DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

GEORGE OTIS SMITH, DIRECTOR

BULLETIN 439

THE

FAUNA OF THE MOOREFIELD SHALE

OF ARKANSAS

BY

GEORGE li. GIRTY

WASHINGTON

GOVERNMENT FEINTING OFFICE 

1911

CONTENTS.

Page.

Introduction.............................................................. 5

Description of species ...................................................... 28

Coelenterata ........................................................... 28

Helmintha......................................................... '... 28

Bryozoa............................................................... 29

Brachiopoda........................................................... 32

Pelecypoda............................................................ 79

Gastropoda............................................................ 91

Cephalopoda .......................................................... 94

Trilobita.............................................................. 105

Ostracoda............................................................. 105

Register of localities....................................................... 107

Index............................................................I....... 145

ILLUSTRATIONS.

Pages. 

PLATKS I-XV. .......................................................... 109-144

THE FAUNA OF THE MOOREFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS,

By GEORGE H. GIETY.

INTRODUCTION.

The section of Mississippian rocks in northern Arkansas includes 

a bed of black shale which is of considerable interest, both for the 

fauna it contains and the vicissitudes of nomenclature it has undergone. It is inclosed between two limestone formations known as 

the Boone and the Pitkin. The sections involving these formations 

have been especially studied at opposite ends of the line of outcrop at Batesville, in northeastern Arkansas, and at Fayetteville, 

in northwestern Arkansas and it is owing to this circumstance, 

coupled with imperfect knowledge of the geology of the intervening 

area, that most of the intricacy of nomenclature has arisen.

In the Fayetteville region, between the black shale and the Boone 

formation, a thin and discontinuous sandstone occurs. Toward the 

upper limit of the shale, just below the Pitkin limestone or separated 

from it by shaly beds measuring up to 60 feet, there is another rather 

thick sandstone, which also is not persistent. Simonds,® who named 

the formations in the Fayetteville region, called the lower sandstone 

the Wyman sandstone, the lower shale the Fayetteville shale, and the 

upper sandstone and shale the Batesville sandstone and Marshall 

shale, respectively, these names having been imported from the Batesville 'region.

In the vicinity of Batesville the black shale is divided about 

midway by a massive quartz sandstone from 30 to nearly 200 feet 

in thickness. The formations in this region were called by Penrose in 

1891, 6 in ascending order, the Fayetteville shale, the Batesville 

sandstone, and the Marshall shale. Of these names the first was, 

of course, taken from the Fayetteville region, the second from Batesville itself, and the third from Marshall, a village intermediate 

between Batesville and Fayetteville.

Although the Arkansas geologists evidently recognized the general 

equivalence of these beds, they were apparently at fault in correlating

a Simonds, F. W., Ann. Rept. Geol. Survey Arkansas for 1888, vol. 4,1891, pp. xiii et seq. 

& Penrose, R. A. F., jr., Ann. Rept. Geol. Survey Arkansas for 1890, vol. 1,1891, pp. 138 et seq.

5
6 FAUNA OF MOOREFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

them in detail, for, according to Adams and Ulrich, 0 the Batesville 

sandstone is not equivalent to the upper sandstone of the Fayetteville 

region, as Simonds supposed, but to the lower.

The equivalence of the formations in the two sections is now 

readily determined from the literature, but the proper nomenclature 

to be used is a more difficult question. It is complicated by the 

fact that Simonds's report, which, as already recounted, carries 

over into the Fayetteville region some of the formations of the Batesville section and correlates them wrongly there, was published before 

Penrose's account of the Batesville section itself. Now there may 

readily be opposing views as to whether the two formations, Bates-' 

ville sandstone and Marshall shale, which Simonds describes in an 

alien section and under a misapprehension as to their geologic relations, can be considered as properly established in his report. I am 

rather inclined to the view that they should not be considered established at all until the publication by Penrose in 1891 of the report 

from which the names were evidently taken. It is clear, however, 

that these two names must be regarded as established or not established in Simonds's report. If the term Batesville sandstone was 

not established until Penrose's report was published, then it is evident that the names Wyman and Fayetteville have priority over 

Batesville and Fayetteville, which Adams and Ulrich adopted for 

the same formations. If the two terms are regarded as having 

been established in Simonds's report, the question immediately 

presents itself, Shall they' be held to apply to the formations at 

Batesville and Marshall, for which the names we know were really 

intended, or to the formations in the Fayetteville region, with which, 

in their borrowed usage, they were first associated ? According to 

the latter opinion, with which I do not agree, the terms Marshall 

and Batesville would apply to the formations which Adams and 

Ulrich called Fayetteville (in part) and Wedington, the latter being 

considered a member of the Fayetteville formation. If, however, 

the names were regarded as fixed to the formations at the locality 

from which they were derived, the two terms would supersede the 

names Batesville and Fayetteville employed by Adams and Ulrich. 

In other words, by priority, if Batesville supersedes Wyman, then 

Marshall should supersede Fayetteville, while if Fayetteville supersedes Marshall, then Wyman should be employed instead of Batesville. It must be that Fayetteville and Batesville were adopted by 

these authors, in spite of the inconsistency involved, because of the 

currency which the terms had received over Wyman and Marshall, 

a fact which, all things considered, probably justifies their adoption.

o Prof. Paper U. S. Geol. Survey No. 24, pp. 20 et seq.
INTRODUCTION.

Adams and Ulrich thus use Batesville for the lower sandstone in 

the Fayetteville section which Simonds had named Wyman, and 

Fayetteville for the rest of the series up to the Pitkin (Simonds's 

Archimedes limestone), including therein the formations which 

Simonds had called Fayetteville shale, Batesville sandstone, and 

Marshall shale. His Batesville sandstone, left anonymous by correlating the true Batesville with the lower sandstone at Fayetteville 

rather than- with the upper, they named the Wedington, considering 

it a member of the Fayetteville formation. In the Batesville region 

the name Batesville is, of course, retained, and since by the correlation of these authors the black shale above rather than that below 

the Batesville sandstone is equivalent to the Fayetteville shale, the 

latter term is substituted for the term Marshall. The black shale 

underlying the Batesville, therefore, which Penrose had called Fayetteville shale, by this correlation became nameless, and the authors 

mentioned proposed the name Moorefield shale, from a village near 

Batesville where the beds are well exposed. Since fossils were (erroneously) stated to be rare in the typical Fayetteville shale while 

they were abundant in the Moorefield, Prof. H. S. Williams suspected 

that the latter was no't the same as the Fayetteville, and, wishing 

to give it a distinctive name on account of the interesting fauna 

it contained, had meanwhile introduced the name "Spring Creek 

limestone" for part of the beds which were later called Moorefield. 

But the name Spring Creek had already been preoccupied for a formation in Texas. The Arkansas beds, however, had received such 

prominence through the writings of Williams and others that in this 

case, as in that of the Batesville sandstone, the law of priority 

might, it seems to me, have advantageously been disregarded. 

The accompanying table will help to elucidate the nomenclature 

involved.

Correlation of formations in northern Arkansas.

F. W. Simonds, 1891 

(Ann. Kept. Arkansas 

Geol. Survey for 1888, 

vol. 4, p. xiii), Washington County (Fayetteville).

Archimedes limestone. ... .

Batesville sandstone. .....

stone.

R. A. F. Penrose, 1891 

(Ann. Kept. Arkansas 

Geol. Survey for 1890, 

vol. 1, p. 113), Batesville region.

H. S. Williams, 1895 

(Am. Jour. Sci., 3d 

ser., vol. 49, pp. 94-96), 

Batesville district.

Fayetteville shales to 

the west.

S. Weller, 1897 (Trans. 

New York Acad. Sci., 

vol. 16, pp. 278-282), 

Batesville region.

and shale= Fayetteville shales of Arkansas 

geologists.
FAUNA OP MOOREFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS. 

Correlation of formations in northern Arkansas Continued.

H. S. Williams, 1900 

(Ann. Rept. Arkansas 

Geol. Survey for 1892, 

vol. 5, p. 277), northern Arkansas.

Spring Creek Black shales 

and limestone=Fayetteville shale of Penrose's report.

S. Weller, 1900 (Ann. 

Rept. Arkansas Geol. 

Survey for 1892, vol. 5, 

p. 274), Arkansas.

Archimedes limestone 

(shaly sandstones.)

Batesville sandstone. . . .

G. I. Adams, A. H. Purdue, and E. 0. Ulrich, 1904 

(Prof. Paper U. S. Geol. Survey No. 24).

Fayetteville.

[Fayetteville formation . . 

1 Wedington sand- 

] stone member. 

(.Fayetteville formation. . 

Batesville sandstone. . . .

Batesville.

Batesville sandstone. 

Moorefleld shale. 

Spring Creek limestone member.

Boone formation.

According to Adams and Ulrich, therefore, the Moorefield shale, 

with the fauna of which this paper is concerned, comprises the beds 

in the Batesville region that lie between the Boone and the Batesville 

sandstone. It thins out to the west so that at Fayetteville the 

Batesville rests directly upon the Boone without any Moorefield 

intervening between them at all. The Batesville and underlying 

Moorefield can be identified with some certainty at Marshall, a locality 

which has already been mentioned^ but I do not know that the 

Moorefield has been recognized in sections farther west, though we 

must presume that it extends in that direction beyond Marshall. 

At all events the coUections which I have studied are restricted to the 

two localities mentioned, Batesville and Marshall, though the Batesville collections themselves comprise three distinct stations Spring 

Creek, west of Batesville; Moorefield, east of Batesville; and Howards Wells, northeast of Batesville and Moorefield.

Although the Moorefield shale received its name from Moorefield,

and although it there contains the interesting goniatites which Prof. 

J. P. Smith a has described, thereby bringing the locality into more or 

less prominence, the outcrops along Spring Creek, which gave name 

to the " Spring Creek limestone," will probably always be the classic 

locality for the formation, at least from a paleontologist's standpoint, for there the peculiar and characteristic fauna of the formation was first found and is best developed. For this reason I shall 

often, in the present paper, have occasion to refer to this calcareous 

phase of the basal portion of the Moorefield shale outcropping along 

Spring Creek, or to the fauna which occurs in it, and for the sake of 

brevity and precision I shall use Williams's term. "Spring Creek 

limestone" to designate it. At the same time it is doubtful whether 

this group of rocks, geologically unimportant and possibly of no 

great areal extent, deserves a distinguishing name, or, on the other

a Smith, J. P., Mon. U. S. Geol. Survey, vol. 42,1903, p. 15 et seq.
INTRODUCTION. 9

hand, whether "Spring Creek" could advantageously be retained 

for it.

The main track of the White River branch of >the St. Louis, Iron 

Mountain and Southern Railway now goes through BatesviUe and. 

up White River into Missouri. About 2 miles west of Batesville it 

sends off a branch which passes to the northwest up Spring Creek, a 

tributary of White River, to Cushman. The point of division, represented merely by a switch, is known as White River Junction. The 

typical outcrop of the "Spring Creek limestone" seems to be about 

half a mile northwest of White River Junction, where some outcrops 

and cuttings on the bank of Spring Creek expose the beds along the 

railroad. This point is a few rods south of the intersection of the 

railroad and wagon road, as represented on the map of the Batesville quadrangle, the rails passing over the road on a short trestle. 

At this point, also, on Spring Creek, is Rucldell's mill.

The detailed section at Spring Creek made by Weller was published by Williams in 1900. It is as follows: 0 -

Section (locality 1248A) in the railroad cut east of the trestle over the wagon road, near

White River Junction, Ark.

Ft. in.

A13. A fine-grained grit runs down into A12 in several places and is decomposed. (This may be the upper termination of the limestone 

where it underlies the Batesville sandstone, which is said by Doctor 

Penrose to overlie the Fayetteville shale.) &

A12. Black limestone, generally solid, heavy bedded, in Some places quite 

shaly, varies greatly. The lower 3 inches contain fossils, and fossils 

also occur higher up in bands and pockets ......................... 8

All. Brown shale, few fossils..... I...................................... 3

A10. Black limestone, hard, 110 fossils..................................... 2

A9. Brown shale, no fossils. ............................................ 4

A8. Black limestone, hard, no fossils..................................... 6

A7. Black shale, becoming brown at top, no fossils........................ 10

A6. Black limestone, hard, fossils abundant, weathers like A5............. 1 6

A5. Brown gritty shale, many fossils..................................... 6

A4. Soft yellow shale, almost decomposed to clay, no fossils............... 6-24

A3. Black limestone, hard, no fossils .................................... 12-18

A2. Brown gritty shale, many fossils..................................... 6

Al. Black shaly limestone, many fossils.

This section aggregates less than 18 feet, exclusive of two beds 

whose thickness is not given. It is suggested that the upper portion 

of this series grades into the Batesville sandstone. This I believe to 

be a mistake/ It has been stated by Williams that the outcrop at 

Spring Creek is complicated by faulting. I did not examine the 

Spring Creek outcrops at all points and am not prepared to say that

a Branner, J. C., Ann. Kept. Geol. Survey Arkansas for 1892, vol. 5,1900, p. 342. 

& Ann. Kept. Geol. Survey Arkansas for 1S90, vol. 1,1891, p. 139.

c In a letter to Professor Williams, Mr. Weller suggests that this sandstone is merely a weathered phase 

of the impure siliceous limestone, an explanation which is probably the correct one.
10 FAUNA OF MOOEEFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

faulting does not occur there. In fact, it is evident that the beds 

are tilted and disturbed, but I saw no evidence of faulting .in the 

territory I examine'd, and I believe that a series of argillaceous beds 

succeeds the calcareous sediments described in detail by Weller and 

intervenes between them and the Batesville sandstone. Above the 

"Spring Creek limestone" there may be in fact as much as 150 feet 

of black shale of the Moorefield formation before the Batesville is 

reached.

My own observations on the exposures in this region may be summarized as follows. About 300 paces northwest of the trestle over 

the wagon road there are exposed about 20 feet of massive, fine, 

whitish limestone overlain by about 20 feet of cherty limestone in 

thin beds. These strata, which without much question belong to 

the Boone formation, by reason of their dip gradually pass below the 

level of the track in going toward White River Junction. This occurs 

about 140 paces from the trestle. From this point onward for a considerable distance there are few and poor exposures, thin cherty 

bands, and a few ledges of limestone. Just northwest of the trestle 

5 feet of limestone interstratified with thin cherty sheets was noticed. 

About 140 paces southeast of the trestle the outcrops of the "Spring 

Creek limestone" come in, extending in low, poor exposures for about 

117 paces.

The beds were not so well shown at the time of my visit as when 

Weller examined them sixteen years previously, and it was not 

possible to give so accurate an account of them. I estimated the 

thickness of the "Spring Creek limestone" at 12 feet, as follows:

Section of the "Spring Creek limestone," Arkansas.

Feet.

The upper limestone, fine-grained, and light to dark gray in coldr, and containing no fossils but lingulas .................................................. 8

Separated probably by thin shales from an earthy limestone about.............. 1

Below which the rocks are mostly concealed but appear to consist of thin black 

shale and fine black limestone, about...............:........................ 3

12

It is evident by comparing Mr. Weller's section with these notes 

that when his observations were made there was exposed to view 

about 6 feet of the lower part of the "Spring Creek beds" which was 

concealed at the time of my visit.

From the end of this outcrop, nearly 257 paces southeast of the 

trestle, no exposures were noted for a long distance (580 paces),a but 

at that point one may observe in going up the hillside from the track 

level 60 feet of greenish and black shales in alternating bands, sandy 

below but finer and more fissile above. For 80 feet above these

"It is doubtless in this interval that the reported fault occurs. As already noted, I saw no evidences of 

a fault from the railroad track and did not go back on the hill to search for it.
I1TTEODUCTION-. 11

..shales the rocks are largely concealed to the top of the hill, where 3 

feet of Batesville sandstone is exposed in place. A poor outcrop of 

greenish shale occurs near the top of the interval not far below the 

sandstone.

I am disposed to believe that these outcrops from the Boone up 

imperfectly represent a single, simple, continuous series. The last 

exposures are in a continuous section and can not be complicated by 

faulting. They represent the Batesville sandstone and underlying 

beds rather than a shale and second sandstone above the Batesville 

(which, according to Williams's suggestion, would come in immedi-

' ately over the "Spring Creek limestone"), because the black shales 

above the Batesville are elsewhere succeeded by a heavy limestone 

series without any sandstone for a long distance; because the sandstone here carries the Batesville fauna; and because this sequence is

found in sections in which no one has thought to suggest displacements. If the Batesville rests upon the "Spring Creek limestone" 

at RuddelPs mill, as suggested by Williams, and in this section is 

separated by 140 feet of shales or more, the sedimentation has changed 

very rapidly indeed in so short a distance.

No evidence of faulting was seen by me along this course, and if 

the sequence of beds is continuous it is probably safe to add 50 feet, 

or possibly more, to the 140 feet of shale exposed in the hillside to 

represent the long interval southeast of the Spring Creek outcrops 

in which no exposure was seen. The interval by which the Batesville sandstone is separated from the Boone formation at this point 

I would estimate as about 225 feet.

The hillside exposure just described is only about 200 paces from 

White River Junction. The Batesville dips steeply to the south and 

east from the top of the hill, but within a short distance the dip 

flattens, so that this formation is at or near the surface most of the 

way to Batesville and beyond.

The Boone limestone is quarried extensively to the north and northeast of Batesville, where it appears as a massive, uniform, rather 

fine grained limestone of light-gray or brownish color. It is known 

in the trade as an oolite, but I have not seen evidence of oolitic 

structure in any of it.

A sequence similar to that which I have described as occurring 

along Spring Creek is also observed when White River Junction is 

approached from the west instead of from the north. My observations extend from a point about 2£ miles west of White River 

Junction. The first outcrop seen is the Batesville, which can be 

followed and recognized from the train as it appears at different 

levels in cuts and on the hillsides. At the locality mentioned it has 

a westerly dip of about 4° and probably is on the western limb of a 

gentle fold. It is underlain by the usual grayish and greenish shales.
12 FAUNA OF MOOREFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

Some distance to the east, the Boone is finely exposed in a long 

bluff. Here were seen 65 feet of fine-grained limestone and chert, 

for the most part light gray in color. The cherty limestone is heavily 

bedded and abruptly gives place laterally to purely calcareous strata. 

These beds where weathered seem to be thin bedded; where blasted, 

massive; and they are usually not noticeably cherty when freshly 

exposed. Toward the top the limestone becomes earthy and full 

of little holes resembling worm borings. Fragments of similar limestone were found up the hillside to the level of 50 feet above the 

highest exposure in place. The beds in this bluff, which affords outcrops for 562 paces, have a distinct though not high dip to the east. 

In another cut 230 paces farther east is exposed 20 feet of nearly 

pure, .finely crystalline light-gray to dark-gray limestone, overlain 

by thin black sandy shale, black calcareous sandstone looking like 

black chert, black calcareous shale in thin sheets, and black limestone. This outcrop continues for 370 paces, the beds still having a 

gentle eastward dip. An interval of 170 paces separates this from 

the next cut, which gives 10 feet of fine, fissile greenish and black 

shale followed by 2 feet of calcareous black sandy shale and coarse 

calcareous sandstone, and this by 2 feet of thin, black shale. The 

dip is still toward the east. White River Junction is only 815 paces 

beyond, the interval showing no outcrops.

These cuts are so close together and so long and the beds descend 

at so low an angle that the exposures may be regarded as practically 

continuous. Though differing considerably in detail from the formation as exposed over the hill on Spring Creek, these beds of black 

shale and black earthy limestone resting on the Boone are clearly 

the same as the "Spring Creek limestone"; moreover, about half 

a mile to the east and a little north, at the point already described, 

is the hillside section completing the sequence up to the Batesville

sandstone.

The fauna of the "Spring Creek limestone" has been listed by 

H.' S. Williams, his collections forming part of those on which the 

present report is based. My own determinations do not in all cases 

agree with those of Professor Williams, but they probably differ no 

more than his final determinations would have differed from these 

preliminary ones if he had brought the fauna to a detailed study.

From 1248A1 (see Weller's section on p. 9) we have the following species:

Lingulidiscina newberryi var. ovata? 

Productella hirsutiformis. 

Productus subsulcatus? 

Liorhynchus carboniferum. 

Liorhynchus carboniferum var. polypleurum. 

Moorefieldella eurekensis.

Spirifer arkansanus. 

Ambocoelia laevicula? 

Nucula rectangula. 

Bembexia nodimarginata? 

Bactrites? smithianus? 

Goniatites choctawensis?
INTEODUCTION. 13

No. 1248A2 has furnished us these:

Lingulidiscina newberryi var. caneyana. 

Productella hirsutiformis. 

Productus subsulcatus. 

Liorhynchus carboniferum. 

Liorhynchus carboniferum var. polypleurum.

Moorefieldella eurekenais. 

Spirifer arkansanus.

Martinia sp.

Amboccelia Isevicula? .

Composita aff. humilis.

Leda nasuta?

Bembexia nodimarginata?

Orthoceras aff. crebriliratum.

Goniatites choctawensis?

1248A3 and A4 seem to be without fossils. 

In 1248A5 I have identified the following:

Liorhynchus carboniferum var. polypleurum.

Moorefieldella eurekensis. 

Amboccelia laevicula?

Lingula albapinensis. 

Productella hirsutiformis. 

Productus subsulcatus. 

Productus subsulcatus var. janus. 

Liorhynchus carboniferum.

No. 1248A6 furnishes:

Liorhynchus carboniferum. 

Moorefieldella eurekensis.

Lingulidiscina newberryi var, moorefieldana?

Productella hirsutiformis.

Productus moorefieldanus var. pusillus?

1248A7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 have as yet furnished no fauna, and 

1248A12 but three species, as follows:

Productus moorefieldanus. 

Camarotoechia purduei var. agrestis.

The foregoing collections were made by Mr. Weller. Professor 

Williams made the following section at Spring Creek:

Section (1248R 1-5) at Spring Creek.

5. Lingula layer. 

4. Black limestone. 

3. Top of cherty layers. 

2. Limestone. 

1. Cushman chert.

I have identified the following species in bed 4 of Professor Williams's section:

Stenopora sp.

Lingula bates vil lie.

Productella hirsutiformis.

Productus pileiformis.

Productus moorefieldanus var. pusillus.

Productus biseriatus.

Diaphragmus elegans.

Liorhynchus carboniferum.

Camarotoechia purduei var. agrestis.

Moorefieldella eurekensis.

Harttina brevilobata.

Harttina brevilobata var. marginalis.

Spirifer arkansanus.

Spirifer moorefieldanus.

Spirifer increbescens.

Martinia glabra?

Spiriferina subelliptica var. fayettevillensis?

Composita subquadrata var. lateralis. 

Eumetria marcyi. 

Solenopsis nitida? 

Deltopecten batesvillensis. 

Bellerophon sp. 

Strophostylus aff. carleyanus.
14 FAUNA OF MOOREFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

Bed 5 furnished the following:

Productella hirsutiformis? 

Productus moorefieldanus? 

Liorhynchus carboniferum. 

Liorhynchus carboniferum var. polypleurum.

Moorefieldella eurekensis. 

Moorefieldella eurekensis var. subcuboides? 

Martinia sp. 

Bembexia nodimarginata.

There is also a small lot numbered 1248Rx. It has no corresponding entry in the Survey catalogue and it probably represents loose or 

float material. The four species which I have identified in the lot 

designated in this way are as follows:

Productus pileiformis. 

Liorhynchus carboniferum?

Spirifer arkansanus. 

Martinia glabra?

We have furthermore a lot numbered merely 1248R. The specimens so labeled may possibly have been collected by Branner and 

Penrose in 1889 (Williams's collection was made the year following), 

or they may merely bear labels on which the distinguishing numerals 

have been accidentally omitted. The following species have been 

identified in 1248R:

Spirifer arkansanus.

Martinia glabra?

Composita subquadrata var. lateralis.

Paralleled on multiliratus.

Lingulidiscina newberryi var. caneyana. 

Productus pileiformis. 

Liorhynchus carboniferum. 

Camarotoechia purduei var. agrestis. 

Moorefieldella eurekensis.

Station 1248T of Professor Williams's catalogue consists of material 

found loose on the railroad embankment. It has furnished the 

following species:

Batostomella dubia. 

Batostomella parvula. 

Lingula batesvillse. 

Liorhynchus carboniferum. 

Camarotoechia purduei var. agrestis.

Moorefieldella eurekensis. 

Martinia glabra?? 

Solenomya? sp. 

Edmondia crassa.

Cypricardinia moorefieldana.

1248V is a collection similarly made. I find a memorandum which 

says "1248V=Rx of collection," and a list of species from 1248V 

seems to comprise the faunas of both of my lists. Among the specimens now labeled "1248V," I have identified the three following 

species:

Productella hirsutiformis. Composita subquadrata var. lateralis? 

Martinia glabra?

Another group of float specimens is included in 1248Y. Among 

these I have-identified the following:

Productus pileiformis. Moorefieldella eurekensis. 

Productus arkansanus var. multiliratus. Moorefieldellaeurekensisvar. subcuboides. 

Liorhynchus carboniferum. Productella hirsutiformis. 

Liorhynchus carboniferum var. poly- Productus inflatus var. coloradoensis? 

pleurum,
INTRODUCTION. 15

1248Z, also float, has supplied only Lingula batesvillse. 

Lot 1237R appears to be also from Spring Creek locality and contains the following:

Lingula batesvillsc. 

Liorhyrichus carboniferum.

Moorefielclella eurekensis. 

Deltopecten batesvillensis.

Messrs. Adams and Ulrich collected at Spring Creek in 1902, but 

they did not discriminate the horizons in detail as did Mr. Weller. 

In their collection (2048) I have identified the following species:

Camarotoechia purduei var. agrestis.

Moorefieldella eurekensis.

Spirifer arkansanus.

Reticularia setigera.

Martinia glabra?

Martinia sp.

Composita subquadrata var. lateralis?

Composita aff. humilis.

Sphenotus? sp.

Edmondia crassa.

Schizodus batesvillensis.

Deltopecten batesvillensis.

Allerisma walkeri var. abbreviatum.

Bembexia nodimarginata.

Bellerophon sp.

Strophostylus aff. carleyanus.

Paraparchites nicklesi.

Primitia moorefieldana.

Bairdia attenuata.

Batostomella dubia.

Batostomella parvula.

Fenestella aff. rudis?

Fenestella aff. multispinosa?

Lingula batesvillse.

Lingula albapinensis.

Lingulidiscina newberryi var. moorefieldana.

Lingulidiscina newberryi var. marshallensis?

Lingulidiscina newberryi var. caneyana.

Chonetes sp.

Productella hirsutiformis.

Productus inflatus var. coloradoensis?

Productus pileiformis.

Productus subsulcatus var. janus?

Productus moorefieldanus var. pusillus.

Productus biseriatus.

Rhipidomella arkansana.

Liorhynchus carboniferum.

Liorhynchus carboniferum var. polypleurum.

My own collecting at this point was done in 1907. But little of my 

material was obtained from rock in place; most of it was collected 

from large blocks evidently taken from the cutting near by and piled 

up to reinforce the bank at the trestle that has been mentioned as 

carrying the tracks over the sunken wagon road. The material from 

each block was kept separate and many of the horizons can be determined lithologically and faunally by comparing them with the collections of the series 1248. The thickness of rock through which 

these collections range, however, is so slight and the faunas themselves are so alike that, so far as I can see, no object is gained by keeping them separate. From a ledge of earthy limestone in place, along 

the railroad, crowded with Inorhynchus and Moorefieldetta, I obtained 

the following (2049) :

Productella hirsutiformis. Liorhynchus carboniferum var. polypleuProductus subsulcatus. rum.

Productus moorefieldanus. Moorefieldella eurekensis.

Productus moorefieldanus var. pusillus. Bembexia nodimarginata,

Liorhynchus carboniferum.
16 FAUNA OF MOOEEFIELD SHALE OF AKKANSAS.

One of the loose blocks mentioned above furnished these species 

(2049a):

Martinia glabra?

Spiriferina subelliptica var. fayettevillen-

' sis?

Composita subquadrata var. lateralis.

Eumetria marcyi?

Parallelodon multiliratus.

Cypricardinia moorefieldana.

Deltopecten batesvillensis?

Deltopecten? sp.

Bucanopsis cancellata?

Orthoceras aff. crebriliratum.

Griffithides? sp.

Menophyllum sp.

Lingulidiscina newberryi var. moorefieldana? ,

Productella hirsutiformis var. batesvillensis.

Productus pileiformis.

Productus moorefieldanus var. pusillus.

Productus biseriatus.

Rhipidomella arkansaria.

Liorhynchus carboniferum?

Spirifer arkansanus.

Spirifer moorefieldanus.

Reticularia setigera. 

Another loose block gave the following (2049b):

Batostomella parvula. 

Fenestella aff. rudis? 

Lingulidiscina newberryi var, moorefieldana.

Productus moorefieldanus? 

Camarotcecnia purduei. 

Camarotcechia purduei var. agrestis. 

Moorefieldella eurekensis. 

Reticularia setigera.

Another (2049c) gives:

Lingula batesvillse?

Lingulidiscina newberryi var. moorefieldana?

Lingulidiscina newberryi var. caneyana. 

Chonetes sp.

Productella hirsutiformis. 

Productus inflatus var. coloradoensis?

Composita madisonensis var. pusilla. 

Composita subquadrata var. lateralis? 

Eumetria marcyi. 

Sphenotus meslerianus? 

Sphenotus? sp. 

Edmondia crassa. 

Deltopecten batesvillensis. 

Strophostylus aff. carleyanus. 

Paraparchites nicklesi.

Productus biseriatus. ' 

Rhipidomella arkansana. 

Liorhynchus carboniferum. 

Spirifer arkansanus. 

Reticularia setigera. 

Martinia sp. 

Parallelodon multiliratus.

Productus moorefieldanus var. pusillus.

From the ballast (2049d) near the southeast end of the outcrop 

(evidently Professor Williams's Lingula layer) I obtained two species Lingula latesvillse and Deltopecten batesvillensis.

From another loose block from the trestle (2049f) the following 

forms were collected and identified:

Productella hirsutiformis? 

Productus inflatus var. coloradoensis? 

Productus pileiformis.

Liorhynchus carboniferum.

Spirifer arkansanus.

Composita subquadrata var. lateralis.

Fossils are rare in the black and greenish shales which comprise the 

upper and larger part of the Moorefield, and, indeed, most sediments 

of this character seem to be scantily fossiliferous. Nevertheless a few 

forms were obtained in a hillside exposure described on page 10 

as about one-half mile northwest of White River Junction. From 

some concretions in the greenish sandy shale in the base of the outcrop (2052) I collected Oaneyella percostata and Gastrioceras caney-
INTRODUCTION. 17

anwn; and from the black fissile shale about 20 feet above (2052a), 

Caneyella nasuta and Orthoceras sp. &.

I also made a collection (2053) in the black earthy limestone just 

above the Boone along the railroad west of White River Junction 

(see p. 12) in which the following species occurred:

Enchostoma bicarinatum. 

Lingula albapinensis. 

Lingulidiscina newberryi var. ovata. 

Lingulidiscina newberryi var. caneyana. 

Productella hirsutiformis.

Productus pileiformis. 

Liorhynchus carboniferum. 

Martinia glabra. 

Parallelodon multiliratus. 

Bembexia nodimarginata.

This is evidently the Spring Creek fauna, but the fossiliferous 

ledges are less numerous at this locality. Particularly noticeable for 

its absence is that in which Liorhynchus carboniferum and Moorefieldella eurekensis are so abundant. It will be observed that the 

latter species was not obtained at this locality. .

With this the Survey collections at Spring Creek and vicinity come

to an end. In the table on page 22 will be found the complete fauna 

of the "Spring Creek limestone" as contained in the collections and 

identified by me. In addition, however, I should mention that J. P. 

Smith has cited Goniatites newsomi from the "Fayetteville" (=Moorefield) shale at Batesville and also G. striatus and G. subcircularis, all 

three of which are included in the table on his authority. McChesney 

also described three species from a locality near Batesville Nuculites 

[Leda] vaseyana, Nucula rectangula, and Pleurotomaria [Bembexia] 

nodimarginata the horizon being given as "dark-colored shales of 

the age of the Hamilton rocks of New York." There can be no reasonable doubt that the horizon is really the Moorefield shale, and the 

locality is very probably that at Spring Creek.

Smith, who described an interesting goniatite fauna from Moorefield, states that his fossils (at least those of Bactrites carbonarius) were 

collected on the farm of 0. P. Goodwin, near Moorefield, Ark. My 

own hurried visit to Moorefield was planned especially with a view to 

obtaining collections from the same horizons. I learned that a few 

of the early collections were indeed made from a well on the farm of 

0. P. Goodwin (now owned by Mr. McClure), but most of them were 

obtained on G. A. Godfrey's place, not far away, half a mile south 

and half a mile west of Moorefield. My informant was Mr. Godfrey 

himself, who told me that Doctor Branner stopped with him several 

days and who kindly accompanied me to several of the old localities. 

Just back of Mr. Godfrey's house black shales and black limestones 

are exposed in a little run. From the black limy shales I collected 

the Spring Creek fauna as follows (2051a):

Productella hirsutiformis. Liorhynchus carboniferum var. polypleuLiorhynchus carboniferum.

Martinia sp. 

46447° Bull. 439 11 2

rum.
18 FAUNA OF MOOKEFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

Just above (the whole included within the dimensions of a few feet) 

were rounded segregations of earthy limestone that were said to have 

furnished some of the goniatites of the earlier collections, and weathered sections, apparently through goniatites, corroborated this statement. These lenses were so large, rounded, and massive that they 

could not be broken with the ordinary geologic hammer, so that it was 

impossible to make a collection from this horizon. It seems evident 

at all events that some of the characteristic goniatites of the Moorefield shale occur in association with the Spring Creek fauna. Similar 

though poorer outcrops were seen in this run southward for about a 

quarter of a mile, where to the west there rises a hill on the top of which 

are abundant plates of thin-bedded, fine-grained sandstone (originally 

somewhat calcareous), containing many fossils of a few species, Deltopecten batesvillensis being very abundant. The fauna obtained here 

(2051b) comprised LiorhyncJius carboniferum, Oaneyella vaugJiani, 

and Deltopecten batesvillensis.

I am fairly satisfied that this is not the Batesville sandstone, for 

neither the fauna nor the lithology is that of the Batesville, the rock 

being far too thin, sheety, and fine grained for that formation. The 

top of the hill with its fossiliferous sandstone was at 440 feet (barometric). Four feet of black limestone and stiff black shale in the 

branch at the foot of the hill stood at 340 feet; the bed of the branch 

near Godfrey's house, where the collection was made, at 325 feet. 

The total thickness comprised in these observations is therefore 115 

feet. I may mention that the 4 feet of black limestone and shale at 

the foot of the hill was pointed out to me as being one of the localities 

at which the first collections were obtained, but I saw no evidence of 

this rock being fossiliferous.

Another locality at which some of the early collections were made 

Was OH top of the hill-opposite Godfrey's house, east or somewhat 

southeast of it. In little runs and on the bare hillsides a nearly complete exposure of the Moorefield is obtained to the top, the rocks consisting of fissile, somewhat sheety black shale with very little limestone. The shales are scantily fossiliferous, though specimens of 

LiorhyncJius were noted. At the top occur fragments of limestone 

holding (2051) Lingulidiscina newberryi var. caneyana, Stropfiostylus 

aff. carleyanus ?, Orihoceras sp. &, Bactritesf carbonarius, and Goniatites choctawensis.

This limestone is collected by local people and it was impossible to 

obtain more than a few small fragments with fossils. Using the outcrop back of Godfrey's again as a reference point, I found the top of 

this hill (station 2051) to be 100 feet above it, and consequently lower 

by 15 feet than the adjacent eminence on the top of which the sandstone with Deltopecten was so abundant. Of the latter no trace was 

seen. At this locality, then, there is about 115 feet in the middle
INTBODUCTION. 19

of the Moorefield shale, which was estimated to be about 225 feet 

thick along Spring Creek, neither the Boone below nor the Batesyille 

above being exposed in the immediate vicinity. If the fossiliferous 

limestone back of Mr. Godfrey's house, however, is to be considered 

as representing the horizon of the "Spring Creek limestone/' the 

base of the formation can hardly be far below. Some distance west 

of Moorefield similar black shales crop out and underlie the typical 

Batesville, which can be traced onward to the town itself and the 

outcrops around it.

Other outcrops of the sandstone can be seen by one approaching 

Moorefield from the north. The sandstone is descending in that direction, the barometer reading 380 on one of two outcrops especially 

noted and 300 on the other. The latter was not far from the town 

of Moorefield. On the assumption that the barometer was correct, 

which may not be the case, as the atmospheric conditions were disturbed, the Batesville at that point is lower than any of the outcrops 

of Moorefield shale which I have described and the dip would carry 

the formation still lower. My observations were insufficient to determine whether this relation of the outcrops is due to faulting or to a 

reversal of the dips (the rocks on top of the hill opposite to Godfrey's 

appeared, however, to have a general dip southward) or to misleading 

barometric readings. If none of these is true, the Moorefield must 

overlie instead of underlie the Batesville sandstone. I do not believe, 

however, that this is the case. At all events the fauna at Moorefield 

is closely related to that of the "Spring Creek limestone." To the 

lists already given from the vicinity of Moorefield I must also add 

Pleurotomaria? sp., Orthoceras sp. a, Endolobus ornatus, and Goniatites 

cfioctawensis, which were collected by Mr. Siebenthal (2051C) in the 

early work that was done in this region; and a few ammonoid species, 

(Bactrites carbonarius, Glyphioceras calyx,® and Goniatites crenistria), 

cited by Professor Smith in his monograph, some of which have been 

noted in our own collections.

The third and last locality from which Moorefield fossils have been 

obtained in the Batesville region is Howards Wells, near Sharps Crossroads^ northeast of Batesville and of Moorefield. Howards Wells are 

natural mineral springs which have been excavated to some extent, 

furnishing for the local market a mineral water which is either condensed and bottled or reduced to a crystalline salt by evaporation. 

The locality is about 1£ miles east and half a mile north from Sharps 

Crossroads. There are no outcrops worth mentioning in this vicinity. 

The fossils were thrown out in excavating the wells a good many years 

ago and were donated by Mr. Howard himself. My barometer gave 

a reading of 395 feet at the wells, and the fossils were obtained from 

10 to 20 feet below the surface. About half a mile west of Sharps

oSeo Oastrioceras richardsonianum.
20 FAUNA OF MOOKEFIELD SHALE OF AKKANSAS.

Crossroads the Batesville, which can be traced with reasonable success 

from Batesville itself, crops out at 415 feet, and if we may assume 

that Howards Wells is about on the strike, as seems to be the case, 

the horizon from which the fossils were obtained would appear to be 

30 feet below the top of the Moorefield. At all events it seems wellnigh certain that the horizon is below the Batesville and probably in 

the upper rather than in the lower half of the Moorefield shale. The 

earlier fossils (1245A) obtained at this point were Goniatites choctawensis, Gastrioceras caneyanum, EumorpJioceras bisulcatum, and AdelpJioceras meslerianum. Mr. Howard also gave' me a single specimen 

which I have figured as Gastrioceras caneyanum (1245B). The collection 1248X, which seems to have been made from this vicinity, 

contains a single species, Deltopecten latesvillensis.

In this case, as in the others, the species which are known from the 

Moorefield shale at Howards Wells and vicinity are shown in a separate column of the table on page 22.

The only locality near Marshall at which I found the shales between 

the Batesville and the Boone satisfactorily shown is in a little ravine 

on the northeast edge of tjie town. The Moorefield here has a thickness of less than 40 feet. The constituent beds are as follows:

Section in ravine near Marshall, Ark.

Batesville sandstone. Feet.

Rusty sandy shale............................................... 3

Sandstone..............:....................................... 1

Black fissile shale................................................ 15

Olive sandy shale........................................... .-^... 2

Fissile black shale............;.................................. 4

Olive sandy shale................................................ 3

Concretionary band with fossils...................................... 1

Olive sandy shale... .x........................................... 2

Thin sheety limestone with P. pileiformis .......................... 1

White chert..................................................... 2

Dark gray crystalline limestone................................... 2

For the present I am regarding the thin limestone with Productus 

as the base of the Moorefield, the underlying beds being referred to 

the Boone, while the upper limit of the formation may best be taken 

at the top of the black shale, the first layer of sandstone initiating the 

Batesville.

In the way of fossils these outcrops have not proved very fruitful, 

although a few species, Lingula, Liorhynchus, and Camarotoschia, are 

abundant. The lower bed, resting directly upon the Boone, and 

perhaps belonging to it, has yielded only Productus pileiformis (7038a). 

Two feet above occur some large, slightly calcareous concretions, from 

which the following species were collected (7038):

Lingulidiscina newberryi var. marshallensis. 

Lingulidiscina newberryi var. moorefieldana? 

Liorhynchus carboniferum. 

Liorhynchus carboniferum var. polypleurum.
INTRODUCTION. 21

From a thin, calcareous, sandy band about 8 feet above the Boone, 

I obtained, in 1908, the following species (7038c):

Lingulidiscina newberryi var. marshallensis.

Liorhynchus carboniferum.

Liorhynchus carboniferum var. polypleurum.

Leda vaseyana?

Schizodus batesvillensis?

From the concretions in a thin, earthy limestone in the black shale, 

.about 20 feet above the Boone, I collected (7039) 

Lingulidiscina newberryi var. marshallensis.

Chonetes sericeus. 

Camarotcechia purduei var. laxa.

Solenopsis nitida? 

Nucula rectangula. 

Caneyella wapanuckensis? 

Pleurotomaria? sp.

If the formations are the same at Batesville and at Marshall, as 

seems probable, certain important changes must be noted. The most 

striking is probably the diminution in the thickness of the Moorefield 

shale, which measures about 225 feet on Spring Creek and less than 40 

feet at Marshall. The general character of the formation remains the 

same, however, although naturaUy the detail of the calcareous beds in 

its lower part varies from place to place. The faunas at Marshall 

(see table on p. 22) also present many differences from those of the 

"Spring'Creek limestone," partly in being less varied and partly in 

containing different as well as fewer species. The most noteworthy 

of the absentees is probably Moorefieldella eurekensis, Which, though 

abundant on Spring Creek, is known at no other place in the Moorefield shale. Productella Jiirsutiformis is also absent, as are also the 

other productoid types, and also Spirifer arkansanus, etc. Liorhynchus, another characteristic species, occurs in a smaller, generally narrower, mutation, which, though in some measure discriminable, I have 

cited as the same species. I may note at this point that a larger, 

more characteristic form occurs at a much higher horizon at Marshall 

near the top of the black shale above the Batesville sandstone.

The accompanying table shows the fauna of the Moorefield shale 

and its distribution at the four localities from which fossils are 

known from near Batesville on Spring Creek and near by On White 

River; from near Moorefield; from Howards Wells near Sharps Crossroads, in the Batesville quadrangle; and from near Marshall in the 

Marshall quadrangle. It will be observed that nearly all the species 

known come from the Spring Creek locality, the others having furnished but a scattering representation. The cephalopods, one of the 

most interesting features of the fauna, are proportionally far better 

represented at Moorefield'and Howards Wells. They are practically 

absent from the survey collections obtained at Spring Creek, but 

Professor Smith cites several species, probably from that locality. 

They appear to be especially abundant in the upper part of the forma-
22 FAUNA OF MOOREFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

tion, while the brachiopods -are largely segregated in the "Spring 

Creek limestone," in the lower part. The fauna from Marshall lacks 

many of the characteristic Moorefield types and shows some positive as well as negative peculiarities:

Table showing distribution of species of the Moorefield shale in the Batesville and Marshall quadrangles.

Fenestella afl. rudis?. . ...........

pusillus. ........................

Diaphragmus elegans .............

Rhipidon lella arkansana ..........

Creek. Spring 

X

Y

X

X

Y

Y

?

Y

Y

X

Y

X

Y

X

X

X

Y

X

X

Y

Y

Y

X

Y

Y

Y

Moorefield.

Y

Y

Y

Wells. Howards 

i

,

Marsnall.

?

v

v

v

Ambocoelia laevicula?. ...........

ette villensis. ...................

Composita subquadrata var.

Composita madisonensis var.

Deltopecten batesvillensis. .......

Allerisma walker! var. abbreviaBucanopsis cancellata?. .........

Bellerophon sp. .................

Gastrioceras richardsonianum?..

Spring Creek.

V

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

V

X

X

X

X

?

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

v

Y

v

Y

X

?

Y

Y

X

Moorefield.

?

X

Y

?

X

Y

?

Howards Wells.

X

X

Y

X

Marshall.

Y

X

X

?

Y

Some of the most striking features of the Moorefield shale have 

already been pointed out by H. S. Williams,0 who noted its relationship to the early faunas of the Carboniferous section of Nevada,

a Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 49,1895, pp. 94-101; Ann. Kept. Geol. Survey Arkansas for 1892, vol. 5,1900. 

pp. 341-354.
INTRODUCTION. 23

especially .vested in such species as Liorhynchus carboniferum, Productella Mrsutiformis, and Moorefieldella eurekensis. The Moorefield 

fauna has generally been regarded by paleontologists as correlating 

with the Meramec ("St. Louis") group. The stratigraphic position 

of the Moorefield immediately above the Boone is very suggestive 

of such an alignment, and it seems probable that it is correct, but 

at the same time, there are very few species which can be definitely identified in both faunas.0 On the other hand, some of the 

Moorefield forms are definitely suggestive of a higher horizon than 

the Meramec. Those winch might be taken as indicating a Kaskaskia 

rather than a Meramec age are DiapJiragmus elegans, which has not, 

I believe, been recognized below the Kaskaskia; Plarttina Irevilolata, 

winch was described from the Kaskaskia, but is very closely related 

to Dielasma turgidum of the Meramec (which I suspect to be a Plarttina)] Reticularia setigera, which may very well range down to the 

lower horizon and grade into R. pseudolineata, from which it is 

doubtless descended; and Martinia glabra, winch, though not 

identical with M. contracta of the Kaskaskia, still presents a genus 

at present unknown in the Meramec ("St. Louis"). I desire to defer 

a definite expression of opinion regarding the correlation of the 

Arkansas beds with the standard section of Illinois, Missouri, and 

Iowa, until all the Mississippian faunas of Arkansas have been 

studied; but it is doubtless safe to affirm that the Moorefield fauna 

and all the higher faunas of the Mississippian in Arkansas present 

numerous and important differences from the corresponding faunas 

of the standard section. Indeed, I am coming to believe that the 

standard section of Missouri, Illinois, Iowa, etc., represents conditions which, speaking in a broad way, were specialized and local. 

Over extensive areas in Mississippi, Alabama, and Oklahoma, probably also in Kentucky, Tennessee, and southern Indiana, the upper 

Mississippian is to a greater or less extent a black shale formation. 

Nevada may also probably be cited as belonging to this list, while 

the general absence of the upper Mississippian beds over the West 

may, perhaps, be a fact pointing in the same direction, for such a 

formation would be easily eroded down to the limestone of the lower 

Mississippian, which usually forms the floor upon winch the.Pennsylvanian rests. These black shales, it is true, are associated with beds 

of limestone, the faunas of. wliich are much more likely to agree with 

those of the typical section (which consists mainly of limestone with 

little or no black shale) than do the faunas of the black shales and of 

the black limestones embedded in the shales, which contain a peculiar 

fauna that is' perhaps more generalized and more widely spread than 

those of the standard section. The same is true, though to a some-

« Productus biseriatus, Bellerophon textilis, and Paraparchites nicklesi probably constitute the strongest 

evidence for calling this fauna Meramec ("St. Louis").
24 FAUNA OF MOOREFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

what less degree, of the Lower Carboniferous, for it is possible that 

the lower Mississippian limestones of the standard section (which 

extend, however, widely to the west and southwest and northwest) 

are represented by black shales in Tennessee, and possibly other 

areas, as in Alabama and Oklahoma, just as they are represented by 

black shales and shales of other colors, together with sandy beds in 

Ohio and Pennsylvania. There is certainly something significant 

and important in the persistence of black-shale conditions through 

so much of Devonian and Mississippian time,0 together with the 

accumulation of limestones in certain areas and of more sandy beds 

in others, although the exact significance is as yet imperfectly understood. At all events, the peculiar fauna of the Moorefield shale is 

probably to be connected with some broad system of faunal distribution as' yet only vaguely conceived and depending on conditions of temperature, currents, sedimentation, and environment 

generally, whose workings are still more obscure.

There is one relationship of the Moorefield fauna which was not 

touched on by Professor Williams, because the complementary fauna 

was not known at the time of his writing. I mean that with the fauna 

of the Caney shale of Oklahoma. As at present known, this fauna 6 

consists of 50 species and varieties of invertebrates, besides an unusually large number of indeterminata. The general character of 

the fauna is shown in the following list, in which the asterisk is employed to indicate species which occur also in the Moorefield shale. 

The certainty of the identification differs considerably in different 

species. Other Caney species are found in the Batesville sandstone 

and Fayetteville shale.

Lingula paracletus Hall and Clarke.

*Lingula albapinensis Walcott.

*Lingulidiscina newberryi var. caneyana

n. var.

*Lingulidiscina newberryi var. ovata n.

var.

Lingulidiscina batesvillensis Weller. 

Chonetes planumbonus var. choctawensis n. var.

*Productella hirsutiformis Walcott.

*Productus pileiformis McChesney.

*Liorhynchus aff. mesicostale Hall=L. 

carboniferum.

*Liorhynchus aff. laura Billings=L. carboniferum var. polypleururn.

*Spirifer sp.=Spirifer arkansanus.

*Martinia sp.

*Composita?sp. see Liorhynchus carboniferum. 

Deltopecten? caneyanus n. .sp.

*Caneyella wapanuckensis n. sp.

*Caneyella vaughani n. sp.

*Caneyella nasuta n. sp.

*Caneyella percostata n. sp. 

Caneyella richardsoni n. sp.

*Parallelodon multiliratus n. sp. 

Conocardium sp. 

Laevidentalium venustum Meek and

Worthen.

Pleurotomaria? sp. 

Naticopsis sp.

Macrocheilus? micula n. sp. 

Macrocheilus? sp. 

Orthoceras wapanuckense n. sp.

a It is hardly necessary for me to say that speculations more or less similar to these have been made by 

others and no claim to originality is implied in them. The whole subject is, in fact, common property. 

6 Girty, G. H., Fauna of the Caney shale of Oklahoma: Bull. U. S. Geol. Survey No. 377, 1909.
INTRODUCTION.

Orthoceras caneyanum n. sp.

*0rthoceras crebriliratum n. sp. 

Orthoceras choctawense n. sp. 

Orthoceras indianum n. sp. . Orthoceras sp. 

Cycloceras ballianum n. sp. 

Actinoceras vaughanianum n. sp. 

Cyrtorizoceras? hyattianum n. sp. 

Coelonautilus gratiosus n. sp. 

Bactrites? quadrilineatus n. sp.

*Bactrites? smithianus n. sp.

*Gastrioceras richardsonianum n. sp.

*Gastrioceras caneyanum n. sp.

*Goniatites choctawensis Shuinard.

*Goniatites newsomi Smith. 

Goniatites sp. a. 

Goniatites sp. b.

*Adelphoceras meslerianum n. sp.

*Eumorphoceras bisulcatum n. sp. 

Trizonoceras typicale sp. 

Trizonoceras lepidum n. sp. 

Cytherella aff. benniei Jones, Kirkby,

and Brady. 

Entomis unicornis n. sp.

A large number of forms are common to the two formations, 

and the foregoing list does not, of course, include species which 

are common to the Caney and to the Batesville and Fayetteville, 

for at present I am disposed to correlate all three of the Arkansas 

formations with the Caney. When the distance which separates 

them is considered, the resemblance between the two faunas is unusually strong. On the whole, it appears to me that the resemblance of the Caney fauna and that of the Moorefield shale in the 

Batesville quadrangle is more notable than that between the Moorefield fauna in the Batesville quadrangle and the same fauna relatively 

a short distance away at Marshall and is much stronger than with 

the typical Mississippian fauna, with which the Moorefield is correlated. 

It seems desirable to lay stress on this point because some imperfect 

plant remains found in the Standley shale 7,000 or 8,000 feet below 

the Caney seem to indicate a Mississippian if not a Pennsylvanian 

age. Even if the plants could be interpreted as belonging in the 

early Mississippian it would be at least unexpected to find the Mississippian so thick (10,000 feet and more) and composed entirely of 

such sediments (sandstones and shales). If the plants indicate 

upper Mississippian, the difficulties are proportionally increased, while 

if they indicate Pottsville there is, of course, a direct contradiction 

between the evidence of the plants and shells. Mr. White's statement regarding the plant remains obtained in the Standley shale is 

as follows:

All the material, except one specimen of Asterocalamites scrobiculatus and the single 

minute fern pinnule, is more or less macerated and obscure, the collection consisting 

chiefly of drift-rounded or comminuted and more or less macerated bits of stems 

roots, and bark, of no value except as showing that they fall within the epoch of vascular or woody plants (post-Silurian). The material is not of a nature or state of preservation to justify anything like a close correlation. The plant beds are Carboniferous. 

It is probable that they belong either in the upper part of the Mississippian or in the 

lower Pottsville, but this point requires additional paleontologic data for its determination .

In discussing this perplexing circumstance in my report on the 

Caney fauna, I mentioned a number of possibilities which would have
26 FAUNA OF MOOREFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

to be considered if the more extreme interpretation of the plant evidence suggested by Mr. White was correct and the geologic age of the 

Caney were really Pottsville, so that we would have to look upon the 

Moorefield-Caney fauna as persisting from the Mississippian into the 

Pennsylvanian. Since describing the Caney fauna, I have been able to 

study that of the Moorefield and other related faunas and to give the 

subject more careful consideration from a different and broader point of 

view. At present, it seems to me that those expressions were almost 

unnecessary and that it is hardly possible, or at all events hardly probable, that such a survival took place. A priori, one would say that a 

species or two might pass over from the Mississippian into the Pennsylvanian, but hardly so many species, amounting practically to a 

large and characteristic part of the fauna. I doubt whether such a survival is known in all paleontology, or at least anywhere else in North 

America. In the region of Arkansas and Alabama, in which conditions seem to have been similar to those in Oklahoma, the upper Mississippian fauna, in some of its aspects closely related to that of the 

Caney and Moorefield, persists with its characteristic expression only 

to a certain zone, where it is succeeded by a fauna of different facies 

that of the Pottsville. This fact does not necessarily substantiate the 

position which I am inclined to take with regard to the age of the 

Caney, except in so far as there seems to be a general agreement as to 

the beds involved, whether the determination of their age rests upon 

the evidence of fossil plants or of fossil shells. At all events, I should 

judge that the invertebrate evidence as to the age of the Caney is 

vastly stronger than that furnished by the Standley plants (which, as 

Mr. White clearly indicates, are very poor and of doubtful import), 

not only in the number of species found elsewhere in rocks of recognized geologic age, but also in the certainty with which their preservation permits them to be identified.

Yet, should it prove that the Standley plants do in reality belong 

to a Pottsville flora, there is, by report, another case curiously parallel 

to this that of the Riversdale beds in Nova Scotia. In that region 

also we have apparently a Pottsville flora said to underlie stratigraphically a Mississippian fauna. There are, to be sure, some 

differences in the situation as exhibited in Nova Scotia and Oklahoma. 

The flora of the Riversdale is, if I am not mistaken, much more extensive and more perfectly preserved than that at present known from 

the Standley, and its Pottsville affinities, according to Mr. White, are 

much more strong and certain. The stratigraphic relations of the 

Caney as overlying the Standley and Jackfork are, I should infer, 

clearer and more completely established than the relation of the 

Horton series as overlying the Riversdale beds. As to the age of the 

faunas supposed in each case to be Mississippian, it seems to me that 

the relationship of the Caney fauna with recognized Mississippian
INTRODUCTION. 27

faunas is fully as strong, if not stronger than that of the Horton series. 

However, although there is a possible contradiction of evidence in 

both these cases, I have faith that, when all the facts are known, the 

testimony of the plants and invertebrates will not be found at variance, and that these two apparent anomalies will, though perhaps 

by different courses, come into agreement with what seems to be the 

general order elsewhere.

It is possible that the invertebrate evidence from the Caney shale 

may be misleading, although at present that seems scarcely probable. 

There is also a possibility, which I should scarcely venture to suggest 

if the fossil plants were more diversified and better preserved, that 

the plant evidence may be misleading. No one, I am sure, holds in 

higher esteem than do I the genius and erudition which distinguish 

Mi\ White's interpretation of fossil plants, but all work in stratigraphic paleontology proceeds from inferences which depend on the 

least trustworthy of deductive processes, deduction by simple enumeration, and which have to be revised from time to time as new evidence is brought to light. Indeed, the present paper, as already noted, 

seems to show some Kaskaskian species in a fauna generally regarded 

as of Meramec ("St. Louis") age. It is perhaps possible that there 

has happened to the plant evidence on a small scale something parallel to what I hesitate to admit has happened to the invertebrate 

evidence on a larger scale, and that the known range of a few plant 

species will have to be extended downward because of this occurrence 

in Oklahoma in the Standley shale.
DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES.

OELENTERATA. 

ZAPHRENTID^E.

Genus MENOPHYLLUM Milne-Edwards and Haime.

MENOPHYLLUM sp.

Of this species the collections contain only one specimen, and it is 

imperfect. The most striking feature is the profound cup, which has 

a depth of 27 mm., while the whole coral was probably not over 45 mm. 

long. The rate of expansion appears to be rather rapid. It is estimated that there were about 36 septa in the cup and they may have 

been primary and secondary. .Tabulae and interseptal tissue appear 

to be wanting, but the bottom of the corallum is filled with stereopi asmic deposit. The exterior is marked by the usual longitudinal 

striations, which are rather strong.

So far as shown, this fossil has all the characters of Menopliyllum, 

but the presence of the fossulas has not been determined.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (station 2049a).

HELMINTHA.

Genus ENCHOSTOMA Miller and Gurley. 

ENCHOSTOMA BICAKINATUM n. sp.

Plate X, figure 1.

The fossils under this title consist of thin flattened filaments crossing the surface of a block of black shaly limestone. They suggest 

grasslike leaves of sea plants, but have the shiny phosphatic luster of 

Lingula and Conularia. The longest specimens measure over 30 mm., 

have subparallel sides, and are apparently incomplete at both ends. 

The largest have a diameter of only 1.25 mm. They differ in appearance according to their position in the rock, two opposite sides being, 

as it were, stiffened and reinforced into carinse and the intermediate 

membrane being more tenuous and flexible. In one position the two 

sides are sharply defined by slightly raised ridges, the intervening con28
BRYOZOA. 29

nective tissue being flattened and less substantial. When turned on 

the side they show a central carina with another corresponding to it 

concealed in the rock. In this position the width, as represented by 

our specimens, is narrower than in the other. Whether this is due 

to an original difference in the width of the specimens or is connected 

with the structure and the position in which they lie in the rocks

1 am unable to state, although it is my belief that the latter is the 

case.

There can, I think, be little doubt that this organism is of the same 

general character as that to which Miller and .Gurley gave the name 

Enclwstoma, although it is pretty certain that it is a distinct species 

from E. lanceolatum. It is even debatable whether this form with its 

well-defined, thickened sides might not be advantageously distinguished as a different genus from the unoriented E. lanceolatum.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle,

Spring Creek (station 2053).

BRYOZOA. 

BATO STOMELLID JE.

Genus BATOSTOMELLA TJlrich. 

BATOSTOMELLA DUBIA n. sp. ' ,

Plate X, figures 2, 3.

Like Batostometta paroula,, with which it is associated, this form 

occurs as fragments exposed in the rather sandy "Spring Creek limestone." The following description is therefore based on the study of 

thin sections alone.

The mode of growth is ramose, the cylindrical branches appearing 

to divide rather frequently; they have a diameter of about 1.5 to

2 mm. The zooecia appear to remain parallel through the axial portion, which is about two-thirds of the thickness of the stem, for a long 

distance, and to bend outward rather strongly. In a distanceof 2 mm. 

eight to ten cells occur. The apertures are elliptical or oval with 

rather thin walls. Mesopores are present in moderate abundance but 

their size and arrangement is variable. So is that of the acanthopores, 

many of which are large; but they are of different sizes, and instead 

of regularly surrounding the zooecia they occur singly or in groups, 

generally in the angles between adjacent cells. Septa are scantily 

developed.

In the-thickness of the branches B. dubia resembles B. spinulosa 

rather more than B. abrupta or B. nitidula, but in the thinness of the 

walls, in which this species is peculiar, it resembles B. nitidula. In 

addition to having thinner walls it differs in having larger, less numerous, and more irregularly distributed acanthopores.
30 FAUNA OF MOOREFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

B. dubia, seems to be the least characteristic of the Carboniferous 

species of Batostomella and in some respects stands midway between 

that genus and Stenopora, although its affinities appear to be greater 

with the former. The thinness of the walls and the scanty development of the acanthopores are suggestive of Stenopora rather than of 

Batostomella. The more extensive development of mesopores, the 

narrow cortical zone, and the absence of moniliform thickenings are 

characters rather of Batostomella than of Stenopora, although in the 

associated B. parvula the beaded character of the thickening is 

scarcely more apparent than in the present form.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 1248T, 2048.)

BATOSTOMELLA PARVULA Girty.

Plate IX, figure 1.

1910. Batostomella parvula. Girty, New York Acad. Sci., Annals, vol. 20, No. 3,

pt. 2, p. 191. 

Basal Fayetteville shale: Fayetteville quadrangle, Arkansas.

The zoarium consists of branching cylindrical stems which rarely 

exceed 3 mm. in diameter, although one thin section measures 7 mm. 

The growth seems to have been irregular and the branching frequent, 

the 7 mm. section probably representing one of the points of division 

where the diameter would naturally be greater than normal. Apertures small, six or seven in 2 mm., subpolygonal. Walls moderately 

thickened in the mature region, which has a considerable thickness, in 

some cases one-third of the branch on either side. The thickening 

is uniform rather than beaded, the enlargements being fused. Mesopores absent, acanthopores of medium size or small, rather scantily 

developed, restricted to the angles. Septa few, found chiefly in the 

immature region. Walls seldom showing lines of junction.

This species, which is fairly common in the "Spring Greek limestone," is known only from fragments embedded in rock and from 

thin sections. It might be regarded as a Rhombopora, rather than be 

assigned to any of the other genera representing the Batostomellidae, 

were it not that the hemi-septa appear to be absent, the thickened 

region is much too extended, and the walls themselves too thin and 

have too slight a development of acanthopores and spines to permit 

the admission of the species into that group. Of the stenoporas 

this species resembles S. americana, S. americana var. varsoviensis, 

S. intercalaris, S. angularis, S. ramosa, and S. meekana in having a 

ramose mode of growth, but of these the one most closely approaching 

it in the slenderness of the branches is S. ramosa. B. parvula has 

many other characters in common with S. ramosa, the chief difference 

being the much greater development of septa in the latter species,
BRYOZOA. 31

especially in the mature region. The walls also appear to be somewhat thicker, showing the division line between adjacent cells, and 

the mesopores are more numerous. The Moorefield form, therefore, 

can probably with safety be distinguished from 8. ramosa and identified with B. parvula, with which it agrees very closely.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 1248T, 2048, 2049b).

STENOPORA sp.

This species is chiefly known through a section cutting longitudinally through the cells of a small fragment. In a general way it 

resembles B. parvula, but the growth seems to be lamellar rather than 

ramose. There are six or seven cells in 2 mm. The walls are considerably thickened toward the outer surface, but the thickening 

does not assume an intermittent or beaded shape. The walls below 

are sinuous. The septa are fairly abundant, in which respect also 

the difference from B. parvula is shown, but very irregular in their 

distribution, and they appear to be entire. In the absence of a transverse section the distribution of the acanthopores and other characters can not be described.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (station 1248R4).

FENESTELLID^E.

Genus FENESTELLA Lonsdale.

FENESTELLA aft'. RUDIS Ulrich? 0

The bryozoa are poorly represented in the fauna of the Moorefield 

shale, and of the fenestellas, a genus which is at some localities 

extremely abundant at or near this horizon, we have only six small 

fragments, representing apparently two species. Three specimens 

belong to a type which in some respects seems to be closely allied to 

Fenestella rudis and F. limitaris of the Keokuk. They show the back 

of the frond, which is marked by somewhat intermittent striae, rather 

strong and coarse on some areas and in some conditions of preservation, but in other places is apparently smooth.

.Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 2048, 2049b).

'FENESTELLA aff. MULTISPINOSA Ulrich ? b

Of this type our collection contains only three rather small fragments showing the back of the frond. It is chiefly distinguished by 

its regular growth, its squarish or subcircular fenestrules, and the

a Ulrich, E. O., Kept. Geol. Survey Illinois, vol. 8, p. 537, pi. 49', figs. 3-3d. 

6 Idem, p. 540, pi. 50, figs. 3-3e.
32 FAUNA OF MOOREFIELD SHALE OF AKKANSAS.

nearly equal size of the branches and dissepiments. There are 

eleven or twelve branches in 5 mm. and ten fenestrules in the same 

distance. These measurements do not quite agree with F. multispinosa, and, furthermore, the surface appears to be smooth and quite 

without the spines of that species. One specimen provisionally 

referred here shows when exfoliated rather fine, strong, longitudinal 

striation. This is a distinctly coarser form than F. tenax, and if all its 

characters could be determined it would probably prove to be new. 

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (station 2048).

BRACHIOPODA. 

LINGULID^E.

Genus LINGTJLA Bruguidre.

LlNGULA BATESVILI^E n. Sp.

Plate I, figures 1-10.

Shell rather large, oblong-ovate. Length is to the width as the 

proportion of 3 to 2, varying to the proportion of 5 to 3. Ventral 

valve distinctly longer and more acutely pointed behind than the dorsal. Sides nearly straight or slightly curved, somewhat contracting 

posteriorly, more nearly parallel in some specimens than in others. 

Anterior end strongly rounded, occasionally more or less flattened. 

Posterior extremity bluntly rounded in the dorsal valve, produced in 

the ventral into an angular outline with curving sides. Convexity 

high.

Most of the specimens representing this species are more or less 

exfoliated. On such small areas as probably retain the original 

markings the surface is seen to be faintly and irregularly roughened 

and marked by only obscure incremental lines.

Shell substance thick, owing to which circumstance the muscular 

imprints are more than usually clearly marked. They differ rather 

conspicuously in the two valves. In the ventral valve the visceral 

area is somewhat shield shaped, but inverted, so that the broad end 

is anterior and the pointed end posterior, and elongated so that it 

occupies distinctly more than half the length of the shell. The most 

definite scars observed in this valve are two large ovate ones 

strongly oblique and symmetrical to the median line, their lower 

margins being coincident with the margin of the visceral area. They 

do not meet along the median line, being separated by a relatively 

broad, low ridge, which can be traced some distance back toward the 

posterior extremity. In mos.t cases two parallel linear grooves, often 

very distinct, proceed from the posterior extremity and, bounding
BRACHIOPODA. 33

the sides of the median ridge, seem to connect with the inner edges 

of the two oval scars. In one specimen these latter are rather distinctly seen to be duplicated by reason of a division longitudinal to 

their own greatest dimension, which is more or less transverse to the 

shell.

The correlates of these scars in Lingula anatina can not be positively determined. They have the general position and character of 

the scars which hi the ventral valve of L. anatina are called centrals 

and externals, or external laterals. They are, however, relatively 

much larger. This denomination of them would leave unaccounted 

for the two middle laterals, which Hall and Clarke a say are the most 

commonly retained in fossil forms. While not clearly distinguishable 

on any of the specimens examined, the presence of these scars may be 

indicated by the two linear grooves which pass down to the inner 

edges of the large oval scars. These may of course pertain entirely 

to the latter, but from the fact that both sjdes of these very narrow 

markings are equally sharp, it seems more likely that they mark the 

path of advance of a pair of small scars, rather than the course of 

only the edge of a pair of rather large ones, the major part of whose 

surface left no trace as it advanced. It is probably not unreasonable 

to consider as a hypothesis that the muscular bands of these earlier 

forms were less differentiated than in the later ones, and that the scars 

(and muscles) were to some extent combined so that, for instance, in 

the present form one portion .of these double scars. represents the 

combined centrals ami externals of L. anatina, while the other represents the middle laterals.

In addition to the markings just described, which occupy the 

median portion of the shell, there are, at the sides, proceeding from 

the posterior margin and following the lateral outline, a pair of 

curved impressions whose inner border defines the sides of the shieldshaped visceral area. These are produced in the mold by two parallel furrows, leaving between them a rather narrow high ridge. 

They often appear like tw.o ridges separated by a sulcus and empha 

sized on the inner margin by another similar sulcus, but the elevation which suggests a second ridge has no boundary on the outer side 

other than the edge of the shell. Of course on the shell itself these 

structures would appear as two curved ridges, inclosing between them 

an elongated impression, presumably to be interpreted as a muscle 

scar. This scar appears to be not single but double, a deflection on 

the inner ridge as seen on the shell causing an enlargement near the 

upper end, which, furthermore, is separated from the main scar by a 

fairly distinct' demarcation. Thus there is, apparently at the side

a Geol. Survey New York, Pal., vol. 8, pt. 1,1892, p. 11. 

46447° Bull. 439 10 3
34 FAUNA OF MOOREFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

of the ventral valve, a very elongated double scar, the upper and 

inner one of the pair being considerably smaller than the lower.

There is a lack of uniformity about these impressions at the sides 

of the shell that makes their interpretation difficult. . At first it 

might seem that they represent the combined transmedians and 

anterior laterals of L. anatina, the small upper portion being the 

transmedian and the large elongated one the anterior lateral; and 

perhaps this is the best interpretation. On the other hand, in the 

three best-preserved specimens the small upper scar is distinct on 

that side of the shell which would be the left in looking down upon 

the inside and apparently absent on the other. This asymmetry, if 

constant, exactly corresponds with the development of the transmedial muscle in L. anatina, and would strongly^ indicate that the 

scars in question belonged to that muscle alone, in spite of the fact 

that such an interpretation would leave the large anterior laterals 

without any distinct equivalent in the form under consideration. 

In point of fact, not only does the impression of a small upper scar 

seem to be absent or obscure upon the right side, but the larger one 

often appears reduced in size, the upper or posterior portion being 

atrophied, so that its shape and position are apparently changed.

In the posterior end of the ventral valve there are also markings 

whose character is less certainly muscular. This portion of the shell 

shows a shallow but distinct pedicle groove having transverse 

striations. ; It is bounded by narrow -ridges, on either side of which 

is a sulcus (in the internal molds represented by a ridge) apparently 

continuing the depression of the elongated lateral muscle scars.

The vascular sinuses begin well at the sides of the visceral area, 

swing strongly inward, and then forwaro), giving off numerous 

branches upon the outer side, which radiate to the shell margin.

In the dorsal valve the visceral area is longer and narrower, with

a produced median portion. The principal impressions here are a 

pair of large oval scars situated not far from the median line, which 

may possibly be interpreted as the centrals of the dorsal valve of 

L. anatina. .The forward extension of the visceral area would then 

be due to the same cause which produced a similar outline in the 

living form, the presence of a pair of anterior scars. The strongly 

marked topography in the present form is highly suggestive of a muscular imprint at this point along the median line, but a muscular 

scar is not clearly outlined, and certainly no indication of its duplicate character can be found in the specimens examined. On the 

other hand, several specimens show the impression of a pan- of small 

scars close together, a little posterior to the large ones just described. 

If the latter are really the centrals, as first suggested, then these small 

impressions have no analogues in L. anatina, since from their size 

and median position they can hardly represent the two lateral
BEACHIOPODA. 35

groups of transmedian, external lateral, and middle lateral muscles. 

On this interpretation there is this further disagreement, when compared with L. anatina, that the relative sizes of the centrals and anteriors are reversed, and the centrals have a median instead of a lateral 

position. On the other hand, with the two large scars as the anteriors the pair of small ones slightly posterior to them could be interpreted as the centrals in spite of their median position; but the 

strongly elevated, sharply denned prominences at the projecting 

extremity of the visceral area would thus be put aside as without 

significance, which I think can hardly be safely done.

In the posterior portion of the dorsal valve a short distance in 

front of the edge there appears to have been, in most, if not all specimens, a depressed area which probably represents the site of muscular attachments. This area is small, deep, transverse, and of not 

entirely well-marked or constant shape. Of ten, however, it is distinctly trilobate on the inner side, the median lobe being smaller 

than the two lateral ones. This doubtless comes from the umbonal 

muscle, but that it was actually and regularly three fold in this species 

it would not be safe to say.

The vascular markings in this valve are similar to those in the 

ventral, but owing to the different shape of the visceral area, with its 

strongly projecting median portion, they are a little more marginal.

Most of the imprints shown by The specimens of L. batesvillse are 

distinct and strong, and it is apparent from the foregoing discussion 

that they can not be satisfactorily homologized with the muscular 

imprints of L. anatina. If an essential agreement were found between other Paleozoic species and the type of structures found in 

L. latesvillse, one would be justified in discriminating these ancient 

forms as a group distinct- from Lingula; but, unfortunately, a disagreement equally strong is found between L. latesvillse, and other 

species of Paleozoic lingulas, some of which appear to be in much 

closer agreement with L. anatina. Some of this variation can doubtless be ascribed to the effects of preservation and the indefmiteness 

with which the muscles imprinted themselves on these usually rather 

tenuous shells, but probably there is considerable real variation 

between Paleozoic lingulas, as well as between fossil and living ones.

In fact, L. batesvillse has much in common with the Cambrian 

lingulellas in the matter of internal scars, and is probably in as great 

or even greater agreement with that group than with L. anatina.

I have felt considerable hesitation about proposing L. latesvillse. 

as a new species, because it is similar to two Waverly forms, L. atra 

and L. cuyahoga. It seems, in fact, to be more or less intermediate between them, being somewhat narrower and more ovate than 

L. atra and somewhat broader than L. cuyahoga, though variation
36 FAUNA OF MOOKEFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

between different individuals of L. latesvillse, brings the extreme 

forms into close similarity with the two species mentioned.

L. cuyahoga, which is of the two perhaps the closest in shape, is 

said to be marked by fine striae, which is probably not .the case 

with L. batesviUd&. The latter, moreover, is characterized by having 

a very thick shell and a highly convex one. It is separated by a 

wide interval geographically from the Ohio form and associated 

with a very different fauna. The internal markings of L. cuyahoga 

and L. atra are unknown, so that comparison of this important 

group of characters can not be made. There thus seems to be a 

reasonable doubt whether L. latesvillx is really the same as either 

of the Waverly species named, and since it is of especial interest, by 

reason of the unusually perfect manner in which the muscular impressions are retained, it seems that an identification which at the time 

it was made contained elements of reasonable doubt would be unfortunate. For these reasons a new name has been introduced.

This species in its abundance holds in the Moorefield fauna the. 

same place which in the closely related fauna of the Caney shale is 

held by the form there called L. paracletus. It is by no means the 

same species, however, as the Caney one, being much smaller, and 

even in specimens of the same size possessed of a considerably different shape, which is relatively narrower and less ovate.

I do not attach much significance in the way of correlation to 

the resemblance of the lingulas of the Moorefield and Caney shales 

with those of the Waverly group. The Waverly is the only Mississippian fauna in which the lingulas are abundant and diversified, 

while the beds with whose faunas those of the Caney and Moorefi.eld might more appropriately be compared contain these shells but 

rarely.

Horizon and locality. Moorefielcl shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 1237R, 1248R4, 1248T, 1248Z, 2048, 2049c(?), 

2049d).

LiNGULA ALBAPINENSIS Walcott. 

Plate I, figure 11.

1884. Lingula albapinensis. Walcott, U. S. Geol. Survey, Mon. 8, p. 108, pi. 2,

fig. 1.

Upper Devonian: White Pine district, Nevada. 

1909. Lingula albapinensis. Girty, U. S. Geol. Survey, Bull. 377, p. 17, pi. 1, figs. 6,

7, 8(?). 

Caney shale: Atoka, Antlers, and Ardmore quadrangles, Oklahoma.

Lingulas occur abundantly in the calcareous lower beds of the 

Moorefield shale, and nearly all the material collected belongs to 

the fine species which I have called L. bateswUse. Two specimens 

obtained by Mr. Weller from station 1248A5 seem to represent a 

distinct type. They are much smaller, have a somewhat different
BRACHIOPODA. 37

shape, lower convexity, and less massive shell. The two latter 

differences may be due in part to the small size and the occurrence 

in a sort of sandy shale in which leaching and. compression may 

have occurred. The larger of the two specimens has a length of 

10 mm., while the smaller is 6 mm. long. In both cases the shape 

is elongate-oblong, with greatest width near the middle or posterior 

to the middle, while in L. batesvillse the greatest width is toward 

the front margin, with a gradual contraction of the outline posteriorly.

The surface appears to have been marked by regularly arranged 

incremental lines, with fine intermediate striae.

It hardly seems advisable to unite these shells with L. batesvillse, 

though coming from very nearly the same locality and horizon, 

nor can they be referred to the same species as that which, occurring in the closely allied Caney fauna, I identified as L. paracletus. 

They are, however,. indistinguishable from the Caney form which

I identified as L. albapinensis. In fact, the smaller of the two 

specimens from Arkansas is extremely similar, in such characters 

as can be ascertained, to the largest of the specimens figured from 

Oklahoma. The latter, however, is considerably larger than typical 

L. albapinensis, so that the largest specimen from Arkansas is many 

times the size of the type. Whatever bearing this may have upon 

the true identification of both occurrences, the Ganey and Moorefield forms are, as now known, indiscriminable.

These shells .recall a common variety of L. melie, but they represent a more slender type.

Horizon and locality. Moorefiekl shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 1248A5,-2048, 2053).

DISCINIDJE.

Genus LINGTJLIDISCINA Whitfield.

In this place and elsewhere of. late. I am using Lingulidiscina for 

the group of shells which Hall' and Clarke have called Orlriculoidea. 

The reason for discarding " Orljiculoidea" is that the first species 

named under the original description Which, according to common 

practice must be regarded as the type, proves" to be a Schizotreta.

Lingulidiscina is described as having its upper valve like Lingula 

and its lower valve typically discinoid.0 From the figures the lower 

valve does indeed seem to have a pedicle slit closed at the outer 

end just as in " Orbiculoidea." The upper valve with its nearly 

terminal apex also shows a configuration not alien to that genus, 

although a more central position is perhaps the rule.

Schuchert first made Oehlertella a synonym of Lingulidiscina, 

and then Lingulidiscina a synonym of Oehlertella] and it is evident

o Whitfield, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., vol. 3, 1890, p. 122, figs. 1-8.
38 FAUNA OF MOOREFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

that he regards them as the same type of structure. He also includes 

in the same group a form which I believe to be a characteristic 

"Orbiculoidea" (L. newberryi), that term being employed in this 

discussion in its current meaning. Schuchert's course regarding 

Oehlertella and Lingulidiscina may be due to one of several causes. 

He may hold that the peculiarity of the ventral valve, because of 

which Hall and Clarke separated Oehlertella from " Orbieuloidea," 

is due to breakage or some other accidental cause. In that case I 

would differ from him in believing that it was advisable to keep 

Oehlertella distinct from " Orbiculoidea." He may have determined 

that Lingulidiscina agrees with OeJilertella and that Whitfield was 

mistaken in describing and figuring the lower valve as being normally discinoid. In that case I should agree with him in uniting 

the two genera and in keeping them distinct from "Orbiculoidea"; 

and, of course, the employment of the term Lingulidiscina for the 

present group would be unjustified. I am now, however, assuming Whitfield's description and figures to be accurate, in which 

event Lingulidiscina becomes merely an "Orbiculoidea" with very 

eccentric apex, at least, so far as I can determine without examining 

specimens. I can not, therefore, regard Whitfield's-reason for discriminating Lingulidiscina from the. common discinoid ( = " Orbiculoidea") as being valid, but inasmuch as the group of shells commonly referred to "Orbiculoidea" appears, for reasons stated above, 

to be anonymous, it is possible to retain Whitfield's name and apply 

it to them. It is only provisionally, however, that I am using it in 

that sense; facts, which I at least have no means of determining, 

may show the premises upon which this course was adopted to have 

been false.

LINGULIDISCINA NEWBERRYI var. MOOREFIELDANA n. var.

Plate II, figures 6, 7.

Typical L. newberryi is rather imperfectly known, most of the 

citations usually met with, even those from Ohio, being referable to 

other species. The fossils under consideration are rather common in 

the basal calcareous beds of the Moorefield shale, but for some reason 

all the specimens examined except one are dorsal valves. They are 

characterized by a circular outline, rather small size (a diameter of 

12 mm. is about the maximum noted), and strong convexity. The 

apical portion is rather full and the apex itself often indistinct. It 

is situated one-fourth of a diameter or less in front of the posterior 

'border. The surface is not well preserved in the specimens examined, but the sculpture appears to consist of the usual regularly 

spaced concentric lamellae.

A somewhat similar species, and one which is suggestive because 

described from nearly the same locality and horizon, though in the
BEACHTOPODA. 39

latter respect from a little higher in the section, is Mr. Weller's 

L. batesvillensis. L. batesvillensis, judged by the figures, has a lower 

convexity and a relatively more marginal apex. In fact, I am disposed to believe it identical with typical L. newberryi:

Through the courtesy of the American Museum of Natural History 

I have compared the Arkansa's specimens with the types of L. newberryi. Though closely related and more or less connected by intermediate forms, this variety shows rather well-marked differences from 

L. newberryi, besides coming from a different horizon and occurring 

associated with a different fauna. The typical specimens of L. newberryi vary considerably in the elevation of the dorsal valve, and they 

have, moreover, suffered more or less from compression. As a rul'e 

they are less strongly convex and of considerably larger size. The 

apex is also more marginal.

The Caney shale of Oklahoma has a related form, which I have

described as L. newberryi var. caneyana. It appears under different 

conditions of preservation, being Qpmpressed in shale. It is hard to 

think of the Caney specimens, which are now quite flat, as having once 

had the rather high convexity of the form from the "Spring Creek 

limestone," and as at present seen the apex appears to be more marginal than in them.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 1248A12(?), 2048, 2049a.(?), 2049b, 2049c(?)); 

Marshall quadrangle, Marshall (station 7038(?)).

LlNGULIDISCINA NEWBERRYI Var. MARSHALLENSIS n. Var.

Plate II, figures 1, 2, 3.

Shells belonging to the genus Lingulidiscina occur abundantly in 

the Moorefield shale at Marshall, but for some undetermined reason 

all the specimens obtained are dorsal valves. They resemble in a 

general way the form from Batesville described as L. newberryi var. 

moorefieldana but differ in having the dorsal valve less convex and its 

apex less marginal. The sculpture consists of somewhat irregular, 

closely arranged, subequal lirse, which are finer and fainter toward 

the apex.

It seems inadvisable to include these shells under the same title as 

the form from Batesville, and yet the two are very similar and apparently intergrade. A few specimens occur associated with typical 

L. newberryi, whic,h can hardly, I think, be distinguished'.from the 

present form, except perhaps in point of size. This form seems to 

differ from L. Jierzeri in having a more central apex and in having the 

lirse equal, or nearly so, instead of presenting, at irregular intervals, 

a few elevated strongly above the rest.
40 ' FAUNA OF MOOREFIELD SHALE. OF ARKANSAS.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (station 2048(?)); Marshall quadrangle, Marshall (stations 7038, 7038c, 7039).

LlNGULIDISCINA NEWBERRYI Var. OVATA Girty?

Plate II, figure 8. . -

1909. Lingulidiscina newberryi var. ovata. Girty, U. S. Geol. Survey, Bull. 377,

p. 20, pi. 1, figs. 9-11. . 

Caney shale: Antlers, Atoka,*and Tishomingo quadrangles, Oklahoma.

The original fossils of L. newberryi var. ovata which came from 

Indian Territory are characterized by having a more or less strongly 

ovate outline. The only specimen which we have from the " Spring 

Creek limestone " (barring a small doubtful example) has this elongate 

shape in a marked degree. It is not possible to state definitely 

whether it is a dorsal or a ventral valve, but it seems to be a dorsal. 

As such the position of the apex is uncertain. It appears to be 

situated rather closer to the posterior margin than is the case in the 

Caney forms.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 1248A(?), 2053).

LINGULIDISCINA NEWBERRYI var. CANEYANA Girty.

Plate II, figures 4, 5. . .

1909. Lingulidiscina newberryi var. caneyana. Girty, U. S. Geol. Survey, Bull 377,

p. 19, pi. 1, figs. 13-17. 

Caney shale: Atoka, Tishomingo, and Antlers quadrangles, Oklahoma.

Associated in most cases with the form here described as L. newbemji var. moorefieldana, the fossils under consideration have been 

discriminated by reason of their lower convexity. In some cases this 

is possibly the result of compression and in others it might perhaps 

be looked upon merely as a variation; and in no instance are these 

shells abundant, well preserved, and mature (large). Two specimens 

from station 2053 are flattened, arid thus comparable to a form from 

the Caney shale which appears under the same title in a report on 

that fauna. These shells are exactly like the Caney form. In them 

the apex appears to be slightly though distinctly more marginal than 

in typical L. newberryi or in the variety moorefieldana with which they 

are associated.

The position of the apex of the dorsal valve has been used by others 

as I have used it, as a character of specific value, but it is evident 

that it, is the proportional and not the actual distance of this point 

from the posterior margin that must be taken. In the dorsal valve 

of this genus the increase by growth is always greater along the ante-
BEACHIOPODA. 41

rior than the posterior side, and while the apex is thus always in 

absolute measurement increasingly distant .from the margin, it may 

well be asked whether this distance, proportional to the entire longitudinal diameter, remains constant. This fact is difficult to determine, but it has seemed to me that the ratio does often vary in proportion to size and usually in the way of the apex being more central 

in the young stages. Consequently, except in specimens of the same 

size, this character, may prove misleading; and doubly so since one is 

unconsciously liable to be guided by the absolute rather than the 

relative position of the apex.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale. Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 1248A2, 1248ft, 2048, 2049c, 2053), Moorefield 

(station 2051). ..

PRODUCTID^E.

Genus CHONETES Fischer-de-Waldheim. 

CHONETES SERICEUS Girty.

Plate II, figure 9.

1910. Chonetes s'ericeus. Girty, New York Acad. Sci., Annals, vol. 20, No. 3. pi,. 2,

p. 215. 

Basal Fayetteville shale: Fayetteville quadrangle, Arkansas.

This form is rather rare in the Moorefield shale; at Marshal], 

where alone it has been found, only nine specimens, some of them fragmentary, have been obtained. The size is medium or small, the 

largest specimen having a width of about 13 mm. The shape is 

transverse, with the hinge line slightly longer than the width below. 

The dorsal valve seems to be almost absolutely flat, in the largest 

specimens somewhat curved outward toward the margin. The 

ventral valves found are fragmentary. Apparently they gained 

convexity rather by the height of the area than the curvature of the 

shell, which seems to have been depressed-pyramidal, gently rising 

to the somewhat prominent beak. On a small specimen three cardinal spines have been counted, while larger ones would probably 

furnish four or five.

The surface is crossed by fine, rather low and indistinct radiating 

lirse, which are obsolete near the cardinal angles. There are also 

fine, obscure transverse liras, less equal, regular, and strong than those' 

of C. illinoisensis, which this species especially resembles, and more suggestive of growth lines than those sharp crenulations. Like 0. illinoisensis , however, the surface was probably sprinkled with rather small 

spines now evidenced by tiny openings or pores on the radiating lirse.

The form is clearly the same as that which occurs about Fayetteville in the basal part of the Fayetteville shale, and which, from specimens obtained there, I have described as C. sericeus.
42 FAUNA OF MOOREFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Marshall quadrangle, Marshall (station 7039). -

CHONETES sp.

It is a singular fact that no species of CJionetes has been as yet 

described from the upper Mississippian, and although the form under 

consideration belongs to that horizon I am in no position to remedy 

this deficiency, because it is represented in our collection by only 

two specimens, both of which are in an imperfect state of preservation. These specimens belong to the general type of C. flemingi and 

C. illinoisensis. They are small and transverse, having a length of 

6 mm. and a width of about 11 mm. The median portions are 

inflated, a condition rather common in these transverse types, and 

there are no sinuses. The lirse are fine, about twenty-five in 5 mm., 

and strongly crenulated. The number of spines is not known.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 2048, 2049c).

Genus PBODTJCTTJS Sowerby. 

PKODUCTUS INFLATUS var. COLORADOENSIS Girty?

Plate IV, figure 3.

71890. Productus boliviensis. Nikitin (non d'Orbigny), Com. Ge"ol. [Russia], Me"m.,

vol. 5, No. 5, p. 57, 158, pi. 1, figs. 4a, 4b, 4c. 

Gschelstufe: Near Moscow, Russia. . 

?1902. Productus inflatus. Tschernyschew (non McChesney), Com. Ge"ol. [Russia],

Me"m., vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 261, 612, pi. 28, figs. 1-6. 

Gschelstufe: Ural and Timan mountains, Russia.

1903. Productus inflatus. Girty (non McChesney), U. S. Geol. Survey, Prof. Paper

16, p. 359, pi. 3, figs. 1-lb, 2, 2a, 3.

Hermosa formation: San Juan region and Ouray, Colorado. 

Weber limestone: Crested Butte and Leadville districts, Colorado. 

Pennsylvanian: Glenwood Springs, Colo.

1904. Productus inflatus. Girty (non McChesney), U. S. Geol. Survey, Prof. Paper

21, p. 52, pi. 11, figs. 5, 6.

Pennsylvanian (Naco limestone): Bisbee quadrangle, Arizona. 

1910. Productus inflatus var. coloradoensis. Girty, New York Acad. Sci., Annals,

vol. 20, No. 3, pt. 2, p. 215. 

Basal Fayetteville shale: Fayetteville quadrangle, Arkansas.-

This form is rare in the Moorefield shale. Our collections have 

furnished only five specimens, all ventral valves and all imperfect. 

They show a rather large form of the normal semireticulatus type. 

The convexity is high and the ventral surface broad, suddenly 

deflected at the sides and marked by a rather deep sinus.

The lirae are rather fine. In some specimens the transverse 

wrinkles are fine and numerous and in others co'arser and much 

fewer. In one specimen there are two or three large spines along the
BEACHIOPODA. 43

hinge with a few small ones scattered over the surface. In another 

the spines along the hinge are smaller and more numerous. For the 

most part the character and arrangement of the spines is not shown 

and especially the diagonal row outlining the ears, which was noted in 

the specimens from the basal Fayetteville shale, has not been observed. 

It may, however, have originally been present, and it seems highly 

probable that this form is specifically identical with that from the 

Fayetteville shale which I provisionally identified with P. inflatus 

var. coloradoensis.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 1248Y, 2048, 2049c, 2049f).

PRODUCTUS ARKANSANUS var. MULTILIRATUS Girty.

Plate II, figures 10, 11.

1910. Productus arkansanus var. multiliroius. Girty, New York Acacl. Sci., Annals,

vol. 20, No. 3, pt. 2, p. 217. 

Basal Fayetteville shale: Fayetteville quadrangle, Arkansas.

Under this title are included two large dorsal valves from the 

locality on Spring Creek near Batesville, Ark. The larger of these 

shells lias a width of about 43 mm. and a length of considerably less. 

The shape is transversely subquadrate, somewhat contracted at the 

hinge. The major part of this extent is nearly flat with a relatively 

narrow rim turned up rather abruptly about the front and sides.

The surface is marked by fine, irregular, discontinuous costse and 

by very many fine irregular, rather inconspicuous concentric wrinkles. 

A mold of the exterior shows that there are also many small spines 

scattered over the surface, especially toward the margins, while in 

addition over the posterior portion there are a number of narrow 

elongated ridges resembling small appressed spines.

This shell is evidently not one of the normal semireticulati, this 

being shown by the inconspicuous concentric wrinkles, by the irregular 

radiating costse, and especially by the presence of numerous spines 

upon the dorsal valve, structures which are very rarely developed on 

typical representatives of the semireticulate Producti. On the other 

hand, I believe it is closely related to the Keokuk form which Hall 

described as Productus setiger. From specimens obtained at Keokuk, 

which I believe to be referable to Hall's species, it differs in being 

smaller, in having the costae finer and more continuous, and in having 

the spines less numerous. Further, in the Keokuk specimens the 

spines lie tangent to the surface, and in those from the Moorefield 

shale they are more nearly at right angles to it. 

This seems to be the same species which I have described from the 

basal Fayetteville fauna as Productus arkansanus var. multiliratus.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (station 1248Y).
44 FAUNA OF MOOREFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

PRODUCTUS PILEIFORMIS McChesney.

Plate IV, figures 1, 2.

1853. Productus corn. Shumard, Marcy's Expl. Red River, Louisiana, p. 202, Plate T,

fig. 1. . (As a Senate Ex. Doc.)

Carboniferous: Washington and Crawford counties, Ark. 

?1854. Productus com. Shumard, Marcy's Expl. Red River, Louisiana, p. 176. (Asa

House Ex. Doc.)

Carboniferous: Washington and Crawford counties, Ark. 

1855. Productus cora. Norwood and Pratten, Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 2d ser.,

vol. 3, p. 6. 

Mountain limestone: Chester, Rosiclare, and Warsaw, 111., near Richmond,

Mo.; Carrsville, Ky. - 

I860. Productus pileiformis. McChesney, Desc. New Species Pal. Foss., p. 40. (Date

of imprint, 1859.) 

Kaskaskia division: Chester, 111. 

1863. Productus coraeformis. Swallow, Acad. Sci. St. Louis, Trails., vol. 2, p. 94.

Archimedes limestone: Cooper County, Mo. 

1891. Productus pileiformis. Whitfield, New York Acad. Sci., Annals, vol. 5, p. 582,

pi. 13, figs. 13, 14. 

Maxville limestone: Ohio.

1895. Productus pileiformis. Whitfield, Geol. Survey Ohio, Rept., vol. 7, p. 470>

pi. 9, figs. 13, 14. (Date of imprint, 1893.) 

Maxville limestone: Ohio.

1896. Productus cora. Smith (pars), Am. Phil. Soc., Proc., vol. 35, p. 238.

Archimedes limestone: Independence County, Ark.

Marshall shale: Independence and Stone counties, Ark.

Fayetteville shale: Independence .County, near Moorefield, Ark. 

1896. Productus cora. Smith (pars), Leland Stanford Junior Univ. Pub., Contrib. 

Biology Hopkins Seaside Lab., No. 9, p. 28.

Archimedes limestone: Independence County, Ark.

Marshall shale: Independence and Stone counties, Ark.

Fayetteville shale: Independence County, Ark. 

1909. Productus pileiformis. Girty, U. S. Geol. Survey, Bull. 377, p. 26, pi. 2, fig. 7.

Caney shale: MeAlesterquadrangle, Oklahoma.

The shells from the Moorefield shale closely resemble P. pileiformis, 

not to mention P. Isevicosta, both Mississippian types, and P. cora 

of the Pennsylvanian. The ventral valve is variously shaped, depending upon age, individual peculiarities, and deformation by compression. It is moderately inflated, sometimes wider than long, with a 

rather wide apical angle. The dorsal valve is flatter with a considerably less prominent beak.

There are the usual large strong wrinkles on the ears and sides, 

often restricted to those areas, but sometimes extending more or less 

distinctly from side to side, especially in the dorsal valve, and but 

seldom, if ever, occurring over the anterior portion of either. The 

costse are fine, rather rigid, often alternating by reason of new ones 

introduced by intercalation. Fourteen to sixteen or more occur in 

the space of 5 mm. Spines seem to be rarely developed, though an
. BEACHIOPODA. ' 45

occasional one of large size may be noted. There are rather strong 

concentric crenulations. - As distinguished from most species of the corn group the present 

form lias a rather thick shell and retains fairly strong, athough not 

sharply defined, muscular imprints. When exfoliated, these thick 

shells lose all trace of radiating lirse and show instead an apparently 

smooth surface crossed only by fine irregular intersecting transverse crenulations. No specimens entirely exfoliated have come to 

hand, but in that condition this form must sometimes closely simulate 

the widely different Productella hirsutiformis. It is true that the 

latter species lias numerous spines, which, however, being always 

broken off, are seldom obvious, and as a rule a lower convexity; but 

in one instance a partly exfoliated example of P. pileiformis among 

our specimens seems at first to be made up of a valve of P. Tiirsutiformis with a broken ventral valve of P. pileiformis crushed down 

upon it. A careful inspection of the specimen, however, shows that 

this is not the case, an inference which is strengthened almost to a 

certainty by other exfoliated specimens. On the other hand, P. Jiirsutiformis, as here identified, is not based upon the exfoliated specimens of P. pileiformis, a fact clearly demonstrated by examples 

which retain the outer shell layers with little, if any, exfoliation, and 

by numerous external molds.

Mention is important at this point of a dorsal valve of P. 'fiirsutiformis preserved as an external mold, which has otherwise all the characters of other dorsals of the same species, except for the possession 

of faint but unmistakable fine, radiating lirae, and so must have been 

very like the dorsal valve which presumably belonged with the specimen of P. pileiformis especially mentioned. This is the only instance 

observed of well-marked radiating lirae in P. Mrsutiformis, though 

in other specimens from the same locality traces of them can be 

made out, presumably connected with the development of rows of 

internal spinules. These facts are at least suggestive of an intergradation between these at first sight widely unlike types, and of 

a possibility that exceptional specimens might be difficult to refer 

to one species rather than the .other.

I was at first so much impressed by the apparent tendency of 

these shells to grade into P. Mrsutiformis, .as well as by such differences from typical P. pileiformis as the (sometimes) transverse shape, 

wider apical angle, and thicker shell, that I intended to introduce a 

new name for the Moorefield specimens, but upon reconsideration 

it seemed that the thick test and the unusual appearance when exfoliated, which is after all their most constant and striking peculiarity, 

was not a valid ground for discriminating them from McChesney's 

species. Some specimens no one would think of distinguishing from
46 FAUNA OF MOOREFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

Productella pileiformis, and it seems improbable that they are really 

distinct even from the specimens which show the most important 

differences from them. Nevertheless, these shells in the Moorefield 

certainly manifest rather noteworthy peculiarities.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 1248R, 1248R4, 1248Rx, 1248Y, 2048, 2049a, 

2049f, 2053); Marshall quadrangle, Marshall (station 7038a).

PRODUCTUS BISERIATUS Hall. 

Plate III, figs. 10, 11.

1856. Productus biseriatus. Hall, Albany Inst., Trans., vol. 4, p. 12. 

Warsaw limestone: Alton, 111.; Bloomington, Ind.

1882. Productus biseriatus. Whitfield, Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., Bull., vol. 1, p. 46, pi. 6,

figs. 8-12.

Warsaw division: Spergen Hill, Paynter's Hill, and Blooniington, Ind.; Alton, 

111.

1883. Productus biseriatus. Hall, Dept. Geology and Nat. Hist. Indiana, Twelfth

Kept., p. 325, pi. 29, figs. 8-12.

[Warsaw limestone]: Alton, 111.; Spergen Hill, Paynters Hill, and Bloomington, Ind. 

1895. Productus biseriatus. Keyes, Missouri Geol. Survey, Kept., vol. 5, p. 43. (Date

of imprint, 1894.)

Keokuk limestone: St. Francisville, Mo.; Keokuk, Iowa. 

1906. Productus biseriatus. Beede, Dept. Geology and Nat. Res. Indiana, Thirtieth

Ann. Kept., 1905, p. 1299, pi. 22, figs. 8-12; pi. 19, fig. 6. 

Salem limestone: Spergen Hill, Bedford, Harrodsburg, Bloomington, Ellettsville, and Stinesville, Ind.

The fossils included in the present group are abundant at several 

horizons in the Moorefield shale, but our specimens are for the most 

part dorsal valves. They are small (the largest having an indicated 

width of 12 mm.'), transverse, subquadrate. The front and sides 

are regularly rounded, the latter contracting slightry toward the 

hinge. The ventral valve is rather strongly convex with a narrow 

incurved Heak, while the dorsal is gently concave, more or less 

strongly arched about the margin. Preserved as external molds, the 

condition in which most are presented to view, the surface of the 

dorsal valve is marked by five or more elevated concentric bands 

separated by rather sharp deep striae and by fine incremental striae. 

There are also numerous spines of two sizes, distributed transversely 

over the bands. In the ventral valve the surface is similarly banded, 

the plications which separate the bands being often quite angular.

These shells are probably identical with P. biseriatus. Some differences can be distinguished between specimens; for instance, it appears 

that the bands on the present form are divided by more angular 

folds, that the smaller spines are relatively not so small nor so numerous, and that the interval above the rows of spines is narrower and
BBACHIOPODA. , 47

less strongly striated, etc. These characters vary, however, in both 

sets of fossils studied those from Arkansas and those from Indiana, 

Missouri, and Illinois and I believe that the differences are in part 

due to the fact that the specimens from Arkansas are rather small, 

while the best of the others are rather large. From the evidence 

available, therefore, the separation of the Arkansas shells from P. 

biseriatus would not be justified.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 124SR4, 2048, 2049a, 2049c).

PEODUCTUS SUBSULCATUS n. sp.

Plate III, figs. 12, 13, 14.

Shell rather small, subquadrate, somewhat transverse.

Ventral valve rapidly enlarging, moderately elevated and arched.

Cardinal angles quadrate; ears small, depressed; sinus absent.

Surface marked at rather distant and regularly increasing intervals 

by concentric striae, which divide the shell into broad transverse 

bands. There are are also delicate, more or less irregular striae of 

growth. Costae appear to be altogether absent, though there are a 

few irregularly disposed radiating striae. The entire surface is rather 

plentifully sprinkled with small spines which tend to arrange themselves in transverse series chiefly near the striae. The spines are 

small and spring from the shell without producing elongate bases or 

producing only faint ones. There is, however, a variety of this species in which the spine bases are conspicuously elongated.

The dorsal valve is very slightly concave over the visceral area, 

more strongly curved marginally. The ears are small and quadrate. 

As seen on molds of the exterior the sculpture, as in the ventral 

valve, consists of regular transverse bands separated by narrow striae 

and of fine incremental striae. The spines are numerous, small, and 

arranged more or less in transverse rows.

The cardinal line seems to be linear and the generic position has 

been provisionally determined as Productus instead of Productella.

This species is most closely related in the present fauna to Productella hirsutiformis, from which, however, it is clearly distinct, being 

smaller and more highly arched and characterized by different surface characters. The regularly banded sculpture is not found in 

P. hirsutiformis, which has fewer spines on the ventral valve and 

at all or very few on the dorsal. P. subsulcatus also resembles 

is, from which it is distinguished by its larger size, its 

, and its less prominent beak.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 1248Al(?); 1248A2, 1248A5, 2049).
48 FAUNA OF MOOREFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

PRODUCTUS SUBS.ULCATUS var. JANUS n. var.

Plate III, fig. 15.

A few specimens from station 1248A5 are to a certain extent intermediate between P. subsulcatus and P. moorefieldanus, but they can 

not be identified with either form without appearing rather obviously 

incongruous. They are ventral valves and have the large size, spreading shape, and low convexity of P. subsulcatus. They have a similar 

sculpture also, but the transverse bands are less regular and less 

distinct and. the spines are mounted on prominent elongated bases. 

From P. moorefieldanus this form differs in its broader, lower shape 

and in having the spine bases less elongate and more regularly 

arranged in transverse rows.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 1248A5, 2048 (?)).

PRODUCTUS MOOREFIELDANUS n. sp.

Plate III, figure 6.

Shell small, subquadrate, slightly transverse. Ventral valve strongly 

arched, rapidly expanding. Ears very small, quadrate, and undefined. 

Sinus absent. : .

Surface marked by rather strong, regular, closely arranged transverse striae. Costse probably absent, though toward the front a few 

slender, irregular, widely separated ribs are developed. Spines, smaU 

and fairly numerous, are scattered over the surface,, arising from the' 

anterior end of elongated bases, themselves appearing like appressed 

spines, which toward the front are prolonged into slender costae.

Dorsal valve unknown.

Without actual comparison of specimens this form might readily

be mistaken for Productus concentricus of the Chouteau limestone. 

The typical specimen is larger than P. concentricus from the Chouteau 

itself, but of about the same size as larger representatives of the 

species from the lower Burlington. The chief claim to distinction, so 

far as the ventral valve is concerned, resides in the sculpture, which, 

though the same in general character, differs in detail. The spines 

are smaller, as are also the occasional costae, and there are more of the 

slender elongated spine bases.

I am somewhat in doubt also as to the relation in which this species 

stands to P. subsulcatus, with which it is associated and to which it 

is in many respects similar. In comparison with that-species the 

type specimen of P. moorefieldanus is smaller and more'highly/ctt'ched. 

It lacks the transverse sulci and bands of P. subsulcatus, 'thoif^hjhese 

characters are especially obvious in the dorsal'valve,'whose c^iracters 

in P. moorejieldanus are not known. The spines are also less numerous
BRACHIOPODA. 49

and not so regularly arranged; they spring from elongated bases, in 

this respect resembling the variety janus more than P. subsulcatus 

itself. There is in the Survey collection, however, a second specimen 

which has the small size and convexity (?) of P. moorefieldanus and 

the sculpture of P. subsulcatus. At least it bears one transverse 

sulcus with small spines, perhaps more as in P. moorefieldanus. 

This specimen is imperfect and its characters not clearly shown so 

that it is perhaps not as intermediate as now seems to be the case. 

More abundant and better specimens of both species will be required 

before the relationship subsisting between them can be satisfactorily 

determined, but it seems probable that P. moorefieldanus will prove 

at least a good variety. Of course, if it develops that P. moorefieldanus possesses characters allying it closely with P. subsulcatus 

it is so much the more strongly distinguished from P. concentricus.

This form belongs to the same group as P. indianensis. The 

Survey has some specimens from Mooresville, Ind., supposed to belong 

t'o Hall's species, that attain the size of the present one. They have 

much more numerous spines, especially in the mature condition.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 1248A12, 124SR5(?), 2049, 2049b(?)).

PRODUCTUS MOOREFIELDANUS var. PUSILLUS n. var.

'Plate III, figures 7, 8, 9.

The shells here considered are little more than a small variety of 

P. moorefieldanus, but they are very much smaller, from one-half to 

one-third the size of that species.

The ventral valve is moderately convex, subquadrate in outline. 

The surface markings consist of fine concentric striae and concentric 

wrinkles which vary much in number and intensity in different 

specimens, and are strongest toward the ears. Small spines are also 

scattered over the surface, springing from bases which are usually 

slightly elevated and slightly elongated.

The dorsal valve is subquadrate, moderately concave, arched 

especially about the margin. There are concentric strise and wrinkles, 

a few of the latter being often more prominent and angular than the 

rest. A few spines are developed, especially toward the margin. 

Sometimes they are almost absent. There are also relatively large 

circular depressions or pits, probably correlated with spines developed 

on the other valve, in some specimens few and in others rather 

numerous.

These shells resemble P. liseriatus, but differ from it in having 

the wrinkles less numerous, regular, and angular, and in having the 

46447° Bull. 439 11 4
50 FAUNA OF MOOREFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

spines much fewer, of uniform size, and of much less regular distribution. P. indianensis seems to be a very similar form but the spines 

in the present species are less numerous and less regular, and the 

wrinkles are also less regular. These differences are indicated by 

Hall's description and figures. A few specimens from Mooresville, 

Ind., supposed to belong to P. indianensis, differ from the Arkansas 

form in having less strong wrinkles and more numerous spines, 

especially over the umbonal region. To distinguish this form from 

young shells of P. moorefieldanus, P. subsulcatus, etc., will not always 

be easy. The greater convexity, which indicates that the specimens 

under consideration are really mature, will serve to this end.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 1248A6( ?), 1248R4, 2048, 2049, 2049a, 2049c).

Subgenus PBODUCTELLA Hall.

PRODUCTELLA HIRSUTIFORMIS Walcott.

Plate III, figures 1-4.

1884. Productella hirsutiformis. Walcott, U. S. Geol. Survey, Mon. 8, p. 133, pi. 2, 

fig. 10.

Upper Devonian: Eureka and White Pine districts, Nevada, 

1909. Productella hirsutiformis. Girty, U. S. Geol. Survey, Bull. 377, p. 24, pi. 2,

 figs. 4-6.

Caney shale: Ardmore, Atoka, and Tishomingo quadrangles, Oklahoma.

This species is common in the "Spring Creek limestone" and is 

characteristic of its fauna. The shells referred to it are rather large, 

transverse, subquadrate, both valves having a low convexity with 

ears which are not well defined nor large. The beak of the ventral 

valve is small and depressed.

The surface of the ventral valve is marked by fine concentric stride 

and larger wrinkles. There are also fairly numerous and rather small 

spines scattered over the surface with a single or double row of somewhat larger ones along the hinge. The inner surface is thickly covered with little spinules which are more closely and regularly arranged 

near the margin, producing upon internal molds the effect of fine, 

irregular striation. Upon exfoliated shells the spinules appear like 

scattered punctse.

In the dorsal valve the surface is essentially the same as that of the 

ventral, except that there are no spines. Costse are usually entirely 

absent from both valves. Rarety do the spines of the ventral shell 

rise from the lower end of elongate spine bases, though a few instances 

have been noted where evanescent, coarse ribs have been thus produced. In the dorsal valve the corresponding costse are represented 

by grooves. In a single instance a valve of this species, which is
BEACHIOPODA. 51

almost certainly a dorsal, shows upon the external mold distinct 

traces of fine, unequal and irregular radiating costse. This anomalous 

character seems to indicate an intergradation with Productus pileiformis.

The shell is thin, but thick enough over the posterior portion to 

retain distinct though ill-defined impressions of muscular attachment.

Both valves possess a relatively wide cardinal area, and this fact, 

together with the configuration and the sculpture, seems to warrant 

assigning the species to the subgenus Productella.

Lot 2049a contains what appears to be a variety of the species 

associated, however, with the normal form. It is distinguished by 

having a very transverse-shaped extended hinge, angular depressed 

ears, and a somewhat inflated median portion.

The typical variety appears to be precisely the same form which 

occurs in the Caney shale in Oklahoma, and which I cited under the 

same name in describing that fauna.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 1248A1, 1248A2, 1248A5, 1248A6, 1248R4, 

1248R50), 1248Y, 1248V, 2048, 2049,2049c, 2049f(?), 2053), Moorefield (station 205la).

PRODUCTELLA HIRSUTIFORMIS var. BATESVILLENSIS n. var.

Plate III, figure 5.

A few specimens from station 2049A differ from typical P. hirsutiformis in being smaller, longer on the hinge, and with an inflated 

middle portion. The spines also appear to be less numerous. The 

ears are rather large and triangular. In its general configuration 

this form is very suggestive of P. adairensis, which is such a common 

and characteristic fossil of the basal Fayetteville shale. It is, however, readily distinguishable by being without a sinus and by lacking 

the costse, which, though sometimes rather faint, are a constant feature of that species.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (station 2049a).

Subgenus DIAPHBAGMITS Girty. 

DIAPHRAGMUS ELEGANS Norwood and Pratten..

Plate IV, figures 4, 5.

1854. Productus elegans. Norwood and Pratten, Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, Jour., 

2d ser., vol. 3, p. 13, pi. 1, figs. 7a-c. (Not P. elegans McCoy.)

Mountain limestone: Chester and Kaskaskia, 111.; near Hat Island, Missouri. 

1860. Productus ccstriensis. Worthen, St. Louis Acad. Sci., Trans., vol. 1, p. 570.

Chester limestone: Chester, 111,
52 FAUNA OF MOOEEFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

1877. Productus elegans. Hall and Whitfield, TJ. S. Geol. Expl. 40th Par., Kept.,

vol. 4, p. 268, pi. 5, figs. 3 and 4. 

Lower Carboniferous limestone: North of Snowstorm Hill, Dry Canyon, Oquirrh

Mountains, Utah. 

1891. Productus elegans. Whitfield, New York Acad. Sci., Annals, vol. 5, p. 581,

pi. 13, figs. 15, 16. 

Maxville limestone: Ohio. 

1895. Productus cestriensis. Keyes, Missouri Geol. Surv., Kept., vol. 5, p. 44. (Date

of imprint, 1894.)

Kaskaskia limestone: St. Mary, Mo. 

1895. Productus elegans. Whitfield, Geol. Survey Ohio, Kept., vol. 7, p. 469, pi. 9,

figs. 15, 16.

Maxville limestone: Ohio. 

1897. Productus cestriensis. Weller, New York Acad. Sci., Trans., vol. 16, p. 256,

pi. 19, figs. 7-9. (Date of volume, 1898.) 

Batesville sandstone: Batesville, Ark.

This species occurs in but one of the Survey collections from the 

Moorefield shale, but in it it seems to be reasonably abundant, eight 

specimens having been obtained. In its specific characters it is not 

quite typical, but the differences are not such, in my judgment, as 

would warrant discriminating it as a variety, especially as the different individuals vary considerably among themselves. The points 

in which this form is thought to vary from typical D. elegans are 

its large size and spreading shape, its somewhat stronger and more 

regular lirse, and the inferior development of spines.

The shape of the ventral valve, as remarked, is similar to that of 

D. elegans, but is broader and rather more spreading. An illdefined but distinct sinus is a constant character. The lirse are 

strong, rigid, and rather fine, about eleven in 10 mm., but in one 

specimen they are finer, sixteen in 10 mm. Sometimes also they 

are rather irregular and nodose. There are relatively strong and 

coarse crenulations. Fine, indistinct wrinkles cross the posterior

portion. Fairly numerous though fine spines are distributed over 

the surface, but they do not make conspicuous nodes on the lirae, and 

are easily overlooked when broken off. They occur thickly on the 

ears and adjacent to them.

The dorsal valve is gently concave over the visceral region, more 

strongly curved about the margin, with small recurved ears! The 

cavity between the two valves is rather high. The lirae are moderately strong and crossed by fine, faint concentric wrinkles. Strong 

varices of growth are perhaps a characteristic feature of the dorsal 

valve, which is not well represented in our collection. This valve 

shows the internal plate characteristic of the subgenus Diaphragmus.

This same form occurs also in the basal Fayetteville shale of northwestern Arkansas. While the smaller, narrower form is more abun-
BRACHIOPODA. 53

dant there, specimens quite comparable to those of the Moorefield 

shale are not lacking.

Horizon and locality. Moorefieid shale, Batesville quadrangle,' 

Spring Creek (station*1248R4).

ORTHID^E.

Genus BHIPIDOMELLA Oehlert. 

RHIPIDOMELLA ARKANSANA n. sp.

Plate II, figures 14, 15, 16.

Shell of medium size, rather strongly transverse. Maximum 

length observed 24 mm. Shape subquadrate, hinge line rather long 

and straight, two-thirds the entire width or a little less. Cardinal 

angles distinct. Area low. Beak small, slightly projecting, that of

the ventral valve the more prominent. The two valves vare nearly 

equally convex, the ventral being somewhat the more so.

Ventral valve with a narrow and deep though indistinct sinus. 

Dorsal valve without any fold distinct from the usual convexity, but 

sometimes, at least, with a narrow indistinct sinus also. As a result 

the front outline is broadly emarginate.

Surface marked by rather fine subequal lirae, nine to thirteen in 5 

mm. The lirse show the usual tubular openings, though rather 

sparingly. On the interior of the ventral valve the muscle scar is 

small, deeply imprinted, flabelliform, and it occupies a little less than 

half the length. In the dorsal valve the scar is similar in a general 

way but fainter and somewhat longer and narrower.

There are other associated examples which do not show the peculiarities of configuration as strongly as the typical ones, but they are 

in some cases young specimens, and in others fragmentary ones. 

Still it seems probable that all did not have the ventral sinus as 

strong as in those figured.

This is without much question a distinct species from R. 'burlingtonensis, from which it differs in its more transverse shape, deeper 

sinus, and less prominent ventral beak; similar differences exist between it and other Mississippian Rhipidomellse. The dubia group 

has a pentagonal and narrower shape with larger more prominent 

beaks. From the oweni group R. arkansana differs in the depth of the 

ventral sinus. Perhaps the nearest of all is Swallow's Ortliis clarkensis, but the form under consideration is associated with a very 

different fauna, and I would not venture to identify it with Swallow's 

poorly described and unfigured species.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 2048, 2049a, 2049c).
54 FAUNA OF MOOREFIELD SHALE OF .ARKANSAS.

RHYNCHONELLID^E.

Genus LIOBHYNCHUS Hall.

LlORHYNCHUS CARBONIFERUM n. sp.

Plate VI, figures 1-8, Plate VII, figures 13-16.'

1877. L&iorhynchus quadricostatust Meek, U. S. Geol. Expl. 40th Par., Kept., vol. 4,

p. 79, pi. 3, figs. 9-9b.

Carboniferous: White Pine Mountains, Nevada. 

1909. Liorhynchusaff. mesicostale. Girty, U. S. .Geol. Survey, Bull. 377, p. 26, pi. 2,

figs. 11, 12. 

Caney shale: Atoka quadrangle, Oklahoma.

The shells included under this title are abundant in the Moorefield 

shale both at Batesville and at Marshall, though the specimens thus 

far obtained at this horizon from the latter place are all considerably 

undersized. They show great variation in all characters, although 

perhaps this appearance of unstability is enhanced by the more or 

less incomplete, compressed, or imperfect condition in which many 

specimens are preserved.

L. carloniferum attains a large size, a length of 32 mm. being about 

the maximum. The shape is generally oval, but much diversity is 

shown in the proportion of length and width, some examples being 

long and narrow and others short and. broad, with intermediate conditions. The shape also varies toward the pentagonal or even the 

triangular according to whether the greatest width is attained 

abruptly and is situated near the front or back from it. The fold 

and sinus are high in mature shells, but they extend only about half 

way to the beak and are consequently developed imperfectly or not 

at all in the immature condition. The costae vary greatly in number, 

size, position, and strength. Usually they are rather faint and are 

restricted to the mesial portion, to the top of the fold, and to the 

bottom of the sinus, which features do not normally bear plications 

on their sides. The -plications do not extend to the beaks but they 

are more persistent than the sinuation. Generally speaking, when 

the plications are numerous they are small, and when they are few 

they are large. They are more or less equal and seldom bifurcate.

Normally, or perhaps I should say more commonly, there are four 

plications on the fold, three in the sinus and no lateral ones, but 

sometimes instead of four large plications there are five, six, seven, or 

even eight fine ones. The occurrence of only three costse on the fold 

seems to be rather rare. The number of plications is probably not 

a specific character, and, at all events, is hardly available for discriminating species, because the costae are apt to be faint and difficult 

to count, perhaps one or two less distinct than the others and doubtful. Furthermore, a few specimens have been noted which appear to
BEACHIOPODA. 55

have more numerous costse in the young condition than on the mature 

portions of the shell'. This is probably due to the development in 

early stages of lateral costse, which became obsolete toward maturity. 

Occasionally the plications are so faint that the shell appears to have 

been almost noncostate; and, in fact, this character, considered as a 

whole, seems to be the result of a tendency toward obsolescence of the 

costse in a plicated shell, the tendency being manifested more on the 

lateral areas than on the mesial one and more in mature than in 

youthful stages.

While the test seems to have been thin and fragile over the anterior 

parts, it was much thicker near the beaks, and the muscular markings 

are often well shown. The internal structures appear to be identical 

with those of Liorhynchus. In the ventral valve there were two 

dental plates which did not meet the shell squarely as in Dielasma, but 

somewhat convergingly, and they join it without an angle. The space 

between the plates and the shell is more or less completely filled in 

with testaceous material. In the interior of the ventral valve, therefore, there is a triangular area excavated as it were in the thickened 

posterior portion. Its lower limit is sharply denned by the ends of 

the dental plates, which may or may not be consolidated with the rest 

of the shell. It is transversely corrugated, probably owing to muscular 

attachment. At its bottom is a groove rather abruptly sunk, which 

rapidly enlarges toward the front and is more definite in some specimens than in others. It transects the ridges which bound the apical 

triangle on its lower side and widens out below in a shield-shaped scar 

whose anterior end lies about midway of the length of the valve. This 

scar has a distinct outline, being surrounded by a ridge which is 

continuous above with the ridges defining at the sides the lower border 

of the triangular area in the apex. The median portion of this shieldshaped scar is occupied by two elongated oval scars surrounded by it 

and slightly depressed below its general level. The foregoing description is based on the most strongly characteristic specimen examined, 

but others have similar muscular imprints, though less well marked 

and in some cases more or less modified.

In the dorsal valve there is a fairly high median septum connected 

at its upper end with the hinge plate and reaching half the length of 

the valve, more or less. It is thickest toward its posterior extremity, 

where it coalesces with the hinge plate, which bears a short sulcus, 

widest about where the septum joins the plate and contracting in 

either direction. Thus a sort of diminutive spondylium is formed. 

In one or two instances the septum was seen to connect with the hinge 

plate slightly to one side of the center, while from a corresponding 

position another thin plate extended into the cavity of the shell. 

From this abnormal specimen it would appear that the septum, 

posteriorly at least, is possibly made up of two coalesced plates. It
56 FAUNA OF MOOREFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

is conceivable that these two plates represent the crura, but this is 

thought to be very improbable.

The center of the hinge plate has already been described as 

depressed into a triangular pit whose sides are made by strongly and 

sharply elevated ridges. Another similar ridge, though much longer, 

divides what remains of the hinge plate on either side, and, bending 

around at the end, forms a socket into which a corresponding tooth 

of the ventral valve is locked. The sockets are crenulated. Still 

another feature of the hinge plate may be mentioned at this place, 

namely, that its posterior portion is often distinctly marked by 

transverse striae. The striated area is usually sharply outlined, 

sometimes by an elevated ridge, and it extends in the maximum to 

about half of the height of the plate.

Near the middle of this valve and with a length of one-half to 

one-third of the whole is an elongated muscular area which is divided 

longitudinally by the median septum. Each narrow segment gave 

lodgment probably to two muscles. A large clearly defined scar 

occupies the lower part of each division, and markings of a somewhat 

doubtful character possibly indicate the position of a smaller scar in 

the upper part.

One stratum of no great thickness at the Spring Creek locality 

contains young specimens of this and several other species in considerable abundance. The preservation is peculiar, the fossils having a 

black lustrous appearance such as we commonly associate with a 

phosphatic composition. This appearance, however, is due to some 

peculiarity on the inner layers of the shell or perhaps to some secondary 

deposit upon the inner layers,'the shell itself being white and evidently 

nonphosphatic, as is normal to this group. This shiny appearance is 

found only on the inner side of the shell, but is probably not due to 

secondary or chemical deposition. It has been noted occasionally

on the inner layers of the apical portion of mature Liorliynclius found 

in the same bed, but not on the rest of the surface nor on large shells 

like Productus. It does, however, occur in other small shells, such as 

Amboccdia Isevicula and young Moorefieldella eurekensis. Another 

appearance accompanies the peculiarity above mentioned in these 

young Liorliynclius, for upon the shiny surface of the internal mold 

are minute but very distinct markings, which strongly suggest a 

punctate shell structure. After careful consideration of the subject 

it has seemed to me probable that this appearance is due to the contact 

of this phosphatic (?) layer with the oblique fibers which normally 

make up the shell in this genus. This inference is further borne out 

by the fact that a similar appearance of punctation is found upon 

internal molds of Amboccdia Isevicula, whereas it has not been noticed 

upon molds of the apical portion of mature Liorliynclius, where the 

fibers run parallel to the sides of the dental plates. Of course, if this
BEACHIOPODA. 57

species really possesses an inner phosphatic punctate layer, it is distinct, not only specifically but generically, from the Chemung species, 

to which it has generally been considered to be allied.

These small shells show the essential structures of the large ones, 

a median septum in the dorsal valve and two dental plates in the 

ventral, often at a size of 2 or 3 mm. (in length). The muscular 

system also seems to be in accord with that of the mature condition, 

though in the mature shells the impressions of the ventral valve are 

more strongly marked and more persistently preserved, while in the 

young ones the dorsal-valve impressions are most commonly and 

sharply retained. Where an exceptional specimen retains the ventral 

scars they are quite analogous to those of the mature condition. 

Similarly in the dorsal valve the muscles were attached in two 

sharply defined, rather deeply sunk elongated areas extending down 

the septum on either side near the middle of the valve, and in some 

instances there is fairly good reason for recognizing an upper and a 

lower pair of muscles. Other characteristic features, however, are 

wanting. The shape is oval, the convexity of both valves is low, and 

the dorsal instead of the ventral bears a sinus which is in some cases 

rather strong. It is probably true that all costate brachiopods, at 

all events all rhynchonelloid brachiopods, if found at a sufficiently 

early stage would be without costse, and the very young among the 

present specimens seem to lack that feature. At 4 to 8 mm. and. 

more, the plications, where present, can usually be plainly seen. In 

some cases one can not be sure whether the specimen is costate or 

not, so faint are the markings, and in many others the costse are 

restricted to the mesial portion; but it seems indubitable that a much 

larger proportion of these young shells are costate all the way around 

than one would expect from the number of mature shells showing this 

character. This seems to suggest that many young examples which 

are completely costate in their early stages become smooth laterally 

when they reach maturity and perhaps that these shells are lapsing 

from a strongly plicated type rather than developing into one, which 

indeed has been commonly considered to be the case.

Although this form has heretofore always been identified with one. 

or another of several Devonian species, and although in a previous 

paper I myself compared what is without much question the same 

form in Oklahoma with the Chemung LiorJiynchus mesicostale, I have 

now little doubt that it is really a new species. It was impossible to 

determine this from the Caney specimens, although general considerations of age and faunal association made it highly probable, but 

such a conclusion seems hardly avoidable from a study of the far 

more abundant and better-preserved fossils from the Moorefield 

shale. Aside from the difference in geologic age, faunal association, 

and distribution, this form differs from L. mesicostale, which seems
58 FAUNA OF MOOREFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

to be the most closely allied species, in being more convex, in being 

apparently a heavier and more massive shell, and in having the 

plications less sharply defined, less bifurcating, and less unequal. 

The dorsal valve is narrower and more pointed posteriorly and has a 

larger and somewhat differently modeled hinge plate. Both species 

vary so widely, however, that these differences will probably not be 

found to subsist between all specimens, but, in view of other differences 

rather more extrinsic, it appears to be wiser to discriminate the Carboniferous species rather than to identify it with the Devonian one.

In generic position I believe this to be a true LiorliyncJius and know 

of no characters adverse to such a conclusion save the phosphatic and 

punctate appearance of the young stage, which is believed to be 

entirely adventitious. The occurrence of LiorTiynchus in the Carboniferous, however, is not as isolated as might at first appear. 

Hall and Clarke mention L. greenianum from the "Knobstone" and 

L. boonense from the Burlington (though they figure L. greenianum as 

a Pugnax). I myself described L. Tiaguei from the western Carboniferous, and I believe that some of the Mississippian pugnaces of the 

type of P. missouriensis possess a septum too well developed to be 

advantageously lodged with Pugnax. They are at all events intermediate between Pugnax and Liorhynchus.

It is highly probable that these Arkansas shells are specifically 

identical with those from the White Pine shale of Nevada, which Meek 

identified as LiorJiyncJius quadricostatum Vanuxem ?. As he stated in 

his report, a Meek had in manuscript proposed a new name for the 

Nevada form, but withdrew it as his work was passing through the 

press because Hall and Whitfield, who had examined material from 

the same formation and had enjoyed an opportunity of comparing it 

with authentic specimens of the New York shell, believed the two to 

be identical. The name which Meek had intended to impose-on that

form is not stated, but can be inferred from a paper by King, 6 in 

which, in listing the fossils from the White Pine shale (the specific 

determinations being made by Hall and Whitfield), he cites Leiorhynchus quadricostdtus Hall = RhyncJionella (Leiorliynchus) papyracea 

Meek.

Professor Williams has remarked, "If a specific name were to be 

given, Meek's name papyfaceus should certainly be adopted." 0 With 

this opinion I differ. If it were possible to credit the species to Meek, 

it would be a pleasure to do so, for there is no paleontologist for whom 

I entertain a higher admiration, but no nomenclator, I am sure, 

would think of crediting the species to Meek under our present rules 

of nomenclature. The only writers who have used the term Liorhyn-

' a Kept. U. S. Geol. Expl. 40th Par., vol. 4,1877, p. 80. 

b Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 11,1876, p. 479. 

c Ann. Kept. Geol. Surv. Arkansas for 1892, vol. 5, 1900, p. 346.
BRACHIOPODA. 59

chus papyraceus in print are King and Williams, who mention it in a 

most casual way, as indicated above. The citation in either case can 

hardly be considered anything but a nomen nudum, with a barely 

possible reversion to the description and figures of Meek. In view of 

the facts th'at the species would, with little question, be credited to 

my authorship, no matter what name is used here, that the identity 

of the Arkansas and White Pine fossils, though probable, is not certain, 

and that the specimens from Nevada are crushed and imperfect, it 

seems to be for the best interest of science to introduce an entirely 

new name and base it upon the excellent material from the Moorefield shale. If the Nevada form proves distinct, it will then be possible to employ the name which was first associated with it, Liorhynctius 

papyraceum.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 1237R, 1248A1, 1248A2, 124SA5, 1248A6, 

1248R, 124SR4, 1248R5, 1248Rx(?), 1248T, 1248Y, 2048, 2049, 

2049a(?), 2049c, 2049e, 2049f, 2053); Moorefield (stations 2051a, 

2051b); Marshall quadrangle, Marshall (stations 7038, 7038c).

LlORHYNCHUS CAEBONTFERUM Var. POLYPLEURUM n. Var.

Plate VII, figures 7-12.

1909. Liorhynchus aff. laura. Girty, U. S. Geol. Survey, Bull. 377, p. 27, pi. 2, figs.

13-15. 

Caney shale: Antlers and Tishomingo quadrangles, Oklahoma.

In several collections there occur, associated with typical Liorhynchus carboniferum, specimens which are distinguished by having 

the sides as well as the median portions ornamented by costse, and 

these it has seemed expedient to discriminate as a distinct variety. 

This is, however, the only difference that has been noted, and there 

seems to be a perfect gradation between forms having lateral costae 

and those in which the costae are confined to the mesial portion, the 

series being in fact completed by shells which seem to be without 

costfle anywhere on the surface. In the matter of intergradation we 

find shells which have distinct mesial costse, but only one or two lateral 

ones; shells which have distinct mesial, but many indistinct lateral 

ones, so indistinct in some cases that one can not be quite sure that 

costse are really present at all; and, lastly, shells a few of them that 

have lateral costse over the immature portions, but none upon the 

mature ones. In this connection the fact may be again noted that a 

much larger per cent of the young than of the mature specimens bear 

lateral costae. = While specimens occur about which there might be disagreement, 

these shells with lateral costse present fairly distinct characters and 

form a fairly well-marked group, which, it seems to me, would better
60 FAUNA OF MOOREFIELD* SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

be discriminated as a separate variety than merged with Liorhynchus 

carboniferum.

There can be little question that this is the same form which in a 

report upon the fauna of the Caney shale I compared with L. laura, 

while the form without lateral costae was compared with L. mesicostale. The poorly preserved and not very copious material obtained 

from the Caney shale did not afford data satisfactorily to separate the 

Carboniferous from the Devonian forms, but the Spring Creek material makes -this discrimination desirable, at least in the case of L. 

carboniferum. The fossils representing the present form are far less 

abundant, and they can not be compared in as detailed a manner with 

the Hamilton material at hand representing L. multicosta ( = L. laura). 

A very close resemblance exists between certain specimens, but as 

I am convinced that the form under discussion is only variety of 

L. carboniferum, the present treatment has been adopted. Taken 

by and large, such material as I have seen of L. multicosta has plications which are finer, more numerous, more unequal and bifurcating, 

and more persistent.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 1248A1,1248A2,1248A5, 1248R5,1248Y, 2048, 

2049) Moorefield (station 2051a); Marshall quadrangle, Marshall 

(stations 7038, 7038c.)

Genus CAMAROTffiCHIA Hall and Clarke. 

CAMAROTCECHIA PUEDUEI Girty.

Plate V, figure 5.

1910. Camarotoechia purduei. Girty, New York Acad. Sci., Annals, vol. 20, No. 3;

pt. 2, p. 219. 

'Basal Fayetteville shale: Fayetteville quadrangle, Arkansas.

The majority of the specimens from the Moorefield shale at Marshall are like C. purduei var. laxa, but a relatively few are distinguished by having deeper and more angular plications and therefore 

being in very close agreement with C. purduei itself. These intergrade 

with the variety laxa and no sharp line can be drawn between them.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (station 2049b).

CAMAROTCECHIA PURDUEI var. AGRESTIS n.'var, 

Plate V, figures 1-4.

The fossils subsumed under this title are abundant in some of the 

beds of the lower Moorefield shale on Spring Creek and present much 

variation in all their characters. They show the usual variability in 

proportion of length and width, some specimens being narrow and
BKACHIOPODA. 61

o

others broad. The outline also varies., The costse in general character are such as are .usually found in this genus rather strong and 

angular and persistent, but they vary in the two characters first 

named, at all events. The number and arrangement also varies 

widely, but in general it seems to be true that their size varies inversely 

to their number, so that when the number is relatively few the size is 

large, and vice versa. As a rule there are four or five plications on 

the fold and three or four in the sinus, but seldom less, while specimens having six or even seven are more or less frequent. The lateral 

plications number usually five or six, rarely seven, on the dorsal valve 

and six or seven on the ventral; rarely four on the dorsal and five on 

the ventral. In some instances the plications on the fold and sinus 

are distinctly larger than the lateral ones, but usually they are of the 

same size. The fold and sinus are moderately strong and as a rule 

well defined by reason of their sides being broader than the sides of 

the Other plications, but in some cases there are plications on the 

sides of the fold and sinus, so that occasionally it is impossible to 

determine exactly their limits. This median zone seems to be the 

locus for the introduction of new costae of a different order or system 

from the others, than which they are almost always smaller. That 

these costse occur on the sides of the fold and sinus has already been 

mentioned, but they are also found on the fold and sinus, being 

distinguished from the others, of course, by their small size. Nor 

are they always developed symmetrically; more often than not a 

supernumerary plication occurs on one side and not on the other.

These shells resemble those from the basal Fayetteville, which I 

described as Camarotoschia purduei,-but differ generally in the following particulars. They are larger and with more numerous costse. 

The arrangement of the costse is more variable. While in C. purduei 

there are three or four plications on the fold and rarely five, in this 

variety there are four or five or even more and very rarely three. The 

lateral plications are usually six instead of five, and rarely if ever so 

few as sometimes found in C. purduei. While this statement is true 

in the main it is not wholly true of individuals, and the two varieties 

ajjpear to be connected by intermediate forms to some extent.

Horizon and Zocafofa/. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 1248A12, 124SR, 1248R4, 1248T, 2048, 2049b).

CAMAKOTCECHIA PURDUEI var. LAXA n. var. 

Plate V, figures 6-11.

This form is represented in but one of the collections from the 

Moorefield shale, but is there very abundant. In a general way it 

resembles the species found at about the same horizon at Batesville, 

but presents some constant differences. The size is as a rule smaller
62 FAUNA OF MOOREFIELD SHALE OF AEKANSAS.

and the plications fainter and less numerous. The usual number on 

the fold is four, but three are almost as commonly found there. Only 

five specimens out of a large number show five. The usual number 

of lateral plications on a dorsal valve is six, the final one or two being 

faint, but in some cases there are only five, and in a few others seven 

or eight. Compared with 0. purduei var. agrestis the difference in 

the size and strength of the plications is less important and less 

marked than the difference and constancy in the number of mesial 

costse, yet it seems unwise to include them in the same variety. In 

number and arrangement of plications this form more nearly agrees 

with C. purduei itself, but the plications, though sometimes angular, 

are as a rule much lower and more evanescent. They are thus more 

nearly in agreement with the variety laxa, from which most of the 

specimens differ only in being a little larger. Some doubtful specimens have broadly angular plications and a strongly elevated and 

produced fold.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Marshall quadrangle, Marshall (station 7039).

Subgenus MOOREFIELDELLA n. subgen.

This name is introduced for the peculiar rhynchonelloid type of 

which R. eurekensis is a representative. The peculiarity of the group 

consists rather in the external expression than in the internal structure, for so far as known that form agrees structurally with Liorhynclms and Camarotcechia. The ventral valve has a pair of dental plates 

and the dorsal a well-developed median septum which unites with a 

large hinge ( plate at the posterior end. The hinge plate bears a 

median groove which was probably continued on to the upper edge 

of the septum so as to form an incipient spondylium. Two rather 

large muscle scars occupy a median position in the dorsal valve, being 

divided by the septum.

As just remarked, this structure does not differ essentially from 

that of Liorhynchus or Camarotcechia, but the external expression of 

the shell, determined by the low, ill-defined fold and sinus and the 

very numerous fine rounded costse, makes this form, rather unique. 

At first one would say that Moorefieldella had much more the expression of Camarotachia than of Liorhynchus, yet it almost intergrades 

with Liorhynchus carboniferum, with which it occurs in association. 

The latter species passes into the variety polypleurum, in which the 

lateral costse are not obsolete, and both types show considerable 

variation in point of the costae, some having finer and more numerous 

ribs than others. This is true also of M. eurekensis, so that the 

coarsely plicated examples of the latter tend to pass into the finely 

plicated Liorhynchus with lateral costae. One would almost be jus-
BKACHIOPODA. 63

tified in regarding this as a diverse modification of the same type of 

shell.

Moorefieldella eurekensis seldom has the pentagonal outline and 

pyramidal shape found in the most characteristic Camarotachia. It 

is furthermore distinguished by having a relatively very large iium- 

. her of fine rounded ribs instead of a small number of coarse angular 

ones, as in typical CamarotcecMa. The fold and sinus are also less 

differentiated, that structure in Camarotcechia being usually high, and 

angular and specialized by, having the mesial costse separated from 

the lateral ones by wider intervals than those which divide the other 

costse from one another. That is to say, the sides of the fold are 

unplicated. In Moorefieldella eurekensis, however, the plications are, 

generally speaking, uniform and not differentiated by the low rounded 

fold and sinus. Of course, these differences only exist in a general 

way, the most striking being the large number and fineness of the 

ribs, but it is believed that this group is distinguished by the same 

kind of differences and by as important ones as other groups which 

have been recognized among the Khynchonellidae, and while of subordinate value it will serve a useful purpose in designating a peculiar 

type of expression in a very variable family.

Type. Moorefieldella eurekensis.

MOOREFIELDELLA EUREKENSIS Walcott.

Plate V, figures 12-17.

1884. Rhynchonella Eurekensis, Walcott, U. S. Geol. Survey, Mon. 8, p. 223, pi.18,

figs. 8-Sc. 

Lower Carboniferous: Eureka district, Nevada.

Shell rather small, seldom attaining a length of 20 mm. Shape 

generally ovate, seldom subpentagonal or subtriangular. Proportions very variable, rarely transverse, usually elongate, in some cases 

very elongate. Convexity ranging from rather low to moderately 

high. Dorsal valve more convex than the ventral, sometimes 

rather gibbous in the umbonal region. Ventral beak produced and 

not strongly incurved. Fold and sinus usually rather low and undefined, but occasionally high and sometimes well defined. This 

feature is not developed until the shell has attained a relatively 

large size, and small specimens present a superficial resemblance to 

species of Eumetria. The fold and sinus vary considerably in width 

proportional to that of the entire shell. The costae are numerous, 

numbering fifty or more; they are fine, rounded, not strongly elevated, 

and very even and regular. Usually about ten occupy the fold and 

about twenty the sides, but these numbers vary greatly, depending on 

the relative size (for in this respect considerable variation is shown), the 

width of the shell as a whole, and the relative widths of the fold and
64" FAUNA OF MOOREFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

sinus. The minimum on the fold, so far as observed, is eight, and the 

maximum fourteen or sixteen. The costee become finer and fainter 

 laterally, those toward the hinge being often more or less undeveloped. 

The sides of the fold and sinus are often plicated like the rest of the 

surface, so that no definite boundary can be determined.

The internal structures are essentially identical with those of 

LiorJiynchus, so far as determined, but the muscular imprints are 

rarely shown. The ventral valve has two dental plates rather far 

apart and more or less consolidated with the shell walls. The inner 

surface of the shell between them is finely marked by cross striae. In 

the dorsal valve there is a large hinge plate with a median groove 

and crenulated sockets, joined to a rather long high septum. The 

muscular imprints are poorly preserved in the dorsal valve also, but 

seem to consist of a pair of scars, less elongated than those of LiorJiynchus carboniferum, but similarly placed near the middle of the 

valve and separated from one another by the septum.

Young specimens of this form occur in the same bed where, as 

already mentioned, young shells of LiorJiynchus carboniferum are 

abundant. They show the same peculiarities of preservation, having 

a black, shiny coating as if possessing a phosphatic layer, which also 

shows fine regular markings suggestive of punctation. The muscle 

scars also are similar to those of young LiorJiynchus carboniferum,, and 

the coarsely ribbed shell of one comes near to graduating into the 

more finely ribbed shell of the other.

This form,, which is rather abundant in the Moorefield shale, is, 

without much doubt, the same which C. D. Walcott described from 

the Eureka district of Nevada. It was also so identified by H. S. 

Williams. About the only difference at present determinable is that 

the shells from Arkansas are somewhat larger. As pointed out by 

Walcott, one of the typical specimens was slightly crushed. The

quadrate outline which his figure shows and by which it contrasts 

strongly with those given here of Arkansas specimens is due to his 

specimens having been tilted downward when drawn, so that the 

front end appears to project more than when the specimen lies with 

the plane of juncture of the valves horizontal.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 1237R, 1248A1, 1248A2, 1248A5, 1248A6, 

124SR, 1248R4, 1248R5, 1248T, 1248Y, 2048, 2049, 2049b). - "

MOOREFIELDELLA EUREKENSIS Var. SUBCUBOIDES 11. Var.

Plate V, figure 18.

While the specimens referred to Moorefieldella eureJcensis show a 

considerable variation in the size of the costae, one among them represents so marked a departure as to demand recognition as a definite
BEACHIOPODA. 65

variety. It has a broadly subovate or slightly pentagonal outline 

with moderate convexity. The fold has a broad squarish shape and 

carries nine plications, which are a little coarser than those on the 

sides. The lateral ribs number nine or ten. This specimen presents 

a curious resemblance to the characteristic Devonian Hypofhyris 

cuboides.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 1248R5, 1248Y).

TEREBRATTJLID^E.

Genus HABTTINA Hall and Clarke.

HAHTTINA BREVILOBATA Swallow. 

Plate II, figure 12.

1863. Terebratula brevilobata. Swallow, St. Louis Acad. Sci., Trana., vol. 2, p. 84. 

Archimedes limestone: Ste. Genevieve County, Mo.

The two forms, which, in describing the fauna of the lower Fayetteville shale, are discriminated under the titles Harttina brevilobata and 

H. brevilobata var. marginalis, occur also in the "Spring Creek limestone." Though found in but one of the collections, they are fairly 

abundant, many of the specimens, however, being imperfect. In the 

present material these two forms are perhaps not quite so sharply 

defined as in the Fayetteville collections, but at the same time it is 

possible to discriminate them.

The shells referred to H. brevilobata are all of about the same size 

as the Fayetteville examples, or perhaps a little larger, but they are 

distinctly smaller than the originals described by Swallow. They 

have a broadly ovate or subpentagonal shape and are rather highly 

convex. The ventral valve bears a somewhat narrow deep sinus, 

which can be traced back about two-thirds of the distance from the 

front to the beak, or less. Toward the front the dorsal valve develops 

two rather broad shallow sulci,. more abrupt on the median side, 

which leave between them a narrow well-defined .fold, corresponding 

to the ventral sinus.

Some young shells which perhaps might be mistaken for the form 

from the lower Fayetteville shale which I identified as H. indianensis 

var. exporrecta, have been identified as this species because they 

show more or less definite traces of the characteristic lobation.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (station 1248R4). 

46447° Bull. 439 11 6
66 FAUNA OF MOOREFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

HARTTINA BREVILOBATA var. MARGINALIS Girty.

Plate II, figure 13.

1910. Harttina brevilobata var. marginalis. Girty, New York Acad. Sci., Annals.,

vol. 20, No. 3, pt. 2, p. 219. 

Basal Fayetteville shale: Fayetteville quadrangle, Arkansas.

These shells from the Moorefield shale seem to be specifically identical with those from the basal Fayetteville, on which this variety 

was founded. The largest has a length of 12 mm. The shape is 

rather elongate-ovate, and the convexity moderate. The configuration as to fold and sinus resembles that of H. hrewlobata, but the plications are fainter and more marginal. In the dorsal valve they are 

nearly or quite obsolete, so that some specimens appear to have 

merely a not very strong sinus in the ventral valve and an indistinct 

flattening in the dorsal. As might be expected, such examples are 

not readily discriminated from H. 'brevilobata, but typically this form 

is narrower, less inflated, and less distinctly and more marginally 

plicated than the associated shells identified with Swallow's species.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (station 1248R4).

SPIRIFERID^E.

Genus SPIRIFER Sowerby.

SPIRIFER ARKANSANUS n. sp.

Plate VIII, figures 2, 3, 4.

Shell large, attaining a length of 50 mm. Rather long for. the 

width, but in all cases the width is greater than the length. Hinge 

line usually shorter than the greatest width, which then occurs 

just below, but sometimes the cardinal angles are quadrate and 

sometimes slightly extended. The convexity of both valves is moderate. The ventral area is sharply defined but not very high, and it 

has a wide foramen. The beak of the ventral valve is rather strongly 

incurved over the area. The fold and sinus are strong but undefined 

except toward the umbones. The costse are usually broad and flat 

with narrow shallow striae between, and they tend to bifurcate on all 

portions of the surface. The original costae especially are broad and 

flat, while after bifurcation the ribs are apt to be, for a distance at 

least, narrow and well rounded. Owing to the originally rather faint 

development of the costse, especially toward the sides, and to the 

exfoliation which all specimens have undergone, it is difficult to make 

an exact count of the ribs, but usually there are nine or ten on a side, 

in some cases as many as thirteen. Toward the front of mature
BRACHIOPODA. 67

shells, where many of the costse have bifurcated, the number is of 

course sometimes considerably greater. In the upper part of the 

sinus there are usually three ribs besides the two others, one on each 

side, which form its boundary. Each of these may bifurcate toward 

the front, while the bounding rib may give off a branch on the inner 

side.

The superficies is covered with fine regular radiating lirae, which, 

though often removed by exfoliation, have been observed on many 

specimens. Probably there are no coordinate transverse markings, 

but on a few specimens more or less irregular, relatively coarse, 

lamellose growth lines have been noted.

In some cases, especially in young stages as defined by growth 

lines, the shape is much like that of S. rostellatus or S. tenuimarginatus, 

while in others it is more like S.. Tceokuk or S. logani. Specimens in 

which the original costse persist broad, flat, and ill-defined to the end, 

present a different appearance from those in which the costae have

bifurcated and are numerous, relatively fine, and fairly high. That 

these are not really discriminable varieties, however, is shown by an 

occasional instance in which one valve has the ribs divided, while on 

the corresponding valve of the same specimen they remain simple. 

Occasionally also the bifurcation or bifurcation, which is sometimes 

though rarely found, give the lirse a fasciculated appearance more 

sugge'stive of 8. cameratus.

Some specimens simulate S. subcardiiformis, but the presence of 

dental plates and of fine radial lirae show them to belong to an altogether different group. Normal mature specimens of this species are 

easily distinguished from Spirifer Iceokuk and clearly belong to a different species, but some aberrant examples, when not fully grown, 

must have resembled S. JceolcuJc considerably. Even these, however, 

have the costse less angular and more frequently bifurcating and the 

fold and sinus lower and less well defined.

 Much more close is the relationship with Spirifer logani, also of the 

Keokuk period. S. logani is a broader form and has also a broader 

sinus and fold. The beak of the ventral valve is smaller, broader, 

less prominent and less incurved. The costae maintain by bifurcation 

a nearly uniform size, much smaller than the unbifurcated costae often 

so persistent on the surface of S. arkansanus.

This species shows a resemblance as strong as- it is remarkable to 

S. nikitini, which ,Tschernyschew has recently described from the 

"Upper Carboniferous" of Russia.0

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 1248A1, 1248A2, 1248R, 1248R4, 1248Rx, 

2048, 2049a, 2049c, 2049f).

oM6m. Com. g6ol. [Russia], vol. 1C, no. 2, p. 542, pi. 10, figs. 1-2; pi. 13, fig. 2.
68 FAUNA OF MOOREFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

SPIRIFER MOOREFIELDANUS n. sp. 

Plate VIII, figure 1.

This species is rare in the "Spring Creek limestone," the collections 

having furnished only three specimens, all of which are ventral 

valves. The size is small and the convexity low. The width attained 

was 30 mm., or perhaps more. The shape is triangular and very 

transverse, with the greatest dimension at the hinge. The beak is 

small, not very prominent, and has the end curved inward over a low 

concave area. The foramen is narrower than high. The sinus is 

shallow, broad, and not very well defined. It appears at first sight 

to be simple, but is really occupied by two or three extremely obscure 

costae. The lateral costse, which number eight or nine, are inclined 

to be rather faint, and a few of them appear to bifurcate toward the 

front in one specimen.

The whole surface is marked by closely arranged, regular, equal, 

lamellose, concentric striae. No unequivocal evidence exists indicating that there were radial markings surmounting the costee.

Spirifer moorefieldanus is related to> 8. imbrex of the Burlington 

limestone, but is distinguished by its coarser and less numerous 

lateral plications and by the obscure and evanescent nature of those 

occupying the sinus.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations I248R4, 2049'a).

SPIEIFER INCREBESCENS Hall.

1858. Spirifer increbescens. Hall, Geol. Survey Iowa, Kept., vol. 1, pt. 2, p. 706'

pi. 27, figs. 6a-i.

Kaskaskia limestone: Kaskaskia and Chester, 111. 

1858. Spirifer keokuk var. Hall, Geol. Survey Iowa, Kept., vol. 1, pt. 2, p. 676, pi. 24»

figs. 4a?, 4b, 4c, 4d?.

St. Louis limestone: Mouth of Lizard Creek, Webster County, Iowa. 

1883. Spirifera increbescens. Hall, New York State Geologist, Rept. for 1882, pi. (30)

55, figs. 27-30, pi. (31) 56, figs. 1-3. 

Chester limestone: Illinois. 

1888. Spirifer increbescens. Herrick, Sci. Lab. Denisou Univ., Bull., vol. 4, pi. 11

figs. 14, 23.

Chester limestone: Ohio; also from limestone fragments in Pennsyivanian 

1 conglomerate, Licking County, Ohio.

1893. Spirifer increbescens. Hall and Clarke, Geol. Survey New York, Pal., vol. 8 

pt. 2, pp. 27, 39. (Advance distribution in fascicles.)

1894. Spirifer increbescens. Hall and Clarke, New York State Geologist, Thirteenth 

Ann. Rept., for 1893, vol. 2, pi. 27, figs. 8-11. (Also published separately 

as Introduction to 'Brachiopoda: hand-book for students.') 

Chester limestone: Chester, 111.

1895. Spirifera increbescens. Keyes, Missouri Geol. Survey, Rept., vol. 5, p. 82. (Date

of imprint, 1895.) 

Kaskaskia limestone: St. Mary, Mo.
BRACHIOPODA. 69

1895. Spirifer increbescens. Hall and Clarice, Geol. Survey New York, Pal., vol. 8,

pt. 2, pp. 27, 39, pi. 30, figs. 27-30, pi. 31, figs. 1-3. 

Chester limestone: Chester, 111. 

1897. Spirifer Keoluk. Weller, New York Acad. Sci., Trans., vol. 16, p. 257, pi. 19,

figs. 10-12. (Date of volume, 1898.) 

Batesville sandstone: Batesville, Ark.

Of this species the collection contains only a single example, a small 

fragmentary dorsal valve. The length of this specimen aould not 

have been less than 13 mm. and may have been more. The fold is 

narrow, high, and defined by deep sulci. It is surmounted by four 

strong ribs, while the sides of the valve bear nine others of similar 

character. In so far as the characters are shown fay this specimen it 

appears to be the same form which occurs in the basal Fayetteville 

shale and which I'have identified in the same manner.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (station 1248R4).

Genus RETICULARIA McCoy. 

RETICULARIA SETIGERA Hall.

Plate VIII, figure 6.

1858. Spirifer setigerus. Hall, Geol. Survey Iowa, Kept., vol. 1, pt. 2, ,p. 705, pi. 27,

figs. 4a, b.

Kaskaskia limestone: Kaskaskia and Chester, 111. 

1877. Spirifera setigera. Hall and Whitfield, U. S. Geol. Expl. 40th Par., Kept., vol. 4,

p. 270, pi. 5, figs. 17, 18.

Lower Carboniferous limestone: North of Snowstorm Hill, Dry Canyon, Oquirrh 

1 Mountains, Utah. 

1883. Reticularia.setigera. Waagen, India Geol. Survey, Mem.; Pal. Indica, ser. 13,

vol. 1, p. 542. 

1883. Spirifera setigera. Hall, New York State Geologist, Kept, for 1882, pi. (36) 61,

figs. 26, 27.

 Chester limestone: Chester, 111. 

1893. Spirifer setigerus. Hall and Clarke, Geol. Survey New York, Pal., vol. 8, pt. 2,

pp. 21, 37. (Advance distribution in fascicles.) 

1895. Spirifer setigerus. Hall and Clarke, Geol. Survey New York, Pal., vol. 8, pt. 2,

pi. 36, figs. 26, 27. (Date of imprint, 1894.) 

Chester limestone: Chester, 111. 

1895. Spirifera setigera. Keyes, Missouri Geol. Survey, Kept., vol. 5, p. 83. (Date

of imprint, 1894.)

Kaskaskia limestone: St. Mary, Mo. 

1906. Reticularia setigerus. Beede, Dept. Geology and Nat. Res. Indiana, Thirtieth

Ann. Kept., p. 13.18, pi. 21, figs. 1, la. 

Salem limestone: Lanesville and Bedford, Ind.

This species is fairly abundant in several collections from the 

"Spring Creek limestone," but the fossils are imperfect and poorly preserved. It is probably safe to identify this form with Hall's R. setigera, though it shows some differences from the typical specimen
70 FAUNA OF MOOREFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

figured by him. It is somewhat smaller and with a more regularly 

elliptical outline. Such differences are often due to age and individual peculiarities and at this time they are not thought to warrant 

the discrimination of the Moorefield shells. These have also only a 

slightly developed fold and sinus with a dorsal valve considerably less 

convex than the ventral. It is true, however, that the dorsal valve 

is very imperfectly represented amongst the material studied. The 

specimens under consideration show considerable variation in the 

proportions of length and width, some examples being strongly transverse and others more nearly circular in outline.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 2048, 2049a, 2049b, 2049c).'

Genus MABTINIA McCoy. 

MARTINIA GLABRA Martin?

Plate IX, figures 9, 10, 11.

1809. Anomites glaber Martin. Petrifacta Derbiensia, pi. 48, figs. 9, 10.

Carboniferous limestone:. Chelmerton, Tideswell, England.

1858. Spin/era glabra. Davidson, Pal. Soc.; Mon: British Fossil Brach., pt. 5, Garb. 

Brach., p. 59, pi. 11, figs. 1-9; pi. 12, figs. 1-5, 11, 12. (This publication gives 

a synonymy of European citations.) 

Carboniferous limestone: England, Scotland, Ireland, Belgium, France,

Russia, America, etc. 

1863. Spin/era glabra. Davidson, Geol. Soc. Lond., Quart. Jour., vol. 19, p. 170,

pi. 9, figs. 9, 10. 

Lower Carboniferous limestone: East River of Pictou, Mabou, Cape Breton,

Windsor, Brookfield, Merigomish, etc., Nova Scotia. 

1868. Spin/era glabra. Dawson, Acadian Geology, p. 291, fig. 89.'

Carboniferous limestone: East River of Pictou, Mabou, Cape Breton, Windsor, 

Brookfield, Merigomish, etc., Nova Scotia.

The shells subsumed under this title are rather abundant at certain 

horizons in the lower Moorefield shale, but for the most part their .preservation is unsatisfactory. They have a somewhat quadrate shape 

with the width always greater than the length. This dimension 

seems to be greatest at the cardinal line or slightly in front. A width 

of 40 mm. is about the maximum observed.

Most of the specimens.examined are ventral valves. They are rather 

highly convex, especially in the umbonal region, and the beak is much 

elevated and strongly incurved over a rather low area. The foramen 

is broader than high! There is a distinct narrow sulcus passing forward down the middle of the valve, which, toward the front, develops 

a broad undefined sinus.

Of the dorsal valve our imperfect material does not permit me to 

give a description. It probably had a triangular or semicircular 

shape, rather low convexity, and a moderately high though undefined 

mesial fold.
fcBACHIOPODA. 71

The surface appears to be nearly or quite smooth. Many specimens, 

however, show fairly regular, numerous, closely arranged incremental 

striae on exfoliated surfaces, such as almost all the specimens expose.

This form is not readily distinguished from a number of quite different types with which it is associated, such as Composita subquadrata 

var. lateralis, Reticularia setigera, and even such specimens of Liorhynclius carboniferum as have the plications obsolescent. Of course, the 

configuration should distinguish it immediately from the Liorhynclius 

and the Composita, and the sculpture from the Reticularia, but most 

of the specimens are so imperfect that the configuration is obscured 

and so exfoliated that the sculpture is largely obliterated. They are 

liable to be compressed, in which condition one often can not determine whether there was an area or not, and even when not compressed 

are separable only by much labor from the hard, tenacious rock that 

hides the configuration. Furthermore, the shell is much thickened 

over the umbonal portion, but is thin laterally, so that the margins 

are apt to be broken away or crushed in such manner as to obscure the 

shape.

One can not even employ the internal structures to discriminate this 

from the other types, because these seem, to show an almost unprecedented amount of variation. Indeed, some specimens seem to be 

without dental plates, as the case should be if they properly belong to 

Martinia,while others almost certainly possess them, and so apparently 

belong to the genus Martiniopsis. These fossils are not preserved so 

as to show the internal structures, and I could not afford to sacrifice 

much material in the investigation, for of course, to be of service, the 

specimens mutilated for the purpose must be so complete that there is 

little doubt as to their specific identity. I believe that the specimens 

upon which my observations were made do not belong to Reticularia, 

Composita, or LiorhyncJius, and it seems that the greatest amount of, 

as well as the clearest, evidence points to the presence of dental 

plates. Consequently I should, perhaps, assign this form to Martiniopsis rather than to Martinia. Just here, however, another possibility intervenes. A few of the specimens appear to have plications. 

These are extremely indistinct and are not developed symmetrically; 

that is, they occur on one side of the shell and not on the other; but 

their presence may signify not a Martiniopsis but a Spirifer, one perhaps related to arlcansanus, but with the plications almost obsolete.

It is clear that if three genera or subgenera are present among 

these specimens it is impossible to separate them in their present 

condition. On the other hand, if all belong together, it is quite difficult to decide to what genus they would best be referred, Martinia, 

Martiniopsis, or Spirifer. If a Martinia, this species appears to be 

very similar to the English Martinia glabra, though I have not had 

specimens of the latter with which to compare them. Since my
72 FAUNA OF MOOEEFIELD SHALE OF AEKANSAS.

evidence is not very sure and is even conflicting, it has seemed best 

on the whole to defer a decision on the generic and specific relationships of these specimens, and they have therefore been referred provisionally to the foreign species named above. It is desirable, however, that this reference be revised as soon as it can be done with 

sufficiently complete material to warrant a definite result.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 1248R, 1248R4, 1248Rx, 1248T(?), 1248V, 

2048, 2049a, 2053).

MAETINIA sp.

Plate IX, figure 8.

1909. Martinia sp. Girty, U. S. Geol. Survey, Bull. 377, p. 29, pi. 2, fig. 9. 

Caney shale: Atoka and Tishomingo quadrangles, Oklahoma.

Seven or eight specimens in,the Moorefield collection can probably 

be referred to the genus Martinia, but they appear to belong to a 

species different from that of the large shell provisionally identified 

as Martinia glabra. They are small and of a subpentagonal outline. 

The width and length are about equal, the width being usually somewhat the greater. The cardinal angles are more or less rounded, 

but the hinge line is nearly as long as the greatest width. The dorsal 

valve is rather flat, but the ventral is highly convex, with a narrow 

median sulcus. On the ulterior thej ventral valve seems to be without 

dental plates, but the umbonal region is much thickened. The interior of the dorsal valve is not definitely known. The surface of a 

dorsal valve referred to this speciejs and preserved as a mold of the 

exterior, appears to have been ma'rked by fine irregular concentric 

striae and to have been covered with minute spines more or less 

arranged in concentric rows.

The configuration of these shells is clearly spiriferoid, so that their 

generic relations are probably with Martinia, Reticularia, or Ambocodia. Though thickly covered with spines the surface has not the 

characters found in Reticularia an^ Squamularia, while the internal 

plates of the former genus are also lacking. A small dorsal valve provisionally referred here has appearances which suggest the internal 

structures of Amboccdia, and possibly the entire group may belong 

to that genus, with which the shape1, the sculpture, and the planiconvex configuration are in keeping. The size, however, is excessive for 

Amboccdia, all the known species of jwhich are small. On the whole, 

it seems more probable that they belong to Martinia rather than to 

Amboccdia ; at any rate, they are distinct from Amboccdia ls&vicula( ?). 

Their high convexity, uniform size, and the apical callosity hi the 

ventral valve indicate that they are, mature shells. If so, the small 

size and different shape indicate that they are also distinct from M.
BEACHIOPODA. 73

gldbni. It is not impossible, however, that they are young examples 

of that, species. Under the title Martinia sp. I have described and. 

figured a specimen from the Caney shale of Oklahoma which has the 

same size and configuration as those from the Moorefield shale, and 

it is believed that all belong to the same species. In their present 

condition, at all events, it is impossible to tell them apart.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 1248A2, 1248E5, 2048, 2049c), Moorefield 

(station 205la).

Genus AMBOCCELIA Hall.

AMBOCCELIA LEVICULA Rowley?. 

Plate VIII, figures 7, 8, 9.

1900. Ambocoslia levicula. Rowley, Am. Geologist, vol. 25, no. 5, p. 262, pi. 5,

figs. 12-14. 

Lower Burlington limestone: [Louisiana?] Missouri.

Shell small, a length of 5£ mm. being about the maximum observed. 

Length usually, perhaps always, slightly less than the width. Shape 

variable. The cardinal angles are rounded but the outline is more 

abruptly curved at these points than elsewhere. Generally speaking, 

the outline is subcircular to subquadrate, but in some specimens the 

curving sides contract toward the front and in a few they diverge. 

The dorsal valve is gently convex and the ventral valve strongly so, 

though it is proportionally much lower than in some members of the 

genus. Our specimens are internal molds. The umbonal region 

of the ventral valve does not seem to have been much thickened. The 

beak therefore appears to have been rather strongly depressed and not 

greatly elevated. Both valves bear a median sulcus which varies in 

strength in different specimens.

In the dorsal valve there are two very elongated muscle scark, situated medianly, one on either side of the sulcus. Farther toward the 

umbo and somewhat closer together is a second pair of small sca,rs. 

graces of small crural plates can be observed in some specimens.

The scars of the ventral valve are not so distinct nor so differentiated 

as those of the dorsal. There are evidently two elongated areas of 

muscular attachment in the umbonal region of this valve, considerably 

depressed and separated by a low ridge, but not usually with any very 

distinct boundaries. Each of these grooves terminates below in an 

oval scar, and they may merely mark the path of progression of muscular loci, but they show interruption as if differentiated into another 

pair; and even possibly a third pair, of distinct areas. Suggestions 

of dental plates and even of a median septum are found in this valve 

also, but possibly they are misleading.

As regards its generic position this can hardly be called a normal 

Amboccclia. The ventral valve is not as elevated as usual, and the
74 FAUNA OP MOOREFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

dorsal valve is not as planate as in the most characteristic species, but 

the internal features are perhaps more noteworthy than the configuration. I mean the absence or imperfect development of crural 

plates and the character of the muscle scars, not close together and 

anterior as in typical Amboccdia. It may be thought that these 

peculiarities are due to the fact "that my observations are made on 

young shells, the mature ones being the form here cited under Martinia 

sp. It is true that a general resemblance exists between the two, but 

specimens intermediate in size between the smaller and larger forms 

seem to be lacking; and, furthermore, that referred to Ambocodia has 

a sinus in the dorsal valve which appears not to exist in the Martinia.

Specifically this form seems to be extremely similar to Ambocodia 

levicula Rowley, though I have not had specimens of Rowley's species 

for comparison. The two forms are of somewhat different geologic 

ages and occur in association with very unlike faunas, and the probability would certainly appear to be that they are different species 

rather than the same. This genus, however, appears to adhere very 

closely to a type, and these Moorefield shells are so similar to Rowley's 

description and figures that I would be at a loss to name characters 

by which they could be discriminated unless it be that in the typical 

form the umbo of the ventral valve is fuller and its beak more recurved, 

so as to overhang the area. Of course, if A. levicula is a typical Ambocodia the internal characters of the present form would distinguish it.

Some other and little-known species also should be considered in 

this connection, since they may prove to be the same form which 

Professor Rowley has described. I refer to Ambocodia minuta and to 

the shell which Winchell named Spirigera Hloba, but which I am 

fairly sure is really a spiriferoid resembling A. levicula.

The specimens from the Moorefield shale come chiefly from the bed 

which has furnished young specimens ofJLiorliynchus and Moorefieldella. The Ambocoelias occur as molds which have a similar black and 

lustrous surface with a similar appearance of punctate structure.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 1248A1, 1248A2, 1248A5).

Genus SPIBIFERINA D'Orbigny.

SPIRIFERINA SUBELLIPTICA var. FAYETTEVILLENSIS Girty?

Plate VIII, figure 5.

1910. Spiriferina subelliptica var. fayettevillensis. Girty, New York Acad. Sci.,

Annals, vol. 20, no. 3, pt. 2, p. 221. 

Basal Fayetteville shale: Fayetteville quadrangle, Arkansas.

This is a rare species in the Moorefield shale; only three specimens 

have come to hand, two dorsal and one ventral valve. The shape is 

transverse, triangular, broadest at the hinge or a little in front. The
BRACHIOPODA. 75

fold and sinus are small and distinctly larger and more prominent than 

the lateral plications. The latter number about seven on either side. 

They are rather fine and not very high nor sharp.

All the specimens are too deeply exfoliated to show the sculpture 

except the ventral valve, where, toward the umbonal region, the shell 

has retained traces of regular, concentric, imbricating lamellae.

The dorsals, which do not retain any evidence of the original sculpture, seem to belong to the same species as the associated ventral so 

far as their characters are shown at all. They may, however, be a 

variety of S. spinosa, which all three shells suggest in configuration. 

The fold and sinus are, however, larger and higher in comparison with 

the lateral plications than is the case in S. spinosa, while the sculpture 

retained on the ventral valve shows that it at least belongs to an entirely different section of the genus.

These shells, assuming them all to be conspecific, also somewhat

resemble S. transversa, especially in sculpture, but they are less transverse, the lateral costae are less numerous, the fold and sinus are without a median plication, and the fold itself is more nearly the size of the 

lateral costse. On the whole, they are nearest to S. subelliptica var. 

fayeiteviUensis, but even here some differences may be noted, the 

Moorefield form being larger and having the lateral plications less 

deep and strong.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 1248R4, 2049a).

ATHYBID^E.

Genus COMPOSITA Brown.

COMPOSITA SUBQUADEATA Var. LATERALIS Girty. 

Plate IV, figure 10.

1910. Composita subquadrata var. lateralis. Girty, New York Acacl. Sci., Annals,

vol. 20, no. 3, pt. 2, p. 222. 

Basal Fayetteville shale : Fayetteville quadrangle, Arkansas.

I have noted in the discussion of Martinia glabra that it is very difficult to decide whether some specimens really belong to Composita, 

Martinia, LiorTiynchus, or Reticularia. It may be regarded as established that there are smooth examples of Liorhynchus carboniferum , 

which simulate very closely the genus Composita, and also that the 

genus Composita occurs in the Moorefield fauna associated with them. 

Most specimens occur as dissociated valves embedded in matrix. In 

the case of ventral valves, the configuration of the area and foramen 

not being usually determinable, one has to rely on the fact that in 

Liorhynclius carboniferum the ventral beak is usually long and erect, 

and in Composita is shorter and more incurved, a means of discrimina-
76 FAUNA OF MOOBEFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

tion which does not afford very satisfacton^ results. In the case of 

dorsal valves the spiralia are of course never seen and the hinge plate 

which is differently formed in the two genera is seldom brought to 

view. In LiorJiynchus, however, there is a well-developed septum 

which can usually be seen even in exfoliated specimens. In Composite 

the septum is nearly or quite undeveloped.

Using these data where others were not available, I have been able 

to identify some specimens positively and others more doubtfully 

with the genus Composita, at least so far as general form and expression are concerned.

Some of the compositas belong to a broad species, and these have 

much the shape of Martinia glabra. Where the configuration, especially of the apical portion of the ventral valve, can be made out, 

specimens can be referred with certainty to one genus or the other, 

but in many cases no such confidence is warranted.

One of the types present among the compositas, as already mentioned, is a large spreading species with rather broad deep fold 

and sinus. This form closely resembles that which I described in 

the fauna of the lower Fayetteville as Composita subguadrata var. 

lateralis. It does not seem to have quite the expression of that 

species, not having as abruptly rounded sides for one thing, but with 

the imperfect and limited material at hand it would be unwise to 

attempt to discriminate them. Such specimens occur at 1248R and 

also probably at 1248R4 and 2049a. Somewhat less certain, though 

more abundant, is a form obtained at 2049f and 1248V. These 

fossils are smaller with a less well-developed fold and sinus. The 

shape is distinctly transverse and the expression is rather unusual. 

The configuration is not far from that which the specimens identified 

as (7. subquadrata, var. lateralis would have had at the same size and

they have been provisionally identified with that species. It is possible, however, that some of them really belong to Martinia glabra( ?). 

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 1248R, 1248R4, 1248V(?), 2048(«), 2049a, 

2049b(?), 2049f).

COMPOSITA MADISONENSIS var. PUSILLA Girty. 

Plate IV, figures 6, 7.

1899. Seminula madisonensis var. pusilla. Girty, U. S. Geol. Survey, Mon. 32, pt. 2,

p. 564, pi. 71, figs. 3a, 3b. 

Madison limestone: Yellowstone National Park.

Included here are two specimens which, from their configuration, it 

seems highly probable belong to a species of Composita. One is a 

ventral valve, a small narrow shell of an ovate shape with a deep 

narrow sinus, and it much resembles the form from Yellowstone Park
BEACHIOPODA. ' 77

which I described as Seminula madisonensis var. pusillu. The sinus 

is, however, deeper and traceable farther from the front border. 

This shell may also be reckoned merely a narrow example of the form 

from the basal Fayetteville shale which I have identified as C. subtilita. A few examples almost equally elongate have been included 

under that title, but such as I have examined have not the sinus quite 

so deep and narrow. The other specimen, which is a dorsal valve, 

has corresponding characters. The fold, however, shows toward the 

front a distinct indentation or median sulcus, and it may prove that 

this specimen represents a distinct species from the other.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (station 2049b).

COMPOSITA aft'. HUMILIS Gil'tv." 

Plate IV, figures 8, 9.

Among the specimens which appear to belong to the genus Composita are a few which resemble the western form described by me 

under the title Seminula Immilis. They have a broadly ovate shape 

with fold and sinus almost undeveloped, and the larger specimens are 

tumid. The largest'example is considerably larger than the typical 

shells from Yellowstone Park. It must have had a length of 22 mm. 

or about 1£ that of the type.

These specimens may perhaps be regarded as belonging to the 

form from the basal Fayetteville shale which I identified as C. sul)- 

guadrata or to the associated form here called C. subquadrata var. lateralis, but they are narrower than the latter and have a less distinct 

sinuation than specimens of the former of the same size.

A few small specimens from station 2048 have been provisionally 

placed here. They may really be representatives of Cliothyridina, 

but it is impossible to determine the fact.

The Compositas of the Moorefield fauna, it should be remarked, are 

so few and so imperfect that it is even less possible than usual to 

subdivide and identify them. The present classification is provisional.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 1248A2, 2048).

Genus EUMETBIA Hall. 

EUMETRJA MAKCYI Shumard.

Plate VIII, figure 10.

1852. Terebratula serpentina? Owen (not de Koninck), Geol. Survey Wisconsin, 

Iowa, and Minnesota, Kept., pi. 3A, fig. 1.3. (See specimens in U. S. Nat. 

Mus.; Cat. Invert. Foss., 17955.) 

Carboniferous: Skunk River, Iowa.

o Girty, G. H., Moil. U. S. Geol. Survey, vol. 32, pt. 2,1899, p. 505, pi. 71, flgs. Ca, Ob, Gc.
78 FAUNA OF MOOEEFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

1853. Terebratula marcyi. Shumard, Marcy's Expl. Red Biver Louisiana, p. 203, pi. 1,

figs. 4a, b. (As a Senate Ex. Doc.) 

Carboniferous: Washington and Crawford counties, Ark.

1854. Terebratula marcyi. Shumard, Marcy's Expl. Red River Louisiana, p. 177, pi. 1,

figs. 4a,,4b. (As a House Ex. Doc.) 

Carboniferous: Washington and Crawford counties, Ark. 

1858. Retzia Verneuilana. Hall, Albany Inst., Trans., vol. 4, p. 9. . St. Louis limestone: Bloomington and Spergen Hill, Incl. 

1858. Retzia verneuilana. Hall, Geol. Survey Iowa, Rept., vol. 1, pt. 2, p. 657, pi. 23,

figs. la-d.

Warsaw limestone: Spergen Hill and Bloomington, Ind. 

1858. Retzia vera. Hall, Geol. Survey Iowa, Rept., vol. 1, pt. 2, p. 704, pi. 27, fig. 3a.

Kaskaskia limestone: Chester, 111. 

1858. Retzia vera var. costata. Hall, Geol. Survey Iowa, Rept., vol. 1, pt. 2, p. 704,

pi. 27, figs. 3b, 3c. 

Kaskaskia limestone: Chester, 111. 

1863. Eumetria vera. Hall, New York State Cab. Nat. Hist., Sixteenth Rept., p. 55,

figs. 1 and 3, and p. 59.

1863. Eumetria verneuili. Hall, New York State Cab. Nat. Hist., Sixteenth Rept., 

p. 55, fig. 2.

1882. Eumetria Verneuilana. Whitfield, Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., Bull., vol. 1, p. 50, pi. 6,

figs. 28-30. 

St. Louis group: Spergen Hill, Pay nters Hill, and Bloomington, Ind.; Alton, 111.

1883. Eumetria verneuiliana. Hall, Dept. Geology and Nat. Res. Indiana, Twelfth

Rept., p. 335, p. 29, figs. 28-30. 

St. Louis group: Spergen Hill, Lanesville, and Bloomington, Ind.

1884. Retzia radialis. Walcott (non Phillips) (pars.), U. S. Geol. Survey, Mon. 8,

p. 220, pi. 7, figs. 5a-5c, 5d, 5e (?), 

Upper Devonian: Eureka district, Nevada. 

Lower Carboniferous: Eureka district, Nevada; Little Belt Mountains, near

Clendenin, Mont. 

1889. Retzia Marcyi. Miller, North Am. Geology and Pal., p. 366.

Kaskaskia group.

1893. Eumetria vera. Hall and Clarke, Geol. Survey New York, Pal., vol. 8, pt. 2, 

p. 117. (Advance distribution in fascicles.)

1893. Eumetria Verneuiliana. Hall and Clarke, Geol. Survey New York, Pal., vol. 8, 

pt. 2, p. 117, figs. 104, 105. (Advance distribution in fascicles.)

1894. Eumetria Verneuiliana. Hall and Clarke, State Geologist New York, Thirteenth 

Ann. Rept., pt. 2, pi. 37, figs, 1-4, 6,10. (Also published separately as Introduction to Brachiopoda: handbook for students.) 

St. Louis group: Spergen Hill, Ind.

1894. Eumetria vera var. costata. Hall and Clarke, idem, pi. 37, figs. 5, 11. 

Chester limestone: Chester, 111.; Crittenden County, Ky.

1894. Eumetria vera. Hall and Clarke, idem, pi. 37, figs. 8, 12. 

Chester limestone: Crittenden County, Ky.

1895. Retzia vera. Keyes, Missouri Geol. Survey, Rept., vol. 5, p. 95. (Date of imprint, 1894.)

Kaskaskia limestone: St. Mary, Mo. 

1895. Retzia verneuiliana. Keyes, Missouri Geol. Survey, Rept., vol. 5, p. 95. (Date

of imprint, 1894.)

St. Louis limestone: St. Louis, Mo. 

1895. Eumetria vera var. costata. Hall and Clarke, Geol. Survey New York, Pal., vol. 8,

pt. 2, pi. 51, figs. 27-33. 

Chester limestone: Crittenden County, Ky.; Chester, 111.
PELECYPODA. - 79

1895. Eumetria vera. Hall and Clarke, Geol. Survey New York, Pal., vol. 8, pt. 2,

p. 117, pi. 51, figs. 36, 37. 

Chester group: Crittenden County, Ky. 

1895. Eumetria Verneuiliana. Hall and Clarke, Geol. Survey New York, Pal., vol. 8,

pt. 2, p. 117, figs. 104, 105, pi. 51, figs. 13-26, 34, 35; pi. 83, figs. 26, 27. 

St. Louis group: Spergen Hill, Ind.; Greene County, Mo. 

1897. Eumetria verneuilana. Weller, New York Acad. Sci., Trans., vol. 16, p. 259.

(Date of volume, 1898.) 

Batesville sandstone: Batesville, Ark. 

1899. Eumetria verneuiliana. Girty, U. S. Geol. Survey, Mon. 32, pt. 2, p. 560, pi. 68,

figs. 12a-12b. 

Madison limestone: Yellowstone National Park.

1903. Eumetria marcyi? Girty, U. S. Geol. Survey, Prof. Paper 16, p. 303. 

Ouray limestone: San Juan region, Colorado.

1904. Eumetria marcyi. Girty, U. S. Geol. Survey, Prof. Paper 21, p. 49, pi. 10,

figs. 15-17.

Mississippian (Escabrosa limestone): Bisbee quadrangle, Arizona. 

1906. Eumetria marceyi. Beede, Dept. Geology and Nat. Ees. Indiana, Thirtieth

Ann. Eept., 1905, p. 1319, pi. 22, figs. 28-30.

Salem limestone: Lanesville, Spergen Hill, Bedford, Bloomington, Paynters 

Hill, Harrodsburg, Stinesville, and Romona, Ind.

The Survey collections contain only five specimens of this species, 

all but the dorsal valve shown by my figure being fragmentary. The 

latter is larger and has fewer costse than the specimen figured by c 

Shumard, but not more so than some specimens from the lower 

Fayetteville shale of Washington County identified as Eumetria 

marcyi. Other specimens in the collection have perceptibly finer 

costse than that selected for illustration, and are more in accord with 

Shumard's figures.

While recognizing that there is a finely and a coarsely costate 

variety amongst this material, I doubt the utility or even the practicability of separating it and other suites into distinct groups of 

specimens.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 124SK4, 2049a(?), 2049b). 

PELECYPODA. 

SOLENOMYACID^E.

Genus SOLBNOMYA Lamarck. 

SOLENOMYA? Sp. 

Plate XII, figure 7.

A single specimen, retaining both valves, but very imperfect as to 

outline and sculpture, is in the Survey collection. It is strongly 

transverse, with a width of about 55 mm. and a height of about 22 mm. 

The hinge line and lower border are nearly straight and parallel. 

The posterior outline is regularly curved. The anterior end seems
80 FAUNA OF MOOEEFIELD SHALE OF AKKANSAS.

to be rather narrow and prolonged some distance beyond the small 

beak. The convexity is moderately high without a distinct umbonal 

ridge. The sculpture seems to consist of rather strong concentric 

strias.

The generic and specific relations of this shell are both uncertain. 

The sculpture and general expression do not suggest an Allerisma. 

Were the umbonal ridge more distinct and the posterior extremity 

more truncated one might assign the shell to Sphenotus or Pleurophorus. In its shape it reminds one of Solenomya parallela, but it is 

without the radiating markings of the group of shells included under 

Solenomya, to which that species belongs, and it also lacks the concentric plications and more compact shape of the other group represented 

by S. anadontoides and 8. soleniformis.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (station 1248T). /

SOLENOPSID^E.

Genus SPHENOTUS Hall.

SPHENOTUS? MESLEKIANUS Girty?

Plate XII, figure 10'.

1910. Sphenotus? meslerianum. Girty, New York Acad. Sci., Annals, vol 20, No. 3,

pt. 2, p. 225. 

Basal Fayetteville shale: Fayetteville quadrangle, Arkansas.

Only one specimen has been referred to this species, and the reference is a provisional one. In a general way the configuration iii the 

Moorefield specimen is much the same as in the type from near 

Fayetteville. The shape is not quite so transverse, however; the 

posterior extremity is more obliquely truncated and the umbonal 

ridge less distinctly developed.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (station 2049b).

SPHENOTUS? sp.

. r Plate XII, figure 6.

This is a very transverse form, with straight and nearly parallel 

upper and lower margins. The posterior extremity is obliquely 

truncated and the strongly rounded anterior end projects slightly 

beyond the beak. The convexity is moderate and the umbonal ridge 

is indistinct. A constriction passes obliquely across the shell to the 

middle of the ventral border. The surface is marked by fine concentric striae.

The specimens included in this group are all very obscure and it was 

impossible to determine what many of the characters of each really
PELECYPODA. 81

were. Some of the fossils referred to here have a more strongly projecting anterior extremity than that shown by the figure and some are 

distinctly truncated, while that one is rounded behind.

In its generic relations this form (though there may be more than 

a single form present) is very uncertain, the most probable position 

being with Pleurophorus, Sphenotus, or Sanguinolites. Most of our 

American species of Sphenotus have one or more costas between the 

umbonal ridge and the cardinal line, which appears not to be the case 

with the present form. Of the American species referred to Sanguinolites and S-phenotus, that which Weller figured as Sanguinolites 

sp. from very nearly the same locality, but from a higher horizon, is 

perhaps the most similar. The differences, which are obvious, may 

in part be due to the poor preservation of the specimens. Perhaps 

the most similar forms are, however, found under Pleurophorus, 

P. costatiformis, P. subcostatus, and P. taffi, all having a resemblance 

more or less close. In- the basal Fayetteville Pleurophorus wasliingtonensis is the most similar. The present form is larger, less 

transverse, and without plications on the postumbonal slope. The 

relationship between this form and those which in the present fauna 

were designated Solenomya? sp. and Sylienotus meslerianus may 

prove to be closer than the generic references would indicate.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 2048, 2049b).

Genus SOLENOPSIS McCoy.

SOLENOPSIS NITIDA Girty? 

Plate XII, figure 12.

1910. Solenopsis nitida. Girty, New York Acad. Sci., Annals, vol. 20, No. 3, pt. 2,

p. 223. 

Basal Fayetteville shale: Fayetteville quadrangle, Arkansas.

Under this title are included an imperfect specimen from near 

Marshall and a still more imperfect specimen from near Batesville. 

In so far as the characters are shown at all these are not distinguishable from the specimens from Fayetteville on which this species 

was based, but better material may prove them, to be distinct. The 

Marshall specimen has a thick shell marked by very fine incremental 

lines, and it appears not to taper quite so distinctly toward the posterior end as the typical example.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (station 1248R4); Marshall quadrangle, Marshall 

(station 7039).

46447° Bull. 439 11 6
82 FAUNA OF MOOREFIELD SHALE OF AKKANSAS.

GRAMMYSIID^E.

Genus EDMONDIA de Koninck.

EDMONDIA CKASSA n. sp.

Plate XII, figures 8, 9.

Shell of medium size, transverse, subelliptical. Greatest width 

about 1$ the greatest height. Hinge line straight, about one-half 

the entire width. Lower margin gently convex. Posterior outline 

broadly rounded, somewhat truncated. Anterior end more narrowly 

rounded than the other. Beaks rather large and pro'minent. Convexity high, more compressed over the posterior portion.

Surface marked by strong, coarse, rather regular concentric striae.

This species is rather more similar to certain Pennsylvanian types 

than to Mississippian ones, and if found at the higher horizon it might 

almost pass without challenge as Edmondia aspinwallensis, E. ovata, 

or E. subtruncata. In the Mississippian, E. burlingtonensis is a related 

species, but probably the most similar of all is E. illinoisensis, from 

which it can be distinguished by being regularly somewhat less 

transverse. . Different specimens vary somewhat in proportions. A 

narrower, more nearly circular type represented by figure 9 may 

prove a distinct variety, in which case the name suborbiculata may 

be used to distinguish it from the other.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 1248T, 2048, 2049b).

NUCULID^E.

Genus NUCTJLA Lamarck.

NUCULA RECTANGTJLA McChesney. 

Plate XII, figures 13-17:

I860. Nucula rectangula. McChesney, Desc. New Species Pal. Foss., p. 74. (Date

of imprint, 1859.)

Hamilton group: Near Batesville, Ark. 

1865. Nucula rectangula. McChesney, Illustrations New Species Foss., pi. 7,

figs. 5a-c. 

1868. Nucula? rectangula. McChesney, Chicago Acad. Sci., Trans., vol. 1, p. 40, pi. 7,

figs. 5a-c. (Date of imprint, 1867-1869.) 

Dark-colored Hamilton shales: Batesville, Ark.

McChesney says:

Shell small, subtriangular in outline, some what compressed. Ventral margin very 

broadly rounded, sometimes almost straight; posterior margin sharply rounded; 

cardinal Line and anterior slope nearly at right angles to each other, the former of 

which is straight and the latter slightly curved; beaks small, incurved, approximate, 

pointing toward and almost terminating the anterior extremity. Hinge line, on the 

posterior side of the beak, marked by about eight comparatively strong teeth, and on 

the anterior side by four or five teeth not quite so prominent.
PELECYPODA. . 83

Surface marked by fine concentric striae, and by some stronger lines of growth. 

Geological position and locality. In dark-colored shales of the age of the Hamilton 

rocks of New York, near Batesville, Arkansas.

McChesney's description is given in full above because the original 

work is not always easy of access, and because there seemed less need 

for a description of the material actually in hand, since it came from 

the same beds and perhaps even the same locality as the original 

specimens.

Our fossils are few in number and it would appear that this is one 

of the rare species of the fauna. They agree with McChesney's 

description and figures, and without question belong to the species 

which he described under this title. Our specimens are preserved 

for the most part as internal molds, on which the scars, owing to the, 

fact that the shell was very thick, as is common in this genus, are 

sharply defined. There is a large anterior adductor and above it a 

small pedal scar.. The scar of the posterior adductor is indistinct, 

as represented also in McChesney's figures.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (station 1248A);' Marshall quadrangle/ Marshall 

(station 7039).

LEDID^E.

Genus LED A Schumacher.

LEDA VASEYANA McChesney.

Plate XI, figure 7.

1860. Nuculites vaseyana. McChesney, Desc. New Species Pal. Foss., p. 73. (Date

of imprint, 1859.) 

Hamilton group: Batesville, Ark. 

1865. Nuculites vaseyana. McChesney, Illustrations New Species Foss., pi. 7,

figs. 4a-d. 

1868. Nuculana Vaseyana. McChesney, Chicago Acad. Sci., Trails., vol. 1, p. 37,

pi. 7, figs. 4a-d. (Date of imprint, 1867-1869.) 

Hamilton group: Batesville, Ark.

McChesney says:

Shell small, nearly twice as long as wide, moderately compressed, most gibbous on 

the umbones, broadly rounded at the anterior end, rapidly tapering from the beaks 

toward the posterior extremity, which is narrow and sharply rounded; beaks situated 

about one-third the length of the shell from the anterior extremity, very small, closely 

approximate, pointing posteriorly; cardinal line, posterior of the beak, elevated into 

a sharp ridge, ventral margin gently and regularly curving; hinge with from twelve to 

sixteen comparatively strong teeth, about equally distributed on the anterior and 

posterior sides of the beak.

Surface marked by very fine elevated concentric striae, which conform to the border 

of the shell. Interior of the shell (as shown by the depression on casts) has a somewhat 

strong and elevated ridge rising from beneath the beak and passing obliquely downward, reaching the edge at about the center of the ventral margin; which character 

places it under the genus Nuculites of Conrad.
84 FAUNA OF MOOREFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

This shell is very much the form of Leda polita (nobis), but the concentric striae are 

coarser, and the shell is not so ventricose; but the internal structure at once separates 

it from that, as well as from all other species of Leda.

Geological position and locality. In shales of the age of the Hamilton rocks of New 

York, Batesville, Ark.

This species was described without any question from the Moorefield shale and therefore belongs in the present discussion. At the 

same time no specimens have come to hand that can definitely be 

assigned to it. We have a few specimens from the same region 

from which the originals of. L. vaseyana were obtained, but they 

seem to belong to another species, unless the differences which undoubtedly exist between them and McChesney's description and 

figures can be explained as adventitious. A- single specimen from 

the same horizon at Marshall has been referred to L. vaseyana. It 

is a very indistinct impression and has the beak apparently rather 

more terminal.

As my own fossils are too poor to describe or figure and as McChesney's description and figures occur in a rather rare work I have 

reproduced them for the present occasion.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (McChesney); Marshall quadrangle, Marshall (station 

7038c(?)).

LEDA NASUTA Hall?

Plate XI, figure 6.

1856. Nucula nasuta. Hall, Albany Inst., Trans., vol. 4, p. 17. (Date of imprint,

1858-1864. 

Warsaw limestone: Spergen Hill, Ind.

1882. Nuculana nasuta. Whitfield, Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. Bull., vol. 1, p. 57, pi. 7,

figs. 7-9. 

Warsaw division: Spergen Hill, Ind.

1883. Leda nasuta. Hall, Dept. Geology and Nat. Hist. Indiana, Twelfth Kept.,

1882, p. 344, pi. 30, figs. 7-9.

[Warsaw limestone]: Spergen Hill and Lanesville, Ind. 

1906. Nuculana nasuta. Beede, Dept. Geology and Nat. Res. Indiana, Thirtieth

Ann. Kept., 1905, p. 1324, pi. 23, figs. 7-9. 

Salem limestone: Spergen Hill, Ellettsville, Stinesville, and Romona, Ind.

Of this type our collection contains three specimens, all internal 

molds. From the locality and horizon at which they were found 

one would be inclined to identify them with Leda vaseyana McChesney, but the characters hardly agree with that species sufficiently to 

warrant an identification. The beak is too nearly central and the 

anterior or longer side relatively too short. In these characters the 

form agrees more closely with L. nasuta, at least with the figures of 

one of Hall's types. The other figures, representing perhaps the 

more dominant variety, show the shell distinctly higher over the 

posterior portion and more rapidly tapering to the pointed anterior 

end.
PELECYPODA. . 85

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (station 1248A2).

PARALLELODONTID^E.

Genus PARALLELODON Meek.

PARALLELODON MULTILIRATUS Girty.

Plate XII, figures 3, 4.

1909. Pamllelodon multiliratus. Girty, U. S. Geol. Survey, Bull. 377, p. 39, pi. 3,

figs. 4, 5. 

Caney shale: Atoka and Tishomingo quadrangles, Oklahoma.

This species is abundant in one of our collections from the Moorefield shale, but the specimens are apt to be imperfect and poorly preserved. Few if any specimens exceed 25 mm. in width and the average is smaller. The height is unusually great for the width, the two 

dimensions being in the ratio of 1 to 1$ or 1 to 2. The shape is subovate, contracting rather strongly toward the front. The beak is 

only a short distance from the subangular cardinal extremity. The 

convexity is low and the umbonal ridge not very prominent or 

angular.

The surface is crossed by fine,subequal radiating lirse, which become 

still finer anterior to the umbonal ridge. In some specimens the liration is finer than in others.

I feel little doubt about the identity of these Moorefield shells with 

those from the Caney shale, which I described as Parallelodon multiliratus. The two fragmentary specimens which constitute the types 

both belong to the finely lirated section. There are in the Moorefield shale specimens with sculpture quite as fine, while others have 

it slightly coarser. One of the types represents the transverse and 

the other the compact form of the species, both of which occur 

in the Moorefield shale. It is quite possible that in the transverse 

shells the proportions have been somewhat modified by compression.

This is a rather well-marked species, characterized by its compact 

shape, low and regular convexity, and very fine liration. P. truncatus 

and P. newarkensis appear to be the most closely related forms.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (1248R, 2049a, 2049c, 2053).

Genus CYPBICABDINIA Hall. 

CTPEICARDINIA ? MOOREFIELDANA n. sp.

Plate XII, figures 1,'2.

Shell rather large, transverse, subovate, rapidly narrowing toward 

the front. The height is to the width about as 1 to 1^. The cardinal 

line is nearly three-fourths of the entire width. The lower margin is 

gently convex, rounding up at the ends. The beak is but slightly
86 FAUNA OP MOOREFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

posterior to the regularly rounded anterior extremity. Posterior 

outline subtruncate, slightly oblique, with a distinct cardinal angle, 

and a broadly rounded posterior-inferior outline. Convexity moderate, chiefly localized along the median portion. Umbonal ridge not 

distinct. Postcardinal slopes compressed.

Surface marked by regular concentric striae at rather distant intervals. Intermediate ones are sometimes developed so that some 

specimens are more closely striated than others. No distinct traces 

of radiating lirae have been detected. The right valve bears two long 

linear posterior teeth.

This form appears to represent a type of shell which has sometimes 

been referred to Macrodon ( = Parallelodon), sometimes to Cypricardinia. It differs from typical Parallelodon in being less transverse 

and more rapidly contracting toward the front. The anterior extension of Parallelodon is longer and more angular. The sculpture of 

Parallelodon consists of persistent radiating costae, while in the present group there are strong regular concentric striae or imbricating 

concentric lamellae upon which the costae, when present, are not 

persistent. I am by no means sure that these shells are quite distinct from Parallelodon, though probably they form at least a subgeneric group, but they seem to be less closely allied to it than to" 

Cypricardinia.

Cypricardiniaf moorefieldana occurs associated with Parallelodon 

multiliratus, and upon a casual examination might be mistaken for 

it, but it is distinguished by the regular concentric striae and the 

absence, so far as can be determined, of distinct radiating lirae. Of 

described species probably Macrodon Jiamiltonise and M. ovatus are 

the most similar. M. Jiamiltonise, is more obliquely truncated behind 

and has distinct radial striae. M. ovatus also is more obliquely truncated and is more rapidly contracting toward the front.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 1248T, 2049a).

PTERIID^E ?

Genus CANEYELLA Girty. 

CANEYELLA VAUGHANI Girty.

Plate XI, figure 12.

1909. Caneyella vaughani. Girty, U. S. Geol. Survey, Bull. 377, p. 35, pi. 4, figs. 7-10. 

Caney shale: McAlester, Stonewall, and Tishomingo quadrangles, Oklahoma.

Our collection contains only one specimen of this species, consisting of only a little more than half of the shell. While I have-personally little doubt that it belongs to the species which in the Caney 

shale I described as Caneyella vaughani, it is not possible to establish 

this fact beyond question.
PELECYPODA. 87

The horizon of this and several other species is considerably above 

the calcareous basal portion of the Moorefield shale, to which Professor Williams gave the name of "Spring Creek limestone," and it 

may have belonged to the horizon of the Batesville sandstone, though 

such is not thought to be the case.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Moorefield (station 205Ib).

CANEYELLA WAPANUCKENSIS Girty?

1909. Caneyella wapanuckensis. Girty, U. S. Geol. Survey, Bull. 377, p. 34, pi. 3,

figs. 6-11.

Caney shale: Tuskahoma, Antlers, Atoka, McAlester, and Tishomingo quadrangles, Oklahoma.

The single fragmentary specimen is extremely suggestive of the 

species named above, but its imperfect condition leaves a reasonable 

doubt as to whether it actually belongs to that species.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Marshall quadrangle, Marshall (station 7039).

CANEYELLA PERCOSTATA Girty.

Plate XI, figures 10, 11.

1909. Caneyella percostata. Girty, U. S. Geol. Survey, Bull. 377, p. 37, pi. 4, figs. 2-6. 

Caney shale: McAlester, Atoka, and Tishomingo quadrangles, Oklahoma.

The shells referred to this species are small and subovate, with a 

strongly oblique axis, nearly terminal beaks, and narrow arched anterior, portion. The posterior wing is broad and the lower portion 

swung backward so as to project considerably beyond the hinge line, 

whose length is somewhat more than half the greatest width. The 

postcardinal angle is obtuse and somewhat rounded. The surface is 

marked by concentric' undulations and a few coarse, strong, widely 

spaced costae. There can, I think, be no doubt that this is the 

same species which I have described from the Caney shale under the 

name C. percostata. The Moorefield specimens are, however, a trifle 

smaller.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (station 2052).

CANEYELLA NASUTA Girty.

Plate XI, figures 8, 9.

1909. Caneyella nasuta, Girty, U. S. Geol. Survey, Bull. 377, p. 37, pi. 3, figs.

12-14. 

Caney shale: Tuskahoma and Antlers quadrangles, Oklahoma.

At station 2052 a small species of Caneyella occurs in considerable 

abundance, but for the most part in a very fragmentary condition. 

The specimen figured is the most complete, and it is representative
88 " FAUNA OF MOOREFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

of the rest. The shape is elongate-ovate, very oblique, with a relatively long arched anterior extremity. The beak is small and 

strongly anterior, but not terminal. The hinge line is more than half 

as long as the entire width, and the body of the shell, projecting far 

behind it, causes the posterior outline to be so strongly oblique that 

the post-cardinal angle is hardly perceptible. The surface is marked 

by concentric striae and undulations and by numerous rather fine, 

obscure, radiating costse.

The shells having the foregoing characters occur with others in 

which radiating costse appear to be entirely absent. In young stages 

the hinge seems to be shorter and the obliquity less strong.

I feel little hesitation in identifying this as C. nasuta, though some 

minor differences exist between specimens. Even from the original 

material this was seen to be a rather variable form. The specimen 

selected for illustration appears to have a shorter hinge line than two 

of the originals from the Caney shale (which are, after all, not very 

distinct in regard to this matter), but they agree with the third 

specimen.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (station 2052a).

TBIGONIID^E.

Genus SCHIZODTJS King.

SCHIZODUS BATESVILLENSIS Weller.

Plate XII, figure 5.

1897. Schizodus batesvillensis. Weller, New York Acad. Sci., Trails., vol. 16, p. 266,

pi. 20, figs. 8, 9. (Date of imprint, 1898.) 

Batesville sandstone: Batesville, Ark.

A few specimens from the Moorefield shale probably belong to the 

species which Mr. Weller described from the same general locality, 

but from a slightly higher horizon, as S. latesvillensis. They are not 

very perfect, but when restored from the growth lines the shape agrees 

too well with Weller's figures to warrant separating them as a distinct 

species. They agree even more closely with the shell from the Maxville limestone which Whitfield figures under the title Sckizodus 

chesterensis. I agree with Mr. Weller in believing that that citation 

should be placed in the synonymy of S. latesvillensis, having indeed 

formed the opinion from his figures before reading the statement in 

the text.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville qua'drangle, 

Spring Creek (station 2048); Marshall quadrangle, Marshall (station 

7038c(?)).
PELECYPODA. 89 

PECTINIDJE. 

Genus DELTOPECTEN Etheridge.

DELTOPECTEN BATESVILLENSIS Weller.

Plate XI, figures 1-4.

1897. Amculopecten batesvillensis. Weller, New York Acad. Sci., Trans., vol. 16,

p. 263, pi. 19, figs. 3, 4. (Date of imprint, 1898.) 

Batesville sandstone: Batesville, Ark.

This species is abundant in the Moorefield shale, and as the specimens are better preserved than in the Batesville sandstone, from 

which the originals were obtained, I am able to add somewhat to Mr. 

Weller's description.

The largest specimen examined has a length of 36 mm., considerably greater than any example which I have seen from the Batesville

sandstone. The proportion of length and width varies in different 

specimens, but usually the length is the greater. The axis is slightly 

inclined backward. The umbo is always situated anterior to the 

middle of the hinge line, which it sometimes divides almost in the 

proportion of one to two. The lower part of the shell is subcircular, 

the anterior portion projecting beyond the end of the hinge line. 

The outline of the posterior side is concave, more so in some specimens 

than in others, and when it is nearly straight the posterior wing is 

relatively large, and it is always larger than the anterior. In the 

right valve this wing (the anterior) is defined by a deep angular 

byssal sinus. Where preserved in limestone the left valve is rather 

strongly convex, with a prominent pointed beak. Specimens preserved in the sandy calcareous shale are flatter. The anterior wing 

is abruptly and strongly depressed and its boundary is consequently 

distinct, but the posterior wing is undefined.

The right valve is nearly flat. The posterior wing is undefined, 

but the anterior is defined by a narrow groove and by a deep sinus in 

the outline.

The sculpture of the left valve consists of moderately coarse, 

strongly rounded ribs separated by narrow deep striae. The ribs 

vary, being subequal in some specimens, distinctly alternating in 

others, and of three sizes in still others. It is difficult to determine 

whether new ribs arise by division of older ones or by intercalation. 

If by the former method, the ribs do not bifurcate equally but divide 

into larger and smaller, thus maintaining for the larger unit a more 

or less uniform size throughout. In cases where the costae are conspicuously unequal, however, equal bifurcation takes place, the 

larger ones in many cases being incompletely divided by a median
90 FAUNA OF MOOREFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

groove. The costse decrease in size and definition toward the sides, 

those on the wings becoming suddenly much finer and more dike 

lirse than costse; they are often not preserved on molds of the interior. 

Those on the anterior wing are few and widely separated.

There are also regularly arranged concentric crenulations which 

are fine and lamellose and especially strong and conspicuous on the 

wings.

The right valve is marked by costse, but by much finer ones than 

those on the other valve, as is the custom in this group. Those on the 

wings are even much finer than those on the body of the shell, and 

the anterior wing has only three or four. Crenulations appear to be 

absent or inconspicuous over the body of the shell, but are high, 

thin, and closely arranged on the wings.

While the character of the-hinge plate is not shown by our specimens, this form is referred to Deltopecten with some confidence because 

of its close agreement with D. occidentalis.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 1237R, 1248R4, 1248Rx, 2048, 2049a( ?), 2049b, 

2049d), Moorefield (station 2051b), Howards Wells (station 1248X).

DELTOPECTEN ? sp.

Plate XI, figure 5.

Pectinoid shells are not rare in the lower part of the Moorefield 

shale, but all thus far obtained seem to represent a single species, 

that which Mr. Weller described from the same region, but from a 

somewhat higher horizon, as Aviculipecten latesvillensis. Only one 

specimen can be excepted, a right valve, which I am unable definitely to identify. It is a medium-sized shell with a length of 28 mm. 

and a width about the same. The umbo divides into nearly equal 

parts the hinge line, which is about one-half as long as the greatest 

width. The wings are small, the posterior not as well defined from 

the .body of the shell as the other, which is nearly isolated by the 

deep byssal sinus. The convexity is low and the axis is slightly 

inclined backward.

The surface is marked by not very distinct, closely arranged, 

concentric striae. Costse there are none save on the anterior wing, 

which has two or three, slender and widely separated.

This shell is clearly distinct from the right valves of D. Itatesvillensis, having a higher convexity, a different shape, and especially 

a different sculpture, since it is without radial costse.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (station 2049a).
GASTROPODA. 91

PHOLADELLID^E.

Genus ALLERISMA King.

ALLEKISMA WALKERI var. ABBREVIATUM n. var. 

Plate X, figure 11.

The fossils included in this group are of such a generalized type and 

-the essential characters are so far unknown that I am a little uncertain under what genus to cite them. They suggest a rather 

strongly transverse Edmondia or a rather compact Allerisma, to 

which genus they may provisionally be referred. To some extent 

they suggest two species in the fauna of the Batesville sandstone, and 

there may be some question as to whether their affinities lie rather 

with A. waikeri or with the associated form which Mr. Weller described as A. arkansanum, but which I suspect to belong to quite 

another group that of Schizodus. They are more broadly rounded 

behind than A. arkansanum and have the concentric plications 

continued quite across the shell. On this account it seems probable 

that they are more closely allied to A. waikeri. They are uniformly 

less transverse than A. waikeri and it seems desirable on this account 

to recognize them as a distinct variety. The Waveiiy species 

A. cuyahoga is rather closely comparable, but I hesitate to make an 

identification with a species of which I have no specimens and which 

occurs in so different an area and faunal association. When poorly 

preserved, it is not always easy to distinguish specimens of this form 

from Scliizodus batesvillensis.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (station 2048).

GASTROPODA.

PLETJROTOMARIID^E.

Genus BEMBEXIA Oehlert.

BEMBEXIA NODIMARGINATA McChesnej7 . 

Plate VII, figures 1-5.

1860. Pleurotomaria nodomarginata. McChesney, Desc. New Species Pal. Foss.,

p. 70. (Date of imprint, 1859.) 

Hamilton group: Near Batesville, Ark. 

1865. Pleurotomaria nodomarginata. McChesney, Illustrations New Species Foss.,

pi. 7, figs. la-c. 

1868. Pleurotomaria nodomarginata. McChesney, Chicago Acacl. Sci., Trans., vol. 1,

p. 47, pi. 7, figs. la-c. (Date of imprint, 1867-1869.) 

Hamilton group: Near Batesville, Ark. 

1884. Pleurotomaria nodomarginata. Walcott, U. S. Geol. Survey, Mon. 8, p. 259,

pi. 18, fig. 15. 

Lower Carboniferous: Eureka district, Nevada.
92 FAUNA OF MOOREFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

McChesney says:

Shell rather email; spire elevated conical, composed of from three to four volutions; 

length of the shell equal to one and a half its greatest diameter. Volutions somewhat 

angular, flattened above and rounded below, having the periphery marked by a 

narrow flattened or slightly concave spiral band; outer volutions joining onto the preceding ones just below the band; suture well marked, scarcely canaliculated. Columella straight, produced below, which makes the distance below the spiral band at 

the commencement of the last volution considerably more than half the entire length 

of the specimen. Border of the lips thin, gently receding toward the middle; notch 

shallow, axis solid.

Surface marked by coarse transverse striae, of equal strength above and below the 

band, and which are gently recurved toward the notch, conforming to the border of 

the lip, and more abruptly on the spiral band. These striae, when seen through a lens, 

present somewhat the appearance of projecting lamellae. At the upper edge of the 

volution every alternate stria is elevated, forming a sort of elongate node, which are 

sometimes elevated so as to present the appearance of a band of nodes; the striae 

between die out at the commencement of the nodes.

.This shell is of the same type as P. sulcomarginata of Conrad, from the Hamilton 

rocks of New York, but is a much longer shell, the surface markings are proportionately 

coarser, the nodes near the upper margin of the volution are very much larger and 

commence at the earliest ages of the shell, while those of the other species" are not developed until the shell is nearly half grown. It is also destitute of the second row of 

small nodes a little above the revolving band, which forms a conspicuous feature in 

P. sulcomarginata.

Geological position and locality: In shales of the age of the Hamilton group of New 

York, near Batesville, Ark.

The foregoing is McChesney's original description. My shells, 

which must have come from nearly the same locality and horizon, 

present the following characters:

Shell small, conical, consisting of three or four rapidly expanding 

volutions. Greatest height somewhat greater than the greatest 

diameter. Final volutions about two-thirds of the whole. Peritreme 

section subquadrate with a broad, strongly elevated carina about

midway. Upper external surface nearly flat, strongly declining; 

lower external surface gently convex. Suture not strongly depressed. Spire rather regularly conical. Axis imperforate. Volutions embracing up to the carina. Sculpture consisting of strong, 

angular, regular ridges which swing backward with the convex side 

outermost, most prominent near the suture. Below the slit band, 

which is situated on the carina, the ridges or costae are more nearly 

transverse or less strongly directed backward. The slit itself is deep.

This species differs from B. shumardi, the only other representative 

of this group from the Mississippian, in its smaller size, lower spire, 

less transverse whorl section, and corrugated surface.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 1248Al(?), 1248A2(?), 1248R5, 2048,2049, 

2053).
GASTROPODA. 93 

BELLEROPHONTIDJB.

Genus BUCANOPSIS Ulrich. 

BUCANOPSIS CANCELLATA Hall ?

1856. Bellerophon cancellatus. Hall (not B. cancellatus Hall, 1847), Albany Inst.,

Trans., vol. 4, p. 31. (Date of imprint, 1858-1864.) 

Warsaw limestone: Bloomington and Spergen Hill, Ind. 

1877. Bellerophon textilis. Hall, Miller's Am. Pal. Foss., p. 243.

1882. Bellerophon textilis? Whitfield, Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., Bull., vol. 1, p. 90, pi. 8,

figs. 4, 5. 

Warsaw division: Spergen Hill and Bloomington, Ind.

1883. Bellerophon textilis. Hall, Dept. Geology and Nat. Hist. Indiana, Twelfth

Kept., p. 371, pi. 31, figs. 4, 5. 

Warsaw group: Spergen Hill, Lanesville, and Bloomington, Ind.

1884. Bellerophon textilis* Walcott, U. S. Geol. Survey, Mon. 8, p. 257, pi. 18, fig. 18.

Lower Carboniferous: Eureka district, Nevada. 

1897. Bucanopsis textilis. Ulrich, Geol. Survey Minnesota, Final Kept., vol. 3, pt. 2,

p. 854. 

1906. Bucanopsis textilis. Beede, Dept. Geology and Nat. Res. Indiana, Thirtieth

Ann. Kept., 1905, p. 1362, pi. 25, figs. 4, 5.

Salem limestone: Spergen Hill, Bloomington, Paynters Hill, Harrodsburg, and 

Stinesville, Ind.

This form is represented by a fragmentary specimen with imperfectly preserved sculpture. The latter consists of fine revolving 

lirse crossed by more widely spaced transverse lamellae. While it is 

highly probable that this shell belongs to Hall's species, the specimen 

is too incomplete to make the identification certain.

Overlooking the fact that he had in 1847 used Bellerophon cancellatus for an Ordovician species, Hall in 1856 introduced the same 

name for the present one, changing it later to Bellerophon textilis. 

The original B. cancellatus has since been shown to be a Protowarthia, 

just as the present one has been shown to be a Bucanopsis. It 

becomes possible, therefore, to return to the original name in the 

present case.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (station 2049a).

Genus BELLEROPHON Montfort.

BELLEROPHON sp.

Under this title are included three specimens, internal molds, 

whose affinities are much in doubt. The shape impresses me rather 

as that of Eupliemus or Belleroplion ss., while Patellostium is clearly 

not among them, nor probably Bucanopsis. As among these three 

genera, however, the position is not positively determinable.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 124SR4, 2048).
94 FAUNA OF MOOBEFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

CAPULID^E.

Genus STROPHO STYLUS Hall.

STROPHOSTYLUS aff. CARLEYANUS Hall.a

Plate VII, figure 6.

This species is represented by five or six imperfect specimens 

which seem to be closely related to the species named above, but no 

definite identification is possible with the present material. The 

only specimen showing the spire is rather small and appears to have 

the earlier volutions little if at all elevated above the final one. If 

this is a normal example, it doubtless represents a species or variety 

distinct from Hall's.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale. Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 1248R4, 2048, 2049b), Moorefield (station 

2051?).

CEPHALOPODA.

ORTHOCERATID^].

Genus'ORTHOCER AS Bruyn.

ORTHOCERAS afF. CREBRILIRATUM Girty.&

Under this title are included two specimens, one much smaller 

than the other and from a slightly different horizon. The siphuncle 

is large and subcentral, the shell straight and gradually tapering, and 

the chambers low. From 2£ to 3 occur in a diameter. The sculpture 

is unknown. The larger fragment has a diameter of about 8 mm. 

and the smaller a diameter of about 2 mm.

In its proportions this shell more nearly approaches 0. crebriliratum than any other, but the chambers are not quite so high.

Inasmuch as the sculpture is not known, a satisfactory identification

is impossible. Should that feature prove to be in agreement, however, it would probably not be desirable, because of the slight difference in the height of the chambers, to discriminate it from 

0. crebriliratum.

Horizon 'and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 1248A2, 2049a).

ORTHOCERAS sp. a

Plate XIII, figure 1.

Under this title is included a single specimen representing a rather 

large rapidly expanding species. The example, which is 95 mm. long, 

has a diameter of 26£ mm. at the large end. and 16 mm. at the small

oHall, Trans. Albany Inst, vol. 4, 1856, p. 31; Whitfleld, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., vol. 1, 1882, p. 71, 

pi. 8, figs. 26, 27. 

&Girty, G. H., Bull. U. S. Geol. Survey, No, 377, 1909, p. 46, pi. 6, figs. 9, 10,
CEPHALOPODA. 95

one. It is perfectly straight and appears to represent only the 

chamber of habitation, since no septa are visible. It is further 

characterized by a sculpture consisting of very fine, sharply raised 

lines, separated by relatively broad intervals. The intervals vary 

greatly in size, the larger being as much as three times the width of 

the smaller; they are irregular, being curved locally without any 

apparent regard to orientation; in places a later set cuts diagonally 

across an earlier one.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale; Batesville quadrangle, 

Moorefield (station 2051c).

ORTHOCERAS sp. 1).

This group includes two specimens, apparently chambers of habita-' 

tion. They are large and smooth, the larger having a diameter of 

about 25 mm. They differ from species a in the smoothness of 

their surface. The larger was found associated with specimens identified as Bactrites? carbonarius, but it has" been placed under a separate 

heading because of its large size. The smaller one may belong to 

that species, however, for at least that difference does not exist.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (station 2052a), Moorefield (station 2051).

TAINOCERATID^E.

Genus ENDOLOBTJS Meek.

ENDOLOBUS ORNATUS n. sp.

Plate XIII, figure 2.

This form is known only from a fragment representing the .outer 

chamber. When complete it may have had a diameter of 40 mm. or 

less. The volutions enlarge rapidly, are but slightly embracing, and 

have a wide umbilicus exposing all the earlier volutions. The cross 

section is transversely elliptical with pointed ends. The larger end of 

the fragment has a width of 20 mm. and a height of 13 mm. The 

ventral surface is less strongly arched than the'dorsal, which has a 

narrow impressed zone, not found, however, on the earlier portion of 

the shell. Aside from the sculpture, which consists of numerous fine, 

sharp, revolving lirse, the surface is smooth, except for broad indistinct 

constrictions confined to the sides, to which they give an obscurely 

nodose appearance. In addition to the revolving lirae already mentioned, there are regular lamellose growth lines, doubtless following 

the shape of the aperture and indicating the presence of a deep 

emargination or hyponomic sinus across the middle of the vfentral 

surface. The siphuncle is large and situated a little to the ventral
96 FAUNA OF MOOREFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

side of the middle. The height of the chambers is not known. The 

suture is nearly straight across the ventral surface with perhaps a 

broad indistinct saddle, and there is a deep angular lobe on the middle 

of the dorsum. On either side of the annular lobe the suture appears 

to be slightly elevated to form an obscure saddle.

This species resembles E. spectabilis but is much smaller. It is safe 

to say that when of the same size E. spectabilis would present quite 

different characters, and if this form attained the size of E. spectabilis 

other differences would be found. This species also has transverse 

and revolving sculpture, a feature not found in E. spectabilis and even 

said to be foreign to the genus.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Moorefield (station 2051c).

BACTRITID^E.

Genus BACTRITES Sandberger.

BACTRITES? CARBONARIUS Smith. 

Plate XIII, figures 3, 4, 5.

1903. Bactrites carbonarius. Smith, U. S. Geol. Survey, Mon..42, pi. 6, figs. 9-11. 

Fayetteville shale: Near Moorefield, Ark.

The original specimens of this species were obtained from the 

Moorefield shale at Moorefield, Ark. The Survey collection contains 

a few fragments from the same locality, but they are smaller and much 

less perfect. The other characters, however, are similar, and there 

can be little question that they really belong to Smith's species.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Moorefield (station 2051).

BACTRITES? SMITHIANUS Girty.

1909. Bactrites? smithianus. Girty, U. S. Geol. Survey, Bull. 377, p. 53, pi. 6,

figs. 5, 6. 

Caney shale: Atoka, Stonewall, and Tishomingo quadrangles, Oklahoma.

The specimens under consideration were obtained at Batesville in 

the "Spring Creek limestone" and differ from the Moorefield examples identified as B.f carbonarius in being much smaller and in having 

the chambers relatively longer. In the latter the diameter at any 

point is about equal to 1^ the height of the chambers, while in these 

little specimens the height of the chambers and the diameter are equal. 

It is possible that B. carbonarius in its immature condition has relatively longer chambers than when of large size, but, on the other 

hand, in B.f smithianus we have a species in which the chambers show 

the same proportions as in the specimens under consideration. B.f 

smithianus, so far as known, does not attain the size of B.f carbon^-
CEPHALOPODA. 97

rius, but these specimens are very small even for B.f smiihianus. 

Those which show the septa have a diameter of 2 mm., while a larger 

unsegmented fragment is twice as large. The typical specimen of 

B.f smithianus has a diameter of only 6 mm.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (station 1248A1).

GLYPHIO CERATID^E.

Genus GONIATITES de Haan. 

GONIATITES CHOCTAWENSIS Shumai'd.

. Plate XV, figures 1-7.

1863. Goniatites choctawensis. Shumard, Acad. Sci. St. Louis, Trans., vol. 2, p. 109.

Coal Measures: Choctaw Nation. 

1903. Goniatites choctawensis. .Smith, U. S. Geol. Survey, Mon. 42, p. 67.

Bend formation: Choctaw Nation (?), Ind. T. 

1903. Goniatites striatus. Smith (non Sowerby ?), idem, p. 80, pi. 10, figs. 1-11; pi. 26,

figs. 6-13. 

.. Fayetteville shale: Batesville, Ark.

Bend formation: near Lampasas, Tex. 

1909. Goniatites choctawensis. Girty, U. S. Geol. Survey, Bull. 377, p. 59, pi. 13, figs.

1-11.

Caney shale: Tuskahoma, Antlers, McAlester, Tishomingo, and Stonewall 

quadrangles, Oklahoma.

As I noted in discussing this species from specimens obtained in the 

Caney shale, there are found among the latter two varieties of this 

form, one distinguished most obviously from the other by being 

somewhat narrower over the ventral surface with the sides more distinctly expanding toward the umbilicus. It was likewise noted that a 

third variation was found in specimens from the Moorefield shale from. 

Moorefield, Ark. The latter are distinguished by having the sculpture 

somewhat coarser and by retaining the predominance of the transverse 

over the radiating sculpture (a youthful character of this group) until 

a considerably later period. That is, shells from the Caney shale 

show continuous revolving lirae with only faint transverse crenulations, 

while those from Moorefield of the same size show transverse lamellae 

with strongly crenulated margins. Of these three groups that from 

Moorefield is perhaps the most distinct and deserving of varietal 

recognition. Yet I am somewhat doubtful of the advisability of 

recognizing it. Such observations as I have made on these shells 

would indicate that they are liable to local variations in matters of 

detail, all the specimens from one locality, it may be, showing one 

group of characters and all from another showing the same group more 

or less modified from the first occurrence. These occurrences doubtless represent somewhat different horizons as well as different locali46447° Bull. 439 11 7
98 FAUNA OF MOOEEFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

ties, but whether the differences of character remain true to horizon is 

yet to be demonstrated.

From the Moorefield shale our specimens are obtained from three 

different localities, all, however, only a few miles apart Moorefield, 

Spring Creek, and Howards Wells. Those from Moorefield have 

already been referred to, while the specimens from Spring Creek are 

all diminutive and doubtfully identified. 'Our specimens from Howards Wells, are poorly preserved, but they are characterized by having 

at an early stage fine revolving lirae with subordinate transverse lirae. 

In other words, they agree not with the shells obtained at Moorefield, 

but with the typical variety obtained from the Caney shale, especially 

with the one having parallel sides. This is true with but one exception, a small specimen measuring 13 mm. in diameter which has the 

coarse sculpture and transverse crenulated lamellae of the Moorefield 

form. Other specimens of the same size show fine continuous revolving lirae. From these facts it seems doubtful to me whether it would 

serve any useful purpose to discriminate the Moorefield form. )

Smith seems to include these shells under Goniatites striatus Sowerby. He remarks : a -*~^j

There seem to be among the American specimens two rather well-marked varieties 

of this species, one with the spiral lines very sharp and the cross striae very weak; this 

one occurs in the St. Louis-Chester stage of Batesville, Ark.; the other has the spiral 

lines and cross striae of about equal strength, and very sharply defined crenulations; 

this occurs in the St. Louis-Chester stage, the Bend formation of central Texas (Glyphioceras cumminsi Hyatt, pi. x, figs. 1-11), although it seems to the writer that Hyatt 

has included under this designation specimens of both G. striatus and G. crenistria. In 

youth these varieties can not be distinguished from each other, nor from G. crenistria, 

which is associated with them. ,

These two varieties of G. striatus are very comparable to the two 

which I have here noted under G. choctawensis and I suspect that 

Smith's striatus is in the main equivalent to my choctawensis, although

he suggests that choctawensis may be identical with G. crenistria.

Smith figures a specimen from Batesville having a diameter of 

about 9 mm., which is marked by continuous lirae. Thus it appears 

that his specimens from Batesville agree with our specimens from 

Howards Wells, while our specimens from Moorefield are more in 

agreement with Hyatt's Glyphioceras cumminsi, which Smith apparently did not find in Arkansas at all. In fact, our fossils from Howards Wells show three phases. Most of them have a fine ornamentation of continuous revolving lirse. A young specimen 12 mm. in 

diameter has this feature with strong, though distinctly subordinate, 

transverse lamellae. Another of about the same size has cumminsi 

characters, i. e., coarser ornamentation of nearly equally transverse 

and revolving lines; while a third has the sculpture more fine but about 

equally cancellated.

«Smith, J. P., The Carboniferous ammonoids of America; Mon. U. S. Geol. Survey, vol. 42,1903,p. 81.
CEPHALOPODA. 99

It may possibly prove desirable to recognize three or even more 

varieties of this form, but for the present I am referring all to a 

single species, as Smith has done. I am, however, citing them 

under G. choctawensis Shumard, because, though their relationship to 

G. striatus and G. crenistria is undoubted, their exact specific identity 

has not been shown.

As above noted, Smith suggests that G. choctawensis is the same as 

G. crenistria (not striatus). In the synonymy of G. crenistria he 

includes G. incisum Hyatt, described from Texas, a species which I 

think is related to Gastrioceras richardsonianum and G. Jcingi, while 

under it he describes and figures certain fossils from the Moorefield 

shale. G. crenistria of Smith, as based on Arkansas fossils, 1 confess, 

appears to me to resemble one of the groups here included under 

G. choctawensis, so that that species as interpreted by me may prove 

to contain Smith's G. striatus and part of his G. crenistria. G. crenistria (as'possessing the characters of G. incisum) does not occur in 

the Survey collections, and in case my surmise regarding Smith's 

specimens is correct, it is not known from the Moorefield shale at all 

unless his identification of G. calyx is based upon an immature representative of the species. For the present, however, I am assuming 

that Smith actually found specimens in the Moorefield related to 

G. incisum; and under G. choctawensis I am citing his identification 

of G. striatus, which I believe to be based on the same types of shells.

My figures of a specimen in the Survey collection (figs. 7, 7a) represent one of the two types found in the Moorefield shale and here 

included under G. choctawensis; the figures copied from Smith appear 

to represent the other. It is possible that the form may really be the 

same form which he identified as G. crenistria, but I am convinced 

that it is distinct from G. incisum, which he places in the synonymy of 

G. crenistria. At the same time; as noted above, Smith seems to 

recognize two groups under G. striatus which are distinguished in the 

same manner as the two groups that I have here described as belonging to G. choctawensis.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (1248Al(«), 1248A2(?)), Moorefield (stations 2051, 

205 Ic), Howards Wells (station 1245A).

GONIATITES CEENISTKIA Phillips.0

Plate XV, figures 8, 9. '

1836. Goniatites crenistria. Phillips, Geology of Yorkshire, pt. 2, p. 234, pi. 19, figs.

7-9.

Mountain limestone: Bolland; Queens County; Fermanagh; Isle of Man. 

1884. Glyphioceras crenistria. Hyatt, Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., Proc., vol. 22, p. 329. 

1893. Glyphioceras incisum. Hyatt, Geol. Survey Texas, Fourth-Ann. Kept., p. 471,

pi. 47, figs. 44-48. 

Carboniferous: Near Richland Springs, San Saba County, Tex.

o For foreign synonymy and distribution, see Smith, loc. cit.
100 FAUNA OF MOOREFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

1897, Glyphioceras indsum. Smith, California Acad. Sci., Proc., (3), Geology, vol. 1,

no. 3, p. Ill, pis. 13-15.

Fayetteville shale: Moorefield, Independence County, Ark. 

1903. Goniatites crenistria. Smith, U. S. Geol. Survey, Mon. 42, p. 68, pi. 10, figs.

12-16 (?); pi. 14; pi. 15; pi. 16, figs, la-j; pi. 26, figs. 1-5. 

(?) Bend formation: Texas. 

Spring Creek limestone (Fayetteville shale): Moorefield and Boles, Ark.

Smith cites this species from two areas in North America from 

Texas, where Hyatt describes it under the name of G. indsum, and 

from Arkansas. Hyatt both describes and figures G. indsum as being 

marked by transverse lamellae entirely without crenulations. It 

appears to be closely similar in external appearance, at least, to the 

form from the White Pine shale of Nevada, which Hall and Whitfield o ^ ' C

described as Gastrioceras Jcingi, and to that from the Caney shale of 

Oklahoma which I described as Gastrioceras richardsonianum.

In his description of G. crenistria, based, it would appear, on specimens from Arkansas, Smith speaks of fine, sharp crenulations and a 

finely reticulate surface. Furthermore, his figures look much like 

the fossils from the same locality and horizon which I have called 

Goniatites choctawensis. I am assuming, however, that his Arkansas 

shells belong to the same species as that from Texas which Hyatt 

called G. indsum and that both belong to the European species 

G. crenistria. It is on this assumption and on the strength of Smith's 

specimens that G. crenistria is cited from the Moorefield shale, for 

the Survey collections contain no form which I would associate with 

G. indsum.

I am not entirely satisfied, however, that G. crenistria, as determined 

by Smith on Arkansas fossils, is the same as G. indsum Hyatt (whether 

it is identical with G. crenistria is still another matter); and I suspect 

that the latter may prove to be congeneric with Gastrioceras kingi 

and G. richardsonianwn. If this suspicion has any grounds it may be 

that G. crenistria is, after all, present in our collection and that I have 

included it with G. choctawensis. I have, in fact, included under that 

title two distinguishable types, one having the transverse sculpture 

coarser than the other and the revolving lirse initiated at a distinctly 

later period. It may be that the latter variety is what Smith calls 

G. crenistria and that the other is his G. striatus. At the same time 

he himself recognizes two sections of G. striatus which seem to bear 

the same relation to one another as the two sections which I have 

mentioned in G. choctawensis. It may be well to recall in this connection that I am using G. choctawensis for the same form which he 

calls G. striatus.

The fossils which Smith calls G. crenistria appear to have come from 

the Moorefield shale at Moorefield, Ark. In describing the occurrence 

he records it as "from the Spring Creek limestone, so-called Fayetteville shale, of Arkansas," and proceeds in the next paragraph to state
CEPHALOPODA. 101

that some of his figured specimens were "from Moorefield, Ark., from 

calcareous nodules in shales associated with an undoubted St. Louis 

fauna, and others from the same formation near Boles, Ark." This 

may be merely two ways of saying the same thing, but if so he does 

not elsewhere recognize the "Spring Creek limestone" at Moorefield.

This form as determined by Hyatt's G. incisum is very suggestive, 

at first glimpse, of the Caney species, Gastrioceras richardsonianum, 

but it has a slightly smaller umbilicus. Professor Smith's Arkansas 

fossils referred to the same species show still more important differences, having at maturity crenulated cross striae but being distinctly 

unlike in the larval condition.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Moorefield (fide J. P. Smith).

GONIATITES SUBCmCULARIS Miller.

Plate XIV, figures 7, 8.

1889. Goniatites subdrcularis. Miller, North Am. Geology and Pal., p. 440, fig. 741.

St. Louis group: Crab Orchard, Ky.

1903. Goniatites subdrcularis. Smith, U. S. Geol. Survey, Mon. 42, p. 81, pi. 26, figs. 

14-18.

Fayetteville shale: Batesville, Ark.

Smith cites this species from the Moorefield shale at Batesville, 

but it is not represented in the Survey collection. It might be questioned whether the shells which I have called Gastrioceras caneyanum 

do not really belong here. The large specimen of that species which 

I have figured from Howards Wells clearly has a much larger umbilicus and probably does not belong to G. subdrcularis. Smith states 

that G. subdrcularis, as represented by his specimens, is entirely 

without crenulations. The imperfect specimens from Howards 

Wells, provisionally referred to G. caneyanum, are clearly crenulated, 

and the single fragment from Batesville seems to retain traces of 

such markings, though the specimens, being rather poorly preserved, 

might have failed to preserve the crenulations, even if these were 

originally present.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Batesville (fide J. P. Smith).

GONIATITES NEWSOMI Smith.

Plate XIV, figure 1.

1903. Goniatites newsomi. Smith, U. S. Geol. Survey, Mon. 42, p. 78, pi. 17, figs. 2-5.

Fayetteville shale: Batesville, Ark.

1909. Goniatites newsomi. Girty, U. S. Geol. Survey, Bull. 377, p. 62, pi. 12, figs. 11, 

lla.

Caney shale: Antlers quadrangle, Oklahoma.

This species was described by Smith from the Moorefield shale at 

Batesville. Specimens representing G. newsomi are not found in the
102 FAUNA OF MOOREFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

collection studied, the most closely related being certain shells which 

I have identified as Gastriocerus caneyanum. As the suture and 

ontogeny of our shells are unknown, they may really belong to 

Smith's species rather than to my own. The best preserved appear 

to be distinctly less globose than G. newsomi, with a shape more like 

G. subcircularis but with a larger umbilicus.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Batesville (fide J. P. Smith).

Genus GASTRIOCERAS Hyatt. 

GASTRIOCERAS RICHARDSONIANUM Girty?

Plate XIV, figures 2, 3.

?1903. Glyphioceras calyx. Smith, U. S. Geol. Survey, Mon. 42, p. 62, pi. 18, figs. 1-11.

Fayetteville shale: Moorefield, Ark. 

1909. Gastriocerasrichardsonianum. Girty, U. S. Geol. Survey, Bull. 377, p. 54, pi. 11,

figs. 1-11. .

Caney shale: Antlers, Atoka, McAlester, Tishomingo, and Tuskahoma quadrangles, Oklahoma.

The specimens upon which this extremely provisional identification 

is based have not come under my personal 'observation, but were 

described and figured by J. P. Smith as Gastrioceras calyx Phillips. 

His specimens were obtained from the Moorefield shale at Moorefield. Smith calls attention to the fact that this species is marked by 

larval characters and that it may be merely an immature condition 

of some indeterminate form. The youthful condition of G. richardsonianum of the Caney shale, a species which was not described at 

the time he wrote, has an immature stage extremely suggestive of 

the form which he figures as G. calyx, and I believe it probable that 

they will prove to be the same species, although a positive Conclusion

is not justified without additional evidence.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Moorefield (fide J. P. Smith).

GASTRIOCERAS CANEYANUM Girty.

Plate XIV, figure 6.

1909. Gastrioceras caneyanum. Girty, U. S. Geol. Survey, Bull. 377, p. 57, pi. 15,

figs. 4-10.

Caney shale: Tuskahoma, Antlers, McAlester, Stonewall, and Tishomingo 

quadrangles, Oklahoma.

Under this title are included the large specimen represented by 

my figure and three or four smaller examples. All are more or less 

fragmentary and none shows the suture, so that this important aid 

in the determination of the species is not available. In external 

characters, however, there is a close agreement, except as noted below.
CEPHALOPODA. 103

I do not regard the identification as a very doubtful one, although 

complete affirmative evidence is not at hand.

If the large figured specimen were not interpreted as macerated 

and flattened it might be regarded as more discoidal than the Caney 

specimens, but it very clearly has been flattened, and, this aside, 

agrees well with specimens from that formation. The smaller specimens from the Moorefield shale are somewhat more finely striated 

than Caney specimens and may perhaps be regarded as a variety, 

but I am doubtful whether it is practicable to employ slight variations in this particular in delimiting species, since the same individual shows marked changes at different stages of growth and since 

I believe these changes are liable to be accelerated or retarded in 

different individuals.

Horizon- and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (station 2052), Howards Wells (stations 1245A, 1245B).

Genus ETJMOBPHOCEBAS Girty. 

EUMOKPHOCERAS BISULCATUM Girty.

Plate XIV, figure 4.

1909. Eumorphoceras bisulcatum. Girty, U. S. Geol. Survey, Bull. 377, p. 68, pi. 11,

figs. 15-19.

Caney shale: Tuskahoma, Antlers, Atoka, McAlester, and Tishomingo quadrangles, Oklahoma.

To this species has been referred a single specimen in a rather 

poor state of preservation, which probably represents a senile condition and exhibits such variations from the figured specimens of 

E. lisulcatumfrom. the Caney shale as such a condition would naturally 

show. The shape is even more discoidal, the height of the volutions 

increasing more rapidly than the width. In this case the greatest 

diameter must have been about 28 mm., and the thickness 7 mm. 

The two revolving sulci are retained in normal strength, but the 

plications near the umbilicus are fainter than in the typical specimens. They have the further peculiarity that the grooves are narrow relatively to the ridges, somewhat the reverse of the condition 

shown by the types; so that in the one form the configuration may 

be more aptly described as marked near the umbilicus by sulci, and 

in the other by pilas. Great variation is, however, shown in the 

Caney specimens in the size of these plications.

In so far as the suture line is shown, it does not differ materially 

from that of E. bisulcatum, and as in the latter, so here also, constrictions are lacking.

But few of the Caney specimens have such size and character 

of preservation that they can be compared advantageously with
104 FAUNA OP MOOREFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

.the present example, but I can not feel that there is much doubt that 

the latter belongs to the same species.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Howard's wells (station 1245A).

Genus ADELPHOCERAS Girty.

s

ADELPHOCERAS MESLERIANUM Girty? 

Plate XIV, figure 5.

1909. Adelphoceras meslerianum. Girty, U. S. Geol. Survey, Bull. 377, p. 66, pi. 12,

figs. 1-3. 

Caney shale: McAlester and Tishomingd quadrangles, Oklahoma.

Of this form our collection contains a single rather imperfect 

specimen which was found associated with the one identified as 

EumorpTioceras lisulcatum. It much resembles that specimen in 

general appearance and may prove to belong to the same species, 

since its real affinities are somewhat in doubt. It is, however, considerably smaller, less discoidal, with not only a relatively but also 

an absolutely larger umbilicus, and without the two conspicuous 

revolving sulci. The large umbilicus is a feature of A. meslerianum 

rather than of E. lisulcatum, but species of the latter vary considerably in this respect. The plications near the umbilicus at first 

suggest E. lisulcatum rather than A. meslerianum, but they are 

clearly distinct from those of typical E. lisulcatum, being larger, 

more irregular, and differently proportioned. In fact, they consist 

of the usual constrictions, which occur about five to a volution, with 

one or two short intermediate sulci extending part way up the sides. 

This is not quite the arrangement even of the large associated specimen referred to E. lisulcatum, because in that specimen complete 

periodic constrictions appear to be wanting, just as they are wanting 

in typical E. lisulcatum, another fact adverse to identifying this 

specimen with that species. Some suggestions of intermediate sulci 

can be observed in the typical specimens of A. meslerianum, but 

nothing comparable to this example. The latter bears very faint 

traces of two revolving sulci, a feature which is strongly marked in 

E. lisulcatum, but they are so obscured as to be a somewhat doubtful 

character. While not quite normal for A. meslerianum, in so far as 

that species is known, in this character the specimen seems less a 

departure from that species than from the other. In the suture, also, 

it seems to be more closely allied to A. meslerianum by reason of its 

pointed second lateral lobe and asymmetrical second lateral saddle.

Although not a normal specimen, it seems that of the two this 

form has more in common with A. meslerianum than with E. lisulcatum, but more complete material is needed before a conclusion can 

be reached as to whether it is really the same or a closely related 

species. I may add that a specimen almost identical with this in
OSTRACODA. ' 105

every way has been obtained from the Caney shale and referred to 

the latter species.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Howard's wells (station 1245A).

TRILOBITA. 

PROETID^E. '

Genus GRIFFITHIDES Portlock.

GKIFFITHIDES ? sp.

This species is represented by a single specimen, an imperfect free 

cheek. It is of rather large size and strongly and coarsely granulose. 

A complete description of this part can not be given. In its generic 

relations it is probably a Griffithides, but this can not be determined.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (station 2049a).

OSTRACODA.

LEPERDITIID^E.

Genus PAR, AP ARCHITE S TJlrich and Bassler. 

PARAPARCHITES NICKLESI Ulrich.

Plate IX, figures 2-5.

1891. Leperditia nicklesi. Ulrich, Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., Jour., vol. 13, p. 200.

pi. 18, figs. la-e. 

St. Louis group: Columbia, Monroe County, 111.

The shells referred to this species are abundant in the lower part 

of the Moorefield shale at Batesville. The specimens agree well 

with the original description and figures, the chief differences being 

connected with the spine. This feature varies considerably in the 

specimens examined in two particulars. In. some specimens the 

spine is very distinct and in others it is obsolete, or at least its presence can not be determined. Strangely enough, though the spine 

can usually .be distinguished on the left valve, the valve on which it 

is represented in Ulrich's figure, I have not been able to discover 

it on a single one of the numerous right valves examined. Even 

when best developed it seems to be not quite as prolonged as in the 

type specimens and perhaps deserves to be described rather as a 

raised point than as a spine. In position also it varies considerably 

and is seldom as close to the anterior angle as represented in the 

original figure. These shells also differ somewhat in the proportions 

of length to width and in configuration, some being more nearly 

equilateral than others.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (stations 2048, 2049b).
106 FAUNA OF MOOREFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

BEYRICHIID^E. 

Genus PRIMITIA Jones and Holl.

PRIMITIA MOOREFIELDANA n. sp.

Plate IX, figures 6, 7.

 Shell rather small, transversely suboyate, contracting distinctly 

though not strongly toward the anterior end, which is sharply rounded. 

Posterior outline slightly truncated and extended. Convexity rather 

high, especially toward the anterior end, which is inflated; somewhat 

compressed posteriorly. The anterior and posterior margins are 

slightly flattened into a band or flange which is not persistent. 

Umbilical pit deep, elongate, considerably posterior to the middle.

This species is perhaps more similar to P. fayettevillensis than any 

other, but differs in having an indistinct flange before and behind, in 

having the umbilical point less central, and in having the convexity 

less regular. It much resembles P. granimarginata, but has not a 

persistent band nor any marginal granules. In the matter of the 

flange it resembles P. subs&guata, but differs from it in many other 

particulars.

Horizon and locality.~Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (station 2048).

CYPRID^.

Genus BAIBDIA McCoy.

BAIRDIA ATTENUATA GIRTY.

1910. Bairdia attenuata. Girty, New York Acad. Sci., vol. 20, No. 3, pt. 2, p. 237. 

Basal Fayetteville shale: Fayetteville quadrangle, Arkansas.

A single specimen representing this species has come to hand. 

It is not very perfect, but in so far as its characters have been determined it agrees with the shell which I have described from the basal 

Fayetteville as B. attenuata.

Horizon and locality. Moorefield shale, Batesville quadrangle, 

Spring Creek (station 2048).
REGISTER OF LOCALITIES.

1237R. Batesville quadrangle. Independence County, Ark., NW. £ SE. \ sec. 13,

T. 13 N., R. 7 W. 

J. C. Branner, August, 1889. 

1245A. Batesville quadrangle, Sharps Cross Roads, Independence County, Ark.,.

Howards Wells, in SE. J NE. J sec. 28, T. 14 N., R. 5 W. 

R. A. F. Penrose. 

1245B. Batesville quadrangle, Howards Wells. Specimen thrown out in digging well.

Given by the proprietor, Mr. Howard. 

1248A. Batesville quadrangle, Spring Creek, Independence County, Ark., in railroad

cut east of trestle over wagon road. (See section on p. 12.)

Stuart Weller, July, 1891. 

j248R. Batesville quadrangle, Spring Creek, Independence County, Ark.; H. S.

Williams's section (see p. 12.) 

*H. S. Williams, 1890; Branner and Penrose' 1889. 

1248T. Batesville quadrangle, Spring Creek, Independence County, Ark. Loose

material on railroad embankment. 

Stuart Weller, 1891. 

1248V. Batesville quadrangle, Spring Creek, Independence County, Ark. Loose

material on railroad embankment. 

Stuart Weller, 1891. . 

1248W. Batesville quadrangle, Spring Creek, Independence County, Ark. Loose on

railroad embankment. 

Stuart Weller, 1891. 

1248X. Batesville quadrangle, NE. $ SW, J sec. 34, T. 14 N., R. 5 W. Fayetteville

[Moorefield] shale, Independence County, Ark. 

W. B. Norville. 

1248Y. Batesville quadrangle, Batesville, Ark., Spring Creek, railroad embankment.

Stuart Weller, July 14, 1891.

1248Z. Batesville quadrangle, Spring Creek. Debris along railroad bank. 

Stuart Weller, July 16, 1891.

2048. Batesville quadrangle, Ruddell's mill on Spring Creek, 2£ miles west of Batesville, Ark. 

E. 0. Ulrich and G. I. Adams, September 8, 1902.

2049. Batesville quadrangle, Batesville, Ark. "Spring Creek limestone," 2$ miles west 

of town. Cut on Spring Creek railroad above Ruddell's mill; about same 

as 2048.

G. H. Girty, September 12, 1907. 

2049a. Batesville quadrangle, Ruddell's mill, 2£ miles west of Batesville, Ark. A

single loose block of "Spring Creek limestone." 

G. H. Girty, September 11 and 12, 1907. 

2049b. Batesville quadrangle, same as 2049a. Another Joose block.

G. H. Girty, September 11 and 12, 1907.

2049c. Batesville quadrangle, same as 2049a. Another loose block. 

G. H. Girty, September 11 and 12, 1907.

107
108 FAUNA OF MOOREFIELD SHALE OF ARKANSAS.

2049d. Batesville" quadrangle. Railroad ballast adjacent to cut at Ruddell's mill and

evidently from the "Spring Creek limestone." 

G. H. Girty, September 11 and 12, 1907. 

2049e. Batesville quadrangle. Miscellaneous loose fossils at 2049.

G. H. Girty, September 11 and 12, 1907. 

2049f. Batesville quadrangle. Loose material from lower Moorefield shale, Spring

Creek, Ark.; same locality as 2049a. 

G. H. Girty, October 18, 1908.

2051. Batesville quadrangle, Moorefield shale, Moorefield, Ark.; hill opposite Godfrey's house.

G. H. Girty, September 13, 1907.

2051a'. Batesville quadrangle, Moorefield shale, Moorefield, Ark.; stream back of Godfrey's house.

G. H. Girty, September 13, 1907.

2051b. Batesville quadrangle, Moorefield shale, Moorefield, Ark.; hill near Godfrey's house.

G. H. Girty, September 13, 1907.

2051c. Batesville quadrangle, Fayetteville [Moorefield] shale, Moorefield, Independence County, Ark. 

Collected by C. E. Siebenthal and sent to H. S. Williams by J. P. Smith.

2052. Batesville quadrangle, a little north of White River Junction, 2 miles west 

of Batesville. From calcareous concretions near base of Moorefield shale; 

about 50 feet above "Spring Creek limestone." 

G. H. Girty, September 11 and 12, 1907. 

2052a. Batesville quadrangle, same section as 2052, but from black shale about 20 feet

higher. 

G. H. Girty, September 11 and 12, 1907.

2053. Batesville quadrangle, cut on main line about one-half mile west of White River

Junction. "Spring Creek limestone." 

G. H. Girty, September 12, 1907.

7038. Marshall quadrangle, bed of branch, one-half mile northeast of Marshall, Ark. 

Moorefield shale.

G. H. Girty, September 19, 1907. 

7038a. Marshall quadrangle, same as 7038, but from sheety beds just below.

G. H. Girty, September 19, 1907. 

7038c. Marshall quadrangle, little ravine in northeast part of Marshall, Ark. (stream

marked as intersecting road on map); about 8 feet above top of Boone. 

Thin calcareous sandy band in black shale. Same locality and horizon as 

7038. 

G. H. Girty, October 11, 1908.

7039. Marshall quadrangle, same locality as 7038. Thin earthy limestone in black

shale, 20 feet above Boone. 

G. H. Girty, October 11, 1908.
PLATE I.

. 109
PLATE I.

LlNGULA BAJESVILL^E (p. 32).

FIGURE 1. Internal mold of an imperfect ventral valve, X 3.

2. Interior of a large ventral valve, X 3.

3. Internal mold of a ventral valve, X 3.

4. A testiferous specimen slightly exfoliated, X .3. It is impossible to ascertain from the shape whether this is a dorsal or a ventral valve.

5. An exfoliated ventral valve of slightly different shape from the last, 

natural size.

6. A specimen retaining the dorsal and ventral valves in conjunction, preserved as an internal mold. Dorsal valve, natural size. 

6a. Same, dorsal valve, X 3. 

6b. Same, ventral valve, natural size.

7. Interior of a dorsal valve showing also an impression of the apical portion 

of the corresponding ventral, X 3.

8. Internal mold of a large, imperfect dorsal valve, showing strong vascular 

markings, X 3.

9. Internal mold of an imperfect dorsal valve, X 3. 

10. Internal mold of a dorsal valve, X 3.

Spring Creek, Ark. The originals of figures 1, 3, 4, 9, and 10 are from 

station 2049d; those of figures 2, 6, 7, and 8, from station 2048; that of 

figure 5 from station 1248R4.

LlNGULA ALBAPINENSIS (p. 36).

FIGURE 11. A specimen provisionally referred to this species, natural size. 

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 1248A5).

110
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 439 PLATE

I

6b

X3

10

11

FAUNA OF THE MOOREFIELD SHALE
PLATE II.

ill
PLATE II.

LlNGULIDISCINA NEWBERRYI Vai. MARSHALLENSIS (p. 39).

FIGURE 1. A characteristic dorsal valve, seen from above. 

la. Same, side view in outline.

2. A dorsal valve of somewhat different shape from the type, seen from

above. . 

2a. Same, side view in outline.

Marshall, Ark. (station 7038c).

3. A small dorsal valve, seen from above, X 3. 

3a. Same, side view in outline, X 3. 

Marshall, Ark. (station 7038).

LlNGULIDISCINA NEWBERRYI VET. CANEYANA (p. 40).

FIGURE 4. A small dorsal valve, seen from .above, X 2. 

4a. Same, side view in outline.

Moorefield, Ark. (station 2051). 

5. External mold of a dorsal valve.

White River Junction, Ark. (station 2053).

LlNGULIDISCINA NEWBEKRYI Var. MOOREFIELD ANA (p. 38).

FIGURE 6. A dorsal valve, seen from above. 

Ga. Same, side view in outline. 

7. Squeeze of a dorsal valve taken from the typical specimen, seen from

above. 

7a. Same, side view in outline.

Spring. Creek, Ark. (station 2049b).

LlNGULIDISCINA NEWBEBRYI var. OVATA? (p. 40).

FIGURE 8. External mold of what is probably a dorsal valve, referred to this species, 

with some doubt. 

White River Junction, Ark. (station 2053).

CHONETES SERICEUS (p. 41).

FIGURE 9. A small dorsal valve. 

9a. Same, X 3.

Marshall, Ark. (station 7039).

PRODUCTUS ARKANSANUS var. MULTILIRATUS (p. 43).

FIGURE 10. A dorsal valve showing partly the internal surface and partly the impression of the external surface.

11. The reverse of figure 10, showing in part the external surface and in part 

the impression of the internal.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 1248 Y). '112
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 439 PLATE II

 \,

4a

12a

FAUNA OF THE MOOREFIELD SHALE
PLATE II. 113

HARTTINA BREVILOBATA (p. 65).

FIGURE 12. Dorsal view of an imperfect specimen referred to this species. 

12a. Same, ventral view.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 1248R4). 

HARTTINA BREVILOBATA var. MARGINALIS (p. 66).

FIGURE 13. Dorsal view of a characteristic specimen. The two sulci of the dorsal

valve are hardly perceptible. 

13a. Same, ventral view. 

13b. Same, side view in outline.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 1248R4).

RHIPIDOMELLA ARKANSANA (p. 53). .

FIGURE 14. An imperfect ventral valve.

15. Internal mold of a dorsal valve.

16. Internal mold of a ventral valve.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 2049a). 

46447° Bull. 439 11 8

PLATE III.

115
PLATE III.

PKODUCTELLA HIRSUTIFORMIS (p. 50).

FIGURE 1. A ventral valve flattened in shale. 

Moorefield, Ark. (station 205la).

2. A partially exfoliated ventral valve.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 1248A).

3. An external mold of a dorsal valve which shows toward the front traces 

of faint, radiating striae.

4. External mold of a dorsal valve which shows also an impression of the 

area of the corresponding ventral. 

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 2049).

PRODUCTELLA HIRSUTIFORMIS var. BATESVILLENSIS (p. 51).

FIGURE 5. A ventral valve which differs from the foregoing in the convexity and 

in the extension of the hinge line. 

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 2049a).

PRODUCTUS MOOREFIELDANUS (p. 48).

FIGURE 6. View of the anterior end of the typical ventral valve. 

6a. Same, seen from above. 

6b.. Same, side view in outline.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 2049).

PRODUCTUS MOOREFIELDANUS , var. PUSILLUS (p. 49).

FIGURE 7. External mold of a large dorsal valve. 

7a. Same X 2.

8. External mold of another dorsal valve. 

8a. Same X 3.

9. Internal mold of another dorsal valve of more transverse shape, X 3.

Spring Creek, Ark. (The originals of figures 7 and 9 from station 

2049a, that of figure 8 from 2048.)

PRODUCTUS BISERIATUS (p. 46).

FIGURE 10. A dorsal valve of greater convexity than usual, X 2.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 2049c).

11. A characteristic dorsal valve preserved as a mold of the exterior. 

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 2049a).

PRODUCTUS SUBSULCATUS (p. 47).

FIGURE 12. An internal mold of a ventral valve crushed in shale.

13. A typical dorsal valve preserved as a mold of the exterior.

14. A typical-ventral valve preserved as an external mold crushed in shale. 

The spine bases are not conspicuous and not very elongate. 

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 1248A2).

PRODUCTUS SUBSULCATUS var. JANUS (p. 48).

FIGURE 15. An internal mold of a ventral valve with very elongate spine bases.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 1248A5). 

116
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 439 PLATE

6b

X3

15

X3

FAUNA OF THE MOOREFIELD SHALE
PLATE IV.

117
PLATE IV.

PRODUCTUS PILEIFORMIS (p. 44).

FIGURE 1. A thick-shelled, exfoliated ventral valve, seen from above, X 1£.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 2049a).

2. Anterior view of a large ventral valve, somewhat crushed. 

2a. Same, posterior view.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 2049f).

PRODUCTUS INFLATUS var. COLOR ADOENSIS ? (p. 42).

FIGURE 3. Imperfect ventral valve, seen from above. 

3a. Posterior view of same.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 2049c).

DlAPHRAGMUS ELEGANS (p. 51).

FIGURE 4. Ventral view of a characteristic specimen of the form which occurs in

the Moorefield shale.

5. Dorsal view of another specimen showing the internal plate. 

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 1248R4).

COMPOSITA MADISONENSIS Var. PUSILLA (p. 76).

FIGURE 6. A dorsal valve, seen from above. 

7. A ventral valve, seen from above.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 2049b).

COMPOSITA aff. HUMILIS (p. 77).

FIGURE 8. A dorsal view of a young specimen with both valves in conjunction.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 2048). 

9. A dorsal valve, seen from above.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 1248A2).

COMPOSITA SUBQUADRATA var. LATERALIS (p. 75)

FIGURE 10. An imperfect ventral valve.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 1248R). 

118
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 439 PLATE IV

ft

10

FAUNA OF THE MOOREFIELD SHALE
PLATE V.

119
PLATE V.

CAMAROTCECI-IIA PURDUEI var. AGRESTIS (p. 60).

FIGURE 1. Anterior view of a characteristic specimen with four plications on the

fold, 

la. Same, dorsal view.

2. "Dorsal view of a specimen with five plications on the fold. 

2a. Same, anterior view.

3. A dorsal view of a gibbous specimen which has six unequal plications

on the fold. This specimen is compressed or naturally one-sided. 

3a. Same, anterior view. ,

4. Dorsal view of an explanate specimen with six equal plications on the

fold. 

4a. Same, anterior view.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 2049b).

CAMAROTCECHIA PURDUEI (p. 60).

FIGURE 5. Dorsal view of a specimen which is indistinguishable from the typical

variety. 

5a. Same, anterior view.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 2048).

CAMAROTCECHIA PURDUEI var. LAXA (p. 61).

FIGURE 6. Dorsal view of a large specimen with four costse on the fold. In some of 

the illustrations of this variety the plications are represented as a little 

too strong and angular.

6a. Same, anterior view in outline.

7. Dorsal view of a specimen with numerous lateral costoe. 

7a. Same, ventral view. 

7b. Same, anterior view in outline.

8. Dorsal view of a young specimen. 

8a. Same, anterior view in outline.

9. Dorsal view of another young specimen. 

9a. Same, anterior view in outline.

10. Dorsal view of a specimen with three costae on the fold. 

lOa. Same, ventral view. 

lOb. Same, anterior view in outline.

11. Dorsal view of a specimen with five costse on the fold. A very rare

variation.

lla. Same, ventral view. 

lib. Same, anterior view in outline.

Marshall, Ark. (station 7039). 

120
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 439 PLATE V

6a

18

i 7b

10 10a

11

18b lib

13a

15b

16 15a 

FAUNA OF THE MOOREFIELD SHALE

14

14b
PLATE V. 121 

MOOREFIELDELLA EUREKENSIS (p. 63).

FIGURE 12. Dorsal view, of a young specimen showing mu'scle scars, X 4.

13. Ventral view of another young specimen, X 4. 

13a. Same, dorsal view. 

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 1248A2).

14. Dorsal vew of a rare variety characterized by a narrow elongate shape. 

14a. Same, anterior view in outline. 

14b. Same, ventral view.

15. Dorsal view of a rare variety with transverse shape, high fold, and tumid

dorsal valve. 

15a. Same, ventral view. 

15b. Same, anterior view in outline.

16. Ventral view of a characteristic specimen. 

16a. Same, dorsal view. 

16b. Same, anterior view in outline.

17. Dorsal view of a characteristic young specimen. 

17a. Same, anterior view.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 1248 Y).

MOOREFIELDELLA EUREKENSIS var. SUBCUBOIDES (p. 64).

FIGURE 18. Dorsal view of a unique specimen. 

18a. Same, ventral view. 

18b. Same, anterior view in outline.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 1248Y).

PLATE VI.

123
PLATE VI.

LlORHYNCHUS CARBONIFERUM (p. 54).

FIGURE 1. Ventral view of a large, well-preserved, and characteristic specimen, 

la. Same, dorsal view. 

Ib. Same, side view. 

Ic. Same, anterior view in outline.

2. Dorsal view of a smaller specimen.

3. Dorsal view of a narrow (probably slightly compressed) specimen with

almost obsolete plications. 

3a. Same, anterior view in outline. 

3b. Same, side view in outline. 

3c. Same, ventral view.

4. A ventral valve with obsolete plications figured for comparison with a 

form from the Caney shale. ° <

5. An imperfect dorsal valve which has lateral ribs on the upper part but 

none on the lower.

6. A compressed dorsal valve with many mesial costae. The upper portion 

shows a few lateral costse which are not persistent. It is questionable 

whether forms like this should not be referred to L. carboniferum var. 

polypleurum.

7. An impression of a ventral valve flattened in shale.

8. Internal mold of a very small specimen retaining both valves in conjunction. Ventral view, X 5. 

8a. Same, dorsal view, X 5.

9. Dorsal view of a young specimen referred to this species. Like the foregoing it is preserved as an internal mold, X 4.

10. Dorsal view of a young specimen preserved as an internal mold in which 

two pairs of scars are fairly distinct, X 5.

Spring Creek, Ark. The originals of figures 1, 2, and 5 are from 

station 1248Y; that of figure 3, from station 2048; that of figure 4, from 

station 2049; that of figure 6 frdhi station 1248R4; those of figures 7, 8, 

9, 10, from station 1248A2.

a Bull. U. S. Geol. Survey No. 377, 1909, pi. 2, fig. 10. 

124
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 439 PLATE VI

76 5

FAUNA OF THE MOOREFIELD SHALE
PLATE VII.
PLATE VII.

BEMBEXIA NODIMARGINATA (p. 91).

FIGURE 1. This and the three following figures are taken from McChesney and represent figures la, etc., of his Plate VII. Regarding these figures the 

descriptions of plates run as follows: "Figure 1, Pleurotomaria nodomarginata: a, b, c, views of three different individuals, and a portion of 

the surface magnified (the latter not lettered)."

2. After McChesney, being Ib of his plate.

3. After McChesney, being Ic of his plate.

4. After McChesney, being the unnumbered figure of his plate. 

Probably from the Moorefield shale at Spring Creek, Ark.

5. An imperfect specimen from the present collection, apertural view, X 2. 

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 2048).

STROPHOSTYLUS aff. CABLEYANUS (p. 94).

FIGURE 6. A rather small specimen, viewed from the apical side, X 2. 

6a. Lateral view of the same, X 2.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 2049b)..

LlORHYNCHUS CARBONIFERUM Vai. POLYPLEURUM (p. 59).

FIGURE 7. Internal mold of a dorsal valve, flattened in shale. 

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 1248A5).

8. A poorly characterized dorsal valve of high convexity. The left side has 

three obscure costae, while the right seems to be noncostate. 

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 1248Y).

9. A small dorsal valve for comparison with a form from the Caney shale. 0 

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 2048).

10. Ventral view of a very young example. 

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 1248A2).

11. A mold of a ventral valve flattened in shale. This shows the nonpersistent character of the lateral costae. 

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 1248A5).

12. Dorsal view of a young example, X 4.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 1248A2).

LlORHYNCHUS CARBONIFERUM (p. 54).

FIGURE 13. Internal mold of a very imperfect dorsal valve, showing muscle scars, 

X 1$. . 

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 2049).

14. Internal mold of an abnormal dorsal valve, which appears to have two 

septa. The specimen is much crushed, X 2. 

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 1248A5).

15. Internal mold of an apparently implicated ventral valve, X 1£. 

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 1248R5).

16. Internal mold of a dorsal valve with four costaj, showing internal markings, X 1$.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 1248A2).

a Bull. U. S. Geol. Survey No. 377. 1909, pi. 2, fig. 15, 

126
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 439 PLATE VII

(ft

10

X2

X1V4 

15 16

FAUNA OF THE MOOREFIELD SHALE
PLATE VIII.

127
PLATE VIII.

SPIRIFER MOOREFIELDIANUS (p. 68).

FIGURE 1. An imperfect ventral valve.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 2049a).

SPIRIFER ARKANSANUS (p. 66).

FIGURE 2. A medium-sized ventral valve.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 1248Rx).

3. A large dorsal valve.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 2049f).

4. A large ventral valve.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 2048).

SPIRIFERINA SUBELLIPTICA var. FAYETT EVILLENSIS ? (p. 74).

FIGURE 5. An exfoliated dorsal valve.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station' 2049a).

RETICULARIA SETIGERA (p. 69).

FIGURE 6. A large ventral valve in an imperfect state of preservation. 

6a. Same, side view in outline.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 2049a).

AMBOCCELIA LEVICULA? (p. 73). 

FIGURE 7. A very small specimen preserved as an internal mold, dorsal view, X 5.

7a. Same, ventral view, X 5.

7b. Same, posterior view, X 5.

7c. Same, side view in outline, X 5.

8. A somewhat larger specimen, similarly preserved, ventral view, X 5. 

8a. Same, dorsal view, X 5. 

8b. Same, side view in outline, X 5. 

8c. Same, ventral view, X 2.

9. A large specimen, ventral view, X 2.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 1248A2).

EuMETRIA MARCYI (p. 77).

FIGURE 10. A rather coarsely costate dorsal valve. The sculpture is somewhat more 

coarse than that of typical E. marcyi and probably would not differ in 

this respect from young shells of E, vera var. costata of Hall.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 2049b). 

128
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 439 PLATE VIII

\i

8a

 V

8b

10

FAUNA OF THE MOOREFIELD SHALE
PLATE IX.

46447° Bull. 439 11 9 ' 129
PLATE ix.

BATOSTOMELLA PARVULA (p. 30).

FIGURE 1. Thin section showing cells cut longitudinally in the mature and immature

regions, X 20. 

la. Same, a tangential section, X 20.'

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 1248T).

PARAPARGHITES NICKLESI (p. 105).

FIGURE 2. A left valve, X 10.

3. A larger left valve with differently placed spine.

4. A right valve, X 10.

5. A smaller right valve, X 10.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 2048).

PRIMITIA MOOREFIELDANA (p. 106)'.

FIGURE 6. A left valve, X 10.

6a. Same, ventral view in outline (the upper end is posterior). 

7. Aright valve, X 10.

7a. Same, dorsal view, X 10 (the upper end is posterior). 

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 2048).

MARTINIA sp. (p. 72).

FIGURE 8. A ventral valve reduced almost to an internal mold. 

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 1248A2).

MARTINIA GLABRA? (p. 70).

FIGURE 9. A small ventral valve preserved in limestone and probably retaining the

original convexity, seen from above. 

9a. Same, view of the area. 

9b. Same, side view in outline.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 1248R4).

10. A ventral valve preserved in calcareous shale and probably more or less 

flattened.

11. Another ventral valve somewhat flattened. 

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 2049a).

130
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 439 PLATE IX

X10

V X10

X10 X20

X10

X10

FAUNA OF THE MOOREFIELD SHALE
PLATE X.

131
PLATE X.

ENCHOSTOMA BICARINATUM (p. 28).

FIGURE 1. A block of limestone with several specimens, X 2. 

White River Junction; Ark. (station 2053).

BATOSTOMELLA DUBIA (p. 29).

FIGURE 2. A tangential section through a branching specimen, X 20.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 1248T).

3. A section partly tangential and partly longitudinal through another 

specimen, X 20.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 2048). 

 132
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 439 PLATE X

FAUNA OF THE MOOREFIELD SHALE
PLATE XI.

133
PLATE XL

DELTOPECTEN BATESVILLENSIS (p. 89).

FIGURE 1. A small left valve from the "Spring Creek limestone." 

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 1237R).

2. A left valve, somewhat deformed by compression.

3. A right valve, apparently somewhat malformed.

4. An imperfect left valve.

Moorefield, Ark. (station 2051b).

DELTOPECTEN? sp. (p. 90).

FIGURE 5. .An unidentified right valve.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 2049a).

LEDA NASUTA? (p. 84).

FIGURE 6. A left valve preserved as an internal mold. 

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 1248A2).

LEDA VASEYANA (p. 83.)

FIGURE 7. The figures included under this number are copied from McChesney and 

represent figure 4 of plate 7 of his work. His description I quote as 

follows: "a, view of the cast of the interior of the right valve; b, left 

valve; c, right valve; d, outline enlarged." 

Probably from the Moorefield shale at Spring Creek, Ark.

CANEYELLA NASUTA (p. 87).

FIGURE 8. External mold of a specimen in which radiating costse are nearly obsolete, X 2.

9. A characteristic specimen. 

9a. Same, X 2.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 2052a).

CANEYELLA PERCOSTATA (p. 87).

FIGURE 10. An imperfect right valve. 

lOa. Same, X 2.

11. A nearly complete left valve, 

lla. Same, X 2.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 2052).

CANEYELLA VAUGHANI (p. 86).

FIGURE 12. Squeeze from a fragmentary specimen, which is, however, referred to 

C. vaughani with some confidence. 

Moorefield, Ark. (station 2051b). 

134
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 439 PLATE XI

1 la

FAUNA OF THE MOOREFIELD SHALE
PLATE XII.

135
PLATE XII.

CYPRICARDINIA ? MOOREFIELDANA (p. 85).

FIGURE 1. An imperfect right valve. 

2. An imperfect left valve.

Both specimens are flattened in shale and their difference in shape 

may be due to that cause. 

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 2049a).

PARALLELODON MULTILIRATUS (p. 85).

FIGURE 3. An imperfect right valve with fine lirse, X 2. 

3a. Same, natural size.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 2049a). 

4. An imperfect left valve.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 1248R).

SCHIZODUS BATESVILLENSIS (p. 88).

FIGURE 5. A right valve referred to this species. 

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 2048).

SPHENOTUS? sp. (p. 80).

FIGURE 6. An imperfect specimen of doubtful affinities. If it seemed justifiable 

 to restore the shorter end as having the form of that in figure 7 both 

might be referred to the same species. 

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 2049b).

SOLENOMYA? Sp. (p. 79).

FIGURE 7. An imperfect right valve.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 1248T).

EDMONDIA CRASSA (p. 82).

FIGURE 8. A large right valve.

9. A small right valve, possibly a distinct variety. 

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 2049b).

SPHENOTUS? MESLERIANUS? (p. 80).

FIGURE 10. A specimen doubtfully referred to this species. 

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 2049b).

ALLERISMA WALKERI var. ABBREVIATUM (p. 91).

FIGURE 11. A fairly perfect left valve.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 2048). 136*
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 439 PLATE XII

8 7

FAUNA OF THE MOOREFIELD SHALE
PLATE XII. 137

SOLENOPSIS NITIDA? (p. 81)\

FIGURE 12. An imperfect right valve.

Marshall, Ark. (station 7039).

NUCULA RECTANGULA (p. 82).

FIGURE 13. Left valve of a small specimen preserved as an internal mold. 

13a. Same, X 3.

13b. Same, view of the cardinal margin showing two pairs of anterior muscle 

scars, X 3.

14. A large imperfect right valve.

Spring Creek, Ark. (station 1248A1).

15. After McChesney, being figure 5b of his plate ?. 

16. After McChesney, being figure 5c of. his. plate 7.

17. After McChesney, being figure 5a of his plate 7. Of the last three illustrations McChesney says, in his description of plates, only "a, b, c, 

views of three distinct-specimens.''

Probably from the Moorefield shale at Spring Creek, Ark.

PLATE XIII.

139
PLATE XIII,

OETHOCERAS sp. a (p. 94).

FIGURE 1. A large, unidentified specimen, preserving only the living chamber, 

la. Part of the surface ornamentation, X 5. 

Moorefield, Ark. (station 2051c).

ENDOLOBUS ORNATUS (p. 95).

FIGURE 2. Part of the living chamber. Dorsal view, looking down on the end of a

septum.

2a. Same, ventral view. 

2b. Same, eide view. ,

Moorefield, Ark. (station 2051c). ' .

BACTRITES CARBONARIUS (p. 96).

FIGURES 3, 4, and 5. After Smith, being respectively figures 9, 10, and 11 of Plate VI 

of his monograph.0 These figures evidently represent views of three 

different specimens. 

Moorefield, Ark.

oMon. U. S. Geol. Survey, vol. 42, 1903. 

140
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 439 PLATE XIII

FAUNA OF THE MOOREFIELD SHALE
i

PLATE XIV.

141

i
PLATE XIV,

GONIATITES NEWSOMI (p. 101).

FIGURE 1. Ventral view of a specimen, natural size, after Smith.« 

la. Side view of same, after Smith.

Ib. Inner coil of same, 9 mm. in diameter, side view, X 3, after Smith. 

Ic. Apertural view, X 3, after Smith.

"Batesville, Ark." (probably at Spring Creek).

GASTRIOCERAS RICHARDSONIANUM? (p. 102).

FIGURE 2. Side view of a specimen representing what Smith considers the mature 

stage; diameter 4.25 mm., four and a half coils, X 5, after Smith,&~ 

reduced one-half.

2a. Apertural view of same, X 5, after Smith, reduced one-half. 

- 2b. Suture of same, X 5:, after Smith, reduced one-half.

Smith's original figures are said to be ten times enlarged. The originals of figures 2 and 2a should then be 42.5 mm. in diameter, whereas 

they are really 62.5 mm. in diameter. I have no way of correcting this 

discrepancy.

3. Suture at late adolescent stage, transitional from Prionoceras to Glyphioceras; 

diameter 2.25 mm., three and one-eighth coils, a little over six times 

enlarged, after Smith. A similar discrepancy exists in the case of this 

figure. 

Moorefield, Ark.

EUMORPHOCERAS BISULCATUM (p. 103).

FIGURE 4. Side .view of a squeeze of a senile specimen. 

 - Howards Wells, Ark. (station 1245a).

i ADELPHOCERAS MESLERIANUM? (p. 104.)

FIGURE 5. A doubtfully identified specimen. Side view. 

5a. Same, apertural view in outline. ' 

5b. Same, suture, X 2. . Howards Wells, Ark. (station 1245a).

GASTRIOCERAS CANEYANUM (p. 102).

FIGURE 6. Side view of .a large specimen.

Howards Wells, Ark. (station 1245B).

GONIATITES SUBCIRCULARIS (p. 101).

FIGURE 7. Side view of a specimen, X 2, after Smith.c

7a. Same, apertural view in outline, X 2, after Smith. 

7b. Suture of same, X 2, after Smith. 

8. Side view of "a smaller specimen, X 3, after Smith. 

Sa. Same, apertural view in outline, X 3, after Smith. 

"Batesville, Ark." (probably at Spring Creek).

a Smith, J. P., Mon. U. S. Geol. Survey, vol. 42, 1903, pi. 17, figs. 2, 3, 4, 5. . 

b Idem, pi. 18, figs. 8, 9,10. 11. For embryonic stages see figs. 1-7. 

cldem, pi. 26, figs. 14-18.

142
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 439 PLATE XIV

FAUNA OF THE MOOREFIELD SHALE
PLATE XW

143
PLATE XV.

GONIATITES CHOCTAWENSIS (p. 97).

FIGURE 1. Side view of a young specimen 9.3 mm. in diameter, X 5, after Smith.« 

la. Apertural view of same, X 5, after Smith.

A discrepancy exists somewhere here. If five times enlarged, the 

figures should have a diameter of 46.5 mm., whereas in fact the diameter 

is but 36.5 mm.

2. Side view of a young specimen having a diameter of 14 mm., X li, after 

Smith.

3. Side view of adult specimen, natural size, after Smith. 

3a. Apertural view of same, after Smith.

4. Adult external septa, enlarged, after Smith.

5. Internal septa,.enlarged, after Smith.

6. Septa of a young.sp'ecimen; X 2 r after Smith.

"Batesville,.Ark." (probably at Spring Creek).

7. A specimen having, a diameter of about 25 mm. Surface (probably somewhat exfoliated) a little more than a volution younger than that shown 

by figure 7a, X 3.

7a. Surface, somewhat exfoliated, near the middle of the venter not far from 

the lip, X 3. 

Moorefield, Ark. (station 2051a).

GONIATITES CRENISTEIA (p. 99).

FIGURE 8. Side view of a specimen representing the early adult stage, X 1J, after

Smith. *>

8a. Same, apertural view in outline, X li, after Smith. 

9. Septa, natural size, after Smith. 

Moorefield, Ark.

a Smith, J. P., Mon. U. S. Geol. Survey, vol. 42,1903, pi. 26, figs. 6-13 (as 0. stnatus). 

t> Mem, pi. 26, figs. 1-3. For illustrations of embryonic stages based on specimens from the Moorefield 

shale, see also plates 14,15, and 16.

,.144
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 439 PLATE XV

FAUNA OF THE MOOREFIELD SHALE
INDEX.

Names in italic are synonyms; figures In italic denote illustrations; figures in black face denote descriptions.

A.

. Page.

Actinoceras vaughanianum.................. 25

Adams, G. I., and Ulrioh, E. O., fossils collected by........................ 15

Adelphoceras.............................. 104-105

meslcrianum ............ 20,22,25,104-105, 141

Allerisma.................................... 91

arkansanum......................:...... 91

cuyahoga................................ 91

walked.................................. 91

var. abbreviation............ 15,22, 91, 136

Amboccelia.............................. 72,73-74

lasvlcula.............. 12,13,22,50,72,73-74, 12S

minuta.................................. 74

Anomitcs glaber.............................. 70

Asterocalamites scrobiculatus................ 25

Athyridse................................... 75-79

A viculopecten batesvillensis................... 89

B.

Bactritescarbonarius.... 17,18,22,96,96, 96-97, 140

quadrilineatus........................... 25

smithianus..................... 12,22,25,96-97

Bactritidac.................................. 96-97

Bairdia...................................... 106

- attcnuata........................... 15,22,106

Batesville. fossil localities at..:.............. 8

Batostomclla................................ 29-31

abrupta................................. 29

dubia...................... 14,15,22,29-30, 132

parvula........... 14,15,10,22,29,30-31, 31, ISO

nitldula................................. 29

spinulosa................................ 29

Batostomcllidffi............................. 29-31

Bellerophon................................. 93

canccllatus............................... 93

tcxt'ilii................................... 93

sp................................. 13,15,22,93

Bellcrophontidaj............................. 93

Bombcxia................................... 91-92

nodimarginata.... 12,13,14,15,17,22,91-92, 126

shumardi................................ 92

Boyrichiidm................................. 106

Boone limestone, character and occurrcnceof. 11-12 

Brachiopoda................................. 32-79

Bryozoa..................................... 29-32

Bucanopsis.................................. 93

canccllata....... v ..................... 16,22,93

textilis.................................. 93

46447° Bull. 439 11 10

C.

Pa;*a

Camarotcechia........................... 20,60-65

purduel.................... 10,22,60, 61,62, ISO

var. agrcstis... 13,14,15,16,22,60-61, 62, ISO 

 var. laxa..;............ 21,22,60,61-62, ISO

Caneyella................................... 86-88

nasuta..................... 17,22,24,87-88, 134

percostata... J................ 10,22,24,87, 154

richardsoni.............................. 24

vaughani.................. 18,22,24,86-87, IS4

wapanuckcnsis.................... 21,22,24,87

Caney shale, fossils from..................... 24-27

Capulidto.................................... 94

Cephalopoda............................... 94-105

Chonetes.................................... 41-42

Homing! ................................ 41

illinoisonsis.............................. 41

planumbonus var. choctawensis......... '24

sericcus............................ 21,22,41-42

sp................................. 15,10,22,42

Cliothyridina................................ 77

Ccelentcrata................................. 28

Coalonautilus gratiosus...................... 25

Composita................................ 71,75-77

humilis........................ 13,15,22,77, 118

madisonensis var. pusilla...... 16,22,76-77, / 18

subquadrata............................. 77

var. lateralis......................... 13,

14,15,16,22,71,75-76, 77, 118 

subtilita................................. 77

sp....................................... 24

Conocardium sp............................. 24

Conularia.................................... 28

Correlation, discussion of.................... 5-8

table showing........................... 7-8

Cycloccras ballianum........................ 25

Cypricardinia................................ 85-86

moorefleldana.............. 14,16,22,85-86, 1S6

Cypridse..................................... 106

Cyrtorizoceras hyattianum ................... 25

Cythcrella benniei........................... 25

D.

Deltopectcn................................. 18,89

batesvillensis .. 13,15,16,18,20,22,89-90,90, 1S4 

cancyanus............................... 24

occidentalis.............................. 90

sp ....... ....................... 16,22,90, 134

Diaphragmus............................... 51-53

elegans. .................. 13,22,23,51-53, US

145
146 INDEX.

Dielasma.......

turgidum. 

Discinidae......

Page. 

56 

23 

37

E.

Edmondia.................................. 82,91

aspinwallensis........................... 82

burlingtonensis......................... 82

crassa...................... 14,15,16,22,82, 136

ovata................................... 82

suborbiculata........................... 82

subtruncata............................. 82

Enchostoma................................ 28-29

bicarinatum.................. 17,22,28-29, 138

lanceolatum............................. 29

Endolobus.................................. 95-96

ornatus....................... 19,22,95-96, 140

spectabilis............................... 96

Entomis unicornts.......................... 25

Eumetria............................... 63,77-79

marcyi..................... 13,16,22,77-79, 128

vera. .................................... 78,79

var. costata.......................... 78

Verneuilana................'................. 78,79

verneuili................................. 78

verneuiliana............................. 78,79

Eumorphoceras........................... 103-104

bisulcatum.......... 20,22,25,103-104,104, Ufl

F.

Fenestella.................................. 31-32

limitaris................................. 31

multispinosa? ................... j 15,22,31-32

rudis? ........-.........'.......... 15,16,22,31

tenax................................... 32

Fenestellidae................................ 31-32

G. 

Gastrioceras.............................. 102-103

caneyanum 10-17,20,22,25,101,102,102-103, 1J& 

kingi .................................. 99,100

richardsonianum.. 19,22,25,99,100,101,102, 142 

Gastropoda ................................. 91-94

Girty, G. H., fossils "collected by............. 15-17

Glyphioceras calyx ...................... 19,99,102

cummins!............................... 98

Glyphiocepatidte .......................... 97-105

Goniatites choctawensis..................... 12,

13,18,19,20,22,25,97-99,100, 144 

crenistria.............. 19,22,98,99,99-101, 144

incisum................................ 99,100

newsomi................ 17,22,25,101-102, llfl

striatus....................... 17,97,98,99,100

subcircularis................ 17,22,101,102, 142

sp....................................... 25

Grammysiidse............................... 82

Griffithides.................................. 105

sp.................................. 16,22,105

H. 

Harttina..................................'.. 65-66

brevilobata................ 13,22,23,65,66, 113

var. marginalis............ 13,22,65,66, 113

indianensis var. exporrecta.............. 65

Helmintha.................................. 28-29

Page. 

Howards Wells, fossils from .............. 19-20,22

Hypothyrls cuboides........................ 65

L. 

Lsevldentalium venustum................... 24

Leda........................................ 83-85

nasuta?....................... 13,22,84-85. 134

polita................................... S3

vaseyana................... 17,21,22,83-84, 134.

Ledidas..................................... 83-85

Leiorhynchus papyracea.................... 58

quadricostatus........................... 54,58

Leperditia nicklesi ........................... 105

Leperditiidse................................ 105

Lingula............................ 20,28,32-37,37

albapinensis ......... 13,15,17,22,24,36-37, 110

anatina.............................. 33,34,35

atra..................................... 35,36

batesvillaj ..... 13,14,15,16,22,32-36,36,37, 110

cuyahoga................................ 35,36

melie.................................... 37

paracletus............................... 24,36

Lingulidse.................................. 32-37

Lingulidisclna.............................. 37-41

batesvillensis............................ 24,39

herzeri.................................. 39

newberryi var. caneyana................ 14,

15,16,17,18,22,24,39,40-41, 112 

var. marshallensis... 15,20,21,22,39-40, 112 

var. moorefleldana.................. 13, .

15,16,20,22,38-39,39,40, 112 

var. ovata.......... 12,13,17,22,24,40, 112

Llorhynchus..... 15,18,20,21,54-60,62,64,71,74,75

boonense................................ 58

carboniferum......'... 12,13,14,15,16,17,18,20,

21,22,23,24,54,59,60,62,64,71,75, 124,126 

var. polypleururn................... 12,

13,14,15,20,21,22,24,59-60,62, 636 

greenianum............................. 58

haguel.................................. 58

laura.......'......................,... 24,59,60

mesicostale. ........................ 24,54,57,60

multicosta. .............................. 60

papyraceum............................ 59

papyraceus.............................. 58-59

quadrlcostatum......................... 58

Localities, register of...................... 107-108

M. 

Macrochellus micula......................... 24

sp....................................... 24

Macrodon................................... 86

hamiltoniae.............................. 86

ovatus.................................. 86

Marshall, fossils from..................... 20-21,22

section at................................ 20

Martinia.............................. 70-73,74,75

contracta................................ 23

glabra.................................. 13,

14,15,16,17,22,23,70-72,72-73,75,76, 130

sp ................ 13,14,15,16,22,24,72-73, 130

Martiniopsis................................. 71

McChesney, J. H., fossils determined by..... 17

Menophyllum............................... 28

sp.................................... 16,22,28

Moorefleld, fossils from................... 17-19,22
INDEX. 147

Page. 

Moorefteldella......................... 15,02-65,74

eurekensis........................ 12,13,14,15,

10,17,21,22,28,56,62,63, (03-64), l£l 

var. subcuboides.......... 14,22,64-65, 121

Moorefleld shale, description of.............. 22-24

fossils of, table........................... 22

N. 

Naticopsls sp................................ 24

Nomenclature, discussion of................. 5-8

Nucula...................................... 82-83

nasuta. .................................. 84

rectangula.............. 12,17*21,22,82-83, 137

Nuculana nasuta ............................ 84

Vaseyana. ................................ 83

NuculldiE................................... 82-83

Nuculites vaseyana........................... 17,83

C). 

Oehlertella.................................. 37,38

Orblculoldea.................'.. i............ 37,38

Orthidai..................................... 53

Orthoceras caneyanum. '..................... 25

choctawense............................. 25

crebrillratum................... 13,10,22,25,94

indlanum................................ 25

wapanuckense........................... 24

sp.................... 17,18,19,22,25,94-95,140

Orthoceratidae.............................. 94-95

Ostracoda. ..........................'...... 105-106

P. 

Parallelodon................................ 85,86

raultlllratus.......... 14,10,17,22,24,85, 86, 1S6

newarkensls............................. 85

truncatus................................ 85

Parallelodontldse............................ 85-86

Paraparchites............................... 105

nlcklesl....................... 15,10,22,105, ISO

Pectinldte................................... 89-90

Pelecypoda................................. 79-91

Pholadellidce................................ 91

Pleurophorus................................ 80,81

costatiformis............................ 81

subcostatus.............................. 81

taffl..................................... 81

washingtonensis. ........................ 81

Pleurotomaria nodimarginata.............. 17,22,91

nodomarginata........................... 91

sulcomarginata.......................... 92

sp.................................... 19,21,24

Pleurotomariidaj............................ 91-92

Primitia..................................... 106

fayettevillensis.......................... 106

granimarginata.......................... 106

moorefieldana................... 15,22,106, ISO

subsequata.............................. 106

Productella................................. 50-51

hirsutiformis....................... 12,13,14,

15,16,17,21,22,23,24,45,40,47,50-51, 116 

var. batesvillensis............ 10,22,51, 116

ProductidiB................................. 41-53

Productus............................... 42-53,50

adairensis............................... 51

arkansanus var. multiliratus..... 14,22,43, 112

biseriatus............ 13,15,16,22,46-47,49, 116

boliviensis. ............................... 42

Page. 

Productus cestriensis. ........................ 51, 52

conccntricus. ............................ 48, 49

cora ..................................... 44

corxformis ............................... 44

elegans. .................................. 51 , 52

indianensis ........................... 47, 49, 50

inflatus. ................................. 42

var. coloradoensis?. . 14, 15, 10, 22, 42-43, 118 

Isevicosta. ............................... 44

moorefleldanus. ......................... 13,

14, 15, 16, 22, 48, 48-49, 49, 50, 116 

var. pusillus........... 13,15,22,49-50, 116

pileiformis. .............................. ' 13,

14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 22, 24, 44-46, 51, 118 

semireticulatus ........................... 42, 43

setiger. .................................. 43

subsulcatus ....... 12, 13, 15, 22, 47, 48, 49, .50, 116

var. janus. ............. 13, 15, 22, 48, 49, 116

ProetidiE. . .................................. 105

Protowarthia. ............................... 93

Pteriidse. . .................................. 86-88

Pugnax. .................................... 58

missouriensis. 58

R.

Reticularia, ........................... 69-70, 72, 75

pseudolineata. ........................... 23

setigera. .............. 15, 10, 22, 23, 69-70,71, 128

setigerus. ................................ 69

Retzia Marcyi. ............................... 78

radialis .................................. 78

vera. ..................................... 78

var. costata .......................... 78

Vcrncuilana ............................. 78

verneuilana .............................. 78

Rhipidomella. ............................... 53

arkansana. .................... 35, 10,22,53, 113

burlingtonensis. . ........................ 53

clarkensis. ............................... 53

dubia. ................................... 53

oweni. . .................................. 53

Rhombopora ................................ 30

Rynchonella (Leiorhynchus) papyracea ..... 58

Rhynchonellidse ............................ 54-65

Riversdale beds, fossils of .................... 20-27

S. 

Sanguinolites ................................ 81

sp. ...................................... 81

Schizodus .........:........................ 88, 91

batesvillensis ............... 15, 21, 22, 88, 91, 136

Schizotreta .................................. 37

Seminula humilis. ........................... 77

madisonensis var. pusilla. ............... 77

Smith, J. P., fossils determined by. .......... 17-18

Solenomya. ................................. 79-80

anadontoides. ........................... 80

parallela. ................................ 80

soleniformis ............................. 80

sp..... ....................... 14,22,79-80, 186

Solenomyacidfe. ............................. 79-80

Solenopsidac. ................................ 80-81

Solenopsis. .................................. 81

niticla ......................... 13, 21, 22, 81, 137

Sphenotus. .............................. 80, 80-81

Sphenotus meslerianus ............ 1C, 22, 80,81, 138

sp. ........................... 15,22, 80-81,/SS
148 INDEX.

Pago. 

Spirifer .................................. 66-69,71

arkansanus.. 12,13,14,15,1C, 21,22,24,66-67, 128 

imbrex.................................. 68

increbescens....................... 13,22,68-69

kcokuk ............................... 67,68,69

logani.................................... 67

moorefieldanus................ 13,16,22,68, 128

nikitini.................................. 67

rostellatus................................. 67

................... 69

................... 67

................... 67

................... 24

................... 70

................... 69

subcardiiformis........................

tenuimarginatus.......................

sp.....................................

Spirifera glabra. ............................

setigcra..... ............................

Spiriferidffi................... '. ............. 66-75

Spiriferina.................................. 74-75

subelliptica var. fayettevillensis......... 13,

16,22-, 74-75, 128

transversa............................... 75

Spirigera biloba............................. 74

Spring Creek limestone, fossils from......... 22

occurrence and character of.............. 8-10

sections of............................... 9,10

Squamularia................................ 72

Standley shale, fossils of..................... 25-26

Stenopora................................... 30

americana............................... 30

var. varsoviensis.................... 30

Page.

Stenopora angularis......................... 30

intercalaris.............................. 30

meekana................................ 30

ramosa.................................. 30,31

sp................................... 13,22,31

Strophostylus............................... 94

carleyanus.............. 13,15,16,18,22,94, 126

T. 

Tainoceratidae.............................. 95-96

Terebratula marcyi. .......................... 77

serpentina ............................... 77

TerebratulidiE.............................. 65-66

Trigoniidae................................;. 86

Trilobita.................................... 105

Trizonoceras lepidum ....................... 25

typicale.................................. 25

U.

Ulrich, E. O., and Adams, G. I., fossils collected by........................ 15

Weller, S., fossils collected by............... 12-13

White River Junction, section at............ 9

White, David, on Standley shale............ 25-26

Williams, H. S., fossils collected by.... 12-15,22-23

Zaphrentidte..........................'...... 28

O.

. 

./