1915] PALAEOzoIc FossiLs FROM HupsoNn Bay. 87 
‘HorMotoMa ¢f. WHITEAVESI, Clarke and Ruedemann. 
LOXONEMA MAGNUM, (Whitfield), Whiteaves. Geol. Sur. Can., Palaeoz. Foss., Vol. III, 
pt. I, p. 17, 1884; Idem., pt. II, p. 87, pl. 13, fig. 2, 1895. 
HoORMOTOMA WHITEAVESI, Clarke and Ruedemann. New York State Mus., Memoir 5, 
p. 72, pl. 8, figs. 5-9, 1903. 
HoRMOTOMA WHITEAVES!, Whiteaves. Geol. Sur. Can., Palaeoz. Foss., Vol. III, p. 332, 
1906. 
Three casts of the interior remarkably like this species. Lacking 
any evidence of the external markings, etc., the forms are provisionally 
placed under H. whiteavest. 
The largest of the specimens shows a body whorl of about 30 mm. 
in diameter with a height of 20 mm. which is identical with the figures 
of Clarke and Ruedemann. Except for the smaller size the present 
specimens are very like H. patriciaensis, herein described. In fact they 
may possibly be the apical parts of the same species, but the apical 
angle is greater in H. patriciaensis, which inclines me to keep the species 
separate. 
Locality—Limestone rapids, Severn river, District of Patricia, Ontario. 
Horizon—Silurian. 
No. 364 S. Royal Ontario Museum of Palaeontology. 
HORMOTOMA PATRICIAENSIS, Parks. 
Plate I, Figure 8. 
HoRMOTOMA PATRICIAENSE, Parks. Bur. Mines of Ont., 22nd Rep., pt. I, p. 194, I9I3. 
This species is founded on a single cast of the interior showing three 
whorls, but the collection contains another specimen indicating nearly 
the same proportions. The type specimen is 100 mm. long with a body 
whorl about 50 mm. in diameter. The apical angle is 25 degrees. The 
outline of the whorls is gently convex from suture to suture, and shows 
no evidence of revolving band or ornamentation of any kind. Lacking 
the lip structures and any portion of the shell, the generic relations 
are impossible to determine, but the general aspect of the cast suggests 
Hormotoma or possibly Fusispira. 
This form bears some resemblance to Hormotoma winnipegensis, 
Whiteaves,! in the general shape of the whorls, but it differs greatly in 
the relative height and width of the whorls. For a given height of whorl 
our species has a width of only two-thirds that of Whiteaves’ species; 
it is undoubtedly close to Loxonema magna, Whitfield,? but that species 
1 Geol. Sur. Can., Palaeoz. Foss., Vol. III, p. 192, pl. XXI, fig. 1. 
? Wisconsin Geol. Sur., Vol. IV, p. 317, pl. 24, fig. I. 
