Suburban Geology of Richmond, Indiana. 



295 



No traces of organism 



Fig. 10. 



M 



I have never met with the " thorn-like appendages'' which char- 

 acterize this species, and yet these appear to be most common at 

 Cincinnati. This species, with the Isotelus gigas and the Asa- 

 phus caudatus, constitutes all the crustaceans I have been able 

 to recognize. Other fragments in my cabi- 

 net may possibly belong to different genera 

 from these just mentioned; but they are 

 probably too small to give satisfactory indi- 

 cations of their place in the family of trilo- 

 bites. 



I have several other fossils which I have 

 not attempted to arrange in the foregoing 

 catalogue, and two of these I will sketch in 

 this place. Fig. 9, is a congeries of some- 

 what quadrangular fibres, slightly corruga- 

 ted, as if they had been torn from a broad 

 and flat muscle and had contracted, and 

 were then laid upon the surface of the rock. 

 The drawing is nearly as large as the spe- 

 cimen before me. 



can be detected in the fossil. Is it a fu- 

 coides? 



The other fossil I have considered the 

 siphuncle of a large orthoceratite, with the 

 form of a few of the chambers retained in 

 the rock ; but as others who have seen it 

 look upon it as a novel specimen, and as a 

 noted eastern geologist, after much hesita- 

 tion, supposed it might be a huge encrinite, I 

 have thought best to exhibit a drawing of it. 



This fossil is more than two feet long 





. H 



i 



and is about five inches wide at the larger 

 end. The slender portion of it and part of 

 the broader extremity are smooth ; but the 

 ■remainder is as rough and full of shells as 

 any other piece of rock. A transverse sec- 

 tion of the elongated part would present a 



lenticular figure. 



That other fossils than those enumerated may yet be brought 

 t0 light in this neighborhood, is probable ; that the foregoing list 



