1916. No. 10. THE LOWER CAMBRIAN HOLMIA FAUNA. 43 



Occurrence: This form is found comparativeh' rarely in loose 

 pieces of calcareous sandstone beds at the old section in the Hohnia shales 

 at Temten. The}' presumably belong to a horizon that lies above that of 

 the true Hohnia shales. Only one cranidium was found in the latter. |Pl. 

 IV, fig. 8.) 



Observations: The specimens which I include here, constitute a 

 well-defined species in the fauna described in this work. In the main it 

 appears to agree in all respects with Linnarsson's E. NordenskjøUii, which 

 unfortunately is somewhat badl}' depicted in Linnarsson's work. The 

 proportions of the cranidium appear to agree ver}' well. Several of the 

 Norwegian specimens, however, differ from the undoubted specimen depicted 

 by LiNNARSsoN (Linnarsson's fig. 17), in that the Strenuel/a-Uke glabella is 

 more rounded anteriorh'. In his description however, Linn.\rsson sa3S : 

 ,,The anterior contours are almost straight, in some specimens rounded, in 

 others with indications of an angle" ^. However, it ma}- be questioned 

 whether the specimens with an anteriorly rounded glabella which are menti- 

 oned by Linnarsso.v, might not be referred to the type that is depicted 

 in fig. 2, and which in my opinion is a new Strrnnella form. With respect 

 to the frontal brim he observes that it does not appreciably diminish in 

 breadth towards the centre; it should therefore be of uniform breadth, 

 whilst the Norwegian specimens are somewhat broader towards the middle. 

 However, the similarity is so pronounced that for the present 1 must regard 

 them as one and the same form. 



The form described by Moberg from Tornetræsk as E. Nordciiskjoldi 

 Lnrs., on the other hand I must regard as a Strenuella, and most nearly- 

 related to my Sfr. Liunarssoiii. 



WiMAN on the contrary described an Ellipsocephalus (latus Wim an) 

 from loose sandstone blocks in Aland w^hich undoubtedly is very closely 

 related to our form. The character and proportions of the cranidium fully 

 agree, with the exception of the breadth, which is considerably greater. 

 It is conceivable that in this form, as in others that have been described, 

 there is a broad and a narrow form belonging to the same species, and 

 that this difference is not of very great importance. My material, however, 

 does not enable me to settle the question. Moreover, as the glabella lacks 

 lateral furrows both in the large and small specimens, this north Baltic 

 form must be regarded as constituting a special and allied species. We 

 have thus two closely allied Ellipsocephalus forms in the Lower Cambrian 

 of Scandinavia. They specially differ from the Middle Cambrian forms by 



* A variation of the same kind is also apparent in the Norwegian specimens. 



