GILMORE: the fossil turtles of the UINTA FORMATION 111 



west of the Dragon- Vernal road, Uinta Basin, Uinta County, Utah, from Horizon 



B, or C. 



The sixth specimen, C. M. No. 3244, consists of the greater part of the carapace 

 and plastron. The carapace has portions of the rim missing on both the anterior 

 and posterior ends, the plastron lacks the anterior lobe. The specimen was 

 collected by Earl Douglass in 1915, at Wagon-hound Bend on White River, Uinta 

 County, Utah, from the lower part of Horizon B. 



The type of Baena emilice is in the American Museum of Natural History, 

 and was collected by Mr. 0. A. Peterson in 1884, from the middle Uinta of Utah. 

 Geologically therefore all of the known specimens, including the type, two other 

 specimens referred to the species by Hay, and the six specimens under con- 

 sideration, came from approximately the same horizon, and from neighboring 



localities. 



It may be shown hereafter, when larger collections shall have been made, that 

 more than one species is represented by the six specimens here referred to B. emilice. 

 When compared with one another there are differences which appear to divide 

 them into three groups, as follows: Nos. 2159 and 3243, having relatively narrower 

 vertebral scutes and narrower plastral lobes and bridges than the type, or other 

 specimens here referred to B. emilice; Nos. 3244 and 3257, having wider vertebral 

 scutes and a more depressed shell than the type; and No. 3443 with a wider and 

 more angularly rounded anterior lobe, larger intergulars, and narrower pectorals. 

 The latter specimen in all of these particulars is different not only from the type, 

 but from all of the other specimens discussed above, with the exception of the 

 fragmentary specimen No. 3253, which, in so far as the two can be compared, 

 appears to be very close to No. 3443. In nearly all other respects these specimens 

 agree closely with the type of the species. The differences enumerated above are 

 not considered important enough to warrant the separation of these turtles into 

 distinct species. When the considerable sexual and individual differences ob- 

 servable in a series of living turtles of one species and from one locality are con- 

 sidered, it appears to me that the specimens before me are well within the limits of 

 a given species. I am inclined to the belief that specimens Nos. 2159 and 3243 

 may be females of this species, but as to this I cannot be certain. The discovery of 

 more material may possibly show that more than one species is represented in 

 these specimens, but at this time, especially in the light of a recent examination 

 of a large series of living turtles, I do not feel justified in the establishment of new 

 species on such slender distinguishing characters as have been observed. For the 

 present, at least, I refer all the six specimens to Baena emilice Hay. 



