22 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. 78 



ventrolateral facet well defined; marginal nodes not shown nor 

 described in original publication ; suture not shown. 



gourdoni. Whorl not much compressed; umbilicus fairly wide, 

 one-fifth the diameter; umbilical nodes strong, few in number; ribs 

 moderately strong, ending in moderately strong nodes; ventro- 

 lateral facet well defined; marginal nodes strong; suture apparently 

 with saddles indented by small marginal lobes. 



bureaui. Whorl much compressed ; umbilicus small, one-eighth the 

 diameter; umbilical nodes lacking; ribs weak on inner part of flank, 

 stronger on outer part, but terminal nodes obscure; ventrolateral 

 facet obscure; marginal nodes low; suture not shown. 



geslinianmn. Whorl very much compressed; umbilicus relatively 

 wide, one-fourth the diameter; umbilical nodes weak; ribs fairly 

 strong, but no terminal nodes and no ventrolateral facet; marginal 

 nodes low; suture not shown. 



'pervinquierei. Width of whorls not shown ; umbilicus fairly wide, 

 one-fifth the diameter; umbilical nodes few but stout, prominent; 

 ribs moderately strong, ending in weak nodes; ventrolateral facet 

 obscure; marginal nodes fairly strong; suture with saddles indented 

 by numerous small marginal lobes. 



METOICOCERAS WHITEI Hyatt 



Plate 3, Figure 8 ; Plate 4, Figures 1-7 



1903. Metoicoceras whitei (part) Hyatt, U. S. Geol. Survey Mon. 44 p. 



122, pi. 14, figs. 1-9, 15 (not pi. 13, figs. 3-5; pi. 14, fig. 10). 

 1930. Metoccoceras aff. whitei Hyatt, Bose, Texas Univ. Bull. 1856, p. 203, 



pi. 12, figs. 4, 7. 



1927. Metoicoceras ivhitei Hyatt, Moreman, Journ. Paleontology, vol. 1, 



p. 92, pi. 13, figs. 3^. 



1928. Metoicoceras whitei Hyatt, Adkins, Texas Univ. Bull. 2838, p. 249. 



It is the writers' belief that in the species whitei as originally de- 

 fined two forms were included, one represented by the specimens 

 from Kanab Valley, Utah, figured by Hyatt, and those from Utah 

 previously called BucJiiceras sioallowi ^^ ; the other, the typical 

 whitei^ by the material figured by Hyatt, apparently from Texas. 

 The doubt as to the latter is introduced by the fact that Hyatt, in 

 the description of his figure, assigns the type specimen to Texas 

 and on page 127 of his paper assigns it to Utah.'^" Inasmuch as 

 C. A. White's Buchiceras swalloioi was referred to the species and 

 the name was intended to honor Doctor White, it seems possible that 

 Hyatt's type may have come from Utah. However, at the present 

 time one can only accept the plate description as correct, all the more 



69 White, C. A., Report upon the invertebrate fossils collected in portions of Nevada, 

 Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona : IT. S. Geog. Surveys W. 100th Mer. Kept., vol. 

 4, pt. 1, p. 202, pi. 20, flg. 1, 1876 ; Stanton, T. W.. The Colorado formation and its inver- 

 tebrate fauna : U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. lOG, p. 1G8, pi. 37, fig. 1 ; pi. 38, figs. 1-3, 1893. 



""A discrepancy present in the original manuscript and not introduced in the editing of 

 this Dosthumous publication. 



