be led 

to believe that Hall and Clarke's conception of "Glossina" was based upon L. crumena instead of L. attenuata—upon the species that was figured instead of the 

one that was not. However, if shape is made the controlling feature of "Glossina," as that genus was interpreted by most authors up to the time of Dunbar and 

Condra, it is not hard to see how L. attenuata, L. crumena, and many other species could reasonably be included under it, for by an increased arching of the three 

sides, the subtrigonal outline passes by degrees into the 

subovate, and in fact among linguloid shells almost 

every gradation can be found between them. The distinction between "Glossina" of Hall and Clarke and 

Lingula would be quite arbitrary.

Hall and Clarke, when they revived "Glossina" as a 

subgenus of Lingula, referred to it specifically only three 

species—L. acuminata, from the fCalciferous sandstone; L. riciniformis, from the Trenton limestone; 

and L. flabettula, n. sp., from the fWaverly group of 

Ohio. In shape L. acuminata and L. flabellula are somewhat intermediate between L. crumena and L, attenuata, 

for their lateral outlines are nearly straight, like those of 

L. crumena, instead of being gently arched, but their 

anterior outline instead of being gently arched is rather 

deeply bowed, L. riciniformis is more comparable to 

L. attenuata than the others, if it is interpreted as a 

ventral valve (as it has been), but if it is interpreted as 

a dorsal valve the ventral valve would probably have 

much the shape of L. acuminata, and L. flabellula, a circumstance which illustrates the insecurity of classifying 

linguloid shells on small differences in shape, for the 

valves almost always occur separately, are somewhat 

rarely determinable as dorsal and ventral, and may 

differ from each other in the degree in which species 

themselves are distinguished.

Schuchert included under "Glossina" numerous 

species not mentioned by Hall and Clarke, but on the 

other hand he referred the Glossina acuminata of those 

authors to the genus Lingulepis and returned their 

Glossina riciniformis to Lingula s. s. Among the 

Glossinas of Schuchert are the four recorded species 

which Dunbar and Condra include in Trigonoglossa.

Dunbar and Condra in proposing the genus Trigonoglossa say that it embraces "a group of CarHniferous 

species distinguished by their striking concentric ornamentation and broadly triangular form," and they 

wonder what originally led to the assignment of "these 

late Paleozoic species to that Ordoviciar genus," 

meaning the genus Glossina of Phillips. These late 

Paleozoic species are, exclusive of T. kentuckyensis, 

which they describe as new, Lingula sedaliensis Miller, 

L. flabellula Hall and Clarke, L. waverlyensis Herrick, 

and L. nebraskensis Meek, the last being named as the 

genotype of Trigonoglossa.

The validity of Trigonoglossa as distinguished from 

"Glossina," or we should better say Paleoglossa, rests 

on the more or less exclusive possession of the characters 

ascribed to it, which are its shape and its sculpture. 

Though the application of terms is to some extent a 

matter of personal opinion, I should say that in shape 

some species of Trigonoglossa are not broad but elongate, and that some are not triangular but ovate. Thus 

the fWaverly species which Meek figured as Lingula 

scoticaf and the species, also probably from the 

fWaverly, which Hall and Clarke figured as L. waverlyensis are decidedly elongate and do not differ materially (except in size) from one of the original figures of 

L. crumena, while in their proportions they essentially 

are as elongate as L. attenuata, though appreciably 

different in shape. T. kentuckyensis, on the other hand, 

is broad, but because of its highly arcuate anterior 

margin it is hardly triangular. That species and the 

somewhat more slender T. flabellula are less triangular 

than ovate. Herrick's figure of T. waverlyensis and 

Weller's figure of T. sedaliensis are closely comparable 

to one of the figures of L. crumena, while L. irvinensis 

(which is not mentioned by Dunbar and Condra but 

which has the distinctive sculpture of Trigonoglossa) is 

very similar in shape to Paleoglossa attenvata or to 

Lingula meeki Herrick, if that species is not in fact a 

Trigonoglossa. Thus, not to engage in more elaborate 

comparisons, there is nothing in the shape of Trigonoglossa that is distinctive except in a very general way. 

Fairly close parallels can also be found between 

Paleoglossa and Lingula so far as those groups are 

separable.

Trigonoglossa would seem to rest for its validity upon 

the combination of a subovate or subtrigonal ehape with 

a coarsely striated surface, a combination in which 

the sculpture is much more significant than the shape. 

Dunbar and Condra seem to imply that Tngonoglossa 

differs from Paleoglossa (Glossina) in both items, and
LINGULOID SHELLS FROM DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS ROCKS OF PENNSYLVANIA AND OHIO

they describe P. attenuata as marked by fine lines of 

growth like those of Lingula. If it were not for this 

difference one would be put to it to name any substantial distinction between Trigonoglossa and Paleoglossa, for species of Trigonoglossa differ as much from 

one another in shape as some of them differ from P. 

attenuata. In fact, the two specimens of T. nebraskensis 

figured by Dunbar and Condra (not to mention the one 

figured by Meek) differ from each other almost as much 

in shape as either of them does from P. attenuata, for one 

figure has a broad, acuminate-ovate shape closely 

similar to that of T. kentuckyensis, and the other 

(though the original specimen is imperfect) has a narrow, cuneate shape similar to that of L. scotica? of 

Meek and L. waverlyensis of Hall and Clarke, above 

mentioned. The wide difference in geologic age between the two genotypes, however, should enhance the 

significance of such differences as are shown by them, 

although in point of shape similar or intergrading forms 

are found through the intervening periods.

Dunbar and Condra also seem to imply that Trigonoglossa is a Carboniferous genus, though that implication 

was probably not intended to be taken so literally. 

In my experience with Carboniferous and late Devonian 

Lingulas, the group of Trigonoglossa does seem to be 

sharply defined, chiefly by its sculpture, yet somewhat 

also by its shape. I have never observed any shells in 

which the sub triangular or acuminate-ovate shape of the 

more extreme examples of Trigonoglossa is combined 

with the fine striation of Lingula or any in which a subquadrate shape such as is found in Lingula is combined 

with the strong, spaced lirae distinctive of Trigonoglossa. However, so many species of Lingula are known 

only from exfoliated or macerated specimens that such 

combinations may occur, and Trigonoglossa may graduate into Lingula, s. 1., as completely in its sculpture 

as it does in its shape. Thus the extent to which Trigonoglossa is restricted to faunas of Carboniferous age 

is uncertain, for many species that rest under Lingula 

are entirely acceptable under Trigonoglossa on the score 

of shape, while owing to their poor preservation their 

sculpture is not definitely known. The Hamilton 

species Lingula paliformis has in Hall's original figure 

a shape closely comparable to that of Trigonoglossa 

nebraskensis as figured by Meek, and the sculpture also 

seems not to be incongruous with Trigonoglossa, for it is 

said to consist of "strong concentric lamellose striae." 

Specimens subsequently figured by Hall and Clarke are 

extremely similar to T. flabellula in outline. It is true 

that Hall and Clarke refer L. paliformis under the genus 

Lingulella? The essential difference between Lingulella 

and Lingula seems to consist in the manner of exit of 

the pedicle, which in Lingula rests upon a groove and in 

Lingulella issues from a slit of similar size and shapeHall and Clarke justly say that great caution must be 

exercised in determining the facts. Thus in L. paliformis we either have (1) a pre-Carbonife-rous species of

Trigonoglossa, (2) a species of Lingula which is intermediate in sculpture between the microscopic striation 

of that genus and the coarse strong striation of Trigonoglossa, or (3) a species which brings Trigonoglossa into 

close relationship with Lingulella so far as they can be 

distinguished at all readily.

Now if Trigonoglossa is given recognition mainly on 

the grounds of its sculpture, there are other species cf 

Lingula that are perhaps equally worthy of generic 

separation on the same grounds. Hall and Clarke say 

"The surface ornamentation of Lingula is subject to 

but little variation, yet a few species are striking exceptions. In L. punctata of the Hamilton group, the fine 

surface lines are wrinkled into a sort of herringbone 

pattern." Several species (such as L. granulata 

Phillips and L. limatula Girty, n. sp., of this paper) 

have a granulose surface, and in L. lamellata the surface 

is covered by broad transverse imbricating lines that are 

discrepant to the lines of growth. Some species again 

appear almost smooth; others (like some of the Carboniferous forms) have extremely fine but also very sharp 

concentric striae. The circumstance that Lingulas are 

apt to occur in shale, especially black shale, and in a 

more or less macerated condition makes it difficult to 

determine the original sculpture, and descriptions tha t 

are accurate enough as to fact may be in essence mir~ 

leading.

In conclusion, it would seem in the present state of our 

knowledge that (1) Paleoglossa (Glossina Phillips) is 

not adequately distinguished from Lingula as generally 

interpreted; (2) Trigonoglossa may in a general way 

be the same as "Glossina" of American authors, depending upon what sculpture the several species possessed, 

for shells that might reasonably be referred to Trigoncglossa on the strength of their shape are found at numerous horizons in the Paleozoic, and on that score both 

of the original species of "Glossina" could properly find 

place in Trigonoglossa (compare P. attenuata with 

T. irvinensis and P. crumena with T. scotica? of Mee1-" 

or T. waverlyensis of Hall and Clarke); (3) Trigonoglossa is distinct from Paleoglossa and from Lingula 

on sculpture alone, if the entire content of each generic 

group is considered; (4) the status of a great body cf 

linguloid shells as between Lingula, Paleoglossa (if distinct from Lingula}, Lingulepis, and Trigonoglossa is 

uncertain; and (5) several other genera of linguloid 

shells are open to distinction on a basis quite as sound 

as that of Trigonoglossa.

Trigonoglossa flabellula (Hall and Clarke) Dunbar and Condra

Plate 9, figures 42-45

1892. Lingula (Glossina) flabellula Hall and Clarke, New Yor1r 

Geol. Survey, Paleontology, vol. 8, pt. 1, p. 172, pi. 1, 

figs. 33, 34. Waverly group: Sciotoville, Ohio. Berea 

grit, Berea, Ohio.

1895. Lingula (Glossina) flabellula. Hall, New York Univ. 48th 

Ann. Kept., for 1894, vol. 2, p. 326, pi. 1, figs, 5, 6. 

Waverly group, Sciotoville and Berea, Ohio.
56 SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENERAL GEOLOGY, 1938-39

1897. Lingula (Glossina) flabellula. Hall, New York State 

Geologist, 14th Ann. Kept., p. 326, pi. 1, figs. 5, 6. 

Waverly group, Sciotoville, and Berea, Ohio.

1932. Trigonoglossa flabellula. Dunbar and Condra, Nebraska 

Geol. Survey, 2d ser., Bul. 5, p. 35.

Large cuneate Lingulas such as until recently have 

been referred under the genus Glossina are known from 

several localities and horizons in the Carboniferous 

rocks of Ohio. The relations of these forms to one 

another have been as variously interpreted as there 

were various writers, so that at present it is difficult to 

find any solid ground in the entire subject, the natural 

difficulties being enhanced by statements hard to verify. 

Said briefly, these shells have been cited from the 

fWaverly group of northern, central, and southern 

Ohio and from the Pottsville of central Ohio. Another 

citation from the fWaverly of Pennsylvania close to 

the Ohio border likewise concerns us.

The first notice of these shells was published by Meek. 

It was based upon a single specimen which he thought 

was probably the impression of a pedicle valve and 

which he identified, though with considerable doubt, as 

the English species Lingula scotica. In Weller's bibliography Meek is quoted as citing this species from the 

Berea sandstone at Berea, Ohio, but the warrant for 

this is not known to me. Meek himself is much less 

explicit, for he gives merely "Waverly group, Ohio," so 

that from the published information his specimen might 

have come from any horizon in the fWaverly or from 

any part of the State. The Berea sandstone is almost 

unfossiliferous (I have seen a few poor fossils from the 

Berea but have never succeeded in finding any) and for 

that reason the horizon imputed to Meek's citation 

appears to me less probable than almost any other.

In Schuchert's bibliography of North American fossil 

brachiopods the Lingula scotica? of Meek is placed in 

the synonymy of Glossina waverlyensis and the distribution of G. waverlyensis is given as Berea and Newark, 

Ohio, and Oil City, Pa. By a process of exclusion 

(Herrick being responsible for Newark, and Hall and 

Clarke for Oil City) Weller may have concluded that the 

residual citation of Meek (Lingula scotica?) went with 

the residual locality (the Berea sandstone at Berea), 

but Scliuchert not uncommonly amplified the distribution and range of species, as they appeared in literature, 

by material in his brachiopod collection; such appears to 

be the fact in the case of Glossina waverlyensis. If so, 

it means merely that a form believed to be the same 

species as Meek's Lingula scotica? is believed to occur 

at Berea. The horizon is not necessarily the Berea 

sandstone, nor, if so, does it in any material way affect 

the dubiety that surrounds the horizon of Meek's 

specimen, the original Lingula scotica?. In this connection I may note a^slight error or inconsistency in 

Schuchert's recording of these citations. He records 

Glossina Jlabellula as present only at Sciotoville, although Hall and Clarke both cite and figure the species

from Sciotoville and from the Berea sandstone at Berea. 

Nor in that record does he omit their figure of the specimen from Berea. As Schuchert thus leaves out under 

G. Jlabellula an occurrence of Glossina at Berea that is 

recorded in the literature, and includes under G. waverlyensis an occurrence of Glossina at Berea tl at is not 

recorded in the literature, one might guess that he 

intended to divide 6r. Jlabellula as described and place 

the Berea specimen in G. waverlyensis, but this is hardly 

to be believed. Much more probably we are dealing 

with an accidental omission. Another statement regarding this specimen of Meek's is hard to justify from 

facts currently known. Miss Morningstar, ?lso a conscientious writer, says that Meek's figure of "Lingula 

scotica?" was a restoration based upon "very fragmentary remains." The original of Meek's figure may be 

extant, and Miss Morningstar may have seen it, but she 

does not say so. Meek states that his specimen (lie had 

but one) was a cast, but he does not imply that it was 

incomplete or otherwise imperfect. I susDect that 

Miss Morningstar was thinking of Herrick's specimen 

instead of Meek's.

The next one after Meek to describe a shell of this 

character from the Carboniferous rocks of Ohio was 

Herrick, in 1887. Herrick's specimen (he ako had but 

one, and it was very fragmentary) came from the lower 

Mercer limestone in Flint Ridge. Herrick cites this 

Pottsville form as Lingula scotica (var.?) and says that 

"if Meek's figure is accurate the Waverly snecies has 

quite a different outline from the Scottish" and that 

"it is probable, judging from the fragment, that our 

specimen had nearly the form of the European." In 

contradiction to this, he also says that his specimen 

agrees "pretty closely" with Meek's form, and his 

restoration of the Pottsville shell, which consisted of 

but the lower half of the valve, is in such exact agreement with Meek's figure of the fWaverly specimen that 

it might be a tracing even if it was not.

The following year (1888) Herrick, having found 

some shells of this type in the higher fWaverly at 

Newark, says specifically that there are two or more 

forms related to L. scotica in our American rocks and 

that the fW"averly and Pennsylvanian forms need to 

be distinguished. Pursuant to this opinion and to the 

one expressed the year previous, he introduced the 

name Lingula waverlyensis for the Mississippian species, 

figuring two specimens from Newark. Some years 

later he republished the original figures of L. waverlyensis 

without any text under the singular formula Lingula 

(scotica var.) waverlyensis.

To leave for the moment the fWaverly shells, which 

are the real subject of this discussion, the general probabilities point to the conclusion that the Pottsville 

form will prove to be distinct from any fWaverly 

species and that it will also prove to be distinct from 

the British L. scotica; furthermore, it seems desirable 

that these relations should find expression in the names
LINGULOID SHELLS FROM DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS ROCKS OF PENNSYLVANIA AND OHIO 57

employed for the fossils. Nevertheless the Pottsville 

form came to be cited, and still is, under the designation 

Glossina waverlyensis. Under that designation Miss 

Mark in 1911 figured a specimen from the same general 

locality and horizon as Herrick's (Flint Ridge), and 

Miss Morningstar in 1922 figured, also as Glossina 

waverlyensis, a specimen from the same horizon but 

from the adjacent Muskingum County, though anticipating that this would eventually prove a distinct 

species. Miss Mark's figure was without text. Miss 

Mark's figure and Miss Morningstar's figure differ considerably, the former being more or less triangular in 

shape, the latter broader and more ovate. Miss Mark's 

figure, therefore, is more comparable to Meek's figure 

of "Lingula scotica?"; Miss Morningstar's to Herrick's 

figure of "L. waverlyensis". If this Pottsville form is 

in fact distinct from L. waverlyensis it seems to be 

without a name, unless it belongs under L. nebraskensis. 

It is almost certainly not L. kentuckyensis.

To return to the fWaverly forms. L. waverlyensis as 

figured by Herrick is materially different in shape from 

"Lingula scotica" of Meek, and if there is any constancy 

of shape in these shells (which is a debatable point) 

they probably belong to different species. As is well 

known, all these forms come under the genus Glossina 

as interpreted by Hall and Clarke, and the transititon 

from "Glossina" to Paleoglossa and finally to Trigonoglossa is sketched in the preceding discussion of the 

genus Trigonoglossa.

Now when, as related above, Hall and Clarke 

revived the generic term Glossina, they both described 

a new species from the fWaverly rocks of Ohio, G. 

flabellula, and figured a specimen from Oil City, Pa., 

which they identified as G. waverlyensis. It is somewhat 

curious that the species from Ohio is described as 

Lingula flabellula but figured as Lingula (Glossina) 

flabellula, whereas the form from Oil City, which is just 

as good a Glossina as the other, is figured as Lingula 

waverlyensis. These authors do not compare G. flabellula with any of the forms mentioned above, of which 

the most likely in point of occurrence is G. waverlyensis. 

G. flabellula does in fact show marked differences from 

G. waverlyensis as they identify it, but their G. waverlyensis not only was found at a much lower horizon and 

in a different State from the original, but in itself is 

smaller, narrower, and more triangular than typical 

waverlyensis; it very closely resembles, in shape at 

least, the Lingula scotica? of Meek. G. flabellula appears to me to be more closely comparable to true 

G. waverlyensis than the shell from Oil City, and if the 

latter can be referred to Herrick's species so, a fortiori, 

can G. flabellula, which consequently would become a 

synonym. Provisionally, I am regarding the form 

from Oil City as wrongly identified and G. flabellula 

as related to but distinct from G. waverlyensis.

Two specimens are figured to typify G. flabellula, one 

from Sciotoville, the other from the Berea sandstone at

47445—39———3

Berea. The two figures are very similar as regardr 

shape, but as it may be desirable to restrict the specier 

to one of them, I designate that from Sciotoville (fig. 

33) as the holotype. It is obviously the better specimen, for it shows some sculptural features; the other 

specimen appears to be completely exfoliated.

The specimen of T. flabellula from the Berea sandstone is very similar in shape to the holotype from 

Sciotoville, the chief difference being that the anterior 

end is not quite so arcuate, a feature, however, in whicl 

the figure of the holotype is said to be inaccurate. 

Now Hall and Clarke's specimen of T. flabellula anc1 

Meek's specimen of T. scotica? are reported as coming 

from the same locality and the same horizon, the Berer, 

sandstone at Berea, though I feel that the facts in both 

instances need to be verified. That specimen of T. 

flabellula as figured differs materially from the specimen 

of T. scotica?, being much broader and having a somewhat more deeply curved anterior outline. If shape is 

a reliable character, there would appear to be two distinguishable species of Trigonoglossa in the Berea sandstone or more likely one very variable species. Then? 

is much here that is very questionable, however.

The holotype of T. flabellula is said to come from 

Sciotoville, Ohio, and it was found, I make no doubt, 

at the well-known locality on the Ohio River—namely, 

the bar at the mouth of the Little Scioto. My collections from this locality contain a number of specimen? 

of T. flabellula, which enable me to add to our knowledge 

of the species.

In most of my specimens the shape is conspicuously 

triangular, with long, nearly straight sides and a long, 

gently convex anterior margin. The three sides are 

connected by strong curves, the posterior end in fact 

being almost pointed. In Hall and Clarke's figure of 

the Sciotoville specimen the anterior outline is mor-j 

deeply rounded than hi most of mine, so that the snaps 

is ovate rather than triangular, but the drawing is said 

to be at fault hi this regard. In one of my specimen?, 

on the other hand, the ovate shape is suggested. Hall 

and Clarke's specimen, which appears to be above the 

average in size, is decidedly longer than it is wide (42 

millimeters in length by 36 millimeters hi width); H 

some of my specimens the two dimensions appear to 

be almost equal, but variation in these proportions r> 

doubtless partly due to the long ones being pedicle 

valves and the short ones brachial valves, for thoug^ 

the two valves have not been found in conjunction 

(at least in a condition to be measured), there is reason 

to believe that they differed materially in length and 

also in the shape of the posterior end, whether pointed 

or rounded. The convexity is rather strong for a 

species of Lingula: the transverse arch, though low and 

broad, is, near the sides, rather strongly turned dowr - 

ward. Lengthwise the convexity is more even.

The most conspicuous surface markings consist of 

delicate raised lines spaced at ratter regular and wide
58 SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENERAL GEOLOGY, 1938-39

intervals, the width of each interval being many times 

that of the enclosing lirae. The surface between these 

lirae is essentially flat. On corresponding parts of 

different specimens the scale of these markings varies 

considerably so that a space of 5 millimeters may embrace from 8 to 11 lirae. On the same specimen, 

however, the spacing is almost constant, though the 

lirae are a little more closely arranged toward the posterior end. These markings, though fine, can be seen 

without a lens; in addition the surface is also crossed by 

fine incremental lines which may be fasciculate so as 

to produce minute concentric undulations, all on a 

microscopic scale. They seem to be somewhat independent of the macro-sculpture, for they bend upward 

more gradually toward the sides, so that if faint they 

cut across the threadlike lirae, or if strong, interrupt 

them. They may also be greatly contorted, locally, 

in the spaces between the lirae. The lirae themselves 

are not rigid but pursue a somewhat irregular course; 

in places they may be much confused. Finally, the 

surface is regularly marked off into broad concentric 

bands by low imbrications marking growth stages. 

This is clearly shown by one specimen but is probably 

present in some degree on all.

Hall and Clarke describe the shell as relatively thick. 

As observed by me it is relatively thin, if the large size 

of the species is duly considered; consequently most 

specimens are more or less crushed. They also describe 

the surface as covered with low, rather faint and distant concentric lines or wrinkles. This does not accurately describe the sculpture of well-preserved specimens, and I judge that the holotype was slightly worn 

or slightly exfoliated. The markings in nature are 

really sharp. They are of course superficial and may 

be completely obliterated by exfoliation. Hall and 

Clarke also mention fine radiating lines on the inner 

laminae, and these are shown by some of my specimens 

also, especially over the posterior parts. On tho other 

hand, some external molds indicate the presence of 

radial markings on the exterior. These may take the 

form of numerous fine irregular discontinuous incised 

lines, which are chiefly developed on the anterior half 

of the shell and are to some extent connected with 

contortions in the growth lines, or they may appear as 

a very fine, rather regular fluting near the margin. No 

muscle scars are shown by my specimens, but several 

show the false cardinal area as sharply defined and 

slightly elevated above the floor of the valve, fairly 

broad even in the dorsal valve, and much broader in 

the ventral valve. In both valves the area is marked 

by transverse striae; in the ventral valve it is bisected 

by a long, narrow groove (the pedicle furrow), which 

tapers appreciably backward. Furthermore, in this 

valve the "cardinal area" is not formed by a mere 

thickening of the shell, as it appears to be in some Lingulas, but by an overarching wall with a deep recess 

beneath it.

The shell substance in certain layers has the appearance of being very finely punctate. This should, of 

itself, relegate the species to the genus Lingulipora, if 

the appearance of punctate structure is decisive. The 

inorganic layers of all Lingulas are thought tc be finely 

punctate, and consequently the distinctive character of 

Lingulipora may be a difference in degree of coarseness 

or an accident of exfoliation which would expose or fail 

to expose such a layer. It may be best to regard this 

character as of specific but not of generic importance.

Hall and Clarke do not compare Lingula flabellula 

with any other species, but it is in fact close?y similar 

to T. waverlyensis—not of course to T. waverlyensis as 

they identify it but to the species as represented by 

Herrick's figures. L. flabellula as figured is somewhat 

larger than T. waverlyensis and somewhat more ovate 

in shape owing to its deeply arcuate anterior outline. 

The figure, however, is said to be inaccurate in that 

respect, and my specimens seem to show that the two 

species do not differ materially in shape. They would, 

from the descriptions, appear to differ materially in 

their surface characters, but the description of this 

feature in T. flabellula appears to have been based on 

a specimen that was slightly exfoliated. The specimens in my collection indicate that the two shells were 

ornamented in the same manner, though possibly not 

on the same scale. The markings of T. waverlyensis 

appear to be a little coarser if they are accurately represented in Herrick's figure, in which only abcut 6 lirae 

occur in 5 millimeters. No specifications are given in 

the description except for his statement that the species 

is more finely marked than Meek's (on what grounds 

we are not informed). Meek's figure represerts 8 lirae 

in the space of 5 millimeters—which Meek srys is too 

many. The beds at Sciotoville which furnish T. flabellula occur about midway in the Cuyahoga shale, on 

information given by my good friend Wilber Stout. T. 

waverlyensis, therefore, occurs at a considerably higher 

horizon—the shale above conglomerate II. For the 

present, at least, it seems advisable to retain both 

species as valid. The T. waverlyensis of Hall and 

Clarke is also to be considered a distinct species provisionally; in fact, it appears to possess more solid 

claims for distinction from authentic T. waverlyensis 

than does T. flabellula. It closely resembles the T. 

scotica? of Meek and also the T. casteriana of this paper; 

all three of them may prove to be the same species.

Horizon and locality: Midway in the Cuyahoga shrle, Sciotoville, Ohio (station 718).

Trigonoglossa irvinensis (Foerste) Girty

Plate 9, figures 30-39a

?1888. Lingula melie. Herrick, Denison Univ., Sci. Lab., Bull., 

vol. 4, pi. 9, fig. 1. Bedford shale, Central College, 

Ohio.

71889. Lingula melie. Herrick, Am. Geologist, vol. 3, pi. 4, 

fig. 1. Bedford shale, Ohio.
LINGULOID SHELLS FROM DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS ROCKS OF PENNSYLVANIA AND OHIO 59

?1895. Lingula melic. Herriek (part). Ohio Geol. Survey, Kept.,

vol. 7, pi. 20, fig. 1 [not pi. 22, fig. 10]. Bedford shale,

Central College, Ohio. 

1909. Lingula irvinensis. Foerste, Ohio Naturalist, Vol. 9, No.

7, p. 517, pi. 1, fig. 7. Bedford-Berea zone, Irvine,

Ky.

Shell small, acuminate-ovate in outline, widest below 

the middle; width about two-thirds to three-fourths of 

the length. The two valves are much alike in shape 

and are distinguished in the usual manner, the dorsal 

valve being somewhat rounded at the posterior extremity, the ventral valve more pointed.

The surface is marked by strong, sharply elevated, 

rather regular and somewhat distantly spaced concentric lirae, some of which at fairly regular intervals are 

more prominent than the rest and mark stages of 

growth. Over the more marginal parts the lirae may 

become thick and round and the striae narrow.

A false cardinal area is well shown by some dorsal 

valves, and a corresponding structure is doubtless present in the ventral valve. Shell structure finely punctate.

This species is abundant in the Bedford shale of 

northern Ohio, and the foregoing description is based 

upon specimens from that region. It shows considerable variation in all its characters. Some specimens 

reach 13 millimeters in length; very few are larger. 

The shape also varies, some specimens being proportionally broader than others. The ornamentation 

typically consists of regular, sharply elevated concentric lirae separated by relatively broad, flat interspaces, but specimens manifest a tendency to deviate 

from this to one consisting of rather strong, rounded, 

somewhat irregular, more or less crowded lirae.

Most specimens differ distinctly in color from the 

enclosing rock. The prevailing color is a rather light 

brown, ranging in different specimens from almost 

cream-colored to very dark, and concentrically banded 

with a dark bluish gray. As a rule the gray tints are 

subordinate, but they may dominate the entire surface.

The same species, or one very similar to it, occurs in 

the red Bedford shale at Central College. My specimens from Central College are all small, about 7 millimeters in length, but except for their smaller size, they 

agree well enough with the form from Bedford and 

the other localities in the north. I found two species 

of linguloid shells at Central College—Trigonoglossa 

irvinensis, as here identified, and Lingula herrickana, 

n. sp., of these pages; of these, T. irvinensis is much 

more abundant. Herrick found only a fragmentary 

specimen at the same horizon and locality, and he 

identified it as Lingula melie, restoring it to match. 

The fragment itself (it consists of the anterior fraction 

of the shell) has a length of nearly 7 millimeters, and 

the restoration a length of 10 millimeters. On the 

basis of my census Herrick's specimen should belong 

to T. irvinensis, but it is much larger than any of my 

specimens, and as restored it has not the right shape 

for L. herrickana. As the case now stands he must

have had a specimen of T. irvinensis considerably 

larger than any of mine, or a specimen of the rare L. 

herrickana which he wrongly restored, or a specimen 

of a species that I did not find at all.

If Herrick's form proves to be conspecific with th« 

one under consideration (a relation which can be ascertained only by an examination of his specimen, especially as he gave only a figure without any descriptive 

matter), it is certainly not L. melie, not only because 

of a difference in shape but more decisively because c f 

a difference in sculpture. The sculpture, would also 

be decisive as between T. irvinensis and L. herrickanc,, 

irrespective of the shape, the restoration of which would 

be more or less speculative.

The same species, apparently, occurs again in th^ 

Bedford fauna at Irvine, Ky., where it was described 

as Lingula irvinensis. Foerste's holotype is a small 

shell, barely 6 millimeters in length, and apparently 

a dorsal valve. My specimens from Irvine also are 

small, the largest but little more than 7 millimeters 

in length; in size and other characters they agree essentially with the specimens from Central College. Tin 

sculpture consists of delicate raised lines separated by 

much wider flat interspaces. The scale of these markings seems to be somewhat finer than that of the specimens from northern Ohio, but the shells themselves 

are only about half as large. Some differences in 

detail can also be recognized between the specimen^ 

from Irvine and those from Central College, but th^ 

detail is shown only by a few specimens, and it differs 

somewhat on each.

The specimens from northern Ohio have so much 

the size and shape of the Lingula meeki of Herrick as 

to raise a doubt whether he may not have been dealing 

with the same species; if so, the name should be changed 

from T. irvinensis to T. meeki, for Herrick's name long 

antedates Foerste's. Lingula meeki, however, was 

found, according to Herrick, associated with L. atra 

and L. cuyahoga (see p. 13 of Herrick's paper of 1888), 

whereas no species at all similar to L. atra and L. 

cuyahoga. are associated with T. irvinensis; furthermore, 

the horizon of L. meeki and the associated Lingulas i^ 

in the Cuyahoga shale. Finally, L. meeki is said to 

be "marked with the usual concentric striae" (like 

L. atra, L. melie, L. cuyahoga et al.?) This is certainly 

not true of T. irvinensis and would hardly have been 

written of L. meeki, one would imagine, if L. meeki 

differed appreciably from its associates.

Of species from the typical Mississippian faunas, T. 

sedaliensis is somewhat comparable to T. irvinensis. A 

comparison with specimens loaned by the Walker 

Museum of the University of Chicago indicates that 

the Bedford form is distinct in its own characters as weJl 

as occurring in an older and very different fauna. T. 

sedaliensis is larger and has a wider cardinal angle— 

differences shown by Weller's figure of that species; 

there are also slight differences in shape. However, T.
60 SHOETEE CONTEIBUTIONS TO GENERAL GEOLOGY, 1938-39

irvinensis varies, so that some specimens approach T. 

sedaliensis, if not in size or in spread, at least in other 

features of configuration; many are widely different. 

In point of sculpture the two species are much alike. 

The concentric lirae are about equally spaced in both, 

but while they are thin and sharp in some specimens of 

T. irvinensis, as they are in the Chouteau form, in others 

they are thicker and lower and show a tendency to degenerate into low, fine undulations such as are not 

found in T. sedaliensis until a much larger size is attained, if at all.

T. irvinensis might be interpreted as being a small 

form or an immature stage of some of the large Mississippian Trigonoglossas, such as T. flabellula, but this 

possibility can hardly be seriously entertained. T. 

irvinensis is fairly abundant in the Bedford shale of 

northern Ohio, where the largest specimens are found, 

but it is invariably a small shell and a mature one, if 

indeed there is any evidence for determining that condition besides uniformity in size.

Some years ago I introduced Lingulipora as a generic 

term for Lingulas which have a punctate structure. 

If that were the only consideration, L. irvinensis should 

be referred to Lingulipora instead of to Trigonoglossa. 

The specimens of T. sedaliensis mentioned above likewise show a punctate structure, the punctae being fine 

and rather scattered. Furthermore, I reported this 

structure as present in T. nebraskensis, which later was 

made the genotype of Trigonoglossa, my observations 

being made on specimens from the Wewoka formation. 

Dunbar and Condra, on the other hand, say that their 

specimens of T. nebraskensis are impunctate. I have 

reexamined my specimens from the Wewoka formation, 

and though some of them are seemingly impunctate 

(for instance, the specimen figured), one of them at 

least in a suitable light shows a very fine punctation. 

That Trigonoglossa may have a punctate structure 

seems fairly certain, for the present species comes within 

the boundaries of Trigonoglossa if Trigonoglossa has any 

boundaries at all and some specimens of T. irvinensis 

are unmistakably punctate, although others, indeed 

most others, are doubtful or worse. Why some specimens of a species should be clearly punctate and others 

apparently not and what significance in classification 

should attach to the character are matters problematic.

If the shell of Paleozoic Lingulas was constructed like 

that of living ones, it was made up of layers of phosphatic material having a fibrous structure which alternated with layers of calcareous material traversed by 

microscopic canals; it may be that where the one layer 

is exposed to view the shell appears to be punctate and 

where the other layer is exposed, impunctate. As the 

type species of Lingulipora has more the shape and 

sculpture of the common Paleozoic Lingulas (not to 

mention several punctate Lingulas cited by Hall and 

Clarke) and as some shells that have the shape and 

sculpture of Trigonoglossa certainly appear punctate,

it is obvious that these Lingulas do not separate along 

the same lines when the division is based upon shell 

structure as when it is based upon shape and sculpture. 

The character of the shell, whether punctate or impunctate, has always had an important place among 

generic distinctions for the brachiopods, and it would 

appear at first that that should be made the plane of 

cleavage for the Lingulas as well as for other groups. 

It is questionable, however, whether the punctate feature in the Lingulas is justly comparable to the punctation in other brachiopods, for in other brachiopods the 

shell is of uniform composition and is, roughly speaking, 

punctate through its entire thickness except for callus 

which may partly cover the inner surface, whereas in 

Lingula the structure is, as above outlined, quite different. For this reason I am referring Lingula irvinensis 

under Trigonoglossa instead of Lingulipora and incline 

to the opinion that the latter genus was not well 

founded.

Horizon and locality: Bedford shale, Bedford (station 721), 

Brandy wine Creek (station 722), Berea (station 723), Blue Rock 

Springs (station 952), Euclid (station 953), Doane Brook, and 

Central College (stations 726 and 726a), all in Ohio; Irvine, Ky. 

(station 8085).

Trigonoglossa casteriana Girty, n. sp.

Plate 9, figures 40-41

?1875. Lingula scotica? Meek, Ohio Geol. Survey, Paleontology, vol. 2, p. 276, pi. 14, fig. 9. Waverly g~oup, Ohio.

71892. Lingula waverliensis Hall and Clarke, New York Geol. 

Survey, Paleontology, vol. 8, pt. 1, pi. 4K, fig. 7 [not 

L. waverlyensis Herrick]. Waverly sandstone, Oil City, 

Pa.

Shell of medium size for the genus, much longer than 

wide, subcuneate or subovate in shape, with the front 

broadly rounded and the strongly diverging sides 

faintly arched. Length about 1% times the breadth 

(1.4 in one of the type specimens and 1.6 in the other).

Surface marked by thin, regularly arranged concentric lirae rising abruptly from flat interspaces four or five 

times their width. The interspaces, if not entirely 

smooth, are marked only by obscure incremental lines. 

From 10 to 14 lirae occur in a space of 5 millimeters.

The apparent relations of the different forms of 

Trigonoglossa described in the f Waverly fauna 1* of Ohio, 

are discussed elsewhere in this paper in connection with 

T. flabellula. It is there noted that the form figured by 

Meek as Lingula scotica? and the form figured by Hall 

and Clarke as L. waverlyensis from Oil City, Pa., are 

strikingly similar in shape and may be ccnspecific. 

They are also very similar to the species here described 

as T. casteriana, and these two citations are in eluded in 

the synonymy. This treatment, however, is only provisional, as I have not seen the originals of either form. 

Furthermore, both species seem to be more coarsely 

marked than T. casteriana; Hall and Clarke's specimen, 

if accurately figured, has about 8 lirae in 5 millimeters,
LINGULOID SHELLS FROM DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS ROCKS OF PENNSYLVANIA AND OHIO 61

and Meek's about the same. In the first instance the 

difference is not so great as in the second, for Meek 

remarks that in his figure the lirae are too crowded. 

The lirae of T. casteriana are spaced much like those of 

T. flabellula. The lirae of T. flabellula, however, are 

much more delicate, in spite of the fact that they are 

known from testiferous specimens or from impressions 

in a matrix of very fine texture, whereas those of T. 

casteriana are known from impressions in sandstone and 

from shells of smaller size besides.

It is difficult to weigh in terms of taxonomy the differences which these forms actually show, and their proper 

differences should be weighed in the light of their 

stratigraphic occurrence. The three forms, T. casteriana, T. scotica?, and T. waverlyensis Hall and Clarke 

(not Herrick), differ from each other slightly in shape, 

but from T. waverlyensis, to which one of them was 

referred, they differ, one and all, in being narrower and 

less cuneate. T. casteriana occurs at a much lower 

horizon than typical T. waverlyensis and at a somewhat 

lower horizon than typical T. flabellula, for typical T. 

casteriana occurs in the Corry fauna or below, whereas 

T. waverlyensis occurs near the top of the fWaverly 

group, and T. flabellula near the middle of the Cuyahoga 

shale. T. flabellula, which in geologic age is nearest to 

T. casteriana, is a larger and broader shell, and in these 

differences it seems rather constant. Of the two species 

which resemble T. casteriana in shape and proportions, 

Meek's specimen identified as T. scotica? is said by 

Weller to have come from the Berea sandstone at Berea, 

Ohio, though I believe through a misunderstanding. 

The authority is certainly not Meek's. If it does, 

however, it must be nearly of the same age as the 

cotypes of T. casteriana (if they occur in the Corry 

fauna). One of the original cotypes of T. flabellula is 

also reputed to have come from the Berea sandstone at 

Berea; it has a decidedly different shape from Meek's 

specimen, and consequently from T. casteriana. The 

horizon of the T. waverlyensis of Hall and Clarke cited 

from Oil City, Pa., is uncertain; it may be younger but 

hardly older than T. casteriana.

In addition to the specimens found near Warren, 

Pa., I am provisionally including in T. casteriana two 

specimens from Union City. One agrees very closely 

with the smaller cotype; the other is considerably 

shorter and broader, but it evidently owes this shape 

in part to pressure. These specimens came from a 

lower horizon than the cotypes. A specimen similarly 

broad is associated with the cotypes, but it likewise has 

been deformed by pressure. A very fragmentary 

specimen obtained near Benzinger, in Elk County, Pa., 

apparently in the Cattaraugus formation, is also included under this species pending the discovery of 

specimens that are more definitely identifiable.

In the Mississippi Valley the species most comparable 

in its own characters and in geologic age is T. sedaliensis, 

but extended comparisons hardly seem profitable. The

type specimen of T. sedaliensis is very imperfect, and 

as restored by Weller it represents a broader and more 

cuneate species. I have been able to make comparison « 

with the Chouteau form partly through specimens in 

my own collection and partly through specimens kindly 

loaned by the Walker Museum of the University of 

Chicago. These, if they actually belong to T. sedaliensis, reach a length of 20 millimeters and a width cf 

15 millimeters and have a shape more slender than the 

holotype as restored. They are somewhat smaller than 

T. casteriana and have somewhat more numerous and 

crowded lirae. According to Weller the holotype has 

20 or more lirae in a space of 5 millimeters, but this 

measurement must necessarily have been made back 

of the middle, where they would be somewhat more 

closely arranged than near the front.

Horizon and locality: Undetermined horizon, 4 miles southwest of Warren, 1 mile northwest of Union City, and cliffs 4}^ 

miles northwest of Union City; Cattaraugus formation (?) cut 

on the Pennsylvania Railroad about 1% miles east of Benzinger 

(station 3526), all in Pennsylvania.

Trigonoglossa sp.

Plate 9, figures 46-47

Shell small, a length of 12 millimeters being about 

the maximum observed. Outline elongate ovate, more 

or less acuminate. Convexity rather strong.

Surface somewhat coarsely and irregularly striated. 

In some specimens the raised elements or lirae tend 

to be subangular and more regular than in others, and 

one specimen is marked by thin lirae regularly spaced 

and rather far apart. One specimen also shows fine 

obscure radiating wrinkles or, perhaps better, a fe^r 

narrow radiating grooves. Shell substance finely 

punctate.

The specimens included here differ markedly in corvexity, some of them being exceptionally convex for 

linguloid shells. They do not show the usual distinction 

between dorsal and ventral valves, and it is most irrprobable that the valves are distinguished by this 

difference in convexity.

The relations of this species are extremely uncertain, 

and they depend primarily on whether it belongs to 

Lingula, as commonly interpreted, or to Trigonoglossa. 

In point of shape it might belong in either. The main 

distinction of Trigonoglossa is its sculpture, and with 

one exception these specimens do not have the sculpture 

of Trigonoglossa in its typical development, though 

some appear to have that sculpture in a modified form. 

The sculpture, on the other hand, is markedly different 

from the very fine, very sharp, and very regular strif,- 

tion of many of our Carboniferous Lingulas.

This form occurs associated with T. flabellula, and 

the natural supposition would be that it represents but 

an immature stage of the larger species. The largestspecimen of the present form, however, is only 12
62 SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENERAL GEOLOGY, 1938-39

millimeters in length and the smallest specimen of T. 

flabellula in the collection is not less than 30 millimeters 

in length; neither species is exactly rare. Another circumstance that may bear upon this point is that most 

of the small specimens retain both valves in conjunction, 

whereas only one of the large specimens does so. There 

is also a difference in sculpture, rather marked in some 

specimens, nonexistent in one. It might be contended 

that the latter was a young specimen of T. flabellula 

and the others not. At best the evidence is not conclusive that these small shells are not T. flabellula in 

an immature stage.

There is an apparent contradiction between the 

statement just made that in many specimens the valves 

occur in conjunction and a previous statement that it 

has not been possible to distinguish between them in 

the usual manner, by the shape of the posterior end. 

As a matter of fact, where the valves occur together 

they are skewed, deflected, and broken, so that the 

posterior end of only one of them is shown.

A much better case can be made out for identifying 

these specimens with T. irvinensis. No material or 

constant difference in size or shape is apparent. The 

specimens of T. irvinensis are less convex, but they 

may have been compressed, and they generally possess 

the characteristic Trigonoglossa sculpture, which is 

distinct in but one specimen from Sciotoville.

Among the Carboniferous species still remaining 

under Lingula the Lingulas from Sciotoville are especially comparable to L. melie and L. meeki. L. melie 

in its typical form can be dismissed with a few words; 

it is a smaller and more elongate species. On the other 

hand, these shells from Sciotoville so closely resemble 

L. meeki in size and shape that I at one time identified 

them with that species. Of the surface characters of 

L. meeki, Herrick merely says that they consist of "the 

usual concentric striae." If he means exactly that L. 

meeki is marked like L. atra, L. cuyahoga, and other 

species of Lingula that he distinguished, the shells 

from Sciotoville can hardly be L. meeki. Now Herrick 

is rather vague about the locality and horizon of L. 

meeki, and his remark about the surface ornamentation 

is also vague, inasmuch as he also referred to Lingula 

not only the species just mentioned but also his waverlyensis, at present regarded as a typical Trigonoglossa. 

In his original description of L. meeki, Herrick cites it 

from the Cuyahoga Valley (which is not very specific), 

associated with L. cuyahoga, L. atra, etc. L. atra, 

however, is said 3 to be abundant above the juncture 

of the Little Cuyahoga with the Cuyahoga River, 

where it is associated with L. cuyahoga and L. meeki. 

This locality is in the Akron quadrangle, about a mile

s Herrick, O. L., Denison Univ., Sci. Lab. Bull., vol. 4, p. 17, 1888.

in a direct line from the Cuyahoga Falls, and the 

horizon is in the Cuyahoga shale. I have a collection 

from what I take to be the same locality, and neither 

that collection nor any other that I have from the 

Cuyahoga shale contains any Lingula which has the 

markedly ovate shape of L. meeki, whereas that shape 

exactly fits T. irvinensis, a species which IE northern 

Ohio I have found only in the Bedford shale. The fauna 

of the Bedford shale as figured by Herrick is that which 

occurs in central Ohio, at Central College, but he was 

not wholly unacquainted with the formation as it is 

represented in the northern part of the State, for he 

says that several of the same species are abundant in 

Summit County near Peninsula, which, by the way, is 

also in the Cuyahoga Valley. Suspicion is thus aroused 

whether Herrick's specimens may not really 1 ave come 

from the Bedford shale and whether his L. meeki is not 

the T. irvinensis of this report. An examination of the 

type specimen might decide the matter.

Horizon and locality: Midway in the Cuyahoga shale, Sciotoville, Ohio (station 718).

REGISTER OF LOCALITIES

718. Midway in the Cuyahoga shale, right bank of the Ohio 

River at and for 1 mile above the mouth of the Little 

Scioto River.

721. Base of the Bedford shale, Bedford, Ohio.

722. Near the middle of the Bedford shale, Brandymne Creek,

just below the falls, Cuyahoga County, Ohio. 

722b. Same, at the base of the formation.

723. Bedford shale, in bed of Stony Creek, about 7 rnles northeast of Berea, Ohio.

724. Bedford shale, layer immediately overlying the Cleveland

shale, Berea, Ohio. 

726. Bedford shale, Central College, Ohio, just above the blue

shale in the bank, east side of Big Walnut Creek. 

726a. Bedford shale in the "Red Hills" opposite Central College,

Ohio, 5 feet above the Huron (?) shale.

952. Base of the Bedford shale, Blue Rock Springs, Cleveland, 

Ohio.

953. Base of the Bedford shale, Euclid, Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

3354. Small quarry about 1 mile south of Union City, Pa., probably in the Venango group of I. C. White.

3492. Along the Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburg rail-oad about 

three-fourths mile north of Bingham, Pa., 7C feet below 

the Olean conglomerate member of the Pottsville 

formation.

3526. Cattaraugus formation (?), cut on the Pennsylvania Railroad about \% miles east of Benzinger, Pa.

3552. Chagrin shale, about 50 feet below the Cleve^nd shale, 

Paines Creek, Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

3553. Chagrin shale, Big Brook, Orange Township, Cuyahoga 

County, Ohio.

3555. Chagrin shale, 15 feet below the top, Brecksville, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, in the bed of Chippewa Creek.

3556. Top of the Chagrin shale, bed of Tinkers Creek, Bedford,

Ohio. 

8085. Bedford shale, just above the black shale, base of Minerva

Mountain east of Irvine, Ky.
PLATE 9

63
PLATE 9

FIGURES 1-4. Lingula arcta Girty, n. sp. (p. 47).

1. A nodule containing parts of four specimens.

la. The most complete specimen on the slab, supposed to be a dorsal valve.

2. A somewhat crushed specimen which shows the sculpture of sharp but exceedingly fine striation.

3. A ventral (?) valve from Union City, Pa., referred to this species.

4. An imperfect specimen from Warren, Pa., referred to this species.

The original of figures 1 and la is from the Chagrin shale at Bedford, Ohio (station 3554). The original of figure 2 is 

from the Chagrin shale at Brecksville, Ohio (station 3555). The original of figure 3 is from Union City, Pa., and 

probably from a horizon in the Venango group of I. C. White (station 3354), and the original of figure 4 is from an 

unknown horizon near Warren.

FIGURES 5-9. Lingula eriensis Girty, n. sp. (p. 48).

5. An elongate dorsal valve, from shale.

6. A dorsal valve from a nodule.

7. A ventral vale from a nodule, partly exfoliated.

8. A dorsal and a ventral valve of the same specimen but with diverging axes; from a nodule.

9. A specimen of doubtful affinities preserved as a mold in sandstone.

The originals of figures 5, 6, and 7 are from the Chagrin shale at Brecksville, Ohio (station 3555); that of figure 8 is 

from the Chagrin shale at Bedford, Ohio (station 3554). The original of figure 9 is from an undetermined formation near Bingham, Pa. (station 3492).

FIGURES 10-12. Lingula limatula Girty, n. sp. (p. 50).

10. A slightly imperfect specimen showing the shape.

11. Part of the surface of another specimen from the same locality.

12. A large specimen provisionally referred to this species.

The originals of figures 10 and 11 are from the Venango group of I. C. White at Union City, Pa. The original of figure 

12 is from the Chagrin shale at Brecksville, Ohio (station 3555).

FIGURES 13-14. Lingula herrickana Girty, n. sp. (p. 51).

13. Squeeze from an external mold of a ventral (?) valve. The external mold shows regular but exceedingly fine concentric 

striae.

14. A dorsal (?) valve.

The two figured specimens are from the Bedford shale at Central College, Ohio (station 726a).

FIGURES 15-18. Lingula papyracea Girty, n. sp. (p. 49).

15. A specimen macerated and flattened in shale.

16. A large specimen similarly preserved,

17. A ventral (?) valve.

18. A dorsal valve.

18a. Posterior end of the same. The latest additions to the shell have surrounded what was originally a terminal beak. 

The originals of figures 15 to 18 are from the Bedford shale at Bedford, Ohio (station 721).

FIGURES 19-24. Lingula randalli Girty, n. sp. (p. 51).

19. A broad specimen supposed to be a dorsal valve.

20. An exceptionally narrow ventral valve. It seemingly has suffered somewhat from lateral compression.

21. A ventral valve somewhat misshapen from compression. The surface ornamentation, which is excellently preserved, 

consists of very fine but sharp concentric striae.

22. A nearly perfect dorsal valve.

23. A dorsal (?) valve somewhat misshapen as a result of compression.

24. A small specimen associated with the large ones and regarded as an immature shell of the same species.

The originals of figures 19 to 24 are from an undetermined horizon near Warren, Pa. The original of figure 23 is from a 

different locality from the five others, which are all from the same locality.

FIGURES 25-29. Lingula ligea Hall? (p. 52).

Five specimens referred with doubt to Hall's species. They were found at the phyllocarid horizon, Warren, Pa.

64
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 193 PLATE 9

W If .?6 21 28 29

11

LATE DEVONIAN AND EARLY CARBONIFEROUS LINGULOIDS.

PLATE 9—Continued

FIGURES 30-39a. Trigonoglossa irvinensis (Foerste) (p. 58).

30. A ventral valve from which the shell has been largely exfoliated.

31. A somewhat broader ventral valve, also exfoliated.

32. A small exfoliated dorsal valve which shows well the punctate shell structure.

33. A dorsal valve which retains most of the shell. 

33a. Same, natural size.

34. A fractured dorsal valve which shows the surface characters.

35. Posterior end of a dorsal valve showing detail of sculpture.

36. Internal mold of what appears to be a dorsal valve showing the large cardinal area. 

36a. Same, natural size.

37. A much macerated ventral valve from Kentucky. 

37a. Same in outline, natural size.

38. Outline of a dorsal valve from Central College preserved as an internal mold.

39. A dorsal valve from Central College.

39a. Same in outline, natural size.

The originals of all figures are from the Bedford shale or equivalent horizons. The originals of figures 30, 31, and 36 are 

from Euclid (station 953); that of figure 32 from Doane Brook; that of figure 33 from Berea (station 723); those of figures 

34 and 35 from Brandy wine Creek (station 722), all in northern Ohio; that of figure 37 from Irvine, Ky. (station 6686); 

and those of figures 38 and 39 from Central College, in central Ohio (station 726a).

FIGURES 40-41. Trigonoglossa casteriana Girty, n. sp. (p. 60).

40. Squeeze from a small ventral valve showing shape and sculpture. The original is a mold in sandstone.

41. Squeeze from a large dorsal (?) valve which has an Orbiculoidea attached to it.

The originals of figures 40 and 41 were found near Warren, Pa., and the horizon is possibly that of the Corry sandstone.

FIGURES 42-45. Trigonoglossa flabellula (Hall and Clarke) (p. 55).

42. A dorsal valve. The upper part is an internal mold and shows the large cardinal area.

42a. Part of the surface. Note the irregularity of the concentric lirae and how in places some of them are intercepted by 

others. The shell may be macerated, but it is decidedly thin.

43. Squeeze of a ventral valve. The delicate but distinct varices of growth should be noted.

44. Posterior end of a ventral valve preserved as an internal mold. The large cardinal area is partly concealed at the left by 

the matrix, showing that there was a cavity between the shell that formed the cardinal area and the main part of tl ^ 

valve.

45. Squeeze of a specimen which retained both valves though skewed.

The originals of figures 42 to 45 are from the well-known locality at Sciotoville, Ohio, and the horizon is about midway in 

the Cuyahoga shale (station 718).

FIGURES 46-47. Trigonoglossa sp. (p. 61).

46. A dorsal (?) valve.

47. A ventral (?) valve supposed to be of the same species.

The originals of these two figures are from the same locality and horizon as the foregoing, midway in the Cuyahoga shale 

at Sciotoville, Ohio (station 718).

65

INDEX

Page

Acknowledgment for aid_______...____..._.________._ 47 

acuminata, Glossina-——..—.—————— _——_.________...___. 54 

Lingula.—--—————-—————— ——— —— _.-.-——___——.._-_. 54 

arcta, Lingula.._____________________________ 47-48, 49, 51, pi. 9 

atra, Lingula-—--_.—_———._———————————————_ 48,50,51,59,62 

attenuata, Lingula-——.___.-—..___.____..__________.. 53,54 

—————————————— —— —————————————— 54,55

Berea sandstone, correlation of.. 

Bradfordian series, relations ofcasteriana, Trigonoglossa-...____...._____________ 58,60-61, pi. 9

Chemung formation, relations of—-_„___.________._____—. 47

Corry sandstone, relations of..——————___.——_____..____—— 47

crumena, Lingula.—___..________...________________ 53,54

Paleoglossa———————......———___.________._____.. 55

cnyahoga, Lingula___......________.________ 48,50,51,53,59,62, pi. 9

delia, Lingula. 52

cricnsis, Lingula———————————————————48-49,50, pi. 9

flabellula, Qlossina....„———------_——.——————.......————— 56,57

Lingula——.—————————— ————————— ———— 54,57,58

Lingula (Glossina).._.__..._.............._——............__ 55-56,57

Trigonoglossa...-————————————————54,55-58,60-61,62, pi. 9

gannensis, Lingula_———————________...——_.—--.—————. 48,50 

Qlossina.__._______________.__.__-____..„._.- 53-54, 55,56. 57 

acuminata————————————————.————————————————— 54 

flabellula________________ -_-______——_-____—. 56,57 

ricinifonnis_—————————————————————.—————————— 54 

waverlyensis.. ———————————— ————— ——.———————— — - 56,57 

See also Paleoglossa (Qlossina); Lingula (Qlossina).

gorbyi, Lingula_————.———————-___—————.———— —.— 51,52 

granulata, Lingula— —— ————————— ————.- ——— ————— ————- 55

herrickana, Lingula-_._____.______.__________-. 48,51,59, pi. 9

irvinensis, Lingula---..-.-.—........._————— ——._...—...— 54,59,60

Trigonoglossa- _____.— .————————.———_.. 49,51,55,58-60,62, pi. 9

kentuckyensis, Lingula———-—_.________ _——____—„——— 57

Trigonoglossa______.____________________.__—— 54,55

Kinderhook group, relations of—..___________—___-.__——— 47

lamellata, Lingula--———————..._.______..„-..___—————— 55 

ligea, Lingula-_______..-—...__.——....._.._____-_ 49,52-53, pi. 9

limatula, Lingula...———-———————....—.—.—-------——.. 50-51,55. pi. 9

Lingula- —— ———————————————-". ——— —— 47-53,54,55,57,60,61,62, pi. 9

acuminata___———————-.________--—______——— 54 

arcta————————————————————————,.——. 47-48,49,51, pi. 9

atra---__...—————————————————————— 48,50,51,59,62

attenuata__—————————_____---___.-——_._.,————— 53,54 

crumena—————————-—-———__..-..———_...—————— 53,54 

cuyahoga_____——.———-._____-_____——. 48,50,51,53,59,62, pi. 9 

delia..__....___—„_——————————————————_.... 52

eriensis__________________________________ 48-49,50, pi. 9 

flabellula__._.__———.——.— -.——————.——.—————54,57,58 

gannensis____.„..„-..—______.______._____--...-—— 48,50 

gorbyi___________________ _________________ 51,52 

granulata______„.„____________________.-.-. 55 

herrickana-——.——.————.........————.—-_—-—. 48,51,59, pi. 9

irvinensis-____-_..—-—.___—__-----_______ ——54,59,60

kentuckyensis.-———————____._...—————_—.—————— 57 

lamellata_________._________________________ 55 

ligea_____——..._——......__......._...—............ 49,52-53, pi. 9

var...——————————____-_.__————_——————.... 53

limatula—————————————————_——...— .—— .. 50-51,55, pi, 9

louisianensis________________________________...— 48,51 

meeki..........——————————————————————— 48,49,54,59,62

melie________,___._.____...._._--_,___ 48,51,53,58-59,62

Lingula membranacea________.___.__—.———__—...... 48,50,51,5"?

nebraskensis___.__..---——.-——..———————————..——_.. 54,5' 

paliformis.——...—_————————————————.———————————— 5" 

papyracea—_—_.—...——————————————————————— 49-50, pi. 9 

paracletus—....—_—————————.————————————————-— 48,4^

punctata—.__.._..—.———————.—————————————————— 51,55 

randalli_—.————————————_........._........._ 51-52, pi. 9

riciniformis.————————————————.—————————————————— 5*

scotica___________._-—_.—_——_——_——— 54,55,56,57,61

var._—————————————————————————————————————— 55

sedaliensis—.——— ———————————————— ————————— ———. 5i

spatulata—__—————————————————————————————————— 53 

varsoviensis___.__——.-———————————————.———.——__ 51 

waverlyensis_........—.———.———.———.—————.. 54,55,56,57,60,6'?

sp., cf. L. cuyahoga..—————— ———— ——————————————— —— 48, pi. 9

(Qlossina) flabellula.———_.——————.._...____...... 55-56,57

Lingulella.______________..__—_——__...__—__—__ 55 

paliformis————————————————————————————————————— 55 

Lingulepis—_____..._——————————————————————————.—— 54,65 

Lingulipora_____________________________________ 50,58,60 

Localities, list of-______—.———————————--——_————.—.„„ 62 

louisianensis, Lingula—__-....———.—————...——.———.——..—. 48,SI

meeki, Lingula-___........._.———..—.—-—————-——_ 48,49,54,59,62

Trigonoglossa..-—__—_———————————————.—————————— 59 

melie, Lingula-..——......._.__———_....._........ 48,51,53,58-59,62

membranacea, Lingula..———————————————————————.———— 48,50,51, 52

nebraskensis, Lingula-———————————————————————————————— 54,57 

Trigonoglossa.-—-_——.————————-—————————————————— 55,60

Orbiculoidea. 50

Paleoglossa---.—--.-—————————-—.——————...—...—.— 53-54,55,57 

attenuata———-.—————————————————————————————.— 54,55 

crumena______..-_—————-———.——..——......__.._____ P5

(Qlossina)-.---————...———.———.———————.———....... 54-55

Paleoglossina_...._—-—————————.——————......__..__„_. 53

paliformis, Lingula._—.———————————————————...——.——.... 55

Lingulella--——-—————————————————————-————————.— 55 

Papyracea, Lingula—_._.————.——————.—_—......_.. 49-50, pl.9

paracletus, Lingula__.._——.——....————..——......__..__..__ 48,49

punctata, Lingula- ————————————————————————————— ———,. 51,55

randalli, Lingula-._______-_—_—__._—..._._____ 51-52, pi. 9

riciniformis, Qlossina.——.—————————————————————————.— 54

Lingula.—-——————————————————————————————————— 54

scotica, Lingula.-—.......———————-—————-——-—-————— 54,55,56,57,60

Trigonoglossa—.__._—-——-————————————-——.— 55,57,58,61 

sedaliensis, Lingula...——.—————————————————————————.——— 54

Trigonoglossa.—— .-.-—————————————.——-———-——-— 54,59-60,61 

spatulata, Lingula——————————————————————————————————— 53 

Syringothyris_—„—————————————————————————————— 50

Trigonoelossa.__.——.———————————————————————————... 53-62 

casteriana.-————————————.———.——————...—— 58, 60-61, pi. 9 

flabellula.————————————————————— 54, 55-58,60-61,62 pi. 9

irvinensis_____________„_—_—.———_ 49,51,55,58-60,62, pi. 9 

kentuckyensis.-..————————.———————————————————————— 54,55 

meeki_,__..__————————————————————————————__ 59 

nebraskensis-—...——————————————————————————————-— 55,60 

scotica_______————.——————.————————————.— 55,57,58,61 

sedaliensis___.__.__——————————————————————— 54,59-60,61

waverlyensis___________--__—_—_——..—__.__ 54,55,58,61 

sp._____________________-__-__-__—_____ 61-62, pi. 9

varsoviensis, Lingula———————————————-——————————————— 50

Waverly group, relations of———————————————————————————. 47

waverlyensis, Qlossina—.--————————————————————————————— 56,57

Lingula——_..........—......_——__-__—_—_ 54,55,56,57,60,62

Trigonoglossa——.——————————-————————————.————— 54,55,58,61

67

O