Observations on F'ossil Annelids. 87 



OBSERVATIONS ON FOSSIL ANNELIDS, AND DESCRIP^ 

 TIONS OF SOME NEW FOIUIS. 



By E. O. Ulrich. 



Somewhat more thau a 3'ear ago, the palteontologists iu the vicinity 

 of Cincinnati were considerably disturbed b}^ the announcement then 

 made, that fish jaws had been discovered in lai-ge numbers in rocks of 

 the Cincinnati group. Two of the collectors here sent specimens of 

 the supposed fish jaws to Dr. Newberry*, and in a letter to me, he 

 stated that he considered them to be identical with Pander's Cono- 

 donts. In the Ohio PalcHonfology, Vol. 11. , we find that Dr. Newberry 

 attempts to solve the m3'stery surrounding the Conodonts by advan- 

 cing tlie theory that they were the teeth of CYclostomous fishes, and 

 compares them with the teeth of 3Iyxin.e and Bdellostuma, to which 

 lie considers them to bear great similarity. 



Pander and Agassiz considered the Conodonts to be the teeth of 

 small Selachians. 



Prof. E. S. Morse, one of the best living autliorities on the structure 

 of invertebrate animals, said they bore a strong resemblance to the 

 teeth of mollusks, and might have belonged to the progenitors of some 

 of our living forms. 



Prof W. Stimpson, one who had given special attention to the Crus- 

 tacea^ after examining a large number of Conodonts, gave the opinion 

 that the}' might very well be the lingual teeth of mollusks, but the}' 

 could not have formed the dentition or spinous armament of an}' Crus- 

 tacean. 



Prof. Owen {Falceontology^ p. 116) discusses their structure and af- 

 finities at considerable length, and concludes that "they have most an- 

 alogy with the spines, booklets, or denticles of naked mollusks or anne- 

 lids." 



Dr. Newberry (Falceontology of Ohio, Vol. IT., p. 42), gives very good 

 reasons for exclnding the theory, that they are the teeth of sharks. 

 He however truly remarks that after excluding that theory, the range 

 of possibility in their affinities is still very great. They may as sug- 

 gested by Owen and Morse, be the teeth of mollusks, for they strongly 

 resemble them in their peculiar and varied forms, and their chitonous 

 composition. After a study of their inferior margins no doubt can be 

 entertained, that they were implanted in soft tissue, like the teeth of 

 mollusks or the hooks of annelids. 



In support of the view that they belong to the Annelida, we find an 

 article in the American Journal of Science and Arts, by Mr. G. Griu- 

 nell, of Yale College Museum, iu which that gentleman states that he 

 had received a number of specimens from Cincinnati. After an exam- 



