288 PALEONTOLOGY OF OHIO. 



as the number on each valve of S. cuspidatus, which would make from 

 fifteen to as many as twenty-two on each side of the fold and sinus. It 

 is true that the published figures or descriptions of S. cuspidatus do not 

 generally show or mention the minute textile markings seen on well- 

 preserved specimens of these American shells, but Prof. King has noticed 

 something of the kind on that shell,* and I believe I have seen unmis- 

 takable traces of them on a European siDecimen agreeing exactly with 

 S. cuspidatus in form, and sent to this country with that name attached. 

 I also found the punctate structure plainly visible in this shell. f 



Locality and position: Prof. Hall's typical specimens of S. Carteri came from the 

 AVaverly group in Licking county, Ohio, and the specimens figured on our plate came 

 from the same horizon at Sciotoville, Ohio. The same form almost certainly occurs 

 in the equivalent beds of Michigan and Illinois, while Prof. ISwallow's Spirifer {Cyrtia) 

 Bannibalensis, which is almost certainly the same species, came from about the equiva- 

 lent horizon at Hannibal, Missouri. 



* See Geol. Mag., Vol. IV., No. 6, 1867. 



t In making the first announcement of the discovery of the punctate structure, and 

 its coincidence with the internal characters of the proposed genus ISynyigothyris, in 

 shells of this character, I ventured the prediction that this structure really exists in 

 the types of Syringothyris, which had been supposed not to be punctate, and suggested 

 that at least some of the British forms referred to Spirifer cuspidatus would yet be 

 found to possess the internal characters of Syringothyiis, along with a punctate shell 

 structure. (See Proceed. Acad. Nat. Sci., Philad., for December, 1865, p. 275.) Soon after 

 the publication of these facts and suggestions, I had, through the politeness of Prof. 

 Winchell, an opportunity to examine his type specimens of Syringothyiis, and found 

 them, as predicted, to be really punctate shells. At a somewhat later date Dr. Car- 

 penter, the distinguished microscopist of London, examined a number of British 

 specimens agreeing in all external characters with >S\ cuspidatus, and found some of 

 them, as predicted, to possess the internal characters and punctate structure of Syrin- 

 gothyrls, while in others he found neither the internal tube of Syringothyris nor the 

 punctate structure. Prof. King, of Belfast, however, at a still later date, examined 

 many British specimens of these shells, and arrived at the conclusion that, when well 

 preserved, they are all both provided with the internal tube and punctate structure, 

 and also all belonging to the one species Spirifer cuspidatus. He, therefore, accounts 

 for the absence of the internal tube and punctate structure in some of the specimens 

 examined by Dr. Carpenter by the accidental removal of the former, and the destruc- 

 tion of the latter during the process of fossilization, as certainly did take place in many 

 punctate fossil shells. Consequently, he adopts Syringothyris as a distinct genus from 

 Spirifer, and regards Prof. Winchell's S. typus as specifically identical with Spirifer cus- 

 pidatus, Sowerby. Although rather inclined to think he may be right in the latter 

 conclusion, I can not agree with him in making Syringothyris distinct from Spirifer, 

 Sowerby, because it seems to me, as stated in the Palaeontology of the Upper Missouri, 

 page 18, that the rules of nomenclature will compel us to regard S. cuspidatus as the 

 type of the genus Spirifer, Sowerby, and, consequently, to place Syringothyris as a syn- 

 onym of the latter. 



